Kath and I went to see Beowulf yesterday.
Basically I thought the script (co-written by Neil Gaiman) and performances were rock solid. But I had the same problem I had with it as I did with “Polar Express” (although this is technically far superior): The animation creates an emotional wall between the viewer and the performers. Mostly it’s the eyes, I think. They just look sort of dead, not reflecting light properly. Which is fine in animation where humans are caricatured and eyes can be made oversized to compensate (witness “Incredibles.”) But when you’re watching re-creations of humans going through computer generated paces, well…Kathleen said it best. She felt as if she should have a remote control joystick in her hand to be putting the characters through their paces.
I wish this had been live action instead.
Still, I kept coming up with variations on the title:
You loved him as Chachi. Now Scott Baio is: Baiowulf
Winnie the Pooh is: Silly old Bearwulf.
From the pen of Uncle Reumus, meet: B’rerwulf
Are you lupine? Do you have a headache? Try: Bayerwulf
It’s Oktoberfest! Drink: Beerwulf
Any others?
PAD
• 
…or just look like one.
Angelina Jolie is BEOMILF!
When the evil Gargamel threatens the village…
…one will lead…
…one will fight…
BEOSMURF!!!
braillewulf…
So worng and yet so genius.
Here’s my question – why? Why would you want to do an animated movie and then try to make it as real as possible?
I guess it looked real enough on TV for the previews. I heard someone in the theater complaining that it was animated.
Did you see it in 3D?
Da-o. Daaaaa-oh. Daowolf come and I wanna go home.
Big 6 foot, 7 foot, 8 foot STAB!
Beo-wolf come and I wanna go home…
Watching “Pirates of the Caribbean” last night just underscored for me the problem with the computer-generated characters.
In watching Bill Nighy as Davy Jones, I was struck by how more real, more human he appeared with all the tentacles on his face than Beowulf did. And I have to attribute it to the eyes. As hidden as Nighy’s face was under CGI, his eyes continue to speak volumes. They are soulful. There is no inner light, no soul, visible in the eyes of the Beowulf characters, and that–to my mind–is what distances the audience. It continues to be a drawback for this particular style of animation.
PAD
The hero that drinks pina coladas at Trader Vic’s: Beowulf of London (and his hair was perfect!)
Sorry If this pun is a repeat:
Who just made that strike? Bowl-wulf
I felt the same way about Ratatouille, which actually had foreground objects that were out of focus, like a live-action movie. In other words, it was even recreating the limitations of another medium…
I haven’t noticed that one–at least not enough to be annoyed–but the one that I always notice is when a CGI movie pans across a light source (say, a star in a sci-fi movie’s establishing shot) and they put in a flare or halo effect around it as the shot moves past.
I’ll defer to one more versed in cinematography or optics than I, but I always thought that the reason you get those flare halos is because the light source is interacting with the glass in the lens. But there’s no glass lens when you’re computer animating, right?
Anyway, the degree to which CGI creators put these sorts of things, whether its simulated depth of focus, or lighting effects, or whatever else is an interesting concept…
PAD: “And I have to attribute it to the eyes.”
Micha, Mulligan and I were having a similar conversation using the new Yoda as an example. One thing that we discussed was that CGI may actually have drawbacks like the ones you point out not only when compared to flesh and blood actors, but even when compared to quality puppet work. Not only do puppets have the benefit of all those constant, if almost impossible to consciously perceive, tiny movements that we unconsciously expect from living creatures, but the polished glass eyes of a puppet actually mimic life better then even a skilled CGI animator can. CGI has a loooonnnnngggg way to go before Hollywood can really start doing things like they tried with Beowulf and actually pull it off 100%.
So, as a general question to everybody: did Gollum have these problems that are being mentioned with Beowulf and other animated films?
Thinking back at the movies I’ve seen that are CG or heavily involve it, it really does seem like Gollum is one of the few cases where they’ve managed to pull it off, eyes and all.
So, as a general question to everybody: did Gollum have these problems that are being mentioned with Beowulf and other animated films?
Thinking back at the movies I’ve seen that are CG or heavily involve it, it really does seem like Gollum is one of the few cases where they’ve managed to pull it off, eyes and all.
Maybe it’s because there was less CGI in LotR, so they had more time to work on Gollum. Also Gollum isn’t human so our expectations are lower.
“That’s not a limitation; that’s a useful tool. Otherwise, agreed.”
I wouldn’t say that. If you film a background in focus with an object in the extreme foreground, that object is going to be out of focus, unless you use a camera trick. I suppose it can be used as a tool, but it’s a tool born of necessity rather than innovation. But perhaps “limitation” is the wrong word.
One for the Young Justice fans:
The Red Tornado’s daughter gets lost in time and ends up being raised as an ancient Danish warrior. She is: Trayawulf.
Also Gollum isn’t human so our expectations are lower.
Perhaps, but I’m not sure that’s entirely accurate.
If you’re watching the movies and you can simply accept that humans are Hobbits, then Gollum isn’t any different, as he is a Hobbit as well.
And much of The Two Towers & Return of the King hinge on whether Gollum is believable, and I very much think he was. 🙂
Sean Hayes and Megan Mullally in… “GAY – o- wulf”…. ( BTW , it’s GREAT that she’s in “Young Frankenstien”)
Grendel is a stubborn old mule… it’s “Bray-o-wulf”
and lastly, Worf’s displeasure at Westley saving the day once again…. “THE BOY-o-wulf? ! ?”
Werewolf Gone Wild: Barewolf.
Neutered Werewolf: Barelywolf.
RLR
A girl introducing her boyfriend to her parents, her Beauwulf.
The fuzzy, white sandwich topping, Mayowulf.
Legendary bluesman Howlin’ Beowulf
Irish activist rocker Bonowulf
Bozowulf The Clown
Payless Shoes Bogowulf
Sushi bars serving Fuguwulf
Ravel’s Bolerowulf
Michael Caine has an affair with his best friend Sven the Viking’s daughter in the new hit “Blame it on Riowulf”
Headbanging vikings from the 80’s listen to Ronnie Diowulf.
Float like a butterfly, sting like a gigantic Norweigan mosquito: It’s Cassious Clayo-wulf
The stars aligned against you? Ask the advice of Miss Cleo-wulf.
–Captain Naraht.
P.S. Mike (the funny but overly focused debater, Mike) I told that “rabbit-asks-for-cabbage” joke to my wife, Admiral Naraht, and she laughed until she just about had a Minor Cardiac Episode.
Nice one.
“I wouldn’t say that. If you film a background in focus with an object in the extreme foreground, that object is going to be out of focus, unless you use a camera trick. I suppose it can be used as a tool, but it’s a tool born of necessity rather than innovation. But perhaps “limitation” is the wrong word.”
Yes, limitation would be wrong. It is possible to shoot foreground and background with both in focus, depending on the depth of the shot, and the lens used. But useing the shallow depth of field, with only a certain section of the image in focus, draws the eye to what the director wants you to be paying attention to.
The technique, as employed in animation, is less about emulating the look of film (though that’s surely a part of it), than it is just a basic filmic technique for drawing attention to what is important in the shot (which is generally not a vase in the foreground).
Also, focusing on one thing at a time reproduces the way the human eye works, so there’s nothing unnatural about it. What’s odder is when animation reproduces lens flares, which may be an element one expects from film but aren’t part of the normal human visual experience.
Fiddler on the Roof: recast the butcher Lazar Wolf with Beowulf, who then spends the rest of the story pacing across the stage waiting for Grendel to show up. He never does though.
I ran into the brother of a friend the other day, and in the course of our conversation, he’d mentioned that he’d seen the film. But the way he pronounced it, it sounded like he said “Baywolf.” Not knowing what film he really meant, I asked, somewhat bemused, “what is that, a combination of Baywatch and Airwolf?”
He tried again, enunciating more clearly. That’s when the lightbulb went off over my head.
Myself, I haven’t seen the film. I may. I may not. Maybe I’ll wait till the book comes out.
Rick
Rick-
There is an excellent translation of Beowulf by Seamus Heaney that is current available. I recommend it highly.
Kath
Appreciated. I’m sure, of course, you caught the irony behind the “waiting for the book to come out” comment, since usually people say they’re not going to read a particular book, but will just wait for the movie.
Rick
Kath the Wife–THANK YOU. My WIFE won’t, because now that’s on my Christmas list, but I do.
How about the Steven Tyler version? Just Push Playowulf? She told me to walk this wayowulf?
1Well, this has been used, sorta, but how about:
Jethro Bodine’s alter ego stars in Max Baerwulf.
Hue finds his long lost father : BorgWorf
Seinfeld is the voice of : Beewulf Movie
From the creators of the Matrix comes : Neowulf
I am a 3D animator and I tend to be most critical of flaws in movies like these. I saw Final Fantasy Spirits Within and thought that the story was the downfall of that one. The characters sometimes were eerily real. Then comes Polar Express and I was flabbergasted. I agree the eyes are creepy but isnt it more creepy that some old guy in the north pole wearing red tights lives with like all these elves? I found it fitting that it ended up feeling kinda creepy like the good ol fashioned storybooks like little red riding hood etc. Now I have yet to see Beowulf but I am pretty hopeful of it cause all I hear about it is that its great except for the fact that it creeps people out like Polar Express did. I guess I love it then.