Beowulf
So, "Beowulf" is the upcoming animated movie from Robert Zemeckis based upon an old Nordic myth. I've had my eyes on this movie for quite some time, but it was not until today that I finally found a trailer for this movie. It's damn hard to believe it's actually animation.. technology is becoming better very quickly these days. Take a look at the trailer:
YouTube - ANGELINA JOLIE-BEOWULF TRAILER COMING UP NOV.2007
Saw a trailer for it at The Bourne Ultimatum I believe. The animation is good, but it's obvious it's animated any time a character is on screen. Frankly, I find the attempt at ultra realistic characters pretty jarring. It's obvious that they're not real people, and it's almost creepy that that's what they tried to get. I don't think the ultra realistic style was necessary either as it's a movie dealing with myth. Maybe the movie will be good, but the style bothers me.
You're not alone. Turns out that it's a human thing to feel the Heebe Jeebes.Originally Posted by Vivi22
There is no signature here. Move along.
First time I heard of this, but the trailer looks amazing. At first, I thought it was live action
I have a bad feeling that they are going to mess this project up big time. I am a big fan of the Beowulf story ever since I read it last year in English, but I don't have a good feeling. I hope the game is kick ass.
Loki: I have an army.
Stark: We have a HULK!
I wonder, why bother with actors if its going to be animated?
Seriously. It's great animation, but it seems like a waste of money to get seriously-realistic CG lookalikes to real-life actors and actresses.
i like that all these big budget fantasy films are coming out, and it doesn't show signs of stopping with spiderwick, etc.
I was really disappointed when I found out that this was an animated movie. However, I'm still looking forward to it. It would be cool if they made it somewhat historically correct aswell, but seeing how it's an animated movie, my guess is that they will focus heavily on the mythical aspects of the story (with magical beasts and all that).
EDIT: After seeing the trailer, I'm fairly certain that is the case.
It will be interesting to see how it compares to the 2005 movie Beowulf & Grendel, which despite its many flaws was fairly decent. The only thing that bugged me was that they recorded it in Iceland, which looks nothing like the places it's actually supposed to take place in.
it doesn't quite makes sense that they turned Grendel's mother into Angelina Jolie, even though she does look slightly monstrous in general.
Yep. I think it's gonna bomb.Seriously. It's great animation, but it seems like a waste of money to get seriously-realistic CG lookalikes to real-life actors and actresses.
I'm not gonna see it unless I hear good things about it from members here.
As Maxx said, this just runs into the Uncanny Valley. They have attempted to make it look so realistic that it looks fake. They should have at least used real actors, rather than models of them.
It is amazing what we can do these days, but there is a reason (among a few others) that the number one animation company, Pixar, aren't heading down the direction this movie is.
Anyway, I am very intrigued by the story and characters that will be involved in this movie, as well as my extreme love for CG. So I will definitely go and see it.
"... and so I close, realizing that perhaps the ending has not yet been written."
Neil Gaiman is in the credits, and that's all it needs to get me to buy a ticket. ALL of his movies have a tendency to look horrible in trailers, but turn out to be really awesome, so I'm not bothered.
as others, I'm not so sure about the animation thing, considering how great 300 turned out. Also, with animation getting so realistic - why bother? Why not just have real actors if you're trying to get the most realistic look possible? I understand you can make things happen that you just couldn't with real life, at least not as cheaply, but we have special effects for that. At least I thought.
The beginning was a little iffy but the rest looks kinda cool. I'm interested to see how they depict Grendel. I remember in my English class when we realized there was no description for Grendel in the printed versions, and when we drew him all of ours came out extremely different.
Seeing how you people get to read the story in English class, I'm wondering how old you're told the manuscript is. Lately people have been trying to give the manuscipt a much younger date. The story obviously stems from events that occurred in the 5th and/or 6th centuries, but when was it actually written down? It was originally thought to be from the 8th century, but now more and more are claiming that it is as young as from the 11th century. The thing that makes me wonder is that the original text is so much more difficult to understand than, for example, the Widsith poem, which is younger than that. If Beowulf were older, shouldn't it then be easier to read and understand? Though I suppose the author could've written the text in a more poetic manner, with more kennings and stuff like that.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
