Disney has come under fire after a video resurfaced showing horribly CGI-generated background actors in the movie "Prom Pact."
  • @wombatula@lemm.eeEnglish
    1•1 year ago

    I’m gonna be real with you, you really don’t understand how the industry works, and have made some really wild napkin math to support your argument, referring to some crappy CG models that someone probably made in an afternoon as “AI” definitely doesn’t help in that respect. You keep saying the money is “already allocated” but that isn’t how it works, you pay people by the hour and the wardrobe staff would need to deal with each extra separately which takes time, and have more physical wardrobe to do that with, we are talking about 10x the amount of time and wardrobe or more in the case of a period piece.

    Further, they don’t just throw money in a bucket for all casting, with the exception of the leads everyone is being paid by the hour, it doesn’t matter how much money was allocated that’s not how any of this works. This is why cost overruns are so common in movies, except for a small handful of people at the top (Producer, Director, Lead Actors) every single person on the set is being paid by the hour, and every MINUTE that the set is active for costs the production money. The per hour costs for shoots can be absolutely staggering, it adds up very quickly, and you are just casually saying “hey lets get a bunch of background people in costume, it won’t cost much!” but even getting that many people on and off the set takes time, which costs money… LOTS of money.

    Also the “bad will” part is bullshit too, most background performers are not union, in fact it can be VERY difficult to get union status as a background performer. The union does not care, and these CG actors are no different than the cardboard, inflatable, or mannequins that are commonly used in crowd scenes.

    I guarantee you these CG models were cheaper than the extras they replaced, and I would suggest you stop speaking with authority about things you clearly don’t understand, I say this as someone who has worked both as a background performer and a crew member on literally hundreds of productions over multiple decades. Please quit your bullshit.

    I am sorry if that was impolite, but you are stating facts that are entirely wrong, and it helps nobody to spread disinformation like this.

    • @funkless_eck@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      0•1 year ago

      I have also worked as background, supporting and co-star (although mostly in Europe, I’ve only done short films in the US). And I will admit that the majority of my resume is theatre, followed by VO.

      When I say “already allocated”, I’m speaking generally and colloquially about how you can’t attribute a PO log for VX to Talent or Wardrobe on the fly (at least not in a professional shop). I mean… I guess you could VOID out something and reattribute, but it probably wouldn’t look good in an audit as you’d get a massive variance; or if it’s as cheap as you say maybe it could come out of the 10% contingency… but again that’s not very professional and in a large scale production the auditors would come knocking.

      Usually that’s all locked up in software — your call sheet, PL sheet, PO log are all preferably generated from the same stack so it can all roll back up.

      And I will defend that wardrobe budget is preallocated, (with projected variance baked in and petty cash allowances, too as BTL lines) in the topsheet as an above the line expense. Line items including properties, pieces and manhours are then drawn down as POs + fringes.

      As you will know from working BGs, your call sheet will have stipulations about what to wear and you will be triaged into the scene based on how well you did it. I know I’ve made a half assed attempt before just so I can lurk at the back one day — these stipulations will have been made with some of the wardrobe department.

      Although you “pay people by the hour” you still need to budget how much to pay people + variance + Fringes before you go into production. They don’t “throw money in a bucket” literally but you’re confusing BTL line item hours with ATL topsheet summaries which are (metaphorical) buckets.

      Background and main talent are separated in StudioBinder (not sure about Movie Magic) but generating bg paydays as a portion of budget is definitely a common function.

      • @wombatula@lemm.eeEnglish
        1•1 year ago

        People. Are. Paid. By. The. Hour.

        None of your budget statements are relevant, in any way. You can throw in whatever technical terms you want, they aren’t relevant.

        Wardrobe is budgeted by the amount of people using it, less people using it = less budget, is simple math so difficult to understand?

        You are speaking like an accountant that’s never set foot on a set before, and your technical terms are entirely financial.

            • @funkless_eck@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
              1•1 year ago

              uno reversi.

              I was the artistic director of a touring company for over a decade, I’ve been an actor, writer and extra for film, TV and commercials, and an actor, writer, director, producer, musician and comic in live performance. My first professional gig was at 12 years old.

              I have given you a whole mess of examples and explanations and all youve given is “no u.”

              How you going to pay people hourly if you don’t budget for them? Pay them hourly from what? Which funding stream? Which budget? Which department?