ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ก.ย. 2024
- What if the 1963 movie Jason of the Argonauts had smoother stop-motion animation for its effects scenes made by the famous Ray Harryhausen? I used an AI program to interpolate the scene to a higher frame rate to see what that would look like.
You liked a similar video I did about 1933's King Kong, so I thought I'd do a sequel of sorts. What do you think of the results?
✨ Programs used:
-I used Flowframes with RIFE to interpolate the framerate from 23.98 fps to 191.74 fps and then used FFMPEG to reduce that back to 60 fps. Flowframes is free and you can find it here: nmkd.itch.io/f...
I'm #captrobau and I like to make interesting videos about AI. Don't forget to like this video and subscribe to my channel if you want to see more videos like this. I regularly upload AI upscaling examples, reviews/tutorials for AI software and more.
The original bronze statue was intentionally made to have stilted animation in order to simulate metal having a tough time deforming in order to move. Ray even expressed his frustration with executives that couldn't understand this.
if metal deforms it hardens and eventually breaks. the executives were right
@@Blox117 yea and irl statues don’t come alive.
Its not about stiffness but smoothness
Ps it still looks stiff
I dunno, the Terminators move around just fine
@@Dilaudid281 terminators have joints
the skeleton movement was actually pretty good in both original and 8X
I remember reading somewhere that the skeleton fight scene took like 3 months to complete
both look the same
Jason and the Argonauts (original) had some top notch special effects for the day.
@@Novusod Yeah my understanding was when it came to the Greek action film craze it was clash of titans for the best movie but Jason and the argonauts for special effects.
Hell yeah it is harry is amazing at this stuff
My God, the special effects of this movie are incredible for being from '63
The soundtrack as well. The use of atonal effects is really effective.
"Must have been the wind"
Screeeeech BWWUAAA BWUAAAA
nah fuck that.
Hola, Piña 😬👌
@@Massivecarcrash Don't forget the percussions with the skeletons
Estás en todos los canales, piña
Jesus loves you!
Proof that an active understanding of the rules of animation is more important than frames per second. Ray Harryhausen was really a great.
Harryhausen was a giant of cinema. Such an incredible innovator, these movies were nothing without him.
Also anyone who knows jack about stop motion in this era, knows the main issue wasn't the lack of frames, it was the lack of motion blur..
@@Deadener Motion blur? With 3D figures? How would you achieve that?
@@hutchmusician You wouldn't but if you do this today in CGI you add motion blurred at render, it makes everything look more realistic.
BUT DOOD BIGGER NOOMBER MEAN IT MORE GOOD, DOOD!!!!
There's a certain charm to these stop animation effects that hold up well to this day. Must have been mind-blowing to see this in the cinema back in the day.
Yeah. They outdid even CGI up until fairly recently.
It was.
Yep, it was (:
I'll add another "it was". Really scary!
It's mind blowing seeing it today
For a movie made 58 years ago ,the effects are awesome
58 (.ish). either that or I'm younger than I thought I was.
It came out in 1963.
Honestly looks better than most CG crap today
@@martinzwaan2721 yes you are correct
@@AA-db9cb uhm, no. Lmao
I think the jerkiness adds something of the uncanny valley to them. It makes them scarier and is more atmospheric. This film is so good
Absolutely true
Oh enough of this stupid god damn word. 'Atmosphere' this and atmoshit that, it's honestly grating. Come up with a different word for fucks sake.
Jason and the Argonauts is a masterpiece. Along with Seventh Voyage of Sinbad and Clash of the Titans it’s one of Harryhausen’s best films.
For me, it is the higher frame rate that makes them seem uncanny. That’s the case for me with all media with a higher frame rate that aren’t TH-cam videos of modern people talking about random stuff. I think my eyes are too used to the old frame rate.
I first saw Jason and the Argonaunts when I was 3. Was fascinated about ancient civilizations, legends, and history ever since. I'm 35 now.
For a movie from 1963, this is still unbelievably far ahead of its time and so well done
unreal to think about. we can't even use a 10-15 year old device without getting frustrated. and they did all of thie shit in 1963!
That's what happens when people are allowed to create something to the highest quality and integrity capable. It's something all groups workin on endeavors need to understand. Your work will be diminished the minute you are forced to compromise a lot and make major concessions in your craft.
It's still one of the best stop motion sequences of all time
Even long after I forgot the name of the movie, I still had so much footage stuck in my head, particularly the skeletons and of course Gorgon who terrified the shot out of me. This movie is such a treat to 8-12 year old boys.
It’s not ahead of its time at all. In fact it’s within its time.
Blade Runner, 2001, Avatar, Inception. Those films are ahead of their time, and pushed boundaries
It’s amazing how they were able to do this all before CGI. There’s something really special about stop motion
Though even old CGI has its charm, seeing the brilliance and ingenuity that has to go into the tricks used to pull off what they did back in the day.
LOTR developer diaries is certainly an interesting watch in that subject.
The fact that someone stood there and put heart and soul into manually moving the figures in a way that felt right to their eye for every single frame is whole different thing to scripting some movements in a piece of software and wandering off for a frappucino while it renders.
It was _amazing_ special effects for that time! I watched this when I was about five and was so terrified by the skeletons fighting, especially, that I remember it clearly today.
I haven’t seen it since, so I’ll have to watch it with my husband now, fifty years later, to see how it compares to my memory!
The low frames make it look more scary, somehow
@@PutItAway101 Animations on software can also be hand moved to each individual frame. That’s not with motion capture or scripting.
I remember watching this movie as a kid. A fantastic memory! ✔
Me too....
I had nightmares as a child after seeing the statue scene.
i watch this in class highschool mid 90s
Jason and the Argonauts, Clash of the Titans... Great stuff.
I agree 👍☺️❤️
I think the original animation should be kept for just the statue. It's made entirely out of metal with no actual moving parts like joints or hinges, the jerkiness makes sense for it.
Defo. I also think the jerkiness also conveys the sense of sheer weight.
@@moviearchaeologist9655 I think the mass should lend to it being less jerky, due to conservation of momentum and all.
The old one looks more like it’s breaking the laws of space and time to come after you, and therefore more scary.
Agreed, the "jerkiness" was part off the character. It added to the magic.
@@TinTeddyVideos I find it is quite the opposite. Give me CG any day
Yes!
CG isn't real, these Harryhausen originals were actual real solid things. The difference is lost on these modern days. I'll keep the handcraft, personally.
@@MSTL144 real doesn't mean better. Just keep that in mind? Sure everyone may want practical effects but if it looks terrible or low budget than what's the point? Time and effort wasted with no pay off. Same goes for cg
Choppy slow motion isn’t always bad, sometime it helps make something feel eerie and inhuman. (Evil dead and evil dead 2 are main examples)
Shop Smart..
Shop S MART.
YOU GOT THAT!
This smoothing effect always give me this uncanny feeling. There is something wrong in the way it smooths the frames - makes things too even, and gets lost on key frames.
Yeah it's interpolation, so it's trying to automatically create or "paint" in-between frames that don't exist. Guessing what would be there. That's why it'll often feel even worse than material natively made in 60fps, like video games.
It's just that just are not used to see it. Especially if you were shown the original right before it will feel out of place.
@@christopherstein2024 Not at all.
Look at the fragments Akira or Little Mermaid which were animated in 60fps and they lack this uncanny feel. Look at most modern video games where at least 60fps is standard.
That is the issue with frame interpolation being applied across the board - it kills the momentum, evens the tempo of animation even in places where it is not needed, because it is incapable of distinguishing between key frames.
I haven't seen the original, and I thought the animation for the statues was a massive improvement. I know others are complimenting the charm of the jerkiness, but for me, without having the context of the full movie, it just seemed as a downside that was improved upon by the smooth FPS. Perhaps I'd appreciate it more having seen the movie, but I speak as somebody who hasn't seen this film. Is it 100% Perfect? No, but I view it less janky and jerky than the original.
I noticed it on the flying creatures, I don’t know much about the technology used but it looked like they cgi them. Something was just wrong about the way it looked.
One movie i used to enjoy seeing my dad watch. Rip pops
Ok but it's wild how good ray harryhousens animation was to begin with
Agreed the best never to be forgotten
It's because he was an artist, with the eye to see how things could be, should be and would be, and then made it happen. He was supposed to be bastard to work for in his exactness, but when it was all finished everyone felt the joy and pride of doing something that has held up to this day.
He was the absolute master.
@@eyellgeteven9928 Anyone who wanted to be a animation master, studied his movies. Like that is some punishment, "Thank you sir, may I have another movie.".
@@bobh.6108 Haha, no doubt.
My Dad was a cinematography prof for a while, and he loved Harryhausen. He took me to see Jason sometime in the early 70's, and at one point he set up a primitive stop motion animation studio for my sister and I to use. Also taught us ho to edit / splice film.
Ray was the best.
nice
Is your Father still alive? I always wondered what the creator of such special effects opinion of AI/Neural Network enhanced Framerates would be. Do they approve? If they had the tools back then, would they have done a better job? And if possible some kind of Frame by Frame analysis describing the original fottage and its errors/limitations and what the enhanced version fixed/made worse.
I would appreciate anyones input ofc!
@@G4m3G3ni3 Inserting my personal opinion as someone in the industry today (for what it's worth), I imagine they would've absolutely loved it if it was indeed available to them. They were basically just people trying to get by with the tools and techniques they had on hand at the time. (That said, I would love to hear their own insights and perspectives on it.)
I loved my dad, who of course was the best dad ever. That said, your old man sounds awesome.
Crazy thing is these stop motion effects still hold up pretty well today
The compositing has aged poorly though. Didn't match lighting very well.
Practical effects do not age, it is that simple.
@@Voltaic_Fire well technically they do.
Practical effects rely on a wide range of technologies. Materials (a foam rubber alien head from the 60s isn't going to stand up to a modern silicon latex mask with inbuilt animatronics). Lighting, camera technology, even chroma key technology to superimpose images (such as what was done in alien 3 to superimpose the stick puppet alien onto the video of the actors)
With modern technology it's possible to produce higher quality miniatures, smaller robotic parts or even remote controlled puppets.
The Jason and the Argonauts example used in this video holds up pretty well but if done with modern practical effects would be much more realistic. As modern lighting rigs are better suited for lighting the shots, modern materials allow for a more realistic look, and modern chroma key technology allows for better blending that film was made by just 30 years after the first use of chroma key, we've had 90 years to refine the technique.
Modern camera capable of filming at higher speeds allow for much smoother stop motion by filming and playing back more frames
That said, while it does age, it doesn't age as badly as CGI.
Look at the space combat scenes in DS9 or Babylon 5 which were ground breaking for the mid 90s but now look terrible.
Where as Jason and the Argonauts while the green screen and stop motion is obvious it still less jarring despite being 60 years old. Compared to CGI less than 20 years old.
Though interesting fact I learned recently the reason that CGI is so prolific today is because practical effects and 2D artists are unionised thus require a living wage for their work while CGI artists don't have a union thus are severely underpaid by studios (usually being paid 80% industry standard minimum wage)
Just this guys opinion but HD makes older productions look less real.@@crwydryny
Talos's movements were terrifying. A living colossus is perfect for stop motion. @leetabern1940
This movie must’ve been absolutely mind blowing in 1963 when it came out.
it was :) same as The Valley of Gwangi which i saw at the drive-in as an 8 year old in 1969
If it moves too smoothly it's going to look naft. The original has a feeling of weight and size
This is a valid point. Some scenes could be smoothed and slowed down, don't you think?
Stop-motion creates robotic movements (scarier) and adds as an effect, while the Smooth version looks like a normal person doing mo-cap.
based leokimvideo. nice to still see you on youtube.
100% this. they absolutely nailed the mass / heaviness with the original, making it super smooth loses that realism rather than adding to it.
@@andyknowles666Making the whole picture smooth (generating entire frames) gives it that news broadcast look.
I'm an amateur stop-motion animator and this is what first inspired me as a kid. This scene has probably made animators out of thousands of kids.
Jason and the Argonauts was one of my favorite movies as a kid, and probably did a lot to instill me with my life-long obsession with swords.
link to your work sir
@@jorawarsingh2595 Thanks for your interest. It's th-cam.com/users/furiousgibbon
@@jorawarsingh2595 th-cam.com/video/uJrygEEr-PY/w-d-xo.html
That's no concidence. I think this is _the_ go-to movie for the raw potential of this kind of art. Everywhere else, and everywhere since, stop-motion was used in short clips in live-action film. Here, it carries entire scenes, and manages to do so without breaking the audience's immersion (well, for the most part). Plus it doesn't hurt that it's all in support of a fantastic epic.
I remember seeing this movie at the cinema when it was released , I think the "stuttered"' animation of the creatures actually made it more scary.
How far long in your years are you, my man?
@@daniellee9328 Im in my 63rd year.
@@gregcrickqld Hey Greg, I took some paper route money about 1967 and watched it 3 times.
Forgot Greg Crick, I'm 65. Good times in America.
Exactly that.
That movement made this such a pleasure to watch.
I remember as a child being obsessed with the skeletons at the end and wanting them as action figures 😂
No matter the framerate, stop motion animation allays has a "jitter", because while you can easily fake the trajectory of movements, changing the velocity in a smooth manner is colossal task to do manually. But that is what gives stop motion its characteristic look, so I doubt that filmmakers would even want to correct that.
It's missing motion blur...
I missed this when I watched this movie in the original, on the big screen in the cinema. Now you have made my memories better))) Thanks a lot)))
I think the stop motion for the bronze statue and the skeletons work very well and gives them a creepiness that we wouldn't normally feel if they flowed smoothly. These things aren't supposed to be alive.
But it works for the scene where the harpies are attacking because they are alive and smooth movement looks natural.
By the way, the first time a child watches the statue turn its head to look at the human, the child almost always gives a little jump.
Because face of this statue is fkin terrifying!😅
Well, it scared the hell out of me at six years old.
Hercules: "Huh, it must have been the wind..."
Talos: (Creak) "Is that so?"
i actually disagree. the harpy scene smoothed out makes them look even more fake, taking away from the scene
Exactly; it recalls the reason that humans find arachnid and other arthropods' movements so uncanny and grotesque: their movement is literally _hydraulic_ rather than musculoskeletal. Harryhausen's animations often have that quality, which lends itself tremendously to the effectiveness of the scenes.
My papa showed me this when I was very little, we rented it from Hollywood video. It was awesome even though I don't remember much lol
The smoother ones fall too much into “uncanny valley” territory
I was thinking the same thing.
I think it's a fricking disaster. Motion-smoothing Harryhausen is as stupid as colorizing a classic B&W Hollywood movie.
Smoothing the Colossus worked nicely, it adds to the sense if size and mass, but the others didn't seem to help a great deal, and the harpies suddenly looked like they were CGI on a separate plate floating above the action. Terrible! Even the skeletons looked slightly less "real" after treatment, their background fringing and colouration not quite matching the film frame. :-(
Additionally when the smoothing overlaps camera movement instead of just the animation. The natural tracking of the camera designed to accentuate action and energy is lost.
I thought uncanny valley had to do with cgi and humans. Doesn't really work the same with statues and Harpy's does it?
The problem with these automatic methods of interpolation is that an algorithm doesn't know what the 'intent' was of the animators. Movements are simply linearly interpolated from one frame to the next, and while that works for anything moving at a constant speed and constant direction, it results in all kind of weirdness for anything else. It won't for example, hold frames that the animator wanted held, it will make movement that was MEANT to look sudden and jerky look smoother. And if you watch it frame by frame, there's lots of interpolated frames where legs/arms briefly disappear in the interpolated frames.
Watching on the big screen, the controlled jerkiness of Harryhausen's animations made them seem truly fantastical and really scary. It's an integral part of the experience and smoothing it away actually spoils the effect.
Its just an experiment, he isn't saying its better.
Its just an example, he isn't saying its better.
@@Sir_Adam Fair comment.
Agreed my friend 🫡
New isn’t always better 😊
I fully agree their largeness & off movements add to film.
The sword moves of the skeletons fighting are more energetic and convincing than the actor's performance.
That was because the actors were fighting "nothing" not even a placeholder or stand-in actor - the effects were added in later.
Someone should have reminded the actors shields are supposed to go in front.
lol! I was actually amazed they made it look as good as it is
These movies are like 2 weeks of filming, 2 years of one guy in his studio animating all the creatures frame by frame. Imagine wat Harryhousen could have done with a huge budget!
@@Klikoderat well he did work with apretty big budget, it's just that he was pushing 60's technological film making limits.
I remember back in the day when there were only three channels on the television and you only got to see this movie once a year and looked forward to it. Pretty much like The Wizard of Oz.
Or sitting up until 2 AM to watch a movie, because...that's...when...it ...was...on.
Jason and the Argonauts, The Wizard of Oz, and Roger's and Hammerstein's Cinderella were the movies shown once a year. I eagerly awaited them all.
My grandad introduced this movie to me as kid. Great memories. I would like to see a remake of this movie.
Making it smoother seems to push a lot of these scenes deeper into the uncanny valley. I think the original choppiness helps the flaws in the other effects hide in a layer of cheesiness. I suspect that in order for the smoother animation to have a positive influence pretty much all of the effects would need to be redone.
Stop motion monsters are 8x scarier than cgi monsters
For me the smoother animation makes the creatures move in some kind of slow-motion that doesn't fit
@@Mothball_man Anything made in real life, whether animatronics, puppets, or stop motion are more uncanny and scarier than CGI would ever do in the future.
For me, actually animating stop motion and/or 3D printed models at a rate of 120fps or greater and converting that footage to a fairly choppy 24fps with slight motion blur would probably yield the best results. This AI technology just doesn't fit the bill for me.
@@JCTelenio I agree. Trying to do the opposite, 24 -> 60/120fps isn't going to work. Hence why it would need to be a higher framerate and then go under. It's the same thing in Audio Formats, if you go from MP3 to Wav, well it'll be the same quality as it was originally downloaded as an MP3. This is why you need to go from WAV and then convert it to MP3, but without loosing the WAV file, so this way the MP3 audio is the same sound as WAV.
The unnatural movement made them creepier and more intimidating. The bronze statue just looked like somone in a rubber suit smoothed up and actually looked less convincing than the original. It's like with RoboCop, the stop motion they used for ED-209 made it feel like it had that imposing and frightening presence
These were my favorite types of movies when I was a kid. Must see TV when they were on.
Ray Harryhausen was the king. His work was absolute perfection for the time. That being said, in some instances the smoothness does benefit the shots, and in some not. But overall I would say it works great in the original, as it was an artist working at the top of his craft using what he had, with what could be done. And that alone makes it great. Thank you for helping us apreciate this artform even more!
Yes, it works with the harpies, but the skeletons and Talos seem like they'd have awkward motion.
This is the most ignorant comment I've seen on TH-cam.
Ray Harryhausen knew his medium and how to get the most out of it.
This was a great movie. I remember seeing it in a matinee in the 70s.
Kiskeya⁉️
There's something about the original though, its just great. Maybe just nostalgia. I think also in them days they didn't rely on CGI in place of a good story. Even with these outdated graphics the films are still awesome.
1963 or today, that final skeleton fight is impressive. To keep seven models moving simultaneously while maintaining a true direction of motion. Outstanding.
Now imagine it was all done by one guy who had no way to take a frame back and compare the motion. Ray Harrhansen was a savant.
"Must have been the wind."
Yes, this is definitely quality entertainment.
Skyrim NPC dialog interaction finally revealed.
@@TheZapan99 More like Geralt of Rivia idle dialogue
@@TheZapan99 *Oblivion NPC dialogue.
No, seriously. It's actually from Oblivion. Who probably referenced this.
Like,
*fantasy lyre transition music*
"Hey Matt, remember that Talos movie?"
"Yeah, Todd?"
"Remember that funny line that one guy said?"
"Okay?"
"Put it in the game."
NPC with arrow sticking out of face: "must have been the wind"
The originals are fine as they are. Harryhausen himself didn’t want his animation to be ultra realistic; he wanted to keep a unique fantasy quality. The skeletons and Talos are therefore perfectly eerie in their movements. Thank you, Ray.
Saw the film in the theater when I was kid. Unforgettable. Terrifying. Took a bad acid trip about twelve years later, the dragon teeth skulls came alive. Fun.
Legendary film of my youth. There's no telling how much I pestered my parents to see this because they are no longer here to ask. Jason and the Argonauts (1963) has aged like a fine wine.
just imagine how much this must've blown people's mind when it first aired
Yes! It would be so fun to go back in time to watch certain groundbreaking movies in the cinema when they were released and witness people's reactions to it.
@@ThePrecipice66My mom took me to see this film when it was first released. I was 9 yrs old and it was AWESOME! Still watch it every time it airs on TCM. A true classic.
Blew my mind in 2004 when I was a kid
@@reneemulherin2899 Right there with you.
@@reneemulherin2899 Oh man I'm jealous. I think the closest comparable experience I have is going to see Jurassic Park.
I love how more menacing and terrifying the colossal statue is with the original FPS.
I’m 54 & I still love this movie & the effects. My favourite bit is when Talos comes to life 😍
The Saturday matinees....life was perfect back then.
@@michaelbrownlee9497 Ah yes, I remember it well!
The slight jerkiness adds to the otherworldly effect. The figures blend too much to the motions of the humans at the higher frame rate. Ray knew exactly what every shot and motion should look like. A true genius.
I like the experimentation. It does go to show where more frames isn’t necessarily better. For an animator and director, knowing how this changes the feeling of c a shot is important.
Looks better to me xd
@@BucketBoatablehow, its literally just the same thing sped up.
@@charlesnelthorpe9252 No, it's at the same speed. Read the description to see how it was done.
The original movie Jason and the Argonauts (1963) is truly a work of art.
Ray Harryhausen and his team really put their hearts into amazingly complicated and intricate stop motion work.
I remember the first time I saw this and how damn scary those skeletons were coming after Jason and the gang.
Like King Kong decades before, Jason and the Argonauts changed the face of fantasy Hollywood movies forever.
Bravo to all those involved in making this fantasy masterpiece.
Actchually... anyway interesting tidbit, it might be just Hollywood legend, but the consensus is that Harryhausen did all the animations. Like he didn't have a bunch of dudes moving the statues, he was doing it alone, which kind of makes sense, as I don't think you could do this as a team. every guy would have a different approach on how much each model moves at a frame, and he would have had to check all the models at every frame still.
Interesting. Reinforces my love for hand-created stop motion. The harpies just look like characters from a video game. Increasing the framerate of human action makes it look like videotape soap operas.
The skeletons work well with the smoothing effect, but the bronze statue looks better in the original, because the jerking gives it an impression of weight and size that's being removed in the processed footage.
Well done, regardless.
I love how the effects here are better than some movies these days
@@georgeeskiadis5637 but this is lifeless clay, or lifeless puppets? Not sure what they're using.
@@bleppyboo5969 but its real clay
@@the98themperoroftheholybri33 clay is lifeless though, besides, the best effects can come from a union of practical and digital. This video even kinda proves that point. My qualm was just stating CGI was lifeless when clay or whatever material is also lifeless
@@bleppyboo5969 the point is the eye can tell what is real and whats digital, clay is real but polygons aren't, we're not talking about lifelike here we're talking real and not real
@@the98themperoroftheholybri33 George literally said lifeless.
Not gonna lie , this looks better than 80% of what’s currently out there.
Why is this more terrifying than some movies today?
It's because they can show things now that they couldn't back then, so they'd have to think about it and work it out. Up until some point in the late '80s early '90s when the special effects and standards got to the point where they could show pretty much whatever they wanted to, movies got far less scary as directors seems to have forgotten the art of the cutaway. Friday the 13th part 5 had a particularly hard to watch scene where they stopped just shy of showing somebody's head being split open by a leather strap. Psycho had a few shots like the shower scene where I don't believe the knife blade ever actually touches her. I think the side of the blade may have at one point, but definitely not the sharp bit. Or Night of the Living Dead. Try watching that one late at night with nobody around.
Because more thought, love, and attention went into one scene than a complete modern film where someone is sat at a computer dumbly clicking a mouse.
@@stephenlee4820 Hey! I'm one of those people clicking on a dumb mouse all day and want to inform you there is more to it than that and CGI isn't the problem. It's the production studios and rush happy execs that are why detail is thrown away. However some films that do bad at the box office get a complete bad rap because, you have to put up with the bad story to marvel the VFX. Jurassic Park (Good film, Good CGI), Terminators 2 (Good film with CGI for T-1000 and Nuclear Nightmare longshot debris and shockwave not, closeups nor matte of the city), Genisys and Dark Fate had effects that really blurred the line but, the latter 2 were crappy films because, of bad story. Equal if not more can be achieved with CGI if production and executives would pay attention to past successes that earned them more money overall.
@@coreym162 TLDR -> Studios believe effects can replace excellent narrative, they can't.
@@coreym162 Oh a bad storyline certainly doesn't help. And personally I think the writers of today are void of any original ideas. Over 90% of releases today are remakes, reboots, sequals, and prequals.
And I wasn't saying all CGI is bad, but it uses software that makes life easier. Ray Harryhausen on the other hand spent weeks shooting a few seconds of footage.
I just love how the skeletons in this movie would go on to inspire one of the most basic enemies in found most RPG’s.
Reminds me of Spinal from Killer Instinct
funny how here they are predicted as strong, none of our main heroes being able to kill one of them. the skeletons besting two before the main of the film just about escapes with his life. while in other media they are seen as basic easy to kill enemies.
@@melvinfrooksspinal was based off of the argonaut skeletons explicitly
And circle triangle!!!!
Skeletons, Giant Rats and Kobolds. The nightmare fuel for lvl 1 adventurers everywhere.
0:10 Skyrim guards
Some work better in the original, some look better in the "smoother" version, but either way Ray Harryhausen was a genius who gave moviegoers some of the most original and thrilling scenes of his time. More than anything, he surely did it for the joy of capturing what he imagined for the screen.
the "otherworldliness" of the jerky motion makes the original much more scary and menacing for me.
Especially the skeleton warriors.
Still one of the best movies EVER made. If it’s on tv 9/10 I’m watching it
I remember the sheer awe I felt, when I saw "Jason" as a child (yes, I am that old!), brand new back then, in a terrible (but also awesome) German dubbed version - the phantastic effects made me fall instantly in love as well with Greek mythology as with the secrets of movie techniques! It was a magical experience! The smoothed, sped-up version looks, a-hem, nice, but not better than anything I would expect from a medium-quality computer game. Maybe I am a hopeless boomer, but "technically better" does not always mean "improved", when it comes to works of art - smoothed Star Wars would be a horrifying example (Han shot first, dammit!), and nobody would want to see paintings by Rembrandt, Monet or William Turner "smoothed" to look 3D-realistic (shudder!)...
I agree. Smoothing over Harryhausen's animation is a little like airbrushing over Rembrandt's paint strokes.
For the giant stone or metal statues, and the skeletons; the low frame janky animation is better in my opinion. But for the more fleshy bodies, the better frame rate does look better.
You can do all the CGI you want, but the colossus ROCKS! Did you see that oxide in the bronze statue? Make it look so real!! those details is missed in much of the CGI nowadays.
I disagree, I feel extremely high budget CGI could do this and make it look much more “realistic.” I feel the jerkiness in this adds to the art style, though.
Ray Harryhausen was a legend. This movies art direction was really cool.
I saw this movie complete by accident. When I was a toddler, my dad was watching it and I was intrigued by everything about it from the acting, to the animation and sound. This movie arguably played a big part as to why I wanted to be an actor or performer
Honestly this all just looks great being all the way back in 1963. Talos' movements look perfect for being a statue made of copper and having to move that slowly. The harpies look off anyway you cut it but it definitely looks more like the models are layered over the film so eh, again it's the 60s was probably amazing to watch at the time. I think the skeletons work just as well during the fighting scene in the original but moving faster also looks great.
A great film in its day and I still love now.
It's really impressive how well these effects hold up.
Its crazy that the 8x smoother makes it seem less real lol
It improves the smaller creatures like Harpies and Skeletons, but somehow makes the giant statue worse-- it takes away the lumbering effect and ends up reminding me of the Godzilla effect of putting a person in a suit in on a scaled down set.
I think the smoothness actually helps to realize how they intended for the creatures to move. Skeletons and harpies are more human and can maneuver easier, but the clunky stiffness of the statues is intentional to make them feel more like living metal.
The harpies looked terrible at 8x it was like someone was dragging around an animated gif in Photoshop.
If the giant is made out of rusty metal, it would make sense for it to have jerky movements. As for the other beasties, I guess it could be argued that the Harpies would be able to move at a faster pace, but it would be difficult for a bunch of skeletons without anything resembling a muscular system to be able to move their bones, so I probably prefer the jerky movement with them too
Harpies scene looks like a flash game. It looks terrible.
@@B3RyLI think it's due to how the wings flapped. At a lower framerate, our brains fill in the gaps more. This makes them feel more chaotic and organic.
Basically, by smoothing the animations, it slows down our perception of the Hectic harpies, and to a degree the same is true with the skeletons.
The people saying about it feeling more organic appear to be missing how that slight jankiness and inorganic aspect causes them to appear more mythical and unsettling.
(Apologies for the rant or if I repeated stuff that's already been said, short term memory issues)
Original was fine. This is an amazing movie, everything about it fantastic. One of the best movies ever made, scenery, acting, locations, story. If you haven't seen it yet, see it.
I remember watching this movie as a kid and I was terrified when Talos started to move and hunt the men!
IMO the jerkiness of stop-motion was a feature, not a flaw. When done well, It gave films an otherworldly quality to them...spooky even.
Absolutely agree. The 120fps on live action makes it look like a cheap modern TV-cosplay.
Harryhausen confirmed this himself.
As do most people.
Honestly, now that I see it in this context, this is 1 of the rare instances where the original holds up better because of the concept of the fx itself
Really good idea. Cool results.
You know, something that would be interesting in a giant moving metal statue would be the joints growing red of and weaker from the friction.
Amazing film in its day and still has some of that ominous feel it had.
As a kid, I didn’t expect the bronze statue to move fluidly or the muscle-less skeletons to move normally. I was amazed by the these shots, seemed accurate enough for me.
The stop motion is honestly way more charming.
This issue isn’t with the frame rate, it’s the lack of motion blur.
exactly just ro smooth makes them look even faker
Yeah, my buddy has the motion smoothing on his smart tv. Makes movies look like shit.
I disagree. The smooth statues stepping down look more human at the start.
facts
@@captainvoluntaryistthestat3207 You can disagree all you want. The reason why stop-motion looks jittery, even when animated at 24fps, is due to a lack of motion blur. When films are shot, the shutter speed/angle results in a subtle blur to motion that helps smooth it out and feels natural. Setting a higher shutter speed can be used to create more jittery motion, such as the beach scene in Saving Private Ryan. Stop motion captures a perfectly clear image for each frame, meaning no motion blur.
In the 80s, ILM developed a technique called go-motion that moved the models as each frame was taken, creating the missing motion blur. It was used in Empire Strikes Back for the AT AT walkers and Tauntauns, which is why that stopmotion looks as good as it does.
Honestly, while the sped up scenes were smoother, this just proved to me how well this stop motion holds up over the years.
Higher frame rate is not the same as something being sped up, just so you know. In fact, filming at a lower frame rate gives you a sped up effect.
I like that both the original and smoothed versions work for different reasons. The original's chunkiness makes the bulk of the creatures that are in Jason and the Argonauts feel more realistic, but the smoothed versions also have this really distressing fluidity that makes them feel particularly unnatural. They're both stunning technical achievements and are both awesome in their own ways.
Anybody else think it’s worse with smoother motion? The choppier motion makes the statue guy seem less human and thus more frightening since it is human form.
I agree with what people have said about Talos' intentional jerkiness, however I still love what you did!
It improves it a little bit. The matte integration at [1:13] was the biggest visual anomaly.
When you watch a classic movie on a modern day TV that has the "Soap Opera" effect turned on by default >_
Very true, turns every film into unwatchable amateur looking garbage.
I've tried explaining this to family members with newer TVs, I hate it! It makes everything look like low budget garbage.
Oh there is a "Soap Opera" effect? I was wondering why everything looks like a soap opera on new TV's. I was not sure what it was, even with things are high rez.
@@daniellclary it's called "Motion Enhancer" or "Motion Interpolation" and it's usually cranked up... especially on TVs that are on display in stores. It's the first thing i ALWAYS turn off. That and the "noise reduction" crap which removes a lot of picture details. And yet that stuff is always on by default when you get a factory new Television set.
Exactly! This is the very first setting I alter when buying a new tv! My last two tvs had this setting... I haven't found a legitimate use for it yet!
Like a videogame scarier cuz thats closer to how they would move in RL but og is charming
It does add a realism but it really shows how amazing Ray Harryhausen was. Without modern technique was able to create something so close. Legend.
The statue is very careful in getting off its platform and I think that's funny.
I've only seen this movie recently and am amazed at how good these scenes are. With all the fancy CGI nowadays, this somehow looks more real in some way. The jerkiness gives it away that it's not real but somehow it also adds realism. In CGI, movements seem to swish/glide from one posture to another whereas in real life movement is more abrupt and people shift around/twitch more. The stop motion, whilst not being 100% accurate all the time, does convey more natural movement. That's why anime characters facial expressions seem so much better, they're quick and sudden like real peoples.
Great explanation on the movement and why it works
I grew up with Ray's work and miss that they don't play 'every Saturday morning' like when I was young. This film was fantastic in more ways than one. The jerkiness just made the statue and skeletons extra creepy.
It also has to do a lot with the lighting, it's very difficult to get lighting right in CGI, but on a model, it's literally just lit.
I've noticed they seem to employ a sort of accelerate fast at the beginning then slow at the end formula. The movement at the beginning is sudden and natural but it tapers off slowly at the end in an unnatural drifting, coming to a break manner. Natural movement mostly starts suddenly and stips suddenly with slower bits in-between. Playing around with my own arm movement as I write this, they completely neglect that the whole body moves in some small way both at the beginning as a lean or tilt, and after the main movement is over as a wobble or slight retraction.
I don't know if it did much for the stop-motion characters but it made the people look alot more real and alot less 'movie'
This was so groundbreaking in terms of visual effects for the time. Smoothed over or not, I still think it's so eerily life like and still stands shoulder to shoulder with any VFX seen today. Looks so so sick!
Nah fam this looks goofy and off 1:22
“Must’ve been the wind.” Dude sounds like an NPC in Skyrim. 😂🤣
It's the inverse. Skyrim's NPCs sound like him.
When I was a kid this is the movie that awakened my lifelong obsession with skeletons.
I see a lot of comments saying they like the original better, in some ways I agree, but I'd still pay to see a remaster of the entire movie.
honestly, the 120 frames just adds a very miniscule improvement to the stop motion
Human eyes only see between 30-60 frames per second.
A common misconception. The limit on eyes is limitless but there is only so much your brain can handle. Most people can see in the multiples of hundreds.
@@JonCombo no
@@kobaye2111 David Barlow already covered it.
For most of them they all look great in both, it when those 5 or 6 skeletons are all fighting the hero’s, 120fps looked incredible, and make it look really fast paced and a bit more exciting
The other scenes it didn’t add so much to the experience
There's a certain charm about stop motion especially when it's done well. The amount of work for such a small amount of screen time is mind-blowing. Ray was the king although Jan Svankmajer also did some impressive work with the technique.
And look at Karel Zeman's movies, he is Czech Harryhausen is sort of way.
one of the best movies of all time. better than most cgi film nowadays
1963 special effects were not to bad honestly, more visually appealing then a lot of modern cgi
I never understood the people who say the stop-motion in this didn't age well. Are you kidding? I was terrified watching this in the 90s as a child and I imagine kids these days would be too. There's something deliberately un-natural and other-worldly about the colossus and skeletons in this film, the animation really helps convey that. How WOULD they move without muscles to facilitate the movement?
Stop motion gave it that unnatural look that created fear, the smooth animation takes some of that away.
The ''smoother'' animation has lost all weight to it. Its floaty and just moves like bog standard CG animation. It was perfect the way it was.