5 ms·

> The high-end visual effects industry that we dominated is notoriously slow to adapt to change, and operates for the most part on razor-thin margins. There wer

> The high-end visual effects industry that we dominated is notoriously slow to adapt to change, and operates for the most part on razor-thin margins. There were billions flowing into film and episodic production every year, but there wasn’t (and likely still isn’t) an obvious opportunity to further monetise our existing customers. The visual effects industry operates fundamentally on not paying people. It is symptomatic of Hollywood broadly. It is absurd that the savings of 60 and 70 year olds are, via the children in the industry they support, subsidizing Disney.

dagmx 5y ago
I'm not sure I understand why you say it's about not paying people? VFX jobs are usually reasonably well paying and usually with good overtime rules.
- bsenftner 5y ago
  The visual effects industry is structured around a bidding process that cements VFX studio compensation before film production has begun. However, film is a collaborative medium with financial and production risks with decisions often pushed to a later date "to be solved in post". That post production VFX stage has grown in size, grown in the types of production solutions provided, all without additions or modifications of compensation. They simple get to keep the ongoing contract, regardless if doing so bankrupts the VFX studio. Which it often does. The production digital artists receive their contractual compensation, they get to keep their jobs, but the production becomes 14 hour days, 6.5 days a week for 6 to 9 months. Meanwhile, this is taking place on all 6-12 productions flowing though the VFX studio at the same time. At some unknown time, the bank and investors simple say "no more" and the studio implodes. This is the concrete reality of the VFX industry. This is how people do not get paid.
  - dagmx 5y ago
    That seems like a huge jump from the "VFX industry being based on not paying people" Yes, there are some bad business practices that lead to companies going out of business. There are lots of successful VFX studios too though. That's true of any business. I'm unsure how this means that VFX in specific is based around not paying people.
    - dylan604 5y ago
      There are tons of VFX houses that have been the receipent or the giver of Trump-esque renegotiations. At the beginning, everyone agrees to terms. At the end, something somewhere happens which means no more money (if the money actually existed to begin with), and people get screwed. Most VFX houses I've been in/around have paid on hourly rates, so the artists get paid. If the producer bringing the work to the VFX reneges, then the VFX house eats it (or sues, or something). However, if your a contract artist and did the work expecting to be paid at end of project, you tend to be left hold the bag since the VFX studio didn't get paid then the contractors don't get paid.
      - dagmx 5y ago
        So in the last decade, how many VFX studios have gone under leaving people holding the unpaid bag? It's been a long time since DD 2.0 and R&H. I'd hardly take the edge case of the industry (not exclusive to VFX) and say that it's representative of the norm.
    - bsenftner 5y ago
      > There are lots of successful VFX studios For relatively short time periods. Only Weta and ILM are able to get equity in their projects, and that is largely due to their owners being the filmmakers themselves. In the end, it is a work for hire industry, with no equity participation, yet carrying significant risk that tends to sooner or later blow up at least once, taking the entire studio with it.
      - dagmx 5y ago
        That's a completely different goal post now though from saying the industry is based on not paying people. The majority of film roles, even outside of VFX, has no equity. Equity is the exception not the norm. Other VFX studios like Imageworks have been doing pretty well without equity. I don't believe Weta or ILM get any equity in their projects though. At least, the majority of their projects are work for hire. Either way, this is a another jump from the initial statement that the VFX industry is based on not paying people.
      - deleted 5y ago
  - xondono 5y ago
    Not to be dismissive, but how does that differ from any other consulting/work for hire job? Most projects in embedded devices are exactly the same. - a price tag is fixed by negotiation around estimates - more and more stuff is pushed to firmware and software - everyone works way more than they should to deliver in time
    - aprdm 5y ago
      I think it's different because the embedded systems clients are usually not as deadline driven as the movie industry are. You have deliverables basically every week that you need to show to the client for approval, and, if not good enough, then re-iterate. Embedded systems usually the scope doesn't change nearly as much after the SoW, where movie is very creative/subjective and it can change every single week. I worked in both industries for ~5 years, in VFX now

dagmx 5y ago

I'm not sure I understand why you say it's about not paying people? VFX jobs are usually reasonably well paying and usually with good overtime rules.

bsenftner 5y ago
The visual effects industry is structured around a bidding process that cements VFX studio compensation before film production has begun. However, film is a collaborative medium with financial and production risks with decisions often pushed to a later date "to be solved in post". That post production VFX stage has grown in size, grown in the types of production solutions provided, all without additions or modifications of compensation. They simple get to keep the ongoing contract, regardless if doing so bankrupts the VFX studio. Which it often does. The production digital artists receive their contractual compensation, they get to keep their jobs, but the production becomes 14 hour days, 6.5 days a week for 6 to 9 months. Meanwhile, this is taking place on all 6-12 productions flowing though the VFX studio at the same time. At some unknown time, the bank and investors simple say "no more" and the studio implodes. This is the concrete reality of the VFX industry. This is how people do not get paid.
- dagmx 5y ago
  That seems like a huge jump from the "VFX industry being based on not paying people" Yes, there are some bad business practices that lead to companies going out of business. There are lots of successful VFX studios too though. That's true of any business. I'm unsure how this means that VFX in specific is based around not paying people.
  - dylan604 5y ago
    There are tons of VFX houses that have been the receipent or the giver of Trump-esque renegotiations. At the beginning, everyone agrees to terms. At the end, something somewhere happens which means no more money (if the money actually existed to begin with), and people get screwed. Most VFX houses I've been in/around have paid on hourly rates, so the artists get paid. If the producer bringing the work to the VFX reneges, then the VFX house eats it (or sues, or something). However, if your a contract artist and did the work expecting to be paid at end of project, you tend to be left hold the bag since the VFX studio didn't get paid then the contractors don't get paid.
    - dagmx 5y ago
      So in the last decade, how many VFX studios have gone under leaving people holding the unpaid bag? It's been a long time since DD 2.0 and R&H. I'd hardly take the edge case of the industry (not exclusive to VFX) and say that it's representative of the norm.
  - bsenftner 5y ago
    > There are lots of successful VFX studios For relatively short time periods. Only Weta and ILM are able to get equity in their projects, and that is largely due to their owners being the filmmakers themselves. In the end, it is a work for hire industry, with no equity participation, yet carrying significant risk that tends to sooner or later blow up at least once, taking the entire studio with it.
    - dagmx 5y ago
      That's a completely different goal post now though from saying the industry is based on not paying people. The majority of film roles, even outside of VFX, has no equity. Equity is the exception not the norm. Other VFX studios like Imageworks have been doing pretty well without equity. I don't believe Weta or ILM get any equity in their projects though. At least, the majority of their projects are work for hire. Either way, this is a another jump from the initial statement that the VFX industry is based on not paying people.
    - deleted 5y ago
- xondono 5y ago
  Not to be dismissive, but how does that differ from any other consulting/work for hire job? Most projects in embedded devices are exactly the same. - a price tag is fixed by negotiation around estimates - more and more stuff is pushed to firmware and software - everyone works way more than they should to deliver in time
  - aprdm 5y ago
    I think it's different because the embedded systems clients are usually not as deadline driven as the movie industry are. You have deliverables basically every week that you need to show to the client for approval, and, if not good enough, then re-iterate. Embedded systems usually the scope doesn't change nearly as much after the SoW, where movie is very creative/subjective and it can change every single week. I worked in both industries for ~5 years, in VFX now