Cool News
BEOWULF Ho!! See Zemeckis Anglo-Saxon Madness In All Kindsa Glorious QuickTime!!
Merrick again...
The trailer for Robert Zemeckis' CGI-a-riffic BEOWULF is now online.
Some of it is "Oh...my...GOD!!!!" breathtaking.
Some of it looks like cut scene fodder still in need of TLC.
ALL of the characters look better than the glassy eyed zombies who populated POLAR EXPRESS - whose technology was built upon to realize this project. And, this looks a helluva lot better than that goofy Christopher Lambert movie we got a few years back. (Duh!)
And, when all is said and done, they've CGId an Angelina who (here, at least) appears every bit as bulge inducing as the real thing. No small accomplishment there.
Click on Angelinabot's svelte, glistening, beckoning hotness to see for yourself!!!
-
+ Expand All
-
looks good
-
I'll have to wait until I get off work to get a view of this.
-
looking forward to this.
-
Whatevah!!!
-
...I had to make my own Beowulf movie for my English final. It sucked balls. Luckily, this version looks like it maybe better then my hunk of shit.
-
things like this always seem pointless to me.....if you are using CGI to create realistic humans, why not just make a live action film??
-
Uncanny Valley: The Movie. I had some Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within flashbacks during that trailer.
-
All that banding in the fades look terrible. The transfer hourse screwed up the black levels on the master tape they sent to Apple to create the online trailer from.
-
Also, she's doing the same accent from Alexander.
-
im speechless...looks amazing
-
I'm as much as a SFX geek as anyone, but looking at this I had the same reaction as I did at "Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within", thinking, "At its best, it looks photorealistic, so why not save the money and just make it with real actors and then massage a pile of effects all over?
Zemeckis had nary a film that was mediocre before winning the Oscar; now he's a bored guy snarling if "those people". -
Possibly because they might do some crazy shots/action in the movie that would be impossible to film with live action... and then using CG doubles will make you say, "Hey that looked fake! What terrible CG/Compositing!" This way everything looks consistent... plus more practice for the CG people until we can finally get pure photorealism!
-
I love that music from 28 Days Later, but I fear it's going to be over used and abused. Boo! Get your own score, yeesh.
-
Show reel for an effects company; lead in to a video game. Not a film. Nothing there; you can feel it in the center of your testicles; nothing there.
-
I'd still rather wag off to the real Angelina Jolie.
-
Some people just love technology soooo much...
-
where nothing really blows me away anymore. I was very unimpressed. Looked like an ad for the inevitable BEOWULF video game... Im sure in the flow of things it will be grand.
-
a very stylistic look to their faces, like some sort of art cg applied that gave a kinda Comic(not funny)\film feel. I went back and looked at it again its like something in the hair gel or something ;). But yeah Neil gaiman wrote parts of the screenplay on this. I expect good things.
-
...until I saw that trailer. I was led to believe it was going to be live action with a lot of the "Polar Express" animation thrown in for good measure. I kept hearing how violent this movie was going to be, and now I can't help but think that it's just a cartoon. Guess I'll wait for video if anything.
-
1. push the envelop of technology (even if to see if it sucks...someone's gotta do it)... 2. use it like animation: which is to tell stories or show things you can't with the traditional live action...and 3. well, if you guys had read "beowulf" you might've known that some of the characters go from teenage to like 90 years old, so maybe instead of doing makeup (or creepy CG age-tampering ala Xmen3) performance capture could give us something truly unique...
-
...and the snide comment making fun of the plastic-y look of the character models in this movie will be: I didn't know they were making a House of Wax 2. No, no, you're too kind. Folks, I'll be here all week. Goodnight!
-
so when is the movie trailer coming out?
-
just like Polar Express was. I gave up watching that "plot" and just raced around the screen with my depthular vision, enjoying the details. This looks like it could be a bit more involving, though, if told as a true tale.
And yeah, shame on the posting of the trailer (at least the HD420 version)...It looked like complete and utter shite. Not a way to start good buzz... -
Jul 26, 2007 1:20:11 AM CDT
That just sucked all my enthusiasm out of the project
by industrykiller!
Fuck. I was really looking forward to this even after Zemeckis completely missed the point of Polar Express from a visual and writing standpoint. I really thought he got the reigns on the mo-capping in those early production shots. Now I can see he is pulling a "Lucas" and just completely lying to himself putting technology over what serves the story. ANy of that would have been incredible in live action, instead it looks like a bad cut scene from Playstation 3. Dont get me wrong Im not against computer animation in principle, only when it looks ugly. Which this does. Not an ounce of real emotion is felt in anything in this trailer. And that horrible Boris and Natasha accent Jolie uses made me shutter and gave me flashbacks of sitting through Alexander over again. That just really sucks man, could have been incredible.
-
What song was playing on that? Kinda got me more pumped up then the trailer did...
-
looks like a cut-scene for a game
hope it gets better before they release it. -
wtf - who compressed that shit?
-
Reminds me of that lames-ass Final Fantasy movie. But I aint gonna shit on it just yet. I've always wondered what would happen when someone actually puts that motion-capture stuff to good use. Hopefull Rob won't disappoint.
-
or PSP... anyone know?
-
the stiff rubbery look of the cgi faces is really off-putting, and the movements don't look real enough.... if this was live action this could have been cool. as it is it just seems like a slick game software company's showreel
-
Seriously...this looks about as good as Shrek. I thought this was supposed to be photorealistic?! If this is what is considered to be photorealistic maybe i'm a dipshit for not realizing HOW PLASTIC AND FAKE MY EVERYDAY PHOTOREALISTIC SURROUNDINGS ARE. If Avatar isnt 100 times better then this then theres no point. I hate hollywood and the shit the build up ...which turns out to be NOTHING!! And where where the 'omigod!' moments in there? Right between the videogame fire and the swooping overused i'm-so-tired-of-them-i-could-kill-myself digital camera moves? Pixar shits more realism on thier day off. Hell...even final fantasy was better than this shit. I dont see how this is any better than polar express...except for the eyes...like that makes a real fuck of a difference.
I'm not hater...but fuck this. I'm disappointed. Don't promise me photorealism unless your going to fucking make it fucking photorealistic. Its straight up lying. -
dangit...
-
The song is "In the House- In a Heartbeat" from the 28 Days Later soundtrack. Good stuff.
-
GO CRISPIN!
-
They've got Ray Winstone (out of shape, fucking amazing actor) to play Beowulf (ripped king). Actors aren't limited by their bodies anymore, this technology is going to be huge. Baby steps.
-
Merrick, don't tell me you haven't seen the BEST film adaptation of Beowulf. Seriously. If you have not seen Beowulf & Grendel, rush out and get it now.
http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0402057/
This crapfest appears to toss out most of the narrative and fails to look anything close to realistic. -
Thanks a lot. I knew I recognized it from somewhere, but couldn't put my finger on it!
-
If you're gonna have "photo-realistic" characters, why not just go for the real deal?
-
The trailer seems very clippy and compressed. I'm really looking forward to Beowulf too...hope they release an R/NC-17/Unrated version.
-
So fucking pointless. And btw, Angelina Jolie isn't 'bulge inducing', she looks like a bloated corpse.
-
It suffers the same problems as The Spirits Within and Polar Express.
And why not just do this live action with maybe lots of blue screen? What is the point of a CG Angelina Jolie? I don't fucking get it.
-
...real actors? Not one shot came across as OMG breathtaking to me. It looked pretty tame. If you really want to see some quality CG go to the Blur Studios website and imagine what THEY could have done with this. Seriously, Robert Zemekis, this is so pointless. I hope you're reading this. It sucks.
-
grendel looks pretty lame to me... i mean he kind of looks like a a tall smigel... a bit different but you know what i mean...
-
but it's not, because this cool animation technology makes it more exciting, can't wait to see it in 3D!
-
This is an experiment in movie making. Why not do it live action? Maybe they wanted to try something new and imaginative. You guys are all just jaded and can't appreciate FX anymore.
As for me, I'll be there opening night. It's always great to see something new like this. Even though Final Fantasy sucked from a story standpoint, what they did with the CG characters was mind blowing. Seriously have any of you put any thought into how subtle humans are in movement, emotion, personality traits, etc? To try and make something to mirror that using technology is probably one of the hardest things to do. It's like trying to master drawing the human body. But to have the balls to try is admirable and I look forward to the results. -
Jul 26, 2007 2:20:03 AM CDT
Save $$$ on costuming, sets, lighting, crew, locations?
by george newman
save money on make-up, film, utilities, re-shoots, multiple takes, props...
Trying to figure out if this motion capture CG is cost efficient.
what's the budget for this thing. maybe it will completely disprove my guesses. -
This movie cost 70M, it would have cost twice as much if it was live action. I look at this as an animated film. Since when did animation become bad and horrible to watch? Anyone remember Akira?
-
You are a moron. There's nothing new or imaginative about it. In fact it's the anti-imaginative. With computer graphics you have the ability to create anything that your mind can come up with. And unfortunately all idiots like you and the producers of this bullshit can come up with is to use it to -try- to recreate what they could do with a camera. What the fuck is so mind-blowing about characters that look like real people? Guess what... real people look like real people! All the CG people in the world can't hide the fact that the story sucks and it's a pointless technical exercise by people with no imagination. For further proof of the lack of creativity in the world of 3D, all you have to do is look at the 8 billion 3d renderings of 'photoreal' women. It's a whole subculture of 3D created by lonely, horny men with no imagination. I'm sure you're all about it.
-
imagine if 300 used cgi for human characters....this is probably what it would look like. I don't get why they went this route....
-
I'm with those who would much rather see live action than a shitty cartoon. Why pay for those actors and then not use them in the flesh. Maddening. Hurry up Mr Jim Cameron - the film world needs you!
-
damn, this has been made at least 3 times in the last 10 years... maybe more. why not try Gilgamesh?
-
Why not just make it live-action? The cartoon looks fake, especially when the credits say "Robin Wright Penn". I had high hopes for this. This best thing about the trailer is the music which is from 28 Days Later.
-
"She looks like a bloated corpse"
Brilliant, I plan to steal that phrase when talking about my ex. -
Wht happened to the Robert Zemeckis of Back To The Future and Who Framed Roger Rabbit? The cool director, the one who could keep you at the edge of your seat while laughing at the same time?
This pointless experimenting, resulting in pointless movies is NOT what he should be doing. -
Are they going to be singing in this one too? Is Aerosmith going to be in it as well? OH BOY!!!
-
Mr. Cameron is one of the biggest guys pushing this type of filmaking. Why do you think he waited 10 years to start Avatar?
-
What the fuck? I'm ok using music samples from other movies in trailers, but a movie series' THEME? Knock it off! Another trailer used it recently too, I don't remember which though. Anyone remember?
-
Wikipedia says $150 million. God only knows what it actually costs.
-
Or are huge battlefields, dragons and CGI characters getting boring? It's just meh... Why'd they decide to use CGI anyway. It ends up being a distraction from the main film, like FF Spirits. This looks dull, dull, yawn.........
-
Actually 70 mil. Talent does not get paid what they do for live action and there are very few physical sets. This cost what avg. computer animated film does, 60 to 100 mil. Marketing is where this film will pay the price. They are going to market it as a mainstream live action film but unlike a Pixar movie they don't have the tie ins a family film comes with to reduce the cost.
-
Even pixar spends at least 100 million per picture. If this is under 100 million its not wonder nothing looks photoreal. Pixar doesnt look photoreal...but they arent trying to.
Avatar better be way better than this. -
what is this...some fantasy movie from 1993? Nice font too...IF YOUR GAY.
-
Thats what they should have done. Halloween 2 destroyed the series potential. Laurie never should have become Michael sister. The Hospital was boring. With CGI. You can retell part 2. No hospital, No estranged sister subplot. Just Donald Pleasences's Dr. Loomis and Michael Myers. Donald's line can come from manipulated dialog ripped from other Films and TV shows. It would be the first true cgi horror film. They could call it Halloween: Reanimated. Fuck Rob Zombie!
-
Those movies take 4+ years to produce that is where the cost comes from. Mo-Cap is more cost effective. Also remember CGI animated films are 15 years in, Mo-Cap is 5 years old.
-
What you just saw is what you will get. They've been in production for 1.5 years already. Besides, the first screening will happen during Comic Con, or otherwise at Venice film festival. There will be no time for improvement.
-
they should still be able to do the cg over top well enough for it to be photorealistic....or at least more realistic.
I'm sure your right about pixar movies taking 3 or 4 years though. Beowulf has been kind of rushed hasnt it? -
Except not as cool
-
Negative
-
not animation! we can't have animation with our epic stories! that's kid's stuff! boo! boo! boohoo! you're all a bunch of lame asses who lack any sort of appreciation for people doing their best to push innovation.
-
Seriously, there should be a fucking law against it now.
-
I meant 28 Days Later music. Still, that and Requiem are used far too fucking much.
-
THIS CG LOOKS AWESOME! It really doesn't. The technology is NOT THERE yet to create decent -looking human faces with full, semi-real reactions and soul. Fuck, Jurassic Park looks better than this and it was made...what?... 15 years ago? (oh christ, 15 years ago...uhhhggg)
-
Eek.
-
Y'all need to watch the 1080i trailer. Jolie got peach fuz on her face and th eskin texture is pretty damn real. The guy's got goose pimples on his arms from the water. Case in point we are getting there. Support the hard work you geeky assholes! Don't talk it down.
-
I'm sorry. I know you probably had a deadline that was unworkable... but PLEASE-- and I say this to all the non-ILM guys out there-- SPEAK UP! Don't be afraid to tell the directors you're working for if something doesn't work or not. There's too much "yes men"ing in CGI these days. Take the fucking chance and say "I'm sorry but this looks too much like an XBOX game-- we have to go further."
-
yawn
-
The color might be a tad bit punched up and that could be a stylized preference. But the detail is amazing, from the clothing, to the skin texture, there fucking peachfuzz on the faces! Just fucking everything if you can really see it is wow mutherfucker. And thats coming from CGI guy who does this shit on his PC. I think the punched up color is whats affecting your view. Sure theres still some skin shine issues but it's not as bad as your implying thats still an issue to be resolved further and it will. I thinks you have a shit computer that cant display a video file great than standard resolution. Therefore making it impossible for you to see the details that mimic life pretty fucking well. Stop talking bullshit man!
-
The color might be a tad bit punched up and that could be a stylized preference. But the detail is amazing, from the clothing, to the skin texture, there fucking peachfuzz on the faces! Just fucking everything if you can really see it is wow mutherfucker. And thats coming from CGI guy who does this shit on his PC. I think the punched up color is whats affecting your view. Sure theres still some skin shine issues but it's not as bad as your implying thats still an issue to be resolved further and it will. I thinks you have a shit computer that cant display a video file great than standard resolution. Therefore making it impossible for you to see the details that mimic life pretty fucking well. Stop talking bullshit man!
-
Nothing has been as driven into the ground as the Edward Scissorhands music though. "That Edward Scissorhands, he make-a-me cry!".
-
Its funny that you wrote that just as I was writing mine... I can see that detail was definately put into it as far as an animator for something like this can go... but what I'm saying is: If it doesn't look right-- speak up. This trailer looks like a glorfied video game! In some shots (that bridge shot as an example) it looks no different than the pre-level I just got through watching. What the hell is wrong with Big Z? The guy had the fucking balls to start out a major motion picture with nothing but sound clips for mintues (the highly underrated Contact) but unfortunately can't see from his last film that the motion capture doesn't work quite yet. God! It kills me because Z has made some amazing f'ing pictures and I want him back on track!! None of this Christmas Carol shit...! Fucking hell!
-
That's going to look dated in approximately 3 minutes from... now.
-
Its strange to have an Angelina Jolie that looks retarded and artificial, and an Anthony Hopkins that looks like a wax versión of himself. Why couldn't do it like a "real" movie?
That said, some of it look far worse and lifeless than the Final Fantasy movie. Compare the Anthony Hopkins character and the oldman in Final Fantasy, p.e. -
http://tinyurl.com/33bqey
peach fuzz and scary real skin texture bitch! -
The cgi really does look like the actors. Could use some polish I imagine but... Now Im wondering if they will cast someone to play Hitler in Valkyrie or cgi a sacry lifelike rending of him or do a golum thing and cgi and actor. Just a few years shy we are of seeing every major personality who ever lived rendered immortal via cgi... But for some reason Ive always been a bit afraid of seeing Hitler resurrected this way...
-
The CGI still looks Polar Express creepy.
-
I could barely watch it. And, I am high as hell. What kind of animation is not fun to watch for high asses.
-
The flesh under the characters finger nails isn't changing color when they hold, grab, or touch things. The flesh under our nails change color when we grab, hold, and touch suff. This is due too the blood flow. The flesh under the nails outer tips get white and a redish crescent forms under this and it gets largers and more intense depending on the pressure we place against against the object we touch, grab or hold. It's things like that that add levels of realism. Again still getting there. Big kudos to this film.
-
I forgot to finish the last post with a ?.
Refer to above comment on highness. -
I agree the encoding on that trailer is terrible. the 1080p version is more pixelated than a porno clip on primetime. but the movie looks pretty fascinating. wish my town had first run IMAX 3D.
-
Some animations look good while others look shit. And the effects are all over the place. The fire looks fake. It will be cool to watch in 3d but judging from the trailer the most beautiful "moving painting movie" is still 300. I didn´t think I would say this about Beowulf: But why make cgi characters if you can get real actors? One reason would be to get a consistent look, but as it looks now it is far from consistent. I´m still expecting great things from this technology but my guess is that it will be James Cameron´s Avatar that will wow everybody, not Beowulf.
-
And it's showing.
-
Fingernail study boy.
-
That's exactly what I'm saying. What Lies Beneath ALONE should be a career saver... but that's what frustrates me. How can someone who's made all of those amazingly good movies think that THIS looks good?
-
Which fucking imbecile added that to that great music?!
And why does everyone look like themselves other than Ray Winstone? Seems a bit stupid to me. -
Why bother? Make a real film for God's sake..
-
I just can't hate on this project. I see things I like and I see things that are off (the punched up color) just like the rest of you. I'm all for pushing the magic forward, and a film like this is doing just that. Pushing. It's one of those "Don't expect it to be real, but it's trying too bring you in enough to look past the fact that it's not"
-
It's kind of jarring to see this kind of CG all chopped up and out of context, but I think once you get into the movie you'll become involved in the story and forget wether you're watching CG, live action or animation. I thought I'd hate Polar Express based on the trailer, but it sucked me in after about 10 minutes and I loved it.
-
I can't wait until the second trailer with Kratos's big reveal.
-
I don't really know what to expect, that's what I like...
-
It is my most hated film of all time. Just an awful story on so many different levels- trite propaganda bullshit with an utterly rotten centre and a nasty whiff of misogyny. Yuck.
-
Is the "NC17 Imax Version" rumor true?
-
Because the movements are all motion captured. Even facial expressions. Most of Happy Feet was mocap as well, which made it even worse that it won the Oscar for animated film, cause it honestly isn't. As much as I love to encourage new techniques like this, always good to search for new ways to enhance filmmaking and the possibilities to do so, I think it still looks emotionless. Lifeless. No matter how beautifull Angelina's textures are. To me Ratatouille or Cars or Pinocchio is more realistic then this.
-
They probably should've sat on this trailer til everything they used was 100% finished. To me, it didn't look vastly better than the CG intros to World of Warcraft or LOTR Online (and in some places looked worse). Incomplete CGI sneak peeks cause hateful backlash, didn't they learn that from "Hulk"?
-
I was kind of hoping for something with a style at least, unless you count live action as a style! would it not have been cheaper and quicker to shoot this film!
Amazing achievement but I would want to see the real actors or something with a bit more funk, left me cold and I'm a big animation fan, but that does not mean its a magic bullet!
Looked better than the creepy Pedophile Express though granted, but still just shoot Angelina Jolie against a green screen and use the CG to fill in the gaps! (no pun honest!)
How many times are they gonna waist time making CGI look real just for the sake of it?
(stunt doubles are fine though !) Yes it will get to point of looking real, but is that more cost effective? is it more artistic? What is the point, really I want to know? T : ( -
There are some new wallpapers, HD screencaps, conceptual art, news etc. over at-
http://www.beowulfnews.com/
-
the animation is awesome! But why have such stunning animation, then get Jolie and make her look like she does in real life? Pointless? Yes. Will this be a good film or simply and exercise that says "look! we can make a CGI Jolie that looks just like Jolie, and various other computer thing-a-majigs!"? Tread carefully Mr Zemeckis...
-
I think the fingernails are the least of anybodies worries unless you have an OCD! what about the lifelike lip synch! Or here's an Idea the first ever CGI film that captures the style of Frazeta's paintings, now that would be interesting!
-
What a pointless crap, not a single emotion flows through my body as seeing this, furthermore all emotion on this to be photorealistic faces feels wrong. For real actors i would take every shitty aging effect they throw at me ...
-
.......or an XBox1080 because FUCK, the graphics look fucking great!!!!!
-
should have been used instead of that indie dirge from 28 Days Later, does'nt really lend the sufficient grandeur and gravitas that befits this project. Still not too sure abotu this, Final Fantasy had more expressive chracters, and that aint a good benchmark. Nice eye candy though.
-
Real faces fight cgi ! http://tinyurl.com/2vgw72 (remove spaces)
-
need to spot the seams between the live-action and the CGI. The suspension of disbelief might actually be easier with this kind of special effect.
-
Huh, as a homosexual, I want to see BLOOD, not CGI splatters of jelly, I want real women (and men) not rubber puppets. Remember the Phantom Menace? Remember The Fellowship of the Ring; that was rubbishy expensive effects versus painstaking construction, model-making, acting and design. And the old ways WON. Hands down. Reality wins. Always. It can be augmented but never replaced. because it's alive and CG isn't. CG without animation or breathing solidity is dead. And live things can feel that deadness when they see it.
-
I thought this story was mostly about him...
-
Do you think you could make a CGI Angelina Jolie do anything that the real one wouldn't?
Oh yeah. Fuck some fat movie-luvin loser. She'd be good for that. -
Ray could have made an effort not to sound like he'd just come off Nil by Mouth (Marrrrf!)Angelina made the effort (sounds like she's still on Alexander!). As for why they did'nt make Beowulf look like Mr Winstone (at least facially) is a bit of a slight to the poor guy, but then he's got the looks (by his own admission) of a well worn metal work bench!)does'nt quite evoke a heroic archtype.
-
hence the title. Though most of the story is about him defeating Grendel, Grendel is the main threat. Read "Grendel" by John Gardner for the monster's perspective. D.Vader, mine was very quiet too. As for t he cgi, before it was mentioned I didn't realize it was all cg, but I did think that they had some funky lens on the camera, or had done some crazy editing. I'm reserving judgement until I see more than 45 seconds of disjointed shots, but reality is always preferable to animation, in my mind, when it comes to connecting with characters. There are exceptions, sure, but, uh, well, they're exceptions.
-
slow-mo the scene where she comes out of the water with the Species tail all waving and she has on high heel shoes. WTF?
-
...freak the hell out of me!
-
If you love greatness, read that book.
-
the type of animation at the prologue of a fantasy video game. specifically, the intro to baldur's gate came to mind. anyone else know what i'm talking about? just do the fucking movie in live action...jfc
-
Sure, it's not out 'till '09 but I want it NOW.
-
You can see her toes or talons or whatever. It's just the rimlight that makes it look like she's wearing shoes.
Sepulchrave, I don't quite get what you're saying. It's not very clear. Did you mean that both Phantom Menace and Fellowship suck because of all the CG they used? Or just Menace? Because Menace used more of the 'old' techniques - there were more models in Menace than the previous 3 SW films COMBINED. People keep going on about Menace and keep thinking everything was CG when they're looking at modelmaking mixed with matte painting and CG. They used salt on black velvet for the waterfalls and good old dry-for-wet for crying out loud. But anyway your point is unclear because you're dissing the 'rubber puppets' too. Which is it then? Also, animatronics, puppets and models are 'dead' too. Whether it's a computer or drawn animation or puppets it's ALWAYS people that breathe life into them. And what do you mean "CG without animation or breathing solidity"?? Yes of course Jar Jar sucks though. But he would have sucked whether he was CG or not - they did film the whole performance with Best in the suit and were just going to do head replacement initially, before the bean counter found it was cheaper to just animate the whole thing.
I agree though this thing seems redundant having Jolie and Hopkins look so exactly like themselves. We have only seen 2 minutes though I guess.
Trebs, I haven't seen it yet but if you're after Frazetta then the trailer and my God the poster for that "Pathfinder" movie with Karl Urban is the most Frazetta-ish thing I've ever seen.
Evil Hobbit, Happy Feet is a really bad example, because for centuries to come it will remain the most APPROPRIATE use of mocap ever. Penguins are the most anthropomorphic animals you can get (besides apes obviously), and you have thousands of them. BTW you seem to ignore that all the facial stuff was keyframed and the action sequences too. Even the "heartsong" thing was accurate to real life. I have no problem if you hated the story or whatever, but you can't fault the choice of mocap in that one instance. If they hadda used keyframing they'd be going 'til doomsday. -
need to read the talkbacks before writing their comments. there are only 5 comments here, said over and over. shut the fuck up.
-
scares me more than the real one. I haven't been paying attention to this movie because I hated the story when they made us read it school. But that pic is pretty scary. Those are truly fish lips.
-
That's what I was going to say! ;)
-
They got rid of her skinny-arse arms & legs. Still redundant though.
-
After 300 why spend the time making movies in this fashion, yes it works for Polar Express and maybe even the upcoming Scrooge film, but 300 certainly showed you can do this type of film, photorealistic and show the actors.
-
Anyone agree, creepy.
-
lololololol....yeah, right. Come back in 50 years and maybe they'll be close, but probably not even then.
-
did you make that up? me likey. me no likey: the looks of this film, for all reasons previously stated. but i have an addendum: whoever said this would have had to cost $140mil live-action is wrong. a film costs $140mil because people let it happen. if zemeckis wanted to break ground AND create something within a budget, it's perfectly possible, especially because he has a lot of clout and can get what he wants. in fact, it would have been a challenge.
-
And yes it's photorealistic, are you freaked out by it?, good, that's an instinctive reaction, that's not you being clever but your subconscious saying IT'S A TRAP!
-
that's like saying you hate puppies. everyone loves Forrest Gump a-holes.
-
I was fooled for a second! Then...I remembered that...Grendel's Mother kicks ass, and they couldn't put a REAL person against Grendel's Mother...she would devour them whole!All CGI...Hmm...Maybe.
-
Jul 26, 2007 11:43:47 AM CDT
Beowulf & Grendel the one filmed in Iceland was awsome
by crichtonastronut
Check this movie out, anyone who hasn't seen it. I found this movie by accident at my local Library, looked cool and pickins were slim so I decided to check it out. It was one of the best movies i'd seen in a long damn time.
Gerard Butler, of 300 fame, plays Beowulf and he's brilliant. I liked him in 300, but in this moviwe his character is far more complex and interesting. SDtellan Skarsgard lays the tormented King and his emasculation by Grendel is palpable you find you feel sorry for him even knowing he deserves everything he's getting moere than anyone else in the movie.
Gredel himself, played by an Siegfried Sigurdson , an actor I'd never previously heard of, plays Gredel with real pathos, personality and even humor.
The tale becomes an cricitique of the nature of heroism, as defined by the times, and ask the question leaces us with the question of who were the heroes and who were the monsters and murderes.
And lanscapes of Iceland were jaw dropping beautiful. I'm talking New Zealand in Lord of the Rings beathtaking awsome.
And I'd never heard of it before, not in theaters or pay-per-view or the internet. I still haven't seen it listed on HBO, Showtime, Starz, or even IFC or Sundance.
I later found it for $9.95 at WalMart and bought it straight away.
This is a movie that deserves to be seen and I can't believe it hasn't gotten more attention. -
Pilgrim, yeah the high def detail's nice and all, but ironically you're making the same mistake as they are. Getting lost in secondary concerns rather than the most important thing. What's the first thing you look at? The eyes (then face and hands). If you get that right you'd be amazed what you can get away with elsewhere. The eyes here may be better than the Polar express shite, but (based on a couple of minutes anyway), no better than FF and certainly not as good as Gollum (slightly unfair due to stylisation), Kong and nowhere near Davy Jones. BTW I never heard one person complain about Gollum's hair not moving when the wind is blowing a gale and throwing the live actors' hair and clothes around (2 towers). Not one person. Because the performance was there where it mattered. Shrek may have had 'sticky' mouth corners and eyelids, but the performance was lacking. Look how good the shot where Angelina kisses (eyes closed/obscured) Beowulf is, or cover the eyes on some of the other shots. They look pretty damn good. Now look at the shot where Beowulf is shouting/screaming and the awful lack of tightness around his eyes or cheek compression, not to mention brow and nose. I didn't even GET to the glassy eyes! Yes it's still not the same as a human but Kong's eyes had much better 'acting', whatever you thought of the story.
BTW, you do understand the difference between interlaced and progressive, don't you? Doesn't seem like it from your post. I work in this stuff too but I'm continually horrified at the basics of character and acting that all the techies don't understand or are oblivious to. You end up with stuff like TMNT where they've seen Pixar do eye darts but have no idea WHY and WHEN to implement them. Aargghh! As for the 1080P I agree with those other guys, colour banding and posterisation overload! Quicktime is a shitload better than Windows but you DO have to encode it properly! Geez!
Kirby, you made a similar mistake. The realism doesn't have 1/2 as much to do with the "technology being there yet" as the animator creating a believable performance. I'm not one of the simplistic arseholes that says mocap is the devil but fuck it doesn't just work by itself. Also, that Jurassic Park analogy is the most overused, clichéd and inappropriate one ever. Nobody knows exactly how they moved so we're nowhere near as critical, and they don't exactly express many emotions in that film. Not to mention that they used the oldest trick in the CG book to hide problems. Night, and rain, for the most prolonged and famous scene. Go back and watch it again and see how well the daytime stuff like the T-Rex attacking the Gallis holds up (and make sure you're not talking about the animatronic stuff. There were only 50 CG shots in the whole movie. Also, as far as tech goes, they did have enveloping but not things like skin jiggle. The jiggle IS there though, because a human being ANIMATED it by hand. Don't get me wrong about the film though. I love it (except for the cop-out last-second change to the end) and love the animation. I just don't believe in rose-tinted glasses, that's all, and I'm not denigrating their achievement at all. My main problem is that you can't seriously compare those dinos with a human character. C'mon, it's chalk and cheese!
Warhol, with all respect, do you know how these things work (I'm not being sarcastic)? 1.5 years? Pre-pro and maybe building all the assets/models and blocking can take twice that long. Actual production for a year and a half? So what?. Animation is almost the last thing out the door. Yes I'm simplifying as there are things happening concurrently, but you get my drift. It's very scary how late actual animation happens these days. Fair? -
at least you read mine before you posted yours. wouldn't that have been embarrassing.
-
I'm old enough to remember Ralph Bakshi's version of The Lord of The Rings. He used rotoscope to get realistic and smoother movement. It moved great but looked dead because it was just tracing over filmed action. This junk that Zemeckis is doing is just a computer version of tracing. Lifeless faces and eyes. I would not mind rotoscope or motion capture if the artists just used it as the barest base for their drawings, used it for the gross movements and let their imaginations run rampant with the design of the creatures. Imagine a Beowulf movie looking like a Kay Nielsen painting on screen. Arrrgh.
-
...on the British Isles when Beowulf was originally written. Could be wrong though. ;)
-
At least I didn't say "uncanny valley"!
Oops. -
QT isn't working for me.
-
...and here comes Impulse!
-
Because in 2D, it looks pretty lame.
-
not to be another Talkback hater, but that doesn't look good at all.
-
why use the likeness of the actors, unimaginative... i did not watch polar express for the same reason and i don't thinnk i'll watch this again.
-
I thought it was supposed to have the quality of some Old English illustrations or something. I had no idea it was supposed to photoreal.
-
the eyes look great. The movement looks a little stilted but then again it's not complete. Also I think you're hating on this technology just to hate on it. I bet if they had shown you live action and had called it CGI you still would be bitching about all the flaws in the movements/lips/shading/lighting/eyes etc.
And if it's between Zemekis doing a CGI version of this film and Zemekis not doing this film at all, I choose a CGI Beuwolf. Same with AVATAR. -
Do you really think it looks that bad?? Have you ever seen "old english illustrations before?? Obviously it's stylized to some degree but comparing it to shitty medieval illustrations is a bit of a stretch. Either all you guys are retarded or yeah, all of you guys are retarded.
-
Its going to 15PG in Europe/PG13 in US. Bye bye super violence! Bye bye naked Angelina! Would have been better in Greenscreen a la 300 etc. Zemeckis on the other hand is soooo hit and miss. Back to the Future: great 80's family fun. Castaway and Forest Gump are two of the shittest films I have ever had the misfortune to pay to see. I might be the only person in the world who actually hates Tom Hanks though. There are only two films I have ever walked out of and they are The Day After Tomorrow and Castaway.
Strangely, I cant wait for his Christmas Carol... -
Cloverfield. There, I said it! That movie looks like complete and utter shite.
-
What the fuck are you talking about? Is that some period in the history of Art that no-one outside of America has heard of because it doesn't exist?
-
No matter how good this movie is, it's gonna tank hard! That's ok, most of my favorite movies didn't make a cent at the box office so why should I expect this to be any different.
And someone explain to me how they are getting away with showing Angelina tits and bush all the while still obtaining a PG13 rating? Is it because it's CGI bush? Please somebody clue me in. -
If you look at the stuff that was going on onscreen in the beginning, they capture the eye movement just fine. I didn't get the plastic doll sense so much. I just think some people are predisposed to finding fault with CGI, and basically anything else they can.-------------------------------------------------------------
As for the questions about why we would want to do photorealistic computer animation motion capture, as opposed to just plain film? First, if your film is going to be effects heavy, you're not doing the same thing over and over again. You do everything digital backlot. You can even do what traditional animation does, and give actors different personas on screen. Grendel's a good example. Eccentric as he might be, I doubt Crispin Glover is a dead ringer for the creature he's playing. You can injure, mutilate, and do whatever surreal shit you want to with a motion captured performer, if you prepare properly.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The reasons many give for why this shouldn't or couldn't work are mostly a matter of stylistic opinion, and the tendency among many talkbackers to treat any special effect that looks like a special effect as Bad CGI. I've seen them slap this label on movies with photoreal animation, stuff that wins Oscars. Let me let you guys in on a little secret: it's all fake. Even if you strip it down to just you, a camcorder, and dogme '95 rules, the whole thing is still fake. The Camera doesn't show things as they are, the microphones don't take in sound the way our ears do. It's a sophisticated form of communication which can reflect reality, but never give you reality. CGI and motion capture are just different styles of the same kind of art, and whether they are good or bad depends largely on the artists. Whether an audience likes it depends on whether people are willing to get carried away with the story. The only problem with the Dead eyes and the failure to animate those things properly is what it means in the context of the other realistic elements. If it takes people out of the story, well, that's that. Unfortunately, I think people are jumping to this opinion, on less than a few seconds worth of footage. What I saw was pretty good, and they still have months to refine whatever else they've done. What you're seeing there isn't necessarily the final version of things, and they can add animation in appropriate places as they see fit. -
Plus, Robin's still married to that humorless dick? Also I'm willing to bet all my Star Wars Figures that the animators jack off to that CGI Angelina and make her do all sorts of fucking and sucking. I'll even throw in the Fett man. Not the Jedi one, but the Empire one.
-
there isn't an audience for this.
anyone going to see it won't focus on the story or the characters or the action, but the fact that its CGI for no purpose.
this kind of CGI filmmaking will never make any money outside of kids movies. and even then its going downhill.
i'd much rather see it with real actors. what a wasted effort. -
but looks kinda cool. I'm sure the more I see the more excited I'll get.
-
And I think it will certainly be better than Polar Express, but clearly isn't quite there yet. The eyes still don't quite make it for me. But I'm totally into them doing the movie this way.Whether or not it cost $140 mil or $70 mil, the quality will keep going up while the price keeps going down. This technology will keep improving, and getting cheaper, so eventually AICN talkbackers can afford to make their own Beowulf on their computers at home, and we can all talk about what a crappy job they did.
While I don't know that Beowulf will do anything all that interesting with the medium, I'm all for this kind of story telling. And I like that the CG characters resemble the voice actors--I get irritated by easily recognizable voices in character bodies that have nothing to do with them. Alec Baldwin in Final Fantasy comes to mind. -
It was used in that that Peugeot 206 advert, as well as the trailers for 'I Know Who Killed Me' and 'Death Sentence' (and a bunch of others, I couldn't remember which, so I used Wikipedia, sue me), and a load of TV trailers here in the UK too. Ok, so maybe not as many things as that damn Requiem For A Dream music, but it sounded enough like it to get me riled. So I'll complain about it if I like, thankyou ;)
-
Unless the goal was to make 300 starring next-gen video game cutscene characters, in which case it looks awesome. 300 sucked too.
-
Also, what is the point of doing animated characters that look identical to the original actors? They would have been better to do this on greenscreen with the real actors.
-
http://youtube.com/watch?v=nb4TstBBHYE
-
Ga-Yee, Gay.
-
Movie Trailers almost never contain synced dialogue. Why? Because certain scenes are slowed down while voice work/dialogue remains at normal speed to preserve audio quality. Worse, dialogue is often spliced, spreading a single 5 second bit of dialouge over twenty seconds or so to reinforce the mood of the trailer.Concerning the movement of the characters, many here are mistaking scenes that are shown in slow-mo, such as the fire bridge, Anthony Hopkins' line delivery, etc. for scenes that show actual character speed (long distance shots of the cave, Jolie's kiss, etc). Again, because the trailer shows scenes in slow mo while retaining dialogue, sound effects, and music in normal speed, the animated characters seem out of sync and "fake." As for the eyes, you people are truly being disingenuous: the eyes look just fine. I'm looking at Beowulf, Hopkins, and Jolie and am seeing absolutely normal eye movemnts and facial expressions. True, Jolie is pulling her typical "emotionally distant sex-goddess" thing, and that does make it seem as though she is other-worldy, but Beowulf and Hopkins clearly have human, "alive" eyes.Long story short, everyone keep in mind that a film trailer alters movement and dialogue delivery for EVERY movie, especially modern trailers. Lay off Zemeckis and give this film a chance before passing judgement on the rendered movements. Comments like "hey, its World of Warcraft" obviously display a level of meanness, blatant dishonesty, and childishness rarely seen outside AICN or an elementary school playground.
-
Most of you are judging the film's computer animation work based on some crappy 6 or 7 inch window streaming through your computer monitor. That alone means all of you have NOT seen the real animation. To truly appreciate the level of craftsmanship in this film, you have to see this thing on the BIG screen. And I don't mean a TV set...
-
If some of you can't see the obvious Frazetta influence throughout this film, particularly in the cave scene, Jolie's lighting, and the darkened village, then you people need to get your eyes examined. Frazetta is all over the place in this trailer, and you would notice this if you would spend less time dreaming up smarmy comments and more time VIEWING the work. Have a nice one.
-
I have really been looking forward to this one. But why Mo-Cap, then have the characters look exactly like the actors? Something seems a bit stiff in the character movements. But I'll judge the film after seeing it in the theater. I just wish Robert Z would go back to make a great live action film. Doesn't look like that will happen for a while, though.
-
And are they saying Beowolf is Grendels dad? I thought Joliewas playing Grendels mom. WTF?
-
After watching the trailer again I am a bit more forgiving...but it still looks too much like a PS3 cut scene.
-
So... does anyone tell a joke or get silly at any point in this film? I detect not. This is why I loath "Nightwatch" and films like it, because utter seriousness through an entire film sucks. It makes me think the director has no sense of humor or character. Even movies like "The Thing" have one or two moments of comedic relief.
This film... not so much. I was looking forward to "Beowulf" before seeing that trailer. Oh well. -
This guy is the real deal and his wasting his talents on bullshlit! Do another one out of left feild like Castaway or Romancing the Stone. Hell, Contact was a great big mess of a film but you can't say it wasn't orginal too.
-
was really not that great but was definitely a good time compared to, yes, this humorless, clenched exercise in ego. plus, it had iceland eye-candy all over the joint. after batman begins and that movie, i booked my ticket...tewtally inspiring.
-
you are a moron. Did Schindlers list have any jokes? No. Because its not a fucking light-hearted film. Do you understand film at all? Thats the stupidest post Ive seen in a long time. Gobshite.
-
i love 'romancing the stone.' almost as much as 'back to the future.' i know i'm singing the same goddamned song everybody else is but why doesn't anybody make movies like that anymore? are we all so jaded that humor has to be found in overbearingly quirky, twee movies like 'napoleon dynamite' and anything wes anderson makes, or dane cook movies? *sorrowful sigh for the days of yore, AKA the 80s*
-
yes, i realize that 'beowulf' is not a funny story. yes yes i realize that. but that dude was not wrong in pointing out an action-adventure film's fallacy in not having anything about it that leavens the tone, because you can alienate your audience if you got nuthin. there's something about the aloofness in this - like that guy said about not feeling it in your nuts - that humor might help. i am basically overanalyzing this because i'm bored at work, BTW.
-
actually rationalising something. Instead of just spouting bollox! Im all for bringing back "entertainment" too but you cant take away from Wes Anderson, Lost In Translation or the new indie style of comedy. At least they are trying something new. Beowolf seems to not be trying something new but saying "come check out what my 100 million doller computer can do!"
-
And the writing/acting was about on par. I agree with the comparisons to the Final Fantasy movie which was a colossal dissapointment. I expect the same from this now seeing the trailer.
-
No need to get pissy, moners. You seem to know everything there is about narrative, so I won't pull you down from your pedestal.
Just so you know, however, "Schindler's List" indeed had several comedic moments. Some of the exchanges at the beginning of the film and later, between Schindler and Stern, were intended as relief. The laughter doesn't have to be overt to be effective. My point was that the monolithic seriousness threading through films by Uwe Boll, Paul WS Anderson, and others destroys any real drama.
You can disagree with me if you want, but don't call me a moron. And don't pose to me rhetorical questions like, "Do you know anything about film at all?" I've made four films, three of which were shown at festivals in New England and New York. They weren't classics by any stretch, but one of them won "Best Screenplay" at the Boston Underground Film Festival. So, yes, I know a thing or two about films. Thanks for asking. -
...you just can't stop thinking about it. It's a distraction, no matter how good it looks. How am I supposed to get sucked into the story and the performances when I staring at the fucking peach fuzz on everyone's faces?
-
...you just can't stop thinking about it. It's a distraction, no matter how good it looks. How am I supposed to get sucked into the story and the performances when I staring at the fucking peach fuzz on everyone's faces?
-
very meh. I saw this movie before, when it was called Lord of The Rings. I wasn't all that interested in this movie before I saw the trailer, and now, I'm not interested in it at all. Better luck next time, Bob. Oh wait, next up is "A Motion Capture Christmas Carol". Yeah, good luck, Bob, you'll need it.
-
They used mo-cap, using the actual actors!!! I mean, the actors were already there, just get a camera!
-
http://spielbergfilms.com/indy4/1476
-
I don't understand the point of using mocap for a CGI character that looks exactly like the actor/actress. I mean. Why? I suppose it provides the director new opportunities to experiment with blocking, framing, composition, etc in post-production, but shouldn't all that be envisioned and planned out beforehand anyway? I don't know, it just seems like a waste of time. Now, using mocap for an inhuman character makes perfect sense. Maybe if there were to be anime-style cat girls, it would make perfect sense. (Hey, weren't there cat girls in the Avatar script???) ^^;
-
If Avatar doesn't improve on this, we shall surely know that this MoCap thing was not meant to be.
-
Maybe the rest of you were watching it at 1080p or something but the only time I thought "CGI" was with Anthony Hopkins and during the action shots. The face shots of Jolie and Winstone looked real. I actually thought "I thought this was supposed to be CGI?"
-
someone get Anthony Kiedis on the phone!
-
bunch of whiny bitches, aren't ya? This is the best CGI yet, and of course it won't be exactly photorealistic, did anybody seriously believe that? They got a lot of the subtle stuff closer than anybody else. Somebody show me better motion-CGI. BTW, the Dark Night teaser has been pulled, any alternate links???
-
casting Jolie in ANY role is a HUGE mistake anyway. Unless they reduced her ridiculous fat lips to normal size. They've always scared me, and this is no exception. Even hiding them in big fucking beard would be an improvement! Scary stuff those bigass lips! /shudder
-
Why didn't they just film the fucking thing?
Like I'm really gonna pay to watch a full-length cute sequence from a videogame..wtf?! -
Coming soon to the year 1998.
-
Peach-fuzz isn't the issue you morons! The animation is fatally flawed! Peach-fuzz on shite animation = gilt on a steaming crap.
-
mark my words.
-
bagsalad, and haters in general, got any better-looking human CGI?
-
After seeing that trailer and hearing that music, I was waiting for Zombies to show up. The Taste has spoken.....
-
with less expression, like in Silent Hill. As for the ageing, you can always hire Rick Baker. His stuff was the only decent thing in Click (and 'Life' for that matter). Even if he did have to cater to moronic vain actors who think somehow we suddenly wouldn't recognise them even though they've been in the rest of the damn film. Grrr.
Occula, I think it was Kleiser/Walchak that came up with the "synthespians" thing in the early nineties. Funny because they did some pretty damn stiff animation. -
What's the point of spending millions to create CGI characters that look like bad plastic versions of real people? Sure, use CGI for backgrounds (a la 300) and use mocap for creatures and things that would require extreme CGI. Or for things with a "cartoon" look instead of going for realism. But this just looks incredbly distracting and like a huge waste of money. I don't get this at all beyond doing something just for the sake of doing it. And man, some of that CGI looks awful, just as bad as a video game cut scene. They can't even do fire right???
-
the physics seemed off in that shot - very basic error. Gave me quite a scare about the quality of the non mocap animations.
PS Beowulf and Grendel is a pretty good movie which I recommend. -
I wonder how the gameplay will be.
-
So the argument for using all CGI is because if only the action is CGI, it will stick out...so let's make it all look that bad? Idiotic. Or that CGI saves the cost of costumes and makeup? You really think doing CGI of a guy standing there talking is cheaper than throwing on a costume and shooting in front of a bluescreen? There's no way this will end up getting done for 70 million, the only reason Monster house was that cheap was that it was a small number of characters and a small number of mostly simple locations. The point here isn't whether it's photorealistic, or whether it's the Best Animation Ever...it's that it's a moronic waste to go to a huge amount of trouble to do something we can already do cheaply and easily...and do it WORSE than the old way.
-
suck my computer generated erection, even in this she's fit as fuck.
-
I agree with most of what you said but actually it is cheaper than having the actor do it live. Aside from the Shrek sequels, actors get paid much less for animated movies as they come in and do a few hours over a period of maybe years, even if you're talking facial mocap. Generally it's a fraction of live-action. Then you just mocap someone else for the body movement. See?
Having said that Zemeckis seems to spend twice as much as everyone else so he could well have the actors do everything on this one, wouldn't surprise me! -
If CGI is so awesome, then how come I can tell it's cgi in about half a second?! WHY MAKE CGI OF ACTUAL PEOPLE?! Stick to cgi creations of mythical monsters like the Balrog from LOTR. Leave the acting to humans.
-
Assuming Jolie or whoever is going to charge less for a mocap/voice role, which may depend on whether they're doing the mocap themself or just a voice with someone else's mocap, there may be savings in the actor's paycheck. But you're still spending a TON more money on the actual production. The fact is, it's way cheaper to turn a camera on and point it toward a human talking than it is to mocap a human talking and CGI the whole thing. And at today's level of technology and talent, it gives you an inferior result. Things like action sequences, big sets, and crowd scenes certainly can be cheaper with CGI, but that's why it makes sense to use it for those and just use humans for things like standing around talking. Assuming this ends up costing $70M, that's still more than 300...and from the trailer, this looks far more distractingly fake and less impressive in terms of action and spectacle. For the same budget as this, they could afford Jolie actually appearing onscreen. For $40M, look at the cast they assembled for Sin City. Let's take a hypothetical - assuming they hired the actors to appear onscreen (and assuming they'd be paid more) and shot on greenscreen (which probably wouldn't take much longer than doing the mocap, probably faster for some scenes). Makeup/costume probably isn't any worse than suiting up for mocap and putting all the face dots on. I'd bet the extra cash paid to talent would be more than offset by the savings in actual production. You end up with a movie that costs about the same or even less, and looks way better. There's no good reason to do it all mocap other than self indulgence and using the movie as an excuse to cover R&D costs.
-
Jul 27, 2007 12:22:52 PM CDT
vader, that's using CGI as an excuse to pay actors less
by minderbinder
Apologies if this came through already...Assuming Jolie or whoever is going to charge less for a mocap/voice role, which may depend on whether they're doing the mocap themself or just a voice with someone else's mocap, there may be savings in the actor's paycheck. But you're still spending a TON more money on the actual production. The fact is, it's way cheaper to turn a camera on and point it toward a human talking than it is to mocap a human talking and CGI the whole thing. And at today's level of technology and talent, it gives you an inferior result. Things like action sequences, big sets, and crowd scenes certainly can be cheaper with CGI, but that's why it makes sense to use it for those and just use humans for things like standing around talking. Assuming this ends up costing $70M, that's still more than 300...and from the trailer, this looks far more distractingly fake and less impressive in terms of action and spectacle. For the same budget as this, they could afford Jolie actually appearing onscreen. For $40M, look at the cast they assembled for Sin City. Let's take a hypothetical - assuming they hired the actors to appear onscreen (and assuming they'd be paid more) and shot on greenscreen (which probably wouldn't take much longer than doing the mocap, probably faster for some scenes). Makeup/costume probably isn't any worse than suiting up for mocap and putting all the face dots on. I'd bet the extra cash paid to talent would be more than offset by the savings in actual production. You end up with a movie that costs about the same or even less, and looks way better. There's no good reason to do it all mocap other than self indulgence and using the movie as an excuse to cover R&D costs.
-
Sorry about the double post, not sure why it didn't show up the first time...
-
I can't explain how excited I was about this...but that trailer just baffles the f*ck out of me. What the hell's going on with Grendel's mother?! Why is she suddenly sexy? She's supposed to be a f*cking hag, and never do I remember her chatting up Beowulf, rather trying to tear his f*cking head off with her bear hands at every opportunity!! So you've got Angie - that doesn't mean you have to make her get it on with Beowulf, she's quite capable of just being a terrifying badass without resorting to sex. Man alive, I'm gutted. WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG with sticking to the original narrative? It's f*cking awesome for Pete's sake! At the beginning it looked like Disney's Aladdin for f*ck's sake! AIIIIIIIRRRRGHHHHHHHH! I hope the movie itself proves me wrong, but so far it looks like the 13th Warrior will remain the closest big budget Beowulf movie, and that ain't even a proper Beowulf movie. Booo, Zemeckis! BOOOOOO!!!! This woman is HACKED OFF!!
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 325 total posts 322 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 106 total posts 106 posts
- HANNA's Saoirse Ronan to boss around seven little people -- 63 total posts 60 posts
- Does ‘SNL’ Rhyme With ‘Deschanel’?? Learn Which SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE Vet Hosts After Sexy Zooey!! -- 74 total posts 58 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 159 total posts 51 posts
- If the Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day drops her pen, pick it up, but don’t look at her legs or else it will be on your record. -- 47 total posts 41 posts
- AVENGERS enemy revealed as pink boardgame pieces... You might suffer some form of elation... SPOILERS!!! -- 161 total posts 34 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 488 total posts 33 posts
- Friday Brings SWEEPS DAY NINE!! Gab Here About Tonight’s FRINGE!! Plus Einstein on TIM, Wiig On PORTLANDIA, MAHER, CLONE, GIFTED, GRIMM, SPARTACUS, SUPERNATURAL, GOLD RUSH And More!! -- 121 total posts 23 posts
- Here's The Red Band Trailer For Drafthouse Films' THE FP! -- 70 total posts 20 posts