Kevin's Watch

thanks menolly, now i gotta choose between beowulf 3d stardust and golden compass, and probablt get so indecisive i'll miss all 3!

Stonemaybe wrote:thanks menolly, now i gotta choose between beowulf 3d stardust and golden compass, and probablt get so indecisive i'll miss all 3!

Are you one that also doesn't go to the movies often, Stoney?

Wasn't too shabby. I liked the way they veered away from the poem when it came to Grendel's mother. It made it a much more connected and interesting movie. Also made it a lot easier to follow for the majority of movie-goes who've never read the original.

Wow, really awesome. Loved it although it was maybe one third the epic of Beowulf and the rest playing out the formula of modern cinema. Usually I get all bent out of shape when movie makers mess with the story for the sake of an audience who needs particular scenes in a particular order to call it a good movie but I've gotten used to it with this story having already read and seen multiple versions now.
Anybody who wants to read a neat take on the story ought to read Grendel by John Gardner, it relays the story from Grendel's POV.

Finished yet, Lucimay?

Well I missed Beowulf at the theater but finally watched it on dvd over the weekend. I was both impressed and disappointed. The story is epic to be sure. The artistry displayed in the animation is amazing. The voice acting was a bit off in some places (as has been mentioned earlier in this thread) but for the most part on par. I was a bit annoyed at how in some cases the animation reminded me of Shrek. I keep thinking that constant progress is being made in this realm and it's a bit jarring to discover that there are still some painful limitations. The physics of natural movement and weight still seems a bit elusive. However even Shrek was an impressive piece of work.
It also bears mentioning that both Ray Winstone and Angelina Jolie can only dream of appearing so "flawless and lovingly rendered" in real life.

I guess I should have seen it at the movies in 3D. I must be allergic to 2D CGI: I had to turn it off, like A Scanner Darkly, before I got sick. No wonder I don't RPG and Vid gameplay...made it to the cave, and that was it...

meh. Finally saw it on DVD. I have not read this in about 20 years and am glad I cannot remember much of the details of story (even though there are obvious diviations!) --- going in to this pretty 'open'.
Great detail on the computer animation, however, no matter how detailed and how much 'motion-capture' Zemekis does, no one can still seem to get gravity right. It's annoying. And the eyes are absolutely lifeless! And for all it's bluster it's pretty hollow. Pah! Give me good Miziaki-style animation over this ,,, little emotion comes from this adaptation of the classic tale.
Too much playing with impossible camera sweeps and angles. Annoying as well. Yesyesyes, we know you have state-of-the-art technology here, just use it to make a good movie, will yah?! Stop making a video game movie!
Only three stars for the animated detail, and mother-Grendal's HOT animated BOD!

Usivius wrote:and mother-Grendal's HOT animated BOD!

My jaw literally dropped open when I saw that on the big screen...

Usivius wrote:Only three stars for the animated detail, and mother-Grendal's HOT animated BOD!

Angelina Jolie's face ruined it, though. I give five stars to Crispin Glover's screaming portrayal of Grendel, but otherwise the rest of the film was lackluster.

I finally watched it. I thought it was pretty good. The CGI animation has certainly reached the point where I could, from time to time, forget that it was animated.

But I wouldn't write a post just to say that.

I posted to say .... High heals? Really? I didn't know that the Geats made CFM shoes.

LOL.. yah, that got me too...

My problem with even the best CGI is that it still has moments when it's really obviously CG. Besides, there was much hilarity when I noticed that Beowulf, despite being lean and muscular, runs, jumps and dives like he's a bit chubby. Using Ray Winstone for Beowulf's motion capture doesn't make much sense...

I think the problem with the animation, ironically, is that it is so good. WF is right--you forget that it's animation sometimes. But then whenever something not-quite-as good appears, it detracts, because the rest is so good.

No one ever watches a Bugs Bunny cartoon and thinks, "My god, this looks so fake and animated," even though Beowulf was orders of magnitude more realistic.

In the special features of the first Shrek movie, they mention that they had to tone down the reality of the characters, because the closer they got to looking real, the creepier they looked, precisely because their own accuracy made more noticeable that last small percentage where they missed the mark.

In fact, I believe this is a well-documented psychological phenomenon. Unless it's photo-realistic with perfect physics, the mind balks at the fake just as it is approaching realism.

I was noticing the same thing with older 3D video games. I was able to lose myself in them easier *because* I could see the little polygons and such. Because they didn't try so hard to hide the little polygons, my eye ignored them better, rather than seeking out the flaws.

I think it's the same principle behind impressionist art. You can see the brush strokes . . . but at the same time the brush strokes "disappear" right before your eyes and allow the picture to come through them. Because you can see both the artist's hand and the artist's eye--with no attempt to hide either--it comes across as more authentic.

The effect you refer to is known as the "Uncanny Valley".

If you chart attractiveness versus real-ness, then A will mostly increase as R does. Until, at some point rather close to "photorealistic", you suddenly get a huge drop in A, to the point where they're several orders of magnitude more ugly or disgusting... then, A starts going right back up.

I've heard the same phenomenon mentioned with robots. That when they cross a line and get too lifelike, they stop being cute and start being creepy.

Or maybe that was a line from I, Robot.

Anyway ... good catch, Malik.

It's like that creepy Homer Simpson I suppose.

Rigel wrote:The effect you refer to is known as the "Uncanny Valley".

That's it! Thanks.

It's like that creepy Homer Simpson I suppose.

That's about the most creepy thing I've ever seen!

WF, thanks!

I was presently surprised by this one, though the ending act was a little weak: *** out of ****