[tig] Hollywood Gets Smaller

Stuart Fyvie stuart.fyvie
Mon Aug 4 08:55:59 BST 2003

Having just come out of a situation of 'rationalisation' by Kodak, I 
don't think that they have the
industry's interest at heart at all. It is purely how much money they 
can make for the shareholders.
  Our department was closed despite 'cutting edge work' and with a slate 
of future projects
to do in the 'digital intermediate world'. If I was at Laser Pacific I 
would be worried.
  Kodak are just like any other multinational company. They can asset 
strip just as well as invest.

Stuart Fyvie
Resolution TV.

On Monday, August 4, 2003, at 07:58  am, Dean Humphus wrote:

> TIG TWiki collaborative project is at http://tig.colorist.org.
> Craig Nichols supports the TIG.
> Mark Wielage inferred that Laser-Pacific is an "independent" when, in
> fact, it is publicly owned company and has been for some years.
> Earnings per share is always the mantra of the stockholder.  The
> stockholder will always pressure a company to be more profitable, more
> efficient, more innovative, all in the name of EPS, regardless of how
> that happens internally.
> I don't think art suffers here.  What does art have to do with it
> anyway?  To me this seems to be a very good marriage of like-minded
> companies.  Kodak, for their part, establishes a foothold in the post
> market, a market that is vital to their continued existence, (at least
> as far as the imaging unit), and brings a century of longevity and
> innovation, not to mention, a lot of borrowing power to Laser-Pacific.
> Laser, as a company, greatly benefits in ways one can only imagine from
> the absorbtion into a company with both depth and breadth.  This is not
> just another 4MC gobbling up the local competition because that's the
> only way it can remain afloat.  Sometimes, when a smaller company is
> absorbed by a behemoth like a Ford or Chysler, it is not only a shame,
> but in the long run, probably contra-innovative.  That Jaguar will
> contain Taurus parts somewhere in it.  You know it will.
> I, in my never humble opinion, do not think that is the case with the
> Kodak-Laser merger.  For reasons I won't go into here, I think it was a
> very shrewd buy by Kodak.  But given the successful track record at
> Laser, and a mitts off approach from Kodak, Laser ought to continue to
> be just as it was.
> Dean Humphus

More information about the Tig mailing list