Tuesday Numbers: 6.10 M ZOOTOPIA | 2.57 M 10 CLOVERFIELD LANE | 1.41 M DEADPOOL

[zackzack]

7 hours ago, TalismanRing said:

 

 

 

As pointed out in a recently linked to article, LEGO and Minions avoided the most expensive things to animate - hair and water.  Overall, the variety and detail in terms of animation of Zootopia is also more complex and time and labor extensive.  These films take 3-4 years to produce and  Disney hasn't shipped all their animator jobs overseas to cut costs. (yet)

 

 

 

More hair & water would double the production cost??

Don't get me wrong, I think Zootopia may be Disney's new classic but

the costing is bizarre.

 

Edit: Warner & Illumination outsource their animations? Ok, that makes sense.

Edited March 17, 2016 by zackzack

[zackzack]

8 hours ago, cannastop said:

Why do so many people make this idiotic comment?

 

The reason why animation is so expensive is because it's labor intensive. End of story.

 

Get interns to do the texturing..

[yjs]

and for Disney animated productions they seem to develop new software for almost every single feature, to depict more perfect this and more perfect that, hair, fur, snow, you name it, and those development costs are all taken into account. Tangeld for example which set the ground for the new CGI-Disney era and that one cost a whopping $260M, the project changed directions a couple of times and so on. 

[The Futurist]

Pixar and Disney teams are residents that s why they cost so much.

 

The new CGI animation studios will have the same problem as time goes by.

 

 

[Jessie]

9 hours ago, cannastop said:

Why do so many people make this idiotic comment?

 

The reason why animation is so expensive is because it's labor intensive. End of story.

 

idiotic comment? the guy is asking a simple question you moron. 

[cannastop]

1 hour ago, zackzack said:

 

Get interns to do the texturing..

That is just plain ignorance. First off, getting unpaid interns to do actual labor is technically illegal. Second, if they used artists with little training or experience, the film would look less than spectacular.

[cannastop]

11 minutes ago, Jessie said:

 

idiotic comment? the guy is asking a simple question you moron. 

It's a question that is asked so many times that you can find it on google. Not only that, it demonstrates ignorance about and even contempt for the medium of animation.

[Jessie]

35 minutes ago, cannastop said:

It's a question that is asked so many times that you can find it on google. Not only that, it demonstrates ignorance about and even contempt for the medium of animation.

 

Listen to yourself. You sound like a pretentious tool. He innocently asked a question on a movie website. It's not being ignorant, stop being so rude. It's not like anyone openly calls you a dumbass for your questionable posts.

Edited March 17, 2016 by Jessie

[cannastop]

20 minutes ago, Jessie said:

 

Listen to yourself. You sound like a pretentious tool. He innocently asked a question on a movie website. It's not being ignorant, stop being so rude. It's not like anyone openly calls you a dumbass for your questionable posts.

Mmm, no, I'm pretty sure you're implying a lot about me.

 

And many times that question is asked, it is not exactly innocent. It's more in a tone that suggests, "Why are these dumbass cartoons getting attention?"

Also, the same person who asked this question said something truly moronic later on in the thread. I responded to that.

Edited March 17, 2016 by cannastop

[movieboner]

I  think Zootopia will finish a little over $300 million. Next week, Batman vs Superman is going to eat into its box office legs.

[lilmac]

52 minutes ago, movieboner said:

I  think Zootopia will finish a little over $300 million. Next week, Batman vs Superman is going to eat into its box office legs.

 

Deadpool could actually beat BvS in the domestic boxoffice.

[BadAtGender]

9 hours ago, zackzack said:

 

More hair & water would double the production cost??

Don't get me wrong, I think Zootopia may be Disney's new classic but

the costing is bizarre.

 

Edit: Warner & Illumination outsource their animations? Ok, that makes sense.

It's not just hair and water, although Zootopia has a ton of both. It's also the huge number of setting environments and perhaps the widest variety of character models ever used in an animated film. 

 

All of that adds up to a lot of required computing power to render. While the Hyperion software makes it possible to do such things it still takes time and money. Plus they will try and push the envelope of what is possible with the existing technology as well as develop new software. 

 

And high end software like this isn't cheap. 

 

Beyond just that, they still need to animate every frame. Every movement of the characters is controlled. And pulling it off to make it look natural and real is a painstakingly slow process. Perhaps not quite as slow as stop motion, but the man-hours required for seconds of footage is going to be really high. 

 

Basically if you want cutting edge animation tech you have to pay for it. 

[chuck0]

19 hours ago, zackzack said:

 

I don't understand how Disney animation cost so damn much....?? The cast is in the voice box, no location shooting, everything is done inside a computer, how can it cost $150-$175M? Mad Max Fury Road costing close to $200M is understandable: delayed production, location is in the middle of nowhere, practical stunts, and expensive looking CGI.

Minions & Lego price tags are more reasonable.

 

 

I think in the end you answered your own question... Nowadays animated movies are expesive looking CGI from start to finish

[zackzack]

16 hours ago, cannastop said:

That is just plain ignorance. First off, getting unpaid interns to do actual labor is technically illegal. Second, if they used artists with little training or experience, the film would look less than spectacular.

 

I was joking, my friend, take it easy. 

Maybe I should quit posting for a week

until the bad air clears. 

[zackzack]

6 hours ago, chuck0 said:

 

I think in the end you answered your own question... Nowadays animated movies are expesive looking CGI from start to finish

 

Don't know much about CGI compositing but I think those CGI inserts in MMFR can be more complex than 100% CGI animation because the former has to blend in with the live action template. I could be wrong.

[narniadis]

19 hours ago, Jessie said:

 

Listen to yourself. You sound like a pretentious tool. He innocently asked a question on a movie website. It's not being ignorant, stop being so rude. It's not like anyone openly calls you a dumbass for your questionable posts.

 

LOL thats our Jessie! (I am surprised no one has done that yet though...... )

[Jessie]

2 hours ago, narniadis said:

 

LOL thats our Jessie! (I am surprised no one has done that yet though...... )

 

Its only annoying because i honestly dont know how certain animation movies cost so much and others dont. Its like saying we dont appreciate animation movies for not being knowledgeable about their production.  Like how does Despicable me cost 69m to make yet toy story 3 cost 200m? Is that an idiotic question? Its not like the hair or grass argument can be used for Toy Story, i dont remember any of the characters having complex hair to render. People only ask questions on here because its better to have a conversation than to just use google. 

[Jessie]

6 hours ago, zackzack said:

 

Don't know much about CGI compositing but I think those CGI inserts in MMFR can be more complex than 100% CGI animation because the former has to blend in with the live action template. I could be wrong.

 

I guess there is just a lot going on in animation movies that we take for granted. With a film you shoot it and add in specs of CGI here and there. With animation it probably takes months of hard work just to perfectly render a few windy trees in the background of a 2 minute scene. They have to create everything you see in animations and theres a lot of mise en scene in a 100 minute feature length film. 

 

My biggest question is how some are able to do it cheaply, like illumination. I dont see a big enough difference in quality to justify spending 3 times as much. 

Edited March 18, 2016 by Jessie

[Sal]

5 hours ago, Jessie said:

 

I guess there is just a lot going on in animation movies that we take for granted. With a film you shoot it and add in specs of CGI here and there. With animation it probably takes months of hard work just to perfectly render a few windy trees in the background of a 2 minute scene. They have to create everything you see in animations and theres a lot of mise en scene in a 100 minute feature length film. 

 

My biggest question is how some are able to do it cheaply, like illumination. I dont see a big enough difference in quality to justify spending 3 times as much. 

 

Simple.  Most of them outsource to places where they're paying a  lot less.  Also they tend to use more simplistic animation styles. Some things are just easier to animate (like when they mentioned the problem of hair/fur/environments earlier).  Creating the rigs for CG animation makes things a lot easier, but it still adds time and cost to the process since you have to pay someone to design and create them.  Plus the more (and more varied characters) in a movie, the more you have to design and the more you tack onto initial cost even before the animation.  Sequels are cheaper, generally speaking, in this respect because they already have base rigs they can use.  Even if they update them and make them more detailed, it's a starting point that lowers the cost.

 

I've done animation myself and I can tell you that a smooth surface is much easier to animate than something textured.  It takes 9 months to animate an episode of most traditionally drawn cartoons.  It takes me months to animate a two minute sequence.   Both benefit from being intensely simple designs easy to repeat but it still takes forever.  

 

I mean animation folks here in the US don't get paid all that much comparatively, but in places like Japan, a starting animator can be earning about 16,000 a year on their work.  Korea is likely even cheaper.

 

Not to mention voice acting is not cheap either.  I can tell you that the baseline for a virtually unknown VA is between $200 and $500 per hour in the recording booth.  That's not an hour of dialogue or usable content (in fact, if you're lucky, you can get between 15 and 30 minutes of usable content in a two hour recording session).  Now up that price for all the celebrities they hire (because most celebrities are charging a lot more in the recording booth and fool around a lot more), add on the many bg voices and you're looking at a hefty chunk.

 

Animation is hard.  It's a lot of work and it's very expensive.

Edited March 18, 2016 by Sal

[yjs]

4 minutes ago, Sal said:

 

Simple.  Most of them outsource to places where they're paying a  lot less.  Also they tend to use more simplistic animation styles. Some things are just easier to animate (like when they mentioned the problem of hair/fur/environments earlier). 

yeah honestly those animals from the secret life of pets trailer looked like cheap plush dolls to me...