<<Jim Hill:  . . . 140 - 160 animators would soon be let go from Disney Feature Animation. >>

I don't understand.  On the one hand they're planning on reviving "hand-drawn" animation and bringing back the shorts, and yet they're still cutting staff?  I would imagine finding good animators is no easy task, let alone animators trained and qualified to work at Disney.  This is terrible to hear -- especially before the holidays.

The "Frog Princess" is sounding more and more interesting.  Although "a young Cary Grant" sort of made me blink.  I wonder who they'll get to voice these characters.

That's also pretty puzzling -- those pictures of Roy.  He looks a little uneasy himself about the whole bit.  It just doesn't look 'natural'.

Misdirection?   Timed events?  Is Eisner’s old play book is still being followed?

During this past Thanksgiving holiday weekend, Disney released it’s required 10-k disclosure.  It listed and detailed several lawsuits such as Winnie the Pooh.  However the Pirates of the Caribbean lawsuit was no where to be found in Disney’s 10-k.   About ten of Disney’s companies have been professionally served of this lawsuit in September 2006, yet Disney chose not to disclose the details surrounding this lawsuit in their required 2005-2006 fiscal year 10-k disclosure ending September 30, 2006 that is filed with the United States Securities Exchange Commission and is signed off by Bob Iger and Thomas Staggs dated November 22, 2006.    (A copy of it can be found online).

Bob Iger and Eisner evidently cost the Disney Company a reported one hundred million dollars in a possible tax write off involving overpaying/purchasing Saban license/Television .   Then about a year later, after Bob Iger is put into the CEO seat, in July 2006 he fires a reported 650 employees stating that he is trying to save the company money.   So what’s kicking out another round of artists?  Executive bonus pay-time must be just around the corner.

Like so many, people are proclaiming doom and gloom over the layoffs without even knowing anything over why Ed and John are having to do this, let alone that layoffs after a project completed are not uncomon (and Meet The Robinsons is almost done).  

In NO way do I like hearing about people losing their jobs. It has happened to me and it sucks!  

But, it seems this time around where it is coming from and for what reasons are QUITE different than, say, the previous managements reasons for doing so.  

Best to find out the truth from these situations before spreading blame and proclaiming the sky is falling.

If they were currently WDFA animators...would I be correct in guessing that they were primarily 3D-CGI based and/or Toon Studios animators?--Seeing as that would have been most of the Eisner-Stainton product they would have been animating up to this point?  Or am I wrong in not seeing conspiracies?

The lay-offs are only in the production division of WDFA, and are done to make the whole process more 'flexible'. (check Yahoo! News for various articles about the lay-offs). I don't like them too, but I can understand the point that is made in those articles about flexibleing (?!) the whole production.

The Frog Princess sounds cool and fresh!! Finally a fresh traditional animated feature!

Nice to see JH is back to his negative ways. First he condems Disney management for (shock horror!) firing people despite a) not knowing the details surrounding these cuts and b) never once considering that perhaps the reason these cuts will take place is because it is beneficial for the company's future.

He even dares to complain that Disney's PR staff decide to release bad news at a time that will be less derimental to the company. Erm hello? Isn't that what PR people are meant to do?

And finally claiming that the photo of Roy Disney is in bad taste is really quite desperate. For one thing he is RELATED to Disney so he has more affiliation with him than perhaps anyone on the planet. And also, who sees that photo and immediately relates it to his death?

Another article which told me nothing new other than 'Disney's not doing very well right now'. Thanks Jim.

It's fairly SOP to time an action that might be negatively percieved to hit when it will be less covered by media and less influence Wall Street. Nothing sinister about it, actually skilled PR.

As far as the layoffs themselves, the announced reasoning is quite simple and seems very sound as a new management team retools the machine: "Sources said the decision for deep cuts in staffing was prompted at least in part by a shift to a longer production cycle. Currently, feature production is completed in 12-14 months, but Disney plans to shift to an 18-month cycle.

"After a careful review process, the management team at Walt Disney Animation has determined that each film will dictate its own appropriate production schedule," the Disney spokeswoman said Friday. "The result of this necessitated a reduction in staff. As a result, it will be necessary to eliminate a number of current positions."

Films dictating their appropriate schedules is a good thing, rather than the reverse.

And in addition to taking the edge of some bad news, I might surmise that the announcement of the new Shorts unit might have saved several key artists from the layoff...

"I had hoped that now that John Lasseter & Ed Catmull were calling the shots at WDFA that Disney's days of conveniently timed press releases would be behind it. But I guess I was wrong."

Ahh yes ... way to slip in a backhanded shot at Lasseter, Jim. I'm sure it was all his doing ... that evil, evil John Lasseter ... rolleyes

And that picture thing? Come on ... the two aren't even close from a composition perspective. It's Roy in a fire engine with Mickey Mouse nearby. Here endeth the similarities. I think you're making much ado about nothing there.

As it relates to the photo of Roy, since you don't report who was taking the photo, and no known application for the final use, it seems an unreasonable to jump to a hostile conclusion about its relative taste.

I agree with Jeff Kurtti. Give me a break. Hostile conclusion is right. First of all, Walt is in front of Sleeping Beauty Castle, wearing a very nice suit. Roy is somewhere in Libery Square, at WDW no less, and wears a polo shirt.

I guess in the future Roy will have to clear it with Jim Hill before he gets his picture taken in a Disney theme park...

Sheesh!

"140 - 160 animators would soon be let go "

Well, once again jim hill's lack of details gets in the way of REALITY.  Disney, nor any studio I know of EVER, has had "140-160 animators."  Most of who will be laid off are probably technicians of the texture, lighting, and rendering sort.  It stinks, but it's very common (more common than not) throughout the industry.  

And it has NOTHING to do with the production of the short films whatsoever.

jim hill, the yellow rag of animation, continues in his wild-eyed fanboy speculations.

Derek said:

<i>If they were currently WDFA animators...would I be correct in guessing that they were primarily 3D-CGI based and/or Toon Studios animators?--Seeing as that would have been most of the Eisner-Stainton product they would have been animating up to this point?</i>

I had the same thought.  Wouldn't they be clearing up shop of CGI staff if they were moving forward with traditional animation?  Wouldn't they need to hire traditional animators?  Not that I'm happy that anyone was laid off, but if they're going to change tactics, they probably need to accomodate that with staffing.

And as far as the photo op, isn't it possible that, as Walt wasn't well when that picture was taken, he was using a car that looked swankier than a wheelchair in order to draw attention away from his ailment?  Isn't it possible that, as Roy is getting older, he also needs some sort of transportation to get around a park as large as WDW?  I don't know that it's the case, but either way, it doesn't necessarily mean that it had shifty motivation.

Jim: "quick! Were losing numbers!"

unknown source: "How about another story about cars? Dvd sales maybe? Thats drives em in!"

Jim: "nope! Lets make things up and get those disney dweebs riled up!"

Unknown source: "ok. Tell em disney animation is laying off 160 people, disney dweebs HATE hearing about the animation department going away."

Jim: "We need more. They wont buy just that! We need something else credible to show them disney is going down the crapper fast!"

Unknown source: "ok..remember those pictures one of your readers sent you? Lets make them into a scandal... you know.. like the enquirer. Put some words in peoples mouths."

Jim: "good plan! We'll tell them Disneys trying to deface Walt himself! Right beofre he died! They'll eat it up!"

Well, at least they announced the layoffs.  It's not like they did them in secret.

By the way . . . here's a post on the Animation Guild blog announcing the same layoffs . . . in October:

http://animationguildblog.blogspot.com/2006/10/big-meetings.html

It's worth reading not only for the announcement, but for the staff's reaction to it.

>>The mood around the hat building was subdued, but many staffers were glad that upper management called them into meetings and told them what was up. "What I like about Ed Catmull is he doesn't beat around the bush," another said. "He tells you what's going on, even when the news isn't great. It's better to know than not."<<

The "Eisner playbook" it most certainly is not.  

Besides, Happy Feet's success has primed the pump for another wave of mediocre corporate talking animal movies.  No decent CGI animator is going to go hungry for a few more years at least.

C'mon Jim . . . your credibility sinks more with every one of these muckraker articles.  An article about the cyclical nature of the animation profession nowadays would've been nice.  Perhaps the history and circumstances of that Walt photo.  Something that would have involved a bit of research.  Something that might have actually added to the reader's knowledge.  That would have been the good old Jim Hill.  But nope, a couple of PR reports and two photos is all you've got, and all you gave us.  And you filled the rest with barefaced, uninformed Disney bashing.

I'm done with Monday Mousewatch.  Let us know when you have something of substance.

Yeah, sorry, but I gotta agree with everyone else - this isn't any different than what any other company would do...

In fact, if you call this something from "Eisner's playbook," I think you are giving Eisner too much credit.

But, hey, at least it isn't another one of those Scrooge articles!

Humm maybe they released the article under the radar because they knew certain web sites would go all nutty about the article without really knowing what they are talking about.....just a guess.....

Other people have pointed out the errors...but 140-160 are employees across the board not just animators.  WDFA is currently over staffed for their new production schedule of 18 months...hence the trimming down.  Yes this is trimming down....not shutting down...keep an eye on Emeryville..in a few months it will "quietly" be happening there as well; the article may even come out on a Saturday....

The shorts thang will start ramping up next year...companies don't usually like keeping people around if they don't need em for several months.....

Losing your job sucks....its happened to me and it sucks....BUT what is happening at Disney has happened at Disney before and at pretty much every other studio... and will surely happen again....

Tip for the day: check your sources.....

"MADDY -- A 19-year-old African American chambermaid. Bright, resourceful, ambitious, intense. A little too grown-up for her age.... PRINCE HARRY -- A gregarious, fun-loving European Prince, in his early twenties. A young Cary Grant. Charming, witty but irresponsible and immature. Loves jazz. Dialect: British upper-class."

The full casting call is at:  http://tinyurl.com/t742e

Including, among the singing roles:  "[LOUIS] A 20-40 year old Jazz singer alligator. Comic, manic, high strung. Can be African American or white. Has extraordinary jazz singing voice since he, in effect, "sold his soul" to get it. Dialect: New Orleans hipster."

mawnck said:  >>"C'mon Jim . . . your credibility sinks more with every one of these muckraker articles.  Perhaps the history and circumstances of that Walt photo.  Something that would have involved a bit of research.  But nope, a couple of PR reports and two photos is all you've got, and all you gave us.  And you filled the rest with barefaced, uninformed Disney bashing."

Particularly seeing as it was taken...four days before Walt's 106th birthday?   Mind if I make my own guesses about what "nefarious purposes" the Walt-style photo of blood-relative Roy was going to be used for?  (But then, fair enough, Jim did -ask-.)  :)

Geez, Jim. You already beat up on Roy unfairly during his longer-than-expected Save Disney campaign. Concerning the photo shots, there IS such thing as a coincidence, as Roy is just showing everyone that he hasn't disappeared into oblivion. Leave the guy alone!

And unlike the massive layoffs of 2004, which resulted in the film, "Dream On, Silly Dreamer", we're not hearing any news about animators grumbling about losing their jobs this time around.

Once again, you're making a bigger deal out of stuff than they actually are.

Days of the week - I know if there are no articles on this site, that usually occurs on a Friday, otherwise all the comments are "where's the new articles?" all week.  And btw, hope Roger Colton is ok.....

It's nice they have a casting call - I guess for publicity purposes. Am I missing somethng here? The multi-talented Raven will end up with some speaking role in this. Most likely the chambermaid/princess. I'm sure they can shoehorn Brad Garrett somewhere. Are the dweebs suppossed to believe there will be non-celebrity voices used? Just a few months after the useless annoucement of Brittany Murphy as Tinkerbell?

Jim, I often wonder if you write these negative articles just to get people all riled up and filling in your comments section.  You can't honestly believe what you wrote in today's article, can you?  Animation is hardly a stable occupation.  Artists are hired and fired as the demand for them is required.  Yes, getting fired or laid off sucks big time, but business is business.  Disney can't pay people to just sit around and do nothing.  I don't understand why you take issue with the timing of the layoff announcement.  Not only is it good business to promote good news over bad, but I'm sure the animators don't really care if they get laid off on a Friday or a Monday.  They're still without a job either way.

Also, what's with the attack on that photo of Roy?  You're taking a 'glass half empty' attitude when a 'glass half full' one would be better.  Perhaps the photographer was having Roy posed that way as an homage to Walt.  OK, so I don't really believe that, either.  Maybe the photographer has no idea that the photo of Walt even exists.  Either way, I see it as a non-issue.  I would rather have you say "Sorry folks, there's no news today" rather than print stories such as this.  It's a waste of my time to read it and a waste of your time to write it.

On the Frog Princess casting call....

I'm a bit mixed on this movie. On one hand--it sounds REALLY unique and interesting. On the other hand--I really, really hope this isn't going to rely on thin southerner sterotypes. Probably not, though.

Oh, and for the Prince--you know who would be really good for a role like that? At the risk of typecasting, Cary Elwes. He's even recently done voice acting in two of Disney's dubs of Ghibli movies. And it's a non-singing role (although I have a hard time believing that--a prince in a Disney movie that doesn't sing?), so he wouldn't have to worry about that, if he doesn't sing.

And now I'm starting to worry--IS this "Frog Princess" the Other Story we Don't Know, or is it really the Smoochin' Story we all thought it was at first, after all?

From the character descriptions, it's starting to lean more in the latter direction, but have to confess, even I'm stumped.  0_o??

Frog Princess sounds like a hit if it's story-driven and a miss if it's too based on her race as her identity.

No one likes to hear about people losing work before Christmas but it happens and it's business. Somebody should fire whoever approved of Apocalypto.

The photo thing is no big deal. Hard to believe this riles you as sacrilege, Jim Hill, while you're apparently trumpeting the Piratization of Tom Sawyer Island which guts the whole American history idea...

peanutj said: "Artists are hired and fired as the demand for them is required."

Sorry, but the instant I read that I thought that it would make spectacular song lyrics. XD

I'm pretty much in agreeance with a lot of people here about the "animators" getting laid off issue - yeah, it's sucky that people had to lose their jobs (my dad got laid off MULTIPLE times coincidentally after Bush got re-elected...) but it also seems like this time around they were actually making necessary cutbacks.

What really is grabbing my attention, though, is the announcement of the revival of animated shorts and "The Frog Princess!" As a person who draws cartoons all throughout the school day and at work and who dreams of being an animator someday, I have been waiting on the edge of my seat to hear some good, solid news about Disney bringing back two-dimensional feature animation as well as the short subjects.

I'm a huge fan of "The Little Matchgirl," and all of the Mickey, Donald, and Goofy shorts from the 30's and on, and the fact that one of the short subjects is going to be a Goofy cartoon just floors me with excitement. I think if anything is going to pull in the majority of the non-Disney-savvy audience, it's going to be a successful Goofy toon. I hope they do this one right, because if they do...I'm hoping it brings back Mickey, Donald, and Goofy to the screen for more shorts like "Runaway Brain" or featurettes like "The Prince and the Pauper" and "Mickey's Christmas Carol."

On the subject of "The Frog Princess," I do have my doubts about some things, but for the most part I'm really excited about the project. Ron Clements!? John Musker!? Alan Menken!? Hellz yeah! I think if anyone can bring back Disney Feature Animation it's those talented three; I have a lot of faith in them, and I'm hoping that after their long hibernation they haven't lost the old magic.

I'm actually rather proud of them for choosing this daring setting for "The Frog Princess." From what I read in the casting call it seems like they're setting it up on a Southern plantation; in these hypersensitive overly-PC days I can see how that might be dangerous (gasp! Another "Song of the South" incident!) seeing as its going to be for all ages, but I'm actually rather proud of them for pushing in that direction (and, hey, if we're all lucky it might initialize a re-release of "Song of the South," but that's just me being naive and unrealistic).

I have a good feeling about "The Frog Princess," especially because Disney Feature Animation is supposedly pushing the production of their movies from twelve to fourteen months back to eighteen months, giving opportunity for more quality films. What does worry me, though, is that they'll attempt to make the movie a little TOO hip; almost every single modern African American cartoon character is sassy and "oh no you di-n't!" or you get the occassional technologically keen sidekick (Tucker from "Danny Phantom," Irwen from "The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy," Wade from "Kim Possible"). I'm hoping that Clements, Musker, and Menken will prevent too much pop-culture and hip-hop references from seeping in (Lord knows we get enough of that from the CGI glut), and will keep it to the jazz, soul, and voodoo influence they're proposing (again, according to what I've read about the project so far which hasn't been much).

...and I just have to say that if Raven Simone gets the part of Maddy I'll probably kill myself. I just believe that Raven acts too much like herself all the time to give anything fresh and unique to the character.

A young Cary Grant? So we're going to get our first interracial couple since Pocahontas and John Smith? Noice! X)

As for the final point of the article, those "ominous" photos...before I read everyone else's comments my immediate reaction was, "Eh...no, don't see it." Jim, if you're too busy to write bigger, more researched articles than just tell us. I'd certainly cut you some slack...I've been too busy to drop any of my long and geeky comments lately.  ;)

Ohhhh, now I see what you're on about, though. I bet it's the same exact guy in the Mickey costume as it was in 1966! Conspiracy!

I think Jim takes way too much flak around here.  That said Jim, I think you needed a different tack today.  The Walt/Roy picture?  Coincidence.  I mean come on now.  And even if it was on purpose (the comparison I mean) then I'm still not willing to draw the connection to it being a deliberate attempt to replicate that particular picture of Walt before he died.  

And press schedules are routinely manipulated by companies of all stripes.  Disney is no different.  They are a business and will do business things.  It isn't sinister, it's standard operating procedure.