Beowatch - Page 4

OK...I'm torn on this. I agree with most of the criticisms about how the film looks (on the internet, at least) and I do feel that there's no excuse for dead-eye after Davey Jones and Gollum--the uncanny valley can go fuck itself, those characters looked REAL and EXPRESSIVE, regardless of how "human" they were. Gollum especially basically looked like an emaciated human, and his performance was that of a human. I'm hoping and praying that Zemeckis has done the "blocking" but is still tweaking the facial animation.

However...the complaint that "this is going to destroy the art of making movies!" is pretty stupid. Of course it's not going to. This is an experiment, and a worthy one, even if it fails spectacularly. I think trying to make ultra-real humans is a mistake, but I can't begrduge them pushing the envelope, and I'm not going to sweepingly declare that there will never be a place for this technology. I may hate Bakshi's rotoscoping, but that doesn't mean rotoscoping NEVER works...Linklaters' films have already been mentioned, for example, and there's also the Fleischer brothers' "Gulliver's Travels", with conventionally animated Lilliputians and rotoscoped Gulliver, which was very effective at giving him a sense of monumentality. Ideally it's just another tool in the toolbox.

But yeah, this does look somewhat unappealling. It's a shame, because I actually think that, storywise, this has a shot at being the first really good film version of Beowulf. I'll say it: I'm a Neil Gaiman fan, and I thought that the dialogue in the trailer suggested some interesting new angles on a story which is otherwise over-familiar, simple, and uncinematic. Gaiman and Avery also claim they've found a way to link up the third act, with the dragon, with the rest of the story, which is probably the biggest challenge of adapting the poem.

By the way, this just has to get POST OF THE DAY.

One more thing: the people bitching about the music do realize that it's the main theme from 28 DAYS LATER, right?

Just watched it again. Doesn't bother me as much the 2nd time. When Beowulf looks around in the cave (before he sees Jolie) there was some life in his glance (00:29).

Freeze-framed to see Grendel and man is he corpse-ugly. Like a D&D Troll crossed with Vosloo's mummy.

Somebody do some screengrabs. I'm at work and too lazy.

EDIT: And for the record, I enjoyed Gerard Butler's Beowulf and Grendel.

EDIT#2: I would still totally do a CGI demon Jolie with a tail. The heel spurs look to be attached to some sort of cloven hoof or claw, so I'm not that bothered by it. I particularly like the shot (1:39 or so) where Jolie is stroking Beowulf's glowing phallic symbol. Give me an unrated cut!

The last thing anyone would use to describe the CG in this movie would be 'low key' and unobtrusive. It's practically screaming "Look at me!"

The movements did come across a little weird in that film, and while I agree about the 'marionette effect', I also believe it was a lack of something else. I may be wrong on this, but I'm almost positive that there was little to no motion blur on the humans in Monster House. It made for a really weird look.

If that happens, I'll switch sides in this argument and join up with Zemeckis...

Yeah that's sort of my point. In all his other films Zemeckis has tried to incorporate CG as an tool not as a selling point, where as with this, it's part of the main attraction. He does the other so well I am excited to see what he does when he is specifically using CG as part of The Big Show. Didn't see the Polar Express because I hate Xmas shit so I'm genuinely excited about checking this out in Ye Olde 3D.

I don't know if this analogy will hold up or not, but when Txt messaging first came in a lot of people bemoaned it, saying "What's the point? By the time you type all that stuff out, you may as well have just called them", but over not a lot of time it proved itself pretty useful, because in some cases it was more convienient, and it made sense to use the technology.

I don't see this as being too different. People are saying "What's the point?". There might not be one yet, but someone will find one, and then we'll all be saying "Ok, in movies like THAT, it makes sense".

The two examples in the analogy are pretty much totally unrelated, but motion capture still might work out in the end.

I was talking in particular about the manner in which he used it in films like Forrest Gump actually. Using it to remove Captain Dans legs, the inserting Forrest into archival footage, that kind of thing. Every one else has been using CG to make Dinosaurs, Transforming Robots and Morphing Terminators, Zemeckis up until now has been interested more in using the CG as a means to an end, not the end itself.
And as an aside, I'm pretty happily heterosexual but given a chance, I could talk myself into blowing Zemeckis I guess.

It's not ready yet. But when the technology improves and you can store every nuance of your actor on hard drive, I can see where studios would find this beneficial. The actors are always on call and you can possibly skip paying the $20 million+ pay checks.

Give me an example where an actor would command 20 million a picture but not have the rights to their likeness. If they're that powerful within the system they'd never be forced to sign that away.

edit- That wasn't a terribly comprehensive argument. If your point is that you don't need stars, or indeed real actors at all, I don't see that. Stars are a promotional tool. You don't need computer generated movies to get rid of them if you can sell movies fine without them.

And thus because of Stelios' wisdom and foresight, the great Law Of The Tambors was created, and peace fell upon the Uncanny Valley for all time...

What about these three scenarios

Back to the Future 4 We can have young MArty McFly, old MArty McFly and Michael J Fox's parkinson's doesn't have to get in his way.

Had the technology evolved a little quicker; Superman Returns Starring Christopher Reeves, looking better than ever.

Had the technology evolved a little quicker; Marlon Brando at his young, trim finest becomes a sex idol once more, shows up at an autograph signing, and terrorises legions of horny teeny bopper fans.

Bringing old actors back from the death? That's the most horrible idea I have ever heard.

Not back from the death, that's why I said if the technology had evolved fast enough that those two were still alive. You can't performance capture a corpse...well maybe the eyes.

So basically the actors could go through the whole film in one "take"? I just felt my brains expanding. Performance capture seems like a pretty good idea now.

Nah. Brining actors back from the dead for commercials - THAT'S the most horrible idea I've ever heard.

Case in point: Here's John Wayne shilling for Coors Light!

I agree it certainly wouldn't work now. Especially when these characters still having the glassy look of pod people. But if you can get a photo realistic actor with realistic emotion on disc that never grows old, never takes other jobs, (And possibly never joins Scientology), I can see where a studio would be interested in this.

But then there is that REAL actor question. Would an audience even accept a film, knowing full well going in that the actors, no matter how real they looked no matter how real they acted, were fake.

Finally, a fantasy movie that gives us chicks in stilettos. WATCH AND LEARN PJ

First, I will take the glassy eyed look of the CGI Beowulf movie over that awful looking Uwe Boll Dungeon Siege film. Second, the Beowulf trailer is great looking with an interesting score, monster slaying, and CGI Angelina Jolie whom has always been a very animated actress. Anthony Hopkins CGI looks perfect for the role on the King as well.

From a different movie altogether.

What film is the score from Richard?

Don't remember off-hand, it's mentioned somewhere in the thread though.

It's In the House - In a Heartbeat from John Murphy's 28 DAYS LATER.

Thanks, Jonathan Banks is my hero.

I think so. But the use would probably be limited. If its not an animated movie, in the heightened reality sense, there is that "what's the point?" factor. If they couldn't incorporate live action with computer generated imagery seamlessly, then obviously that would be the point. But they can, so the question becomes, what is the practical application for this technology besides the Angelina as virtual love slave angle? I don't know if I have the answer to that. Most filmmakers look at film as a collaborative art. But if the technology could give that one filmmaker who has a specificity of vision so all encompassing that he/she would desire complete control over every aspect of the frame, mise en scene, performance, etc... then I say the technology is worthwhile just for that. Although then there comes another question I don't have the answer to, can a director direct animators more effectively than he can actors and crew members?

But none of this gets to the star question. My point is that we want stars, and studios push stars. We want them to be real people that we can put on a pedestal, fantasize about, and also tear down. Cartoons can and have become stars. And, god help us, there are even people that fantasize about them. But you don't have that human connection. That's the real problem with this technology. I wouldn't be bothered by photo-real animation. But I would miss seeing a movie with my favorite actor.

All talk about the technology aside, it's been a while since I've read Beowulf, but I don't recall anything about Grendel's mother being an aquatic sex kitten offering eternal glory to anyone.

I believe she's just pissed and SPOILER (highlight) wants revenge for Grendel's death*. But I have seen other interpretations in other questionable adaptations.


* Yes, I just gave a spoiler warning for the oldest English written story.

I can see what they're trying to do, but my understanding has always been that Grendel attacks, Beowulf comes along, Grendel attacks again and is killed, Grendel's mother attacks, Beowulf goes after her, and kills her. None of this junk with "I will make you the greatest story of all time." Oh, I get it! It's the greatest story of all time! And they're cleverly acknowledging it in the film!

Back to the technical side, watching the trailer in a larger size, the horses look terrible. After what WETA did with the Rohirrim, that's inexcusable.

Without a new angle, it's an incredibly simple story, to the point of being boring. It would be like watching someone else play a video game--dude goes over here, slays monster, goes somewhere else, slays another monster. Gets old, slays a third monster, dies. The end.

Grendel's mom is one of those mysterious literary characters whose behaviour is so weird, yet so intriguing, that a modern filmmaker can't help ascribing elaborate motivations to her. Like Iago in Othello, or Morgan Le Fay in the Arthurian cycle. With a story that's been retold this many times, what do you expect?

Plus, I have a sneaking suspicion I know how they're going to bridge the gap between her and the dragon at the end, and it ties into that speech.

Speaking of a comparison to Arthurian legend...

Talk about brain farts, I had no idea Gaiman helped write the screenplay. That earns it a bit of the benefit of the doubt.

Gaiman's actually been writing Beowulf-oriented stories for a while, due to his lengthy involvement with the project. One of them, "Bay Wolf", came about because he says people kept mishearing him and thinking he was writing an episode of Baywatch. So he wrote Beowulf: the beach party version.

Because, people on here will gripe and moan about remakes and sequels, Cloverfield, etc. but when something takes an original approach to something, well, it must suck.

Yeah, because Beowulf is a fly-by-night property, and apparently, boring. C'mon, it was written by Homer. SIMPSON! *burn!*



Bailey, I agree with your views on people, and why they are often adverse to fully-CGI rendered movies, I just personally like them. The Incredibles was one of my favorite films.....ever, and that's because it does things that no action film can. They can send a giant wrecking ball into a 50 story building.

Sure, you can shoot that physically, and try to match it with CGI destruction, but it doesn't match. What I liked about the Incredibles is you get lost in the world, in the animation style, and can focus on the story and action, which in the case of the Incredibles, was amazing.

I would rather see an all CGI Watchmen than a live action one, because you could do everything, without ever showing the seams. I have a feeling Zack Snyder will do amazing things with the movie, but it won't be perfect within itself, because it's limited. (Should I post pictures of myself so everyone can hang and burn effigies of me?)

The giant crowds in 300 were great, they gave it a sense of epicness, but c'mon, I could nearly see the Massive watermark on the scene.*


*royalties for mentioning the name Massive have been mailed. Don't sue me, Peter Jackson.

And see, that's what bugs me too.

But why does a movie have to have a REALISTIC look and feel? Can't a film have a fake aesthetic and still be brilliant? I guess I'm the only one that thinks so.

An international trailer that's basically the same as the first one ... only with CGI-Jolie showing off more of her assets.

http://www.brightcove.com/title.jsp?title=1125843959

Are you confusing this with The Iliad and The Odyssey?

In the posted interview they get into "who is Grendel's dad?" and the finger is definitely on Hrothgar.

Anybody who saw Christopher Lambert's post-apocalyptic treat (also called Beowulf) can see that Hrothgar-as-Grendel-daddy has been done before. As has Grendel's mom as a demon harlot trying to pick up in Daneland of Olde.

I like this not at all.

I love how the writers jokes about the movie being big in Denmark as no one here knows anything about this tale.

Not to tell you your Danish business, but I'm pretty sure you're wrong about that.

no I'm not. I have spend 9 years in school, 3 years in highschool and 5 years at university and I have not once heard the name Beowolf uttered.

Old English (poem's origin) has "Viking language" influences, but does not come from there.

Nevertheless, I'm certain that there are some people in Denmark who have heard of Beowulf.

Isn't Beowulf most famous for being one of the only surviving pieces of pre-Norman, Celtic/Saxon English literature? Thats how I understood it anyway.

Reason #1246 why I loathe breakfast television: one of them showed a trailer for this, this morning (not sure which version not having watched either online yet) and the intrepid reviewer:

a) pronounced it Beer-Wolf
b) then passed it off as "it's another one of those comic book things". No mention of the EPIC POEM or its literary significance, nor even of the technology employed to produce it.

Already feeling a little below the weather, this made me want to put my head through the nearest brick wall.

Also, count me in with the Gerard Butler version fanclub. In which Grendel's troll dad was murdered for stealing a fish, thereby initiating the cycle of revenge and hatred and inter-species shagging. Good show!

That trailer was total Xbox. Concerned about making things look as real as possible without taking into account their essence.

Fire looks like real fire, but doesn't move like real fire.

Arrows look like real arrows but move like stones in the wind.

People look like real people, but might as well be inanimate objects.

Thats why I respect companies like pixar and weta so much. They actually try to get the essence of their creations to come out before taking anything else into consideration. Which is why one second of woody's eyes in toy story convey so much more than any character I've seen in that entire Beowulf trailer. Small things like the position of the eyes, how many times they move per second and what emotion that would represent is what these guys think about. Not the exact amount of veins and reflection that would make an realistic eye.

However, I AM for the advancement of technology. Don't forget that these advances can be applied to more useful things like medical research. What some hack in hollywood wanted to experiment with could actually be turned into something useful.

Some animator buddies of mine at work made a good analysis. They said even when you are staring at someone while you converse, your eyes don't fixate on one place. They glance at the other person's eyes, their mouth, their eyes again, their cheek, back to their mouth again, etc (and all the while, your lids and the muscles around your eye are forever flexing and relaxing depending on what your orbs are doing). So when you see these characters with the "dead eyes", that's the main reason/s. Hopkins at the end of the trailer just stares blankly at Beowulf. There's no motion and no E-motion there as it relates to the dialogue. It just doesn't look natural (the characters look like hypnotized mannequins). Like I said earlier, the best bit of eye-acting is when you see Beowulf glance about the cave.

ILM & Weta have eye-acting down, when you consider Davy Jones & Gollum.

So true. It's really small observations like those that make a world of difference.

And considering that people see others' faces all the time, whether in actual social situations or on TV, these subtle things register as missing subconsciously (even if you can't put a finger on it) when they're not there. Even something as small as a pupil dilation or a wrinkle in the corner of the eye, or even the fact that one eye may be more closed than the other. Additionally, asymmetry is extremely important as no one's face is identical on both sides and generally your eyes don't look straight out. They usually focus to a point (think of a triangle) and don't stare out parallel like 2 headlights most of the time. One of the reasons that the Muppets are so popular (compared to other puppets) is the fact that their eyes have a focus to them (slightly cross-eyed... the Magic Triangle), giving the appearance that they're always looking at something (imbuing them with "life" and awareness). No one ever accused Elmo of having "dead eyes", and he's just some fabric and a pair of ping pong balls (yeah, I'm aware he gets a lot of leeway for not being realistic or human).

Slightly different International trailer with more of plastic jolie's golden bits:

http://pdl.warnerbros.com/wbol/uk/mo...f1_qt_480p.mov