Today I Learned@lemmy.worldbystenAanden@feddit.dk
6 hours

TIL the stop motion film industry is propped up by one rich kid

www.youtube.com English

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.

36
    • Bluescluestoothpaste@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      3 minutes

      this is actually a positive story, and reminiscent of how artists previously would be financially supported by wealthy benefactors

      Idk that sounds profoundly negative to me lmao

    • blargh513@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      2 hours

      I liked Kubo and the Two Strings a lot.

      However, Mathew McConaughey? He was a very strange choice for voice talent in that film. It did not fit the aesthetic at all, he stuck out like a sore thumb. That southern drawl thing he’s got in a movie that has primarily Asian characters? Well all right all right all right.

      • Gerudo@lemmy.zipEnglish
        40 minutes

        Thank you! I hated his voice for that character. Love the movie, but I feel that was such a mistake.

    • imeansurewhynot@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      5 hours

      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.

      • 👍Maximum Derek👍@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
        5 hours

        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.

        • greenskye@lemmy.zipEnglish
          17 minutes

          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.

        • exasperation@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          English
          2 hours

          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.

        • imeansurewhynot@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          5 hours

          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.

          • ApollosArrow@lemmy.worldEnglish
            3 hours

            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.

      • MrEff@lemmy.worldEnglish
        4 hours

        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.

    • psx_crab@lemmy.zipEnglish
      4 hours

      Isn’t Aardman (shaun the sheep, wallace & gromit) still consistently put out stopmotion? Or are they just cheating the visual style with 3d animation?

      • CumbrianCucumber@lemmy.worldEnglish
        3 hours

        Yeah, Aardman are very much still stop motion (with a few tiny cheats, the stadium audience in Early Man and the sea in Pirates on an Adventure with Scientists).

    • NoForwadSlashS@piefed.socialEnglish
      5 hours

      ‘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.

    • prettybunnys@piefed.socialEnglish
      5 hours

      Wes Anderson put out a wildly successful stop motion picture in 2009.

      Consistently, sure, but that doesn’t actually mean it’s dead.

      • LetchLemon@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
        4 hours

        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.

        • lad@programming.devEnglish
          4 hours

          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

          • LetchLemon@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
            3 hours

            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.

    • GorGor@startrek.websiteEnglish
      5 hours

      I talked to some folks who worked at Laika a while back at a party. They loved working there. This was some years ago, and my memory is a bit beer soaked, but they seemed happy and proud of what they did.

    • Ebby@lemmy.ssba.comEnglish
      5 hours

      Got some sources to share? The quick search I did doesn’t support your argument.

      Also, Aardman is a rocking studio with quite a history. (Yes, I know they went digital for a bit after the fire)

    • Janx@piefed.socialEnglish
      5 hours

      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”…

        • Janx@piefed.socialEnglish
          5 hours

          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?

          • Steve@communick.newsEnglish
            4 hours

            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.

            • Bluescluestoothpaste@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
              4 minutes

              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?

    • neuracnu@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
      2 hours

      Guillermo del Toro made that pretty successful Pinocchio film not long ago.

      And let’s not forget how Laika was once Will Vinton Studios (California Raisins, The Noid ads for Dominos Pizza, The PJs, various holiday specials, The Adventures of Mark Twain etc) before a hostile takeover by the Knight family and eventually rebranded.

      All that said, I got to see the trailer for Wildwood on a big screen the other day and it looks legitimately stunning. I’m definitely going to catch it in a theater.

    • Cypher@aussie.zoneEnglish
      5 hours

      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.