... [A]t the [weekend] box office, Sony's new 3D kids pic The Smurfs was doing strong business, and could gross as much $30 million or more for the weekend. ...
So maybe the staff at SPA will breathe a litte easier.
Because the last time I was over there, which was last week, a few of the employees related that studio scuttlebutt was that SPA might be in jeopardy if Smurfs failed to perform. (Just a rumor, you understand.)
But it's always more pleasant to draw checks from an employer who is having a good run at the box office, rather than a bad one. You tend to make the assumption that the paydays will continue for awhile. And your neck and shoulder muscles aren't as tense.
Posts
13 comments:
Looks like Smurfs will be #1 this weekend according to Finke.
Wasn't this considered a Sony live-action film? I heard that they used local 800 storyboarders and not TAG boarders. How does SPA benefit?
are you serious? what a piece of crap! i would never take my kids to see bad CGI movie. ex: mars needs mom
i worked in the vfx/animation for the past ten years. i will be surprise it makes money.
"800 storyboarders and not TAG boarders. How does SPA benefit?"
The Larger question is, why didn't the Guild do anything about it?
Because it's a live-action film and 800 has jurisdiction
Just because something is GARBAGE doesn't mean it won't make a ton of money (NOT that I'm happy about that fact). It's been this way all through film history.
For example:
Scooby Doo (garbage)
Garfield (garbage)
Any of the Shrek films (ALL garbage)
The list goes on and on, but it's just not worth my time at this point.
I think it's obvious that the way a film is made doesn't matter too much to the movie going public as much as if it's entertaining (Cloudy with a chance of Meatballs).
Stupid, but entertaining.
Want to hear about the 800-839 grievances?
I know where you can show up bi-monthly, have some pizza and a soda, and ask Steve directly. All members are welcome.
Uh, there were 839 story people working on the flick.
Just to let you know.
Are you sure they weren't dual guild members - several of us are?
I got a call from them looking to hire because of being on the roster at 800.
"a call from them looking to hire because of being on the roster at 800."
And why not an 839 roster? Then maybe the majority of your membership wouldnt be on honorary withdrawal. Why do other IATSE affiliated unions have a roster in which their members are called when work is available and not 839? It seems wrong.
And why not an 839 roster? Then maybe the majority of your membership wouldnt be on honorary withdrawal. Why do other IATSE affiliated unions have a roster in which their members are called when work is available and not 839? It seems wrong.
TAG has no roster because no rosters were being put in place in 1951-52, when the guild (then the Motion Picture Screen Cartoonists) was formed.
In the past, we have shared jurisdiction with Local 800, and no doubt will again. The studios like to hire the artists they believe best for the job. One studio exec said to me recently:
"If Local 800 tries to block board artists we want to hire, we'll take the show non-union and hire who we think is right for the job ..."
(I have brought this problem up to both Local 800 and the IATSE.)
But to the issue of a roster. If a roster wasn't part of our landscape in 1951-52, I doubt it will be part of it now. Naturally, we can propose creating one in the next round of negotiations, if the membership desires it. But proposing is one thing, getting the proposal into the contract another.
And think about it: you want to be denied a job because you're not on a list?
I've done this work a while now, and one thing I know is, if studios get too annoyed about being blocked by 800 (or any union or guild) from hiring the talent they determine they need on one of their pictures, Local 800 will likely have an interesting time of it in their next contract negotiations.
Just saying.
A reader just emailed me a post that he wrote on the subject of the 800 roster. It kind of sums up the whole problem I have with the concept: http://vozwords.blogspot.com/2011/07/hollywood-club.html
I have yet to be convinced as to the benefits of a roster .. and I've asked many people to try. I've always concluded that a roster of any sort flies in the face of meritocracy and plays a favoritism that turns people away from unions as a whole. In the attempt to keep from hijacking this comment thread, if you have a compelling argument for a roster, please email it to me.
BUT in the name of trying to get more people to a meeting, I'll make my usual point. If you think TAG should have a roster, or you want to profess vehemently about the evils of a roster, the best place to do that would be a Membership Meeting. We hold them every other month with the next meeting scheduled for Sept. 27. (almost ready to introduce a Calendar on our new, fancy website for your referencing convenience)
At the end of the day many animation and vfx artists worked hard on this project and with its success the studio(Imageworks)will perhaps become profitable and keeps it doors open. There have been big changes in the last few years in Culver city to make the Sony division viable. Box office success is key to new projects funding and get new films off into production. So currently laid off artists can go back to work.
Per Screen Average is higher for the (admittedly AWFUL) smurf kids cartoon. And it's in over 350 FEWER theaters (not sure how many screens) than Cowboys & Aliens (a so-so film).
Sadly, both films will drop fast. They' just aren't that good.
Post a Comment