Cool News
Quint releases the Behind the Scenes Pic of the Day!
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
-
+ Expand All
-
Loving this.
-
and have that version fight against the 2010 version. then harry hamlin can fight sam worthington on the ground below.
-
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.
-
need the whole series that pic came from
-
This new column pleases me very much. Will continue to read. A++++ seller, would do business again.
-
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.
-
It's a good thing and a bad thing all rolled into one.
-
Totally incomprehensible.
-
I've always been annoyed that one of my favorite categories was only given 3 slots.
-
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...
-
Keep up the good work.
-
...Talkback echo chamber feedback loop.
-
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.
-
Not some pasty dumbass in front of a computer, clicking a mouse.
-
...sometimes years long creative projects, and I've gotten much more forgiving about movies.
Something like a movie is the result of millions of little decisions...good days and bad days.
When my own projects are finished I see time more than a finished product. -
the category with more CGI. Just think, last year I'm sure 2012 would've gotten a nod if there were 5 choices.
-
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.
-
"more uninspired CGI"...
-
Cause that's what WE do, dammit! *click*
-
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.
-
...CG makes it easier to pump out crap, so it gets a bad reputation.
-
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!
-
Genuinely COOL article. Keep it up Quint, you're aces!
-
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.
-
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.
-
already this is the best thing AICN's done since A Movie A Day.
-
Jul 09, 2010 1:16:44 PM CDT
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.
-
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.
-
and wants to go back to matte paintings, miniatures, and stop motion?
Get off the fucking bandwagon. There's good cgi out there it's just "cool" to hate it now. -
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.
-
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... -
this image is available in many places on the net. Besides, Quint is not making a profit from the picture
-
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.
But now it will defintely make it easier for some pap to get nominated. Still seething over The Golden Compass winning... -
...effects in recent years.
-
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.
-
that would be nice. Hellboy 2 comes to mind...
-
(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.
-
Are you going to archive these in a gallery? T'would be sweet.
-
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----
Stupid,
Black Pegasus?
Bubo "Guest" appearance?
Video game Medusa
What Exactly was that lizard, Mortal Kombat rippoff thing? -
Granted, I can watch Arterton all day, but the rest of it was a CGI mess that can't touch the original.
-
it's worth googling the promo pix of her in TAMARA DREWE if you like that sort of thing.
-
And what surprised me is the amount of GC used on Moon for interior set work. Like Zodiac, an example of "invisible" CG.
-
But don't you have any of Elvira getting dressed or something?
-
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.
-
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. -
runs down face. hey did anyone get the ENCOM post card with that robot thing, sorry off topic?
-
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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
That's a beautiful image. Thank you, Quint.
-
Transformers was freakin robbed.
-
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.
-
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.
-
D.Vader, end of line.
-
I remember him! What happened, you get banned?
-
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.
-
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
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,. -
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...
-
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.
-
Sorry, the above was directed at your comment.
-
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.
-
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. Harryhausen was as master though. Period.
-
Example: Green Hornet trailer, green poof coming out of the gas gun. Fancy particle effect, looks fake + more expensive than stage smoke.
-
...it was 1000% better than anything in The Terrier's jarring, blurry, insibid, bad-CGI-fest from a few months back
-
The old one got SKEWERED by critics.
-
Jul 09, 2010 4:24:56 PM CDT
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
-
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).
-
Jul 09, 2010 4:28:40 PM CDT
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
The new Kraken I have to admit is pretty badass.
-
...was a far superior design to the old. Deal with it.
-
why quint? You have forsaken the power of embiggen :(
-
I knows it when I DON'T sees it.Definition of "over-the-top" (in relation to CGI): I knows it when I sees it.For examples of "moderation," see Tom Cruise's missing fingers in Valkyrie. I assume that must be CGI.For examples of a lack of moderation, see Avatar, the prequel trilogy, and the 'enhanced' or what-the-fuck ever original trilogy.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.
-
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?How 'bout if they're aware of all of that and still find most of it shit?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.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.
-
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.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.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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Its just feels like a lazy solution most of the time. I'm not bashing the animators here, because they CAN do some incredible stuff. But just doesn't feel magical to me. I miss the old-school problem-solving attitude where filmmakers would say "okay, how do we do this? How do we sell this illusion?". 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. 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. 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. If Jussasic Park was made today, they would just CG the water, the tour car and probably the whole fucking background as well.
-
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!
-
"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. =)
-
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.
-
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.
-
We could always tell when they used a painting because nothing moved in the shot. It was static.
-
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.
-
Jul 09, 2010 6:01:18 PM CDT
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!
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.
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.
And unopened mouth receives no foot. When this shit fails. Don't blame CGI. Blame the fucktard who dropped the ball. -
Man, this place is full of weirdos.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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?
-
WOOOOOOOO!
-
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.
-
that help me see things I've never seen before. I do prefer visceral over virtual as far as sets go. 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.
-
most of us have ALWAYS been able to spot a VFX, especially if a creature or other 'character' created.
-
even today,but that does not mean that a cgi Robocop would not have looked even better since its metallic thus easier to be made.Transformers are a perfect example of this.The main problem with CGI is about creating real-life organic characters and how they interact with real actors and sceneries.I dont know about ILM but WETA seems to be in a good track of improving CGI in that area,and since technology evolves,it will eventually be a matter of time until CGI will be nearly flawless.
but right now,i agree with what other people say: its not about cgi vs practical,but about what works best for your film.lets face it KK of the 30s might have his own magic and works fine in a cheap monster movie,but PJ's KK can be used more efficiently in the artist's vision of potraying a monster with feelings. -
That is all.
-
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.
-
...Just so you know, I did think of that when I wrote it. But it was too damning NOT to leave in. :)
-
Jul 09, 2010 9:41:22 PM CDT
Dstrange - You don't use a screwdriver for every damned solutio
by obiben
BINGO!
-
me thirsty.
-
Jul 09, 2010 11:00:38 PM CDT
It's not better, they just didn't have anything else...
by burnhollywood
Sorry to point out the obvious...
-
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.
-
-------------- 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. -
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.
-
Original clash of the titan. The movie is a cheesy piece of shit for 8 year olds. Deal.
-
OH MY FUCKING GOD.i guess the remake didnt have a similar asshot right? fucking PC wuss era we are living in....
-
The master at work on a classic. Not some schmuck on a computer listening to Godsmack.
-
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.
-
When are you gonna post Ritchie Cunningham's photo of Clarabell the Clown without makeup? That's what the people wanna see.
-
in on YouTube in pretty great quality. And it's AMAZING. http://tinyurl.com/29xdnxd in 10 parts.
-
On the outside, a photomat. On the inside? A Camera Superstore. lol
-
the quality of the copy on YouTube is the best I've seen.. ever. Watch in 480.
-
Hadn't seen that in a LONG time. What a movie!!!
-
..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!!"
-
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
-
wizard. I remember thinking they got that right- just like wizard of speed and time.
-
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.
-
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.
-
That's the director's fault. Not the CG artist fault. The CG artist doesn't control the camera bonehead.
-
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/
-
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." ;-)
-
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.
-
Yeah but most directors approve shotty CG, because they wouldn't know good CG if it bit them in the ass. You dickhead!
-
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.
-
Harryhausen was a genius and one of the main reasons I became a professional animator (of low-rent commercials). However, heroic as his efforts were, as indelible his creations, their time has passed. His stop motion effects look like faulty puppets next to middling CG of today. 2010 CLASH monsters stomp Harryhausen's CLASH monsters in terms of impact and realism. Harryhausen was far past his prime when the original CLASH was made. The truth is: Both versions of CLASH are abominably shitty movies with a few good monster moments.
The above poster who says "rigs come as presets" apparently hasn't animated professionally. Nothing works perfectly right out of the box. -
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.
-
It's just that rigging is astoundingly complicated, even for "simple" characters. An example of bad work: ILM's Norton HULK, which looked like a bag of water balloons, sloshing and mushy. No strength, no solidity. Harryhausen's Cyclops from SINBAD had more visual power and structural integrity. The main problem with CG is that there are no new Harryhausens around to use it. -
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).
-
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.
-
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.
-
-------------- 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.
-
(please use please use please use)
☺ -
You talk sense
-
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. -
..this is the good stuff
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 209 total posts 207 posts
- AVENGERS enemy revealed as pink boardgame pieces... You might suffer some form of elation... SPOILERS!!! -- 160 total posts 97 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 144 total posts 77 posts
- Here's The Red Band Trailer For Drafthouse Films' THE FP! -- 68 total posts 68 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 67 total posts 67 posts
- Does ‘SNL’ Rhyme With ‘Deschanel’?? Learn Which SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE Vet Hosts After Sexy Zooey!! -- 64 total posts 60 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 480 total posts 55 posts
- HANNA's Saoirse Ronan to boss around seven little people -- 53 total posts 50 posts
- Friday Brings SWEEPS DAY NINE!! Gab Here About Tonight’s FRINGE!! Plus Einstein on TIM, Wiig On PORTLANDIA, MAHER, CLONE, GIFTED, GRIMM, SPARTACUS, SUPERNATURAL, GOLD RUSH And More!! -- 118 total posts 32 posts
- SPACE 2099!! -- 182 total posts 27 posts