Is Live Action the Ultimate Goal of Media (according to a mainstream audience)?

[Tara]

I think it's fair to say that most of us here enjoy animation.  So with that said, I feel it's important I should emphasize I know that most of us here subscribe to the mindset that animation, rather CGI, Flash, or hand-drawn, is mostly an aesthetic choice, and not really a substitute or inferior medium.  As someone who cares a little too much about cartoons, it's a mindset I can agree with it.  But this topic isn't about what people on this specific board think of animation as it relates to live action, it's about what the general public thinks.  As a further disclaimer, I feel that it's important to note that everything I'm about to describe is purely anecdotal and not verified by any form of research on the matter.  Your mileage may vary.

For the longest time, I've felt like there was this general mindset that animation was the lower point of a work, or that people tended to think of movement toward a more live action setting was the eventual progress of a successful franchise.  Of course, I know that a good deal of stigma directed at animation in western audiences is a leftover relic from the years of the Animation Age Ghetto, but I feel like even with more mature cartoons becoming mainstream, animation seems to be treated like a lesser production among the minds of both producers and viewers alike.

For example, in the months leading up to the release of the much-hyped animated adaptation of The Killing Joke, there didn't seem to be a shortage of people decrying that it was animated or saying that the Kiling Joke "deserved" a live action movie, implying that it was such a grand story that animation didn't do it justice.  On a similar note, many fans of Batman: The Animated Series also seem to hope that there will eventually be a live action Batman movie/series that captures the same magic.  The Batman: Arkham games (known for being more than a little gritty at times) tend to use realistic graphics that emulate live actors, despite being heavily influenced by the animated series and the comics.

Of course, Batman is far from the only franchise where this sort of mindset is prominent.  Without saying anything of the quality of the films, I think this is the mindset behind many of the recent live action remakes of classic Disney stories.  The films are (at least from the trailers) darker, more suspenseful, arguably more emotional, etc. and by no coincidence are given the live action treatment to solidify that it's not the same version of the film that you loved when you were a kid.  But this isn't even a new practice, but it does seem more blatant today than before.  For example, 101 Dalmatians was given two live action films, cashing in on the success of the 1961 animated film.  Inspector Gadget also received two live action films, though to be fair I don't think the second one is a good example given how toned down it was compared to the first.  And of course, we have the most glaring example:  The infamous live action Super Mario Bros. Movie, which (aside from having nothing to do with the source material) was radically different in tone.

For something more anecdotal, growing up in the 90's, with CGI being the novelty that it was, what drew us (meaning me and the sphere of influence surrounding me) to CGI as a gimmick was not so much its aesthetics (because God knows the 90's was not known for its brilliant use of CGI) but its realism.  We were impressed by how even bad CGI lended its way to something slightly more like the real world in terms of movement and dimensional space.  The same principle is sort of applied to CGI animated films today.  Frozen, for example, has some very realistic textures of ice and snow, as compared to something like Sonic Lost World,  which has less in the way of realism and detail.  So it's hard not to see these aesthetic choices as "substitutes" for live action, rather it's deliberately conscious or not.

Speaking of the Super Mario Bros. Movie, I was watching James Rolfe's review of that the other day.  Bear in mind, I value James Rolfe more as a comedian than a critic, but I still find it interesting to know what he has to say as someone who has an undying passion for the film industry in genneral.  During his review of the the Super Mario Bros. movie, he mentioned that while it did not live up to expectations, there is an expectation growing up for your series to become darker, more serious, and (in his words, not mine) more "badass."  It's not something I necessarily agree with (especially from Mario of all franchises), but it seems to entail that live action movies (I think the Ninja Turtles movies were cited as a more positive example, despite how poorly they've aged) serve to satisfy that void.

So this is far too long of a post to just ask a simple question, but basically, with all these factors in mind, I got to thinking, I really feel like even if animation isn't qutite as divisive as a medium as it used to be, it's still generally expected that live action movies are a much better justice to a beloved property that shows care and dedication, whilst animation is considered... well, niche, and not something appreciable to a wider audience (and not just on the basis of age).

But different regions have their own views on animation.  Japan, for example, still views animation (ironically enough, especially their own anime shows) as something rooted in nerd culture, but as far as I know, it's common knowledge in Japan that both anime and manga can be made with any number of audiences in mind.  I'm not an expert on the matter, but from my experiences on the internet only, it seems like the UK is a lot more accepting of talking cartoon animals than the United States (which might explain why Sonic thrives better in Europe than in the states), though I have no idea if that's a mainstream idea or just a coincidence of my browsing habits.

So with all different regions having different ideas and mindsets about animation in general, what do you think?  Do you think live action is the ultimate goal of a work?  Meaning, do you think that a successful live action version is what every show hopes to achieve, as opposed to being "relegated" strictly to animation?  Express your thoughts and experiences below and stuff.

[Polkadi~☆]

Live action, in my opinion, is sometimes a lazy choice. With live action, you can half-ass quite a few scenes, which feels disappointing compared to animation, where almost everything has effort put into it. It is also, at times, superior to animation. This kills me inside to say, as a huge fan of animation. There are some advantages live action has over animation, mostly involving immersion.

It's sad, though, that people feel that EVERYTHING needs to be live action. It is not always the best choice with some franchises, like a live action or more realistic looking Sonic the Hedgehog. It just doesn't fit the franchise like people think it does.

To me, in many ways, animation is superior to live action. More freedom, more choice, compared to the restricting live action.

[Dizcrybe]

Honestly I think the reason why live-action anything is much more popular than animation in the United States is because of our overwhelming desire to be (or at least look) "mature". It's generally accepted, unfortunately, that live-action suggests something more adult, and that's good, whereas animation is kiddy crap, and that's bad. (This would also explain why so many AAA video games tend toward the grimdark side.) And sadly, I don't think any amount of deep, mature or otherwise well-done cartoons are gonna change that anytime soon. Steven Universe? Most of the general teen/adult population would likely take one look at the artstyle and decide it's beneath them, the rest would probably give up on it after two episodes and never get a chance to see how heavy it gets. Either Avatar series? Anime already has a pretty bad stigma in the West, and both shows look enough like anime to turn people off from them. Batman the Animated Series? It's over 20 years old. Gravity Falls? See Steven Universe. And has anyone outside the geeksphere even heard of Over the Garden Wall?

Really, the only way I can see this changing is a massive boom in nerd culture (that is, actually being nerdy, not just looking the part), or a huge and rather odd shift in demographics.

[Mr Loopone]

It's a bit hard to say whether it is the ultimate goal or not but it is more acceptable to the audience.

Personally when it comes live action stuff, I'm not really keen whether it is a TV show or a movie since a lot of stuff just doesn't interest me. Sometimes I get stressed watching them because my mind sees it as realistic especially if its a drama or something where someone can easily imitate what they do. Unless it is an action movie where it is less realistic and usually enjoy them.

Mainstream point of view though, people would rather watch stuff that relates to them more rather than something out there that is unrelateable. Comedies and dramas, they might like the characters because it reminds them of their friends/family/themselves or a bad event that happened to them so they can be more understanding that is harder to do in animation on while it is easier to show it but it is harder to tell the stories. Even with more fantasy stuff such as Game of Thrones/superhero shows and for them it is easier to imagine. Stuff like shipping/crushes are also more accepted there. Live action is also cheaper than animation, at least most of the time so more live action movies and shows are made compared to animation where the voice actors/actresses are cheaper than big name actors however it is the animation that takes a big chunk of the budget even when outsourced to South Korea and skilled people. Also it is the demographics have changed; people want maturity, gritty, slightly complex storylines and have done for the past 14 years or so. It is why mature games such as Grand Theft Auto or say Last of Us are more accepted by people rather than Sonic that to be fair sometimes gets picked on because he is a cartoon hedgehog and not just because of some games. If they do watch more mature shows/movies that are animated, some watch anime however anime is also part of the nerd culture and really a big niche that is close to mainstream but not fully there yet. In Japan, only a few series are mainstream enough to be liked outside its target audience compared to the thousands that are made. A bit like how Simpsons is usually one of the few animated series that is acceptable in mainstream audiences and even then its impact is declining.

Even Disney where their bread and butter is animation, also have done plenty of live action movies and shows perhaps more than their animated movies/shows. At least Disney movies get marketed and some like Frozen did really well.

From an UK point of view, most of the shows on TV are live action even ones geared towards children. As for animated shows, currently not much gets aired on mainstream TV (Peppa Pig, Simpsons [usually censored], Seth MacFarlane shows, Pokemon) and even satellite isn't much better but at least Simpsons has less censorship, markets them with their other shows and airs the new episodes close to the US than 4 years later. If it isn't for Sky 1, I wouldn't even watch TV due to lack of choice. Then again channels don't give animation a chance. Some like MLP missed its big time boom with having a complete channel when the show is at its less popular stage, Wabbit flopped here (I didn't know there is going to be a 2nd Season or more than 20 episodes until Tara showed that clip on a status update) and even Steven Universe gets censored. I really only see Simpsons, Family Guy and Thunderbirds are Go get advertised, the latter is a CGI show with a more realistic look on the characters but still cartoony. The Danger Mouse reboot gets a magazine at least. Then there the whole TV regulation (FCC for the US, Ofcom for UK) that can get towards the strict side sometimes that even live action shows get censored that were previously fine in the past and the main focus recently have been documentaries because they are cheap to make and because the regulators have no problems with its content. Apart from Pokemon, there is no anime on TV because a fair amount of shows wouldn't even get aired by its content or get really bad censorship. Movies are aired time to time though. Even streaming services offer less animated stuff and focused on the live action dramas.

If animation is used in adverts like the recent Halifax Top Cat/Flintstones ones, it is for nostalgia purposes. It would explain why Sonic and Crash Bandicoot are still remembered in a mainstream way and why Danger Mouse got a reboot even then Sonic and Crash are at the risk of getting forgotten due to the younger generation not keen on it. In the past, people used to like animation because it was a breakout from their lives. When times were bleak especially with wars and need a good cheering up to see something so bright, colorful with a bit of laughter to forget their problems. Its seems this generation that they want to mix live action with their lives.

The only way that I can see animation being more acceptable again like it did in the late 1980s/90s is a shift of demographics but that would take something from both producers marketing animation and the audience to watch them.

[Agie]

Live-action is no more or less valuable than animation. Reverse the positions and the same would be true.

But I do gotta wonder if some things work better in animation. I think anything can work in animation. Live action...something seems limited. That's not to say live-action films can't be cartoony and silly, though.

But some things, I can't really picture a live-action actor doing. I'll eat crow if someone can make an actual, good live-action Puyo Puyo series that picks good actors and actresses, but I can't really picture a hypothetical adaptation as anything other than animation. At the very least, I can't picture Amitie in live-action without some worries. I'm aware of that play, but I can't speak for it, myself.

But I hate the idea that animation is somehow less valid than live-action. That mindset, ironically enough, actually makes you look less mature. And I do gotta admit, calling animation a "genre" does make me roll my eyes a bit; it's a medium and it can tell a number of stories. Anything can work in animation.

I do apologize if I rambled a bit, but that's my two cents.

[Salamander]

Is the undercurrent one of live-action supremacy, or the same old tired standby of animation being inferior and for kids?   If people won't take animation (whether traditional or CGI) seriously, all you're left with is live action.  Or, you know, a book, but that's not really a visual medium, even with illustrations.  But taking books on board, it's interesting that there are some forms of adaptation which do appear to be looked down upon as "lesser."  I don't know if many people are terribly enthused by movie novelisations, for instance, and I can't think of any animated movies which are adaptations or spin-offs of live-action works.

I think this probably has to do less so much with the idea of the supremacy of live action - though it is in there, undoubtedly - and has more to do with the concept of the blockbuster movie, if you see what I mean.  More so than a TV show or an animated series, movies are seen as the big money-spinners that consequently get an equally big financial investment.  Owing to their unitary format, they're so accessible, so easy to get to grips with; you don't have to actively read, or learn TV schedules, or get Netflix or anything...  You just go to the cinema.  I think that's the real crux of this, the cinema as the ultimate cultural access point with the highest production values and the greatest talent.  Actors move from TV to movies, but not often the reverse.  It's seen as the most prestigious form.

The irony is that live action is unbelievably limited as a form.  No matter how much CGI you add, live action will always be to some extent constrained by reality.  Text and animation have only the constraints of the imagination (and budget, but hypothetically speaking let's assign an unlimited one).  This isn't just a matter of what you can plausibly represent; animation (and illustration) also has the potential for more visual styles than reality, whereas reality must always look like reality (...barring weird stuff like how they handled Tintin, which I don't think anyone would call pure live-action).  I'd also suggest that there's the simple fact that the more obvious unreality of animation - or illustration, computer graphics, etc. - means that the audience is less... questioning?  I mean that we are willing to suspend our disbelief more even for simple things when dealing with animation.  Here's my example: Superhero costumes.  How many of them actually don't look stupid in live action?  There's a reason why live-action costumes generally have darker colour schemes or other more "realistic" tweaks; the simpler style and block colours of an illustration look sillier in a reality which can't be made to match the properties of the costume.

At the risk of getting rambly, though, I think this is also significant to the trend of greater realism in video game graphics.  I don't simply mean more visual realism; I'm talking about things like Hideo Kojima ditching David Hayter for Kiefer Sutherland, and getting Norman Reedus to not only voice a character but to lend that character his image (in Silent Hills / Death Stranding).  Right now, there is ambition in high-graphics gaming to essentially turn games into movies, with big-name actors lending their voices and appearance.  Combined with more realistic graphics, I think the undercurrent here is also one of live-action envy; of believing that video games can't be taken seriously without resembling live action.  I think that's limiting and unnecessary.  Frankly, if your audience is the same size, who cares if your work is taken seriously by that fictional "general public" or not?  I've heard it suggested that many video game directors actually have frustrated ambitions of becoming movie directors, and it's not hard to see examples out there.

To be clear, I have nothing against live action as a form; it's not my preference, but I see no reason why it should go away.  I simply think it's reasonable to expect nobody to think the reverse of animated mediums.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

What about Disney, tho? They still have that "for kids" vibe despite being more of an all age family audience, but they seem to bypass that whole demographic preference of wanting mature, gritty live action by reeling in that same audience with their animation, and their works as of late have been rather mature as well.

Aside from the high cost of animation over live action, I wonder if there's a market for when these things blur more with stylized characters in intense action - like a PG-13 animation? Probably wishful thinking, but just a thought.

[Nepenthe]

I doubt a live-action version is what every show hopes to achieve, or even most shows. For one, creators have different intents: some are content with what they made at the outset and others aren't. Of those in the latter category, that malcontent doesn't necessarily mean the issues they have with a work could or would be rectified by a live-action remake or some sort. It could just mean that there were story or art issues that plagued the production and end result, issues that don't really have anything to do with the medium involved.

Furthermore, there's less prestige for the term "live-action" within the animation circuit than there is in the public at large, considering live-action as its being used in this context is a misnomer that inherently puts down animation. The whole point of animation is to be able to do things that would be impossible in the real world. For animated properties, to be given a "live-action" remake just means certain characters and/or environments are going to be animated in hyper-realistic detail versus their original toonier designs. You're not watching "live-action" films a lot of the time, just animated or live-action/animated hybrids. The Disney remakes, the Marvel films- indeed, most big-budget films nowadays- rely on some level of pre-rendered animation and computer fakery to exist in the state that they do. The only reason the line of distinction exists is because people like James Cameron feel insulted that their blue cat people film would ever dare to be relegated to the level of "animation," which in turn is an insult to the animators who were responsible for that blue cat people film being the success that it was.

So, for creators who are rooted within the animation culture, I would imagine the "live-action" trend that's going on right now doesn't really create any significant aspirations. Yeah it would be nice for the public at large to jump on board a property because they can suddenly see more hair and thus don't have to wrestle with any cognitive dissonance that results from watching an animated film in their adulthood, but the debates and philosophical issues that have resulted over the line between the terms "animation" and "live action" becoming ambiguous has caused genuine rifts and strife for the people who are actually responsible for these films' success.

[Ryannumber1gamer]

As a fan of animation, in my own personal opinion, Live Action is something that's highly overrated in some instances and something that really shouldn't be strived for by everything. I can't say live action is the complete lazy option, because Animation also leads to that, as seen by the legions of mockbusters, and low budget shit. If anything though, I'd say live action is definitely more tricky, and risky to do. With Live Action, to properly adapt a series over, it requires extreme talent, and a good budget to pull off, which is why something like the MCU is so successful right now. It's handled by those passionate about the source material, and successfully manages to add a few layers of depth to older comic characters while keeping their personalities in tact, and in fact, a lot of the actors who portray these characters are seen as the definitive version of said character, like Robert Downey Jr as Iron Man, or Mark Ruffolo as Bruce Banner. It's further helped by having Marvel's own studio producing the movies as well.

Compare this to something like the current DC Cinematic Universe which...isn't looking too good, and generally has all of the failings mentioned. The director is an idiot who decided that "Bruce Wayne should've got raped during his training as Batman" , and tried to defend the ultimate symbol of heroism in the DC universe killed multiple people by fighting in a populated city as "OH WELL, PEOPLE DIDN'T COMPLAIN WHEN THE VILLAINS DESTROYED A PLANET IN STAR WARS". The only legitimately good thing to have come out of the whole thing so far is Ben Affleck as Batman, and that's about it. Everything else has been a complete disaster in most aspects, and most characters being badly designed, or losing their personalty, or something else.

Go into a even better example. Most of the time, when a animated series get adapted into a live action movie, despite how good the original was such as Avatar The Last Airbender, the same magic usually always ends up lost in the process. Let it be bad direction, or not getting the showrunners on board, or bad casting, or stupid pandering, the end result usually ends up being the same. A disaster of an adaption.

Hell, even the stigma that live action needs to be "gritty, and realistic, and edgy" has even begun to affect animation more negatively, such as the attempts to make the animated Killing Joke even more controversial, despite the dark nature of the original book. The end result was generally everything new being added being hated. 

Generally, Animation has presented me with some of my favourite adaptions, and aspects. Kevin Conroy as Batman. Mark Hamill as The Joker, Josh Keaton as Spider-Man (THE Spider-Man in my opinion), and more. It's given me some of the most wonderful adapts of the original source material, like Under the Red Hood, and Crisis on Two Earths, and so many more. It's also even made a lot of amazing shows recently. Shows that's trying to get away from the stigma of "oh it's just a kids show" and actually provide good storytelling, good characters, and all around great animation. One of the best shows out there right now, that's a serious look into a lot of realistic stuff in the real world while balancing comedy is an animated series. Bojack Horseman is exactly that (Which thankfully is getting a lot more recognition since the third season hit). There's shows like Adventure Time, Steven Universe, Gravity Falls, and more that manages to tell very emotional stories, something that a lot of live action shows fail to do a lot of the time. Even some of the most recent animated films have managed to have very serious messages shown in a very interesting, and realistic light. Zootopia with discrimination, or Inside Out with it's message of it's alright to cry, and feel bad, and let out your emotions as it's unhealthy to keep your emotions bottled up, or even something like Kung Fu Panda, with it's amazing animation, good comedy, and messages such as letting go of the past, and moving onto the future. 

To finish off, I'll just leave two of my favourite messages to have come from animation:

 

[Tara]

3 hours ago, Nepenthe said:

I doubt a live-action version is what every show hopes to achieve, or even most shows. For one, creators have different intents: some are content with what they made at the outset and others aren't. Of those in the latter category, that malcontent doesn't necessarily mean the issues they have with a work could or would be rectified by a live-action remake or some sort. It could just mean that there were story or art issues that plagued the production and end result, issues that don't really have anything to do with the medium involved.

Furthermore, there's less prestige for the term "live-action" within the animation circuit than there is in the public at large, considering live-action as its being used in this context is a misnomer that inherently puts down animation. The whole point of animation is to be able to do things that would be impossible in the real world. For animated properties, to be given a "live-action" remake just means certain characters and/or environments are going to be animated in hyper-realistic detail versus their original toonier designs. You're not watching "live-action" films a lot of the time, just animated or live-action/animated hybrids. The Disney remakes, the Marvel films- indeed, most big-budget films nowadays- rely on some level of pre-rendered animation and computer fakery to exist in the state that they do. The only reason the line of distinction exists is because people like James Cameron feel insulted that their blue cat people film would ever dare to be relegated to the level of "animation," which in turn is an insult to the animators who were responsible for that blue cat people film being the success that it was.

So, for creators who are rooted within the animation culture, I would imagine the "live-action" trend that's going on right now doesn't really create any significant aspirations. Yeah it would be nice for the public at large to jump on board a property because they can suddenly see more hair and thus don't have to wrestle with any cognitive dissonance that results from watching an animated film in their adulthood, but the debates and philosophical issues that have resulted over the line between the terms "animation" and "live action" becoming ambiguous has caused genuine rifts and strife for the people who are actually responsible for these films' success.

I wasn't really referring specifically to the creators of the shows themselves, but filmmakers in general.  As an example, Inspector Gadget was relatively successful enough that a filmmaker (not the original creator of Inspector Gadget, though I doubt he/she cares about their work being used in this manner one way or the other) eventually decided it needed a live action adaptation.

I also use the term "live action" as a convenience and a set of expectations we have from an aesthetic point of view.  The general public sees Marvel's Avengers, the Disney remake films, etc. as purely live action, even if that's no longer exactly the case.  There's obviously a difference between those films and Pixar and Dreamworks animated films.

Now I'm not as knowledgeable on the subject, but I feel like even with how popular purely animated films (as they apply to their traditional definition) have become, I still feel like when a previously animated work becomes live action, it's treated as an evolution, as opposed to an alternative interpretation, which is largely what I mean, not so much the creators actually wish they could do live action but are relegated to a specific genre.

3 hours ago, Ryannumber1gamer said:

"Bruce Wayne should've got raped during his training as Batman" 

[Nepenthe]

I understand the context that the term is generally applied in; I just meant to answer the questions from an animator's or creative's point of view. It's a slightly different and more technical perspective and one that causes some friction as a result. You're right: Live-action remakes are treated like an evolution simply because entertainment devalues animation as a storytelling medium due to its historical use as children's entertainment, and because there is a (potentially overestimated) visceral quality to images that are realistic in terms of adding weight of the story. But from an animator's point of view, all people are doing with live-action remakes of cartoons that rely on CGI to work is watching glorified cartoons or cartoon-hybrids anyway, thus the distinction is inherently undermining even if it's meant with no harm in casual language.

There is a very solid definition and context as to what animation is: it's the illusion of motion created by playing back images made by a frame-by-frame technique versus being filmed immediately in sequence with a physical camera. Whether or not these images are toony or realistic makes no difference to the definition since creating stop-motion using real people and objects is still considered animation. Even the Academy's own definition of an animated film would call into question films like Avatar that were nonetheless excluded from the Animated Film category. To an animator, that Jungle Book film that just came out isn't a live-action remake: it's a computer-animated remake with some live-action elements. The fact that film-makers and the public call it a "live-action remake" is just a misnomer that only places different values on different art styles and deepens the cultural divide between the mediums that already exists.

[Tara]

29 minutes ago, Nepenthe said:

I understand the context that the term is generally applied in; I just meant to answer the questions from an animator's or creative's point of view. It's a slightly different and more technical perspective and one that causes some friction as a result. You're right: Live-action remakes are treated like an evolution simply because entertainment devalues animation as a storytelling medium due to its historical use as children's entertainment, and because there is a (potentially overestimated) visceral quality to images that are realistic in terms of adding weight of the story. But from an animator's point of view, all people are doing with live-action remakes of cartoons that rely on CGI to work is watching glorified cartoons or cartoon-hybrids anyway, thus the distinction is inherently undermining even if it's meant with no harm in casual language.

There is a very solid definition and context as to what animation is: it's the illusion of motion created by playing back images made by a frame-by-frame technique versus being filmed immediately in sequence with a physical camera. Whether or not these images are toony or realistic makes no difference to the definition since creating stop-motion using real people and objects is still considered animation. Even the Academy's own definition of an animated film would call into question films like Avatar that were nonetheless excluded from the Animated Film category. To an animator, that Jungle Book film that just came out isn't a live-action remake: it's a computer-animated remake with some live-action elements. The fact that film-makers and the public call it a "live-action remake" is just a misnomer that only places different values on different art styles and deepens the cultural divide between the mediums that already exists.

That's fair enough.  I definitely don't agree with the James Cameron ideology that the realism and specticle of what is inarguably CGI animation should be excluded from the genre and thus commended as such.  So, I guess a more technically correct question would be if realism is the ultimate goal, or as real as possible, which I definiterly do feel is the case.

But as you've stated, even film makers who rely heavily on CGI are quick to abandon the "animation" label, because they find it derogatory, so I still think it's a valid question that live action is considered a goalpost of sorts, even when it's both erronous and blatantly dismissive of the people making these billion-dollar franchises possible in the first place.

[Monkey Destruction Switch]

As much as I love animation and as much as it's unfair for it to be stigmatized as childish or inferior, at the same time, I can understand that many people may simply prefer live action for legitimate reasons, just as others prefer animation for legitimate reasons. At the end of the day, there are some pretty key differences between the way these two media express their aesthetics and their stories. Ultimately I do feel like animation generally does, not just by people's unfair biases but also some of its inherent properties, have a tendency towards being more of a "niche" thing (though, please take care to note that "animation" here refers to things that embrace being animated, that actually have that as a focal point, not what laymen would refer to as "live action with CGI elements" even though, as Nep pointed out, these could accurately be termed animation, because the purpose is different, if that makes sense) that appeals to specialized audiences such as children, nerds like us, etc. while live action has more of a universal appeal. I mean, the fundamental difference is that live action features...well, live actors, e.g. real people, and in some ways I guess that strikes closer to home or is easier to relate to or something. I guess it just makes it feel more...well, real. A way of making the characters in a story come to life in an almost literal sense. Obviously animation does too in the form of voice actors, but it's not really the same as having the live actors themselves star in the production. Even as a fan of animation, I can recognize there's something special about it. I guess this may also offer up a reason why such CGI-heavy movies are still called live action - maybe how the characters are portrayed is the ultimate crux of the matter.

At the end of the day, I still think it's pretty weird and goody to treat live action as "ultimate" in any way, but I guess I can at least kinda understand it. With animation, the animation itself will always have at least some of the focus, but with live action, it's sort of more...direct, in a way. I guess it's kind of like you're being directly given a window into the story being real, without a filter. Maybe with us humans being social animals, there's just something special about face-to-face communication with our own kind (even if it's one way!) that is different on a basic level from representational art, even really good representational art.

I guess what I'm sort of trying to say is that, live action hits connects with humans on a really fundamental and direct level, while animation is more of an art form, so I can kinda understand why the former would have a wider appeal. I mean, paintings are amazing and all, and are esteemed to this day, but in this day and age photographs are more useful and universal and are used for a great many more purposes. Unfortunately animation has some unfortunate and unfair stigmas that paintings don't, of course, but that's a whole 'nother issue.

Yeah, I'm just kinda...blabbing and speculating here. I guess I was just inspired to reply because, while I am a really huge fan of animation, I can also really value and respect live-action stuff...to the point where I actually think it could be a huge detriment if some of the live-action things I like were animated (though I also believe the reverse). A good actor bringing a character to life and making them seem to be an actual, living person that could exist in the real world...it's something pretty irreplaceable. Even if an animated character could do as good a job in some ways, the very fact that it's a live actor is something special, in my opinion, and creates a different sensation in many ways. Live actors truly have a unique and very special art that delivers a unique and very special product.

tl;dr Both animation and live action are extremely valuable for their unique properties, though I can kinda see why live action is more "universal" due to the simple fact that it stars real people.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

2 hours ago, Tara said:

That's fair enough.  I definitely don't agree with the James Cameron ideology that the realism and specticle of what is inarguably CGI animation should be excluded from the genre and thus commended as such.  So, I guess a more technically correct question would be if realism is the ultimate goal, or as real as possible, which I definiterly do feel is the case.

Depends on what counts in the definition of "realism" and what doesn't.

I wouldn't call Marvel's Avengers or Guardians of the Galaxy as realistic as say The Dark Knight, for example given the bizarre stuff that happens in the latter despite both of them having CGI elements.

[Tara]

10 minutes ago, Conquering Storm's Servant said:

Depends on what counts in the definition of "realism" and what doesn't.

I wouldn't call Marvel's Avengers or Guardians of the Galaxy as realistic as say The Dark Knight, for example given the bizarre stuff that happens in the latter despite both of them having CGI elements.

We're talking strictly in terms of artistic style here, though.  Not narrative.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

6 minutes ago, Tara said:

We're talking strictly in terms of artistic style here, though.  Not narrative.

...I was too?

[Tara]

1 minute ago, Conquering Storm's Servant said:

...I was too?

 

19 minutes ago, Conquering Storm's Servant said:

Depends on what counts in the definition of "realism" and what doesn't.

I wouldn't call Marvel's Avengers or Guardians of the Galaxy as realistic as say The Dark Knight, for example given the bizarre stuff that happens in the latter despite both of them having CGI elements.

Unless you mean something else by the bolded?

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

2 minutes ago, Tara said:

 

Unless you mean something else by the bolded?

Yes? And the part where I was talking about the CGI elements. 

Why would you think I was talking about the narrative when I wasn't even talking about storytelling? And in a topic strictly about aesthetics?

[Tara]

4 minutes ago, Conquering Storm's Servant said:

Yes? And the part where I was talking about the CGI elements. 

Why would you think I was talking about the narrative when I wasn't even talking about storytelling? And in a topic strictly about aesthetics?

Because when talk about something happening in a movie without elaborating, you're usually talking about plot.

Admittedly, I was confused with what CGI had to do with what was going on in the movie. =P

[Green Eyes]

I think it depends a lot what genre and characters we're dealing with, it's more socially acceptable for certain genres or characters to be live-action, or "realistic"(as in, fantasy creatures made of realistic animal parts and textures) and more acceptable for others to be animated and highly stylised.

If main characters are human,or genre is a bit more serious or adult-orientated, then it tends to be more socially acceptable for the work to be live action or "realistic" 3D CG as opposed to drawn cartoons or more stylized CG.

When dealing with mostly inhuman main characters or lighter settings (which usually tend to go in-hand), then the opposite is true.

That said there is a bit of rift in animation where it seems more acceptable for "kids" cartoon's to deal with real-life issues while adult cartoons are much sillier.

 

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

1 minute ago, Tara said:

Because when talk about something happening in a movie without elaborating, you're usually talking about plot.

Admittedly, I was confused with what CGI had to do with what was going on in the movie. =P

But in a topic comparing live action and animation? Really?

If I was talking about plot, I would have said something about the plot. And I rarely talk about movies on this forum to begin with.

[Tara]

1 minute ago, Conquering Storm's Servant said:

But in a topic comparing live action and animation? Really?

If I was talking about plot, I would have said something about the plot. And I rarely talk about movies on this forum to begin with.

Well, when you phrase it in such a way where it sounds like you're talking about the plot, of course it's going to confuse people.

But anyway, let's get back to the topic at hand.

41 minutes ago, Conquering Storm's Servant said:

Depends on what counts in the definition of "realism" and what doesn't.

I wouldn't call Marvel's Avengers or Guardians of the Galaxy as realistic as say The Dark Knight, for example given the bizarre stuff that happens in the latter despite both of them having CGI elements.

Realistic moments, paradoxically enough, don't have to be thoroughly realistic in order to be considered as such.  I keep going back to the Inspector Gadget movie, but the sequel had some of the most obviously fake CGI gunk that I've ever seen, but no one's going to argue with you that, aesthetically speaking, it emulates real life.  Same with, say, something like The Mummy series.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

2 minutes ago, Tara said:

Well, when you phrase it in such a way where it sounds like you're talking about the plot, of course it's going to confuse people.

I phrased it in a way where I was talking about the CGI. Not to sound miffed, but you completely disregarded that part when I was comparing the movies above.

But moving on...

2 minutes ago, Tara said:

Realistic moments, paradoxically enough, don't have to be thoroughly realistic in order to be considered as such.  I keep going back to the Inspector Gadget movie, but the sequel had some of the most obviously fake CGI gunk that I've ever seen, but no one's going to argue with you that, aesthetically speaking, it emulates real life.  Same with, say, something like The Mummy series.

Then that makes the stigma towards fully animated works ridiculous. Live action features have their fair share of crazy things like talking snowmen/sandmen/whatever, but make it fully animated with no live actors whatsoever and it's treated as lesser than live action? Basically anything you can do in live action you can do in animation, and it's not like live action aesthetics can't be done for kids either if things like Sesame Street are any indicator. So peoples' expectations are jacked up.

[Tara]

2 minutes ago, Conquering Storm's Servant said:

Then that makes the stigma towards fully animated works ridiculous. Live action features have their fair share of crazy things like talking snowmen/sandmen/whatever, but make it fully animated with no live actors whatsoever and it's treated as lesser than live action? Basically anything you can do in live action you can do in animation, and it's not like live action aesthetics can't be done for kids either if things like Sesame Street are any indicator. So peoples' expectations are jacked up.

I don't think anyone ever suggested that live action was strictly for adults, as it's been suggested by myself and others that live action is seen as having a more broad appeal from children to adults and anything in between, and of course, it's not like I'm suggesting that Sesame Street is seen as a more mature show, regardless of its style.  It's that cartoons, unfortunately, are more stigmatized, and while I reiterate that I think the animation age ghetto has a lot to do with that, I think factors aside from age do impede on this as well.

[Apollo Chungus]

Personally, I think all forms of media are equally valid as ways of storytelling, setting a mood, suggesting ideas or doing anything that the creators want to do. There are certain films that do fantastic things in animation, such as The End of Evangelion, Thief and the Cobbler, and anything by Aardman or Satoshi Kon, just as there are films that do fantastic things in live-action, like Jabberwocky, Evil Dead 2 and anything directed by Edgar Wright.

However, I have this theory that live-action is seen as the end-all, be-all of all franchises for one simple reason: it is the one mainstream medium that hasn't been scoffed at as kids' stuff.

Animation has been dismissed as being for children only. Comic books were regarded as kiddy fodder once upon a time. And not too long ago, video games were held under scrutiny for featuring content that wasn't 'family-friendly'. All these mediums were seen in a lesser standing, as kids' stuff, while live-action was seen as whatever it wanted to be. You didn't get people dismissing The Goonies or Willy Wonka as being kid-friendly rubbish; certainly not quite the same way people thought Akira was suitable for their five-year-old because it was animated. I've never heard people criticize the MCU films as childish, yet do so for the medium that gave us From Hell in the same breath.

This lack of self-consciousness has pretty much allowed live-action films to be seen as the end-all, be-all of any franchises' desires, and the most valid of all mainstream media. It's the reason that animation is seen as a 'genre' of film, instead of its own medium altogether. It's the reason the likes of Super Mario Bros, Dragon Ball and soon enough, Sonic himself have only ever gotten live-action adaptations from the film industry, regardless of whether that would work better than simply being animated. It's the reason tat like Once Upon A Time gets people watching within seconds and without question, but you need to do a great deal when convincing some folks to watch the likes of Regular Show.

Yes, animation, comics and games are now more culturally accepted as valid art forms (thanks to the efforts of people who didn't buy that garbage for a second), but it's still an uphill battle to be seen by most people in the same way live-action is. All media is awesome, but one of them isn't inherently superior to the others.