The two prime examples being Beowulf and The Golden Compass.

In the case of The Golden Compass, I believe that there's a lot more going on than the CG aspect of the film........the movie is probably losing audience share in the US (at least in part) for some of the same reasons that The Da Vinci Code did.  Many people won't go to see the movie because of the philosophy which underlies the story, and because of the publicly-cited motivations of the author (Philip Pullman) for writing the story in the first place.

Plus there's the fact that many of the critics are panning The Golden Compass simply because they say that it's a bad movie.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/his_dark_materials_the_golden_compass/

When it comes to the CG aspect of the situation found in The Golden Compass, one reviewer says this:

"The actors can hardly move among all the computer graphics, much less express any emotion or spontaneity; there's no sense of wonder."

Beowulf, on the other hand, comes in for somewhat friendlier press from the critics -- but it's still not setting the world on fire in terms of box-office draw:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/beowulf/

"This is what happens when directors with lots of money and powerful computers get all hot and bothered about the latest new toys."

http://www.film.com/movies/story/weekendwrapupbeowulftriumphsehnotsomuch/17370314

For the purposes of this forum -- I am particularly interested by the fact that I often see a lot of movie critics who gripe about the overuse of CG in films -- and who gripe about CG in general.  Many of the professional movie critcs just plain don't seem to like CG.  That's tough: seeing as how CG is taking over the fantasy / scifi movie industry these days.  But the complaints against CG seem to be growing in proportion to the use of CG in film.

Some individuals appear to think of CG as nothing more than a type of fakey trickery, and therefore not worthy of any stories / movies which are supposed to be taken seriously.

I wonder what movies like Ben Hur and The Ten Commandments would have looked like if they had been put together using CGI: instead of real-world models, fully-constructed sets, and thousands of hired & costumed extras.  The Ten Commandments used some primitive (but effective) FX -- however: it was very little by today's standards.

Would those movies have been considered to be as "classic" as they are if CGI technology had been available back then, and if CGI had been heavily utilized in making those films?  Much as I personally like CG......I tend to doubt it.

While CGI is by no means is going away.......I think that one lesson which we are learning -- and this is key to understand -- is that no amount of action-packed, semi-realistic-looking flash can make up for a well-written story.

Of course, CGI is steadily getting better with time.  But even at it's best, CGI is what spice is to the main course of a meal: it's a flavor enhancement to the actual sink-your-teeth-into meat of the story.  Spice by itself is not a meal: and CGI cannot replace the underlying story.  If it tries to, then it fails.  A meal that's all spice is no meal at all.

It depends o the CGi as some complaints made about compass that you can see the CGI in compass quite bad in some areas, though when comes critics every one has a choice.
I wont be seeing com pas as they should have stuck to the book but this film is a mish mash  jumps one scene next no explanation.
Ill see  Beowulf has read story donkeys years ago and i think the complaints about film is with CGI the eyes look dead, and they should have made the film like the final fantasy film no real people.
I never seen some the CGI films where the bloody fish look like real actors so its a hard job deciding how much to use, though i enjoyed the 300 Spartans as the CGI worked their.
As heard 1 discussion 2 peeps about making them more muscle and the abs, i said to them ya gotta remember, the Greeks invented weight lifting for the hoplites as when your in bronze armour and shield.
You have to run and fight while keeping a tight phalanx, though be interesting when next CGI films come out

I went to see Beowulf and hated it - not only because of CGI, but it does play a part in the disappointment. At the end of the day I fail to see why anyone would want to nullify the acting done by world class actors by casting them in rigid digital plaster in the post-production phase. The movie now reminds a bad computer adventure game from a couple years ago. I like nice effects. But only when the effects are not cast in the title role. Effects should, IMO, enhance a story. Thus personally I absolutely loved the recent "Stardust" and was very disappointed by the effects-laden "King Kong" few years back.

I think everyone will agree that when making a film the story HAS to be right before you start messing about with CGI, it's no good spending multiple millions on a film so it's the best looking film ever made if the story stinks.

Take the Pirates trilogy for instance, the first film had a great story & the CGI didn't get in the way, then the second film arrived with a less than brilliant story & far more CGI, the third film has even more CGI & a really crap story.

I'd rather have the best story & acting given priority over the CGI, leave out the CGI totally if you have to just get the story right first. One movie that bucked the trend for CGI recently was The Punisher, that had no CGI whatsoever & the film certainly didn't suffer for not having any.

Just to clarify, Beowulf exceeded it's box office projections after just 3 weekends. What's really significant is how well it performed on on digital 3D screens. The crappy thing is that the movie is ineligible for the Animated Feature Oscar due to the amount of performance capture used in it's creation.
James Cameron's Avatar will be the real barometer for the future of photo-realistic animation. May 2009 kids.
What really got me about Beowulf, other than being a kick-ass movie, was how most of the people in the theater thought the movie was live action, or at least partially. Seriously, after the movie ended all of the soccer moms pouring out of the theater were talking about how Angelina Jolie obviously had a boob-job before filming Beowulf.

I was impressed with Beowulf but not convinced with the characters.  One thing stands out to me, though  and that's the "soul" in the eyes  as mentioned.  Anyone  who has studied art  or even  the Zbrush forums will notice most people cannot finish the main course before jumping to the desert. Many tend to clusterfuk their work with trivia and detail to tease the critical eye away from certain shortcomings. "Look at the detail on the earrings"! Yeah but the face is lifeless. Just take a face and 2 eyeballs and convince. The rest will follow. That is,,, with the 50 million budjet.

I personally did not care for this movie, my wife wanted to see it and I would have rather seen Santa Clause 3 but she won and she was also disappointed.

I agree that the story should be well done and laid out and the CG aspect should be there to help flesh out the world of the story, not become the story, or push the story to the background. I enjoyed the Golden Compass but felt that something important was being left out at the end. I have just started reading the novel and am finding it far better than the movie. I have yet to see Beowulf. David

12/11/07

"the story HAS to be right"

The recent SciFi Channel mini-series, "Tin Man," used a lot of CG, and the quality of that graphics work was average to superior. Without the CG, I would have rated this a C(-) production because the story, theme, and plot were… disappointing, especially in comparison to the a classic like The Wizard of Oz. But, its cinematography and CG were overall very good so I would rate it a B(-) because it appealed to the eye. Being trained in drama as literature really spoils most movies for me.

As far as box office disappointments for Hollywood is concerned, I think that the elephant in the room that no one is talking about is the price of oil. Americans are "budgeted" to the last dollar on their monthly income. The increased cost of gasoline and heating, which is also now being past on to the consumer in most other goods and services, is enough to cancel out any money left over for entertainment, leisure, and even some necessities. With the obscene cost of popcorn and drinks at the theater, it is cheaper for a family to rent or buy the DVD and watch at home.

LMK

Actually, effect movies have always gotten the pan from critics, with very few exceptions. All the old Harryhause movies were considered genre schlock films, and kids went to drive ins in the 50's to make out to them, and laugh at them.

The effects in The Wizard of Oz  were described and unbelievable, and films with models as opposd to cgi were described as unrealistic looking, like movies made with toys,

With this history in mind, is it any wonder that cgi also gets a huge thumbs down from a lot of people?

But I look at something like the Balrog from Lord of the Rings, or Gollum, and then look at, say, Clash of the Titans, or any of the old Sindbad movies, and there's a WORLD of improvement in the realism and believability of effects now.

Beowlk was IMHO not supposed to duplicate reality, but to proved an alternate "mythic" reality in which to tell it's story, and I think it did that brilliantly.

It's another art form, like the Tim Burton animated films like Nightmare before Christmas, and Corpse Bride. We are seeing new stylized attempts at telling stories.

Do you really think critics would have liked Golden Compass better if they'd used real trained polar bears, with prosthetics applied? Most likely not, but at the end of the day, the story is the real bottom line.. a great story can entertain without killer effects, but a poor storyline can't be saved by any amount of effects wizardry.

The storyline of The Lord of the Rings translated well to the movie screen.  So did The Chronicles of Narnia.

Just how disappointing Beowulf has or has not been depends upon who you want to listen to......but there's no question that its overall box office performance didn't come up to what the producers were looking/hoping for.  It certainly didn't come anywhere near being a blockbuster.

Meanwhile, The Golden Compass might be sailing towards genuine box office flop status before it's over with.  The producers will end up looking to DVD sales in the hopes of turning a profit.  And many professional film critics are already expressing serious doubts that there will ever be a sequel, as was originally planned.  Some are starting to derisively refer to it as "The Brass Compass"........

Personally, I am far more inclined to blame the story itself than I am to blame the CG effects of the film.  Frankly, The Golden Compass just isn't a tale that a lot of movie-goers who are looking for nothing but pure entertainment can relate to.  While others seriously object to the core thrust of the story -- which translates into losing a giant percentage of any potential audience before you've even started.  And as far as the books themselves selling well is concerned -- success in the publishing industry is adjudged by a very different standard than success in the film industry.

As for the CGI aspect, I think that the thing which a lot of people object to is simply that it "isn't real".  Current CGI exists in a twilight zone that's situated somewhere halfway between reality and a Satruday morning cartoon.

My guess is that CGI will be a lot more effective when the technology reaches the point where the average person can't readily tell the difference between CGI and reality.

Yep, I agree with LMK.  Tin Man had variably good CG but it was the lackluster story that disappointed me.  And we saw the 'munchkins' for an entire ten minutes of this 5+ hour extravaganza.  It was almost like "The Wizard retires and goes to Florida".

I want to see The Golden Compass just because of its underlying philosophy. :)

I liked the Golden Compass up until the last 5 minutes of the film when it's painfully apparent that the story was unfinished and left you with a "To Be Continued Next Year" feeling to it! WTF!

I'm gonna get the beowulf dvd anyway, if only to see "fat lips" as grendel's mum. :lol: regarding the da vinci code, it was laughably bad, I agree. it reminded me of a monty python sketch with seemingly endless expository scenes interspersed with absurd chases and exploding penguins :lol:

Had I seen Beowulf in true 3d, I would have been more impressed. However, what ruined the movie for me was the ridiculous genital hiding effort done that was worthy of an Austin Powers flick. Put on a pair of shorts, and we would not have been subjected to that lunacy. That was absolutely ridiculous. And the end sucked as well.

Ranman. I hav eto agree, that was pretty amusing. it wasn't intended to be, but that really took the drama out of those scenes of the flick.

I find it VERY hard to believe that while they storyboarded and animated it, not ONE person stood up and said,"This is going to be funny as all hell!"

Having the most awesome tools at your disposal will do nothing if your story is lacking, but it does offer the director the ability to realize his vision, as mentioned earlier. I was very disappointed with the Transformers. The look was awesome - dare I say photo-realistic - but the story, I dunno, maybe I'm old seemed very junior-highish (no disrespect to junior high students). There's such a huge desire for studios to quickly release movies, three years or so on a production, and so little attempt to make the story really work. Any movie for me with a Deus Ex Machina ending, CG or not, my suspension of disbelief is out the window and I leave feeling cheated. There have been several great films with CG and a solid story. The earlier Pixar films and the first Matrix immediately come to mind.

Transformers left me cold as well.. it was too "power ranger"ish for my tastes,  and I really hated the directing style.

I was hoping for something on par with Beast wars or Beast Machines, but with a bigger budget.

Actually there is an excellent example.. the Best Wars/Machines tv series didn't have the best cgi effects, but the storylines were great. And the WeirdOhs tv show, and reboot also had great storylines, but has lower budget cgi effects. (Especially compared with what we see can be done today.)

At the end of the day, we need to care about the characters, and the story's conclusion, regardless of the story's presentation.. be it a book, cartoon, stop motion puppets, or cgi.

Who would dis something like, say, Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer, or How the Grinch Stole Christmas (animated)? Both had sub par animation, yet told compelling storeies that are near n dear to our hearts.

Then take a look at the live action How the Grinch Stole Christmas.. it had a bigger budget, top notch live action and cgi effects, but really had no "heart" to speak of at all.

Quote - Who would dis something like, say, Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer, or How the Grinch Stole Christmas (animated)? Both had sub par animation, yet told compelling storeies that are near n dear to our hearts.

Then take a look at the live action How the Grinch Stole Christmas.. it had a bigger budget, top notch live action and cgi effects, but really had no "heart" to speak of at all.

Okay you hit it right there on the "nose" with your statement. I cringed while watching the live version of Grinch while I do enjoy watch ing the orginal. The same goes for another live version of a Dr Suess tale - The Cat in the Hat. I would rather have my toenails pulled out than watch that again. Those movies where too commerical, specially the Grinch, which was if you read the story or watch the original was about how commercialism is destroying Christmas. I could rant for hours on that subject alone but yet won't.

I  really enjoyed Transformers, I don't think it was  "Power Ranger" like at all. That is like comparing the original Godzilla movies to the one that Mathew Brat, I mean Brodrick did. The CGI was good in the new one but never compaired to the original.

If you want to talk Power Ranger like I would have to say the "Thunderbirds" movie that was released a few years back is Power Ranger like. I could go on and give more examples but I won't.

Quote - Who would dis something like, say, Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer, or How the Grinch Stole Christmas (animated)? Both had sub par animation, yet told compelling storeies that are near n dear to our hearts.

Then take a look at the live action How the Grinch Stole Christmas.. it had a bigger budget, top notch live action and cgi effects, but really had no "heart" to speak of at all.

Very, very true.  An excellent comparison.

The old 1960's "Thunderbirds" TV series had heart -- puppetry and heart.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunderbirds_(TV_series)

The original Thunderbirds puppets came across as being more realistically alive than do many CGI-created characters today.

Quote - The old 1960's "Thunderbirds" TV series had heart -- puppetry and heart.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunderbirds_(TV_series)

The original Thunderbirds puppets came across as being more realistically alive than do many CGI-created characters today.

I know I have the DVD set and my 2 year son loves it when I watch it. I think he likes due to he likes Thomas the Tank Engine.  Now there is a TV series that doesn't need to to fancy CGI.

Actually, I'm not sure where you think Beowulf is a failure.  It brought in much more money in it's opening weekend than any other film of it's kind has in the past, and reviews for it were more favorable than any 3d film of it's kind in the past (Final Fantasy, etc.).

When all is said and done, it should actually earn a nice profit for Paramount.  It was made for $150 mil, and earned over $20 mil in it's opening weekend.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/21868158/

When it comes to Beowulf, I can counter positive articles with doubtful articles:

http://www.bizofshowbiz.com/2007/11/beowulf_leads_another_slow_box.html

That entire opening weekend was slow at the box office in overall performance.  So being #1 under such circumstances doesn't constitute hitting the Sweet Spot for a film.

I had already mentioned the fact that Beowulf received better reviews than the others in my opening post.  So that's not a point of contention.  Still, "better reviews overall" isn't the same thing as "glowing reviews across the board".  I'd say that "mixed reviews" is a more appropriate label.

Also: the jury's still out on whether or not Beowulf will ultimately turn a profit.  It likely will -- from DVD sales -- and I'd say that it has a better chance of doing so than The Golden Compass does.  The point here concerning Beowulf being that scratching the bottom of the barrel to return a profit by the skin of your teeth qualifieth not for the title of a blockbuster movie.  It might be argued in the post mortem that at least it's made a profit -- which is good.  But it doesn't rise above the level of mediocre box office performance, at best

So yeah: Beowulf did not perform like the movie's producer's had hoped that it would.  I'd call that a disappointment.  With the caveat that it probably won't actually lose money for them when all is said and done.  But I wouldn't call that a roaring success.

I call it a success for realistic-styled CG filmmaking, which is still something rather new to North American movie audiences.  Beowulf pretty much met it's opening weekend expectations.  The money it generates through DVD will put it over the top, so expect more movies like this to come about in the near future, as audiences become more responsive to CG that isn't geared towards kids.

Is "qualifieth" really a word?

Quote - Actually, I'm not sure where you think Beowulf is a failure.  It brought in much more money in it's opening weekend than any other film of it's kind has in the past, and reviews for it were more favorable than any 3d film of it's kind in the past (Final Fantasy, etc.).

When all is said and done, it should actually earn a nice profit for Paramount.  It was made for $150 mil, and earned over $20 mil in it's opening weekend.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/21868158/

It is not the money that the film earns it is how it is presented. I felt disappointed by the movie, I had read the poem that the movie was based on back in school and felt the movie did not have the same meaning as the poem did. I felt the same when I saw Eragon, but I did enjoy it more than Beowulf.

Quote - I call it a success for realistic-styled CG filmmaking, which is still something rather new to North American movie audiences.  Beowulf pretty much met it's opening weekend expectations.  The money it generates through DVD will put it over the top, so expect more movies like this to come about in the near future, as audiences become more responsive to CG that isn't geared towards kids.

Actually -- I'd like to see that happen.  But whether or not Beowulf's middling performance will cause studios to start turning out similar CGI-oriented movies by the gross remains to be seen.  Most of the 'big boys' are looking to create the next blockbuster -- not the next "get by".

As a sidenote, it's odd how the MSM (Main Stream Media) will sometimes tout mediocre performance in a film as if it were a runaway success story.  The first Star Wars was a runaway success story -- Beowulf isn't.

Quote - Is "qualifieth" really a word?

Aye. 

I'm with Maxx on this one; I thought there was some scripting problems with Beowulf as well.....but the most important part is that the CG environments held together. The characters worked. That makes if far more likely that more adaptations are on the way using the same process, or enhancements (maybe the quadcores will give the needed boost to the renderfarms to pay for all the extra reflections and so forth to make the eyes seem a bit more alive). It wasn't Rings or Harry Potter, and frankly it couldn't have been; there just wasn't enough actual -story- there. Not in the movie, and certainly not in the poem. Beowulf may not have been the greatest thing since sliced bread. But think about using the same techniques, with some modifications, to create 'Dragonflight's' Pern. Or Elfquest. Or any of the other sci-fi/fantasy genre where you can duck the phoney makeup with a mocapped performance with keyframed enhancements. Not a common method perhaps, but in certain situations, maybe the best method for now...

I'd very much like to see CG come into common acceptance as being a "worthy" way to make movies -- at least movies of the fantasy / scifi genre.  CG is  about the only way to create certain fantasy elements.  Doing FX with models and live actors can be a lot more expensive -- and limiting.

Cecil B. DeMille's movies could not be made today, using the same methods that he used.  The pricetag for doing so would be beyond what any studio could risk.......or possibly even afford.........in today's world.

Heh -- like the story that I heard about a large engineering construction company which did a full engineering construction estimate on what it would cost (using modern equipment & methods) to build the Great Pyramid today.  IIRC, they didn't take any shortcuts, such as replacing quarried stone with concrete.  It was all based upon using the original materials.  The cost of the final result might have bankrupted Bill Gates......not to mention requiring nearly three decades to complete.  Even with modern methods in place.

We aren't likely to see DeMille's methods used again anytime soon.

One thing that someone mentioned is very true: yes, in the end, the effects weren't entirely photorealistic and convincing (anytime a horse was on screen, for instance), and the eyes were "dead" (although much better than they were just a few years ago in CG animation), but...

...how "alive" were they eyes and photorealistic the characters in "The Incredibles"?  Or "The Lion King"?
The problem is that CGI is a new artform and all the tropes of the genre, the willing suspensions of disbelief required to accept the conventions, hasn't settled in it.  A perfect analogy is to consider anime and manga and it breaking into the North American market.  It's huge these days but for the longest time people raised on traditional North American animation and comic books couldn't get their heads around the style choices: the big eyes, the sweatdrops, the exaggerated expressions and caricatures when expressing emotion, so on and so forth.

With the two movies I mentioned, one was (mostly) traditionally animated, the other, stylistically, looked kinda sorta like traditional animation.  As such people overlooked the non-photorealism.  No one expects the eyes to look lifelike.

Sometimes I wonder if  the movie houses feel people want eye candy and do not care about a good plot or story line? makes one wonder about our every growing shorter attention spans. Maybe movies houses today are banking on all the magic of CGI to grab people's imaginations and forgetting the story lines anyway that is what it looks like to me. Wow them with the computer stuff and they will not care about a plot.

One thing that someone mentioned is very true: yes, in the end, the effects weren't entirely photorealistic and convincing (anytime a horse was on screen, for instance), and the eyes were "dead" (although much better than they were just a few years ago in CG animation), but...
 

I have no doubt realism was an original goal for the main characters. At least at first. As they say,,, the last 1% is the most difficult. The realism was at least 95% there in some scenes. The night he lay naked waiting for Grendal, for example. Or Grendal's mother as  her face cleared the water. Or the rocks on the beach with the cam a few inches over them... the 3D version got in the way sometimes, I guess. Fun though

I have no point here other than to say someday soon,,, what we call a "movie" will be redefined. The audience will not know anymore what was real or cgi.

An interview with Hopkins ( at release) revealed an interesting thought. One day,,, an actor could be digitally "saved" to act or make an appearance way beyond his living years. Get your scans soon.

actually, Baewulf has been a show biz punchline for decades. Whenever someone had an idea for a film, the first reaction was 'Not Baewulf!"...;) So it's probably hubris in making it that has some of the approbrium against it from the critics..;)

and actually, after the first screening of Star Wars, all but one of the executives hated it. But the one guy who liked it, said it would make millions. But who was right in the end?

lol Hey pak,,,

Had to look some of them words up. I make a great hubrus though.

Notice how - when CGI is mentioned - Pixar hardly ever gets panned?  I strongly suspect it's because they tend to put the story first.

Meh... CG in movies make for a whole new medium, and few have learned to master it well (as the prev. poster Keith has insightfully pointed out). It also helps to have decent voice-acting, and a compelling blend between each voice actor and cg mesh character. Some movies can pull it off, most cannot. It also doesn't help that much of what's come out of Hollywood lately... sucks. No, really - we're talking movies that induce either soma-like boredom, or you get the "sweaty, hairy, dismembered goat genitalia bobbing on the surface of your morning coffee" revulsion kind of movie nowadays. Critics, knowing this full well, want a good solid scapegoat (heh) to point at so they don't anger the producers and not get free movie tickets anymore... so it's off to blame the CG. As a bonus, it gives the flesh-and-blood actors something to point at and go "see!? you can't replace us! And it's not our fault the movies suck, either" (hint to most of 'em: yes it is your fault, among other things, so put down the 24 karat cocaine spoons for a sec and listen up...) It's not a conspiracy per se, but a sharp, solid convergence of a lot of what's wrong with Hollywood nowadays... all wrapped up and assigned to someone else for disposal. CG itself can prove to be a success. Toy Story, Final Fantasy, LOTR (1,2, and 3)... these have made for excellent movies with huge takes at the box office. Frank Herbert's Dune (not the sucky 80's version, but the SciFi Channel version) is an excellent blend of plot, story, and CG for television... with none of it really overpowering the other elements (get the DVD, watch it minus commercials, and damn it's good). Hell, Babylon 5 was packed with fairly (admit it) crap CG, but was pretty cool watching - at least until the plot began to sour like a carton of month-old milk left out on the kitchen counter in Jamaica under a noonday summer sun... Battlestar Galactica (before its plot went straight to Hell as well) was the same way (but with better CG). Firefly, Farscape - both had fair-to-middling CG (we're talking obvious faults visible any halfway trained eyeball), but again - good stuff. The trick was to either have CG the whole world (so you didn't notice it) or use it sparingly - make it subdued and/or limited (for the same reason, oddly enough). Either way, make damned sure it blended in as well as possible. Beowulf did the CG right, but let's face it - the plot was kinda formulaic, it went for the sex angle way too damned much, and no amount of CG or directorial wizardry will save you from crap voice-acting. Golden Compass I dunno about, but the previews present it as some little girl's fantasy thingy. Speakin' of which, a hint to Hollywood: Narnia, Terabithia, Last Mimzy, All the (blecch) Harry Potter flicks, and about half a dozen wannabees of the same stripe... ? The friggin kids-in-parallel-fantasyland-(with a sword) genre was somewhat delicate to begin with, so strangling it with an ever-flowing stream of crap knock-offs isn't going to help, you know? At least Beowulf tried to differentiate itself from LOTR and the D&D crowd by using actual mythology as a base...) whew okay... have I offended everyone yet? Ah, good... now let me bore you to tears, if I may... :) Personally, I like the way they did the movie 300 - it was at least halfway based on history (The battle of Thermopylae to be precise... "The Hot Gates" is a literal translation of the name), and they didn't veer off into some formulaic bullshit with it. The hero dies. His buddies die. You didn't know when or how (nor does history). The movie went out of its way to accurately portray how a Sparta boy became a soldier. The only thing they did that veered from complete accuracy (aside from the creatures serving under Xerxes, obviously) was that they all but stamped out the homosexual nature of the Sacred Band (the aforementioned 300 Spartan soldiers). But as far as movies go, it was damned accurate all the same. The CG was subtle, and used as an adjunct, not the focus. Now for the penultimate crap use of CG? Transformers. Not that it wasn't good CG, and it was even mechanically plausible. But c'mon - the CG was literally rubbed in your face (almost as bad as it was in Hulk). Watching the CG animation in that movie was like watching it trying to fit into a formal-dress party wearing nothing but a neon orange jock strap, a purple clown wig, and a pair of bright red latex high-heel boots with white LED lights twinkling along the sides of them. But yeah - blame the CG, instead of the poor use of it. Good game on the critics' part.... not. /P

The Sacred Band was Theban. It wasn't formed until about 100 years after the Battle of Plataea.  Their entire reason for existance was to fight to the death against the Spartans.
Anyway...
I haven't been to a movie theatre in a long time. I much prefer stage acting.
I watched LOTR on DVD and thought it sucked, complete butchery of the second best selling book ever written (The Bible being the best selling). The Fellowship of the Ring was pretty good, Two Towers was dissapointing to me.  Return of the King was a complete bust. Visually, they were very good. The sets, creatures, etc. were great; but the story just wasn't accurately portrayed. I'm a big Tolkien fan, so maybe I'm a little biased about that one.

I agree with you on the LOTR's movies.  They jacked around with the story to make it PC.  Which is irritating.

But those movies were a commercial success......even if they weren't exactly true to the books.

CG in movies.. well, I think most people have summed it up fairly well, no matter how good your graphics are it won't save a movie from a bad storyline, and frankly Hollywood is chock full of bad storylines.

Look at some of the movies mentioned - lets start with Golden Compass.  The story simply doesn't appeal to the vast majority of people because of it's atheistic undertones, and while that might be all the rage in Hollywood, they simply haven't figured out that the majority of the population of the US (and most other countries, for that matter) are religious in some shape or form.

Another movie mentioned was the Davinci Code - ok, have to put a disclaimer in on this one, as a fairly devout Catholic I wasn't at all impressed with the book on which it was based.  From a "historical" perspective the story is nonsensical at best.  The "priory of psion", for example, was a based completely on a hoax.  These facts were readily available when Dan Brown wrote the book, and his slipshod research and claims that this was "historical fact mixed with fiction" were totally off base.  This was historical fiction mixed with more fiction.

But I decided to peruse the movie anyway, not really certain why,  maybe just to see how offensive it could be in comparision with the book.  Sad thing was the movie was so terribly boring I really couldn't even work up the energy to be offended by all their backhanded slaps at my chosen faith.  

But so many big Hollywood "blockbusters" it seems are like this nowadays.  Plot holes you could drive a fleet of semi trucks through, poorly thought out storylines and of course the terrible "hint at a sequel" endings.  Honestly the realism of CG graphics is the very least of their worries at this point.

When you look at a movie like Beowulf,  your probably not going to see a huge box office draw regardless of how well done the graphics might be, it's just not a story that most people are terribly familiar with or drawn too and as such the box office for the movie isn't going to be much regardless of the quality of the film.

Nope, I think Hollywood really needs to start working on some new material - and writing stories and characters that most people can care about to begin with, instead of hashing and rehasing the same old overdone plotlines and expecting to be able to cover up their lack of story with massive amounts of special effects or computer graphics.

Just my 2 cents worth.

I particularily liked the Balrog, and Moria in general, it was uncannily like the mental images I had of that whole stretch. Lothlorien was very great also. The scene with Frodo offering The Ring to Galadriel was perfect.
So, I guess that stepping back from previous knowledge of the books, that the movies were actually very well done; but I do think a big part of the commercial success of the movies was due to the name recognition of 'Lord of the Rings".

EDIT -  that post is in reply to XENOPHONZ

Quote - The Sacred Band was Theban. It wasn't formed until about 100 years after the Battle of Plataea.  Their entire reason for existance was to fight to the death against the Spartans.

Yes, and when Thebes defeated Sparta in battle -- a feat previously thought by many to be impossible -- the event came as a shock to an exiled Athenian who was living in Sparta at the time -- a retired former general and a man of letters named Xenophon.

Of course, later on Alexander professed his admiration for the bravery of the Sacred Band after he had killed all of them.  And he then further demostrated his admiration for the courage of the Thebans by sacking, burning, and razing their city to the ground -- destroying it utterly as an example to others who might be so foolish as to oppose him.  Alexander also mocked the Spartans: but he did not destroy them.

I wonder how all of that would look in CG?

I'd like to see the naval battle at Actium (Antonius' fleet against Octavianius') in CG.

Realistic human faces are the big problem. It's where the Shrek movies are struggling: the humans don't look like cartoons and they don't look real. And, unlike ogres and talking donkeys, we know what real humans look like. Not all computer effects are CGI--computer compositing has replaced the optical printer--and I think people are criticising CGI for strange reasons. They claim that CGO models can't match the feel of physical models, and suggest that to mix CGI models with actors you somehow have to modify the live action (See Sky Captain as an example of that idea). The claim is also made that there is a coherence in film-based effects--we see the fakery, but accept is as story-telling, just as we accept the cuts and fades and gaps in space and time. So is CGI too realistic to be story-telling, and too fake to be real?

I would rather see a cgi movie that is strictly cgi and look "cartoonish" than some of the stuff that has semi integrated cgi that looks crappy with live actors. Example 300, Beowulf, and Doom did not impress me. Movies that did were King Kong, Transformers, LOTR, T3, and POTC (Pirates of the Caribbean).

Now on the other hand you have a few live/CGI that are suppose to look cartoonish like the Garfield movies and Alvin and the Chipmunks (going to see it with my son next week).

I think a lot of the Movie Studios are pushing CGI in films to make money, they don't care if the plot is good as long as the visuals are. One of my co works thought that with Beowulf they should have gone back to the Ray Harryhausen way of doing thing and spent more time on getting the store line right than just adding effects.

the new "CG movie" opening this weekend, I Am Legend, will probably do well. It looks good from the previews, lol. It has star power, Will Smith, and is based on a great Sci-Fi story. Apparently the "creatures" were at first done in real life, but did not look convincing enough, so they were done with CGI instead. Dont't really get a good look at them in the previews though.

Maybe I Am Legend will do well, maybe not.

At least one reviewer is referring to it as a "B-movie schlockfest".

http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5g_-D2Ja3xa5ZaDs6Y-XG3nKIMNig

shrug  That might be a guarantee of its success.........

Quote - Maybe I Am Legend will do well, maybe not.

At least one reviewer is referring to it as a "B-movie schlockfest".

http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5g_-D2Ja3xa5ZaDs6Y-XG3nKIMNig

shrug  That might be a guarantee of its success.........

Not a lot of flim critics who's opinion I respect to be honest with you.  Most film critics seem to enjoy the kind of movies that I can't stand.  Take "Brokeback Mountain" for example.  Ok, here is a movie I had zero desire to see, and yet you read the reviews and you hear things like:

*"It is simply one of the greatest love stories in film history."

*That one really made me laugh.  Now a movie like Casablanca or The African Queen, those were great love stories.  Brokeback Mountain?  Not even in the same universe IMHO.  But the critics loved it and it got 8 oscar nominations, despite the fact that it was a terrible movie. 

Critics seem to love movies along the lines of "Terms of Endearment" and "Ordinary People".  The only thing "endearing" I found about Terms of Endearment was it is a wonderfully non-addictive cure for insomnia.  Ordinary people is so mind numbingly dull that the CIA was considering using it as an interrogation technique at one point, but decided that waterboarding was far more humane than forcing even your worst enemy sit through this movie.

Remember when the first Star Wars movie came out years ago?  Critics hated it - at least until it creamed every box office record imaginable and became a huge success.  Then suddenly they started changing their tune just a bit, but for the most part most movie critics have an intense dislike of any movie with any entertainment value whatsoever.

So when it comes to the opinions of professional movie critics I generally pay no heed whatsoever, they seem to think that every movie should have some social significance or explore yet another ultra boring aspect of the human condition.   Not me, when I spend my hard earned coin going to a movie theater I want to be entertained, not preached at.  I want a good story, characters I can identify with and enough special effects and action to keep me on the edge of my seat.

Just my 2 cents worth.

Will Smith is just plain wrong for the part in I Am Legend, to me he never actually becomes the character he's supposed to be playing, All I ever see on screen in his movies is Will Smith.

jeez, will smith miscast in another scifi movie? bummer. he ruined the robot movie IMVHO. I wish they didn't always hafta dumb it down for the target demographic, but they're only in it for the money. it makes one hope matheson's prediction will come a bit sooner :lol: anyway, thx fr the tip on that. will definitely skip "I am legend".

The cg films that have worked for me are the ones with "old school movie" and "theatrical stage" literate plots, even if metaphorically:

Pochahontas
Anastasia
more recently:
Cars
Ratatuille

and especially Robots, my all-time favorite.
http://imdb.com/title/tt0358082

The above are all "animated films" from end to end; dramas with cg to make them seem real....probably the films not really known for CG such as King Arthur, Jurrassic Park, etc.

I thought the Balrog was spectacular; disliked the rest of that mess. Read the book.

::::: Opera :::::

@Stepdad --

We agree 110%.

Brokeback Mountain was one of the most MSM-favored, over-hyped under-perfomers of a movie to come along in decades.  To read the press clippings, you'd think that the entire country was lining up at the theaters -- unable to contain themselves waiting to see this brilliant, inspiring film.

The reality was quite different........but hey, the movie was incredibly cheap to make by today's standards, and it eeked out a couple of dollars in profit (no CG required) -- so that meant that BM was the biggest movie house success since......since........A Beautiful Mind ! 

No, I haven't seen it.  In fact, I haven't even seen A Beautiful Mind.