Beowulf - Zemeckis

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 12 Aug 2007, 05:35

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9qpqyO_dmU

Zemeckis' first visit to the Uncanny Valley since The Polar Express. More creepy reanimated corpses.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 12 Sep 2007, 02:29

slasher13 wrote:Looks pretty interesting, check out the trailers:
http://movies.apple.com/movies/paramoun ... _h720p.mov

Uncensored Version:
http://downloads.paramount.com/mp/beowu ... r_720p.mov

Yup check out the uncensored version, it looks pretty good

BiscLimpkit · Post by **BiscLimpkit** » 19 Nov 2007, 15:03

Have you guys seen this in 3D yet? Well I have - digital projection as well.

The storyline isn't great but is entertaining enough to fill around 2hrs or so.

The photo-realistic animation was stunning, probably the best I've ever seen. I forgot sometimes that it was an animation. I'd have to say that the quality is better than anything Square have ever done with Final Fantasy (which I always found impressive).

The 3D bits were cool. I saw some 3D trailers as well. You get to keep the glasses.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 19 Nov 2007, 15:12

It doesn't really interest me. Hollywood animation rarely does.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 19 Nov 2007, 16:54

Er I thought the whole point of the film was so you did not have to wear gimp 3D glasses, its been advertised as such. Why on earth you were given glasses is beyond me then.

It was OK and well worth a watch, animation sucked balls at times, but then swayed into perfection, to uneven sadly to impress. Cut to fuck as well sadly

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 19 Nov 2007, 17:08

I bet the animators had some 'fun' with the Angela Jolie 3D model.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 19 Nov 2007, 17:31

Hell they spent so much time on her, they forgot other charecters. She was the best looking (in realistic terms) of everyone, her face at times was perfection.

Some other charecters looked like crowd people from Shrek, they were that poor.

BiscLimpkit · Post by **BiscLimpkit** » 19 Nov 2007, 18:21

romerojpg wrote:Why on earth you were given glasses is beyond me then.

To see it in 3D?

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 19 Nov 2007, 19:08

No, as in the tech they were suposed to develop was 3D without stupid glasses, guess they failed, badly.

People do not want to wear stupid glasses, they want to watch a film, not be irratated by some cheap piece of shit hanging on your ears and nose.

gasteropod · Post by **gasteropod** » 19 Nov 2007, 19:18

Eh? How can they possibly show something with a 3D effect without the use of glasses?

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 19 Nov 2007, 19:38

How would I know

what am I the 3D wizard if light and time. I remember many 3D things over the years, they worked with no glasses, cost a fortune I know that. Its down to cash, to expensive to do it for cinemas basically.

Still shit you have to wear stupid glasses.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 19 Nov 2007, 21:17

I hear it works really well with the 3D glasses. I'm sure it was deliberate and not down to the lack of cash as you say, of which it looks to have had tons of cash at it's disposal.

Shingster · Post by **Shingster** » 19 Nov 2007, 22:54

romerojpg wrote:I remember many 3D things over the years, they worked with no glasses, cost a fortune I know that. Its down to cash, to expensive to do it for cinemas basically.

You really are the biggest bullshit artist on the internet aren't you romero!

BiscLimpkit · Post by **BiscLimpkit** » 19 Nov 2007, 23:50

I just wanna say that the glasses did not bother me. But then, I wear glasses from time to time anyway...

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 20 Nov 2007, 20:36

Shingster wrote:
romerojpg wrote:I remember many 3D things over the years, they worked with no glasses, cost a fortune I know that. Its down to cash, to expensive to do it for cinemas basically.
You really are the biggest bullshit artist on the internet aren't you romero!

You need to do some research if you think I am wrong, instead of sitting at your PC thinking you are right. Even some minor Googling will tell you its been done many times.

Or just Look in the local arcades for many examples of 3D with no glasses over the last 20 years, instead of saying people are full of bullshit. As your the only one wrong.

gasteropod · Post by **gasteropod** » 20 Nov 2007, 21:33

I don't think you can get 3D from a flat screen with no glasses. You'd need some kind of hologram lol.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 20 Nov 2007, 22:12

BiscLimpkit wrote:I just wanna say that the glasses did not bother me. But then, I wear glasses from time to time anyway...

People get to hung up about glasses. They're just glasses.

I've been wearing glasses since I was 7. From 7 to 27 I had to wear them but today after two operations (each eye) I only have to wear them when reading or driving, but I still wear them most of the time as they also help with general vision. After 20 years I've got so use to wearing glasses, it feels a bit strange to not be wearing them (refreshing though). I only don't wear them when I'm trying to impress someone or out for the evening.

They're just glasses at the end of the day. So many people would rather walk around with less than perfect eyesight instead of wear glasses, fools!

Shingster wrote:You really are the biggest bullshit artist on the internet aren't you romero!

I don't know about this so I didn't comment but otherwise Romero Bullshit, never!

As Gasteropod says you probably need something to create the 3D effect. I've have seen examples of "so called" 3D but really it was just 2D with some whizzy effects to appear as if it was 3D. Rubbish really.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 20 Nov 2007, 22:47

Its not the glasses that get on my tites, its the ugly look and the way they distort the image and if you already have glasses on already, its flipping shit putting more glasses on top of them.

and Nope, there are 3D screens out now of variying quality and ways of doing 3D with NO need for glasses of any sort, it isnt hard to google them you know. Geez.

But as I said they cost so much its not exactly viable for large scale cinemas or even homes yet, unless you have plenty of cash that is. But I did expect Beowulf to be able to be played 3D without glasses somehow after all the stuff thats been out latley about the new no glasses tech, obviously its still not advanced for use with big films, or its not worth bothering with all the mesing about still when glasses are cheaper.

many companies are involved in making Home 3D screens and many are out now from man big names companies, you just probibly have not heard of them obviously as they aint home prices still.

Heres just one version from Phillips a very cheap one, some go for £50000+
http://www.inition.co.uk/inition/produc ... ubCatID_=0

But there are so many versions costing vastly different prices and quality.

If you had £40000 to blow on a new screen you could get as good as the cinema with glasses could recreate from what I have read.

But its all pointless anyway as no one is develping anything film wise to be shown on them screens.

gasteropod · Post by **gasteropod** » 20 Nov 2007, 22:59

That screen is mad, that's clearly the future of cinema. It makes HD seem outdated already

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 20 Nov 2007, 23:04

The Big expensive screens make that one look like shite from what the peeps say, I aint seen any in real life obviously, but you never know in 5 years or so this could be more popular? or just a fad.

I want this one

132 inches haha

http://blog.scifi.com/tech/archives/200 ... aunti.html

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 20 Nov 2007, 23:11

romerojpg wrote:Its not the glasses that get on my tites, its the ugly look and the way they distort the image and if you already have glasses on already, its flipping shit putting more glasses on top of them.

That can be a nightmare.

Try wearing glasses and then water goggles (the large type). It's mission impossible to do so and still keep the suction. Trust me I've tried

romerojpg wrote:The Big expensive screens make that one look like shite from what the peeps say

Shite? Now that is bullshit (not directed at you). People really do need to expand their vocabularly

It's either great or shit. There's nothing in the middle

It would be great if selected screens were like that Philips but there's no way I'd want it to replace a flat screen. It would be really, really annoying for many films.

Not related but kind of the same: Why doesn't everyone buy Video Cameras when technically they're clearly superior to Digital Cameras? Because people don't want them. Video Cameras off "too" much. A photo and your imagination will always be way more exciting.

Shingster · Post by **Shingster** » 21 Nov 2007, 02:51

romerojpg wrote:You need to do some research if you think I am wrong, instead of sitting at your PC thinking you are right. Even some minor Googling will tell you its been done many times.

Or just Look in the local arcades for many examples of 3D with no glasses over the last 20 years, instead of saying people are full of bullshit. As your the only one wrong.

Oh please, you made it sound like there has been numerous techniques that allow cinemas to project 3D films without the need of glasses over the years, when that is complete bullshit, as I alluded to in my last post. The fact is there is - at the moment at least - no real viable and less convenient way than, say the IMAX method, of putting a film up in a cinema in 3D without the need for any form of visual tool to help you view the image.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 21 Nov 2007, 05:35

I for one wouldn't want IMAX to replace Cinema.

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 21 Nov 2007, 14:08

IMAX is a form of cinema.

Killer Meteor · Post by **Killer Meteor** » 21 Nov 2007, 15:24

And damn impressive cinema too. I saw a documentary on Egypt at an Imax and it was amazing to look at.