Sucky 2D movies vs sucky 3D movies.

[MonkeyFunk]

At some other boards I visit, I've noticed a lot of people tie the current crop of lousy animated movies to the advent of CGI. I'm not too sure about this, though; looking through AnimatedMovieGuide.com, I've noticed plenty of pre-Toy Story suck:

In 1992 we got Aladdin... along with Cool World, Bebe's Kids and Freddie as FR07.

In 1993 we got Batman: Mask of the Phantasm... along with Tom and Jerry: The Movie and Happily Ever After (Filmation's sequel to Snow White)

In 1994 we got The Lion King... along with The Swan Princess, A Troll in Central Park and The Princess and the Goblin.

In 2004 we got The Incredibles... along with Shark Tale.

I haven't seen many of these films, and only know about them from reputation. So can anyone who's familiar with them tell me - did we really have it better off before Shark Tale?

[lupercal]

It's not the quality of the films per se that bug me about 3D. It's simply the 3D.

Loop

[lupercal]

...though now you mention it, 'Shark Tale' would have been rubbish regardless of the medium.

[Emru]

At some other boards I visit, I've noticed a lot of people tie the current crop of lousy animated movies to the advent of CGI. I'm not too sure about this, though; looking through AnimatedMovieGuide.com, I've noticed plenty of pre-Toy Story suck:

In 1992 we got Aladdin... along with Cool World, Bebe's Kids and Freddie as FR07.

I haven't seen many of these films, and only know about them from reputation. So can anyone who's familiar with them tell me - did we really have it better off before Shark Tale?

No, we didn't. (Though I though Bebe's Kids was entertaining enough, save for one segment.) The difference, in my view, is that the films being produced in that period between, oh, 1965 and 1985 were more interesting. People in Canada, the UK and the US were at least trying to expand the scope of the animated feature with films like Rock & Rule, The Plague Dogs, and American Pop. Where are the films like those now?

[MonkeyFunk]

People in Canada, the UK and the US were at least trying to expand the scope of the animated feature with films like Rock & Rule, The Plague Dogs, and American Pop. Where are the films like those now?

*thinks* hmm... well, there's Otherworld... to a certain extent Triplets of Belleville.
There's also the upcoming Last Days of Coney Island, Floating Islands, Beowulf and Sileni/Lunatics, which look promising.


They'e always been pretty few and far between. Rock and Rule, Plague Dogs and American Pop came out across two decades, after all

[Emru]

*thinks* hmm... well, there's Otherworld... to a certain extent Triplets of Belleville.
There's also the upcoming Last Days of Coney Island, Floating Islands, Beowulf and Sileni/Lunatics, which look promising.


They'e always been pretty few and far between. Rock and Rule, Plague Dogs and American Pop came out across two decades, after all

They did, indeed. But I was only choosing three off the top of my head that represented the three countries that produced much of the world's theatrical animation outside of Japan. I could add more:

The Bakshi oeuvre (Fritz the Cat, Lord of the Rings, Coonskin, Heavy Traffic, Wizards, Fire & Ice)
Heavy Metal
Watership Down
Animal Farm
Twice Upon a Time
Yellow Submarine
Shame of the Jungle
The Last Unicorn

Those are off the top of my head. The ones I could think of that came out after 1985 (Where the Wind Blows and the Robotech movie, for example) are mostly clustered in the following five years. There's still a long stretch where experimentation pretty much falls by the wayside.

[lupercal]

Yeah, I think you have a valid point. Perhaps the lack of experimentation since the early 90's is a symptom of animation's success, as that's around when the modern 'blockbuster' Disney features started coming out. I mean, it would have been unthinkable back in 1975 for two animated features to be jostling for top box-office rankings of the year. Since the early 90's animated features have become real cash-cows. Consequence is probably that the big studios can't afford not to play it safe and produce predictable stuff which is hopefully going to make hundreds of millions.

Back in the 70's, it certainly wasn't easy for Bakshi to get money for films (his own stories about cost-cutting methods attest to the shoe-string the things were made on), but at least he got someone to let him make them, and someone major to distribute them, even if they didn't do it enthusiastically. Nowadays I suspect studios look at a niche film and wonder why they should spend money on it when they could spend the same money on another family blockbuster.

Basically the difference is that twenty five or thirty years ago, in the West, just about anybody other than Disney who was in the business of making animated features was in the business of making niche animated features. Now there are several big players, all aiming for the safe, family market.

There is actually still a lot of experimentation out there, but it's probably moved so far down the food chain that most of it goes unnoticed, till someone like Don Hertzfeldt wins an Oscar, and even then, I don't think it's going to influence how big studios make movies.

Anime held out promise at first, but that's become at least as regimented as western animation now.

'A Scanner Darkly' is one blip of experimentalism on the horizon - that's if you count it as animation, which some probably wouldn't.

Loop

[Emru]

Yeah, I think you have a valid point. Perhaps the lack of experimentation since the early 90's is a symptom of animation's success, as that's around when the modern 'blockbuster' Disney features started coming out. I mean, it would have been unthinkable back in 1975 for two animated features to be jostling for top box-office rankings of the year. Since the early 90's animated features have become real cash-cows. Consequence is probably that the big studios can't afford not to play it safe and produce predictable stuff which is hopefully going to make hundreds of millions.

Exactly my thinking. Which is symptomatic of Hollywood in general, despite the fact that lower-cost movies tend to recoup their money. I suspect that if someone sat down and did the calculations, they'd find that, on average, ten $10 million films generate more revenue than one $100 million film.

Anime held out promise at first, but that's become at least as regimented as western animation now.

I would still say that anime (Japanese or Korean) holds out more promise. The sheer volume of what's released, along with more recognition for directors (compared to, say, voice actors) provides more room to experiment, which is why we get things like Mind Game and My Beautiful Girl Mari.

[Thalia-is-Crazy]

Whoa now,
if you want to get into detail,

You forgot "The Polar Express"

Movies are being pumped out in high volumes because people need to be satiated with viewing material at theatres and at home...
So quality is being drowned out to make room for more garbage.

It doesn't matter which medium you choose, it's the same way in 2D, 3D, or anything at all.

But if you want to compare the two mediums and the amount of crap being pumped out in each medium, pick a level playing field... Like, Movies released for theatre, or DTV's. Or something.