MovieChat Forums > Trolls (2016) Discussion > How Do These Movies Cost So Much Money T...

How Do These Movies Cost So Much Money To Make?


$120 Million for a 90-minute cartoon with no A-List voices?

I fully understand that animation is a time-consuming task, but "Sausage Party" cost, what, $20 million and it looked just fine on the big screen.

reply

In the case of Sausage Party it seems there was a controversy over its animators not getting properly compensated, hence the unusually low budget. As for animated films in general, I don't know all the details but they have pretty much always been expensive to make.

"If life is getting you down and needs uplifting, then please come dance with me!"

reply

Animation is expensive. If you want something better looking than Sasuage Party you need a big budget.

reply

But SP looked just fine. And even if I wanted something twice as good, wouldn't that be $40 mil? How can it be $120 Mil?

reply

This topic comes up a lot. DW typically takes between two to four years to make a film. Their 3D is amazing - not sure if that's a factor or not. Most people point to the cost of rendering the film as being one of the more expensive pieces.

If you're interested, here's a fifteen minute video by Dreamworks that gives a general idea of what goes into one of these movies.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ru0tQRJ4qKs

The question I have is how does a studio make a film as cheaply as Sausage Party? Was it all due to forcing artists to work extra hours without pay? How does Illumination keep their costs down? Is it quality (the quality of their animation pales compared to Disney, Pixar, and Dreamworks).

reply

1. It cost more to put animation on the screen, than it would be to do the same with real actors. Not the cost of paying the actors, but to just portray animation, instead of real life. Real life is really there, with animation, everything has to be created. The average cost of putting any kind of animation on screen, can be over $1.000.00 per second.

2. A lot of these movies, any big budget movie, spends a HUGE amount of money on advertising. Every time you see a tv spot for a movie, or a movie trailer in the previews for another movie, the studio is paying big bucks for that. It's kind of a hidden expense. This is why movies usually have to make 30 to 40 percent more than their budget, just to break even.

3. Of course paying the actors, and EVERYBODY who is associated with the movie. With big budget movies, you have a lot of people behind the scenes. Production costs can be huge. Add to that some well known, to big name actors, producers, and directors, and you have a lot of your money spent before anybody even shows up to the set.

It's crazy....

reply


The question I have is how does a studio make a film as cheaply as Sausage Party? Was it all due to forcing artists to work extra hours without pay? How does Illumination keep their costs down? Is it quality (the quality of their animation pales compared to Disney, Pixar, and Dreamworks).


Disclaimer: I am not an expert on CGI animation, I am just a second year computer animation major at university who reads a lot of "Art of..." books and watches creator commentaries a lot, so it's entirely possible I am way off. Take everything I say with a grain of salt.

I haven't seen Sausage Party (nor do I ever plan to) but I have seen the character designs, and judging from them it can probably be summed up fairly easily as thus; simplicity.

The characters are made up of simple shapes, they have either no hair or hair that wouldn't move much, they either have no clothing or tight clothing that wouldn't move much, they don't have anything extra to worry about (e.g. Kung Fu Panda 2's Lord Shen has gigantic tail feathers, which are presumably the reason why the director said he was like animating six characters at once.) just the normal two arms and two legs.

Now this is a presumption so it's entirely possible I'm wrong but if the rest of the movie is as simplistic as its character design then I'm guessing that's where the cost was kept down. Keeping things simple like this means less time and money being put into modeling, simulation on clothes and hair, actually animating, rigging, and it's easier to render.


Illumination, I've heard outsources to other countries. I haven't seen enough of their stuff talk to much about it (yeah, I know that's kind of illogical to say right after discussing Sausage Party based solely off seeing some characters).


reply

That makes sense. The animation does look simpler and the environment doesn't seem as rich either. Although, people told me that the animal's fur in Sing was nicely articulated. I can't comment because I haven't seen it.

reply

120 million for a cartoon is too much, period. Better ways to spend money. And animation has become so assembly-line with the CGI revolution, I bet the actual "animation" part cost under 20 mill. The big chuck of the budget goes for bloated producer fees, advertising fees, lawyer fees, and voice talent fees. Movies are an industry after all, and they figured out long ago how to pad a budget to line everyone's pockets.

reply

I don't think it's too much for a cartoon, if the revenue is worth it. It doesn't matter what kind of movie it is as long as it performs well- and this one is doing great so far. I mean, Finding Dory cost 200million too, and had a 1b box office- I think it was money well spent, regardless of the genre.

Just my opinion, though.

reply

You couldn't be more wrong if you tried. Firstly, it's not a cartoon. And secondly - assembly line? Not at all! Animation is very costly to produce and requires a lot of talent as well. Wow! Can't believe what you said! Did you even WATCH it? You go and try to make something that beautiful. *Shakes head*

reply

It was a pretty amazing looking movie.

reply

Does that include advertising budget?

reply

no A-List voices?

Are you sure?

reply

Different People, Different Companies, Different Project, Different Deals, Different Budget, Different Issues = Different Costs.

reply