... or China ... or Singapore ... or Paris, even.
There have been layoffs of late at DreamWorks Animation, where one of the features has been pulled back for more story work and there is a resulting hiccup in the production pipeline. (These things happen.)
And Walt Disney Animation Studios still clings to its Sony Imageworks production model, where employees get hired when a production ramps up (currently that production is Wreck It Ralph) and laid off when the project concludes.
Animation and c.g.i. veteran Jim Hillin, who will be making an appearance here on July 4th and 5th in a TAG podcast, has voiced concerns that c.g. work is being outsourced to India and it's a tougher market for visual effects employees.
I don't disagree that the job situation is difficult for many, but I come down on the side of VFX Soldier in thinking that it isn't all going to India. Local work is certainly changing, becoming less pleasant in many instances, but I don't see strong evidence that overall employment is shrinking ...
TAG's membership numbers are near historical highs. Artists working in computer graphics tell me of long jobs and short jobs, but certainly jobs. Then there's this tear-stained article from the sub-continent (cited by Soldier):
... Did you see Kung Fu Panda 2 and wonder why the best animation we can manage is an unintended horror show in 3D called Bal Ganesh? How is it that in a cultural legacy so vibrant with children’s tales, the only stories we have to tell through animation involve rigid gods without a sense of fun?
Indian animation, which at the start of this decade was predicted to be the next big thing, is facing a crisis. ...
The crisis, of course, is one of India's own making. Bad training. Slipshod studios. When you devote yourself to being the low-rent provider for American entertainment conglomerates, you are probably not going to dazzle audiences with your output. Nor attract lots more work. As an American animator related to me:
"Their trouble is that they don't want to pay employees very much because everything is done for a price. So the work that's turned out is less than great, and the high-achievers in the studio get frustrated and quit for higher paying work someplace else, like WETA or an effects house in the states."
Which isn't to say that all animation that's originated domestically will remain stateside. As I've said before, 98% of U.S. animation was created here in the lower forty-eight, sixty years back. There were two or three thousand layout, background, storyboard and animation artists producing the television shows, commercials and theatrical features for world consumption right here. The work comprised the lion's share of the pie, but the pie -- compared to now -- was much smaller.
In 2011, there are visual effects for cable shows, theatrical features, and broadcast episodics. There are video games, news graphics, animated features, internet shorts and interstitials. The pie, in other words, is now one hell of a lot bigger than it was when Hanna-Barbera and Disney ruled the collective roost. And though Southern California owns a lot less of the whole thing, employment in raw numbers is still near historical highs.
The other items at record highs are the profits of our fine, entertainment conglomerates. And because they want to keep them that way, we'll be seeing the squeezing of wages wherever possible, the outsourcing of lower end work, the general terrorizing of individual employees. ("You know how lucky you are to be working here? ...") In the world of computer graphics, the supply of talent has caught up with demand, and surpassed it. Large companies are wise to this, and behave accordingly.
Studios won't be using artists in the United States because of any starry-eyed idealism. They'll be doing it because of perceived self-interest, for it does no good to get effects done cheap if they look like hell and aren't ready by the release date. Nor is it useful to use quirky, overseas suppliers that fail to get effects for television shows completed when turn-around is counted in days, not months.
There will always be outsourcing, but the ever-expanding demand for high-quality characters and effects built and moved inside computers, coupled with the corporate fear of missed delivery dates, will mean that lots of American artists and technicians will continue working.
Posts
45 comments:
Ahh yes............it had to happen.
Even at Dreamworks.
And Walt Disney Animation Studios still clings to its Sony Imageworks production model
I honestly dont believe that's by choice. Disney has been unprofitable for YEARS, and whether Floyd Norman likes to admit it or not, Disney Animation doesnt have unlimited resources anymore. They stick to a bare bones crew because film after film, they dont make any money.
Now let's look at the success of Tangled: the last layoff happened before Tangled hit theaters. Since then, and since meeting after meeting of the execs calling Tangled "transformative" for the studio and quite profitable, Disney has been hiring (not just for Ralph, but for Ralph and the films after) and making plans to have a more robust, stable staff. That's always been the plan, but Chicken Little barely made money, Meet the Robinsons flopped, Bolt barely broke even, and PATF did moderate business. Now, finally, after a decade or more, Tangled might (just might) make it possible for Disney to get on their feet again.
But like I said, I dont think it's by choice. If it happens after Wreck-It Ralph, I'll gladly change my position.
Of course not by choice. The Disney Co. is a tiny, struggling little corporation.
They're forced to run it the way they've run it. Anybody who looks at the situation knows that.
*sigh*
I hate when I state my honest opinion and the owner of the blog, and the business rep of my union replies back with attitude.
I didnt say The Disney Co. is a tiny struggling corporation. What I said was, WDAS has been repeatedly unprofitable, and The Disney Co. was not willing to keep dumping money into a giant staff of people for a studio that can't turn a profit on a film.
Certainly this is clear, right? What's the alternative? Drain every last cent the company makes from parks, live action, ESPN, and merchandise into WDAS until the entire corporation goes bankrupt?
No. Keep a small, nimble team funded until they get their shit together, then fund future films. Thankfully, Disney is on the upswing of that model, and hopefully sees stability for the next decade.
I hate when I state my honest opinion and the owner of the blog, and the business rep of my union replies back with attitude.
Uh, no.
You have your opinion, and I have mine.
You believe the company doesn't do the business model it does by choice. I believe it does do the business model it does by choice.
As I have said multiple times, the company can use any strategy it likes, that's their right. But to say they are forced to do this is, I think, a tiny bit disingenuous.
In the first years of the new management, they said there were going to be minimal layoffs. There ended up being sizable layoffs. Okay, so plans and realities changed. Life is tough, business is hard, and so on and so forth.
But there was a continual pattern of saying one thing and doing another, which now (happily) seems to have changed. And the studio now (even more happily) appears to be expanding again.
But let's not rewrite history, okay?
"Forced" was your word, not mine. But if by forced you mean "Disney Corporate reduced WDAS budget" then yes, they were forced.
And while Disney Corporation and WDAS share the same name, they ARE different companies. WDAS even has to pay rent to occupy the Riverside address.
No one is re-writing history here, certainly not me. But you imply that Disney happily chugs along, intentionally taking advantage of employees by hiring and firing, and Im simply here to state that if the films would have performed better, thats not the model they'd be in today.
And yes, you WERE being sarcastic when there was no sarcasm in my initial comment. No need to be like that.
Im simply here to state that if the films would have performed better, thats not the model they'd be in today.
And you know this how?
But I don't know what you're so defensive about. All I said was that they used the model of hiring during ramp-up, laying off when the feature is completed. That's the reality.
Now, you can say "yeah, but" all you like, but I'm just stating what's going on. Nowhere in the original post to I put a judgment on it.
And of course you side step the other point, that for a period of time WDAS said one thing to employees, and did another.
I think it's worth reiterating:
This was about DreamWorks Animation having layoffs. They are making a profit and could have CHOSE to keep staff on board but CHOSE otherwise.
The point of my article is that what makes the film industry unique is we let people go in between projects even if we are making healthy profits.
Because of this we need a mechanism that provides health insurance and other benefits for our families in between gigs.
For us that mechanism is the union.
I hate when I state my honest opinion and the owner of the blog, and the business rep of my union replies back with attitude.
This is the TAG Blog, not the Steve Blog. Steve may be business-like and professional on his day job but here on the blog he can be snarky and sarcastic to the posters he disagrees with even though they're paying their union dues i.e: his wages.
Remember when he got all gossipy about Glen Keane possibly defecting to DreamWorks? The union rep was gossiping about a union member in public! Holy moley.
Anonymous at 3:56 (myself) is not the anonymous Steve snarked at earlier.
Remember when he got all gossipy about Glen Keane possibly defecting to DreamWorks? The union rep was gossiping about a union member in public!
I think he asked permission from Glen Keane himself to do that, i.e. to report in this blog what Glen told him.
The anonymous of 3:56 is rewriting history. Some anonymous posters were gossiping about Glen Keane going to DW. Steve talked to Glen about it and, with Glen's permission, clarified the situation. It seemed to me he was taking a responsible position, unlike some of Glen's anonymous coworkers.
Certainly this is clear, right? What's the alternative? Drain every last cent the company makes from parks, live action, ESPN, and merchandise into WDAS until the entire corporation goes bankrupt?
Oh, you funny guy! Let's see, Iger alone takes a $50 million dollar bonus while hundreds of Feature Animation artists and TDs, with a combined salary of maybe $20-25 million, get axed. We saw the same pattern with Eisner. The top people at the company become multi-millionaires over and over again, while the people who create and actually produce something of value for the company are treated like they're disposable.
You're right, there was just no other alternative.
Hey, let's not get all socialist here.
Iger makes $50 million because he works 500 times harder than the average animator.
Purely merit-based.
Yeah, giver Iger a break. It's not easy screwing all those employees daily. The man works tirelessly at his job.
And you know this how?
Math.
And of course you side step the other point, that for a period of time WDAS said one thing to employees, and did another.
Never in their post-Lion King wildest dreams did WDAS (WDFA at the time) ever think their next string of movies would bomb so horribly at the box office. So yeah, they said one thing, in wonderful, corporate naivete. I dont think they LIED, I think they were naive.
Let's see, Iger alone takes a $50 million dollar bonus while hundreds of Feature Animation artists and TDs, with a combined salary of maybe $20-25 million, get axed.
You're absolutely correct. I have no argument to that whatsoever.
Look, I'm not being a blanket corporate apologist. But Im also just trying to keep it real. Sure, Iger could go without a salary for a year. But then theres another year. Then another. And maybe then parks attendance or something randomly takes a dive because of the economy, and then money is getting tight. Or maybe an expensive film not related to WDAS (like TRON for example) bombs the box office. Then stuff starts to get panicky. Point is, budgets are budgets regardless of how many zeroes are on the books. The pot isnt endless. Repeat: the pot isnt endless.
So guess I imagine people who complain that the Disney Co. isnt just blindly piling money into WDAS are akin to children of rich parents who complain that daddy has cancelled their credit card. At some point, you gotta start contributing.
It seemed to me he was taking a responsible position, unlike some of Glen's anonymous coworkers.
I believe those anonymous posters were Dreamworks employees, since the rumors originated from there, not Disney. Just a theory.
Anonymous Saturday 4:26pm
Remember when he got all gossipy about Glen Keane possibly defecting to DreamWorks? The union rep was gossiping about a union member in public!
I think he asked permission from Glen Keane himself to do that, i.e. to report in this blog what Glen told him.
Here's the original posting, not a hint of Steve asking Glen anything. Just Steve gossiping about a union member.
http://animationguildblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/glen-keane-trucking-on.html
Never in their post-Lion King wildest dreams did WDAS (WDFA at the time) ever think their next string of movies would bomb so horribly at the box office. So yeah, they said one thing, in wonderful, corporate naivete.
I don't think anyone is talking about what Disney management said after the Lion King, 17 years ago, and you know it. We're talking especially about the last five years, since Disney animation has been run by the geniuses from the enlightened north.
Sure, Iger could go without a salary for a year.
Haha, way to move the goalposts. No one is suggesting Iger go without pay, any more than people suggested Eisner go without pay. Just suggesting that your statement that keeping animators employed would "Drain every last cent the company makes" was idiotic and dishonest.
I have to say, for someone who claims not to be a corporate apologist, you sure are doing a lot of corporate apologizing.
I imagine people who complain that the Disney Co. isnt just blindly piling money into WDAS are akin to children of rich parents who complain that daddy has cancelled their credit card. At some point, you gotta start contributing.
For your info, in the last couple of years of Michael Eisner's tenure, Mr. Eisner and Mr. Iger asked for and received from the Disney board $8 million bonuses.
This was when Disney's profits were down, and the stock price had cratered. (I learned about this when a Disney corporate lawyer complained to me about it in front of the "Team Disney" building.)
SO it is balderdash to maintain that the company "has no choice" but to use the staffing models it uses with WDAS. And if it wants to use a visual effects model, that's fine, but don't misrepresent what it is.
Remember when he got all gossipy about Glen Keane possibly defecting to DreamWorks? The union rep was gossiping about a union member in public!
I think he asked permission from Glen Keane himself to do that, i.e. to report in this blog what Glen told him.
Here's the original posting, not a hint of Steve asking Glen anything. Just Steve gossiping about a union member.
http://animationguildblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/glen-keane-trucking-on.html
Steve wasn't gossiping about a union member. Steve was repeating a report on "Blue Sky Disney" about Glen Keane. That was on March 7.
And on March 10, three days later, I ran into Glen in a first-floor hallway of the hat building, and asked him about it:
http://animationguildblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/glen-k-speaks.html
I then asked his permission to post about the conversation, and he said "fine."
And now you know the entire story.
Do I have all the answers? Am I some high powered corporate accountant? No. But it seems obvious to me that when the movies continuously make little or no money, that the hire/fire VFX model is what's going to happen.
It also happens at Dreamworks, and it also happens at Sony. And I guess I dont expect daddy Disney to keep forking over the dough when the company is doing lousy. Do I blame Lasseter? Partly.
But do I think Iger makes too much money and that it's despicable that he takes a bonus when the company is doing poorly. Of course. I dont like him nor Rich Ross, but thats not at all what Ive been trying to talk about.
But to end this on a high note, Tangled did awesome, theres a great lineup of films coming, and all signs are pointing to a more stable, steady Disney in the future. Which, I guess is why I first reacted so strongly to Steve's comment about Disney clinging to its "Sony Production model."
MMMMM...Kool-aid sure tastes nice...mmmmm
Hey, what are my pants doing around my ankles...? What are you doing back ther Mr Iger...?
Your lame attempt at humor just goes to show you arent objective in your thinking.
... it seems obvious to me that when the movies continuously make little or no money, that the hire/fire VFX model is what's going to happen.
Understand my objection here.
They can use any model they want. But I object to the division telling employees "No, we're not going to have big layoffs," at the same time they are planning big layoffs. (Specifically, I'm referring to what happened before and after the completion of "Meet the Robinsons.")
They should be honest, is all I'm saying.
And all I'm saying is, WDAS brass were honestly not planning big layoffs. John and Ed came in with the idea that they were going to "save" Robinsons, and they flat out didnt. It sucked. It bombed. Layoffs were necessary.
Maybe they should have been more modest and honest and said, "look, if we dont turn it around, we're laying off." But I'm not convinced they thought MTR would go south. These are the same guys who, when told by Peter Schneider to lay new hires off at Pixar when early screenings of Toy Story sucked, that if they go, we go. As luck would have it, they turned it around and Toy Story became a huge success. So they felt invincible and thought they'd do the same at WDAS.
Unfortunately, Robinsons was not the same story.
Overconfident and naive? Yes. Dishonest? No, I dont think so
You object?
With all due respect, what are your personal objections worth? What good can they do the membership? That's a serious question.
What I'd like to know is: what are you going to do when 839 members are laid off, the studios telling you it's because of thus or that reversal/turnaround/ production delay-but days or weeks later hires new people in the very same positions? Or takes on below-minimum trainees?
What will you do about it? Blog about "keeping your skills up" when you know it's a matter of keeping salaries low?
We have the weakest union in Hollywood!
But to end this on a high note, Tangled did awesome, theres a great lineup of films coming, and all signs are pointing to a more stable, steady Disney in the future.
Every sign except management's actual behavior. But this time will be different, right? Yeah, right.
And all I'm saying is, WDAS brass were honestly not planning big layoffs. John and Ed came in with the idea that they were going to "save" Robinsons, and they flat out didnt. It sucked. It bombed. Layoffs were necessary.
And you know what they were 'honestly' thinking how exactly? They also honestly said they wanted to hear from people how things were going, yet somehow everyone who spoke up disappeared.
My friends who worked at DreamWorks on POE, El Dorado, Spirit, and Sinbad kept working, trying to find that hit, while those movies did much worse than Chicken Little and Robinsons and Bolt. But in your world, any corporate hatchet job is excusable. You're a pathetic corporate tool, and you'll live with less cognitive dissonance if you just admit it.
What I'd like to know is: what are you going to do when 839 members are laid off, the studios telling you it's because of thus or that reversal/turnaround/ production delay-but days or weeks later hires new people in the very same positions?
What I'd like to know is what you suggest our union do? Not what Steve do, since Steve does what the membership wants him to do. What should TAG do when a studio lays people off? What do the 'more powerful' Hollywood union do when there are production delays, etc? This, too, is a serious question.
It's all well and good to sit on the sidelines and claim that our union is weak because Steve doesn't do enough, but that just shows you're part of the problem. Let's hear your action plan for TAG to stop layoffs.
You're a pathetic corporate tool, and you'll live with less cognitive dissonance if you just admit it.
Gee, thanks. If you knew me, you'd know this isnt true. And name calling just makes you, and therefore YOUR opinion less strong.
But aside from that, I also stated here that we should feel free to blame John and Ed. Im not here to apologize for the execs, honestly. I guess what Im doing is pointing out that not everything is so cut and dry. And sometimes artists think they are immune from layoffs because they are great artists. We still have to make hit movies, and no one owes us a job if the movie sucks. I'm also here because I feel open, civil discussion is healthy and both sides need presented. But please, name calling isnt necessary.
And you know what they were 'honestly' thinking how exactly?
Because John and Ed's track record doesnt have layoffs in it. So, that's my assumption.
What I'd like to know is: what are you going to do when 839 members are laid off, the studios telling you it's because of thus or that reversal/turnaround/ production delay-but days or weeks later hires new people in the very same positions? Or takes on below-minimum trainees?
I intend to go on doing exactly what SAG, the DGA and WGA do when there are layoffs. Nothing more, nothing less.
Always a good idea to emulate the above-the-line guilds, wouldn't you say?
Your facts regarding the layoffs after MTR aren't accurate.
The layoffs occurred shortly after production ended, or as the departments rolled off. The movie didn't open in theaters until months later.
So John and Ed DIDN'T do layoffs as a result of low boxoffice results. The layoffs happened before there were ANY boxoffice results.
There were 140 layoffs at the end of production for Meet the Robinsons. The employees found out about the layoffs from a Bloomberg article that appeared on-line.
Management had previously told staff layoffs would be minimal. Andrew Millstein sent around an e-mail apologizing for the miscommunication.
"Miscommunication."
Indeed. Just a small oversight.
140 layoffs miscommunicated...sounds like a reason for a hefty exec bonus!!!
Because John and Ed's track record doesnt have layoffs in it.
Wow, you must really be mainlining the Kool-Aid! John and Ed have been in charge of Disney animation for what, five and a half years? And there have been I think three mass layoffs during that time. That's a fucking amazing track record! But keep on believing you know what they 'honestly' think.
Go back and read. I was talking about immediately after Meet the Robinsons.
"And sometimes artists think they are immune from layoffs because they are great artists. We still have to make hit movies, and no one owes us a job if the movie sucks."
As a lighter/comp artist, am I to blame that a movie sucked? To me, it seems that the Directors and story people get years of high paying employment to put together something that doesn't suck. When they can't do it, they leave and another group comes in making lots of money messing around for a few more years. We get a few months of 80 hour work weeks just to try to make it look nice. So while no one owes me a job, what exactly did I do wrong to deserve to be laid off?
As someone else said about the layoffs after MTR, layoffs after Bolt were done as each department rolled off also so there was no correlation to the success of the film, they just didn't have another feature lined up.
Also, it seemed to me that the guys up North were MUCH more interested in marketing and promoting WALL-E over Bolt but that's another discussion altogether.
There certainly were layoffs after MTR, Bolt and Tangled. But there was also massive hiring before each production as well. None of the new hires were told they had a job for life. Now they're hiring again for Ralph. Can we please dispense with the outrage when there's another downsizing after production?
^^^clearly this is one of the ass-kissers that survived when they "down-sized" the entire studio to nothing but a few who ere willing to "swallow".
There's a huge difference between downsizing to a studio that can still make a film and just eliminating the extra bodies brought on for a last minute crunch to downsizing to just a few bodies for development that could never make a film without all the new hires.
Face it - Disney is not an animation studio anymore. They are a company that occasionally decides to hire enough people to make a film.
So part of what you're saying here Steve is that good ol' U.S. of A.'s ingenuity and higher quality can still win out against cheap outsourcing in the long run. So we've still got something that makes it attractive to keep Animation and VFX work in the U.S.A.
In which case , I say : U.S. artists QUIT GOING OVERSEAS TO TRAIN PEOPLE. Let 'em learn it on their own and compete for the jobs based on the quality of their work. People who take the short-term gain of setting up training programs for off-shore facilities are betraying us all.
Well, I would argue that the layoffs after Bolt and Tangled were still the product of the previous years of box office failures. In other words, there was just enough money to squeak out the film, but nothing else to pad the downtime between production.
The big question remains: willthere be layoffs after Ralph.
There certainly were layoffs after MTR, Bolt and Tangled. But there was also massive hiring before each production as well.
You're simply confirming what Steve wrote and what many of us have pointed out. Despite the new regime's claim that they want to rebuild Disney and that there wouldn't be a pattern of hiring and firing, they've gone against Disney (and Pixar) tradition and used the VFX model.
Can we please dispense with the outrage when there's another downsizing after production?
The outrage is at the sanctimonious claims by management that they AREN'T using this model. And it would be less galling if they actually rehired many of the people they dumped from the previous productions. But that isn't often the case. It's usually a new batch of hires, often straight out of school, with the suggestion that the last batch just couldn't cut it.
To Anon 10:24 who wrote "None of the new hires were told they had a job for life."
Not for life, no. But for Bolt, we were told that Disney was changing it's model to be like Pixar with a core group that would remain in place and a full slate of features to keep everyone working. We were told that everyone there had a chance to be a part of that new group. We were required to do self evaluations as well as be evaluated by our supervisors as part of this "new model". Then, a few weeks before we finished, we were told to sit by the phone to wait for a call to go up to talk to HR to find out your fate. Some people had to wait all day. It was one of the most morale busting events I've seen in my career. If we came in as show hires and left it at that, I wouldn't have thought twice (used to it and all that). But to tell us that there's a chance that we can stay on and be staff and have lots of shows to work on... and then to turn around and say, well, you were just a show hire - it felt like we were used as part of a concerted effort to "clean house" of artists who had been there for years that they wanted to lay off.
I did get to sit down for my review... my last day there. I recall my sup saying that I did a great job and "it's too bad you aren't staying." Um... thanks...
Is it true current Walt Disney follow like as a Sony Imageworks hire style?
I had an job interview with Walt Disney animation, and waiting the result...but, they mentioned me that this time is good chance to stay here in Walt Disney Animation...
Post a Comment