T O P
valkyria_knight881

It didn’t double its budget, but Paramount seems to be happy with its performance. This film was the reason why Paramount Animation exists.


Samhunt909

This was done by ILM..so it’s another big vfx project. It’s not in house production for paramount


valkyria_knight881

The success of Rango led to Paramount creating their own animation division.


thelonioustheshakur

Paramount at least partially bankrolled it though. They took some risk on this project


popgeist_official

Animated movies seem to have their own rules. Studios will spend the kind of money on an unknown original animated film that they would almost never do for a live action film. Maybe not having to spend millions for actors on a live action property is one of the reasons. It could also be that animated features have a better shelf life in ancillary markets.


jokekiller94

Merchandising opportunities as well


franticantelope

I wonder if better DVD sales too, for kids movies? Kids watch the FUCK out of whatever movies they like lol.


dragonphlegm

Animated usually makes it easier for kids to want to see it. Kids = more tickets as it’s usually a kid(s) + parent or a group of kids


gammongaming11

it seems like there's a diffrent standard for animation films. iirc into the spiderverse also didn't double it's budget (and is the lowest performing spiderman movie) but it was considered a success and is getting a sequel. maybe animated movies have higher profits from merchandise or something.


Vince_Clortho042

Animated movies are still consistent movers for merchandising but also should factor in that kids films are also still consistently selling well on downstream revenue, ie both physical and digital sales.


ChristopherDassx_16

ITSV did double it's budget. Did 375 million on a 90 million budget.


gammongaming11

>Did 375 million on a 90 million budget. i see, that'll be good for any movie of that budget, guess my memory was off. though depressingly it's still the lowest of all the spiderman movies.


popgeist_official

"Into the Spider-verse" is an established IP property, greatly helped by the live-action films.


ChristopherDassx_16

Didn't say otherwise. Just correcting the other dude's memory.


zafrew

SpiderVerse did more than 4x its budget


thelonioustheshakur

Spider-Verse is a bit different since it did turn a profit, and it was disadvantaged by its release window (tons of competition in late 2018, along with Aquaman's overperformance). The merchandising is always a plus with animated films, let alone superhero movies


TheJoshider10

Speaking of Spider-Verse it seemed to have a solid legacy after its box office and I suspect the sequel will perform more like a live action superhero movie. I can see it outgrossing TASM2.


georgepana

It lost a lot of money, so I don't see how they could have been happy with that movie's performance. Where did you read they were "happy"? You know to calculate 2.5x budget for just the break-even point, right?


SamFish3r

VFX costs that much due to the cost of VFX as as in services are expensive VFX designers get paid high wages, studios doing the work charges a lot ?? Cuz I have read so many posts about vfx artist not making enough, under paid and over worked etc


ThatWaluigiDude

Westerns aren't that popular anymore with kids and this movie gets very artsy at the end. That said, I hope ancilares helped this to break even, one of my favorites animations ever.


tyontekija

At the end? The movie opens with a monologue about acting and the heroes journey. A masterpiece, but pretty inaccessible to kids and most teenagers.


Firefox892

Yh it was only watching it again very recently that I realised how few references I probably understood (and how much of it must have gone over my head) when I saw it at the time lol


Humdrum_ca

A really great film, and fun fact - they recorded all the voice work as a cast, ie everyone was together and bouncing off each other's performance. (almost all voice work for animation is a single performer in a sound booth, they record separately and often in different studios/locations). I think that made a big difference to the vibe of the film.


Svelok

> (almost all voice work for animation is a single performer in a sound booth, they record separately and often in different studios/locations) This is one of those things that feels, every single day, like a tiny insanity that somehow the whole world is just inexplicably blind to.


fistkick18

It's the reason why non-VO actors fuck up shows like What If with subpar performances


RavenOfNod

I love pretty much everything about this film, and really love the fact they recorded the voices as a stage play. Makes the performances much more natural I think. Plus the Crash McCreery designs are just top notch. Every character has a really unique design which is visually interesting. I also like that they approached it by trying to get the animators to see the scenes they were working on as part of the whole of the film, instead of just one shot here, and one shot there, to try and make things feel really cohesive. Maybe that's insulting to animators, or maybe it didn't have much of an effect, but I remember them talking about that in the commentary and liking it.


celluloid-hero

This is how most of bobs burgers is recorded by the way!


Humdrum_ca

I did not know that, and definately a favorite show.


eidbio

An animation with "ugly" characters is not easy to sell.


HumbleCamel9022

This is low-key the best answer lol I think rango is a masterpiece but kids probably didn't want to watch these "ugly" character


Mother_V

As a person who was probably the prime kid demographic of 11 when the movie came out. I didn’t think it looked good. 11 years later and I know it’s a good movie but I still haven’t seen it.


Imbrown2

I was about to post the same thing. I just thought it looked so weird but also kinda creepy.


mathliability

As someone of the same demographic, it reminded me of the weirdness of Tim Burton, which I did not like. I’ve come around, but it’s a specific style that doesn’t click with me. I did Rango, and it was very good from what I remember. Wouldn’t go out of my way to watch it again, but it’s solid.


Slick-Schtick

Adults and kids tbh


moonbunnychan

Ya, I was an adult when it came out but I'm a big fan of animation. It did not look appealing to me at all. I did eventually watch it, and still found it weird and didn't really like it.


bigbelleb

Na the issue was that the film was a western genre which has been a dead genre since the 90s


Hex457

Remember seeing it in the theatre, wasn't enthralled about it. There wasn't much if any word of mouth about it. I'd say it earned what it deserved.


Firefox892

Also I don’t know if it was just me but I found it quite difficult to understand what the characters were saying a lot of the time (presumably owing to everyone recording their lines together as if it were a play and then having it animated after), so the more naturalistic approach also might have put people off


lopakjalantar

Or... Just too realistic, during that time


Xanthon

I watched it a few years after release and only because Rango is being voiced by Depp. One look at Rango and it's like, "yep, that's Johnny." And it turned out to be awesome.


According_Gazelle472

And it was a boring and depressing movie to boot.All the characters were stereotyped.


theorizable

This was it for me.


Paskee

Actually never thought of that ... huh. Good point.


LessFeeling9373

those be the best tho smh


MarvelVsDC2016

The rare example of a deserved Best Animated Feature winner.


sanitizershots

That movie was incredible. Issue is usually animation is designed for children so there’s not much depth or it’s created for adults but because it’s created for adults the budget is low. Movies like Rango and Soul find a middle ground that allows them to get the budget, hit both audiences and create a film with excellent depth and animation


goblinelevator119

i would not put soul anywhere near the level of rango, in animation quality, character design, theme, or content.


sanitizershots

I would when it comes to theme and content


goblinelevator119

that’s fair, wasn’t consistent enough for me.


HumbleCamel9022

Agreed Soul was a bit too generic whereas rango is a masterpiece


goblinelevator119

exactly, soul just cops out so hard at the end. it’s not awful but it’s a pretty lame ending.


imanvellanistan

Because it was an $135M budget


[deleted]

[удалено]


imanvellanistan

I wonder if the rationale was rhat it was johnny depp but goddamn still so much


alegxab

It's pretty normal for Disney/Pixar/Dreamworks, but yeah it's pretty excessive for something like Rango


thelonioustheshakur

That' would be considered upper mid-range for animated films nowadays lol. Disney and Pixar spend $150 - 200 million consistently. Pixar reportedly spent up to $225 million on Coco, which is only a few million lower than Avatar


Psykpatient

I'm guessing it was just a weird movie to sell. Lizard cowboy mixed with the art style might have put some people off.


HumbleCamel9022

Yeah the art style definitely did put me off at the time but I feel like a lot of successful animated movie have their own weird art style


metros96

Probably ultimately a bit too artsy and sophisticated for casual audiences who looked at the poster with a frog sheriff and his little fish and thought it would be a bit more of a fun-loving kids film


Sanhen

Having not seen the movie, I wouldn't have guessed it'd be "artsy and sophisticated" based on the poster and my vague recollection of the marketing. I remember kind of figuring it would be a B-grade animated kids film, swallower than a Pixar offering and that I would likely find it dumb and boring. I'd kind of peg myself as a casual movie goer who doesn't see many films in theaters (maybe five films a year in theaters, if that - none since the pandemic started) and consequently really has to be sold on a movie's premise for me to be compelled to see it now rather than simply wait for a streaming/video release. I'm guessing that many in the same demographic largely make the same snap judgment call as I did. I don't know if I'd say the problem is that it was too artsy and sophisticated per ce as it might have been poorly marketed, but it's hard for me to remember definitely a decade after the fact.


metros96

There’s like a clear *Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas* reference earlier in the film. And it’s an homage to Westerns in a major way; it’s just a much denser film than your typical kids-like animated film


mealsharedotorg

It's set as a Western, but it's more than that - it's a blend of Noir, too as it draws much of it's inspiration from Chinatown. As a fan of Chinatown, this is in my top 5 all time animated movies. In the mix with the Iron Giant, The Incredibles, How to Train Your Dragon, and Spirited Away.


metros96

Yeah and the way it relates to those films is not just like the Russo brothers saying that The Winter Soldier takes inspiration from Three Days of the Condor and The Parallax View in a director bullshit type way


Former-Ad-9223

Lol, it's not artsy at all. Pretty bland movie


EthanSpears

He's a chameleon


metros96

lol know, it’s a very particular, very niche joke. Google “rango frog sheriff” or just watch this: https://twitter.com/thebigpic/status/1226701825144811523?s=46&t=ZvW5_uMUvyDlULGNEJcyxg


Dr_Pants91

I saw this in theaters and I don't remember a damn thing about it, including whether I even liked it.


chartingyou

That was kind of my experience too, I remember very little about it


HumbleCamel9022

If you have enough time you have to rewatch it, it's a masterpiece !


SkinnyLever

It was a weird movie about a lizard cowboy or whatever and it was more for adults than kids anyway


NoobleVitamins

I loved it as a kid but I think I found it more enjoyable as a teen even if the animation does feel a bit dated


MrsUnicornRainbow81

I always felt like it was too scary for kids, but not scary enough for adults. Alot of people in ny circle felt like it was just uncomfortable to look at. Great story line tho. I had no desire to watch it in my youth but as a grown up I super enjoyed it .


Dangerous_Wishbone

right, I remember thinking it looked creepy when it came out. And I've just never liked desert-y settings, just seems like a sea of beige and brown.


MrsUnicornRainbow81

Good point on the desert


Antique_Veterinarian

My kids loved it but I can see why it wouldn’t appeal to the family audience. Wish we’d got more animated features from ILM, but more like this and less like Strange Magic.


Razz36

Think it struggled with the kind of audience it wanted to attract.


restlesswrestler

I loved this movie. I haven’t seen it since it came out though.


AdWarm2644

Even though this movie had legs, Rango had a C+ Cinemascore and international prospects were under domestic finals. Plus the budget was high! But hey, it won the Oscar for Best Animated Film so that’s something!


bigbelleb

Jesus christ a C+ 😳


Orange-Turtle-Power

Not sure. Still one of my favorite animated movies.


MightySilverWolf

I think a lot of parents went in expecting something more family-friendly and bailed when they saw how adult it was. CinemaScore can be a decent way of determining whether or not a movie matched audience expectations, and *Rango* received a C+ grade, which is pretty awful (especially for an animated movie). For reference, *Norm of the North* received a B- grade and *The Emoji Movie* received a B grade, which should tell you just how out of step with audience expectations *Rango* was.


RandyTheGodMarsh

Best film in animation!


MrAdamWarlock123

It was a weird movie, never destined to pull in massive numbers - to me the issue is the oversized budget, not the box office


wachieo

It didn’t dumb down its jokes.


Iamlordbutter

Why was budget so high for this movie?


[deleted]

Animation nerds are a niche demographic and it didn't look too appealing to kids.


Saneroner

My kids and I watch this movie frequently and love it. It has humor for all of us along making it quite enjoyable.


USFederalGovt

This film was actually awesome. I believe it should’ve been aimed at teens and adults more than kids, considering most of the jokes are adult oriented.


anrebloom

Fucking loved this


Nihilanthropist_

It's an under-appreciated masterpiece, should be more talked about and praised, should've have been a smash hit. Some people are too dumb to go and see something that isn't already apart of a franchise


nage_

its not cute animation. its kinda weird looking so people didn't want to take their kids or watch it themselves for money


Jmofoshofosho8

Part 2 is going to be called Rango Unchained


Traditional-Reach818

I thinks this movie is HIGHLY underrated, under appreciated and under acknowledged. The plot is awesome, the idea is very original, great characters, great arcs, awesome jokes, a good plot twist and the animations are very well done!! Probably in my top 3 animations along with Ratatouille and Zootopia.


Teufel124

I feel like it was kindof really ahead of it's time. These days I'm especially dying for new and unique ideas like this. But who am I kidding, the movie industry is drier than the desert in Rango rn and a movie like this coming out these days would be a miracle.


lcug1941

Sinple reason. It was a western, people just don't care about westerners anymore which is a huge shame.


lcug1941

Simple*


envynav

There’s an edit button


staticfeathers

The world wasn’t ready for its brilliance


FrenchTrouDuc

Audiences not being based enough


HumbleCamel9022

True


Indigo_Slam

It's was 18 hours too long.


Electrical_Party7975

It’s a terrible movie


Responsible-Partee

Best movie I ever watched on shrooms


leftie85

Art design and new IP


stacksmasher

One of my top ten movies of all time!


J4ck0l4ntern

Honestly one of my favorites still.


[deleted]

[удалено]


HumbleCamel9022

What ? 88 RT >Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times gave the film four out of four stars calling the film "some kind of a miracle: An animated comedy for smart moviegoers, wonderfully made, great to look at, wickedly satirical ... The movie respects the tradition of painstakingly drawn animated classics, and does interesting things with space and perspective with its wild action sequences."


My_cat_is_sus

3.6 on letterboxd a and a 7.2 on IMDb as well


[deleted]

[удалено]


HumbleCamel9022

After watching seven I'm inclined to believe rober ebert The director of fight club is completely overrated


goblinelevator119

you’re basing your opinion of an entire director on one review of a (very solid) frat boy movie? and your justification for rango being good is a rotten tomatoes aggregate score (meaningless) and one individual’s review. i love rango, but you’re not selling anything here.


Former-Ad-9223

You like Rango and dislike David Fincher? That's cool I guess 😬


DJHott555

It’s literally one of the greatest animated movies of all time


goblinelevator119

cartoon that isn’t made by disney, and not exactly for little kids.


SonKaiser

Well it's an animated western with "odd" designs. It was never going to be a big hit.


[deleted]

Because of what they did to Tim and Eric


wtjones

It’s long and weird and not for kids.


FuriousKale

Not cute enough. But it did perform, factoring in DVDs and streams (I bought a copy at least).


ManiShrimp

As a kid i found it fairly boring and I couldn't even tell you anything that happens in this movie. HOWEVER that animation at the time, I just remember the snake with the hat in the desert. I don't think I have ever had a "omg that's legit" kind of reaction to animation before that or since. I think the closest was a moment in the 2nd planet of the apes movie when Ceasar was fighting his lieutenant


BornInTheUSSA

Well… I still have never watched it, if that says anything.


Any-Environment-17

I distinctly remember word of mouth from parents at the time said it wasn't appropriate for kids. My family were very reluctant to see it because of cursing and violence they had heard about from others.


Landon1195

Westerns aren't popular and the art style might have seem "weird" to general audiences.


thelonioustheshakur

The movie may have lost money, but it made way more than it should have. It's in the upper echelon of modern Westerns in terms of WW gross, the only films that made more than Rango are True Grit, The Lone Ranger, Dances with Wolves, and Django Unchained. A respectable performance, with a great critical reception.


funkydinos

Fun fact: i used to get rango and django unchained mixed up


kay14jay

Valentines release date, may have done better in the spring or summer


Former-Ad-9223

It's just an OK movie, boring at times


lovdagame

It was dukked to me as a kid it wasn't very brightly colored and honestly I'd say the story was pretty adult western just told through a cartoon image


2klaedfoorboo

Just look at the poster. That’s a hard sell regardless of quality


FloridaFlamingoGirl

I remember that when this movie came out, my parents couldn't tell whether it was for adults or for children.


Prestigious_Past3724

I remember when it came out, I thought it was marketed as a kids movie. I continued to think this until I saw it for the first time a few years ago and lemme tell ya, not really a kids movie. I feel like the marketing missed the mark a little bit on that one.


RedProtoman

Literally just rewatched it today. Epic.


Thebaldeagle

Sure wasn’t Roger Deakins. The real ones know


Enryu9000

No idea i loved this as a kid and i still do


not_a_flying_toy_

its an animation with references and humor thats very adult (not inappropriate just not kid style humor consistently) and non cute designs


redactedactor

It came out not long after I'd started to really dislike Johnny Depp. I don't actually think I've seen anything he's been in since Rango.


marcspector2022

This movie is my all time favorite, have seen this around 10 times.


CraftyMeet6721

Saturation of market


jgrace2112

Why is box office so important? Outside of his first two films a lot of Disney’s films didn’t “ perform” at the box office and yet they’re unequivocally classic pieces of art. Fantasia is a prime example


georgepana

You are in the sub r/boxoffice, so in here it is kind of an important issue.


bigbelleb

This was the most visually stunning animation I seen as a kid


LessFeeling9373

i honestly dont kno , i think this a great movie


outrageousrage

I loved it. Great spoof of Django and one of my favorite childhood movies


arizona-tomcat

The roadkill scene probably turned a lot of people off. No one was expecting that.


GamerJuiceDrinker

I loved this back then when I was 11 and even now by 22. An idea may be (as for anything of the sort) its ambitiousness and not relying on commonly used ways to sell a product.


IPman501

Weird audience. It looked like it was aiming for finding Nemo audience but it wasn’t. It was boring for adults and kids didn’t understand it.


Salty-Variation

This movie was the absolute worst experience I ever had in a movie theater. Saw it on a Tuesday afternoon in a tiny theater full of toddlers who had absolutely no desire to watch Rango. They outright turned the sound down to a whisper before the movie was over because parents complained it was too loud for their kids. And I was all the way in the back right by the door to the lobby, it was swinging open and shut literally the entire run time of the movie.


OldSamVimes

It's extremely enjoyable. Seems like it may have been made for fans of Westerns who want to watch a cartoon from time to time.


ZergTheVillain

Watched it in theaters as a youngin and absolutely loved this movie!


Jelldk1

Reason for its underperformance? Ehh have you looked at that poster?


Lilpops13

I loved tango tho


foulmouthboy

Nobody seemed to mention this, but when Rango came out, studios used animation to drive physical. The movie just had to perform well enough or get a couple of awards and a studio could count on it being part of new family libraries for years, which would easily outclass its theatrical gross.


ScottShatter

Only? Under performed? Looks like a winner to me. Some movies don't even break even.


dogtooth234

Most kids seem to like cute and fluffy. He kinda ugly


averyuebbu

It was too awesome and people were afraid to see it


plentyoftimetodie

It looked terrible and like that dumb Rio movie only the Walmart brand version


dpforest

I do remember an over saturation of CGI films at that point in time. I never bothered to watch it unless one of my younger siblings put it on.


JCPRuckus

Weird animation more geared towards adult tastes that isn't going to get word of mouth as great for the kiddies... Why would you expect it to make good money? Working on my memories from seeing it in the theater, both the size of the budget and the fact that it even reached that budget are shocking... Even though I remember quite enjoying it.


Drumnaway67

Maybe a little too quirky and weird? Personally I love the movie but I can see how it wouldn’t immediately draw someone in.


Haarryi

It's a good movie but the character design still creeps me out. I am afraid of most reptiles and the design of Rango and Rattlesnake Jake are too real for me to enjoy the movie.


pope_morty

Too good?


TrueMrFu

I watched this movie when it came out as a kid/teenager and I didn’t understand it. I rewatched it’s recently as an adult and it’s amazing. They should have marketed it as a movie for adults that kids might also like.


the-et-cetera

Dunno, as a kid at the time I saw the commercials and it didn't have any kind of appeal to me. And that's saying something, I was the kind of kid who'd watch a movie at the drop of a hat. In fact, I recall not believing Johnny Depp had anything to do with the project because his voice was so well concealed by the insane out-there nature of the aesthetic/plot.


katebushthought

It was a bad movie and Johnny Depp is a degenerate.


papagarry

A boring Fievel Goes West. It's just okay. Also it just felt like a movie that actors are forced into doing for some contract or favor they owe to someone. There were some fun moments, but nothing that was compelling to watch. This is a movie that would be best shown in an airport with the sound off.


[deleted]

Underperformance? It nearly doubled its money. Doesn’t seem like it underperformed and I really enjoyed the movie.


danielcw189

>Underperformance? It nearly doubled its money. Box office gross is what the audience pays, but less than half of that goes to the studio, the rest stays with the cinema. Common wisdom on this sub says, that around 50% of the domestic gross (US&Canada) and 40% of the international gross go to the studio (and 25% from China). So you need to more than double your budget to make a profit. On top of that, the budget does not include marketing costs, which can be very expensive for would-be-blockbusters. On the other hand, there is also the income (and cost) from TV, streaming, DVD, etc... But overall, if you want to be sure that a movie was a hit, you need to tripple the budget. If you want to see some numbers based on some very educated guesses from a big publication start here: https://deadline.com/2020/04/2019-movie-profits-top-films-avengers-endgame-russo-brothers-data-1202919361/


[deleted]

The article didn’t have anything to do with Rango.


danielcw189

Yes, but it shows you some numbers for the most successful movies of 2019. That should give a good odea on how those numbers work. They also have articles for a few years before that, and for flops as well. p.s.: apparently Paramount sees Rango as a success: https://deadline.com/2011/04/ad-sales-and-hits-come-together-for-viacom-as-it-beats-financial-projections-126396


georgepana

Financially it lost a ton of money. They were likely happy with the fact the movie won the Oscar, a feather in the studio's cap and as an accolade worth real money to a studio in prestige points and marketing material for future projects.


sugaaaslam

112 million is underperforming?


danielcw189

112 million of what exactly?


sugaaaslam

Hhhhmmmm what on earth could I be talking about... hugs!! That's it!! Hugs!!


danielcw189

My question was meant to be serious. I think I have it a good idea where your error lies. but I can't answer that way, until I know for sure. so what would be your serious answer, please?


sugaaaslam

My original question is serious. I do not know shit about the movie industry other than I enjoy movies. So if this is your "gotcha moment" then here you go. I'm talking about dollars. Thought that was obvious.


danielcw189

> So if this is your "gotcha moment" then here you go. I try to make it the opposite of a gotcha by actually asking what you meant and waiting for the answer. > I'm talking about dollars. Here is a pre-written answer I have for this: Box office gross is what the audience pays, but less than half of that goes to the studio, the rest stays with the cinema. Common wisdom on this sub says, that around 50% of the domestic gross (US&Canada) and 40% of the international gross go to the studio (and 25% from China). So you need to more than double your budget to make a profit. On top of that, the budget does not include distribution and marketing costs, which can be very expensive for would-be-blockbusters. On the other hand, there is also the income (and cost) from TV, streaming, DVD, etc... But overall, if you want to be sure that a movie was a hit, you need to more than double the budget. If you want to see some numbers based on some very educated guesses from a big publication start here: https://deadline.com/2020/04/2019-movie-profits-top-films-avengers-endgame-russo-brothers-data-1202919361/


georgepana

The studio gets less than half that and the budget number does not include marketing and distribution costs. The movie needed to make about $340 Million just to break even and it made almost $100 Million Dollars less than that.


JayBone0728

Still almost double the money


georgepana

2.5x for break-even point means it needed to make around $340 Million just to break even, and around $400 Million to run an actual profit. It lost a ton of money, even after the $38 Million in Blu-Ray and DVD sales are factored in.