Food is fuel. You get picky about what you put in the tank, your engine is gonna die. Now shut up and eat

>you're allowed to make movies about whatever you damn please in America
Absolutely. But when you're bankrolling a movie that depends on mainstream success choosing one that challenges the values of the audience is risky. A small budget film like Food Inc has its niche - preaching to the choir. But a major animated feature based around the idea that one can do better when it comes to what one eats, pretty much for the sake of aesthetics and pleasure alone? That's not very Protestant, and it's kind of a surprise it played well in Peoria.

>People like movies that dare to be a little 'edgy'.

I think in general people like extremely formulaic movies:

1) Introduce the "bad guy", and make sure he's doing something actually bad so the audience hates him/her (i.e., he's a terrorist, drug dealer, other form of criminal, or just plain an asshole)

2) The protagonist gets defeated by the "bad guy" in one way or another

3) ...but in the end the protagonist always wins.

You won't find many modern movies that break that mold.

You can still make movies that are formulaic as hell and still present controversial ideas. It used to be as simple as making a character gay.

I mean you're right that simple movies have mass appeal, but to think that mass appeal is required for a studio to sign off on a movie is retarded.

Well if it's received well despite your expectations, maybe it's your expectations that are flawed and not the movie.

>but to think that mass appeal is required for a studio to sign off on a movie is retarded.

You clearly have little business experience.

If the executives are thinking of dropping tens of millions of dollars in production costs you can bet your ass that they expect the movie to have mass appeal, otherwise how would they expect to recoup their investment and actually turn a profit? A niche film won't appeal to enough people to recoup that kind of investment, which is why niche movies tend to be low-budget.

It was one "pretentious" rat who made it an accessible film to any age group you autistic fucking loser

So no big budget movies are made with any risk at all?

Gotcha.

>Going in to see a film about rats that cook
>WHY THE FUCK ARE THERE RATS IN THIS FILM?

You're borderline retarded.

>So no big budget movies are made with any risk at all?

Who said anything about no risk? Of course there's risk. But it's mitigated because a big-budget film is designed to have mass appeal.

I don't think so. It's that cartoons have always been able to get away with shit: drug references, racist jokes, suicide jokes, extreme violence, incredibly anti-social mayhem, homosexual innuendo, you name it. Traditionally people are much more of having the norms challenged by animation than films with live actors. This is probably because adults with conservative viewpoints pay little if any attention to animation. How else could you explain the almost universal praise for a show like Rick and Morty? It's got to be that the kind of people who would find it offensive would never bother watching it in the first place.

Shut this thread down

Kina off-topic but does anyone agree on Dreamworks, which kinda is Pixar's main competitor imo, doesn't hold a candle to what Pixar is putting out there? Even as a kid I fucking despised every Dreamworks movie yet was all over Pixar's shit. Gosh I love this studio so much, Wall-E has to be one of m favorite movies ever.

DW is a mixed bag, however Pixar is getting worse after they were bought by Disney.

IT's Pixar, they'll get greenlit for any hunk of shit that falls out of their ass. Just look at WALL-E, Inside Out, or Cars 2.

wall e was a really good movie. Same with inside out.

A movie with mass appeal is essentially the definition of riskless, where's the risk in a movie that's engineered to be liked by 80% of the population? Risk means that there's a gamble, unpredictability, being able to predict with confidence that you will not lose money on a film is literally riskless.

Maybe if you have shit taste.

Every major movie production has risk, mass appeal in a risk minimization technique you turd burgler.

Off to you contrarian fuckcanoe

Can't think of a better animated movie besides lion King desu

I disagree with you on every level except the last part. While we were arguing I pickpocketed your colon for every ounce of shit I could get.

Zootopia

Fuck off

That was way fucking better than I expected it to be.

especially that it was going to look completely different.

>oh and save the planet
I read that differently since the Axiom survive 700 years perfectly fine without Earth.

Robot are capable of taking care of human indefinitely until the Heat death of the Universe, since without human interference it's a perfect system.
No matter how bad BnL was, it prioritize the survival of mankind first and foremost.

The ending sequence is debatable since realistically everyone will be dead the moment they set foot on Earth.
Living 700 years in sterile environment will undoubtedly fuck up your immune system to the point that Earth might as well be an alien planet.

It's a cartoon m8

I think you're confused, mate.

You clearly overestimate Americans. They can't be upset about the movie promoting healthy food habits and stop eating garbage, because most of them genuinely think are not eating garbage and they are healthy.

Good point. Upon reflection I realize most of the people I'd recognize as garbage eaters don't consider themselves such. People easily miss the point. How many folks in LA have unironically sung Randy Newman's "I Love LA" without realizing the sentiment of that song was not entirely positive?

At what point does this movie promote healthy eating?