New Beowulf movie

Cafe Society
61

I have questions, and never read the poem or Cliffs Notes about it.

[spoiler]Why did Beowulf, “cut his arm off even though it stayed attached” at the end while he was dangling from the dragon’s mouth? What exactly was that all about?

Also, how come with his dagger he couldn’t reach the dragon’s heart to poke it, but without the dagger he could reach right into the chest and wrap his hand around it like it suddenly became 12 inches closer?

What was so special about Grendel’s ear that made him shrink when Beowulf punched it out?

Why did King Anthony Hopkins kill himself, some talk i didn’t understand about a curse or something?[/spoiler]

62

[QUOTE=Exapno Mapcase]
One final thought: after reading this thread, I wonder if anybody at all thinks of Angelina Jolie as the epitome of sexiness. Or even as anyone special looking. She isn’t. Probably never has been, but certainly isn’t now.
[/QUOTE]

I thought she was cute at one time, but she’s not attractive at all these days and in fact often looks downright ugly. This is a phenomenon I’ve noticed happen to a lot of actresses and singers once they’ve made it big. Is it simple aging? Or do they just let themselves go once they’ve made it somewhere reasonably near the top?

63

[QUOTE=SlickRoenick]
I have questions, and never read the poem or Cliffs Notes about it.

[spoiler]Why did Beowulf, “cut his arm off even though it stayed attached” at the end while he was dangling from the dragon’s mouth? What exactly was that all about?

Also, how come with his dagger he couldn’t reach the dragon’s heart to poke it, but without the dagger he could reach right into the chest and wrap his hand around it like it suddenly became 12 inches closer?

What was so special about Grendel’s ear that made him shrink when Beowulf punched it out?

Why did King Anthony Hopkins kill himself, some talk i didn’t understand about a curse or something?[/spoiler]
[/QUOTE]

[spoiler]He cut his arm because he could not quite reach the hear. He knew his armor/chan mail would prevent him from falling.

He could have eventually reached the heart with the dagger (sword?), but it got knocked out of his hand accidentally too soon. He was eventually able to swing in far enough to grasp it, but it would have been easier to use the dagger.

Not sure what was up with the ear, but it was extremely sensitive. When he heard the singing in the mead hall from far away, it spun and drove him to agony.

The king killed himself because he realized that based on Beowulf’s description of Angelina Jolie as a “hag,” he must have made the same deal with her that he had before and that now the curse he had lived under – which involved being the father of Jolie’s child, which I suspect may be haunting Brad Pitt any day now – was now visited on Beowulf. Although I’m not sure why he felt he HAD to kill himself at all or even right at that moment, but he apparently understood that Beowulf would be king.[/spoiler]

64

[QUOTE=jackdavinci]
…I was a lot less interested once I found out it was all CGI. What’s the point of hiring actors to do all the motion capture, and making the figures look like the actors too? Might as well just have the actual actors…?
[/QUOTE]

Why paint a picture when someone can just take a photo?

65

I saw it in 3D this afternoon myself and have to agree with the majority: the story updates were interesting and worked in context with the original legend but the visual design left a lot to be desired. We were deep into that uncanny valley here and it didn’t help that some shots rose to the level of “okay” because it made the more complicated ones where the illusion fell apart look that much worse.

Also, this might be the single most phallic symbol filled film ever. I’m not one for seeing penises in every rod that shows up but this was really blatant. Since it is part of the film’s theme it didn’t seem goofy (okay, in that first Grendel sequence it was but then movies structure was still being set up).

I did learn one important thing from this movie:

Having sex with Angelina Jolie will cause the destruction of your country.

Regarding the painting/photo comment; why make a painting instead of taking a photo when the painting is going to look like a velvet Elvis?

66

(Was I the only one who, during that long pull-back from Heorot to Grendel’s lair, said “But the Grinch did not approve of the merry-making?”
My daughter observed that if they ever clear the monsters out they should make that cavern a concert hall, given the incredible acoustics demonstrated.)

67

[QUOTE=Just Some Guy]
Regarding the painting/photo comment; why make a painting instead of taking a photo when the painting is going to look like a velvet Elvis?
[/QUOTE]

Hrmm. Comparing this to a velvet elvis is a little unfair, considering it’s the state of the art. It’s too bad some people just look at this at face value, without taking in the context and how far it’s come. You have to give it some appreciation as a medium, as well as see it as an evolution in animation (as opposed to a step backward in live-action).

I suppose that’s the key issue. While Photorealism is certainly a goal, don’t forget this is still animation, but in a new form. There is some overlapping, what with motion/performance capture, but if you saw the level of skill and attention to detail it really takes to pull a movie off like this, you might reconsider.

We’re in new territory in film making, and I, for one, am enjoying the process thoroughly. I feel bad for those that can’t see past the flaws and see what’s still valid.

That said, while there are certainly some shots that could have easily been shot traditionally, using real actors – I think after seeing this film, and the kind of action/shots Zemeckis was going for, you’d agree that animation was the way to go (for him).

As far as the movie on the whole (taking in the animation, artistic production, and storytelling) I’d give it a solid 85% (rottentomatoes.com style).

68

[QUOTE=cmyk]
It’s too bad some people just look at this at face value, without taking in the context and how far it’s come.
[/quote]

When in history has this ever served as an excuse for bad art?

It’s not valid. It’s $150,000,000 worth of masturbation.

69

The two major problems I spotted with the animation (that the midface, from middle nose to the upper lip, weren’t animated at all, it seemed, and that the figures’ shoulder joints were frozen) came down to the same thing - the animators don’t understand human anatomy, musculature, and motion well enough.

Everyone’s faces looked like they’d gotten a stiff dose of Botox, and while the underlying program apparently understood that shoulders can move up, down, back, forward, and independently, the animators never took advantage of that. I wanted to send all the animators off to Disney for a six-week course in classical animation, where they can learn the principles of anticipation, stretch, and bounce. A direct translation from real life movement doesn’t work in animation.

That being said, I thought the story was very well done, and the added twist made it much more enjoyable.

Beowulf never defeated Grendel’s mother. She seduced him with promises of glory and power, so that she could conceive a son by him to replace the one he’d killed. How, of course, this was going to work when she apparently didn’t have a vagina is anyone’s guess. Beowulf returned to Hrothgar and lied through his teeth about killing Grendel’s mother.

70

[QUOTE=phouka]

Beowulf never defeated Grendel’s mother. She seduced him with promises of glory and power, so that she could conceive a son by him to replace the one he’d killed. How, of course, this was going to work when she apparently didn’t have a vagina is anyone’s guess. Beowulf returned to Hrothgar and lied through his teeth about killing Grendel’s mother.

[/QUOTE]

[spoiler]GM was a witch, or water demon, or some supernatural ageless shape-shifter with magickal powers. I don’t see her playing fair and limiting her seduction to offers of glory and power. She witched 'em. They were under her spell, even if they may not have understood that bit of the magic. They couldn’t say no, not because they were weak emotionally but because they were weaker in magickal power.

This still would have allowed guilt for any of several reasons: because they didn’t understand the spell and thought they had just fallen for the seduction, or because they did understand the spell and cursed themselves for not being able to resist it, or because she took their memories and made them think they were complicit willingly.

Any other explanation requires GM to fight fair. I can’t buy that for a second.[/spoiler]

71

[QUOTE=Exapno Mapcase]

GM was a witch, or water demon, or some supernatural ageless shape-shifter with magickal powers. I don’t see her playing fair and limiting her seduction to offers of glory and power. She witched 'em. They were under her spell, even if they may not have understood that bit of the magic. They couldn’t say no, not because they were weak emotionally but because they were weaker in magickal power.

[/QUOTE]

Actually I think she was supposed to be a fertility goddess being supplanted by Christianity rather than just a “demon”. I don’t have a huge amount of data to support that other than it’s the kind of thing that Gaiman would do, but it would add another layer to the story.

72

[QUOTE=Exapno Mapcase]
When in history has this ever served as an excuse for bad art?
[/QUOTE]

When it’s the state of the art. As far as CG Photorealism gets, that’s pretty much where we’re at. You can argue that it’s not worth while if those are the results, but how else to evolve it?

It was better than Final Fantasy: The Spirit Within. :wink:

[QUOTE=Exapno Mapcase]
It’s not valid. It’s $150,000,000 worth of masturbation.
[/QUOTE]

I thought it was pretty skilled. It wasn’t LOTR for me, but still entertaining and I thought the art direction was well done. The zombie-looking humans aside, a rather well accomplished CG animation.

I’ll say this as my final word: I want to see more adult storytelling in the animation genre. It’s nice to see it being tackled again.

73

[QUOTE=cmyk]
When it’s the state of the art. As far as CG Photorealism gets, that’s pretty much where we’re at. You can argue that it’s not worth while if those are the results, but how else to evolve it?
[/QUOTE]

Well, step 1: you test the results with a short clip. Step 2: you stop using those designs when you see the results are garbage.

Artists have to work with their medium, not fight against it. A frontal assault on the uncanny valley is not going to work. There are a lot of people who are working on doing better with CGI and their approaches don’t involve justifying two hours of bad animation for a commercial project.

74

[QUOTE=phouka]
The two major problems I spotted with the animation (that the midface, from middle nose to the upper lip, weren’t animated at all, it seemed, and that the figures’ shoulder joints were frozen) came down to the same thing - the animators don’t understand human anatomy, musculature, and motion well enough.

Everyone’s faces looked like they’d gotten a stiff dose of Botox, and while the underlying program apparently understood that shoulders can move up, down, back, forward, and independently, the animators never took advantage of that. I wanted to send all the animators off to Disney for a six-week course in classical animation, where they can learn the principles of anticipation, stretch, and bounce. A direct translation from real life movement doesn’t work in animation.

That being said, I thought the story was very well done, and the added twist made it much more enjoyable.

Beowulf never defeated Grendel’s mother. She seduced him with promises of glory and power, so that she could conceive a son by him to replace the one he’d killed. How, of course, this was going to work when she apparently didn’t have a vagina is anyone’s guess. Beowulf returned to Hrothgar and lied through his teeth about killing Grendel’s mother.

[/QUOTE]

While I couldn’t agree more that the expressions were for the most part expressionless… the 12 Principles of Animation that you speak of were developed by Disney (et al), and mostly apply to rather cartoonish, exaggerated, and otherwise slightly unrealistic movement.

There are some principles that do apply, but most of them are more apt for Pixar type fare.

I do hope they solve the “botox problem” for humans. It’s just that we, as a species, rely on facial expression so much more than body movement, so it’s incredibly difficult to get right when you’re animating something for true realism. There’s almost infinite subtlety there. Notice the non-human characters look quite real.

Let’s hope James Cameron does better with Avatar.

75

[QUOTE=Just Some Guy]
Well, step 1: you test the results with a short clip. Step 2: you stop using those designs when you see the results are garbage.

Artists have to work with their medium, not fight against it. A frontal assault on the uncanny valley is not going to work. There are a lot of people who are working on doing better with CGI and their approaches don’t involve justifying two hours of bad animation for a commercial project.
[/QUOTE]

That’s a rather black and white stance that I just can’t subscribe to.

Pixar and some other houses who try to walk in their shoes have solved the problem by coming around full circle. Make the characters heavily stylized and cartoonish. Works very well, and is delightful to watch – but there will always be that realism carrot dangling in front of filmmakers.

It’s not that the animation is bad, it’s just that it’s missing something when it comes to human expression. I don’t think it’s been discovered yet, for lack of a better word.

76

[QUOTE=Just Some Guy]

Actually I think she was supposed to be a fertility goddess being supplanted by Christianity rather than just a “demon”. I don’t have a huge amount of data to support that other than it’s the kind of thing that Gaiman would do, but it would add another layer to the story.

[/QUOTE]

I would venture that she was more of a succubus type in this interpretation of the story. My favorite scene with her happens to be the “succubus dream” sequence wherein she attempts to seduce Beowulf in his sleep via the disguise of Wealhtheow, the sexy queen. He’s battling with the idea of sleeping with her, she quickly changes to succubus form, and Beowulf wakes up to a room filled with men (whose libidos conquered any sense of loyalty to the king) hanging over the roof beams.

77

[QUOTE=cmyk]
While I couldn’t agree more that the expressions were for the most part expressionless… the 12 Principles of Animation that you speak of were developed by Disney (et al), and mostly apply to rather cartoonish, exaggerated, and otherwise slightly unrealistic movement.

There are some principles that do apply, but most of them are more apt for Pixar type fare.
[/quote]

That’s the stuff! Yes, it’s more exaggerated and punched up in the classic cel animation, but I think the principles do apply here as well. The motion capture they’re currently using just doesn’t capture the subtleties of everything the human body is capable of doing. Until it can, I think the animators should continue to rely on the time tested “Old Men of Disney” approach.

While the “squash and stretch” and other rules are most obvious in the more cartoonish animation, they can still help with more sophisticated animation.

Actually, I had a complaint about how the horses were animated. They didn’t bounced around enough at a gallop, and the limbs didn’t have a large enough range of motion - at least to me. It may be another case where over-exaggeration of the movements would make it appear more realistic.

You know, I hadn’t thought of it that way. That certainly does make Beowulf’s fate more tragic, and it explains why Hrothgar committed suicide.

78

That was part of what bothered me.

Angelina Jolie is not the Queen of Air and Darkness, she is not La Belle Dame Sans Merci, she is not even Morgan la Fey. She is just an overexposed trollop from the supermarket tabloids.

My daughter recognizes one of the Faerie Folk when she sees one, and now wanted there to be a scene with Grendel’s Mom (has got it goin’ on) without her glamour.

79

It takes some serious re-envisioning of the story to make Grendel’s mother sexy!

80

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
It takes some serious re-envisioning of the story to make Grendel’s mother sexy!
[/QUOTE]

Well, she isn’t ALWAYS sexy. For the first third of the movie, she looks mostly like a Sea Monkey. But she’s a shapeshifter, so she’s sexy when it works for her.