My most anticipated movie of the year. Zemeckis never lets down.

Does anyone think this movie will make any money? I think it will be lucky to get $30 million. IF that Final Fantasy movie didnt make money I dont know how this will.

so how does the extra 3D fee actually work, does that amount go to the theatre or to the film box office intake, I would assume to the theatre to defray the cost of the REAL-D system - right?

Yes, it should make quite a bit of money. I wouldn't be surprised if it makes $30 million opening weekend alone.

I don't know, this movie has bomb written all over it. For anyone interested in Beowulf, I would suggest picking up the Seamus Heaney translation, which is excellent

http://www.amazon.com/Beowulf-New-Ve...2652742&sr=8-1

Depending on just how good the movie is, I'd expect 75mill or so... a decent take but still not enough to cover costs.

I'm with you. Forget all the people talking about box office bomb...this wont be it. If it's anything like what it seems to look similar too its going to be amazing.

Anyone seeing this in 3D on thursday night?

Isn't this coming out next week, Lara? Or do you know something I don't?

I'll be there day one, but I doubt I'll do the midnight thing.

is there a DC sneak?

+1

My wife wants to see it which means I will be seeing it. But these electronic puppet characters do nothing for me. I had the same gripe with Polar Express.

they were rather emotionless weren't they?

There are a lot of reasons why this isn't live action. The film isn't about being 100% realistic, it's meant to realistic like a painted portrait is realistic. Which fits because the story is myth, and there should be some detachment from real-life.

On top of the that, shooting this way gives the actors the utmost freedom in their performance, they don't have to worry about hitting a mark, or waiting for the crew to set up after each take, they just perform. Crispin Glover would not have been cast had it been live action because Zemeckis knows Glover is crazy on a set, but that's irrelevant here.

Furthermore, the film is apparantly incredible in 3D, and by being CG it allows for a much easier and smoother transition to that.

You'd also be interested to know Zemeckis took the Polar Express criticisms very seriously and they developed a new way to capture eye movements and other facial muscles that apparantly is worlds better.

By saying it should be live action misses a big point of what they're going for.

I hear you, but I don't think its about actors freedom in performance. If anything, I think the manipulation of the digital image takes away any freedom they are expressing. In my opinion it would have more interesting to go the Sin City or 300 route.

I disagree. I've heard Crispin Glover say that his performance is 100% on the screen. He's very happy with how Grendel turned out. I'm not sure how it would take away freedom, considering the whole point of the tech is to capture the performance. They could manipulate the performance just has much if it was live action, except this way they can avoid inconsistencies.

The problem with going the Sin City route is this film would require a lot of FX work, and CG/Live-action intergration comes off poorly, even today. They avoid those issues by making everything CG. I'd rather have a consistency of style, more than anything else that takes me out a film.

Gaiman has described the 3D version as being inside of graphic novel. Avary was originally going to direct the film as a live action piece, but now states that this is the best way the film could've been made.

If it's good, it's good. If it sucks, it sucks. I never get the CGI argument. Unless it looks god awful, CGI can look hokey as long as the story is good. and Polar Express didn't, especially in IMAX 3D, look strange to me. It's animation, not live-action. Just because it has a realistic look doesn't necessarily mean it should look like live-action.

However, based on the commercials and trailer for Beowulf it looks like they are trying for live-action.

I don't understand how the Sin City/300/Sky Captain route is any different?

In both scenarios you essentially have actors playing against nothing but their imagination with all the external stuff filled in afterwards. Its not like they just wanted someone Ray Winstone's size to go through the motions - they wanted Ray Winstone to act and they got that.

In Sin City/300/Sky Captain the actors looked real...IN Beowolf they don't...They look like something on a video game.

they just look hairy to me:

http://fasterthantheworld.com/teen-wolf.jpg

...and people would be bitching about that too.

Exactly, they're not supposed to look like actual humans.

I don't know man. It could be a good movie, but from an artistic point of view, I just don't like the look of it. It looks really drab and lifeless, and though the CG is supposed to be cutting edge, both Final Fantasy movies (along with the cutscenes from the last few games) still look more impressive than this does.

I found it funny that when he says "I am Beowulf!".....It sounds exactly like "This is Sparta!" :)

Yeah. They are really marketing this as being like "300," which I think is a horrible marketing decision. I wasn't really paying attention to this project until I saw the trailer, and I thought it looked horrible. I've got somewhat higher expectations now that I hear Zemeckis is directing, but the marketing really does this film no favors.

I disagree. I think it looks significantly better than any Final Fantasy CG creation. The animation is, of course, leagues better. I'll take Gaiman's word that it does indeed feel like being in graphic novel, until I can form my opinion by seeing the whole thing in 3D.

Here's a little pic of the sensors on the face and suit: http://media.movieweb.com/news/11.2005/angelinabew.jpg