Slashdot Mirror

ApharmdB writes "The BBC has a story about the possibility of performing face transplants within the year. Obviously, people are worried about the ethical ramifications, but would someone with your transplanted face actually look like you? Either way, everyone better be careful, or Nicolas Cage may try to steal their family."

Gnulix asks: "Are there any, preferably either open source products available that produce realistic speech from an arbitrary (English) text? Projects such as Festival doesn't sound all that much better than SAM (Software Automatic Mouth) did on a Commodore 64 back in 1979, nor does SoftVoice's or IBM's new products sound very good. I mean we all know that Stephen Hawking is a fun loving guy, but I bet you that he didn't choose his unrealistic, robotic voice just for the heck of it. With all the amazing advances we have seen in real-time graphics, shouldn't speech synthesis have come much, much further than what is, seemingly, available today?" Ask Slashdot last handled the Voice-To-Text issue in January of this year.

An anonymous reader writes "Farscape may or may not have been cancelled [does anyone know?], and Enterprise is so politically correct I can barely bring myself to watch it, but with MacGyver onboard, it looks like Stargate SG-1 will be back for a seventh season."

Jeremy Erwin writes "In this whitepaper, Brandon Wiley suggests a possible design for a "superworm", a coordinated network of worm nodes. Typically worms are designed to infect as many hosts as possible, but as overly rapid growth can lead to early detection, this is a suboptimal strategy. The worm, dubbed Curious Yellow uses communication between worm nodes to ensure optimal infection rates."

mpawlo writes "I just did a quick write-up for Greplaw on an interesting pending law suit in Sweden. Two Swedish directors, Vilgot Sjoman and Anders Eriksson, are about to file a suit against Swedish broadcaster Tv 4. According to the author's rights or droit moral doctrine, the work may not be displayed or changed in a way degrading to the author or the author's work. Tv 4 has just changed its policy for commercial breaks. Breaks are now introduced during movies. The commercial breaks used to be placed between the end and start of a program. The directors argue the breaks are degrading from an artistical point of view. They want to try the commercial breaks in court from a copyright perspective."

mpawlo writes "I just did a quick write-up for Greplaw on an interesting pending law suit in Sweden. Two Swedish directors, Vilgot Sjoman and Anders Eriksson, are about to file a suit against Swedish broadcaster Tv 4. According to the author's rights or droit moral doctrine, the work may not be displayed or changed in a way degrading to the author or the author's work. Tv 4 has just changed its policy for commercial breaks. Breaks are now introduced during movies. The commercial breaks used to be placed between the end and start of a program. The directors argue the breaks are degrading from an artistical point of view. They want to try the commercial breaks in court from a copyright perspective."

Cutriss writes "Seen at CNN, this article interviews Rick McCallum, longtime producer at LucasFilms. McCallum says that DVDs will be responsible for the downfall of the movie industry *without* taking piracy into account, due to the fact that people think the home theatre experience is just as good, or better than the big screens, and they know that in five months, the DVD will be out on the market. Of course, his claim that "studios are barely breaking even" falls on deaf ears when I hear about 9-digit salaries for individual actors in a big-name film that's just some rehash of an old concept. He also mentions, of course, that DVD piracy and movie "sharing" groups will only speed up the cycle, and that they'll be putting Hollywood out of business, possibly within the next three years."

Torvek writes "New Scientist has an article that discusses the medicinal oil from the Lorenzo movie. Apparently it's been proved to actually prevent the onset of symptoms when taken early enough."

Karl_Hungus writes "Koyaanisqatsi and Powaqqatsi, the first two installments of Reggio and Glass' trilogy are to be joined by Naqoyqatsi, due out next month. Naqoy.com has some stills, and some fascinating Flash. A brief discussion of the technical side includes the figure of 3.5 terabytes of images collected in the making of the film."

Karl_Hungus writes "Koyaanisqatsi and Powaqqatsi, the first two installments of Reggio and Glass' trilogy are to be joined by Naqoyqatsi, due out next month. Naqoy.com has some stills, and some fascinating Flash. A brief discussion of the technical side includes the figure of 3.5 terabytes of images collected in the making of the film."

Karl_Hungus writes "Koyaanisqatsi and Powaqqatsi, the first two installments of Reggio and Glass' trilogy are to be joined by Naqoyqatsi, due out next month. Naqoy.com has some stills, and some fascinating Flash. A brief discussion of the technical side includes the figure of 3.5 terabytes of images collected in the making of the film."

M.C. Hampster writes "Fox News is reporting in this article that Superman is back in the planning stages at Warner Bros. with a possible Keanu Reeves playing the title role. Is this possibly the worse fit for an actor in a superhero role since Michael Keaton in Batman?" Perhaps they too will rotate in a new actor for each feature.

Skyshadow writes "Warner Brothers is distributing several movies, including Harry Potter and Mars Attacks via the internet. The price is the same as I pay for Pay-Per-View from my satellite provider ($3.99 for a 24 license), and the movies are in the area of 700 megs. I'm sure that movies on demand will eventually take off as a legitimate and feasible distribution method, but given that a vast majority of US households are without broadband, is this an idea before its time?"

Skyshadow writes "Warner Brothers is distributing several movies, including Harry Potter and Mars Attacks via the internet. The price is the same as I pay for Pay-Per-View from my satellite provider ($3.99 for a 24 license), and the movies are in the area of 700 megs. I'm sure that movies on demand will eventually take off as a legitimate and feasible distribution method, but given that a vast majority of US households are without broadband, is this an idea before its time?"

liquidbrains writes "With 'Princess Mononoke' fresh in our memories, the number one highest grossing film in Japan -ever- is coming to the US. Thanks to Disney and Pixar's John Lasseter, who has supervised the dub, we can soon expect a fine English adaptation of animation master Hayao Miyazaki's latest masterpiece, 'Spirited Away'. See the trailer here." Reader thefalconer writes "It seems that Apple has just released the very first trailer to X-Men 2 on their website. From what I've seen this movie looks like it's going to rock! Too bad I have to wait for May of next year!"

liquidbrains writes "With 'Princess Mononoke' fresh in our memories, the number one highest grossing film in Japan -ever- is coming to the US. Thanks to Disney and Pixar's John Lasseter, who has supervised the dub, we can soon expect a fine English adaptation of animation master Hayao Miyazaki's latest masterpiece, 'Spirited Away'. See the trailer here." Reader thefalconer writes "It seems that Apple has just released the very first trailer to X-Men 2 on their website. From what I've seen this movie looks like it's going to rock! Too bad I have to wait for May of next year!"

angkor writes: "To me, the first video games were something like electonic versions of pinball machines, so it's sad to hear that pinball is apparently dying off." I'd really like to see a pinball game based on Zoolander, but I doubt even that would be enough to reverse the current trend.

Here are 10+ plus answers to Slashdot questions from motion picture digital effects expert Thad Beier. He chose the additional questions himself. (Yes, he's on Slashdot almost every day; we asked him to do the interview after reading many intelligent comments he's posted.) Anyway, there's some fine insight into the intersection of moviemaking, graphic arts, and computer science here, brought to you by an award-winning member of the film industry who just happens to be a fellow Slashdot reader.

Are 'FX programming' days numbered?
by Anonvmous Coward
Every year, 3D packages get more and more sophsticated. Not just in terms of rendering effects, but in their scripting capabilities as well. Do you see a day where the artist will be able to handle the rendering features and the scripting of a 3D prog so well that it'll no longer be necessary to have a dedicated programmer on board?

Is there a particular type of problem that will always need a programmer?

Thad:
First, I feel that the difference between 'scripting' and 'programming' is nonexistent; both are programming, albeit in different languages with different development environments. People can, and do, write thousand-line MEL scripts for Maya -- which are every bit as complex as anything written in C. With each new animation system, the scripting languages become more powerful, and subsume larger modules as primitives within the language -- this should allow non-programmers (or, more realistically, people who don't consider themselves programmers) to create significant custom systems with reasonable short scripts.

Secondly, though, I feel that there will always be a need in movies for people who are predominantly programmers. Films have to compete with each other and with the library of pre-existing films, and one way that is done is by continually pushing the state of the art. A consistent request from filmmakers is for 'something nobody has seen before'. Often that means creating custom tools; or building scripts and shaders far beyond the capabilities of non-programmers.

It is true that as time has gone on, the percentage of people on visual effects teams who consider themselves primarily programmers has fallen. One reason is that when doing 500 shots of a mouse for Stuart Little you only have to create the mouse once, but you still need hundreds of people to do the artistic tasks of animation, lighting, and compositing. That doesn't mean that the programmers aren't important, they are the key to ensuring that the artists can be productive.

Shaders
by f00Dave
How much overlap is there between the programable graphics processing units (AKA "shaders") found on modern game platforms and the software/hardware used in the special effects industry? Would programming skills for one translate to the other?

BTW, I realize that special effects are half artistry, half mathematics and half sweaty work: kudos from a 'GL hacker... [;-)]

Thad:
I note that some slashdotters have criticized your math, but you have hit upon a fundamental truth of visual effects, that the work takes far more than the available time.

While it is conceivable that there is overlap possible between programming of games hardware and writing shaders for visual effects, I haven't seen too many people making the move from games into FX; mostly it is the other way around. Certainly many people in the games business are clamoring for visual effects and other film artists to help bring cinematic ideas and qualities to the games world.

The interesting new wrinkle in this is the Cg language from Nvidia. It's a new, high-lvel language for writing shaders. Cg is then compiled down to microcode run on the graphics hardware in the machine. While I had been skeptical, now I think that this might dramatically change the way that rendering is done. The work of the visual effects and game shader-writers could be exactly the same. It wouldn't surprise me if future software renderers use graphics hardware to speed up the process.

Cost
by Fembot
When films are labled as "100$ Million on special effects" where does most of that money go? On rendering hardware or what?

Thad:
I don't think that any movies have had $100 Million in special effects, yet -- unless you count Dinosaur or Final Fantasy -- which are animated (as opposed to FX) films. That said, the overwhelming cost on any films for effects at this point goes to the creative people. Especially today, the hardware is virtually free. (In some cases, the hardware is literally free as a company will donate machines in return for good PR.)

A reasonable estimate for the cost is 75% for artists, and 25% for everything else. This has changed dramatically over the digital visual effects era which started around 1990 -- back then it was probably exactly the opposite. But machines have gotten much cheaper and animators have become more expensive, and that trend will probably continue. It's interesting that people talk about how much cheaper Linux PCs are compared to SGI machines (say), but truly both machines have almost the same cost (zero) compared to the cost of the animator who is using the machine. The choice of workstation should be entirely based on what makes the artist most productive.

Directors approach?
by FurryFeet
I'm guessing you get to work pretty closely to directors. If so, can you tell us what is their approach to the new tools technology has given them? Are they still "thinking celluloid" made cheaper by rendering it digitally, or do they really seek to break the mold and make shots that were previously impossible?

Thad:
The job of a movie director is to harness the skills of hundreds of talented, unique, possibly difficult people to create his vision and tell his story. In our experience, directors always request the ideas and proposals from his creative team; and they listen to that advice. The FX team is hired to help make the movie, and are trusted to help make the decisions. In most cases, the director will work very closely with the FX supervisor when shooting the shots that will have effects, asking for help and comment on all aspects of the shot. After the ability to get the most out of his team, though, the most important quality of a director is decisiveness -- once all of the input has been gathered, everybody has to march in the same direction.

Every director we have worked with has been extremely interested in any ideas we could contribute to making shots cheaper, better, easier to shoot, or cheaper. They want to get the best images on film, and any resources saved on one shot can make the next one better.

best way to get into the industry?
by josepha48
What is the best way to get into the computer generated special effects industry? Is it who you know or what you know? If it is what you know what should one know? (Programming, graphics tools, etc...).

Thad:
Well, my first sincere, if unhelpful answer is "Are you sure that you want to?" It isn't really an industry in the traditional sense -- there is little or no job security, there are long hours typically with no overtime paid, the stress can be extreme and the rewards are not great. There are almost no rational reasons to choose CG visual effects as a career. So think about it before making that choice. If it really is the most important thing in the world for you, then read on.

Every person is different, and every position to be filled is different, so any advice given will either be too specific to be generally useful, or so broad as to be a platitude, but I'll do my best. Over the last few years it is my impression that there have been far more applicants trying to get into the field than available jobs; that might just be a cyclical problem or it might be persistent.

A solid undergraduate education is always a good thing. Some basic art experience is helpful, to learn color theory, layout -- basically learn what makes a good image good. Knowledge of mathematics and elementary physics is useful, to know how the world works. General computer experience is helpful, for example the ability to write and understand shell scripts. To get a job at a large facility a familiarity with the most commonly used tools is helpful.

Clearly you would like to have some animation experience. Computer animation is useful, but 2D hand-drawn animation is also an exceptionally good way to learn how to bring images to life.

When preparing a reel of your work, a few great shots is better than a large volume of mediocre work. You want something to make your reel stand out from the rest of them. Play to your strengths; concentrate on what you do best. If the work on your reel includes shots done by a team of people, be certain to call out your particular contribution. A demonstrated ability to work on teams with other creative people is a definite plus.

The Siggraph show every year is a good place to meet recruiters from many companies in a few days. It takes place in late July or early August. This year's conference took place last week, and all of the big companies demonstrated vigorous recruiting efforts. A few companies have great pages to assist people in planning their careers. Here is the employment FAQ from Pixar and the one from PDI. While they are animation companies as opposed to visual effects companies, their advice is still appropriate, by and large.

What movies have impressed you?
by Anonvmous Coward
When somebody has intimate knowledge about how a movie is made, it gets really hard to make their eyes jump out of their head.

For example, there's a scene in the Director's Cut of Robocop where Alex Murphy is just about to be shot in the head by the lead bad dude. The camera is pointing right at Alex's face, then swings around behind him. As soon as the camera is behind him the bad guy fires a gun, the back of Alex's head explodes and you can see a hole clean through it. This whole scene was one smooth camera movement, no edits.

I was *stunned* to find out that Alex was a puppet. They were able to make a puppet that totally convinced me that Peter Weller was sitting in front of this guy about to get his head blown off. I could not believe that they were able to do one that convincing.

I'm curious, what movies have had that affect on you? "OMG! I had no idea that was an effect!"

Thad:
Your example is a classic of FX misdirection. Another one is in 'Spiderman'. We see Peter Parker with his shirt off pretty early in the movie, and he's the scrawny little twerp that he's supposed to be, and you accept it without a second thought. Later, after he's been bitten, he takes off his shirt and he's totally ripped. Not until that point do you say "hey, wait a minute! How did they do that effect!" When, of course, the effect happened in the first shot with a body replacement that you never expected. I was blown away, it was just so cool, and so easy. The best effects are those that you would never expect, and that by the time you realize that they must have been effects they are over.

These days almost every film has FX shots that nobody could possibly see. Our first film was 'Showgirls', and I defy anybody to find the dozen shots we did in that movie -- they are not in-your-face effects. Two of our more recent films, 'The Fast and The Furious', and 'For Love of The Game' were praised in the Los Angeles Times and Variety as films with a refreshing lack of special effects. It's not that they're missing obvious things; it's just that FX can be undetectable.

So, when you say if there's anything where I'd say "I had no idea that was an effect", well, it's certainly true -- but for most of those shots I still don't know that it was an effect.

Project you'd like to tackle?
by seldolivaw
Although recently a lot of the big names in science fiction and fantasy are finally making it onto the screen in a plausible way (e.g. Tolkein) there are still plenty of great books out there that haven't even been optioned. If you could turn any science-fiction/fantasy book or series into a movie, which would it be?

[My personal choice: the Foundation saga by Asimov. So huge! Such a great plot! So eminently filmable! Somebody make this movie, dammit! :-)]

Thad:
Surprisingly, and contrary to your question, classic SF books like The Foundation Trilogy and Ender's Game are always in play; we get scripts or proposals for these every couple of years. You're not the only one that wants to see these books filmed; it's very difficult to do, though. While the tremendous success of The Lord of The Rings is on everybody's mind, don't forget that people have been trying for years to make those books into films with limited success. A good book has such scope and detail that it's hard to distill it into a reasonable-length movie. While I'd love to see a movie made from Stephenson's 'Snowcrash', any reasonable length movie would have to leave out at least half of the stuff that makes the book great.

Short stories are a better bet. The astonishing success of movie versions of Philip K. Dick's short stories would have completely bewildered him, but they are great source material. I'd love to see a John Varley short story -- say, 'The Phantom of Kansas' -- although I admit that 'Millenium', based on the book-length version of his short story 'Air Raid', was perhaps the worst movie I've ever seen.

Reduction in man-hours for CG?
by ceswiedler
At one point, as a film student, I was interested in computer animation as a way for a single person or small group to produce a film, without the expense of locations, casting, cameras, etc. I thought that soon, as hardware and software improved, it would be possible for me to create a film on my own computer at home.

But my experience in animation in college taught me that increasing hardware capacity doesn't reduce the time it takes to produce a film or demo reel; it simply increases the quality of the final output. I imagine that the modelling, animation, and rendering of the scenes in Tron took as much human time as comparable scenes in Fellowship of the Ring. It's possible to render Tron-quality CG in realtime on a modern PC, but nobody wants to watch it.

My question is this: do you think it will ever be possible to produce a full-length CG film in about a man-year or less, with effects which are reasonbly "modern" for the time? Will the technology curve eventually flatten out, once we get to a certain point where the human eye can't really tell the difference? Or is it implausible to think that a single person or small group could provide all of the artistic input (scriptwriting, directing, modelling, animation, acting, etc) to produce a full film, even ignoring all technological constraints?

Thad:
There are movies created by small teams of people; and some of these will be CG generated films. They won't be "Toy Story", though, they'll be motion-capture or cg-puppet films with relatively simple lighting setups; I don't think that you can do high-quality animation quickly, except through some kind of performance capture. There's a sort of Moore's Law at work with state-of-the-art animation where the complexity of scenes doubles every couple of years. Animators always will wait a certain amount of time for their frames to render, on the order of 15 minutes to an hour -- and that time hasn't changed even though computers are 1000 times the speed they were 10 years ago.

Your question has been answered in the affirmative last year by 'Jimmy Neutron, Boy Genius'. That was a relatively small team of people working for just a few man years; and they created an incredibly successful film. Compared to 'Monsters Inc.' it wasn't state-of-the-art, but compared to say 'Rugrats in Paris', you'd have to say that it was.

I think your question about the technology curve flattening out means that you're asking whether at some point the most elaborately specified scene might render in real-time. That it's not inconceivable but it is unlikely. It's possible that computer speed will finally outstrip the ability of an animator to create complexity, so that frames will render that fast; but I think it's more likely that database-amplification techniques will allow the specification of arbitrarily complex scenes.

To some extent what makes movies interesting is that a single two-hour movie can contain the distilled essence of a thousand man-years of work, and if it was a well managed process you can see each hour of effort up on the screen. You can see these movies over and over, and always see something new. It's like a tidal wave of information flooding over you. A small team of people won't be able to do that; but they can make perfectly good smaller movies.

Killing the Classics
by Skyshadow
Several directors have recently released "special editions" of their classic movies which subtly change the films by using computers effects to either clean up the old effects or (far worse) alter the original film.

The problem that I have with this is twofold: First, these "special editions" seem to be the ones that show up on TV and on video rental shelves, so that they and not the original become the pervasive copy.

Second, I can foresee a day when older movies are edited in this fashion so they can be remarketed to audiences with more "modern" attitudes (think similar to Speilburg taking the guns out of the hands of the pursuing authorities in the ET rerelease).

Do you believe that, as a creative professional, you have any sort of ethical duty to resist these sorts of changes? Is there a line to be drawn between merely cleaning up the original effects and replacing them entirely (as in the Star Wars special edition), or between effects-patchup and all-out content alteration (aka, the wussification of Han Solo by having Greedo shoot first)? Do you feel that old films should be left alone, or do you consider them more as ongoing acts of creation?

Thad:
I do not like the changing of movies. A movie, to me, reflects the time that it was created and becomes a kind of historical document. On the other, dominant hand, it is completely the choice of the owner of a film to do with it what he pleases.

I can understand the feeling that a movie is somehow owned by society at some point, but my point of view is different. Making a film is tremendously hard, making a good one far harder still -- and with that effort comes the right to muck it up down the road if that's what one decides to do. So, I don't see an ethical dilemma at all. I think that the place to make your protest felt is as a critic and as a movie patron; vote with your wallet. A related problem is that movies have a relatively short lifetime. The first Star Wars film reportedly had deteriorated quite a bit before the Special Edition was created; as the dyes in the film don't have good long-term stability. There will be a fifty-year period of movies that will be lost unless extraordinary (and unlikely) efforts are made. In the near future, though, all movies will be digital at some point in the process, and they have at least a fighting chance of being around for a long time. There are several digital-post facilities being set up now, which scan the whole film to allow better color correction and editing -- the most striking use of this was on O Brother, Where Art Thou?, where the final movie was dramatically color-corrected throughout in a way not possible with optical means.

question for thad
by Jucius Maximus
Thad: When designing tools for making 3D scenes or characters, how much does real world physics play into what is generated? Do you use fluid mechanical models to generate the flow of water over a waterfall or the movement of a large tree affected by a mass of air? Do you use vibro aoustical and biomechanical models to determine they way a CG mechanised character will walk?

In essence, how much do you take real physics into account when designing something a CG item to emulate a 'real' item on screen? What is the balance between physical limits and creative freedoms?

Thad:
Our charter is to create the sequence that the director of the film wants for his movie; that usually means building things that look and move like things do in real life. Often we would use real-world physics to do this. Typically, though, we take extremely simplified views of the real world to make the computations more simple, and to make them run faster.

As an example of physics in action, Nick Foster at PDI created a simplified fluid dynamics model to be used for animation; this was used to create several shots in ANTZ and Shrek. One of the big problems with simulation, as opposed to animation, is that it is difficult to control. Typically one sets initial conditions and then lets the simulation run. Having a system that runs very quickly enables the artist using the tool to try many different initial conditions, to try to create the desired final result. A slow, but more physically accurate solution would have been worthless if the animator couldn't get to a reasonable result.

Often what is done is an absurdly simplified model of reality is chosen, then it is made more accurate (and slow) until it looks good enough for the film. On our recent movie 'Showtime', we had to do a waterfall bursting out of a building, and we simulated the motion of water with air-drag, then simulated the water dragging the air with it, to get the characteristic motion of a waterfall; but we didn't have to go any further than that and simulate viscosity of the water or evaporation.

ILM has done some wonderful work simulating the dynamics of creatures, creating models of bones, muscles, fat, and skin. These give a character like a dinosaur a 'weight' that just can't be animated by hand. These dynamics are a great cue to they audience for how big and heavy these creatures are.

One curious reality of the FX world is that often reality is not what is wanted. A classic example of this is starfields. In any real-world photograph, the stars are invisible, they are far far darker than anything else in the scene. Directors often want stars in the sky to go with their actors, though; so that is what they get.

Finally, there are times when straightforward animation is the best approach. For the movie Red Planet, we had to create zero-g fire. I spent a few weeks trying to simulate the flow of smoke and fire in a zero-g environment, when my colleague Jamie Dixon thought that he could just animate all the shots by hand in a couple of days -- which he proceeded to do. When CalTech's physics department reviewed the movie for the Los Angeles Times, they panned every bit of science in the movie, except for the zero-g fire; which they thought looked "pretty cool."

CGI alternatives
by Strange Ranger
Do you think CGI can too often be seen as a "suppressor" of other art forms? The specific example in my head right now is Old Puppet Yoda vs. New CGI Yoda, we haven't seen (AFAIK) any major puppeteering work in cinema in a long time. Other possibly "suppressed" art forms might be makeup art, the art of the stunt man, set construction, backdrop painting, cinematograghy, heck even acting could be listed here. Will CGI be escorting some or all of these art forms down the same path as Silent Films, blacksmithing, and totem-pole carving?

Do you ever want to say "Hey this would be a lot better if it were done with [not CGI] instead"?

Thad:
There are many times as many people working in the FX field today as there were ten years ago. Now, it's true that some of the techniques are not as much in demand as they were, but it's not as bad as you might think. A company that we do quite a bit of collaborative work with is Illusion Arts, in Van Nuys California. The two founders, Bill Taylor and Syd Dutton, started doing practical camera effects and matte paintings, and built a very successful company around these kinds of classical techniques. Today, they are now doing synthetic 3D camera moves and painting on Macs; but 90% of the talents and skills they used before are still applicable today; just the medium is different. What makes a good artist is foremost their eye; their ability to see what is right and to see how to fix what is wrong. Illusion Arts was the lead shop in The Fast and The Furious, and along with us and Digiscope made a very modern movie.

In your example of puppetry, I too was a little disappointed to see the CG Yoda; especially in the closeups it just wasn't exactly the same. Of course, there's no way that a puppet could have done the lightsaber battle. Also, a growing area of FX is performance capture; recording data in real-time and applying it to CG characters. In Episode One and Two of the Star Wars movies, there is a tremendous amount of motion capture, used to animate robots and creatures. Performance capture is just puppetry with one's whole body, really.

Back in 1989, Graham Walters and I build the CG puppet Waldo C. Graphic for The Jim Henson Hour. The puppet was animated by putting one's hand into a 'waldo' (a mechanical tracking device reminiscent of a Luxo Lamp), and moving it around; and watching the results on a TV screen. This was so similar to the way that the Henson puppeteers usually work that it took no time at all to get comfortable with the puppet; I don't think it took Henson himself more than about 5 seconds to get totally up to speed on it.

Speaking about stunt work, one of the very first things that people realized with digital techniques is that 'wire-removal' is fairly straightforward. One can identify a moving wire in a scene and use several techniques to get rid of it. This meant that whereas stunt people used to use the thinnest possible safety wires, or none at all; now they could use systems with significant margins of safety. Also, face-replacement techniques coming to the fore means that stunt people can play far closer to the camera than they used to, opening up new opportunities for stunts.

When it comes to acting, though, I don't think that digital graphics will ever replace traditional techniques. There's no good reason to attempt it, and it's unbelievably hard. The subtlety and complexity of motion of skilled human actors is astonishing, and a ridiculous portion of the human brain is dedicated to interpreting those expressions and motions.

So, I would say that for every job lost, many are created -- and the people whose jobs are lost can often put those same skills to use in this new digital world.

Little studios vs Big Studios
by Milinar
I've followed your company's work over the past few years with great interest. It seems to me that the effects you do are pretty much on par with big studios like digital domain, etc. Have you purposefully stayed a small studio, with a few dedicated individuals? And what advantages has that given you?

Thad:
When we started Hammerhead, we made a deliberate commitment to stay small. We didn't see significant economies of scale in the field, and it seemed like we'd have much more fun in a smaller company. There is a strong culture in American business that you have to "grow or die", but it was our experience that growth was extremely difficult to manage and that companies that grew quickly found themselves dying quickly, too. Once you get past a couple of dozen people, there seems to be a phase change in company culture, and productivity declines.

We do find that our small ('boutique' is the term of art) studio can compete against companies one or two orders of magnitude larger than us on many jobs that don't require a huge volume of shots. While our staff is small, we are extremely experienced, having been doing digital visual effects since we helped create the field at the beginning of the 90's. We tend to hire very capable, experienced artists -- one way that we keep it interesting for them is that they are given a huge amount of creative control over their shots.

As a small company we can be very flexible, too. We can reconfigure ourselves for whatever project is at hand; and become the Deep Blue Sea company when that is what is going on. There is very little overhead not contributing to getting a particular job done. Paradoxically, in a small company you can do more different things. We've done FX for films, wrote and produced a big Hollywood film, made our own low-budget horror film, and wrote and sold software. We will very likely be making a couple of TV pilots next year of shows with substantial visual effects content. Bigger FX companies have to be more focused, they can't afford to be experimental and possibly make mistakes, because they would be much larger mistakes.

Our biggest weakness is that we cannot even begin to take on huge jobs. Movies like Pearl Harbor or Spiderman require hundreds of people; and we have to leave these jobs to the ILMs and Sonys of the world. Still, there are hundreds of movies a year with a few dozen to a hundred and fifty shots, with reasonable time schedules, where we can compete well. I think that we have found a 'sweet spot', where many features combine to make a pleasant, profitable, successful company -- and the small size is an important part of that.

Dropped crusade against Pixar patent?
by Anonymous Coward
I heard a rumor that you dropped your "crusade" against Pixar's software patent on deep-shadow technology? The rumor implied you were "bought-out"? Care to comment/share your thoughts on software patents in the VFX industry?

Thad:
While this was not moderated up, I do feel it needs an answer. The patent that is referred to is for the obvious enhancement of Lance Williams' 1978 z-buffer shadow scheme [pdf link] given that today's computers have more than 64 Kb of memory. In the Williams algorithm the scene is rendered from the point of view of the light, and the depth to the first surface is stored. Then, when rendering the image from the camera's point of view, you can easily tell whether a surface should be in shadow or not. The Deep Shadow Map idea was to store a function of depth vs. opacity at each pixel in the image rendered from the light POV, to allow partially transparent surfaces and subpixel shadow coverage.

Unfortunately, Pixar has decided to patent this. They presented the idea at Siggraph '00 but didn't mention in the paper the fact that they'd filed a patent; although word got out pretty soon. As the patent has not been granted yet, and they filed the patent before the Patent Office's policy change that now publishes patent applications, it's unknown what their claims are. What I am fairly sure of, though, is that Pixar didn't invent this technology, and that people at Pixar know this. So, it's not only really nasty to try to build on somebody else's technique and wrest it for yourself, but there may be legal problems as well.

I've discussed this with lawyers, and they say that the time to fight a patent is after it grants. While that seem weird and suboptimal, there's nothing about patent law that isn't weird and suboptimal. So, I'm going to wait and see what happens. There are other possibilities for fighting the patent that don't make sense to reveal at this time, for obvious reasons. Clearly this comment reveals that there is no agreement between Pixar and me to remain quiet on this issue.

It wouldn't surprise me if patents destroy the visual effects industry as we know it today. Pixar already has one notch in its belt, last week forcing the company ExLuna to withdraw its Entropy renderer that competed with Pixar's Renderman (and the shareware BMRT program that preceded Entropy, as well). A rational, cold-blooded analysis of the software patent situation would reveal that almost every complex program today could be attacked on patent grounds, as we've seen recently with the JPEG fiasco. Back when I worked at PDI, we were attacked a couple of times for patent violations, only escaping a devastating patent by NYIT on the thinnest of technicalities. In irony not lost on anybody, Ed Catmull of Pixar (with Disney's lawyers help) led the fight against NYIT's patent.

Interestingly, this has happened before in visual effects. Back in the bad old days, every single analog visual effects technology was patented and owned by the studios. Rear Projection, Front Projection, Blue Screens, Sodium Screens -- everything. The studios would in effect pool the patents between themselves; but if you wanted to make a visual effects film you had to do it completely within the studio system. It might happen again.

Here are 10+ plus answers to Slashdot questions from motion picture digital effects expert Thad Beier. He chose the additional questions himself. (Yes, he's on Slashdot almost every day; we asked him to do the interview after reading many intelligent comments he's posted.) Anyway, there's some fine insight into the intersection of moviemaking, graphic arts, and computer science here, brought to you by an award-winning member of the film industry who just happens to be a fellow Slashdot reader.

Are 'FX programming' days numbered?
by Anonvmous Coward
Every year, 3D packages get more and more sophsticated. Not just in terms of rendering effects, but in their scripting capabilities as well. Do you see a day where the artist will be able to handle the rendering features and the scripting of a 3D prog so well that it'll no longer be necessary to have a dedicated programmer on board?

Is there a particular type of problem that will always need a programmer?

Thad:
First, I feel that the difference between 'scripting' and 'programming' is nonexistent; both are programming, albeit in different languages with different development environments. People can, and do, write thousand-line MEL scripts for Maya -- which are every bit as complex as anything written in C. With each new animation system, the scripting languages become more powerful, and subsume larger modules as primitives within the language -- this should allow non-programmers (or, more realistically, people who don't consider themselves programmers) to create significant custom systems with reasonable short scripts.

Secondly, though, I feel that there will always be a need in movies for people who are predominantly programmers. Films have to compete with each other and with the library of pre-existing films, and one way that is done is by continually pushing the state of the art. A consistent request from filmmakers is for 'something nobody has seen before'. Often that means creating custom tools; or building scripts and shaders far beyond the capabilities of non-programmers.

It is true that as time has gone on, the percentage of people on visual effects teams who consider themselves primarily programmers has fallen. One reason is that when doing 500 shots of a mouse for Stuart Little you only have to create the mouse once, but you still need hundreds of people to do the artistic tasks of animation, lighting, and compositing. That doesn't mean that the programmers aren't important, they are the key to ensuring that the artists can be productive.

Shaders
by f00Dave
How much overlap is there between the programable graphics processing units (AKA "shaders") found on modern game platforms and the software/hardware used in the special effects industry? Would programming skills for one translate to the other?

BTW, I realize that special effects are half artistry, half mathematics and half sweaty work: kudos from a 'GL hacker... [;-)]

Thad:
I note that some slashdotters have criticized your math, but you have hit upon a fundamental truth of visual effects, that the work takes far more than the available time.

While it is conceivable that there is overlap possible between programming of games hardware and writing shaders for visual effects, I haven't seen too many people making the move from games into FX; mostly it is the other way around. Certainly many people in the games business are clamoring for visual effects and other film artists to help bring cinematic ideas and qualities to the games world.

The interesting new wrinkle in this is the Cg language from Nvidia. It's a new, high-lvel language for writing shaders. Cg is then compiled down to microcode run on the graphics hardware in the machine. While I had been skeptical, now I think that this might dramatically change the way that rendering is done. The work of the visual effects and game shader-writers could be exactly the same. It wouldn't surprise me if future software renderers use graphics hardware to speed up the process.

Cost
by Fembot
When films are labled as "100$ Million on special effects" where does most of that money go? On rendering hardware or what?

Thad:
I don't think that any movies have had $100 Million in special effects, yet -- unless you count Dinosaur or Final Fantasy -- which are animated (as opposed to FX) films. That said, the overwhelming cost on any films for effects at this point goes to the creative people. Especially today, the hardware is virtually free. (In some cases, the hardware is literally free as a company will donate machines in return for good PR.)

A reasonable estimate for the cost is 75% for artists, and 25% for everything else. This has changed dramatically over the digital visual effects era which started around 1990 -- back then it was probably exactly the opposite. But machines have gotten much cheaper and animators have become more expensive, and that trend will probably continue. It's interesting that people talk about how much cheaper Linux PCs are compared to SGI machines (say), but truly both machines have almost the same cost (zero) compared to the cost of the animator who is using the machine. The choice of workstation should be entirely based on what makes the artist most productive.

Directors approach?
by FurryFeet
I'm guessing you get to work pretty closely to directors. If so, can you tell us what is their approach to the new tools technology has given them? Are they still "thinking celluloid" made cheaper by rendering it digitally, or do they really seek to break the mold and make shots that were previously impossible?

Thad:
The job of a movie director is to harness the skills of hundreds of talented, unique, possibly difficult people to create his vision and tell his story. In our experience, directors always request the ideas and proposals from his creative team; and they listen to that advice. The FX team is hired to help make the movie, and are trusted to help make the decisions. In most cases, the director will work very closely with the FX supervisor when shooting the shots that will have effects, asking for help and comment on all aspects of the shot. After the ability to get the most out of his team, though, the most important quality of a director is decisiveness -- once all of the input has been gathered, everybody has to march in the same direction.

Every director we have worked with has been extremely interested in any ideas we could contribute to making shots cheaper, better, easier to shoot, or cheaper. They want to get the best images on film, and any resources saved on one shot can make the next one better.

best way to get into the industry?
by josepha48
What is the best way to get into the computer generated special effects industry? Is it who you know or what you know? If it is what you know what should one know? (Programming, graphics tools, etc...).

Thad:
Well, my first sincere, if unhelpful answer is "Are you sure that you want to?" It isn't really an industry in the traditional sense -- there is little or no job security, there are long hours typically with no overtime paid, the stress can be extreme and the rewards are not great. There are almost no rational reasons to choose CG visual effects as a career. So think about it before making that choice. If it really is the most important thing in the world for you, then read on.

Every person is different, and every position to be filled is different, so any advice given will either be too specific to be generally useful, or so broad as to be a platitude, but I'll do my best. Over the last few years it is my impression that there have been far more applicants trying to get into the field than available jobs; that might just be a cyclical problem or it might be persistent.

A solid undergraduate education is always a good thing. Some basic art experience is helpful, to learn color theory, layout -- basically learn what makes a good image good. Knowledge of mathematics and elementary physics is useful, to know how the world works. General computer experience is helpful, for example the ability to write and understand shell scripts. To get a job at a large facility a familiarity with the most commonly used tools is helpful.

Clearly you would like to have some animation experience. Computer animation is useful, but 2D hand-drawn animation is also an exceptionally good way to learn how to bring images to life.

When preparing a reel of your work, a few great shots is better than a large volume of mediocre work. You want something to make your reel stand out from the rest of them. Play to your strengths; concentrate on what you do best. If the work on your reel includes shots done by a team of people, be certain to call out your particular contribution. A demonstrated ability to work on teams with other creative people is a definite plus.

The Siggraph show every year is a good place to meet recruiters from many companies in a few days. It takes place in late July or early August. This year's conference took place last week, and all of the big companies demonstrated vigorous recruiting efforts. A few companies have great pages to assist people in planning their careers. Here is the employment FAQ from Pixar and the one from PDI. While they are animation companies as opposed to visual effects companies, their advice is still appropriate, by and large.

What movies have impressed you?
by Anonvmous Coward
When somebody has intimate knowledge about how a movie is made, it gets really hard to make their eyes jump out of their head.

For example, there's a scene in the Director's Cut of Robocop where Alex Murphy is just about to be shot in the head by the lead bad dude. The camera is pointing right at Alex's face, then swings around behind him. As soon as the camera is behind him the bad guy fires a gun, the back of Alex's head explodes and you can see a hole clean through it. This whole scene was one smooth camera movement, no edits.

I was *stunned* to find out that Alex was a puppet. They were able to make a puppet that totally convinced me that Peter Weller was sitting in front of this guy about to get his head blown off. I could not believe that they were able to do one that convincing.

I'm curious, what movies have had that affect on you? "OMG! I had no idea that was an effect!"

Thad:
Your example is a classic of FX misdirection. Another one is in 'Spiderman'. We see Peter Parker with his shirt off pretty early in the movie, and he's the scrawny little twerp that he's supposed to be, and you accept it without a second thought. Later, after he's been bitten, he takes off his shirt and he's totally ripped. Not until that point do you say "hey, wait a minute! How did they do that effect!" When, of course, the effect happened in the first shot with a body replacement that you never expected. I was blown away, it was just so cool, and so easy. The best effects are those that you would never expect, and that by the time you realize that they must have been effects they are over.

These days almost every film has FX shots that nobody could possibly see. Our first film was 'Showgirls', and I defy anybody to find the dozen shots we did in that movie -- they are not in-your-face effects. Two of our more recent films, 'The Fast and The Furious', and 'For Love of The Game' were praised in the Los Angeles Times and Variety as films with a refreshing lack of special effects. It's not that they're missing obvious things; it's just that FX can be undetectable.

So, when you say if there's anything where I'd say "I had no idea that was an effect", well, it's certainly true -- but for most of those shots I still don't know that it was an effect.

Project you'd like to tackle?
by seldolivaw
Although recently a lot of the big names in science fiction and fantasy are finally making it onto the screen in a plausible way (e.g. Tolkein) there are still plenty of great books out there that haven't even been optioned. If you could turn any science-fiction/fantasy book or series into a movie, which would it be?

[My personal choice: the Foundation saga by Asimov. So huge! Such a great plot! So eminently filmable! Somebody make this movie, dammit! :-)]

Thad:
Surprisingly, and contrary to your question, classic SF books like The Foundation Trilogy and Ender's Game are always in play; we get scripts or proposals for these every couple of years. You're not the only one that wants to see these books filmed; it's very difficult to do, though. While the tremendous success of The Lord of The Rings is on everybody's mind, don't forget that people have been trying for years to make those books into films with limited success. A good book has such scope and detail that it's hard to distill it into a reasonable-length movie. While I'd love to see a movie made from Stephenson's 'Snowcrash', any reasonable length movie would have to leave out at least half of the stuff that makes the book great.

Short stories are a better bet. The astonishing success of movie versions of Philip K. Dick's short stories would have completely bewildered him, but they are great source material. I'd love to see a John Varley short story -- say, 'The Phantom of Kansas' -- although I admit that 'Millenium', based on the book-length version of his short story 'Air Raid', was perhaps the worst movie I've ever seen.

Reduction in man-hours for CG?
by ceswiedler
At one point, as a film student, I was interested in computer animation as a way for a single person or small group to produce a film, without the expense of locations, casting, cameras, etc. I thought that soon, as hardware and software improved, it would be possible for me to create a film on my own computer at home.

But my experience in animation in college taught me that increasing hardware capacity doesn't reduce the time it takes to produce a film or demo reel; it simply increases the quality of the final output. I imagine that the modelling, animation, and rendering of the scenes in Tron took as much human time as comparable scenes in Fellowship of the Ring. It's possible to render Tron-quality CG in realtime on a modern PC, but nobody wants to watch it.

My question is this: do you think it will ever be possible to produce a full-length CG film in about a man-year or less, with effects which are reasonbly "modern" for the time? Will the technology curve eventually flatten out, once we get to a certain point where the human eye can't really tell the difference? Or is it implausible to think that a single person or small group could provide all of the artistic input (scriptwriting, directing, modelling, animation, acting, etc) to produce a full film, even ignoring all technological constraints?

Thad:
There are movies created by small teams of people; and some of these will be CG generated films. They won't be "Toy Story", though, they'll be motion-capture or cg-puppet films with relatively simple lighting setups; I don't think that you can do high-quality animation quickly, except through some kind of performance capture. There's a sort of Moore's Law at work with state-of-the-art animation where the complexity of scenes doubles every couple of years. Animators always will wait a certain amount of time for their frames to render, on the order of 15 minutes to an hour -- and that time hasn't changed even though computers are 1000 times the speed they were 10 years ago.

Your question has been answered in the affirmative last year by 'Jimmy Neutron, Boy Genius'. That was a relatively small team of people working for just a few man years; and they created an incredibly successful film. Compared to 'Monsters Inc.' it wasn't state-of-the-art, but compared to say 'Rugrats in Paris', you'd have to say that it was.

I think your question about the technology curve flattening out means that you're asking whether at some point the most elaborately specified scene might render in real-time. That it's not inconceivable but it is unlikely. It's possible that computer speed will finally outstrip the ability of an animator to create complexity, so that frames will render that fast; but I think it's more likely that database-amplification techniques will allow the specification of arbitrarily complex scenes.

To some extent what makes movies interesting is that a single two-hour movie can contain the distilled essence of a thousand man-years of work, and if it was a well managed process you can see each hour of effort up on the screen. You can see these movies over and over, and always see something new. It's like a tidal wave of information flooding over you. A small team of people won't be able to do that; but they can make perfectly good smaller movies.

Killing the Classics
by Skyshadow
Several directors have recently released "special editions" of their classic movies which subtly change the films by using computers effects to either clean up the old effects or (far worse) alter the original film.

The problem that I have with this is twofold: First, these "special editions" seem to be the ones that show up on TV and on video rental shelves, so that they and not the original become the pervasive copy.

Second, I can foresee a day when older movies are edited in this fashion so they can be remarketed to audiences with more "modern" attitudes (think similar to Speilburg taking the guns out of the hands of the pursuing authorities in the ET rerelease).

Do you believe that, as a creative professional, you have any sort of ethical duty to resist these sorts of changes? Is there a line to be drawn between merely cleaning up the original effects and replacing them entirely (as in the Star Wars special edition), or between effects-patchup and all-out content alteration (aka, the wussification of Han Solo by having Greedo shoot first)? Do you feel that old films should be left alone, or do you consider them more as ongoing acts of creation?

Thad:
I do not like the changing of movies. A movie, to me, reflects the time that it was created and becomes a kind of historical document. On the other, dominant hand, it is completely the choice of the owner of a film to do with it what he pleases.

I can understand the feeling that a movie is somehow owned by society at some point, but my point of view is different. Making a film is tremendously hard, making a good one far harder still -- and with that effort comes the right to muck it up down the road if that's what one decides to do. So, I don't see an ethical dilemma at all. I think that the place to make your protest felt is as a critic and as a movie patron; vote with your wallet. A related problem is that movies have a relatively short lifetime. The first Star Wars film reportedly had deteriorated quite a bit before the Special Edition was created; as the dyes in the film don't have good long-term stability. There will be a fifty-year period of movies that will be lost unless extraordinary (and unlikely) efforts are made. In the near future, though, all movies will be digital at some point in the process, and they have at least a fighting chance of being around for a long time. There are several digital-post facilities being set up now, which scan the whole film to allow better color correction and editing -- the most striking use of this was on O Brother, Where Art Thou?, where the final movie was dramatically color-corrected throughout in a way not possible with optical means.

question for thad
by Jucius Maximus
Thad: When designing tools for making 3D scenes or characters, how much does real world physics play into what is generated? Do you use fluid mechanical models to generate the flow of water over a waterfall or the movement of a large tree affected by a mass of air? Do you use vibro aoustical and biomechanical models to determine they way a CG mechanised character will walk?

In essence, how much do you take real physics into account when designing something a CG item to emulate a 'real' item on screen? What is the balance between physical limits and creative freedoms?

Thad:
Our charter is to create the sequence that the director of the film wants for his movie; that usually means building things that look and move like things do in real life. Often we would use real-world physics to do this. Typically, though, we take extremely simplified views of the real world to make the computations more simple, and to make them run faster.

As an example of physics in action, Nick Foster at PDI created a simplified fluid dynamics model to be used for animation; this was used to create several shots in ANTZ and Shrek. One of the big problems with simulation, as opposed to animation, is that it is difficult to control. Typically one sets initial conditions and then lets the simulation run. Having a system that runs very quickly enables the artist using the tool to try many different initial conditions, to try to create the desired final result. A slow, but more physically accurate solution would have been worthless if the animator couldn't get to a reasonable result.

Often what is done is an absurdly simplified model of reality is chosen, then it is made more accurate (and slow) until it looks good enough for the film. On our recent movie 'Showtime', we had to do a waterfall bursting out of a building, and we simulated the motion of water with air-drag, then simulated the water dragging the air with it, to get the characteristic motion of a waterfall; but we didn't have to go any further than that and simulate viscosity of the water or evaporation.

ILM has done some wonderful work simulating the dynamics of creatures, creating models of bones, muscles, fat, and skin. These give a character like a dinosaur a 'weight' that just can't be animated by hand. These dynamics are a great cue to they audience for how big and heavy these creatures are.

One curious reality of the FX world is that often reality is not what is wanted. A classic example of this is starfields. In any real-world photograph, the stars are invisible, they are far far darker than anything else in the scene. Directors often want stars in the sky to go with their actors, though; so that is what they get.

Finally, there are times when straightforward animation is the best approach. For the movie Red Planet, we had to create zero-g fire. I spent a few weeks trying to simulate the flow of smoke and fire in a zero-g environment, when my colleague Jamie Dixon thought that he could just animate all the shots by hand in a couple of days -- which he proceeded to do. When CalTech's physics department reviewed the movie for the Los Angeles Times, they panned every bit of science in the movie, except for the zero-g fire; which they thought looked "pretty cool."

CGI alternatives
by Strange Ranger
Do you think CGI can too often be seen as a "suppressor" of other art forms? The specific example in my head right now is Old Puppet Yoda vs. New CGI Yoda, we haven't seen (AFAIK) any major puppeteering work in cinema in a long time. Other possibly "suppressed" art forms might be makeup art, the art of the stunt man, set construction, backdrop painting, cinematograghy, heck even acting could be listed here. Will CGI be escorting some or all of these art forms down the same path as Silent Films, blacksmithing, and totem-pole carving?

Do you ever want to say "Hey this would be a lot better if it were done with [not CGI] instead"?

Thad:
There are many times as many people working in the FX field today as there were ten years ago. Now, it's true that some of the techniques are not as much in demand as they were, but it's not as bad as you might think. A company that we do quite a bit of collaborative work with is Illusion Arts, in Van Nuys California. The two founders, Bill Taylor and Syd Dutton, started doing practical camera effects and matte paintings, and built a very successful company around these kinds of classical techniques. Today, they are now doing synthetic 3D camera moves and painting on Macs; but 90% of the talents and skills they used before are still applicable today; just the medium is different. What makes a good artist is foremost their eye; their ability to see what is right and to see how to fix what is wrong. Illusion Arts was the lead shop in The Fast and The Furious, and along with us and Digiscope made a very modern movie.

In your example of puppetry, I too was a little disappointed to see the CG Yoda; especially in the closeups it just wasn't exactly the same. Of course, there's no way that a puppet could have done the lightsaber battle. Also, a growing area of FX is performance capture; recording data in real-time and applying it to CG characters. In Episode One and Two of the Star Wars movies, there is a tremendous amount of motion capture, used to animate robots and creatures. Performance capture is just puppetry with one's whole body, really.

Back in 1989, Graham Walters and I build the CG puppet Waldo C. Graphic for The Jim Henson Hour. The puppet was animated by putting one's hand into a 'waldo' (a mechanical tracking device reminiscent of a Luxo Lamp), and moving it around; and watching the results on a TV screen. This was so similar to the way that the Henson puppeteers usually work that it took no time at all to get comfortable with the puppet; I don't think it took Henson himself more than about 5 seconds to get totally up to speed on it.

Speaking about stunt work, one of the very first things that people realized with digital techniques is that 'wire-removal' is fairly straightforward. One can identify a moving wire in a scene and use several techniques to get rid of it. This meant that whereas stunt people used to use the thinnest possible safety wires, or none at all; now they could use systems with significant margins of safety. Also, face-replacement techniques coming to the fore means that stunt people can play far closer to the camera than they used to, opening up new opportunities for stunts.

When it comes to acting, though, I don't think that digital graphics will ever replace traditional techniques. There's no good reason to attempt it, and it's unbelievably hard. The subtlety and complexity of motion of skilled human actors is astonishing, and a ridiculous portion of the human brain is dedicated to interpreting those expressions and motions.

So, I would say that for every job lost, many are created -- and the people whose jobs are lost can often put those same skills to use in this new digital world.

Little studios vs Big Studios
by Milinar
I've followed your company's work over the past few years with great interest. It seems to me that the effects you do are pretty much on par with big studios like digital domain, etc. Have you purposefully stayed a small studio, with a few dedicated individuals? And what advantages has that given you?

Thad:
When we started Hammerhead, we made a deliberate commitment to stay small. We didn't see significant economies of scale in the field, and it seemed like we'd have much more fun in a smaller company. There is a strong culture in American business that you have to "grow or die", but it was our experience that growth was extremely difficult to manage and that companies that grew quickly found themselves dying quickly, too. Once you get past a couple of dozen people, there seems to be a phase change in company culture, and productivity declines.

We do find that our small ('boutique' is the term of art) studio can compete against companies one or two orders of magnitude larger than us on many jobs that don't require a huge volume of shots. While our staff is small, we are extremely experienced, having been doing digital visual effects since we helped create the field at the beginning of the 90's. We tend to hire very capable, experienced artists -- one way that we keep it interesting for them is that they are given a huge amount of creative control over their shots.

As a small company we can be very flexible, too. We can reconfigure ourselves for whatever project is at hand; and become the Deep Blue Sea company when that is what is going on. There is very little overhead not contributing to getting a particular job done. Paradoxically, in a small company you can do more different things. We've done FX for films, wrote and produced a big Hollywood film, made our own low-budget horror film, and wrote and sold software. We will very likely be making a couple of TV pilots next year of shows with substantial visual effects content. Bigger FX companies have to be more focused, they can't afford to be experimental and possibly make mistakes, because they would be much larger mistakes.

Our biggest weakness is that we cannot even begin to take on huge jobs. Movies like Pearl Harbor or Spiderman require hundreds of people; and we have to leave these jobs to the ILMs and Sonys of the world. Still, there are hundreds of movies a year with a few dozen to a hundred and fifty shots, with reasonable time schedules, where we can compete well. I think that we have found a 'sweet spot', where many features combine to make a pleasant, profitable, successful company -- and the small size is an important part of that.

Dropped crusade against Pixar patent?
by Anonymous Coward
I heard a rumor that you dropped your "crusade" against Pixar's software patent on deep-shadow technology? The rumor implied you were "bought-out"? Care to comment/share your thoughts on software patents in the VFX industry?

Thad:
While this was not moderated up, I do feel it needs an answer. The patent that is referred to is for the obvious enhancement of Lance Williams' 1978 z-buffer shadow scheme [pdf link] given that today's computers have more than 64 Kb of memory. In the Williams algorithm the scene is rendered from the point of view of the light, and the depth to the first surface is stored. Then, when rendering the image from the camera's point of view, you can easily tell whether a surface should be in shadow or not. The Deep Shadow Map idea was to store a function of depth vs. opacity at each pixel in the image rendered from the light POV, to allow partially transparent surfaces and subpixel shadow coverage.

Unfortunately, Pixar has decided to patent this. They presented the idea at Siggraph '00 but didn't mention in the paper the fact that they'd filed a patent; although word got out pretty soon. As the patent has not been granted yet, and they filed the patent before the Patent Office's policy change that now publishes patent applications, it's unknown what their claims are. What I am fairly sure of, though, is that Pixar didn't invent this technology, and that people at Pixar know this. So, it's not only really nasty to try to build on somebody else's technique and wrest it for yourself, but there may be legal problems as well.

I've discussed this with lawyers, and they say that the time to fight a patent is after it grants. While that seem weird and suboptimal, there's nothing about patent law that isn't weird and suboptimal. So, I'm going to wait and see what happens. There are other possibilities for fighting the patent that don't make sense to reveal at this time, for obvious reasons. Clearly this comment reveals that there is no agreement between Pixar and me to remain quiet on this issue.

It wouldn't surprise me if patents destroy the visual effects industry as we know it today. Pixar already has one notch in its belt, last week forcing the company ExLuna to withdraw its Entropy renderer that competed with Pixar's Renderman (and the shareware BMRT program that preceded Entropy, as well). A rational, cold-blooded analysis of the software patent situation would reveal that almost every complex program today could be attacked on patent grounds, as we've seen recently with the JPEG fiasco. Back when I worked at PDI, we were attacked a couple of times for patent violations, only escaping a devastating patent by NYIT on the thinnest of technicalities. In irony not lost on anybody, Ed Catmull of Pixar (with Disney's lawyers help) led the fight against NYIT's patent.

Interestingly, this has happened before in visual effects. Back in the bad old days, every single analog visual effects technology was patented and owned by the studios. Rear Projection, Front Projection, Blue Screens, Sodium Screens -- everything. The studios would in effect pool the patents between themselves; but if you wanted to make a visual effects film you had to do it completely within the studio system. It might happen again.

peter_gzowski writes "Dreamworks has acquired the license for the worldwide distribution of Satoshi Kon's latest picture, Millennium Actress. Satoshi Kon is best known for directing the anime classic Perfect Blue, but has also worked on Patlabor 2 and Roujin Z (the latter two from the director of Ghost in the Shell & Akira, respectively). Read about it from Yahoo! Movies or Anime News Network, whichever you prefer. I guess Dreamworks was feeling left out after Miramax (with Princess Mononoke) and Columbia Tri-Star (with Final Fantasy and Metropolis) got into the anime distribution business. Maybe Spielberg and company will fare better trying to convince North American audiences to watch serious animated films."

GuNgA-DiN writes: "It seems that Disney has been busy trying to promote their upcoming movie 'Signs' (by M. Night Shyamalan). There is an interesting article from some guys who REALLY follow and study crop signs: Paul Anderson of the Canadian Crop Circle Research Network has reason to believe that they will be creating some man-made formations to promote the forthcoming movie. Anderson cites a competition or sweepstakes currently being promoted on the official 'Signs' website." Remember, patronize only genuine alien-swirled crop circles!

gdr writes "Lights Out Entertainment have an article on the extra scenes that will be in the Fellowship of the Ring special edition DVD. It will be nice to have the relationship between elves and dwarves fleshed out a bit. I'm not sure the final battle scene really needs to be any longer." There are quite a few bits mentioned for the extra 30 minutes of footage that I'm looking forward to seeing. Just be careful to buy the November 12 release and not the august release if you want the extra mojo. I'll be waiting.

In a recent e-mail exchange I had with Neil Gaiman he confirmed that Terry Gilliam is the director for the adapation of Good Omens to the screen. On a side note, Gaiman has been working on Coraline and will be doing a signing of the book in the Barnes and Noble in Union Square, NYC on Thursday the 11th. That's today. Update: 07/11 13:15 GMT by CT : I just wanted to say 'Curse Your Terry Gilliam'! Ever since I read Good Omens, I wished I was a film director just so I could direct that book. I guess Terry will do a good job too ;)

Jordan writes: "Orange Today is reporting that the BBC has hired a scriptwriter from Buffy the Vampire Slayer to work on a new Doctor Who series, in celebration of the show's 40th anniversary. And Buffy's Anthony Head, who plays Giles, may be up for the role of the doctor." Update: 07/03 12:27 GMT by T : LoadStar writes: "The Beeb has an official denial that a new Who series is in the works with members of the Buffy production team, as reported yesterday on Slashdot. They report 'Whilst the Cult team quite like the idea of Tony Head as the Doctor in a show guided by members of America's finest fantasy production team, the BBC aren't currently making any such plans.'"

Jooly Rodney writes "No, not the operating system, the sci-fi novel by Stanislaw Lem, long considered to be a classic of the genre. Apple's movie trailer site features a teaser trailer, and IMDb has George Clooney and Natascha McElhone as the leads Kelvin and Rheya."

While perusing the Onion today, I came across this review of Real Genius on DVD. No longer must we lower ourselves to watching crumbling VCR tapes of this movie copied off of Cinemax in the early 90s.

guttentag writes "According to the San Francisco Chronicle, Bush's Homeland Security plan calls for transferring $1.2 billion of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory's $1.5 billion budget to a new Department of Homeland Security under Tom Ridge. However, the plan transfers only 4 percent of the lab's employees. Ridge's explanation of the numbers: "I cannot give you the kind of explanation you need to deal with that imbalance." LLNL funded and houses the ASCI White supercomputer, among other cool projects." While Livermore has an impressive research record, we would miss most the laser lab from Tron.

MemFun writes "The now defunct Movie88.com has became Film88.com. These are the guys that are streaming a ton of movies for $1 a piece (but not allowing you to save the movie). Of course, to avoid all the Tinsel Town Club baddies (mpaa) from shutting them down, they are now based in Iran of all places. We just finished watching the free Harry Potter movie they are offering. Question: Does this make me a criminal? I really like the selection of movies they have and stream or not, it's still pretty cool to have the ability to watch some those movies that are never on TV any more."

nm1m writes: "For the last few months I have been following with some interest a few stories (story link may not work) in the school newspaper about a new structural technology being developed at BYU. It is called PYRAmatrix, and is 12 times stronger than steel, yet less than 10 percent the weight of steel. A 47 foot cylinder of this stuff, 16 inches in diameter and weighing just 47 pounds, can support almost 4 tons. It seems to have obvious applications in aerospace, electricity utility poles, radar and communication towers, and just about any structure that needs exceptional strength. An interesting press release with facts and figures can be found here. Photos can be found here." The link worked for me -- and reminded me of the plastic-walking scene in Sabrina .

dipfan writes "Alex Cox, the writer/director of cult classic Repo Man and punk movie Sid And Nancy, writes today in The Guardian's media section that the movie industry's real pirates are the Hollywood studios and the MPAA - for squeezing out independents. He rejects the widespread claim that Spider-Man suffered from widespread net piracy, and asks: "Are [the MPAA's] claims of lost billions even credible?" (In a strange coincidence, Cox has another article in the same newspaper today, where he defends using 35mm film rather than digital cameras a la George Lucas, saying digital cinema gives too much power to the distributors and studios because the technology is less portable than 35mm.)"

dipfan writes "Alex Cox, the writer/director of cult classic Repo Man and punk movie Sid And Nancy, writes today in The Guardian's media section that the movie industry's real pirates are the Hollywood studios and the MPAA - for squeezing out independents. He rejects the widespread claim that Spider-Man suffered from widespread net piracy, and asks: "Are [the MPAA's] claims of lost billions even credible?" (In a strange coincidence, Cox has another article in the same newspaper today, where he defends using 35mm film rather than digital cameras a la George Lucas, saying digital cinema gives too much power to the distributors and studios because the technology is less portable than 35mm.)"

Slashback entries tonight convey updates on the upcoming Ender's Game movie, one (of many) dissenting voices about impressive network bandwidth, Ogg at the Beeb, and Cool Chips. Read on for more, and enjoy!

When it comes to records, context begets significance. Fandu writes: "In regards to the article about the new internet2 land speed record.. That is not correct, The Canadian CA*Net3 network is about 60X faster still. It may be a net speed record for Internet2, but it's certainly no new internet speed record. See the ABC Article about the network from a few years back and the NOC webpage."

And no one is in line for tickets yet? flea writes: "So, fans of orson scott card (to whom I was turned onto by luna) should be happy. The books Ender's Game and Ender's Shadow are on the track to being made into a movie. Script is being written and OSC is involved in the process. It's being made by Wolfgan Petersen, who has a few hits and misses (http://us.imdb.com/Name?Petersen,+Wolfgang); Air Force One and Outbreak are, well, ya know ... To his credit though, he did Enemy Mine, the movie with Louis Gossett Jr. playing the speach impediment'd alien trapped on a rock after a battle with Dennis Quaid and then LGj gives birth (wtf). C'mon, we all liked that. Anyway, it hasn't even started filming yet and the script isn't done, but things look good. More info here."

Speak up for Ogg Vorbis! SgtChaireBourne writes: "The BBC's testing period for Ogg Vorbis is now finished, but they are still soliciting feedback.

Now's the chance to add any words of encouragement to the BBC regarding Ogg, especially since, perhaps by oversight, RealOne (formerly RealPlayer) is now only available for Windows 98, 2000, ME, NT and XP. Currently, the download page for older versions seem to turn up empty for all requests for Linux versions, but deep links can still get you there.

As far as I can tell, the BBC is the first large (or even medium) news service to try Ogg. Here is last year's announcment on Slashdot about the start of the test."

"Sounds cool." blocksetter writes: "Cool Chips plc appreciates the interest of the Slashdot community. We've made an effort to address the points raised in last week's discussion of our technology and we've posted the resulting FAQ on our site. In the interest of conserving bandwidth, a text-only version is available for your viewing pleasure. We would like to thank everybody whose questions and criticisms inspired us to do this.

If there is something we haven't covered, you can also write directly to Cool Chips President Isaiah Cox, or to myself, Company Wonky Chris Bourne."

securitas writes "Reuters and AP tell us that Epic Games and the US Army have announced the America's Army series of games, jointly developed by the Department of Defense and Epic. The first two-part game in the five-year project includes an RPG called Soldier and a first-person shooter called Operations. The game will be free of charge and available for download in July or August, with 1.2 million CDs simultaneously released, attached to gaming magazines. Does this remind anyone else of the war-room scene from Toys or Ender's Game?" Future installments will include Sim Mess Duty, Sim Standing Guard in the Rain, Sim Blister, and Sim Invading Iraq to Keep Approval Ratings High.

blamanj writes "The June issue of Wired includes a list of the top 20 Sci-Fi movies, based on ranking a combination of Adrenaline, Vision, and Precision. Somehow, they came up with (yawn) Gattaca as the #2 SF movie of all time!?! Their rating system was based on one by Josh Calder, who also uses a three-point (Futurism, Entertainment, Plausibility) system, and has the same movie at #2, BTW. Clearly, I think using such a scale gives odd results, but what if it were weighted differently, e.g., Vision is worth 2x Adrenaline, would it be a better list? And, more importantly, what are the real top 20 films? And wouldn't that list have to include Forbidden Planet?"

blamanj writes "The June issue of Wired includes a list of the top 20 Sci-Fi movies, based on ranking a combination of Adrenaline, Vision, and Precision. Somehow, they came up with (yawn) Gattaca as the #2 SF movie of all time!?! Their rating system was based on one by Josh Calder, who also uses a three-point (Futurism, Entertainment, Plausibility) system, and has the same movie at #2, BTW. Clearly, I think using such a scale gives odd results, but what if it were weighted differently, e.g., Vision is worth 2x Adrenaline, would it be a better list? And, more importantly, what are the real top 20 films? And wouldn't that list have to include Forbidden Planet?"

Daryl Carpenter writes "After months of grumbling and mild assaults, I finally vent my rage with this penultimate [ed. note: there will be another one?] assault on the cinematic drivel known as "U-571". Did he like it? I don't know. You be the judge.

Daryl Carpenter writes: U-571 is a "film" starring almost no one you've heard of, directed by some guy, and lifted mostly from older, better films. It is an insult to the eyes, the ears, the nose, the brain, common sense, and the human desire to be entertained. If I had a sixth sense, that could see dead people, it would be offended by U-571. Every time a person watches U-571, the bodies of 150,000 brave sailors killed in World War II rumble. The only reason for this $90 million mess is to prove that, in the words of Jonathan Mastow, "Das Boot was based on a lie". If the lie was that talented German directors should go to Hollywood, then that was already proven.

They say that imitation is the highest form of flattery. It's another thing when you rip-off an older, better movie, re-assemble it with some "creative license", and end up with a total piece of crap. It's another thing when you denounce the movie you just ripped off, saying it's "based on a lie". But who cares, really? Mastow is a jerk. Onwards to the movie, if I must. U-571 begins with an opening text about how the U-boats are winning the battle of the Atlantic and so on and so forth. The first thing we see is the obnoxiously lit control room of a German U-boat. Red lights flood the oversized room with little consideration for natural lighting, realism, or the art of filmaking. It is obvious that these poor extras spent at least nine takes cooped up in this horribly cramped set. U-571 destroys a tanker in a ridiculous Hollywood explosion; a destroyer comes out of nowhere, blah blah yadda yadda...

So the next thing you know, without any tension or excitement, about a zillion depth charges explode three inches away from them. For no good reason the diesel engines explode in a ridiculous Hollywood explosion, killing the only two people onboard with any idea whatsoever about how to operate a diesel engine in even an amateurish manner. The eeevelllll (I need to make a point of that now) captain orders a re-supply boat to assist.

And now we end our obvious rip-off of "Das Boot" and move on to the obligatory Big Band/Leisure Time/Sailors in nice suits/Party/Dance/token female characters scene that we've seen in a million war movies, despite the fact that less than a million war movies have ever been made. As we find out, and will not care about, Lt. Tyler (played like a sticky note by Matthew Mcwhothehellcanspellhiisname) will not get command of the leaky, obsolete piece of 25-year old war-torn scrap metal S-33. Instead, he will have to be 1st Officer (Pitiful!) while the Captain (played like a block of wood by Bill Paxton) will remain in command.

As our "story" moves on, we're introduced to some obviously important guy (played like a section of soggy cardboard by Harvey Keitel) and some ensigns and whatnots (played like scraps of dirty sheet styrene by some guys you've never heard of). As we find out, Harvey Keitel is a "sea dog who wants some salt", a line that could only be delivered with a straight face by a man who has cleaned a piano in the nude in a previous movie. Also introduced is the token black cook (played like a slab of old ham by some guy) and some guy from "ER" who's supposed to be a Marine. While the characters weren't paying any attention, the ever-resourceful dockyard workers converted S-33 into a too perfect for it's own good replica of a "German supply submarine", which is actually a regular U-boat with an extra gun. This process probably included building an entirely new hull, conning tower, and deck. All in one week; imagine what it would be like if it weren't for Rosie the Riveter? She must have been tired after THIS job. An ever-observant crewmember remarks "that looks like a god-damned Nazi sub!" This begins the process of the viewer laughing whenever the word "Nazi" is used.

S-33 leaves port. We find out, from a decoded message, that U-571 is stranded in the middle of the Atlantic. In an obviously idiotic goof by the director, the intelligence report includes an excellent photo of the Enigma machine, one of the lamest "McGuffins" in movie history. I guess the French agent couldn't fit the thing in his coat pocket. We're then presented with a bunch of sailors talking about what happens when a submarine goes too deep. One of them cracks an egg to demonstrate what happens when a submarine exceeds its crush depth.

Based on this conversation, we know the submarine is going to go too deep. No really, I think the director was trying to keep us in suspense on that one. In another scene, we see a sailor writing a love letter and look at a picture of his wife. I'll bet a fiver that that's the one that dies in the end. We're then presented with a horribly dull scene in which Lt. Tyler and his even-duller captain discuss why he can't be Captain or something useless like that to be rendered meaningless by the brainless events of the second hour of the movie. This is sort of like the first 45 minutes of Das Boot, except the actors have all the emotions of household appliances.

In case the audience is falling asleep, the movie takes us back to the German U-boat. They manage to get the diesel running for a few seconds, and it roars to life like a kid banging on a typewriter. The next thing you know, a boatload full of British survivors SNEAKS UP ON THEM AND ATTACKS OUT OF NOWHERE (did I get you excited?) and asks to be taken prisoner. So what does out EEEVELLLL NAZI GASTAPO UNDERSEE-SS U-BOAT SEA KILLER Captain do? You guessed it, he orders them to be killed. Never saw that one coming! Meanwhile, the audience stares contentedly at the screen, satisfied by the results of the massacre, rendered idiotic about the Battle of the Atlantic. So, it's finally time to take over the damn German U-boat. The crew of S-33 is SO brave, they disguise themselves in German uniforms, bring along a translator, and pack enough firepower to demolish downtown New York. You seee... They're Americans, and everything that Americans do must be really brave and full of false heroics. Next thing you know, there's an incredibly exciting (not) scene of a raft full of sailors-turned-green beret approaching the U-boat. And approaching. And approaching. And all during the lamest fake storm ever on film, which is more like a pond during a mild shower with a 10-mph wind. The scene mercifully ends when our "heroes" board the U-boat. The incompetent Germans fight back with the tenacity of a blind dyslexic with a BB gun, while the Americans score every hit. The Americans drop down the conning tower hatch one by one, are attacked by a half-dozen idiots with machine guns, who don't hit anything but get killed in the process. In one scene, reminiscent of the opening scene of "Saving Private Ryan", yet another idiotic German is shot about a dozen times from close range, which causes him to grunt and fall over, totally bloodless. War is hell.

Throughout the entire scene, not a single person is hit by a stray bullet, or appears to be disturbed by all the noise such a firefight would create. Realism! Authenticity! Historical Truth!

So you were wondering what happened to the token black guy? The Americans are loading the German POWs onto the S-33. Mr. Politically Correct asks one of the German submariners "what, you never seen a black man before." You know, it's nice that Mr. Mastow had the guts to take on an important subject like the Nazi persecution of non-Aryans in such a deft and subtle way. Take that, Speilberg! SUDDENLY ANOTHER GERMAN U-BOAT APPEARS OUT OF NOWHERE (surprised you again!) and blows up S-33, in what could only be a rather obvious case of "friendly fire".

It doesn't just blow up, it ESPLODES. Yes, esplodes. It goes beyond "ridiculous Hollywood explosion". Every male pyromaniac in the audience is probably in ecstasy. I mean it gets blowed up so good, it kills everyone except the token black guy. The camera zooms in on Tyler's face! Shock! Horror! Emotion! Futility of War! The captain, standing heroically on the bottom of a studio water tank, shouts something mockingly heroic to Tyler, sits there for a little while, and sinks like a rock. Ohhhh... Pass the tissues.

Now we come to an even dumber scene. You see, they can't let the Germans know they have the Enigma. Then why did they blow up their submarine? Anyway, this is the idiotic underwater dogfight that everyone brings up. Harvey Keitel gets two idiotic lines: "Where's the Christmas Tree!" (Camouflage for the bridge!) followed by the infamous "It's all in German!". No @!#$, Sherlock. By using the universal translator (this is Star Trek isn't it? Oh wait, they have the half-German guy onboard) they manage to dive the submarine simply by knowing that "Klar" means "Clear." At this point I was hoping the diesel induction would fail, everyone would drown, and end my misery.

No such luck. The crippled German submarine, which has taken a zillion close depth charges, hundreds of small-caliber gunshots, and several grenades, dives faster than even the original crew could make it. American ingenuity, made in Taiwan. So now the German supply boat launches two torpedoes at U-571, which miss by three millimeters or so. The Americans try to attack the other sub, but the torpedo tubes make a horrible noise, which is probably Wolfgang Petersen in agony. We know this scene is exciting because the music is someone banging on a drum very loudly and with increasing speed. Based on a crude sonar bearing, they blow up the supply sub in a ridiculous Hollywood explosion.

They surface again, and take aboard U-571's electrician and the token black guy. The German guy is the only one who has any knowledge on how to operate the vessel, but because "Klar" means "Clear", he's totally useless to them. So they handcuff him to a bunk. Oh, did I mention the electrician of U-571 is EEEVILLLL...? Now we have about 20 minutes of useless scenes just to pad things out. We see the Americans repairing the smashed U-boat because they're magic and stuff. The U-571's electrician is eevilllll. He gets loose somehow, kills some useless character and injures someone totally pointless to the story. If electricians are always that evillll, I'm seriously considering learning how to operate the switchbox myself. The token black man runs in and shouts "what do you think you're doing you Nazi sumbitch". I laugh once more. The Americans realize that the handcuff wasn't enough, so they chain him to the bunk next time. Oh, that'll really work.

So here's a scene in the Officer's mess, with Lt. Tyler and Harvey Keitel talking about something useless to the plot. The cramped mess of "Das Boot" is replaced here with an overlit, really cozy restaurant-style place with large, leather sofas, a beautifully crafted table and lots of pictures related to the U-boat war. I hear they hired the same production designer as "Das Boot", but I'm started to think they hired him based on his work in "Cabaret".

The crew is up in the conning tower (wait a minute, six on board, four up on the bridge... there's only two people running this whole operation!). They break out in an argument with the captain, (outranked solely by God) someone gets punched in the face (insert stock face-punching sound) and that's that. So really, it's okay to argue with your commanding officer in the middle of a major war.

Suddenly, OUT OF NOWHERE, COMES A PLANE! Surprised you again, didn't I? Oh, no it's a German long-range Reconnaissance Plane! No @!#$ Sherlock, it's a P-51 with floats attached, and really FREAKING huge fuel tanks to, uh, boot. But, woe is us, a, GASP! Nazi Destroyer (more giggles). Not just any Nazi Destroyer (Hmmm, Nazi. Has a nice ring to it. Nazi. Nazi Nazi. Nazi...). But some old Italian salvage ship with some fake guns attached and a big Z number painted on the side. By constantly showing the ship's flag, the idea that this is an enemy ship is beaten into the viewer's head. The Ocean-Going Tugboat/Destroyer launches a motor launch towards U-571. The crew of the Destroyer obviously doesn't see the crew of U-571 manning the deck gun, and allow them to blow up their radio shack in a ridiculous Hollywood explosion. The Germans set phasers on miss, and consistently avoid hitting the 75-meter long stationary object barely 500 feet away. Yet another crash dive, and through the magic of shoddy model work, the U-boat barely avoids colliding with the Tugboat of Doom (tm).

Another lame depth charge attack follows. You can feel the tension and fear in the soundman's voice. Several times, in the blandest voice possible, he intones "maneuvering, splashes". "I see dead submariners". McWhatshisface stands around and whispers into voicepipes. We get lots of external shots of rudders moving and propellers speeding up. According to Keitel, who gets stiffer and stiffer as the movie goes on, a depth charge can knock out your teeth and snap your spine. But of course, can't do anything to a submarine. A gazillion depth charges go off roughly at once, all about two feet from the hull. This causes light bulbs to burst, and doors to pop open. This is, of course, all for the "awesome DTS sound" that will "blow you away" and leave you half-asleep and pissed off about blowing $3.50 on renting the damn thing.

"The pressure hull canna take much more of this!" shouts the chief engineer. "We need depth factor 200 in four minutes or we'll all dead!" responds the captain. "But if we go to 200 we'll a implode!" "I said "depth factor 200!" So they go to 200 meters (note: the depth gauge only goes to 200, so Mastow doesn't think he's ripping off Das Boot), and duh, disaster strikes. The rivets start popping off, the sub sinks to 260 meters for no good reason, magically rises to 200, and everythings back to normal. Wow, that made a ton of sense. Now excuse me for rambling, I'm getting tired of writing about this piece of junk. But it's almost over. Almost over. The Evilll electrician of U-571 tries to signal the destroyer overhead, and someone finally kills the evilllll SS-Nazi Gestapo Sea Killer electrician! Yay! Onward with the gratuitous stereotyping of our former enemies!

Remember, although it is based off material written in reputable sources, Das Boot is based on a lie! I am Jonathan Mastow, and you will bow to me! Nazis, all of them! I am rich bastard American brain-washer, believe everything I say! Mwahha-haha-ha!

And now for the inevitable Tale of Two Cities- good of the several apparently outweighs the good of the one type mock heroic ending. This time our sacrifice is some whiny ensign who's really a hero or something like that. Lt. Tyler orders our asking-for-it back to the stern torpedo room bilge to find the contrivly (is that a real word?)-placed handle that activates the stern torpedo tube compressed air thingy or such nonsense. You see, they're gonna blow up the German destroyer, because it looks cool when you do. And if they don't, they'll be tortured by the SS and Gestapo, oh my!

So our worthless sacrifice (I mean, it's a vulnerable destroyer in the middle of the Atlantic without any protection and no radio, but still....) goes off to activate the torpedo tube. Some @!#$ back in Kiel put the compressed air starter in the bilge. He struggles for what feels like an eternity, at one point loosing his breathing device. This moron, who we're supposed to feel sympathy for, struggles for two whole minutes trying to get it back on. Finally, he pulls the handle, the diesel engines turn on (twenty meters underwater!) and they fire the torpedo. Almost....Over. The destroyer REALLY ESPLODES! KABOOM! POWWEY! UP IN FLAMES! DECK BLOWS UP! WHOLE SHIP GOES BOOM! 10,000 TONS OF GUNPOWDER GOES UP! SINKS IN SECONDS!

So we find out that our little hero (sniff..sniff) died. So please, don't try to hold your breath for six minutes. The token black man says something idiotic that's supposed to be moving, and the music goes all cheesy on us. Oh, during the battle a six-inch shell hit U-571. To be honest, I don't know whether the shell or the exploding destroyer did them in. They decide to pre-emptively end the movie. The fatally wounded captain watches as his bombed out submarine slowly sinks into the oily water, the token black guy runs over to help, Lt. Tyler collapses as blood runs out his mouth, camera pans out, token black guy stares in horror, fade to black.

No actually, they all crowd into the goofiest looking dingy you've ever seen, and start to row(!) this oversized condom something like a thousand miles to shore. An incredibly fake-looking CGI PBY Catalina flies overhead, with huge "US NAVY" markings on the wings, ending our misery. I would have been just as happy if a fake-looking CGI Fw. 200 flew overhead, with "NAUGHTY NAZIS" written in huge letters on the wings, and dropped a stick of depth charges on them. But not in an American movie, I guess.

My experience with this movie is certainly unusual. Back in August, I rented this movie called "Threads" from the public library. It was this obscure BBC TV movie from the eighties about the effects of nuclear war, made on a rather tight budget. What I saw was so graphic, realistic and horrifying, it still sticks with me. At first it had little effect on me. Days later, I would wake up in the middle of the night, sweating, in a panic, afraid that the bombs would drop, that everyone I knew would die, and that in ten years, the human race would be reduced to mutated savagery. Days after I saw U-571, I woke up in the middle of the night, sweating, in a panic, afraid that Jonathan Mastow would make even more crappy submarine movies, that he would say that Das Boot was based on a lie, and that ten years from now he would be the most well-paid director in Hollywood. And yes, I'm joking about this paragraph. But not the one about "Threads". Oh, and John Bon Jovi was in this mess somewhere. Playing a war correspondent, I think. No, I didn't say that. I didn't say that....

ewhac writes "David W. Packard, son of HP's co-founder of the same name, obviously has some strong feelings on the merger between HP and Compaq. Today he shared those feelings on a poster put up in the lobby at the Stanford Theatre. The text of his message appears below. David W. Packard is president of The Stanford Theatre Foundation, a non-profit organization formed in the 1980's to save the classic Stanford Theatre in Palo Alto, CA, from destruction. He is also the son of HP co-founder David Packard, and has been very close to the company and The HP Way."

ewhac continues: "Today, he shared his thoughts on the merger in the form of a poster placed in the Stanford Theatre lobby:

Hewlett Packard
1938 -- 2002
R.I.P.

The Stanford Theatre still exists today only because of the employees of the Hewlett Packard Company. Without their achievements over the years, there would have been no foundation to purchase and restore this theatre.

Palo Alto might have had one more book store, or perhaps another restaurant. Architects had plans ready for a new "Casablanca Cafe" at this location when the Packard Foundation rescued the theater in 1987.

The Hewlett Packard Company was founded in 1938 in a garage on Addison Street only a few blocks from where you are now standing. Back then, the Stanford Theatre was showing brand new movies. In 1938 you could have seen Cary Grant and Katharine Hepburn in Bringing Up Baby and Holiday . You could have seen Errol Flynn in The Adventures of Robin Hood . You could have seen Alice Faye, Don Ameche, Ethel Merman, and Tyrone Power in Alexander's Ragtime Band . You could have seen Jimmy Stewart and Jean Arthur in Frank Capra's You Can't Take It With You . You still can see these same movies at the Stanford Theatre. Our audiences know that they are truly timeless.

The HP Way also touched many people's lives. Most of us expected that it would last forever -- that it would prove as timeless as a Frank Capra movie. But those entrusted with the duty to safeguard it have exercised their legal right to make another choice. Dura lex, sed lex. The law is harsh, but it is the law.

HP employees are now on a new ship, being taken on a new voyage. The company has even changed its stock symbol to HPQ to stress that the "old" HP is gone. For the sake of the surviving employees, of course I hope for a good outcome. But it is hard to imagine that their leaders can invent something better than what they left behind.

David W. Packard
The Stanford Theatre Foundation.

"The San Jose Mercury News also has a short article about Packard's message.

"Editorial Content: HP's road to the merger has been the subject of much lunchtime controversy out here. As one of the "founders" of Silicon Valley, Hewlett Packard has for decades been a highly respected institution who earned their reputation through solid engineering and research, and by creating a legendary workplace envied the world over.

"Especially in the Valley, people within and without HP came to feel as David Packard did; that The HP Way would survive management fads and fickle stockholders, and serve as a lasting example of How To Do It Right. But HP's current management has won the right to move onward; to where, no one is sure.

"Though the company is still there, the HP mythos and The HP Way seem to be gone. All anyone can do now is watch and see what happens next."

ewhac writes "David W. Packard, son of HP's co-founder of the same name, obviously has some strong feelings on the merger between HP and Compaq. Today he shared those feelings on a poster put up in the lobby at the Stanford Theatre. The text of his message appears below. David W. Packard is president of The Stanford Theatre Foundation, a non-profit organization formed in the 1980's to save the classic Stanford Theatre in Palo Alto, CA, from destruction. He is also the son of HP co-founder David Packard, and has been very close to the company and The HP Way."

ewhac continues: "Today, he shared his thoughts on the merger in the form of a poster placed in the Stanford Theatre lobby:

Hewlett Packard
1938 -- 2002
R.I.P.

The Stanford Theatre still exists today only because of the employees of the Hewlett Packard Company. Without their achievements over the years, there would have been no foundation to purchase and restore this theatre.

Palo Alto might have had one more book store, or perhaps another restaurant. Architects had plans ready for a new "Casablanca Cafe" at this location when the Packard Foundation rescued the theater in 1987.

The Hewlett Packard Company was founded in 1938 in a garage on Addison Street only a few blocks from where you are now standing. Back then, the Stanford Theatre was showing brand new movies. In 1938 you could have seen Cary Grant and Katharine Hepburn in Bringing Up Baby and Holiday . You could have seen Errol Flynn in The Adventures of Robin Hood . You could have seen Alice Faye, Don Ameche, Ethel Merman, and Tyrone Power in Alexander's Ragtime Band . You could have seen Jimmy Stewart and Jean Arthur in Frank Capra's You Can't Take It With You . You still can see these same movies at the Stanford Theatre. Our audiences know that they are truly timeless.

The HP Way also touched many people's lives. Most of us expected that it would last forever -- that it would prove as timeless as a Frank Capra movie. But those entrusted with the duty to safeguard it have exercised their legal right to make another choice. Dura lex, sed lex. The law is harsh, but it is the law.

HP employees are now on a new ship, being taken on a new voyage. The company has even changed its stock symbol to HPQ to stress that the "old" HP is gone. For the sake of the surviving employees, of course I hope for a good outcome. But it is hard to imagine that their leaders can invent something better than what they left behind.

David W. Packard
The Stanford Theatre Foundation.

"The San Jose Mercury News also has a short article about Packard's message.

"Editorial Content: HP's road to the merger has been the subject of much lunchtime controversy out here. As one of the "founders" of Silicon Valley, Hewlett Packard has for decades been a highly respected institution who earned their reputation through solid engineering and research, and by creating a legendary workplace envied the world over.

"Especially in the Valley, people within and without HP came to feel as David Packard did; that The HP Way would survive management fads and fickle stockholders, and serve as a lasting example of How To Do It Right. But HP's current management has won the right to move onward; to where, no one is sure.

"Though the company is still there, the HP mythos and The HP Way seem to be gone. All anyone can do now is watch and see what happens next."

ewhac writes "David W. Packard, son of HP's co-founder of the same name, obviously has some strong feelings on the merger between HP and Compaq. Today he shared those feelings on a poster put up in the lobby at the Stanford Theatre. The text of his message appears below. David W. Packard is president of The Stanford Theatre Foundation, a non-profit organization formed in the 1980's to save the classic Stanford Theatre in Palo Alto, CA, from destruction. He is also the son of HP co-founder David Packard, and has been very close to the company and The HP Way."

ewhac continues: "Today, he shared his thoughts on the merger in the form of a poster placed in the Stanford Theatre lobby:

Hewlett Packard
1938 -- 2002
R.I.P.

The Stanford Theatre still exists today only because of the employees of the Hewlett Packard Company. Without their achievements over the years, there would have been no foundation to purchase and restore this theatre.

Palo Alto might have had one more book store, or perhaps another restaurant. Architects had plans ready for a new "Casablanca Cafe" at this location when the Packard Foundation rescued the theater in 1987.

The Hewlett Packard Company was founded in 1938 in a garage on Addison Street only a few blocks from where you are now standing. Back then, the Stanford Theatre was showing brand new movies. In 1938 you could have seen Cary Grant and Katharine Hepburn in Bringing Up Baby and Holiday . You could have seen Errol Flynn in The Adventures of Robin Hood . You could have seen Alice Faye, Don Ameche, Ethel Merman, and Tyrone Power in Alexander's Ragtime Band . You could have seen Jimmy Stewart and Jean Arthur in Frank Capra's You Can't Take It With You . You still can see these same movies at the Stanford Theatre. Our audiences know that they are truly timeless.

The HP Way also touched many people's lives. Most of us expected that it would last forever -- that it would prove as timeless as a Frank Capra movie. But those entrusted with the duty to safeguard it have exercised their legal right to make another choice. Dura lex, sed lex. The law is harsh, but it is the law.

HP employees are now on a new ship, being taken on a new voyage. The company has even changed its stock symbol to HPQ to stress that the "old" HP is gone. For the sake of the surviving employees, of course I hope for a good outcome. But it is hard to imagine that their leaders can invent something better than what they left behind.

David W. Packard
The Stanford Theatre Foundation.

"The San Jose Mercury News also has a short article about Packard's message.

"Editorial Content: HP's road to the merger has been the subject of much lunchtime controversy out here. As one of the "founders" of Silicon Valley, Hewlett Packard has for decades been a highly respected institution who earned their reputation through solid engineering and research, and by creating a legendary workplace envied the world over.

"Especially in the Valley, people within and without HP came to feel as David Packard did; that The HP Way would survive management fads and fickle stockholders, and serve as a lasting example of How To Do It Right. But HP's current management has won the right to move onward; to where, no one is sure.

"Though the company is still there, the HP mythos and The HP Way seem to be gone. All anyone can do now is watch and see what happens next."

ewhac writes "David W. Packard, son of HP's co-founder of the same name, obviously has some strong feelings on the merger between HP and Compaq. Today he shared those feelings on a poster put up in the lobby at the Stanford Theatre. The text of his message appears below. David W. Packard is president of The Stanford Theatre Foundation, a non-profit organization formed in the 1980's to save the classic Stanford Theatre in Palo Alto, CA, from destruction. He is also the son of HP co-founder David Packard, and has been very close to the company and The HP Way."

ewhac continues: "Today, he shared his thoughts on the merger in the form of a poster placed in the Stanford Theatre lobby:

Hewlett Packard
1938 -- 2002
R.I.P.

The Stanford Theatre still exists today only because of the employees of the Hewlett Packard Company. Without their achievements over the years, there would have been no foundation to purchase and restore this theatre.

Palo Alto might have had one more book store, or perhaps another restaurant. Architects had plans ready for a new "Casablanca Cafe" at this location when the Packard Foundation rescued the theater in 1987.

The Hewlett Packard Company was founded in 1938 in a garage on Addison Street only a few blocks from where you are now standing. Back then, the Stanford Theatre was showing brand new movies. In 1938 you could have seen Cary Grant and Katharine Hepburn in Bringing Up Baby and Holiday . You could have seen Errol Flynn in The Adventures of Robin Hood . You could have seen Alice Faye, Don Ameche, Ethel Merman, and Tyrone Power in Alexander's Ragtime Band . You could have seen Jimmy Stewart and Jean Arthur in Frank Capra's You Can't Take It With You . You still can see these same movies at the Stanford Theatre. Our audiences know that they are truly timeless.

The HP Way also touched many people's lives. Most of us expected that it would last forever -- that it would prove as timeless as a Frank Capra movie. But those entrusted with the duty to safeguard it have exercised their legal right to make another choice. Dura lex, sed lex. The law is harsh, but it is the law.

HP employees are now on a new ship, being taken on a new voyage. The company has even changed its stock symbol to HPQ to stress that the "old" HP is gone. For the sake of the surviving employees, of course I hope for a good outcome. But it is hard to imagine that their leaders can invent something better than what they left behind.

David W. Packard
The Stanford Theatre Foundation.

"The San Jose Mercury News also has a short article about Packard's message.

"Editorial Content: HP's road to the merger has been the subject of much lunchtime controversy out here. As one of the "founders" of Silicon Valley, Hewlett Packard has for decades been a highly respected institution who earned their reputation through solid engineering and research, and by creating a legendary workplace envied the world over.

"Especially in the Valley, people within and without HP came to feel as David Packard did; that The HP Way would survive management fads and fickle stockholders, and serve as a lasting example of How To Do It Right. But HP's current management has won the right to move onward; to where, no one is sure.

"Though the company is still there, the HP mythos and The HP Way seem to be gone. All anyone can do now is watch and see what happens next."

ewhac writes "David W. Packard, son of HP's co-founder of the same name, obviously has some strong feelings on the merger between HP and Compaq. Today he shared those feelings on a poster put up in the lobby at the Stanford Theatre. The text of his message appears below. David W. Packard is president of The Stanford Theatre Foundation, a non-profit organization formed in the 1980's to save the classic Stanford Theatre in Palo Alto, CA, from destruction. He is also the son of HP co-founder David Packard, and has been very close to the company and The HP Way."

ewhac continues: "Today, he shared his thoughts on the merger in the form of a poster placed in the Stanford Theatre lobby:

Hewlett Packard
1938 -- 2002
R.I.P.

The Stanford Theatre still exists today only because of the employees of the Hewlett Packard Company. Without their achievements over the years, there would have been no foundation to purchase and restore this theatre.

Palo Alto might have had one more book store, or perhaps another restaurant. Architects had plans ready for a new "Casablanca Cafe" at this location when the Packard Foundation rescued the theater in 1987.

The Hewlett Packard Company was founded in 1938 in a garage on Addison Street only a few blocks from where you are now standing. Back then, the Stanford Theatre was showing brand new movies. In 1938 you could have seen Cary Grant and Katharine Hepburn in Bringing Up Baby and Holiday . You could have seen Errol Flynn in The Adventures of Robin Hood . You could have seen Alice Faye, Don Ameche, Ethel Merman, and Tyrone Power in Alexander's Ragtime Band . You could have seen Jimmy Stewart and Jean Arthur in Frank Capra's You Can't Take It With You . You still can see these same movies at the Stanford Theatre. Our audiences know that they are truly timeless.

The HP Way also touched many people's lives. Most of us expected that it would last forever -- that it would prove as timeless as a Frank Capra movie. But those entrusted with the duty to safeguard it have exercised their legal right to make another choice. Dura lex, sed lex. The law is harsh, but it is the law.

HP employees are now on a new ship, being taken on a new voyage. The company has even changed its stock symbol to HPQ to stress that the "old" HP is gone. For the sake of the surviving employees, of course I hope for a good outcome. But it is hard to imagine that their leaders can invent something better than what they left behind.

David W. Packard
The Stanford Theatre Foundation.

"The San Jose Mercury News also has a short article about Packard's message.

"Editorial Content: HP's road to the merger has been the subject of much lunchtime controversy out here. As one of the "founders" of Silicon Valley, Hewlett Packard has for decades been a highly respected institution who earned their reputation through solid engineering and research, and by creating a legendary workplace envied the world over.

"Especially in the Valley, people within and without HP came to feel as David Packard did; that The HP Way would survive management fads and fickle stockholders, and serve as a lasting example of How To Do It Right. But HP's current management has won the right to move onward; to where, no one is sure.

"Though the company is still there, the HP mythos and The HP Way seem to be gone. All anyone can do now is watch and see what happens next."

ewhac writes "David W. Packard, son of HP's co-founder of the same name, obviously has some strong feelings on the merger between HP and Compaq. Today he shared those feelings on a poster put up in the lobby at the Stanford Theatre. The text of his message appears below. David W. Packard is president of The Stanford Theatre Foundation, a non-profit organization formed in the 1980's to save the classic Stanford Theatre in Palo Alto, CA, from destruction. He is also the son of HP co-founder David Packard, and has been very close to the company and The HP Way."

ewhac continues: "Today, he shared his thoughts on the merger in the form of a poster placed in the Stanford Theatre lobby:

Hewlett Packard
1938 -- 2002
R.I.P.

The Stanford Theatre still exists today only because of the employees of the Hewlett Packard Company. Without their achievements over the years, there would have been no foundation to purchase and restore this theatre.

Palo Alto might have had one more book store, or perhaps another restaurant. Architects had plans ready for a new "Casablanca Cafe" at this location when the Packard Foundation rescued the theater in 1987.

The Hewlett Packard Company was founded in 1938 in a garage on Addison Street only a few blocks from where you are now standing. Back then, the Stanford Theatre was showing brand new movies. In 1938 you could have seen Cary Grant and Katharine Hepburn in Bringing Up Baby and Holiday . You could have seen Errol Flynn in The Adventures of Robin Hood . You could have seen Alice Faye, Don Ameche, Ethel Merman, and Tyrone Power in Alexander's Ragtime Band . You could have seen Jimmy Stewart and Jean Arthur in Frank Capra's You Can't Take It With You . You still can see these same movies at the Stanford Theatre. Our audiences know that they are truly timeless.

The HP Way also touched many people's lives. Most of us expected that it would last forever -- that it would prove as timeless as a Frank Capra movie. But those entrusted with the duty to safeguard it have exercised their legal right to make another choice. Dura lex, sed lex. The law is harsh, but it is the law.

HP employees are now on a new ship, being taken on a new voyage. The company has even changed its stock symbol to HPQ to stress that the "old" HP is gone. For the sake of the surviving employees, of course I hope for a good outcome. But it is hard to imagine that their leaders can invent something better than what they left behind.

David W. Packard
The Stanford Theatre Foundation.

"The San Jose Mercury News also has a short article about Packard's message.

"Editorial Content: HP's road to the merger has been the subject of much lunchtime controversy out here. As one of the "founders" of Silicon Valley, Hewlett Packard has for decades been a highly respected institution who earned their reputation through solid engineering and research, and by creating a legendary workplace envied the world over.

"Especially in the Valley, people within and without HP came to feel as David Packard did; that The HP Way would survive management fads and fickle stockholders, and serve as a lasting example of How To Do It Right. But HP's current management has won the right to move onward; to where, no one is sure.

"Though the company is still there, the HP mythos and The HP Way seem to be gone. All anyone can do now is watch and see what happens next."

ewhac writes "David W. Packard, son of HP's co-founder of the same name, obviously has some strong feelings on the merger between HP and Compaq. Today he shared those feelings on a poster put up in the lobby at the Stanford Theatre. The text of his message appears below. David W. Packard is president of The Stanford Theatre Foundation, a non-profit organization formed in the 1980's to save the classic Stanford Theatre in Palo Alto, CA, from destruction. He is also the son of HP co-founder David Packard, and has been very close to the company and The HP Way."

ewhac continues: "Today, he shared his thoughts on the merger in the form of a poster placed in the Stanford Theatre lobby:

Hewlett Packard
1938 -- 2002
R.I.P.

The Stanford Theatre still exists today only because of the employees of the Hewlett Packard Company. Without their achievements over the years, there would have been no foundation to purchase and restore this theatre.

Palo Alto might have had one more book store, or perhaps another restaurant. Architects had plans ready for a new "Casablanca Cafe" at this location when the Packard Foundation rescued the theater in 1987.

The Hewlett Packard Company was founded in 1938 in a garage on Addison Street only a few blocks from where you are now standing. Back then, the Stanford Theatre was showing brand new movies. In 1938 you could have seen Cary Grant and Katharine Hepburn in Bringing Up Baby and Holiday . You could have seen Errol Flynn in The Adventures of Robin Hood . You could have seen Alice Faye, Don Ameche, Ethel Merman, and Tyrone Power in Alexander's Ragtime Band . You could have seen Jimmy Stewart and Jean Arthur in Frank Capra's You Can't Take It With You . You still can see these same movies at the Stanford Theatre. Our audiences know that they are truly timeless.

The HP Way also touched many people's lives. Most of us expected that it would last forever -- that it would prove as timeless as a Frank Capra movie. But those entrusted with the duty to safeguard it have exercised their legal right to make another choice. Dura lex, sed lex. The law is harsh, but it is the law.

HP employees are now on a new ship, being taken on a new voyage. The company has even changed its stock symbol to HPQ to stress that the "old" HP is gone. For the sake of the surviving employees, of course I hope for a good outcome. But it is hard to imagine that their leaders can invent something better than what they left behind.

David W. Packard
The Stanford Theatre Foundation.

"The San Jose Mercury News also has a short article about Packard's message.

"Editorial Content: HP's road to the merger has been the subject of much lunchtime controversy out here. As one of the "founders" of Silicon Valley, Hewlett Packard has for decades been a highly respected institution who earned their reputation through solid engineering and research, and by creating a legendary workplace envied the world over.

"Especially in the Valley, people within and without HP came to feel as David Packard did; that The HP Way would survive management fads and fickle stockholders, and serve as a lasting example of How To Do It Right. But HP's current management has won the right to move onward; to where, no one is sure.

"Though the company is still there, the HP mythos and The HP Way seem to be gone. All anyone can do now is watch and see what happens next."

ewhac writes "David W. Packard, son of HP's co-founder of the same name, obviously has some strong feelings on the merger between HP and Compaq. Today he shared those feelings on a poster put up in the lobby at the Stanford Theatre. The text of his message appears below. David W. Packard is president of The Stanford Theatre Foundation, a non-profit organization formed in the 1980's to save the classic Stanford Theatre in Palo Alto, CA, from destruction. He is also the son of HP co-founder David Packard, and has been very close to the company and The HP Way."

ewhac continues: "Today, he shared his thoughts on the merger in the form of a poster placed in the Stanford Theatre lobby:

Hewlett Packard
1938 -- 2002
R.I.P.

The Stanford Theatre still exists today only because of the employees of the Hewlett Packard Company. Without their achievements over the years, there would have been no foundation to purchase and restore this theatre.

Palo Alto might have had one more book store, or perhaps another restaurant. Architects had plans ready for a new "Casablanca Cafe" at this location when the Packard Foundation rescued the theater in 1987.

The Hewlett Packard Company was founded in 1938 in a garage on Addison Street only a few blocks from where you are now standing. Back then, the Stanford Theatre was showing brand new movies. In 1938 you could have seen Cary Grant and Katharine Hepburn in Bringing Up Baby and Holiday . You could have seen Errol Flynn in The Adventures of Robin Hood . You could have seen Alice Faye, Don Ameche, Ethel Merman, and Tyrone Power in Alexander's Ragtime Band . You could have seen Jimmy Stewart and Jean Arthur in Frank Capra's You Can't Take It With You . You still can see these same movies at the Stanford Theatre. Our audiences know that they are truly timeless.

The HP Way also touched many people's lives. Most of us expected that it would last forever -- that it would prove as timeless as a Frank Capra movie. But those entrusted with the duty to safeguard it have exercised their legal right to make another choice. Dura lex, sed lex. The law is harsh, but it is the law.

HP employees are now on a new ship, being taken on a new voyage. The company has even changed its stock symbol to HPQ to stress that the "old" HP is gone. For the sake of the surviving employees, of course I hope for a good outcome. But it is hard to imagine that their leaders can invent something better than what they left behind.

David W. Packard
The Stanford Theatre Foundation.

"The San Jose Mercury News also has a short article about Packard's message.

"Editorial Content: HP's road to the merger has been the subject of much lunchtime controversy out here. As one of the "founders" of Silicon Valley, Hewlett Packard has for decades been a highly respected institution who earned their reputation through solid engineering and research, and by creating a legendary workplace envied the world over.

"Especially in the Valley, people within and without HP came to feel as David Packard did; that The HP Way would survive management fads and fickle stockholders, and serve as a lasting example of How To Do It Right. But HP's current management has won the right to move onward; to where, no one is sure.

"Though the company is still there, the HP mythos and The HP Way seem to be gone. All anyone can do now is watch and see what happens next."

ewhac writes "David W. Packard, son of HP's co-founder of the same name, obviously has some strong feelings on the merger between HP and Compaq. Today he shared those feelings on a poster put up in the lobby at the Stanford Theatre. The text of his message appears below. David W. Packard is president of The Stanford Theatre Foundation, a non-profit organization formed in the 1980's to save the classic Stanford Theatre in Palo Alto, CA, from destruction. He is also the son of HP co-founder David Packard, and has been very close to the company and The HP Way."

ewhac continues: "Today, he shared his thoughts on the merger in the form of a poster placed in the Stanford Theatre lobby:

Hewlett Packard
1938 -- 2002
R.I.P.

The Stanford Theatre still exists today only because of the employees of the Hewlett Packard Company. Without their achievements over the years, there would have been no foundation to purchase and restore this theatre.

Palo Alto might have had one more book store, or perhaps another restaurant. Architects had plans ready for a new "Casablanca Cafe" at this location when the Packard Foundation rescued the theater in 1987.

The Hewlett Packard Company was founded in 1938 in a garage on Addison Street only a few blocks from where you are now standing. Back then, the Stanford Theatre was showing brand new movies. In 1938 you could have seen Cary Grant and Katharine Hepburn in Bringing Up Baby and Holiday . You could have seen Errol Flynn in The Adventures of Robin Hood . You could have seen Alice Faye, Don Ameche, Ethel Merman, and Tyrone Power in Alexander's Ragtime Band . You could have seen Jimmy Stewart and Jean Arthur in Frank Capra's You Can't Take It With You . You still can see these same movies at the Stanford Theatre. Our audiences know that they are truly timeless.

The HP Way also touched many people's lives. Most of us expected that it would last forever -- that it would prove as timeless as a Frank Capra movie. But those entrusted with the duty to safeguard it have exercised their legal right to make another choice. Dura lex, sed lex. The law is harsh, but it is the law.

HP employees are now on a new ship, being taken on a new voyage. The company has even changed its stock symbol to HPQ to stress that the "old" HP is gone. For the sake of the surviving employees, of course I hope for a good outcome. But it is hard to imagine that their leaders can invent something better than what they left behind.

David W. Packard
The Stanford Theatre Foundation.

"The San Jose Mercury News also has a short article about Packard's message.

"Editorial Content: HP's road to the merger has been the subject of much lunchtime controversy out here. As one of the "founders" of Silicon Valley, Hewlett Packard has for decades been a highly respected institution who earned their reputation through solid engineering and research, and by creating a legendary workplace envied the world over.

"Especially in the Valley, people within and without HP came to feel as David Packard did; that The HP Way would survive management fads and fickle stockholders, and serve as a lasting example of How To Do It Right. But HP's current management has won the right to move onward; to where, no one is sure.

"Though the company is still there, the HP mythos and The HP Way seem to be gone. All anyone can do now is watch and see what happens next."

ewhac writes "David W. Packard, son of HP's co-founder of the same name, obviously has some strong feelings on the merger between HP and Compaq. Today he shared those feelings on a poster put up in the lobby at the Stanford Theatre. The text of his message appears below. David W. Packard is president of The Stanford Theatre Foundation, a non-profit organization formed in the 1980's to save the classic Stanford Theatre in Palo Alto, CA, from destruction. He is also the son of HP co-founder David Packard, and has been very close to the company and The HP Way."

ewhac continues: "Today, he shared his thoughts on the merger in the form of a poster placed in the Stanford Theatre lobby:

Hewlett Packard
1938 -- 2002
R.I.P.

The Stanford Theatre still exists today only because of the employees of the Hewlett Packard Company. Without their achievements over the years, there would have been no foundation to purchase and restore this theatre.

Palo Alto might have had one more book store, or perhaps another restaurant. Architects had plans ready for a new "Casablanca Cafe" at this location when the Packard Foundation rescued the theater in 1987.

The Hewlett Packard Company was founded in 1938 in a garage on Addison Street only a few blocks from where you are now standing. Back then, the Stanford Theatre was showing brand new movies. In 1938 you could have seen Cary Grant and Katharine Hepburn in Bringing Up Baby and Holiday . You could have seen Errol Flynn in The Adventures of Robin Hood . You could have seen Alice Faye, Don Ameche, Ethel Merman, and Tyrone Power in Alexander's Ragtime Band . You could have seen Jimmy Stewart and Jean Arthur in Frank Capra's You Can't Take It With You . You still can see these same movies at the Stanford Theatre. Our audiences know that they are truly timeless.

The HP Way also touched many people's lives. Most of us expected that it would last forever -- that it would prove as timeless as a Frank Capra movie. But those entrusted with the duty to safeguard it have exercised their legal right to make another choice. Dura lex, sed lex. The law is harsh, but it is the law.

HP employees are now on a new ship, being taken on a new voyage. The company has even changed its stock symbol to HPQ to stress that the "old" HP is gone. For the sake of the surviving employees, of course I hope for a good outcome. But it is hard to imagine that their leaders can invent something better than what they left behind.

David W. Packard
The Stanford Theatre Foundation.

"The San Jose Mercury News also has a short article about Packard's message.

"Editorial Content: HP's road to the merger has been the subject of much lunchtime controversy out here. As one of the "founders" of Silicon Valley, Hewlett Packard has for decades been a highly respected institution who earned their reputation through solid engineering and research, and by creating a legendary workplace envied the world over.

"Especially in the Valley, people within and without HP came to feel as David Packard did; that The HP Way would survive management fads and fickle stockholders, and serve as a lasting example of How To Do It Right. But HP's current management has won the right to move onward; to where, no one is sure.

"Though the company is still there, the HP mythos and The HP Way seem to be gone. All anyone can do now is watch and see what happens next."

ewhac writes "David W. Packard, son of HP's co-founder of the same name, obviously has some strong feelings on the merger between HP and Compaq. Today he shared those feelings on a poster put up in the lobby at the Stanford Theatre. The text of his message appears below. David W. Packard is president of The Stanford Theatre Foundation, a non-profit organization formed in the 1980's to save the classic Stanford Theatre in Palo Alto, CA, from destruction. He is also the son of HP co-founder David Packard, and has been very close to the company and The HP Way."

ewhac continues: "Today, he shared his thoughts on the merger in the form of a poster placed in the Stanford Theatre lobby:

Hewlett Packard
1938 -- 2002
R.I.P.

The Stanford Theatre still exists today only because of the employees of the Hewlett Packard Company. Without their achievements over the years, there would have been no foundation to purchase and restore this theatre.

Palo Alto might have had one more book store, or perhaps another restaurant. Architects had plans ready for a new "Casablanca Cafe" at this location when the Packard Foundation rescued the theater in 1987.

The Hewlett Packard Company was founded in 1938 in a garage on Addison Street only a few blocks from where you are now standing. Back then, the Stanford Theatre was showing brand new movies. In 1938 you could have seen Cary Grant and Katharine Hepburn in Bringing Up Baby and Holiday . You could have seen Errol Flynn in The Adventures of Robin Hood . You could have seen Alice Faye, Don Ameche, Ethel Merman, and Tyrone Power in Alexander's Ragtime Band . You could have seen Jimmy Stewart and Jean Arthur in Frank Capra's You Can't Take It With You . You still can see these same movies at the Stanford Theatre. Our audiences know that they are truly timeless.

The HP Way also touched many people's lives. Most of us expected that it would last forever -- that it would prove as timeless as a Frank Capra movie. But those entrusted with the duty to safeguard it have exercised their legal right to make another choice. Dura lex, sed lex. The law is harsh, but it is the law.

HP employees are now on a new ship, being taken on a new voyage. The company has even changed its stock symbol to HPQ to stress that the "old" HP is gone. For the sake of the surviving employees, of course I hope for a good outcome. But it is hard to imagine that their leaders can invent something better than what they left behind.

David W. Packard
The Stanford Theatre Foundation.

"The San Jose Mercury News also has a short article about Packard's message.

"Editorial Content: HP's road to the merger has been the subject of much lunchtime controversy out here. As one of the "founders" of Silicon Valley, Hewlett Packard has for decades been a highly respected institution who earned their reputation through solid engineering and research, and by creating a legendary workplace envied the world over.

"Especially in the Valley, people within and without HP came to feel as David Packard did; that The HP Way would survive management fads and fickle stockholders, and serve as a lasting example of How To Do It Right. But HP's current management has won the right to move onward; to where, no one is sure.

"Though the company is still there, the HP mythos and The HP Way seem to be gone. All anyone can do now is watch and see what happens next."

ewhac writes "David W. Packard, son of HP's co-founder of the same name, obviously has some strong feelings on the merger between HP and Compaq. Today he shared those feelings on a poster put up in the lobby at the Stanford Theatre. The text of his message appears below. David W. Packard is president of The Stanford Theatre Foundation, a non-profit organization formed in the 1980's to save the classic Stanford Theatre in Palo Alto, CA, from destruction. He is also the son of HP co-founder David Packard, and has been very close to the company and The HP Way."

ewhac continues: "Today, he shared his thoughts on the merger in the form of a poster placed in the Stanford Theatre lobby:

Hewlett Packard
1938 -- 2002
R.I.P.

The Stanford Theatre still exists today only because of the employees of the Hewlett Packard Company. Without their achievements over the years, there would have been no foundation to purchase and restore this theatre.

Palo Alto might have had one more book store, or perhaps another restaurant. Architects had plans ready for a new "Casablanca Cafe" at this location when the Packard Foundation rescued the theater in 1987.

The Hewlett Packard Company was founded in 1938 in a garage on Addison Street only a few blocks from where you are now standing. Back then, the Stanford Theatre was showing brand new movies. In 1938 you could have seen Cary Grant and Katharine Hepburn in Bringing Up Baby and Holiday . You could have seen Errol Flynn in The Adventures of Robin Hood . You could have seen Alice Faye, Don Ameche, Ethel Merman, and Tyrone Power in Alexander's Ragtime Band . You could have seen Jimmy Stewart and Jean Arthur in Frank Capra's You Can't Take It With You . You still can see these same movies at the Stanford Theatre. Our audiences know that they are truly timeless.

The HP Way also touched many people's lives. Most of us expected that it would last forever -- that it would prove as timeless as a Frank Capra movie. But those entrusted with the duty to safeguard it have exercised their legal right to make another choice. Dura lex, sed lex. The law is harsh, but it is the law.

HP employees are now on a new ship, being taken on a new voyage. The company has even changed its stock symbol to HPQ to stress that the "old" HP is gone. For the sake of the surviving employees, of course I hope for a good outcome. But it is hard to imagine that their leaders can invent something better than what they left behind.

David W. Packard
The Stanford Theatre Foundation.

"The San Jose Mercury News also has a short article about Packard's message.

"Editorial Content: HP's road to the merger has been the subject of much lunchtime controversy out here. As one of the "founders" of Silicon Valley, Hewlett Packard has for decades been a highly respected institution who earned their reputation through solid engineering and research, and by creating a legendary workplace envied the world over.

"Especially in the Valley, people within and without HP came to feel as David Packard did; that The HP Way would survive management fads and fickle stockholders, and serve as a lasting example of How To Do It Right. But HP's current management has won the right to move onward; to where, no one is sure.

"Though the company is still there, the HP mythos and The HP Way seem to be gone. All anyone can do now is watch and see what happens next."

ewhac writes "David W. Packard, son of HP's co-founder of the same name, obviously has some strong feelings on the merger between HP and Compaq. Today he shared those feelings on a poster put up in the lobby at the Stanford Theatre. The text of his message appears below. David W. Packard is president of The Stanford Theatre Foundation, a non-profit organization formed in the 1980's to save the classic Stanford Theatre in Palo Alto, CA, from destruction. He is also the son of HP co-founder David Packard, and has been very close to the company and The HP Way."

ewhac continues: "Today, he shared his thoughts on the merger in the form of a poster placed in the Stanford Theatre lobby:

Hewlett Packard
1938 -- 2002
R.I.P.

The Stanford Theatre still exists today only because of the employees of the Hewlett Packard Company. Without their achievements over the years, there would have been no foundation to purchase and restore this theatre.

Palo Alto might have had one more book store, or perhaps another restaurant. Architects had plans ready for a new "Casablanca Cafe" at this location when the Packard Foundation rescued the theater in 1987.

The Hewlett Packard Company was founded in 1938 in a garage on Addison Street only a few blocks from where you are now standing. Back then, the Stanford Theatre was showing brand new movies. In 1938 you could have seen Cary Grant and Katharine Hepburn in Bringing Up Baby and Holiday . You could have seen Errol Flynn in The Adventures of Robin Hood . You could have seen Alice Faye, Don Ameche, Ethel Merman, and Tyrone Power in Alexander's Ragtime Band . You could have seen Jimmy Stewart and Jean Arthur in Frank Capra's You Can't Take It With You . You still can see these same movies at the Stanford Theatre. Our audiences know that they are truly timeless.

The HP Way also touched many people's lives. Most of us expected that it would last forever -- that it would prove as timeless as a Frank Capra movie. But those entrusted with the duty to safeguard it have exercised their legal right to make another choice. Dura lex, sed lex. The law is harsh, but it is the law.

HP employees are now on a new ship, being taken on a new voyage. The company has even changed its stock symbol to HPQ to stress that the "old" HP is gone. For the sake of the surviving employees, of course I hope for a good outcome. But it is hard to imagine that their leaders can invent something better than what they left behind.

David W. Packard
The Stanford Theatre Foundation.

"The San Jose Mercury News also has a short article about Packard's message.

"Editorial Content: HP's road to the merger has been the subject of much lunchtime controversy out here. As one of the "founders" of Silicon Valley, Hewlett Packard has for decades been a highly respected institution who earned their reputation through solid engineering and research, and by creating a legendary workplace envied the world over.

"Especially in the Valley, people within and without HP came to feel as David Packard did; that The HP Way would survive management fads and fickle stockholders, and serve as a lasting example of How To Do It Right. But HP's current management has won the right to move onward; to where, no one is sure.

"Though the company is still there, the HP mythos and The HP Way seem to be gone. All anyone can do now is watch and see what happens next."

ewhac writes "David W. Packard, son of HP's co-founder of the same name, obviously has some strong feelings on the merger between HP and Compaq. Today he shared those feelings on a poster put up in the lobby at the Stanford Theatre. The text of his message appears below. David W. Packard is president of The Stanford Theatre Foundation, a non-profit organization formed in the 1980's to save the classic Stanford Theatre in Palo Alto, CA, from destruction. He is also the son of HP co-founder David Packard, and has been very close to the company and The HP Way."

ewhac continues: "Today, he shared his thoughts on the merger in the form of a poster placed in the Stanford Theatre lobby:

Hewlett Packard
1938 -- 2002
R.I.P.

The Stanford Theatre still exists today only because of the employees of the Hewlett Packard Company. Without their achievements over the years, there would have been no foundation to purchase and restore this theatre.

Palo Alto might have had one more book store, or perhaps another restaurant. Architects had plans ready for a new "Casablanca Cafe" at this location when the Packard Foundation rescued the theater in 1987.

The Hewlett Packard Company was founded in 1938 in a garage on Addison Street only a few blocks from where you are now standing. Back then, the Stanford Theatre was showing brand new movies. In 1938 you could have seen Cary Grant and Katharine Hepburn in Bringing Up Baby and Holiday . You could have seen Errol Flynn in The Adventures of Robin Hood . You could have seen Alice Faye, Don Ameche, Ethel Merman, and Tyrone Power in Alexander's Ragtime Band . You could have seen Jimmy Stewart and Jean Arthur in Frank Capra's You Can't Take It With You . You still can see these same movies at the Stanford Theatre. Our audiences know that they are truly timeless.

The HP Way also touched many people's lives. Most of us expected that it would last forever -- that it would prove as timeless as a Frank Capra movie. But those entrusted with the duty to safeguard it have exercised their legal right to make another choice. Dura lex, sed lex. The law is harsh, but it is the law.

HP employees are now on a new ship, being taken on a new voyage. The company has even changed its stock symbol to HPQ to stress that the "old" HP is gone. For the sake of the surviving employees, of course I hope for a good outcome. But it is hard to imagine that their leaders can invent something better than what they left behind.

David W. Packard
The Stanford Theatre Foundation.

"The San Jose Mercury News also has a short article about Packard's message.

"Editorial Content: HP's road to the merger has been the subject of much lunchtime controversy out here. As one of the "founders" of Silicon Valley, Hewlett Packard has for decades been a highly respected institution who earned their reputation through solid engineering and research, and by creating a legendary workplace envied the world over.

"Especially in the Valley, people within and without HP came to feel as David Packard did; that The HP Way would survive management fads and fickle stockholders, and serve as a lasting example of How To Do It Right. But HP's current management has won the right to move onward; to where, no one is sure.

"Though the company is still there, the HP mythos and The HP Way seem to be gone. All anyone can do now is watch and see what happens next."