every time it makes me laugh

I said that they accepted their stranglehold on “good” animated films. It was basically a roundabout way of me saying that they were making shit and not trying to improve (though Cloudy With A Chance of Meatballs was great, and I believe that was Sony).

“Making an animated feature is hugely costly, and time consuming. If the costs were low, you would see a lot more animated features made. And, because it’s so costly, the executives that fund these ventures almost always avoid creative risks.”

Does this make it right, though? I’m not arguing that it’s good business practice to take creative risks – I’m saying that taking those creative risks can produce better films. I’m not concerned with the bottom line, I’m concerned with whether the film’s good or not. Besides, it’s not like creative risks can’t produce animated films that perform well at the box office – Pixar’s entire output and Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs are testament to that.

“Very few mainstream critics would describe TMNT, or Astro Boy, as “thoughtful”.”

Clearly I’m doing something wrong then, not agreeing with “mainstream critics” (and I don’t think I called TMNT thoughtful, and for good reason).

“To sum this up, Imagi was very much trying to “cynically corners a section of the market for profit”.”

While I can see your point, and as mentioned in the reviews, I can see the places where they did that, a company’s prospectus doesn’t determine whether everything they produce is going to be bad or good. Whatever Imagi’s primary business practice may actually be – and it may well be that which I despise, that puts merchandising above film quality – it doesn’t change that Astro Boy actually does try something pretty substantial beyond that. Furthermore, while the Board of Directors or whatever may have been trying to “cynically corner a section of the market for profit” – and Astro Boy is very easy to market and create merchandise for in a cynical fashion, if its awful trailer was anything to go by – I don’t think the filmmakers were trying to, and it shows.

Also, I don’t agree that strong narrative, engaging characters and thematic richness is “niche”. Unless you meant something else by that.

Most American animation do not “complacently accept” Pixar’s strangle-hold. In recent years, Sony and Universal both made significant investments into this space, with mixed results.

>> “….few other animation studios exist in the USA that release anything other than weak CGI pap that cynically corners a section of the market for profit.”

Making an animated feature is hugely costly, and time consuming. If the costs were low, you would see a lot more animated features made. And, because it’s so costly, the executives that fund these ventures almost always avoid creative risks.

>> “….Imagi Animation Studios, comes with next-to-no pedigree in thoughtful animated features…”

Very few mainstream critics would describe TMNT, or Astro Boy, as “thoughtful”. There will always be a market for niche films, but that was never where Imagi wanted to go. In its initial prospectus, Imagi very clearly stated it was going after the four-quadrant family fares, with cheap Asian labor its primary competitive advantage. In this same prospectus, it never mentioned anything about making “thoughtful” movies, or its management experiences. There were pages and pages devoted to “built-in” audience, and merchandising tie-ins.

To sum this up, Imagi was very much trying to “cynically corners a section of the market for profit”.