Comments on: Clash of the Titans 2010: U2 Sucks

By: Odo

Odo — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 23:10:14 +0000

A piss poor remake of the original Clash. To all who rag on the special effects of the Harryhausen Clash: remember, special effects serve the story and not the other way around.

The Clash effects of the original were not even state of the art at the time compared to the Star Wars franchise…but George Lucas and animators like Phil Tippet & Dennis Muren have stated in interviews that seeing Harryhausen’s Seventh Voyage of Sinbad and other Harryhausen movies is what inspired them to go on and work for Lucas productions.

First and foremost, I want an engaging story that has a sense of wonder and stimulates your imagination. For the most part, the current crop of CGI movies would be absolutely nothing without its Foie gras ad naseum SPX which are force fed down your throats.

The latest Star Trek movie with the 90210 trek cast (barf!) is a perfect example. If you surgically removed all the SPX, it would be nothing which I already think it is anyway.

Another example new technology overkill is when talkies came in in the 1930′s there would be talking scenes ad nauseum as well. The infatuation with a new technology usually wears off in a while and the core priniciple of having a good script prevails.

Yet another example of CGI overkill is Pearl Harbor, and in a paticular a scene where a bomb is followed directly behind it in a POV dropping right down a smoke stack of a battleship; the point being is this CGI effect is drawing attention to itself saying “Hey, I’m a CGI effect, look at me”. People therefore know it is a special effect because it purposely draws attention to itself…that is not the purpose of special effects.

Peter Fincher’s ‘Zodiac’ is a brilliant example of subtle CGI effects to the point where you aren’t even aware a CGI effect is happening. The effects in ‘Zodiac’
are a perfect use of SPX -because your not even aware of them.

True, when using CGI to recreate a Kraken, we all know such things don’t exist, but again, it all boils down to how the effects are used; if you have all these video game like travelling shots of the camera whisking around it just overwhelms the senses drawing attention to itself when it should be used sparingly.

The movie ‘Mothman Prophecies’ is another example of subtle use of CGI.
In fact, you may even see the monster in this movie for a total of a few seconds and even then it was barely shown.

For CGI junkies that don’t care about script quality, just play video games, don’t go to movies.

By: Keith

Keith — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 17:33:05 +0000

Jorden: Now that’s a criticism I haven’t heard before But, since you mention it, I guess that would annoy me as well. Seems these days the popular look is the shaved head thing. Kinda weird I think, and not particularly Greek either.

By: Jorden

Jorden — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 03:03:08 +0000

CAMRON hair style suck all the way!
The dude Camron, the hero sucks(in my opinion)… have you seen the old Clash of the Titans. That dude had huge long hair that made the movie awesome. That is how Zeu’s son alway look like, in books, and old movie (the is one of the most impo descriptions of Zue’s son(s))… this new dude Camron has a jarhead hair style which is not attractive at all…!

By: Keith

Keith — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 06:27:24 +0000

Colby, I think that’s a pretty fair comparison, Aerosmith to the Rolling stones. I’m really curious to see what happens with Avatar. I waited months to see Titanic when it came out because I thought for sure it was going to be a dud. Shows you what I know, right

By: Colby Elliott

Colby Elliott — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 14:33:34 +0000

Sometimes I think that what I am hoping for for my kids is an “equivalent experience.” When I saw Star Wars in the movie theater it changed the way I looked at imagination, science fiction and adventure. I kept saying, “Where is the next Star Wars?”

U2 may not be the Beatles for Generation X, although the Rolling Stones is probably equivalent to Aerosmith (now this is starting to sound like the SAT comparisons).

In film, though, I think Avatar will be the Star Wars of for some 7 to 12 year-olds.

Every generation wants the event, the cause, the icons that the previous one had. I just think that it’s pretty cool that we get something that comes close. Avatar is the equivalent experience for my kids.

By: Keith

Keith — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 20:02:59 +0000

Geek Boy — I was sorely disappointed by the second transformers movie, but I thought the first one was great. And, like GI Joe when I was a kid, I can’t explain why transformers was crappy yet, at the same time, so entertaining. I mean Megatron was a giant gun! That’s comedy gold right there but, you’re right — it was an entertaining show if not silver screen award worthy. That’s another good point — the fact that there is a remake does not erase the old one. I can agree with that.

By: Daddy Geek Boy

Daddy Geek Boy — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 19:49:26 +0000

I will defend to the death my opinion that the Michael Bay Transformers movies suck. The animation of the original T-formers might have been crappy, but at least they were coherent.

As for Clash, I have to say that I’m excited. Just because a movie has been remade, doesn’t mean that the old one doesn’t exist anymore. Just look at that Kraken for pete’s sake! Looks cool to me. But of course, the new Titans could go the way of new Transformers or new GI Joe…so only time will tell.

By: Keith

Keith — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 18:59:51 +0000

Denise, I had a Dukes of Hazard lunch box. What happened to lunch boxes? Do kids still use them?

By: Keith

Keith — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 18:58:54 +0000

I didn’t know An Affair to Remember was a remake. In that case I guess it’s past due for another remake The Pierce Brosnan Thomas Crowne Affair I thought was lame. I’m trying to think of a great remake, and I know there have been many. The first and best one that comes to mind is what I mentioned in the article, The Magnificent 7. The Fly was good too. I’d have to really stretch my brain to come up with any kid genre movies that have had excellent remakes. Maybe some folks could weigh in with some ideas because I’m coming up blank. Thank, Wolf, for the information. I now feel more educated in my old movie knowledge.

By: BigLittleWolf

BigLittleWolf — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 18:40:27 +0000

Originals are great, and yes, the Beatles ROCK! But there are also "remakes" that are superb, but they don't try to be remakes per se. They reinterpret and update, and sometimes they do a fine job and become classics in their own right. I'm talking "girl movies" here - but the Cary Grant-Deborah Kerr version of An Affair to Remember was terrific, and a remake. I thoroughly enjoyed the remake of the late 60s Steve McQueen-Faye Dunnaway Thomas Crowne Affair which starred Pierce Brosnan and Rene Russo. I wouldn't compare the two - times are so different, but the updated version was a completely enjoyable movie. Philadelphia Story with Hepburn, Stewart and Grant is another example. A classic. Yet the Grace Kelly, Frank Sinatra update in 1956, High Society, made for another wonderful film. .-= BigLittleWolf´s last blog ..Yes, no, and finding balance =-.

By: Denise

Denise — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 15:54:51 +0000

We’re looking forward to the new CT movie. The original was fun and I remember some of the boys in my class had the lunchbox. Wold love one of those for myself now. But the entire Mollison clan is watching this new trailer with high hopes. Of course Jon and I will have to watch it first….Date night! Yes! (psst. Beatles and Elvis rule)