How expensive is western animation to produce?

I've gotten into a discussion on another thread pertaining to how much it costs to produce cartoons, but I'll ask it on this dedicated thread for accurate numbers:

How much money does it take to produce any kind of western animation? Specifically:

• Animated films
• Animated TV series
  • Comedy series
  • Action series

Let's have some numbers. It would explain a lot of stuff about this struggling industry.

I believe Invader Zim cost like a million dollars an episode to make, which contributed to it's cancellation.

It's extremely expensive, especially 2d action cartoons. Which is why it's imperative for them to make their money back fast and a hefty profit off of it as well or else you might as well not even have bothered.

And apparently Japanese animation is generally done on No Budget.

Is the West doing something wrong with their animation methods, or are Japanese animators less greedy?

Certain animes (like Death Note), despite their incredibly stylish/distinctive style use a lot less animation than one might think. Look at some of your favorite scenes and check to see how many things are actually moving in the scene, how many faces there are. And then check to see whether its a character moving, or just the camera shaking with some blur effects tossed in.

I'm no expert, but I've had to sit next to an expert who bellyaches all the time about how "lazy" anime usually is compared to western-style animation. It looks damn cool, sure, but compare an anime like Dragonball to Legend of Korra. Or RWBY (American) to something like Bleach.

There are animes like Hunter x Hunter and Yu Yu Hakusho that have damn good animation in places, whereas newer ones like Naruto and Bleach have a much higher number of episodes (ongoing), and thus the animation gets lazier and lazier as time goes on.

All of that is to say: I imagine Western Animation is costlier because it's more precise and fluid, versus anime, where you get a lot of stills and faceless blobs in the background. Anime is usually adapted from a work that already exists so the animators already have a blueprint on what they need to draw/animate, whereas cartoons on Nick usually have storyboards, writing staff, they're created from the ground-up.

edited 6th Oct '14 10:02:17 AM by FOFD

Does that mean the solution to cheaper Western Animation is to have 12 fps?

I say that the networks need to experiment with this.

No, that'd just make things worse.

Maybe limited animation is the answer.

It really depends on the quality of the animation, but general rule is: Less movement, lower costs.

pretty much this.

though, shows like family guy and a lot of other adult cartoons cost well into the millions per episode and they barely move O.o

edited 6th Oct '14 4:20:57 PM by teddy

I'd imagine that goes to celebrity voice appearances and so on though

That's what I thought too. It's practically a staple

edited 6th Oct '14 4:39:48 PM by teddy

@Aldo: I think Limited Animation would make things worse than 12 fps, since they're really not moving in the former.

DUH. THAT'S THE POINT.

Not all Limited Animation is Clutch Cargo.

We're seein' a surge of shows animated in Flash which is waaaay cheaper then most other forms of animation. Also a lot of shows are being outsourced to Korea for animation which lowers the cost.

I'd say the general rule of thumb is that if it'd made on a dime it better have a stellar script. Sic. Archer.

I shallowly judge cartoons by their appearance. If they at least have a cute and appealing look, its animation doesn't really bother me. It being funny is nice too.

Imo limited animation can be done beautifully/cleverly (plenty of cartoons during the 50s and 60s) or poorly.

edited 7th Oct '14 4:21:06 PM by teddy

I think limited animation can be done well (pay attention during Secret of Kells for example...not that the movie is cheap, they make up for it with very detailed and artful backgrounds...and then there is naturally South Park, which deliberately plays with the cheap look) but usually it isn't. Sometimes the story can make up for it. But personally I prefer a show which does put some effort into the animation, which is a reason why I have a very low opinion of a lot of cartoon shows which are considered "classics".

I realize that a movie quality cartoon would be too expensive, but I like it better when they keep the general design and especially the backgrounds simply, but put effort in the movements.

edited 7th Oct '14 4:39:53 PM by Swanpride

Cartoons like The Dover Boys/later Looney tunes or some of UPA are nice examples of limited animation that still has theatrical quality. Because, well, they were shown in theaters

I can see where you're coming from though. Cartoons with limited animation tend to look bad when done poorly. Old or new.

But, most limited animation during the golden and tv age at least looked new/creative and were done by people who had long experience in the medium.

edited 7th Oct '14 5:08:05 PM by teddy

I tend not to judge things by modern standards like so. Panning yesterday's things for being old and outdated when we have so much better, newer things is cyclical. Today's fame is tomorrow's old news.

Mr Bluth made Teh Secret of NIMH on a budget of about 7 million. That included hiring the voice of Dracula, and Jerry Goldsmith.

When America makes a cartoon the animation itself tends to be done in South Korea, not in the West. So in America's case the question would tend to be more what Korea's animation methods are.

edited 7th Oct '14 7:43:01 PM by editerguy

Sigh. Sadly true. Animating in the US is very expensive..makes me wonder what shows are still made here nowadays.

edited 7th Oct '14 10:15:39 PM by teddy

Don Bluth called in a lot of favours, the animators were working overtime to make this work, and when the movie was done, it was badly marketed and got only a limited release, mostly due to money troubles. So I wouldn't take the number as a given.

I answered the question, but you don't seem satisfied. Okay.

I once had an interesting conversation with an animator who basically explained to me how the typical anime is designed - or at least was originally, in ways that are still present in the industry today - to be visually appealing while being simplistic and on the whole being made on the cheap. The big thing he talked about was taking shortcuts with framerate and fluid animation and such.

And even so, the big, most gorgeously animated productions in the anime industry are still likely very expensive.