Green Scream: The Decay of the Hollywood Special Effects Industry

Is is the role of govt to prop up business models that are failing? There is no "right to profit".<p>Failure is a vital part of the market. Failure is the market saying, "This capital can be used more effectively somewhere else."<p>Failure is _not_ bad. It may be painful but it's necessary.<p>Think about it, should the govt subsidize every startup so that none fail?

What is funny is that VFX costs have been going DOWN<p>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.<p>Compare that to the beginnings of ILM for example.<p>This smells much more of bad business plans + companies tolerating studio's abuse (payment delays, overstaffing to meet deadlines, etc)<p>" In order to compete, VFX houses in Southern California have to charge way less, leading to slim-to-none profit margins"<p>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

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.<p>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.<p>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.

I'm surprised everyone took the economics angle to criticize VFX houses.<p>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.<p>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.<p>I think VFX artists just need to unionize. They have the same "real" problem software engineers do, which is this pretentious notion of artist.<p>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).<p>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 <i>expect</i> to be earning. Nevermind consultants and their enormous bonuses.<p>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."<p>The artists line shows how out of touch VFX artists are with their role in Hollywood.<p>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.

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.

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

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.)<p>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.<p>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.

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

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