From the linked article…
In a day and age when literally everyone connected to a film production gets a credit, from craft services to on-set teachers of child actors to random “production babies” who didn’t even work on a film, it is utterly incomprehensible that vfx artists, whose work makes possible the final images that appear onscreen, are routinely omitted from screen credits.
I can attest to this, having worked in the field. Most of the work in TV and cinema goes uncredited, with team leaders or just the post houses at most being recognized with an end credit placement (by contract, of course). I understand totally that it is always a team effort and hardly any of the viewing public sits through the entire end credits roll. I totally get it. But when it happens that you are included, that small token of recognition does remind you why you’re doing 12-hour days erasing power lines, making day look like night, adding/removing people and/or signage from shots they weren’t supposed to be in and pushing greenscreened people in front of moving cars.
This is why we have unions who negotiate the contracts that outline who gets a credit and who doesn’t. Keeping track of everyone who worked on VFX in a movie is a trivial exercise. Those comparisons to menial tasks done by interns aren’t at all appropriate.
How would unions for VFX artists even work when lot of stuff is outsourced and those studios are in cutthroat bidding competition?
Studios could decide to outsource other talent too. Voice actors, for example. But they choose not to, because they know that if they do, the rest of the actors on set would walk off (and perhaps even on other sets owned by the studio, and perhaps even other unions besides SAG-AFTRA would join) in solidarity, and at best they lose a day or two of work and at worst, they lose their movie completely.
Voiceover performance is covered by the Screen Actor’s Guild, and I don’t hear the same kind of issues again and again with it like I do VFX (even though the work could literally be done on the opposite side of the planet and sent in) I wonder why that is… What would be the main difference there… Hmm
Additionally, there are lots of places outside of Hollywood who are offering very attractive tax cuts, etc., for making movies in their state/province. Pretty easy (and may already be the case, I’m not an expert) for those state-backed contracts torequire union workers.
That’s how a lot of government contracting work is done because it is basically win/win/win: the state gets a ton of new revenue from taxes but also from thousands of new workers living and spending in their areas, the workers themselves get well-paying jobs with salaries and benefits they can live on (and hey, maybe even raise a family on), and the consumer gets a new water main, or bridge (or in this case, movie or TV show).
What’s your point?