Talk:Beowulf (2007 film)/Archive 1

Citations to use

Nicole Laporte (2005-01-20). "Sony, Bing get Anglo on 'Beowulf'". Variety. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
Michael Fleming (2005-06-14). "Thesp pack howling for 'Beowulf'". Variety. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
Michael Fleming (2005-08-17). "Par, WB cry 'Beowulf'". Variety. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
Ben Fritz (2006-10-24). "'Beowulf' gets 3-D bigscreen bow". Variety. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Citations to use for improving the article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Headlines. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Empire Online SDCC First Look —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiTracker (talk • contribs) 12:00, July 26, 2007

INT: Roger Avary —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable narrator?

Guys, Beowulf doesn't narrate "Beowulf." Hence, Gaiman could not (or should not) have cited Beowulf as an "unreliable narrator." At most, the poem HAS an unreliable narrator.76.24.28.237 03:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Valid point. I tweaked the sentence a bit to indicate that this comment refers to a specific part of the poem in which Beowulf is narrating his battle with Grendel's mother after he kills her. I can't comment on whether or not Gaiman should have done this because that would qualify as Wikipedia:No original research. -Classicfilms 04:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plot Summary

Seeing as I have not seen the film yet, I can't write the plot summary for this, but someone should. As it is now, the plot summary looks like it was released by the films creators to entice people into watching the film... This is wikipedia... the point of our plot summary is to give a summary of the entire plot, not just entice people into the film by telling them about the first half. DurotarLord 13:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw it today, I will write it. 66.68.92.155 (talk) 06:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All done! 66.68.92.155 (talk) 06:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NC-17? WTF?

The filmmakers are considering releasing two versions of the film. One would be rated PG-13 for wide release and the other, rated NC-17 for limited release on IMAX. If passed by the MPAA, Beowulf would not only be the first film since Saturday Night Fever (also released by Paramount Pictures) to be released simultaneously under two ratings, but also Paramount's first NC-17 rated film since the uncut version of 1900 was released to theaters in 1992 (this is not counting films that were edited for R ratings like Team America: World Police). Also under consideration is an unrated cut released only on DVD.

Unless someone can back this up, don't bring it back. I highly doubt it's true at all. Nqnpipnr 22:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

is the august 24th, 2007 edition of entertainment weekly considered a viable source for wikipedia's highly sophisticated standards? "Initially, there were talks of releasing a simultaneous NC-17 version, but the MPAA wouldn't allow it." so doubt that, mr. "highly doubt". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.215.74.51 (talk) 18:03, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

During comic con, they said the film will be PG-13, and they will likely release an uncut unrated version on DVD --Beanssnaeb 15:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why would the MPAA prevent them from releasing an NC-17 version?! That doesn't make any sense! The MPAA can't tell people they can't release NC-17 films! The entire point of that rating is so they can put whatever they want in it... Anyways though, I highly doubt it to. DurotarLord 13:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Completely unable to add this to the article, as it is of course original research, but upon checking the times for this at my local cinema in order to see it this weekend, I noticed that two versions are listed. A "12A" version, and a "15" version. Now, as I say, original research and all that, but it means something verifiable is certainly worth looking for (unless my cinema are just a bunch of idiots, of course). Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 21:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further investigation of the BBFC's website reveals only one classification (the 12A); therefore my local cinema is staffed by idiots. Best regards, Liquidfinale ^{(Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ)} 21:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Completely CG?

The articles says "digitally enhanced live action" does that mean that part of the film is live action or is the movie entirely CG using motion capture suits?

I understand it to mean that this film is a complete hybrid. Rotoscoping in 3D, using dimensional data and video reference to achieve an odd, hyper-real look. The question is "how does the Academy handle something like this, which is both live action and animation blended into one cohesive form?" Combined with Real D 3D we seem to be witnessing the evolution of the form, the baby steps of what could one day be the Holodeck. ;-) WikiTracker 04:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its Motion Capture.

Among other things. Digitally enhanced live action utilizes a variety of tools, one of them happens to be motion capture -- but it's motion capture performed on a scale never before used, and integrated elegantly into a workflow that supports performance. I find it facsinating that Zemeckis is reinventing the form to suit his particular needs as a director.WikiTracker 03:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a note on the intro concerning the use of motion capture. I understand that "digitally-enhanced live action" links to motion capture, but I think that the term is rather ambiguous, and is more of a neologism. That is to say, I don't believe everyone is familiar with this relatively new method. When I'd read the text, I took it to mean "mostly live action, with a good amount of digital enhancement"- that is to say, how many fantasy movies have been going lately.

However, the use of motion capture denotes that the presentation is mostly computer rendered (which certainly seems to be the case), and while actors lend voices and movements (and their appearance, as in Jolie's case), the film is much less "live action" (in the traditional sense) then the buzz-term would lead us to believe. If someone could refine the note, or elaborate more on "digitally enhanced live action" (which goes pretty much unexplained throughout the article), then I would appreciate it.--C.Logan 04:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be best to say, then that it's computer-rendered live action? Er, wait... -Aknorals 08:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plot Deviation Details

I know it isn't exactly possible to cite yet, but could we go into detail about the deviations from the original poem in the script? I know alot of old english fans who are outraged just because of the trailers. Apparently Angelina Jolie's physical role is an illusionary form Grendel's Mother takes to trick Beowulf, the aspects of boastfulness and sin in the mead hall in the original poem have been enhanced to make it a hubris of Beowulf and the others, Hrothgar is the illegitimate father of Grendel and a flawed ruler, Beowulf becomes king because of an agreement with Grendel's mother in which he does NOT kill her, and the dragon's attack happens eariler in the story. (Mind you, this is all speculation based on the trailers and official website. Just thought I'd post it here so the article's section could expand.) XD65.12.233.213 02:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just read the book based on the script for the new movie. It is much as you described, if you know the poem well, then you may not enjoy the book or movie, in my opinion. I would hate to go into too much detail and spoil either for someone else that may want to view the movie or read the book on their own.192.212.253.8 19:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, given that I read it for English Class and rather liked it, I still find the ideas present in the new film version intriguing, to say the least. Without having to give anything away, would you say that as a seperate piece of fiction-not being judged in comparison to the poem-the new Beowulf has its own merit? :)65.12.233.213 02:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of the most striking deviations is that Beowulf in the film doesn't fight alone. Fighting with others would be completely antithetical to the Beowulf of the poem, and indeed when he has Wiglaf help him, Beowulf dies. In the film, he's got his men to back him up, and in the dragon fight, Wiglaf doesn't help. Beowulf is also presented as a boaster who loves to hear his own name, which was not true in the poem. superluser_tc 2007 November 18, 04:24 (UTC)

While that's true about him fighting alone, one of the main interpretations of the poem was that boastfulness was actually a way of life during the time period Beowulf takes place in, and you have to remember that most of the times Beowulf speaks in the poem, he is boasting about what he will do and how he will do it amazingly/what he has done and how he has done it amazingly/himself and his positive qualities. :)65.12.233.213 (talk) 15:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Game

Shouldn't the game be mentioned more than once in passing (as it currently is). Should info on the game be placed in this article, or in Beowulf (video game)? -Aknorals 08:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]