# Ray Harryhausen Movies



## The Bluestocking (Apr 24, 2014)

Does anyone here like Ray Harryhausen's movies?

His stop-motion animation and special effects look Old School and corny in the 21st century with CGI coming out of our ears but... but I love watching stuff like the Sinbad movies and "Jason and the Argonauts" on Sunday afternoons when I have a bit of spare time. These movies are particularly nice to watch when it's rainy and I'm all snuggled on the sofa with the dog and homemade popcorn. 

I also like watching them as a sort of silent acknowledgement that without his pioneering work in special effects and his love for storytelling, we wouldn't have had everything from Star Wars and E.T., to Terminator 2 and Avatar.


----------



## j d worthington (Apr 24, 2014)

Sorry, but I come from a different place, and to me it's the CGI which looks corny and which, I am absolutely certain, will date verrrry badly. Harryhausen's work, while certainly having its flaws, still has the magic, and still captures new audiences five or six decades after a particular film was made. 

One of the few of his films which I don't think holds up well is *The Valley of Gwangi*. Some nice stuff there, but it simply doesn't cohere....


----------



## Foxbat (Apr 24, 2014)

I'm with j.d. here. I'm a big fan of Harryhausen and his mentor (Willis O'Brien) and I definitely prefer stop-motion over CGI...but I guess we are a dying breed.


----------



## The Bluestocking (Apr 24, 2014)

J.D.:

Think you mis-read me - I was expressing my appreciation for Harryhausen's work  I do love curling up on Sunday afternoons to watch his movies and that Skeleton Warrior fight scene in Jason and the Argonauts is EPIC!


----------



## Cat's Cradle (Apr 24, 2014)

I too grew up on Harryhausen, and the magic and imagination inspired in me by these films will never leave me. The Skeleton-Warriors scene you mentioned, Bluestocking, is beyond wonderful (as is so much more in _Jason and the Argonauts; The 7th Voyage of Sinbad _is a dream, and there were so many more wonderful works by him). The stop-motion scenes always seemed exactly right to me (even when they weren't perfectly smooth in transitions).
I do enjoy a lot of CGI too--I really loved the robots and monsters in Pacific Rim, as an example. Some CGI really has aged badly--I recently re-watched the early Harry Potter films, and was just amazed at how bad some of it was (especially the broom/flying scenes; and this was as late as 2005). They had improved greatly by the last few films.
I think CGI will continue to improve, and that it can be quite memorable; but I think there is a charm, and a magic in stop-motion that may never be equaled by any CGI. (And what about old-school animation? _Fantasia_, say, or Miyazaki's films? I would take hand-drawn in a second! )


----------



## Rodders (Apr 24, 2014)

As a child born in 1970 I loved the Harryhausen movies as these were big TV moments for me as a kid. Stop motion was one those signature recognisable special effect techniques that everyone of the day loves. 

I'm not too fussed about CGI. After all it is the future, but I think that people tend to hang onto it and forget that it's just a tool for telling a story. I must confess that i don't like seeing the CGI, if you know what I mean. 

On the subject of Stop Motion, what about Phil Tippett? The AT-AT scene in the Empire Strikes Back is incredible.


----------



## Overread (Apr 24, 2014)

Rodders the  Transformers films are a prime example of what you describe - fantastic CGI - story not worth the paper its written on. 


And yes stop motion has a special magic to it! Also a lot of CGI looks plasticy; too clean to neat and tidy. It takes a lot of CGI to blend it in to gain the imperfections of reality to look real and most studios have given up with that; choosing instead to go for a sort of quasi realistic look that isn't quite "real" and isn't quite "CGI" but which allows the two to blend together well (Avatar is a good example of this).


----------



## thaddeus6th (Apr 24, 2014)

Clash of the Titans was a film I really loved (not seen it for a while).

CGI can be overdone, and often is. Also, it dates worse than practical effects, and perhaps even stop-motion. Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull already looks badly dated, because some of the CGI is too obvious, whereas the original three films used more practical effects.

I've seen bits and pieces of Sinbad films, although I must confess I seem to recall spending more time concentrating on Jane Seymour than the special effects.


----------



## Vince W (Apr 24, 2014)

I love Harryhausen's films. I remember being totally absorbed by his skeletons and monsters. Fantastic stuff.


----------



## Cat's Cradle (Apr 24, 2014)

Yes, Jane Seymour was a great _natural_ effect, that's true!!  Wow, so beautiful! (The film had a great-looking cast!)


----------



## Foxbat (Apr 24, 2014)

Vince W said:


> I love Harryhausen's films. I remember being totally absorbed by his skeletons and monsters. Fantastic stuff.


 
I think my favourite monster is Medusa from Clash Of The Titans.

Interesting that Harryhausen was a strong supporter of film colourising techniques on old black and white movies (paricularly the work done by Legend Films) Home He argued that many of the original directors (which he knew personally) would love to see their work in colour.


The reason I bring this up is because I wonder what his feelings were on CGI?


----------



## Vince W (Apr 24, 2014)

Foxbat said:


> I think my favourite monster is Medusa from Clash Of The Titans.
> 
> Interesting that Harryhausen was a strong supporter of film colourising techniques on old black and white movies (paricularly the work done by Legend Films) Home He argued that many of the original directors (which he knew personally) would love to see their work in colour.
> 
> ...



Here's an interview with Ray and he talks a bit about CGI.

Ray Harryhausen Interview | Stumped Magazine


----------



## Overread (Apr 24, 2014)

"I don’t think the audience gives a damn what technique you use as long as it looks good on the screen."

So true and I wish Hollywood would learn this - I'd love to see them doing some serious animations again (not CGI).


----------



## Vince W (Apr 24, 2014)

You mean you want to go back to this:


----------



## Overread (Apr 24, 2014)

Someone has to give all those, now out of work, artists a job! 

But at least drawing something superior to the Simpsons in animation quality


----------



## dask (Apr 26, 2014)

Watched MYSTERIOUS ISLAND a few weeks ago and Mr. Harryhausen was in top form. While the crab and bees were especially stunning the whole film reflected the brilliant score composed by the Ray Harryhausen of music Bernard Herrmann like a well polished mirror. What you see is what you hear.


----------



## Ice fyre (May 14, 2014)

When I was a wee boy I used to love watching the Sinbad and Jason and the Argonauts. The effects didnt bother a wonder filled child. Compared with Doctor Who and Blakes 7 at the time they were amazing.

Clash of the Titans still has a charm as do all the old stop motion films, their effects are secondary to a good script and fine acting. Good lord Maggie Smith was a very nice looking lady in her hey day!  

I think that CGI these days while it has done some quite good things, tends to be the focus of the film. In my opnion Cloverfield had some amazing CGI but the human story came through much better than some films.

The lesson maybe should be that CGI is good to tidy up and erase wires and other aids to efects making, but should be treated with great care. But try telling Hollywood to be careful ..see the response!


----------



## Foxbat (May 14, 2014)

Ice fyre said:


> When I was a wee boy I used to love watching the Sinbad and Jason and the Argonauts. The effects didnt bother a wonder filled child. Compared with Doctor Who and Blakes 7 at the time they were amazing.


 
I think the very fact we are discussing these things shows that we are all wee boys (and girls) at heart here. 
That's the real magic it leaves you with


----------



## Curt Chiarelli (May 14, 2014)

Vince W said:


> You mean you want to go back to this:




Hi Vince:

I think you have a few misapprehensions about how Ray Harryhausen operated. Swap out the light tables with monitors and the sweatshop in this *Simpson's* satire would more resemble a modern CG effects department grinding through a tough deadline than the working conditions on a Harryhausen set. 

Contradicting his legend as a lone wolf creator, Harryhausen in fact subcontracted to other highly skilled artists and animators. Although the vision was Ray's, matte painters like Les Bowie and Emilio Ruiz del Rio, fabricators like George Lofgren and sculptors like Arthur Hayward of the British Natural History Museum made invaluable contributions to his films.

I've worked professionally in stop-motion animation on and off for the last 25 years and I can tell you modern CG is a charmless exercise that reduces highly skilled artists down to the level of workshop elves. What once was the purview of a small group or a single man becomes a design-by-committee hodge-podge executed by a faceless battalion of techies. Although CG shots may look slicker and be better integrated, they lack that individual touch, the human dimension so prized by fans of animation. And yes, CG does look as dated as any other effects technology. CG also over-saturates and overwhelms every movie they are used in. The end result is that the audience feels bludgeoned, dulled and jaded, rather than exhilarated, when they walk out of a movie theater. 

So, I agree wholeheartedly with The_Bluestocking, J.D., Foxbat and everyone else who cherishes Ray's work. I pity the child who has never known the thrill of having his or her impressionable little mind warped by the skeleton duel in the _*Seventh Voyage of Sinbad*_, the obsessive, inexorable terror of Talos in _*Jason and the Argonauts*_ or the giant crab sequence in _*Mysterious Island*_! What's more, I pity the adult who can no longer plug back into the conduit of their inner child and re-experience the joy of Ray's Harryhausen's films again and again.


----------



## Overread (May 15, 2014)

Curt interesting point on the subject of lacking individual charm in CGI. I must agree that I've often felt that CGI can often be too "clean" when used. That the animated elements are perfect rather than having that element of wildness or reality that places little imperfections over the surface. 

It's rather like how every woman in make-up ads is airbrushed and edited to look "perfect" no imperfection, just pure 100% clean sterile (and sometimes actually quite a warped face if compared to a real live face with all the nip-tuck that goes on).


I can't speak of the process, but certainly I think some CGI presentations do take into account its clean nature and try to make it more real. I suspect that its partly a result of cost and time, but also the scale.


----------



## Curt Chiarelli (May 15, 2014)

Overread said:


> Curt interesting point on the subject of lacking individual charm in CGI. I must agree that I've often felt that CGI can often be too "clean" when used. That the animated elements are perfect rather than having that element of wildness or reality that places little imperfections over the surface.
> 
> It's rather like how every woman in make-up ads is airbrushed and edited to look "perfect" no imperfection, just pure 100% clean sterile (and sometimes actually quite a warped face if compared to a real live face with all the nip-tuck that goes on).
> 
> ...



Stop-motion has always stirred up as many detractors as supporters. Of all the cinematic artforms, it is probably the most craft-oriented, engaging every variety of two and three dimensional skill known in the trade. 

As a brief digression, yes, women with their noses airbrushed out aren't particularly attractive to me either! Interesting how the camera lens and the volume of clothing always adds the illusion of an extra twenty pounds of weight so that their personal reality (that the models are anorexic clothes hangers) doesn't interfere with the fantasy being created (that they are vibrant, desirable women living life to its fullest). If you actually met some of these models in person you'd be repulsed: they're so emaciated they look like something that was released from a Nazi concentration camp. And that's hardly sexy! So much for modern illusion-making . . . .

Which brings us back to the subject of authenticity in art. American society demands the edited and revised and sterilized illusion of perfection every time. Okay, but is that a true improvement? Harryhausen and his acolytes have always come under heavy criticism because of the shortcomings of their preferred medium - but EVERY medium has its pros and cons. Although CG has attempted over the last twenty-five years to totally displace stop-motion, it has not been entirely successful. There remains an unique, dream-like quality to stop-motion that CG will never possess, no matter how sophisticated it becomes. The way real light falls on real figures and how they move is all a part of it's stroboscopic magic. 

Another insight I'd like to share with you is a cultural one. Stop-motion has its strongest, most concentrated group of detractors located in the United States, a nation noted for its embrace of the facile and the shallow, a non-culture that treats its past like landfill in the upward grade of titillation and "progress". (And nowhere is this more apparent than in Hollywood, its epicenter.) That having been said, unlike central Europe, America has no tradition of puppet theater, which may account for its active and long-standing bias against the medium. It's no accident then that some of the world's greatest stop-motion masters have come from Czechoslovakia and Hungary, men like Jiří Trnka and George Pal.


----------



## Foxbat (May 16, 2014)

Just like to add to Curt's comments on Central Europe and puppetry. I highly recommend  Jan Svankmajer for his stop-motion work. In particular, his version of Faust, which combines both puppets and stop-motion. It gives a real flavour of how dark and sinister the art form can become (so far away from the childlike wonder many of us feel for stop-motion).


----------



## Starbeast (May 16, 2014)

*My favorite Ray Harryhausen movies: *(most viewed *)

The Golden Voyage of Sinbad *

Mysterious Island *

Mighty Joe Young

Earth vs Flying Saucers

Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger *

Clash of the Titans

First Men in the Moon

The 7th Voyage of Sinbad

Jason and the Argonauts


----------



## JamestheLast (May 29, 2014)

Harryhausen had a great  understanding of showmanship (and music--he tried to hire the best film  composers). His characters gave performances which is rare in cgi especially for non speaking characters.
I  like computer graphics but it is overused for things it doesnt need to  be used for (like closeups on characters) and has reached a point where  it is so expensive that it is underused (case in point the 2010 Clash of  the Titans remake).


----------



## J Riff (Jun 18, 2014)

A chronological look at Ray's beasties:
The Ray Harryhausen Creature List - YouTube


----------



## JonH (Jun 18, 2014)

Curt Chiarelli said:


> Another insight I'd like to share with you is a cultural one. Stop-motion has its strongest, most concentrated group of detractors located in the United States, a nation noted for its embrace of the facile and the shallow, a non-culture that treats its past like landfill in the upward grade of titillation and "progress". (And nowhere is this more apparent than in Hollywood, its epicenter.) That having been said, unlike central Europe, America has no tradition of puppet theater, which may account for its active and long-standing bias against the medium. It's no accident then that some of the world's greatest stop-motion masters have come from Czechoslovakia and Hungary, men like Jiří Trnka and George Pal.



To be fair, Nick Park has racked up his fair share of Oscars. I think it might be the mix of stop-motion and reality that has caused problems. There are only a handful of obvious animation/reality mixed films that "made it" in America. In most cases it's one or the other. CG can mix with reality in ways stop-motion and cartoons just don't seem to be able to. I love Harryhausen (the skeleton fight from the Argonauts is playing in my head as I type), but his best work is seen in a genre that was despised in its time as shallow—the very insult you throw at his detractors.


----------



## Overread (Jun 19, 2014)

Thing is look at something like Avatar - yes the CGI is outstanding, but its still very much almost its own kind of 3D cartoon imposed into the real-life acting. I wouldn't say that CGI "looks real" but that they've learned to blend the not real with the real far more expertly. It's a refinement of the same idea of blending in the stop motion effects. 

Riff - interesting to see the method evolve and advance through that series (although I think a poor recording copy on the part of the youtube maker was a touch at fault).


----------



## Jesse412 (Jun 25, 2014)

Love Ray Harryhausen movies.My favorites are *It Came from Beneath the Sea* and *Earth vs. the Flying Saucers*.  The monster from *20 Million Miles to Earth* is really cool looking.


----------



## BAYLOR (Sep 13, 2016)

My favorite film by him is *The 7th Voyage of Sinbad. *


----------



## dask (Sep 13, 2016)

BAYLOR said:


> My favorite film by him is *The 7th Voyage of Sinbad. *


Can't find fault with this. Brilliant Bernard Herrmann score great big bonus.


----------



## BAYLOR (Sep 13, 2016)

dask said:


> Can't find fault with this. Brilliant Bernard Herrmann score great big bonus.



It's a very wonderful and imaginatively crafted  film with good writing and   topnotch acting  which is lacking  in  many of todays so called blockbusters films.


----------



## dask (Sep 13, 2016)

BAYLOR said:


> It's a very wonderful and imaginatively crafted  film with good writing and   topnotch acting  which is lacking  in  many of todays so called blockbusters films.


Agreed. Always liked Kerwin Mathews. Never understood why he didn't go further.


----------



## WaylanderToo (Sep 13, 2016)

No mention of Jack the Giant Killer here? Not sure if its HH - sure is inspired though


----------



## dask (Sep 14, 2016)

Don't think it was HH if I remember correctly.


----------



## Curt Chiarelli (Sep 14, 2016)

Foxbat said:


> Just like to add to Curt's comments on Central Europe and puppetry. I highly recommend  Jan Svankmajer for his stop-motion work. In particular, his version of Faust, which combines both puppets and stop-motion. It gives a real flavour of how dark and sinister the art form can become (so far away from the childlike wonder many of us feel for stop-motion).



Yes! Svankmajer is a real master of the unsettling and the macabre. I can't say enough good things about his work. I only wish more aspiring fantasy and horror auteurs would study his films instead of commercialized sado-fests like the *Saw* franchise.


----------



## Curt Chiarelli (Sep 14, 2016)

WaylanderToo said:


> No mention of Jack the Giant Killer here? Not sure if its HH - sure is inspired though



Jim Danforth was the animator on that film.


----------



## Curt Chiarelli (Sep 14, 2016)

JonH said:


> To be fair, Nick Park has racked up his fair share of Oscars. I think it might be the mix of stop-motion and reality that has caused problems. There are only a handful of obvious animation/reality mixed films that "made it" in America. In most cases it's one or the other. CG can mix with reality in ways stop-motion and cartoons just don't seem to be able to. I love Harryhausen (the skeleton fight from the Argonauts is playing in my head as I type), but his best work is seen in a genre that was despised in its time as shallow—the very insult you throw at his detractors.



Yes, Nick Park has deservedly received a lion's share of Oscars in his time, but for an entirely different kind of film - children's stories that have a limited interest for adults (with the noted exception of animation fans like ourselves). Harryhausen attempted a marriage between his animated creatures and live action - a job you correctly ascribe as being better served by computer animation. The technology allows for a less episodic and a more flawless blending of reality and fantasy elements so that the audience can stay focused on the story - as it should.

However, it should be noted that it isn't Harryhausen's fault that American society and its arbiters of taste - its critical fraternity - have, from its earliest days, consigned the science fiction/fantasy and horror genres to the darkest back alley ghetto of pop culture. In many ways, this bias is still very much evident in American culture . . . . and it's not only found in the *New York Times* and suburban high school English departments either. It's found in the corner offices of the people who decide which motion pictures get made. _In many cases nowadays, these decision-makers not only actively despise the genre and the audiences they appeal most to, but also motion pictures in general. And the final results show. All too clearly._

A relevant and eye-opening example is as follows: in a phone conversation I had with animator, Jim Danforth in late 1999 he described to me the condescending attitudes Columbia Pictures executives had towards Ray Harryhausen and the movies he made. Although his films were decently budgeted, they were never considered "A" pictures and, yet, were looked down upon as something less than standard "B" grade drive-in fodder. According to Danforth, that was the primary reason why executives never tampered much with Ray's films. They were never taken seriously as prestige films for an adult audience, something a producer's vanity would desire to have his name associated with and, therefore, a ripe target for their idiotic meddling. So long as Ray's pictures kept making money for the studio, the front office could really care less about them. And we may all thank Crom for the fact that his stuff slipped under the radar, otherwise who knows what kind of spavined legacy we would have been left with.


----------



## Curt Chiarelli (Sep 14, 2016)

dask said:


> Can't find fault with this. Brilliant Bernard Herrmann score great big bonus.



Yes, Herrmann's score for the *7th Voyage of Sinbad* remains not only a landmark of genre film scoring, but also a classic of 20th century classical music also.


----------



## Curt Chiarelli (Sep 14, 2016)

dask said:


> Agreed. Always liked Kerwin Mathews. Never understood why he didn't go further.



Shortly after starring in the _*Three Worlds of Gulliver *_he was in negotiations to star in a film adaptation of Albert Camus' *The Stranger*, but due to the author's untimely demise in a tragic car accident, the film was never made. It could have been the prestige project that really put him on the critical map. Instead his career slowly faded. Not that he was devastated by this turn of events: he apparently led a very happy life specializing in the sale of rare antique Oriental carpets in San Francisco. He recently died there a few years back of natural causes.


----------



## dask (Sep 15, 2016)

Interesting. Thanks for the info.


----------



## clovis-man (Oct 3, 2016)

I grew up with these films and thought they were great without any reservations. Hearing The other Ray (Bradbury) speak some years ago, I found myself wondering how things would have turned out if the two of them had not spent all that time in a garage as young lads working on "special effects".


----------



## Phyrebrat (Oct 3, 2016)

Am now off to find some Svankmajer material. 

Great thread! Not sure how this one passed me by!

pH


----------



## The Bluestocking (Oct 15, 2016)

Phyrebrat said:


> Am now off to find some Svankmajer material.
> 
> Great thread! Not sure how this one passed me by!
> 
> pH



Do you love Ray Harryhausen too, @Phyrebrat ?


----------



## BAYLOR (Oct 25, 2016)

Curt Chiarelli said:


> Yes, Herrmann's score for the *7th Voyage of Sinbad* remains not only a landmark of genre film scoring, but also a classic of 20th century classical music also.



Absolutely.


----------

