@Synced: basic math SMACKDOWN!

Manny

Yup, it was all on youtube in parts, then they put it all together and made a longer movie.

randomshagz

150 million...lol

But ya, the costly factors in a movie isn't just the CGI. Actors can cost tons when they all add up.

neko613

and the wii has poorer graphics and can't even render Angelina Jolie...

well...

vx2

$150 to make a movie, shit that's almost the price of a Wii. Them talkies sure are expensive.

MetalGearMax

Dramatically cutting the cost of CG movie production? That's easy. Just stop hiring overpaid actors for voice-overs.

cowondinosaur

@hamandcheeseUK: Too slow!

hamandcheeseUK

"Film Beowulf was sure expensive to make! The CG-laden flick was budgeted around US$150 - not exactly chump change."

$150 to make a movie?

hamandcheeseUK

@Synced: i was just going to say that. Thanks! =)

To be honest though, videogame developers have very wicked studios when it comes to CGI. One only needs to look at Square-Enix and see what they're capable of CGI-wise. Yeah they made a crappy movie but it sure was pretty...=D

excaliburps

Lol yeah B, read the article will ya ;)

"in fact, around a fifth of the estimated film's USD 150 million budget."

1/5=20%

Downlord

In addition to what Synced said, I very much doubt Beowulf was made for "around US$150". You can't even buy a Wii for that much money.

beat89

@Synced: Thanks!

Brian Ashcraft

Brian, 20 percent cheaper is not the same as 20 percent of the cost.

Synced

Hmmm i dunno, Beowulf looked amazing, and super realistic... (also has a ton of famous actors)... much better than any cutscene in heavenly sword - which was a nice looking game (although the heavenly sword girl looked a lot like Angelina Jolie?!)

scuba2steve

@NorthernAvengeR:
I fail. I confused it with TEAM Ninja :B

NorthernAvengeR

They would also make the boobies 3x the size.

NorthernAvengeR

@excaliburps: If you go back and watch Spirit's Within...it isn't actually bad.

Yes, bad for a Final Fantasy piece - but as a movie it isn't bad at all.

Also, I hate movies right now. I hate that cg animation is made up of practically the same movie over and over. I hate that live action films aren't very live action being almost 70% CG half the time.

Cut the crap Hollywood. Either make CG movies or Live Action films. All the computer effects make your movies shittier - and that's saying a lot considering how "talented" your writers seem to be.

Black-Dog-Howls

I guess without all the actors which played in Beowulf it could have been much cheaper. If you see how cool the actual Game-Cut-Scenes look, this should be possible.

M.C.-Action

OR how about we all shut the hell up trying to critique on small errors and trying to be smart asses.

Naif

Yeah but could they do it in IMAX 3D?

cio

Ninja Theory need to shut up talking about Hollywood movies and focus on videogames, seeings as Heavenly Sword was everything short of mediocre.

When you make a great game, then you can start boasting that you are better than Robert Zemeckis.

marmidukestank

I'm sorry Mr. Antoniades, but it's just not that simple.

If Sony Imageworks could have used an engine to make a movie, they absolutely would. But come on, what kind of video-game engine can render and maintain a steady frame rate for such high resolution textures in real-time? This is why there are hundreds of CG artists employed for movies like Beowulf. There are departments for lighting, bump mapping, human texture, environment, etc. Not only is Antoniades' statement bordering on pompous, it's also a bit insulting to those who worked on the movie. A game engine cannot do what a few hundred people did for Beowulf, and that's how it is.

And by "something like Beowulf," I think he really means "nothing like Beowulf."

pchea

@Naif: Gamers are jaded after seeing too many pre-rendered trailers that were advertised as using the in-game engine.

Performance capture isn't the same as blending real footage with CG renders. Stitching the two together as seamlessly as possible is very difficult when you are constantly butting heads with the uncanny valley.

Velops

@cowondinosaur:
Yep, absolutely. Having celebrities paid $20,000,000 to voice a single role in an animated movie is ludicrous. Prior to the 90's, while animated films still had celebrity voice actors they didn't advertise them much. If a celeb was in there, and you recognized the voice... more power to you. It didn't change the movie at all, and the films still made bank.

Look at Shrek. The first movie was estimated to cost around $60 million while Shrek the Third was at $160 million. All that extra money no doubt went to fund high billing voice actors (given the fact the CG wasn't that much better). It certainly didn't improve the third film, too.

Preyfar

@marmidukestank: Ironically your post can be applied to your own situation. Just replace Hollywood with Ninja Theory, Ninja Theory with marmidukestank and Movies with Games.

Klopfer123

I think I see a nipple.

everybest

@pchea:

You could probably use any of several engines. The mistake you make is "real time". As long as it's a consistent speed with no pop-in, just speed it up in post processing.

sqlrob

@everybest:
I think you're right! On the bottom left, very nipply looking...

ShadowMoses

@pchea:
for a movie it doesnt have to be rendered real time.

Murdats

ive got a novel idea...hows about everyone stops making lame full cg/motion captured films, when they could've easily used real people. that will definitely save some money.

rustingmiller

@Black-Dog-Howls:
Yeah I know it wasn't that bad. What I didn't like about it though was it was boring. For me at least. I don't know if its the environment of the movie,characters or whatever but the couple of times I tried watching it, I got snoozy in like 15 minutes. That doesn't mean the movie sucks though...(taste is subjective after all).

What I do know that I don't like is horror movies using CGI. It completely destroys all the build-up,tension and immersion. CGI monster movie characters are rarely (if ever) scary. Compared to say prosthetics? I'd go with the low-tech on this one..=)

excaliburps

There was an article on this in Edge last month where they went into the details. Makes a lot of sense really, the assets in the movie are just more HD versions of the ones used in the games. Since 1080p is supposed to be around 95% the quality of the reel in the theatre (not imax) its quite feasible that the same assets could be shared.

They said they were making a movie to go along with their next game to test the theory (the ninja theory) but I forget the name of it (maybe it wasn't given).

NunianVonFuch

Umm..I think they should make a decent game first before spouting off about other genres..

JohnnyLA

I wonder how long the movie will be.....give that HS was only 5 hrs when the average game is 10-15......ill say they're make a half hr movie.

Jmontilla2786

They do realize a lot of the budget went to paying artist to make the film look good, right? Films are not just an exercise in rendering power.

Techguy1138

@excaliburps: Square Enix didn't make the FF movie. They created a new movie studio with Columbia Pictures.

FF the Spirits within was a hollywood movie. The studio was absorbed,purchased, by Columbia Pictures which was purchased by Sony. That was then acquired,contracted, by Imagemovers and the technology used to make the Polar Express then Beowulf.

It was the same crew working on getting it right ever since FF the spirits within. I doubt that a video game company will match 15 years of experience in motion capture and movie production experience.

Techguy1138

"20 percent of the cost is dandy and all, Ninja Theory, but would your film have Angelina Jolie? Well."

Let me rephrase that for Brian. Would your film have Angelina Jolie as a kick ass naked demon temptress? (is it necessary to say that Angelina plays a temptress? Doesn't she always do that?)

Spiderbait

Eh, Beowulf was pretty, and that's about it. It wasn't that close to the book either. I think Ninja Theory is acting a little pompous, but it could've been done cheaper. Also, Angelina Jolie was barely in the movie.

Just one note of logic to anyone that saw the movie. Why could Beowulf not reach the heart of the dragon with his sword extending with his hand, but upon losing his sword he reached in and popped out the heart with just his arm and little effort?

rathorial

Sure they could have made it cheaper, but could they have made it any good? That would be a better trick.

Gouki4u

It's a pretty big boast and it's easy to talk, but thinking about it there could be some credit to the claim. Making pre-rendered computer animation and making things in real time game engines are pretty different worlds. As it is now it seems like the quality wouldn't be as high but the image quality of real time graphics in video game engines is catching up very quickly.

Kiyosuki

Thanks for the link!

Just to clarify, he said Ninja Theory may have been able to make the movie for 20 per cent of the total cost- not 20 per cent cheaper but actually 80 per cent cheaper.

jamesjlee

ugh, who cares?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?????????????

freespeech