Possibly, but it’s hard to tell because 20 years ago there weren’t so many other ways to watch movies, whether properly licensed or pirated, and there were fewer things competing with movies in general. Video sales (by unit) have definitely been on the decline for years now, so if nothing else it shows that more things have changed besides the value of the dollar. Comparing dollar-for-dollar may be unfair to older movies, but simply adjusting for inflation/ticket price may well be unfair to newer movies. In short, it’s impossible to realistically compare–well, someone could come up with a more comprehensive formula to compare movies from different eras, but we could never really be sure of how accurate it would be anyway.

Couldn’t have summed it up better myself. In fact, I’ve always wondered how the perception of animated films if more Western audiences were exposed to Eastern animation, or even Laika (Especially “Coraline”).

As for “Tangled”, I wouldn’t go as far to say that it is under appreciated/ overlooked. It had a very good box office run, and got positive reviews from the public (at least from what I’ve seen). However, I think it was overlooked by the Academy because it was a balance of a “family fun” film and “epic, emotional” film, a formula that was very well utilized (in my opinion), but sadly not rewarded by the Oscars. Not only is the film hilarious and quotable, but it adds just the right amount of darkness and emotional character relationships/ development to create a fantastic, perfectly paced movie that has a bit of everything (“I See The Light” is one of the most visually stunning moments in animation history, and “Mother Knows Best Reprise” never fails to send chills down my spine).

As for how/why animation came to be perceived by many as a
childrens’ medium, that’s a whole discussion unto itself, but I think a
lot has to do with somebody at some point deciding to use old animated theatrical
shorts as childrens’ programming on TV networks. Over time this
created an indelible impression of animation being a medium expressly for
children, and Walt Disney making his animated features for all ages (like the shorts) played a part as well. More
generally, animation has typically been more accessible for children,
who are more limited in what they can watch and appreciate, and there is a tendency to lump everything they watch into a general kids’ stuff pile. In other words, even animated features that are intended for all ages, including adults, and do not underestimate or play down to children, are often labeled kids’ stuff anyway. As for why, it is a common human trait, given our highly associative and categorizing but imperfect minds, to twist “can” into “must” or “expressly intended for”–most (western) animated features can be enjoyed by children, therefore it was intended for them, as opposed to adults who have their own movies that for the most part cannot be enjoyed by children (and for some this is even a validation of their adulthood, which is kind of sad, but it’s something I’ve observed).

Although there are many who know better, especially after the late 1980s, I think it will be exceedingly difficult to overcome the false overall impression of animation being a childrens’ medium for the foreseeable future. Western animation studios (especially American) are the ones that reach the most people globally, and the two studios that are most able to overcome the problem are WDAS and Pixar, which not only make movies for all ages but have a strong tendency for cuteness, which for some is inherently associated with children. I don’t have a problem with cuteness–cuteness is good because it’s, well, cute, which is supposed to be a positive thing–but it doesn’t help the problem. And thus animation in general remains stuck in the “ghetto” of kids’ stuff.

Maybe I was a bit harsh in calling the song horrid, but that was in the context of winning an Oscar over far more worthy competition (not even in the same league). By the way, isn’t it ironic how much these awards seem to matter, even though they’re merely based on the collective and often disinterested, biased, and politically-motivated opinions of one group of people? That’s because it carries a certain prestige with the public regardless somehow, therefore it matters even to those who put little if any validity in it on a personal level. By the way, I wonder whether Tangled would have been so overlooked if it had been released last year. WDAS were still in the AMPAS’ doghouse, so to speak, back in the day. Then a few years later (2013 movies, 2014 awards) they put Pixar there, at least temporarily. Me, I just watch the movies individually and judge. Lest I seem overly biased toward WDAS at times, for example I’m not a fan of The Lion King, and never have been–I don’t care which studio made it, the movie doesn’t work well for me, and I can tell you exactly why, too (although it’s still on a whole other level from the likes of Minions and animated B-movies).

As for actors and animation, I don’t think that the vast majority of actors have anything against animation per se, or doing voice work for animation, as evidenced by how readily even small studios are able to sign name actors, even A-listers. The problem is that actors view this as side-work in a different and, for them at least, second-class medium. Their “real” work, as they see it, is and always has been about visual performance, which was especially true before the advent of recorded sound in movies but is true nevertheless today. And actually, there is some undeniable truth in this–a partial truth from the general perspective of those here, perhaps, but still a truth, and it’s the reason, for one thing, that actors are paid so much more for live-action work. Animation has visual performances, too, of course, but those are done by animators, not actors. Although I don’t like this situation, being an animation fan, I can understand the perspective of actors and why they as a group are unwilling to take animation as seriously as live-action movies, which are their bread & butter–the movies that use their whole performance and pay them accordingly. And let’s face it, many actors who are great or at least well-liked for their visual performance/appearance aren’t great at pure voice-acting, leaving them no place in animation except to cash in on their live-action reputations and give their children (ah, so animation is a childrens’ medium to them, too) something of them that they can watch. So for the reasons given above, even actors who respect the animation medium and other things like Disney’s legacy still don’t put animated movies on the same level as live-action movies.

It sure does seem like a missed opportunity to do something more. I agree that it could still have focused on humor, its main goal, while being a more complete story. Just adding a little something meaningful would not have cost any more, necessarily, and would help build the reputation of the brand. Instead, it’s as though they’re hardly trying, just because they knew they didn’t have to. Where is their sense of personal ambition? This is why it feels, as you said, like nothing more than a product–that’s probably exactly what it is.

We’ll have to wait and see what effect, if any, this will have on the next installment of the franchise (at least its opening weekend). This one was rather front-loaded–set up to be huge ahead of time.

Congratulations, you haven’t answered the question. Matter of fact, you’ve provided something entirely irrelevant to the conversation.

Look, good on Illumination for creating what they have created, however, movies like The Minions seem like nothing more than a product. Look, even humour can have an emotionally moral lesson (like the jealous between Woody and Buzz in Toy Story 1) but I just do not see that with The Minions.

Yeah, how dare they simply aim for making kids laugh?!!