Why is the animation genre looked down on so much?

[Batman1980]

Even with Pixar and Studio Ghibli changing things, the animation genre is seen as silly and childish. I actually argue the animation movies can be just as good as live-action if handled properly, heck the Japanese have been using animation for mainstream entertainment for decades. Time to follow suit, America.

[Gaius Marius]

I agree with this completely!

My take is that it is viewed as 'childish' here in that states and that animation is for kids. It is not 'high brow' enough to be considered film by the 'elite'. I love animation. Some great movies come out of animation (Pixar and Ghilbi, as you mentioned, are excellent examples). Heck, the reason why the Best Animated Feature award was created was to keep these 'kid stuff' films away from the 'adult stuff'. It's like the kids table of film, so that these don't get to the adult table.

Japan figured out that animation can be used to create excellent movies. However, I think we have too many cultural prejuduces to make this happen in the near future. I hope this will change eventually though....

[Sponge-worthy]

Because while there are the standout exceptions that appeal to older viewers, the animation genre as a whole targets younger audiences.

[Gaius Marius]

Originally Posted by ryan69969

Because while there are the standout exceptions that appeal to older viewers, the animation genre as a whole targets younger audiences.

Overall, I agree to that. There are pleny of animated features that appeal to all ages, though (see Pixar). Maybe people are too emarrased by their inner child

It is all part of the "animation is for kids" mentality that is ingrained in our culture.

[J. J. Hunsecker]

Originally Posted by ryan69969

Because while there are the standout exceptions that appeal to older viewers, the animation genre as a whole targets younger audiences.

Animation isn't a genre, but a medium. Also, looking back on the history of Hollywood animation there were a lot of animated shorts that weren't aimed at kids. Looney Tunes and Tex Avery's MGM cartoons were originally skewed towards an older audience in the 40's (the rowdy humor of Avery's Red Hot Riding Hood appealed to men in the armed forces, for example). In the twenties, the cartoons starring Felix the Cat contained more adult humor.

It isn't really until the 50's, when older theatrical cartoons were aired on television to pacify the tots, that animation came to be thought of as a children's medium. Of course since many of these cartoons weren't aimed at young children, enlightened parents of the 70's noticed that all the ethnic humor, sexual innuendo, and slapstick violence wasn't mentally healthy for their innocent kids to view. That started the trend of censoring or editing the cartoons to make them more palatable to impressionable toddlers.

[Foggy]

Because it's still an explotasive genre, take for example G Force, it pure exsitances is to get kids to bang there heads on the table repetativly intill mummy and daddy buy it for them, it isn't there to "change cinema" it's for kids.

We have another shrek coming next year, why do you think thats being made...

[koontz1973]

Originally Posted by Foggy

Because it's still an explotasive genre, take for example G Force, it pure exsitances is to get kids to bang there heads on the table repetativly intill mummy and daddy buy it for them, it isn't there to "change cinema" it's for kids.

We have another shrek coming next year, why do you think thats being made...

Money, why would anyone make a film if it was not to make money.

As for the OP original assumption of animation being looked down on, I find this a purely American reaction. Japan has had it for years as mentioned and Europe produces magnificent animation for all ages.

Watership Down (1978) and When the Wind Blows (1986) being two examples of adult animation from the UK. Also most things that come out of Ardman Animation is for adults, but can be seen by children; just like Pixar.

Other examples;

Vuk (Hungary)
Fantastic Planet (French)
Persepolis (French/US)
Waltz with Bashir (Israel)

As for the Americans, many cartoons are made for adults, King of the Hill, Family Guy, American Dad, Simpsons and Cleveland Show (not seen it yet).

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by koontz1973

Money, why would anyone make a film if it was not to make money.

As for the OP original assumption of animation being looked down on, I find this a purely American reaction. Japan has had it for years as mentioned and Europe produces magnificent animation for all ages.

Watership Down (1978) and When the Wind Blows (1986) being two examples of adult animation from the UK. Also most things that come out of Ardman Animation is for adults, but can be seen by children; just like Pixar.

Other examples;

Vuk (Hungary)
Fantastic Planet (French)
Persepolis (French/US)
Waltz with Bashir (Israel)

As for the Americans, many cartoons are made for adults, King of the Hill, Family Guy, American Dad, Simpsons and Cleveland Show (not seen it yet).

That's why, most the animated genre is looked down upon, Sure Ardman animation and pixar a really great studio's, and do great stuff that appeals to adults and children, but if they didn't make money, do you believe they would still be around today?

I love pixar, and I really want UP to be nominated for best film of the year, so much so I'm having a bet with a friend, but if it stays nominated in just the animated section, that further proof that animation is looked down upon

[JonD7]

I wish they would make more animated films for adults.

[Gaius Marius]

Originally Posted by koontz1973

As for the Americans, many cartoons are made for adults, King of the Hill, Family Guy, American Dad, Simpsons and Cleveland Show (not seen it yet).

That is a very good point, and a curiosity in my opinion. I love Simposons, Futurama, Family Guy, and Venture Bros. Not for kids (at least young ones), most definately. Heck, there is the whole slew of Adult Swim cartoons.

So, I guess here in the States that if animation isn't for kids, then it is for adult humor Still, we haven't reached the level of Japan or Europe in terms of what animation is truly capable of.

[Travis]

I love animation and comic books (graphic novels for some) In the States entering a comic book store is almost as uncomfortable as entering an Adult store. Negative stigmas for customers of both places.

Comics and animation are great mediums, just not accepted by Americans. I'm in Taiwan now, and many adults read comics and watch Japanese animation. I'm glad I don't have to hide my Wolverine comics with the Playboys.

I don't like Japanese animation, just not my style, many I have seen are just strange Fantasy, like Akira and Paprika and all the Studio Ghibli films. My wife likes Conan The Detective, but I don't get it. I think there is nothing wrong with family animated films, like Pixar. A movie doesn't need an R rating to be good.

Maybe some movies like Fritz the Cat make people think of animation for adults as Adult Animation.

My favorite animated movie is Watership Down. It is awesome, but not for kids. I did see it as a kid, and I had nightmares about the General for weeks.

[J. J. Hunsecker]

Originally Posted by JonD7

I wish they would make more animated films for adults.

It's expensive to produce an animated feature, so no major studio is going to risk alienating a potential demographic and losing out on more ticket receipts. That's why so many of them are "family" films. Sometimes they contain a few jokes for the parents' benefit, but that's as far as the animators are allowed to go.

[pBLU-RAYs3]

As an american, and a proud one; I'm open to the idea of animated films. The "Big Man" that greenlights films probably don't have the same fine tastes as you do. Give america some time, we'r not such "greenhorns" like you think we are.

[Canada]

I just picked up Ghost in the Shell 2.0, awesome anime film, the one that got me interested in anime, Princess Mononoke cemented that interest.

[Riff Magnum]

I think animated shows/movies are becoming more accepted by the masses and have a lot to offer besides the obvious kid factor. However...................
I'm no expert, but a co-worker of mine was obsessed with Anime and he would watch a new series every week. I tried to get into them, but they all seemed so repetitive and cliche. Some little girl/boy is the best at "fill in the blank," and is kicking the crap out of all comers in his/her chosen field, whether it be drifting, cards, tennis, murder, etc.
I think there's a factory in Japan somewhere where all these shows get pumped out.

[Grand Bob]

I think part of the problem is that although most of the movie-going public embraces animated features, Hollywood looks down on them because it minimizes the roles of actors. Actors want to act, not read scripts in a recording booth; it trivializes their existence.

[KubrickFan]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

I think part of the problem is that although most of the movie-going public embraces animated features, Hollywood looks down on them because it minimizes the roles of actors. Actors want to act, not read scripts in a recording booth; it trivializes their existence.

That's odd, I've heard that many actors thought it was much harder work. Remember, their voice is all they have in that booth, so they have to channel everything of a character through their voice.
And seeing that many actors are in the most boring action-filled drab, I don't think they necessarily want to act all that much.

[J. J. Hunsecker]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

I think part of the problem is that although most of the movie-going public embraces animated features, Hollywood looks down on them because it minimizes the roles of actors. Actors want to act, not read scripts in a recording booth; it trivializes their existence.

Do you really believe that last sentence, or are you saying that's what Hollywood believes about acting in animated films? An actor who simply "reads a script" in a recording booth isn't doing their job correctly. Mel Blanc, for instance, could act -- on top of which he was versatile, too. He knew how to exaggerate properly, which is something that is missing when celebrities do voice over work. Most celebrity voices today aren't very distinctive or interesting, either.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by J. J. Hunsecker

Do you really believe that last sentence, or are you saying that's what Hollywood believes about acting in animated films? An actor who simply "reads a script" in a recording booth isn't doing their job correctly. Mel Blanc, for instance, could act -- on top of which he was versatile, too. He knew how to exaggerate properly, which is something that is missing when celebrities do voice over work. Most celebrity voices today aren't very distinctive or interesting, either.

I believe that actors would rather be seen physically acting on location in a film.

[koontz1973]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

I believe that actors would rather be seen physically acting on location in a film.

Then why do so many top actors do them. Tom Hanks during the first Toy Story was probably the best actor at the time. Robin Williams doing the Genie for Aladdin. Actors probably see animation as a great job to do between normal films.