Sure, the animated movies they usually make aren't bad at all and can be pretty mature. There are tons of kids' movies that are more enjoyable for adults. Movies like Toy Story 2, Batman: Mask of the Phantasm, Spirited Away, Finding Nemo, and so on. But the thing is, these movies are about a toy getting kidnapped and needing help form his toy friends, Batman fighting the Joker, a girl who goes to a magic bath house and meets an evil witch, a kid fish who gets lost and needs to be saved by his daddy fish, and they're all about kids' film ideas that they made an adult story out of. Sure, they're great movies, but here's what bugs me: It doesn't seem like there are that many animated films that take an serious adult movie idea and make an adult, serious movie that doesn't try to be humorous out of it. Or to put it more clearly, there aren't any films like Match Point or The Shawshank Redemption among the animated films and I think that that's the reason people won't take animation seriously. It won't handle realistic seriousness, a genre that critics and watchers take seriously (though they might not like all the movies). And that's too bad, because if you were to make these movies with animation, they'd have the same great story but now they'd have beautiful animation as well. I rarely see any animated films that:
1. Are realistic in plot and look, that is, people have reasonably realistic proportions (animated realistic-looking people have a beauty all its own), and it doesn't contain supernatural or sci-fi concepts. No alternate timelines either, since that's a sci-fi genre. Of course, neither sf or fantasy are inherently childish. But live-action directors can create masterpieces without fantasy elements or sf elements. I'm just asking animation to do the same.
2. Include swearing where appropriate, (edit: this one isn't completely necessary. I realized that people never swear in old movies)
3. Don't sound like a kids' movie when you describe the plot. (So no talking animals, people!)
4. Aren't comedies. (Because if not all live-action movies are comedies, not all animated ones should have to be.)
5. It has to be theoretically possible for the movie to have been based on a true story. Or in other words, it doesn't have to have been based on a true story, but it has to be the kind of film that's so realistic that it could be passed off as based on real events.
Why aren't there all that many realistic animated psychological dramas? Or realistic animated thrillers?
PLEASE NOTE: These rules are useless at determining if a movie is good or not, or for kids or not, or mature or not. But if a movie breaks them, it's a sign that it's the kind of film that's almost always made live-action, even though it'd be just as good, if not better, with beautiful animation.
I watched Three Colors: Red a while back. Not a bad movie. I also watched Match Point a while back. Not bad. Why aren't there any animated movies like them? (And don't answer "CUZ MATCH POINT SUX!!! I'm talking about the genre and style, not the particular movie.)
Most animated films violate rules on my list. Well, the rules aren't for judging whether the movie is for kids or not, or whether it's good or not, though I guess it might seem 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. There's nothing wrong or childish with violating the rules per se, it's just that you should be able to make a film that follows my rules and still is good. If live-action films can do it, why shouldn't animation be able to do it too? Why can't fans of animations go see films like Three Colors: Red and Match Point in theaters that often? If we could, people would realize that animation isn't for kids a lot faster.
Why do I want movies that fit my list? Because I want to prove that animated movies are a look, not a genre. And it seems like thrillers and psychological dramas are very rare in animation. Some people ask why we shouldn't just make them live-action if they're going to be completely realistic anyway. My answer is that if we shoot them live-action, we'll lose the beauty of realistic animation.
These movies suit my list (please correct me if I'm wrong):
EDIT: There used to be a list here, but it got pretty pointless for a number of reasons so I removed it.
IMPORTANT NOTE: Some people are saying that the good thing about animation is that unrealistic concpts can be made much easier than in live-action movies, where it takes more money and effort to create sf-visuals, people with unrealistic proportions, and so on. But that implies that if there was a way to do all that stuff in live-action movies for free and completely effortlessly, animated movies would be pointless and they should stop making them. I think we can agree that this isn't true. After all, then we'd lose the unique beauty of animation. Surely nobody who's seen Tokyo Godfathers thinks it'd be better with sf or fantasy concepts, or without the beautiful realistic look it has?
tl;dr: It's because movies that are completely serious and completely realistic are extremely rarely animated that animation isn't taken seriously. It makes people think animated movies are limited.
(Oh, and the subject line of this thread used to be Why won't you accept that animated movies are only for kids? But people just read that one line and not my post, so I changed the subject line and the text in the beginning.)
1. Are realistic in plot and look, that is, people have reasonably realistic proportions (animated realistic-looking people have a beauty all its own), and it doesn't contain supernatural or sci-fi concepts. No alternate timelines either, since that's a sci-fi genre. Of course, neither sf or fantasy are inherently childish. But live-action directors can create masterpieces without fantasy elements or sf elements. I'm just asking animation to do the same.
2. Include swearing where appropriate, (edit: this one isn't completely necessary. I realized that people never swear in old movies)
3. Don't sound like a kids' movie when you describe the plot. (So no talking animals, people!)
4. Aren't comedies. (Because if not all live-action movies are comedies, not all animated ones should have to be.)
5. It has to be theoretically possible for the movie to have been based on a true story. Or in other words, it doesn't have to have been based on a true story, but it has to be the kind of film that's so realistic that it could be passed off as based on real events.
Why aren't there all that many realistic animated psychological dramas? Or realistic animated thrillers?
PLEASE NOTE: These rules are useless at determining if a movie is good or not, or for kids or not, or mature or not. But if a movie breaks them, it's a sign that it's the kind of film that's almost always made live-action, even though it'd be just as good, if not better, with beautiful animation.
I watched Three Colors: Red a while back. Not a bad movie. I also watched Match Point a while back. Not bad. Why aren't there any animated movies like them? (And don't answer "CUZ MATCH POINT SUX!!! I'm talking about the genre and style, not the particular movie.)
Most animated films violate rules on my list. Well, the rules aren't for judging whether the movie is for kids or not, or whether it's good or not, though I guess it might seem 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. There's nothing wrong or childish with violating the rules per se, it's just that you should be able to make a film that follows my rules and still is good. If live-action films can do it, why shouldn't animation be able to do it too? Why can't fans of animations go see films like Three Colors: Red and Match Point in theaters that often? If we could, people would realize that animation isn't for kids a lot faster.
Why do I want movies that fit my list? Because I want to prove that animated movies are a look, not a genre. And it seems like thrillers and psychological dramas are very rare in animation. Some people ask why we shouldn't just make them live-action if they're going to be completely realistic anyway. My answer is that if we shoot them live-action, we'll lose the beauty of realistic animation.
These movies suit my list (please correct me if I'm wrong):
EDIT: There used to be a list here, but it got pretty pointless for a number of reasons so I removed it.
IMPORTANT NOTE: Some people are saying that the good thing about animation is that unrealistic concpts can be made much easier than in live-action movies, where it takes more money and effort to create sf-visuals, people with unrealistic proportions, and so on. But that implies that if there was a way to do all that stuff in live-action movies for free and completely effortlessly, animated movies would be pointless and they should stop making them. I think we can agree that this isn't true. After all, then we'd lose the unique beauty of animation. Surely nobody who's seen Tokyo Godfathers thinks it'd be better with sf or fantasy concepts, or without the beautiful realistic look it has?
tl;dr: It's because movies that are completely serious and completely realistic are extremely rarely animated that animation isn't taken seriously. It makes people think animated movies are limited.
(Oh, and the subject line of this thread used to be Why won't you accept that animated movies are only for kids? But people just read that one line and not my post, so I changed the subject line and the text in the beginning.)
