As others have said, it’s just a medium for telling stories. Depending on the story they can be great, or awful.
I originally got into anime, japanese cartoons, because they were, at the time, the best visual SF being made. Since then Disney and Pixar, and others, have put out a number of enjoyable animated stories that I’ve enjoyed. Of course I also enjoyed Babe. So, some it is also I like different sorts of stories than the ones you seem to like as an adult. There’s no better here, just different tastes.
Exactly right; there´s one great thing about animation and that is that everything HAS to be created from scratch, if done correctly you end up with a unified artistic vision that it´s very rare to see in a film (I´m thinking of the Corpse Bride now, for example)
Also character animation can convey emotions and “speak” in ways an actor can´t, an actor can´t be hit by an anvil and be squashed, and can´t bend his limbs as if they were made of rubber and can´t do the Coyote´s run-of-a-cliff-stop-and-then-fall thing; there are more subtle uses of this “super acting” so to speak that add a lot to the energy of the performance. I happen to work as a character animator and I can tell you that when you simply mimick the movements and acting of a real actor the animation looks flat compared to what can be achived with a sensible use of animation technique (and without going into cartton territory necesarily). Besides, animation (specially CG) has the advantage of being refinable, an artist can shape it exactly like its meant to be, no second takes, no keeping what looks good enough, you can get a very refined performance.
Oh yes, and cartoons are fun, and that´s good enough all by itself.
Anyway, as far as animations go, there is a great level of craft and creativity that goes into the production of quality films. I see a VAST difference between something I would categorize between a cartoon and an animated feature. The former being a more cursory animated attempt to amuse the attended audience (Flintstones: Kids; The Simpsons: Adults). The latter is usually a much more involved effort, employing great artistry, skill, vision, storytelling, and hopefully a moral or two.
Now-a-days, most animated features are of the CG variety (which I feel has finally come into its own, and for good reason… thanks Pixar!). While those of the 2D, traditional cell animation still seems to be popular among the anime genre (i.e. Spirited Away). But I appreciate each medium for what it is and what it takes to achieve quality. I think it’s a shame animation has the stigma, in the general public’s eye, that it must appeal to children. They have it backwards… children are attracted to animation because they can usually relate to the illustrative visual style. However, there is no reason that one cannot make an animated feature aimed squarely for an adult audience. The trouble there is marketing. People see “cartoon” and automatically think it must be kid friendly. I say bring on the “R” rated animated features… show me a world I’ve never been to, and pull out all the stops.
My Teen years had Heavy Metal, (Parts of) The Wall, Wizards, Fritz the Cat and a few others I am of course forgetting. All R rated and very fun.
What was the last R rated Non-Anime Animated Movie? Even Cool World got cut down to PG-13.
The only one in the last 15 years I can think of was South Park the Motion Picture.
I love the movie, but I would never celebrate the animation.
Where do you get the idea that it’s just women who like animated films? I wouldn’t rely completely on myspace for your info. It’s already been pointed out that many animated films aren’t just for kids, even if they’re not on Adult Swim. A good movie is a good movie, even if it’s been made by Disney and has a happy meal as part of it’s marketing And plenty of the posters here are guys.
The appeal of cartoon movies? The climactic scene in The Iron Giant: “I go now. You stay. No following. < launches, assumes classic flying pose > Suuupermaaan!” No, I’m not crying, there’s just something in my eye…
Hell, all of The Iron Giant: the beautiful animation, the whip-smart dialogue, Harry Connick’s drop-dead cool hipster sculptor, Jennifer Aniston’s sexy mum, Vin Diesel’s best role ever…why should this be just for kids?
Since everyone seems to be jumping on the OP here, I’ll chime in as someone who doesn’t understand what the appeal is to animated movies for adults. If you have kids, sure, why not. But I don’t have any desire to watch them and people who simply can’t fathom (some of whom are in this thread) that I haven’t seen “Finding Nemo” drive me nuts. (Okay, so that’s not quite true. Upon a friend’s insistence, I started watching it, but didn’t get through the whole thing. I didn’t like it, okay?) Some of us just aren’t into that kind of stuff, just like some don’t like horror, and I sure as hell don’t get into action films. There are some film genres people like, and some they don’t. You can tell us we’re missing out all you want, but there’s a pretty good chance we’re not, because we’re not into that kind of thing, and that’s why we don’t watch them.
I guess what I was trying to say was that I don’t consider them the same type of production as say Bugs Bunny or Cinderella even. Maybe I’ll go get some coffee and try again.
That’s a bad analogy, as animation is a production technique, not a a genre. There are animated horrors, animated actions films, animated comedies - all sorts. There’s a world of difference between Finding Nemo and Grave of the Fireflies, for instance. The only thing they have in common is that neither are live action.
If that’s the part you can’t see beyond, that’s cool, but to dismiss animation as just a genre, “that kind of stuff”, approaches willful ignorance. It (to pull a recent example off the Board) would be like those people who dismiss an entire art genre because it’s abstract. It’s not looking past the superficialities of the medium to , ya know, the actual story.
I agree with all except Spirited Away. I found it very boring. I loved Mononoke, though.
I don’t think live action could ever do justice to Nightmare Before Christmas, that movie could only be animated (does stop motion count as animation?)
Another animation bonus- I can think of only one movie starring Orsen Welles, Robert Stack, Eric Idle, and Scatman Crothers, and it wasn’t live action!
Someone upthread mentioned The Iron Giant, and I think that’s an excellent example. One of my favorite movies of all time. It had absolutely everything a “real” movie would have - amazing characters, excellent story, wonderful writing - and it was able to go the extra mile because they weren’t limited by what could be accomplished with FX or by budget constraints, etc. It never would have worked as a live action movie, and to dismiss it out of hand is to miss because it’s animated is to miss out on a movie with as much emotional depth as ET.
Plus, I really like the way animators can give inanimate objects such personality. The classic Pixar Short, Luxo Jr, is a brilliant example of this. An every day, run of the mill desk lamp had more personality than my seventh grade math teacher.
That right there is the part that doesn’t make sense to me. How can someone not like a whole genre? If it’s good, it’s good. Why does it matter what it’s about?
Well, it’s like this. I generally don’t care for action films. The ones I’ve been subjected to I have found to be a total waste of time. I’m not into big explosions, action sequences, chicks with big tits, “that kind of stuff” (yeah, now I’m just trying to piss you off). So, does it makes sense to waste even more of my time watching every action film that gets released until I find one that I like? No. My time and money is more important to me than that. Same goes for animated. I haven’t seen an animated film I’ve really enjoyed since I was a kid. I don’t see why there’s anything so wrong with that. So why would I waste my Netflix rentals on them? And excuse me for using the word “genre.” It shall never happen again. I’m still not into cartoon movies.
To follow up on what other people are saying, it sure sounds like you’re saying something which doesn’t make any sense, although perhaps I’m misunderstanding you.
If you just don’t like animation (that is, non-live-action images just plain bother you and interfere with your ability to enjoy a movie), well, sucks to be you, you’re missing out. But what it sounds like you’re saying is that you view “animated movies” as a genre, much like “westerns” or “action movies” or “romantic comedies”. But they aren’t, any more than “films with special effects” or “films with 5.1 surround sound” or “films in color” or “films with subtitles” are genres. Animated movies can be in just about any genre.
It’s true that most animated movies recently have been limited to a fairly small number of genres, and if you might (I suppose) dislike ALL of those genres.
Please clarify what you mean?
Frankly, I’m sick of trying to clarify what I mean to people who are obviously really defensive about this topic. What part of “I haven’t liked any of the recent animated films that I’ve seen” don’t you understand?