Variety report: Vfx cuts may affect upcoming films

Become a member of the CGSociety

Connect, Share, and Learn with our Large Growing CG Art Community. It's Free!

THREAD CLOSED
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  06 June 2009
Variety report: Vfx cuts may affect upcoming films

Visual effects now vie with stars as box office draws in summer tentpoles. But a possible shortage of visual effects shops could be a brutal blow to the next wave of f/x-heavy tentpoles.

Studios depend on outside vfx shops to deliver ever-larger amounts of first-class work on ever-shorter schedules. Some leaders of the visual effects business, both at vfx shops and at studios, are warning there could be a shortage of vfx capacity within a year -- a shortage that could drive up costs and even threaten release dates.

The combination of Hollywood's production slowdown and the recession have already driven some California vfx shops out of business, with more threatening to shutter.


http://www.variety.com/article/VR11...visual+effectsc
__________________
LinkedIN
VIMEO

- My thoughts are my own and should not be confused with anyone else's.
 
  06 June 2009
It all makes perfect sense but it is a very unfortunate turn. It's like if only the big companies were going to survive.
 
  06 June 2009
man, this article has made the rounds...saw it first a few months ago on VFX user group on Linkedin, then again a month ago on VFXTalk.com...now here. If there was an industry pulitzer the author would be getting one
 
  06 June 2009
Originally Posted by vfx: Studios depend on outside vfx shops to deliver ever-larger amounts of first-class work on ever-shorter schedules.

I've been wondering if this would ever have an impact. Seems like almost every project gets a shorter time, less people, and more expectations which usually translates into massive OT for long periods of time. You'd think after 20+ years of vfx with computer work coming on strong, people would know how to schedule a movie without killing people.

On the flip side, I know the vfx houses are at the mercy of the production and in competition with each other for shows. Makes for a very combustible situation with no one wanting to lose clients or projects.
__________________
.brett
 
  06 June 2009
just makes me think why don't people just take pay cuts, its silly that theres people out there getting £500 a day or more, greedy
 
  06 June 2009
Does this mean that things are on the up and more jobs are on the way for us? I'm currently building my first show reel, and I'm dreading flipping burgers...
__________________
www.cam-bamber.co.uk
 
  06 June 2009
Pay the actors a more reasonable salary and redirect the savings. Problem solved.

Example: there is no way Nicole Kidman is worth the salary she demands. her past dozen or so movies have not performed well in relation to her salary.

if they are huge stars, pay them a percentage of profits rather than an upfront, massive salary. That way, they are motivated to do publicity and work hard. This will quickly separate box office stars from tabloid stars.

What a concept!

If the actors won't play ball, find some that will. Pay the VFX people who work 80 hour weeks what they deserve.
 
  06 June 2009
Originally Posted by CompanionCube: just makes me think why don't people just take pay cuts, its silly that theres people out there getting £500 a day or more, greedy
studios are waiting till the last minute to start films and people need to work 16+ hour days, 7 days a week to finish the film on time. If your making £500 then your probably good enough to deserve it since often your often not working 12 month out of the year(more like 9-10).

The trouble is that large companies require huge layers of extra management so they have to charge way more per shot then smaller studios. Though the smaller studios break when you go beyond a certain number of shots.
__________________
-deke
 
  06 June 2009
Originally Posted by CompanionCube: just makes me think why don't people just take pay cuts, its silly that theres people out there getting £500 a day or more, greedy


Ugg.

The people who get that and more usually live in an expensive city where they have to spend 2-3k a month for a reasonably crappy apartment. They have to pay their own health insurance, taxes, and if they have kids, good luck. They ask that much per day, since they usually don't have the opportunity to work every day. If they do, they usually agree to a reduced daily rate, based on longer-term contracts. Greed. Jebus. Get real.
__________________
______________________
Andrew Weidenhammer
3dlight.blogspot.com

 
  06 June 2009
Originally Posted by CompanionCube: just makes me think why don't people just take pay cuts, its silly that theres people out there getting £500 a day or more, greedy


Jobs in this business are not the most secure. Most have to be as greedy as possible because the next day they may be let go, and if they have to find another job, they will need that money to tide them over...
__________________
Silo, 3D Coat, Blender
C, C++, Java

Currently working on...HCR #42
 
  06 June 2009
GOOD

hopefully they will concentrate of a damn script before trying to save a film with a crap story by making it shiny.
 
  06 June 2009
Originally Posted by CompanionCube: just makes me think why don't people just take pay cuts, its silly that theres people out there getting £500 a day or more, greedy



Greedy??? Are you serious? My day rate is high because I do nothing but freelance. There is only work, as Beaker said for about 9 months out of the year. My day rate is not only determined by how much I am making while working, it is determined by how much I will need in between jobs! Work freelance before you call us greedy! I probably make the same as you...but you get paid while you're sitting around doing nothing...I get paid more while I'm working so i can have a place to sit around doing nothing!
 
  06 June 2009
Originally Posted by Venkman: Pay the actors a more reasonable salary and redirect the savings. Problem solved.

Example: there is no way Nicole Kidman is worth the salary she demands. her past dozen or so movies have not performed well in relation to her salary.

if they are huge stars, pay them a percentage of profits rather than an upfront, massive salary. That way, they are motivated to do publicity and work hard. This will quickly separate box office stars from tabloid stars.

What a concept!

If the actors won't play ball, find some that will. Pay the VFX people who work 80 hour weeks what they deserve.


I like it.
You think any of the unions would allow it?
 
  06 June 2009
Originally Posted by redbellpeppers: I like it.
You think any of the unions would allow it?


Isn't is up to producers what they offer actors (or what they accept an actor demands)?

I would think it is as simple as only hiring people who will act for a reasonable fee.

As for the profits, that's what George Lucas did with the original Star Wars, i think. Worked out pretty well for those guys.
 
  06 June 2009
Why are the vast majority of people with money stupid? How do they even get money in the first place?

It's about as clear as a clear pane of glass. If your struggling with finances you take measures to change that, now your left with two (i'm just simplifying this) options;

  1. Pay peanuts to VFX studios, who essentially nowadays create the backbone for any film, it's not so much about script, but about how much explosions and monsters you can get into 90 minutes (No offence to VFX studios, they do an amazing job, but sadly it's the guys with the most money and least amount of creativity running the show)
  2. Find cheaper, but just as capable actors and pay them a salary that doesn't take 50% of the films budget. (as well as cutting back on the stupid and undeeded expenses)
I don't know about other people, but i tend to avoid films with A-list actors, why?
  1. It totally detracts from being taking into the film, because you've seen there faces and style of acting applied to so many on screen characters.
  2. You can sort of guess that there is going to be a basic hollyword plot, love, war etc
  3. You can also sort of guess that the film will concentrate more on showing the actors doing cool things, than actaully telling a story, or being in the least bit entertaining.
  4. It's about the actors.. there names are all over the film adverts, it's not a film.. it's a montage of the "lead" actor looking awesome and badass.
If i could i'd fly over to hollywood and moon every single idiot investor who thinks that the general public want to see these over used and, personally **** actors in films.. Sorry.. montages.



/Rant.

Yea i know the thread is about studios, but the fact that an actor probably take away more for a few weeks/ months of work than a whole studio does is quite frankly ****** disgusting! :@
__________________
I dabble...
 
Thread Closed share thread



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
CGSociety
Society of Digital Artists
www.cgsociety.org

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2006,
Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Minimize Ads
Forum Jump
Miscellaneous

All times are GMT. The time now is 09:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.