New at BOP: Review: Matrix Resurrections Movie Review: Moonfall Movie Reviews: Scream The #1 Movie in America November Forecast The Many Saints of Newark October Forecast New Trivia Question All site updates Share & Save   Tweet Print this column

Matthew Huntley: For the studios? No. For audiences? Somewhat, yes, because studios still seem to market their computer animation titles as if the format is new and therefore assume audiences can be won over on presentation alone (with the lackluster ones anyway). Whenever I see a computer-animated title, much of the time my initial feeling is the studio elbowing me and saying, "Heh, heh, see what we can do? Isn't it pretty" (movies like The Lorax or Cars films.) But they are such big moneymakers that I don't see this ending any time soon. It's only the really high quality ones, which actually have an original story to tell and that use animation to their advantage, where I don't feel like I'm being pandered to, and that I don't find exhausting.

Edwin Davies: I think it's set in to an extent in that a film being computer animated isn't a guarantee of success in the way that it was 10 years ago, back when there was a lot of novelty to the format and Pixar and DreamWorks were able to control demand since they were pretty much the only game in town. Now that there are a lot more studios making these kinds of films it means that the market is much more saturated so parents (especially ones who maybe can't afford to go to the theater every week) have to be a bit more discerning. That doesn't preclude a bad film like The Lorax being successful, but then again that was an adaptation of a very popular book by a cultural icon, so it's kind of an anomaly. On the other hand, the success of films like How to Train Your Dragon, which opened soft and showed great legs, demonstrates that people will turn out for the films that are great, which is also why Pixar has remained such a force. With the exception of Cars 2, they make good films and people turn out for them because there is a mark of quality there that sets them apart.

I don't foresee a drop off in the popularity of animation akin to that which hit Hollywood during the '70s and '80s when studios started closing down their animation departments and Disney even toyed with getting out of the game, but I could see studios producing fewer animations if they can't get their budgets down somehow. DreamWorks, Disney and Pixar can take a middling performer or an outright bomb every now and then, but it'd be death to some of the smaller ones.

Jay Barney: No, I don't think there is animation fatigue. There are two ways to take this question, though. The 3D element is becoming quite blah at this point in time, and I believe it won't be worth it for studios to add the extra effects required. They may come to a different decision than what I expect, but I go to the movies more than the average person, and I specifically try to avoid 3D movies. The tickets are more expensive, you are usually dealing with a young adult crowd, and sometimes the 3D just is not worth the extra few bucks. So I have reached the point where I don't see something in 3D unless I know it is going to be good. Someone else has to recommend it to me, and then I might see it.

Continued:       1       2       3       4