Thursday, April 30, 2015

The Age Old (Idiotic) Question

Which is this:

Are there too many animated films being made now? ...

The simple, direct answer? "No."

It's like asking, "Are there too many live action movies?"

Because here's the long and short of it: Animated features come in all sizes, shapes and styles, just like live-action features do. And some of them find favor with the public, and some don't. But the number of entrees in the marketplace at any one time has nothing to do with it. The issue is, does the public like it?

If there were "too many" cartoon features being released, then the recently issued Frozen would never have made $1.2 billion, since it arrived in the middle of what some would call a "glut."

And then Big Hero 6 came out a year later, and managed to eke out $652,031,643. How did that happen? What with the crowded marketplace and all. And then Home, which didn't pick up universally sterling reviews, scooped up domestic box office receipts north of $150 million, so you can just never tell, can you?

Face it. When people want to see your movie, they go see it. Format has little to do with box office receipts.

3 comments:

brandon smith said...

First off, let me say that it is an honor to be mentioned in a blog post by you.

That said, I personally feel that you have taken a sentence out-of-context and made an incorrect assumption about my article.

I am very well-aware that the question asked here is an odd one. However, my intention wasn't to ask this question again. It was to explore why this question got asked in the first place and look at the different sides of the argument. The mid-section even takes a brief overview of the sudden spike in the number of new animation studios in relation to the question at hand.

More importantly, I make it clear by the end of the piece that I lean more towards Amid Amidi's side of the argument: you can't have too many animated films, but there needs to be more animated films that are diverse in genre and tone. Sure, the pool is getting larger, but that could be a good thing if it means a more diversified lineup of animated features on the way.

Also, beginning an article with a question just happens to be one of my new tricks as a writer for the website (for better or worse), as I've used it once before.

This is not meant to be a criticism of you in anyway (and I apologize if it comes off that way). As the writer of that particular article, I just wanted to set the record straight.

-Brandon Smith

Justin said...

Thanks for your comment Brandon. I wasn't going to read the article, but your response prompted me to checkout out what your wrote. It was a very well written article and made a lot of good points. With so many animated films in the marketplace right now each studio needs to make sure that their film stands out. They use to stand out simply by being animated, but now the movies need to differentiate themselves either through genre and theme, or through visual style, or something else that grabs the consumer's attention.

Steve Hulett said...

I meant no offense, Brandon, since it wasn't your question anyway.

I find the the question irritating because it's too easy, too lazy. The question was asked a lot a couple of years ago, propelled by the (wrong-headed) assumption that animated features were a "type" in the way "adult Westerns" or "noir mysteries" are types.

But that's always seemed wrong to me. "Watership Down," "Toy Story," "Beauty and the Beast," "Fritz the Cat," "The Thief and the Cobbler" and "Yellow Submarine" are all animated features, but beyond being animated, how much do they have in common?

Not a hell of a lot. Which is why many animated features these days make large piles of money, despite more of them crowding each other in the market place.

My take, anyway.

Site Meter