|
|
Prediction - BEOWULF - A Huge Flop
About Truespace Archives
These pages are a copy of the official truespace forums prior to their removal somewhere around 2011.
They are retained here for archive purposes only.
Prediction - BEOWULF - A Huge Flop // Roundtable
Post by Humdinger // Nov 5, 2007, 2:37am
|
Humdinger
Total Posts: 319
|
Well...I could be proven wrong, which is the whole point of a prediction.
But none the less I am predicting now that Beowulf will be a huge commercial flop.
As much as I love CGI animation there is always a certain 'deadness' in the eyes and facial expressions of the characters. In short bursts this is not so obvious but with long prolonged exposure the stiffness and deadness can not be denied. Unless you are a total CGI fan boy that can not lift your personal veil to see the truth.
This is not so obvious with cartoon character but when attempting 'real' people these 'faults' become very apparent.
This will be Sony's third attempt at a movie of this type counting the 2 Final Fantasy movies, and may sadly finally bring an end to the attempt.
At least by Sony, which may be a good thing. |
Post by jamesmc // Nov 5, 2007, 2:48am
|
jamesmc
Total Posts: 2566
|
Not having worked with it at all, I don't understand the VFX that Sony is using.
Perhaps someone can enlighten the masses here. |
Post by splinters // Nov 5, 2007, 2:57am
|
splinters
Total Posts: 4148
|
Beowulf is a new movie based on the stories of the same title. Same VFX principles as 'Polar Express' i.e. motion tracking real actors for the whole movie then converting to CGI. Beowulf claims to be the best example yet but as Humdinger pointed out, you can try maybe too hard for photorealism...but the human eye can spot the tiniest details as a giveaway then things look fake.
I am always impressed by companies pushing the envelope in CGi and I enjoyed both FF movies but simply for their artistic and design direction which is excellent.
Still, Pixar have it nailed in terms of both technique (Fur in Monsters Inc., SSS in Ratatouille, water in Finding Nemo etc. etc) and artistic values.....I admire everything they do. |
Post by Jack Edwards // Nov 5, 2007, 5:18am
|
Jack Edwards
Total Posts: 4062
|
I too noticed the "deadness" and stiffness in the character animations during the Beowolf trailer commercials. It's definitely not a good thing, my guess is that this team isn't as good as the team that did the FF movies. |
Post by rjeff // Nov 5, 2007, 6:32am
|
rjeff
Total Posts: 1260
|
To me LOTR really got the "life" aspect down with Golum. Wetworks did a fine job on him and really sold him. Or well the Andy fella sold him. |
Post by frank // Nov 5, 2007, 8:30am
|
frank
Total Posts: 709
|
Some time ago I read a really neat article discussing how CG characters work when they are cartoony, but when trying to be realistic - specifically with human characters - that is where they are set up to fail.
As Humdinger pointed out, with "prolonged exposure the stiffness and deadness can not be denied".
I never watched Polar Express because of this, based only on seeing the trailer for the film.
Seems to me that it's an all-or-none deal, if that makes sense. If you're aiming for realism, then your characters have to stand up under the intense scrutiny of the human eye. ...and we've been trained all along as to how humans are supposed to look.
The problem here is that people become less focused on the story and instead find themselves studying how the character looks (shading, etc.) and performs.
The Incredibles worked because the expressions were exaggerated / stylized... ie. not stiff, like in mocap'd films. Right off the bat you think "this is a cartoon", so there's no questioning it.
When Final Fantasty starts out, you immediately think "Hey, they look realistic." Plus, I don't think that movie even had a story. Someone might have thought "We have this cool technology for rendering realistic characters - let's write a story around it."
I think that ultimately, animation is a caricature of real-life motion.
Good topic, Vinny! |
Post by RichLevy // Nov 5, 2007, 10:43am
|
RichLevy
Total Posts: 1140
|
DreamWorks and Pixar have really figured this genre out. Not only have they made wonderful storylines to mold their charaters to. Their use of the technology does not interfere with the story, they come together and make the character more believable. It does not hurt that some of the best 3D animators in the industry work for these companies either...
This is a cool topic.
Rich |
Post by Humdinger // Nov 5, 2007, 4:42pm
|
Humdinger
Total Posts: 319
|
Thanks lads...
Well this movie has tons of star power. Which makes even less sense as most of the audience will already have a very clear definition of what the real people look and move like and any variation from that will stand out even more.
So I expect pretty good numbers for the release weekend then a pretty massize drop off from there.
Most of the tech in this film is right out of Moster House which i really enjoyed, in particular mocap facial animation...but even that was cartoony in the character design / look.
In the end i blame the tech nerds...lol...
The very word 'Hyper-Realism' makes me wince.
I think that it can be done correctly, but first we need more real actors and director's getting involved and peeling back some of the technology, and just using good common sense and established techiniques just upgrading to take advantage new technologies. |
Post by spacekdet // Nov 6, 2007, 6:45am
|
spacekdet
Total Posts: 1360
|
I never watched Polar Express because of this, based only on seeing the trailer for the film.
Please don't let this stop you from seeing this film... the sequence after the ticket flies out the window is alone 'worth the price of admission'.
The steam, the smoke, the snow.... ah, be still my heart.
You won't regret watching it. Believe me! |
Post by frank // Nov 6, 2007, 10:37am
|
frank
Total Posts: 709
|
:) !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
Post by W!ZARD // Nov 7, 2007, 2:02am
|
W!ZARD
Total Posts: 2603
|
Hmmn - ones persons flop is another ones favourite film. I can't help thinking that even a mediocre movie of the Beowulf sagas will be better than no movie at all. And as far as photo-realism goes - well to me it's just one way of depicting an image, just like watercolour is one way of painting and oils is (are?) another.
I've recently watched 300 which was certainlynot photoreal and had a huge amount og CG work in it but what a great movie. Two nights ago I saw Sin City for the first time and I totally loved it - great story, brilliant dialogue, excellent (if somewhat over the top characterisation) - that's what I call entertainment art.
Well...I could be proven wrong, which is the whole point of a prediction.. I knew you were gonna say that!! |
Post by Humdinger // Nov 7, 2007, 6:09am
|
Humdinger
Total Posts: 319
|
I've recently watched 300 which was certainlynot photoreal and had a huge amount og CG work in it but what a great movie. Two nights ago I saw Sin City for the first time and I totally loved it - great story, brilliant dialogue, excellent (if somewhat over the top characterisation) - that's what I call entertainment art.
. I knew you were gonna say that!![/COLOR][/FONT]
I too loved the 300 - looking forward to the preposed next installment. But do keep in mind we are talking about CGI elements in the 300... not 100% CGI, as in Beowulf.
As for my prediction of a Flop it all goes back to my true disgust with the Original Final Fantasy moive...which by the way lost over 125 million dollars..yes...lost.
Great visuals.... horrible character animation...even bad mo-cap is the fault of the producer.
That film alone set the 100% CGI market here in the United States back 5 - 10 years. I am referring specially to adult stories.
Anyway..in the end we shall see.
Hopefully no one is confusing my prediction with a disdain for the genre. Far from it, as it is my passion and seeing it done poorly when the budget is literally unlimited upsets me.
:)
As for the idea of a Beowulf movie I agree 100%...but would have rather seen a '300' type techincal approach rather than what I am seeing in the previews.
Seems to me that poeple in the business who are not trained animators (which I am not nor claim to be nor express the skills of ) still have the mind set of
'Well..i set the keyframes and the computer tweened the sequence..so it must right. '
Nope..not right..just accurate. |
Post by Jack Edwards // Nov 7, 2007, 7:18am
|
Jack Edwards
Total Posts: 4062
|
It's interesting comparing Beowulf with the approach used in animating Yoda in the Starwars movies. Lucas sat down with the animators and made them tweak and tweak the animations until everything looked the way he wanted.
I think this movie could be better with better lighting and materials as well, but the facial animation in particular looks mechanical and not like it's seen an artists touch at all. |
Post by jayr // Nov 7, 2007, 11:46am
|
jayr
Total Posts: 1074
|
I probably will go and see Beowulf, mainly because it combines 2 of my biggest intrest at the moment, Viking/Saxon mythology and CG.
I know what you mean about 'Hyper-real', just for contrast check this out:
http://www.dragonlance-movie.com/movie/
Looks like they're doing a movie of the dragonlance chronicles in a more stylized, 'painterly' look |
Post by W!ZARD // Nov 9, 2007, 2:58am
|
W!ZARD
Total Posts: 2603
|
Yeah, there's so many variables that go to make up a good movie. "Polar Express" is a good example - I have an almost zero tolerance for Christmas symbology as it is today - Santa in a red suit and so on (wasn't that a Coca Cola advertising gimmick?) - and I found the shmaltzy story tacky in the extreme and bordering on idiotically corny - but visually it was and is a real treat. Thus I can enjoy the movie as a piece of CG art dispite what I see as shortcomings in the story.
For the same reason I consider Final Fantasy a great entertainment - and not at all a flop. Visually beautiful and an interesting story - thats enough for me!
I think it incredibly important and valuable to consider the source material any movie is based on. Look at 'Battlefield Earth', a movie almost universally panned - yet because I'd read the source material, the book by L Ron Hubbard, I thought the movie was great. Note however that I thought the book was an atrocious piece of writing, corny and improbable, but the movie stuck to the essence of that book - corn and all.
Another example is "Starship Troopers" - the number of people that I know that totally loved that movie is the same as the number of people I know who have read Robert Heinliens 1950's pulp sci-fi style book. So many people did not 'get' the movie because they didn't understand the 'tonality' of the source material.
I suspect that Beowulf may well suffer a similar fate - particularly with American audiences who are renowned for not really supporting historical movies that don't address America's own history. Much will depend on the ability of the script writers to present the Beowulf sagas in a way that grabs the everyday moviegoers attention while still remaining true to the essence of stories from a very different culture and time.
If the movie goer is distracted from the story by sub-standard visuals, then the movie will no doubt tank.
If the story is gripping and the characterisations strong and convincing then I think most people will overlook the odd technical shortcomings - after all, everybody knew Godzilla was really a guy in a rubber suit but a giant lizard stomping on downtown Tokyo makes a great story!
Personally I have great hopes for the Beowulf movie - even if the story sucks (like Polar Express) it'll be worth seeing from a technical viewpoint. Even if the CGI sucks it may well still be worth seeing for the story - after all it's your basic hero versus monster story - Luke Skywalker versus Jabbas ugly pet in the pit, or Gandalf Versus the Balrog - Beowulf versus Grendel will be a variation on a familar theme - I can't wait!! |
Post by 3dfrog // Nov 9, 2007, 3:38am
|
3dfrog
Total Posts: 1225
|
From the very limited amount of facial work shown I agree it does look kind of lifeless. But I have high hopes for this movie. I'm really looking forward to seeing it. At this point only time will tell. I read beowulf in high school, and one of my favorite books is grendel, the story told by the misunderstood monster's point of view. Man, I haven't read that in a long time, time to read it again.
I am really glad they are using 3d to make an adult picture. I hope after this more follow the lead, so I am hoping this is a box office success. I would like to see an adult picture with some good old fashioned keyframed animation though. |
Post by Humdinger // Nov 12, 2007, 5:28am
|
Humdinger
Total Posts: 319
|
Like any good prediction, I need to add a few specifics to give it weight.
By the way my bad, this is a Warner Brothers / Paramount production not SONY.
My apologies to SONY.
I just watched Surf's Up this weekend. Story was okay but visuals and animation were top notch. Glad to see SONY may have gotten the hint. Animate...not simulate...Animate.
:)
So...
1 - I think the most honest critic will, with the current group of movies using CGI effects to such extremes as the '300' will come away from this movie asking a simple question..
'Why?'
Why bother making this movie 100% CGI?
That the technology to blend CGI with real life elements has been so refined to opt to use well know actors but not the actors themselves makes zero sense.
As there were zero elements in this film that required the actors be replaced completely by CGI models.
(we can debate whether the 'future of movie making'*** is to remove the real actor(s) completely later...lol...which I am sure to the producers it is…)
*** 'the future of movie making' is a quote now appearing in the latest commercials for Beowulf
2- Comical in its presentation.
The complete lack of real elements- even limited use- creates a very comical, almost laughable feeling when viewing the more dramatic scenes. As tension builds and we sit waiting for a true 'moment' between characters just to be treated to incredibly slow boring zooms and dead expression or over exaggerated laughable extremes. Not to mention the over use of the now standard 360 degree 'bullet time' effect.
For the record…Subaru perfected that effect for a commercial… not the men behind the Matrix.
3- Give me the real Angelina Jolie any day..see #2
4- It's the future all right - the future of video games. |
Post by Humdinger // Nov 12, 2007, 5:44am
|
Humdinger
Total Posts: 319
|
One area that I always thought held great promise was to bring back older actors as their younger selves via CGI.
Oh to have Tom Baker as Doctor Who in his Prime today, with all incredible effects that are possible.
Or the young handsome devil that Sean Connery was in earlier Bond films.
I am sure the idea has been considered but was found to be a bit 'touchy'.
Do you pay the actor the same for real and CGI appearances ?
Who does the 'acting'? Does the now old version or is another 3rd party paid to act out the motion capture sequencing..?
Does that 3rd party get paid the same as the actor that the CGI models is based on...?
Does the actor have final say on dialogue and whether for example an actress would allow full frontal nudity even though its only a 3d model / image…?
How much do her boobs giggle…I know it sounds silly But maybe the actress wants to draw certain lines in sand.
CGI lets the animator control everything, but at some point someone owns the rights to their image. So you will have the actors and actresses controlling the animators…?
If the actor is dead, do we have to pay his family members, do we need to get approval from them...?
Hell you know what...?
In about 25-50 years we will all be asking the same questions, but about human clones!!!:D |
Post by RichLevy // Nov 12, 2007, 5:44am
|
RichLevy
Total Posts: 1140
|
Here is the very restrained opinion from Victor Navone (I did a search after reading Dennis's 11 second club post).
Interesting to see the opinion of a traditional animator to mo-cap and it's place in animted movies.
http://www.navone.org/blogger/
(I still preferr the more traditional approach, though I do enjoy the artsy look of the new techniques)
Rich |
Post by jayr // Nov 12, 2007, 6:32am
|
jayr
Total Posts: 1074
|
'Why?'
Why bother making this movie 100% CGI?
One possible answer: no sets, costumes or props needed producing in their hundreds, no blood squibs needed, no animal trainers, no location shooting.......
Thats got to have an attraction to a producer, total control over the environment, even if it is a bit boring for the viewer. |
Post by Humdinger // Nov 12, 2007, 7:59am
|
Humdinger
Total Posts: 319
|
One possible answer: no sets, costumes or props needed producing in their hundreds, no blood squibs needed, no animal trainers, no location shooting.......
Thats got to have an attraction to a producer, total control over the environment, even if it is a bit boring for the viewer.
As it all evolves it will in the end produce better actors.
People that bring aspects to the character and performance that are so unique unto them that people will want the real deal and an animator or character actor will not be able to do anything but imitate it. I am no real big fan of Mr. Bean, but some people love that character and that's all about the man, the expression the body contortions, the physical comedy and as always the wonder of knowing it's NOT a TRICK..it's real.
Like all things there will be a shift in the other direction at some point and then settle at some happy middle.
The most recent King Kong movie being a perfect example.
The manner in which Kong would carry the female lead around during these crazy action sequences and she never broke her arm snapped her neck etc.?
It was just laughable and many others I spoke and read from thought it cheapened the whole effect.
A perfect example of a director getting wrapped up in technology and not once asking, but does it make sense to do. They actually did ask (saw an interview) knew it was silly, but kept it in anyway.
Great way to make people really care about those characters. Not ! |
Post by jayr // Nov 12, 2007, 10:14am
|
jayr
Total Posts: 1074
|
i agree humdinger, i was just pointing out what they were probably thinking. Filming in the digital world must be tempting and it's unfortunate that were not quite at the point where a fully believeable human can be repesented onscreen.
Given a few years though, who knows.... who'd have thought 25 years ago we'd see Yoda in an acrobatic lightsabre duel! |
Post by Humdinger // Nov 12, 2007, 10:47am
|
Humdinger
Total Posts: 319
|
i agree humdinger, i was just pointing out what they were probably thinking.
Yup...and in a long winded way I was saying I agree with you. ;) |
Post by W!ZARD // Nov 16, 2007, 12:14am
|
W!ZARD
Total Posts: 2603
|
Some interesting comments here gentleman - but I note that nobody has spoken about one of the outstanding features of this film and the aspect that is actually being refered to with the 'future of film' comments.
Beowulf is being released in many theatres (including Imax venues) as a 3d movie (similar to the old red and blue glasses but using polarised glasses. It is apparently very effective and creates a genuine sense of real 3 dimensional depth to the movie. It is this 3d aspect that is the "future of film" more so than the more familiar cgi as in Polar Express, Shrek etc.
Initial reviews are mostly positive - not surprising given Neal Gaiman was a co-writer of the script. When I checked Rottentomatoes.com it was rating around 78%fresh/22%rotten. Complaints seemed to be primarily that the story was a bit formulaic (Hullo! It's a monster movie! What do they expect?) and that (in accordance with the prophecy) that the cg character animation was a little wooden.
Some reviewers thought the movie well worth seeing simply for the 3d experience - others though the 3d overrated.
The story generally got goodish reviews from those familiar with the source material and several comments were made about the intelligent and sensible way that gaps in the original source material were dealt with.
The naked cg representation of Angelina Jolie got reactios ranging from virtual panting to contemptuous dismissal. Some comments were made that the voice work was uneven (and actually having just recently rewatched Final Fantasy I'd have to say I thought the stilted and wooden voice was it's single largest failing.)
Many of the comments I read were from folk who had won complimentary tickets and stated that they were pleasently surprised and impressed with a movie they would not have normally gone to.
I look forward with interest to comments here from tS users who see the movie - in either 3d or 2d. I expect that some will like it and some won't but at least on this forum we should get some remarks that are informed by practical knowledge of cg art and animation! |
Post by Jack Edwards // Nov 16, 2007, 1:23am
|
Jack Edwards
Total Posts: 4062
|
Interesting report. Thanks for the update Wizard. :)
I'm definitely looking forward to see how the discussion goes after it is released. |
Post by TomG // Nov 16, 2007, 4:31am
|
TomG
Total Posts: 3397
|
Funny to see it called formulaic :) The Beowulf story is of course hundreds of years old, so in truth its all the other movies before it that were formulaic, copying the formulas laid down in earlier myths and story telling (such as Beowulf) by us human folks.
Tom |
Post by CdeB // Nov 16, 2007, 6:19am
|
CdeB
Total Posts: 160
|
Maybe I missed it in this thread but the catch phrase to describe the experience of almost life-like but not quite, coined by a guy working on robotics is "Uncanny Valley"
There was a recent feature on it in 3D world. I only mention it because I think "Uncanny Valley" is a great name for this:D
BTW I just recently watched the second final Fantasy film and I think it worked better than the first one because they were no longer aiming at photo-realism. |
Post by TomG // Nov 16, 2007, 6:42am
|
TomG
Total Posts: 3397
|
The Uncanny Valley is an interesting thing. When things don't really look like people, then there is no problem (ie "traditional" animation, or robots that look all metallic and robotic).
If something looks like a human being, as in identical, there is no problem.
However if something looks ALMOST like a human being but not quite, then it is "upsetting" to the viewer - they find it disconcerting, unrealistic, creepy, weird, odd, and so on.
In fact, as you get closer to being like a human being (but not quite) the worse the effect gets.
In effect, if you don't want to be photoreal, and you want to be stylised, you are safe. But if you want to look photoreal, you better make a huge jump all the way across the uncanny valley and not stop halfway (or worse, three quarters of the way) across ;)
So for trad cartoon work, we don't mind if eyeblinks are odd, or if mouth positions don't quite match, or if the face is a bit frozen. But once you start getting close to looking like a human being, a thousand little things that you are not consciously aware of start to stand out as being wrong.
An interesting phenomenon to be sure :)
HTH!
Tom |
Post by frootee // Nov 16, 2007, 6:53am
|
frootee
Total Posts: 2667
|
The other side of the coin there Tom, is to have human actors realistically play non-human entities. The classic example here is WestWorld. That movie still freaks me out even today. Totally Cool! We recently watched the DVD again, with an interview with Yul Brynner. He was discussing his character (the cowboy in black). Basically, he was tired of getting killed, so he decided to 'break the rules'; to kill. The more he did, the closer he felt to being human.
Froo |
Post by Nez // Nov 16, 2007, 7:45am
|
Nez
Total Posts: 1102
|
I've not come across the Uncanny Valley description before, but that's a good one.
I reckon it's why Pixar films are generally so succcessful - no-one has any problem with their characters as they are so clearly 'cartoon' style - i.e. charicatures (sp?!) rather than relaistic. Ratatouile is a great example - characters are total parodies, including the animals - and yet some of the environments were very realistic, approaching photoreal at times! But the total effect was great.
Wow, Westworld, haven't watched that in ages, that was a great film... |
|
