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.
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”…
Advertising isn’t included in the budget numbers.
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?
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.
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?