A friend of Pixar animation chief John Lasseter has written to say Lasseter has no axe to grind against Beowulf, and that Beowulf director Robert Zemeckis is "on the record having said that Beowulf was not animation...anyone can be mislead by the mixed signals from that camp."
He also claims that "a former Sony exec called to express shock that the academy said it was animation, as he'd worked there when the company developed it, he's seen it, and can't believe it is animation, which means frame-by-frame technology, which includes puppets, stop motion, etc."
"Puppets" and "stop-motion" were animation or special effects tools that were first used in the 1920s by Merian C. Cooper and Lewis O'Brien, and later in the 1950s by Ray Harryhausen. "Frame by frame" harkens back to the days of hand-pointed animation cells created by the Disney guys for Bambi and Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. Due respect, but these are antiquated terms. The digitally animated realities of 2007 cinema exists in a different realm. It is no country for old men.
I've been told by two good sources that Lasseter has been against the idea of Beowulf being classified as animated, and this "friend" hasn't disputed this. And there is no sensible explanation for Zemeckis saying it's not animated. It's looney of him to take this position. I've seen the film and it's not live action...please. The fact that it began with actors emoting in front of green screens is only one component in a very sophisticated visual scheme.
Posted by Jeffrey Wells on November 8, 2007 at 4:05 PM
comment #1
mutinyco
says ...
Yeah, if it was animated their eyes would actually move...
Posted by mutinyco
at November 8, 2007 4:45 PM
comment #2
bmcintire
says ...
300 is to animation what BEOWULF is, except the Pelopennesian tale chose to go with next to no costumes, rather than body suits covered with little white dots.
Posted by bmcintire
at November 8, 2007 4:57 PM
comment #3
Dave
says ...
bmcintire has a fair point-- going by the emerging standards, 300 is also an animated movie.
I guess the difference is that actors must be animated too. But do *all* actors have to be animated? I.e., is "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?" an animated movie? "Cool World"? Hell, anything George Lucas does now?
Yeah, I accept Beowulf as animated, that seems a no-brainer to me. But Jeff should acknowledge that CGI sure is blurring the lines in ways uncomfortable for the old guard (and this case, the "old guard" is really, what, fifteen or so years old in the case of Pixar?)
Posted by Dave
at November 8, 2007 5:09 PM
comment #4
MilkMan
says ...
300 is Satantango compared to this Boner Boy Extravaganza.
Save yourself some gas and that AMC gift certificate your aunt gave you for your birthday and stay at home and watch the four year old you kidnapped play God of War on Xbox instead.
Posted by MilkMan
at November 8, 2007 5:25 PM
comment #5
Ian Sinclair
says ...
Tellingly, not one of the early reviews makes any mention whatsoever of the film looking like a videogame or the character's eyes not moving. Mind you, unlike you folks, they have actually seen the movie.
Posted by Ian Sinclair
at November 8, 2007 5:54 PM
comment #6
D.Z.
says ...
Ian: I'm guessing, after panning 300, the critics want to still seem relevant to younger movie-goers.
Posted by D.Z.
at November 8, 2007 6:05 PM