ICE AGE 2 and all the other CGI crap coming out

When has this ever been different, bar the classic Disney years? People have been putting crap animated movies out for aeons, the only difference is that now they're CGI.

Exactly.

The likes of Chicken Little and Ice Age 2 are no better or worse than the likes of Basil The Great Mouse Detective or even Dumbo.

The problem isn't with the films, it's that you're no longer the target audience.

It's still nothing new. Hollywood puts out dire shit every week and it gets swallowed up, the only difference is here the movies are made in-computer.

Statements like that aren't helping your cause, though.

Buddy, the only think we ain't drowning in is Captain Kangaroo snuff films. It's that kind of market.

I completely Agree. If a children's film entertains you as an adult, as "The Incredibles" proved is quite possible, fantastic. This, however, is not it's goal. It's goal is to be a movie that children find entertaining, as that tends to be as subjective as it is for adults. I have a 3 year old, who has no interest in any traditional 2-D animation, regardless of the Timeless Disney Classic" moniker. He also didn't like "Wallace and Grommit", and prefers "Monsters Inc." to "The Incredibles". Worst of all, he can stomach the abysmal "Thomas and the Magic Railroad". He's their audience, and they are coming up with more hits than misses for him.

It's coming up to Summer, and you went to see a kids animated movie. Is it any wonder you saw more trailers for animated kids movies?

And, yeah, there did used to be more than 2 or 3 animated movies per year. Most of them sank without a trace. As will most of these.

The only thing that has changed is your perspective.

Kids get restless in movies regardless of quality. I know we like to imagine their first cinema experience will be a rapturous epiphany of timeless entertainment, but it just doesn't happen like that.

I took my kid to see Chicken Little, and he was bored for the talking bits and enthralled whenever the action picked up. I was probably the same when I went to see The Jungle Book at his age.

The notion of trying to "instil" a notion of quality in a child is pointless. Let them learn to enjoy simply "going to the movies", have fun with the experience for what it is. Then when something good comes along, they'll be more receptive to it.

I would argue that Pixar sets out to make entertaining films, period. I don't think they aim at kids and then thank their lucky stars adults like their films.

The Wild will not be screened for critics.

From a Cartoon Brew blog:
http://www.cartoonbrew.com/

This is far from restricted to just CGI kids movies though. You could say the same about every movie genre out there.

But that's just it - there is no "glut" or "explosion". This isn't like when Hollywood went nuts for meteor movies, or volcano movies, or even superhero movies. So there's maybe ten animated kids movies coming out this year, and most of them look generic. The same can be said of pretty much every year for the past two decades. Maybe there are a few more this year than normal, probably due to the lower cost of CG processing, but it's far from an epidemic.

I still don't see what can be said other than "business as usual".

Speaking of which, working at its most direct competition, sometimes I wonder if Disney's marketing depts. target its animated movies -most especifically Pixar's masterworks- as much as we do. Seriously, guys, sometimes it's insane classifying every bit of advertising material, trailer and/or TV spot according to absolutely restrictive standards of gender, group of age, race, religion, sexual preferences or limbs lost after falling into a meat grinder. Really.

My pick is that this is exactly why some of these flicks will stand the test of time and others will keep on employing flavor of the week artists for its dubbing.

Actually, there is an explosion of CG animation coming out. We are just now reaching the post-Shrek era of CG films. Animated films take a long time, even low budget ones. The huge amount of CG films is due to there being lots and lots of capital thrown at startup animation houses and within the studios after the huge success of Shrek (the first non Pixar, middle range budget CG film to hit big). The Hollywood machine being unable to actually understand that STORY sells, mistook CG as being the reason the films did well.

Now we are going to be swamped for the next 2 years by all of the films that were funded by every studio desperate to get any kind of CG film out there. When enough of these cash in attempts turn up in the red, it will still take a couple years for the momentum to wear off.

I, for one, am delighted that there were 2 stop-motion films in the Oscars this year. It is a technique that has always proven fascinating to people and still retains some tangibility and mystique. If anything, the glut of CG monstrosities of late will make the few well crafted animated films really stand out. I think stop-motion in particular is poised to really gain more interest as it is something truly different than the now run-of-the-mill farting CG animals.

What Judas is noticing, I think, is a glut of animated kids' films being marketed to him. Years ago kids' movies were marketed to just the kids. Now, especially since Shrek, the studios make CGI flicks that try to pull in both kids and adults. This is why you see more commercials at night featuring footage of celebrity voice talent in the studio (what 6 year old cares that Zach Braff is "in" Chicken Little?). As a result, we're much more aware of every cartoon (good or bad) being released.

Yeah, but it's not a new thing at all, which is what we're trying to explain. It's another step of history repeating itself, from film itself, to sound, to stop motion, to 3-D, to CGI in films, to CGI cel animation, to CGI animation itself. It's nothing new at all.

Ironically, my two favorite animated films when I was a kid.

This guy's statement that we are experiencing a glut (good, bad, aimed at children/adults or otherwise) is completley valid. You guys who are saying "Its the same as it was with 2d animation" are wrong. Please show me a year in the 80's in which there were this many animated features being released.

His perspective may have changed but he's not wrong.

It pains me to hear that there are 14 animated kiddie films compared to only one animated adult film. (A Scanner Darkly) Yeesh.

At the risk of sounding jaded - what does it really matter? If there's a film you don't wanna see you don't have to see it. At worst you may have to sit through a trailer or tv spot. OH NOES!

Regardless of whether the abundance is new or not, I don't get why people are up in arms over it. Either see them or don't. Seems to be a lot easier then complaining about it.

But that's just me.

Why the 80s? Is there some unknown reason why that decade has more relevance? Look at the 90s, when not only were Disney throwing out film after film after film, but also you had the DreamWorks animation division, as well as Fox and WB, putting up films like ANASTASIA and PRINCE OF EGYPT up against HERCULES and TARZAN.

Fine then, pick any year from the beginning of film history in which there were more animated films released than there will be this year, and list said films.

If you can, I will concede to your argument (and I'm paraphrasing here) that 'it has always been this way'.

I understand if you've got better things to do, but my point is don't discredit someone's statement if you can't back it up with facts.

2004 - 14 were released. (Clifford's Really Big Movie, Ghost in the Shell 2, Home on the Range, Polar Express, Shark Tale, Shrek 2, Spongebob, Teacher's Pet, The Incredibles, Tokyo Godfathers, Yu-Gi-Oh, Kaena, Gundam F91)

2002 - 17 (Beauty & the Beast IMAX, Esight Crazy Nights, Escaflowne, Hey Arnold, Ice Age, VeggieTales Movie, Lilo & Stitch, Lion King IMAX, Metropolis, Peter Pan 2, Pokemon 4Ever, Spirit, Spirited Away, Powerpuff Girls Movie, Wild Thornbrries, Treasure Planet)

And at least 7 were released every year since 2000.

There a lot more years to research and I don't have time for that, but there you go. Both 2004 and 2002 trump 2006.

The reason we're seeing more CG-animated movies is because it's faster and cheaper to do than traditional animation--at least, the kind of animation that sells to studios. Any production studio with 10 million to put into a production can come up with something like Hoodwinked and revel in the profits. It's the same reason why we've started seeing green screen and CGI special effects in normal dramas and comedies--the tool has become cheap enough for everyone to use.

JG, you're right, but the real argument here is that they made just as many 2-D animated features back in the day as they now make CG. I didn't qualify this in my "challenge", so my bad. But that was what was implied and that is what I'm refuting.

Exactly.

Not exactly true. Whether "adult" or not, there are several non-kiddie animated flicks due this year:

The younger Miyazaki's Tales from Earthsea (Gedo Senki)
Has to be quality

Yoshiaki Kawajiri's (Vampire Hunter D: Bloodlust) Highlander: Vengeance
Looks like great action at least

The French sci-fi flick Renaissance
Looks like Scanner Darkly

Rob Zombie's The Haunted World of El Superbeasto
Looks appropriately twisted

Robotech: The Shadow Chronicles
Eh, looks a little ho-hum.

Dude...Dumbo? As in, Dumbo, one of the greatest animated movies ever made? (And David Mamet agrees with me. No, seriously.)

Really, I can't believe some of the statements being casually tossed out in this thread. There were "just as many" animated movies in the old days? What? Since the 70s, other than Disney, what else was there? Bakshi? The guy has like 10 films to his name, tops. The rest were all tiny little below-the-radar Nelvana-produced pieces of crap, and no WAY we got more than 4 or five of them in the busiest of years. Unless you're counting TV and direct-to-video movies, in which case it's still pretty obvious that animated films have gained a much, much higher profile.

CGI is "faster and cheaper" than other forms of animation? Something like "Hoodwinked", sure. But if that's the amount of effort you're going to put into it, you may as well compare it to "South Park: BL&U" on the 2D front. More to the point, Pixar's movies regularly top $100 million, budget-wise, and I'm fairly certain the same is true for Dreamworks. If anything, CGI is more expensive because you have to fork out for a lot of computer equipment up front. And it ain't faster. Again, yes, you can grind out crap in ANY form of animation, but if you're going to do halfway decent animation it's just as intensive a process. Actually, the basic work of animating isn't all that different from medium to medium--the studies and keyframes remain the same, it's just a question of whether you pose it or draw it for the final step.

This isn't an argument about forms of animation.

The real argument is quantity and quality, and Hollywood has always churned out mediocre kids movies by the truckload. The use or otherwise of CGI or 2D animation is irrelevant. As a kid I guarantee you saw dozens of forgettable matinee fillers. As an adult, they're beneath your radar. Until you see the trailers in front of Ice Age 2 and suddenly go "Where did all these kids movies come from?", at which point you might as well start complaining that the charts are full of "pop crap" and how nobody wears proper hats anymore.

You can add up the number of animated movies until you're blue in the face - technology aside, this isn't some amazing new development.

Well, I never saw Dumbo as being in that bracket. It's got a fairly trite plot about believing in yourself and no real dramatic drive, with comedy animals papering over the cracks. It's got slightly more artistic flair thanks to the period it was made, but I see it as a direct ancestor of the seat-fillers being complained about here.

I'm sorry, but whats CGI ?

Pretty much.

Yeah, no duh there's always been bad animation. Was anyone here contesting that?

The argument to my understanding (and perhaps my understanding is wrong but anyway) was about the SHEER GLUT, good bad or otherwise, of CG features coming out this year and how this is a relatively new phenomena. Before the advent of CG, there was not as many animated features released in any given year. That's my thesis and I'm sticking to it.

Yeah and Dumbo fucking rules. Anyone who can't see that is dead inside.

You should really try watching it again. There are some staggeringly original sequences in that movie, not least of which is the jaw-droppingly psychedelic "Pink Elephants" sequence, which looks like it was concieved under the influence of some kind of drug so extreme it doesn't even exist anymore.

And I agree with the "Glut" theory. I'm pretty sure there are more animated films these days than in the 80s at least, and even if there aren't they're far more high-profile. Saying "There's always been crap" is a little too dismissive. I mean, surely no one can deny that animated films are making more money these days, and therefore more people are trying to get on the bandwagon?

I STILL don't understand why this is a problem. Whether it's always been this way, or it's straight outta left field, why does it matter how many animated movies get released in a year? And actually, if someone asks why, Prankster answered it - because they make MONEY. Just because you think they're crap, there are a million 3-6 year olds who will see each and every one of those movies. Someone made the point about target audience - you ain't it. Not every film ever made has to appeal to you. It's okay to dismiss some of them. Relax.

You've pretty much discribed 99.9% of all kids movies ever made. And seeing how Dumbo preceeded most of them, I'd call this criticism irrelevent.

Seriously man, you may wan't to give your chest a good solid pounding. Get that heart beating again.

Two or three movies in a genre come out and make a bundle, and everybody jumps on the bandwagon and there is a glut in that type of movie. It has been that way since silent movies, and will be that way a hundred years from now. Nothing new.

Dumbo really is one of Disney's weakest "classics". It's beloved more because of the time in which it was released than based on its own merit as a film. It's fairly mediocre.

The Great Mouse Detective deserves more love. Vincent Price as an evil cartoon rat is pure gold.

This thread has been worth the price of admission for Desslar alerting me to this fact alone...

Got me looking it up and I now have an anime to look forward to - thanks Des.

As far as the glut goes - I can see both sides of the argument but this has been on the cards since Toy Story did gangbusters around the world so many years ago.

The shitness that was the Shrek films simply cemented that.

Hollywoods a business guys - theres a "glut" of comic book films around at the moment too cause theyre selling. I don;t see anyone up in arms about thta.

Yes theres a lot of average shit CG wise out at the moment - but the fact is, the kids love it.

And Im sure many of them will grow up remembering films like Ice Age findly like I can sit down and still enjoy The Secret of NIMH on a nostalgic level.

Theyre films for kids, kids will get taken to any old shit by their parents to shut them up and many of those kids will enjoy any old shit put in front of them

There is definitely a glut of very similar CGI pictures at the moment. Madagascar, Valiant, Chicken Little, Hoodwinked, The Wild, Over the Hedge, Happy Feet, Open Season... No curveballs there.

It is significant that these pictures are CGI, because some of them are just trying to cash in on the success of similar looking films. Also there haven't been any 2D blockbusters since 2002's Lilo & Stitch.

While it is dismaying to see so many knock-offs of the mediocre Madagascar, I don't see a need to complain about Blue Sky's Ice Age 2. The first film was quite enjoyable, and the word of mouth seems fairly positive for the sequel. It is Dreamworks that is guilty of pumping out lowest common denominator dreck.

As for the contention that kids films appear to be crap to adults but are actually exactly what kids desire - I'm not buying it. Sure, kids are generally much less demanding viewers than adults. However enduring kids' favorites are usually films that are well regarded by adults as well. There are surely many more family households with a copy of Cinderella than with the Care Bears Movie.

I don't think ASTÉRIX is that well known, if at all, in the US. Hopefully I'm mistaken.

At any rate, add that to the line-up.

http://mfile.akamai.com/980/mov/quic...4352_fa1_h.mov
http://www.mont-blanc-distribution.ch/asterix/

And of course;

http://www.freejimmy.com/

"Four stoners, five vegans, three mobsters, four hunters and a million reasons to free one junkie elephant."

I have seen previews of such film but not watched it at cinema yet but it did make me chuckle