[QUOTE="LoG-Sacrament"][QUOTE="Witchsight"]Sigh. Im saying 300 looked great, ill guess you agree by your name, so i dont expect you to argue but continue if you must. Im saying Beowulf using CG all the time doesnt look good. It doesnt look terrible, but not as good as 300. Remember; 300 used CG but not on very important organic things like people and expressions. Thus why i dont like Beowulf so far.
Witchsight
these are 2 completely different purposes. 300 was exagerated, but founded in reality. therefore, it has a more realistic look. the directors and writers had said it is "history on steroids." beowulf is founded completely on fantasy. so it was not meant to look realistic. you are mixing up "good" with "realistic."
edited for glitchspot.
I see what you mean but i think your point is moot. Doing it all in CG is purely asthetic sure, but they didnt NEED to. It couldbe argued 300 was mostly fantasy anyway. I think 300 looks quite otherwordly as well, i mean, have you seen many movies like it? But they didnt need to have thier actors pasted over with CG to achieve it. Mixing the two in 300 looked great. Going all out in CG, while a statement to technology , just simply isnt as impressive.
300 was a based a real battle with real historical figures. the effects were there is stylize the action for contemporary audiences.
beowulf is based a people's perfect hero. since perfect is impossible. it had to look like fantasy.
again. its 2 completely different purposes.
Log in to comment