The Cost of Animation.

[Kam]

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.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Since the studio I work for represents the highest cost motion capture and pure CG animation, I think I can give you an answer.

As animation get's more visually life like, programming costs get higher, rendering farms get larger, and the software to write the programs becomes more expensive. There is also an excruciating amount of time being spent on these projects which means you are paying animators, and their support staff for at least a year and a half or more. As the rendering farms get larger, more electricity is used = more expense.

When you look at the sheer amount of background, foreground, and character detail, this all has to be created and layered, which takes a lot of time and computing power.

A Pixar project takes approximately two to three years to complete(way longer than an action movie), so cost add up over time. Then comes talent costs, which can add up because you have to secure the talent for long periods of time.

I hope this answers your question.

[Kam]

Since the studio I work for represents the highest cost motion capture and pure CG animation, I think I can give you an answer.

As animation get's more visually life like, programming costs get higher, rendering farms get larger, and the software to write the programs becomes more expensive. There is also an excruciating amount of time being spent on these projects which means you are paying animators, and their support staff for at least a year and a half or more. As the rendering farms get larger, more electricity is used = more expense.

When you look at the sheer amount of background, foreground, and character detail, this all has to be created and layered, which takes a lot of time and computing power.

A Pixar project takes approximately two to three years to complete(way longer than an action movie), so cost add up over time. Then comes talent costs, which can add up because you have to secure the talent for long periods of time.

I hope this answers your question.

ahhh yes, the Time side of things makes sense in pushing costs up on the level of live action budgets. Thanks, that was one part of the equation I didn't know.

For arguments sake though, (as I try and think of as apples to apples and maybe this is a bad example) but is the rendering of the Jungle Environment (say the big fight/chase/aerial battle) in UP (picking this over Cars because I think(?) i read rendering natural environments/people/animals/hair/etc is much more difficult than objects/cars/building/etc) any more costly/difficult/time consuming then rendering the building getting mashed in half in Transformers 3? (I haven't seen T3 yet, but just based on the trailer, that scene must have been insane to put together.) While I believe they had far more time to do Up, I had read that ILM put every computer/server/etc on to T3 and did something like 22 YEARS worth of rendering time in each 24 hour period of working on T3 (something close to that effect) their final week to get it ready for viewing.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

ahhh yes, the Time side of things makes sense in pushing costs up on the level of live action budgets. Thanks, that was one part of the equation I didn't know.

For arguments sake though, (as I try and think of as apples to apples and maybe this is a bad example) but is the rendering of the Jungle Environment (say the big fight/chase/aerial battle) in UP (picking this over Cars because I think(?) i read rendering natural environments/people/animals/hair/etc is much more difficult than objects/cars/building/etc) any more costly/difficult/time consuming then rendering the building getting mashed in half in Transformers 3? (I haven't seen T3 yet, but just based on the trailer, that scene must have been insane to put together.) While I believe they had far more time to do Up, I had read that ILM put every computer/server/etc on to T3 and did something like 22 YEARS worth of rendering time in each 24 hour period of working on T3 (something close to that effect) their final week to get it ready for viewing.

It really depends if the backgrounds and foregrounds are static or moving. Rendering static BG and FG is far less computer intensive than moving BG and FG's. This is why cheaper animation(Hoodwinked) uses static back and foregrounds, and more expensive movies like UP use moving backgrounds.