On Harryhausen

[Magnus]

I noticed Ray Harryhausen's "Jason and the Argonauts" recently got a profile on here. While I love the movie and rushed to write something for it, I just spotted a little tid-bit from the "About this Site" profile. This is the quote: "Keyframe excludes films which uses animation for photo-realistic special effects that are meant to blend seamlessly into the live-action."

It seems to me that Harryhausen's work qualifies for this...but then on the other hand he is often considered the king of the age of stop-motion animation, so I guess I could see either side of the dispute. What does everyone else think?

[GrafSpee]

If an exception is made for this, then it opens the gates to a lot of other films that could fit within the same boundaries, such as the original _King Kong_ and _One Million Years BC_: any film that used stop-motion animation within a live-action film. And, if you allow non-cartoony stop motion animation to be included, then it is a small step to allow films with CG effects to be included.

I like many of the movies that Ray Harryhausen had effects in. However, I don't think that this site is about those kinds of movies and they probably shouldn't have profiles for those movies here.

[MonkeyFunk]

A while back we had a three-page discussion on the subject at the editors' forum... maybe someone should move it over to the public board for thoughts?

[athena]

Okay, I've moved the thread out of the Editor's Lounge. You guys can view it here (http://keyframeonline.com/forum/showthread.php?t=457).

I did give the go ahead for "Jason and the Argonauts" to be added based on lupercal referencing a quote from Ray Harryhausen.

I watched a 45 minute interview with Ray Harryhausen the other night, in which he said that he liked stop-motion because it didn't seem real - that in his opinion it was important to present fantasy in such a way that it was obviously not real (for much the same reasons that people argue against photorealistic cgi today). So if he can be believed, he wasn't trying to be 'realistic'.

I was going to ask though if we can get those skeletons or some other animated element into both of the main profile pics--just so it's a bit clearer as to why the movie belongs on the site. I realize it's a fairly small part of the film, but it's something we've been doing with other predominantly live-action films like "Mary Poppins" and "Bedknobs and Broomsticks".

[starlac]

Replaced the image with Jason fighting an animated hydra.

As was previously mentioned, this was a profile that wasn't added lightly and took a great deal of talking between the editors. And yes my worry was that it could open floodgates. That sentence of lupercal's that athena quotes is what ultimately swayed me too. Still I acknowledge that this is about as far as you can lean on the tightrope of our "reality rule" as one can go without falling off, so to speak.

You may also note in the thread that we talked about putting films that were regarded as landmarks in CGI animation development up in articles: though that's as far as it has gone, for now.

[servewithchips]

So, does Tron qualify now?

[athena]

Replaced the image with Jason fighting an animated hydra.

thanks.


One question, because I haven't seen the movie, why are Jason and Medea listed in both the actor and voice actor area?

[athena]

So, does Tron qualify now?

Ooo... I haven't seen Tron in ages, so it's hard for me to make the call.

What's actually animated in it?

[Inkwolf]

Heh...not to kick the floodgates or anything, but I happen to have Valley of Gwangi on loan from the library at the moment, as well as two of the Sinbad films...if there's any intention to add those eventually, telling me now would be a great way to get screen caps. :D

[athena]

augh... why do I feel like holding back these floodgates is going to ultimately be a futile effort... :lol:


Ink, would it be too much to ask of you can screencap them and we'll hold the images (for the moment) for proposed VFX Hall of Fame? ...which I'm going to need to figure out how to code since I really want to keep those out of the main database.

blargh, I keep trying to dig myself out from get out from under freelance work and it just keeps piling up... got another website contract today--it just never ends... :(

[Inkwolf]

I'll get on it. :D

[starlac]

why are Jason and Medea listed in both the actor and voice actor area?

Because the voices were dubbed over the original actors (apparently).

[servewithchips]

Ooo... I haven't seen Tron in ages, so it's hard for me to make the call.

What's actually animated in it?

Well, there is quite a bit of rotoscoping for clothes, hats, etc, but the landmark use of animation was in the computer animated light cycle race along with other blocky cg vehicles and ships.

Wikipedia has more info, but I though this quote was worth reposting

"In the year it was released," says director Lisberger, "the Motion Picture Academy refused to nominate Tron for special effects because they said we 'cheated' when we used computers which, in the light of what happened, is just mind-boggling."

[leoneb]

Just asking: Frank Zappa's 200 Motels (a 1971 surrealistic rock movie made by Zappa) has a 10-minute long animation sequence depicting a drug-induced trip. Should it be qualified?

[athena]

Just asking: Frank Zappa's 200 Motels (a 1971 surrealistic rock movie made by Zappa) has a 10-minute long animation sequence depicting a drug-induced trip. Should it be qualified?

Well I haven't seen it, but we do already have Pink Floyd's The Wall (http://keyframeonline.com/Animation/Pink_Floyd_-_The_Wall/969/), so if it's anything like that I would say it qualifies.

[athena]

Because the voices were dubbed over the original actors (apparently).

hmm.. but the aren't dubbing an animated character, correct?

Personally, I think in the context of an animation site, that information is going to be confusing... when I first saw it I thought perhaps there was an animated version of Jason and Medea in the film.

[athena]

"In the year it was released," says director Lisberger, "the Motion Picture Academy refused to nominate Tron for special effects because they said we 'cheated' when we used computers which, in the light of what happened, is just mind-boggling."

My reluctance is that there isn't any real character animation in the film, which tends to be the dividing line between animation and visual effects.

[starlac]

hmm.. but the aren't dubbing an animated character, correct?

That's correct.

If you wish to remove them then go ahead, as you can also delete the two actors from the database list, as neither have no other roles in it.

...they said we 'cheated' when we used computers...

Ironic really :lol:

I haven't seen Tron in years and have little recall about it. Yet I would also say it lends more towards using CGI as a tool for visual effects. Perhaps the lettering of our 'rule' should be more akin to "animation for animation's sake." I don't know the back story of Tron, but I think the creators wanted the audience to believe in their computer world totally and unconditionally. Although I do agree that it was a landmark in computer graphics for film.

Harryhausen's comments about his own work led me to believe that he never intended anyone to believe that the skeleton army, etc, where absolutely real; which, to me, validates it enough. The other factor that convinced me was that the film these days was more likely to be remembered for its animation than for anything else. I had, before reading this, held the opinion that the studios were trying to be as realistic as possible, within the limitations of what the (at the time) current technology allowed.

Consider this: before Steven Spielberg used CGI in Jurassic Park, he needed to be convinced that the imagery it would provide was realistic enough for his needs: basically that it needed to be good enough so that an audience wouldn't question it, but rather accept it as real (barring normal suspension of disbelief). How, before the team of ILM had shown him their demo, Spielberg had considered using an advanced form of stop-motion for the film as the most realistic method of getting the dinos on screen. After ILM had shown him their demo, he dismissed stop-motion completely for his film, on the grounds of realism.

That film was regarded as a milestone in computer graphic animation: the date where the medium went from just making things like killer liquid-metal robots, etc, and started making 'living breathing' organic creatures.

I suppose the question is still whether the makers intended it to be blatantly recognized as animation. If it was meant to “blend seamlessly into the live-action,” or not. If the answer is still no then perhaps that film doesn't belong on keyframe's database.

There have, of course, been films that used 2D animation for visual effects. Ghostbusters (film) for instance, used it for the proton lasers. So the VFX argument ranges across the entire board of animation techniques.

[leoneb]

Well I haven't seen it, but we do already have Pink Floyd's The Wall (http://keyframeonline.com/Animation/Pink_Floyd_-_The_Wall/969/), so if it's anything like that I would say it qualifies.

Well, The Wall have many animation sequences, 200 Motels got only one, but it's quite long.

[Inkwolf]

Heh, speaking of Ghostbusters, that might qualify as a listing. :p Those ghosts were VERY cartoony, and certainly not meant to be taken seriously.

[starlac]

I'll look into Ghostbusters, but if I remember correctly, the ghosts were mainly puppets (a la Jim Henson), apart from Stay Puft, who was a guy in a suit.

Still worth a look.

[Inkwolf]

Oh, okay. I only saw it once, and come to think of it, that was pre-CGI, wasn't it? :p

[athena]

hehe, yea 1984 would make Ghostbusters very much pre-CGI. That would put it five years before the water tentacle in Abyss...


In any case, I really don't think we need to be mining part-live action all that hard given the amount of no-questions-asked straight animation that we can still add to Keyframe's database. ;)

[MonkeyFunk]

There's some stop motion in GB - the library ghost and the dogs - but I think it might be going a bit too far... Ray Harryhausen is a revered figure in animation, but I can;t name whoever did the Ghostbusters animation off the top of my head.

(quick note - both Harryhausen and Tron are covered in Jerry Beck's book Animation Art)

[Inkwolf]

Heh, I just had my Harryhausen Movie Night at the library...we showed Valley of Gwanji and 7th Voyage of Sinbad, and the kids who came loved it. (Small audience, but appreciative.)

There's a really nice feature about Harryhausen's work on the 7th Voyage DVD. It shows long clips of other movies, as well as some work that was never used, such as his childhood films and test footage for a movie that was never made.