Ray Harryhausen Movies

[The Bluestocking]

Does anyone here like Ray Harryhausen's movies?

His stop-motion animation and special effects look Old School and corny in the 21st century with CGI coming out of our ears but... but I love watching stuff like the Sinbad movies and "Jason and the Argonauts" on Sunday afternoons when I have a bit of spare time. These movies are particularly nice to watch when it's rainy and I'm all snuggled on the sofa with the dog and homemade popcorn.

I also like watching them as a sort of silent acknowledgement that without his pioneering work in special effects and his love for storytelling, we wouldn't have had everything from Star Wars and E.T., to Terminator 2 and Avatar.

 

[j d worthington]

Sorry, but I come from a different place, and to me it's the CGI which looks corny and which, I am absolutely certain, will date verrrry badly. Harryhausen's work, while certainly having its flaws, still has the magic, and still captures new audiences five or six decades after a particular film was made.

One of the few of his films which I don't think holds up well is The Valley of Gwangi. Some nice stuff there, but it simply doesn't cohere....

 

[Foxbat]

I'm with j.d. here. I'm a big fan of Harryhausen and his mentor (Willis O'Brien) and I definitely prefer stop-motion over CGI...but I guess we are a dying breed.

 

[The Bluestocking]

J.D.:

Think you mis-read me - I was expressing my appreciation for Harryhausen's work I do love curling up on Sunday afternoons to watch his movies and that Skeleton Warrior fight scene in Jason and the Argonauts is EPIC!

 

[Cat's Cradle]

I too grew up on Harryhausen, and the magic and imagination inspired in me by these films will never leave me. The Skeleton-Warriors scene you mentioned, Bluestocking, is beyond wonderful (as is so much more in Jason and the Argonauts; The 7th Voyage of Sinbad is a dream, and there were so many more wonderful works by him). The stop-motion scenes always seemed exactly right to me (even when they weren't perfectly smooth in transitions).
I do enjoy a lot of CGI too--I really loved the robots and monsters in Pacific Rim, as an example. Some CGI really has aged badly--I recently re-watched the early Harry Potter films, and was just amazed at how bad some of it was (especially the broom/flying scenes; and this was as late as 2005). They had improved greatly by the last few films.
I think CGI will continue to improve, and that it can be quite memorable; but I think there is a charm, and a magic in stop-motion that may never be equaled by any CGI. (And what about old-school animation? Fantasia, say, or Miyazaki's films? I would take hand-drawn in a second! )

 

[Rodders]

As a child born in 1970 I loved the Harryhausen movies as these were big TV moments for me as a kid. Stop motion was one those signature recognisable special effect techniques that everyone of the day loves.

I'm not too fussed about CGI. After all it is the future, but I think that people tend to hang onto it and forget that it's just a tool for telling a story. I must confess that i don't like seeing the CGI, if you know what I mean.

On the subject of Stop Motion, what about Phil Tippett? The AT-AT scene in the Empire Strikes Back is incredible.

 

[Overread]

Rodders the Transformers films are a prime example of what you describe - fantastic CGI - story not worth the paper its written on.


And yes stop motion has a special magic to it! Also a lot of CGI looks plasticy; too clean to neat and tidy. It takes a lot of CGI to blend it in to gain the imperfections of reality to look real and most studios have given up with that; choosing instead to go for a sort of quasi realistic look that isn't quite "real" and isn't quite "CGI" but which allows the two to blend together well (Avatar is a good example of this).

 

[thaddeus6th]

Clash of the Titans was a film I really loved (not seen it for a while).

CGI can be overdone, and often is. Also, it dates worse than practical effects, and perhaps even stop-motion. Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull already looks badly dated, because some of the CGI is too obvious, whereas the original three films used more practical effects.

I've seen bits and pieces of Sinbad films, although I must confess I seem to recall spending more time concentrating on Jane Seymour than the special effects.

 

[Vince W]

I love Harryhausen's films. I remember being totally absorbed by his skeletons and monsters. Fantastic stuff.

 

[Cat's Cradle]

Yes, Jane Seymour was a great natural effect, that's true!! Wow, so beautiful! (The film had a great-looking cast!)

 

[Foxbat]

I love Harryhausen's films. I remember being totally absorbed by his skeletons and monsters. Fantastic stuff.

I think my favourite monster is Medusa from Clash Of The Titans.

Interesting that Harryhausen was a strong supporter of film colourising techniques on old black and white movies (paricularly the work done by Legend Films) Home He argued that many of the original directors (which he knew personally) would love to see their work in colour.


The reason I bring this up is because I wonder what his feelings were on CGI?

 

[Vince W]

I think my favourite monster is Medusa from Clash Of The Titans.

Interesting that Harryhausen was a strong supporter of film colourising techniques on old black and white movies (paricularly the work done by Legend Films) Home He argued that many of the original directors (which he knew personally) would love to see their work in colour.


The reason I bring this up is because I wonder what his feelings were on CGI?

Here's an interview with Ray and he talks a bit about CGI.

Ray Harryhausen Interview | Stumped Magazine

 

[Overread]

"I don’t think the audience gives a damn what technique you use as long as it looks good on the screen."

So true and I wish Hollywood would learn this - I'd love to see them doing some serious animations again (not CGI).

 

[Vince W]

You mean you want to go back to this:

 

[Overread]

Someone has to give all those, now out of work, artists a job!

But at least drawing something superior to the Simpsons in animation quality

 

[dask]

Watched MYSTERIOUS ISLAND a few weeks ago and Mr. Harryhausen was in top form. While the crab and bees were especially stunning the whole film reflected the brilliant score composed by the Ray Harryhausen of music Bernard Herrmann like a well polished mirror. What you see is what you hear.

 

[Ice fyre]

When I was a wee boy I used to love watching the Sinbad and Jason and the Argonauts. The effects didnt bother a wonder filled child. Compared with Doctor Who and Blakes 7 at the time they were amazing.

Clash of the Titans still has a charm as do all the old stop motion films, their effects are secondary to a good script and fine acting. Good lord Maggie Smith was a very nice looking lady in her hey day!

I think that CGI these days while it has done some quite good things, tends to be the focus of the film. In my opnion Cloverfield had some amazing CGI but the human story came through much better than some films.

The lesson maybe should be that CGI is good to tidy up and erase wires and other aids to efects making, but should be treated with great care. But try telling Hollywood to be careful ..see the response!

 

[Foxbat]

When I was a wee boy I used to love watching the Sinbad and Jason and the Argonauts. The effects didnt bother a wonder filled child. Compared with Doctor Who and Blakes 7 at the time they were amazing.

I think the very fact we are discussing these things shows that we are all wee boys (and girls) at heart here.
That's the real magic it leaves you with

 

[Curt Chiarelli]

You mean you want to go back to this:

Hi Vince:

I think you have a few misapprehensions about how Ray Harryhausen operated. Swap out the light tables with monitors and the sweatshop in this Simpson's satire would more resemble a modern CG effects department grinding through a tough deadline than the working conditions on a Harryhausen set.

Contradicting his legend as a lone wolf creator, Harryhausen in fact subcontracted to other highly skilled artists and animators. Although the vision was Ray's, matte painters like Les Bowie and Emilio Ruiz del Rio, fabricators like George Lofgren and sculptors like Arthur Hayward of the British Natural History Museum made invaluable contributions to his films.

I've worked professionally in stop-motion animation on and off for the last 25 years and I can tell you modern CG is a charmless exercise that reduces highly skilled artists down to the level of workshop elves. What once was the purview of a small group or a single man becomes a design-by-committee hodge-podge executed by a faceless battalion of techies. Although CG shots may look slicker and be better integrated, they lack that individual touch, the human dimension so prized by fans of animation. And yes, CG does look as dated as any other effects technology. CG also over-saturates and overwhelms every movie they are used in. The end result is that the audience feels bludgeoned, dulled and jaded, rather than exhilarated, when they walk out of a movie theater.

So, I agree wholeheartedly with The_Bluestocking, J.D., Foxbat and everyone else who cherishes Ray's work. I pity the child who has never known the thrill of having his or her impressionable little mind warped by the skeleton duel in the Seventh Voyage of Sinbad, the obsessive, inexorable terror of Talos in Jason and the Argonauts or the giant crab sequence in Mysterious Island! What's more, I pity the adult who can no longer plug back into the conduit of their inner child and re-experience the joy of Ray's Harryhausen's films again and again.

 

[Overread]

Curt interesting point on the subject of lacking individual charm in CGI. I must agree that I've often felt that CGI can often be too "clean" when used. That the animated elements are perfect rather than having that element of wildness or reality that places little imperfections over the surface.

It's rather like how every woman in make-up ads is airbrushed and edited to look "perfect" no imperfection, just pure 100% clean sterile (and sometimes actually quite a warped face if compared to a real live face with all the nip-tuck that goes on).


I can't speak of the process, but certainly I think some CGI presentations do take into account its clean nature and try to make it more real. I suspect that its partly a result of cost and time, but also the scale.