The Energon Pub

Just got back from seeing the best 3D movie that has ever been made. The action was amazing! It won't be as good in 2D or at home. I suggest to pay the extra bucks, you won't be dissapointed.

I want to see that movie very badly. Before the movie did they show the new cloverfield trailer?

sonicmora wrote:I want to see that movie very badly. Before the movie did they show the new cloverfield trailer?

http://www.seibertron.com/forums/viewto ... =9545&sid=

there are some youtube links in there

Yeah, I was really excited, but they still didn't show any clues as to what kind of monster it is. I'll be really disapointed if it turns out to be another Blair Witch hype fest.

Bumblebee-otch wrote:

sonicmora wrote:I want to see that movie very badly. Before the movie did they show the new cloverfield trailer?

http://www.seibertron.com/forums/viewto ... =9545&sid=

there are some youtube links in there

Thank you. I really can't see much , but oh well thnx anyway.

@necron9
I hope not, but it looks like it has more potential.

I'm still curious what the monster is. A giant frog, snake, lobster, dinosaur, turtle, bat, or something else.

Saw midnight showing of Beowolf 3d.

It was good, but at the same time pretty disappointing. The whole "we made the cgi characters look like the actors" bit was the major problem.

Other than that, it was decent.

Senor Hugo wrote:Saw midnight showing of Beowolf 3d.

It was good, but at the same time pretty disappointing. The whole "we made the cgi characters look like the actors" bit was the major problem.

Other than that, it was decent.

If you think about more than you're supposed to, it makes sense:

Using mocap animation is easier than filming in a green screen room, because you can get the best stuntmen to stand in for the actors and actresses, and not need them to even look like they're the actors.

At the same time, by having the characters look like actors, you save precious time and money on character design.

You also save on costume and prop creation. I've seen mocap recordings, they normally use plastic guns, and swords are normally either cardboard or plastic.

Shadowman wrote:

Senor Hugo wrote:Saw midnight showing of Beowolf 3d.

It was good, but at the same time pretty disappointing. The whole "we made the cgi characters look like the actors" bit was the major problem.

Other than that, it was decent.

If you think about more than you're supposed to, it makes sense:

Using mocap animation is easier than filming in a green screen room, because you can get the best stuntmen to stand in for the actors and actresses, and not need them to even look like they're the actors.

At the same time, by having the characters look like actors, you save precious time and money on character design.

You also save on costume and prop creation. I've seen mocap recordings, they normally use plastic guns, and swords are normally either cardboard or plastic.

Well yeah, I know the reasoning behind it. I just don't think the finished product turned out that well. Kind of like EA's NBA(insert year here), the more real and detailed the cgi looks, the less pleasing it looks. Know what I mean Vern?

Thats what bothered me about through the whole movie. When it came time for dialog and character interaction, the actors movement were too emphesized and they ended up looking more like string puppets. But that didn't ruin the movie for me because the action, story, and the beautiful CG settings was amazing.

I saw it in 3D too! While some of the minor characters looked like they're from Shrek, I still enjoyed the movie.

Surprisingly I've never seen a 3D movie other than the Disneyland stuff (ie Captain EO) but I was floored by this movie. It's an awesome spectacle.

Being a huge Robert Zemeckis, Neil Gaiman and Roger Avery fan I was very impressed by this movie.

I definitely recommend shelling out extra cash to see it in IMAX.

I'm considering buying the DVD but it probably wouldn't be the same.

So...apparently it kind of forgets it's own story about half-way through, about the time they start covering Beowulf's inexplicable nudity with bad CGI.

Grendel's mom doesn't die. Instead, she successfully bones Beowulf. And she doesn't die.

If they make a sequel, so help me God I will kill Robert Zemekis. This isn't like Transformers: TF was another story in a FRANCHISE that already had a bunch of them. Beowulf is the opposite. Beowulf has only ever been one story. If it gets a sequel, they will have officially taken a big ol' steamer on a Norse Epic.

Shadowman wrote:So...apparently it kind of forgets it's own story about half-way through, about the time they start covering Beowulf's inexplicable nudity with bad CGI.

Grendel's mom doesn't die. Instead, she successfully bones Beowulf. And she doesn't die.

If they make a sequel, so help me God I will kill Robert Zemekis. This isn't like Transformers: TF was another story in a FRANCHISE that already had a bunch of them. Beowulf is the opposite. Beowulf has only ever been one story. If it gets a sequel, they will have officially taken a big ol' steamer on a Norse Epic.

In defense of the writers, they claim that because of the poem's structure, they love exploring the unreliable narrator theory they discovered. And I really dig that.

I suppose if you didn't like this version, you can check out the other Beowulf film adaptation coming soon.

And I really doubt they'll make a sequel. Though Gaiman & Avery joke of doing Gilgamesh...

[/end my Neil Gaiman praise]

Supreme Convoy wrote:Surprisingly I've never seen a 3D movie other than the Disneyland stuff (ie Captain EO) but I was floored by this movie. It's an awesome spectacle.

I have absolutly nothing to add to this converstation but I couldn't pass that up... Captain EO's been dead for a sh*t-long time! I think they've replaced that movie at least twice now
You and I are some old-ass men for even remebering that movie.

Supreme Convoy wrote::BOT: In defense of the writers, they claim that because of the poem's structure, they love exploring the unreliable narrator theory they discovered. And I really dig that.

It doesn't fit the structure at all. they flat out pulled an Uwe Boll.

I consider myself a bit of a Beowulf scholar, and I loved this movie. They showed that they were very familiar with the original. (Neil Frikkin Gaiman for Goddessakes, this man knows his storytelling roots.) That they traded in enantiodromia for the simpler nemesis mirroring, I can forgive.

The dragon battle was awesome. In the original, the sky-winger is earthbound, cornered in the mouth of his cave, breathing fire and exploding shields, but otherwise done in by two sword strokes... okay a sword and a dagger. In the movie it is pure spectacle.

Bun-Bun wrote:

Supreme Convoy wrote:Surprisingly I've never seen a 3D movie other than the Disneyland stuff (ie Captain EO) but I was floored by this movie. It's an awesome spectacle.

I have absolutly nothing to add to this converstation but I couldn't pass that up... Captain EO's been dead for a sh*t-long time! I think they've replaced that movie at least twice now
You and I are some old-ass men for even remebering that movie.

Yeah, it's now Honey I Shrunk the Audience. Which is pretty good. And there's also A Bugs Life 3D show in California Adventures.

It's been probably 10 years since Captain EO's was at Disney.

I haven't seen it yet, I'll try to catch it this weekend. It was one of my favorite stories as a little kid, it'll be interesting to see how they pull it off.

Again, I agree with you! It's also best to see it with friends..and it's also better when the tickers were FREE!! Erm, sorry. A good friend only had about 8 tickets and I was one of those lucky 8. The action was amazing. Even though we hardly got to see Angelina's TRUE form. That gold statue was too far away to get a good look at her. At least, i think that was a statue of her.