WittyUsername Posted May 22 Share Posted May 22 (edited) 1 hour ago, John Marston said: So basically, now Pixar movies will be animated by foreign studios with poor working conditions? Also, wait, Walt Disney animation didn’t do things in-house? Edited May 22 by WittyUsername Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cannastop Posted May 22 Share Posted May 22 5 minutes ago, WittyUsername said: So basically, now Pixar movies will be animated by foreign studios with poor working conditions? Also, wait, Walt Disney animation didn’t do things in-house? No. Pixar still has over 1,000 employees. WDAS yes did things in house, but now they have a studio in Vancouver too, so it's not 100% done in the USA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YM! Posted May 22 Share Posted May 22 7 minutes ago, WittyUsername said: So basically, now Pixar movies will be animated by foreign studios with poor working conditions? Also, wait, Walt Disney animation didn’t do things in-house? WDA has a Vancouver branch now. They’ll be doing Moana 2. In House is still happening with Pixar, just that in order to get budget cuts, they’ll be reducing workforce numbers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AniNate Posted May 22 Share Posted May 22 They're basically trying to get back to what they were doing pre-D+ 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Godzilla Posted May 22 Share Posted May 22 4 hours ago, ChipDerby said: Also feel the need to point out that all the corporations are running into the Loki S2 problem. Exponential growth. It's not sustainable. You can't just keep growing forever. That's not how things work. At some point you need to just be happy with being one of the largest corporations on Earth instead of chasing ever increasing profits. That mentality is not Disney's fault. You can blame shareholders for that. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cannastop Posted May 22 Share Posted May 22 (edited) If it's really targeting veterans of the studio that's alarming and unfortunate. There are many people in Pixar's art department whose work I admire this also belies the idea that this is merely to cut down from Disney+ content. Edited May 22 by cannastop 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZeroHour Posted May 22 Share Posted May 22 Veterans mean they're cutting the most expensive people. Most big animation studios work from a model of staffing up for a specific project and then letting people go when it ends. Until now Pixar and WDAS have worked from a model of keeping a consistent workforce but I wonder if this is an early sign of that beginning to change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cannastop Posted May 22 Share Posted May 22 (edited) 15 minutes ago, ZeroHour said: Veterans mean they're cutting the most expensive people. Most big animation studios work from a model of staffing up for a specific project and then letting people go when it ends. Until now Pixar and WDAS have worked from a model of keeping a consistent workforce but I wonder if this is an early sign of that beginning to change. That doesn't seem accurate to me. DreamWorks animation didn't work like that (though they are also having big layoffs). I don't think the Illumination studio in Paris works like that either. Though illuminations has some freelancers in story boarders there is still a lot of permanent staff. Maybe for some animated features it's true but it's not like that for all the industry. Edited May 22 by cannastop Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cannastop Posted May 22 Share Posted May 22 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudalb Posted May 22 Share Posted May 22 5 hours ago, ChipDerby said: Not really no. Cut all executives pay and they're in the black again. That is just plain wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudalb Posted May 22 Share Posted May 22 1 hour ago, Godzilla said: That mentality is not Disney's fault. You can blame shareholders for that. And you cant blame shareholders fo rwanting to get as big a dividend as possible. Problemis a lot of people here just don't get the realties of the business world. The idea Disney could make up the red ink just by cutting execs salareis is just plain ridicuolous. You also have a lot of dime store "Anti Capitalism" here. If a business seffer big losses, bad things happen. I am sad to see people lose their jobs,but that is the reality. And the alternative system, where the governmenet runs the economy, has been tried and has not worked very well. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChipDerby Posted May 22 Share Posted May 22 5 minutes ago, dudalb said: That is just plain wrong. It's actually right Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudalb Posted May 22 Share Posted May 22 A lot of pepple have not gotten around to taking "Economics 1A" I see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChipDerby Posted May 22 Share Posted May 22 (edited) 4 minutes ago, dudalb said: And you cant blame shareholders fo rwanting to get as big a dividend as possible. Problemis a lot of people here just don't get the realties of the business world. The idea Disney could make up the red ink just by cutting execs salareis is just plain ridicuolous. You also have a lot of dime store "Anti Capitalism" here. If a business seffer big losses, bad things happen. I am sad to see people lose their jobs,but that is the reality. And the alternative system, where the governmenet runs the economy, has been tried and has not worked very well. I completely understand the reality of the "business world". You don't understand the reality of... math. You can't exponentially increase profits. It's not sustainable. At some point you can't keep increasing. That's how numbers work. There is a HUGE difference between "exponential growth" and "big losses". Like, Disney could just be happy with making $2-3 billion in NET PROFIT every year. That would be fine! They would make money every year! Edited May 22 by ChipDerby Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudalb Posted May 22 Share Posted May 22 1 minute ago, ChipDerby said: It's actually right Proof? Actuall,y, I have been a advocate that execs pay should be tied into how company does, but the idea you can erase the big losses just by cutting exesx salary is wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudalb Posted May 22 Share Posted May 22 Just now, ChipDerby said: I completely understand the reality of the "business world". You don't understand the reality of... math. You can't exponentially increase profits. It's not sustainable. At some point you can't keep increasing. That's how numbers work. There is a HUGE difference between "exponential growth" and "big losses". Like, Disney could just be happy with making $2-3 billion in NET PROFIT every year. That would be fine! They would make money every year! That still does not prove that you can erase losses by cutting execs salaries. And the problem with that is that if dividends go down, stockholders, will start selling Disney stock and buying stock that promises b igger dividends. You have to have growth or you start to go backward. I hate to tell you this, but you can't beleive everything you read on Lefty website, and more then you can beleive everything you read on right wing websites. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cannastop Posted May 22 Share Posted May 22 They could be saving $30 million a year with these layoffs, just from an uneducated guess of mine. Which is about the same as Bob Iger's total compensation in 2023. Though yes I know the compensation is not straight up salary and includes stock options but still. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudalb Posted May 22 Share Posted May 22 5 minutes ago, cannastop said: They could be saving $30 million a year with these layoffs, just from an uneducated guess of mine. Which is about the same as Bob Iger's total compensation in 2023. Though yes I know the compensation is not straight up salary and includes stock options but still. I think execs compensaton should be closely tied with how a company does. I agree Iger should take a hit if the compnay does poorly, but point is you will not cover the loesss by just cutting execs salary. But when a compnay suffere the losses that Diensy did, bad things happen. A lot of peopple here probaly find the mere idea of keeping an closer eye on the budget to be obnoxious and somehow interefeing with the creative process. Does not work llke that in the real world. How many films have we seen that lose money that would have at least broken even if they had not costs so much? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChipDerby Posted May 22 Share Posted May 22 22 minutes ago, dudalb said: That still does not prove that you can erase losses by cutting execs salaries. And the problem with that is that if dividends go down, stockholders, will start selling Disney stock and buying stock that promises b igger dividends. You have to have growth or you start to go backward. I hate to tell you this, but you can't beleive everything you read on Lefty website, and more then you can beleive everything you read on right wing websites. Your growth comes from inflation. You will continue to grow as inflation continues to grow. What the hell does this have to do with exec salaries or "lefty websites"? You think math is leftist? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AniNate Posted May 22 Share Posted May 22 (edited) 1 hour ago, cannastop said: If it's really targeting veterans of the studio that's alarming and unfortunate. There are many people in Pixar's art department whose work I admire this also belies the idea that this is merely to cut down from Disney+ content. Well two things can both be true. The flip side of it is you can see them as trying to maintain as much a staff as possible while still trying to cut costs as much as possible We sorta saw this already with them letting go of Susman and Maclane last year. Yeah, they were responsible for Lightyear and it was a convenient rationale, but they were also long time employees who probably had contractual pay bumps as long as they remained there. Is pretty shocking to see Cat Hicks go though, she was the most public engaging employee on a day to day basis Edited May 22 by AniNate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
