steveo
Sr Member
I doubt it, but yes, I agree. I usually get into the movies free anyway, so I wouldn't pay for it either way.
Clash of the Titans Remake... What do you think?
- Thread starter the_eli
- Start date
I doubt it, but yes, I agree. I usually get into the movies free anyway, so I wouldn't pay for it either way.
propologist
Sr Member
yep I'll be downloading it two days after it comes out. I never pay for any more anymore....lol
Solo4114
Master Member
KnightAsylum
Sr Member
Ony in the same way you seem to hate/put down EVERY movie.:lol
- there are plenty of exceptions for both of us:cool
I just don't agree that there is any marketing issue. The trailers make me want to see it, and everyone I talk to in the real world thinks it looks good. True I don't only hang out with movie geeks, but like many things I think it is much more about bashing and being negative then any real assessment of the film. My Girlfriend is a huge fan of the original, and is dying to see this one, she gets happy just seeing the commercials, so apparently they are good enough for both of us.
I think most movies boil down to taste (shocking for a form of art, I know) and I am happy we are not all the same so there can be a wide variety of movies put out. Plenty for all, not everything needs to appeal to everyone.
In general I think there are a ton of film snobs, especially in the anonymous world of the internet, that live for nothing more then negativity - putting things down, blaming Hollywood, and proclaiming there superior tastes. If that makes them happy them more power to them, but don't expect others to agree with you. People that think they could do better should, if they are unwilling to do the work themselves then they are stuck with what others do. I don't expect anyone to conform to my tastes, and I consider myself lucky that what I want for a film is entertainment, and with the movies I pick 90% of the time I feel I was entertained and as such have no negative feelings about it.:thumbsup
Still just responding to the overall question. It looks good, and I am looking forward to it.:cool
I'm very curious to see the movie since I'm a huge fan of the original!
The thing that bothers me from the previews is Medusa's Face looks like a Mannequin, & the Stygian Witches look like something out of "Pan's Labyrinth" and NOT Witches!
The Action looks great, and the costumes are nicely detailed (Although I don't believe they match anything True Greek Warriors would Really Wear)!
If you go to imdb.com Calibos is listed in the Credits so we will be seeing him in this Remake, I don't know how good/bad he looks, I plan to see the Film and decide if I like the remake at that point...
The thing that bothers me from the previews is Medusa's Face looks like a Mannequin, & the Stygian Witches look like something out of "Pan's Labyrinth" and NOT Witches!
The Action looks great, and the costumes are nicely detailed (Although I don't believe they match anything True Greek Warriors would Really Wear)!
If you go to imdb.com Calibos is listed in the Credits so we will be seeing him in this Remake, I don't know how good/bad he looks, I plan to see the Film and decide if I like the remake at that point...
allosaur176
Sr Member
Yep, Im really looking forward to this!
CTF
Sr Member
:thumbsdown
Lord Boron
Sr Member
From what I saw in the adds and preview, I though the effects sucked. They looked cheesy and very CG, as in car-commercial level CG.
Has Ray voiced his disapproval?
Maybe disapproval is too strong of a word, but he doesn't understand why it needed re-making. He's always been pretty vocal about his thoughts on CGI, and I agree with him:
"I feel it's a tool. As you know in a thirty-second commercial you see the most amazing images, the amazing image is no longer spectacular. It's become mundane because it's over used. The computer seems to be able to do anything. So people take it for granted, I think. There's something that happens in stop-motion that gives a different effect--like a dream world--and that's what fantasy is about."
Here's a video with his reaction when the movie was first announced:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4K4I59jUTs
For me CGI does nothing to get me excited anymore. There are the exceptions (Gollum, Davy Jones...) but for the most part, it always seems cheap and video-gamey. Seeing the reveal of the Kraken in the new Clash trailer, it didn't seem very impressive. I've seen that before with God of War. Seeing Harryhausen's Kraken for the first time, it still gives me chills. I guess I just prefer the stop motion aesthetic...
CTF
Sr Member
The Stig
Sr Member
I had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Harryhausen a few years back, he didn't have many kind words in regards to CG at the time, which I thought was hilarious since he was speaking at a VFX school. :lol
I have the ultimate respect for him though, he is a true pioneer and a huge influence. :thumbsup
I have the ultimate respect for him though, he is a true pioneer and a huge influence. :thumbsup
Solo4114
Master Member
These two quotes pretty much encapsulate my views.
CGI doesn't impress me anymore. Oh look. It's CGI. >yawn< I just don't really care anymore. CGI has become a crutch to paper over the utter lack of a coherent story, decent acting, direction, etc. Hey, who cares, right? We have stuff that goes boom and a big snake thing.
I also play video games. I see CGI that's just as good in those games. Sometimes I find BETTER stories in the games than in the average CGI flick. That should tell you something.
Gollum in LOTR is impressive, but even that I don't really care about except insofar as it helped make an interesting character look more real.
Now, that said, stop-motion is no different. If I see stop motion, I don't think "OMG!! It looks AMAZING!!!!" most of the time. Well, with the exception of things like Nightmare Before Christmas and such, but that's when I'm impressed by the sheer scope of its use and how much time it must've taken. CGI, on the other hand? Dime a dozen now. All it's usually able to elicit from me is "Meh." There are exceptions, but mostly, a pretty picture is just a pretty picture. Basically, I agree with the old George Lucas bit that a special effect without a good story is a REALLY BORING THING. So, when I see trailers pimping the F/X of a film and otherwise glossing over the story, the first thing I think to myself is "Wow. This must be a really stupid movie with a crap story and crap acting." I DON'T think "AWESOME!! I've GOT to go see this because...I mean...look! Robots! And huge freakin' lizards!!"
I know he isn't a fan of CG, but he's always stopped himself before bashing it.
He is also my biggest influence, moreso than Willis O'Brien.
I too met Ray (he signed my copy of his book) and he also logged on to Stopmotionanimation.com a couple times as a special guest and answered questions from us. Amazing guy.
He has a great DVD compilation out. It's a few years old, but it contains EVERYTHING he's done up to going pro.
Solo4114
Master Member
Not to derail too much here, but I have, generally speaking, two major problems with CG.
1.) It's overused and substituted for story. Now, in fairness, that's true of ANY f/x gimmick after the initial usage. 3D is next on deck for this. News flash: 3D won't make your crappy story any less crappy. It'll just be crappy in 3D. That won't stop studios from shoehorning it into whatever product they can.
2.) Most of the time, it's done really poorly. Say what you will about stop-motion (or go-motion), but at least you're dealing with a physical object that interacts with light as you'd expect it to. I'll take stop-motion bronze collossus in "Jason and the Argonauts" any day over CGI Hulk in "The Hulk." Why? Because at least it looks like a real object that reflects and absorbs light properly. When CGI is done well, it's AMAZING. Most of the time it is not done well.
Clash of the Titans may get me to watch it eventually, but it doesn't look like anything special or worth going to the theater to see. I'll let my $18 Netflix account cover it.
1.) It's overused and substituted for story. Now, in fairness, that's true of ANY f/x gimmick after the initial usage. 3D is next on deck for this. News flash: 3D won't make your crappy story any less crappy. It'll just be crappy in 3D. That won't stop studios from shoehorning it into whatever product they can.
2.) Most of the time, it's done really poorly. Say what you will about stop-motion (or go-motion), but at least you're dealing with a physical object that interacts with light as you'd expect it to. I'll take stop-motion bronze collossus in "Jason and the Argonauts" any day over CGI Hulk in "The Hulk." Why? Because at least it looks like a real object that reflects and absorbs light properly. When CGI is done well, it's AMAZING. Most of the time it is not done well.
Clash of the Titans may get me to watch it eventually, but it doesn't look like anything special or worth going to the theater to see. I'll let my $18 Netflix account cover it.
I had the pleasure to meet him a few times as well. He's always been extremely nice and humble about his work. Amazing man. I also recommend his DVD The Early Years Collection. Really great. Also check out his books "The Art of Ray Harryhausen" and "Ray Harryhausen: An Animated Life." He goes into great detail about all his work and techniques. "Ray Harryhausen Master of the Majicks" and "A Century of Stop-Motion Animation" are also wonderful books.
I agree 100%. When done well, it's AMAZING. Sadly, it's hardly ever done well. I think most studios need to take some notes from Weta... They usually hit it out of the park.
I think I'm going to pass on Clash for now as well, maybe see it on blu-ray down the line eventually.
Similar threads
