Kam
07-29-2011, 07:41 AM
Here's something that I've been wondering for quite some time. It's not that I don't think there is worth in what animators do or value for their work, I just don't understand the cost structure. i.e. Why the fark do animated movies cost so much/as much as their live action counterparts?
Let's take the biggest CG filled tentpoles for the closest comparisons, basically live action animated movies.
(Live action)
Transformers 3 $195
Green Lantern $200
Thor $150
Harry Potter 2 $125
Rise of the Planet of the Apes $90
(motion capture animation)
Mars Needs Moms $160
A Christmas Carol $200
Beowulf $150
(pure cg animation)
Cars 2 $200
Toy Story 3 $200
Kung Fu Panda 2 $150
Up $175
How to Train Your Dragon $165
Shrek 4 $165
Rango $135
So... how the heck does Cars 2 cost more than Transformers 3? As I understand budgeting, above-the-line-talent (how many days they are needed for a shoot), spfx, and locations are some of the biggest driving forces in a films budget. Now locations does not exist in the animated movie and the time the talent is needed is also (I believe, and maybe this is where I am wrong) very different. The big budget productions film at around a few pages of script a day and everyone is needed there so the talent is booked for the entire length of the shoot. In a sound booth, you can bang through a few pages of script in an hour and you don't have the other actors there (with a few exceptions, I believe Rango was 'acted' out on a sound stage with all the talent around). But Jack Black wasn't in the room reading his lines with Angelina Jolie for Kung Fu Panda, they didn't have to schedule them that way.
Transformers 3 computer generated effects credit list is as long as Cars 2 PLUS all the real world effects PLUS all the real world stunts PLUS all the real world locations PLUS all the extra time the talent is needed for. I know I'm missing something, and something big, because everything needed in Cars 2 was needed in Transformers 3. But all the additional expenses of Transformers 3 was not needed for Cars 2.
Now ALL of Cars 2 is CG animation, so is that where the cost difference comes in? I'm not discounting this, I just have no idea. That the one fact of an entirely cg movie vs. a movie with live elements can make that much of a difference? But then what about Revenge of the Sith ($113), which had close to if not as much of pure cg animation and LIVE action blended in (at nearly half the cost)?
So that's my ramblin' query that's been bumblin' around my noggin' lately in the things that make you go hmmm category.
:D
Let's take the biggest CG filled tentpoles for the closest comparisons, basically live action animated movies.
(Live action)
Transformers 3 $195
Green Lantern $200
Thor $150
Harry Potter 2 $125
Rise of the Planet of the Apes $90
(motion capture animation)
Mars Needs Moms $160
A Christmas Carol $200
Beowulf $150
(pure cg animation)
Cars 2 $200
Toy Story 3 $200
Kung Fu Panda 2 $150
Up $175
How to Train Your Dragon $165
Shrek 4 $165
Rango $135
So... how the heck does Cars 2 cost more than Transformers 3? As I understand budgeting, above-the-line-talent (how many days they are needed for a shoot), spfx, and locations are some of the biggest driving forces in a films budget. Now locations does not exist in the animated movie and the time the talent is needed is also (I believe, and maybe this is where I am wrong) very different. The big budget productions film at around a few pages of script a day and everyone is needed there so the talent is booked for the entire length of the shoot. In a sound booth, you can bang through a few pages of script in an hour and you don't have the other actors there (with a few exceptions, I believe Rango was 'acted' out on a sound stage with all the talent around). But Jack Black wasn't in the room reading his lines with Angelina Jolie for Kung Fu Panda, they didn't have to schedule them that way.
Transformers 3 computer generated effects credit list is as long as Cars 2 PLUS all the real world effects PLUS all the real world stunts PLUS all the real world locations PLUS all the extra time the talent is needed for. I know I'm missing something, and something big, because everything needed in Cars 2 was needed in Transformers 3. But all the additional expenses of Transformers 3 was not needed for Cars 2.
Now ALL of Cars 2 is CG animation, so is that where the cost difference comes in? I'm not discounting this, I just have no idea. That the one fact of an entirely cg movie vs. a movie with live elements can make that much of a difference? But then what about Revenge of the Sith ($113), which had close to if not as much of pure cg animation and LIVE action blended in (at nearly half the cost)?
So that's my ramblin' query that's been bumblin' around my noggin' lately in the things that make you go hmmm category.
:D