Beowulf

I've loved the story of Beowulf since I first read it as a kid, and it's one of those things that you both hope and dread seeing made into a movie: hope, because it's a really great adventure story about the first real action hero, and dread because Hollywood just can't resist "improving" the story until it can't be recognized anymore. I have real high hopes for this one, though. I hadn't heard about the 3D part. I absolutely HATE those damn glasses!
 
I'm excited because Neil Gaiman worked on it and NOTHING he does can suck. I was a little weirded out by Angelina Jolie playing Grendel's mother though; she was supposed to be HIDEOUS. I'm reserving judgement until I've seen it.

I also didn't know about the 3-D thing. Great. My husband's depth perception precludes him from enjoying movies in 3-D. Suck.
 
I'm still not sold on CGI-ified actors. What exactly is the point? Is it less work for the animators, actors to do it this way? Cheaper? Just don't see how this is aesthetically more pleasing than CGI backgrounds/live actors. To me, it saps the life out of the performances to a certain extent.

But anyway...could be cool to see in 3D.
 
Do you think we're moving toward a more stylized view? I see that influence in art, TV, movies, print ads all the time.....almost a futuristic interpretation of the world.

But, goldenboy, practically speaking, I wonder if they save time in makeup and prosthetics, since they can get the look they want with a computer? I mean, you could film in plain street clothes, couldn't you? Who needs sets and locations? Who needs props?

Gosh, I'm sad now....it seems the death of an era! ::huh1::
 
What You See AIN'T What They've Got...

goldenboy said:
I'm still not sold on CGI-ified actors. What exactly is the point? Is it less work for the animators, actors to do it this way? Cheaper? Just don't see how this is aesthetically more pleasing than CGI backgrounds/live actors. To me, it saps the life out of the performances to a certain extent.

But anyway...could be cool to see in 3D.
Click to expand...

By applying the CGI process to the actors, they can modify them in ways ordinary makeup never could. Look at all of those washboard abs in 300 not to mention the size of Xerxes, the elephants, and that god awful rhino. To get all of the actors in that kind of shape would have at least doubled if not tripled the production time, plus, shoving elephants off of that cliff and training a rhino to carry a man? Years, if not decades.
 
300 was helped, as far as the abs, by the casting of Marines and other armed forces guys and a couple of weeks of INSANE working out. It made me tired just watching them on the special features. But, yeah, the war rhinos probably couldn't have been done without CGI. Even with animal trainers.
 
I'm with goldenboy here. I have nothing against CGI to do war-rhinos or to make toys come to life, but I don't see the point of using actors and then replacing them entirely by CGI versions of the actors. Also 3D glasses are lame, imho.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom