Beowulf... 3d and not 3d

IT’S NEIL GAIMAN LA LA NOT LISTENING

When you’re doing motion capture and rendering that realistic… what the fuck is the point of it even being 3D?

> When you’re doing motion capture and rendering that realistic… what the fuck is the point of it even being 3D?

It’s so people don’t complain about the dragon looking all CGI… :-)

Anyone in London wanna see this with me at the IMAX? Nobody down here’s interested…

Suprised :O

Though Andrew I will gladly join you :D

I was going to be watching it once…but kind of forgot…ended up watching the Bodysnatcher series 2 dvd on my laptop in the cinema’s bar.

> ended up watching the Bodysnatcher series 2 dvd on my laptop in the cinema’s bar.

That’s like the equivalent of going out to have a Donner kebab and instead getting a £100 Chinese banquet. Beowulf is *yawn* inducing.

As for the question of why bother with mocap that ‘realistic’, it’s because you’ve got classic directors like Zemeckis and Cameron now getting too obsessed with tech to realise it’s not the be all and end all. They do it because they can. As far as the studios are concerned, it’s an animated movie and people are always instantly attracted to them, where if Beowulf had been live-action it would have looked just like countless other crappy fantasy films (Eragon, anyone?)

Andrew : I do quite fancy seeing it (mainly for the Gaiman connection), and IMAX would be an experience (saw Superman Returns in 3D there - incredible)… how long’s it on for? Is it likely to be gone after Christmas?

Seb: Well into the new year, according to the site:

http://www.bfi.org.uk/whatson/bfi_imax

> you’ve got classic directors like Zemeckis and Cameron now getting too obsessed with tech to realise it’s not the be all and end all. They do it because they can.

Well, do be fair that’s partly because they’re not just filmmakers any more, they’re innovators. They’re like the Lumières, or Georges Méliès; what they do now will have a huge knock-on effect for filmmakers ‘just’ looking to tell their story well.

Cinema’s a technical artform. Evolution is inevitable.

That said, I don’t think either filmmaker has ditched the urge to make entertaining films at the expense of tech. It’s way to early to make that call on Cameron’s Avatar, and you don’t work with Neil Gaiman and Roger Avery if you don’t give a shit about the story.

> As far as the studios are concerned, it’s an animated movie and people are always instantly attracted to them, where if Beowulf had been live-action it would have looked just like countless other crappy fantasy films (Eragon, anyone?)

“Always” is a bizarre generalisation, given that they cost millions, take longer to make (so risk becoming outdated even before release), and are only considered a relatively good investment if aimed a children…which this flick really ain’t. I doubt being a relatively auteur piece helped, either.

I agree that a live-action version risked turning into something dreadful, though.

It’s great in IMAX. Looks really nice. Plus the sound is always a plus with the IMAX. Feel your seat shaking! Nothing like Superman Returns, which as a “let’s add the 3D in later” type film, looked pretty awful - this is proper monster ripping 40 foot tall naked Angelina fun.

If you’re ever up in Manchester, Andrew, give me a shout and I’ll get you in. (I work at the Manchester IMAX)

I’m just waiting for Dark Knight. That’s going to be amazing.

> I’m just waiting for Dark Knight. That’s going to be amazing.

Ho yuss. That film is going to be so immense I don’t even know where to begin.

Yeah, I think i’m going to have to go to the cinema to see that.

>Rubbish film. Great 3d.

Depends what you consider great 3D, the fact you’ve been able to tell it was CG means either it was:

A. Bad, obvious CG

or

B. Really well done CG which was over used on everything to the point where it becomes really obvious that bugger all is live action.

Either way for me neither count as great 3D.

Great 3D would be something like Fight Club, which few people realise just how much CG is used in it, It’s just so subtle and well done.

I cant fucking stand watching films or TV that just scream CG at you, you may as well have one of the actors turn to camera and shout “THESE BITS ARE COMPUTER GENERATED!!!!”

Fucking bag of wank.

Umm…Mick, I don’t think there was a 3D IMAX version of FIght Club!

Mind you, that wold have been COOL…

I’m looking forward to going to see Nightmare Before Christmas in 3D.

Sorry, came back from pub after several pints of the black stuff and posted utter bollocks.

Please disregard.

>several pints of the black stuff and posted utter bollocks.

Guinness?…yuck! horrible stuff…always gives me a head ache because it tastes like it’s been burnt and then cooled down.

> Sorry, came back from pub after several pints of the black stuff and posted utter bollocks.

You can’t drink several pints of Bovril!

>You can’t drink several pints of Bovril!

Oh can’t I!?

I’m looking forward to going to see Nightmare Before Christmas in 3D.

Don’t get your hopes up. It’s not that good - the 3D was added afterwards and is largely unnoticeable.

Actually, having seen it at the start of November, I have to say that while the 3D wasn’t particular “in your face” it was very well done. The problem is with the film itself. It’s typical Tim Burton - a great concept poorly executed.

> It’s typical Tim Burton - a great concept poorly executed.

I would say typical Tim Burton = masterpiece.

I’m with Ben on this one. I’d never call Burton’s talent into question, but I’d be hard-pressed to name even one of his films that isn’t over-rated.

You watch them and you realize he’s a man in full command of his medium…but I also can’t shake the feeling that he still doesn’t know what to do with it.

Personally, I can’t wait to see Sweeney Todd.

> You watch them and you realize he’s a man in full command of his medium…but I also can’t shake the feeling that he still doesn’t know what to do with it.

I can’t help but agree. I like a lot of his work, but it’s not often I come away thinking “Wow, he nailed that.”

Ah, no, tell a lie - there was one. Ed Wood. Which is absolutely wonderful on all levels. (Well, okay, maybe not historical accuracy…)

But the Batmans, Sleepy Hollow, Charlie, Big Fish, Mars Attacks - yeah, exactly. It’s like they’re…out of focus.

Edward Scissorhands and Beetlejuice I like a lot. They feel like they know exactly what they are, what they’re trying to do. You have to wonder if Nightmare Before Christmas worked so well because it had a separate director to funnel and structure Burton’s ideas.

>Personally, I can’t wait to see Sweeney Todd.

Ditto on that! May need someone with me for the scary icky parts though.

Actually, having seen it at the start of November, I have to say that while the 3D wasn’t particular “in your face” it was very well done.

Well, each to his own. I suppose if you don’t see proper 3D very often it might look quite good. I’m not at all a fan of 3D “for the sake of it”, but I just think Nightmare lacks… well, any sort of point to being in 3D.

I’d never call Burton’s talent into question, but I’d be hard-pressed to name even one of his films that isn’t over-rated.

As Andrew said - Ed Wood. If anything, it’s underrated - it’s an absolute masterpiece on every level, easily Burton’s best film, and it should have got Depp an Oscar (not that Landau’s wasn’t fully deserved).

I’ve not seen Ed Wood, although I’ve always adored Beetlejuice. A Nightmare… I only saw recently, and was utterly charmed by, as I was by Corpse Bride. I need to see more of Burton’s stuff, really.

Actually, yeah, Ed Wood had slipped my mind. That was ace. I’ll be honest and say I haven’t seen it for years, but I do remember enjoying it quite a lot.

Of course, the very fact that it slipped my mind entirely sort of justifies me being “hard-pressed” to name it. Heh heh…

But yeah, the rest of his stuff…too long a reach, not tight enough a grasp. He’s clearly an artist, but I don’t think he lets his stuff simmer long enough that he realizes what he’s even trying to say.

I’m sure nobody else agrees, but I really like Tim’s Planet of the Apes

I loved it, I’m a BIG fan of the original movies which means people seem to expect that I’ll hate the new one, but it really is excellent.

Sweeney Todd is also surprisingly good. I saw it last week at a special screening in Hollywood, and absolutely loved it. The first Tim Burton movie in ages that I’ve thoroughly enjoyed from start to finish without thinking, “Eh? What’s that all about?” - some reviewers over here are calling it his best since Ed Wood, which I also enjoyed and apparently so did you guys - so it might be worth giving Sweeney Todd a look-in.

Awesome, Ben, thanks. I have nothing against Burton but to be honest I’d probably have given this a miss. Although, if people are calling this his best since Ed Wood, I’m suddenly much more interested.

I’m waiting for the Dark Knight preview at the beginning of I Am Legend. I knew there was a perk to working Boxing Day!

But, yes - Sweeney Todd did look good from the trailer, so I’m glad it’s similarly good as a film.

> I’m waiting for the Dark Knight preview at the beginning of I Am Legend.

Managed to catch the clip online (in its camcordered version) before it was taken down. You’re in for a treat. It’s like Heat with clown masks.

The first full trailer’s live now and I am BUZZING.

Cool. Who cares about double pay when Dark Knight’s in town?

TDK is going to be fucking fantastic, clearly.

I like the suggestion that in the trailer, the Joker might not actually be talking to Batman…