Why was I underwhelmed by Beowulf in 3D?

[frenchglen]

Can someone please help me understand why I just had a very dull experience watching Beowulf? I have no idea why, but I was completely underwhelmed by the 3D. And the film itself - it didn't move me, it didn't scare me, I didn't end up liking any of the characters (except Beowulf, for the first half of the movie), and sadly, I'm more excited about the new pair of socks I bought at the shops today.

Some things were cool, like the dragon, but the whole movie was too violent for my taste, and I can't say I enjoyed it. Maybe it's because it wasn't live action, but rotoscoping [CORRECTION: MOTION CAPTURE] animation. Thus, a lot of the "realism" I was expecting in 3D was lost in my eyes due to the fact that it was animation.

I went out to see it in Real D. I suppose I knew I didn't really want to go and see the movie anyway, because I don't like Medieval-barbaric-themed movies - I don't see any point in them (I also don't like 300, for exactly the same reasons, and no I haven't seen 300). So, I suppose I got what I was deep-down expecting. But I thought it would be worth trying this amazing new 3D experience that would be the future of cinema, but I definitely don't feel that way right now.

I still would love to see e.g. LOTR in 3D though, but I am amazed that I wasn't amazed at this film. Maybe it's because I couldn't engage in the movie - and so I couldn't revel in the "immersive" 3D?? I dunno. If anyone can enlighten me, cheers.

[The Shrike]

It has a lot to do with the movie not being that good. Also, it was too violent, but you like The Lord of the Rings? Return of the King has the highest on screen body count of any film ever! The extended version features 836 on-screen deaths!

http://www.moviebodycounts.com/

[Cyorg]

I just didn't think it was a very good movie. Why make CG characters that look just like the actors playing them? Just film the actors, and leave the CG to special effects. Geez!

Return of the King has the highest on screen body count of any film ever! The extended version features 836 on-screen deaths!

Awesome!!!

[buckshot]

maybe its too violent because you all are a bunch of giant panzies from what I remember of the poem its pretty spot on as far as accuracy to the story. I just wish grendel was scarier. he was almost comical. and they screwed up character's eyes quite a bit, and the horses running looked like south park characters. way to bouncy.

add/edit:
and the whole hiding beowulf's penis scene was much to cartoony for my taste. hell even the simpsons movie showed bart's bits. comedy doesn't belong in a movie like beowulf. it would be like leonidus in 300 slipping on a banana peel or starring in ps I love you.

[CptGreedle]

Its not rotoscope. that involves drawing over an actor who is acting out the roll.
This is called motion capture. That means an actor acts out the roll with a special suit on in a special room with special cameras that can record every movement that actor makes in a 3D environment.
That is then translated into the 3d character and they will move realistically. it is a standard technology for almost all 3D characters right now. Gollum used it, etc....

LotR in 3D, if done right, would be AMAZING!

[frenchglen]

Jokes aside, I'm not one to value violence as an integral part of a film's enjoyment, which I fear might apply to this movie.
Another thing I wonder, is if Beowulf relies in part on the 3D for its value as a film. How good would it be in 2D?
Sorry if I appear to be attacking the movie.

It did seem amazingly accurate though, even though I've never read the poem, it did seem stunningly historically accurate (if that makes sense)

...well I'll just have to trust that this 3D thing really is amazing, and wait for other films to come out.

[corrected first post to say motion capture]

[lexm]

I was a bit underwhelmed by the movie too.

I think part of it is that Beowulf, as a hero, is simply not that likeable.

My biggest problem with the movie is that it did not need to be a CG movie. Yes, the graphics are impresive, but there is a warmth missing to them. Looke at Pixar movies. Yes its a fish, a car, and a rat, but they are very effective at portraying emotions. In Beowulf, all the faces just looked like they were out of a wax museum, or maybe they had way too much Botox. So, no matter how good all the rest of the CG in the movie, or the momentum on the story, when you get to a close up, it all stops because it just wasnt emotionally believable.

[airwedge1]

Some dude at work was flanting that Angelina Jolie was naked through almost the whole thing, and it turned him on. I told him the everything was CG, and he was embarrassed. He didn't even realize it somehow. I haven't seen it, but I immediately noticed that the characters looked CG, however, they did do an awfully good job with it. It seems like they had the actors in the full body suit type thing to do the movie. That doesn't make sense to me for a movie, why not just film it? Seems retarded.

[tron3]

Originally Posted by airwedge1

... I immediately noticed that the characters looked CG, however, they did do an awfully good job with it. It seems like they had the actors in the full body suit type thing to do the movie. That doesn't make sense to me for a movie, why not just film it? Seems retarded.

CGI lets you do things with the face and body which may be difficult to do with conventional makeup, and physical limits of the person. In part, it might have been an experiment in the next generation of movie making.

I'm showing my age, but I recall an episode of the Superfriends in the 1970's. There was a professor showing the marvels of computers. He even said that one day TV actors will be replaced with digital images on the computer screen. I never forgot that, and today we see it is often true, and not just with animation. Many actors have digital stunt doubles.

[ahaxton]

I was wanting to see the movie, but when I heard it was animated, I said forget that. BORING.

I don't know why go into all the trouble of all that motion capture crap.

[ahaxton]

Originally Posted by tron3

CGI lets you do things with the face and body which may be difficult to do with conventional makeup, and physical limits of the person. In part, it might have been an experiment in the next generation of movie making.

I'm showing my age, but I recall an episode of the Superfriends in the 1970's. There was a professor showing the marvels of computers. He even said that one day TV actors will be replaced with digital images on the computer screen. I never forgot that, and today we see it is often true, and not just with animation. Many actors have digital stunt doubles.

Actors will never be replaced with computer images no matter how advanced the CGI is thats for sure besides when necessary for real life limitations and what not.

[atomik kinder]

Originally Posted by frenchglen

Can someone please help me understand why I just had a very dull experience watching Beowulf? I have no idea why, but I was completely underwhelmed by the 3D. And the film itself - it didn't move me, it didn't scare me, I didn't end up liking any of the characters (except Beowulf, for the first half of the movie), and sadly, I'm more excited about the new pair of socks I bought at the shops today.

Some things were cool, like the dragon, but the whole movie was too violent for my taste, and I can't say I enjoyed it. Maybe it's because it wasn't live action, but rotoscoping [CORRECTION: MOTION CAPTURE] animation. Thus, a lot of the "realism" I was expecting in 3D was lost in my eyes due to the fact that it was animation.

I went out to see it in Real D. I suppose I knew I didn't really want to go and see the movie anyway, because I don't like Medieval-barbaric-themed movies - I don't see any point in them (I also don't like 300, for exactly the same reasons, and no I haven't seen 300). So, I suppose I got what I was deep-down expecting. But I thought it would be worth trying this amazing new 3D experience that would be the future of cinema, but I definitely don't feel that way right now.

I still would love to see e.g. LOTR in 3D though, but I am amazed that I wasn't amazed at this film. Maybe it's because I couldn't engage in the movie - and so I couldn't revel in the "immersive" 3D?? I dunno. If anyone can enlighten me, cheers.

My 53 year old brother liked it and thought the 3-D was really good. I haven't seen it and probably won't until it comes out on DVD (rental)

[kknight]

Are you serious??? How could you not think this movie was good in 3D! I thought it was one of the coolest movie I ever watched especially in 3D, loved it, I want to see more, watching this movie made me spoiled.

I loved the violence, I felt like I was watching an Adult CGI movie not the kiddie ones...

[frenchglen]

Yes maybe that's also a part of it - the motion capture in Beowulf is crap, compared to gollum - and compared to what it should ideally achieve. I want to see Anthony Hopkins' real face, not some digital one that hasn't been given all the emotion that the actor shows when performing it.

Maybe they didn't have enough time/money to do it as good as gollum, but sorry, that's not good enough. Either work out a way to do it, or stick to live action-based filming.

Besides, I'd prefer seeing the actor's faces anyway - that's what they're there for -to be in the picture!

[buckshot]

Originally Posted by tron3

CGI lets you do things with the face and body which may be difficult to do with conventional makeup, and physical limits of the person. In part, it might have been an experiment in the next generation of movie making.
[/U]

cgi does amazing things. like removing the effects of gravity on angelina. i've said it before, but tis still true.

[WickyWoo]

The subtelty of the 3-D awas the best part, that they kept it down to a half dozen or so "loook threeee deeeee!" parts

The depth it added was mindblowing

If you thought that was violent, you should read the original poem.

[Banjo]

Avatar is the one I'm really looking forward to.

[Mr. Joshua]

I didn't like Beowulf and Grendel so I will probably pass on this as well. Anyone want my copy of Beowulf and Grendel. I'll sell it cheap. They just played off Gerard Butler being in 300 and I bit the hook... Crap it all to hades...

[sarnell2]

I think 3D animated movies are only good for comedy / kid movies.

[miokti]

Originally Posted by lexm

My biggest problem with the movie is that it did not need to be a CG movie.

i agree with you 100%. The CG and the 3D-ness of it quickly became novelty for me. I love movies, but it has to satisfy in both story and presentation. The only time I actually liked the Beowulf story is when Michael Crichton re-packaged it for "Eaters of the Dead" which became the film "13th Warrior". I have nothing against animation. I watched and enjoyed Toy Story and Rat and other Pixar films. But honestly, why make a CGI movie movie just for the heck of it, when you're not really doing anything that can't be done in live-action.