[Robert Crawford]

This thread is now designated the Official Discussion Thread for "Beowulf". Please, post all comments, links to outside reviews, film and box office discussion items to this thread.

All HTF member film reviews of "Beowulf" should be posted to the Official Review Thread.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.


Crawdaddy

[Gerald LaFrance]

Hi, I saw BeoWulf in 3D Yesterday and I realy Enjoyed the 3D Version. I am a Big Fan of 3D. Has anyone else here seen this movie in 3D to offer any Comments on the Newer 3D technology??

[Robert Crawford]

Watched this at a new IMAX theater that opened up on Friday and found the 3D presentation excellent and by far the best I've experienced in a movie theater.





Crawdaddy

[BrettV]

I didn't really care for the movie, but I did love the last 15 of 20 minutes. Possibly the coolest thing visually I've seen theatrically.

[Matthew_Def]

In the review thread Chad R suggested the 300 style of filmmaking as a better way to make Beowulf. I couldn't disagree more, and I felt much stronger for the characters, a better consistency and more soul in Beowulf than 300. 300 felt very flat and fake to me. And I think because it was actors on a bluescreen it felt that way. I could feel too large a disconnect between the actors and their environment, because they didn't belong there. Whereas with Beowulf the CG characters existed in a CG world.

Oddly enough, I love Sin City, which was done exactly like 300. Maybe SC was just that much more stylized, and it felt very abstract plus it was very aware of it's artificiality. Still I don't think that style would fit Beowulf, especially considering the main sequences in the film used large beasts that would only be possible with CG.

Grendel is 12 feet tall and even if you used trick angles and prosthetics, you wouldn't get the same performance that Glover brought. He wouldn't have even been hired by BZ if it was live action, anyway. You also couldn't have the interaction that Beowulf and Grendel had either. And then theirs the dragon sequence, which would've used a CG Beowulf for most of it anyway. CG/live-action interaction is still far from perfect.

Anyway, I can't wait to see it again.

[Joe:C]

There was talk at one point of seperate NC-17 and PG-13 versions, but thats been a while ago. Has anyone heard anything else about that?

[DanielKellmii]

Does anybody know what language Grendel is speaking?

[Garrett Lundy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanielKellmii

Does anybody know what language Grendel is speaking?

Crispin Glover voices Gollum....er... Grendel in:
Olde English
"Ic hearmed him nat"

"rippen of mine earm"

German

"Ich nein demon!"

Baby Talk

"Man hurten mine head!"

I think the point was to portray Grendel as an autistic or learning disabled (for a troll).


Now the important question, does anybody know why Grendel keeps shrinking?

[Chad R]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matthew_Def

In the review thread Chad R suggested the 300 style of filmmaking as a better way to make Beowulf. I couldn't disagree more, and I felt much stronger for the characters, a better consistency and more soul in Beowulf than 300. 300 felt very flat and fake to me. And I think because it was actors on a bluescreen it felt that way. I could feel too large a disconnect between the actors and their environment, because they didn't belong there. Whereas with Beowulf the CG characters existed in a CG world.

Oddly enough, I love Sin City, which was done exactly like 300. Maybe SC was just that much more stylized, and it felt very abstract plus it was very aware of it's artificiality. Still I don't think that style would fit Beowulf, especially considering the main sequences in the film used large beasts that would only be possible with CG.

Grendel is 12 feet tall and even if you used trick angles and prosthetics, you wouldn't get the same performance that Glover brought. He wouldn't have even been hired by BZ if it was live action, anyway. You also couldn't have the interaction that Beowulf and Grendel had either. And then theirs the dragon sequence, which would've used a CG Beowulf for most of it anyway. CG/live-action interaction is still far from perfect.

Anyway, I can't wait to see it again.

I would agree with you only to the extent that Zemeckis wanted to use the likeness of all these great actors he'd cast in the roles. My huge disconnect with the characters was that they looked like Anthony Hopkins, Angelina Jolie, etc.

The problem with that is that these are very well known performers and our eyes are very familiar with how they look, move, act and react. Using the motion capture in this way robbed the visuals of authenticity because the characters seemed so stiff and plastic.

Therefore, if Zemeckis wanted to use the likenesses, then I think just using the actors in front of bluescreen like "300" would have been the best way to go.

But, I'd also argue that if he wanted to seamlessly blend the characters with the CG background, then he should have done what he did with the Ray Winstone character of Beowulf and Glover as Grendel with ALL of the characters in the film. Although I still feel that Beowulf at times still acted plastic -- the worst of it being when he's screaming his identity for the umpteenth time but his head remains perfect upright and still and his throat never strains at the output -- he had the best chance of blending in simply because he didn't have that instant click of familiarity as an actor. Ray Winstone's performance was captured, not his likeness, which to me is the only future of this technology.

It amazed me last night when I caught a few moments of "The Incredibles" on TV last night how real those characters feel to me. Although they are clearly animated approximations of humans, they seem more flesh and blood then did any of the characters in "Beowulf."

And I think that's the main issue with motion capture technology at this point. With Pixar features great character animation is achieved by humans copying humans whereas motion capture seems like a computer copying humans (I know that's not the literal facts of the two technologies but it certainly seems like the truth of them). There's no soul to motion capture at this point. I think that as long as they want to capture the actors' likenesses, they will continue to lag behind other animated features.

[Garrett Lundy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chad R

There's no soul to motion capture at this point. I think that as long as they want to capture the actors' likenesses, they will continue to lag behind other animated features.

Isn't that like saying Matt Groening animation is more realistic than Ralph Bakshi?

[Chad R]

It's not an issue of realism, but how well the animation tricks the eyes. It's a matter of believability and in that regard, not being ultra familiar with Bashki, but I'd say I buy into Groening's world more so than Bashki's.