|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on Aug 5, 2014 12:56:44 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? People reading and investigating the material instead of allowing a stereotype to endure through ignorance. As with most stereotypes or prejudice ignorance is the culprit and education the eyeopener. |
|
|
|
Post by gothos on Aug 7, 2014 16:31:27 GMT -5
MRP,
I'm aware as anyone of the strong money-based conservatism of the American film industry, but I don't think it tells the whole story.
I think there's a strong element of high-stakes gambling encoded in the industry that isn't present in a lot of other commercial venues-- say, the real estate industry-- or at least not to the same degree. But we can agree to disagree on that.
My original post was less directed at the reasons the studios don't do things, but why the audiences don't support the few experiments made in this form I'm calling the "animated superheroic film." Your first post makes some salient points about how comics-fans don't want to see juvenilized versions of genre heroes, but as we've all heard many times, the hardcore comics audience is too small for the film-industry to take into account, so I wouldn't think that would be a major consideration for not making more such films. I think you're correct on your other major point; that there's an inherent prejudice against giving cartoons theater-showings in the more profitable evenings, but again, both the studios and the theaters are not determining this practice in a void; they're responding to cultural priorities, and American cultural priorities are a dense and confusing morass of contradictions.
I think it's true that there used to be a foursquare cultural prejudice against animated movies and teleseries; they were considered inherently kid-stuff because so many of them were directed at kids. I think the *conscious* prejudice has broken down a lot, and since the 90s I think it's become far more acceptable for adults of a certain age to admit to liking cartoons. However, a *subconscious* prejudice does still associate cartoons with kids, and so it's quite possible that a lot of male teens-- guys who may like cartoons of all types-- won't take their dates to animated movies because it seems like a kiddie thing to do, and the last thing guys on dates want to do is to come off looking overly childish. This would be the sort of thing that leads theaters not to schedule late-evening showings for animated films-- though I will say that I do see such schedulings in my bailiwick, now and again.
In contrast, live-action superhero movies don't have as much of a hurdle to get over; in American culture at least, there's a tendency to validate a movie with live actors over one in which actors are supplying voices for animated figures. I can only guess as to how this prejudice came about. Perhaps viewers feel that a film in which A-lister Robert Downey Jr. actually puts himself in a costume is giving them more bang for their buck than a film in which [former] A-lister Don Johnson simply does a voice for G.I. JOE THE MOVIE. Or, as I argued in my first post, maybe Americans, among others, get more of a blast out of seeing real actors intermingled with the illusions of fantastic FX, while in animation, everything's pretty much on the same level.
|
|
|
|
Post by gothos on Aug 7, 2014 16:37:28 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? I maintain that STAR WARS made the difference, though until I started this post, I hadn't thought of the subject in terms of mixing seeming reality and illusion-- which animated films cannot really pull off. It's roughly comparable to seeing a magician on stage: you can see his reality, and the reality of his props, but unless you yourself are an "insider," you will be beguiled-- and stimulated-- by the illusions he presents. |
|
|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on Aug 7, 2014 16:50:51 GMT -5
MRP, I'm aware as anyone of the strong money-based conservatism of the American film industry, but I don't think it tells the whole story. I think there's a strong element of high-stakes gambling encoded in the industry that isn't present in a lot of other commercial venues-- say, the real estate industry-- or at least not to the same degree. But we can agree to disagree on that. My original post was less directed at the reasons the studios don't do things, but why the audiences don't support the few experiments made in this form I'm calling the "animated superheroic film." Your first post makes some salient points about how comics-fans don't want to see juvenilized versions of genre heroes, but as we've all heard many times, the hardcore comics audience is too small for the film-industry to take into account, so I wouldn't think that would be a major consideration for not making more such films. I think you're correct on your other major point; that there's an inherent prejudice against giving cartoons theater-showings in the more profitable evenings, but again, both the studios and the theaters are not determining this practice in a void; they're responding to cultural priorities, and American cultural priorities are a dense and confusing morass of contradictions. I think it's true that there used to be a foursquare cultural prejudice against animated movies and teleseries; they were considered inherently kid-stuff because so many of them were directed at kids. I think the *conscious* prejudice has broken down a lot, and since the 90s I think it's become far more acceptable for adults of a certain age to admit to liking cartoons. However, a *subconscious* prejudice does still associate cartoons with kids, and so it's quite possible that a lot of male teens-- guys who may like cartoons of all types-- won't take their dates to animated movies because it seems like a kiddie thing to do, and the last thing guys on dates want to do is to come off looking overly childish. This would be the sort of thing that leads theaters not to schedule late-evening showings for animated films-- though I will say that I do see such schedulings in my bailiwick, now and again. In contrast, live-action superhero movies don't have as much of a hurdle to get over; in American culture at least, there's a tendency to validate a movie with live actors over one in which actors are supplying voices for animated figures. I can only guess as to how this prejudice came about. Perhaps viewers feel that a film in which A-lister Robert Downey Jr. actually puts himself in a costume is giving them more bang for their buck than a film in which [former] A-lister Don Johnson simply does a voice for G.I. JOE THE MOVIE. Or, as I argued in my first post, maybe Americans, among others, get more of a blast out of seeing real actors intermingled with the illusions of fantastic FX, while in animation, everything's pretty much on the same level. But what if the gal wanted to go to an animated movie on her first date with a guy? The first date I went to a movie (I dated late) I suggested The Relic, and we ended up watching Scream. Ugh. I did cause she was pretty and that's she wanted to do and I did it, despite having to sit through a horrible movie. I do have a point.  Perhaps to investigate the "real" appeal for animated movie, a different or more than one demographic needs to be targeted. Right now you either have kids stuff (Disney) or American anime (which is funny seeing what anime ie) that is hardcore violent or intended to appeal to males. For an animated movies, even superhero movies, to find whatever ground they may find, they can't just stay in one rut. Just like live action movies, you can tell any story you want. Animated medium shouldn't have to be reserved for just one subject matter. It's not like porn, where there is one aspect that people watch it for. There's anime of all kinds, in subject matter or type of story told without any prejudice. What is that makes anime successful in Japan as a movie period that American animation can't duplicate? Why is it we look at it differently and they don't seem to? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2014 18:24:58 GMT -5
There was also a time when America decided that superheroes were for children too. What changed that? People reading and investigating the material instead of allowing a stereotype to endure through ignorance. As with most stereotypes or prejudice ignorance is the culprit and education the eyeopener. I doubt they're reading the material. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2014 21:52:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2014 22:03:07 GMT -5
I was wondering if Big Hero 6 was an adaptation. The preview was amusing, but didn't really tell anything about it.
|
|
Perhaps to investigate the "real" appeal for animated movie, a different or more than one demographic needs to be targeted. Right now you either have kids stuff (Disney) or American anime (which is funny seeing what anime ie) that is hardcore violent or intended to appeal to males. For an animated movies, even superhero movies, to find whatever ground they may find, they can't just stay in one rut. Just like live action movies, you can tell any story you want. Animated medium shouldn't have to be reserved for just one subject matter. It's not like porn, where there is one aspect that people watch it for. There's anime of all kinds, in subject matter or type of story told without any prejudice. What is that makes anime successful in Japan as a movie period that American animation can't duplicate? Why is it we look at it differently and they don't seem to?
