PDA

View Full Version : Beowulf



Mr Rid
07-26-2007, 06:47 PM
Let the all CG human argument begin-
http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount/beowulf/

StevieB
07-26-2007, 07:05 PM
Looks interesting. As I'm new to these forums what is there to argue about exactly?

Stooch
07-26-2007, 08:49 PM
what argument? there are times when you cant make a shot with conventional equipment due to various reasons so you must make do with a CG human. they definitelly pushed the CG a bit too much but it might also make sense financially.

not sure about how much angelina charges for her time but if she has to come in for a session for voice over and mocap and then move on, the studio can use those assets with more flexibility and might end up saving money in the long run. anyway, although i agree that more often then not a real character is all you need, i am not completely against full CG characters if there is a reason for it. to some people it just comes down to the fact that they like CG and are willing to buy a movie ticket jus to see it.

Chris S. (Fez)
07-26-2007, 09:30 PM
I think the style is too realistic to be charming and too fake to suspend belief.

StereoMike
07-26-2007, 11:16 PM
Was that thin meatstick the main monster of the saga? Grendel? It looked more like a doner kebap.

If I were Beowulf I'd take a leaf of bread and show him the inside.

http://hunger.bluephod.net/pictures/doenerspiess2.jpg

SplineGod
07-26-2007, 11:37 PM
It looks like a video game cinematic.

jin choung
07-26-2007, 11:50 PM
ridiculous and pointless. excusable when it was done the first time by the people at final fantasy cuz hey... maybe they didn't know better.

but ROBERT FING ZEMECKIS?! he's lost it.

why oh why oh why do the digital equivalent of shooting a stage play with a movie camera?

that is, why completely nullify your medium of choice by simply trying to imitate another?

animation is about caricature and stylization.

if you have COMPLETELY REALISTIC HUMAN BEINGS serving as a stand in in a live action movie as a stunt double, GREAT!

but a completely cgi film with completely photorealistic cgi people (though we have not achieved that here)....? RI-FING-DICULOUS! even slightly ricockulous!

these people should study art theory for a day or something.

jin

p.s. truly, what argument? it is a complete waste of time and talent.

Mr Rid
07-27-2007, 02:44 AM
After hearing from friends working on Beowulf, it doesnt look quite as good as what I was expecting. And yes, I dont know what the point is in spending all the time and money on creating CG 'actors' that appear exactly like real actors. I prefer the stylized look and design detail of Digic's Exigo shorts (though lame dialogue).

http://www.digicpictures.com/dataeng/pager.htm if you have not seen before, click on 'Exigo Shorts and Outro,' then 'more,' then start with 'Exigo Intro'.

gatz
07-27-2007, 03:05 AM
The images are impressive, but the action just doesn't ring true. I'm convinced we will see actors replaced in our lifetime. A few years back Macromedia developed "smart models." AI embellished character models will be the next step. Beowolf is still a $500 calculator watch. The $10 models will do more and cost less.

Red_Oddity
07-27-2007, 03:15 AM
Just watch Beowulf and Grendel, i thought it was a pretty nice depiction of the poem, i loved the fact that you actually feel sorry fro Grendel at some part in the movie, that he was just a victim of circumstances.

Mr Rid
07-27-2007, 03:22 AM
what argument? there are times when you cant make a shot with conventional equipment due to various reasons so you must make do with a CG human.

Right, but obviously, most of the 'performance' shots seen in the trailer could much more easily have been done by the actors.



not sure about how much angelina charges for her time but if she has to come in for a session for voice over and mocap and then move on, the studio can use those assets with more flexibility and might end up saving money in the long run.


I cant imagine how specific mocap performances for this movie can be re-used for another movie. While generic walk cycles and the like are not considerable costs.

And at $150mil, Beowulf costs more than other Jolie genre movies like Mr and Mrs Smith ($110mil), TombRaider ($94mil) or World of Tomorrow ($70mil), so I dont know where they might be saving any money by using CG versions of the actors.


to some people it just comes down to the fact that they like CG and are willing to buy a movie ticket jus to see it.

I'll certainly be buying a ticket just to see the CG, same as I do with a lot of other crap. CG photorealism is a more interesting challenge to me than cute, charactery things that most seem to see as the be all & end all for CG. Maybe indulgent, but I think it's just fun to see if you can try to recreate reality, even a human.

Red_Oddity
07-27-2007, 03:23 AM
Also, i never understood Zemeckis obsession with entire mocap-ed movies...
I get the feeling he's getting away with this mediocre story telling because it's such a new medium and he gets all these 'high profile' actors lined up to work in his 'movies' (Monster House was horrible, and this doesn't look any better)

BeeVee
07-27-2007, 04:45 AM
I think it might have been pandering to Ray Winstone's desired body image... yes, I'm sure that's it...

B

Steamthrower
07-27-2007, 05:33 AM
Seeing I'm a medieval geek, having read Beowulf an untold number of times (once in the Old English) I really really hope that this movie will be a good one. I'm just hoping I won't be totally disappointed, because Beowulf, the Nibelungelied, and all those great Scandinavian tales are a sort of obsession of mine.

We'll see...

BeeVee
07-27-2007, 05:59 AM
That is seriously optimistic of you Inigo07...

B

Steamthrower
07-27-2007, 06:37 AM
Yeah, I know ;-)

One scene showed knights riding across a bridge. Are outdoor shots like that CG as well? Surely they didn't mocap twenty horsemen?

Another question:

Does anyone know what programs they used? Maya, Houdini, Lightwave, proprietary?

StereoMike
07-27-2007, 06:43 AM
MS Paint. It was a real pain, but they achieved some spectacular shots. A gazillion chinese workers had to paint every single frame, print it, photograph it, scan it and then stitch it together by hand.

DogBoy
07-27-2007, 06:57 AM
I think Shrek would have made a better grendel then that poor animal.
This is so far from what I'd want from a beowulf movie. It made the 13th Warrior look like Bergmans finest hour.

Well, for the folks who wonder where the budget went, my guess a third of it went up Zemeckis nostrils.

mattclary
07-27-2007, 06:59 AM
I heard they used a beta of Notepad X.


Seriously, why the h3ll go for photorealism (and miss the mark slightly) of actors who look just like they do in real life? Does someone own stock in the animation co.? :confused:

zapper1998
07-27-2007, 08:37 AM
its looks good....

mattclary
07-27-2007, 09:34 AM
Two things occurred to me:
1. The digital assets have already been made. This should streamline the production for the game! What if they can use these assets in the game!?!

2. What if the model of Angelina Jolie is leaked and it becomes the star of a porno? :devil:

iconoclasty
07-27-2007, 09:59 AM
I like the way you think Matt. I smell another LW community project coming on.

Now that oDDy's gone, we can make all the porn we want <villian laugh>

kjl
07-27-2007, 10:02 AM
One scene showed knights riding across a bridge. Are outdoor shots like that CG as well? Surely they didn't mocap twenty horsemen?


That shot was for sure CG. Terrible, terrible horse animation.

The rest of it looks awful, too, imo. Bad lighting, creepy, creepy characters, and utterly pointless. Why CG? Might as well hand duplicate photographs with paint.

Chris S. (Fez)
07-27-2007, 10:21 AM
It made the 13th Warrior look like Bergmans finest hour.


Ha! Though I gotta admit 13th Warrior is kind of a guilty pleasure for me.

mattclary
07-27-2007, 10:45 AM
I like the way you think Matt. I smell another LW community project coming on.

Now that oDDy's gone, we can make all the porn we want <villian laugh>

Yep, I think Brad is a fool for leaving Jennifer, but I can't say I blame him too much.

Chris S. (Fez)
07-27-2007, 11:02 AM
Yep, I think Brad is a fool for leaving Jennifer, but I can't say I blame him too much.

Have you seen Angelina lately? Take a look at the tabloids next time you are in the supermarket line. She looks like skeletor after a sex change. Seriously distressing considering how hot she used to be:thumbsdow .

DogBoy
07-28-2007, 04:24 AM
Script by Neil "Sandman" Gaiman and Roger "True Romance" Avery? Now I'm depressed, as much I like them, pulp, goth Beowulf, with Angie as Grendels mum? That is some sick sh*t.
As for the design, it's kinda generic fantasy. I really loathe generic fantasy.


P.S. I actually liked the 13th Warrior also ;)

DogBoy
07-28-2007, 04:28 AM
Have you seen Angelina lately? Take a look at the tabloids next time you are in the supermarket line. She looks like skeletor after a sex change. Seriously distressing considering how hot she used to be:thumbsdow .

Maybe that's why they animated it? Though as she is now she'd make a better monster :devil:

Andyjaggy
07-28-2007, 07:23 AM
It looks good but I really can't tell how good it looks. The trailer never stayed on one shot long enough for me to get a good close look at it. It's easier to make something photoreal if you only see it for .5 seconds.

Red_Oddity
07-28-2007, 09:18 AM
Then again Andyjaggy, how long where some shots with Davy Jones in PotC 3?

At some point during that movie i was actually thinking, `wait a minute, the only real thing im seeing right now is Johnny Depp, and i believe the entire shot (JD fighting Davy Jones on the mast of the Black Pearl in the Whirlpool)

kopperdrake
07-28-2007, 10:07 AM
Hmm...I did wonder why some of you guys were slating it when I thought it looked pretty good. But then I showed a friend a clip and his monitor was much brighter and the fact it was CGI became quite blatant - some really obvious bump-type mapping on textures and flat colouration. Maybe it'll look better after a lot of post.

hrgiger
07-28-2007, 10:20 AM
You had me at Angelina Jolie...

Steamthrower
07-28-2007, 01:20 PM
Well, I watched the low-res version so perhaps some of the finer mistakes missed my eye.

What I heard was that they were going to do a *lot* of post-pro and try to get a look like "300".

JeffrySG
07-28-2007, 03:35 PM
I think the style is too realistic to be charming and too fake to suspend belief.
Perfectly stated...

...and I thought many of the effects in the trailer didn't look very good, and that's one aspect that should be perfect...

JeffrySG
07-28-2007, 03:35 PM
You had me at Angelina Jolie...
lmao

jin choung
07-29-2007, 01:46 AM
interesting - i was listening to npr and there was a segment on how technology affects our perception of beauty.

when film went from b&w to color, many of the stars that looked good in black and white because of strong, angular, sculptural features no longer looked very good.

when color came along, what was required was a strong "flesh presence" so you no longer get sculptural topology like marlene dietrich or katherine hepburn... you get marilyn monroe.

now, in the age of HD, where the clarity and lack of grain results in a VERY unforgiving scrutiny, we may end up requiring a state of perfection that is no longer possible with mere flesh and bone.

hmmmm... maybe that's where we're heading. we can no longer have human stars anymore because our demand for stylized perfection exceeds our genetic ability to portray it with actors.

that's my take.

the segment also talked about how media that's meant to be seen on youtube or cel phones may start requiring very caricature like people that read well in such a small format.

hd will require perfection that may require ever younger performers unkissed by the travails of age.
---------------------------------------------------------

also, ever notice how ugly actors can't catch a break? especially if they're women?

you may have an unattractive character like virginia wolfe or a crack whore but do you give the roles to capable but unattractive actresses? NOT A CHANCE!

instead you put putty on nicole kidman and have charlize theron gain a few pounds!

also, in an area such a SINGER/SONGWRITER where looks plays no real role in the art work of a song, NO UNATTRACTIVE PEOPLE are getting exposure.

all the singers and performers are hot! can you imagine all the artists who are being passed up because of their appearance?

well, maybe this tech will come in handy after all! give all these unattractive talents a "public face". so they can have a career!

ha, so maybe along with their publicist, agent and lawyer, you can add CG Anatomist to the roster of their entourage!

and of course, the logical conclusion would be something like we all living in an "augmented reality" where our everyday life is filled with a persistent "gui" that tells us how to get where we want to go and what building this is that i'm looking at (perhaps by way of implant or simple hud on our glasses) and maybe we can all communicate to each others' implants/glasses what image others should perceive when they look at us.

is that the tech that zemeckis is trying to foment i wonder....

jin

Mr Rid
07-29-2007, 02:23 AM
Man, if that Angelina Jolie model was leaked, the Poser artiste crowd would go nuts :p Imagine it with a set of those "high quality" breast morphs... hubba hubba! :D

Indeed.

Reminded me of some renders I did awhile back of a Croft-esque Poser figure that's available on Renderosity.

Red_Oddity
07-29-2007, 05:33 PM
It's not so much technical 'mistakes' that really cought my eye, it was the lifeless-ness of the characters, ESPECIALLY Anthony Hopkins, wtf? this guy has the ability to whipe the floor with most actors performances just by using his face, and the best they come up with is this mediocre facial capture?

SplineGod
07-29-2007, 06:06 PM
Exactly! Technically it looked great. Its the same problem I saw with Final Fantasy and Polar express. A real Tom Hanks is so much better then a CGI Tom Hanks. I dont get it and its ridiculous IMO.

Andyjaggy
07-29-2007, 06:20 PM
Then again Andyjaggy, how long where some shots with Davy Jones in PotC 3?

At some point during that movie i was actually thinking, `wait a minute, the only real thing im seeing right now is Johnny Depp, and i believe the entire shot (JD fighting Davy Jones on the mast of the Black Pearl in the Whirlpool)

Well exactly. Maybe I am crazy but sometimes I just get really sick of this constant jerky camera movement with cuts every .5 seconds. I got bored about half way through the battle at the end of pirates.

akademus
07-29-2007, 07:16 PM
Still in the uncanny valley... :sleeping:

Greets.
Oliver.

yup, true. And they won't get out of it.
And, uhm, I've seen characters much better than these ones all over cg forums.
C'mon, take a look what Infinite does...

jin choung
07-29-2007, 11:00 PM
it's harder when they move.

jin

Mr Rid
07-30-2007, 05:50 AM
yup, true. And they won't get out of it.
And, uhm, I've seen characters much better than these ones all over cg forums.
...

Even in Poser (by someone named "FS" on Renderosity).

Tom Wood
07-30-2007, 08:37 AM
In the DVD extras for Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow they talk about how they had Angelina Jolie for only three days, which made it work financially. They set up all the actors' movements ahead of time so that when it came time for principle photography all she had to do was hit her predetermined marks. Most of her main shots were close-ups with some dialogue.

I'm not sure, but they may be doing something similar with Beowulf. It appears to me that they can use anybody as a stand-in to get the motion capture, and then all they have to do is map the star's image onto the digital puppet. So these high-dollar actors only have to do a few days of voice-over work, but the producer gets to put their names on the poster. And it's the names on the poster that sells tickets.

Once he has the motion capture and famous voices, the director then has all the time he can afford to use digital technology to paint in all the sets. For Sky Captain, the only parts of the sets that were real were the parts that the actors physically touched - opening a door, brushing past a bush, etc. But with the digital toys they have now, even that may not be needed. Blue screen all the way. Just guessing, but that's how I'd do it.

Tom Wood
07-30-2007, 03:56 PM
Also, I don't think photo-realism in the characters is the actual goal. Since the characters will be surrounded by CG sets, it makes sense artistically to make the characters look CG as well. You know, the CG... sorta human looking... thingy... look...

And, I'd bet at least $5 that a lot of actors are recording their voices and digitizing their images so they can 'star' in movies made decades from now. I mean, I know my great-grandchildren should not be deprived of Ornella Muti.

"No! Not the bore worms!"

Trevor
07-30-2007, 04:32 PM
Also, I don't think photo-realism in the characters is the actual goal. Since the characters will be surrounded by CG sets, it makes sense artistically to make the characters look CG as well. "

I would agree with that.
I personaly would have liked to have seen the characters in titan ae as cg instead of cell style animation for that reason.

I think Beowulf looks pretty good imho.
Then again, i guess im the type of person to enjoy things for what they are, instead of being dissapointed for what it's not.

IgnusFast
07-30-2007, 04:59 PM
I really don't get all the negativism. I think it looks pretty good, with a few of the scenes looking damned realistic. Especially the low shot showing the king turning around in the cave. Gorgeous. I actually thought it was a real actor comped into a CG background, ala George Lucas' cheap *** not wanting to build real sets. :)

JGary
07-30-2007, 05:04 PM
Also, I don't think photo-realism in the characters is the actual goal. Since the characters will be surrounded by CG sets, it makes sense artistically to make the characters look CG as well. You know, the CG... sorta human looking... thingy... look...


If photo-realism is not the actual goal, then I think they have gotten too close to it without retaining any sort of style. I think Pixar is a perfect example of a studio that is able to produce characters that have lots of life and emotion. At times they use lighting and surfaces that look fairly realistic, yet they are able to keep lots of stylization and stay away from that 'uncanny valley'. On the reverse, I think Fiona in Shrek is a good example of taking it too far. I thought she was too realistic compared to the other characters in the movie. I think I even read a interview where it was stated she was taken too far towards realism and had to be scaled back. I can just imagine a team of nerdy 3d artists and programmers slaving away in darkened rooms creating their perfect cg girl. Angelina Jolie in the Beowulf trailer seems to suffer the same problem. She's by far the most realistic looking character in the trailer and you can tell where all the time went!

Tom Wood
07-30-2007, 05:24 PM
But Pixar movies stay firmly in the realm of 'cartoon'. How would it look to have Mr. Incredible slicing heads off with a sword, followed by buckets of CG blood? I think they've pulled them, but there were some very violent Tom & Jerry cartoons where Tom's legs get cut off with a lawnmower and the ends look like the side of a sliced ham with little if any blood.

I'd also bet they've focus-grouped this stuff in front of 'normal' people :D and found much more acceptance of what we see as flaws.

JGary
07-30-2007, 05:37 PM
But Pixar movies stay firmly in the realm of 'cartoon'. How would it look to have Mr. Incredible slicing heads off with a sword, followed by buckets of CG blood? I think they've pulled them, but there were some very violent Tom & Jerry cartoons where Tom's legs get cut off with a lawnmower and the ends look like the side of a sliced ham with little if any blood.


Well, Pixar movies may lean more toward 'cartoon', but I think the human characters in their most recent movies (incredibles, ratatouille) have more life in them compared to this Beowulf trailer or the Final Fantasy movie. It's that whole uncanny valley theory. The closer you get to realism the harder it is to make the character feel believable and alive. Just seems like a waste of a great opportunity to say your going to make a all cg Beowulf and then come up with such a bland style for it.


I'd also bet they've focus-grouped this stuff in front of 'normal' people :D and found much more acceptance of what we see as flaws.

I don't know, even my wife, who is not a creative type and doesn't fixate on fx, is keen to notice when cg humans look odd.

Tom Wood
07-30-2007, 06:42 PM
Yeah, they still don't have the eyes right, which is the creepout factor.

Jeebus, Driftwood? I love that little cutoff road to Wimberley, but the last time I drove it there was a huge entrance to some subdivision. And stop throwing rocks at the old gas pump! :D

jin choung
07-30-2007, 09:11 PM
the negativity stems from the perceived futility and stupidity of the talented people involved.

try to understand this analogy: it's like making a movie by sitting in a seat in theater with a motion picture camera and shooting a stage play.

sure, it's an accurate RECREATION/CLONE of a stage play. but wtf for?!

why not take advantage of the medium that you've chosen?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

if it's aiming for absolute reality, they missed. by a mile. (and again, even if they succeeded, it's pointless).

and if they are not aiming for reality, then they have no perceivable style aside from awkwardly poser-like. which is indeed a (bad, wretched, reprehensbile and quite popular) style.

jin

p.s. and again, the if their reason is not as ambitious and philosophically motivated as outlined in my previous post, there is no good justification of pursuing real cg people in a cg movie.

Qslugs
07-30-2007, 10:01 PM
This thing just looks plain bad. The only positive thing I can think to say, it may end up being a visual aid for people reading the story of Beowulf in high school.

I also agree about the Pixar comments. They could have made it look like anything! Why did they chose the go photoreal? Why not chose a cool style and have it work with the story instead of against it. When I viewed the trailer I wasn't expecting a poser movie, or another Final Fantasy. I just dont get it either. I do not want to see that movie.

They should have made it look like a Mike Mignolia comic :) The perfect style for that story.


Well, Pixar movies may lean more toward 'cartoon', but I think the human characters in their most recent movies (incredibles, ratatouille) have more life in them compared to this Beowulf trailer or the Final Fantasy movie. It's that whole uncanny valley theory. The closer you get to realism the harder it is to make the character feel believable and alive. Just seems like a waste of a great opportunity to say your going to make a all cg Beowulf and then come up with such a bland style for it.

I don't know, even my wife, who is not a creative type and doesn't fixate on fx, is keen to notice when cg humans look odd.

mattclary
07-31-2007, 05:05 AM
the negativity stems from the perceived futility and stupidity of the talented people involved.

try to understand this analogy: it's like making a movie by sitting in a seat in theater with a motion picture camera and shooting a stage play.

sure, it's an accurate RECREATION/CLONE of a stage play. but wtf for?!

why not take advantage of the medium that you've chosen?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

if it's aiming for absolute reality, they missed. by a mile. (and again, even if they succeeded, it's pointless).

and if they are not aiming for reality, then they have no perceivable style aside from awkwardly poser-like. which is indeed a (bad, wretched, reprehensbile and quite popular) style.

jin

p.s. and again, the if their reason is not as ambitious and philosophically motivated as outlined in my previous post, there is no good justification of pursuing real cg people in a cg movie.

My thoughts exactly.

I showed this to a friend of mine and didn't prep him in any way, wanted to get his gut feeling. I heard him making dumbfounded sounds in his cube. He thought it was a movie at first, then he became convinced it was a trailer for a game.

You know, going back to what I said earlier, their goal could be to have a game that looks EXACTLY like the movie. It could be the movie is just being used as a marketing tool for the game.

colkai
07-31-2007, 05:19 AM
their goal could be to have a game that looks EXACTLY like the movie. It could be the movie is just being used as a marketing tool for the game.

Call me cynical, but with the games for movies coming out at the same time these days, I am beginning to suspect many so called "block-busters" are just huge game adverts.

I mean, I know since Star Wars that merchandising has really been where the money is made, so I am the sort of person who thinks that the "suits" hold the "so what if the movie sucks, think of the money to be made in toys & games" train of thought. :devil:

mattclary
07-31-2007, 06:25 AM
Call me cynical, but with the games for movies coming out at the same time these days, I am beginning to suspect many so called "block-busters" are just huge game adverts.

I mean, I know since Star Wars that merchandising has really been where the money is made, so I am the sort of person who thinks that the "suits" hold the "so what if the movie sucks, think of the money to be made in toys & games" train of thought. :devil:

I agree. My statement seemed so obvious, it was painful to type, but this may be a new level (or low) of game marketing.

CMT
07-31-2007, 08:20 AM
Came in late to this one, but here's my thoughts.... CG work these days is still nowhere near the quality needed to create a convincing human with close ups and make me believe that it's a real human I'm watching.

I'm capable of suspending disbelief to enjoy a movie like this, but I shouldn't have to. If the movie is supposed to be as real as possible, and if in the back of my mind I think "I know that's a CG character, because it doesn't look quite right and his expressions give it away", at the end of the movie I've had a lesser experience than what may have been with a live cast. I just don't see the point these days to create as realistic a human as possible (textured with scanned textures from live people), animate them with motion capture (from another live human) only in the end to come up short in performance and visual effect, unless they are used to a minimum for stunt shots, etc.... And a CG character will never give you an oscar-caliber performance like that of the real Anthony Hopkins, or the real Angelina Jolie. At least not now anyway. So why, if the utlimate goal of a film is to make the best realistic film possible, would you use an inferior semi realistic CG human in the main roles?

I felt the same way when watching Final Fantasy. I was blown away when it first came out with the visuals, but even then as I sat there in the theater watching a kissing scene between the two most realistic human CG characters created to that date, I couldn't help thinking how stale the whole performance was.

Until CG characters are to the point that they are indistinguishable from live actors, I say use live actors. Better performances, better movies.

I'll still go see this, I imagine, because the story is a time tested one, and because I'm curious to see how good of a movie it will be overall.

kopperdrake
07-31-2007, 08:28 AM
Call me cynical, but with the games for movies coming out at the same time these days, I am beginning to suspect many so called "block-busters" are just huge game adverts.

You're not cynical, just older and more realistic. I used to work in a games company and of the 6 games in production they only had one own IP, the rest were all film franchise games, and these basically supported the company. The marketing machine is there to promote them, the audience is already there to buy them ("Sure you can have Pirates of the Carribean for Christmas Jonny.") and they cost much less to make than a movie (though that's changing with the new generation of consoles) but they make decent money. And today it's even easier as a lot of content is taken directly from movies and cleaned up for the game. Beowulf is going to be a doddle to convert if the actors are already 3D data. As for gameplay...what's that then?

They're just another cog in the money-making wheel that is Hollywood :)

Tom Wood
07-31-2007, 08:55 AM
the negativity stems from the perceived futility and stupidity of the talented people involved.

Not to pick on you alone, but this sentiment is widespread and totally ********. :D

Everyone involved in a movie is trying to do their best given the inherent limits. Nobody tries to make a financial failure. Movie making is a messy process because every movie is a new product constructed in the rain and the mud by humans that don't have complete information about either the process or the end product. It's a wonder anything gets made at all.

JGary
07-31-2007, 09:23 AM
Yeah, they still don't have the eyes right, which is the creepout factor.


While not exactly a human character, I think Davey Jones in Pirates is the only cg character that has had completely convincing eyes. When I first saw the movie, I was sure those were real eyes and was blown away when I discovered they were cg.



Jeebus, Driftwood? I love that little cutoff road to Wimberley, but the last time I drove it there was a huge entrance to some subdivision. And stop throwing rocks at the old gas pump! :D

Oh yeah, there are some fun, scenic curvy roads to drive on out here...until that deer smacks into your car!

Big subdivision...you must be talking about La Ventana.

iconoclasty
07-31-2007, 10:25 AM
Not to pick on you alone, but this sentiment is widespread and totally ********. :D


"********" doesn't get caught by the **** profanity filter?

mattclary
07-31-2007, 12:08 PM
... post deleted. I thought hell was on the banned list

Damn it.

Well **** me... I'll be damned...

Mr Rid
07-31-2007, 12:11 PM
Call me cynical, but with the games for movies coming out at the same time these days, I am beginning to suspect many so called "block-busters" are just huge game adverts.

I mean, I know since Star Wars that merchandising has really been where the money is made, so I am the sort of person who thinks that the "suits" hold the "so what if the movie sucks, think of the money to be made in toys & games" train of thought. :devil:

Uh... there's a difference between videogames and movies these days? That's all summer shlockbusters are.

jin choung
07-31-2007, 11:42 PM
[QUOTE=Tom Wood]Not to pick on you alone, but this sentiment is widespread and totally ********.QUOTE]

ummmmm,

i don't think you understand what we're talking about. you certainly don't quite have a handle on what i mean in the sentence you quoted from me.

come back when you get a grip on how utterly non-sequitorish your post is.

my apologies if english isn't your first language.

jin

Qslugs
08-01-2007, 09:11 AM
Yeah nobody here is picking on the people working in the trenches. Its the decision makers whose heads we are all screaming for :)

Now if only we could figurure out how to throw a French revolution in Holywood... Anyone have a good gilloutine model?

mattclary
08-01-2007, 10:59 AM
Now if only we could figurure out how to throw a French revolution in Holywood...

You know, we could make that into a game... :devil:

achrystie
08-01-2007, 10:27 PM
Why do characters with short CG "beards" seem more realistic than ones without? (Long beards are different, as they require more "beard motion") Is it just me or does it seem like the main character, who has a short beard, is more convincing than any of the "non bearded" characters. The same was true for me with FF Spirits Within. I found that bearded doctor character to be far more convincing than the other characters.

Maybe I'm just "beard biased", since I have one myself. :)

ABC

jin choung
08-01-2007, 11:04 PM
it's not just the beard...

it's AGE.

older characters have more OBVIOUS DETAIL to mimic. lots of "in your face" detail like lines and wrinkles and such so that if you copy those, you've achieved a level of verisimilitude already.

but what in the world do you do with a stunning, porcelain skin beauty of an 18 year old girl? her "details of reality" are much more SUBTLE and many artists just miss many of those ingredients altogether.

jin

DogBoy
08-02-2007, 01:41 AM
You know, we could make that into a game... :devil:

What? You mean like this (http://www.boardgameratings.com/game/21/)? It's a fun game. All we need do is change a few faces, Michael Bay swaps in as Louis XIV for instance, and we'd be made ;)

Red_Oddity
08-02-2007, 03:49 AM
it's not just the beard...

it's AGE.

older characters have more OBVIOUS DETAIL to mimic. lots of "in your face" detail like lines and wrinkles and such so that if you copy those, you've achieved a level of verisimilitude already.

but what in the world do you do with a stunning, porcelain skin beauty of an 18 year old girl? her "details of reality" are much more SUBTLE and many artists just miss many of those ingredients altogether.

jin

And not just that, do you try to mimic realism, or do you try to mimic hollywood/photography 'realism' on that 18 year old skin?

achrystie
08-02-2007, 09:50 AM
And not just that, do you try to mimic realism, or do you try to mimic hollywood/photography 'realism' on that 18 year old skin?

Good point from you and Jin.

I honestly thought it had also to do with how the beard seems to cover what I would "expect" (or more like take for granted) seeing as far as motion of the skin around the face when the character talks. Sort of like it's masking those subtleties that never seem to get captured in facial animation. I agree with you both though. :)

That's it! Beards on all characters from now on, Male and Female. :P

ABC

Mr Rid
09-06-2007, 04:06 AM
"R" for virtual nudity and gore.

http://www.beowulfmovie.com/

click restricted content- enter fake info (apparently is associated with your IP).

mrpapabeis
09-06-2007, 09:54 AM
Ok,

some of my students are fawning over this. For the obvious reasons. Some dismiss it, again for the obvious reasons. Will this "performance" transcend time and space? We'll see. In the meantime take a break and have a good laugh. The old fashioned way;

http://www.chillywillyfan.com/

Navigate on the left to see the episodes. Reality? No way! Stylistic? Shure. Symbolic? Very... Realistic? Nope, it's not the evening news. Entertaining? I think so.

GP

:chicken:

Red_Oddity
09-09-2007, 04:22 AM
"R" for virtual nudity and gore.

http://www.beowulfmovie.com/

click restricted content- enter fake info (apparently is associated with your IP).

Very restricted indeed, no matter what i enter, it isn't able to verify my info.

Exception
09-09-2007, 08:47 AM
Very restricted indeed, no matter what i enter, it isn't able to verify my info.

Same here.