Why is it that Animation isn't taken seriously in the U.S.?

It's just a popular misconception anime fans have about Japan. Nothing more, nothing less. The entire world aims animation towards kids, like I said, because it's where the money is.

Tolkien's stuff wasn't aimed for adults either. It was pretty much aimed for anyone who enjoyed fantasy stories, which would be classified as a "family" book, I guess. No real target audience besides people who would enjoy the genre. (Though Miyazaki's name being attached to them didn't hurt. His name means a lot more than anything else to Japan, similar to how Disney's name works to the rest of the world.)

I've always wondered.. what's wrong with serious live-action shows? Animation fans seem to dismiss them in a similar way every else dismisses serious animation. I'd say just enjoy a show regardless of what medium it's in and stop holding out for serious animation. Researchers have proved live-action is just easier to invoke an emotional response out of people, which is usually what is being aimed for in serious media. Just go enjoy 24, Heroes, Prison Break, and all the other serious shows on television. Doesn't matter if they're animated or not.
 
It's not that there's anything wrong with live action, it's just that animation is capable of more in the realm of fantasy with a lower budget. Sure, you have stuff like LOTR, Star Wars, Tranformers, or Spiderman in the movies, but as far as TV shows go, you just can't afford that kind of stuff in live action. Just compare Smallville to STAS for instance.

And I'd wager to guess that alot of animation fans are also fans of fantasy stories, which is a reason why guys like Tolkien and Miyazaki get brought up when talking about serious stories.
 
There is nothing wrong with serious live-action shows. However, there's many things live-action can't do that well yet, especially on TV budgets, so its a shame there isn't much serious animation being made today outside of independent circles and Japan.
 
Not as far as I know of... if you want to make a cartoon here (and not attending an art school/university), you'll have to pay for it yourself or find some private entity who will...

-B.
 
Okay, you always bring up this, yet you have never provided any backup or solid evidence. I'm not buying this until I see some facts.

Besides, I doubt any scientist will come out and state this out loud, since it's like saying "If you find a cartoon more emotional than a live-action show, then you're abnormal."
 
Only if they do really weird things to begin with. But if we're just looking at slice of life, drama, martial arts,police shows, or any other similar concepts there's no real point. 24, Prison Break, and Lost all do just fine in live-action. As do all of the sitcoms/dramas that are so popular. Usually to be serious you need to be at least a little down-to-earth with your concept.

There's an instance where Masahiro Mori, a Japanese roboticist, found out that the more real a robot became, the more emotionally attached the people who interacted with it became. The same is also applied to various scientists who found out the more "cute" an animal is, the more emotions people will display and be empathetic with. People dislike kittens or puppies being hurt, but not nearly as many care about big, bulky animals like cows or pigs being hurt. You can apply the same to animation against live-action. Real humans naturally invoke more emotions than animation does, which is why all the best/most popular dramas are live-action and not animation.
 
But there are still some teens/adults who still play the cartoons are for kids/virgins card. And while I've read complaints toward CG Animation, I haven't seen fans of it bashed.
 
Of course, you can't expect everyone to agree on the same thing. There will always be people with their own opinions. That won't change no matter what you do. However, what can happen is there being more people who are open to animation in this day and age compared to a decade or two ago, which goes back to my experience at my college. Shows like Simpsons, South Park, Family Guy, and even Spongebob have made animation much more mainstream and acceptable in society compared to an older generation from the 70s and 80s.
 
Why isn't animation in the USA taken seriously? For one, how many animated shows and films are actually... ummm... serious? Almost all are comedies, and moments of seriousness are few and far between. I think it has more to do with genre than anything else. Look at comics, some awesome books are out there of all sorts and genres. But sadly its the superhero genre that dominates... and the industry has suffered because of it. Until more successful and serious animations are made I don't see the current trend of Ogres and Penguins stopping anytime soon.
 
When I watched Spirited Away, the use of the doppler effect in one scene was the icing that made me think that movie should get an oscar. I didn't even know it had until later, but that didn't make more adults see it. Although I've only seen it once and found it boring, but I'll see it again and maybe change my mind.

Would Grave of the Fireflies beconsidered mature? Contrary to all reviews, I think that's a dreadful movie.
Killing off everyone with sudden illness is not art.
Don't forget fish, forest creatures and small animals. But again this is just the US industry for Western audiences.
 
Now when TMNT was released back in March, pretty much most guys I know were like, "yeah, I'm gonna see that, dude!" Granted, part was nostalgia, but because the marketing painted it as a more gritty animation with some bits of humor, but angst and depth, mostly due to Raph and Leo.
 
You misunderstood me completely. I never said that the writers of 24 wanted to use robots. I was talking about budgets for television shows.

My point is that shows like Ghost in the Shell or Justice League Unlimited would never even be attempted live-action on television due to budget limitations. The most that any live-action show can hope for is on the level of what 24 does. Television networks would never agree to produce anything beyond that kind of budget so dramas are the most we can hope to see in live-action.

But I think you're wrong that no writers want to create live-action superhero or fantasy action shows. As you pointed out, we've got The Matrix series or Lord of the Rings. But none of those ideas in live-action could exist outside of a large movie budget; never on television. I'm sure that a network would jump all over a live-action Batman television series if they could have the sets and effects like Batman Begins on a 24-level budget. Or maybe a The Matrix television series on a Heroes-level budget. But they can't. So those kinds of shows never get made; instead, we get dramas about Jack Bauer or superheroes because television can afford those in live-action.



I agree with you but is it cause or effect? A lot of animated comedies get made because that's what adults in the USA are not "embarrassed" to go see. Most of them won't go see a "serious" film unless it's live-action. I'm guessing that more adults went to see Batman and Robin than went to see Mask of the Phantasm but the latter is clearly a more serious (and entertaining) movie.

For the record, I don't hate 3D animation. I like a lot of movies made that way. But it burns me that adults will glom all over Finding Nemo just because it's 3D. If that movie were made in 2D, few adults would have seen it.
 
Superhero isn't a genre, it's a concept. Within that concept, you can have multiple genres depending on the title (drama, romance, action, comedy, etc) so I'm not sure why you're upset super heroes are popular. They have just as much going for them as any other concept or genre out there.

Fair enough. Though what about Xena? Firefly? Star Trek/Gate? Those shows seem fine to me, even if they're not movie-budget like Lord of the Rings or Star Wars.
 
"Superhero isn't a genre, it's a concept. Within that concept, you can have multiple genres depending on the title (drama, romance, action, comedy, etc) so I'm not sure why you're upset super heroes are popular. They have just as much going for them as any other concept or genre out there."

Ummm... its a genre, sorry. Genre - a group of art sharing the same setting, mood, and format. Same as any film involving cowboys, gun fights, and Clint Eastwood would be considered a Western. Men in tights, super powers, saving ladies in trouble... you get the super hero genre.

Imagen if all movies in the theaters were 90% horror films... you get an idea of the kind of staleness a industry can get. No room for innovation, new ideas, or anything outside the money making box. I have nothing against the superhero genre or animated penguins. It's just I don't like eating hot dogs everyday, a nice salad would hit the spot now and then.
 
So you're saying Batman is the same as Naruto? Jonah Hex is the same as Green Lantern? X-Men is the same as Kim Possible? That's ridiculous. The concept of people fighting bad guys with powers or abilities is just that, a concept that's too general to all be lumped together with each other. An example of the different genres in superheroes is Western (Jonah Hex), Political (Ex Machina, V for Vendetta), Comedy (Plastic Man), Horror (Spawn, certain Batman stories), Pulp Fiction/Noir (The Spirit), Spy Thriller (James Bond, Birds of Prey), and Sci-Fi (Adam Strange, Buck Rogers, Green Lantern)

Sort of impossible to lump them all together in one genre. The closest you could do is say they're all action series.
 
That's oversimplifying matters to an erroneous extent. As has been said several times previously, "superheroes" is an umbrella term essentially used to describe any heroic character capable of utilizing an ability or abilities that baseline humanity can't. Underneath that umbrella term can fall nearly any genre, from sci-fi to action to horror to comedy to crime to fantasy to countless others. It is most certainly not strictly a genre unto itself.
 
I respectfully disagree with your trying to cover everything with such a large blanket term. Jonah Hex, The Spirit and James Bond (to name 3 of Galentone's examples) are not superheroes.
 
Back
Top