OK, I've had it. Enough is enough. Just caught an ad for the movie Beowulf directed by Roger Zemekis

"Starring" Anthony Hopkins, Angelina Jolie ... except it is computer animation!! I thought it was an ad for a video game .. But NO! They are calling this a movie. And they are not saying "the voices of" they are saying "starring"

Sorry, starring implies a flesh and blood actor actually appearing in front of the camera and doing their thing; not standing in a sound booth, eating donuts, reading a script

First we had 300 .. well, at least that had real flesh and blood actors... even if the CGI green screen made it look like an old drive in B-movie

Now we have this ... a video game style cut scene disguised as a movie

What .. nobody wants to make an epic anymore?

I didn't think Troy was a great film (I mean, Brad Pitt acted with very little but his muscles) but it at least followed tried and true movie making traditions; real actors embellished in whatever special effects at hand.

Every movie .. especially historical epics .. use SFX, no argument there. But let's not make that the point, shall we?

Gladiator worked because of the performances; even surrounded by CGI collosuems and armies, we could watch good actors looking at each other, expressing some emotion

Who wants to watch some puter animated Anthony Hopkins stare at a puter animated Angelina Jolie and try to emote ... I wouldn't be able to watch this in a theatre without laughing

I thought this experiment went down in flames with the Final Fantasy movie

I thought the point of all this cool tech was to "give voice" to fantasy elements in an actual movie ... like LOTR ...

This looks worse than green screen crap like Captain Tomorrow and 300

Think I'll fire up the DVD of Beowulf and Grendel, a very good, low tech, low key telling of the legend and, maybe later, fire up The Vikings with Kirk Douglas and Tony Curtis as a compliment move; just to see how good B movies should be done

I'm right there with ya. I work in computer animation, and I still don't wanna see this movie. It's not so much the "why bother" aspect, although there is a lot of that. It's the whole problem with them being made to look like the exact same people who are voicing them, and but as if they all had bad botox. Their eyes are dead looking, and their facial expressions all seem just wrong. There's a shot in one of the commercials with Beowulf yelling in, I assume, rage. Instead it looks like he's squinting to see something while yawning. They could take a cue from the work on Davey Jones. His eyes and facial movements were what really sold him. There was so much more emotion in that octopus face of his than in any of the beowulf characters.

Davey Jones was still done with Bill Nighy acting and motion capture and such correct? That at least would give them a base to mimic. I haven't seen the previews yet but from what I have read here it is all computer animated with no real humans in it...? Eh... I like like animations to be animations, not attempt to be real life.

Maybe they did more than voice overs? Maybe they did all the motion capture as well.

I don't really see a problem with it myself. A movie like this once in a while is no big deal to me...

Mike

For the process of Beowulf all the actor's movement and expressions have been captures via Motion capture, I believe...

I guess Zemekis is tired of shooting on location. Getting old he prefers the cool air conditioned soundstage and the convenience of the nearby craft service table. No more shooting on an island with Tom Hanks!

This looks like technically he's trying to improve the mocap process from the "Polar Express" (Which everything looked loose and out of sync. Too many "pregnant pauses before lines. "Like everyone was "trippin" or drunk). I think he's determined to make the "first" great epic mocap project. It seems he's thinking technology first.

I think that's why Speilberg still insists his projects be shot on film with classical techniques. Make sure the technology doesn't become the movie.

Both are still masters of their craft IMO.

I prefer Shrek. The first one.

A friend of mine worked on it and Polar Express.

Zemeckis said he wants to be the Walt Disney of motion capture movies.

I support the idea of trying to make a cg human that passes as real-it would be a great achievement though obviously it would be too much work to ever replace actors-there are a couple of shots in the preview that just about make it through the "uncanny valley" problem.

A Jolie rising out of the water--her eyes look very good --but then it fades and looks off again.

Instead of making a whole movie--they should make a short--or have a cg human character in a small part-and work on that for 3 years instead of a story with 500 cg characters.

For technology like this they first have to hide it from the audience--not tell them there is a cg character in it--because the brain immediately starts looking for it. Have a character sitting in the background in a live action movie or having a 1 line dialogue part--something small.

In response to the bit about Davey Jones, yes it was a form of motion capture, but the face was animated by artists who matched the movements and expressions to match Bill Nighy's performance. With Beowulf, the facial animation, I believe, is all part of the motion capture/facial capture process, like The Polar Express and Monster House. The problem with that is, facial animation is so very subtle, that the slightest difference in expression makes all the difference. The eyelids widening a fraction of a centimeter can change an expression from sleepy to alarmed. The computer isn't going to care about that though, it's just trying to match the movements of the dots on the actors face as best it can.
I really feel like Beowulf could have been THE adult CG movie if only they had put more effort into the faces, and less into the performance capture. I'm not against photoreal CG movies, as long as the performances are believable.

So I went to go look at this trailer as I had not even heard of the movie, much less seen the trailer.

I think all of the criticisms hold water, but I was amazed at how much better it looked than I expected.

One thing I do feel though...it's ground breaking work, good or bad, whether you think they did a good job or not. I can understand a director wanting to try it out, because once you make the leap from CGI/live action to purely CG, there's no longer this seam between the two you're forever trying to cover up. If you can eventually draw the viewer into the image and the story (even if it looks "fake"), then there's no limit to what you can do.

Think of it as a similar state of mind as watching cel animation. The viewer knows clearly what they're looking at. But once you pass a certain bridge, it doesn't matter, even if the facial expressions are a little off.

(hell, I've seen plenty of high-ranked dramatic movies with real life actors where the "facial expressions were a little off"!)

Nobody here has mentioned that Beowulf is a 3D movie, yet that's it's biggest draw in my opinion.

True. All the positive reviews have been saying it's worth seeing in Imax 3D.

Hey it saves money on makeup and costumes and stunt men.

I have to post back again, after seeing more than one trailer now for the movie.

I agree. The eyes are lacking. I could forgive any other non-realistic transgression in the CG work, but they gotta get the eyes right. They're really, really close, but everybody looks somewhat dead.

As a movie insider told me long, long ago, movie actors aren't really paid to act at all.

They are paid for one thing and one thing only...

Their ability to put butts in theatre seats.

To the extent Angelina Jolie, or Harrison Ford, or Tom (shudder) Cruise succeeds in doing that - they'll get extraordinarily large checks. And they'll deserve them.

Some "stars" do it by actually acting well. Some do it by "star power" alone. Others by unique "camera beauty." Or by "lifestyle/attitude/infamy - or whatever. The point is it doesn't matter who or why - if you can demonstrably deliver bodies into theater seats, you'll get paid. Because the bottom line is actually all about selling a nickels worth of popcorn for $5. In the street level movie business that's the the ONLY thing that matters.

Did you notice how they're starting to promote that the annimated Angelina Jolie Grendel is --- largely UNCLOTHED! You and I both know it's a freeking DRAWING that has NOTHING to do with the real Ms. Jolie. But you wanna guess how many extra tickets get sold by the faux-promise of pesudo-Jolie Nakedness?

If that image puts more butts in seats - she gets PAID - and actually should.

Reminds me of the slimy promoter in Sting's "Bring on the Night" DVD explaining why even tho he was surrounded with some of the greatest jazz musicians of the time, he deserved the lions share of the gate.

Slimeball replies something like: Because no matter how good those musicians are, if you put any of those other guys names on the Marquee, we're not a sellout. With Sting's name - we are - in 5 minutes.

Butts in seats.

End of story.

IMO the 3-D work doesn't look realistic and the low quality is distracting.

The facial expressions are missing something... not working for me. The way the faces move/look doesn't look right... it looks like bad 3-D.

The art direction / cinematography is not particularly enticing (but perhaps because the trailer encodes I saw were so terrible). I think the problem for me is that they are trying to be realistic and falling on their faces because the 3-D work is not realistic-looking. If they tried for something stylized it would work better. Gollum in LOTR is a better example of good 3-D.

Gollum in LOTR is a better example of good 3-D.I've never seen LOTR in 3-D, but I'm about to see Beowulf. Aside from the excellent points Bill Davis gives in his previous post, I really don't care who is starring in Beowulf; for me the draw is the IMAX 3-D experience, plus a critical eye toward the fiction-into-film process: we saved most all our college textbooks, and Kelly still has her Masterpieces of World Lit on my bookshelf. So we're re-reading the story of Beowulf (for the first time since our freshman days at university) and I'm anxious to see how closely the the film follows the written narrative.

Thinking about moving this thread to our 3D / stereo video forum...

To clarify... my comments were about what I've seen with normal 2D projection.

3D was in reference to 3D animation.

So we're re-reading the story of Beowulf (for the first time since our freshman days at university) and I'm anxious to see how closely the the film follows the written narrative.

Chris, and anyone else following this thread...

If you've already started the re-reading, rock on. If you guys haven't started yet, I'd HIGHLY recommend you ditch the old college textbook translations and see if your local bookstore has Seamus Heaney's 2000 verse translation.

It's not only a HUGELY enjoyable reading experience, it says a lot about the art of translation and "interpretive" written derrivations - (for instance moviemaking and script adaptation!) - that I bet all moviemaking fans would find VERY interesting.

I bought it to help Mikey when he and his class were studying a kid translation of the story outline of Beowulf in 6th grade - and found myself caught up in it and REALLY enjoying the book.

FWIW.

I'm pretty sure this will be a very different story than the book. This one was written by Neil Gaiman and (I think) Roger Avery. It seems as though this movie has Beowulf as the father of Grendel, but I'm not sure about that.

Indeed I am expecting to see a radical change in the story from the traditional poetic narrative. And I fully expect to see a cartoon in 3D.

I just don't see the necessity of replacing actual actors faces with animation. Leave everything CG including costumes if they must, but give me a REAL head, with REAL expressions.
I remember seeing the Final Fantasy CG movie and being amazed with the quality of the CG on the big screen. It looked real. But I never got past the distraction of the characters. Why didn't they just use real people. It would have looked much better, and they wouldn't have had to use 800 render years on all that hair.

I imagine that this film will be closely related as possible to the traditional story to avoid academic criticizm. My problems with the previews of this film is that everything I saw was CGI. This is the first time (other than theatrical recreations) that this story has been attempted on film and the fact that it was all done in CGI takes away from the intensity of the film.

But perhaps its "cartoon look" isn't entirely meant to attract an adult audience. As this story is commonly read in grade school and up, it would make sense to make a film oriented toward children. But, on the other hand, children can enjoy films with live actors as much as they do Saturday morning cartoons....

Just chiming back in:

For those interested enough in the story to searching out the written narratives (I haven't read anything on it since high school so I am long overdue) I would again reccomend the 2005 movie Beowulf and Grendel directed by Sturla Gunnarsson and written by Andrew Rai Berzins.

A live action "low tech" telling of the tale filmed in Iceland; just the photography alone is worth the rental. Acting is very solid (all in English) and I enjoyed the interpetation of the myth; you have your suspense and your action but it is really a story about destiny, redemption and what makes one human.

But perhaps its "cartoon look" isn't entirely meant to attract an adult audience. As this story is commonly read in grade school and up, it would make sense to make a film oriented toward children. But, on the other hand, children can enjoy films with live actors as much as they do Saturday morning cartoons....

I'm sure the nakedness of Angelina Jolie's animated body is meant to attract grade schoolers.

Beowulf is rated PG-13. Let's keep this discussion at an appropriate level please.

i have to disagree with a lot of sentiments in this thread about moviemaking.

1. yesh, we've commercialized and supersized, but it hasn't really changed since the silent film eras even. they were all about putting butts in the seats as well, but does this mean everyone should boycott and stop watching hollywood films and buy ONLY indie films and never ever be entertained? yesh we're all intelligent to know they are poorly made, but @least they have entertainment value and lots of escapism. we goto films to escape, not to get depressed again about how "real life" is. but i guess there are sadistic people who find that enjoyable and continue to watch their elitist indies.

2. CG vs. humans. one day, CG will be indistinguishable from humans and hopefully lead way to trek's notion of the "holodeck". don't have $ to travel the world? enter your personal holodeck =P. want to meet some celebrity in real life? call up the holodeck, etc. first steps are appearing in many forms like:
http://www.nvidia.com/object/io_1193136933888.html

no matter what u+i think, it's inevitable as mr. smith says to neo. lots of these sentiments reminds me of when the PC starts appearing @home. a lot of luddites voiced their opinions that it'll take away from face to face contact... we're seeing quite the opposite of that in the business and personal world. these tools are HELPING people do business better and make social connections better by encouraging face-to-face.

guess where those luddites are@?

my 2¢.

I have absoulutely no issues with special effects in movies. I was a big fan of the old Ray Harrehousen movies like Jason and the Argonauts and the Sinbad movies. I thought movies like LOTR and Gladiator benefited from contemporary CGI. I'm also a big fan of Sin City with all the green screen and CGI

I have never been a fan of effects for effects sake. I will always be a fan of good acting whether they be ten feet away from me on a stage, or in a completly digitized world. Acting and story carry the day ... Sin City worked, Captain Future sucked.

From what I have seen of Beowulf (and I just saw a bunch of sneak peeks last night) the CGI is looking like fairly weak computer animation. Just wasn't impressive; and the clips I saw almost made me wonder if it was supposed to be a comedy, it just looked silly

I have no issue with the concept of a totally CGI movie .. some day they may get it right. But CGI made to look like actual actors seems dubious to me, especially if it is not well done.

I've been around long enough to have seen many many advances in tech from rotary phones to cell phones, to black and white TV to video iPods; I have no issue with the idea of technology, especially in entertainment. I just have an issue when it really doesn't advance story, excitement etc and is used just for an empty wow factor

2. CG vs. humans. one day, CG will be indistinguishable from humans and hopefully lead way to trek's notion of the "holodeck".


Indistinguishable in what way? Yes CG can make a person look real, but it doesn't act real.

There are two angles that are being taken currently. The first is motion capture which is used in the the Beowulf movie. This is real actors rendered in 3D. Why bother? Use the real actor. The quality will get better, but there is still a human under there.
The second option is a fully animated character (your holodeck scenario). The problem with that is you are now relying on a CG artist to be an actor. There is a reason why he/she is an CG artist and not a famous actor. They can't act!

I am a fan of CG in every facet of film making but there is simply no point in replacing real actors except for the novelty factor. Which unfortunately puts butts in the seats. I hope the novelty fades off. This exact same movie has the possibility of being a cult classic if it were made with the very actors they motion captured. Instead its hype will fade much like the FF movie before it.

...its hype will fade much like the FF movie before it.That's a given. The only question is, how much profit can it make before the hype fades. After all, it's just a product meant to be consumed within a few weeks after its opening, like most everything the industry cranks out under such heavy marketing.

The idea that we're just around the corner from being able to generate CG that is indistinguishable from real human actors is naive. Actually, this has been a goal for years... we were all supposed to go nuts over "Final Fantasy" because the hair looked so realistic. The movie was a huge flop.

The difficulty with the idea that we're going to just whip up holodeck movies al la Star Trek Next Generation, is that its been proven as humans we are very sensitive to facial expressions when it comes to observing our fellow humans around us. We are also very aware of skin tone and texture. Ever screw up on a white balance? "Is she suffering from heat stroke?" or "is he dead?" might be a couple of comments. Now imagine how difficult the problem becomes when you're working with a computer generated character. It not just about making CG characters "laugh" "cry" or "smile". Human actors bring all kinds of nuances and subtlety to their performances, that's why they are "good" actors. Its also why some of the most successful CG movies are about non-human characters, "Ants", "A Bugs Life", "Toy Story", "Finding Nemo". You can fool people with all kinds of moving images that are CG generated.. "that plane looks real"... and even with heavily worked CG stills of people, but as soon as you have moving people, there is no doubt as to wether you are looking at a CG character or a real person. Has anyone here ever watched a clear, close up of a CG "human" character and thought, "whoa, that looks like a real person?". I'm not talking about Orcs or robots, but human characters with a clear view of their face?
Studios have side stepped this issue by using caricatures instead of realistic attempts of human CG characters (Shrek, The Incredibles).
We've got a long way to go before we're going to be able to make it "indistinguishable" between humans and CG characters, but for me, the real question, is why would we want to? Actors always bring a bit of themselves to every performance, why will it be considered a "victory" when we can tell human stories about human beings, made completely with machines?

I enjoyed seeing it in Imax 3D yesterday--a lot of fun.

heath

the reason why you still need a CG human is for visual fx. even with LOTR, when they run across the chasm or zoom out in digital realms, you KNOW they're CG. it's still not fluid enough. conversely, also in LOTR, the zoom outs of real live action actors in real life shots are solid. it's still yet to be replicated within digital fx.

we're really not "there" yet with human CG... but will be pretty soon. could be 2 years, 5 years 10 years. but that's pretty soon. time flies.

another benefit to CG humans for visual fx is for battle scenes. for negative budget moviemakers that want to make epics, they can finally more realistic battle scenes rather than hire thousands of extras.

I cant imagine Hollywood making a movie out of any ancient text without changing it significantly. Faithfulness just isnt in their vocabulary. Gladiator altered Roman history, Troy was painfully inaccurate to the Iliad and the Trojan War story.



I think a convincing CG human is possible or very close to being possible. The technology is there, but it takes alot of work, and a serious amount of knowldge about human behaviour and how things look, as well as the right lighting conditions(better indoors than outdoor sunlight).Plus the longer its on screen, the harder it is to maintain the illusion. It isnt practical in most applications--besides fx. I maintain the ultimate test would be to insert a cg human into a live action movie sequence and interacting with others. Or a celebrity recreation.

Where it would be very useful is in creating angel or superhuman characters--demigods, gods etc. A computer generated Apollo would probably seen less hokey than an actor in a toga.



Current motion capture technology isnt the greatest for tracking facial movement-but they have a new system that can track thousands of points on a face. That should produce better animation data.


Less is more. If they focused on a few shots as opposed to a 2 hour movie.

I have seen experimental heads done for the Matrix sequels that were pretty convincing(but wearing sunglasses).

Incidentally, I have worked on CG figures myself and I did a photomapped model test of a human --and when I showed the model to someone, he thought the reference photo was a fake too. Sometimes a photograph can make someone look very artificial.

I have heard that they were originally planning to go for a Frank Frazetta style oil painting look to Beowulf, would have been interesting, although maybe not suitable for 3D imax.

Incidentally, I havent seen a 3d imax film--is it really as revolutionary as they say compared with the old type, or just another gimmick?

It would seem to me that anything that requires the viewer to stick something on their face would be unlikely to catch on as a widespread public art experience, or replace traditional theatrical viewing. Too inconvenient for non glasses wearers.

And pop up books havent exactly replaced regular books.

i saw the film and loved it...i saw the 3d glasses version. Very well done and can see why they made it all CG rather than trying to mix CG and reality. I liked it much better this way. Alot of the 3d designed shots (aside the obvious poke something at you style) were very well done and kept me glued to the whole film. Hats off to Mr. Zemekis

Finally saw it last weekend (in Real 3D) with the in-laws over the holiday. Frankly it was better than I expected despite some obvious liberties with the original narrative... the story was compressed in the traditional "economy of film" process of squeezing a story into two hours, and to be honest I think I liked this version better than the literary one. Only some minor annoyances such as counting half a dozen "I am Beowulf!" cries, but my biggest gripe is that they appeared either to run out of CGI budget or had a contract with A.J. because Grendel's mother per the original storyline was supposed to be hideous, not beautiful. Thought they did a superb job with Grendel though.

Plus I had not yet seen the trailers for Cloverfield or The Omega Man remake, so those were nice treats too. Looking forward to more 3D,

I just saw it in 3D last night and I have mostly the same feelings. I should point out that Grendel's mother was hideous but her true form was only seen under the water. Overall I thought the movie was entertaining and well done.

I do agree to somewhat with the skeptics/critics in that the 3D animation does not adequately substitute for live actors. Much of the time they did a great job and the models were convincing. Unfortunately, sometimes it just looked like the model's expressions shut off and they turned to talking wax figures. I think they need to figure out new algorithms for the eye behavior.

On the good side, the overblown action was dealt with in that some of it was intended as fantasy and boasting by Beowulf and his companions. There was still a bit of liberty taken with physics, but it wasn't as bad as seen in many live-actor movies that use wire rigs and trampolines to make people flail about dramatically. I am particularly turned off by the wire reel that yanks people back 20 feet after they are shot in many action movies. At least in Beowulf the characters suffer the consequences of being thrown across a room or slammed to the ground.

Overall the story still had a bit of an ancient feel without seeming unsophisticated nor excessively verbose. It was one part Greek play, one part Shakespeare, and one part cheesy modern action movie. I think it worked much better than I anticipated.

If they tweaked the eye movement and cut down a few outrageous physics violations, this would be a great movie except for one obvious flaw. They can't get over the fact that shoving "3D" objects in the audiences faces doesn't work! It's a stupid gimmick that has been overdone in every single 3D movie since the 1950s and it never really works. The closest plane in the 3D format goes beyond what works and just looks unfocused and cheap. Most of the 3D in the mid ground and background works perfectly and I don't know why they don't stay within the confines of what works just for the sake of a gimmick.

kelly, watch the movie yourself. you might be pleasantly surprised. let us know. ALL adaptions take liberties. they have to, otherwise real is boring. that's the very reason why we escape to films... except for hardcore indies (which is a mirror to life's miseries, you know what they say about misery).

i didn't think the 3D was that distracting or gimmicky, the film works as 2D as well if you saw it in 2D. 3D is just more immersive when given the opportunity like this.

i was @a discussion afterwards and one of the points made is that if this were a live action-film, the boasting of beowulf and his past heroics would be LESS real and unconvincing. it's because these human characters were wax-like and blend in with the setting that we believe this is a heroic legend. stuff of legends should be told like it is a dream and this film achieved that in spades.

Talking of historical inaccuracies has anyone seen U571?

Hold it Dave -- don't hijack the thread -- that's a separate topic for another discussion!

;-)

I also noticed minor historical accuracy in one of the Xena episodes but these things happen. You can't make everything up!

I wasnt criticizing the practice of making changes per se, just saying that if Hollywood is willing to play loose with historical accuracy then they are going to do at least as much with works steeped in legend. Sometimes its understandable. Sometimes it isnt--and with historical content/figures it seems to encourage ignorance. Making Henry the 8th thin for example.

That's like making Abraham Lincoln a midget.
It also is lazy writing/storytelling.

BTW I Claudius was very faithful to the books(mostly abridged them) and the books were as accurate as they could be to the historical record. Boring they werent.

Anyway I havent seen Beowulf yet. I will--just dont know when.

That's funny about Xena--I assume the minor accuracy you are talking about is the episode where there is a poet competition and a young seeing poet named Homer gets up and says: "I sing of arms and a great warrior called...Spartacus!"

Then they proceed to show 5 minutes of Kirk Douglas and Laurence Olivier footage.

I am sure Classical studies teachers around the globe cheered!
;)

I saw it in 3d and i was blown away, the 3d in its self was worth it. Why is everyone so bothered about historical accuracy, Generally the real events are boring thats why they change them.....who wants to know that william wallace was most likely a bad b#####d, braveheart was a great movie......i know im scottish, You want accuracy watch the descovery channel.

the way i see it i'd rather of see this than not.

Andy.

Discovery or History Channel?

Screw that--just give me a midget Lincoln!

Discovery or History Channel?

Screw that--just give me a midget Lincoln!


K...????, this world is truely a diverse place full of strange people

Sorry to confuse you--it helps to read previous posts carefully--but I guess that's the same as striving for accuracy, which some people detest.
But it happens to me too. I was confused after learning that the real Elliot Ness didnt have a family(just a cat) after watching the Untouchables, given how central the fake family was to the story.
But that's Hollywood.

In 500 years I guess we can expect a Korean War movie with Hitler as a good guy who beats Napoelon in a jet fighter duel.

Sorry to confuse you--it helps to read previous posts carefully--but I guess that's the same as striving for accuracy, which some people detest.

lol touche

Andy.

Sorry I didnt want to sound snippy.

I was going to add a ;) in there somewhere to lighten it up but in the heat of the moment I neglected to.


To actually get back to topic for a moment, Beowulf vs Grendel is on a local channel this week so i will catch that before I see this one!

Thats cool Kelly i didn't mean your being touchy , i meant touche (too-shay) as in you have me there, good point.

Andy.

Yeah I figured that was what you meant I just thought maybe I sounded a bit harsh. :) This thread is becoming all about accuracy! lol