Tech Won't Save Us - Why Visual Effects Look the Way They Do w/ Julie Turnock

Episode Date: November 17, 2022

Paris Marx is joined by Julie Turnock to discuss the history of the visual effects industry, the role that George Lucas’ Industrial Light and Magic played in setting industry standards, and what its current form dominated by Disney means for visual effects workers.Julie Turnock is an associate professor of Media and Cinema Studies at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign and the author of The Empire of Effects: Industrial Light and Magic and the Rendering of Realism. Follow Julie on Twitter at @JulieTurnock.Tech Won’t Save Us offers a critical perspective on tech, its worldview, and wider society with the goal of inspiring people to demand better tech and a better world. Follow the podcast (@techwontsaveus) and host Paris Marx (@parismarx) on Twitter, and support the show on Patreon.The podcast is produced by Eric Wickham and part of the Harbinger Media Network.Also mentioned in this episode:Paris will be speaking at Marxism Festival in Dublin on November 19, the Lighthouse Bookshop on November 24, and details on an event in London on November 25 are coming soon.In a series of recent articles, visual effects workers have been speaking out about conditions in the industry.The Mandalorian introduced ILM and Disney’s new visual effect technology dubbed “Stagecraft” that uses LED video walls instead of green screens.The declining quality of effects in major films is forcing people to look at labor and production practices.Disney accounted for nearly 40% of box office returns in 2019, and made 80% of the top earning films of the year.Support the show

I didn't really expect to write about ILM for this book. I thought it was going to be a kind of broader-based story about the effects industry, and it turns out that ILM had their fingers in everything. Hello and welcome to Tech Won't Save Us. I'm your host, Paris Marks, and this week my guest is Julie Turnick. Julie is the author of The Empire of Effects, Industrial Light and Magic, and The Rendering of Realism. She also wrote Plastic Reality, Special Effects, Technology, and the Emergence of 1970s Blockbuster Aesthetics. She's an associate professor of media and cinema studies at the University of Illinois,

Urbana-Champaign. Before we get into this week's episode, just a heads up that I'll be speaking at the Marxism Festival in Dublin, Ireland on November 19th, if you're around. And I will also be speaking at the Lighthouse Bookshop in Edinburgh on November 24th with Gemma Milne. So, you know, if you're in either of those cities and you want to join us, please feel free to do so. I'll put the information in the show notes. I may also have something coming up in London on November 25th. If it does end up happening, I'll put the information about that in the show notes as well. Now, you might have noticed recently that there's been a lot of attention being given to the visual effects industry as more and more workers speak out about the working conditions in that industry. And a lot of those stories are quite similar to what we've heard from the video games

industry before that, you know, crunch, overwork, these sorts of issues. And so I wanted to dig into that a little bit further. And I thought that this conversation with Julie would be a good way to kick it off. Because Julie explores the history of this industry, where these practices came from, and where the particular aesthetic that we associate with visual effects was actually developed and how it came to dominate what we expect from blockbuster films and many other films when it comes to the presentation of the effects and how they should look on screen. So this is a really interesting and wide-ranging conversation that deals with those historical elements, that deals with industrial light and magic in particular, which is the visual effects company set up by Lucasfilm and George Lucas for the Star Wars movies. But then it goes on to do a lot more within the industry and have a really kind of dominant place in determining what visual effects is going to look like, the technologies that are being developed for it, because it has the funding from George Lucas to be able to do that.

So it's a bit more stable. And then, of course, it gets purchased by Disney about a decade ago when they are buying up a lot of IP, Marvel, Star Wars. And of course, they get industrial Light and Magic as a result. And we talk about some of these more recent issues with, you know, the working conditions in the industry, but also the complaints that people are having more and more about the quality of the effects in many of these productions and what is leading to that. So I really enjoy this conversation.

And I would also note that, you know, this is a bit of a historical conversation that takes us through kind of the development of the visual effects industry and right up to where we are today. I feel like in the future, I would also like to do an episode that's focused much more specifically on the working conditions in the industry, but I'm not ready to have that conversation yet. So I'm happy that we've had this one, but I'm sure that there will be more to come on visual effects in the future. So if you like this conversation, make sure to leave a five-star review on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. You can also share it on social media or with any friends or colleagues who you think would enjoy it or learn from it. And if you want to support the work that goes into making the show, to putting these critical conversations together so that we can provide a critical perspective on the tech industry and certainly many other industries as technology is integrated into them, you can go

to patreon.com slash techwontsaveus and become a supporter where you can join our Discord channel, get some stickers, and know that you're helping make the show possible. So thanks so much and enjoy this week's conversation. Julie, welcome to Tech Won't Save Us. Thanks for inviting me. Absolutely. You know, you have this fantastic new book, The Empire of Effects, that really digs into the history of industrial light and magic, but also the visual effects industry more broadly. And so I'm really excited to explore that with you, especially as, you know, I think these conversations about visual effects and what this whole industry is about has becoming more relevant in recent years.

Certainly more people have been paying attention to it. And now there's a growing discussion about labor practices in the industry and what has been going on there. And so I want to get to a whole ton of those things. But I think to get us started, you know, to properly set up this conversation, it's best to start by talking about the 1970s New Hollywood Autorist Movement. So what was that? What defined the films of that period? And who are some of the key figures that are important to the conversation that we'll be having? Well, what's interesting is when many scholars and critics talk about the 60s and 70s and into the 80s, they often kind of draw a hard line between the films that were made, we'll say, before 1975 when Jaws came out, instigating

the kind of blockbuster era that we're kind of more familiar with today and the movies that came before. Part of what I argue is that there's not as much of a break between these two periods as many critics and scholars argue. And in fact, that since George Lucas is the kind of main character of my book as the person who kind of bankrolled industrial light and magic in order to make Star Wars. He's a kind of interesting hinge figure between these two eras. And so, and I guess to answer your question, as far as the American New Hollywood auteur movement was a kind of outgrowth of filmmaking movements that tend to be most closely associated with the French New Wave, which is be most closely associated with the French New Wave,

which is also most closely associated with filmmakers like Jean-Luc Godard and Agnes Barda and Francois Truffaut. And that this was a style of filmmaking that was meant to be a response to Hollywood filmmaking. And the response was mostly to be something that was contradicting the kind of style of Hollywood filmmaking, which tended to be stereotyped as really slick, focused on glamour, focused on story and narrative above all. It also tended to be criticized as being fairly, we'll say juvenile or at least simplistic in its style of storytelling. And so the filmmakers of the new wave, they wanted to have a less controlled look. They wanted filmmaking to look spontaneous. They wanted it to look like caught on the fly. And a lot of that was taking techniques from documentary filmmaking, specifically cinema

verite. And so the French New Wave, which was made up largely of filmmakers who are also critics and writers, some of them were writers first and then filmmakers, some of them were doing it simultaneously. And so they were disseminating their ideas through manifestos and the Cahiers du Cinema journal that a lot of them were publishing in. And so, you know, we have new waves from all over the world. It looked like something new, it looked like something fresh and youthful. And so the American system came to this kind of new style of filmmaking considerably later than the rest of the world, and that had a lot to do with access to the means of production, essentially. And it wasn't really until the studios kind of realized that what they had been doing wasn't working and they needed to reach young people in a new way. And so some

underground films like your Roger Corman type films were, exploitation films were making a lot of money at drive-ins and things. And so they wanted to bring in a kind of, again, a kind of youthful flavor to try to capture the youth market again. And so mostly talking about the late 60s at this point. And so a movie like Easy Rider was a kind of in-between independent and studio picture as far as the way it was financed. And it made a lot of money and its style was widely admired as a kind of American version of this more kind of spontaneous style. Some of the American filmmakers that were associated with that are people like Monty Hellman and people like Robert Altman and more New York style filmmakers like eventually Martin Scorsese and Brian De Palma. But in that group as well, were our kind of future blockbuster filmmakers like George Lucas and Steven Spielberg, who were

all in the same peer group. And they watched each other's movies, they commented on each other's movies. And both Spielberg and Lucas, even though we think of them now more as moguls than as filmmakers, were very much part of that group. And they saw themselves in that same lineage. They also saw themselves as a kind of part of a Hollywood lineage as well, because the French New Wave, as much as they wanted to counter Hollywood, they wanted to be a counter cinema to Hollywood, they also really admired it in a lot of ways. They hated how much they loved it, basically. I think that's probably a good place to start to talk about industrial light and magic, right? Because you mentioned that George Lucas is part of this group, is one of these filmmakers who is using this style.

And then he goes on to make Star Wars as, I believe, his third film. So when does George Lucas form industrial light and magic? And what is its mandate? What does he really want it to do? Yeah, in 1975, in the production of making Star Wars, they realized that in order to make a film full of effects, that he wanted this space opera with... And his big image that he had in his mind is to have dogfights in space. So like World War II dogfight sequences, but in space. And that was the thing that he had really in his mind most strongly that he wanted to get onto the screen. And so he knew that in order to do this,

it was going to be difficult because the studios had mostly closed down their effects departments. And so most effects for studio films were being done by independent effects companies. And there weren't that many of them. And they were fairly busy with what they were doing. And so it is true that he largely hired a few people who had been in the effects industry for some period of time, but kind of on what we would consider on the margins. And so people like Dennis Murin had been working for this company called Cascade, which was famous for stop motion animation. And so they made a lot of stop motion animation commercials, like the Pillsbury Doughboy is one that always comes up. You know,

so people like him, Richard Edlund had been working also for a major opticals company, like a small special effects company, but he hadn't been working at the studios or anything like that. And so they had a bunch of people who were kind of countercultural figures. A number of them had gone to film school at CalArts. Adam Beckett, who was the head of animation for Star Wars, was a pretty prominent experimental filmmaker. This is in the core group of ILM. And John Dijkstra was the supervisor, the effects supervisor. He came through Douglas Trumbull, who did the effects on 2001 A Space Odyssey, among other people, but he was the one who both took and got most of the credit for that, too much to Stanley Kubrick's chagrin.

And so they had this kind of motley crew of people with a lot of really different backgrounds, some that are a little more science-y, some that are a little more artsy, and some that are, were a little more kind of what we might call like nerdy, like the kind of stop motion type engagement. And so in 1975, I mean, they really had to build the effects from scratch. And like the legend, from what I understand it, there's a lot of embroidery that goes on, but what I understand that is largely true is that they spent most of their money and most of their time just setting up ILM. The story always goes, and I don't have any reason to believe that this isn't true, that they had been working, working, working, working for months and months just to buy the equipment and get the equipment going. That when George Lucas came back from Tunisia and London, where they had been doing most of the principal photography, they had only completed two shots.

And that appears to be largely true. And so they had to really kind of move it along to kind of finish the movie in time. And the reason this is important, and the reason that the kind of legend is worth repeating, is that nobody who made Star Wars, most famously George Lucas, was happy with how the effects turned out. Because they had to rush to the end. They had to do everything kind of last minute. There were a lot of compromises, and this is what led to the special edition in the late 90s when the effects were redone with CGI. And so ILM, as a corporate entity at this point in Van Nuys, California, moved up north to be closer to George Lucas's own production company and also further away from Hollywood where interference happens. And they kind of regrouped for Empire Strikes Back. And so when I think about the style, the ideal ILM historical style, I don't think of

Star Wars. I think of the Empire Strikes Back because they had more time to develop an aesthetic, not just kind of throw together a kind of hodgepodge of things, which they did surprisingly well given the time that they had. But if you think about something like the Battle of the Ice Planet Hoth with the Imperial Walkers, I mean, that's extremely complicated and sophisticated. And it also involves a lot of aesthetic choices that they stick to today, in fact. When it comes to Empire Strikes Back, a lot of that is what Dennis Murin likes to characterize as kind of perfect imperfection. And so you don't want everything as sharp as possible because the style that they're looking for, that they were trying to do in Star Wars, but I think achieved especially well in Empire Strikes Back, was to look like

new Hollywood cinematography that was prevalent in the day, in the 70s, that people were used to. So it looks like natural light. It's very much not natural light, but it looks like natural light. And the camera work is what's really important here, is that it looks like everything was captured on the fly by a documentary camera operator. This documentary camera operator is always like a beat behind the action and is trying to catch up with what's happening. Well, I wanted to ask about that and pick up on it, right? Because as you say, you know, they kind of really get into this style, really kind of establish it with Empire Strikes Back. So then how does that then grow

to influence other visual effects companies? And as they make the move from practical effects as they're doing back then into computer generated imaging, how does it bridge into that new medium as well? Right, and one thing that's important to realize is that ILM is the only effects company that existed in the late 70s, early 80s that still exists today. They're first of all, the longest lasting effects company. And a lot of that has to do with the fact that until 2012, they were completely bankrolled by

George Lucas's Lucasfilm. And then in 2012, Disney bought the whole Lucasfilm holdings, but they're still being bankrolled by a large company. And so in 1980, it was when they opened to outside business, even though Dragon Slayer, I think it was the name of the movie, it's got a title with dragon in it anyway. And that was the first one, but mostly Steven Spielberg movies in the early eighties, your ETs and Indiana Jones and such, kind of got them off the ground as an effects house to hire. And because all these movies are so successful, that kind of breeds a, well, we want to go to the company that has given us the most successful movies. And so that's a kind of what we'll call a kind of economic determinism, that success breeds

success. However, there's a lot more to it than that. Not only is it the one that has lasted the longest, and that's like one of my chapters is called ILM versus everybody else. And that's how it has been in the effects business since 1980, where companies rise up to challenge ILM and usually go out of business because they don't have the same kind of financial security. Effects companies don't make any money. And as important as they are to the industry, to creating blockbusters, they are every single company on a razor's edge of bankruptcy at any moment. And so one movie goes bad for you and there goes a you know, a 20 year old company. And so, okay. So

ILM has always been there. It's always been as far as like the memory of the industry goes, and it's always been the beacon around which all the other companies kind of look to. And so even like digital domain came in, in the early nineties, and that was a James Cameron spearheaded company that wanted to have as good a technology as ILM. And so basically, James Cameron didn't want to be buying his effects from George Lucas, he wanted to be able to have his own company that had his own vision. And he wasn't the only guy who was involved with it. It was bankrolled by IBM. And so he's wanting to kind of create technology to support his kind of auteurist projects. And that's also similar to the way that Peter Jackson approached Weta when he was thinking when it was kind of going into the big time with the Lord of the Rings movies a decade later kind of countercultural cachet of ILM. And so Rhythm and Hues was a company that wanted to be both kind of technologically innovative. They did a lot of

CGI experimentation. They did those Coca-Cola polar bears, if you remember those from the 90s, the early 90s. And they also did Babe. And so they were specialists in animals, but they also had a kind of hippie countercultural, as part of their corporate culture, we'll call it. And then there's people like Sony Pictures Imageworks, who bankrolled by Sony. And they're kind of a little bit of an outlier because they were always bankrolled by Sony. And they've never really had much of a specific profile because they tend to be very corporate. And so all of these companies, they want to be ILM, but they kind of can't put all the

pieces together in order to make that happen. And then most of them kind of overspend and go bankrupt at a certain point if they don't have big pockets behind them. And so the other thing is the PR aspect. And we'll talk about the kind of problems of the PR aspect, but ILM and Lucasfilm have always had, besides their own PR that they generate, back in the day, if you remember, they used to have primetime specials, like before Return of the Jedi came out, and you would have James Earl Jones narrating, here's how these wizards at ILM are doing the effects on the movie. And say when Jurassic Park came out, there's a lot of videos that they produce. And most recently on the Disney Plus channel, they had how many episodes was that? Something like four or five episodes, maybe even six episodes called Light and Magic, which was entirely a kind of hagiography of, so it's a very recent production of, with a lot of footage, telling their story in the way that makes them look the best. And that's what PR does.

PR is about making the company look as good as possible. Oh, and beyond top of all that, whenever a new big budget movie comes out, big mainstream news publications, your AP Wire stories, Time Magazine, Newsweek, the most mainstream news publications would do feature stories about the wizards at ILM. And again, it was mostly the people at ILM giving them PR that they then turn into a feature piece. And so for 40 plus years, if you've heard of an effects company, it's ILM. That's not by happenstance, and it's not simply because they're the best. They've worked hard at presenting that image of not just being the best, but being the

best place to work for, always being the most innovative, and also being behind a kind of great innovative leader. George Lucas is always kind of touted as this great visionary who they all admire and look up to and is the kind of reason for the success. It's one person's vision and it's very much this auteur connection to 60s and 70s authentic filmmaking. And then if that weren't enough, there's more. As far as, you know, they have a style that has been so successful at mimicking a kind of notion of what the eye sees in real life that most people don't recognize it as a style. been behind. I guess the simple version is in the turn of the CGI era and the digital era, ILM collaborated in the mid-90s with Silicon Graphics, which was then the maker of graphics hardware and to a certain degree software, but mostly the actual physical hardware that everybody had to buy to get into the digital era of the effects

business, ILM helped to develop because they collaborated with Silicon Graphics. Silicon Graphics wanted to get into the effects business. And so they're like, okay, what do you at ILM need? And then everybody else adopted those same machines. And then they've also had a number of software initiatives, these kind of open source software initiatives that they encourage their collaborators, because now something like 20 effects companies work on the same Marvel film these days, and everybody needs to have the same look. And so they are mostly working with the architecture, the software architecture that ILM developed. I didn't really expect to write about ILM for this

book. I thought it was going to be a kind of broader based story about the effects industry. And it turns out that ILM had their fingers in everything. And so I kind of pivoted the research to reflect that because I suddenly realized upon doing the research the extent to which not only that they've influenced the effects industry, but what realism in the media is supposed to look like. And most of that comes from a particular aesthetic that ILM has developed since the 80s and then kind of doubled down on in the digital era. No, it's so fascinating to hear you describe it, right? Because as you're saying, there are many ways that the company has successfully, because it has had the funding, because it has had access to really good PR and had a really good PR operation, it had this style that it established and then everyone else wanted to emulate and other reasons

that helped it to achieve the dominant position that it has had within the industry and in really having other companies kind of chase after it, want to emulate it to show that they can live up to the standard that exists there. You talked about Disney's acquisition of Lucasfilm in 2012. So ILM has this style that it's established, and this has been adopted by other visual effects companies. So maybe you can talk a bit about what that style looks like when we're talking about computer effects and how many of these blockbuster films are using it. And then as Disney buys the company and really pushes to expand the Marvel Cinematic Universe, how does that alter that style? How does it change it to

fit within the kind of production model for the Marvel films? Yeah. And one thing, just to go back to the previous thing that I don't want to downplay, I don't want to downplay the impact of artists. ILM has been able to hire basically the best people in the business who aspire to work for the best company in the business. And so I don't want to downplay that part of it. The artists are often kind of shunted to the side in these discussions, and I want to make sure that I don't downplay their role. No, it's a very important point and one that we'll certainly return to. Yeah, yeah, absolutely. And so it's funny because sometimes like whenever I give

talks about this, people will be like, well, what about the prequels? It's like, they are the exception that proves the rule. And so what I think is interesting and maybe funny is the word is that George Lucas has been told for decades and decades about what a visionary he is. And so when he went to make the prequels, I think he really wanted to make a look that was markedly different from that of the original trilogy. On top of that, he wanted it to look really high tech and like, this is going to be cutting edge and I'm going to use all these great digital technologies. Everybody's going to be on a blue screen set and everybody hated it. It was a too animated look is largely how i characterize it i have found that i don't think there's anything wrong with having an animated look to your effects work but it tends

to not be received well by the public it feels like you kind of see something similar as well with the lord of the rings right the kind of original film is really noted for having its kind of realistic look despite having the visual effects technology of the early 2000s, late 90s. And then when the Hobbit films come along, it's like everything just doesn't look right. It looks too animated. These are some of the critiques that are made of it, right? Yeah. Another argument that I make is that live action is an industry heuristic. It's a convenient category that doesn't really have a close relation to the actual production. And so something like The Phantom Menace or Gravity or even The Lord of the

Rings, the original Lord of the Rings film, are very much made in a way that is not so different from making feature animation. You just have the actor's heads, like in Gravity, the actor's heads in a helmet, and everything else is digitally generated around them. And that's true for the vast majority of blockbuster films. Extremely large portions of them are digitally generated, whether they look like it or not. After the prequels, we're not received in the way they, of course, were financially very successful, but they weren't received very positively.

And then sometime thereafter, when Disney acquired Lucasfilm, in fact, there was many rumors that they were going to spin off ILM because effects are so expensive and they don't make any money. But they realized that they probably needed them in order to kind of realize the next set of blockbuster films, not just the next Star Wars films that they immediately started planning, but also things like the Marvel Cinematic Universe that they had recently started working on with the Iron Man film in 2008. And so even though Disney didn't acquire them until 2012, ILM had already been working with the Marvel Cinematic Universe with the director, Jon Favreau, who had

a very specific idea as to what he wanted. And what he wanted was the look of The Empire Strikes Back, even though he learned pretty quickly that he wasn't going to be able to do things physically. He wanted that look. Unlike Christopher Nolan, Christopher Nolan wants things to be physical, and he wants them to be achieved that way as much as possible. Jon Favreau kind of didn't care how it was done. He's not a purist as far as that goes, but he wanted the look of the early ILM look. And so as if we could recreate The Empire Strikes Back in digital form, but have it look exactly like The Empire Strikes Back. And it turns out that he hit on something that I think nobody knew they wanted so much. And so by this time, there was a certain amount of digital fatigue. And you'll still hear people talking about like, oh, that movie looked so digital. And I don't like that. It's like,

it should be more physical. And there's a lot of PR from not just ILM, but from productions. And so, and so yes, they hit on this, like Iron Man was such a big hit and people really liked the look and it has a very kind of physical look to it. They had some metal suits and they had some digital suits, but you can't really tell the difference between them.

And people really liked the way it hearkened back to this, especially for someone John Favreau's age who's roughly my age. So growing up in an era where movies were magical meant the look of the 80s and the late 70s and the early 80s. And this goes really well with Disney's commitment to this kind of nostalgic IP and giving people kind of new versions of stuff that they already love. It's a kind of disappointingly uncreative approach to filmmaking, to blockbuster filmmaking. And even though blockbuster filmmaking,

it is always made to recoup its considerable cost. And so there's always a need or they feel like there's a need for there to be certain familiar elements so that it's like, oh, you already like this. And so we are repackaging it for you. All that is to be expected, but you can do things that are different. If you're Guillermo del Toro, for example, he can put together a big kaiju battle that looks actually pretty unusual and striking and not like it was done by committee, we'll say. So on the positive side, Disney's various acquisitions in the early teens of this century did something positive for the effects business to a certain degree.

I mean, it's not positive in the moral sense, but it is positive in the, we'll say, economic sense in that all of these companies were going bankrupt around 2010. And Digital Domain, the second biggest effects company, went bankrupt. And Rhythm & Hues, probably the third or fourth biggest effects company, also went bankrupt at the same time. When Disney acquired ILM, it had the benefit of stabilizing the industry to a certain degree. four Marvel films a year, each one of those takes 20 companies minimum. And part of it is them hedging their bets. They don't want to put their eggs in, I guess I'll mix my metaphors and say, I don't want to put all their eggs in one basket and then have that company not be able to deliver the shots. And so they are splitting up the job amongst as many companies as possible. But that means that everybody's got a lot of work. The downside of that is very much that you have to do it is a kind of stereotype now of the ILM style where

they've kind of boiled it down to a couple of formulas in order to make it modular, essentially. And again, not so unexpected that a big company wants to save money, simplify things, whatever. But it is also, as I say, somewhat disappointing from the creative side that the very creative people who work in the industry rarely get to show you something new and different. And so even something like if you watch Light and Magic, one of the things, the newest innovation that ILM touts that, by the way, they didn't really invent, but they did,

yeah, popularize, but also developed. Because of their greater money and their resources, they can take someone else's invention and then turn it into something bigger. So what they call stagecraft, which is the giant LED screens that are kind of substituting for blue screens. So if you, everybody has seen probably the images from say Phantom Menace, where you've got Obi-Wan Kenobi on a blue screen, shaking his lightsaber at nothing with like just the whole, with like a rock and blue screen. Well, actually the sets are these days pretty much exactly the same. They're basically very little on the actual set, but they have these giant LED screens behind them that fill in the background. So when you watch The Mandalorian, when you watch

the most recent Batman film with Robert Pattinson also was using this technology, you really cannot see, I mean, from the camera's point of view and from the point of view of the viewer, you cannot see that it's not a real location, we'll say. And so just that what's nice about this for Disney is that it is not a spectacular form of effects technology. It's very effective. And, you know, it gives you that Empire Strikes Back feeling very effectively. And so, I mean, I think that's one of the things that people responded to so strongly when they saw The Mandalorian. They felt like they were really in the Star Wars universe again after quite a bit of criticism over the third trilogy, we'll call it. It's a win-win for Disney because they're like, they can tout their innovation and effects technology,

but what they're giving you is what you already know that you love. And again, I like that look too. I mean, I respond to it as well. I'm that age. I'm exactly the right age for that. But I also want to see someone doing, even in big blockbusters, even in the most mainstream of blockbusters, I want to see something new and different. Yeah, no, absolutely. And you know, you talk there about the kind of model of the Marvel films, right? How, you know, there are a certain number of films and TV shows that they have to produce every year. They split the effects up between a bunch of different companies. There's expectations that the effects will arrive at a certain time and so that the film can be put out on time. You know, sometimes there will be last

minute changes frequently, as I hear there will be last minute changes to those effects. And because a lot of that work is done on the effects side rather than, you know, on the set, there can be changes up to the last minute. They're not always sure of, you know, how things are going to look until really late in the production process. So how does this model, you know, we've been talking about on the industry side, what does this mean for the workers who are doing the work of making these effects that go into all of these films? Yeah. And one thing that is unusual about the effects industry, and even though it has a long history, the vast majority of people working on, we'll say, a Hollywood filmmaking production, whether that be television or movies, are protected by unions and also guilds.

And so they've got a number of larger organizations that are looking out for them. And people bring lawsuits all the time. So it's evident that not everything goes the way it's supposed to, even when protected by a union or a guild. But the effects industry has no union. It has a guild, but it's not a labor advocacy group, the Visual Effects Society. And part of that has to do with the fact that in the olden days before digital effects, if you were a camera person, you were in the camera union. But once things went to computers, there weren't established unions for artists working primarily with computers. And so the industry kind of blew

up around digital technology, but didn't organize around these kind of new workers, which is in part because there's a kind of idea, kind of like the video game industry in this way, where people are like, I like video games. I like Star Wars. That'll be fun. It'll be fun to work in an effects industry job. I'll get to work on Star Wars or like these new Star Warses. And George Lucas, what a great artist. And I want to, I want to eventually work for him. But then they, they realize, and that's when they're like 22. And then they wake up one day and they're 40 and they don't have medical insurance. They've never had paid leave. They've never had, and then everything is being offshored away from, because the effects industry used to be largely in California and now are chasing tax subsidies around the world.

And so Canada has a lot of, Vancouver and Montreal are the two kind of centers in Canada. England has a lot of subsidies. And so a lot of companies have, if they're not centered there, they have branches in the UK. And then also lower wage countries like India, for example, where thousands of names that you see at the end of blockbuster movies, once the effects credits finally start to roll, all of those people need to get paid something. And so the production companies, they want to save as much money as possible. And so all of this is kind of leading to people having to migrate a lot to where the jobs are. And, you know, it's nothing wrong with living in Vancouver, but if you are in California and your family's there and your kids are in school,

you don't love going from Vancouver to Wellington to London to wherever every couple of years where the jobs are. And so these days, it's more possible to not have to physically go anymore because cloud computing is much more powerful than it was a couple years ago. But it is still kind of a problem for the labor of the industry. Like I say, there's very little labor protections. There's all these kind of crunches at the end. And this is labor of the industry. Like I say, there's very little labor protections. There's all these kind of crunches at the end. And this is one of the reasons that these companies go bankrupt. Marvel often, and not just Marvel, but the production once, as you say, changes at the very last minute, and they've been locked into a certain price. And so they can't say like,

sure, we'll give you that if you give us more money. They've already contracted for a kind of set amount. And so they have to do these changes basically for free at the end. And so needless to say, that's not to the benefit of the effects company. It's very much to the benefit of the production company. And so there's other people, other scholars who have written quite a bit about the kind of migratory patterns of effects people and also the kind of razor's edge profit margins of the business. And there's a couple of actually quite a few effects artists have become labor advocates for the rest of the industry. But the fact that it is so dispersed across the world makes it really difficult for labor actions to go anywhere since it's so dispersed. I think it's a really good point. And certainly it's a topic that I feel like

is getting more attention recently as these workers have been speaking out more about these conditions. I was wondering, because you talked about how, whether it's with the prequels or with the Hobbit films or more recently with more of the Marvel stuff, occasionally there is this kind of backlash that people have to the quality of the effects in the films, right? They say that, you know, it should look better than this, or there's a general kind of criticism of Marvel films that they're really dark in order to hide some of the issues that they might have with effects sometimes. And I wonder, like, part of this could be how they don't align with the kind of realist approach that they've normalized over this period of time. But I wonder if part of it as well is because they have this production model where they're working these

workers really hard. There's a lot of crunch near the end, so they don't always get the quality of the effect that they are hoping for. And so as part of that response from viewers that these effects aren't what they're expecting, in part because of the production model and the way that labor is treated within the industry, that they can't always deliver the effects that Marvel is expecting. No, I think that's exactly right. And I mean, most of the time, you don't even have to be the top tier of the industry that the effects company can deliver whatever anybody wants. Most effects companies can do that. The artists are skillful enough. And so when you see something that is wonky in the final product, I'm going to say 99% of the time, it's because the production wasn't willing to put the money and the time to make it happen.

Because there's some things that are still hard to do. Like animals are still really hard. And, you know, digital humans with any detail, with any detail are still hard. But the vast majority of things like a car flying through the air in a Fast and Furious movie, anybody could do that with a decent background. The vast majority of companies can deliver that. And so when you see something that doesn't work, you should pretty much almost never blame the artists. It is pretty much entirely the production's fault that they didn't plan for it well enough. They didn't give the artists what they needed to make it happen. And there are a few occasions where in David Lynch's Twin Peaks, The Return, where I'm convinced some people were criticizing

the effects in that series for looking bad. It's like, no, I'm pretty sure they're the way that David Lynch wanted them to look. He wanted them to look kind of handmade. And the company who is behind it is a French company who can, I mean, they've done any number of mainstream blockbusters with no issues. And so I am convinced that that looks exactly the way that David Lynch wanted it to look. But that's pretty rare for there even to be some ambiguity about it. And so, yeah, so these days when something looks kind of too animated, it's either someone wanted it to look that way. I think that does happen. Like when Aquaman came out, I thought, oh, are we kind of moving back towards having a more animated look in effects that is kind of an accepted alternative to the ILM look? And that

didn't seem to kind of hang on. But I do think that the DC universe, generally speaking, is a little looser in their aesthetic expectations. And that having, it's not to say that they have lower expectations, they just have different expectations. And also, I mean, I talk about this in the book, too, that there are whole industries around the world who are not making movies for international audiences, who have no interest in making everything look super photo real. And I use the example of Stephen Chow, the Hong Kong filmmaker in The Mermaid, where like large portions of that look like a Tex Avery cartoon. And that's the look he's going for. And that's made, it was made for Chinese

audiences, who, and it was the biggest movie of all time at the time. And so everyone was happy with the look of that film. No one watched The Mermaid as best I know and said, this doesn't look the way it's supposed to. It looked exactly the way it was supposed to, like a kind of live action cartoon hybrid that had purpose and meaning. And, you know, so it's sure there's all these franchises, these Monkey King movies that are also very much Donnie Yen stars in a number of them, where it is a very, very animated universe that has, again, no desire to look like Iron Man or like a Marvel film. It's meant to look like a kind of fantasy universe. And so that's an alternative that Hollywood could do.

But as I say, it tends to not be received very well. And so it's considered a risk to go too big of a risk for a blockbuster to go kind of off of the expectations of the international style of effects realism that audiences have been conditioned to expect. Yeah, I think it makes perfect sense. And I appreciate you giving me your time to discuss all this, to dig into this history. I have a two-part question to close the conversation,

kind of picking up on some of the things we've been talking about there. First of all, there's more discussion of the labor practices in the industry. What is going on there? Do you think there's a prospect of that changing of some sort of norms to create a better environment for workers to come along? And then the second part of that, you know, this kind of ILM style has been dominant now for several decades, certainly altered slightly by

Marvel and what Marvel has been doing with it. But do you think as there are more kind of different approaches to visual effects, do you think that the dominance of that style is starting to be questioned or starting to fail a little bit? And are there alternative approaches to visual effects that are becoming more common? I wish I could say that things will get better for effects workers in the future, but I don't see any movement towards that happening anytime soon, unfortunately. Like I say, there are people in the effects industry who are advocates for labor, and everyone seems to agree that the system is bad in the industry, in the effects industry. However, it is stacked very much in the favor of

the productions. And so they want, you know, thousands and thousands of effect shots per movie for as cheap as possible. And so that, you know, these production companies and these like big studio entities have worked as their business magic, so to speak, to set the effects companies against each other. Because if, if your company doesn't produce on time for this Marvel movie, they will blacklist you and then you don't get to work on the next eight Marvel movies. And that's a huge part of your revenue. Somebody else can replace you immediately. And I guess that becomes a bigger and bigger threat as Disney becomes larger and larger and controls more IP and properties and things like that. And I think, what did I read

that? I think I have this in the book someplace, but now I can't remember the exact number, but Disney controls something like 80% of the pre-COVID box office. I don't think it was maybe that high. Maybe it was like 70%. But I mean, it was a very high number that Disney of like the top 100 movies

in the American box office or something. It was an outrageous number. And certainly the ones towards the top hundred movies in the American box office or something. It was an outrageous number and certainly the ones towards the top end. And so, yeah, so as you say, it's as Disney becomes more and more powerful, there's less of a chance to kind of work against them. And the other, oh, as far as alternative styles, I don't think on the blockbuster level, that's very true, but we know that Hollywood's favorite game is to absorb alternative styles. And so something like Everything Everywhere All at Once is a movie that was a big unexpected hit. And even though its effects aesthetic wasn't so unusual, but the

kind of maximalist and to a certain degree, less, we'll say, bound by Earth's physics and kind of Earth's logic. And so there's a kind of taste for maybe something a bit more fanciful that isn't necessarily like from a fantasy, pre-existing fantasy property, we'll say. And so my fingers are crossed that this will encourage other kinds of unusual and what it like um even though the Baz Luhrmann style is a pretty well-established one and people know kind of what to expect from him the fact that Elvis was such a big hit this year and that has a very kind of again fanciful maximalist style as well that I'm hoping that this will encourage more unusual styles. Because it's like, I came out of Elvis being like,

I like the Baz Luhrmann thing. Not everybody does. But I was like, you know, at least it's not bland, you know? It's like, it's, I think that there is a certain fatigue in, I don't think people necessarily register it in terms of styles of effects or anything like that. But the current cycle that we're on more or less started in 2008 with Iron Man and The Dark Knight, and this kind of grounded realism cycle. And so it seems like we're due for a new cycle.

I would like to go to a movie and be wowed by the effects again. I feel like it doesn't happen very often. And what it does, it's very pleasurable. Maybe Avatar 2? The most recent Matt Reeves, Robert Pattinson, Batman is interesting as a kind of new style of realism that is based less on, we'll say, like the Christopher Nolan version of sharp edges and high definition. And instead, a realism that's based closer to like iPhone filming. And that's, you know, it's not totally new for that to be a kind of cue for authenticity. But the way that movie plays with the expectations of live streaming, I think it's not a whole new way of doing things, but it is at least an interesting change to what has been considered the expectations for Nolan-esque realism. No, I enjoyed that film as well.

So it's really interesting to hear. But, you know, Julie, I really appreciate you taking the time to speak with me to dig into this history of the visual effects industry. What is going on now? You know, hopefully it's been informative for the audience who don't think too much about this industry possibly. But thank you so much for taking the time.

Thanks for writing such a great book. I really appreciate it. Thanks for inviting me. Julie Turnock is the author of The Empire of Effects, Industrial Light and Magic, and the Rendering of Realism. She's also an associate professor at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. You can follow Julie on Twitter at Julie Turnock. You can follow me at Paris Marks, and you can follow the show at Tech Won't Save Us. Tech Won't Save Us is produced by Eric Wickham and is part of the Harbinger Media Network. And if you want to support the work that goes into making it every week,

you can go to patreon.com slash tech won't save us and become a supporter. Thanks for listening. Thank you.