"20,000 Leauges Under the Sea" in Classic Disney Scares Forum

0 Points

Forum Jump

"20,000 Leauges Under the Sea"

Author	Comment
bipolarber	"20,000 Leauges Under the Sea"	Lead	[-]
Jul 17 09 10:48 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Surprisingly, we don't seem to have a thread for this one yet. Which is a bit odd, since I consider it to be the best adaptation of Verne ever done. Certainly, as a "Disney Scare" The giant squid sequence ranks right up there with some of the greatest monster battles in film history. Hant to hand... er... hand to tentacle, close quarter fighting! I remember distinctly the scene where Ned Land breaks out of his compartment, and rushes to the hatch, trying to find out what is happening, and the crewman of the Nautilus falls down the stairs to his feet, the crewman's face riddled with "squid hickeys." (I think I pretty much came up out of my seat at that point!) A great behind the scenes story, which I've always been curious about: Aparently, to maximize the impact of 20kLUTS, Walt was determined to shoot the film in Cinemascope, which at the time was a recent invention. So much so that the lenses to do it with had to be leased, and there was a waiting list. Walt wanted to get the movie rolling, so he told the miniatures unit to go ahead and build a Nautilus miniature which was "squeezed" along it's length, so they could shoot with regular lenses, and when projected through cinemascope, the sub would look normal. (They didn't worry about the surrounding sea floor, since it was so abstract in nature, you couldn't really tell anyway.) I've always wondered if this "fish story" might not just be something old FX guys tell the gullible or not. I've never seen a production photo of the squeezed model, to prove it. "[The audiance] will populate the darkness with more horrors than all the horror writers in Hollywood could think of. If you make the screen dark enough, the mind's eye will read anything into it you want! We're great ones for the dark patches." -VAL LEWTON
HalLane		#1	[-]
Jul 18 09 8:25 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	When I was at Walt Disney World several years ago, I discovered what looked to be actual filming models of The Nautilus on display, tucked away in obscure corners of the park. One was detailed on the port side, the other on the starboard. Both were normally proportioned. Doesn't mean they didn't experiment with that squeezing trick, though. Sounds like the kind of thing Ub Iwerks might have come up with. 20,000 LEAGUES is in my All Time Top Three rotation of Science Fiction films (the order changes with the wind). I think it's Disney's best film. And it's no doubt responsible for my fear/fascination with deep water to this day. I'd love, in fact, to hang the one sheet on the wall, but it actually scares me to look at it!
The Maskahuna		#2	[-]
Jul 18 09 2:55 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	In the late 1960s, the great squid was on display at Disneyland park. I used to stand there, transfixed, just watching its tentacles undulate until my family dragged me from the building.
ryanbrennan		#3	[-]
Jul 19 09 12:21 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Here's an earlier thread: http://monsterkidclassichorrorforum.yuku.com/topic/18720
ryanbrennan		#4	[-]
Jul 19 09 12:37 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Aparently, to maximize the impact of 20kLUTS, Walt was determined to shoot the film in Cinemascope, which at the time was a recent invention. So much so that the lenses to do it with had to be leased, and there was a waiting list. Walt wanted to get the movie rolling, so he told the miniatures unit to go ahead and build a Nautilus miniature which was "squeezed" along it's length, so they could shoot with regular lenses, and when projected through cinemascope, the sub would look normal. (They didn't worry about the surrounding sea floor, since it was so abstract in nature, you couldn't really tell anyway.) I've always wondered if this "fish story" might not just be something old FX guys tell the gullible or not. I've never seen a production photo of the squeezed model, to prove it. That's what Joel Frazier and Harry Hathorne reported in their 1984 retrospect on the movie for CFQ magazine.
ryanbrennan		#5	[-]
Jul 19 09 1:56 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	There are a couple of underwater shots -- one of a manta ray, another of an octopus -- that were shot flat but used anyway with the expected stretch. And, near the end, the explosion of the island was covered with two cameras -- one the CinemaScope camera, the other a 35mm taking flat footage. The first shot in which we see the explosion is the CinemaScope footage. Then there are reaction shots of the principal characters followed by a repeat of the explosion in flat 35mm, but from a different angle. The anamorphic stretch is very obvious.
BijouBob8mm		#6	[-]
Jul 23 09 2:23 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Walt wanted to get the movie rolling, so he told the miniatures unit to go ahead and build a Nautilus miniature which was "squeezed" along it's length, so they could shoot with regular lenses, and when projected through cinemascope, the sub would look normal. (They didn't worry about the surrounding sea floor, since it was so abstract in nature, you couldn't really tell anyway.) I've always wondered if this "fish story" might not just be something old FX guys tell the gullible or not. I've never seen a production photo of the squeezed model, to prove it. I've seen at least one photograph of that model. (Did it end up at the Ackermansion?) I believe some of the footage using the squeezed miniature is pointed out (maybe in the commentary, or in the documentary) on the double DVD set. A clue to when that model was used is that the bubbles look a bit different. (When the image is projected in Cinemascope, it unsqueezes the miniature, but it also stretches out everything else in the frame.) When I was at Walt Disney World several years ago, I discovered what looked to be actual filming models of The Nautilus on display, tucked away in obscure corners of the park. Back around 1976, one of the filming miniatures was on display in the Disney Museum at Disney World. I had just ran out of film before finding it. (On a more positive note, I shot a bunch of Super 8 film of the Nautilus ride, which unfortunately no longer exists.) A fantastic piece of craftsmanship, I could have stared at it all day. There were some illuminated color transparencies from the film as part of the display.
ryanbrennan		#7	[-]
Jul 24 09 6:10 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	A clue to when that model was used is that the bubbles look a bit different. (When the image is projected in Cinemascope, it unsqueezes the miniature, but it also stretches out everything else in the frame.) Something I noticed about some of the bubbles with the minature sub: In some shots, the bubbles spew out and float up, as you would expect, but in other shots, the bubbles spray out in a fine mist but do not rise. The second set of bubbles suggests a "dry" shot in which the sub is spewing some fine grain solid like salt or, even, a water mist. I don't recall reading or hearing anything about simulating bubbles in a dry miniature set. The "wet" shots are usually profile shots of the Nautilus. I noticed the fine mist bubbles in the shots where the Nautilus has to enter the underwater cave to get inside the volcano. I've seen at least one photograph of that model. Me, too. I thought it was in the CFQ article but it's not there. Oddly, in the special feature video, they go on quite a bit about the various size Nautilus' used. Bob Burns is on camera for some of this. They mention three or four different sizes used but never say a word about the "squeezed" Nautilus.
ryanbrennan		#8	[-]
Jul 24 09 6:33 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I thought I'd re-read the CFQ article and see if it mentions the water spray. It doesn't, but it does mention "dry for wet" shooting, specifically the underwater cave shots, or tunnel as they call it, leading into the volcano that I cited. Looking over the information on the squeezed Nautilus, though, I begin to wonder if it really made it into the film. What makes me question this is the sentence: "The delivery of a second anamorphic lens for Disney's use and more design changes on the submarine eliminated the use of this unique model." The next paragraph begins with, "The first miniature sequences to be shot were..." But if they had a second CinemaScope lens then why didn't they employ it to get that extra shot of the volcano exploding rather than using a flat 35mm camera for back up? Anyway, this casts doubt on the squeezed model being used in anything but test footage.
HalLane		#9	[-]
Jul 24 09 7:04 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	ryanbrennan wrote: The second set of bubbles suggests a "dry" shot ... Wasn't all the underwater footage of The Nautilus shot "dry"? The models I saw at Disney World certainly didn't look capable of getting wet.
ryanbrennan		#10	[-]
Jul 24 09 9:09 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Wasn't all the underwater footage of The Nautilus shot "dry"? The CFQ article would seem to dispel that idea. It's mentioned that the first scenes taken were done in the Disney water tank. The authors even state that "dry for wet" was kept to a minimum, though the tunnel sequence contains both"wet" and "dry for wet" footage. Last Edited By: ryanbrennan Jul 25 09 2:59 AM. Edited 1 times.
HalLane		#11	[-]
Jul 24 09 11:19 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Thanx Ryan. I think I'll be diggin' that CFQ out sooner than later .
ryanbrennan		#12	[-]
Jul 25 09 3:03 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Thanx Ryan. I think I'll be diggin' that CFQ out sooner than later You're welcome, Hal. It's a great article and you'll enjoy re-reading it. I loved those detailed, lengthy retrospectives CFQ did.
BijouBob8mm		#13	[-]
Jul 27 09 4:19 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Might run the Disney film with the audio commentary on. I was thinking they said the Nautilus in the cave was dry, but the shot of it heading down toward the cave was one of the wet shots. (It might have even been the commentary that mentioned the shape of the bubbles as a clue to when the squeezed miniature was used.) The models I saw at Disney World certainly didn't look capable of getting wet. I forget, now, just how many models of the ship there were. Some were built with specific filming tasks in mind. In addition to the excellent CFQ article, did anyone here read the great multi-part piece FilmFax did, "The Squid That Got Away?" (Which I think got a Rondo nomination.)
Dr Acula		#14	[-]
Oct 11 10 8:33 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	A guy who has built a Nautilus-esq sub door: http://superpunch.blogspot.com/2010/10/nautilus-style-submarine-door.html
BijouBob8mm		#15	[-]
Dec 2 10 2:51 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Me, too. I thought it was in the CFQ article but it's not there. You know, Ryan, I think that shot of the squeezed Nautilus model was either in an issue of Starlog from the Seventies, or in it's short-lived sister publication, Future/Future Life. (It was in color and on glossy paper, so that limits the number of possible publications from back then.) A guy who has built a Nautilus-esq sub door Very cool! (Probably a good thing I didn't see that before remodeling my bathroom a couple of years ago; temptation is a dangerous thing!)
horrorfilmx		#16	[-]
Dec 2 10 4:16 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I remember reading about the squeezed Nautilus in Starlog. I believe it was in an article about Harper Goff, who designed the ship (as well as the submarine in Fantastic Voyage). And the reason given for creating the miniature was that CinemaScope lenses at the time didn't have enough depth of field to shoot miniatures convincingly, especially underwater, so the squeezed model allowed standard 35mm lenses to be used.
BijouBob8mm		#17	[-]
Dec 2 10 4:43 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Could very well be. (Haven't had a chance to dig through the back issues.) I do know an issue of Future did an article about Jules Verne films, so wasn't sure which of those magazines the shot might have come from.
Nautilusnut		#18	[-]
Apr 10 11 10:48 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Though the tunnel sequence was shot "dry for wet", there are plenty of shots obviously shot underwater. The sequence of the Nautilus entering the tunnel and submerging for the last time show plenty of bubbles rising from the model. The sub was flown on a wire rig in the tank for these scenes. Check out the ramming of the nitrate ship and you can see the water trails of the wires suspending the sub on the water surface The model was made of brass plates over a metal skeleton and certainly water would not hurt it.
ryanbrennan		#19	[-]
Apr 13 11 12:04 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I go on vacation in a few days so maybe I'll rummage through my old "Starlog" and "Future" magazines and see what I can find.
BijouBob8mm		#20	[-]
Jun 22 11 12:52 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Stumbled across this website inspired by the Disney film. Seems to be in its early stages, but looks promising: http://www.vulcaniavolunteers.com/

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Add Reply

Yuku free message boards

"20,000 Leauges Under the Sea"

"20,000 Leauges Under the Sea"