Silly drawrings?

"I can't believe we're paying to watch something we could see on TV for free. If you ask me, everyone in the theater is a big sucker. Especially you!" -
Homer Simpson (voice of Dan Castellaneta)

As you can probably tell, I recently (yesterday) saw The Simpsons Movie. (Sidebar: this has been - so far - a pretty damn good year for theatrical animation. If, by some miracle, this, Meet the Robinsons and Ratatouille are all nominated at next year's Oscars, it's gonna be next to impossible for me to choose between them.) Homer's amusingly ironic statement (made after viewing an "Itchy and Scratchy" feature) has reminded me of a number of films coming out based on cartoons.

Yes, I know this isn't anywhere near a new trend (never mind product based on live-action shows); The Flintstones came out in 1994 and the late 90s/early 2000s saw the releases of Inspector Gadget, Mr. Magoo, Dudley Do-Right, George of the Jungle and the underrated (here goes my credibility, I just know it) Adventures of Rocky & Bullwinkle, but recently, we've seen the likes of Fat Albert, Scooby-Doo One and Deux (someone in marketing missed an opportunity with that), as well as two Garfield movies. Yesterday, Underdog landed in theaters and this December gives us (at long last!) an Alvin and the Chipmunks movie. I don't really count Transformers or Bratz, as they were toy lines first and cartoons second...though - credibility draining - the Bratz cartoon was an immense guilty pleasure (Wendie Malick voicing the villain and a character named - I kid you not - Byron Powell have a way with me).

Everywhere I go, people are slamming these movies, throwing about the expression 'raped my childhood' and so forth. Bringing back the words of the illustrious Mr. Simpson, one would wonder why people don't watch this stuff at home (notice that I used "was" in referring to "Bratz"). With the exceptions of "The Flintstones" and "Scooby-Doo", the shows above are a little (read: very) hard to find on TV schedules. So because we can't watch it on TV, we're supposed to pay money to see it on the big screen? I can only assume that studios have excess money to burn on these sometimes interesting, sometimes mercenary projects (or in the case of Albert and Garfield producer John Davis, incredibly bratty children).

Some of you might wonder what right I have to gripe about stuff like this, having produced nothing in the cinematic field. Those rights are, in this order, a blog, the 1st Amendment and an overwhelming curiosity to learn what goes on in the minds of people who greenlight films like this. I don't hate any of the films mentioned here, but I can't help but wonder why more original projects aren't financed. Does anyone really expect a movie based on a line of stylishly dressed, noseless dolls to break the bank?

Funnily enough, though, the films, more often than not, result in DVD releases of the original source material (the Garfield films may not be world-beaters, but they did get the ball rolling on the complete series of "Garfield and Friends" on DVD, so there's a silver lining). I can only assume that this is some sort of clever plan by execs: "Produce misguided cartoon movie. People are sick of it and want to see the originals. Make a deal to get the original show on DVD." But why produce the movie in the first place? Movies still cost money, don't they?

People make such an ado about these movies (myself included), but are they forced to see these movies? To quote another animated schlub, "The Critic's" Jay Sherman, "If the movie stinks, just don't go."

And getting back to the studio heads...maybe it's some kind of crazy pyramid scheme. I don't know.