#abominable

I've noticed an uptick in Asian leads for American animated films over the past decade. To specify:

Hiro Hamada ("Big Hero 6," 2014) is half-Japanese, half-white, and lives in an alternate universe where California (specifically San Francisco) was heavily influenced by Japanese culture due to immigration.

Yi ("Abominable," 2019) is Chinese and lives in Shanghai.

Fei Fei ("Over the Moon," 2020) is Chinese, and her film draws on Chinese mythology.

Raya ("Raya and the Last Dragon," 2021) is from a fictional land influenced by Southeast Asia (specifically Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia, Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines).

Din Song ("Wish Dragon," 2021) is Chinese and lives in Shanghai.

Meilin Lee ("Turning Red," 2022) is a Canadian girl of Chinese descent.

Ember ("Elemental," 2023) isn't human, but since the director of "Elemental" is Korean and based it on his experience as the son of immigrants in NYC and Ember's VA is of Asian descent, I count her.

Kenji Sato ("Ultraman: Rising," 2024) is Japanese.

Rumi ("Kpop Demon Hunters," 2025) is Korean. While her father is a demon, the culture/world he comes from is Korean, so IDK if she counts as mixed from an ethnic perspective.

Stevie Ting and Elliott Ting ("In Your Dreams," 2025) are Americans with an Asian father. IDK what his ethnicity is, but since his VA is of Chinese descent, I'm guessing they're half-Chinese.

Mabel Tanaka ("Hoppers," 2026) is an American girl of Japanese descent.

Aang ("The Legend of Aang: The Last Airbender," 2026) is from a world influenced by South Asian, East Asian, Southeast Asian, and Native American cultures, with the specific culture he comes from being inspired by the monks of Tibet. I know he's originally from a 2000s tv show, but it felt wrong not to count him.

Jo and Raissa ("Forgotten Island," 2026) are Filipina.

While "Ultraman: Rising," "Over the Moon," "Abominable," and "Wish Dragon" were co-produced by Asian companies, they were still co-produced by major American animation companies (Netflix Animation and Dreamworks), I still count them. I think someone also mentioned that Billie from Disney's upcoming "Hexed" is Filipina, but that may just be because her VA has some Filipino ancestry. Gotta wait to see if that's true.

How does it get a ten, when some of their original movies barely get a seven? I hope that with time that rating will take a plunge, because it does not deserve a ten. It fails as an adaptation, it fails as its own movie and it fails because it doesn't understand the basic, technical aspects of film-making. This movie is fails on a technical level.

So those ten star reviews? Are completely inaccurate.

It currently sits at an 8.2 rating (overall). Admittedly early days, but it shouldn't start off at over 8 on the scale, a movie should work to get there. Otherwise temporary hype is going to keep the ratings off for the long time.

And some of the 10 star reviews include lines like "better than I thought" which alone doesn't explain why the hell you'd rate it ten. Isn't the agreement that generally 10 stars means masterpiece? That the flaws are so minimal that it doesn't matter? That the thing basically changed your life? I don't see how a remake is going to do that considering the vast majority of us have probably seen the original, animated version... unless, of course, you're the kind of person who looks down upon animation (you do realise the dragons in the la are animated, though, right? Just worse... right?), but this should not be rated 10 stars. Or even nine, I mean, it didn't bother changing the plot, but then changed everything around it that made it really, truly work... and they changed it for the worse.

Also, tell my why is this live-action rehash higher rated than any of DreamWorks animated movies? Why is Bluesky not even allowed to have a single movie (not even the first Ice Age movie) sit at an 8.0, but this soulless thing sit at an 8.2?

Let me show you how this compares to the other DreamWorks movies, btw (I'll do you a solid and only include the firsts in a franchise):

Abominable - 7.0

How to Train Your Dragon (animated) - 8.1

Kung Fu Panda - 7.6

Megamind - 7.3

Over the Hedge - 6.7

Penguins of Madagascar - 6.8

Puss in Boots - 6.6

Rise of the Guardians - 7.2

Shrek - 7.9

Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron - 7.2 (this one was 2D, which is rare)

The Bad Guys - 6.8 (what the hell is wrong with people???)

The Croods - 7.1

The Prince of Egypt - 7.2 (Again, 2D movie, underrated.)

And yeah, okay, Bee Movie gets like a 6.1, which is fair enough, however, even that is more creative and more interesting than the live-action How to Train Your Dragon.

The Wild Robot is the only one who makes it to an 8.2 rating... which infuriatingly places it at the same level as that live-action movie. You know people look at these ratings when they wanna decide what to watch, right? I mean, not always, but often, especially if they're undecided. You know how unhelpful it is to have a rehash rated the exact same as a visually stunning, stand out movie which actually tries and understands the medium and does something different? Also, the fact that just based on that rating alone, someone could very likely choose la httyd over Spirit, TPoE, The Bad Guys, Megamind, RotG and PoM is just saddening. On the bright side, I suppose once they've watched that insult of movie and they come across the original — supposing they haven't watched it yet — they'll be mind-blown and maybe, just maybe, they'll raise their standards a little higher and stop listening to IMDB.

The fact that most of these don't even get to sit at 8.0, but somehow audiences have already decided this thing was worth an 8.2. That's an entire star more than The Prince of Egypt, which is THE Dreamworks 2D animated movie everyone talks about. It has powerful music, gorgeous light and shadow, stunning art and animation... but somehow, the worse knock off another movie is rated more? For what reason exactly? Originality? It's not remotely original. And as far as the "remake" part of it goes, it doesn't even remake the thing it was supposed to well, nor does it truly try to do something different. It's this lukewarm middling thing that never needed to exist, which at best should put it at a 6.0, since even the Bee Movie at least did something different. (Yes, the bar is that low.)

Really, it deserves more of 4.0-5.0 rating, because it's a slap in the face of everything that came before (kinda' like the live-action Snow White)... and because it wasn't needed or even really asked for? People certainly would've loved more HTTYD content, but, really, are we so desperate we'll settle for a remake?

C'mon, just re-watch the original.

Also, if you even just visually compare any of these movies — even the ones that aged less well — to the live-action you will see a downgrade, not an upgrade.

And yes, even the bloody bee movie:

(Ngl, some of these might've come from the wrong movies, but they're still DreamWorks animates, so...)

And, again, are you guys seriously going to sit there and try to tell me the live action How to Train Your Dragon deserves a much higher rating than any and all of the ice age movies?

On the bright side, I kinda had fun looking for those gifs. Reminds me how much fun DreamWorks USED to be back when they did what they could to spite Disney, not just copy it. (Though they admittedly did do some of that too, but usually with more effort and a much more creative spin on things.)