Just finished Hazbin Hotel. There are some fascinating theological concepts on this show.
Like how there doesn't seem to be any sort of God at all. It's not referenced in the slightest. As far as we know, the angels made Earth themselves (no comment yet on how the rest of the universe works in this case.) I also noticed that Jesus doesn't have any sort of reference. I mean, I get it. That's a bit third rail for America, even for an M-Rated show about sympathetic singing demons from hell. And I originally thought that he didn't exist either. But then, why is St. Peter at the gates?
It's interesting that this and Good Omens are both on Amazon Prime at the same time. There's a surprising amount of overlap. I wonder if Sir Terry would have enjoyed this show?
You know what? Nanowrimo's cancelled on account of the world is stupid.
I assume Adam has to return, there's so much potential in the story of having him fall and then have to earn redemption. Plus Niffty has shown an obsession with "bad boys" and Adam's the first bad boy, plus of course she killed him, having her tormenting him could be hilarious, doubly so if he learns she's following him around because he's a "bad boy" and it's her annoying him that drives him to become a better person.
-If his bit in the story is done. Then I'd say it's pretty solid writing to kill him off. Given his behavior, I'm not sure there is a real way to write him out, without potentially creating other issues. I also think a number of writers get themselves into trouble because they create a character where people feel the character is great, so they end up to afraid to kill off or write the character out when they can no longer help the story progress. So they end up with this once important character, that is just there and people get fed up because they expect that once important character to do something.
-On the other hand, I'm hoping his part isn't complete. Given the theme that the show is going for. I'd say having him get killed off the way he did, undermines it. As someone said, if his story just ends here, it sends the message that violence is the answer or at least a reasonable answer. I personally don't like that when we're talking about redemption stories. Like I fully get that no everyone can be redeemed, but I'd rather those stories have it so that the villain self destructs. Where you do have the protagonists able to stick to their principles.
One way I could also see him coming back, if the rules are special for sinners that redeem themselves before second death. The intro never shows him eating the apple. So we could always going with the one theory of how he might have gotten into heaven because he never partook of the forbidden fruit. Thus he could never truly understand what it is to sin and that also meant that his sinful actions would never be considered sins. Anyways, the more important thing is that could create a loophole where he does respawn. He either comes back as a sinner somehow or now that Sir Pentious has redeemed himself, heaven casts Adam down to hell, where they task Charlie with the job of reforming him. Perhaps as a deal, where it's "we'll let the incident where you killed a bunch of exorcists slide, if you make an honest attempt to redeem Adam, but that fucker will remain in hell until he learns some proper morals.
Granted, we do still have Alastor, who is a much more likable character. He is clearly not a good person, so it would be a big win for the theme if Charlie somehow gets him to redeem himself. I'd say that would be a bigger deal since Alastor is self aware that he is doing ill acts. There is a real possibility where Adam just felt like he could do no wrong.
With Sir Pentious they have established that a sinner can rise to Heaven on their own merits. Something I'm sure will have a massive impact on the order of Heaven, Sera's look of absolute horror on seeing Pentious arrival is sure to be something others in Heaven will be feeling too. The fact that he materialised directly in her office rather than having to go through the Pearly Gates suggests whoever is calling the shots on what afterlife you go to wanted to make a point. If an angel can fall to Hell too, then that would both make sense and establish that Heaven isn't forever if you don't behave in a manner deserving of it, an implication that also probably weighs on Sera's mind personally for doing the "necessary" thing of letting Adam continue his annual genocide for millennia. It does lead to the question of if there really is a "double hell" like Angel Dust joked about in the pilot for sinners who die in Hell while still sinful.
If they do have Adam return I really hope that they don't just ignore all the Exterminators who died. It's far too common in fiction for the leader of the villain group to be given a shot at redemption while their followers are just killed without a second thought by the protagonists. I wonder if they'll give us a reason why the helmets the Exterminators and Adam wear have large curving horns similar to those of imps. They are the lowest group in Hell's hierarchy, and while normally sinners are much higher on the hierarchy, it would be a suitable punishment for Adam to be thrown down from the first man, leader of the Exterminators and the self appointed "dickmaster" to be cast down to the lowest of the low in Hell. It's one aspect of Hazbin I like is that while Lucifer was cast down to Hell he wasn't killed to be sent there, he was bodily cast into Hell, so he still has all his abilities as an angel. There's nothing to say any angels who actually die would have to retain any of their Heavenly abilities.
Even if they do have Adam show up and try and redeem him there's no saying he has to succeed. If he's too much of a prideful asshole, teaching Charlie that she doesn't have to fix everyone could be an important character beat for her.
I actually super dig how Overlords aren't absolute evil. Throughout the show it's shown that to be an Overlord means to hold dominion and power over people in a horrific way but how you use it and court your 'victims' can be starkly different.
The Vee's are the obvious example of the hardcore negative, they view anyone under contract as slave, gruel and idiot chump to misuse and discard in view of courting a larger group.
Alastor is a nebulous middle ground. He's used his power to do lots of fucking murder but mostly, according to the fiction, against other Overlords who might also suck. He only really pushes his power once on Husk and is shown to be affectionate to Mimzy and Nifty as far as his role will allow.
Carmilla Carmine is good, but only for those she considers of her flock. She'll sell guns to kill your family if it means she can grow her fortress.
Rosie weirdly seems the actual platonic 'good' in that she's civilized an absolutely uncivil sin and will lend her people to a cause.
It seems fitting for the show's theme that not all those who pursue monstrous power misuse it to the same extent, even in hell.
+4
Options
Golden YakBurnished BovineThe sunny beaches of CanadaRegistered Userregular
I actually super dig how Overlords aren't absolute evil. Throughout the show it's shown that to be an Overlord means to hold dominion and power over people in a horrific way but how you use it and court your 'victims' can be starkly different.
The Vee's are the obvious example of the hardcore negative, they view anyone under contract as slave, gruel and idiot chump to misuse and discard in view of courting a larger group.
Alastor is a nebulous middle ground. He's used his power to do lots of fucking murder but mostly, according to the fiction, against other Overlords who might also suck. He only really pushes his power once on Husk and is shown to be affectionate to Mimzy and Nifty as far as his role will allow.
Carmilla Carmine is good, but only for those she considers of her flock. She'll sell guns to kill your family if it means she can grow her fortress.
Rosie weirdly seems the actual platonic 'good' in that she's civilized an absolutely uncivil sin and will lend her people to a cause.
It seems fitting for the show's theme that not all those who pursue monstrous power misuse it to the same extent, even in hell.
Definitely an interesting setting with a lot of creative elements.
One neat thing about Rosie and the cannibals is that according to the lore, sinners will only permanently die if killed by angelic weapons. A sinner will regenerate from injury otherwise, even if they're completely destroyed - they'll manifest a new body eventually, just as they did when first appearing in hell. So the people the cannibals consume aren't necessarily really dead, which must soften the sin somewhat.
Honestly I think Hazbin and Helluva Bosses' big thing is less lots of concrete creative stuff and more... being very good at gesture in a powerful way.
Like they characterize abstract concepts like hell and the first man in a way that evokes so much more than is just on screen.
It's kinda like Overwatch before they abused that power to retcon characters constantly.
is not depicted as a clearly mean authoritarian place. The only straight jerk angels are the exorcists and Adam. St. Peter is super into welcoming two demons into Heaven with zero contempt. Even Sera is at least showing evidence of being driven by fear instead of hatred and seems to be trying her best despite being an antagonist.
Heaven seem to be operating under the same rules as in Lucifer (The TV show with the hot british devil): The angels and blessed have being left with a throne but don't understand it outside some vague ideas.
Which is a bit lame but works when you need to remove The Literal God Almighty from your plot.
I have to wonder if we'll find out that God does exist in the universe and that not only are they like a clock maker, as in they made the universe and then left it to it's own devices, but also is a more amped up version of Charlie when it comes to trying to see the good in others. Where some of the evil in that universe is very much a result of them being too nice, that they can't bring themselves to tell their children that they are massively fucking up. This would also be a great way to explain why Sir Pentious spawned as an angel in front of Sera and Emily. God doesn't want to directly call Sera out for her bullshit, so they tried a more subtle and nice way of telling her that she was wrong.
Honestly, could be a great way to do some character development for Charlie. Not only should she get to understand that some people can't be fixed and that's not her fault, provided she made a good faith effort to understand them, but also have an arc with both her and God realize that while it might seem mean to call people out for being shitheads, sometimes that's the first step towards helping them be better people. Point out where they are fucking up and it's also way to spot the people that are irredeemable because those are usually the ones that will strongly insist that they aren't doing anything wrong.
As I understand it (Though the sourcing may be sketchy the youtube channels that I follow for this kind of discussion are generally pretty accurate with spindle horse's content) the hierarch of heaven looks something like this:
God -> Jesus -> Elder angels -> Seraphim -> Exorcists -> blessed -> Cherubs
Again, this chain only goes as far as the elder angels who are alluded to in charlies opening dialogue so it's possible that this isn't accurate but it's not *that* unreasonable a framework for heaven's hierarchy.
As I understand it (Though the sourcing may be sketchy the youtube channels that I follow for this kind of discussion are generally pretty accurate with spindle horse's content) the hierarch of heaven looks something like this:
God -> Jesus -> Elder angels -> Seraphim -> Exorcists -> blessed -> Cherubs
Again, this chain only goes as far as the elder angels who are alluded to in charlies opening dialogue so it's possible that this isn't accurate but it's not *that* unreasonable a framework for heaven's hierarchy.
And here I thought Arianism had died out in the 4th century.
After killing or forcibly converting anyone who disagreed, theologians everywhere agree that God = Jesus = The Holy Ghost (and that they are made of the same substance, but also that Jesus was fully human and fully divine (the divine part is made of the same stuff as God/THG is)).
(I don't believe in any of this stuff, but as far as I'm aware, all major branches of Christianity subscribe to the belief that God = Jesus = The Holy Ghost (i.e., trinitariansism).)
You can kinda tell how hard they're going on European Christian fantasy by how they name the noble houses Goetia.
+4
Options
Golden YakBurnished BovineThe sunny beaches of CanadaRegistered Userregular
I always liked how Supernatural did it initially, where only the 4 top archangels had ever even met God (who stepped back from creation early on), and all the other angels were pretty much in the same boat as human believers, i.e. trying their best to understand and carry out his will.
I learned that Daphne Rubin-Vega, the voice of Carmine, has a very character-appropriate song called "Angel Now" that I desperately hope gets a remix and OVA. "Let Go of the Past" works well too. I think she has always been Carmine.
Following the death and potential resurrection of “Coyote vs. Acme,” there were screenings for interested parties. According to several people familiar with the situation, Netflix, Amazon and Paramount screened the movie (which was received well) and submitted handsome offers. Paramount even proposed a theatrical release component to their acquisition of “Coyote vs. Acme” that would allow for Warner Bros. to save face and, more importantly, let audiences see the movie the way it was meant to be experienced.
Warner Bros. did not respond to requests for comment from TheWrap.
But Warner Bros., which stood to make $35 – $40 million on the tax write-down, wanted something in the ballpark of $75 – $80 million from a buyer. And what’s more, they wouldn’t allow the interested studios to counter Warner Bros.’ offer. It was a “take it or leave it” situation, one that the other studios didn’t even know they were entering into, insiders told TheWrap.
What made the situation even more appalling is that, according to a source close to the project, the four Warner Bros. executives responsible for making this decision – CEOs and co-chairpersons of Warner Bros. Motion Picture Group Michael De Luca and Pam Abdy, along with Warner Bros. Pictures Animation president Bill Damaschke and embattled CEO and president of Warner Bros. Discovery David Zaslav – hadn’t even seen the finished version of the movie.
For what seems like the 47,000th time, fuck David Zaslav.
cloudeagle on
Switch: 3947-4890-9293
+17
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
I know literally nothing about what his job entails, and I could probably do it better.
For all of their flaws, at least the old school entertainment execs like Jack Warner and Michael Eisner actually respected the medium and wanted to make art. Zaslav is a Wall Street piker in comparison.
I know literally nothing about what his job entails, and I could probably do it better.
"This deal will let us make the same money as/more money than the tax writeoff? And it will also greatly improve our company's reputation? 'kay."
(Seriously, I've heard the whole reason WB made noise about shopping Coyote Vs. Acme is because vaulting it for no good reason caused a bunch of big-name filmmakers to get nervous and pull out of deals)
I know literally nothing about what his job entails, and I could probably do it better.
"This deal will let us make the same money as/more money than the tax writeoff? And it will also greatly improve our company's reputation? 'kay."
(Seriously, I've heard the whole reason WB made noise about shopping Coyote Vs. Acme is because vaulting it for no good reason caused a bunch of big-name filmmakers to get nervous and pull out of deals)
That's the thing. Everything points to them not negotiating in good faith. There were plenty of deals to give WB enough money to come out ahead and make it look like Zaslav had a change of heart.
But they didn't take any of those deals.
Which leaves Zaslav looking like a complete arse and gives the writers, actors, and directors more of a reason to question deals.
All opinions are my own and in no way reflect that of my employer.
Yeah, If I'm anyone in the industry I'm going to be steering clear of WB; Folks who are below the line aren't going to be able to put a vaporware film on their resume and folks above the line aren't going to be able to get any royalties from the months of work that they put into this.
Like... however much money WB thinks they're making by claiming this as a tax loss is nothing compared to the long term damage that this is going to cause to the studio's reputation, let alone the money they may very well have lost by not doing a general release.
Yeah, WB really fucked up here. It might have gotten them a big write off, but it's going to make people much less willing to work for them because the only party reaping a reward from this bullshit is WB. Everyone else is just getting screwed over.
Creatives fucking hate it when their work gets binned. Releasing work is almost more important than getting paid.
Yeah, the Art Guy for my project does a good bit of extra work for me because I'm the only one of his clients doing promos of the project so he can get exposure.
I can't imagine how he'd feel if I straight up threw out all his work and canceled the project so I could get a tax deduction.
0
Options
Ninja Snarl PMy helmet is my burden.Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered Userregular
I kinda wanna see Gunn lay down an ultimatum that the movie gets released or he takes a fucking walk on handling the DC movie franchise. If WB wants to let a single asshole exec with a vendetta absolutely destroy the efforts of hundreds of people, it'd be nice if the price was hundreds of millions or even billions in potential earnings and them having to struggle to find a decent creative to handle the DC franchise in the future.
I'm sure they're paying him quite a lot, but it's not like he needs the money.
I kinda wanna see Gunn lay down an ultimatum that the movie gets released or he takes a fucking walk on handling the DC movie franchise. If WB wants to let a single asshole exec with a vendetta absolutely destroy the efforts of hundreds of people, it'd be nice if the price was hundreds of millions or even billions in potential earnings and them having to struggle to find a decent creative to handle the DC franchise in the future.
I'm sure they're paying him quite a lot, but it's not like he needs the money.
Im sure legally he cant say anything but as I understand it most producers are livid at the shit going on right now
I have a podcast now. It's about video games and anime!Find it here.
0
Options
Ninja Snarl PMy helmet is my burden.Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered Userregular
edited February 11
The part where his name is on the movie probably doesn't help either. He hasn't even started making their DC movies yet and they're already telling him "we will happily delete a movie you spent months of intense effort on if it means a tax writeoff for us".
I kinda wanna see Gunn lay down an ultimatum that the movie gets released or he takes a fucking walk on handling the DC movie franchise. If WB wants to let a single asshole exec with a vendetta absolutely destroy the efforts of hundreds of people, it'd be nice if the price was hundreds of millions or even billions in potential earnings and them having to struggle to find a decent creative to handle the DC franchise in the future.
I'm sure they're paying him quite a lot, but it's not like he needs the money.
I feel like this is just the past details of this story, because a couple weeks/months ago basically artists/creators who were due to work with WB called them and made it very clear they had no intention of dealing with with WB if their multiyear projects could just get destroyed. It's kind of why the story is still ongoing, WB has kind of made promises that they will try to get this out. The idea that someone was going to put it in theaters and got turned down, is beyond a bad business decision.
Now they are in a position of trying to do something with a movie they already tried to say wasn't worth watching. I'm sure the price goes up now, knowing what they expected from a tax credit.
It's a lot worse than you think for anyone with a name you dont recognize in the industry, because if you go somewhere and want to show your experience, if your name isnt on a credit on a released project, you basically never did the work. Imagine being an animator out of college and this movie was your first project. Suddenly 3-4 years out of school you are applying for jobs and you just have a giant employment gap, worse if you have to say that time was spent on a movie that noone thought was worth putting out.
It's a lot worse than you think for anyone with a name you dont recognize in the industry, because if you go somewhere and want to show your experience, if your name isnt on a credit on a released project, you basically never did the work. Imagine being an animator out of college and this movie was your first project. Suddenly 3-4 years out of school you are applying for jobs and you just have a giant employment gap, worse if you have to say that time was spent on a movie that noone thought was worth putting out.
I'm kind of curious what exactly is the sequence of events and worry here. Let me go full-on naive mode and assume the best in both people and situation. You work on this movie. This movie does not release, and this news is very public and known. So now you're at another job with this on your resume. The employer is going to see that and say "Oh yeah, that's the movie they never bothered to release for a tax credit". Moreso, I would have to assume there must exist some form of concrete proof that you worked on this movie and were paid salary for it. I'd also assume this for no other reason that if the company is trying to claim tax credit for this move, they'd need some damn receipts, with your work/employment as one of those.
I don't know, people just talk with this air like you would go into an interview, say "I worked on Coyote vs Acme", and the interviewer would just do a search on IMDB and go "Hmm, this movie doesn't exist, guess I caught you lying on your resume!". Or that the way people verify one's work on a movie is to literally plug the DVD in and start scanning the credits for your name? The idea that anybody in the industry would hear you say "I worked on Coyote vs Acme" and go "...Huh?" and think you otherwise just did jack squat for 3 years sounds asinine to me.
...That being said. I know how the world actually works, and it can be a real piece of shit. I can absolutely believe an employer seeing that on your resume and saying "Well that movie never came out and I never got to see it, so for all I know maybe you're a shit animator. Pass.". But that's also a level of bullshit I'd put on that employer, and one that is also kind of a related but also separate issue to the shit WB is pulling.
The Wolfman on
"The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
It's a lot worse than you think for anyone with a name you dont recognize in the industry, because if you go somewhere and want to show your experience, if your name isnt on a credit on a released project, you basically never did the work. Imagine being an animator out of college and this movie was your first project. Suddenly 3-4 years out of school you are applying for jobs and you just have a giant employment gap, worse if you have to say that time was spent on a movie that noone thought was worth putting out.
I'm kind of curious what exactly is the sequence of events and worry here. Let me go full-on naive mode and assume the best in both people and situation. You work on this movie. This movie does not release, and this news is very public and known. So now you're at another job with this on your resume. The employer is going to see that and say "Oh yeah, that's the movie they never bothered to release for a tax credit". Moreso, I would have to assume there must exist some form of concrete proof that you worked on this movie and were paid salary for it. I'd also assume this for no other reason that if the company is trying to claim tax credit for this move, they'd need some damn receipts, with your work/employment as one of those.
I don't know, people just talk with this air like you would go into an interview, say "I worked on Coyote vs Acme", and the interviewer would just do a search on IMDB and go "Hmm, this movie doesn't exist, guess I caught you lying on your resume!". Or that the way people verify one's work on a movie is to literally plug the DVD in and start scanning the credits for your name? The idea that anybody in the industry would hear you say "I worked on Coyote vs Acme" and go "...Huh?" and think you otherwise just did jack squat for 3 years sounds asinine to me.
...That being said. I know how the world actually works, and it can be a real piece of shit. I can absolutely believe an employer seeing that on your resume and saying "Well that movie never came out and I never got to see it, so for all I know maybe you're a shit animator. Pass.". But that's also a level of bullshit I'd put on that employer, and one that is also kind of a related but also separate issue to the shit WB is pulling.
To my feeling, it’d be a combo of all those things. There’s no proof if there’s no comprehensive credits. Also, no scenes a person can point to and say “yeah, I did that” or “I cleaned up this sequence by this or that technique.” It’s just a shit situation all around for everyone except the out-of-touch management people that seem to have made this decision utterly capriciously.
It's a lot worse than you think for anyone with a name you dont recognize in the industry, because if you go somewhere and want to show your experience, if your name isnt on a credit on a released project, you basically never did the work. Imagine being an animator out of college and this movie was your first project. Suddenly 3-4 years out of school you are applying for jobs and you just have a giant employment gap, worse if you have to say that time was spent on a movie that noone thought was worth putting out.
I'm kind of curious what exactly is the sequence of events and worry here. Let me go full-on naive mode and assume the best in both people and situation. You work on this movie. This movie does not release, and this news is very public and known. So now you're at another job with this on your resume. The employer is going to see that and say "Oh yeah, that's the movie they never bothered to release for a tax credit". Moreso, I would have to assume there must exist some form of concrete proof that you worked on this movie and were paid salary for it. I'd also assume this for no other reason that if the company is trying to claim tax credit for this move, they'd need some damn receipts, with your work/employment as one of those.
I don't know, people just talk with this air like you would go into an interview, say "I worked on Coyote vs Acme", and the interviewer would just do a search on IMDB and go "Hmm, this movie doesn't exist, guess I caught you lying on your resume!". Or that the way people verify one's work on a movie is to literally plug the DVD in and start scanning the credits for your name? The idea that anybody in the industry would hear you say "I worked on Coyote vs Acme" and go "...Huh?" and think you otherwise just did jack squat for 3 years sounds asinine to me.
...That being said. I know how the world actually works, and it can be a real piece of shit. I can absolutely believe an employer seeing that on your resume and saying "Well that movie never came out and I never got to see it, so for all I know maybe you're a shit animator. Pass.". But that's also a level of bullshit I'd put on that employer, and one that is also kind of a related but also separate issue to the shit WB is pulling.
To my feeling, it’d be a combo of all those things. There’s no proof if there’s no comprehensive credits. Also, no scenes a person can point to and say “yeah, I did that” or “I cleaned up this sequence by this or that technique.” It’s just a shit situation all around for everyone except the out-of-touch management people that seem to have made this decision utterly capriciously.
"Comprehensive credits" I think is where I raise an eyebrow then. I've always kind of mulled over how important the credits roll at the end of a movie/game really are. On the one hand it is obviously important. Of course. At the same time it's not the sole primary record. Like I said, companies aren't literally punching up the credits and blind searching for your name. This record exists elsewhere. And they get this information elsewhere. The credit roll at the end of a movie/game serves almost no purpose except for the audience. And the audience isn't paying any damn attention outside producer/director/actors. So tell me you couldn't just... get rid of them and nothing would functionally matter at all. I'm not really arguing we should get rid of them. And if anything they probably serve as final concrete proof of work. ...Except in cases where companies literally remove people from credits, but that's its own can of worms. I've just sat through credits of games where they're 20 minutes long. And in the middle of this American produced game, when they're crediting the financial department of their Korean branch, I wonder... surely this vital information is recorded elsewhere and more reliably accessed from there. Nobody is seriously looking specifically at this specific instance of it... except me because I'm an idiot. So does it *need* to be here?
To maybe put it another way, I remember how when Star Wars first came out, it was apparently a *big fucking deal* that it did not have opening credits listing the producer/director/actors/ect. "No you have to have them, it's real fucking important they be there!". But Lucas pushed hard to not have them, for "cinematic vision" and all that. And as it turns out, it really wasn't all that important they be there after all, and it shifted the whole industry paradigm. Movies today have absolutely no intro credits.
"The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
Well, the Coyote vs. Acme situation just got shittier. It turns out they already took the tax writeoff for the thing, and they're pretty much just pretending to shop the movie around to try to save face.
“No one is doing anything at Warners to push this film for a sale,” says a source close to production.
So unless someone's willing to cough up $70 million, Warner will lose money on this.
It's a lot worse than you think for anyone with a name you dont recognize in the industry, because if you go somewhere and want to show your experience, if your name isnt on a credit on a released project, you basically never did the work. Imagine being an animator out of college and this movie was your first project. Suddenly 3-4 years out of school you are applying for jobs and you just have a giant employment gap, worse if you have to say that time was spent on a movie that noone thought was worth putting out.
I'm kind of curious what exactly is the sequence of events and worry here. Let me go full-on naive mode and assume the best in both people and situation. You work on this movie. This movie does not release, and this news is very public and known. So now you're at another job with this on your resume. The employer is going to see that and say "Oh yeah, that's the movie they never bothered to release for a tax credit". Moreso, I would have to assume there must exist some form of concrete proof that you worked on this movie and were paid salary for it. I'd also assume this for no other reason that if the company is trying to claim tax credit for this move, they'd need some damn receipts, with your work/employment as one of those.
I don't know, people just talk with this air like you would go into an interview, say "I worked on Coyote vs Acme", and the interviewer would just do a search on IMDB and go "Hmm, this movie doesn't exist, guess I caught you lying on your resume!". Or that the way people verify one's work on a movie is to literally plug the DVD in and start scanning the credits for your name? The idea that anybody in the industry would hear you say "I worked on Coyote vs Acme" and go "...Huh?" and think you otherwise just did jack squat for 3 years sounds asinine to me.
...That being said. I know how the world actually works, and it can be a real piece of shit. I can absolutely believe an employer seeing that on your resume and saying "Well that movie never came out and I never got to see it, so for all I know maybe you're a shit animator. Pass.". But that's also a level of bullshit I'd put on that employer, and one that is also kind of a related but also separate issue to the shit WB is pulling.
To my feeling, it’d be a combo of all those things. There’s no proof if there’s no comprehensive credits. Also, no scenes a person can point to and say “yeah, I did that” or “I cleaned up this sequence by this or that technique.” It’s just a shit situation all around for everyone except the out-of-touch management people that seem to have made this decision utterly capriciously.
"Comprehensive credits" I think is where I raise an eyebrow then. I've always kind of mulled over how important the credits roll at the end of a movie/game really are. On the one hand it is obviously important. Of course. At the same time it's not the sole primary record. Like I said, companies aren't literally punching up the credits and blind searching for your name. This record exists elsewhere. And they get this information elsewhere. The credit roll at the end of a movie/game serves almost no purpose except for the audience. And the audience isn't paying any damn attention outside producer/director/actors. So tell me you couldn't just... get rid of them and nothing would functionally matter at all. I'm not really arguing we should get rid of them. And if anything they probably serve as final concrete proof of work. ...Except in cases where companies literally remove people from credits, but that's its own can of worms. I've just sat through credits of games where they're 20 minutes long. And in the middle of this American produced game, when they're crediting the financial department of their Korean branch, I wonder... surely this vital information is recorded elsewhere and more reliably accessed from there. Nobody is seriously looking specifically at this specific instance of it... except me because I'm an idiot. So does it *need* to be here?
To maybe put it another way, I remember how when Star Wars first came out, it was apparently a *big fucking deal* that it did not have opening credits listing the producer/director/actors/ect. "No you have to have them, it's real fucking important they be there!". But Lucas pushed hard to not have them, for "cinematic vision" and all that. And as it turns out, it really wasn't all that important they be there after all, and it shifted the whole industry paradigm. Movies today have absolutely no intro credits.
Yeah, I don't get it either. I understand the difficulty of showing an example of the work ("I did the physics on Wile E.'s fur"), but I don't understand the lack of proof of work.
I hire people IRL. Their resume claimed they worked at some company (e.g., Siemens). There's no movie with credits at the end proving they worked there. That doesn't mean I just assume that they're lying.
It's a lot worse than you think for anyone with a name you dont recognize in the industry, because if you go somewhere and want to show your experience, if your name isnt on a credit on a released project, you basically never did the work. Imagine being an animator out of college and this movie was your first project. Suddenly 3-4 years out of school you are applying for jobs and you just have a giant employment gap, worse if you have to say that time was spent on a movie that noone thought was worth putting out.
I'm kind of curious what exactly is the sequence of events and worry here. Let me go full-on naive mode and assume the best in both people and situation. You work on this movie. This movie does not release, and this news is very public and known. So now you're at another job with this on your resume. The employer is going to see that and say "Oh yeah, that's the movie they never bothered to release for a tax credit". Moreso, I would have to assume there must exist some form of concrete proof that you worked on this movie and were paid salary for it. I'd also assume this for no other reason that if the company is trying to claim tax credit for this move, they'd need some damn receipts, with your work/employment as one of those.
I don't know, people just talk with this air like you would go into an interview, say "I worked on Coyote vs Acme", and the interviewer would just do a search on IMDB and go "Hmm, this movie doesn't exist, guess I caught you lying on your resume!". Or that the way people verify one's work on a movie is to literally plug the DVD in and start scanning the credits for your name? The idea that anybody in the industry would hear you say "I worked on Coyote vs Acme" and go "...Huh?" and think you otherwise just did jack squat for 3 years sounds asinine to me.
...That being said. I know how the world actually works, and it can be a real piece of shit. I can absolutely believe an employer seeing that on your resume and saying "Well that movie never came out and I never got to see it, so for all I know maybe you're a shit animator. Pass.". But that's also a level of bullshit I'd put on that employer, and one that is also kind of a related but also separate issue to the shit WB is pulling.
To my feeling, it’d be a combo of all those things. There’s no proof if there’s no comprehensive credits. Also, no scenes a person can point to and say “yeah, I did that” or “I cleaned up this sequence by this or that technique.” It’s just a shit situation all around for everyone except the out-of-touch management people that seem to have made this decision utterly capriciously.
"Comprehensive credits" I think is where I raise an eyebrow then. I've always kind of mulled over how important the credits roll at the end of a movie/game really are. On the one hand it is obviously important. Of course. At the same time it's not the sole primary record. Like I said, companies aren't literally punching up the credits and blind searching for your name. This record exists elsewhere. And they get this information elsewhere. The credit roll at the end of a movie/game serves almost no purpose except for the audience. And the audience isn't paying any damn attention outside producer/director/actors. So tell me you couldn't just... get rid of them and nothing would functionally matter at all. I'm not really arguing we should get rid of them. And if anything they probably serve as final concrete proof of work. ...Except in cases where companies literally remove people from credits, but that's its own can of worms. I've just sat through credits of games where they're 20 minutes long. And in the middle of this American produced game, when they're crediting the financial department of their Korean branch, I wonder... surely this vital information is recorded elsewhere and more reliably accessed from there. Nobody is seriously looking specifically at this specific instance of it... except me because I'm an idiot. So does it *need* to be here?
To maybe put it another way, I remember how when Star Wars first came out, it was apparently a *big fucking deal* that it did not have opening credits listing the producer/director/actors/ect. "No you have to have them, it's real fucking important they be there!". But Lucas pushed hard to not have them, for "cinematic vision" and all that. And as it turns out, it really wasn't all that important they be there after all, and it shifted the whole industry paradigm. Movies today have absolutely no intro credits.
Yeah, I don't get it either. I understand the difficulty of showing an example of the work ("I did the physics on Wile E.'s fur"), but I don't understand the lack of proof of work.
I hire people IRL. Their resume claimed they worked at some company (e.g., Siemens). There's no movie with credits at the end proving they worked there. That doesn't mean I just assume that they're lying.
"Why should I hire you over Sally, when I can see Sally's work and I can't see yours."
It's a lot worse than you think for anyone with a name you dont recognize in the industry, because if you go somewhere and want to show your experience, if your name isnt on a credit on a released project, you basically never did the work. Imagine being an animator out of college and this movie was your first project. Suddenly 3-4 years out of school you are applying for jobs and you just have a giant employment gap, worse if you have to say that time was spent on a movie that noone thought was worth putting out.
I'm kind of curious what exactly is the sequence of events and worry here. Let me go full-on naive mode and assume the best in both people and situation. You work on this movie. This movie does not release, and this news is very public and known. So now you're at another job with this on your resume. The employer is going to see that and say "Oh yeah, that's the movie they never bothered to release for a tax credit". Moreso, I would have to assume there must exist some form of concrete proof that you worked on this movie and were paid salary for it. I'd also assume this for no other reason that if the company is trying to claim tax credit for this move, they'd need some damn receipts, with your work/employment as one of those.
I don't know, people just talk with this air like you would go into an interview, say "I worked on Coyote vs Acme", and the interviewer would just do a search on IMDB and go "Hmm, this movie doesn't exist, guess I caught you lying on your resume!". Or that the way people verify one's work on a movie is to literally plug the DVD in and start scanning the credits for your name? The idea that anybody in the industry would hear you say "I worked on Coyote vs Acme" and go "...Huh?" and think you otherwise just did jack squat for 3 years sounds asinine to me.
...That being said. I know how the world actually works, and it can be a real piece of shit. I can absolutely believe an employer seeing that on your resume and saying "Well that movie never came out and I never got to see it, so for all I know maybe you're a shit animator. Pass.". But that's also a level of bullshit I'd put on that employer, and one that is also kind of a related but also separate issue to the shit WB is pulling.
To my feeling, it’d be a combo of all those things. There’s no proof if there’s no comprehensive credits. Also, no scenes a person can point to and say “yeah, I did that” or “I cleaned up this sequence by this or that technique.” It’s just a shit situation all around for everyone except the out-of-touch management people that seem to have made this decision utterly capriciously.
"Comprehensive credits" I think is where I raise an eyebrow then. I've always kind of mulled over how important the credits roll at the end of a movie/game really are. On the one hand it is obviously important. Of course. At the same time it's not the sole primary record. Like I said, companies aren't literally punching up the credits and blind searching for your name. This record exists elsewhere. And they get this information elsewhere. The credit roll at the end of a movie/game serves almost no purpose except for the audience. And the audience isn't paying any damn attention outside producer/director/actors. So tell me you couldn't just... get rid of them and nothing would functionally matter at all. I'm not really arguing we should get rid of them. And if anything they probably serve as final concrete proof of work. ...Except in cases where companies literally remove people from credits, but that's its own can of worms. I've just sat through credits of games where they're 20 minutes long. And in the middle of this American produced game, when they're crediting the financial department of their Korean branch, I wonder... surely this vital information is recorded elsewhere and more reliably accessed from there. Nobody is seriously looking specifically at this specific instance of it... except me because I'm an idiot. So does it *need* to be here?
To maybe put it another way, I remember how when Star Wars first came out, it was apparently a *big fucking deal* that it did not have opening credits listing the producer/director/actors/ect. "No you have to have them, it's real fucking important they be there!". But Lucas pushed hard to not have them, for "cinematic vision" and all that. And as it turns out, it really wasn't all that important they be there after all, and it shifted the whole industry paradigm. Movies today have absolutely no intro credits.
Yeah, I don't get it either. I understand the difficulty of showing an example of the work ("I did the physics on Wile E.'s fur"), but I don't understand the lack of proof of work.
I hire people IRL. Their resume claimed they worked at some company (e.g., Siemens). There's no movie with credits at the end proving they worked there. That doesn't mean I just assume that they're lying.
"Why should I hire you over Sally, when I can see Sally's work and I can't see yours."
This.
The issue is that when an employer is looking at multiple resumes for a project and that project costs a shit ton of money and takes a long fucking time. It matters a fucking lot to be able to show one's work and show that it is good. In the above example, you are fucked because I as the guy doing the hiring have to look at you being an unknown, even if you had work before Wiley Coyote Vs ACME because nothing is a constant. For all I know you didn't adapt well to changes in technology and your work product has either stagnated or gotten worse. I as the person doing hiring, will not want to be in a position where I get shit canned months down the line because the project ends up being bad and it will be harder for me to recover if it turns out that I opted to pick unknowns; especially, if I had access to known factors like Sally, who could show they were still producing solid work.
That's the rub here for people that need this for a resume. They have no way to prove they have good skills and in fact someone could see that they worked on Wiley Coyote Vs ACME. See that it got shit canned and if they don't do their research, they might conclude that "Hey, maybe the people that worked on this film, we really bad at their job. Hiring them is a bad idea." So this actually creates an incentive for those people that got fucked over by this deal, to opt to leave "worked on Wiley Coyote Vs ACM" of their resume and try to explain the gap in history without ever bringing up the film.
Also I'm sure @AngelHedgie could give you a good run down on how there was a huge fucking fight in the past to force the movie industry to properly credit their people and not be able to weaponize the credits section against those they didn't like. He might even give you a run down of just how shitty that practice is currently in the gaming industry.
Like trying to find work fucking sucks and most people need to be able to list every bit they can on their resume to maybe get through that bullshit; especially, if they don't have unique skills that are coveted, have a bit well known name or a well established name.
It's a lot worse than you think for anyone with a name you dont recognize in the industry, because if you go somewhere and want to show your experience, if your name isnt on a credit on a released project, you basically never did the work. Imagine being an animator out of college and this movie was your first project. Suddenly 3-4 years out of school you are applying for jobs and you just have a giant employment gap, worse if you have to say that time was spent on a movie that noone thought was worth putting out.
I'm kind of curious what exactly is the sequence of events and worry here. Let me go full-on naive mode and assume the best in both people and situation. You work on this movie. This movie does not release, and this news is very public and known. So now you're at another job with this on your resume. The employer is going to see that and say "Oh yeah, that's the movie they never bothered to release for a tax credit". Moreso, I would have to assume there must exist some form of concrete proof that you worked on this movie and were paid salary for it. I'd also assume this for no other reason that if the company is trying to claim tax credit for this move, they'd need some damn receipts, with your work/employment as one of those.
I don't know, people just talk with this air like you would go into an interview, say "I worked on Coyote vs Acme", and the interviewer would just do a search on IMDB and go "Hmm, this movie doesn't exist, guess I caught you lying on your resume!". Or that the way people verify one's work on a movie is to literally plug the DVD in and start scanning the credits for your name? The idea that anybody in the industry would hear you say "I worked on Coyote vs Acme" and go "...Huh?" and think you otherwise just did jack squat for 3 years sounds asinine to me.
...That being said. I know how the world actually works, and it can be a real piece of shit. I can absolutely believe an employer seeing that on your resume and saying "Well that movie never came out and I never got to see it, so for all I know maybe you're a shit animator. Pass.". But that's also a level of bullshit I'd put on that employer, and one that is also kind of a related but also separate issue to the shit WB is pulling.
To my feeling, it’d be a combo of all those things. There’s no proof if there’s no comprehensive credits. Also, no scenes a person can point to and say “yeah, I did that” or “I cleaned up this sequence by this or that technique.” It’s just a shit situation all around for everyone except the out-of-touch management people that seem to have made this decision utterly capriciously.
"Comprehensive credits" I think is where I raise an eyebrow then. I've always kind of mulled over how important the credits roll at the end of a movie/game really are. On the one hand it is obviously important. Of course. At the same time it's not the sole primary record. Like I said, companies aren't literally punching up the credits and blind searching for your name. This record exists elsewhere. And they get this information elsewhere. The credit roll at the end of a movie/game serves almost no purpose except for the audience. And the audience isn't paying any damn attention outside producer/director/actors. So tell me you couldn't just... get rid of them and nothing would functionally matter at all. I'm not really arguing we should get rid of them. And if anything they probably serve as final concrete proof of work. ...Except in cases where companies literally remove people from credits, but that's its own can of worms. I've just sat through credits of games where they're 20 minutes long. And in the middle of this American produced game, when they're crediting the financial department of their Korean branch, I wonder... surely this vital information is recorded elsewhere and more reliably accessed from there. Nobody is seriously looking specifically at this specific instance of it... except me because I'm an idiot. So does it *need* to be here?
To maybe put it another way, I remember how when Star Wars first came out, it was apparently a *big fucking deal* that it did not have opening credits listing the producer/director/actors/ect. "No you have to have them, it's real fucking important they be there!". But Lucas pushed hard to not have them, for "cinematic vision" and all that. And as it turns out, it really wasn't all that important they be there after all, and it shifted the whole industry paradigm. Movies today have absolutely no intro credits.
Yeah, I don't get it either. I understand the difficulty of showing an example of the work ("I did the physics on Wile E.'s fur"), but I don't understand the lack of proof of work.
I hire people IRL. Their resume claimed they worked at some company (e.g., Siemens). There's no movie with credits at the end proving they worked there. That doesn't mean I just assume that they're lying.
"Why should I hire you over Sally, when I can see Sally's work and I can't see yours."
This doesn't translate perfectly because work on this level is a collaboration. Sally isn't going in with a copy of Lord of the Rings and going "Ok pause at 1:24:56. See that orc in the top middle of the screen? I animated that.".
I get that somebody would absolutely say that. But that doesn't mean what they said is right.
If you're an employer and you say that to Sally, while also knowing full well the situation regarding WB and this movie... do you see yourself as the good guy here?
"The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
0
Options
Ninja Snarl PMy helmet is my burden.Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered Userregular
Credits were a much much bigger deal back when the only effective way for people to see what you worked on was to have your name in the credits. Back at the start of cinema, there was obviously no IMDB with an extensive list of the material Key Grip #3 worked on in Summer Blockbuster: Part Pants. So the guilds/unions got together to force credits as the standard because that's how you could make sure people knew what you worked on. That goes for the leading credits as well; Peter Jackson actually had to fight to get the LotR movies to begin without credits because he felt they interfered with the start of the films.
Nowadays they're pretty worthless and just eat budget and runtime because anybody can hop on the internet and see everybody involved, plus their history and details. But the union rules hold, so we still have credits.
Posts
It's interesting that this and Good Omens are both on Amazon Prime at the same time. There's a surprising amount of overlap. I wonder if Sir Terry would have enjoyed this show?
I'm of two minds with Adam.
-On the other hand, I'm hoping his part isn't complete. Given the theme that the show is going for. I'd say having him get killed off the way he did, undermines it. As someone said, if his story just ends here, it sends the message that violence is the answer or at least a reasonable answer. I personally don't like that when we're talking about redemption stories. Like I fully get that no everyone can be redeemed, but I'd rather those stories have it so that the villain self destructs. Where you do have the protagonists able to stick to their principles.
One way I could also see him coming back, if the rules are special for sinners that redeem themselves before second death. The intro never shows him eating the apple. So we could always going with the one theory of how he might have gotten into heaven because he never partook of the forbidden fruit. Thus he could never truly understand what it is to sin and that also meant that his sinful actions would never be considered sins. Anyways, the more important thing is that could create a loophole where he does respawn. He either comes back as a sinner somehow or now that Sir Pentious has redeemed himself, heaven casts Adam down to hell, where they task Charlie with the job of reforming him. Perhaps as a deal, where it's "we'll let the incident where you killed a bunch of exorcists slide, if you make an honest attempt to redeem Adam, but that fucker will remain in hell until he learns some proper morals.
Granted, we do still have Alastor, who is a much more likable character. He is clearly not a good person, so it would be a big win for the theme if Charlie somehow gets him to redeem himself. I'd say that would be a bigger deal since Alastor is self aware that he is doing ill acts. There is a real possibility where Adam just felt like he could do no wrong.
If they do have Adam return I really hope that they don't just ignore all the Exterminators who died. It's far too common in fiction for the leader of the villain group to be given a shot at redemption while their followers are just killed without a second thought by the protagonists. I wonder if they'll give us a reason why the helmets the Exterminators and Adam wear have large curving horns similar to those of imps. They are the lowest group in Hell's hierarchy, and while normally sinners are much higher on the hierarchy, it would be a suitable punishment for Adam to be thrown down from the first man, leader of the Exterminators and the self appointed "dickmaster" to be cast down to the lowest of the low in Hell. It's one aspect of Hazbin I like is that while Lucifer was cast down to Hell he wasn't killed to be sent there, he was bodily cast into Hell, so he still has all his abilities as an angel. There's nothing to say any angels who actually die would have to retain any of their Heavenly abilities.
Even if they do have Adam show up and try and redeem him there's no saying he has to succeed. If he's too much of a prideful asshole, teaching Charlie that she doesn't have to fix everyone could be an important character beat for her.
The Vee's are the obvious example of the hardcore negative, they view anyone under contract as slave, gruel and idiot chump to misuse and discard in view of courting a larger group.
Alastor is a nebulous middle ground. He's used his power to do lots of fucking murder but mostly, according to the fiction, against other Overlords who might also suck. He only really pushes his power once on Husk and is shown to be affectionate to Mimzy and Nifty as far as his role will allow.
Carmilla Carmine is good, but only for those she considers of her flock. She'll sell guns to kill your family if it means she can grow her fortress.
Rosie weirdly seems the actual platonic 'good' in that she's civilized an absolutely uncivil sin and will lend her people to a cause.
It seems fitting for the show's theme that not all those who pursue monstrous power misuse it to the same extent, even in hell.
Definitely an interesting setting with a lot of creative elements.
Like they characterize abstract concepts like hell and the first man in a way that evokes so much more than is just on screen.
It's kinda like Overwatch before they abused that power to retcon characters constantly.
Which is a bit lame but works when you need to remove The Literal God Almighty from your plot.
Honestly, could be a great way to do some character development for Charlie. Not only should she get to understand that some people can't be fixed and that's not her fault, provided she made a good faith effort to understand them, but also have an arc with both her and God realize that while it might seem mean to call people out for being shitheads, sometimes that's the first step towards helping them be better people. Point out where they are fucking up and it's also way to spot the people that are irredeemable because those are usually the ones that will strongly insist that they aren't doing anything wrong.
God -> Jesus -> Elder angels -> Seraphim -> Exorcists -> blessed -> Cherubs
Again, this chain only goes as far as the elder angels who are alluded to in charlies opening dialogue so it's possible that this isn't accurate but it's not *that* unreasonable a framework for heaven's hierarchy.
You can see the degredation of fucks that tatto artist had.
And here I thought Arianism had died out in the 4th century.
After killing or forcibly converting anyone who disagreed, theologians everywhere agree that God = Jesus = The Holy Ghost (and that they are made of the same substance, but also that Jesus was fully human and fully divine (the divine part is made of the same stuff as God/THG is)).
(I don't believe in any of this stuff, but as far as I'm aware, all major branches of Christianity subscribe to the belief that God = Jesus = The Holy Ghost (i.e., trinitariansism).)
It's looking pretty goddamn bad for Coyote vs. Acme. (Yes, that's a screengrab from the movie)
For what seems like the 47,000th time, fuck David Zaslav.
"This deal will let us make the same money as/more money than the tax writeoff? And it will also greatly improve our company's reputation? 'kay."
(Seriously, I've heard the whole reason WB made noise about shopping Coyote Vs. Acme is because vaulting it for no good reason caused a bunch of big-name filmmakers to get nervous and pull out of deals)
That's the thing. Everything points to them not negotiating in good faith. There were plenty of deals to give WB enough money to come out ahead and make it look like Zaslav had a change of heart.
But they didn't take any of those deals.
Which leaves Zaslav looking like a complete arse and gives the writers, actors, and directors more of a reason to question deals.
Like... however much money WB thinks they're making by claiming this as a tax loss is nothing compared to the long term damage that this is going to cause to the studio's reputation, let alone the money they may very well have lost by not doing a general release.
Yeah, the Art Guy for my project does a good bit of extra work for me because I'm the only one of his clients doing promos of the project so he can get exposure.
I can't imagine how he'd feel if I straight up threw out all his work and canceled the project so I could get a tax deduction.
I'm sure they're paying him quite a lot, but it's not like he needs the money.
Im sure legally he cant say anything but as I understand it most producers are livid at the shit going on right now
I can't understand why the next part of that law isn't "Well now the tax payer has paid for it, so lets see this 'failure' "
I feel like this is just the past details of this story, because a couple weeks/months ago basically artists/creators who were due to work with WB called them and made it very clear they had no intention of dealing with with WB if their multiyear projects could just get destroyed. It's kind of why the story is still ongoing, WB has kind of made promises that they will try to get this out. The idea that someone was going to put it in theaters and got turned down, is beyond a bad business decision.
Now they are in a position of trying to do something with a movie they already tried to say wasn't worth watching. I'm sure the price goes up now, knowing what they expected from a tax credit.
It's a lot worse than you think for anyone with a name you dont recognize in the industry, because if you go somewhere and want to show your experience, if your name isnt on a credit on a released project, you basically never did the work. Imagine being an animator out of college and this movie was your first project. Suddenly 3-4 years out of school you are applying for jobs and you just have a giant employment gap, worse if you have to say that time was spent on a movie that noone thought was worth putting out.
I'm kind of curious what exactly is the sequence of events and worry here. Let me go full-on naive mode and assume the best in both people and situation. You work on this movie. This movie does not release, and this news is very public and known. So now you're at another job with this on your resume. The employer is going to see that and say "Oh yeah, that's the movie they never bothered to release for a tax credit". Moreso, I would have to assume there must exist some form of concrete proof that you worked on this movie and were paid salary for it. I'd also assume this for no other reason that if the company is trying to claim tax credit for this move, they'd need some damn receipts, with your work/employment as one of those.
I don't know, people just talk with this air like you would go into an interview, say "I worked on Coyote vs Acme", and the interviewer would just do a search on IMDB and go "Hmm, this movie doesn't exist, guess I caught you lying on your resume!". Or that the way people verify one's work on a movie is to literally plug the DVD in and start scanning the credits for your name? The idea that anybody in the industry would hear you say "I worked on Coyote vs Acme" and go "...Huh?" and think you otherwise just did jack squat for 3 years sounds asinine to me.
...That being said. I know how the world actually works, and it can be a real piece of shit. I can absolutely believe an employer seeing that on your resume and saying "Well that movie never came out and I never got to see it, so for all I know maybe you're a shit animator. Pass.". But that's also a level of bullshit I'd put on that employer, and one that is also kind of a related but also separate issue to the shit WB is pulling.
To my feeling, it’d be a combo of all those things. There’s no proof if there’s no comprehensive credits. Also, no scenes a person can point to and say “yeah, I did that” or “I cleaned up this sequence by this or that technique.” It’s just a shit situation all around for everyone except the out-of-touch management people that seem to have made this decision utterly capriciously.
"Comprehensive credits" I think is where I raise an eyebrow then. I've always kind of mulled over how important the credits roll at the end of a movie/game really are. On the one hand it is obviously important. Of course. At the same time it's not the sole primary record. Like I said, companies aren't literally punching up the credits and blind searching for your name. This record exists elsewhere. And they get this information elsewhere. The credit roll at the end of a movie/game serves almost no purpose except for the audience. And the audience isn't paying any damn attention outside producer/director/actors. So tell me you couldn't just... get rid of them and nothing would functionally matter at all. I'm not really arguing we should get rid of them. And if anything they probably serve as final concrete proof of work. ...Except in cases where companies literally remove people from credits, but that's its own can of worms. I've just sat through credits of games where they're 20 minutes long. And in the middle of this American produced game, when they're crediting the financial department of their Korean branch, I wonder... surely this vital information is recorded elsewhere and more reliably accessed from there. Nobody is seriously looking specifically at this specific instance of it... except me because I'm an idiot. So does it *need* to be here?
To maybe put it another way, I remember how when Star Wars first came out, it was apparently a *big fucking deal* that it did not have opening credits listing the producer/director/actors/ect. "No you have to have them, it's real fucking important they be there!". But Lucas pushed hard to not have them, for "cinematic vision" and all that. And as it turns out, it really wasn't all that important they be there after all, and it shifted the whole industry paradigm. Movies today have absolutely no intro credits.
So unless someone's willing to cough up $70 million, Warner will lose money on this.
Yeah, I don't get it either. I understand the difficulty of showing an example of the work ("I did the physics on Wile E.'s fur"), but I don't understand the lack of proof of work.
I hire people IRL. Their resume claimed they worked at some company (e.g., Siemens). There's no movie with credits at the end proving they worked there. That doesn't mean I just assume that they're lying.
"Why should I hire you over Sally, when I can see Sally's work and I can't see yours."
This.
The issue is that when an employer is looking at multiple resumes for a project and that project costs a shit ton of money and takes a long fucking time. It matters a fucking lot to be able to show one's work and show that it is good. In the above example, you are fucked because I as the guy doing the hiring have to look at you being an unknown, even if you had work before Wiley Coyote Vs ACME because nothing is a constant. For all I know you didn't adapt well to changes in technology and your work product has either stagnated or gotten worse. I as the person doing hiring, will not want to be in a position where I get shit canned months down the line because the project ends up being bad and it will be harder for me to recover if it turns out that I opted to pick unknowns; especially, if I had access to known factors like Sally, who could show they were still producing solid work.
That's the rub here for people that need this for a resume. They have no way to prove they have good skills and in fact someone could see that they worked on Wiley Coyote Vs ACME. See that it got shit canned and if they don't do their research, they might conclude that "Hey, maybe the people that worked on this film, we really bad at their job. Hiring them is a bad idea." So this actually creates an incentive for those people that got fucked over by this deal, to opt to leave "worked on Wiley Coyote Vs ACM" of their resume and try to explain the gap in history without ever bringing up the film.
Also I'm sure @AngelHedgie could give you a good run down on how there was a huge fucking fight in the past to force the movie industry to properly credit their people and not be able to weaponize the credits section against those they didn't like. He might even give you a run down of just how shitty that practice is currently in the gaming industry.
Like trying to find work fucking sucks and most people need to be able to list every bit they can on their resume to maybe get through that bullshit; especially, if they don't have unique skills that are coveted, have a bit well known name or a well established name.
This doesn't translate perfectly because work on this level is a collaboration. Sally isn't going in with a copy of Lord of the Rings and going "Ok pause at 1:24:56. See that orc in the top middle of the screen? I animated that.".
I get that somebody would absolutely say that. But that doesn't mean what they said is right.
If you're an employer and you say that to Sally, while also knowing full well the situation regarding WB and this movie... do you see yourself as the good guy here?
Nowadays they're pretty worthless and just eat budget and runtime because anybody can hop on the internet and see everybody involved, plus their history and details. But the union rules hold, so we still have credits.