Ray Harryhausen's New Film

[Cullen]

This is something I stumbled over roaming the Web in a haze of half awakeness (assuming, of course, that "awakeness" is a word; if it isn't, then I'm in another state entirely.  Probably California.)  Word of a "new" Harryhausen film can be found at AICN.com.  If, like me, you trust their word about as much as a Dalek's, you can always go to the source.  It's located under the "2002 - September - 18" entry.

We're not talking fighting skeletons or monsters from Venus.  Still, I'm a fan of stop motion, and I figured that there might be one or two others out here on the board.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Cullen, the Beast from 30,000 fathoms

[Susan]

Interesting, most SFX today have been replaced entirely with CGI (which btw I feel is overdone so much that it often gives  a film a cartoonish and unnatural feel). But is this a puppet movie for children?

i'd love it if a film that brought a serious comeback of stop-motion. It always appealed to me, his movies anyhow. Mysterious Island, Sinbad, Clash of the Titans. It was nice to not have a film entirely take over the imagination aspect of it like cgi does with the audience. When I see "too much" i sometimes feel cheated.

I hate the way certain filming styles are "phased out". Even the use of Black and white isn't common anymore (you see it now and again) but with the right material you know it can create just the right atmosphere a film needs to make it more effective. It is sort of ironic how color film was considered a special effect back in early filmmaking and now it's B&W that is the special effect.

Then you got the kids saying those styles are "old" and unmodern when I don't think any of it should be obsolete because of new technology, but simply considered another filming technique. but i digress

[Cullen]

I wouldn't mind CGI phasing out Stop Motion so much if it was an actual improvement.  The bulk of CGI work looks as fake as Stop Motion did, without the slight illusion of realism the models had.

Also, I don’t think there’s as much love put into CGI as there is in Stop Motion or Animatronics.  Obviously, this is not the case with all CGI, just as there are Stop Motion and Animatronic creations that are clearly rush jobs, but I think it’s the rule in CGI’s case, rather than the exception
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Cullen, who doesn’t care if he spelt Animatronics wrong.  Well, yes he does, but not that it’ll bother him for hours and hours later.

…

Ah, crap, where’s the dictionary?

[Chadzilla]

I think when you combine all three (as Jurassic Park did) then you can get something special, or at least nifty and cool looking.

[Susan]

I'd like to know exactly what happened in the jurassic park movies. I know the first used some actual mechanical dinos I think with CGI. Was it just me or did the jurassic park 2 REALLY suck. They went on about the effects but of the 3 I thought they were the worst, too splashy - cept for the baby t-rex which was the worst looking mechanical puppet i ever saw..lol. In fact I'm one of the few probably who think effects-wise, the third is superior to the previous 2.

Off topic..as usual ;-)

[Chadzilla]

Frankly I liked all three....dinos roaring and chasing folks around.  I was happy with them...slime ratings

Jurassic Park - 3 slimes
The Lost World: Jurassic Park - 2 slimes
Jurassic Park 3  - 3 slimes.

Any word on JP4?

[Cullen]

I used to like Jurrasic Park , but for some reason, I've burnt out on it.  

Lost World played better in the theater than out of it.  Nowadays, I can't even stand the thought of the movie.

I actually quite enjoyed 3 .  It's by far more fun than Lost World , and a hell of a lot less preachy than either of the two before it.

As for the effects, this was what I was talking about when I said CGI done with love.  It's also CGI mixed with good Animatronics, which helps a great deal.

(As for Lost World having the worst F/X, of the three, I don't see it.  I'm not going to doubt your claim, however, or try an verify it one way or another.  I've wasted far too much of my life on Lost World as it is.)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Cullen, who still thinks that The Last Dinosaur has the best special effects.

Cause he's sick, that's why.

[Dano]

I actually quite enjoyed 3 . It's by far more fun than Lost World , and a hell of a lot less preachy than either of the two before it.
*****  I had a problem with all the missed opportunities.  The mercenaries vs. the dinosaurs lasted about one minute.  Also I was thoroughly confused by the "cloning is folly and a path to destruction"/"look at the wonderful brontosaurs - oh they're so cute!" teeter-totter message.  

Better than 2?  Yeah.  Not having an 11 year old gymnast kicking the hell out of nature's greatest predator made for a better movie.

[Dano]

[Mitch McAfee]

Folks, for the skinny on Ray's new film The Tortoise and the Hare, check out
http://www.stopmotionanimation.com (& go to the news section).

[Squishy]

Thanks for that link, Mitch! Boss site!

Any effects technique requires care, devotion, and budget to work. I've seen a lot of the lesser "names" in stop-motion produce results that ranged from gold to garbage, just like there's been good and bad go-motion, miniatures, prostethics make-up, puppets, matte work, and so on.

CGI is everywhere now, even in "everyday" scenes, and if it's bad, you sure see it...but if it's done right, it's like an Albert Whitlock matte painting: you don't know it's there.  

Some people can spot CGI pretty well--better than I. On the other hand, while I think stop-motion is highly entertaining, I can only think of two occasions--both Harryhausen moments--where they tricked me into believing it was real for a second.

Maybe that's because I read up on the process at a very early age; when you know how it's done, the illusion is ruined beyond repair. I don't know jack about the process, techniques, or problems of CGI, so I'm less apt to "spot" it unless it's really terrible.

[Mitch McAfee]

Squishy, I couldn't  agree more. All FX techniques have flaws, some more obvious than others.

For years people have said that Stop Motion looks fake. They say it appears jerky, the monsters (eg Kong) look like dolls & the compositing obvious (usually the result of bad rear projection). By these people's thinking, if you eliminate these problems you'll have flawless movies monsters.

So fast forward & we find ourselves living in the digital age. Movies are filled with digital monsters. Complete with great compositing, moving cameras, motion blur etc. But for the most part, photo realism has gone the way of the dinosaur. For all the break throughs in Cg dinos (eg Walking With Dinosaurs), the skin textures on the damn dinosaurs still don't look convincing!!! There have been some great examples of CG (Jurassic Park, Starship Troopers, but also some really bad ones.

If you get the chance rent a movie called Sabretooth (actually don't bother, unless it's a freebie & you have 90 mins to kill). It features some of THE worst CG ever, period. Obviously made on the cheap, though it does have John Rhys-Davies in it.

Anyway, my original intention here was just to make mention of the stop mo FX in When Dinosaurs Ruled The Earth. For any doubters of the power of Stop Mo, check out Jim Danforths FX in this film. It's 30 odd years old & it still holds up. Certainly the best example of Stop Mo I've ever seen.

But on the other hand, Brett Piper's Mysterious Planet features the worst Stop Mo I've seen.

So yes, there is Stop Mo worse than the stuff in Starcrash. And Apologies for ranting, I'm a little hungover & tend to ramble aimlessly.