Your mention of Way Out is yet another coincidence; it came to mind but not for my own personal recollections. I just remember an older brother saying it was so scary that they had to take it off the air.

Memo to CK: How can you recall that Jim Davis line but forget the giant wasps? But I too vaguely remember a papier mache monster in a scene with an up-close encounter. Oh, and don't get me started on Killers From Space. Suffice it to say the scars from the surgery performed by all the Mr. Eyeballs on Mr. Graves remain vivid. As does the portrait of then-Pres. Eisenhower in the background.

At least one of the GIANT CLAW guys was a veteran of 20,000 LEAGUES BENEATH THE SEA, so we're not talking total amateurs here (despite the final appearance of the movie -- and I do agree, THE GIANT CLAW looks hysterical. I was AMAZED to see a hand-built, hand-painted, beautifully crafted amateur model of the Giant Claw at a convention in Tokyo -- it managed to be, at the same time, an impeccable representation of the design, and a far handsomer evocation of it.)

They may have been expecting Harryhausen quality...nyuk, nyuk, nyuk...

Rocco, you said:

"RODAN's special effects are obviously superior to those in the same year's TEN
COMMANDMENTS. Just compare the matte paintings, and don't even get me started on the opticals."

WOOF!
THAT'S a mouthful!

I've been a student of visual effects since my first viewing of a Ray Harryhausen film in 1963. A few years later, Paramount re-released The Ten Commandments, and I have been in awe of those effects ever since.
Certainly upon repeated viewings of TTC there are numerous opticals where the matte lines stick out, but there are just as many shots where the opticals are almost invisible.
I have never seen Rodan, but that will soon be remedied, because American Movie Classics will be showing it on Friday, April 28 at 10:30 PM (after Cinema Secrets with Stan Winston!).
So, I'LL BE BACK to discuss this topic, after I have studied and scrutinized Rodan!

Several of the wonderful effects in TTC were the animated flames seen in the Pillar of Fire, and the Hand Of God (writing the commandments).
Is there anything even comparable to that in Rodan?

It will be all too easy for you to laugh at RODAN because it has such creatures. However, the opticals in RODAN are DEFINITELY superior to those in THE TEN COMMANDMENTS -- and I am none too confident of anyone's ability to see that through the none-too-perfect quality of whatever version of RODAN they choose to broadcast.

The special effects budgets for RODAN and THE TEN COMMANDMENTS are probably roughly proportionate (re: the respective economic realities in the US and Japan at the time -- but that throws into even GREATER proportions the reality of how much superior the opticals in RODAN are to any of those done in Hollywood in 1956.)

If DeMille had wasted less money on imported tiger-skin costumes, perhaps he could have afforded to lay in some decent opticals.

(Notice I haven't said RODAN is a better MOVIE than THE TEN COMMANDMENTS ... I actually don't think it is; from my point of view, RODAN isn't one of the better ones. I think I may catch more hell for saying THAT than I will for dissing THE TEN COMMANDMENTS.)

I'm not sure which was more pitiful, the Tabonga or the ditzy blonde cockney inserted for comic relief.

...Joan is onto something. Perhaps it IS early exposure to fantasy/sci-fi/horror genres that turned many of us on to film music. After all, it's only all too obvious in my case that Yours Truly is the happy victim of older brothers and sister corraling little brother and camping out in front of the TV screen watching every single scary movie ever made a la big Gene and little Whoever in Matinee.

Therefore, the conclusion of the matter, everything having been heard, is that Howard L & H Rocco--not necessarily in that order--are sick people who have the weirdest film/film music minds under the sun AND (most appropriately) the moon and should immediately seek counseling from Dr. Carrington's Super Carrot who is, most assuredly, MUCH WISER than we.

Mr. Denham was wrong. It was not beauty that killed the beast. It was a few well-placed bolts of electricity.

Cheers, y'all. And keep watching the skies for us, hmm?

(Personal aside: a friend of mine was married to Cameron Mitchell's brother. She claims that she once saw a hobo in York, PA, and gave him some money...she says it was Jeff Morrow. I guess I'll never know...)

Rocco, I'll grant you that there are many poor optical matches in The Ten Commandments. But if you want to argue that Rodan should've received the Oscar for visual effects that year, let's you & I start another thread, I'll drag out my list of Harryhausen flicks (Cleopatra wins the Oscar over Jason And The Argonauts???), and the two of us can throw hissy fits together.
Sounds like fun, eh?

While we're on the topic of goofy monsters, how come nobody has yet mentioned that immortal classic Beginning Of The End with Peter Graves & Peggy Castle?
Bert I. Gordon outdid himself on this one...take a photo of a skyscraper, lay it on a table, drop a few grasshoppers on it, and VOILA!
SPECIAL EFFECTS!
GENIUS!
THANK YOU!

Christopher, did Harryhausen EVER win an Oscar? (Memory suggests he got a Lifetime Achievement kiss-off.)

(And speaking of Mr. Gordon, didja ever catch up to EMPIRE OF THE ANTS? Possibly the funniest shot is the one where he didn't really blow it up properly -- it's OBVIOUSLY a close-up of a bunch of ants in a bowl of sugar -- it's supposed to be soldier ants at a Florida sugar refinery ... oh man!)

(Although the all-time funniest moment in any Bert I. Gordon movie I've seen -- and I haven't seen most of them -- is the woman with an edge of dress caught in a car door that's shut on it, screaming up in the face of the onrushing arachnid in EARTH VS. THE SPIDER. The same image in THE FLY is something I never want to see again; the same image in EARTH VS. THE SPIDER is so crudely and stupidly executed that I'm grinning just thinking about it. She can't even open the door? Show some initiative, lady!)

NIGHT OF THE LEPUS (Dir: Wm. F. Claxton) Stuart Whitman, Janet Leigh, Rory Calhoun, DeForest Kelley. This one's about giant rabbits. Honest.

All these years later, that still cracks me up.

I was actually surprised at how competent the special effects were for the time, except for the BASICALLY STUPID CONCEPT OF MURDEROUS RABBITS. I'll buy it in "Watership Down," but THIS was IDIOTIC.

Childhood terrors: I know today how stupid and cheap OCTAMAN and THE CURSE OF BIGFOOT are, but they frightened me anyway. Not to mention the more persuasive RACE WITH THE DEVIL, with the redoubtable quartet of Peter Fonda, Warren Oates, Loretta Swit and Lara Parker. I haven't seen this in at least twenty years, in fact never saw the whole thing all the way through, but I'd love to again. Nice creepy music by Leonard Rosenman, sort of a prelude his work on the similarly-themed THE CAR (1977), which falls into the "guilty pleasure" category, although I haven't seen that one in a long time either.

Bonita has taken to tuning in the Sci-Fi Channel re-runs of Dark Shadows, and seeing Lara again takes me back. The last time either of us saw her, she was in the original The Incredible Hulk TV movie, playing Dr. Banner's wife.
Not only is she an incredibly beautiful woman, she is also a very talented actress, and I expected her to have a fabulous career ahead of her!

WHAT HAPPENED?

(A) opticals -- can't argue. I happen to think those in RODAN are outstanding, ESPECIALLY compared to some of the LATER ones from the same team. It's not a question of experience, but scheduling. I still find it shameful that those in THE TEN COMMANDMENTS aren't as good as they could be, given a budget roughly a hundred times' that of RODAN's. Not to say that I don't like the movie THE TEN COMMANDMENTS, I actually enjoy it immensely.

(B) miniatures -- Here, I guess I have to explain something. The look of the miniatures in pictures like GODZILLA, RODAN or MOTHRA isn't usually about realism. These guys DID have the knowledge, technology and ability to make perfect and impeccable miniatures -- I can point to certain shots that you would NEVER take for miniatures -- in fact, you obviously haven't! -- but they are. They DID know how to do it. SFX director Eiji Tsuburaya was so strict about the LOOK of the miniatures that he often ordered entire sets destroyed, because they weren't up to his standards.

Tsuburaya and his staff did outstanding and unobtrusive miniature work for dozens, probably HUNDREDS of Toho's movies in the 1950s and 1960s -- often just backgrounds. There wasn't anything they didn't know or understand about this particular craft. Look at the "forest of moving trees" at the end of Kurosawa's THRONE OF BLOOD -- that's Tsuburaya's work, not Kurosawa's. There are so many other examples I can't even name them. Christopher, you read the article I wrote -- some of Tsuburaya's wartime propaganda movie footage was mistaken for DOCUMENTARY footage by the American Occupation. And some of it was filed away as such, and hence is used TO THIS DAY as if it were REAL documentary footage -- the most recent example is the excellent FIRE ON THE MOUNTAIN. Some of the airplane stuff is from Tsuburaya's WAR AT SEA FROM HAWAII TO MALAY (1942).

So -- where am I going with this? A very simple, if obscure, point: Tsuburaya and company KNEW how to make miniatures look PERFECT. But with the monster movies, they -- or, especially, Tsuburaya -- chose NOT to. Why? Just because it didn't make Tsuburaya HAPPY. He was a deeply eccentric and individualistic artist, and I don't use the word "artist" lightly. He knew EXACTLY what he was doing, he was a veteran cameraman since the dawn of Japanese silent movies, and he CHOSE to make those movies look the way they did. SURE the monsters look unrealistic (usually); SURE the monster/building/background scales go all over the place -- that was never the point.

Japanese art has traditionally NOT been too preoccupied with the REALISTIC. Look at the vast faces and billowing clothes that predominate in their art going back at least a thousand years. Nobody on earth looks like that! (I hope.) And look at the equally ancient traditions of Noh dance and Kabuki comedy. They haven't changed in centuries and centuries. In fact, those who still practice those arts are PROUD that nothing has changed. Their very discipline is in KEEPING IT ALL THE SAME. And -- this is the most important part -- NONE OF THESE TRADITIONS ARE REMOTELY REALISTIC. The most thrilling part of a Noh dance might be the moment where the lead actor dares to cross his eyes. The most thrilling part of your average monster movie might be the moment where whatever-it-is finally crashes through the power lines.

From Kabuki to monster movies, from anime to Noh, from kabuki to comic books -- Japanese art has never been too concerned with the realistic. So your basic objection, Chris, is accurate -- but my monologue here was meant to explain to you WHY it is the way it is. They COULD do it differently; they CHOSE not to. One last anecdote to illustrate this:

Making FRANKENSTEIN VS. BARAGON (1965, one of the best ones), Tsuburaya decided to build a mechanical miniature horse for a scene in which the monster Baragon attacks a rural farm. His protege Teruyoshi Nakano (a wonderful fellow) asked him, "Why not just matte in footage of a real horse?" Tsuburaya replied, "I like it this way." It would have been cheaper and easier for him to put in a real-horse optical, but no, he wanted a very specific look. That's what an artist does, and that, I guess, is what this particular Japanese artist PREFERRED to do. (Tsuburaya passed away almost before I was born, so my few insights into his character are entirely second-hand.)

We are disagreeing on a topic that we actually agree upon!

Here is the core statement that you made about the TOHO Japanese monster movies:

"NONE OF THESE TRADITIONS ARE REMOTELY REALISTIC."

The very same has been said about Cecil B. DeMille's films throughout his entire career! As you have been studying Japanese films, I have been studying DeMille's films, and believe it or NOT, there are a GREAT many parallels!

In fact, Mr. H Rocco, I would even go so far as to suggest that this is a relevant and as-yet-uncovered area of study in cinema!

Perhaps WE should collaborate on a book...

I just watched the Chinese movie Farewell, My Concubine, which
held fast to the Peking opera traditions, and it had much to graphically
say about other human condition issues. I find Japanese cinema
also concerned with anti war messages in The Burmese
Harp and environmental issues as portrayed in Godzilla movies. They
intricately and uniquely explore the human condition through their
historical movies like Ran and Rashomon. If they don’t produce the
most realistic monsters in the history of cinema (for me Alien was about
the most realistic), so be it. I guess they are concerned with sending
their own artistic messages in their own creative way, without bowing
to Western sensibilities. O.K., time to stop rambling..

Humming in my mind the old Alfie tune, “What’s it all about Rocco?”

I want an autographed copy of the book the dynamic duo may write.

NP The Essential Horner compilation.

"I can point to certain shots that you would NEVER take for miniatures -- in fact, you obviously haven't! -- but they are."

Please, teach me.
I wish to learn.
If there are indeed miniatures that I am unaware of having seen, I want to KNOW!

(This is not altogether unprecidented...when I watched The Hindenburg in the 70's, I had NO IDEA that I was seeing dozens of impeccably animated MATTE PAINTINGS!)

I have a very teachable spirit, Rocco, and I yearn for the Master's Hand...

Obviously, the bar has been raised by the increase of gore and relatively cheap special effects. So what could scare kids?

Well, when I first saw The Mummy, I saw a lighthearted romp, but if I was a kid, man! The Beetles, The mummies, the acid, all the plagues! It would have scared me!

Sleepy Hollow. You can just look at those sets and know nothing good can happen here. Place Danny Elfman’s music is suitably creepy.

It's weird but the more films, commercials, etc. today employ computer-generated SFX the more they call attention to themselves and thereby drain the horror out of what should be horror. I mean they're almost too realistic and therefore disbelief is almsot impossible to suspend.

I took my daughters when they were five years old to E.T., thinking
it would be fine. When E.T. first jumped out of the bushes
and screamed simultaneously with the little boy, my girls jumped
up and tried to leave. I had to do a lot of talking about what a
good guy E.T. was before they settled down long enough to
hook into his benevolence. My girls walked into the family room
when they were eight, and we should have turned off Jaws.
We didn’t, and they wouldn’t water ski in our local river for
three years. Duh. We didn’t realize the impact of that movie on
our own until later.

Recently I sat beside several small children at the movie Pitch Black.
The creatures didn’t scare me, but the little ones literally bought
into it. Even something as cheesy at the computer snake in
Anaconda can scare children. And I’ll bet we all have our
scars from seeing something as a kid. I drive hubby nuts because
I still refuse to sleep in a room where the drawers or closet doors
are open. Too many snakes and boogymen movies as a kid,
I guess. I would think the current trend of Scream/ Urban Legend/
I Know What You Did Last Summer/ etc. would scare a young
child.

In the very early 60's, my parents were affluent enough to own a SECOND television set, which was located in the basement.
The PRIMARY TV (in the upstairs Living Room) was used by the entire family, but the secondary TV could only be used for off-hours watching.
So...if I wanted to watch "CHILLER THEATRE" on Friday Nights, I had to be in that dark basement with the black & white TV!

This setting alone was enough to scare the pants off of me!