Beowulf

[Enlong]

So I saw Beowulf today. It was a pretty fun movie, it followed the poem well for about the first half of the story (untill Beowulf encountered Grendel's mother). And when I say accurate depiction of the story, I mean it. Up to and including the way the Danes acted whilst partying, and the fact that Beowulf was naked while fighting Grendel. After Grendel died, the story started getting embellished in order to make it a bigger movie (though I do applaud them for finding a way to make the dragon fight not a non-sequitur when compared to Grendel and Grendel's Mom) It was pretty nice, the fight scenes were pretty cool and excessively bloody, and I enjoyed it. And I can assure you that "I am Beowulf" will be the new "this is Sparta". And we can expect some comparisons between Wiglaf and Gimli (heck, I'm already contemplating a "you have my sword. And my bow. And my AXE!" macro using several scenes, including Hrunting and a shot of Wiglaf).

In short, fun movie, embellished plot, sometimes hard to take seriously, we saw it before anyone else in my time-zone, and for some reason Firefox is red-sgwiggling every single word I type and saying "no suggestions" (including "I").

(Also, *laughs* at an incredulous Beowulf yelling "Who after that? Grendel's brother? His uncle? A whole family tree of demons?!")

[Hazkali]

Oooo....this is good news. I've bought tickets to see it tomorrow, and I'm dead excited as it's probably the only good film to come to the local cinema Autumn. That said, I did manage to drum up support on the basis of the Red Band trailer, although the fact that it's only a 12 (in Blighty) confuses me...

[Emperor Ing]

"I am Beowulf" will be the new "this is Sparta".

Oh please. Dont get ahead of yourself, it'll never happen.

[Enlong]

Oh please. Dont get ahead of yourself, it'll never happen.

What if I told you he yells the line about seven times over the course of the movie?

(and of course my saying that it'll be the new "Sparta" was hyperbole, I'm just saying stuff, y'know?)

[Closet_Skeleton]

So, the Dragon bit isn't him dying as an old man in the film?

To be expected I guess but a bit of a cop-out. Aged dragonslayers fighting to their deaths are awesome.

[Enlong]

Actually? It is an agéd dragonslayer fighting to his death. What I mean is that the dragon is a bit more... connected to the Grendel/'s mother plot. I'm not going to spoil the plot there, but you should know going in that Beowulf isn't all perfect Epic Hero. He is for the most part, but he has some very definite chinks in his armor that smack of Tragic Hero, without sacrificing the awesome superhuman nature of the character.

In other words, I'm trying to say that Beowulf does fight a dragon in an epic death-bringing battle, he is awesome, but he is a flawed human and makes some... rather big mistakes that weren't in the poem.

And above all, never take it too seriously.

Edit: But above even that, this is all my opinion, so take the movie how you wish when you see it. It is in no way without flaws, but I liked it.

[Paragon Badger]

Ut oh. The eighties had one-liners followed by gunshots.

And what has the new millenium brought us?

SUBJECT VERB PRONOUN!

[Enlong]

I dunno, that trick's been around awhile, just tell it to Young Frankenstein

IT COULD WORK!!

[Hallavast]

Ut oh. The eighties had one-liners followed by gunshots.

And what has the new millenium brought us?

SUBJECT VERB PRONOUN!

Nice to see we're all learning our parts of speech. What you're looking for here is SUBJECT VERB PROPER NOUN.

Also, "moldy" is an adjective, and "work" is a verb.

carry on

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

A few notes on the text of Beowulf:

1. A common interpretation is that Beowulf does, in fact, end up fighting Grendel in the nude. He strips off his armour to go more mano a mano with the beast when the whole sword thing doesn't work out.

2. It is briefly mentioned that Grendel's mother is a shapeshifter. The seductive aspect is new and largely to fill theatres, or, given Gaiman's involvement, develop the gender themes of the work. Having a woman be more powerful than the male monster was a very strange choice in Beowulf's time. Beowulf's mother is supposed to represent a subtler kind of evil that is more powerful than its physical manifestations. Grendel represents evil deeds, Grendel's mother represents evil period. As such, she takes the form least likely for her foe to strike, to increase her power through temptation. In Beowulf's case, his nature as a womanizer has been established, so this form would be sensical. Indeed, in the text, him being unable to slay her with the glorious sword he enters the cave with, but succeeding with the Giant's blade is a symbol for how he cannot defeat the idea of evil with even the greatest tools unless his determination to the heroic code (which is symbolized by a sword, and thus the blade of a giant symbolizes heroism on a massive scale) is greater than his temptation to evil.

3. The "chinks" in Beowulf's armour are present in the poem, but go unaddressed. His actions towards some Scyldings are callous, petulant, and cruel. He is arrogant and partying as much as heroic. He's forced to abandon and cleanse himself of his more selfish habits to triumph over evil, hence him going from a common tavern braggart who can back it up more than most to a truly great king after the ordeal with Grendel's mother.

However, Hrothgar's wife having a thing for him? That's just straight up added for the movie.

[Enlong]

So you saw it or know the plot? Nice. Cool analysis, by the way. Says a lot of things that I got from it, but couldn't really get down into words... or something like that. I'm bad at describing stuff.

As a side note, I liked how the movie took the biased look at christianity that whoever put Beowulf on paper put in and just sort of spun it right back around. (note, I am, I think, still Christian, and I still appreciated the reversed bias) And I found the religeous references in general to be pretty neat (especially one quote you'd only get if you've seen the movie)

[Gaelbert]

My english teacher says we get extra credit if we go see Beowulf and take back the ticket stub. He spent a while in class today talking about the historical background of Beowulf and the history surrounding it. I'm probably going to go tomorrow night with some friends.

[Enlong]

I didn't get extra credit for it, but the entire senior class of my high school (the ones who studied Beowulf this year) got out of six of the eight periods in our school day to see an advance showing of the movie. We were the only ones in the theater, too. It was a pretty sweet deal.

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

I wrote my thesis for Freshman lit in college on the Beast archetype and Hero archetype from Beowulf and Grendel in reference to existentialism and nihilism.

Back when I was reading Beowulf, one the previous, indescribably terrible movie adaptations was out and we were warned specifically against seeing it. Oh, how the tables have turned, Hollywood.

[Jorkens]

My english teacher says we get extra credit if we go see Beowulf and take back the ticket stub. He spent a while in class today talking about the historical background of Beowulf and the history surrounding
One bit of historical background that I find particularly cool is that the reason it has such a dark outlook (in terms of no victory ever being complete, everyone ending up getting killed or overrun one way or another) is that the anglo-saxons didn't have our idea of progress and of the world getting better. Specifically, they lived among the ruins of the Roman empire, seeing things that were much bigger and better built than they knew how to make, and consequently developed the assumption that the world as a whole is falling ever deeper into decline, and that the best anyone can hope for is to do great deeds that are remembered in stories, since they aren't going to effect any lasting good.

This has obvious applications to fantasy, too...

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

It was less about the Roman Empire than the end of their culture; by the time Beowulf was transcribed, Rome had been gone for hundreds of years. The pagan tribes were being Christianized, a feudal system was replacing the tribal one, the Heroic code was no longer applicable in the advent of majour seige warfare. Essentially, the old world was dying, and with it, the heroes. I think why Gaiman was so keen to write it is that it's got the exact same theme as American Gods, in that respect. Read the part about them burning Barrow Wealth in the book for this tone of desapir. Beowulf is dead, and with him all the heroes of the old world and their treasures and their traditions.

[Enlong]

It was less about the Roman Empire than the end of their culture; by the time Beowulf was transcribed, Rome had been gone for hundreds of years. The pagan tribes were being Christianized, a feudal system was replacing the tribal one, the Heroic code was no longer applicable in the advent of majour seige warfare. Essentially, the old world was dying, and with it, the heroes. I think why Gaiman was so keen to write it is that it's got the exact same theme as American Gods, in that respect. Read the part about them burning Barrow Wealth in the book for this tone of desapir. Beowulf is dead, and with him all the heroes of the old world and their treasures and their traditions.

Actually, this point gets raised a bit in the movie, too. A quote from either Beowulf or Wiglaf, can't remember who, that simultaneously takes another jab at Christianity (as an aside, I now think that The Golden Compass is totally safe). They say something along the lines of "The Christian God has robbed us of our heroes and left us with weeping martyrs." Which means that their old lives are no longer possible, the days of heroes are ending; ended, most likely, with Beowulf's following fight with the dragon.

[....]

I hated this movie.

A lot.

I was psyched about it, and totally nerdgasming for the first third or so. Seeing Grendel tear up the Herot, seeing Beowulf come in and strip naked, seeing his wrestle Grendel down, that line he says when he's about to tear off Grendel's arm:

"I am the ripper, the slasher and tearer, I am the horror in the night. I AM BEOWULF!"

But then he goes to see Grendel's mom and everything goes UTTERLY downhill. They turned Beowulf, the middle ages version of Chuck Norris, into a whiney emo bitch. He spends the rest of the friggen movie sighing and looking depressed and not acting at all like a hero.

Even the dragon fight, as cool as it looked, left me wanting. I couldn't get behind Beowulf when he fought the dragon, because he was such a crappy character. He was just such a loser by then that I sort of wanted the dragon to eat him and be done with it.

And the ending... god. The ending sealed the deal. I won't say what it was for fear of spoiling it but... ugh. The movie was horrible. I suggest no one see it.

[fireinthedust]

I thought it was fun *Except* the constant jabs at Christianity .
basically I think religious intolerence (be it for or against Christianity) is tacky. This movie's attempts were fairly heavy handed as well. Having John Malkovich in any movie means that at some point he'll take a poke at it, but I digress. Basically the bad guy (who's really awful, beating and humiliating his disabled slave, has pock-marks, etc.) is the only christian in the tribe, and throughout does horrible things wearing crosses or having christian tapestries behind him, etc.
I found it offensive, and annoying considering it was so out there an unabashed. I mean, it was like watching a KKK movie with a weasily black adviser, or else watching a film with a foo-manchu wearing evil guy with rubber makeup to look chinese. This, but it came out in theatres now, in modern times.
Doesn't matter what religion, or gender, or race, or whatever, it's hate propaganda that should be unacceptable.

Otherwise, great movie. Would be the new "this is Spartaaaa" but for the religious bigotry.

[Dragor]

I hated this movie.

A lot.

I was psyched about it, and totally nerdgasming for the first third or so. Seeing Grendel tear up the Herot, seeing Beowulf come in and strip naked, seeing his wrestle Grendel down, that line he says when he's about to tear off Grendel's arm:

"I am the ripper, the slasher and tearer, I am the horror in the night. I AM BEOWULF!"

But then he goes to see Grendel's mom and everything goes UTTERLY downhill. They turned Beowulf, the middle ages version of Chuck Norris, into a whiney emo bitch. He spends the rest of the friggen movie sighing and looking depressed and not acting at all like a hero.

Even the dragon fight, as cool as it looked, left me wanting. I couldn't get behind Beowulf when he fought the dragon, because he was such a crappy character. He was just such a loser by then that I sort of wanted the dragon to eat him and be done with it.

And the ending... god. The ending sealed the deal. I won't say what it was for fear of spoiling it but... ugh. The movie was horrible. I suggest no one see it.

I'm sorry, but I just saw this movie about.... 30 minutes ago now.... and I have to disagree. Counter-argument here (don't know whether it's spoiling it for anyone, but just in case.):

I'd be a 'whiney bitch' if I'd just been tricked by a demon, and then having to live with all the lies that are said about me for the rest of my life. You want unflawed, macho characters? Go watch 300 again- Beowulf says himself that he's only human, and I think the whole of the movie was designed around this. Yes, he's awesome in combat, and fearless, and chock full of one liners, but in the end he's only human, not Gandalf.

But I digress. I thought it was a great movie, and my pick for this Christmas.

As you were. :smallcool:

[Paragon Badger]

However, Hrothgar's wife having a thing for him? That's just straight up added for the movie.

Really? I recall something along those lines when I read it last year... <_<

[....]

I'm sorry, but I just saw this movie about.... 30 minutes ago now.... and I have to disagree. Counter-argument here (don't know whether it's spoiling it for anyone, but just in case.):

I'd be a 'whiney bitch' if I'd just been tricked by a demon, and then having to live with all the lies that are said about me for the rest of my life. You want unflawed, macho characters? Go watch 300 again- Beowulf says himself that he's only human, and I think the whole of the movie was designed around this. Yes, he's awesome in combat, and fearless, and chock full of one liners, but in the end he's only human, not Gandalf.

But I digress. I thought it was a great movie, and my pick for this Christmas.

As you were. :smallcool:


But he wasn't 'tricked'. He knew full well what he was doing. He knew she couldn't be trusted, knew she was evil, and it was pretty obvious to anyone with a brain what had gone on between her and Hrothgar.

I don't mind Beowulf as a human with flaws, but he wasn't a human with a few flaws, he was a human who was really a selfish bastard. Nothing about him was heroic after the Grendel fight. If he had redeemed himself somehow, it would have been okay, but the closest he came was fighting the dragon that was his fault in the first place and not taking care of the root of the problem.

Beowulf wasn't a likeable character in the movie.

And I always thought the point of the story of Beowulf is that he was more than just a man. See how he stays under water for minutes fighting sea-monsters? Thats superhuman.

[Dragor]

I see your point, but did Beowulf himself really ruin the movie that much for you?

I guess I was just entranced by the final fight with the dragon, heh heh. Get in, my son. :smalltongue:

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

Really? I recall something along those lines when I read it last year... <_<

She admires him as a warrior, but my interpretation was always that she was devoted to Hrothgar. Maybe I missed something, though. It happens with little things like that when one focusses too much on the big things.


I thought it was fun *Except* the constant jabs at Christianity .
basically I think religious intolerence (be it for or against Christianity) is tacky. This movie's attempts were fairly heavy handed as well. Having John Malkovich in any movie means that at some point he'll take a poke at it, but I digress. Basically the bad guy (who's really awful, beating and humiliating his disabled slave, has pock-marks, etc.) is the only christian in the tribe, and throughout does horrible things wearing crosses or having christian tapestries behind him, etc.
The thing you're forgetting is that the movie is the old, pagan perspective of Beowulf, in contrast to the Christian telling of it written in paper. In the eyes of the skalds singing the story, these Christians will be the end of the entire world they know. Yes, they're vilified. It's also a statement about how medieval Christians, the forces of the conversion, didn't really follow much Christian doctrine. The religious symbolism on his person is probably to show the cosmic irony of the cruelty of a man purporting to worship a loving god. Essentially, it's not so much a KKK movie as it is, to use the same analogy, a movie about the KKK, and even then I think the analogy is extreme. Beowulf is hardly shown in an ideal light, himself. Much like Gardner's take on the story in Grendel this touches on the darker, more fallably human side of the story that forms the undertone of the poem. Beowulf isn't perfect, and the Christians aren't perfect. Hell, neither's even really very good. Hrothgar's a mediocre king and a bad man. Pagans aren't really shown in a much better light. There aren't "good guys" in Beowulf, there's guys who are strong enough to defeat the pressing evil and guys who aren't.


Otherwise, great movie. Would be the new "this is Spartaaaa" but for the religious bigotry.
Yeah, 300 only had racism and homophobia, and in a much, much less narrative and more preaching context.

4dots: Beowulf is a character who is very selfish, and constantly trying to prove he is more than a man because his father, hailed as a great man, died and abandoned him when he was seven. Thus, being a man is not good enough, I must be a hero. In the poem, Beowulf is able to triumph over Grendel's mother because his desire to be a hero, rather than be seen as a hero, is greater than his temptation. His slaying of the dragon when he dies symbolizes that, in dead, Beowulf conquered death and became more than a man by being a hero, and finding immortality therein. However, this whole quest is blatantly selfish and his fear of abandoning his son as his father does him, or fighting a war he could lose to the Swedes and diminishing his reputation, or being succeeded by a greater king, prove the undoing of his tribe, and hence the burning of all their treasure, metaphorically, for his glory. He wasn't so great in the poem, it was just more of a subtext, while it was made more obvious in the movie.
Also, if you want to talk about emo (though I find it more in line with Darkwave writing, to be honest), did you even read the last third of the poem?

[reorith]

geats! what is your profession?
this is heorot hall!

after reading this thread, i think i'll give the movie a miss.

[Paragon Badger]

Yeah, 300 only had racism and homophobia, and in a much, much less narrative and more preaching context.

Did anyone else find that funny?

A more historically accurate 300:

"SPARTANS!? WHAT IS YOUR PROFESSION?"

"ASS-BANDITS!"

[Smeik]

Hm, I think I'm going to see the movie some time soon,it sounds awesom, in my opinion. Let's see which opinion of yours is true for me :smallwink:

[Hallavast]

Did anyone else find that funny?

A more historically accurate 300:

"SPARTANS!? WHAT IS YOUR PROFESSION?"

"ASS-BANDITS!"

Yes indeed. Also, they preech about freedom when they built their city state on the backs of thousands of slaves.

I had a hard time taking the characters seriously.

[Innis Cabal]

ive seen several things about chistian intolerance on this thread and kept my mouth shut but...as far as ive seen it no one got up in arms about how the persians were shown in 300, or any how the romans were shown to be bad people in the Passion of the Christ.

Get a sense of humor and stop whining about it. Its written from another perspective you dont agree with, we get it but thats how the world at large back then saw them.

[Paragon Badger]

ive seen several things about chistian intolerance on this thread and kept my mouth shut but...as far as ive seen it no one got up in arms about how the persians were shown in 300, or any how the romans were shown to be bad people in the Passion of the Christ.

Get a sense of humor and stop whining about it. Its written from another perspective you dont agree with, we get it but thats how the world at large back then saw them.

The Roman empire is dead and gone; the Persian empire is dead and gone. Iran, though it looks proudly upon its former glory, is nothing similiar to what it once was. Heck, The persian empire back then wasn't even Islamic.

Christianity, however... has remained astonishingly unchanged in over 1000 years. Sure, some minor changes since the reformation; but that was among the clergy- not really the bible or the faith itself.

People get pissed off about the tones because the christianity seen in Beowulf is likely the same religion we see today. The romans and the persians are history.

Not that I'm defending anyone's intolerance; just trying to gain some insight on its nature. :smallamused:

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

The Roman empire is dead and gone; the Persian empire is dead and gone. Iran, though it looks proudly upon its former glory, is nothing similiar to what it once was. Heck, The persian empire back then wasn't even Islamic.
A large number of white-skinned people fighting Arabic people in the questionably accurate name of freedom didn't ring any allegorical bells, even after hearing Miller's rather Draconian take on the subject? It was a rather bigoted, rather long, army commercial.


Christianity, however... has remained astonishingly unchanged in over 1000 years. Sure, some minor changes since the reformation; but that was among the clergy- not really the bible or the faith itself.
And the person cited in Beowulf is a member of the clergy, first, and one individual, second.

[Beleriphon]

A large number of white-skinned people fighting Arabic people in the questionably accurate name of freedom didn't ring any allegorical bells, even after hearing Miller's rather Draconian take on the subject? It was a rather bigoted, rather long, army commercial.

That looks exactly like the comic book its based on written nearly a decade ago. Beowulf by all accounts is pretty accurate compared to the epic poem written nearly a millenia ago.

[fireinthedust]

The thing you're forgetting is that the movie is the old, pagan perspective of Beowulf, in contrast to the Christian telling of it written in paper. In the eyes of the skalds singing the story, these Christians will be the end of the entire world they know. Yes, they're vilified. It's also a statement about how medieval Christians, the forces of the conversion, didn't really follow much Christian doctrine. The religious symbolism on his person is probably to show the cosmic irony of the cruelty of a man purporting to worship a loving god. Essentially, it's not so much a KKK movie as it is, to use the same analogy, a movie about the KKK, and even then I think the analogy is extreme. Beowulf is hardly shown in an ideal light, himself.

((re: all the other comments on this, including paragon badger))

Yeah, I get what you're saying, but my issue is that they didn't differentiate between the individual character's dichotomy and the role of Christianity in the story. Malkovitch is just plain evil, wearing the trappings of Christianity. There could be the same "this is the end of our old ways" talk, but have the character well intentioned: the world is changing, and the old days of glory don't work, but at least the guy means well even if he doesn't get who we are.
Basically the character was one-dimensional evil (haha, john malkovich, ahem). It's super-villainizing of Christianity as a corrupting force in general: there isn't mention of a God of love, just a jerk who needs proactive and some teeth whitener. That it's considered self-evident that Christianity means jerks... well, ouch. um... ouch, Zemekis!!
The story is one that could fit a religious paradigm of good vs. evil, the idea of Beowulf's failings paving the way towards banality; however, for fans of cosmic g vs. e sitting in the audience who identify with a particular religion that actually exists in a personal way for them (like, hmmm, me?), I feel like a jerk sitting there.

I just think if it was another religion... like, not mine...

and, for the record: Passion of the Christ I didn't pick up on the anti-semetic bits until someone mentioned it, and I really feel bad about that. Not my movie, just saying.

[Griemont]

Aha. I knew that with Gaiman writing, it couldn't turn out that bad. :smallamused:

Just two notes.

1. From what I've read here, the inaccuracy of the movie has more to do with the fact that we read (in school) a different take on the character than the one that the movie is doing.
2. Is it just me, or do the smilies in the box to the right shift positions from post-to-post? Hopefully it's not just me? :smalleek:

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

Yeah, I get what you're saying, but my issue is that they didn't differentiate between the individual character's dichotomy and the role of Christianity in the story.
The problem is that, in the story of Beowulf, they are the same. Christianity is the force that destroys heroes and will end the very world of the Scyldings in Beowulf.

Malkovitch is just plain evil, wearing the trappings of Christianity. There could be the same "this is the end of our old ways" talk, but have the character well intentioned: the world is changing, and the old days of glory don't work, but at least the guy means well even if he doesn't get who we are.
Basically the character was one-dimensional evil (haha, john malkovich, ahem). It's super-villainizing of Christianity as a corrupting force in general: there isn't mention of a God of love, just a jerk who needs proactive and some teeth whitener. That it's considered self-evident that Christianity means jerks... well, ouch. um... ouch, Zemekis!!
I don't think that's considered self-evident at all. I think that's the tone of the story. Because then it would be self-evident that paganism makes jerks who happen to be better looking, which is hardly a serious enough moral stance that I think that's the intent. I think the intent is to show how individuals are very different than what they're played out to be. Beowulf is the hero, the ubermensch, right? His motives are based in insecurity and the second half of his life is dominated with regret for how much he messed up his heroism. This priest is the same, showing how when you look at actual people, not archetypes, they hardly live up to the standards set for them.


The story is one that could fit a religious paradigm of good vs. evil, the idea of Beowulf's failings paving the way towards banality; however, for fans of cosmic g vs. e sitting in the audience who identify with a particular religion that actually exists in a personal way for them (like, hmmm, me?), I feel like a jerk sitting there.
The problem is, it's not a story about good triumphing over evil. It's a story about the triumph of strength and putting your morals aside for when that triumph is done, which is largely what the heroic code of the Scyldings is about. The Christian priest's ideals simply don't fit in here, but they're gradually forcing their way in to Scylding life from the lips of a man who doesn't follow them himself. This interpretation of Beowulf is all about bitter, nihilistic, irony.
You can disagree or not like the movie because it's primarily based in disappointment and failure, but I feel it's rather unjust to stand up and take moral ground against a movie's prejudice against a religion when, in truth, the average Pagan hanging around isn't really much better. Your only qualm with the movie, then, is that the one character who, while morally questionable himself, is effective, does not share your religion. You seem to be analyizing it with the intent to be offended rather than read the same philosophical meaning to the Christian character's flaws as any other character's.


I just think if it was another religion... like, not mine...
This explains why you're offended. You're only looking at it from your personal perspective; this guy has the same god I do. All these other pretty bad people don't, so, who cares about them, they're just some pagans, a Christian was insulted. The reason you find the movie biased is because you look at it with a biased slant and take comments about the whole of humanity too personally because you vest interest largely in cahracters who share your traits, disregarding those who do not.

[zeratul]

Guys you seem to be heading into some murky territory, discussion of religion being against the rules.

On another note, I'm really excited to see this, it looks and sounds awesome.

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

I'm just saying the movie wasn't really about religion, it was about change and the fallability of all humanity when compared to the abstact concept around them.

[Vondre]

Saw the movie a couple hours ago.

It probably would have been good.

But.
THE RETARDS AROUND US WOULDN'T SHUT UP!:furious:

One of the friends I went with actually threatened to got to those people's homes, cut off their legs, and then set their houses on fire. And you know what? I would've helped him.

I mean, lady behind me. I don't care how much you want to see Beowulf's thingy. STOP MAKING DISAPPOINTED NOISES EVERY TIME A CONVENIENT OBJECT APPEARS!

[Paragon Badger]

So that's how they did it...

Beowulf: International man of mystery?

[Dragor]

I mean, lady behind me. I don't care how much you want to see Beowulf's thingy. STOP MAKING DISAPPOINTED NOISES EVERY TIME A CONVENIENT OBJECT APPEARS!

Where do you live? My girlfriend wouldn't stop giggling every time a convenient candle came in the way.

[....]

Aha.

1. From what I've read here, the inaccuracy of the movie has more to do with the fact that we read (in school) a different take on the character than the one that the movie is doing.

Yeah... and that, oh I dunno, Beowulf dosn't kill Grendel's mother and sires a dragon...

That may be part of the innacuracy.

[Captain van der Decken]

I just saw it, and I thought it was great. The CGI was great - I could of sworn a lot of it was live action.

I thought how they changed the story was pretty good. "No, you killed Grendel's mother, when we were young. The bards sing of it."



I just think if it was another religion... like, not mine...

That's hardly a fair stance to take.

[Enlong]

I thought it was kind of interesting how the story that Beowulf tells about how he "killed" Grendel's mother is the exact same as the one in the original poem. Lets you know that the writers did do their research.

[expirement10K14]

I loved the movie, except one thing bugged me. When yelling his name I heard-
I AM BEWULF. Yet all others pronounced it with the o. It just seemed wrong.

[StupidFatHobbit]

I haven't seen it yet but probably will. Literary accuracy aside, does anyone have any comments about the animation style?

From the trailer and other snippets I've seen, it looks like this movie is firmly in the "uncanny valley", maybe not as badly as The Polar Express was, but definitely there. And no matter how good a movie is in other ways, the uncanny valley gives me the cold horrors and I find I just can't get around it to enjoy the movie.

I guess most people have heard that term, but if you haven't, it refers to the point where something looks just human/real enough to be horribly disturbing because you can still tell it isn't.

CGI is getting good enough that it's very, very close to moving out of the valley, but in the meantime, oh god the creepy dead eyes and indefinably almost-real-but-not-quite feeling. Did this bother anyone who has seen it?

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

Yeah... and that, oh I dunno, Beowulf dosn't kill Grendel's mother and sires a dragon...

That may be part of the innacuracy.

Well, he never defeats the shadow of Grendel's mother and metaphorically sires the Dragon in the poem, if you go by some analyses. The movie's just kinda making that interpretive subtext painfully obvious by making it literal.

[Captain van der Decken]

<snip>

Well.. it was pretty good. Realistic enough to not be creepy (or at least, not to me). Realistic enough that I couldn't even tell if it was CGI or not, in parts.

[....]

I thought it was kind of interesting how the story that Beowulf tells about how he "killed" Grendel's mother is the exact same as the one in the original poem. Lets you know that the writers did do their research.

Only its not. Hrunting couldn't kill Grendel's mother, Beowulf cast it aside and killed her with a giant's sword. He took Hrunting back with him.

[Enlong]

Only its not. Hrunting couldn't kill Grendel's mother, Beowulf cast it aside and killed her with a giant's sword. He took Hrunting back with him.

Ah, right. Ah well, it was close enough for me.

[Weezer]

my english class just read beowulf and are going to see it on the 30th, lookin forward to it.

[AslanCross]

Saw this yesterday. I enjoyed part of it, though I did have some difficulty appreciating the Beowulf vs Grendel fight because I found it really hard to swallow the nudity. Oh well.

I think the point of the "innacuracies" was to show how flawed Beowulf really was. He didn't kill Grendel's mother and kept lying to the others that he did out of pride. I think Wiglaf said something about this later: When Beowulf was about to encounter the dragon, he said "there's something I need to tell you" and Wiglaf cuts him off. In Wiglaf's mind, he really didn't want to see Beowulf for the flawed mortal that he was. He wanted him to be seen and remembered as a hero. Wiglaf said that he would always be remembered as a hero, and that's how the poem remembers him. It shows how he was seen in the eyes of the people, while the film attempts to show us how human he really was.

I also honestly don't think Christianity was vilified so much--I saw Beowulf's comment about the Christ God killing the age of heroes not as a diatribe against Christians, but as another mark of Beowulf's hubris. Although Unferth was seen as the evil priest (which is admittedly a common modern and historical image applied to priests), I remember Queen Wealhtheow also wearing a cross and hanging out with Unferth while Beowulf was, erm, cavorting with his young mistress. Wealhtheow was compassionate and wise, understanding even the situation of Beowulf's mistress.

[thubby]

i saw this a few days ago, i thought it was meh-tastic(tm).
the eyes were horrible
they went way off the original story, which i don't mind, so long as it still tastes the same. but they turned beowulf from the ultimate badass to the ultimate poser:smallmad:.
there were some painfully obvious size change issues, like with the dragons throat. and the nude fight scene, while in the original story, forced them to limit what could have been much better.
on the plus side we have the final fight being cool, the water effects stunning, and the tomb raider chick naked :smallamused:

[SurlySeraph]

The storyline changes really, really bother me. Grendel's mother is hot?! Grendel's father is the guy who's hall Grendel keeps raiding?! Hell, never mind that, Grendel has a father?! The dragon is Beowulf's son?! BEOWULF MADE THE WHOLE POEM UP?!!!!

Sorry. I'm sure I'll be able to appreciate the artistry and deep symbolism and whatever later. For now, I feel like I just saw the hellish offspring of 300 and Troy.


I just think if it was another religion... like, not mine...


That's hardly a fair stance to take.

Um... how is it possible not to be biased in favor of what you believe?

[Captain van der Decken]

..By not deciding others beliefs don't matter as much?

[....]

I feel like I just saw the hellish offspring of 300 and Troy.

Best description of this movie so far.

[Mr._Blinky]

Saw it yesterday, and had a completely "meh" reaction. Not bad by any means, but it didn't exactly have me jumping out of my seat. Some things I'd like to comment on:

1) I actually wasn't bothered by the inaccuracies, because unlike in a lot of literature-to-movie adaptations, the inaccuracies were actually explained. It's different because Beowulf lied to everyone, and it's something that is completely in sync with the arrogance of his character. If they'd just changed things, I'd be annoyed, but the changes actually were completely in step with what I think would be possible.

2) Too. Many. Joke. Opportunities! Some samples from my friends and I (mostly me).
A) *Grendel's mother melts Beowulf's sword* Me: So that's why he can't have any sons!
B) Me: Where the hell is the D-chromosome in my gene pool?!?!
C) Friend: Wait, did he just call Wiglaf his "Weak-Love"?!?!?!

3) EVERYONE HAD SHATNER SYNDROME!!!!!!!1!!! "I. Will kill. Your. MONSTER!!!!!!!!1!! And then immediately. Dramatically. Pause for. Effect."

4) As much as I liked how the end was no longer a non-sequiter in relation to the beginning, the line drawn between the beginning and end made the transition even more jarring if anything. I fully appreciate that the poem jumps a massive time gap as well, but as a film it was only more obvious how terrible of a disconnect that was.

5) STONE DOESN'T BURN JACKTARDS!!!!!!!

6) I was fairly underwhelmed by the dialogue, which could definitely used a fair amount of polish.

7) The end sucked (the very very end, not the him dying part). Seriously, I could think of so many better ways of ending the movie.

[RandomLogic]

Has anyone seen it in 3D?

I don't have any of those theaters around me yet....

[Tam_OConnor]

Just saw it Saturday; first of all, don't go to this movie as an English major. I can appreciate their trying to 'tell the true story,' but honestly, folks. The last "Beowulf" movie (With Chris Lambert and more or less the same story) doesn't deserve the name. This one doesn't either. Not to say that it was a bad movie; pretty good cinematography, at least compared to most fantasy movies (not really an accomplishment). But don't go in thinking it's a faithful adaptation.

There are also a few plot holes...not holes, just "What? Why did that happen?" bits. Case in point, the shrinking of Grendel. Or, how the Geats acquired horses when they first landed. Strictly from a fight scene perspective: why is there wushu? Let me qualify this: I love Chinese fight movies, but Beowulf probably shouldn't be turning backflips and dropping into the palm-forward, sword-back wushu stance.

A last point: it will be so easy to mock this movie once its released on DVD. Even in the theater, I couldn't refrain from snide comments. And I agree with Shepherd Book's views on people who talk in theaters.

[Indon]

I liked it.

As for accusations about the adaptation, if I recall, there were multiple versions of the Beowulf story.

I dunno about religion being villanized. If anything, I felt the movie Unferth was cast as more clueless-but-good-natured than in the poem I'm familiar with.

But definitely a spiritual successor to 300. They even went whole-hog (well, almost) with the naked-men-fighting thing, heh.

[zeratul]

I just saw it, thought it was pretty good.

T'was not an amazing film, but it was fun, with a decent script, a pretty good plot, and cool graphics. As for the whole bashing peoples beliefs thing thing I thought nothing of it, it's not like it was the central idea of the movie.

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

4) As much as I liked how the end was no longer a non-sequiter in relation to the beginning, the line drawn between the beginning and end made the transition even more jarring if anything. I fully appreciate that the poem jumps a massive time gap as well, but as a film it was only more obvious how terrible of a disconnect that was.

The end was a never a non-sequiter, modern audiences just want more linear, literal plotlines. The Dragon was fate, the end of every tale, and, indeed, the substance of every tale. What makes Beowulf a hero is none of the stuff that leads up to the Dragon, it's that he was able to battle his fate on even terms. Killing the Dragon means he triumphed over meaningless, death, and the eventual undoing of all men by ascending into legend as a Hero.


Just saw it Saturday; first of all, don't go to this movie as an English major. I can appreciate their trying to 'tell the true story,' but honestly, folks. The last "Beowulf" movie (With Chris Lambert and more or less the same story) doesn't deserve the name. This one doesn't either. Not to say that it was a bad movie; pretty good cinematography, at least compared to most fantasy movies (not really an accomplishment). But don't go in thinking it's a faithful adaptation.

I still content is just a more literal telling of a common, metaphorical interprestation of the poem. Given the vast number of comments surrounding the movie about how impenetrable the poem is, I'd say it's pretty good the themes were stated more explicitly. I disagree with this version and the Lambert being the same. That was attempting to add in John Gardner's Grendel without seemingly undertaking any of the important aspects of that work into consideration.

[Mr._Blinky]

The end was a never a non-sequiter, modern audiences just want more linear, literal plotlines. The Dragon was fate, the end of every tale, and, indeed, the substance of every tale. What makes Beowulf a hero is none of the stuff that leads up to the Dragon, it's that he was able to battle his fate on even terms. Killing the Dragon means he triumphed over meaningless, death, and the eventual undoing of all men by ascending into legend as a Hero.

No, I get that completely. Thematically, it makes sense. Story-wise, it's still a non-sequiter because it has absolutely nothing to do with the rest of the story except that it has the same character. It's like if the The Return of the King had ended the way it did, and then continued for another chapter of Aragorn being killed by random orc bandits fifty years later. Sure, it might be able to be fit in thematically, but as stories go it'll leave the reader going "Huh?" and scratching their head for another five minutes before forgetting all about it.

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

It's slightly different in that that orc would take up 1/3 or so of the work, and be a very deadly force ready to battle Aragorn's kingdom which he's been ruling relatively peacefully for many years.

[Mr. Friendly]

I thought Beowulf was awesome. Yes, it's different from the poem. However, it still maintains the fundamentals of all that is Beowulf and simply builds on them.

Also, to anyone upset by the "religious persecution" against the poor, poor Christians, consider the following:


The poem was originally written with Norse deities.
Some "thoughtful" (read: evil, history changing, re-writing liars) Christians "re-interpreted" the poem, replacing all pagan deities with God and/or Christ. (By Christ's hammer!)
The film strikes something of a balance.
Christians have never, in their entire history as a religion, never, ever done anything bad or mean to non-Christians. Especially not during the Dark/Middle Ages. (Slavery, Crusades, Inquisition, extermination of pagans, really, I mean honestly, from about 329 on Christianity turned into the torturing mass murderers that everyone has come to know and fear; they didn't turn things around until..... well you will get there eventually I suppose. Keep trying; Christ was a nice guy, Christians... typically an intolerant bunch)

[ALOR]

Has anyone seen it in 3D?

I don't have any of those theaters around me yet....

I saw the movie in 3D. You could deffinatly tell that most of the movie was cut in 2d with some 3d animation added after word. Honeslty I hated this movie after going in with such high hopes. I have never, ever nodded off in a movie before but when I went to see it I actully nodded off, during the climatic fight with the Dragon at that.

[Sebastian Bux]

I saw this movie on a 3D DLP screen and it was really fun to watch. There's already been a lot said about the movie so far so let me really just get into my issue.

We really need to get over our hang-ups in the USA about nudity in a movie like this. There was no reason to Austin Powers Beowulf when he was nude to fight Grendel (which is how it happens in the poem as well). In fact, hiding it became annoying because these three idiot chicks sitting behind us start giggling and saying that they wish they would move aside so they could see it.

Conversely, you practically see EVERYTHING on Angelina. Aside from some well placed (yet out of place) golden splotches, she's basically fully nude. How is it okay with her but not with Beowulf. I'm not gay .. I don't like man meat or anything... but I am an adult and I can handle seeing Beowulf's junk in the non sexual context of the story.

In the end, it comes down to America's in ability to handle adult source material. We're just too damn immature. Hell, you only have to be 12 to see the movie in Europe. I think it's crazy it even got a PG 13 rating. Not because of the nudity but because of the violence. It's VERY bloody and I think even a 12/13 year old could be scared from the film.

Bah.

But all in all I had a good time and I thought the 3D element was really awesome and if you're going to see it at all, you should see it with the 3D in. Hope you enjoy it, either way.




EDITED TO ADD: Oh, I know there's a religious element in this film, but I think it might be against the forum rules to debate religion, even if it's in the contect of a Beowulf debate.

[Mr. Friendly]

Sebastian Bux RE:Beowulf nekkidness
I think the reason you don't see his junk is that it would have bumped the rating from Pg-13 to R.

Also, I liked how they did the scene; it was very reminiscent of Austin Powers.

[SurlySeraph]

The poem was originally written with Norse deities.
Some "thoughtful" (read: evil, history changing, re-writing liars) Christians "re-interpreted" the poem, replacing all pagan deities with God and/or Christ. (By Christ's hammer!)

Do you have any evidence for this whatsoever? Cite a paper? Point me to an earlier version of Beowulf? Anything?



The film strikes something of a balance.
Christians have never, in their entire history as a religion, never, ever done anything bad or mean to non-Christians. Especially not during the Dark/Middle Ages. (Slavery, Crusades, Inquisition, extermination of pagans, really, I mean honestly, from about 329 on Christianity turned into the torturing mass murderers that everyone has come to know and fear; they didn't turn things around until..... well you will get there eventually I suppose. Keep trying; Christ was a nice guy, Christians... typically an intolerant bunch)


And burning down abbies, gang rape, keeping thralls (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrall), the blood eagle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_eagle), burning virgins as funeral sacrifices, and everything else that worshippers of Norse gods ever did was kind, peaceful, and respectful of the beliefs of others.

@V: According to this page (http://www.press.umich.edu/titleDetailDesc.do?id=8599), which I admit is not a conclusive source, Beowulf was written in the 11th century, when England was pretty firmly Christian. Beowulf is set in the late 5th or early 6th century, when England and Scandinavia were mostly pagan. However, many works of literature from the Middle Ages are heavily anachronistic in respect to religion, so there's no real reason why Beowulf would accurately reflect the paganism of the time. Also, as that page said, there's only one known manuscript of Beowulf. No earlier pagan-er versions, nothing like that. Any claim that Beowulf originally was entirely pagan is a plausible conjecture, but lacks verifiable evidence.

[Leather_Book_Wizard]

Do you have any evidence for this whatsoever? Cite a paper? Point me to an earlier version of Beowulf? Anything?




Well, I don't know if there's any proof, but given the age of Beowulf and the time period it is set in, isn't it sort of logical it would have originally been written with Norse deities?
EDIT: I meant the story would have originally been told with Norse gods, before it was written down. Sorry.:smallbiggrin:

On another note, is there any proof the Norseman really performed the blood eagle on their victims? I was unable to find a definitive answer. I know they did some bad things, though, to put it mildly.

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

There is no evidence it was re-interpreted, but it was a very, very ancient anglo-saxon saga that was first passed down orally long before Christians came. Of course, I'm certain every telling of it, given its oral history, re-interpreted the tale. Many theorize at least the encounter with the dragon, and perhaps even Grendel's mother, was left out of the first tellings of the tale. There is no evidence whatsoever on the matter, thanks to it being an oral tradition. The first written version was by Christian missionaries who recorded the tale, as they were literate and found value in writing it down. The inclusion of Christian deific references, was, at least, very likely new.
EDIT: As you said, it was written in the eleventh century. It was an oral tale long before it was recorded.

Your point about the Norse pagans is entirely accurate. Well, not entirely. The proper phrasing is "cutting the blood eagle," in this infinitive context, but that's hardly relevant. People are flawed. The religions which they populate will, in turn, be flawed.The Norse Pagans in Beowulf really aren't much nicer than anyone else in Beowulf.

[Illiterate Scribe]

I thought Beowulf was awesome. Yes, it's different from the poem. However, it still maintains the fundamentals of all that is Beowulf and simply builds on them.

Also, to anyone upset by the "religious persecution" against the poor, poor Christians, consider the following:


The poem was originally written with Norse deities.
Some "thoughtful" (read: evil, history changing, re-writing liars) Christians "re-interpreted" the poem, replacing all pagan deities with God and/or Christ. (By Christ's hammer!)
The film strikes something of a balance.
Christians have never, in their entire history as a religion, never, ever done anything bad or mean to non-Christians. Especially not during the Dark/Middle Ages. (Slavery, Crusades, Inquisition, extermination of pagans, really, I mean honestly, from about 329 on Christianity turned into the torturing mass murderers that everyone has come to know and fear; they didn't turn things around until..... well you will get there eventually I suppose. Keep trying; Christ was a nice guy, Christians... typically an intolerant bunch)


Sorry - I would really like to continue this discussion, and could via PM/email, but:


Inappropriate Topics
The following topics are always off-limits on these forums, no matter what (hence, Inappropriate Topics). Any posts including these topics will be edited, and any threads started to discuss these topics will be locked. Please note that, as specifically stated below, these topics remain off-limits even where they intersect with gaming or other activities discussed on these forums, and that putting an alert for “Adult” or “Mature” content on the thread does not allow circumvention of this rule.

Real-world religion

[Deadmeat.GW]

I thought Beowulf was awesome. Yes, it's different from the poem. However, it still maintains the fundamentals of all that is Beowulf and simply builds on them.

Also, to anyone upset by the "religious persecution" against the poor, poor Christians, consider the following:


The poem was originally written with Norse deities.
Some "thoughtful" (read: evil, history changing, re-writing liars) Christians "re-interpreted" the poem, replacing all pagan deities with God and/or Christ. (By Christ's hammer!)
The film strikes something of a balance.
Christians have never, in their entire history as a religion, never, ever done anything bad or mean to non-Christians. Especially not during the Dark/Middle Ages. (Slavery, Crusades, Inquisition, extermination of pagans, really, I mean honestly, from about 329 on Christianity turned into the torturing mass murderers that everyone has come to know and fear; they didn't turn things around until..... well you will get there eventually I suppose. Keep trying; Christ was a nice guy, Christians... typically an intolerant bunch)


I am not sure but perhaps you should send me a pm with a message where you can show Christianity is doing anything anywhere near as controversial as during those periods lately given your statement, oh and the crusades...there are two sides to that story.
Ask any Greek or others near central Europe whether or not Crusades were quite as much a bad thing or a reaction against the exact same behaviour from the opposing side.
There is no excusing what happened according to current day morals but given what was happening to Europe and anyone who was not Islamitic at that time... you need to keep both sides in mind.
Neither side were exactly playing nice, there is a reason a certain Impaler was considered a hero for a very, very long time.

[....]

I just thought of a better way to change the storyline so that it didn't suck and no one complained about the randomness of the dragon.

Grendel's daddy.

Come on. If they had made the dragon Grendel's father and had Beowulf kill his mother like he should've, it would've made the movie SO much better.

Like, daddy knocks up mommy and then goes off to some place for awhile, comes back and finds his son and lover are both dead by the hands of this man.

Hell, you could have even tied it into the whole 'passing of heroes' thing by making the dragon the last dragon in the world, he left in search of other dragons. Now the last real hero and the last real monster have a final battle and kill one another, ending the mythical age of heroes and beasts.

Man, that would've been awesome.

[Mr. Mud]

Hmm... I thought that king "whats his face?" killed grendel's daddy, and thats how he got the horn. Thus, Grendels mom and Beowulf *ahem, ahem* and then the golden dragon came out and so on...



On another note, I liked the detail that was put into the movie. If you haven't seen it yet, look at the writing on the blades; its from master-swordsmith of that era, and was put on most baldes, even if from a different shop.:smallamused:

[EvilElitest]

ive seen several things about chistian intolerance on this thread and kept my mouth shut but...as far as ive seen it no one got up in arms about how the persians were shown in 300, or any how the romans were shown to be bad people in the Passion of the Christ.

Get a sense of humor and stop whining about it. Its written from another perspective you dont agree with, we get it but thats how the world at large back then saw them.

I was up in arms about the Persians, because 300 was a crappy movie. It is one thing to show them in a brutal light, but they were less appealing than the orcs from LOTRS and unglier, so no. Same in Passion, they were simple inhuman. If you want to show a group of people in a villainous light and not seem like a bigoted supremacies, then show them realisticlly.
Back to Beowulf, i think taht christian dude was awsome, he seem to be the only character who was remotely intelligent and wasn't a monster.
from,
EE

[....]

Hmm... I thought that king "whats his face?" killed grendel's daddy, and thats how he got the horn. Thus, Grendels mom and Beowulf *ahem, ahem* and then the golden dragon came out and so on...


No, in the movie Hrothgar was Grendel's daddy.

Why Hrothgar got a skinless freak and Beowulf got a golden shape-shifting dragon, we'll never know.

And the movie 300 portrayed the Persians EXACTLY like the comic did. If you want to whine about something, whine about the comic.

[EvilElitest]

No, in the movie Hrothgar was Grendel's daddy.

Why Hrothgar got a skinless freak and Beowulf got a golden shape-shifting dragon, we'll never know.

And the movie 300 portrayed the Persians EXACTLY like the comic did. If you want to whine about something, whine about the comic.

Ok, i'll rephrase this, the movie and the comic were crappy. I never said the comic was good. In fact, they are perfectly paired set of crappy brothers.
Now if i was going to make a movie of a contiversal comic, i'd at least tone down the racism, and try let the audience sympathize with both sides.
from,
EE

[....]

Ok, i'll rephrase this, the movie and the comic were crappy. I never said the comic was good. In fact, they are perfectly paired set of crappy brothers.
Now if i was going to make a movie of a contiversal comic, i'd at least tone down the racism, and try let the audience sympathize with both sides.
from,
EE

Meh, why bother? Sometimes it nice to have evil, evil, evil bastards.

I mean, really, do the Persians actually think that we all think they're vampires and monsters with chopped off arms replaced with bone axes?

And anyway, the vast majority of the Persians were just normal men, and Xerxes was a pretty impressive guy.

[Kjata]

I just thought of a better way to change the storyline so that it didn't suck and no one complained about the randomness of the dragon.

Grendel's daddy.


The dragon wasnt random, it was beowulfs son. Cause, you know, he slept with the demon chick. And Hrothgar was grendels daddy.

Ninja'd. But whatever.

[....]

The dragon wasnt random, it was beowulfs son. Cause, you know, he slept with the demon chick. And Hrothgar was grendels daddy.

Ninja'd. But whatever.

Yeah, I know. But in the actual story, none of that is true. Grendel's dad is never identified, and the dragon swoops in from nowhere to attack people.

I'm saying that if you're going to gut the story, may as well gut it like that and make it suck less.

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

No, in the movie Hrothgar was Grendel's daddy.

Why Hrothgar got a skinless freak and Beowulf got a golden shape-shifting dragon, we'll never know.

You know what Grendel's mom said about Beowulf being as much of a monster as anything he killed? That's why. He wasn't entirely mortal, either. Like the demons he fought, he was an idea or concept fit into a mortal shell.

[Mick_the_Rogue]

I saw it, it was relatively enjoyable, but then I didn't come in expecting much either

By the way, I think I know why there's so many discrepencies in the movie vs. the song

The movie, in theory, depicts what actually happened, while the song i what was passed down (leaving out the humiliating parts about Beowulf and Grendel's father) least that's the way I saw it

Decent movie, not great, but worth watching at least once

[evisiron]

Just to give the perspective of a viewer who has not read the literature...

It was a good film. I liked it. Decent plot, enough character development, good CGI, great fight scenes. It flowed pretty well too. It has my approval.

(Though 'This is Sparta' got there first, so I doubt it will be replaced so easily :smallwink:)

[....]

You know what Grendel's mom said about Beowulf being as much of a monster as anything he killed? That's why. He wasn't entirely mortal, either. Like the demons he fought, he was an idea or concept fit into a mortal shell.

Uh....what?

The reason his kid was a dragon is because the story had a dragon and they wanted to change it so that said dragon was his son.

The reaosn Grendel looked like he'd been flayed alive... well, I have no idea why that happened, or why he shrunk. Probably Gaiman just giggling and writing randon crap, knowing his fanbois would still laud him with praise.

[EvilElitest]

Meh, why bother? Sometimes it nice to have evil, evil, evil bastards.

There called orcs, and that has been over done.


I mean, really, do the Persians actually think that we all think they're vampires and monsters with chopped off arms replaced with bone axes?
1. What Persians? Do you mean the people of Iran?
2. Does that justify anything?
3. I'm native american, and i don't like some of the ways were are potrayed in some films
4. Sympathetic villains are always more interesting, and it changes the movie from a racist action to a somewhat morally grey story


And anyway, the vast majority of the Persians were just normal men, and Xerxes was a pretty impressive guy.
The Persians are shown as practically every Asian, Middle Eastern African cliche around
And Xerxes was showns are seven foot giant tranvistate.
Shouldn't this deserve its own thread
from,
EE

[....]

There called orcs, and that has been over done.


Yeah, so many orcs in films.

I didn't get the impression that Xerxes was a transvestite, and even if he was, why is that insulting? DO YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH TRANSVESTITES? Stop being so close-minded and bigotted!

[Copacetic]

I AM.....*cough* BEOWULF!!!!!

sorry nothing more to contrbute. I saw ths thread and coudn't resist.:smallbiggrin:

[EvilElitest]

Yeah, so many orcs in films.

I didn't get the impression that Xerxes was a transvestite, and even if he was, why is that insulting? DO YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH TRANSVESTITES? Stop being so close-minded and bigotted!

I have a problem with them when they are shown in an insulting manner. If he was openly an transvestite, admitted to it, and went on with his life, then i'd admire. When he is portrayed as as an insulting stereotype of a transvestite. For example, if a bad guy character is defined as "gay". now if this is gay as in he is a gay guy who with all the hardships involved, then i have no problem. if he is shown a gay stereotype, then it is just insulting
from,
EE

[Xuincherguixe]

Well, since there's been spoilers like crazy, I guess it doesn't matter if I say how I felt about things. But in case you somehow missed them, I'll throw up a tag anyways

Grendel was a troll, and the Dragon... was a Dragon. How does that happen exactly? It doesn't make a lot of sense, but there's another person who's children are all kinds of different monsters. Loki. And both characters, are shapeshifters.

Grendel and the Dragon can be seen as "Sin" and "Mistakes". Because of the fathers actions everyone around them had to suffer. This may have really been to get to them, but still a lot of other people still had pay for their mistakes.

The story no longer is about a "hero", some perfect flawless ideal man. It's about someone with great ability as he has to deal with the consequences of his actions.

The fact he kills the dragon, his son. Was that a good deed? I don't see that. It was in a sense him correcting his mistake, but he still killed his own son there. I even felt he was feeling remorse. I think he did it as much for his own people as he was trying to recapture the days when he was a heroic monster slayer.

And, he gets to have a Viking death, killed in battle.


There are complaints about it being "vicious to Christianity". I don't see that. It's more about how Christianity was replacing the Norse religion.

And also, am I the only one who was seeing Christian elements in the content of the story itself? Couldn't Grendel's Mother be seen as Satan? It works for much of the same reasons as I could see Loki in her. Then, it becomes about Beowulf paying the consequences for his sins, a struggle to atone, and redemption in death.


As far as the comparisons to 300 go? 300 was just one big piece of propaganda. Both took liberties with the source material, but while Beowulf's plot became stronger, 300's was weakened.

As far as inaccuracies go, do we really need to tell the exact same story over and over again? I mean can't we inject new ideas every now and again? It's good to know what the source is, but I'd like to think that things are a little bit different now.

A story about some macho idiot that actually has to deal with the consequences of being a macho idiot is a lot more interesting than just watching him go through life like a breeze.


and </rant>

[Shikton]

My short view of the movie:
A must-watch that I probably won't see again, nor add to my DVD collection. The whole animation thing put me off. Didn't feel for any of the characters. I think they should have taken even more liberty to play with the storyline, because this was just too...choppy? I didn't really felt the film 'flowed' as well as it should.

All in all a decent enough movie.

[The Orange Zergling]

I thought it was neat, good but not great. The CGI was kinda distracting. It could have been done much better but I have seen a LOT worse. I'd give it a 6.5/10, worth seeing once.

[Ossian]

Hwaet! We Gar-Dena in geardagum theodcyninga thrim gefrunon!

Ok...Beowul was with me ever since 2nd year in College. I loved it to death, and when I re read it a while ago I had accumulated quite an extra bit of imagery, from reading the Eaters of the Dead to watchinmg the 13th warrior. I remember reading of Grendel's arm on the door beam of Heorot and I recalled the wendoll's arm in Hrothgar's palace (more matches). The sword Hruinding, and the might of Giants. Then I got to the point when Beow. is almost outbeaten by Vendel (grendel's mom). His sword is totally useless and she's almost about to eat him alive...when his eye falls on one, almost forgotten item in the hall. A sword? Nah, it was too big to call it a sword. A meaningless block of iron. Too heavy and too gross. Impossible to lift...OH MY GOD! Tell me if that isn't exactly what happens to Gatsu in Berserk when he's attacked by one of the Apostoles in Godor's smithy, break his unbreakable new sword and, when he's about to die, he notices the Dragonslayer...

Ok, enough with digressing. That was just to tell you how much I let myself be dragged into stories. Say, during 300 I was so busy shouting ha hoo and hacking anmd slashing the furniture of my living room that I even failed to notice all the "it's gayer than Top Gun" and "Xerses is a trans" stuff (in fact, I thought he was sort of close to one of the SG1 Goaulds...).

Now, random impressions. As soon as the movie started (epic chants inthe background, a hell of a lot close to a videogame intro) I thought WTH? No, seriously, how did I get into Shrek's room? They told me there was some CG, but I thought it would be the monsters, as usual. Well, it was disturbing, but only at the beginning. Then I just fuiltered it out and though: well, it's a technique...

The characters could have appeared as a bit clichée, but I'd rather see them as "Epic" , as in "from a tale of the old anglo saxon epic". After all, the manuscript isn't shakespeare either. Good lights, good "costumes", a perfect Heorot. The that Bastard of Grendel came around. And there I thought that Zemeckis has some style. Why just follow a narration that, if adapted to cinema, would have focused on the Hero-Cut-With-Dynamate?

Ah, Beowulf, Grendel has been killing for years....and tonight best luck to you

Enters Grendel. Grendel Fights. Grandel isn't good looking BTW. Now Grendel does not look good. Grendel dies. End of part 1.

So, what if Grendel was actually that disturbed oversized child that just wanted that noise to stop? Oh, he was just so much like one of those cyberpsychotics from the Cyberpunk RPG. And how the blue fire answered to his cry and how just busy with destruction he was. Class.

And let's talk about the best example of unconfirmed critical of cinema? the guy that shoves the bastard sword into G's skull?


Ok, you need a nat 20 to hit. Gimme a roll

20!

Cool. You hit him. Now, you still need a nat 20 to beat his AC and confirm the crit.

10! Stang....

Sorry, no crit. You stick the blade into his skull plate, which onòly makes him angrier...roll a new PC...

AND THE DRAGON! Uuhuuhu...that was sweet. It was SO unbeatable....

Well, you might have guessed by now that I liked it. It also gave me that feeling of going back to the root. Ah, a campaign of only warriors, low level fighters with a bunch of higher level champs. Rolling for evasion from fire breath, rolling to save from frightful presence. No magic light. No magic weapon. Only bravery and cunning to help a warrior's arm.

Anyway, a rather enjoyable movie, with a good beowulf and nice plot hooks, exploiting the gray areas of the poem. What was the age difference between Hrothgar and Wealthow? And have she really been immune to the charisma of this unstoppable warrior and savior? Especially if the alternative was this bloated if good hearted man that had already cheated on her with a demon?

And what was the source of Grendel's power? And more, what kind of offspring could a demon like Vendel generate? Deformities, hideous hybrids and loathable figures that nonetheless had a childish behaviour and appeared almost innocent next to the glory hungry protagonist, who was in the end "fallible and imperfect" and a true badass. The seal to an age of epic figures.

As a final note, the thing about the twilight of paganism and the rise of the Roman religion. Mind you, I live there (next to where the big boss works) so I see dozens of crosses and churches and prelates everyday and have thus seen since I was born.

We hear Hunferth making two comments about christianity.

1) When he wonders (in a rather 'viking' fashon while relieving his bladder of all the mead he had drunk) wheter the salvation option in the after life, after embracing the new faith, is a viable one.

2) When they wonder wheter it would be appropriate to sacrifice to Thor, Heimdall AND the new Roman God (just to be on the safe side...).

What I see as offensive to Christianity, so to speak, is that the comments are put in the mouth of a sleazy and viscid fellow. Now, not that Lord Brummel or Oscar Wilde were anywhere near Heorot, but they could have introduced the theological debate with another, and a not so gross, character. What I recalled with a cooler mind was that probably confusion about the Christian doctrine had been a tangible problem for centuries and would stay this way for a good 4 more centuries (if we are to take the 568 AD date as Beowulf's age).
However, those are but two moments, perhaps 30" of footage in all. When he comes back as a converted catholic (with cross, church and everything) he still is acting a bit like wormtongue, but he has sort of redeemed himself. Kicking a slave in the face must have been something quite natural for a dane by then, especially in the presence of the king.

The other comment is left to the hero, and is a oneliner about the rise of a whole different mentality, fostered in his perception by christianity at large. It's again a rather vague statement, and mind you a leit motive of a whole genre of novels, which are mostly set in the Arthurian Cycle. The end of the celtic age, of gold, of rewards, of glory on the battlefield, of fate woven by gods and no free will for men, who should thus be busy getting stories of honor told about them by bards (and since the ICRC had not been founded yet, the only other viable source of glory was claiming other people's skulls).
It was also an age when Christianity struggled with its own identity, and in a violent fashon more often than not. Aryans, monophisites, monoteletes, alexandrinians (nothing to do with 5th level caps) and so on.

The struggle between the ending pagan age and the rising christian age is well represented by the Dragon burning the cross to ashes (that was high impact. I felt a STRONG shiver). Again, it's already been done countless times. Satan, the dragon, the snake, the beast, the antichrists in movies enters with impunity in holy places and burns symbols without breaking a sweat. In the christian doctrine, that is not even a big deal, at least not for the direct victims of such outbursts of rage, as all the "beast" can do is kill your body. He's physically light years above you (man Vs Dragon...come on, it's unfair) and you're petrified by pain. A claw rends your flesh as you are hidning behind a small cross, and straight to heaven you go.

So, final final final line...not the best acting, and probably a bit weak screenplay, but visually stunning and perfect to plunge yourself into a dark and gritty athmosphere of death and destruction, boldness and bravery, pride and punishment. My take? Go and watch it, it's worth it.

O.


PS
It's clear: GRENDEL IS THE THING UNDER THE UMBRELLA!!!!!

[jmaccabeus]

All this talk about "changes from the source material" reminds me that Beowulf was an oral epic poem, part of a tradition which can be seen throughout the world. One of the most important parts of that tradition is the fact that the story is not set in stone, that the details of the story can be changed as the teller sees fit.

I'm reminded of what a griot (professional storyteller) from Mali said when hearing that the epic he had just told would be put into written form: that it had been ruined by being made unchangeable.

So I don't have much of a problem with making thematic changes like that.

[....]

13th Warrior was a much better interpretation.

Both the book and the movie.

[Runolfr]

Yeah, I know. But in the actual story, none of that is true. Grendel's dad is never identified, and the dragon swoops in from nowhere to attack people.

I'm saying that if you're going to gut the story, may as well gut it like that and make it suck less.

In the poem, the Dragon is actually awakened by a peasant who stumbles into its lair while it's sleeping and steals a gold cup. The movie does give a bit of a nod to the poem in that respect.

The Dragon is a different sort of challenge in the poem, though. It's a vastly greater threat than either Grendel or his mother presented, yet Beowulf must face it when he's well past his prime. It's a battle he knows he can't win, but he goes anyway, because no one else will go, and he's the King, responsible for the safety of the kingdom. That's how I interpreted it, anyway.

[purple gelatinous cube o' Doom]

13th Warrior was a much better interpretation.

Both the book and the movie.

Wow, I think you're the first person I've ever know who actually likes Eaters of the Dead. It's easily by far, the worst thing Michael Crichton has ever written.

[Runolfr]

Wow, I think you're the first person I've ever know who actually likes Eaters of the Dead. It's easily by far, the worst thing Michael Crichton has ever written.

Quite true. The book is crap, yet The 13th Warrior turned out to be a really good movie.

[SurlySeraph]

Wow, I think you're the first person I've ever know who actually likes Eaters of the Dead. It's easily by far, the worst thing Michael Crichton has ever written.

*points at Next*

[....]

*points at Next*

I was just about to mention Next.

And I liked both the moive and the film. Of course, when I was reading the book I really thought it was a true story like it pretended to be.

And the prayer Ibn said, and the one they say before the last fight was friggen aweome. I get shivers everytime I see it.

"Merciful father, I have squadered my life with pursuits of many things... but I ask only for you to let me live these next few minutes well."

"'Lo there do I see my father,
'lo there do I see my mother and my sisters and my brothers,
'lo there do I see the line of my people, back to the beginning,
'lo, they do call to me.
They bid me take my place among them, in the halls of valhalla.
Where the brave...
May live...
Forever."

*HERO CHARGE!*

[Charles Phipps]

The poem was originally written with Norse deities.

Ummmm, correct me if I'm wrong but I don't believe there IS a pagan version of Beowulf. The poem's surviving forms are all explicitly Christian ones with Grendel as a personification of Cain's descendents and Beowulf as a Christian hero.

The "Pagan" Beowulf is a bit like Arthur and Cu Cuchlaine. I.e. there might be some connection but we have no proof they were reinterpreted. It's taking a glorious work of Christian admiration for ancient Warrior virtue and saying that they were insulting it all along.

Just about everyone agrees that Beowulf is an older poem that was retrofitted but the version we have today is a story of a Good Hero of Christianity defeating a remnant of the Pagan World.

Wow, Gaiman took some liberties it seems.

[....]

[QUOTE=Charles Phipps;3585393] The "Pagan" Beowulf is a bit like Arthur and Cu Cuchlaine. I.e. there might be some connection but we have no proof they were reinterpreted. It's taking a glorious work of Christian admiration for ancient Warrior virtue and saying that they were insulting it all along.[QUOTE]

I always thought the way that Beowulf occasionally stops all actions to scream, "THANK YOU GOD FOR THIS POWER!" out of nowhere was an indication that someone was tacking on the Christian aspect.

/shrug

[Runolfr]

Beowulf, the poem, was probably around for a long time before it finally gotten written down. Christianity adopted/adapted a lot of traditions from the Europeans as it spread, so it's likely that there was an entirely pagan version of the poem at some time. Alas, we have no idea exactly what it would have been like.

[Charles Phipps]

I always thought the way that Beowulf occasionally stops all actions to scream, "THANK YOU GOD FOR THIS POWER!" out of nowhere was an indication that someone was tacking on the Christian aspect.

/shrug

To be fair, not every author follows the rules of central action. Let's face it, in a 1000 years someone is going to believe that JRR Tolkien had to have the Tom Bombadil and Scouring of the Shire elements "tacked on." While there could be a Pagan version of Beowulf, it's entirely possible there was a very good storyteller out there who just happened to live in Pagan Times.

I think it's a mistake to automatically presume storytellers weren't as good in the Early Middle Ages as they are today. Oddly, I tend to go with the theory it was written in Christian times but was an "Ode to the Past" like Tolkien's LOTR's was.

It doesn't take that much to imagine someone could come up with a Beowulf-like Hero by looking over Epics of Thor and perhaps even Old Testament adventure stories.

[WalkingTarget]

Note on versions of Beowulf:

There is exactly 1 manuscript that dates from around 1000 years ago. All references to different/earlier versions of the basic text is supposition.

That being said, I think it likely that the poem predates this version by a fair amount and it wouldn't surprise me at all if the Christian mentality present in the manuscript was added at a later time.

As far as the film goes, I thought it was ok. I get over the departures in plot by thinking of the bard and actors in the hall performing a rendition of the actual poem (from what I guess, I can't follow Old English enough to remember dialog to compare to my copy when I got home) so this is the "true version" of events, but not what got written down. Adjusting other character motivations and explanations of events are forgivable. If they followed the story as set forth in the poem directly, the movie would be a lot shorter and/or a lot more boring (in my opinion).

And for Unferth being evil, I don't really see it. He's kind of a jerk when the Geats first show up, but that's because he's heard of Beowulf and thinks he's a braggart. Later, at the celebratory feast (and when he offers his sword) he seems to be on better terms with Beowulf. Also note that the effective Christianization of Denmark started with Apostle to the Frisians in about A.D. 700, well after the time frame set for the film, so any earlier depictions of them in general can probably be overlooked to some extent.

[....]

To be fair, not every author follows the rules of central action. Let's face it, in a 1000 years someone is going to believe that JRR Tolkien had to have the Tom Bombadil and Scouring of the Shire elements "tacked on."

Those were tacked on.

They were tacked on by the author, but they were still tacked on.

[Turcano]

Did anyone else find that funny?

A more historically accurate 300:

"SPARTANS!? WHAT IS YOUR PROFESSION?"

"ASS-BANDITS!"

See, the distinction was between the Athenians, who practiced pederasty for pleasure, and the Spartans, who practiced pederasty in order to instill soldierly virtue. Which means that while all Greeks did it, the Spartans did it for the children.


I'm not gay .. I don't like man meat or anything... but I am an adult and I can handle seeing Beowulf's junk in the non sexual context of the story.

It is pretty shocking if you aren't expecting it, though. This was made very clear to me when I saw Monty Python's Life of Brian.


Do you have any evidence for this whatsoever? Cite a paper? Point me to an earlier version of Beowulf? Anything?

There is a fairly fierce debate in the relevant academic community regarding the place of Christianity in the saga, with most of the arguments being made through higher criticism that's somewhat difficult for outsiders to follow.


Grendel's dad is never identified, and the dragon swoops in from nowhere to attack people.

As Runolfr points out, the dragon was pissed off because a slave stole his dragongolds. Which is apparently the most common reason for a dragon attack, when you think about it.

Anyway, when I got back from the theater, a rather nasty thought occurred to me:

Did Hrothgar and Unferth set Beowulf up for his seduction by Grendel's mother?

[Total_Viking_Power]

I should of cause be shot for not having bothered to read the poem yet, so I can't compare it to that. But I am Danish, so it had quit a bit of laughs that you non-natives probably missed.
That wasn't any part of Denmark I know. Pines in the 6th century? nope.
Rocks all over? nope. Mountains? Hell no! Of cause the arcitecture, costumes and the presence of christianity where all wrong, but none of what I have mentioned took anything out of the movie. It was just a little hard to take serious.
But I minded Angelina Jolie, that stilettoed, mud-honey covered wench. She was just wrong, wrong, wrong... Almost made me not want to see the movie when I aw the teaser with her. And what the **** was that accent? Sounded like the same gibberish she drooled out in Alexander... Shame.

The Dragon made up for it tho. Mmmm, Dragons....

[Lord Rocket]

The whole 'presence of Christianity' thing...

Didn't the Christians send out a bunch of missionaries to the north? There could have been a handful of Christian converts among the Danes. If I recall correctly, and I probably don't, the Saxons were converted circa 600, so I don't see why said missionaries wouldn't have made their way up and around Scandanavia.
That aside, Beowulf's speech where he was all, 'Christianity has ruined heroism' was still remarkably anachronistic. And a bit stupid.

Furthermore, speculating about pagan versions of the poem is pretty useless. We just don't have anything to compare the Christianised version to; and besides, the Icelandic scribes who did the sagas were apparently pretty faithful to the source (based on the cultural notes and stuff in the few I've read, anyway). There's no reason why the Saxons couldn't do just as well - Beowulf's motivations still remain pretty Germanic, anyway (fatalism etc.).

Overall, I kind of liked this film. The new ending was shoddy, and I got pretty exasperated by all the ninja leaps, but whatever. I still like the story, and it was pretty epic when he [this spoils the end pretty well completely]
severed the tendons in his arm so he could rip out the dragon's heart.
Could've used some more sword 'n' board brutality, but I've recommended it to my friends nonetheless.

[Closet_Skeleton]

5) STONE DOESN'T BURN JACKTARDS!!!!!!!

The dragon spits out burning oil, the oil continues to burn. It all makes sense.


I love Chinese fight movies, but Beowulf probably shouldn't be turning backflips and dropping into the palm-forward, sword-back wushu stance.

It's not like we have any knowledge of 6th century Danish fighting styles. The film makers had to take inspiration from somewhere.


Christians have never, in their entire history as a religion, never, ever done anything bad or mean to non-Christians. Especially not during the Dark/Middle Ages.

What Pagans in the middle ages? The ones that went around burning monestries and robbing people and then converted in a few hundred years? Unless you mean the crusades, where Muslims hardly count as Pagans, or witch hunts, in which case you've been reading too much New Age nonsense if you believe that was about Paganism.


According to this page (http://www.press.umich.edu/titleDetailDesc.do?id=8599), which I admit is not a conclusive source, Beowulf was written in the 11th century, when England was pretty firmly Christian. Beowulf is set in the late 5th or early 6th century, when England and Scandinavia were mostly pagan.

Depends. In the 5th century, the last few Romano British people where possibly still Christian.


However, many works of literature from the Middle Ages are heavily anachronistic in respect to religion, so there's no real reason why Beowulf would accurately reflect the paganism of the time.

I've seen an adaptation of the Canterbury tales they retail some Greek Myths with people in platemail. Macbeth is set in the 11th century but Shakespear probably staged it in inacurate tales.

Historical Accuracy is a modern Anachronism. :smallwink:


Also, as that page said, there's only one known manuscript of Beowulf. No earlier pagan-er versions, nothing like that. Any claim that Beowulf originally was entirely pagan is a plausible conjecture, but lacks verifiable evidence.

If you compare the Niebelung Lied to the Volsung Saga, you can see Christianisation warping stories completely. There's evidence that this sort of thing went on, just not with Beowulf. But since all written sources we have are Christian it's sort of a moot point. Christian writers make stuff up about Pagans in order to make them seem barbarous. If you want a Pagan perspective on Paganism you're limited Greek and early Roman historians, who do exactly the same thing the Christians do anyway.


Now if i was going to make a movie of a contiversal comic, i'd at least tone down the racism, and try let the audience sympathize with both sides.
from

But that would make it more of a historical movie, which niether the comic or the movie wanted to be.


That aside, Beowulf's speech where he was all, 'Christianity has ruined heroism' was still remarkably anachronistic. And a bit stupid.

Not really, it makes sense as reactionism. The Crusades and King Arthur stories show that heroism fit survived long into the Christian era. All it does is show that Beowulf is scared of change.

The sleeping with Grendel's mom is a very non Viking ideal. It's presented as a "making peace with the land" theme, which is pagan, but not the correct Pagan. I blame Neil Gaiman.

The castle is really bad. No stone castles in the 6th century. Also the hall was stone with a wooden roof in the film when it should have been wood.

There should not have been a mountain in the film. Makes no sense if you look at coastal Denmark.

Too many late Viking references. They talk about Vinland which wasn't discovered yet in the 6th century.

I'm not so upset about the negative portrayal of Christians in this film because I don't think it gave Pagans too good of a rep either. The main characters are a bunch of rapist frat boys, which is just as insulting as the slave beater with the silly accent.

[SmartAlec]

Anyway, when I got back from the theater, a rather nasty thought occurred to me:

Did Hrothgar and Unferth set Beowulf up for his seduction by Grendel's mother?

Seems... likely. After all, Hrothgar tells the story of how he claimed the dragonhorn after defeating a dragon; it's quite possible that the dragon he mentions was the son of his predecessor and Grendel's mother, and that he came to the town, seeking to be a hero, etc, etc... and he's also very willing to make Beowulf his successor, even before Grendel's death. Watch the scene where Hrothgar tells Beowulf about the horn, but seems to be talking about his wife as well.

Unferth also shows all the hallmarks of an aide or accomplice. His challenge to Beowulf over the swimming contest and his offer of his 'ancestral sword' seem slightly stilted in contrast to his appearances elsewhere, almost like staged setpieces on cue. Although he cries out when Hrothgar names Beowulf his heir, it's debateable why - could it be because he didn't realise the king was going to kill himself quite so soon?

In short, Hrothgar seems all very aware that he's just one link in a chain.

[Lord Zentei]

No, in the movie Hrothgar was Grendel's daddy.

Why Hrothgar got a skinless freak and Beowulf got a golden shape-shifting dragon, we'll never know.

Beowulf is just that bad-ass.



And the movie 300 portrayed the Persians EXACTLY like the comic did. If you want to whine about something, whine about the comic.

I don't remember any Uruk-Hai knockoffs in the comic. :smallconfused: The Immortals merely had their faces covered.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

As irritated as I am about the historical accuracy of 300, that's not the point here.:smallannoyed:

I thought that, while Beowulf was supposed to slay the monster, not lay the monster, it was clever, to a certain degree. It certainly made Beowulf a more believeable character in my opinion.:smallamused:

For Grendel, I really don't have any comment. Every picture I see of him is different, and so this thing was good enough for me. Didn't get the shinking deal though. What was that all about?:smallconfused:

All in all, a satisying movie. You've got to trust it though. That's true of any film. If you trust a film, even if it's utter garbage, it can still entertain you. And this film, while not a word for word interpretation of the poem, is definately not garbage!:smallsmile: