Jump to content

First Images of Beowulf...


BLUMENKOHL
 Share

Recommended Posts

I would think this technology would work better in the context of live-action films, adding realism where other CGI shots haven't looked very good (ie, Grawp in OotP, the surfing in Die Another Day, Neville flying in Sorcerer's Stone etc...) But a whole film comprised of this would probably be considerably distracting. I'd be sitting there thinking about how much that computer character looks like Angelina Jolie, rather than paying attention to the story. What's the point, I wonder?

Ray Barnsbury

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 59
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

That's like comparing apples with credit cards.

Which you need to buy an apple.

sorry, couldn't resist.

I saw the trailer. While I did not like Polar Express (couldn't even finish the whole movie), I feel as though I'll kinda enjoy this one.

Hated the book though.

But that could just be from my distaste of my English teacher who made us read it in HS.... twice

It's only about 50 pages long. I found it very entertaining! It's clear throughout that from Beowulf came the inspiration for the Rohan civilazation in Tolkien. They even talk about it on the Lord of the Rings DVDs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for those saying why not just do this live action....

Why attempt to paint a photo-realistic painting when you can just take a photo?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well the still images looked great. The animation looks zombie again.

Actually I think it looks a step up from Polar Express or FF: Spirits Within. Not a leap, but they'll get there sooner or later.

Why attempt to paint a photo-realistic painting when you can just take a photo?

Indeed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People ask why doing motion capture animation of these things when you can do them real. Apart from the obvious advantages that this technology brings (if you were to shoot this movie in real, you would likely end up with a budget twice or even trice as high especially with such a prestigious cast)

mmm sorry?

Im sure that just voice cast is more cheaper than voice, look and performance.

The only thing these actors have not done is dressing up like the characters. and make up.

In the other hand they have had to endure a scan session of their bodies and faces, wear motion capture gear (with those small dots in their faces)

Im pretty sure they have received a prettyhigh percentage of their standard fees for actual acting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed

I'm sorry Burga, but what is posting a hollow and soulless painting based on a photograph supposed to communicate or prove?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

mmm sorry?

Im sure that just voice cast is more cheaper than voice, look and performance.

Sorry but I dont know what exactly you dont understand. I was talking about the advantages of mo-cap over a real live-action film where the surroundings and circumstances often limit your possibilities whereas mo-cap enables you to have a world class performance from a world class actor within any environment you want for exactly the same cost no matter what you do with it.

Now sure you can just scan the body and animate the character per hand but that way you would loose the performance that "makes" the character. Animators are still animating characters with the help of guidlines invented from the times of walt disney and they havent changed. Some cgi people seem so fixed to that guidlines that a real individual and interesting performance will never happen. Just look at all those kiddie cgi films. Leave the sound off and they will all move and behave the same. There are no nuances that someone like, say, anthony hopkins could bring to a character. Maybe in the voice but not in the appearance and movement of the character. A clear advantage of mo-cap over traditional 3-D animation.

Another advantage is that you can adjust the look of the character since the most important data is movement but the appearance is completely up to you. Need a young ray winstone with a perfect body? No big deal. You need the same guy to look like an 80 years old? No big deal either. You need grispin glover to look like a deformed monster? Just go for it. Your budget will be the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

300 was one baaaad movie.

On the contrary, 300 was a superb movie, just not a very accurate one.

It's entertainment, even art. Though history is "right out".

It was a bad movie, aside from it's inaccuracies. It might have been entertaining if made better, and to call it art is either a veeeeery wide definition of art, or an insult to art.

Regardless of our obviously conflicting opinions of 300, I think its more than reasonable to state that the film delivered a visual style which I for one would call art.

Indeed

I'm sorry Burga, but what is posting a hollow and soulless painting based on a photograph supposed to communicate or prove?

Um, to show that many talented professional artists strive for realism, for no other reason than to prove they can. And that is reason enough and always will be. The mentality of these amazingly skilled artists is this: Why take a simple photograph of a person when manually creating an image from the ground up is much more challenging and ultimately, rewarding. I utterly understand their creative way of thinking.

To call that frankly fantastic portrait "hollow and soulless" is nonsense, with more than a hint of ignorance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To call that frankly fantastic portrait "hollow and soulless" is nonsense, with more than a hint of ignorance.

It's a technical piece of work. An exercise in airbrushing based off a dull photograph. There's nothing about it that captures the imagination or much else for that matter. It's not art, it's a show-off of the mechanical means of art. And while the painstaking efforts to reproduce a photograph are quite astounding...the fact of the matter is, the end product is no more expressive than a lump of coal.

Maybe instead of wasting 80 hours copying pores, he could have set up a stunning shot to take with his camera, which he could at least call a piece of art.

His opinion on photography is one of the reasons he can't even get a decent tale out of his photo model so he can copy it.

Sorry folks, but Dru Blair is the art-world equivalent of Hans Zimmer.

It's a technical masterpiece though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.