Mark Williams
Veteran
If it were not for an unpaid 12 week internship as a photographer/writer it is doubtful I would have had a 30 year career.
Oscar nominee 'Beasts' - 85 of 120 VFX shots created with free labor
- Thread starter refocusedmedia
- Start date
refocusedmedia
Veteran
Thanks, and sure thing.
Last edited:
That's great you could pull that off, but not everyone can live for 3 months working 8-10 hours per day and not making any money.
groveChuck
U-matic Member
I too started with an internship over 30 years ago- doing recuts from Good Morning America on 3/4" Umatic at 5am- and I was elated!
No pay, but extra credit toward my coursework and degree, workplace experience and connections, and it led to my first job.
I also was a full-time student and had a part-time job- it was hard, but no regrets.
As for "Beasts", I can only speak for myself, not any of the SF students-
They too are getting class credit.
They got end credits in the film.
Experience.
Incredible, well known material for their reel.
Connections.
Jobs (for an unknown number of them).
Why not? Exploitative? I think it sounds like an effective barter situation-
A budget film can't afford the VFX called for in their script.
+ Students learn, get credit, reels
Win-win.
(doesn't matter if you like the film or not, or if the film is 1% or 80% VFX)
Nobody's forcing them to- it's a 400 level elective course! They're choosing to take it, it's not even a required course.
Further, it helps solve the old Catch-22:
How do you get a job?
With experience.
How do you get experience?
With a job.
As for the state of health of the VFX industry, that's a whole 'nother topic.
Digital Domain opened a subsidiary here in Florida, with public dollars (city and state), then went bankrupt-how's that for a ROI???
So if interns shouldn't work for free, should local governments stop giving money to film production? The math rarely adds up ($ spent per job), it's more about getting a "glamour industry".
Speaking of interns... what about medical interns? Barely paid doctors-in-training.
Think medical care (speaking economically here, not politically, mods) is expensive now, what if medical interns were paid for their now reduced workload of 80 hour weeks???
With a "limit" of a 24 hour shift (formerly 36 hour shifts)...
And $150,000 to $250,000 debt of loans- think film school's expensive?
All I'm saying is, everything comes with a price, and if one gets something "valuable" in return (even if it's not a paycheck), it might be worth it to launch your chosen career.
No pay, but extra credit toward my coursework and degree, workplace experience and connections, and it led to my first job.
I also was a full-time student and had a part-time job- it was hard, but no regrets.
As for "Beasts", I can only speak for myself, not any of the SF students-
They too are getting class credit.
They got end credits in the film.
Experience.
Incredible, well known material for their reel.
Connections.
Jobs (for an unknown number of them).
Why not? Exploitative? I think it sounds like an effective barter situation-
A budget film can't afford the VFX called for in their script.
+ Students learn, get credit, reels
Win-win.
(doesn't matter if you like the film or not, or if the film is 1% or 80% VFX)
Nobody's forcing them to- it's a 400 level elective course! They're choosing to take it, it's not even a required course.
Further, it helps solve the old Catch-22:
How do you get a job?
With experience.
How do you get experience?
With a job.
As for the state of health of the VFX industry, that's a whole 'nother topic.
Digital Domain opened a subsidiary here in Florida, with public dollars (city and state), then went bankrupt-how's that for a ROI???
So if interns shouldn't work for free, should local governments stop giving money to film production? The math rarely adds up ($ spent per job), it's more about getting a "glamour industry".
Speaking of interns... what about medical interns? Barely paid doctors-in-training.
Think medical care (speaking economically here, not politically, mods) is expensive now, what if medical interns were paid for their now reduced workload of 80 hour weeks???
With a "limit" of a 24 hour shift (formerly 36 hour shifts)...
And $150,000 to $250,000 debt of loans- think film school's expensive?
All I'm saying is, everything comes with a price, and if one gets something "valuable" in return (even if it's not a paycheck), it might be worth it to launch your chosen career.
Yes, if they are actively giving out grants and not just simple tax breaks.
David W. Richardson
Chapelgrove Films
For me, the bottom line is clear -- if unpaid jobs are eliminated, a lot fewer people will be able to make movies. So there will be far fewer opportunities for people on both sides of the camera.
Every unpaid -- or deferred pay -- project is an opportunity for the people who work on it. It helps people develop their craft, broaden their resume, and grow their network of contacts in the business. And if the film is good, there is always the chance of it going big and people in it being 'discovered' -- much as I hate the use of that word.
No one is forced to work any unpaid or deferred-pay job. No one should take such a job if they don't see some benefit in it for them.
I know there are producers and directors who think, "Hey, I could afford to pay people -- but I don't have to! Let 'em work for free!" That is certainly wrong. But I believe most unpaid or deferred-pay films are working with meager resources and simply can't afford to pay everyone -- or perhaps anyone -- up-front. I would much rather see films get made than not get made.
Every unpaid -- or deferred pay -- project is an opportunity for the people who work on it. It helps people develop their craft, broaden their resume, and grow their network of contacts in the business. And if the film is good, there is always the chance of it going big and people in it being 'discovered' -- much as I hate the use of that word.
No one is forced to work any unpaid or deferred-pay job. No one should take such a job if they don't see some benefit in it for them.
I know there are producers and directors who think, "Hey, I could afford to pay people -- but I don't have to! Let 'em work for free!" That is certainly wrong. But I believe most unpaid or deferred-pay films are working with meager resources and simply can't afford to pay everyone -- or perhaps anyone -- up-front. I would much rather see films get made than not get made.
I can't afford to pay people to operate a restaurant business. Will you come and bus tables for me for free? It'll be a great networking opportunity!
Doc Bernard
Indie Arms Member
On the DD thing. They expanded too fast and made some foolish (IMO) moves. Opening a studio in both Canada AND Florida in a really close timeframe was not a wise move. And they were advised against it.
I have a friend who is a production supe over there, and he says DD has changed and not for the better.
As to the internship thing: Look, groveChuck nailed it. But there is a HUGE difference between an internship and working for free or deferred pay. Internships have been the way this business has worked for a long time now. Sure, as an experienced individual, you usually will not qualify for the internship. But that is because if you are too experienced for the internship, you should be able to find your own way by now.
Too many people think an internship is the gateway to a paid job in the same company. It is not. It is meant to be a trade off.....free work/stipended work for experience so you can build your resume. That presumes that building your resume is for seeking employment elsewhere. If you cannot get that work elsewhere, then it's not their fault. You got what they offered, they owe you nothing else.
And to those people that foolishly apply the internship model to other businesses that traditionally do not use it..........stop. It only makes you look whiney.
The internship model is designed for professional careers, not entry level labor or service. *rolls eyes*
I have a friend who is a production supe over there, and he says DD has changed and not for the better.
As to the internship thing: Look, groveChuck nailed it. But there is a HUGE difference between an internship and working for free or deferred pay. Internships have been the way this business has worked for a long time now. Sure, as an experienced individual, you usually will not qualify for the internship. But that is because if you are too experienced for the internship, you should be able to find your own way by now.
Too many people think an internship is the gateway to a paid job in the same company. It is not. It is meant to be a trade off.....free work/stipended work for experience so you can build your resume. That presumes that building your resume is for seeking employment elsewhere. If you cannot get that work elsewhere, then it's not their fault. You got what they offered, they owe you nothing else.
And to those people that foolishly apply the internship model to other businesses that traditionally do not use it..........stop. It only makes you look whiney.
The internship model is designed for professional careers, not entry level labor or service. *rolls eyes*
I was expressly referencing that idea to use interns when you need work done and can't afford to pay people, in which case, it's a legitimate analogy.
If I don't have the money to pay someone to work at a restaurant for me, I can't own a restaurant. Why should making a film be any different?
filmguy123
Veteran
VFX work is a ton of work with long hours. The end result is art but the actual process is comprised of many people working on small portions of a single shot, which is highly technical and not creative. I have multiple friends working in this industry, a few at the recently bankrupt rhythm and hues, and its shameful the hours they have to work for a studio that now has to file bankruptcy. The tasks they are sling aren't joyful artistic tasks of passion. It is technical and repetitive labor, and a job very deserving of fair pay.
Life of Pi happens to be a perfect example. High grossing, 4 academy awards, and almost completely VFX based. And the studio that created the FX is being paid so poorly that they have to file bankruptcy? In many ways it was their movie and they get no share in the profits.
granted this is due to a lot of market conditions and realities of intense interest in working in the industry, but regardless it is very sad that billions of dollars in profit is generated each year from vfx driven films and the people making it possible are thrown under the bus.
anyway, point is, free labor and cheap labor will have and is having farther reaching effects than ones opinion on a single instance.
Life of Pi happens to be a perfect example. High grossing, 4 academy awards, and almost completely VFX based. And the studio that created the FX is being paid so poorly that they have to file bankruptcy? In many ways it was their movie and they get no share in the profits.
granted this is due to a lot of market conditions and realities of intense interest in working in the industry, but regardless it is very sad that billions of dollars in profit is generated each year from vfx driven films and the people making it possible are thrown under the bus.
anyway, point is, free labor and cheap labor will have and is having farther reaching effects than ones opinion on a single instance.
Doc Bernard
Indie Arms Member
Because, simply stated, using that argument is petulant. Restaurants don't use "interns" as wait staff or cooks or cleaning crews. Maybe, if you a career tracked as a manager....then maybe you would get offered an internship in management.
But, come on. Physicians, engineers, lawyers, etc., have all used the internship model with success. So has film.
You don't want to intern? Then don't. That system wasn't designed for you anyway. Railing against it for whatever reason you have, only says you think you should have that work and get paid for it. And that is not how it works.
But, come on. Physicians, engineers, lawyers, etc., have all used the internship model with success. So has film.
You don't want to intern? Then don't. That system wasn't designed for you anyway. Railing against it for whatever reason you have, only says you think you should have that work and get paid for it. And that is not how it works.
My point is apparently passing clear over your head.
No, the internship model doesn't work for me. I'm not from California or New York or Chicago (any area where there are significant productions houses), so I don't have a free place to live (with parents or relatives), nor do I have a trust fund. I have to pay the rent, and working full time hours for no pay means I can't afford to live.
The problem isn't with internships in general, the problem is with "internships", i.e. positions that would normally be paid, but because Mister Cheap-Ass Producer didn't pound the pavement enough to raise any money, he has to resort to calling free work "interns" (with no class credit even!) because he needs any and all funds to pay for his expenses, not crew for the movie that's ultimately going to make him millions (in his mind).
Doc Bernard
Indie Arms Member
LOL, exactly how many films have you worked?????? Are you new to film? Films have always worked that way. How many budgets have you written?
It's hilarious to see posts like this. And how much people assume about a budget for a film. 5,000 doesn't mean 5,000 total. Never has, never will. And if people are willing to work for free to be on a project or to build their resume and you aren't........well, if it upsets you that much.......it might be time to look for a new industry to work in.
It's hilarious to see posts like this. And how much people assume about a budget for a film. 5,000 doesn't mean 5,000 total. Never has, never will. And if people are willing to work for free to be on a project or to build their resume and you aren't........well, if it upsets you that much.......it might be time to look for a new industry to work in.
I think at the very least interns should be paid on the back end and that should be part of the budget. Ok, you need to put every dollar onto the screen and if that means using interns, fine. If your movie is a flop the producer loses the money, not the interns but the interns also gambled with their labor. A major flop isn't going to help their resume that much.
But if the movie is a huge success there's enough cheddar to go around and the interns should get a piece of the pie if you get my mixed metaphor.
But if the movie is a huge success there's enough cheddar to go around and the interns should get a piece of the pie if you get my mixed metaphor.
macgregor
Veteran
woooooooooooooooww
Doc Bernard
Indie Arms Member
I disagree, Gillvane. Why, you ask? On paper, there is no major film that has shown a profit. Despite what the BO says.
Nothing.....I agree completely.
Nothing.....I agree completely.
It's mentioned in the article that people are getting hired because the people doing the hiring have heard the buzz about the film. So yes, the success of the film is directly related to how much of a benefit the interns get from working on it.
If you said you worked on Birdemic I'm thinking Dreamworks isn't going to hire you like they hired some interns that worked on this movie. You may disagree.
Batutta
Major Contributor
I don't have a problem with interns on general principle. It's the number of people and the type of free work that 'Beasts of the Southern Wild' used I take issue with. They weren't assisting other paid artists by getting coffee. They created finished shots. To me it's like asking someone "Hey, go shoot some scenes for me for free so I can put them in my movie, which hopefully will be a hit and make me tons of money, but you won't get a dime." It's exploitative. That the people being exploited are happy to be exploited doesn't make it any less so. I'm sure people in sweat shops are just happy to have a job. This isn't a black and white issue. There is a gray area that I think Beasts of the Southern Wild crossed over into.
What the hell are you talking about? Where did the number $5,000 come from? Where the hell do you get the idea that I'm even upset? You don't even acknowledge my point, that unpaid internships (especially the kind that can't college course credit) are often limited to people who can live in a metropolitan area with parents or relatives for free (or little cost) or have money at their disposal to live off of. That's all I'm saying, and why it's not necessarily a good thing.
And, please, don't bring up "well, how many films have you worked on!" because all you're doing is firing off an ad hominem. I could work on a dozen films and not know what I'm talking about, or I could never have set foot on a set in my entire lifetime and still be correct. Attack the ideas, not the person. Thanks.
I realize that reading comprehension is so passé on the Internet, so let me be explicit. I was commenting about this singular point:
My impression is that, if you can't pay people to work for you, then maybe you simply shouldn't make that film. Just the same as if, I can't pay people to work in my restaurant, maybe I shouldn't have a restaurant.
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
Only if you have a world famous chef in the kitchen... and I wanted to be come one myself... if you have a Burger King franchise... forget it...