The special effects business is a medley of niches filled by model and propmakers, prosthetic people, physical effects specialists, and upwards of a dozen other categories. They share a three-dimensional design space, an extraordinary degree of craft, and the need for perfect illusion in the effects they create. In this business, close just doesn’t cut it. The demand for perfection is what makes the integration of traditional and computer-generated effects a tricky – but ultimately rewarding – business.

Toronto’s fxsmith, Gord Smith’s makeup, silicone prosthetics, and animatronics company, just finished Nixon, Smith’s fifth film with Oliver Stone.

The company was started 13 years ago ‘because I had a serious blood phobia,’ Smith says. ‘I was a classically trained actor, I had my own theater, and I was offered a project right out of the blue involving open-heart surgery. I was the only person they talked to who treated the subject matter with dignity.

‘In the process of doing the job, and seeing the power that kind of illusion had over the audience, I thought, `I could work for 20 years as an actor and never have that kind of power.’ We did it again, and again, and now I can’t get out of it.’

Last summer, Smith noticed a dramatic increase in the amount of computer-generated effects content in the scripts he was receiving. ‘Fifty percent, if not 80%, of the money available for special effects shifted directly to the computer. So I decided I’d better find out what the computer can and cannot do.

‘I got ahold of the guys at C.O.R.E. (Digital Pictures) and the guys at Spin (Productions). As a designer, I need to have the tools they use. I need their expertise to enhance what I already do or I’m not going to be able to compete in the industry. So I either do it myself – go to the bank, buy the gear, hire the staff, and move into the computer world that way – or I amalgamate myself with expertise that already exists here,’ says Smith.

‘I work exclusively internationally, and I have some pretty substantial international credits, so it was fairly easy to convince them to work as an ensemble,’ he adds.

‘The smartest thing I can do is amalgamate myself with existing expertise and machinery that is already there. It turns fxsmith into a much larger design facility. It means I can offer a producer something more than I could before. It gives me more credibility, and it gives them more credibility,’ says Smith.

‘Take makeup, for example. Anything you can do live is best, because you know exactly what you’re going to get. If by chance there’s something I missed, like a little edge showing, or color shift, you can go to the computer and fix it. Before, you had to reshoot the whole day. I’ve never had to use the computer to fix it, but that’s just luck. And on every job quote, I say, `Now we have the capacity to (digitally) fix anything.’ ‘

Integrating force

Smith believes computers should become an integrating force for the entire effects industry, a way for specialists to combine their expertise.

‘The way it is now, if you want computer effects, you go to the computer guy. If you want prosthetics, you go to the prosthetic guy. If you want mechanical effects, you go to the mechanical effects guy. That has to change. All those things overlap on each other. We have to bring all those elements together in a non-competitive arena, as opposed to fighting for effects. If you don’t, you end up with a mishmash, and colossal amounts of wasted money at the end of the day.

‘You can take the envelope and push it,’ Smith says. ‘And that’s kind of what I do for a living. I push the envelope. The end product is the only thing that matters. There will come a time when the computer is just as valuable a tool as a sculptor or a moldmaker. Right now, it’s the beginning of that relationship.’

Laird McMurray’s business is physical effects – everything from explosions and pyrotechnics to physical manipulations of people and things. While his Toronto company, Laird McMurray Services, has not found a direct role for computers in the creative end of its business, the presence of digital effects in the post world, and the ability of McMurray’s clients to alter, enhance and complement McMurray’s work has changed the business.

‘Computers have made a lot of the things we do easier, and a few things harder. It’s given freedom to directors to shoot around things,’ says McMurray. ‘Directors are very aware of what you can do in post (with a computer). But our experience is this: post effects are very expensive; it’s far, far cheaper to get it in the camera.

‘A lot of things are being shot as elements,’ McMurray continues. ‘We had a job recently where a woman’s hair had to turn into a tornado. A few years ago, we would have attempted to do that live, with a mechanical system. Now they just put the setup in front of a blue screen, shoot it as an element, and marry it to the image of a woman sitting in a chair. We still have to provide an effect, but it’s no longer a live effect.’

The computer also extends the reach of physical effects. ‘There are a number of things on our reel which are a combination of effects,’ McMurray says. ‘We can’t do an arcing lightning bolt across a person’s chest, but we can do a spark. If our spark is combined with a cgi lightning bolt, then you’ve got something.

‘We often initiate a physical effect, with a post effect added to it. That’s a much better sell; when it’s pure post, it looks like pure post.’

New way of building

It’s sometimes difficult to maintain perspective at UPLIS Studios, Haralds Gaikis’ model, prop and prototype shop; the staff are equally likely to be laboring over a tiny automobile or a giant toothbrush.

Gaikis has been immersed in Macintosh-based 3D design technology for about five years, personally learning three-dimensional design and modeling software, and integrating this technology into the projects he takes on. It’s an investment that is starting to pay off.

‘We’ve almost reached a point where we can build something analog, or build it on a computer. You’re still building it, you’re just building it in a different way,’ says Gaikis.

‘Internally, we’re using a computer for all our working drawings. It’s great for model work, because once you’ve finished a drawing it can be output at any size, which is ideal for a model; if you need it at one-twelfth scale, you just input that scale and the drawing comes out exact size.’

It doesn’t hurt the company’s project planning capabilities, either. A recent project for Brita water filters called for the camera to follow water as it flowed through a 3D Brita logo; Gaikis obtained a digital copy of Brita’s logo and went to work.

‘I created a 3D version of it, and once I had that done the director came down. With him sitting here, we moved the logo around and changed the lensing on the thing, and we were able to work out a storyboard and shot list, just sitting here. We saw what all the angles would look like,’ he says.

The computer can also save money. ‘Everybody’s really price-conscious these days,’ says Gaikis. ‘If I can put a lens in a shot of a miniature city I’m building, and see the exact cutoff point, I don’t have to build any extra buildings. Normally, you have to really cover yourself; you always overbuild. Now you can be much more precise.’

Technology is now coming to market which may have a major impact on studios that need to create accurately shaped, scaled 3D objects: stereo lithography, a technology that allows digital 3D illustration files to become real-life objects. Once the object is built in 3D, that information is converted into ‘slices’ 1/100th of an inch thick. A laser beam hardens resin on a rising table and builds a 3D object.

‘It’s expensive, but it’s very good for prototyping, especially of intricate things. You don’t have to make a pattern, then make a mold, and all that,’ says Gaikis. ‘You have to be careful about the shape of the object, you have to add in supports, and you still have stepping you have to physically sand it and paint it. But it’s still a step forward.’

(ross maddever is a Toronto-based copywriter and communications consultant who also teaches at the Bell Centre for Creative Communications.)