Angelina’s Digital Boobies
November 19th, 2007 by MaT
The New York Times has short story on the “uncanny” digital actors in Beowulf.
I’ve asked in the past “What’s the point?” in digitally recreating the likeness of the actor. I can understand doing it for things that don’t exist (like Grendel), but Angelina Jolie? There’s a lot of scholarly discussion going on about what this does to movies, how audiences react to the cold, fake realism of these types of films (and, incidentally, whether or not animated movies are really movies at all). It’s interesting to think about, I guess.
I’m seeing the flick in about an hour. Look for a review later today as well as my feeling’s on the subject.
Filed under: Movies
Explodey Jo said:
My sentiments were exactly the same - what’s the point? Could they not have acted the film out in the time it took to digitalise them?
I’ve always thought CGI was fine, as long as it’s not overused, and the viewer can’t tell. The way things are going though…. It makes me feel pessimistic about the future of movies.
Jeff said:
Ditto. I don’t “get” it. Why is it appealing to have a hyper-realistic animated version of an actor? Why not just do live-action?
*scratching my head*
MaT said:
Posted my review/commentary.
I guess the opposing question to the “What’s the point?” argument is “Well as long as you like the movie, then who care’s what the point is?”
It’s very interesting to think about. We should talk about it on an upcoming splattercast.
Explodey Jo said:
Just read your commentary Mat. Some good points there. Interesting that you mention Sin City and 300, two movies that I love, both composed almost entirely of CGI. I guess there’s no sense in damning a movie before one sees it.
My only worry is that a few months ago, I watched a trailer for The Golden Compass, and was thoroughly unimpressed. All the computer animated stuff put me off completely, and I left the cinema thinking “I’m never going to like a film again, am I.” Twas a sad day for all (I was at the cinema to see Pirates 3…)
As for Beowulf, I will have to check it out.
MaT said:
The problem Beowulf has is that even 300 and Sin City had “real live” people that an audience could engage with. Beowulf doesn’t have that, and ultimately, it hurts the film because of it.
However, that’s not to say that the film is bad on an enjoyable level. Even though I couldn’t really connect with any of the characters, it was still fun to watch and has enough going for it that I’d recommend seeing it.
Just be sure you know what you’re going in for. I was at work the other day and heard a girl complaining that she had “wasted her money” on Beowulf because she didn’t realize it was all CGI. There’s something to be said about that. Either she saw the trailers and didn’t realize the actors were in CG (which argues for the motion capture perspective) or she’s an example of an audience that will continue to ask the “What’s the point?” question.
I guess it ultimately comes down to your perspective: Do you hold it against the film for being “realistic” or do you say “Eh, as long as it’s enjoyable I don’t care”? It’s definitely interesting to think about if nothing else.