Animation Source Forums

Yes, making animation does cost much, but in the end it's also more rewarding or profitable.
And we're talking about a "cheap" direct-to-video sequel here, not CGI theaters films like the Pixar or Dreamworks ones, which I believe must cost between 20 and 50 millions of dollars...

No, I doubt it. Actually the Amblimation films were among the cheapest (when compared to the animation quality)

Actually, when it comes to 3D...I was far from the reality. * gasp *

http://www.your3dsource.com/most-expens ... films.html

I don't understand how The polar express could have required 170 millions of budget...It had nothing special, even graphically. And it's a film I have seen that I can't even remember because it was really nothing special. Oh well.

EDIT : And from another source, I have found that Wall-E had a 180 millions of budget * re-gasp *...
At least this shows that budget != quality, far from it...

Now I would like to get a top like that for traditional animation...But I already know that the budgets have exploded when CGI has arrived.
Which is not logical...Traditional animation often costs less, can become more profitable, yet they continue to make CGI films

Actually it could be the hope for the comeback to traditional animation...It's less costy in the end; they only need to prove it can still be profitable. Maybe this will happen with Princess & the Frog, who knows...

Yet from the list, not all of them have been very profitable...

And a shame because it's actually one of the CGI films I liked the most. I imagine that the fact it didn't do well, has something to do with the fact they haven't followed that model (unfortunately) but more the "successful" ones like Shrek, Toy story and co...

Actually I have found some traditional animated films budgets (just look at Wikipedia pages, they sometimes show the budget), and it appears that budgets for animated films have grown a lot over time too, though the biggest ones are still not matching the biggest CGI ones.

It seems that if the budgets look so big nowadays and there are always new gross records settled, that's mainly because the dollar has lost a lot of its value and the theaters tickets are more expensive than before.

Conclusion = it's a bit difficult to compare...


Yes, but using CGI for easier rendering of some particular scenes, and making a whole CGI film are different matters.
Actually I don't mind using CGI WHEN it's used on backgrounds, I just don't like CGI being used for characters.

I thought WALL-E was great and what is this?

It was fine, but no film deserve to have such amount of budget. That's madness, especially when you think they could have made *several* good films with an amount like that.