JimSweeney
E. Fton
Login to Send PM
honavery
Arizona
Login to Send PM
I actually don't have a problem with them remaking this one. While I loved it as a child, I've seen it twice recently (once at the recent beer tasting at Studio 35) and it didn't really hold up quite as well as I thought it would. The plot is slow and meandering, and even most of the action is a little underwhelming. +1 for pointless nudity though.
I was also somewhat surprised to see that the original COTT was made in 1981....Jason and the Argonauts was shot in 1963. I would be more willing to forgive some of the FX if it had been made at a similar time.
That's not to say the new one will be any good.
Core_Models
Columbus
Login to Send PM
honavery wrote >>
I was also somewhat surprised to see that the original COTT was made in 1981....Jason and the Argonauts was shot in 1963.
This is my point exactly. I don't know how many of the fans actually went in 1981 to the theater like I did, but I can tell you I wasn't going because I was a 12 year old fan of Harryhausen...I wanted to see a cool fantasy movie. What I got was effects that were REALLY weak and dated, and a movie that somehow cast Harry Hamlin opposite Sir Laurence Olivier.
I want you to take a second and let that sink in, btw...Harry Hamlin opposite Laurence Olivier.
Just for comparison sake, btw, I saw another fantasy film that same year...Excalibur. Better effects, better acting, better action, and about +999 for pointless nudity!
I do think my brain had filtered out that apparently every trailer from that time frame had really bad voice over narration...
| Get the Video Player |
| Get the Video Player |
Core_Models
Columbus
Login to Send PM
p.s. a quick reminder of other movies I saw that year, Escape from New York...The Road Warrior...Taps...Scanners...Evil Dead...Heavy Metal...Night Hawks (The most badass of Stallone films)...Time Bandits...
and most importantly, Raiders of the Lost Ark.
Yeah, by comparison Clash of the Titans was the ultimate suck.
myliftkk
Columbus, OH
Login to Send PM
Core_Models wrote >>
p.s. a quick reminder of other movies I saw that year, Escape from New York...The Road Warrior...Taps...Scanners...Evil Dead...Heavy Metal...Night Hawks (The most badass of Stallone films)...Time Bandits...
and most importantly, Raiders of the Lost Ark.
Yeah, by comparison Clash of the Titans was the ultimate suck.
+1 My point exactly... the movie was just out of place in the time continuum.
rus
Login to Send PM
Core_Models wrote >>
p.s. a quick reminder of other movies I saw that year, Escape from New York...The Road Warrior...Taps...Scanners...Evil Dead...Heavy Metal...Night Hawks (The most badass of Stallone films)...Time Bandits...
and most importantly, Raiders of the Lost Ark.
Yeah, by comparison Clash of the Titans was the ultimate suck.
Lotta classics on that list... and +1
blammo
in the shadow of the wonder of bread
Login to Send PM
rus wrote >>
Core_Models wrote >>
p.s. a quick reminder of other movies I saw that year, Escape from New York...The Road Warrior...Taps...Scanners...Evil Dead...Heavy Metal...Night Hawks (The most badass of Stallone films)...Time Bandits...
and most importantly, Raiders of the Lost Ark.
Yeah, by comparison Clash of the Titans was the ultimate suck.Lotta classics on that list... and +1
yeah, that's all i was saying.
Rockmastermike
CORNspiracy HQ
Login to Send PM
jeff_r wrote >>
Wow...talking shit about the work of Ray Harryhausen. I never thought I'd see the day.
seriously. that was some of Harryhausen's best work, and it was seriously cutting edge back then. Unfortunately it's NOT a very good movie at all. Remaking it strikes me as being a rather pointless exercise.
I remember seeing that at the DRIVE IN when it first came out. LOL!
10sun
Columbus, OH
Login to Send PM
Yeah, I wasn't alive when the original came out.
That being said, I loved it when I finally got to rent it as a child as I was huge into Greek mythology at the time. My sister on the other hand liked it about as much as Stephen King's It... had to listen to her cry about nightmares for months.
Core_Models
Columbus
Login to Send PM
seriously. that was some of Harryhausen's best work, and it was seriously cutting edge back then.
This is the part I'm missing I guess, because as someone else pointed out, I think the effects are really comparable to Jason and the Argonauts. So unless I'm missing something different between the two, that would date his own effects almost 20 years (Argonauts came out in 1963).
Andrew Hall
Dennison Place (The Circles)
Login to Send PM
Core_Models wrote >>
seriously. that was some of Harryhausen's best work, and it was seriously cutting edge back then.
This is the part I'm missing I guess, because as someone else pointed out, I think the effects are really comparable to Jason and the Argonauts. So unless I'm missing something different between the two, that would date his own effects almost 20 years (Argonauts came out in 1963).
By 1981, both Star Wars and Empire had been released. The state of the art was well beyond.
A.
JimSweeney
E. Fton
Login to Send PM
Andrew Hall wrote >>
Core_Models wrote >>
seriously. that was some of Harryhausen's best work, and it was seriously cutting edge back then.
This is the part I'm missing I guess, because as someone else pointed out, I think the effects are really comparable to Jason and the Argonauts. So unless I'm missing something different between the two, that would date his own effects almost 20 years (Argonauts came out in 1963).
By 1981, both Star Wars and Empire had been released. The state of the art was well beyond.
A.
this is interesting. it's kind of an apples to oranges comparison. Stop motion animation is totally different art than what they did in those early star wars movies. The Cantina scene, Yoda, and Jaba the Hut were obviously rubber puppets. Chewbaca and the droids were just convincing looking costumes. The art in star wars came was the spaceship stuff and light sabers. In Jason they made a dozen skeletons get up and fight with people.
When done well stop moition animation is far better than rubber suits. look at the original king kong (1935?) compared to the versions made in the 50's and 70's for that matter.
Core_Models
Columbus
Login to Send PM
There was lots of stop motion in the Star Wars movies and Raiders actually...I just think it looked better than the Clash of the Titans stuff.
Andrew Hall
Dennison Place (The Circles)
Login to Send PM
JimSweeney wrote >>
Andrew Hall wrote >>
Core_Models wrote >>
seriously. that was some of Harryhausen's best work, and it was seriously cutting edge back then.
This is the part I'm missing I guess, because as someone else pointed out, I think the effects are really comparable to Jason and the Argonauts. So unless I'm missing something different between the two, that would date his own effects almost 20 years (Argonauts came out in 1963).
By 1981, both Star Wars and Empire had been released. The state of the art was well beyond.
A.this is interesting. it's kind of an apples to oranges comparison. Stop motion animation is totally different art than what they did in those early star wars movies. The Cantina scene, Yoda, and Jaba the Hut were obviously rubber puppets. Chewbaca and the droids were just convincing looking costumes. The art in star wars came was the spaceship stuff and light sabers. In Jason they made a dozen skeletons get up and fight with people.
When done well stop moition animation is far better than rubber suits. look at the original king kong (1935?) compared to the versions made in the 50's and 70's for that matter.
It is only apples-to-oranges if you look at special effects effects in isolation from each other. (And when you do, I submit that the effects fail - like the second set of Star Wars films) The real point of special effects is to solve the problem of how to represent something on the screen. The usage of the correct tool for the problem is an important part of the process. Star Wars (and other contemporous movies) solved the problems far more elegantly than Clash.
A.
Roland
Clintonville
Login to Send PM
Core_Models wrote >>
seriously. that was some of Harryhausen's best work, and it was seriously cutting edge back then.
This is the part I'm missing I guess, because as someone else pointed out, I think the effects are really comparable to Jason and the Argonauts. So unless I'm missing something different between the two, that would date his own effects almost 20 years (Argonauts came out in 1963).
Agreed that the effects are comparable. COTT was Harryhausen's last film. It was made with his techniques had already been surpassed by the next generation of film makers.
If you watch COTT with the intention of seeing a Harryhausen flick the movie holds up just fine.
You must log in to post.
Launched in August 2010, TheMetropreneur.com is a local online resource devoted to small business development and entrepreneurship. Its aim is to tell the stories of Central Ohio's business community, foster regional economic development and assist entrepreneurs with its resource-heavy focus. Click here to visit TheMetropreneur.com.
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
YouTube
