Movie News

Quint releases the Behind the Scenes Pic of the Day!

Published at: July 9, 2010, 12:13 p.m. CST

Ahoy, squirts! Quint here with today’s Behind the Scenes pic! I’m already two pics into this run and haven’t featured Ray Harryhausen yet. That bullshit will not stand, so today I found a really sweet pic of Ray Harryhausen (thanks to William Forsche) filming one of my favorite of his creatures. Now, we all know the Kraken from Clash of the Titans is essentially a redone Ymir from 20 MILLION MILES TO EARTH, but who cares? It’s still fucking awesome, especially when seen in the context of the below photo:

Fuck the lame CGI crap created for the Clash of the Titans remake. That’s real movie magic up there. If you have a pic you think should be included email me. I’m looking for the iconic, the rare, the just plain cool behind the scenes shots to feature here. Tomorrow brings a rather strange pic that you’ll love. See ya’ then! -Quint quint@aintitcool.com Follow Me On Twitter



Readers Talkback

comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • July 9, 2010, 12:15 p.m. CST

    Awesome

    by TiVo1138

    Loving this.

  • July 9, 2010, 12:16 p.m. CST

    now THAT is cool...

    by just pillow talk

  • July 9, 2010, 12:20 p.m. CST

    let's pull a Godzilla

    by Bouncy X

    and have that version fight against the 2010 version. then harry hamlin can fight sam worthington on the ground below.

  • July 9, 2010, 12:20 p.m. CST

    New User

    by HornedGramma

    I read AICN every day but haven't felt compelled to create a username for talkback until I saw this picture... I just had to say how absolutely beautiful it is. Stunning. Thank you Quint.

  • July 9, 2010, 12:27 p.m. CST

    Groovy

    by NippleEffect

    need the whole series that pic came from

  • July 9, 2010, 12:27 p.m. CST

    It

    by SoylentMean

  • July 9, 2010, 12:27 p.m. CST

    wow, not what I meant to type

    by SoylentMean

  • July 9, 2010, 12:28 p.m. CST

    I was gonna say

    by SoylentMean

  • July 9, 2010, 12:28 p.m. CST

    Quint

    by stellanskarsgaard

    This new column pleases me very much. Will continue to read. A++++ seller, would do business again.

  • July 9, 2010, 12:30 p.m. CST

    It's amazing how much work goes on behind the scenes

    by SoylentMean

    and even more so how we, as the audience, take movies for granted. To the casual fan movies are a quick diversion to the cinephile movies are an amalgam of years worth of work done by hundreds of people.

  • July 9, 2010, 12:31 p.m. CST

    Speaking of Harryhausen, Oscar SFX now has 5 slots

    by SoylentMean

    It's a good thing and a bad thing all rolled into one.

  • July 9, 2010, 12:33 p.m. CST

    Fuck the new Clash

    by D.Vader

    Totally incomprehensible.

  • July 9, 2010, 12:35 p.m. CST

    How is that bad SoylentMean?

    by D.Vader

    I've always been annoyed that one of my favorite categories was only given 3 slots.

  • July 9, 2010, 12:35 p.m. CST

    I have an old book on Harryhausen

    by skimn

    that is amazing. What I love about this idea is that you never know what Quint's gonna pull up next. From Alien to Big Trouble to Harryhausen...whats next...

  • July 9, 2010, 12:36 p.m. CST

    3 for 3 Quint..

    by Billyeveryteen

    Keep up the good work.

  • July 9, 2010, 12:39 p.m. CST

    This column is a great idea. Gets us out of the usual...

    by FlickaPoo

    ...Talkback echo chamber feedback loop.

  • July 9, 2010, 12:42 p.m. CST

    Just one man and a camera

    by vin_diggler

    and look at the amazing visual effects he was able to create. Compare that to the dozens of people who worked on the CGI for the remake and their work is completely forgetable. Thanks Quint.

  • July 9, 2010, 12:43 p.m. CST

    AWESOME. That's an ARTIST at work, friends.

    by kevred

    Not some pasty dumbass in front of a computer, clicking a mouse.

  • July 9, 2010, 12:43 p.m. CST

    ...very true, SoylentMean. My work involves...

    by FlickaPoo

    ...sometimes years long creative projects, and I've gotten much more forgiving about movies.<P> Something like a movie is the result of millions of little decisions...good days and bad days.<P> When my own projects are finished I see time more than a finished product.

  • July 9, 2010, 12:45 p.m. CST

    I think what Soylent means is now they can pad

    by skimn

    the category with more CGI. Just think, last year I'm sure 2012 would've gotten a nod if there were 5 choices.

  • July 9, 2010, 12:46 p.m. CST

    The only autograph I own

    by ObiBen

    was signed by Mr Harryhausen, who is a very nice person and a very gifted artist. He understands form, shape and anatomy as mush as he masters animation.

  • July 9, 2010, 12:46 p.m. CST

    I should say

    by skimn

    "more uninspired CGI"...

  • July 9, 2010, 12:48 p.m. CST

    kevred

    by just pillow talk

    Cause that's what WE do, dammit! <p>*click*

  • July 9, 2010, 12:49 p.m. CST

    We bash CG over old school effects

    by skimn

    but I gotta say that CG artists have to know more about anatomy and skeletal and muscle movement, because they are creating "reality" on a atomic (pixel by pixel) level, so to speak.

  • July 9, 2010, 12:53 p.m. CST

    ...doing CG well is a beautiful thing, but...

    by FlickaPoo

    ...CG makes it easier to pump out crap, so it gets a bad reputation.

  • July 9, 2010, 12:56 p.m. CST

    THAT's what FX should be

    by Kremzeek

    CG should only be used sparingly (Batman Begins/DK are good examples). Now, obviously, I'm glad "real" effects like this have also had tons of technical advancements (Hellboy 2 for example), but when I look at this pic I think "Wow, what an amazing amount of time, effort, and work that must've been! What an achievement!" When I see CG effects, my eyes aren't fooled, no matter how good the CG is. Long live "real" effects! Thanks for this pic, Quint!

  • July 9, 2010, 12:58 p.m. CST

    Now *this* is what it's all about!

    by LordPorkington

    Genuinely COOL article. Keep it up Quint, you're aces!

  • July 9, 2010, 1:08 p.m. CST

    Skimm - Anatomy/CG artists

    by ObiBen

    Not all of them, and that is the problem. Plus, the skeletal/muscle rigs come as presets nowadays, so much more of that is automated, as opposed to the Jurassic Park/Godzilla era, where animators had to scratchbuild them. Also, CG allows to animate creatures that would fall over on their face in the real world.

  • July 9, 2010, 1:09 p.m. CST

    Wow. Just fucking wow.

    by BP_drills_america_a_new_asshole

    Love that pic. Its not an exaggeration to say this is one of the best features ever to appear on AICN. Each pic is nothing but a geek treat.

  • July 9, 2010, 1:15 p.m. CST

    Three days in, and

    by palimpsest

    already this is the best thing AICN's done since A Movie A Day.

  • July 9, 2010, 1:16 p.m. CST

    Be good to see some more stop-frame used in mainstream movies

    by palimpsest

    All hail Nick Park for keeping the technique alive in cinemas.

  • July 9, 2010, 1:17 p.m. CST

    Wonder if Harryhausen doodled in the corners of his

    by CreasyBear

    school books as a kid, making flip-motion animation. Or better, if he invented that time-killer and all the other kids just gasped in awe.

  • July 9, 2010, 1:26 p.m. CST

    So now everyone is anti cgi

    by Sailor Rip

    and wants to go back to matte paintings, miniatures, and stop motion? <p> Get off the fucking bandwagon. There's good cgi out there it's just "cool" to hate it now.

  • July 9, 2010, 1:27 p.m. CST

    Totally amuses me

    by MrDexter

    that this site thinks it's okay to post any ol' image it wants to post. Scan away! For those who will now invoke "Copyright Police!," I say this—you obviously don't create things for a living.

  • July 9, 2010, 1:34 p.m. CST

    Forget everything else

    by studmaster

    Lets see Sam Worthington and Harry Hamlin in a wet, sloppy, disgusting 69, the kind where they're bobbin their heads up and down like two fleshy pistons, balls floppin around, saliva and cum flyin all over the place... Oh, uuuuhhh...sorry, wrong talkback...

  • July 9, 2010, 1:35 p.m. CST

    get over it dexter

    by vin_diggler

    this image is available in many places on the net. Besides, Quint is not making a profit from the picture

  • July 9, 2010, 1:37 p.m. CST

    5 SFX nominees, the good & the bad

    by SoylentMean

    While I've been gnashing my teeth over the 3 nominee category for years it did make it seem a little harder to make the cut. Last year belonged to Avatar, no doubt, but it would have been nice to see some other films get nominated. <P> But now it will defintely make it easier for some pap to get nominated. Still seething over The Golden Compass winning...

  • July 9, 2010, 1:39 p.m. CST

    ...I think PAN'S LABYRINTH had my favorite use of...

    by FlickaPoo

    ...effects in recent years.

  • July 9, 2010, 1:41 p.m. CST

    MrDexter...Copyright Police!

    by BP_drills_america_a_new_asshole

    Don't you think that whoever the photographer was would appreciate their work being appreciated? I certainly would. Besides these stills were probably released at one time or another to the press to promote the film. So get over yourself.

  • July 9, 2010, 1:49 p.m. CST

    Also, recognizing practical FX as more than makeup

    by SoylentMean

    that would be nice. Hellboy 2 comes to mind...

  • July 9, 2010, 1:49 p.m. CST

    Good call on Pan's Labyrinth

    by ObiBen

    (or most DelToro flick, for that matter). Moon and District 9 also demonstrated that some effect supervisors still get it. Plus the movies where pretty good.

  • July 9, 2010, 1:55 p.m. CST

    hey Quint

    by technotard

    Are you going to archive these in a gallery? T'would be sweet.

  • July 9, 2010, 2 p.m. CST

    Watched Clash of The Titties last night

    by theycallmemrtibbs

    I liked the look of Olympus, Liam had a decent portrayal of Zeus and Ralph Fiennes was menacing as Hades. The rest of the movie was what word I'm looking for---- <p> Stupid, <p> Black Pegasus? <p> Bubo "Guest" appearance? <p> Video game Medusa <p> What Exactly was that lizard, Mortal Kombat rippoff thing?

  • July 9, 2010, 2:05 p.m. CST

    Remake was crap

    by Lemure_v2

    Granted, I can watch Arterton all day, but the rest of it was a CGI mess that can't touch the original.

  • July 9, 2010, 2:21 p.m. CST

    Arterton counts as a practical effect

    by palimpsest

    it's worth googling the promo pix of her in TAMARA DREWE if you like that sort of thing.

  • July 9, 2010, 2:24 p.m. CST

    ObiBen

    by skimn

    And what surprised me is the amount of GC used on Moon for interior set work. Like Zodiac, an example of "invisible" CG.

  • July 9, 2010, 2:25 p.m. CST

    Better...

    by BiggusDickus

    But don't you have any of Elvira getting dressed or something?

  • July 9, 2010, 2:26 p.m. CST

    @Sailor

    by Kremzeek

    Can't speak for anyone else here, but I don't *hate* CGI, I just think it should be used in moderation - just like anything else in this world. When CGI was first available it wasn't used for every single thing in existence onscreen. Now it is, and I think it's overboard and, along with a myriad of other things, is hurting the film industry. These studios/ crews/whoever need to do things in balance and quit taking the quick way out (notice I didn't say "easy" as I recognize the talent and know-how involved with being a CG FX artist). Also, CG effects look unnatural to the human eye. It's getting better, for sure, but you can still pick out CG like a sore thumb. "But you can see matte lines and all that other shit - THAT's not a sore thumb?!!" My answer to that would be to point to Hellboy 2. Del Toro did modern real FX pretty much perfectly and it didn't look like they shoved a cartoon in the middle of the film. Balance is really all I'm looking for. Not the "use CG for EVERYTHING" we get with most movies now.

  • July 9, 2010, 2:36 p.m. CST

    The Master at work

    by Star Hump

  • July 9, 2010, 2:39 p.m. CST

    Skimm - I was surprised too!

    by ObiBen

    Plus, the acting was so good that I actually *forgot* that you needed fx to have two Sams there. And all of this for 5 millions! Zodiac is indeed another fine example. The only thing that could tip off the fake timelapse footage of the pointy(PanAm?) building was the fact that it would have been seen everywhere else before. Otherwise, completely invisible.

  • July 9, 2010, 2:39 p.m. CST

    tear slowly..

    by klytusnotdead

    runs down face. hey did anyone get the ENCOM post card with that robot thing, sorry off topic?

  • July 9, 2010, 2:44 p.m. CST

    I know he's adjusting a lens or something

    by skimn

    but doesn't it look like Harryhausen is pointing toward the Kraken, as if giving stage direction? Sounds like an old Twilight Zone episode. A special effects technician who is a master and renowned in his field, who actually uses real, live creatures to achieve his results. Until one night...

  • July 9, 2010, 2:46 p.m. CST

    Dexter

    by Quint

    Again, these pics are more than likely indeed owned by the studios... BUT they were also made and distributed for promotion. Saying I shouldn't be posting these is akin to saying I should never run a picture of a movie poster because the studios own the image. It's not like I'm selling prints of these photos.

  • July 9, 2010, 2:49 p.m. CST

    Let's not get to revisionist of Harryhausen

    by Samuel Fulmer

    His work was awesome in most of his films, but the stuff in the original Clash of the Titans became a joke for most people who saw it past the age of 5. Watching it as a teenager it was like watching a California Rasins Christmas Special mixed with live action. I like Harryhausen a lot, but let's not act like his work on Clash of the Titans was up to snuff with his other efforts.

  • July 9, 2010, 2:49 p.m. CST

    Or too revisionist

    by Samuel Fulmer

  • July 9, 2010, 2:50 p.m. CST

    So how do you suggest they use it in "moderation"?

    by gotilk

    I see. So if we have a wide shot, someone on set checks to see how many CG shots have been planned already and makes the call to have a painter come in a paint a backdrop instead? I LOVE Harryhausen! But I feel now would be an important time to remind people that it's alright to love stop motion for what it is WITHOUT having a "fuck this other thing" attitude. It just comes off as childish. Sometimes, we of the "cynical generation" forget that something can be great without requiring a sort of counter-balance of suck. Plenty in the world of film SUCKS. CG isn't one of them. Neither is stop motion. It was an art and a craft. Almost a lost one. And that would be sad. But so is Computer graphics. I swear sometimes it seems like some of you assume some guy at ILM is sitting back, fat in a chair inside a cubicle, laughing his ass off as a full CG sequence designs, composits and renders itself while he says something like.. "man.. what a job... suckers!!!". EVERY CG shot in ever great film was required. Every shot in a film that is horrible... is horrible. Get over yourselves. No-one is impressed that you know what sucks. We can figure it out just fine.

  • July 9, 2010, 2:52 p.m. CST

    and

    by gotilk

    That's a beautiful image. Thank you, Quint.

  • July 9, 2010, 2:52 p.m. CST

    SoylentMean, I agree about The Golden Compass

    by D.Vader

    Transformers was freakin robbed.

  • July 9, 2010, 2:53 p.m. CST

    Or kind of like if Hook was remade

    by Samuel Fulmer

    And a behind the scenes picture of Spielberg directing Jaws was posted with a blurb that ripped on how bad the Hook remake was. Clash of the Titans in Harryhausen's resume holds the same not so impressive place that Hook does in Spielbergs.

  • July 9, 2010, 2:55 p.m. CST

    dstrange - Balance is really all I'm looking for.

    by ObiBen

    Idem here! There is another factor: because they are more elaborate it seems that directors need to showcase CG effects for a longer time onscreen, which more often destroys the illusion.

  • July 9, 2010, 2:56 p.m. CST

    so true

    by klytusnotdead

    D.Vader, end of line.

  • July 9, 2010, 3:04 p.m. CST

    Hey its Klytus!

    by D.Vader

    I remember him! What happened, you get banned?

  • July 9, 2010, 3:14 p.m. CST

    Sam Fuller, I saw Clash Of The Titans in the theatre

    by skimn

    and I think what hurt it most was that Dragonslayer was released at almost the same time. Even though using traditional stopmotion techniques, the addition of their ingenious go-motion technique, Phil Tippet and the guys at ILM created a wonderfully realistic depiction of the dragon that holds up today, even up to Reign Of Fire and Dragonheart.

  • July 9, 2010, 3:20 p.m. CST

    Samuel Fulmer

    by redkamel

    Did you watch the original Clash when it first came out as a teenager? Cause my dad did (he loves that flick) and he said it looked real back then, the same way CGI looks real to us now <p> I personnaly like real effects more than CGI because, well, its a physical art. Thats not to say CGI is terrible. Its definitely for some things. Avatar, Toy Story etc would be impossible. Jurassic Park would be a joke. But models and miniatures are great for ships (star wars) and monsters too (predator). The new star wars look terrible with the CG,.

  • July 9, 2010, 3:27 p.m. CST

    I'm Not A Luddite, But I Do Love Practical Efx

    by LaserPants

    I think most of the people decrying CG are lying, and I really enjoy when it's done well (I especially can't wait for T20N, which has the kind of cold, neon, minimalism i've been DYING to see for AGES; it already looks a billion times cooler than Avatar), but I'll always appreciate and love practical effects more; not just out of nostalgia, but because of the hands-on loving care you see as displayed above. Whenever they show CG houses with all of these dudes in front of computer screens endlessly rendering Jar Jar's moccassins, it looks really, REALLY boring and like they have no emotional connection to what they're doing...

  • July 9, 2010, 3:29 p.m. CST

    Samuel Fulmer

    by LaserPants

    I saw the original CoTT as a kid, and none of that looked remotely real to me. It did look TOTALLY AWESOME, though, so it didn't matter. Same thing with the original Star Wars trilogy before Fat Unky George ass raped it for profit.

  • July 9, 2010, 3:30 p.m. CST

    redkamel

    by LaserPants

    Sorry, the above was directed at your comment.

  • July 9, 2010, 3:41 p.m. CST

    CGI bashing

    by Chuck_Chuckwalla

    Speaking as someone that does CGI, I'm as awed by the work of Harryhausen as anyone else, perhaps moreso. I've met the man personally and thanked him for inspiring me and countless other colleagues in the world of visual effects. All I can say to those who put CGI down are clueless about how much effort and time it takes to do this kind of work and to do it right, on a tight deadline within a tight budget.

  • July 9, 2010, 3:41 p.m. CST

    Release that Kraken....

    by Fuzzyjefe

    Clash was great at a young age, but it ain't the same these days. Oddly enough, it's still better than the new one. <p> Harryhausen was as master though. Period.

  • July 9, 2010, 4:08 p.m. CST

    gotilk - moderation

    by ObiBen

    Example: Green Hornet trailer, green poof coming out of the gas gun. Fancy particle effect, looks fake + more expensive than stage smoke.

  • July 9, 2010, 4:08 p.m. CST

    The Kraken was the worst Harryhausen effect, but...

    by JayLenoTookMyJob

    ...it was 1000% better than anything in The Terrier's jarring, blurry, insibid, bad-CGI-fest from a few months back

  • July 9, 2010, 4:21 p.m. CST

    I remember the critics were unkind to Clash

    by RPLocke

    The old one got SKEWERED by critics.

  • July 9, 2010, 4:24 p.m. CST

    The problem with most digital is the director calling from Hawai

    by UltraTron

    and telling the animators- make it more edgy. You have to direct a digital effect as if it were happening on set. It can be made to look as real as your imagination from any era of film. Micheal Bay is the worst when it comes to giving no direction to the animators. You can see Phil Tippett in everything his studio produces because it's company mantra. There's a style in everything he's done that translated into the digital age. Everyone take notes because I'm quizzing you on this later

  • July 9, 2010, 4:25 p.m. CST

    I always thought that Clash of the Titans

    by ObiBen

    was *meant* to be a throwback to the 50s and 60s. Otherwise, they would have gone the route of go-motion and motion control assisted stop motion (which was the state of the art at that period).

  • July 9, 2010, 4:28 p.m. CST

    I'll tell ya what Tippett's style is- he animates everything

    by UltraTron

    like the chess characters in starwars. You can see those guys in everything

  • July 9, 2010, 4:30 p.m. CST

    Saw Clash when I was a kid

    by Samuel Fulmer

    Liked it, but as I got older the effects didn't hold up compared to other Harryhausen stuff I ended up seeing, and in fact by the late 80's it started looking shockingly bad. I don't know if this had to do with the film stock they used by that time or not. Maybe it was just too grainy compared to the stocks from the 50's and 60's.

  • July 9, 2010, 4:42 p.m. CST

    UltraTron

    by RPLocke

    No, you're wrong. A lot of CG these days actually build a small model first and then they scan it into the computer. CG is there to enhance the model, not replace it.

  • July 9, 2010, 4:55 p.m. CST

    Go ahead and slam the new CotT, but...

    by Acappellaman

    The new Kraken I have to admit is pretty badass.

  • July 9, 2010, 5:09 p.m. CST

    this image doesnt grow

    by TheJudger

    why quint? You have forsaken the power of embiggen :(

  • July 9, 2010, 5:13 p.m. CST

    Definition of "moderation" (in relation to CGI):

    by The Bicycle Sharer

    I knows it when I DON'T sees it.<p>Definition of "over-the-top" (in relation to CGI): I knows it when I sees it.<p>For examples of "moderation," see Tom Cruise's missing fingers in Valkyrie. I assume that must be CGI.<p>For examples of a lack of moderation, see Avatar, the prequel trilogy, and the 'enhanced' or what-the-fuck ever original trilogy.<p>I find it pretty fucking hard to believe those who doth protest SOOOOOOOO fucking much that they "don't believe" those of us who bemoan the excessive use of CGI or who claim to NOT know what we're talking about.

  • July 9, 2010, 5:17 p.m. CST

    Chuck_Chuckwalla

    by The Bicycle Sharer

    All you can say to those who put CGI down is that they are clueless about how much effort and time it takes to do this kind of work and to do it right, on a tight deadline within a tight budget?<p>How 'bout if they're aware of all of that and still find most of it shit?<p>See, I know how long it took to kill 6 million Jews in the Holocaust - about six years - but that doesn't stop me from thinking it was bullshit and horrible.<p>I got a couple of friends who are programmers for games. I am consummately aware of the length of time and effort that goes into it. That doesn't stop me from calling bullshit on it if it sucks, no matter how much time and effort went into it.

  • July 9, 2010, 5:21 p.m. CST

    And another thought on CGI

    by The Bicycle Sharer

    Look, it's pretty fuckin' simple here. For the most part, when me and the audience look at that shit and go, "Wow, cool CGI," then it probably ain't that great. Why? 'Cause it's obviously CGI.<p>When me and the audience look at it and go, "What the fuck - did they cut Tom Cruise's fingers off or Gary Sinise's legs off for this one?" then it's probably pretty fucking good.<p>Sorry, I wasn't raised on a fucking constant diet of Playstation and Nintendo. So, to me, the definition of "good"/"moderate" use of CGI means that it is fucking seamless from reality, not just really intricate and detailed but still obviously just a bigger budget version of shit that I can get for my Playstation.

  • July 9, 2010, 5:28 p.m. CST

    Bicycle Sharer

    by Chuck_Chuckwalla

    Well, like any artform there is good and bad. CGI is no exception to the rule. My gripe is when CGI attackers diss it in the abstract and say that it all sucks. And if you find that most of it is shit, then fine, I respect your opinion. But let me ask you in all honesty, does Weta suck? Does Pixar suck? Who BTW, even honored Harryhausen by naming a cafe of him in Monsters Inc.

  • July 9, 2010, 5:31 p.m. CST

    Amen, Bicycle

    by Kremzeek

    Agreed. That's all I'm really arguing for. CG is a tool in a filmmaker's toolset box, like a screwdriver. You don't use a screwdriver for every damned solution. But that's how a lot of filmmakers are using CG now - and that's what I'm bummed about.

  • July 9, 2010, 5:33 p.m. CST

    I used to be a practical guy

    by TheJudger

    but now I'm a cgi guy, so i hate the hate. I know why it fails when it fails and why it succeeds when it succeeds. There less of an artist involved with the directors now, and some of the concepts they request are just fucked from the start. Since they can do anything they will do anything, and that is the problem. It's still art. It still requires the abilities of an artist to make it. It's more like real world sculpting today than it was 5 years ago. Real world sculptors are dropping the clays/waxs/castiline/apoxie sculpt, and picking up the Zbrush. A lot of the sideshow toys are now made in maya/max/and zbrush and rapid printed into the real world. So slam away. I understand the hate. But Stan said it best. It works well when you use both practical and cgi to sell it. Both have limits, but I also want to say this. Go on youtube and hunt down the movie magic episode for Hocus Pocus and how they made the digital cat, and realize how far ahead of that we are now. Every 6 months some new cgi advancement comes out that changes the game all over again. Practical hit that wall sometime after Jurassic park, and it sure as hell wasn't seeing any kind of advancement like that in the past 30 years. Production houses are very careful about adopting new programs into the workload but they try very hard to keep the production team percise. They have deadlines. When a house is doing too many projects at once. The lack of quality shows. Weta's been wise enough to stay focused on much lower project numbers, then say ILM. They have more time with each link in the chain. Which helps the team to family up and keep a good watch on each others contributions. It's not a one man show anymore. The scope is way to demanding. You have teams. You need a good team, a good director- who wont approve concept art- just because it looks cool, and the same can be said for the concept artists, cause his/hers approved work is the shape work the digital artists have to recreate. Directors should study anatomy and zoology! They should have more than a basic understanding of bones and muscles work and why animal have certain shapes and parts. Now I'm ranting. CGI is not the enemy. If it sucked so bad, lots of practical guys would still have jobs.

  • July 9, 2010, 5:34 p.m. CST

    CGi is a false God

    by Amazing Maurice

    Its just feels like a lazy solution most of the time. <P>I'm not bashing the animators here, because they CAN do some incredible stuff. But just doesn't feel magical to me. <P>I miss the old-school problem-solving attitude where filmmakers would say "okay, how do we do this? How do we sell this illusion?". <P>Who Framed Roder Rabbit is a great example - all they crazy shit they had to invent and all the little tricks they came up with to make you believe what you were seeing - thats REAL movie magic. <P>Jurassic Park is still one of the best examples of integrated CGi, those guys were in uncharted territory, literally making the software up as they went along. <P>But they didn't rely completely on CG, like when the T-Rox stomps out of its paddock, they had little charges in the water to make splashes where its feet went - it's little touches like that that help to ground things in a real-world tangibility and help to sell the illusion. <P>If Jussasic Park was made today, they would just CG the water, the tour car and probably the whole fucking background as well.

  • July 9, 2010, 5:42 p.m. CST

    by TheJudger

    When things dont look right now. The answer is usually very clear. it's either a shitty fuck concept artist, a piss poor art director, fucked up team management, the budget isnt big enough to push it an extra mile, or a fucking hack director was calling all the shots. Take your pick!

  • July 9, 2010, 5:44 p.m. CST

    Hit it right on, Amazing Maurice

    by Kremzeek

    "I miss the old-school problem-solving attitude where filmmakers would say "okay, how do we do this? How do we sell this illusion?" *THAT* is exactly what's been robbed of us (and the film crews) - ingenuiity. It's probably why I LOVE Hellboy 2 more than it actually deserves. I was so impressed by the practical FX work that went into that movie. It *can* be done, it just takes the time and effort - But as Judger said, maybe these guys are just doing too much at once and have too many demands on them from the higher-ups. But Maurice is right about if they did Jurassic today. And that's exactly why most of us complain about movies just being "meh" these days. Not bad, not good, just... forgettable. We've seen all this before. There's no "wow, HOW did they do that?!!" feeling at the movies - at all. Younger audiences will never know what they're missing. I gotta disagree with one point Judger made though (great post, btw), and that is how practical technology hasn't advanced, or at least not as quickly. I think it could advance quickly if people were actually still using it. But it's all but been abandoned for CG. Again, though, HB2 was amazingly well done and I'd say it's a big jump from the old Clash. =)

  • July 9, 2010, 5:48 p.m. CST

    The Bicycle Sharer

    by RPLocke

    Most of the CG you "Saw" in the Star Wara prequel movies really wasn't. Models were built for many scenes and then digitally enhanced later.

  • July 9, 2010, 5:53 p.m. CST

    no practical ca not advance the way cgi is advancing

    by TheJudger

    you take a stupid fucking film like Gforce, and you tell me they could have matched the shots in it with puppets that looked just as real and had just as much facial and body motions. Bullshit! It's a sad world of denial people live in. There was good and bad practical fx hand and hand. No one dumped on it as a whole for the few bad apples. what if i told you with in 3-4 years that all of sideshows toys will be made on computer first. Think I'm talking shit. Snakeseyes Vs Ninja Diorama was CGI first. It would have taken a practical guy ages to make that diorama. All the real accurate Iron man 1/6th that half scale this. CGI. The fucking skull in Crystal Skulls, CGI then printed in the real world. The stop motion puppets in Coraline- CGI then printed into the real world. The door is closing on hand to clay guys. It's closing for a reason, Some parts of CGI character and creature creating is faster than the real world approach, like being able to sculpt both sides at once with symmetry turned on, and texturing the pieces skin and clothing areas with 16 bit alpha maps scan images of those respective area's. but some of it is not as easy. such as retopology. where the artist has to reowkr the wire flow over the finished model so it will animate correctly or contain less polygons then it needs too. And unopen mouth recieves no foot. When this shit fails. Dont blame CGI. Blame the fucktard who dropped the ball.

  • July 9, 2010, 5:55 p.m. CST

    back in the matte painting days

    by RPLocke

    We could always tell when they used a painting because nothing moved in the shot. It was static.

  • July 9, 2010, 5:57 p.m. CST

    Let's take it down a notch

    by Kremzeek

    A lot of us here, including me, are not hating on CG. I think it's great. Hell, I work in technology. I'm a techie. I appreciate it and respect it. But it's a tool to be used. Not something to be used for everything under the sun. I think that's all the argument is here. I definitely am not saying to omit CG entirely. I never saw GForce, but I'll take your word for it. There are certain types of films that practical FX just won't work. But the opposite is also true. I don't care how awesome the CG is, sometimes it isn't the best solution for the movie being made.

  • July 9, 2010, 6:01 p.m. CST

    Fuck i have to retype this cause i'm so pissed I fucked it up

    by TheJudger

    you take a stupid fucking film like Gforce, and you tell me they could have matched it shot for shot with puppets that looked just as real and had just as much facial and body motions as the CGI versions. Bullshit! <P>It's a sad world of denial people live in. There was good and bad practical fx hand and hand in it's heyday. No one dumped on Practical as a whole for the few bad apples. <P>What if I told you with in 3-4 years time, that all of sideshows toys will be made on a computer first. Think I'm talking shit. Snakeeyes Vs Ninja Diorama was CGI first. It would have taken a practical guy ages to make that diorama. All the real accurate Ironman 1/6th that half scale this- CGI. The fucking Skull in Crystal Skulls, CGI then printed in the real world. The stop motion puppets in Caroline-CGI then printed into the real world. The door is closing in hard on hand to clay guys, and it's closing for a reason, Some parts of CGI character and creature creating is faster than the real world approach. The ability to sculpt both sides at same time with symmetry turned on. Undoing a shape change with an undo button. Saving the character before changing something so the older version of the work survives the change as another version that you or the director might like better. Texturing the skin and cloth areas using a photoshop airbrush like interface with 16 bit alpha maps scan images of those respective area's. But some of it is not as easy. Such as retopology. Where the artist has to rework the wire flow over the finished model so it will animate correctly, or contain less polygons so maximized detail can be retained in a production piece model for printing. <P> And unopened mouth receives no foot. When this shit fails. Don't blame CGI. Blame the fucktard who dropped the ball.

  • July 9, 2010, 6:05 p.m. CST

    Jeez, go write a book.

    by RPLocke

    Man, this place is full of weirdos.

  • July 9, 2010, 6:09 p.m. CST

    Dr Strange I agree with that

    by TheJudger

    I said in the Dark Crystal thread. If you are going to use cgi, minimize it. Laser or phaseshift dlp scan the practical puppets and use the ir real time 3d fusion capture cameras to record the puppeteers preforming the real puppets to animate the cgi doppelgangers- when you absolutely have to use the cgi ones for scenes that require them to be cgi. So it all matches up seamlessly. I don't think cgi is for everything. Fuck no. If you can build it real. Build it real!

  • July 9, 2010, 6:15 p.m. CST

    See now that

    by Kremzeek

    I could probably go for - depending on how well it actually turns out, of course. But a seamless movie experience would be great. I'm intrigued by that possibility and maybe that's the balance some of us are looking for/hoping for in films these days. Oh, and it's just "dstrange" - it's my name abbreviated... Didn't even think about "Dr. Strange" but you're the 2nd person today to see it that way - DOH! Ah well, I can be Dr. Strange instead. Heh.

  • July 9, 2010, 6:18 p.m. CST

    The Kraken

    by Baryonyx

    It was not one of Ray's best designs. Hands at the end of tentacles? Does that mean the tentacles had a skeleton inside? Or did the hands have no bones?

  • July 9, 2010, 6:50 p.m. CST

    UNLEASH THE FAKE SPECIAL EFFECT!

    by RPLocke

    WOOOOOOOO!

  • July 9, 2010, 6:52 p.m. CST

    Baryonyx

    by Kraven Morehead

    I like the design of the Kraken considering it's just supposed to be some squid. The hands at the end of the tentacles sort of give it a g-rated cthulu feel. He always added a little something like the cyclops with a horn and goat legs. Not everything can be a battle with like a hundred skeletons.

  • July 9, 2010, 7:09 p.m. CST

    I have no gripe with any tools...

    by Fuzzyjefe

    that help me see things I've never seen before. I do prefer visceral over virtual as far as sets go. <p> And yeah, the new Kraken was bad-ass. Medusa was a cool design, but she was so damn zippy-quick you couldn't really appreciate it.

  • July 9, 2010, 7:11 p.m. CST

    'Cause let's face it....

    by Fuzzyjefe

    most of us have ALWAYS been able to spot a VFX, especially if a creature or other 'character' created.

  • July 9, 2010, 8:40 p.m. CST

    Ray Harryhausen rules...

    by mr dark

    That is all.

  • July 9, 2010, 9:23 p.m. CST

    CGI tech will get better and better.

    by Galactic

    People gotta realize CGI is a science that is still in its infant stages. Eventually bad CGI will only exist in low-budget films, just like bad FX explosions used to.

  • July 9, 2010, 9:26 p.m. CST

    @just pillow talk...

    by kevred

    ...Just so you know, I did think of that when I wrote it. But it was too damning NOT to leave in. :)

  • BINGO!

  • July 9, 2010, 10:37 p.m. CST

    MMM. Screwdriver

    by RPLocke

    me thirsty.

  • July 9, 2010, 11 p.m. CST

    It's not better, they just didn't have anything else...

    by BurnHollywood

    Sorry to point out the obvious...

  • July 10, 2010, 12:02 a.m. CST

    Quint

    by Evil Chicken

    You need to put this in print. There should be a book. Since you are doing the compiling I vote for you to write/edit it. Harry writes the forward. Seriously. Some of these shots are pure geek history.

  • July 10, 2010, 12:56 a.m. CST

    Sunglasses Oakey,coach,gucci $12

    by 2jordanercom

    -------------- http://www.jordaner.com ----------- a leading worldwide w holesaler company (or ucan say organization). We supply more than 100 thousand high-quality merchandise and famous brand name products all at wholesale prices.

  • July 10, 2010, 2:11 a.m. CST

    Kraven Morehead

    by Baryonyx

    Yeah - Ray's design instincts were usually sound (cyclops' head horn, Medusa's snake body, etc) but I got to say that Kraken has never done it for me. It's partly the hands-on-tentacles design and partly the rather goofy face it has, that resembles a reheated Ymir.

  • July 10, 2010, 6:53 a.m. CST

    Fuck the overrated

    by Powerring

    Original clash of the titan. The movie is a cheesy piece of shit for 8 year olds. Deal.

  • July 10, 2010, 8 a.m. CST

    Now that's what i am talking about

    by disfigurehead

    The master at work on a classic. Not some schmuck on a computer listening to Godsmack.

  • July 10, 2010, 9 a.m. CST

    CGI or stop motion

    by Powerring

    It's more talent than disfigurehead will ever have in his life to do either, but it still makes the original a lame, cheesy POS that is unwatachably bad now.

  • July 10, 2010, 9:10 a.m. CST

    This pic of the day feature sucks yak ass

    by Iowa Snot Client

    When are you gonna post Ritchie Cunningham's photo of Clarabell the Clown without makeup? That's what the people wanna see.

  • July 10, 2010, 10:30 a.m. CST

    YES! Wizard of Speed and Time in it's entirety

    by gotilk

    in on YouTube in pretty great quality. And it's AMAZING. http://tinyurl.com/29xdnxd in 10 parts.

  • July 10, 2010, 11:06 a.m. CST

    Love the camera store

    by gotilk

    On the outside, a photomat. On the inside? A Camera Superstore. lol

  • July 10, 2010, 11:52 a.m. CST

    Not only that but

    by gotilk

    the quality of the copy on YouTube is the best I've seen.. ever. Watch in 480.

  • July 10, 2010, 12:40 p.m. CST

    Thanks for the reminder Ace of Wands

    by gotilk

    Hadn't seen that in a LONG time. What a movie!!!

  • July 10, 2010, 12:57 p.m. CST

    CGI is....

    by Karuma

    ..almost always better than anything Roy Harryhausen did. I have never understood the retro love for all things stop motion when it clearly was worse than what we have now. Is there bad CGI? Of course there is but when it is good it is light years ahead of RH and if he could came back from the Other Side right now he would say, "Are you guys crazy!? The only reason I did stop motion was because I had no other way to do it. If I would have had what you had now I would have used CGI all the time. Get over me!!"

  • July 10, 2010, 1:08 p.m. CST

    disfigurehead: you are just a shmuck at a computer.

    by UltraTron

    But you don't create with it you just jerk off on it. So what could you possibly offer the world? That shmuck just modeled Ironman for you and it took him incredible time and effort. I'm glad he's there to make that for me and I'm enjoying that fact before his job goes to India

  • July 10, 2010, 1:21 p.m. CST

    Remember the flash pilot had one shot as good as

    by UltraTron

    wizard. I remember thinking they got that right- just like wizard of speed and time.

  • July 10, 2010, 1:53 p.m. CST

    Karuma

    by Baryonyx

    What are you talking about: "if he could come back from the Other Side right now"? Do you think he's dead? Sorry, but "Roy" is still with us. By the way, I like good CGI too, like the dinos in Jurassic Park, which moved well because of the input the CGI guys got from Stop Motion expert Phil Tippett.

  • July 10, 2010, 2:36 p.m. CST

    It's not CG's fault. It's the lazy people behind CG.

    by Orionsangels

    Harryhausaen has had great passion for his craft. That brought out the best in him. Most of today's CG is created by lazy programers going. through the motions. They don't have that passion and determination that Harryhausen had. One huge mistake CG does these days is making all their creatures unbelievably fast. Why did the scorpions in the Clash remake have to move so fast? It's obvious no human would stand a chance, but of course somehow our heroes manage to kill them, while some extra gets stung by the Scorpions tail at super speed and thrown around like a CG blur. Then later our heroes are able to dodge this? Slow down CG artist, let us taken in your creation, stop moving your CG creature at 100mph.

  • July 10, 2010, 4:04 p.m. CST

    Orionsangels

    by RPLocke

    That's the director's fault. Not the CG artist fault. The CG artist doesn't control the camera bonehead.

  • July 10, 2010, 4:53 p.m. CST

    The Wizard of Speed and Time

    by TheJudger

    OMG I love this movie. Wish Jittlov got a better foot in the door. He made the Mickey Mouse Satellite head for the Disney channel premiere. And he sold it. I think on ebay. I remember seeing it for auction. Sad that he hasn't had the film life he should have. Pixar or Weta should hunt him down ASAP! I'm dead serious. AICN has some cinematic pull. Why not find this guy and put him back into the game. He has a website. http://www.wizworld.com/

  • July 10, 2010, 5:40 p.m. CST

    Chuck_Chuckwalla

    by The Bicycle Sharer

    I gotcha, man, and you're right - there's good and there's bad and, many times, budget or "time spent" have little to do with any of it. Give a monkey a billion dollars and a thousand years and he'll produce... shit. On the other hand, sometimes you can give a driven artist one weekend and a buck ninety-five and he'll make you think you're on fucking Barsoom. I do not diss all CGI. Sometimes it's really unobtrusive (fingers in Valkyrie/missing legs in Forrest Gump) and sometimes it's meant to be the experience (Avatar). I find that some of it is shit, but so are most movies, right? I mean, why should CGI have cornered the Hollywood market on excellence? Weta's fine. Pixar's fine. Fuck, I even like that group that did the fx in Serenity/Firefly, that shaky-cam version of special fx. Maybe I said all that shit wrong. CGI has its place, but a-holes like Lucas are constantly choosing that shit when they oughta be building fucking sets and matte paintings and enhancing with CGI (SW prequel trilogy) or traveling to the fucking locations and trying to do as much practically as possible and jettisoning MOST of the shit that you can't (Indy and the KOTCS). Didn't mean to offend you, dude. CGI has its place and it's come a long way, but too often it seems the refuge of morons like Lucas and Bay. And to me (in addition to the Playstation shit), it also seems to me (and I've seen my wife do this on Photoshop) like one of those deals where you look at something for so long and see the improvement in the finished product (from rough to final fx) that to the ARTIST, it seems fucking amazingly awesome - like the parent of a kid who just learned to color on a fucking page. To the artist/parent, it's the greatest thing ever. To others, it's all "whoopee, your kid sucks as an artist." ;-)

  • July 10, 2010, 5:42 p.m. CST

    And again

    by The Bicycle Sharer

    Apologies. Didn't mean to offend. Sometimes I get a little more "het up" in print than I actually intend. Just like EVERYTHING in life - some CGI is good, some is bad, and most is in the middle.

  • July 10, 2010, 8:52 p.m. CST

    RPLocke

    by Orionsangels

    Yeah but most directors approve shotty CG, because they wouldn't know good CG if it bit them in the ass. You dickhead!

  • July 10, 2010, 11:45 p.m. CST

    CGI vs. Stop Motion.

    by BiggusDickus

    I was going to post a really good argument about taking off our rose-tinted glasses and realising that good CGI is always better than stop-motion from thirty years ago, but The Bicycle Sharer has just said everything I need to, apart from the second line of Karuma's flawed post at 12:57:50.

  • July 11, 2010, 12:18 a.m. CST

    Nothing works perfectly right out of the box

    by ObiBen

    I perfectly know that. That's my point. And although I'm not an animator, I like to believe that I know one or two things about professionnal 3D and editing softwares.

  • July 11, 2010, 12:38 a.m. CST

    Bicycle Sharer

    by Chuck_Chuckwalla

    Dude, thanks. And well said — I completely agree with you. When I wrote my first post it's really just me venting my frustration (because creating CGI can be a bitch). But I also understand your frustration because it's completely valid. I am an artist who does CGI but I am also a geek. In fact, I didn't bother to go see the new Clash because I heard it was shit and because I love the original so much — why sully the experience I had as a kid? It's great reading this talkback because there are guys on here that have really gone into detail explaining all the reasons why CGI can end up looking like shit. It's like therapy. I have a PS3 too (I played Resistance: Fall of Man online into the ground).

  • July 11, 2010, 12:44 a.m. CST

    Great FT

    by ObiBen

    The problem is (at least) twofold: Improvised animators and very talented animators in front of impossible deadlines. With stop motion, you could not improvise yourself as an animator (too difficult). And in the era of practical and optical vfx (or even early CG), the temptation to fill the screen with 2000+ gags per movie simply was out of the question. As someone else aptly pointed out, it's a question of balance, and discerning the right tool for the right job.

  • July 11, 2010, 12:49 a.m. CST

    Oh, and about skeleton rigs

    by ObiBen

    Any newbie can animate a spider or a fish in about 30 minutes on a good 3D tool. Doesn't mean the result will be a great work of art, though.

  • July 11, 2010, 4:16 a.m. CST

    Amazing that one man did all that.

    by Mr Nicholas

  • July 11, 2010, 6:55 a.m. CST

    Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $15

    by jordanercominc

    -------------- http://www.jordaner.com ----------- a leading worldwide w holesaler company (or ucan say organization). We supply more than 100 thousand high-quality merchandise and famous brand name products all at wholesale prices.

  • July 11, 2010, 9:52 a.m. CST

    Just sent in a great one

    by CarmillaVonDoom

    (please use please use please use) ☺

  • July 11, 2010, 5:14 p.m. CST

    The Great FuckTater

    by Baryonyx

    You talk sense

  • July 13, 2010, 3:36 p.m. CST

    http://www.e4cn.com

    by e4cn14

    YOU MUST NOT MISS IT!! http://www.e4cn.com Recommend good website http://www.e4cn.com Thanks to share with you. ACCEPT PYAPAL PAYMENT .YOU MUST NOT MISS IT!!!free shipping. I bought two double. Very good.Thanks to share with you. kogogo,Inc. We are the best online dealer,about all kinds of jordan.run retailing and wholesale trade wordwidely for years. Free Shipping And Customs,Super Sale Off Retailing,With 1Week Delivery to your door. a leading worldwide wholesaler company (or u can say organization). We supply more than 100 thousand high-quality merchandise and famous brand name products all at wholesale prices. Start your wholesale sourcing here today and experience first class service and fast shipping. The website wholesale for many kinds of fashion shoes, like the nike,jordan,prada, also including the jeans,shirts,bags,hat and the decorations. All the products are free shipping, and the the price is competitive, and also can accept the paypal payment.,after the payment, can ship within short time. ACCEPT PYAPAL PAYMENT .YOU MUST NOT MISS IT!!!free shipping. I bought two double. Very good.Thanks to share with you.

  • July 17, 2010, 6:48 p.m. CST

    now this is good

    by Nocturama

    ..this is the good stuff