Technology has made special effects a regular component of spot production. However, in these cost-cutting times, special effects, often perceived to be too expensive, may be the first thing slashed from a commercial budget.

The economic slowdown may cause producers to shy away from using effects that will dramatically increase their budgets. Therefore, offering the most for the least amount of money is more important than ever in a competitive market. Effects houses are using creative problem-solving techniques to keep the business coming their way.

We asked five of Canada’s top effects houses whether or not they are feeling the pinch in the current business climate and how they respond to the notion that special effects cost too much money. Here is what they said:

Andy Sykes

Command Post/Toybox, Toronto (Digital F/X)

When one compares live, practical effects that take a whole day to do on set, I would take exception to making the blanket statement that digital effects are so expensive compared to doing it practically.

Also, there are a lot of things that you simply cannot achieve. One of the shows we’re working on right now is Chicago, the musical, and what we are basically doing is taking the Toronto of now and making it Chicago of the 1920s. That is why special effects are such a strong part of every budget. When you’re dealing with fantasy [live practical effects] is next to impossible.

Ron Stefaniuk, Stefaniuk Effects, Toronto (Physical F/X)

IF you’re willing to be creative and work not only with a talented company that can build but a talented set of puppeteers, there is an amazing amount of stuff that can be done in the can and just sweetened with a computer. Adding a simple pupil dilation or something with a computer is a good symbiotic use of [digital effects], and at the same time, it saves [a significant] percent of the budget. But sometimes the low-tech guy with a stick and a string is the solution.

Paul Jones, Paul Jones FX, Toronto (Physical F/X)

IT’S really you get what you pay for, but there are various ways of filming things. Using that information helps me – so if they ask how can we do this, I can in fact give them 10 different ways of doing the same effect and 10 different prices. It all depends on the esthetic the director is going for. Sometimes you can say, ‘Well, I can do it practically, but it will cost you a lot of money, whereas CG will be really cheap,’ or the opposite.

I would never say to do something practical that should be done CG just because I need a job…I’d just be burying myself alive.

Roula Lainas, Lost Boys Studios, Vancouver (Digital F/X)

There are different ways to approach digital effects. There is a financial solution to every effect. It depends, but more or less if you want a certain effect, there is a $5,000 solution, a $30,000 solution and a $100,000 solution. Obviously money does make a difference, but a lot of times you can work with budgets. You build the budget depending on what you want to do.

I think people are scared of digital effects. We do a lot more U.S., Mexican and international commercials [than Canadian work]. Personally I think Canadians are very conservative and don’t use a lot of effects and animation. I think they should explore more.

Karl Gosselin, Twins FX, Montreal (Physical F/X)

CGI can be really expensive. Live special effects are not that expensive at all. It’s not the same look at all, but it’s much cheaper. About once a week, we come up with something that’s going to cut the budget by 10%. It’s a really precise business.

You have to know the angle and whether it is a close-up or not and what the kind of lighting [is being used] – things like that. Sometimes you can start with a lip-synching animatronic puppet and go down to a hand puppet that’s going to be made from much less expensive material. You can always try and get around the costs.

John LaForest, Performance SFX, Toronto (Physical F/X)

If it appears as though the most appropriate way to accomplish a gag is physically, then I will stick to my guns and propose it physically, and generally the budget will reflect that. If I believe it is more fiscally responsible to send it to post, then I’ll tell them this is the case.

Physical effects, in my opinion, can help keep the costs down. In the commercial world I’m not convinced of that because the turnaround time for the product is so high. It goes to the editor and it’s out the door pretty quick. If I do it in-camera it makes all the difference in the world – the delivery time. I’m not convinced that each and every time it reduces the cost versus post.