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

New Red Band Trailer for BEOWULF - Looking Better and Better!

Simulated nudity? by mraig	Sep 4th, 2007 03:27:51 PM
Let me pretend to be aroused.
First! by loodabagel	Sep 4th, 2007 03:27:58 PM
Vive le cog Smooches!
First by arrangedletters	Sep 4th, 2007 03:28:05 PM
to say how bad this will be
Simulated nudity? by loodabagel	Sep 4th, 2007 03:29:03 PM
Indeed. Gaiman, I thought you were down with the real thing?
well I would have been by arrangedletters	Sep 4th, 2007 03:30:16 PM
if I was logged in at the time. Seriously whoever thinks this looks good needs to get a nice smack in the head. It's everything that's wrong with mocap.
Why couldnt they do a body scan of... by TheRealSeveren	Sep 4th, 2007 03:32:10 PM
Marilyn Monroe before she died? Missed opportunity there.
6th by spidercheek	Sep 4th, 2007 03:33:14 PM
the link dont work
no way! by thedigitalpunkz	Sep 4th, 2007 03:33:34 PM
i cant watch it because im in the uk :(
I would very much like to: by Doctor Zoidberg	Sep 4th, 2007 03:34:11 PM
engage in sexual intercourse with Angelia Jolie.
Still don't get Motion Capture by Blue Meanie 1138	Sep 4th, 2007 03:37:19 PM
Simulated enviornments? OK. Creatures? Fine. CGI people? Pointless. Looks fake. Tecnology for technology's sake. From the look of the trailer, I have the same problem I did with POLAR EXPRESS: the humans look like wax figures. More creepy than dramatic. I don't care if the technology is in its early stages. The very premsie of it doesn't work for me.
I'm in the uk too... by TELF	Sep 4th, 2007 03:39:10 PM
Any other links, mirrors, etc? Does it look any better than the last one. Is Grendel less... shit?
Been Done. by Gatsbys West Egg Omlet	Sep 4th, 2007 03:41:27 PM
except it was called Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within. and the even better with Final Fantasy: Advent Children.
Looks like we're crashing the server by vich1	Sep 4th, 2007 03:44:10 PM
You'd think a studio would have a site hosted on something that could handle it.
Red band trailer for a PG-13 movie? by El Scorcho	Sep 4th, 2007 03:48:21 PM
Why? It's been stated repeatedly that the film will be PG-13.
DAMMIT, the eyes are still dead. by HamsterDK	Sep 4th, 2007 03:49:26 PM
Otherwise it looks close to perfection. The worst part is that it would take so little to fix it. If you look at the scene where Beowolf talks a lot you can see that the iris is totally fixed to one point. This is so unnatural. In real life when you talk to someone your eyes fluctuate to different points several times per second but in this trailer the eyes are simply fixed. All the other things look great. The texture, the little eyemuscle movements and so on. I can't believe they talented animators missed this important step.
How else to do Beowulf? by sfgeek	Sep 4th, 2007 03:52:08 PM
I agree with the creep factor of the technology, but every Beowulf movie that has been done has sucked ass... even the ones that sort of followed the epic to begin with. I will only see this because it looks as if they have the epic down to a point where it is a decent adaptation. I guess the only way to really do Beowulf is to do it fake style. But I do get creeped out by the technology... waxy and seeing the little hair stubbles on Beowulf... just freaky.
regardless of the massive pimping this gets here by davidaq	Sep 4th, 2007 03:53:05 PM
it just doesn't look very good.
meh. by the projectionist	Sep 4th, 2007 03:58:24 PM
meh.
Is this the worst trailer/marketing campaign ever? by Splicer	Sep 4th, 2007 04:02:24 PM
First trailer was totally ruined by weird, messed up encoding and the next two have the 'restricted' bull****. This is not the way to generate global buzz for your movie!
Dear Robert Zemeckis by Lando Griffin	Sep 4th, 2007 04:02:42 PM
Remember that time you made cool movies with real live humans in them? ... No? ....Well now that you mention it neither do we. Yours truly, The General Public PS - For future reference please bring us the real Angelina Jolie nude. Sure she has done her share of nude scenes but you can never have too much of a good thing.
Zemeckis usually delivers. by LoneGun	Sep 4th, 2007 04:03:35 PM
The guy has made so many entertaining movies over the years. POLAR EXPRESS was a very good Christmas feature. I'm a bit partial to CAST AWAY, as it is about a guy who is all alone. I watch it when I feel lonely.
Age restricted...... by Cleyu	Sep 4th, 2007 04:09:53 PM
So people from other countries outside America have to invent a zip code etc.........look shove your flop of a movie up your ass. Make something original and I'll make up a zip code to watch it......deal?
When will this mo-cap experiment end? by Lando Griffin	Sep 4th, 2007 04:10:36 PM
Polar Express = Creepy Monster House = A little less creepy but heavy on the flailing arms and general overexagerated basic movements.
Why bother? by PervOmatic	Sep 4th, 2007 04:14:45 PM
The other trailers have been amazingly underwhelming and this age restriction thing is bullshit? "Looking better and better!" HA!!! How much does it cost to get a plug like that on AICN now? It's been said before: This movie looks like a zillion generic video game cut scenes and almost everyone skips those so why would we pay to see this? Fail
Did some clown up there just use "meh"? by slone13	Sep 4th, 2007 04:17:00 PM
I didn't know people still used that non-word. How 3 years ago. And so very 12 year old girl-esque.
13th Warrior by aceattorney	Sep 4th, 2007 04:19:27 PM
Anyone reminded of Antonio Bandera's 13th Warrior?
Shut up, you whiners by Acappellaman	Sep 4th, 2007 04:19:30 PM
Why don't you all just judge the movie after you see it? Last time I checked, ALL animated movies look fake. Toy Story? Check. The Incredibles? Check. The Lion King? Check. Iron Giant? Check. See where I'm going with this? Enjoy this movie the way you would when watching any animated film, only with an adult theme to it, and ignore the picky details like fixated pupils and crap like that. What's wrong with you people?!? Can YOU do any better than the team that's making this? I thought not. And any of you who stupidly said yes to my question, PROVE IT. Until you can, and you make a movie that blows all of our socks off while simultaneously making everybody's pupils fidget and gitter all over the friggin place the way you apparently want them to, shut the hell up and watch the movies other people make. You people are so freaking petty it's unreal. I think this movie looks interesting. Whether it'll be one I go to the theater and see, or wait until DVD, I don't know yet, but I'm sure as hell gonna see it.
Mo Cap belongs in console games, not moobies. by Pound Sand	Sep 4th, 2007 04:20:04 PM
Tiger Woods Golf is an appropriate use of Mo Cap. Polar Express came off more as an self-indulgent dead-eye wank fest. Plus, it was just spooky for a Christmas movie, and not good spooky like Nightmare before Christmas, but weird spooky like Return to Oz. Some moments in special effects history are so obviously quantum leaps forward..think Terminator 2 liquid effects... that it just smacks you in the face. Zemeckis' continued push on Mo Cap just seems like a forced attempt to win an Academy Award for scientific and technical achievement. And while you get a separate awards show, hosted by a hot chick, that doesn't equate to butts in the seats.
You dont understand........ by Cleyu	Sep 4th, 2007 04:20:29 PM
You should be promoting this movie...........not making it harder for people to watch. Kids are not intrested in this......a computer designed movie does not mean kids movie......the last trailer was mostly talking and no action....kids were probably bored stiff.
Anyone else having trouble accessing this stuff? by Psyclops	Sep 4th, 2007 04:22:30 PM
I enter the appropriate zip code and age but it won't allow me access to the restricted content. Stupid technology!!
god AICN. this is sad. i hope you're getting payed well by BMacSmith	Sep 4th, 2007 04:25:49 PM
Integrity isn't cheap.
This mess is fatal. by Cleyu	Sep 4th, 2007 04:28:21 PM
Goodbye Beowulf...........goodbye.
still looks goofy by Rupee88	Sep 4th, 2007 04:29:26 PM
I agree that mocap is a bad idea, at least for an entire film. Just use it when necessary, but not for regular scenes where you could just film the friggin actors.
Simulated Nudity?! Whatever happened to the real kind? by Yeti	Sep 4th, 2007 04:29:55 PM
Or the equally popular "I can't believe it's not nudity?"
toy story is 100 times more realistic then beowulf by Evil Hobbit	Sep 4th, 2007 04:29:57 PM
Mocap aint animation. No emotion or expressions means no realism. No matter how photorealistic the textures and models are, if there is no life in the characters the film won't engage. In that extend even Bambi is more realistic then this.
They don't want the guys at WETA to see it. by Splicer	Sep 4th, 2007 04:31:44 PM
And laugh their asses off.
let the animators animate! Mocap is only astartingpoint by BMacSmith	Sep 4th, 2007 04:35:47 PM
Its just not enough on its own. Zemeckis hasn't done anything since Frighteners.
Original songs? by Gozu	Sep 4th, 2007 04:38:34 PM
Anyone else notice this?
Zemeckis is turning into a techno-bore by Lance Rock	Sep 4th, 2007 04:40:38 PM
Remember Back to the Future? Romancing the Stone? Hell, Forrest Gump? How about another movie with something resembling a soul, Mr. Zemeckis?
Zemeckis vacations at my uncle's ranch... by Mosquito March	Sep 4th, 2007 04:43:57 PM
...and according to my uncle, Zemeckis believes that this is the best thing he's ever done. I personally didn't care for the trailer, but my uncle, who is not shy about telling Zemeckis when his movies suck, says he hasn't seen him this excited about a project in a long time.
Wow... by vezner2007	Sep 4th, 2007 04:46:33 PM
this is really going to suck. I'm sorry hollywood, but if the actors are here, alive, and available to actually BE in the movie, CGI is then an absolute waste of time. The bottom line is CGI does not look NEARLY as good as reality does and if this trailer is any indication for what the final movie will look like, it absolutely sucks in Beowulf. I weep for what should have been a fantastic movie.
Mo-Cap was great for Mortal Kombat, but shoulda been by anchorite	Sep 4th, 2007 04:52:45 PM
left back in the 1990s. All of Zemeckis' mo-cap projects have been creepy and awful. Beowulf looks to be the awful icing on the crappy cake.
Zemeckis wants to be Ralph Bakshi. by Cleyu	Sep 4th, 2007 04:55:01 PM
He will never be............A massive franchise like Final Fantasy was a flop......and the effects were perfect. Final Fantasy is bigger than Beowulf.
VESNER2007 by HamsterDK	Sep 4th, 2007 04:57:15 PM
There are tons of advantages doing it this way when you look at Zemeckis ebjectives with the movie. The main objective with this movie is to create the best/first real 3D feature movie. He explains it to great lenghts in some article I read long time ago. It takes time to really test the 3D so doing it by actors would take much too long and be too expensive. Now they can setup the scenes in post production and manipulate/tweak them to perfection.
Underwheming... by idahomer	Sep 4th, 2007 05:04:41 PM
Saw the trailer Saturday before Bourne Ultimatum (which kicked serious ass). It just looks stupid on the big screen. Finally saw 300 last night. Superb.
PG-13+ animated films should be encouraged by Rindain	Sep 4th, 2007 05:05:07 PM
American animation shouldn't be consigned to the G-rated realm.
GOD DAMNIT! How about some news thats not 2 weeks old? by ShiftyEyedDog2	Sep 4th, 2007 05:10:03 PM
Every day we're seeing "news" articles here that have been posted everywhere else days if not weeks earlier - this, the Joust news, the Elizabeth sequel trailer... this site is dropping the ball more and more every day. Remember when we came here for the first scoops? ...and before people start talking about "well not everyone goes to those other sites", my point is you SHOULD. Many other sites have far surpassed this one in quality and timeliness. The only reason to come here is for some (and I stress SOME) of the entertaining talkbacks. p.s. - this movie will suck. Give up on the mo-cap movies Zemekis, theyre ugly and boring.
I LOVE IT!!! by supermarch	Sep 4th, 2007 05:14:02 PM
Looks kickass.
site dated by Halfbreedqueen	Sep 4th, 2007 05:18:20 PM
shifty eyed, people have been saying EXACTLY what you're saying since around 2000 when I began reading. and yet, I completely agree with you.
I authorize you to confirm the accuracy of the informat by Pappachubby	Sep 4th, 2007 05:18:30 PM
Some one PLEASE explain to me just wwhat this SH*T is all about with this government ID crap! IT'S A MOVIE TRAILER! What, they wanna find out if Al-Qaeda is interested? WTF!
Couldn't get it to upload... by Blue_Demon	Sep 4th, 2007 05:21:21 PM
but having seen the first trailer, I don't see how digital nudity will make any difference. This year's Little Miss Stardust.
On moral principles by bootle2	Sep 4th, 2007 05:25:50 PM
I will not be watching this trailer and probably not the film. This NSA age verification is an affront to decency. When they consider me a liar, and require the use of identity-verifying databases, I will have nothing to do with them. Even if the information is publicly available. I'm voting with the one thing that counts: my wallet
Ok, finally the OTHER link worked... by Pappachubby	Sep 4th, 2007 05:31:12 PM
Eff, that age NSA govt. Id stuff. It's really disturbing to me that there is apparently a data base of all the movie trailers a person has watched. I'm glad out tax dollars are being put to such good use. AS FOR THE TRAILER ITSELF: It looks interesting as a whole but, the whole UNCANNNY VALLEY thing does not look like it has quite beeen resolved yet. I almost wish they just did a 300 type of production with it. Could have had the same visuals and avoided the 'dead eye' thing all together. However, this does seem to be a step and a half up from the Polar Express. I'm still interested in this film though being a fantasy fan and all.
Flop- by teamneedle	Sep 4th, 2007 05:31:57 PM
written all over it.
This movie used to piss me off... by TheContinentalOp	Sep 4th, 2007 05:37:19 PM
...but I'm over it. I realized that, for all its hype, it's still just a fuckin' cartoon. And since, being a grown-ass man, I don't go to see fuckin' cartoons, it's really not my problem.
This is really going to struggle to make money by DirkD13"	Sep 4th, 2007 05:37:28 PM
I reckon $70 million domestic tops.
So, is this a second Red Band trailer for Beowulf or... by Mr_Incredible	Sep 4th, 2007 05:50:04 PM
Is Harry going senile and posting the link to the Red Band trailer again? If the answer is the second, then yeah, this is old news. Because I specifically remember commenting on the Red Band trailer some time ago.
Complete and total SHIT by jimmy_009	Sep 4th, 2007 05:51:27 PM
What a waste of source material. The 'characters' look even worse than Polar Express. Why the hell not just get actors? It worked with 300. They're eyes look dead, their mouths look like gaping maws, they are way to symetrical looking. Honestly, everyone that signed on for this should be ashamed of themselves. Have some integrity.
Direct download link, please? by 11dayempire	Sep 4th, 2007 06:02:04 PM
For those of us in the UK, and those of us who don't want the shit-cunting fuckpig NSA monitoring our every move?
I think it looks great, but I have a question... by Novaman5000	Sep 4th, 2007 06:03:19 PM
Is this really animation? I mean, it's real people, just computerized. It doesn't seem it takes as much skill as actual animation- moving an object from scratch, be it 2D or 3D. I just don't feel like it's legitimate animation... Though I guess animators do tweak it and such. Also, "being a grown-ass man, I don't go to see fuckin' cartoons" might be the stupidest thing I've heard all day. Well done.
BINO! by Doctor_Sin	Sep 4th, 2007 06:07:08 PM
It must be said.
Eesh... by Cobbio	Sep 4th, 2007 06:19:18 PM
I was really hoping this trailer would fire me up following that terrible first one. But, I must admit, this really looks like a bad production from Zemeckis. A stinker that wants to be good, but just isn't. Maybe it'll do ok. I don't know. Both trailers have made my skin crawl.
Next up for Zemeckis - GILGAMESH by OtisSpofford	Sep 4th, 2007 06:24:14 PM
Done with the paper bag puppet technology of the Fandango ads - let the CASH ROLL IN!
I guess you people don't watch anime either by strangernparadis	Sep 4th, 2007 06:28:11 PM
or do you assume all Japanese women look 12 with doe eyes and DDD breasts? its an annimated movie for Christ's sake. This is why Americans think cartoons are all for kids. Grow up
It is a NEW trailer... by Judge Dredds Dirty Undies	Sep 4th, 2007 06:30:51 PM
And I think its a load better than the first one, I actually want to see this now. For the love of god I hope it doesn't flop or we wont see another more adult oriented animated feature for a long time!
Thanks for the direct link Harry... by wadi77	Sep 4th, 2007 06:42:13 PM
I can't see it from the site. Need to verify age through USA ID? Is the internet only for USA?
Wow. That stunk. by SkeletonParty	Sep 4th, 2007 06:42:46 PM
as for the Government ID check, any name and any REAL zip code works. So, don't fret. Man, I'm shocked at how bad that was, considering Harry said it looked good. I don't even know where to begin. My hope is that Hollywood goes away for good. Just hand people cameras and have them make original films. Enough of this crap.
didn't this hit the web like a week ago by Automation Overlord	Sep 4th, 2007 06:47:12 PM
or is this another new redband trailer?
um... seriously by Lucasblows	Sep 4th, 2007 06:57:55 PM
That looks like shit. Madame Tussauds' Wax Museum looks more life-like. This animation is crap. And is it really that hard for someone to make a Beowulf movie and actually stick to the fucking story?
MORE!!!! MORE!!!! by slone13	Sep 4th, 2007 06:58:33 PM
Whether you naysaying douches like it or not, motion capture is going nowhere, especially now that big names like Zemeckis are continuing to get behind it. Sure, it needs work, but it's making impressive strides and it's the only way I'm ever gonna get a Back to the Future 4, so I say bring it on!!!
well is it? by Geek Sodomizer	Sep 4th, 2007 06:58:40 PM
im too lazy to enter my birthdate again. and the trailer kinda sucks, don't want to watch the same one again.
the trailer music was terrible by dubsy	Sep 4th, 2007 07:39:14 PM
really piss poor trailer. why cast actors in a movie like this, make it look like the actors, but then techinically consider it animated. i'll probably pass unless the word on it is overwhelmingly positive.
Beowulf vs. Grendel by Vic Twenty	Sep 4th, 2007 07:40:21 PM
That is still a pretty good (if lose) adaption of the story, starring Gerard '300' Butler as the main man. It has been available on anamorphic widescreen DVD for a long time, check it out.
Is this one as shitty as the last red band trailer? by Kurzinski Valentine	Sep 4th, 2007 07:40:28 PM
You know, the one with badly crashing geometry and half-assed blood/liquids from 1996 student demo reels?
Or a "Loose" adaptation... by Vic Twenty	Sep 4th, 2007 07:42:10 PM
stil hukd on phonix
Seriously, people should promote this by Doc_Strange	Sep 4th, 2007 07:52:59 PM
even if it's not great it's leading the way for more adult-oriented animation if anything. Forget about the mocap for a second and realize this is the gateway to better animated movies being made not just for kids. Just let go of your elitist, self-righteous attitudes for a few minutes and maybe you'll realize that. I fully expect some flames from people who know the truth hurts, for this, my pre-emptive response is: FUCK OFF
HOLY SHIT by troutpencil	Sep 4th, 2007 07:53:20 PM
Grendel ripped a dude in half! Badass! Adult animation that doesn't have large eyed demons gaping at tentacle rape while giant white orbs explode, fucking finally.
I echo.. . .meh! by Darth_Kaos	Sep 4th, 2007 07:53:27 PM
I thought 300 was an overrated piece of shit, and this one is on it's way to the same area. Geeez, how hard up are you people? Don't conform, don't believe the hype when it comes to CGI and motion capture. It looks fake. The worst thing that can happen is when a filmmaker think they can replace actors. It will never ever happen. Let's get back to some real filmmaking, with real people and real places!
Nevermind. Still has the terrible blood effects. by Kurzinski Valentine	Sep 4th, 2007 07:58:51 PM
Srsly, work on that shit.
Grendel ripped the dude's leg off, and jello came out. by Kurzinski Valentine	Sep 4th, 2007 08:00:04 PM
Freeze-frame on Grendel, too. He looks like a fucking zombie mongaloid. Awful.
Video Game Cut Scenes - The Movie by wadi77	Sep 4th, 2007 08:00:33 PM
We'll have a 2 hour game cut scene in theater, but without the game!
Dammit! I want the 80s-90s Zemeckis back!! by wadi77	Sep 4th, 2007 08:03:54 PM
Guess he's seeing himself in the future as the guy who revolutionize 3D mo-cap. More like 3D Mo-Crap.
It DOES Look Better... by skoobyx	Sep 4th, 2007 08:04:01 PM
Are they working on this as they go? I'll hold out some hope.
'13th Warrior' Should Have Been 'Eaters Of The Dead' by skoobyx	Sep 4th, 2007 08:09:10 PM
Good movie but a terrible title. I can't imagine anyone thinking 'Eaters of the Dead' wouldn't have been better. How can you NOT want to watch a movie called 'Eaters of the Dead' Anyway, I once got a A+ on a paper comparing that movie to the actual 'Beowulf' You gotta love community college.
Porn sites aren't even this strict. by ELGordo	Sep 4th, 2007 08:10:13 PM
type up a porn site and the first thing you see is some slut with her legs spread and with jizz all over her face. Type up a site for a animated movie and the government asks you for ID. It's so great to see people prioratise.
Blood, guts and Angelina Jolie.... by McLovinOG	Sep 4th, 2007 08:16:47 PM
Seriously people...if you consider yourself the masses who love movies like Halloween and can make that your box office winner, how can you not love a movie that has freakin' Crispin Glover (hello, creepy guy), Ray Winstone as a badass (a la Conan) and a freaking hot Angelina Jolie. I saw the teaser at Comic Con and can truly say that this movie rocks. Seriously people if you have to analyze eyes of a mo-cap CG character, then you might as well analyze your balls, because you lack them.
Interesting. Definetely a mix-up of 300 and folk-lore. by Khrono	Sep 4th, 2007 08:37:21 PM
Zemeckis didn't impress me with Express, but I did like this trailer. Nudity, gore, and an extremely diverse monster that's shown. However, I still have my doubt that the trailer is R-rated. There was hardly anything a twelve year old couldn't handle.
RED BAND TRAILER - NO ID CHECK by ShiftyEyedDog2	Sep 4th, 2007 08:52:42 PM
here: http://www.worstpreviews.com/t railer.php?id=118&item=2 (remove any spaces that AICN talkback inserts)
sigh, guess US animation is still in the kiddie ghetto by waggy	Sep 4th, 2007 09:08:41 PM
if the geek crowd that makes up the aicn population is this resistant to an animated movie for adults (yes, that is exactly what you are telling us when you say "why not just use real actors?"), i can only imagine how middle america is gonna react. i'm hoping that will change someday, but i'm certainly not holding my breath
thanks shifty by 48states	Sep 4th, 2007 09:27:18 PM
You da dog!
THIS ... IS ..... SPAR .ERRR ... I ... AM .... BEOWULF! by Rogue_Leader	Sep 4th, 2007 09:47:20 PM
Seriously could that trailer rip off 300's trailer just a LITTLE bit more?
What a waste of time by Merriman Lyon	Sep 4th, 2007 09:47:38 PM
Good God - all that talent and money squandered on......what? Trying to make CGI look like live action. What's the point? God, how I'd love to see this story animated properly by some one like Alexander Petrov (drooling at the thought...) or Natalya Orlova who did the animated version of Hamlet (even more drooling).
actually - by HEADGEEK	Sep 4th, 2007 09:49:09 PM
there's pretty much constant nudity here.
What a waste of money by Merriman Lyon	Sep 4th, 2007 09:56:08 PM
The more I think of it, the more gutted I get. IMDB extimates the Beowulf budget at $70 million. Imagine if instead, they had used that money to fund 20 real animated movies by the top animators in the world. The mind boggles...
apparently, 35 isn't old enough to watch this.... by OBSD	Sep 4th, 2007 09:57:38 PM
stupid fucking glitchy site. Stupid fucking MPAA. AAARRRRGH!
A red band trailer for animated titties? by Spamster	Sep 4th, 2007 10:07:20 PM
Welcome to America, home of fucked up priorities!
What happened to "In A House In A Heartbeat"? by Ashok0	Sep 4th, 2007 10:11:02 PM
That song rocked the house in the last trailers. Just like it did in "28 Days" with Sandra Bullock.
Fuck 300! All hail Beowulf! by J-Dizzle	Sep 4th, 2007 10:13:10 PM
Yea Verily Yea!!!!!
The Ishtar of video game cut-scenes? by Flip63Hole	Sep 4th, 2007 10:18:28 PM
Perhaps Zemekis died several years ago and exists only in CGI form?
Direct Link by wadi77	Sep 4th, 2007 10:26:21 PM
http://www.beowulfmovie.com/re stricted/video/Beowulf_Interne tTrailer_720p.mov Remove the space. by the way, I want my old favorite director back, the real Robert Zemeckis.
she's covered in mud or something! she's not nude. by BMacSmith	Sep 4th, 2007 10:28:11 PM
can't see naughty bits.
Robert Zemeckis is dead by ShiftyEyedDog2	Sep 4th, 2007 10:40:30 PM
Remember the guy that made Forrest Gump, Back to the Future, Roger Rabbit, Romancing the Stone...? Yeah, he's gone. Replaced by some doofus who has a hard on for goofy-looking lame mo-cap movies. What a shame. He's joined the ranks of other dead talent like Steve Martin, Eddie Murphy, Bill Murray, and Harrison Ford (can Indy 4 save him? who knows)
The look of this is HORRIBLE by TestGiver	Sep 4th, 2007 10:52:32 PM
This trailer increased my desire not to see the movie by 50%. And yeah, what's with the security? No, seriously. They broadcast Saving Private Ryan uncut on tv every year. When I saw the original trailer I had my hopes that they had actually done some sort of rotoscoping or something. Alas, this looks like the same weightless CGI characters we've grown accustomed to from Shrek and other non-realistic cartoons. The geometry of the faces is all weird, and the characters look like their about 3 foot high. Watching those digital puppets and camera fly around, it is just makes me wish that they had filmed it in real life and composited completely fake sets into it, like 90% of the last 3 Star Wars. Do you think they have time to bring all the actors back, put them in wardrobe, and refilm them against a green screen? Robert Z - I've sat around and defended Castaway for hours; this already doesn't look good, and will become a footnote in the annals of movie making techniques. No matter how you gussy this up, using this technique, you are making an animated feature. A cartoon. Shhhh...shhh. No, no... hush. Hush. Stop struggling, just breath in deep; you'll fall asleep, and when you wake up, you'll have a chance to make the right decision about how to bring this story to the bring screen...
Screw it by plastroncafe	Sep 4th, 2007 11:32:55 PM
I've tried to view this site with actual honest to Glod information, and it still won't let me in.
I! Am! Beowulf! by mascan42	Sep 4th, 2007 11:44:46 PM
This! Is! Sparta!
Looks Better Than 300 by Queefer Bukkake	Sep 4th, 2007 11:50:57 PM
So what are you freaks whining about? I suppose it's not gay enough, like 300? Oh, and it has good actors, instead of screaming maniacs. Angelina Jolie in animated nude glory? I'm there. As long as the nudity doesn't include Anthony Hopkins. I love Tony, but not that much.
Whine away boys... by Johnno	Sep 4th, 2007 11:55:16 PM
Just a question to all you animation 'experts.' Do people is real life move and behave like the characters in Toy Story? No. Know why? Because Animation or what you all classify as 'good' as seen in character cartoons requires a principle known as exaggeration. Toy Story looks more realistic??? Fuck NO it doesn't look realistic! It's fucking animated! Does it make it mroe entertaining? Yes! Is it realistic? Fuck no! Beowulf is trying to go for simulating realism. Which tries for how real people look and how real people move and what better way than mo-cap? DO I tihnk Toy Story and Monster House should be mo-capped? Fuck no! They should be animated... Should video games or movies attempting realism be mo-capped? Yes you dolts! You morons can't see the forest for the trees. I champion this effort. If it were up to people like you the film industry would've never attempted monster or sci-fi movies because back then the technology wasn't good enough. You people are damned visionaries!
90049 by Dignan666	Sep 5th, 2007 12:01:23 AM
a great director lives in that zip code. that's all i'm saying.
That Did It by Playhouse	Sep 5th, 2007 12:13:20 AM
Wow. I really hate to chime in as one of the naysayers but this trailer to me felt even more like video game cut scenes than the stuff we'd seen before. It just doesn't work for me.
How To WATCH TRAILER outside US by Talkbacker with no name	Sep 5th, 2007 12:23:58 AM
type in: George Bush 20500 July 6 1946 No shit. It works!
People are whining because it looks like junk by Flip63Hole	Sep 5th, 2007 12:33:14 AM
- that is all. Don't read any more into it. Well, except this is another piece of evidence that cinema is dying...
Harry is smoking something by Bob of the Shire	Sep 5th, 2007 12:35:13 AM
Each trailer looks worse and worse. And there should be a death penalty for anyone that puts Angelina Jolie nude in a film and instead of the real thing, we get shitty CG.
The HD Link by runrun	Sep 5th, 2007 12:36:02 AM
http://tinyurl.com/2n6eje
high tech garbage by pearboy	Sep 5th, 2007 12:56:41 AM
It will be great to watch this thing tank faster than the Titanic... Maybe then it will put a stop to all "photorealistic" CG features. Its funny I don't think they had to work too hard to make those guys look dead after Grendel tears them up. I don't think even Tolkien would have watched this crap, and he was a huge Beowulf geek!
"EWW!!! THE CGI LOOKS KWEEPEE!!!" by Delagoya	Sep 5th, 2007 12:57:29 AM
SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU FUCKING NERDS!!!! My God! Unless you can prove to me that YOU can do better CGI than these guys, you need to SHUT THE FUCK UP AND WATCH THE WHOLE MOVIE FIRST! Then you can judge! FUCKING LOSERS!
Animation is created by animators... by pearboy	Sep 5th, 2007 01:03:29 AM
by Judge Dredds Dirty Undies "And I think its a load better than the first one, I actually want to see this now. For the love of god I hope it doesn't flop or we wont see another more adult oriented animated feature for a long time!" Response: Hey Idiot! This is NOT animation... Ratatouille IS animation. Hey guess what the Academy doesn't even call this Zemeckis tripe animation. Go back to screwing your real doll!
Gollum anyone? by Splungeman	Sep 5th, 2007 01:12:06 AM
Even though Gollum from Lord of the Rings never looked 100%, he still was much more expressive and "real" looking than the characters in this movie. After Gollum, this seems like a step back.
this movie IS bad ass by IKnowStuff	Sep 5th, 2007 01:13:59 AM
as in, it's a fact. i know stuff. it's violent and bloody and awesome. so the cg isn't perfectly lifelike, so what? if it was, you'd probably hate it even more. the movie is bad ass, let's leave it at that.
If only bad ass were enough... by pearboy	Sep 5th, 2007 01:21:01 AM
I would say its "bad" as in BAD and "ass" as in smelly ass. Yeah Gollum was an awesome character and yes Andy did a lot of great gimp suit acting for that character but there was a great percentage of it that was key frame animated. It had to be a mixture because mo-cap captures subtleties that make things look even worse. Key fram animators have to go in and exaggerate some of those subtleties to give it a little life. I am not sure what Zemickis is doing here, but it still looks like walking corpses to me!
"I am ripper, slasher, terror in the night!" by Zardoz	Sep 5th, 2007 01:30:33 AM
You tell 'em, B! (or was that G speaking?) Either way, it looks kewl!
It's not ripping off 300, you fuckers. by Lenny Nero	Sep 5th, 2007 01:32:02 AM
This has been in development for freakin' years.
I want the real Robert Zemeckis back!!! by wadi77	Sep 5th, 2007 01:43:46 AM
When you see him in the street now, you can't shake hands with him anymore, cause he's a f**king CG character now!
Get Your Dicks Out of Your Mothers by Queefer Bukkake	Sep 5th, 2007 01:45:21 AM
And put them in your mouths.
"People are whining because it looks like junk" by Johnno	Sep 5th, 2007 01:56:18 AM
Really? Okay mofos, why don't you all go back into the archives of film history and dig up all the first early types of attempts at classical animation... then tell me how good they looked to you or how entertaining they were and whether you believed animation would ever reach to where it is today. Film and animation are fucking artforms... you know what that is? Art? Some people like to use real people and take photographs of them... others like to scuplt or paint people. CG is no fucking different. It's a bunch of talented people trying to make art. So whether you use a camera and live actors, or pencils, paints and cells, or a computer, or clay and puppets. Some filmakers like to shoot straightforward and simple good direction and others like to use bullet time and gee whiz bang effects and exxaggeration. So to those groaning about why they are taking thsi approach should just shut the fuck up. It looks bad to you? Don't see it... Snakes Grindhouse looked fucking shit to me, so I didn't see it, but you won't hear me saying "OMG they should stop making films like these...gimmick... duurrrhhh..." Know why? Because some people like it and good for them, plenty of other stuff to go around. You like your cartoons with fuzzy animals and cartoony people and exaggerated movement and pop culture jokes? Well good for you... I never said stop making them. But here we have someone trying to do something more mature and he's chosen to go with CG and try to make it look real, something which scares most people off adn you hacks can only moan? What next? Are you going to walk into the Louvre and cackle about at all the renaissance art for how 'real' it tries to be but just sucks ass because it still looks fake? You idiots are hating for hater's sake. It's one thing to be critical of the handling of mo-cap work... and it's completely another to say they shouldn't bother or film this live action... honestly, wtf? HOnestly... Know what I can't stand? All those movies in black and white before colour film was invented. They look so fake... the real world isn't black and white... And people don't spontaneously start singing and dancing in the rain... bullshit!
If by "Better" you mean "More Embarassing," then yes. by Daddylonghead	Sep 5th, 2007 01:56:57 AM
God, I wouldn't sit through this if you paid me, it looks fucking dire! Not being a hater, but seriously, the more I see, the worse it looks. Stiff, corny crap, and I say this as a longtime D&D player who likes naked ladies... I AM the target demographic, and I still think this movie is a stinker.
I want the real Robert Zemeckis back!!! by wadi77	Sep 5th, 2007 02:00:54 AM

This is so bad it makes me angry. by Daddylonghead	Sep 5th, 2007 02:12:10 AM
I'm renaming this turd "SECOND LIFE: THE MOVIE." Honestly, it enrages me that time and money has been poured into something that is so obviously AWFUL. It looks like they used that software program "POSER." It looks like a computer science student's multimedia-class final project. Every frame I freeze on is worse than the next!!!! What the fuck!!? Now I am on a still of a guy shoving a lady out of the way as some CG extra from the "Spawn" motion picture attacks them, and the bearded guy has his head cocked to one side and is staring blankly, expressionlessly into the middle distance, like he's listening to a tough question on trivia night. PATHETIC! PATHETIC! Not just bad, HORRENDOUS!
It looks WORSE than a video game cutscene. by Daddylonghead	Sep 5th, 2007 02:20:58 AM
State of the art, my ass!!! Any given three WETA employees, including whoever answers the phone at the front desk and the building janitor, could do better than this while drunk, during their lunch break.
1998 called, they want their CG "fire effect" back. by Daddylonghead	Sep 5th, 2007 02:25:14 AM
KILLER INSTINCT: THE ARCADE GAME: THE MOVIE
Zemeckis is starting to get desparate by 300spartansinhell	Sep 5th, 2007 02:40:09 AM
and releases a new trailer every half month. If they had showed this one first, reactions would have been much more positive, but it´s still far from perfect. Some shots of Beowulfs face look nearly perfect while some are too cartoony. His warriors look all very cartoony. But I don´t agree that the eyes look creepy. Some real people with very blue-grey eyes have such a creepy effect in their eyes. Things I like very much from the trailer: the horror feel, the monster design, the blood and action. And to all who have only negative things to say: just shut the fuck up! You said the same things about 300, that it had game cut scene visuals and now you say the visuals in 300 were so great compared to Beowulf. I was critical when I saw the first trailer, cause I thought the quality was very uneven and I still think it is, but I think that by the time of release they will have fixed most of the issues and in the end it´s the story and action that matters in a film like Beowulf. In 3d this will rock! A teaser of what to come from James Cameron and other great directors.
Pretty pointless! by FILMFUNK	Sep 5th, 2007 03:15:36 AM
To me it's like those Photoreal Paintings of everyday scenes, The technique and skill in rendering something as perfectly lif-like is impressive but why not just Photograph it!? Like wise why not just film the real actors!? Final Fantasy wasn't fantastic and this just looks odd! Didn't realise they were going for likenesses also with the exception of Ray Winston who they've made look more buff!? Anyway why not have a propper Style to it? you could have completely beutiful environments with a much nicer styalised character design say like the Human characters from IceAge but much more detailed and that would blow you away! Uber realistic Humans just look really creepy and jar you out of the experience, in my opinion Oh! and this looks really dull! Oh! and agesa ago they were on about this very thing ringing the death nell to propper actors because movies would simply be populated by CG actors but I think this proves it aint gonna work out like that!
The podcast by 300spartansinhell	Sep 5th, 2007 03:17:59 AM
at the official site was really good. John Malcovish and Robin Wright Penn had interesting things to say about the story. I don´t remember that in the poem the queen left king Hrothgar and married Beowulf cause the king was unfaithful and that Beowulf was also unfaithful. Wonder with whom he was. This is sounding like a viking soap opera and I like it very much.
Ugh by IMScully33	Sep 5th, 2007 03:23:57 AM
Seriously, Beowulf and Hrothgar both sleep around?I wish Neil Gaiman had the respect for the original Tolkien possessed. I can't believe soap opera is what passes for "edgy" and "original" among Gaiman fanboys these days.
IMScully33 by 300spartansinhell	Sep 5th, 2007 04:04:14 AM
There has always been two versions of the retelling of Beowulf. One that is more traditional whith the hero almost like a saint, a selfless hero who conquers evil neither for gold or glory. Then there is the viking hero, loudmouthed and arrogant, lusting for power and glory. I´m not an expert on Beowulf lore, but I know that the original poem was rewritten by monks who added christian themes. If you look at the classic greek hero, he was obsessed with deeds, with action no matter what sort of action. Sometimes those actions were very close to what we today would label ruthless and sometimes even evil, but the greeks didn´t care as long as the hero conquered his foes and lived or archived a beautiful death on the battlefield like Akilles and Leonidas. There are simillarities here with the viking culture. The christian ideals of a hero is that he should be armed with a high morale. He shouldn´t fight for himself but for his warriors and kingdom and his family and die for them, he shouldn´t lust for other men´s women etc... It´s clearly from what Avary and Gaiman have said about their adaptation that Zemeckis´ Beowulf is going to be a gritty medieval tale with lots of boasting and a loud mouthed arrogant hero who is quite selfish, at least in the beginning. I won´t call the writers take original but it is at least not boring as Tolkien would have made it. Tolkiens highly romantic writing worked for the Lord of the rings with noble heroes like Aragorn, who didn´t sleep with Eowyn cause he loved an elf woman, but I would hate if all fantasy had been written like Tolkien. Tolkien will always be around for all who prefer his storytelling and fortunatly today there is George R.R. Martin for readers who want more than noble knights who never do anything wrong.
the script draws from a little-known 2nd manuscript. by Daddylonghead	Sep 5th, 2007 04:12:17 AM
"Thenn dydst y düde flyye thrü y aire lyke yon Matrix møvvei, &nd twås muche Flailyng of lymmbes, lyke as pupp3ts, &nd yon Fayces &nd Eyyes of alle menn weyre møst Lyfless, as of Waxxe."
I!!! AM!!!! BEOWOLF!!! by godoffireinhell	Sep 5th, 2007 04:14:14 AM
Shameless attempt to create a meme. Too similar to 300 so it won't work. The internet does not forgive.
Won't let me see it by Mister Man	Sep 5th, 2007 04:22:34 AM
Damn, it sucks to be 45.
Johnno, you retard: by raw_bean	Sep 5th, 2007 04:47:03 AM
"Which tries for how real people look and how real people move and what better way than mo-cap?" What better way? By filming real people! If you want it to look like real people, film real people!
Johnno by pearboy	Sep 5th, 2007 05:04:40 AM
I have never met anyone who hates movies more than you... wow!
Finally saw the new trailer... by TELF	Sep 5th, 2007 07:55:02 AM
Thanks for the link wadi77. I wanna see it now. The visuals seemed a bit neither fish nor foul before, but maybe I'm starting to get used to them. If you actually stop fixating on the mo-cap and pay attention to what is going on in the trailer, it all seems pretty fantastic. I think it would be smarter to release an actual scene than to do these trailers. They are a bit too chopped up and it's hard to get a sense of how the movie itself will feel. Is it for sure going to be released in 2 versions? That shot of Grendel ripping that guy in half didn't look very PG13...
Angelina's vag FTW! by Reload	Sep 5th, 2007 08:36:58 AM
I just saw her bush. Hot.
1.21 giggawatts!?! by ironic_name	Sep 5th, 2007 08:48:34 AM
shia labeowulf.
I'm your density by ironic_name	Sep 5th, 2007 08:53:28 AM
crispin hrothglovr
HEY BEOWULF by ironic_name	Sep 5th, 2007 08:58:28 AM
I THOUGHT I TOLD YOU TA NEVER COME IN HERE!
grendel played by giamatti by ironic_name	Sep 5th, 2007 09:01:47 AM
the 'wulf, clive owen. Angelina's tits, monica bellucci's tits.
beowulf kills polar xpress condutor by ironic_name	Sep 5th, 2007 09:04:53 AM
beowulf kills tom hanks's polar express condutor.
conductor by ironic_name	Sep 5th, 2007 09:05:56 AM
151st, bitches.
it won't let me in by Faust_8	Sep 5th, 2007 09:36:40 AM
just to see motion captured CGI boobies
im soooo confused by crashbarbarian	Sep 5th, 2007 10:00:52 AM
and yes i just added extra o's to so. I guess im looking at this movie as animation and not as motion capture. That would explain why i thought the trailer looked really good and im excited about this movie. I suppose if i was expecting to see something photo realistic then i might be disapointed but then again we should probably be realistic. Am i missing something or did Zemetkis promise photo realism? As far as the story... which in my opinion matters most... this looks good
"His facial hair didn't sway correctly!" by SamusPanties	Sep 5th, 2007 10:21:32 AM
OMG...Zemeckis has lost his brain! I can't believe that Beowulf's eyes didn't jitter and quake like mine do! SHIT! His teeth don't stink realistically! What is Zemeckis thinking? Has he lost his soul? FUCK OH NO!!!! Was that actually a hair on Hopkins' face that didn't bay at the moon as the good Lord intended? DICKJIVE!!! Why must we live in a cursed day and age where no-class wannabes like Zemeckis try to entertain us and MAKE US WATCH THEIR ASSVOMIT?!?!? I'm going STRAIGHT UPSTAIRS TO MY GRANDMOTHER about THIS!!!!!!!
Zemeckis: You are an IDIOT. by Overgod	Sep 5th, 2007 10:46:07 AM
This prick is a dead-set idiot. I don't care if this shit looks as real as a day-time soap opera, this bullshit is never going to catch on. It's not about how "real" it is (mind you, it doesn't even LOOK real, but let's say it DID---it's not the fucking point), it's about whether or not people can relate to the material. And I don't care how fucking advanced your technology is, people want to know that the pixels on screen are projected from REAL-LIFE humans, not from fucking cgi. When will this fuckhead get the point? Listen moron, this technology you're experimenting with, will never, ever catch on, irrespective of how advanced the technology is in the future. People go to the movies to watch real people in real situations, so that they can relate to them. This dumbass (yes Zemeckis, you are a dead-set DUMB ASS FOR NOT UNDERSTANDING HUMAN NATURE) just doesn't get it. The majority of human beings want to see something they can relate to. We cannot relate to that shit you're pulling. Now, I know some people will say "what about animation"? Well, the thing is, that is so obviously NOT real, that people no longer focus on it. Like the simpsons for example. Many people can relate to aspects of the simpsons because they aren't busy trying to be fooled by graphics artists and hence can totally focus on the story and characters, because they are abstractions of real people, albeit exaggerated. But this attempt at real life animation will never catch on. People go and watch movies or shows for several reasons. The fact that Zemeckis and co. are so desperately trying to imitate life-like animation is in itself distracting and takes away focus from the story. People already complain enough when they see cg explosions or fight scenes. They don't want to deal with cg characters either. Gollum worked because that was an abstract character or "form" that worked within the story, while the rest were real people. Gollum was a freak to begin with. This cg shit will never, ever catch on. Go make a real movie Zemeckis, and stop wasting your time and money on rubbish. God this guy is an idiot. I hope he reads these posts and wisely realises that it's not just a minority of people on some talk back who feel this way, but the majority of film goers. Don't believe me? Then go take a fucking poll, zemeckis, and do some research, before you pump out another dud into the theatres. As gandalf would say: You fool of a took.
35 and can't watch the trailer by Faust_8	Sep 5th, 2007 10:47:15 AM
filter works great
Does anyone like the New Captain Scarlett series? by theycallmemrglass	Sep 5th, 2007 11:08:04 AM
COS that is a CGI series but it rocks.
Yep, still looks like crap. by Mr_Incredible	Sep 5th, 2007 11:19:39 AM
Next! I mean, even the voice acting sucks. "I! AM! BEOWULF!" LMAO! Too bad Gerard Butler already played Beowulf in another movie. Again, why isn't this live-action? The Lord of the Rings proved you can do these kind of stories in live-action these days.
People have the fucking RIGHT to bitch about the visual by Kurzinski Valentine	Sep 5th, 2007 11:45:32 AM
shit because that's THE ENTIRE POINT OF THIS MOVIE. It's like complaining about a comedy being unfunny. If it's not funny, you're going to bitch about it. If an action movie has no action, you can complain your ass off. This is a CG MoCap wankfest which is SUPPOSED to be ultra-revolutionary and blow us away (judging from all the fucking hype built up on this site and from Zemeckis himself), but it looks worse than a video game cutscene from 8 years ago, so YES people are going to complain. So FUCK YOU BACK whoever thinks we don't have the right to call it on how shitty it looks, because guess what? It looks like fucking shit.
Sarcasm and irony slips by pearboy quite easily... by Johnno	Sep 5th, 2007 11:56:36 AM
As for raw_bean... "What better way? By filming real people! If you want it to look like real people, film real people!" Should I even address this? Should I...? Let's try a step by step approach with simpletons... raw_bean? Tell me waht the fuck we are dealing with here? An animated film? Or a live action movie? Once you properly answer we'll move on to lesson two to explain why I said ""Which tries for how real people look and how real people move and what better way than mo-cap?" Seeing as how you zoomed in on one statement without context it appears you cannot handle too much information at once. And for teh rest of the critics... Want to say the movie visuals look shitty? Fine! Go right ahead... But what gets me is the fact that most of you cry and bitch that films like this shouldn't be attempted as if your live action talking animal flics began so gloriously when they first arrived on the scene...
Johnno by pearboy	Sep 5th, 2007 12:16:18 PM
First off Kurzinski hit the nail right on the head! Johnno, I just had to respond to one of your last idiotic posts..."Film and animation are fucking artforms... you know what that is? Art? Some people like to use real people and take photographs of them... others like to scuplt or paint people. CG is no fucking different" Well CG IS different... what makes it different? CG is a TOOl you idiot! Mo-cap is a TOOL. Sure the people who created the programs and the technology are artists, I wont deny that, but the technology being used in the context of a film is merely a paintbrush, only a means to create but its not the art form its self. YES Animation is an artform, especially when we forget that it is even Animation, when the performances are believable and we connect with the characters. Can CG do that alone? NO it takes an artist to sit and tweak key frames get the posing as solid as possible and make sure that the arcs of motion are smooth. I don't give a shit if the models look good. I dont care if they are poly, nurbs or subdivs. I could careless if the hair dynamics are working great. I could care less if the Z-brush modeling took months to complete. If it just doesn't move right it doesn't work. I know for a fact that Zemieckis hired animators to refine the movement, but the sad reality is that he relied on mo-cap almost completely to tell his story. he didn't once ask himself if the technology suited the story, he could care less about story. His one and only reason for making this garbage was to exploit the technology. This is the most asinine reason to make a movie! Its like calling a tube of paint and a paint brush an artform, it takes an artist. Mo-cap is NOT an art form it is a tool and it only becomes an art form when it is taken out of the realm of button pushing and is pushed beyond its limits to SERVE the story and the motivations of character and it takes artists and animators to do that not a guy in a gimp suit.
Looks like a frakin cartoon! by Prague23	Sep 5th, 2007 12:27:24 PM
Is this thing animated? Because that trailer I just watched was all CGI, or so it looked like, like a Final Fantasy movie. Not what I want from a gritty, Old English, epic.
Additionally... by pearboy	Sep 5th, 2007 12:32:10 PM
All the things you listed as "Art forms" are tools not art forms. They are a means to an end and not THE end.
From now on... by pearboy	Sep 5th, 2007 12:35:48 PM
We should call this Mo-capped and not Animated. The Academy doesn't even recognize Mo-cap as animation anymore...which means Happy Feet is NOT animation and neither is this.
do better by ironic_name	Sep 5th, 2007 12:48:35 PM
i can't, but if anyone here wants to make a cgi beowulf that make this look like psone cutsceness, do it.
RESTRICTED CONTENT - SOLUTION by GilesT	Sep 5th, 2007 12:50:50 PM
First Name : George Last Name : Bush Date of Birth : July 6, 1946 Zipcode : 20500 Works for EVERY site that ever asks for this bollocks. Well, the Yanks' strategically shaved monkey (POTUS) might as well be useful for something...
pearboy it appears we have a communication issue by Johnno	Sep 5th, 2007 02:12:20 PM
My quotes you refer to are directed at people who demand that CG photorealistic films should NEVER be made or attempted! Does Beowulf have problems? Yes it does! Some of the animation does look shitty! Look at the horses crossing the bridge... Ugh! Sometimes the character models do look plasticy! That's not the point I'm making thoguh. Here's another quote of mine that you've missed directly overtop your last post. It goes: "And for teh rest of the critics... Want to say the movie visuals look shitty? Fine! Go right ahead... But what gets me is the fact that most of you cry and bitch that films like this shouldn't be attempted as if your live action talking animal flics began so gloriously when they first arrived on the scene..." That's my issue. Now sure Beowulf can be criticized for the technical flaws, but there's another reason why I'll champion this flic. Someone out there is starting to use American CG to make a more mature film which is a break from the norm of continuous PG flics. This is a bold direction to go and I salute the man for taking that risk. At the same time I agree that Beowulf should not win any awards for any technical achievement in animation. I'm not even declaring this to be the best animated film out this year or ever. But it certainly looks entertaining and a good story will make me look past any technical flaws, which is not to say I support half assed mo-cap clean up work or animation.
Johnno, less coffee is in order. by SkeletonParty	Sep 5th, 2007 02:17:40 PM
the trailer is supposed to make us want to see the film. It failed. Harry said it looked better. It didn't. We are judging the quality of the trailer and find it lacking.
You really like to argue and... by pearboy	Sep 5th, 2007 02:37:33 PM
contradict your arguments in the same breath! Man your diatribes are hard to follow! Anyway, its great that you are categorizing CG into nationalities now. I understand your argument about wanting to see more of a mature slant in Animated features. I don't deny that this would be a great way to push the medium. As animators one of the first things we keep in mind is how will technology serve the story. I personally think it would have been MORE gutsy of Zemeckis to use stylized characters instead of photorealistic characters. For one it would have been beneficial to design characters whose physical traits mirror their psychology and their origin. This is how design and technology can serve the story. In this case we're basically getting empty geometry shells that we are supposed to believe are human and alive (some of them are straight body scans!). I don't buy it and I don't think anyone in here really buys it. His move (towards mature animated features) may be bold but there is no good reason behind it other than presenting it at Siggraph.
Hilarious, age verification bullshit by SoylentMean	Sep 5th, 2007 03:08:31 PM
I tried doing a fake name and a real zipcode and it didn't work. I'm guessing they're going with an "R" rating on this film? I'll probably see it for that reason alone. There aren't too many "R" rated cartoons getting theatrical (and IMAX) releases here in the states.
NO ID CHECK link to THIS Red-Band Trailer by ShiftyEyedDog2	Sep 5th, 2007 03:11:59 PM
Looks like this is a second, different red-band trailer. Still here's a link to watch it without the id check BS. http://www.worstpreviews.com/t railer.php?id=118&item=3 (remove any spaces AICN talkback inserts)
Hey, the George Bush thingy works(:= by SoylentMean	Sep 5th, 2007 03:14:42 PM
So it's an "R" rated cutscene/film. I will see it. Fuckers.
Who is tracking us with this age verification stuff? by SoylentMean	Sep 5th, 2007 03:16:27 PM
That is some spooky, seemingly un-Constitutional shit right there.
It looks better than the by the ironking	Sep 5th, 2007 03:28:12 PM
It looks better than the previous trailers but I am still not bought on it. I still just don't see the point of mo-cap.
Motion Capture Exists Solely So We Can Have The by SoylentMean	Sep 5th, 2007 03:45:49 PM
Abbreviation: Mo-Cap! What does this movie need? Mo Money? Nope. Mo Sexy Naked Angelina Jolie? Well, we all could use a little bit mo of that. Mo violence? Nyet. Mo-Cap? You sir, have hit the nail on the head and driven it home!
I hate to say it . . . by Movietool	Sep 5th, 2007 04:04:29 PM
But yeah - it looks bad. Go check out the cutscenes made by the guys at Blur - http://www.blur.com/ - they use mocap as well, but they look better than this. Mainly because they have better designers, IMO. I really WANT Zemekis' efforts here to bear fruit, because I think a well-done 3D animated fantasy flick could really legitimize adult-themed (NOT PORN) animation for the USA. Unfortunately the quality here just leaves too much to be desired. Lip Sync seems stiff and the eyes still look dead to me. Mainly, the ultra-realistic production design is a mistake. If someone could hit a sweet spot between Beowulf's level of photo-realism and Shrek's pseudo-realism, sprinkled with some top-notch design, I think it might work. Unfortunately, Zemekis is making the same mistake Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within made and is trying to be purely photo-real. It doesn't look right yet and the average Joe filmgoer just finds it silly-looking. A shame.
Daddylonghead by SilentP	Sep 5th, 2007 04:42:34 PM
That was awesome. :D
Movietool by pearboy	Sep 5th, 2007 05:36:02 PM
Right on my man! I was totally thinking Blur studios as well. They know how to use mo-cap to benefit their story. Their shorts are awesome and their design is top notch! Good call!
I want the real Robert Zemeckis back!!! by wadi77	Sep 5th, 2007 06:27:04 PM

Looks like Shrek! by TheAtomicCow	Sep 5th, 2007 06:40:45 PM
Seriously, the shot of the soldiers looking scared looks EXACTLY like the fake humans in the FIRST Shrek movie! I was laughing my ass off when I should have been blown away and frightened. Bad move. Mo-Cap is awesome for a movie like Monster House where the art style has people purposely "deformed" and stylized. To use it to make real people into fake looking real people is just plain retarded.
Robert Zemeckis is Back!!!! by SoylentMean	Sep 5th, 2007 06:49:41 PM
But only in Mo-Cap
SoylentMean by wadi77	Sep 5th, 2007 07:01:14 PM
But that's the not real Robert Zemeckis. He's an animated 3D CG mo-cap now. I want the flesh & blood director who made Back to the Future trilogy, Forrest Gump, and those fun early movies like Used Cars, I Wanna Hold Your Hand, Romancing the Stone, he even co-wrote Spielberg's 1941. Bob Gale, there's still time, please save your buddy and bring him back!
TheAtomicCow by wadi77	Sep 5th, 2007 07:12:15 PM
Exactly. That was the purpose of mo-cap in the first place. To add realism to character movements. Characters that are not actually supposed to be real in human features.It was used excellently for Gollum in LOTR, or even any other movies with humanoid monsters. So when the charater is actually a human, and you have intentions to make it have real human features, why bother for mo-cap? Why don't just shoot real actors on camera and add the CG monsters using mo-cap? This movie is pointless. You hire actors to act, yet you spend more money creating the photo-realistic CG of the actor by making him act through mo-cap!
Did anyone count by Mindraven	Sep 5th, 2007 09:42:13 PM
How many times "I am Beowulf" was shouted out in that trailer? I think I lost count in the 200s.
grown ups watching cartoons is not my thing. by GQtaste	Sep 5th, 2007 10:04:29 PM
I hate the idea of this bullshit being a fucking cartoon.
Is it true... by Dr Lisa Cuddy	Sep 5th, 2007 10:08:49 PM
that there is an unedited version of The 13th Warrior with 45 minutes of footage that was cut out because it was too graphic?
Well SkeletonParty I don't drink coffee... by Johnno	Sep 5th, 2007 11:01:39 PM
But my posts are not directed and trailer hating trolls or people to criticize the bad mo-cap. It's at the folks who think there's no place in the film world for fully photorealistic attempts at CG. (See the recent GQtaste's post)
Contradictions pearboy? Where? by Johnno	Sep 5th, 2007 11:08:11 PM
Sorry if my long ass posts are hard to follow. I just typed them up on the spot while in a hurry and should've used breaks. But I've gone over my posts and don't see any so called contradictions. So... wtf? But just to let you in on it, my harsh tone carries over from the last talkback on this film where people continued to moan, "Why CG??? Why???" Nothing's new here... Idiots... Anyway, yeah stylized characters are proven to work better, one need only look at Starcraft's latest teaser trailer to see stylized characters in action or the mo-cap in hundreds of other video game cutscenes or hell even anime like Advent Children and Appleseed. But perhaps wanting to try and get CG characters as close to real life people that we all know and recognize can also be a thrilling challenge, after all CG enthusiasts like to create inorganic models and see how many they can trick into thinking it's a photograph, and so why not real life people? Whatever they attempt behind the scenes in this film, which include their mistakes, could serve to better the CG films of tomorrow. I'm optimistic despite the apparent flaws. If there's a good story then I can enjoy this flic. Polar Express was no Pixar film... but I checked it out and enjoyed it for what it was. I got caught up in the movie and never stopped to consider that this is CG being used or to analyze the movement... Spider-Man had shitty animation. But I loved it! Good movies with great storylines and characters keep you invested. So yes I'm arguing with you, because for all the technical faults this doesn't look like some write-off. It's like a friend of mine who refuses to watch old classic black and white films or foreign cinema becuase they don't have the technology of today nor the Hollywood budget. Which is just dumb. I'm not saying that what you're doing now that we had a chance to talk more clearly. You're simply pointing out the shitty mo-cap work. What I've been arguing all along is that there's nothing wrong with attempting photorealistic CG movies. If someone wants to try then let them! It's not the end of the world... If we don't try we may never achieve perfecting it. Looks like Beowulf won't be getting it, too bad, but better luck next time. How many attempts have there been? Two? And as for Spirits Within... the reason that movie sucked ass was because the story sucked. It's like they removed all the cool shit out of Final Fantasy and gave us some lackluster sci-fi-ish new age movie. And maybe I'm not correct, but there seemed to be a lot more hand animation than mo-cap in Spirits within since a lot of it looked exaggerated but it might also be reatrded mo-cap actors trying to imitate animated movement. Which is pretty stupid. As for all the uncanny valley stuff... I never had a problem watching it. So I don't know... guess some people are just uncomfortable with some things... like using polarized 3D glasses. Some get headaches, others don't... too bad...
Somebody call Pumpkinhead... by Boober	Sep 5th, 2007 11:37:37 PM
His retard brother escaped his cage again and is rolling in poo and playing dolly with the vikeltic action figures. At LEAST give us a Grendel that LOOKS cool if not scary. SHEESH.
PS by Boober	Sep 5th, 2007 11:45:03 PM
I'm glad they went historically accurate with Jolie's character and gave her high heels. LMFAO-lamovision.
The wonder of mo-cap by pearboy	Sep 6th, 2007 01:06:30 AM
Johnno, whatever Zemickis is doing its no where near as barf enducing as this ;I http://www.cartoonbrew.com/cgi /worst-mocap-ever#comments
Johnno by Andy Warhol Jr	Sep 6th, 2007 01:29:02 AM
Shut up already, bitch. Nobody reads your shit anyway.
Johnno by TheAtomicCow	Sep 6th, 2007 12:41:32 PM
You make some valid points sir. I have no beef with trying to better technology for the sake of it, but in the case duplicating human actors, I can't grasp why you would want to in the first place, for purposes other than stuntwork. Surely it can't be cheaper? Although, I never watched Polar Express, I had no problem with that because it seemed to be attempting to match the art of the book, and seemed to succeed in that regard, even if it was not photo-realistic. This film just can't seem to make up it's mind what it's going for. Some shots do look great, but other scenes (mostly action shots it seems) just look cartoony and waxy. It's inconsistent. The water, fire, and blood effects look just plain rotten, which is ridiculous, because I've seen much better effects in video games from several years back even. In the end I will probably watch this movie and enjoy it especially because Beowulf is one of my favorite stories, but I think I will always wonder how much better it would have been if they just used real actors. This just seems unnecessary in the case of this particular film.
If NOTHING ELSE, by Novaman5000	Sep 6th, 2007 01:50:04 PM
Then photo realistc CGI should be pursued in order to improve human stunt cgi in live action films. I can't wait for the day when transition between live actor and CGI stuntman is seamless.
A cool short: by Novaman5000	Sep 6th, 2007 01:50:22 PM
http://www.itsartmag.com/forum /viewtopic.php?f=27&t=174
Let's also tell painters to stop painting portraits. by Novaman5000	Sep 6th, 2007 01:59:30 PM
After all, why should painters paint images of people anymore now that we can take photographs and film? Painting rarely (if ever) looks photo-realistic, so why bother?
Inarticulate pricks by vershandluster	Sep 6th, 2007 02:03:10 PM
Don't ever say "mind you" again. I can't tell you how stupid that makes you sound. Also "meh," "Basically," "Ubercool")))))))))))))))))))) ))))))))))
Inarticulate pricks by vershandluster	Sep 6th, 2007 02:03:11 PM
Don't ever say "mind you" again. I can't tell you how stupid that makes you sound. Also "meh," "Basically," "Ubercool")))))))))))))))))))) ))))))))))
and double posting... by TheAtomicCow	Sep 7th, 2007 04:12:43 PM
...really makes you look like fucking Shakespeare. This is a fucking internet message board for Christ sake! We are not writing research papers here! And oh yeah... MIND YOU MIND YOU MIND YOU MIND YOU MIND YOU...

Talkbacks

New Red Band Trailer for BEOWULF - Looking Better and Better!

User login

Quick Talkback

Talkbacks