# Beowulf



## Asmor (Nov 17, 2007)

Wow, I can't believe noone's started a Beowulf thread yet. Well, I'm just going to repost my thoughts from my livejournal.



			
				Me said:
			
		

> I saw Beowulf last night with Jon at the IMax theater.
> 
> The movie opens up with a close-up shot of the queen's face. I'm thinking to myself, "Hmm... She's not bad looking, bit of a butter face." And then over the next 5 minutes or so, something begins striking me as a little bit off...
> 
> ...


----------



## frankthedm (Nov 17, 2007)

> My only complaint is that Jon and I got to the theater just a few minutes before the movie started, so we got crappy seats up front and being so close to the screen some of the 3D didn't work correctly and was a bit unnerving. In a few days when the _crows_ thin out I want to go back and see it again.



Uhm, you did mean crowds... right ?


----------



## Relique du Madde (Nov 17, 2007)

I also saw it last night.  I thought the cg work was kick ass and the movie was alright (even  though it killed Hrothgar and destroyed the story of Beowulf in order to show Angela Jolie's naked CG body for more then 5 minutes). 

Unfortunately, beyond the re imagining of the Beowulf plot story I also  had issues with the insane amount of yelling and shouting that occurred during more of the movie which was worsened by the fact that they audio levels seemed to be pumped way up during the combat scenes and every time Beowulf had to yell or shout a line.  The yelling was so bad that my GF threatened to walk out during that first Grendel scene.


----------



## Meloncov (Nov 17, 2007)

Relique du Madde said:
			
		

> (even  though it killed Hrothgar and destroyed the story of Beowulf in order to show Angela Jolie's naked CG body for more then 5 minutes).




I haven't seen it yet, but I read an interesting article about how they adapted the plot. It pointed out that the fight with Grendel's mother in the original text both didn't make much sense (even Beowulf shouldn't be able to hold his breath for days) and is described as what Beowulf told the villagers, making it likely that he was lying.


----------



## Relique du Madde (Nov 17, 2007)

Meloncov said:
			
		

> <snip> making it likely that he was lying.




Well of course he was lying because you can't over embellish a story without telling a few dramatic lies.   However...

(spoiler)  



Spoiler



.. in this version Grendel's mom survived till the end and ended up seduced Beowulf into giving her a half-human demonic dragon child.


----------



## Asmor (Nov 18, 2007)

I should mention that, going into this movie, all I knew about Beowulf is that it was an old myth involving a monster named Grendel (which I'd thought was a dragon).

I thought the story was fantastic.


----------



## Tetsubo (Nov 18, 2007)

My wife and I enjoyed it. We thought it was a very attractive film but slow at points. The final battle scene was great. The additional story elements were OK but not as great as the original myth.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Nov 18, 2007)

I enjoyed it, saw the 3D version and thought it was well done.  Wonderful battle and excellent heroic fantasy.  

Oh, there are roles that get cast right and Jolie as Grendal's mother was it.


----------



## Mistwell (Nov 18, 2007)

Saw it last night also, and thought it was much better than I expected.

I am not a fan of that kind of animation.  I know people have used the term CG, but I don't see this as CG.  It's the same method they used for Polar Express, and I didn't like it there either (though I liked Polar Express).  It's usually called Motion Capture Animation.

Anyway, once I got past the animation issue, I thought it was a pretty good movie.  And the script was co-written by Neil Gaiman, whose writing in general is great.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Nov 18, 2007)

Saw it in 3d. Only way to see this movie - it was not an afterthought - but made for it throughout. No "last 20 mins only in 3d" cheesiness. The whole damn thing - start to finish.

I had no idea 3d had progressed to the point it was that good. I was floored.


----------



## Mark Chance (Nov 18, 2007)

Asmor said:
			
		

> The movie opens up with a close-up shot of the queen's face. I'm thinking to myself, "Hmm... She's not bad looking, bit of a butter face." And then over the next 5 minutes or so, something begins striking me as a little bit off...
> 
> Then I realize that the entire movie is CGI. Everything.




Hmm. I've only seen 30-second commercial spots on TV, and the first thing I noticed was that the actors were animated. Maybe I have super-vision?


----------



## Firebeetle (Nov 18, 2007)

Relique du Madde said:
			
		

> I also saw it last night.  I thought the cg work was kick ass and the movie was alright (even  though it killed Hrothgar and destroyed the story of Beowulf in order to show Angela Jolie's naked CG body for more then 5 minutes).
> 
> Unfortunately, beyond the re imagining of the Beowulf plot story I also  had issues with the insane amount of yelling and shouting that occurred during more of the movie which was worsened by the fact that they audio levels seemed to be pumped way up during the combat scenes and every time Beowulf had to yell or shout a line.  The yelling was so bad that my GF threatened to walk out during that first Grendel scene.




I work at a theater (We are showing the 2-D version, BTW) We had such trouble with the base that we had to move the print to another theater that didn't share any walls with another theater. It's not just the yelling, the whole sound is set to be "rumbly" and thus might really bother some folks. Being a tuba player, I enjoy that sort of thing.

As for the CGI, it was truly remarkable. The characters still manage to look a bit wooden, like Malkovich's advisor. And the action is a bit too fluid to be realistic. These are minor concerns, I really liked the look of the movie and the careful attention to detail.

My first degree is in English, and there are many changes from the original text by story-meister Neil Gaimen himself. I like them all. All characters become linked, the King is linked to Grendel who is linked to his mother who becomes linked to Beowulf who is linked the dragon (you'll have to see it to understand what I mean by "linked".) We see composite characters, and the whole second battle is different (explanation is even given for why the story is different.) I thought it worked well as a movie while still giving me the same emotional impact as the story. Further, my wife and I have been discussing it for two days now. This means the story has reached a level that usual fantasy fare does not. My wife would never discuss the implications of monogamy as an anthropological cultural adaptation for an hour after watching "Eragon"

I have to recommend it. I can't recommend it for kids though. Grendel is VERY scary and there is a large amount of overt sexuality. Not to mention Beowulf's frequently exposed buttocks.


----------



## Meloncov (Nov 18, 2007)

Relique du Madde said:
			
		

> (spoiler)
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Which gives him a rather strong motive to lie about what really happened.


----------



## Truth Seeker (Nov 19, 2007)

A worthy tale to have in one's collection.

And by the way, it was funny too.


----------



## Mort (Nov 19, 2007)

Relique du Madde said:
			
		

> I also saw it last night.  I thought the cg work was kick ass and the movie was alright (even  though it killed Hrothgar and destroyed the story of Beowulf in order to show Angela Jolie's naked CG body for more then 5 minutes).




It's been a while since I've read Beowulf but the additional plot elements really seemed to add to the story and frankly I liked the whole concept of (minor spoiler) 



Spoiler



the legend being passed down inaccurately





			
				Relique du Madde said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, beyond the re imagining of the Beowulf plot story I also  had issues with the insane amount of yelling and shouting that occurred during more of the movie which was worsened by the fact that they audio levels seemed to be pumped way up during the combat scenes and every time Beowulf had to yell or shout a line.  The yelling was so bad that my GF threatened to walk out during that first Grendel scene.




Considering the story and the culture involved the yelling made perfect sense to me, I mean these guys are the embodiment of "eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die."  But I can see how it was annoying.


----------



## Rykion (Nov 19, 2007)

I enjoyed the movie quite a bit.  It made major changes to the story, but it still felt like an epic tale.  The CGI was very good as well.  

My only concern is that this movie somehow got rated PG-13.  Probably because it's animated.  It is definitely well into the R level of violence, blood, sexual innuendo, and nudity.  It doesn't effect my enjoyment, but someone who might think about taking their kids to see it needs to know.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Nov 19, 2007)

Rykion said:
			
		

> I enjoyed the movie quite a bit.  It made major changes to the story, but it still felt like an epic tale.  The CGI was very good as well.
> 
> My only concern is that this movie somehow got rated PG-13.  Probably because it's animated.  It is definitely well into the R level of violence, blood, sexual innuendo, and nudity.  It doesn't effect my enjoyment, but someone who might think about taking their kids to see it needs to know.



While I agree with you, Jolie naked (even computer generated) is always a good thing BUT as they covered her in gold to hide (not very well hidden   ) the parts, this was no different than X-Men.  Violence gets by the rating board, more so if zombie, robots (Star Wars) and Nazis are your foe.  The sexual innuendo, was as common as a number of ED commericals.


----------



## Rykion (Nov 19, 2007)

Hand of Evil said:
			
		

> While I agree with you, Jolie naked (even computer generated) is always a good thing BUT as they covered her in gold to hide (not very well hidden   ) the parts, this was no different than X-Men.



Except that Rebecca Romijn was actually covered by prosthetics/costume that change her form.  The CGI Jolie was just naked with a gold skin color rather than flesh.  It also doesn't account for Beowulf being naked for a several minute fight.  I know brief male nudity gets a complete pass by the US rating board, but that was an extended scene. 


			
				Hand of Evil said:
			
		

> Violence gets by the rating board, more so if zombie, robots (Star Wars) and Nazis are your foe.



The scenes in Beowulf were bloody and violent.  They cut away from the worst violence, but it was till pretty gruesome at times.


			
				Hand of Evil said:
			
		

> The sexual innuendo, was as common as a number of ED commericals.



Innuendo is common, but they went well beyond what is commonly seen on US commercials.  The bawdy song, the cleavage scene, and the naked CGI Jolie stroking the sword were each more than any ED commercial.

Like I said before, I didn't have a problem with the movie.  It's just that the rating board is there to advise people, and especially parents, of the content of the movie.  I think they really blew it with the PG-13 rating they gave Beowulf.


----------



## Asmor (Nov 19, 2007)

Rykion said:
			
		

> I know brief male nudity gets a complete pass by the US rating board, but that was an extended scene.




It's always been my understanding that nudity, as far as ratings are concerned, in the US is strictly limited to the following:

1: Exposed male genitalia
2: Exposed female nipples
3: Exposed female crotch (despite the fact that the genitalia is not, technically, visible).

And as long as all of the above is obscured, any amount of nudity will not result in an R rating.

Not saying whether that's right or wrong, just that it's the way I've understood it.

That said, if you want to get into a debate about Mystique and Grendel's mother... Mystique may have had actual things covering the fun bits, but Grendel's mother doesn't have any fun bits in the first place. There is nothing to cover up, the gold plating is her "skin" and there is literally nothing beneath it.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (Nov 19, 2007)

Saw it last night.  Not what I expected.  Was under the impression this would be a pretty straightforward action flick.  But I should probably know better since Zemeckis directed.  Though I probably would've been more prepared for the story had I known Neil Gaiman was involved.

Overall the animation was impressive.  I was particularly amazed by the lighting and very precise detail of the whole thing.  Of course, loved the dragon.  People riding horses still looks weird and wrong.  But I can't think of any cg-animated film that's gotten that correct.  Shrek 2, maybe?


----------



## Steel_Wind (Nov 19, 2007)

Asmor said:
			
		

> It's always been my understanding that nudity, as far as ratings are concerned, in the US is strictly limited to the following:
> 
> 1: Exposed male genitalia
> 2: Exposed female nipples
> ...




That is more or less true, however, the depiction of nudity which is central to the story and is not presented in a sexualized manner may still result in less than an "R" rating in some circumstances (_Schindler's List_, say).  There are some other examples, (for some reason, I'm thinking _Kramer vs. Kramer_, but I have no idea if that recollection is even remotely correct) - I but it would be fair to say that those are extraordinary exceptons.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Nov 19, 2007)

Here is the PG-13 warning:

PG-13:"Parents Strongly Cautioned. Some Material May Be Inappropriate For Children Under 13."
PG-13 is thus a sterner warning to parents to determine for themselves the attendance in particular of their younger children as they might consider some material not suited for them. Parents, by the rating, are alerted to be very careful about the attendance of their under-teenage children. A PG-13 film is one which, in the view of the Rating Board, leaps beyond the boundaries of the PG rating in theme, violence, nudity, sensuality, language, or other contents, but does not quite fit within the restricted R category. Any drug use content will initially require at least a PG-13 rating. In effect, the PG-13 cautions parents with more stringency than usual to give special attention to this film before they allow their 12-year olds and younger to attend. If nudity is sexually oriented, the film will generally not be found in the PG-13 category. If violence is too rough or persistent, the film goes into the R (restricted) rating. A film's single use of one of the harsher sexually-derived words, though only as an expletive, shall initially require the Rating Board to issue that film at least a PG-13 rating. More than one such expletive must lead the Rating Board to issue a film an R rating, as must even one of these words used in a sexual context. These films can be rated less severely, however, if by a special vote, the Rating Board feels that a lesser rating would more responsibly reflect the opinion of American parents. PG-13 places larger responsibilities on parents for their children's moviegoing. The voluntary rating system is not a surrogate parent, nor should it be. It cannot, and should not, insert itself in family decisions that only parents can, and should, make. Its purpose is to give prescreening advance informational warnings, so that parents can form their own judgments. PG-13 is designed to make these parental decisions easier for films between PG and R.


----------



## Marius Delphus (Nov 19, 2007)

I'm simply appalled that this movie did not get an "R" rating for violence and gore. However, there's a small, dead part of me that whispers, "it wouldn't have mattered."

People brought 6- and 8-year-old children into the theatre where I watched "Beowulf." They stayed for the entire thing.

Now, I thought it was pretty good, actually, as a presentation of a "new version" of the Beowulf myth. But I believe the rating undersells the level of violence and gore depicted. I'd actually say that, in comparison, the "nudity" is a complete non-issue.


----------



## Asmor (Nov 19, 2007)

Marius Delphus said:
			
		

> I'm simply appalled that this movie did not get an "R" rating for violence and gore. However, there's a small, dead part of me that whispers, "it wouldn't have mattered."
> 
> People brought 6- and 8-year-old children into the theatre where I watched "Beowulf." They stayed for the entire thing.
> 
> Now, I thought it was pretty good, actually, as a presentation of a "new version" of the Beowulf myth. But I believe the rating undersells the level of violence and gore depicted. I'd actually say that, in comparison, the "nudity" is a complete non-issue.




For what it's worth, the CAP Movie Ministry agrees with you, giving Beowulf an "R-13" rating. By their metric, it's the second lowest-rated PG-13 film they've reviewed, earning 7/100 (higher scores = more [Christian] family friendly).

It's an interesting review, and pays attention to completely different things than most reviews do. Fair warning, though, it's a heavily Christian site, so if you decide to discuss their review be careful you don't step on the "no religion" rule of the forum.


----------



## Darkwolf71 (Nov 19, 2007)

Blood and violence is a joke in these times.You can see very nearly the same level on Prime Time Television as in Beowulf. Heroes has shown blood, bones, brains. 24 has violence enough to make any innocent cringe in abject terror. (Note, I watch and enjoy both of these shows.) The many versions of CSI can have crime scenes that can be compared to SAW.

Now, Beowulf was indeed very violent but I'm not really surprised that it didn't get an R rating for that. No, what surprised me was how far they pushed the envelope with the nudity. The scene where Beowulf fights Grendal wasn't so much an action sequence, as it was an attempt to see how close they could come to showing man-parts without actually showing them and how often. It was, IMO, a slap in the face of the ratings board. Grendal's mothers nudity wasn't any better. Every curve, every muscular line was accented. Lack of nipples and genitalia is no 'free pass'. Or, it shouldn't be.

Now, I'm no prude. I found the near-nudity of Beowulf to be humorous, if overdone. And the near-nude form of Jolie should be of interest to any man, but if I had kids... I wouldn't take a 13 year old to see that film. 15, maybe, 16 or 17 sure, whatever. But not 13 or younger.


Anyway, good film. The CG was nice, but not superb. I did notice that the best, most 'real' shots seemed to be of Jolie's character in the close-ups of her face when she was barely moving. The fight scene with the dragon was absolutely amazing.


----------



## Asmor (Nov 19, 2007)

I think this should provide a new rule of thumb for DMs everywhere... If your D&D game isn't at least as awesome as Beowulf severing his own arm so that he can reach down the dragon's throat and rip out its heart with his bare hand, you need to try harder.


----------



## Fenris (Nov 20, 2007)

Asmor said:
			
		

> It's always been my understanding that nudity, as far as ratings are concerned, in the US is strictly limited to the following:
> 
> 1: Exposed male genitalia
> 2: Exposed female nipples
> 3: Exposed female crotch (despite the fact that the genitalia is not, technically, visible).




To pick a nit. Female genitalia are visible, indeed must be. All genetalia are, by definition, externally visible. The gonads however are not.  

We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.


----------



## warren123 (Nov 20, 2007)

I like Beowulf very much, awesome movie


----------



## trancejeremy (Nov 20, 2007)

Back in the 80s, you could have some female toplessness (maybe more) in PG movies (this was before PG-13).

For instance, *Beastmaster*.  Tanya Roberts bathing scene, which I think was reprinted in Playboy. 

Also Ms. Roberts again in Sheena.  And one of the Police Academies.


----------



## Asmor (Nov 20, 2007)

Fenris said:
			
		

> To pick a nit. Female genitalia are visible, indeed must be. All genetalia are, by definition, externally visible. The gonads however are not.
> 
> We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.




I remember reading a story about a woman who was being tried for public indecency for walking around nude. The case was thrown out when the officer was asked to point at her supposedly exposed genitalia, and he could not.

Of course, I never claimed to be a biologist.


----------



## Zaukrie (Nov 20, 2007)

I'm looking forward to seeing this, but I don't get this  person's statement:



> Now, I'm no prude. I found the near-nudity of Beowulf to be humorous, if overdone. And the near-nude form of Jolie should be of interest to any man, but if I had kids... I wouldn't take a 13 year old to see that film. 15, maybe, 16 or 17 sure, whatever. But not 13 or younger.




I'd rather have my two young sons see nudity that violence. I find the entire ratings system bizzarro.


----------



## Fenris (Nov 20, 2007)

Asmor said:
			
		

> I remember reading a story about a woman who was being tried for public indecency for walking around nude. The case was thrown out when the officer was asked to point at her supposedly exposed genitalia, and he could not.
> 
> Of course, I never claimed to be a biologist.




The US Supreme Court has ruled that tomatoes are a vegetable, when they are a fruit.


----------



## Jubilee (Nov 20, 2007)

Fenris said:
			
		

> The US Supreme Court has ruled that tomatoes are a vegetable, when they are a fruit.




I can't even imagine why the Supreme Court would need to care whether it's a fruit or a vegetable!


----------



## frankthedm (Nov 20, 2007)

Jubilee said:
			
		

> I can't even imagine why the Supreme Court would need to care whether it's a fruit or a vegetable!



Children's lunch programs I'd bet. Nutrition guidelines get set by laws counting each serving in an entree to make sure a set amount of nutrition gets to the kids. In a legal fight, determining what goes into children’s' lunches can lead to lucrative contracts.

This might have something to do with a school being able to write off giving kids tortia chips and salsa as giving them bread and a vegtable.


----------



## Fenris (Nov 20, 2007)

Jubilee said:
			
		

> I can't even imagine why the Supreme Court would need to care whether it's a fruit or a vegetable!





1870's and it was a tariff issue. Fruits and vegetables had different tariffs on them. There was a dispute over the tomato.


----------



## frankthedm (Nov 20, 2007)

Fenris said:
			
		

> 1870's and it was a tariff issue. Fruits and vegetables had different tariffs on them. There was a dispute over the tomato.



Yep. Saw that right after the boards went wonky.


----------



## Darkwolf71 (Nov 21, 2007)

Zaukrie said:
			
		

> I'm looking forward to seeing this, but I don't get this  person's statement:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd rather have my two young sons see nudity that violence. I find the entire ratings system bizzarro.



As the person who made that statement, that's fine with me. I happen to see it a little differently is all.


----------



## Zaukrie (Nov 21, 2007)

I will say, though, that my children are more comfortable with violence than nudity and kissing and all that stuff. Watching the really, really bad american music awards (is there no rock anymore) with my youngest was entertaining. He definitely isn't into girls/women yet, as he spent most of the night mocking the singing and hair and makup...


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Nov 23, 2007)

Zaukrie said:
			
		

> Watching the really, really bad american music awards (is there no rock anymore) with my youngest was entertaining.



There's plenty of rock in fact rock is doing better now than it has in a long time, but it's not part of the Hollywood "culture" that the awards shows cater to and thus doesn't get much attention from them.  There's more and better hard rock and metal out now than there has been for some time and damned good new bands popping up frequently.


----------



## Mark (Nov 24, 2007)

This thread seems to have lost its way.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Nov 24, 2007)

Mark said:
			
		

> This thread seems to have lost its way.



Apologies   
Seen the movie, in 2d.  Have to say that the cgi was damned good.  Still haven't closed the gap it was clearly identifiable as cg but it was some of the most detailed and well-rendered cg I've ever seen.  Plot was interesting held attention, action was top notch.  Now the changes in the story weren't exactly what I would've preferred and I think that they somewhat belittled Beowulf toward the beginning with implications that his boasts were idle.  But a good solid movie and the end certainly made up for the beginning.


----------



## Mistwell (Nov 24, 2007)

*For those who keep calling this movie a CGI movie, and not an animated move, why?*

They used motion capture.  So did the movie Happy Feet, which took home the Academy Aware for best animated movie.  AMPAS just defined that Beowulf qualified for best Animated feature Film consideration for this years Academy Awards.  So how is Beowulf not an animated film?


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Nov 25, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> *For those who keep calling this movie a CGI movie, and not an animated move, why?*



Because the animation was computer generated rather than hand-drawn.  Happy Feet? animated yes, but animated by computers and thus CGI same as Toy Story or Shrek or Monsters Inc.


----------



## The Lost Muse (Nov 25, 2007)

HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> Now the changes in the story weren't exactly what I would've preferred and I think that they somewhat belittled Beowulf toward the beginning with implications that his boasts were idle.  But a good solid movie and the end certainly made up for the beginning.




In order to become a (capital H) Hero, Beowulf MUST make a heroic boast. As Grendel had already killed several henchmen of Hrothgar, a single man claiming he could vanquish the beast without weapons or armor (haven't seen the movie, going from my rememberances of 2nd year english lit.) certainly wouldn't have been credible, especially given that Beowulf had not yet begun to spread his fame.

Now, if he had made this boast after swimming several hundred miles, and singlehandedly defeating the entire army of Swedes, then maybe they would have paid more respect.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Nov 25, 2007)

Timmundo said:
			
		

> In order to become a (capital H) Hero, Beowulf MUST make a heroic boast. As Grendel had already killed several henchmen of Hrothgar, a single man claiming he could vanquish the beast without weapons or armor (haven't seen the movie, going from my rememberances of 2nd year english lit.) certainly wouldn't have been credible, especially given that Beowulf had not yet begun to spread his fame.



My problem wasn't the boast itself it was the snide comments on the side from his own men.  In the version I read which was a Middle English translation at the very least his own men reacted as though his statement of encountering sea monsters during the swimming contest was bald fact and supported it.  Whereas in the movie several of them make snide discrediting remarks to each other about it even as Unferth attempted to discredit their leader.


----------



## shilsen (Nov 25, 2007)

HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> My problem wasn't the boast itself it was the snide comments on the side from his own men.  In the version I read which was a Middle English translation at the very least his own men reacted as though his statement of encountering sea monsters during the swimming contest was bald fact and supported it.  Whereas in the movie several of them make snide discrediting remarks to each other about it even as Unferth attempted to discredit their leader.



 Well, the movie - at least to me - was consistent in setting Beowulf up as both a hero and also a bit of a braggart and a liar. He fabricates some things about the fight with the sea serpents just as he does about the meeting with Grendel's mother (and about the fight with Grendel too). So that change matched the rest of the movie.

Yes, that's not the same as in the epic, but I wasn't expecting to see the epic when I went to the theater. As someone who's read it multiple times and taught it too, I think it's a great story and text, but linking the stories of Grendel, Grendel's mother and the dragon into one (which the epic doesn't) actually works better in the movie. And one of the links is Beowulf as a hero, but also a braggart and liar, who eventually attains knowledge and achieves true heroism.


----------



## Blackrat (Nov 27, 2007)

I saw this yesterday and I got to say I was a bit disappointed about the CGI. It was good but the hype in here got me waiting for something super. The CGI wasn't any better than in Final Fantasy: the spirit within, which was made completely in CGI and the Advent Children was way better. Also the pseudo-danish-accent that few of the actors used was a bit disturbing but at least the one who played Queen Wealtheow did it quite well. Overall I found it to be a great movie, just not as great I hoped for  .


----------



## Asmor (Nov 27, 2007)

Blackrat said:
			
		

> I saw this yesterday and I got to say I was a bit disappointed about the CGI. It was good but the hype in here got me waiting for something super. The CGI wasn't any better than in Final Fantasy: the spirit within, which was made completely in CGI and the Advent Children was way better. Also the pseudo-danish-accent that few of the actors used was a bit disturbing but at least the one who played Queen Wealtheow did it quite well. Overall I found it to be a great movie, just not as great I hoped for  .




Please excuse me for saying this, but _are you daft_? I've never seen Advent Children, but I enjoyed Spirits Within quite a bit when it came out, and at the time the CGI was incredible. However, it was still obviously CGI (particularly in the case of the characters). In Beowulf, I stand by my statement that the characters looked photo realistic and many of them were indistinguishable from a real actor, except possibly by their movement.


----------



## Darth Shoju (Nov 27, 2007)

Asmor said:
			
		

> Please excuse me for saying this, but _are you daft_? I've never seen Advent Children, but I enjoyed Spirits Within quite a bit when it came out, and at the time the CGI was incredible. However, it was still obviously CGI (particularly in the case of the characters). In Beowulf, I stand by my statement that the characters looked photo realistic and many of them were indistinguishable from a real actor, except possibly by their movement.




I watched Advent Children last month and I would disagree with any claim to it looking better than Beowulf. It was well-animated, but there are definite rough spots.


----------



## Orius (Mar 29, 2008)

*resurrect*

I saw it on DVD and I was impressed.  It was ridiculously over the top, like the sea monster scene (anyone stat those up yet?  ), the overdone CG nudity (complete with well-placed sword hilts and the like), all the boasting, bragging, and bawdiness.  IOW, the sort of stuff that should inspire a gread D&D campaign.  

I will say that the end of the movie was great.  That's one of the best dragons Hollywood has ever produced, and the whole fight with the dragon and even Wiglaf running across the burning bridge rocked.

The CG was definitely impressive, though some of the faces seemed a bit flat, especially in the cheeks.


----------



## Mark Chance (Mar 31, 2008)

Asmor said:
			
		

> In Beowulf, I stand by my statement that the characters looked photo realistic and many of them were indistinguishable from a real actor, except possibly by their movement.




I and my children who watched this with me heartedly disagree. The characters were obviously not real actors even when not moving. The faces and especially the hands and eyes lacked naturalness. _Beowulf_ was little more than a gimmick 3D movie, sort of like a naughty, faux bloodly version of _Shrek_ in which things were constantly thrust at the camera for the "Ooooh" factor.

All in all, it was disappointing and more than slightly dull.


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (Mar 31, 2008)

Mark Chance said:
			
		

> The characters were obviously not real actors even when not moving...




Well, I didn't think it was dull but I did think it looked plastic. Good, not great. Only pretty.


----------



## Meloncov (Mar 31, 2008)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> They used motion capture.  So did the movie Happy Feet, which took home the Academy Aware for best animated movie.




And every animator I know is still pissed about that. While there's nothing wrong with motion capture, it's not animation.


----------



## Asmor (Mar 31, 2008)

Meloncov said:
			
		

> And every animator I know is still pissed about that. While there's nothing wrong with motion capture, it's not animation.




Says who? Why shouldn't it be considered animation?

Not trying to be entirely flippant, mind you. In the most literal sense, live-action movies are still animation (a series of still images shown in rapid succession to create the illusion of movement), so clearly the line has to be drawn somewhere. I just don't understand why the use of motion-capture technology wouldn't be considered animation.

I mean, what about Who Framed Roger Rabbit? There were many parts in that movie where robots and such were used (such as when a cartoon had to break real plates over its head), and the animation was drawn on top of that. How is that fundamentally different from creating the animation without a physical frame of reference?


----------



## Meloncov (Mar 31, 2008)

Asmor said:
			
		

> Says who? Why shouldn't it be considered animation?
> 
> Not trying to be entirely flippant, mind you. In the most literal sense, live-action movies are still animation (a series of still images shown in rapid succession to create the illusion of movement), so clearly the line has to be drawn somewhere. I just don't understand why the use of motion-capture technology wouldn't be considered animation.




The art of animation is about simplification and exageration, or more broadly speaking, suggestion rather than literal depiction of movement. This can be obvious (i.e. Chuck Jones) or more subtle (Pixar, or even effects for live action films) but it's there in all decent animation. These techniques are either clumsy or impossible when executed by a human in a suit.



			
				Asmor said:
			
		

> I mean, what about Who Framed Roger Rabbit? There were many parts in that movie where robots and such were used (such as when a cartoon had to break real plates over its head), and the animation was drawn on top of that. How is that fundamentally different from creating the animation without a physical frame of reference?




First of all, you can inject, to some degree, the principles of animation into the movie while doing the tracing of the real object (which is theoretically possible for mo-cap, though Beowulf didn't do it much). Secondly, any animation done with rotoscoping or it's modern day equivalent of mo-cap is noticeably inferior (all other things being equal) to pure animation, as it can't truly take advantage of the principles of animation. Sometimes an animated movie will, out of necesity, use these techniques but a film created soely with mo-cap or rotoscoping is not animation.



Though really, the reason Beowulf is reffered to as a CGI movie has nothing to do with the sensibilities of animators. Rather, there is a wide spread, and unfortunate, impression that animation=talking animals while CGI equals monsters and explosions.


----------

