Why do animated adaptations emulate the Chimpunks dynamic

Yepp, capitalism is a bitch.

Attached: kaguya.png (271x447, 82K)

They don't wanna get sued.

Attached: no.gif (280x393, 1.35M)

Theres a MASSIVE demographic for cgi talking animal movies.

I mean, they make money. More importantly, they make predictable money. More often than not execs lack confidence in the IPs they're adapting, so the idea of sawing off the edges to fit an already established mold seems attractive. Nevermind the fact that the IP being successful enough to even be worth adapting implies the work would make just as much if not more money on its own, most of these execs are actual boomers who still aren't really sure what a video game even is, nevermind why people would actually enjoy one.

Based Penders.

It’s too conflicting styles never meant to be combined. You can’t do realistic cartoons, because their features end up looking fucking bizarre. That’s why Space Jam and Who Framed Roger Rabbit are more accepted

Because focus testing with the intended target audience (i.e. young children) proves it works.

I don't blame the makers of these movies them. I blame these retarded parents. Just the fact people spend money on movies of any sort is retarded enough on its own, but to spend money on something like that. I just can't process how this works.

>lara su-ed

>capitalism is a bitch
So under your ideal system the people who went to see Chipmunks 3 times get screwed out of something they clearly enjoy because you like a jap movie more?
Like, can we not understand that for every one of us that hates Frozen, there's like 20 little girls that have watched it 5 times? How selfish do you have to be to think, something that while, subjectively superior, is enjoyed by less people, should make more money than something enjoyed by more people.
And for that matter what system could possibly function by appealing solely to smaller groups of people, that isn't morally reprehensible.
Like, it exist, Ghiblii still makes more movies, what the fuck are you complaining for.

The only question I have is why haven't there been more? Are they trying to space them to avoid audience exhaustion?

Because realistic models get away from the one thing CGI animators for the most part can’t do: squash and stretch.

And who can blame them? Realistic models are easier to work with. Sure, there’s more texture and lighting to deal with, but they never have to go off model, because “this is what they look like in our world,” excuse.

Done right, it looks like that Popeye CGI short, but done wrong and it looks like that atrocious Rocky and Bullwinkle movie. Whereas if they tread the realistic line, most times they don’t receive this amount of backlash because it’s of old and nearly dead franchises (Chipmunks, Smurfs, etc.), or people are lulled by action scenes (Transformers).

They’re also probably used to making CGI monsters anyway as opposed to things that are cute and cuddly.

This.

Time to redouble me efforts, and break some models...Also Hotel Transylvania.

It made about two thirds what the first one did and about half as much in the domestic market.

The fourth one made about $200 million and probably cost more to make than it earned in the domestic market.

An $80m film is around $120-140m when advertising is added in so that third film did slightly better than break even worldwide.

Not a huge fan of the Hotel Transylvania movies, but I'll give them that Genndy's visual directin is top tier.

makes sense.
Maybe devs already figured out that people only care about artstyle anyways, we are fucked.

Hollywood lacks imagination.

Well, Chipmunks wasn't the first movie to do the whole anthropomorphic characters enters the real world and interacts with normies thing. I think the earliest movie I can think of who did that is the Rocky and Bullwinkle one but it can't have been the first one.

And no, Roger Rabbit doesn't fit that description.