Why is there little to no competition this year for animated films?

1. 0

   Stevennix2001posted 5 years ago

   Apparently apart from Disney and Pixar animated films this year, all the other animated films that have come out have either under performed or outright flopped.  Granted, "Secret Life of Pets 2" did okay, but it wasn't anywhere near as successful as the first outing for that franchise.  And although "How to Train Your Dragon:  The Hidden World" wasn't that bad, the reality is it didn't get the hype or buzz something like Toy Story 4 and Frozen 2 are getting this year, so my question is why do you think this is? 
   
   I have my own thoughts and opinions on this, but I'll be reserving that for a future article, but please discuss.

   replyreport
   1. 53

      Jacqueline G Rozellposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Animated films used to follow their own formula of being simplistic in plot for children to follow, entertaining enough to keep an adult in the theater beside a child, vivid colors, a clear-cut hero(s) and an obvious villain, and the good guys always won at the end. Because all in all, animated films are sophisticated cartoons. When you take away the fun part of animation aimed at children you have lost your objective. When you start trying to address social and political issues in what is essentially children's entertainment, you're going to lose. The basic, simple lesson of friendship taught in "The Fox and the Hound" is timeless. Love, friendship, redemption, with some hardship thrown in that was heroically overcome is the formula for animated films.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Stevennix2001posted 5 years agoin reply to this

         that's an interesting take on the situation, and one I haven't considered honestly.   although the only problem is that I could argue that Disney's live action remakes this year are arguably more woke than any other animated film out  there, yet two of them made over a billion dollars each.

         replyreport
         1. 53

            Jacqueline G Rozellposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            I cut my response off too quick. A super studio such as Disney has the resources to make such movies... the money for talent to write the stories that will hold the attention of both children and adults is the key. For studios with lesser talent in the writing department anything they would do would look like riding on Disney's coattails, and if they merely do the standard fare directed at children they will be eviscerated by the activists and special groups who will claim they didn't give enough thought and attention to minority or marginalized groups. So the first thing any competing studio has to do is dig deep for talented writers whose imaginations can develop story lines that will rival Disney.and keep the activist citics from killing the movie before it's even in the theaters. It's a shame the critics won't just tear adult movies apart and leave children with a few films to just enjoy but that's life today.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               Stevennix2001posted 5 years agoin reply to this

               I agree with you mostly that Disney unfortunately has way more resources to hire the best talent money can buy when it comes to animated films, but there have been times they've been bested in the past by other studios in animated movies, so it's not entirely out of the realm of possibility.
               
               The first two "Shrek" movies for instance were instant classics upon each of their perspective releases, and could easily rival any Disney animated film to this day in terms of overall quality.  Or if you want to go back even further, Don Bluth bested Disney a few times with such classics like "All Dogs Go To Heaven", "Land Before Time", "Secret of Nimh", and "American Tale", as any one of those movies are easily better than over half of Disney's animated movie content.
               
               Heck, "Spider-Man Into the Spiderverse" is easily one of the best films ever made not just in animation or the superhero genre, but just in general because of how uniquely ambiguous it was in terms of it's overall quality and storytelling.   
               
               You may have a point about activism and things of that nature.  Although I don't agree with you that critics shouldn't analyze kids movies because that's wrong. All movies should be analyzed, and honestly I get so tired of people saying, "Well you can't criticize this movie because it's for kids."   Or something stupid like "You can't criticize this movie or else your a sexist and/or a racist."  Or my favorite, "You can't criticize this movie because so and so who worked on it died."  Oi vey.  I hate it when people make up excuses on why certain films shouldn't be critiqued by critics.
               
               However, I honestly think one of the main reasons why a lot of companies struggle to compete with Disney in the animated market is mostly because they don't know how to market or promote their product well if I'm being insanely honest.
               
               Take Warner Bros for instance.  They had a huge hit in the "Lego Movie" years ago, and since then they haven't done much with that since other than create two spin off films that both dealt with father and son relationships that was eerily similar to how the "Lego Movie" did it the first time.  Therefore, you had three movies literally set in the lego universe exploring similar themes, so it's not surprising  hardly anyone showed up for "Lego Movie 2" because people probably expected more of the same, and didn't bother to show up, which is sad because I think it's a great film that didn't retread the same themes and story points of the last three Lego movies, but oh well.  It is what is it.  Of course, it didn't help that the WB animated films like Storks and Small foot haven't been as good as they could've been, which goes to your point about WB's writing staff not being as consistent on quality as what Disney has for their animated features. 
               
               Hell, MGM, which i think is a WB division if i'm not mistaken, had Addams Family come out this year, and you barely heard any buzz on it if at all.  Seriously, you have a major ip like Addams Family and you barely hear much about it? 
               
               Sony is hit or miss mostly.
               
               Same for most animation studios.  I think Universal studios and Illumination tend to rely too much on gimmicks and memes to sell their animated films to be honest.  Like part of the reason I believe "Secret life of Pets 2" didn't do as well as they had hoped had a large part to do with the fact that marketing for the film wasn't that great.  Haven't seen the movie yet, but the trailers alone literally implied it was going to be more of the same basically, which partially why I think a lot of people didn't see the sequel.  The first one they got away with it, but not so much with the second time around. 
               
               I think Dreamworks tends to be it's own worse enemy sometimes because even though I didn't care for "How to Train Your Dragon", I did think the series got better with each sequel though, which the latest one being an instant classic in my mind.  The problem is that Dreamworks may have killed some of the buzz for it because of their insistence to have an animated TV series while still producing sequels to the franchise itself.  Doing something like that takes away the novelty of the series.  heck you don't see Disney making an animated TV show for Frozen do you?  Of course not because they know less is more.  They want to  make people miss being in that world in the film; hence giving audiences a reason to go back for the sequel.
               
               As for other studios like Aardman productions and Laika, I'd actually argue that all their films are way more better than a lot of Disney films, and arguably over a few PIxar ones as well.  The problem with studios like them is the fact that for whatever reason, people do NOT like claymation/ stop motion animation.  It's just a proven fact by this point that most people just don't respond to it, and they probably never will, which is why I'm rarely surprised to see such films like "Kubo and the Two Strings", "Wallace and Grommit Curse of the Wererabbit", and "Missing Link" flop in theaters.  And that's sad because Kubo and the Two Strings especially is arguably one of the best animated films of all time, yet people won't give it a chance because it's not CGI and it wasn't marketed that well.

               replyreport
               1. 53

                  Jacqueline G Rozellposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  You are certainly more knowledgeable about the animated film industry than me, and I bow to your expertise. Most of the films you mention I haven't watched. I will take the time for "Kubo and the Two Strings" as you have recommended it so strongly. Some of the methods used for animation are not appealing to me... as a child I never liked the clay figures of "Gumby," for instance, and I'm not a fan of Legos. I'm standing by my conviction that children's movies don't have to be as political as some are making them out to be. That's not to say they shouldn't be critiqued.

                  replyreport