PDA

View Full Version : Digital Domain's stock falls 75% in 4 months



Philbert
08-30-2012, 11:59 PM
Sucky news.

http://vfxsoldier.wordpress.com/2012/08/30/digital-domain-stock-falls-75-over-4-months/

kopperdrake
08-31-2012, 12:33 AM
The 'free labour' speech gave an insight into which way they were heading, I think I said as much in it. In this instance I am seriously saddened that I was right :(

DigitalSorcery8
08-31-2012, 01:44 AM
IMO... John Textor is more of a sleezeball that I originally thought. I agree with the guy in the comments section about this being fishy. IMO Textor guided DD into just this situation so he COULD more easily buy it. Yup, shades of Bain Capital here as well. These are the kinds of people we want running the VFX business? Just.... sad.

geo_n
08-31-2012, 02:20 AM
Can't imagine DD being bought and then chopped up to sell for profit.
Many studios closing, low cost labor, its a bad trend. Employers now have more guts to say to employees that they're dispensable since a lot of artist are out of work and its easy to find a replacement or even a student that wants to work for free.

DonJMyers
08-31-2012, 02:39 AM
FX is an incredibly unprofitable biz. People do it because they love it! Has ILM ever been profitable? Probably not because it's an R&D arm for George Lucas.

Why would anybody even SELL stock in an FX company??

rcallicotte
08-31-2012, 07:07 AM
If this is the future of digital Fx as a retail arm, then I'll eat my hat (though I don't own one).

Too bad for DD, who were talking about what...or doing something with students and free labor...what?

robertoortiz
08-31-2012, 07:59 AM
From CGSOCIETY:
The saga continues..



http://www.cartoonbrew.com/cgi/digital-domain-may-be-on-the-brink-of-disaster.html



Further reading:



http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/business/shares-in-movie-effects-company-digital-domain-plu/nRPdS/

Philbert
08-31-2012, 08:16 AM
Of course I hope they can stay afloat for the business and the industry in general, but especially since they're in the same town in Florida as some of my family, so I have additional interest as well.

geo_n
09-08-2012, 10:03 PM
300 layed off. That's a lot of good people. Some even relocated.
http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/region_st_lucie_county/port_st_lucie/about-300-digital-domain-employees-now-wondering-whats-next

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/business/digital-domain-to-shut-down-port-st-lucie-operatio/nR5Zf/

safetyman
09-09-2012, 10:22 AM
I blame the big movie studios. They are farming out a lot of fx work to some of the poorer countries, where artists there work for pennies on the dollar. The bigger fx studios just can't compete with that. It's not that some of the "third world" studios aren't any good, but there's no way you can tell me they can stand toe-to-toe with studios like DD. Cheaper doesn't mean better. This trend will continue trust me.

That being said, even some of the so-called blockbusters (Batteship, Total Recall, etc.) didn't fare so well at the box office (or at least make what they thought) even though they had big fx studios doing the majority of the work. For every "Transformers" or "Avengers" there's 3 or 4 "Wrath of the Titans" that had big budgets but tanked. So I can see it from Hollywood's view: They spend big on a show like Battleship and barely make a profit, so why should they open their wallets for the big studios?

ShadowMystic
09-09-2012, 03:20 PM
I blame the big movie studios. They are farming out a lot of fx work to some of the poorer countries, where artists there work for pennies on the dollar. The bigger fx studios just can't compete with that. It's not that some of the "third world" studios aren't any good, but there's no way you can tell me they can stand toe-to-toe with studios like DD. Cheaper doesn't mean better. This trend will continue trust me.

That being said, even some of the so-called blockbusters (Batteship, Total Recall, etc.) didn't fare so well at the box office (or at least make what they thought) even though they had big fx studios doing the majority of the work. For every "Transformers" or "Avengers" there's 3 or 4 "Wrath of the Titans" that had big budgets but tanked. So I can see it from Hollywood's view: They spend big on a show like Battleship and barely make a profit, so why should they open their wallets for the big studios?

I think this is also a Hollywood issue because studio heads think effects can sell a movie. They are then astonished that this isn't true. An effect should supplement a story, not carry it. I haven't seen Transformers or Avengers yet, unfortunately, but these franchises have a nostalgia effect so an average story will still sell. Coupled with bad marketing(John Carter?) what can Hollywood expect? John Carter bugs be especially from a marketing standpoint is because several friends that knew and read some or all of the Basoom(sp?) franchise did not immediately connect from the trailers that their were even related.

jeric_synergy
09-09-2012, 04:14 PM
Why would anybody even SELL stock in an FX company??
'Cuz someone else is stupid enough to buy it?

erikals
09-10-2012, 07:10 AM
John Textor Made $16 Million In 2011 While Digital Domain’s Revenue Dropped
http://www.cartoonbrew.com/business/john-textor-made-16-million-in-2011-while-digital-domains-revenue-dropped.html

that's DOLLARS ladies and gentlemen...!

geo_n
09-10-2012, 09:59 AM
John Textor Made $16 Million In 2011 While Digital Domain’s Revenue Dropped
http://www.cartoonbrew.com/business/john-textor-made-16-million-in-2011-while-digital-domains-revenue-dropped.html

that's DOLLARS ladies and gentlemen...!

Don't they investigate shrewd business practices in the US?

Dexter2999
09-10-2012, 10:11 AM
Don't they investigate shrewd business practices in the US?

geo- It may be immoral to pay executives obscene salaries here but it isn't illegal. It is a major problem here in the US where executives feel "entitled" to collect paychecks that have no real justification even when the companies are failing. Many Americans were calling for investigations a couple of years ago when the govt. bailed out failing Wall Street companies and found them paying "Bonuses" while investors still lost everything. The thing is most people think "Bonus" means "extra", but contractually a portion of the salary can be paid as a guaranteed "bonus" (meaning gift) and this means the company pays little to no tax on the amount and the recipient must pay a larger, if not all of the tax. It is a stupid accounting mechanism that confuses the general public who already don't undestand the fundamentals of accounting like difference between "debit" and "credit".

geo_n
09-10-2012, 11:11 AM
It looks like he made more money in the company's stocks and shares, not his salary and bonuses which was +-1million annually. 16 million, wow that's a lot of ferrari's. That's illegal isn't it? Like similar to insider trading.