The really short review? It’s good. You should see it. No, really. It’s fun. Get a free ticket from Amazon and go.

The slightly expanded review:

Disney’s marketing of this film was terrible. Not bad, not so-so, but terrible. They stripped its original title, John Carter of Mars to the unbelievably generic John Carter [...]]]>

The really short review? It’s good. You should see it. No, really. It’s fun. Get a free ticket from Amazon and go.

The slightly expanded review:

Disney’s marketing of this film was terrible. Not bad, not so-so, but terrible. They stripped its original title, John Carter of Mars to the unbelievably generic John Carter and released a series of trailers that did their best to conceal any concept of what the film is about.

Oddly, most of the viewing public didn’t seem to know the fine details of a pulp novel from a century ago, so no one knows what this movie is about… and Disney isn’t telling. Disney really botched this one and the press was ready to eviscerate it. Everyone likes a trainwreck, and the negative coverage was almost gleeful in its smugness.

It’s a shame for them that the movie is actually pretty good.

For those who don’t know: It’s the story of a disillusioned Civil War veteran and widower who is transported to Mars where he is forced to become embroiled – or not – in a Martian civil war. It’s based on a series of books by Edgar Rice Burroughs, who wrote Tarzan, and is pretty much the template on which all serialized sci-fi pulp in the last century was based.

I didn’t love it, but I liked it a lot. It’s well made. It’s pulp fun, with a good script that doesn’t make you want to hide your face in your hands (coughprequelscough). It’s an epic film that also has things like “characters” and “motivation” which is always exciting. The production design and art direction is fantastic.

The characters are complex and interesting. I’ve heard some people complain that the plot is somehow confusing or convoluted, but I can’t imagine how. I’d never read the book and it all made perfect sense to me. It’s an old-fashioned pulp tale that’s not one bit ironic or smug; it’s completely earnest and straightforward. Although it’s missing a certain spark, there is a wry humor to it.

So yes – I’m keeping this short, but you really shouldn’t let the horrifically clueless performance by Disney marketing sour you to this if you’d otherwise be at all interested. It’s certainly not perfect, but what is? It’s fun, it’s well made, and it deserves to be seen.

Also, here’s a picture of Dejah Thoris:

The Muppets have been everywhere lately due to a mercifully concerted and well-orchestrated advertising campaign for their new film, The Muppets, which opened yesterday. It’s been twelve years since our felt friends last graced theaters in 1999, and the time in between has been a period of great uncertainty for the characters. At times, [...]]]>

The Muppets have been everywhere lately due to a mercifully concerted and well-orchestrated advertising campaign for their new film, The Muppets, which opened yesterday. It’s been twelve years since our felt friends last graced theaters in 1999, and the time in between has been a period of great uncertainty for the characters. At times, it seemed uncertain if they would ever make the big return that fans had long been promised.

It’s been a long road since Disney’s first close-call with Muppet ownership, right before Muppet impresario Jim Henson’s tragic and untimely death in 1990. The Disney deal fell apart in the wake of Henson’s death, and the property began a period of bouncing around among different owners and production partners – none of whom were able to properly develop new Muppet projects. Although the Henson company and Disney were able to eventually reconcile, and the Mouse finally purchased the Frog in 2004, it remained to be see what – if anything – Disney would do with the Muppets beyond licensing.

In 2009 Disney finally announced that they were moving forward with a new Muppet film, and now that it has finally reached theaters I can mercifully – and with a great deal of relief – report that it is, in fact, a whole lot of fun. I’ll save the detailed review for later – I don’t want to delve into spoilers, after all – but while it’s very different from previous Muppet adventures its still full of laughs and sentiment and manages to be “meta” without being ironic.

I even liked the attached Toy Story short, which is perhaps the single most surprising thing that’s happened to me in the last five years at least.

So congrats to the Muppet Studio and Disney for finally making it happen, and delivering a Muppet film that feels fresh and old-school at the same time. I sincerely hope it does blockbuster business and results in new films and shows, and here I would like to remind every Disney executive, park official, and Imagineer that there are plans for a Muppet Movie ride already drawn up. And there is a Studios park in Orlando that has a big, gaping hole intended for that ride, and the desperate need for something new. So, you know, that.

I encourage you all to check it out ASAP. Prove to Disney the message that the film itself espouses in hilarious fashion, and which fans have been saying for years – Muppets are still awesome, and the only reason they’re not “relevant” is because they’re being withheld from us. Hopefully this is the beginning of big, furry things.

But that’s the future – let’s look at the past for a moment.

One of my favorite Muppet things came in 1990, just as Disney and the Muppets were preparing to finalize their merger. To promote this union, NBC aired a primetime television special, The Muppets at Walt Disney World. At the time, given my youthful love of both the Muppets and Walt Disney World, this was possibly the coolest thing that could ever happen. I must have watched this dozens of times.

And what’s best is that it’s actually good. It’s the same old-fashioned Muppet mayhem and music, just set in Walt Disney World. The same old anarchic Muppet humor from the Henson era is there – the show aired just ten short days before Henson’s death in May of 1990.

Thankfully, the special can be found online. You can watch below, followed by some other Muppety Disney tidbits. First, the special:

And now… outtakes!

Attendant to the planned Disney purchase of the Muppets, there were plans to bring the characters into the parks. An entire “Muppet Studios” was to be set up at the Disney-MGM Studios in Florida; the first attraction based on this deal was a show, Here Come the Muppets, which opened at the Studios soon after this special aired. A live stage show, it ran until September of 1991. After its closure, its theater was used for the still-running Voyage of the Little Mermaid show.

Muppet*Vision 3-D opened at the Studios on May 16th, 1991 – one year to the day after Henson’s death. On September 16th, 1991, three weeks after Here Come the Muppets closed, another stage show called Muppets on Location opened on a stage near the Muppet*Vision 3-D theater. It ran until 1994. The shows didn’t feature the familiar Muppet puppets, but rather human-sized walkaround versions of the characters. In an innovation for the time, the characters’ mouths moved to synch with the show’s vocals, which made them seem at least slightly more Muppetesque. Some (rather cynical) cast members captured the final performance of this show on video; it can be seen below.

And that was the last new bit of Muppet mayhem to reach the Disney parks before their alliance went south. They haven’t returned since, although Muppet*Vision 3-D was eventually cloned in other parks. Hopefully, if the fun new film is a hit, maybe we’ll get those attractions after all. Better later than never – even if it’s 25 years late!

Today, the Walt Disney Company is a multi-billion dollar hype machine cranking out a stream of press releases on a daily basis. But long ago, the Disney studio was literally a garage-based organization and hardly the talk of the town. Still, the 22-year-old aspiring mogul managed to get his name in print – no [...]]]>

Today, the Walt Disney Company is a multi-billion dollar hype machine cranking out a stream of press releases on a daily basis. But long ago, the Disney studio was literally a garage-based organization and hardly the talk of the town. Still, the 22-year-old aspiring mogul managed to get his name in print – no small feat, even in 1924.

Hollywood bigshots with enough time on their hands to browse the back pages of the Los Angeles Times might have come across this blurb at the bottom of a long column of movieland news on July 6th, 1924. I’m curious as to how this story came about; perhaps it was the work of Disney’s distributor in New York. In any case, one could hardly have guessed at the time the magnitude of events which would result from this simple announcement.

ACTORS MIX WITH CARTOONS

In Hollywood a young cartoonist by the name of Walt Disney is making a series of twelve animated cartoon productions. Real people are seen acting with pen-and-ink actors. They are known as the “Alice” series and 5-year-old Virginia Davis, de luxe child dancer, has the big part. M.J. Winkler of New York is releasing the comedies.

Earlier this month I had the privilege of writing a piece for Storyboard, the official blog of the Walt Disney Family Museum. As readers will know, I’m a big fan of the museum so I was very glad to be able to help out. My story concerns the making of The Great Locomotive Chase, [...]]]>

Earlier this month I had the privilege of writing a piece for Storyboard, the official blog of the Walt Disney Family Museum. As readers will know, I’m a big fan of the museum so I was very glad to be able to help out. My story concerns the making of The Great Locomotive Chase, a 1956 Walt Disney production starring Fess Parker and Jeffrey Hunter. The Museum’s focus this month has been on Walt’s love of trains, and few of his projects better show this than Great Locomotive Chase; the “true-life” adventure tells the story of Union spies hijacking a Confederate supply train in 1862. It’s an incredible tale that makes for a fun film and it’s easy to see why Walt was interested – it gave him the chance to play around with trains!

I was especially pleased to be able to write about this particular movie as it was filmed in and around some familiar stomping grounds of mine – an area in the Appalachian Mountains between Franklin, North Carolina and Cornelia, Georgia. Both my paternal grandparents were from Franklin – my grandfather’s family has been living up there, in the same valley, for more than two hundred years. It’s still one of my favorite places to “get away from it all.” Furthermore my grandmother’s brother-in-law worked on the now-defunct Tallulah Falls Railroad, where Locomotive was filmed, and her family grew up in the wide valley overlooking where the railway passed from Otto, NC to Franklin. She had moved by 1955 when filming was underway, but her family was still there and I have always had these weird visions of them sitting on their porch while Walt Disney maniacally drove his train back and forth on the other side of the Little Tennessee River.

Local businesses still recall Walt’s visit. At the (truly fantastic, by the way) Dillard House restaurant in Dillard, Georgia, pictures on the wall chronicle the time Walt stopped there for some home cooking. In local histories, people recall seeing Walt come in to local diners and cafes and have lunch alone – just a regular guy, hanging out.

As I say in my piece, you can tell how important this project must have been for Walt – after all, Disneyland had just opened and it would take something remarkable to tear him away from his new sandbox in Anaheim.

For some more info, check out my article and others from this month at the Museum’s blog, and if you haven’t seen it I recommend you check out The Great Locomotive Chase itself. It’s nothing profound but it’s a really fun film with some great actors facing off and that really fantastic art direction you see in Disney productions from that era. You can buy it cheap from Amazon or rent it via Netflix.

As Ned Brainard sang in his hit pop standard The Flubber Song, “Flubber – it’s a boon to man.”

Or was it?

Walt Disney was no stranger to promotional tie-in merchandise, going back all the way to his early Hollywood successes. A constant stream of Mickey Mouse tchotchkes had provided a much-needed financial boost [...]]]>

As Ned Brainard sang in his hit pop standard The Flubber Song, “Flubber – it’s a boon to man.”

Or was it?

Walt Disney was no stranger to promotional tie-in merchandise, going back all the way to his early Hollywood successes. A constant stream of Mickey Mouse tchotchkes had provided a much-needed financial boost in those days, and clever cross-promotion continued to be one of the key foundations of Walt’s fortune.

When Disney’s The Absent-Minded Professor debuted in 1961, there was naturally a resultant demand among film-going youth for the movies’s gravity-defying substance “flubber”. In the fall of 1962, and in anticipation of the film’s 1963 sequel Son of Flubber, toy shelves across the nation were stocked with Flubber courtesy of Disney licensee Hassenfeld Bros., Inc. of Rhode Island. The silvery, glittery substance came in a ball, but could be stretched or bounced. Made of butadiane, a synthetic rubber, and mineral oil, it was very similar to the more familiar product Silly Putty.

All went well until the following spring, when news services began to report of rashes that were attributed to Flubber. In the February 28th, 1963 edition of the Los Angeles Times, it was said that health officials on both the local and state level were investigating an “outbreak” of rashes in school children. Officials were unsure of the source of the rashes, saying that they could be due to contact dermatitis caused by Flubber or even a simple viral outbreak.

Apparently the “outbreak” was none too serious; Dr. George M. Uhl, Los Angeles city health officer, was quoted as describing the rash as “so faint it is hard to see.”

Hassenfeld Bros. claimed that the problem couldn’t be due to their product; Flubber had been tested commercially in several markets before it was introduced nationwide and none of its customers had reported any rash during that time. Nevertheless, they referred the claims to their testing laboratories which embarked on trials to see if the product could be responsible. (Some modern sources say that these trials were conducted on volunteer convicts!)

An answer seemed to come quickly; by March 1st the Los Angeles Times declared that Flubber had been cleared in the mystery. The City Health Department’s director of communicable disease, one Dr. Herbert Cowper, opined that the affected children did not have dermatitis, but were rather the victim of a virus. This interpretation was backed up by a team of virologists from the USC School of Medicine who had been consulted; apparently the USC team had examined stricken students at a local school and discovered that not all of those affected had played with Flubber.

Flubber seemed to be in the clear – or was it?

By March 17th the Washington Post reported that a series of outbreaks reported in Los Angeles, Kansas City, St. Louis, New York City and Phoenix had led the Food and Drug Administration to open its own Flubber fact-finding foray. “A number of cases of mouth rash have been reported by health authorities,” said an agency spokesman. “The reaction appears to be associated with a novelty toy called Flubber.” Despite the fact that the FDA pointed out that “no cause and effect relationship between flubber and a rash has been demonstrated to date,” Merrill L. Hassenfeld, president of Hassenfeld Bros., issued a statement proclaiming the FDA comments to be “somewhat ridiculous.”

The complaints continued to spread. In April the Baltimore City Health Department issued a warning about Flubber, and encouraged stores to pull the product from their shelves. It also “strongly recommended” that any Flubber already purchased “be discarded in the trash.” The Baltimore Sun cited local dermatologist Dr. Harry M. Robinson, Jr., president of the Baltimore City Medical Society, as having referred several cases of Flubber-related contact dermatitis to local health officials. According to Robinson, the Flubber caused “considerable inconvenience and discomfort” to those affected. Health department investigations in local elementary schools revealed several outbreaks; in one class sixteen of twenty-seven students who had Flubber exposure developed “redness and eruptions” while seven out of sixteen students in another class were so afflicted.

Flubber was on the ropes. On the first of May, 1963, Hassenfeld Bros. pulled the plug for good. The FDA, speaking to the Associated Press, said that a survey provided compelling data that Flubber had indeed caused the outbreak of rashes. According to the agency, they had received around 1,600 reports overall of skin irritation related to Flubber. Flubber was pulled from shelves, along with two knock-off imitators, “Robly Rubber,” manufactured by the Old Fox Toy Company, and “Plubber,” a product of Deca Plastics Material Co. Inc. According to Hassenfeld Bros., over four million units of Flubber had been sold since September 1962; it’s unknown how many of the complains involved Flubber or were instead the result of the imitation products.

Still, Hassenfeld Bros. maintained its innocence. Merrill Hassenfeld told the Associated Press that tests both preceding and following Flubber’s release all showed that “it was not the product that caused rashes.” According to Hassenfeld, the FDA had informed him that laboratory tests on animals found no causal relation between Flubber and skin rash.

Nevertheless, Hassenfeld Bros. has pulled Flubber from shelves and was now stuck with millions of balls of Flubber that needed disposal. Since this took place in the “good ol’ days” before “onerous” government regulation ruined all the fun by preventing businesses from doing whatever the heck they wanted to do, the disposal of Flubber proved a colorful tale that has been occasionally (and somewhat flamboyantly) recounted over the years.

Hassenfeld tried dumping the Flubber at the landfill, but local authorities weren’t having it. Attempts to burn the Flubber resulted in clouds of acrid black smoke that was equally frowned upon by locals. Eventually Hassenfeld found a lake and simply tried to dump the Flubber there; unfortunately for them, Flubber floats and they had to hire boats to skim the water for several days to recover the bobbing blobs.

According to reports, the final resting place of all the Flubber was rather prosaic – Hassenfeld dug a big hole near their offices, dumped the Flubber into it, ran it all over with a steamroller, and paved it over for a new parking lot. Thus Flubber met an untimely, Hoffa-esque fate that ensured it a place in urban legend beside all those E.T. The Extra Terrestrial Atari cartridges in the New Mexico desert.

And yet, the Flubber endured. Son of Flubber proved a huge success and The Absent-Minded Professor received remakes for television in 1988 and (unfortunately) at the cinemas in 1997.

Weep not for the Hassenfeld Brothers, either. The company, which began in 1923 as a textile remnant company in New Jersey, found continued success in the toy industry until it adopted a shorter, snappier name in 1968 – Hasbro.

If there’s one thing this summer has proved, it’s that I control the universe.

We’ve previously cited the events at The Enchanted Tiki Room as proof of this, but for further evidence we should examine the case of The Rocketeer.

It all began a few months ago when I was whinging on Twitter about [...]]]>

If there’s one thing this summer has proved, it’s that I control the universe.

We’ve previously cited the events at The Enchanted Tiki Room as proof of this, but for further evidence we should examine the case of The Rocketeer.

It all began a few months ago when I was whinging on Twitter about how overlooked the film is. The new trailer for Captain America had just come out, strongly challenging the Rocketeer vibe, and considering that director Joe Johnston was responsible for both films I felt that now was the time for a Rocketeer revival. After all, this year marks the 20th anniversary of the film’s release (a distressing fact, believe you me) and what better way to promote a restored re-release of the film for home video than by piggybacking on the new Marvel superhero tentpole. “From the director of CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE FIRST AVENGER!!!” Marketeers love those kinds of stickers, and at least it would get us a decent DVD or Blu-ray of The Rocketeer.

A long online chat led to a guest spot on a Metro-Retro Historical Society podcast with the WEDway Radio guys, where we talked about our mutual love for the film. Soon after, we were surprised – and pleased! – to see that D23 had announced its own celebration of the film’s 20th anniversary. And, you west-coasters, the event is tomorrow night.

So make note, you lucky so-and-sos. The celebration and screening is tomorrow, June 21st, at 7:30 p.m. at the El Capitan theater in Hollywood. Tickets are available through the El Capitan at 818-845-3110 or by visiting ElCapitanTickets.com. The event will include a screening of a newly-remastered digital print of the film, previously unseen behind-the-scenes footage, as well as a panel including director Joe Johnston, the Rocketeer himself, Bill Campbell, legendary makeup artist Rick Baker, writers Danny Bilson and Paul De Mio, and illustrator William Stout – himself a friend of deceased Rocketeer creator Dave Stevens. The panel will be moderated by director Kevin Smith.

In addition, there will be a museum of memorabilia and production artifacts from the film, as well as a remarkable selection of merchandise that you should totally, totally buy for me.

Honestly, people, if you live in the Hollywood area or even anywhere near, you have to go to this. Do it for me, because I can’t. And hopefully – hopefully! – this newly-remastered print will show up on a feature-loaded Blu-ray sometime soon.

Find out more information about the event, and see a trailer, at D23′s site.

It seems like everyone is talking about The Rocketeer lately. And by everyone, I guess I mean me.

There’s actually been a frisson of conversation recently about the 1991 Walt Disney Pictures production on Twitter, owing to the recent release of a rather snazzy trailer for this summer’s Captain America. Marvel’s latest film [...]]]>

Yes.

It seems like everyone is talking about The Rocketeer lately. And by everyone, I guess I mean me.

There’s actually been a frisson of conversation recently about the 1991 Walt Disney Pictures production on Twitter, owing to the recent release of a rather snazzy trailer for this summer’s Captain America. Marvel’s latest film adaptation is directed by Joe Johnston, who directed The Rocketeer (and Honey, I Shrunk the Kids!) for Disney, and with its World War II setting and comic-inspired feel, many fans think it’s the closest thing we’ll ever get to a Rocketeer sequel. There had once been plans for two sequels starring the Rocketeer, but when the film failed to reach blockbuster status upon its initial release those plans were abandoned.

Anyway, although we might have given up plans for a revival, fans still hope for a remotely decent home theater release of the original film, and considering that this year is the film’s 20th (!!!) anniversary now might be the perfect time. Especially considering that those ever-eager folks in the marketing department can now bill it is “From the Director of Captain America: The First Avenger! ZOMG!”

This is a drum I intend to keep pounding throughout the year. I want my deluxe 20th Anniversary Special Edition Rocketeer on Blu-ray.

In the meantime, you can listen to this inaugural “Metro-Retro Historical Society” broadcast – featuring me! – from our pals at WEDway Radio. After the discussion on Twitter the other week, the guys asked me to come on, hang out, and reminisce about our love for this great little film. Take a listen, and enjoy!

The summer of 1982 was about as exciting as it could get for sci-fi fans. Just take a look at the cover of STARLOG #62 from that September – Star Trek II! Revenge of the Jedi in pre-production! The year would see Blade Runner, E.T., and many others, including TRON. While TRON: Legacy, which [...]]]>

The summer of 1982 was about as exciting as it could get for sci-fi fans. Just take a look at the cover of STARLOG #62 from that September – Star Trek II! Revenge of the Jedi in pre-production! The year would see Blade Runner, E.T., and many others, including TRON. While TRON: Legacy, which arrives in theaters this week 28 years after the original film, is just another blockbuster film taking place in a virtual world, back in 1982 no one really knew what to expect from computer-generated effects. Aside from the brief Genesis Planet sequence in Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan (created by plucky new division of Lucasfilm that would eventually evolve into Pixar), cinemagoers hadn’t really experienced computer animation, and certainly nothing on the scale of TRON.

The scope of the effects work in TRON remains impressive today; many of the film’s effects weren’t computer generated, and were created with traditional tricks and techniques. The film’s otherworldly look came from this elaborate and very labor-intensive process, and laid the groundwork for much that came after.

This interesting article appeared in STARLOG and gives a hint of what roadblocks the filmmakers encountered during production. There are also some predictions of what this all means for filmmaking, many of which are quite prescient and all of which are entertaining.

“By Combining Artists and Computers, Disney Sets New Rules for Reality”

“Computer image choreographer Bill Kroyer helming the Chromatics terminal.”

By DAVID HUTCHISON

Take a moment to read the credits at the end of Disney’s TRON. TRON is the first feature film to employ computer graphics on a large scale. And with the new machines come new jobs and job titles for moviemakers. One of the more interesting sounding credits to be found at the end of TRON is “Computer Image Choreographer.” The two names listed are Bill Kroyer and Jerry Rees.

Back in May, before TRON was completed, STARLOG found Bill Kroyer behind a Chromatics computer monitor at the Disney studios. Kroyer joined the Disney studios with Pete’s Dragon and even animated a bit of Fox and the Hound. So what’s an animator doing sitting behind a computer terminal?

“I’m looking at a ‘pencil test’ for a sequence from TRON that is being sent over the phone lines from the computers at MAGI in Elmsford, N.Y.,” came the easy reply. “It’s my job or part of my job as computer image choreographer [C.I.C.].”

“Oh. And what is …. “

“… a computer image choreographer?” smiles Kroyer. “Well, it’s certainly the first time that credit will appear on the motion picture screen, because this is the first time this process has ever appeared on the screen on this scale.

“Computer generated imagery, what we call ‘scene simulation’ and which most people tend to call ‘computer animation,’ is really an up-and-coming fast-moving field. The basic idea is to generate pictures on the screen that are not drawn or painted by anyone, or built as models first. They are scenes that are completely constructed in the imaginary mind of the computer. Then the computer reads out that imagery on a piece of film, which is processed printed and projected as ordinary movie film.

“Bruce Boxleitner as Tron glows with energy through the magic of bottom-lit mattes.”

“What Jerry and I do as computer image choreographers is to describe the imagery to the computer. We describe all of the geography and all of the hardware. Basically we use blueprints and maps that describe the ‘physical reality’ of a scene to the computer. Then we describe the action or choreography of those objects and the computer puts it all together into a scene. You might say it ‘visualizes’ it. Then the computer ‘reads-out’ that information onto movie film. Basically, we are creating a computer image and then we are choreographing the action of the image. Hence, the name – computer image choreographers.”

The TRON filmmakers are very excited by this new computer tool, since the images that are created are not tied down by the laws of reality. “The scenes we can visualize in our heads make it to the screen almost completely intact. There are very few limitations. At the moment the limitations are mostly technical according to the current state of the art and the amount of time and money that it takes to compute the complexity of the imagery desired. But once you adapt to working within your budget, you are pretty free to ask for just about any image you want and just about any kind of choreography you want. You can move the camera anywhere you want, there is no limitation; you can blow things up; you can move things at any speed; make 90-degree turns; you can have things completely disobey the laws of gravity or … anything. It’s a great feeling of power,” says Kroyer with obvious relish.

But the computers will not turn just anyone into an artist of the future: first the image must be in your own head. “You absolutely have to be able to visualize exactly what you want,” Kroyer warns. “You are not dealing with any sort of hard artwork, or models or actors that you can look at and manipulate … you are not dealing with anything. You have to describe to the computer exactly what you want to see. The computer will only give you what you describe and not one single bit more. If you describe it wrong, you get it wrong. The better you can visualize what you want, the more completely you can create it.”

The bulk of the picture’s computer graphics are being generated by MAGI (Mathematical Applications Group, Inc.) of Elmsford, NY and Information International Inc. (also known as Triple-I or just III) of Culver City, CA. Digital Effects of New York is also supplying computerized effects for the film.

“Two samples of computer graphics from Triple-I, one of several companies supplying computer graphics for TRON. Sark’s carrier is being slowly de-rezzed as it approaches the MCP. Triple-I specializes in complex ‘organic shapes’ or objects which require complicated coloring.”

Talking to Computers

Each company has their own custom hardware and software systems that create imagery. Magi’s system is called Synthavision and Triple-I uses a system called ASAS (Actor/Scriptor Animation System). It’s not necessary for the computer image choreographer to be “conversant” with the different software systems nor is it practical, so the C.I.C. relays his instructions to the programmers at each of the respective companies. The programmers then translate the
C.I.C.’s requests into the language used by each computer system.

Kroyer explains how the system works by demonstrating with the scene with which he is currently working.

“The scene coming from the MAGI computers at the moment is from the Clu sequence at the beginning of the film. Clu blows up a Recognizer and the pieces smash into his tank, the tank veers out of control and smashes into a wall. One of the shots, for example, shows the exterior of the tank being hit by debris from the Recognizer and being knocked off center. To plan a scene like this, we first describe to the programmer the scene length, we give him diagrams and blueprints of the canyon where the scene takes place and then we draw diagrams of the path of action for the tank and notate the speed of the tank. The programmer already has a complete data base of the tank itself from the blueprints of the tank and they are already in the computer. Then we have to describe the angle and tilt of the tank in each frame of the shot; we have to describe when the debris hits and how the debris is falling, whether it is rotating or spinning and, well, basically we have to describe every last little thing that’s in the scene. The programmer will have to know and understand all of this so he can describe it in a numerical way to the computer.

“So, now he has a data base for the canyon, he has one for the tank, he describes the increments that the tank moves per frame, the degrees that it tilts and the degrees that it turns. He has to have a file for each piece of debris that falls and when the debris hits the tank there has to be a certain type of flare … and that has to be described.

“It’s like painting with numbers. Everything has a number – even all the colors have numbers, all the glow factors are described by numbers. You can see that by typing in numbers, eventually anything in the scene, the color, the light, the direction of the light, the direction and movement of the camera, the type of lens, etc. can be accurately specified. All of these things are given number codes; the computer understands these number codes and creates the scene. At MAGI all of this information for a given is stored on a magnetic disk. Using the disk the operator is able to change or modify any portion of the scene at will. When a scene is completely built up on the disk. The disk reads out the information into a low-resolution ‘pencil test.’

“This is the way our computer pencil tests work,” begins Kroyer. “The computer ‘reads-out’ the scene onto the screen of a high-res monitor. The screen is mounted inside a lightproof box. Pointing right down at the monitor screen is a 35mm camera. If you were to look at the screen during the filming all you would see is one tiny dot of light moving. The tests are photographed in black and white and in a low-res mode. We don’t need color and high resolution for a pencil test. It’s quicker and cheaper in black and white low-res. All we are doing is looking at the timing
and movement.

“Now this scene with the tank started with the tank rocking up on one tread and then it flops down on the other tread when it gets hit with some debris. The first pencil test showed the tank raised up at one angle for the first four frames of the scene and then all of a sudden it settled down on the other tread in three frames. I called the programmer at MAGI and explained that I didn’t think that this looked like a natural reaction to gravity. The tread should start falling with the first frame of the scene and accelerate according to the laws of gravity. So what I am getting now is the pencil test. I will view this test and if there is anything else on it that needs correction or tweaking, as we call it, I’ll call him back and he can compute the change in a matter of minutes. I can get two or three versions of this 29-frame scene before lunch today. The scene can be refined in just a matter of hours.”

“MAGI builds their objects by assembling a library file of solid geometric shapes. Their Synthavision process has the capability to add and subtract these solids in order to create anything from lightcycles to tanks.”

Computing the Scene

“If I can call back to him at lunch time today and say to him that the scene is now correct, he’ll put that completed disk into the computer which will produce a high resolution color version of the scene in a few hours – that’s what we call computing the scene,” Kroyer explains. “When the scene is computed it is transferred to tape for storage, the disk is erased and used to start a new scene. The tape becomes the permanent record of the scene. Eventually that tape is fed into a machine that transfers the image onto high-resolution color movie film, VistaVision format. The resolution is expressed in lines and we are running at about 2,000 lines, which, I am told, is higher resolution than the film stock we are using. Some of our scenes contain over one million pixels (picture elements).

“When we get our film in VistaVision we view it using a VistaVision projector. The film is rear-projected so we can stand right up to the screen to examine the quality of the image … and it’s sharp.”

For you hardware buffs, here is a rundown on some of the hardware used to create the images in TRON. MAGI operates with a Perkin Elmer System 3240 computer to make the calculations for each picture it generates. The system functions with two megabytes of MOS memory and two 80-megabyte disk drives, and talks to a Celco DFR 4000 computer, which is used to generate the pictures onto a monitor.

Triple-I’s main computer is a custom-built one-of-a-kind which they call the Foonley F-1. The pictures are generated on a PFR recorder, which is manufactured by the company, and programmers use a 40-inch by 60-inch Taylos encoding tablet to plot the vector lines for the various images.

“MAGI and III have very different methods of creating scene simulations,” says Kroyer. “MAGI uses a geometric system. They build their images out of solid geometry. They make objects by combining sets of geometric objects of shapes that are put together into whatever form they want. Of course, not only can they add geometric solids, but they can subtract solids as well. As a very simple example if we wanted a wheel, we might start with a sphere and start chopping off parts of it to get down to the shape we were looking for.

“A MAGI created tank on the prowl.”

“The interior of that tank with Flynn’s alter-ego Clu aboard.”

“MAGI has created the lightcycles, the tanks, the Recognizers, etc. They constructed those objects by assembling a set of solid shapes. The entire object is constructed around a single center point. To animate the object, basically what we are doing is moving that center point and the constructed object moves along with it.

Triple-I’s system is completely different. They use a vector graphic method to create objects. All of the objects are built by constructing a shell out of polygons, instead of creating a solid object using solid geometries. Triple-I defines the points of a surface and they connect those points into a series of polygons. They have computer programs that smooth, shade and color the surface.

“Their method is much more suitable for complex organic shapes, because you don’t really have to rely on the existence of regular geometry. You can define points in any fashion and create any sort of shape out of polygons. That’s why they can do human faces, like the MCP [Master Control Program], or very organic-looking shapes like the Solar Sailer. Their system seems to be a bit more difficult to choreograph because they carry a much greater data base, so we tend to give III the simpler choreography, relying more on their visual beauty; MAGI tends to get the more difficult and complicated choreography, because their visuals tend to be a bit more simple. Both look beautiful and both companies do great choreography, so it’s just a matter of emphasis.”

Meet Bit

“Digital Effects in New York did an opening piece of a man forming out of energy and they also created a character called Bit. Bit is a little geometric object that flies around a bit like, well, Tinkerbell, I guess,” laughs Kroyer. “Bit changes shape to express its mood. When it’s angry or giving negative opinions, it becomes a brittle kind of pointy shape. When it’s in a pretty good mood and answering in the affirmative, he goes down to more of a soft-shaded look. Bit is Flynn’s mascot, in a way.”

It takes quite a lot of computer power to work effectively in computer graphics. Some of III’s graphics require 75,000,000 calculations to create one frame of computer animation. Multiply that by 1,240 frames needed to make one minute of film and the immensity of the task becomes apparent.

Four Hewlett-Packer 9826 computers are needed to calculate exposure control during the optical process which will give TRON‘s fantasy setting its unique “electric” look. A Cinetron 1100B is used for camera moves on cranes and motion control when required.

The “electric” look is achieved using the “candy-apple” look developed by Richard Taylor and Richard Edlund while they were working for Bob Abel’s company some years ago. (This technique was discussed in the TRON article in STARLOG #60.) Kroyer suggests that if there is ever a TRON II, this method of photo-rotoscoping and bottom lighting mattes to create the candy-apple look will be abandoned. Instead, the live-action footage will be completely digitized and manipulated within the computer itself. Once the film is digitized it can be manipulated any way the artists imagine. The live action can be colored, distorted, combined with other objects and, of course, completely without “matte lines” since there are no “mattes.” Even mohair or fur can be easily “matted.” Everything is combined inside the computer. The optical printer will be a museum relic, replaced by the digital printer.

But for the moment, TRON is pushing the technology of computer graphics along, even as the film is being made. “For example,” begins Kroyer, “in the early stages we had problem with scenes looking flat – they just didn’t look like they had any depth. We asked the people at MAGI to create for us an artificial atmosphere in the scenes that would make things appear to be dimmer or less distinct as they receded in the distance.

“They came up with a program called ‘depth-cluing’ that automatically made the pixels dim out at a geometric rate from the point that camera was supposed to be. This created the effect of an artificial atmosphere and added tremendous ‘depth’ to the scene. We came up with all sorts of little refinements that added interest and ‘reality’ to a scene: secondary light sources, different kinds of glows, diffusion programs, etc. We kept asking III and MAGI for more tools to work with and they would go back to their desks and conceive programs necessary to meet our demands which were growing more and more complicated.”

“TRON writer/director Steven Lisberger.”

“Left to right: TRON producer Donald Kushner, associate producer & co-supervisor of SFX, Harrison Ellenshaw and co-supervisor of SFX Richard Taylor.

All this computer excitement has been spreading around the studio. Home computer enthusiasts have even been able to work some of TRON‘s graphics on their home computers. “I think there is someone here at the studio that has a Recognizer up on his Apple II and he can move it around using the Apple software,” says Kroyer.

“Now if you are going to ask me if I think computer animation will replace classic Disney animation, the answer is, ‘No.’ Computer animation will never replace the kind of character animation that made the Disney films great. What we are dealing with here is an entirely different kind of tool, it doesn’t replace anything. Computer animation opens up whole new areas for the artist; it’s another kind of tool, a new brush. The scenes we created on computer could not have been done by any other method. It would have taken 100 animators 10 years to do what we did.”

And what a powerful tool computers are for the artist. Richard Taylor of Triple-I sums it up with: “For objects simulated in a computer, there are no laws of physics. Each time you sit down to create a computer image, you are getting completely new rules for reality. That’s what TRON is all about.”

I think my favorite element of the article is the discussion of how the production pipeline will probably be much easier if they were to make a TRON II. They were right, of course, but I doubt that they were planning it for 2010. The points about digital compositing were well taken, as those techniques have indeed made optical printers obsolete.

So when you’re in the theater watching the new film, think about back in the day when the two animators on a film had to call New York to describe their scenes, and wait for the pencil tests to appear via a telephone link.

As to the crew from the article, they all went on to a variety of projects. Kroyer, despite his predictions, segued into a career in computer animation, although he did return to the hand-drawn world to direct Ferngully in 1993. He went on to a career in visual effects at Rhythm and Hues. Jerry Rees, the other animator on TRON, went on to direct the maddeningly under-rated The Brave Little Toaster in 1987. Aside from a number of non-Disney projects, he directed a number of theme park films and projects including the famous Back to Neverland with Walter Cronkite and Robin Williams, the live-action scenes for Cranium Command, and Cinemagique at Walt Disney Studios Paris.

MAGI went on to do the animation for John Lasseter’s demo of his proposed Where The Wild Things Are project at Disney in 1983; the company was bought out by another corporation a few years later. Triple-I got out of the movie business soon after TRON, but continued to develop technology in other fields until it merged with another company in 1996.

And here, as a final retro snapshot for the day, is an ad for TRON‘s soundtrack from the same issue of STARLOG. Includes a new Journey song!