7 ms·

This is an interesting read, especially given Laika's current financial challenges: https://www.oregonlive.com/business/2019/06/laika-splits-with-its-cfo-after

by jpm_sd 7y ago

This is an interesting read, especially given Laika's current financial challenges: https://www.oregonlive.com/business/2019/06/laika-splits-with-its-cfo-after-new-film-bombs.html https://www.oregonlive.com/business/2019/06/laika-splits-wit...

TylerE 7y ago
I don't understand Laika, at all. How do you spend $100m on a stop motion film? It looks like Phil/Travis Knight are what the wrestling business calls money marks: People who love the industry thus will pump money in without any real plan.
- wyre 7y ago
  You spend $100m on stop motion the same way a you spend $100m on any other film: paying people for their technical and artistic skills. Stop motion animation is a very time-intensive and precise art. Or do you not understand why people would fund $100m into a stop motion film? Probably because the financiers view stop-motion as an art worth funding. Art shouldn't need to come with financial gains to raise funding.
  - __s 7y ago
    You ended with the same conclusion that you're arguing against
    - colorincorrect 7y ago
      shhh don't tell him that: art is partially self contradictory anyhow
  - TylerE 7y ago
    That's the essence of a money mark. If you're going to go into business, go into business. If you're going to run a charity, run a charity. When you think you're doing one, but actually doing the other, you're going to have a bad time.
    - agency 7y ago
      So if Phil and Travis Knight wanted to realize a stop-motion artistic vision, what do you propose they should have done but “go into business”? Are you suggesting they should have actually structured the movie studio as a non-profit?
      - behringer 7y ago
        If they were not planning to see a profit, then a non profit would be appropriate.
- chipotle_coyote 7y ago
  I'm not sure that's fair. Most of their reported budgets are around $60M, which is high, perhaps, but stop motion at the scale they're executing is a lot of work. And their films have consistently been critical successes -- if they've had trouble finding audiences, it's not because they're turning out mediocre schlock.
  - TylerE 7y ago
    The whole story is practically a parody of being born on 3rd base. Son's rap career - which daddy finances, including putting him up for an extended period in a Manhattan penthouse - flops. Daddy convinces animation company that he's an investor in to hire son as an intern. Company continues to struggle, daddy invests more and becomes controlling shareholder. Son promoted to board of directors, despite having no management experience at all. Son promoted to vice president. Layoffs. First major film release, middling at best financial results. Maybe broken even with home video sales. Second major film release, makes less money, almost certainly lost money overall. Third film, ditto. Son promoted to president and CEO, also given board seat at Nike Releases 4th film, son's directorial debut. Bombs. Likely loses ~$60-70 million dollars Releases 5th film, massive bomb, likely loses at least $150m, possibly $200m. Son still president and CEO. Other executives fired.
    - chipotle_coyote 7y ago
      I get that, but you're carefully stepping around my point that their films are good. "Son's directorial debut," Kubo and the Two Strings, has 97% on Rotten Tomatoes and 84 ("Universal Acclaim") on Metacritic. Yeah, Travis Knight totally got his job through nepotism, but against all odds, the man is a good animator and director. Maybe he's a lousy CEO. Maybe somebody else needs to come in and say, "Look, you people keep thinking of these films as art but the market wants Minions, so you'd better dumb this stuff down, pronto." Maybe that'd work. But I honestly think it's a shame that Laika isn't doing better.
      - trynewideas 7y ago
        Definitely bad at the business end; the CFO got fired after Missing Link bombed, and Netflix is in Portland now taking their talent. https://www.oregonlive.com/business/2019/06/laika-splits-with-its-cfo-after-new-film-bombs.html https://www.oregonlive.com/business/2019/06/laika-splits-wit...
- xingyzt 7y ago
  Post processing make up some of the costs. Many of the shots in Kubo, for example, have incomplete sets and are filmed in front of green screens. These need to be composited together with a CG set and backdrop.
  - TylerE 7y ago
    That still doesn't really explain it. Fantastic Mr. Fox was made for $40m and had AT LEAST the calibre of cast that any of the Laika films have had.
    - mrob 7y ago
      Fantastic Mr. Fox was mostly 12fps. The Laika films I've seen were mostly 24fps.
    - dahart 7y ago
      The caliber is completely subjective, and Fantastic Mr. Fox made 1.16x box office / budget, so total flop. I’m not sure I understand how the fact that a different film that flopped made 10 years ago by a different company has a different budget demonstrates anything at all? Lots of good films are made for less money, and lots of bad films are made for more money. Many many movies lose money. That’s the reality of movie making, it’s risky. Many many businesses lose money, those are also risky. That’s the extent of what you’re arguing here. If you really want to understand how easy it is to spend a lot of money and lose it, all you need to do is make a movie or start your own company, and witness first hand how good ideas and business plans that seem strong at the time fail to make returns. It’s not weird or hard to understand when big projects lose money. It’s weird when they make money.
- dahart 7y ago
  > How do you spend $100m on a stop motion film? Is it hard to understand considering previous films of theirs pulled in more than $100m at the box office?
  - TylerE 7y ago
    Yes. None of their prior movies made money according to standard box office accounting, which requires a box office take of 2.5x the budget. This is because budgets don't include advertising spending, and also the film companies actually only receive about 60-70 cents on the dollar of ticket sales. The closest any of them came was Coraline, a 2.07x multiple. None of the rest even cleared 2x. Kubo barely even covered the actual budget. It's like the dotcom boom era when companies were selling a $10 bag of dogfood for $7.
    - BubRoss 7y ago
      Movies don't only make money from the the theater. Their revenue at the theater is actually their smallest source. Back in the day it was theater < DVD sales < tv licensing. You don't get to keep making movies if they lose money. Laikas movies have done well, even if you don't want that to be true.
      - TylerE 7y ago
        That is a denial of reality. You don't get articles written saying how you're on the edge of financial doom by making money.
        dahart 7y ago
        Denial of reality that they’ve still been in business until now? Why the hyperbole?
- fiblye 7y ago
  Blowing it in big name Hollywood actors when all you need is a decent voice actor for 5% of the price. Nobody is going out to see a stop motion film because Hugh Jackman or Charlize Theron is in it, but someone got convinced of that somewhere along the line.
  - lifeisstillgood 7y ago
    No newspaper or chat show is going to interview an unknown voice actor, no parent is going to trust an unknown voice actor won't attach themselves to some offensive rubbish but will trust Tom Hanks. Celebrities buy you publicity and brand in a way that is hard to replicate elsewhere.
  - unlinked_dll 7y ago
    The Disney Renaissance and birth of DreamWorks animated studios during the 1990s and into the early aughts showed that this thinking was backwards and wrong. Commercial and critical success was built upon hiring big name Hollywood actors to lend their voices. And some of them were exceptionally talented, like Robin Williams or Michael Meyers. Others, like Eddie Murphy, Gilbert Gottfried, Cameron Diaz - they were hired for their voice and their name on the billing. And it worked, it still works, and major productions today don't throw $100 million at a project without stars attached. That'd be crazy.
    - fiblye 7y ago
      All of the people you listed have recognizable voices with a history in comedy and they were performing comedy roles in their respective animated films. Just picking big name actors for a cartoon won't really do much. Everybody knows Tom Cruise by his performances on screen, but people probably won't be throwing down $15 to hear him as a talking donkey like they would with Eddie Murphy.
    - kriro 7y ago
      As a counterpoint I'd argue that these movies are usually also successful in countries where they are screened in non-English. Those voice actors are usually unknown to the general audience (one could argue that they are often the associated voice for the given big name actor but that's not always the case). At least in Germany, animated movies are rarely advertised as "featuring X" whereas in the U.S. I saw the names of the voices in advertisements.
- gorgoiler 7y ago
  It doesn’t seem so outlandish when you think of it as paying for the labor of 500 people for a year, some of them a lot, some not so much.
elbasti 7y ago
I love Laika movies. I love that they exist, and I love the sheer craft and effort required to make them... but I think they look _too_ good. I think most people laypeople that see a Laika movie doesn't realize it's stop-motion. Ironically, this makes them seem less magical than they are! It's sort of like a magic trick where the slight of hand is too good.
- ampersandy 7y ago
  This is a great analogy, as it actually has a name in magic circles! It's called the Too-Perfect theory. The idea being that some tricks are "too perfect", so the only way to do it is obvious, or the solution the audience arrives at is one which makes it look easy, and thus they don't give you (the magician) any credit for it.
  - WorldMaker 7y ago
    It's part of why I like that for the last several Laika movies they've included a raw time elapse, including puppeteers and seams, of what was often the movie's most elaborate set piece or action sequence. But doing that at the end of the movie is its own sort of "Too Perfect" because it's after the audience already engaged with the work. If they were to find a way to open that way without derailing their stories it might set expectations better; instead of ending the film with the "flawed view", start the film with flaws showing as a form of exposition and then tighten up as things flow into the story.

by jpm_sd 7y ago

TylerE 7y ago

I don't understand Laika, at all. How do you spend $100m on a stop motion film? It looks like Phil/Travis Knight are what the wrestling business calls money marks: People who love the industry thus will pump money in without any real plan.

wyre 7y ago
You spend $100m on stop motion the same way a you spend $100m on any other film: paying people for their technical and artistic skills. Stop motion animation is a very time-intensive and precise art. Or do you not understand why people would fund $100m into a stop motion film? Probably because the financiers view stop-motion as an art worth funding. Art shouldn't need to come with financial gains to raise funding.
- __s 7y ago
  You ended with the same conclusion that you're arguing against
  - colorincorrect 7y ago
    shhh don't tell him that: art is partially self contradictory anyhow
- TylerE 7y ago
  That's the essence of a money mark. If you're going to go into business, go into business. If you're going to run a charity, run a charity. When you think you're doing one, but actually doing the other, you're going to have a bad time.
  - agency 7y ago
    So if Phil and Travis Knight wanted to realize a stop-motion artistic vision, what do you propose they should have done but “go into business”? Are you suggesting they should have actually structured the movie studio as a non-profit?
    - behringer 7y ago
      If they were not planning to see a profit, then a non profit would be appropriate.
chipotle_coyote 7y ago
I'm not sure that's fair. Most of their reported budgets are around $60M, which is high, perhaps, but stop motion at the scale they're executing is a lot of work. And their films have consistently been critical successes -- if they've had trouble finding audiences, it's not because they're turning out mediocre schlock.
- TylerE 7y ago
  The whole story is practically a parody of being born on 3rd base. Son's rap career - which daddy finances, including putting him up for an extended period in a Manhattan penthouse - flops. Daddy convinces animation company that he's an investor in to hire son as an intern. Company continues to struggle, daddy invests more and becomes controlling shareholder. Son promoted to board of directors, despite having no management experience at all. Son promoted to vice president. Layoffs. First major film release, middling at best financial results. Maybe broken even with home video sales. Second major film release, makes less money, almost certainly lost money overall. Third film, ditto. Son promoted to president and CEO, also given board seat at Nike Releases 4th film, son's directorial debut. Bombs. Likely loses ~$60-70 million dollars Releases 5th film, massive bomb, likely loses at least $150m, possibly $200m. Son still president and CEO. Other executives fired.
  - chipotle_coyote 7y ago
    I get that, but you're carefully stepping around my point that their films are good. "Son's directorial debut," Kubo and the Two Strings, has 97% on Rotten Tomatoes and 84 ("Universal Acclaim") on Metacritic. Yeah, Travis Knight totally got his job through nepotism, but against all odds, the man is a good animator and director. Maybe he's a lousy CEO. Maybe somebody else needs to come in and say, "Look, you people keep thinking of these films as art but the market wants Minions, so you'd better dumb this stuff down, pronto." Maybe that'd work. But I honestly think it's a shame that Laika isn't doing better.
    - trynewideas 7y ago
      Definitely bad at the business end; the CFO got fired after Missing Link bombed, and Netflix is in Portland now taking their talent. https://www.oregonlive.com/business/2019/06/laika-splits-with-its-cfo-after-new-film-bombs.html https://www.oregonlive.com/business/2019/06/laika-splits-wit...
xingyzt 7y ago
Post processing make up some of the costs. Many of the shots in Kubo, for example, have incomplete sets and are filmed in front of green screens. These need to be composited together with a CG set and backdrop.
- TylerE 7y ago
  That still doesn't really explain it. Fantastic Mr. Fox was made for $40m and had AT LEAST the calibre of cast that any of the Laika films have had.
  - mrob 7y ago
    Fantastic Mr. Fox was mostly 12fps. The Laika films I've seen were mostly 24fps.
  - dahart 7y ago
    The caliber is completely subjective, and Fantastic Mr. Fox made 1.16x box office / budget, so total flop. I’m not sure I understand how the fact that a different film that flopped made 10 years ago by a different company has a different budget demonstrates anything at all? Lots of good films are made for less money, and lots of bad films are made for more money. Many many movies lose money. That’s the reality of movie making, it’s risky. Many many businesses lose money, those are also risky. That’s the extent of what you’re arguing here. If you really want to understand how easy it is to spend a lot of money and lose it, all you need to do is make a movie or start your own company, and witness first hand how good ideas and business plans that seem strong at the time fail to make returns. It’s not weird or hard to understand when big projects lose money. It’s weird when they make money.
dahart 7y ago
> How do you spend $100m on a stop motion film? Is it hard to understand considering previous films of theirs pulled in more than $100m at the box office?
- TylerE 7y ago
  Yes. None of their prior movies made money according to standard box office accounting, which requires a box office take of 2.5x the budget. This is because budgets don't include advertising spending, and also the film companies actually only receive about 60-70 cents on the dollar of ticket sales. The closest any of them came was Coraline, a 2.07x multiple. None of the rest even cleared 2x. Kubo barely even covered the actual budget. It's like the dotcom boom era when companies were selling a $10 bag of dogfood for $7.
  - BubRoss 7y ago
    Movies don't only make money from the the theater. Their revenue at the theater is actually their smallest source. Back in the day it was theater < DVD sales < tv licensing. You don't get to keep making movies if they lose money. Laikas movies have done well, even if you don't want that to be true.
    - TylerE 7y ago
      That is a denial of reality. You don't get articles written saying how you're on the edge of financial doom by making money.
      - dahart 7y ago
        Denial of reality that they’ve still been in business until now? Why the hyperbole?
fiblye 7y ago
Blowing it in big name Hollywood actors when all you need is a decent voice actor for 5% of the price. Nobody is going out to see a stop motion film because Hugh Jackman or Charlize Theron is in it, but someone got convinced of that somewhere along the line.
- lifeisstillgood 7y ago
  No newspaper or chat show is going to interview an unknown voice actor, no parent is going to trust an unknown voice actor won't attach themselves to some offensive rubbish but will trust Tom Hanks. Celebrities buy you publicity and brand in a way that is hard to replicate elsewhere.
- unlinked_dll 7y ago
  The Disney Renaissance and birth of DreamWorks animated studios during the 1990s and into the early aughts showed that this thinking was backwards and wrong. Commercial and critical success was built upon hiring big name Hollywood actors to lend their voices. And some of them were exceptionally talented, like Robin Williams or Michael Meyers. Others, like Eddie Murphy, Gilbert Gottfried, Cameron Diaz - they were hired for their voice and their name on the billing. And it worked, it still works, and major productions today don't throw $100 million at a project without stars attached. That'd be crazy.
  - fiblye 7y ago
    All of the people you listed have recognizable voices with a history in comedy and they were performing comedy roles in their respective animated films. Just picking big name actors for a cartoon won't really do much. Everybody knows Tom Cruise by his performances on screen, but people probably won't be throwing down $15 to hear him as a talking donkey like they would with Eddie Murphy.
  - kriro 7y ago
    As a counterpoint I'd argue that these movies are usually also successful in countries where they are screened in non-English. Those voice actors are usually unknown to the general audience (one could argue that they are often the associated voice for the given big name actor but that's not always the case). At least in Germany, animated movies are rarely advertised as "featuring X" whereas in the U.S. I saw the names of the voices in advertisements.
gorgoiler 7y ago
It doesn’t seem so outlandish when you think of it as paying for the labor of 500 people for a year, some of them a lot, some not so much.

elbasti 7y ago

I love Laika movies. I love that they exist, and I love the sheer craft and effort required to make them... but I think they look _too_ good. I think most people laypeople that see a Laika movie doesn't realize it's stop-motion. Ironically, this makes them seem less magical than they are! It's sort of like a magic trick where the slight of hand is too good.

ampersandy 7y ago
This is a great analogy, as it actually has a name in magic circles! It's called the Too-Perfect theory. The idea being that some tricks are "too perfect", so the only way to do it is obvious, or the solution the audience arrives at is one which makes it look easy, and thus they don't give you (the magician) any credit for it.
- WorldMaker 7y ago
  It's part of why I like that for the last several Laika movies they've included a raw time elapse, including puppeteers and seams, of what was often the movie's most elaborate set piece or action sequence. But doing that at the end of the movie is its own sort of "Too Perfect" because it's after the audience already engaged with the work. If they were to find a way to open that way without derailing their stories it might set expectations better; instead of ending the film with the "flawed view", start the film with flaws showing as a form of exposition and then tighten up as things flow into the story.