HARRISON ELLENSHAW INTERVIEW 1 page 2

Ahem: In the press releases you state that blue screen was used as opposed to front projection because of personal taste - yet Margot Kidder said in a documentary that Cannon could not afford front projection. Which is the real truth?

Harrison Ellenshaw: I'm busted! Though I will say in my defense that in a press release you never say anything derogatory about a budget. And in this case I didn't want to say we did effects a certain way because it was cheaper, so I just used the old 'personal taste' excuse. Yes, Margot was right, but it was a little more complicated than that. For the first films they did consider blue screen as a method to make Superman fly but since he wears a blue suit this can make optical compositing extremely difficult. Another disadvantage to blue screen is that (especially then) it could take months to see a composite with front projection the finished shot is in next day's dailies. And if it doesn't look right, then you have an immediate opportunity to reshoot it.

And this was often the case. But with blue screen it can be many months before you know if a shot is successful or not, and by then it usually too late to reshoot. I realize this begs the question, why didn't we use the Zoptic system or front projection on Superman IV? Well, it was seriously considered, but rejected due to those nasty budget considerations.

You see, the number of flying shots in Superman IV was about 280, if I remember correctly, more than the first three films combined. Since front projection is usually more expensive than blue screen compositing, it was the logical decision to opt for blue screen.

Ahem: Why is front projection more expensive than traveling matte [blue screen] photography and compositing?

Harrison Ellenshaw: In order to use front screen projection you have to shoot the backgrounds first. This takes a great deal of preparation and care while shooting to be certain you have the proper backgrounds. Then the production schedule of front screen projection is longer than blue screen shooting, because setup time generally takes about three or four times as long as shooting someone in front of just a blue screen. As an aside it should be noted that there are a few blue screen shots in the early films. Still we knew utilizing blue screen exclusively would not be easy. For the first three films, most of the effects work was done in the UK. But with the potential of so many blue screen composites, we knew would have to enlist a ignificant number of effects houses to do shots. We knew ILM and Boss Film were too expensive, so we asked a number of English effects facilities and thirteen US effects facilities to do tests and bid on the work. The British houses respectfully declined the work calling the blue screen footage unusable [in spite of the fact it was shot under the supervision of Stanley Sayer -- the British blue screen expert -- with an all English crew]. Perhaps they were reacting to the fact that the new production entity responsible for Superman IV was no longer the Salkinds but London Cannon Films, a company well known for their, how shall I say: 'cost efficiencies?' We ended up using primarily four US effects companies with backup from about three others.

All of us were thrilled to be working on a Superman film, but it was true that there was constant pressure to stick to a very tight budget. In filmmaking the need to keep costs down is pretty commonplace. Budgets are like bad thunderstorms, there's nothing you can do about them, just learn to live with them and try not to get hit by lightning.

Ahem: What was your relationship with Sidney Furie like?

Harrison Ellenshaw: One of my favorite films has always been the Ipcress File (1967), directed by Sidney. In fact I can remember seeing it at the Chinese theatre in Hollywood. Michael Caine was so cool and the look of the film was even cooler, so I was intrigued and excited when I got a call from Kevin Elders at 20th Century Fox asking me to come and meet with he and Sidney as they were in preproduction on a film called Marvel of the Haunted Castle. I got the job as visual effects supervisor and for the next six months we were immersed in preproduction. Suddenly the management team at Fox was replaced suddenly and so, just as suddenly, our effects epic got shelved. Then, as I indicated, few years later, Sidney and I were brought together again. We went through a lot on Superman IV, so I was lucky to develop a very close relationship with him. There was great deal of pressure on Sidney to produce a successful sequel, but to do so on a much smaller budget than any of the first three films. In spite of this Sidney managed to shoot what  should have been the foundation for a reasonably good film. But we will never know how good it might have been because a key character, Superman IV Nuclearman I was taken out at the last minute by the studio in a desperate attempt to shorten the film.

Ahem: Superman IV was originally 134 minutes long and featured a sub plot with the character you mentioned, Nuclearman 1. What was your reaction to the decision to drop the 'Nuclearman 1' sequence?

Harrison Ellenshaw: In my opinion, Nuclearman 1 was a key character to the story. Lex's first attempt at the creation of a super hero to battle Superman contributed a number of subtleties to the story which, when eliminated made the film far less intriguing or interesting. Lost with the cut footage were some key elements. For example, Nuclearman 1 provided Superman with someone he could fight and defeat early in the film any comic book hero has to show his stuff early [and often], otherwise we tend to lose interest in a hurry.

[The subway rescue is not dramatic enough to replace the Nuclearman 1 sequence by any means.] Also, Nuclearman 1 revealed that Lex's first cloning attempts were not entirely successful. This proved that Lex wasn't perfect. The cut footage also explained why he needed to find someone who could kill Superman. Lex created Nuclearman 1 in a petri dish this [intended] similarity to Dr Frankenstein and his monster was both a humorous and revealing touch. The film was far better with Nuclearman 1. The ill informed decision, made by high placed Warner Brothers executives to cut the sequence was regrettable, especially considering there was plenty of other far less critical cuts that could have easily been made. Other consequences resulted from the shortened version of the film. Without a Nuclearman 1 there is no joke or payoff to Nuclearman 2. If Nuclearman 1 had stayed the casting of Mark Pillow as Nuclearman 2 makes perfect sense. He is Lex's successful version of a more powerful than Superman pretty boy super hero. Without the contrast to scruffy Nuclearman 1, we lose the humor and irony.

We may never know if the inclusion of Nuclearman 1 would have made Superman IVa successful film, but it certainly suffered greatly without it.

PAGE 3