The state and future of animation

[EricJ]

Disney, Universal and Warner OWN their animation studios, while Lionsgate and the former Weinsteins pick up film/shows for distribution.
It's a tricky distinction.

[GeffreyDrogon]

How would an entertainment company owning an animation studio affect decision making? Would distributors that pick up animated films for distribution have to make any changes?

[Ben]

Constantly.

[EricJ]

Dare we show him what the Weinsteins did to "Doogal"?

[Ben]

Xactly. Or what the Weinsteins did to practically *everything*, for that matter…including the staff! Ooh, yeah, I went there…!

[GeffreyDrogon]

Why do some studios think that you can put animated films in theaters regardless of how the quality is? Like Happily N'ever After and Norm of the North?

[Randall]

Because... that's why they were made?

[Ben]

Mostly because a lot of people are deluded and think that their product is as good as the stuff they’re trying to rip off, as in the likes of Shrek and Ice Age in those cases. In making their films, the producers *seriously* believe what they have made stands up against other titles, and they truly cannot see the difference. And they make these things far cheaper than those other films, so they think they have a shot at making the kind of money those big films do. Except…the audience isn’t *always* so dumb as to see them for what they are, so it’s telling that even these low-budget films don’t always recoup their investment.

[GeffreyDrogon]

It's also because I think referencing past successes on a poster or DVD box is a tried-and-true way of attracting consumers regardless of the product's quality.

Some websites claimed that "many people" liked Happily N'Ever After, but it only seems like people who don't pay close attention to the animation quality or the quality of the writing seem to enjoy it (like my mother or some of my sisters). I've seen MUCH better films, including Balto and The Prince of Egypt (the former I only first watched this year, the latter something I grew up on), and those came out in the 1990's. N'Ever After came out in 2007 (the same year as Shrek the Third, Bee Movie, Meet the Robinsons, Beowulf, Ratatouille, and Surf's Up), and it looks only marginally better than a typical episode of The Adventures of Jimmy Neutron: Boy Genius. Even that show's pilot movie from 2001 looks so much better.

Maybe it's also because some people like unfunny jokes (especially seeing that crying, farting baby several times throughout the film with little variation)? That's also like the comedy from a typical cheap Seltzer and Friedberg film like Epic Movie and Meet the Spartans.

Sure, the way the title character from Balto gets revived after nearly drowning is both ridiculous and cringeworthy, but it's at least clever and original.

[GeffreyDrogon]

Happily N'Ever After was also unfit for a theatrical release.

[GeffreyDrogon]

When it comes to animation, why is the trope of a character's irises shrinking out of fear, shock, or surprise so common, and when did it start? I've seen that quite often in animation, and I'm curious of when that started.

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/ ... nkenIrises

[GeffreyDrogon]

When it comes to the world of animation, I question I want to ask is why are most direct-to-video sequels bad? I've seen some growing up, but I've never seriously paid attention to the quality of them. However, I'm curious why there's such a stigma on them?

[GeffreyDrogon]

If My Little Pony: The Movie was a success for an independent animated film, then why did Hasbro resort to making a reboot of the franchise and send their second modern MLP film to streaming?

[GeffreyDrogon]

Why do stop-motion animated films usually perform so poorly at the box office?

[Daniel]

For an audience that grew up with CGI, it just looks dated unfortunately.