The Exhibitionist: Beowillyou or Beowontyou?
Filed under: Action, Animation, Sci-Fi & Fantasy, New Releases, Paramount, Warner Brothers, Exhibition, Angelina Jolie, Columns

Before I get to the meat of this week's column, I have a little appetizer of an issue to discuss. The other day, I went to see American Gangster at a Regal theater and once again participated in the Guest Response System. But unlike my first experience, I actually had to use the thing this time. While pressing the "Other Disturbance" button over and over and over because of a loud toddler, then finally after too long a time receiving responses in the forms of, first, a security guard and, second, a crew of ushers, I eventually realized that there is no way to communicate what exactly is the disturbance you're alerting the staff about. I don't want to say the parents of the toddler were covering the kid's mouth each time a Regal employee scoped out the auditorium, but coincidentally there was no disturbance whenever someone was monitoring the audience. And so, despite my having the little complainer pager, I put up with two-and-a-half hours of a sporadically loud child who should have never been brought to American Gangster in the first place.
Okay, now that I've got that off my plate, it's time to address the main topic of the week:
Beowulf.
On Friday, Robert Zemeckis' new performance-capture "animated" film hits 2,800 screens across the U.S. More than 700 of those screens will show the film in digital 3-D, via IMAX, Real D or Dolby systems (yes, there's three different 3-D systems). It's apparently the largest rollout of a 3-D release ever, and it could mean big things for both Hollywood and the exhibition industry. Or it could be just another 3-D movie, no more an event than when Disney's Chicken Little came out a couple years ago touted as the first digital 3-D release to hit regular cinemas.
Now I'm a big supporter of 3-D. Last year I went to see Monster House in order to experience Real D's system, and I loved it. Earlier this year I even watched Meet the Robinsons because I couldn't get enough of the new 3-D format. It wasn't surprising that with every movie put out simultaneously on 2-D and 3-D screens that the 3-D version had the better per-screen average at the box office. Audiences are obviously into the new format. The fact that The Nightmare Before Christmas made more than $13 million in this year's re-release (and more than $8 million in its 2006 debut as a 3-D re-release) provides the most proof that people are excited about 3-D.
But I think there's a lot more pressure on Beowulf to be a big hit. Aside from the fact that it cost a reported $70 million, the film's success or failure could affect the immediate future of the 3-D format. If it's a really big deal, then theater owners will be more eager to purchase 3-D systems for more of their screens. Up until now the expense of 3-D hasn't seemed as worth it to theaters, which are still in the middle of working out deals to equip locations with digital projectors. The projectors are far pricier, but they have to come first. Then, the 3-D systems can be added on later. One of the issues so far, though, has been that studios are more willing to cooperate with theaters on deals to install the projectors, because the studios will benefit just as much. With the 3-D systems, the studios see less reason to help theaters with the cost.
The theater industry's apprehensiveness is likely part of the reason Beowulf is only being released on ¾ the amount of 3-D screens Paramount had anticipated. A year ago, the studio announced the film would rollout on close to 1000 3-D screens. The reality, still supposedly a record, seems relatively disappointing. If this movie does big business, though, both Hollywood and the theater industry could figure out a better way to make sure there's 6,000 3-D screens by May 2009, which is what is desired by Dreamworks for its 3-D-exclusive release of Monsters vs. Aliens. Also, coming out a week later, and needing its own lot of 3-D screens, will be James Cameron's highly anticipated Avatar.
Personally, I've been skeptical about Beowulf's chances from the beginning. Even before I saw the first footage, which I thought looked more appropriate for a video game than a blockbuster movie, I had doubts that this was the right release to carry the burden of the format's future. Something more kid-friendly would make more sense, in my opinion.
And I was going to stick by this skepticism completely throughout this column. In addition to questioning whether Beowulf would actually be a good movie, I questioned whether audiences are even interested in seeing the film. People I know may not be the best representatives of mainstream America, but people I know don't seem to find the movie that appealing. Even now that it's been directed to my attention how much Beowulf's marketing is cashing in on the popularity of 300, I don't see it actually doing as well. I can't think of many movies that have really succeeded in comparing themselves to previous hits.
But on Friday my skepticism lowered a bit, because of something I read here on Cinematical. Scott posted a fan rant about his experience seeing Beowulf, and to say he praised it would be an understatement. Scott no less than compared the experience to the first time he saw Star Wars, which is a pretty big deal unless Scott's first time seeing Star Wars was not the same as the rest of ours. Basically, Scott said seeing Beowulf in the way that he saw it was a life-changing moment. He said he felt like he was being introduced to the future of movies. Of course, he saw it in IMAX 3-D, which I would agree without seeing the movie must be the best format to see the thing in.
So, now I'm definitely going to check the movie out. Maybe not right away, but at some point after it hits theaters November 16, I will definitely be paying for an IMAX showing of Beowulf, even though I haven't changed my mind that I think I will hate the actual film. But as a follower of exhibition trends and practices, it is certainly something I will have to judge for myself. Because in addition to being the future of movies, this could more importantly be the future of movie theaters.
So, will you or won't you be seeing Beowulf in 3-D?










Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
11-11-2007 @ 5:52PM
Gilbert Davis said...
You know, as they slowly pulled out those Beowulf ads on TV and I wasn't really paying attention and they just seemed wrong to me. Later on, paying a tiny bit of attention I find out that it's some sort of CGI thing to include the actors and darn if when I looked at the commercials closer you could see it. That sort of fake look, not CGI enough so you know it's CGI like the crew of the Black Pearl CGI cool but just sort of off like Final Fantasy off. I don't know, perhaps it really is like seeing Star Wars the first time. That movie was cheesy in a way but the whole thing together was awesome. Mayhaps it's like that. I'll stay tuned and listen to that word of mouth.
Reply
11-11-2007 @ 7:00PM
MCW said...
It's just too weird of a concept for me. I didn't get the "Polar Express" thing, and I'm not getting this thing. The mix of near realism with real actors is too confusing for one thing.
The main reason I won't be watching Beowulf is because of the book. We all read it in high school. It's a stupid story that no one liked, and most everyone in the class just read the Cliff Notes or skimmed through it. Too nerdy.
Reply
11-11-2007 @ 10:24PM
kbradsher said...
About half a dozen of my friends from RAFB are making the drive to Atlanta for the IMAX 3-D on Saturday; we plan to buy tickets online on Tuesday. I'm very much looking forward to the movie as much for the story as the 3D format. It's written by the fantastic Neil Gaiman and Roger Avary. It's Neil's first actual screenplay to see the screen and I think a lot of naysayers are going to be surprised.
Reply
11-11-2007 @ 11:59PM
Ivan said...
Considering the closest 3-D is around 3 hours I'm not going to see it in IMAX.
Reply
11-12-2007 @ 5:53PM
kostia said...
It's not the same Beowulf from high school. The poem is only half this story; the other half is Roger Avary and Neil Gaiman *making things up* (to use Neil's phrase), and those are two guys who are damned good at making things up.
Personally, I think Beowulf is an awesome story. Monsters and men and mead. It's good rollicking stuff. I don't know how long ago high school was for the other poster, but if it was the Seamus Heaney translation you didn't read, you missed out. For me, high school was before that translation came out.
I'll be seeing it in IMAX 3D to be sure (at Channelside in Tampa, as I'll be visiting my parents down there for Thanksgiving). I'm glad I'm able to be near an appropriate theater right around opening weekend so I can see it without any preconceptions.
The internet's preconceptions--dozens upon dozens of bloggers and reviewers declaiming the movie's faults *without having seen it*--are baffling to me. You don't know the movie until you've seen it.
As far as the CGI, I fully expect it to be much better than Davy Jones, who was exponentially better than the Polar Express, which was better than Final Fantasy. Every single time they do this technology, they get it better. Don't believe me? Watch Gollum in Fellowship of the Ring, then watch Gollum in Return of the King. Look at the shading, the eye tracking, the lip movement, the movement of the fingers when the fingers aren't in focus. This is the speed of the improvement in this technology, and the day is soon when these CGI characters come OUT of the uncanny valley and into daily life.
For now, while the CGI is still recognizable as it is, Beowulf has the advantage of being a fantasy movie, the advantage of being able to make the argument that this is the only way to have the human characters and the nonhuman characters appear from the *very beginning* to belong in the same world. That's key; it's not Johnny Depp facing off against a CGI monster, it's a CGI Ray Winstone facing off against a CGI Grendel (and Grendel's mother), and that's got to be more of a fair fight.
I can't wait.
Reply
11-12-2007 @ 2:37AM
Liz K said...
Hmm, I didn't know it was Neil Gaiman's screenplay--looks like he's the executive producer as well. My interest went up quite a bit. I was still planning on going to go see it before finding out about Gaiman's involvement in the production, but solely for the IMAX 3D experience. My only experience in IMAX 3D was from watching the last Harry Potter film, and I was blown away. I expect this film to have a similar effect on me.
I would never go see this in the theaters if it weren't for the fact that it's showing in IMAX 3D. I think the trailer looks lame, looking very much like a PC-based role-playing game, and it tells us nothing about the story. I wouldn't even know that this would be showing in IMAX 3D if I didn't happen to pick this up from Cinematical (shouldn't it be a major selling point?). Posters look pretty disengaging as well. Marketing people did a terrible job.
I hate the technology used in this film--what's the point of using actors for realistic computer-generated human figures if they're using motion capture anyway and the actors are pretty much going to look exactly like themselves? This is pushing technology in audiencs' faces for the sake of technology when it IS NOT YET READY.
I wish Zemeckis would stop messing around with this stuff and go back to directing live-action films. I was a fan until the creepy "Polar Express" hit theaters back in 2004.
Reply
11-12-2007 @ 8:46AM
Scott Macdonald said...
"what's the point of using actors for realistic computer-generated human figures if they're using motion capture anyway and the actors are pretty much going to look exactly like themselves?"
The purpose, I feel is to be able to visualize any environment a director wishes for storytelling purposes and keep it looking consistent.
This includes impossible camera moves and placements. The Polar Express had a great deal of these ingenious visual touches. Try pushing a 70mm stereo camera through all those shots in Express and Beowulf.
Anyway, Beowulf in 3D is pretty much everything I hoped. Stunning, just revelatory.
Reply
11-12-2007 @ 12:44PM
Sizemore said...
I wasn't looking forward to this either and didn't see the point of it at all. However I saw it on Friday too and it blew me away:
http://www.solaceincinema.com/2007/11/12/beowulf/
You do need to see it in 3D IMAX though.
Reply
11-12-2007 @ 4:00PM
madgamer said...
I certainly look forward to seeing it and will hopefully see it in 3D, as there are about 3-4 different theatres within 20min of my house that have 3D setups. I certainly wouldn't hesitate to see it in 2D either though if all of those shows were sold out.
Reply
11-12-2007 @ 5:58PM
Laura said...
The only IMAX theater in this area is in the middle of tourist hell. I'm just not excited enough (or at all) by Beowulf to subject myself to that nightmare.
Reply
11-12-2007 @ 7:50PM
Aberdeen said...
I won't be seeing Beowulf in the theater at all as I have, uh, some issues with the storyline as shown in the trailers. Also, the animation style doesn't appeal to me at all and, well, I live in Vermont, is all I'm sayin'.
Reply
11-14-2007 @ 2:58PM
E said...
I HATED reading Beowulf in high school. But I am thinking about seeing it in IMAX 3D.
Reply