Basically, the only modern studio consistently putting out stop motion animation movies, is Laika Studios. And yet, Laika has only had one financially successful movie, Coraline from 2009, while all their other movies have under performed.
However, Laika is currently led and owned by Travis Knight, son of Phil Knight, the owner of Nike. This has enabled Knight to continually bank roll Laika whenever they under perform, essentially making the entire stop motion animation film industry a nepo baby’s pet project.
That being said, this is actually a positive story, and reminiscent of how artists previously would be financially supported by wealthy benefactors.
Wes Anderson put out a wildly successful stop motion picture in 2009.
Consistently, sure, but that doesn’t actually mean it’s dead.
Isle of Dogs is one of my favorite movies
Oh shit he did it again in 2018, haven’t seen that but it’s going on my list!
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.
I just hope they survive long enough to release Piranesi.
Fucking what?
A Piranesi stop motion film? Based on the book?
Not only that, but the director is a huge fan of the book and is also the CEO of Laika, so there should be no issues with creative differences!
I think about this scene so much whenever I’m doing a project
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.
And working there means battery cancer.
Say what now?
Many of the model makers that work there have gotten bladder cancer most likely caused by the AC glue accelerator that they use a lot of.
In a non-cap society, do stop motion movies still get created by enthusiasts?
I think so.
Me when people forget about Wallace and Gromit.
Would you like a spot of wensleydale old chum?
If you have the one with cranberries, yes!
If you have one without cranberries, also yes!
Cranberries, and other bits of crap, don’t belong in cheese. Have them with your cheers by all means, but not in it. I like tomatoes and olives with a bit of cheese but I won’t be buying a cheese that has formed some perverted union with them.
Speaking of propping things up - Wensleydale were propped up by Wallace & Gromit.
Yeah because the truth is it’s actually pretty rubbish cheese. I’m allowed to say that, you can’t, but I can.
Yarg best cheese or a blue west country Brie.
Yes
Sorry, the cat ate it.
Bad news, Nike isn’t doing so well financially.
They ditched retail stores, cut R&D and focused on the niche street fashion market and nostalgia.
It turns out none of those moves are good long term.
If I had that dude’s wealth I would be putting so many artists on my payroll.
It sounds like he is.
I don’t get the negative comments, dude could have multiplied his wealth with some good real estate investments and milk tenants for the rest of his life, instead he chose to hire some artists in a dying industry. What a terrible thing to do when you’re born rich.
I’ve worked for a few big CEOs kids, they’re a bit fucked in the head because they really don’t have to do anything ever. The ones I met seemed to be lounge around hippies who travelled to festivals when they felt like it. I walked one kid through his mothers offices while he picked out furniture he wanted for the house he’s just gotten in a trendy part of town. Many thousands of dollar pieces of corporate furniture that he could pick and choose from.
So the Kid of Mr Nike helping keep stop motion alive is cool with me. I really liked “Strings” but I’m not sure if this guy is involved.
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”…
Advertising isn’t included in the budget numbers.
Okay…? Just like production, promotion is a gamble. How much money they can and should spend to (potentially) make more money. How does that change anything?
Typically, the promotional budget for a movie is roughly equal to its production budget. Add also the portion the theaters get. A $60M budget needs to take in at least $120M. Better $160M+. Any less and they loose money on the movie.
Calling a $60M movie a success for grosing $100M, is wrong. The studio lost money on that movie. It might be a “success” for other reasons. But then it’s budget doesn’t matter to those reasons.
I mean yeah, exactly, why give a shit if it made a net profit on GAAP if the guy funding doesn’t mind? Like, does it affect you at all in any way shape or form whether Coraline was net loss or profit according to the accountants?
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 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.
For the other movies, while they dont meet Hollywood standards of success, they still succeeded. If you spend $60 mil employing people for 2 or 3 years, and are doing what you love, and it pays you back $60 mil to do it again, that’s success. Even with the flip in there, the others covered it. As long as they break even, it bankrolls the next movie.
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”
If you want to count a whole year, then yes it can technically be made up by other movies down the line for the whole studio, but it won’t change the fact that the movie would have been a failure, that’s how budgets work. The same goes for pretty much any business that has projects or quarters.
They aren’t talking about it being made to by other movies, they’re saying the movie continues to make money for a long time after it’s first week. To give a famous example: in the 90s the Kevin Costner movie Waterworld was declared to be a massive financial flop based on its first week(s) performance in US cinemas, but once you account for worldwide figures and VHS sales it was actually one of the most profitable movies of the decade.
no, classifying a picture that makes an $80 million dollar profit as a “failure” is factually incorrect, albeit a useful tactic for studios and headline writers.
making an 80% profit is a success in any business, and a triumph in most businesses; that’s how budgets wotk.
i want to note for the nonfinancial types: that’s profit, not revenue. profit is what you have left of your revenues after your costs.
Any picture that makes any profit (and that profit can be someone buying you tacos once because they liked your film on youtube, so long as they’ve bought you enough tacos) is a success.
Hell, any film that gets a screening outside the filmmakers’ social circles is a success. That means someone liked it enough to share it. Have I moved the goalposts enough that I can consider myself a film success because I do, I’m just playing badminton rather than football.
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.
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.
$418.5M profit on $60M budget, over four movies. $100M profit per movie
Not 60 each? 418 from 240?
the table says $60M budget over four movies, not per movie
Was that the budget of all of them, or each individually?
table says together. I didn’t look further because who would be stupid enough to format a table like that if that’s not what they meant
Wikipedia. They often combine rows in a column if it’s all the same, even if they’re independent amounts.
I now regret donating to Wikipedia
That’s not how tables work unless they specify it is a totals column.
which ISO spec is that?
Which standard were you referring to when you made your conclusion?
I don’t think that table is formatted correctly, I can’t imagine it was $60 million for all four movies. yea, the budget for each is listed around $60 million.
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.
Ive seen all of these but Missing link too. Watched them with my young son, we loved all of these movies. theyre all gems and you can see the art. I love hearing all this about it, freaking neat
breaking even with stop motion is laudable. because like we won awards with our films but i think we earned like 5 grand total. we spent way more than that over the years on tacos for the crew alone.
Exactly, making $100 million profit on stop-motion is like feverishly, lovingly crafting a bespoke hot air balloon with a thousand discarded model airplane kits and then realizing you’ve somehow survived landing on the moon.
‘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.
There are certainly worse ways to spend your obscene wealth.
Funny timing I just saw a trailer for Wildwood and it looks SICK
