Ain't It Cool News: The best in movie, TV, DVD, and comic book news.

Quint has seen 20 minutes of BEOWULF in 3-D at Comic-Con! Holy Crap!!! How was it?!?

Sorry, but the eyes DO look dead... by Angry Mean Panda	Jul 26th, 2007 05:34:48 AM
You can't post this after the trailer is released and say they don't. THhy very much do.
Naked Angelina Jolie 3D Model by kingrobot	Jul 26th, 2007 05:38:10 AM
I'm sure the animation team had fun with that one during coffee breaks....
So I read the article (good btw) by Kragmose	Jul 26th, 2007 05:39:56 AM
Reach the bottom, no comments. Glee filled my face, but I had to be sure. I hit refresh. Comments appear. I'm off to punish myself.
Can't wait for the first Performance Capture Porn! by DerLanghaarige	Jul 26th, 2007 05:45:32 AM
Imagine Jolie on Jolie action!
Regarding the Rating by Dersu	Jul 26th, 2007 05:52:48 AM
I had once heard that there were going to be two cuts of this movie produced. One PG-13 and one NC-17. Is this true? I think it could be really distracting and campy to have a character's genitals covered in that "Austin Powers" type of way that you mentioned, Quint.
Set visit? by Shoegeezer	Jul 26th, 2007 06:00:36 AM
Are you Tron?
I can see Quint masking his disappointment by IndustryKiller!	Jul 26th, 2007 06:26:33 AM
it's pretty obvious this one isn't going to be what we all wanted. I blame the mo-cap, which just looks ridiculous. Why have actors act live, then animate over them only to try to make it look as lifelike as possible? It's the computer animation equivalent of Gus Van Zants Psycho remake. Just utterly pointless. There is no discernable style to the animation. Just plastic looking figurines made to imitate actors robbing the work of all atmosphere. I'm all for pushing technology but Zemeckis seems to be taking a huge bullet for the sake of a technology no one is particularly interested in even if it gets better. He should be out there doing good work.
Sounds like a mess by Andy Warhol Jr	Jul 26th, 2007 07:02:26 AM
Or Quint is a bad writer. Maybe both.
Agreed about the dead eyes by Franklin T Marmoset	Jul 26th, 2007 07:17:32 AM
I thought the trailer looked pretty interesting, but that dead eyes problem continues to haunt CG animated human characters. It was the same thing with that Final Fantasy film. There's so much painstaking attention to detail, but then the end result looks plain creepy, like a bunch of demon dummies wandering around. I'd be interested to see if it's a problem they can crack, but no one's come close so far. Also, three cheers to DerLanghaarige, who has hit the nail square on the head. Some day soon, all the actresses you want to see nekkid wil be scissoring each other in a bunch of cgpornimation videos. It's bound to happen.
Beowulf by lost.rules	Jul 26th, 2007 07:17:37 AM
Sorry. It's overated.
Good sum up by 300spartansinhell	Jul 26th, 2007 07:21:02 AM
I saw the trailer again and all I can say is that some parts looked really good and others not so good. The eyes were actually good, but the animations on the mouths were bad. Water effects looked good, but fire effects were like from a game. Landscapes were beautiful and painterly but horses were very cartoony in a bad way.
What's with all this love for a crappy 80's TV show by TheManWithTooManyNames	Jul 26th, 2007 08:00:15 AM
. . . about a supersonic military helicopter?
Will actor Jan-Michael Vincent be reprising his role as by TheManWithTooManyNames	Jul 26th, 2007 08:04:21 AM
"Stringfellow Hawke" in this?
Marshall by malpaso	Jul 26th, 2007 08:11:04 AM
I actually think this guy is a bit of an original...looking forward to his flick.
Take it to 11 by BeyondStatic	Jul 26th, 2007 09:07:29 AM
The graphics look pretty good to me, though the trailer is cut too fast to get a feel for the animation. Swear, I thought it was live-action on first look. The designs look phenominal, like they crawled into my head when I read the poem back in high school. But honestly, forget the marketing. Do the story justice - go for the R rating. This is still an experiment in performance capture. If you're going to experiment with art then be an artist; make art, not commercial. Go for the R.
Why does the wee Baby by FILMFUNK	Jul 26th, 2007 09:21:52 AM
Have a beard?
Didn't Read it in English Class by redfist	Jul 26th, 2007 09:45:02 AM
so I stopped reading like I was told...was the article any good?
performance capture is kind of goofy by Rupee88	Jul 26th, 2007 10:29:41 AM
If they are going for photorealism, why not just film the regular actors. But I love CGI and this looks like the best film like this since Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within, which I thought was great although it was a huge flop. I'll definitely see this at the theater and in 3-D.
Quint sounds underwhelmed by the 3-D by Rupee88	Jul 26th, 2007 10:30:30 AM
I thought half the review would be about the 3-D experience, but he relegates it to one sentence at the end and doesn't even seem impressed by it...damn.
We'll have photorealistic CGI humans in 10 years.... by Rupee88	Jul 26th, 2007 10:36:48 AM
....yeah right...you fucking retards. Not in our lifetimes or our children's lifetimes...regardless of what Zemeckis or Cameron says.
SORT OUT THE MOUTH MOVEMENTS by performingmonkey	Jul 26th, 2007 10:56:21 AM
At the moment the lip-synching doesn't look right. Spend time on getting this and the eyes right and you have success. I think that's the MOST IMPORTANT THING for the crew to consider.
Just saw the trailer and i'm not impressed by feckdrinkarse	Jul 26th, 2007 11:10:48 AM
All-motion capture movies are a dumb idea.
Will someone who knows explain- by Space oddity	Jul 26th, 2007 11:19:13 AM
is it true that the only difference between realistic and non-realistic CGI (that is not to say good CGI and bad CGI) is purely rendering time and therefore how much time money and manpower go into it? Because if that is true, then I don't think we're ever going to get mouths that don't either flap and twitch distractingly to be nuanced or ones that slowly or clumsily open and shut. Producers would much rather simply darken a scene to cover up those imperfections and spend the real Special Effects dough on the 'splosions. Just look what happened to that first Final Fantasy movie from a few years back that was suppose to blow everyone's mind. "HOLY SHIT! The chick from Frasier is totally in space! (and usually wearing a convenient helmet) THAT TOTALLY BLOWS MY MIND!"
inferior to the intro of OMINUSHA 3 by lavatory love machine	Jul 26th, 2007 11:32:28 AM
and that was like 4 years ago
Did Zemeckis invest in some sort of technology company? by Flip63Hole	Jul 26th, 2007 12:04:30 PM
His obsession with this tech is starting to seem like its more like he's forced to use it simply to try to squeeze any money out of it that he can. Perhaps he thought he thought he was investing in Pixar? I have no idea...
Space oddity - rendering time by arctor	Jul 26th, 2007 12:22:35 PM
rendering time has nothing to do with the 'realism' of the look...all things considered the two are not related at all...also the flappy mouths are purely a consequence of bad animation - which can be caused by bad animators or simply not enough time to get a good performance, or both. As to the rating - I've heard about a PG-13, an R, and an NC-17...
What's the point? by Barry Egan	Jul 26th, 2007 12:58:57 PM
Why do mocap work with actors so you can the animate them so they look like actors?
No way. I love Oni 3's CG but come on. by Novaman5000	Jul 26th, 2007 01:15:33 PM
The french citizens in the intro are really basic and nowhere near as detailed as this. This looks to have some of the best CG EVER created. That being said it does seem sort of silly, to do mocap work and have the final product look so real and lifelike- why not just shoot it with real people... I guess the future we're coming towards is- an actor's entire body and digital self can be saved and used later in other films. So Angelina Jolie is to busy to actually act in a film, but she can do the voice work, someone else mocaps and they can license her digital self from her, pop her in and bingo, she's starring in a new animated film. Sort of a strange concept.
Novaman, I agree. by Barry Egan	Jul 26th, 2007 01:18:02 PM
It will be even weirder when dead people are still digitally in movies. Didn't Zemeckis do a Tales from the Crypt with Bogart in it?
Eh by thxMike	Jul 26th, 2007 02:08:57 PM
eh
What about Davy Jones??? by cheady	Jul 26th, 2007 02:11:29 PM
Davy Jones had the most realistic eyes ever on a CGI creature...
Craptastical by Brannagins Law	Jul 26th, 2007 02:11:58 PM
Why!? When will people learn 3D isn't ready yet to be replacing live action. It looks so stiff and fake. CG needs to be used as a tool i.e. 300. Sure it's come a long way but unless your going for a Ratatouille style, its going to fall flat. It just looks like it tries to hard to mimic true life. I remember how hard the audience laughed during the kiss in Final Fantasy, the Spirits Within. And when trailers start reusing the same song over and over again, to me that is like the director and producers don't care if they use a nice piece from the original soundtrack to pull you in, they phone it in and think you've never heard it before. They plays us for idiots. When I hear a track I've heard before from another movie played over a brand new trailer that's supposed to get you excited, I just know it's gonna be some good suck.
I think I first heard that music in 28 Days Later by Demosthenes2	Jul 26th, 2007 02:29:13 PM
and now it's in every other trailer; I'd rather just associate it with 28 Days Later, but it's hard to appreciate it anymore. It feels even less appropriate here (too modern) than it did in the I Know Who Killed Me trailer. And yup, the characters look pretty much just like the actors, only less real and dimensional. Monster House was great because the characters didn't look like the actors and the movements/designs were exaggerated. The way animation should be. When everything's so lifelike you might as well be watching life, because you are, just not as accurately. And yes, I'm the first one to think of that criticism.
Crispin "Creapy" Glover!!! by ludmir88	Jul 26th, 2007 02:46:19 PM
nightmares!!!
looks corny as hell by Meatbiscuit	Jul 26th, 2007 02:52:55 PM
pg-13 wont help.
Mocap by jfp2007	Jul 26th, 2007 02:54:10 PM
Some of you need to go out and read an article on what mocap is. Everyone here seems to think it's rotoscoping only in 3D. It isn't.
We have photo-realistic humans now... by jimmy_009	Jul 26th, 2007 02:58:53 PM
...they're called humans. And there's several billion of them at our disposal. The whole idea of recreating a human for movies is so pointless it's insulting.
Barry Egan by skimn	Jul 26th, 2007 02:59:11 PM
Yes, he did in an episode that starred John Lithgow, I think he directed around the time of Death Becomes Her or Forrest Gump, when he was getting his feet wet in digital effects. And I second that Davy Jones was one of, if not the best done digital character yet.
Mocap like this is coming for video games by TragicComic	Jul 26th, 2007 03:04:04 PM
Hey all, I own a motion capture studio that specializes in doing facial mocap like this for video games (we are small, so our demo doesn't look as complete as what they are doing here, but we actually have substantially more advanced technology). Check out our early demo at: captivemotion.com I actually left a long career in the video game industry to build this tech (I'm the lead engineer as well as president) so that video game writers and designers would have a medium that would allow interesting characters personalities to really come through in games (and hopefully make an emotional connection with the player), rather than seeing lame archetypes that simply flap their lips.
jimmy_009, you are missing the point by TragicComic	Jul 26th, 2007 03:08:01 PM
Using completely digital humans can radically change the way films are made. Take a look at pixar films for instance, because they are completely CG, they can edit, reformat, reshoot, retool, until the movie meets the expectations of it's creators. It seems to me in most cases, using actors and film is a massive restriction on what you can do creatively after you've done your primary filming.
Kong had nice eyes by Antz	Jul 26th, 2007 03:13:01 PM
He was mo-cap, so it can be done. Gollum wasn't too bad either, not quite as good, but still reasonable.
kong by Halfbreedqueen	Jul 26th, 2007 03:27:57 PM
kong did have nice eyes, as did gollum. even this trailer wasnt as bad as polar express. kong is probably the best i've seen, too bad a lot of other effects in that movie were underdone. and for TragicComic, I hate to say it, but part of working with actors is a director's job on set. not that there isn't room for mocap and all that, but the idea that animation makes it so much easier to change, well, doesn't work on set matter anymore? you know, the PRODUCTION phase.
What the fuck is this shit? Zemeckis is an IDIOT! by Overgod	Jul 26th, 2007 03:33:01 PM
Okay...Did anybody else look at this trailer in disgust as 1) Angelina Jolie's annoying fake russian/romanian sounding accent a la Alexander returned to shit over this movie once more? Why doesn't Angelina Jolie shut the fuck up with that annoying russian accent and realise that she sucks at fake accents? Her voice is annoying as hell and terribly distracting. Now to the visuals: What the fuck is this? Is this some fucking computer generated crap designed in lieu of real actors? Everybody and everything, from the fire, to the horses, the actors, the props, everything, looked fake and computer generated. WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS? OH MY GOD, is the next "Final Fantasy" flop?
Halfbreedqueen of course it matters by TragicComic	Jul 26th, 2007 03:37:51 PM
But just a CG allows us to do more with our creative visions, so will complete performance capture. You've got to realize that this stuff is the beginning of complete 3d capture. Over the next few decades, we will be able to shoot on set, fully digitize it change it, tweak it. This is another VERY powerful tool that will allow creative people to do more for less. Ultimately, this technology will fall into the hands of the individual and individuals will have the capacity to do work that will rival the visual work work done in the most expensive films of today. Why is it that people always seem to the think that the way it's always been done is the best way to do it?
The Future of Mo-Cap by kevinwillis.net	Jul 26th, 2007 03:38:44 PM
Is going to be hybridization. Shoot live with real-time mo-cap that doesn't require visible lines or dots or weird suits, use the live footage then pop in backdrops, add effects, and enhance or change lighting using the the hybrid mo-cap . . . You heard it from me, dammit. Zemeckis is just taking the first baby-steps to getting there.
The reason why the way it's been done is the way to go by Ugee	Jul 26th, 2007 04:15:03 PM
TrajicComic, the reason why people think that the way it's been done before is the best way is because CG has been around for a while an very few people have been able to get it right. CG still sticks out like a sore thumb on film and I myself would rather see conventional special effects than CG anyday. When I see special effect done in CG that could of been done traditionaly I think it's a sign of lazyness. The joy of seeing conventional effects on film is wondering how they were done.
Boy you people like to bitch... by Johnno	Jul 26th, 2007 04:38:00 PM
Sure it isn't perfect... but how the hell do you expect them to get there? By just sitting around NOT Trying? I can reach back into the live action film catalogues and traditional animation and pull out all sorts of SHIT! The film industry didn't start off with a major epic movie in full colour! If you don't dig it, don't see it! But stop complaining about why it's being done in the first place! If shit was left up to people like yourselves the world would be at a standstill, never progressing! That said the best CG model doubles of real life people are still Neo and Smith from the Matrix Reloaded/Revolutions, though admittedly they were wearing glasses most of the time, but that final punch at the end was sheer greatness! The only complaint about this project is that the animation in it doesn't move very well despite mo-cap, it's boring. When a videogame being mo-capped by Andy Cirkus on PS3 looks more alive using non-photorealistic characters, then you know there's a problem. And I someday hope to see a CGI flick that will top the fantastic action in Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children, now THAT's what I call taking advantage of a medium that live action can only wish it could be. Maybe I should be an asshole too and suggest live action should give up when it comes to matching the quality of sequences done in CG, in fact... live action can never do it without CG! But CG doesn't need shitty live action! Har Har! Aren't I elitist?
lol by Geek Sodomizer	Jul 26th, 2007 04:57:42 PM
it looks fake and computer generated? maybe because IT'S FAKE AND COMPUTER GENERATED ASSHOLE. Damn what did you think that it was going to be photo-real? a 90 minute movie? get real. yeah the animation kinda sucks but the graphics look impressive.
Bacci40 by TheRealMoriarty	Jul 26th, 2007 05:19:07 PM
I'm guessing reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. I'm not "putting down the geek crowd" at all. I'm just stating an absolute truth: we do not drive box-office phenomenons. We don't. If we did, the box-office landscape would look very different. We are a very vocal minority, and I'm thrilled that Hollywood takes us seriously, but if they think that catering exclusively to us will create a $500 million blockbuster, they're wrong, and they know that.
Davy Jones' eyes were actually Bill Nighy's eyes. by Barry Egan	Jul 26th, 2007 05:32:32 PM
I am pretty certain that the only parts of the Davy Jones character that were actually Nighy were the eyes and of course the voice. I agree that Jones is a feat of design and is a great example of a mocap character done right. I just don't see the point of using mocap to creat a digital character that looks just like the actor. I wonder what SAG has to say about it.
Davy Jones' eyes were actually Bill Nighy's eyes. by Barry Egan	Jul 26th, 2007 05:32:32 PM
I am pretty certain that the only parts of the Davy Jones character that were actually Nighy were the eyes and of course the voice. I agree that Jones is a feat of design and is a great example of a mocap character done right. I just don't see the point of using mocap to creat a digital character that looks just like the actor. I wonder what SAG has to say about it.
The Future of Mo-Cap by kevinwillis.net by EUROPA	Jul 26th, 2007 06:29:46 PM
Sounds a lot like Sin City, 300 or many of the ohter movies today that use green screens.
whats the by v for vienetta	Jul 26th, 2007 06:44:17 PM
piece of music in the trailer?
Re: Rating by roadcaesar	Jul 26th, 2007 07:53:18 PM
I remember hearing that too, Dersu. Something about the PG-13 going to regular theaters and the unrated cut going to IMAX 3D?
EUROPA by Sir Loin	Jul 26th, 2007 08:45:50 PM
At least it wasn't oliverwillis.com, that commie would never enjoy a film like this one. That involves women. Even CGI ones.
This is America Quint... by kirttawesomio	Jul 26th, 2007 09:54:13 PM
No one reads in English class anymore. I mean come on, where do you think you are, Northern Europe.
This is Perplexing by Playhouse	Jul 26th, 2007 10:05:55 PM
I guess I'm just lost as to why you would recreate the actors as perfect likenesses of themselves (Beowulf's hodgepodge model aside). If you're going to do this kind of thing, use them as a basis and create "someone" new. Otherwise, you're better off just committing the movie to film and creating effects around the live-action. I'm not going to say it doesn't look impressive. It does. Just seems like a pointless exercise to see a digitally recreated Hopkins or Jolie when they've already done all the acting live.
People bitch too much. by cerebulon	Jul 26th, 2007 10:56:31 PM
Looked good to me. I'm there.
So is Sean Bean getting anything ... by irritable	Jul 26th, 2007 11:53:18 PM
... for having his face pasted over Ray Winstone's ugly mug?
barry egan by conbarba	Jul 27th, 2007 03:21:29 AM
The eyes of Jones were digital also.
Grendel isn't evil, just misunderstood by hrogthrar	Jul 27th, 2007 03:31:01 AM
I. Heorot's plea and Grendel's awakening Midnight suns bid moors farewell, retreats from charging dusk Mountain echo, curfews bell, signal ending tasks They place their faith in oaken doors, cower in candlelight The panic seeps through bloodstained floors as Grendel stalks the night Earth rim walker seeks his meals Prepare the funeral pyres The shaper's songs no longer heal the fear Within their eyes, their eyes Wooden figures, pagan gods, stare blindly cross the sea Appeal for help from ocean fogs, for savior born of dreams They know their lives are forfeit now, priestly head they bow in shame They cannot face the trembling crowd that flinch in Grendel's name Earth rim walker seeks his meals Prepare the funeral pyres The shaper's songs no longer heal the fear Within their eyes, their eyes As Grendel leaves his mossy home beneath the stagnant mere Along the forest path he roams to Hrothgar's hall so clear He knows that victory is secured, his charm will testify His claws will drip with mortal blood as moonbeams haunt the sky Earth rim walker seeks his meals Prepare the funeral pyres The shaper's songs no longer heal the fear Within their eyes, their eyes II. Grendel's Journey Silken membranes span his path, fingerprints in dew Denizens of twilight lands humbly beg him through Mother nature's bastard child shunned by leaf and stream An alien in an alien land seeks solace within dreams The shaper's lies his poisoned tongue malign with mocking harp Beguiling queen her innocence offends his icy heart III. Lurker at the Threshold Hounds freeze in silence bewitched by the reptile spell Sulphurous essence pervades round the grassy dell Heorot awaits him like lamb to the butcher's knife Stellular heavens ignore even children's cries Screams are his music, lightning his guide Raping the darkness, death by his side Chants rise in terror, free round the oaken beams Flickering firelight portraying the grisly scene Warriors advance, prepare for the nightmare foe Futile their sacrifice as even their hearts must know Heroes delusion, with feet in the grave Lurker at the threshold, he cares not for the brave, he cares not for the brave So you thought that your bolts and your locks would keep me out You should have known better after all this time You're gonna pay in blood for all your vicious slander With your ugly pale skins and your putrid blue eyes Why should I feel pity when you kill your own and feel no shame God's on my side, sure as hell, I'm gonna take no blame I'm gonna take no blame, I'm gonna take no blame So you say you believe in all of Mother Nature's laws You lust for gold with your sharpened knives Oh when your hoards are gathered and your enemies left to rot You pray with your bloodstained hands at the feet of your pagan gods Then you try to place the killer's blade in my hand You call for justice and distort the truth Well I've had enough of all your pretty pretty speeches Receive your punishment, Expose your throats to my righteous claws And let the blood flow, and let the blood flow, flow, flow, flow
Ho Hum. more Mannequin shit by council estate scumbag	Jul 27th, 2007 06:51:57 AM
when will they ever learn, huh? i WAS excited til I saw dat crappy trailer. If i wanted to see a load of dead people moving about I'd go and watch 3 episodes of Eastenders back to back through a jar of formaldehyde. Shit! has Zemeckis learnt nothing from Polar Express? Why is he tryna foister his sick obsession wih walking corpses on us all? Advance the technology, fella, THEN make your movie. This looks pitiful. Jolie looks fit tho. Thats necrophylia right there.
I just gotta say... by vezner2007	Jul 27th, 2007 07:10:01 AM
that this looks like a frickin computer game cinematic rather than a movie. In other words, we might as well be watching World of Warcraft The Movie. I'm not going to waste my money on seeing this one in the theaters. It'll be a netflix view for me.
Vomit... by hallowhitch31	Jul 27th, 2007 07:55:05 AM
Polar Express with swords. Fucking yawn.
Nope, not Nighy's eyes. It's 100% CGI. by minderbinder	Jul 27th, 2007 09:32:14 AM
In the first movie, the skeletons have the eyes of Depp and Rush. When they shot the second one, they were worried they would have to do the same for Davy Jones, so they shot Nighy with some makeup around his eyes in case they needed to use them. But it turned out the CGI eyes looked fine so they didn't end up using the real eyes at all. That seems like a perfect example of when to use mocap/cgi, I just don't get the point of taking more time and money to create footage that looks less good than what they would have ended up with if they just shot the actors. And why do video games insist on the crappy CGI cutscenes? Why don't they just hire actors to do the dialogue scenes instead of wasting time on facial animation and lip sync? Do like Sin City or 300 and just use the CGI for backgrounds and action/FX, which is what it does best. I guess it's because it would make the in-game graphics look bad in comparison, when the whole thing is CGI you can forget how unrealistic it looks.
minderbinder by Johnno	Jul 27th, 2007 08:19:42 PM
Not using live actors in videogames keeps consistency in the look... much better in my opinion. Also you can't use live actors for games with stylized or anime characters. That would simply look very stupid. Also using real time cutscenes saves disc space rather than resorting to high quality FMV. That said, some video games do use live action sequences...
No way this will get away with a PG-13 by scrivener	Jul 31st, 2007 11:58:10 PM
They just need to go for the R-cut. Look at 300. Wildly successfull. Rated R. Give us the blood, the nudity, everything. This looks amazing and I'm dying to see it, but clearly artificial censorship (conveniently placed objects, etc) will absolutely ruin it for me. It won't just lessen the experience, it will ruin it the same way a handful of fresh horse shit would ruin risotto.
new beowulf by stvnsprngr	Aug 4th, 2007 05:13:33 AM
I hope to be bowled over by the new movie because nothing I have seen so far comes close to instilling the same feeling I have for the 2005 "http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0 402057/" Gerard Butler flick with Ingvar E. Sigurdsson as Grendel. I watched the movie, enjoyed it and then let it go. Three days later, the scenes of Sigurdsson's Grendel raging at the sunset were so strong in my head that I had to rent it again and watch it again.
Sigh I didn't even know by scrumdiddly	Aug 21st, 2007 09:31:04 AM
that this movie was being made in this offensive style until I saw the trailer a while back. Totally forgot about it after that, too. All I can say is I think we all know it will flop, and I'm very glad of that. It's BEOWULF, you bastards! You do it PROPERLY!!!

Talkbacks

Quint has seen 20 minutes of BEOWULF in 3-D at Comic-Con! Holy Crap!!! How was it?!?

User login

Quick Talkback

Talkbacks