Toon Zone Talkback - LA Times on Animated Features' Critical vs. Box Office Success

Lol, true dat.

I find the correlation odd though. When it comes down to it a good movie is a good movie. Critics tend to be, well, critical of things, but most people are capeable of deciding for themselves if they like something or not.

All I can figure is that mediocre movies target kids better than others. So even if the parents are dubious about the film's quality, they're gonna take their kids to see it anyway because they won't shut up about it. Also, aside from How to Train Your Dragon, a lot of the other movies they listed aren't as toyetic (why aren't there Toothless plushies? Or have I just not found them yet... >.>), so you also don't get that "cool toy... must see movie" synergy thing going on. :shrug:
 
The reasoning behind this article is flawed. Shrek 2 and 3 were highly anticipated sequels to one of the biggest animated hits of the decade. Plus story and content-wise Up has more in common with Ratatouille and Wall-E than Cars, yet it did better than all three.

Plus, Kung Fu Panda (which wasn't referenced in the article AT ALL) has much better RT and Metacritic scores than Monsters vs. Aliens (89% at RT) and yet it's the only non-Shrek Dreamworks film to crack $200 million domestically.
 
I think its because the animated movies that the critics thought were "okay" are the ones that you have to be a kid to like. Also the more "mature" animated movies such as Ratatouille and Coraline are movies that little kids are going to find boring, unfunny, scary, ect.
 
Back
Top