This might be the toughest, most complicated blog I've ever written. I've been concerned for some time now that something serious is ailing the VFX industry. Too many vintage and new VFX houses are going under, and not just here but overseas as well. From all I can discover, there is more VFX work then ever before in features, TV and commercials. I've been chronicling this industry from the very beginning and I've developed a theory: The VFX industry is suffering massive evolution pain.
In the beginning there wasn't much work because we didn't really know what could be done or how to properly use VFX. The cost for those original Cray super computers needed to do the simplest work was so high, that it limited the number of houses doing the work, and kept the output cost very high. But then the debt structure on those multimillion dollar machines alone killed several houses. In those days practical FX were much cheaper to create and we knew better how to do them. Then along came the less expensive, powerful Silicon Graphics Computers and that both saved the industry and caused it to expand rapidly.
Originally there were very few people with the combination of technical and artistic skills needed to produce VFX watchable in movies even despite the fact that standards and expectations were lower then. Slowly, software became available—sometimes bootlegged—and a farm team of 3D animators began to develop among young computer geeks and artists and early intersections of the two. Slowly the field began to take shape and with the advent of low-priced Apple and PC computers with some speed and power, more and more people became interested in this exciting and passionate potential career.
VFX studios grew into major contenders led by great special effects pioneers like John Hughes, Doug Trumbull, Scott Ross, Carlo Rambaldi (who passed away last month), Ray Feeney and so many others pushing the envelope as the computer technology grew up around them. The excitement spread. Dozens, even hundreds of very small studios started popping up to do local TV motion graphics, compositing, and even feature work. They, too, began to grow as more and more work became available. The smaller houses were dependent on off-the-shelf software from Softimage, Alias-Wavefront, Autodesk and eventually Adobe. The big houses started to pay very nice salaries to keep their best people around. They developed enormous overhead, and built posh, extensive facilities. Pioneer studio, Rhythm and Hues, provided Herman Miller Aeron desk chairs, built and stocked kitchens, provided recreational facilities, and sometimes provided comfy beds in some offices so people could work all hours. R&H even developed their own kind of innovative medical insurance that would pay for the alternate medical services that many of their artists wanted covered. All in all, it was a great time with plenty of work, limited competition at the highest levels and serious technical innovation. R&H and other pioneer studios like RFX used their own very sophisticated software and had a development team to modify it as needed to create unique VFX.
In those days VFX was a wide open, exciting new field of discovery. The new, fantastic VFX fired people's imaginations and the excitement began to feed on itself. Young people poured into the industry in droves. Practical special effects people saw the writing on the wall and began to retrain in digital VFX. Aerospace people, engineers and simulation artists, were getting laid off and looked to digital effects as an alternate survival route. I trained some of these guys at Silicon Studios in Santa Monica, CA. The supply of talented VFX artists and technical people began to expand rapidly.
For a while the increase in work vaguely matched the increase in workers and a precarious balance held for a while, but the field of VFX was and is evolving at what appears to be an exponential rate. In fact, I've never seen a field evolve so quickly. I'd even venture to say that Ray Kurzweil's double exponential acceleration of progress might be in effect here. Today, there are so many trained VFX artists and VFX houses, both large and small, that even with the enormous increase in the number of VFX shots being distributed, there isn't enough to go around. The field is over populated, clear and simple.
But the crux of the problem isn't that simple; it's way more complicated than that. The work is flowing out worldwide. Houses that used to get jobs with enough overhead and profit to survive can no longer do that. Their people are too expensive, their overhead is too high, and in many cases their management team has little or no training in business. Look at what's sadly happened to the venerable Digital Domain.
There is another problem that makes running a VFX house difficult: normal film production cycles. The work is sporadic. It's hard to maintain a full-time, year-round staff of top people when the work comes in torrents and drabs. Nearly impossible. So the vast majority of houses go through cycles of project hiring and layoffs; it's part of their business plan, but it takes a toll. As things have evolved, VFX artists have become nomads travailing from studio to studio, city to city, country to country, in search of work. That makes it hard to have a family and a normal life.
Studios have also discovered that fabulous VFX can be more important to a film's success than big name, expensive actors. We all know the top 20 grossing films of all time are built around sophisticated VFX. But alas, the studios are responsible to their stock holders and must turn a profit—they go where the money is. That's tough when a VFX feature costs far north of $150 million these days and there's no way to tell how well it will do at the box office. So they have to get the biggest bang for their buck. That means getting more and ever more amazing effects for less money per shot. Where 30 shots used to be a lot, now it's not unusual to have upwards of a thousand shots in a single major FX film. To meet demand, those shots are farmed out to many houses, large and small, across the world. What does that mean? To hit deadlines, each house gets a very small and less profitable piece of the big pie. That forces facilities to do things they regret later. The bidding process has become insanely competitive with some houses take work they know they will loose money on, just to keep the doors open, in hopes of nabbing some profit down the road.
The result of all this is an entire field that is caving in on itself. Even the biggest, most venerable houses are in trouble, turning little, if any profit, sustaining massive losses and closing down or selling off chunks. But amid all this seeming chaos there is hope. There are shining examples of healthy cells. It turns out there are ways to not only survive, but thrive in the current environment and I'll begin talking about that in my next post.
Topics: Blog VFX Animation Box Office closing Digital Domain film industry fix ILM major motion R&H tv VFX video
Did you enjoy this article? Sign up to receive the StudioDaily Fix eletter containing the latest stories, including news, videos, interviews, reviews and more.
Eagerly awaiting your next post. Thank you!
It’s posted now Amber. I hope it helps. Several more to come.
great writing peter, keep it up!
Thanx JKG…from you that is truly a complement. You are one of the industry’s greats.
I’m worried that if i choose the wrong path 🙁
Been there…done that. It’s easy, just pick the right door.
wow…bang on!
sigh… talk abt outsourcing to india and china….
The one thing we know is…it’s not going to stop…it’s going to increase. Their work is getting better and better and more American studios are locating satellites in these places. The landscape is changing and we have to adapt or perish.
It is very troubling what is going on in the industry and only hurts everyone already in it. I took this job down here in Fl on the basis of a Staff position and at what I believed was a respectable and legit company. I have traveled around and worked hard to find something with the options that I was going to get here and passed up a few offers to take it. I saw it as a good thing that DD was expanding and saw it as a way for a lot of talent, a lot of old experienced talent, to be able to survive. But with what has transpired in the past week here is horrible. Lots of families destroyed artist without work and with any bit of bargaining that we once had lost. In a day the industry was supersaturated by 280 artist a lot of veteran artist as well competing for a few seats. What has happened is not a little rock thrown in a pond but a bolder and its waves will be felt I feel through out the industry. Some rough days and years ahead. Especially with the Cooker Cutter Schools continually adding to the list already out there.
Our hearts are with you AP. I’ve been discussing this with Scott Ross who is suffering as they chop up his baby and throw pieces to the dogs. Your story is magnified over and over again. What has been done is unconscionable and I hope a certain person ends up in jail.
waw ! great article ! can’t wait for part2, why nt having a part 3 for prospectives !
Keep on. Thank you !
I’m writing quite a few follow ups by request, including one on current studios that are thriving and a baker’s dozen rules for the major studios to help insure the survival of the American VFX industry.
I’ve seen you’ve written an article that would then be my part 3 !
thanks a lot for your great articles Pierre (Peter).
VFX houses need to stop working with “fixed bids” and move to a “cost plus” system. No creative job or creative company services, where the design scope can be easily and drastically changed by the client, should ever be based on a fixed bid system.
Hear, hear! As a freelance artist, you never work fixed, why would a large company work differently?
I absolutely agree, but the more studios who agree with “fixed bids” the more the clients will expect it from others… this is why it needs to stop now before it becomes a “norm” to do fixed bids… on one show I bidded I put a clause in saying any additional requests that goes outside the agreed and signed off bid will incur additional costs / bid / change order…. but as usual when you are in heat of crunch mode and the client “really needs that additional shot but no money” it becomes a situation of trying to please the client and maintain that relationship… and hope we get the next gig from them if we help them out.. but when the next project comes along we are all back to bidding against other studios…
Hasraf ‘HaZ’ Dulull
VFX Producer / VFX Supervisor
http://www.about.me/hazvfx
I’ve been saying this for years but I keep getting that old argument…we can’t, the studios are too powerful. They will never give us a contract. Again, a trade association might here be useful. They’ve worked for other trades. And I’d love to see VFX credits come BEFORE the porta potty company and craft services!!!
I’m not a VFX artist (much), I’m mostly a commercial photographer. The photography industry is going through similar challenges. Is the world a less visual place than it used to be? Absolutely not! Is it harder to make a living creating those images? Totally! Like VFX, demand is high, but budgets are shrinking, and competition is ferocious!
It’s the same in journalism.
I appreciate your efforts here Peter, but have a couple of issues… There was a very healthy VFX industry many years before the advent of CGI,,, Great shows like Blade Runner, and the original Star Wars.. Empire strikes back… All done before computers came along. Dennis Muren, John Dykstra, et al won Oscars before digital was even thought of. People like John Hughes didn’t appear on the scene until the late 80’s and had no former experience with traditional VFX. Also Carlo Rambaldi was a creature FX guy and sculptor… Had nothing to do with VFX. You seem to only be concentrating on Digital CG. You also miss the fact that the revolution in digital happened when Windows/Linux PC’s and Macs took over from SGI… To set up an Alias-SGI platform back in the 1990s cost upwards of $80,000 for computer and software… When We did Babylon 5 at Foundation Imaging, our software/hardware cost per artist seat was about $2000… Big difference. (You know… your daughter Danielle cut her teeth with us back in the day). Now EVERY VFX facility runs on PC’s… We were the first to buck the yoke of SGI.
The other missing part of the puzzle here is the advent of the non creative VFX Supervisor. A vfx co-ordinator with little experience of the actual art of VFX gets given a VFX supervisor role because of contact with the production. Back then there used to be an approval process, where you did triage, and decided where to apply resources to make a shot better… and when not to. George Lucas did this on Empire, saying the initial Tauntaun shot had to be fantastic… so thereafter we could get away with less than great.
Now it’s no longer an approval process… It’s a rejection process… “Can I find something wrong with this shot”.
I worked on a show a couple of years ago where the VFX sup saw our shot and said… “Wow, that looks fantastic… now lets play it frame by frame and rip this apart”.
Dumb!
A well known VFX Supervisor (Who has NO actual artistic experience, and went from Clipboarder to VFX sup) has said that she feels she is not doing her job unless a VFX facility goes bankrupt on her show! Luckily she has been banned from setting foot in some of the better VFX houses.
So some of the VXF supervisors are eating our young… Pixel Fu**ing to the extreme.
When I get a shot rejected because the grain in the green channel doesn’t match the original plate… I’m wondering what that has to do with putting bums in seats in the movie theater??
I’m not sure where this is going… but certainly the tax subsidies are pushing a lot of the work to Canada and overseas… Our lovely president scolded China for unfair business practices… But when will he scold Canada for the VFX subsidies which are illegal according to the WTO!
Anyway… I’ll shut up now….
VFX, there’s no need to be a jerk. RonT makes some valid points. The industry is not only in trouble from outside, but also suffers from some big internal problems. Some of which Peter touched upon as well.
Ron has a great point about the tax incentive debacle. Looks like it has now pulled most of all the work to Vancouver and even left London with a bit of a hangover after they took a large chunk of LA’s work back in the mid 2000’s. It’s just going to keep happening until something’s done about it. Not sure if it’s true, but I heard that Vancouver’s expire in 2014. Where then?
Toronto
Maybe New York or Oregon or North Carolina? Let’s try to keep at least a substantial amount of VFX work at home in the USA as much as we can. But remember many US studios actually do a lot of their work overseas…they have to to survive.
Wow, methinks clipboarder to vfx supe just raised his/her ugly head.
Just a quick sidenote RonT You said that you worked on B5 and B5 is the reason that I started with VFX. Thank you.
He inspired me too Vic.
Yes, suits should never run art…
unless they are a suit with the proper talent, eye, training and sensibility…not likely is it. But they do exist.
I totally agree with this reply 100% , ive worked with “heads of production” or “senior producers” who have no idea what motion control is or the basic pipeline.. and got into the job because they prepared finance documents for a project or knows the MD of the facility etc.. one of the many reasons I moved into VFX production from years of being a vfx artist was because i was sick of seeing people work crazy hours (3am and then back in the morning for 9am dailies) because a vfx producer decided to agree it would only take 1 day to do those changes (we are not talking colour correction tweaks here, we are talking different shot entirely!) because he/she has no idea whats involved from a basic principle point… let alone ask the artist who is going to work late! the vfx supervisors also need to be more savvy too.. just because they understand cameras well doesnt make them a vfx sup.. they need to know what the vfx pipeline is and how comps are put together and tracking etc so that when they bring back data or footage its supervised with the mind of making it as smooth as possible for the artists to work on. anyways just thought if back that part of your reply up.. 🙂
Hasraf ‘HaZ’ Dulull
VFX Producer / VFX Supervisor
http://www.about.me/hazvfx
VFX practitioners are often their own enemies, in an industry with a failed business model.
As an example, the legendary Clipboarder literally made a texture painter friend of mine cried by rejecting a 2K texture of a bird’s feather. The Clipboarder had decided that the feather just wasn’t detailed enough. The bird was a part of a flock that never gets close to the camera. Each bird was at most 100 pixels over maybe 3 seconds.
Before CGI, I would thinks clients and internal management would think twice before asking stupid, or, ego driven changes. Clients and internal management often have least clue to the domino effects they are creating with their ignorance and arrogance. Because there are no physical models involved, it maybe visually difficult to quantify the added costs they are creating.
Dr. J, I’ve seen this happen over and over. It is ego driven and stupid and runs up costs on both sides. I could tell you horror stories that cost the VFX studio hundreds of thousands, but the studio millions…yet they don’t seem to get it. Anyway, I appreciate your input but I have to say, WE ARE RESPONSIBLE, meaning the VFX community. We have traditionally let the client side VFX supervisor (and Don’t get me wrong, I have many dear friends on that side) who is irrational and unreasonable get away with it because we are afraid that if we give the studios a hard time they will never work with our studio again.) Well that is like giving a baby in tantrum, a cookie to shut him up. We have trained the studios that they don’t have to be reasonable. I get the same story when I say, don’t take change orders with out an appropriate bump in cost and fee. I hear: “If you do do what the studios say,you’ll never work in this town again.” Well there in lies the crux of it, Laddie. We have to start standing up, but at the same time we too have to be reasonable. There is a meeting ground here. Maybe we do need a trade organization — not to flex muscle, but to help coordinate negotiations for reasonable contract conditions. We’re all in this together…Studios, vfx Studios and artists. We need a balance of power.
I fully agree. Pixel Fu**ing by artistically illiterate sups and/or clients (for the freelancers) is one of the worst things in this industry. It’s amazing how many people who have no clue about VFX at all and are dumb as hell could have made it to the top. It’s a really sick, mad world.
If you feel this way you’re going to love what’s going on over at Universal with Co-Chair Donna-Langly. Apparently she decided to do the final edit on the already troubled 47 Ronin — herself! I’ve just read this and have not had a chance to verify it. As far as I can discover she’s been a production secretary, a production executive and a studio co-chair…no where do I see any chops for editing a 200 million dollar film!
Thanx for the input Ron. Your comment was about as long as I get for my blog, so I appreciate you filling in the holes. I’m betting I know who that VFX supervisor is. I’ve heard many tales of her exploits in crushing the studios. We’ll have to tawk l8a. Your input is always appreciated.
Who me? I think Hackworth is a bit direct, but he does have some points.
I appreciate your input Ron. You voice some real concerns. My main focus is Digital VFX because that is where the business is today. Clever people like Dan Curry and others have been very successful in keeping the cost of VFX down by using a hybrid approach to VFX, using a combination of practical and digital effects. But for the most part VFX artists today have virtually no knowledge of how practical effects were done, and that’s a shame. Clever hybrid approaches can save the producers a ton of money…but that’s a whole other subject. And yes, I’ve seen client side VFXSups pulling power plays and making insane demands…but I have a lot of friends in that camp and they are descent folks. Hopefully the bad ones get weeded out eventually. And let’s hope we get more artistically and technically qualified VFXSups all,round.
Thanks for the great article. I really look forward to reading the rest of your blog.
Also I have been solicited by overseas venders from India, offering to beat any
AMERICAN VFX house price. I haven’t take them up, then again, I have lost jobs
because of it. Cost plus is great IN THEORY, except where the PRODUCER quotes a cost price far below my cost and ONE CAN’T GET TO BREAK EVEN MUCH LESS, a profit….????? So I wait to read your next blog article.
Greg, the way cost plus works is that you, the vfx studio, calculate what it will cost you to do a job in resources and man days. You add in Unk and unk-unk factors. (known unknowns and unknown unknowns sometimes know a fudge padding) seriously. I even used to label them as such in the budget. It’s respectable. Once you get an honest figure for what you think it will actually cost, you then add overhead to that, and then you negotiate a fee. Hollywood pays fees on all sorts of contracts and deals. So, let’s say the studio agrees that you are entitled to an 11% fee as a fair return. The contract amount is put in a proposal clearly stating everything that is and is not included. The lawyers look it over on both sides. There is some haggling and when both sides agree, a contract is signed. Since there was a fair a mount of padding, any good VFX house should be able to bring the contract in under budget if the studio doesn’t make any changes in scope. That means that the studio is charged significantly LESS than the would on a fixed price contract. The other side is, if the costs go up, the vfx studio gets to charge only the costs and can not charge more fee. What ever happens though, the VFX house gets that fee. If the film studio wants to change scope, they have to negotiate additional costs and additional fees. This is an incentive for the studios to stay under control and a guarantee that the VFX house will survive. I will tell you that in most cases, unless the VFX house is cheating and putting unnecessary people on the contract, the Film studio will almost always come out ahead and the VFX studio always makes it’s profit. So why is CPFF not a good idea?
I remember reading industry articles on ‘Robert Able’ and team who spent millions on CRAY supercomputers to produce the latest FX’s for a blockbuster, get paid, turn around and buy the next faster super CRAY for the next job, but bought the farm when cooling/electrical costs became more than the revenues from the movie projects.
I also worked for CRAY supercomputers in Chippewa Falls, WI back in the mid 90’s. Used the $4-million dollar ‘Triton T-90″ supercomputer to do some of the FX’s used in the ‘walk-throughs’ developed to sell the higher end and higher priced ($90-million supercomputer Cray T3E-1200E, the first supercomputer to achieve a performance of more than 1 teraflops running a computational science application). We used our own proprietary software to develop the FX’s as needed written in C++.
I appreciate you sharing that Tir. It was the cost of those Cray’s the nearly collapsed the entire industry…Silicon Graphics saved us with their low cost, capable computers. Of course the PCs and Macs put SGI out of business. I used to work for SGI at Silicon Studios in Santa Monica. Those were the days my friends.
A very good article. I am a digital artist laid off again from the cable channel industry. I am getting tired of this always happening. I truly enjoy creating vfx but at this rate I will be homeless from the lack of steady work. I remember the days when there was too much work and not enough people. Now it’s way over saturated with cg artist. Also these CG schools are popping up in every city. One other thing I am dealing with are these docu-drams that don’t need cg graphics. Perhaps it’s time for a career change. VFX work might become a hobby or side work for me in the future. I hope this industry gets better but I guess that is up to Hollywood.
Evil, I feel sad reading that. I wish you luck sincerely. You’re right of course. It’s sometimes easier to get a motion graphics job in Indianapolis than it is to find a 3d animation job in Hollywood. The work is sporadic and fest or famine seems to be the order of the day. We need to work to change that and that takes us all working together.
There’s no black & white reason really. But another thing to consider is this: No one in the creative arts industries know how to really manage a company. Most film productions are pretty badly run but it doesn’t matter because they only have to cross that one finish line and then that’s the end of that “company.” Even a totally clueless producer (who’s like the CEO of the production) can keep things together for the few months necessary to get a film made. But FX houses are ongoing and require better management.
Here’s a list of other reasons the FX industry is having trouble:
1) The equipment got so cheap so fast that it lowered the financial barrier to entry and everyone could have a go. How fast was it lowered? Well, Cray was king for a while, while the PC market created itself, then BOOM, there was SGI. But while SGI ruled the theaters, the Amiga rule television. This TV stuff started around 1990 with shows like Unsolved Mysteries (UFO episodes) and things that Ron was doing before B5. Then, in 92 you had Foundation Imaging and Amblin Imaging (seaQuest, Star Trek: Voyager). This was at a price of, as Ron mentioned, around $2000 per workstation, software included, as opposed to the $80,000 or so that an SGI setup would get you. So for around the price ILM bid for just the pilot of seaQuest, Amblin Imaging did the entire first season. Then once Windows caught up enough with the Amiga, with Windows NT, low-priced PCs doomed SGI and no one had to spend that kind of money again. The point: It became cheap to set up a facility.
2) At first, CG people were hard to come by. When we started seaQuest at Amblin imaging in 92, aside from Joe Conti and Tim McHugh who headed up the company, out of 8 people only one (maybe two, can’t remember) had prior professional experience doing CGI– and even that was extremely minor. We had a former set designer, a pool cleaner, a Blockbuster manager, a music video camera man, an SGI hardware demo guy, etc. I’m sure Ron had a similar assortment at Foundation. But seemingly within minutes, there was a flood of artists coming in. CGI became the “it” thing to learn. It became, as I said at the time, “the super-8 of the day.” All the kids who used to have to make do with super-8 film to do cheap little FX now had access to literally the same tools that the pros used. So if you had the talent you could do actual Hollywood quality work at home rather than be stuck with “well, hey, for a kid with a lousy super-8 camera that’s pretty good.” And schools sprung up, and training materials became abundant. CG was still seen as a mysterious thing to the studios though so they were still paying top dollar for shots. The point: It became easy to staff because money was good and artists were abundant.
3) At first, salaries weren’t amazing (as Hollywood can go) but they soon went up drastically. Big companies like DD had a HUGE salary overhead and therefore had to charge the studios accordingly. They tried to counter that by doing only project hires but that gave them a bad name in the industry among artists. (The problem was that at the time they weren’t told they were project hires. If they’d have known in advance, which is what happened later, it would have been OK.) And then, this is around, say, 1997, tons of boutique houses opened and that drove the value of FX way down. Everyone rushed to underbid each other. Producers regularly forced lower rates with the promise of lots of future work. I’m not aware of any instance where that paid off, and it drove many boutiques out of business– but not before damaging the per-shot rate for the entire industry. So rates were down but artists still insisted on heyday salaries. The point: While equipment was cheap, people were getting expensive.
3) The FX houses didn’t get together to deal with the studios. After a while, studios really started wanting a LOT more for a LOT less, and there were always FX houses willing to bite. If the FX houses got together and set rates, or even just talked seriously amongst themselves it would have helped. But they didn’t; everyone was just looking out for themselves. But it’s not just the FX houses’ fault, it goes all the way down to the artists. I go back and forth in my view of unions (we were part of IA at Amblin Imaging but IA didn’t know what to do with us) but one thing’s for sure: the artists pretty much let themselves be kicked around and they shouldn’t have. Perhaps– there’s no way of really knowing– if they’d have unionized back then it would have forced the FX houses to get together to deal with the studios. It’s probably too late now though because the FX houses are on such weak ground. The point: Everyone let themselves be used.
4) Outsourcing. Now that computers and software were cheap and anyone could learn it, there was no reason it had to be done in Hollywood. At first, with slow internet bandwidth and producers/directors/studios being used to having the work done in their back yard so they could pop in and check on things, the only outsourcing was grunt work, not creative stuff. Another reason for this was that Hollywood still had momentum so the best people still went there. But over time foreign studios ended up with some great artists, and combined with various kinds of legal (and sometimes shady) incentives, studios got weaned from their need to keep it at home. The FX houses then made things worse for themselves (though better for those overseas) by tripping over themselves to open franchise houses around the world. What they ended up doing was raising their overhead while lowering the dollar value of FX. They were, in essence, telling the studios that FX were cheap to produce. The point: Hollywood’s FX houses helped the studios dig their grave.
There’s more, such as the public’s involvement, but this is all too much typing for this early.
I had to copy all that down into my notepad. What I’ve read so far makes a lot of sense. It’s a different angle from mine, but adds to the conversation in useful ways. Thanx for the input.
Really good and very scary article. Looking forward to part 2.
The bottom line is that the people in charge (producers, studio execs) do not operate a legitimate business model, as has been mentioned. The tech biz is quite different, as witnessed by Apple, Google, et al. Those companies recognize the value of the people and their abilities. They are building teams to support their brands.
For far too many years, VFX has been put upon by Hollywood. Sure, there were some haymaker years for VFX, thanks to the original Star Wars and ILM team, with associated spikes in compensation here and there. But the techies took over, and turned VFX into a pipeline, not a creative endeavor, as your comments cite. These people never developed the “eye,” or learned how to think creatively and problem solve accordingly.
Like the other stories related here, I too have seen really nutty stuff, such as a major director “direct” droplets of water out of millions, not because it was necessary, but because he could, and that was fun. Sure, the company charged for overages, but examples like this point to the flaws in the business model, and its degradation into what we have now. Or, let’s not forget directors who cannot seem to decide on things, and force redo after redo, to the point of asking for changes that had been previously discarded by that same director.
As great as digital is, and I have been a personal benefactor of the digital revolution, it also has an extreme dark side. Things once thought impossible are now achievable, but then producers and execs think it’s now “cheap,” or “easy” to achieve these visions, when it is often neither. I have worked on films with a handful of very creative VFX people who did amazing work, work that has often inspired those in the business today. No armies (and no commensurate budgets), just lots and lots of talent, and the ability to deliver.
Things are going to get worse: Hollywood always chases the dollar. Many talented people are all over the world, and though they may not have the experience, they can run a computer, Maya, Photoshop and After Effects. Take one seasoned VFX sup, add an army of workers in Shanghai, and there ya go. Oh, and pay the VFX sup a third of what he or she used to make in the US (who takes the work because there is nothing in the US anymore). So, as in other industries (including tech as well) you migrate that knowledge and eventually destroy your market. The same thing happened in hardware, steel, clothing, and so on. Now what?
Well, time for a new career. Seriously, all of those VFX schools have dumped so many Maya robots into the workforce, so there is no longer any talent shortage, and the older, more experienced generation capable of VFX supervision will not find much work, due to competition from their peers. Relocation is not an option when one has an established family, though with ever-rising taxes here in the US, said relocation may be necessary for some just to maintain some quality of life.
I do wonder where are all of the cause-driven celebrities who benefited from the efforts of all of us over the years, and were paid millions in up-front or back end deals. Sure, they campaign for Darfur, fair labor practices overseas, etc, all the while they benefited directly from questionable work practices here in the States. Should they not be campaigning to keep the work here?
Like I started with, the business model is broken; it always has been, ever since the Paramount decision on theatre ownership and the collapse of the studio system. Unfortunately, you have people who can make millions with the system as it is, so they have no incentive to help change it. Add the union system into the mix, which has perpetuated expensive job segmentation (and add geometric costs to a live action shoot, with many people idle at the craft service table). Instead of helping to protect workers as originally intended, like almost every other union, it instead existed to build armies of people that added to their power base. Power corrupts, so decades later we have mediocre people in high places getting lots of money to crush companies as they see fit (not sure how this particular scenario plays into the “clipboard” person mentioned earlier, as I was not involved in that, but in general, you get the idea.)
Today we see aggressive efforts to unionize, and though I am typically loathsome of unions (former local 44 member here), that approach is likely the only way to protect people from abuse; however, the producers solution is to go offshore into the third world, and the union will not be able to stop it — they have not managed to do so to date, and now it’s likely too late. So, again, not a viable solution anymore.
What’s left? Aside from the “get a new career” advice from earlier, I suppose one can either find a place to teach and pass on the knowledge, or do it yourself. The Internet is really the wild west of content, and like the beginnings of digital and desktop publishing, there are many people experimenting with various ideas online. Many of those ideas lack polish (or watchability/entertainment value, unless you like train wrecks), but that just smells like opportunity. Monetization is still a key issue, though some have managed. That part is evolving, and missteps are likely for the foreseeable future.
Most of us got into the biz to become filmmakers, not to “rig eyeballs,” but we got sidetracked or pigeon-holed. The Internet does not have these issues, but there is also no support structure, little upfront money, and lots of risk. Still, in spite of all of that, the upside can be very high for someone with drive, creativity, and a sense of the market. Oh, and lots of favors to call in from friends…
Good luck!
Phew. I hope you feel better, JayR. You made your points in a very articulate manner. I can’t disagree with any of it, but it’s not the whole story and it’s not everybody’s story, but your’s reflects the experiences of many. Thank’s for taking the time to articulate it all. Your suggestions are also helpful. I really do appreciate you taking the time to express it all here. Don’t give up on VFX, work towards making it better. We all need to do that.
this article is pretty weak and is really just a rehash of old news.
Okay…I would appreciate being straightened out with the in-depth story…seriously.
Several people have enhanced my brief article nicely and remember this is a series and I only get 600-800 words each week. Seriously…give.
Can’t read the article on mobile because of the god damn cannon pop up ad! Fix your fuckin pop ups if you want people to read you shit!
Hi angryprick. try clicking the little x in the upper right hand corner. It works for most people…if it doesn’t work for you, it’s your browser that needs fixing. I’ll come over later.
If someone drew a house on a napkin and you gave them a fixed price to build it, you’d soon be out of the construction business. Bidding is why we fail, it’s something rest of the talent said a big collective “NO” to decades ago.
Just as in the Music and Art/Graphics field ( You too can work in the exciting & fast – paced Recording Studio / Game Design / Bartender Industry ), the VFX school scam is flooding the landscape with 1000’s of Naive Graduates who will NEVER find a job. And they will be saddled with Huge Loans to boot.
Its spread to the “Normal Professions” as well. A Degree is not worth much anymore ( not as an American that is). That’s what the wonderful “Democratization” has accomplished. Destroying the worth of almost every skill humans on this Planet have.