hand drawn animation is expensive that's why almost nobody does it these days.
shareI mean, the budget for CGI animated films can go up to $150M.
shareIt was made during the great depression too.
shareI think you've answered your own question
so , why does a bunch of automated computer drawing cost 100x that of painstakingly doing it all by hand?
yeah , yeah , inflation ... even so the CGI is still costing more . how!?
1.5m for hand drawing stuff in 1937 seems like a bargain compared to having a computer do it for 150m today
Now they are using A-list actors to voice the characters and promotion has expanded over the years. That's why it can go up to $150M.
shareI was going to respond by saying that $1.5 million was a lot of money back in 1937 and that animation is a very expensive process, but then you replied to other users here acknowledging that CGI films can go up to a $150 million budget and that you studied film in college. You seem to be asking a question you already know the answer to. What exactly is the disconnect you’re having?
shareFor example: The Wizard of Oz cost $2.7M to make and only came out 2 years after Snow White. The Wizard of Oz has actors in front of camera, a lot of extras, massive sets, a runtime over 20 minutes longer, groundbreaking special effects and was the first live action film to be shot in colour. How is the budget only $1.2M more? The budget for Gone With the Wind which came out the same year as Oz cost $3.85 million. I understand the budgets for Oz and Gone with the Wind, but Snow White just seems astronomical.
shareagain , you answered your own question .
1.5 wasnt that big if OZ cost nearly twice that!
Its probly easier to build those sets than hand draw everything frame by frame by hand
This is the 30s. They didn't draw the entire image frame by frame. They used cels.
sharefair point.
I've just dome a inflation chjeck thing onlinre
...
"$1,500,000 in 1937 is equivalent in purchasing power to about $31,842,812.50 today, an increase of $30,342,812.50 over 86 years. The dollar had an average inflation rate of 3.62% per year between 1937 and today, producing a cumulative price increase of 2,022.85%."
so 31m in todays money ,
not too massive
While I agree $31M in today's standards wouldn't be too much, back then studios couldn't take losses like they can now.
shareWalt Disney was making art, not cartoons. A lot of what he did in that movie had never been done before and certainly not on that scale. I believe it also was subject to significant setbacks and delays.
shareAdjusted by inflation it equals $32.5 million in july 2023 money apparently. In the day it almost bankrupted Disney but today it probably wouldn't pay for catering for week for the whole company.
shareYeah, that's what I'm saying. $1.5M for a cartoon from 1937?!?!? And this was during the great depression too.
shareIt was the first feature-length animation, at least in USA. Every innovation inevitably involves adjustments, trial and error, failures, and reconstructions, all of which ultimately impact the final budget. In my opinion, that is the reason.
shareI checked. Snow White was indeed the first one released in the USA, but the first was a film called "El Apóstol" in 1917.
shareInteresting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBTHobNy9gU
Yeah, I tried looking, but I can't see the full length version on YouTube.
share