Wednesday, September 07, 2011

The Never-Ending Quest for Gold

Rango is going to be picking up a shiny trophy:

The 15th annual Hollywood Film Festival and Hollywood Film Awards announced Tuesday that ... animated hit "Rango," ... will receive this year's Hollywood Animation Award at the gala ceremony on Oct. 24 at the Beverly Hilton Hotel.

I've never heard of the Hollywood Animation Award, but then I get around so little.

Interesting factoid: The meme among news-gatherers is that Rango is a hit. The feature made $242,605,737. (Contrast this with the undying theme about DreamWorks Animation's Kung Fu Panda 2: The feature was disappointing, earning a mere $650 million.)

So is everything crystalline now? In the trade and business press, Rango is a winner, and Kung Fu Panda 2 not so much. But of course, there's a big difference in the pictures' production budgets, yes? KFP2, after all, had a sizable budget of $150 million, while Rango owned a tight-fisted $135 million.

Easy to see why one's a hit and one is a disappointment. Except that large parts of the media have the actual reality bass ackwards.


Anonymous said...

rango had a budget of $180 Million, with another $100 million for prints/advertising.

It did not make money, and would not be considered a "hit" on anyone's ledgers. Didn't sell any ancillaries, either (no toys/soundtracks, etc.).

There are a few minor details within range worth mentioning, but as a cartoon, it's pretty awful. And REALLY ugly--bad character "designs" and very weak lighting and animation. And for a kids cartoon, it hasn't really stuck in many peoples minds the way films like Kung Fu Panda, Toy Story, or Tangled has.

I suppose they deserve any award they lobby for, but that doesn't make it a good cartoon. It's not.

Anonymous said...

Because some of Rango's workload went to Singapore, that's why they had a cheaper budget. DreamWorks too could do that if they outsource it to cheaper countries. I heard rumors that the outsourced works are mostly cheaper, easier shots.

Anonymous said...

Weak animation and lighting? Hahahaha! Troll.

Anonymous said...

No--it did have cheap/amateurish ooking lighting and characterless animation. Most people would have to agree. It was a dreadful cartoon. OK for indiscriminate children 4 and under--but beyond that--it has no real audience. Too bad it flopped. And yes--it did financially flop--making less than half it's investment back.

Anonymous said...

No, it didn't. It was wonderfully animated and rendered. The model designs were intricate and expertly animated by ILM. Story wise, I found it appealing and cute.

You are wrong .. you're a troll .. go bother some other thread.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, you can accuse Rango of a lot of things, but weak animation and lighting is straight up crazy. It's hands down the best designed and animated movie of year; a true original.

satan said...

The lighting in the bar scene was truly great. While the character design took me a while to get used to, I think it worked in the end.I mostly liked the secondary characater designs. The animation was not bad, perhaps it wasn't consistent,but I do think the mouth shapes could have been pushed a lot further.
In the end "Rango" was a pleasant surprise,and I enjoyed it a lot. Who cares what a 4 year old likes or dislikes...I mean, they like freakin Justin Bieber. Nuff said!


Steve Hulett said...

In opinions about art ... and movies ... there can be no argument. Because there is no way to determine with certainty whose opinion is "better" than somebody else's opinion.

Opinions are like noses. Most everyone's got one.

Steven said...

"In the end "Rango" was a pleasant surprise,and I enjoyed it a lot."

I agree. "Pleasant surprise" is about right. Comparing it with the work of more established studios is irrelevant. Maybe, in some of your opinions, it didn't live up to its hype, but that's what hype is about. We all know of films we really liked that died for lack of, or had inadequate, publicity support.

Overall, we should welcome and encourage new players. It means more jobs and more competition for talent. That's good for us.

Anonymous said...

The lighting looked like a cheap video game, and the animation lacked character and personality, and was VERY weak (reminded me of "deviant art" by jr. high kids). Overall, the movie looked cheap. I, for one, am glad it flopped. Here's hoping more cartoons get made, but that they're good, and not aimed at 3 year olds like range.

Michael said...

I saw Rango on my flight back from Hong Kong to Australia...watching it on a tiny 7-inch screen mind you, and i thought it was a great film.

For ILM's first full-feature, I think it was great, both technically and story-wise. The story did indeed stick with me for a while, comparing the water 'crisis' to the housing 'crisis' in HK, and to some degree, Melbourne also!

It deserved to win awards :)

Site Meter