Old School Effects: Three Quickies

So you're in the mood to remember the good old days of visual effects, before CGI took over. What do you do? Well, what I usually do is take an old issue of Cinefex down from the shelf and flip through it.

Just in case you don't have access to this particular magazine, here are three alternatives you can dive into, if you're in the mood for some old school movie magic.

1) Get "BBC VFX: The Story of the BBC Visual Effects Department"

The title says it all. I just got this book, and I haven't even had time to read it properly, I've just been flipping through the pages. It covers everything from 'Allo 'Allo to Doctor Who, with a ton of unique images.

The interesting thing is that the book covers titles which haven't already been covered a million other places. These aren't big Hollywood movies, the ones that come with glossy making of books. These are more or less obscure British TV programs - comedies, dramas, even documentaries - and many of them you will never have heard of before, but that doesn't make the magic any less compelling.

2) Watch "Bringing Godzilla Down to Size"

This hour-long documentary is about the geniuses behind the effects from the original Japanese Godzilla films. It can be found on the DVD "Rodan and War of the Gargantuas" from the Toho Masters Collection.

It's an absolutely wonderful walk down memory lane, with plenty of interviews with the old masters and it ends with a fascinating recreation of one of the classic effect shots - a volcanic eruption, created by using a water tank. Somehow this film will convince you that a man in a rubber suit stumbling around between models buildings is the greatest thing ever.

3) Join "P.E.G. Practical Effects Group" on Facebook

This is a magical place - a veritable cornucopia of awesome pictures of old school effects. The members of this group will spit in your face if you say the C-word (CGI), and they'll spill blood defending models and miniatures!

They'll post never before seen images from classic films, work in progress from current productions, video clips and drawings, whatever your heart desires. And many of the people who worked on those classic scenes will chime in and offer inside details. You can waste days going through old posts, but you'll have a wonderful time doing it.

FINAL THOUGHTS

No big point or conclusion here, just felt like sharing these three gems which have provided me with so much pleasure. Hope you'll feel the same way.

ADDITIONAL LINKS AND RESOURCES

The BBC VFX book om Amazon UK.

The Rodan and War of the Gargantuas DVD on Amazon US.

Bringing Gozilla Down to Size on IMDb.

Bringing Gozilla Down to Size trailer.

The Practical Effect Group.

Sense of Scale (2012)

Sense of Scale is an independently produced documentary, in which filmmaker Berton Pierce interviews some of the most high profile models makers from the visual effect industry about their work. The documentary contains virtually nothing but talking head interviews and stills.

At the risk of stating the obvious, this film is not for everybody. Only those with a certain interest in visual effects need apply, and if you're one of those folks who thinks CGI is the best thing ever, don't bother watching at all. Or wait a minute, maybe you should watch it! Maybe this film is exactly what you need?

What Sense of Scale does is paint a picture of how the model makers worked, and what kind of people they are. The film opens with a few of the interviewees explaining how they got started in the business, then we move on to stories from Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979) and Space: 1999 (1975). Those who have followed the model makers through their most exhilarating period - the late 70's to the late 80's - will see many familiar faces.

The film moves from interview to interview at a decent pace. There's a good flow of information, and these people have so many fantastic stories to share. Plenty of well-known movies are covered, from Star Wars (1977) and Alien (1979) to recent projects like Moon (2009), The Aviator (2004), and Shutter Island (2010) - and I have to highlight The Abyss (1989) as one of my personal favorites.

Sense of Scale doesn't seem to have a big central theme or point that it's working towards, it sort of goes around in circles a little bit, but since the stories are interesting, it doesn't really matter. Even at 136 minutes for this extended cut I never got bored for a second.

The film covers a couple of central subjects with headlines like "High and low budget productions" or "CGI and Practical effects". Surprisingly most of the model makers enjoy the low budget productions more than the big budget films, and their explanations for this are wonderful. When the discussion turns to CGI there's a certain amount of bitterness to detect among some of the model makers, and rightfully so. It must leave a bitter taste to be pushed aside in favor of shiny CGI, only to watch this new toy produce so many inferior results (especially in the early days). I guess the film occasionally gets a little inside baseball, but since we've already established that you need to have a certain interest in the field to begin with that's not surprising.

In terms of the filmic style Sense of Scale is not rocket science. Each interview is only shot from one angle, with one framing, but the footage looks reasonably good and the sound is very clean - only a bit of mike noise here and there.

Hundreds of behind the scenes stills are used to break up the interviews or illustrate what the model makers are talking about, and perhaps that sounds a little dull, but I must underline that these are AMAZING stills, and I could easily watch a slide show just with them. A simple moody score occasionally plays in the background, when there's a title card or a headline for a new section, and that's it. It's very simple, but it works. We're here for the stories, after all, not flashy filmmaking.

One thing I was missing, though, was some film clips to illustrate the stories, but for an independently produced film like this it was probably impossible to secure rights to actual film clips, and that's a shame. It's also a shame that more behind the scenes footage was not included - all we get is a handful of brief clips - but again, this was probably impossible to get.

Another thing I could have used was film titles on the behind the scenes stills. Mostly this is not a problem, but every now and then there was a model or a landscape I couldn't identify, but it didn't affect the overall appreciation of the film.

THE DVD

No bells and whistles on this one.

Disc 1 contains the main feature, with a running time of 136 minutes. There's a "play feature" button, and that's it. No subtitle options, no alternate soundtracks, no chapter overview, no extras, nothing. Take it or leave it. Disc 2 features 45 minutes of deleted scene. There's also only a "play deleted scenes"-button and that's it.

The footage is presented in 16:9 with stereo sound.

FINAL THOUGHTS

I feel like I should underline the low-budget nature of this film. This is not a big polished behind the scenes documentary, but there are still several reasons for buying and watching it.

First of all, it's a treat to watch these talented artists talk about their work. Second, making models for movies is a disappearing art form. That's a real shame, and we need to remember all the wonderful images models have given us throughout film history. This film will help us with that.

And finally, you should buy and watch this film, because a guy like Berton Pierce took the time to make it. Sense of Scale is a work of passion, and there's simply nothing else like it out there.

NOTE: The film can be bought from this official website.

Old School Effects: The Cloud Tank

INT. WAREHOUSE - NIGHT

Following my recent rants about computer generated effects (here and here), I thought it would be fun to look into one of the old school visual effect techniques that computers have now rendered obsolete.

Today's subject is... The Cloud Tank.

CUT TO:

WHAT IS A CLOUD TANK?

A cloud tank is basically a big water tank.

It's primarily used to create a wide variety of atmospheric effects, mainly clouds, hence the name. Back in the old days this was a great way of creating organic shapes, which would otherwise have to be done with hand-drawn animation or perhaps smoke.

A cloud tank shot starts with a big glass tank. The tank used on Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977) was 7 by 7 feet large, with a depth of 4 feet. First the tank is filled salt water. A thin layer of plastic is gently placed on top of this. Then the rest of the tank is filled with fresh water. Once the plastic is removed, and the water has been left to set for a while, you end up with something that looks like a single body of water, but because of the difference in density between salt water and fresh water there's actually two distinct layers in the tank now.

Next, paint would be gently injected into the tank, near the point where the two layers meet. Depending on the light conditions, camera speed, and a few other elements, it will look like billowing clouds when the paint disperses in the water

From what I gather, there are slight variations in the way the technique is used from project to project, but what I've described here is the basic starting point. These cloud elements would then be combined with live-action footage, or model photography, to produce a really cool, very organic looking shot.

The problem with using this technique, however, is that you're never really sure what you're going to get, and it's impossible to control precisely what happens. Basically you just have to keep shooting, and hope to catch something cool on film.

According to Douglas Trumbull on The Making of Close Encounters of the Third Kind Scott Squires was responsible for thinking up the specific setup used on that film. The same tank and a similar setup was also used on Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981), and other subsequent projects at ILM. However, Ken Ralston speculates in Cinefantastique that a similar technique was used all the way back in The Ten Commandments (1956).

CLASSIC CLOUD TANK SHOTS

Let's look at some classic examples of the cloud tank effect. We'll begin with Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977).

Throughout the film the arrival of alien ships is often signified by the appearance of massive cloud formations. When the aliens kidnap young Barry from his mother it starts like this:

Later in the film, when the aliens arrive at Devil's Tower, a clear night sky is suddenly covered with clouds that seem to come from nowhere. Very spooky.

Additional animation and lighting effects could be added in post-production, or live during the production of the cloud elements.

The cloud tank was dusted off again for use on Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981), which also called for some angry cloud images. First there's the sequence, where Indy and his men dig through to the Well of Souls.

Hand-drawn lightning effects were added in post-production to enhance the dramatic shots.

Cloud tank elements also played a part during the last moments of the climactic sequence, where The Ark is opened and all hell breaks loose. In one shot the clouds part to make room for a giant pillar of fire.

The cloud element for this iconic image was actually created by Gary Platek, by jumping on the hose that was used to drain the water tank! This sent a burst of water back through the system, and up through the drain in the bottom of the tank, which in turn parted the "clouds" as the shock-wave moved up through the water layers.

A far less aggressive, but no less effective use of the cloud tank came with Poltergeist (1982). Here the technique is initially used simply to create the dark clouds forming on the horizon.

Later, though, when a tornado descends upon the quiet neighbourhood, the cloud tank was once again employed as an "angry weather"-tool.

A slightly more fantastic use for the tank came with the second Star Trek film. The climax of Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan (1982) called for a submarine-like showdown between two spaceships in something called a "nebula".

On this film a white latex rubber solution was injected into the tank. Lights with colored gels illuminated the tank, which produced the otherworldly results that ended up on the screen.

To give a different look to Flash Gordon (1980), and the many different worlds the film explores, a similar use of the cloud tank was employed to produce some very psychedelic images.

For most cloud tank shots the camera would be placed outside the tank, looking up at the bottom of the paint layer, but in Poltergeist II: The Other Side (1986) the camera shot from inside the tank, to create the titular dimension.

Several passes were combined, and heavily manipulated in post-production to create the complex shots.

A more recent film, Independence Day (1996), found use for the cloud tank again. This was during the dramatic arrival of the alien ships. Here the cloud elements were also heavily manipulated, this time with the help of computers, to achieve the final look.

The film was billed as a big budget tent pole film, but it actually used a fair amount of old school effects, such as in-camera shots, even though computers were an established tool.

FINAL THOUGHTS

The use of the cloud tank in visual effects seems to have ended somewhere in the late 90s, with the advances of computer generated effects, and due to the fact that it was such an unwieldy technique. In theory, you could basically set up a cloud tank shot in your own garage, but the reality is a bit different. For example, according to Gary Platek, they used 9 tons of salt during the 6 months it took to produce the cloud tank shots for Raiders!

At the end of the day it's what ends up on the screen that counts, and not how it was achieved, but I can't help but be impressed by some of these old techniques, such as the cloud tank. The amount of effort and ingenuity it took to produce these shots is mind-boggling.

So next time you see a movie from the 80s, with some cool, or strange clouds, spare a thought for the guys who spent months in a darkened room with a tank of water, a mountain of salt and some paint.

They made the heavens move, you know.

CUT TO BLACK.

ADDITIONAL LINKS AND RESOURCES

Articles used for reference include:

Raider of the Lost Ark: The Wrath of God . . . and Other Illusions, by Don Shay
- Cinefex No. 6, October 1981

Poltergeist: Stilling the Restless Animus, by Paul Mandell
- Cinefex No. 10, October 1982

Poltergeist II: To Hell and Back, by Nora Lee and Janine Pourroy
- Cinefex No. 26, May 1986

Independence Day: Fireworks, by Tim Prokop
- Cinefex No. 67, September 1996

Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan, by Kay Anderson
- Cinefantastique, Vol. 12 No. 5 & 6

Special Features from the following DVDs were used for reference:

Close Encounters of the Third Kind, 30th Anniversary Ultimate Edition
- Released by Sony

Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan, Director's Edition
- Released by Paramount

Websites

Cinefex.com
Scott Squires' site

Why CGI Sucks and Old School Effects Rock

EXT. EMPTY LOT NEXT TO SUPERMARKET - NIGHT

A good beginning for a good blog is often a good rant, don't ya think? So as I was preparing to write a blog about old school visual effects, I figured I should start by explaining why modern digital effects irritate me so much.

DEFINITIONS

Digital Effects = Computer Generated Imagery (CGI) = Visual effects produced with computers, often without a single real physical contribution.

Old School Effects = Photo-chemical effects = Models, matte paintings, in-camera tricks. Different components of a shot are combined optically or chemically on actual film.

FLASH CUT:

I'm sick of computer generated effects. I'm sick of the way every big film coming out of Hollywood these days rely so much on CGI. Take away the effects and large chunks of the film literally ceases to exist. At cinemas everywhere big event films are constantly trying to one-up each other, and several thousand effect shots are not uncommon in a new movie.

Now, my problem is not with any kind of computer effects, what I'm talking about are scenes where the camera flies around, defying all sense of physics, or scenes where gazillions of tiny CGI extras race into battle on a CGI battlefield. I'm talking about films that spend $100 million creating CGI characters that only look marginally real, when good old makeup effects could have handled the same job far more effectively. It's lazy. It's stupid. And I'm freakin' bored with it.

Don't get me wrong: Computer effects are a great tool, when they're used right. Same goes for any other tool, but if you've ever tried to paint with a hammer you will know that using the wrong tool can prove to be downright disastrous.

The problem with CGI is that anything can be done. ANYTHING. However, doing ANYTHING just because one can, is not necessarily a good idea. Think about this: An actor can also do ANYTHING, but we don't really want them to jump around and do the chicken dance in every scene do we? We want them to act appropriately. CGI effects should do the same.

It wasn't always like this, he said, getting all misty-eyed.

Back in the old days if you wanted to put something in a film, you had to make it and shoot it. And if you didn't want something in the shot, you had to get rid of it before the cameras rolled. Back then every single effect shot was a monumental struggle, so the filmmakers would try to figure out the absolute minimum number of shots they would need to tell the story (the keyword here being STORY). That produced some very elegant, tight, well-constructed scenes, with some beautiful, effective shots.

The discipline that naturally grew out of this approach is exactly what a good movie needs, but with the advance of CGI filmmakers are getting lazy. There's a plane in the shot? We'll get rid of it in post. Actor didn't hit his mark? We'll move him in post. Actor A was best in take 1, actor B was best in take 5! We'll cut the shots up and merge them in post. These are not actually fixes you'll notice when you watch a film, but they influence the way filmmakes think, and they enforce that attitude of "we can always get it right... later."

Heavy use of CGI is also problematic, because the filmmakers lose sight of reality. It's easy to make a CGI car race down the highway narrowly missing every other car, but when you have to shoot it, when an actual stuntman has to perform the daring feat, you'll run into some natural limitations. The first instinct of a modern filmmaker will be to get rid of those limitations, but that's exactly the wrong thing to do.

It's a bit of a cliché to describe CGI artists as pasty white geeks who never get out, and just sit in front of a computer screen all day long. In reality that's not the case, but there is a certain kind of truth in that statement, deep down. When you have to build something physically and capture it on film, you get a completely different appreciation for the things you deal with. You learn how the camera works. You learn how light bounces off an object using your own two eyes. You learn to embrace the limitations and use them, not fight to eliminate them.

Another advantage of dealing with real objects in the real world is that accidents can happen. Good accidents, I mean. Visual Effect maestro Richard Edlund said it best in an interview with American Cinematographer:

Analogue thinking [...] allows for serendipity. [...] The thing about computer animation is that everything that happens has to be intellectually inserted, so it's very difficult for serendipitous performance to occur, because you have to intellectualize that serendipitous blip.

That's why I prefer old school effects. To me they are far more organic than CGI effects. "It doesn't look real", is the argument I often hear against those wonderful corny old effects. That's probably true, but the same could also be said for most modern effects. When robots are fighting through the streets, when the whole world sinks into the ocean, all done with pixel perfect precision, I don't believe for a second that what I'm watching is real. Same thing when I'm watching King Kong trash the Empire State building, or when The Death Star blows up, but with Kong and The Death Star I at least get a sense of the artistry and the effort involved in the process.

Here's the thing: Mona Lisa is a work of art, not because the painting is a carbon copy of reality, but rather because it's magical. There's the allure of Mona Lisa's unreadable expression. The composition of the image. The brushstrokes of an artist at the height of his craft. This is what makes the painting unique. If a guy in a basement had painted Mona Lisa with a "hot-girl-in-front-of-landscape"-simulator I guarantee her smile would be a lot less alluring. Or maybe it wouldn't be there at all.

There's no doubt: Computers are here to stay. Despite my resentful attitude they ARE a great tool. CGI has given us some incredible images over the years. My heart still skips a beat when the T-Rex breaks out of its pen to wreck havoc in Jurassic Park, and I barely believe my eyes when I see the manchild Benjamin Button stumble towards the camera, as real and alive as my own reflection. These are two excellent examples of the perfect use for CGI.

CGI has brought great advances to the field of visual effects, without a doubt, but at the same time I feel like the entire industry has also lost its soul in the process. I miss the ingenuity and the sense of adventure from the "old" days. We need a cool monster! Why don't we build one and shoot it in a water tank, so it's looks all floaty and scary? We can't afford to build the top three floors of a building! Why don't we build those floors as a model, and hang it in front of the camera so it looks huge? That's what I miss, and that's why I'm in love with old school visual effects. They may not have pixel perfect precision, but they have a lot of heart.

Sometimes that's enough.

End of rant.

CUT TO BLACK.

Stay tuned for more posts about visual effects in the future.

ADDITIONAL LINKS AND RESOURCES

The VFX Show
Great bi-weekly podcast about visual effects, from a bunch of digital effect artists, who have a great love for old school effects.

Cinefex Magazine
Quarterly magazine about visual effects. Get the old issues for some great articles about old school effects.

ACS Podcast
You can find the entire interview with Richard Edlund here.