Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Beowulf (2007)

This is topic Beowulf (2007) in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=001337

Posted by Emma Tomiak (Member # 1862) on 11-15-2007, 04:32 AM:

I don't think there are any spoilers in here but please let me know if yall find some.

First off, this movie would have been much better if it was live action instead of CGI motion capture. I wish I could have seen the facial expressions on John Malcovich and Anthony Hopkins in the few scenes they were in. The acting in their scenes was wonderful, but would have been terrific if I could see their real faces instead of the creepy "motion capture looking" faces.

Second, you barely get to see Grendel's mother (Angelina Jolie) 2 times or so! Seriously, I got to see Ray Winstone's butt a lot (and at a REEL CHANGE no less), but only got to see Angelina's beautiful figure once or twice. I feel cheated.

Third, this movie feels like it's 11 reels long and it's only 6. The final extended action sequence was pretty sweet, though.

Overall: Would be better with real live acting and bits of CGI where needed; needs more boobies; feels too long; OK ending.

2 out of 5 stars.

Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 11-15-2007, 08:49 AM:

The animation is loads better than Polar Express, but animation of this type will always have loads more room for improvement. Characters were sometimes too stiff, often too expressionless, but a few moments here and there looked "right".

IMAX 3D version gets thumbs up! Some of the larger-scale action sequences looked miniature, like they separated the eyes slightly beyond "normal" to exaggerate the 3D effect, but the depth of rendered detail was impressively crisp. (For the record, the IMAX 3D version was 36×2 reels. [Big Grin]

)

That was an "idealized" Angelina body. I doubt she's got those perfect hips. The boobs were too big, at least for MY "ideal". But they got her freaky, huge, weird-textured lips just right! Damn, the one thing I would have changed.

There are no "dirty bits" nudity, per se, but you definitely get some lessons in human anatomy. And a bit of non-human anatomy as well, now that I mention it. [Eek!]

Good music! It was definitely a Silvestri score. With songs co-written by Glen Ballard ... hey, at least Josh Grobin wasn't singing a put-me-out-of-my-misery-please cheeseball song in the credits!

Posted by Thomas Pitt (Member # 4322) on 11-15-2007, 03:48 PM:

I can usually tell when something is CG, even when it's trying to look realistic. Beowulf, on the other hand, looked incredible - I actually thought most of the footage was live-action with the real actors!

I saw it today in the 'Delux' auditorium of the multiplex. Plenty of leg room, reclining seats, seat vibration with the subwoofer sound... But it wasn't a digital presentation even though the advert said it would be!

The film does feel like it's a little too long for the story, with long segments where nothing much happens apart from character dialogue. But the battle scenes are epic and impressive and really held my attention!

Also notice that they skilfully position the camera so that any 'objectionable' parts of the human body are covered up by something else [Wink]

I'd give it 3 out of 5. An OK film, but not one I'd go and see again (perhaps in IMAX 3D though)

Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 11-15-2007, 04:44 PM:

quote: Thomas Pitt
nothing much happens apart from character dialogue

Forgive me, but I see this as a positive step in actual storytelling. In novels, I often find myself skimming the "action sequences", only to focus on the dialog between characters, where the story actually is. Film is a different medium, but basic storytelling will follow similar patterns.

I didn't find this film too long at all (and I screened it at 3:00am ... oh, I simply just LOVE when the sun is coming up on my drive home). Running time is 1:54 of actual feature and credits, by my clock.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-18-2007, 03:58 AM:

Location: Carmike 8, Lawton, OK
Auditorium: #1
Format: Real D/2K Scope/LPCM 5.1
Rating: 3 stars out of 4

Many high school students have to study the original epic poem of Beowulf, which dates back well over 1000 years, and no one really knows who wrote it. Those students are best warned not to try to use this Hollywood feature as a sort of "Cliff Notes" substitute. The movie is different from the original poem in a number of ways. Aside from the departures of "creative license" taken by Zemeckis and writers Neil Gaiman & Roger Avary, I found the movie to be pretty entertaining throughout. I'd like to see it again.

While the animation quality is a step up from The Polar Express, the results are still a little strange and even creepy looking at times. Realistic human figures are difficult enough to animate (horses are really difficult too), but getting animation right with CGI human faces is difficult to an extreme. There's just too many nuances going in a real human face to communicate life and emotion. There's so much happening that the CGI likenesses of Angelina Jolie and Anthony Hopkins are occaisionally lost. Anyone who has ever tried drawing a portrait of someone knows it takes a delicate balance to capture and maintain the likeness of someone. When confronted by all that technical/artistic difficulty, I have to ask this question: what is the point of doing that at all? Why not just shoot live action actors?

It's easier, not to mention more interesting, to animate CGI characters who are not completely realistic. Whether they're cartoony, caricatures or strange abstractions, such non-realistic CGI characters won't be inviting such a critical eye as to what's wrong or right about them. Without the distraction over what's real enough or not the audience can concentrate more on enjoying the story. I guess that's one reason why the end credits of Ratatouille bragged "100% Genuine Animation! No motion capture or any other performance shortcuts were used in the production of this film."

The Real D version of 3D was good. I think the best 3D I've seen was NASCAR 3D: The IMAX Experience. One advantage IMAX has is a huge screen whose borders don't interfere with objects trying to poke close to your face. But at least Beowulf consistently looked 3D throughout, with the characters and objects clearly defined in 3D space.

I liked Alan Silvestri's score and the songs from Glen Ballard. Sure, the main orchestral theme with its horns and chanting chorus is an obvious mix of classic monster movie kitsch with Viking themes. But it still sounds pretty catchy.

Posted by Vaughn Hamrick (Member # 4092) on 11-18-2007, 09:19 AM:

Do you think that they could make the film any darker?

Posted by Bob Maar (Member # 763) on 11-18-2007, 10:02 AM:

Major dissapointment.......1/2 star.

Posted by Matt Barth (Member # 3429) on 11-18-2007, 10:24 AM:

I wasn't impressed, had I gone to the 2-D version I would have been down-right bored. I swear Beowulf was played by Sean Bean, I think they did a V For Vendetta-esque last minute switch because Winstone is never going to be recognized from it. The fact Grendel's mother was hot was a deviation I didn't appreciate, it made sense but with this story you either be faithful and accept the flaws or deviate and make a forgettable story. Looks like the latter was chosen.

Worse mistake on the film? The booth's choice to attach the "Wanted" trailer where it's rediculously obvious Jolie got some flattering attention in this CGI.

Overall, I can get those graphics on a PS3 or XBox360 game and enjoy myself a bit more.

---Matt

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-18-2007, 11:24 AM:

quote: Matt Barth
I wasn't impressed, had I gone to the 2-D version I would have been down-right bored. I swear Beowulf was played by Sean Bean

Sean Bean is 48 years old. Although heavier, Ray Winstone is only 2 years older. I doubt Sean Bean has or ever had a physique like the CGI Beowulf character. But that issue, as well as the issue of Angelina Jolie's true life figure, is totally irrelevant. Grendal's Mother and Beowulf are meant to be idealized looking.

quote: Matt Barth
Overall, I can get those graphics on a PS3 or XBox360 game and enjoy myself a bit more.

That's wrong. While the X-Box 360 and Playstation 3 are both impressive for what they can do, such as getting decent gaming graphics scaled to HD-quality levels, they do NOT come anywhere close to equalling finished quality motion picture CGI graphics. Any gamer out there who believes otherwise doesn't know what he is talking about or is just lying through his teeth.

It still takes entire farms of computers crunching numbers for weeks on end to render a two hour, all-CGI movie. Some funky looking little toy box with 3 PowerPC CPUs and one GPU isn't going to equal the work of an entire rendering farm, much less deliver those results in real time. Look at the differences closely. A model in a game still has a very low triangle count. There's nowhere near as many shaders at work. Let's also not leave out the fact a finished 3D movie render is often put through additional steps, such as a pass through a compositing program like Fusion or have frames individually touched up in Photoshop.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 11-18-2007, 02:34 PM:

quote: Matt Barth
Worse mistake on the film? The booth's choice to attach the "Wanted" trailer where it's rediculously obvious Jolie got some flattering attention in this CGI.

How do you know it was a choice? It's common for studios to request trailers for movies related to the people who made the main feature.

Like when my old theater had Knocked Up, a Superbad trailer was on it and it was a required one since they wanted to hit up the people who liked the director.

Posted by Peter David Bruce (Member # 4447) on 11-19-2007, 03:51 AM:

anyone seen this issue... i made up beowulf the other day and when previewing it I found that there was alot of vertical scratches on the top right corner (just on the emulsion level). it wasnt through the whole film, I guess reel two or three. its not severe, and our customers wont notice, but us working in film every day, we see these things.

anyone else spotted similar? we have cleaned and cleaned the print but with little improvement.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-19-2007, 08:22 AM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
That's wrong. While the X-Box 360 and Playstation 3 are both impressive for what they can do, such as getting decent gaming graphics scaled to HD-quality levels, they do NOT come anywhere close to equalling finished quality motion picture CGI graphics.

They're getting fairly close. Check it out.

From Fight Night round 3:

Shorts look lacking, but otherwise very good.

From Virtua Fighter 5:

I grabbed this via composite video, but this game has excellent motion capture as well. The plastic-y lifeless look is similar to Beowulf. The headband could use more polygons.

Only about 10 years ago 3D games looked like this:

That's Virtua Fighter 1... same character as the above Virtua Fighter 5 pic.

Keep in mind that these games run at 60 frames (not fields) per second. They could probably look even more detailed if they were limited to 24fps.

Won't be long, my friend. Won't be long.

Posted by Peter David Bruce (Member # 4447) on 11-19-2007, 08:25 AM:

hehe nice one joe.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-19-2007, 10:21 AM:

quote: Joe Redifer
Won't be long, my friend. Won't be long.

I have been hearing that talk from gaming fans for over a decade, yet the fact remains that there is a very wide gulf between the quality of graphics for a motion picture versus what a mere gaming console can deliver.

When Pixar gets to the point where they can render an entire feature project during a single lunch break using only ONE single computer, then we can talk about the possibility of gaming consoles having real motion picture quality graphics. Until that day, true film-quality CGI graphics for gaming consoles will be a very distant fantasy.

Posted by Kyle Anderson (Member # 3504) on 11-19-2007, 10:12 PM:

It took approximately 6 hours of server farm time per frame to render Finding Nemo.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-19-2007, 10:47 PM:

Movie CGI will probably always be a small step ahead of videogames since they can cheat and do it ever-so-slowly, don't have to worry about game logic, etc. Videogame graphics have already surpassed the original Toy Story by a fairly large amount. They had 90,000 computers rendering that movie for about 160 years straight, no breaks. Of course, I am not a big fan of realism in all of my games... maybe just a few. But you have to admit that Beowulf looks just as dead and lifeless as a videogame that tries to look realistic.

Finding Nemo is old. Imagine how much faster the computers are today.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-20-2007, 01:22 AM:

quote: Joe Redifer
Movie CGI will probably always be a small step ahead of videogames since they can cheat and do it ever-so-slowly, don't have to worry about game logic, etc. Videogame graphics have already surpassed the original Toy Story by a fairly large amount.

That's over-selling video game graphics by a huge degree. Speaking of cheating, there is a LOT of that which absolutely must be done in creating video game graphics. Everything must be done with economy in gaming. You don't have actual 3D hair, fur, clothes and other stuff like that working and reacting in real time. All of that stuff still has to be painted as a mere texture map on a relatively low polygon count model. Only so much detail can be added to a model before it starts bogging down the console or PC trying to render it.

Video game graphics are impressing a lot of people lately due to advancements in real-time ray-tracing of models. The lighting is much more realistic looking than it was just a couple years ago. Still, the polygon count on those models is still very low compared to something used in a CGI movie -even a movie as old as Toy Story.

The job of game design certainly isn't easy. Game development is also something which tends to happen ever so slowly. Look how long people have been waiting for Crysis to get released.

The people who create computer graphics for movies have other serious concerns. Because the finished quality models and scenes have so much detail and take so long to render they have to be sure things are going to work correctly. There may not be enough time or a 2nd chance if some complicated sequence has a glitch in it.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-20-2007, 01:36 AM:

Regardless of the number of polygons, it's what meets the eye that ultimately counts. Both Beowulf and videogames that try to look realistic look like lifeless ass compared to reality. And they look like an extremely similar kind of lifeless ass.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 11-20-2007, 07:11 AM:

Which is exactly the point: what't the point? You hire big name stars and then turn them into really disturbing looking, lifeless animations. I mean, if they were NOT recognizable as the actors, they would be perfectly fine, but the fact that you see the actor "underneath" the animation is just creepy. You wind up with zombies.

Hey, if I were paying big bucks for the likes of John Malcovich and Anthony Hopkins and Angelina Jolie, I sure as hell would make them ACT for the film. How does BEOWULF benefit artistically by being animated as opposed to a live action film? And if you want an animation, just make it an animation with characters that you create out of the storyline and the animators' imagination. This idea that you superimpose real actors who the audience recognizes into the animated rendering makes little artistic sense to me. The fact that you purposely impose a real actor's visage on an animated character forces the audience to constantly compare the two. It's a constant distraction. Hell, I think it's a mistake when they insist, as they do nowadays, to hire big name actors to voice animated characters. Again, it's distracting. I say, save your money and hire vocal artists to voice animated characters (there are plenty of very talented people who are perfectly capable doing this and every bit as talented as name stars) and remove that layer of recognizablility. Let the characters come alive in and of themselves. But I guess they feel that the "star" name on the marquee is essential for success. Going one step further and morphing their likeness onto the cartoon is just unsettling and IMHO, without merit.

Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 11-20-2007, 07:27 AM:

I don't know how they captured the performances, but Malkovich's in particular gave away that there was indeed some acting going on. The mannerisms and cadence of his speech about "another Beowulf" were very much John Malkovich, I found.

Is there a top-grossing movie these days which doesn't feature a "big" name? Audiences come to see stars (or to hear them), so they're the spend-money-to-make-money aspect of the movie-making industry. Regrettably, this "talent" thing doesn't cut it alone.

You want completely fabricated and original characters? You've got Pixar doing that 100%-completely-animated thing. Great. I like seeing different studios taking different approaches. They'll perfect that (and have!), and perhaps Zemeckis and Imagemovers, or whoever is responsible, is going to perfect this performance capture technique. I don't think one's "better" than the other, just completely different, for different applications.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-20-2007, 10:08 AM:

The only way this could be a benefit, in my opinion, is to use it with old, ancient actors in sequels. Let's make-believe they wanted to make a sequel to Rambo or Indiana Jones or something off the wall like that. It would be infeasible these days since the leads are approaching 1,000. But with this, you could get the original actors back in to do the voices and the motion captures, but render it so that they look like they did back when they were worth something. The whole movie doesn't need to be CG, just the old actor. Of course it'd have to be realistic enough to believe, which Beowoof is not. It's a nice tech demo, but not quite ready for prime time.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-20-2007, 11:47 AM:

I think it bears repeating, Beowulf is definitely a significant improvement over the attempts to animate realistic human figures in The Polar Express. In Zemeckis' previous movie, the results were not very good. The human faces looked pretty dead and creepy throughout the entire movie. In Beowulf there were lots of points where the character faces looked like they had some life and personality. The results were still hit and miss, but nevertheless they were an improvement.

I still disagree with that complicated motion capture approach from an artistic point of view, nevertheless the technique is something which is definitely evolving.

I also must give credit to Robert Zemeckis and his crew for trying to do such a daunting task, especially after failing more obviously with The Polar Express. It takes a hell of a lot more guts to try and fail rather than not try at all.

The rest of the animation (except for a couple of oddly animated horses) was great. The fire-breathing dragon kicked ass. There was a lot of good 3D sight gags too.

quote: Frank Angel
Hey, if I were paying big bucks for the likes of John Malcovich and Anthony Hopkins and Angelina Jolie, I sure as hell would make them ACT for the film.

Actually performing in front of film cameras would have been easier for those actors. Instead they had to be 3D scanned numerous times, allow technicians to draw registration dots all over their faces, glue sensors to their faces and wear motion capture suits for hours on end -yet still deliver a consistent performance. Not exactly a walk in the park.

quote: Brian Michael Weidemann
I don't know how they captured the performances, but Malkovich's in particular gave away that there was indeed some acting going on. The mannerisms and cadence of his speech about "another Beowulf" were very much John Malkovich, I found.

Actually, I thought Malkovich's character, Unferth, was one of the more problematic CGI people in terms of dull looking facial expressions. His captured physical mannerisms came across alright. Anthony Hopkins' physical performance as Hrothgar (as well as the facial work the CGI character) was better. I think Beowulf's friend, Wiglaf, as played by Brendan Gleeson, was the best CGI character out of the group. Wiglaf's expressions and emotion just came across better, particularly at the end of the movie.

Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 11-20-2007, 05:15 PM:

Wiglaf, indeed, was among the stronger animations. Unferth was stiff and waxy, but my point was the timing of movement and attempts at expressions were clearly triggered by Malkovich, more than animated to his voice track. Whether the animation revealed the full depth of the performance subtlety, ... I think we can all agree that it's not quite there.

Posted by Peter David Bruce (Member # 4447) on 11-23-2007, 04:42 PM:

I agree, but overall I think 'what an impressive display of computer imagery' - some bits just looked stunning. For example, the dragon under water with the flames bubbling away looked perfect... and the coseups of beowulf himself were great... especially the shot after the seamonsters tale...

tiny lip movements and flutters in the eyes and that just make a model like that look real. also lighting was excellent, so that helps tons too.

Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 11-26-2007, 05:35 PM:

CINEMA: Megaplex 17 at Jordan Commons, Sandy, UT
AUDITORIUM: Cricket IMAX
PRESENTATION: IMAX 3-D
PRESENTATION PROBLEMS: None [Cool]

RATING: Two and one half stars (out of four)

WARNING: "There have been many a brave soldier come to taste my husband's Spoilers."

We managed to reserve the leather recliner chairs (there's two of them in the room and they're in the sweet spot). Smiling Ticket Taker announces our seat numbers and says "I'm pretty sure you know where they are. Try not to fall asleep during the feature."

THE PLOT: A troll gets annoyed with his neighbor's loud parties. Wackiness ensues.

I'm not much into this sort of crap. I don't recall ever reading the story or poem or whatever it is in school. But it looked good, had a good soundtrack, and Wife #1 LOVED it, so what can you do.

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 11-30-2007, 12:07 PM:

The IMAX at AMC EASTON 30 was working this week. I would have been better off had it was still been broken.

This movie is just dreadful. There is NO character development whatsoever, and some of the motion capture looks like bad stop-motion footage. For example, there was one scene during Grendel's first appearance where it was looked like only every 3rd frame or so was rendered. There are also far too many 3-d gimmicks. We've seen enough arrows now, lets try to tell a story instead of tossing water at the audience.

(Nothing yet compares to the scene in ANDY WARHOL'S FRANKENSTEIN where the intestines hang off the end of the spear thrust right into the audience's face!)

Most of the men looked pretty good, but most of the women looked like wax figures. Something about the eyes is especially wrong. During some of the more intimate scenes, the eyelines did not line up at all so it looked like the two people were not even in the same conversation.

The Imax version is supposed to have some enhanced depth features. I sure didn't see any. I saw a very very limited z-axis...nothing came very far out and nothing went very far back. In fact, some of the backgrounds looked like painted scenery.

I actually laughed out loud a couple of times at the overly bombastic music and bad dialogue. This film is very close to being a comedy. Actually, some of the funniest moments occur during that long section with the naked Beowulf as the director cleverly covers up his "sword".

The mighty 50' Imax Jr. system did a pretty good job, but there was still quite a bit of dirt in spots, especially on the left eye print. Sound was pretty good, but the sub sounded like a separate system, not an extension of the main speakers. I continue to like the Imax back corner speaker placements over the side placement of 35mm digital sound. Oh, and AMC Easton needs to do a better job of cleaning the glasses...they are covered with water spots. I could not find a single set of clean glasses.

Here is one weird thing. Looking at the FIRST LOOK through the IMAX glasses showed one lens passing green light, and the other passing purple (red+blue) light.

Academic scale rating: F I have to say this is among the worst films I have ever seen. Not as bad as RABBIT TEST or NOTHING BUT TROUBLE, but very close.

[ 12-08-2007, 07:27 AM: Message edited by: Mark Lensenmayer ]

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 12-03-2007, 09:01 AM:

Most annoying thing about watching it in 2D...seeing everything that was put in it so it would look great in 3D which is what, 2% of the cinemas?

3D or not 3D...make a choice, dammit!

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-03-2007, 12:36 PM:

Definitely "not 3D".

3D is a gimmick, nothing more. It doesn't add to the movie like, say, multichannel sound does.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-03-2007, 06:27 PM:

The 3D definitely screws up the works for anyone wishing to pirate the movie by videotaping off of the screen.
[Razz]

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 12-07-2007, 06:58 PM:

Regarding recording a 3-D film, couldn't you just use a polarzing filter to capture only a single eye? Those IMAX glasses are almost big enough that a camera lens could fit behind it.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 12-07-2007, 10:12 PM:

Ka-ching! And no flicker no matter if a 24p camera is used or not (on digital presentations a least).

Posted by Christopher Howland (Member # 4386) on 01-02-2008, 04:59 PM:

Take a look at Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare's graphics for the PC, not on consoles. I was playing it today, and i think that the graphics for COD are better than Beowulf.

Also, i heard somewhere that the Steam graphics for Half-life 2, and the recent revamp for Episode 2, has over 120 bones/muscle values in the character faces to depict emotion, and i think it works very well.

Take a look at some screenshots for the PC version of Call of Duty 4, i think it will surprise a few people here who havent seen the latest pc games have to offer, especially considering how pcs render these graphics in real-time versus months for CG movies.

I remember one of the movies that i was watching, Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within, and i could have sworn the CGI was better in that movie than in Beowulf. Has anyone seen both these movies to compare? I've only seen clips of Beowulf, but i have seen the entire Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within movie

Posted by Paul Burt (Member # 3743) on 01-07-2008, 12:20 PM:

Well, alright, I have to say that this was WAY better than I expected, what with all the negative reviews and reports. Especially in 3D. Yes, the motion capture system still has its flaws, but compared to the creepy Polar Express this was a vast improvement. The story is what it is. Character development was less of an issue in the Middle Ages, I guess. The general look and feel of the film was as good as I could have imagined, considering all had to be developed from scratch. Lots of nifty camera angles, and the fight with Grendel was a hoot. Given the mythologic context, I thought the sequence in Beowulf's later years was just right. And although there wasn't much screen time, the enhanced Angelina Jolie was definitely a treat.

Posted by Kyle Anderson (Member # 3504) on 01-07-2008, 01:02 PM:

quote: Christopher Howland
I remember one of the movies that i was watching, Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within, and i could have sworn the CGI was better in that movie than in Beowulf. Has anyone seen both these movies to compare? I've only seen clips of Beowulf, but i have seen the entire Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within movie

Final Fantasy looked *cooler*, but not more realistic (it looked like a pricey version of Starcraft cinematics).

Remember that Beowulf's CG is not about looking good (that's not the primary goal) - the goal is to put actual actor's performances directly into a CGI film, and Beowulf succeeds at that goal. Looking good is a secondary goal that's further down the line.

In other words, while computer games deliberately stay away from the uncanny valley (this is why they "look better"), Beowulf is trying to avoid it altogether by using actual actors.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-07-2008, 06:33 PM:

quote: Christopher Howland
Take a look at Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare's graphics for the PC, not on consoles. I was playing it today, and i think that the graphics for COD are better than Beowulf.

You would not make that claim if you closely looked at the imagery in Beowulf (or most any other CGI driven movie) objectively.

Movie CGI has the luxury of rendering models and textures with much greater levels of detail and lighting refinement than any computer game can manage. Modern computer games like Call of Duty or Crysis do look very impressive, but their imagery is still crude or abstracted shorthand compared to good quality movie CGI. Crysis has drawn a lot of criticism for its graphics being far too demanding of current computer hardware.

A lot of the same software is used in both game development and movie CGI. Some of the same people have worked in both industries. Even with those common traits, it's still necessary to use farms of computers to render the CGI in a new movie. Often those rendering jobs are farmed out to numerous firms because of time constraints.

quote: Christopher Howland
I remember one of the movies that i was watching, Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within, and i could have sworn the CGI was better in that movie than in Beowulf. Has anyone seen both these movies to compare?

Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within had a lot great style in its visuals. But that's a subjective judgment. Having seen both, I think Beowulf looked more realistic. Final Fantasy was released in 2001. A lot of technology has improved since then and Beowulf has certainly drawn some benefit from that. Both films suffered from their human characters not looking alive enough. The problem affected the Final Fantasy movie pretty badly. Beowulf at least showed the technology is improving.