StonyandCher writes to tell us John Knoll, visual effects supervisor at Industrial Light and Magic, is using the 25th anniversary of Tron as a platform to look back at the last 25 years of visual effects. "The type of imagery that was possible to create at the time was very clearly computer generated; it wasn't going to fool anybody into thinking it was live action. That was a limitation of the technology that worked very well within the story, that fit right in and made a lot of sense: if you're telling a story about events taking place inside a computer, inside a big virtual environment, what techniques should you use? Parts of the film were done by shooting live action then doing rotoscope and other optical techniques over the top of it, but the stuff that really looked cool and stood out was the stuff that was computer generated."
It's amazing that this film was passed over for an Academy Award for Special Effects because "using computers was cheating." Times have certainly changed in that regard.
I think it was before The Abyss, which won the 1989 best visual effects, but I'm not sure when. Certainly The Abyss was a watershed in many respects. It introduced morphing for motion blurring, as well as the first use that I'm aware of of computer-rotoscoped human forms (both techniques were used to make the water tentacle).
Willow was the first what? Certainly, it did not come out before Tron, which was the first feature film to use computer animation. Willow was also not largely influential within the industry. In fact, it was largely seen as a counter-example for just about everything that it did.
Read the original question that your GP asked. He was wondering when computer effects become "not cheating" with respect to the perceptions of the Academy, and presumably of the effects industry. I really see The Abyss as the definin
Nope. Jursic Park (1993) was well after The Abyss (1989), which won Best Visual Effects for its largely computer-generated effects. The winners over the years were:
Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)
E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (1982)
Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi (1983) (special achievement award)
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984)
Back to the Future (1985)
Aliens (1986)
Innerspace (1987) [did this use computer-generated effects?]
The commentary on Total Recall states that there are no computer effects in the movie. The tracking shot for the train scene was all motion control. The gurus that worked on the film said that this was the last movie they worked on that didn't use computer visual effects.
T2 was important, but it comes well after the same director's previous work: The Abyss. The more I hear from people on this one, the more convinced I am that The Abyss was the turning point in terms of perception of computer-generated effects. I can confirm that, within the industry of computer-animation (which I was only loosely connected to in the late 80s), 1989 through the early 1990s was THE time to be entering that business, so it makes sense that it's when the result started being taken more seriously
Now that I have young kids I have an excuse to watch it again. I love that movie because the story and such while good are fine, the muppet work is awesome. -nB
Agree digital effects and rendering should be used as a tool to help the story, not a story to push rendering. I watch a lot more Japanese and British content now a days because a lot of the junk being pushed out of hollywood is nothing but CGI foreplay, used to please the eyes and dim the brain with no real content.
Japanese TV has always been more entertaining than the American programs. I remember watching Go Ranger (as it was called in the States then - Super Sentai in Japan, Power Rangers in the US after 1992) in the 70s and just being captivated. Mazinger and Raydeen were also fun to watch. Never had anything about giant robots kicking ass in the states.
There was another show about a house robot called Robocon [japanhero.com] that I loved and I wish I could get my hands on some episodes. He had robot friends, each with a distinct
why remake it, the early 1980s special effects fit into the story very well, nothing really would be gained by more eye candy. Kind of like the silly addition of useless enhanced special effects to Star Wars, did nothing for the movie.
I thought of this when reading the article when they asked Knoll about a remake. Remaking Tron would be impossible. Tron was something that really marked its time. Part of the magic of the movie was the era. It was a great movie, and the concept and graphics marked it's time well.
A rethinking of Tron is really the Matrix. Both concepts hinged on a person trapped in a computer and having to overcome the 'evil' technology that was abused in some way and returning it to human control. The Matrix is the natural evolution of Tron. Instead of a nice resolution where man gained control of the technology, in The Matrix control was never restored but man worked out a truce with machine. We've come from a place where we were unsure about the role of computers in the future to a time where we anticipate their power and understand that the genie doesn't go back in the bottle.
Both were masterpieces of their time that captured a culture's fears and anticipations of technology with cutting edge computer generated graphics which set the tone for the setting of the movie.
Yet despite the film's brilliance, it was a box office flop. Why was that?
I'm sure it's not because of the technology involved. I don't know -- maybe the story didn't grab people, or they felt like it was too juvenile. I'm not sure, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't technique-related.
It was because, underneath the brilliant technology, it was pretty standard Disney fare. The Disney audience didn't appreciate the technology and those that did wanted better writing. After all, we were used to sci-fi of the Star Trek standard where the quality of the writing overcame the poor effects.
At the risk of repeating myself [slashdot.org]: I'm convinced the biggest difference between Tron and Star Wars is John Williams [imdb.com]. Go ahead, hum the Tron theme. I'll wait while you try to remember it...
Music isn't the only difference, I'll grant. But I believe it is the biggest.
Wendy Carlos' soundtrack is highly memorable. Moreso than some of Jerry Goldsmith's or Alan Silvestri's scores.
Especialy those who played the game, who can't hum the tune of the -coin insertion -the MCP cone -the spider sequence (which had about 4 seconds of screen time in the movie) -game over
I don't normally respond so offtopic, but man if you think the original 'Star Trek' had quality writing then you need to expand your horizons a little. Perhaps some 'Babylon 5'? How about TNG? If you want something contemporary with 'Star Trek' then 'The Prisoner' should do nicely.
I'm just boggled that you praise Star Trek as quality but bash Tron. They are quite similar in both style and content.
I've already been through this - Star Trek, the TV series, was written in part by award winning Sci-Fi writers with an established track record. Tron was written by Disney studio hacks who have nothing of any merit to their name, especially in Sci-Fi.
Ok, so opinions vary over the quality of the writing but, objectively at least, Star Trek has the better pedigree.
...people will still be bitching about "fake CGI" and wishing they could return to the flawless, joyful days of stop-motion, when special effects were indistinguishable from reality!
The grpahics may have changed and look better, but the physics and implementation are still awful. When I see spiderman swing, he just falls too fast and the swing doesnt look natural with the cgi (like, his body doesnt react or stiffen to the G-force).
And when Cgi characters jump off something and land on the ground, most of the time it doesnt look natural. I mean, are they even using earth's gravity acceleration of 9.8 m/s2????
Seriously, look at the scene from the first movie where Peter jumps from building to building. it doesnt look naturally he's falling too fast, and when he lands, the way his body looks when he lands just doesnt look natural. looks as if he just fell 3 feet. his body should have crouched/sunk more.
I'm an animator, and I know that the more real the images look, the more real the characters have to move. As you approach 100% reality, that last 5-10% becomes a very very steep slope. It's not easy.
This is why I prefer making cartoons, you get to write your own laws of physics.
When a character looks real, your brain expects it to move realistically. We look at humans all day long, so we know exactly how humans are supposed to move. If the animation is off by even a little bit, the brain knows something is amiss and we stop believing the character is real.
When a character is stylized, the audience suspends it's expectations. How exactly does a character like Bugs Bunny move? We don't know because we've never seen anything like that in real life. So, the good people at Warner Brothers show us how Bugs Bunny moves and we accept it as reality.
Also, according to a theory in Scott McCloud's Understanding Comics, people are able to project themselves more easily into a cartoonish character. This allows them to imbue the character with more emotion, and allow them to sympathize with that character.
He was using that theory to explain why the protagonists in Japanese anime and manga tended to be very cartoony, while the villains were more detailed. The lack of detail in the main character's appearance more easily allows the viewer to put themselves in that character's place, while the detailed villains provide a stark contrast and a clear division of identity.
People identify with simplistic images more than complex images. This has to do with perception. We percieve others in full detail, but only have a simplistic perception of ourselves. Because a simple character matches how we view ourselves, we are more likely to assume the role of the simplistic character. While more realistic characters are considered 'other people' and don't generate the same connection.
Scott McCloud explained it alot better in 'Understanding Comics'
it doesnt look naturally he's falling too fast, and when he lands, the way his body looks when he lands just doesnt look natural. looks as if he just fell 3 feet. his body should have crouched/sunk more.
Or there should be a hole in the ground with a dead-from-the-impact spiderman in it.
I know, but that's what directors want. I used to do physics simulation for high-end animation. Directors want an end state - they want the character to end up in some specified position. Sometimes one that's unreachable in the physical universe, let alone achievable with human muscle power. That's tough to do with a physics engine.
The way this is usually done in production today is to motion capture lots of motion, splice the bits of motion together, and edit the result manually. The result is some good motion and some bogus motion tied together. It looks bogus, but it's become a cinematic convention.
This really shows up in sports games. When EA runs an EA Football ad during an NFL game, you can tell from way across the room that the motion looks wrong.
Game-like motion has become enough of a cliche to be parodied. The opening scene of Tomb Raider has Angelina Jolie moving like a video game character, tucking and rolling while staying in a single vertical plane, just like the game.
There are many cinematic motion conventions that don't work in the real world. The classic is a car jumping across a gap. In reality, once the front wheels go over the edge, the car starts to rotate forward in pitch at a high rate. When you see a car jump in a movie, there are guides, ramps, extra wheels, and even pneumatic rams involved.
As for "the way his body looks when he lands just doesnt look natural. looks as if he just fell 3 feet. his body should have crouched/sunk more.", that kind of thing is sometimes done with flying rigs and high-speed computer-controlled winches. "Underworld - Evolution" did that. They record and debug the motion in a heavily padded gym, then play it back on the set.
Today, when someone does a tough stunt for real, nobody notices. There's a minor SF film which shows a woman running down the face of a 40-story building with a cable paying out behind her for support. A stuntwoman is really doing that on a real building. And for the bottom 30 feet, the star of the picture is really doing that, twisting to land on her feet and come out shooting. On the screen, it looks no different than similar things done in CG in other movies.
Syd Mead and the rest of the designers (who's names escape me at the moment) did an incredible job designing to the limitations of CG at the time. The graphics still look great today, and in fact, I think Tron still stands apart from most of today's CG. Almost all of the current CG tries to look like reality, which makes it invisible. With Tron, you knew it was CG and that was cool.
If Tron had only had a good story, good acting, and hadn't opened against ET, this anniversary would have gotten more notice.
In Shop (I was in Electronics) we watched Tron with the class group to basically see what the technology was like back then. Now, at the time Tron was out the FX were pretty dam amazing. This anime-loving spaz kid kept saying how "teh graphics suck, i don't see what the big deal is!!!11" over and over, and everytime someone reminded him of the year it was made, and how computers weren't the same back then, he would wait a minute and repeat himself, about teh graphics. That fucking clown. I wanted to throw a
Has ruined far more movies than it's improved. When used discretely and where necessary to the story it is fantastic tool. But in too many movies the creators have reveled in their ability to create more and more spectacular stunts and made a movie that showcases CGI talent instead of one with an interesting and well told story. Think the dinosaurs in "Jurassic Park" versus the infamous Jar Jar Binks. One was done very well and effects were used in such a way as to cover the inadequacies of CGI (which are still present today), while the other--well, not so good.
Hey, if somebody wants to hack together a version of that Jurassic Park scene where T-Rex bites the lawyer in half while on the porta-potty, with the lawyer replaced with Jar-Jar, I'd watch. Sounds like YouTube gold to me!
In the old days every movie was like starting from scratch. Every scene took a different approach, a lot of building from scratch, and imagination to pull off. Lots of people with different skills were involved. Today exactly 1 person does everything: the 3D artist. 3D artists aren't paid as much as the modellers, stuntmen, programmers, water experts, fire experts, lighting experts of the past. There isn't any building from scratch or standing around wondering how to pull off a scene. Today the movies
You've never worked on a movie with CG in it, have you? No building from scratch? Think of any movie from Pixar. Every single thing in the movie is built from scratch. What's this "3D artist" you say is the one person that does everything? How about the supervisor on the set helping the live action work well with the digital coming down the road? The compositor working in the 2D world getting the lighting just right? The artics & mattes people erasing all those damn wires? On and on it goes.
Obviously, you're not in the business. On any major film, they will have all sorts of specialties. Some people just model, some people rig, some people paint textures, some people light the scene, some people manage the render farm, some people do the special effects, some do the composite, some people animate.
But, yes, it is an assembly line, and things are standardized as much as possible, but the assembly line does change a bit depending on the show.
Only on really small productions do you have one person
The article mentions Tron. In another post I mentioned The Abyss. What other films advanced the art and perception of computer-generated effects? I can think of:
Toy Story (and Geri's Game, which I think was attached to Toy Story)
This film really advanced the public perception that movies could be all-CG, and opened the door for all of the CG films that followed.
Terminator 2 (another Cameron film)
This was, I think, the first use of a CG character in a live-action film.
Titanic (Cameron again)
The impact on the public with respect to the computer animation was minimal, but on Hollywood it was a huge deal. The fact that the ship was regarded as realistic by so much of the audience opened the door for dozens of projects that replaced models and stock footage with CG. It was, arguably, the most realistic CG in film to that date, and changed a lot of directors' and studios' perceptions.
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
That Genesis sequence was quite an eye-opener.
Beauty and the Beast
The ballroom scene, while not technically so amazing, raised public awareness of CG in movies.
Jurassic Park
After seeing this, I thought effects shouldn't matter anymore because now anything was possible. It still bothers me when people talk about the great CG effects in a movie. Who cares (except for Sin City...and Sky Captain...and 300:-)? How was the movie?
Pixar has a tendency to push the boundaries in their films: Monsters Inc. gave us amazing hair and fur (just watch the way Sully's fur sways and even shows up in shadows), Finding Nemo was all about realistic water, and I'd argue that Ratatoullie does amazing things with light (specifically, the natural light in the kitchen scenes). If anything, it seems they push the bar so *freaking* *high* in their films that it's almost impossible to match. Certainly it's got to be depressing for the movie maker in the
I picked up the latest greatest Tron disks not long ago because I did like the movie and wanted a nice copy. My experience at the time was people just weren't going to get the jokes unless you were a tech or programmer. When they said "Bring up the Logic Probe!" I laughed my ass off because I had been using one that day.
The other six people in the audience made no sound.
In case the name's not familiar, John Knoll's brother, Tom Knoll, wrote the original version of Photoshop. John has always been more the artist, and Tom more the signal processing geek, although there's plenty of overlap between their sets of skills. A talented duo.
And passed over for an Academy Award... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Certainly, it did not come out before Tron, which was the first feature film to use computer animation. Willow was also not largely influential within the industry. In fact, it was largely seen as a counter-example for just about everything that it did.
Read the original question that your GP asked. He was wondering when computer effects become "not cheating" with respect to the perceptions of the Academy, and presumably of the effects industry. I really see The Abyss as the definin
Re: (Score:2)
Not quite.
Tron more extensive usage of computer generated imagery, but it was beat by almost a decade by Westworld [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
The winners over the years were:
Re:And passed over for an Academy Award... (Score:5, Interesting)
The gurus that worked on the film said that this was the last movie they worked on that didn't use computer visual effects.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
I can confirm that, within the industry of computer-animation (which I was only loosely connected to in the late 80s), 1989 through the early 1990s was THE time to be entering that business, so it makes sense that it's when the result started being taken more seriously
Now, (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Now that I have young kids I have an excuse to watch it again. I love that movie because the story and such while good are fine, the muppet work is awesome.
-nB
Re:Now, (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I remember watching Go Ranger (as it was called in the States then - Super Sentai in Japan, Power Rangers in the US after 1992) in the 70s and just being captivated.
Mazinger and Raydeen were also fun to watch. Never had anything about giant robots kicking ass in the states.
There was another show about a house robot called Robocon [japanhero.com] that I loved and I wish I could get my hands on some episodes. He had robot friends, each with a distinct
Tron (Score:4, Funny)
Come on Hollywood!
Re:Tron (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Tron Remake ---The Matrix (Score:4, Insightful)
A rethinking of Tron is really the Matrix. Both concepts hinged on a person trapped in a computer and having to overcome the 'evil' technology that was abused in some way and returning it to human control. The Matrix is the natural evolution of Tron. Instead of a nice resolution where man gained control of the technology, in The Matrix control was never restored but man worked out a truce with machine. We've come from a place where we were unsure about the role of computers in the future to a time where we anticipate their power and understand that the genie doesn't go back in the bottle.
Both were masterpieces of their time that captured a culture's fears and anticipations of technology with cutting edge computer generated graphics which set the tone for the setting of the movie.
Parent
Tron - box office flop (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure it's not because of the technology involved. I don't know -- maybe the story didn't grab people, or they felt like it was too juvenile. I'm not sure, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't technique-related.
Re:Tron - box office flop (Score:4, Interesting)
At the risk of repeating myself [slashdot.org]: I'm convinced the biggest difference between Tron and Star Wars is John Williams [imdb.com]. Go ahead, hum the Tron theme. I'll wait while you try to remember it...
Music isn't the only difference, I'll grant. But I believe it is the biggest.
Parent
Re:Tron - box office flop (Score:5, Insightful)
Especialy those who played the game, who can't hum the tune of the
-coin insertion
-the MCP cone
-the spider sequence (which had about 4 seconds of screen time in the movie)
-game over
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
I'm just boggled that you praise Star Trek as quality but bash Tron. They are quite similar in both style and content.
Re: (Score:2)
- Theodore Sturgeon
- Jerry Sohl
- Robert Bloch
Maybe you don't know your 50s/60s Sci-Fi writers that well but there's three award winning authors for you.Re:Tron - box office flop (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok, so opinions vary over the quality of the writing but, objectively at least, Star Trek has the better pedigree.
Parent
And in another 25 years... (Score:3, Funny)
I remember... (Score:3, Funny)
Not quite there yet! (Score:5, Insightful)
And when Cgi characters jump off something and land on the ground, most of the time it doesnt look natural. I mean, are they even using earth's gravity acceleration of 9.8 m/s2????
Seriously, look at the scene from the first movie where Peter jumps from building to building. it doesnt look naturally he's falling too fast, and when he lands, the way his body looks when he lands just doesnt look natural. looks as if he just fell 3 feet. his body should have crouched/sunk more.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm an animator, and I know that the more real the images look, the more real the characters have to move. As you approach 100% reality, that last 5-10% becomes a very very steep slope. It's not easy.
This is why I prefer making cartoons, you get to write your own laws of physics.
Re:Not quite there yet! (Score:5, Insightful)
When a character is stylized, the audience suspends it's expectations. How exactly does a character like Bugs Bunny move? We don't know because we've never seen anything like that in real life. So, the good people at Warner Brothers show us how Bugs Bunny moves and we accept it as reality.
Parent
Re:Not quite there yet! (Score:4, Interesting)
He was using that theory to explain why the protagonists in Japanese anime and manga tended to be very cartoony, while the villains were more detailed. The lack of detail in the main character's appearance more easily allows the viewer to put themselves in that character's place, while the detailed villains provide a stark contrast and a clear division of identity.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Scott McCloud explained it alot better in 'Understanding Comics'
Re: (Score:2)
Or there should be a hole in the ground with a dead-from-the-impact spiderman in it.
Re: (Score:2)
But a man being bitten by a radioactive spider and gaining arachnid abilities sits ok with you, as long as it's accurately portrayed on film?
Yes, movie physics is fake (Score:5, Interesting)
I know, but that's what directors want. I used to do physics simulation for high-end animation. Directors want an end state - they want the character to end up in some specified position. Sometimes one that's unreachable in the physical universe, let alone achievable with human muscle power. That's tough to do with a physics engine.
The way this is usually done in production today is to motion capture lots of motion, splice the bits of motion together, and edit the result manually. The result is some good motion and some bogus motion tied together. It looks bogus, but it's become a cinematic convention.
This really shows up in sports games. When EA runs an EA Football ad during an NFL game, you can tell from way across the room that the motion looks wrong.
Game-like motion has become enough of a cliche to be parodied. The opening scene of Tomb Raider has Angelina Jolie moving like a video game character, tucking and rolling while staying in a single vertical plane, just like the game.
There are many cinematic motion conventions that don't work in the real world. The classic is a car jumping across a gap. In reality, once the front wheels go over the edge, the car starts to rotate forward in pitch at a high rate. When you see a car jump in a movie, there are guides, ramps, extra wheels, and even pneumatic rams involved.
As for "the way his body looks when he lands just doesnt look natural. looks as if he just fell 3 feet. his body should have crouched/sunk more.", that kind of thing is sometimes done with flying rigs and high-speed computer-controlled winches. "Underworld - Evolution" did that. They record and debug the motion in a heavily padded gym, then play it back on the set.
Today, when someone does a tough stunt for real, nobody notices. There's a minor SF film which shows a woman running down the face of a 40-story building with a cable paying out behind her for support. A stuntwoman is really doing that on a real building. And for the bottom 30 feet, the star of the picture is really doing that, twisting to land on her feet and come out shooting. On the screen, it looks no different than similar things done in CG in other movies.
Parent
Tron had great design... (Score:5, Interesting)
If Tron had only had a good story, good acting, and hadn't opened against ET, this anniversary would have gotten more notice.
I remember in High School... around 02... (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
CGI... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Not like the old days (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ummm... (Score:3, Informative)
On any major film, they will have all sorts of specialties. Some people just model, some people rig, some people paint textures, some people light the scene, some people manage the render farm, some people do the special effects, some do the composite, some people animate.
But, yes, it is an assembly line, and things are standardized as much as possible, but the assembly line does change a bit depending on the show.
Only on really small productions do you have one person
John Knoll (Score:5, Interesting)
So what were the milestones (Score:5, Informative)
Toy Story (and Geri's Game, which I think was attached to Toy Story)
This film really advanced the public perception that movies could be all-CG, and opened the door for all of the CG films that followed.
Terminator 2 (another Cameron film)
This was, I think, the first use of a CG character in a live-action film.
Titanic (Cameron again)
The impact on the public with respect to the computer animation was minimal, but on Hollywood it was a huge deal. The fact that the ship was regarded as realistic by so much of the audience opened the door for dozens of projects that replaced models and stock footage with CG. It was, arguably, the most realistic CG in film to that date, and changed a lot of directors' and studios' perceptions.
Anything anyone else can think of?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll toss out a few more:
That Genesis sequence was quite an eye-opener.
The ballroom scene, while not technically so amazing, raised public awareness of CG in movies.
After seeing this, I thought effects shouldn't matter anymore because now anything was possible. It still bothers me when people talk about the great CG effects in a movie. Who cares (except for Sin City...and Sky Captain...and 300
Re: (Score:2)
I think they used vector graphics on the display screens of the spaceships in 2001.
The Robert Abel canned foods commercial with the shiny woman robot was one of the first realistic human animations...
Luxo Jr was the first CG animated short nominated for an Oscar
Tin Toy was the first CG short to win an Oscar
Pixar (Score:2)
Tron anniversary release (Score:3, Funny)
The other six people in the audience made no sound.
Failed to Credit Triple-I (Score:3, Informative)
How did Knoll or the author manage to snub Information International Inc. (aka Triple-I) , the very people who created the graphics for TRON?
Most people will read this story and think ILM did the graphics for TRON.
Shame on you, Computerworld and John Knoll!
In case the name's not familiar... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)