A commenter below asks some pointed questions regarding Fox's style of feature making on The Simpsons Movie contrasted to Disney's style on Princess and the Frog. I provide my learned answers here (rather than way down in the other thread):
How does "cost plus" and "for hire" explain or excuse Disney's behavior? So the actual business entity is Fox. How does that change the point.
The point of the other comments was that Starz Media media was staffing the film as it saw fit, and Disney supposedly isn't.
I've seen no evidence of that. Disney is staffing Princess the way it is to hold down costs, but that's different than being "forced" to staff in a way different that it wants to.
Most companies don't need excuses to do what they do. They just plow ahead and do them.
Fox, as far as I know, accepted the cost of the film. They didn't say, "the film was too expensive-you hired too many artists."You have some evidence of this? Because the Fox/Starz/Simpson Movie model is similiar to the Disney/Princess model. Both of them outsource production (for Fox on Simpsons Movie, it was animation, cleanup, digital coloring; For Disney, it's cleanup and digital coloring. The big difference? Disney is doing its animation in-house. Fox did a lot of its animation in Korea at Rough Draft, just as it does for the television show.)
Disney ... seems to be attacking the personnel traditionally employed to get the job done right as an unnecessary extravagance.Not to be a company tool, but Disney is paying what the market (and the union contract) will bear. It's reported to me that some animators have refused Disney salary offers because they're low, and so aren't working on the project.
This is called "negotiating." You don't like the offer, you don't take it. And stay doing whatever you're doing elsewhere.
Robert Iger, I'm informed, wants the animation division heads to restrain salary costs. The division heads are doing that. It's not pretty from an employee perspective, but that's what appears to be going on. (Note: My day job is to represent employee/member interests; my task here is to be reality based and explain, to the best of my ability, what's going on.)
It seems that Disney the corporation is not allowing Disney the animation studio to staff as they see fit. This kind of intrusive demoralizing micro-managing was supposed to leave with Eisner.
I never saw the memo on that, so I really wouldn't know.
But it seems to me that Disney the corporation and Disney the Animation Studio are one and the same. And that Disney the Animation Studio is doing what it deems to be in the best interests of the division, without outside interference (and does Robert Iger giving Ed Catmull and John Lasseter his opinion constitute "outside interference?").
Now. You and I may disagree with the decisions Disney Animation execs are making, but I haven't seen any evidence that they're being arm-twisted by "Disney corporate."
All I can say is, I've walked through the "Princess and the Frog" unit numerous times and have picked up the following:
1) Some of the lead animators aren't happy to be "on call." (Note that Disney gave everyone the option to be on call or not, but most agreed to the new deal.)
2) Many assistants and journey animators are thrilled and happy to be back at the House of Mouse doing a hand-drawn feature.
3) Various people have griped to me that things "aren't the same" as they were in the 1990s, and some don't like the new ways of doing things ... which they think are worse than the old ways.
4) Everybody is aware of the fact that this is a project-length employment deal. The picture ends, they're gone. Nobody much likes it (who would?), but this is the way the business works now.
Bottom line: There are some differences between the Fox/Simpson model and the Disney/Princess model. The biggest differences? Fox was paying some people more, and Disney is doing all its animation in house, which "The Simpsons Movie" did not.
Posts
3 comments:
Disney is staffing in the manner that they need to in order to make the movie financially viable. Costs for previous 2D movies were too high and required a box office smash to break even. It didn't help that their movies were box office busts.
Disney is trying to staff in a manner in which a moderate box office success will still result in profit; which in turn will result in more 2D movies being made.
The goal behind making all supervisors "on call" is not to make them work longer hours for less pay, but to provide the leadership with an incentive to improve efficiency and productivity while reducing overtime costs. The thinking goes something like this, "if you don't want to work overtime for the same pay then find ways of getting your department to produce without any overtime for your staff." It places the responsibility onto the leadership which is where it belongs.
Well, duh, that's obviously their rationale. What else is new? The problem is, they are based on several unfair and largely negative assumptions. First why must the film be profitable to justify itself? Neither live action nor CG films have this burden placed on them. Succeed or fail they go on and make more. What if it "just" breaks even? Do we close the shop down and auction off the desks again? I just can't help getting the feeling that there is a strange kind of hostility or at least resistance toward the idea of re-establishing their 2-D feature division that is unrelated to pure business concerns.
When, in the past, have they ever sent feature clean-up out?
One more thing, if you look at the credits of The Simpsons Movie you will see a long list of "character lay-out" artists. Most of that work was virtual key-pose animation, mostly done here.
... why must the film [Princess and the Frog] be profitable to justify itself...?
Because Disney management stipulates that it should. They make estimates and budget accordingly.
...Neither live action nor CG films have this burden placed on them.
Sure they do. California loses live action production all the time to states with big tax breaks.
Cold Mountain, a high-end movie about the American Civil War, was shot in freaking Romania because Romania was cheap.
The Weinstein theatrical c.g. film Hoodwinked, was boarded here and animated in the Phillipines.
What haystack have you been sleeping under?
When, in the past, have they ever sent feature clean-up out?
Never, so far as I know.
But Disney Feature Animation sent ink-and-paint work out on The Little Mermaid (1989). Sent it to Shanghai, China.
They also outsourced cell work on Tron, which was largely live action.
The Mouse House never did it before those two films in the eighties. Was Disney management unfair and negative for doing it? It deprived ink-and-paint employees of work. Aren't they as important as cleanup artists?
Most of [The Simpsons Movie] work was virtual key-pose animation, mostly done here.
Mostly. But a lot of animation, again, was done in Korea. Fox cops to a budget of $75 million for the film. My educated guess is the way they staffed and outsourced helped them with the budget.
To be clear, I want as much work as possible to stay in-house and union. But when "unfair" and "negative" are thrown arounds, I think it's important to define what is meant.
Post a Comment