Animated Films Dominate the Box Office, So Why Aren't Their Directors Allowed Into the DGA?

09/11/2024 09:00 AM

When Disney released its new version of "The Lion King" in 2019, the company was quick to describe it as the live-action version of the beloved 1994 original.  

Director Jon Favreau, who made a Christmas classic in "Elf" and jumpstarted the Marvel Cinematic Universe with "Iron Man," was covered by the Directors Guild of America, which afforded him insurance and incentives, along with profit participation. One reported estimate had the director earning $60 million from his involvement in the film, which grossed $1.66 billion worldwide.

But this version of "The Lion King" wasn't live-action — it was fully animated. And directors of animated films are not traditionally covered by the DGA, hence the push to categorize this feature as "live-action."

The DGA has long kept animation directors out of the guild. And the chasm between the benefits afforded to live-action directors and animation directors is a growing source of frustration within the filmmaking community. Animation directors who spoke to TheWrap expressed anguish and anger over the issue, which has been brought to both the DGA and studios’ attention many times over the years to no avail. But now, as animated films prop up the box office, their frustration is reaching a fever pitch.

"You look at any year's top 10 movies, usually at least four or five of them are animated," Clay Kaytis, a filmmaker who has directed on animated projects like "The Angry Birds Movie" but also live-action projects like Netflix’s "The Christmas Chronicles," told TheWrap. "That's billions and billions of dollars. And for animation directors, it’s the Wild West. We’re treated like we make inferior product [when] we make stuff that keeps the world going."

Brad Bird, who has directed animation classics like "The Incredibles" and live-action blockbusters like "Mission: Impossible — Ghost Protocol," said the situation has persisted for too long.

"People who worked in animation wanted to be a part of those guilds for decades, but there was a certain amount of snobbery involved on the part of the guilds that kept the door closed," Bird told TheWrap. "Animation was considered a children's medium … a junior medium. When the films started making a lot of money, there seemed to be a little more acceptance of the idea of having animation direction considered along with live-action. But there's a well-reinforced belief system and tradition in the way animation is looked at."

One director of a blockbuster animated feature who spoke to TheWrap on background said that animation directors don't receive residuals unless it is called for in their contracts, and that the DGA denies them healthcare based solely on directing credits.

 "We get nothing," the director said. 

So far in 2024, animated features have kept the business afloat. Some of the biggest movies of the year have been animated, including DreamWorks Animation's "Kung Fu Panda 4" (worldwide gross: $548 million), Sony's "The Garfield Movie" ($255 million), Illumination's "Despicable Me 4" ($887 million) and, the single most successful movie of the year, Pixar's "Inside Out 2" ($1.67 billion). Even Illumination's "Migration," initially viewed as a disappointment when it was released last Christmas, made enough to be the 20th highest-grossing film of 2024 domestically.

Blockbuster filmmakers adrift

And yet for all their success, the filmmakers behind these monster hits are not given the same benefits or coverage their live-action counterparts enjoy. They are adrift, covered by neither the DGA nor The Animation Guild, which deems them "management" and thus ineligible. 

TAG denies that directors are ineligible, saying that they are automatically afforded certain benefits. But several animation directors TheWrap spoke to refuted this. Instead, animation directors often pick up other work on their own movies, like storyboarding or character design in order to qualify for TAG benefits. But outside of the basic concessions for health insurance, they are guaranteed no residuals or rights to direct the sequel — benefits afforded some of their live-action counterparts. Without DGA protections, a movie could make $1 billion globally and the director still could only be paid their initial directing fee. 

Last year, Kaytis explained to the DGA board and hundreds of members at the guild’s annual meeting that animation directors were being unfairly denied union representation. He urged members to do something about it.

"There were a lot of gasps," Kaytis remembered. "Everyone seemed positive, and they all clapped. They said, 'Yeah, we should look into this.'" 

The DGA did not respond to TheWrap’s request for notes from the meeting.

"Historically, animation directors have not been covered by DGA because of differences between animation and live-action projects," a source familiar with prior discussions between the directors and the DGA said. "As animation has evolved, there have been conversations between the guild and these directors. However, they have failed to gain traction beyond being covered on an individual project basis."

The lack of residuals is a significant issue because animated films can sometimes take years to develop, only to fall apart, leading to another prolonged cycle of development on a different project. The residuals afforded by a DGA agreement could keep those filmmakers afloat financially during the fallow periods. "The Garfield Movie," for instance, is the first feature in nearly 20 years from "The Emperor's New Groove" director Mark Dindal. And the health insurance provided by the guild keeps directors healthy.

Just like live-action directors, animation directors work with actors — they compose shots, pick out lenses, light scenes, work with heads of departments and block action. And instead of working for a year on their movies, animation directors can end up on productions that stretch out to four or five years. If anything, making an animated feature is "a lot harder to do," an animation director who has also worked on live-action projects said.

Kaytis added: "It’s really the same process. It’s just how you go about it is either very fast or very slow. Having done both I would say animation is a much more involved process."

And without DGA rights and protections, it doesn't make it any easier.

As Bird recounted, "When I did press for 'Ghost Protocol,' there were several times when people said, 'What was it like to direct your first movie?' I said, 'Well this is my fourth movie but it's the first that happens to be live-action.' It's a silly point of view, because they're similar to each other in more ways than not. One is not more important or significant than the other. It's all cinema. But generally speaking, there is a lot more respect for live-action than animation."

A brief history of animation and the DGA

Friction between filmmakers working in live-action and those in animation has existed since the formation of the DGA in 1960, when the Screen Directors Guild and the Radio and Television Directors Guild merged.

A potentially apocryphal tale still cited by many animators that TheWrap spoke to suggested that Walt Disney argued against his directors being included in the new group, after being burned by the 1941 animators' strike and becoming worried that too much power could jeopardize the perception that all of the animated features his studio produced were made "by Disney."

At the time, many Disney animated features had segment directors overseeing different sequences; 1941's "Dumbo," for instance, featured Ben Sharpsteen as the supervising director and Norman Ferguson, Wilfred Jackson, Bill Roberts, Jack Kinney and Samuel Armstrong as sequence directors. (Pete Docter, chief creative officer of Pixar, wrote an entire book with Don Peri about the directors who worked on those earlier movies.)

In the 1990s, with the Disney Renaissance in full swing, the DGA approached Disney about having its filmmakers join, including the directing team of Ron Clements and John Musker ("Aladdin," "The Little Mermaid"). According to someone who was at the studio at the time, to organize and be part of the DGA would require incredible unity and be such a coup that they decided to back off. "They decided not to fight for it," Kaytis said.

In the years since, the DGA and animation directors have had no meaningful conversations on the issue. And despite TAG’s contention that animation directors are automatically covered, on the group’s website, there's an "animation director" position, but that is a supervising animator position, not the actual film's director. This issue becomes more complicated with TAG only working with union signatories; Pixar, for example, is a nonunion studio. (Pixar's co-founder Ed Catmull was also the chief architect of a hugely damaging wage-fixing conspiracy that triggered a number of high profile lawsuits.)

"There's a lot of resentment because animation makes so much money," one animation director said. "But animation is still treated as illegitimate. Animation is in a corner."

Blurred lines

The lines between animated movies and live-action movies has never been blurrier and the line between animation director and live-action director have become similarly obscured.

On "The Lion King," Favreau utilized a similar version of the visual effects system he used on "The Jungle Book," another live-action Disney reimagining from a few years earlier. But that film featured human performers, whereas "The Lion King" featured none. There is a single shot in the 2019 "Lion King" – the first shot, of a rising sun – that is live-action photography. But is that really enough to consider the entire film live-action? There's more live-action footage in Pixar's acclaimed 2008 film "WALL•E," which won the best animated feature Oscar, than there is in Favreau’s iteration of "The Lion King." 

Bird was handpicked by Tom Cruise to direct "Mission: Impossible — Ghost Protocol" thanks to his work on animated films like "The Iron Giant" and "The Incredibles." Bird directed another live-action feature, "Tomorrowland," and then returned to Pixar to direct "Incredibles 2."

"There are several things that are different about the way the respective mediums are produced, but the essence is the same; you're trying to create characters that are consistent and well-realized, you’re orchestrating how color is used to reenforce the narrative, you’re creating sets, you’re using camera angles and cutting for concise storytelling that plays with the medium," Bird said. "You need the audience to understand what the characters are thinking and feeling. All of those elements are the same as live-action. How you get there has its own unique path. But what you're doing is the same."

Oscar-winning director Guillermo del Toro directed the animated "Pinocchio" for Netflix, which ultimately won the best animated feature Oscar. He's already talking about wanting to direct another. Gore Verbinksi made "Rango" (which also won the best animated feature Oscar) and was in production on another animated feature that Netflix ultimately canceled. (He was able to shop the movie around but never found a home.) 

And in between live-action projects, Wes Anderson has made two animated features: "Fantastic Mr. Fox" and "Isle of Dogs.” Filmmakers Phil Lord and Chris Miller routinely bounce back and forth between live-action projects like "21 Jump Street" and animated features like "The Lego Movie." Tim Burton, too, started out in animation at Disney before becoming a live-action phenomenon and eventually returning to direct animated features like "The Corpse Bride" and "Frankenweenie."

These are live-action filmmakers who have raised the issue of animation filmmakers needing representation to the DGA. But there has not been a concerted effort to get the kind of changes Kaytis and others are still pushing for. 

What's next?

In a 1978 interview, Steven Spielberg said, "I'm so in love with the Disney animators. That's why I think animation is the father of live-action cinema. They have to have in their mind a clear picture of how a chipmunk rolls over in the snow. They've got to know what each side of that chipmunk looks like. They have to use their imaginations and paint these things and how the fur moves and how the wind's blowing. That's why I think all directors should be animators first."

Spielberg founded Amblimation and, later, DreamWorks Animation and finally directed an animated feature of his own in 2011 with "The Adventures of Tintin."

Many animation directors who spoke to TheWrap said that the DGA's attitude will only change when directors of Spielberg's caliber start pushing for their representation. The studios won't push the issue because they don't want to pay more residuals and the DGA has, throughout the years, not engaged.

So while animation directors will need to push the issue, it will be their compatriots already in the DGA who will help get it through.

"Those are the people that you know you would have to get to be at the forefront of this conversation to talk about, ‘Hey, it’s really not that different here, a movie is a movie,’" Kaytis said.

The post Animated Films Dominate the Box Office, So Why Aren't Their Directors Allowed Into the DGA? appeared first on TheWrap.