Animation Directors and the DGA

Let's talk about feature animation directors and guild representation.

This was originally a Twitter (RIP) thread, so it may seem a bit choppy. I have added and clarified some things, since I don’t have a character limit here.

PART 1: Animation Directors and the DGA

First, I'll be clear. My aim is that one day feature animation directors will be invited into the Director's Guild of America (DGA).

An incredible fact that most people don't know is that under The Animation Guild (TAG) there is no category for Feature Director. This means, in my own career, I had union jobs under TAG (inbetweener, animator, supervising animator, etc) until I became a director. As soon as I became a director of feature animation, I was no longer represented by a TAG position for my assigned job. Under TAG, feature directors would be considered management, which presents a technical/legal barrier that precludes inclusion. I don't fully understand that, but it is what I have been told. Because there is no feature director category in TAG and the DGA does not include animation, feature animation directors are adrift.

To be transparent, the first animated film I directed, The Angry Birds Movie, was non-union. Even if it was a union show, I would not have fallen under TAG, like EVERY feature animation director isn't.

Benefits of working under a TAG category, aside from pay minimums, are health insurance and contributions to pension and retirement plans, all of which are among the best in the industry.

For me personally, the most important benefit of these is health insurance. My wife is a breast cancer survivor, and the prospect of not having health insurance is terrifyingly real for us. So what is a director to do about health insurance? We can either pay for something like Cobra, or do what I recently did when I directed animation: bill weekly hours as a storyboard artist under TAG.

Yes, while directing, animation directors bill hours under the TAG storyboard category to bank enough to get health insurance. Don't worry, I did storyboard, so it's legit. But this is the workaround. TAG feels that this is a suitable compromise in order to provide the union benefits previously stated. It is so much better than nothing, but it can be so much better, which leads to:

The other issue of not having a guild category as an animation director: there are NO TAG protections or rules outlined for feature directors because it is not an established and defined job category. This means there are no standards, rules, or guidelines other than labor laws and the traditions or policies of each studio. Whatever benefits or rights I get are negotiated by me in my contract, usually using previous contracts as a baseline. It's like the wild west.

There are no standardized wage minimums, legal protections of credits, standard accommodations for travel, or anything else that may be spelled out in a directing contract. It is all negotiated on an individual basis. If a director or their representation doesn't know what to ask for, I can imagine a lot of missed opportunities, financially and otherwise.

PART 2: DGA Protections

When I directed my first live-action film, The Christmas Chronicles, it was made for Netflix, a DGA signatory studio, so I happily joined the DGA. I learned that under the DGA, live-action directors are protected by a standard set of rights spelled out by their collective bargaining agreement. Because of this, every director under the DGA has the same basic rights that are so universally accepted, a live-action directing contract just includes a clause stating it will meet all of the established DGA rules. It’s that simple.

Here are some of the more interesting DGA rules...

- A director cannot be replaced by anyone assigned to the motion picture. This means you are protected from wannabe directors in the crew sniping for your job, including producers.

- The right to participate in all casting decisions.

- The right to see a script, existing casting, and budget before taking an assignment.

- The right to be consulted on all script decisions.

- A director who has overseen 100% of production may not be replaced in post.

- The right to a "Director's Cut" without interference or "cutting behind." This is a hard rule, and it literally means just the director and editor have 10 weeks to work ALONE after shooting has wrapped. (This is much harder to do in animation since production is often non-linear, but I’m pointing it out for everyone’s awareness that it exists.)

- To be present and consulted on every post-production operation. This includes mix, final color/DI, approval of VFX, composition and recording of score, editing and final output.

- Provided an office and 1st class accommodations and travel (flights over 1000 miles).

- If you direct the original film of any franchise and a sequel is made, you must be the studio’s first choice to direct that sequel. Imagine that, protecting original creators.

Some of the above may seem obvious, like getting an office or hearing the composer's music, but they wouldn't be spelled out if someone in history didn't try to take advantage.

What all these rules support is the idea that the director is the creative force behind a movie, and the belief that directors need these protections to carry out their vision.

And that's not all. The big ones...

- Health care through the DGA-Producers Health Plan.

- Contributions to a DGA pension.

- Residuals on post-theatrical exhibition and sales. Yes, RESIDUALS - the holy grail of animation creators.

There are more DGA protections, but the point is, these are ALL STANDARD.

In animation there is NO STANDARD.

And no, I'm not going to gloss over the shiniest topic - residuals. There is a basic schedule of residuals based on many factors (budget, platform, etc) but they are real. Residuals are not based on box-office, but on post-theatrical profits. Every time a live-action movie is rented, played on tv, sold as a DVD or blu-ray, the director makes money for their work.

My experience is limited. I've only had one live-action film on Netflix and one on HBOMax (now Max). But three years after the first one, The Christmas Chronicles, was released, I got a check for its run last Christmas for about $24,000. This is real money that pays real bills. And this is three years after it was released. Imagine a director who makes multiple live-action films. You could almost live off that money.

In animation, there are no residuals, unless someone has negotiated them somehow, and I'm definitely not one of those people.

The Christmas Chronicles does well on Netflix - in the Top Ten every December - but it's no juggernaut. Imagine what a blockbuster pays in residuals. Now think, animated films do HUGE box office then their life on streamers is incredible. They are watched constantly. And they are still widely purchased as physical media. BUT THERE ARE NO RESIDUALS FOR ANIMATED FILMS because their creators are not protected by a guild that enforces residual payment.

But ALL of this is established for DGA directors. This even extends to Assistant Directors (1st, 2nd, 3rd ADs), Unit Production Managers, Associate Directors, Stage Managers, and Production Associates in the DGA - something I wholly support but underscores the disparity between the two mediums.

And speaking of mediums, let me speak from experience. Directing is directing, whether you do it with actors and a camera or one frame at a time. It is the SAME skillset. Directing is guiding the writing, casting, performance, production design, camera, editing, music, sound effects, mix. There is NO difference except in how it is captured. To pretend that animation directing is somehow different (or even inferior!) from live-action directing and doesn't deserve the same protections and respect is insulting. Each medium has its own unique challenges but in the end, they are both simply a means to tell a story and move an audience.

You might wonder why I'm not advocating for TAG to create a category for directors. It's because the DGA has a 90 year head start in providing all of this with far more bargaining power. I believe that continuing to separate animation from live action, as was done with the Academy Awards creating a Best Animated Feature category and effectively making animated films an “other” category that is, with few exceptions, separate from serious consideration, would further weaken the influence and negotiating power of animation directors.

And why shouldn't the DGA recognize the directing talent behind animated films? To pretend that animation is somehow not on the same level as live-action is ridiculous. Each live-action director under the DGA shares the same protections, no matter the quality of their films. So it cannot be a matter of how good a film is. There are PLENTY of stinkers in live-action. Plus, I would argue that the quality and profitability of animated films is, on the average, much higher than live-action as a whole.

PART 3: Residuals

This isn't the most important part, but it is a sore spot.

Here are the seven animated films that made it into the TOP 10 world-wide box office over the last six years:

2022: Minions: The Rise of Gru - $890,966,065

2021: Sing 2 - $408,837,044

2020: The Croods: A New Age - $215,905,815

2019: Frozen II - $1,450,026,933, Toy Story 4 - $1,073,394,593

2018: Incredibles 2 - $1,242,805,359

2017: Despicable Me 3 - $1,034,799,409

That's a total of $6,316,735,218 for seven animated films. That's 6.3 billion dollars - with a B - and there are many more animated films if we look at TOP 50. Those are films where the directors saw NO residuals. For comparison, in 2016 the DGA paid out residuals for live-action films and television totaling approximately $300,000,000. The studios that release animated films keep all the money, while they are okay with paying every live-action director residuals on their films.

What's the difference? The difference is clout and respect. The DGA demanded recognition, led by Frank Capra, and in 1939 got it.

This is how I see the difference: Animation artists are often so grateful to do what they love, which is making art for a living, and they don't want to rock the boat. Live-action directors are historically far more vocal, and frankly, more egotistical & demanding. The live-action directors demanded respect, rights, and benefits and got it all. While animation directors were told no, these things aren’t for you, and they accepted it.

It's no accident that Frank Capra's autobiography is titled "The Name Above the Title". He knew his worth, fought for it, and got it (including his name above the title!).

Why are residuals so important?

First, the obvious: because they are paid to live-action directors, so why not animation directors? The jobs are the same. Residuals are income based on creative work.

Second, and most important, aside from being a nice check that shows up in the mail, they allow someone to pay bills while looking for the next job, and to not make a desperate decision by taking just any work. They are a cushion during the downtimes, and trust me, there are plenty of those for directors. If a live-action director makes multiple films, each film will yield residuals, which can end up being a complete income with enough success.

Musicians, actors, writers, directors all get residuals for their creative work. Animation directors NOT getting residuals (for probably more statistically successful movies) implies that animation is less important than live-action, or maybe that it requires less work or skill. From my experience, the opposite is true. Animation requires more knowledge, more focused work and attention to detail, and more time to create. I'll say it: animation is harder to create than live-action. (That doesn't mean live-action is a breeze - to make anything good in either medium is damn near impossible.)

In Hollywood, from the outside, animation is looked at like wizardry, with little understanding of how it is made. If people cared to learn, they'd see it's not that different. Maybe it's on animation directors to do more to educate, but as long as animation is looked at (and derided at the Oscars) as a babysitter for toddlers and a chore for parents to endure, it's a hard bias to overcome.

Part 4: Other Things I Didn’t Cover on Twitter

Some studios that produce animation give bonuses to their crews. This is true and always fantastic to hear that studios are sharing their success with the people who make their movies. I’ve heard of Disney giving three or four weeks pay to remaining employees after a successful film. I’ve heard of Illumination giving an impressive year’s salary to remaining employees. These bonuses are usually based on box office, and not the typical residual derived from post-theatrical receipts. The problem is, this is completely up to the discretion of the studio and it often only benefits the employees who stay with the company after the film is finished. Many people are laid off after a production and are long gone by the time these bonuses come out. These bonuses are also arbitrary in their amount or even if they are given. It’s completely up to the studio when and if they are paid. Again, I applaud those that do pay bonuses, but it should be built into the business and not a management decision. With a built in residual structure enforced by the DGA, payments are made no matter where you are working after a film is released.

Another problem comes when a film bypasses a theatrical release and goes straight to streaming, as many recent Pixar and Sony films have done. What happens then?

So, why would a live-action director direct animation, knowing they won’t get any of the benefits provided by the DGA? Many of them won’t, because of this. Some of them do and take the hit. Others do it, but under the DGA. How is this possible? The DGA will provide allowances for directors of animated films who petition to work under the DGA. I have recently learned this and need to find out more about it, but I have a feeling this is for existing DGA live-action directors, and not just any animation director who wants to join the DGA and get its protections. Also, the studio producing the film needs to agree to this, and I further suspect that those directors that get their way are already pretty powerful in Hollywood. This shouldn’t be something only the powerful get to do. Every film director should have the same rights and protections.

Another workaround I’ve heard about, is that if an animated film has one live-action shot in it, a DGA director can make it under the DGA and get the same protections of every live-action film. So, if you see an animated film by a live-action director and wonder why there was that one little bit of live-action in it, this may be the reason.

One other issue is the DGA’s stance on multiple directors. The old Frank Capra maxim “One man, one film” applies here. The DGA supports the vision of one director as a foundational pillar. In cases of a team of two directors on a film, the directors either need to establish they have a history of directing together or they must petition the DGA for allowance to direct together. Again, this is to support the notion that directing comes from a singular mind (even if it is shared by two people). The DGA does not support more than two directors, although I imagine it has come up in the past with anthology films like The Twilight Zone or Four Rooms. In those instances where there are two directors, they must agree that all decisions will be made as one, meaning they won’t split up duties on set, but work side-by-side through the entire creative process. Animated films often have two or even three directors, who sometimes split duties for efficiency, so that would need to be figured out under the DGA. (Personally, I support both directors making every decision together, as I experienced a mandated “divide and conquer” approach with The Angry Birds Movie and felt that this ultimately weakened the film - and the power of the directors.)

Part 5: How can this change?

As we are witnessing with the WGA and SAG-AFTRA strikes, effecting change often means standing up for yourself as a unified group. Animation directors getting into the DGA will not happen without the studios agreeing, and I can’t imagine the studios want to part with any money that they have historically kept for themselves.

First, Animation Directors need to be educated on the situation, and me writing this is part of that.

Second, Animation Directors need to collectively agree that joining the DGA is in their best interests and the interests of the next generation.

Third, Animation Directors need to make it clear to the DGA that they want representation as directors. They need to gain support from their live-action peers in the DGA. Then they need to organize a plan to make it happen.

Lastly, Animation Directors need to be willing to stand up for themselves and demand what is in their best interests. If they can do this, the effects will hopefully ripple across the animation industry and lead to better treatment for everyone who creates animation for a living.

Photo by Jarrod Erbe on Unsplash