Talk:Clash of the Titans (1981 film)

List of trivia

This article seems mostly a list of trivia and alledged inaccuracies -- hardly encyclopedic. No sources are cited (aside from a reference to the Internet Movie Database). And much of the trivia and "inaccuracies" cited are spurious. (e.g., how is Bubo's similarity to R2-D2 an "innaccuracy"? Why is a Sonic the Hedgehog comic book that just happens to share a title with the movie worth mentioning here?) An encyclopedia should say more than, "Here's what's wrong with this film. And here are some random pop culture references to it." As written, this is not a very good article -- it has very little to do with the subject film itself and its impact. 66.17.118.207 14:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with you, but keep in mind that a lot of wikipedia articles are works in progress, constantly being updated. It's possible that the author of this article simply didn't have any more info to add. Anyone with info that can improve this article should feel free to make additions. CPitt76 20:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

There's no harm in having a "References in popular culture" section if it's done right. However, if it's only going to be about titles which parody this one, we can probably get away with constraining everything into a quick mentioning for the already-existent "Trivia" section. For example...

• In popular culture, the film's dramatic title is often punned for comedic purpose. These include the 1998 The Simpsons episode "Trash of the Titans" and the 2007 Crash Bandicoot video game "Crash of the Titans".

...or something to that effect. Of course, there are probably close to a dozen more out there. Isn't it worth mentioning the influence this film has had on modern media? 58.7.239.5 (talk) 05:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Trivia sections are discouraged, because they tend to become indiscriminate lists of crap. If the film has had a notable influence then those influences can be put into the article, preferably in another section. Geoff B (talk) 13:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

As someone who was alive at the time, Lucas was being deified, despite the fact that Star Wars was a rip off of everything that had come before. That's why the comment about Bobo & R2D2 has any meaning. AND since the movie is being remade and re-released, that alone shows it has cultural influence. All the stop motion will be CGI, of course, but it was still bad ass in 1980. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.49.126 (talk) 07:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Harry Hamlin voiced Perseus in God of War II and his character model was even originally based on Hamlin's appearance in the movie, though this design wasn't used due to licensing issues. That, at least, should merit a mention somewhere. Spartan198 (talk) 10:41, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Aphrodite's Temple

In the movie Burgess Meredith clearly states, "Aphrodite's Temple." The Myth may be Athena's temple, but the movie uses Aphrodite's temple. As this is the article for the MOVIE and not the MYTH, the article should be corrected to reflect the movie. Several other liberties are taken, all in the name of cinema. As of Aug 2009, the movie is in rotation on AMC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.49.126 (talk) 07:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: For those new to Greek myths: Posiden and Athena were rivals. The Greeks would dedicate a city to the best god. Posiden created horses, and Athena created olive trees. For reasons known only to the ancient Greeks, they valued the olives more than the horse, and named the city, Athens, and the rest is jealous god versus jealous god history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.49.126 (talk) 07:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Raiders Of The Lost Ark Was Released At The Same Time?

No, Raiders Of The Lost Ark Was Released either before that or after that! So that should be deleted! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.204.215 (talk) 21:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The article for Raiders has the same release date, do you have a source which disputes that? That said, I don't think this info is necessarily appropriate in the lead of this article. — TAnthony^Talk 19:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't even get it

Why is it called Clash of the Titans? Are there even any Titans in this movie?? The Kraken isn't even Greek mythology and Medusa is a Gorgan. Where are the afore.......mentioned Titans? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.160.98.143 (talk • contribs) 00:57, April 3, 2010

The name is obviously just chosen for impact rather than as an accurate depiction of the plot. However, Medusa, in some versions of the myth, is the granddaughter of Tethys, a Titan, which at least gets her on the Titanic side of the family tree. As for the Kraken, the name is certainly (and laughably) from the wrong mythology, but there was a sea monster that plays that role in the myth, represented in the sky as the constellation Cetus. Bunnyhugger (talk) 23:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move. Favonian (talk) 11:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

---

• Clash of the Titans → Clash of the Titans (disambiguation)
• Clash of the Titans (1981 film) → Clash of the Titans

– The original film should be the primary topic on the basis of "educational value". Both the remake and the video game take the name from the original film, so the original film should occupy the primary term. The original film article received 1 million+ page views during 2010 as opposed to the 37,000 for Clash of the Titans (tour), so there is a clear primary topic between those two articles. Betty Logan (talk) 17:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• Keep as is per WP:NCF and leaving Clash of the Titans as the disambig. Makes it easier to fix incorrect incoming links. Lugnuts (talk) 18:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
• Agree with the proposed move per WP:NCF#Between films of the same name: As the later film is a remake, the original is the primary topic. The comparable example is Miracle on 34th Street and Miracle on 34th Street (1994 film). --IllaZilla (talk) 19:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose because being the original film does not automatically make it the primary topic. The guideline for a primary topic is that it is much more likely than the other topics to be sought for. Exceptions include recentism and educational value. This 1981 film is not exceptional, and in the long run, I can't see this film or its remake outpacing each other. In contrast, The Day the Earth Stood Still is exceptional due to its legacy, so it is the primary topic while the remake is a secondary topic and linked in a hatnote. Other films that don't outpace each other are The Crazies and Death at a Funeral. Until we have guidelines that say all source material should be primary topics (as opposed to truly famous ones like the classics, e.g. Pride & Prejudice), there's no reason to determine a primary topic here. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:41, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

  Betty, can you explain why you think this one has educational value? I think that criteria suits very famous films better. For example, if they did a remake of Blade Runner, we wouldn't move the original film article from Blade Runner. Searching for "clash of the titans" in WorldCat.org yields very little, where if you search for "blade runner", you'll find a lot of results that show how well-studied it is. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:46, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

  Maybe "educational value" is the wrong phrase, but I think the original film is the more notable work. It is a cult classic so I don't agree that it doesn't "outpace" the remake in some respects; the current film will get more hits now for obvious reasons, but I'd be surprised if this remains the case. I would think that when people discuss/write about "Clash of the Titans" 10/15 years now it will be in relation to the original, and the other one will just be another largely forgotten bad 3D remake whose reputation will solely rely on its relationship to the original film. In the case of "Death at a Funeral" the original has never held any status in popular culture, so there is no reason that the original will get more hits or acquire a level of notability that it doesn't already have. For the record, I think the original Romero "Crazies" should be the primary topic too, on the basis it is a more notable work in terms of its reputation and also in terms of who made it. Betty Logan (talk) 17:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

  Educational value is what would put one topic in the primary slot ahead of others, regardless of article traffic. It is more readily applied to key figures, concepts, etc. For example, even if a biopic called Thomas Jefferson is insanely popular, it will never change the location of the President's article. Being the original work is not enough of a criterion to be the primary topic, which is why I think that educational value is used instead. Films can be based on famous works or obscure works or those in between, so we should try to determine the film's value, especially through WP:V. The majority of film classics that occupy the primary topic slot are very unlikely to be dislodged; like with Thomas Jefferson, any kind of related topic will pale in comparison. So I don't think we should apply the primary topic guidelines so intricately. Clash of the Titans is not exceptional by any means; search results do not show any real legacy or analysis. So without anything beyond the average, the topics' article traffic does not show one film being ahead of the other. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

  FWIW, as an average American born in 1980, I was well aware of the original Clash of the Titans (and had seen it a few times) at least 2 decades before the remake existed. In the context of "educational value", as the final film of Ray Harryhausen the film is notable for its use of stop motion animation and other special effects. I'm sure the educational value would be more apparent if this article were more fleshed-out (right now it's mostly just a plot summary & a cast list). The 2010 film would not exist if the original had not existed and been a cult classic. The original is the primary topic and is the work on which the remake is based. IMO the only reason this is even in question is recentism. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

  Well I take Erik's point, a couple of editors coming along and proclaiming it a cult classic isn't an objective measure of its education value; since we are born just a couple of years apart then maybe its just a film of our era. I do wonder if this is something we should consider in a broader context though, since by definition something is "primary" if other things are derived of it; there will be instances when a remake becomes a more notable work, but those exceptions aside, I feel the original should generally be attributed the primary topic. Even with something like "Death at a Funeral", does it inconvenience a reader to be automatically taken to the page for the original and then follow the hatnote if they want the remake? Betty Logan (talk) 21:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

  IllaZilla, I researched the topic outside to find educational value for it but did not find much. We have to realize how educational value normally applies; it means there are going to be certain academic topics that we are not going to move out of the primary topic slot no matter what else comes up. Here, we are dealing with films which are widely lighter fare than these academic topics, so application is not so straightforward. However, I think that the film needs to be more than just a defined cult classic that is not actually studied. That's why I think The Day the Earth Stood Still is a good example. I agree that recentism is a factor, but to me, that means the 2010 film should definitely not be the primary topic at this time. At the same time, I don't think we should feel compelled to push the 1981 film forward when the majority of readers are not looking for it. The disambiguation page to me is a neutral listing of topics unless we're confident that one topic is heads and shoulders beyond all others, either due to article traffic or educational value. The original film may be a cult classic, but the remake is a major Hollywood blockbuster that is spurning a sequel, and I don't think it's impossible that the remake will be studied. It's not considered good, but it can be studied for its elements. Even 300 was studied. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• Strong support -- Yes, the newer one has gotten a huge amount of coverage, but we really do want to avoid WP:RECENTISM here. Not only is the original the, well, original, it is also far more likely to have a lasting impact.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

  I think it is too early to make that claim of a lasting impact. The original film is not that closely studied. While the remake is not as critically acclaimed, it is popular enough that it could have educational value in others ways, such as with 300 linked above. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

  I mean, maybe. But there seems to have been at least some impact of the original, as there are numerous cultural effects and references of and to Ray Harryhausen's work and models and all that jazz. The remake doesn't really seem to have much continuing coverage at all (god, I remember that no one would shut up about 300 for months and months after, and you'll still always run into the internet memes it spawned.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose The 2010 film gets well over three times as many page views. I didn't watch the original, but I don't see anything to suggest that it was "educational." There is no scholarly analysis of it like there is for The Day the Earth Stood Still. Kauffner (talk) 16:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Mythology section

This section needs serious help. It has no citations and some of what it says is controversial, or applies to some versions of the myths but not others. It's really rough and possibly misleading as is. Bunnyhugger (talk) 17:35, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Bunnyhugger, the section appears to be original research, so I've removed it. We need to cite reliable sources that can cover this film as it compares to mythology. This appears to be one possible source to use. (Search for "Clash of the Titans" within the pages.) Erik (talk | contribs) 18:21, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Erik, I think you're right to remove it. I would have done so myself, but didn't feel confident since I'm not an expert on the topic. Bunnyhugger (talk) 23:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

You have the right to be bold. :) Just need to follow the WP:BRD cycle if someone undoes your edit. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC)