Re:Pixel fucked: Inside Hollywood's VFX crisis
by olivertaylor on Wednesday June 28, 2023 @12:18PM
(#36508646)
You’re right about the productivity. And many movie studios already own VFX studios. Netflix has Scanline, Disney has ILM, etc. But it is not super common.
Re:Pixel fucked: Inside Hollywood's VFX crisis
by xg15 on Wednesday June 28, 2023 @12:29PM
(#36508832)
I was more thinking about employment by the VFX studios themselves - i.e., if the article is right and VFX companies are already in a race to the bottom with respect to the movie studios (their customers), this race would likely swallow all productivity benefits that generative AI could provide.
Re:Pixel fucked: Inside Hollywood's VFX crisis
by olivertaylor on Wednesday June 28, 2023 @12:55PM
(#36509194)
Oh right, of course. I agree. But as with any technology, new possibilities emerge. Perhaps someone will come up with a new paradigm.
Re:Pixel fucked: Inside Hollywood's VFX crisis
by imtringued on Wednesday June 28, 2023 @04:27PM
(#36512117)
It is more efficient for the business to hire the same guy for 45 hours than three guys for 15 hours. If we assume that all of them get their turn eventually, then this can only be done by rotating who gets employed.
Re:Pixel fucked: Inside Hollywood's VFX crisis
by Frondo on Wednesday June 28, 2023 @09:46PM
(#36515311)
I would rather businesses take a hit on efficiency and have our 15-hour work weeks. Maybe that'd provide an incentive for businesses to pursue making project management and hand-off among staff more efficient.
And the last decades' exponential increases in productivity could have lead to keynes' famous 15 hour workweek - except they didn't.
Instead, productivity got directed to more output and more profit and working hours stayed the same if not increased.
As such, I'm more predicting this will simply lead to less VFX artists being employed by the studios than for there being a substantial improvement in working conditions.