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.