Why aren't more realistic and serious animated movies being made?

[Queen Michael]

My question is why would you want realistic, animated films Actual actors are always going to trump you, and you'd be missing out on one of the greatest advantages of animation; the ability to do anything. It's something games can do as well, only that aspect of this medium is ignored in favour of "realism".

Because animated people are so much more beautiful to look at than real people.

You really need to work on your knowledge of animation. Do you know how bloody expensive it would be to make realistically proportioned human characters who walk and talk fluidly in animation? Look at a low budget live action film. For a shoestring budget, you can still make a film that looks completely realistic without trying.

With animation, it is a bigger issue. That same film above, only animated this time, would cost millions of dollars more that the live action version. This is one of the major reasons you see high quality animation go into the Science fiction or supernatural aspects: if they have such a big budget, they should spend it for gods sakes.

Another thing you said in an earlier post was how animation was limiting itself. From what? Because animation doesn't always reflect real life it is severely limiting itself? Real life is boring, and once you cut out the plausible, you're left with everything else. That doesn't seem very limited, it seems like it is ignoring one form of filmmaking and embracing every other.

And for gods sakes, I'll say it again, change your goddamn title. I don't care if you continue to change your statement in the first paragraph. What you've done is a bait and switch: you use an intentionally inflammatory title to attract attention, then you do a 180 degree shift of focus as soon as you start talking. That is misleading, gives people the wrong impression, and makes you look like an ass. Make your title reflect what you are actually talking about, because what you wrote has barely any connection to your complaints.

Here is a title that would work better: "Why aren't there more realistic animated films?"
That is what you are asking, that is what people would respond to. But no, a title like that wouldn't rile people up and make them post angry response to you would it?

First of all, yeah, I guess I'll have to change the title. Way too few people actually read the post they're replying to.

Second of all, I know realistically animated people would be expensive. But if it's a question of quality, there'd be good reason to invest that money. And yeah, if you've got a budgte you should spend it, but not necessarily on sf and fantasy stuff. They're nice, sure, but there is other stuff that's nice too.

"Real life is boring, and once you cut out the plausible, you're left with everything else. That doesn't seem very limited, it seems like it is ignoring one form of filmmaking and embracing every other." Um, no. Real life isn't boring at all. Match Point. Three colors: Red. Waltz with Bashir. All of them both realistic and interesting.

Well, you are complaining about how limited animation is if it sticks to science fiction and fantasy, whereas I and many others see that as a limitless realm of opportunity. Again you're being overly selective and it is limiting your views.

Look, I'm not saying that sf or fantasy are bad. I'm just saying that if there's just one genre that animation doesn't touch thn that's a genre that could have produced great movies too. You said that animation "is ignoring one form of filmmaking and embracing every other." Why not embrace ALL genres?

 

[Soviet Heavy]

My question is why would you want realistic, animated films Actual actors are always going to trump you, and you'd be missing out on one of the greatest advantages of animation; the ability to do anything. It's something games can do as well, only that aspect of this medium is ignored in favour of "realism".

Because animated people are so much more beautiful to look at than real people.

You really need to work on your knowledge of animation. Do you know how bloody expensive it would be to make realistically proportioned human characters who walk and talk fluidly in animation? Look at a low budget live action film. For a shoestring budget, you can still make a film that looks completely realistic without trying.

With animation, it is a bigger issue. That same film above, only animated this time, would cost millions of dollars more that the live action version. This is one of the major reasons you see high quality animation go into the Science fiction or supernatural aspects: if they have such a big budget, they should spend it for gods sakes.

Another thing you said in an earlier post was how animation was limiting itself. From what? Because animation doesn't always reflect real life it is severely limiting itself? Real life is boring, and once you cut out the plausible, you're left with everything else. That doesn't seem very limited, it seems like it is ignoring one form of filmmaking and embracing every other.

And for gods sakes, I'll say it again, change your goddamn title. I don't care if you continue to change your statement in the first paragraph. What you've done is a bait and switch: you use an intentionally inflammatory title to attract attention, then you do a 180 degree shift of focus as soon as you start talking. That is misleading, gives people the wrong impression, and makes you look like an ass. Make your title reflect what you are actually talking about, because what you wrote has barely any connection to your complaints.

Here is a title that would work better: "Why aren't there more realistic animated films?"
That is what you are asking, that is what people would respond to. But no, a title like that wouldn't rile people up and make them post angry response to you would it?

First of all, yeah, I guess I'll have to change the title. Way too few people actually read the post they're replying to.

Second of all, I know realistically animated people would be expensive. But if it's a question of quality, there'd be good reason to invest that money. And yeah, if you've got a budgte you should spend it, but not necessarily on sf and fantasy stuff. They're nice, sure, but there is other stuff that's nice too.

"Real life is boring, and once you cut out the plausible, you're left with everything else. That doesn't seem very limited, it seems like it is ignoring one form of filmmaking and embracing every other." Um, no. Real life isn't boring at all. Match Point. Three colors: Red. Waltz with Bashir. All of them both realistic and interesting.

Well, you are complaining about how limited animation is if it sticks to science fiction and fantasy, whereas I and many others see that as a limitless realm of opportunity. Again you're being overly selective and it is limiting your views.

Look, I'm not saying that sf or fantasy are bad. I'm just saying that if there's just one genre that animation doesn't touch thn that's a genre that could have produced great movies too. You said that animation "is ignoring one form of filmmaking and embracing every other." Why not embrace ALL genres?

Well, I don't think they are actively trying to avoid it. It just hasn't occurred to most animators to do it the way you want. That being said there are tons of shows and films from both japan and the states that do focus on realistic interactions between characters. The only problem is that their art style seems to put you off. No single art style is going to be synonymous with an entire genre, so why don't you drop the visual aspect and focus on the content?

There is a certain appeal to realistic animation, but to focus solely on that is a rather narrow perspective. Like I said, there are plenty of shows that could fit your criteria, only to be disregarded because they don't fit the visual aspect. And that I find very ignorant.

 

[HassEsser]

i think i remember watching Princess Mononoke when i was a kid
i vaugely remember some sort of disease that makes people all black and white like your on the wrong channel on TV
i remember fights, and i remember somebody severing a head and putting it in a box

i also remember the nightmares for weeks afterwards
never went back to that movie after that, dont even remember what it was about

That is NOT Princess Mononoke; and I have no idea what it was you were watching.

Yes it was. The prince was infected with a disease that made black spots appear on his arms, and the head of the forest god or whatever the hell it was got cut off and put in a box.

Well, they were red spots, not black, but I guess if you worded it as horribly as that, then yea, that's Princess Mononoke.

 

[Winterfel]

Well what would be the point of animating something as realistic as possible when you could animate ANYTHING. Seriously, I thought the whole point of animating something was to give it a graphical style you just couldn't do without it. What's the point of making it look life like when you can just use the real deal and bypass the whole uncanny bit? Not to mention the money it would cost..

 

[kannibus]

I recall watching the City Hunter movie waaaaay back in the 90s... that wasn't too bad, in fact it was damn good!

Uh, I suppose that Heavy Metal also works. (Boobies!)

 

[Kiwilove]

I'd like a list of the kind of serious, non sci fi/ fantasy live action films that you're thinking of. It would help to know your tastes before replying. How long do replies have to be to avoid a low content warning, by the way?

 

[let's rock]

1. Are realistic in plot and look, that is, people have reasonably realistic proportions (animated realistic-looking people have a beauty all its own), and it doesn't contain supernatural or sci-fi concepts. No alternate timelines either, since that's a sci-fi genre. Of course, neither sf or fantasy are inherently childish. But live-action directors can create masterpieces without fantasy elements or sf elements. I'm just asking animation to do the same.

2. Include swearing where appropriate, (edit: this one isn't completely necessary. I realized that people never swear in old movies)

3. Don't sound like a kids' movie when you describe the plot. (So no talking animals, people!)

4. Aren't comedies. (Because if not all live-action movies are comedies, not all animated ones should have to be.)

5. It has to be theoretically possible for the movie to have been based on a true story. Or in other words, it doesn't have to have been based on a true story, but it has to be the kind of film that's so realistic that it could be passed off as based on real events.

The Secret of NIMH was about talking rats and all, assuming that the one point of where rats are experimented of in a lab and made hyperintelegent could happen then it's reasistic and could theoritacly happen. It's about a mouse lady whose son is dying of a terrable illness and can't be moved, her house is in the farmers field and she has to move it before the farmer brings his plow through and it kills him brutaly, fairley serious plot. It has one swear, and it does take on a very serious tone. A little comic relief here and there, but otherwise a pretty serious movie (for all I remember haven't seen it in years can hardley remember it). Also the experimenting on rats was based on real testing at the National Institute of Mental Health, meating requirment 5. So it doesn't meat your requirment for no talking animals as said in requirment 3, but it doesn't sound like a kids movie with it eigther.

 

[AlbinoHero]

I like your argument. There are not enough serious animated films out there for adults and it would be nice to see more (especially western films) made.

Now I know that there are a few beautiful examples of films that fit your criteria, but there are reasons why there are so few:

1-A major studio will always make the film they believe will bring it home in the box office. Historically speaking, very few non-PG or G animated films make money. Lets face it, what you are calling for will only fill a tiny niche audience that doesn't have the numbers to be significant for large studios. Though this group is big enough for the indy film scene I'm keeping my argument in the big studio territory.

2-Feature length animated films average between 2 to 4 years to make with massive teams of animators behind them, unlike their live action counterparts that can go from green light to theaters in under 9 months and can be done with less than a hundred people working on it.

My argument against this is not due to the fact that these films couldn't be amazing, even groundbreaking, but that from a business standpoint, they would be a complete waste of money.

I really wish the same as you when it comes to a more serious approach to animated film. I just don't see anything coming of it without a loss of money on the part of the studio or loss of quality on the film due to a tight budget (which isn't an excuse, just a reason). I think this is going to be an issue that can only be resolved via the internet. Heck, some of these films that fit your criteria I've never heard of and am now searching for to check them out. If we could make a solid effort to raise awareness for these films as well as build up a fan base that will support such works only then would we be able to see more of them be made.

 

[JonnyQuickShot]

I don't know if anyone else has already said this, but there was Heavy Metal. That is one of my favorite movies.

 

[Mr.Tophat]

If your looking for a completley realistic and completely plausible animated film look up BECK. Is an anime, true, but it fits all your criteria.

 

[Kermi]

I never SAID these criteria determine whether it's for kids or not. I said that movies that violate them seems to be made live-action 99% of the time for some reason. The only problem here is that you didn't read the post before you replied to it.

Since you added that after I replied, no, I didn't read that part, but thank you for your interest. In the post I replied to, you discounted sci-fi and comedy without justification.

And you still haven't justified this. Your original discussion was whether there are animated films that should be considered suitable for adults only rather than for kids, "realistic" animation that could be done just as well as a live action film.

The issue here is that realistic is subjective. You don't seem to think futuristic is realistic, and have spent this thread discounting anything with advanced technology or set in the future because it's "sci-fi".

My favourite sci-fi novel is cryptonomicon. It's mainly about computers and codebreaking. However it's set in the present day (and the past) with era-appropriate technology. But it's still science fiction.

Edit: I just noticed this thread has been updated again. Why aren't there more realistic and serious animated films? Eh, because the majority of people see animation as something for kids. Sure, there's a bunch of animated series that are pushing back this boundary but that's more by maknig the shows inappropriate for kids rather than just "not suitable" - I mean shows like South Park, Family Guy, Archer, even Aqua Teen Hunger Force. Obviously being comedies they don't fall under the heading of serious.

For some reason Japan has been doing the serious animated this for longer so there's a lot more examples to refer to. Stuff that's not only inappropriate for children (e.g.: hentai, graphic violence) but stuff that children are unlikely to appreciate as much as adults (plenty of examples have been supplied, but Grave of the Fireflies is the standout example here, Perfect Blue being another).

What I don't get is why something can't be considered serious just because it's not 100% realistic, thematically. Is Ninja Scroll 100% realistic? No - but there's some pretty grim shit in there.

You have connected realistic and serious together, which I think is unreasonable. People don't usually want realistic from their entertainment.