Moment of Silence: Ray Harryhausen

[ysabetwordsmith]

Ray Harryhausen has passed away.  He was one of the greatest special effects artists ever.  I still think his original Clash of the Titans looks better than the new CGI version, although I haven't figured out how to explain why.  I suspect it may be some quality of art that has nothing to do with technical anything.

He will be sorely missed down here, and welcomed with much rejoicing at the Great Con in the Sky.

EDIT 5/8/13: Per my request during art day, djinni has drawn a skeleton warrior in memory of Ray Harryhausen.  You can see it on the page of art day images.

Comments

[rhodielady-47.livejournal.com]

I also preferred the original Clash of the Titans to the new one.
You're right. He's going to be much missed.
:(

[rhfay.livejournal.com]

It's the details. Harryhausen added little details that others might not bother with. That's true artistry!

Hmm...

[ysabetwordsmith.livejournal.com]

The CGI was plenty detailed. *ponder* Thinking further, something I've always liked about Harryhausen's work was the sense of mass and menace. His monsters commanded the stage. They had a compelling presence. CGI sometimes looks too slick, which makes it look too easy, which makes it less plausible. The sheer twitchiness of Harryhausen's scorpions and skeletons made them creepy.

So I think the recent Clash of the Titans suffers from CGI flightiness and either not enough, or not good enough, use of dither filters to create the right kind of flaw-details. There may also be something off about the mass dynamics that my instincts can read but I can't pin down any further.

Re: Hmm...

[rhfay.livejournal.com]

Details as in little quirks of action and emotion. His work had a heart that can be lacking in the CGI work of today.

Re: Hmm...

[ysabetwordsmith.livejournal.com]

True. Harryhausen was a master of body language as well as modeling.

[paka.livejournal.com]

I think it may be because having an actual model absorbing or reflecting light may "read" better than a lot of CG models - there might be little details which are hard to get right. For instance, the translucency of Gollum's ears in LotR was something new to those movies, and I know that Peter Jackson actively prefers using miniatures for intangible "it just feels more real" reasons - maybe that's actually about him picking up on subtle lighting cues?

Yes...

[ysabetwordsmith.livejournal.com]

That may be part of it too.

I was really impressed with Monsters, Inc. for the amount of realism, despite the stylized animation. It wasn't meant to be precisely lifelike, and yet it was amazingly plausible. The characters moved as if they had true mass, and the fur rendering was just stupendous.

Gollum is different, though. He's not a CGI character. He is a digital costume. Most of what makes him work is the fact that Andy Serkis is a brilliant actor. Yes, the CGI was very well done too. But it was the performance that sold me on that character.

I think the portrayal of Shelob owed a lot to Harryhausen and other classic model-based FX wizards. She had that twitchy menace.

Re: Yes...

[paka.livejournal.com]

For the purposes of this discussion, consider that everything in Monsters, Inc or any of the other Pixar/Blue Sky stuff happens within a coherently lit and colored world, though. You're not trying to integrate this beautifully animated stuff into stuff filmed in the real world.

What I'd wonder is if, similar to the uncanny valley, there's a space where you get so close to reality that viewers spot what's off at some level. So for instance, with Harryhausen, you look at his monsters and it's obvious at some level that they're stop-motion models integrated into live footage - but you go, okay, that's cool, what's important here is that Jason is fighting skeletons or there's a cyclops wandering around, not that they're 100% believable skeletons/cyclopes/whatever. I mean if anything you'll look at how it's maybe 80% believable and go wow, someone made some seriously beautiful models and animation. Whereas you get much much closer to reality, with modern CG, and things will be about 97% believable, but that little difference will throw a viewer off at some level. If that suggestion makes sense?

Re: Yes...

[ysabetwordsmith.livejournal.com]

To some extent, the uncanny valley is valid. I have, however, seen CGI splices that were completely effective -- The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe is a good example.