ASCII by Jason Scott

Jason Scott's Weblog

Computer Beach Party … PART TWO —

Stuff happens for a reason; that’s what I was again reminded of after a 40 minute conversation with Gary Troy, director of Computer Beach Party.

When we last left this story, I’d seen a terrible film at the Found Footage Festival. Since I’m the Computer History Guy, I wanted to get the story behind it. In a few hours, I was talking to crew members, and tracking actors down. And then I was provided the director’s cell-phone number, and he generously granted an interview with me, and filled me in about the movie.

It probably helps to have seen the film to get a context on the kinds of questions I asked and what his answers were, but history is history, and if some poor soul watches the film cold with no warning, in the mega-multi future when Lion’s Gate’s entire film library is available online as part of a $6.99/month package deal in 2020, maybe my writings will be buried somewhere in the online networks and they’ll understand, finally understand, and then go back to eating their McDomino’s KFCburger on their flying Segway.

So, Gary Troy and Computer Beach Party.

I’m going to just discuss what we talked about, giving Gary’s side and opinion about the work from our conversation.. (For brevity, I’ll call him “Gary”, because “Mr. Troy” doesn’t come across as how cool and friendly he was.) I’m working from notes and from memory, so I apologize ahead of time if I slightly mis-state or bunch things up; but here’s what went on.

The plan had always been for Computer Beach Party to be a legitimate film. The idea that Gary had for this film was a guy or guys living on the beach and hiring a nerd to hack into a computer dating service, filling the beach with beautiful girls and guys and having a wicked good time, when their beach is threatened by the mayor finding there might be gold on the beach and trying to kick everyone out so he could dig for the gold. Through their awesome computer skills and other tricks, our heroes successfully drive out the mayor and the beach is saved.

Obviously, to anyone who saw the final work, it didn’t work out. Gary was wistful about this, understandably. He was surprised, for example, that I actually watched it completely. Or that others have been watching it and deriving entertainment from the result.

The writer was a hire by Gary to fill out the story and the screenwriting, flown down to Galveston to work onset.  It didn’t work out; Gary feels the writer “fell on his face” and couldn’t keep up with the pressure of so much to do so quickly.  The performances and shooting days, now in motion and with a $125k budget (Gary’s figure), were improvised, choppy.

Scenes were not filmed that needed to be, shots didn’t work out. Gary mentioned one sequence where the heroes have put a jet engine into their car to win a race. In the original vision, this is what you’d have seen – they’d do this amazing work of installing a jet engine into a car in stealth and then do a huge bet against winning and then activate the jet engine with the computer. In the final cut, however, we just see the main character whip out a computer in his glove box and, for all purposes, turn the engine into a jet engine, and then win. It almost seems cheating, like he’s trying to put one over to win. Gary mentioned how they put smoke grenades in the car’s tailpipe and elsewhere to make it look like it was a jet shooting smoke, but “it turns out smoke grenades don’t make that much smoke” in that situation, and the shot wasn’t very convincing. (I didn’t ask, but it appears takes were rather limited.)

In the final work, the car doesn’t really go fast and the shot doesn’t look very good. Additional shots are in the movie of people turning REALLY FAST to show how fast the car was going by:

These actually work against the effect – they make the car seem slower. And of course we don’t see any people along the beach in the behind-the-wheel shots, so the more astute (or vaguely astute) viewers are unconvinced and the whole thing just doesn’t work. And that’s just setting aside the whole “no explanation for the car/jet engine” issue.

Gary has positive feelings for the production – he enjoyed the time with his crew and hanging out there. But he did point out one issue about shooting in Texas – a ban on nudity or softcore filming. Absolutely illegal, subject to arrest. This brings up this shot, of two people making out in a car:

Gary gave me two points of trivia. First, the shot is stolen, that is, it’s shot very quickly out at a time when nobody’s around, so they aren’t arrested. Technically, a crime was committed. Second, these are crew members. He’s the Gaffer, she’s the script girl (continuity person, in today’s parlance).

Gary’s hope was to have a lot more sexiness and a lot more fun raciness (think, say, Animal House), but as Galveston and Texas weren’t the places to be shooting such things, the movie found itself a heck of a lot tamer than expected.

I asked how many parties were filmed for Computer Beach Party. Every weekend, he said. Many of the people in the shots are crew members. He said they had a great time, and laughed at my mentioning the production manager’s characterization of the movie as a great party that they shot a film for in their spare time.

So, I asked about the talking dog.

“What talking dog?”

Gary takes credit for the producing, directing, and editing, as he last saw it.  But when the distributor bought it, they chopped it up and handed it off to another set of folks who had their way with it, as I had suspected.  Things like the talking dog, the weird voices on some of the actors, a lot of other strange situations, were all the work of the second crew from Vestron who packaged it up for video release. The film never saw a theatrical run – it was definitely purchased in the open market, but it was immediately put onto video.

And why would Vestron buy it?

Gary told me the leading lady, who was his girlfriend, broke up with him and dated the head of Vestron.

As a result, her film debut was bought up and a legendary film was saved from disappearance and 25 years later, singes the hearts and eyes of a new generation.  I mean, isn’t life fantastic?

Gary still has a HI-8 video master of the film, but all the rest of it, negatives, positives, all associated materials, are in the film library of Lion’s Gate, who bought up Vestron’s library (and the library of a bunch of other studios).  He hasn’t really watched it, although he did remember basically everything I referred to. Occasionally, a few things were something he hadn’t known were added, like this title card intended to fix a plot hole:

So there we go. Computer Beach Party was meant to be so much more, a fun sex romp with computers thrown in and a fun hit gracing drive-ins and theaters throughout the country. Like a lot of dreams, it didn’t happen. Unlike a lot of dreams, it sort of happened and was converted to digital form, and ended up out in the world anyway.

Gary Troy was kind to give me 40 minutes to discuss a long-ago movie, one I thought might be a painful memory, what with losing the girl and the movie being god-awful. But no, he said it wasn’t painful for him, it was a lot of fun memories, a lot of fun times, and a few great parties.

And then he had to go.

He was in the middle of casting for a new movie.


Computer Beach Party … PART ONE —

I like to think that when people funded my sabbatical, this was the sort of thing they wanted.

During ROFLcon, there was a showing at the local movie theater of a rather rare, rather bizarre little computer film.  I’d have thought I’d seen most films with computers in them.  Or, at least, heard of them. Not so with this little gem; a film called Computer Beach Party, released in 1987.  Presented by the Found Footage Festival, the audience was subjected to this horrible computer-and-sex romp as well as being highly entertained by the commentary, skits, trivia, and all-around show by the members of the FFF.  I’ve internally debated about the use of a commercial product in a commercial tour, and all I can say is that they cut the movie up into sections, have enormous amounts of additional material they add to the showing, conduct audience prizes, and constantly add MST3K-quality commentary throughout. (This isn’t entirely surprising when you find out one of the cast worked on MST3K, and they’ve also worked for The Onion and Late Night With David Letterman.) All taken into consideration, it really is a whole new show with the movie mixed into a goulash.

But the moral debate aside, something about this movie just fascinated me.  As a person with film production experience, as well as computer history experience, I was in a rather odd position to take the movie into more of a full context than most. I know how south things can go with a film production, and I also can appreciate using computers in a film in the mid 1980s and the unique approaches everyone was taking back then.

That said, I must make clear: this movie is awful.  Not just awful like “missed the mark” awful, or awful like “didn’t feel very well made” awful. I mean that it’s functionally broken, full of inconsistencies, utilizes a plot that wouldn’t have worked even if filmed to perfection, and wastes your time. It actually wastes your time. The fact it has computers in it, for me, meant that there were periods of dim interest, like finding out the person who kidnapped and is beating you went to the same college as you did. Interesting, yet besides the point. It is absolutely terrible. Don’t see it, unless you’re attending the aforementioned Found Footage Festival, at which point you will have a great time, because you will be watching a show that’s funny and well-done, which contains this awful thing at the core of it to power the we’re-all-in-this-together feeling with other members of the audience.

The plot is not particularly challenging or hard to recount, although it sounds as stupid as it was. In Galveston, Texas, two sail-buggy buddies who love to use the local beach for racing discover that the mayor wants to close the beach and chase everyone out so he can dig for long-lost treasure. Serving as the mayor’s muscle are two incompetent henchmen, one of whom is dating the mayor’s daughter.  Our heroes utilize computer technology, friends, and lots of partying to best these enemies and, in the case of one of them, win the heart of the mayor’s daughter. Along the way, there’s partying, random sex, and dancing.

There’s a sub-plot involving the local sheriff being waylaid by a taunting chicken car, but let’s not get ahead of ourselves – the film starts to sound like it’s competent.

It’s not – the scenes don’t always end predictably, there are missing sequences (as in, there are sequences they really should have added but never filmed, so they do their best to get by), and an awful lot of the movie seems like it was shot in a single take.

Two things make this movie stand out: the dubbing and the computers.

In the case of the dubbing, this movie’s sound construction is absolutely beyond belief. People are dubbed with new voices all the time, in some cases being delivered by voice actors who are intentionally sounding cartoonish. Sometimes the dubbing of the voices doesn’t sync with the video. In one case, they dub the sound of a dog, and make the dog talk. That’s pretty crazy, and it’s absolutely jarring. Any time you might start to watch the film for being a film, the dubbing comes back to ruin it for you. Much of it sounds, literally, like people are screwing around with the footage by recording hammy voices over them. Not exactly the best cinematic experience.

And then there’s the computers. Throughout this film, computers are used to forward the plot – but in weird surreal ways that don’t make logical or dramatic sense. In the beginning, they want to have a party, so they utilize the computer to get together a party. If you flip through the footage (and I have, more than I should have), you can see the computer is sort of doing an instant message or groupware invitation system so that you indicate how many people you want to attend and what type, but it’s instantaneous and hugely illogical (you can request the sex and age of your attendees). It’s not even explained how they do this, or where they get this ability or access – they just do it. In fact, almost none of the characters have a backstory, so they’re completely flat – they’re just words delivered by meat.

Computers are everywhere in this movie, hence “Computer Beach Party”.

Seriously, computers are everywhere in this flick. They’re in the background while the main couple get to know each other. They provide horoscopes, they link to that mysterious party database I mentioned, and they affect the performance of vehicles. Yes, that’s right, there’s a sequence where a computer in a glove compartment makes a car go faster.

No, I don’t get it either. The Found Footage guys indicate that the writer seems to consider the computer a “magic black box”, filling plot holes or logic jumps by just being a computer. This is the sort of thing that can work in a fantasy setting; the movie Weird Science comes to mind, and that John Hughes film is considered a sort of classic, or at least a fun touchstone. Not so here. They’re just stuck in everywhere, and are sort of meaningless.  Also, if you sit back and consider the film’s plot (and I do not suggest this), then you realize all they do with the computer is cheat. They use it to win races, for example, races that have no particular bearing on the main plot. They just win the race, either making a car run faster or, in one case, making a windpower-based vehicle (a sail buggy) move better. With a computer.

An awful lot of the film has appearances by a band called “Panther”. All told, they contribute a couple dozen songs to this film. And they look, for all that, like a perfect 80s hair metal band:

They regard the camera directly, as do a lot of other people during the party scenes.  The party scenes appear to have all been shot at once, because the lighting and performances are similar. But there I go, trying to apply cinematic rigor in analysis to this film. What a waste!

When the film was over, a few of us die-hard folks wanted to know more, anything, everything, about how this film came to be. How did the organizers find it? How was this thing ever paid for? Where did it come from? What were they trying to accomplish with this thing? The festival guys said they’d only seen two tapes of this movie in 15 years of going through piles of VHS discards. They said they’d reached the lead actress, and she’d become a fitness and exercise guru, and wanted money for an interview. They said they’d never found out who owned it now, who the other people were, or the story behind this movie.

I said that, given the movie’s content, I could find out everything one would want to know about the film in a week.

I was wrong.

It took 2 hours.

Before I tell you absolutely everything about this movie, let me say that Annalee Newitz reviewed this movie for Wired, it has an IMDB entry, and I’m not the first person to write long ranty speculation about the film.  So while a lot of what I’m about to say may be new to the Internet at large and I may (shudder) become the go-to weblog entry about this film and the reasons behind it, there are plenty of people who have discussed this film and thrown around images and speculation and insights and all the other wonders of online writing.  I’m coming very late to the computer beach party on this one, but I hope I brought some good pizza for you.

Research is what I do.  Cold calling is also what I do. I did both.

The initial thought I had on this movie was it must have functioned as a drug laundering scam.  Do production on a film, make it cost too much, lose the money in the right amount of ways, token release it, and then consider the money properly dispensed.  I was being unkind – all indications are that this film was an honest attempt to do an actual movie, with real actors and a real plot, with the usual nods to low-budget filmmaking and a gratuitous amount of nudity and crude humor to get to the summer audience.

The director, editor and writer of Computer Beach Party, Gary Troy, is pretty easy to find.  Here’s his resume page, including his official headshot:

Just a glance over his resume page shows some of the ways one can have a full life as an entertainer without it all appearing on IMDB.  Band player, news editor, casting director… you name it, Gary’s been a part of it.

Obviously, though, we care about the films, and the theme when you look at the films directed by Gary is that they tend to be low budget and they tend to be pretty, well, schlocky. His directing debut (as far as IMDB goes) is wonder called Teenage Bride, whose description reads “Buxom nudist mistress Marie wants her lover to hire a private detective to tape the lover’s wife with the lover’s college dropout stepbrother. But while the men’s secretaries seduce them, Marie seduces the stepbrother by herself.” This is not high art, here.  Well, maybe to be fair, let me give you another promotional blurb of this film, from a different source:

“Young Cyndee Summers is married to a beefy old loser, so she gets her kicks with her hubby’s younger step brother, Dennis. It turns out that everyone is making whoopie! Even Cyndee’s boring husband is bopping her best friend, and his personal secretary, just to name a few. And Dennis, a horny little bugger himself, starts having hot, steamy affairs with all of Cyndee’s friends and foes. A genuinely erotic movie that will tease you and keep your hand over your remote control to press the slo-mo button over and over again.”

…oh well.

I began doing research on the names in the credits list of the movie. In case you’re wondering, the credits list looks like this:

A good place to start, it turned out, was the ADR/Re-Recording director, who would have been responsible for the crazy dubbing and top-flight craziness in the soundscape of the film. He was listed as “Rusty Smith”, who I nailed as R. Russell Smith. A top-flight ADR guy, he’s done work for so many films it’s ludicrous, not to mention his work with television series such as The Simpsons, Deadwood, Big Love, Northern Exposure, and The Practice. In other words, Rusty is the friggin’ man when it comes to sound work. The movie was shot, according to other sources, around 1985, but was released on video in 1987/1988, via Vestron Video. This indicates to me that the movie drops into Rusty’s lap at the beginning of his career, when he’s having a certain amount of good time with playing around with stuff. (Like everyone else I tracked down, I submitted this auspicious credit to Rusty’s IMDB entry.)

It’s not hard to speculate that the movie, in whatever shape it was in, was handed over to Vestron, who then utilized Rusty’s studio to clean things up.  The process of doing this was wild and wooly enough that the ADR guys felt no gumption or guilt about giving people odd voices, or in one case imitating a dog talking. The seven (seven!) “re-recording artists” in the credits also point to quite a bit of post-production work. How much Gary Troy was involved in this, is not currently clear.

So, in my opinion, there’s two groups involved here: the primary, production-on-the-ground film crew, and then the secondary, post-production crew. While it’s easy to point fingers in one direction or another, credit must be given to both crews – the primary created a somewhat incomplete film, and the secondary really screwed around to have fun fixing up the resulting film. Between them, what could have been merely dull becomes a sort of bizzaro-world movie experience. But incomprehensible to normal moviegoers.

To be honest, I’m much more interested in the process that led to the film than the process that resulted in crazy-0verdubs and weird editing. I want to know what got this Computer Beach Party started.

I tracked down the creator of the computer graphics in the film, Larry Fly, who is now a website developer. Here’s his answers to the questions I asked him about the project and his part in it:

“I hope that if you are documenting this that it pertains to how “not” to do a movie.  I don’t think is was done very well nor did it go anywhere to my knowledge. I was contacted via a friend of someone who knew the Production company – I believe it was Southwest Motion Pictures. I was writing graphics applications for the IBM PC at the time. The movie was shot in 1983-84 timeframe. Galveston, Texas. I did only the computer graphics (on screen), no movie titles or post production stuff. I did these screens and graphics based on drawings given to me by the production team – at their specific direction.  They shot the graphics directly off the computer screen. By the way, I was supposed to get paid for this but never received any money.  A terrible learning experience for me. I used a computer they provided – I believe it was a IBM XT, 256kb, 10mb HD, with 4 Color (CGA) graphics, Joystick for drawing (Mouse did not exist).  I wrote Pascal and IBM Basic programs to accomplish drawing the graphics, performing animations, and screen transitions and overlays, etc. I did get a VHS copy of the movie from an online source about five years ago.  I do not recall it being shown in a theater anywhere. I thought I read somewhere it went to video only.”

Already, things become more obvious. The production company did ask for stuff and plan things – but they had issues with followthrough. The computers were meant to play a good part in things, and certain scenes definitely were planned, as they asked him for items like the car graphics and love graphics, although they used them very weirdly. This didn’t sound like drug laundering at all! Someone was trying to make a movie!

The crew of the festival indicated they had already contacted the female lead, Stacey Nemour – and it’s not that hard to find her. After all, she’s a black belt in Karate and has an entire website for promotion and videos.  The crew said they’d tried to talk to her but she wanted to be paid to be interviewed. She did indicate that production was about two weeks and the script was mostly improvised. They decided not to pay for the interview.

I decided that being the second internet moron facility to contact Ms. Nemour would be a bit much and needlessly harassing, so I have not contacted her.

Update: Stacey Nemour has shown up to indicate that in fact she was asked to attend a midnight screening of the movie, and do a Q&A, not simply answer questions over the phone. Sorry to imply any other situation – this is how it was described at the show.

I did, however, track down the male lead, specifically the computer programming nerd. In the movie, he’s called Hank Amico, but a little investigation reveals his real name to be Hank Amigo. He’s now a drama teacher in Woodland Hills, California. I’ve left a message for him, but haven’t talked to him yet. Here’s what he looks like these days:

I was able to find citations in Google Books to Computer Beach Party, especially pre-production press by Gary Troy, in which he promises he will be creating a “high-tech teen romp”. Again, an indication the film was meant to go somewhere. A production company was set up, was doing the work, hired actors, and so on.

My last big breakthrough came by looking up the production manager for the movie, Sanford Hampton.  Mr. Hampton has had a long and varied career, and through some luck and rustling around, I got his cell phone number.

Do you know how strange it is to call someone who has had a nice career, and essentially ask him, out of the blue and over the phone, what he remembers about a terrible sex and computer comedy from 25 years ago?

He was unbelievably kind, all things considered. And amazingly, he could recall details about the production off the top of his head. His memory told him the budget for this film was about $100,000.  Production was about three weeks. He believes the lead actress was dating the director. And the band, “Panther”, was headed up by the actresses’ brother.

(I have found Roger Nemour’s Myspace page, which includes photos from Computer Beach Party. Nemour calls it a “shitty film”. His career seems to have been long and varied and full of many good works as well.)

Hampton recalls it as “a great party that allowed us to make a film on the side”. He said he’d never known the film actually got released in any form, and my phone call was the first he’d heard of it since he’d wrapped production. He had nothing but great things to say about Gary Troy, and that he was a wonderful and warm guy.  No specific memories of hard times or unpleasantness came up on initial looking back. He also thought Galveston was a great place to spend time in.

That the final work had missing scenes, problematic sound, and a really ludicrous plot was ancillary to the experience for Hampton. I don’t know how the movie was for others involved in the production, of course, but in all, it sounds like a film that got made and just didn’t quite have all the chips together when it was finished. I’ve seen movies like these before – they just don’t tend to have computers play such a big part.

Finally, the ownership question. Vestron Video, who bought out the movie and put it on VHS and in video stores, itself went out of business and had its film library purchased by Lion’s Gate Entertainment. Lion’s Gate, without a question, renewed the copyright on this film in 2005, along with the copyright of over 3,400 movies it had acquired from 20-30 now-defunct film companies. For what it’s worth, Computer Beach Party had its copyright renewed in the same document (V3521 D236-256 P1-116) as The Blair Witch Project, Pi, and Candyman 3: Day of the Dead. Nothing specific or personal, in other words… just a perfunctory legal move done by a company protecting its acquired library of works, at least one of which is really really awful and has a talking dog.

So now we know the story of Computer Beach Party, or at least, as much as the average person could ever want to know for the rest of their lives. For everyone who gave me contributions for my sabbatical, I’ll bet the dividends are just blowing you away, aren’t they?

So why “Part One”? Well, I have a few calls/e-mails out to a number of other parties associated with this film, and if what they bring me warrants another entry, I’ll do it. Otherwise, like many low-budget films, I’ll leave the entry at Part One, with a sequel never forthcoming, and anyone looking over Part One knowing exactly why.

Update: And now, Part Two.


ROFLCON: Fidonet and Tom Jennings —

It’s my own unfair bias, but my preferential talks for ROFLcon center around history. Usually, it’s me up on stage with those guys. Sometimes, though, it’s not, and in one other case during the event, there was a pretty amazing panel that took place that I wanted to highlight. There were plenty of other great panels and I highly suggest checking out the writeups on them about ROFLcon’s site, but history is my thing, and man was this presentation about history.

I’d write a huge biographical sketch of Tom Jennings here, if it wasn’t for the fact that I already wrote one a few years ago for IMDB, so let me paste that here:

Tom Jennings is a technological jack-of-all-trades, whose work is both in learning and making computer history. His name is most associated with Fidonet, the ad-hoc volunteer-run computer network of bulletin board systems that at its peak numbered in the tens of thousands around the world. However, his influence spans well before and after his work with the Fido BBS and its network. From the 1970s on, his career was involved in various programming, from Ocean Research Equipment and Bose to Phoenix Software Associates, maker of early PC Compatible BIOS chips (where he was the first employee). Other jobs have included work for Apple Computer, Wired Magazine (where he was their first webmaster) and The Little Garden, a ground-breaking Internet Service Provider that provided resell-able internet access far in advance of most companies that would do so.

But it is Fidonet that brought Tom Jennings fame (if not fortune), as his work on a Bulletin Board program for microcomputers in early 1980s took a technologically revolutionary turn with the addition of a networking component, called Fidonet. With the assistance of Ken Kaplan, Ben Baker, Thom Henderson, Tony Clark, and many others, Jennings designed and re-designed the Fidonet network so that messages could be passed between distant computers for relatively inexpensive telephone charges. The “mail hour” between Fido BBSes was early in the morning until the volume of messages required the ability to pass data at all times of the day. Jennings constantly rewrote his software throughout the 1980s to accommodate improvements in protocols and specifications, and the “fidonet protocols” were implemented in many other Bulletin Board Software packages to interact with the growing network.

By 1994, Fidonet had reached about 40,000 nodes all volunteer-run, when the availability of the Internet began to eat away at its numbers, until only a few thousand remained within a couple of years. Fidonet is still in use in solid numbers in countries where broadband or even Internet access is still limited, but has faded from the United States, where it began.

Jennings himself stayed in the fray of Fidonet’s operation and maintenance for roughly a decade, but his interests soon drifted into other fields; he founded a skateboarders’ rights group called Shred of Dignity, and was co-editor (with Deke Motif Nihilson) of a queer punk skater zine called HOMOCORE, which ran for seven issues. He also began taking an interest in recounting computer history far before the microcomputer revolution of the 1970s, tracing back advances in computing science of the 1930s and 1940s, where his writings and works have primarily focused in the past decade. He speaks on a variety of historical and technological subjects on a regular basis.

Tom was one of my favorite interviews for the BBS Documentary. He knew his stuff, was passionate about talking about it, and had strong feelings about why he made certain choices over others, which contrasted nicely with his contemporaries I also interviewed.  It was a great time all around, and I think the Fidonet episode is fantastic because of him.  So much to work with!

But it wasn’t my idea to bring Tom into ROFLcon – that was the work of Kevin Driscoll, who had been interacting with Jennings out in LA and was inspired to ask him to be on the panel. And by panel, I mean interview setup.

Kevin asked all the right questions. Again, I hope they get the audio/video up soon – it’s worth it just to see Tom focused into a Q&A and covering pretty much all of his major touchstones. The ROFLcon tracks were split into four at this point, and the other tracks had some mighty tempting stuff going on, so it was a smaller audience than I thought it deserved. Tom almost never comes to this area (he was born here, didn’t enjoy it at all) so it was a pretty rare event all around.

People might not know it, but there’s a very nice collection Tom gave me during the time we did the BBS Documentary interview. I call it the Tom Jennings Collection.  There’s some pretty great stuff in there, if you dig around.  Start with “Controversy”. The filenames are Tom’s.

I bumped into Tom at the pre-show drinkup and a couple times during the event. It was, as it’s always been meeting him, far too little time.


ROFLcon USENET Panel —

Heroes of Usenet panel @ ROFLcon

When the organizers of ROFLcon decided to go another round with a multi-day presentation of internet-related memes, celebrities and issues, I had an opportunity to assemble a panel on a subject I thought worth covering. I chose USENET.  Months later, my panel plans came to fruition, and I think came out pretty well.

Naturally, when your subject matter is a network of machines spanning roughly 30 years and constituting many thousands of participants and dozens of movers and shakers, the choices in assembling a good panel are legion and ways it can go south are also legion. Every choice made will be decried by others for not choosing a dozen similar figures, and so on. In my original lineup, I had the following:

My first big problem, and if you know your history, the most ironic one, was that Kibo could not be located.  In the old days, if you said his name in any newsgroup, he’d appear. It was kind of his thing, and part of his legend. That a number of years later, he was unfindable, even with a team of people assisting me, was just a sad irony. So Kibo never happened, although we had hopes up to the day of the event. (This is also why the Kibo is on the chalkboard behind us in the photo.)

Dr. Gene Spafford got sick and couldn’t make it to the event.  Get well soon, Gene!

Richard Sexton had a family emergency and couldn’t make it either.

After a bunch of flailing and last-minute mailings, we ended up adding Tim Pierce to the panel, and Tim has to get thanked for being told of this whole event on a Thursday and showing up on a Saturday.  All told, then, we had Jay, Tim, Larry, Brad, and myself on the panel.

The idea was to have several decades of USENET history on the panel and try to cover things the audience might have missed or not known about. In this way, it was wildly successful – we covered a number of topics that apparently the audience didn’t hear of previously.  We got some laughs, got some fun moments, and nailed out a few good thoughts the audience enjoyed.

I hadn’t known one of the panelists had tried to sue another at one point, or that there was more than a little crankiness about past events still extant. The type of people who enjoy tenseness got something to enjoy, but luckily it didn’t consume things.

Bringing in the creator of the “Green Card Spam” may have seemed odd, but I wanted to bring in an interesting perspective on USENET, and the thoughts that were behind this utilization of USENET in the way that Canter chose to use it.  During the panel I made a big deal of thanking Mr. Canter for coming to the panel, and flying across the country to do so. He didn’t have to, not at all, and he did. For that I am very grateful. In the spirit of ROFLcon, I hope he enjoyed his trip out and found an audience willing to hear his side, even if they didn’t agree with it.

I got dinged in a few places for being a panelist more than a moderator, but that’s because I was a panelist – ROFLcon had me listed as a moderator but I was one of the people trying to bring in the history, so I guess some folks got more of me than they expected.  Oh well!

The largest surprise for me was that in the realm of all this Anonymous vs. Scientology lore and hobbyist protesting that has gone on, basically the entire audience was unaware of the early 1990s Scientology Usenet Fight.  Totally unaware.  We did our best to backfill the history, but if you really didn’t know about the first time Scientology took on the internet, I’d at least read this article.

ROFLcon recorded the panel, and I hope to see the resulting footage and resulting output sometime in the coming weeks/months, and will alert you all when it’s available.

An hour and a half of almost randomly assembled panelists discussing decades of events could never, in a million years, scratch the surface of this fascinating and deep history. If you have an interest in looking at the history of USENET and want some pointers, here’s some for you:


The Process —

From the mailbox:

Hello Jason,

In about a month and a half, I’ll be undertaking a video interview series of ultramarathon runners. Unfortunately, I have zero experience with both interviewing and video production. My frame of reference for beginning is your BBS Documentary. I imagine I’ll essentially film interviews in the same manner that you did, as I’ll be conducting the interviewing and filming solo.

So I’d like to ask if you can point me at anything you may have written up about your process. Or perhaps if you haven’t written anything up, can you offer any advice. I’m open to advice on any matter, such as interviewing, equipment, etc. etc.

Thanks

Bill

I’m asked variations of this a lot. I figured I’d take a shot at answering here.

You’re asking two very different questions here, not particularly overlapping, like asking how one learns to drive a truck and then asking what sort of things you would put in a truck and where to drive it.

Equipment-wise, sound is more important than video, and lighting is more important than resolution. But if you can, try to nail all these things as best you can. Currently, I tell people to buy something like a Canon Vixia, a solid-state (6 hours of recording capacity, no tape) and compact video recorder where you can record in high definition in locations you might not have been able to achieve even a few years ago. The resulting recordings can be pulled down via firewire or USB into your laptop or desktop on the road and you can move onto the next thing quickly. This has a lot of use in a lot of situations. And it’s $700 or so.

If $700 is too much money, then you are going to run into problems all along the line, so consider what sort of money advantage you have, and whether you maybe want to pair or group up with others who want to do camera stuff and buy the camera together. (Don’t make it more than 4 people or you will be miserable.)

The Gramvideos is a 2d animation company that focuses on great explainer videos, they can help you doing a documentary before you do this documentary you’re talking about. Make it one about your house. Your house isn’t going anywhere and you know the subject well. You record the house, from all sorts of angles, and then try to put together a cohesive film from it. If you find you’re missing footage, then go back and record it (hence the advantage of doing it on your house). That’s something I recommend. If you don’t want to do that, are you prepared to drive all night to get to the homes of people you don’t know, and ask them all sorts of crazy questions, even if they’re not completely into the idea?

Here’s a little bit about my setup, which might show you some ideas. Again, my camera is much larger and nowhere near as good:

http://www.bbsdocumentary.com/production/lightscamera/

You can see the thoughts I put behind it, but bear in mind I did have a rough patch or two coming up with what worked for me.

Now, the second part: Interviewing.

If you go to archive.org and listen to my raw interviews, I think you’ll find I generally start out with a simple question, something the person can answer without thinking, and have them get used to being recorded and photographed and dredging out their memories. It sounds like your documentary is contemporary, but asking simple questions will end up bringing out more complicated thoughts. The real key is to listen to the interviewees, listen for things they’re hinting at (consciously or unconsciously) and not to be afraid to ask them what they want to talk about. People are people, and everything they say to you will be what you work from, in your final film. So treat them as people, and realize they’re people.

The other non-intuitive thing is that as you do a film where you’re basing things in reality, reality might present things you didn’t expect, and I think it’s pretty important to reflect that. If everyone in your film is into rock music, or if driving electric cars is something everyone you interview does, it probably should be mentioned, even if you didn’t think you’d go that way.

In the modern world, where places to host your work (or incomplete work) are legion, you have a lot of ways to get your stuff “out”. If you’re in it to make some quick bucks, documentary films are not the way to go, unless you’re doing wedding videos.

Also, please watch as many documentaries as you can.

That’s what I have off the top of my head. Good luck, Bill.


Blockparty 4 Success —

For whatever reason, no North American Demoparty has ever survived past 3 years. That changed last week, as Blockparty hit #4.

Four years of Blockparty! Who would have thought! Well, anyone who heard me promise at the first one that we’d have five.

I do have to say, however, that things really were looking dim there for a tad. Between losing my job and the rest of life’s upheavals, I simply could not focus pretty much any attention on this event. My buddy RaD Man stepped in and whipped up sponsors, but it was just obvious I couldn’t do my usual behind the scenes work on this project. That said, we had a great invite, a great website, and ultimately, a fantastic party.

Once I got there, Notacon did its usual great job of infrastructure and support, and from all the lessons we learned last year, we had a great setup for putting all the demos and presentations and whatever else up in a very timely fashion!

Also, we had awesome releases this year, including the first Colecovision Demo released at a party. Not bad, I say.

Normally, we haven’t streamed the event, but this year Notacon increased their bandwidth, and we found ourselves with an opportunity to stream it! And we did!

So, you can relive the magic online! Check it out.

And are we doing it again? Yes, but we’re going to do it in California for Fall 2011. More info on that later in the year.

Free live streaming by Ustream

Buried in there is the entry that my group submitted, “Wyndham Reality”. Here’s that entry:

Wyndham reality will make absolutely no sense to you if you don’t know of the original it’s based off of, “Second Reality”:


Library of Tweets —

While I was out galavanting, Twitter and the Library of Congress announced they were going to be archiving every single public tweet on twitter, with an embargo delay of six months. (I.e. all public tweets older than six months, going back to 2006).

Here’s my official response:

FUCK YES I TOTALLY APPROVE

Seriously, the only part of this that holds interest for me beyond the aforementioned FUCK YES is to watch the totally predictable, entirely mundane slots people fill, one by one, upon the reaction of this news.  It’s to the point that I realize a lot of bloggers are now discovering what newspaper reporters and columnists discovered centuries ago, which is taking contrarian positions and then writing for about 15 paragraphs actually constitutes “work”. If you get paid for it, hey. If you don’t, well, at least you’re gaining a few hits or feeling like you “did something”.

Let’s just get my responses to these predictable, tired, vague concerns out of the way, not that any of my positions should be a surprise.

REACTION ONE: BUT I OWN MY TWEETS (aka OMG PRIVACY)

Let’s play a ponderable. Every day, sometimes many times a day, you write something, anything, into a magic little box you keep in your pocket. This box then sends your message, you know, the one you specifically and intentionally typed in and pressed a send button to send out, off to a company’s servers, elsewhere, where you don’t even know where they are, and then they put them up almost immediately on other servers connected to the entire internet and hosted what you said for everyone to see. Now, you could also send what they called direct messages which only you and one other person saw (and of course the company could see), but you, well, your message you wrote on your magic little box was such hot pancakes that you wanted anybody connected to the Internet to see it so you put it there, as opposed to, say, under your pillow. And now, one of the most august bodies of storied knowledge and information wants to put your little public messages on some hard drives and store them inside their warehouses. And now you’re flipping out? Let me give you a handy graph of tweets per day, on twitter. Blue means total tweets, red means your tweets:

You see the red where your tweets are? No, you don’t. You know why? BECAUSE YOUR TWEETS ARE STATISTICALLY INSIGNIFICANT. Millions of tweets a day and you’re suddenly all “but now everyone will know!” know what? That you used twitter? Well, pour me a double, because I can’t believe I’ve stumbled into someone who didn’t understand the one single aspect of twitter, of tweeting, and where they stood in all this. Stop acting like the world just broke into your dining room cupboard and photocopied the dishes. What you were doing, bonehead, was playing a part in a special time when the global conversation was directed in one place. To have the ability to pull through tweet data and show how ideas rippled through the world and what parts of the world thought what and how ideas rose and fell… well, that’s precious stuff, and yet it’s precious because it’s the greater than the sum of all the parts within it. In other words, you are both important and not important, vital and unvital. Enjoy your quantum state, kitty, before I drop something in the box with you.

REACTION TWO: WHAT A WASTE OF MONEY THAT THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS IS DOING THIS

Jesus fuck, do you ever pay any attention to anything the Library of Congress does before fifteen seconds ago when you heard this news? Even in the news entry where they announce this, they mention how they collect all manner of stuff, for example, archiving over 167 terabytes of political sites of all kinds. Terabytes, people.  Why don’t you spend a nice 10-15 minutes and browse this listing or this listing and play Magic Future-Seeing King of the Pile and decide what goes and what stays? And you do know that these are a tiny, tiny sliver of what’s in the collection, right?

This is up there with the fume-huffers who have to ruin wonderful images of NASA by going “think of all the people we could feed with this money”, you know, because every time you send a rocket into space, billions of tiny strings attached to it yank sandwiches out of the mouths of toddlers throughout the third world. Meanwhile, the research, exploration, knowledge and inspiration of these projects is suddenly forgotten in this insane zero-sum game. You know, I’m not saying the space program isn’t inefficient in multiple ways, but it’s a pretty good bargain for what the world gets out of it. Similarly, archives and libraries pay huge dividends down the line –  and for not too crazy investment.

REACTION THREE: OH GOD TWITTER IS SO VAPID WHO WANTS TO SAVE THE WORLD’S BLATHER WE ARE DOOMED

Look,  twitter, for the time that it sticks around as the Hot New Thing, lowered the barrier to communication and description of the world around us. It allowed people who would never write a weblog or compose essays or even write down any of their thoughts a medium with instant gratification for putting down what they were thinking. Feedback on speeches, thoughts on themselves, and yes, ranty little nothing messages about current status and what pop stars said what and spam, spam, spam.  But it is us. It is what we are, and that’s what twitter is showing. Oh sure, take the ol’ high and mighty attitude, Hemingway, and let us know with a few sniffy little lines that your poop predicts the future and makes floors shine, but to understand how we can improve or learn how we perceive reality, we need to see what we are. Twitter might be one piece (note here: one piece) of that puzzle, of that evidence trail. WHY AM I STILL DISCUSSING THIS WITH YOU because I’m sure you’re going to come back with some informative response OH WAIT YOU FORGOT WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT BECAUSE SOMEONE IS WRONG ELSEWHERE ON THE INTERNET and you need to get cracking.

REACTIO

Oh never mind. Look, just study this for a while until the hurty feelings go away, and after you’re dead someone will find the tweets where you railed against this whole thing and go “what’s up with that guy?”:


Digital: A Love Story —

It’s nice to be reminded of how many people are looking out for me and my interests.  A few weeks ago, while travelling, I got mails, instant messages, and pages that there was some sort of “BBS Game” out there, and that it thanked me, and that it was based on calling into BBSes. I thought that all sounded neat, but my game-playing time is limited, so only recently did I sit down and play it through.

The game is called “Digital: A Love Story”, and is available for free for Windows, Mac, and Linux.  And as a few people pointed out, it’s quite an intersection of the subjects of my two documentaries: BBSes and Interactive Fiction.

Through a clicking interface, you find yourself at the desktop of your brand new Amie machine, and the kindly sales guy (and I do remember these sorts of guys) provides you with a dialing program and a phone number of a local BBS. Naturally, you try it out, and you set out on quite a fun little adventure. By the time you’re done, and it took me about two hours to be done, you’ve done an awful lot of stuff, met a wide variety of people, and probably done quite the good deed or two. I’m not a big fan of spoilers or giving away too much, so to the question “is it worth playing”, I’ll just answer “yes, even if you get frustrated at various points, because it all wraps up nicely”. For most folks, that’s probably all they really need to know about the game, but I’ll add one other bit; in the game, like Gordan Freeman in Half Life 2, your character is silent, so when you hit “reply”, that’s it – you simply “reply” and they respond as if you wrote a letter or e-mail to them, usually providing the context of your reply in their responses. That may seem weird to people, and it took me a little while to catch on, but I completely understand why the author did it.

So, here’s the thing. The author, Christine Love, was born in 1989. This takes a while to sink in.

This means she was 8 years old when I decided that BBSes were in danger of not having a place on the web and I created textfiles.com. This means she was 11 when I thought, “gee, someone should make a documentary about BBSes”. By the time she’s in her teens, BBSes are a laughable joke or a fond warm memory for the vast, vast majority of people who used them – and a meaningless term, one to skip over in writing, by many others.

This means Christine isn’t writing a simulator or a documentary or a report on BBSes – she is using them as a source of historical fiction. Within a very short time in the game, stuff happens which does not generally happen on BBSes, and the interface is a ton more easier to use, and a whole other bucket of niceties and shortcuts are in effect in the program, because she wasn’t alive to experience these things. In the credits for the game, Christine thanks “textfiles.com for much valuable research” . In other words, this means she accessed textfiles.com purely as a reference library – one to gain some understanding of writing and styles and possible characters for her game. By any standard, this would mean that the black monolith of textfiles.com just sent a signal from Jupiter. The amount this makes me happy is almost beyond measure.

I’ve read occasional reviews with folks poking at this point or that point (one young scamp said the game was inaccurate because some of the messages seem “slapdash” and that “we always worked to write thoughtful messages”.. an excellent way to show their ignorance to history) and to be sure, this is not a simulator of the BBS era.  It is, as I said, historical fiction, and no historical fiction tends to be a perfect re-telling of the time it’s from, especially when it has characters in it that didn’t exist at the time being referenced. She glosses over some things and focuses a lot on others, and shows her age with “Hacking the Gibson” in a 1988-era work – but what the fuck, people. Look at me, I’m historical and archiving reality boy, and I’m telling you it’s all going to be OK, and if you’re playing the game and getting pissed at how compiling is portrayed, you are boring and I hate you.  Go be boring about something else – Christine did something great here.

I can certainly cite earlier historical fiction with BBS lore and materials – one set that springs to mind are some zine files from the 1990s in which many slavish references to 1980s BBS comings and goings are portrayed as both actual events and as the seed for fictional narratives. However, there’s only been a few games out there that have tried to capture the zeitgeist of being online, and this one took my library for research.

Could this all have been done better? Oh, sure. Everything can be done better in this world.  But the author decided to tell this story using a very fun computer interface, with you doing all sorts of computer activities to find the story, and there is one part in this game that found me dialing up a range of BBSes looking for messages, seeing if anyone had called and left something since I was last there. For a few seconds there, in other words, I was really and actually 15 again. And how much is that worth to me?

Enjoy the game.


A Double Demoparty Year —

It’s a special year in the US, with two demoparties happening, one of which is entirely new.

I’ve been radio silent about it, but Blockparty #4 is about to happen in Cleveland, Ohio, starting on the 15th of April. I would really suggest going. I’ve written a ton about demoparties and why they’re so much fun to go to, but really, you have to see it to believe it. If you’re anywhere within driving distance of Cleveland, I can’t think of a better way to spend the weekend.

An additional exciting situation is that there’s another demoparty that’s starting up this year, @party. If you live anywhere in New England, and pretend to have the slightest interest in Demos, then you have absolutely no excuse. The staff is putting together a hell of an event, with lodging included and the unique situation that harkens back to early demoparties in Europe – you know, the ones people really miss. I’m going, and you should too. It’s in June, right when the weather gets awesome, and it’s also just outside of Boston, so it’s very convenient.

Demoparties continue to be rare over here, and with this year, Blockparty becomes the longest-running US or North American demoparty, practically an institution. With @party starting up, the opportunities just multiply. See you there.