Why can't there be more movies? i mean there was another topic here "too many animators"
i mean there more live action flims a year then animated flims.. not fair... we can tell Adult,painfull,action,war,gangster flims story throw animation as well right?
i mean not to offend live action flims or anything...

JKR wrote:

fakepivot wrote:

Why can't there be more movies? i mean there was another topic here "too many animators"
i mean there more live action flims a year then animated flims.. not fair... we can tell Adult,painfull,action,war,gangster flims story throw animation as well right?
i mean not to offend live action flims or anything...

That's a terrific question!

thats actually a pretty easy question to answer, live action movies, cheap or expensive, is heck of a lot easier and faster to make compared to CG. One can probably shoot a good 5-10 minute live action short film in a heck of a lot shorter amount of time compared to cg where you have to model, rig, texture, animate, script, light, bla bla bla bla, in which it'll take a lot longer time

JKR wrote:

I don't know if that's really an answer though. If live action is cheaper, why make ANY animated movies?

One reason: the good ones tend to make a TON of money. Look at the top 100 grossing films of all time and a disproportionate number of animated films are on the list (with consideration to the number made vs live action films).

fakepivot wrote:

Why can't there be more movies?

In absolute numbers... there are more!

Why, when I was a boy   there was about one Disney animated feature every three or four years and that was it.

Occasionally some ghastly independent thing would crash and burn but really there was Disney and not much else.

Now we get about 5 or 6 major studio releases every year.


But why are there still so many live-action pictures?

-The Hollywood infrastructure is more experienced with it. Writers, directors, actors, crews... an enormous chunk of Hollywood WANTS to make live-action.
-Live action can be much cheaper so the cost of failure is smaller and potential profit greater.
-Even if it doesn't make lots of money a live action movie can get lots of notice for its creators.  "The Hurt Locker" cost $11M, made only $12M but won an Oscar.  That doesn't happen for animated features.
-Audience demand for animation is pretty much saturated now.  They aren't agitating for more. They ARE agitating for more live-action vampire movies with sexy teenagers in them.

live action costs less? lol i tought actors get piad Big time than animators .. i guess i was wrong jk
.. well i guess if we have to survive.. then we have to become REALLY Good At what we do..

JKR wrote:

ajfrank wrote:

JKR wrote:

That's a terrific question!

thats actually a pretty easy question to answer, live action movies, cheap or expensive, is heck of a lot easier and faster to make compared to CG. One can probably shoot a good 5-10 minute live action short film in a heck of a lot shorter amount of time compared to cg where you have to model, rig, texture, animate, script, light, bla bla bla bla, in which it'll take a lot longer time

I don't know if that's really an answer though. If live action is cheaper, why make ANY animated movies?

fakepivot wrote:

live action costs less? lol i tought actors get piad Big time than animators .. i guess i was wrong jk
.. well i guess if we have to survive.. then we have to become REALLY Good At what we do..

Noooo I didnt say live action cost less, or is cheaper as compared to animation. When it comes down to making featured film movies, I don't know which is more expensive. Fakepivot you're right them actors do get paid heck of a lot of money compared to animators, in which I kind of find unfair they can get royalty checks and animators don't, especially if a animated film, or a video game, makes big bucks, make u think were all that money go to? (I know, the top dogs like the owners and directors ect ect) But anyways what I said was despite the budget, live action would be quicker to make compared to an animation film. Yes, both provide heck of a lot of set up, live action sometimes has to set up stage lighting, permits and all that stuff, but lets say if you take two amateur film makers who knows about storytelling and they both produce their own short film, one live action and the other strictly CG, I would guarantee the live action would be done a lot quicker and come out in better quality compared to the CG film

Vets need to stay ahead of the game then. They're payed more for a reason. They're produce better work.

BlueStar11 wrote:

We never hear about which "studio" produced a live action film... in live action, it's all about the director, not any studio.

Two reasons...

there are no awards for "studios".  Awards go to actors, directors, producers, crew, writers.

Live action studios are no longer a regular staff of actors, directors, producers, crew, writers as they were in the MGM days.  Live action "studios" are mostly now a corporate office that puts production deals together.

But i disagree that we never hear of them.  When Sony or Disney has a string of live action flops, that company name gets talked about.

BlueStar11 wrote:

It seems like the problem here, as it's been for a while now, is the over-concentration of only a few animated studios churning out the vast majority of animated work (and pretty much entirely the kids comedy "genre"). We never hear about which "studio" produced a live action film... in live action, it's all about the director, not any studio. As far as expense, I thought softwares were getting cheaper and cheaper all the time, so now it's getting even easier for animators to get together to make their OWN animated films, and get noticed on the internet, maybe even different genres and ratings than the well-worn tiresome studio system. I'm getting sick of the same old Disney, Pixar, Dreamworks stories and characters. I keep getting more motivated to make my own shorts/movies, rather than attempt to get hired at one of these places with a demo reel. Especially among hundreds of thousands of other hopefuls, and their reward for getting picked is to animate the same old characters and stories that we've seen over and over again, that somebody else made.

Thats a pretty good mindset to have, to want to create your own short/movies. I've always said shoot for the stars rather than just settling being an animator slave. You may have to start out working on other people's projects. It may not be all that bad IF u can get into studios/projects you want to work on and would enjoy. Wanting to have my own cartoon series and making my own movies and games was the my original reasons why I wanted to learn 3d, but at the same time, I wouldn't mind working at some studios such as Ubi soft, rockstar, or sony just to name a few. I play their games to death so I wouldn't mind help creating one. You may be better off starting off working on other people projects, at studios and such so you'll get that experience under your belt and meet more artist. Doing a short, let alone a whole movie, on your own, especially in CG, will take HECK of a long time. Its true most of us nowadays have the technology to create our own film or short, and it is possible for just one guy to do it on his or her own, but it'll take a longer time. And if you're not going to make a profit out of it u may want to consider how long of a actual film u make, maybe make a pitch trailer or something until u eventually get your own studio and all that other jazz. You may want to get other people to help out to speed up the process, and even finding dedicated artist to help out may be a hassle as well. Just look at the thread I started last week about a 11 second club short, out of 208 views, only 3 people responded to the idea haha! So yeah you'd be better off finding real world artist to help u out in the process of creating your own films. Hope all this makes sense and don't sound like mumble jumble, my head hurt too much right now to reread all this!