Gizmodo58%

The Animation Industry Still Hopes for Hollywood's Full Respect 87%

By Justin Carter72%

7/19/2026, 8:17:45 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 29 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Confirmation Bias, and Hasty Generalization, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 29.1% saturation with 127 hits. Analysis detected 1,544 faulty-reasoning hits from 436 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 79.1% and a BS Rank of 87% (2,896 of 21,173 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 86.30% of the article peer group.

Years after Guillermo del Toro declared “animation is cinema” at the Oscars, the industry remains a redheaded stepchild of Hollywood. 
A recent Variety report with several professionals in the industry discuss how animation’s perceived in the west. 
At the same time it’s viewed as a “babysitter” medium mainly meant for entertaining kids, it’s been a reliable moneymaker for decades. 
The Super Mario Galaxy Movie is currently 2026’s only movie to make over $1 billion, while Inside Out 2 and Zootopia 2 have been big hits for Disney. 
But as one animator told the outlet, the success has also been “frustrating” to see: a studio will brag about an animated film’s financial and awards success, then “turn to people who’ve worked here forever and say, ‘We don’t need you anymore.’ 
 
While Pixar president Jim Morris rightfully noted animation’s “propping up a lot of studios right now,” chief creative officer Pete Docter had a different view. 
He said animation can’t not be considered “films for kids” when most of said films are “funny, goofy, [and] a little bit like babysitter material. 
We could step our game up [as an industry].” 
However, Docter doesn’t expound on what “stepping up” would entail, and it’s worth acknowledging Pixar’s backtracking on more specific themes and perspectives in recent years—and his views on such walk backs. 
Alternatively, Laika’s solution is making people see their movies as simply movies. 
Chief marketing officer David Burke told Variety the Wildwood studio doesn’t actively sell their films as animated, instead trusting “[our] audience to find our movies, irrespective of the medium. 
They defy categorization.” 
Granted, this may also be due to the studio having a number of live-action projects in development, but Burke’s general point stands: to avoid stigma, animated movies can (and should) be promoted like they’re just regular movies. 
For those interested in animation, a true sign of the medium’s respect would be if an animated movie won “Best Feature” at the Oscars. 
That’s a tall order, and an idea professionals are split on. 
Morris wants animation employees to be eligible come Oscar voting time, while Jorge Gutiérrez believes live-action movies have a natural edge and “too many Academy members” automatically treat animated fare as something to endure. 
You can read the full story here for more insight on what Hollywood’s animation arm is thinking. 
Want more io9 news? 
Check out when to expect the latest Marvel, Star Wars, and Star Trek releases, what’s next for the DC Universe on film and TV, and everything you need to know about the future of Doctor Who. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 25.2%Justin Carter: 7.1%Gizmodo: 4.1%Confirmation Bias25.2%This article: 0.0%Justin Carter: 1.5%Gizmodo: 1.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 3.9%Justin Carter: 2.7%Gizmodo: 3.0%Availability Heuristic3.9%This article: 10.8%Justin Carter: 2.1%Gizmodo: 1.5%Representativeness Heuristic10.8%This article: 4.6%Justin Carter: 2.5%Gizmodo: 0.7%Hindsight Bias4.6%This article: 2.5%Justin Carter: 0.9%Gizmodo: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias2.5%This article: 10.3%Justin Carter: 6.2%Gizmodo: 5.6%Framing Effect10.3%This article: 0.0%Justin Carter: 0.8%Gizmodo: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 13.1%Justin Carter: 1.4%Gizmodo: 0.4%Status Quo Bias13.1%This article: 0.0%Justin Carter: 1.0%Gizmodo: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 2.1%Justin Carter: 4.1%Gizmodo: 3.9%Optimism Bias2.1%This article: 0.0%Justin Carter: 1.3%Gizmodo: 2.2%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 29.1%Justin Carter: 9.9%Gizmodo: 7.6%Negativity Bias29.1%This article: 0.0%Justin Carter: 0.6%Gizmodo: 0.8%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Justin Carter: 0.6%Gizmodo: 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Justin Carter: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Justin Carter: 0.4%Gizmodo: 0.9%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 7.8%Justin Carter: 1.2%Gizmodo: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias7.8%This article: 0.0%Justin Carter: 5.4%Gizmodo: 2.8%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Justin Carter: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Justin Carter: 0.1%Gizmodo: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 21.8%Justin Carter: 2.3%Gizmodo: 1.6%Recency Bias21.8%This article: 5.7%Justin Carter: 0.4%Gizmodo: 0.4%Primacy Effect5.7%This article: 0.0%Justin Carter: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Justin Carter: 0.0%Gizmodo: 1.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Justin Carter: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 26.6%Justin Carter: 3.4%Gizmodo: 4.1%Appeal to Authority26.6%This article: 19.7%Justin Carter: 3.0%Gizmodo: 1.4%False Dilemma19.7%This article: 0.0%Justin Carter: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.6%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 6.7%Justin Carter: 1.0%Gizmodo: 0.2%Circular Reasoning6.7%This article: 25.0%Justin Carter: 7.6%Gizmodo: 5.4%Hasty Generalization25.0%This article: 3.9%Justin Carter: 2.1%Gizmodo: 0.3%Red Herring3.9%This article: 0.0%Justin Carter: 0.3%Gizmodo: 0.9%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 4.6%Justin Carter: 2.8%Gizmodo: 4.9%Appeal to Emotion4.6%This article: 5.7%Justin Carter: 0.3%Gizmodo: 1.0%Begging the Question5.7%This article: 0.0%Justin Carter: 4.3%Gizmodo: 3.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 9.6%Justin Carter: 0.5%Gizmodo: 0.1%Tu Quoque9.6%This article: 8.5%Justin Carter: 0.8%Gizmodo: 0.5%Burden of Proof8.5%This article: 0.0%Justin Carter: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Justin Carter: 0.2%Gizmodo: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 18.8%Justin Carter: 5.1%Gizmodo: 2.0%Anecdotal18.8%This article: 0.0%Justin Carter: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 19.3%Justin Carter: 2.5%Gizmodo: 2.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)19.3%This article: 0.0%Justin Carter: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 5.5%Justin Carter: 0.3%Gizmodo: 0.1%Middle Ground5.5%This article: 0.0%Justin Carter: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Justin Carter: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Justin Carter: 0.4%Gizmodo: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 9.6%Justin Carter: 10.1%Gizmodo: 4.7%Unattributed Quote9.6%This article: 15.4%Justin Carter: 2.9%Gizmodo: 1.2%Quote-first Misdirection15.4%This article: 16.7%Justin Carter: 8.3%Gizmodo: 13.6%Biased Writer Voice16.7%This article: 8.5%Justin Carter: 2.9%Gizmodo: 1.6%Indoctrination8.5%This article: 0.0%Justin Carter: 0.0%Gizmodo: 1.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Justin Carter: 0.0%Gizmodo: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 13.1%Justin Carter: 7.2%Gizmodo: 3.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…13.1%

436 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers18%attributed speech358writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 42 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coveragePete Docter • 25 words • 100.0% coveragePete Docter • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageLaika • 12 words • 0.0% coverageDavid Burke • 29 words • 0.0% coverageDavid Burke • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Pete Docter

100%flagged-word coverage
34 attributed words44% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%37.5%75.0%Quote-first Misdirection+61.8 ptsWriter: 11.7%Pete Docter: 73.5%73.5%Biased Writer Voice-20.4 ptsWriter: 20.4%Pete Docter: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -15.9 ptsWriter: 15.9%Pete Docter: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-11.7 ptsWriter: 11.7%Pete Docter: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-10.3 ptsWriter: 10.3%Pete Docter: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.