Beowulf (Robert Zemeckis, 2007)

Message

flyonthewall2983 · #1 Post by **flyonthewall2983** » Thu Jul 26, 2007 5:03 am

#2 Post by **Jeff** » Thu Jul 26, 2007 5:52 am

Ray Winstone has got the right idea. Why am I busting my ass running every morning when I could just be redesigned in motion-capture CGI?

That animation is even creepier than The Polar Express. At least that one was somewhat stylized to look like Chris Van Allsburg's illustrations. Angelina Jolie looks (even more so than usual) like she's been dipped in hot wax and buffed to a high-polish shine.

flyonthewall2983 · #3 Post by **flyonthewall2983** » Thu Jul 26, 2007 6:18 am

Jeff wrote:Angelina Jolie looks (even more so than usual) like she's been dipped in hot wax and buffed to a high-polish shine.

I'd kill to have that job.

Kirkinson · #4 Post by **Kirkinson** » Thu Jul 26, 2007 8:32 am

Huh. I'm pretty sure I'll see it just for Crispin Glover as Grendel, but this trailer per se is not compelling. I'm still cautiously curious.

On the other hand:

Beowulf trailer wrote:Original Songs by Glen Ballard and Alan Silvestri

This is not good news.

Antoine Doinel · #5 Post by **Antoine Doinel** » Thu Jul 26, 2007 11:24 am

From the LA Times:

("Bob asked if he had to be nude, but we said, 'It's in the poem,' " Gaiman explained.) So in a crafty bit of staging to allow a PG-13 rating, Beowulf's naughty bits are obfuscated by random objects in the foreground. It's more subtle and subdued, but shadows, swords, mead flagons and shoulders block all in a sequence not unlike the prankish cloaking device used in "Austin Powers" films.

"We just thought we should maintain the integrity of the book and perform the fight the way it should be performed but at the same time cover up appropriately," Sharkey said. To circumvent certain MPAA ratings issues, the producer and director purged the script of foul language, used an array of blood colors ranging from crimson to green and dreamed up gravity-defying nude scenes.

As for the trailer, Zemeckis' CGI effects still make the actors look remarkably inhuman. And why is everyone covered in baby oil?

exte · #6 Post by **exte** » Thu Jul 26, 2007 6:54 pm

I wonder if in twenty years, when computers will be able to do so many more complex processes easier and faster, will Zemeckis return to this and update all the textures and shadings? I think it will be one of those films...

flyonthewall2983 · #7 Post by **flyonthewall2983** » Thu Jul 26, 2007 7:37 pm

exte wrote:I wonder if in twenty years, when computers will be able to do so many more complex processes easier and faster, will Zemeckis return to this and update all the textures and shadings? I think it will be one of those films...

He didn't make any changes to the Back To The Future movies when they were restored for DVD release. I think that he also said in the commentary for the first one that he doesn't subscribe to that theory of filmmaking. I could be wrong, it's been awhile since I watched the extras on that disc.

LeeB.Sims · #8 Post by **LeeB.Sims** » Wed Aug 01, 2007 10:02 pm

At the very least, I'm very interested to see what that writing team churns up. Killing Zoe and The Sandman chronicles really rocked me as a kid.

jbeall · #9 Post by **jbeall** » Wed Aug 01, 2007 10:10 pm

I'll be skipping this one. I'm not sure which was the bigger deal-breaker, the PG-13 or Glen Ballard.

patrick · #10 Post by **patrick** » Thu Aug 02, 2007 11:32 pm

I thought they were originally talking about doing an NC-17 cut of this, it's a shame that they've decided they need to make it PG-13.

#11 Post by **domino harvey** » Thu Aug 02, 2007 11:37 pm

This looks really bad, I don't understand why they don't just film it like a normal movie.

flyonthewall2983 · Thu Aug 02, 2007 11:55 pm

Just speaking in general, I really have a hard time understanding why directors now are so eager to make their films PG-13, even if there's little possibility of it reaching a teenage audience (Soderbergh's Solaris for example). Unless this was Paramount's decision, which it sounds like it is. If it was packaged more like a counterpart to 300, I think there would be more interest in it (at least from me).

I'm rambling now, but I really wanted to see The Dreamers when it came out in theaters because it was NC-17. It looked like a good film (still haven't seen it as of yet), but it was mostly the rating that had a very taboo appeal to me.

Highway 61 · #13 Post by **Highway 61** » Fri Aug 03, 2007 5:18 pm

Well, this is Zemeckis we're talking about, the guy who made a fortune and swept the Oscars with a PG-13 film covering such topics as Vietnam, desegragating public schools, political assasination, drug addiction, and AIDS.

#14 Post by **domino harvey** » Fri Aug 03, 2007 5:40 pm

Highway 61 wrote:Well, this is Zemeckis we're talking about, the guy who made a fortune and swept the Oscars with a PG-13 film covering such topics as Vietnam, desegragating public schools, political assasination, drug addiction, and AIDS.

Wow, I don't remember any of that but it's been so long since I've seen Back to the Future Pt III.

flyonthewall2983 · Fri Aug 03, 2007 8:53 pm

Highway 61 wrote:Well, this is Zemeckis we're talking about, the guy who made a fortune and swept the Oscars with a PG-13 film covering such topics as Vietnam, desegragating public schools, political assasination, drug addiction, and AIDS.

Why do I get a feeling this will spark a Forrest Gump discussion?

Cinesimilitude · #16 Post by **Cinesimilitude** » Sat Aug 04, 2007 6:00 am

flyonthewall2983 wrote:
Highway 61 wrote:Well, this is Zemeckis we're talking about, the guy who made a fortune and swept the Oscars with a PG-13 film covering such topics as Vietnam, desegragating public schools, political assasination, drug addiction, and AIDS.
Why do I get a feeling this will spark a Forrest Gump discussion?

probably because that's the movie he was talking about...

flyonthewall2983 · Sat Aug 04, 2007 6:23 am

*headdesk*

Mr Pixies · #18 Post by **Mr Pixies** » Mon Aug 06, 2007 10:41 am

Crispin Glover as Grendel, that looks like this!

Kirkinson · #19 Post by **Kirkinson** » Mon Aug 06, 2007 11:37 am

I'm not sure how I feel about that Grendel design. He looks creepy enough, but with all that vital tissue exposed to the air it seems like he ought to be easy to kill.

#20 Post by **Mr Sausage** » Mon Aug 06, 2007 3:38 pm

Kirkinson wrote:I'm not sure how I feel about that Grendel design. He looks creepy enough, but with all that vital tissue exposed to the air it seems like he ought to be easy to kill.

Grendel looks like he's in the wrong movie, like he walked off the Resident Evil 3 set and found himself animated and with a taste for large Danes.

#21 Post by **domino harvey** » Mon Aug 06, 2007 3:45 pm

It's been a few years since I've read Beowulf, but I don't recall Grendel being a Gunther von Hagens exhibit.

flyonthewall2983 · Sat Aug 11, 2007 10:26 pm

So...I take it Crispin buried the hatchet with Bob after the whole Back To The Future II debacle?

Barmy · #23 Post by **Barmy** » Fri Aug 17, 2007 2:45 pm

Glad to see 300 is having an influence.

lord_clyde · #24 Post by **lord_clyde** » Fri Aug 17, 2007 11:19 pm

Barmy wrote:Glad to see 300 is having an influence.

Shit, the next few years better not be like the five years following The Matrix.

tryavna · #25 Post by **tryavna** » Sat Aug 18, 2007 7:28 pm

lord_clyde wrote:
Barmy wrote:Glad to see 300 is having an influence.
Shit, the next few years better not be like the five years following The Matrix.

Or the five years following Pulp Fiction.

Or the five years following Star Wars.

The list goes on....

Hollywood is so predictable.

Internal Resources

External Sites

Specialty Labels

Site Menu

Beowulf (Robert Zemeckis, 2007)

Beowulf (Robert Zemeckis, 2007)