Says here that Disney is closing the mo-cap studio founded by Robert Zemeckis and used in "A Christmas Carol". I guess they've had a slow year or two, but considering the trends in CG movie making this seems an odd choice.
http://my.earthlink.net/article/ent?guid=2...5c-05a2ad71d929

What struck me was the contradictory statement that Disney is entering into a longterm deal with Zemeckis to continue making mo-cap movies. It's almost like announcing that you're closing down the auto factory at the same time you announce you're going to double production of cars.

I guess they're going to count on renting equipment and space?

I gotta' say I'm not really excited about the prospect of Zemeckis continuing down this road. Granted, I've only seen one of his mo-cap movies, but I failed to grasp why the movie needed to be mo-cap/animated it all. A mo-cap remake of Yellow Submarine actually repels me. :-)

Well it struck me that they're calling it a cost-cutting move, and that there are 450 jobs involved. They may be shutting it down then reconstituting it with a different name, different org structure and fewer personnel. That would be par for Disney. It may be just a way to cut jobs without actually calling it that.

I liked Beowulf and Polar Express, but somehow, he missed the mark with the mocap in Christmas Carol, it felt very fake.

Probably moving that kind of labor to China or India again............ or maybe Jamaika?

Most likely it would be due to the rapid pace of change in the Mo-cap industry. It is not in a studios best interest to invest in equipment that will be out of date within months of installation when it's only going to get used say 1-2 months a year. Better to sub contract to a company that will get full time use of it's facilities....

Cheers

I'm guessing it's because of the incredible cost of doing business in tony, chi-chi Marin County - salaries, land, housing/cost of living, taxes - are some of the highest in California and probably the country. They are bound to find cheaper digs somewhere else.

"The closure of the facility in Marin County, north of San Francisco, will be completed by January and result in the loss of 450 jobs."

according to wiki: in 2009: Marin County had the fifth highest income per capita in the United States at $91,483. (number 1 in California)

But then those companies will find their equipment out of date soon too. This business model will have to fail eventually maybe only after every hamlet in India has gone broke trying to be an up-to-date VFX shop.

Yes, but if they are utilised Fulltime then it's more cost effective.

SPFX companies in general seem to go out of business all the time. The people continue to work though. Xmen, and Matrix, the company that did the Lion Share of Effects went out of business right after release.

Must be a tool to maximize profits and then just start a new company for the next gig.

Famous case in Canada where the VFX company strung workers along for months without pay, then "went broke", couldn't pay the workers, and yet a "different" VFX company opened up in the same spot, run by the same principals, but with new employees, and with no legal obligation to pay the old ones.

http://www.vizworld.com/2009/07/deadline-n...vfx-settlement/

Start the company;
Hire staff;
Rent equipment;
Complete project;
Lay off staff;
Close company;
Repeat.

It could also partly be like the system for making a movie. A person has a film they wanna make so they need money. So they create a temporary company, usually John Doe Productions and then approach a distributer/production company like Fox or Universal and whatnot and says hey, dude, loan my company the money, cause its more secure than loaning me the money. I've noticed then for a specific film or two, companies like SFX companies will pop up and then disappear after the production has finished. Essentially the entire system is freelanced it seems, even the majority of the companies are temporary

That's exactly it. When a studio like Blue Sky gets a project greenlighted, they staff up just enough to complete the one project so they can't overlap projects and complete one while a second one is gearing up. If they did they would in effect need two complete teams and that's too big an expense if they're only funded for one project, as I understand it.

In other words, except for the very biggest studios like Pixar or Dreamworks, there does not seem to be a sustainable business model for CG feature film production.

I actually thought the opposite. To me Beowulf and Polar Express are the poster children for too much mocap..the movements seemed plastic, stiff. I loved the Christmas Carol.

Animators are essentially consultants. If they can't get work with a big house like Pixar, then they bounce from one gig to the next. Being a consultant myself, that is sometimes a tough road to plow. If you can't get on a long term project you essentially are sending out resumes shortly after settling into the current job. That is the nature of the beast, some folks like to live that kind of life, I hate it. But sense smaller companies can't afford to maintain a larger staff, they only hire those folks who are needed, when they are needed.

As you mention Gerry, Pixar is in the enviable position of being able to run multiple projects at one time; however they do offset the schedules so that only one is in a production mode at a time, with others either in pre or post production.

I would have thought that Disney was in that group, but I guess not. Perhaps with the acquisition of Pixar, they figure that any cg projects will be done thru them, and Disney will concentrate on 2d work, parks, and merchandising.