Danny T loses all credibility with Beowulf.

[rivenstyle]

I just had to register and post after watching the Beowulf segment on today's segment. I usually disagree with Jeff but now I must seriously question Danny T's "movie cred" at this point, after seeing how passionate he was about a movie that can be summarized by one word: mediocrity. I'm not going to even mention Alex because he's usually wrong about most things anyway.

Beowulf, one of your top movies. Really? Better than 300. Really? Epic, perfect for CGI, tragic hero, Really? I'm thinking that Imax 3d = rose tinted glasses.

I love how Danny couldn't answer Jeff's very valid question: What was Beowulf's mistake? And that Alex's answer was "that he banged..." Seriously, try to come up with a good answer to that and then say with a straight face that this movie somehow presents a compelling "dilemma" and conflict. This lying douchebag saves the village from a problem he caused and dies. What a tragic hero.

Danny: "We learn from his mistakes." (You seriously think this?)
Jeff: "What was Beowulf's mistake?"
Danny: "Ummm, Oedipus."

Uh yea.

And epic? 90% of the movie took place in two sets: The mead hall, and a cave that was barely bigger than the hall. Most people seem to agree that the only good scene was the whole dragon thing, but that could have easily been done in a live action film with CGI. There's no reason that this movie was completely CGI. Where were the sweeping setting shots? At which point did he face overwhelming odds?

I used to value Danny's opinions about my movie choices, what a shame.

[hydrocoptic]

An opinion is just that. An opinion. I say to each his own.

[patch]

It sounds like you hardly ever agree with any of the hosts. So whats the point?

And no, IMAX 3D doesn't not use rose tinted glasses. They are much, much better than that.

[dannyt]

Hey rivenstyle, I just posted this in the Beowulf thread but I will post again here so you can read my thoughts. We don't have all the time in the world to say our reviews on the show so it's hard to get all your opinions across. I am really glad it sparked something in you and please allow me to share more thoughts, I'd love to hear what you think in response...

The follwing is in response to "itsbecca's" post:

Well itsbecca please lemme glee-fully retort.

[STORY? WISE?

It almost pains me how much I didn't like this movies story. I really do like Neil Gaiman, and the twist on the tale shouldn't have caught me so off guard because taking an interesting vantage point on a story is something he does like to do... but I just cannot see what he found intriguing about the change. And I by no means have any infatuation with the original tale (It has the Superman flaw imo). It's just I agree wholeheartedly with Jeff. Beowulf is a dick in this film. Oh look at me I'm freaking awesome I'll kill your monster. Oh wait in reality I succumb to the want of power and a hot peice of ass, but guess what I'm going to lie about it and lie about it grandly. And for some reason everyone likes me enough that even though they know all along that I'm a dick and my mistake kills a ton of people, they'll tell future generations I'm invunerable and awesome. It doesn't even make sense. Some people seem to think it makes his character more realistic or vunerable. No. It just makes him fricking selfish. Take away his greatness and I don't see why I should be interesting in him or his story.]

So, Storywise...

1. Beowulf is a dick in this film. NO argument there. I just don't think I get the problem with that. I LOVED that he was a dick. We have plenty of stories where our protagonist is the moral compass, but I do love me some anti-heroe's as well. For instance, George Clooney in From Dusk Till Dawn (most Quentin Tarantino for that matter), Clint Eastwood in Good the Bad and the Ugly, Ash from Evil Dead movies, Robert Shaw in Jaws, Al Pacino in SCARFACE-- all cocky pricks, but they are SO MUCH MORE FUN TO WATCH (sometimes...sometimes...).

2. If we took away the magic from Harry Potter I don't see why I should be interested in his story. Take the force away from luke and I don't care. But thats just silly.

[This does not NOT NOT him a tragic hero. I could write a 15 page essay why this version of Beowulf is not a tragic hero. Quickly
-Oedipus' tragic flaw was not cause by his own greed or hubris, it was outside of his control. Beowulf's was cause a lust for power and a lust for the poon. ]

3. I'm sorry, but I think my 7th grade english teacher would disagree that Oedipus' tragic flaw wasn't Hubris, that was the book we read to TEACH US that vocab word. In the beginning of the Oedipus story, the witches tell Oeddie his fate, that he is doomed to sleep with his mother and kill his father, but he believed he was ABOVE god, that in trying to usurp his FATE he ended up CAUSING it-- his tragic flaw was hubris, excessive pride.

[-Oedipus' flaw cause himself great suffering. What was Beowulf's suffering? Guilt for all the death's he caused? Having many young bed mates? Wow. Sounds horrible.
-He didn't face up to his mistake. He lied about it. He lied about it an entire lifetime.]

4. Beowulf's great suffering WAS guilt for all the death he has caused AND all the lying, remaniscent of Macbeth. When the film skips ahead to him as an old man he is unhappy and filled with regret, and when on of his many bed mates asks him to stay with her he tells her she is a fool for thinking he is a great man.

[-The only recourse he endured was dealing with the dragon, which is not a fate larger than what is deserved (as is common with tragic heroes) but instead is quite damn justified. He should have to kill the bastard child, he should have done it sooner instread of just hoping the problem would go away (like a coward mind you. Like a great coward.)]


5. The "recourse he endured" was dealing with the dragon, it WAS killing the bastard child, the dragon WAS his son, and then the proud man had to mutilate himself (i.e. oedipus and star wars, i know not self mutilation but still) and ultimately sacrifice himself. He was a coward for lying and...

6. So the big difference in this update is that, in the original, Beowulf had to fight the dragon because a slave had stolen the gold thing from the dragon which made the dragon attack the town (you see where tolkein got his inspiration) so Beowulf and his boy go and fight to save the town. Then the gold is put back in the cave per Beowulf's dying wish. So what GAIMAN and AVARY did was give a fairly one dimensional tale three dimensions, bringing some greek to it, creating a myth with a little more conflict and pathos. He gave the ending, the dragon fight, more meaning by having it incited by Beowulf's actions-- he tried to to have his cake and eat it too, he thought he would not have to pay for the same actions the previous king took, he didn't learn from history, he thought himself above it. And the "putting the gold back in the cave instead of giving it to the village" moment is instead a conflict wiglaf, or we as a people, have to struggle with as a decision...

7. The reason why I loved this film more than 300 is because, similar to the orignal beowulf poem, 300 is about warriors fighting a battle-- that's it. The reasons for the battle is set up and we spend 60 minutes or so seeing how it unfolds. Beowulf had a story with rises and falls twists and turns other than just warriors dying in battle. I liked 300 on a lot of levels, more than I'm giving credit here because-- I liked Beowulf more.

In closing, I'd like to say that so much of what you wrote I TOTALLY AGREE with. Beowulf is a dick, in reality he succumbed to the want of power and a hot piece of ass and he lied about it (I don't think they all knew he was a dick though). He IS selfish, until the END.

[wideawakewesley]

As I mentioned in the Yip Yip thread, Dan, we're having babies over your review.

:)

[rivenstyle]

Hey rivenstyle, I just posted this in the Beowulf thread but I will post again here so you can read my thoughts. We don't have all the time in the world to say our reviews on the show so it's hard to get all your opinions across. I am really glad it sparked something in you and please allow me to share more thoughts, I'd love to hear what you think in response...

Thanks for replying, here are my thoughts.


Character Development

Whatever thematic elements you were able to wring out of this trainwreck of a screenplay, it was not executed well. What was his flaw? That he couldn't resist Angelina Jolie's fine ass and lied about it afterwards? Need I remind you that Anthony Hopkin's character did the exact same thing, as would any other guy on the planet. They lived the same sad life afterwards, which was only indicated to us through a horribly contrived scene on the beach.

Both of them wanted to die, and Beowulf let the sniffling b**** have a clean shot with an axe but that didn't work. Anthony Hopkins totally had the right idea by killing himself off at that point in the movie. The only difference between Beowulf and the king before him was that he ended up killing his "son," a dragon that could have been any other random monster because there was zero relationship development between the two before they killed each other.

And what was up with the king's assistant guy? His character development was portraying him to be a sneaky, untrusting, backstabbing antagonist but out of nowhere he's Beowulf's biggest fanboy. There are so many flaws to the way they developed these characters, the only person I ended up giving a s**t about was Beowulf's sidekick, the only non-asshat in the entire movie.

Beowulf was a dick, yes. But not enough to be compelling in any sort of way. There was nothing to like about him, because of his poor character development. He went from straight up "I'm the best!" 20-something-year-old to an emo senior citizen. Nothing witty ever came out of his mouth, and the only comedic relief was bounced off his sidekick (Wiglaf?). A "badass emulator". Really? I could only understand that statement if this was the only action movie you've ever seen or something.


CGI

The CGI in this film was pretty good, if not inconsistent, an illusion which was broken every time someone opened their mouth. As a movie featuring lots...and lots...of dialogue, you can imagine that this turned out to be somewhat of a problem. Everytime someone talked, it reminded me absolutely of Shrek. Compare this movie to the humans in Shrek and the way their face muscles moved when they talk. It's really not that different.

There is still no good reason that this movie had to be made completely in CGI. It was not stylized in any way, but tried as hard as it could to be as realistic as possible.

Hey, asshats, you know what's f'ing realistic? Real people. What prevented them from using the real actors to play the characters while shooting the fantastical elements (Gollum I mean Grendel, the dragon, etc.) in CGI? Asshattery, that's what. Do you remember the last movie that attempted this feat? Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within. I guess everyone but the people involved with this movie remember how that turned out.


Epicness

If you take "epic" to mean "grand in scale", again...90% of this movie took place in the mead hall and the cave, both of which were not very big. We occassionaly got some slightly zoomed out shots of the mead hall. The entire dragon scene took place in a) random burning village, b) a burning bridge, c) Beowulf's castle, of which we only ever get to see the bedroom and the bridge outside. Oh, and the beach where they land, which is like 5 feet away, at the foot of the castle. Did they ever give us the sweeping aerial shots to give us some indication of what kind of distances we're looking at? No, but that's probably because everything in this movie was less than a mile away from each other. This does not read as "epic" to me.


Conclusion

Sorry Danny, but sleeping with someone, lying about it, then killing a son/demon monster which you have absolutely no bond/feeling/emotion towards does not constitute "twists and turns". It is not compelling filmmaking in this day and age. The only "dilemma" in the entire movie was whether or not to sleep with Angelina Jolie, which as far as we know has always been a resounding "YES" for everyone ever, including Beowulf.

So I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, but your support of this very obviously flawed movie has brought down your movie cred. It's as if you showed up on the podcast with a glowing review of 2 Fast 2 Furious: Tokyo Drift: Drift Harder.

And I didn't even HATE this movie that much. I simply disliked it. It's just that your shockingly extreme enthusiasm for this movie is honestly so way out of character for your usually consistent critical views about filmmaking, it's almost offensive.

Yes, for some reason I am actually insulted that you liked this movie so much.

[darksyns]

Well let me just say I didn't see it in the theater but after watching this on my computer I know I would have loved it more than I did. This is just one of those types of films that you need to see on the big screen. I really wanted to see the 3d version but of course the only imax theater we have around here isn't playing it.

[darthender]

I love how Danny couldn't answer Jeff's very valid question: What was Beowulf's mistake? And that Alex's answer was "that he banged..." Seriously, try to come up with a good answer to that and then say with a straight face that this movie somehow presents a compelling "dilemma" and conflict. This lying douchebag saves the village from a problem he caused and dies. What a tragic hero.

Danny: "We learn from his mistakes." (You seriously think this?)
Jeff: "What was Beowulf's mistake?"
Danny: "Ummm, Oedipus."

Uh yea.

Dan couldn't give a real answer without spoiling.

Beowulf's "mistake" was allowing himself to be seduced by a succubus instead of avenging his men by killing her.

If Jeff didn't think that was a mistake then he must think its okay to **** demons that slaughtered all your friends as long as you're single.

[satori]

Danny makes a good case toward his views and states them well. Starting off with stating that you agree to disagree is a good place to be. Following up with anonymously questioning his credentials because you agree to disagree is at best passive aggressive.

[phunlee]

If this came out when I was in 9th grade, I'd plagiarize this thread for sure when I did my book report on Beowulf.

Luckily, I think I had an episode of Star Trek: Voyager. If my memory serves me right.

-W

/randomness

[itsbecca]

Dan couldn't give a real answer without spoiling.

Beowulf's "mistake" was allowing himself to be seduced by a succubus instead of avenging his men by killing her.

If Jeff didn't think that was a mistake then he must think its okay to **** demons that slaughtered all your friends as long as you're single.

If only they had condoms back then. Then he could **** his cake and eat it too.

[patch]

If only they had condoms back then. Then he could **** his cake and eat it too.

They did. They were usually made out of animal hide, or intestines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condom#History

[itsbecca]

They did. They were usually made out of animal hide, or intestines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condom#History

The first thing that comes to mind is...

ewwwwwww.

[patch]

The first thing that comes to mind is...

ewwwwwww.

Yeah, but really. Sex involves sticking something into pretty much the same thing...

[itsbecca]

Yeah, but really. Sex involves sticking something into pretty much the same thing...

Maybe it's just me, but I kind of resent my vagina being compared to something that pig feces passes through.

Wow, this has gone to a very strange place...

[patch]

Maybe it's just me, but I kind of resent my vagina being compared to something that pig feces passes through.

Wow, this has gone to a very strange place...

Lol. I didn't mean in that sense. I just meant its all guts in one way or another.

[satori]

Haggis: Beowolf part II

[darthender]

If only they had condoms back then. Then he could **** his cake and eat it too.The cake is a lie.

[heyseuss]

I used to value Danny's opinions about my movie choices, what a shame.

I'd stll lend him money to make a movie.

[heyseuss]

Lol. I didn't mean in that sense. I just meant its all guts in one way or another.

Oh that definitely makes it better Patchy. Vagina's are not 'all guts one way or the other'.

and Becca, it wasn't lower intestines it was normally stomach lining. Even the Scarlet Pimpernel would wrap some goat or sheep stomach lining around his pee-pee.

[deegraww]

I'll take Dan's (Or any of the guys) movie recommendations any day of the week. I like having different opinions then the TRS folks. Me and him were right on the same page with Michael Clayton.

Dan do what ya do brother!

[yawnstretch]

Dan Rocks! He's my favourite host and he brings so much comedyto TRS Go Dan the Man!

[senoj1]

I love the guys. I have seen a lot of movies that i wouldn't have chosen to see because of Dan!