Today was DreamWorks day, with me wandering through the campus's feature building (located on the end of the property nearest KABC teevee, if you're not near a Google map).
There's lots of work going on inside. Monsters Vs. Aliens has over half its animation done; Madagascar Too! is in the last weeks of production and goinb sixty miles per hour, and How to Train You Dragon is in the earler stages of production ...
I got asked how much overtime employees were required to do. I replied: "Only as much as is 'reasonable', and of course, reasonable is different for different people." (Clear as mud, right? But that's the problem with those pesky labor regulations. No employer can work you longer than is "reasonable," but each person has a different reasonableness threshold. Billy down the hall with his asthma and wrist splints can only be expected to work 45 hours a week without collapsing, while the exercise freak in the next cubicle over can do 80 hours without breathing hard. So how the hell do you define reasonable? You tell me.) Oh yeah. If you deduce that there's been o.t. going on, you'd be right ... And the animators in the animation building will shortly be relocating to the Lakeside building, now under expansion. Why? "Execs tell us that they want to get everybody more centralized and working in big open spaces, more along the P.D.I. model ... so it's Lakeside for us."
Posts
42 comments:
Just so long as they're not getting PDI-style wages.
or worse yet, Disney Feature Animation wages.
Don't you know "Disney Feature" doesn't exist anymore, its 'Disney animation' now. And yes, I turned down a Disney offer cause the salary was an insult!!
Rufus.
Maybe they only offered what that thought you were worth? I know many animators at Disney (new-ish ones too) who are making decent money. Well over 6 figures.
I dont mean to offend. I just think many times people complain about salaries, but they arent really that good, so they make a lot of noise about it...but in reality everyone quietly knows why they arent paid well.
so you know people making 2 grand a week? woohoo!
Are you being sarcastic? I mean, well-over 6 figures CAN mean a lot of money. Its just a huge range...can you be more specific? More than 250k?
"so you know people making 2 grand a week? woohoo!"
Only from the spoiled, bitter, and self absorbed ranks of the animation union could $2,000 a week be looked down upon.
Ah, animators... "It's all about the art, man..." "Only two grand a week? That's insulting..."
Can't have it both ways, boys and girls...
6 figures can also mean 100,000 and that's not much living in So Cal.
Now if you're talking more than 200k then you might have an argument, but I've found people that say 6 figures tend to mean just above 100k or they would've said 'mid' 6 figures or something even more specific.
In our industry 2k a week is getting close to the bottom of the ladder and is usually considered an insult to a journeyman in many of the categories.
If you're going to suggest "Only from the spoiled, bitter, and self absorbed ranks of the animation union could $2,000 a week be looked down upon." then you're part of the problem and the reason why some of these jobs are being offered at such a low rate.
I've heard some feature storyboard jobs being offered for 2k a week and if you don't think that's an insult then you aren't a professional storyboard artist.
Only a child believes "it's all about the art"
You want to work for low pay go ahead, but don't expect any professional to do it.
"Ah, animators... "It's all about the art, man..." "Only two grand a week? That's insulting..."
Can't have it both ways, boys and girls..."
so only someone who starves can be an srtist. what a boob.
in that case i'd rather make good money and you can keep the title - it won't help pay my mortgage
"6 figures can also mean 100,000 and that's not much living in So Cal.",
Dude, blow it out your ass.
You must leave the compound and then head directly home every single day to exist in such a smug little bubble. Anyone who has worked the independent studios and the majors in this town KNOWS that there are just as many competent artists working without the luxury of six figures outside the union as there are in the studios with that kind of a payroll. You're completely out of touch with the rest of the industry. Look no further than NYC where there are storyboard artists paying a much higher cost of living and making much less than what you are bellyaching about.
I can't even believe you are serious about what you just posted. Give me a break! Thank your lucky stars that you are getting that salary because there are artists taking risks and paying their dues in small studios right now that could replace you - and should given that fact that you have such a grotesque sense of entitlement. A fact that suggests the studios haven't even selected individuals who are team players.
Indeed, if you are indicative of the career studio worker, then the studio system in this town is infested with the most useless, spoon fed babies ever walking around disguised as adults. I thought the crowd at the Christmas party was just the sponge segment, but your words represent that sad lot quite accurately.
I'm a talented, feature animator making the union minimum (~37/hr) at a SoCal major film studio. I can't afford a house. I make enough to pay rent and live a basic, no-flash life.
I like my job a lot, but does it kind of suck to be forced to live cheaply yet also have one of the most coveted, sought-after jobs? Yes. Im not complaining, Im just putting my experience out there in the comments for people to see.
All I can say is, thank god for union minimum. For animators, that's about $1500/week. Pixar routinely hires animators (even ones with excellent experience) at $1000/week. Who the hell can live on that in the Bay Area? It's pretty unbelievable that a studio that successful can spare so little change for great talent.
I'm also a feature animator making union minimum, and according to my performance reviews, my work is highly regarded. Obviously, union minimum is higher than many studios pay, and I'm glad that I at least make that. But it's true that you'll never get rich on it--or afford a house in SoCal, for that matter.
> It's pretty unbelievable that a
> studio that successful can spare
> so little change for great talent.
Studios only pay what they need to. Pixar can afford to offer relatively low salaries precisely because they are so successful. People are climbing over each other to work for them.
KG
If they didn't go on about what a wonderful 'family' they are and how artist friendly they are it wouldn't be so bad, but as it is this is criminal and Pixar should be ashamed of themselves.
I understand the economic argument that there is an over-abundance of supply for Pixar, creating a seller's market where they can essentially set their own "price". I suppose, though, that the natural extension of that argument is that they could even offer only $300/week, and they'd find plenty of highly talented eager beavers more than happy to accept that offer. I guess we should be thankful that they're "charitable" enough to offer what little they do.
It is odd (and perhaps even ethically questionable) that the very fact that they are incredibly profitable becomes a de facto reason NOT to share any of said profit.
(And yes, I realize that as a private company, they are not obligated to "share" anything. But I do think that a place like Pixar would want to encourage the idea that being an animator is a "livable" career choice. And $1000/week in the Bay Area is not livable.)
That may be why Pixar seems to have such a high turn over rate. For some people its not about the cool shirts and hidden rooms, its about where can I live and enjoy doing it.
I've talked to different Pixarians, some with long tenures.
Their story is, Pixar isn't extravagant with wages. And after a few years, many mid-level staffers get tired of the parsimony and move on. One said to me:
"I was there for years. Finally you just get sick of their reasons and excuses why they can't pay you more, or give you a decent raise, so you leave."
I dream, of course, about getting the place under contract. So far only a dream.
"And yes, I realize that as a private company, they are not obligated to "share" anything."
Pixar isn't a private company and hasn't been for a long time. They were publicly traded before their sale to Disney, and of course, Disney is the most public of companies. As such, they have a responsibility to provide a return on their shareholder's investment, and one big way to do that is hold down costs. The biggest cost to any company is salaries and benefits.
Pixar is far from the only company guilty of this though. ILM and Lucas Arts have paid low salaries for years for exactly the same reason - people will climb over their own grandmother to work there.
I an effort to keep shareholders happy by keeping wages down I wonder if Lasseter's slary is barely a living wage?
When you spend 180 mill a pic you can't tell me there isn't money to pay at LEAST union scale.
It astounds me that the company EVRYONE loves and wants to work for are running a sweatshop. I wonder what type of publicity that would engender.
> When you spend 180 mill a pic you
> can't tell me there isn't money to
> pay at LEAST union scale.
Makes you wonder where all that money is going. :-) Their production process could be more efficient, irrespective of nice visual results.
Success all too often masks problems that come around to bite you later. Just look at what happened to Disney in the 90's.
KG
That $180 mil a film includes those salaries, gang. Imagine what the films would cost if they were paying more.
As purty as Wall-E is that ain't 180 mill on the screen (especially with low low artist salaries). AND if it were I think the public would be willing to accept a little less polish and not say a peep one way or the other.
Pixar RAISE the artists' alaries. Shame on you!
The cold, hard reality is that they have no need or reason to at the present time.
When you bid on eBay, do you go for the second-lowest price? Or pay more than your low winning bid about for "ethical" reasons? Of course not.
Like it or not, this is business.
KG
I agree. Its business and with the current curve on the past films I really doubt they would want to go in and change the pay scales anytime soon. Enjoy what you do but more importantly enjoy where you live doing it.
Anyone knows if PDIs payscale is any better than Pixars?
While I agree that talent should be paid as much as possible, I almost have to laugh when people tell us how no one can survive in LA or SF on 100k a year. Or 52k a year for that matter. There are millions of people doing so everyday. And no, I'm not suggesting you live in the slums or in a run down apartment.
You don't have to live in East LA or the crappy areas of Oakland with the salary that Pixar or Disney pays you. If a single person or a couple is having a hard time surviving on 100k a year, maybe you need a lesson in controlling your finances.
100k, yes. 50k? It's a lot harder, especially if you're the primary breadwinner in the family.
It also depends if you're single or have a family.
aaah, but if they didnt think I was that good, then why make an offer in the first place?
No, your answer to my post only reflects your bias. Did it ever ocurr to you that the studio was being cheap? Could that be the answer?
Disney is well known for being cheap. Even David Letterman has made comments about that.
Rufus.
If a studio doesn't feel someone is up to snuff, they'll often low ball them to see if they can get some cheap labor. Supply and demand.. it always boils down to it.
Usually if an artist is low balled it's because the studio doesn't feel they're worth more and wants to save the big money for a more important player and/or they feel the artist doesn't have a lot of options - maybe because of that artist's abilities or the state of the industry. Sometimes budget enters into it as well, but that usually applies more to low budget pics and small studios.
Perhaps. However, there is another dynamic in play. I personally know some big, very well-known names at Pixar--animators whose work is absolutely stellar, first-rate, showcased as examples of brilliant animation. I won't mention their names, but they are people you have heard of, if you follow animation. And they are paid surprisingly little, quite a bit less than you would imagine, considerably less than they can get elsewhere.
Why?
Because Pixar is Pixar. No other studio can offer that experience--working on films that are universally admired and respected. While some excellent animators get fed up and leave, many others stay because they know that no other studio makes films the way Pixar does. Why work on projects that just aren't as good, even for more money? And of course, Pixar knows this.
So economics does play a role, but there are other factors as well, that are skewing things "unnaturally".
"We don't have to pay you what you're worth because we're Pixar Goddamn it and you should pay us for the honor of working here!"
Wow...sounds like the same quaint philosophy Walt had before everyone told him to shove it and formed a union.
Many of the good animators at Pixar are getting paid over 100k. I don't care what some people say, that is a good salary. Even in the Bay Area. My wife and I (and our daughter) live 10 minutes away from Emeryville in a beautiful 2500 sq. ft house in a great neighborhood and are comfortable. Our combined income is less than 100k right now (she works a couple days a week and I have my <100k job). And we even bought this house several years ago when the prices were quite a bit higher.
Do I wish I made more money? Yeah, of course. Am I living in a ratty house with our sub 100 income? No. Are we able to have a good life with our kid? Yes.
That's hard to believe. A 2500 sq foot house in the bay area (even nasty areas of Oakland) has to go for about 650-900k. 2500 is HUGE. Monthly payments on that (depending) has to be around 3200-5000k a month.
You are NOT paying that while making less than 100k family income with a kid.
Please dont take offense, but I just find it hard to believe.
You're right about your calculations. If we were to sell it right now, it would be about 700k. Payments are somewhere around 3100 a month. If it is a month we need extra cash, we can pay interest only at 2200. And yes, we are paying that with a kid. Taxes are about 7k a year. You make sacrifices. We don't go out buying expensive cars/boats/motorcycles or snorting coke. It's possible. We have neighbors making less than we do and their houses are just as nice.
*Wow...sounds like the same quaint philosophy Walt had before everyone told him to shove it and formed a union.*
Walt never did any such thing. He gave raises to his employees before he raised his own salary. His studio had air conditioning (extremely rare in those days), recreational areas, and all an animator had to do to get a snack was pick up the phone, and a WAITER would bring it to him. Those were the days at Disney before the strike. Walt took the strike personally precisely because of the more-than-decent way he handled his employees, particularly in comparison to the way animators in rival studios were treated (remember Termite Terrace)? Walt mishandled the strike, no doubt, but it was because of hurt feelings and resentment, not greed.
Yeah! Those commie bastards had no business striking. They were living in Nirvana!
That's an interesting comment, given that the main union organizer in Hollywood at that time really WAS a member of the Communist Party. And no, I'm not talking about Art Babbitt. Do your research before making cliche remarks, 'kay?
Wow...Joe McCarthy's posting on a union message board - I thought he was dead along with his ideas. I guess not.
Brief history of the '41 strike:
The Screen Cartoonists Guild had already organized most of the rest of the animation industry; Disney was the holdout.
There are tipping points in any organizing action, and W.D.P.'s came about when Walt gave a patronizing, bullying speech to his staff on February 11 1941.
That, as much as anything helped to trigger the strike. The irony is, if he had just leveled with his employees and told them what desperate economic shape the studio was in, they likely wouldn't have embarked on a long job action.
But he didn't, and Disney's went union. And yeah, there were commies in the Scfreen Cartoonists Guild. Joe Grant told me so himself. But then Joe shrugged and growled:
"But Walt hired them."
(There are a plethora of books that cover the Disney strike. A couple of good ones: "Drawing the Line" by Tom Sito; "An Animated Man" by Mike Barrier.)
Having organized a few cartoon studios in my time, I can tell you that its corporate missteps and abuses that power organizing forward. It's that way now, it was that way in 1941.)
Post a Comment