Correct me if I'm wrong. But weren't we all laboring under the assumption that -- now that a new management team was in place -- that the Walt Disney Company would stop using Michael Eisner's old playbook.
And yet what did the Mouse do this past Friday afternoon? Waited 'til Wall Street had closed up shop for the week before announcing that 140 - 160 animators would soon be let go from Disney Feature Animation.
Wait. It gets better. Guess what then happened on Sunday? Totally co-incidentally, a story runs in the New York Times about how WDFA will soon be reviving its shorts program. This article features some pre-production art from one of the shorts that Disney Studios will be producing. It even goes so far as to list the titles of the four animated shorts that Disney Feature Animation soon hopes to put into production.
You get what's going on here? Disney's PR staff deliberately released some bad news about WDFA on a day (More importantly, at a time of day) which they knew would keep this potentially embarassing story out of the news cycle for a couple of days.
Then -- on Sunday (Just as the news cycle for the coming week is getting underway) -- Disney arranges to have an article run in a paper-of-record about all the good news that's coming out of WDFA these days. How Disney Feature Animation is getting ready to revive its shorts unit. Hip hip Hooray!
Care to wager which story Mouse House flaks hope will dominate the news cycle today? Yeah, I was thinking the same thing.
You wanna hear something really sad? Do you remember the last time the Walt Disney Company pulled a stunt like this? That's right. It was back in January of 2004, when word first came down on Friday, January 9th that Disney would be shutting down its entire Florida-based animation studio. Then -- on Sunday, January 11th -- the studio announced that it would soon be putting "A Day with Wilbur Robinson" into production.
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.
Moving on to happier news now ... It's official! The Walt Disney Company is about to get its first ever African-American princess. According to casting information that's just been released about "The Frog Princess," that film's title character will be ...
MADDY -- A 19-year-old African American chambermaid. Bright, resourceful, ambitious, intense. A little too grown-up for her age.
... who winds up falling in love with ...
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.
For further information on the rest of the characters to be found in this upcoming John Musker & Ron Clements project, I suggest that you head on over to Animated News. Which was the first to break this story this past Friday.
And finally ... Getting back to Disney's PR staff. How many of you recall seeing this photo of Walt Disney?
Copyright 1966 Walt Disney Productions
It's from one of Walt's very last photo sessions in 1966. Taken just months before the man died.
Why do I bring this image up now? Please follow this link. Then scroll to the bottom of the page. Where you find some shots that were taken by a tourist who was in the Magic Kingdom this past Thursday afternoon. Who noticed that WDW PR staff had Roy posing for some shots while seated in an old fashioned car with Mickey standing beside him.
I don't know about you folks. But I find these new PR photos to be in rather questionable taste. I mean, to have Roy deliberately posing in the same sort of car with the same character 40 years after Walt did it? That's just a weird choice. Particularly given that Walt passed away soon after that first set of shots were taken.
Anyone got any idea what these new PR shots were being taken for? I mean, I know that Roy's making the rounds these days, promoting those new "True Life Adventure" DVDs. But that's a very specific image to be recreating there. One that has an awful lot of emotion attached to it.
I wonder when (or if) we'll ever seen this photos pop up.
Your thoughts?
<<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!