Talk:Clash of the Titans (2010 film)

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
	This article is supported by the British cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Greece

	Greece portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Classical Greece and Rome Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mythology Low‑importance

	Mythology portal This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.MythologyWikipedia:WikiProject MythologyTemplate:WikiProject MythologyMythology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

Pop, Doru (2018). "Chapter 2: From Centauresque to Incongruously Burlesque". The Age of Promiscuity. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 110–111. Retrieved June 15, 2024 – via Google Books.

Sam Worthington and sandals

Worthington also did not wear sandals while filming

Well, he wore them (or at least one sandal) at one point in the film in which he had to stop and fix one and one of the Argive soldiers handed him a sewing kit to do so with. I'm looking at the scene freeze-framed on my TV screen right now at 32 minutes in and he's standing there with his toes lifted up off the sole of it. This definitely isn't a sneaker with toes painted on it. Spartan198 (talk) 11:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability for future films

This film article was created too early since per the notability guidelines for future films, since articles should only be created when filming begins. This is due to factors that can interfere with the production before cameras start rolling. However, due to the page moves involved in this article creation and the fact that filming is intended to begin later this month, I'd like to invoke WP:IAR temporarily for following the guidelines. This is what I propose: We keep the article for this month and avoid the headache of AfD or merge discussions due to all the "feels like it's happening now" headlines. However, if for some reason filming is pushed back, WP:NFF will be invoked, merging the content back to the original film article's "Remake" section until it can be determined that production will take place. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem like a lot of information (looking at the original's page) for an article to begin with, but given the time span between now and the supposed production start maybe we can delay any action till that point passes. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having been asked by Erik for my input, yes, I'm fine with keeping the article unless filming is delayed. Alientraveller (talk) 09:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chess

"They wanted to drop the element of the gods playing chess." - from the article.

The Gods don't play chess in this film. The source states that "they've dropped the cheesy chessboard manipulation of characters by Zeus and other gods that was part of the original pic." but even then it is incorrect as they don't have anything like a chessboard in the film; they instead have a model amphitheater and small statues.

The film in which they play a game of chess that controls the destiny of the central characters was 'Jason and the Argonauts'; Harryhausen's previous Ancient Greek film. The makers of this newer evidently haven't watched the older version as much as they claim. We need to modify that section to make it fit better with the facts. Sigurd Dragon Slayer (talk) 11:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Medusa?

I thought I read on here the other week that Uma Thurman was cast to play Medusa. Now it's been taken off. Did she drop out of the film? If the guy goes for Medusa's head, there must be Medusa in the movie. WTF? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.115.4.113 (talk) 20:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Late response: Thurman will be Medusa in Percy Jackson & the Olympians: The Lightning Thief, not sure how she ended up in this article at that point.— TAnthony^Talk 17:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She's still an element in the movie, as are the Kraken and the Stygan Witches.Fractyl (talk) 17:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb lists Natalia Vodianova as Medusa in the 2010 remake of Clash of the Titans. Naaman Brown (talk) 12:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's Going To Be Filmed In May 2009 And Released On March 2010

No, I read on an article that it's still along way from production, they don't even know if it's going to be filmed, so we can't know for sure! So those have to be deleted! And As For The Chess, THey Didn't Play Chess In Jason And The Argonauts, They Just Played This Board Game, And Medusa Wouldn't be Played By Uma Thurman She'd Be CGI, as She Was Stop Motion In The Original Film! So Anyways That Article Has To Be Deleted! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.204.215 (talk) 21:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's also worth noting that March comes before May. Spartan198 (talk) 13:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Muse considering doing soundtrack

http://www.nme.com/news/muse/49099 ^they are undecided as of now but might it be okay to add Muse under Music?ShokuMasterLord (talk) 02:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

How come there is no section for criticism against it? [off-topic rant deleted] Undead Herle King (talk) 13:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forgetting for a moment that a talk page is not the place to discuss your personal opinions about a topic, the lack of criticism sections means only that no one (including you) has taken the time to find a reliable, verifiable external source that has reviewed the films. This would include commentary found in books, magazines, or respectable web sites (no forums or blogs). Though I'm not sure a Leonard Maltin review is going to get into the comic nerd stuff like the Kraken's appropriateness in the Perseus myth.— TAnthony^Talk 17:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with TAnthony. We need to back any criticism with reliable sourcing and also ensure that it is not undue weight. Erik (talk) 18:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only piece of real criticism I've found (read: aside from bloggers and film snobs) was an interview with Ray Harryhausen saying there's no real reason to remake it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4K4I59jUTs Mattlittlej (talk) 04:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a valid thing to include, then, perhaps in a "Reaction" section. So, too, would be the opinions of the "film snobs" you mention IF they are critics and/or other writers whose job it is to write about movies/film. Ninja housewife (talk) 01:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image

We should probably discuss whether the group thinks the "Medusa" or "Kraken" version of the poster is best to identify the film. Currently there are appropriately-reduced 300px versions of both available in the edit history of File:Clashofthetitansremakeposter1.jpg.— TAnthony^Talk 17:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm torn because I feel like Medusa is more iconic, but I also think the Kraken version is more visually stimulating.— TAnthony^Talk 18:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the 'Kraken poster' is much better than the 'Medusa poster' as it actually shows more than one mythological creatures and icons; The Kraken, the Harpies, Pegasus and Perseus. While the Medusa poster only shows Medusa and Perseus.

iTunes App

So I removed this section several weeks ago, but it was reverted by TAnthony because the app "must be licensed". This may be true, but is there any evidence that the application is actually associated with the film (and thus merits mention here)? Secret Squirrel Studios does not seem at all connected with Warner Bros/Legendary Pictures, or even the film itself: the application only features information about the mythic creatures/figures which can be seen in Clash of the Titans (and are in the public domain). It seems to me that the people behind the application (which does cost money) are attempting to use Wikipedia as a means to advertise their product in a way that is less than honest. Unless there is an external source (besides Secret Squirrel Stories) connecting the film to the application, I think it needs to be cut. FallenSon (talk) 01:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Production

There's some grammar issues that really need to be cleaned up in this section. I hope to get to them when I can. For example:

"But Norrington was unsure about his direction for the project, because he did not grow up with the original."

This really reads better if you don't start a sentence with but, so it could just be switched around. Also, this could be read two ways- 1. he was unsure about his ability as a director or he was unsure which way the project would go. Could be said more clearly with:

"Because Norrington did not grow up with the original, he was unsure about the project's direction." or

"Because Norrington did not grow up with the original, he was unsure about how to direct the project."

Also, the next sentence could be read several ways as well, so it can be cleaned up:

"Leterrier, who did, contacted Norrington through their shared agent about replacing him by June 2008."

First, if you read this sentence by itself, the phrase "who did" is just a little off. Second, does the sentence mean they wanted to replace the agent? -- "...contacted Norrington through their shared agent about replacing him by June 2008." (I know what you mean in context but it could just read better grammatically). So how about this:

"Leterrier knew the original movie well, and by June 2008 had replaced Norrington as director."

For me personally, I would just leave the agent out of it, but if you wanted to make it read with a more interesting twist, perhaps something like, "It turns out the two men shared the same agent, who contacted Norrington about Leterrier taking over."

```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by NeedFiction (talk • contribs) 01:01, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Calibos

In the 1981 version of Clash of the Titans, Calibos was the son of Thetis, goddess of the sea. In the 2010 version, neither Calibos, nor Thetis exist. AdamDeanHall (talk) 14:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Calibos does exist in the 2010 version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.87.117.98 (talk) 22:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not to me, he doesn't. AdamDeanHall (talk) 16:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Acrisius IS Calibos. He calls himself that when Hades comes to see him. "There is no Acrisius, only Calibos." or something to that effect. 152.117.237.58 (talk) 06:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Calibos was added by Harryhausen, and supposedly based on Caliban from the Tempest.Green Herring (talk) 00:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Killing off Perseus" and giving Calibos "a bit of his power". Can't we use less colloquial English, please!

Budget

The budget figure has changed so many times it's silly. I'm setting it to empty until somebody can provide a reliable source. -- PabloBM (talk) 22:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's been added and sourced. Always check the Los Angeles Times "Movie Projector" a few days before a film is released, they will usually report the budget. :) —Mike Allen 02:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Difference between it and original

Why don't we have a section with a list of key differences between the new one and the original? Because they're alot of them that really change the mythos of Perseus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.7.201.91 (talk) 01:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, knock your self out-Golem866 (talk) 11:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I haven't compared the two films yet, but I have added a short section contrasting the plot of the 2010 film with the classical myths. Hope people find it useful!Ethdhelwen (talk) 13:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:FILMHIST, we need to report analysis of the film and its source material, we cannot conduct analysis ourselves. Readers should visit the figures' articles for coverage outside the film. I'll try to find analysis about how this film compares to the original myth. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an article comparing the films, which is another kind of analysis. To compare to the classical myth, we need something like this, but unfortunately that website is not reliable. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This could be used, too. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Differences between the film versions and the original Greek myths could be useful. Naaman Brown (talk) 02:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:FILMHIST:"If ample coverage from secondary sources exist about a film's historical or scientific accuracy, editors can pursue a sub-topic sharing such coverage in a section titled "Historical accuracy" or "Scientific accuracy" ("accuracy" being applied as neutral terminology)... ...Readers and editors should take for granted that there are many ways films conform to, and deviate from, history or science. Analysis should be introduced by reliable published secondary sources that compare the film with history or with science." I decided not to call my section 'Historical Accuracy' because it does not relate to historical events. My section was not a critique of 'accuracies' or 'inaccuracies' as compared to history but a simple summary of differences with classical myth, backed by references to the original primary sources. No comparison with history is at all necessary, as these are mythic events, not historical ones. Nor is there a 'true' version of the Perseus myth to begin with as there are several tellings of the myth anyway. This film joins them as a new retelling.

From WP:FILMHIST:"Wikipedia's "No original research" policy says about synthesizing, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."... ...Avoid listing miscellaneous information about accuracies or inaccuracies whose relevance are not backed by secondary sources; they are typically trivial to the topic. If analysis is limited, links should be provided to historical or scientific articles so readers can read about topics based in reality after reading about the work of fiction that uses these topics with dramatic license." I hope my contribution was not seen as original research, it was intended as a very quick summary to get people to either the Perseus wikipage or to the cited sources. Seems very self-defeating to judge sentences such as "Acrinius is the King of Argos in the classical myths (see original myth and Wikipedia page on orginal myth)" as original research. It is a simple statement of fact, that what is, is. It is a summary statement, linked immediately to the primary sources. Each of my statements was referenced to versions of the original sources of the myth of Perseus. It seems strange for an encyclopaedia to prefer instead to link to potentially inaccurate web secondary sources, often with an 'I hate/love this movie' axe to grind, before statements of fact can become 'relevant'. Would instead a link simply to the Wikipedia page about Perseus be acceptable?Ethdhelwen (talk) 12:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we can create a "See also" section in the article per WP:SEEALSO. It's just that the presence of historical or mythological information in a commercial work has the appearance of analysis. Readers of this article should be reading about the film, and if there is analysis from reliable source from the film vs. the original or the myth, it can be included. In the meantime, we can point readers to the actual articles with the "See also" section. :) Erik (talk | contribs) 12:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Filming locations

from an edit, I have added Maspalomas Dunes in Gran Canaria, and Lanzarote like a locations in Canary Islands, but someone has deleted thats information, please.. add that information again --IIRaimaII (talk) 16:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2 days with no answer.. please, add that information, or this article is incomplete.. IIRaimaII (talk) 18:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible reference to the original movie

I was curious about the significance of the mechanical owl in the movie when I remembered that in the original 1981 film a mechanical owl played an important role in the movie, so could this be a possible reference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maiorem (talk • contribs) 10:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's an explicit allusion -- if not an exact replica of Bubo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.246.123.254 (talk) 06:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page Clean-up

This entire page needs a serious editing job to clean up a multitude of spelling, grammar, and syntax issues. I plan to start as soon as possible, but if anyone else feels like chipping in, please do so. Thanks. Bodypuzzle (talk) 05:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source for massive postproduction changes

BY ZEUS! THE VERSION OF CLASH OF THE TITANS YOU DIDN'T SEE, chud.com.--Nemissimo (talk) 14:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2D-3D misery

There's bad buzz, but creators defend Clash of Titans' 3-D scifiwire.com.--Nemissimo (talk) 13:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Creatures section

I know that a section on links to the classical myths was removed because it was seen as duplicating links, so I was wondering if we should keep the Creatures section or not?Ethdhelwen (talk) 13:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary information

I cut out the information about the tentative release date and shooting start date, because it was referred both and in different ways. The two I deleted were wrong because other news have been posted later inside the article and there was no necessity to keep four different dates where two are wrong. Sorry for my bad English, hope you understood the point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.248.234.10 (talk) 01:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Historical clean up

Praetorians were of Roman influence...not Greek. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.228.93.228 (talk) 06:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ozal and Kucuk

What are those Turkish names doing in this film? In Turkish kucuk means small and ozal (ozel) special. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chonanh (talk • contribs) 01:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Part taken from Islam

The character of Suleiman and his army of Djinn is obviously taken from the Quran where it says that King Solomon was granted power over the Djinn, forcing them to serve him and leading some to believe that he was a sorcerer. MatrixM (talk) 12:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Influence: 300

The story may be based on an obscure movie I've never heard of before (and film history has always been my best subject!), but haven't any critics mentioned so far that the whole style of this new franchise in cinematography, pacing, lighting, production design, color grading, special effects, editing, scoring, and using thin allusions to ancient Greece as an excuse for an ultra-violent action movie is basically a rip-off of 300? You could basically edit shots and scenes from one franchise into the other and only notice the difference by suddenly missing previously established characters. I'm not saying that it makes any side any worse (as none out of the two franchises are good for the plot or script side, being all style and little substance outside of "Hulk smash!", only that 300 as a film could be additionally read as proto-Fascist propaganda for the Iraq war), I'm just surprised that nobody seems to notice. --2.241.69.52 (talk) 09:22, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Events

Events 119.93.198.0 (talk) 11:02, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry? Meridiana solare (talk) 15:09, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]