Why are there not more adult-oriented animated films being made (besides the obvious reason of money)...

Why are there not more adult-oriented animated films being made (besides the obvious reason of money)? It's an untapped vein of artistic greatness: for example, pic related was great

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=GGyLP6R4HTE
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

There was a movie about food fucking each other that came out last year

It was a trainwreck on every level and it deservedly flopped, so that's one reason.

yeah , hot dog soirée by Rogan. i rated the ontological themese of it

"wrong"

Loving Vincent just came out recently.

animated media allows directors and writers to accomplish impossible aesthetics, characters or situations

I never watched Anomalisa, never going to as it looks retarded to me, but ask yourself this question:
Could it be done almost exactly with life actors?
If the answer is yes, your film was pointless to animate.

Compare what I just told you with this one:
youtube.com/watch?v=GGyLP6R4HTE
That has the animation and aesthetic be animportant part of the adult oriented short, instead of just the "chosen media" like Anomalisa.

K. Enjoy your pretentious puppet fucking movie.

This didn't benefit from being animated.

>make intricate stop motion animated movie
>it's just about sad old white people

why is it pretentious
true i'll give you that, it looks sick as well
anomalisa had to be animated in that certain way because the protagonist perceives every single other person to be the same irrespective of gender, age, race etc. they are all obviously different 'people' but with the same facial structure and voice, which is something that would be very difficult to do in live action without expensive and un-aesthetic cgi. i would recommend watching it as it's a coherent and thematically linked film that does use animation to its full potential, but you are fundamentally right in your assertion that a lot of potential 'adult' stories don't need to be animated

>anomalisa had to be animated in that certain way because the protagonist perceives every single other person to be the same irrespective of gender, age, race etc.

Like in Being John Malkovich?

Anomalisa was such a disappointment to me.
It pretty much says the same things Kaufmanns other movies already said before it, and they were way better at it than this movie too.

adults don't want to watch cartoon movies

the obvious reason of money

Yeah because that's never been done in a live action movie before. Oh wait, it has.

>When OP admits to watching adult animated films

>why is it pretentious
90% of the movie is filler or incredibly mundane moments, and the parts that aren't, you're getting really sophomoric commentary on life. It's suppose to be about life because of the commentary, and life is mostly banal, so it's okay if entire film is like this, right? Well, no, it's still incredibly boring. I don't know what the fuck is going through people's mind who like the film when they see him checking into his hotel room, or walking across as hall, or pouring a drink, which often happens in other films, but it usually has some craft, or even some meaning about the character or the scene, but nope, it's just mundaneness for its own sake. These aren't scenes that suddenly become interesting or stylistic when done in stop motion animation. I could just imagine a student making this same exact script, and even if there was a style to it, instead of incredibly flat camera angles and wide-angle shots, it would still be boring as fuck. So it's pretentious because to justify how dull it is by being "about life," when no possible meaning or message could justify such dull cinematography, or writing for that matter.

Just watch a marvel flick

in being john malkovich that's for one scene and for a primarily absurd effect as when you see john malkovich in a dress it's obviously john malkovich in a dress. in anomalisa the characters have distinct bodies, hair, behaviours, vocal registers etc but all share the same face and voice
i don't think you quite understand the film but if you don't like it or find it boring i can't really do anything to change your mind about that, i just don't feel you're justified calling it pretentious as it is directed in a deliberate manner

>you don't get it
Thanks for the non-argument, or backing up this claim with any evidence. I even said, "when no possible meaning or message could justify such dull cinematography, or writing for that matter," so as far as my perspective goes, there's nothing to get that would solve my complaints with the movie with any message, and I'm not even convinced that I don't get it.
> i just don't feel you're justified calling it pretentious as it is directed in a deliberate manner
So, just because something is deliberate, it can't be pretentious? If anything, that makes it more pretentious, as it's trying to make its flaws, (like nothing remotely interesting happening, except the puppet sex, which was interesting because of how boldly grotesque and ill-conceived it was), its selling point

as a subscriber to roland barthes if you really don't think it's an interesting or well-shot film i believe you're entitled to your opinion; i used deliberate as i believe certain aspects of production (eg the flat lighting, the dialogue, the use of animation etc etc) do actually tie in thematically with the story as a whole, but again if you don't agree with me that's fine, just thought i'd make my case against yours

>(eg the flat lighting, the dialogue, the use of animation etc etc) do actually tie in thematically with the story as a whole
Yeah, I think I get it and the purpose of every scene and the way it's shot. However, the end result is something that's incredibly dull, like I feel like somebody is deliberately wasting my time. Maybe people shouldn't make movies with this "theme" if the end result is so dull. And no, there's really nothing impressive at all about the cinematography. It's just wide, flat angles and everything's lit up.
>as a subscriber to roland barthes if you really don't think it's an interesting or well-shot film i believe you're entitled to your opinion
Before you name-drop, you should have made sure you had a coherent point. Are you saying that because I'm "a subscriber to roland barthes," there's something to significant to me not thinking "it's interesting or well-shot film," or I'm some how entitled to my opinion because of I'm "a subscriber to roland barthes," or because you're a "a subscriber to roland barthes," you believe I'm entitled to my opinion, as if that's somehow a special trait of subscribers to roland barthes because other people don't or are less likely to have that quality? Three possible interpretations of this sentence and none of them make sense. Maybe this means something to you because you're a "subscriber" to this cunning linguist. I'm not going to apologize for being pedantic because I can't possibly top you in that regard.

>roland barthes
he wrote the death of the author which means that no one holds or dictates the meaning of a text so i was just very pretentiously saying 'your entitled to your opinion'. and yeah as i said if you find the film dull that's fair enough but i don't so obviously for at least one viewer the film's not pretentious. but if you really believe it to be so then that's your call. i bear you no ill will friend

anomalisa sucked horribly and the sex scene recalled memories of Team America and I laughed out loud in the theater.

>so i was just very pretentiously saying 'your entitled to your opinion'.
Thought so. You should be more self-aware than this and take yourself less seriously, but it's a start.
> i don't so obviously for at least one viewer the film's not pretentious. but if you really believe it to be so then that's your call. i bear you no ill will friend
K.