The state and future of animation

[GeffreyDrogon]

Is The Bob's Burgers Movie making over $15 million over Memorial Day Weekend a hopeful sign for hand-drawn animation? Will Disney consider making more hand-drawn animated films because of that?

[Farerb]

No.

[GeffreyDrogon]

But The Bob's Burgers Movie probably only cost a few million dollars to make, so it's a success for Disney. After all, a lot of these hand-drawn animated features nowadays are theatrical film adaptations of popular TV series.

Disney is probably planning to make more hand-drawn animated features because of this.

[Randall]

Sure, with the same type of budget. But likely not a prestige $200M picture.

[Ben]

Bear in mind this is also super economic to make exactly because it’s an existing property, like the cheapquels, or any big screen version of an animated television series. The assets, designs, talent, workflow, production processes are all in place. This is, essentially, just an extended "special", like The Simpsons Movie was, made ostensibly for the big screen (in 'Scope, natch) but serving just as well as the inevitable D+ tile it was always likely designed as.

But…we do know that Disney is working on more hand-drawn stuff for D+. We don’t know what those are right now, and I doubt they will have a $200m budget — anything between a DTV $15-75m is more probable — but stuff is coming. The only thing the success of Bob's might do is nudge a couple of them into cinemas (I totally wouldn’t be surprised to see another Simpsons announced soon) as a trial before ending back up on streaming…

[EricJ]

But The Bob's Burgers Movie probably only cost a few million dollars to make, so it's a success for Disney. After all, a lot of these hand-drawn animated features nowadays are theatrical film adaptations of popular TV series.

Yes: FOX series. It's a success for Fox, owned by Disney, and Fox has been dreaming of another Simpsons Movie for every one of their cult-marketed Sunday-night toons.

We know what's going through Fox Animation's heads right now, and it ain't "The glories of hand-drawn animation"...

[Ben]

20th.

20th Century Animation.

Fox is not Disney owned. That trademark remains trapped with the Murdochs…

And even what would now be 20th Century Animation doesn’t exist anymore. They’re all just programs from 20th Century Television, or 20th Television, which was already a subsidiary of the company even before Disney bought those assets.

[GeffreyDrogon]

Why is the PG rating so common for animated films nowadays? Did the success of Shrek make other animation studios want to make films with that rating? Why did it replace the G rating?

[Farerb]

Those ratings are for marketing, but the MPAA became more sensitive than before so nowadays when a film gets PG it's like getting a G back then, PG13 is like PG and R is like PG13. Most of the times you'll notice that the PG is given for "thematic elements" as if The Lion King or The Hunchback of Notre Dame didn't have any

[GeffreyDrogon]

Then why do so many people complain about older animated films being so "depressing" and think that never being serious is good for animated films?

[Farerb]

Because Shrek changed the way people view animated films and now they think they need to be a comedy (an irreverent one) and CGI, otherwise it's too serious and depressing.

[Ben]

Also because animated shows on TV (and we are obviously talking the "adult" ones that most opinionated adults watch) are all comedies, so there’s been this kind of ingrained expectation that animation should be "funny".

Actually, it goes back to animation being "cartoons", which were originally satirical drawings in newspapers, and then the "funny papers", before enterprising young filmmakers turned those cartoons into "animated cartoons", so humor has always been a part of what animation is.

Disney elevated that into the natural progression of the artistry being looked upon as true art, and at the same time the films took on, because they had to, a deeper emotional resonance. Nowadays, with the world being pretty rubbish since 9/11, and things moving at a faster pace, those films, and other like them (in both animation and live-action) are seen as "slow", "boring" or, as you said, "depressing", because they are not "fast enough", or "funny enough".

We have really kind of lost the ability, largely, to go back to see things that were actually "good", rather than just accept the loud, flashy, bright and shiny new funny things that flash past our eyes and make us feel happy and okay for two hours.

This is why the Disney remakes do so well. Why put out a reissue of Dumbo over making a whizz-bang new version? The 1941 Dumbo is a masterpiece of tightly structured storytelling, songs, emotion and comedy (yes, okay, whatever racial elements we now have a problem with aside), but it probably feels dated, slow or boring to anyone under 30, or maybe even 40. It's in a "child's" hand-drawn style, but isn’t "cartoon funny" like the TV cartoons of today; the characters don’t squabble, backtalk or continuously trade barbed insults and hilarious fast-talk to each other — heck, the title character makes but one sound in the whole picture!

So Dumbo gets remade with eye-popping CGI. It has kids in it. And more comedy and spectacle, as is per the norm now. Thankfully — and I say this as someone who thinks Dumbo turned out to be the best of these remake films — they managed to get a good director on board who understood where the original was coming from, came from the same background as those that made that film, and had the decency to care about the material.

Perhaps l interestingly, this is why Dumbo didn’t fly as high at the box-office as some of the other, more flashy and empty remakes. Exactly *because* it was infused with that same "antiquated" feel: it was a period picture, it had heart, and the first hour or so was basically a condensed version of the original before it went off into its own territory, which was a smart move, gave it its own identity, and a reason for being.

Maybe for some audiences this worked against it: the most popular Disney remakes have been the ones that slavishly follow the originals (Cinderella, Lion King, largely Aladdin) that don’t really do their own thing, because those are safe and we know them, but they’re also faster and more snarky than the originals.

The older films *were* "better", over the cookie-cutter, streamlined factory output of what we get now, but tastes and speeds have moved on so that these now feel dated and slow, and it appears we are largely now unaccustomed, unwilling or unable to meet that pace and enjoy the richness of them over the quicker, easier to digest, fun — and funny — product that we get today.

Now, I’m off to watch my comedy cartoon triple bill of The Plague Dogs, Grave Of The Fireflies and When The Wind Blows to have a bit of a laugh and take my mind off the world's current problems.

Oh…

[Randall]

Nice analysis!

I've never heard that people think old animation is generally "depressing". But anyone who does likely refers to singular tragic elements like Bambi's mom being killed. Extreme examples can have an outsized impact on how people describe things. In fact, last night we were visiting with neighbors when the lady neighbor described how traumatized she was while watching Dumbo as a young child, due to how Dumbo was treated, and how Dumbo was separated so cruelly from his momma. That had a big impact on her - she is now in her 50s, yet still seemed anguished by it.

But have these other people watched, or do they remember, The Three Caballeros? Melody Time? Fantasia? The Fleischer features? No, when they describe "old animation" being depressing, in most cases I suspect they specifically mean Bambi.

[Farerb]

Bambi, The Rescuers, The Fox and the Hound, Don Bluth.

[Ben]

Nice analysis!

Ta lad!