Marc Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 May as well spread the madness here too : http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount/beowulf/ Lots of fx on this film, a few people on the forum working on it too, so it's relevant. M Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 yep...caused a major in-house e-mail thread over here... MUCH better than anything before...but (at least what I've seen) still really lacking in the facial/eyes department... a tough nut to crack. PS: I love you Angelina. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Posted July 26, 2007 Author Share Posted July 26, 2007 The trailer is pretty short and, well... you know 'quicktimey', so it's hard to judge. There are real moments of sheer brilliance in the movie, whether they're enough to suck you in enough to enjoy it. Well, that remains to be seen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photex Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 I have to admit, I'm pretty creeped out...but at the same time I'm really excited and I hope it does really well. Any other William Gibson fans on the forum getting that 'funny' feeling? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheUsualAlex Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 PS: I love you Angelina. She's not real!! EDIT: She's NOT real!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allegro Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 I understand there are people from these forums working on this film... so I hope that what I say isn't taken offensively... I'm sure that anyone that worked on this would be proud of what they've done, but I just don't understand what the motivation is to make films like this. Anything that I've seen from the trailer tells me that this should have been a live-action movie with cg elements. Is it because the producers think that CG will sell it? Or the Director thinks that CG is cool? I don't get it. When I see a movie where they tried so hard to get realism... it makes the experience of watching said movie cheaper to me... maybe I'm wrong with this one... but it's certainly how I felt with Final Fantasy Spirits Within, and with Polar Express. If I watch an entirely cg movie, I feel like it would be better if it were stylized. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfwood Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 She's not real!!EDIT: She's NOT real!! But Alex, you must remember, a digital Angelina won't slowly age into Jon Voight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheUsualAlex Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 But Alex, you must remember, a digital Angelina won't slowly age into Jon Voight. but... but... but.... she's NOT real!!! She's only a figment of someone's imagination! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3__ Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 its a display of technical skill. like people painting landscapes. I'm hoping 3D in general will get over this comic/fantasy-art/naked-buff-eunuch binge and really go off the rails, into very honest, visceral surrealism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Posted August 7, 2007 Author Share Posted August 7, 2007 ...but I just don't understand what the motivation is to make films like this....I don't get it. This is the madness of which I referred to. The rant which I went on on another mailing list (which I'll spare you here), is basically summed up as: "Why do you care?". You've mentioned that you feel it makes the movie feel cheap somehow, and that's fair, you're certainly not required to think everything produced looks good. However it doesn't really matter why he chose to do it, what matters is does it appeal to you? Why does one artist choose oils and another pastels? Why does one artist use a spray can and a wall as his canvas? Right, it doesn't matter; personal preference. If you don't like it then it's certainly valid to discuss the flaws in the technique or even the story itself, but I think it puts a complete halt to any sound discussion about the film when all you ask is "why?". If you want my opinion though, I do think that there's some validity to doing it this way. There have only been a handful of successful fantasy movies ever made; and by successful I mean well done and not cheap looking (exactly your argument for this). It's very hard to get a huge epic fantasy to not look like a bunch of dudes running around in plastic armour waving cardboard swords at each other. While this method certainly has some flaws, I can understand the logic behind it. Anyway.. I'm certainly not offended (and yes, I am working on the movie ), I just think it's a pointless question with no real answer. M P.S. Funny you should mention it wolfwood, in this movie she does actually age into Jon Voight... it's quite amazing. (j/k ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 I'm glad all this is happening... because there are a ton of stories that simply can't be told with live action... so I'm happy to help Zemeckis pay for all the RnD to get the bugs out of Zombie Town... additionally - why not make Ratatouille live action? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allegro Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 Its a display of technical skill. like people painting landscapes. From the animator's point of view, I can understand this... but from the producer's not so much. Why does one artist choose oils and another pastels? Why does one artist use a spray can and a wall as his canvas? Right, it doesn't matter; personal preference. If you don't like it then it's certainly valid to discuss the flaws in the technique or even the story itself, but I think it puts a complete halt to any sound discussion about the film when all you ask is "why?". But see, I'm trained as an artist. To me, it makes sense why one artist chooses oils and another pastels. You get an entirely different look to the piece in the end. Oils behave entirely different than markers, and if I had to do very quick concept art in front of a client, I would never choose to use oils because it's not as practical for that purpose. In the case of the movie, If it's a budget thing, I guess I can understand that, but I don't think that every story told will work as well in every medium. Yes it's the artist's personal preference that my dictate their style, but sometimes the style also dictates what the medium should be, in my opinion. "Why do you care?". Perhaps it's just because I'm used to questioning and analyzing art of all forms? I'm interested in understanding Pollack's approach as much as I'm interested in Jim Lee... or for that matter Vivaldi versus Aerosmith. additionally - why not make Ratatouille live action? I haven't seen Ratatouille, but I can't imagine them being as effective with telling their story if they did it live action. People have tried that route with moves like Homeward Bound, and Air Bud. There's certainly merits to those films, but it's also difficult to get the super stylized look that cartoonists strive for in their work when working with live action, which is exactly the reason that I'm confused about movies such as Beowulf. It doesn't seem stylized enough (at least from what I've seen in the trailer) to warrant a 100% cg method... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 It doesn't seem stylized enough (at least from what I've seen in the trailer) to warrant a 100% cg method... ah, but this is the fundamental assumption that, at least in my opinion, isn't valid - that CG or animation in general needs to be stylized in some way... that CG and animation in general allows for stylization, for non-photorealistic or hyper-surreal or whatever, is one of it's strengths but it doesn't mean that it's a requirement... all of this (Final Fantasy, Polar Express, Beowulf etc) is just the industry taking it's first baby steps...in a direction that is, again IMO, valid... I'm glad people like Cameron, Zemeckis et al. are taking the bull by the horns and really going for it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Posted August 7, 2007 Author Share Posted August 7, 2007 I find it mildly amusing that people wet themselves when they discuss Avatar and all the wonderful mocap Cameron is going to be doing, but then snort in derision over the same thing when Zemeckis does it. I guess it's like, if it looks good then it's accepted; otherwise scorn is duly heaped upon it. Otherwise I agree 100% with what arctor says. M Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfwood Posted August 8, 2007 Share Posted August 8, 2007 (edited) I'm cool cause I hate everything. Seriously though as long as the medium/style/pixels don't seriously hinder the telling of a story then I'm happy with which every method they choose. I've never seen Polar Express, but I enjoyed Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within and Monster House. Generally I stop noticing the style 15 minutes into the movie and just focus on what is being told. The only time when a particular style is problematic is when something feels so awkward that it spoils the moment repeatedly. (Which only happened once or twice in Final Fantasy for me at least) Personally I take more objection to the reuse of sound effects in film after film. For example the Wihelm pulls me out of the experience every time I hear it . (This is also why I dislike the use of modern/pop songs in films, it pulls me out of the experience and reminds me of the traffic jam I sat in.) Edited August 8, 2007 by Wolfwood Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photex Posted August 8, 2007 Share Posted August 8, 2007 I'm hoping 3D in general will get over this comic/fantasy-art/naked-buff-eunuch binge and really go off the rails, into very honest, visceral surrealism. Amen to that. I would like to see the level CG realism in beowulf used in a prodcution by somone like Satoshi Kon. (For anyone who hasn't seen his movies I can't recommend them enough). What I thought was creepy about it is that I didn't realize it was fully cg for the first couple shots. Actually I realized only once I noticed this really amazingly perfectly lit drop of water on the bottom of his arm. It blew me away. What I'm hoping doesn't happen is that it's hyper-real to the point of soulessness. Elsewise I'm with arctor and marc on their feelings towards bulls and their horns. Actually I can really only be thankful and appreciative of the work put into these movies because by the time it's all over it seems that there are volumes of experience to learn from and in a lot of cases the folks are generous enough to tell us more about it at Siggraph... and *a'hem* odforce.. wink wink, nudge nudge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dee900 Posted August 12, 2007 Share Posted August 12, 2007 Personally I take more objection to the reuse of sound effects in film after film. For example the Wihelm pulls me out of the experience every time I hear it . So how do you feel when Barber's Adagio for Strings, Op 11, starts playing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.