Two excellent CGI movies have come out this summer, both from completely different computer animation studios.

Kung Fu Panda. From Dreamworks Animation, the studio that brought us Shrek (all three of them), Shark Tale, Madagascar, Over the Hedge, and the Bee Movie. Mostly “meh” movies, some good, some not. Kung Fu Panda featured the voices of Jack Black, Dustin Hoffman, Angelina Jolie, and Jackie Chan.

Wall-E. From Pixar, the studio that brought us everything great about computer animation: Toy Story (both of the them), Monsters, Inc., the Incredibles, Cars, and Ratatouille. Mostly fantastic movies, pretty much each and every one. Wall-E featured the voices of essentially nobodies, with the exception of Sigourney Weaver and John Ratzenberger. There was very little speaking involved, so this isn’t surprising to see.

This however, might be surprising: between the two movies, I preferred Kung Fu Panda.

To me, it was the more entertaining of the two. It had characters that I (and my kids) could better relate to. It had a story that was more compelling. It had much, much more action and intensity. And, as far as I’m concerned, more humor.

Now, that doesn’t mean that Wall-E was horrible – not by any stretch of the imagination. It was a wonderful, warm, captivating film. The two movies are very close in quality in my mind. On a scale of 1 to 10, Wall-E would rate a 7 while Kung Fu Panda would garner an 8.

I think in a lot of people’s minds, any Pixar film automatically gains additional awesome points just by virtue of being a Pixar film. Because of Dreamworks’ lackluster history, films from that studio might lose awesome points by the same criteria. But as far as I’m concerned, even additional Pixar awesome points doesn’t bring Wall-E up to Kung Fu Panda’s level.

Am I alone in thinking this? Is it impossible to compare the two movies because their style and presentation are so drastically different? Should every Pixar movie simply win by default?