How should a MoFo Top Animated Films list work?

Tools    





If CGI isn't counted then what about stuff like WALL-E, The Incredibles, Antz, A Bugs Life, Toy Story etc etc...
Those are primarily animated films. Star Wars isn't.



You can't make a rainbow without a little rain.
If CGI isn't counted then what about stuff like WALL-E, The Incredibles, Antz, A Bugs Life, Toy Story etc etc...

Maybe just let IMDB decide what's eligible. If it's listed as "animation" on IMDB, it should be eligible.



I think it's mostly common sense. The focus of movies like Roger Rabbit and Star Wars is on the live action characters, while animated movies focus on the animated characters and are mostly animated. It's really not that hard to figure out.



I think the best standard is one that requires a majority of the actual screen (IE: screen real estate multiplied by length) be animated. And that CGI counts, but only when it's not attempting to be photorealistic.

I find this standard does a really, really good job of including all the things we intuitively know are animation (like Pixar films), but excluding the things that we don't tend to think of that way (like the Star Wars prequels).



For any really borderline cases that AREN'T covered by the standard, we would just leave it up to the person who runs the list. They would make judgment calls.

Oh, by the way, in case anyone in this thread hasn't seen the other, there's a vote about whether or not this should be the next list going on. Have at it:

http://www.movieforums.com/community...ad.php?t=36953



Personally, I'd allow Roger Rabbit... if it's said that RR doesn't count, I'd not allow WALL-E either.


But saying that, it opens the window for films like Avatar as well.


Whoever takes on the list, they need to lay out some pretty solid rules.



I think it's mostly common sense. The focus of movies like Roger Rabbit and Star Wars is on the live action characters, while animated movies focus on the animated characters and are mostly animated. It's really not that hard to figure out.
For sure. The only grey area might be something like Jan Svankmajer's films. Stop-motion, but with live subjects. I would definitely lean towards animation in that case but I'm not sure about the rest of you, especially if you consider Wall-E live action...



For sure. The only grey area might be something like Jan Svankmajer's films. Stop-motion, but with live subjects. I would definitely lean towards animation in that case but I'm not sure about the rest of you.
Hmmm... yeah, that is kind of a grey area. But, after I thought about it for a second, I'd consider it animation without a doubt, because that's what it is. It's just using humans as props.



Stop Motion should count.


A Nightmare Before Christmas and Coraline, that sort of thing.


Again though, James And The Giant Peach? It has a bunch of real life scenes, just like WALL-E, Avatar and Roger Rabbit... so would James And The Giant Peach count?




This is where animated list gets very complicated.



I'm not sure what you mean by "real life scenes." Almost all animation depicts real things, but it's not attempting to depict them photorealistically. It always takes significant aesthetic liberties. The humans in James and the Giant Peach and WALL-E don't look anything like real people, and aren't trying to. I think that makes for a pretty good criteria for exclusion.



Not really. James and the Giant Peach is primarily an animated film. The focus is on the animated characters.



I mean they have live action involved in them.


JATGP has actual actors on screen when James comes out of the Peach... WALL-E is photorealistic in terms of the robots, WALL-E himself especially, and also has live action segments...




There really needs to be someone in charge of the list who will lay down a solid foundation on what would count and what wouldn't.
Has anyone stepped forward yet?



It might look photorealistic, but the intention was never for WALL-E to be photorealistic. It just happened to be really good animation.



Yeah, but the "majority animation" rule would take care of those examples. I think we all agree that one live action shot wouldn't stop a film from being animated, just as one animated frame wouldn't make a film animated.

The combination of "majority animation" with "CGI doesn't count as animation if attempting photorealism" really does catch the overwhelming majority of tough cases.