The MovieMusic Store shopping cart   |  sign in
    SEARCH  
  • Home
  • Browse Store
    • New Soundtrack CDs
    • Top Sellers
    • Low Price New CDs
    • Used CDs
    • Soundtrack Compilations
    • Score Composers
    • Soundtrack Labels
    • Soundtracks by Year
    • ... detailed search page
  • Store Info
    • Happy Customers!
    • $1 Shipping
    • Accepted Payment Methods
    • Safe Shopping Guarantee
    • Shipping Rates & Policies
    • Our Privacy Policy
    • About Us
  • Help Center
    • My Account
    • How to Order
    • Search Tips
    • Return/Refund Policy
    • Cancelling Your Order
    • Contact the Store
  • The Lobby
  •   Message Boards
      Just Movies!
      NBC's JASON AND THE ARGONAUTS: Is anybody else fed up with these Hallmark TV movies? (Page 2)

    Archive of old forum. No more postings.

    Please visit our new forum, The MovieMusic Lobby, to post new topics.


    This topic is 2 pages long: 1 2
    Author
    Topic:   NBC's JASON AND THE ARGONAUTS: Is anybody else fed up with these Hallmark TV movies?

     H Rocco
     Standard Userer
     

    Mr. Buckler (or should I simply call you "Swash"): Yes. I agree with everything you just said.

    What O'Brien, Tsuburaya and Harryhausen did was an art. What these new boys do is a science, often of the coldest, least interesting variety.

    As an aspiring filmmaker, though, I do value the shortcuts CGI permits. I wonder what a burgeoning David Lean or Akira Kurosawa would make of the technology -- it would've made their lives in the fifties and sixties a LOT easier, that's for sure.

    Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

    posted 05-26-2000 03:11 PM PT (US)     

     Chris Kinsinger
     Click Here to Email Chris Kinsinger
     Standard Userer
     

    Swash..."slick-ization"! What a great term you've coined. It's so accurate!

    Rocco, you said: "What O'Brien, Tsuburaya and Harryhausen did was an art. What these new boys do is a science, often of the coldest, least interesting variety."

    That's mostly, but not entirely true. Just needs a little honing:

    All of these effects techniques are a combination of art & science. I believe that stop-motion accentuates the ART, while CGI places the emphasis on SCIENCE.
    It's like the difference between a Van Gogh painting, and an intricate CGI version of the same image. Which one possesses more character? The one that arose from a single mind & paintbrush, or the one that came from a team of 100 artists punching keyboards?
    Harryhausen's work will NEVER be equalled! He elevated an art-form infinitely, and then it died-out.
    It is a very sad funeral that we have witnessed.
    The Criterion LaserDisc of Jason And The Argonauts displays many still photos of the staging for the skeleton fight sequence. When I studied it, I realized that TODAY there would be an entire team of artists assigned to EACH skeleton! That's where the life-blood vanishes...too many chefs in the kitchen ruin the stew.

    [This message has been edited by Chris Kinsinger (edited 26 May 2000).]

    Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

    posted 05-26-2000 08:26 PM PT (US)     

     H Rocco
     Standard Userer
     

    Yes.

    Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

    posted 05-26-2000 08:59 PM PT (US)     

     Chris Kinsinger
     Click Here to Email Chris Kinsinger
     Standard Userer
     

    Thank you, Roc, ol' buddy.


    Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

    posted 05-26-2000 09:31 PM PT (US)     

     Boris
     Click Here to Email Boris
     Standard Userer
     

    I'm still in mourning for stop-motion, and especially for Ray Harryhausen's artistry.

    My grieving may never end.


    Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

    posted 05-26-2000 09:33 PM PT (US)     

     Howard L
     Standard Userer
     

    ATTN: Swashbuckler

    Thank you for hitting it right on the head with the descriptions "endearing" vs./and "soulless." Everyone says how advanced & realistic all this CGI business makes film, but I often have a totally opposite reaction. I mean the effects are almost TOO good to the point that they end up calling so much attention to themselves and unwittingly destroy suspension of disbelief in the process. That's also sometimes the problem with colorization, I might add.

    Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

    posted 05-27-2000 09:44 AM PT (US)     

     Swashbuckler
     Click Here to Email Swashbuckler
     Standard Userer
     

    Well, let's face it. I have been interested in special effects since I was a boy. My father bought me the "Industrial Light and Magic" book one Christmas, and I read it cover to cover, fascinated.

    However, I find it difficult to get into a bunch of people sitting around computer terminals. It's just like any other job.

    When I read a "making of," call it the romantic in me, but ">PFT!< The shark is not working. >PFT!< The shark is not working!" is more interesting than "We had trouble with the algorithm we were using to texture the outer skin, it was folding in on itself in an unnatural way, so a bunch of us sat down with our laptops..."

    There's no magic in it anymore.

    [This message has been edited by Swashbuckler (edited 27 May 2000).]

    Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

    posted 05-27-2000 10:12 AM PT (US)     

     Chris Kinsinger
     Click Here to Email Chris Kinsinger
     Standard Userer
     

    I believe that there CAN be magic and real character in CGI effects...but it will take an individual like Ray Harryhausen to put it there.
    And it will require a sense of wonder as well.
    I was struck by one detail in "The Making Of Jurassic Park". Phil Tippett's animatic rough draft showed long, snake-like tongues on the Velociraptors. A very dramatic and scary touch! He got in TROUBLE for doing that, because the dinosaur expert consultant said, "Who put THAT there? Raptors didn't have tongues like THAT!" And so the tongues were removed.
    Now really...are we making a documentary, or are we making a fantasy film?
    Those tongues made the raptors much scarier, and it was a mistake to remove them, reality or no. Where's the sense of wonder? Where's the desire to heighten the drama?
    These movies are supposed to be magical. Certainly Harryhausen's were!

    Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

    posted 05-27-2000 07:18 PM PT (US)     

     Swashbuckler
     Click Here to Email Swashbuckler
     Standard Userer
     

    Phil Tippet, don't forget, was one of those people who came up with the design for the perfect dragon... the Vermithrax Pejorative stands, to my sensibilities as the most convincing and frightening screen dragon.

    That was art.

    Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

    posted 05-28-2000 11:14 AM PT (US)     

     H Rocco
     Standard Userer
     

    Yes, and Tippet is an authentic genius ... although there's a paradox here: Vermithrax was the first (I believe) film creature to be animated in "go-motion," a primitive version of CGI, in the sense that it was computer-controlled stop-motion (wasn't that how they did it?)

    Computers should embellish, not replace. They permit marvelous time-and-cost-saving shortcuts -- but when they start taking over the whole of the effects budget, costs balloon just as much. Of recent pictures, I think I'd point to TITANIC (a movie I didn't love, by the way) as sporting perhaps the most across-the-board perfect use of CGI. Perhaps I prefer seeing computers applied to realistic tasks than fantastic ones; there is never going to be that much fantastic about the computer, not in the age now aborning.

    Also, re: DRAGONSLAYER: I believe the evil baby dragons were designed and built by Chris Walas. Just for the record. What ever happened to Walas, anyway?

    We don't seem to hear much from another great artisan in the field, Richard Edlund, any more ... (sigh)

    Did those who built the live dinosaurs for JURASSIC PARK know how soon they were about to become dinosaurs themselves, in the industry they helped create?

    this is depressing me, I'll stop now ...

    Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

    posted 05-28-2000 04:54 PM PT (US)     

     Swashbuckler
     Click Here to Email Swashbuckler
     Standard Userer
     

    Go motion, in my opinion, was more like stop motion than it is like CGI. For one thing, go motion items actually exist in real space; if there's one thing that all these CGI graphics prove it's that it takes a team of people working around the clock to create a not-so convincing effect...

    Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

    posted 05-28-2000 06:33 PM PT (US)     

     Chris Kinsinger
     Click Here to Email Chris Kinsinger
     Standard Userer
     

    Hey Rocco, don't (sigh) so quickly over Richard Edlund...he did an absolutely DYNAMITE effects job on Air Force One, making the fantastic look like a documentary! He did the same for Die Hard.
    He should've won Oscars for both.

    Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

    posted 05-28-2000 08:49 PM PT (US)     
     

    Old Infopop Software by UBB

    © 1998-2011, The MovieMusic Company