MovieChat Forums > Clash of the Titans (1981) Discussion > Rating Harryhausen's special effects

Rating Harryhausen's special effects

posted 15 years ago by tmitch-1
9 replies | jump to latest

When this came out in 1981, I remember at least two reviews - one was from Time Magazine - just gushing on and on about how great the special effects were, and how Ray Harryhausen was the greatest special effects genius ever.

Being 11 years old at the time, good special effects in a monster movie was of course all I cared about. I was so psyched.

Then I saw it, and I was woefully disappointed. It wasn't that they were the worst special effects ever - just that they seemed incredibly dated. I expected something more than the same jerky stop-motion effects that had been around for more than 50 years. My disappointment with COTT was only reinforced when Dragonslayer was released a few months later, and showcased an early form of computer-enhanced special effects imaging called go-motion. Compared to Dragonslayer's Vermithrax, the Kraken was one sorry-looking piece of calimari.

Today, it seems that most people are on the same page I was on in 1981 - that Ray Harryhausen's special effects had become pretty laughable by the time COTT came out. I've even noticed several other posters have remarked that when they saw this movie as a re-run on TV, they thought they were watching a movie from the 60s or early 70s. And since this was Harryhausen's last film to date, you can't help but wonder if Harryhausen himself realized he had become obsolete.

The only question is - why were critics so quick to praise Harryhausen's work in 1981? Was it out of respect for Harryhausen - who had had an undeniably impressive career - even if his time was clearly over?

If so, I think this was a cop-out - kind of like how Woody Allen hasn't put anything remotely funny or interesting out since the 70s, but critics still call him a comedic genius - just because he's Woody Allen, the inventor of the not-very-funny psuedo-intellectual comedy.

Personally, I think they could have still showed respect for Harry's previous work while stating the truth - in the world of monster special effects, he'd become the dinosaur.

[–] djrosenblatt 13 years ago

I'll reaffirm what you wrote about other posters - I just caught this movie (or 45 minutes of it) on TV, having never before seen any of it. I really had trouble rapping my head around seeing Harry Hamlin in a film with stop-motion animation effects that looked like they came right out of late-50's, early-60's Hollywood.

OTOH, I think we may soon enter a time of renewed appreciation of this kind of animation, if only for its campiness.

(BTW, since your comment was made before Woody Allen's Midnight in Paris came out, I'll overlook your claim that he hasn't made anything interesting since the 70's. But I do disagree. While I also don't like a lot of his stuff, he has had the occasional gem.)

Badgers? We don't need no stinkin' badgers! But if you could show us something in a nice possum...

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] EarlWeber 13 years ago

I still find watching Jason & the Argonauts, 7th Voyage of Sinbad and Clash of the Titans (1981) alot more fun on a rainy afternoon than some of the more recent stuff - including the remake of Clash of the Titans. I was born well after those flicks had their big day in the theaters. I can forgive "dated" effects for a fun, well told story. I'm not one to say all the new stuff is crap - there are older films I just assume toss in the garbage...

[–] John-367 13 years ago

A couple of things.

By the late 1970s/early 1980s heavy diffusion, flashing and other ways of softening and degrading the image had become the fashion in cinematography and COTT reflects this. Apart from not being at all keen on the style myself, I don't think that it did the stop motion any favours. It was hard enough to get consistent degradation from shot to shot in the average film but in one using many mattes and elements shot in very different situations any inconsistencies show up all the more starkly. Harryhausen's earlier films such as Jason and the Argonauts were shot with higher contrast, deeper shadows and direct hard lighting so the mattes were cleaner, the elements were more straightforward to match, and the whole thing looked much better as a result.

Harryhausen's work was pretty much state of the art for stop motion throughout his career. However his work was like a cottage industry, once Lucas ploughed major investment into stop motion as a hi-tech factory process working on a vast range of projects with a large workforce and time and resources for R and D, then Harryhausen couldn't compete. He was unlucky enough to be shooting COTT simultaneously with Go-Motion being developed so COTT looked like yesterday's technology very quickly.

[–] AragornVsHicks 13 years ago

Compared with today's CGI and what not, yes.. watching this film's outdated special effects is somewhat unappealing. Though, I do like the Medusa in COTT; given her hideous appearance and the darkness inside that temple, fane.. she still looks - a little - believable, even with stop motion.

[–] j-taylor-goddard 13 years ago

I always thought the effects and the general production values didn't match up compared to earlier Harryhausen productions.

The effects are very 60s looking, while the sets and costumes are far superior and authentic compared to the camp looking panto outfits from the older films.

[–] bladou20 12 years ago

I see Ray Harryhausen's work on Clash as sort of a mixed bag. Some shots look very believable, as do some characters. I don't find the Calibos scenes or Pegasus all that great. Nice animation, but awkward.
Using Medusa as an example, several shots there are very believable. The ones with her crawling and a few of the scenes once she had descended the steps. The only awkward moments are one's where the animation is off. Watch her take the bow off her shoulder and notice that it is not removed from around her arm ,but jerked off. Then watch her fall forward to the steps. That should have been faster. Instead she just floats down. The close up shots of the tail on the floor are not helpful either since it reveals a lack of realistic texture. More often than not though, she is believable in that environment and still my favorite creature Ray did.
People praised Ray's work because the majority of it was good.
Since the process of making these films is common knowledge now, it ruins the believability.
I would love to see someone who has no idea what CGI is watch the Medusa scene from the remake of Clash. They will probably love the Medusa tail and some of the torso work, but scratch their head when they see her face. It's the uncanny valley effect and ruins the experience of watching the movie.

[–] elena-28 12 years ago

For me, one of the things that Harryhausen did best was to infuse character into his creations - I've now seen a number of Harryhausen movies on TCM - they aren't what I'd go out of my way for, but when they're on, I tend to get drawn into them because his creatures have expression, and I can truly feel for them. In some of them, I feel sympathy for the critters to a greater extent than I do for the humans. This is not something that happens often to me when I watch more recent creature movies. Maybe the technique is dated, but the very idea of it, the attention and the patience involved fascinates me, and I'm willing to bet it's a factor in that sense of empathy I get. So I'm willing to watch the dated effects because I get something in exchange for the superior technique.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]