Guardian: animated movies are failing their audience

Someone tell me why animated movies can't be longer or why kids can't sit through longer movies? Pixar movies are really aimed at a broad demographic. They are not LCD badness Madagascar.

I went to a screening of Iron Man last night in Burbank, CA. This is a 2 hour plus movie. A ton of kids and families were present. And as soon as the movie came on everyone shut up. People weren't rowdy, they laughed at the right times, etc.

So basically, poop on the idea that kids can't sit through something longer. If the movie is good and keeps their attention, usually they will shut up.

Believe it or not, in this crazy world today some kids DO have good attention spans. I saw The Incredibles in theatres several times, and I never saw this twitching the ignorant writer is talking about.

Kids don't have to understand everything about a movie in order to enjoy it either.

Ultimately this writer seems to believe that animation is a genre that should be about catering to the kids.

Animation is an ART FORM, not a genre. Adult and more mature animation pre-dates the Simpsons in parts other than the US.
 
Actually, I didn't get the impression that he thinks that cartoons are all for kids - if anything, he seems to think that kids' films are all cartoons :confused:
 
I'm sure that some writers are aware of the younger audience being able to understand a long more complex movie, but choose to keep it short so they don't have to put effort into the product. Longer movie means more money and effort.
 
To be honest. I think they are trying to counter "writing wit". Have you seen Bunny World on Disney Channel? I came across it and it only took 4 seconds before I wanted to retch.

Think about what a six year old really pulls from a movie. I think it's really limited to sight gags. Now imagine as a parent, you're an adult that accompanies the child and has the money, sitting through two hours of sight gags for six year olds. You'll wait for the video so you don't have to watch.

The story is for the parents, the silyiness is for the kids.
 
Plus it limits how many times a movie can be shown per day during a theatrical run. This has become more important as the theatrical window has shrunk and (since about the '50s) ticket sales are split between the studios and theatres. If a movie doesn't break even, close close to breaking even or show some profit during its first week... it does not bode well. But being able to schedule more showings a day helps.



And I think the adult is more sought after now. Theatre prices and snacks are expensive- as are gas prices, and the DVD (particularly the way they come out sooner and sooner) looks like an increasingly better bargain- whether via a DVD purchase, part of a Blockbuster run or a Netflix delivery (no gas here!). So in go the celeb voices, the 3D and Imax... all aimed to getting you into the theatre.
 
Because it's too much CGI junk and not enough plot. Simpsons stayed 2D and was pretty good. It kept to the main plot enough, but had some side-jokes in the process. TMNT was also good, but could've been better if they had explained Winters better. The characters thought he was a guy bent on world domination, but realized later he was only doing that to end his immortality. That, and they could've had Shredder in some form or another after the credits as a preview to the sequel. Karai's hint made it pretty obvious to the older TMNT fans who she was referring to.
 
The length and running times argument is pretty bull to me when you see the biggest and most successful movies have 2 hour plus and even 3 hour running times.

The FF movies did disappointing business. TMNT was like 96 minutes and only did like $50 million.

Some people go to movies and they want a big, epic experience. Pixar keeps making longer animated films and they are not hurt at all by the length at the BO.
 
And yet the movies that do have extensive running time still manage success. I still say that the animated children's movies are short because it's an excuse to coast through putting it together, but obviously a studio would never admit that, hence they go with the "kid's have a short IQ and attention span" excuse.
 
That's me. Whether it's animated or not. They have to convince me that it's really worth the expense of a movie, even though I'm looking for a movie experience. I don't want to sit through two hours of crap, but want to see big screen visuals.
 
You can't make such a huge generalization. Maybe you can name some German or Hungarian directors or studios that you think are better than Pixar, but you can't say a whole country is superior unless you've seen everything that country has made.
 
Back
Top