Layoffs at Walt Disney World and other divisions of WDC

[SirLink]

I know it's popular to knock Disney's current fixation with "pixie dust, magic, dreams, and wishes," and from the perspective that these things are used as lazy marketing, I agree.

From the perspective of animation, all of these things were salient themes of Walt Disney-era animated films produced by Disney. If anything, I think recent films like Wall*E, Ratatouille, Wreck-It-Ralph, and others have substantially deviated from the classic Disney formula both in terms of art and plot.

Now all of the sequels...that's a different story entirely.

IMHO Wall*E was least offensive - until the talking bit, but both Ratatouille and Wreck it Ralph focus on dreams quite substantially - personally it want a Disney Animated Feature that doesn't end in a happy sing a long end,something where the protagonist doesn't get their dreams fulfilled ... that would be fantastic

 

[WDWFigment]

IMHO Wall*E was least offensive - until the talking bit, but both Ratatouille and Wreck it Ralph focus on dreams quite substantially - personally it want a Disney Animated Feature that doesn't end in a happy sing a long end,something where the protagonist doesn't get their dreams fulfilled ... that would be fantastic

If that's your wish, it's going to take a Disney animated film-style miracle for it to be fulfilled.

In other words, I don't think it's ever going to happen. This has always been the formula of Disney animated films, and I can't see it ever changing unless Disney releases something that isn't for mainstream consumption.

There's a lot wrong with TWDC and a lot that I'd love to see corrected, but I don't see this as one of those things. Sure, it would be nice to see a departure from this style, but it wouldn't even register on my list of grievances. It's a part of our culture--the "Disney Happy Ending."

 

[SirLink]

If that's your wish, it's going to take a Disney animated film-style miracle for it to be fulfilled.

In other words, I don't think it's ever going to happen. This has always been the formula of Disney animated films, and I can't see it ever changing unless Disney releases something that isn't for mainstream consumption.

There's a lot wrong with TWDC and a lot that I'd love to see corrected, but I don't see this as one of those things. Sure, it would be nice to see a departure from this style, but it wouldn't even register on my list of grievances. It's a part of our culture--the "Disney Happy Ending."

Emphasis on "your" culture

It would be so good I could see Alan Horn or possibly a new head of the Studios be more inclined to do iiiit!

 

[FrankLapidus]

IMHO Wall*E was least offensive - until the talking bit, but both Ratatouille and Wreck it Ralph focus on dreams quite substantially - personally it want a Disney Animated Feature that doesn't end in a happy sing a long end,something where the protagonist doesn't get their dreams fulfilled ... that would be fantastic

Yeah the young kids who flock to those films would really love that . But if you want that then Pocahontas in the one that delivers, John Smith doesn't get his head bashed in by her father but it's not a particularly happy ending, there's certainly no happy sing-a-long.

 

[SirLink]

Yeah the young kids who flock to those films would really love that . But if you want that then Pocahontas in the one that delivers, John Smith doesn't get his head bashed in by her father but it's not a particularly happy ending, there's certainly no happy sing-a-long.

I think most kids wouldn't have a problem with it ... most watch Eastenders/Casualty/CSI anyway ... so what is the problem?

 

[FrankLapidus]

I think most kids wouldn't have a problem with it ... most watch Eastenders/Casualty/CSI anyway ... so what is the problem?

If you go to see an animated Disney or Pixar film you know exactly what you're going to get, a story that is suitable for any demographic and which follows a particular formula. It's not even worth debating, it's a formula that has worked extremely well for Disney for more than seven decades and won't ever change. Don't Marvel films follow a similar formula anyway, at the end of Iron Man or Thor doesn't the hero defeat the villain, get the girl and save the day? Most kids might not have a problem with an unhappy ending, doesn't mean Robert Downey, jr. gets killed by whoever the villain is or turned down by Gwyneth Paltrow.

 

[Magenta Panther]

IMHO Wall*E was least offensive - until the talking bit, but both Ratatouille and Wreck it Ralph focus on dreams quite substantially - personally it want a Disney Animated Feature that doesn't end in a happy sing a long end,something where the protagonist doesn't get their dreams fulfilled ... that would be fantastic

Well, that kinda already happened with Pocahontas...the guy didn't get the girl, and vice versa. Not to mention The Hunchback of Notre Dame. While I applaud Disney for going for a non-formulaic ending in both films, I do think it weakened them at least a little. I think people go to the movies to see things that don't usually happen in real life...and yeah, unfortunately, a happy ending is one of those things...

 

[Festivus]

IMHO Wall*E was least offensive - until the talking bit, but both Ratatouille and Wreck it Ralph focus on dreams quite substantially - personally it want a Disney Animated Feature that doesn't end in a happy sing a long end,something where the protagonist doesn't get their dreams fulfilled ... that would be fantastic

I do believe that in the Hans Christian Anderson original, The Little Mermaid gets her toungue cut out in an exchange for her legs. Now that would put a different spin on things!

 

[danlb_2000]

If you go to see an animated Disney or Pixar film you know exactly what you're going to get, a story that is suitable for any demographic and which follows a particular formula. It's not even worth debating, it's a formula that has worked extremely well for Disney for more than seven decades and won't ever change. Don't Marvel films follow a similar formula anyway, at the end of Iron Man or Thor doesn't the hero defeat the villain, get the girl and save the day? Most kids might now have a problem with an unhappy ending, doesn't mean Robert Downey, jr. gets killed by whoever the villain is or turned down by Gwyneth Paltrow.

This goes beyond Disney and Marvel, most movies have at least a somewhat happy ending since that is what most people want to see. If you want to see realistic, unhappy endings, go see an opera.

 

[lego606]

YES, exactly. And that's what's so heartbreaking, and why I despise Iger so much.

Want to start another SaveDisney campaign?

 

[SirLink]

I do believe that in the Hans Christian Anderson original, The Little Mermaid gets her toungue cut out in an exchange for her legs. Now that would put a different spin on things!

Or like in the original version of Cinderella where the step sisters cut their toes off to get into the shoe.

If you go to see an animated Disney or Pixar film you know exactly what you're going to get, a story that is suitable for any demographic and which follows a particular formula. It's not even worth debating, it's a formula that has worked extremely well for Disney for more than seven decades and won't ever change. Don't Marvel films follow a similar formula anyway, at the end of Iron Man or Thor doesn't the hero defeat the villain, get the girl and save the day? Most kids might not have a problem with an unhappy ending, doesn't mean Robert Downey, jr. gets killed by whoever the villain is or turned down by Gwyneth Paltrow.

Marvel films take action tropes like every other summer blockbuster film has, but it doesn't stop Tony Stark from being an alcoholic, if we are talking Marvel in general it usually is the villain beats the hero ... or lately heroes beating up other hero archetypes. Very rarely the heroes win outright, but the thing I can forgive the Marvel Cinematic Universe is that they tie all the films together at Marvel Studios...

 

[Bcakd]

If they even do get around to layoffs at the Park & Resorts group, it's not the in-park uniformed CM's they ever go after. And it's generally not their immediate bosses they go after either.

It's the back of house, administrative roles that do stuff that have very, very little impact (or absolutely no impact at all) on anyone working inside a park or resort. In WDW, they have several administrative complexes in generic business parks around Kissimmee chock full of cubicles. ( @WDW1974 knows where these are exactly) But these are the white collar and clerical folks they will lay off, who never set foot in a park or hotel during their work week. (Many of whom insultingly feel they now have a "real job" at Disney because they got out of a theme park and into a cubicle somewhere.)

They and their bosses can trump up their ethereal electronic and paper pushing contributions to the WDW operation, but when it's time for layoffs dictated by Burbank all it takes is a hard look at what they really do to realize much of their work is of little value to the daily operation of theme parks and hotels. Buh bye.

This is not exclusive to Disney. It happens in all great companies who make or deliver actual products to living customers. Get too far removed from the salesfloor and the trenches (in this case, an operating theme park), and your cushy cubicle job can be gone in an instant when corporate whims dictate.

But the girl ringing up your souvenirs at the Emporium? The man driving the Jungle Cruise boat? The friendly server at Jiko? Their jobs are safe, and always are during these white collar layoffs of random cubicle dwellers.

Well, I really hate for ANYONE to loose their job! But, it is the world we live in. And yes, you are SOO right, in any company if you try hard to make it to middle management, you are basically setting your self in the line of fire. You know, it's sad!

 

[asianway]

If they even do get around to layoffs at the Park & Resorts group, it's not the in-park uniformed CM's they ever go after. And it's generally not their immediate bosses they go after either.

It's the back of house, administrative roles that do stuff that have very, very little impact (or absolutely no impact at all) on anyone working inside a park or resort. In WDW, they have several administrative complexes in generic business parks around Kissimmee chock full of cubicles. ( @WDW1974 knows where these are exactly) But these are the white collar and clerical folks they will lay off, who never set foot in a park or hotel during their work week. (Many of whom insultingly feel they now have a "real job" at Disney because they got out of a theme park and into a cubicle somewhere.)

They and their bosses can trump up their ethereal electronic and paper pushing contributions to the WDW operation, but when it's time for layoffs dictated by Burbank all it takes is a hard look at what they really do to realize much of their work is of little value to the daily operation of theme parks and hotels. Buh bye.

This is not exclusive to Disney. It happens in all great companies who make or deliver actual products to living customers. Get too far removed from the salesfloor and the trenches (in this case, an operating theme park), and your cushy cubicle job can be gone in an instant when corporate whims dictate.

But the girl ringing up your souvenirs at the Emporium? The man driving the Jungle Cruise boat? The friendly server at Jiko? Their jobs are safe, and always are during these white collar layoffs of random cubicle dwellers.

Yes, I think most of it will be in G&A, but not all. Part of NextGen is to reduce park hours by more evenly spreading riders across available capacity. I believe someone said the goal is to get MK from 3 shifts of operations CMs to 2. While none of the unionized hourly CMs will lose their jobs per se, they will lose hours, and then Disney will slowly reduce the workforce there through attrition in the higher turnover roles.

But then, heres where even more savings lie. Less hourly CMs mean less operations guest service managers, less merchandise managers, and less F&B managers. Then, to support that smaller group, you will need fewer FTEs in Costuming, Cosmetology, Laundry, Human Resources, etc, etc, etc.

Anyone have new updates?

 

[asianway]

Looks like ESPN is getting it today:

http://deadspin.com/source-espn-laying-off-hundreds-509043249

 

[Nubs70]

Yes, I think most of it will be in G&A, but not all. Part of NextGen is to reduce park hours by more evenly spreading riders across available capacity. I believe someone said the goal is to get MK from 3 shifts of operations CMs to 2. While none of the unionized hourly CMs will lose their jobs per se, they will lose hours, and then Disney will slowly reduce the workforce there through attrition in the higher turnover roles.

But then, heres where even more savings lie. Less hourly CMs mean less operations guest service managers, less merchandise managers, and less F&B managers. Then, to support that smaller group, you will need fewer FTEs in Costuming, Cosmetology, Laundry, Human Resources, etc, etc, etc.

Anyone have new updates?

Some of this reduction in overhead is in response to the impending healthcare changes. A company I service has put its' employees on notice that overtime hours will be eliminated. My wife, a nurse, has been put on notice that she will be losing the weekend shift differential she has been working under for over 10 years. This will equate to a 10-12k loss in household income.

Since full time employment will now be considered anything over 30 hours/week, businesses will be incentivised to place as many employees below full time status to compensate for increased health insurance costs.

Funny how expensive free health care is.

 

[jt04]

Looks like ESPN is getting it today:

http://deadspin.com/source-espn-laying-off-hundreds-509043249

So is this what people mean when they talk about "spirited change"?

 

[COProgressFan]

Some of this reduction in overhead is in response to the impending healthcare changes. A company I service has put its' employees on notice that overtime hours will be eliminated. My wife, a nurse, has been put on notice that she will be losing the weekend shift differential she has been working under for over 10 years. This will equate to a 10-12k loss in household income.

Since full time employment will now be considered anything over 30 hours/week, businesses will be incentivised to place as many employees below full time status to compensate for increased health insurance costs.

Funny how expensive free health care is.

Not to get political on the forums, but who ever said there was going to be "free" health care?

 

[Tim_4]

Not to get political on the forums, but who ever said there was going to be "free" health care?

Why did you say you're not going to get political then immediately say something political?

On topic, I don't believe the ESPN people who say they didn't see this company. The SG&A cost cutting initiative is ENTERPRISE wide and it's not a secret.

 

[Darth Sidious]

Not to get political on the forums, but who ever said there was going to be "free" health care?

That is a very politically charged statement, err question lol.

 

[Epicpilot]

Speaking from a business perspective, this does not mean that disney is going to cut 10% of its CM what it means is that they are planning to reduce operating costs by cutting 10% of costs from labour. What this means is that disney will look at and consider all of its options, what disney will likely look at most are A: seasonal employees at parks and extended hours at parks due to the increase of number of CM's and the amount of extra hours that will be operated during the seasons that require more Hours which pumps up labor costs.. B: Disney will cut labor costs at sections that are making minimal profits are not making profit for the company.