Cartoons and live-action films are extremely different. Any established movie critic or five-year-old can attest to that. Yet strangely enough, within the last decade studios like Walt Disney, Universal and Warner Bros. have produced a growing niche of live-action adaptations of beloved, nearly iconic cartoons. So in keeping with the new millennium, now is the germane time to ask, "Why sully cartoons by adapting them to live-action?"

Batman, the dark knight. © Warner Bros.

For most in the entertainment industry, the answer is twofold: to make money and to entertain audiences. The catalyst and culprit for the recent trend of live-action adaptations is none other than The Dark Knight himself, Batman. Warner Bros.' 1989 film starring Michael Keaton and Jack Nicholson garnered over $413.2 million worldwide and launched a franchise. Batman proved how something as zany and unrealistic as a comic book or a cartoon could effectively be molded into a blockbuster. (Granted, there were earlier live-action Batman movies, not to mention Christopher Reeves' Superman films, but none reached the box-office stature of 1989's Batman.)

Unfortunately, the sweet peach that was live-action adaptations quickly became rotten. By the early '90s, they were branded as "cheesy" or "B-rated" despite sometimes enormous budgets. The box-office figures generally speak for themselves as far as these adaptations are concerned. For example, consider the domestic totals (in millions courtesy of Box Office Report) for the following motley crew of films: Richie Rich ($38.06), The Flintstones in Viva Rock Vegas ($34.92), Dudley Do-Right (<$10), The Jungle Book ($44.34), Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles III ($42.27), The Phantom (<$10), Steel (<$10) and The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle ($25).

Contrary to the beliefs of certain individuals at Walt Disney Pictures and Universal Pictures, the cause for these disasters is the greedy expectation of a huge guaranteed box office haul. The studios hope to shepherd viewers into the cinema by making childhood cartoon characters more "real" by inserting them in a three-dimensional, live-action world. The result is the creation of bad movies. Nevertheless, studios create more lackluster movies than blockbusters in any given year; it is the nature of the industry. Adaptations of cartoons should not be exempt from this trend. Consequently, a few poorly made adaptations should not cause the entire genre to be labeled "cheesy."

Inspector Gadget deserves a hand. © Walt Disney Pictures.

What About the Good Movies?
Numerous live-action adaptations have been phenomena. Look no farther than 101 Dalmatians, Casper and Inspector Gadget. However, there are also some befuddling statistics. Take the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle franchise for example: The first movie from 1990 raked in $135.3 million domestically and $202 million worldwide. Its sequel decreased to $78.58 million domestically, and the aforementioned third movie plummeted to $42.27 million domestically -- nearly $100 million shy of the original. So what caused this decline over a four-year period? The primary reason was the waning popularity of the characters; they had been over-marketed and had lost their appeal. However, many movie critics claim the third movie was "cheesy" -- a statement which is clearly erroneous. The third movie used the smartest yet most trite scripting technique imaginable -- time-travel. Rather than force the life-size turtles to combat the Shredder again, New Line Cinema sends the Turtles back in time by means of a mystical antique lantern. Time-travel in films is typically the ultimate sophistry to realism, yet when dealing with talking ninja turtles, how can time-travel be the touchstone of cheesiness?