ALL SCI-FI Forum Index ALL SCI-FI
The place to “find your people”.
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Clash of the Titans (1981)

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    ALL SCI-FI Forum Index -> Movies in Other Genres
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Bud Brewster
Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)


Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 17018
Location: North Carolina

PostPosted: Mon Oct 26, 2020 10:49 am    Post subject: Clash of the Titans (1981) Reply with quote



A member of All Sci-Fi recently stated that in spite of the stellar cast and the high production values of this movie, it just didn't have he same flavor as the earlier Harryhausen films like Mysterious Island or Jason and the Argonauts.

I totally agree. In part I think it's because the 1980s had a different culture than the 1950s and 1960s. Sad

This is probably why the critics were so strongly divided in their opinions of the film.

I suspect that if you put them all a bar and let them drink freely for an hour, the ones who liked the movie and the ones who hated it would end up coming to blows and trashing the place in a free-for-all that would leave few of the guys standing when it was over! Shocked

Here's what I mean. Below are excerpts from the many reviews included in the Wikipedia article. The reviews are in blue, followed by my own comments.
________________________________________

On review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, the film holds an approval rating of 67% based on 43 reviews, and an average rating of 5.98/10. The website's critical consensus reads, "A goofy, old-school sword-and-sandal epic, Clash of the Titans mines Greek mythology for its story and fleshes it out with Ray Harryhausen's charmingly archaic stop-motion animation techniques."

Wait just a cotton-picking minute! Mad

"Archaic stop-motion animation techniques?" Somebody hold my coat while it break this guy's nose! Mad
________________________________________

Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times gave the film three and a half out of four stars and called it "a grand and glorious romantic adventure, filled with brave heroes, beautiful heroines, fearsome monsters, and awe-inspiring duels to the death. It is a lot of fun."

Tell the bartender to put all of Mr. Ebert's drinks on my tab! Very Happy
________________________________________

Gene Siskel of the Chicago Tribune also gave the film three and a half stars out of four and called it "a special effects spectacular that succeeds brilliantly as an old-fashioned adventure film based on the legends of Greek mythology."

Many thanks to Gentleman Gene. Mr. Siskel's drinks are on my tab, too! Cool
________________________________________

Variety called it "an unbearable bore of a film that will probably put to sleep the few adults stuck taking the kids to it. This mythical tale of Perseus, son of Zeus, and his quest for the 'fair' Andromeda, is mired in a slew of corny dialog and an endless array of flat, outdated special effects that are both a throwback to a bad 1950's picture."

Stand back, guys! Robert, Gene, and I are going to give that guy's face some real "variety"! Rolling Eyes
________________________________________

Vincent Canby of The New York Times wrote, "Though not very witty, the adventures are many, and the involve a lot of Mr. Harryhausen's specialties," though he thought the monsters were "less convincing than interesting."

Vincent seems like an okay guy, but does he really think stop motion is supposed to be both "interesting" and "convincing"? Confused
________________________________________

Kevin Thomas of the Los Angeles Times stated that the film "has charm, it has imagination, but it is also too often stodgy. It is an instance of the whole not being nearly as good as its parts. However, Harryhausen's contributions do delight, and this may be more than enough for his ardent admirers and most youngsters."

Okay, Kevin has summed up the movie pretty well, and he pays tribute to both Ray and his legions of loyal fans.
________________________________________

Gary Arnold of The Washington Post wrote that Hamlin was "always a magnetic presence" but the film's appeal was "quaint and stilted."

Can't really argue with Mr. Arnold either.
________________________________________

Geoff Brown of The Monthly Film Bulletin wrote that the film "unfortunately fails to shake much dust off the genre . . . despite the producers' protracted labors, there's a real possibility that some audiences will be turned to stone before Medusa shows up."

Mr. Brown is not actually wrong, but he didn't have to get snarky . . . Sad
________________________________________

Time stated "The real titan is Ray Harryhausen."

Aaaah, that was nice! Very Happy Somebody take that guy's car keys and I'll drive him home after the joint closes. Smile
________________________________________

Christopher John reviewed Clash of the Titans in Ares Magazine #9 and commented that "Clash of the Titans is still one of Harryhausen's best works. It has a decent script, a fine cast, and a lot of good effects.

The problem lies in the little things. If, in truth, it was to be a clash of the titans, then that is who should have been featured; it should have been either the gods' or Perseus' story, not both. The film falls between two schools . . . and even Harryhausen can't save it, no matter how excellent his magic.


I'm not sure I understand Christopher John's criticism, but if he means that the story was like a pot of beef stew which has too many ingredients and too many spices . . . I'd agree.

Compare it to Jason and the Argonauts[]/i]. One man on one mission, with the aid of a loyal crew and a few likable Greek gods.

It's a case of K.I.S.S. [i]Keep It Simple, Socrates
! Laughing


__________________Clash of the Titans (1981)


___________

_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)


Last edited by Bud Brewster on Sun Sep 05, 2021 4:29 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Pow
Galactic Ambassador


Joined: 27 Sep 2014
Posts: 3400
Location: New York

PostPosted: Mon Oct 26, 2020 7:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Love your critiques, Bud, of the critiques.

And I agree with all of yours here.

"Charmingly archaic stop~motion animation techniques" from Rotten Tomatoes? That review doesn't even make sense.

CGI would indeed supplant stop-motion animation when it came into its own. However, "Clash of the Titans'' was released in the U.S. on June 12, 1981.

The earliest significant films to employ CGI were Walt Disney's "Tron" (July 9,1982) and "The Last Starfighter" (July 13, 1984).

So when Clash first came out, CGI was barely on the scene.

How could Ray's animation be archaic under those circumstances since it was still a predominate special effect at that time in film history?

Yeah, this was not my fav Harryhausen film by any means.

It did have one of the most lavish budgets that a RH film ever had before. It showed from its superb animation, beautiful sets , location filming, period costuming, and impressive cast.

I mean, we have Lawrence Olivier! So, it is entertaining and a feast for the eyes. And yes, I'm including Ursula Andress & Judi Bowker in that observation.

It is also notable, sadly so, because it is Ray & Charles final film.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Pow
Galactic Ambassador


Joined: 27 Sep 2014
Posts: 3400
Location: New York

PostPosted: Mon Oct 26, 2020 8:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Some "Clash of the Titans" Fun Facts.

Writer Beverley Cross's outline which would evolve into this film was titled "Perseus and the Gorgon's Head."

In Greek mythology Pegasus sprung from the blood of Medusa's head. Beverley rewrote this idea so as to introduce the winged horse much earlier in the movie so that Perseus was able to use Pegasus for the entire quest.

Columbia Pictures was the studio for many of the Charles Schneer and Ray Harryhausen films. Initially, the studio was excited about doing COTT but ultimately rejected the project due to its requiring a more lavish budget than they usually allocated for the Schneer/Harryhausen films.

Fortunately MGM was interested and provided the project with a generous budget.

$16,000,000 would be the movie's budget. This budget exceeded the sum total of all twelve of the previous Schneer/Harryhausen productions.

Malcolm McDowell, Michael York, and Richard Chamberlain were all candidates for the lead role of Perseus.

Peter Ustinov was under consideration for the part of the mentor Ammon that was played by Burgess Meredith.

Considered for Zeus were Sir Ralph Richardson, John Gielgud, and Orson Welles before Lawrence Olivier was cast as the supreme god.

Leslie-Anne Down was considered for Andromeda.

Sicily, Greece, Italy and Turkey were all scouted for possible shooting locations.

The only locale that was decided upon to film at was the amphitheater in Ostia Antica, Italy where Perseus first encounters Ammon.

Charles & Ray had found the various other locations they investigated as being either too ruined or too commercial.

They returned to their previously tried and tested film Spanish and Maltese locations.

Principal photography commenced on May 14, 1979 at Pinewood Studios in England.

Guadix, Spain was the remote location for the "Wells of the Moon.'' Mesa Loc provided the desert scenes; and the mountains of Antequerra for the witches' lair.

Palinuro, Italy's beaches were used for the River Styx and Isle of the Dead scenes.

A dried-up river bed near Palinuro was also utilized for the exciting scorpion battle.

The temples at Paestum served as the locale for the confrontation with Dioaskilos and Medusa.

Malta was where the remainder of the locations were filmed with the interior of Medusa's lair shot inside an aircraft hanger at Hal Far Airfield.

The long shots for the city of Joppa was the Cospicua harbor enhanced with miniature temples, palace, and a large statue. Fort St.Elmo & Fort Rocco provided the spots for the marketplace.

The procession sacrificial scene to the Kraken was filmed at the Malta studio tank; additional scenes were on Gozo island.

Live action filming would wrap up on September 1, 1979.

For nearly the next 18-months, Ray would work on the animated scenes in the Pinewood Studios.

At times, Harryhausen would work around the clock and had a cot
set up in a studio office.

Janet Stevens would sculpt most of the detailed models for Ray's creatures.

Steve Archer was the assistant animator whom Ray hired in order to complete the immense animation challenges.

The animation scenes were finally finished in mid~January of 1981.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bud Brewster
Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)


Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 17018
Location: North Carolina

PostPosted: Tue Oct 27, 2020 1:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pow wrote:
"Charmingly archaic stop~motion animation techniques" from Rotten Tomatoes? That review doesn't even make sense.

CGI would indeed supplant stop-motion animation when it came into its own. However, "Clash of the Titans'' was released in the U.S. on June 12, 1981.

Absolutely correct, Mike. Very Happy

In fact, I think comparing stop motion to CGI is like comparing professional photography to a beautiful oil painting. Both require artistic skill, but the results are intended to be very different.

Stop motion creates is a stylized reality which has its own kind of beauty, and it's not meant to look "real".

The painting below is by professional artist Jim Peavy (one of my oldest friends), and it demonstrates how an art form like this is drastically different from a photograph!



___________


So, calling stop motion "archaic" is like saying that when cameras were invented they should have put fine artists like Jim out of work!

When Jim created his painting, he had to carefully consider the placement of each brush stroke, along with the colors he used for every inch of the painting. His bold use of unexpected colors in Karloff's face is what makes his painting so strikingly different from any photograph.

Stop motion requires the same meticulous attention to that time consuming process. Try to imagine the incredible skill required to (a) imagine an original creature for a fantasy movie, (b) design it in tremendous detail, and then (c) plan out each move for the 24 separate positions the model needs to assume . . . just for one second of film!

Here's a comparison of a scene done with the "archaic" stop motion technique, and then the same scene done with modern CGI.


__________________ Clash of the Titans - 1981


___________



__________________ Clash of the Titans (2010)


___________


The difference is striking!

Harryhausen's version showcases his brilliant ability to carefully move Medusa in a slow and frightening manner . . . while varying the lighting to simulate the flickering torches! This scene is truly a "moving work art", with each frame creating a separate masterpiece.

By contrast, the CGI version relies on fast-past action to create tension and suspense — but Medusa races along so rapidly that it almost looks physically impossible. She seems to have too little weight and mass!

CGI snake-monsters and tentacled creatures often look fake because the animators find it so easy to just move them like water flowing in a stream bed, with the head of the snake or the tip of the tentacle pulling everything else along the same path.

Comparing CGI (and reality itself) to stop motion is a classic example of "apples and oranges". Those who find stop motion "archaic" have no real understanding of what makes animation appealing to its fans, and they don't fully understand just how truly miraculous a skillfully animated scene is.

_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Pow
Galactic Ambassador


Joined: 27 Sep 2014
Posts: 3400
Location: New York

PostPosted: Tue Oct 27, 2020 4:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bud, you've written a marvelous post that perfectly explains the differences between stop~motion animation and CGI.

I love both of these entertaining visuals, but they are two different critters. Both have their strong points as well as weaknesses.

I say we need both to be vibrant and alive for audiences to enjoy.

I would also submit that CGI has often replaced superb model-work in the area of FX, and that's sad too.

Just as each visual FX has its strong points, so does detailed model-work.

Derek Meddings was a legend in that arena with his work on many of the Gerry & Sylvia Anderson marionette sci~fi TV show. Later with the James Bond films.

It seems to me that no one special/visual effect can totally replace another one due to each one's inherent strengths and weaknesses.

Sometimes one is perfect for a particular scene; sometimes another works better.

I realize film and TV will resort 99% of the time to utilization of CGI over stop~motion & model-work.

I get why. CGI is less expensive, less time consuming.
And the two enemies of film and television production remains budget and time.

The FX will opt for the easiest & most practical visual for their productions.

From an artistic viewpoint though, it doesn't mean that is always going to produce the best outcome.

And man, your amigo Jim is one heck of an artist!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bud Brewster
Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)


Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 17018
Location: North Carolina

PostPosted: Tue Oct 27, 2020 7:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

________________________________

Pow, I guess I did a poor job of describing the merits of stop motion FX compared to CGI. Allow me to set the record straight. Sad

I love CGI special effects. I didn't mean to suggest that I had a clear preference for stop motion over CGI.

A movie with stop motion by Harryhausen or O'Brien is a special treat. They're not films with convincingly realistic FX — they're movies that periodically present scenes which shock the audience by suddenly veering into fantasy!

Scenes using stop motion are the reason we came to see these movies! Very Happy

Decades later we saw movies that included scenes which shifted between real-and-unreal — without any of us knowing when the changes occurred!

I grew up watching movies that shocked me with the sudden scenes which I knew just couldn't be real. But now I watch movies that include scenes with the "unreal" mixed in so seamlessly that I never know which is which!

I'll admit, both kinds of movies are great! Very Happy

But my point in the post above was that "archaic" stop motion special effects are intended to create one kind of movie-going experience . . . while totally realistic CGI are intended to create another kind.

_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)


Last edited by Bud Brewster on Thu Sep 16, 2021 2:23 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Pow
Galactic Ambassador


Joined: 27 Sep 2014
Posts: 3400
Location: New York

PostPosted: Tue Oct 27, 2020 10:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

No Bud, you explained it all quite well. Perhaps I was not conveying what I meant very well?

I am in awe of well executed CGI; they've revolutionized the field of visual FX.

CGI done well is amazing to behold.

I recall reading an interview with the head of FX for "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine" when he discussed that show's huge story arc involving the Federation-Dominion War.

The epic battle involved a screen full of star ships from the Federation, Klingons, Romulans, and other allies engaged in an all out space war with the Dominion ships.

The FX gent remarked that such a scene would have been absolutely impossible utilizing practical models. First, making so many physical models would have been cost prohibitive.

Second, you could not have maneuvered star ship models like you could CGI.

Models are limited as to how rapidly they can be moved, and limited to simple, basic movements.

In that regard CGI was the superior and only choice.

What I was attempting to write was that as a longtime special/visual effects devotee it is sad to see CGI replace so much of the visuals that were achieved by stop~motion and model work.

I was trying to say that there is still a place for stop-motion and model work, and it's a shame that they are so rarely utilized when there are times they would truly shine.

It would be nifty to see productions not simply eliminate other special/visual FX and always just rely upon CGI in every instance.

It could be a case of utilizing all these different styles of FX in concert with one another.

Should only CGI be employed in films and TV? Yes, at times it's the perfect solution.

But there can be use on certain occasions for other forms of visuals which are not CGI.

The ST:TOS remastered episodes could only have been done via CGI. I love seeing how much better CGI has made those episodes and that was the only way they could have been remastered.

CGI will predominate, evolve, and be able to do more and more as time goes by. It is phenomenal and I am a big fan of it and love seeing how it grows.

As a fan of fantastic CGI, stop-motion, and model work there are times when those historically earlier FX can still achieve incredible results.

They should not be left behind entirely even with CGI being the big dog on the block these days.

I enjoy and celebrate any and all forms of visual effects from the very beginning of films and right up to today.

And its always exciting and intriguing to read about the latest FX breakthroughs no matter what it may be.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bud Brewster
Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)


Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 17018
Location: North Carolina

PostPosted: Thu Sep 16, 2021 4:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

________________________________

Today I watched my download of this movie, and I realized that it made several fatal mistakes.

One of the biggest problems is that it chose to switch back and forth between stop motion and live action versions of a major character.

The way Calibos does. This simply does NOT work!

Admittedly the Calibos makeup is flawless, and the actor (Neil McCarthy) who played him did a fine job.

But switching back and forth between a stop motion version of the character and a live action version was just jarring and ineffective.

Consider this.

Imagine a version of the Talos scene in Jason and the Argonauts which switched back and forth between Ray's stop motion and a few closeups of an actor's face who was made up to look like the bronze statue. Sad

(Actually, even the non-animated scenes in which the camera simply panned up the animation model have always bothered me!)

And just try to picture a version of the harpy scene which inter-cut between the animated creatures and several women in harpy suits for a few close ups! Sad

No, I'm afraid that one of the biggest flaws in this movie is the unfortunate decision to combine Harryhausen's animation with an actor in makeup. All of Ray's previous movies have avoided this fatal flaw . . . thank goodness!

Guys, let's be honest about this.

CGI versions of creatures like these could be done so that we could never answer that age old question: "Is it real, or is it Memorize!"

Remember those old commercials?

Actually, I'm a loyal Maxell tape man, myself. I've got hundreds of them which contain many hours of music I recorded on my own tape deck, I've even got audio tapes of my favorite movies!


__________
_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)


Last edited by Bud Brewster on Mon Jan 17, 2022 12:10 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Pow
Galactic Ambassador


Joined: 27 Sep 2014
Posts: 3400
Location: New York

PostPosted: Fri Sep 17, 2021 2:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I agree with you, Bud, the cuts between the stop~motion model of Calibos to the fine actor Neil McCarthy (in excellent makeup) simply do not work smoothly for the movie

Ray said that throughout pre-production the character of Calibos was supposed to be unable to speak at all. That was done in order to spend vast amounts of time animating the model saying dialogue.

Later on it was decided that since Calibos is the primary villain in the movie it just wouldn't work to have him a mime.

Ray did not want Calibos to appear as a man in a rubber suit. So he designed the demonic look for Calibos and gave him a cloven hoof and tail. This way it would look like a supernatural creature for the audience.

The model would appear in medium and long shots so that the legs and tail are visible.

Ray felt that Neil played the role of Calibos beyond all expectations, and that once his scenes and the model were edited together, Neil & the model blended perfectly.

I'm afraid Ray missed the ball on that one. I can understand that he wished to have Calibos not appear as a man in a rubber suit. However, with Neil able to realize the character so well, along with the wonderful makeup he had, Ray needed to just go with the actor for all the scenes with Calibos.

The makeup department might have been able to create a decent looking prosthetic for the cloven hoof for Neil to wear.

I'm guessing that having Neil wear a tail that moved in a realistic manner might have been beyond the special effects technological capabilities in 1979-80 when the film was in pre-production. I'd drop that idea.

So I'd have simply gone with an actor portraying Calibos in all his scenes. You could keep Calibos in the shadows and fog, as Ray did mostly. It would have looked much better than the back-and-forth editing between Neil & the model.
Saved time and cost less.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Pow
Galactic Ambassador


Joined: 27 Sep 2014
Posts: 3400
Location: New York

PostPosted: Sun Apr 30, 2023 10:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pegasus was to meet a rather dramatic demise in an early draft of the script. During the climatic battle with the Kraken at the edge of the sea, he was to be torn limb from limb. The censors at the time decided that this would endanger the family rating the film had been tentatively granted based on the screenplay, so it was decided to remove that scene.

I would have hated such a brutal & vicious death for the majestic flying horse. And you can bet the kids would have been thrown into shock and would began to wail throughout the theater.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    ALL SCI-FI Forum Index -> Movies in Other Genres All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group