PDA

View Full Version : Beowulf Trailer


Pages : [1] 2

BlumenKohl
07-26-2007, 05:44 AM
Put up just a few seconds ago

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

Enjoy. :)

Bsmith
07-26-2007, 05:49 AM
did they use the same music from the 28 weeks later trailer?

anyways...looks alright I guess. There was some AMAZING looking cgi and there was some "meh" cgi.

coboman
07-26-2007, 06:29 AM
I've seen video game cinematics that are much more impressive than that.

With the exception of some moments where the protagonist looks almost real, the rest looks very fake and lacking detail.

Angelina Jolie looks like a dummy made of wax, and the animation of Anthony Hopkins talking is appalling.

Better looking than Polar Express, though. They are almost there, maybe in 10 years, but for now, they would have been better off using real actors IMHO.

Let's hope James Cameron's Avatar really creates an alternate reality.

MartyMcFly
07-26-2007, 06:54 AM
Not impressed.

Out of curiosity....why don't they just use real actors?

SheepFactory
07-26-2007, 06:57 AM
I liked the mood. The lighting and the details on the models look amazing. Cant say anything about the zombie factor yet since the trailer didnt have much of a dialogue in it (on purpose maybe?) I will definitely see it when it opens up.

monkeysweat
07-26-2007, 07:54 AM
yea, why not just make a live action flick? There would be plenty of CG for the visual effects.

It does look better than Polar Express though.

ShortFuseNZ
07-26-2007, 08:00 AM
Some scene look amazing but others look like a pre rendered gametrailer.

gjpetch
07-26-2007, 09:10 AM
yea, why not just make a live action flick?
Come on.... the technology and art form of computer graphics is being explored, its potential as an expressive medium broadened, isn't that more interesting than quibbling about how it could all be done cheaper and easier? Theres no academy award for thriftiest budget is there?
Why wasn't snow white live action? Why aren't most films comic books instead?
Filmmakers often create sets rather than film on location, because sets offer certain advantages, is this all that different?



I think it looks damned cool.

Rikof
07-26-2007, 09:33 AM
LOL, Jolie is walking on stilletto heels, high heels are around since the
ancient egyptians, but not this type.

Novakog
07-26-2007, 09:37 AM
I think it looked cool until they showed Anthony Hopkins talking. The thing is... Anthony Hopkins is in my opinion one of the best actors of his time because he seems to breathe life into everything. I don't remember where I read it, but someone said he was the type of actor who you could just watch doing dishes and be completely fascinated. But putting him in CG form is the perfect destruction to that ability - it so exactly robs him of his greatest strength, it almost seems morally wrong...

Other than that, looks pretty cool. CG is good, but not great, I have seen better game trailers, and I think many of the characters in FFTSW were better (Ving Rhames guy and Donald Sutherland guy), and that was 6 years ago. I would have preferred those guys (the Square VFX team, or whoever did that) doing the CG,

TheBladeRoden
07-26-2007, 09:38 AM
I think there was a reason they didn't make movies entirely with animatronic humans back in the day, and I think it has something to do with how this film looks now.

Spin99
07-26-2007, 09:50 AM
I really like the cool "animated" look.
Maybe the lip synch isn't that perfect and Angelina's back looks strange enough
to be a giveaway (only after replay, but her spine looks like a strip of clay)
Faces a little dull or maybe it's a little comic book like?

It also looks like it works :)

What a breakthrough it seems to be.
Should be a really fun movie :thumbsup:

leigh
07-26-2007, 09:54 AM
I was hoping for far more stylisation. I watched this and ended up wondering why they didn't just shoot it as a live action film. With a fantastic saga like this, they really could have gone wild with stylised designs and really over the top action.

paulc
07-26-2007, 09:57 AM
I'm firmly in the "why didn't they make it live action" camp

I've got to say that I was really disappointed with this. When I heard that they were going to make this film, I was so hyped, then I heard who was directing it and all my worst fears have been confirmed.

Maybe it was just a bad trailer released too early with unfinishedfootage, I dunno. I guess I'll just have to go and buy the 13th warrior for my fix of uber-viking mthmaking.

Wanna see how something like this could have looked, check out DIGIC's work for warhammer. Maybe not the most realistic, but for imact and flair totally unbeatable.

Intervain
07-26-2007, 10:16 AM
I was hoping for far more stylisation. I watched this and ended up wondering why they didn't just shoot it as a live action film. With a fantastic saga like this, they really could have gone wild with stylised designs and really over the top action.

exactly! well they could make Hopkins look younger without much effort LOL looking good overall though! I have bad memories connected with Beowulf [they made me read it in Old English at University so the story got lost in translation ;)] but I'm still looking forward to it after this - sheer curiosity if nothing else...

Rickmeister
07-26-2007, 10:24 AM
It is just not 'it'. And why make them like they look in real life... the've should have done in it the live-action way...

This movie will anoye me alot. The trailer does that allready.

Wizdoc
07-26-2007, 10:26 AM
Narrated by Dracula.

Chris Bacon
07-26-2007, 10:32 AM
I was hoping for far more stylisation. I watched this and ended up wondering why they didn't just shoot it as a live action film. With a fantastic saga like this, they really could have gone wild with stylised designs and really over the top action.

quotes for agreement.

Kion
07-26-2007, 10:48 AM
I liked the mood. The lighting and the details on the models look amazing. Cant say anything about the zombie factor yet since the trailer didnt have much of a dialogue in it (on purpose maybe?) I will definitely see it when it opens up.

yeah i noticed that too, very little dialogue one money shot. The trailer basically mentioned everybody thats voice acting in it thats about it. need to see more.

fez
07-26-2007, 10:56 AM
I predict box-office disaster.

SpaceTik
07-26-2007, 11:23 AM
Looks great! hope the story holds up.. as far as Im concerned this is only the second movie since Final Fantasy to push animation to this level of realism and Final Fantasy blew my mind on the big screen when i first watched it!

but I know its not to everyones taste :)

anakinbrego
07-26-2007, 11:55 AM
Robert Zemeckis' unit is called http://www.imagemoversdigital.com/ (http://www.imagemoversdigital.com/) and they are now at Disney remaking A Christmas Carol the same way. This http://www.mova.com/ (http://www.mova.com/) Contour Reality Capture is maybe the next step for Zemeckis, but was developed while Beowulf was already well into production. Next year James Cameron has promised photorealistic CG humans in his film Avatar, technology that he has personally researched and developed himself. Weta is doing the effects work for Cameron, where as Spielberg claims they have rendered photorealistic skin and cloth simulations there. Spielberg is utilizing Weta's and Cameron's technology for a photorealistic Tin Tin movie (and is also being produced by Peter Jackson). So why is Zemeckis and other filmmakers going all out for CG? It gives them complete freedom to realize exactly what is in their imagination without the limits that are in shooting live action. Oh and lets not forget http://www.maxwellrender.com/ (http://www.maxwellrender.com/) with their breakthroughs in lighting, based on real physics. Zemeckis has also installed http://www.softimage.com/products/facerobot/ (http://www.softimage.com/products/facerobot/) for use in a new Performance Capture graduate course at USC School of Cinematic Arts. So if there's anything I've left out or that is incorrect, please contradict me. :)

Here's screen captures from the trailer! http://www.x-realms.net/forums/index...&req=sc&cat=77 (http://www.x-realms.net/forums/index.php?automodule=gallery&req=sc&cat=77)

ivanisavich
07-26-2007, 12:07 PM
I think the "look" of it was pretty awesome! But I let out a big "oh whatever" when they revelaed the girl's character (ie...a Jolie clone, played by Jolie :P)....could have at least chosen a more creative approach to how she looks....I'm sick of seeing her face in the news.

garryclarke
07-26-2007, 12:30 PM
Well I don't care how groundbreaking the technology is, it still looks dreadfull. Why they didn't just comp real actors into cg environments I don't know.

Looks like the whole thing is set in Uncanny Valley.


Garry

HotBox
07-26-2007, 01:33 PM
a bit off topic but i recently finished freelancing at a company called artem digital who also have a facial capture system similar to MOVA. whilst i was there i got to see it in action whilst they were capturing matt damon for the bourne supremecy. the results were very impressive. alot of subtlty in the facial movement but still.......I agree with everyone that there is no other point to doing this type of thing unless the animation is applied to a non human character, otherwise you may as well shoot it live.

jussing
07-26-2007, 01:55 PM
I'll join the "what the hell were they thinking" team.

I'm always for movies that push CG technology, I love dumb movies like Day After Tomorrow for no other reason than the presence of awesome CG. But movies like that LOOK great.

I've read on several sites today that this is "way better" than Final Fantasy, and has none of the uncanny valley syndrome. Mmkay. I couldn't really say, since I haven't seen all of Beowulf (and therefore can't make final judgment), and haven't seen Final Fantasy since that one fatal time, but this trailer looks just like my memory of Final Fantasy.

Hat's off to modellers, riggers, animators, shaders, compositors etc, who undoubtedly made a great effort. The mystery solely lies with the administrative decisions as to why the project should be done like this. As has been said, why on Earth hire a class A quality actor like Anthony Hopkins, and then give him a Polar Express face? Why hire Angelina Jolie's body, and then CG it instead of filming it? The why's are endless..

I agree with previous posters, I miss more stylizing. Turtles had super-detailed shader stuff, but looked awesome in its own 3D comic book way.

- Jonas

simps
07-26-2007, 02:03 PM
There's some shots that look absolutely real. I'm surprised all the negative reaction on this thread. I'm sure you all will go see it in the theater.

Kwe
07-26-2007, 02:21 PM
it definitely needs work but i love the look and feel. the animation/lack of realism does bother me a little bit but that's because i'm in front of a computer with the ability to rewind, pause, and scrutinize...


...i WILL say, however, that i've never seen so many people on a CG forum against a CG project and while i agree, to a certain extent, that they should've persued this as a live action production...i can also see why Zemeckis chose to do this in 3d (exploring the format, saving money and time, etc.). as a 3d advocate i can't fault Zemeckis for doing this in 3d.

Laa-Yosh
07-26-2007, 02:27 PM
Maxwell is a breakthrough in render times too... not feasible in production I'm afraid.

And it's not Jolie's body as I've heard, it's a czech model from the neck down :P

Oh, and the built-in high heel legs look utterly stupid in such a dark ages setting. Alltogether the costume design is far too conservative everyday-holywood stuff, nowhere near the quality of Weta stuff in LOTR (and even that could be perfected in CG). Many disappointments, I hope Gaiman's script can make it work in the end.

switchblade327
07-26-2007, 02:54 PM
The best thing about real life is that at worst, it still looks like real life. At best, this looks almost exactly life real life but at worst it looks like a cheaply done game cinematic.

One more for the "It's pretty but what's the point?" camp. The best directors that ever lived made amazing films without this level of control. Lack of talent and originality is a far bigger issue in film direction then lack of technology.

Tamis
07-26-2007, 03:16 PM
so were going to see jolie CG duble naked ???? :>

i'm starting to dig this movie already.

Clanger
07-26-2007, 03:19 PM
I'm just imagining somewhere off in the nearish future with Poser Version 106.
Write the script, choose the setting, pick your characters, leave your 65536 core Dell off the shelf machine running for a week then invite your friends round to watch the movie and reminisce about the old days when they used real people as actors.

BigPixolin
07-26-2007, 03:30 PM
The comments in this thread are really suprising.
Maybe I'm just confused. What does the CG in CGtalk stand for? Maybe I'm on the wrong site.

xen_ninja
07-26-2007, 03:57 PM
Are we all seeing the same trailer??
Because it looks pretty darn real to me..........
Except for the women characters. Do yourself a favor and watch teh HD version.......

Laa-Yosh
07-26-2007, 04:00 PM
I guess everyone would be a lot happier if the movie had a more stylized look... No-one really complained about the Starcraft 2 intro's marine, and it worked very well indeed - because Blizzard has deliberately made it larger then life. So here's a large Hollywood production with a huge budget and they're making it look like your average fantasy B-movie...

switchblade327
07-26-2007, 04:04 PM
The comments in this thread are really suprising.
Maybe I'm just confused. What does the CG in CGtalk stand for? Maybe I'm on the wrong site.

The community is largely CG *artists*. Artists should be critical of art, right? Not just blindly excited about any proliferation of our medium. And this site would be pretty pointless in terms of discussion if all we did is gush anytime someone hits the 'render' button.

The trailer is really impressive in some shots. But it looks to be a classic example of "just because you can, doesn't mean you should."

R10k
07-26-2007, 04:10 PM
CG game intros are done by the best of the best nowadays, so it's no wonder a CG movie isn't that far ahead in terms of how it looks. That said, this movie seems to have a good style all of its own, and look forward to seeing more. I'm not going to pick on animation or how real the people look, because I'm yet to see anyone do a perfect job when it comes to humans. It's nice to see more attempts at getting it right. On a side note, it's amazing to me that everyone on here goes crazy goo-goo over a still image someone might do, but slags off a movie as if it were easy as pie to create. Seriously guys, just because something looks a little 'Polar Express' or 'Poser' to you doesn't mean it sucks. Do you pick on non-digital impressionist paintings simply because they're more of those 'paint' artworks?

As has been said, why on Earth hire a class A quality actor like Anthony Hopkins, and then give him a Polar Express face? Why hire Angelina Jolie's body, and then CG it instead of filming it? The why's are endless..

Because CG looks pretty cool to the average person, and sometimes the average person, even though they love seeing their favourite actors, like a chance in appearance (or style) now and then. If you make things too stylized (too cartoony, for example), you can lose part of your potential audience. There's a potential reason or two why.

JamesMK
07-26-2007, 04:11 PM
The question is not if it looks real or not (the answer to that is debatable by the way), but whether it's a good idea in the first place. Judging from the trailer, it wasn't such a good idea, unless the whole thing is a way to help Anthony Hopkins understand what his face would look like if it was made out of foam rubber. I'm not sure he was all that interested in finding that out though.

I don't see a problem with people on a CG forum having a negative attitude to this, rather the opposite. Just shows they are not blinded by the technical achievement, but manage to see the bigger picture beyond the tech stuff.

Obviously superb AAA++ work done by modelers, shader and lighting folks, and all that, but the overall impression is still just that it ends up like some sort of high-tech masturbation that adds nothing to the art of cinema.

Nobody will know for sure until we've seen the whole thing of course! Doesn't look too promising at the moment however.

R10k
07-26-2007, 04:15 PM
Artists should be critical of art, right?

Yes, if critical and not simply opinionated.

R10k
07-26-2007, 04:17 PM
Judging from the trailer, it wasn't such a good idea...

Let's not forget the movie is being created for more than the community of CG artists.

BigPixolin
07-26-2007, 04:19 PM
The community is largely CG *artists*. Artists should be critical of art, right? Not just blindly excited about any proliferation of our medium. And this site would be pretty pointless in terms of discussion if all we did is gush anytime someone hits the 'render' button.

The trailer is really impressive in some shots. But it looks to be a classic example of "just because you can, doesn't mean you should."

From the looks of this thread and the transformers thread(before it was released, and even before a trailer like the other thread) people are blindly criticizing it.

jussing
07-26-2007, 04:22 PM
Maybe I'm just confused. What does the CG in CGtalk stand for? Maybe I'm on the wrong site.
Same old, same old. Final Fantasy got the same treatment.

Lots of people here (myself included) think there's no point in CG'ing something if you might as well film it. Cartoon pixar style can't be filmed, tsunamis smashing New York can't be filmed, so there's a good reason to do that CG.

But copying real actors, TRYING to make it look like it was filmed... what's the purpose? AT ABSOLUTE BEST, they look like they were filmed, and then you might as well have filmed them.... and if not, even if you get to 99% - you have the uncanny valley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley). Zombie people.

So there, it all makes sense. :)

- Jonas

Tamis
07-26-2007, 04:24 PM
i think that they had budged problems as some shots look fully realistic and some shots look more cartoony sometimes it even looks as if they pulled it out of the previs.

the water realy looks awfull and the water marks sometimes look good sometimes look weired.

ingramworks
07-26-2007, 04:24 PM
Technically very pretty, but I see far too many tell-tell signs of the same rubber character feel from Polar Express and (to a lesser degree) Monster House. They do look better than Polar Express, but not enough, in my opinion. Shaders look awesome, hair looks (generally) great, cloth is impressive and modelling is top notch. Nothing bad to say about the teams behind all that, but I honestly just don't think we will ever get to the point where we have realistically rendered humans that don't look just a bit "off" once they start moving, no matter how good the Mocap is.

I'm squarily in the "live-action" camp with this one. Not because of being against CG humans, not because of tradition but because it would have simply looked better. There's nothing in that trailer that could not have been done with live actors and visual effects that wouldn't have both looked more believable and just simply looked better. I don't buy that it gave the director more control, it's a style choice, plane and simple, and a wrong choice in my opinion. I know this debate is about has explosive as "Mac vs PC", but there's my opinion.

Kwe
07-26-2007, 04:24 PM
Judging from the trailer, it wasn't such a good idea, unless the whole thing is a way to help Anthony Hopkins understand what his face would look like if it was made out of foam rubber.
were we watching the same trailer? he might not've looked 100% real but he certainly didn't look like he was made out of foam rubber...

Miezis
07-26-2007, 04:27 PM
well yeah... there is no point doing cg humans, but damn..., when i first watched the trailer [i had no knowledge of this project whatsoever] i wasn't biased and wasn't expecting cg, and i actually thought that that wasn't cg, but real actors... i guess i'm used to that over the top polished look in todays movies that redifines "reality".
but to the nay sayers, i'd like to say: open final fantasy and this trailer side to side and tell me that theres no difference...

Kwe
07-26-2007, 04:28 PM
But copying real actors, TRYING to make it look like it was filmed... what's the purpose?
what about budget and time constraints? what about total creative control (being able to adjust the camera or lighting without having to reshoot)? or how about...not having to worry about weather conditions or your actors getting in harm's way?

el_diablo
07-26-2007, 04:45 PM
Laa-Yosh, when are you guys gonna show us another masterpiece by digic pictures? I still get goose bumps by the WH intro ending...with the priest chanting and going for the Chaos Khorne Bloodthirster.

You guys have best direction of any game cinematic I ever seen.

switchblade327
07-26-2007, 04:50 PM
From the looks of this thread and the transformers thread(before it was released, and even before a trailer like the other thread) people are blindly criticizing it.

I don't think there's anything blind about criticizing a trailer. The common theme in the thread seems to be less "this sucks" and more "what's the point?" Which I think is a perfectly valid discussion to have about a film like this. Nobody is calling for the blood of Robert Zemackis.

Yes, if critical and not simply opinionated.

It's CG*Talk*. There is nothing wrong with expressing an opinion in the course of a discussion, as long as it's kept civil.

BigPixolin
07-26-2007, 05:09 PM
I don't think there's anything blind about criticizing a trailer. The common theme in the thread seems to be less "this sucks" and more "what's the point?" Which I think is a perfectly valid discussion to have about a film like this. Nobody is calling for the blood of Robert Zemackis.

The other threads were the same way before the trailer or stills was released.
The movie never had a chance to some it wouldn't matter what it moved or looked like. The whole "whats the point" blindly led people to their conclusion before there was even a begining.

JulianS
07-26-2007, 05:14 PM
Thank you BigPixolin I aggre with you!

I aggre. Why is everybody hating the CG?
The CG is amazing, the CG is been push and that is all it matters.

So relax people get out of your basements and I will love to see you try to do better! LOL, in your dreams...

For most part people can pin point the problems but no one can do better. and I am not just talking a still render so dont start reply with your 1 frame renders.

The comments in this thread are really suprising.
Maybe I'm just confused. What does the CG in CGtalk stand for? Maybe I'm on the wrong site.

SheepFactory
07-26-2007, 05:25 PM
what about budget and time constraints? what about total creative control (being able to adjust the camera or lighting without having to reshoot)? or how about...not having to worry about weather conditions or your actors getting in harm's way?


First of all budget is a mute point , a fully CG production is WAY MORE expensive than if this would have been shot in live action with cg effects here and there. Time constraints please... are you saying it is more time friendly to do fully realistic cg humans then to put a guy in front of the camera get a good dp and shoot. Its a matter of a couple of hours vs a couple of months. Weather conditions have been no problem ever since movie studios have discovered this thing called greenscreen and soundstages.

And getting in harms way? Thats why we have digital and real stuntspeople.

baewolf looks cool and I will see it because I work in cg and usually see most cg features that come up but make no mistake it is nothing other than Zemekis having a hard on lately for performance capture and it could have been easily done with live action and would have been so much better for it too.

I echo leighs sentiments , if it is not going to be stylized but just look real whats the point? I thought the point and beauty of cg is to do things we cant do in reallife.

Venkman
07-26-2007, 05:26 PM
I for one am glad to see a CG trailer that is not cute little animals talking. Hopefully this could start a trend towards more mature stories and themes, and animation can get a little more respect as a medium here in the USA.

Now, if it can just make money in the theaters...

JulianS
07-26-2007, 05:29 PM
This techology is new, someone have to push or it will die, and nobody want that.

I for one am glad to see a CG trailer that is not cute little animals talking. Hopefully this could start a trend towards more mature stories and themes, and animation can get a little more respect as a medium here in the USA.

Now, if it can just make money in the theaters...

Venkman
07-26-2007, 05:39 PM
The common theme in the thread seems to be less "this sucks" and more "what's the point?" Which I think is a perfectly valid discussion to have about a film like this.

Why go CG instead of live action? Why not? It's the opposite end of the spectrum from reality television. I can't wait to see hollywood actors replaced by digital counter parts. We always see resistance to change in some form. We still have big name filmmakers who refuse to shoot using digital cameras.

I hope it will change film as much as the introduction of sound.

I wonder if there will be as much resistance when we move to 3d holographic movies in the year 2852? ;)

SheepFactory
07-26-2007, 05:42 PM
So relax people get out of your basements and I will love to see you try to do better! LOL, in your dreams...

For most part people can pin point the problems but no one can do better. and I am not just talking a still render so dont start reply with your 1 frame renders.



This is really not helping your case man.

jussing
07-26-2007, 05:51 PM
I don't think there's anything blind about criticizing a trailer.Amen. God knows how many times I've been flamed for having a bad opinion about a movie, based on the trailer.

Hewwo, that's what trailers are for - giving you an impression of what to come.

So we make an impression.
So we talk about that impression.
Where's the crime?

- Jonas

PS, the "let's see you do better" - what's that for? I can't make red wine, but I'll know bad wine when I taste it. If you return a bad wine at a restaurent, you don't see the waiter go "pf, let's see you make a better wine!" ;)

PPS..... this whole thread is deja vu! :D (*unsubscribing*)

flipnap
07-26-2007, 05:51 PM
wow, i agree with the "whats the point"ers... really scrambles my circuits.. i hope orville redenbacher makes a guest appearance (though he looked a lot better than these guys).. i dont understand why zemeckis wont let the animators animate the faces.. Hopkins speech looked ridiculous.. like an animatronic at disney world...


This techology is new, someone have to push or it will die, and nobody want that.


uh, i do!

JulianS
07-26-2007, 06:06 PM
This is really not helping your case man.

This is true i am probably out of line,

But since i had work in this film I take those comments very personal, just because I know all the hard work, long days and nights to make this film. just to see people talk bad about it.

PS: Since I am directly connected to this film this is my last post. :wise: Thank you


PS, the "let's see you do better" - what's that for? I can't make red wine, but I'll know bad wine when I taste it. If you return a bad wine at a restaurent, you don't see the waiter go "pf, let's see you make a better wine!"

But i think we all here do CG, isn't that right?!

ndat
07-26-2007, 06:06 PM
Well as long as it has over the top violence, seas of blood, nudity, swearing, and just all the things that make action fantasy movies great but cheesy I will be happy.

Looks creepy and I do kind of wonder what the point was, but it looks fun enough to see and it's different at least.

elvis75k
07-26-2007, 06:09 PM
I want to see this movie a b s o l u t e l y ---
The CG looks just amazing to me, and you can read "the movie is in production and not yet rated". Just like PJ's King Kong 1st trailer in which you can clearly see some heads cuts and bluescreen glitches.. I think they are working very hard to get this stuffz: the movie does'nt look like a prerendered cg for videgamers (exept Angelina). This is a story.. the director is giving the story with a new media in a better way; and you all know this is great for telling stories, with less sacrifice.

OT note - Italian marketing is strange indeed: they put a cg movie at the kid round (in theaters from the 4pm at the 8pm) and after a little while they put them away.. just like Final Fantasy, (belive it or not) Princess Mononoke.
What a real nonsense.. poor kids, long life trauma. And don't talk to me about the dub.. you can't imagine how horrible was the italian-Aslan in Narnia1 and, to stay a bit on topic, with Tom Hanks in the Polar Express. :rolleyes:

Zemeckis: do something for us!

Solothores
07-26-2007, 06:11 PM
did they use the same music from the 28 weeks later trailer?



Aye they do, which is actually nothing special anymore. The guy that composed the track is John Murphy. To let you see to what extent it can be driven: There is one main theme of him that he loves to alter to different movies,( song is called "who are you" and featured in Miami Vice, 28 Weeks later and Sunshine (best version, it's the one playing when the countdown for the payload runs down). Which is not bad, when the theme is good, he also uses brian eno stuff a lot, which is even better ;)

ingramworks
07-26-2007, 06:16 PM
I aggre. Why is everybody hating the CG?
The CG is amazing, the CG is been push and that is all it matters.


First, everyone isn't hating the CG. Most are questioning the use of CG for the actors, not much else. The rest looks great, amazing even. Also, no one is really "hating", people are discussing it, both positive and negative. I've only seen a few excessivly negative posts from either viewpoint.

Second, I have to disagree with the CG has been pushed and that's all that matters. It's fine if CG, or any technique, is pushed beyond it's limits, but what matters is that it does its job, which is to help the story telling. It's wonderful if it goes beyond it's limits and adds to the story telling, enhances it even. But, in my opinion (and I'd wager other folks as well), the use of it here destracts and get's in the way, as it did in Polar Express. I think it did a better job in Moster House of helping the story, but then it was handled in a different way. Sure, we'll really have to wait to make a final call once the film is released, but there's nothing wrong with commenting on what we do see and, honestly, I can't say I expect much based on the trailer (character-wise).


So relax people get out of your basements and I will love to see you try to do better! LOL, in your dreams...

For most part people can pin point the problems but no one can do better. and I am not just talking a still render so dont start reply with your 1 frame renders.


Ah, I have to admit, I've falling back to this same old arguement myself in the past, but it is old, and tired and not constructive. Just because it's something I can't personally create at the same level or better, dosen't mean my opinion, or anyone else's here, isn't vaild. Last time I checked, this wasn't a forum for just the elite 1% of artists to express their opinions, but for everyone who loves and enjoys digital art.

Kwe
07-26-2007, 06:17 PM
First of all budget is a mute point , a fully CG production is WAY MORE expensive than if this would have been shot in live action with cg effects here and there.
i guess that would explain why i've been hearing so many stories about Beowulf's huge budget *sarcasm*

Time constraints please... are you saying it is more time friendly to do fully realistic cg humans then to put a guy in front of the camera get a good dp and shoot. Its a matter of a couple of hours vs a couple of months.
fully CG movies DO take more time to make than a live action movie, but think about the time constraints of the actors. shooting actors motion capture and voice recording vs shooting actors live action takes much less time and effort and you don't have to be constricted to waiting for multiple actors to be in the same place at the same time. although that's always preferred...sometimes the option is just not there. not to mention if the actors need to be brought back for "reshoots" they don't have to look exactly the same as they did months before and they don't have to bring back EVERY actor that was involved with the scene unless EVERYTHING was changed. i guess i shouldn't have used the phrase "time constraints"....."scheduling constraints" would be more like it.

Weather conditions have been no problem ever since movie studios have discovered this thing called greenscreen and soundstages.
yet greenscreen and soundstages didn't prevent Star Wars, Phantom Menace from being hit by a big storm or some of the set from Pirates of the Carribean being damaged. weather isn't AS MUCH of a factor as it used to be but it still can put a halt on production. unless it's an unusually horrific storm you don't have to worry about that on a fully cg movie.

And getting in harms way? Thats why we have digital and real stuntspeople.
it's the same amount of work in modeling, texturing, and rigging a cg stunt double. all Zemeckis is doing is taking it a step further and using them as actors. as for real stunt people....you're still putting human life in harm's way to get a quick shot of the person's body.

baewolf looks cool and I will see it because I work in cg and usually see most cg features that come up but make no mistake it is nothing other than Zemekis having a hard on lately for performance capture and it could have been easily done with live action and would have been so much better for it too.
it's obvious he has a hard-on for CG but i didn't realize Zemeckis exploring the boundaries of CG and motion capture was only a tiny bit more than "nothing".

I echo leighs sentiments , if it is not going to be stylized but just look real whats the point? I thought the point and beauty of cg is to do things we cant do in reallife.
c'mon man. take a look at this very forum...there are probably thousands of renders here that aim to make a 100% photorealistic person. i don't see anyone going into those threads and asking THEM what's the point of making it look realistic.

what's the point? to push the boundaries, to explore the territory, to see if they can do it. i'm not saying Zemeckis is there yet....he has quite a ways to go, but there are PLENTY of shots in the trailer that initially made me do a double take. in MY opinion asking "what's the point of doing a realistic CG film when you can just do it live action" is the same as asking "what's the point of painting a realistic portrait when you can just take a picture?"

Venkman
07-26-2007, 06:18 PM
Well, here's impressions of someone who's seen more than the trailer.

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/33456

Granted, he is a film buff, but so am I, so I enjoy reading these type of impressions. I can't help but get excited and it pains me to see so many swear off the film so early!

Phrenzy84
07-26-2007, 06:20 PM
can you imagine how cool this would be if it had the characterization of gears of war. Loads of room for detail but just alot more cooler (of course that opinion). Almost Marv-like.

It looks like a good movie, great cg on the most part, there are a few issues about angie's lips, get any hd version and you can see the fade when she comes out of the water. A little too inflated, which when you are doing cg humans is just wrong looking. Could be a shader issue or modelling.

when capturing real humans, if the smallest detail is out, only by a little, its "off".

I hope they take advantage of these cg creations though.

The stills look great as i think everyone knew they would, but animation wise, few skecthy areas, mainly the anthony hopkins character,one thing i noticed, with so many wrinkles, its only the main ones that pop in and out when certain shapes are made, the rest is just normal bind by the looks of things.

I just think these projects will always be impossible, if it succeeds, can you imagine how many studios are gonna be expected to recreate the results on a much smaller buget? Guess alot of artist wont be seeing their friends and family anymore.

and if it fails, then the only cg movies we will probably be subjected to, is a family catoon style, which is great when its done well, but i dont just want that to be the only room for cg filmaking.

Id love to see a feature film like ryan (chris landreth), maybe toned a little bit down, still looks amazing.

mike33
07-26-2007, 06:29 PM
First impressions: The trailer has the same lifelessness that Final Fantasy and the Polar Express had.

I can understand Final Fantasy's efforts... but after that Polar Express proved that to much reality in a stylized 'animated' film could be lifeless and stiff to.

Question is, will the story hold up? A good story may wash out some of the flaws in this style of 'animation' [is it really animation, or is it something else?].

Maybe that's the big issue... they're missing the 100% animation certificate that Pixar used on Ratatouille.

Small tidbit, Both Polar Express and Beowulf concept art came from Doug Chiang, and www.iceblink.com (http://www.iceblink.com).

I look forward to some more trailers to see if I'll change my first impressions.

Cheers...

Mike

Venkman
07-26-2007, 06:31 PM
there are a few issues about angie's lips, get any hd version and you can see the fade when she comes out of the water. A little too inflated, which when you are doing cg humans is just wrong looking. Could be a shader issue or modelling.

Of course, her lips are gigantic and inflated looking in real life. ;)

bry
07-26-2007, 06:32 PM
the technology and art form of computer graphics is being explored, its potential as an expressive medium broadened, isn't that more interesting than quibbling about how it could all be done cheaper and easier?

It's definitely way less interesting than a well shot and acted film. Final Fantasy worked for the challenge of recreating humans with CG imagery, but doing the same again and again is just pointless, specially if it looks like crap as this definitely does!

Why wasn't snow white live action? Why aren't most films comic books instead?

That's a really bad comparison. Snow White never tried to use the technique and art to replicate reality, it has its own style both in look and movement, it's got nothing to do with what's being discussed here. They were not trying to expensively achieve the same look they could get for much cheaper in reality, and they were definitely not failing big time in what they were attempting to do, as is clearly the case with Beowulf.

If you use a cheap actress and turn her into a CG Angelina Jolie it wouldn't make it a better choice, but I obviously could understand it better, for money reasons, but hiring the real thing and spending loads of additional money to get the crappiest look and performance of her you've ever seen on screen is plain ridiculous.

I was looking forward for this film because the script was written by Neil Gaiman and Roger Avary, both great at what they do, but I can't really imagine how I could be more disappointed after looking at this trailer.

b.

Capel
07-26-2007, 06:48 PM
what's the point? to push the boundaries, to explore the territory, to see if they can do it. i'm not saying Zemeckis is there yet....he has quite a ways to go, but there are PLENTY of shots in the trailer that initially made me do a double take. in MY opinion asking "what's the point of doing a realistic CG film when you can just do it live action" is the same as asking "what's the point of painting a realistic portrait when you can just take a picture?"

quoted for agreement. geez some of you guys are so silly. so quick to jump on the forums and shout "Meh" from the rooftops. this is no different than when people were "experimenting" with visual effects back in the 80's. up until jurassic park none of it looked 100% convincing but guess what... they kept trying until it was perfected. now we have optimus prime, davy jones, kong, gollum... how is this any different? steven speilberg and james cameron are puttting time and money into this process because they can see how it will help them make the kind of films they want to make. i think that says something about this medium. having complete control over every facial expression should be a directors dream. you just need the right people sitting behind the computers. look at gollum and kong.

i for one am excited about the fact that filmmakers are pushing the boundaries of CG and in the meantime providing JOBS FOR ALL YOU SCRUBS THAT ARE SO QUICK TO JUMP ON THE FORUMS AND BASH INNOVATION. One thing's for sure: this community has it's fair share of self-righteous crybabies.

jussing
07-26-2007, 06:48 PM
But since i had work in this film I take those comments very personal, just because I know all the hard work, long days and nights to make this film.Well, as you'll see from my previous posts (if you're still reading this thread instead of unsubscribing, just like me :rolleyes: ), I admired the hard work put in the movie by the graphics artists. Making 99% real humans is god damn hard, and no, I can't even do 90% humans by a longshot.

And..... there's my point again, right there. When 99% is so hard, why bother? Pushing technology is admirable, but from a movie-making perspective this is doing it the hard way, knowing that best case scenario is that it'll look like something that was a hundred times cheaper. Why do that? I'll mention the uncanny valley like a buzzword for the umpteenth time - a 99% photoreal human is creepy! That's not new knowledge. It's not something that was invented in these threads. Rob Z knew that before making this film.

I love the look of Blur-style game cinematics, and Final Flight of The Osiris, but they're over the top action, not up-close and personal dialogue. Yeah, there were intimate close-ups in "Osiris", but they were stripping each other's clothes off with samurai swords while bullet-timing around in a virtual dojo! That's cool!

I'm sure Beowulf is packed with cool action and awesome out-of-this-world shots, but I'm also sure they're not making a feature film without close dialogue (and, I saw the trailer). See, game cinematics and shorts like "Osiris" can get away with action-only storytelling, because they're short.

Peace all,
- Jonas

SheepFactory
07-26-2007, 06:49 PM
This is true i am probably out of line,

But since i had work in this film I take those comments very personal, just because I know all the hard work, long days and nights to make this film. just to see people talk bad about it.

PS: Since I am directly connected to this film this is my last post. :wise: Thank you



But i think we all here do CG, isn't that right?!


Nobody here is dissing the work of the artists . You guys obviously did a phenomenal job. The thing being argued is why all that talent is not used towards something more stylized, the only one responsible for that mistake is zemekis in my opinion. Now most everyone will once again play the "oh this part didnt look real either" game while watching it instead of enjoying the story.

Also this is cgtalk , the land of "I HATE THIS MOVIE , THE DIRECTOR SHOULD BURN IN HELL!" before the movie comes out and "OMG IT WAS THE BEST" after it comes out. Have you guys forgotten the transformers thread? ;)

BigPixolin
07-26-2007, 06:52 PM
, specially if it looks like crap as this definitely does!


This thread is going to spiral out of control just like the Transformer threads.
That statement is extremely over the top.
Whether you can see the benefits of a photo-real CG movie or not.
The overall look of this movie is far from crap. If the look of this movie is crap then anything and everything before it is 10 times worst.

jussing
07-26-2007, 06:55 PM
now we have optimus prime, davy jones, kong, gollum... how is this any different? Because people exist.

BigPixolin
07-26-2007, 06:55 PM
Also this is cgtalk , the land of "I HATE THIS MOVIE , THE DIRECTOR SHOULD BURN IN HELL!" before the movie comes out and "OMG IT WAS THE BEST" after it comes out. Have you guys forgotten the transformers thread? ;)


LOL that should be the subtitle.

Venkman
07-26-2007, 06:57 PM
And..... there's my point again, right there. When 99% is so hard, why bother?

We can argue this in circles, but I think the old phrase "because it's there" comes to mind.

Pentagramma
07-26-2007, 06:59 PM
Hmm, one more for the "What´s the point" gang.

The CG looks great at times, no question about it. My doubt is: why wasting a real performance (like Hopkins´) inside a CG mask, even if a nice looking one?

It would make a lot more sense to me if they followed the "300" approach: real actors and gorgeous, impossible CG sets , creatures and situations .

Well, I love the works of Neil Gaiman, so let´s hope this project works. After all, it´s the story that counts, and all that.

P.S.: But all those zombie kids on Polar Express still gimme the creeps... :eek:

ingramworks
07-26-2007, 07:02 PM
One thing's for sure: this community has it's fair share of self-righteous crybabies.

Wow, sorry, I didn't realize giving an opinion was being a cry-baby.


, specially if it looks like crap as this definitely does!


And another wow. I couldn't disagree more. The movie's visuals look great. Sans my opinion on the characters, and even they look good visually, everything else looks amazing. Honestly, giving the writers and the overalll visual effects, if it wasn't for the use of CG characers, I'd be really excited to see the film. As it is now, I just have reservations on how destracting, or not destracting, the characters will be to the story telling.

JulianS
07-26-2007, 07:04 PM
this is true i guess i got carried away. now i am having fun reading, and seeing the support from the people who understands. :)

This a quote from a great friend currently still working on the film.

" People in CG are pissed we make CG films"

We can argue this in circles, but I think the old phrase "because it's there" comes to mind.

Capel
07-26-2007, 07:06 PM
Because people exist.

...huh?

the only real complaint i have about this trailer is the facial animation. that shot at the end, the close-up of beowulf screaming is a good example of how a lot of the facial stuff will probably be in this movie. (i hope i'm wrong) it could just be pushed so much further. but that has next to nothing to do with the "style" of the characters. it has everything to do with the animation.

i could care less about the style. sure it could have been done so many different ways, but i'm just glad they're pushing this medium. in ten years we'll see photoreal humans and stylized photoreal humans alike where genius directors like spielberg can tweak those performances to their hearts content. in the long run beowulf and other films like it are just paving the way to better and better movies.

Venkman
07-26-2007, 07:08 PM
This a quote from a great friend currently still working on the film.

" People in CG are pissed we make CG films"

That's funny and kind of sad! Tell him I'm excited he's making the movie. :)

bentllama
07-26-2007, 07:09 PM
UNCANNY VALLEY (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley)

Capel
07-26-2007, 07:10 PM
Wow, sorry, I didn't realize giving an opinion was being a cry-baby.

i was referring to posts like the one you quoted from bry. come on now. use that deductive reasoning god gave you. :)

BigPixolin
07-26-2007, 07:15 PM
When on screen right now the only thing human actors have over digital actors is fluid movement. Once that hurdle is over come. Digital actors will have a boat load of advantages to human actors.

I think the "whole whats the point" issue is well known by now. Nothing more there to add that hasn't been already said. Mostly becuase it's a really weak argument.
I think this thread would be better off if we started talking about the film and techniques behind it. All this pointless arguing over the inevitable is going to get us nowhere.
No matter how many people are against it, the movie will still be released and more will be sure to come.

Kwe
07-26-2007, 07:17 PM
quoted for agreement. geez some of you guys are so silly. so quick to jump on the forums and shout "Meh" from the rooftops. this is no different than when people were "experimenting" with visual effects back in the 80's. up until jurassic park none of it looked 100% convincing but guess what... they kept trying until it was perfected. now we have optimus prime, davy jones, kong, gollum... how is this any different? steven speilberg and james cameron are puttting time and money into this process because they can see how it will help them make the kind of films they want to make. i think that says something about this medium. having complete control over every facial expression should be a directors dream. you just need the right people sitting behind the computers. look at gollum and kong.

i for one am excited about the fact that filmmakers are pushing the boundaries of CG and in the meantime providing JOBS FOR ALL YOU SCRUBS THAT ARE SO QUICK TO JUMP ON THE FORUMS AND BASH INNOVATION. One thing's for sure: this community has it's fair share of self-righteous crybabies.


great post, Capel. i'm surprised to see so many people turn a cold shoulder in a forum where creativity and artistry is supposed to be encouraged. i think most detractors seem to be caught up in "why do it in the first place" instead of "what's wrong with the picture". they're thinking counter-productive as opposed to productive. i have no problem with people saying that the movie looks fake or that the animation isn't that great...but when you question why they're doing it in the first place you might as well question why everyone on this site is interested in art and CG. the answer to that question is the reason why most of the people involved in the movie are doing it.

i think a lot of people tend to get caught up in the technicality of it all and lose focus on the heart and art of it all. there's no greater purpose in any art other than to simply create....and that's exactly what Zemeckis is doing.

jussing
07-26-2007, 07:19 PM
now we have optimus prime, davy jones, kong, gollum... how is this any different? Because people exist.

OK, let me rephrase that... What I mean is, you can film people. You can't film dinos and King Kongs.

But in addition to that, the sheer amount of time we spend reading human faces every single day makes it virtually impossible to fake, compared to dinos, King Kongs and giant transformers robots. Granted, when you make something like Kong, you still have to do a darn good job at fur, gravity, character, performance and all that, to make it look photoreal, but since we haven't ever seen a giant monkey trash buildings like that, they can get away with 99% or less. Tons of visual effects get away with 98% and look awesome, but cause a giant tidal wave trashing New York is still pretty cool even if it lacks 2%.

Human faces can't! We know them too well.

We can argue this in circles, but I think the old phrase "because it's there" comes to mind.

Fair point! I also believe in going to the moon, Mars and cloning mammuts and dinosaurs, just because it would be cool if we could.

All I can say about Beowulf is, though they might have improved over Final Fantasy, I think they're still in the uncanny valley, and the performances look stiff. So, I don't think I'm going to like the movie. I don't know that for certain, but based on the trailer, that's my guess.

And, because the existence and dangers of the uncanny valley have been well known for a long time, it just puzzles me that they are making a whole new movie like it.

It's not that I think making Beowulf is WRONG, it's just that I think it looks uncanny, and I don't understand why they would make something that looks uncanny.

Of course, if enough people like it, then that doesn't matter. :)

- Jonas

Cig74
07-26-2007, 07:30 PM
Why the hell is Zemeckis mo-cap happy all of the sudden? He's obviously not doing a very good job with it. I was really psyched about about the possibilities of a big production "Beowulf", but this is thoroughly disappointing. And whats up with Grendel? He literally looks like a long piece of crap flailing his arms about. That's the best that they could do with his design? Everything just looks so.. PLAIN.

ingramworks
07-26-2007, 07:39 PM
i was referring to posts like the one you quoted from bry. come on now. use that deductive reasoning god gave you. :)


okay, point taken, call me touchy :)

A friend attending ComicCon just called and told me they are having a Beowulf presentation today at the show. I hope they show some more visuals beside the trailer and put them out on the web.

Kwe
07-26-2007, 07:46 PM
for those asking,"why do a photorealistic CG film in the first place?"...ever think about being able to watch the whole movie in IMAX3D as opposed to only certain scenes (ala live action Superman Returns and Harry Potter)?

Bentagon
07-26-2007, 07:47 PM
Another one for they "why?" camp.

To me, it sounds ignorant to ask why we're at these forums if we can't support this. As fx artists, you're part of the filmmaking process. The filmmaking progress is about talking about something the best way possible. Whether it's a theme or a story or just something that makes people laugh or have fun. Doing it this way does not look like the best way to make a film like this. Cheaper? According to wikipedia, the budget was $150 mil. The whole LOTR trilogy was made for less than 300. About 94 mil / film. Progression in the CG field? It would've been cheaper and more productive to get the top artists of this team together for a few years longer, and let them replicate themselves, rather than paying more artists to recreate actors that cost millions of dollars in a shorter amount of time. Now, I've heard someone else mention that performance capture would be great if they use it for a specific look, like the Frazetta style. I agree. I think performance capture would've been the better decision over animation or live action for a film that looked like this (http://www.rpgnet.gr/store/frazetta/frank_frazetta_kaneonthegoldensea.jpg), or this (http://warchild13.com/images/images/Frazetta-Conan.jpg), or this (http://frazetta.ragnarok.no/images/frank_frazetta_warrior.jpg), or this (http://www.alanmooresenhordocaos.hpg.ig.com.br/frank_frazetta_thedisagreement.JPG), or this (http://www.alanmooresenhordocaos.hpg.ig.com.br/FrankFrazetta3.JPG), or this (http://domlevinfo.free.fr/Pages/FrazettaF/images/FranckFrazetta_10.jpg), or this (http://fantasyart.nice.ru/i/full/Frank_Frazetta/3412280.JPG), or this (http://severedways.com/frank_frazetta_thesnowgiants.jpg), or this (http://www.craice.com.br/Frazetta/Frazetta_Conan_the_Usurper.jpg), and I would've been all over it, eating it up. It could've been one of the most groundbreaking and beatiful pictures in film history. The way it looks now? Not really. I doubt I'll be buying a ticket.

It reminds me of something someone I've worked for mentioned. He's been everything from dancer over designer to painter, but his main passion was film, so he was an old-school director and producer, but more importantly here, cinematographer. One day, he talked about camera focus. These days, change of focus is often done digitally. It's understandable, because for scenes that need this and have to be choreographed etc it can be incredibly difficult for the one controlling the focus to get things right. And so much can go wrong due to other people too, so if they do have it right, it doesn't mean the take's a good one. So doing it digitally saves a lot of time and money. However, he can feel it. He can instantly recognize when the focus was altered digitally afterwards instead of done manually on the spot. You and I wouldn't notice, but he does. The Black Dahlia used it, while Road To Perdition didn't. He understands why they do it, but it still bothers him. He can feel it, and it's as if some soul is lost along the way. Yes, only an expert like him notices, but we're all experts on how we look. Even if it seems to look real, I think there'll always be some soul lost along the way.

Anyways, on a whole other note, completely neglecting how it was made, does anybody else feel like this trailer in itself is rather dull? It wouldn't get me to see it even if it was live-action...

BigPixolin
07-26-2007, 07:52 PM
I just showed all the people in my office all non cg execpt for one. They were all blown away.
One comment was "This will be really cool when this is the standard and it's knocks people like Tom Cruise down a peg or two"

Capel
07-26-2007, 07:52 PM
OK, let me rephrase that... What I mean is, you can film people. You can't film dinos and King Kongs.....


Human faces can't! We know them too well.

i see what you're getting at, but i still disagree with the second part. notice how you cleverly left gollum out of your post? see gollum was human enough to defeat your argument. it HAS been done. what leaves me confused is this: why does (and i'm only judging from the trailer) Beowulf seem to have taken a step backwards when compared to Monster House in terms of facial animation? it seems like Zemeckis may be under the impression that the more realistic his characters look, the more the facial animation needs to be toned down. this, to me, is almost the opposite of what should be happening. push the facial acting almost as far as it's pushed in a movie like the incredibles and i think we'd have a solution.

bscott
07-26-2007, 07:55 PM
I agree. And it makes me wonder, why would anyone paint a sunset or a portrait, when you could get more realistic results by snapping a photo? I mean, these so-called "artists" can take all sorts of liberties with their paint brushes, robbing a picture of the realism it deserves! I mean isnt this why invented the camera - to put an end to any sort of deviation from reality?!



Anyways, the movie looks cool.

bry
07-26-2007, 07:58 PM
for those asking,"why do a photorealistic CG film in the first place?"...ever think about being able to watch the whole movie in IMAX3D as opposed to only certain scenes (ala live action Superman Returns and Harry Potter)?

Do you know if they're rendering the film with stereoscopic output (two cameras)? If not (which is very likely) then it's exactly the same thing... the only advantage is that you can render alpha channels and don't have to rotoscope the different planes, but other than that it's still fake 3D imax, not like Ghosts of The Abyss or other films shot with 2 cameras.

It's amazing how many people speak up for the effects and are willing to sacrifice a good story. Story and pacing should always come first, VFX by themselves are completely pointless, and I do work in VFX. This one doesn't even look good, it would be a cool looking videogame cinematic, but it's far from looking good for a feature film.

I still have a lot of faith in the script, and that's what should come first, but this approach is definitely not doing any script any justice.

b.

Capel
07-26-2007, 08:04 PM
The filmmaking progress is about talking about something the best way possible.

exactly. which is why spielberg went with cg dinosaurs instead of stop-motion. it was the best way to do it. don't you wonder why such visionaries as Speilberg and Cameron are investing so much time and money into this medium? because EVENTUALLY it will be exactly how we all hoped Beowulf would be... trial and error my friend. and the end justifies the means 100 fold in my opinion.

I think performance capture would've been the better decision over animation or live action for a film that looked like this (http://www.rpgnet.gr/store/frazetta/frank_frazetta_kaneonthegoldensea.jpg), or this (http://warchild13.com/images/images/Frazetta-Conan.jpg), or this (http://frazetta.ragnarok.no/images/frank_frazetta_warrior.jpg), or this (http://www.alanmooresenhordocaos.hpg.ig.com.br/frank_frazetta_thedisagreement.JPG), or this (http://www.alanmooresenhordocaos.hpg.ig.com.br/FrankFrazetta3.JPG), or this (http://domlevinfo.free.fr/Pages/FrazettaF/images/FranckFrazetta_10.jpg), or this (http://fantasyart.nice.ru/i/full/Frank_Frazetta/3412280.JPG), or this (http://severedways.com/frank_frazetta_thesnowgiants.jpg), or this (http://www.craice.com.br/Frazetta/Frazetta_Conan_the_Usurper.jpg), and I would've been all over it, eating it up.

i agree that the style could be better, but you're missing the point. comments like, "Why not do it live action?" are the ones being scrutinized here. i just think that's such a boring paradigm. push the limits of the medium. it didn't quite work? well push again. a little better but not quite there? push again.

I doubt I'll be buying a ticket.

i don't believe you.

but we're all experts on how we look. Even if it seems to look real, I think there'll always be some soul lost along the way.

so you think that noone will ever master perfect facial animation on a photoreal cg character? ...that assumption is just silly. nevermind the fact that it's already been done.

xen_ninja
07-26-2007, 08:06 PM
I agree that in some instances , the human faces in the Beowulf trailer seem off. I wonder if they're simply using the "Lightstage" imageworks is so proud of. I'll be honest I really hate Image-based approach to digital characters and I concede that in some (rare) cases they give convincing results. Image based is much too restrictive I fear. Nonetheless there is a really convincing technique for photoreal human skin out there that can simulate all types of skin (Asian , Afro , Caucasian) . I posted it long time ago but now this seems really relevant. A technique by Craig Donner and Henrink Wann Jensen .

http://graphics.ucsd.edu/%7Ecdonner/thumbs/skin.jpg
Read the Paper for more example images ( really good of asian skin type). This way you can take one single texture/albedo map and make it into any skin type you want. It's a shame that it relies on spectral sampling meaning it takes ages to render. Link (http://graphics.ucsd.edu/papers/egsr2006skin/egsr2006skin.pdf)
Even more promising , the same authors came up with a more accurate SubSUrface scatterign solution this year.
(http://graphics.ucsd.edu/papers/photon_diffusion/photon_diffusion.pdf)Rendering Translucent Materials Using Photon Diffusion (http://forums.cgsociety.org/)

I have said it before and I'll say it again someone needs to make that Maxwell render more effcient. I'm pretty sure Weta Digital will take advantage of them.

ingramworks
07-26-2007, 08:15 PM
it seems like Zemeckis may be under the impression that the more realistic his characters look, the more the facial animation needs to be toned down. this, to me, is almost the opposite of what should be happening. push the facial acting almost as far as it's pushed in a movie like the incredibles and i think we'd have a solution.

I so agree! That's really my sticking point. It's not so much the body movement, in some places in both FF and Poler Express it was, but not in general. To me, it's all about the faces (and the hands to a lesser extent).

Now, from what I understand, and please correct me if I'm wrong, animators in Polar Express and Beowulf aren't keying the expressions or lip sync. I'm lead to believe they aren't even tweaking them beyond clean-up.

I truely belive that as human's we see each other much more in an interpative way when we interact, thus making an exact duplication of our expressions seem less alive as compared to a more interpative, more exaggerated representation (i.e. Incredibles, Monster House). I think that is why gollum was so effective.

It's this disconnect in the believablity of the faces that I worry will get in the way of the storytelling. I honestly think, that without some amount of key animation of the character faces, there's no amount of mocap technology that will ever get it right. Could be wrong, only time will tell.

Solothores
07-26-2007, 08:22 PM
When on screen right now the only thing human actors have over digital actors is fluid movement. Once that hurdle is over come. Digital actors will have a boat load of advantages to human actors.

I am not so sure about that. Imho there is a lot more to believable human "performance" than just fluid movement. To turn this into a bad example: Get rid of any fantasy/scifi/cartoon background and root it into a scenario in which a movie is solely driven by the chemistry of an small cast and you will see what I mean.

jussing
07-26-2007, 08:43 PM
notice how you cleverly left gollum out of your post? see gollum was human enough to defeat your argument. it HAS been done.I disagree! (of course :) )

Gollum is, in his very design, UNCANNY. He is almost human, but so off in shape and form that he supposed to be creepy. A lacking 1% or 2% won't make a difference.

Slightly OT, one thought-provoking use of CG humans is in the french Immortel (http://www.immortel-lefilm.com/immortel_ba.html)(Bilal's self-adaption) where the main characters are live-action, but the humans that have had implants in the face and stuff, are CG. I still say that's a waste of money, a slap of make-up would have done the job, but the funny thing was the very PURPOSE of using CG people to reach uncannyness.

Cheers,
- Jonas

BigPixolin
07-26-2007, 08:47 PM
I am not so sure about that. Imho there is a lot more to believable human "performance" than just fluid movement. To turn this into a bad example: Get rid of any fantasy/scifi/cartoon background and root it into a scenario in which a movie is solely driven by the chemistry of an small cast and you will see what I mean.

That just showcases another benefit of the digital character. Tweak the performance until it is exactly what you want and fits perfectly with the scene.

Your post was kind of off of my the point of my post. I think.
If we can get fluid movement out of digital character on screen they will have tremendous advantages and oppurtinities that real life actors just can't do. If the digital actors can do everything a human actor can do plus all the things a human actor can't. The digital actor wins. Human actors will always have to rely on a digital double or special effects to do what the digital actors can do the same as it does everything else seamlessly.

BigPixolin
07-26-2007, 08:59 PM
The same could be said about the automotive industry.

Why make a cg commercial of a new car when you can film it?
Becuase you can get more dynamic motion and camera angles.
And I'm sure there is plenty more they squeeze out of them.
Most new car commercials are cg. They must be doing something right.

jussing
07-26-2007, 09:00 PM
If the digital actors can do everything a human actor can do plus all the things a human actor can't. The digital actor wins.Your name is Miles Dyson and you are gonna build robots that take over the world...
-Or Tyrell, and your motto is "more human than human"

Really, where's the faith in a flesh and blood human in front of a camera?? No digital actor is going to out-human humans!

You digital performance is going to be based on a human performance anyway, so why not just film the sucker and call it a wrap.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'll have to go back in time to meet someone.

Cheers,
- Kyle Reese

Ivan D Young
07-26-2007, 09:15 PM
Did anyone notice that in the trailer none of the characters blink? Yeah, I would say a couple of the charaters squint. You just can't see the characters blink in the trailer. I think if they would have put up some footage that shows there really cool characters acting real that would of been better.

JamesMK
07-26-2007, 09:17 PM
Just watch "Le Fabuleux destin d'Amélie Poulain", then tell me mocap, performance cap, facial cap, whatever cap can do anything useful in terms of human performance. Put any real human clip side-by-side with the trailer and you'll see the full scope of the problems here. No, comparing it to Final Fantasy means nothing.

(and as pointed out previously, nobody is complaining about the efforts and skill demonstrated by the 3D artists working on Beowulf, which is undoubtedly 100% state of the art)

BigPixolin
07-26-2007, 09:22 PM
Your name is Miles Dyson and you are gonna build robots that take over the world...
-Or Tyrell, and your motto is "more human than human"

Really, where's the faith in a flesh and blood human in front of a camera?? No digital actor is going to out-human humans!

You digital performance is going to be based on a human performance anyway, so why not just film the sucker and call it a wrap.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'll have to go back in time to meet someone.

Cheers,
- Kyle Reese


Your comments are extremely close minded and short sighted.
Your fooling yourself if you think digital actors will not reach the human level.
Look at the progress made in the last ten years.
Your telling me in a hundred years they will never be to that quality?

The reason we use digital doubles is becuase humans can't do what they can.
Humans will never be able to do what a digital actor can do on screen not 100 years from now or a thousand.

Per-Anders
07-26-2007, 09:28 PM
Looking at it dispassionately, purely as movie-goer, I'm sorry but it seems pretty meh, like stepping back 20 years to the time of cheesy low budget Conan-esque stuff. It just feels too video game cut-scene (not that videogame cutscenes aren't technically amazing these days), but I'm talking not as a CG Artist but just as someone looking at it in terms of "would I enjoy seeing this movie, does it stand out?", and the answer is no, it doesn't, it looks like a slightly upmarket Uwe Boll film (remember this is not about CG here just as a movie, as a trailer, as things stand, as a movie-goer I'm not interested in cg or groundbreaking this or that, only in "is it any good as a film?").

From a technical point of view it's pretty awesome, the skin shaders, textures and hair are particularly impressive, the water effects it has to be said look bad and very artificial, the animation is definitely in the uncanny valley territory, stuff moves but in great solid masses, there's little subtlety, no sense of muscle in the faces, however it's light-years beyond what was done before in this area so those that worked on it should be thoroughly congratulated, and they should feel rightly proud of the work they've done.

From an artistic point of view, I'm with the "why?" crowd. "Because" isn't really a good enough answer, I don't think anyone has to like or even appreciate something "because" you see, so there needs to be more. Also I'd like to hear not reasons why the idea in general is a good idea, but why in specific for this film, what is the justification in this specific instance, given what has been done.

Laa-Yosh
07-26-2007, 09:31 PM
Off topic

Laa-Yosh, when are you guys gonna show us another masterpiece by digic pictures?

Heh, thanks ;) Digic had some movie VFX for last summer for a hungarian movie, but we have a couple of projects in the pipe. They're all smaller scale though, so don't expect anything like that WH intro. That and Exigo were semi-internal projects as the game developer Black Hole belongs to the same parent company (Cinergi Interactive).

Solothores
07-26-2007, 09:36 PM
That just showcases another benefit of the digital character. Tweak the performance until it is exactly what you want and fits perfectly with the scene.

Aye, I guess this is definitly where we disagree.

The point I try to make here, is if your tweakable digital actor will ever live up to the same quality of performance that an educated & experienced actor can reach by himself by using all means to his full extent? While you expect that this somewhen might be a non-issue, as the technology will enable him to do exactly that, without any loss at all.

And this is what I am not so sure about. You see, even now, when it comes to anything that involves your ordinary TV screen, it fails in projecting what good actors are able to create live on stage through presence and chemistry between each other in your ordinary theater play. (Same goes for live concerts etc) And this is "basically said" just a recording that actually consists all the fluid movements or even just the music (if you go for live concerts).

I hope I was clear in what I tried to hint at. ;)

BigPixolin
07-26-2007, 09:48 PM
Aye, I guess this is definitly where we disagree.

The point I try to make here, is if your tweakable digital actor will ever live up to the same quality of performance that an educated & experienced actor can reach by himself by using all means to his full extent? While you expect that this somewhen might be a non-issue, as the technology will enable him to do exactly that, without any loss at all.

And this is what I am not so sure about. You see, even now, when it comes to anything that involves your ordinary TV screen, it fails in projecting what good actors are able to create live on stage through presence and chemistry between each other in your ordinary theater play. (Same goes for live concerts etc) And this is "basically said" just a recording that actually consists all the fluid movements or even just the music (if you go for live concerts).

I hope I was clear in what I tried to hint at. ;)

Ah yes I agree there is more than just fluid movement left to conquer in CG.
I will revise my statment. If we can acheive whats left to get a digital actor to appear human on screen then the digital actor will have the advantage over the human counterpart, since the human can never over come our human limitations.

Think of the digital actor as the ultimate cyborg.
Uh oh we might get into a why make cyborgs when we already have humans discussion?

Bentagon
07-26-2007, 09:56 PM
exactly. which is why spielberg went with cg dinosaurs instead of stop-motion. it was the best way to do it. don't you wonder why such visionaries as Speilberg and Cameron are investing so much time and money into this medium? because EVENTUALLY it will be exactly how we all hoped Beowulf would be... trial and error my friend. and the end justifies the means 100 fold in my opinion.There's a difference in what Spielberg did and Cameron is doing here. Some fx artist did a dino test in their spare time, showed it to Spielberg, and won him over, because it was going to give a better result than stopmo or animatronics in every scene. Cameron is going for CG because it's his thing, not because the results will have a better effect.

i agree that the style could be better, but you're missing the point. comments like, "Why not do it live action?" are the ones being scrutinized here. i just think that's such a boring paradigm. push the limits of the medium. it didn't quite work? well push again. a little better but not quite there? push again.A filmmaker should try to tell his story the best way he can. If he does tests and it doesn't work, he can wait with that film a few years, or make it another better way and try it with another story a few years later, or like I suggested, get a crew to do some years of research so he's sure it works. At least that's how it should be ideally. I bet you'll progress faster if you try to push again with every test you do, instead of having tests be a thousand takes long, take 3 years and cost 150 million dollars.

i don't believe you.Oh believe me. Aside from Pan's Labyrinth, I haven't seen a fantasy film or big FX film in theatres since LOTR 3. And films like Narnia and the Harry Potters did interest me. I was highly anticipating this movie, hoping it looked great, but the trailer's disappointing.

so you think that noone will ever master perfect facial animation on a photoreal cg character? ...that assumption is just silly. nevermind the fact that it's already been done. Oh I think they'll get the look right. But I don't think it'll ever have the same effect on people, somehow. I believe in the intangible factor of soul. Might not sound logical, but I think there's truth in it. It's as if you're taking life and putting it through a(nother) filter. In a similar way as a stage play won't look as impressive when filmed.


Also, as an answer on the "why not" question: because pingpongballs on their body don't exactly make actors comfortable. Without a doubt, the costumes and worlds built around the actors of LOTR helped them get into their roles. Not that the actors necessarilly will give bad performances here, but it'll always make me wonder what the actors would've been able to bring with a normal live-action shoot, which they're used to.

BigPixolin
07-26-2007, 09:59 PM
Oh I think they'll get the look right. But I don't think it'll ever have the same effect on people, somehow. I believe in the intangible factor of soul. Might not sound logical, but I think there's truth in it. It's as if you're taking life and putting it through a(nother) filter. In a similar way as a stage play won't look as impressive when filmed.

They already have the look right, and they are knocking on the door to get it moving just right.
Saying they will never get there is absurd when we are already on the doorstep.

Apoclypse
07-26-2007, 09:59 PM
First of all budget is a mute point , a fully CG production is WAY MORE expensive than if this would have been shot in live action with cg effects here and there. Time constraints please... are you saying it is more time friendly to do fully realistic cg humans then to put a guy in front of the camera get a good dp and shoot. Its a matter of a couple of hours vs a couple of months. Weather conditions have been no problem ever since movie studios have discovered this thing called greenscreen and soundstages.

And getting in harms way? Thats why we have digital and real stuntspeople.

baewolf looks cool and I will see it because I work in cg and usually see most cg features that come up but make no mistake it is nothing other than Zemekis having a hard on lately for performance capture and it could have been easily done with live action and would have been so much better for it too.

I echo leighs sentiments , if it is not going to be stylized but just look real whats the point? I thought the point and beauty of cg is to do things we cant do in reallife.

Geez, I'm glad I'm not the only one. I thought maybe it was just me.

Capel
07-26-2007, 10:00 PM
I disagree! (of course :) )

Gollum is, in his very design, UNCANNY. He is almost human, but so off in shape and form that he's supposed to be creepy. A lacking 1% or 2% won't make a difference.

while i see your point i have to say that if gollum had suffered from the same facial animation that the PE had, you'd have the same result. he'd look like a zombie. sure gollum wasn't exactly human, but the point is that everything from the eye darts to the eyebrow twitches to the choice of expression and the amount that choice was pushed determined how believable gollums performance was. i guarantee that if you put the same quality of facial animation on Beowulf you'll see that guy become more human than you ever thought possible. i really really really do think that the only ingredient missing here is the facial animation. it literally has nothing to do with the style or aesthetic.

Kion
07-26-2007, 10:15 PM
while i see your point i have to say that if gollum had suffered from the same facial animation that the PE had, you'd have the same result. he'd look like a zombie. sure gollum wasn't exactly human, but the point is that everything from the eye darts to the eyebrow twitches to the choice of expression and the amount that choice was pushed determined how believable gollums performance was. i guarantee that if you put the same quality of facial animation on Beowulf you'll see that guy become more human than you ever thought possible. i really really really do think that the only ingredient missing here is the facial animation. it literally has nothing to do with the style or aesthetic.

i agree its really close. animation is now the hurdle, and in animation that could be a number a things, i think time is probably the biggest factor, we'll get there.

Bentagon
07-26-2007, 10:15 PM
They already have the look right, and they are knocking on the door to get it moving just right.
Saying they will never get there is absurd when we are already on the doorstep.Ever considered that the look of a film includes it's movement? And like I said, I think they'll get it to look right, but I doubt it'll ever have the same effect on us (even if just subtlely) as real film.

Capel
07-26-2007, 10:19 PM
You see, even now, when it comes to anything that involves your ordinary TV screen, it fails in projecting what good actors are able to create live on stage through presence and chemistry between each other in your ordinary theater play.

i only quoted this because i feel the exact opposite is true. i don't think actors will ever be able to portray emotion on stage as realistically as they can on camera. the camera picks up EVERYTHING. so the actor isn't forced to be bigger than life so that he/she can project to the people in the back row. i'm a big fan of musical theater and i just saw wicked a few months ago. it was great but i still couldn't help but roll my eyes at how forced and overacted all the dialogue was. the great thing about film is that these actors can be real. in fact if they're anything BUT real the camera seems to magnify it.

so getting back to beowulf, i think these filmmakers are looking to the future and seeing the possibility of tweaking an actors performance so meticulously that it evokes the exact emotion from the audience that the director intended. it seem that zemeckis is trying to get there but has maybe backtracked along the way in terms of facial animation. but nevertheless, i'm assuming that's what he's aiming for.

another advantage i see to doing a film like this all cg is that you don't have any cg creatures that seem to stand out of their environments. granted there aren't ENOUGH effects in this movie to really justify going all cg, (grendel and that dragon) but i can think of a few epic fantasy franchises that could benefit a lot from everything being cg. in a way it would make it more believable. for me there are moments in every movie where an effects just doesn't quite look right and it pulls me out of the experience.

Bentagon
07-26-2007, 10:36 PM
i only quoted this because i feel the exact opposite is true. i don't think actors will ever be able to portray emotion on stage as realistically as they can on camera. the camera picks up EVERYTHING. so the actor isn't forced to be bigger than life so that he/she can project to the people in the back row. i'm a big fan of musical theater and i just saw wicked a few months ago. it was great but i still couldn't help but roll my eyes at how forced and overacted all the dialogue was. the great thing about film is that these actors can be real. in fact if they're anything BUT real the camera seems to magnify it. There's a difference between the acting you'll see in a quality musical and in a quality play. But, you've got a point. It'll never be completely real, because there is an audience in the room, and the stage can't exactly replace everything you can do with film. However, that doesn't mean film gives a much more realistic effect. For the audience, it's a much more accurate/detailed observation of life, but it doesn't come close to being life itself. Film doesn't make it more realistic, it just might communicate better: in reallife, you'll only ever have a "close-up" with those you love. Doesn't mean the other people aren't real. When you take photographs of a trip, or take your videocamera, when you watch those it doesn't nearly resemble your actual experience. It'll only make you recall it. There's something special about seeing an actor on stage where you can actually believe the character he's playing is real while he's there with you (or experiencing a trip, or a concert, or...). On film, you can believe a character is real as well, but you lose that quality of being there with him. It loses a certain "presence". When you put it through an extra CG filter, I believe there'll even be less of that presence. In the same way that I believe that if they ever get holograms really working, when you're watching a play with a perfect hologram, the experience won't be the same as with a real actor there.

ragdoll
07-26-2007, 10:55 PM
posted today and it's already 8 pages deep in replies?

well, my goodness...

is there a record for most replies in one day?

you people must've been itching for a beowulf trailer...

the perfect setup for disappointment...

nick_hiatt
07-26-2007, 11:05 PM
...................,.....

xen_ninja
07-26-2007, 11:33 PM
...................,.....
Bang Ladesh ?
You think you're funny ?

JulianS
07-26-2007, 11:42 PM
Nick_hiatt you rock. :cool: that was funny :p

richcz3
07-26-2007, 11:54 PM
I'll go watch it if the CG component plays 3rd to the story teliing.
So far its rounding out to be a CG Benchmark film like Final Fantasy was.
I almost fell asleep watching Final Fantasy. Other memorable benchmark CG movies come to mind like Twister :rolleyes:.

To date the only movie which I've seen that actually used CG for the purpose of story telling and actually reducing a movies budget instead of bloating it was 300. Definately not my favorite movie, but one where CG helped to tell the story as opposed to being the story.

Svenart
07-27-2007, 12:04 AM
I enjoyed the trailer, well done.

ndat
07-27-2007, 01:15 AM
Wow, they are going for a PG13 rating... Well I really don't want to see it then. What's the point of making a Beowolf movie if your going to make it PG13!? It should be pushing the point of even being able to get an R rating and even then I would want the unrated.

I think that's a far bigger argument then if there is a point to using realistic styled CG.

BillSpradlin
07-27-2007, 01:36 AM
Wow, they are going for a PG13 rating... Well I really don't want to see it then. What's the point of making a Beowolf movie if your going to make it PG13!? It should be pushing the point of even being able to get an R rating and even then I would want the unrated.

I think that's a far bigger argument then if there is a point to using realistic styled CG.

Just because it's PG-13 don't think it's not going to be violent. Remember, violence in CG movies doesn't get the same rating as violence in live action, so you can usually get away with more in a full CG film.

From what I've been reading, it's going to be a bloodbath =)

thatoneguy
07-27-2007, 01:52 AM
I think everyone asking "why not shoot live action, it would look better" is missing the point. Zemeckis didn't go mo-cap because he liked the look better. He did it this way because he likes the process better.

It's the same reason directors shoot on DV with small crews even when they could command an enormous budget. Sure the results look like shit but that was known going in. Nobody can deny shooting a mo-cap movie is a revolution in process regardless of the outcome.

fbonniwell
07-27-2007, 02:03 AM
Not impressed.

Out of curiosity....why don't they just use real actors?

What industry do you work in? CG or Live action?
This is the whole point of being part of the CG industry. It promotes jobs, new technology and a new format for film.
I can vouch there are 6 directors in development to do a mocap film. These are all stepping stones for a new format in film making.


=F

frizDog
07-27-2007, 02:07 AM
Bottom line is its just a different technique of film making. Just like green screen, or shooting digital or film. Zemeckis just likes making movies this way.
Painting didn't go away when artists figured out how to paint 'photo real', actors wont go away that we are getting close to photo-real.

Im reading so much of "why do it cg when you can shoot live action" yet the answer is right there in the casting of the lead.
The film makers obviously loved Ray Winstone as an actor and wanted the Ray Winstone touch....But Ray Winstone isn't a 6 foot, ripped-like-jesus viking guy. With performance capture you can get Ray Winstone's subtlety, voice mannerisms, and translate it to the Beowulf character.
If it comes across as successful we will all have to reserve judgment for when we see the FULL MOVIE!

Weather it was a good idea or not, well thats a personal choice as filmmakers and audiences we can all decide on ourselves.

I thnk it's gonna be cool....weather you think its 100% photo real or not...who cares...just shut up and enjoy the pretty pictures and cool story

BillSpradlin
07-27-2007, 02:08 AM
Here's a pretty cool review of the 20 minutes seen at ComiCon:

http://www.cinematical.com/2007/07/26/comic-con-beowulf-footage-screening-qanda-and-party/

Some interesting quotes:

Avary: "What was important to us was that the technology not get in the way of the performance."

Gaiman: "This is digitally enhanced acting."

Gaiman on the advantages of making the film CGI: "We had a really big talking dragon fight, because we thought it would be much more expensive to show all the action. We basically had a big dragon 'chat', really. However, Zemeckis told us to make it as big as we wanted, because it would cost the same, so now we have a big dragon fight."
Avary: "Yeah, if you're a guy in sitting in a chair, or a dragon destroying the world, it costs the same to animate."

SuperMax
07-27-2007, 02:12 AM
Im confused...

I thought they were real actors made too look like cd models? And i thought they did an awesome job of it until someone mentioned its the other way around?

Lordiego01
07-27-2007, 02:46 AM
I havent read the whole thread.. but I'll chime in..

Artistically it looks absolutely fantastic. I hope the people who worked on this are celebrating like there's no tomorrow for a job well done.

But I must join the "why do it in CG crowd".. I mean.. its like building a simulator of a simulator.

EDIT: Also.. was that the single worst compression ever on a HD trailer, or is something screwd up on my end?

ndat
07-27-2007, 03:13 AM
Just because it's PG-13 don't think it's not going to be violent. Remember, violence in CG movies doesn't get the same rating as violence in live action, so you can usually get away with more in a full CG film.

From what I've been reading, it's going to be a bloodbath =)

Yes I know the US seems to have no problem with violence but what about the nudity and swearing :sad:.

ingramworks
07-27-2007, 04:15 AM
Avary: "Yeah, if you're a guy in sitting in a chair, or a dragon destroying the world, it costs the same to animate."

I'm sorry, I respect the writers and all, but this has to be one of the most uninformed, near-moronic statements about CG animation I've heard in awhile.

ragdoll
07-27-2007, 04:15 AM
nevermind...

Chemix
07-27-2007, 04:20 AM
I think a big part of the problem of making this live action is a recurrent problem in many films today, compositing work. CG elements in live action have yet to consistently match the lighting or shading of a scene, hense everything that is CG, you can usually immediately recognize as CG. There is no suspension of disbelief, it's simply a suspension of caring whether or not something doesn't fit. King Kong came close to perfect in the face scenes with Kong, but it was still off, the skin was either too shiny or too not shiny, and the same problem appears if almost every film and when you look at the way light changes over the surface of real skin when both CG and real are in the same shot, it becomes very obvious which is real and which is drawn by a computer. The same goes for almost any surface from feathers to metal with the rare exception being stone and architectural elements. The shots of "The Narrows" in Batman Begins were indistinguishable from atleast a real life small scale model, if not real life large scale. The only problem was the train and the railway because they introduced very metalic elements which CG just doesn't work realisticly with.

Part of the issue is the use of polygons rather than real curves, but another is the uniform shading of models and the lack of life in a texture. Real skin is saturated and given it's color by the flow of red oxygen carrying blood beneath and throughout the lower epidermus. That flow changes constantly by slight amounts making it almost impossible to manually get similar results without putting in weeks of time into each second of a shot. Procedurally it might be more plausible, but it needs to have a certain randomness to it and it needs to fit the scene, the more passionate a person gets (in a non sexual way) the more their skin reddens from higher blood pressure, whereas it fades when the passion is sexual because the blood focusses on certain specific parts of the body. The other problem is how skin is modeled. Skin is a porus surface and despite all that Zbrush and similar programs are able to accomplish they can't match a natural feel unless the artists use them on a very tiny scale and with variable ammounts. This generates the differences in the relectivity of the skin versus light. Pores are not all open or all closed however you you also have to create the illusion of mixed opened and closed pores while remaining consistant with the area you're dealing with. The face sweats more than the arms, so more pores are wide open or closed which creates big shading differences whereas an arm is generally more uniform.

What it comes down to is, when you do a film all CG, there is no problem with the comparison between real and unreal onscreen, everything looks like it fits and works, the result is simply having to do allot of work for a good end product or having stiff characters making for a bad end product.

If people don't start focussing on CG characters alone, then they will never improve to the point where they can be used in live action without being obviously CG.

xen_ninja
07-27-2007, 04:52 AM
I think a big part of the problem of making this live action is a recurrent problem in many films today, compositing work. CG elements in live action have yet to consistently match the lighting or shading of a scene, hense everything that is CG, you can usually immediately recognize as CG. There is no suspension of disbelief, it's simply a suspension of caring whether or not something doesn't fit. King Kong came close to perfect in the face scenes with Kong, but it was still off, the skin was either too shiny or too not shiny, and the same problem appears if almost every film and when you look at the way light changes over the surface of real skin when both CG and real are in the same shot, it becomes very obvious which is real and which is drawn by a computer.

Part of the issue is the use of polygons rather than real curves, but another is the uniform shading of models and the lack of life in a texture. Real skin is saturated and given it's color by the flow of red oxygen carrying blood beneath and throughout the lower epidermus. That flow changes constantly by slight amounts making it almost impossible to manually get similar results without putting in weeks of time into each second of a shot. Procedurally it might be more plausible, but it needs to have a certain randomness to it and it needs to fit the scene, the more passionate a person gets (in a non sexual way) the more their skin reddens from higher blood pressure, whereas it fades when the passion is sexual because the blood focusses on certain specific parts of the body. The other problem is how skin is modeled. Skin is a porus surface and despite all that Zbrush and similar programs are able to accomplish they can't match a natural feel unless the artists use them on a very tiny scale and with variable ammounts. This generates the differences in the relectivity of the skin versus light. Pores are not all open or all closed however you you also have to create the illusion of mixed opened and closed pores while remaining consistant with the area you're dealing with. The face sweats more than the arms, so more pores are wide open or closed which creates big shading differences whereas an arm is generallly....

If people don't start focussing on CG characters alone, then they will never improve to the point where they can be used in live action without being obviously CG.

I was discussing teh very same thing and two solutions actually came up. Unfortunately their timing was bad. The two research papers came either after or during Beowulf's production . Link to the post and papers : Spectral BSSRDF and Photon Diffusion (http://forums.cgsociety.org/showpost.php?p=4547163&postcount=96)

stevopolis
07-27-2007, 08:24 AM
Final Fantasy, The Spirits Within

I just don't get it; Why do photo-realism in 3D unless the shot requires it? Looks pretty good, although I don't think it is at a point the general public will tolerate yet. The animation is still a bit stiff and off. The poses felt a bit static or frozen at times...

Clanger
07-27-2007, 09:27 AM
Final Fantasy, The Spirits Within

I just don't get it; Why do photo-realism in 3D unless the shot requires it? Looks pretty good, although I don't think it is at a point the general public will tolerate yet. The animation is still a bit stiff and off. The poses felt a bit static or frozen at times...

Because it's a challenge, a big one at that.
Where there's a challenge someone will want to beat it and plenty of people will want to witness it, just questionable whether enough people will want to witness it. I do.

vfx
07-27-2007, 09:52 AM
Stunning! This looks like a beautiful blend of animated story and realism mixed to a new level. I'm giving props to Zemeckis for sticking at it for this long - he obviously has a lot of passion for it!... and yes it's great to see adults and swords instead of damn cuddly animals for a change!

P.S. Whatever happened to the other adult orientated animated film - anne frank?

levin
07-27-2007, 09:55 AM
i'm one of the "why?" people, but maybe what they are trying is to take a leap over the uncanny valley. they are trying to do what "cant be done". because if they pull it off nicely it will be a big milestone.
it's similar to trying to find a cure to an incurable disease.

Spin99
07-27-2007, 10:13 AM
Dude is an abscess an incurable disease?
I'm all hot for this movie already :p

iskon
07-27-2007, 10:43 AM
Is this from Blur? :)

It will be fantastic movie. Congrat to Mr Zemeckis and all guys at Sony!
Great!!!

Breinmeester
07-27-2007, 12:11 PM
That was kind of nice... When is this game coming out for the pc?

Kameleon
07-27-2007, 12:59 PM
Well I like the look, animation still needs some improvement and the choice of making this full CG... well I guess it's a director call, it's is vision maybe, in my opinion it could be filmed or CG.

But in response to what some people say "Why doing it in CG when it could be filmed?", well... Why go to the cinema when you have theaters? Why movies when you can read the book? Or vice-versa... whatever, I really think it's an artistic decision and it seems good for the industry because it will push CG a little forward. Cyas!

Intervain
07-27-2007, 01:25 PM
That was kind of nice... When is this game coming out for the pc?

The Beowulf video game is scheduled for worldwide release in conjunction with the movie’s opening in November 2007 - according to the press release :)

ThomasMahler
07-27-2007, 01:57 PM
I also hoped for WAY more stylization. This looks a little creepy and lifeless - it could be the next Final Fantasy, that's clear. But who knows, maybe the story will be well told. The trailer doesn't work for me at all, looks a lot like those cheap LotR clones that just came out, like Eragon, etc.

In any case, it's good that there are directors investing more and more time into investing CGI and pushing the limits, even if the results may not turn into film-history. I don't quite get why you wouldn't let your artists go crazy and actually create a look that you've never seen before, but go for photo-realism, but hey...

What puts me off the most is the shader work here. Some of those shots, at 1:31 for example, just kill the whole thing. It looks like a videogame intro, which is probably not what you should go for. If you want that sort of look, I think Snyder did a better job with 300.

xen_ninja
07-27-2007, 02:16 PM
maaaan are you guys close minded. All of you should go to film school ,drop out and become film critics. Who knows some of you can make live action indie movies that nobody will watch but at least you shot it live action !!!

BigPixolin
07-27-2007, 02:55 PM
Wouldn't it be awesome if Ray Winstone and Angelina win for best kiss?

Apoclypse
07-27-2007, 03:01 PM
maaaan are you guys close minded. All of you should go to film school ,drop out and become film critics. Who knows some of you can make live action indie movies that nobody will watch but at least you shot it live action !!!



Maybe no one will watch it but at least you have your integrity. If the purpose of making films is to just make money, then I think its flawed. These small indy films that nobody watches as you call them, are where some of the best directors and story tellers in our generation have come from.

ingramworks
07-27-2007, 03:31 PM
i'm one of the "why?" people, but maybe what they are trying is to take a leap over the uncanny valley. they are trying to do what "cant be done". because if they pull it off nicely it will be a big milestone.
it's similar to trying to find a cure to an incurable disease.

I'm certain that is what they are trying to do, and I agree, if they do manage to pull it off this could very well be a industry-changing film. As it looks from the trailer, I'm doubting it. It will certainly be another step forward. They look a lot closer than where they were with Polar Express, though.

I would love to see the day when Uncanny Valley has been broken through, every new tool for expressing a story is always a good thing. I personally doubt it ever can be broken, but it would be awesome.

Venkman
07-27-2007, 03:33 PM
I don't understand why people want to hear a "justification" from Zemeckis. I believe this is the first time I heard of people seeing a trailer and then ask a filmmaker to justify their creative process. How are any of us, as artists, owed an explanation for someone else's choices? I have heard similar comments from difficult clients when it comes to the creative process, but at least those people were directly paying for the choices we wanted to make.

You cold ask that of most directors in any medium. Why did Ralph Bakshi attempt lord of the rings using rotoscoping in the 70's? Bottom line, I didn't care. I was just glad to see someone try to make Lord of the Rings. I watched it, enjoyed it, and still felt that parts of Bakshi's were cooler than Jackson's. One version didn't make me hate the other. I loved them all.

Why do they use stop motion/claymation in Wallace + Gromit when they proved they can get the same look with CG in Flushed Away? I didn't care while I was watching it either method.

I'd rather be happy about seeing some form of Beowulf than none at all. I truly enjoy seeing new animation and FX and I think Beowulf will be a ripping good time.

ingramworks
07-27-2007, 03:46 PM
I don't understand why people want to hear a "justification" from Zemeckis. I believe this is the first time I heard of people seeing a trailer and then ask a filmmaker to justify their creative process. ...

Your right, why discuss or question anything we see?

ThomasMahler
07-27-2007, 03:48 PM
Why do they use stop motion/claymation in Wallace + Gromit when they proved they can get the same look with CG in Flushed Away?

Whoa! Not even close.

Venkman
07-27-2007, 03:52 PM
Your right, why discuss or question anything we see?

Never mind. This is going nowhere.

gaiXyn
07-27-2007, 04:05 PM
Hat's off to modellers, riggers, animators, shaders, compositors etc, who undoubtedly made a great effort.

exactly!!...that's pretty much what I saw when I looked at it....yeah they could of used the real actors, use CG for only the effects, blah, blah, blah...but what I like about stuff like this is it opens the eyes of people ( mainly studios and the bigBoys ) as to what's possible....which is a goodThing b/c it means in the long run we'll end up getting better stuff.....that being said I think it looked great....could use some tweaks here and there but otherWise really goodStuff!!

ltr-

Obraxis
07-27-2007, 04:32 PM
I have to take my hat off to all the people working on this movie - pushing the boundries as far as they can. There are a few shots in nthe trailer that look exceedingly real. Very impressive.

I only hope that they're able to dance around the Uncanny Valley, as Polar Express wasn't so fortunate.

andreja
07-27-2007, 04:51 PM
A-ha! Angelina having forehead birth-spot on the wrong side when she traying to kiss Ray.:p

Trailer is greate!:applause:
I don't know about you guys, but I would like to work on this feature movie. To be part of this! WOW!
Good luck to finish this monster-project!:buttrock:

I can't wait to see it in cinema.:bounce:

BigPixolin
07-27-2007, 05:13 PM
Maybe no one will watch it but at least you have your integrity. If the purpose of making films is to just make money, then I think its flawed.

Just got off the phone with the electric company. They are no longer accepting payments in integrity.

TheChosen1
07-27-2007, 05:20 PM
Why paint when you can just take a photograph? I'm not the biggest fan of performance capture and I do prefer a stylized look, but the movie looks cool. What I'm really excited about is that this may open the door for some animation that is not all cute animals.

xen_ninja
07-27-2007, 05:25 PM
Just got off the phone with the electric company. They are no longer accepting payments in integrity.

ZING!!!
I wonder do you you vfx artists enjoy getting paid with integrity? I mean is it a robust and structured renumeration?

Venkman
07-27-2007, 05:34 PM
Why paint when you can just take a photograph? I'm not the biggest fan of performance capture and I do prefer a stylized look, but the movie looks cool. What I'm really excited about is that this may open the door for some animation that is not all cute animals.

That's what I'm talking about! I can't wait for the computer animated version after suffering through the (ahem, live action) futuristic Christopher Lambert version:
http://imdb.com/title/tt0120604/

And the version where Grendel isn't a monster, but just a really big guy, and Beowulf is played by none other than King Leonidas- I mean, Gerard Butler!
http://imdb.com/title/tt0402057/

:)

Apoclypse
07-27-2007, 05:53 PM
Just got off the phone with the electric company. They are no longer accepting payments in integrity.

I was talking about those indy film makers your were putting down. They make their movies because they have something to say, not because they want to make loads od cash, if that was the case they would work on music videos.

Kwe
07-27-2007, 05:54 PM
Why paint when you can just take a photograph?


wow.......no words. i'm speechless...

BigPixolin
07-27-2007, 06:02 PM
I was talking about those indy film makers your were putting down. They make their movies because they have something to say, not because they want to make loads od cash, if that was the case they would work on music videos.

I didn't put any indy films down.
I'm sure the vast majority of indy film makers want to get big time.

Apoclypse
07-27-2007, 06:31 PM
I didn't put any indy films down.
I'm sure the vast majority of indy film makers want to get big time.

You implied that no one will watch their movies because they are independant, some of the best movies are from iindependant directors. I was just saying that for them it may not be about the money. If that were the case, why even bother releasing it in the first place since most of the time it won't get very much play. Most indy films are story driven and sometimes those stories aren't accessible to all audiences, they usually don't make a lot of money if they are really good they do. My point wasn't that they shouldn't get payed because of integrity, but that they should strive to be artists not product management. Then again there is Micheal Bay, if that is the measure of success in film making then we are in a very sad place.

BigPixolin
07-27-2007, 06:47 PM
You implied that no one will watch their movies because they are independant, some of the best movies are from iindependant directors. I was just saying that for them it may not be about the money. If that were the case, why even bother releasing it in the first place since most of the time it won't get very much play. Most indy films are story driven and sometimes those stories aren't accessible to all audiences, they usually don't make a lot of money if they are really good they do. My point wasn't that they shouldn't get payed because of integrity, but that they should strive to be artists not product management.

I think your confusing me with xen ninja. No big deal.


Then again there is Micheal Bay, if that is the measure of success in film making then we are in a very sad place.

A sad place where tons of cool sh*t is happening.:)

Capel
07-27-2007, 08:11 PM
Never mind. This is going nowhere.

i feel your pain, man. some people just can't be reasoned with.

Capel
07-27-2007, 08:17 PM
I was just saying that for them it may not be about the money. If that were the case, why even bother releasing it in the first place since most of the time it won't get very much play.

wrong. it's about the art AND the money. and what's wrong with that? geez all you indy filmmakers! where do you get off wanting to get PAID for your work?!?! have you no integrity?!

why bother releasing it in the first place? to get money so you can make more films.

raptor|3D
07-27-2007, 08:29 PM
I don´t like this trend at all.

And I don´t really get the comments like: "Are you CG artist? Are we in the right forum?"
I would say: "Yes, I am a CG artist and that´s why I don´t like it because these films are not CG art but CG science". It turned into some sort of scientific race - who will create 100% photoreal human first?

Also this all "you are in this industry, you have to like everything that comes out of it" is a bit weird. Does that mean that every scientist have to be amazed and happy when some other scientist develop highly effective weapon of mass destruction just because they are in the same field and this is technological/scientific breakthrough? I don´t really think so.

I am in the CG field NOT because I like everything that is made of 0 and 1 but because I would like to create something that looks photorealistic and alive but no one has ever seen it and cannot be filmed.

And I think many people here are in CG field because of the dinosaurs, creatures, huge spectacular nature phenomena, stylized worlds etc. and NOT because of copying 1:1 humans and things that already exist. I mean, come on, where´s the fun in recreating (or trying to recreate) humans into synthetic form?

So if these sort of films become standard it could mean that this Special effects (in this case not so "special" anymore) industry could get really boring. At least for me.

I don´t think any synthetic CG human character can match the real one. People also want to see live actors, talk about them, write about them. Try to get autograph from series of points in space ;).

I really would not want to see the end of the live acting. I guess it won´t happen. Look at the books - they are very old form of entertainment and they are still popular.

Breinmeester
07-27-2007, 08:34 PM
That was kind of nice... When is this game coming out for the pc?
The Beowulf video game is scheduled for worldwide release in conjunction with the movie’s opening in November 2007 - according to the press release :)

Thank you. Now read my post again, but read it as cynism.


It's a bad choice to do this film all CG because undoubtedly it will better succeed at what it's trying to achieve as a live action film. Since this medium is about telling a visual story as effectively as possible, all the talk about pushing the technology forward is absolete. This isn't comparable to rocket science.

it's similar to trying to find a cure to an incurable disease.
And it most certainly isn't comparable to curing diseases!!! :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

ingramworks
07-27-2007, 09:06 PM
i feel your pain, man. some people just can't be reasoned with.

Yeah, I'm going to have to take exception on this one because the previous response was to me.

Honestly, I don't see very much reasoning in much of the posts to this thread to begin with. I see, mostly, people either voicing their opinion on the short or debating the reasons as to do CG characters generally followed by a post demeaning them or attacking them for not agreeing with those who think it's the holy grail of CG films or the end of Cinema as we know it.

This thread started with opinions about the short but was soon overran by posters only wanting to bully others into admitting that they were right and that even wondering if it might be a bad movie instantly marked you with a "CG Traitor" tag or that liking the trailer made you some kind of cinematic simpleton.

This isn't directed at anyone particular, read through the thread, there are plenty that it could apply to. And, Capel, I do not assume that your post was also directed at mine, so I hope no insult is taken.

yann22
07-27-2007, 09:17 PM
In all fairness and nothing against a healthy debate, but could we keep the level of invective a tad lower. I'm not going to hunt for quotes now or anything like that, but having read through the two threads proponents of my position (we don't see the point) have now been called all sorts of rather nasty things. Worse, it has been suggested that we're unprofessional and don't belong here. I'm usually quite thick-skinned in these matters, but I find that way out of line.

Cheers,
Yann

Capel
07-27-2007, 09:32 PM
Yeah, I'm going to have to take exception on this one because the previous response was to me.

Honestly, I don't see very much reasoning in much of the posts to this thread to begin with. I see, mostly, people either voicing their opinion on the short or debating the reasons as to do CG characters generally followed by a post demeaning them or attacking them for not agreeing with those who think it's the holy grail of CG films or the end of Cinema as we know it.

This thread started with opinions about the short but was soon overran by posters only wanting to bully others into admitting that they were right and that even wondering if it might be a bad movie instantly marked you with a "CG Traitor" tag or that liking the trailer made you some kind of cinematic simpleton.

This isn't directed at anyone particular, read through the thread, there are plenty that it could apply to. And, Capel, I do not assume that your post was also directed at mine, so I hope no insult is taken.

no offense taken. i think you're right.

here's my thing though. you (referring to the community) don't have to like this movie. you can hate it for all i care. but it bothers me when people that are in the CG industry basically say, "why did you do it like this? you could have done it live action. how dare you provide jobs and security for people working in the CG profession." the lack of appreciation for people trying to make advances in technology while providing jobs and security for hundreds of artists is what gets to me.

again, you don't have to LIKE to movie to APPRECIATE what zemeckis is trying to do here.

on a different note, another advantage to doing this CG is that the characters age dramatically throughout the story. there are a billion movies that try to show a character when they were younger and fail miserably for one reason or another. "Unbreakable" comes to mind. amazing film but the scene where it goes back to the car crash... neither actor looked anything like bruce willis or robin wright penn. suspension of disbelief can only go so far.

not to mention all the abysmal child actors out there.

lets take a book like "Ender's Game". 90% of the characters in this book are children. really young children. yet it's set in a future where all children are brilliant, meaning these seven-year-olds have to talk like they're in their 30's. so as a director what a daunting task it would be to find not one, but 7 or 8 AMAZING child actors to pull this off. the advantage to doing it CG is that you can tweak these kid's performances to your heart's content. to me, this would be the ONLY way a book like Ender's Game would work as a film. unless someone know's of 8 haley joel osment's out there. odds are you'd end up with 1 or 2 haley's and 5 or 6 Jake Lloyd's. ...not good.

BillSpradlin
07-27-2007, 09:37 PM
Personally, I'm thankful for threads like this. It reminds me why I shouldn't come to these boards anymore and stick to the private professional lists.

There was some intellegent discussion going on somewhere but has been lost thanks to the ingrates on both sides of the debate.

thematt
07-27-2007, 09:45 PM
Didn't read the all thread because I'm against all sort of wars..sorry :)
Anyway my impression is WOW!! thanks for pushing the boundaries guys!! will go see that just to enjoy this amazing 3d fest, if the story old up to it it will be even better!! whoever work on this, my hats off, so much great work is being realease those last couple month it's crazy.

cheers

JulianS
07-27-2007, 09:50 PM
There is something really interesting about this,
I toke a minute to see who replay what, and I notice something very simple.
People in the industry support the effort and the art work. the people out of the industry all it does is complain.

So to all my buddys form sony, dreamworks, DD and more, thank you for the support besides we are not here to write scripts only to make the CG.

This is not scriptTalk is CGtalk and i dont think any of us are getting pay to tell a story but to make pretty pictures.

Bentagon
07-27-2007, 10:03 PM
but it bothers me when people that are in the CG industry basically say, "why did you do it like this? you could have done it live action. how dare you provide jobs and security for people working in the CG profession." I doubt this is what the people asking "why?" mean. It certainly wasn't in my case. My point is, if you're making a movie, tell your story in the best way possible. They could've used the same techniques and provided the same amount of jobs while making the film in eg. a different style (like the Frazetta style I mentioned in a previous post). Something that really served the story, made (imo) better use of the technology and was unique in an immediate way, instead of a press-release way (that is, if it completely worked. Now it is unique in a not-so-good way in my eyes).

On a side note, playing devil's advocate: you could also look at the flip side of the coin. Zemeckis might be providing jobs for CG artists, but he's taking away from live-action crews, while they would've probably produced a more convincing looking result. Shouldn't they be considered too?

**edit**And since apparently some artists from the film are taking comments here personally, let me just add that most if not all of these comments (and certainly mine) are no criticism towards the team working on it, who certainly have done a good job. It's towards a directorial decision. It's not because this is a CG board we should only talk about the CG. We can talk about what the purpose of the CG is too, which is out of the hands of any of the artists.

levin
07-27-2007, 10:06 PM
@Breinmeester: it's an analogy, i was trying to show the relationship between the problem and the solution, (not it's importance to humanity) --- zemeckis seems to take a shot at doing the "impossible". maybe it's not even pushing the technology that would make the small step towards conquering the uncanny valley; i'm pretty sure those who worked on it believe this such a step... and we'll never get there unless people try to shoot and miss.

Bentagon
07-27-2007, 10:13 PM
@Breinmeester: it's an analogy, i was trying to show the relationship between the problem and the solution, (not it's importance to humanity) --- zemeckis seems to take a shot at doing the "impossible". maybe it's not even pushing the technology that would make the small step towards conquering the uncanny valley; i'm pretty sure those who worked on it believe this such a step... and we'll never get there unless people try to shoot and miss.Yes, but why should those "shoot and miss" tests cost $150 million, take numerous years and consist of over a thousand shots? Why can't Zemeckis invest his money in R&D and wait till the technology is ready, in the meanwhile making some other movies, either live-action or stylized mo-cap?

Spin99
07-27-2007, 10:17 PM
Sheesh when the b*tch slapping going to stop.
Peeps now. There's a new Cg movie coming your way.
Celebrate. Jeez.

leftyfallat
07-27-2007, 10:17 PM
It looks phenominal! IT'S A TRAILER! I'd be willing to bet that most of the shots are not even final yet. I don't know, maybe it's just common sense that tells me there's a good reason the humans are cg and not live action. I hate to spell it out for you "why" people, but cg characters can be animated and modeled to do things otherwise impossible by live actors. Were they supposed to just make up some generic human faces for the characters when the voices of the people acting are already beautiful? It's one of the only adult oriented cg films out there (Final Fantasy didn't cater to a broad enough audience and following...myself included). I've been pumped up to see this the second I heard it was all cg. Hats off to Zemeckis for doing something different with the visual effects heavy novel adaptation genre. Those are the best animated cg humans I've seen hands down. I personally would rather be WOW'd than see another stylized cartoon I've seen before. Will it hold up forever...maybe not, but it's always great to see a different and impressive visual effects marvel. Imagine if Lucas decided against making Star Wars because the light sabers didn't look real enough...give me a break.

leftyfallat
07-27-2007, 10:27 PM
On a side note, playing devil's advocate: you could also look at the flip side of the coin. Zemeckis might be providing jobs for CG artists, but he's taking away from live-action crews, while they would've probably produced a more convincing looking result. Shouldn't they be considered too?


No...they're perfectly happy making millions of dollars while the just as, if not more, talented blue-collar visual effects artists are doing the hard work. I have nothing against people being born beautiful with a knack for expressing human emotion, but I also don't feel bad for them if the people busting their creative asses off get thrown a bone from the "talent's" dinner feast.

xen_ninja
07-27-2007, 11:13 PM
Sigh
Indeed , this has become a movie complining/whine forum not unlike aicn.com's. Here I was thinking that I will see posts that discusses the actual renders and not to discuss Live action versus CGI. Even my blatantly sarcastic comment about CgTalkers making indie live action movies has become a point of contention. I'd like to say it was a sad commentarty on the state of the motion picture industry . In fact I wanted to see what people thought of the movie's vfx or how it could be improved or what's coming. BUT nooo......
IT'S A TRANSFORMERS Thread all over again!!!

Seriously stop saying it's creepy because I can honestly say it doesn't ( well maybe Robin Wright Penn). If you need proof just freeze farme each shot on quicktime.

Breinmeester
07-27-2007, 11:28 PM
Nothing hurts an industry more than bad quality products. If this doesn't work (I really like the Beowulf myth, but I'm not going to see this film, because I don't like zombie films) and the film won't make enough money, the technique will only be abandoned. When 'Tron' didn't make any money, it didn't push the technology forward, but back.

But all of the above is not the point. As a creative product we shouldn't judge this film by the technology it uses or if it will put food on our tables. All of these reasons won't lure people into the cinema and they are by no means guarantees for a decent film. The directorial decision to make this film all CG is very questionable and highly debateable. My opinion is it was a bad one.

And can we please not drop the cliché 'don't judge a film by its trailer' posts? Trailers are advertisements and thereby especially designed as a mean to decide wether you want to go see the film or not.

Laa-Yosh
07-27-2007, 11:55 PM
There is something really interesting about this,
I toke a minute to see who replay what, and I notice something very simple.
People in the industry support the effort and the art work. the people out of the industry all it does is complain.

That was unprofessional.

And by the way, am I considered to be in the industry then? Cause as amazing a technical achievement it is, I'd still be a lot happier to see CG Frazetta instead of this, too.

leftyfallat
07-27-2007, 11:55 PM
And can we please not drop the cliché 'don't judge a film by its trailer' posts? Trailers are advertisements and thereby especially designed as a mean to decide wether you want to go see the film or not.

It was a great trailer for a normal viewing audience. When people start bashing the technical quality of "trailer final" shots, I have a problem with that because in most cases, shots will be improved upon well past the trailer release. This might not even be the final look of the characters. For those unaware, during the making of a feature film, studios are pressed with trailer deadlines. Often times shots are thrown and scrapped together with band-aids to make this deadline, but are not even close to being considered a "final" shot. Sometimes the look of character hasn't even been sold on before the trailer shots are finaled. If you didn't like the trailer than don't see the movie. I wouldn't be so quick to bash the quality of the work at this point, which still happens to be some of the best animated human characters I've seen IMHO.

Breinmeester
07-28-2007, 12:01 AM
I wouldn't be so quick to bash the quality of the work at this point, which still happens to be some of the best animated human characters I've seen IMHO.
I am not at all bashing the quality of the CG, I am simply saying the decision to do this film all CG was a bad one. These techniques work really well for certain things, but in my opinion this whole trailer looks like a hybrid of a video game and a puppet show.

Bentagon
07-28-2007, 12:02 AM
No...they're perfectly happy making millions of dollars while the just as, if not more, talented blue-collar visual effects artists are doing the hard work. I have nothing against people being born beautiful with a knack for expressing human emotion, but I also don't feel bad for them if the people busting their creative asses off get thrown a bone from the "talent's" dinner feast.Uhm... any idea how many talented folks are doing the hard work on a live-action set day after day after day? They're not all born beautiful and making millions of dollars. There's a TON more to a live-action shoot than pointing a camera at an actor. Besides, it's exactly the pretty people they're keeping, only they're scanning them now.

I also agree with every word of Breinmeester's post above.

xen_ninja
07-28-2007, 12:20 AM
It was a great trailer for a normal viewing audience. When people start bashing the technical quality of "trailer final" shots, I have a problem with that because in most cases, shots will be improved upon well past the trailer release. This might not even be the final look of the characters. For those unaware, during the making of a feature film, studios are pressed with trailer deadlines. Often times shots are thrown and scrapped together with band-aids to make this deadline, but are not even close to being considered a "final" shot. Sometimes the look of character hasn't even been sold on before the trailer shots are finaled. If you didn't like the trailer than don't see the movie. I wouldn't be so quick to bash the quality of the work at this point, which still happens to be some of the best animated human characters I've seen IMHO.
Yeah I've noticed something else. Take a look at the Alvind and The chipmunks thread. Most the comments are about why you shouldn't make a chipmunks movie and not about the effects. I freezed framed it and the sweaters and fur look amazing.

leftyfallat
07-28-2007, 12:41 AM
Uhm... any idea how many talented folks are doing the hard work on a live-action set day after day after day? They're not all born beautiful and making millions of dollars. There's a TON more to a live-action shoot than pointing a camera at an actor. Besides, it's exactly the pretty people they're keeping, only they're scanning them now.

I also agree with every word of Breinmeester's post above.

So we should feel bad for the live-action set crews because the producers, which funded the film with THEIR money, decided to make an all cg movie. Sorry for misinterpreting your previous post. Now I am completely dumbfounded. That's like saying you should feel bad for McDonald's because you decided to eat dinner at a new chinese take-out franchise. Not that the quality is necessarily better or worse, but you felt like eating chinese, and more importantly it's your money.

Breinmeester
07-28-2007, 12:52 AM
You're turning it around. Benjamin is merely dispowering the comment that we should root for this film just because it offers jobs to CG artists.

And McDonald's does not at all serve dinner.

Andy1010
07-28-2007, 04:41 AM
For me it comes down to believable animation. Nothing more nothing less. The CG looks very close to real, not perfect, but very real. Animation wise, from the trailer, this will be Polar Express 2. I predict it will bomb in the box office, but it will still spring CG forward, and Cameron and Jackson will have it figured out by the time Avatar releases. Just my thoughts.

Strang
07-28-2007, 04:55 AM
There is something really interesting about this,
I toke a minute to see who replay what, and I notice something very simple.
People in the industry support the effort and the art work. the people out of the industry all it does is complain.

the opinions of those outside the industry do matter. they have eyes and can notice when something is wrong. i think most appreciate the quality of work that has been achieved. we just look at other humans every day of our lives, we are really good at spotting this stuff.

and just because some dont fill their employment info out doesn't mean they aren't in the industry

Apoclypse
07-28-2007, 05:23 AM
wrong. it's about the art AND the money. and what's wrong with that? geez all you indy filmmakers! where do you get off wanting to get PAID for your work?!?! have you no integrity?!

why bother releasing it in the first place? to get money so you can make more films.

Geez, that's not what I said at all. The art comes first, if you happen to make loads of cash on it, that don't mean you are going to turn it down. My point is that these movies are usually made with art and story telling in mind and if it happens to be succesful thats good and all but thats not why they made the movie in the first.

Honestly, I forgot how we got on this topic and I'm too lazy to go re-read the past posts. What was this about again?

Wongedan
07-28-2007, 05:27 AM
This is true i am probably out of line,

But since i had work in this film I take those comments very personal, just because I know all the hard work, long days and nights to make this film. just to see people talk bad about it.

PS: Since I am directly connected to this film this is my last post. :wise: Thank you



But i think we all here do CG, isn't that right?!

relax bro,

I love every shot,
its not 100% because I believe 100% is only owned by God

but this is damn real, good lighting good sss, I appreaciate this movie team
to acheive this far.


its so brutal :D


how much the budget for this movie btw?

Abaddon
07-28-2007, 05:39 AM
Trailer looks awesome! This is going to be fun. A cg film with no fuzzies in it for a more mature audience. I thought it would be more stylised to but this looks great. :bounce:


Some people wondering why they are getting a talking to for saying "There is no point in doing this in CG!", i think i can guess why.
Its because there IS a point to doing this in CG. And not just one, but many. Off the top of my head i would say:

1. Pushing the boundaries of the technology for future use. In itself, a very valuable reason.

2. Artistic license. Unlike yours, perhaps Zemeckis's vision of this Beowulf film is not of human actors but something more fantastic. Even thought they look almost human, they are something other. In this case, they are legend. Kinda like Santa Claus.

3. Budget. While cg is expensive, actually filming actors such as Hopkins and Jolie cost a whole lot more. For example: casting Brad Pitt as the lead in The Fountain doubled the budget and eventually made it unfilmable until Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz agreed to do it for less than they usually would. And its a beautiful film, woulda been a waste. I imagine just recording an A-listers voice is MUCH cheaper.

4. Growth in the CG industry. Yay!!

5. Maybe people seeing a purely animated film are more able to be swept away because they know from the get go that its not real. Its fantasy....let go, go with it.

6. As film goers see more and more cg films, perhaps uncanny valley will fade for them as they enter the cinema expecting cg characters. Their not expecting a graceful night at the ballet.

7. Birth of a new medium. Its new and different.

I think some people are dissapointed because these type of reasons dont match their own expectations of what they want to see at the cinema. Thats ok, opinions are cool, but doesnt mean it shouldnt be done.

Apoclypse
07-28-2007, 05:46 AM
Trailer looks awesome! This is going to be fun. A cg film with no fuzzies in it for a more mature audience. I thought it would be more stylised to but this looks great. :bounce:


Some people wondering why they are getting a talking to for saying "There is no point in doing this in CG!", i think i can guess why.
Its because there IS a point to doing this in CG. And not just one, but many. Off the top of my head i would say:

1. Pushing the boundaries of the technology for future use. In itself, a very valuable reason.

2. Artistic license. Unlike yours, perhaps Zemeckis's vision of this Beowulf film is not of human actors but something more fantastic. Even thought they look almost human, they are something other. In this case, they are legend. Kinda like Santa Claus.

3. Budget. While cg is expensive, actually filming actors such as Hopkins and Jolie cost a whole lot more. For example: casting Brad Pitt as the lead in The Fountain doubled the budget and eventually made it unfilmable until Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz agreed to do it for less than they usually would. And its a beautiful film, woulda been a waste. I imagine just recording an A-listers voice is MUCH cheaper.

4. Growth in the CG industry. Yay!!

5. Maybe people seeing a purely animated film are more able to be swept away because they know from the get go that its not real. Its fantasy....let go, go with it.

6. As film goers see more and more cg films, perhaps uncanny valley will fade for them as they enter the cinema expecting cg characters. Their not expecting a graceful night at the ballet.

7. Birth of a new medium. Its new and different.

I think some people are dissapointed because these type of reasons dont match their own expectations of what they want to see at the cinema. Thats ok, opinions are cool, but doesnt mean it shouldnt be done.

Now that I think about it maybe this is a way of Hollywood scaring actors into not being such blow hards. But if you are going to do a the Majestic, you better be getting payed 20 million, because there sure wasn't any other reason to do it. Besides that you can't do Mocap without Andy Serkis, it's in his contract.

Breinmeester
07-28-2007, 08:54 AM
I assure you none of these reasons have ever crossed the director's mind (except for maybe the cost effective one) and none of these reasons have anything to do with filmmaking.

Bentagon
07-28-2007, 10:03 AM
1. Pushing the boundaries of the technology for future use. In itself, a very valuable reason.Like I've mentioned before, why not hire an R&D team and wait till the technology's ready, while in the meantime making other films, either live-action, or more stylized mo-cap?

2. Artistic license. Unlike yours, perhaps Zemeckis's vision of this Beowulf film is not of human actors but something more fantastic. Even thought they look almost human, they are something other. In this case, they are legend. Kinda like Santa Claus.That's a rationalization. An excuse. Not a reason.

3. Budget. While cg is expensive, actually filming actors such as Hopkins and Jolie cost a whole lot more. For example: casting Brad Pitt as the lead in The Fountain doubled the budget and eventually made it unfilmable until Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz agreed to do it for less than they usually would. And its a beautiful film, woulda been a waste. I imagine just recording an A-listers voice is MUCH cheaper.I wouldn't exactly call $150 million inexpensive. Besides, they used the actors not just for voice, but for mocap too. It does diminish days of shooting, but I'm pretty sure these actors got a nice salary. And what's the use of hiring top actors like those when the process is (probably) going to make their performances less effective?
For the Fountain, Pitt's salary wasn't the problem. Sure, he asked more than Hugh Jackman, etc, but his name pulled more money from investors than his own salary was worth. Pitt didn't "double the budget" as in they needed twice the money, he doubled the budget as in Aranofsky GOT twice the money. But then Pitt left the project for creative differences, and investors dropped out. Aranofsky first wanted to make a very epic film, but now the budget dropped, he had to rethink some elements, and finally made it much smaller, but with the same feel.
Beowulf no doubt got a higher budget because of the actors involved, but 8 wellknown actors of which 4 or 5 are stars isn't exactly necessary for a higher budget.

4. Growth in the CG industry. Yay!!Doing the film stylized would create the same growth. The point is not that mo-cap is used or a CG film is made, the point is why do it realistic?

5. Maybe people seeing a purely animated film are more able to be swept away because they know from the get go that its not real. Its fantasy....let go, go with it.That's a hope. It's not a "point to doing it in realistic CG". If you do it live-action, you're sure the audience will go with it! If it's a good film, anyway.

6. As film goers see more and more cg films, perhaps uncanny valley will fade for them as they enter the cinema expecting cg characters. Their not expecting a graceful night at the ballet.See 5.

7. Birth of a new medium. Its new and different.First, it's been done before. Second, (see 1) why not wait till you're sure the technology works?


Anywho, I think all arguments from both sides have been mentioned, and this won't really go anywhere anymore, so I doubt I'll be writing any other posts.

tfortier
07-28-2007, 10:20 AM
dont know... I feel if a drawing guy can make an oustanding animation character like in old disney stuff or myazaki movies, a skilled 3d animator should be able to do a similar sensitive work in 3d... Why they dont succed? maybe cause of technical problems they have to think about? maybe cause each character is divide in few teams, face, hands, voice synch, pose... and also probably cause of clumsy teams leaders who just wanna please directors who dont know a shit about animation...

Chemix
07-28-2007, 10:44 AM
I said it before and I suppose I'll have to say it again.

A big reason to do an all CG film is for onscreen uniformity, in almost every live action film with CG you can immediately see what is CG and what is not, and the suspension of disbelief is gone, you simply suspend whether or not you care that it's CG and that it doesn't look like the rest of the real world settings it takes place it. The reverse happens when they place real people into a primarily CG enviornment, like in the Star Wars prequels where many back grounds and sets are clearly fake and CG and the same thing happens. Onscreen comparsion gets rid of the suspension of disbelief, if it's all in the same way not real, then it still all fits together in a sort of style, like other animated films.

TheChosen1
07-28-2007, 12:03 PM
wow.......no words. i'm speechless...

I think you misunderstood me. When I said, "Why paint when you can just take a photograph?" I meant that as a response to all the folks who were saying, "why do realistic cg humans when you can just use real actors?" The fact that you can should be reason enough. Not to mention it keeps everything in a consistant look and allows you all kinds of creative freedom.

Like I said, I would have preferred a more stylized look but it still looks cool to me and I am happy to see a different genre tackled with animation. Animated films have so much potential and no one is going in directions other than family films. I am glad that Zemeckis is.

mech7
07-28-2007, 02:20 PM
:thumbsup:this is looking very cool

SergioSantos
07-28-2007, 04:04 PM
I would have preferred a more stylized look but it still looks cool to me and I am happy to see a different genre tackled with animation. Animated films have so much potential and no one is going in directions other than family films. I am glad that Zemeckis is.

That's what I think! I'm tired of animals and things that talk, please, no more animals and things acting like humans... Animation movies can do a lot more.

leftyfallat
07-29-2007, 12:43 AM
Like I've mentioned before, why not hire an R&D team and wait till the technology's ready, while in the meantime making other films, either live-action, or more stylized mo-cap?

There is no money in R&D work. Why in the world would they flush millions of dollars into a project that would give them nothing in return? If it's that easy, why don't you put your money where your mouth is.

That's a rationalization. An excuse. Not a reason.

Artistic license is a rationalization, an excuse, and not a reason? I guess nobody in the history of film has experimented with different mediums and techniques. It's been done by the book since the first silent film was made.


Doing the film stylized would create the same growth. The point is not that mo-cap is used or a CG film is made, the point is why do it realistic?

So the only way for characters to be interesting is if they squash and stretch like Bugs Bunny or if the skin looks like it's made of rubber. I love cartoons and stylised animation, but can the 'I hate mocap' crowd stop regurgitating the same tired lines they learned in 'traditional animation 101'?

That's a hope. It's not a "point to doing it in realistic CG". If you do it live-action, you're sure the audience will go with it! If it's a good film, anyway.

If the producers decided to make this a live-action, it goes from something different and fresh, to a competition being measured against the likes of LOTR, Harry Potter, Pirates Of Carribean, and every other visual effects heavy live-action movie out there.

Anywho, I think all arguments from both sides have been mentioned, and this won't really go anywhere anymore, so I doubt I'll be writing any other posts.

Thank you

Bentagon
07-29-2007, 02:13 AM
Thank youGuess I'll have to disappoint you. I'm terribly sorry.

1. Of course there's no money in R&D work. But if Zemeckis really wants to get CG to look absolutely real, I'm sure the movies he'd be making in the meantime would bring in enough money to be able to fund such a project. There's no point in wanting to do an absolutely real GC film when you simply can't do it yet. No matter what you think of the Star Wars prequels, at least George Lucas was patient enough to wait for a time he could really get his vision on the ground. Of course, I do realize this is a quite unrealistic vision, but it's just to say that it's silly to do a whole film like this just to push what they can do. I would assume that putting a few million dollars into R&D would be a less risky endeavor than putting $150 million into a movie if your goal is to push what we can do. My point being, I believe Zemeckis is doing it in mo-cap CG because it's his thing, and if things improve along the way, that's simply a bonus, but not a reason to do the film this way.

2. Of course artistic license can be a very good reason. The one quoted isn't. Look at the trailer and honestly tell me that this was done in CG because the characters had to look a bit more "legendary" than real life. That clearly wasn't the reason. Thus, that's a rationalization.

3. Have you even read that quote? I said it is NOT that it's done in mo-cap. It is you who assumes stylized means sqaush and stretch cartoony. If you look at previous posts, I've mentioned that I'd be all over this film if it was done with mo-cap, but rendered in eg. a Frazetta style. A style that supports this story, and for which mo-cap would be the wisest choice. If you go for real, I don't think CG is the wisest choice.

4. I'd rather have seen it stylized than live-action. What I wrote was merely to show how silly an argument for realistic CG the text I quoted was.


I must say screen uniformity and the aging of a character are the most logical explenations as to "why?". I think they're just not very good ones (at a time the technology isn't completely there yet). There've been tons of FX movies over the past 20 years, and rarely was I really pulled out of the movie because I noticed some CG. I think it's a wiser choice to use FX and have part of the audience be pulled out of the movie for a second once in a while, than having things on the screen look awkward most of the time. Also, as others have mentioned, some shots in this trailer look fantastic, others don't look nearly as well, so there isn't a complete screen uniformity anyway. As for the aging and using different actors for each period of time, good directing can make things like that look perfectly plausible.

My opinion...

Kai01W
07-29-2007, 03:01 AM
I said it before and I suppose I'll have to say it again.

A big reason to do an all CG film is for onscreen uniformity, in almost every live action film with CG you can immediately see what is CG and what is not, and the suspension of disbelief is gone, you simply suspend whether or not you care that it's CG and that it doesn't look like the rest of the real world settings it takes place it.

Well, it does not work in this case. If everything at the screen screams "this is supposed to be real" but the characters look and partly move like wax zombies my disbelief is not suspended by any uniformity whatsoever.

More stylisation would have helped.

-k

Chemix
07-29-2007, 04:03 AM
Uniformity makes everything equally unreal and thus nothing seems out of place, thus one can stop differentiating between CG and non CG elements and just focus on the film as presented. I do think that CG needs to do much more work to create truerly realistic looking humans, but theres no reason to not use current working attempts in full CG pictures until the time that we think we have a photoreal human. What would you want them to stylize anyway? Were you expecting the characters to look exagerated and cartoon like? We're looking at human and semi humans most of the trailer, but we do see several non human characters that we haven't seen in film, atleast not in the presented style in a CG film. First of all, there's the algamation of flesh beast like thing, then there is the dragon with a very deformed mouth with a very cragged jaw like and big thick teath jutting out. The closest CG comparison to the dragon would be the T-Rex of King Kong, and the closest CG "comparison" to the flesh beast would be the Mummy (in semi-mummy form) from The Mummy.

It's hard to present a serious film to a modern western audience when it's a fantasy story, furthermore when it's animated, CG or whatever else, exagerated characters and humor based on such things are great bits, but hard to sell to the mainstream without people bringing their kids along for the ride and based on the saga this film comes from, you're not going to want children to see this. It's probably why they alluded to a sex scenario in the trailer, so parents wouldn't bring their kids and expose them to the violence and carnage. In America you can't convince many people that seeing someone killed is worse for a kid to see than a nipple. That said I blame the Puritans, damned fun haters. That said about the previous saying, the Puritans based most of their beliefs on traditions, customs, Dante's inferno, and not the Bible.

Kwe
07-29-2007, 07:09 AM
I think you misunderstood me. When I said, "Why paint when you can just take a photograph?" I meant that as a response to all the folks who were saying, "why do realistic cg humans when you can just use real actors?" The fact that you can should be reason enough. Not to mention it keeps everything in a consistant look and allows you all kinds of creative freedom.

Like I said, I would have preferred a more stylized look but it still looks cool to me and I am happy to see a different genre tackled with animation. Animated films have so much potential and no one is going in directions other than family films. I am glad that Zemeckis is.

ohhhh...okay. yeah, i misunderstood you. i thought you meant that question. anywho...yeah i pretty much agree with what you said.

Bentagon
07-29-2007, 12:11 PM
Chemix: again, stylized does not equal cartoony with humor. It means going for something completely new, that does work for and support a serious, adult fantasy story, and takes advantage of both mo-cap and CG. Such as making it look like a Frazetta painting, which is an idea someone else brought to my attention, and made me believe mo-cap could actually be a valuable filmmaking tool outside of SFX.

Kai01W
07-29-2007, 12:45 PM
Uniformity makes everything equally unreal and thus nothing seems out of place, thus one can stop differentiating between CG and non CG elements and just focus on the film as presented.
You are only talking about uniformity between CG and non CG elements. Apart from that there is also the aspect of uniformity in the "design" / look of each element itself.
Right now those characters are supposed to look (photo-)real. The highly detailed and physically correct modelling; the shading, emulating real world materials, the mocap animation ,etc. All those design decisions aim at presenting something we should take for the real world. And yet there are those moments were it simply failed to keep up this impression.
A photoreal modelled Anthony Hopkins moving like a zombie is out of place in itself.
This is causing a disturbance which is just as bad as no uniformity between CG / Non-CG.


-k

Breinmeester
07-29-2007, 02:05 PM
This is causing a disturbance which is just as bad as no uniformity between CG / Non-CG.

Worse, in my opinion, because I'm sure there will be a threshold in accepting a mannequin looking hero. A stylized character moving in a stylized fashion according to its design, physique and personality or a real person moving like we are used to, we can accept, but I'm sure the majority of the audience will have problems accepting characters moving like dead bodies on strings.

Cig74
07-29-2007, 02:09 PM
Check out the game. Looks much cooler than the movie so far.

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/22787.html

tfortier
07-29-2007, 04:09 PM
Game look incredible!! wow!

watched the movie trailer again in bigger, its better but still... Problem is definitively from the shoulders to the hair! same feeling as Polar Express. This is a direction problem. Remember gollum face? that was something. of course the character was way more emotive but if you look at a total non emotive character like Conan The Barbarian... you can feel the strengh, the defiance and incredulity by the jacked lips, the raised head, eyes looking down to is opponant. thanks Arnold! If the character is subtil or totally insensible, there must be a way to show that nicely in facial animations.

danimat0r
07-29-2007, 07:16 PM
I'm not in the 'why bother?' camp, but more in the 'Why is Zemeckis so hellbent on trying (and failing) to FORCE animation to work without caricature?' camp. Is 'animation' a dirty word to him and hollywood elite? Does a buzzword like 'performance capture' liberate him from the 'animated film' ghetto or act as his lifeline to cinematic credibility? I can only guess that must be it, because he's hellbent and determined to use a thus-far inferior method to keyframed animation to make animated films.

The result? Badly-animated films that don't have to quite be called 'animated films'.

Sorry, but it still looks lifeless as hell. A trailer that should be causing goosebumps is instead causing heated debate about whether watching it actually made anyone feel an emotion large enough to register. Seriously, that was about as emotionally arresting as watching an ant farm. Unless the marketing machine of this thing is both huge and absolutely miraculous, I smell boxoffice disaster on par with Final Fantasy, particularly with how much this thing undoubtedly cost.

Dammit Rob, just hand the facial to a real animator. Nobody's going to think less of your pet technology if you just admit it ain't workin out.

Spin99
07-29-2007, 08:19 PM
danimat0r maybe it's a tech animated film?
They exist too I suppose and looks like they're going for total realism.
Not much to do with great animation in the "classic" sense I'm sure.

But I'll pick up on a comment from another thread, that there's no
eye blinking in the whole trailer. I really think a lot of the "zombiness" comes from that.

Maybe the budget didn't make for great animators and it shows?
I agree that stylisation would've been nice, as well as of course some "real" animation.
But then I wonder if the movie would have been possible at all?
Specially if you look at how long it took in production.

Surprised though, I'd think Cg people would be looking forward to an all animated movie,
even if it's mostly technology doing it..
Look at this thread, everyone is only complaining lol

leftyfallat
07-30-2007, 01:19 AM
1. Of course there's no money in R&D work. But if Zemeckis really wants to get CG to look absolutely real, I'm sure the movies he'd be making in the meantime would bring in enough money to be able to fund such a project. There's no point in wanting to do an absolutely real GC film when you simply can't do it yet. No matter what you think of the Star Wars prequels, at least George Lucas was patient enough to wait for a time he could really get his vision on the ground. Of course, I do realize this is a quite unrealistic vision, but it's just to say that it's silly to do a whole film like this just to push what they can do. I would assume that putting a few million dollars into R&D would be a less risky endeavor than putting $150 million into a movie if your goal is to push what we can do. My point being, I believe Zemeckis is doing it in mo-cap CG because it's his thing, and if things improve along the way, that's simply a bonus, but not a reason to do the film this way.


Again, this is you trying to tell an artist where and how to spend their money. Polar Express made a lot of money. I don’t see how you can predict box office disaster from that trailer.

2. Of course artistic license can be a very good reason. The one quoted isn't. Look at the trailer and honestly tell me that this was done in CG because the characters had to look a bit more "legendary" than real life. That clearly wasn't the reason. Thus, that's a rationalization.


I wonder how long it took Ray Winstone in the gym to reverse the aging process by 20 years and get that perfectly chiseled physique. I also wonder why the paparazzi didn't get the pic of Angelina Jolie’s tale stuffed in her dress by now.


3. Have you even read that quote? I said it is NOT that it's done in mo-cap. It is you who assumes stylized means sqaush and stretch cartoony. If you look at previous posts, I've mentioned that I'd be all over this film if it was done with mo-cap, but rendered in eg. a Frazetta style. A style that supports this story, and for which mo-cap would be the wisest choice. If you go for real, I don't think CG is the wisest choice.


You suggest that an artist breaks their style to mimmick another artist? So you’re basically telling Monet to paint like Caravaggio. I’ll stick with the Academy Award winner.


My opinion...


If you’re going to publicly assault an accomplished director and FX house, be prepared to have your flimsy ‘opinions’ rebutted.

kmest
07-30-2007, 01:44 AM
saw it (R rated) and i wasnt impresed at all.....they were lifeless,not enough realstick Skins,and worst than that;the facial animates....what is wrong with hand animate for facial on body mocaps??like Final Fantasy:spirit within...for me,those characters had much better facial movements than these.....
in recent years,i saw much better CG characters (or doubles) in movies,Like Matrix sequels and superman returns...not to mention the amazing Davy jones....if somebody made those shots someday,then it can be made for a movie directed by a giant like Zemeckis...and if it cant be....i hope they dont do it.....


Not that the CG wasnt amazing,it was awesome....but not good enough for a movie which wants to look realstick with a cast we all know......


and a question came in mind:when the digital version of an actress like anjelina jolie playes nudity,does it counts on her Real nude shots???i mean its her but its not:scream: so....:shrug:

phildog
07-30-2007, 04:44 AM
yeah i cant wait to see this... and ofcourse everyone else including the
not convinved are still going to line up for this one i think.

agree totally about adding some random eye movement, and more blinking.
some actors, especially chicks jump their focus back and forth from left to right
eye etc when looking at someone else.
and yes i know some actors are quite skilled at not blinking during an entire
take, but they atleast look real doing that because they are umm real!

congrats to whoever worked on this.

danimat0r maybe it's a tech animated film?
They exist too I suppose and looks like they're going for total realism.
Not much to do with great animation in the "classic" sense I'm sure.

But I'll pick up on a comment from another thread, that there's no
eye blinking in the whole trailer. I really think a lot of the "zombiness" comes from that.

Maybe the budget didn't make for great animators and it shows?
I agree that stylisation would've been nice, as well as of course some "real" animation.
But then I wonder if the movie would have been possible at all?
Specially if you look at how long it took in production.

Surprised though, I'd think Cg people would be looking forward to an all animated movie,
even if it's mostly technology doing it..
Look at this thread, everyone is only complaining lol

Breinmeester
07-30-2007, 10:56 AM
If you’re going to publicly assault an accomplished director and FX house, be prepared to have your flimsy ‘opinions’ rebutted.

You're being unacceptably rude here! Reputations have nothing to do with the weight of an opinion, every sensible person knows that. You want to follow someone on his reputation? Go ahead, but don't bash people for not agreeing.

Bottomline is that this thread alone shows that this trailer isn't convincing enough to at least half the people in this discussion and we are all either in the CG industry or at least interested in CG. Most of the reasons I've read here why people like it is because of the novelty of the technology. I assure you that in this case that's not a motivation for the general public to go see this film.
Fact is that the 'animation' of the footage shown is too uncanny to accept as realistic and too unstylized to be something on its own. It's like a very badly acted show on a television of which the colours are all screwed up. I'm not going to root for that or buy a ticket to that or let my friends buy a ticket to that.

Fiber
07-30-2007, 12:39 PM
In my opinion probably the only kind of story this technology would work in (in it's state displayed in the trailer ) is a david lynch eery thriller.
Actually i don't find it to be far off from the weirdness of the puppet like actors in blue velvet.You know, like 'polar express' is a reminiscent trip into the mind of a 4 year old beaten up badly by sandy clawzz.
:love:

I guess i'm saying : use what you got, for what it's worth.

edit:-- i heard this 'story' in a workshop from kyle balda, who worked at ILM and PIXAR for a while.--
At one point he had to animate a photorealistic looking elephant (for Jumanji if i remember right). He animated every frame exactly in the same pose as the live shot reference footage he had. For some reason it did not work, although every frame matched the reference frames.Eventually he had to interpret the movement instead of copying it to make the elephant moving in a believable fashion. --interesting!

MrWilde
07-30-2007, 01:57 PM
Can't stand this. Real actors turned into CG, for what? They still look the same. It's not like they're realizing impossible make up effects like in PotC or Terminator 3 or creating a fantasy creature like Gollum.

What's next? John Wayne returning? Why don't they just bring back young Sean Connery for James Bond or Christopher Reeve for Superman?

No, I will never agree to this trend. CGI is great as long as it's there for supporting a movie. Now it's being used to create them using CG actors. It's not like they're doing a "cartoon" like Shrek or Ice Age. What's the point of rendering photorealistic humans when you actually have them already there? Just leave the basement for a while and you realize there's already humans walking on the street.

A CG Anthony Hopkins? What the hell is going on? Is this a bad joke? What are they thinking? When will Zemeckis do Back to the Future 4 just with a CG Michael J. Fox just because the real one has Parkinson? This is sick.

Bentagon
07-30-2007, 07:27 PM
Again, this is you trying to tell an artist where and how to spend their money. Polar Express made a lot of money. I don’t see how you can predict box office disaster from that trailer.I'm not telling them how to spend their money. I never predicted box office disaster. Plus, you're pulling everything out of context. I was merely dispowering the argument that technical progress is enough of a reason to explain why they're making the film this way. If making technical progress was the goal, doing it with a $150 million dollar film just doesn't make much sense businesswise, nor artistically. At least to me.


I wonder how long it took Ray Winstone in the gym to reverse the aging process by 20 years and get that perfectly chiseled physique. I also wonder why the paparazzi didn't get the pic of Angelina Jolie’s tale stuffed in her dress by now.Once again, you're pulling things out of context. What you just wrote has absolutely nothing to do with the "reason" mentioned by someone else, which I wrote off as a rationalization. Besides, to me, it doesn't make much sense to do a whole movie in CG just to get 1 actor's performance into a different body. A performance that will probably be diminished by the process, at that. I'd just cast somebody else. (Even though I love Ray Winstone too)


You suggest that an artist breaks their style to mimmick another artist? So you’re basically telling Monet to paint like Caravaggio. I’ll stick with the Academy Award winner.Notice the "eg." They could've gone for Frazetta, but they could've gone for anything that's unique, different, or just plainly supports both film and process better. Please make sure that in the future you've read what I wrote before trying to rebut my flimsy "opinions".

Why did you put "opinions" between quotation marks anyway? Don't tell me you want me to quote the dictionary. And flimsy? You're the one who's twisting what I wrote. You haven't been able to actually rebut any of my arguments.


If you’re going to publicly assault an accomplished director and FX house, be prepared to have your flimsy ‘opinions’ rebutted. Please tell me where exactly I "assaulted" Zemeckis or Imageworks? The only reason I started posting here in the first place was because people were telling that fellow artists who judge this film for the way it's made shouldn't even be at these forums. All I've been trying to show is that there's a definite foundation behind why we're asking "why?", and also why I personally won't be seeing this movie. I've even given my compliments to the artists of this film for doing a good job. It's just that the technology's not there yet, but it's clear that they've given it their all. As a matter of fact, a teacher of mine was director's layout on polar express and monster's house and I thought this film too, even though he's credited as senior character animator on imdb (maybe he had a different position on this film, or maybe he had two), and I am absolutely sure he wouldn't be offended by any of my comments here.

If you don't agree with all this, that's just fine. All I'm trying to do is make people understand why I (we) think it's strange. If you think it's just fine, please, go see it, and I sincerely hope you have a good time. But please, don't try to force me into feeling the same way you do about this film. I'm sure you haven't liked every single film you've ever seen, and I'm sure you've judged some for how they were made. It's not because a director's won an academy award we're suddenly all supposed to like him and everything he does.

leftyfallat
07-30-2007, 09:21 PM
I have no clue who you are, what you have accomplished, or what you will accomplish. Maybe your ideas are, in fact, better than the ones created by arguably some of the most respected and talented artists in the industry. When I read some of your comments, this is what I interpret...tell me if I'm wrong:

We should should sympathize with live-action crews because Zemeckis isn't using them in his all cg movies.

Zemeckis should just flush all that money he has into R&D rather than putting it to practice.

Zemeckis' only apparent rationalization to make this entire movie in cg is to reverse the aging process of one character.

A Frazetta style would work better than Zemeckis style.

The only reason Zemeckis made this an all cg movie is to push technology.

Whether you're making these comments to dispower a point or not, they are easily debatable and in my opinion flimsy. It also makes you sound like a know-it-all. I respect your opinions and do agree that there are many different interesting approaches that could've gone into making this movie, however I am content with chosen direction. For the record, I know the photo-real human is not a reality yet. From the look of this trailer, it's going in the right direction and I'm excited to see what comes out of it.

kmest
07-30-2007, 11:37 PM
it all depends on how good the movie is...i didnt like the animates and facials in Polar Expres but the movie was good enough that i somehow forgot its bads......

But yes i do agree that using the cg characters in a movie which can be made in live action isnt a good choice,,,,lets get them a little style and a fresh look or amazing movements which cant be done in real...i personaly LOVE to use real humans and actores in 3d and animate them......but hey,lets make something new,why not use them in something that they cant do???like Final Fantasy AC fight sequences??

many of you may not agree but i think the way ROBOT used Takeshi Kaneshiroes face in ONIMUSHA 3 cg intro was way better than the way zemeckis(who is one of the best directores alive) is using all those great actores....

A Frazetta style would work better than Zemeckis style
by what i saw in this trailer,yes Frazetta's style is far more better

The only reason Zemeckis made this an all cg movie is to push technology.
he just wants to have more freedome in what he wants to creat,but do you see anything diffrent in this teaser compared to live action movies like LOTR??

lets just wait and see the movie...i hope it to be good,i have fate in Zemeckis

RetroTorque
07-30-2007, 11:54 PM
This film doesn't look like its original intent was to be a formal and technical exploration of the cg medium, yet here we have the medium upstaging everything else here in this trailer. :(

It's like looking at painting that's supposed to represent something, but all one can see is the application of pigment on canvas first, not what the artist really wanted to show to his or her audience. Or like reading a book that one can't get past the words to get the message.

Like the painting or book, I think, if the trailer is indicative of the film, that this film has failed in its intent if that intent was to tell a story well.

Intervain
07-31-2007, 12:04 AM
The only reason Zemeckis made this an all cg movie is to push technology.
.

I'd rather say he chose that medium because he could do what he wanted with the characters... [and I sure hope he did stuff we just ain't seeing here - well there's Grendel's mother's tail/braid - it seems to be moving in a foreboding manner :scream:...]

BillSpradlin
07-31-2007, 12:12 AM
This film doesn't look like its original intent was to be a formal and technical exploration of the cg medium, yet here we have the medium upstaging everything else here in this trailer. :(

It's like looking at painting that's supposed to represent something, but all one can see is the application of pigment on canvas first, not what the artist really wanted to show to his or her audience. Or like reading a book that one can't get past the words to get the message.

Like the painting or book, I think, if the trailer is indicative of the film, that this film has failed in its intent if that intent was to tell a story well.

I think maybe because we haven't seen much attempts at this that you're seeing it from a biased viewpoint and only seeing it for the push of technology and nothing else.

"The only reason Zemeckis made this an all cg movie is to push technology."

Do you have a quote from him saying such or is this just speculation?

I'm reserving my opinion of the film until I go and see it. I'm trying to stay unbiased towards the whole debate as I can see some big positives on both sides once you scrape away all the personal opinion bullshit.

Breinmeester
07-31-2007, 12:23 AM
I think maybe because we haven't seen much attempts at this that you're seeing it from a biased viewpoint and only seeing it for the push of technology and nothing else.

I think RetroTorque is rather stating is that, whatever the reason was to do it all CG, the fact that it sticks out so much is getting in the way of the story and that's the reason why it doesn't work. I agree with him. Like I said, the fact that we're here discussing this technique/technology and not what a great story this film has, what suspense this trailer has and what a great looking film this is going to be, shows that it was a bad decision to do it all CG.

By the way, the 'Back to the Future' trilogy are my favourite films from when I was a kid and I think they're really well written and cleverly directed. I rewatched them recently and learned a lot analyzing the story and the way it's told. But that doesn't mean I'm going to swallow everything Zemeckis does whole. I know why I like those films just as much as I know why I won't like this one.

Laa-Yosh
07-31-2007, 01:11 AM
I have no clue who you are, what you have accomplished, or what you will accomplish. Maybe your ideas are, in fact, better than the ones created by arguably some of the most respected and talented artists in the industry.

I'm not sure that's the right attitude; if the cook is the greatest chef of all time, am I not allowed to dislike the meal...? And what makes him the greatest chef anyway?

Bentagon
07-31-2007, 01:14 AM
I have no clue who you are, what you have accomplished, or what you will accomplish. Maybe your ideas are, in fact, better than the ones created by arguably some of the most respected and talented artists in the industry. When I read some of your comments, this is what I interpret...tell me if I'm wrong:

We should should sympathize with live-action crews because Zemeckis isn't using them in his all cg movies.

Zemeckis should just flush all that money he has into R&D rather than putting it to practice.

Zemeckis' only apparent rationalization to make this entire movie in cg is to reverse the aging process of one character.

A Frazetta style would work better than Zemeckis style.

The only reason Zemeckis made this an all cg movie is to push technology.

Whether you're making these comments to dispower a point or not, they are easily debatable and in my opinion flimsy. It also makes you sound like a know-it-all. I respect your opinions and do agree that there are many different interesting approaches that could've gone into making this movie, however I am content with chosen direction. For the record, I know the photo-real human is not a reality yet. From the look of this trailer, it's going in the right direction and I'm excited to see what comes out of it.That weren't the points I was trying to make. Some things I mentioned (like the live-action crew comment) weren't intended to say what they litterally said ("we should feel sorry for live-action crews"), but rather to show that a certain argument by someone else didn't make sense in my eyes ("we should be happy jobs are created", or something like that).

Basically what it comes down to is that I agree with what Sidney Lumet states in his book "Making Movies". The director should serve the story, and make the film in a way that tells this story as good as possible. And in my eyes, using a technology that's not quite there yet to replicate reality as opposed to using live-action isn't a decision that serves the story. On top of that, I personally feel that mo-cap can be exploited much more efficiently by using it not to replicate what life can do, but by using it to create a unique vision, that couldn't be created in any other way.

Of course, it is Zemeckis' vision and project, and he can do with it whatever he wants, and I won't judge him. I just won't agree, and - like others here - will keep wondering "why?". That's all I've been trying to say (and make clear to those that judged us for not supporting this film), and I certainly didn't want to sound like a know-it-all (though I see where you're coming from with that).

Spin99
07-31-2007, 01:26 AM
Can't stand this. Real actors turned into CG, for what? They still look the same.I don't agree. They don't look the same. Hence the whole controversy?

edit:-- i heard this 'story' in a workshop from kyle balda, who worked at ILM and PIXAR for a while.--
At one point he had to animate a photorealistic looking elephant (for Jumanji if i remember right). He animated every frame exactly in the same pose as the live shot reference footage he had. For some reason it did not work, although every frame matched the reference frames.Eventually he had to interpret the movement instead of copying it to make the elephant moving in a believable fashion. --interesting!Wow. Ok. But somehow I think the movie still "sticks", even with Cg actors. Even from the trailer.
To me it looks like an animated movie. Yet the characters look real. I find this interesting too.

well there's Grendel's mother's tail/braidUh oh :D

Abaddon
07-31-2007, 03:31 AM
I was expecting stylised to, but if he had made it too stylised, or made a cg movie full of mutant main characters, exotic armour, whacked out weapons, and hordes of howling demons, then he may as well have made a game cinematic, or feature length WoW movie.
That would be awesome fun, but may not be his thing. Perhaps the choice of realism on a traditional and classic tale like Beowulf was made purposefuly.

... I'm not going to root for that or buy a ticket to that or let my friends buy a ticket to that.

Wow, weird. What if they really want to go see it? What if they say pleeeaaaasssse. Not only have you already made your mind up that this cg movie is evil and must be destroyed, but you have made your friends minds up as well. ;)

SpaceTik
07-31-2007, 04:18 AM
hehe, this films going to be huge! no ones even seen it yet..

:)

just watch the film guys, come back.. then lets talk about the film.

timothyc
07-31-2007, 06:48 AM
In order to understand what's going on here, you need to understand that Zemeckis is both artist and technologist. As an artist he wants to tell his stories; as a technologist he wants to improve on the tools of his art. These are two separate things but the history of art goes back a long way in tying these two things together. For example, Leonardo Da Vinci found that the established fresco technique didn't suit his slow, methodical style, so he invented a technology using slow drying pigment. (Unfortunately it wasn't very good and within his own lifetime "The Last Supper" had started to deteriorate). Zemeckis is simply following a long tradition of artists trying to make their artmaking easier.

Looking closer to home at his fellow filmmakers, you find the same interest in technology in George Lucas (the entire Star Wars prequels were a testbed for new production techniques), Stanley Kubrick (pioneered low-light photography for "Barry Lyndon", established Garret Brown's steadycam in "The Shining"), Francis Ford Coppola (use of multicam photography in "One From the Heart"), James Cameron (underwater HMI lighting, dialogue recording, and camera tracking for "The Abyss") Of course, Cameron is now conducting his own experiments in performance capture for "Avatar", and it looks like Peter Jackson and Steven Speilberg are going down the same route with "Tin Tin".

In creating a photoreal CG movie, I don't think Zemeckis's motive is to forge a new genre, or even raise the standard of liveaction. In fact, ideally it would have nothing at all to do with the audience experience. I think what he wants to do is make life easier for the filmmaker, at least for these kinds of high-budget, high-production value films. IOW if you want to ask "100 per cent photoreal CG - what's the point?" the answer is, no point at all, as far as the audience is concerned; but lots and lots of points from the filmmaker's side of things. And these are the things, the difficulties, that the film director has to wrangle with. Here's a list of the ones that come immediately to mind:

- Actors who aren't the right age for the characters they're playing.
- Actors who don't have the right physique.
- Unavailability of cast members for pickups.
- High cost of insurance for actors.
- High cost of set construction.
- High cost of location shooting.
- Bad weather during exteriors
- Large, complex and expensive production crews.
- Time consuming and expensive stunts.
- Difficulty of integrating VFX, via matting, 3D tracking, motioncontrol etc.
- Complexities of shooting due to continuity requirements.
- Shortened shooting hours due to makeup and wardrobe requirements.
- Shortened shooting hours due to setting up camera lights.
- Inability to fix continuity errors during editing.
- Inflexibility to adjust performances (such as pacing) during editing.
- Inability to restage scenes after shooting.
- Difficulty enabling script changes after shooting.
- High cost of star salaries.
- Time consuming difficulties placing and manoevering tracking cameras.
- Difficulties recording location sound.

As I pointed out, none of these issues need necessarily impinge on the audience experience, not when the filmmaker has the resources of time and money and effort to throw at the problem. So the naysayers have a point when they say they don't give a sh*t about the trials and tribulations of the filmmaker (afterall, the ticket price remains the same whether you're watching LOTR or "Jackass - the Movie"), but it means a lot to film directors and producers the world over. If you want to do a cost/benefit analysis of Performance Capture filmmaking, as it pertains to the current state of the art, all those things in the above list will go in the Benefit column, and the one biggie in the Cost column is "not 100 percent photoreal". But that is a biggie.

That Zemeckis has not yet achieved this is only because the technology is a work-in-progess. He began with "Polar Express" which had obvious problems, he improved on that with "Monster House", and it looks like he's gone one better with "Beowulf" (at the same time as raising the bar). In another five years he may well have cracked the photoreal nut, but in the meantime, is he wrong to release his efforts to paying audiences? Should he keep it all highly secret, available for viewing only to select people inside his circle of friends and Hollywood insiders?

So you can choose to side with the audience and complain that Angelena Jolie looks less than photoreal, or you may want to identify with the filmmaker and applaud the courage of the artist to cross new territory. I don't think Zemeckis is even halfway to completing his journey, but he deserves credit for having the balls to attempt it. And in the long run (five, ten, twenty years hence) I think the payoffs will be huge.

TC

Breinmeester
07-31-2007, 09:09 AM
So you can choose to side with the audience and complain that Angelena Jolie looks less than photoreal, or you may want to identify with the filmmaker and applaud the courage of the artist to cross new territory.
Pffff!!! If it gives us crappy films then no, I will not applaude that! I mentioned before that nothing hurts an industry more than bad quality products. When I tell people I'm in animation, these days they immediately think I walk around in a tight blue suit half of the day.
Like you said, there are tons of new techniques invented or discovered by artist to suit their needs, this is nothing special. Besides, it's not his technology, he's merely using it and trying to polish it for his needs, at which, at least for this film and Polar Express, he's failing! I discover, think up or script a lot of new tricks for my productions and shorts every time. Some work, which I keep, and some don't, which I bin.
Zemeckis is doing nothing special here but messing up a very intriguing story with a very poor performance by a lacking technique.
This technique worked better in Monster House, because it worked with the look of the puppet-like characters and he was plussing the experience of the film with that eighties feel. In that film the technique caused for some bad performances as well that missed great opportunities for good jokes or funny acting, but at least the style of the technique matched with the feel and the look of the film.


hehe, this films going to be huge!
Uhm... no.

just watch the film guys..
Uhm.... ...No!

Wow, weird. What if they really want to go see it? What if they say pleeeaaaasssse. Not only have you already made your mind up that this cg movie is evil and must be destroyed, but you have made your friends minds up as well. ;)
I see your ;) and I'll raise you a ;);).

Fiber
07-31-2007, 09:13 AM
Wow. Ok. But somehow I think the movie still "sticks", even with Cg actors. Even from the trailer.
To me it looks like an animated movie. Yet the characters look real. I find this interesting too.



Hi Spin99,
The question i find interesting in the elephant replica anecdote, is : " do you need to interpret reality to make it look real?" i like the question more than, "If you copy-paste reality what do you get?", because the answer is in the question. I think many people here feel that the making of this movie is with the filosofie of the latter question, hence there opposition towards it.Animation in traditional sense has an inclination towards the first question.
But i don't want to state that this movie approach is good or bad, i just wish david lynch would direct this movie. :love:

earlyworm
07-31-2007, 10:18 AM
Well I must say I'm impressed by the visual look of the film, the acting and the performances - well it's hard to really say for sure at this stage what they'll be truly be like.

There is a part of me that is thinking "why not use that other performance capture device known as a motion picture camera" but there is also a part of me that is thinking "this could be really interesting looking film".

As for whether this process impeds the storytelling it's too hard to tell based solely off the trailer. I'm going to remain neutral on this one till the movie comes out.

Bentagon
07-31-2007, 12:56 PM
Too long to quote...

TCGreat post! The only difference between the other artists and filmmakers you cited and what we have here, is that with the others, their technical advances actually worked in favor of the product. Or if not, it made it easier for the artists to achieve the same quality of artwork. What Zemeckis seems to be doing here is sacrificing quality to make it easier for him.

Ed Bittner
07-31-2007, 02:10 PM
I agree with everything said here...........except for the naysayers. Hopkins isn't playing Hopkins. He's playing a fat, old, tired, shell of a king who's courage has been eaten away like cancer from Grendels' mother. In my opinion,they should forsake the dialog capture, and hand animate it ala Shrek.
No, I did not care for "Polar Express", although at the time of its release Zemekis said he was following the painterly look of the book. This is really the curious thing I find in this thread. The majority of posters here have said they are growing tired of "cute as sh*t" kiddy CG films, and wish for more mature content. Well, now it appears we are about to get one, but half, (if not more), of the so-called CG professionals on this site are against doing this film in CG. Did I miss something? This is a site for CG artists, yes?
Zemekis has the talent. Did anyone look at the lighting, camera angles, or the composition of the shots in the trailers? I think they are brilliant. Naysayers beware. This film could actually generate work for you in the near future, (but you never know who's listening.)...............
E.

SpaceTik
07-31-2007, 03:55 PM
Im dying to see it now.. trailer looks better every time I watch it! :)

Fiber
07-31-2007, 05:36 PM
hey ed, don't threaten kids with a lifetime on welfare for having an opinion.
It's just not a nice thing to do! :twisted: :deal:

hehe...

kmest
07-31-2007, 10:46 PM
Did anyone look at the lighting, camera angles, or the composition of the shots in the trailers?
sure they are great,its zemeckis we are talking about,one of the best directores alive....But what many peoples are not happy about here is that those lightings and camera angles are Exactly the same with a Live action movie.nothing that is using the power of CG....look at a movie like 300,thats a way to do a CG movie,make something unreal,what we cant see or make in a live action film.im sure he could be more creative......

in a time that movies like 300 or Transformers are showing unbeliveable things in a Live action film,Every one expect to see much more in a Realstick Cg movie....

Laa-Yosh
07-31-2007, 11:00 PM
Actually, Zemeckis has been kind of dropping the ball lately as a director. Forrest Gump was very good, Contact too; Back to the Future is of course brilliant, and though I haven't seen Roger Rabbit in a while, I think that's pretty cool as well. The past decade wasn't that good on the other hand. Cast Away wasn't bad, mind you, but it's kinda boring most of the time; and Polar Express was really lame.

But it's not the direction or the dramatisation that makes people worried about this movie...

Breinmeester
08-01-2007, 09:31 AM
Zemekis has the talent. Did anyone look at the lighting, camera angles, or the composition of the shots in the trailers? I think they are brilliant. Naysayers beware. This film could actually generate work for you in the near future, (but you never know who's listening.)...............
Oh, you're right. I'm sorry Mr. Big Shot Recruiter, I have no opinion anymore. Let me be a disciple of the Academy Award Winner. How do you like your coffee?

Any good director will value a solid opinion and knows how to choose which one to take to heart. I admire Zemeckis for the wonderful work he's done, especially Back to the Future which had a big influence on me and my work. I will not however blindly agree with every decision he makes.

This is really the curious thing I find in this thread. The majority of posters here have said they are growing tired of "cute as sh*t" kiddy CG films, and wish for more mature content. Well, now it appears we are about to get one, but half, (if not more), of the so-called CG professionals on this site are against doing this film in CG. Did I miss something? This is a site for CG artists, yes?
What you mention is a plea for original content. Except for the technology, which in my eyes is misplaced, this film is not very different from the other legend epics since 'Gladiator'. Which is fine, but I can't see this as an attempt at mature CG, but rather a CG'fied live action of the likes we've seen a lot of the past few years, some extremely well done (e.g. Lord of the Rings), some very poorly (e.g. Alexander).

As for original content I'm very happy with The Simpsons and the brilliant Ratatouille. Those films make me proud to be in animation. They are more than I could've wished for this year.

SpaceTik
08-01-2007, 09:55 AM
lol! how can one be so strongly opinionated about a movie they have not yet seen....

I like my coffee black

:)

MrWilde
08-01-2007, 10:02 AM
I don't agree. They don't look the same. Hence the whole controversy?
I mean they look the same "shape" wise. What do we have here? Angelina Jolie, but in CG. Anthony Hopkins, but in CG. It's not like they do make up effects that would be impossible to achieve with practical effects(Davy Jones anyone?), or try to do stuntwork impossible to do for a real stuntman (Superman Returns perhaps).

This looks like a total waste. Wouldn't it have been cheaper to just film the real actors with real make up and real lighting? The way it looks in the trailer, they would have gotten away with a much lesser budget AND with a much more realistic look.

I'd question the mental state of Zemeckis and the producers. Or is CG that cheap nowadays? Are months of modelling, animating and rendering photorealistic characters cheaper than weeks of shooting real actors?

Spin99
08-01-2007, 10:33 AM
Are months of modelling, animating and rendering photorealistic characters cheaper than weeks of shooting real actors?Cheaper? Don't know.
But definitely fun work. Me me me..

kmest
08-01-2007, 11:47 AM
Cheaper? Don't know.
it costs 150 million $ by now....which is as high budget as Transformers.....

But definitely fun work. Me me me..

i 100% agree with this part:thumbsup:

Breinmeester
08-02-2007, 10:55 AM
lol! how can one be so strongly opinionated about a movie they have not yet seen....
Are you listening? I'm not strongly opinionated about the movie, I just don't think it was a good decision to this film all CG.