It depends on what you consider "so little". Winning awards doesn't always translate into profitability. The bottom line where you would put your foot down and say that you wouldn't work for less wouldn't be everyone else's bottom line. Someone else will take the job you turned down.
That is why VFX people need to make sure they are in a union. Fact is studios can afford it. They just don't want to because they are greedy fucks. There are billion dollar box office movies that studios still claim have not made any money.
You re imagining anyone can do VFX well or that it’s like a production line making widgets. Both are ignorantly wrong
You're imagining that nobody who could do VFX well would be willing to work for less if that's what it took to get the job. You're incredibly naive.
You do something well by doing it. Experience not lessons are the most valuable. Being part of a team that gels. Also. If they were that great wouldn’t they have the work in the first place? Nothing is stopping Cameron from creating his own VOC studio like IDM and Pixar and wētā.
You're not going to get the experience that would allow you to gel with any team if you price yourself out of a job. Working for less got them in the door.
Got who in what door? you're going round in circles. You're using company undercutting tactics and applying them to staff applications. mixed up much? If Cameron wants cut-rate VFX he's perfectly capable of creating a VFX company where he can pay less to that staff. No-one's stopping him.
www.deltaromeo.tv/insights/the...
The article starts by describing an industry that massively undercuts itself. So when Cameron says they charge too much and should charge 20% less, I’m trying to see how this article supports the “vfx studios and vfx artists charge too much” argument. Explain it to me with logic.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lcB...
Cameron didn't say that the vfx studios should charge 20% less or that the vfx artists should get paid 20% less. I said that if the vfx companies paid 20% less the VFX artists WOULD work for that amount. I didn't say that the vfx companies SHOULD pay the VFX artists 20% less
My bad. I thought that 20% less was from Cameron. But my point still stands. Other directors and studios created their own vfx services. He could easily create his own as well and foster that industry. I have no idea if existing vfx artists would work for less. If industry-wide? Probably, sure.
James Cameron co-founded Digital Domain, an American VFX company in 1993. Cameron sold his stake in the company after it filed for bankruptcy in 2012. The company was later acquired by a Hong Kong-based company and an India-owned company in a 2013 bankruptcy auction.
www.youtube.com/shorts/Xfcxk...
Seems like this supports my position. Not yours.
And that’s one of the reasons VFX have been absolutely terrible lately. Long hours, low pay, and quick turnaround - that sounds like a sweatshop. It’ll only make movies *worse* - especially since movies are relying more on VFX than story now. I know he devalues it because he himself can’t do it
Life of pi VFX studio went bankrupt
If Rhythm and Hues, the VFX studio that won the Oscar for "Life of Pi" had reduced their employees' pay by 20% to stay open, I believe most of the employees would have taken the pay cut. www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lcB...
Rhythm and Hues was also pretty poorly run but yeah the main issue was an exploitative contract that didn't pay them extra as the scope of work changed
Why is it that it always comes down to the working people and creatives who are supposed to accept the “take a pay cut or get fired” ultimatum when studio executives continue raking in record pay even when they make terrible management decisions?
quick question: how little are you willing to work for?
Quick honest answer: it depends on how much I need the job. If I was struggling to make ends meet and my options were limited I would be willing to work for less.