Today I Learned
What did you learn today? Share it with us!
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:
Rules (interactive)
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.
Partnered Communities
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.
Community Moderation
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.
view the rest of the comments
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.
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.
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.
That is very true, but won’t that happen way after the release? That’s usually when these headlines happen.
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.
I would have to think no stop motion film is spending anything near that much on marketing. I've never even heard of a few of these. That double rule seems more applicable to big summer blockbusters.
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.
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
That's very cool to hear, cross-generational appreciation.
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.
$418.5M profit on $60M budget, over four movies. $100M profit per movie
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.
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
I can see why you'd assume that, but it's not what that formatting indicates. Coraline, for example, individually had a budget of $60M Source 1 Source 2
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?
Not 60 each? 418 from 240?
the table says $60M budget over four movies, not per movie