I like the look of the CGI, but then I also liked the Spirits Within (saw it at the theatre iirc). Although I am a little worried they have messed with the story, but in the end, I still want to see it, after all, this is beowulf!
It's something about the water effects and the skin which really gives it away still. When Angelina Jolie is shown in the first minute walking past the light, there's something really off about the way the lighting happens there.
Reflections are pretty much the biggest issue with CGI still. My guess is it has to do with a lack of compensation for dry skin and teeny tiny body hairs.
But then there'll be the geologic crust-like motion of skin, and tiny muscle movements.
I don't understand using digital versions of actors rather than making up a new face and then using famous persons voice.
Also I remember when Final Fantasy came out Tom Hanks was scared that the computers would take real actors work away. Well if you can keep Joile looking hot for two more decades via computer and her voice not changing much than Hanks may have a problem.
The movie is indeed awesome. See it on the I-MAX if you can.
A few points that are spoilerish/refuting earlier points..
1: Jolie's hair looks odd because it's used as a goddamn tentacle at some points in the movie. She's a demon, so that's not a big deal.
2: Grendel is NOT Beowulf's son.
3: They changed the story quite a bit, but, it was still plain kickass awesome. It's been quite awhile since I last read Beowulf, so I'm not entirely sure how inaccurate it was.
4: Jolie walking past the light looked strange because she was covered in some kind of gold magic water. It was not bare skin (It wouldn't have gotten PG-13 otherwise)
Now for complete spoilers.
Grendel is Hrothgar's son. This is due to him once being a hero, come to save the land from a horrible monster. He killed the monster, and was then tasked to kill the monster's mother, whom he did NOT kill, instead, he gave her a son, in return for becoming the most powerful king, as long as the Gold Dragon Drinking Horn remains in the mother's possession. That son was Grendel. 20-30 years later, the horn returns to Hrothgar. Grendel starts ruining everything at Hedot, because the agreement has been "broken". Beowulf arrives, kicks Grendel's ass, and then Hrothgar orders Beowulf to kill Grendel's Mother.
Beowulf then falls into the same trap that Hrothgar did. Afterwards, Hrothgar bequeaths everything to Beowulf, and promptly walks out of a window.
20-30 years later, the horn is found, and then a dragon starts ruining everything. Beowulf, instead of calling for a hero like Hrothgar did, decides to deal with his own demon. Cue epic battle, in which Beowulf cuts off his own arm to get that extra bit of reach to rip out the dragon's beating heart.
Basically: Don't go in expecting a perfect rendition.
It is especially easy to do I-MAX with CGI, because all one needs to do is add a camera 0.1 units away from the other, so I think we'll be seeing more CGI I-MAX films if this does well.
Wow, you guys could bitch about anything. I saw it last night and it was damn entertaining. The screenplay was really good and the CGI was amazing.
I am glad they went with all CGI characters rather than live action with a CGI background like some of you are suggesting. Using all CGI gives the world consistency and never presents something to the viewer that looks "off" from the rest of the world. Every time I see CGI in a live action movie it takes me out of te action because it never quite looks right. In this case, I can believe that that dragon is real because it is real with respect to everything else on the screen.
Overall I give it a B+. It was definately worth seeing, but I am in no rush to go see it again in theaters.
Rabid_Llama on
/sig
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
edited November 2007
Well the screenplay was written by Neil Gaiman, so it's no small wonder many are singing its praises.
I knew it was CG before I saw it and Ilike to think that I would have recognized it as such even if I hadn't known. I'm pretty sure I would have figured it out before the end:|
I didn't realise till the end of the trailer, but JESUS FUCK is that some good animation.
Im pretty sure none of the people I was watching it with realised either.
there is no animation in this film.
Word games are not helpful or useful in contributing to discussion. And what about the word "animation" leads you to believe computer generated models cannot be animated?
Being a pedant and wrong is always a fun combination.
It must be.
Seems to me he was being pedantic by saying it was not animation. Animation is... animating the characters. Motion capture still involves massive amounts of individual tweakings and custom animations, and even so is still, most definitely, animating.
Now that I found out Gaiman wrote it, I really want to see it. I'm also glad to see that I'm not the only person that thinks this looks plastic and worse than Spirits Within.
I didn't realise till the end of the trailer, but JESUS FUCK is that some good animation.
Im pretty sure none of the people I was watching it with realised either.
there is no animation in this film.
Word games are not helpful or useful in contributing to discussion. And what about the word "animation" leads you to believe computer generated models cannot be animated?
Being a pedant and wrong is always a fun combination.
It must be.
Seems to me he was being pedantic by saying it was not animation. Animation is... animating the characters. Motion capture still involves massive amounts of individual tweakings and custom animations, and even so is still, most definitely, animating.
I didn't realise till the end of the trailer, but JESUS FUCK is that some good animation.
Im pretty sure none of the people I was watching it with realised either.
there is no animation in this film.
Word games are not helpful or useful in contributing to discussion. And what about the word "animation" leads you to believe computer generated models cannot be animated?
Being a pedant and wrong is always a fun combination.
It must be.
Seems to me he was being pedantic by saying it was not animation. Animation is... animating the characters. Motion capture still involves massive amounts of individual tweakings and custom animations, and even so is still, most definitely, animating.
I am wondering what people who actually saw the movie think of the look of the characters. A lot of people keep saying that they look plastic but I am wondering how many actually saw the movie. You can't really get a concept for how the characters look by watching a trailer on the internet. I never once thought they looked plastic when I was watching the movie.
Actually seeing the movie it is a mixed bag. Parts of the movie work really really well. Others, not so much.
Granted, it could be that I'm just used to watching computer animated cut-scenes, so I may be too forgiving for the active parts.
Also, was I the only one annoyed by the ever changing size of grendal?
I just assumed that shape- and size-shifting are common abilities among Jolie's demon family. That thing with Grendel's big mutated eardrum or whatever being his weak spot was a little weird though.
But who else that that Beowulf's little warcry (while he had Grendel caught in the door) was fucking badass? "I am ripper, tearer, slasher, gouger!" etc.
Also, was I the only one annoyed by the ever changing size of grendal?
My girlfriend pointed this out to me after the movie but I did not notice it. IThe only time I noticed his size change was when he was getting smaller as he was getting hit.
My only complaint with this movie is that they didn't go full on for the R rating. I am talking hardcore gore and full on nudity, both male and female.
EDIT* Wait, one more complaint. It did not go into Grendel/Grendels mother/Beowulfs son enough. We were just left to assume that they were evil because they were evil. It never went into Grendel's motivations for attacking the mead hall other than that they were really really loud.
First 300, now Beowulf. Now would be a good time to make a parody of these manly man films in the same vein as Hotshots. Sadly, there is Meet the Spartans instead.
The I AM BEOWULF line struck me as a really forced attempt to create a THIS IS SPARTA tagline for the movie. It kind of made the trailer seem lame, but I'm excited to see this anyway, since people are saying good things about it.
Plus, Beowulf lends itself to stereotypical manly manness about as much as Sparta did.
Most of the plot is intact, except for the Grendel's mom/Beowulf subplot that resonates throughout the second half of the film. That never actually happens.
Beowulf also never has a "bedwoman", I think they named her Onela which is odd because I believe that's Hygelac's wife.
The biggest problem with the film is how they portray Beowulf: In the poem, he's perfect. In the movie, he's a greedy, lustful, perverted bastard. In the poem he's practically Christ-like.
Also, the whole "I am Beowulf!" thing is being blown out of proportion. He is actively trying to make a legend out of himself, which is why he yells it so much.
He wants people to remember who he is.
TehSpectre on
0
Options
AbsoluteZeroThe new film by Quentin KoopantinoRegistered Userregular
edited November 2007
I don't know shit about Beowulf, this movie looks cool, and Angelina Jolie is hot.
I am Average Joe American, and I am going to see this movie.
Posts
The reviews have been pretty good, especially compared to whats out there. I have a feeling it may top the box office for the weekend.
http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1808728058/critic
Reflections are pretty much the biggest issue with CGI still. My guess is it has to do with a lack of compensation for dry skin and teeny tiny body hairs.
But then there'll be the geologic crust-like motion of skin, and tiny muscle movements.
Also I remember when Final Fantasy came out Tom Hanks was scared that the computers would take real actors work away. Well if you can keep Joile looking hot for two more decades via computer and her voice not changing much than Hanks may have a problem.
A few points that are spoilerish/refuting earlier points..
2: Grendel is NOT Beowulf's son.
3: They changed the story quite a bit, but, it was still plain kickass awesome. It's been quite awhile since I last read Beowulf, so I'm not entirely sure how inaccurate it was.
4: Jolie walking past the light looked strange because she was covered in some kind of gold magic water. It was not bare skin (It wouldn't have gotten PG-13 otherwise)
Now for complete spoilers.
Beowulf then falls into the same trap that Hrothgar did. Afterwards, Hrothgar bequeaths everything to Beowulf, and promptly walks out of a window.
20-30 years later, the horn is found, and then a dragon starts ruining everything. Beowulf, instead of calling for a hero like Hrothgar did, decides to deal with his own demon. Cue epic battle, in which Beowulf cuts off his own arm to get that extra bit of reach to rip out the dragon's beating heart.
Basically: Don't go in expecting a perfect rendition.
Yes it is.
It is especially easy to do I-MAX with CGI, because all one needs to do is add a camera 0.1 units away from the other, so I think we'll be seeing more CGI I-MAX films if this does well.
I am glad they went with all CGI characters rather than live action with a CGI background like some of you are suggesting. Using all CGI gives the world consistency and never presents something to the viewer that looks "off" from the rest of the world. Every time I see CGI in a live action movie it takes me out of te action because it never quite looks right. In this case, I can believe that that dragon is real because it is real with respect to everything else on the screen.
Overall I give it a B+. It was definately worth seeing, but I am in no rush to go see it again in theaters.
I thought the movie tried too hard, people were snickering during some of the dramatic and fight scenes.
Plus,
It must be.
Seems to me he was being pedantic by saying it was not animation. Animation is... animating the characters. Motion capture still involves massive amounts of individual tweakings and custom animations, and even so is still, most definitely, animating.
So... what was your point?
Or were you responding to him and not me?
Hahaha, silly Mike. Him.
Oops :oops:
*ahem*
Why yes, yes he was.
See: The Beowulf in Old English.
EDIT: Basically, he wanted it to be a fair fight.
Gimmicky? What the hell?
Granted, it could be that I'm just used to watching computer animated cut-scenes, so I may be too forgiving for the active parts.
Also, was I the only one annoyed by the ever changing size of grendal?
I just assumed that shape- and size-shifting are common abilities among Jolie's demon family. That thing with Grendel's big mutated eardrum or whatever being his weak spot was a little weird though.
But who else that that Beowulf's little warcry (while he had Grendel caught in the door) was fucking badass? "I am ripper, tearer, slasher, gouger!" etc.
Scenes being poorly composed and edited just for the sake of showing stuff in 3d.
Beowulf is the epitome of stereotypical "man-ness". He is He-man, Superman, Batman, and all other "man"s combined.
You will leave the theatre realizing what a pathetic loser you are.
and also that your penis is small.
Some of the "hide Beowulf's penis" sight gags were really good.
My girlfriend pointed this out to me after the movie but I did not notice it. IThe only time I noticed his size change was when he was getting smaller as he was getting hit.
My only complaint with this movie is that they didn't go full on for the R rating. I am talking hardcore gore and full on nudity, both male and female.
EDIT* Wait, one more complaint. It did not go into Grendel/Grendels mother/Beowulfs son enough. We were just left to assume that they were evil because they were evil. It never went into Grendel's motivations for attacking the mead hall other than that they were really really loud.
I didn't think a movie could get any more "HRRGH HRGGH MANLIEST OF MANLY MEN!!" than 300, but then Beowulf comes along.
Still an awesome movie, not one that I could watch too many times over though.
Do... Re... Mi... So... Fa.... Do... Re.... Do...
Forget it...
Plus, Beowulf lends itself to stereotypical manly manness about as much as Sparta did.
By the way, Beowulf never has any children. That's the biggest plot diversion in the film.
Beowulf also never has a "bedwoman", I think they named her Onela which is odd because I believe that's Hygelac's wife.
The biggest problem with the film is how they portray Beowulf: In the poem, he's perfect. In the movie, he's a greedy, lustful, perverted bastard. In the poem he's practically Christ-like.
So what if you combine Beowulf and 300?
http://media.movieweb.com/dvd_art/full/62/107562.jpg
I'm not sure, I'd have to re-read Beowulf which I don't have the time for at the moment.
As for the character in the movie, I barely caught her name... a lot of the script was hard to hear for some reason. >_>
Also, the whole "I am Beowulf!" thing is being blown out of proportion. He is actively trying to make a legend out of himself, which is why he yells it so much.
He wants people to remember who he is.
I am Average Joe American, and I am going to see this movie.