Are film snobs still prejudiced against animated films? (cinema, best film, script)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,544 posts, read 56,025,008 times
Reputation: 11862
Advertisements
I remember when Beauty and the Beast was nominated for Best Picture in 1992 or something. Of course it didn't win, although I think it was better than many of it's competitors. Thing is, some film snobs or 'critics' deride animated films as not 'serious film' or consider them for children only. Is the idea of an animated film is winning unthinkable to the AFI.etc? I'm talking about films that are totally or predominantly animated, not like Avatar or a lot of movies these days with a lot of CGI.
Whenever people ask me my favourite films of all time, and I include Disney classics like Pinocchio, there are always some who don't take me seriously. Why not? Pinocchio or Dumbo had great storylines and more heart than a movie like From Here to Eternity. Animated films have been looked down for too long as simplistic novelties to entertain children with short-attention spans and I'm sick of it. Although adults do watch them, only seldom are they mentioned in the same sentence as the 'great films.' If I recall only Snow White was in the AFI's top 100 films of all time, and only because it represented a landmark in the history of film-making rather than for the film itself.
I mean there should still be a category for animated films, but animated films should also be considered for the 'big one'.
I think there is still some snobbery among certain people about animated films , especially as a lot of people tend to see those as "children's" films which is a shame. On the whole I would argue that animated films tend to be far superior than the muck which comes out of the mainstream studios system.
I am often considered a "film snob" because I tend to watch mostly Indie and Foreign Films, and I adore good animated films. A good animated film can be true art and something like "Up", "Ratatouille" or "The Illusionist" are brilliant films in their own rights IMO.
To me a film is either great or it isn't. If it is the best film , then it should get "best film" awards , not just best animated films. The same snobbery and discrimination applies IMO during the Oscars when they have "best foreign film" category. If the film which happens to be the best is in Uzbek, Swahili or German then it should not be patronised and demeaned by being thrown the a "bone" of "best foreign film" but simply "BEST FILM". Period.
I find it infuriating that simply because it is animated or in a Foreign language then it somehow is not good enough. It truly is pathetic and says more about the Awards system than anything else ...
Art is either good or it isn't. No matter what the medium or the language.
I'm kind of a film snob, and I love animated films, when they're done well. Movies like Persepolis or Triplets of Belleville or Waltz with Bashir couldn't be considered appropriate for children by any stretch of the imagination. (Maybe Triplets would be okay, but most kids would be bored.)
I'm a movie ****, it doesn't matter if it's fictional, non-fiction, or animated. I'll watch almost anything. I've got a small list of favorites from each category as well. Now when it comes to Animation, it's hard to beat the classics but I like a lot of modern films such as Titan A.E., Shrek, Puss and Boots, The Adventures of Tin Tin for example.
Absolutely not. I'm surrounded by film snobs and they all LOVE animated movies. (They are also all wondering what the heck is up with the Academy after the recent snubs.)
Yeah, I have quite a few friends who are Academy members and they all LOVE animated movies so I dont think there are any "prejudices" against them. The problem is that there havent been any good animated movies recently to warrant Best Picture nods. The only one in the past few years was Toy Story 3 which I think SHOULD have one best movie, but for some reason, boring movies always seem to win, just like actor/actresses who speak with English accent seem to do very well most of the time.
The animated choices this year were sub-par at best. Barely deserving of Oscar nods in their own category. I mean come on, Rango? Kung Fu Panda 2? PussNboots? All horrible at best.
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,544 posts, read 56,025,008 times
Reputation: 11862
Quote:
Originally Posted by LaoTzuMindFu
Yeah, I have quite a few friends who are Academy members and they all LOVE animated movies so I dont think there are any "prejudices" against them. The problem is that there havent been any good animated movies recently to warrant Best Picture nods. The only one in the past few years was Toy Story 3 which I think SHOULD have one best movie, but for some reason, boring movies always seem to win, just like actor/actresses who speak with English accent seem to do very well most of the time.
The animated choices this year were sub-par at best. Barely deserving of Oscar nods in their own category. I mean come on, Rango? Kung Fu Panda 2? PussNboots? All horrible at best.
Been quite impressed with what Pixar has put out in recent years, 'Up' was one of the best films I've seen in years.
I guess many film snobs personally enjoy animated films, but the institution still hasn't seen fit to award a single animated feature the Oscar for Best Picture. It's just a fraternity accolade, as far as I'm concerned, the real judge are the people, but it would be nice if truly great animated features were acknowledged.
I agree, a lot of boring, 'socially relevant' movies like the Hurt Locker seem to win. The winner this year will no doubt be some film I've never heard of. None of the recent winners stand out as classics.
I'm kind of a film snob, and I love animated films, when they're done well. Movies like Persepolis or Triplets of Belleville or Waltz with Bashir couldn't be considered appropriate for children by any stretch of the imagination. (Maybe Triplets would be okay, but most kids would be bored.)
I agree. Just because an animated film is created with a big budget or promoted with Disney's clout does not make it "good", any more so than the same factors make a live-action film good. There have been some animated pictures that were worthy of acclaim, and there have been some movies dedicated to a pre-adolescent target audience, which might have been excellent within that genre, whether or not they were animated.
If a movie were made of, say, "Pinocchio" with live action, from exactly the same script that was used for the animated picture, actors reading their lines with the same voice intonations, with no expense spared on set design, and it enjoyed the same popularity among children, it would be neither more nor less deserving of respect from "film snobs" than the animated version.
A cartoon is a cartoon, whether it is 5 minutes long, or 90. It is subject to the same cinematic criteria of excellence. A 6-year-old does not judge a movie by its technical merit. If a movie is loved by children and remains an anchor experience through their whole lives, that does not make it a work of great cinematic art. No more so than the illustrations in "The Poky Little Puppy" deserve to be hung in The Louvre.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
