Post-Production : The Trouble with Overtime in VFX Post Production by Nicholas Boughen

Read it. The conundrum. So, the effects house theoretically should hire more people for the job. The house doesn't need to pay for health insurance because the new people don't work forty hours a week. Then the job is over, and for a period of time the company needs to ride on the cash from the last job to pay it's constant staff. I worked in a commercial lab for fifteen years. When I came in, they had two shifts. Lots of people. Within five months, they eliminated the second shift. Checks coming into the lab would be delayed periodically, and we'd wind up getting partial checks. These might go on for months. Then they'd get really busy, have to hire extra people, (which meant they were working at lower salaries than the tenured employees, and didn't qualify for health benefits for six months) I suppose I'm getting off topic. The thing is to hire more people instead of overworking people. But then the new people have to get up and running, and staff have to spend time orienting the new people. So what's a win win situation? Having the correct amount of staff at the beginning of the project. Not going to happen in a competitive market, as bidding for jobs cuts into expenses. When effects companies make their own films, they reap higher profits. Deadlines does have the word Dead in it......

It is definitely a more complex topic than there is time to cover in one article. The answer is to hire more people to meet the deadline. How long it takes to get people up to speed will depend on how experienced the new crew members are. Companies tend to want to hire more junior artists as they "seem" less expensive. They aren't. Typically VFX projects (which I am talking about) build a crew over time as part of the production schedule. It is not hard to schedule hires and arrange buddy systems so the project can ramp up at a reasonable speed. It does take planning though, and many studios tend to jump into production then try to figure out how they are going to do it. Either way, the issue isn't the logistics really. It's the cultural expectation of overtime. If everyone culturally expected not to do overtime, as in most industries, then there simply would be less overtime. There's a component of "if you're a team player you'll abandon your life for this movie". Too many people are buying into this nonsense partially because of the fake "glamour" of the movie industry. Ultimately, ignoring human factors (fatigue, family, morale, loyalty, courtesy) will be completely self destructive. I am happy to report that things are already changing for the better. Thanks for your comments, Andre.

I don't work in post, just on set. There are long days on productions and people do it because it is the norm. I don't think people think about the toil on their health or personal life. I feel that because the film gets done does not mean the system worked. If we worked at a different pace then perhaps we could think about being more creative or making the film better, as opposed to just getting the film done and shipped out.

Hi Michael. Long days onset don't happen everywhere. We've shot in the UK where people broke for lunch at noon and broke for the day at 6pm. Thought we were crazy for wanting to work 14 hour days. You're right that the production company doesn't think about (or care about) the human toll.

You should forward this to the management of StereoD:). Having works in games and VFX (not at SD) for a few years, I can attest to scope creep and fatigue. The worst part of it is the failure of management to be up front and honest with you that they need OT because of terrible planning.

I'm sure there are many post-production management teams this should go to. Unfortunately the ones most in need of it are the ones least likely to pay it any attention. I've found it interesting how scope creep seldom comes with budget creep. The client will expect you to do more work without paying more. I wonder if this is common in other industries. If scope creep came with budget creep, then we could hire more people to do the work, or take longer to do it rather than burning out our staff and losing all our profit, maybe even losing money ie: paying to do the work. Scope creep is normal, though. Making a film is a development process, not a car and that's OK, provided your management team has it handled. The problem comes when, as you say, "terrible management" leaves them unprepared for an increase in workload without a shift in deadline. Good managers always have a stack of backup plans ready.

One of the big problems I find is that the Client, (be it an indie, studio, network, whatever), always asks for more. And being the producer . . . you want to give them the best product possible. Of course, the studio or network is NEVER willing to pay more for more or better work, therefore everybody ends up in a horrible situation. It's easy to say, the studio doesn't get more without paying for it, but being in the middle of that situation more than enough times now, it's just not that easy to resolve.

Oh yes, Steve, I agree, it's not easy these days. I have been there many times as well. I have heard many people say how hard it is to say "no" to the client. The choice really is to maintain sustainable pricing or to go out of business. The problem is that too many companies, failing from globalization and lack of foresight, are desperate for the business and will roll over for the client, driving the prices far below a sustainable level. It's definitely a buyer's market right now. But it will rebound. Sooner or later the remaining strong companies will establish reasonable, sustainable pricing. They have to, otherwise VFX will disappear, but of course nobody will permit that. VFX is still an emerging industry. It's immature and unstable. As with all industries, it will mature and stabilize. We need to look toward the future and plan for it, because a better day is coming. Dealing with day-to-day emergencies and keeping the client happy is a necessity, but it should not happen at the expense of business foresight. Today it seems most likely that the vfx companies to survive will be the big, diversified ones that can continue to let their VFX division lose money while the wheat is separated from the chaff, or small, flexible companies that can actually survive in this environment. There will be no medium sized vfx companies.

Interesting comments, Lyse. I understand what you mean. It is interesting to hear a production-line artist speak up in favor of continued regular overtime. That's a new one on me. :) It's true, many (arguably most) facility managers believe the overtime strategy works for them. They believe this because they think they get 10 hours of product out of someone who works 10 hours a day. They think they get 12 hours of product out of an artist who works 12 hours a day. This is wrong. Overtime on the scale used by VFX companies is just not worth it, the math doesn't lie. All humans fatigue, make mistakes, become demoralized. Sure, they think overtime works great, then they complain about how poor the profit margins are and wonder where all their money went. The article did speak briefly about people who like to do OT, and that's all great. It doesn't change the fact that OT as a standard is damaging to everybody else, including the company. If an artist hast to sacrifice her life, health and family to be considered for promotion, she might want to think about working for a better company. That company doesn't care at all about her or her life. Sooner or later she'll hit a wall, then no matter how much she like O/T for a few years, she'll be sick to death of it, exhausted, demoralized and depressed. I've seen it a hundred times. I've done it myself. Getting promoted should be about quality and productivity, not quantity. The article clearly shows that as quantity rises, productivity and quality drops sharply. Would I prefer to promote someone who I pay 10 hours a day but only produces 5 hours per day of product? Or would I rather promote someone I pay for 8 hours a day who produces 8 hours per day of product? Everybody begins to fail with fatigue. As to the impossibility of predicting turnover, that's true. A decent contract includes holding costs. If the client doesn't turn over within a certain time frame, the studio is paying the vendor costs to hold on to the crew. If the contract does not include this clause, then the producers and company management are not doing a very good job. In fact any company that permits the client to ask for more work than they are paying for is committing suicide. A business model does not work when the company is bringing in less money than it spends. If the vendor does make this blunder and ends up carrying the cost of holding, this is all the more reason NOT to do overtime. Sure, nobody working in a free country has a gun to their head. We could all go work building houses right? We don't have to work in this industry we love. We should still have a discussion about what is wrong with it and how we can change it for the better. Every industry has its problems and it's up to the leaders (who are at every level of the industry) to step up and do something about it. Today, although I can't speak to your company, nearly all vfx companies burn artists out and spit them out. This is not OK. And it's a completely solvable problem, if only the will exists to solve it. I'm sure if most artists are of the opinion that massive, regular overtime is just fine, then perhaps there's no issue. Maybe it's just me. ;) I take issue with the remark that people "just don't want to work as hard as they used to". Every artist/T.D., producer, coordinator etc I have ever worked with wants to work hard. But working "hard" isn't the same as working "long". Your ending comments encouraging individuals to individually deal with their own situations sounds a little like an anti-union stance. To be clear, my remarks are not intended to support or discourage union as a solution. Thanks very much for taking the time to contribute to the discussion. The more voices, the better.

Hi Lyse. Well first of all, I'm really glad you decided to get involved in the discussion and throw your thoughts into the mix. Any kind of change really needs to be made with all the chips on the table. If we try to make decisions based on an ideological viewpoint without considering the views of experienced pros (like you) then we're just playing politics. That's not what this discussion is about. It's about real change for the better. So thank you. Second, thanks for your clarification. I agree artists need to step up and take control of their own lives. It's really hard for junior artists, of course, but those of us senior enough to speak our minds should definitely be doing it. I personally am a strong proponent of this approach, although it's gotten me in hot water more than once. That's OK, it really helped me identify who was worth working for and who wasn't. Sounds like you've had a really good experience with your managers. It was not my intention to purvey an "us against them" attitude. For clarity, i have been an on-the-box artist, lead, dept supervisor, VFX supervisor, production manager and facility manager. The data that is used in my article comes from my own real production budgets. There is no intention to pit anyone against anyone else. The purpose of the article is to recognize the futility of and damage caused by O/T as a standard day. I know what you mean about artists who like OT pay. I'm one of those. I loved the OT I'd get in big crunches and was kind of disappointed when i got promoted past OT pay. I'm the guy who would stay longer even after being told to go home, because I love the work. I am also the kind of person, like you, who can really rock a schedule and push out more in a 12 hour day (for a while anyway) but that is not the vast majority of artists / T.D.s as evidenced in the analysis. And certainly the whole team can output much more work in 12 hours a day...for a while. After a point, though, it becomes diminishing returns. This is why the article recommends only short bursts of O/T citing long periods of OT as ultimately far more expensive both in human terms and in dollars. I'm afraid i can't agree with the assertion "It works in terms of productivity or facilities wouldn't do it." There's a difference between something working and something perceived to be working. Most facilities perceive that OT works because they expect it to. 8 hours work = 8 hours productivity therefore 12 hours work must = 12 hours productivity. Careful study, tracking and simple math shows us that this is incorrect. Diminishing returns come quickly, massively increase the cost of VFX and actually slow things down. But it still gets done in the end so it must be working, right? Sadly not. I am aware that there are some artists who really want the extra hours and OT. In my experience, that's a very small portion. That's neither here nor there, though. I think if someone wants to work the OT and it's available, then they should go for it. I most definitely do not think we should prevent artists from doing OT if they want to. I just also don't think we should prevent artists from going home to their families on the weekends if they want to and there is a strong business case to be made for limiting overtime. And most importantly, I agree, yours is a perspective worth entering into the discussion for exactly the reasons you mentioned. The awareness of management that there are certain individuals who really love the OT is really important. I have been that guy, and I have had many on my team who were that guy/gal. I love to know who they are because it can really save me in a pinch. Nick

Agree 100%

Here's what Eric Roth, Visual Effects Society Executive Director had to say, almost two years ago: As an Honorary Society, VES has led the way in promoting the incredible work of VFX artists but so far no one has stood up to lead the way on the business side of our business. No one has been able to speak out for unrepresented artists and facilities – or the craft as a whole – in any meaningful way. It should not come as a surprise to anyone that the state of the visual effects industry is unsettled. Artists and visual effects companies are working longer hours for less income, delivering more amazing VFX under ever diminishing schedules, carrying larger financial burdens while others are profiting greatly from our work. As a result, there has been a lot of discussion recently about visual effects and its role in the entertainment industry. Many feel VFX artists are being taken advantage of and many others feel that VFX facilities are operating under unsustainable competitive restraints and profit margins. There have been calls for the creation of a VFX union to represent artists’ interests while others have pushed to create a trade organization for VFX facilities to better navigate today’s economic complexities. As globalization intensifies, the process of creating visual effects is becoming more and more commoditized. Many wonder if the current business model for our industry is sustainable over the long term. Indeed, multiplying blogs are questioning why artists are forced to work crazy overtime hours for weeks or months on end without health benefits and VFX facilities are forced to take on shows at a loss just to keep their pipelines going and their doors open (they hope). As good as we are at creating and manipulating amazing and ground breaking images, VFX professionals have done a terrible job of marketing ourselves to the business side of the industry. In short, no one has been able to harness the collective power of our efforts, talents, and passions into a strong, unified voice representing the industry as a whole. VES may not have the power of collective bargaining, but we do have the power of a voice that’s 2,400 artists strong in 23 countries -- and the VES Board of Directors has decided that now is the time to use it. We are the only viable organization that can speak to the needs and concerns of everyone involved in VFX to meet the challenges of a changing global industry and our place within it. The work we do helps a lot of people make a lot of money, but it’s not being shared on an equal basis, nor is the respect that’s due us, especially considering that 44 of the top 50 films of all time are visual effects driven(http://www.imdb.com/boxoffice/alltimegross). For VFX ARTISTS (NOT computer geeks, NOT nerds), we do not receive the kind of respect that measures up to the role visual effects plays in the bottom line. And that’s expressed in a number of very obvious ways: Credits – we are frequently listed incompletely and below where we should be in the crawl. Benefits – in the US, you likely do not have ready access to health care. Or a vision plan. Or a pension plan. Outside the US, unless you’re a citizen of a country with national health care, you likely do not have health care coverage either. Or have the ability to build hours for your pension. Or are eligible to receive residuals. On a UNION show we are the ONLY department that is not union and therefore not receiving the same benefits as everyone else on the set. Working conditions – if you are a freelancer (it’s generally agreed that almost half of all visual effects workers are freelancers), because you are not covered by collective bargaining, you may be forced to work 70 – 100 hour weeks for months on end in order to meet a delivery date. And for that privilege (in the U.S.) you will also likely be considered an Independent Contractor and have to file a 1099 – and then pay the employer’s share of the tax contribution. Many small to medium-sized VFX companies around the world are struggling to survive (or have gone out of business – (RIP Café FX, Asylum, Illusion Arts and many others). By now almost everyone in the industry is familiar with the quote from a few years ago by an unidentified studio executive that if he ‘didn’t put at least one VFX company out of business on a show, he wasn’t doing his job.’ The concern exists at every level of the VFX chain -- artist, facility and studio – how the impact of a “Fix” would affect the industry. Would it drive work elsewhere? Would it cut into the dwindling profit margins of VFX companies and put them out of business? Would it make VFX artists unhireable? No matter one’s perspective, the interests of VFX artists can no longer be ignored. In the coming weeks and months, VES will shine a spotlight on the issues facing the artists, facilities and studios by way of editorial pieces in the trades and VFX blogs, virtual Town Hall meetings, a VFX Artists’ Bill of Rights and a VFX CEO’s Forum (for the companies that actually provide the jobs that everyone is working so hard to safeguard). There are solutions and we will find them. We want the studios to make a respectable profit. We want facilities to survive and thrive in this ever changing fiscal environment. And we want artists to have high quality jobs with the commensurate amount of respect for the work they do on a daily basis. Therefore, VES will take the lead by organizing meetings with all participants in our industry in which we will make sure that all the issues discussed above are put on the table.

@Andre: Yes sir. Eric's remarks are part of what prompted this article and my staff productivity studies. I particularly enjoy the part about management forcing people to work ridiculous overtime and then wondering why they aren't making any money.@ Ross: Ask yourself this question. If a grocery store told a bread factory they had to make them more bread faster but the grocery store was not prepared to pay any more for that service, what do you think the bread factory would say? Of course it's not quite as simple as that, but the comparison does show us that VFX is in a state of change otherwise these things (weird client demands, crazy overtime) would be thought of as ridiculous business practices.Globalization has moved a lot of work overseas, making marginal companies desperate. When the producers smell desperation, they start making demands and threats. The vendor feels they have no choice but to comply, just to keep the lights on for a while hoping something big will come along to save them. But there's blood in the water. Producers now know they can push this company around. Like in other industries, VFX companies need to make sound business decisions, not lowball. Again, that's tough when it's your company and it's failing. On the other hand, running massive overtime costs a lot. Companies running on 1 or 2 percent profit margins could be running 20 - 25% margins by banning overtime. When you suggest this idea you are met with looks of incredulity. You can't do that! That's how business is done! Which is where we get to the discussion about "The culture of crisis". Business does absolutely not have to be done that way, it's a cultural expectation (see my next blog). If you have great managers in place, you can schedule and execute a project, even with unpredictable client changes, with minimal overtime. One day I wondered if this could be done, so on my next project I set that goal for myself and accomplished it. Then I did it again....and again. My crews started asking me if I wouldn't kindly go start my own VFX company so they could come work for me instead of the studio where we were all employed. :) But anyway, the short answer to your question is that I think both client expectations and dodgy management practices contribute to the problem. +1 on the onset vs post 14 hour day. I've been told by onset crew that I'm a big baby for not wanting to work 14 hour days in the studio. Burning your brain at a workstation is slightly different from eating crafty for 4 hours waiting to move a grip stand.

Nicholas, You probably aren't the original person who coined the term "Culture of Crisis", but it's the perfect term not only for the VFX side of the business but for the whole business. We could spend years discussing the ultimate causes of OT, not only in VFX, but the entire business. If release schedules hadn't been pushed up to the maximum, nobody would be working OT in the first place. . . With the move away from the traditional, and towards streaming and the internet, it's probably the perfect time for it. After reading Andre speak of Eric Roth's comments, maybe he's the one to make those changes. I hope a solution becomes evident and there are people out there who will be able to execute it.

Hi Steve. The term has been around as long as...well...as long as there have been cultures of crisis. Which is pretty much forever. It's a good, descriptive term isn't it? I believe the solution is self evident and it's really up to all of us to make those changes. All of us are capable, all we need is the will to do it.