# Clash of the Titans (2010)



## Whitestar (May 16, 2007)

*Clash of the Titans Remake*

Yes, that's right, a remake is currently in the works. 

Screenwriting hero Lawrence Kasdan has been tapped to pen "Clash of the Titans" for Warner Bros. Pictures. Basil Iwanyk is producing via Thunder Road.

A remake of the 1981 cult classic, the story revolves around Zeus' son, Perseus, and his journey to save Princess Andromeda during which he must complete various tasks set out by Zeus, including capturing Pegasus and slaying Medusa. The original marked the final film on which Ray Harryhausen did special effects.

Travis Beacham ("Killing on Carnival Row") wrote a draft.

Lynn Harris is overseeing for the studio. 

For Kasdan, "Titans" is his first fantasy-style project since the early 1980s, when he wrote the screenplays for "Return of the Jedi," "The Empire Strikes Back" and "Raiders of the Lost Ark." He has since tended to write, as well as direct and produce, more earthbound fare such as "Mumford" and "Grand Canyon." He next exec produces the upcoming "In the Land of Women," written and directed by son Jon Kasdan, which bows Friday. 


http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/film/news/e3i674437445f73b54e6bdb2dc30d4fdf5a

Let's hope it's better than the 1981 version.


----------



## Foxbat (May 16, 2007)

*Re: Clash of the Titans Remake*

The 1981 version had one thing going for it: Harryhausen's beautiful animations. Apart from that, it was nothing very special (although there are worse ways to spend a couple of hours and Medusa was an exceptional piece of work).

I suppose we will have to put up with the usual fandabbydozy CGI in the new version. I, for one, feel a bit like a child in a sweetie shop and I'm absolutely gorged on Computer Imagery in film. I don't know how much more I can take. Ho hum.


----------



## PTeppic (May 16, 2007)

*Re: Clash of the Titans Remake*

I guess think Pirates-2's Davey Jones, with his head on upside down... (for Medusa, that is)


----------



## TK-421 (Nov 13, 2009)

The teaser trailer for the remake of the 1981 film is up on You Tube. The movie stars Sam Worthington, Liam Neeson and Ralph Fiennes and looks great:

YouTube - Clash of the Titans (Sam Worthington) Exclusive HD Official Teaser-Trailer (2010)


----------



## Alysheba (Nov 13, 2009)

That looks really cool. I wish I had seen more of Pegasus though.


----------



## BookStop (Nov 13, 2009)

I really hope it's good -


----------



## Connavar (Nov 13, 2009)

Looks like God of War the movie 

I dont really care for the new leading actor that Worthington he semi ruined T4 for me.

I hope they dont give lame role to great actors like Neeson,Fiennes.


----------



## Culhwch (Nov 13, 2009)

'Titans Will Clash'? Come on, surely the 'This Will That' tagline has been well and truly played out at this stage...

Looks like mild fun. I won't pay to see it at the cinema, though.


----------



## HareBrain (Nov 13, 2009)

Feels like a set of out-takes from LOTR, but with more sand.

My prediction: pap.


----------



## Foxbat (Nov 13, 2009)

I just wish they'd spend all that cash on something new and not another (yawn) remake. 

 Won't pay to see this as it will just encourage them to regurgitate even more.


----------



## TK-421 (Nov 13, 2009)

Liam Neeson plays Zeus. He's no Laurence Olivier but a fine actor nonetheless.

Ralph Fiennes, who plays an excellent vilain, will play Hades.

Gemma Arterton plays Lo. Danny Huston is Poseidon and Alexa Davalos is Andromeda.


----------



## HoopyFrood (Nov 13, 2009)

*Weeps bitterly* I've known about this remake for a while now and my feelings are still the same. It's a classic film, with classic Harryhausen monsters and beasties...leave it be! This will be the usual souped-up, Hollywood, CGI fest. Gah! 

Bloody remakes...

Mind you, I thought Star Trek would be awful, and that was brilliant...hopefully I won't have to eat my words...


----------



## j d worthington (Nov 13, 2009)

I side with Foxbat on this one: I'm bloody sick of remakes. Enough so that I have virtually stopped going to the cinema or renting new films, as either they are remakes, sequels, or incomprehensibly idiotic and flat-out stupid. The exceptions are too rare for me to bother at this point (which makes me rather sad, as I love going to see movies on the big screen).

On this one in particular, even though this is certainly my least favorite Harryhausen film (that damned owl drives me up the wall!) I still think the original is almost certainly going to remain better than the remake. On the strictly technical point of appearance, it _may_ be bested (though I'm not a big fan of CGI, either); but, given the abortions they call scripts these days, I have no hopes that it will even come close in any other way. I could be wrong, but I'm going to hear this one is effin' brilliant, from people whose judgment I trust completely, before I'll even bother watching it in any form (including television broadcast down the line), let alone seeing it in the theater.

If I give the impression of being fed up... well, then I didn't express myself strongly enough.....


----------



## Wiglaf (Nov 14, 2009)

Considering how worthless the first was across the board, it probably won't be any worse.  Crappy overdone CGI in an otherwise mediocre movie might best horrible stop motion in an otherwise mediocre movie.


----------



## steve12553 (Nov 15, 2009)

j. d. worthington said:


> ...On this one in particular, even though this is certainly my least favorite Harryhausen film (that damned owl drives me up the wall!) I still think the original is almost certainly going to remain better than the remake...


 I have to agree. By the time, "Titans" came out, I was a long way from the wide eyed child and looked for a little bit of story to my films. Remakes of even weak films are a scourge. There are probably some good books that were made into poor films that might be justified in being remade but Clash of the Titans was not a classic book, it was part of mythology that weren't put together in a classic book with this title. Surely an original title and going back to the source material would give them a reasonable film.


----------



## HareBrain (Nov 15, 2009)

steve12553 said:


> Surely an original title and going back to the source material would give them a reasonable film.


 
At least if they picked an original title it would have some hope of being accurate. Number of Titans clashing (or even appearing) in Clash of the Titans? Zero.


----------



## Rodders (Nov 15, 2009)

I have happy memories of the original of this (and Warlords of Atlantis) when i was about six or seven. I've got no issue at all with this being remade. The FX will not stand up to todays standards, so why not? I'd even go as far as to say that this could be pretty entertaining.


----------



## Karn Maeshalanadae (Nov 15, 2009)

Even though I've never seen the first one, I can sum my opinion up in a single sentence:

Never watch a movie based off Greek Mythology.


----------



## dustinzgirl (Nov 15, 2009)

CGI Blasphemy.

THIS is the ONLY Clash of the Titans.

And a pox on any who try to change it.

I had it on laser disc.


----------



## Alysheba (Nov 16, 2009)

I think that it will be interesting. Certainly the effects will be better however, if it is a success I wonder if Sinbad can not be far along after it.


----------



## j d worthington (Nov 16, 2009)

Alysheba said:


> I think that it will be interesting. Certainly the effects will be better however, if it is a success I wonder if Sinbad can not be far along after it.


 
They so much as _touch_ *7th Voyage*, and I will _personally_ burn the studio down....


----------



## GOLLUM (Nov 16, 2009)

Man I used to love those Harry Hausen movies as a kid! I fondly recall Clash of the Titans. Not a great film but magical to the eyes of a young boy growing up all the same.

I thought 7th Voyage was probably the best of the Hausen/Sinbad movies.


----------



## dustinzgirl (Nov 16, 2009)

j. d. worthington said:


> They so much as _touch_ *7th Voyage*, and I will _personally_ burn the studio down....



I'll bring the lighter. 


Sorry, I love claymation and puppeteering. Most of my absolute favorite movies had one or both. I miss the old days, now its all done by computer and it doesn't look anymore real, just different. 

This scared the crap out of me as a kid:









The new one...not so much.


----------



## GOLLUM (Nov 16, 2009)

Yeh! I recall Medusa scaring me too! 

Good old days indeed...


----------



## GOLLUM (Nov 16, 2009)

Thanks for the memories....

YouTube - Clash of the Titans - Medusa


----------



## dustinzgirl (Nov 16, 2009)

You know what annoys me the most?

Clash of the Titans isn't even THAT old of a movie. Why remake it? There are lots of other, older stories that would make great remakes. 

Our minds have collectively gone lazy.


----------



## j d worthington (Nov 16, 2009)

Yes, I quite liked the Medusa, overall... and, generally speaking, Calibos (the transformation scene, done simply with animated shadows, I always found peculiarly effective. Odd, that, but it works still; it evokes both a sense of horror and of pity....


----------



## dustinzgirl (Nov 16, 2009)

OH! And the marvelous little owl that was all shiny gold and silver! I loved that little guy!


----------



## GOLLUM (Nov 16, 2009)

dustinzgirl said:


> OH! And the marvelous little owl that was all shiny gold and silver! I loved that little guy!


So did I but I don't think J.D. much cared for it LOL!


----------



## Culhwch (Nov 16, 2009)

j. d. worthington said:


> They so much as _touch_ *7th Voyage*, and I will _personally_ send the director a thank you card and a gift basket....


 
Just remind me, JD, when that day comes, to return to this thread and edit your comment to something a little more innocent and less, erm, indictable, such as the above...


----------



## j d worthington (Nov 16, 2009)

dustinzgirl said:


> You know what annoys me the most?
> 
> Clash of the Titans isn't even THAT old of a movie. Why remake it? There are lots of other, older stories that would make great remakes.
> 
> Our minds have collectively gone lazy.


 
Um, Dustie... *Hellraiser* (1987); *Day of the Dead* (1985); *Red Dawn* (1984); *Robocop* (1987)....


----------



## j d worthington (Nov 16, 2009)

Culhwch said:


> Just remind me, JD, when that day comes, to return to this thread and edit your comment to something a little more innocent and less, erm, indictable, such as the above...


 
LOL.... You know, given the place of that film in my life, I might just let it (the post) stand....

I'll tell you, though... with things like this, it begins to look as if Ellison's comment to the head of the studio that he had "the intellectual capacity of an artichoke" may have been an extreme compliment....


----------



## dustinzgirl (Nov 16, 2009)

j. d. worthington said:


> Um, Dustie... *Hellraiser* (1987); *Day of the Dead* (1985); *Red Dawn* (1984); *Robocop* (1987)....



All of which, my good Mr. Worthington, I have vehemently refused to spend my money and time on.


----------



## j d worthington (Nov 16, 2009)

dustinzgirl said:


> All of which, my good Mr. Worthington, I have vehemently refused to spend my money and time on.


 
Now, if only about 90% of the moviegoing populace would follow your lead....


----------



## dustinzgirl (Nov 16, 2009)

j. d. worthington said:


> Now, if only about 90% of the moviegoing populace would follow your lead....



Amen to that my e-bro. 

Then, hopefully we can get some new plots.

Although, the zombie movies I don't really stress about, those have been redone since Night of the Living Dead. And, there's only so many ways to do a zombie movie. 

But as for Hellraiser and Robocop, me and mine will watch the OG versions.


----------



## HoopyFrood (Nov 16, 2009)

dustinzgirl said:


> Sorry, I love claymation and puppeteering. Most of my absolute favorite movies had one or both. I miss the old days, now its all done by computer and it doesn't look anymore real, just different.



Amen to that...I _adore_ stop motion animation, I can't get enough of it. No matter how good CGI gets, it just never looks real to me. In fact, the better it gets, the more it's going to dip into the uncanny valley...

And I love this film, this and _Jason and the Argonauts_, just brilliant films that I've watched forever (always when they come on tv though, and usually around Christmas time) and I'm so miffed that they're remaking it.

Wait, ROBOCOP'S BEING REMADE?

Oh, for the love of Azathoth, WHY!


----------



## j d worthington (Nov 16, 2009)

As I've noted before, I really think this has a lot to do with economics (or perceived economics). Hollywood has this terrible tendency to periodically go into long spates of remakes, sequels, and the like, rather than producing much in the way of original films (or even film adaptations of previously untouched literary material), as it saves money in the initial stages -- proposals, treatments, purchase of rights, etc. They then have either some studio writers or plain  hacks take a (slightly) different spin on it, but without any true imagination... and bank on a known title that people can identify with, rather than expending any effort either creatively or financially that they can avoid. (And sometimes they don't even go _that_ far. Cf. Gus van Sant's remake of *Psycho*.)

In former times, people would get bored and tired of the rehashes, and begin attending more "art" or foreign films, which remained more focused on creativity and originality (or pretentiousness, at times), and Hollywood would slowly wake up to the fact it was losing its audience to these alternatives. And, of course, when that happened, they'd blame the genres themselves ("nobody's interested in sci-fi anymore"; "horror films are _passé_" -- or "_so_ yesterday", or whatever the current catchword for such a concept may be -- etc.; or even denigrating previously highly lauded filmmakers). (Oh, and I use "skiffy" in this sentence deliberately, to underscore the contempt expressed. As most of those around here know, I utterly despise that term, as it originally -- and, with many even today -- denoted a low-brow, sub-literary form of science fiction-_cum_-adventure which helped give the genre its negative image in the first place. "Flowers for Algernon", *Dune*, or *The Left Hand of Darkness* are _not_ "sci-fi";* Buck Rogers* _is_.)

Eventually, though, they'd get it through their heads that it was their lack of creativity and originality which was costing them the money, and they'd begin financing some of the mavericks who were, until then, having a tough time getting their projects made... or had to settle for extremely watered-down versions of same. Then things would pick up again for a decade or two, until the New Guard became the Old Guard, and the cycle began all over again....

Now, however, Hollywood is so stuck in its "post-modern" idea of what the medium (or art) is, that rehashes and remakes are considered as viable an artistic production as the alternative (original work), and the New Guard is, if anything, even more entrenched in this inspissated manner of thinking; so I'm no longer so sure there's going to _be_ a renaissance... at least, for a good long time. And so, as long as even with the audience, the emphasis remains better technical achievement (visuals, sound, etc.) rather than better storytelling, more originality, more intelligent scripts, etc., then all we can expect are remakes and sequels and rip-offs of rip-offs of rip-offs.

An occasional remake or sequel is fine -- sometimes they even manage to come up with something really good (_vide_ *The Fly*, *Bride of Frankenstein*, *Aliens*) -- but when it becomes the norm... we're in trouble, folks; both as an audience and as creative individuals ourselves, for we reinforce the idea that only "the tried and true" is worth giving a shot, and that is never good for any form of artistic endeavor; literary, cinematic, or otherwise.


----------



## Alysheba (Nov 16, 2009)

LOLOL I have to chuckle at the amount of people who were as scared as I was when they saw the Medusa scene. I didn't watch hardly any of it as a kid in the theaters. I covered my eyes most of the time. LOLOL It is still one of my favorite movies. I owe that to my uncle who was a fan of the Sinbad films and had me watch those as a young kid. All I needed was a flying horse and I was hooked forever.  I think for me anyway the owl was a type of comic relief as well as something to intrigue young viewers who went to the film. We see the reverse today in a lot of kid's films where the movie tries to put in adult humor among all the storyline.


----------



## chrispenycate (Nov 16, 2009)

One vote in favour of CGI. Not that stop motion can't give excellent results, but with "Jason and the Argonauts" for example the movement is very jerky and irregular, adequate for some monsters but nowhere near all; I suspect they were using the same shot two or even three frames. Which means they are a far cry from, say, Wallace and Grommit. 

I've been working with animators for over thirty years now, and, being the sound effects guy, I analyse them very much the same way as I do _critiques_; in detail. I've worked with real product animation, stop frame, cells, and multiple generations of electronic (plus no few hybrids) and the artist's character comes through the different media; but modern algorithms allow him to see the results faster, to edit them, to get closer to the pictures playing in his head, and not require a team of forty colouring in, and between shots fill sequences that very nearly work, and analysing a voice optical track frame by frame for mouth shapes…

Certainly it can be used merely to reduce costs, but even then, it delivers control.

What is critical, when you mix real with imaginary, is the performance of the purely human actors; and tat is rarely improved in the remakes.


----------



## j d worthington (Nov 16, 2009)

To me, even the best CGI (and some of it is indeed very good, though unfortunately not enough) lacks what I would call "dimensionality"... a subtle depth that I, at least, find present with stop-motion animation... and _that_ pulls me right out of the thing far too often. I don't know... perhaps it has something to do with shadow, or texture, or some subtle suggestion of rondure; but whatever it is, despite the flaws you quite accurately point out, Chris, it simply lacks that quality.

As for the acting... yes, improvements in that direction are _extremely_ scarce....


----------



## dustinzgirl (Nov 17, 2009)

I think thats what it is JD. Stop animation just looks more realistic to me, too.


----------



## Alysheba (Nov 17, 2009)

As an artist (I am an equine artist) I have to say it took me a VERY long time to get into anything having to do with art and the computer. Simply because I felt it took away from a person's imagination in some ways as well as reduced the need for tactile artists such as stop motion creators, puppeteers etc... However, if a person can create something virtually it can be just as effective and creative as someone building it with their hands. What won me over was "Toy Story". It opened up a whole other world and while I very much enjoy movies that use stop motion I think that a good artist's work is something to admire no matter what the media. But like any story both parts have to be cohesive. You can have great CGI but without the acting and scripts to support the level of art onscreen you will most certainly have a flop. It has to work together. That is the biggest hurdle. This cast of COTT has the potential to be great. But there are a few actors placed in here that have me scratching my head and in the end you have to become captivated by the characters to carry the story.


----------



## dustinzgirl (Nov 17, 2009)

The Dark Crystal is real; Toy Story looks like a cartoon.


----------



## Culhwch (Nov 17, 2009)

Yeah, _The Dark Crystal _not so much... 

In defense of _Toy Story_, I don't think anyone at Pixar would argue they _weren't_ trying to make it look like a cartoon. They weren't going for the hyper-realism of a _Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within_ or a _Beowulf_. Look at all of Pixar's movies, and none of them even attempts a true depiction of reality - it's all stylised and cartoony, because it's animation, not CGI. Important difference there.


----------



## dustinzgirl (Nov 17, 2009)

Bite your tongue, Cull, bite it!


----------



## Culhwch (Nov 17, 2009)

I saw it as an adult, not a child, and I think that that has much to do with it. But really, that movie was [redacted to prevent being whooped by mod of awesome].


----------



## dustinzgirl (Nov 17, 2009)

Culhwch said:


> I saw it as an adult, not a child, and I think that that has much to do with it. But really, that movie was [redacted to prevent being whooped by mod of awesome].



You were going to say, really real, right?


----------



## Culhwch (Nov 17, 2009)

Of course I was. Just keep telling yourself that, DG.

When I think of convincing puppetry, I tend to think of things like _Alien_ and _Aliens_, or more recently, _Jurassic Park_. I know they used a bunch of CGI in the latter, but a lot of the close up dinos were animatronic and beautfully executed. (If I was rich, I'd totally buy myself that triceratops, you know, just to have in the backyard.) In fact, most of the CGI was pretty brilliant too, considering it was, what, 1993?


----------



## Wiglaf (Nov 17, 2009)

I'm sorry but the original _Clash of the Titans_ had poor stop motion.  _Jason and the Argonauts_ was better despite being much older.  Besides CGI could be good just please leave out the little armies moving in a simulated wave; it screams, "Hello, computer working here!"


----------



## HareBrain (Nov 17, 2009)

I thought the stop-motion in _Jason and the Argonauts _was better too, but that might have partly been because at least some of the monsters (the skeletons, and the bronze giant that turned a childhood Christmas into the season of terror) could be expected to move jerklily in reality.

I agree with those who prefer a more physical means of artistry, but I'm not sure if it really does have the extra physical quality I think it does - might be just prejudice against computers, which I associate with work and thus subconsciously loathe.


----------



## Foxbat (Nov 17, 2009)

Well, for me, my lack of enthusiasm for this new Clash Of The Titans has nothing whatsoever to do with CGI or Stop Motion. In fact, they could stitch glass eyes on a pair of socks and use them as hand puppets for all I care. 

      It's simply that I'm tired of all the remakes - so much so that I rarely buy anything produced by Hollywood nowadays (and If I do, it's usually films from the 30s or 40s) and prefer to look towards other shores for my cinematic entertainment.


----------



## Connavar (Nov 17, 2009)

I didnt even know there was a old movie of this.  I have never heard of it.

But i wont see this new one out of principle, enough with remakes.  I'm sick to my stomach about them.

No matter i think Fiennes,Neeson are the finest actors of their generation.


----------



## ravenus (Apr 2, 2010)

As I expected this was a mostly joyless experience with tons of boring  speech-making and leftover models from _*LoTR*_ and _*Pan's  Labyrinth*_. They  could have called it Conference of The Titans. Last 20 min gets  significantly better though, with a pretty good stakeout sequence in  Medusa's  Lair, and some parts of the Kraken attack scene show you the tantalizing  potential of a big-budget Cthulhu movie before they bring up the stupid  growling ape-head. 
In an ideal world they would re-release Harryhausen's _*Jason &  The Argonauts*_ as a big-screen experience.


----------



## j d worthington (Apr 3, 2010)

ravenus said:


> In an ideal world they would re-release Harryhausen's _*Jason & The Argonauts*_ as a big-screen experience.


 
It _has_ been done, more than once. I had the delightful privilege of seeing it that way many, many years ago. (I also saw *Seventh Voyage* on the big screen as well... wonderful experience....)


----------



## AE35Unit (Apr 3, 2010)

Its funny, tho I don't read fantasy I'm looking forward to this one.


----------



## Dave (Apr 3, 2010)

I admit that I expected this to bomb at the cinema. I saw the 1981 version at the cinema and that didn't make much money, but apparently this version is doing very well. The BBC Breakfast News just ran an item with a historian commenting on films such as this and _Troy_ and _Alexander_ and making a direct link to the recent increase in the number of students wanting to study Classics, ancient history and languages.


----------



## Ursa major (Apr 3, 2010)

Then heaven help the study of Classics if this is what really enthuses many of its students.


I've only seen the original _Clash of the Titans_ on TV and wasn't that impressed. I do remember being terrified** when seeing _Jason and the Argonauts_ at the cinema. I was probably only about seven when I saw it (unless the film was delayed in the UK or was being reshown).




** - More terrified of Talos than, say, the skeletons. (The skeletons were merely swordsmen who were difficult to kill (again) and in the stories I'd read, they were easily defeated.) The lair of the hydra was really spooky, though.


----------



## ravenus (Apr 3, 2010)

Yea, Talos was awesome, and especially in his case the stop-motion was adding to the character.
*@JD:* I'm super-jealous. Oh well, the 50" TV will have to do.


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Apr 3, 2010)

Hearing some of the praise in this thread for movies I thought were awful when I saw them makes me think that given enough time anything becomes a classic.


I was exceedingly disappointed in the original "Clash of the Titans," which I saw when it first came out,  (my husband and I have always called it "Crash of the Titans," a nickname bestowed with no affection at all).

My daughter, who apparently has no memory of seeing it when she was a little girl, though I seem to remember that we took our two oldest with us, saw the remake and said it was enjoyable.  

I am not tempted even the slightest bit to see it and find out.


----------



## Culhwch (Apr 4, 2010)

Teresa Edgerton said:


> Hearing some of the praise in this thread for movies I thought were awful when I saw them makes me think that given enough time anything becomes a classic.



I get that feeling, too... 

I'll check this out, but I'm not going to pay to see it at the cinemas. Especially not if it's only 3D.


----------



## Dave (Apr 4, 2010)

Teresa Edgerton said:


> Hearing some of the praise in this thread for movies I thought were awful when I saw them makes me think that given enough time anything becomes a classic.


Granted that _Clash of the Titans (1981)_ was awful. I've never seen _Alexander_ or _Troy_, but _Jason and the Argonauts_? It is a true classic! I've watched it loads of times since I was a small boy. Nicholas Wulstan "Nick" Park says that it is what inspired him to become an animator.


----------



## Culhwch (Apr 4, 2010)

_Alexander_ and _Troy_ were both woeful, and no amount of time will make them classics...


----------



## Mary Hoffman (Apr 4, 2010)

Saw it last night. Was pants.


----------



## Mary Hoffman (Apr 4, 2010)

Have blogged about it here: Book Maven

Come and vote in my "favourite Olympian" poll there too!


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Apr 5, 2010)

Teresa Edgerton said:


> Hearing some of the praise in this thread for movies I thought were awful when I saw them makes me think that given enough time anything becomes a classic.


Well said. I think some of these claims of 'classics' are made as a result of the whole cause and effect thing.

I don't know how many claimed _Clash of the Titans_ to be a classic before. But now that they're remaking it, it seems to have suddenly raised the supposed classic-ness of the original, almost as if a light-bulb has gone off in reviewers minds that if a filmmaker is remaking an old movie, then the original _must_ have been good.

As far as the new one - I haven't seen it, yet. Has anyone who did see it go for the 3D version? I've read in multiple reviews that the 3D is very poorly done, and in many ways you're better off seeing it as a standard screening. A quote from a critic at the _Los Angeles Times_:

It's doubtful that records are kept about this sort of thing, but consider the possibility that "Clash of the Titans" is the first film to actually be made worse by being in 3-D.
...3-D clutters the film's innumerable battles, making them harder to follow rather than exciting.


----------



## Mary Hoffman (Apr 5, 2010)

Devil's Advocate said:


> As far as the new one - I haven't seen it, yet. Has anyone who did see it go for the 3D version? I've read in multiple reviews that the 3D is very poorly done, and in many ways you're better off seeing it as a standard screening.



I saw it in 3D. I don't think it made any difference.


----------



## Karn Maeshalanadae (Apr 6, 2010)

This movie should have never seen the light of day.


The producers, director, everyone involved in it, except the actors, should be dragged out into the street and shot.

The actors should be flogged. (Except Liam Neeson, I feel he did his best in this film, but he couldn't have done too well, I'm sorry to say.)


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Apr 6, 2010)

Angry, much?


----------



## Karn Maeshalanadae (Apr 6, 2010)

As a Greek mythology buff, I have my reasons for it. This is the third movie I've described like this. The other two, of course, being New Moon and Cloverfield.


I would've described the Matrix movies this way except that such a punishment would've been far too lenient in their cases.


----------



## Culhwch (Apr 6, 2010)

Such a shy and retiring type, Manarion - do tell us what you really think! I can't cut through these layers of subtlety!


----------



## Dave (Apr 6, 2010)

I'm not a Greek scholar so can I ask a question, and then based upon that an observation?

Is there just the one single source of these stories i.e. Homer?

If so, unlike something like the tales surrounding King Arthur, which are manifold, there is only one 'correct' way to tell the story. If they are mucking about with it too much, I can certainly see where Manarion is coming from.


----------



## Culhwch (Apr 6, 2010)

There's no one correct way to tell any story, though...


----------



## Dave (Apr 6, 2010)

Accurate, faithful then!


----------



## Mary Hoffman (Apr 6, 2010)

Dave, there are myriad sources: Homer, Hesiod, Scholiast, Apollodorus, Pausanias, Strabo, Hyginus, Pindar, Ovid, Herodotus, Apollonius of Rhodes - and that's just for Perseus!

As I said on my blog, just because it's a myth doesn't mean anything goes.


----------



## Moonbat (Apr 6, 2010)

I saw this at the weekend and, being a fan of the orignal (80's version) I wasn't holding much hope, but it was very entertaining and well worth a watch. It isn't accurate to the original legends, but its hollywood, they can't even tell a true story accurately (it has to be based upon a true story). But what struck me, once again, was how inventive the greek myths are, IMHO they are some of the most creative and inventive stories ever told. Medusa is an amazing tale, a horrific creature/monster that hasn't been exploited (in hollywood) enough. also the witches that share 1 eye is good, although I prefered the fate of the eye in the original. Pegasus was a bit naff, why was he black? (is pagasus a he?) and the whole demi-god Io thing was a bit annoying. I thought she was turned into a goat, not given the 'curse' of agelessness!


----------



## The DeadMan (Apr 6, 2010)

I saw "Clash Of The Titans" yesterday and I was not impressed to say the least. The 3D effects were poorly done and the action scenes were blurry. The storyline and acting were an improvement over the the 1981 movie but that's about the best I can say for it.


----------



## AE35Unit (Apr 6, 2010)

Well to be honest noone goes to see these films for the acting performances,they're all about disengaging the brain and enjoying the action-forget the story! I can't see 3D so I'll watch it on blu ray, for a laugh. Gotta be better than that 1981 rubbish


----------



## The DeadMan (Apr 6, 2010)

AE35Unit said:


> Well to be honest noone goes to see these films for the acting performances,they're all about disengaging the brain and enjoying the action-forget the story! I can't see 3D so I'll watch it on blu ray, for a laugh. Gotta be better than that 1981 rubbish


It's definitely better than the 1981 movie. If you watch closely you will even notice them make fun of the 1981 version in a couple of places.


----------



## Karn Maeshalanadae (Apr 6, 2010)

Dave said:


> I'm not a Greek scholar so can I ask a question, and then based upon that an observation?
> 
> Is there just the one single source of these stories i.e. Homer?
> 
> If so, unlike something like the tales surrounding King Arthur, which are manifold, there is only one 'correct' way to tell the story. If they are mucking about with it too much, I can certainly see where Manarion is coming from.


 

I posted my reasons about in Last Movie You've Seen thread.


They did muck about it far too much. They pretty much tried to wrap all the major Greek heroes into one in this movie, like they usually seem to try to do, and it just doesn't work.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Apr 7, 2010)

Manarion said:


> As a Greek mythology buff, I have my reasons for it. This is the third movie I've described like this. The other two, of course, being New Moon and Cloverfield.
> 
> I would've described the Matrix movies this way except that such a punishment would've been far too lenient in their cases.


Are New Moon, Cloverfield and Matrix _supposed_ to be based on Greek mythology? I can't say I was aware of that, but then again, I know next to nothing of the Greeks.

I do know, however, that Brad Pitt sucked as Achilles in _Troy_...  I can only imagine how angry _that_ movie made you...


----------



## Ursa major (Apr 7, 2010)

* Imagines these words circling in Karn's head: "Diss Troy! Diss Troy! Diss Troy....!" *


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Apr 7, 2010)

Wow...7


----------



## Winters_Sorrow (Apr 7, 2010)

I saw this last night. The 3D was fairly pointless and added nothing to the movie. I would have preferred to have seen this in good ol' fashioned 2D.

In terms of the story itself I found that it relied overmuch on things happening for no apparent reason as the 'heroes' blundered into one situation after another with little reason for it. Quite why the Pegasus kept appearing at certain moments and not others seemed dictated by the power of plot rather than any reason given in the movie. They didn't even bother throwing in a oneliner "Zeus did it" comment about it, despite doing so in other parts of the movie.

Anyway, perhaps I read too much into it but by the end I just found it unintentionally humorous and a tale of class warfare. The gods (upper class, natch) decide that the lower class (Man) are being uppity and punish them only for the middle class (Perseus) to take a stand with the downtrodden. So far, so noble. Except by the end...*spoiler* 



Spoiler



Perseus decides he likes his absentee father, flying horse, magical sword and immortal hottie a lot more than hanging round with an orphaned princess in a devastated city populated by thousands of smelly homeless and the severely injured. 

Also didn't the Stygian witches tell Perseus that he was fated to be killed in this adventure? Why wasn't he??


 
Not really sure what that's telling us except that the lower class pay, the middle class bugger off to their own devices and the upper class are largely the same as they were in the beginning?


----------



## Pyan (Apr 14, 2010)

Just seen it.

I've seen worse, though I really can't remember when...oh yes, _Howard the Duck._


----------



## Karn Maeshalanadae (Apr 14, 2010)

Believe me, Sorrow, the "good ol' fashioned" 2D version was surely no better. At least the theater I saw it in tickets were only $4 apiece.


There's reasons why I hesitate to see mythology films and this one was no exception.


----------

