Re: The Incredibles.
I'm with maul2. Beauty and the Beast was not an animated film aimed at adults. If it were, it wouldn't be rated G. It just isn't aimed at children to the exclusion of adults -- which I guess is why the distinction of "family" entertainment exists, vs. "kids" entertainment.
I think people laugh at hyperviolence because it's such a system shock. I'm sure people laughed and went "Ohhhhh!" during EXPENDABLES. It's not that it's funny, per se, more of a "I can't believe that just fucking HAPPENED" incredulous laughter. It's not that it's animation, therefore it's funny. It's funny because it's insane to see it in animation.
...I don't know if I'm making sense with that distinction. I mean to say that it's not that people see a cartoon and are therefore primed to assume that they're watching something funny. It's that when people see a cartoon, they are not primed to expect graphic violence, and the shock of seeing it makes them laugh (laughter is just a response to something unexpected -- a joke is only really funny when you don't see it coming).
Afro Samurai creates much the same reaction, as did the anime sequence in KILL BILL vol.1 (actually most of that movie caused those reactions in the audience).
I don't agree that Pixar's movies have fundamentally selfish protagonists all the way through (nor necessarily that HOME ALONE or HOOK do, either. I can give you PROBLEM CHILD). TOY STORY, UP, and CARS are distinctly about the protagonists having to learn not to be such pricks, and INCREDIBLES has some of that in Mr. Incredible's storyline but there's also the clear superhero save-the-world aspect. FINDING NEMO also has a bit of Marlin not being so overprotective (selfishness in its way), but he does truly love his son and risks everything to rescue him. TOY STORY 2 is about Woody's friends rescuing him; TOY STORY 3 is about Woody rescuing his friends; MONSTERS, INC. is about rescuing Boo; WALL-E is about Wall-E seeking a connection with Eve (but unselfishly -- he doesn't want anything from her, aside from the company, he just wants to give), and then Eve saving Wall-E, and also about the ship's captain saving humanity from itself despite it meaning giving up his comfort and authority. RATATOUILLE I don't remember because I saw it once and it left no impression but I think the rat and the dude were helping each other right?
I do think, however, that perhaps you've shone a light on a deeper explanation for why Pixar is "Pixar!" and Dreamworks is "oh, Dreamworks..." Pixar DOES tell stories about self-sacrifice and whatnot, and the stories work because we feel like they matter, like they're about something. Whereas until recently, Dreamworks made movies that were about the gags and pop culture references, but the characters were fundamentally selfish and that was the only thing driving them. Even when the arc is about learning not to be selfish -- SHREK, for example -- he hasn't really learned that at the end, has he? He's really only figured out that it benefits him to open up his heart to Donkey and Fiona. I didn't bother with SHARK TALE or MADAGASCAR but I'm guessing it's a lot of the same, and I don't even remember what the hell SHREKS 2 and 3 were putatively about.
But I loved KUNG FU PANDA, and HOW TO TRAIN YOUR DRAGON really made a lot of people at least cock their heads to the side and go "wait, Dreamworks? Hm, they might be getting this now." And in both cases -- although initially selfishly motivated -- the protagonists, as well as many of the supporting characters, ultimately have to put themselves aside and fight for something bigger.
THIS IS SO DEEP YOU GUYS