Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Life After Pi - A short film on the fate of the VFX industry

bjorn, i have to agree with mike a little bit - i'd give him the benefit of the doubt that he's followed these issues perhaps longer than anyone else here...

there are already unsuccessful (so far) efforts to get some of the larger vfx houses to form themselves into a trade organization. however, if some of the smaller ones would initiate a collective contract, a guild that includes owners/creators, that might be enough to change the momentum (and at least, prepare for the future).

if any of you are interested in being part of a strategy session, get me an email asap and we'll talk.

oh, and this is cool...
http://rhythm.com/labs/
 
MPAA may have shot themselves in the foot in this fight!

http://pando.com/2014/02/25/revenge...-weapon-in-their-fight-against-big-hollywood/

http://pando.com/2014/02/27/mpaa-re...l-effects-workers-case-against-big-hollywood/

I have mixed feelings, as this could go against the UK film industry. :sad:
At the same time, how VFX Houses and workers are treated is so unfair.

It does starkly illustrate how big business always wants it all their own way, only benefiting themselves.
The question is why workers continue to allow them to do so.
 
I'm guessing the average Canadian/New Zealander/Brit doesn't have much of an idea the enormous tax dollars being spent on these subsidies, how their hard work enriches fat cats not even in their own countries. Tantamount to theft really. Government sanctioned. License to steal. Kind of reminds me of that Clown Hamburger Corporation encouraging their workers' use of food stamps to mitigate the starvation of slave wages, at the same time as they reap enormous yearly profits. Kinda make you lose your appetite.
 
I recommend a little movie call "Roger and Me". The blue collar worker has been getting fucked by our trade policies that favor multi-nationals over American Workers for decades. Welcome to the party white collar urbanites (who drive foreign cars and shop at Costco/Ikea etc.)

Perhaps we can take a week off from 24/7 media coverage of Gay Marriage, Race Issues, Abortion, God and Republican vs Democrats to have a national discussion about how to prevent the continued failure of the Middle Class Social Contract we should have with the government that is supposed to represent us.
 
Tom Hamilton said:
Small correction Josh, Costco was founded in San Diego. but point taken.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should check your facts before correcting mine ;-)
Costco is out of the PacNW (thus the Kirkland brand name) - Price Club of San Diego was the first membership club and was later acquired by Costco. I know because I live here and know the Price family.

So anyway . . . smug college educated white collar urban workers are now getting the same Multi-National shaft Joe Six Pack has been enjoying for decades. Time for some focused outrage perhaps?
 
Josh Beadle said:
I recommend a little movie call "Roger and Me". The blue collar worker has been getting fucked by our trade policies that favor multi-nationals over American Workers for decades. Welcome to the party white collar urbanites (who drive foreign cars and shop at Costco/Ikea etc.)

Perhaps we can take a week off from 24/7 media coverage of Gay Marriage, Race Issues, Abortion, God and Republican vs Democrats to have a national discussion about how to prevent the continued failure of the Middle Class Social Contract we should have with the government that is supposed to represent us.
Click to expand...

It's not just American workers. It's multinationals against all of us, including sovereign governments meant to represent us :(

Infinito Gold sues Costa Rica for $1bn in "lost" profits because Costa Rica reckoned the environmental fallout from Canadian gold mines in rainforest was unacceptable.
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/canadian-company-sues-costa-rica-gold-112013

Philip Morris tobacco sues Australia for mulit-billions of "lost" profits because Australia wants to reduce domestic smoking by introducing plain packaging
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052970204443404577051361355154868

Eli Lily sues Canada for $500m for "lost" profits because Canada won't grant them a patent
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...-unfairly-diminishes-eli-lillys-profits.shtml

All costly abuses of so called "investor-state dispute resolution mechanisms" in existing "trade treaties" such as NAFTA, originally intended to protect investment in unstable developing countries.

These are also appearing in imminent even more corporate friendly treaties being drafted in intense secrecy by corporations and a few select government representatives, such as the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP, also known as TAFTA, for Transatlantic Free Trade Area), between EU-US, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a proposed trade agreement between Australia, New Zealand, the US, and some Asian and South American nations. Basically NAFTA on steroids.
https://www.openrightsgroup.org/issues/ACTA

Until very recently big US pharma paid off cheaper generic competitors NOT to enter the market. At least the Supreme Court eventually ruled the practice illegal (although not really punishing anyone for that blatant illegality).
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/04/25/opinion/caplan-prescription-drugs/

Seeing a pattern?
 
M Most said:
Bjorn, I find your posts generally interesting, you're a smart guy. But to be blunt, you know little to nothing about this particular situation. You're assuming things that might be sensible from a European point of view, but just aren't the case. You're assuming that the people involved were ignorant of all the points you are making, when that is not the case. You're assuming that things are simple when they're not. You're assuming that the situation is "fixable" by simply adhering to more strict business practices, when that is just not the case. The situation is untenable, but it is a good illustration of what happens when competition is minimized, entrepreneurial ownership is eliminated (I'm talking about the studios, all of which are now owned by much larger companies), and there is a seemingly endless supply of those who still want to work in the industry despite the financial hardship. That is a recipe for the client dictating the rules of the game, and that's exactly what currently exists. None of the things you're talking about were ignored, and some of what you say is not accurate. As an example, tax incentives go to the studio, not the vendor. When you open up a visual effects studio in Vancouver, you don't get a penny from the government. That money goes to the studios that hire you. The companies that have opened up there didn't do it because it was any cheaper to do the work there, they went because the studios demanded the government handout for work they were doing.

If you're going to criticise, that's fine. But frankly, I would challenge you to start a viable VFX business doing studio feature work and somehow keep it solvent. Because some of the best minds in our industry have been unable to do that, regardless of how strict their business practices have been. The people who run these companies are not pure artists with no business acumen, they are in many cases businessmen who find themselves in a situation that has no real solution, and without the ability to band together to gain some leverage, as the studios do. It's not something that can be fixed by simply being stricter on hiring and contractual policies. It goes a lot deeper than that.
Click to expand...

I t think you are right for the most part. But I can assure you, tax incentives goest to post houses as well, it happens here and pretty much everywhere else. In some parts of europe the Government actually double your feature post company's income if you move your facility where they want it to be... Then the studios come and work there and collect even more of the taxpayers money when they place their production at these facilities.

And no, I will not want to start a big feature post house to prove something for you. I already been in that field, as a part of a little company called Egmont Entertainment but I pulled out as soon as I could and I try to stay as far away as possible from all such activity.

Anyhow, to me the R&H managers had options. They could turn Pi down, downsized a bit, and be very prosperous on a smaller scale and waited for a more lucrative ball to play. But they took a chance to go big and we all know how that went. I'm not saying they did not try, or that they did not do what they could to turn things to the better... but it's quite clear that they did not succeed, if keeping the company afloat was the aim. and I'm not saying that they where running it into the ditch by purpose. I actually think they where just a bit to eager to land that sweet project, to get to show their tiger skills. And I think they where hoping to recoup on the future fame that would come with it. But sadly that did not fly.
 
Björn Benckert said:
Anyhow, to me the R&H managers had options. They could turn Pi down, downsized a bit, and be very prosperous on a smaller scale and waited for a more lucrative ball to play. But they took a chance to go big and we all know how that went. I'm not saying they did not try, or that they did not do what they could to turn things to the better... but it's quite clear that they did not succeed, if keeping the company afloat was the aim. and I'm not saying that they where running it into the ditch by purpose. I actually think they where just a bit to eager to land that sweet project, to get to show their tiger skills.
Click to expand...
Rhythm & Hues had been around since 1987, founded by the former employees of the great Bob Abel & Associates (one of the best graphics and commercial effects houses in LA). Their success came over a long period of time to the point where, 20 years later, they were in the Top 10 best VFX houses in the world.

Life of Pi was done in LA, Malaysia, Taiwan, Vancouver, and Mumbai, so believe me, Rhythm & Hues tried very hard to spread the work out and leverage their investment so that they could handle the expenses as much as possible. They were already the best company in the world at "animal effects," creating very lifelike simulations of muscle, bone, fur, and skin, particularly with movies like Babe (which won them an Oscar in 1995), so they were the perfect choice to do Life of Pi.

The problem that companies like this get into is that they get hammered and hammered and hammered by the studios trying to keep costs down, and so the VFX house is faced with the problem of either laying hundreds of people off -- people who have trained at the company for years, who know their jobs very well, and are responsible for getting the work done quickly and efficiently -- or just sucking up and breaking even on the job, all in the hopes of making it up on the next job. The problem is if it happens on the next job, and the one after that, and the one after that, you're hosed.

You can have the best contract in the world and still get screwed. I know of a huge, major D.I. company in LA that worked on a film that made about a billion dollars. The color-correction sessions went way, way over budget and schedule, but the A-list director and producer signed off on them. The bill was presented to the studio... and the studio refused to pay, insisting that the director and producer had no authority for cost overage. The post facility threatened to sue, and the studio told them, "go right ahead. We have 20 lawyers in house who will tie you up in court for 20 years, and you won't get a dime. And we'll release a story in 24 hours telling every major news service about how incompetent your company was and how unhappy we were about your work. And we'll never, ever, ever give you a dime of business forever and ever."

Faced with that, the post facility gulped and agreed to accept the previous (much lower) original estimate, losing about 40% on the actual expenses. Needless to say, nowadays, every post facility doing a major project like this has weekly or even twice-weekly phone conversations with the studio making sure they agree to all expenses on color correction.

But VFX are much more ephemeral. What do you do when whole finished sequences are cut out of the movie? What do you do when the director says, "I don't want the alien creature to look like an insect, even though that's what you've worked on for 9 months; I want it to look like a bird, instead." How can you include every possibility for change in a contract? It's like working on a house where the construction plans are constantly being changed, even just as whole rooms are being completed.

Smarter people than me have said that the only way a successful VFX house can exist is if you have a benevolent dictator with deep pockets running the place, who agrees to let it operate as a "break-even" enterprise. George Lucas did this for more than 30 years with ILM... but he's not running the show any more. Disney has owned and shut down at least three different VFX companies in the last three decades; how long can they keep running ILM? Peter Jackson has done very well with his Lord of the Rings films and has kept his loyal employees at Weta Digital very busy for the past 15 years. What happens when he retires and fewer blockbusters are produced in New Zealand? They've got another 10 years of work from the Avatar movies, but after that... the crystal ball is cloudy.
 
I have zero knowledge about VFX business. So, I'm just wondering how did this "fixed" cost contracts came into being. I know, if I have a "flat rate" job and if i do not specify the maximum number of hours over which this project can't go over without overages, that project will never end. In that case the client have no incentive to be decisive or responsible for their actions. They will endlessly change their mind and they will want to see every conceivable permeation of various looks. But the moment they pay hourly, magically they immediately "know" what is it that they want. Even in this documentary one of the main characters compared the way VFX get's paid in comparison to the live action, where in case of live action studios are very clear on their directions and the director is held on a very short leash. I just wonder who's at fault for allowing this "fixed contract" business to continue? I know, by now there are many places willing to do whatever they need to do to secure the project. But there are just so many R&Hs with very unique skill set, not easily reproducible in those faraway places.
 
I Imagine fixed price bidding became the norm because:

Feature films are incredibly complicated, budgets are approved for films BEFORE they go into production, Vendors are chosen for VFX as early as possible so they have enough lead time in what is a very compressed environment due to ridiculous deadlines, Studios all want to make too many VFX heavy films but still there aren't enough studios to keep everyone who WANTS to be working on VFX heavy films employed.

An example of a VFX film that didn't have a pre determined release date and I believe also didn't have a predetermined exact budget is Gravity.

That's what VFX wizards can achieve given time, R&D and resources for a LOT less money than it costs on bigger blockbusters... Probably all because they took time to make the film, and didn't have to throw out a significant portion of their work or supplement huge amounts of work with crunch time at the end due to changes (nothing changed because the film was entirely created in previz to make it possible to do at all.)
 
I frequently get requests for a quote for a job, that is still being edited. Or very often they'd say, how much is for the 3 minutes video? Guess what? If they want a flat rate quote, then they will have to wait until I see the finished cut. Otherwise, it's an hourly rate. Yes, very often I don't get the gig, but that is the decision I'm ready to live with. I don't think this is very complicated and i can't understand why VFX companies think they can do bidding sight unseen better…
 
jake blackstone said:
I frequently get requests for a quote for a job, that is still being edited. Or very often they'd say, how much is for the 3 minutes video? Guess what? If they want a flat rate quote, then they will have to wait until I see the finished cut. Otherwise, it's an hourly rate. Yes, very often I don't get the gig, but that is the decision I'm ready to live with. I don't think this is very complicated and i can't understand why VFX companies think they can do bidding sight unseen better…
Click to expand...

Studios are willing to accept hourly rates when the bill is in the thousands of dollars. When it's in the tens of millions - as it is on big VFX features - they want fixed costs. And since there are so few of them, they can all demand and get it. The only way this ends is if a) the major lead VFX vendors collusively get together and refuse to do the work without a change, and b) there is some kind of move made by some world body to eliminate international bribes...err, subsidies........errr, "incentives." Since neither of these scenarios are likely, I don't see any of this changing any time soon, and I see a continuing pattern of VFX companies going under. Pretty ridiculous situation.
 
I agree Mike.

It's like the studios say, "Here, here's ten million dollars, anyone want it?" Then all the VFX guys line up and one of them is convinced they can pull it off. Everyone thinks they are going to be able to pull a profit or gain such a stupendous reputation that the good work will carry them. It's like a dock scene from On the Waterfront. Lots of hungry workers standing in front of a locked gate.

Here is the money (and ten million dollars is a lot of money until you have to produce the level of work required) take it or leave it, theres a line of people who want it.

The subsidies thing is disgusting and give the Studios even more leverage. Canada should be sort of ashamed at handing out that kind of money toward what leads to unfair employment standards. Would they hand that money out to a company making tee shirts or running shoes in Bangladesh?

What we need to hear in this thread is what the French would do. The French would have a solution to this. They have a strong history in labour politics.

Battisetlla
 
vive la revolution...

laissez faire would be fine if everyone was in agreement and there weren't six mega-media conglomerations running the show(s) into ditches.

until then, bring in the guilded age. i'm working on a document of standards and best practices to agree on... pm/email me with contributions
 
Marc Wielage said:
The problem that companies like this get into is that they get hammered and hammered and hammered by the studios trying to keep costs down, and so the VFX house is faced with the problem of either laying hundreds of people off -- people who have trained at the company for years, who know their jobs very well, and are responsible for getting the work done quickly and efficiently -- or just sucking up and breaking even on the job, all in the hopes of making it up on the next job. The problem is if it happens on the next job, and the one after that, and the one after that, you're hosed.

You can have the best contract in the world and still get screwed. I know of a huge, major D.I. company in LA that worked on a film that made about a billion dollars. The color-correction sessions went way, way over budget and schedule, but the A-list director and producer signed off on them. The bill was presented to the studio... and the studio refused to pay, insisting that the director and producer had no authority for cost overage. The post facility threatened to sue, and the studio told them, "go right ahead. We have 20 lawyers in house who will tie you up in court for 20 years, and you won't get a dime. And we'll release a story in 24 hours telling every major news service about how incompetent your company was and how unhappy we were about your work. And we'll never, ever, ever give you a dime of business forever and ever."
Click to expand...

Sounds like the roots of the issues lie in severe greed, lack of character values with resulting abuse of power.

I think I've seen this before.
 
M Most said:
The only way this ends is if a) the major lead VFX vendors collusively get together and refuse to do the work without a change, and b) there is some kind of move made by some world body to eliminate international bribes...err, subsidies........errr, "incentives." Since neither of these scenarios are likely, I don't see any of this changing any time soon, and I see a continuing pattern of VFX companies going under. Pretty ridiculous situation.
Click to expand...

"The only way" = the only way you currently see.

Let's see if the survival instinct kicks in.

:)
 
M Most said:
Studios are willing to accept hourly rates when the bill is in the thousands of dollars. When it's in the tens of millions - as it is on big VFX features - they want fixed costs. And since there are so few of them, they can all demand and get it. The only way this ends is if a) the major lead VFX vendors collusively get together and refuse to do the work without a change, and b) there is some kind of move made by some world body to eliminate international bribes...err, subsidies........errr, "incentives." Since neither of these scenarios are likely, I don't see any of this changing any time soon, and I see a continuing pattern of VFX companies going under. Pretty ridiculous situation.
Click to expand...

I agree, that my little rinky dinky examples has really nothing in common with the multi million dollar budgets for VFX work on a big blockbusters. But the fact remains, that continuing this way of doing business is the very definition of insanity. It's when you do something over and over, but expect a different outcome every time. If all VFX companies lose money every time on all these projects, then why do they still think they can make it work? I'd imagine at some point, no matter how big is the carrot, the fact of the matter the way these fixed cost contracts are structured, it's impossible to turn a profit and the existing VFX business model is just unsustainable with or without the subsidies…
 
David Battistella said:
Does this same stuff go on in the gaming industry?
Click to expand...

Thankfully this is not a common problem in the gaming industry:-) most gaming studios do most of their development in-house. One company will take it from concept to release, not contracted out to another animation company or programming company. And even after a game is released, they need to continue to support the game, or develop the next game within the same company, no bidding involved:-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top