The lovely Katie waxes a bit about something that is a peeve of mine: Animation = For Kids.
It starts in this post where she says she hates Shrek. Her reasoning is something like this: "for a kids movie its inappropriate: it has adult cynicism and snark as well as some vulgarity."
To which I agree about the cynicism, snark and vulgarity. Which should clue one to the fact its an adult's movie. Why do I say this?
1) The whole movie is an "anti" fairy tale. Shrek isn't doing something out of the goodness of his heart, but to keep his swamp.
2) All the movie references are either adult movies: i.e. the "Matrix" jump spin that Fiona does, or are just generally making fun of fairy tales/Disney.
3) The prince has "short man's syndrome". That's a kid's joke?
The problem I think is that animation in general is perceived by about everyone to be a "kids" genre. I really wish I knew who was responsible for this nonsense distinction. So the "Grave of the Fireflies" is a kids' movie? Set in WWII Japan, and it involves the death of children's mother by firebombing?
Or Brad Bird ("The Iron Giant" and "The Incredibles"): "Animation is not a genre".
Which is exactly right. It's a technique. Assuming animation is for kids would be like assuming film is only for adults. That would be odd to say the least. The reason for using animation is to free the story from certain reality based constraints. If you can draw it, you can show it.
I mean, I can go back to all sorts of examples: The Looney Tunes which made fun of Carmen Miranda were for kids? No, they were originally shown at the evenings as well. The joke wasn't a kid's joke, because a kid wouldn't have cared for a Carmen Miranda movie. They'd be at the Saturday shows.