Of course, you're also asking cast members at the Studios, who see the building every day and are likely have friends who work there who are now out of work. Ask about the Animation Building closing at Epcot or Disney Quest or the Poly and you'll likely get a lot fewer angry or bitter comments.
But you'd also have to weed out the people who go to work for Disney with unrealistic expectations. That belief that they'll spend their days wandering through the parks, patting the heads of angelic children eating Mickey ice cream bars, and meeting up with happy, carefree guests at every turn. Because you KNOW there are Disney wannabes out there who believe a job at WDW is 40 hours of fun every week, only to get hired by Outdoor Foods or Character Merchandise and discover that > gasp! < this is a JOB and they have to WORK!
Howso? There are animators, filmmakers, and Imagineers still at Disney. Fewer of them, to be sure, but the company hasn't thrown out everyone who wanted to do those jobs.
But then you're saying that no matter what, Disney should keep on every single person who has ever worked for them for as long as that person wants to stay there. Just because I put in decades of time doing the best job I can doesn't mean that I get to keep my job forever. No job comes with that guarantee. And hopefully, you're doing the best job you can because those are your personal standards. You can hope that the loyalty will be returned, but I don't know of a single company that will guarantee you when they hire you that they will never restructure, downsize or lay people off, ever.
But isn't that really true no matter where you work? My friends in Animation said that they were told three months ago that it was extremely likely that the Florida Animation Studios would be closing in January. They were offered all sorts of opportunities for training as well as job hunting services. Meetings were held to see how to "repurpose" some of the animators and technicians, and some actually did move to other areas of the company. Some flatly chose not to. Some left. Then, when the formal announcement came, the animators and technicians were told they had eight weeks before they had to be out of the facility. Eight more weeks to use the computers and the training lab, and all the other services and equipment. So it's not as though they were "instantly trashed" or that the company didn't make an effort.
Like they're doing a good job. What's wrong with just being proud of what you do? Are you saying that you must have an absolute guarantee of future employment or reward -- other than the pay and benefits you're getting already -- in order to warrant doing your best?
I understand your point, although I think "he's an idiot", and other generalized slams like it, are still inappropriate if you're talking to a guest. However, if I asked a CM their opinion of Eisner and they said, "There's a lot he's doing that I don't agree with, and I think it might be time for him to step down," then I know I'm getting a response from someone who has thought about it. And that I WOULD respect.
There is no evidence that Disney will remain in the 2d hand-drawn classical market. (I am not including the DTV tripe). They have closed the Florida studio, and the only announced projects in California are CGI projects. As of this writing, I know of no hand-drawn projects in development after Home on the Range. Do you realize the historical significance of this?
Walt Disney just turned in his cryogenic chamber. I know it is a generalization, but he has a quote directly contradicting your statement. Something about never letting a man go that is doing his job for the company.
Of course it does, and I said that. But this isn't a board that discusses what John Q. Castmember does. Its to discuss what Disney does and what it should do. And if there's an overall problem, only Disney can solve it.
Geez, that's going to happen in any company. Its a heck of an assumption to make about CM's who say less than positive things about Eisner and/or the company as a whole.
Again, morale issues in the ranks can only solved by the company. How you, I, or anybody else on this board would react is irrelevant. The fact is, layoffs, among other things, result in morale issues. Preaching about personal resposibility isn't going to help.
Your argument is based on just as much conjecture as mine. Neither one of us knows for certain where the animation market is going. I happen to believe that, right now, it's CGI. And once that novelty wears off, it will be something else. Possibly even a return to 2d. But whether I agree with the decision or not, I think it's understandable from a business standpoint to not keep a full cadre of 2d animators on staff when there's no project for them to work on.
I'm sure the people Walt fired in his lifetime -- including animators who were doing their jobs -- will take comfort in that. Walt also never ran a business of this size or in this time. I think it's unrealistic to continually assume that he would have done exactly the same things in 2004 that he did in 1940.
How do you know? Maybe Eisner told Stainton that he had to fire ALL the Florida animators, and Stainton and his guys fought and argued and scraped and managed to salvage 5%. In that context then yes, it is doing what they can. You can't say it's nothing unless you know all the surrounding circumstances.
I'm certainly not dancing in anticipation for "Home on the Range" (Dame Judi Dench as a cow?) like I did for "Hunchback" (which I saw in the Dome, by the way), but I can watch computer-generated animation and be absolutely amazed. And I see another Golden Age in that. The magic is still the story, and once the novelty of the new toy that is CGI wears off, then those stories will re-emerge and it will be Golden again. It won't look the same as Pinocchio or Snow White, but even that will return someday, just like big-screen musicals did. The difference between us is that you're seeing this as the end of a line while I'm seeing it as part of a circle.
You're absolutely right. Although I do understand how hard it can be to not ever say anything, especially in times like these when guests are far more likely to ask -- about Animation, Roy Disney, park security, whatever. If someone asks enough, you're eventually going to crack. But if you're going to crack, better to crack benignly, I guess.
But don't most people go into the job world knowing that the day of "I'll retire here" is pretty much gone? I think that the folks in my generation (I'm 46) see layoffs and restructuring as far more devastating than those in their 20s. To them, it's just part of the business cycle. Everyone's outlook on job security changed with the dot-com bust, and then again when Enron happened. And then again after September 11. Unfortunately, I don't think there's anywhere you can go any more where you'll be safe from layoffs.
Possibly, yes. Time will tell. Either that, or this is part of what they're doing to fix the problem. Years ago when animation was hot and Disney was the only big fish, they hired and hired and hired animators -- lots of business analysts cautioned that Disney was going to overdo it, that they were going to have too much overhead and they would never be able to support it all. Part of Katzenberg's thing was to create this whole animated kingdom that he could rule. And he was promising two features a year -- maybe three. Pulling animation away from California and locating studios in Tokyo, Paris and Florida was seen as diluting the animation ranks and turning them into "us vs. them" scenarios, where the animators were competing with each other to create the next film instead of working together as a unit and competing against everyone else. Now granted, more hits have come out of Florida than California lately, and maybe the logical thing would have been to move Burbank to Orlando instead of the other way around. But either way, the arrival of competitors like Aardman, Pixar, Nickelodeon, and DreamWorks; the current popularity of anime; and the advent of CGI was destined to shrink the ranks of animators at Disney. If this move back to one centralized location is part of a larger plan that will redefine animation at Disney, then that's a good thing. If it's a bandaid, then obviously, it's not.
Because, no matter what the purists say, there is still a legacy that people see in the Disney name. Those people who travel to the parks and see the films and buy the t-shirts and have their pictures taken with the characters -- but who don't analyze every move the company makes or spend hours looking into how Walt used to do things vs. how Eisner does them now -- see the Disney name and see something that makes them happy. Their kids also love Spiderman and Scooby-Doo and maybe even Popeye, but Disney is still that one big constant. It's emotion. And this factual, gotta prove it with numbers, need to see solid evidence approach is never going to win against the emotion of seeing your kid hug Mickey on a sunny day standing in front of the castle. Sure it's fun to see your kids hug the Rugrats, but it's not the same. And that's why Disney. Until someone takes Mickey himself off of Main Street USA, the people who just like Disney for being Disney are not going to rebel.
Which is my point about cast members. Maintaining Walt's ideals even in the face of Eisner's current regime will be hard, and it won't always be rewarding. But when it pays off, the benefits will be amazing.
No. But back at the beginning, when Florida Animation was just beginning, the Burbank animators would complain about what Florida got -- the films, the equipment, the new building. And the struggles happened WAY before the films made it to market. But either way, you're right. It IS the easy solution. Although I still don't agree that they're quitting all production. Quitting, no. Scaling back, yes. We can debate forever whether or not they should be, based on current returns, demand or competition.
Yeah? Hang out on the "Theme Park Attractions and Strategies" board for a while.
And maintaining Walt's ideals is why I stay.
