Beowulf

I agree with shooting real actors and the such, but there's nothing wrong with pushing/using technology.

Also, in reality, computers aren't doing more of the work. Computers only can do what they are meant to do, calculations, they don't do anything above and beyond that. Someone sits down and uses the computer to create the work, which, IMO, totally different. There is no "make cg human" button for this, and their is no kind of artifical intelligence that does things for you. Whether behind a computer or a camera, the same amount of work is being done.

I just think people need not fear innovation. Without this exact kind of desire, innovation, etc, people like us wouldn't exist. The same kind of drive that pushes people to create believable CG humans is the same kind of drive that pushes people to pick up a $300 camera and make movies....somebody had to break that barrier, so in scale, that is what's happening here.

Understandbly, most wouldn't agree with it/like it, but don't forsake it. DVXuser was born of it, Jurassic Park was born of it, the Lumiere brothers were born of it.

Either way...Beowulf will either do really well or tank, probably closer to the latter, but it's still an interesting concept to follow.
 
There is definitely nothing wrong with pushing technology...if it makes things better. Look at the second Star Wars series in comparison to the first. Which has more sophisticated technology? But does that make it better?

In the midst of an exponentially advancing computer age, we don't seem to have much perspective on what is enriching and what is dehumanizing.

I wouldn't be surpised at all if Beowolf was originally a live action screenplay that lost out to looking like a videogame because they wanted to save money.
 
AloysiusK said:
I wouldn't be surpised at all if Beowolf was originally a live action screenplay that lost out to looking like a videogame because they wanted to save money.
Click to expand...

It did start out live-action as was never even optioned for Zemeckis to direct. Zemeckis convinced the screenwriter, Steve Avery I think, of his vision for it and let him direct.

They're doing "digitally enhanced live action", which is a very advanced motion capture system, which means you're still shooting actors in a very expensive mocap studio. This rules out saving any money, in reality, it could cost more to shoot it this way.
 
PK Gillock said:
But just because they can, doesn't mean they should.
Click to expand...

This reminds me of the scene in Jurassic Park where they're in the boardroom and Ian Malcolm says something to the effect of "your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should" when he's debating the ethics of cloning.

I think this whole completely CG world makes sense when you're dealing with something that's either alien or mechanic, because you would have certain artistic license and the audience doesn't immediately get pulled out of the story because the humans don't look real. People will more easily accept a CG version of something they've never seen vs. something (organic) they see everyday. I have no problem with technology pushing boundaries, but it needs to be for the right stories and for the right reasons.

As a side note, in my opinion, CG animators can never get the eyes right. I think that's the first giveaway that something is fake.
 
weltonfilment - I agree. And the Jurassic Park scene is where I got the quote. lol


To continue my rant above;
Not all technology helps mankind. It isn't perfect and it isn't always altruistic. Technology is created by man and man is not perfect. He makes mistakes. And to often then not, technology is used as a crutch and that's dangerous. Nature always finds a way (another Jurassic Park quote lol) but with technology so readily available, and most of us wanting a quick fix, we never give nature a chance to develop it's own natural solution to a problem. ...Also, some technology has been created for the sole purpose of making a profit and not to make life better. In fact, almost all the technology in the world (including medicines) is for-profit.

Right now it's exciting for us to see photo realistic CG actors. (That Beowulf trailer was impressive.) But 20 or 50 years from now where will this technology take us? Will it be a better place? Who knows. But I believe technology like this will create a world with more and more cubicles. And that's a bad thing.
 
Last edited:
PK Gillock said:
weltonfilment - I agree. And the Jurassic Park scene is where I got the quote. lol


To continue my rant above;
Not all technology helps mankind. It isn't perfect and it isn't always altruistic. Technology is created by man and man is not perfect. He makes mistakes. And to often then not, technology is used as a crutch and that's dangerous. Nature always finds a way (another Jurassic Park quote lol) but with technology so readily available, and most of us wanting a quick fix, we never give nature a chance to develop it's own natural solution to a problem. ...Also, some technology has been created for the sole purpose of making a profit and not to make life better. In fact, almost all the technology in the world (including medicines) is for-profit.

Right now it's exciting for us to see photo realistic CG actors. (That Beowulf trailer was impressive.) But 20 or 50 years from now where will this technology take us? Will it be a better place? Who knows. But I believe technology like this will create a world with more and more cubicles. And that's a bad thing.
Click to expand...

Good points, and I agree with the point about nature and world within worlds. This convo reminds me of a Ray Kurzweil book called "The Age of Spiritual Machines", very intersting (and complex) read, but it's about how computers will come to "outthink" us, etc.

Anyhow, humankind has to take the responsibility to counteract the adverse effects of technology and stay connected with the organic aspects of this world, but that's easier said than done when tech makes it so easy. I'm referring to all apsects of life, not just filmmaking. These are interesting times with interesting developments.
 
Hey, just got back from seeing "Bourne Ultimatum" and they had the "Beowulf" trailer just as I got in. First, I must say that web compression sucks.

The "Beowulf" trailer looked fantastic up on the big screen! I retract my earlier comments on being unimpressed, I am now very impressed with the level of detail put into the 3D animation.
 
The problem I had with Polar Express and this is that the humans just don't feel real. Their eyes have a glazed wax mannequin look to them that's just creepy. I just don't understand why you'd go all that length of digitizing Angelina Jolie's movements, only to have the character look like Angelina Jolie again...As far as CGI has come I think we're still in the stone age with this technology. Within 30 years we'll probably have the ability to create completely realistic virtual realities and characters and will look at this stuff the way we look at 8-bit computer games today.
 
Batutta said:
The problem I had with Polar Express and this is that the humans just don't feel real. Their eyes have a glazed wax mannequin look to them that's just creepy. .
Click to expand...

Could just be they are just using bad actors for these movies.
 
Last edited:
Guys this isn't just motion-capture animated film - it's gonna be in full-colour 3D!!! Rob Zemeckis and James Cameron are both pushing 3D movies really hard. I'm stoked to see this one, Avatar as well, they're going to really push the limits of movie technology. It's exciting stuff.

Plus it's got Ray Winstone as Beowulf. Sure the guy's kinda short and stocky in real life, but his voice is badass! My bet is this is gonna be good one.
 
Just saw it. Hands down the best 3D I've ever seen. And this was the REAL D version, not the IMAX 3D. Just perfect, crystal clear 3D, like looking through a window. Only noticed some slight ghosting on really fast motion. The film itself was pretty good. Ray Winstone was great as Beowulf, as was Crispin Glover as Grendel. The story, well it's Beowulf! The tale has been around for centuries for a reason, as it has real depth and characterization. That said, I think the film has a hole in the middle having to do with the way the romance develops, but they were kind of limited by the source. The animation is near photo realistic, and at times fools you into looking completely real, and the 3D sells the effect even further. The mocap seems to be more detailed than in Polar Express, with movements seeming more natural and real. Zemeckis is almost there with the tech, I'd say about 90 percent. Still hasn't gotten the eyes quite right yet. They still seem slightly sunken and lifeless most of the time. I definitely recommend seeing it, especially in 3D. The dragon attack alone is worth the price of admission. My biggest criticism would have to do with the nude Beowulf/Grendel fight, which veers into Austin Powers territory with the avoidance of showing private parts.
 
Thanks for the post Batutta, I wasn't sure if I was going to see this or not, but I will now. I don't animation will ever feel 100% lifelike, but I applaud those like Zemeckis for pushing it.
 
I don't care if you animate a story, even if the animation is supposed to be people. For me it doesn't have to be fantasy or special effects driven to do it either. I probably won't go see this because I love Beowulf, and I know that they will probably screw it up. It is one of the greatest stories of all time, and it is doubtful to me that hollwood would use restraint in over cinematizing this.

What I don't understand is, if you are going to make an animated film, why the hell would you make the animated characters look like the actors doing their voices? That seems utterly pointless to me.
 
I just saw it in REAL D 3D....digitally projected..whatever. It was definately the best 3D I've ever seen and for the most part was good.

But I dont think its good enough. Like Batutta said...there is some ghosting when the camera moves fast and when they fling things out of the screen towards you. When the picture doesnt move...things look perfect...but overall not quite there.

Sadly I think everyone has settled on this being the finishing point and the "perfect" 3D. Its not perfect. Perfect would be 100% real to life 3D ...and this isnt it.

I really wanted to come out of the theater raving about the glorys of digital 3D and how the future has arrived...but it hasnt. If this is the future of film..and as good as 3D gets...count me out.
 
Last edited:
Weston said:
I just saw it in REAL D 3D....digitally projected..whatever. It was definately the best 3D I've ever seen and for the most part was good.

But I dont think its good enough. Like Batutta said...there is some ghosting when the camera moves fast and when they fling things out of the screen towards you. When the picture doesnt move...things look perfect...but overall not quite there.

Sadly I think everyone has settled on this being the finishing point and the "perfect" 3D. Its not perfect. Perfect would be 100% real to life 3D ...and this isnt it.

I really wanted to come out of the theater raving about the glorys of digital 3D and how the future has arrived...but it hasnt. If this is the future of film..and as good as 3D gets...count me out.
Click to expand...

I slightly disagree. The 3D here was good enough to make me forget about it after awhile. I actually think the limiting factor here is shooting at 24 frames per second. It would be interesting to see what this projected at 60 frames per second would look like.
 
I read that the female characters besides Jolie looked bad compared to the males, any truth to this?
 
jpeck said:
I read that the female characters besides Jolie looked bad compared to the males, any truth to this?
Click to expand...

Really only Robin Wright Penn's character. I think the lines and blemishes on the men's skin make them feel more real, as well as the way they move. Robin's completely smooth skin and less animated face make her feel more mannequin like, like the characters in Polar Express.
 
Batutta said:
I slightly disagree. The 3D here was good enough to make me forget about it after awhile. I actually think the limiting factor here is shooting at 24 frames per second. It would be interesting to see what this projected at 60 frames per second would look like.
Click to expand...

I agree with you about the higher frame rate working better.

After thinking about it more I think I might have had more of a problem with how the movie was directed than with the 3D technology. I didnt like how they kept throwing things out of the screen at you...and all the fancy CG camera moves.

Hopefully Avatar looks better.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top