Media Megaforum

Clash of the Titans
PPPchairman at 1:29PM, March 18, 2010
(online)
posts: 101
joined: 7-16-2009
Is anyone else here excited about Clash of the Titans?
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:47PM
PIT_FACE at 6:06PM, March 18, 2010
(online)
posts: 2,579
joined: 4-21-2007
i'm gonna see it. it looks like they're keeping medusa pretty much the same, which makes me happy. well i guess they speed her up a bit. but i love that scene from the original where she slithers out ready with her bow and arrow and i thought i caught something like that in the previews that iw as watching. Harryhausen had some of the coolest creatures. i dont expect it to be too much like the other, but i think i'll be entertained!
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:45PM
ozoneocean at 8:41PM, March 18, 2010
(online)
posts: 24,963
joined: 1-2-2004
What really annoys me is when people refer to the original as “highly camp” with bad special effects. Camp my arse! And those special effects and the entire film SET THE STAGE for all modern fantasy and scifi, without Harryhausen we'd probably still be another 15 or 20 years behind where we are now. If he hadn't shown what was possible and pushed the envelope as hard as he did to develop and produce those techniques, then the digital revolution would have been much longer in coming.

He pushed those techniques to the limit and fired people's imaginations, raised their expectations! :)

/rant.

———————–

Unfortunately I haven't seen much so far that makes me want to see the new thing… I wouldn't bother with it on DVD. Maybe I'll go with friends to see it at the cinema though.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:36PM
Amelius at 12:02AM, March 19, 2010
(online)
posts: 251
joined: 1-15-2006
Eh, I'd be more excited about this if it was actually Clash of the Titans and not “we couldn't get the rights to God Of War so we changed the title” (yes, that is exactly the case) Still, I think I'll stick with the classic, I'm getting kinda annoyed by the trend of remaking perfectly good movies. Seems highly unnecessary.

Totally with you on that rant, ozone!
last edited on July 14, 2011 10:52AM
JustNoPoint at 5:26AM, March 19, 2010
(online)
posts: 1,325
joined: 3-16-2007
I'm really excited ^_^ I love the original. If this movie is pretty much the original with up to date CG then it's a sure fire favorite!!!

It even comes out on my birthday! So that's really awesome!

I am worried they'll want to ruin it by changing stuff drastically. But when has Hollywood ever did that? XD
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:12PM
DAJB at 7:00AM, March 19, 2010
(online)
posts: 1,462
joined: 2-23-2007
I hated the original. There, I said it!

It wasn't the campiness, it was the fact that it looked so dated, even on first release. Okay, so Ray Harryhausen's stop-motion effects don't match up to today's CGI extravaganzas, that's a given, but what seems to have been forgotten is that they were hardly groundbreaking even back then. The technology hadn't moved on since he'd made Jason and the Argonauts and so, what had been revolutionary in the Sixties was starting to look very tired and old hat by 1981.

Plus it had a clockwork owl. I hated that owl. It was as if some brain-dead producer had cornered the scriptwriters at the last minute and said: "Hey, I know this is supposed to be about ancient Greek myths and all that but, you know what, Star Wars is really big just now, find some way to include a droid!"

So, yes, I am looking forward to the remake but not from any sense of nostalgia for the original. It's more because I hated that film so much that I'm hoping the new one will be good enough to bury the memory of that one all together. Whether I pay to see it at the cinema or wait for it to hit DVD will depend on whether it has a mechanical owl. No way am I paying good money to be told the ancient Greeks had robot owls!
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:04PM
ozoneocean at 8:02AM, March 19, 2010
(online)
posts: 24,963
joined: 1-2-2004
DAJB
clockwork owl.
It was actually a really clever inclusion. The Greek myths DO talk about clever devices and things like that made by Hephaestus the smith.
Remember- the stories aren't about ancient greeks, but their myths. The ancient Greeks didn't fight monsters or have gods helping them out either, but the myths say they did :)
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:36PM
DAJB at 8:21AM, March 19, 2010
(online)
posts: 1,462
joined: 2-23-2007
ozoneocean
DAJB
clockwork owl.
It was actually a really clever inclusion. The Greek myths DO talk about clever devices and things like that made by Hephaestus the smith.
Remember- the stories aren't about ancient greeks, but their myths. The ancient Greeks didn't fight monsters or have gods helping them out either, but the myths say they did :)
A fine attempt, Mr. O, but I'm not convinced! :)
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:04PM
PIT_FACE at 9:19AM, March 19, 2010
(online)
posts: 2,579
joined: 4-21-2007
Amelius
Eh, I'd be more excited about this if it was actually Clash of the Titans and not “we couldn't get the rights to God Of War so we changed the title” (yes, that is exactly the case) Still, I think I'll stick with the classic, I'm getting kinda annoyed by the trend of remaking perfectly good movies. Seems highly unnecessary.

Totally with you on that rant, ozone!

yeah that's true. it seems like it's about perseus rebelling against the gods which isnt anything near the original.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:45PM
Mitaukano at 9:36AM, March 19, 2010
(online)
posts: 178
joined: 3-26-2008
PIT_FACE
yeah that's true. it seems like it's about perseus rebelling against the gods which isnt anything near the original.


You know how Hollywood likes to make the good boy, the Bad Boy these days. Though the myth itself is a bit more disturbing. Anyhow I am excited to see this and I'm really hoping they don't wreak it the original is so awesome.

And to those who don't like Harryhausen's work, it's all a matter of opinion. If you look at Sinbad and you look at Clash of the Titans his stuff vastly improved in a short span of time. I remember watching a documentary where Harryhausen was saying that Lion was the worst part in Sinbad (I think that's it) because he had to make sure the fur was all in the same direction and it still managed to creep a bit shot to shot.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:05PM
ozoneocean at 9:51PM, March 19, 2010
(online)
posts: 24,963
joined: 1-2-2004
DAJB
ozoneocean
DAJB
clockwork owl.
It was actually a really clever inclusion. The Greek myths DO talk about clever devices and things like that made by Hephaestus the smith.
Remember- the stories aren't about ancient greeks, but their myths. The ancient Greeks didn't fight monsters or have gods helping them out either, but the myths say they did :)
A fine attempt, Mr. O, but I'm not convinced! :)
All you need do is a little reading up about Hephaestus ;)
He made some interesting things.

Remember the Antikythera Mechanism? Mechanisms with cogs and things n them were not alien to that culture.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:36PM
DAJB at 12:59AM, March 20, 2010
(online)
posts: 1,462
joined: 2-23-2007
ozoneocean
DAJB
ozoneocean
DAJB
clockwork owl.
It was actually a really clever inclusion. The Greek myths DO talk about clever devices and things like that made by Hephaestus the smith.
Remember- the stories aren't about ancient greeks, but their myths. The ancient Greeks didn't fight monsters or have gods helping them out either, but the myths say they did :)
A fine attempt, Mr. O, but I'm not convinced! :)
All you need do is a little reading up about Hephaestus ;)
He made some interesting things.

Remember the Antikythera Mechanism? Mechanisms with cogs and things n them were not alien to that culture.
Oh, I know all about Hephaestus, thanks. And Daedalus. I'm just not convinced your argument makes a mechanical owl anything but an ill-conceived and poorly executed gimmick.

I guess it's like you and Legolas's shield-surfing in LotR. Although it wasn't in the books, for me, that was entirely in keeping with the nature of the character: lithe, athletic, sharp-eyed, an unrivalled marksman and with perfect balance - everything Tolkien said an elven prince should be! You think it spoiled the movie. I thought it was one of the stand-out moments.

Now, as far as the original Clash of the Titans is concerned, you may be able to argue that a robotic owl was possible (just about!) but, for me, it will always be a desperate (and poorly executed) attempt to make mythology palatable to a young audience infatuated with Star Wars. We can agree to differ! ;-)
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:04PM
Air Raid Robertson at 7:09AM, March 20, 2010
(online)
posts: 292
joined: 5-7-2009
I'm going to have to concur. I think the clockwork owl was easily the most annoying character in the movie. It kept flying around all these monsters, yet nobody would squish it. Why?

Other than that, however, I am fond of Harryhausen's body of work. (Especially Jason and the Argonauts and Mighty Joe Young) I am also tired of people doing subpar remakes of old sci-fi, horror, and fantasy movies.

I mean, nobody is even considering the prospect of remaking Casablanca, The Godfather, or Annie Hall. However, we keep getting swamped with horrible updates on The Day The Earth Stood Still, King Kong, and others. Just leave the past alone and try to make your own damn movie.
last edited on July 14, 2011 10:48AM
isukun at 8:14AM, March 20, 2010
(online)
posts: 2,481
joined: 9-28-2006
Unfortunately, killing past franchises is the in thing in Hollywood, right now. Maybe it is their attempt to kill any sense of nostalgia people had for these properties by making shitty remakes of them. I've heard Logan's Run and the Black Hole are also on the way from the relatively unknown director working on Tron Legacy (how you go from making commercials for Xbox360 games to getting contracted for four Hollywood films without actually making any movies these days is beyond me). We also have a remake of When Worlds Collide on the way. Robocop, Creature from the Black Lagoon, Flash Gordon, Westworld, Forbidden Planet, Frankenstein, Fahrenheit 451, The Illustrated Man, Attack of the Killer Tomatoes, Heavy Metal (all CG this time), Footloose, 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, Barbarella, Dirty Dozen, The Seven Samurai, Spies Like Us, and Dune are all expected to hit in the next three years. That's just counting Hollywood remakes of past movies. It does't include remakes of TV series or new comic adaptations (OK, a couple of those are based on comics, but you get the idea). This is why I think movies like Avatar are a little more important these days. Even if it isn't wholly original, it at least isn't just another remake trying to ride on the nostalgia of the old franchise like just about everything else these days.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:05PM
ozoneocean at 5:12AM, March 21, 2010
(online)
posts: 24,963
joined: 1-2-2004
DAJB
guess it's like you and Legolas's shield-surfing in LotR. Although it wasn't in the books, for me, that was entirely in keeping with the nature of the character: lithe, athletic, sharp-eyed, an unrivalled marksman and with perfect balance - everything Tolkien said an elven prince should be! You think it spoiled the movie. I thought it was one of the stand-out moments.
What? Nooo! lol!

It was hilariously bad. Sharp eyed etc? Nooo, it went against the very spirit of all things Tolkenien and even the fantasy genre in general. The ability to do that sort of shooting with a longbow while sliding down a diagonal plain would basically make him a super-hero. With ability like that all the other characters are pointless, they should have just had armies of super elfy people running and skipping about at high speed firing arrows in all directions like magically aimed machine-gun sprinklers of death- with bad hair. :)
–It's a kung-fu type hyper-unreality fight move that was grafted on to a standard prosaic ordinary battle.

—–
That owl thing- I can see how you get that Star Wars droid thing, but it really helps open people's eyes to the full spectrum of what Greek Myth was about. - Bronze mecha? YES, they did it first.They were just that cool.

Of course a lot of Greek Myth comes down to interpretation… The Cyclops for instance: He was meant to be a giant, or one of a number of giants, but did he have only one eye in the middle of his face? His name just means Round eyed“ and the Greeks were very specific with names. If he was only mean to have one they probably would have called him ”monops“ or something.
There was another ”character“ who was called (in translation) ”the hundred handed one"… But there's some speculation as to wheather that meant one being with a WHOLE lotta hands, or a small army unit of about 50 or so…
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:36PM
isukun at 6:51AM, March 21, 2010
(online)
posts: 2,481
joined: 9-28-2006
The cyclopes are kind of a bad example since there are numerous pieces of artwork and literature from ancient Greece which specifically state or depict that their race had only one eye in the center of their face. Greek mythology has always held that the cyclopes were not just a race with a round eye, but a single, large round eye in the center of their forehead. There are a couple of theories about the origins of the cyclopes in reek myth, buth those, as well as the myths themselves all involve a single eye.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:05PM
ozoneocean at 7:10AM, March 21, 2010
(online)
posts: 24,963
joined: 1-2-2004
Really? Because I've never seen a single example of art from ancient Greece depicting any Cyclops. And they aren't that common in Greek myth, pretty well being part of some specific myth cycles from some very limited sources and not much description- unlike other creatures like Centaurs and the Amazons etc which are rather more numerous.

All of the description and art I've seen dates from much later, with later theories about Elephant Skulls being the possible origin of Cyclopean characters because the trunk hole in the skull looks like where an eye should do… but that sort of thing is very, very speculative. It's like mythologising on top of a myth,- very interesting in that way :)

It's a lot like the idea that Pterodactyls and various other dinosaur skeletons were the prototypes for dragons and sea-monsters (plesiosaur etc) in myth, when in reality discovery of the fossil bones and the careful reconstruction of them based on painstaking research to determine how the original creatures looked came much, much later.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:36PM
SarahN at 10:27AM, March 21, 2010
(online)
posts: 1,581
joined: 1-1-2006
I don't know, but the shots of slow-mo I've seen and the guy's buzz-cut are sure a turn off.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:24PM
isukun at 4:40PM, March 21, 2010
(online)
posts: 2,481
joined: 9-28-2006
Because I've never seen a single example of art from ancient Greece depicting any Cyclops.

You aren't looking very hard, then. There are actually numerous examples of Greek pottery featuring Polyphemus. He's one of the more common Cyclops characters featured in Greek art. You also often see them in Roman art.

The mythology as it was passed down in ancient Greek literature held that they traded one of their eyes to Hades for the ability to see into the future. They aren't that obscure as far as monsters go in Greek mythology. They were originally sons of Uranus and Gaia and helped both Cronus and Zeus overthrow their fathers. They were originally imprisoned by Uranus in the center of the Earth and then later thrown into Tartarus by Cronus. They were freed by Zeus and then assisted Hephaestus. They created Zeus's thunderbolts, Poseidon's trident, Apollo and Minerva's bows and arrows, and Hades' helmet. The Greeks attributed their work to the noises that volcanos made. Certain architectural structures were attributed to them. Apollo killed the first generation cyclopes as revenge for the death of Asclepius, but Zeus brought them back from Hades. Homer's cyclopes were a later generation of the creatures.

There are other theories about the origins of the myth, as well. Including studies of ancient anthropology where it was discovered that many blacksmiths at the time would cover one of their eyes when working to make sure at least one eye was protected. The Greeks may have been at odds with a tribe of blacksmiths prior to the creation of the myth and the description of the cyclopes may have evolved from that. There are also documents of chemical studies done by the ancient Greeks which would cause holoprosencephaly in unborn babies, which is also thought to possibly be linked to the myth.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:05PM
PPPchairman at 6:34AM, March 22, 2010
(online)
posts: 101
joined: 7-16-2009
Wow, didn't see anyone argueing about the mechanical owl coming…

I really liked the old one but I'm willing to give the new one a shot and not just cause of a crap-load of special effects, but to see what they do with the story too, my hopes aren't that high with it all being a re-make and all but it could still be pretty cool.

…and I kinda hope they don't bring Buppo back; mostly cause the robot owl just seemed stupid, even back when I was eight.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:47PM
mlai at 1:11AM, March 23, 2010
(online)
posts: 3,035
joined: 12-28-2006
When I was 8, or however young I was, that clockwork owl was a delight. I was gasping in dismay when I thought the Kraken had killed it, and then smiling when it came back to life.

Oh and the special fx was awe-inspiring. I started making my own clay monsters after watching that movie.

You old coots. This movie (and the previous one) wasn't made for grouchy old men. Go read your War And Peace and let the younger generation have their fun.

Though, the new “xtreme” plotline based on God Of War sounds worrying. And the crewcut is beyond stupid. Do ancient Greeks sport crewcuts?

FIGHT current chapter: Filling In The Gaps
FIGHT_2 current chapter: Light Years of Gold
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:06PM
EssayBee at 8:33AM, March 24, 2010
(online)
posts: 154
joined: 11-10-2009
I'm more turned off by the way the studios are trying to milk 3D with this movie. I heard that they did the post-production 3D (yeah, it was filmed in 2D and converted to 3D) in 8 weeks, which is at best a serious rush job (should take about 6 months, i.e., 3 times as long) and at worst a cheap hack job.

What really annoys me about these post-production 3D jobs is that it's inferior quality-wise to films like Avatar that are actually filmed in 3D, which is a loss for consumers. To add to injury, theaters still charge the premium 3D ticket prices, so we, the moviegoers, get an inferior product at a premium price. Of course, this is a win-win for the suits in the studios, because they get to cut production costs, since it's cheaper to farm the 3D in post to studios in Korea, while reaping in the profits of the inflated 3D ticket prices.

This is especially of concern because if movies like this do well, it means we'll continue to get inferior 3D movies while paying through the nose for them. Alternatively, moviegoers will recognize the inferiority of these post-production 3D jobs and quickly lose interest, and 3D will die. Now post-3D can be done well, but probably never as well as native 3D filming, and I have my doubts about this movie since the 3D was done in about a third of the time considered necessary.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:22PM
isukun at 11:16AM, March 24, 2010
(online)
posts: 2,481
joined: 9-28-2006
I actually kind of disagree with native 3D being superior to post 3D. You have far more control when doing these things by hand and can push the visuals to get the effect that best suits each shot. Native 3D is going to be limited by the constraints of the camera. For the best effect, you're still going to have to go in during post production and fix shots or else you end up with the really underwhelming 3D from a lot of the shots in Avatar where they didn't go in and edit them in post. Almost all of the live action shots were subtle to the point where there was no 3D effect at all, while the CG popped out more and was more immersive. I found it made the movie look very amateurish.

Also, I wouldn't say that at best it is a rush job. Hollywood project pipelines generally don't work that way. There isn't really any standard time for post production work like this. One movie may take six months to put it together, and another movie may hire three times as many people and get it done in 8 weeks.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:05PM
EssayBee at 12:32PM, March 24, 2010
(online)
posts: 154
joined: 11-10-2009
Although it may be a problem with my local digital theater, I've found post-3D movies to be a bit blurrier than Avatar was. There was some blur in Avatar, but it never distracted me or made me squint like with the post-3D movies I've seen (granted, I've only seen 3 post-3D movies). Not to get off-topic, but I thought the “subtle” 3D in Avatar was really well done. There was almost always at least 3 or 4 different planes per shot, which helped the film feel immersive rather than gimmicky (e.g., nobody was throwing stuff at the camera just for the sake of the 3D).

And regarding the 3D workflow of Clash of the Titans . . . Yes, post-production varies greatly from movie to movie, but the stuff I've read about Clash made it sound like the studio saw the box office for Avatar and decided at the last minute to do Clash in 3D (meaning about 3 months before release). And since post-3D processing is still pretty new, I can't imagine that there would be that many resources available yet so that a studio can just double or triple the manpower on short notice. (This is just me making assumptions about resources, so I could be completely wrong about this. If you know things to the contrary, I'd be very interested in hearing about it.)
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:22PM
isukun at 1:24PM, March 24, 2010
(online)
posts: 2,481
joined: 9-28-2006
Actually, the process for making 3D isn't that new. The technology has been used in film since 1915. Popularity of stereoscopic films comes and goes with the first real big boom being in the 1950's. Still 3D films have been in production pretty consistantly from that point on. Even with the lul between the 80's and the last decade, studios were still pumping out multiple 3D movies each year, they just weren't big blockbuster films and were instead educational IMAX movies or theme park attractions. There are plenty of people out there who have been working with the technology for making 3D films and I'm sure that part of the industy is expanding now tha there is a greater demand for it.

While the camera system used for Avatar uses some new technology, it isn't really a major innovation in the industry. The only real major innovation is tha digital pojection has made polarized 3D more cost effective. Theaters aren't limited by the old school tinted lenses approach to 3D, anymore, and they can now use the less migrane-inducing polarized technology thanks to companies like RealD bringing the costs down.

If anything, post production 3D is becoming easier due to advances in the software used to accomplish the effect.

Also, I would suspect that the blurriness is more a problem with your theater than the movies, themselves. I haven't noticed any problems with the picture quality in the theaters here in Hollywood.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:05PM
EssayBee at 5:35PM, March 24, 2010
(online)
posts: 154
joined: 11-10-2009
Thanks for confirming what I had already feared–that the blurriness was from my local theater.

I still have my doubts about 2D to 3D conversion being as good as native 3D filming, though. To my thinking, true, stereoscopic 3D, as the name implies, comes from viewing an image in stereo and depth perception results from each eye viewing an image slightly differently (parallax view). I can see how this can be created in post production with CG films and effects since those things are rendered in a computer (and would be easy to create a parallax view), but I'm not sure how well live-action elements would translate once they're put on film. Of course, the differences may be imperceptible to they eye, but it seems that breaking a 2D film up into 3D would be more like a pop-up book with several different flat planes instead of any true three dimensionality. I saw Nightmare Before Christmas when it was redone in 3D and thought the 3D did have good depth, but each plane was flat, almost like it was cut out (of course, many of the individual elements were small enough that this probably wouldn't have been noticeable had I not been scrutinizing the image); on the other hand, the 3D in Avatar curved (especially some of those curved computer monitor displays) and seemed much more lifelike.

Again, I'm speaking as someone with no real technical knowledge of the actual processing and am just considering how human perception works from a biological perspective and how that would translate to film.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:22PM
PPPchairman at 8:04AM, April 6, 2010
(online)
posts: 101
joined: 7-16-2009
Well, I finally saw it. The movie was actually pretty good ('cept for the whole D'jinn thing). I did like the old story bettter though. Any other thoughts?
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:47PM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved