Last time I talked about why I can’t watch the most common form of animal movies: the tearjerker. It seems that the most popular animal movies, even ones made by Disney (I still cannot watch “Bambi,” “Fox and the Hound,” or “The Lion King,” they’re just way too depressing), were written with the intention of causing the audience to burst into tears every 10 minutes.
Two other primary forms of animal movies exist, and unfortunately, I don’t like watching those either. The first are ones for kids, and here I do have to make a caveat. Not all Disney animal movies, both the types with anthropomorphic animals living like humans (“Robin Hood”) and ones somewhat more accurately representing reality (“101 Dalmatians”) aren’t tearjerkers, and so I can watch them. Accordingly, not all kiddie animal movies look completely stupid. But unfortunately many do, at least the ones coming out lately.
All I can think of are flicks like the live-action “Garfield,” Disney’s recent “G-Force,” featuring a team of special ops guinea pigs, and the “Cats vs. Dogs” franchise, which just looks like an excuse for a bunch of explosions and continued emphasis on a made-up feud between dogs and cats.
I realize I’m being too highbrow here; these movies were made for children, and no adults are intended to want to watch them beyond the realm of family movie night. But why can’t people make family-friendly animal movies that aren’t depressing and that might appeal to a wider audience?
Actually, movie studios do, which brings us to the last type of animal movie: the nature documentary. Of all the animal movies, next to the not-depressing adventure flick, these are the type I am most likely to enjoy. Unless they’re boring, which, though unfortunate, happens frequently.
“March of the Penguins” seems to be the exception to the rule. After the penguin documentary’s wild success, Disney created a new studio called “DisneyNature” with the sole purpose of releasing family-appropriate feature-length nature documentaries. They’ve made three, but can anyone remember the titles?
I didn’t think so. “Earth,” “The Crimson Wing: The Mystery of the Flamingos,” and “Oceans” didn’t even scratch the surface of the success of “March of the Penguins,” mostly because they were poorly paced and thus boring. In fact, “The Crimson Wing” was never released in the States; it comes out on DVD here on October to little fanfare.
I can’t even think of any other recent full-length nature documentaries. Maybe despite my love for the subject material, two hours is too long for the format. Television has certainly seen better success with nature documentaries; I’ve always preferred the Discovery Channel/Animal Planet for the subject, and I adore the BBC/PBS’s recent duo “Planet Earth” and “Life.”
I don’t know why I’m so picky about animal movies; I think I’d love them, given how much I love animals. But it seems that very few animal movie genres appeal, for various reasons. I’ll just stick to television to get my fill of pet-related entertainment.
Related Articles:
Cats and Dogs Really Can Get Along
Dogs and Toddlers: The Uncanny Similarities