Wednesday, December 23, 2009

Falling Wages

Across the animation biz more 'toon employees are working at lower wages. No exceptions.

Walt Disney Co.'s chief executive Bob Iger received a total compensation package worth $29 million in 2009 -- a tad less than the $30.6 million of a year earlier ...

See? We all have to sacrifice.

But when you think of Mr. Iger's pay cut, think also of Disney's falling profits:

Net income at the Burbank media conglomerate fell 25% in fiscal 2009 from a year earlier, with significant declines at Disney's movie studio and weaker earnings at the company's theme parks ...

Things are tough all over.

11 comments:

I say it's spinach and to hell with it said...

Poor Bob.

I'm sure that hand-drawn animation is to blame. Damn you traditional animators , hauling in the big bucks at your extravagant Union Scale , for costing Mr. Iger so much loss . Poor Bob.

Instead o' dat crazy frog movie they should've made "Meet the Robinson's II" a sure-fire money maker (because it's CG, how could it not make money ? All the kids today love CG ... ) Every CG movie is a winner ... except when it's not , but we don't talk about that ... just like every hand-drawn movie is assumed to be a loser , except The Lion King, which can do no wrong, God bless it. Everyone knows that's the way things work now , right ?

Anonymous said...

Does every comment on this blog have to be some bitch-fest by 2D animators about how 3D sucks?

Anonymous said...

That's not what I read. The first poster was being ironic about the blind faith the studios have in the financial reliability of CG.

I didn't see any comparisons of content or quality. I did see some hypersensitivity from a CG artist, however.

Anonymous said...

"That's not what I read. The first poster was being ironic about the blind faith the studios have in the financial reliability of CG."

----

Yes, that is precisely what I meant.

I did not say or intend to imply that "CG sucks". I love good CG animated films : Kung Fu Panda, The Incredibles, Surf's Up , Ratatouille, etc., etc.
(acknowledging the fact that some CG films flop at the box-office is not saying that "CG sucks")

What I don't care for is the double-standard that is applied to 2D , where any 2D film that doesn't do well at the box-office is treated as the final death knell for an entire art form . (and how "not doing well at the box-office" for 2D animated films is defined as "not doing as well as The Lion King". )

In the meantime the execs at the studios are always willing to blame the artists (both traditional and cg) for the high costs of the films even as in reality our wages continue to go down, down, down , yet for some reason the exec's big bonuses keep coming even when the company profits take a nose-dive on their watch.

Anonymous said...

I dont think Princess and the Frog did poorly because it was 2D. There were a lot of other factors against it. Seemed dated, story is a tad cliche, skewed to younger audiences, bad release date, heavy competition. If anything was good, it was the art and animation. But lets not forget it made serious cash in merchandise. THAT is important and significant.

And other than people's speculation, I dont think if a 2D film does poorly at the box office, its a nail in the coffin for the artform. I think its more like:

If Disney Animation keeps making profit-less movies, there will no longer be a Disney Animation, who started the artform and almost the only ones still doing it.

Theres a difference. In my opinion, theres ups and downs in every company, and Disney is still recovering from a "down." I dont think its out of the realm of possibility that Rapunzel will be a hit, the theme parks will fill back up, and poor Bob Iger will get his fatter checks again.

Anonymous said...

In the meantime the execs at the studios are always willing to blame the artists (both traditional and cg) for the high costs of the films even as in reality our wages continue to go down, down, down , yet for some reason the exec's big bonuses keep coming even when the company profits take a nose-dive on their watch.

I completely agree with this by the way. Infuriating isnt it.

Anonymous said...

CEO's suck!

Anonymous said...

"CEO's suck!"

No, not all of them do .

But the company heads who continue to take big bonuses on top of their already large salaries on the one hand, while on the other hand spouting lines to their employees about "we need to be more efficient in our production model" (i.e. lay off the crew at end of every movie), "belt tightening" , and "in this economy ... blah, blah, blah..." , inspire nothing but contempt.

rufus said...

What must be like to have ZERO consideration towards other people and their financial ruin. How can people like Iger and Eisner,Riccitelo, sleep at night?

Anonymous said...

I still want to know why Bolt hsd virtually zero merchandising surrounding it and why noone ever says anything about it. Oh wait, I know... Because it was up against Wall-E. It's all about ego and profit for the above liners. The rest of us can be replaced tomorrow by someone hungrier and cheaper. I've pretty much had it with this biz.

Anonymous said...

Bolt had virtually no merchandising because the RETAILERS, the people who have to preorder that merchandise for it to be made and delivered to their stores(Target, Walmart, ToysRUs etc) didn't think the movie would be a big draw/mover for that same merchandise. In other words, a vote of no-to-low confidence.
At least that's what we were told by the PTB. You'd think Disney could sell ANYTHING they wanted to, wouldn't you? Jeffrey managed it with Shrek before its release.

Site Meter