You are viewing an archive of the old fxhome.com forums. The community has since moved to hitfilm.com.

Clash of the Titans

Posted: Sun, 28th Mar 2010, 4:50pm

Post 1 of 90

DX6channel

Force: 496 | Joined: 9th Jul 2009 | Posts: 110

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=6&ved=0CCoQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fclash-of-the-titans.warnerbros.com%2F&rct=j&q=clash+of+the+titans&ei=0IavS9b-GYjosQP4zLz6Cw&usg=AFQjCNHjelSLIehtRWosZxaciyLIdoKZ2A&sig2=0IMAfqSrBXnzdA8Y_3lNgQ

This looks like a cool movie.

Let the arguing commence! biggrin twisted crazy
Posted: Sun, 28th Mar 2010, 7:49pm

Post 2 of 90

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Sooo, we're arguing over how terrible this thread is, right?
Posted: Sun, 28th Mar 2010, 9:18pm

Post 3 of 90

Fxhome Dude

Force: 996 | Joined: 1st Jun 2009 | Posts: 927

CompositeLab Pro User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I think we're arguing whether, as dx6 said, this is a cool movie (again, wink ). I personally think it's gonna tank in the box office amd kinda flop, but...well wait and see.

Last edited Mon, 29th Mar 2010, 12:31pm; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Mon, 29th Mar 2010, 6:20am

Post 4 of 90

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

If you guys aren't able to post something worthwhile not littered with witty insults, please don't post at all.


As to the film: It looks like a classic "I'll watch this when I feel like going to the cinema and there's really nothing better" movie. Possibly entertaining for it's visual value, but other then that, I don't expect that much of it.
Seeing I do feel like going to the cinema often and can't say I was particularly impressed with what I saw last, "Shutter Island" and "Alice", I'll end up watching this.
Posted: Mon, 29th Mar 2010, 6:35am

Post 5 of 90

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Sollthar wrote:

If you guys aren't able to post something worthwhile not littered with witty insults, please don't post at all.
You got it. This will be my final post on FXHome. It's been real. Peace out.
Posted: Mon, 29th Mar 2010, 6:42am

Post 6 of 90

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Hates Fun wrote:

can't say I was particularly impressed with what I saw last, "Shutter Island"
Wait- what?
Posted: Mon, 29th Mar 2010, 9:19am

Post 7 of 90

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Wait- what?
Don't lose hope. You'll get there.
Posted: Mon, 29th Mar 2010, 9:36am

Post 8 of 90

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I'm not so certain.
Posted: Mon, 29th Mar 2010, 10:42am

Post 9 of 90

NickF

Force: 2726 | Joined: 4th Jun 2004 | Posts: 933

EffectsLab Pro User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Sollthar wrote:

If you guys aren't able to post something worthwhile not littered with witty insults, please don't post at all.

Sollthar wrote:

Atom wrote:

Sollthar wrote:

can't say I was particularly impressed with what I saw last, "Shutter Island"
Wait- what?
Don't lose hope. You'll get there.
Isn't that exactly that ? razz

Back on topic, I have a feeling that it won't be the best movie, but will do fairly well at the box office, if only for people wanting to see Sam Worthington.

Like Sollthar, I will see this if I want to see a film but nothing else seems intriguing, I'll probably see this.
Posted: Mon, 29th Mar 2010, 12:18pm

Post 10 of 90

swintonmaximilian

Force: 1970 | Joined: 23rd Jun 2007 | Posts: 527

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

I will see this film, anything with a lot of creatures/monsters in it I will see.
Posted: Mon, 29th Mar 2010, 12:35pm

Post 11 of 90

Serpent

Force: 5426 | Joined: 26th Dec 2003 | Posts: 6515

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

This looks badass. The monsters and action look like fun, Liam Neeson is my hero, and Worthington has a cool voice. So, I'm there (at some point, still have a few films in theaters that I need to watch). Also when "DAMN" came on the screen I burst out laughing, didn't think they'd follow it up with anything. I read it as like "DAMN, isn't this cool?" Haven't heard of it until just now (thought this topic was about the old film), they aren't marketing it very well. Or maybe I don't watch enough television or something. I bet the 3D will suck, at least comparatively, but I'm a sucker for 3D hollywood films at the cinema now, so I'll check out that version if they have it at the normal theater.
Posted: Mon, 29th Mar 2010, 1:00pm

Post 12 of 90

Fxhome Dude

Force: 996 | Joined: 1st Jun 2009 | Posts: 927

CompositeLab Pro User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I was actually one of the people who saw the first film (Don't ask) and I absolutely hated it. Not just the effects but the plot was stupid and have to admit that it leaves a bad taste in my mouth for greek films. I'll see if I get the guts to drag myself out but I doubt it.
Posted: Mon, 29th Mar 2010, 6:14pm

Post 13 of 90

Thrawn

Force: 1995 | Joined: 11th Aug 2006 | Posts: 1962

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

I've been looking forward to this film for quite a while now, as I've seen it advertised for the last couple months (which makes it surprising that you've never heard of it, Serpent). Looks very very cool, with a large potential. I haven't seen a straight up mythology film in quite a while.
Posted: Mon, 29th Mar 2010, 11:31pm

Post 14 of 90

jawajohnny

Force: 1965 | Joined: 14th Dec 2007 | Posts: 829

VisionLab User VideoWrap User MuzzlePlug User Windows User

Gold Member

Seeing as it was converted to 3D in only a few weeks (as a complete afterthought), the 3D probably will suck.

But I'll go see this in theaters, if only to see Liam Neeson and Ralph Fiennes. My ticket was bought the moment I heard Neeson yell "Unleash the Kraken!" in the trailer.
Posted: Mon, 29th Mar 2010, 11:37pm

Post 15 of 90

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Thrawn, I want my avatar back razz
Posted: Mon, 29th Mar 2010, 11:50pm

Post 16 of 90

Staff Only

Force: 1805 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2005 | Posts: 1232

VisionLab User MacOS User

Gold Member

jawajohnny wrote:

the 3D probably will suck.
Here's to hoping that it does. That way studio-heads can stop releasing mediocre 3D for the revenue when the audience simply wont have it anymore. Otherwise we are in for a new decade long 3D or no 3D debate, just like CGI last decade. -.-

Same thing: there was a big difference between cheap, bad CGI and great CGI. CGI itself was not bad. But general audiences are daft. So please let this cheap conversion thing stop. It was fine when the top minds at ILM pioneered the technique for Nightmare Before Christmas, but once again: ILM > Everyone else. We need films like Avatar, Tron Legacy, The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn, How To Train Your Dragon, and yes: Legend of the Guardians to show audiences that 3D is awesome, and is here to stay. All the other films that can't afford real 3D: don't try.

Last edited Mon, 29th Mar 2010, 11:59pm; edited 2 times in total.

Posted: Mon, 29th Mar 2010, 11:54pm

Post 17 of 90

R_A_P

Force: 195 | Joined: 9th Mar 2010 | Posts: 28

Windows User

Member

Wow!!! We start at clash of the titans and end up talking about shutter island, Alice in wonderland, and thrawn's avatar!!!
Posted: Tue, 30th Mar 2010, 12:25am

Post 18 of 90

Thrawn

Force: 1995 | Joined: 11th Aug 2006 | Posts: 1962

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Pooky wrote:

Thrawn, I want my avatar back razz
Well I want my sanity back. I guess we don't always get what we want, do we? wink

Only kidding. Take it.
Posted: Tue, 30th Mar 2010, 12:27am

Post 19 of 90

alienux

Force: 1050 | Joined: 6th Jan 2010 | Posts: 299

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

Although I'm not expecting much, I'm sure I'll see this, if only because I liked the old Clash of the Titans movie as a kid (mostly because of the creatures back then). As an adult I watched it again, but liked it in more of a MST3K kind of way.
Posted: Tue, 30th Mar 2010, 12:48am

Post 20 of 90

Terminal Velocity

Force: 2507 | Joined: 7th Apr 2008 | Posts: 1350

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Liked the trailer. Good CGI, of course. Neeson was cool, despite being a bit weird with his double goatee. I felt chills when the kraken bellowed at the end. LOVE BIG MONSTERS.
Posted: Tue, 30th Mar 2010, 4:30am

Post 21 of 90

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Staff Only wrote:

jawajohnny wrote:

the 3D probably will suck.
Here's to hoping that it does. That way studio-heads can stop releasing mediocre 3D for the revenue when the audience simply wont have it anymore.
Uh....have both of you not been paying attention to Alice in Wonderland? It's been a smash success and people are loving the 3D version (Evman himself, in all his Avatar glory, included)- and that was all done post-production. Clash of the Titans is no different.

I think if there's something the audience 'simply won't have', it's the whole 3D thing being political about one way being 'necessary' (ala the 'Avatar' way) over another. Clearly Alice proved that post-production 3D could be just as effective and enjoyable given the right film. I've no doubt Clash of the Titans, seeing as how it looks to be pretty well art-designed (and I think that plays a lot into what you 3D-ify), will be an enjoyable film in 3D if it happens to be an enjoyable film in 2D.
Posted: Tue, 30th Mar 2010, 7:57pm

Post 22 of 90

jawajohnny

Force: 1965 | Joined: 14th Dec 2007 | Posts: 829

VisionLab User VideoWrap User MuzzlePlug User Windows User

Gold Member

No... there is apparently a considerable difference between Alice in Wonderland 3D and Clash of the Titans 3D. Alice, was filmed with 3D in mind. When shooting was finished, they began the 3D conversion, and took great care with it. On the other hand, Clash of the Titans was converted as a last-minute afterthought.

Basically... if you're going to do 3D conversion and do it well, you need to film the movie with 3D in mind... and then spend a lot of time on the conversion process. For example, James Cameron has apparently been converting Titanic for ages now. Clash of the Titans was simply a rushed job.

Some interesting news, is that Michael Bay is definitely against doing Transformers 3 in 3D. He says the 3D cameras are to cumbersome for his style of shooting, and that after doing some conversion tests, he thinks it looks incredibly fake. Not to mention it would make people sick.
Posted: Tue, 30th Mar 2010, 8:19pm

Post 23 of 90

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Not to mention it would make people sick.
Hehe, brilliant. I get sick with Bay's shooting style even in 2D. A 3D Michael Bay movie (or even worse, a 3D Paul Greengrass film) would be a definite pukefest for me. smile
Posted: Tue, 30th Mar 2010, 8:25pm

Post 24 of 90

Staff Only

Force: 1805 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2005 | Posts: 1232

VisionLab User MacOS User

Gold Member

Sollthar wrote:

Not to mention it would make people sick.
Hehe, brilliant. I get sick with Bay's shooting style even in 2D. A 3D Michael Bay movie (or even worse, a 3D Paul Greengrass film) would be a definite pukefest for me. smile
Well, yes. You can say what you want about Bay, but he knows how his own films look best. Like Spielberg, Lucas and I believe Cameron he got behind Blu-ray based on image quality immediately in the format war. He publicly criticized Paramount for releasing Transformers on HD-DVD, saying that he knew how his own films looked best and that they [Paramount] would be eating their words pretty soon. Bay was right. Respect.

If there was one part of Avatar were 3D didn't help at all it was the Thanator chase. 3D just isn't ready for ultra shaky-cam. Way to go, Bay.
Posted: Tue, 30th Mar 2010, 10:26pm

Post 25 of 90

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

The only thing about the Alice 3D conversion that bugged me was a single shot of a large tree, that had a very "layer cake" look to it. I imagine it would be very difficult to go through and make each individual leaf have its own depth, but it seemed a bit lazy. Otherwise it looked fine.

Still, I would much prefer films actually be shot in 3D, but from what I've seen, the conversion doesn't look too bad. It's just that it's essentially 2D, with simulated depth. But if it works, it works.

I feel that Clash of the Titans looks like a really awful, but really entertaining movie. It'll work on the same level that other huge CG-spectacle films work, and that will be especially spectacular in 3D, but I'm sure it's not actually a very good movie.
Posted: Wed, 31st Mar 2010, 1:57am

Post 26 of 90

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Not Quite Sir Lancelot wrote:

It's just that it's essentially 2D, with simulated depth.
That's.........exactly what even Avatar 3D......is. Or at least looks like- multiple layers of 2D at different depths. That's what 3D itself is (at least currently)- or at least what it looks like to me.
Posted: Wed, 31st Mar 2010, 2:26am

Post 27 of 90

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Well, what I mean is that Avatar was actually filmed in 3D, so they didn't have to "layer" it in the way they did for Alice. Obviously any movie that's 3D being projected onto a flat screen is not REALLY 3D, but Avatar is as close as I've seen to the "looking through a window" effect, which is the ultimate goal of the technology.

A REAL 3D movie would be impossible without holograms.
Posted: Wed, 31st Mar 2010, 2:54am

Post 28 of 90

Rockfilmers

Force: 2182 | Joined: 10th May 2007 | Posts: 1376

VisionLab User PhotoKey 4 User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

The reason that Alice WASTN"T filmed in 3d was because at the time of shooting there where no 3d 4k cameras on the market. They needed 4k for all the crazy scaling effects. I thought it looked great except for a few of the parts at the party in the beginning of the film. Some times I felt that they exaggerated the depth in some shots and where maybe a bit to conservative in others.

One person I would love to see make a 3d movie would be M. Night Shyamalan. First he just needs to make another decent movie like how he used too confused

I saw the original Clash of the Titans when I was big into stop motion. I don't really remember too much out of it, but it looks like a fun movie. I'll go see it if I have spare change.
Posted: Wed, 31st Mar 2010, 6:24am

Post 29 of 90

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

The thing with real 3D vs fake 3D is that real 3D has roundness. The artists do try and simulate it when they fake the effect, but it's never as good and nowhere near as lifelike. It ends up looking like layers of cardboard instead of proper 3D objects.
Posted: Wed, 31st Mar 2010, 9:03am

Post 30 of 90

Serpent

Force: 5426 | Joined: 26th Dec 2003 | Posts: 6515

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Most of Clash of the Titans seems to be CG. Could they have rendered at least those parts in true 3D with a virtual 3D 4k camera? Or did they not have enough time/budget for the render farm to do that? I'll see it in 3D just to compare it to Avatar, and then the step down to Alice.
Posted: Wed, 31st Mar 2010, 8:45pm

Post 31 of 90

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Considering it was more or less a last minute decision, I really doubt they would have done that.
Posted: Wed, 31st Mar 2010, 9:03pm

Post 32 of 90

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

With Alice, seeing as it's basically 80% CG, I got the feeling that they did bring a bit of roundness into it. The real footage and actors was fairly clearly fake 3D to me, though. Think back to the opening shots of Avatar, with the closeup of Jake Sully's eyes and face, and how even the blurred out DOF sections looked round and real... nothing like that in Alice.
Posted: Wed, 31st Mar 2010, 9:05pm

Post 33 of 90

jawajohnny

Force: 1965 | Joined: 14th Dec 2007 | Posts: 829

VisionLab User VideoWrap User MuzzlePlug User Windows User

Gold Member

A lot of the critics are noticing how bad the 3D is:

Ain't it Cool wrote:

How bad is it? See it in 2-D if at all possible. Do not, under any circumstances, watch the 3-D version of this film.

James Berardinelli wrote:

some of the worst 3D rendering since circular polarization replaced the old red lens/blue lens approach. Anyone interested in seeing Clash of the Titans is recommended to seek out the 2D experience - not only is it less expensive but it will permit enjoyment of the story without distractions that include, but are not limited to, motion blur during action sequences, perpetual dimness, and headaches/nausea. The 3D looks bad; for the most part, it's 2D in different planes - an effect which makes everything appear unconvincing and is as compelling an argument as one can find for why this sort of "quickie" conversion should not be foisted upon audiences...

Clash of the Titans is a flawed but mildly entertaining regurgitation of Greek mythological elements, but it's also an example of how poorly executed 3D can hamstring a would-be spectacle.
Posted: Wed, 31st Mar 2010, 9:24pm

Post 34 of 90

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

If it's Harry Knowles at Ain't It Cool writing that, don't trust him. I've been to three or four screenings with him there, and he hardly watches the movies.
Posted: Wed, 31st Mar 2010, 9:34pm

Post 35 of 90

jawajohnny

Force: 1965 | Joined: 14th Dec 2007 | Posts: 829

VisionLab User VideoWrap User MuzzlePlug User Windows User

Gold Member

Actually, it was "Massawyrm".
Posted: Wed, 31st Mar 2010, 9:45pm

Post 36 of 90

Serpent

Force: 5426 | Joined: 26th Dec 2003 | Posts: 6515

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

While I'm sure it's bad, the only 3D films I've ever seen are Avatar and Alice, except for short films at Disney World (A Bug's Life, Honey We Shrunk the Audience, etc.). So I'm going to see the 3D version, just as an experiment of sorts. Best to do it on a film I don't really care much about if it's going to ruin the film. smile
Posted: Wed, 31st Mar 2010, 11:38pm

Post 37 of 90

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

ben3308 wrote:

If it's Harry Knowles at Ain't It Cool writing that, don't trust him. I've been to three or four screenings with him there, and he hardly watches the movies.
Frankly, I'm surprised he can even physically attend screenings. He must require at least two seats.
Posted: Thu, 1st Apr 2010, 5:39am

Post 38 of 90

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

My friend is a part time film reviewer and he got an early screening of this film.

http://www.climbinghigherpictures.com/index.php/2010/04/01/featured/damn-the-gods-along-with-yourselves-clash-of-the-titans-reviewed/

According to him (and I'd trust his opinion) - the 3D looks terrible. His review spends 3 paragraphs describing how bad it is before even getting to how bad the actual film is on its own. And this is coming from someone who loved Avatar and loves 3D in general (in both Avatar and Alice).

So if you're planning on seeing it, see it in 2D.
Posted: Thu, 1st Apr 2010, 5:55am

Post 39 of 90

Serpent

Force: 5426 | Joined: 26th Dec 2003 | Posts: 6515

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Frankly, I am intrigued. I am excited to see how bad the 3D truly is. I can't even imagine it really, even the "Honey We Shrunk the Audience" film, which is like, 20+ years old, I thought was pretty cool. Anyone else got the balls to sit through a nausea fest?
Posted: Thu, 1st Apr 2010, 6:06am

Post 40 of 90

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Not Quite Sir Lancelot wrote:

ben3308 wrote:

If it's Harry Knowles at Ain't It Cool writing that, don't trust him. I've been to three or four screenings with him there, and he hardly watches the movies.
Frankly, I'm surprised he can even physically attend screenings. He must require at least two seats.
Ben and I saw a screening of a rough cut of Hot Tub Time Machine a few months ago with him. He's a disgusting human being to look at, really. Has basically a motorized couch that he wheels around in just from his obesity. He never left it, he 'parked' in the center of the middle aisle of the theater, in front of a buncha people.

He then spent the intro to the film with director Steve Pink there (who is a really cool, nice guy) mostly interrupting him to say how much he liked him, then spent most of the entirety of HTTM twittering, breathing loudly, eating (dinner food, mind you- not just popcorn), and bitching about parts of the movie to the people beside him.

Now granted, parts of the movie were 'rough'- but it was an obvious draft cut, nothing final. But that part doesn't even matter. Honestly, please, someone just film this guy watching movies and let all of AICN watch it. It'd give a lot of perspective.

Serpent wrote:

Frankly, I am intrigued. I am excited to see how bad the 3D truly is. I can't even imagine it really, even the "Honey We Shrunk the Audience" film, which is like, 20+ years old, I thought was pretty cool. Anyone else got the balls to sit through a nausea fest?
As far as 3D goes- really? No one with me on the fact that 3D itself is pretty terrible and nauseating? Even in Avatar, I'd say. (Which, come on, it looked like 'pop-up book style' at best. I saw no rounded edges of any sort.)

I mean, again, Avatar was still a cool movie, and the 3D added an intriguing element- but it was by no means that wowing- and I doubt Clash of the Titans, even in all its 'crudeness of 3D use' will be all that different.

Not because I'm trying to dog Avatar or Clash of the Titans- just because 3D itself can only really be so good. Even bad 3D these days isn't that bad- just as good 3D isn't that good. As this whole 'let's shitt on movies with 3D not done the same way as Avatar-fest' continues, I feel like I've just gotta mention it. I mean, to me the movie looks decently fun.

3D will add a nice element to that, I think. The whole argument on how 'terrible' it will be seems to hinge on comparative reasoning. On the fact that other films have had 3D that's been so righteous this one must be shitt. So I ask: What movie is the big deciding factor here? Avatar? Was it really that good of 3D- and will this really be that bad of it?

I mean, don't get me wrong- I've no doubt the 3D is much better in Avatar; without a doubt. But does that mean there's a huuuuuuuge difference in the overall effect? In how it enhances the film?

Because that's what its supposed to do........isn't it? Enhance the experience.

Oh, and I read that review. Insightful in parts but eclipsed by its own assholey-ness. All other parts aside:
I guess in the end, the buck has to stop somewhere, and I feel like it may be with Louis Leterrier. The director has consistently and systematically underwhelmed in every project he’s taken on, and I can point back to his work on The Incredible Hulk
Obviously this kid saw a different Hulk film than I did.

Last edited Thu, 1st Apr 2010, 6:22am; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Thu, 1st Apr 2010, 6:20am

Post 41 of 90

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

He was at the screening of Saw that I went to during the '04 Austin Film Festival, and it was almost the same thing. He had a walker so he could get around, and I don't think there was anyone sitting next to him in a several seat radius. Motorized couch makes me think of Wall-E.

I mean, it's not surprising that he's a blob of a person, considering that his job is to watch movies and then write about them on the internet, but... he should just attend screenings via video conference or something, to spare the sanity of the people he would otherwise come into contact with. There are plenty of other internet film critics who do just fine, and who don't have Jabba The Hutt proportions. Of course, it doesn't help that his AICN "column" is terribly written. I tend to avoid AICN news and reviews anyway, because they're so awful, but Harry in particular just pisses me off.

Can this be the official "Complain about Harry Knowles" thread? wink

And your complaints about 3D aren't just you. Plenty of people have trouble watching 3D movies, because of the glasses, or because they're trying to focus on the wrong part of the screen, or any number of reasons. But for every person that has issues with it, there are going to be a bunch of people who don't. It doesn't really have anything to do with it being objectively hard to watch or not, it has to do with the way your own eyes function and track motion, etc. etc. I'm sure someone else could go into more detail, but just because we aren't talking about it here doesn't mean it doesn't happen to other people, and it doesn't mean you're wrong about it being difficult to watch, it just means that it comes down to personal experience. Most people don't have issues with it.

It's the same thing with things like Cloverfield. A TON of people had complaints about that film giving them motion sickness, and having to leave the theater, but for all the people who had troubles, there were many more who didn't, myself included. I've never had any issue watching a 3D movie, but I know plenty of people who have. I thought Avatar looked amazing, and very lifelike, and had no complaints about the effect at all. Alice In Wonderland, however, I could definitely see the "edges", so to speak.

It's not a perfect technology by any means, but it's leagues beyond the old red-and-blue style. Eventually, the glasses won't be required at all, and the experience will be as seamless as watching a traditionally projected 2D film. That's a ways off, but it'll happen.

Last edited Thu, 1st Apr 2010, 6:31am; edited 3 times in total.

Posted: Thu, 1st Apr 2010, 6:24am

Post 42 of 90

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

It'd almost be passable if he even watched the movies, though. I think it's more of a waiting for the precipice to hear himself talk about how bad something is (or, in the case of Attack of the Clones, how good it is) than it is actually watching the movies.

Disgusting human being. That's all that really needs to be said.
Posted: Thu, 1st Apr 2010, 6:33am

Post 43 of 90

Serpent

Force: 5426 | Joined: 26th Dec 2003 | Posts: 6515

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

I thought Avatar was that good. It brought me into another world, looked like I was looking through a window. I didn't get nauseous even remotely (but I'm sure some do, I've read multiple reports. Just didn't happen to me on any 3 screenings on IMAX). The blurred depth of field shot of the bubble thing at the beginning, mentioned in this thread, blew my mind. At first I thought it was a flaw on the screen, but then it came into focus. And I can SEE how others think other stuff is that bad. However, it seemed as though, because you quoted me, that you were talking about me. As I said, I can't fathom how this IS going to be that bad, because I appreciated the 3D in a 20+-year-old film (didn't have the red/blue glasses, it was at least the legit kind. I refuse to watch something like "Spy Kids 3D" with the other kind of glasses.) And again, as I said, I've only seen modern 3D features that are considered good, so those Disney films are all I have to compare to. I've never seen Final Destination 3D, (wow, if I could think of more examples I'd list them).

So yeah, that's the whole point of my last couple posts: I want to see this "bad 3D" to see how bad or not-so-bad it really is, because 3D has never bothered me.

And I suggest seeing this film before saying the 3D isn't that bad. I've yet to judge it, but the way these reviews are going, it seems like it really may be "that bad." But maybe you're right. See for yourself. Though if you got nauseous during Avatar, I've no idea why you'd want to.

Also, I understand why people hate on films that don't do it the Avatar way, Avatar did it classy, they brought it to an entirely new level. If people didn't appreciate 3D before Avatar, and then 3D films come out that do it the old way, why should they be expected to appreciate them? Again, not me, but for some people (though I do appreciate Avatar at least a lot more than the Disney films, and a bit more than Alice. It is literally my favorite experience ever at a theater, even though it isn't anywhere near one of my favorite films).

And as Aculag said, it's personal experience. Don't "come on, it looked like a pop-up book" me. I entirely disagree.
Posted: Thu, 1st Apr 2010, 7:05am

Post 44 of 90

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Don't get all bitchy- I wasn't directly just talking about you, Serpy. I caught your statement about Honey I Shrunk The Kids. wink

And 3D itself just nauseates me. Paul Greengrass, Michael Bay, etc.- I can deal with. Pop-up-book movies? No thanks. For any movie, really. I'm not claiming to know one way or another about Clash of the Titans- I'm just asking: Is most of this animosity really just stemming from it not being Avatar-style-3D? Because if it offers a comparable theater experience- then isn't that the point? Even if its more rough-around-the-edges and goes about it a different way?

(Of course I'm only asking all this because I think its yet to be asked and everyone here is getting so negative on this movie so prematurely.)

And before you get all defensive: You guys call cinematography I love and work my ass off at myself 'shaky cam' all the goddamn time- I'm calling it 'pop-up book-y'. Which you shouldn't take as an insult- obviously you've never read a good pop-up book. wink
Posted: Thu, 1st Apr 2010, 7:38am

Post 45 of 90

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Yeah, as Aculag mentioned 3D isn't even a matter of opinion, it's really just how your eyes and your brain works. I'm kind of in the middle: I thought Avatar looked WAY better in 3D, but had trouble with some of the scenes like when he fights the coyote dog things with the torch, or that shot in the spaceship at the beginning with all the people floating around in the background.

I'm surprised you didn't see much difference between the Avatar 3D and the Alice one, though. It was obvious to me right away that Alice was fake, whereas I can clearly remember noticing the roundness while watching Avatar.
Posted: Thu, 1st Apr 2010, 7:43am

Post 46 of 90

Serpent

Force: 5426 | Joined: 26th Dec 2003 | Posts: 6515

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Atom wrote:

Don't get all bitchy- I wasn't directly just talking about you, Serpy. I caught your statement about Honey I Shrunk The Kids. wink
Er, wasn't trying to be "bitchy," I was just directly responding to what you said after quoting ME and clarifying what I meant to the forum. Was it the bolds and italics? Like you do? I was just emphasizing those words as that's exactly how you described it. Think of them as quotation marks. Thought you misunderstood me, because that's what it looked like. I just read through my post, and nothing looked as if it came off as "bitchy," as you so kindly put it. Sorry if you took it that way.
Posted: Thu, 1st Apr 2010, 7:46am

Post 47 of 90

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

No, my eyes can process the 3D just fine- it's just an immersion technique that's, I suppose, 'not for me'. I know what you mean by 'roundness', I just don't recall seeing it- at least to a 'wowing' or clearly-distinguishable degree (and really, in all honesty, I tried to give Avatar my full and undivided attention so that I'd be as unbiased- as hard as that may be to fathom- as possible in talking about it).

Alice had its faults in 3D, no doubt, but I found the overall experience and effect basically the same- a slightly more immersive film at the expense of some shots lacking clarity and the overall experience being more of a give-and-take process. Which works fine for lots of people, I know.

I'm just saying I don't think, especially when going into the theater months after Avatar, that I will notice that drastic of a difference in the 3D. And even if I do, and I do see Clash in 3D, I don't think it'll take away any more from the film than the 3D in Avatar did for me- nor do I think it'll add any more than the likes of Avatar or Alice did for me. Mostly because that's just the nature of the beast as far as 3D tech goes right now.

I'm not doubting they're 'getting there'. But 'there' isn't there for me just yet.
Posted: Thu, 1st Apr 2010, 7:53am

Post 48 of 90

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Atom wrote:

I found the overall experience and effect basically the same- a slightly more immersive film at the expense of some shots lacking clarity and the overall experience being more of a give-and-take process. Which works fine for lots of people, I know.

[...]

I'm not doubting they're 'getting there'. But 'there' isn't there for me just yet.
This I can agree with, with the exception that I thought Avatar looked somewhat crappy without the 3D.
Posted: Thu, 1st Apr 2010, 8:05am

Post 49 of 90

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Well, that's because Avatar was somewhat crappy of a film to begin with. But we all knew that already. wink
Posted: Thu, 1st Apr 2010, 9:58am

Post 50 of 90

Hybrid-Halo

Force: 9315 | Joined: 7th Feb 2003 | Posts: 3367

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

I can confirm that the last minute 3D conversion means that Clash of the Titans will be crap in 3D. Do yourself a favour and see Clash in 2D.

Alice in Wonderland's 3D was mostly alright because some of it was shot stereoscopically, and other parts were designed stereoscopically in 3D. The parts which were poor were the ones which used the same technique applied throughout Clash in 3D.

The 3D in Avatar was incredible, perhaps the problems you were having relate to having a focal point of the frame more heavily suggested for you, your eyes aren't free to wander so much somehow, I could understand a complaint about that.

-Matt
Posted: Thu, 1st Apr 2010, 11:13am

Post 51 of 90

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

I loved the 3D in Avatar and it seemed fairly obviously superior to stuff I'd seen before.

That said, I did leave with a splitting headache and very tired eyes. However, I think that's due to my eyes not working naturally in tandem with each other - the additional effort to process the 3D-on-a-flat-screen imagery must have been pretty tiring for my brain.

Which backs up Aculag's point: everybody's eyes are different. Everyone is going to have a different biological reaction to 3D.
Posted: Thu, 1st Apr 2010, 1:34pm

Post 52 of 90

Mantra

Force: 1888 | Joined: 25th Nov 2002 | Posts: 551

EffectsLab Lite User MacOS User

Gold Member

A very trusted friend of mine was at the 'Clash' premiere and said that the 3D was shockingly bad. It was clear that the DOP had been (rightly) working with 2D in mind with the use of depth of field, composition, etc. and so it simply didn't translate when they did the 3D conversion. He must be gutted as I believe the 2D version at least 'looks' very good. The other consideration with 3D is that you need to edit differently, allowing more time for eye adjustment and that hasn't happened with Clash from what I understand. Too much messing!!

All of this in my eyes (pardon the pun) just goes to support Cameron's approach where the whole of Avatar was designed specifically for 3D. The shot composition, the edit, everything! It seems they partly did this with Alice in Wonderland which is why they got fairly good rather than great results.

Mantra
Posted: Sat, 3rd Apr 2010, 3:03am

Post 53 of 90

Thrawn

Force: 1995 | Joined: 11th Aug 2006 | Posts: 1962

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Well, I just watched Clash of the Titans in 2D tonight. Pretty good movies, despite all the reviews I'm reading say otherwise. Not quite as excellent as Alice was, but still a very good movie that was worth the price of admission. A quality Greek mythology movie is long overdue. Liam Neeson was great, as always.

8/10

Last edited Sat, 3rd Apr 2010, 6:42am; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Sat, 3rd Apr 2010, 5:32am

Post 54 of 90

EED

Force: 1210 | Joined: 8th Mar 2005 | Posts: 9

VisionLab User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

I too had just come from seeing Clash and it was a pretty good movie, however, the 3D was horrendous. All it did was give a little depth to the image while blurring action scenes.

This was the second movie I saw in 3d, the first was Avatar, and I was honestly blown away at the 3D effects of that movie (in IMAX anyway). Granted that's all it had going for it, as it was basically Ferngully meets Dances with Wolves. Sadly Clash of the Titans was not the same expeirence and will be my last 3D movie for awhile.

If you do see it, see it in 2d. If you liked the original you probably will like this 2010 update. Though I did miss the claymation stop motion effects.
Posted: Sat, 3rd Apr 2010, 7:20am

Post 55 of 90

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Rating: +1

Ended up seeing it in 3D, just cause I thought it'd be funny.

It was.
Posted: Sat, 3rd Apr 2010, 6:58pm

Post 56 of 90

b4uask30male

Force: 5619 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2002 | Posts: 3497

Windows User

Gold Member

I agree with the above comments, watched it in 3D and they were the worst i've seen.

Film ok, seen better, infact I prefer Percy Jackson for enterainment.

Save yourself a few pennies and watch in 2D sad
Posted: Sat, 3rd Apr 2010, 10:40pm

Post 57 of 90

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

I find it quite baffling that, despite countless warnings, people are still wasting the money to go see this in 3D.

You realize you are directly supporting bad 3D conversion, and in turn, encouraging companies to tack it onto their movies because they see that people will buy a ticket for it regardless of whether it's good or not? unsure
Posted: Sun, 4th Apr 2010, 1:03am

Post 58 of 90

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Just saw this in 2D, and I quite enjoyed it. It's a hollywood blockbuster action film, sure, but it's a good one with extremely epic imagery and a fantastically cool setting, and Liam Neeson, and some great VFX. It's leagues ahead of something like Revenge of the Fallen or GI Joe.
Posted: Sun, 4th Apr 2010, 10:08am

Post 59 of 90

Staff Only

Force: 1805 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2005 | Posts: 1232

VisionLab User MacOS User

Gold Member

Jerusalem Jackson wrote:

You realize you are directly supporting bad 3D conversion, and in turn, encouraging companies to tack it onto their movies because they see that people will buy a ticket for it regardless of whether it's good or not? unsure
Wow, I didn't think of that. Everyone, especially Evman, inspired me to take some friends (friends who are hard-core Avatar-fans) and laugh our arses off about the 3D (after the film, I would never ruin a film for others in the theater) like true Avatar snobs.

Darn, there goes that plan.
Posted: Sun, 4th Apr 2010, 11:33am

Post 60 of 90

b4uask30male

Force: 5619 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2002 | Posts: 3497

Windows User

Gold Member

Sadly I saw it the day it came out so didn't get to read these comments.

DON'T SUPPORT BAD 3D. demand a proper experience.

I've seen some 3D TV's at the Ideal Home expo, I have to say they were just as good as the cinema, if not a little clearer due to the brightness that a tv can push out compared to a screen.
However from the ones I looked at you'd have to go for 55" or higher, I'd personally wait for a 3D projector and enjoy it as a treat. Take HD tv, after a while you forget it's HD.
Posted: Sun, 4th Apr 2010, 1:50pm

Post 61 of 90

Hybrid-Halo

Force: 9315 | Joined: 7th Feb 2003 | Posts: 3367

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

EED wrote:

Sadly Clash of the Titans was not the same expeirence and will be my last 3D movie for awhile.
It wasn't the same experience because Clash wasn't shot in 3D. That's why everyone here has been saying 'avoid the 3D version'. In the future, instead of avoiding 3D completely I would instead, make sure you watch films shot in 3D instead of sloppily converted later on.

-Matt
Posted: Sun, 18th Apr 2010, 5:56am

Post 62 of 90

Terminal Velocity

Force: 2507 | Joined: 7th Apr 2008 | Posts: 1350

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Note: my review is going to be worse than my actual opinion of the film. I am in a horrible mood because a chick I like, one of my classmates, suddenly has a boyfriend. And my knuckles are bleeding from where I punched the wall after hearing that.

Main thing: it was surprisingly short. Hour and a half. I didn't like that at all, especially considering there seemed to be a lot of unnecessary padding in what was there already. The story stripped to its important bits would only be about 45 minutes long. It was just kind of bland and tasteless, totally lacking in new twists or plot occurrences.

Characters: they were okay. Kind of a generic collection of Greek heroes without any real imagination. Only a bit of internal conflict, the whole demigod thing. Hated that one chick who was stalking Perseus; at least they never smooched. I honestly had no idea who anyone was except Perseus, Croesus, and the two gods. Liam Neeson did a great job of course: but he wasn't in the film enough. When he said "Release the KRAKEN!!!" I was pretty happy. Quite epic, if I do say so myself.

Story: what's to say? Bland, too short, but sufficient I suppose.

Action: pretty good, but honestly lacked any particular impressive features. Again, since I didn't care about the characters I didn't care if they died. And the combat wasn't too exciting for its own merits anyway. Not enough swordfighting. Too much fooling around without enough straight combat.

Gosh, I'm tired. I'll skip to the number score, maybe finish later. 6.5/10. Maybe 7/10 with a curve allowing for my bad mood.
Posted: Sun, 18th Apr 2010, 6:49am

Post 63 of 90

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

TV, you should make ALL your reviews from the point of view of depressed-first-love-tween. I'd seriously read that.
Posted: Sun, 18th Apr 2010, 6:58am

Post 64 of 90

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Terminal Velocity wrote:

I am in a horrible mood because a chick I like, one of my classmates, suddenly has a boyfriend. And my knuckles are bleeding from where I punched the wall after hearing that.
You're going to feel very foolish about this one day.
Posted: Sun, 18th Apr 2010, 7:23am

Post 65 of 90

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I'm going to have to agree here, and hold back my snicker as best I can.
Posted: Sun, 18th Apr 2010, 7:45am

Post 66 of 90

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Atom wrote:

I'm going to [...] hold back my snicker as best I can.
Dejected? Grab a Snickers.
Posted: Sun, 18th Apr 2010, 1:07pm

Post 67 of 90

Terminal Velocity

Force: 2507 | Joined: 7th Apr 2008 | Posts: 1350

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Okay here I am back, feeling...okay, still feeling like tearing things apart, but not as much. But you guys who lift weights: you know what a morbidly satisfying feeling it is to want to rip stuff in half, simply because you know you can.
Pooky: "Depressed" doesn't fit the bill. I'm not mopey. When I have problems I don't sulk; I exercise and feel better. Also, I'm not a tween. I'm fifteen soon.
Atom: you're so kind and considerate. But that's exactly my reaction when other people say what I said. So I don't blame you.
Aculag: I already feel foolish about this whole thing. Until this chick came along, I was totally invulnerable. Now I have emotions like a normal, squishy human. And I don't like them.
But go ahead and keep making jokes; I'm used to taking crap about this. BY ALL MEANS HAVE UR FUN AT MY EXPENSE
I'm just joking guys, you're cool. All of you.

Finishing up CotT:
VFX: Didn't see it in 3D, but I liked the effects anyway. The scorpions weren't revolutionary, but were really cool. It was convincing and a lot of fun to watch them jabbing around at Perseus & co.
The kraken: Wow. He looked sweet. Not particularly creative in design, but I felt chills all down my spine when it roared. Almost stood up and cheered. I think Medusa is worth special mention. Firstly because of her face: it looked almost photorealistic. Secondly: the snakes in her hair. They moved in a way that made sense: like something alive, but still bound by uniformity and physics.
...
Well I think it's cool!

And notes:
Not enough Kraken.
Not enough Liam Neeson.
Meh, too much Sam Worthington.
Where are the Minotaurs????
Posted: Sun, 18th Apr 2010, 2:10pm

Post 68 of 90

Hybrid-Halo

Force: 9315 | Joined: 7th Feb 2003 | Posts: 3367

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

I thought it was Theseus who faced the Minotaur, not Perseus. The two sometimes get mistaken.

My feelings of Clash of the Titans are similar to those of 2012 - I knew what I was paying to see was a brainless action film involving giant monsters and hopefully some cool VFX, and that's exactly what I got. Unlike a lot of people, I wasn't at all surprised this wasn't the godfather part 2.

I'd go as far as to say this is superior to the original. Which was an awful stagnant movie with lacklustre action scenes and at the time dated VFX. The Kraken in Clash is absolutely amazing.

-M
Posted: Sun, 18th Apr 2010, 2:21pm

Post 69 of 90

Terminal Velocity

Force: 2507 | Joined: 7th Apr 2008 | Posts: 1350

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Yeah, it was Theseus. But this isn't exactly accurate to Theseus' story anyway, and besides the Minotaurs are ten times as awesome as any other mythogical monster, even the kraken.
Posted: Sun, 18th Apr 2010, 9:05pm

Post 70 of 90

Hybrid-Halo

Force: 9315 | Joined: 7th Feb 2003 | Posts: 3367

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Terminal Velocity wrote:

Yeah, it was Theseus. But this isn't exactly accurate to Theseus' story anyway
Probably because it's Perseus's story.
Posted: Sun, 18th Apr 2010, 9:22pm

Post 71 of 90

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Hybrid-Halo wrote:


Probably because it's Perseus's story.
From what I understand, it isn't exactly accurate to Perseus' story either.
Posted: Sun, 18th Apr 2010, 10:53pm

Post 72 of 90

Terminal Velocity

Force: 2507 | Joined: 7th Apr 2008 | Posts: 1350

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Hybrid-Halo wrote:

Terminal Velocity wrote:

Yeah, it was Theseus. But this isn't exactly accurate to Theseus' story anyway
Probably because it's Perseus's story.
Sorry, I meant Perseus'. Point being, it's not accurate to any mythological story.
Posted: Sun, 18th Apr 2010, 11:09pm

Post 73 of 90

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Am I the only one who though Hades' smoke/fire effects were fantastic?
Posted: Sun, 18th Apr 2010, 11:50pm

Post 74 of 90

Terminal Velocity

Force: 2507 | Joined: 7th Apr 2008 | Posts: 1350

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I don't think they were innately fantastic, given today's level of technology, but I agree that they were used in a very fantastic and awesome way, thus they are awesome.
Posted: Sun, 18th Apr 2010, 11:56pm

Post 75 of 90

Hybrid-Halo

Force: 9315 | Joined: 7th Feb 2003 | Posts: 3367

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Pooky wrote:

Am I the only one who though Hades' smoke/fire effects were fantastic?
No, I thought they were cool too.
Posted: Mon, 19th Apr 2010, 6:00am

Post 76 of 90

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Odd, I didn't even notice the 3D was THAT bad. I did notice the film was hilariously bad though. My girlfriend and me kept laughing at certain dialogue scenes or moments in the film.

I was really quite disappointed. I expected it to be dumb, but I didn't expect it to be "uncool", which I thought it was. I really didn't like the creature design in the film for the most part, despite the fact that it was technically well done in places.
The HADES smoke effekt looked cool, but as soon as he started moving or talking, I found him quite odd. Zeus costume and the entire heavenly castle set looked ridicolous to me - same with the bark-headed Djinn or the uninspired Medusa.

The only creature I really really thought looked awesome was the ferryman-skeleton in the underworld. Unfortunately, he only got one shot.

And Mads Mikkelsen was the only character who showed some sort of acting ability and was actually sort of cool.

4/10
Posted: Mon, 19th Apr 2010, 6:37am

Post 77 of 90

Thrawn

Force: 1995 | Joined: 11th Aug 2006 | Posts: 1962

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Rating: +1

Sollthar didn't like a fun film?! That has to be a first..


To add to (and somewhat alter) my thoughts on the film that I had previously posted, I thought this was an excellent film for what it was. It was fun, it was epic, and it followed the formula for a mindless (in a good way) modern action film: Great CGI/visuals, good action, a hot/pretty girl, and a somewhat well known actor or two.

Now, to me, the only reason people wouldn't like this film is either (A.) they don't like the action genre, or (B.) they were expecting this to be something it wasn't. Everyone "critics" films by setting it up against a "best picture" standard, and if it falls short, then it's called a bad film. So really enjoyable films like Transformers, Clash of the Titans, or even the later Die Hard film is tossed off to the side and labeled a "poor film", when the reason it was determined "poor" was because those who had reviewed it had done so with.. well, a narrow mindset

If you're going to see Clash of the Titans, go to see a complete action film with impressive fight scenes after impressive fight scenes, with a few bad ass quotes thrown in the mix. Don't expect academy award winning dialog about the setting sun. Not to say that an action film has an excuse to be poor, like G.I. Joe was, but just that it shouldn't be held to the same standard as films like the Shawshank Redemption is.

I usually hate trying to illustrate movies by giving a music analogy (or vise versa), but I think this time around it'd be appropriate.

I love the work of Romantic era composers (mainly Beethoven and Antonín Dvo?ák) and listen to them often. The sheer talent and beauty of the music is astounding, to say the very least. The two that I listed are (in my opinion) two of the most musically talented people to ever walk the planet. However, I also like the band Weezer. The funny thing about Weezer is that their music really isn't that impressive musically speaking. Sure, they can create tunes that will get stuck in your head for days, but otherwise nothing really to write home about. But, despite the fact that Weezer's music only contains a fraction of musical genius that Romantic Composers did, it doesn't mean that I can't enjoy them just as much, if not more.

It's the same way with movies. While the "action" genre doesn't give it an excuse to be a piece of sh!t, there's only so much you can expect out of it without being let down.
Posted: Mon, 19th Apr 2010, 6:44am

Post 78 of 90

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Now, to me, the only reason people wouldn't like this film is either (A.) they don't like the action genre, or (B.) they were expecting this to be something it wasn't. So really enjoyable films like Transformers, Clash of the Titans, or even the later Die Hard film is tossed off to the side and labeled a "poor film", when the reason it was determined "poor" was because those who had reviewed it had done so with.. well, a narrow mindset
Is that really how your mind works? Are you not capable of processing the reality that some people might just look at certain films YOU like without either of the two mindests and just... not like them? Simply have different ideas of what "enjoyable" or "fun" means? Is a "narrow mindset" by definition a necessity if the outcome disagrees with yours?

That's rather fascinating.
Posted: Mon, 19th Apr 2010, 7:57am

Post 79 of 90

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I think you're misreading what Thrawn is saying, Sollthar. Although I could be wrong...
Posted: Mon, 19th Apr 2010, 8:10am

Post 80 of 90

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Hm, might be. I get what he means about people who don't like the action genre per se. My mother works like that. If she sees a gun in a film, the film is going to be stupid no matter what.
I also get that there are people who go into a film expecting something the film is not - allthough that's already a tough call to judge.

But there are so many more reasons people might walk out of a film and not like it then just these two. Something as complex as a movie-experience depends on way more then just two factors.

Besides, I don't think the fact that someone likes or dislikes a film can't really lead to any valid conclusions on this persons mindset. Like "someone who likes Kubrick must be intelligent" or "someone who likes michael bay must be stupid" or "someone who doesn't like Clash of the titans either doesn't like action or expected the wrong thing" and all the other similar statements I've read so often. smile
Posted: Mon, 19th Apr 2010, 12:44pm

Post 81 of 90

Hybrid-Halo

Force: 9315 | Joined: 7th Feb 2003 | Posts: 3367

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

I half agree with what Thrawn is saying - but I don't think it applies to Sollthar. There's a lot of half-assed film critiquing going on lately and for a variety of reasons.

Clash of The Titans, 2012, Transformers, The Mummy. There are all films that are exactly the film they advertise being. Pretty brainless, epic action movies. I think they're all enjoyable films if you accept them for what they are.

However, the separator between them is that Transformers and The Mummy seem to know what they are and play to it. I laughed so much watching both of those films, the cheesy lines or the silly humour because it was like the film saying "you're watching a brainless action movie, enjoy yourself".

On the flip side, 2012 and Clash of The Titans seem to take themselves so seriously that it begins to grate a little bit as it isn't quite good enough to be an action movie with character/depth like Die Hard. So... Enjoyable movies, yes. Fun? Right! A good cinema experience, sure. But I can understand why people would say they are not good movies.

-Matt

p.s. Good to see that Sollthar has finally stepped up into the position of adjudicator of what is, and isn't cool. razz
Posted: Mon, 19th Apr 2010, 12:56pm

Post 82 of 90

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

I love that people paint Sollthar to be someone that hates cheesy, fun movies when his all-time favourite movie for a long time was The Mummy Returns.

Thrawn - nobody was expecting those films to be Shawshank Redemption. Just because someone doesn't like an action movie, don't assume that all they can appreciate is arthouse or serious dramas. That's a really weak stance to take.
Posted: Mon, 19th Apr 2010, 1:07pm

Post 83 of 90

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

I love that people paint Sollthar to be someone that hates cheesy, fun movies
I love it even more. The "sollthar hates fun" assumption is refreshingly opposite to what I usually get, which makes it even more interesting. biggrin
Ah, Mummy Returns. Those were the times. You know that I've watched the first "Mortal Kombat" four times in cinemas too? I love it. razz


I probably just don't agree with generalisations like that. I mean, it's often a mistery why certain films work or don't work - even to me. I didn't expect Iron Man to be much for example, but I loved how much fun it was. It's just not so simple.

I just didn't think Clash of the Titans was much fun. The only moment, apart from laughing at how bad certain things were, that got a decent chuckle out of me was Mads Mikkelsens death scene in which he slowly smiled while turning to stone. I thought THAT was badass and cool. The rest, not really.

But hey, as usual, I'm happy for everyone who walks out of cinema and had a good time.
Posted: Mon, 19th Apr 2010, 1:16pm

Post 84 of 90

Fxhome Dude

Force: 996 | Joined: 1st Jun 2009 | Posts: 927

CompositeLab Pro User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Just thought I'd make note of something I said before the film came out.

Fxhome Dude earlier wrote:

I personally think it's gonna tank in the box office amd kinda flop, but...well wait and see.
I conjure with the reviews already here. Mediocre film that will be lucky to be remembered in...5 years?
Posted: Mon, 19th Apr 2010, 7:53pm

Post 85 of 90

Thrawn

Force: 1995 | Joined: 11th Aug 2006 | Posts: 1962

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Sollthar wrote:

Now, to me, the only reason people wouldn't like this film is either (A.) they don't like the action genre, or (B.) they were expecting this to be something it wasn't. So really enjoyable films like Transformers, Clash of the Titans, or even the later Die Hard film is tossed off to the side and labeled a "poor film", when the reason it was determined "poor" was because those who had reviewed it had done so with.. well, a narrow mindset
Is that really how your mind works? Are you not capable of processing the reality that some people might just look at certain films YOU like without either of the two mindests and just... not like them? Simply have different ideas of what "enjoyable" or "fun" means? Is a "narrow mindset" by definition a necessity if the outcome disagrees with yours?

That's rather fascinating.
Okay, you're clearly misinterpreting my post. My fault, I didn't write that out as clearly as I should have. Those two words at the beginning of my post should have been emphasized more through italics or something. To me. I wasn't trying to say that absolutely everyone that didn't like the film must fit into one of the two categories I give them. That's a bit of an odd stance to take. I was just trying to point out how hard it is for me to imagine how action fans wouldn't enjoy this film without perhaps expecting it to be something it wasn't. But I also have problems imagining 1,300,000 earths could fit into our Sun that looks like it's the size of a baseball, but I know it's true regardless. So that's my bad as far as how I wrote that out.

I do, however, think that a lot of people fit into my category B, which is extremely bothersome to me. The sad thing is that many popular reviewers also fit into that category.[/i]
Posted: Mon, 19th Apr 2010, 10:57pm

Post 86 of 90

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Sollthar wrote:

The "sollthar hates fun" assumption is refreshingly opposite
Just shows you: Once I make a ruling on something, I'll beat it into madness yeah. But then, eventually, it'll become synonymous with being 'the truth'.

Case and point circa 2006 from me: "Sollthar hates fun."

And so it was and came to be. wink
Posted: Tue, 20th Apr 2010, 4:33am

Post 87 of 90

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Good action movies have great action in them.

Great action movies have relatable characters that we grow to love and care about, in addition to a story/plot progression that is satisfying and is fed by the character's actions, in addition to some pretty cool action.

Clash of the Titans fits into neither of these categories (at least to me), and I therefore didn't like it.

Just cause it's an action movie doesn't mean that certain fundamentals of effective storytelling can be ignored. This is part of the reason why I hated Transformers 2. The first one had a decent story driven by plot motivated action, and actions of characters that we cared about. The second one scrapped all of those things in favor of an all out action/vfx sh*tfest, and the result was absolutely terrible.

Compare that to something like Terminator 2 - a movie I find to be one of the best action films ever made. Period. Because James Cameron understands this basic principle of character driven action and used it with far less pomposity that he ultimately ended up achieving with Titanic and Avatar (even though those two films I quite enjoy).

Action for action's sake isn't really an excuse, and settling for that is what makes studios believe they can continue getting away with making subpar films.
Posted: Wed, 21st Apr 2010, 9:13am

Post 88 of 90

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Evman wrote:

Good action movies have great action in them.....This is part of the reason why I hated Transformers 2
I know this has nothing to do with anything and that Armageddon isn't TF2, but I was looking through a list of the films in the Criterion Collection just recently and humorously realized that there are only a handful of films from the past 20 years in the collection that are American movies; and that out of those- and amongst the likes of Traffic and Rushmore and Benjamin Button- there's both The Rock and Armageddon.

Just thought that was kinda funny...
Posted: Wed, 21st Apr 2010, 4:13pm

Post 89 of 90

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Armageddon and The Rock are excellent action movies and some of my favorites. TF2 is nowhere near their level.
Posted: Wed, 21st Apr 2010, 4:35pm

Post 90 of 90

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Armageddon is nowhere near the level of The Rock either though imo. The Rock is awesome. cool