uh no. this is gross

Exactly, making $100 million profit on stop-motion is like feverishly, lovingly crafting a bespoke hot air balloon with a thousand discarded model airplane kits and then realizing you’ve somehow survived landing on the moon.

no, classifying a picture that makes an $80 million dollar profit as a “failure” is factually incorrect, albeit a useful tactic for studios and headline writers.

making an 80% profit is a success in any business, and a triumph in most businesses; that’s how budgets wotk.

I don’t think that table is formatted correctly, I can’t imagine it was $60 million for all four movies. yea, the budget for each is listed around $60 million.

That’s what studios publicly lament about without going into detail. Between streaming, retail and merchandising alone, they’re making their money back.

Marketing campaigns are not bankrupting movie profits.

If a studio makes 180 box office on a 100 million dollar production and they say they’ve lost 80 mil through marketing, they are pulling your leg.

“ah yeah, first quarter my team only made 23 points, oh well, thats the game.”

No, there are three other quarters that the studio isn’t talking about because it reduces their future negotiating leverage.

Of course studios want more money, but studios aren’t losing money on movies that get close but don’t tip the magic number of “double the budget”

I also didn’t hear about it until last year, and I don’t I have any memory of seeing previews or promotion for the film.

That’s very cool to hear, cross-generational appreciation.

It’s pretty different from live action according to creators and producers, it’s such a small market and stop motion is so difficult to explain and get off the ground and promote that financial expectations are much more realistic.

You’re right that if a live-action movie costs $100 million to make grosses $180 million, the producers are upset, but that’s a greedy, ego-driven convention of the modern studio system, they are still making tens of millions of dollars before everything on the back end is added in.

The stop-motion world has a more realistic perspective on production and the artists love every single piece of art they create, so also making $40 million as evidence that their art style can succeed in mainstream culture is the cherry on top of any project that even gets to be fully produced.

i heard about this on a podcast. it is great news for stop-motion, and considering how many shitty rich people there are, it’s nice to know there’s a couple good ones promoting art.

Also their movies are good and all but one of their movies made tens of millions of dollars.

for stop-motion, a very niche art-form, making 10-130 million dollars profit per film is laudable.

went too big with missing link though, which i haven’t seen yet.

deleted by creator

sell my baseball cards, i don’t care.

you’re totally right, with very different types of dmt alkaloids across species with all sorts of different effects.

crappy AI buzzwriting I would guess, non- factual or contextual word association.

12% is more than I thought would be active.

“Yeah Actually” is the response.

I want credit where credit is due. Does anyone have the quote?

Or is that just the setup to his joke?

INCIDENTAL CONSUMPTION OF DIRT IS NOT THE SAME THING AS CHRONIC INTENTIONAL CONSUMPTION

Agree with me louder, though.

saying that everybody agrees with you

Now now, stop playing pretend, I didn’t say “everyone”. Scientists, anthropologists and doctors agree with me that incidental oral exposure to soil(eating dirt) is probably not harmful and potentially-to-likely healthy, not “everyone”. You, for instance, seem very anti-science/illiterate about the whole thing.

It’s fine if you and other people disagree with doctors, scientists and myself, who scientifically assert that exposure to uncontaminated soil is not dangerous and I could not care less about a “vote ratio”.

Your votes are worth nothing, zero. 100 times 0 is 0, my illiterate friend.

I understand you’re having trouble understanding the article(and all of the complementary articles that state the exact same thing), but I can read it and understand it. I care as much about your reading disability as I care about your downvote.

Assuming other people haven’t read an article because you’re having trouble understanding it is kinda funny.

maybe you guys can start a reading group with each other rather than trying to make things up or put words in others’ mouths; nobody else is having the comprehension problems you share.

Sticking your dirty finger in your mouth =/= intentionally eating a handful of clay…

Correct.

Incidental ingestion is not the same thing as intentional consumption.

Coreect again! great work.

Are you gonna tell your kid that they need to lick their dirty hands clean?

I highly recommend you do not tell kids to “lick their dirty hands clean”, which ignores my own and the scientific advice in the linked and other articles regarding eating dirt.

it’s also gross and weird.

I’ll stick with the original scenario and gratefully receive $10,000 for saving a life.

But thank you for your new offer.