Post by: GoldenPhoenix on November 29, 2007, 07:20:28 PM
While this particular medium has a ways to go yet when it comes to replicating people naturally, this easily beats out Polar Express. Some of the movements were quite natural for the most part and at times some of the characters did give off the illusion of real people. Yeah there was some stiffness in battles here and there, but overall it was a beautiful movie visually.
Post by: ShyGuy on November 29, 2007, 07:37:25 PM
Post by: DAaaMan64 on November 29, 2007, 07:55:04 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: ShyGuy
I liked how stiff the characters were in the action scenes.
yes.
I don't think I was supposed to laugh as much as I did during that movie.
Loved the story though. The creativity on how to hide the male genitals was very funny too
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on November 29, 2007, 07:59:01 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: DAaaMan64Quote
Originally posted by: ShyGuy
I liked how stiff the characters were in the action scenes.
yes.
I don't think I was supposed to laugh as much as I did during that movie.
Loved the story though. The creativity on how to hide the male genitals was very funny too
Funny, no one laughed at all when I was there. The action scenes were amazing for the most part. In fact I found the movie quite creepy and disturbing in places, funny is not a term that comes to mind when people are getting ripped apart and their heads bitten off. But I guess to each their own, I bet you two do that stuff ALL THE TIME.
Post by: DAaaMan64 on November 30, 2007, 04:08:49 AM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on November 30, 2007, 05:13:56 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: DAaaMan64
I saw the movie in a normal theater. I would have like the opportunity to see it in imax 3d. But I definitely wasn't the only one laughing. It's okay tho. Overall I liked the movie.
The only thing that stuck out to me from time to time was the "floatyness" during some of the action scenes like they were on the moon or something, beyond that I hardly noticed the animation itself as stiff (Not to say I didn't notice it, but it wasn't a big deal).
Post by: DAaaMan64 on November 30, 2007, 07:20:37 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenixQuote
Originally posted by: DAaaMan64
I saw the movie in a normal theater. I would have like the opportunity to see it in imax 3d. But I definitely wasn't the only one laughing. It's okay tho. Overall I liked the movie.
The only thing that stuck out to me from time to time was the "floatyness" during some of the action scenes like they were on the moon or something, beyond that I hardly noticed the animation itself as stiff (Not to say I didn't notice it, but it wasn't a big deal).
The queen looked pretty high during a lot of that movie.
Post by: Stogi on November 30, 2007, 08:25:42 AM
The best part of the whole damn thing was when he straight up BITCHED this dude out like "STRIKE ME! PICK UP THAT AX AND STRIKE ME HERE!" That part was bad ass. Otherwise, it was just a graphixwhorefest.
The story was terrible but the action was pretty dope (although few and far between).
Post by: bustin98 on December 02, 2007, 09:59:08 AM
One annoying aspect I found about it has to do with the '3d' anticipation. I bet there were some cool moments in a 3d theater, but in normal vision some items were rediculous. Like the spear being shoved in Beowulf's face after landing. There should have been two edits.
It makes me want to read up on the story of Beowulf though. Next up, The Ring of Nibelungen.
Post by: ShyGuy on December 02, 2007, 10:05:57 AM
Post by: Kairon on December 02, 2007, 10:19:37 AM
Oh, and the Dark Crystal Comparison. That too.
Post by: Sister Mary LeFever on December 02, 2007, 10:31:54 AM
Post by: Crimm on December 02, 2007, 11:11:05 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Sister Mary LeFever
Shame they did such a mediocre job with the epic of Beowulf. What next, The Divine Comedy, The Aeneid? Is nothing sacred?
The Book of Paul: Staring Zach Braff as Paul
Post by: Kairon on December 02, 2007, 11:31:06 AM
Post by: mantidor on December 02, 2007, 01:18:42 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Sister Mary LeFever
Shame they did such a mediocre job with the epic of Beowulf. What next, The Divine Comedy, The Aeneid? Is nothing sacred?
I've read that there's a paradise lost movie in the works. Fortunately its future doesn't seem too bright.
But these literature works have the material to make an awesome movie, they really have to understand what can be translated into film and what can't, the same for videogame movies, trying to follow it literally only produces terrible results, they need to understand the medium they are working on.
Post by: nickmitch on December 02, 2007, 04:03:57 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
At lkeast they have the dragon in this telling of Beowulf. Why does everybody cut out the dragon? ARGH!
I think it's cause most people who like to tell the Beowulf story like to focus on Grendel. That's the part that makes him a hero, not the dragon. The dragon fight brings out his character flaw.
Post by: bustin98 on December 02, 2007, 04:50:10 PM
Anyone with careful observation and a quick body could see Grenel's weaknesses.
But with the dragon:
1) He had to face his sins of the past
2) He had to destroy his son and sacrifice himself to save everyone
Taking out Grendel was the beginning of his decline. That's why its interesting, to see a hero fall due to lust and ego though no one around him realizes. He becomes tortured as praises are sung while his mind cannot let go of his deception.
At the end he finally becomes the hero.
Post by: Kairon on December 02, 2007, 05:09:50 PM
Post by: ShyGuy on December 02, 2007, 05:15:17 PM
Post by: Stogi on December 02, 2007, 05:30:38 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: bustin98
It took more courage for Beowulf to take out the dragon than Grendel.
Anyone with careful observation and a quick body could see Grenel's weaknesses.
But with the dragon:
1) He had to face his sins of the past
2) He had to destroy his son and sacrifice himself to save everyone
Taking out Grendel was the beginning of his decline. That's why its interesting, to see a hero fall due to lust and ego though no one around him realizes. He becomes tortured as praises are sung while his mind cannot let go of his deception.
At the end he finally becomes the hero.
While you did a good job of summarizing the movie; it's not like that wasn't painfully obvious. That's actually one of things I don't like about the movie. It's too obvious; there are no underlying messages, no symbolism; just one guy and his vanity; and not in the cool "Devil's Advocate" sort of way either.
Post by: Kairon on December 02, 2007, 05:42:38 PM
Post by: bustin98 on December 02, 2007, 06:22:32 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: KashogiStogiWhile you did a good job of summarizing the movie; it's not like that wasn't painfully obvious. That's actually one of things I don't like about the movie. It's too obvious; there are no underlying messages, no symbolism; just one guy and his vanity; and not in the cool "Devil's Advocate" sort of way either.
First off, everyone needs to know this is a re-imagining of the story of Beowulf. The three main subjects of villainy are present, but the relationships have changed.
While the points I brought up are obvious (no college for me), and the plot has been done death , there is a degree of symbolism to the story. The dragon horn, the bed maid, Beowulf's right hand man. What's the reasoning behind Grendel looking like a giant malformed child with a troubled ear, while Beowulf's offspring is a magnificent beast? The movie is poor when compared to the original story (what movie isn't??), but for the amount of time they had to work with the writers put some interesting items of discussion in it.
That said I doubt very much I'll be purchasing the dvd. The story is too simplified and the visuals my mind comes up with is more entertaining than the dreck the animators came up with. That is in no way how I imagined Grendel would look or behave.
Edit: This article discusses alot of how I feel about the film, and some other points of view. Seems Roger Ebert finds the film hilarious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beowulf_(2007_film)
Post by: Kairon on December 02, 2007, 06:44:59 PM
But first impression of the re-imagined plot (since the movie's based on a comic book re-imaging, right?) is... bah. The poem was better. I can see why they did it, but I'm gonna side on the original for now. You don't need to directly link the beginning and end of the Beowulf epic, I think. You lose a lot of peripheral depth... bah, I need to see this movie.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on December 02, 2007, 07:45:40 PM
This is probably going to be blasphemy, but the basic plot of Beowulf is probably deeper in this movie (Note the word basic plot), because in the poem it goes like:
King needs help, Beowulf kills Grendel, Beowulf kills mother, Beowulf kills dragon sacrificing himself. The end, at least this movie gave some depth to character of Beowulf, showing he is a flawed man and even the most mighty can fall into temptation, but the true heroes redeem themselves and don't wallow in their pity like Hrogar did, which IMO is a true hero. If I recall correctly, the Beowulf from the poem was quite one dimensional, he was pretty much your perfect hero. At least this version of Beowulf is complex, and yes, more human than the one from the poem.
Post by: Stogi on December 03, 2007, 02:14:09 AM
Is it really wrong for me to expect some underlying themes when the source material is a poem? And as Bustin said, yes there are some symbols in the movie, but good lord; symbols only retain their power when they aren't shoved into your face forcing you to recognize them.
Anyway, I know I'm ranting; I just expected more. And like I said, the best part of the movie is when he yells at his enemy, ordering him to kill him. That right there showed his overwhelming ego and vanity, while hinting at the secret that has been burning his soul; because only he knows that is what will finally kill him.
Post by: bustin98 on December 03, 2007, 04:18:18 AM
And I went in the film knowing nothing about it specifically. I didn't even think about it being different from the source material. That is why I had that reaction to Grendel.
As for character flaws, please. Its like giving character flaws to Superman. Are we going to see Supes using his x-ray vision for some jollies? I think not. Beowulf is the first Superman, the first boy scout. If you want characters that have issues, there's always Hercules.
That said, I find this particular story entertaining. I enjoyed it. I feel disappointed by the animation, but I've pointed that out already.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on December 03, 2007, 07:12:40 AM
Post by: ShyGuy on December 03, 2007, 02:24:39 PM
Anyways, the comparison between The Dark Crystal and Beowulf was that they are both technically stunning and stand as the pinnacles of their craft. On the flip side, the astounding visuals and special effects seems to have come at the price of a well written script and the "acting." Neither puppets nor CGI can emote quite as well as a human can.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on December 03, 2007, 02:26:32 PM
Post by: bustin98 on December 03, 2007, 03:41:14 PM
The Dark Crystal is a step above the Muppet Show, two above Fraggle Rock. Jim Henson is a missed talent for sure, but I think what stands out in the Dark Crystal is the atmosphere and environments. I still get blown away by the ending though. Great stuff.
I can't believe their are people who haven't seen The Dark Crystal as a kid. But then I'm old and saw it at the theater during the original release.
For some reason The Dark Crystal always reminds me of The Secret of Nimh. Maybe because they were released the same year.
Any other animated classics we need to convince people to see? The Last Unicorn? Starchaser: Legend of Orin? (Starchaser and Beowulf have a connection. Can someone point it out without cheating?)
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on December 03, 2007, 03:43:58 PM
Post by: Kairon on December 03, 2007, 03:57:24 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on December 03, 2007, 04:01:10 PM
Post by: Stogi on December 03, 2007, 04:06:36 PM
Boomshakalaka Boomshakalaka Boomshakalaka Boom..........shakalaka
Post by: MegaByte on December 05, 2007, 01:59:02 PM
Post by: wandering on December 05, 2007, 03:53:00 PM
On topic: I went to see Beowulf (in IMAX 3d), because I like Neil Gaimain (as crappy as his dub script for Princess Mononoke was), and I think 3d is the future of film. I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, it's an entertaining, and reasonably clever, adaptation. Also, unlike King Arthur and Troy, it doesn't try to be "realistic", and most of the good bits from the poem are intact. On the other hand, it was pretty hollow and forgettable. And, the film was a giant gimmick-fest. Photorealisitc CGI humans got old the day Final Fantasy: the Spirits Within came out. Throwing stuff at audience's faces in 3d got old 50 years ago (3d is the future, but not gimmicky 3d.)
Post by: Kairon on December 05, 2007, 04:33:13 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on December 05, 2007, 04:44:01 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
I actually rather watch a clay-mation/stop-motion movie than a CG one....
Really? That form of animation always made me cringe, even back for CGI. lol
Post by: Stogi on December 05, 2007, 05:22:02 PM
Post by: Sister Mary LeFever on December 06, 2007, 12:44:00 AM
I mean, when watching Lord of the Rings, I can easily tell in a scene if they're using the actual actor or just a CGI rendering of their character. That's for humans, at least. Orcs and other non-humans don't stick out so badly.
Post by: wandering on December 06, 2007, 08:09:52 AM
Quote
I for one believe that 3D will become a critical part of movies, but to say that it's future of it is folly.
I meant 3d as in 3d glasses 3d. I don't care for CGI humans.
Post by: Sister Mary LeFever on December 06, 2007, 08:51:41 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: wandering
I meant 3d as in 3d glasses 3d. I don't care for CGI humans.
Ah.
Post by: Stogi on December 07, 2007, 02:26:49 AM
