I dunno...they were going for a 300 feel I think. 300 + Shrek + crack = Beowulf.
When I saw the commercials I thought it was live action. Imagine my surprise when I find it to be CGI and everyone looks like ass except for Beowulf who had a LOT of effort put into his model.
Full of action and suspense easily, but nothing like 300. This was more 1 on 1 anime style BS instead of the massive war scenerios with ass kickings all around. In fact, the movie is kind of drawn out except for three action scenes. Yes, I counted them all on one hand, three action scenes...
It was OK, but they could have put more effort into the models if they wanted the whole movie to be CGI. Don't get me wrong, I like new things--unlike the five or so that left the moment they saw it was CGI--, but I want new things to be done right.
For anyone here who actually saw it, was it close to the actual epic, or was it stretched and skewed like hell?
Beowulf...
One...two...three...four...maybe even 5 or 6 depending on how you count.
That's what I count for action scenes, and the last action scene is incredibly long to make up for the overall lack of it in the end...The movie was fairly good IMO. Not the greatest, god no...and in no way were they trying to go for a 300 feel...I dunno where everyone keeps getting that from...Seems like they all base it on one line:
"I! AM! BEOWULF!"
That's what I count for action scenes, and the last action scene is incredibly long to make up for the overall lack of it in the end...The movie was fairly good IMO. Not the greatest, god no...and in no way were they trying to go for a 300 feel...I dunno where everyone keeps getting that from...Seems like they all base it on one line:
"I! AM! BEOWULF!"
Something else that was on my mind too...I mean it should have been expected that it would be CGI...the commercial made it pretty obvious to me...Wasn't expecting the CGI to be as bad as it was, but it wasn't terrible either. I mean there were several people other than Beowulf that had good models as well. Not near his quality though, but they weren't terrible, granted there were still some terrible models anyway...Wanzer wrote:How could you not know it was CGI?
I do agree with this statement. The movie was good, but could have been better, yes. I did like the overall storyline though, even though I did get the feeling that it was drawn out at times too. I was personally relieved at the amount of drama in the movie, since I was expecting a movie that would've been nothing but constant, barbaric violence. I was wrong, and I was glad for that fact, even though the drama scenes were too many and too frequent and didn't balance out well with the action scenes. Just because I didn't want a lot doesn't mean I didn't want more than there was...Typheus wrote:I thought the movie was good, but I didn't like how they COULD have done so much better.
The doses of humor here and there were also nice...I like humor to show up every now and then, especially at the darkest of moments to satisfy my extremely dark sense of humor >=)...Too bad the humor didn't actually show up in a dark moment...It showed up in a serious moment, but not really a dark one...
-
WiizerFanboy
- I love Sony, because Q says so
- Posts: 2004
- Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 2:48 pm
-
WiizerFanboy
- I love Sony, because Q says so
- Posts: 2004
- Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 2:48 pm
What I'm saying is, I don't want actors to be replaced by computer rendered versions of themselves. It's not to hard to imagine the scenario in the future, where every movie has artificial, computer rendered actors. I'm just worried that all the talent that the film industry has will dissapear, and that CGI will reign superior.
CGI as an enhancement tool is awesome (when done well) but I agree that I wouldn't want to see it over-used. I like it when people MAKE physical things, even if those things are later enhanced.
Ultimately a movie should be produced in the format that best conveys the story to the audience.
Largely any changes will be audience-driven. If artificial actors make more money for the company at the box office, that's what they will concentrate on producing.
Ultimately a movie should be produced in the format that best conveys the story to the audience.
Largely any changes will be audience-driven. If artificial actors make more money for the company at the box office, that's what they will concentrate on producing.
Not all CGI is just making the model for the actor to voice over for y'know. I mean they actually had actors act out the parts. They just redid their models over it. The actors are still acting...It's all the same on their part, they just end up looking different on screen than they did when they were acting...Wiizerfanboy wrote:What I'm saying is, I don't want actors to be replaced by computer rendered versions of themselves. It's not to hard to imagine the scenario in the future, where every movie has artificial, computer rendered actors. I'm just worried that all the talent that the film industry has will dissapear, and that CGI will reign superior.
And 300 did use CGI, but that was to a very minor extent on the actual models of the characters as they character models were just put through filters and effects and such. They didn't change their face or bodies at all outside the general color tone.
-
WiizerFanboy
- I love Sony, because Q says so
- Posts: 2004
- Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 2:48 pm
.