this post was submitted on 05 Jun 2026
486 points (96.6% liked)

Today I Learned

29999 readers
1451 users here now

What did you learn today? Share it with us!

We learn something new every day. This is a community dedicated to informing each other and helping to spread knowledge.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must begin with TIL. Linking to a source of info is optional, but highly recommended as it helps to spark discussion.

** Posts must be about an actual fact that you have learned, but it doesn't matter if you learned it today. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.**



Rule 2- Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding non-TIL posts.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-TIL posts using the [META] tag on your post title.



Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.

If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.

For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.

Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.



Partnered Communities

You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.

Community Moderation

For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] imeansurewhynot@sh.itjust.works 24 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] ApollosArrow@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It’s more that if a movie costs $100 million to make, it’s usually $100 million in marketing. So it would need to make $200 million to break even. Making $180 million means someone lost $20 million dollars, so I wouldn’t really call it greedy. If the movies are not making the money then they’d need to just start reducing scope or just hope someone will keep bank rolling them.

[–] imeansurewhynot@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

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"

[–] ApollosArrow@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (2 children)

If you want to count a whole year, then yes it can technically be made up by other movies down the line for the whole studio, but it won’t change the fact that the movie would have been a failure, that’s how budgets work. The same goes for pretty much any business that has projects or quarters.

[–] icanbrewmushrooms@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

They aren't talking about it being made to by other movies, they're saying the movie continues to make money for a long time after it's first week. To give a famous example: in the 90s the Kevin Costner movie Waterworld was declared to be a massive financial flop based on its first week(s) performance in US cinemas, but once you account for worldwide figures and VHS sales it was actually one of the most profitable movies of the decade.

[–] ApollosArrow@lemmy.world 1 points 23 hours ago

That is very true, but won’t that happen way after the release? That’s usually when these headlines happen.

[–] imeansurewhynot@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

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 want to note for the nonfinancial types: that's profit, not revenue. profit is what you have left of your revenues after your costs.

Any picture that makes any profit (and that profit can be someone buying you tacos once because they liked your film on youtube, so long as they've bought you enough tacos) is a success.

Hell, any film that gets a screening outside the filmmakers' social circles is a success. That means someone liked it enough to share it. Have I moved the goalposts enough that I can consider myself a film success because I do, I'm just playing badminton rather than football.