Features

Noodles · #1

*Yes I AM aware that wa a book before it was a movie*

I saw this movie today...wasn't that good. I didnt watch it in 3d (I think its a 3d movie...right) Alot of time I kept forgetting that the movie was animated. And it had lots of gore-ific violence.

Actual quote: He has such strong arms, i bet his legs are the same*, ALL THREE OF THEM
*(Probley not completly word for word)
*Below in black text because it may contain spoilers* D:

Beowulf latches on to a homicidal dragon (his son) using god knows what after spending god knows how long under water. He then stabs the dragon in the neck ( the soft spot ) then makes several attempst to stab the dragons heart, he relizes his arm is completely tangled in the chain he used to latch on to the dragon, iso he cuts off his arm (his chainmail armor the only thing keeping them together him and his arm together) then makes several more failed attempts to stab its heart, he then loosed his dagger. Makes another swing and (somhow) tears the dragons heart out. (How this happens completely eludes me.

DeadKennedys · #2

Hwaet hwae gardaenum

Read the book. He has the strength of 13 men in each arm.

Also, I want to see this.

Noodles · #3

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeadKennedys

Read the book.

I probley will see how I heard it was better than the movie.

HickMan · #4

This movie looks lame. Just like the story was.

Guitar Woman · #5

This movie is not in any way shape or form an attempt to cash in on the success of 300

Guitar Woman · #6

Also, all the CGI work looks like a Prince of Persia FMV.

Supafly345 · #7

I was pretty sure the book was about a bunch of guys who rode horses while wearing gigantic hats. That sounds like it would be a pretty awesome movie to me.

darkvare · #8

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guitar Woman

This movie is not in any way shape or form an attempt to cash in on the success of 300

lol i saw a magazine that had as a head line beowolf better than 300?

J. Tithonus Pednaud · #9

Beowulf is not a book folks, it's an 9th century epic poem. Which is hell to read as it's in Old English.

HickMan · #10

Guy, you're so smart

Emu · #11

Quote:

Originally Posted by J. Tithonus Pednaud

Beowulf is not a book folks, it's an 9th century epic poem. Which is hell to read as it's in Old English.

If it spans more than 50 pages, it's a book.

J. Tithonus Pednaud · #12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emu

If it spans more than 50 pages, it's a book.

In that it is a printed literary work, sure, it is a book. I'm not trying to be a scholarly douche, I'm just pointing out that it's not a common novel as some people are assuming around the release of the film. I heard a couple of local reporters bantering that it was based on a comic book.

If Noodles expects a well constructed novel, he will be disappointed. That's all.

J. Tithonus Pednaud · #13

Quote:

Originally Posted by HickMan

Guy, you're so smart

Correct on both observations.

Noodles · #14

Quote:

Originally Posted by J. Tithonus Pednaud

If Noodles expects a well constructed novel, he will be disappointed. That's all.

Dammit, im looking for some reading material

Seven Force · #15

The movie was awesome

DeadKennedys · #16

Quote:

Originally Posted by J. Tithonus Pednaud

Beowulf is not a book folks, it's an 9th century epic poem. Which is hell to read as it's in Old English.

I thought it was written in Anglo Saxon, while the Canterbury Tales was Old English. Peh, anyway, I read it in book form, so it's a book now.

J. Tithonus Pednaud · #17

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeadKennedys

I thought it was written in Anglo Saxon.

Old English and Anglo Saxon are the same thing. Chaucer and his Canterbury Tales is actually written in Middle English.

HickMan · #18

That story's lame too.

Fathom Zero · #19

Confirmed: Robert Zemeckis for Back to the Future Part IV.

Dr. V · #20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fathom Zero

Confirmed: Robert Zemeckis for Back to the Future Part IV.

BULLSHIT! DON'T YOU MESS WITH ME ON THIS!

Jeanette X · #21

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeadKennedys

I thought it was written in Anglo Saxon, while the Canterbury Tales was Old English. Peh, anyway, I read it in book form, so it's a book now.

The Lord's Prayer, for your comparison goodness.

Old English:
Fæder ure þu þe eart on heofonum,
Si þin nama gehalgod.
To becume þin rice,
gewurþe ðin willa, on eorðan swa swa on heofonum
Urne gedæghwamlican hlaf syle us todæg,
and forgyf us ure gyltas, swa swa we forgyfað urum gyltendum.
And ne gelæd þu us on costnunge, ac alys us of yfele.

Middle English:
Oure fadir that art in heuenes,
halewid be thi name;
thi kyndoom come to be thi wille don in erthe as in heuene:
gyue to us this dai oure breed ouer othir substaunce;
and forgyue to us oure dettis, as we forgyuen to oure gettouris;
and lede us not in to temptacioun, but delyuere us fro yuel.

Early Modern English:
Our Father which art in heaven,
hallowed be thy name.
Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our trespasses,
as we forgive them that trespass against us.
And lead us not into temptation. But deliver us from evil.

Sethomas · #22

I showed Italian an LJ thread in my old school's community trying to identify an Old English passage. It ended up being a preface attributed to King Alfred; most of my commentary was on the paleographical aspects, as I can't read very much Old English without context.

What I find cool about Beowulf is that comparative philology dates the bulk of the tale to the 7th century or so, but the earliest codex we have of it is less than 1000 years old. What that tells me is that the literary devices in it are so powerful that people continued to tell it the exact same way for centuries, each and every alliteration and kenning, even as their language evolved into something totally different. I have the Heaney bilingual edition, and the linguistic artistry is quite evident when you read the Old English from the verso while referencing the Modern English of the adjacent recto. It does take a little practice to pronounce the words correctly, but it's worth the effort.

The thing about the paradigms that Jeanette posted is that they're the most commonplace examples, with at least the latter two centered around London. I've been trying to read as much of Gawain and the Green Knight in its original Middle English. The thing is that although it was written about the same time as the Canterbury Tales, it's in a different dialect (Essex, I believe) and so is MUCH harder to sift through than the Londonian language of Chaucer from which our concept of English evolved.

The funny thing is that I find Old Saxon, one of the contributing/co-evolving languages to Old English, easier to understand than Old English because it's somewhat similar to German, while the only language still in existence remotely similar to Old English is Frisian. I was once speaking with a professor in an informal context, and when he said that his specialty was historical Germanic languages I said that I was interested in learning Old Saxon but was denied a place in the class they had on it because I wasn't a graduate student. He started reciting the Our Father from memory in it, and to demonstrate I knew what it was I repeated it to him in Latin. That's how hardcore I am.

Oh, shit, this is the Movies forum. You're all fags.