this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2023
722 points (97.1% liked)
Movies and TV Shows
6 readers
2 users here now
General discussion about movies and TV shows.
Spoilers are strictly forbidden in post titles.
Posts soliciting spoilers (endings, plot elements, twists, etc.) should contain
[spoilers]in their title. Comments in these posts do not need to be hidden in spoiler MarkDown if they pertain to the title's subject matter.
Otherwise, spoilers but must be contained in MarkDown as follows:
::: your spoiler warning
the crazy movie ending that no one saw coming!
:::
Your mods are here to help if you need any clarification!
Subcommunities: The Bear (FX) - [!thebear@lemmy.film](/c/thebear @lemmy.film)
Related communities: !entertainment@beehaw.org !moviesuggestions@lemmy.world
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This is a really interesting issue within the industry. I work within the film and television industry, both in Australia and the UK, and have never been credited for the roles that I do that, some would argue, should be credited for.
But when you break down something like a mega-Hollywood-super-feature-blockbuster-film like Oppenheimer, the amount of ancillary and auxiliary bodies working on a movie like this, would amount to a credit role that would be very hard to keep track of.
For example, do you credit the data wranglers who might be assisting the DIT, or the courier service who delivers dailies to the post house? Or the team of edit assistants who make proxies for OCM? Do you credit every person who was on craft catering for the entire production run?
On one hand, I can see why it is “consolidated” to team leads, or heads of departments, but personally I think that ANYONE who worked on the film SHOULD be credited, as their time is equally as important as everyone else’s.
I have learnt to accept that my name won’t be appearing in any credit role, despite the hours I put in to make sure it happens, and I am okay with that, but totally understand and support anyone who feels like they should get the recognition… as I said at the start… interesting issue.
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?