MovieChat Forums > Jason and the Argonauts (1963) Discussion > Harryhausen FX - How were they regarded ...

Harryhausen FX - How were they regarded by audiences of the day?

posted 18 years ago by spawnerdawner2004
42 replies | jump to latest

I couldn't imagine my youth without the fantastic creations of Ray Harryhausen...his work broadened my imagination and enriched my life! :)

I'm very curious, for the audience of the day...did they see Ray's effects as the Jurassic Park of their day and were blown away by what they saw? I know people are more familiar with the craft of SFX nowadays, but don't we all grown when we see poor CGI effects? Was it like that back then?

I am wondering if the obvious animation created by the stop motion process was detected by viewers back then, and did this take the audiences of the day out of the picture somehow?

[–] xplorer813 12 years ago

50 years from now, special effects movie lovers will feel nostalgic and respectful of the special effects of our time while at the same time in awe of how the genre will have advanced by that time. Can you imagine the state of the art special effects wizardry of our day being archaic in 50 years? I wonder what it would be like.

[–] bradford-1 11 years ago

Originally saw this around Christmas 1963 when I was 7. I was thoroughly blown away by the film and even had nightmares about the skeleton army. My mother decreed that I couldn't see any more creature-oriented flicks, so I had to plead my behind off months later when FIRST MEN IN THE MOON was released!
"May I bone your kipper, Mademoiselle?"

[–] moon-girl 11 years ago

I agree with the others that the effects remain awesome today. I first saw the movie on tv in the early to mid seventies as a child, and when those skeletons appeared, my mouth dropped open and I just stared, amazed. I had never seen anything like that before, and I thought it was the coolest thing EVER! To this day, that scene is just as amazing to me as the first time. I think this style of special effects is in many ways superior to the more modern kinds of effects. It just looked more natural and real. A few years ago, my friend and I happened to watch Jason one day, and Ghostbusters the next day, and we both thought Ghostbusters looked fake in comparison. Maybe it's because the skeletons, to use them as an example, were real figures that were posed by human beings, whereas the computerized special effects are done by computer--I don't really know, I'm just guessing. But there is just something so delightful, amazing and real about the effects in this film, and in his others.

[–] Satan2016 (25859) 4 years ago

There was no CG in Ghostbusters (84). Two years later in Luxo Jr.

[–] Jes' Sayin' (6463) 4 years ago

This was a "Saturday afternoon at the movies" kind of flick that your parents dropped you off to see while they saw a different movie or went shopping. The kids saw and loved it while most of the adults didn't bother to see it.

[–] Ace_Spade (9610) 4 years ago

Then? I'm impressed now!

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8815) 3 years ago

I just went on a short stop-motion odyssey, first watching Clash of the Titans, and then Dragonslayer, and then Jason and the Argonauts.

Of the three, I thought that Clash had the weakest effects. But Jason, despite being almost 20 years older than Clash, was quite impressive. Talos and the Skeleton Warriors were very cool, and I also liked the scene where Poseidon rises up out of the water to assist them.

I only wish the film didn't end so abruptly. What about the prophecy?!

[–] Ace_Spade (9610) 3 years ago

I haven't seen Clash yet, although it's on my list.

I think I liked Dragonslayer's FX more, but to be fair, it's a later film. I also think it uses fewer effects. They had to do a lot with the dragon, whereas Jason had giant stone monsters, harpies, skeletons (and so on). Dragonslayer also benefits from being darker.

With that caveat, however, I was unbelievably impressed by Jason's effects. The way they had the players interacting with the creations was basically seamless. I was kinda floored. It looked terrific and delivered a great fantasy adventure.

The abrupt end was disappointing, yeah. They wanted a sequel they never green-lit (which I think was weird because I believe the movie made bank...maybe I remember that wrong). I also felt Hercules' exit was kinda anticlimactic. He's at his lowest point and he just kinda leaves and we don't get a resolution there. I was particularly disappointed because I really liked that plot line...

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8815) 3 years ago

You should check out Clash. Just be prepared to feel like the effects feel dated for the 1980s. It came out the same year as Dragonslayer, but the latter's effects are much more convincing.

While watching Jason and the Argonauts, I was like, wow, this movie came out in 1963! It is certainly impressive for its time. Then again, 2001 came out just five years later and still looks AMAZING today (though its effects are of a different sort).

I agree about Hercules' exit. I guess they wanted the movie to feel like there were real stakes involved.

I would have loved to have seen that sequel. From what I read, Harryhausen decided to go do more Sinbad movies instead. That's a damn shame. If they weren't actually going to make the sequel, I wish they had at least tacked on 30 more minutes that show Jason returning home and killing Pelias and taking back his kingdom.

[–] Ace_Spade (9610) 3 years ago

Clash is on the list for sure. I just haven't tracked it down yet. As for "dated", I'm always prepared to meet a movie or TV show in the era in which it was made. I know that stuff can look hokey to modern eyeballs, but that doesn't mean I'm going to let rear projection spoil my enjoyment of Alfred Hitchcock's wonderful offerings (for instance). But thanks for the warning, all the same.

2001 is another film where the effects just stayed very, very fresh, yeah.

I'd have watched the sequel, for sure.

[–] R_Kane (15828) 4 years ago

Ray Harryhausen was a genius. There are still things that stop-motion animation can do that CGI can’t: Coraline, which combined stop-motion with CGI.

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8815) 3 years ago

You may be interested in checking out this documentary, if you haven't seen it:

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1839590/

[–] Bacchus (10) 4 years ago

I didn't see this movie when it first came out, but when I was a little kid in the early 1970's I saw it on the big screen at a Saturday Matinee in a downtown movie theatre. What a different world it was then, too. Parents didn't take their kids to Saturday Matinees, they just gave you your bus fare and money for your movie tickets and popcorn and sent you on your way. I doubt anyone in the audience was over ten years old. Thinking back, the people who ran the theatre really went out of their way to entertain us kids, they even had a draw for prizes during the intermission so it was important to keep your ticket stubs. I remember winning a jigsaw puzzle at one of these movies. But I digress...

Although the movie was over ten years old at that point we were all amazed by the special effects. You have to remember that special effects in movies were a lot rarer back then, and stop motion animation was cutting edge. It was still in use in Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back which was made almost twenty years after Jason and the Argonauts. I surely wasn't a sophisticated cinephile back then, but even I could tell the difference between the monsters in a Harryhausen movie and Godzilla, for instance. I saw a few of the old Godzilla movies at the Saturday Matinees as well, and even though I loved those movies too you could always tell it was a guy in a rubber suit smashing what looked like the model kits and train sets we all used to build. The Harryhausen monsters looked much more realistic. So yes, I think it's fair to say they were the Jurassic Park of their day.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Great comment, I enjoyed reading your experience.

[–] Owlwise (1536) 3 years ago

I loved them as a kid in 1963, and I love them just as much today.

Roger Ebert once wrote something to the effect that stop-motion brought more of a dreamlike, otherworldly, yet also realistic feel to a fantasy or science-fiction movie far more than CGI could. The stop-motion figures were tangible, having actual weight & presence. I've watched special effects advance for decades now, and I still think Ray Harryhousen is The Master. Everything he animated has personality that endures & convinces to this day.

[–] snepts (11123) 3 years ago

One way I'll try to look at it is, if an effect can be rendered effortlessly (as with GCI) there might be less of a sense of wonder as opposed to when you can tell the filmmakers had to overcome physical obstacles and make an effort to achieve a special effect. Otherwise we just assume anything can happen and there's no astonishment. Skeletons in space? Sure, why not?
But I'm sure there are a lot of people who don't care for the technical aspects of the trick and it's more about how outrageous the image comes across.

[–] Owlwise (1536) 3 years ago

I agree with you!

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8815) 3 years ago

I don't know that I would say "it convinces."

While I would say, for instance, that the hydra in Jason is an interesting creation, I would in no way say that it's convincing as a real being.

The effects in Clash of the Titans also largely don't come off as realistic. They're interesting, sure, but they don't make you believe that the creatures are real.

[–] Owlwise (1536) 3 years ago

Perhaps I should say, it convinces for me, in that I'm not taken out of the story to comment in my mind that they're not realistic. The willing suspension of disbelief in order to enjoy the story, in other words. And with this sort of thing, it's a very subjective experience, of course. :)

[–] PrimeMinisterX (8815) 3 years ago

Fair enough. Having just watched Clash of the Titans and Jason and the Argonauts back-to-back I have to say that never once could I escape the active knowledge that I was watching special effects. But as special effects, they're interesting. I could enjoy the craft and imagination that went into creating them.

Strangely, even though Jason predated Clash by almost 20 years, I actually thought Jason's FX were superior.

[–] Owlwise (1536) 3 years ago

I think Jason just gets the overall tone right, and that also makes a difference in how we experience it. A movie made in the early 1960s is coming from a rather different place than one coming from the 1980s, I'd say.

[–] ATG6 (3000) 3 years ago

I didn't see it in the 60s, but as a kid in the 70s it was amazing. Miles beyond "Land of the Lost" or any TV special effects.