Why aren't more realistic and serious animated movies being made?

[AlloAllo]

Monster. Watch Monster.

If you think that that anime is for children, then there's something wrong with you.

You know, having something weird (talking toys, monsters and shit) doesn't mean that it's for children. It means that it tends to be a work of fantasy. And in animation you see basically only this kind of works because it doesn't break the willing suspention of disbelief- at least, not as much as it would do in a Live Action movie. What if the CGI is bad? What if the rubber monsters are shit? Are we seriously going to spend millions for something that will probably make the audience laugh in our face?
With Animation, however, that doesn't happen, because EVERYTHING is drawn/in CGI, so it looks more 'real', at least in that universe. It's just easier that way.
Plus, why should I do an animated movie if everything in it was normal?

"Oh, so I'm going to do a movie with realistic people and realistic landscapes. Everything must be perfectly normal."

"...Sir, why aren't we hiring real actors and using real places instead of spending years to animate what is basically Jack from accounts walking in the street outside?"

"Because SILENCE!"

 

[Hipsy_Gypsy]

If you're looking for mature Western animation then I'd check out the work of Ralph Bakshi [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Bakshi]. Though I warn you now, he's not to everyone's taste; here's a sample of the kind of work he put out with the trailers for Heavy Traffic and American Pop:

Spoiler: *Spoilered for size*

His Spicy City series is also worth checking out but that's in the sci-fi/noir/absurd genre.

Ahah! I remember watching "Heavy Traffic" and thinking, "The hell?" the whole way through it but I just kept watching it for some reason. I can't say I found myself watching "Fritz the Cat" the whole way through, mind you. It was a wee bit too crude for me. Speaking of which, didn't the OP say something about no talking animals? Fritz is certainly not for children.


x

 

[ultimateownage]

'Batman fighting the Joker'
and that is childish, how?

No, animated films are by definition just films that use a form of animation. Children's Films are by definition films for children.
I don't see what you're getting at.

Your list has fucking nothing to do with what you want, either. A film for adults doesn't need those things. Also, your title makes it sound like you believe no animated films are for adults and then your post is you disproving that and asking for more films that disprove it.
1. That defeats the entire purpose of animation. You might as well just be saying that all animations are for children unless it's CGI.
2. That is completely unnecessary.
3. Completely subjective, and talking animals don't mean they're for children. Like, at all.
4. Barely any comedies are children oriented. Ever heard of black comedies?
5. True stories? Fucking why? 'Yeah, SAW is totally a kid's movie. It isn't based on a true story.'

None of your criteria make any sense. If those kind of movies aren't animated, it's because there's no fucking point for them to be. Animation is an aesthetic choice, you don't just flip a coin to see if it's animated or live action.

 

[Hyperrhombus]

Any film from the Lupin the Third series... except the one by Studio Ghibli. They contain nudity, so it's a bit of a no-brainer whether it was intended for children or not...

 

[Queen Michael]

Monster. Watch Monster.

If you think that that anime is for children, then there's something wrong with you.

You know, having something weird (talking toys, monsters and shit) doesn't mean that it's for children. It means that it tends to be a work of fantasy. And in animation you see basically only this kind of works because it doesn't break the willing suspention of disbelief- at least, not as much as it would do in a Live Action movie. What if the CGI is bad? What if the rubber monsters are shit? Are we seriously going to spend millions for something that will probably make the audience laugh in our face?
With Animation, however, that doesn't happen, because EVERYTHING is drawn/in CGI, so it looks more 'real', at least in that universe. It's just easier that way.
Plus, why should I do an animated movie if everything in it was normal?

"Oh, so I'm going to do a movie with realistic people and realistic landscapes. Everything must be perfectly normal."

"...Sir, why aren't we hiring real actors and using real places instead of spending years to animate what is basically Jack from accounts walking in the street outside?"

"Because SILENCE!"

Okay, I admit it. That made me lol. Though he most likely would have said what I already said in my original post: Because animated realism has a unique beauty.
But what you said about suspension of disbelief was very well-put.

So what if it doesn't look or act exactly like it? Why couldn't a movie like your example work, but animated with maybe a supernatural or sci-fi twist? Would it really change the story all that much? It would still be the same story, but in a slightly different medium.

You'll call an animated movie childish if it has one sci-fi element in it? Metropolis by Osamu Tezuka is a gritty, unhappy story. But oh wait. It doesn't fit your requirements because not only is it sci-fi, but it has no swearing and disproportionate bodies.

And as far as the describing a plot bit, I can make even the most serious movie sound silly when relating a plot. It's all in the choice of words and how you look at it. That is a bad requirement.

I think you mean "a slightly different genre," not medium. I don't think sf and fantasy are inherently childish. But I do think not EVERY movie should include sf elements. I don't doubt that the movie you mention is mature, but I don't see anything wrong with a realistic look either.

Also, Monster is a series and not a movie.

 

[The Breadcrab]

I tend to think that animated movies have outlandish settings and concepts to appeal to children. Of course, that's not saying animated movies are only for kids, but producers want to grab the attention of both kids and adults. And trust me, kids have short-as-hell attention spans. They're not going to be able to sit through a movie about realistic characters and realistic settngs. that's the sad truth, and there's no denying that we were also like that as kids. Therefore a realistic animated film would limit it's audience to just adults.

However, there are some "real-animation" films that I can recall here. Renaissance, Waltz with Bashir, Persepolis, and a few others.

At the same time, I find it a little pointless to make an animated realistic film. Often the reason people make animated films is because they can't be done (or would be too hard to do) in live action. If you're going to make a realistic film, why not just do it in live-action? I'm not denying it can work sometimes, and can help the film stand out, but ultimately it seems like something that's not going to be attempted too often.

 

[Queen Michael]

'Batman fighting the Joker'
and that is childish, how?

No, animated films are by definition just films that use a form of animation. Children's Films are by definition films for children.
I don't see what you're getting at.

Your list has fucking nothing to do with what you want, either. A film for adults doesn't need those things. Also, your title makes it sound like you believe no animated films are for adults and then your post is you disproving that and asking for more films that disprove it.
1. That defeats the entire purpose of animation. You might as well just be saying that all animations are for children unless it's CGI.
2. That is completely unnecessary.
3. Completely subjective, and talking animals don't mean they're for children. Like, at all.
4. Barely any comedies are children oriented. Ever heard of black comedies?
5. True stories? Fucking why? 'Yeah, SAW is totally a kid's movie. It isn't based on a true story.'

None of your criteria make any sense. If those kind of movies aren't animated, it's because there's no fucking point for them to be. Animation is an aesthetic choice, you don't just flip a coin to see if it's animated or live action.

"Well, the rules aren't really for judging mature content, though I guess it seems that way." That was part of my original post, didn't you read it?

"'Batman fighting the Joker'
and that is childish, how?" It's not, neccesarily; it seems that way, though, because most superhero cartoons are made for (and watched mostly by) kids.

 

[Jonny49]

BAD animated movies are just for kids. And even then I wouldn't let a kid watch a bad animated movie.

 

[JustOrdinary]

It's not really for judging mature content, though I guess it seems that way. It's for judging whether the movie resembles movies like Three Colors: Red and Match Point. You know, the kind of movies that it seems are only made live-action.

Then why would you bother creating a list at all if even you realize how utterly worthless its merits are? And then demand that people post an example of a movie that still restricts itself to them?

Hell, instead of arbitrarily copying from your own post in an attempt to be condescending, perhaps you could formulate new words and sentences to explain what is it you're trying to obtain from such a pointless discussion?

You're already aware that animations are made to convey a narrative in a unique, stylistic manner. Various people in this thread have already stated different instances of Japanese animation where the subject matter is inherently adult-themed in nature, e.g Paprika. Movies made in real-time have also taken stylistic approaches to telling stories e.g Schindler's List and Sin City, both which relied on certain 'viewing filters' for the visuals. Those movies could have just as easily been shown in 'realistic' colors, but they weren't.

The real question here is, so what if they can be? Does that honestly make them better movies for it?

Who framed Roger Rabbit is a movie made in real-time interspersed with cartoonish visuals. It's meant for adults because the central theme deals with adult content - namely, murder. There is plenty of childish humor to be found, but the movie was released at a time when adults watched cartoons as much as kids did i.e the looney tunes era. Which is why a character like Jessica Rabbit exists. Her sexual advances simply wouldn't fly in a kids flick these days.


Your concept of what makes an 'adult movie' is inherently flawed. And no, I'm not using your criteria to judge this, I'm using basic deduction. Do us both a favor and avoid quoting yourself if you plan on replying to this post.

 

[the.gill123]

The Drawn Together Movie: The Movie, was definatly a kids film, but an adult film that I'm looking forward to is A.D., the trailer looks good, and it's an animated zombie film, so not for kids, also Resident Evil Degeneration wasn't a kids film.

 

[Hipsy_Gypsy]

None of your criteria make any sense. If those kind of movies aren't animated, it's because there's no fucking point for them to be. Animation is an aesthetic choice, you don't just flip a coin to see if it's animated or live action.

Exactly. In fact, a lot of the time animation is used instead of live action because, well, to say the least, CGI would just make it look tacky for one instance. This way there are plenty more possibilities.


x

 

[hawkeye52]

There was the older film called "A wind called amnesia" that was pretty good if poorly dubbed and has a lack of translations.

There are also the films or mini series called bus gamer and angel sanctuary. (note of caution on that last one its a bit weird and not for those who are easily disgusted)

 

[Royta]

Perhaps Paprika? It's a bit of a mind-fuck here and there, but pretty good overal. And the style is really neat.

 

[CMDDarkblade]

Ya'll people in a troll thread and you took the bait.

 

[Redingold]

I find your requirement for realism to be unfair. Live-action adult movies don't have to be realistic, so why should animated adult movies?

 

[Bluntman1138]

"Individual science fiction stories may seem as trivial as ever to the blinder critics and philosophers of today - but the core of science fiction, its essence has become crucial to our salvation if we are to be saved at all. " -Isaac Asimov



1. I am sorry, but to exclude Sci-Fi and Fantasy animated movies is asinine, IMO. Most of the MOST successful movies of all time have been Sci-Fi and Fantasy. Most of the most successful literature in all history as been Fantasy or Sci-fi.

2. Many great films dont include swearing, even in the modern age. And considering "swear words" are subjective, your point is moot. (Many people think Hell and saying Jesus Christ is a "swear word")

3. There are a lot of animated movies that doesnt sound like a kids movie when just describing the plot. Think about it, if the Lion King was made of people, would the plot still be a "children's movie"

4.Plenty of non-comedy animated movies. Of course, a majority of them are in the Sci-Fi/Fantasy genre. Who wants to watch an animated version of Pride and Predjudice?

5. True story? Then that rules out almost all animation(And a majority of Films and Literature) . You put these in your list that defy your own "true story" rule. Prince of Egypt (Bible Based, only "true to a minority of the worlds population) American Pop, a GREAT movie, but couldnt be a true story, realisticly.

And when you exclude all these points, Your "IMPORTANT NOTE: Take into account the Futurama Movies: Sci-Fi, Comedy, Swearing,Realistic proportion, and since it takes place 1000 years in the future it could possibly be true. Yet these movies COULD NOT be done as live action, even if it was free to produce.

You exclude about 99 percent of animated movies with your list. And that is unrealistic. Considering that following your list, some of the best movies and literature ever made wouldnt count, but could also equally be acceptable for children.

 

[gandhi the peacemake]

Just because you are ignorant of something, doesn't mean something doesn't exists. Sorry if i sound a little offensive, but the way the OP is redacted pissed me off a little.

Also, it's not the only one, not by a long. Sorry to see that you still have a long way in animation.

A thousand times this. These "criteria" are less the rules of an adult-oriented movie and more your preconceived notions of an adult-oriented movie. If anything, you're only reinforcing the perceived divide between animation and live-action films.

...to say nothing of the fact that live-action film itself is nothing more than animation.

 

[Manji187]

Jin-Roh: The Wolf Brigade ....if you can see past the alternate timeline issue.

 

[anonymity88]

Would't show Ghost in the Shell to a 5 year-old.

 

[Luxatrum]

Troll thread or not this movie needs to be seen by more people:

The Secret of Kells

It doesn't fit your first rule (which is ridicules, if I was animating something that was artsy like SoK I wouldn't want all the people looking super realistic because animation style can go a long way in setting a mood.) but it is a very very good animated movie. And it's not for kids. My little brother tried watching it with me and my dad but was confused to the point of leaving to do something else. I guess your fifth rule doesn't work here either, but it's based off mythology in Ireland (I think) with vikings being the big bads destroying things and raiding. Also spirits are involved. Kinda. just watch it you'll enjoy it if you're looking for something more artsy to broaden your palette.