why didn't queen spend more money on animating the AKOM video clip?

why didn't Queen spend more money on animating the AKOM music video?


Sleevenotes credit a Roger Chiasson for the work on the album work



Its vivid and daring. ... colorful and fun. ... yet the dancers in the film are so choppy to warrant laughs by people I know.


(Seeing it for the first time)


I was fond of it and the usual 80's positivity despite the darkness of the film



Anyways, yeah it's a bad question that really doesn't deserve answering, but I figured I should add something to this thread beyond silly polls
:-)


It's good to have an interest in the band but the output has been pretty laidback



You'd think they'd retired or lost their singer or something

I liked the AKOM video then - and I STILL like it. It's very much of its time - as it should be.

Why didn't they spend more money.....?

Does Matt z know something we don't, like how much they DID spend on that video?

Rumour at the time was it cost £250k (ref TOTP) maybe that was quite enough......or maybe it wasn't enough or maybe Peter Powell was just plain wrong. Does any of the above actually matter....?

According to Philip Hayward (culture and technology in the late 20th century), AKOM video cost nearly 500.000USD!!!

[QUOTE] [b]ANAGRAMER wrote:[/b]

According to Philip Hayward (culture and technology in the late 20th century), AKOM video cost nearly 500.000USD!!![/QUOTE]

Should read: culture technology and creativity in the late 20th century

[QUOTE] [b]ANAGRAMER wrote:[/b]

According to Philip Hayward (culture and technology in the late 20th century), AKOM video cost nearly 500.000USD!!![/QUOTE]

Should read: culture technology and creativity in the late 20th century

This video reminds me on all I hate from the 80s

As far as I remember, in the audio commentaries for AKoM at GVHII Roger said he wanted all those effects for the videos. And somewhere else, Brian said that they spent a lot of money on them in that moment. I believe those prices.

In 1986 the band interacting with animation was cutting edge technology, not quite Money For Nothing but still a brilliant concept and great to see on Top of the Pops. Easy to look back and think it looks crap with todays animation technology/pixar etc.... but not a fair comparison.

In fact I take back the Money For Nothing comparison because Dire Straits didn't even interact... it was 2 separate videos stitched together......

[QUOTE]

[b]mooghead wrote: [/b] In 1986 the band interacting with animation was cutting edge technology, not quite Money For Nothing but still a brilliant concept and great to see on Top of the Pops. Easy to look back and think it looks crap with todays animation technology/pixar etc.... but not a fair comparison.[/QUOTE]

Yep. Remember [i]Who Framed Roger Rabbit[/i] (1988)? We've come a long way since then. Mind you, there was a cartoon monster in [i]Forbidden Planet[/i] and that was released in 1956!

"Remember Who Framed Roger Rabbit (1988)"

I knew someone would say that.. ripped Queen off... shameless theft...!!! (seriously, 2 years of computer technology then is like 10 years now....)

Without reading all of the comments (apart from the few at the beginning), I must say I'm surprised to hear the animations were bad. It never crossed my mind, really. And I'm 30, so hopefully not that old ;) I thought the video was good!

It's not fair to compare the animation then to nowadays, but it's not as though it would've looked [i]good[/i] at that point in time either. I don't think the novelty of it being animation over a video of the band is enough to warrant it's inclusion when it looks so unprofessional. Plus, the vast majority of it was 2D animation, and it's not as though that was a foreign concept by the 1980s at all..

I just really wanted to get a discussion going. I was bored and listening to the album.

It's cool animation. My only real beef with the animator is when the females fall. ... its choppy beyond belief.


$500, 000?




AH the sordid hedonistic life of a cell animator



Hookers and blow