- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
From the linked article…
In a day and age when literally everyone connected to a film production gets a credit, from craft services to on-set teachers of child actors to random “production babies” who didn’t even work on a film, it is utterly incomprehensible that vfx artists, whose work makes possible the final images that appear onscreen, are routinely omitted from screen credits.
I can attest to this, having worked in the field. Most of the work in TV and cinema goes uncredited, with team leaders or just the post houses at most being recognized with an end credit placement (by contract, of course). I understand totally that it is always a team effort and hardly any of the viewing public sits through the entire end credits roll. I totally get it. But when it happens that you are included, that small token of recognition does remind you why you’re doing 12-hour days erasing power lines, making day look like night, adding/removing people and/or signage from shots they weren’t supposed to be in and pushing greenscreened people in front of moving cars.
Maybe I’m using the wrong terminology. But he’s on record as saying he doesn’t like modern technology and will always use analog whenever possible.
And from the article you posted elsewhere, the “Luddite” term comes from his children because he doesn’t use a smartphone. Which he basically says if he had one it would negatively affect his creative productivity. I don’t think that’s unreasonable.
There’s also nothing inherently wrong with practical effects and film stock. On top of that, the practical effects he uses in camera are rarely untouched by digital vfx
There’s still no defense for leaving work uncredited