Interview ready just in time for the presentation

Dec, 07 2009 | School Work,Visual Effects | Michael | No comments

Finally, I have an interview! I met a very nice guy in London who agreed to me sending him some questions. He was also kind enough to get back to me very quickly. The person in question has been in the industry for a fair few years and has done work in both the US and other countries. Currently, he is working for a large visual effects facility in London. He’ll remain unnamed here as per request. Read the interview below.

1. Is visual effects a growing or a declining industry and how has this changed over the past 5-10 years?
It’s hard to say. In the past 18 months a lot of places have closed. Especially smaller facilities. The economic situation has hit the US very strongly and some big long term providers have fallen over as well. I think the industry is consolidating. Less companies, stronger large players.
2. Which cities worldwide would you consider to be the most important from a visual effects point of view today compared to 5-10 years ago?
I can only speak about large budget film VFX. But in that sector it has always been LA, San Francisco and in the past 10 years London. Sydney and Vancouver are secondary players, Wellington is the exception but really there is only one big studio there. Wellington Sydney and Vancouver (a little bit Toronto) have become more important. I know that Mumbai and Shanghai are also beginning to feature in their own market but they are not very significant in Hollywood vfx yet.
3. On average how many visual effects shots would be normal in a film today and how does that compare to 5-10 years ago?
Its hard to make an accurate estimate as there is no ‘normal’. I will say that When Star Wars Episode 1 was done I think they did over 1000 shots and that was a milestone. Now films like Avatar and some of the others have well over 2000. Lucas and ILM really lead the way on large number of shots and big sequences, they have always had the highest shot counts in the past.
4. Roughly how many artists are employed by each of the bigger visual effects facilities?
This is hard to discuss. People don’t like publishing these figures for a lot of reasons. I cannot accurately answer. I know that Disney is probably still the biggest or Sony, as they have a feature animation dept, visual effects dept and a few other things all in one place. Sony and SPI and Sony Feature Animation together must be over 1000. Very few places are anywhere neat that. Pixar is very big as is Rhythm & Hues.
5. I believe I heard that visual effects facilities nowadays are more involved in the pre-production process and that’s how the post-production on some films are finished in a very short amount of time. Is this the case and do you think we’ll see more or less of it in the future?
Large key players are involved in really groundbreaking stuff. But many facilities still just get to bid after the fact. Its easy for a PR to talk about how they managed to get work done because of this, but often this is actually just marketing after the fact. Vfx companies have mainly gotten better at doing what they do. This means that they can do more work faster. As someone involved in making the effects, the real situation is just the people are having to work faster and harder to more unrealistic deadlines to appease the studios.
6. Has the price drop on hardware/software over the past few years resulted in a more fragmented industry? Can for instance a small facility with only a handful artists specialise in one particular field and actually compete with much bigger facilities for shots within that field?
In the high end I do not believe so. I think this has has a big impact on smaller facilities and those servicing the motion graphics and broadcast market and the smaller commercial markets. For large VFX facilities the main cost is always staff. Software and hardware fluctuations are not that important. Most large facilities, if they specialise at all, most don’t, do so because they have invested money in R&D and building pipelines that are better at one thing than another and then can out-do someone else on a specific thing, i.e. water or characters. Most big places need the range of work a large sequence or show will bring to them and cannot afford to be seen as a specialist house.
7. On a related note, would you agree that while bigger facilities to a larger extent bid on whole films in the past, it is more common these days that studios divide work between many facilities, big or small?
It is becoming more common to see some places bid on whole films. Previously only ILM and maybe some of the other LA houses could take a whole large 600+ shot show. Now a lot more can but it is always hard for anyone. Still there are only maybe 5-6 places in the world that can carry 1000 shots. Most of the big shows of recent times, Harry Potter or 2012 or whatever, still use multiple vendors.
8. Are there any differences to how the visual effects facilities operates in the UK compared to other countries?
The only difference I see is in the labour laws. UK companies don’t pay overtime or time-and-half or whatever. They still only pay pro rata for a day or do Time Off In Lieu (TOIL). Some US places have a unionised/guild approach and have better worker entitlements. Apart from that it seems the same.
9. In terms of locations, where do you believe it will be easiest to find work in the next year or two?
I think right now it’s London. It will stay that way till at least 2012 when some of the big shows are done. In two years the tax laws will swing back and maybe things will change again. I think things will either shift back to California by 2012-2013.
10. Are the traditional positions such as roto artist, matchmover and runner still the most normal way of getting a first job in the industry?
In a big studio yes. Unless you are coming in to do R&D programming. In smaller places there is always a chance to skip that phase.
11. What, in your opinion, will the industry look like in a couple of years (will stereoscopic still be big, will we still be shooting on film or just digital etc.)?
I have no idea. I hope stereo is just a phase that will go away. its not doing much good for film making. Chances are Avatar will come out and make a billion dollars and then the Studios will want everything in Stereo for a few years until the public gets bored of it. In my opinion its a gimmick that lets people make bad films because it is flashy. I know Disney are really big behind stereo and that a lot of weak films will get made just because they are going to be stereo. It was a fad in the 50′s when they invented it and it is a fad now. I think good stories and good ideas never go out of fashion but they get overshadowed by the ‘next big thing’. That is what is happening now.
Film is long since past its used by date. Digital is the way forward. Everything is scanned and run through DI now. Digital Acquisition is totally up to the task but the DOPs and Directors are mainly in the 40s or older and come from a time when shooting on real film was more prestigious so they insist on it. So that will shift sooner or later.
I like studio films so I hope they never go away. 5-10 years ago everyone was saying that some kid with a DV cam would be the next Spielberg and we would all be watching their films by now. It hasn’t happened yet. Mainly because making a good film is hard. Everyone thinks that they can do better but the proof is on Youtube, Vimeo and a million other sites…. Lots of one trick pony shows and no really good dramas.
Good drama is really hard to make and most people just do not have the skills or the understanding. It has nothing to do with technology or budgets. It’s all about the skill and hard work of the people doing it.

Is visual effects a growing or a declining industry and how has this changed over the past 5-10 years?

It’s hard to say. In the past 18 months a lot of places have closed. Especially smaller facilities. The economic situation has hit the US very strongly and some big long term providers have fallen over as well. I think the industry is consolidating. Less companies, stronger large players.

Which cities worldwide would you consider to be the most important from a visual effects point of view today compared to 5-10 years ago?

I can only speak about large budget film VFX. But in that sector it has always been LA, San Francisco and in the past 10 years London. Sydney and Vancouver are secondary players, Wellington is the exception but really there is only one big studio there. Wellington, Sydney and Vancouver (and a little bit Toronto) have become more important. I know that Mumbai and Shanghai are also beginning to feature in their own market but they are not very significant in Hollywood vfx yet.

On average how many visual effects shots would be normal in a film today and how does that compare to 5-10 years ago?

Its hard to make an accurate estimate as there is no ‘normal’. I will say that When Star Wars Episode 1 was done I think they did over 1000 shots and that was a milestone. Now films like Avatar and some of the others have well over 2000. Lucas and ILM really lead the way on large number of shots and big sequences, they have always had the highest shot counts in the past.

Roughly how many artists are employed by each of the bigger visual effects facilities?

This is hard to discuss. People don’t like publishing these figures for a lot of reasons. I cannot accurately answer. I know that Disney is probably still the biggest or Sony, as they have a feature animation dept, visual effects dept and a few other things all in one place. Sony and SPI and Sony Feature Animation together must be over 1000. Very few places are anywhere near that. Pixar is very big as is Rhythm & Hues.

I believe I heard that visual effects facilities nowadays are more involved in the pre-production process and that’s how the post-production on some films are finished in a very short amount of time. Is this the case and do you think we’ll see more or less of it in the future?

Large key players are involved in really groundbreaking stuff. But many facilities still just get to bid after the fact. Its easy for a PR to talk about how they managed to get work done because of this, but often this is actually just marketing after the fact. Vfx companies have mainly gotten better at doing what they do. This means that they can do more work faster. As someone involved in making the effects, the real situation is just the people are having to work faster and harder to more unrealistic deadlines to appease the studios.

Has the price drop on hardware/software over the past few years resulted in a more fragmented industry? Can for instance a small facility with only a handful artists specialise in one particular field and actually compete with much bigger facilities for shots within that field?

In the high end I do not believe so. I think this has has a big impact on smaller facilities and those servicing the motion graphics and broadcast market and the smaller commercial markets. For large VFX facilities the main cost is always staff. Software and hardware fluctuations are not that important. Most large facilities, if they specialise at all, most don’t, do so because they have invested money in R&D and building pipelines that are better at one thing than another and then can outdo someone else on a specific thing, i.e. water or characters. Most big places need the range of work a large sequence or show will bring to them and cannot afford to be seen as a specialist house.

On a related note, would you agree that while bigger facilities to a larger extent bid on whole films in the past, it is more common these days that studios divide work between many facilities, big or small?

It is becoming more common to see some places bid on whole films. Previously only ILM and maybe some of the other LA houses could take a whole large 600+ shot show. Now a lot more can but it is always hard for anyone. Still there are only maybe 5-6 places in the world that can carry 1000 shots. Most of the big shows of recent times, Harry Potter or 2012 or whatever, still use multiple vendors.

Are there any differences to how the visual effects facilities operates in the UK compared to other countries?

The only difference I see is in the labour laws. UK companies don’t pay overtime or time-and-half or whatever. They still only pay pro rata for a day or do Time Off In Lieu (TOIL). Some US places have a unionised/guild approach and have better worker entitlements. Apart from that it seems the same.

In terms of locations, where do you believe it will be easiest to find work in the next year or two?

I think right now it’s London. It will stay that way till at least 2012 when some of the big shows are done. In two years the tax laws will swing back and maybe things will change again. I think things will either shift back to California by 2012-2013.

Are the traditional positions such as roto artist, matchmover and runner still the most normal way of getting a first job in the industry?

In a big studio yes. Unless you are coming in to do R&D programming. In smaller places there is always a chance to skip that phase.

What, in your opinion, will the industry look like in a couple of years (will stereoscopic still be big, will we still be shooting on film or just digital etc.)?

I have no idea. I hope stereo is just a phase that will go away. It’s not doing much good for film making. Chances are Avatar will come out and make a billion dollars and then the Studios will want everything in Stereo for a few years until the public gets bored of it. In my opinion its a gimmick that lets people make bad films because it is flashy. I know Disney are really big behind stereo and that a lot of weak films will get made just because they are going to be stereo. It was a fad in the 50′s when they invented it and it is a fad now. I think good stories and good ideas never go out of fashion but they get overshadowed by the ‘next big thing’. That is what is happening now.

Film is long since past its used by date. Digital is the way forward. Everything is scanned and run through DI now. Digital Acquisition is totally up to the task but the DOPs and Directors are mainly in the 40s or older and come from a time when shooting on real film was more prestigious so they insist on it. So that will shift sooner or later.

I like studio films so I hope they never go away. 5-10 years ago everyone was saying that some kid with a DV cam would be the next Spielberg and we would all be watching their films by now. It hasn’t happened yet. Mainly because making a good film is hard. Everyone thinks that they can do better but the proof is on Youtube, Vimeo and a million other sites…. Lots of one trick pony shows and no really good dramas.

Good drama is really hard to make and most people just do not have the skills or the understanding. It has nothing to do with technology or budgets. It’s all about the skill and hard work of the people doing it.

I must say I am truly grateful to the person who answered my questions. From having very little information due to the secretive nature of the industry, I now feel I have the information I need to put together a decent presentation.

Leave a comment


Name*

Email(will not be published)*

Website

Your comment*

Submit Comment