MovieChat Forums > Beowulf (2007) Discussion > CGI indistinguishable from reality

CGI indistinguishable from reality


this movie looks pretty good, but you can still distinguish it from reality very easily. when will they be able to do computer generated movies that look just like reality?

reply

I was so disappointed when I started watching this movie and learned it was basically a cartoon. I felt like I was watching a video game.

What did (and still) disturb me was the unnecessary use of animation. I mean, you have the actors in the studio...they spend extensive time memorizing lines and modeling in the blue suits--only to have the animated characters appear (nearly) identical to the them and merely standing around most of the time. In my opinion you only need animated effects if the alternative isn't cost effective and it helps draw in the audience. From my limited perspective though, unless the costumes/make up department really costs a fortune, are they really saving that much time and money?


I agree, instead of enhancing it, it was just distracting. A classic case of abusing something that can be good. I wish they could have used the actual actors appearances and then did everything else with CGI.

reply

I was so disappointed when I started watching this movie and learned it was basically a cartoon. I felt like I was watching a video game.

Right, because video games are only cinematic cutscenes. Wait, did i say cinematic? Does this mean whem i am playing a PS4 game i am actually playing a movie?

Millenials and their insane troll logic...


Bambi + Lewis Skolnick = Disney's Peter Parker

reply

I'll have it done by next week.

reply

I agree, instead of enhancing it, it was just distracting. A classic case of abusing something that can be good. I wish they could have used the actual actors appearances and then did everything else with CGI.


I'm wirth you here. That is essentially the way they did Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, if I'm not mistaken. That movie was artistically superior IMO.

When they do all CGI, I understand that they can change camera angles on-the-fly and all, which in technically complex scenes like the swim race was important. However, it does sort of suspend physics to the point you feel you're watching a Playstation 3 game or something similar.

My only beef with the movie is how lifeless the characters are. Their faces were sort of blank, like they animated action figures. Ironically, the only character I felt empathy for was the least 'human', Grendel. His facial expressions and lip sync, body language, and everything worked beautifully. Kudos to the animators and also to Crispin Glover's performance. It kind of made me say "Gollum, Who?"

reply

They can do realistic humans with CGI, no one is mentioning Final Fantasy The Spirits within.... That was where they bombed because its still visually superior to almost any CGI movie that comes out (except for avatar now), and if they hit the jackpot with a great story in FF you would see more movies like that. FF had a horrible story and no one cared so they started to use CGI more for kid stuff where making cartoony stuff is cheaper also.

reply

Its an animated film, albeit a computer animated one, so its not supposed to be photo-realistic. Its completely different to having a CGI character in a live action film like Gollum or King Kong.

"I felt my pecker flutter once, like a pigeon havin' a heart attack"

reply

Low-light scenes, such as Grendel's initial attack, with flashing lights looked extremely realistic. Skin reflections were very impressive as well. Overall visually very impressive. In another five years it will be indistinguishable.

reply

[deleted]

It is already indistinguishable: Avatar .


Still far off. Stiff. The only way they looked good is because they WEREN'T humans. They had huge, expressive eyes and blue skin, way off from humans. Its avoiding the issue.


I'll bring the BEARDS.

reply

They can do realistic humans with CGI, no one is mentioning Final Fantasy The Spirits within.... That was where they bombed because its still visually superior to almost any CGI movie that comes out


Yeah, I still remember seeing that film even after 12 years later, still looks good

reply

the thing i find most distracting is that all of the characters look slightly cross-eyed

reply

I don't know. I mean, Avatar was, and still is in my opinion, as close to '100% photo-real' as any movie has ever gotten.

I think it's interesting....Avatar in a lot of ways was a convergence of two different sections of film.

There were the 'live action films that tried to have photo-real CGI characters' that started with The Abyss, then went to Terminator 2, Jurassic Park, Dragonheart, The Phantom Menace, Lord of the Rings, Hulk, King Kong, Pirates of the Caribbean 2-3, Transformers, etc etc

But then there were the animated films that were trying to look as close to reality as possible.

Toy Story was the first fully computer animated film, and after that computer animated films went in two different directions.

The 'this is the new cartoon' direction of Pixar, Dreamworks, etc etc

Then there was the much more rate 'lets make an animated movie that looks realistic' approach.

Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within in 2001, The Polar Express in 2004, Beowulf in 2007.

Avatar was sort of a meeting of the 'live action movie with realistic CGI characters' and 'CGI movies that look realistic'. It was something like 25-30% live action and 70% CGI...and even the live action sections had a lot of CGI.

It was the natural hybrid and the evolution of both of those approaches.

It seems that the next time we will see another step in this direction...it will be the new trilogy of Avatar films.

As the movies that Marvel Studios and etc are churning out(which are fantastic) are sort of resigned to 'looking really good' but not pushing the envelope of photo-realism.

As far as 100% computer animated films that go in this direction, I don't know when we'll get another one, but I'm excited for it.

I mean, look at Final Fantasy, then look at the jump in realism to The Polar Express 3 years later, then look at the jump in realism to Beowulf 3 years later.

Beowulf is now over SIX years old...just imagine what the next attempt at this type of film could look like?

I think the right amount of time, money, and effort could REALLY allow a result that is extremely extremely close to looking like reality.

But Final Fantasy, The Polar Express, and Beowulf were all not that financially successful....so I'm not sure if we'll get another one of these films for a while.

But the Avatar sequels are coming, and they will without a doubt be the new high water marks for photo-realistic CGI in film.

"Mr. Cameron, people should know...how you saved us all, how you raised the bar."

reply

When George Lucas decides it's time. He'll surely be the first director to make a "live action" looking film about people without people. He uses CGI for everything possible, even when it's completely unneeded, or unwanted.

Heck, he asked Martin Scorsese why he didn't use CGI instead of a built set for Gangs of New York. Yeah, Lucas is that nutty for CGI.

Time wounds all heels.

reply

The Uncanny Valley syndrome still holds here. And, even a decade later, you look at high-budget videogames and they still look that way. Personally, I think that, if you wanted to do this, I would just film the actors, then add a layer of animation to them, instead of doing motion capture and then animating them.

reply

Film Ray Winstone as he actually is? His naked fight scene with Grendel would truly have been the stuff of nightmares! 🤣

reply

Mmm'kay, gonna have to agree there!

reply

I'm from twelve years in your future, and I'm here to tell you that they still haven't done it yet.

reply

Right about now

reply