Warning: Harryhausen Preaching!

SynapticBoomstick · February 18, 2008, 08:13:07 PM

I can be sure how many members have already seen this collection but it's a great showcase of Harryhausen's ability to bring the impossible to life

To this day, the cowboys wrangling Gwanji is still the most impressive of all the work Ray has done in my eyes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9kmjW73-v4

There's also this clip that I never knew about until YouTube came along. If War of the Worlds had been like this... I can only guess.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tr2H6dJhiyA

BTM · February 18, 2008, 10:11:07 PM

That was a great video!

You know, it's weird.. even though you can tell the creatures are fake, something about stop motion effects seem more "real" and CG, at least in my humble opinion.

SynapticBoomstick · February 18, 2008, 10:41:32 PM

Quote from: BTM on February 18, 2008, 10:11:07 PM

That was a great video!

You know, it's weird.. even though you can tell the creatures are fake, something about stop motion effects seem more "real" and CG, at least in my humble opinion.

Agreed

Justy · February 19, 2008, 01:04:06 PM

I think that CGI is too perfect a medium. Its too clear and crisp. You understand from the get go that you are watching CGI, yet even in its perfection it is still two-dimensional. That conversion from 2-D to 3-D takes effort which does not always work. So even though it is perfect in one way it still must be converted where it looses something oftentimes.

With models especially Harryhausen's you are watching something already three-dimensional come to life. That model already exists in 3-D thus there is no need to convert it. I think that natural spatial property is important. Plus you get more feel for the work of the artist.

I'm not a big fan of CGI. You loose artistic quality and humanity. I want animation to remain hand drawn and I want movies to remain filmed. I don't hate CGI in toto. I liked Beowulf even though they mangled the story. I like the Final Fantasy CGI sequeces as well. In those cases it was done right.

I really liked Harry's Jason and the Argonaughts and Clash of the Titans.

Ed, Ego and Superego · February 19, 2008, 05:38:27 PM

I agree, you can get more personality into a stopmotion monster. Look at King kong's use of eyebrows. Good stuff there. I love Harryhausen, especially the Ymir.
-Ed

Rev. Powell · February 19, 2008, 10:59:16 PM

Unfortunately, when my 7 year old nephew watched some Harryhausen effects, he called them "bad" because he was used to CGI. Maybe when he gets older he'll be less literal minded.

Shadow · February 19, 2008, 11:16:06 PM

When I was eight years old, I knew all about Ray Harryhausen and could rattle off all sorts of facts about him, astounding adults around me (or annoying them). I guess he was my first "idol." To this day, I prefer stop-motion FX to CGI FX.

BTM · February 20, 2008, 12:48:30 AM

Quote from: BTM on February 18, 2008, 10:11:07 PM
You know, it's weird.. even though you can tell the creatures are fake, something about stop motion effects seem more "real" and CG, at least in my humble opinion.

Er... I meant, seem more real THAN CG. (sighs)

biff_debris · March 03, 2008, 04:38:30 PM

I'm on the fence, here. I grew up watching not only the Harryhausen stop-motion movies, but also the stuff of Randy Cook (The Gate, The Thing, Caveman) and Phil Tippett (Dragonslayer, Return of the Jedi). But CG can also be done terribly convincingly as well, as in Jurassic Park, or Mr. Tippett's work again, in Cloverfield.

WingedSerpent · March 04, 2008, 06:17:04 PM

Quote from: biff_debris on March 03, 2008, 04:38:30 PM
I'm on the fence, here. I grew up watching not only the Harryhausen stop-motion movies, but also the stuff of Randy Cook (The Gate, The Thing, Caveman) and Phil Tippett (Dragonslayer, Return of the Jedi). But CG can also be done terribly convincingly as well, as in Jurassic Park, or Mr. Tippett's work again, in Cloverfield.

Nothing wrong with CGI, its just technology advancing. Yes maybe today's monsters might look better than some of the older ones-doesn't mean that the old movies are without worth.

Its not the technology-its the artist

JaseSF · March 05, 2008, 12:25:30 AM

I still greatly prefer stop-motion and animatronic effects (Even suitmation and puppetry truth be told) to CGI which to this day seems to lack mass and weight to me. The dinos in JURASSIC PARK still look the best of all the CGI critters I've seen and I understand animatronics was used there as well.

SynapticBoomstick · March 05, 2008, 12:41:21 AM

As long as discussion os on CGI vs Stop-motion I might as well throw in a thought or two. I find mainstream CGI to be very enjoyable and tasty for the eyes, and I find classic stopmotion very nostalgic and feel warm and fuzzy when I watch it. Where I don't care much for CGI, though, is when it's used poorly (mostly in newer b-movies): creatures move awkardly, don't interact with the set, are made in a rush. I'll still watch it but it won't be as enjoyable. The only thing really worse than that is seeing three Asylum films in a row where the monster is translated into a guy in a furry suit

KYGOTC · March 05, 2008, 12:48:16 AM

One of my art teachers showed me that "War of the Worlds" test. I wonder why they didn't use it.....

CoreyHeldpen · March 05, 2008, 08:26:50 PM

Since we're now on the topic of stop-motion vs CG, I'll throw in my own experience, having worked with both. CG can be used to create wonderful, awe-inspiring things, buts its so overused now that its lost much of its former lustre. I find CG a bit easier and cheaper to work with, but stop-motion is more fun and more satisfying.

So although I've got nothing against CG, I still prefer stop-motion.

And Ray Harryhausen, for the record, is brilliant.