How to (And How Not to) Make a Kids Movie

Overview

The video argues that many “kids movies” are judged unfairly—treated as if children can’t handle real writing, meaningful themes, or emotional complexity. According to the speaker, this assumption leads to cynical, shallow storytelling. They use well-known animated films to distinguish movies with “substance” from those driven mostly by spectacle or formula.

Critique of Super Mario Galaxy (and similar blockbuster kids films)

The speaker contrasts the film’s massive commercial success and visuals with what they claim is a lack of narrative substance. Alleged problems include:

• An incoherent story
• Overly frantic pacing
• No meaningful character growth
• No actual message or theme

When emotional depth is missing, the soundtrack is framed as standing in for what the script lacks.

The speaker also ties this to a broader cultural attitude—often expressed online—that children “don’t need good stories.” They present this as disrespectful to the audience’s intelligence.

Why children’s stories should have substance

The speaker argues that stories help children develop: they explore values and learn to think more deeply about the world. In their view, children benefit from strong storytelling more than anyone.

They then propose three narrative elements that reliably indicate quality in children’s films.

1. A clear underlying theme/message (delivered without condescension)

Examples cited as strong include:

• Finding Nemo (loss/fear/growth)
• Wall-E (environmental neglect/tech dependence)
• How to Train Your Dragon and The Iron Giant (fear vs. curiosity; the unknown)

The speaker highlights *Shrek* as a major example that subverts “safe” conventions:

• Shrek’s theme centers on outward appearance versus real character.
• The film reinforces this through character design that’s grotesque and intentionally “opposite” to typical Disney prototypes, plus internal conflict in both Shrek and Fiona.
• The speaker also discusses how Shrek refreshes the “true love’s kiss” trope—suggesting love doesn’t need to fit one prescribed form.

They compare it to *Beauty and the Beast*, praising its similar “inner change” structure while emphasizing how Shrek expands the idea differently—particularly with Fiona remaining an ogre.

2. An imperfect protagonist who grows by confronting personal flaws

The speaker argues imperfect heroes make better role models because children can see learning, repair, and growth rather than perfection.

Examples listed include:

• The Emperor’s New Groove
• Wreck-It Ralph
• Cars
• Puss in Boots: The Last Wish

*Toy Story* is used as the key case study:

• Its strength is credited to the dynamic between Woody and Buzz.
• Woody is framed as centrally responsible for the main conflict, driven by jealousy and insecurity after Andy gets Buzz.
• The speaker argues Woody’s redemption lands harder precisely because his flaw is internal and selfish at first; only later does he correct his priorities.
• Woody’s early theme—“what matters is being here for Andy when he needs us”—is described as something he understands but can’t apply until later.

3. Stakes that matter emotionally, not just externally

The speaker says stakes drive engagement, but escalation alone (bigger external threats) doesn’t guarantee emotional impact.

Example: Mario Galaxy

• External stakes are described as extreme (a machine that could destroy the universe).
• However, the speaker claims protagonists never become personally aware of what’s at risk in a consequential way.
• The stakes feel “impersonal.”
• The attempted emotional connection (Peach learning Rosalina is her sister) is argued to be too minor or too late to matter much.

Contrast: The Iron Giant

• The external danger is high (Cold War nuclear paranoia; government/military escalation).
• The speaker claims the film’s greater strength is emotional stakes:
  • Hogarth’s friendship with the giant is emphasized.
  • Hogarth mentors the robot, teaching morality and identity—especially that you’re not what you were made to be, but what you choose to be.
  • Kent Mansley embodies fear-driven power—using lies and scaremongering to trigger irreparable escalation (leading to a missile launch).
  • The giant’s sacrifice is presented as the moment where losing the friend makes everything feel “transcendental.”

The speaker concludes it isn’t only that “death is scary,” but that the audience has been emotionally invested in the relationship—making mortality meaningful.

Conclusion / overall thesis

• The speaker argues that many modern kids films are insecure about going beyond familiar good-vs-evil formulas.
• By contrast, Shrek, Toy Story, and The Iron Giant are presented as films that trust children to handle genuine thematic complexity, imperfect protagonists, and emotionally meaningful stakes.
• The speaker defends the term “children’s films,” quoting a line that implies: if a story only children can enjoy, it isn’t truly a good children’s story—meaning quality transcends age.

Presenters / contributors

• Presenter/Speaker: Not explicitly named in the subtitles (referred to as “the speaker”).
• Film roles mentioned in clips/dialogue: “Nacho,” “Mansley” (as character/role names associated with referenced films).

Film directors mentioned

• Brad Bird (director of The Iron Giant)

Films referenced by title

• The Iron Giant
• Finding Nemo
• Wall-E
• How to Train Your Dragon
• Shrek
• Beauty and the Beast
• Toy Story
• Kung Fu Panda
• Cars
• Puss in Boots: The Last Wish
• The Emperor’s New Groove
• Wreck-It Ralph
• Super Mario Galaxy

Notable characters referenced (from The Iron Giant)

• Hogarth Hughes
• Kent Mansley
• The Giant