As technology marches on, we get solutions that make it easier and cheaper to make movies. For live action, it is now significantly less expensive to shoot a feature and have it still look good by shooting and editing digital. For animation, software has significantly simplified the traditional process, and Pixar-style 3D animation software is now affordable and runs on ordinary, sub-$1000 computers.

In the end, it comes down to people. I don't know if the statement above is correct (animation more expensive than live action), and I believe it is in fact impossible to accurately state it anyway. Just like you could make a live action feature for practically no money (assuming you already have basic necessary camera/grip gear), you could conversely make an animated feature for no money as well (assuming you have a decent computer, audio interface and a microphone). Conversely, there are both live action, as well as animated features where budget was above $100M ($260M for "Tangled", $300M for "Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End"). So, as far as high-budget movies are concerned, live action features dominate the list (Pirates of the Caribbean, Avatar, the Harry Potter series, the Narnia series, the Spiderman series, the X-Men series...).

The primary difference is that the cost of top talent for a live action is generally much higher than the cost of the same top talent when working for an animated feature. In the total movie budget, box office stars tend to represent a decent chunk (even in massive-budget movies, above $150M, they can still take 15-20% of the overall budget). Exotic locations, elaborate sets/props and special effects tend to gobble money much faster than animators sitting at their computers, toiling away.

At the bottom end of the spectrum, an animated feature could be written/directed/produced almost entirely by one single person (only requiring talent for recording dialogue, if the script has dialogue in it). If you have massive amounts of talent and free time (plus decent software, such as Maya, although even the free Blender will do), you could create the whole thing on your own. Theoretically, one single person could make the next 'Ratatouille'; no part of the workflow on an animated feature requires multiple people to work at the same time (again, except dialogue recording, although even there, if you have the talent to make different voices, you could theoretically do even that by yourself). Technology necessary to achieve image quality similar to Pixar features is available in an ordinary desktop PC. Obviously, the likelihood of that happening is virtually zero, but theoretically, it is possible. There is simply no way you could shoot a live feature on your own, unless you accept very serious limitations with respect to the storyline and settings of that feature. The artistic freedom with respect to story, characters, locations and visuals dramatically shrinks proportionally to the shrinkage of the budget, which is not necessarily the case with animation. Not to mention that the technology required to achieve the comparable image quality to current big-budget Hollywood pictures costs a lot of money, and cheap camera/lights simply cannot quite reach it.

So, I believe it is generally less expensive to produce a computer-generated animated feature. The reason Disney/Pixar spend so much on their features is because top talent they have to work on their features (not just box-office stars for voice, but animators, compositors, art directors, etc, etc, etc) cost a lot of money. Add to that the amount of time they take to produce an animated feature (usually several years), and the budget tends to grow fast.

I don't think I've seen a 'machinima' feature film ever come out of Hollywood.

Kind of falls into the "it depends" category, doesn't it?

"Tangled" cost $260,000,000 - "Black Swan" cost $13,000,000
"Despicable Me" cost $69,000,000 - "Unstoppable" cost $95,000,000

But I would say in general animation costs more than live action. We
hear often of live action movies made for under $1,000,000 - we don't
hear of a lot of animated moves made for under $1,000,00

=============================================
The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress.
Joseph Joubert, essayist (1754-1824)

I think we don't see low-budget animation, even though I'm sure it is cheaper to produce animation than features (for reasons I stated above).

So, the following question that presents itself is:

Why then, if it is cheaper to produce animation, aren't we seeing more independent animated features? Why are virtually all independent filmmakers pursuing live action (or at least documentary), and a negligible handful of them are doing animation?

I believe the answer is because animation just does not feel like filmmaking; it feels like you're working in software development, or, at best, graphic design. You don't go "Sound? Camera? Mark it! Action! Cut! Print! Check the gate! Moving on!". When we say filmmaking, we imagine Haddad's trucks, jungle of cables, lights, crew mingling about, wardrobe, make-up, and finally, camera and actors. Animation simply doesn't have the same appeal, and that specific appeal is often a big reason that inspires people to dedicate themselves to filmmaking.

In other words, while there are thousands of low-budget movies, virtually none of them are animations, not because it is impossible to make a low-budget animated feature, but because not many people are passionate about making an animated feature. There are only a few would-be Lasseters, Stantons (or Disneys, for that matter) out there. Most are would-be Spielbergs, Tarrantinos and similar.

Let's not forget; the fame (and fortune) of a "live action" director simply never compares to the fame and fortune of an animation director. While John Lassiter was for several years considered the most influential person in Hollywood, ahead of even Spielberg, if you stop any person in the street and ask them to name some movie directors, they'll all likely think of Spielberg, Lucas, Tarantino and perhaps a few others. If you ask them who is John Lassiter, they most certainly won't have a clue.

Pursuing a filmmaking career in animation gets you absolutely none of the fame and glamour you get from working in live action film. This would likely go a long way in explaining why low budget animated feature simply doesn't exist as a category; not because it is difficult to make one, but because there aren't enough talented people passionate about animation, 'cause there's no fame in it.

I don't know about that - machinima is almost free, as far as I know. But, all things equal, I would think animation is cheaper, because you don't have to fly to different locations.

If that were the primary expense of a live action film (flying to locations) then
perhaps you would have a good point. But many live action films are made
locally without anyone flying to any location.

All things being equal I have never seen a $7,000 (El mariachi and Primer),
$35,000 (Blair Witch), $65,000 (Super Size Me) or $325,000 (Halloween)
animated film reach the theaters.

Sure, at $69,000,000 "Despicable Me" cost less than the $95,000,000
"Unstoppable" but the $260,000,000 "Tangled" cost more than $155,000,000
"The Voyage of the Dawn Treader" and the $40,000,000 "Social Network"
and the $37,000,000, "The Town" combined.

Do you know of any $30,000,000 to $40,000,000 or under animated
films released theatrically in the last 20 years? I know nothing about
machinima, is that really almost free to produce? What is "almost free"?
Under $5,000? Less than that?

My point is, I don't think that production cost is the primary reason why there aren't low-budget animations. As I said, nobody has heard of animators, compositors, 3D modelers or directors of animated features. Even the cheapest independent film will give the principals exposure and satisfaction that you don't get from animation. No wonder there are so many would-be directors (for live action). LEt's not forget the target audience; you simply can't sell an animated horror to anyone...

CI, I don't know anything about machinima, but the costs are pretty low, as far as I know, and that's only if you impute the costs of computers and the time of the volunteers. BTW, I've been meaning to ask you, what is a certified instigator anyway?

You've all given me something to think about, but, yes, I don't know of any low-budget animations that have made it big.

It depends:

Shoot a scene of a guy walking across the room and you've got a days work for film and a week or more for animation. Yet the more complicated the sets and costumes and backgrounds and stunts the more that film shot costs while the animation shot pretty much stays the same cost.

Of course there may be little to no interest in a high budget concept done in animation (animation in the US is still scene as for kids).

RJSchwarz

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aspiring mogul

CI, I don't know anything about machinima, but the costs are pretty low, as far as I know, and that's only if you impute the costs of computers and the time of the volunteers.

---

The cost of anything is low when you use volunteers. The costs of
the $13,000,000 Black Swan would have been considerably less if
the cast and crew had volunteered. If every person involved in
Tangled had volunteered their time that movie would have been
much less expensive. So I guess you are correct with machinima.

So if we are discussing no budget, all volunteer projects then
animation might be cheaper than live action. Its feasible that an
entire animated feature could be created by just a few people
volunteering their time. The same can be said for a live action
movie.

We end up back to it depends. Clearly we have shown that the
someone who said animation is cheaper than live action was wrong
regarding the studio system. As with everything in this business a
project - live action or animation or machinima - can be made
cheaply or can cost a lot of money. For a producer of no budget
projects using all volunteers any of the three can be very cheap
to make.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aspiring mogul
BTW, I've been meaning to ask you, what is a certified instigator anyway?

---

It doesnt really mean anything. Its something my first wife
called me when we first started dating. I tend to be an instigator
among my friends and coworkers.

=============================================
The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress.
Joseph Joubert, essayist (1754-1824)

quote:

---

Originally posted by certified instigator
We end up back to it depends. Clearly we have shown that the
someone who said animation is cheaper than live action was wrong
regarding the studio system. As with everything in this business, a
project - live action or animation or machinima - can be made
cheaply or can cost a lot of money. For a producer of no budget
projects using all volunteers any of the three can be very cheap
to make.

---

I agree. Perhaps the only thing I would add would be that, to achieve good production value, with animation, all you need is an abundance of talent, whereas with live action, you simply need certain equipment without which you simply cannot do it. Animation allows people to use equipment everybody already has (personal computers), and requires nothing in addition to that. You simply can't get a decent production value without a decent camera and a decent microphone.

This is an interesting discussion subject, though. What discourages people from pursuing animation? Why are so few of them passionate about it? Today's 3D animation software (and that includes even the free, open-source Blender) give incredibly fast tools for creating very imaginative, elaborate sets, characters and action. This is no longer technology only a studio can afford. Every modern computer can run it. Is the attention span of potential talent so short that they wouldn't be able to see an animation project through, across the several years it might take to complete it? How is it that there are thousands of independent filmmakers, but not a single independent animation director?

RJSchwarz, there are many animated productions that are seen as works for adults as well as for children, and Japanese anime is a good example. Works like Starblazers and Robotech have their following of adult fans. Many adults, including me, also like Shrek.

CI, machinema uses copyrighted material, namely, the game engines of developed games, so there is an understanding that the people can only use those engines if they don't do it for profit. So everyone has to volunteer. At least, that's my understanding.

Vasic, as I now realize, it depends. Some people (like me) love animation, and some people like only films. As far as I can see, everyone who likes animation likes live action, but not everyone who likes live action likes animation.

This issue came up because I have been reading the biography of Walt Disney, and he got his start in animation.

In that Disney biography do you get the impression he started in animation
because it was cheaper then live action?

Which one are you reading? I'm a big Disney fan and have read all of them.

So it seems when discussing machinima it's the "apples/oranges" situation.
Of course it's going to be cheaper than studio product.

=============================================
The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress.
Joseph Joubert, essayist (1754-1824)