CGI Animated Films for Teens and Adults

[Movie06]

Anyone else feel that CGI animated films can be used more than to make family films? I mean, Japan is doing that so why not the U.S.?

[TheVileOne]

Because the attempts at doing so are generally expensive disappointments and tend to not do very well. Beowulf was a pretty dark, adult, violent CG animated movie and it couldn't inspire very much at the BO. Same thing for Spirits Within which had the Final Fantasy name on it but was a down and out betrayal to Final Fantasy fans as well as a crappy movie.

In the US there's still the stigma of animation being for young people. But at least the Pixar films don't cater to the LCD and don't pander to mongo, brain dead kids.

Japan is not the same culture as the US. There simply isn't as much of a market for those types of films in the US.

[Joe]

Heck, animated films in general tend to do poorly when aimed at that demographic, particularly teens. Hollywood has long-since realized that the animation medium does the best in the box office when it aims for general audiences. The only time it really seemed economically viable to take animated films that direction was back in the 1970s. It doesn't help that a good looking CGI animated film costs much more than live-action film.

Even Beowulf, which was originally slated to be a hard R rating, broke under the pressure to lower it and it still flopped.

I belive animation can tackle any type of story or theme, but if any such film is to succeed in that demographic, it will likely be done by more independent studios which find modest box office returns much more acceptable.

[Movie06]

But I thought Fritz the Cat did well back in the 70's didn't it?

[TheVileOne]

I'm not sure but if it did, that's still the 70's.

Joe seems to get it though. Mainstream these movies don't really play with a more strictly teenage or adult demographic.

I mean I love when we see the Miyazaki films or whatever else get play over here. But I also get disappointed when a movie like Appleseed: Ex Machina gets a big distributor in WB, much bigger distributor than Geneon. But WB doesn't even opt for a limited theatrical release.

I honestly think the Fullmetal Alchemist or the first Naruto movie could've done some decent business with the wider distribution, but it wasn't going to happen.

Until one movie changes it, I think you will continue to see the biggest successes in the US in feature animation will be the broad family themed or kiddie type ones such as Pixar, Dreamworks Animation, etc.

Beowulf unfortunately wasn't really able to change much EXCEPT further pushing the digital I-MAX and I-MAX 3D format. Something Lucas wasn't really able to do with his crappy Star Wars prequels.

[Gokou Ruri]

Anyone else feel that CGI animated films can be used more than to make family films? I mean, Japan is doing that so why not the U.S.? All of America's geek movies are live-action. Spider-man, Hellboy, Lord of the Rings, etc.

You also have to remember that just because those movies exist in Japan doesn't mean they're popular. Typical children's movies like Doraemon, Pokemon, Naruto, One Piece, etc, all outsell any "adult" animated movie in Japan. American films like Shrek, Incredibles, Bee Movie, and others also do better over there. For every Perfect Blue there's 20 Doraemon/Detective Conan/One Piece movies for the kiddies to eat up.


I honestly think the Fullmetal Alchemist or the first Naruto movie could've done some decent business with the wider distribution, but it wasn't going to happen. If Pokemon can't do decent in box offices anymore, those movies sure as heck aren't going to.

[Lavenderpaw]

There was suppose to be this one serious-looking CGI movie that never went through.It was a trailer with a girl looking out a window and narrating.Serious stuff and CGI...yeah,doesn't seem to work well.

[Blackstar]

Anyone else feel that CGI animated films can be used more than to make family films? I mean, Japan is doing that so why not the U.S.?

Of course it can. It's been tried in the U.S. a few times. The problem is that most of these 'mature' CGI films have basically bombed at the box office, which makes American film producers wary at the prospect of making any more. The prevailing attitude in the U.S. is that animation = family fare/kid stuff, and the commercial failures of more mature oriented films such as Final Fantasy: the Spirits Within and Don Bluth's highly underrated Titan A.E. (which did so poorly at the box office that 20th Century Fox shut down it's animated feature department soon afterwards) haven't done much to disprove this belief.

Also, I'm a little tired of anime fans using the excuse "They're doing it in Japan" to justify what they feel should be happening in the U.S., as if anime can do no wrong. As Gryph mentioned, just because more mature oriented animated films exist in Japan, that doesn't automatically mean that every one of them has been a commercial or financial success. Japan has just as many mediocre and bad movies as America has. Just because a movie or TV show is from Japan, that doesn't automatically make it superior to anything that was produced over here.

[Daphne Blake]

Well I'm an adult but I prefer the 'family' films haha!

[CaptainHero]

Fritz the Cat was the first animated film to break $100 million that wasn't Disney. (This takes in account inflation of course). It was huge back when it first came out and is the reason we have shows like South Park and Family Guy nowadays.

[Blackstar]

Fritz the Cat was successful in the 1970s, but it never enjoyed the mainstream popularity or the commercial success of a Disney or a Warner Bros. animated feature. Fritz's following was always more cult.

Another thing to consider is that teens are a very hard audience to try and cater to, especially with animation. Most teenagers, even more so than adults, consider cartoons to be strictly "kid stuff" and won't admit to enjoying an animated feature for fear that they would be labeled "uncool" by their peers for doing so. This is why to date there have been virtually no animated features, CG or otherwise, that are aimed primarily or exclusively at teenagers.

[Racattack!Force]

I doubt a movie aimed at those audience would do any good. There have been so many failures, that it scares producers, and makes them not want to do anymore. :shrug:

[Kagetsu]

I've been watching Appleseed - ExMachina. They brought up that it's cheaper and easier to do live action. So a CGI that too closely tries to imitate live action is a lost cause. Most CGI still uses motion capture. They have to pay actors as well a computer animators. So it's always an easier choice to use live actors and add CGI creatures and action than it is to go for a full animation style. This one was made mostly because John Woo wanted to produce an animated feature.
http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj39/sakurabanners/shows/appleseedX.jpg

[veemonjosh]

Well, TMNT felt more like a movie aimed at teens, even though it clearly tried to get the toy-buying kids as well.

[Baltofan]

I prefer 'family' films too! :D

[Ed Liu]

All of America's geek movies are live-action. Spider-man, Hellboy, Lord of the Rings, etc.

This comment reminded me of something I read someplace that said Satoshi Kon makes animated movies because the Japanese movie-making industry doesn't have the kind of budgets he'd need to do his movies in live-action. If they did, he would. It's a bit upsetting to know that one of the most innovative animated directors from Japan would be doing live-action if he had the choice.

However, the fact that Hollywood has the money to throw at movies to make stuff like LotR or Hellboy in live-action may also be a big factor in why animated movies for adults aren't attempted very often. After a certain point, you also have to start asking whether it's live-action or animated when you've got things like Peter Jackson's King Kong.


I've been watching Appleseed - ExMachina. They brought up that it's cheaper and easier to do live action. So a CGI that too closely tries to imitate live action is a lost cause. Most CGI still uses motion capture. They have to pay actors as well a computer animators. So it's always an easier choice to use live actors and add CGI creatures and action than it is to go for a full animation style. This one was made mostly because John Woo wanted to produce an animated feature.

I think most big-budget animated films will at least do video reference, but I don't think it's accurate to say that "most" CGI uses motion capture. In fact, I'd say that the overwhelming majority of it in the US doesn't. In any event, paying actors to do mocap work isn't as huge of an expense as it might seem, since they can usually do the work much faster. Most of the actors involved with Beowulf did their parts in a matter of weeks rather than the months a live-action film would take.

I also think that getting a "serious" director to do an animated film would go a long way to removing the stigma of animation that isn't for the kids (which may also happen over time if the current generation of anime kids keeps watching cartoons as they get older). Unfortunately, the only director intent on doing non-kiddie animation is Robert Zemeckis, and I've made my feelings (http://news.toonzone.net/article.php?ID=19908) on his "animation" pretty clear (http://news.toonzone.net/article.php?ID=22322). I suppose you could add Richard Linklater's digital rotoscoping as CGI animation, too, but he's almost deliberately aiming outside the mainstream with stuff like Waking Life or A Scanner Darkly.

-- Ed

[Gokou Ruri]

This comment reminded me of something I read someplace that said Satoshi Kon makes animated movies because the Japanese movie-making industry doesn't have the kind of budgets he'd need to do his movies in live-action. If they did, he would. It's a bit upsetting to know that one of the most innovative animated directors from Japan would be doing live-action if he had the choice. Akira Kurosawa is hands down the greatest filmmaker to come from Japan, and he did exclusively live-action. He was able to mainly because his films involved modern or feudal Japan, which is easy for Japanese movies to replicate, and they focused on more human plotlines. Anything else, such as high-fantasy Lord of the Rings-type stuff would have to be (and are) done in animation in in Japan. That's something a lot of Japanese animation fans (and fans of cartoons in general) don't realize, given the choice, animation, to Japan, is actually a limitation, not an artistic choice (I'll go ahead and agree that there's exceptions and I'm sure someone can name a few directors who prefer animation, just to save myself a few replies about this). It's either animation or bust most of the time. Countries that have a strong influence on cinema, such as France, Germany, and Russia, also didn't have this "limitation" and were able to make live-action films. Not as well as America, granted, but they have the option and also choose to do live-action most of the time. I'm sure Japan would join them if it had the option. They already have quite a few popular (in Japan) live-action films, but notice they're all pretty much set in Japan (past or present).


However, the fact that Hollywood has the money to throw at movies to make stuff like LotR or Hellboy in live-action may also be a big factor in why animated movies for adults aren't attempted very often. After a certain point, you also have to start asking whether it's live-action or animated when you've got things like Peter Jackson's King Kong. I'd say that's the main reason there's not serious adult animation in America, there was no need for us to make it like Japan had. Japan did it because they couldn't do live-action, but America never had that problem and we've never really bothered with it outside a few "experimental" stuff like Beowulf. Until someone finds a box-office hit with these experiments, they're going to continue to stay "experimental films"

[The Irishman]

Its important to remember that the very first animated feature was first shown, not to kids, but to adults. Walt Disney had some was rather apprehensive about showing an animated film to an adult audience, but look how it paid off for him. No, don't get me wrong, maybe Technicolour was more impressive in those days, but could you honestly see a film like that being shown for mature audiences now? It probably wouldn't even get a script.

I think the main problem is that traditional animation (in particular TV animation) has been drilled into a generation of people (specifically Generations X & Y) that he genre is for kids only. The lack of adult orientated content (Fritz the Cat aside) during that time period is surely a factor. When kids get older, of their is not a substitute for the shows/movies they are now too old for, then they find something else to fill the void left behind. And in the past, animation was certainly not the entertainment of choice.

Fast forward to today, and CGI is almost like an entirely new genre. Yes, it is animation, but to the average Joe Public, it looks completely different. Reasonably life-like faces, 3-D environments and sharp writing courtesy of the guys at PIXAR. Of course, these films are aimed squarely at the very generations mentioned above, why? They've got kids and disposable income and are quite happy to go see something that will keep the little ones happy. And if they can get a few laughs too, that's the icing on the cake.

Almost all of these types of CGI movies play to their strength in that they can get away with stuff that only a cartoon can (talking ants, cars, toys, animals, etc. etc.) Adult audiences looking for a more mature storyline aren't nearly as easily fooled. Unfortunately, the sort of films they are looking for are already very well catered for by live-action (as mentioned above).

I believe that it is quite unlikely that we will see a successful adult CGI movie in the foreseeable future. The most likely route chosen will be live-action using CGI to create things that can expand the expectations of the audience without distorting their view of what reality in a movie really is (The Matrix was perhaps the first modern one).

On the Japanese thing, that's an entirely different culture and it is well documented that animation has been a dominant force in the entertainment industry since the 60s. It has established itself as a mainstream genre with audiences, unlike in the US. Although this is cannot be used to solely justify the perception that Japan can create better adult animation.


I've been watching Appleseed - ExMachina. They brought up that it's cheaper and easier to do live action. So a CGI that too closely tries to imitate live action is a lost cause. Most CGI still uses motion capture. They have to pay actors as well a computer animators. So it's always an easier choice to use live actors and add CGI creatures and action than it is to go for a full animation style. This one was made mostly because John Woo wanted to produce an animated feature.
http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj39/sakurabanners/shows/appleseedX.jpg

I saw this at the weekend and to be honest, I'm not sure how it would have worked as a live-action film. For the amount of screen time that we actually see the characters in normal settings, the difference would be slight in all aspects. Besides, the character design was pretty good.



I'd say that's the main reason there's not serious adult animation in America, there was no need for us to make it like Japan had. Japan did it because they couldn't do live-action, but America never had that problem and we've never really bothered with it outside a few "experimental" stuff like Beowulf. Until someone finds a box-office hit with these experiments, they're going to continue to stay "experimental films"

Quoted in addition to what I said above.

[Daphne Blake]

Fritz the Cat was successful in the 1970s, but it never enjoyed the mainstream popularity or the commercial success of a Disney or a Warner Bros. animated feature. Fritz's following was always more cult.

Another thing to consider is that teens are a very hard audience to try and cater to, especially with animation. Most teenagers, even more so than adults, consider cartoons to be strictly "kid stuff" and won't admit to enjoying an animated feature for fear that they would be labeled "uncool" by their peers for doing so. This is why to date there have been virtually no animated features, CG or otherwise, that are aimed primarily or exclusively at teenagers.

Most of the teens and adults I know openly talk about the cartoons they love. They always get excited when I bring the topic up.

[HG Revolution]

This comment reminded me of something I read someplace that said Satoshi Kon makes animated movies because the Japanese movie-making industry doesn't have the kind of budgets he'd need to do his movies in live-action. If they did, he would. It's a bit upsetting to know that one of the most innovative animated directors from Japan would be doing live-action if he had the choice.

Is he talking about all of his movies? I know Perfect Blue was done in live-action originally, and I can picture a Millenium Actress or Tokyo Godfathers in live-action (though in the later case I think doing it in animation was more due to avoiding censorship than budget issues), but I can't imagine a live-action Paprika.

[Blackstar]

Most of the teens and adults I know openly talk about the cartoons they love. They always get excited when I bring the topic up.

Adults who are parents will at least go to see animated film with their kids. They can always say "I took my kid to see it." Teenagers are a different matter. They have a "rep" to maintain.

Anyways, it's not me you have to convince. It's the movie studios.

[Dudley]

As far as I see it, the only way they will make animated films with a PG-13 or R rating is if they based it on an adult animated series that's really popular.

The South Park movie would've done better, if it didn't come out two seasons after the show started. It probably would've done much better now. Since there's a bigger fan following after 11 seasons.

We won't know if my theory is true until they make a Family Guy movie.

And unlike in America, animated films in Japan are really cheap to produce. They can afford to try and experiment with the teen and adult market.

[DrTooth]

As far as I see it, the only way they will make animated films with a PG-13 or R rating is if they based it on an adult animated series that's really popular.


The Simpsons. That did very well for itself. Plus, I would tend to say Aqua Teen Hunger Force, but Warners pretty much gave it a limited release. Of course, I live in the you know where where the you know what went down, so It could have been nationally released differently out of state.

But the teens would rather go for the mindless blood porn slaughter films like Saw. I mean, LOTR, Spidey, and that stuff does amazingly with those. But the mainstream wants crappy, cheaply made gorefests (no jokes about An Inconvieniant Truth please). At least that's what I get from observation.

I have no doubt if they made a crappy parody film called "Animated Movie", it would do undeservedly well though. Which would suck big time, since I've had an idea like that for some time now.

[Movie06]

As far as I see it, the only way they will make animated films with a PG-13 or R rating is if they based it on an adult animated series that's really popular.

The South Park movie would've done better, if it didn't come out two seasons after the show started. It probably would've done much better now. Since there's a bigger fan following after 11 seasons.

Didn't Trey and Matt said something about that? I mean I think they said kids were able to see it since they bought tickets for Wild Wild West in order to sneak in.

[Dudley]

Didn't Trey and Matt said something about that? I mean I think they said kids were able to see it since they bought tickets for Wild Wild West in order to sneak in.

I heard that as well. Through that process, Wild, Wild West got the box office gross, that should've gone to South Park.

[Movie06]

I heard that as well. Through that process, Wild, Wild West got the box office gross, that should've gone to South Park.

No doubt there. The South Park deserved to win the box office and the award for Best Song. Blame Canada is great satire.

[TheVileOne]

South Park actually did very good BO considering it was a $20 million R-rated animated movie.

[Dr.Pepper]

Of coarse we can use CGI for an adult or teen film, but it is just our culture that says animation (with a few exceptions) are for kids only. Besides I prefer family movies anyways.

[Movie06]

but it is just our culture that says animation (with a few exceptions) are for kids only.

That bothers me alot actually. People who say that probably never watched an episode of South Park in their life.

[TheVileOne]

South Park is a fun popular show. The movie, not really a CG movie, did make a nice chunk of money in 1999.

However, South Park is still only enjoyed by a niche type of audience in the millions and its definitely not for everybody.

The Simpsons, not really a CG movie either, rated PG-13 by the way grosses $180 million in the US. However Simpsons has been an established brand and franchise for about 20 years so I mean its easy for a film to make money.

Family Guy if it got a theatrical film I imagine would also make some good money.

I think what I'm basically saying if popular more mature animated shows got a movie, since they wouldn't have a mammoth budget like a CG movie, they would end up doing rather well despite catering to a more teenaged, adult, older demographic.

Look at Gatchaman. Kevin Munroe's vision with the IMAGI version was to make a faithful, gritty, dark PG-13 movie based on the original Japanese Gatchaman. The problem? No one in the US knows Gatchaman. What do they do? Battle of the Planets or G-Force. Two totally different shows with different characters and plots by virtue of editing and hacking. So already this new CG Gatchaman movie is a tough sell to audiences. Weinstein company apparently came on as a distributor, but who knows what kind of influence they had on the movie. Now we know Kevin Munroe, the original director is gone from Gatchaman and the movie is in basically development hell right now. It might never get released.

[DrTooth]

Off Topic, but how good did Beavis and Butthead do America do? I recall hearing pretty well, but i forget.

That said, most of these are all TV cartoons that have been established already.

I still wonder what would have happened if they gave the Futurama movies a limited theatrical release just before the street date of the DVD's.

[TheVileOne]

Beavis and Butthead was actually a huge hit and made $60 million in 1996. So it also did fairly well. But again, significant TV audience, plus tons of controversy, was able to translate to a cinematic audience. It didn't have a big budget so it became profitable easily.

Futurama I bet also would've done similar business.

[CaptainHero]

Beavis and Butthead was actually a huge hit and made $60 million in 1996. So it also did fairly well. But again, significant TV audience, plus tons of controversy, was able to translate to a cinematic audience. It didn't have a big budget so it became profitable easily.

Futurama I bet also would've done similar business.

I don't see Futurama being a big hit, a modest hit maybe, but Futurama is always going to play second fiddle to The Simpsons and other animated shows.

Beavis and Butthead was actually the highest opening for a film in December ever until a year later when a little movie called Titanic came out. Beavis and Butthead's box office gross was so large, that MTV actually greenlit a sequel that was ultimately cancelled by Mike Judge in 1999

[The Irishman]

I don't see Futurama being a big hit, a modest hit maybe, but Futurama is always going to play second fiddle to The Simpsons and other animated shows.

Bender's Big Score was the number 4 animation seller on Amazon.com over Christmas. Depending on how the remaining DVD's sell, I would really like to see the final one released theatrically.

What was so controversial about Beavis & Butthead Do America? I can't recall anything.

[TheVileOne]

Bender's Big Score was the number 4 animation seller on Amazon.com over Christmas. Depending on how the remaining DVD's sell, I would really like to see the final one released theatrically.

What was so controversial about Beavis & Butthead Do America? I can't recall anything.

Not necessarily the movie, but Beavis and Butthead itself was a very controversial show for a while. Judge himself is not happy about some parts of the show and refused to have them put on DVD when it came time for a big DVD release.