Animated feature films

[Sean]

Okay....I have a question. In the Dirty Movie Club 1.0 thread, I read this:

Originally Posted by Tom

Any movie is allowed to be submitted. Feature length animations are also eligible.

So seriously....does this need to be specified? Do people not view animated feature films as being legitimate feature films? If not, then why? And where would the line be drawn? Would Stuart Little be considered a legitimate feature film, or would it be considered "feature length animations" since the title character was animated? Or how about Sky Captain and the World Of Tomorrow, which was primarily a digitally created film? I'm just interested in the perspective of people outside of the animation industry. Being in it myself, I can say with certainty that we view the films we make as being every bit as much a feature film as any live action project, just created using a different medium.

[Kein]

I think the same people who think animation in general is childish are the ones who do not consider them legitimate films. CG Animation seems to have become a legitimate form in the mainstream however most people think that hand drawn features are not legitimate. Princess Mononoke and Millenium Actress prove them wrong however.

[gambit]

Wow, I didn't know you were in the animation industry, Sean. I have newfound respect for you (like I ever had any! oh, snap!).

But yeah, Kein has a point. Most people think animation is just for kids here in the States (not sure about Australia or Europe or the UK). I've told people one of my favorite movies is Spirited Away, and they look at me like I have two heads.

[adam]

I think, Sean, that while most people here make no real distinction between animated films and non-animated films in terms of potential, most of us are aware that a significant proportion of people would categorize them as children's movies, and, in fact, you would find this confirmed if you did a poll of actual animated movies. They are more likely to be targeted at children. This isn't a rule, but it is a trend. Now, thanks to some brilliant work done all over the world (The Triplets of Belleville, Spirited Away, Finding Nemo, etc) there are a great deal of animated features that, while one might still say they are targeted primarily towards children, they also carry clear nods to the adults in the audience. (edit: I don't even think it's fair to say that they are targeted primarily at children, but, let's say, they still reference the traditional elements of a children's story.)

Now, for myself, there are very few (any?) live action children's movies that I get excited about. I am more likely to see a children's movie if it is animated than if it is not.

I think the general public is more likely to categorize movies based on the fact that they're animated than specific traits of the movie. I have some friends who have only seen poor-to-mediocre anime, so I find it nearly impossible to get them to watch good anime, because they've developed the response, "I don't care for anime." Content is secondary, or, rather, they think that the genre (anime) dictates elements of content (tentacle rape) that they don't like. (edit: Rereading this later, I realize this broadly applies to many things beyond animated movies; people marginally familiar with genres associate that genre with its most memorable examples. Animated movies are for kids. Comic books are about superheroes. Hip-hop music is about mysoginy and violence, etc.)

With regards to your examples, I think when movies are partially animated, but are at least partially live-action, they tend to fall into traditional categories: Stuart Little is a children's comedy or something, and Sky Captain is a retro-futuristic adventure movie. Once they become solely animated, the general public perception shifts from those types of genres to "an animated movie" (implied = probably children's), and only a certain sub-group of people realize that there's more to it than that.

I suspect Tom's qualification relates to his awareness of that "general public perception", despite the fact that he has no real personal bias, just as I would feel it necessary to warn my anime-wary friends that I'm inviting them over to watch an awesome anime movie.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

gambit, don't take this as shit talking, but no more snaps.

take care brother.

[b.miller]

Originally Posted by adam

Now, thanks to some brilliant work done all over the world (The Triplets of Belleville, Spirited Away, Finding Nemo, etc)

you forgot Open Season in that list, Adam

[Tom]

Hah!

Adam kinda hit it on the head - I was actually referring to anime when I said that, as it's still somewhat niche and not often referred to as a 'movie'. I'm also in agreement with Kein, in that CG features are part of the blanket term 'movie' now, whereas traditional cell animations aren't.

[viddy]

I know of no one, family or friends, who thinks less of animated features than live action features. Then again, I've spend the last four years of my life in film school, so many of my friends don't count....but before then, even in high school and jr high, most people preferred to watch animated features more than live action features when picking movies to watch in school.

my $0.02

[patrick]

i know personally, that when i say something like that, it is in fact me showing interest in animated features for instance... i agree that they are definately on the same level as films, i especially love the ones like spirited away, patlabor, waking life, scanner darkly and the like... very intelligent movies, that are way better as animated films than what i'd imagine the live action movies would be like (even though the linklater ones were actually animated over live action).

Anyhow, i think everyone here at dirty seems to be of the same general opinion.

[Sean]

Wow....I had no idea these perceptions existed. I mean, I always assumed that people generally look at animated films as targeting younger audiences, but I never realized that would in any way influence their perceived credibility as a legitimate film. Every film is targetted towards a certain audience these days....women with all the romantic comedies, younger men with all the big summer action flicks, families with many PG rated films like "Cheaper By the Dozen" (why did that pop into my head as an example?), etc. But they're all still full-on feature films.

The comment that surprises me most here is the one from you, Tom. "I'm also in agreement with Kein, in that CG features are part of the blanket term 'movie' now, whereas traditional cell animations aren't." That may be a perception that does exist, but I don't understand it. The creative process is exactly the same aside from the fact that one is created with a pencil while the other is created with a computer. The first feature I worked on was Lion King, a traditionally animated film, then halfway into my career I worked on Stuart Little, a live action film with animated characters, and then I just finished up on Open Season, a cg animated film. All different mediums, but each one every bit as much a "movie" as the other in my opinion.

And in fact, if you watch the special features "making of" stuff on the Open Season dvd, you'll hear some talk about how we set up the show to allow us to incorporate more of the traditional, 2D artistic principles into it than was previously possible in 3D films. It's something we're always trying to push towards because it affords us more artistic creativity whereas cg animation tends to have inherent artistic limitations to it. And incidentally, I'm one of the people they show interviews with in that section of the dvd. And if you watch the film with the Director commentary on, they talk about my role on the film a few times throughout, too. Just thought I'd throw out some shameless self-promotion there. Support a fellow dirt, people!!