Pixar & Dreamworks: The Stories Their Brands Tell
Pixar is a billion dollar company because it knows how to tell a story.
They know how important it is and that without a strong story at the core, all the technical wizardry and aesthetic mastery of their films would be overly sweet.
Story telling is often as important in graphic design as it is in animation and film making, even if it isn’t as obvious — we use grids, type, colour and imagery to help bring stories to life.
When there is a lack of a story—of an idea—there is nothing but average design to be found. Why? Because there’s a lack of a point of interest — there’s nothing for the audience to grab onto.
So let’s learn from the mistakes and glories of others, comparing two story tellers who act on the same stage—Pixar and Dreamworks, of course—and the stories told through the branding of their films.
I’m talkin’ logos, baby.
Toy Story
Pixar
Playful and fun — a great way to start!
This logo is a winner because it’s appropriate without being condescending.
The primary colour pallet aims it perfectly at its audience and nothing says “gimmie” like red and yellow. The type size, the chunkiness of it, as well as the playful way it’s laid out, make this cute in the right way and screams, well, “Toy”.
It’s also nice to see a logo which has depth (hinting at the 3D of the animation) without going straight to embossed trickery.
A Bug’s Life
Pixar
Another nice and flat logo from Pixar. It’s lovely to see a beveled look isn’t what they go for just because their films are CGI.
The bugs eating away at the letters are cute and the little one between Disney & Pixar is a great touch.
The typeface is appropriately playful and has an exaggeration to it that suggests that we’re going to be shown little things really big (I’m looking at the i, f and e mostly), but it’ll be a gentle ride.
The slight warmth of the yellow is nice little ray of sunshine that gently touches down on the bug covered leaf.
All this adds up to a little reflection of the film — it has its footing in it.
Antz
Dreamworks
I’m sorry, what?
Oh, the Z is on the end, instead of an S. Edgy! Though it was the eighties early nineties mid-nineties late nineties, so it wasn’t totally off base, right?
What I want to find in all of these logos is a reflection of the greater story. And I’m afraid I just can’t see it this one. A shame.
Monsters, Inc
Pixar
Blue, bold and capitals — perfect for a major corporation.
The blue hints at one of the major characters while the eye turns this, what could be ordinary, logo into something quirky and is another character reflection. It’s a little touch that hints at what’s to come in the movie. Lovely.
Again, it hints at the story without being obvious or dumbing it down, just what Pixar are getting better and better at as we work through these logos.
Shrek
Dreamworks
Beveled text isn’t often something I can be excited about but there is something in this one that makes it passable — the texture.
Don’t you want to run your fingers over the bumpy, dried out skin of this logo?
This one works for me. The font suggests a seriousness air to it, if it were flat and unaltered. But the e is out-of-place, much like Shrek himself, and the ears are so damn cute it hurts.
The dropping of the k is a little bothersome, but hey, what would you expect?
Finding Nemo
Pixar
Oh, ho ho! This is the first logo in which they go from good to great for Pixar.
This 3D, animated, with extreme depth, which is aimed at kids movie has a logo that is none of the above. They’re getting very good at this, aren’t they?
Nemo is pushed along by the wave at the baseline, sliding over and sinking the text, rather than bouncing it (the cheap-trick alternative; see Shark Tale). The appropriate and small-fish-in-a-big-ocean O works as a reflection of the story and gives me a smile.
Worth special mention is the E. Perfectly drawn so the bottom arm is about the same thickness as the top one but still has the curve of the wave to it.
I love that the name of our little fish is the strongest thing, serving as another reflection of the big personality and heart of the title character.
The Incredibles
Pixar
This one just screams comic book, doesn’t it?
The I is a great reference to the S of Superman and the X of X-Men badges. It’s simple, memorable and looks fantastic on the chest of a hero.
And the title itself? Its bigger-than-life comic book styling of a slightly art deco inspired typeface serves as a nice echo of the design of the housing, clothing and technology of this film. Reflect, reflect, reflect! The story of this film is all over this logo.
The juxtaposition of the type sensibilities and style decades-old, brought together with characters and technology that whispers futuristic? Oh, how I love its mixing of old and new with exceptional class.
Shark Tale
Dreamworks
So we have this idea for an animated movie that’s under the water and … what do you mean ‘Nemo’?
This is the wave that I’m so glad the Finding Nemo logo avoided.
The red outline on abused and oddly tracked yellow type, being shoved from the background in a solid drop shadow is trying far too hard and succeeding at exactly blip.
Though the shark fin in the h does give me a slight smirk, I just wish it wasn’t so oddly shaped.
Madagascar
Dreamworks
A cheesy postcard type treatment, this one could work for exactly that reason.
Could work, but doesn’t.
The idea isn’t fleshed out enough and the application of it was never consistent enough to make the suggestion clear enough. It just looks like a poorly drawn word, in which the R is slowly floating away.
Cars
Pixar
Here it finally is — 3D, embossed text. It was bound to happen eventually and … and it’s been pulled off.
But how are they able to have such a nice looking logo using normally tacky methods?
To put it simply — it doesn’t look like 3D type. It looks like a chrome covered car ornament.
It’s not a 3D logo that looks like an ornament, it’s a realistic looking ornament that’s perfectly appropriate and works as a logo, and happens to be totally rendered.
It looks as if it should be on the back of a car in the film and in reality. It looks perfect and is perfectly appropriate. And you have to love the typeface used!
Over The Hedge
Dreamworks
If it weren’t for this character poster, I think I’d be more of a wicked commentator.
Alright, so the typeface is pretty fun and suits the whacky characters, sure.
And … in a Shakespearean stroke of symbolic genius, the beveled, drop-shadow-wearing, gradient covered over the is literally jumping over the hedge. Ha!
Flushed Away
Dreamworks
HAH! BUBBLES!
Ratatouille
Pixar
On first viewing, this might not be great. But it grew on me — now I can’t help but adore it.
The nose of a rat sneaks in above the I, trying to find a place where it isn’t welcome. And with it comes, unabashedly, a chef’s hat that sits outside the ring of normality and the expected. Sounds like the story, doesn’t it?
The type and colour pallet has an appropriate freshness to it that I embarrassingly can’t explain other than “yeah, feels French.”
But what I really love about this one is the attention to detail — the screws aren’t perfect, nor are the whiskers — neither pair are symmetrical and it’s ridiculously charming because of it, much like a rat in a kitchen.
Bee Movie
Dreamworks
http://www.photoshopstar.com/text/recreate-the-bee-movie-text-effect/.
The budget was $150 MILLION.
Wall•E
Pixar
It is oddly the heartless and cold shapes of this logo that makes it even easier to love. Especially after watching the film about the little robot that could.
Wall•E was to be a soulless machine, made for one drab, ugly, boring task its entire life.
What better shapes could work for the logo of such a machine? Sharp edges, no charm, strong footed and a red circle, a reminder of a machines optical sensor [Ed: Hasta la vista, baby.]
The bravery of commitment is what I like about this one. A lesser designer would have made the E a different, lively font. Maybe a scribble or scratch or something that shows some sort of soul hidden inside.
But the heart of the character was so evident every time it was shown that anything along those lines would almost be numbingly useless.
Kung Fu Panda
Dreamworks
Of the Dreamworks cattle, this is my favorite. There is just something about Panda shadowing down form the Kung Fu that I like. The shape of it intrigues me as it echos traditional Chinese architecture with its curved roofs.
The typeface actually works well — which is great, as it could of easily have been the kind of ‘Asian’ looking typeface that is oddly offensive.
Though it is beveled, red and yellow and looks to have a drop shadow, it all works. Normally such traits on paper are ones that’ll cause this to be another write off. But no, not this time.
But I have to mention one very important thing — it doesn’t really reflect anything in the story, at all. It’s just aesthetically pleasing … good for now, bad for later.
I should mention that I think this one is actually a good poster that gives me a giggle, from the talented BLT & Associates. (IMP link.) Aaaand, I can’t help but mention the opening credits, some of the finest and most bad-ass I can think of for an animated film.
Up
Pixar
Perfect.
It’s written in the sky. Not on it or over it or under it, but in it.
These two simple letters are part of the fabric of the heavens and the gentle gradient and soft edges give a lightness that feels as if it should be floating off the beautiful posters it appears on.
This is such a sweet logo because of it. It’s strong and heavy but is floating away, gently, as the wind pushes it to a far-flung destination … I don’t think it needs to be said that this is a great reflection of story.
Monsters vs. Aliens
Dreamworks
What a lovely way to finish off – with a nice and gooby mash of text, with what look like free fonts with a monster amount of Photoshop tutorials applied.
This could have been far cooler — maybe some comic book style text? Or something that would look at home in sci-fi stories of the thirties and forties? But no, we have … this.
A Waste of the Talented
I’m not a branding or logo guy.
Don’t get me wrong, I adore it, but don’t really take part. Though I do pay it a lot of attention, adoring graphic design and creative ideas as I do.
And that’s where all this has come from — shifting through the type and imagery for that hidden creative idea. For the central story.
Dreamworks do good work. Hell, their logos aren’t exactly ugly, either. They’re generally ok — aesthetically pleasing too, even if it is often superficial. But that’s it — they’re pretty, but dumb. They don’t feel as if they are representative of the film and generally feel over stylized with whatever Photoshop trickery was at hand.
Perhaps it’s about an audience I just don’t fall into? Perhaps I’m being a little too picky about some of this, and if so, please tell me. But I can’t find the stories in the logos of Dreamworks’s films in any way that the ones of Pixar are brought through.
The most interesting thing about all this is that it’s almost as if it’s part of a plan.
The films that have the cheaper looking logos and flat poster designs are also the ones the critics and audiences didn’t think much of. Is it possible that all Dreamworks is trying to do is fill a gap in the market for average CGI films? I’d hope not. It’d be a waste of wildly talented creatives. But the signs are there, in the unoriginal, lack-of-thought logos that we have above.
The lesson to be learned here is that when there’s a story to tell (and there almost always is), then make sure it’s told with conviction and heart and funny voices, not just spoken about or alluded to and thought appropiate when it’s not.
Great take on the topic. I’ve been a great fan of Pixar’s movies. They have been nothing short of being highly impressive. Now that you mention it, the logos do reflect the greatness of the movie. A good looking title is usually the key to better exposure and young kids getting attracted :D
I love the title of the movies ‘Cars’ and ‘Kung Fu Panda’. Most of the times, the beauty and the wealth of information imbibed in these logos is overlooked… but for many of us, it creates a whole new depth of imagination :)
Glad that you brought the topic up, coz I’m eager to watch Toy Story 3 :D
Also, its wonderful to see how the most annoying ‘Drop shadow’ and ‘Bevel effects’ have been put to good use :)
{sorry for the double comment}
I’d have to agree — generally it seems like Pixar puts more thought into the logos and typefaces, finding perfect complements in titles to their creative storylines. I could also be biased though, all the Dreamworks films that I disliked would automatically warrant a distaste for their logos.
Yeah, the best logo by far…is probably UP. Just a perfect reflection of freedom.
Nice round up, thanks for this!
> Yeah, the best logo by far…is probably UP. Just a perfect reflection of freedom.
What absolutely kills me about it is how unconventional it feels; I don’t know if I’ve ever seen text contorted to look like you’re looking up at it like that. It’s almost as wonderful as the movie is.
Hi Richie, I would absolutely recommend going to see Toy Story 3. my wife and I went a few days ago and it was absolutely fantastic. Best in the series and probably one of Pixar’s most ambitious (there are a lot of sets that had to be designed for this one, even if only on screen for a few seconds).
I’m sure I’m biased too, as I absolutely adore Pixar and their films have never disappointed in anyway, so I’m with you Victor. What you said about the right logos and typefaces being well thought out is spot on — they just have a better air of consideration to them, don’t they?
And I’m glad you agree with me about the Up logo. I’d love to paint my office white and have it the size of the all behind my desk ;)
It’s good design, isn’t it Bryce? They managed to do what seems so obvious as a viewer, but as a creative would take quite a moment of clarity.. I can’t remember the artist who first said, but I love the idea that being creative is trying to think like you did as a child (and all we’re really trying to do is forget everything we’ve learned since to find something pure) — isn’t writing in the sky such a wonderfully childish idea?
sweet article man. I love some of the comments under them. specifically the ‘bee movie’ comment.
I guess it comes down to:
Pixar = clever
Dreamworks = trying to look clever.
Oh, and maybe it’s over-exposure, but I personally feel ‘bugs life’ to be one of Pixar’s weaker logos. It just looks too gimmicky. It actually feels Dreamworksy.
Was hoping you’d like it actually (I remember you had nice things to say about the movie poster comparison article), so I’m glad to hear it!
And i wouldn’t disagree with what you said about the Bugs Life logo, it probably is the weakest of the Pixar bunch, but I still can’t help but like it.. especially when you compare it to its contemporary (rip off) — Antz.. and at least it’s gimmickiness is better related to the story than the bubbles in Flushed Away!
Hi, i just found out about your blog today. I love it :)
I just wanted to comment on the ratatouille logo, it looks just like a french street name : http://www.flickr.com/photos/pmaura/1202004402/
I really enjoyed reading this article.
Marvelous! Thank you Théodore! Perfect image for what I was trying to articulate in it feeling ‘French’!
Nice post and while I agree with some of the observations you made, I think you’re being bias towards Dreamworks. It seems to me you’ve gone into the writing of this post with the sole intention of slandering their work.
Of course that’s not to suggest that Dreamworks are in any way better; Pixar certainly do have a much more thoughtful process in terms of storytelling. However in terms of logo design I think you’re just looking too deeply and being too favourable of Pixar’s logo designs.
Hey Alex, that’s not the case at all! At least, that wasn’t my intention going into it.
It started as a genuine curiosity as to how the logos stand up against one another and I just found that, again and again, the Dreamworks logos generally didn’t reflect much, if anything, of the story or have much aesthetic value to them. Which I think is a shame, as there is clearly a lot of talent involved in developing their films, (though the stories, meh) and yet the logos suffer.
And of course I’m looking too deeply! That’s the fun part :)
I came across your site via StumbleUpon and I really enjoyed reading this. Nice analysis!
Hey Sham,
Glad you liked it :) I’ve had a lot of visitors coming through from StumbleUpon – a great service!
Don’t forget on the Wall-e logo, the “E” represents EVE, so it sharply juxtaposes the rest of the letterforms by being the exact opposite: knock out type and vibrant color. WALL is The cold mechanical Wall-E, and the “E” is the warm (color), advanced (circle) advanced computer of the future. The hyphen bridges the 2 entities, showing the one is the past and the other the present.
Erik
Fantastic, how silly of me to not notice! Thanks for the great insight, it seems so obvious now that you’ve said it that I have no idea how I missed it. I should have known there would be more going on in the logo for a Pixar film than simple coldness.
You couldn’t be more wrong. Pixar isn’t for kids, it’s for adults trying to watch movies they shouldn’t. Dreamworks is AWESOME because it brings out the kid in people and leaves kids laughing their heads of in amazement. Dreamworks is a wacky, silly, crazy and out of control industry that makes movies people should want to see. Pixar makes movies that make people want to cry and really nothign more. I can’t remember the last time I saw a Pixar movie that I enjoyed. Dreamworks is amazing because it takes simple plots and BLOWS THEM UP! It makes them amazing. I mean, have you ever enjoyed animals the way you enjoy Over the Hedge? Not me. As a matter of fact. Every time I look at squirrels I think differently because of it. It’s sad that people think a movie needs to be dramatic and heartfelt to be good. Animated movies are supposed to be animated. Crazy, funky, wild and hilarious. Pixar just doesn’t do that.
Hi Chuck :)
It’s interesting that you say Pixar isn’t for kids, that their films are for adults who shouldn’t be watching these kinds of films – why would you suggest that? Why can’t an adult enjoy a family, animated film?
At the end of the day, as long as you’re finding enjoyment, what of it? It’s great that you get out of Dreamworks what I get out of Pixar. I like films that have a little more substance than slapstick, but I know there are others who would rather it the reverse. So I guess I’m just an adult that likes to watch films that I, apparently, shouldn’t.
For me, you nailed it on the head when you say they have simple plots – I’ve enjoyed and thought about enough movies to need more than a simple plot for a film to tick all the right boxes for me. Not always, of course, but this is a key difference when it comes to animation for me.
But this article is not about the quality of the films of Dreamworks in relation to Pixar – it’s about the branding they choose to use for their films. I simply found it interesting that the branding for Dreamworks was mostly, as you said of their films, simple but blown up.
Thanks for stopping by :)
I didn’t mean adults shouldn’t be watching them. It’s just been making me angry the fact that people adore pixar so much when I think dreamworks does a great job of entertaining in a very different way. I know it had nothing to do with it and I’m sorry. This has just been bothering me lately.
Good Morning, your blog is beautyfull I thank you for sharing.
Chuck
Hey again Chuck,
I guess I just have to ask – is it worth getting bothered by it? I don’t care in the slightest that I think Pixar are a better company and yet others have the opinion that Dreamworks produce better films. I don’t think it’s a case of one is the right company to enjoy while the other is the one to dismiss. They both entertain in different ways, seem to have different values and attitudes towards their creatives (ie. Pixar keep people onboard from one film to another, while Dreamworks is a little more rotational) and how they produce films.
Now that you mention it, I think Dreamworks should really consider hiring a professional graphic designer… TextEffectPro won’t cut it ;)
(Great read btw. Article featured on my website)
Chuck,
You couldn’t be more wrong. Pixar is directed a LOT more to child audiences than Dreamworks. Pixar characters are always more cartoonish (kids) and Dreamworks are the closest to the reality (adults), their stories are stuffed with lots of references to other movies kids probably have never seen, unless their parents are REALLY film lovers and have a collection at home or something like that. At the end of the day, I think Pixar tries a lot more to tell modern fairy tales and new ones. Dreamworks, especially before Kung Fu Panda and How to Train Your Dragon makes movies that look like spoofs. I love the last one, though.
in regards to ANTZ, well… the main character in the movie is Z, so that would explain the usage of Z in the title…. so it’s for a reason slightly more than being “edgy”… just a thought.
Pretty good article, though I think you are a bit biased ;)
That said, the only question I have is how the Monster’s Inc. logo conveys the story? Yeah, it’s a company… with monsters in it. That’s the most basic simple idea, not the story. Of course, the logo can’t get into the intricacies of the plot, but you continually refer to the idea that logo’s bring out the story of the movie, but I don’t really see that in all of these.
I guess perhaps the idea is that the logo should hint at the story, as opposed to showcase the story. Maybe I just answered my own concern.
I do agree on pretty much everything else you said though, great article.
Hey Alexander,
I can’t believe it has taken so long for me to stumble on this, I do way too much of it and this is the first time I have read this.
I too have a big bias towards Pixar as opposed to Dreamworks, but to me it goes way beyond the logo. Pixar has different types of characters, toys, monsters, robots, what have you. While the Dreamworks team seems to just mainly focus on animals, which is very disappointing. That does not mean however that I do not enjoy Dreamwork movies, I like to watch them from time to time, or whenever they are on TV.
To Oarina,
I think the main point of this is if you compare the logos, it seems that all Dreamworks does is throw a red and yellow gradient with a drop shadow behind it. About your argument about the Z in ANTZ, I don’t think it should be read into much, absolutely nothing about that logo screams ants, except for the name of course. While the Monster logo may not bring the story out, it does however, bring about the fact that it is a corporation made of something not human, and brings out your interest. While other of Dreamworks logo’s do nothing of the sort; it’s like Alexander had said when there is sooo much potential there to be great, and they just fall short.
I am currently a Junior Graphic Designer at a very high end art college in Wisconsin, and we are constantly driven to push our logos and branding to the extreme. When doing something that is just for classmates, you think of everything that goes into your design, it’s nothing of the sort of “I just liked it”. There is a reason for everything about a design that needs to be defended by the designer that should also be able to be picked up on by people who have no design experience. Such as, what part of Madagascar says that some animals escape from a zoo and wind up in Madagascar? Nothing, there is nothing to give any character to the movie, the wave to the text takes 10 seconds to create in Illustrator, as was shown by the tutorial. Now like I said before don’t get me wrong I like the movies (somewhat, and depending on the movie), but for a logo that is going to be seen by how many millions of people, the logo should be something more thought out than what a person can do with no experience in anything, and looks like it was created by a high schooler with no real talent or understanding.
[...] is a billion dollar company because it knows how to tell a story (The Stories Their Brands Tell, Retin Art).” Granted Pixar’s business is storytelling for entertainment purposes, but their [...]
Hello there,
I came across this article through wondering about graphic designers at pixar. I am a new commer to some of the graphic designing area, and my plan is to become a pixar graphic designer. I want to thank you for what I have read here. It is true many people do not see whats beyond the title when it comes to logos. Every aspect of what you have said I can completely agree with. It is a shame that the talented people working for Dreamworks are being wasted because of the little time spent in the thought process of the logos. Since Pixar was introduced to everyone I have been a big fan and absolutly love the work and thought that Pixar puts into their ideas. Great work and to the others that think you were just out to smash Dreamworks….maybe they should go back and read …….. you gave honest comments on what you liked from both sides….
Thanks Bunches
[...] In my search for the DremWorks history I found an interesting article about a comparison between Pixar’s and Dreamworks’ movie logos http://retinart.net/critique/stories-their-brands-tell/ [...]