Beowulf

[Hellboy Animated 101]

For those of you who've watched the new Red Band Beowulf trailer on the website or Youtube, I have a question to ask. After you see Rob Zemekis' name, you hear this looong moaning sound that continues until the part when Grendel attacks. II wanna know....WHAT THE HELL IS THAT NOISE?! It sounds like a woman giving birth......more specificly, ANGELINA JOLE GIVING BIRTH!??! Ether that or her mourning Grendel's death later on.......either way, can someone explain what that infernal female-sounding moaning and groaning is about?:confused: :confused: :evilsmile?!

[Hellboy Animated 101]

fine...here's the youtube link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2s5O-c4U0k

[Jared]

You started a new thread just to ask about a sound effect? Your guess is as good as mine, but I think it sounds like Angelina Jolie, whether dying, giving birth, adopting another kid, I have no idea.

I'm more surprised by the visuals. Maybe it's just youtube's crappy framerate, but the movements look more artificial than I would have have hoped. Not bad, per say, but not much of an improvement from what can already be done.

[The Mutt]

My guess is that it is Grendel's mother giving birth to him. Big head on that sucker.

[KenK]

My guess is that it is Grendel's mother giving birth to him. Big head on that sucker.

I mean, if you extrapolate from how he is as a full-grown adult, yeah, that couldn't have been an easy birth. :D

[OhMyGato]

No Beowulf thread...nowhere to discuss the jolie side boob advertisement. Had to fix that.

[The Zapper]

The movie looks pretty bad, and Jolie is loosing her looks fast.

[The Batman]

Isn't that a CGI Angelina Jolie in that movie?

[Legato]

Isn't that a CGI Angelina Jolie in that movie?

Yep.

character limit

[IamtheRock3]

yup the whole thing computers

They done it better then before

Back in polar express it looked CRAZY CREEPY

but now, not so much

[Legato]

The movie looks pretty bad, and Jolie is loosing her looks fast.

The movie looks too dark, you can hardly make out some of the scenes. Also that was Jolie in animated format

[Legato]

yup the whole thing computers

They done it better then before

Back in polar express it looked CRAZY CREEPY

but now, not so much

Still needs some tweaking though. But when I first saw the trailers it did look real enough to whare I thought is was a live action film.

[The Batman]

Anyone got a link to this trailer?

[DonC]

http://www.beowulfmovie.com/

[OhMyGato]

The chance to see this in 3D is pretty cool. I remember seeing one of the freddy movies in 3d when i was a kid. Bringing back old memories.

[K.O.V.G]

This looks like a good movie i'm looking forward to seeing this finally more movies are coming out that are not based on the same boring marvel and dc crap.

[kmeyers]

Looking at the trailer of this, I'm left wondering why this hasn't gone straight to video game.

Looks like a fun video game, though.

[G. Wayne]

I just found out that there are supposed to be PG-13 AND NC-17 releases of the movie, so my interest in this has increased significantly. If they do manage to pull that off, the NC-17 release probably won't make it to a theatre near me though. :(

[Nikita]

I thought the trailer looked pretty amazing. The computer graphics are the most realistic I've ever seen. The human faces look more real then ever. I'll go see it.

[BeastieRunner]

I wish it was R, not PG-13 meaning full of screaming/talking kids.

[Legato]

I wish it was R, not PG-13 meaning full of screaming/talking kids.

With the animation I expected that we would recieve a PG-13 film from this. Whats worse is that I would have to put up with a bunch of hormone driven teenagers when the scene involving Angelina Jolie comes into play.

[OhMyGato]

I wish it was R, not PG-13 meaning full of screaming/talking kids.

Probably means the directors cut dvd will be awesome...somehow i dont think you'll have to worry about too many teens...probably have nightmares about the original work.

[Ramiel]

Probably means the directors cut dvd will be awesome...somehow i dont think you'll have to worry about too many teens...probably have nightmares about the original work.

That or they either are driven away by the fact that they have no idea what Beowulf actually is or the fact it's animated and not a kids/family movie

[Jared H.]

I was under the impression that Beowulf sleeps with the Aneglina Jolie monster earlier in the film, and the Grendel is the son that results from that union and comes to haunt Beowulf.

Did I totally read that wrong?

[Ramiel]

I was under the impression that Beowulf sleeps with the Aneglina Jolie monster earlier in the film, and the Grendel is the son that results from that union and comes to haunt Beowulf.

Did I totally read that wrong?

Seriously, if that ends up being the case they are straying way from the source

Well, not even straying really, as much as almost completely changing the story

[Legato]

Seriously, if that ends up being the case they are straying way from the source

Well, not even straying really, as much as almost completely changing the story

But Canon wise Beowolf did sleep with that lady did he?

[Ben Morgan]

I don't recall Beowulf sleeping with Grendel's mother in the version I read...

[berk]

Looks way too slick and processed for my taste. Too bad - Winstone looks like a piece of inspired casting, but so far seems to be the only thing to look forward to from this Disneyfied piece of fluff.

[Ramiel]

But Canon wise Beowolf did sleep with that lady did he?

No, it's been awhile since I've read it, but I'm pretty sure he didn't bang Grendels mom. I think I'd remember that part.

[Tobias March]

Gaiman's made some comment to the effect of whenever Beowulf is 'off camera', in the text, they introduced a new element to the story.

See the text of Beowulf has been altered so many times, it's impossible to establish any sense of canon - at least as far as our version of Beowulf is concerned. Some even dispute Grendel's mother's status as a monster.

So as far as Gaiman and Avery are concerned their version is fair game I reckon.

The Old English scholars will have kittens.

[Ramiel]

Gaiman's made some comment to the effect of whenever Beowulf is 'off camera', in the text, they introduced a new element to the story.

See the text of Beowulf has been altered so many times, it's impossible to establish any sense of canon - at least as far as our version of Beowulf is concerned. Some even dispute Grendel's mother's status as a monster.

So as far as Gaiman and Avery are concerned their version is fair game I reckon.

The Old English scholars will have kittens.

Well, what you said about altercations is true, but I thought the basic plot in the most common version today was basically the same. I seem to remember that Beowulf had never even been to the land where he fights the Grendel's. But, of course, it's been awhile since I've read or studied that in school.

[GRANT!]

I wish it was R, not PG-13 meaning full of screaming/talking kids.

Go to a 10:00 screening.

[OhMyGato]

Has anyone seen a complete list of the IMAX screenings for this??? I know of one place in my area, but looking for another (to get away from the kids and all)

[jesse_custer]

FYI, Beowulf doesn't have sex with Grendel's mom. He kills that bitch.

[Thorlief]

jesus, just saw the trailers..this isn't going to end well. What's with the gory crappy effects? I don't mind gore, but holy crap that was the fakest thing ever. It really looks like a poor man's LOTR minus the *insert anything worth watching*. Eveything feels so damn unappealing it kinda looks like a Boll's movie

I don't know what the hell happened with Zemeckis lately, but the guy has really taken a wrong path. This movie looks terrible.


all IMO.

[GRANT!]

I was under the impression that Beowulf sleeps with the Aneglina Jolie monster earlier in the film, and the Grendel is the son that results from that union and comes to haunt Beowulf.

Did I totally read that wrong?

It's implied Hrothgar is Grendel's father and later on in the film it's also implied Beowulf slept with Grendel's mother (even though he says he killed her).

Not sure if I'll go see this one. I heard the 3D version is amazing.

[Ramiel]

Wait, I just found out Neil Gaiman wrote the screenplay. Not sure if that's enough to save the project but it gets my interest back up for sure

[lonewolf23k]

It's implied Hrothgar is Grendel's father and later on in the film it's also implied Beowulf slept with Grendel's mother (even though he says he killed her).

Not sure if I'll go see this one. I heard the 3D version is amazing.

I read the 4-part comic book adaptation from FDW (Yeah, it's already out and complete). Yeah, Hrothgar is Grendel's father, and Beowulf also sleeps with Grendel's Mother... ...And fathers the Dragon.

[Ramiel]

I read the 4-part comic book adaptation from FDW (Yeah, it's already out and complete). Yeah, Hrothgar is Grendel's father, and Beowulf also sleeps with Grendel's Mother... ...And fathers the Dragon.

...Wow. But it's Neil Gaiman, so it's probably not too bad, but wow, that's a twist, I guess

[berk]

I read the 4-part comic book adaptation from FDW (Yeah, it's already out and complete). Yeah, Hrothgar is Grendel's father, and Beowulf also sleeps with Grendel's Mother... ...And fathers the Dragon.Sounds like they're trying to tie everything up in too neat a package to me, but who knows, maybe it'll play better on screen than it sounds reading about it like this.

[OhMyGato]

Saw this review on another board...thought i'd share.

Originally Posted by kK stoned View Post
I saw this tonight. What went down was I was in Westwood to check out the premiere (saw some celebs!) and then this guy was giving out free passes to watch the movie. I hurriedly got one and went on in. This was for the theater next to another theater (where all the celebs and rich people were), and to my surprise they were showing the 3D version (I thought they didn't have 3D in this theater).

Just gotta say holy ****, this movie is badass. It has some slow parts but man the animation and graphics are ****ing incredibly. When they close up on a character's face it literally looks real. Literally. Like that was Anthony Hopkins' face, not a CGI rendered version. It's mindblowing. And yeah the 3D is awesome. It really makes you feel like you're in the movie. DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE IN 2D; watch it in 3D. Better yet check it out in 3D on the Imax when that comes out, which is what I want to do.

Oh and Ray Winstone is a ****ing badass.

[jeremiahvedder]

I'm holding my breath until I actually see it.

[Thorlief]

Saw this review on another board...thought i'd share.

Originally Posted by kK stoned View Post
I saw this tonight. What went down was I was in Westwood to check out the premiere (saw some celebs!) and then this guy was giving out free passes to watch the movie. I hurriedly got one and went on in. This was for the theater next to another theater (where all the celebs and rich people were), and to my surprise they were showing the 3D version (I thought they didn't have 3D in this theater).

Just gotta say holy ****, this movie is badass. It has some slow parts but man the animation and graphics are ****ing incredibly. When they close up on a character's face it literally looks real. Literally. Like that was Anthony Hopkins' face, not a CGI rendered version. It's mindblowing. And yeah the 3D is awesome. It really makes you feel like you're in the movie. DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE IN 2D; watch it in 3D. Better yet check it out in 3D on the Imax when that comes out, which is what I want to do.

Oh and Ray Winstone is a ****ing badass.


so, uh, what's the difference in animation being real and real actors?

[OhMyGato]

I mean you have them look realistic and still be pretty cool looking as animation...its like when you buy a video game...yeah i could watcha football game, but id also like madden 08 to look as real as possible when i play it.

[Paradox]

IamtheRock3 notes the parallel:

yup the whole thing computers

They done it better then before

Back in polar express it looked CRAZY CREEPY

but now, not so much

It's that CGI/Rotoscoping combo they've done for a few movies, such as (as you note) Polar Express and Monster House (which I think used it to better effect than PE).

[Paradox]

Thorlief asks:

so, uh, what's the difference in animation being real and real actors?

Well for one thing, the lead could never have pulled it off as a real actor. Beowulf's like 6' 6" and built in this movie, whereas Winstone is 8" shorter, kinda dumpy and kinda old. :p

[Thorlief]

Well for one thing, the lead could never have pulled it off as a real actor. Beowulf's like 6' 6" and built in this movie, whereas Winstone is 8" shorter, kinda dumpy and kinda old. :p

heh yeah, I've seen some pics of him and he's kind of fat

I was just asking why they need to use animation to make things look real when they coulda pulled a LOTR

[Tobias March]

heh yeah, I've seen some pics of him and he's kind of fat

I was just asking why they need to use animation to make things look real when they coulda pulled a LOTR

I read a story that Avary and Gaiman were worried about the budget. They wanted to feature the dragon, but wrote a draft which was essentially a discussion between Beowulf and it. Zemeckis took them aside and assured them they could go nuts, as he could design not just the dragon, but everything around it, the environment, the effects shots, at a relatively cheap cost. (a million per minute? I seem to recall it was something like that).

[Paradox]

Thorlief sees a difference:

heh yeah, I've seen some pics of him and he's kind of fat

Ha, well I actually got that from him saying much the same thing in an article I read, also adding something about loving this because now he "can play anything!" :)

I was just asking why they need to use animation to make things look real when they coulda pulled a LOTR

Now you're just confusing me. LotR DIDN'T use animation to make things look real??? Surely you don't think Jonathan Rhys-Myers, Sean Astin and Elijah Wood are all really under 5 foot tall, do you? Surely Andy Semekis (sp) isn't a hunched over 4 foot tall gollumer. :)

It's just the "newest thing" is all, I think.

[Thorlief]

Ha, well I actually got that from him saying much the same thing in an article I read, also adding something about loving this because now he "can play anything!" :)



Now you're just confusing me. LotR DIDN'T use animation to make things look real??? Surely you don't think Jonathan Rhys-Myers, Sean Astin and Elijah Wood are all really under 5 foot tall, do you? Surely Andy Semekis (sp) isn't a hunched over 4 foot tall gollumer. :)

It's just the "newest thing" is all, I think.

yes but I mean, they didn't digitalize their faces. Certainly not Viggo's, Ian's and all the other human-like characters

[Thorlief]

I read a story that Avary and Gaiman were worried about the budget. They wanted to feature the dragon, but wrote a draft which was essentially a discussion between Beowulf and it. Zemeckis took them aside and assured them they could go nuts, as he could design not just the dragon, but everything around it, the environment, the effects shots, at a relatively cheap cost. (a million per minute? I seem to recall it was something like that).

it seems to me Zemeckis lost it. Oh well.

[Tobias March]

it seems to me Zemeckis lost it. Oh well.

Lost what? Something's been Lost? Was a polar bear involved somehow?

[Thorlief]

Lost what? Something's been Lost? Was a polar bear involved somehow?

^^ his mind

lost his ability to make watchable movies. I don't know, maybe Beowulf will be the best movie of all times, but his new animation only career kind of sucks to me

[Jettison]

Gonna watch this in 3d.....never seen a regular 'film' in 3d....only those Imax features......can't wait!

[Agent Helix]

Saw this review on another board...thought i'd share.

Originally Posted by kK stoned View Post
I saw this tonight. What went down was I was in Westwood to check out the premiere (saw some celebs!) and then this guy was giving out free passes to watch the movie. I hurriedly got one and went on in. This was for the theater next to another theater (where all the celebs and rich people were), and to my surprise they were showing the 3D version (I thought they didn't have 3D in this theater).

Just gotta say holy ****, this movie is badass. It has some slow parts but man the animation and graphics are ****ing incredibly. When they close up on a character's face it literally looks real. Literally. Like that was Anthony Hopkins' face, not a CGI rendered version. It's mindblowing. And yeah the 3D is awesome. It really makes you feel like you're in the movie. DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE IN 2D; watch it in 3D. Better yet check it out in 3D on the Imax when that comes out, which is what I want to do.

Oh and Ray Winstone is a ****ing badass.

Boy, does THAT sound convincing! I want twelve tickets RIGHT NOW!

[GRANT!]

^^ his mind

lost his ability to make watchable movies. I don't know, maybe Beowulf will be the best movie of all times, but his new animation only career kind of sucks to me

The advance reviews have been really good so far though.

[Ilash]

I'll probably give this a chance because it is co-written by Neil Gaiman but I agree with the naysayers about the animation. What we're looking at here is teh case where CGI humans have never looked more human and yet have never seemed less human at the same time. To put it simply, the closer they get to being able tio synthesize human actors on screen, the more the artificiality of these CGI humans become apparent. Compare the human characters in the Incredibles to the human characters in the Beowolf trailer for the perfect example of this. In the Incredibles where the characters were madf to look cartoony and generally not true to life, they never looked artificial or "off", which is certainly not the case with the disturbingly WEIRD looking "lifelike" animation of Beowolf.

Like I said, I may well go and see it but this is one of the UGLIEST looking trailers I've seen in quite some time.

[Darth Joker]

I'll give Beowulf two sincere compliments...

1) They did a truly phenomenal job in translating Angelina Jolie's real life apperance into CGI format. It's very, very easy for me to catch myself thinking that this CGI Jolie is the real actress.

2) If this content was used for video game cutscenes, I'd be thrilled with it, and it would make the video game that much better.

Now, for my criticisms of Beowulf, and of the movie industry in general...

Hollywood has developed an unhealthy CGI fetish. It can look very nice at time, but it's no replacement for a good live-action movie (and there's times when I'd perfer a 2-D animated movie over CGI as well).

Why the heck couldn't they just do a good, kick-ass live-action Beowulf movie?

That's something I'd be pumped about.

This , OTOH, is just more of the same that I see in loads of different war-based video/PC games. Jolie looks stunning, but the male characters that I see in this aren't any more special than what I've seen in Half-Life games.

I probably won't bother with Beowulf since I'm getting tired of Hollywood's unending fascination with CGI.

[jesse_custer]

The more I hear about this: Ugh.

Will reread the epic poem to keep sanity.

[Jimmy T. Squirrel]

I'll probably give this a chance because it is co-written by Neil Gaiman but I agree with the naysayers about the animation. What we're looking at here is teh case where CGI humans have never looked more human and yet have never seemed less human at the same time. To put it simply, the closer they get to being able tio synthesize human actors on screen, the more the artificiality of these CGI humans become apparent. Compare the human characters in the Incredibles to the human characters in the Beowolf trailer for the perfect example of this. In the Incredibles where the characters were madf to look cartoony and generally not true to life, they never looked artificial or "off", which is certainly not the case with the disturbingly WEIRD looking "lifelike" animation of Beowolf.

Like I said, I may well go and see it but this is one of the UGLIEST looking trailers I've seen in quite some time. Sounds like the Uncanny Valley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_Valley)

[Jared]

Why the heck couldn't they just do a good, kick-ass live-action Beowulf movie?


To do live-action version on the same scale would be prohibitively expensive.

Granted, the story could be told in much cheaper ways, but there isn't a great track record with it. I've seen three live-action versions: one with Christopher Lambert, one with Gerard Butler, and one for the Sci-Fi channel. Each found its own special ways in which to suck.

[jesse_custer]

Has anyone actually read Beowulf? The story doesn't require a shitload of special effects. Honestly.

[Ilash]

Sounds like the Uncanny Valley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_Valley)

Huh, interesting theory and one that makes a whole lot of sense to me (though like its critics, I don't believe there has ever been a life-like enough robot to base the last bit of the hypothesis on). And yes, I do think it very much does apply to this case and in fact, I came across this idea when someone used it as a comparison to the recent trends of trying to make something as clearly fantastical as superhero comics "realistic" but that's a whole other discussion.

[Jared]

Has anyone actually read Beowulf? The story doesn't require a shitload of special effects. Honestly.

Well he does fight three monsters.

[jesse_custer]

Yes. Three monsters. No need to go overboard. See Guillermo Del Toro's "Pan's Labyrinth."

[Gordon Smith]

Has anyone actually read Beowulf? The story doesn't require a shitload of special effects. Honestly.

I have read Beowulf several times. I think a reasonably faithful adaptation would be very expensive and require a fair amount of special effects. Grendel, Grendel's mom and the dragon aren't the only monsters in that film, remember! There's quite a bit of more conventional fighting as well that and various outlandish feats by Beowulf (mostly involving swimming) that would likely use CGI.

[jesse_custer]

We were doing "conventional fighting" for decades without CGI and massive special effects. And you know what? It looked better before effects (the majority of the time, anyway).

And I think whoever plays Beowulf should learn how to swim long and hard. If Uma Thurman can learn how to use a sword, then the guy who plays Beowulf can do that.

In short, either do the movie right without turning the story into another soulless effects display, or don't do it at all. Also, I'm not getting into an argument about raking in money. This discussion is about quality, and weak counterarguments like "But the poor filmmakers have to bring in audiences" are arguments for the purse. In other words, pointless. If everything comes down to money, there's no point in discussing anything. We can just nod our heads.

[GRANT!]

Devins review on Chud (http://www.chud.com/index.php?type=reviews&id=12521) indicates it's actually good.

[Black Atom]

Wait, there's an NC-17 version? Is it possibly that effing violent? I mean, Passion of the Christ-level violent? What's the deal there?

[GRANT!]

Wait, there's an NC-17 version? Is it possibly that effing violent? I mean, Passion of the Christ-level violent? What's the deal there?

Apparently it is pretty violent. And kind of pushes the envelope for a PG-13. There was talks of an NC-17 version but that didn't get approved (probably because the MPAA were worried parents would take kids to the wrong version).

[Thorlief]

how can a live action a la LOTR movie be more expensive than a CGIed one?

[GRANT!]

how can a live action a la LOTR movie be more expensive than a CGIed one?

You don't have to worry about a large cast and crew (feeding them, getting them on set), film equipment practical effects, costumes, building sets, props and not to mention meshing CGI and live action elements. Not to mention you can only shoot so much a day. Especially for outdoor scenes where the weather can fuck you up. I'm not saying this doesn't mean live action isn't worth the effor but there's a lot of stuff you have to take in account to shoot a fantasy epic. Even something stylistically similar like The Two Towers (the Rohan scenes owe a lot to Beowulf).

CGI you are dealing with voice actors (who work a day or two), maybe some mocap on a soundstage (I think they did that for a month) and the rest is all done on the computer with maybe the same amount of tech and computer people doing the animation. Which isn't cheap either but you don't have that added cost of a live action shoot.

[Thorlief]

thanks for the explanation, But what if they put real actors into a CGIed environment, with CGI soldiers (just like the battles in LOTR)?

[Gordon Smith]

Well, this thread has convinced me to spend a few dollars next week on seeing this film.

[Enigmanaut]

Does anybody else think CGIolina Jolie looks like Frank Cho's Ultron?

[The Zapper]

Does anybody else think CGIolina Jolie looks like Frank Cho's Ultron?

No, but I do think the CG Jolie looks more alive than the real Jolie.

[Jared]

We were doing "conventional fighting" for decades without CGI and massive special effects. And you know what? It looked better before effects (the majority of the time, anyway).

And I think whoever plays Beowulf should learn how to swim long and hard. If Uma Thurman can learn how to use a sword, then the guy who plays Beowulf can do that.
.

We're not talking about doing laps in an Olympic pool here. The kind of swimming Beowulf does in the story isn't possible for a human being. He dives down incredible depths, fighting sea monsters on the way to the underwater lair of Grendel's mother, IIRC. And I think the final battle with the dragon happens in a lake. Can you really picture, with current technology, having a man fight a dragon underwater and it not looking either ridiculous (man grappling with rubber head), or just blatantly CGI? At least with this film, *everything* is CGI, so no one scene should suddenly look fake.

I'm sure the story could be adjusted so that it could be done with something more like a single LOTR budget, with plenty of epic action. But I don't mind the filmmakers trying something different, especially as it lets them do thing you just can't get away with in a traditional movie. It's kind of like 300; if you had the exact same movie but with a conventional visual style, it just wouldn't work.

[GRANT!]

We're not talking about doing laps in an Olympic pool here. The kind of swimming Beowulf does in the story isn't possible for a human being. He dives down incredible depths, fighting sea monsters on the way to the underwater lair of Grendel's mother, IIRC. And I think the final battle with the dragon happens in a lake. Can you really picture, with current technology, having a man fight a dragon underwater and it not looking either ridiculous (man grappling with rubber head), or just blatantly CGI? At least with this film, *everything* is CGI, so no one scene should suddenly look fake.

I'm sure the story could be adjusted so that it could be done with something more like a single LOTR budget, with plenty of epic action. But I don't mind the filmmakers trying something different, especially as it lets them do thing you just can't get away with in a traditional movie. It's kind of like 300; if you had the exact same movie but with a conventional visual style, it just wouldn't work.

Also the 3D is something they are pushing with this movie. And 3D apparently looks much better apparently with digital elements then photographic. It's something Cameron will be playing with in his Avatar movie and Spielburg and Jackson are planning to use with their Tin Tin series. And all those movies will have a similar style to Beowulf (mo cap CG actors vs. live action).

I think they are just trying something new with this movie. There's been a few live action Beowulfs already (none of them very good though). If it pays off who knows. I'm sure if it fails some will try to make another Beowulf down the line (the storys been around for thousands of years).

Personally I think they could have done the same movie with live action and had Sean Bean or Russel Crowe in the role but they decided to do it this way. Honestly I don't see what's the big deal. I don't think this movie will sudenly make every big budget action movie look like this. I'm sure plenty of filmmakers will prefer to shoot stuff in live action for a long time.

[Thorlief]

We're not talking about doing laps in an Olympic pool here. The kind of swimming Beowulf does in the story isn't possible for a human being. He dives down incredible depths, fighting sea monsters on the way to the underwater lair of Grendel's mother, IIRC. And I think the final battle with the dragon happens in a lake. Can you really picture, with current technology, having a man fight a dragon underwater and it not looking either ridiculous (man grappling with rubber head), or just blatantly CGI? At least with this film, *everything* is CGI, so no one scene should suddenly look fake.

I'm sure the story could be adjusted so that it could be done with something more like a single LOTR budget, with plenty of epic action. But I don't mind the filmmakers trying something different, especially as it lets them do thing you just can't get away with in a traditional movie. It's kind of like 300; if you had the exact same movie but with a conventional visual style, it just wouldn't work.

no scene should look fake, or EVERYTHING will. It's a double edged sword my friend. Just looking at Hopkins' face makes me giggle. It's so blatantly fake it's not even funny.

and yes, a live action movie could be done. Whats with this ruibber head thing? It's not 1950 anymore, they made Ian McKellen fight a Balrog and it didn't look bad.

[GRANT!]

no scene should look fake, or EVERYTHING will.

Even if it's animated movie?

[The Batman]

Yeah that's what I don't understand. This is a cartoon. A fancy one sure, but a cartoon none the less.

How can a cartoon look fake?

[Thorlief]

Even if it's animated movie?

It's animated but the characters are supposed to look like real people (minus the monsters), thus making everyhting look fake on a different level. Someone said The Incredibles look fake as well...sure, but that's the purpose.
Beowulf uses real people to look like real people, and I don't get the point.

[The Batman]

So it's a cartoon done in the Alex Ross style.

It's still a cartoon.

[Ramiel]

So it's a cartoon done in the Alex Ross style.

It's still a cartoon.

It's a cartoon that want's to be a live action movie. In the same way Pinocchio wanted to be a real boy

[Darth Joker]

It's a cartoon that what's to be a live action movie. In the same way Pinocchio wanted to be a real boy

LOL. :D

Cleverest thing I've read all day, actually.

[Ramiel]

LOL. :D

Cleverest thing I've read all day, actually.

I try the best I can;)

[Thorlief]

It's a cartoon that what's to be a live action movie. In the same way Pinocchio wanted to be a real boy

ba da bam, nailed it

/thread

[Ilash]

LOL. :D

Cleverest thing I've read all day, actually.

Yeah, it is. That comparison is simply EXACTLY right on the nose.

[GRANT!]

It's a cartoon that want's to be a live action movie. In the same way Pinocchio wanted to be a real boy

If Robert Zemeckis ( a guy with a few blockbusters under his belt) wanted to make it live action he would have. But he likes doing this CG mocap stuff. Whether or not it works for this movie remains to be seen. I really don't think they wanted this to look exactly like a live action movie. Yeah the lighting and texture is realistic but I think there's a fair amount of stylization to this. Not as highly stylized as the Incredibles but stylized.

[berk]

I have nothing against the idea of it being CGI or stylized, just not sure I like the particular style they've chosen to go with here. But I'll have to wait till I see the whole thing.

[The Batman]

If Robert Zemeckis ( a guy with a few blockbusters under his belt) wanted to make it live action he would have. But he likes doing this CG mocap stuff. Whether or not it works for this movie remains to be seen. I really don't think they wanted this to look exactly like a live action movie. Yeah the lighting and texture is realistic but I think there's a fair amount of stylization to this. Not as highly stylized as the Incredibles but stylized.

You've hit the nail on the head. This is not a puppet that wants to be a real boy. It's a puppet that wants to be a puppet.

Zemeckis is making a cartoon. A very fancy cartoon, but a cartoon nonetheless. It's what he set out to do and it's what he did. That it's mo-capped and highly detailed doesn't change that fact one bit.

This reaction is just another example of 'you can't please everybody'. No matter what he did Zemeckis was going to get criticized. When it's too stylized people complain that it's cartoony. When you go more realistic, people complain that it just looks like fake live action.

[Black Atom]

Apparently it is pretty violent. And kind of pushes the envelope for a PG-13. There was talks of an NC-17 version but that didn't get approved (probably because the MPAA were worried parents would take kids to the wrong version).

There's a big jump from PG-13 to NC-17. You can show a guy get stabbed in the rectum in an "R" film. Think about that for a moment.

So I'm wondering what would have to occur in Beowulf that would earn it a NC-17.

[The Batman]

Nudity and sexual stuff maybe. Isn't there supposed to be a naked CGI Angelina Jolie in this thing?


That and all the rectum stabbing of course.

[Black Atom]

Nudity and sexual stuff maybe. Isn't there supposed to be a naked CGI Angelina Jolie in this thing?

I suppose extended nude scenes would do it.

That and all the rectum stabbing of course.

!!!

[OhMyGato]

Nudity and sexual stuff maybe. Isn't there supposed to be a naked CGI Angelina Jolie in this thing?


That and all the rectum stabbing of course.

I've never gotten any clarification as to whether her being "virtually" nude actually counts...

still going to see the pg-13 version on thurs anyway. Good Stuff.

[Loren]

Nudity and sexual stuff maybe. Isn't there supposed to be a naked CGI Angelina Jolie in this thing?

Kinda. She's not wearing any clothes, and her naughty parts aren't hidden by anything (unlike Beowulf's nude scenes) but there's no nipplege or whatnot. Basically, it's a kind of nudity that wouldn't be possible in live-action.

I can't imagine Zemeckis ever considering NC-17 level sexual content. That would require either some pretty explicit and substantial sexualized lower-body nudity, and probably a certain amount of porn-esque sex scenes to boot.

[Enigmanaut]

Kinda. She's not wearing any clothes, and her naughty parts aren't hidden by anything (unlike Beowulf's nude scenes) but there's no nipplege or whatnot. Basically, it's a kind of nudity that wouldn't be possible in live-action.

I can't imagine Zemeckis ever considering NC-17 level sexual content. That would require either some pretty explicit and substantial sexualized lower-body nudity, and probably a certain amount of porn-esque sex scenes to boot.

It's Ultron nudity. She's got gold sheen over her skin in the naughty bits.

[Loren]

It's Ultron nudity. She's got gold sheen over her skin in the naughty bits.

Except if it was just a sheen over the naughty bits, you'd still see impressions of said naughty bits underneath. And there's just nothing there.

[OhMyGato]

Anyone seen it yet...got my 3D IMAX ticket for tonight...looking forward to seeing the cloverfield trailer as well...gonna be a good night.

[SPAfreak]

Kinda. She's not wearing any clothes, and her naughty parts aren't hidden by anything (unlike Beowulf's nude scenes) but there's no nipplege or whatnot. Basically, it's a kind of nudity that wouldn't be possible in live-action.

I can't imagine Zemeckis ever considering NC-17 level sexual content. That would require either some pretty explicit and substantial sexualized lower-body nudity, and probably a certain amount of porn-esque sex scenes to boot.

Man did they cover up Beowulf's junk in a lot of different ways. Plus even in the quick shot where you should have seen penis he was lacking. Poor Beowulf wasn't even packing a short sword.

[Thorlief]

uh, he lacked a penis? or he lacked a good package?

anyway, I'm going to watch this thing in 3D and see if my expectations are correct

[Black Atom]

uh, he lacked a penis? or he lacked a good package?

anyway, I'm going to watch this thing in 3D and see if my expectations are correct

Your expectations of Beowulf's penis, you mean?

[Thorlief]

Your expectations of Beowulf's penis, you mean?

lol, you got me.

no, I expect this movie to suck arse. Let's see if it delivers

[Black Atom]

no, I expect this movie to suck arse. Let's see if it delivers

...nah, nevermind.

[Nikita]

I plan on seeing it this weekend...looking forward to seeing Angelina in a "new format".

[wingsofdamnation]

OMG this was an amazing movie! there were so many scenes where i had to stop breathing to take it all in. if possible can anyone give me the full quote when Beowulf cut off Grendals arm "i am the slasher, destroyer, ect..." if someone could give me the full quote i would greatly appriciate it

[stealthwise]

I'm actually interested in seeing this, now that I've learned that it's not a live action movie with cartoony CGI, but a CGI cartoon.

[Ramiel]

Well, watched it last night, it was alright. It was better then I expected it to be. The CGI stuff looked great up close, really lifelike, but it seemed a lot of the animation of the people were really off to me. The monsters (Grendel and The Dragon) were fine in their animation, but several times throughout whenever the people were in action just seemed wanky, maybe it was just me.

SPOILERS******SORRY DON'T KNOW HOW TO USE THE TAGS*********

The question that was raised to me the most was how can one guy bang Grendel's mom and get an ugly as hell goblin looking thing and another guy gets a shape shifting Dragon.

I hated the ending, it had that whole, 'Well, it's probably going to just happen again' feel and it really seemed to lessen the heroic sacrifice of Beowulf. I mean, sure he saved the Kingdom and his two bed buddies from Beowulf Jr. but what the hell did it matter if his mate was just going to do the same thing? I mean, that was one of the great things about the original work, his heroic sacrifice for his people, just seemed lessened to me

I also couldn't help but roll my eyes at the nude fight between Beowulf and Grendel fight. Seemed like it was so silly and just a way to see how many different clever ways to mask a penis they could do. I mean, sure Beowulf gave a reason, but he could've worn some pants or something:rolleyes:

************************************************** ********

Overall, I'd give the movie about a 6/10. It would be about 7 but the ending really screwed that last point of for me personally

[GRANT!]

IIRC Beowulf fought Grendel in the nude in the original poem. Just saying.

[Ramiel]

IIRC Beowulf fought Grendel in the nude in the original poem. Just saying.

He did, really. I really don't remember that, but it's been awhile. But still, whether it was in the original material or not, I still thought it was a bit silly. I mean, what if Grendel had bite his junk off?

[Tobias March]

The question that was raised to me the most was how can one guy bang Grendel's mom and get an ugly as hell goblin looking thing and another guy gets a shape shifting Dragon.

I hated the ending, it had that whole, 'Well, it's probably going to just happen again' feel and it really seemed to lessen the heroic sacrifice of Beowulf. I mean, sure he saved the Kingdom and his two bed buddies from Beowulf Jr. but what the hell did it matter if his mate was just going to do the same thing? I mean, that was one of the great things about the original work, his heroic sacrifice for his people, just seemed lessened to me

I also couldn't help but roll my eyes at the nude fight between Beowulf and Grendel fight.

Saw it this evening in 3D...I cannot recommend see it with those annoying little glasses highly enough. Fantastic. The scene were the queen is staring at Grendel's slaughter through a hole in the table? Or the spear being pointed at Beowulf by the Danish guardsman projecting over the audience...wunderbar!

As such I enjoyed it a great deal. I thought it was very sly that they explained away so many of the discrepancies with Beowulf being such an boaster. Sure it's the unreliable narrator again...but it was quite amusingly played out. Gaiman's little conceit of 'what happens when Beowulf is not on the page', actually played itself out quite nicely.

Hey maybe Hrothgar's sperm wasn't up to snuff? Plus Grendel demonstrated some shapeshifting abilities too. It was a very comical film. Beowulf nudity obscured by a sudden elbow in view of the camera, or the rooftop spike almost castrating him mid-air (Brendan Gleeson trying to stab Grendel in his Kendoll genital area...)

On the ending, well, we never heard of King Brendan Gleeson's mighty deeds did we? So perhaps he refused. It's that doubt, the moral fallibility of this version of the events that's intriguing*. What does Seamus Heaney think I wonder? Will he be piqued that students will prefer this over his nobel prize winning translation?

Also a cockney Beowulf was funny. "I whill kill yur monstah!"

*Yes I saw the latest youtube episodes of Marvel vs. DC last night by Randomguy. Great stuff.

[Ramiel]

Saw it this evening in 3D...I cannot recommend see it with those annoying little glasses highly enough. Fantastic. The scene were the queen is staring at Grendel's slaughter through a hole in the table? Or the spear being pointed at Beowulf by the Danish guardsman projecting over the audience...wunderbar!

As such I enjoyed it a great deal. I thought it was very sly that they explained away so many of the discrepancies with Beowulf being such an boaster. Sure it's the unreliable narrator again...but it was quite amusingly played out. Gaiman's little conceit of 'what happens when Beowulf is not on the page', actually played itself out quite nicely.

Hey maybe Hrothgar's sperm wasn't up to snuff? Plus Grendel demonstrated some shapeshifting abilities too. It was a very comical film. Beowulf nudity obscured by a sudden elbow in view of the camera, or the rooftop spike almost castrating him mid-air (Brendan Gleeson trying to stab Grendel in his Kendoll genital area...)

On the ending, well, we never heard of King Brendan Gleeson's mighty deeds did we? So perhaps he refused. It's that doubt, the moral fallibility of this version of the events that's intriguing*. What does Seamus Heaney think I wonder? Will he be piqued that students will prefer this over his nobel prize winning translation?

Also a cockney Beowulf was funny. "I whill kill yur monstah!"

*Yes I saw the latest youtube episodes of Marvel vs. DC last night by Randomguy. Great stuff.

Well, that is true, there is the doubt factor, but just the possibility of the process just starting and stopping again endlessly still lessens Beowulfs sacrifice to me personally, since that, to me once again, was the highlight of the ending of the original poem soured to me.

Grendel showed shape shifting abilities, I must've missed that I guess I really don't remember that. I guess there is the possibility that Beowulf Jr is what Grendel would become at a later age, but Beowulf couldn't have been that much older then Hopkins was when he was King.

[bert]

Saw it this evening in 3D...I cannot recommend see it with those annoying little glasses highly enough. Fantastic. The scene were the queen is staring at Grendel's slaughter through a hole in the table? Or the spear being pointed at Beowulf by the Danish guardsman projecting over the audience...wunderbar!


ditto the 3D recommendation.

it moved an "Eh" movie into "WOW" territory (that scene shot from underneath while he's gutting the Sea Serpent. . WOW)

even if I still hate the "Saturday Night Live"-ish hide-the-penis-with-a-candle/spear/elbow/necklace/etc. . .

[DonC]

I have a question of people who have seen the 3-D: is it the old-style 3-D with one red lens and one blue lens or is it the new sunglasses style? I'm partially blind in one eye so the red/blue glasses don't work for me.

[Tobias March]

I have a question of people who have seen the 3-D: is it the old-style 3-D with one red lens and one blue lens or is it the new sunglasses style?

The latter, very nice.

[bert]

I have a question of people who have seen the 3-D: is it the old-style 3-D with one red lens and one blue lens or is it the new sunglasses style? I'm partially blind in one eye so the red/blue glasses don't work for me.

sunglasses style. .

and the colors POP off the screen.

[MaxofSteel]

I have a question of people who have seen the 3-D: is it the old-style 3-D with one red lens and one blue lens or is it the new sunglasses style? I'm partially blind in one eye so the red/blue glasses don't work for me.

I'm pretty sure the red and blue lense style has been abandoned in major theaters at this point. The sunglass style is apparently more effective.

[Thorlief]

saw it. Meh, with some laughable parts



oh, and Jolie SUCKS at accents

[kmeyers]

Fun movie. I didn't really care for the animation from what I saw in the trailers, but I got used to it pretty quickly in the movie, and at times even forgot that it was animated. It also didn't hurt that it was in 3D. That was awesome. I want every movie to be in 3D from now on.

[Brad Barton]

I have a question of people who have seen the 3-D: is it the old-style 3-D with one red lens and one blue lens or is it the new sunglasses style? I'm partially blind in one eye so the red/blue glasses don't work for me.The IMAX theater I sas it in used sunglasses style. Honestly, I think that's all they use these days, though I'm sure the DVD release will have the Red/Blue lense glasses included in the DVD packaging.

If you like 3-D movies, this one is a must see. The second the "Beowulf" title swoops in from behind your head, you know you're in for a ride. This may be the most visually thrilling experience I've ever had at the movies.

[Bored at 3:00AM]

This woulda been a pretty forgettable movie without the 3-D, but since I saw it in 3-D, it was a heckuva lot of fun, particularly the Austin Powers fight and the naked Angelina Jolie.

[Brad Barton]

and the naked Angelina Jolie.I got the feeling they, er, "perked" her up, if you catch my drift.

[IamtheRock3]

wait there a version where she totaly naked....and you actully see stuff?

Got to drive to the Imax



Anyway good


but all of this good of been avoided if they sent a woman or gay guy to slay the witch

[Tobias March]

wait there a version where she totaly naked....and you actully see stuff?


No. Angie had no nipples. But she made up for it with molten gold high heels.

[The Batman]

wait there a version where she totaly naked....and you actully see stuff?

Got to drive to the Imax





Or you could just rent GIA. She's like crazy naked in that.

[Brad Barton]

Or you could just rent GIA. She's crazy naked in that.And a naked Lesbian, at that.

Top notch cinema.

[Legato]

No. Angie had no nipples. But she made up for it with molten gold high heels.

While I can tell that is sarcasm I would reply that if I want to see a naked Angie then I would just rent Gia. Nothing against those that are into a naked animated Angelina.

[Tobias March]

While I can tell that is sarcasm I would reply that if I want to see a naked Angie then I would just rent Gia. Nothing against those that are into a naked animated Angelina.

Um no. No sarcasm. She had no nipples.

Seriously.

[Thorlief]

Beowulf had two big ones tho, so it kinda compensates

[Legato]

To those that have seen the movie is the movie worth to consider getting it on DVD?

[Thorlief]

not in my opinion. Forgettable at maximum levels


but if you want to experience how Anthony Hopkins looks in 3D and find out he looks like Anthony Hopkins, then go for it

[ultramandingo]

Also a cockney Beowulf was funny. "I whill kill yur monstah!"


.......i havent seen it , but i dont need to see cartoon Ray "Sexy Beast " Winstone nude in 3d on the imax . the speedo was bad enuff . plus
The War Zone or Nil by Mouth ??? .....yeesh

[Tobias March]

To those that have seen the movie is the movie worth to consider getting it on DVD?

I think this is a film that warrants been seen only on the big screen. Downsizing to the television would be painful.

[Tobias March]

.......i havent seen it , but i dont need to see cartoon Ray "Sexy Beast " Winstone nude in 3d on the imax . the speedo was bad enuff . plus
The War Zone or Nil by Mouth ??? .....yeesh

In fairness it's not Winstone, just his voice. They got some beefcake to stand in for him.

[Black Atom]

To those that have seen the movie is the movie worth to consider getting it on DVD?

Go see for yourself. A theatre ticket is still cheaper than a DVD purchase.

[kmeyers]

To those that have seen the movie is the movie worth to consider getting it on DVD?

If they have a 3D version of it on DVD, I will be buying it.

[Ramiel]

To those that have seen the movie is the movie worth to consider getting it on DVD?

Rental, I wouldn't consider it a buy

[Brad Barton]

Rental, I wouldn't consider it a buyI would say to have the experience enhanced tenfold, see it in IMAX 3-D.

If that isn't a possiblity, I'd still say see it in theaters. The CG is amazing.

[kmeyers]

I would say to have the experience enhanced tenfold, see it in IMAX 3-D.

If that isn't a possiblity, I'd still say see it in theaters. The CG is amazing.
Seriously...I think regular movies are ruined for me. I want them all in 3D now.

[Ramiel]

I would say to have the experience enhanced tenfold, see it in IMAX 3-D.

If that isn't a possiblity, I'd still say see it in theaters. The CG is amazing.

Do they release 3-D versions of movies on DVD, if so it may be worth buying, but if not and it comes as is, then I'll have to go with my rental suggestion.

[Jettison]

Saw it in 3D....was awsome.....the movie itself was pretty fun, but I thought it blew its load in the first 1/2 hour.....Grendel was amazing. The CG was awsome, but a bit unconvincing at times....looked kinda like the people from Shrek.....and the horses were really stiff and fake.....those gripes aside, I had a FUN time at the theatre.....I liked how Beowulf was an @$$hole.

[Jettison]

So was it similar to the original story? I never read Beowulf....kinda curious as to how close it was to the source material.....Beowulf's son turns into a dragon? I thought the story was far older than 400AD...???

[Nikita]

I saw it in a regular screen version. But I liked it so much, I'd go see it again in a 3-D version.

And Beowulf is the hottest CGI computer guy I've ever seen. LOL. Good lord, they did a nice job on his pecs.

Angelina, looked lovely as always.

[Tobias March]

So was it similar to the original story? I never read Beowulf....kinda curious as to how close it was to the source material.....Beowulf's son turns into a dragon? I thought the story was far older than 400AD...???

Any differences between the text and the film are explained by Beowulf's being a liar and a braggart. And by the rise of the whole Christian element, as represented by John Malkovich.

[Titan76]

Do they release 3-D versions of movies on DVD,
Yes they do. First movie that comes to my is Shark Boy and Lava Girl.

[Thorlief]

Any differences between the text and the film are explained by Beowulf's being a liar and a braggart. And by the rise of the whole Christian element, as represented by John Malkovich.

and let's not forget the ending. Movie Beowulf sucks as hero compared to book Beowulf

[jesse_custer]

She's also completely naked in "Original Sin."

[King Krypton]

I wish it was R, not PG-13 meaning full of screaming/talking kids.

Yes, because God forbid kids ever be allowed to watch genre movies. :rolleyes:

Seriously, there's little in Beowulf (poem or movie) that kids woulld be interested in. I highly doubt they'd be interested in this particular movie.

[metalhead_dave743]

and let's not forget the ending. Movie Beowulf sucks as hero compared to book Beowulf

Book Beowulf is the original and first ever badass in fiction and movie Beowulf didn't really live up to that.

I just saw it and I didn't really like it that much. Part of me didn't like the liberties that were taken with the story but then again, Act 3 of Beowulf really has nothing to do with Act's 1 and 2 and I guess they needed to take liberties to make the story cohesive. But the liberties didn't bother me.

My beef is I didn't really give a shit about everything that was going on, I didn't feel anything toward the characters, I kinda wish Grendel's mom would have gotten hers and I did totally mark out during the Beowulf/Grendel fight, but other than that, it was kind of lame.

I remember totally marking out with 300 and I thought that would be the same with this but I didn't feel anything. The final fight was just kind of "meh"

It was okay, maybe it'll grow on me

[cactusmaac]

Definitely worth watching on IMAX 3D. Hopkins and Jolie's characters look uncannily like their real-world counterparts. Pity about the crap script though.

If they were going to have the movie essentially be about Hrothgar's and Beowulf's mistake, they really needed to show Wegleef not do the same instead of leaving it ambiguous.

[literally exaggerated]

the cgi looked amazing, but the only one who actually looked real was Angelina, and I think thats because she has this sort of gloss to her that makes her look like cgi even in real life.

[berk]

Finally caught it yesterday. Silly and entertaining in a "300" sort of way. The 3D technology has certainly improved from the last time I saw one (Jaws 3D, 1983, I believe), but the mentality behind its usage apparently hasn't evolved one iota in all that time: it's still just a bunch of annoying, distracting tricks, stuff flying out at the audience, etc.

Other than Winstone, I thought the acting was just awful. Even Hopkins was bad - looked like he was just laughing at the whole thing; I suppose it could have been intentional, but I didn't get that impression. But Winstone was great. This might be the way to go in the future for larger than life, heroic figures from ancient epic: get a good actor and then design a body for the character. And the dragon was beautifully designed. Grendel not so much; he was more disgusting than scary and was made way to big for Beowulf to plausibly be able to fight him hand to hand. Jolie was her usual self, if you like her in anything else you'll like her in this (I don't and didn't). And the story changes were mostly pretty dumb. All this stuff about the dragon being Beowulf's offspring and Grendel Hrothgar's, a kingdom built on lies, blah, blah, blah, none of that did anyting for me.

But, like 300, for the kind of movie it's trying to be, it's an OK effort. I certainly wasn't bored. And it's worth seeing for the dragon and Winstone's performance.

[Powerful Truth]

IIRC Beowulf fought Grendel in the nude in the original poem. Just saying.

That is wrong. In the last year I have had two classes at college where I had to read Beowulf, and nowhere in it did it say that he fought Grendel, nude. All it said was that Beowulf knew that no mortal weapon could kill the beast, so he threw down his sword and fought with his bare arms; not his bare body.

So was it similar to the original story? I never read Beowulf....kinda curious as to how close it was to the source material.....Beowulf's son turns into a dragon? I thought the story was far older than 400AD...???

It was just about the farthest you could get from the source material. The only things that were correct in the movie were the names of the characters and that Beowulf killed Grendel. There was no mention in the poem that Beowulf had a son, that crap was made up.

When I saw the previews and saw that they had a person, Jolie, play Grendel's Mother; right then I knew that they had royally screwed it up. Grendel's Mother was suppose to be twice the size of Grendel and a whole lot uglier. I don't really care for Jolie and I wasn't going to see the movie, but a friend asked me if I wanted to go, so I went, thinking that I would get to see Beowulf kill Grendel's Mother, Jolie, as it was in the epic poem. I was thoroughly disappointed, and angered by the stupid Grendel is the king's son and the dragon is Beowulf's son. That was never part of the poem. They just totally dropped the ball on this one by putting their own moronic twist on it.
Hollywood needs to learn that movies that are made from books would be a hell of a lot better if they would just not change anything in the original story. If I could, I would take every film and written copy of the movie, burn them, and tell the people to start over and get it right for a change.

If you are reading this and haven't seen the movie, don't. Go spend your money on something that is good. This movie is just another example on how Hollywood always messes up movies adapted from literature, I doubt they will ever get it right.

[GRANT!]

That is wrong. In the last year I have had two classes at college where I had to read Beowulf, and nowhere in it did it say that he fought Grendel, nude. All it said was that Beowulf knew that no mortal weapon could kill the beast, so he threw down his sword and fought with his bare arms; not his bare body.

I just remember it being interpreted that he fought nearly naked. But I went I havent't had to read Beowuf in school in 8 years so I'll admit I could be wrong.

[kmeyers]

I just remember it being interpreted that he fought nearly naked. But I went I havent't had to read Beowuf in school in 8 years so I'll admit I could be wrong.

I read it as without armor and weaponless, but yeah, it's been awhile.

[Thorlief]

yep, he fights without armor and weapons because he thinks the're going to slow him down, and given Grendel's sheer agility it's a pretty wise decision. The fact he's naked has been weirdly added to the movie

this is the original piece
to bear a sword or a broad shield,
a yellow battle-board, but with my grip
I shall grapple with the fiend and fight for life
foe against foe. (ll. 433-40)

[H]e knows no arts of war, no way to strike back,
hack at my shield-boss, though he be brave
in his wicked deeds; but tonight we two will
forgo our swords, if he dare to seek out
a war without weapons (ll. 681-5)

[Powerful Truth]

I just remember it being interpreted that he fought nearly naked. But I went I havent't had to read Beowuf in school in 8 years so I'll admit I could be wrong.

I'm sorry, I kind of sounded like I was yelling at you. I wasn't, I was angry at what had been done to this great epic poem. I'm an English Major in college, and when something like this happens to great literature, I tend to lose control.

yep, he fights without armor and weapons because he theinks the're going to slow him down, and given Grendel's sheer agility it's a pretty wise decision. The fact it's naked has been weirdly added to the movie

this is the original piece
to bear a sword or a broad shield,
a yellow battle-board, but with my grip
I shall grapple with the fiend and fight for life
foe against foe. (ll. 433-40)

[H]e knows no arts of war, no way to strike back,
hack at my shield-boss, though he be brave
in his wicked deeds; but tonight we two will
forgo our swords, if he dare to seek out
a war without weapons (ll. 681-5)

Thanks for showing the lines. I didn't have my text book that had that in it, and I had trouble searching for it in all the mess that is the internet.

I grantee that they added the nakedness to try and be funny about hiding stuff, and to attract women to go see the movie. That's Hollywood, they change things because the want to attract a bigger audience, and in the end they offend and alienate the true audience for that type of movie.

[ultramandingo]

.......... forget imax and 3d i finally saw it the way it was ment to be seen . wile drinking 3 or 4 red hawk ipas at the el ceritto speakeasy . man they sure got that cgi nose hair down . now if they could only make it as half as cool as Ray Harryhausens 50 year old 7th-Voyage of Sinbad or Jason and the Argonauts .