Cartoons and anime reach a fraction of the audience that live-action properties do. For instance, recent episodes of One Piece have brought in around 2.39 million viewers on live television. That's a lot of people, but in comparison HBO's House of the Dragon which was a Game of Thrones spinoff, was regularly averaging over 25 million viewers per episode. For the spinoff of a show with a legendarily bad ending, this is phenomenal (the final season of Game of Thrones averaged over 40 million viewers per episode).
So it is apparent that there are other levels of recognition that studios who pump out animated films/cartoons might be reaching for. In other words, they want their property to have some esteem that exists without dismissal, because "comics and cartoons are for babies." To be more succinct, if you want your story to be taken seriously, live-action is where it's at. And it seems like it always will be. It's not fair or right, but it just is. I do wonder though as to why this happened? I mean...why is everything that is animated associated with "being childish?" And why do we heap so much legitimacy on a film that features live actors?
Maybe the answer is that animation when it is shown without promotion has bright colors that tend to be attractive toward kids. If we see a lot of kids gravitating toward a show, then it is probably natural for us all to begin to associate that show as being "childish." And maybe another answer is that live-action can offer a sense of realism that animation just fails at doing.
Anyone else have any opinions on this? Are you a person who prefers live-action to animation? If so, I'd like to know why.
I looked it up a few weeks ago and the original Lion King was either #1 or #2 movie of 1994. I think domestically it was behind Forrest Gump but internationally it was ahead of it. Forbes actually did an article about how if you adjust for inflation, the original actually made more money than the remake. https://www.forbes.com/sites/travisbean/2019/09/11/box-office-why-the-lion-king-remake-wont-ever-top-the-original/?sh=1a1758a4821b
ReplyDeleteNot to shoot down your point because in some cases it is true. I mean Spider-Man Into the Spider-Verse made less money than Far From Home or No Way Home did despite winning an Oscar. Though some of that might be that the main character was Miles Morales and not Peter Parker. With the "woke" "controversy" surrounding The Little Mermaid we might see something similar.
Meanwhile the Simpsons is into what, its 34th season? South Park and Family Guy have been on forever too. None dominate the ratings like the NFL but think how many thousands of scripted live action shows have come and gone while those shows endure.
Anyway, my stuffed Pumbaa from the remake thanks you for using pictures of his movie.
Another good example is that the animated Transformers movie in 1986 was a huge flop. But when they did the movie with live action in 2007 it was a huge hit. I'm sure there are factors besides whether it's animated or not, but it's interesting.
DeleteI don't know. Is it prestige? Or is it that the studios have no ideas, so this is one way to keep busy putting out content without having to invest in unknown quantities?
ReplyDelete