1. Giant Behemoth
2. Beast from 20,000 Fathoms
3. Valley of Gwangi
4. Dinosaurus
5. 20 Million Miles to EArth

A. creature in Italy, grows up and ends up in Rome, fights elephant and the military-starred William Hopper of Perry Mason

B. Richard Carlson in this one, dinosaur in Mexico, also fights elephant

C. Gene Evans in England, quotes verse in Old Testament about it

D. Lee Van Cleef stars in bit part as sharpshooter, fires isotope into its neck

E. Ward Ramsey in this on Caribbean Island, construction work uncovers Brontosaurus, T-Rex and caveman in this silly film, Ward knocks it off cliff with bulldozer or steam shovel at end

Bonus: Which star of the following list played in Beast of Hollow Mountain?

A. Rex Reason
B. Guy Madison
C. Steve Reeves
D. Gordon Scott
E. Rod Cameron

A)20 Million Miles to EArth
B)Valley of Gwangi
C)Giant Behemoth
D)Beast from 20,000 Fathoms
E)Dinosaurus

This is on my pet subject of Ray Harryhausen. I grew up on his movies and I still think his animation knocks socks off a lot of modern CGI effects.
I saw the Mighty Joe Young remake recently and it was nice to see a cameo made by Harryhausen and the leading lady Terry Moore "She reminds me of someone".
I vaguely remember seeing Giant Behemoth years ago and Dinosaurus is just an awful film...probably fun to see again, but still awful. They still make films like this today too. Most recently I caught "Gargantua" on SKY and it was definately in the style of an old B-Movie with the effects ranging from O.K. to awful!!
I'd be lying if I said I knew the answer to the bonus question, so I'll let Graham or Timmer answer this one.

Gae
NP The Uninvited

For another bonus question to the keen-eyed amongst you...How can you tell that I used the cut and paste facility to copy John's original text of the titles to the movies?
Silly question I know but I just noticed something to give it away!!
Lets see how observant you people are!!

Gae, Graham, agree totally...Harryhausen turns me on far more than any CGI (brilliant though it is at times), it can seem insubstantial, maybe even 'ethereal' at times, a real lack of solidity, a friend of mine calls it 'computer glide'!

Graham, there's a scene in the remake of Mighty Joe Young during a reception party for the Park that Joe has been brought to. When Charlize Theron walks in, looking stunning in a long white evening dress, the camera cuts to Harryhausen and Moore playing a couple of guests. Moore says "Now who does she remind me of?" (tongue firmly in cheek) and Harryhausen replies "You, when we first met". Its a nice tribute to the original film.

Timmer, I agree with you. What I love about Harryhausen's animation is that his creatures are "real" and occupy "real" space whereas CGI effects are allows flowing, moving and dont have any real solidity to them. I was just watching "LOTR" tonight and stunning as I think the "Cave Troll" is, it still lacks a solidity and weight to it. That particular creature seems a bit of a homage to Harryhausen also, as its shape and look are very similar to that of Mighty Joe Young or Kong.

Gae

Gae

A real bomb. F+ for the grade. Even Keith looked bored in many of his scenes. LOL.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John C Winfrey:
Timmer, its a movie that appears to have been made for theatrical release with David Keith and John Rhys Davies, which is absolutely horrible. They realized evidently how bad it was so they gave it to Sci Fi channel to show there instead. Its a film where people are working on top secret stuff and they are experimenting with different drugs and stuff and somehow come up with a Sabretooth Tiger. It gets loose and they hire David Keith to capture it but don;t tell him what it is. They tell him its a large African Lion. The movie was so bad and predictable. One of the scientists is the "bad girl" causing others to get killed left and right. The computer animation in it is awful. Superimposed and the movements of it are not real looking. Only the closeups of a head with the teeth look halfway real.

A real bomb. F+ for the grade. Even Keith looked bored in many of his scenes. LOL.

Best, J.

---

John, I appreciate that you took the time to describe this film to me, the only way I can honour your reply is to make sure I give this show a wide berth.

So, why is CGI so popular? Why does Hollywood keep using it? Is it really that much better than stop-motion, or is it the simple fact that it's new, and what they're doing now is something that couldn't be done 5 years ago?

Has anybody listened to any commentaries for films like Blade 2 or the new Star Wars films? I had the unfortunance of ease dropping on sections of both. The commentators are just gogging everytime there was a CG effect…which was often. How many times I heard the words, “you can’t tell the difference”…whereas, with a critical eye, and not being one of the makers of the film…I could tell EVERY TIME CG was used.

Also, check out the difference between the commentaries for Nightmare Before Christmas and Shrek…it’s like artist vs. corporate guys.

And honestly, what is with Spielberg and Lucas going back and tweaking their original films and replacing matte paintings and stop-motion shots with CGI things? I’m sure if Michelangelo were alive today, he’d be embarrassed of the brush strokes and redo the Sistine Chapel with photoshop. Either that, or he would be laughing at all of the people sweating in front of keyboards.

Too many CGI shots are thrown in for a ‘gee wow’ effect, and are not used enough for dramatic or artistic reasons.

Jurasic Park came out a decade ago and CGI in movies has only gone downhill (though personally, I don't like JP too much, especially in this day in age). I see films like "Mummy Returns" and "Dungeons and Dragons".
The people behind the first JP knew they had to do an exceptional job to sell this new technology. In succeeding, they paved the way for several lazy filmmakers to take CGI for granted and take audiences for fools who can't tell the difference between good and bad visual effects. Of course, I'm refering to those audiences who believe all new CGI is good and cutting edge, which isn't at all true, especially when looking at something like The Mummy Returns or Spider-Man (both of which, in my opinion, could've benefited immeasurably with the utilization of stop-motion).

Or maybe stop-motion isn't widely excepted by the public because their only exposure to it are these badly scripted clay cartoons that show up on Network TV shows? They haven't seen films like The Gate or Dragonslayer, that prove that stop-motion can be immensely more realistic and expressionistic than CGI. If only current films like Harry Potter were utilizing model animation...there's a true essence of beautiful fantasy and surrealism that comes from stop-motion, at least like in the examples above. It's not limited to quick commercials, or badly scripted clay cartoons that show up on nightly TV. I think it has immense artistic, expressionistic, and dramatic potential.

What I am getting at is, stop-motion still does have something to say, but the industry is not letting it say anything. There seems to be a lot of true charm and artistic poetry absent in today's effects films, especially the so-called 'blockbusters', and it's a shame that the true art of a craftsman, in visual effects, has faded into oblivion.

With stop-motion, you feel that you could touch the other side of the creature…the side waaaay from the camera. With CGI creatures, they are flat like cartoons, if you look at them from the side they feel flat…

All are my opinions of course. It is evident in reading this, that I am indeed frusterated by the way CGI seems to have taken over not only the effects industry, which used to be more versitial that all CG companies, but also the film and commercial industry.

Well, enough ranting for now.

Best Regards,
Dylan