newpeabody newpeabody
Feature Film

First Concept Art DreamWorks’ “Mr. Peabody”


Above right, the first piece of concept art from DreamWorks’ forthcoming Mr. Peabody and Sherman. A bigger version of the concept art is after the jump. Your thoughts on this design?


  • Jorge Garrido

    I… I actually LIKE it!

    Is Hollywood slipping?

  • Deaniac

    Well, he definitely has the eyebrow thing going…all he needs is the smug GRIN.

    • mickhyperion

      I agree. please not the eyebrow and the smug grin. please. retain the original personality of the character or don’t do it at all. if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. we don’t need a “modern update” to reduce the character to another tired cliche.

      • Deaniac

        In all seriousness, it doesn’t look that bad. Aside from the subtle eye change it doesn’t really drift far from the original design. Gotta give Dreamwork credit for that.

        I think that expression works well for Peabody as it’s more of a thinking pose than it is a smug one. I just hope it translates well to CGI.

      • The original Peabody is often very smug.

        The hitch is that Dreamworks characters are often smug in the manner of a stereotypical towel-snapping jock, or are at least pictured that way in publicity. That’s what to avoid.

      • TheGunheart

        It’s the eyebrow + grin that makes you want to smack their eyebrows off, on it’s own, it’s more a “thinking”/”interested” look.

  • AdrianC

    I saw this in this week’s Entertainment Weekly and I have to say I’m not repulsed by this. It is concept art, so this may not reflect the final design. Nonetheless, I actually find it appealing. Now, let’s see what they do with Sherman…

    • I knew a kid in summer camp who looked exactly like Sherman.


  • Trevor

    I like it. It translates the flat graphic nature of the originals without losing the appeal. Hopefully the addition of fur wont fuzz it up too much.

    • Oh God, I hope he doesn’t have fur! So far, this looks really good, but with fur… I dunno…

      • Jm

        agreed the only movie filled with furry characters I´m excited about is Rango, but that´s because it looks different from classic cgi shit.

  • Luke

    The concept picture looks pretty good I suppose. Kind of hard to tell how accurate to the original design it is on a dead on perspective shot.

  • Matt G

    I will say this:(in the tune of StarWars)

    Smarm Brow,
    nothing but Smarm Brow,
    try something else, now,
    la la la laaaa!

    But really, I don’t see how this single piece of concept art warrants a full-blown discussion on the possible palatability of the forthcoming movie.
    It’s just an image of a cartoon dog with glasses, wow.
    Aren’t we getting just a little bit ahead of ourselves?

  • I dunno. It look suspiciously like that “Mr. Peabody” character from The Rocky & Bullwinkle Show.

    • That IS Mr. Peabody from “The Rocky & Bullwinkle Show”! Duh! Anyways, I like the concept art. At least, someone in Hollywood knows not to mess around with the cartoon characters’ design.

  • Well, I guess the ‘tude eyes DW is known for actually fits here, since that’s how it was like in the original cartoons.

    But, again, its a concept art.

    • The “tude eyes” might be one of the reasons studios green lit this project in the first place. ;)

  • HoldMyBreath

    The *Painting* looks great… I’m guessing the lifeless 3D model that is forthcoming will be far less spectacular.

  • wgan

    character design wont matter that much, please focus on animation and story, just dont make another monster vs alien sort of thing

  • Trollface

    Not sure if dreamworks face….. I mean, it looks a tad more pondering. Or is Smarm Brow PLUS a tilted smile THE Dreamworks face?????

    • Ryoku

      It needs the brow and smile to be a proper Dreamworks face.

  • purin

    Not bad… so long as it stays flat.

  • Ryoku

    You know, aside from the uneeded uneven eyebrow (Dreamworks just loves those) this already looks pretty good, though if its rendered in CGI the liveliness will certainly decline.

    By that I mean more zombies.

  • Michael F.

    If this is indicative of the movie then this could be very good news.

  • For what it is, I think it’s pretty standard. If you were a caricature artist at a carnival and you were told to recreate Mr. Peabody with more human likeness, this is probably what you would get and whoever gets the drawing would be impressed. Meets expectations? yes. Does it exceed them? Well…

  • it’s way better than i anticipated from the title of the post! actually looking pretty good! i was fearing i’d click and see a realistic looking dog or something

  • and speaking of charicatures, this does share a striking resemblance to Disney Days Katzenberg! Maybe it’s the glasses and slightly receding hairline.

  • I am huge Jay Ward fan. And if this concept art is the actual direction the style of the film is going, then count me in!

  • looks good

    i certainly hope it only gets better from here

  • Scarabim

    Huh! Not bad!

    If I may digress…there’s one classic TV show that, surprisingly, Hollywood hasn’t latched onto yet for a reboot:

    Beany and Cecil.

    I think a CGI movie based on that wonderfully clever series, especially if the original character designs were closely followed, could seriously rock.

    • Chris Sobieniak

      I still feel it would be sacrilege to do so, but if they think they could work wonders on this, I’d like to see it.

  • OK…..but it’s not the final design. If this approves without the “Dreamworks face” (as Trollface said), and every frame has something good as this……then maybe there’s no need to bash this when the promotions come.
    And I won’t need to boycott that movie. Besides, the Peabody segments I’ve only seen on the Buena Vista (Disney) tapes of Rocky and Bullwinkle. My library doesn’t have the season boxsets which contains the segments nor the seprate DVD’s.
    It was forgettable when I was a kid (even though Rocky and Bullwinkle’s show was intended for adults). It’s mudane enough of a cartoon (it was a series of shorts to accompany the serialized length of Rocky and Bullwinkle’s own adventures). Kids today who have the Peabody and Sherman DVD or played the Rocky and Bullwinkle pinball machine might remember it, but generally, it’s not like Yogi Bear where he was so popular on Huckleberry Hound that he got his own show.
    How much Peabody and Sherman merchandise do you see today (besides the possible tees you see at JC Penny or Sears)?

    If you want to say it’s an awful film, keep your commments ’till the trailer comes, or even BETTER YET when you can see the whole movie. Don’t bash too early.

    Even if he doesn’t sound like Paul Frees or Fred Frees (yes that’s his son) or even Keith Scott, don’t throw big tantrums. I only thought Akyroyd’s Yogi was bad not just because I joined the Brew’s crowd, but he sounded like Patrick Star was in post-Hillenburg era SpongeBob- old, too deep, ready for buisness. He also sounded like some sort of weirdo to come out of Disney’s One Saturday Morning.

    Besides, Robert Downey Jr. played a comic book character. He did something you’d today see both censored and uncesored in old cartoons for “Tropic Thunder”. He even played (and is playing) a book character poked fun of in “Deduce, You Say” that featured Daffy Duck.

    You can’t control them, so learn from what you did with Yogi Bear. Even if it’s from a studio 10 times as worse as Warner Bros. in terms of their “family fare”.

    Hope I put a point for a the New Year. Happy belated New Year.

    • Justin

      I agree. Let’s wait for the trailer, then we’ll express our opinions. On that note, what’s the word on those upcoming CGI projects such as Tom and Jerry and Speedy Gonzales. Are they going to do these movies or have they been canceled?

  • lola

    Looks good, but then I usually tend to prefer the concept work to the finished cg rendered design. i.e. Kung Fu Panda
    Cute enough, hard to create an opinion of an entire movie based on one image, though.

  • Hey, that’s pretty good!

  • Cyber Fox

    It’s pretty nice
    but a bit too Disney-ish

  • I think it looks nice and well drawn, but actually a lot more generic than the original character. Yeah, I guess it wouldn’t be possible to recreate the original aspect in 3D, but at the other hand I’m sure there are some toys that already do that (I’m just guessing, this character is not too popular in Spain and I’ve never seen merchandising of him, but I’m sure there are something in the USA).

    For once I wish they would let him just the way he is and make it in 3D. Over The Hedge characters are more appealing in the strips than they were in the movie. Again another graphic design that was difficult to translate to CGI, but I’d like to see them trying sometimes.

    To me this looks like a well-drawn character, but not exactly Mr. Peabody. But well, even Tex Avery commited this mistake when he changed George and Junior’s designs in Half Pinty Pigmy. They looked cute and well-drawn, but they didn’t look like George and Junior. They were more generic characters.

    • Spencer

      I think it’s impossible for these guys to create something that isn’t generic as a final product, unfortunate as is. I don’t mean that in terms of artistic ability, but in terms of the executive decision. If they did anything nearly as interesting as what they did with Rocky n Bullwinkle from the olden days, kids (the demo) wouldn’t understand it.

      I’m more fearful of the writing in this movie than the artwork. Even if they animated it like Hoodwinked, the writing better be nothing short of brilliant. After all, that’s where the appeal of R and B came from.

  • Scarabim

    I hope Peabody walks around on all fours in the movie, at least occasionally. Becoming fully bipedal is what helped kill the appeal of Snoopy.

  • No attitude please. The way the humor worked is for Peabody to be completely deadpan. The voice will matter in a big way too.

    My biggest worry is that what was great in a six minute short will wear awfully thin after 30 minutes.

    • Ryoku

      Same here, with a good deal of todays adaptations writers are having to make due with characters that were designed for much shorter cartoons.

      Maybe thats why sometimes they rely on cliches and drama to pan the movies out.

  • Paul N

    It’s a disaster! The original Mr. Peabody had four whisker follicles on his muzzle, and this “redesign” clearly only has three! When will Hollywood stop destroying classic properties in their search for a quick buck?

    (just trying to balance out the surprisingly positive responses a little…)

  • michael

    remember how great dudley do-right was? the quality of the character design is of little consequence if the film itself is garbage. i don’t want to write this off immediately, but i can’t imagine how a satisfying feature length adaptation of this material can be done. the difficulties sherman and peabody have to overcome are silly, and everything is tied up quickly. some of the humor was, in fact, a result of the brevity. a 90 minute episode would quickly lose its charm. i’m not trying to watch sherman and peabody use the wabac to engage in some time travel quest.

  • Daniel J. Drazen

    I for one am disappointed. If ever a cartoon cried out to be made in live action with a modified animal actor (c.f. the “Cats and Dogs” film franchise), THIS should have been it!

    I can only hope that they use my all-time favorite line from the show: “How do you do? My name is Peabody. I assume you know yours.”

  • Jim Engel

    If this is really “it”, and he doesn’t end up with visible veins in his inner ears, or worst of all, those giant taxidermy eyes with corneas (ala Yogi, Garfield, Alvin, and every Dreamworks or Pixar character), I will be THRILLED (though the real test may be SHERMAN)….

  • Spencer

    Not too shabby. Let’s see a concept for the writing.

  • This actually looks fine! Much better than I would’ve expected.

  • The art direction (or lack thereof, since this is Jay Ward we’re talking about) notwithstanding… how do you make the star of a charming and quite often funny four-minute TV segment sustain a full 85 minute movie?

    You just don’t.

  • Steven M.

    It’s pretty good design wise, but for the love of God, PLEASE don’t have him constantly doing the ‘tude expression. If they do, I’ll be severley annoyed.

  • I dig! I dig! I hope it retains that illustrated look!

    I am NOT pleased with the direction they appear to be taking the story (peabody’s non talking dog family apparently?) but digging the art.

    hope this is a good one

  • Toonio

    Looks like Brian with astigmatism.

  • Looks A’ight.

  • Andrew Kieswetter

    I’m tempted to say ‘is nothing sacred?’

  • Laser

    I like it! Am I still cool ?

  • Clint

    Not too bad. Might turn out all right.

  • I like it a lot! :D What a pleasant surprise! I hope the movie itself is good.

  • Paul Penna

    I don’t see those two expressions as being equivalent at all. Mr. Peabody’s lid-drooping countenance conveyed his blithe acceptance of his intellectual prowess, his supreme self-confidence in his ability, through sheer brainpower, to remain unflappable in the face of any challenge that might present itself. It’s not arrogance or egotism, but a dispassionate acknowledgement of a self-evident truth; we know it as well as he does. It reflects Peabody’s entirely justified attitude toward the world in general.

    So-called “‘tude” on the other hand, like we see in the concept art, is a smug, derisive skepticism directed at another individual. When Sherman or some historical personage pulled some dunder-headed stunt, Peabody didn’t treat them superciliously, but rather as a parent would a small child, patiently but firmly correcting them. You’d never see him pause to telegraph “What a moron!” for the audience’s benefit.

    • I think the whole ‘tude thing is being a little over exaggerated. Even though I have my reservations with it like I pointed it before, I don’t see such an arrogant expression in the new Peabody design. I think he’s just pondering, without a situation I really don’t think he looks like he’s being that cynical or smug.

      It has the Chuck Jones’ eyes that occasionally make characters look smug and sometimes they do act smug, but to me this drawing is not proof of him acting that way. A lot of characters in Jones’ cartoons had these eyes and they were not always being smug. He may be just thinking about something. The eyebrows may be typical of the ‘tude face, but raising one eyebrow doesn’t mean he’s being cynical either, he could raise it cause something or someone at his right attracts his attention. I need the scenes to see if he acts smug or not.

      To me ‘tude would be a more adequate term for this kind of face (to put a not-Dreamworks example):

      Incidentally I quite liked Tangled, but that’s a ‘tude face anyway.

  • Once I was watching Mr. Peabody & Sherman and actually thought “Robert Downey Jr. would sound awesome as Mr. Peabody”. And what do you know – someone thought so too! Good! Hope one of the most charismatic actors of our time will sell the merch.

  • Kyle Maloney

    I think I’ll reserve judgment til I see another angle.

  • Wayne

    Original Mr. Peabody design plus Edna Mode from The Incredibles equals this.

  • Matt Sullivan

    Dreamworks just needs to give in and make “Raised Eyebrow the Movie”

    Not bad design…not bad.

  • Please let this be the design they’ll use…

    Because I like it!

  • I do not care is ‘Mr. Peabody’ good or not if dreamworks is in 10th best company to work for in the US!!!

    Because that I’ll see all of their of their movies a few times…Even the Shrek

  • I think it looks fantastic! *runs away before the trolls attack me for being positive*

  • 2011 Toddler

    I like it!

  • Considering as I thought they were going the Underdog “Real dog” route it looks okay.

    • Chris Sobieniak

      Lord knows we’re all glad it’s not going there!

  • Katya

    I think he somewhat resembles Jeffery Katzenberg when he wore big glasses back in the day…

  • I’m going to agree with the majority here. This doesn’t look bad, though one piece of concept art isn’t a lot to go on. I assume that DreamWorks wouldn’t have put this out if it wasn’t something like what they would like the final design to look like.

    “Rocky and Bullwinkle” isn’t really about great visuals. Sure, the original show’s look has its charm, but no one is going to say that it was beautifully animated. So if DreamWorks can get something onscreen that looks good and resembles Mr. Peabody, I’ll be fine. The real question is whether the writing is going to be as sharp as it should be.

  • It looks great. never mind ‘it looks ok’… ‘they’ll spoil it in the model’ … ‘i don’t mind it’

    It looks great and your head will not fall off for acknowledging that fact

  • Gummo

    Well, I don’t hate it.

    But Thad hits the conceptual problem on the nose when he writes:

    “how do you make the star of a charming and quite often funny four-minute TV segment sustain a full 85 minute movie?”

    One of the things that made the segments on Rocky & Bullwinkle funny (and has sunk any attempt to render them in feature form) is that they were so short and fast — they were much shorter than WB or Disney cartoons — so you got premise, 2 minutes silliness, payoff, and out.

    Also, they were based on familiar pop culture stereotypes so they needed no background or explanation — Mr. Peabody and Sherman were obviously the Basil Rathbone/Nigel Bruce Holmes-Watson combination in cartoon form: the unflappable genius and the simple well-meaning sidekick. But I’m afraid a full-length feature will feel compelled to give us a backstory on both of them and render them utterly unfunny along the way — Peabody a refugee from a secret government research project on animal intelligence, Sherman a poor orphan with nowhere to turn ….

    Yeah, it’s turning my stomach too and I’m just spitballing here.

    It’s very simple: Not every Baby Boomer icon HAS to be turned into a lousy multimillion dollar movie failure in the 21st century. Really.

    • I would like to see someone trying a full pure comedy story in animation with not backstory at all. I think it’s perfectly possible with some characters and it could be possible with these characters in particular. I mean, it could lose some of the original charm with the addition of the big spectacle but I think travelling through history can provide enough of a plot without needing any backstory.

      But yeah, even Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs included some backstories so I guess this will too.

      • TheGunheart

        This is the big problem, isn’t it? That need filmmakers have to make everything in their movie “epic”.

        It’s fine with an original work that was made from the get-go with that sort of storytelling in mind, or even a film like Cloudy, which simply uses the picture book for the basic idea and does it’s own thing.

        But when I saw Horton Hears a Who, it honestly felt like the movie was straining under the pressure of all the expansion done to the story, leaving it an uneven, insincere mess.

        I really like the design here, but it would be a real shame if it was bogged down with a poorly conceived attempt at emotional weight.

  • How original.

  • Chimichanga Gould

    The original Jay Ward/Bill Scott cartoons were prime examples of writing in miniature. The flat (and cheap) art style, such as it was, fit that verbal and conceptual approach perfectly. Ramping things up with literal surface rendering and constantly active fluid motion (no holds, ever, as in all CGI, else it goes dead) with an overlong, dumbed-down story (next to the work of Scott, anything done today will suffer such comparison)will make an interesting two hundred million dollar in-house science project, but not one of which Mr. Peabody would have been particularly proud.

    Hollywood should also leave Beany and Cecil alone.

  • Was my face red.

    Aggh, my eyes! My eyes! Oh no, actually I quite like it. Darn, I love posting ‘My eyes! My eyes!’

  • ‘Tude eyes? Smarm brow? Guys,…I love John K as much as the next guy, but you all need to stop and think for yourselves for a second. When I saw the drawing, I thought of this:
    Yes, that’s right. The Spock eyebrow raise. Characters can raise an eyebrow without invokeing “tude”. Is there ANYTHING else that indicates “Tude”? NO.
    You people…seriously man. Just know that I’m sitting here flipping the bird at all of you.

    • TheGunheart

      Indeed. Plus, his eyes are rolled in the direction of the raised brow. It’s quite clearly an “eyebrow raised in interest” sort of expression.

    • Jorge Garrido

      It’s not “tude,” it’s him pondering something.

    • Speaking of John K., I wonder how long it’s gonna take until they come out with a horrendous Ren & Stimpy CG film?
      I just thought of that idea, and now it’s out in the “force”… that means 10-20 other people just had that idea. Hopefully, one of them is a viacom/Nickelodeon exec.
      Oh dear…

      • tedzey

        No… it wouldn’t even make it past the pitch! What studio’s going to greenlight a movie based on a a show that most people couldn’t comprehend what it was! Don’t get me wrong, the animation’s extraordinary (as I write this I have the feeling the animators from the show are glaring at me), but what story’s going to come out of it when each episode had little to no continuity to the next?!

  • Mike Luzzi

    I like it. It was clearly informed by the original character but had to be slightly changed to be 3D as opposed to the very deliberately flat style of the original. Voice casting leads me to believe, also that they intend to keep his character very much the same. Smug.

  • Chubby

    Nice work! I think Jay Ward would be equally impressed. This could be the makings of a classic animated movie. Please keep throwing more updates and developments our way on CB.

  • ShouldBeWorkin’

    That is Peabody. Very appealing interpretation. The one time those attitudey eyebrows really work.

  • Mike Fontanelli

    Too much producer requisite ‘tude. (Wonder what happens if you make a modern animated film where the main character isn’t smug? You probably go to jail, or something.)

    Still can’t see Downey as the voice, although he’s versatile. Peabody needs more of a Clifton Webb-type. Can’t think of anyone modern at the moment, except maybe Stephen Fry? (Peabody isn’t that far removed from a canine Jeeves.)

    • Jorge Garrido

      Stephen Fry as Peabody? Mike, Peabody was not a realistic cartoon dog. He never went down on all fours.

  • The Nutty One

    For everyone complaining about the possibility of an origin story, I’d like to point out that there actually is one in the cartoon. Peabody was a college graduated genious who DID work for the government and Sherman WAS a poor orphan with nowhere to turn. Peabody felt empty after all of his accomplishments and adopted Sherman when he saw how horribly he was treated. Peabody originally made the Wabac as a present for Sherman’s birthday.

    Don’t get me wrong, I hate forced emotional pathos as much as the next guy, but there is some justification for an “origin” movie here.

    P.S. I like his design; it stays faithful to the original. I hope everything else is up to par.

    • That backstory was shown in any short in particular? I’m curious now.

      Well, it’s not so much that I hate backstories per se, it’s just that, like other people said, we don’t really need emotional or epic in every movie. Movies need to have a certain thing that make them an amusing spectacle, but they could be simple in premise but epic on laughs.

      You can explain the origin of a characer, even an orphan, and just showing how other character is nice to him or whatever, but you don’t need to stop the action or the jokes to introduces sappy musical cues or sad dialogues. If it’s a comedy you can move on to another joke.

      Not a lot of life action movies are pure comedies, but in animation it just seems that it’s completely prohibited to do it, which is weird cause I think it’s a very adequate medium for that genre. If they are charismatic I can perfectly care for the characters without the sappy moments, and I’m sure all kids could too. I think those sappy moments are for some moms and dads who think that make the story more didactical or something. But this one is about travelling through history, so that’s didactical enough.

      No, I don’t hate Pixar pathos moments, they are usually well done, but I don’t think every movie has to have the Disney or Pixar feel. There could also have movies with the Looney Tunes or Rocky and Bullwinkle feel, for that instance. The Spongebob Movie and South Park, Bigger, Longer and Uncut are the closest to pure comedies I can think of in recent animated features. And man, I did enjoy the heck of them.

      • The Nutty One

        The “origin” was the first short (it’s on the season one DVD). I agree with you though. One of the things I loved about the Spongebob movie was that the funny animation to pathos ratio was reversed from average Disney/pixar fare (still love them of course). There was enough emotional weight to make the characters and situations believable (the “death” scene in particular), but overall nothing was taken too seriously. It just wanted to entertain us for awhile. If Dreamworks takes a cue from this train of thought I think the movie will be better for it.

        By the way, thanks for responding :)

  • Uh, no comment on the design – and frankly not sure it’s real. You’re looking at something printed in a magazine, as you can clearly see the halftone pattern and the ink bleeding in from the other side. I guess if it’s some sort of trade magazine .. but part of me says you all are having your leg pulled with something off an old package or magazine article on Jay Ward…

  • it’s really no matter if this design is “real” or not, It’s going to change a gazillion and one times before it’s “done”. remakes are a tough sell unless its a spot on bullseye because there is always, ALWAYS some total nerd fan who impassibly insists that it’s not acceptable as equivalently honorable as the first incarnation’s purity

  • TheGunheart

    Well, our worst fears are confirmed: it has a backstory.

    And from the looks of things, it’s another “outcast has to Be Himself” type of plot.

    • Chris Sobieniak

      Why am I not surprised?

    • Ryoku

      As long as thats not the film it should be okay, haven’t we seen enough Buzz Lightyear wannabes?

  • Joe Heffernan

    It’s gonna’ be all in the script…and that’s going to be tough because most of the people involved probably never originally saw or understood the genius of the Jay Ward studio artists and writers. DVD’s notwithstanding. Unless, of course, I’m mistaken….(and I hope I am…)!

  • Doodyville 101

    I don’t like it – too campy looking. A little less glasses and a bit more interesting features, please.

  • Kip W

    I could certainly recognize who he was, so there’s a point. I’m not going to let my hopes get high, for reasons that can basically be summed up as “look at every single CGI version of a classic animated character they’ve done so far.”

    I like Peabody and Sherman as individuals, but the writing in their old cartoons seems pretty random to me. I taped pretty much everything they showed of the whole series the last time Nickelodeon aired it, and found that a little Improbable History goes a long way, especially with the inevitable weak pun shoehorned in at the end.

    By a remarkable coincidence, I showed an hour’s worth of Rocky and Bullwinkle from the somewhat repackaged DVD set to my daughter (age 8) last night, and she was quite receptive. I think we’ll be firing up the old WABAC machine again in the near future. (She likes Looney Tunes too.)

  • Josh H.

    Despite the Dreamworks’ trademark “I just shit my pants and liked it” expression, this actually has some appeal. At least as much as a crappy magazine scan can. I imagine that it will be toned down and the finished product will actually look more like Brian from Family Guy.

  • Ryoku

    How much does anyone want to bet that despite the complaining this film will make $20mil+ on its opening day?

  • Professor Widebottom

    Bah!!! Get thee behind me imposter.

  • WOW.
    Only Cartoon Brew could rake up OVER ONE HUNDRED COMMENTS from ONE TINY DESIGN.

    I’ve always found the dynamic between Peabody and Sherman themselves as interesting as when and where they traveled to, and I know I’m not the only one. Take this Far Side panel from 1993:

    They’ve got two legendary characters; at least one great actor signed on; and all of history and technology to play with. I hope everyone at DreamWorks takes all this into account and runs with it.

  • Keegan

    If he didn’t need the expression before, he doesn’t need it now. I don’t know why Dreamworks feels that their movies won’t work without an eyebrow raise.