Bad Economy Creates Lost Jobs

Duh!
Well, in this case, the lost jobs deal with movies and is coming straight from one of the major studios, Warner Brothers.

Warner Brothers will be laying off 800 employees (a lot are going to be outsourced). This accounts for 10 percent of the workforce of WB (which totals 8,000).

The official memo from WB states, "This was a very difficult decision to make, and one that was not made easily. Despite the fact that the company performed solidly in 2008, this decision reflects changes necessary for stability and growth going forward. The changing entertainment business landscape, shifting consumer demand and the overall state of the economy have affected companies around the world, and Warner Bros. is not immune to these factors.

We have examined every aspect of our business in order to cut costs responsibly and to keep staff reductions to a minimum. One way to achieve these objectives is to outsource certain job functions to a third-party company. To that end, we will be outsourcing the U.S.-based components of certain parts of MIS and accounts payable. This initiative, as well as the ongoing analysis of our global MIS and finance and accounting structures, will be explained in more detail to those business groups directly impacted."

So what exactly will happen to these 800 jobs?
Nikki Finke from Deadline Hollywood Daily reports, "The 800 positions break down as follows: 200 open positions around the world; 300 outsourced (with a third being offered employment opportunities with Capgemini and continue to be based in Burbank), and 300 lay-offs."

WB had a huge success with "The Dark Knight" (about $1 billion) and they will probably do very well with "Watchmen" (despite the lawsuit setbacks). So can it be that the economy is just making it hard for the studio? I think one way to make things easier is to let it be known that all actors and actresses will not be paid millions of dollars anymore. Are they good at what they do? Yes. Do they really deserve all the money and attention we give them? No.

Screen Rant just reported that Mickey Rourke was offered $250,000 to play in "Iron Man 2." That is a good amount of money, but apparently actors want more. The same problems go with Sam Jackson being Nick Fury (he costs too much) and Terrence Howard (he also cost too much). So will studio's start resorting to less known actors since they cost less?

If you had to choose between two machines that work the same but one costs 10 times as more than the other, which one would you choose?

The economy is bad, but the amount of attention and payment we give our celebrities is ridiculous.