The Hot Blog

Already have the trailer up too:

http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount/beowulf/

Man, where was this movie last year when I had a 5000 analysis due on the Beowulf poem? HUH?

Wasn't there meant to be a live action version as well? With Sarah Polley?

PG-13 in November. Unrated in February or March ON DVD. Seriously; I would have no problem with the PG-13 rating. If it were not for the seemingly inevitable UNRATED version of the film, coming out on DVD some time next year. Why they would choose to go in this direction. After the way 300 dominated the Spring. Makes very little sense outside of Universal lacking the balls of Warners. Boy Howdy; is that stating something. Nevertheless, nice trailer, and nice way of CHICKENING OUT with the rating... you freakin mooks.

There was another live version out in 1999.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120604/

and another from 2005 (called Beowulf & Grendel)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0402057/

and it seems like there's also one coming out this year called Beowulf: Prince of the Geats.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0455348/

just saw the trailer. freakin awful. looks like a video game cut scene. they still haven't fixed the dead eyes or the plastic looking skin.

how many years has it been since Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within?

These movies don't interest me, at all. One day they'll box them all together and release the Robert Zemeckis 3-D dead eye CG collector set.

Thanks very much for this, Dave - quite made my morning! Wonderful news! Glad to see that another voice has been added to my early prediction that this picture would be a serious Oscar player.

I'm with anghus - the CGI looks really bad. And why is everyone covered in baby oil?

Also, the whole flying arrows sequence - especially after LOTR and 300 - is hardly impressive anymore.

The CGI doesn't look bad. It looks extraordinary. But it doesn't look realistic, which is what I think people are getting at.

My question is: why is it a bad thing that it doesn't look realistic? The goal is not photo-realism, the goal is to create an immersive world in a way conventional film is unable to replicate.

I've yet to see a cut scene in a video game that looks as good as anything in that trailer.

wrecktum, i think that there's a razor thin line in animation.

if your goal is to make it so close to reality that you can't tell the difference, then why not just do it realistically.

personally, a Bewoulf movie with LOTR type special effects would interest me. another CG zombie FX reel does nothing for me.

Just using animation is tough, because it takes the viewer to a certain place with certain expectations. The dead eyed zombie actors lack a connection to the audience (i haven't seen Bewoulf but am citing earlier films), and hearing the voices of known actors just makes me wish i was looking at the real actor.

300 Got it right, at least in terms of how to use FX in a film but still make it human, and i didn't even like it that much. Still, i could see why people did like it. You still had Gerrard Butler and the other very real characters in a universe that was created around them in CG.

What Zemeckis is doing does not interest me. This looks like crap, and i'll have to pass.

The dead eye issue isn't inherent to digital. Nobody accused Gollum or Kong of having dead eyes. It does seem a particular idiosyncrasy to Zemeckis' use of the medium however. I'm not sure why he does that, or if he thinks that's how people's eyes really are. But honestly, aside from the fact that the characters' motions are captured via live actors, once it's digital there's no real difference between this and say Ratatouille. And I've never seen a Pixar character with dead eyes.

I'm not sure the goal here is to make it look so close to reality that you can't tell a difference. To me, this is more like a Frazetta painting -- realistic, but highly stylized. No one ever confused one of his works with a photograph, yet it graced countless bedroom walls and supervans.

Exactly, Anghus the Luddite, increasingly and tiresomely so blinkered and morbidly obsessed about his "dead-eye" theory that he comes across as a person who won't see a Mickey Mouse cartoon on principle because Mickey doesn't have four fingers.

For me, the comparison is to the roto-scoping used in something like Scanner Darkly. There, animation was created from live actors, but the characters looked alive, the motion was smooth, the visuals were lovely, and it all worked to tell a story better than if they had done it in live action. Beowolf's style just doesn't do anything for me.

I think this looks great too - pioneering, plus it helps that Zemeckis has such impressive visual abilities. But if you don't like the look, I'm not going to call you childish names.

Ok, I'll qualify my previous post and say it isn't the CGI so much as the faces and actors that look bad. And they really do have dead eyes - for me, The Polar Express comes across and unbelievably creepy because of it.

As arghus mentioned, 300 got it right by putting real actors in a surreal, animated world. Sin City got it right as well. Zemeckis' techinque of completely animating the actors with a process that makes even them even less human in a surreal world simply doesn't work. In my opinion, it only emphasizes the animation - and not in a good way. The skin tones, the eyes, everything like phony and not majestic they way they should be for a film like this.

But that's just me.

Actually, if you better-educated, jeff, you would know what an Luddite actually is. Or perhaps you once knew, but no doubt masturbating to all the torture-porn that you are so pathologically obsessed with has rotten away your brain cells. Put down the kleenex and pick up a book from time to time, is my friendly advice.

The one thing most of you seem to have failed to get into your skulls is that the whole picture is in 3D. It is the extra power, the sheer narcotic of this effect, married to splendid acting that had people who saw the second reel foaming at the mouth with excitement last night.

"if you better-educated, jeff..."

Well said, Dr. Troll.

i love ian. the perfect example of online douchebaggery. disagreeing with you makes me stupid.

you're like an AICN talkbacker who throws out the occassional 2 dollar word and you think that separates you from the trolls that make other boards unihabitable.

your posts are always readable, if only for the comic lengths you go to try and prove how different you are from the rage filled trolls that make the internet a truly miserable place to try and discuss film intellegently.

oh, an mickey mouse did have four fingers.

I'm somewhat on the fence about this film. While the some of the CGI looks freaking amazing, the whole dead eye look is worrisome. I only ever saw Polar Express in 3D, so I would definitely want to see this in the same format. Hopefully the whole eye issue becomes irrelevant.

Anghus, I have never posted on AICN and I don't "throw out two-dollar words." I use them every day. If you were smarter, you wouldn't have to look them up. Oh, and please point out where you discussed the film "intelligently." All you did was present your ill-informed opinion as fact and got upset that I called you on it. Grow up.

What Anghus said: "What Zemeckis is doing does not interest me. This looks like crap, and i'll have to pass." An expression of a simple opinion.

What Dr. Sinclair said: "Anghus the Luddite, increasingly and tiresomely so blinkered and morbidly obsessed about his 'dead-eye' theory that he comes across as a person who won't see a Mickey Mouse cartoon on principle because Mickey doesn't have four fingers."

A personal attack, an ill-tempered diversion away from any actual issue under discussion, and a misstatement all in one sentence. Good to know that "I don't 'throw out two-dollar words.' I use them every day." as a sign that your real-life self is essentially the same as your online self.

"if i was smarter"

anyone who claims to be smarter than anyone else, especially someone you don't know, has already proven their lack of intellegence.

you say people like me post their ill informed opinion as fact, and that's where you're whole arguement falls apart.

i don't state anything other my opinion, and don't claim it to be anything other than such. you're the arrogant prick who thinks that someone saying the CG looks like plastic is some kind of decleration that everyone should hate it.

in the same post i mentioned i didn't care for 300 but could see why people would enjoy it. those aren't the words of someone who thinks their opinion is the only valid one.

seriously man, you come across like an arrogant AICN talkbacker.

i'm not the one who needs maturing. i was commenting on the trailer, you're attacking me.

i think you're the one who needs a little maturity my friend.

Anghus, I hate to break this to you, but grammar isn't the woman who married your grandfather.

Jeffmcm, I am not about to have a lengthy conversation with a poster even Don Murphy calls a douchebag.

Good.

ian, all you're doing is furthering my point. congratulations on your perfect grammar and your english degree from whatever university you attended.

i would hate to be obsessed with grammar on the internet. your blood pressure must be through the roof.

but seriously man, who pissed in your corn flakes? do you know bob zemeciks, did you work on the film? i'm not a fan of the animation style. i think it looks fake. i'm not alone in this thought.

cracking on my grammar skills or lack thereof doesn't strengthen your point or weaken mine. it just makes you look like a douchebag.

congratulations on that.

Grammar is the least of the factors in labelling Ian Sinclair a troll: he's clearly only here to get into arguments with his mental inferiors, i.e. everybody.

Anghus: hmm. Perhaps I was a little angry. Part of the reason I was annoyed is that in BEOWULF we have a genuinely innovative picture, telling a story, the oldest story known to Western civilization, mind you, one that we have never seen before properly on the screen, a picture made entirely in 3D, that will open on over 1,000 screens in IMAX 3D, that is blowing away everyone who has seen a single reel of it and I have to listen to you whine on about how it won't work for you, sight unseen, because the eyes look dead to you!

One of the greatest feelings in the world is to sit in a movie theater and be totally blown away, transported and electrified by something new, something never experienced before. Robert Graves said the test of true art is that when you taste it, touch it, hear it or see it, it sends a shiver up your spine. I had that shiver when I first heard the opening bars of Alan Silvestri's score and everything else that has come along so far has only added to the surety of that initial, thrilling reaction.

This is coming from someone who liked the trailer. They say the eyes are the windows to the soul. Well, the people in this movie look like friggin' mannequins. One of the most compelling aspects of a performance is the eyework. Some people have it in spades. There's a scene with Kevin Spacey when he's shot in L.A. CONFIDENTIAL where you can see the life pass from his eyes, and for the life of me I don't know how he did that. Gollum's eyes are remarkably expressive and emotional. Even the Iron Giant managed to express emotion through the eyes.

There's really no excuse for this shoddy work. If you want me to relate to your characters onscreen, the eyes really do have it. I hope the movie's a fun ride, but that's all it's going to be. The dead eyes are, yes, that big a deal.

ian, the difference between you and me is that i won't begrudge anyone who likes what they saw, nor would i go into some long winded rant about their use of grammar. i just didn't care for it, and shared my two cents. i never understood where the anger comes from.

i wouldn't call it whining. it's a style choice. i think it looks fake and the characters like plastic. i tried to articulate that point, also noting that hearing the voices of accomplished actors underneath the plastic looking veneer also pulls me from the 'reality' of it. i'm sure there's lots of people who will dig it. it's just not my cup of tea.

and i agree with Alan 100%. that pretty much covers my thoughts on the eye thing. if i can't connect with a character, real or computer generated, i'm just not going to give a damn on what happens to them.

good reference to L.A. Confidential as well Alan. That scene really is well done.

speaking of 'rage', did anyone notice the music used in the trailer was from '28 days later'? that always bugs me tho i know it's common movie trailer practice.

as for grammar, i know i don't give it a second thought when i'm posting on a blog (or e-mailing, unless it's work-related), this isn't a freakin' university english class it's supposed to be engaging and fun! isn't it? maybe not. you guys freak me out, many of you seem to know each other in real life so why even talk here, why don't you just go get pissed at the pub and fight it out there?

anyway, not that anyone gives a crap but that dead-eye thing, like doll or shark eyes, creeps me out, too. it must be some weird quirk of the animators cuz kong and gollum were alive in there, i'm trying to think of some other non-weta animated examples of 'living eyes' but i'm drawing a blank, maybe someone can think of some. i have to agree, though, that it REALLY puts me off.

leah, those are probably the two best examples.

Davy Jones had some realistic looking eyes as well.

i don't know anyone in here well, other than Alan who posts in another chat that i frequent.

"Man, where was this movie last year when I had a 5000 analysis due on the Beowulf poem? HUH?"

Kamikaze: Many true words are said in jest. You may have just pointed out why they want the PG-13, not an R: Students.

Ian, the simple fact of the matter is that you had a different opinion to Anghus and Jeff. They, however, merely expressed their opinion, you on the other hand expressed your opinion and then childishly insulted them because they didn't agree with you (seriously? masturbation insults?)

Signed, Sealed, Delivered. I don't understand where you're getting confused.

KCamel, what you're missing is that I was _agreeing_ with Sinclair re: Beowulf, I just took exception to his 'You disagree with me? Stuff and nonsense!' attitude.

Wow, Zemeckis is a "master" now? Our standards for throwing out these kind of accolades have clearly dropped...

I loved Gump and Back to the Future and Roger Rabbit, but Zemeckis is hardly in the pantheon of great American directors, even if he has been an invovator.

I'm interested to see BEOWULF but have to agree that in general special effects that dwart actor's humanity and emotions are not my thing. They just become cartoon or comic book movies and make the films smaller, not larger. Sounds like this one is fabulous...but Polar Express was a snooze. So we'll see.

You've got to hope that the effects are that dazzling because despite the fact that most high school kids were forced to read BEOWULF, it's not as if that was a pleasant experience for them. In fact, it's pretty much one of the more hated assignments from all of schooldom. It will be interesting to see if young people do respond to the film (the guess is that they will) but also if it will motivate them to go back to the original text (probably fat chance).

He’s got lifeless eyes. Black eyes. Like a doll's eyes

yeah, i kinda hated "beowulf" when i was forced to read it, twice.

ray's a friend of a friend, so for his sake, i hope it does well. but i'm hardly looking forward to it.

and considering some of the reactions in this forum to tarantino, i'll give zemekis "master," if that's the litmus test

Depends on how big this 'pantheon' is. I'd put Zemeckis in a top twenty or thirty of living American directors, but not a top ten.

Good lord, Jeffmcm! Well done!

Exactly how long does a pantheon have to be?

You'd have to ask Carpetmuncher.

"Blah blah cgi."

"Blah blah flame war."

Blah blah blah.

in regard to the subject of 'dead-eye' cgi animation, i just realised i might be seeing one of the four guys who won the oscar for the cgi on kong tomorrow (his boy and my boy have been mates since babyhood), if he's around i'll ask him if he has any pearls of wisdom on how they make motion-capture eyes look life-like, if anyone's interested. the whole subject intrigues me

Hey Doctor Sinclair, wouldn't a smart person refer to a pantheon as "big" rather than "long?" Didn't you at least look up what a pantheon is before commenting?

Irony is wasted on you, Big Perm. At least Jeff got the joke.

How was that ironic? You don't seem very smart.

Yes, I'm very smart: smart enough to let someone else feed the troll. Goodbye, schmuck.

Why don't we resolve this by having you guys upload photos of your pantheons, which can then be accurately measured for size?

Dr. Sinclair, if he had better taste and more intelligence, would have said nothing instead of calling me a shmuck, thus opening himself up to another comment by me. I was done with this thread. I would give him some ammo to use against me, but I didn't like Hostel and wouldn't see Hostel 2, so he can't call me a child molester or anything.

I don't actually know what a pantheon is. I've been assuming they're undergarments for women.

Everyone here with the exception of maybe a few people live in the real world and interact with human beings every day so the 'dead eyes' in the CGI renderings really takes some people out of the story which is exactly what a director doesn't want to happen.

King Kong, Golem, Pixar characters, etc... are not good counter examples because they are not human and we are taking their existance on faith to begin with.

Anyway the characters in Beowulf look creepy to me as well.

grandcosmo, i'm not sure what you mean by 'kong, etc are not good counter examples cuz they're not human' (but i've had a fair few drinks tonight so maybe i'm being a dufus), isn't that exactly the point? they aren't human but they look 'alive', whereas the beowulf characters are also animated from motion capture of real actors and yet their eyes look dead and creepy.

anyway, my friend had this to say about animating the eyes so that they look 'alive', as opposed to zemeckis's already infamous 'dead-eyed' characters:

the eyes are always moist so they always shine, gleam and glint; the eyes are constantly moving and blinking (even when staring, the eyes vibrate slightly, they put their animated eyes through a noise filter to avoid that 'static' look), and the movement of the head in relation to the movement of the eyes and blinking and pupil dialation and contraction is a very complex interaction and if not done properly makes the character look odd; the eyes have a lot of little muscles around them that constantly move which if not done right make the face look unrealistic and plastic. so i guess the 'dead-eye' thing just comes down to crap animation at the end of the day, which would have been a damn site easier to type at this point in the evening

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: