Animated movies are to overated

[the bouncer]

Do any of you guys think that animated movies are way to overated.Most of the previews and trailers on t.v are for animated films and they somehow seem to get all star casts,such as shark tale has Will Smith and Robert de niro and shrek manages to cast mike myers and Cameron Diaz.I am not saying the movies are bad but they get to much promotion.

[dean]

Well if you think about it, any movie with cast members like that get massive amounts of hype, and heaps of advertising.  They get these big name stars because A: the money is no doubt good and B: doing the voices in animation doesn't require half as much work as doing on screen acting.

I wouldn't say they are overrated, since if they were,  then every other attempted blockbuster film is overrated as well, and we can't call every film overrated.

They may get too much promotion, but that's just the studios trying to make money.

I love animated films, but more the Japananimation.  Haven't seen Shark Tale, nor plan to anytime soon.

Remember folks, ever since the popularity of Toy Story and Ants, the studios have been clamouring to make their own CGI animated movies.  They seem to go well in the Box office, so I'd expect to see many many more on the market very soon.

[nobody]

When computer animated films first came out (I'm talking about original, truly classic films like "Toy Story") the fan appreciation was justified. But now, it's almost 10 years since "Toy Story" was released, and the market is just saturated with computer animated garbage. You can't tell one film from another... It's just another example of Hollywood ruining a good thing by making too much of it.

[blkrider]

It's lost all its novelty by this point--every year the big companies put out their latest computer animated films--it's almost a genre to itself now.

What I really don't like is that so many of them seem to focus more on the various little injokes and references than they do on entertaining the children that are supposedly the target audience for these movies.  There are a few of them that work for both audiences, but most of them can't even approach the magic of classic Disney, for example.

[nobody]

blkrider: "There are a few of them that work for both audiences, but most of them can't even approach the magic of classic Disney, for example."

Not even Disney can capture the magic of classic Disney anymore. :)

[blkrider]

You're absolutely right.  

I remember back when Disney movies weren't yearly events.  Every once in a while they'll make one that is memorable, but a lot of the time the Disney flicks are as disposable as anything else--just an excuse for marketing tie-ins.  

Probably one of the worst things that has happened is this business where they decide to put all these postmodern type in-jokes in for the sake of the adults in the audience.  Classic family films are that way because they appeal to the sense of wonder in adult and children alike.  The people who make these newer films don't appear to be capable of doing that.

[Max Gardner]

I assume you're talking about animated films such as Polar Express, Shrek and Shark Tale rather than the "conventional" animation we see less and less. CG animation has given the medium (I hesitate to call animation a genre, since its subject matter can be as diverse as live-action film) a shot in the arm. Everyone wants to try their hand at it (providing the voices of CG characters, that is), because it's new, and the studios will throw a lot of money at you for it because CG animation is flashy and impressive and therefore guaranteed to gross quite a bit. I would have no problem with the rise of CG films so long as their creators all displayed the level of maturity and humor we see in Shrek and Shrek 2, both of which are far more insightful and intelligent than 90% of the insipid live-action rom/coms crammed down our throats each year.

[daveblackeye15]

I like CGI when it's well used and has a nice story line or is at least entertaining but I still love original animation more, I really like Heavy Metal, Fist of the North Star, many Disney classics and other cartoons whether they're comedy or action or sci fi.

[Yaddo 42]

Overexposed and over promoted, like dean said, maybe. Overrated, I think it depends on the film. The "Toy Story" and "Shrek" films or "Monster Inc." are all worthwhile films that will endure, IMO, even if the "Shrek" films do shoot their tolerance and acceptance message in the foot sometimes. But as the cost of production falls for CGI, you do see weaker animated films being made, just as annoying CG effects laden instatnly forgettable dumb action flicks seem to fill the landscape these days. Look at how quickly films like "Antz", "A Bug's Life" and "Ice Age" have been left by the wayside, even though all three did pretty well at the box office. They were enjoyable to a degree, but nothing special.

With the rate of advancement in computing power and just what can be done with computer animation, it will be interesting to see if the CGI hits of yesterday become dated looking even faster than films of decades past often do.

I don't mind the pop culture and in-joke references in the wave of animated films as long as it is handled well and is clever, good writing matters even in animated flicks.  That is often done to give the adults who take the kids to the theater something to appreciate, probably to increase the chances of bringing the family back to see the film again or buy the video release. The parents do make the buying decisions after all. Notice how many professional reviews mention whether a new kids film will be toerable to adults as well.

In the end how are the references all that different from the references that use to fill the various Warner Bros. cartoon shorts from their theatrical heyday? Even when later generations, like ourselves, saw them on TV we enjoyed them, even though lots of stuff went over our heads either because it refered to things way before our time ("Is this trip really necessary?") or was aimed at adult viewers (the wolves in zoot suits hanging out on the corner of Hollywood and Vine howling "How old is she?" at Elmer Fudd in drag, just off the top of my head).

[blkrider]

I think the Warner Bros. cartoons were different because the humor appealed to adult and kid alike--the references were really just a bonus.  Adults could appreciate the cartoons the same way kids did.   With the newer films it's as if they try to appeal to two different audiences and assume that the kids will have no interest in the various in-jokes and that the adults will have no interest in the film's story and characters.   I do agree that some of the newer films will stand the test of time, but a lot of them won't.  

 But it's really like that with anything, I guess.  I just feel that the whole point of kids' movies is to make one so good that the adults will feel like kids again, and it seems like filmmakers have given up on that concept.

[BoyScoutKevin]

Oh, you mean computer animation. For me, that is a different type of animation then the old classical style of animation, and for those, being an action aficionado, I hold that some of the action sequences in those type of films are as good or even better then the action sequences in most live action films.

As for voice work being easier, with all due respect, what does an actor have to use to create his character.  He has his face, his body, and his voice. Voiceover work elimintates the first two, leaving the actor only his voice  to create his character. Of course, a good animator will often animate to an actor's facial expression and body movements, when he is speaking.

As for "A Bug's Life." I like the way the story develops in that one. Just when you think a character is going to suceed, they fail. Then, just when you think a character is going to fail, they suceed. As I said, good story development.