We learn something new every day. This is a community dedicated to informing each other and helping to spread knowledge.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rule 1- All posts must begin with TIL. Linking to a source of info is optional, but highly recommended as it helps to spark discussion.
** Posts must be about an actual fact that you have learned, but it doesn't matter if you learned it today. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.**
Rule 2- Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding non-TIL posts.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-TIL posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.
If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.
You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.
For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.
i heard about this on a podcast. it is great news for stop-motion, and considering how many shitty rich people there are, it's nice to know there's a couple good ones promoting art.
Also their movies are good and all but one of their movies made tens of millions of dollars.
for stop-motion, a very niche art-form, making 10-130 million dollars profit per film is laudable.
went too big with missing link though, which i haven't seen yet.
I don't know if motion animation is the same as other types of films, but for most of the industry you need box office sales to be double of the film budget for it to be considered profitable. Mainly due to marketing budgets and the huge percentage of profit that theaters get for the first few weeks of a film's release.
It's pretty different from live action according to creators and producers, it's such a small market and stop motion is so difficult to explain and get off the ground and promote that financial expectations are much more realistic.
You're right that if a live-action movie costs $100 million to make grosses $180 million, the producers are upset, but that's a greedy, ego-driven convention of the modern studio system, they are still making tens of millions of dollars before everything on the back end is added in.
The stop-motion world has a more realistic perspective on production and the artists love every single piece of art they create, so also making $40 million as evidence that their art style can succeed in mainstream culture is the cherry on top of any project that even gets to be fully produced.
It’s more that if a movie costs $100 million to make, it’s usually $100 million in marketing. So it would need to make $200 million to break even. Making $180 million means someone lost $20 million dollars, so I wouldn’t really call it greedy. If the movies are not making the money then they’d need to just start reducing scope or just hope someone will keep bank rolling them.
That's what studios publicly lament about without going into detail. Between streaming, retail and merchandising alone, they're making their money back.
Marketing campaigns are not bankrupting movie profits.
If a studio makes 180 box office on a 100 million dollar production and they say they've lost 80 mil through marketing, they are pulling your leg.
"ah yeah, first quarter my team only made 23 points, oh well, thats the game."
No, there are three other quarters that the studio isn't talking about because it reduces their future negotiating leverage.
Of course studios want more money, but studios aren't losing money on movies that get close but don't tip the magic number of "double the budget"
huge percentage of profit that theaters get for the first few weeks of a film's release.
This is backwards. Theaters actually get very little percentage early on in the release and only get more later. Most early profits go to the film studio/publisher. Or at least this was how it worked ore-Covid. Maybe it's different now.
And to explain your comment a bit more, the production budget doesn't include the very real costs of marketing, distribution, and any back-end royalties calculated from the gross. Plus generally speaking, the movie is financed by lenders and production companies that will need to be repaid with interest, too.
If you've got a $50 million movie and you spend $10 million on marketing/distribution and promised 10% of the gross to people, and the theaters are keeping 10% of the gross, getting a $75 million box office breaks even ($7.5 million to royalties, $7.5 million to theaters, $10 million to marketing/distribution). And that's assuming nothing lost to interest/financing/inflation.
Side note: generally, theaters don't get much in the first few weeks. It's only when a movie shows longer than 3 weeks that the theater starts getting a bigger and bigger cut of the gross.
Wow, I usually keep track of their films as I like stop motion, but I wasn't aware Missing Link existed at all, and it came out 7 years ago!
I also didn't hear about it until last year, and I don't I have any memory of seeing previews or promotion for the film.
Me when people forget about Wallace and Gromit.
Would you like a spot of wensleydale old chum?
Speaking of propping things up - Wensleydale were propped up by Wallace & Gromit.
'Propping up the stop motion film industry' is quite the statement. Aardman Animaton has been releasing feature length stop motion movies since 2000 and all have done very well. Also Laika only worked on Corpse Bride of Tim Burton's multiple very successful stop motion movies.
I mean at least he's doing something productive with his wealth. That puts him insanely far ahead of most wealth babies.
Isn't Aardman (shaun the sheep, wallace & gromit) still consistently put out stopmotion? Or are they just cheating the visual style with 3d animation?
Yeah, Aardman are very much still stop motion (with a few tiny cheats, the stadium audience in Early Man and the sea in Pirates on an Adventure with Scientists).
Aardman has had a CG division since the mid-90s. Flushed Away was their first all-CG feature, followed by Arthur Christmas. Pirates! in an Adventure With Scientists was intended to be fully CG but, at the request of Sony, it was changed to stop-motion with extensive CG augmentation.
Wes Anderson put out a wildly successful stop motion picture in 2009.
Consistently, sure, but that doesn’t actually mean it’s dead.
Or here me out.... we tax him and his dad. Then use the money to pay stop animation artists so they arent beholden as some rich kids pet project. could even start a few studios instead of one. Early 00's there were a few independant stop motion artists. Only reason they still arent around is due to art grant funding.
This sounds nice but I expect it will not work as good in reality plus there may be more artists than money if we limit it to only those two.
Tax everyone properly and provide basic income sounds like a way to go anyway
Thats what what i meant. Artists should have better access to funding and foundational wage streams such as a basic income that Ireland is currently doing with musicians.
Aardman also produces stop-motion, so it is untrue that Laika is alone.
Not such a positive story for Will Vinton, who had a hostile takeover of his studio, and then was fired and replaced by the new owner’s son.
I liked Kubo and the Two Strings a lot.
However, Mathew McConaughey? He was a very strange choice for voice talent in that film. It did not fit the aesthetic at all, he stuck out like a sore thumb. That southern drawl thing he's got in a movie that has primarily Asian characters? Well all right all right all right.
Thank you! I hated his voice for that character. Love the movie, but I feel that was such a mistake.
What do you mean „financially successful“? The movie Kubo from 2016 had more revenue than budget. Is that not successful?
It is a damn good movie btw.
https://bombreport.com/yearly-breakdowns/2016-2/kubo-and-the-two-strings/
Breakdown here.
No, it was a loss.
Isn't that standard Hollywood accounting?
E.g. Return of the Jedi never made a profit either, on paper
Ah, so basically Marketing is not included in the budget. And theaters take a big cut from the revenue.
Sounds like the type of things normal dudes say when asked what they'd do if they won the lottery. Maybe Travis is a normal dude under the nepotism?
Aardman Animations: excuse me?
Are you not counting claymation? Because i'm sure that Wallace and grommit would like a word.
If I had that dude's wealth I would be putting so many artists on my payroll.
this is actually a positive story, and reminiscent of how artists previously would be financially supported by wealthy benefactors
Idk that sounds profoundly negative to me lmao
Knox Claymation and Wallace & Grommet beg to differ!
In a non-cap society, do stop motion movies still get created by enthusiasts?
I think so.
There are certainly worse ways to spend your obscene wealth.
Aren't all artists dependent of some rich guys or rich guy's wifes?
I saw an art exhibition recently, I am not able to buy a 200€ pillow.
I talked to some folks who worked at Laika a while back at a party. They loved working there. This was some years ago, and my memory is a bit beer soaked, but they seemed happy and proud of what they did.
Respectfully, can you clarify, please? "Under-perform" is a term you used repeatedly. These movies were successful, yes? They made more money than they cost to make them...? I don't give half a shit how much money rich assholes expect a project to make. We know how creative Hollywood Accounting can be, so I have a hard time seeing how you can say they weren't "financially successful"...
Got some sources to share? The quick search I did doesn't support your argument.
Also, Aardman is a rocking studio with quite a history. (Yes, I know they went digital for a bit after the fire)
