Tell me more ×
Movies & TV Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for movie and tv enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

If Tangled (2010) was starred by real actors and actresses, what would have been the problem?

Would the effect be different if Tangled was acted by real actors/actresses?

How do film-makers decide which story will be produced as an animated film?

share|improve this question
2  
Because the producers felt it should be an animated one, I guess!! – Mistu4u Feb 10 at 17:53

1 Answer

Those Films Make Money

Tangled earned $559 million word wide from box office sales, not including merchandising profits. It cost $260 million to make. So doubling your investment isn't bad.

Red Riding Hood (2011) was a live action story based upon a fairy tale. It cost much less $42 million, but only did $89 million. That would be counted as a success, except to a major studio $47 million in profit wouldn't cover their laundry bill.

Animation is a stylized format that has a broader appeal then traditional film. So more people will watch it.

share|improve this answer
3  
Not sure you can compare Tangled with Red Riding Hood in any meaningful way. They were targeted at different markets (Tangled was a PG in the States, RRH was a PG-13), and RRH got terrible reviews (11% on Rotten Tomatoes vs. 90% for Tangled). You could just as easily have chosen Alice in Wonderland by Tim Burton, a PG-rated, live-action fairy tale movie that cost $150-200m to make and grossed $1bn worldwide. – Simon Whitaker Feb 10 at 18:34
1  
@SimonWhitaker I picked Red cause it was a low budget live action, where as Alice had so many VFX shots it might as well have been animated. The point was the use of CG to enhance and CG costs more. That's why Alice was so pricey. – Mathew Foscarini Feb 10 at 19:09

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.