# Clash of the Titans



## Water Bob (Mar 3, 2012)

Scanning around the tube (can we still call 'em "tubes" eventhough they no longer have tubes?), I've come across the remake of Clash of the Titans.

What did you guys think of this film?

As a whole, I liked it OK, but some things in it did some real damage, imo.  The Giant Scorpions were pretty cool, but the followed that up with the dumb looking Star Wars rejects in the desert:








Blue eyes that light up like Christmas Lights.  They look like what would happen if a Tusken Raider and a Jawa mated.

Medusa is OK, if a bit too "CGI Computer Game Looking", but don't forget the stupid witches who held that silly eyeball in their hands.







Yeah, I'll go watch the upcoming sequel this summer, but I sure hope they cut out the cheese this time.


Your thoughts?


----------



## Tonguez (Mar 4, 2012)

hated it.

The original Clash was an orgasmic romp that defined fantasy cinema

the sequeal was cool giant scorpions


----------



## Stormonu (Mar 4, 2012)

The remake is utter crap, compared to the original.  Going to it in 3D was one of the worst mistakes I've made in a good long time.

On it's own, its _okay_, though the witch part was really bad.

However, all said, I'm probably going to see Wrath of the Titans.  At least it should have an original storyline.


----------



## trancejeremy (Mar 4, 2012)

My problem with it was there wasn't much character development. In action movies there has to be a little, so there is tension when there is a fight, and you feel bad when a minor character gets killed off. Even villains, like in say, Die Hard


----------



## Water Bob (Mar 4, 2012)

Tonguez said:


> The original Clash was an orgasmic romp that defined fantasy cinema






Stormonu said:


> The remake is utter crap, compared to the original.





While I can't say the new one was anything worth bragging about, in my estimation it was better than the original.  I thought the original was crap.

C'mon, that hoaky owl?

The only thing it was good for was the sight gag in the remake.







trancejeremy said:


> My problem with it was there wasn't much character development. In action movies there has to be a little, so there is tension when there is a fight, and you feel bad when a minor character gets killed off. Even villains, like in say, Die Hard




Yes.  The best character development came at the end, when the players were getting killed.

When Mads Mikklesen's character takes one for them and says, "Tell them a man did this", then smiles as he turns to stone is probably the best piece of character development in the entire film.

The film, for me, was hit and miss.  3 out of five stars.  Worth watching if you're in the mood for it (and not in the mood to be too critical).

But, yeah, I did like it much better than the original.





There haven't been a lot of good fantasy films made, like, ever.  There are a few.  Of course, Lord of the Rings comes to mind.  But, there's not a lot of D&D-ish, Swords & Sorcery or Greek mythological films made.

What other fantasy films do you like.

The first, Arnie, Conan film was decent.  I liked the recent remake, too, but, like Clash of the Titans, it's really just a step above utter crap.  I certainly see why many people trash it.

What else has been made--fantasy films that you liked?


----------



## Tonguez (Mar 4, 2012)

Okay when the movie came out I was 9 but I have watched it since and imho it remains  a classic of 1981 that managed to have better monsters and a more coherent and intricate story than the remake. Moreover the characters had personality and plausible motivations. Calibos was a tortured soul, the stygian witches had purpose and the snake-tailed Medusa remains the most outstanding reimagining of a classic monster.  

Bubo, the hoakey owl was comic relief and a R2D2 hommage, and is thus forgivable whereas the cgi rendered flop of 2010 is not (I still have no idea why those wooden sandmen were even in the movie)


----------



## Rogue Agent (Mar 4, 2012)

Googled up a review I read awhile back that summed it up pretty well:



			
				The Alexandrian said:
			
		

> It’s very important, when hiring a screenwriter, to make sure that they aren’t suffering from a terminal case of ADHD.
> 
> *Perseus*: I will do this without the help of the gods!
> *Some Guy*: Our comrades are dying because you won’t let the gods help!
> ...





You can also add "Perseus' entire family" to the list of people Zeus notably didn't revive at the end of the movie.

The original isn't exactly a classic of cinema, either. But it at least succeeded in being coherent.


----------



## Recidivism (Mar 4, 2012)

The newer movie was awful in basically every way. Though in particular what bugged me was the silly "I hate gods!" attitude. The writers of this script couldn't figure out what they wanted to do with this movie, so they start injecting modern American atheistic/anti-authoritarianism into a character who is special precisely because of his divine heritage.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Mar 4, 2012)

The remake was dissapointing. I never felt any reason to sympathize with any of the characters and the film seemed to jump from CGI encounter to encounter without much story element.


----------



## Aeolius (Mar 4, 2012)

Sam Worthington couldn't act his way out of a paper bag... virtual or not.

I enjoyed the Stygian witches in the first movie far more that then remake but both pale in comparison to the Gray Sisters upon which they were based:

Graeae : "THE GRAIAI (or Graeae) were two, or some say three, ancient sea-daimones (spirits) who personified the white foam of the sea. They were grey from birth, and shared among themselves a single detatchable eye and tooth. Perseus stole these and compelled the sisters to reveal the hidden location of their sister Gorgones. Three of their names suggest rather dire monsters--Deino "the terrible." Enyo "the warlike" and Persis "the destoyer." Another name, Pemphredo, "she who guides the way," simply refers to their role in the Perseus story."


----------



## David Howery (Mar 4, 2012)

the best thing about the first movie was Judi Bowker.  The best thing about the second one was Gemma Arterton.  That sums it up pretty well...


----------



## Klaus (Mar 4, 2012)

Water Bob said:


> As a whole, I liked it OK, but some things in it did some real damage, imo.  The Giant Scorpions were pretty cool, but the followed that up with the dumb looking Star Wars rejects in the desert:




He looked awesome! A wizard who encased his spirit in a body of petrified wood! That's a great example of how you can have a construct race in a fantasy setting (I'd use the same stats as a warforged).




> Medusa is OK, if a bit too "CGI Computer Game Looking", but don't forget the stupid witches who held that silly eyeball in their hands.




They looked awesome! So grotesque and distorted! Sure, it was all very Pan's Labyrinth, but I can't fault them for drawing upon a pitch-perfect movie! The medusa was too CGI-game-cute.

But yeah, the plot and acting were horrid. 4 out of 10. Sam Worthington is one of the most overrated actors out there.


----------



## Eridanis (Mar 5, 2012)

Moved to the Media forum.


----------



## Desdichado (Mar 5, 2012)

ExploderWizard said:


> The remake was dissapointing. I never felt any reason to sympathize with any of the characters and the film seemed to jump from CGI encounter to encounter without much story element.



Indeed.

Still better than the hoakier than belief original.  But neither one of them was a good movie.  Faced with two bad movies, I'll take somewhat incoherent special effects spectacle over the alternative, but I'm not really happy about having to make the choice either way.


----------



## NewJeffCT (Mar 5, 2012)

David Howery said:


> the best thing about the first movie was Judi Bowker.  The best thing about the second one was Gemma Arterton.  That sums it up pretty well...




IMHO, Judi Bowker circa 1981 > Gemma Arterton circa 2010

I loved the original when it came out in 1981, but I was 14 1/2 when it came out.  To me, it was just a thrill to see fantasy on the big screen at the time (plus, the partial nudity helped at that age...)

However, when watching the original again, it does seem cheesy/hokey, though Harry Hamlin was better as Perseus, I think.

The new one had some great effects and some good moments, but the Djinn seemed out of place.  I thought the overall battle with the medusa was very good - fast paced & harrowing.  Though, the djinn playing a key role in it at the end ruined it for me.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Mar 5, 2012)

Hey all! 

Its interesting to compare the two. The original I saw in the cinema when I was 8 and I'm convinced it went on to inspire my love of fantasy.

However, taking off the rose tinted spectacles, the sequel is pretty darn good and probably the better overall movie despite some shortcomings.

In the sequel, the action sequences are tremendous. The giant scorpions, Kalibos, Medusa, the Kraken. Each of those scenes is utterly brilliant.

What totally doesn't work is the romance angle which seems a bit forced, on top of Arterton playing a sort of aloof character for the most part (contrasted against her much 'more human' performance in Prince of Persia).

Also I noticed when watching some of the deleted scenes on the dvd that a lot of the build-up to Andromeda getting kidnapped was cut from the movie. With those scenes back in, the ending would have been a lot more dramatic.

Equally, there are a few scenes wit the gods that were not in the movie release (Apollo was initially meant to give Perseus the golden coin to pay Charon - note the coin has the image of the sun on it) which sort of build on the tensions within the pantheon.

Overall I thought it was good. I'd give it an 8/10

Looking forward to the sequel in a few weeks time, even if it looks out of place for Sam Worthington to be sporting a 'Harry Hamlin' haircut.


----------



## Mark CMG (Mar 5, 2012)

The recent Clash of the Titans was a bad movie remake of a bad movie.  The original might be the worst of the movies that included Ray Harryhausen's cool special effects and his cool effects showed up in some really bad movies.  I'm hoping the new movie makes a departure from the recent remake and discovers what Avatar discovered, and what Harryhausen did, that as long as you don't try to make the story of the movie into something it is not, you can use it as a loose way to string together cool effects into a passable plot and people won't hold it too much against you.  These are movies about effects with thin plots and archetypical characters.  Trying to pretend we're all watching Shakespeare is just going to ruin the point of the movie.


----------



## Zelda Themelin (Mar 7, 2012)

I didn't like the remake. Original had certain charm and was rather cool in sometimes awkard ways. I don't even put that to special effects of the time, but rather to true nature of some stuff in mythologies.

Remake was overtly violent. Put on some nasty torture scenes. It was entertaining but rather forgettable. I didn't have much to say after movie was finished.

I didn't like the take on gods/titans. The idea to me was horrible stab on mythology.

I didn't like any of the characters. 

For little extra not, they took stab on poor mechanical owl of prior version. "who would ever use something like this, har, har". Actually I laughted. Poor owl.

I might go see the follow up. For pointless cgi. It was pretty good actually. I don't expect much plotwise.


----------



## Jhaelen (Mar 7, 2012)

NewJeffCT said:


> I loved the original when it came out in 1981, but I was 14 1/2 when it came out.  To me, it was just a thrill to see fantasy on the big screen at the time (plus, the partial nudity helped at that age...)



I was probably about 12 when I watched it and I absolutely loved it.

I very much doubt I'd manage to watch it these days, so I don't. I'd much rather keep it in fond memory.

I haven't seen the remake yet, but I might watch it if it's on TV and I'm bored. I recently watched Outlander and actually enjoyed it, so who knows?


----------



## Thunderfoot (Mar 8, 2012)

Movies have these people in them, they are called actors, they are supposed to act.

In the first movies, there was a stupid firk..ding... owl, a crappy set of special effects (though pretty awesome for the time period), and a pretty abysmal script.  But the actors, they acted, they immersed themselves in all the crappiness they were dealt and did their job.

In the second movie - the effects were awesome... everything else, script, directing and most of all the actors.... they all forgot to show up while the cameras were rolling and a few of them (Lian and Ralph, I'm looking at you) should have known better.  I preferred Percy Jackson to this tripe.


----------



## fanboy2000 (Mar 8, 2012)

*Medusa*

Here's my problem:

In the original, Perseus can't look at Medusa directly so he uses his shield as a mirror.

In the remake, Perseus _can_ look at Medusa and the whole thing is just typical fight. 

Basically, my problem is that the remake actually made Perseus _dumber_.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Mar 8, 2012)

It was a 're-make', never a good sign.  
Myth was just wrong - get the story right, hell get the characters right!  Hades does not have a place in this myth.  
Actting poor but this was to be an action flick, so can be forgiven a bit.
CGI - some was okay, others not so.


----------



## David Howery (Mar 8, 2012)

Hand of Evil said:


> Myth was just wrong - get the story right, hell get the characters right!  Hades does not have a place in this myth.




not to mention the Kraken, which is not only not in the story of Perseus, it's not even in the right mythos....


----------



## El Mahdi (Mar 9, 2012)

I liked it.  I thought the acting was actually quite good.  I think the actor's abilities to set a mood and feel that made Ancient Greek Warriors feel archaic, brutal, slightly alien to our modern sensibilities, and yet highly competent in a timeless way, was very good.  It's a skill involving subtly in a larger than life arena, as much the directors skill as the actors, but I think the pulled it off very well.

I liked that the mythological creatures seemed truly mythic and terrifying, which is the way they are described in myth.  Greek heroes survived against mythical opponents who clearly outmatched them, some with world altering abilities, and the movie showed that perfectly.  I thought the visualizations were incredible.

For me, this was Greek Myth brought to life.

I will be adding this to my movie collection as an all-time favorite.  And I'm happily anticipating the sequel.


----------

