CGTalk - Zemeckis's BEOWULF... First IMAGES ...AMazing!!

BigPixolin

07-25-2007, 04:47 PM

I really enjoyed Monster House and Polar Express, both to my surprise. Not a big fan of motion capture in general, but I thought the animators tweaked it enough and the look was fun enough to pull it off. The happenstance and camera motion in Polar Express was a blast.

I don't quite understand going realistic with the technique... wouldn't green screen work just as well without the stiffness drawbacks? I dunno... I'm really looking forward to seeing how this one turns out.

If they can get rid of the stiffness. Things like the interaction of his hand and the glowing horn thing would definitly be better than green screen.

Venkman

07-25-2007, 04:52 PM

I loved monster house, and thought the performance capture worked better with the non-realistic, more stylized characters. I hadn't had that much fun in a theater in a LONG time.

But, the lack of motion blur was a little strange. I do see that style in many action sequences in live action films, particulary some of Danny Boyle's work (28 days later in particular) and some sequences from Ridley Scott (check out some of the fights in Gladiator), but I don't know why there was very little, if any, blur in monster house.

What people gloss over in the polar express was that a lot of the movie suffered from the Hollywood treatment of trying to stretch out a 15 minute story into an hour and a half. If they had a tighter story, people may have cared less about the zombies.

As for Beowulf, the fact that Ray Winstone is playing the title role would make me go see it. I can't say I particularly care for Angelina Jolie as a casting choice in this film.

p.s.- what will everyone do when they come out with a performance capture zombie flick? Then, looking like zombies will work in its favor! ;)

Venkman

07-25-2007, 05:18 PM

that looks nothing like Ray Winston, but the other guy looks just like Anthony Hopkins. Hope its good

Ray Winstone is a little heavy now. It looks a little more like him back when he was young.

http://www.sccs.swarthmore.edu/users/02/manvel/will3.jpg

Granted, Beowulf has more muscle.

megatronskeletor

07-25-2007, 06:17 PM

Venkman

07-25-2007, 06:20 PM

Monster House had little/no motion blur because it was aiming to re-create a stop-motion look.
The texture on the characters even have little artifacts of clay sculpting tools and so forth, though it's subtle.

Heh, that's bad ass! Sounds like I'll have to browse the special features a bit more on the DVD. Plus, I should actually READ my "art of monster house" book as opposed to just looking at the gorgeous pictures. ;)

Kion

07-25-2007, 06:57 PM

I don't understand why couldn't they have just gotten a real person to film? if it ws stylized i would understand, but this makes no sence to me. I really hope it does well

AcmeImages

07-25-2007, 06:57 PM

Monster House definitely had an animated feel to it, whereas Polar Express was just aweful, animation wise. execs will always try to cut corners and use MOCAP, but hopefully it never really feels the weight of hand animation.

BEOWULF looks very promising...best of luck to all involved!

07-25-2007, 07:07 PM

I didn't realise those were CG shots at first!

The oiled up muscles of a leather clad man clutching a glowing horn in one hand and an enormous weapon in the other are a superb example of the advancements in 'gay-tracing'.

Thelvin

07-25-2007, 07:39 PM

hahaha! good one !

P_T

07-25-2007, 07:40 PM

I don't understand why couldn't they have just gotten a real person to film? if it ws stylized i would understand, but this makes no sence to me. I really hope it does wellI'd have to agree. I can't understand why they bother with a full CG film if they're not even going to exaggerate the body proportion just a little. They could at least make him a bit more ripped, heck even the Spartans in 300 are more ripped than that and they're real humans. They really should watch Blizzard or Blur's cinematics.

We'll find out if it's gonna be a zombie movie as soon as the trailer is up.

vfx fan

07-25-2007, 07:40 PM

That looked amazing. The only thing that gave it away was the brass. But the people look stunningly real.

KingMob

07-25-2007, 07:58 PM

The oiled up muscles of a leather clad man clutching a glowing horn in one hand and an enormous weapon in the other are a superb example of the advancements in 'gay-tracing'.

Man that is freakin funny. :thumbsup:

ReD_MeRkIn

07-25-2007, 08:01 PM

There is no reason to make this film with CG actors. There's just no point, especially when you could have just filmed Anothony Hopkins. I guarentee you that the quality of the acting displayed by the digital Anthony Hopinks won't stack up to the real one.

Ed Hooks said something when he was in Montreal, to the extent that he asked on of the Lead Animation/Graphic types why they were using 'Performance' capture, and the guy didn't really have an answer. He said 'I guess you have to ask Zemeckis'

Monster House was cute because there was some semblence of Character in the animation, but seriously what is the point of making CG characters in Beowolf? Digital Production i get, 300 did an amazing job of capturing fantastic battles with live actors.

My prediction is that when we see this film, we'll leave the theaters thinking 'why didn't they just shoot real actors"?

xen_ninja

07-25-2007, 08:15 PM

Why use performance capture?
Well let's see , the story of the film has the characters age from their teens to the seventies. I'm pretty sure that it's highly impractical to say teh least ( age Ray Winstone to his teens using make -up , I dare ya) . I'm pretty sure many of you have been taken out of a live -action movie when you se eit;s not the actor itsellf performing the stunts but a wigged/hooded stuntman , I know I have. Then you have the weak action performance of the actors themselves. Charlie's angels ,bulletproof monk, any other hollywwod produced martial arts movie with "real actors" really aaggravated me in every way but their stunt performance take the cake: they were horrible and only made a bad movie worse. If done well ,performance capture can actually keep us in the story. Hey if you guys can believe DAvy Jones as a convincing emotional being ....then maybe Beowulf won't be that bad. No promises.

Also funny how a cg -related site talks more about the movie /story telling more than the quality of the image. I'm not saying it is worng , it;s just that this isn't chud.com nor is it aintitcool.com . They do ample complaining there. Performance capture frees you up , as someone interested in CGI , I am excited by these shots. Once again , do not worry !! Live action filmmaking is not over and we will always need animators to clean -up /enhance the motions.

BillSpradlin

07-25-2007, 08:16 PM

I'd have to agree. I can't understand why they bother with a full CG film if they're not even going to exaggerate the body proportion just a little. They could at least make him a bit more ripped, heck even the Spartans in 300 are more ripped than that and they're real humans.

And every single one of those guys in 300 had digital enhancements done to their bodies to make them look more ripped. So, not really accuracte just because they were real actors.

Edit: And it boggles my mind why people are complaining about this as a full CG movie. Some are even asking why, what's the point? The real question is, why not? This is the kind of stuff a lot of people on these boards do for a living, it's why we do what we do, to work on stuff like this. Frankly, if you want to complain about something that you've only seen still images of, then by all means go for it, I just won't bother taking anything else you say seriously heh.

grrinc

07-25-2007, 08:43 PM

If Cg artists cant even see the merits of these types of film then god help our industry!

puch

07-25-2007, 08:47 PM

holy S****!

...this looks awesome!!!

P_T

07-25-2007, 08:48 PM

And every single one of those guys in 300 had digital enhancements done to their bodies to make them look more ripped. So, not really accuracte just because they were real actors.Then why impose such restriction in a CG film when people strive to make live action films bigger than life?

Julez4001

07-25-2007, 08:54 PM

They actually deage a character for the movie, the chick from Princess Bride and Angelina Jolie has some nudity...........

BigPixolin

07-25-2007, 09:00 PM

If Cg artists cant even see the merits of these types of film then god help our industry!

Exactly what I was thinking.
I can go on for days and days about the possible advantages to photo-real actors, that is only because the possibilities are absolutly endless.

It boggles my mind to hear anything otherwise.

xen_ninja

07-25-2007, 09:03 PM

If Cg artists cant even see the merits of these types of film then god help our industry!
perhaps the animators feel that their work will be looked down upon seeing as most people believ that motion capture can do everything. Sadly ,it's true most people think that motion caPTURE does all. I blame those behind the scene videos of King Kong and lord of the rings. I'm sure that one glance of ANdy Serkis donning a mo-cap suit is enough to convince that everything is animated this way.

EricLyman

07-25-2007, 09:15 PM

And every single one of those guys in 300 had digital enhancements done to their bodies to make them look more ripped. So, not really accuracte just because they were real actors.

Edit: And it boggles my mind why people are complaining about this as a full CG movie. Some are even asking why, what's the point? The real question is, why not? This is the kind of stuff a lot of people on these boards do for a living, it's why we do what we do, to work on stuff like this. Frankly, if you want to complain about something that you've only seen still images of, then by all means go for it, I just won't bother taking anything else you say seriously heh.

I didn't get that anyone was complaining about it being CG! I think that would be pretty foolish as it only means more job security for us 3D artists. The point being made, I think, is that it's more reasonable to make a movie like this with live actors instead of photo-real CG actors, which are very expensive. High profile actors are expensive too, but from what I heard this movie also has that. Sounds like a very expensive project overall.

Boone

07-25-2007, 09:22 PM

The first picture actually had me fooled - it looks real - but the second one...nah. Very good work though.

Pyke

07-25-2007, 09:27 PM

People have thought that modelers were redundant when they saw images of them scanning in heads in T2. Did this have an impact on the modeling community?
The general piblic still think that Pixar are the only company out there making animations. Has this stopped Blue Sky from the success of their own productions?

Perhaps budget was an issue. Shooting live action can be extremely expensive, and this way you could pull off a more epic feel with a lesser budget. Another reason? Just cos its damned cool!

Amazing stuff so far...cant wait to see it all in action!

Kwe

07-25-2007, 09:29 PM

yeah...the people questioning why make a photorealistic CG film in the first place don't need to be on these forums if they're serious about that question.

how about taking an actress who has the perfect voice but wouldn't be able to play the live action character because she only has 1 arm? what about seeing a woman at the grocery store who is the picture perfect image of what you imagined a certain character to look like...but she works 3 jobs and has no acting experience? how about having the actor that has everything that's required for the part but can't play it due to the fact that "the part" is actually so non-human that a costume just won't do it (ala James Cameron's Avatar)?

someone on Superherohype made the mention that CG has major disadvantages when it comes to actors and actress but here's my reply...

"actors will be actors regardless of how the film is made. are Anthony Hopkins or Ray Winston any LESS of actors since they're not acting in front of a regular camera? hell, Tom Hanks expressed his opposition for "virtual actors" back when Final Fantasy: Spirits Within was released...but he's already played at LEAST 5 CG characters (Woody from Toy Story and 6 characters from Polar Express) and is currently in talks with Zemeckis to play ANOTHER CG character in Zemeckis's next film, A Christmas Carol.

if anything, the power of CG differentiates which actors are in the business are the most talented because there's no bias based on the actor's image. CG allows truly great actors that don't look like super models to be able to pursue their career w/out being afraid of their skin, teeth, hair, and physique being picture perfect. CG gives the ability to separate the actors who are popular because of their looks and the actors who are popular because of their talent."

to those asking "why cg?".........well, simply because the only limit to CG is the human mind.

fuss

07-25-2007, 10:06 PM

Good to see people on this board can stay open minded and unbiased in their comments :rolleyes:. I remember how half the forum was getting group orgasms over Davy Jones (don't get me wrong, I think Davy Jones is remarkable indeed) not so long ago. I bet if the screenshots were from Pirates of the Caribbean 5000 or whatever, and not from Beowulf, and also perhaps if other folks were working on it then by now this thread would be probably overflowing with praise and compliments.

I think both of the photos look amazing and absolutely realistic. They fooled me totally, if I didn't knew it I would say it's live action footage (possibly digitally enhanced). I hope the moving pictures hold up to it, because yeah, they can still screw it up with unrealistic animation. Let's hope the people working on it will pull it off, though. It would probably open a new era in the movie making.

Even then I'm sure there still would be people here questioning the sense of the whole undertaking and complaining about unrealistic brass or whatever...

ambassador

07-25-2007, 10:06 PM

Originally Posted by megatronskeletor
Monster House had little/no motion blur because it was aiming to re-create a stop-motion look.
The texture on the characters even have little artifacts of clay sculpting tools and so forth, though it's subtle.

Heh, that's bad ass! Sounds like I'll have to browse the special features a bit more on the DVD. Plus, I should actually READ my "art of monster house" book as opposed to just looking at the gorgeous pictures. ;)

hehe, so thats what everyones being told about the lack of motion blur, hmmm......;)

cornel

07-25-2007, 10:42 PM

I don't understand why couldn't they have just gotten a real person to film? if it ws stylized i would understand, but this makes no sence to me. I really hope it does well

Guess THE perfect CG movie is still the goal to aim for.
The first thing no longer distinguishable from real footage is surrounded by a myth.
And this is a very nice try.

Venkman

07-25-2007, 10:58 PM

hehe, so thats what everyones being told about the lack of motion blur, hmmm......;)

according to digital effects supervisor Rob Bredow. “On Monster House we're using a global illumination lighting model. We want this movie to look like it's shot on a half- or quarter-scale set, almost like a miniature. And in that world, the bounce lighting from wall to wall is a huge factor. When we were thinking about how to do Monster House, the team did tests with various renderers. They realized when they did full global illumination, it gave everyone artistically what they wanted in very short artist-time. There were tons of technical issues that were not trivial, and there's a lot of cost justification. But if you can answer the question ‘Is this what the movie is supposed to look like?’ then the technical issues can be solved.”

JeroenDStout

07-25-2007, 11:05 PM

If you do something that is threatened by a technological advancement, aren't you just really doing an outdated job?

Animalator

07-25-2007, 11:06 PM

I understand both arguements of why making a cg movie photoreal. I, personally, love the fact that cg is at a point where we can create and animate realistic humans and environments. Although, I think it does not sit well with the general/average public. I remember reading a study done when the creators of the final fantasy franchise showed a cinematic of their latest game to several groups of people. All of which were turned off by how real the characters looked and acted. Psychologiclly, they couldn't handle it. FF is a stylized concept but they actually had to go back and make them "look" less real and styleize them even more. There is still something about animated photoreal CG characters that the brain reconizes and can't get a grip on. I think it's the realistic motion capture and the look of cg which makes it seem disjointed. It may work for still images but when characters are moving around and emoting realistic human responses the brain doesnt know what to make of it. I think some type of human stylization is necessary when it comes to cg movies. Look at Polar Express and F.F.:The Spirits Within.

I know there are alot of movies that use photoreal cg characters and pull it off convincenly, but the thing is that they arent on screen for very long or they are moving so fast you don't have the time to see every detail. For instance, look at the latest Superman movie when he is flying. It seems seamless at first because he's moving so fast and you arent aware of it, but when you know that cg is used on the character and in what shot you can pick it out everytime whether you are in the CG field or not.

I know at least one person who is reading this will think, "Well, what about Davy Jones??" Which is my point exactly. Davy Jones works because he's not entirely cg and doesn't look completly human. He's some type of humanoid sea creature which our brains have no refrence of so we accept it for what it is.

I can go on and on about this so Im just going to stop, lol.

Venkman

07-25-2007, 11:16 PM

You are referencing the "uncanny valley".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_Valley

The Uncanny Valley is the region of negative emotional response towards robots that seem "almost human". Movement amplifies the emotional response.

It also directly applies to animated figures, especially in CG.

Apoclypse

07-25-2007, 11:22 PM

i don't care what people say. I find this pointless. Zemeckis is a fool. He doesn't understand animation, which is why the last two tries were awful, and for a man I used to admire as a film maker, I guess he doesn't understand his own medium. He seems to be going for the prize as opposed to going for the artistry. I'll reserve my judgment on the aniamtion until I see it, but I really don't have high hopes of it looking in the least convincing when they move.

xen_ninja

07-25-2007, 11:22 PM

I know at least one person who is reading this will think, "Well, what about Davy Jones??" Which is my point exactly. Davy Jones works because he's not entirely cg and doesn't look completly human. He's some type of humanoid sea creature which our brains have no refrence of so we accept it for what it is.

I can go on and on about this so Im just going to stop, lol.

I'd love to read your study about the Final Fantasy deshigners showing off their game which turned off the groups of people. You see I don't buy it.

Davey Jones is not entirely CG ? Wow !! I'll tell you right now : although he is motion captured ,he is 100% CG. And another thing have you seen 100% photorealstic human characters ? I'm pretty sure none of us has seen one...so our recations are not accurate.I mean how do you know that we will react negatively ? Sure the uncanny valley still exists , but I trust Spielberg and Peter Jackson when they say they found way to give their characters "soul" for their Tintin movies. . Just wait and see and don't go on making sweeipeng statements such as those featured in your post.

xen_ninja

07-25-2007, 11:24 PM

Animalator

07-25-2007, 11:27 PM

You are referencing the "uncanny valley".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_Valley

It also directly applies to animated figures, especially in CG.

Great read!! Thanks for sharing that Venkman.

Kwe

07-25-2007, 11:41 PM

clearer but smaller of the same 2 pix...

http://img111.imageshack.us/img111/1701/31402365ao8.jpg
http://img57.imageshack.us/img57/6956/31402371am3.jpg

Apoclypse

07-25-2007, 11:44 PM

I'd love to read your study about the Final Fantasy deshigners showing off their game which turned off the groups of people. You see I don't buy it.

Davey Jones is not entirely CG ? Wow !! I'll tell you right now : although he is motion captured ,he is 100% CG. And another thing have you seen 100% photorealstic human characters ? I'm pretty sure none of us has seen one...so our recations are not accurate.I mean how do you know that we will react negatively ? Sure the uncanny valley still exists , but I trust Spielberg and Peter Jackson when they say they found way to give their characters "soul" for their Tintin movies. . Just wait and see and don't go on making sweeipeng statements such as those featured in your post.

First of all he was motion captured to a point, then actual animators came in a added the human element, which is what has been missing from Zemeckis' last attempts. Performance capture is flawed, putting points on peoples faces will only get you so far. If you watch some of the podcasts on Davy Jones, you will see that the animators basically tries to match the actors movements as closely as possible using references from what the actors was doing on set, at the same time they also added things to it that helped sell the character.

Second, this movie is pointless, Davy Jones was done through CG because the character couldn't have been done any other way and be convincing, I'm not sure that this movie has the same motives. In-fact I think they are doing it all in CG just so that they can get a nice pat on the back if happens to work. The aging of the character, in those cases you cast younger actors, it's worked for years, and what it doesn't work now? As for stunts, that is what all those talented modelers and compositors, replacing live action people with digital stunt doubles has been done quite a bit and I'm sure that there are people who are quite good at it, what they are usless now too? Whatever, I have a huge distaste for this movie and now Zemeckis in general.

Third that whole crap about if you do Cg should you find merit in it crap, is just that, crap What, all these CG artists have been starving for years for lack of work fo all these years? Please, give me a break, a whole lot of CG was used in the 300, a whole lot of cg was used in Spiderman, a whole lot of cg was used in POTC3, and a whole lot of Cg will be used in a lot of other movies.

The uncanny valley must be smacking me in the face because I don't want to see an all Cg movies with near perfect human wannabes, when it could be done with real humans. I find it distasteful, disrespectful of a medium that has driven the industry as a whole, as well as disrespectful to actors in general. yes they are overpaid blowhards, but some of them deserve great respect. Maybe, I'm getting to worked up about it. Considering I wa one of those touting FF:TSW when it came out because of the realistic humans, I'm not sure why I have grown to dislike th approach over the years. Must be getting old.

Apoclypse

07-25-2007, 11:54 PM

He might indeed be a a fool for trying...
But what about the renders you see before you ? Isn't that more relevant or has this become another AICN talkback?

Don't get me wrong the stills look great. There is no doubt that the artwork will be beautiful. My concerns is, what will it look like when it moves? My other major issue is, why?

Some say Why, not? I say because i don't see any perceivable benefit. these character better be doing something that no live action actor can do, then i'll politely shut up, and take my ass home.

Kion

07-26-2007, 12:03 AM

"And it boggles my mind why people are complaining about this as a full CG movie. Some are even asking why, what's the point? The real question is, why not? This is the kind of stuff a lot of people on these boards do for a living, it's why we do what we do, to work on stuff like this. Frankly, if you want to complain about something that you've only seen still images of, then by all means go for it, I just won't bother taking anything else you say seriously heh."

yeah i'm going to complain. Before i start this is not a swipe at the artist that created the images, heck i'm working on a realistic mocaped game as we speak. I really don't want to dog the film, i haven't seen it, trying to reach a conclusion by looking at a super low res jpeg is kinda dumb, but hey thats what we do Anyways...

I think this is directed more to Zemeckis Why in all the things that you can create using cg would you make a realistic cg film, something that will cost millions less to film if it where live action. If it where a forzetta styled painterly approach then great i'm for it, if they captured that look, that stylized human that looks so beautiful, i would be blown away, those images are not that(i've heard that frazetta was supposed to be the direction on the film). They could have easily have gotten hopkins to dress like a king, and flippin kurt russel in a conan outfit. Show me something different, we have tools and the talent, When the movie comes out we'll all say that was really realistic why didn't they just get an actor or we missed the mark again, the animation was weird....and the question will be why. I'm more intersted in what Cameron is trying to do with avator.

erikals

07-26-2007, 12:14 AM

clearer but smaller of the same 2 pix...
http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2007-07/31402365.jpg

http://img111.imageshack.us/img111/1701/31402365ao8.jpg
http://img57.imageshack.us/img57/6956/31402371am3.jpg

Huhmm, I actually liked the first version better. strange.
This version looks more waxy..
,must be the noise in the first version that helps out a bit.

BillSpradlin

07-26-2007, 12:57 AM

I think this is directed more to Zemeckis Why in all the things that you can create using cg would you make a realistic cg film, something that will cost millions less to film if it where live action. If it where a forzetta styled painterly approach then great i'm for it, if they captured that look, that stylized human that looks so beautiful, i would be blown away, those images are not that(i've heard that frazetta was supposed to be the direction on the film). They could have easily have gotten hopkins to dress like a king, and flippin kurt russel in a conan outfit. Show me something different, we have tools and the talent, When the movie comes out we'll all say that was really realistic why didn't they just get an actor or we missed the mark again, the animation was weird....and the question will be why. I'm more intersted in what Cameron is trying to do with avator.

We've seen actors dress up thousands of times in movies before, we've also seen how stylized realistic movies can be done (Scanner Darkley) but we haven't seen a push for realistic full CG films since Final Fantasy. The cost of using live actors being cheaper isn't necessarily true. I'm not sure what the production budget for this film is, but getting top billed actors voices has traditionally been cheaper than getting them for their live action performance. Do you know how costly it is to go back and do re-shoots? It's tremendously costly, going into the hundreds of thousands a day, coordinating with the actors schedule after production, getting a film crew together and all the other logistics of shooting. Since this is entirely CG, changing the actors emotions, camera angles, costumes etc all become MUCH easier and cost effective than redoing a live action shoot.

It can also turn into a nightmare with constant changes and noodling. So it can be extremely useful for arti direction and a terrible bane in the hands of a director who doesn't know when to say "final" heh.

I do see your point, but it sounds like it's more of a personal issue with doing realistic type work. Which I am completely understanding of and have no problem with. However, not everyone is into doing stylized work all the time and some of us enjoy developing realistic CG further. Again, it's just down to personal preference.

Papa Lazarou

07-26-2007, 01:46 AM

I think it's pointless, unnecessary, and if it wanders into uncanny valley zombie territory, it may also be hard to watch. On the other hand so what. I'm sure it's all hugely expensive and may be a big waste of money, but it's their money. I don't have to watch it. If they think they can make it work, by all means I hope they give it their best shot.

I was a bit thrown by the comment that they should've made the guy more muscular. There seems to be this attitude that if they must do it, they should exaggerate the proportions somewhat because at least then there'd be some reason for using animation over live action. But if you're only doing it to differentiate from live action, why do it at all? Does exaggeration inherently make things more entertaining? Does animation always have to be over the top and bigger than life? But I do understand the point. It's not something which should be gone about artlessly and robotically. You do need to exercise aesthetic judgement.

Kion

07-26-2007, 01:55 AM

We've seen actors dress up thousands of times in movies before, we've also seen how stylized realistic movies can be done (Scanner Darkley) but we haven't seen a push for realistic full CG films since Final Fantasy. The cost of using live actors being cheaper isn't necessarily true. I'm not sure what the production budget for this film is, but getting top billed actors voices has traditionally been cheaper than getting them for their live action performance. Do you know how costly it is to go back and do re-shoots? It's tremendously costly, going into the hundreds of thousands a day, coordinating with the actors schedule after production, getting a film crew together and all the other logistics of shooting. Since this is entirely CG, changing the actors emotions, camera angles, costumes etc all become MUCH easier and cost effective than redoing a live action shoot.

It can also turn into a nightmare with constant changes and noodling. So it can be extremely useful for arti direction and a terrible bane in the hands of a director who doesn't know when to say "final" heh.

I do see your point, but it sounds like it's more of a personal issue with doing realistic type work. Which I am completely understanding of and have no problem with. However, not everyone is into doing stylized work all the time and some of us enjoy developing realistic CG further. Again, it's just down to personal preference.

yeah i see your point as well, putting the look of the film to the side, just dealing with animation in this particular case zemekis' "performance capture" i could be wrong but the actor (ex. hopkins) is there in the studio doing the mocap. Then there is the mess of tweaking the mocap, i've heard horror stories on polar express where an animator is not allowed to tweak the performance of Tom Hanks, becuase its Tom Hanks and they payed millions to get his acting. Even if the animator is right. The difference is Bill Nighy's Davey Jones verses Tom Hanks train conductor. If that approach carries over to this film its going to be a hot mess. In order for this film to work everything has to come together, it has to move and look great, if it doesn't........well i really hope it works.

jeremybirn

07-26-2007, 03:21 AM

This movie is clearly one of the big events in CG this year. I'm planning to see it on its opening weekend. I personally don't know if it'll be good or not. I'm surprised there's 4 pages of posts already, from people who haven't seen it yet.

-jeremy

SheepFactory

07-26-2007, 03:44 AM

megatronskeletor

07-26-2007, 03:46 AM

01234567890

megatronskeletor

07-26-2007, 03:57 AM

01234567890

xen_ninja

07-26-2007, 04:00 AM

Is there any word on when the trailer is coming out? the movie is coming out in 3 months I dont understand the lack of trailers for it. I think they made a mistake by not putting a trailer in front of pirates\harry potter\transformers , nobody I know knows or cares about this movie as a result.
I'm afraid that Paramount has no faith in it....or really ...they are still working on it. There was similar delay with the POTC 3 trailer.

Abaddon

07-26-2007, 04:00 AM

Im sure everybody agrees that full cg movies will be normal one day down the track.

How do you imagine we get to that point.....by never doing any then suddenly, BAM!, perfect full cg movies?

Somebody needs to innovate, explore, and try.

Once somebody else has done the hard work and made it work and look perfect, im sure the complainers here now will be hollering along with everyone else in 3D to get work on the next full cg epic.

SheepFactory

07-26-2007, 04:04 AM

I'm afraid that Paramount has no faith in it....or really ...they are still working on it. There was similar delay with the POTC 3 trailer.

Yea but POTC3 was an established franchise and there was posters and tv spots everywhere shortly after 2 stopped playing in theatres. I havent seen anything regarding Boewulf except these lowres badly compressed jpegs and some posters that are too dark to show anything.

xen_ninja

07-26-2007, 04:20 AM

ndat

07-26-2007, 04:57 AM

hmmmm... It doesn't look as good as I thought it would but then again I haven't seen it in high res or in motions so I will reserve judgment.

Papa Lazarou

07-26-2007, 05:49 AM

Im sure everybody agrees that full cg movies will be normal one day down the track.

How do you imagine we get to that point.....by never doing any then suddenly, BAM!, perfect full cg movies?

Actually no, I don't think we're headed in that direction. What we have now is animated features,(which we've had for years in 2d, stop-motion and now CG) and effects pictures (where a substantial portion of the movie is cg). I'm sure we'll see more animated features aiming at older audiences, and with varying degrees of realism. We'll also see 'digital backlot' greenscreen movies. But 'full cg movies' as the norm? What do you envision? Like using that process for even the most everday movies?

BillSpradlin

07-26-2007, 07:00 AM

Then it might be the lack of faith in a shoddy product. Spiderwick chronicles ,a Paramount distributed movie that will be released on february 2008 already has a lengthy trailer out while Beowulf which is supposed to be released in november has nothing..........

The trailer is out FYI:

http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount/beowulf/

I'm a little disapointed with a few things, some of which have been stated. However, it's certainly not going to stop me from going to see it opening weekend. There's definitely been a progression in the performance capture, it's still not where it needs to be. But hopefully it keeps being pushed and developed, and only good things can come of that.

Abaddon

07-26-2007, 08:03 AM

Actually no, I don't think we're headed in that direction. What we have now is animated features,(which we've had for years in 2d, stop-motion and now CG) and effects pictures (where a substantial portion of the movie is cg). I'm sure we'll see more animated features aiming at older audiences, and with varying degrees of realism. We'll also see 'digital backlot' greenscreen movies. But 'full cg movies' as the norm? What do you envision? Like using that process for even the most everday movies?

No, i didnt say it would be 'the norm', I said it would be normal. As in quite common and doable for film makers. I also doubt it will ever completely replace the real thing, but I dont doubt it will have a market, and a niche.

Way I see it, think about where CG was 30 years ago...., then imagine where it will be in 30 from now...

Boone

07-26-2007, 08:09 AM

Now that I've seen the trailer, its not that much more "real" than FF:TSW. But thats not to say its going to be awful in any way. The real question here is: Will it thrill audiences?

FF:TSW did not fail because of the technology it used but simply because it was a dull film that did not pick up on the colourful & lively nature of the games it was based on. Beowulf on the other hand will ultimately win or lose depending on how they put the story to the audience. If its going to be a dull-fest then the target audience is lost - the younger generation. They will all bugger off to the screenings of Harry Potter and Transformers. Its the nature of the beast unfortunately.

Spin99

07-26-2007, 08:57 AM

Sounds like some serious innovative stuff coming out.
So it's an all Cg action movie? woo hoo.

Except the sound in the trailer is too soft :)

PS Meaning also that Angelina Jolie is 100% digital in this one?
I'm fooled btw.

Diabolos

07-26-2007, 09:05 AM

Ohh....well with the prices in the theaters as they are, I can't go and see EVERY movie - I have to pick and choose. I'll think I will wait for the DVD on this one - home theaters are almost like the cinema anyways............except for the lack of talking people, babies, mobile phones, plastic candy packaging, the person with old cheese in their socks who decides to take off their shoes and rest one foot upon their knee.

I am not saying it looks bad (in fact there were some great shots with some sketchy ones)- only that I am not sure if it's in my opinion theater worthy, but then again if nobody goes and see these cg films then they will make less of them and that would be sad.

...it's great to hear all of the different opinions and there are some real professionals here who can at least back up what they say from the technical point.

D,

yann22

07-26-2007, 10:57 AM

OK, I've read the thread and seen the trailer and still don't see the point,
nor can I figure out why any actor would want to take part in this.

BigPixolin

07-26-2007, 01:44 PM

Holy cow! After the trailer I'm more excited than ever for any cg movie ever.I can't beleive all the negative opinions, especially at this type of website.
Angelina Jolie looks amazing. Is the lower half of her body something other than human?

ReD_MeRkIn

07-26-2007, 02:48 PM

yeah...the people questioning why make a photorealistic CG film in the first place don't need to be on these forums if they're serious about that question.

Ok, everyone relax for a minute... WHat i was trying to say, is why make THIS film fully cg?

Someone stated that the characters would age over the course of the film, which would be one benifit to using fully CG characters. Is this going to be enough to justify using fully CG characters?

However

Having seen the trailer, i'm not convinced that Digital Anthony is better than the real Sir Anthony. In the trailer he just looks creepy, and not in a Hanibal Lector kind of way. The subulty seems lost. There is no point in taking great actors and attempting to reproduce them digitaly over the course of an entire film.

For me, this film is just a gimmick.

On the other hand Avatar seems promising, science fiction, Humans inside Aliens, in Alien worlds: IMHO Avatar seems justified as a fully CG film.

My feeling on this is: If you can shoot it with live action, you should.

Venkman

07-26-2007, 03:40 PM

So I won't be seeing you in the theater on the opening weekend? ;)

I'm never going to rail against a director for attempting something difficult. If nobody tried anything they shouldn't, we wouldn't have the advances we do now. I also fail to see why Avatar is more suited to this than Beowulf. Is it simply a case of sci-fi versus fantasy? Is it because we have access to horses and swords but not aliens and spaceships?

I think the casting of someone who is getting on in years and remodeling them as a younger version in CG, with different ethnicity is cool as hell! Regardless of the tech, though, I'm able to immerse myself in movies pretty easily- from B-movies to those based on "gimmicks".

I'll reserve judgement until I see Beowulf, but until then I'm super excited to see some bad ass CG with something other than a PG rating.

archerx

07-26-2007, 04:28 PM

Wow. I can't believe the negativity of you guys! Nothing is pointless, I'm sure they'll learn and advance in many areas of technology by doing this film.

You say this movie was pointless, then I'm sure you can say going to the moon was pointless or trying to do a nuclear fusion reaction is pointless...

You guys depress me.

ReD_MeRkIn

07-26-2007, 04:37 PM

So I won't be seeing you in the theater on the opening weekend?
If final fantasy was anything to go by, you'll get your choice of seats...

I quite enjoyed Monster house. I liked the stylized look, and i connected with the characters. I don't think there's anything wrong with fully CG films, in fact i think we need to see more fully CG films.

One thing that keeps comming up, the satement "It gives them complete freedom to realize exactly what is in their imagination without the limits that are in shooting live action.'

I don't see any amazing imagination at work with this film, In fact i've seen all of this before... In live action, and better looking with Real actors!

I strongly disagree with this statement relative to this film. IMHO i have not seen a single thing in the trailer that could not have been done better with live actors.

Animation Means To Invoke Life, Not To Imitate It.

So no, i won't be going to see this film when it comes out, i may catch it on DVD (rental) but IMHO nothing is added to this film by taking great actors and imitating them unconvincingly in 3D.

:)

Apoclypse

07-26-2007, 06:16 PM

If final fantasy was anything to go by, you'll get your choice of seats...

I quite enjoyed Monster house. I liked the stylized look, and i connected with the characters. I don't think there's anything wrong with fully CG films, in fact i think we need to see more fully CG films.

One thing that keeps comming up, the satement "It gives them complete freedom to realize exactly what is in their imagination without the limits that are in shooting live action.'

I don't see any amazing imagination at work with this film, In fact i've seen all of this before... In live action, and better looking with Real actors!

I strongly disagree with this statement relative to this film. IMHO i have not seen a single thing in the trailer that could not have been done better with live actors.

Animation Means To Invoke Life, Not To Imitate It.

So no, i won't be going to see this film when it comes out, i may catch it on DVD (rental) but IMHO nothing is added to this film by taking great actors and imitating them unconvincingly in 3D.

:)

I agree with you here.

i think that a well shot and lit film is the most incredible thing. Hell a well shot and lit TV show is freaking amazing. I was watching the series premiere od Damages and I must say if the story of the show didn't grip you the look would damn that's a good lookin show, I might say the best looking show I've seen on tv so far. It has this great feel to it liek a big budget phsycological thriller and they do some really interesting things with the camera that had me floored when I saw it. I love to see film in all it's glory. CG can't really take that away. Though it can be just as beautiful sometimes.

Emmanuel

07-26-2007, 09:11 PM

Well, after watching the trailer, I think I will rent the movie on dvd just for the eye candy.But so far it looks like a better game intro movie, and the shortest WoW trailer leaves me more impressed than this.Its not very pleasing visually, I don't like the plastic look of angelina and the faces are just like robots, especially in that scene were they ARE supposed to be subtile.CG eyes are CG eyes.Waste of money, and another worthless beowuöf adaption...

frizDog

07-27-2007, 01:54 AM

- home theaters are almost like the cinema anyways............

D,

Except you are getting less than half the resolution and color depth, no detail in the darks, blown out whites, and a screen so so so so much smaller...but other than that its pretty much the same.

BigPixolin

07-27-2007, 05:26 PM

Animation Means To Invoke Life, Not To Imitate It.

:)

Animation has no set rules. You can do what you please with it.

Shaderhacker

07-28-2007, 08:10 AM

Movie looks interesting indeed. It seems like they are getting closer...

Among some of the problems I've noticed in the trailer, try stepping through the part where the name "Robin Wright Penn" flashes on the screen. Pay close attention to the queen's eyes. They are fixed on one location even though her head is turning. No eye movement or lashes blinking, nothing.. I don't understand why its so hard to nail the eyes properly. Davy Jones is animated perfectly in his face. In fact, I didn't notice blinking lashes at all on any of the characters in this trailer..

-M

Larrikin

07-28-2007, 09:57 AM

OK, I've read the thread and seen the trailer and still don't see the point,
.

I agree. This is an experiment not a movie.
With present technology CG is still for the unreal only.
Until audiences can't tell the difference, they are not going to prefer this, nor should they.

baby

07-28-2007, 01:50 PM

ugly and pointless

I'll avoid this movie as Pola Express...

ugly and pointless

ReD_MeRkIn

07-28-2007, 04:51 PM

Animation has no set rules. You can do what you please with it. no set rules. You can do what you please with it. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.

To be fair, we havn't seen that much of beowulf, and maybe there will be a lot more better quality in the final film.

I think that what strikes me as being particularly pointless about this process is making the CG actors look like the actors who voiced them. It hilights how 'off' the CG characters actually are...

I went back and watched Blizzard's Starcraft 2 trailer yesterday. I much prefer the CG character in that piece because i'm not constantly aware that what i'm looking at isn't real. I mean, i have a much better suspension of disbelief that i do with Beowulf.

I'm not against CG characters at all, in fact if they ever did a CG Starcraft 2 movie, i think it would do extremely well, and that's one movie i would line up to see!

frizDog

07-28-2007, 05:27 PM

They are fixed on one location even though her head is turning. No eye movement
-M

I want you to look in a mirror and starre at your eyes. . .then turn your head while still looking at your eyes.... HOLY CRAP!!! they don't move with your head!

If you are focused on something and turn your head...your eys don't move with your head!

Spin99

07-28-2007, 09:20 PM

"Robin Wright Penn" flashes on the screen. Pay close attention to the queen's eyes. They are fixed on one location even though her head is turning. No eye movement or lashes blinking, nothing.. I don't understand why its so hard to nail the eyes properly. Davy Jones is animated perfectly in his face. In fact, I didn't notice blinking lashes at all on any of the characters in this trailer..To me the most relevant comment in this thread.
I was wondering where the characters were getting their "zombiness" from.

A little blinking could really go a long way.
Definitely the most missing feature in the trailer imho.
Even Shrek blinks :)

Als

07-30-2007, 02:00 AM

In most animation books, EYES are mentioned as the most important, and it's where audience looks. Mirror of the soul!
Even these CG characters look AMAZING, STUNNING and so on, why make this movie this way?
I can think of many other stories which should be done this way, but as far as I've seen, they could do all that with REAL actors with chemistry going across the screen.
As mentioned before I agree that Animation is to give breath of life into something without it, so to give it a soul. So I don't understand why do this movie with Cg and then try to imitate how actors look?
Why not make Frankenstain? This would be perfect movie for this technique.
Or some Zombie movie. That would be really scary.
Or a remake of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers".
Just to show how our society is being turned into a community of emotionless robots...

So with so much money invested, why they didn't animate those eyes? This was problem with previous movies as well, so I hope they fixed this.
EMPATHY with characters is more important then anything, almost more then story.
I got my degree on subject of "Digital Actor", and while talking about it, real veteran actor jumped saying that digital actors will never replace real ones.
And now this movie with this strong hollywood cast I'm really suprised how they convinced them to do it ?$?

Als

FloydBishop

07-30-2007, 06:51 PM

http://frederatorblogs.com/media/6852.jpg

That's a lot of reference points on her face!

frizDog

07-30-2007, 06:57 PM

In most animation books, EYES are mentioned as the most important, and it's where audience looks. Mirror of the soul!

Als

That doesn't make any sense. . .a mirror to the soul would mean that looking into someones eyes reflects their soul thats outside their body somehow? possible next to you or even scarier behind you? I don't want someones soul creeping up behind me. . .

...its windows to the soul. . .eyes are the windows to the soul

Spin99

07-30-2007, 07:12 PM

So for the shot where she's butt naked her real bum was actually wearing yellow.
Aha! Maybe they edited out the blinking to save up on render times?

Huh.

Als

07-30-2007, 11:17 PM

EYES ARE THE MIRROR (MIRRORS) OF THE SOUL -- "A person's thoughts can be ascertained by looking in his or her eyes. The proverb has been traced back in English to 'Regiment of Life' (1545). But the proverb was known much earlier. Cicero (106-43 B.C.) is quoted as saying, 'Ut imago est animi voltus sic indices oculi' (The face is a picture of the mind as the eyes are its interpreter). The L*tin proverbs, 'Vultus est index animi' or 'Oculus animi index,' are usually translated as 'The face is the index of the mind.' The French say, 'Les yeux sont le miroir de l'dme (The eyes are the mirror of the soul). 'The eyes are the window of the soul' is a variant form of the proverb..." From "Random House Dictionary of Popular Proverbs and Sayings" by Gregory Y. Titelman (Random House, New York, 1996).

Als

That doesn't make any sense. . .a mirror to the soul would mean that looking into someones eyes reflects their soul thats outside their body somehow? possible next to you or even scarier behind you? I don't want someones soul creeping up behind me. . .

...its windows to the soul. . .eyes are the windows to the soul

MasterZap

07-31-2007, 01:34 PM

http://frederatorblogs.com/media/6852.jpg

That's a lot of reference points on her face!

Well, you see... it's not, really!

Animators seem obsessed with the mouth, and completely miss out the subtleties around the eyes somehow. Even the placement of these markers show they don't "get it" in the "eyes" deparment. (Unless of course they plan to track eye stuff with a camera of the actual eye contours.)

You can smile without moving your mouth just by modulating the outermost corner of your eye a hair. When you do smile (with your lips), your upper cheeks pucker up. Moving your jaw causes the skin beside the eyes to slide around. Your eyes don't move smoothly and do short "jumps" called saccades.

In every case of "fake a human" I ever saw, it's like someone poured all the energy from the middle of the nose and down, and completely forgot to animate anything above that point, except the odd eyebrow.

I think this is a case of the old "home blindness"; we are so tuned to see the super-subtle cues around the eyes that we pick up them subconciously, not conciously, so we only conciously "see" the gross movements of eyebrows, corners of mouth, etc. And that works great if your objects is a simplified lump of geometry, like Buzz Lightyear or similar.

But the moment you actually model the tearduct and every wrinkle around the eyes, you better animate them correctly. I never ever seen this done. It's always "middle of the nose down" animation going on, some token eyebrow movement, and a blink.

Study a great film actor, how they can go from despair to joy by moving the eyelids 1/100:th of an inch and controlling the moisture of the eye. Lets see a CG thing do that.

In that department, it's like the Davey Jones people "got it", and I think the sole reason they "got it" se well is that daveys mouth was below layers of tentacles, so they had to concentrate on nailing the eyes!

I want to see animators stop animating mouths and eyebrows and start animating eyes, the sliding skin around them, and the volume of muscle below that skin. Get that right, the mouth becomes irrelevant. A smile is a smile because your eyes twinkle and pinch, not because the corners of the mouth go up.

/Z