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.
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.
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.
The difference between programming and VFX is that you don't need to do maintenance programming on the finished result of a VFX project. Once you've rendered a movie scene, that's it: either it looks good, or it looks lousy. Cheaply-built software (from India or otherwise) may look okay, but fall apart under its own weight; visual effects don't have that class of problem (or to the extent they do, it is a much smaller or less-frequent problem).
If American VFX artists successfully unionize and attempt to charge higher prices for VFX work, you can expect to see more outsourcing of labor-intensive VFX to cheaper, nonunion VFX shops, many of which will be outside of the US. (Alternatively, some VFX shops will invest in capital projects - in the form of computer systems - that create quality VFX with fewer but more-productive artists.)
It may in fact suck to be a VFX artist. There is, however, little that you can expect to do to change this, even if you do unionize. If your life as a VFX artist sucks and your pay is low, you may simply have to pay attention to this price signal, exit the industry, and seek employment elsewhere.
Disclaimer. No moral judgement on the situation, the desirability of this situation, or other matters is hereby designated. This post discusses only economic concerns.
I don't think many people working in vfx expect to earn as much as a doctor, lawyer or successful entrepreneur. They would like to be paid a similar rate to other highly qualified technical individuals working in a profitable field.
VFX (also games) artists/developers work far, far harder than the average software engineer. They are often very highly qualified. However they're unlikely to earn as much as an equivalently qualified and experienced software engineer in another, less glamorous field, because the job is perceived as desirable. Hence, greater competition and rates are driven downwards.
That's fair enough really, since most do enjoy the work. Though they'd like to see their friends and family slightly more often.
The problems touched on in the article are that of subsidies and outsourcing. Subsidies have hit the vfx industry in CA pretty hard, no question. However, even if the subsidies were to go away, the studios are addicted to the reliable income that vfx driven films bring. They're also addicted to the low rates offered outside of CA. They'll keep pushing the race to the bottom until they find the place they can get the work done at an acceptable level for the cheapest possible rate. And that's unlikely to be in the US.
"Like software engineers, VFX artists aren't professionals or artists"
Overgeneral statement. You can perhaps make that claim of some VFX jobs, but I'd defy you to say that Bay Raitt, say (one of the main guys who created Gollum) isn't doing artistic work.
3D character modeling, to take just one VFX job, is sculpture. That's been fairly conclusively defined as an artform for a while now.
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.