Tuesday, November 29, 2022

Un Logo Loco

For as often as I complain about nerds over film and video games, I don’t talk as much about the film enthusiasts. I don’t ignore them, see my defence of Ready Player One, but they aren’t worth spilling as much ink on because they’re not as annoying. However, they have their moments. And they’re cringe-worthy.


DreamWorks has an unusual animation department. Despite several high-quality endeavours, I’m unimpressed by most of their backlog. However, sometimes they do something worth talking about. Like their recent opening logo. DreamWorks updated it for their newest movie, and it’s definitely worth watching:

This is beautiful. (Courtesy of Frozen Boy.)

I’ll admit, rehashing some of their greatest hits is fun. I especially appreciate acknowledging the Shrek films, as they helped make DreamWorks a household name. But I have questions about some omissions. Like, where’s Antz? And where’s Abominable? Better yet, why ignore The Prince of Egypt, one of DreamWorks’s best? I know that only so much can be included, but…

Whatever, that’s not what bothers me. No, it’s how film Twitter responded. Specifically, how film enthusiasts have latched onto it. It’s not good enough that this is visually-stunning, it’s still a “problem”. It’s not enough that there’s lots to analyze, it’s “self-congratulatory”. And that’s bad.

I somewhat see that: this is DreamWorks reminding people of its varied catalogue. And it’s doing so in a “shared world”. It’s, essentially, copying The MCU. You know, the way their projects have openings that show their interconnectivity? All set to the same music?

Perhaps it’s because I didn’t go to film school, but what’s the issue here? The logo’s not all that long, and it sets the mood perfectly. From a marketing standpoint, it’s perfect for its target audience. The people who’d watch DreamWorks movies are familiar with these films, and it’s what they want. I actually think it’s brilliant!

But that’s exactly it: there’s a disconnect between what general audiences want, and what film enthusiasts want. The latter wants something they can gush over on a filmic level. The former, however, wants to be entertained. We’ve seen this divide with Rotten Tomatoes, and we’re seeing it here. And while I’d usually take the side of the film enthusiasts, since they’re more-likely to be honest, this time I’m siding with general audiences.

Why? Because like I said, this is clever marketing. It’s also a sign of the changing times. The days of singular, auteur-driven projects are ending, for better or worse. It’s now about franchising and brand identity. That’s why Star Wars has jumped on the bandwagon with their Disney+ content.

I know, it’s sad. Change is hard and scary, true. But not everything about the old model was good. Auteurs were often creepy and entitled, harassing their crew to maintain creative control. Movie stars weren’t any better, utilizing their fame and demographics for harm. With Me Too highlighting a lot of this, I’m amazed anyone would want to go back!

Besides, sometimes having complete control is bad. As I mentioned years ago when discussing studio executives, sometimes being told “no” is good. And sometimes having other people take the reins is healthy. We can’t be experts at everything! And breaking up projects is a way to fix the blind spots of one person running it alone.

Now, committee-based filmmaking can have drawbacks too: sometimes the end product is a Frankenstein’s monster. Sometimes plot threads don’t mesh. Sometimes changes lead to errors. And sometimes the end product lacks any real identity. I get that, I really do.

But it’s a trade-off. What’s the healthy balance? It varies, and it’s not always clear-cut. Outside of that, the audience often responds differently, and their responses will vary. Movie making might be a skill, but movie experiencing is an art. And this often clashes.

At the end of the day, the film enthusiast isn’t the expert on longevity. Remember, many people initially snubbed their noses at Star Wars and Indiana Jones, proclaiming them to be amateurish. I know that sounds strange in retrospect, since Star Wars and Indiana Jones are cultural mainstays, but it took time to warm to them. If anything, Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert were the outliers, defending these franchises against traditionally-minded elites!

What film buffs consider authentic is relative. And that includes branding. It’s not “bad” that DreamWorks is following Marvel, it’s “adapting”. It’s also not to everyone’s tastes. That’s not worth being a gatekeeping snob, however it makes you feel in the short-term.

Ultimately, this feels like projecting on the part of film enthusiasts. Like I said, I’m not an expert on film because I didn’t go to film school. My analyses mostly focus on writing and story layouts, as that’s what I know best. But this gives me enough distance to call out film buffs when I think they’re wrong. And whining about branding, especially when it’s fun to watch, is one of those instances. There are enough problems in modern film as is, and you definitely don’t need to add new ones.

Now then, I think I’ll rewatch the opening…

No comments:

Post a Comment

Popular Posts (Monthly)

Popular Posts (General)