Hacker News Reader

You spend $100m on stop motion the same way a you spend $100m on any other film: paying people for their technical and artistic skills. Stop motion animation is a very time-intensive and precise art.

Or do you not understand why people would fund $100m into a stop motion film?

Probably because the financiers view stop-motion as an art worth funding. Art shouldn't need to come with financial gains to raise funding.

View on HN

That's the essence of a money mark.

If you're going to go into business, go into business.

If you're going to run a charity, run a charity.

When you think you're doing one, but actually doing the other, you're going to have a bad time.

So if Phil and Travis Knight wanted to realize a stop-motion artistic vision, what do you propose they should have done but “go into business”? Are you suggesting they should have actually structured the movie studio as a non-profit?

If they were not planning to see a profit, then a non profit would be appropriate.

You ended with the same conclusion that you're arguing against

shhh don't tell him that: art is partially self contradictory anyhow

Reply on news.ycombinator.com