Disney Pondering Layoffs As Part Of Cost Cuts

[crazy4wdw]

Sourcesisney Pondering Layoffs As Part Of Cost Cuts-NYT
Dow Jones

NEW YORK -(Dow Jones)- Walt Disney Co. (DIS), as part of a long-term review, is contemplating layoffs, looking to rein in costs and rethinking the type of movies it wants to make at its live-action Disney Studios, The New York Times reported Saturday, citing people apprised of Disney's planning.

It is unclear how many positions will be cut and when, but some of those apprised of Disney's plans suggest layoffs could come in July, the newspaper said.

Disney's spokeswoman, Heidi Trotta, said studio executives declined to comment, the Times reported. "We are constantly evaluating our business to make it better and more efficient," she said.

Dow Jones Newswires 05-27-061416ET Copyright (c) 2006 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.

 

[jimmytammy]

 

[bicker]

Sounds like the folks coming over from Pixar are applying their formitable expertise... that's got to be for the better...

 

[mitros]

Sourcesisney Pondering Layoffs As Part Of Cost Cuts-NYT
Dow Jones

OK, I thought Ei$ner was gone. Is he pulling Bob Igers strings from some far away place? {or not so far away?} Hopefully they will not make any cuts at the parks. We have made 20 trips since the first of the year, and all signs point to the theme park and resort business is booming. {in our observations}

 

[FigNewton]

Businesses cut costs here and there all the time, no reason to fear cuts at the parks because cuts in the Live Action film division(s) are being planned.

It's probably a good thing... I can't name the last Disney live action movie I really wanted to see besides Pirates.

 

[RadJad56]

x

 

[bicker]

Of course people aren't going to be happy about losing their jobs. However, that's not relevant to whether the decision to cut those positions is "a good thing" or not.

 

[dbm20th]

Welcome to the world of Corporate America!! Lay-offs are a part life

 

[Another Voice]

However, that's not relevant to whether the decision to cut those positions is "a good thing" or not.

Except of course, it's entirely relevant when you're dealing with the entertainment industry. It's not like all those editors, production assistants and writers are going to work at WalMart.

Nope.

Just like all those lay-offs that happened with the Animation Department, all those people go work for Disney's competitors. So now Disney is faced with having a small staff filled with people waiting for the next round of job cuts tyring to compete against other studios that can pick up the best talent and go right for Disney's pocket book. When Dreamwork's Over the Hedge makes more money in a weekend than Disney's The Wild made in its entire run, there are bigger problems than just "too many secretaries".

But this is typical Disney behavior.
Problem: "No one wants to pay to see our movies".

Answer 1: "We'll make better movies that people want to see! It will take hard work and talent, but we'll be rewarded in the end. Now let's read some scripts!"

Or

Answer 2: "We'll make fewer bad movies, and make them cheaper! We won't have to do anything except blame the business consultants when this doesn't work. Let's lunch at Spago!"

 

[bicker]

Nope, even in the entertainment industry, how happy the folks losing their jobs are about losing their jobs isn't relevant to whether the decision to cut those positions is "a good thing" or not. In this case, Disney just acquired some of the best animators in the world. It makes sense that they stopped the work of the animators that they felt weren't up to Disney-quality, and it may very well make sense to let those less superior animators go.

 

[Another Voice]

First, the lay-offs are coming in the live-action area (as is mentioned in the article, which I'm sure you read throughly).

Second, you fail to address my main point. Disney is no longer tries to be a successful business, they no longer choose to make good product. They have, consistently for a decade now, choosen to continue the same poor job but to spend less money at being bad. There was no reason to spend $7,000,000,000 to by Pixar if they had chosen to make good animated movies; now they choose to criple to live action production instead because they want to continue making Herbie Fully Loaded instead of movies the public wants to see.

All business decisions are a choice. Disney continues the easiest, least effective - but most PowerPoint friendly - way out any problem. From top to bottom Disney continues to prove its management is just as bad and unprofessional as most of American business.


P.S. - letting go do Jeffrey Katzenberg worked out well, didn't it?

 

[bicker]

Those are you opinions. I disagree with them. 'nuf sed.

 

[Another Voice]

Nope. Those are the facts.

 

[bicker]

 

[pedro2112]

On the one hand AV makes some excellent points. On the other hand, those points may be totally irrelevant to what is going to transpire. We'll have to wait and see.

 

[bicker]

Waiting until we actually have some facts to base criticisms on... gosh, what a concept!

 

[All Aboard]

Waiting until we actually have some facts to base criticisms on... gosh, what a concept!

Seems like most of the discussion/criticism was about the impact/prudence of past animation layoffs. No need to lay out the box office numbers for every feature since 1994, or compare to the box office of features made by a bunch of Disney layoffees. Those facts would speak for themselves.

 

[ralphd]

f
All business decisions are a choice. Disney continues the easiest, least effective - but most PowerPoint friendly - way out any problem. From top to bottom Disney continues to prove its management is just as bad and unprofessional as most of American business.

Did not realize things were that bad?

 

[ralphd]

Seems like most of the discussion/criticism was about the impact/prudence of past animation layoffs. No need to lay out the box office numbers for every feature since 1994, or compare to the box office of features made by a bunch of Disney layoffees. Those facts would speak for themselves.

That assumes things would have been better if those events did not happen.

 

[Another Voice]

Waiting until we actually have some facts to base criticisms on... gosh, what a concept

Funny, I thought the same thing when you immediately jumped in your first comment all in support: “Sounds like the folks coming over from Pixar are applying their formitable [sic] expertise... that's got to be for the better...”

Not only didn’t you wait for facts, you launched into wild – and completely false – speculation (it’s the doing of Pixar) and then went even further to draw a conclusion about the merits of the situation (it’s for the better).

That deserves a

Hey, then again if releasing only three movies a year save us all from The Pacifier 2, Herbie Reloaded and The Santa Claus 3, then I’d be all for it as well.