

Green Scream: The Decay of the Hollywood Special Effects Industry - sk2code
http://www.wired.com/underwire/2013/03/oscars-vfx-protest/

======
dmm
Is is the role of govt to prop up business models that are failing? There is
no "right to profit".

Failure is a vital part of the market. Failure is the market saying, "This
capital can be used more effectively somewhere else."

Failure is _not_ bad. It may be painful but it's necessary.

Think about it, should the govt subsidize every startup so that none fail?

~~~
Jare
Govt subsidies are (in theory) an investment; you invest money in X so that
you can make more money (or value) from Y.

In that sense, for example, there's a train of thought that if creating VFX in
the USA becomes untenable then its move to other countries may drag money with
it, then know how, then creative talent, then innovation, then production,
then the entire industry and then it associated power for cultural dominance.

The entire sequence can be debated and argued and nitpicked to death (and I
don't know enough about it to even try), but the underlying idea is valid.

~~~
ef4
Even the underlying idea (essentially mercantilism) is questionable.

While it can clearly benefit certain special interests (hence its popularity),
it simply cannot benefit a whole society _on net_. Rather than repeat the
whole argument, I'll just cite Adam Smith (a guy who was much more moderate
than often portrayed by modern partisans), who showed in no uncertain terms
that subsidies and tariffs make a nation poorer.

------
raverbashing
What is funny is that VFX costs have been going DOWN

Today, I can do professional VFX in a "cheap" computer (of course, you want to
shoot for the high end), together with software easily acquirable.

Compare that to the beginnings of ILM for example.

This smells much more of bad business plans + companies tolerating studio's
abuse (payment delays, overstaffing to meet deadlines, etc)

" In order to compete, VFX houses in Southern California have to charge way
less, leading to slim-to-none profit margins"

Aah there you go. The absurd of housing prices (and everything) in California.
Like you need to be close to your customer in this times of internet and
FedEx, you can set shop in Seattle maybe and cut your costs

~~~
berkut
It's artist time that is expensive - even render time is cheap in comparison.
VFX houses are happy to spend loads of money on renderfarms and wait 12 hours
a frame, but it's mainly artist time that costs money.

Software cost only has a small influence in the general picture, although the
Indian and Chinese VFX companies using unlicensed software gives them even
more of an edge than cheap labour by itself does.

~~~
raverbashing
Yes, the cost of keeping HW up to date is non-negligible, even if it is a
small part of the costs.

That 12h per frame has remained more or less constant for the past years,
they'd rather have more details than speed it up =) (I suppose modern hardware
can render Toy Story today in real time and even more)

But the cost of artists reflect the cost of where they live, pick a less
expensive city in the US and you can probably match UK/New Zealand

Of course, it can't be NullPointer, Wyoming but in a bigger area it shouldn't
be a problem

~~~
berkut
A lot of the more mundane stuff is already "outsourced" or given to VFX
houses' offices in other parts of the world like India.

e.g. SPI send all their Roto to India, they've just moved all their comping
and lighting to Vancouver, it's mainly just R&D that's in Culver City now.

That's probably going to happen more and more now - instead of having
dedicated Roto departments, it'll be outsourced as a way to cut costs.

------
pwthornton
I wonder if the constant shifting of VFX houses to new countries and employees
coming and going from the field is why we are seeing uneven results in movies?
Most special effects-laden movies have a few CGI shots that just look awful.
And you would think that VFX would be steadily improving in quality, but while
we often see more impressive results in terms of what can be done the accuracy
of them isn't always holding up and the realism and reliability isn't
improving at the same rate that technology and new techniques are.

This could end up with Hollywood shooting themselves in the foot. Movies are
getting more and more CGI, but CGI that breaks the suspension of disbelief can
really ruin a movie.

A lot of people complained about the VFX in Wolverine, for instance, but
shouldn't the VFX in that have been better than the X-men triology? Well, when
you have seventeen different companies doing VFX shots for a movie, you're
going to get uneven results. There was some really good VFX in Wolverine, but
there was some really bad stuff too, and I'd have to believe the studio going
cheap is what led to it.

~~~
mkr-hn
You can produce amazing work with entirely free and open source tools like
GIMP and Blender, so it's definitely not the technology.

~~~
berkut
You _can_ produce work that looks good, as they _technically_ have the
features, but the workflow is generally atrocious for open source tools. This
means it takes a lot longer to do stuff.

On top of this, the technical limitations of GIMP and Blender are much more
limiting than what high-end apps like Nuke/Mari for texture painting (want to
do 32k x 32k texture painting at full 32-bit float for RGBA), and things like
XSI rending to PRMan or Arnold, kicking around 200GB of geometry at render
time.

GIMP and Blender can't get anywhere near those use-cases - yes, they're
extreme, but those are the things companies like ILM, SPI, Weta, Framestore,
etc deal with on a daily basis.

~~~
mkr-hn
This is good to know. I assumed Blender and GIMP had workflows with comparable
efficiency once you got used to them. I've never used the commercial tools.

~~~
TrevorJ
Gimp I don't care for, but the workflow in Blender is fairly good really.

------
doctorpangloss
I'm surprised everyone took the economics angle to criticize VFX houses.

There was a time not long ago when Computer Science looked stupid because a
programmer in India could do the same software engineering work for 1/3 the
pay. I doubt free-market thinking programmers came out of the woodwork to
applaud cheap Indian labor.

Besides, as other commenters noted, what is outrageous economically speaking
is the $400 million B.C. handout, not cheap labor. That doesn't sound like
free market to me.

I think VFX artists just need to unionize. They have the same "real" problem
software engineers do, which is this pretentious notion of artist.

Like software engineers, VFX artists aren't professionals or artists. They are
given bulk work that requires technical expertise to execute, like a welder, a
makeup artist, or a teacher (my grin, it is huge).

To drive home the point, an HN software engineer commenter complained that at
the same point in his and his doctor friend's career (about 7 years), the
doctor was earning radically more money. Lawyers too, I might add, being real
professionals, earn what VFX and software engineers _expect_ to be earning.
Nevermind consultants and their enormous bonuses.

A Blackstone consultant can retire at 30, even though your average software
engineer or VFX artist could dismiss what the consultant does as "making
PowerPoints."

The artists line shows how out of touch VFX artists are with their role in
Hollywood.

If VFX artists want to take more ownership, creative and financial, direct
features. Don't hire actors. Distribute yourself. It happens, like Neill
Blomkamp. You don't have to start Pixar.

~~~
potatolicious
> _"I think VFX artists just need to unionize."_

This will never happen, for the same reason the video game industry will never
unionize. It's a glamour industry where there is absolutely no shortage of
starry-eyed dreamers who've been sold more on the ideal of the craft than the
reality.

It's hard to unionize when there's a lineup of naive dreamers stretching all
the way around the block, all ready to pounce into your seat at the first
opportunity.

~~~
patmcguire
There are unions for film writers and actors, and for the major sports
leagues, which are all clearly glamor industries. Only differences I can think
of are:

1) They were unionized in a totally different business climate. Union's a
dirty word now. 2) They're all at least about protecting seniority and the
established workers, kind of like the criticisms of the teachers unions. There
are a lot of circular requirements for the movie unions - only SAG actors can
appear in SAG movies, but to join the SAG, you have to have said a line in a
SAG film (clearly there are a few loopholes).

The sports unions tend to fleece the younger members - the MLB union doesn't
care about the minor leaguers, so a lot are living around the poverty line,
NBA players are fine with the fixed draft pay scale because it's more money
for them at the expense of players joining the league.

Tech tends to be ageist (moreso than professional sports - think about that
for a second) so there's no core of veterans trying to coalesce to protect
their position. I don't think it'll ever happen, is what I'm saying.

------
mindslight
From what I've been hearing about DD, the problem is terrible management more
than anything. The outsourcing looks financially attractive on paper but
doesn't actually get the job done (the last 10% taking 90% of the time and all
that. sound familiar?), leaving Venice to pick up the pieces after the show is
already late and over budget.

~~~
berkut
But that's inherently a problem with feature film (and especially animation
stuff) - even the studios like FOX and Disney only get the profit once DVDs
and merchandise have been selling - before then, they've given out millions to
finance the production.

DD were pretty stupid trying to do the feature animation thing, and changing
their company name a few times has caused them even more financial trouble in
terms of having to buy software multiple times for site licenses.

~~~
mindslight
What's inherently a problem, bad management? :P

There's always uncertainty that any subcontractor might be just saying they're
making progress, only to blow up at the end. But this shouldn't be happening
internal to the company.

Hadn't heard that about the software licenses! I thought the naming
shenanigans were only the holding company, are you sure that wasn't just from
adding licenses for Florida?

~~~
berkut
Fair point, yeah it's internal with them, I hadn't thought of that.

Put it this way - they've bought Nuke three times, and they made it
originally!

------
colmvp
Top tier VFX studios in the U.S. not only hire stellar artists but also help
guide the direction of the creative be it a commercial or cutscene. It reminds
me of the difference between the various times I've worked with Carbon
Five/Pivotal Labs vs a significantly cheaper alternative in another country.
In that sense, I don't think the top motion graphics studios will all go out
of business because of outsourced work, as their high level of creativity,
direction, and execution is simply something outsourced work cannot completely
replace. Learning how to be a stellar software engineer is more than just
learning how to code in a language or two. Likewise, learning how to be a
strong VFX creative is more than just learning how to use a few programs.

For the record, the peeps I know in the VFX make just as much money as the
average engineer (125k - 250k).

------
yk
I wonder, if this is just the result of an technology shift. Twenty years ago,
one needed highly specialized guys to build star ship models and coordinate a
stop motion animation of a space battle, ten years ago one needed for
basically the same scene guys with really expensive workstations and Maya
licenses. Today one can do very high quality work with free tools on an
standard PC. ( And one can easily copy a few GB of rendered scenes to a server
half a world away.)

At least my observation is, that quite a few short films ( often as projects
from film schools) are getting to a point, where they have really amazing VFX.

This trend is probably accelerated by the more general use of VFX. Someone who
specializes in building star ship models can only find work in SF films, but
today someone who can render a complex transition for an advertisement uses
the same technologies as someone who does 'real' VFX and can consequently
transition much easier to real movies.

------
sybhn
Sounds like that industry is getting hit by outsourcing, am I reading this
right? Does look like articles about software engineering outsourcing a decade
ago. The reality is, if your work can be done by someone else at a lower cost,
you're in trouble. Whether that person live in your country or not, has little
impact nowadays. If you stay at the edge, making sure your work cannot yet be
done by someone else, then you'll get paid a premium for it. That's just how
things work, basic economics. Don't make taxpayers carry your burden.

Ps: written by someone who saw the impact of outsourcing first hand.

~~~
jinushaun
The problem is if you take that argument to its natural conclusion, the only
people in the US with jobs in the future will be waiters and baristas. Who
will be able to afford what the robots/companies are selling? It's not that
simple. There is a delicate balance between livable wage and low operating
costs. Ford knew he had to pay his workers enough to be able to afford the
cars they were making.

~~~
sybhn
actually if you take that argument to its natural conclusion the only people
in the US with jobs would be people who innovate and create new value. Don't
think that waiters and baristas fit in that category. If i was either, i'd be
really worried about my prospect, and would probably fall back to organized
labor to protect my jobs, because the economic mechanism definitely would not!

------
mixmastamyk
Though not a typical business this sounds like a trade issue to me.
Governments are subsidizing a product for export to the detriment of other
countries.

Perhaps it's time for a large tariff on maple syrup and hockey-pucks?

