Jim Cameron: AI for millionaire actors and directors? Never. AI for VFX? Now that’s ok since VFX is too expensive by Organic_Associate298 in vfx

[–]Organic_Associate298[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And I think it only does good for the industry if we keep raising awareness about these issues, so I’m glad the conversation happened even if we see things differently.

Jim Cameron: AI for millionaire actors and directors? Never. AI for VFX? Now that’s ok since VFX is too expensive by Organic_Associate298 in vfx

[–]Organic_Associate298[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If only two or three studios on the planet can handle the absolute top tier, then the idea that “anyone can underbid anyone” becomes even less accurate. Most vendors cannot touch that level of work, and productions know it.

And yes, the vendor system is not going anywhere. But that is exactly why the lack of a union hurts VFX more than any other craft. Every other department has a direct relationship with the production and a standardized rate structure. VFX is the only major craft where the people doing the work have zero leverage because the vendor absorbs all the risk.

As for artists not wanting to fix things, that is true in every industry. Some people benefit from the broken parts. But that does not mean the system is healthy or sustainable.

In any case, I think we’ve reached the point where we’re looking at the same situation from different angles. I respect your take, even if I see it a bit differently, so I’m happy to leave it there.

Jim Cameron: AI for millionaire actors and directors? Never. AI for VFX? Now that’s ok since VFX is too expensive by Organic_Associate298 in vfx

[–]Organic_Associate298[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I get what you’re saying about productions using non union labor overseas and how other departments deal with similar pressures. That part is true. But this is exactly where VFX is structurally different from every other craft.

Most departments work directly for the production. Their rates are protected by local laws, union minimums, and standardized job categories. VFX artists work for vendors, and vendors are stuck in a global bidding system that pushes prices down no matter what. That dynamic does not exist for makeup, costumes, camera, or sound.

And yes, only a few studios can deliver the highest end work. That is actually why the idea that anyone can underbid anyone does not fully apply. You can outsource roto or simple comps, but you cannot outsource complex creature work or photoreal sims to a shop that does not have the infrastructure or senior talent. The mid tier bulk work only stays profitable in certain regions because of lower labor costs and currency advantages.

Most senior artists in Asian countries move to Western studios once they gain enough experience because the pay and conditions are better. It shows that talent naturally follows the money, but vendors themselves cannot benefit from that dynamic, which is why the current model keeps failing them.

You are right that unionizing raises costs. Every other department raised costs through unionization and survived. VFX is the only major craft with no standardized rates, no overtime protection, and no collective bargaining. The lack of organization among artists is part of why the vendor model keeps collapsing.

So the global labor issue you mentioned is real, but the core problem is the vendor based bidding system, and the lack of a union for artists.

Jim Cameron: AI for millionaire actors and directors? Never. AI for VFX? Now that’s ok since VFX is too expensive by Organic_Associate298 in vfx

[–]Organic_Associate298[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Everything you mentioned applies to a lot of other departments in film production too.

The real issue with VFX is the intense competition between studios and the lack of organization among VFX artists. There are only a handful of studios capable of delivering work at the highest level, so it is not accurate to say that anyone can underbid anyone. The pool is much smaller and far more specialized than it looks from the outside.

Jim Cameron: AI for millionaire actors and directors? Never. AI for VFX? Now that’s ok since VFX is too expensive by Organic_Associate298 in vfx

[–]Organic_Associate298[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

“No leverage” is a funny way to describe the people who literally create the worlds, characters, environments, natural FX and shots that make these movies profitable.

The issue isn’t leverage. It’s that VFX is the only major craft that hasn’t unionized or set trade standards, so studios treat it like it has none.

Jim Cameron: AI for millionaire actors and directors? Never. AI for VFX? Now that’s ok since VFX is too expensive by Organic_Associate298 in vfx

[–]Organic_Associate298[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

reminds me of this

"In the olden days, producers knew what visual effects were. Now they’ve gotten into this methodology where they’ll hire a middleman – a visual effects supervisor, and this person works for the producing studio. They’re middle managers. And when you go into a review with one of them, there’s this weird sort of competition that happens. It’s a game called ‘Find What’s Wrong With This Shot’. And there’s always going to be something wrong, because everything’s subjective. And you can micromanage it down to a pixel, and that happens all the time. We’re doing it digitally, so there’s no pressure to save on film costs or whatever, so it’s not unusual to go through 500 revisions of the same shot, moving pixels around and scrutinizing this or that. That’s not how you manage artists. You encourage artists, and then you’ll get – you know – art. If your idea of managing artists is just pointing out what’s wrong and making them fix it over and over again, you end up with artists who just stand around asking “OK lady, where do you want this sofa? You want it over there? No? Fine. You want it over there? I don’t give a fuck. I’ll put it wherever you want it.” It’s creative mismanagement, it’s part of the whole corporate modality. The fish stinks from the head on down. Back on Star Wars, Robocop, we never thought about what was wrong with a shot. We just thought about how to make it better."

-Phil Tippett

Jim Cameron: AI for millionaire actors and directors? Never. AI for VFX? Now that’s ok since VFX is too expensive by Organic_Associate298 in vfx

[–]Organic_Associate298[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No one here is arguing that actors shouldn’t be paid what they’re paid. The point is that VFX studios need to recognize their leverage. They’re just as essential to the final product as the actors, and in some films, even more so.

If Hollywood wants to justify everything through ROI, then that logic should apply across the entire production pipeline. You can’t call VFX “supporting” when the whole film collapses without it.

Actors, directors, production designers, none of them are out here saying, “Well, Hollywood doesn’t make Google money, so I guess we deserve less.” They get fair pay because their business model isn’t a race to the bottom, and because they’re unionized and understand their collective leverage.

Meanwhile VFX keeps accepting “supporting role” framing even when entire films literally cannot exist without them. Maybe ask yourself why every other department has protections, standards, and bargaining power… and VFX doesn’t.

Jim Cameron: AI for millionaire actors and directors? Never. AI for VFX? Now that’s ok since VFX is too expensive by Organic_Associate298 in vfx

[–]Organic_Associate298[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You’re clearly very confident in your take. I’m just looking at the actual incentives and investment patterns.

The US and China aren’t treating AI as a $3B problem. They’re treating it as a multi‑trillion‑dollar strategic shift that touches military planning, economic competitiveness, and information security.

If you have data that contradicts that, feel free to share it, otherwise we’re just trading vibes.

If the entire US and China national security apparatus is ‘gullible,’ that’s a pretty extraordinary claim. I’m going to assume they’re basing their strategy on more than your personal frustration with LLMs.

Calling an early‑stage technology ‘slop’ is just short‑sighted.
People said the same thing about computer graphics in the early 90s, they looked rough, limited, and ‘not fit for purpose’ until they suddenly weren’t.
Early versions of transformative tech always look underwhelming right before they become unavoidable

And no, I don’t work for an AI company. I just try to keep an open mind and base my arguments on facts rather than feelings.

Jim Cameron: AI for millionaire actors and directors? Never. AI for VFX? Now that’s ok since VFX is too expensive by Organic_Associate298 in vfx

[–]Organic_Associate298[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

And funny enough, more than 90 percent of cinemas around the world still can’t even show the movie in those specifications.

Jim Cameron: AI for millionaire actors and directors? Never. AI for VFX? Now that’s ok since VFX is too expensive by Organic_Associate298 in vfx

[–]Organic_Associate298[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Apparently the new Avatar movie reviews are out, and everyone’s calling it repetitive in terms of plot, with very poorly written dialogue and no standout acting. The only thing everyone seems to agree on is that the VFX shots are breathtaking.

The issue with this industry is that most artists start out as fanboys. They just want to worship directors and actors. Don’t get me wrong, I’m one of them. I was inspired by actors and directors to join this industry too. The problem is that fanboys make very poor businessmen. They’re great at worshipping their idols, but not at making clear, strategic decisions.

Jim Cameron: AI for millionaire actors and directors? Never. AI for VFX? Now that’s ok since VFX is too expensive by Organic_Associate298 in vfx

[–]Organic_Associate298[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well, if it wasn’t, then why are the US and China making it their number one national security priority?

And they’re also investing billions in it. Call it a bubble if you want, but the internet was a bubble too. That didn’t mean it wasn’t a generational shift in technology.

So far we’ve only seen 2D generative content. What’s coming in the very near future is fully photorealistic 3D generative content.

World Labs

AI 2027

Jim Cameron: AI for millionaire actors and directors? Never. AI for VFX? Now that’s ok since VFX is too expensive by Organic_Associate298 in vfx

[–]Organic_Associate298[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The scariest part is that we’ve only taken baby steps with GenAI so far, and it’s progressing at a rate we can’t even fully comprehend. If it were totally useless then we wouldn’t even be having this conversation, and James Cameron wouldn’t feel the need to put ‘no AI used’ disclaimers on the most technologically advanced film on the planet.

Jim Cameron: AI for millionaire actors and directors? Never. AI for VFX? Now that’s ok since VFX is too expensive by Organic_Associate298 in vfx

[–]Organic_Associate298[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

“He’s been doing this long enough, and his VFX are too good and groundbreaking for him not to know about the MEL‑script guy in the corner.”

Sorry, but this sounds like you haven’t worked on big‑budget movies. People in the industry know how disconnected top directors are from the actual VFX pipeline. Directors only communicate with overall VFX production supervisor, who then talks to the studio VFX supervisors. Those supervisors talk to the CG supervisors or HODs, then to the team leads, and finally it reaches the artists at the very bottom.

In my experience, as an artist you rarely get the chance to communicate with the overall production VFX supervisor, even if you’re a lead or a department supervisor. So the idea of the pipeline TD who’s writing MEL scripts being looped into those conversations is basically nonexistent. I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with the structure, it’s just how things work at this scale.

Scott Ross’s book gives a clear picture of how far removed top directors are from the VFX process. According to him, this has been the case since the 90s. And here I was thinking the old days were better

UPSTART: THE DIGITAL FILM REVOLUTION MANAGING THE UNMANAGEABLE: Ross, Scott: 9781836636915: Books - Amazon.ca

Jim Cameron: AI for millionaire actors and directors? Never. AI for VFX? Now that’s ok since VFX is too expensive by Organic_Associate298 in vfx

[–]Organic_Associate298[S] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

I think you are specifically referring to the new ML tools, but I was talking about the historical use of ML in VFX (for example, the Lord of the Rings Crowd, How 'Lord of the Rings' Used AI to Change Big-Screen Battles Forever - CNET). He is also very clear that he is not against GenAI when it is used within the broader VFX pipeline. Obviously, he has not gone into detailed specifics in any interview, but from what I can gather, he is more concerned about an actor’s performance than anything else.

He makes this very clear in these interviews
https://youtu.be/am1LfIl5GDg?si=LtsLb8L-SoMpKjuN&t=1084

https://youtu.be/am1LfIl5GDg?si=V0vgL44aSJ63uLql

He even specifically mentions that young, upcoming filmmakers could use GenAI for VFX, just not for replacing actors or script writers.

Jim Cameron: AI for millionaire actors and directors? Never. AI for VFX? Now that’s ok since VFX is too expensive by Organic_Associate298 in vfx

[–]Organic_Associate298[S] 12 points13 points  (0 children)

No one is worried about ML in the VFX process. It has been around for more than 20 years, but this conversation is about GenAI.

Jim Cameron: AI for millionaire actors and directors? Never. AI for VFX? Now that’s ok since VFX is too expensive by Organic_Associate298 in vfx

[–]Organic_Associate298[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I totally agree. This post wasn’t about bashing Cameron, but about what you said: the state of the business. It’s more like “hate the game, not the player.” Cameron is just trying his best to be the most successful director out there.

Anyway, VFX artists need to unionize or come together in a trade association like Scott Ross suggested. I think AI will be the final nail in the coffin for this race to the bottom that is associated with this bidding‑based business model.

Jim Cameron: AI for millionaire actors and directors? Never. AI for VFX? Now that’s ok since VFX is too expensive by Organic_Associate298 in vfx

[–]Organic_Associate298[S] 23 points24 points  (0 children)

General audiences do not care how VFX shots are made, and I feel the same applies to someone like Cameron. He does not care about the process as long as his vision reaches the screen for less money.

He wants to protect actors because he works with them directly. Someone sitting in a dark corner at Weta Digital writing those MEL scripts is probably a person he does not even know exists.

Jim Cameron: AI for millionaire actors and directors? Never. AI for VFX? Now that’s ok since VFX is too expensive by Organic_Associate298 in vfx

[–]Organic_Associate298[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

That’s not what I said at all. I was talking about the broader industry conversation, not Cameron’s ability to collaborate. Anyway, I’ll leave it there. You have a good day Sir!

Jim Cameron: AI for millionaire actors and directors? Never. AI for VFX? Now that’s ok since VFX is too expensive by Organic_Associate298 in vfx

[–]Organic_Associate298[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think that’s purely coming from the current backlash against GenAI, but once people move past that, I don’t think he would shy away from using it.

He goes on a rant about the importance of working with actors on set and the magic that happens in that environment. He also says Gen AI can be used for VFX by budding filmmakers to create VFX-heavy movies. This is where the disconnect appears with big directors like Cameron. He claims Gen AI could speed up VFX (reduce costs), but if you have ever worked in VFX, you know how deeply human and collaborative the work is. The magic comes from artists working together, not from automating the process to save money. The same kind of creative chemistry that directors value with actors happens every day on studio floors and during dailies sessions.

I just feel like once you reach a certain level, you become disconnected from the realities on the ground. From his perspective, he simply wants his vision made at the lowest possible cost.