GDNet at the Movies: Beo-what-the...?!

That's pretty harsh without having seen it and judging only by the animation method. Beowulf's screenplay was produced by Neil Gaiman and Roger Avary. While I'm not a big fan of Roger Avary, Neil Gaiman tends to produce good work, so I'm not convinced your animation -> crap story line of logic holds (especially since it contains the counter examples of Pixar's work right there).

And while I haven't seen the whole of Polar Express (a friend's house with screaming children tends to produce an interrupted view of any movie), I don't think it's accurate to say that the film took no liberties physically with the actors. In addition to the usual bit of exaggerated facial features, there are a few places where stunt imagery of children was used where actual child actors tend to over exaggerate, or use of adult stand-ins tend to look out of place. (If you've been subjected to enough children's entertainment, you know what I mean.) Whether those few scenes merits making the whole film computer generated is another story, but at least they did something with the medium that leveraged the animation.

Basically, since 95% of what the movie industry produces is crap, saying that Beowulf has something in common with a bunch of crappy movies doesn't really mean anything to which set of movies Beowulf fits into. For any movie you'll be able to come up with a bunch of crappy movies that share something in common with it just due to the shear number of crappy movies that exist.

Quote:

Original post by Oluseyi Think about it; when last did you see a cel-based animated feature on the big screen? All the studios have gone 3D because of Pixar's successes, not realizing that it's the fucking stories that make Pixar movies worth seeing (and thus putting out trash like Over The Hedge, Chicken Little, Hoodwinked, Open Season, Valiant, The Wild and the just-released Bee Movie).

I think the last cel-based film I saw was Howl's Moving Castle, but other than that I can't think of any recent ones. Studio Ghibli seem to be the only place producing quality traditional animated films these days, which is quite sad. Fortunately they do seem to get the idea of telling a wonderful story as well as technical brilliance. [grin]

They seem to be using more and more bits of CG in there movies, which is slightly worrying. But since they're mostly keeping it subtle and combining it with traditional cel animation I'm not too worried.

Quote:

Original post by SiCrane That's pretty harsh without having seen it and judging only by the animation method. Beowulf's screenplay was produced by Neil Gaiman and Roger Avary. While I'm not a big fan of Roger Avary, Neil Gaiman tends to produce good work, so I'm not convinced your animation -> crap story line of logic holds (especially since it contains the counter examples of Pixar's work right there).

I never said the story was crap, though. I said it looks like crap, and not in the euphemistic way in which we say that to mean we "think it's crap." I meant quite literally that the film's visuals look ugly.

I'm an animation enthusiast and an aspiring animator, and I don't get how this can be marketed as animation. A 3D prop that aims to precisely mimic an actual human is created (naturally, we get the Uncanny Valley), and then the actual human's performance is captured digital and applied to the prop - essentially giving you a poor simulacrum of what you could have just filmed the person doing for thousands and thousands of dollars more in cost. The tragedy of this is that this film will likely be nominated for an Oscar, and, should it win, it will encourage Hollywood producers to further ignore traditional animation practice.

As a critique of the visual style and production methods, I think my rant is spot on, or at least justified. I don't address the narrative, and I have no qualms with the film from that perspective as I don't know anything about that.

Quote:

Original post by OrangyTang I think the last cel-based film I saw was Howl's Moving Castle, but other than that I can't think of any recent ones. Studio Ghibli seem to be the only place producing quality traditional animated films these days, which is quite sad. Fortunately they do seem to get the idea of telling a wonderful story as well as technical brilliance. [grin] They seem to be using more and more bits of CG in there movies, which is slightly worrying. But since they're mostly keeping it subtle and combining it with traditional cel animation I'm not too worried.

I have no problem with the use of digital technology to ease the animation process. Animation is hard, tedious and time consuming; heck, one of my dream projects is a software plugin for After Effects or standalone package that automatically performs cleanup across a range of cels. I do have a problem, however, with digital technology being seen as a substitute for wit, humor, style in animation...

Steamboy used 3D wireframes and block renders to essentially storyboard difficult camera movements, compositing cel-animated characters into the scene and drawing over the 3D backgrounds where necessary to maintain the look. The Triplets of Belleville (which was ultimately kind of boring to me) used 3D to great effect, along visual exaggeration, to accomplish fantastic set pieces, but the characters remained traditionally cel animated.

3D is a fantastic tool. Digital tablets, Photoshop, Illustrator, Flash, After Effects, Mirage - all welcome, to me. Even motion capture and performance capture. My problem with Beowulf is that the performance capture actually takes away from the outcome: the film would likely have been more visually spectacular had the actors merely been filmed and CG effects composited in, like Lord of the Rings (ironically, Sean Bean was in that movie, too).

Quote:

Original post by Oluseyi Steamboy used 3D wireframes and block renders to essentially storyboard difficult camera movements, compositing cel-animated characters into the scene and drawing over the 3D backgrounds where necessary to maintain the look. The Triplets of Belleville (which was ultimately kind of boring to me) used 3D to great effect, along visual exaggeration, to accomplish fantastic set pieces, but the characters remained traditionally cel animated.

I'd forgotten about Steamboy, that's probably one of the most visually awesome animated films I've seen. [grin] I do like the use of CG in that - keeping the original feel of hand-drawn animation but enhancing it and allowing more detail than would be practical otherwise. IIRC the castle in Howl's Moving Castle was done in a similar hybrid style.

While I do agree that I think that the film could have looked better with live actors, I do see some potential uses for going completely 3D--

-No need to hire extras and stunt doubles
-No need to reconstruct and deconstruct sets, especially if they are going to be burned down like in some scenes of the movie
-No need for make-up artists.

However, the budget would probably run about the same (you have to account for the amount of hours the animators and visual effects artists will put in, the time and cost of renting the servers to render every frame of animation, re-rendering if something goes wrong, editing the sequences, etc.)

Honestly, I have no problem with it being 3D, or as realistic. However, what urks me the most is the fact that they pretty much made digital copies of the actual actors instead of using more original looking characters. It is because of this that I think they should have shot it as a live action movie. I don't want to see a digitized version of Angelina Jolie-- the real version is much better looking!

Isn't your rant like complaing 70 years ago (or whenever the appropriate time is) that a movie that came out in colour has achieved no additional artistic merit that couldn't have been done in black and white (especially given how horrible colourization techniques were back then)? I don't see why it's inapropriate to animate everything in 3d especially if your fx are going to be using the same technology anyways. I would think (hope) it would make the effects look more seemless.

Yes, I get tired of seeing things done a million times for no apparent purpose other than to impress fools that don't know better. I agree that movies like Over the Hedge and Bee Movie have been over done at this point and I'd care more if it weren't for that they seem to be targeted at younger kids.

I intend on seeing the Beowolf more to be entertained than anything. I may not be cultured enough to know how to compare it to the epic poem but I do know enough to see the medium for what it is. And if I'm staring at closeups of character's skin cells for 5 minutes per character like when I watched Final Fantasy: Spirits Within then I'll admit your rant is completly justified.

Quote:

Original post by kseh Isn't your rant like complaing 70 years ago (or whenever the appropriate time is) that a movie that came out in colour has achieved no additional artistic merit that couldn't have been done in black and white (especially given how horrible colourization techniques were back then)?

I don't think so.

I'm not ranting against 3D and digital technology. I'm not ranting against wholly animated movies; I think Ratatouille and The Incredibles are some of the best animated works ever. I'm ranting against animating to achieve an effect demonstrably visually inferior to alternatives. You could film the actors and composite in CG effects, using lens filters to give everything that LotR otherworldly glow, or you could do extensive blue/green screen shoots and paint in backgrounds and details à la 300. You could even go further and use motion mattes to mask out silhouettes and employ selective chromacity, as in Sin City. These are tools, and they allow you to create more expressive, evocative imagery.

The problem here is that, from what I've seen, the images are not terribly evocative, when they could have been. So you've spent all this money and talent and time and used all this technology to make a less evocative film. For someone like me, I'll probably be distracted while watching it, constantly noting how digital Sean Bean's eyes look so lifeless.

Maybe it bugs me more because I'm working towards being an animator. *shrug* I know the guys at Cartoon Brew seem to agree.

Quote:

Original post by esrix While I do agree that I think that the film could have looked better with live actors, I do see some potential uses for going completely 3D-- -No need to hire extras and stunt doubles -No need to reconstruct and deconstruct sets, especially if they are going to be burned down like in some scenes of the movie -No need for make-up artists.

You don't need to go completely 3D to reap many of these "benefits" - The Matrix: Reloaded and The Matrix Revolutions both used digital human technology extensively - burly brawl (Reloaded), and the flying fight scene (Revolutions) are two obvious examples.

Quote:

However, the budget would probably run about the same (you have to account for the amount of hours the animators and visual effects artists will put in, the time and cost of renting the servers to render every frame of animation, re-rendering if something goes wrong, editing the sequences, etc.)

Considering the time to set up, animate and render each scene, the budget would actually be substantially higher than if you had just hired makeup artists and cameramen, rented cameras and shot the damn thing. SAG wages aren't that high (why do you think they're always going on strike?)

Quote:

Honestly, I have no problem with it being 3D, or as realistic. However, what urks me the most is the fact that they pretty much made digital copies of the actual actors instead of using more original looking characters. It is because of this that I think they should have shot it as a live action movie. I don't want to see a digitized version of Angelina Jolie-- the real version is much better looking!

Precisely! What is the point of watching an elaborately created yet stylistically and aesthetically inferior prop of a person you could have shot on camera for a fraction of the cost? Lessee... film Angelina Jolie, or render a creepy looking simulacrum? What a conundrum... not!

I don't get it.

When I first saw the trailers, I thought I was watching a game. "I guess they're releasing it as the movie opens. Graphics look okay, but they don't blow me away."

Then I realized it was the movie trailer. Gonna skip this one, as I just can't bond with digital characters like this.

Quote:

Original post by OrangyTang Quote: Original post by Oluseyi Think about it; when last did you see a cel-based animated feature on the big screen? All the studios have gone 3D because of Pixar's successes, not realizing that it's the fucking stories that make Pixar movies worth seeing (and thus putting out trash like Over The Hedge, Chicken Little, Hoodwinked, Open Season, Valiant, The Wild and the just-released Bee Movie). I think the last cel-based film I saw was Howl's Moving Castle, but other than that I can't think of any recent ones. Studio Ghibli seem to be the only place producing quality traditional animated films these days, which is quite sad. Fortunately they do seem to get the idea of telling a wonderful story as well as technical brilliance. [grin]

Howl's was great, both a visual feast and an excellent story. Disney actually managed to do a decent job on the subs for it.

Other good ones were the GITS: Innocence, although it still doesn't compare to the original movie.

Quote:

They seem to be using more and more bits of CG in there movies, which is slightly worrying. But since they're mostly keeping it subtle and combining it with traditional cel animation I'm not too worried.

It's become a necessity really. The amount of work that goes into a fully hand drawn animated movie is simply not something that can be maintained in a cost effective fashion. One of the things you may note if you watch a decent amount of japanese animation is that a lot of "good" animes produced even today only use a minor amount of CG (gits, blood+, i can name a bunch of others as well).

However when you need to apply this to a full motion picture with the sheer amount of detail (typically 4-5x more detailed than standard tv anime).

I have to say I agree with Oluseyi; the animation looks absolutely terrible. It's sad that this sort of thing will probably be more popular because of the novelty value even though it looks awful.

I watched Polar Express twice, I repeat, twice, at the largest IMAX screen at South East Asia ( inside Berjaya Times Square, Kuala Lumpur ).

Great storyline, great graphics - if you don't push yourself down the uncanny valley. I mean, it's like the flash animation you see nowday, Samurai Jack, PP Girls, Kim Possible, etc. At first people complain that japanese manga lack movement, then they do the same. I think when people used to it, they will take it as it is. They will no longer ask that "oh hey, it's (the human) 3d and it doesn't look real". they just accept that it's 3d, it's a character, and you just follow the story, like I did for Polar Express.

Beside, if you want to look at human, you can always watch Scarlett Johansen movies, heh, heh, :-)

When I first saw the trailer I thought I was looking at a trailer for some XBox game.

The game, err, movie might as well have been played out in WoW using the basic scripted movements.

At first, I thought it was unusual that Ratatouille proclaimed so proudly that no 'shortcuts' or motion capture were used in the making of the movie. Of course, the movie would have been absolutely terrible if they had used it, but that was perhaps due more to their vision of the movie than any limitations of motion capture. By the way, the movie was awesome. Now if only I could buy it (screw you, region codes that force consumers to break the law to watch your movies).

Anyway, I thought Polar Express was awful not because of some Uncanny Valley theory, but because it didn't look good - of course some of the graphics were good, but I'd really rather just watch, say, The Spirits Within. I still don't see why Polar Express couldn't have been done much better, with or without motion capture.

Beowulf looks... like the technology isn't advanced enough to merit making the movie in this way. At some point, plasticky people with mediocre looking movement (not to mention the horse gallop - ouch) just won't do it for me. I have no idea what the story is trying to do (from the trailer), because it in no way resembles that of Beowulf and Grendel, so I suppose there's some hope that the plot will be interesting, entertaining, and surprising (a very little hope).

From what I saw on the commercials, the whole thing just doesn’t look right. The characters look life like, but everything else looks like it was obviously done by CG so it looks out of place. It reminds me of the movie clips from the old Jedi Knight game.

Beowolf is an experiment film. Do you think your whole point of, "why not just use real actors" didnt come up? they just rolled dice and came up with CG?

I happen to know people who worked on the film. How this film was made and the tools used is an experiment for future things to come from Roberts shop.

Quote:

Original post by Jenison Beowolf is an experiment film. Do you think your whole point of, "why not just use real actors" didnt come up? they just rolled dice and came up with CG? I happen to know people who worked on the film. How this film was made and the tools used is an experiment for future things to come from Roberts shop.

Part of the problem is they are modeled off of real actors. That makes them look even worse. I had no problems watching FF: The Spirits Within, but this one gives me an uneasy feeling while watchin it.

Quote:

Original post by tstrimp Quote: Original post by Jenison Beowolf is an experiment film. Do you think your whole point of, "why not just use real actors" didnt come up? they just rolled dice and came up with CG? I happen to know people who worked on the film. How this film was made and the tools used is an experiment for future things to come from Roberts shop. Part of the problem is they are modeled off of real actors. That makes them look even worse. I had no problems watching FF: The Spirits Within, but this one gives me an uneasy feeling while watchin it.

I was just thinking that - one way to make things seem weirder is to have actors that are recognizable but not quite right. If they were no-names, it might fly a little easier. Anyway, Jenison, I don't see how your first point is at all valid regarding the quality of the end result - and I agree that the future of this tech is going to be worthwhile and offer some cool, good-looking results, and I know that the only way to get there is by using and pushing the current tech. Kudos to them on that point.