I see that the total production costs for Ratatouille is about 150 millions. But why so expensive? Is it the animators, the hardware, the softwere, the complexity of the scenes or the voice actors or something else that causes it to cost so much?
And where did the myth come from that CGI is now cheaper than handdrawn animation? From what I have heard, handdrawn is still cheapest, and even more these days when it can be done paperless.
If Boxofficemojo is correct; Home on the Range was $110, while Chicken Little $150. But how much did Meet the Robinsons cost to produce?
Of course how much money a movie make shouldn't be the most important factor, but if the income doesn't exceeds the production costs, there will be consequences.
What's the major expenses in CGI movies?
-
Rumpelstiltskin
- Anniversary Edition
- Posts: 1306
- Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 9:05 pm
- Gender: Male
-
littlefuzzy
- Anniversary Edition
- Posts: 1700
- Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2004 6:36 pm
It takes a lot of time to create a character for 3D animation. It has to be done right so that it has enough movement points and controls so replicate any position/facial expression that may be needed in the movie. This is sometimes a matter of trial and error. In addition, even then sometimes several character models of the same character have to be built - Chicken Little had three Chicken Little character models built - one just for when his feathers popped up and out (a very short sequence in the movie and on the commentary the creators say it would be simple to do in traditional animation, but with CGI it took weeks and weeks just to build the new model and work out how and when to blend the new model in with the old one), another just for some of the more extreme facial expressions.
In addition everything else has to be specifically constructed. It's not hard to do a quick scene in say - a shed interior - in an animated movie. It will just involve one of two backgrounds being painted and perhaps a few foreground objects. With CGI the shed set has to be created, plus any props inside have to be built. And building them is not only building them, but painting them with textures etc. So its the same work as in a traditional movie (the painting) multipled manytimes (the number of items) in addition to the actual time to build the 3D models.
Then you have the physical cost of the machines, the storage, the storage for back-ups, the money to pay the computer administrators, the money for programmers to help clear up any glitches or program new behaviours etc.
That said, once the characters and models are built, they are much cheaper to reuse. This is why Jimmy Neutron had a feature movie for its debut. That meant a bigger budget was available to spend on creating the characters and sets, which could be used for next to nothing in the weekly series.
In addition everything else has to be specifically constructed. It's not hard to do a quick scene in say - a shed interior - in an animated movie. It will just involve one of two backgrounds being painted and perhaps a few foreground objects. With CGI the shed set has to be created, plus any props inside have to be built. And building them is not only building them, but painting them with textures etc. So its the same work as in a traditional movie (the painting) multipled manytimes (the number of items) in addition to the actual time to build the 3D models.
Then you have the physical cost of the machines, the storage, the storage for back-ups, the money to pay the computer administrators, the money for programmers to help clear up any glitches or program new behaviours etc.
That said, once the characters and models are built, they are much cheaper to reuse. This is why Jimmy Neutron had a feature movie for its debut. That meant a bigger budget was available to spend on creating the characters and sets, which could be used for next to nothing in the weekly series.
Most of my Blu-ray collection some of my UK discs aren't on their database
-
Mayhem
- Gold Classic Collection
- Posts: 405
- Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 6:33 am
- Location: London, England
I agree with all of that, especially the last point... would have made it myself...littlefuzzy wrote:Big-name Voice actors
Computer hardware and software
Animators (not individually, but as a group) working for several years
Studio accounting practices so it doesn't look like they made a profit!
Lie with passion and be forever damned...
-
Lars Vermundsberget
- Collector's Edition
- Posts: 2483
- Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2003 1:50 pm
- Location: Norway
But in practice, technology moves on at such a rate, they often make new characters for sequels. I know Shrek 2 did. I don't know about Shrek 3 or Toy Story 2 (if they were, for example, the same Buzz and Woody)Lars Vermundsberget wrote:I would make perfect sense, then, to reuse both characters and environments from big CGI productions in follow-ups and TV series.
Most of my Blu-ray collection some of my UK discs aren't on their database
-
kurtadisneyite
- Gold Classic Collection
- Posts: 241
- Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 8:14 pm
- Location: los angeles, ca
Add to that:Mayhem wrote:littlefuzzy wrote:Big-name Voice actors
Computer hardware and software
Animators (not individually, but as a group) working for several years
Studio accounting practices so it doesn't look like they made a profit!
Proprietary programming,
Expense of rehiring talent they let go after the last production ended,
Expense of setting up parts of the pipeline again (training, etc.),
physical plant rent,
insurance,
Retests and Redos (very common with large studio productions),
Test marketing / screenings (also very common w/ big studios)
2D isn't Ded yet!
-
kurtadisneyite
- Gold Classic Collection
- Posts: 241
- Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 8:14 pm
- Location: los angeles, ca
Uh, not really.
2D has more labor involved if truly dimensional hand drawing (characters rotate in 3d space) and cleanup are used. That's one reason almost all 2D is outsourced overseas (a Thailand animator makes $4 per hour). It's also why most "2D" animation has reverted to basic cutout (no drawing, just moving shapes around), or FLASH animation (same approach along with some basic scaling and warping).
Meanwhile, You can do 2D looking animation from 3D using a toon shader, but these are notoriously difficult to set up and the results usually have annoying artifacts that scream "I'M A 3D IMITATION OF 2D".
However, high end 2D software is improving and a good artist can do some very nice traditional looking animation without ever touching a pencil (the computer "pencils" are that good). Also, the computer drawings are clean from the start, and easier to paint.
Meanwhile, major voice talent costs the same no matter what the animation format is. You want Eddie Murphy, Robin Williams, and/or the other biggies? Prepare to shell out millions even if the animation's crude squiggles on post-its being stop-motion photoed with a web cam!
2D has more labor involved if truly dimensional hand drawing (characters rotate in 3d space) and cleanup are used. That's one reason almost all 2D is outsourced overseas (a Thailand animator makes $4 per hour). It's also why most "2D" animation has reverted to basic cutout (no drawing, just moving shapes around), or FLASH animation (same approach along with some basic scaling and warping).
Meanwhile, You can do 2D looking animation from 3D using a toon shader, but these are notoriously difficult to set up and the results usually have annoying artifacts that scream "I'M A 3D IMITATION OF 2D".
However, high end 2D software is improving and a good artist can do some very nice traditional looking animation without ever touching a pencil (the computer "pencils" are that good). Also, the computer drawings are clean from the start, and easier to paint.
Meanwhile, major voice talent costs the same no matter what the animation format is. You want Eddie Murphy, Robin Williams, and/or the other biggies? Prepare to shell out millions even if the animation's crude squiggles on post-its being stop-motion photoed with a web cam!
Last edited by kurtadisneyite on Sun Sep 30, 2007 12:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
2D isn't Ded yet!
-
irky
Render Farms, Compositors, Lighters, Riggers, Technologists, too many producers/executives...most shows don't require the animators on board for the whole time. The meter is running from the first meeting of the story crew. then it is workbooked to death. Screened and rescreened....then layed out, ...meanwhile sets and props and characters are being rigged and tested and revised......then maybe it ends up with the animators....then the models are cleaned up to make up for any of the rigging/weighting issues with the puppets.....then comes all the voodoo with the dance between lighting, effects, and compositing...
Licensing the characters is where it is at to make money.
But the real money spent seems to be in distribution and marketing. The cost of making the prints and keeping track of them. And marketing the movie...The latter can be where a grand bit of the money is squandered.
The better studios have been doing special trailer/teasers to get the message out about the movie early.
Some studios have 800 or more people...only 50 or so of them are animators....
Animators are the least of your worries. There is still immense levels of skill involved. But the numbers of people upstream and down stream both increased, or stayed the same.
Computers solve certain problems but create others in their place.
Licensing the characters is where it is at to make money.
But the real money spent seems to be in distribution and marketing. The cost of making the prints and keeping track of them. And marketing the movie...The latter can be where a grand bit of the money is squandered.
The better studios have been doing special trailer/teasers to get the message out about the movie early.
Some studios have 800 or more people...only 50 or so of them are animators....
Animators are the least of your worries. There is still immense levels of skill involved. But the numbers of people upstream and down stream both increased, or stayed the same.
Computers solve certain problems but create others in their place.
-
Rumpelstiltskin
- Anniversary Edition
- Posts: 1306
- Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 9:05 pm
- Gender: Male
Thanks. So there are a lot of levels wich each requires their own share. Like rings on a water surface, or something like that.
If focusing on the actual production only, ignoring meetings, pre-production, distribution and marketing, this should mean it is basically the total time spent on making the movie, all the little details like rendering and such, and of course the software and hardware. But I guess some movies need more details like others, like real photorealism compared to more stylistic characters seen om features from DreamWorks and Pixar, or the movies from Disney that's rendered so they are supposed to look like 2D in 3D.
I have the impression that the evolution of computer animation is like a spiral. The equipment becomes cheaper with time, and what was once expensive and hard to to, is now much less expensive and easer to do. But that the same time, all this new power creates new possibilities to make thing that hasn't been done before, and if it is on an early stage or the first time, it will of course cost a lot of ressources. The progress opens new doors, but the keys are never cheap in the beginning.
Wonder if a studio will ever come to the point where the tools have become so advanced and cheap that there is no longer need to develope it further, other than a minor upgrade now and then. If such a point should ever be reached in the animation industry, it could really help bring the actual production costs down, no matter if it is 2D or CGI.
And it sounds logic it is the creation of a CGI world and its characters which costs the most. Take for instance more advanced characters like King Kong, with all his hairs and the texture of his skin and so on. But once completed, the process should go faster.
Speaking of paperless 2D animation, I agree it sounds like cartoons made with FLASH and other programs really are a form of virtual cutout animation, and not actual drawn by hand in the same manner as traditional cartoons.
I know that Goofy's How To Hook Up Your Home Theater was done in the old way, without "cheating" (for the lack of a better word), meaning each frame at the studio was drawn by hand in the way animation done with paper are drawn, but done on a cintiq in this case. Is there any other examples where paperless cartoons have been made this way, in the "old" way instead of using some kind of cutout technique?
If focusing on the actual production only, ignoring meetings, pre-production, distribution and marketing, this should mean it is basically the total time spent on making the movie, all the little details like rendering and such, and of course the software and hardware. But I guess some movies need more details like others, like real photorealism compared to more stylistic characters seen om features from DreamWorks and Pixar, or the movies from Disney that's rendered so they are supposed to look like 2D in 3D.
I have the impression that the evolution of computer animation is like a spiral. The equipment becomes cheaper with time, and what was once expensive and hard to to, is now much less expensive and easer to do. But that the same time, all this new power creates new possibilities to make thing that hasn't been done before, and if it is on an early stage or the first time, it will of course cost a lot of ressources. The progress opens new doors, but the keys are never cheap in the beginning.
Wonder if a studio will ever come to the point where the tools have become so advanced and cheap that there is no longer need to develope it further, other than a minor upgrade now and then. If such a point should ever be reached in the animation industry, it could really help bring the actual production costs down, no matter if it is 2D or CGI.
And it sounds logic it is the creation of a CGI world and its characters which costs the most. Take for instance more advanced characters like King Kong, with all his hairs and the texture of his skin and so on. But once completed, the process should go faster.
Speaking of paperless 2D animation, I agree it sounds like cartoons made with FLASH and other programs really are a form of virtual cutout animation, and not actual drawn by hand in the same manner as traditional cartoons.
I know that Goofy's How To Hook Up Your Home Theater was done in the old way, without "cheating" (for the lack of a better word), meaning each frame at the studio was drawn by hand in the way animation done with paper are drawn, but done on a cintiq in this case. Is there any other examples where paperless cartoons have been made this way, in the "old" way instead of using some kind of cutout technique?
-
kurtadisneyite
- Gold Classic Collection
- Posts: 241
- Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 8:14 pm
- Location: los angeles, ca
Computer software designed for 2D animation, such as Toon Boom Studio, Toon Boom Digital Pro and Flash all allow you to draw characters on screen, either frame by frame (the old way) or by manipulating drawn shapes with morphing / warping or various other tools (the new way).
When a character does a 3D move, such as the body or head turning in 3D space, the animator may just decide to draw it out as the cutout or morph tools will be of limited help.
As for the number of people required, it's possible to do a feature these days with only a handful of people (the Aqua Teen Hunger Force feature only needed 4 - 6).
When a character does a 3D move, such as the body or head turning in 3D space, the animator may just decide to draw it out as the cutout or morph tools will be of limited help.
As for the number of people required, it's possible to do a feature these days with only a handful of people (the Aqua Teen Hunger Force feature only needed 4 - 6).
2D isn't Ded yet!
-
PatrickvD
- Signature Collection
- Posts: 5207
- Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2003 11:34 am
- Location: The Netherlands
keep in mind, when your movie gets stuck in development hell, it won't matter wether it's CGI or traditional.
Ratatouille had to be done almost from scrap when Brad Bird came on, making half of what they had done useless. Hence the $150 million budget.
That very same thing can happen to a traditional film. I don't even wanna see how much money will have been spent on Rapunzel by the time she is ready for the big screen. And I doubt Disney will ever clue us in on what the final budget will be.
Home on the Range also faced some make-overs. Resulting in a $110 million budget. Wich is insane for a 77 minute handdrawn film with no significant sfx or major voice actors.
Ratatouille had to be done almost from scrap when Brad Bird came on, making half of what they had done useless. Hence the $150 million budget.
That very same thing can happen to a traditional film. I don't even wanna see how much money will have been spent on Rapunzel by the time she is ready for the big screen. And I doubt Disney will ever clue us in on what the final budget will be.
Home on the Range also faced some make-overs. Resulting in a $110 million budget. Wich is insane for a 77 minute handdrawn film with no significant sfx or major voice actors.
-
Rumpelstiltskin
- Anniversary Edition
- Posts: 1306
- Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 9:05 pm
- Gender: Male
OK. It really doesn't matter how they do it, since it is the result that counts. Still, I can't help feeling that the paperless cartoons which is done the old way frame by frame has a spesific look the others (who only include actual drawing as a minor component once the envirnment and characters are done) don't have yet. It is more time consuming, but it gives a better result if it is the old style you are looking for. I could be wrong, but at least that's my impression.
"Home on the Range also faced some make-overs. Resulting in a $110 million budget. Wich is insane for a 77 minute handdrawn film with no significant sfx or major voice actors."
I have to admit I was a little confused over the big budget for such a movie. Well, as long as Rapunzel are setting a new standard (hasn't it been in pre-production at least four years already?).
From what I have heard, also Tinker Bell has been in development hell for some time. If the finished result looks good, maybe it would be a good idea to release it theatrically? That way it could make some more money than if it was direct to DVD. It worked with Toy Story 2.
"Home on the Range also faced some make-overs. Resulting in a $110 million budget. Wich is insane for a 77 minute handdrawn film with no significant sfx or major voice actors."
I have to admit I was a little confused over the big budget for such a movie. Well, as long as Rapunzel are setting a new standard (hasn't it been in pre-production at least four years already?).
From what I have heard, also Tinker Bell has been in development hell for some time. If the finished result looks good, maybe it would be a good idea to release it theatrically? That way it could make some more money than if it was direct to DVD. It worked with Toy Story 2.
-
kurtadisneyite
- Gold Classic Collection
- Posts: 241
- Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 8:14 pm
- Location: los angeles, ca
-
Rumpelstiltskin
- Anniversary Edition
- Posts: 1306
- Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 9:05 pm
- Gender: Male
-
blackcauldron85
- Ultimate Collector's Edition
- Posts: 16699
- Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 7:54 am
- Gender: Female
- Contact:
Re: What's the major expenses in CGI movies?
I may have shared one/some of these before...the YouTube channel Insider makes really neat 'how CGI films are made' videos, which I find super-fascinating. Just wanted to share in case someone wanted to watch some videos!
How Disney's Animated Backgrounds Evolved, From 'Tangled' To 'Strange World'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_Zx8j1HYzA
How Disney's Animated Hair Became So Realistic, From 'Tangled' To 'Encanto'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvTchBdrqdw
How Pixar's Movement Animation Became So Realistic
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbhsMLD9Hb0
How Pixar Changed 3D Animation With Every Movie (Part One, 'Toy Story' To 'Cars')
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1xAYik1g-w
How Every Single Pixar Movie Advanced 3D Animation (Part Two: 'Brave' To 'Luca')
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_BNaUmVulo
How Pixar Animates Human Characters
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsSF3jypX1U
Why Lighting Animated Movies Is So Complicated
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcT0w8jEESw
How Disney's Animation Evolved From 'Frozen' To 'Frozen II'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ziIS6NJk_GI
How Pixar's Animation Has Evolved Over 24 Years, From 'Toy Story' To 'Toy Story 4'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTPKGVrFtQU
How Pixar's 'Toy Story 4' Was Animated
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fT_LdcWFHkA
How 'The Lion King' Remake Was Animated
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlJkEe315mM
How Disney's Animated Backgrounds Evolved, From 'Tangled' To 'Strange World'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_Zx8j1HYzA
How Disney's Animated Hair Became So Realistic, From 'Tangled' To 'Encanto'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvTchBdrqdw
How Pixar's Movement Animation Became So Realistic
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbhsMLD9Hb0
How Pixar Changed 3D Animation With Every Movie (Part One, 'Toy Story' To 'Cars')
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1xAYik1g-w
How Every Single Pixar Movie Advanced 3D Animation (Part Two: 'Brave' To 'Luca')
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_BNaUmVulo
How Pixar Animates Human Characters
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsSF3jypX1U
Why Lighting Animated Movies Is So Complicated
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcT0w8jEESw
How Disney's Animation Evolved From 'Frozen' To 'Frozen II'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ziIS6NJk_GI
How Pixar's Animation Has Evolved Over 24 Years, From 'Toy Story' To 'Toy Story 4'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTPKGVrFtQU
How Pixar's 'Toy Story 4' Was Animated
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fT_LdcWFHkA
How 'The Lion King' Remake Was Animated
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlJkEe315mM
