The VFX Industry is in trouble (general discussion)

[Plain Old Tele]

I've almost derailed a couple of other threads talking about this, so it's probably worth its own thread, especially since so many movies that are tracked closely here are VFX-heavy.

 

In a nutshell, the VFX industry works on razor-thin margins, even high-profile companies have gone bankrupt recently, and as the work has been outsourced all over the world, VFX workers tend to work longer and longer hours as freelancers or project staff without long-term benefits like pensions, health-care, etc. Companies frequently underbid each other in a race to the bottom, while the studios complain that VFX are too expensive (while continually shortening schedules and adding the total number of VFX shots).

 

So, what to do? No easy answer, but lots to talk about. Scott Squires has a couple of great posts outlining the issue from a VFX producer standpoint:

 

Oh, the Mess We're In

 

Visual Effects are inexpensive

[baumer]

I have a question for you tele. Without reading the articles, why is it that VFX heavy films are so expensive? Is it really just because if a film takes 18 months to make, that the VFX artists are that well paid? I can only assume that these guys are making something like 50-100 bucks an hour and that is why a film like Brave would cost about 200 million dollars. Can you shed some light on this?

[Plain Old Tele]

I have a question for you tele. Without reading the articles, why is it that VFX heavy films are so expensive? Is it really just because if a film takes 18 months to make, that the VFX artists are that well paid? I can only assume that these guys are making something like 50-100 bucks an hour and that is why a film like Brave would cost about 200 million dollars. Can you shed some light on this?

 

Well, I don't work specifically in that area, so I can't speak exactly (if there's anyone on BOT who has some experience, I'd love to hear their thoughts). But VFX artists aren't well-paid compared to other industry professionals. Honestly, at the studio level, for a big-budget movie, *everyone* is making a really solid wage. For example, look at the budget for THE VILLAGE (available at The Smoking Gun): the UPM made $6,500/week, the first asst director made $6,000/week, camera operator made $4,900/week, ACs made around $2,800-2,900/week, etc. But of course those rates only apply for the weeks they actually work, so you can't multiple that out by 52 weeks to get a yearly wage.

 

VFX artists tend to be project staff, so likewise they will be paid only the weeks that they work on the film, and then the company will "let them go", even if it decides to bring them back a few weeks later to work on the next film.

 

VFX cost a lot because there's a lot of R&D that tends to go into each project and you now need hundreds of people working for months (if not years) to actually finish the shots. Think of it, a VFX-heavy movie now probably has thousands of VFX shots... back in the 80s and early 90s, a VFX-heavy movie probably only had a few hundred.

 

That Scott Squires post (the second link) points out that VFX actually are very inexpensive compared to the alternative (if there even *is* an alternative):

 

If you asked the art department to build a city block from scratch and build everything, including the interiors of the buildings, would you be surprised by the cost? Would you blame the art department for being too expensive? No, of course not. That’s a lot of work that involves a lot of materials and workers taking a long time. Now simply change the term ‘art department’ to visual effects. Amazing how that changes their perspective.

[Noctis]

This is fascinating. Thank you, Telemachos. 

 

It's a little surprising how they're paid so little when they are absolutely crucial to a film's completion and success.

[Plain Old Tele]

Dash, I'd love to get your thoughts too, from the perspective of a student artist.

[baumer]

What is a UPM?And thanks for posting that. Those are some pretty impressive wages. Funny though, I would have thought the first AD would make more than 6 grand a week. But still, if you are working for 4 months on a project, that 6K a week turns into 70K for the project. Now that's not going to make you rich, but it will certainly give you a good lifestyle.

[Plain Old Tele]

What is a UPM?And thanks for posting that. Those are some pretty impressive wages. Funny though, I would have thought the first AD would make more than 6 grand a week. But still, if you are working for 4 months on a project, that 6K a week turns into 70K for the project. Now that's not going to make you rich, but it will certainly give you a good lifestyle.

 

UPM is unit production manager. The first AD is essentially a traffic cop -- they're responsible for the day's schedule (and keeping on pace to make the day), coordinating the extras, etc. A second-unit director makes considerably more (on THE VILLAGE, around $13.5k/week, IIRC). The DP probably made closer to $20k/week. But those are higher-end positions, I was trying to find examples of people more in line with what various VFX technical capacities might make (a technical director, a rotoscoper/paint artist, etc).

 

From what I've read and heard, what the VFX people are complaining about isn't necessarily the wage (though that might be lower than a comparable position in production, I'm just not sure), it's that they lack the sensible limits that the unions impose upon the studios (meal penalties if you don't get a lunch break, overtime and golden time if your day goes past 10 or 12 hours or if you have to work nights, or if you have to work a sixth or seventh consecutive day, etc). In addition, of course, to the lack of a pension or healthcare benefits.

Edited February 28, 2013 by Telemachos

[dashrendar44]

Dash, I'd love to get your thoughts too, from the perspective of a student artist.

 

I think the two articles you posted are more insightful than my meaningless point of view as I concur totally to the concerns expressed by top notch VFX supervisor like Scott Squires.

 

What I'd say is that most art student artists (especially CG artists) don't really grasp how hard they gonna get screwed once they manage to get a (thankless) job in the industry after hours and hours of studying complex softwares at expensive depenses to pay student courses and loans. (If they do manage to get one since many are called but few are chosen, it's overcrowded with aspiring CG artists that live in their bubble but reality checks burst it. That's why hearing students working for free for Beast Of The Southern Wild quite disgusted me. They pay expensive art college courses to have the right to work on a feature film for free when asked professional VFX. They turned what was once a passionate work for aspiring artists into sweat shops thinking they can get top notch state-of-art VFX for peanuts. But actors that wouldn't be where they are without VFX magic keep earning 15M paychecks per movies).

Edited February 28, 2013 by dashrendar44

[Plain Old Tele]

There's an old saying that's used all the time for any constructive or creative pursuit: "You can have it fast, cheap, or good -- pick two of the three." The studios are trying to get all three.

[Plain Old Tele]

That's why hearing students working for free for Beast Of The Southern Wild quite disgusted me. They pay expensive art college courses to have the right to work on a feature film for free when asked professional VFX. They turned what was once a passionate work for aspiring artists into sweat shops.).

 

The thing is, I think pretty much every creative or technical position on a film crew starts out at this point, being exploited (to some degree) in exchange for the pursuit of your dreams and some experience to help you on that road. The problem is, whereas in other areas you actually have something to strive towards and achieve some meaning of a creatively fulfilling, financially satisfactory life, it's looking more and more that there really isn't much at the end of the rainbow for an aspiring VFX artist. You might end up as a VFX Supervisor, but without the creative satisfaction OR financial security. So, basically you'll burn out or change careers.

[Noctis]

I'm curious, Telemachos, do you know how much cinematographers make? I've always been very curious to know how much Bruno Delbonnel made for HBP.

[baumer]

I'm curious, Telemachos, do you know how much cinematographers make? I've always been very curious to know how much Bruno Delbonnel made for HBP.

I would assume when you are at the top of the food chain, you would be paid in the millions.

[Plain Old Tele]

I'm curious, Telemachos, do you know how much cinematographers make? I've always been very curious to know how much Bruno Delbonnel made for HBP.

 

 

I would assume when you are at the top of the food chain, you would be paid in the millions.

 

I don't think it's that high, baumer. Not for one project, at least. For example, for THE VILLAGE, the line item for the DP was budgeted at about $385,000 ($27k for six days of early consulting, $90k for 4 weeks of prep, $225k for 10 weeks of shooting, $33.75k for post-producting/color-timing, and $9k for travel). Those are 2003-2004 dollars, so rates probably gone up a bit, but not dramatically so. Of course, THE VILLAGE was not an insanely expensive project either, but those tend to be because they have long and/or incredibly complex shoots, not because they throw a lot more money at each person.

 

There's basically a set scale based off experience and credits, you don't necessarily get a huge bump for being a "big name" the way an actor does.

 

Again, case in point, the cinematographer on THE VILLAGE was Roger Deakins... surely about as high on the DP food chain as you can get.

Edited February 28, 2013 by Telemachos

[Plain Old Tele]

Here's Drew McWeeny's take on the situation:

 

http://www.hitfix.com/motion-captured/the-visual-effects-community-sees-red-in-the-wake-of-oscar-protest-and-on-air-snub

 

When companies are already playing things close on their profit margins, they can't really keep shaving things closer.  Ultimately, what you're paying for when you pay for a VFX budget, is the manpower you throw at your movie.  And on these giant films, with release dates set in stone before film has even rolled, the only way to get these films across the finish line is to throw more and more people at them.  How many times in the last ten years has a blockbuster been forced to hire more VFX artists during the last six to ten months of production?  How many times have they worked those extra bodies 10 or 12 or 14 hours a day?  How can you demand that things get cheaper in an environment like this?

[vc2002]

I heard there is not a wide union for those SFX people? The VFX people are forced to work overtime and get low pay and there's no union standing out for them?

[Plain Old Tele]

I heard there is not a wide union for those SFX people? The VFX people are forced to work overtime and get low pay and there's no union standing out for them?

There's an animators union but no general VFX union (or cluster of guilds -- the way most other technical film professions are represented by IATSE.)

[Kvikk Lunsj]

VFX workers should be getting health care. Do a lot of different groups in Hollywood get pensions since pension plans are becoming more rare in America. But at the very least they should get day or two off a week if they have long hour they should have a good break time. At the very least have a good 401k plan.

[Plain Old Tele]

VFX workers should be getting health care. Do a lot of different groups in Hollywood get pensions since pension plans are becoming more rare in America. But at the very least they should get day or two off a week if they have long hour they should have a good break time. At the very least have a good 401k plan.

There's a ton of non-union work in Hollywood (most reality TV, really low-budget features), and in those situations you're just a contract worker getting a flat day or weekly rate and that's it, but for studio work and anything beyond that really low-budget stuff the guilds cover basically every technical position (costumers, hair/makeup/wardrobe, cameramen, grips & electrics, etc) and offer very specific working conditions and wages. You have to build up some solid experience to become eligible to join a guild, you often have to pay a substantial initiation fee and quarterly dues, and you have to maintain working a certain number of hours per half-year to remain active, but you get excellent health care and pension. Edited March 2, 2013 by Telemachos

[lab276]

[Plain Old Tele]

Stopping subsidies would help California VFX people, but not necessarily others. It's only one potential piece of a solution (and one that probably won't happen). 

 

The VFX is planning a conference of top minds (including former studio people) to discuss the ongoing problem and see if they can work out some possible ways to proceed.