Phroobar
Well-Known Member
Disney's Moana 2 success angers some in the animation industry
Why do you keep ignoring the various responses you've already received with regard to this worry of yours?Which gives it about $100M profit. That's good.
However, I worry about what these signals to the suits in Burbank and the future of in house animation.
Don’t you diss the work Disney Animation in Orlando did on Mulan and Lilo & Stitch.Great! Hopefully even more work comes to Vancouver.
The California studios aren’t going anywhere and Vancouver makes a heck of a lot more sense than Florida.
Don’t you diss the work Disney Animation in Orlando did on Mulan and Lilo & Stitch.
I believe he has a bunch of us on ignore, or just doesn't care about facts because it doesn't fit his narrative that Disney is "outsourcing its animation".Why do you keep ignoring the various responses you've already received with regard to this worry of yours?
Burbank is going to be fine.
Vancouver is still in-house.
It might not outsource it's animation, but you can bet that the Vancouver employees make less than those who are at Burbank.I believe he has a bunch of us on ignore, or just doesn't care about facts because it doesn't fit his narrative that Disney is "outsourcing its animation".
That still doesn’t mean it’s some lesser quality product, as that is what this whole negative connotation surrounding “outsourcing of animation” is about.It might not outsource it's animation, but you can bet that the Vancouver employees make less than those who are at Burbank.
"The hiring range for this position [animator] in British Columbia, Canada is C$100,300 to C$145,420 per year." That's about $75,000 to $103,000. I have no idea how that compares to the same job at Burbank. Google tells me the cost of living is lower in Vancouver, so that should be factored in.It might not outsource it's animation, but you can bet that the Vancouver employees make less than those who are at Burbank.
It's been reported that Vancouver artists make half of California artists and less benefits but the cost of living there is almost the same as California.It might not outsource it's animation, but you can bet that the Vancouver employees make less than those who are at Burbank.
It makes sense to have a studio in Vancouver.,. If you have not been paying attention…. It’s been basically a 2nd Hollywood the last few years… but go ahead and ignore what other posters are saying to fit your narrativeIt's been reported that Vancouver artists make half of California artists and less benefits but the cost of living there is almost the same as California.
And you have actual proof via actual pay scales and benefits packages this is indeed the case? Because otherwise this is just more nonsense to try paint some narrative which is unfounded. Also this still doesn’t mean the product is some lesser quality product just because it’s not done exclusively by animators in Burbank.It's been reported that Vancouver artists make half of California artists and less benefits but the cost of living there is almost the same as California.
Earlier in this thread there was an article from IGN based on information from 10 anonymous employees who had been laid off.And you have actual proof via actual pay scales and benefits packages this is indeed the case? Because otherwise this is just more nonsense to try paint some narrative which is unfounded. Also this still doesn’t mean the product is some lesser quality product just because it’s not done exclusively by animators in Burbank.
And in case you still missed it I’ll repeat it, this is still WDAS not some outsourced animator.
Ah yes the IGN article, the one that provides no real shred of evidence on anything especially since it was about Pixar and not the Vancouver branch of WDAS and how their pay and benefits stacks up against their Burbank counterparts.Earlier in this thread there was an article from IGN based on information from 10 anonymous employees who had been laid off.
I have no idea how to gauge the credibility of some reports.
I’m not sure why you’re framing the article in that way. It quotes anonymous sources without putting any particular spin on what they say. What specific issues do you have with it?Ah yes the IGN article, the one that provides no real shred of evidence on anything especially since it was about Pixar and not the Vancouver branch of WDAS and how their pay and benefits stacks up against their Burbank counterparts.
Well first the article has nothing to do with the conversation at hand, which was about Moana 2 and WDAS Vancouver being used. So that is first and foremost my issue with it being used now multiple times in this thread as some proof of anything regarding this movie.I’m not sure why you’re framing the article in that way. It quotes anonymous sources without putting any particular spin on what they say. What specific issues do you have with it?
I didn’t read it that way. It even quoted a current Pixar executive who, like you, disagreed with what the anonymous sources were claiming.Basically its reads as the normal spin to try and paint Pixar negatively by former employees.
I guess we read different articles then. Because its framed in a way to try and paint bad working conditions that aren't confirmed by anyone currently working there, only anonymous sources that were laid off, ie disgruntled former employees. The fact that they talk about being "f'd financially" should be all the indication you need on why this is spin.I didn’t read it that way. It even quoted a current Pixar executive who, like you, disagreed with what the anonymous sources were claiming.
Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.