Film Subsidy Bubbles
Dangers to those in the subsidized areas even if they may not be aware of it.
Someone on an email group questions why subsidies for visual effects were bad and why would we want to do away with "Our subsidies".
First off they're not our subsidies. The film studios are the ones who lobbied for them. They're the ones who profit from them. Not the vfx companies, not you, the vfx worker, and not the taxpayers.
All the vfx companies obtain by moving to subsidized areas is the 'opportunity' to bid on a project. Same competition. Same need to submit a bid the studios will accept.
Subsidies aren't what fund visual effects. World wide demand is what fuels visual effects. The studios make the films for a global market and most of their profits come from visual effects films. If they wish to make tent pole films they will continue to make films with visual effects. Reduction or elimination of subsidies would not cause visual effects work to disappear. What it would do is hopefully instill some basic management and planning of the visual effects to tell stories rather than abusive and excess amount of wasteful work.
What the studios gain from subsidies is someone (the taxpayers) who will cover a sizable cost of the film. This reduces their risk and allows them to make more profits, sooner. Thanks to the generosity of unsuspecting taxpayers.
Bubbles
It's useful to think of subsidies as what they are, economic bubbles. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
Housing bubble - Banks were practically giving away home mortgages with no down payments. There was so much profit to be made some bank loan officers were forging documents. There was so much profit to be made people were rushing to become contractors and real estate agents. Many were investing their life savings on a sure thing so they bought houses to 'flip'.
Things were going great until they weren't. The housing bubble popped and was one of the main causes of the world wide recession in 2008 which we will continue to struggle with for years, perhaps decades. People were wiped out out. Even those not involved in the housing market saw their house values, retirement funds and their investments drop like a rock. Unemployment skyrocketed and hundreds of thousands of homes were foreclosed, many of them illegally.
But don't worry about the banks. They're doing just fine. They made huge profits on reselling the loans and on the foreclosures. They even got mountains of money from the government.
Tech bubble - A few years earlier there was the tech or internet bubble. People were betting their life savings on this new internet thing. Startups were happening in every other house. People were rushing to be web designers. The gold rush was on. Until it wasn't. When it all imploded many lost their life's savings.
But don't worry about the banks or rich, they got in on the IPOs of the best companies. They'd be laughing their way to the bank if they weren't already sitting there.
Silver mines - In the 1800's there were a few silver mines where silver was discovered. And almost overnight towns would spring up complete with saloons, stores and churches. People moved across the country to feed on the potential money. They either became miners or sold to the miners. And then the mine would run dry and it would all stop. Many of these towns turned into ghost towns as people fled to the next place. The entire economy for them was built around the silver mines. People lost their savings and moved on.
But don't worry about the banks or the owners of the mines, they did ok.
And if you had asked any of those people involved the day before those bubbles popped, the people would have told you everything was great. They all thought it would continue. Until it didn't.
Not creating an industry
The film lobbyists and others who would make a profit from them, convinced the politicians of Michigan that it was in their best interest to build stages. Because they would be an ongoing profit center and employ over 6000 people. After all, they were creating an entire new industry there. And the politicians in their infinite wisdom backed the cost of building the stages (and the bonds required) by using the pension funds of the police, firefighters, teachers and others.
Then they learned the hard lesson that they weren't really creating an industry. They were simply leasing it at a high cost for a very short time. They were simply paying studios to come to their location on a film by film basis. And the studios would only bring films if they provided higher and higher amounts of cash every year. They had to compete with other countries and states and the ones to win film projects were the ones who outbid others and gave the studios more free money. Both the 'winners' and the losers were losers.
Many don't seem to see the downside of subsidies, especially if they're in a subsidized area. And just like the other bubbles, these people think everything will continue to be great.
Real World Example
Let's do a review of how this works and why it's not great for those working there. In this example I'll use Vancouver but it could be anywhere in the world.
Vancouver in the days before subsidies had their share of film production. Vancouver was a city and had a number of scenic locations for shooting (ocean, harbor, mountains, forests, city streets, snow, etc) There was some work from both Canada and the US. The lower exchange rate encouraged some projects to shoot there as well. If the subsidies never happened the film production in that area would continue to grow at a rate that matched demand. The industry would be as stable as any production hub can be. Most of those who had film jobs would likely remain reasonably employed.
When the subsidies were created in that area they created a huge pull for all productions, especially those on the west coast. Many projects went to Vancouver along with a number of the below the line jobs. According to some of the SaveBCFilm people, over 20,000 now depend on the film industry. Many of these couldn't be filled because they had not evolved over time to the new size. This was simply a politician pulling switch. That required bringing in workers from all over the world. That required training many locals in film production.
Many jobs were lost in Los Angeles and surrounding areas, places that had evolved over the last 100 years and had maintained a certain balance. Because this was where the studios with the money were located. This is where most of the writers, directors and producers made their homes. So this eco system that had developed was being drained not due to lack of demand but simply by politics.
Dangers
And in the meantime Vancouver continued to balloon. VFX companies from the US and even the UK were forced to set up shops due to the demand for this free money from the studios. This in turn required many working in the US and other countries to now move to Vancouver to continue working. The original intent for many of these film subsidies is to create more jobs for locals but in many cases the jobs are filled by foreigners. The clamor for more people and the lure of money also tends to bring out the 'for profit' schools to start pumping out even more students. So these graduates join the work force of a local industry that is already expanded beyond what it can support naturally. This while other areas are experiencing high jobless rates simply because the jobs have moved. No new jobs were created. Simply the shifting of existing jobs in most cases.
And we see this same pattern repeat itself around the world in other countries, regions and states. And the same people pushing for these in one area are in fact the same source of the funding and lobbying to push all other areas, each competing against the other but all ultimately working for the same small set of clients.
The people working in film and visual effects in areas with subsidies have now become dependent on the subsidies. They have become dependent on government handouts or welfare in a sense. The government ends up covering a sizable amount of their labor costs. And these subsidies must increase on a yearly basis and must out spend other areas competing for the same exact work.
Now you have thousands of people who's private industry jobs are in the hands of local politicians. A very large portion of the film industry (individuals, vendors, stages, sub-contractors, etc) in those areas has now expanded beyond what it would support naturally if there were no subsidies. This puts those areas in a very dangerous and fragile position. The entire structure could collapse at any moment since the politicians could pull the support, the only thing holding all of it up.
Film production and visual effects has always had ebb and flow of work so that makes it difficult but places with subsidies have additional factors to consider. If a subsidized area reduces their subsidies due to change in politics, then it will all fall down. The taxpayers in these areas won't always be so ignorant of what it's actually costing them. One day they will realize they're seeing the Emperors New Clothes re-enacted with their money. And the other thing these subsidized areas have to worry about is another location out bidding them by providing even more free money. They're competing against other locations and if they lose, they may lose big time.
Vancouver, BC has seen this in action just in the last year. Ontario and Quebec started offering more incentives and the work to Vancouver slowed down and the work in these other areas increased. Those in Vancouver also fail to see the irony when they cry foul over the subsidies when a large percentage of the work they had was based on themselves outbidding in the subsidies war. And as in all wars, there are losers.
And Vancouver and their SaveBCFilm had no control of these other political groups in other locations since they were competing with them. They had no control over their own local industry since they had built it on fictional and temporary support. They had not built a self sustaining industry with it's own content creation but rather a simple service industry greatly dependent on the good graces of local politicians (receiving money from the studio lobbyists) rather than business and talent.
And we see this repeat itself all the time. Michigan loses to Louisiana. State or area X loses to area y because of a shift in subsidies. The amount of work remains the same, it's only question is where it will go and this is now controlled by government payouts than by any other selection criteria.
So now rather than having a few healthy and stable locations for film and visual effects production, we see the work spread out to many more locations which tends to make each location weaker. Rather than a large eco system that is self sustaining, these are smaller systems which are not self sustaining. With so many new areas developing there is more competition for the exact same amount of work. And there are new areas announcing film incentives almost on a weekly basis. These areas are all fighting for anything and everything. Those jobs that were 'created' in those locations may evaporate at any time since film production is starting anew with each film and not as a permanent industry. And one thing is for sure, the work is constantly in flux and shifting around the world. No place is safe or permanent. Those on top today will likely be on the bottom tomorrow.
Awareness
And because these areas have all been expanded beyond their self supporting means, they're all in danger of popping. And so eager are they to keep the work they are willing to keep outbidding others. Those who have moved there, those who trained there, those building their own businesses there and all of those working there are in a very precarious position and yet fail to notice their local industry is supported by the least reliable support. A politician. Like those in other bubbles, they fail to notice the dangers until it happens. It obvious to those on the outside but those riding the bubble fail to see it or simply prefer not to consider the reality.
And who is pushing for subsidies in all of these cases? The studios, the only ones who gain in the end from any of these and the ones who play each location off the other. But don't worry about the studios. They'll be just fine. They'll just move to the next place after your area pops.
What's happening in LA could easily happen to Vancouver, London or any other film location. And not only is it possible to happen, it will happen at some point. There's no magic that protects your area. Studios eager to make money in the short term have no allegiances since the subsidies have merely turned the discussion into a cost issue.
No problem
There are those who think that that's the way it is now and that we should get over it. They don't see any problem moving every 3-6 months like migrant workers. They see no issue with being treated as a commoditized migrant worker and they feel the best workers will win out. Sorry for being the bearer of bad news but that's not how it will play out. Just because you're willing to move doesn't mean that you can move. Many subsidies are dependent on locals (residents who have been in a location for over a year, file income taxes there, etc) and so when given a choice between you and someone who can fulfill their subsidizing criteria, your 'qualifications' may not be enough to counter the need for a subsidized worker. Some countries are difficult to get working visas and so even if work is available and you have great qualifications, you likely won't be hired. And don't forget that each area has been expanding and expanding already. There already is an excess of visual effects and film workers due to subsidies. As the work continues to shift based on subsidies you may find yourself shut out from working, regardless of your qualifications, experience, skill level or talent. Then you might consider why subsidies aren't the best for the industry and the people who work in it. Rather than being based on quality, efficiency and cost criteria, subsidies are only based on which politician will provide the most money.
Summary
Many of these locations that have subsidies would continue to do work after the subsidies go away. They have now built up infrastructures and experienced and talented people. It won't be as much work but it will be more stable and more long term.
Ultimately that's what we're striving for. A healthy and stable industry where quality, efficiencies and other factors are the deciding criteria on where a production does their work. These are all in the hands of the companies and the workers in those locations. Right now your local industry is in the hands of a 3rd party that you have no control over - the politicians. That may be good for the studios but that is no good for those of us working in the business.
Related Posts
Visual Effects Tax Incentives / Subsidies
Risk and subsidies
The Impact of Visual Effects Subsidies
Showing posts with label Vancouver. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Vancouver. Show all posts
Saturday, August 10, 2013
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Canada's IATSE local 891 VFX survey
Canada's IATSE local 891 VFX union has done a survey of VFX artists that's worth checking out.
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Globalization and VFX
Globalization and VFX
One of the issues facing VFX companies and artists is the issue of globalization. Given the tax incentives and cost of living variance around the world most film studios are looking beyond the borders to find a better price for doing film work, including visual effects.
This blog is read around the world. This article will have a California slant but I’m trying to as always document the current state of affairs in visual effects.
In the golden age of movie making most Hollywood films were shot in Los Angeles with some being done in New York. The studios were setup as film factories to be as efficient as possible. If you finished a film on Friday, you'd start another film on Monday. The stages, sets, back lots and rear projection allowed them to shoot a wide range of film settings within the confines of the studio lot. If you want New York in the 1890's you go to one block of the back lot. If you wanted a1940's Midwest town you'd make a left into that back lot street. Many 'locations' were within easy driving distance of the studios, which also had ranches and other outdoor areas where they could construct western towns or other special settings.
With films like Easy Rider studios started to reconsider what they needed. Many back lots were sold for short-term gains and more true location shooting was done. In some cases if a film could be shot at a lower price in a different location that made sense. In other cases it made sense to go to another location if that truly was the location in film.
When films like Star Wars and Close Encounters were filmed the majority of visual effects were done in Los Angeles. When ILM moved to northern California that spread the work a bit but still the majority of the big, Hollywood vfx work was done within California. VFX companies were on a relatively level playing field. The jobs were awarded based on ability, quality and costs.
As the digital age of visual effects got underway some countries and states started offering tax incentives that included vfx. The digital age enabled the use of computers and software to be setup anywhere. VFX artists can be brought in from anywhere else and setup with little effort. VFX artists can be trained in the basics locally. The internet allows images to be sent anywhere quickly for work to be done and reviewed anywhere else. The studios, always eager to save money on things that weren’t under their umbrella, were more than happy to start sending out work. In their view, vfx are a commodity that can be done anywhere.
At this point a number of countries offer tax incentives, rebates or even pre-investments in films in exchange for a certain amount of work to be done in that country. Various states also have tax incentives as well to try to get millions of dollars of production costs to come to their state. The details vary greatly and can be a smart or bad investment depending on the details.
From the various governments viewpoint (state and country) an incentive means that they can draw film production to their location. A film production can bring in millions of dollars to a given locale fairly quickly. A factory doesn’t have to be built over time before people can be employed and there usually aren’t a lot of ecology studies required. All the products, services and rentals that can be had are paid for by production (hotels, catering, car rentals, hardware stores, etc). The crew spends a fair bit of their money locally on things like restaurants, bars and leisure time activates. If a location is portrayed well it may mean extra tourists in the future. When long-term incentives are in place then an entire film studio infrastructure can be built in that location and crewmembers of all types can be developed, including visual effects artists. Many third party companies develop to service the motion picture industry at these locations.
Companies in Vancouver, London and similar locations are doing well since they don’t have to compete on a level playing field. With a 20% or more savings via the government it’s difficult for vfx companies in the U.S. to compete directly.
From the studio perspective their main aim is to do a film as cheaply as possible and still make it work. If the film is a major VFX tent pole movie with a lot of difficult or new vfx then they will pay top dollar to make it and to ensure it will be done on time and to the quality required. But this only applies to those shots and sequences they feel need to be done at expensive vfx companies. One step down from those types of shots (certainly simpler compositing and roto shots) or lower level vfx film and price becomes one of the highest priorities.
A Hollywood studios first choice is usually Vancouver simply because it’s in the same time zone, is just a 3 hour flight away and they all speak English there. Second choice would probably be London since it’s the next closest location, they speak English and studios executives and key personal enjoy the London life. Next would be Australia. (New Zealand with Weta is primarily on the big projects and not so much a cost saving measure). India, China and other locations are further down on the list if the studio executives and key personnel think they will have to go there. If they don’t have to personally travel there, then the studio is all for sending the work anywhere in the world.
Obviously some studios now have infrastructures setup in various locations and their choice will be dictated by their established suppliers. You’ll notice most editing and sound mixing still happens in the U.S. since the filmmakers and studios spend a fair bit of time involved directly in these activities. They’re also not at the same level of expense as vfx.
Some people think that the studios won’t go anywhere just based on price but it’s very dependent on the nature of the work. There was an article a few months ago where most of the studios were now sending out their subtitling work (as done on the DVD’s). The cost savings to the studio? $600. A $100 million dollar movie and they send out the subtitling to a different country to save $600. I’m not a studio accountant but I suspect there might be a few other budget items that would yield larger savings but since subtitling (and vfx) are done by third parties it’s an easy win for any studio person to make that decision.
Unfortunately the location that has the most to lose (and gain) from subsidies is California. They have done too little, too late. A large revenue stream for California (especially southern California) comes from movies. There are a lot of people employed in this business and they in turn spend their money locally on services and products.
Runaway product continues to suck out revenues from California and unfortunately most of the California legislation can’t get a simple grasp of the obvious. Motion pictures are one of the U.S.’s largest exports.
People (and politicians) assume since movies bring in huge revenue that everyone who works in movies are ‘gazillionairs’ to quote another internet forum. What they forget is the vast majority of people involved in movie making are making working wages. The median income for writers in the Writers Guild is $44,000 a year. Most VFX people make more than this but if it’s averaged over all vfx artists and dry spells it may not be as much as you think.
Some US companies are opening satellite companies in other countries that are able to offer a better price break. There are multiple arrangements. In some cases they simply outsource the work they feel can be outsourced such as Roto. In other cases they have a full working relationship where the foreign company does a fair bit of real work on the actual product. Some companies operate independent shops in different countries that can be leveraged, as the work requires it.
Part of the issue is what is to be gained for everyone involved. If the focus of the studios is purely on the cost factor, having a US based VFX company doesn't necessarily gain them much. They're willing to pay top dollar today for certain projects with a lot of R&D but what happens in a few years when those techniques and software are more readily available in off the shelf products? If your California vfx company has some specialty (water, fire, etc) what happens when that’s all in the next major update of a software package? Will you continue to get work? What happens when vfx production management elsewhere is brought up to the same level? Will the studios continue to be willing pay more to a U.S. company to act as an intermediate?
Will most of the work being done in the US move out of the country and the only thing remaining be the vfx company executives and accountants?
If you live in a country that is currently doing well (healthy vfx production) because of the incentives or reduced expenses what happens when that changes? At some point your government may reduce or eliminate the incentive. Another country may offer a higher incentive. The world and local economy may increase the cost of doing business such that the incentives aren’t enough or another location may end up being even a lower expense because of changing cost of living factors. The studios will quickly move to the lowest priced area that can provide them what they need. Can you and the company you work for compete on a level playing field if it had to? Is your company truly efficient? Does it have the talented artists and R&D people required?
If you live in California (or starting here) what can you do?
1. You can work at some of the larger companies such as ILM, DD, etc. These still get large projects but they still lay off massive amounts of people and still go through cycles of feast or famine work so there’s no guarantee of long-term employment even if you’re considered on staff.
2. Consider working at a small to mid-size shop that continues to maintain a reasonable balance of work. Many of these do all television work (which is usually done here or in Vancouver) or that at least do some television work to help balance the work.
3. Consider moving out of country to where the actual work is being done. This sounds like a simple fix to anyone who doesn’t consider the implications.
a. There are already people working there. Are there enough job openings to make it worth moving there?
b. How long is the project? Is this a permanent move or will you have to shuffle off again in few months to somewhere else?
c. Can you qualify to work elsewhere? Many countries require work visas and other paperwork. Some incentives require crewmembers to be living in the country for a given length of time. Just because there is technical and creative work elsewhere doesn’t mean you can just move there and start working.
d. Can you work at reduced wages if that’s the reason the work is located in that country? If you’re at a location that is getting work based mainly on the cost of living can you work there yourself at the reduced rate and feel comfortable? Does the local taxes and other issues reduced the income even further?
e. What happens if you have loved ones, family, house or other connections here? If you’re young and single it may be fun and exciting to move to another location. For those of us with families do we sell the house and uproot all family members (taking children out of school and away from their friends) to go work in another country? Do we leave the family for long periods of time? (6 months to a year or longer) Do we try to rent out the house and hope to return someday?
It’s a sad state of affairs when experienced vfx artists, with all of their creative and technical skills, are likened to migrant farm workers moving to where the work is. At least there’s a real reason farm workers move is because of locations of the crops and growing seasons. In the case of the vfx artist a cubicle is a cubicle, no matter where in the world it’s located. The only reason for moving is purely at the whim of the counties incentives and the studios.
Unfortunately I can’t offer any real solutions. The unions can’t prevent work from moving out of the country. The politicians seem to be the few who have much control over this so they’re the ones to contact. I know that there are some organizations trying to make this better. If you’re in a location doing well then enjoy it while you can. If you’re in California it’s likely you’ll have to do what you have to do. There are now some vfx supes that spend months shooting in one country and then do the post in another country and spend most of the year away from their families.
Will there be enough of a demand and balance that all the vfx companies and artists throughout the world can keep reasonably busy and can enjoy the fruits of their labor?
(Links added 7/12/10 based on VFX Soldier comment posting. See comments for my basic response at this time. The links all make interesting reading and really get to the heart of the matter.)
VFX Soldier VFX Subsidy War Grows Into Global Trade War
Update 8-9-2010
Every week there seem to be new updates on state or country incentive programs.
Clint Eastwood makes UKFC plea - Entertainment News, Top News, Media - Variety
Here's a snippet:
Scottish-born producer Iain Smith, whose credits include "The A-Team," "Children of Men" and "Local Hero," expressed the need for the government to quickly form a plan or risk producers looking elsewhere to shoot films.
"While we have a fantastic infrastructure, we have to protect that as much as we can and in order to do that we have to compete against industries in other countries," said Smith. "There's no doubt we need to tighten purse strings but we need to be careful we don't asphyxiate the film industry in general."
But in an article written for Blighty's Observer newspaper on Sunday, culture secretary Jeremy Hunt hit back at critics.
"If we are going to face budget cuts I have a duty to ensure that taxpayers' money is spent where it gets the most bang for its buck," he said. "It is simply not acceptable in these times to fund an organization like the U.K. Film council where no fewer than eight of the top executives are paid more than £100,000 ($160,000)."
Hunt added: "Stopping money being spent on a film quango is not the same as stopping money being spent on film."
"This new credit will give New York post production services a much needed competitive edge," explains Rich Friedlander, co-founder of Brainstorm Digital. "We increasingly saw visual effects post work going to Canada thanks to their their Digital Animation or Visual Effects tax credit (DAVE). This new program will allow work that was filmed in New York to stay through its entire production cycle. It's a major move that will attract and keep top talent here in state."
One of the issues facing VFX companies and artists is the issue of globalization. Given the tax incentives and cost of living variance around the world most film studios are looking beyond the borders to find a better price for doing film work, including visual effects.
This blog is read around the world. This article will have a California slant but I’m trying to as always document the current state of affairs in visual effects.
In the golden age of movie making most Hollywood films were shot in Los Angeles with some being done in New York. The studios were setup as film factories to be as efficient as possible. If you finished a film on Friday, you'd start another film on Monday. The stages, sets, back lots and rear projection allowed them to shoot a wide range of film settings within the confines of the studio lot. If you want New York in the 1890's you go to one block of the back lot. If you wanted a1940's Midwest town you'd make a left into that back lot street. Many 'locations' were within easy driving distance of the studios, which also had ranches and other outdoor areas where they could construct western towns or other special settings.
With films like Easy Rider studios started to reconsider what they needed. Many back lots were sold for short-term gains and more true location shooting was done. In some cases if a film could be shot at a lower price in a different location that made sense. In other cases it made sense to go to another location if that truly was the location in film.
When films like Star Wars and Close Encounters were filmed the majority of visual effects were done in Los Angeles. When ILM moved to northern California that spread the work a bit but still the majority of the big, Hollywood vfx work was done within California. VFX companies were on a relatively level playing field. The jobs were awarded based on ability, quality and costs.
As the digital age of visual effects got underway some countries and states started offering tax incentives that included vfx. The digital age enabled the use of computers and software to be setup anywhere. VFX artists can be brought in from anywhere else and setup with little effort. VFX artists can be trained in the basics locally. The internet allows images to be sent anywhere quickly for work to be done and reviewed anywhere else. The studios, always eager to save money on things that weren’t under their umbrella, were more than happy to start sending out work. In their view, vfx are a commodity that can be done anywhere.
At this point a number of countries offer tax incentives, rebates or even pre-investments in films in exchange for a certain amount of work to be done in that country. Various states also have tax incentives as well to try to get millions of dollars of production costs to come to their state. The details vary greatly and can be a smart or bad investment depending on the details.
From the various governments viewpoint (state and country) an incentive means that they can draw film production to their location. A film production can bring in millions of dollars to a given locale fairly quickly. A factory doesn’t have to be built over time before people can be employed and there usually aren’t a lot of ecology studies required. All the products, services and rentals that can be had are paid for by production (hotels, catering, car rentals, hardware stores, etc). The crew spends a fair bit of their money locally on things like restaurants, bars and leisure time activates. If a location is portrayed well it may mean extra tourists in the future. When long-term incentives are in place then an entire film studio infrastructure can be built in that location and crewmembers of all types can be developed, including visual effects artists. Many third party companies develop to service the motion picture industry at these locations.
Companies in Vancouver, London and similar locations are doing well since they don’t have to compete on a level playing field. With a 20% or more savings via the government it’s difficult for vfx companies in the U.S. to compete directly.
From the studio perspective their main aim is to do a film as cheaply as possible and still make it work. If the film is a major VFX tent pole movie with a lot of difficult or new vfx then they will pay top dollar to make it and to ensure it will be done on time and to the quality required. But this only applies to those shots and sequences they feel need to be done at expensive vfx companies. One step down from those types of shots (certainly simpler compositing and roto shots) or lower level vfx film and price becomes one of the highest priorities.
A Hollywood studios first choice is usually Vancouver simply because it’s in the same time zone, is just a 3 hour flight away and they all speak English there. Second choice would probably be London since it’s the next closest location, they speak English and studios executives and key personal enjoy the London life. Next would be Australia. (New Zealand with Weta is primarily on the big projects and not so much a cost saving measure). India, China and other locations are further down on the list if the studio executives and key personnel think they will have to go there. If they don’t have to personally travel there, then the studio is all for sending the work anywhere in the world.
Obviously some studios now have infrastructures setup in various locations and their choice will be dictated by their established suppliers. You’ll notice most editing and sound mixing still happens in the U.S. since the filmmakers and studios spend a fair bit of time involved directly in these activities. They’re also not at the same level of expense as vfx.
Some people think that the studios won’t go anywhere just based on price but it’s very dependent on the nature of the work. There was an article a few months ago where most of the studios were now sending out their subtitling work (as done on the DVD’s). The cost savings to the studio? $600. A $100 million dollar movie and they send out the subtitling to a different country to save $600. I’m not a studio accountant but I suspect there might be a few other budget items that would yield larger savings but since subtitling (and vfx) are done by third parties it’s an easy win for any studio person to make that decision.
Unfortunately the location that has the most to lose (and gain) from subsidies is California. They have done too little, too late. A large revenue stream for California (especially southern California) comes from movies. There are a lot of people employed in this business and they in turn spend their money locally on services and products.
Runaway product continues to suck out revenues from California and unfortunately most of the California legislation can’t get a simple grasp of the obvious. Motion pictures are one of the U.S.’s largest exports.
People (and politicians) assume since movies bring in huge revenue that everyone who works in movies are ‘gazillionairs’ to quote another internet forum. What they forget is the vast majority of people involved in movie making are making working wages. The median income for writers in the Writers Guild is $44,000 a year. Most VFX people make more than this but if it’s averaged over all vfx artists and dry spells it may not be as much as you think.
Some US companies are opening satellite companies in other countries that are able to offer a better price break. There are multiple arrangements. In some cases they simply outsource the work they feel can be outsourced such as Roto. In other cases they have a full working relationship where the foreign company does a fair bit of real work on the actual product. Some companies operate independent shops in different countries that can be leveraged, as the work requires it.
Part of the issue is what is to be gained for everyone involved. If the focus of the studios is purely on the cost factor, having a US based VFX company doesn't necessarily gain them much. They're willing to pay top dollar today for certain projects with a lot of R&D but what happens in a few years when those techniques and software are more readily available in off the shelf products? If your California vfx company has some specialty (water, fire, etc) what happens when that’s all in the next major update of a software package? Will you continue to get work? What happens when vfx production management elsewhere is brought up to the same level? Will the studios continue to be willing pay more to a U.S. company to act as an intermediate?
Will most of the work being done in the US move out of the country and the only thing remaining be the vfx company executives and accountants?
If you live in a country that is currently doing well (healthy vfx production) because of the incentives or reduced expenses what happens when that changes? At some point your government may reduce or eliminate the incentive. Another country may offer a higher incentive. The world and local economy may increase the cost of doing business such that the incentives aren’t enough or another location may end up being even a lower expense because of changing cost of living factors. The studios will quickly move to the lowest priced area that can provide them what they need. Can you and the company you work for compete on a level playing field if it had to? Is your company truly efficient? Does it have the talented artists and R&D people required?
If you live in California (or starting here) what can you do?
1. You can work at some of the larger companies such as ILM, DD, etc. These still get large projects but they still lay off massive amounts of people and still go through cycles of feast or famine work so there’s no guarantee of long-term employment even if you’re considered on staff.
2. Consider working at a small to mid-size shop that continues to maintain a reasonable balance of work. Many of these do all television work (which is usually done here or in Vancouver) or that at least do some television work to help balance the work.
3. Consider moving out of country to where the actual work is being done. This sounds like a simple fix to anyone who doesn’t consider the implications.
a. There are already people working there. Are there enough job openings to make it worth moving there?
b. How long is the project? Is this a permanent move or will you have to shuffle off again in few months to somewhere else?
c. Can you qualify to work elsewhere? Many countries require work visas and other paperwork. Some incentives require crewmembers to be living in the country for a given length of time. Just because there is technical and creative work elsewhere doesn’t mean you can just move there and start working.
d. Can you work at reduced wages if that’s the reason the work is located in that country? If you’re at a location that is getting work based mainly on the cost of living can you work there yourself at the reduced rate and feel comfortable? Does the local taxes and other issues reduced the income even further?
e. What happens if you have loved ones, family, house or other connections here? If you’re young and single it may be fun and exciting to move to another location. For those of us with families do we sell the house and uproot all family members (taking children out of school and away from their friends) to go work in another country? Do we leave the family for long periods of time? (6 months to a year or longer) Do we try to rent out the house and hope to return someday?
It’s a sad state of affairs when experienced vfx artists, with all of their creative and technical skills, are likened to migrant farm workers moving to where the work is. At least there’s a real reason farm workers move is because of locations of the crops and growing seasons. In the case of the vfx artist a cubicle is a cubicle, no matter where in the world it’s located. The only reason for moving is purely at the whim of the counties incentives and the studios.
Unfortunately I can’t offer any real solutions. The unions can’t prevent work from moving out of the country. The politicians seem to be the few who have much control over this so they’re the ones to contact. I know that there are some organizations trying to make this better. If you’re in a location doing well then enjoy it while you can. If you’re in California it’s likely you’ll have to do what you have to do. There are now some vfx supes that spend months shooting in one country and then do the post in another country and spend most of the year away from their families.
Will there be enough of a demand and balance that all the vfx companies and artists throughout the world can keep reasonably busy and can enjoy the fruits of their labor?
(Links added 7/12/10 based on VFX Soldier comment posting. See comments for my basic response at this time. The links all make interesting reading and really get to the heart of the matter.)
(If you're viewing this on a page with other posts then please click on the Comments link below to see the comments and responses)
Update 8-9-2010
Every week there seem to be new updates on state or country incentive programs.
Clint Eastwood makes UKFC plea - Entertainment News, Top News, Media - Variety
Here's a snippet:
Scottish-born producer Iain Smith, whose credits include "The A-Team," "Children of Men" and "Local Hero," expressed the need for the government to quickly form a plan or risk producers looking elsewhere to shoot films.
"While we have a fantastic infrastructure, we have to protect that as much as we can and in order to do that we have to compete against industries in other countries," said Smith. "There's no doubt we need to tighten purse strings but we need to be careful we don't asphyxiate the film industry in general."
But in an article written for Blighty's Observer newspaper on Sunday, culture secretary Jeremy Hunt hit back at critics.
"If we are going to face budget cuts I have a duty to ensure that taxpayers' money is spent where it gets the most bang for its buck," he said. "It is simply not acceptable in these times to fund an organization like the U.K. Film council where no fewer than eight of the top executives are paid more than £100,000 ($160,000)."
Hunt added: "Stopping money being spent on a film quango is not the same as stopping money being spent on film."
|
"This new credit will give New York post production services a much needed competitive edge," explains Rich Friedlander, co-founder of Brainstorm Digital. "We increasingly saw visual effects post work going to Canada thanks to their their Digital Animation or Visual Effects tax credit (DAVE). This new program will allow work that was filmed in New York to stay through its entire production cycle. It's a major move that will attract and keep top talent here in state."
Saturday, November 17, 2007
Visual Effects Society
Just a reminder to check out the Visual Effects Society (VES) sometime. If you're a professional with 5 years or more experience then you can qualify for membership. They have member inductions twice a year. There are now additional sections in London, Vancouver and San Francisco area.
Students and others interested in visual effects might want to check for events in your area. There are presentations and other events during the year.
If you're a student in the L.A. area then check into the mentoring program. I and a few others spoke to a group of students last weekend.
There's also the VES award submission coming up in 2 or 3 weeks. More details here: http://vesawards.com/
Students and others interested in visual effects might want to check for events in your area. There are presentations and other events during the year.
If you're a student in the L.A. area then check into the mentoring program. I and a few others spoke to a group of students last weekend.
There's also the VES award submission coming up in 2 or 3 weeks. More details here: http://vesawards.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)