# Beowulf - How long until real actors aren't needed?



## Jeff (Aug 9, 2007)

Check out this CGI:

Apple - Trailers - Beowulf - Medium

Fucking incredible. Imagine the potential for porn!


----------



## Leon (Aug 9, 2007)

why bother with renderings of Jolie's body when you can see the _real_ thing?

wait... just oxy moroned myself. carry on


----------



## Clydefrog (Aug 9, 2007)




----------



## Naren (Aug 9, 2007)

It looks like they used a similar technique to "A Scanner Darkly" where they film the entire movie with real actors and then use computer technology to make it look like it's been computer rendered. For example, in "A Scanner Darkly," they had Keanu Reeves, Robert Downy Junior, Winona Rider, and Woody Harrelson and they all look like themselves, but are computer animated in this weird rotoscoping thing. This film has a similar concept behind it. So, without the human actors, there wouldn't even be a film at all.

But, to be honest, with your idea about porn, an animated/computer animated person can never compare to the real thing.


----------



## eleven59 (Aug 9, 2007)

Naren said:


> It looks like they used a similar technique to "A Scanner Darkly" where they film the entire movie with real actors and then use computer technology to make it look like it's been computer rendered. For example, in "A Scanner Darkly," they had Keanu Reeves, Robert Downy Junior, Winona Rider, and Woody Harrelson and they all look like themselves, but are computer animated in this weird rotoscoping thing. This film has a similar concept behind it. So, without the human actors, there wouldn't even be a film at all.


Really? I assumed (given same director) it was done like Waking Life (filmed, then drawn digitally over each frame), though I've never seen it (A Scanner Darkly, I own Waking Life  ).



Naren said:


> But, to be honest, with your idea about porn, an animated/computer animated person can never compare to the real thing.


----------



## Naren (Aug 9, 2007)

eleven59 said:


> Really? I assumed (given same director) it was done like Waking Life (filmed, then drawn digitally over each frame), though I've never seen it (A Scanner Darkly, I own Waking Life  ).



Yeah. I never said they didn't do that. They used rotoscoping and other techniques to alter the footage.


----------



## sakeido (Aug 9, 2007)

It looks weird and unnerving.. although I am a sucker for old epics like this. I will definitely have to check it out.


----------



## WarriorOfMetal (Aug 10, 2007)

that looks badass


----------



## Metal Ken (Aug 10, 2007)

I think it'll be worthwhile. They can get people that look exactly the part they need and not pay bad celebrity actors/actresses exorbitant amounts of money.


----------



## Ryan (Aug 10, 2007)

I remember reading the book in mythology.. really liked it. I saw the movie "Beowulf and Grendel" a while later, and it blew fat sweaty ass.


----------



## Naren (Aug 10, 2007)

Ryan said:


> I remember reading the book in mythology.. really liked it. I saw the movie "Beowulf and Grendel" a while later, and it blew fat sweaty ass.



It sure did. 

I read Beowulf on my own in junior high because it wasn't on the curriculum and, me being both a video game and literature nerd, obviously had to read it. The version I had put the original old English on the left pages and the modern English translation on the right pages.


----------



## Ryan (Aug 10, 2007)

Naren said:


> It sure did.
> 
> I read Beowulf on my own in junior high because it wasn't on the curriculum and, me being both a video game and literature nerd, obviously had to read it. The version I had put the original old English on the left pages and the modern English translation on the right pages.



OoO That sounds really cool.. I'd need help to get through an old english version most likely. I wrote an essay on what defines a hero in saxon viewpoint afterwards. I wish i'd have kept some of that shit.

And on the movie, it was pretty funny when the troll/giant raped the witch lol


----------



## Jeff (Aug 10, 2007)

Naren said:


> It looks like they used a similar technique to "A Scanner Darkly" where they film the entire movie with real actors and then use computer technology to make it look like it's been computer rendered. For example, in "A Scanner Darkly," they had Keanu Reeves, Robert Downy Junior, Winona Rider, and Woody Harrelson and they all look like themselves, but are computer animated in this weird rotoscoping thing. This film has a similar concept behind it. So, without the human actors, there wouldn't even be a film at all.
> 
> But, to be honest, with your idea about porn, an animated/computer animated person can never compare to the real thing.



That's not necessarily how they did it though. While they obviously scanned the actors' faces, they could have merely done that, then done the rest of the animation in the box without actually filming anything, and just had the actors do the voice overs. 

See Final Fantasy or the CGI short from Animatrix as examples. Those were completely in the box animations, yet they look incredibly life-like, even for now being several years old.

And I was kidding about the porn thing


----------



## eleven59 (Aug 10, 2007)

Naren said:


> Yeah. I never said they didn't do that. They used rotoscoping and other techniques to alter the footage.



Ah, I get it now


----------



## Desecrated (Aug 10, 2007)

I hate computers, It´s destroying the movies,


----------



## playstopause (Aug 10, 2007)

There's no way (as of now) that you can replicate digitally an actor's emotion on screen.
You might get their faces the exact way, but replicate feelings and emotion? No way.

That sounds like the old man vs robot thing


----------



## Naren (Aug 11, 2007)

Jeff said:


> That's not necessarily how they did it though. While they obviously scanned the actors' faces, they could have merely done that, then done the rest of the animation in the box without actually filming anything, and just had the actors do the voice overs.
> 
> See Final Fantasy or the CGI short from Animatrix as examples. Those were completely in the box animations, yet they look incredibly life-like, even for now being several years old.
> 
> And I was kidding about the porn thing



I can assure you they didn't do that. If they had, it would have looked, at best, like a cut scene from a video game and not like the actual actors acting emotionally.

If they were going to do the entire film with CGI and not film a thing, they wouldn't have made the characters look just like those famous actors and actresses. And it also would cost a lot more than doing the technique they did do. I'm not sure of the specifics of what they did, but I know they didn't just scan in the actors and then animate the whole film. I'm sure that a good percentage of the film is completely animated (for example, most of the locations, special effects, and so on), but, from seeing that trailer, it's clear that they filmed the actors before doing the CGI special effects. 

And I actually think the realism in that Beowulf trailer is light years beyond the US-made "Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within" film (which I assume you were referring to) and "The Animatrix" which didn't look even remotely realistic in my opinion. The only comparison I can come up with is "A Scanner Darkly" where they filmed the entire movie with the actors and then went through and digitally changed the whole thing to look like it was computer generated.

If you mean by "real actors aren't needed" the actors in the movie being built up digitally from scratch and their voices being digitally rendered, I doubt that'll ever happen (at least not in our lifetimes). And, even if you had the technology for it, who would want to watch a movie with no human input but the animator? Some people would say, "Hey we could save on paying expensive famous actors!" Well, you could also save on expensive famous actors by getting actors who aren't famous and not paying them an extravagant amount of money and save the insane amount of money it costs for a full CGI film. I just don't see the benefits of such a thing if it were possible.



Ryan said:


> OoO That sounds really cool.. I'd need help to get through an old english version most likely. I wrote an essay on what defines a hero in saxon viewpoint afterwards. I wish i'd have kept some of that shit.
> 
> And on the movie, it was pretty funny when the troll/giant raped the witch lol



Actually I don't think you could read one word of the old English version, considering Beowulf was written around 900 AD when English was indistinguishable from what it was now.

For an idea of what it was like, here's "Beowulf" in the original old English: Beowulf

Excerpt from the beginning of Beowulf in the original old English:



> Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum,
> þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
> hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.
> Oft Scyld Scefing sceaþena þreatum,
> ...


----------



## Jeff (Aug 11, 2007)

Naren said:


> I can assure you they didn't do that. If they had, it would have looked, at best, like a cut scene from a video game and not like the actual actors acting emotionally.
> 
> If they were going to do the entire film with CGI and not film a thing, they wouldn't have made the characters look just like those famous actors and actresses. And it also would cost a lot more than doing the technique they did do. I'm not sure of the specifics of what they did, but I know they didn't just scan in the actors and then animate the whole film. I'm sure that a good percentage of the film is completely animated (for example, most of the locations, special effects, and so on), but, from seeing that trailer, it's clear that they filmed the actors before doing the CGI special effects.
> 
> And I actually think the realism in that Beowulf trailer is light years beyond the US-made "Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within" film (which I assume you were referring to) and "The Animatrix" which didn't look even remotely realistic in my opinion. The only comparison I can come up with is "A Scanner Darkly" where they filmed the entire movie with the actors and then went through and digitally changed the whole thing to look like it was computer generated.



I didn't start this as a need for a debate with someone who clearly knows everything about computer animation. 

It was meant more as "wow, look how far it's come in such a short time!" kind of thing.

To be fair though, Animatrix and FF are both years old; technology has progressed quite a bit since then, and that would also account for much more realism in CGI animation. 

And I should have clarified my original post more; I don't mean voices will be replaced soon as well; more of the actual filming, with voice overs like a cartoon would be. 

CGI already has replaced a lot of stunt work so far; I am sure it will progress further, even if it doesn't replace "traditional" filmmaking.


----------



## sakeido (Aug 11, 2007)

CGI stuntwork still doesn't hold a candle to the real deal. Check out the car chases from Live Free or Die Hard and Ronin and then compare that to the CGI stunts of the Matrix series and Terminator 3 and there is always something that is missing from the CGI version.

Real stunts > CGI 

But I appreciate a CGI movie as much as the next guy. Probably moreso, but I prefer a movie that takes advantage of what CGI offers and then puts their own style on it (like Pixar does) and can't stand movies that try and look realistic. The only CGI movie of the latter style I can stand is Advent Children because they managed to strike a nice balance between believability and crazy art direction.


----------



## Jeff (Aug 11, 2007)

sakeido said:


> CGI stuntwork still doesn't hold a candle to the real deal. Check out the car chases from Live Free or Die Hard and Ronin and then compare that to the CGI stunts of the Matrix series and Terminator 3 and there is always something that is missing from the CGI version.
> 
> Real stunts > CGI
> 
> But I appreciate a CGI movie as much as the next guy. Probably moreso, but I prefer a movie that takes advantage of what CGI offers and then puts their own style on it (like Pixar does) and can't stand movies that try and look realistic. The only CGI movie of the latter style I can stand is Advent Children because they managed to strike a nice balance between believability and crazy art direction.



To each their own. Movies like the Spider-Man, Star Wars (Prequels), and LOTR trilogies are amazing, and would have been impossible to achieve without CGI.

I agree though; real stunts are awesome, and there are a ton of examples where CGI was used needlessly and to poor effect (Daredevil, anyone?)


----------



## Naren (Aug 12, 2007)

Jeff said:


> I didn't start this as a need for a debate with someone who clearly knows everything about computer animation.
> 
> It was meant more as "wow, look how far it's come in such a short time!" kind of thing.
> 
> ...



Well, I didn't mean to infer that I know "everything" about computer animation.  But I do know quite a bit. I used to work as a CGI designer, have several friends working as CGI designers, and I try to keep up on the technology.

Obviously it's going to be opinionated about how realistic you can get. I personally am a big advocate of computer graphics and computer graphics technology (I work for a video game company and many of my favorite movies heavily use computer graphics). Like you said, films like the new Star Wars, Lord Of The Rings, and the Spiderman films would not have been capable without computer graphics and I like watching full-CGI films too, but they are no replacement for the real thing. I look at full-CGI films as being the same as hand drawn animated films. They aren't live action, but are a completely different genre. Obviously some of the more realistic films get close to that line between live action and animation. 

I was just saying that no matter how realistic it gets, I think that films that have human characters played by real people will always be more popular than films where the main characters are computer animated.


----------

