Originally Posted By Doobie This topic is for discussion of the 4/24/2001 news item <b><a href="http://www.latimes.com/class/employ/showbiz/20010424/t000034530.html" target="_blank">LATimes: Disney Plans Big Cuts in Feature Animation</a></b> The April 24th <I>Los Angeles Times</I> reports Disney's Animation studios are preparing for large salary cuts and a dramatic workforce reduction.
Originally Posted By electra Did you guys read this? Very depressing. I think Disney will soon be entering another dark age of animation. More stuff like the Tigger Movie & video sequels, less original high quality films. If Atlantis bombs, its gonna be BAD!!!!
Originally Posted By jmenomeno I read this and am pretty perturbed. The current approach to cut and gut sounds more like a scorched earth policy of some type than anything else. Disney is not heading toward a dark age of animation, it's heading toward a dark age. Shoring up the stock value of the Company in this manner will lead to long-term losses. As for the article, the executives at Disney are willing to say that Tarzan cost $150 million to make, but not mention that a lot of that cost went to development of Deep Canvas, which is what I would call an investment with a return that cannot be priced, especially in the short term. and Disney can't make a profit if an animated movie grosses $100 million? Funny how video releases aren't taken into account. so now Animation is being gutted, before it was the parks and Consumer Products...what else, Mr. Eisner?
Originally Posted By ej Another thing to keep in mind is that these Feature Animation layoffs as well as the WDI layoffs are in addition to the 4,000 previously announced. There is another article related to the LA Times article: <a href="http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?siteid=yhoo&dist=yhoomore&guid=%7BD1ECC27C%2D0FAE%2D421F%2DAE4A%2DF29639F9CA40%7D" target="_blank">http://www.marketwatch.com/new s/story.asp?siteid=yhoo&dist=yhoomore&guid=%7BD1ECC27C%2D0FAE%2D421F%2DAE4A%2DF29639F9CA40%7D</a>
Originally Posted By jmenomeno Thanks for the link, ei... The thing that is not being noticed by the people keeping track of the money is that creativity is not necessarily an efficient thing. A movie can be made in a relatively short time if preproduction is done, actors are cast, locations and sets are built and filming is done and postproduction is done. A animated movie on the other hand is making an entire environment and the characters and make them act and interact. That is a lot more labor intensive than filming a live action film. However, there is much more control with the animated medium and freedom with the environment...a character can be a talking squirel. So there is a type of cost-effectiveness in the animation which happens in the storyboarding. I guess it's a lot like making a mass-produced product and a hand-crafted product. The hand-crafted product will be more expensive. But there's a reason why..someone made it. As for the costs of the movies, Dinosaur was singled out for costing $125 million...and that's because they had to create The Secret Lab (more or less) to make the film. And that cost probably includes the computer equipment that they needed to make the renderings, so they would be a massive charge initially, but a charge that would justify itself over time. Of course, Disney could have had Pixar do the film, but that would have meant that half the profits would have gone somewhere besides the company. And Emperor costing $100 million? Probably because the movie was completely overhauled in mid-production. The dark age is already here...begun by dim executives.
Originally Posted By ToonKirby I cannot express my deep disappointment in this sad, sad turn of events. The article states "but the latest move strikes at the company's heart and soul." How true. They are shooting themselves in the foot (heck, BOTH feet) with this decission. We can only hope for the best and prepare for the worst with this one, gang ...
Originally Posted By ej In addition to the Disney layoffs, DreamWorks is currently laying off a good portion of their artists as they complete "Spirit". Animation in general is in a terrible state right now. We can only hope that things pick up again soon because we'll just keep getting more "Lady and the Tramp" type sequels in place of the higher quality features. But I keep in mind that there was more than 40 years between the first and second "Golden Age" of animation. As far as the $150 million for "Tarzan" and the $125 for "Dinosaur", those figures are closer to the actual production costs. Research and development expenses for deep canvas (Tarzan) and Secret Lab set-up (Dinosaur) were additional to those figures. Reportedly, Dinos cost an additional $100 million for development.
Originally Posted By ToonKirby Well let's just hope that if there is a "downturn" in quality, that it doesn't take 40 years to pull out of it ...
Originally Posted By Dlmusic While I'm very dissapointed that this is happening, it seems that Disney and all the other studios overstaturated the animation market. Once it has a chance to cool off for a while, people will get excited again. Unfortuantely though, I think Atlantis' run at the box office will be bad enough to cement the decision for at least a few years. The costs for animation are getting ridiculous, I mean I know those people are talented and all but $150 million for a less than 90 minute movie? It's hard in Hollywood standards to justify such expenditures for very long. Again, sad news, but not something I had not anticipated happening. :-(
Originally Posted By jmenomeno ej (not ei..my mistake), did any of the research and development of Deep Canvas cross over to the Secret Lab? Dlmusic, I agree with you to a certain extent about the oversaturation of the market. Jim in Pasadena pointed out the 'tendency of the entertainment business to run everything it does into the ground' in one of his discussion boards, and I have seen that happening in current animation. Disney's reliance on musicals for a few years is a good example of that. There has been an oversaturation of genre for animation. But for all those musicals to happen, someone had to have the courage to try the first musical. Someone had to approve Oliver & Company, then the Little Mermaid, and so on. Someone now needs to have the vision at Disney to figure out what the next thing to try is. And we are seeing a little of that in Tarzan and Atlantis and Lilo and Stich. But there will need to be someone with bold leadership to go this direction,and I don't see that person at Disney at this time. And with the current situation going on, I don't see a leader coming into the Company... and that is worrisome and saddening.
Originally Posted By electra Does anyone know, more or less, how much Little Mermaid, beauty & the Beast, & Aladdin cost to make? The reason im asking is that, i know these films cost a lot less to produce (& were made with a smaller animation crew) than the animated films they recently made like Tarzan & Atlantis, yet i consider these good high quality animated films. What im saying is, maybe it wont be so bad if Disney does all these cuts as long as they dont sacrifice good storytelling & the quality of the animation itself. Another good example is The Iron Giant, A great well animated feateur that i know was made for a fraction of what it probably cost to make something like Tarzan. Am i making any sense? Im just trying to find something poitive to look forward to here. I hope were not looking at future of nothing but Peter Pan 2, Snow White 2....
Originally Posted By daffy1 Roger Rabbit saved Animation in the 80's, he could do it again with a sequel or prequel.
Originally Posted By rasvar Considering feature animation never does the sequels, don't expect any from them. I think Disney has some good stuff in the works. They just have to remain focused. Plus, maybe two features a year was bit aggressive. Cutting back to one feature a year will probably help in the long run. I'm more concerned about the attitude there more than anything right now. Those guys and gals are under a ton of pressure right now to produce. I hope they are given the chance to do it.
Originally Posted By Megara After reading that the last "traditional" film to strike it rich was Pocahontas, makes me think more and more towards... how about another girl/princess film to save them. Emporer's New Groove, Atlantis, Treasure Planet and excuse me..."Sweating Bullets!" - they don't appeal to me at all. How many boys films are they making - too many ! I think that might be their problem.
Originally Posted By ej Megara - I agree with you to a point. I was getting tired of the continual "girl films", but I hate to see them go in the other direction and go into a long line of "boy films". They need to mix things up, each film should be different from the previous release. If memory serves me, Treasure Planet was originally intended to be produced and released after Pocahontas. But management ultimately decided to stick with the "formula" and do Hercules. It wasn't until they saw the decline of the formula movie's popularity that they began to move toward something different, (although Tarzan retained some of the formula elements). The creative types were after management for years to produce a sci-fi film, now all of a sudden there will be three released back-to-back. Variety is the spice of light. I say mix up the genres a bit. Then the public won't get so tired of seeing the same thing everytime. And a note to jmenomeno - I'm not 100% sure but I do believe some deep canvas effects were used in Dinos.
Originally Posted By jmenomeno Thanks, ej, I was wondering about that. Now that I am not so grumpy, I did some calculations off the cuff... A 90 minute film at $100 million breaks down to about $1,111,111 a minute. Per second, it's $18,518. Per frame, it's $771. Yipe! Does this cost look inflated? It does make a case toward streamilining, although that might be better served with pay caps instead of making up 'effiencies' and laying off animators. I'm really upset that the creative end of the company (in all areas) is being compromised by the cost cutting. The creativity of Disney is what makes the company so special and the best in its business.
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORDDU: The 3 witches of Morva just want to let jmenomeno know that we totally agree with him--or her--or whatever! Of course, we have to take part of the blame for all these bad things, due to the curse my sisters and I placed on the Disney Company a few years back. See what happens, Mr. Eisner, when you cross the witches of Morva?! We gave you a few years of success and, then, your entire company started going down hill! It's time for you to start making better decisions or else start looking for a new job! Above all, restore the magic to Disney films and theme parks! Otherwise, when you look into a mirror, you'll see a little green frog staring back at you!
Originally Posted By MouseBear Salutations All, Let's hope this is what happens: 1) Atlantis is a huge hit and these cuts are reversed. 2) Monsters Inc. is a MONSTER hit and Disney decides it has to buy Pixar. 3) Company management puts John Lasseter in charge of all Disney/Pixar animation. Remember- "a dream is a wish your heart makes." And- SEE ATLANTIS, SAVE FEATURE ANIMATION! MouseBear
Originally Posted By jmenomeno MouseBear, you pose some tough goals here. According to the beancounters at Diz, Atlantis will have to make more than $100 million (probably in the $200 million range) before it is even considered to be profitable, so the goal has been set absurdly high by the powers that be. The cuts over at Disney won't be reversed. Rehired, maybe after Atlantis hits its goal, but not reversed. And the irony about that is that the rehires will probably be in a position to get at least what they were getting when they were forced out. Monsters, Inc. will most likely be a hit. And Disney will not purchase Pixar at hat point because it would cost too much. And if there was a purchase, Disney would most likely install their management team to oversee the efficiencies of the 'new Pixar'. And we know what that will do. Call me Eeyore, but that's what I'm seeing.
