|
|
Post by gothos on Aug 2, 2014 15:01:30 GMT -5
If you judge the success of 1977's STAR WARS and the subsequent success of SUPERMAN as the films that first presented superheroic live-action films so that adults could enjoy them (something I clearly advocate)--
Then why have so few films of these films in the superhero idiom (not just men in costumes, but space-operas, barbarians, etc.) been full-length animated works?
The most successful known to me are HEAVY METAL and THE INCREDIBLES. I don't think either GI JOE THE MOVIE or FIRE AND ICE burned up the box office. BATMAN MASK OF THE PHANTASM made it to some theaters but after that I think most DC or Marvel original cartoon-films went straight to DVD or streaming.
Japanese anime films are a special case, but few of those are distributed here except for the Miyazaki films that have Disney backing.
Cartoons about funny animals and winsome ghouls, though, are consistent sellers if not huge BO.
Why, do you think?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2014 16:32:51 GMT -5
I think the powers that be feel animation won't attract a big enough audience. If someone doesn't read comics they won't watch cartoons.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2014 18:13:25 GMT -5
Up until recently those super heroes would have had to been licensed by the movie studio, or made in partnership with. They tend to market the cartoons these days to small children, even when they have appeal that extends to adults. Up, Cars, Shrek, and so on don't cost the studio anything to license, they just pulled them out of thin air. A small child isn't likely to have developed any sort of character loyalty yet so it's cheaper to create something original than it is to license a popular franchise that a kid wouldn't even care about anyway.
Now that the big super hero universes are owned by movie studios we may see some feature cartoons since it won't cost them any more to make a Superman cartoon as it would an Antz cartoon. And they want to create a new generation of character followers anyway I imagine.
Maybe market research is showing them Saturday Morning is a better place for the heroes than the theater when it comes to that age demographic anyway? Maybe they figure the live action stuff has it covered. I have no doubt an Avengers cartoon would not do as well as the movie did.
|
|
|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on Aug 3, 2014 8:26:25 GMT -5
Because American culture has decided that animation is for children and won't back off that. I don't know Heavy Metals success, I was too young then, but I do remember my friend taking me to see Batman (didn't have my license yet) and we were older than almost all the children with their parents. It's our own culture misconception about the appeal of certain mediums that retard their potential success in this country.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,860
|
Post by shaxper on Aug 3, 2014 8:52:04 GMT -5
What about the Star Wars Clone Wars animated film? That one didn't do particularly well, but I'm ignorant as to whether it was because movie-goers didn't take an animated film seriously or because Lucafilms didn't take it seriously enough in promoting it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jesse on Aug 3, 2014 9:06:34 GMT -5
Because American culture has decided that animation is for children and won't back off that. This. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2014 15:13:30 GMT -5
Animation limits your audience in theatrical release in a way that it does not when released direct to video/DVD. That is why most animated super-hero fare these days in produced for the direct to DVD market. When they do produce animated theatrical releases it is geared towards a younger audience of family fare, where entire families will go increasing ticket sales.
There is some prejudice at work too. Animation is for kids as some suggest. Hardcore fans of properties feel slighted if the feature is geared for kids or family fare and won't go see it theatrically (who wants a kiddie version of Hero X is cap and tights, I want it to be a grown up movie, if they treated it with respect it would be a live action movie so I am not going to see that crap, publisher Y hates its fans by offering us this animated version...). You can overcome some (not all, but some) of that with effective marketing, but marketing adds to the cost of the movie and increases the revenue it has to generate to make a profit. Animated movies have shorter life spans in movie houses for prime time showings. As new movies come out, theaters give screens to newer releases. First thing cut are animated features who get limited to afternoon showings on weekend, and not the 7ish or 9ish evening showings, and they rarely ever get midnight showings ever, so this limits potential revenue as well (kids don't go tot late movies after all is the rationale for this).
Direct to DVD sales however cut out a lot of the areas of potential loss, the fact it's not theatrical means lower production costs and marketing costs, and the demands that is there (albeit in limited form), translates into early sales of the DVD at its highest price(rather than later sales when prices have been reduced to extend the shelf-life of the feature), so the revenue is front loaded giving it a quicker return on investment.
However of everything I have mentioned, the marketing costs are the biggest. It takes more marketing to promote an animated feature effectively and it still doesn't overcome the ticket sales limitations in most cases, so they are less profitable as costs are higher and revenue is less.
-M
|
|
|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on Aug 3, 2014 16:32:22 GMT -5
M, not trying to minimize your comment with such a short response, but isn't the reason (in the US at least) that non-child fare animated features have to spend more on promoting and marketing is because it's still viewed as a children's medium? In scope, story, quality and stars (granted voice actors over live action actors), what's the difference with Batman Mask of the Phantasm over say Dark Knight Returns? While I could care less about the latter, I will concede its popularity and appeal to a dark version of Batman. Why does it have to be different? It's an American mindset from Disney, Looney Tunes, etc. it's not much different than overcoming the stereotype that comics are for kids. But we won't overcome it if we don't open ourselves to the possibilities. I've had anime move me, enthrall me, excite me, and terrify me just as well as a live action movie.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2014 18:39:13 GMT -5
M, not trying to minimize your comment with such a short response, but isn't the reason (in the US at least) that non-child fare animated features have to spend more on promoting and marketing is because it's still viewed as a children's medium? In scope, story, quality and stars (granted voice actors over live action actors), what's the difference with Batman Mask of the Phantasm over say Dark Knight Returns? While I could care less about the latter, I will concede its popularity and appeal to a dark version of Batman. Why does it have to be different? It's an American mindset from Disney, Looney Tunes, etc. it's not much different than overcoming the stereotype that comics are for kids. But we won't overcome it if we don't open ourselves to the possibilities. I've had anime move me, enthrall me, excite me, and terrify me just as well as a live action movie. That's all well and good, and yes the preconceptions are the reason why the extra marketing is needed, and if you have a few hundred million to invest in the marketing to change public perception, go for it. Movie studios and publishers aren't about educating the public, they are about capitalizing on what works to make a profit. If animated features don't work, they are not going to sink a huge chunk of change into it to reshape people's perceptions, they're going to make movies and distribute them in the most profitable way possible. If animated movies were better received and more profitable, they would make more, but they're not, so why should the studios spend good money after bad trying to change the market when they can make money the way it is. If people perceived animated movies as kiddie fare and they still made lots of money, studios would make them. They don't care about the perception except for how it affects the bottom line. Why so few animated superheroic films in the theatre? Because they are not profitable. The reasons why are irrelevant to the studios. Until such a time as they are profitable, you won't see them. Studios are a business, not a public service, not an artistic creative house, they are a billion dollar industry and they will do what makes money. They are reactive, not proactive, and that won't change if their money is on the line. For every movie exec with vision and a plan, there are hundreds if not thousands who are slaves to the bottom line, so one film in a hundred or one in a thousand will get made that breaks ground and takes a chance, but those won't have big budgets for the most part, unless the creative folks have a proven track record and have created a money making brand out of the names involved. And if they are trying to exploit a super-hero IP , they are not going to make a film that is limited to art houses, so they stick with what has worked. They'll ask the question-will it make money, they won't care why the answer is no, they've left the room if the answer was no. -M |
|
|
|
Post by gothos on Aug 3, 2014 20:05:52 GMT -5
M, not trying to minimize your comment with such a short response, but isn't the reason (in the US at least) that non-child fare animated features have to spend more on promoting and marketing is because it's still viewed as a children's medium? In scope, story, quality and stars (granted voice actors over live action actors), what's the difference with Batman Mask of the Phantasm over say Dark Knight Returns? While I could care less about the latter, I will concede its popularity and appeal to a dark version of Batman. Why does it have to be different? It's an American mindset from Disney, Looney Tunes, etc. it's not much different than overcoming the stereotype that comics are for kids. But we won't overcome it if we don't open ourselves to the possibilities. I've had anime move me, enthrall me, excite me, and terrify me just as well as a live action movie. That's all well and good, and yes the preconceptions are the reason why the extra marketing is needed, and if you have a few hundred million to invest in the marketing to change public perception, go for it. Movie studios and publishers aren't about educating the public, they are about capitalizing on what works to make a profit. If animated features don't work, they are not going to sink a huge chunk of change into it to reshape people's perceptions, they're going to make movies and distribute them in the most profitable way possible. If animated movies were better received and more profitable, they would make more, but they're not, so why should the studios spend good money after bad trying to change the market when they can make money the way it is. If people perceived animated movies as kiddie fare and they still made lots of money, studios would make them. They don't care about the perception except for how it affects the bottom line. Why so few animated superheroic films in the theatre? Because they are not profitable. The reasons why are irrelevant to the studios. Until such a time as they are profitable, you won't see them. Studios are a business, not a public service, not an artistic creative house, they are a billion dollar industry and they will do what makes money. They are reactive, not proactive, and that won't change if their money is on the line. For every movie exec with vision and a plan, there are hundreds if not thousands who are slaves to the bottom line, so one film in a hundred or one in a thousand will get made that breaks ground and takes a chance, but those won't have big budgets for the most part, unless the creative folks have a proven track record and have created a money making brand out of the names involved. And if they are trying to exploit a super-hero IP , they are not going to make a film that is limited to art houses, so they stick with what has worked. They'll ask the question-will it make money, they won't care why the answer is no, they've left the room if the answer was no. -M MRP, I think it's a tautological argument to say, "the studios don't do X because it's not profitable." If that were true, then why would the studios ever have taken a chance with Batman in '89? The first couple of Superman films were successful, but later entries fell off, and a lot of the 80s franchises died in stillbirth: Supergirl, Flash Gordon, Lone Ranger, Popeye. A lot of pre-Batman conventional wisdom probably did say, "Superman was a special case: live-action superheroes just don't sell." And even if one argued that Batman was also special because of the successful TV show, why do THE CROW? Or BLADE? Or MYSTERY MEN? None of them had name recognition to start. Warren Beatty couldn't save Dick Tracy, why toss money at Wesley Snipes doing an unknown vampire killer? My theory is this: funny animals, goofy ghouls and fairy tales are to US parental units more acceptable entertainment for pre-teen audiences than superheroes, barbarians, et al. There's a school of thought that these are aimed a little more at older kids, who can often take themselves to the movies. A film like ICE AGE puts at least two butts per family in the theater seats, and so makes more dough for the moviemakers. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2014 20:43:30 GMT -5
That's all well and good, and yes the preconceptions are the reason why the extra marketing is needed, and if you have a few hundred million to invest in the marketing to change public perception, go for it. Movie studios and publishers aren't about educating the public, they are about capitalizing on what works to make a profit. If animated features don't work, they are not going to sink a huge chunk of change into it to reshape people's perceptions, they're going to make movies and distribute them in the most profitable way possible. If animated movies were better received and more profitable, they would make more, but they're not, so why should the studios spend good money after bad trying to change the market when they can make money the way it is. If people perceived animated movies as kiddie fare and they still made lots of money, studios would make them. They don't care about the perception except for how it affects the bottom line. Why so few animated superheroic films in the theatre? Because they are not profitable. The reasons why are irrelevant to the studios. Until such a time as they are profitable, you won't see them. Studios are a business, not a public service, not an artistic creative house, they are a billion dollar industry and they will do what makes money. They are reactive, not proactive, and that won't change if their money is on the line. For every movie exec with vision and a plan, there are hundreds if not thousands who are slaves to the bottom line, so one film in a hundred or one in a thousand will get made that breaks ground and takes a chance, but those won't have big budgets for the most part, unless the creative folks have a proven track record and have created a money making brand out of the names involved. And if they are trying to exploit a super-hero IP , they are not going to make a film that is limited to art houses, so they stick with what has worked. They'll ask the question-will it make money, they won't care why the answer is no, they've left the room if the answer was no. -M MRP, I think it's a tautological argument to say, "the studios don't do X because it's not profitable." If that were true, then why would the studios ever have taken a chance with Batman in '89? The first couple of Superman films were successful, but later entries fell off, and a lot of the 80s franchises died in stillbirth: Supergirl, Flash Gordon, Lone Ranger, Popeye. A lot of pre-Batman conventional wisdom probably did say, "Superman was a special case: live-action superheroes just don't sell." And even if one argued that Batman was also special because of the successful TV show, why do THE CROW? Or BLADE? Or MYSTERY MEN? None of them had name recognition to start. Warren Beatty couldn't save Dick Tracy, why toss money at Wesley Snipes doing an unknown vampire killer? My theory is this: funny animals, goofy ghouls and fairy tales are to US parental units more acceptable entertainment for pre-teen audiences than superheroes, barbarians, et al. There's a school of thought that these are aimed a little more at older kids, who can often take themselves to the movies. A film like ICE AGE puts at least two butts per family in the theater seats, and so makes more dough for the moviemakers. If I remember the scuttlebutt correctly from CBG and other sources in the mid to late 80's, Batman wasn't the property being banked on in the '89 film, Tim Burton was. The project was dead in the water until Burton became involved and he had a champion inside the studio who thought he could become a money-making brand as a director. He wanted to do Batman, and based on the success of Pee-Wee Big Adventure and the buzz based on Burton's shorts & television hits, and his ability to produce profitable hits on a low budget, he got the movie made despite constant clashes with the producers because they thought he would be the kind of producer/director who could produce a string of profitable movies for him and whose name would get recognition with the general public. The fact WB owned the rights to Batman and didn't have to pay for that, made the package more attractive, and if it worked, it opened a library of IP for them. But that was secondary. Their bet was on Burton, not on the Batman, why because Burton had made them money every time out up to that point. It ties into the point I bolded from my original point. Once Batman hit and the buzz for it was incredible, anticipation was high and early box office was great, so once it did hit and was successful, it opened up the doors to a lot of the projects you mentioned to get green lit because again Hollywood is reactive. They bid on Burton and won, other who didn't have Burton to bid on looked at the property he did it with and said, what can we do like that.... -M |
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Aug 4, 2014 8:45:58 GMT -5
Because American culture has decided that animation is for children and won't back off that. I don't know Heavy Metals success, I was too young then, but I do remember my friend taking me to see Batman (didn't have my license yet) and we were older than almost all the children with their parents. It's our own culture misconception about the appeal of certain mediums that retard their potential success in this country. It's funny.. this is totally true... ask most adults in the US, and they think cartoons are for kids, and, in fact, will put the television on for a kid and stop at a cartoon, just because it's a cartoon, whatever it is. I have first hand experience of this, when my mother in law was watching my kids, I returned to get them (they were 8 and 4 at the time) to have them watching Family Guy. What boggles my mind is those same adults WATCH Family Guy, the Simpsons, etc. There's some sort of basic disconnect in most Americans that doesn't make sense, even as legit kids cartoons get marketed to older and older demographics (stuff like Adventure Time and Total Drama Island is NOT for anyone under 10-12, IMO), and there are more adult comedy shows (Archer, Chozen, pretty much all of Adult Swim), for some reason no one in the states thinks an anime-style series animated feature would work,despite the legions of anime fans.. it's really weird. |
|
|
|
Post by MDG on Aug 4, 2014 11:34:48 GMT -5
Because American culture has decided that animation is for children and won't back off that. There was also a time when America decided that superheroes were for children too. What changed that? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2014 13:11:56 GMT -5
Because American culture has decided that animation is for children and won't back off that. I don't know Heavy Metals success, I was too young then, but I do remember my friend taking me to see Batman (didn't have my license yet) and we were older than almost all the children with their parents. It's our own culture misconception about the appeal of certain mediums that retard their potential success in this country. It's funny.. this is totally true... ask most adults in the US, and they think cartoons are for kids, and, in fact, will put the television on for a kid and stop at a cartoon, just because it's a cartoon, whatever it is. I have first hand experience of this, when my mother in law was watching my kids, I returned to get them (they were 8 and 4 at the time) to have them watching Family Guy. What boggles my mind is those same adults WATCH Family Guy, the Simpsons, etc. There's some sort of basic disconnect in most Americans that doesn't make sense, even as legit kids cartoons get marketed to older and older demographics (stuff like Adventure Time and Total Drama Island is NOT for anyone under 10-12, IMO), and there are more adult comedy shows (Archer, Chozen, pretty much all of Adult Swim), for some reason no one in the states thinks an anime-style series animated feature would work,despite the legions of anime fans.. it's really weird. I think plenty of adults are aware that cartoons can and have been marketed toward them. South Park is a good example. But those are still television comedies that you don't have to buy a ticket to see. I know for me, going to the theater is something I only do a couple times a year. It's an expense. It costs me about $50 every time I go. There's movies I see previews of and immediately think "I'll watch that when it comes out on DVD." and others that make me thing "I hope I can see that in the theater!" That Batman: Mask Of The Phantasm looked exactly like the TV show. There was nothing there enticing me to pay theater prices to go see it even if I was a fan of the show. I think with a theatrical release things need to be taken to the next level, including the animation. This is why I think Pixar is doing so well and we hardly see hand drawn animation in theatrical releases anymore. |
|
|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on Aug 5, 2014 12:53:07 GMT -5
M, not trying to minimize your comment with such a short response, but isn't the reason (in the US at least) that non-child fare animated features have to spend more on promoting and marketing is because it's still viewed as a children's medium? In scope, story, quality and stars (granted voice actors over live action actors), what's the difference with Batman Mask of the Phantasm over say Dark Knight Returns? While I could care less about the latter, I will concede its popularity and appeal to a dark version of Batman. Why does it have to be different? It's an American mindset from Disney, Looney Tunes, etc. it's not much different than overcoming the stereotype that comics are for kids. But we won't overcome it if we don't open ourselves to the possibilities. I've had anime move me, enthrall me, excite me, and terrify me just as well as a live action movie. That's all well and good, and yes the preconceptions are the reason why the extra marketing is needed, and if you have a few hundred million to invest in the marketing to change public perception, go for it. Movie studios and publishers aren't about educating the public, they are about capitalizing on what works to make a profit. If animated features don't work, they are not going to sink a huge chunk of change into it to reshape people's perceptions, they're going to make movies and distribute them in the most profitable way possible. If animated movies were better received and more profitable, they would make more, but they're not, so why should the studios spend good money after bad trying to change the market when they can make money the way it is. If people perceived animated movies as kiddie fare and they still made lots of money, studios would make them. They don't care about the perception except for how it affects the bottom line. Why so few animated superheroic films in the theatre? Because they are not profitable. The reasons why are irrelevant to the studios. Until such a time as they are profitable, you won't see them. Studios are a business, not a public service, not an artistic creative house, they are a billion dollar industry and they will do what makes money. They are reactive, not proactive, and that won't change if their money is on the line. For every movie exec with vision and a plan, there are hundreds if not thousands who are slaves to the bottom line, so one film in a hundred or one in a thousand will get made that breaks ground and takes a chance, but those won't have big budgets for the most part, unless the creative folks have a proven track record and have created a money making brand out of the names involved. And if they are trying to exploit a super-hero IP , they are not going to make a film that is limited to art houses, so they stick with what has worked. They'll ask the question-will it make money, they won't care why the answer is no, they've left the room if the answer was no. -M I'm not saying that I expect studios to invest in something that they feel, and sales show isn't profitable to them. I'm not expecting that to change without time. I'm simply answering to OP that as I see it Americans don't assosicate animation with adult entertainment, and may never. Its a stereotype we as a culture allow to endure. |
|
