ZNAK SAGITE — više od fantastike — edicija, časopis, knjižara...

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/31185
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/08/movies/08cnd-cameron.html?ei=5094&en=0bc81ed724640090&hp=&ex=1168318800&adxnnl=1&partner=homepage&adxnnlx=1168292526-5jQDX0DlIh2XSEtq+0aaiQ

Dobro je da se već jednom iskobeljao iz vode. Trebalo mu je skoro 10 godina...

James Cameron, Arnold friend and movie director, has just announced not only will he get back into the director chair for AVATAR but he is also considering Schwarzenegger for a new Sci-fi role a few years down the road!

Several fans, including Shannon, wrote TheArnoldFans and informed us of a "Saturn 3" remake!

Shannon writes: Hi Arnold Fans, Wasssssup!? Ypu probably already heard, but on KISS-FM with odm tonight they mentioned that Cameron - while tanking on about "Avatar" and how the script is apparently terrific - also has plans to produce a remake of the Kirk Douglas movie, "Saturn 3" and possibly have 'The Old Governator' (direct quote) play the robot.

Biehn To Join Avatar?
Date: January 14, 2007

By: Kellvin Chavez
Source: 'M'


A few days ago it was announced that James Cameron's "AVATAR" will begin principal photography in April 2007. This will be Cameron's first feature since "Titanic."

Cameron has already chosen the young Australian Sam Worthington and Latina Zoe Saldana (The Terminal, Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl)  to play the lead roles in the film.  Both actors have signed on for possible future installments as well, as AVATAR is conceived as a potential franchise.

Today scooper 'M' tells us that another actor, whom James Cameron has worked with before is about to join the production of AVATAR.  

Here is what 'M' tells us:

Just a quick note fellas.

Word from Gentle Giant Studios - the v/sfx firm - is that Michael Biehn is about to join the production of Jim Cameron's "Avatar".

And though the film is due 2009, it mightn't be done till 2010 - or so the team thinks.

Script is terrific though - I swear you will get goose bumps when they arrive on the planet - so it'll be a worthwhile wait.

(My boyfriend is a designer at the company).

Keep flying the flag for the Latinos!

M

So will Michael Biehn join the cast....We'll keep you posted.

Super za AVATAR! Još samo da dočekamo 2008. godinu i eto nama zabave.

(https://www.znaksagite.com/diskusije/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg129.imageshack.us%2Fimg129%2F5047%2Fbscap331rq3.jpg&hash=61771f5f17c7fa4661905e54d9f3850e5d72dc54)

Their last pairing yielded what stills remains my personal favourite film of all time - "Aliens".

Now, word has come via Aint it Cool News that Sigourney Weaver may be teaming up with James Cameron again on his next project - "Avatar".

Seems that on the French talk show "le grand journal" she said she had no desire to do any further "Alien" films but "will be making a big sci-fi movie with James Cameron".

She then apparently went on to say "she didn't want to talk too much about it". Hmmmm.

Kako misli nece raditi vise na Alienu? Pa zar nije peti dio u planu? :?

http://dobanevinosti.blogspot.com/2007/02/jimbo-vs-timbo.html

http://www.popboks.com/vesti/2_9_2007.shtml#v4

James Cameron režira Timbalandov spot
Sa najavom ,,najveći reditelj današnjice režira spot za pesmu najvećeg muzičkog producenta današnjice", filmski blog Doba nevinosti nas izveštava kako je režiser Terminatora, Napada na policijsku stanicu br. 13 i Noći veštica i zvanično potvrdio da će biti autor spota za pesmu Give it To Me, u kome gostuju Nelly Furtado i Justin Timberlake.
Sa snimanjem se kreće 11. februara, a zanimljivo je da će video klip biti rađen u 3D tehnici.
U pitanju je singl sa drugog solo albuma poznatog hip-hop producenta Timbalanda - Shock Value.

zar nismo vec utvrdili kako je Noc vestica rezirao Kjubrik?

Dobro, Popboks su pozitivci, da je ovo Vlaja napisao vec bih padao u histeriju... :D

Nazalost pesma, kao sto je slucaj i sa prethodnim Timbovim solo radovima nije nesto...

This Valentine's Night - James Cameron was my Valentine Caller - with details on AVATAR - I'm twitterpated!

Hey Folks - Harry here... Tonight is Valentine's Day night. Originally the plan was for Yoko and I to travel to the Alamo Village here in Austin to attend their HAROLD & MAUDE VALENTINE'S DAY FEAST. Something we've been planning for about 2 months. However, FATE... DESTINY... FLU caused Yoko to want to stay at home tonight. We ordered in, had yummy yummies brought in. We ate Dinner... Have been sweet and huggy... I offered to get the Cherry Pie out the ice box and put the laundry in the dryer. So there I was - standing between the fridge and the Washer-Dryer when...

James Cameron calls.

Sadly, my cel phone call capture equipment was under the table, unplugged, with all the connecting wires in a box under 45 dvds. So I leave the laundry half in and out of the dryer... and I'm back to the computer - trying to make enough small talk till I have my hands on a keyboard and I can take down notes... all of this while the cel phone is sandwiched between my shoulder and ear. Damn this is awkward, but no complaints... I've got the king of the world on the line - and a flow of information that I have to share.

Now - I'm going to do something that reporters never do. I'm going to share my notes - then I'll decipher them for you.

Kauai

Just shot 3 days in Hawaii

sam worthington

sigourney weaver - grace

principle capture

sam and zoe entered into the system --

first AD worked with Bob on BEOWULF and POLAR EXPRESS

fair bit different -- Bob can have Jolie in and out in 5 days

Director-centric

CG camera angles as they go

capture a raw performance - finding the layout -- Zemeckis

motion builder - real time cinematography - not terribly sophisticated

we will be going through a phase of CG lighting

DP -

Probably not have the DP on through the cg

--
Wes Studi --

Peter Mensah

Joel David Moore

C C H Pounder

Stay - Lez Alonzo




Ok - so what does any of that mean?

We started off with Jim telling me that he was in Kauai en route to the airport to head back to California. He had just shot 3 days of live action work in Hawaii in the tropical rainforests. Apparently he was shooting with Sam Worthington, Lola Herrera and I believe he said Sigourney Weaver was there, but I might have heard that wrong.

Once he returns to California - he begins a stage called Pre-Capture where he'll mainly be shooting with Sam Worthington and Zoe Saldana. The reason is that their characters have been fully entered into the CG system. He told me that this way, with the realtime rendering, he can actually compose and find his shots - and then work with the actors to get the performances he wants within those shots.

I asked how different this was from the way Robert Zemeckis was operating on BEOWULF. This was when he told me that his 1st AD (Josh McLaglen) worked on both BEOWULF and POLAR EXPRESS and that what he's doing is a fair bit different. "Where Bob can have an actor like Angeline Jolie in and out in 5 days - and get a bunch of big stars in and out." Zemeckis was working on just getting the raw performance and then spend months finding the layouts and 'angles' that would make up the film.

What Cameron is doing is with his real-time rendering - he can work with the actors in the performance capture system to get the performances within the angles he wants in the system. He called it more, "Director-centric."

Around this time I asked about his choice for DP. He told me that he's making that decision very soon, but that the DP will be brought in on for the physical shot elements of this film - and will be consulted for the CG-DP aesthetic, but will not be there throughout that process, most likely. I asked how the real-time lighting set up works in the construction of shots in the CG-sphere of shooting. Jim said that they're using something called MOTION BUILDER for the real time cinematography and the lighting elements of that are "not terribly sophisticated." And that there would be an extensive phase that would be just lighting each scene afterwards.

Around this point, Jim asked how I was doing - this is where I told him that JOHN CARTER was over at Disney - and how there was a part of me that was glad about that, since his and mine's last chat - where I felt the direction he was taking AVATAR in was a very John Carter-esque route. It was here that Jim kinda gasped with a "I hadn't thought about that, but..." then he began drawing the comparisons betweent he characters and the situations and I said - see - there is a very real similarity on a structural level - Had Paramount held on to JOHN CARTER - we'd be coming out the same year with a similar attack at Sci-fi Fantasy... and now Disney, possibly with Zemeckis and the Motion Capture film department he's setting up - starting from ground zero means - they'll definitely be coming out on the otherside of AVATAR - if and when that project moves forward - it will have to deal with James Cameron's AVATAR. At this - Jim kinda laughed, in the past - going up against similar material - Jim's film had come out second. But with the superior film.

Around this time - he said he was getting close to the airport and wanted to give me the new casting before having to go. So as you could see in the notes - we got:

WES STUDI, SIGOURNEY WEAVER (confirmed as Grace), Peter Mensah, Joel David Moore (fantastic in both HATCHET and SPIRAL) - I imagine him as being Hippy-esque (think ABYSS), C.C.H. Pounder (love her) and then last but not least... I believe it was Laz Alonso - looking at his filmography - that's the name that most fits with what I heard.

Jim said that each person was "perfectly cast for the part they're playing." He said there was more casting to be done, but that a great deal of it had fallen into place.

Around that point - Jim said he had reached the 'curb' and that it was time to say our farewells. He said that his property only came within 3/4s of a mile, but had the wind turned - it could have covered that time in a blink and in those circumstances - it is best to be safe. We'll be speaking again, but definitely an odd turn of a Valentine's Day night. Now excuse me... my demonstration of love for all of you is demonstrated by taking time away from my fiancee to deliver this to all of you. Now I must demonstrate my love for her. Excuse me my friends...

mozda sam ja malko neinformisaniji, ali eto, tek sam sada video kameronov xenogenesis na youtube, i bas je slatko:

http://www.filmthreat.com/index.php?section=videos&Id=59

evo, bez uvodne reklame

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrIU6m7NR5w

James Cameron on the Cutting Edge
The director of Terminator and Titanic explains how movies will be transformed by motion-tracking and 3D technology

Three-time Academy Award-winning director James Cameron is a pioneer in the field of motion capture. In the mid-'90s he used the nascent technology to create the massive crowd scenes and stunts in his blockbuster Titanic. These days he's still at the cutting edge of the technology, but he prefers to call motion capture "performance capture" because, as he points out, "actors don't do motion, they do emotion."

Cameron is in the midst of his latest film project, Avatar, which is his most technologically innovative film to date. The futuristic movie about an ex-Marine will be released in 2009 simultaneously with a massive, multiplayer, video game based on the film.

BusinessWeek couldn't catch up to Cameron for a sit-down interview, since he's busy creating Avatar, but reporter Aili McConnon was able to engage the director, via e-mail, in a discussion of how motion-capture technology has spurred innovation in cinema and made filmmaking more cost-effective. The following are excerpts from their virtual conversation:

What has motion capture meant to the film industry and to your work?

Performance capture (Perfcap) in recent years has enabled such stunning [computer generated] characters as Gollum (in Lord of the Rings parts 2 and 3), "King Kong," and Davy Jones (in Pirates of the Caribbean) to be brought to life. The technology is critical to the realization of my dream project, Avatar.

In fact, Avatar wasn't possible when it was first written 11 years ago, and only through pushing the technology to new levels over the past year and a half have we reached the point where the film is finally possible to make.

What innovations have you developed for Avatar?

We have greatly enhanced the size of the performance-capture stage, which we call The Volume, to six times the size previously used. And we have incorporated a real-time virtual camera, which allows me to direct [computer-generated] scenes as I would live-action scenes. I can see my actors performing as their characters, in real-time, and I can move my camera to adjust to their performances.

In addition, we have pioneered facial performance capture, in conjunction with our visual effects partner, Weta Digital. This technique eliminates hours in the makeup chair, and various other discomforts, for the actors. Previously, actors needed to have hundreds of tiny spherical markers glued to their faces, and they couldn't touch their own faces throughout the shooting day as a result. With the new system, a lightweight head-rig can be donned minutes before shooting.

We have had great success, and other filmmakers such as Steven Spielberg and Peter Jackson have worked on our virtual stage doing tests for their upcoming films, and given high praise to the system.

Does the rig cover the whole head, including your face? Does it capture fine facial movements?

The rig is a small skull cap, made from a cast of the actor's head, so that it fits comfortably while being tight enough to avoid shifting. It acts as a base for a strut which resembles a concert microphone (visualize Madonna in concert), except instead of a mike in front of the face, it has a tiny camera. The key to it is the software, which interprets the movement of the actor's face, pupils, and eyelid responses as the image flows in from the video feed of the head-rig camera.

In what directions do you see the technology going in the short term?

Improvements to the software and higher computation speeds and storage densities will enable us to have more realistic environments and more refined facial emotions and hand movements. Hand movement, for example, is still at a crude state.

On Avatar, we're working on-stage at a reality level equal to an '80s video game. At the end of the day, after a year and a half of post production, the images seen by audiences will be 100% photo-real, i.e. indistinguishable from photography. But for our day-to-day shooting, the image can be improved a lot.

Another area which needs improvement is the lighting. We need to improve its ability to handle cinematic lighting, the casting of shadows and so on. All of this can be improved as Moore's Law raises the speed of processing and as upgrades to the software become available.

In addition, we're developing ways for [computer-generated] characters to interact with actors who are being photographed on real, live-action set. We will have real-time stereo (three-dimensional stereoscopic, or 3D) composites of characters, which will be viewed by me in the eyepiece of the camera while I'm shooting a live-action scene. This will be revolutionary. We're not quite there yet, but we hope to have that by August, in time for our live-action shoot in Wellington, New Zealand.

Long term, what do you expect?

I expect that more filmmakers will embrace the technique and apply it to different types of scenarios. For the creation of fantasy and science-fiction characters, Perfcap will largely replace makeup and prosthetics.

Actors need not feel threatened by this change in technology. It doesn't replace acting, in fact it's designed to empower the acting and directing process, as opposed to the traditional [computer-generated] animation process, which uses only the actor's voice, and in which a committee of animators perform the character, operate the camera, and do the lighting.

I believe it will make fantasy filmmaking much more user-friendly for filmmakers, actors, and studios, and ultimately bring down costs. It's just now possible to create photo-real human [computer-generated] characters, but it isn't cost effective.

Many other fields, from medicine to automotive design, now use similar motion-capture systems (though on a smaller scale). Do you ever run across or dream up non-entertainment applications yourself?

I'm bore-sighted on the cinematic process. While one can generally imagine all the industrial and science applications, I'm not interested in developing them. However I can visualize a number of uses for the technique in advanced forms of entertainment, at theme parks and so on.

What role will 3D play in the future of film?

Here's what can happen, although it's too early to say if it will: 3D can become ubiquitous as digital cinema replaces film. As digital cinema rolls out, stereo follows—and in some cases leads the charge, as we have seen recently with the digital 3D releases of Chicken Little and Monster House forcing the installation of hundreds of new digital projectors.

There will eventually be major titles available from all studios at some screens in almost all multiplex cinemas worldwide. I would say the horizon for this is five years. 3D can become a fully accepted way in which audiences view movies. It will become another consumer choice, like premium or regular gas. The premium experience of 3D will be the preferred viewing experience for action, animated, fantasy, and science-fiction films.

3D's broad acceptance at theaters will generate enough content that consumer-electronics manufacturers will make home players and monitors available. The technology exists now, but is not readily available as off-the-shelf products. 3D display will become a must for video and computer games.

In 20 years, stereo media may become the preferred method for displaying all information, including news and other broadcast media. The density of information one can place on a small screen becomes much higher if it's stacked in three dimensions.

Is there something beyond 3D in film? Could we ever see in cinema the same kind of physical participation we're starting to see in video-game consoles like Nintendo's Wii?

Imagine a movie in which the viewer is swept along by a narrative, following the action from place to place, but without the intervention of a camera. You can choose which character to watch in a scene, as if you're an invisible witness standing there while a real event plays out. This is still years away, at a level of realism people would consider cinematic, but certainly not decades away.

I can imagine the dense fantasy worlds I like to create for movies having an equal or greater life in a world of interactive play, authored by others, in a partnership. Of course, add massive multiplayer capability to this, and people will never leave their homes.

QuoteImagine a movie in which the viewer is swept along by a narrative, following the action from place to place, but without the intervention of a camera. You can choose which character to watch in a scene, as if you're an invisible witness standing there while a real event plays out.

Alaha mu, pa ovi ljudi ne razumeju šta je to što film čini umetnošću vrednom praćenja..

Quote from: "Meho Krljic"

QuoteImagine a movie in which the viewer is swept along by a narrative, following the action from place to place, but without the intervention of a camera. You can choose which character to watch in a scene, as if you're an invisible witness standing there while a real event plays out.

Alaha mu, pa ovi ljudi ne razumeju šta je to što film čini umetnošću vrednom praćenja..

mi smo dinosauri, moj meho.

vidiš da sve ide niz oluk.

film kao video igrica.

film kao 'izaberi svoju avanturu' (jel se tako zvahu one knjigice za decu, sa alternativnim varijantama pravaca plota?).

bulšit.

Bulšit indid.... I to kažem ja koji volim videoigre...

Michael Biehn has confirmed to Sci-Fi Wire that he has talked with director James Cameron about a role in his upcoming 3D epic "Avatar".

The move would mark a reteaming of Biehn with Cameron and Sigourney Weaver, who last starred together in 1986's "Aliens".

"I've had two very very good meetings with Jim, and they went very well... There have been a lot of other sources that have reported they have sources saying that I'm doing it, but so far I haven't heard anything from Jim. He hasn't cast the role yet" says Biehn.

"Avatar" is the story of a wounded ex-marine who is unwillingly sent to settle and exploit a faraway planet. He gets caught up in a battle for survival by the planet's inhabitants.

Nije rđavo videti da će Majkl Bin da malo profitira. Meni simpatičan vazda bio. Mada može i ovako da se gleda: uzimaju njega jer je jeftin jer će film da bude flop...

Imageworks pros talk 3-D
Go deep with the team behind 'Beowulf'
By PETER DEBRUGE
Denise


Engle


Hays

At Sony Imageworks, 3-D isn't just a part-time interest but a dedicated production pipeline. In 2005, the company helped convert Robert Zemeckis' "The Polar Express" to 3-D, creating a special stereoscopic version of the toon for Imax theaters. A year later, the effects house gave "Open Season" the 3-D treatment, and now it's wrapping work on Zemeckis' motion-capture follow-up, "Beowulf," due to open on nearly 1,000 digital 3-D screens this fall.
Variety sat down with three of Imageworks' 3-D pros -- exec VP Debbie Denise (who oversees the 3-D pipeline), digital effects supervisor Rob Engle (stereo lead on "Beowulf") and senior producer Buzz Hays -- for a roundtable discussion about the past, present and future of the format.


Variety: 3-D has gone through cycles of popularity before, flaring up in the '50s and again in the '80s. With all these new 3-D movies being produced, the real question is whether this is another fad, or is 3-D finally here to stay?

Debbie Denise: New technology has made stereo 3-D a more viable option for filmmakers and theater owners because it's comfortable -- you're not looking through red-and-blue glasses that give you a headache unless you're 7 years old. And with CG technology getting robust enough to create these virtual worlds, it's a perfect scenario for 3-D.


Variety: On computer-animated movies, you can actually create a second virtual eye to render the 3-D movie, but live-action requires a special two-camera system. Has Imageworks considered crossing over to live-action 3-D?

Buzz Hays: You can already read the press asking how many animated films we need in a year -- we're already getting backlash about that -- and 3-D shouldn't be limited to that. So certainly, live action's an option. One of the problems is that everyone's waiting to see how Jim Cameron's going (on "Avatar"), but that's two years away.


Variety: With a heavy-hitter like Cameron onboard, theaters are now compelled to make the transition to digital. Considering that polarized 3-D technology has been around for decades, why would anyone have gone with the inferior experience of red-blue glasses?

Hays: It's all about cost distribution. With a red-blue (anaglyph) movie, you can literally make a 35mm print and take it to any theater, give out a bunch of red-blue glasses, and anybody can watch it in 3-D. (Before digital, polarization typically required two projectors and a special silver screen.) There is an infrastructure that is needed to do good-quality 3-D, and the way Imax does it is literally with two strips of 70mm film. 3-D technology in theaters has evolved over the years. For example, back when "Dial M for Murder" came out in 1955, they were using two-projector systems for that, and they were actually polarizing them, but because most theaters only had two projectors, they had to put intermissions in these very short movies.

Rob Engle: It really comes down to the availability of the theaters. Had the Real D system (which adapts digital projectors to support polarized 3-D releases) had as much penetration as it does now when "Spy Kids" came out, they certainly would have released it in Real D.


Variety: On "Polar Express," Warner Bros. grossed $65 million from Imax 3-D screens alone -- that's a pretty compelling statistic. Now they've got competition from digital megaplexes, and people believe 3-D could be the "killer app" to drive even more conversions.

Hays: On "Monster House," the 3-D screens were grossing two to three times (more than the standard version), and that's proved itself on every feature since: "Open Season," "Meet the Robinsons." Basically, what it comes down to is exhibitors still need assurances that they're going to have product. Most of them have gone digital -- that's the expensive hurdle -- and then the 3-D upgrade is an incremental cost. That's why DreamWorks has already made a pronouncement that starting in 2009, all their animated features will be in 3-D. Cameron's still a few years out, but it's setting the tone that this is going to be around for a while.

Engle: The other question is, will the public want to see every movie in 3-D or not? When you go back to why people stopped going to see 3-D movies in the past, I think it's because 3-D movies became all gags and no content, it was all "House of Wax" stuff being jabbed in your face. "Polar Express" was not specifically designed to be a 3-D film, but the reason it succeeded was because (Zemeckis') sense of composition lends itself perfectly to 3-D. As soon as you start making a movie that is nothing but 3-D gags, then you start to turn off the public.


Variety: It's an enhancement, just like sound, and some filmmakers know how to use it, while others make your eardrums bleed. I have a hard time believing that we'll reach a point anywhere in my lifetime when we see every movie in 3-D, but I think it can be one of those value-adds for the more spectacular films in the same way that THX was used on selective event movies early on.

Engle: When people watch a 3-D movie, we're asking them to do something they don't actually do in the normal world, which is to disconnect where they're focusing -- because they're always looking at the screen -- from where their eyes are converging. For a lot of people that causes discomfort, and if we start to make every film in 3-D, you're actually going to turn off a reasonable percentage of your viewing population.

Hayes: The biggest thing about 3-D is education. Very few directors have any experience with it whatsoever, but if you get them to step away from the video monitor for a few seconds, the whole world is 3-D. They're so used to this little rectangular box that they've disconnected themselves from it. It seems like a bit of a hurdle having two cameras on set, but it's all fear of the unknown.


Variety: When it comes to visual effects, it's hard enough getting CG to blend with live action. How do you do it when you're working in 3-D, the way Cameron is approaching "Avatar"?

Hays: You pretty much have to use the same technique for all of the elements within a shot. If you don't, it becomes readily apparent.

Denise: Typically, in a CG feature or a live-action feature, you do lots of cheats just to make that final frame look good, and with 3-D, you have to go back to the rendering phase of the shot instead of doing a composite fix.

Engle: When you're doing a film like "Beowulf" where you're simulating humans, people have a really good idea of what looks right and what looks wrong. It's totally different if it's a CG bear or an ant, but people expect humans to look human and to have roundness and shape. We really want to be sure that feels natural.


Variety: A number of companies, from Imax to In-Three, are working to "dimensionalize" live-action movies that were shot in 2-D (for example, Imax converted the last 20 minutes of this summer's "Harry Potter" movie into 3-D). There's talk that George Lucas will try it with "Star Wars." How does that work?

Hays: It's a hard thing to do, as it turns out. It's not just a matter of slicing stuff out and moving them to various points in space. When you're pulling apart a 2-D movie, you have to understand that 3-D space and be faithful to it. If things are just slightly wrong in space, it becomes hard to watch.

Denise: And motion blur is not our friend.

Engle: I don't remember who thought of doing "My Dinner with Andre" in 3-D -- the first response is to laugh, but it's perfect, lots of nice long shots and you could sit there and just soak it in. Sure, it wouldn't be spears in your eyes, but it would definitely be an experience.


Variety: It would be interesting to see a non-spectacle movie in 3-D.

Hays: What really sells 3-D for all of us are the subtle aspects of it, not the stuff that beats you over the head. When you see "Beowulf," I think you'll be blown away by the subtle details that just go right by you in 2-D, while in 3-D, you're sort of entranced by it. Bob (Zemeckis) knows where your attention is going to be. He's put a lot of his efforts into making sure that "Beo" looks great in 3-D, and it's the little tiny details that sell it.

Denise: For instance, there's a shot where there's a foreground character speaking, there's a background character that he's address, but in between there's a character that has all this motivation, all this emotion and all these questions in his eyes and in the way he's moving, that I never noticed in the 2-D shot. I only saw it in 3-D.

Hays: The other shot is Beo talking, and the person he's talking to is a reflection in the mirror, and again, it gives you this whole sense now that you're here with these people and you know exactly where everything is in the room, just based on looking at one shot, which you can't do with 2-D.


Variety: Is there anything that frustrates you now or hasn't been solved in terms of this 3-D puzzle?

Engle: There are a couple technological issues. One is that the medium we're working in is really delivering two separate movies, one to the left eye and one to the right eye, and so far there is not a delivery means -- Real D, Imax, whatever -- that is perfect in (separating the two pictures), which creates "crosstalk" or "ghosting." "Beowulf" is a really good example of that. Because of the time frame it takes place in, you don't have electric light, so it's a high-contrast movie. Scenes with high contrast are more likely to be objectionable in 3-D. The other issue is that we need people to start thinking about the consequences of the choices they make in 2-D, how they're going to affect the 3-D.


Variety: When will we reach a point where the filmmakers and distributors say, "This is only going out in 3-D? I'm not creating a 2-D version for the other 90% of theaters that can't display 3-D."

Denise: When (producer) Steve Bing saw our 3-D "Beowulf" work, he said, "If I could, I would only release this in 3-D." But there's not enough theaters.

Hays: But the nice thing is that's a solvable problem. Again, it's hard to convince exhibitors to spend that kind of money when we're all excited about what happens this November, but what about next spring and next summer? We have to make sure we're giving them enough reasons to convert. Back in the days when all that revolutionary stuff was happening, like 3-D and Sensurround, studios still controlled the movie theaters, and they were giving their own reason to get people to come to their theater. They didn't care about the one down the street, so it was a very gimmick-driven thing.


Variety: By the time they convert the number of screens needed to support a tentpole opening only in 3-D, the homevideo side may have figured out 3-D as well. Will this be the cure for the wane of theatrical attendance? Cameron and others are positioning this as a reason to get people back into theaters for an experience they can't get at home, but I see a certain fallacy in that argument.

Engle: I agree. They're making an argument that 3-D is what's going to get people into the theaters, but at the same time, they're saying, the home theater is going to get that technology as well. The way to rectify that is to realize it's going to take a long time before we have 3-D in everybody's home, and yet we can build up an infrastructure of 3-D capable theaters right now.

Hays: The good thing for us is, because we've already done so many 3-D pictures and we have more in mind, it gives us a chance to keep refining all these ideas and making more and more comfortable experiences, hopefully to the point where you don't bring up the point that you're seeing a 3-D movie. Today, no one asks, "Are we going to see a color movie tonight?" You're just going to see a movie.

Stephen Lang ("A Few Good Men," "Defiance") and Michelle Rodriguez have joined the cast of James Cameron's "Avatar" scheduled to hit theatres Memorial Day 2009 reports Variety.

Sam Worthington, Zoe Saldana, Sigourney Weaver, CCH Pounder and Wes Studi have already been cast, and in most cases shot many of their scenes for the performance-capture feature currently in production in Los Angeles.

Lang plays a Marine Corps colonel and Rodriguez an ex-Marine pilot. Production on the $190 million 3D feature, which combines live-action with photorealistic virtual characters and environments, moves to Wellington in New Zealand this October for a month of shooting.

Quint: Speaking of being in a ridiculous situation, aren't you working with James Cameron now?
Joel Moore: [Laughingly] That is a ridiculous situation, ridiculous in the fact that I could never ever dream that I would be working with the biggest director...
Quint: I got to meet Cameron at the Santa Barbara Film Festival a couple of years ago and that was just the coolest thing ever. I got to sit down and just talk and I totally just geeked out about ALIENS and I probably freaked him out, because there was a point were he was like "Well you know I've directed other movies besides ALIENS" and I was like "Dude, I have TERMINATOR posters and stuff, too. I love all of your movies, TRUE LIES... that's great, but ALIENS is the tip of the top for me, so...
Joel Moore: (laughs) And I'm sure ALIENS is probably the one that he feels less... he created TERMINATOR... he created THE ABYSS... he created, like you said, TRUE LIES and all of these and the whole franchise of TERMINATOR is because of him. ALIENS is actually a sequel that he wrote to a movie that he really liked which shows how creative and passionate he is, but it's probably the one that he has the least control over, I guess.

In conversation with him, he loves the movie and it's a big part of his success was making that and because I'm working with Sigourney Weaver as well, they have some stories about that and...

Quint: That'd blow my mind man, that's so cool.
Joel Moore: Yeah, I'm her right hand man in the movie, but yeah they talk about how... they give great stories about how they were on set together and the shit that happened and the fact that this was a sequel and Sigourney didn't even know that there was going to be a sequel to ALIEN. She had no clue and Jim wrote this great treatment or script for it and ended up making it and then it sort of turned into a franchise because of him writing the sequel, which I thought was pretty cool.

I think he had already done TERMINATOR by the time he went and directed...

Quint: Yeah, I think he got the gig for ALIENS when he was wrapping up TERMINATOR, if I know my nerd history.
Joel Moore: You're very right, but Sigourney... it's such an honor to be in the position that I am in and coming from all of these comedies and movies that people don't necessarily take seriously, which is fine because they are still entertaining, it's such a blessing to be a part of something that is so big. It's literally going to change the history of filmmaking, this movie. It's crazy and the stuff that we are doing on set and the technology that is involved and the way that Jim's concept of making this movie is A) completely different than any other movie that I've done or anybody has done, just because of the technology involved and B) the story that he is telling and the vision that he has created for it is captivating and not just because it's 3D or because we are using this whole different motion capture type of thing, it's because...

I read the script when we were meeting at first and they locked me in a room and made me sign my life away and said "We will start with your pinkies if you say anything," but I literally was, and I knew that outside of his history and outside of TITANIC, there was a bunch of Sci-Fi stuff that he had done and that's awesome, because I'm a fan and I had loved those movies, but I thought "OK cool, another huge 200 million dollar Sci-Fi movie... this is awesome and a great thing to be a part of," but it's actually this beautiful love story and it's very politically relevant and it's almost a coming of age for humanity story. It's just so developed at all of these different levels and I literally teared up a couple of times just reading the script. It was such a great script. I was so surprised, not that he couldn't make anything like this, but surprised that it was this. I didn't think it was this kind of a movie. I thought Sci-Fi from the way that when I had met on the film originally on the phone that they had explained it and I'm sure everybody in the world right now thinks that it's Sci-Fi, but it's so much more than that.

Quint: Everybody assumes in Cameron's Sci-Fi that there's going to be good action, but at the same time you look at what he did in ALIENS and THE ABYSS, especially THE ABYSS. THE ABYSS is such a character movie all about relationships and all about the emotion.
Joel Moore: This does have a little bit of that in it, if you were to liken it to anything else that he has done. It's just on such a bigger level, because you've got these crazy LORD OF THE RINGS size action sequences in it and it's that kind of a movie as well.

To be able to put all of that together in one movie is fucking hard and that's what I think was so impressive to me personally, because I read a lot of scripts and you never see people successfully put all of these things together, you kind of have to pick and choose. If you're a big budget movie and you are wanting to be a love story, you be a love story. If you want it to be an action movie, you be TRANSFOMERS, you know? You can still have a love story, but it's just... it's really cool that all of it happens in the same movie. I'm sorry. I know that I'm being very vague, but...

Quint: No, I understand. I don't want you to lose your pinkies.
Joel Moore: Exactly, but working alongside Sigourney is such a crazy honor and she couldn't be nicer and Jim couldn't be a better director. In as much as directing and filmmaking goes, I honestly can't imagine ever working with a better director. He doesn't take lunches. He's editing on his lunch breaks. He is the hardest working person on set. When other people are on a tiny little break and the people are kind of... like if there's a computer crash or a whatever is going on, there is people just waiting around to see what's going to happen next and he's up and going, sketching a new sketch, creating a new part of the land that we are on and just doing whatever there is to be done; he can't sit down. They literally have to bring lunch in to him and put it in front of him so that for whatever he is doing he can just walk around and eat a sandwich as he's going.
Quint: I've heard that, because there's lots of horror stories about him being a really tough director, but each and everyone of them that I have ever heard has always had an epilogue to the story saying "but at the same time, he's also not somebody who is doing this for any other reason and he's doing so much work himself that he expects a level of quality from the people around him."
Joel Moore: Yeah and it's funny that there are all of these... because that's what people say to me to and my only response is "If that's the case, then why is every person that I'm working with, the whole crew, has been his crew for the last twenty years? If that's the case, then why are all of these people back?"

They understand there is a very much militant attitude toward getting the job done, but I think that, just like I do, they appreciate that and that isn't always roses and "Can you pleases." That's a little bit of "OK, let's get this... Go do that and let's get this done." It's just like that with us, he is never rude but always "here we are. This what we're going to do. This is where we are... But he is always careful with his talent, because he knows that the talent are the people that are driving what's going to happen for the day.

CLICK HERE TO LISTEN ALONG TO THE NEXT PORTION IN AMAZING SOUND-O-TEXT!!!
He takes a special reservation for the talent and I'm honored to be a part of that reservation, because it's really a story about a few of us that are going to another planet and it's me and Sam Worthington and Sigourney that are scientists and Sam's a marine and we are going to this other planet to sort of assimilate into another society. Because of that, a lot of it happens around us... like I have a girlfriend in this and it's not an ugly German with a unibrow, like DODGEBALL, it's a different thing. It's Michelle Rodriguez and she's hot.
Quint: And she definitely does not have a unibrow.
Joel Moore: She doesn't have a unibrow.
Quint: I spent a lot of time in New Zealand and on RINGS I got to watch Andy Serkis work a lot, but I'm hearing that, like you are saying, this is a different mo-cap thing. Is that...?
Joel Moore: Well, we are working with WETA, the famed company that did all of Andy's stuff and all of Peter Jackson's stuff of course, but the technology that is involved with what we are doing is on a different level and even WETA would say the same thing. They're part of the reason that the technology is on a different level.

They have a daunting year ahead of them to make all of this happen, but I think that they're excited to be able to put all of the pieces together as well, because it's such a challenge. This is going to look like no other film has ever looked and there's something that I'm sure is special to that, just like when they were making LORD OF THE RINGS, I'm sure they thought "This is going to go down in history as one of the best trilogies ever." I think they can look at AVATAR after a ten year break of James Cameron making movies, he come to this one which he's had in the works, you know he wrote this thing ten or twelve years ago or at least the treatment for it and he had to wait for technology to catch up to him to be able to make it, so I think that there's also this great and captivating part of the project that is special to them as well.

Quint: I've heard that he has actually been shooting live action as well as doing mo-cap stuff?
Joel Moore: Yeah, there is definitely live-action stuff as well.
Quint: That's awesome.
Joel Moore: Yeah its pretty cool. I'm excited, we are going to New Zealand for a couple months and the New Zealand side... it'll just be fun to be over there because I am a geek as well and I want to see all of the Weta stuff...

DreamWorks Animation has moved up the 3D CG-animated feature "Monsters vs. Aliens" two months to March 27th 2009 reports the trades.

The date change avoids a head-to-head collision with James Cameron's "Avatar" which would have meant the films would be fighting over the growing number of digital 3-D screens.

"Monsters" will now look to take advantage of the Easter holiday, which falls on April 12th. It will also go head-to-head with Sony's animated feature "Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs".

Giovanni Ribisi has signed on to James Cameron's $190 million 3-D feature "Avatar," playing a passive-aggressive character named Selfridge in the Fox film says The Hollywood Reporter.

The story follows a band of humans pitted against a distant planet's indigenous inhabitants. Sam Worthington, Zoe Saldana, Sigourney Weaver and Michelle Rodriguez also star.

The feature blends live-action photography and new virtual photorealistic production techniques invented by Cameron's team and features six computer-generated actors.

The film is currently in production in Los Angeles and next month starts production in New Zealand at Weta Digital.

Exclusive: Emmerich On Fantastic Voyage
The director talks sci-fi remake

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 


As you may have heard, Roland Emmerich, the man who obliterated The White House in Independence Day and flooded much of Manhattan in the unfairly maligned Day After Tomorrow, is planning a remake of camp sci-fi classic Fantastic Voyage. Empire sat down with the director recently and he talked about his long history with the project and some major changes he's planning to the film before he gets behind the camera.

"I was attached to this project 15 years ago with [former producing partner] Dean Devlin and then we gave it back because we wanted to do some other original projects we had developed," Emmerich remembers of his long association with the much mooted remake of the 1968  movie, in which a titchy crew in a tiny submarine is injected into a human body to do battle with corpuscles. "Then James Cameron came in and worked on the project.  Two years ago Jim called me up and said 'Roland I want you to look at the script for Fantastic Voyage – it's not there yet'. And he sent it over and I hated the script."

Key among Emmerich's gripes was the screenplay's futuristic setting. " I said why have you put this in the future? I said let this happen now. It's so much more cool and fun when we can say to a normal person from now, 'well we're going to make you microscopic and put you in  some submarine which we will shrink down and you have to do this stuff inside a body.'"

The signature Cameron militarism also didn't sit well with Emmerich's vision. "There were two submarines in the body. It was like a Navy SEALS film. And then the president of production at Fox – me and my partner and him all go surfing together – says 'Well, will you do it with a page one rewrite and we won't start until you're happy with the script?' So then I said yes. The key is I won't do it unless it's going to be a good movie."

Marianne and Cormac Wibberley (National Treasure 2) are currently rewriting the script. It seems unlikely that shooting will commence pre-strike, so we could potentially be looking at a 2010 release for the movie.

Oscar-winning director James Cameron has arrived in Wellington in time for the world's first sneak peek at his new movie Avatar.
Blog: Latest news from sci-fi blockbusters


The Dominion Post understands Cameron is in Wellington to start shooting scenes for the $US200 million science fiction film.

A secret Wellington location was uncovered yesterday where 80 imitation-gun-toting, camo-wearing stuntpeople and actors had gathered for days of rehearsals.

The men and women had split into pairs to learn how to provide covering fire for their partner. The manoeuvres included plenty of macho shouting and wide-legged posturing.

Cameron is shooting the film using a new 3D process and will feature a blend of live-action photography and virtual photorealistic production techniques invented by his team.

The film will also feature six computer-generated actors known as "synthespians".

Some work on the film has already been done in Los Angeles and Hawaii.

Peter Jackson's Weta Digital is supervising the special effects, and 31 days of additional live photography will be carried out on Weta's soundstages. The cast includes Sigourney Weaver, Giovanni Ribisi, Zoe Saldana and Michelle Rodriguez.

The film, written by Cameron, is about an ex-marine who finds himself amid hostilities on an alien planet.

As an Avatar - a human mind in an alien body - he falls in love with a local girl and joins resistance fighters in a battle for survival.

Cameron's blockbuster, Titanic, holds the world box office record for a film, at $US1.8 billion. It won 11 Oscars in 1998, a record it shares with Ben-Hur and The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King.

Matt Gerald ("S.W.A.T.," "Terminator 3") will play the lead villain in James Cameron's epic 3D sci-fi actioneer "Avatar" reports Variety.

The story follows a wounded ex-marine (Sam Worthington), thrust unwillingly into an effort to settle and exploit an exotic planet rich in bio-diversity, who eventually crosses over to lead the indigenous race in a battle for survival.

Zoe Saldana, Sigourney Weaver, Michelle Rodriguez, Giovanni Ribisi, Joel David Moore, CCH Pounder, Peter Mensah, Laz Alonso, Wes Studi and Stephen Lang also star. Shooting begins this month in New Zealand and Los Angeles for a release in May 2009.

evo kako, po tatku, izgleda vanzemaljska inteligencija: kao PLAVUŠA!  :roll:

(https://www.znaksagite.com/diskusije/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aintitcool.com%2Fimages2007%2Favatarlady2.jpg&hash=5392ac71712b8723e522dfebfff4f23cc2ef3843)

Tatko je puko ko balon.

A evo sta TATKO kaze na ovu gore slicicu...

You recently posted some artwork of a supposed Na'vi character. Don't know where you got it but it's spurious. I've never seen that piece of art. We had a lot of free-ranging conceptual stuff in the early days of design two and a half years ago, and it might be something that was done then but not shown to me, but it is definitely not remotely our actual character design. Aside from two legs, two arms and a tail, it doesn't have any features in common with our final designs. If I had to guess I'd say it's a piece of fan art based on the description of the Na'vi from the old treatment which was leaked twelve years ago. That description is obsolete relative to the shooting script, since things have changed a lot over the years.

Milane, ne uzbuđuj se, pusti zlobnike da se podsmevaju tatku, kao što si video ja nisam ni reagovao na poslednje podmetačine...

Mogu svi da svircaju kolko oce,kod tatka nema greske...
ope ce gi razbuca svi sas zaradjeni milijoni ...

Kad tatko krene u akciju, ima da se desi novi Titanik  :twisted:

Pismo od TATKA Hariju sa AICNa

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/34952

Twentieth Century Fox announced Tuesday that it will delay the release of James Cameron's 3-D Avatar to Dec. 18, 2009 in order to give the director additional time to devote to the titanic post-production work on the film. It had originally been scheduled for release over the Memorial Day holiday, a time that generally produces the biggest box-office returns of the year. Instead, the studio indicated, it plans to open Night at the Museum 2: Escape From the Smithsonian, starring Ben Stiller, on May 22, 2009. In addition, Fox has set Ice Age 3 in digital 3-D for the Independence Day weekend. Noting that the release of Avatar will come 12 years almost to the day of Cameron's Titanic, the most successful film of all time, Fox executive Hutch Parker told reporters Tuesday: "This is a win-win for us. ... Avatar goes to the Titanic date in December, which was obviously auspicious for Jim and us, and by the time of the release, there will be more worldwide 3-D screens available."

The Noble Clyde Boudreaux, an oil-drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico, will serve as the basis for many of the key sets on James Cameron's upcoming sci-fi action-adventure "Avatar".

ComingSoon.net reports that in the film, the off-world mining colony the actors inhabit will have the look and feel of inner workings of the Boudreaux, and the design team at Cameron's production company Lightstorm visited the rig to learn more about how it is all put together.

During a guided tour of the facility in early June, the design team photographed and videoed almost every aspect of the Boudreaux with the goal of replicating key aspects of the rig's working and living environment in the form of real and virtual sets at a studio in New Zealand.

The movie will utilize a blend of live-action photography and new virtual photorealistic production techniques invented by Cameron's team. "Avatar" will open in theaters on December 18th 2009.

Worthington

Sam Worthington will star in "Terminator Salvation: The Future Begins."
The fact the Australian actor just played the lead in the James Cameron-directed "Avatar" is no coincidence. Cameron recommended Worthington to "Terminator Salvation" director McG, indicating that the director of the first two "Terminator" installments might be warming to the new pic.

While the "Terminator Salvation" plot has twists and turns that are being kept under tight wraps, Worthington will play the role of Marcus, a central figure in a three-picture arc that begins after Skynet has destroyed much of humanity in a nuclear holocaust. A group of survivors led by John Connor (Christian Bale) struggles to keep the machines from finishing the job.

Cameron kept his distance from "Terminator 3," the first he didn't direct.

Cameron never took a public position on the Jonathan Mostow-directed "T3," which grossed more than $430 million worldwide. Speculation is his history with some of the producers could have prompted him to stay on the sidelines.

"T3" was owned by Mario Kassar and Andy Vajna, who years ago bought the rights at a Carolco bankruptcy auction out from under Cameron, prompting the director to remove himself from involvement. And the "T3" rights package included a multimillion-dollar rights buyout and exec producer credit for Gale Anne Hurd, Cameron's former partner and ex-wife. He famously signed over his "Terminator" rights for $1 to her before they made the first film, in exchange for a guarantee he wouldn't be replaced as director. It was a deal that left him on the outside looking in as everyone else cashed in on "T3."

The slate is clean after Halcyon Co. bought out all franchise rights from Kassar and Vajna and set the new film for domestic distribution at Warner Bros. for summer 2009.

Sources said McG spoke on the phone recently with Cameron, who is in New Zealand working on "Avatar." It was during that chat that he recommended Worthington, who in "Avatar" plays a paraplegic war veteran from Earth who's brought to another planet inhabited by a race of humanoids at odds with Earth's inhabitants.

Harry,

Good to hear from you.

This art is not from us. I don't know where it comes from. More overactive fan imaginations? It's not bad though.

Things are going well on Avatar, or at least as well as can be expected on such a ridiculously complex project. We've wrapped principal, and most of the live action portion of the movie is already cut. It's starting to look and sound like a movie. I'm ecstatic with the performances and the look. The cast chemistry worked out perfectly.

I'm in New Zealand right now, working on effects, while Steve Quale shoots some second unit. We've worked together a lot (he did the engine room scenes on "Titanic", plus co-directed "Aliens of the Deep" with me) and he's the only guy I trust to shoot stuff for me, especially in 3D. We still have a little performance capture work to do with Sam Worthington and Zoe Saldana in March, when we get her back from Star Trek (she's Uhura -- but of course you already knew that.) And we have a couple of days with Stephen Lang in April or May, to shoot his character's last scene, which is so technically difficult it will take us until then to figure out how to do it.

You can see how spread out the schedule is -- it's just the nature of this type of CG animation/live action hybrid. Most of my time now is spent editing, because on this type of film you edit every CG scene twice -- once to edit the raw performance capture, before it goes to virtual camera, and then again when you have the virtual camera shots, you do the final edit of the scene. It's very complex and taxing, but the result is amazing. The Weta animators are ON FIRE, and seeing the world and the creatures come to life is what keeps us going. There's a spirit on this film, an esprit de corps amongst the virtual team, that comes from knowing we're doing something absolutely groundbreaking. It's why people still have good morale after working on this thing for two years or more. And we still have more than a year and a half to go. I don't know if this will be a good film, great film, awful film, but I can say with absolute certainty that you will see stuff you've never imagined, and that the process of making this film will generate a lot of interest within the technical side of the biz. When I edit with some of our early stuff, "shot" using our virtual camera system over a year and half ago, it already looks laughably crude. Our process has evolved so much, just within the making of this one movie. Of course the final standard of photoreal animation will be consistent throughout the film, because it all gets rendered in a big frenzy next year.

It's all very exciting to be doing, and that (usually) compensates for the grind of the seven day weeks. Well, no rest for the weary. Gotta get to the cutting room. Back to Pandora.

Jim out

James Cameron supercharges 3-D
'Avatar' helmer reveals the art & science of stereo
By DAVID S. COHENMore Articles:
Japanese viewers to get first 3-D TV
AOL could benefit in Yahoo deal
James Cameron on 3-D
'Lost' found on many platforms
Two roads to third dimension
3-D TV: Already in your home


Director James Cameron's upcoming "Avatar" must rank as one of the most anticipated film projects in recent memory. His first narrative film since making the No. 1 box office hit of all time, 1997's "Titanic," "Avatar" will be the realization of Cameron's long-held dream of melding digital 3-D stereo with epic bigscreen storytelling. Variety's David S. Cohen conducted this email interview with Cameron; it is the director's most extensive exploration of 3-D to date, however he is keeping specifics about "Avatar" under wraps.
(An abbreviated version of this interview appears in print on April 11, 2008 and is also available online)


You've worked in 3-D before and have been an evangelist for this technology. We've heard lots of people in the industry talk about the importance of delivering an in-theater experience that goes beyond what people can get in the home. We're seeing that audiences like 3-D and it's becoming a main driver for adoption of digital cinema systems in movie theaters. But speaking strictly as a storyteller and director, what does 3-D add to the creative side of a project?


I believe that Godard got it exactly backwards. Cinema is not truth 24 times a second, it is lies 24 times a second. Actors are pretending to be people they're not, in situations and settings which are completely illusory. Day for night, dry for wet, Vancouver for New York, potato shavings for snow. The building is a thin-walled set, the sunlight is a xenon, and the traffic noise is supplied by the sound designers. It's all illusion, but the prize goes to those who make the fantasy the most real, the most visceral, the most involving. This sensation of truthfulness is vastly enhanced by the stereoscopic illusion. Especially in the types of films which have been my specialty to date, the fantasy experience is served best by a sense of detail and textural reality supporting the narrative moment by moment. The characters, the dialogue, the production design, photography and visual effects must all strive to give the illusion that what you're seeing is really happening, no matter how improbable the situation might be if you stopped to think about it -- a time-traveling cyborg out to change history by killing a waitress, for example. When you see a scene in 3-D, that sense of reality is supercharged. The visual cortex is being cued, at a subliminal but pervasive level, that what is being seen is real. All the films I've done previously could absolutely have benefited from 3-D. So creatively, I see 3-D as a natural extension of my cinematic craft.

A 3-D film immerses you in the scene, with a greatly enhanced sense of physical presence and participation. I believe that a functional-MRI study of brain activity would show that more neurons are actively engaged in processing a 3-D movie than the same film seen in 2-D. When most people think of 3-D films, they think first of the gimmick shots -- objects or characters flying, floating or poking out into the audience. In fact, in a good stereo movie, these shots should be the exception rather than the rule. Watching a stereo movie is looking into an alternate reality through a window. It is intuitive to the film industry that this immersive quality is perfect for action, fantasy, and animation. What's less obvious is that the enhanced sense of presence and realism works in all types of scenes, even intimate dramatic moments. Which is not to say that all films should be made in 3-D, because the returns may not warrant the costs in many cases, but certainly there should be no creative reason why any film could not be shot in 3-D and benefit from it.

When I started down the path of developing the 3-D cameras with Vince Pace in 2000, we were looking for an alternative to the massive film-based cameras I'd used in the past. Two years later, while deep in stereo technology development and production, I had an epiphany: that the digital projectors being proposed to replace 35mm film, could support 3-D perfectly, because of their high frame rates. They could actually display 3-D by projecting left and right eyes sequentially, at crazy high frame rates, which we perceive as simultaneous. So I figured this would mean that a whole new era of 3-D was now possible, and that our humble 3-D efforts would ride to market on the broad back of the digital cinema rollout, which was seen as imminent and inevitable.

It is ironic that half a decade later, the rollout is happening, but largely because it has been catalyzed by 3-D. D-cinema is riding 3-D to market. And that's because audiences are seeing something they like and are demonstrating a willingness to pay more for it. The new 3-D, this stereo renaissance, not only solves all the old problems of bad projection, eyestrain, etc., but it is being used on first-class movies that are on people's must-see lists. These are fundamental changes from what happened with the flash-in-the-pan 3-D craze of the '50s. 3-D is also a chance to rewrite the rules, to raise ticket prices for a tangible reason, for demonstrable value-added.

Quick definition of terms: I say stereo instead of 3-D, because I deal with so many CG artists who are accustomed to using the term "3-D" as a CG term of art. So I use stereo, a shortened form of stereoscopic, instead, so there is no confusion. However, when dealing with the public, I say 3-D, because they know what that means in that context -- they're going to get to wear the glasses and see something really cool.


Are there any myths about 3-D you'd like to dispel?


I sort of hit the myths one by one in the answers to the questions below.


Trailers and TV commercials are important for marketing, and homevideo is a vital revenue stream, yet right now there's no 3-D TV and you can't always count on trailers being seen in 3-D. How do you handle that as the film's director?


All films are made to serve many masters. Every director knows his film will be seen by more people on DVD or network TV on a small screen than in a theater. Does that change the way we direct? Not much. First and foremost the film must be a good movie. It needs to be firing on all eight cylinders whether it is conceived as a 2-D or a 3-D film. As a result, a 3-D film when screened in 2-D, on a screen of any size, should still deliver. The 3-D should always be thought of as a turbocharger, an enhancer, to a work whose raison d'etre is vested in its story, its characters, its style, etc.

In any case, with the number of screens currently available in North America, and certainly for some years to come internationally, it will be necessary to release in 3-D and 2-D day and date. So the film must be fully competitive as a 2-D title as well. Before I decided to make a major movie in 3-D, I had to resolve to my own satisfaction that the 3-D would not degrade in any measurable way the 2-D viewing experience. Could I shoot the same way? Would the camera placement or lighting be compromised? Could I cut as fast? Etc. Only when I had done enough 3-D production and testing to answer these questions was I willing to proceed.

As for 3-D in the home: The only limitation to having stereo viewing in the home is the number of titles currently available. When there is more product, the consumer electronics companies will make monitors and players. The technology exists and is straightforward. Samsung has already shipped 2 million plasma widescreens which can decode an excellent stereo image. There's just no player to hook up to it right now. They may be a little ahead of the curve in future-proofing their monitors, but it indicates how easy it would be for the big electronics companies to get onboard. It should be remembered that good 3-D requires a more immersive relationship between audience and screen. Unless you're willing to sit within 4 feet of a 50" monitor, which all but a few geeks (like me) will not do in a home setting, then you're not going to get the same bang for the buck out of a 3-D movie on a home system as you would in a theater, regardless of whether the resolution of the image is the same. So there may always be a greater distinction between seeing a 3-D movie at home vs. seeing a 2-D movie at home. Which is good. Because 3-D then becomes a technology which will help preserve the health of the theatrical exhibition business in a time when it is besieged.


Do you think it's possible to make a film that is too dependent on 3-D for the economics of today's movie business, and if so, how do you avoid that?


I don't think the economics of 3-D are clear yet, and won't be for a few years. So much depends on the number of screens, and more importantly (ultimately) the number of filmmakers who want to play in this new space, because the success of the 3-D renaissance is going to be content-driven. I think it is a mistake under any circumstances to make a film which is dependent on 3-D for its success, either aesthetically or commercially. The film should not be marketed first and foremost as a 3-D experience. The film should be sold on its merits (cast, story, imagery, etc.) and the consumer should be informed that they can purchase the experience in 2-D or, for a couple extra bucks, in 3-D. It should be like ordering at Starbucks. Lots of choices. If the new media of the last decade has taught us anything, it is that people like choices, and they like control.


WORKING IN 3-D:


How do you shoot differently because of 3-D?


On "Avatar," I have not consciously composed my shots differently for 3-D. I am just using the same style I always do. In fact, after the first couple of weeks, I stopped looking at the shots in 3-D while I was working, even though the digital cameras allow real-time stereo viewing. I had someone else checking them for good stereo as we were shooting, in a small theater we set up near the stage for that purpose. I would get real-time feedback from my "golden-eyes" team in the theater, if a shot needed to be adjusted to increase or decrease the stereospace.

Having said that, I am not above milking a good 3-D moment, as long as it doesn't interrupt the narrative flow. And there are a couple of minor adjustments that need to be made to lighting and camera placement to create a smooth and unobtrusive stereo experience. But once you learn these few tricks, you stop thinking much about them.

In general I found that good lighting was good lighting, and worked quite well in 3-D. Wide lenses are fun in 3-D, but long lenses work well, too. The Fusion cameras can dynamically shift from hypo-stereo, which is to say less than normal interocular distance, (the distance between the left eye and the right eye lenses) for closeups -- to hyper-stereo (wider than normal) for long lens shots where the subject is relatively far away. The new cameras work well on Steadicam, on cranes and dollies, on SpiderCam and Cablecam rigs, and work very well handheld. So all the normal types of shots can be done. I compose the shots on a 2-D monitor, while in the back of my mind I'm imagining it in 3-D. That way I know I'm always making a good 2-D movie as I go along. I also edit in 2-D, for the same reason.


Someone told me that "Citizen Kane" was a great example of how to shoot for 3-D: great depth of field, wide-angle lenses, etc.


I think it's a myth that you want deep focus in 3-D shots. I find the opposite is true. Selective focus, created by working at low f-stops with longer lenses, evolved as a cinematic technique to direct the audience's attention to the character of greatest narrative importance at a given moment. With 3-D, the director needs to lead the audience's eye, not let it roam around the screen to areas which are not converged. So all the usual cinematic techniques of selective focus, separation lighting, composition, etc., that one would use in a 2-D film to direct the eye to the subject of interest, still apply, and are perhaps even more important. We all see the world in 3-D. The difference between really being witness to an event vs. seeing it as a stereo image is that when you're really there, your eye can adjust its convergence as it roves over subjects at different distances. Convergence is the natural toe-in that the eye does to align the left and right eye images of objects at specific planes of depth. In a filmed image, the convergence was baked in at the moment of photography, so you can't adjust it. In order to cut naturally and rapidly from one subject to another, it's necessary for the filmmaker (actually his/her camera team) to put the convergence at the place in the shot where the audience is most likely to look. This sounds complicated but in fact we do it all the time, in every shot, and have since the beginning of cinema. It's called focus. We focus where we think people are most likely to look. So I've found that just slaving the convergence function to the focus works exceedingly well, and makes good stereo a no-brainer on the set.

Every time I watch a movie lately, from "300" to "Atonement," I think how wonderful it would have been if shot in 3-D.


How does that third dimension change or complicate those directing techniques?


Shooting 3-D is more complicated, undeniably, because you're doing all the stuff you normally do (blocking, lighting, performance, etc.) plus dealing with stereospace. From a director's perspective, the camera team should be handling most of this, and the director need only get involved to the extent that they choose to, because they're excited by the new format and tools.


How does working in 3-D change the way you cut a film? The current trend toward very quick cuts, so popular now in action films, seems not to work in 3-D. Or does it?


The new cameras allow complete control over the stereospace. You should think of interocular like volume. You can turn the 3-D up or down, and do it smoothly on the fly during a shot. So if you know you're in a scene which will require very fast cuts, you turn the stereo down (reduce the interocular distance) and you can cut fast and smoothly. The point here is that just because you're making a stereo movie doesn't mean that stereo is the most important thing in every shot or sequence. If you choose to do rapid cutting, then the motion of the subject from shot to shot to shot is more important than the perception of stereospace at that moment in the film. So sacrifice the stereospace and enjoy the fast cutting. Stereo is just another color to paint with, and the new camera tools allow complete control. I think it takes a few frames, maybe the better part of a second, for the eye to properly assimilate the stereospace of a shot. If the shot only lasts 18 frames, you're not getting much value out of the 3-D, so let that drop down in priority below the flow of the motion.

The real issue here is that when you're shooting action photographically (as opposed to CG animation) you can't predict at the moment of shooting exactly how you're going to cut, so it pays to be conservative on the stereospace. In a CG action sequence, you can pump the stereo up a bit more because you can optimize each shot after the scene is cut. The interocular continues to be malleable up to the final render of a CG shot, but it gets baked into a photographic shot the moment you pull the trigger and can't be changed later.


Does directing in 3-D require that the director and producer have a thorough grasp of the technology, or is this something an inexperienced director could mostly delegate to a d.p. and stereographer the way a writer or actor turned director might delegate camera angles and lighting to the d.p.?


Most directors couldn't load a film magazine or balance a Steadicam to save their lives. But that doesn't stop them from using these tools brilliantly. Stereo should be thought of in the same way. A good, experienced camera team which has shot a stereo movie using the new tools should be able to make the stereo as invisible to the director as focus. Meaning, sometimes the director gets asked where they want the focus in a shot, or the director may have an idea before the fact to do something stylized, but generally it just gets taken care of by the camera team. I do believe in the need for a "stereographer" to assist the d.p. This should be an experienced person who watches each and every image as it is laid down, and advises the director and d.p. regarding the stereospace decisions, based on what they're seeing at the moment.

Of course many filmmakers will be drawn to shooting in 3-D because it is fun, new and challenging, and they will meet that challenge by learning the ins and outs themselves, and learning-by-doing how and when to push the envelope. Fortunately, the new 3-D cameras are able to meet their revolutionary performance specs, that no film camera could dream of matching, because they are HD. So that immediate real-time stereo image is there for the filmmaker to experiment with.

And every single director will approach 3-D in their own way, and use it differently. So even though I believe that a standardized methodology is necessary for widespread adoption, that methodology needs to be open to the creativity of the individual filmmaker.


DIRECTING ACTORS:


Last year Variety did an article on how digital capture changes the way actors work (The actors said no reloading means fewer breaks to prepare, much more continuous shooting, more of their process recorded for posterity so they have to have less ego). I've recently talked to the "Beowulf" vfx team, which said performance capture let them shoot very fast, with very little downtime for the cast. They were moving so quickly that the actors had to ask for breaks to work on lines, because they weren't expecting to get to the next scene so soon.


I didn't experience that. We were doing lighting, figuring out shots, moving assets around in the CG environment on production days with actors. This took significantly longer than the smash-and-grab mo-cap techniques used previously. Also, I tend to spend a lot of time on performance, so nobody was complaining about the speed.


Does 3-D also change the way actors work or the way you work with actors, and if so, how?


I made it my mission to keep the 3-D out of the actors' consciousness completely. Most of them forgot we were shooting 3-D, because we did playback on set at a 2-D monitor. Every once in a while one of them would go over to the theater and watch some dailies, and come back wide-eyed. But it really didn't change a thing they were doing on set. As a director, my work with the actors was not affected in the slightest by the 3-D component of the shooting.

As for the lighting and photography, we found that the normal gutsy lighting that I like worked beautifully in 3-D. Every once in a while we would have to make an adjustment to hide or reduce "ghosting" of a bright light in the background. Ghosting is an artifact of projection, not photography, but we decided to mitigate it in the photography to improve the experience in the theater. Hopefully, as projector technology improves, we can forget about that.


Right now, 3-D is pretty much being used for films that have some spectacle in them, whether it's "Journey to the Center of the Earth" or "U2 3D"; nobody's talking about using it for domestic dramas. But there are people wondering whether it will actually enhance the impact of character-driven stories. What are your thoughts on how 3-D changes the experience of watching actors act?


I plan to shoot a small dramatic film in 3-D, just to prove this point, after "Avatar." In "Avatar," there are a number of scenes that are straight dramatic scenes, no action, no effects. They play very well, and in fact seem to be enhanced by the stereo viewing experience. So I think this can work for the full length of a dramatic feature. However, filmmakers and studios will have to weigh the added cost of shooting in 3-D against the increased marketing value for that type of film.


3-D POST AND PROJECTION:


We've only just seen an all-digital pipeline come into being.


I've been doing it since 2001.


What about an all-3-D pipeline?


You don't need to be in 3-D at every step of the way. And as long as your work will be viewed in 2-D as well as 3-D, whether in a hybrid theatrical release or later on DVD, it is probably healthy to do a lot of the work in 2-D along the way. I cut on a normal Avid, and only when the scene is fine-cut do we output left and right eye video tracks to the server in the screening room and check the cut for stereo. Nine times out of 10 we don't change anything for 3-D. I operate most of the shots myself, including the handheld (I defer on the Steadicam shots), and we use 2-D monitors and eyepieces to operate. On-set playback is in 2-D. A shot is judged on the merits of performance, operating, lighting, etc., and not 3-D. I think this is a healthy approach.


Where is the existing pipeline working well and where do things still need to be improved -- or invented -- in 3-D production and post?


3-D post is mature and pretty straightforward. If the material is shot properly, you don't need to do much to "fix it in post." Witness the Hannah Montana concert movie, which was posted in less than three months. The visual effects pipeline could use some good stereo tools, to aid in compositing.


I'm hearing that there are already calls to increase the frame rate to at least 30 fps for digital 3-D because certain camera moves, especially pans, look jumpy in 3-D. I saw that in the Imax 3-D "Beowulf." You've been an advocate for both 3-D and higher frame rates. Have you seen the problem and do you have any thoughts on it?


For three-fourths of a century of 2-D cinema, we have grown accustomed to the strobing effect produced by the 24 frame per second display rate. When we see the same thing in 3-D, it stands out more, not because it is intrinsically worse, but because all other things have gotten better. Suddenly the image looks so real it's like you're standing there in the room with the characters, but when the camera pans, there is this strange motion artifact. It's like you never saw it before, when in fact it's been hiding in plain sight the whole time. Some people call it judder, others strobing. I call it annoying. It's also easily fixed, because the stereo renaissance is enabled by digital cinema, and digital cinema supplies the answer to the strobing problem.

The DLP chip in our current generation of digital projectors can currently run up to 144 frames per second, and they are still being improved. The maximum data rate currently supports stereo at 24 frames per second or 2-D at 48 frames per second. So right now, today, we could be shooting 2-D movies at 48 frames and running them at that speed. This alone would make 2-D movies look astonishingly clear and sharp, at very little extra cost, with equipment that's already installed or being installed.

Increasing the data-handling capacity of the projectors and servers is not a big deal, if there is demand. I've run tests on 48 frame per second stereo and it is stunning. The cameras can do it, the projectors can (with a small modification) do it. So why aren't we doing it, as an industry?

Because people have been asking the wrong question for years. They have been so focused on resolution, and counting pixels and lines, that they have forgotten about frame rate. Perceived resolution = pixels x replacement rate. A 2K image at 48 frames per second looks as sharp as a 4K image at 24 frames per second ... with one fundamental difference: the 4K/24 image will judder miserably during a panning shot, and the 2K/48 won't. Higher pixel counts only preserve motion artifacts like strobing with greater fidelity. They don't solve them at all.

If every single digital theater was perceived by the audience as being equivalent to Imax or Showscan in image quality, which is readily achievable with off-the-shelf technology now, running at higher frame rates, then isn't that the same kind of marketing hook as 3-D itself? Something you can't get at home. An aspect of the film that you can't pirate.


Other than that, for digital 3-D, would you rather see energy going into moving from 2K to 4K, or into moving from 24 fps to 48 or 72 fps, and why?


4K is a concept born in fear. When the studios were looking at converting to digital cinemas, they were afraid of change, and searched for reasons not to do it. One reason they hit upon was that if people were buying HD monitors for the home, with 1080x1920 resolution, and that was virtually the same as the 2K standard being proposed, then why would people go to the cinema? Which ignores the fact that the social situation is entirely different, and that the cinema screen is 100 times larger in area. So they somehow hit on 4K, which people should remember is not twice the amount of picture data, it is four times the data. Meaning servers need to be four times the capacity, as does the delivery pipe to the theater, etc.

But 4K doesn't solve the curse of 24 frames per second. In fact it tends to stand in the way of the solutions to that more fundamental problem. The NBA execs made a bold decision to do the All Star Game 3-D simulcast at 60 frames per second, because they didn't like the judder. The effect of the high-frame-rate 3-D was visually astonishing, a huge crowdpleaser.

I would vastly prefer to see 2K/48 frames per second as a new display standard, than 4K/24 frames per second. This would mean shooting movies at 48 fps, which the digital cameras can easily accommodate. Film cameras can run that fast, but stock costs would go up. However, that could be offset by shooting 3-perf, or even 2-perf, because you'd get the resolution back through the higher display rate. The 48 fps negative or digital master can be skip-printed to generate a 24 fps 35mm DI negative for making release prints, so 48 is the magic number because it remains compatible with the film-based platform which will still be with us for some time, especially internationally. 30 and 60 fps are out for that reason. Anyway the benefit of 30 is not great enough to be worth the effort, especially when 48 is so easy to achieve. SMPTE tests done about 15 years ago showed that above 48 frames the returns diminish dramatically, and 60 fps is overkill. So 48 is the magic number.

Of course, the ideal format is 3-D/2K/48 fps projection. I'd love to have done "Avatar" at 48 frames. But I have to fight these battles one at a time. I'm just happy people are waking up to 3-D.

Maybe on "Avatar 2."


It's turning out that 3-D that's optimized for one screen size doesn't look right if the screen gets a lot bigger or smaller.* One potential solution would be correction built into the software at the projector, but the people I've spoken to who actually make 3-D movies think that these are creative decisions and different 3-D masters will be needed for different screen sizes. Do you think this is something you would ultimately trust to software or will you need to do it yourself?

*(Specifically, the interocular changes by the same multiplier as the screen size. Double the screen size and the interocular doubles too, and can be so big that it's difficult for the eye to resolve the stereo. On the other hand, cut the screen size in half and the stereo effect flattens out.)


I don't agree with this at all. I think the effect you are describing has more to do with the fact that people tend to sit farther from monitors than they do from cinema screens, when calculated as a ratio of viewer distance to screen width. If you sit close to a good stereo monitor, like the Samsung I demo'ed a few months ago, the stereo effect is the same as a cinema screen. The stereo effect even works on smaller monitors. The advantage of small individual monitors, like laptops, is that they will be available as autostereoscopic displays, meaning no glasses. I've seen demos of these, and the effect is good. The ones I saw just suffered from low frame rates (flicker), but they'll work that out.

I certainly would never change the stereospace of a film to fit different screen sizes. In fact, for photographic films, it can't be changed. The interocular is set at the moment of photography. People will tell you they can fix it later, in post, by changing the convergence, but they are wrong. Convergence does not change stereospace, it only changes the ease with which viewers can fuse a shot after it appears onscreen.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that 10 or 15 years from now, stereo displays will be ubiquitous, from cinemas to open-air advertising, to home screens and down to handheld devices. IPhones will be in stereo. Small displays will especially benefit from stereo because the small size of the screen can be offset by using Z-depth to stack information, which will reduce visual clutter, or conversely increase the density of information held within a single visual field. It may be that eventually all of our news and information, as well as our sports and entertainment, will come to us in stereo.

In the future world shown in "Avatar," all display devices, including handheld devices and even photos, are all in 3-D.

We evolved to see in 3-D for a reason. It made us better hunters, or allowed us to spot and avoid predators. Why wouldn't we want this Darwinian edge in our workplace, in our sports and entertainment, in all our peak visual experiences?

You know what I think.

-- Jim out

Wow - "Avatar" has been in development for a looooong time! This t-shirt was made back in 1996 when Digital Domain was working on preliminary concepts - and the guy who obtained this shirt says he has no idea what "The Ultimate..." means. Hmmm. Well it sure sounds as though the confidence level for this movie has been high for a long time too.

That "longevity of conception" as my t-shirt owner friend says, gives us hope that this movie will not turn out to be a dud like other super hyped sci-fi films (Matrix sequels, etc). That and the fact that James Cameron is helming it! The idea for "Avatar" has been around for so long that it really has grown into its own. Man, JC must be so passionate about this film - like a parent would be for a child really.

We are still working on obtaining some of those Avatar T-Shirts that someone saw being worn on the Star Trek set last year. I can't wait to see those - those creatures sound so hostile don't they?

http://marketsaw.blogspot.com/2008/04/old-james-cameron-avatar-t-shirts.html

James Cameron's 'Avatar' creating tech buzz
3-D project using visionary new techniques
By Carolyn Giardina

Aug 6, 2008, 08:36 PM ET
With 17 months to go before the release of James Cameron's sci-fi epic "Avatar," his first narrative feature since 1997's "Titanic," anticipation already is enormous. The wildly ambitious project will be made in stereoscopic 3-D and combine live action and computer animation using visionary new filmmaking techniques.

Slated to open Dec. 18, 2009, the production already has been in the works for 2 1/2 years. When completed, Cameron expects "Avatar" to be about 60% CG animation, based on characters created using a newly developed performance capture-based process, and 40% live action, with a lot of VFX in the imagery.

"It is the most challenging film I've ever made," Cameron said.

Still, the innovative filmmaker and digital 3-D pioneer and champion has never shifted his emphasis from storytelling.

"You have to make a good film that would be a good film under any circumstances," he said. "You have to put the narrative first. The reality is no matter how many (3-D) screens we get, you are still going to have a large number of people -- possibly the majority of people -- who see the film in a 2-D environment."

The live-action principal photography for "Avatar" was shot in New Zealand last fall and winter using the Fusion 3-D camera system. Cameron first used the Fusion to make his 2003 Imax 3-D film "Ghosts of the Abyss"; he and "Ghosts" director of photography Vince Pace invented the camera system for the project.

Now, Fusion camera systems are available for rental via Burbank-based 3-D provider Pace, through which president Vince Pace and Cameron continue to innovate and develop the technology. The system already has made its mark, having been used on such pioneering live-action digital 3-D titles as "Hannah Montana and Miley Cyrus: Best of Both Worlds Concert" and "Journey to the Center of the Earth."

Said Pace: "The systems themselves, in my opinion, can handle any creative challenge. We've learned a lot since shooting 'Ghosts of the Abyss.' "

With "Avatar's" principal photography completed, Cameron is focused on CG production. The helmer said his team has completed the performance capture (sometimes referred to as motion capture) of the actors and is in the post process of performance capture 3-D.

The CG involved a large amount of additional R&D that afforded the director new creative options and flexibility. For one, the film used a new performance capture production workflow.

"The way we developed the performance capture workflow on 'Avatar" is we have our virtual camera, which allows me to, in real time, hold a camera -- it's really a monitor -- in my hands and point it at the actors and see them as their CG chartacters," Cameron said.

The actors wear leotards and a "head rig" with a tiny standard-definition camera that takes an image of an actor's face. "That is going though facial algorithms and going back into the camera as a real-time CG face of the character," the helmer said. "You see it talk; you see the eyes move. It is pretty phenomenal.

"Once we've laid down a take, the take exists in the digital asset management system," he said. "It an be accessed at any time. Long after the actors have gone home, I'm still out there with the virtual camera, shooting coverage on the scene. I just have to play the take back. I can do the close up, the wide shot. ... I can even move them around on a limited basis. We relight it. We do all kinds of things.

"It's this amazing ability to quickly conjure scenes and images and great fantasyscapes that is very visual. We call it 'director centric' because I can use the camera to block the actors," Cameron related. "When you are doing performance capture, creatively it's very daunting. It's very hard to imagine what it will look like. But if you can see it, if you can have a virtual image of what is it going to be like, then you are there. As the processing power goes up our models get more sophisticated and our lighting tools get more sophisticated, even while we are making this movie. I'm still doing a lot of virtual camera work on the film ... on stuff that was shot six months ago."

Cameron also used what he calls FPR, or Facial Performance Replacement, which he likens to the film sound technique of ADR (Automated Dialogue Replacement).

To describe the process, the director relates that he recently wanted to redo a line spoken by actor Laz Alonzo. "We changed the words and he redid the dialogue. We didn't have to recapture (his body performance) and he didn't have to put the performance capture suit on again. We were just creating new words, and we were creating a new face."

On the cinematography, Cameron related that his goal was to create "one movie where the aesthetics of physical production and the aesthetics of virtual production are, to the extent that we could do it, pretty much it identical."

Reaching this goal involved development of what Cameron calls the 'Simulcam,' which essentially treats a real camera like the virtual camera and in turn helps to remove guesswork. "We're taking our virtual production toolset and superimposing it on physical production," Cameron said. "We turned the set on the soundstage into a capture volume and turned the physical camera into a capture virtual camera, so we were able to integrate CG characters and environments into our live action."

As an example of how this works, he explained: "We have people in flying vehicles, and I can see what is outside the window, fed in, in real time."

On 3-D, both Cameron and Pace are looking ahead.

"The real question is 'where does all this go?" Cameron said. "Are we looking at a situation maybe 10-15 years out where most laptops are sold with 3-D stereoscopic screens, most montors are stereo compatible, most DVD players can run stereo content? ... I can see this becoming much more pervasive that we are thinking now."

He and Pace believe content is the key.

Pace addressed one last--and not often addressed--aspect of 3-D: The archival value.

"I think back of our shots at Titanic (lensed for "Ghosts of the Abyss"). Those have incredible, future proof, archival value," Pace said. "When we look at (3-D) display devices in the home (which are already becoming available)--a lot of filmmakers and studios need to be making 3-D right now. Those production commitments are often based on the here and now, instead of thinking about how much value there is to this 3-D product in the future. Why not master in 3-D now if there is only an incremental expense? Why not think about that now?"

Studios wary of big budget auteurs
'Avatar,' 'Benjamin,' 'Wild Things' are gambles
By ANNE THOMPSONMore Articles:
U.S. short on tough guy actors
Independents change tactics
Universal's golden summer
New role call for international films
What are 'Wall-E's' Oscar chances?
Comic-Con summons industry 'Spirit'
Who's afraid of the Big Bad Wolf?
The figure that haunts every studio chief's dreams is a high-profile auteur whose artistic vision outweighs his financial constraints.

Sometimes the gamble on a marriage of artist and epic pays off. James Cameron's "Titanic" went way over budget and behind schedule, but resulted in $1.85 billion at the worldwide box office, the highest-grossing blockbuster of all time.

On the other hand, execs can't forget "Cleopatra" and "Heaven's Gate."

Blood pressure has risen for execs at Fox, Paramount and Warner Bros. over, respectively, "Avatar," "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" and "Where the Wild Things Are." The studios say that the cumulative budget of the three is $500 million. Others say the pricetags total closer to $800 million.

Each film represents a different set of risks -- technological, artistic and, of course, fiscal. Each film started big and got bigger.

While the studios will continue to push for new eye-popping ways to lure audiences into massive event-movies, the days of lavish spending on high-end dramas is under scrutiny by conglom parents.

One note of caution: The major studios, notoriously secretive by nature, are especially protective when it comes to their high-budget entries. Many studio execs associated with these films were reluctant to give details, so the information was augmented by talk with the craftsmen themselves and their supporting casts.


THE TENTPOLE

Fox execs are sweating as Cameron again pushes the frontiers of f/x and motion picture technology with the CG/motion-capture/live-action 3-D "Avatar." The filmmaker worked on advance R&D for six years -- incredibly, studio execs say they plowed only $10 million into that, gambling that Cameron's new process would even work.

The director, working with VFX whiz Rob Legato, showed the studio advance pre-viz footage demonstrating how high-def video cameras could track actors moving inside a virtual CG set. Initially budgeted at $200 million, the sci-fi epic was pushed back from May to December 2009 to give the director more time to combine in the computer all necessary elements: 3-D motion-capture data of the actors on bare sets, CG environments, and final animation of the human avatars (Sam Worthington and Sigourney Weaver) and alien characters (Teresa Saldana, CCH Pounder). The photo-real digital film is 20% live-action with humans shot on location and 80% live-action mixed with CG elements. "It's a CG film with live-action in it," Legato says.

Sources close to the studio admit there was a time when it was terrified that Cameron's process wouldn't work. Execs relaxed a tad when they got to see finished footage. Giving Cameron and Weta Digital in New Zealand (where substantial rebates make everything cheaper) extra post-production time made sense.

The later release date leaves exhibitors time to add more 3-D screens. The movie could go out on a three-tiered basis: high-ticket super-charged Imax 3-D, regular 3-D and old-fashioned 2-D -- unless Cameron gets his way and refuses to show the movie on 2-D. That's a tough one, as 3-D capability exists in only about 1,000 North American screens and a few hundred overseas.

More are scheduled to be built in the next year, but several senior execs at rival studios predict Cameron will persuade Fox to push the movie back, because the prospect of releasing a $300 million movie on 1,500 screens worldwide is too nerve-wracking.

Fox is sharing the negative cost with several hedge funds to protect its downside. With 14 months to go, the final budget is hard to estimate, depending on whether Cameron does a lot of last-minute tweaking, and the film's running time, which should wind up at about 2½ hours.

ESTIMATED COST: $250 million to $300 million. Cameron knows how to play to the mainstream -- fanboys, soccer moms, trailer park dads, city folk and overseas auds. His goal is to change motion pictures as we know them. Fox could score another global commercial blockbuster.


THE KUDOS PLAY

David Fincher is whittling down "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button," starring Brad Pitt as a man who ages backward, to about 2½ hours.

"Button" had a long and tricky gestation before Paramount gave it the greenlight. Producers Kathleen Kennedy and Frank Marshall brought the movie to Fincher, who brought in Pitt, but cost and visual effects concerns bedeviled the project until Brad Grey took over as chairman of the studio and asked, "Do we have anything for Brad Pitt?"

Trained at ILM, which Fincher has called his film school, the filmmaker was well-suited to meeting the greatest challenge: creating a believable Button from his birth as an old man/baby to his death as a baby/old man. The use of Digital Domain CG and makeup effects to put Pitt's head on varying-sized bodies is not an issue, judging by the 20 minutes of footage screened at the Telluride Fest Aug. 29 (which Fincher described as a "palate cleanser").

Shot in New Orleans, the movie starts at the end of World War I and moves through Button's life (WWII, romantic entanglements with Cate Blanchett and Tilda Swinton, etc.) all the way to his deathbed. It has taken the director some time to trim the movie to two hours and 38 minutes. He loses his final cut above 2½ hours, but the studio has worked with him. Meanwhile Fincher is taking his next, "Heavy Metal," to Sony. (Par passed.)

Fincher's previous film, "Zodiac," grossed $84 million worldwide. The question is whether "Button" is a $150 million art film, or an emotionally accessible movie with broad appeal. Par exec Brad Weston insists it is both.

"It has an old-fashioned, epic, feel-good quality," says Weston. "It's not dark or brooding. It's a big movie about life that will be appealing to everybody."

One on-lot recruited test screening went well enough to push the studio to open the movie wide on Christmas Day.

ESTIMATED COST: $150 million-$170 million. The studio is sharing 50-50 with Warner Bros. In order to make back its costs (including marketing, especially through award season), the movie has to win over critics and audiences alike.


THE OXYMORON

Director Spike Jonze has never made a wide-audience commercial studio movie. His highest-grossing pics, New Line's "Being John Malkovich" and Sony's "Adaptation," were considered arthouse crossovers, grossing $46.4 million and $32 million worldwide, respectively.

He has never made a family movie, nor a visual effects picture.

Thus it is not a huge surprise that his and Dave Eggers' adaptation of Maurice Sendak's "Where the Wild Things Are" has run into some turbulence at Warner Bros., which took the $75 million-budget movie in turnaround from Universal.

Jonze's initial idea was to shoot the wild things in nine-foot suits with animatronic faces in the jungles of Australia and New Zealand. CG-faces would be required. After a disastrous December 2007 preview of Jonze's first cut, the studio shut down the project. The movie is "dark, adult and deep," wrote Cinemaniac1979 on aint-it-cool-news, "heart-wrenching and scary. This isn't a movie for children -- it's a movie about childhood."

Jonze did reshoots a year after he first shot the movie, mostly of the young lead, Max Record. About 10 minutes were added: two scenes at the start and one at the end.

"We wanted more emotion for the story on the whole," says Warners president Jeff Robinov, who will screen the new cut this month. "He's making a Spike Jonze family movie. I can't tell you how young it's going to play or its intensity. It's magical and beautifully shot. It was a long process to end up in a good place." The visual effects won't be added until Jonze has locked the final cut.

ESTIMATED COST: $78 million-$80 million. While the studio is aiming for a fall 2009 release, the movie doesn't seem to be the family-friendly commercial picture the studio had in mind.


The above "estimated costs" are from within each studio, but the figures may be much higher. While some are likely to fret over such pricetags, it's doubtful if these mark the end of this trend. Megabudget pics may be another signal that Hollywood is moving in two simultaneous directions: behemoth event pics, and smaller personal films -- with little middle ground.

jebi ga, trebalo je da čoek umre (tačnije, obesi se) pre neki dan, pa da pročitam ovaj njegov davni i mega-odlični članak – najzad još neko ko, kao ja, misli da je kameron puko počev od T2 i da je ovo posle toga čist kreativni brodolom čoveka koji je toliko obećao sa svoja prva 2 filma (ne računam piranu 2)!

OVO JE TEXT NAD KOJIM VREDI MEDITIRATI (iako u suštini ne kazuje ništa što nama danas nije bolno očigledno):



F/X PORN
David Foster Wallace
Waterstone's Magazine
Winter/Spring 1998

What's the difference between a Hollywood special-effects blockbuster like "Terminator 2" and a hard-core porn film? Very little, claims novelist, essayist and footnote fetishist David Foster Wallace.
________________________________________
1990s moviegoers who have sat clutching their heads in both awe and disappointment at movies like "Twister" and "Volcano" and "The Lost World" can thank James Cameron's "Terminator 2: Judgment Day" for inaugurating what's become this decade's special new genre of big-budget film: Special Effects Porn. "Porn" because, if you substitute F/X for intercourse, the parallels between the two genres become so obvious they're eerie. Just like hard-core cheapies, movies like "Terminator 2" and "Jurassic Park" aren't really "movies" in the standard sense at all. What they really are is half a dozen or so isolated, spectacular scenes -- scenes comprising maybe twenty or thirty minutes of riveting, sensuous payoff -- strung together via another sixty to ninety minutes of flat, dead, and often hilariously insipid narrative.

"T2," one of the highest-grossing movies in history, opened six years ago. Think of the scenes we all still remember. That incredible chase and explosion in the L.A. sluiceway and then the liquid metal T-1000 Terminator walking out of the explosion's flames and morphing [1] seamlessly into his Martin-Milner-as-Possessed-by-Hannibal-Lecter corporeal form. The T-1000 rising hideously up out of that checkerboard floor, the T-1000 melting headfirst through the windshield of that helicopter, the T-1000 freezing in liquid nitrogen and then collapsing fractally apart. These were truly spectacular images, and they represented exponential advances in digital F/X technology. But there were at most maybe eight of these incredible sequences, and they were the movie's heart and point; the rest of "T2" is empty and derivative, pure mimetic polycelluloid.

It's not that "T2" is totally plotless or embarrassing -- and it does, admittedly, stand head and shoulders above most of the F/X Porn blockbusters that have followed it. It's rather that "T2" as a dramatic narrative is slick and cliche and calculating and in sum an appalling betrayal of 1984's "The Terminator." "T1," which was James Cameron's first feature film and had a modest budget and was one of the two best U.S. action movies of the entire 1980s [2], was a dark, breathlessly kinetic, near-brilliant piece of metaphysical Ludditism. Recall that it's A.D. 2027 and that there's been a nuclear holocaust in 1997 and that chip-driven machines now rule, and "Skynet," the archonic _diabolus_ ex_ machina_, develops a limited kind of time-travel technology and dispatches the now classically cyborgian A. Schwarzenegger back to 1984's Los Angeles to find and terminate one Sarah Connor, the mother-to-be of the future leader of the human "Resistance," one John Connor [3]; and that apparently the Resistance itself somehow gets one-time-only access to Skynet's time-travel technology and sends back to the same space-time coordinates a Resistance officer, the ever-sweaty but extremely tough and resourceful Kyle Reese, to try desperately to protect Ms. Sarah Connor from the Terminator's prophylactic advances [4], and so on. It is, yes, true that Cameron's Skynet is basically Kubrick's HAL, and that most of "T1"'s time-travel paradoxes are reworkings of some fairly standard Bradbury-era science fiction themes, but "The Terminator" still has a whole lot to recommend it. There's the inspired casting of the malevolently cyborgian Schwarzenegger as the malevolently cyborgian Terminator, the role that made Ahnode a superstar and for which he was utterly and totally perfect (e.g. even his goofy 16-r.p.m. Austrian accent added a perfect little robofascist tinge to the Terminator's dialogue [5]). There's the first of Cameron's two great action heroines [6] in Sarah Connor, as whom the limpid-eyed and lethal-lipped Linda Hamilton also turns in the only great performance of her career. There is the dense, greasy, marvelously machinelike look of "The Terminator"'s mechanized F/X [7]; there are the noirish lighting and Dexedrine pace that compensate ingeniously for the low budget and manage to establish a mood that is both exhilarating and claustrophobic [8]. Plus "T1"'s story had at its center a marvelous "Appointment-in-Samarra"-like irony of fate: we discover in the course of the film that Kyle Reese is actually John Connor's father [9], and thus that if Skynet hadn't built its nebulous time machine and sent back the Terminator, Reese wouldn't have been back here in '84, either, to impregnate Sarah C. This also entails that meanwhile, up in A.D. 2027, John Connor has had to send the man he knows is his father on a mission that J.C. knows will result in both that man's death and his (i.e. J.C.'s) own birth. The whole ironic mess is simultaneously Freudian and Testamental and is just extraordinarily cool for a low-budget action movie.

Its big-budget sequel adds only one ironic paradox to "The Terminator"'s mix: in "T2," we learn that the "radically advanced chip" [10] on which Skynet's CPU is (will be) based actually came (comes) from the denuded and hydraulically pressed skull of "T1"'s defunct Terminator...meaning that Skynet's attempts to alter the flow of history bring about not only John Connor's birth but Skynet's own, as well. All "T2"'s other important ironies and paradoxes, however, are unfortunately unintentional and generic and kind of sad.

Note, for example, the fact that "Terminator 2: Judgment Day," a movie about the disastrous consequences of humans relying too heavily on computer technology, was itself unprecedently computer-dependent. George Lucas' Industrial Light and Magic, subcontracted by Cameron to do "T2"'s special effects, had to quadruple the size of its computer graphics department for the T-1000 sequences, sequences which also required digital-imaging specialists from around the world, thirty-six state-of-the-art Silicon Graphics computers, and terabytes of specially invented software programs for seamless morphing, realistic motion, digital "body socks," background-plate compatibility, congruence of lighting and grain, etc. And there is no question that all the lab work paid off: in 1991, "Terminator 2"'s special effects were the most spectacular and real-looking anybody had ever seen. They were also the most expensive.

"T2" is thus also the first and best instance of a paradoxical law that appears to hold true for the entire F/X Porn genre. It is called the Inverse Cost and Quality Law, and it states very simply that the larger a movie's budget is, the shittier that movie is going to be. The case of "T2" shows that much of the ICQL's force derives from simple financial logic. A film that would cost hundreds of millions of dollars to make is going to get financial backing if and only if its investors can be maximally -- _maximally_ -- sure that at the very least they will get their hundreds of millions of dollars back [11] -- i.e. a megabudget movie must not fail (and "failure" here means anything less than a runaway box-office hit) and must thus adhere to certain reliable formulae that have been shown by precedent to maximally ensure a runaway hit. One of the most reliable of these formulae involves casting a superstar who is "bankable" (i.e. whose recent track record of films shows a high ROI). The studio backing for "T2'''s wildly sophisticated and digital F/X therefore depends on Mr. Arnold Schwarzenegger agreeing to reprise his Terminator role. Now the ironies start to stack, though, because it turns out that Schwarzenegger -- or perhaps more accurately "Schwarzenegger, Inc.," or "Ahnodyne" -- has decided that playing any more malevolent cyborgs would compromise the Leading Man image his elite and bankable record of ROI entails. He will do the film only if "T2"'s script is somehow engineered to make the Terminator the Good Guy. Not only is this vain and stupid and shockingly ungrateful [12], it is also common popular knowledge, duly reported in both the trade and the popular entertainment media before "T2" even goes into production. There's consequently a weird postmodern tension to the way we watch the film; we're aware of what the bankable star's demands were, and we're also aware of how much the movie cost and how important bankable stars are to a big-budget movie; and so one of the few things that keeps us on the edge of our seats during the movie is our suspense about whether James Cameron can possibly weave a plausible, non-cheesy narrative that meets Schwarzenegger's career needs without betraying "T1"'s precedent.

Cameron does not succeed, at least not in avoiding heavy cheese. Recall the premise he settles on for "T2": that Skynet once again uses its (apparently not all that limited) time-travel device, this time to send a far more advanced liquid metal T-1000 Terminator back to 1990s L.A., this time to kill the ten-year-old John Connor (played by the extremely annoying Edward Furlong [13], whose voice keeps cracking pubescently and who's just clearly older than ten), and that the intrepid human Resistance has somehow captured, subdued, and "reprogrammed" an old Schwarzenegger-model Terminator -- resetting its CPU's switch from TERMINATE to PROTECT, apparently [14] -- and then has somehow once again gotten one-time access to Skynet's time-travel technology [15] and sent the Schwarzenegger Terminator back to protect young J.C. from the T-1000's infanticidal advances. [16]

Cameron's premise is financially canny and artistically dismal: it permits "Terminator 2"'s narrative to clank along on the rails of all manner of mass-market formulae. There is, for example, no quicker or easier ingress to the audience's heart than to present an innocent child in danger, and of course protecting an innocent child from danger is heroism at its most generic. Cameron's premise also permits the emotional center of "T2" to consist of the child and the Terminator "bonding," which in turn allows for all manner of familiar and reliable devices. Thus it is that "T2" offers us cliche explorations of stuff like the conflicts between Emotion and Logic (territory already mined to exhaustion by "Star Trek") and between Human and Machine (turf that's been worked in everything from "Lost in Space" to "Blade Runner" to "Robocop"), as well as exploiting the good old Alien - or - Robot - Learns - About - Human - Customs - and - Psychology - From - Sarcastic - and/or - Precocious - but - Basically - Goodhearted - Human - with - Whom - It - Bonds formula (q.q.v. here "My Favorite Martian" and "E.T." and "Starman" and "The Brother From Another Planet" and "Harry and the Hendersons" and "Alf" and ad almost infinitum). Thus it is that the 85% of "T2" that is not mind-blowing digital F/X sequences subjects us to dialogue like: "Vhy do you cry?" and "Cool! My own Terminator!" and "Can you not be such a dork all the time?" and "This is intense!" and "Haven't you learned that you can't just go around killing people?" and "It's OK, Mom, he's here to help" and "I know now vhy you cry, but it's somesing I can never do"; plus to that hideous ending where Schwarzenegger gives John a cyborgian hug and then voluntarily immerses himself in molten steel to protect humanity from his neural net CPU, raising that Fonziesque thumb as he sinks below the surface [17], and the two Connor hug and grieve, and then poor old Linda Hamilton -- whose role in "T2" requires her not only to look like she's been doing nothing but Nautilus for the last several years but also to keep snarling and baring her teeth and saying stuff like "Don't fuck with me!" and "Men like you know nothing about really creating something!" and acting half-crazed with paramilitary stress, stretching Hamilton way beyond her thespian capacities and resulting in what seems more than anything like a parody of Faye Dunaway in "Mommy Dearest" -- has to give us that gooey "I face the future with hope, because if a Terminator can learn the value of human life, maybe we can, too" voiceover at the very end.

The point is that head-clutchingly insipid stuff like this puts an ever heavier burden of importance on "T2"'s digital effects, which now must be stunning enough to distract us from the formulaic void at the story's center, which in turn means that even more money and directional attention must be lavished on the film's F/X. This sort of cycle is symptomatic of the insidious three-part loop that characterizes Special Effects Porn --

ONE: Astounding digital dinosaur / tornado / volcano / Terminator effects that consume almost all the director's creative attention and require massive financial commitment on the part of the studio;

TWO: A consequent need for guaranteed megabuck ROI, which entails the formulaic elements and easy sentiment that will assure mass appeal (plus will translate easily into other languages and cultures, for those important foreign sales...);

THREE: A director -- often one who's shown great talent in earlier, less expensive films -- who is now so consumed with realizing his spectacular digital vision, and so dependent on the studio's money to bring the F/X off, that he has neither the leverage nor the energy to fight for more interesting or original plots / themes / characters.

-- and thus yields the two most important corollary formulations of the Inverse Cost and Quality Law:

(ICQL(a)) The more lavish and spectacular a movie's special effects, the shittier that movie is going to be in all non-F/X respects. For obvious supporting examples of ICQL (a), see lines 1-2 of this article and/or also "Jurassic Park," "Independent Day," "Forrest Gump," etc.

(ICQL (b)) There is no quicker or more efficient way to kill what is interesting and original about an interesting, original young director than to give that director a huge budget and lavish F/X resources. The number of supporting examples of ICQL (b) is sobering. Have a look, e.g., at the difference between Rodriguez's "El Mariachi" and his "From Dusk to Dawn," between DeBont's "Speed" and "Twister," between Gilliam's "Brazil" and "Twelve Monkeys," between Bigelow's "Near Dark" and "Strange Days." Or chart Cameron's industry rise and artistic decline from "T1" and "Aliens" through "T2" and "The Abyss" to -- dear Lord -- "True Lies." U.S. entertainment media report that Cameron's new "Titanic," currently in American release, is (once again) the most expensive and technically ambitious film of all time. Doubtless, Britons have been pricing trenchcoats and lubricants in anticipation of its arrival in the UK.
________________________________________
FOOTNOTES

[1] (Actually defined in the film as "mimetic polyalloy," whatever that's supposed to mean.)

[2] The 1980s other B.U.S.A.M. was Cameron's second feature, the 1986 "Aliens," also modestly budgeted, also both hair-raising and deeply intelligent.

[3] (Whose initials, for a prophesied saviour of humanity, are not particularly subtle.)

[4] The fact that what Skynet is attempting is in effect a retroactive abortion, together with the fact that "terminate a pregnancy" is a pretty well-known euphemism, led the female I first saw the movie with in 1984 to claim, over coffee and pie afterwards, that "The Terminator" was actually one long pro-choice allegory, which I said I thought was not w/o merit but maybe a bit too simplistic to do the movie real justice, which led to kind of an unpleasant row.

[5] Consider, for example, the now famous "I'll be back" line took on a level of ominous historical resonance when uttered by an unstoppable killing machine with a _German_ accent. This was chilling and brilliant commercial postmodernism at its best; but it is also what made "Terminator 2"'s in-joke of having Ahnode repeat the line in a good-guy context is so disappointing.

[6] It is a complete mystery why feminist film scholars haven't paid more attention to Cameron and his early collaborator Gale Ann Hurd. "The Terminator" and "Aliens" were both violent action films with tough, competent female protagonists (incredibly rare) whose toughness and competence in no way diminish their "femininity" (even more rare, unheard of), a femininity that is rooted (along with both films' thematics) in notions of maternity rather than just sexuality. For example, compare Cameron's Ellen Ripley with the panty-and-tank-top Ripley of Scott's "Alien." In fact it was flat-out criminal that Sigourney Weaver didn't win the '86 Oscar for her lead in Cameron's "Aliens." Marlee Matlin indeed. No male lead in the history of U.S. action films even approaches Weaver's second Ripley for emotional depth and sheer balls -- she makes Stallone, Willis, et. al. look muddled and ill.
[7] (There is a ponderous, marvelous built-looking quality (complete with ferrous clanks and/or pneumatic hisses) that -- oddly enough -- at roughly the same time also distinguishes the special effects of Gilliam's "Brazil" and Paul Verhoeven's "Robocop." This was not cool only because the effects were themselves cool, but also because here were three talented young tech-minded directors who rejected the airy, hygenic look of Spielberg's and Lucas's F/X. The grimy density and preponderance of metal in Cameron's effects suggested that he was looking all the way back to Méliès and Lang for visual inspiration.)

[8] (Cameron would raise the use of light and pace to near-perfection in "Aliens," where just six alien-suited stuntmen and ingenious quick-cut editing resulted in some of the most terrifying Teeming Rapacious Horde scenes of all time. (By the way, sorry to be going on and on about "Aliens" and "The Terminator." It's just that they're great, great, commercial cinema, and nobody talks about them enough, and they're a big reason why "T2" was such a tragic and insidious development not only for 90s films but for James Cameron, whose first two films had genius in them.))

[9] (So actually I guess it would be more like "Luke Skywalker's Appointment in Samarra" -- nobody said this was Art-Cinema or anything.)

[10] (Viz. a "neutral net processor" based on an "uncooled superconductor," which I grieve to report is a conceit ripped off from Douglas Trumbull's 1983 "Brainstorm.")]

[11] The industry term for getting your money back plus that little bit of extra that makes investing in a movie a decent investment is ROI, which is short for Return on Investment.
[12] Because Schwarzenegger -- compared to whom Chuck Norris is Olivier -- is not an actor or even a performer. He is a body, a form -- the closest thing to an actual machine in the history of the S.A.G. Ahnode's elite bankable status in 1991 was due entirely to the fact that James Cameron had had the genius to understand Schwarzenegger's essential bionism and to cast him in "T1."

[13] It augurs ill for both Furlong and Cameron that within minutes of John Connor's introduction in the film we're rooting vigorously for him to be Terminated.
[14] A complex and interesting scene where John and Sarah actually open up the Terminator's head and remove Ahnode's CPU and do some further reprogramming -- a scene where we learn a lot more about neural net processors and Terminative anatomy, and where Sarah is strung out and has kind of an understandable anti-Terminator prejudice and wants to smash the CPU while she can, and where John asserts his nascent command presence and basically orders her not to -- was cut from the movie's final version. Cameron's professed rational for cutting the scene was that the middle of the movie "dragged" and that the scene was too complex: "I could account for the Terminator's behavior changes much more simply." I submit that the Cameron of "T1" and "Aliens" wouldn't have talked this way. But another big-budget formula for ensuring ROI is that things must be made as simple for the audiences as possible; plot and character implausibilities are to be handled through distraction rather than resolved through explanation.

[15] (Around which the security must be shockingly lax.)
[16] That's the movie's main plot, but let's observe here that one of "T2'''s subplots actually echoes Cameron's Schwarzenegger dilemma and creates a kind of weird meta-cinematic irony. Whereas "T1" had argued for a certain kind of metaphysical passivity (i.e., fate is unavoidable, and Skynet's attempts to alter history serve only bring it about.) "Terminator 2"'s metaphysics are more active. In "T2," the Connors take a page from Skynet's book and try to head off the foreordained nuclear holocaust, first by trying to kill Skynet's inventor and then by destroying Cyberdyne's labs and the 1st Terminator's CPU (though why John Connor spends half the movie carrying the deadly CPU chip around in his pocket instead of just throwing it under the first available steamroller remains unclear and irksome). The point here is that the protagonists' attempts to revise the "script" of history in "T2" parallel the director's having to muck around with "T2"'s own script in order for Schwarzenegger to be in the movie. Multivalent ironies like this -- which require that film audiences know all kinds of behind-the-scenes stuff from watching Entertainment Tonight and reading Premiere magazine -- are not commercial postmodernism at it's finest.

[17] (His hair doesn't quite catch on fire in the molten steel, though, which provokes intriguing speculation on what it's supposed to be made of.)
________________________________________
[The author of the novel "Infinite Jest," David Foster Wallace has been called by The Guardian's James Wood "a superb comedian of culture." His new book, "A Supposedly Fun Thing I'll Never Do Again," is a collection of sharp, playful and humorous essays that touch on everything from David Lynch to the equivocal relationship between novelists and television. Full of astonishing verbal dexterity, impish wit and off-the-wall analysis, the is fresh, funny and hugely entertaining.

"A Supposedly Fun Thing I'll Never Do Again" is published in paperback by Abacus on 5 February at £6.99]

Cameron says he can't live up to 'Avatar' hype
The Associated PressPublished: December 3, 2008

 E-Mail Article

  Listen to Article

 Printer-Friendly

 3-Column Format

 Translate

 Share Article

   Text Size

LOS ANGELES: Director James Cameron said Tuesday that his upcoming big-budget 3-D movie "Avatar" couldn't possibly live up to the hype on the Internet ahead of its release late next year.

The Internet has been buzzing about the sci-fi thriller shot with motion-capture technology and the 3-D camera system he helped develop with partner Vince Pace. There are even movie trailers made by fans that apparently have nothing to do with the movie.

"Whatever they think it's going to be, it's probably not," Cameron said on the sidelines of a conference on 3-D entertainment in Los Angeles.

The $200 million movie is in production ahead of its planned Dec. 18, 2009 release and Cameron does not yet have a trailer prepared.

"We are making the movie in blocks. You can't cut a great trailer right now because so much of the movie would be unrepresented," he said.

Today in Culture

A rising profile for Miami's indie music scene

Sundance tilts to heart-tuggers

The 10 best books of 2008
When asked about high expectations, the director of all-time U.S. box office record holder "Titanic" said he had stopped trying to meet them.

"I went out and got drunk, contemplated the whole thing and got over it," he said, adding, however, that "Avatar" was "really cool" and "groundbreaking" for its combination of motion capture, computer graphics and live action.

"Sometimes we stop working on it and just stare at it because it's just mesmerizing," he said.

He said he had not met with Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. executives about the marketing plan, but that the movie studio did not want to put out anything too early. The studio is a unit of News Corp.

Terms of Use

Quote"Avatar" couldn't possibly live up to the hype

He got THAT right!  :evil:

(https://www.znaksagite.com/diskusije/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg184.imageshack.us%2Fimg184%2F5867%2Fcameronzq7.jpg&hash=84fa80a1bfeed0d76782e672692a33767cd825f7)

(da, glup je fazon, al nekako mi se čini prikladnim...)
:roll:  :oops:

Hey folks, Harry here... Got an email from a panicky ABking pointing to this story over at Marketsaw regarding an alleged 8 Trailers that Fox has cut for AVATAR that were then all rejected by James Cameron due to their inherent lameness. Plus rumors on ShoWest, and even some particularly off-putting rumor about Spielberg & Jackson on TINTIN (also not true btw). Now - shortly after the email from ABking - I began getting a flood of similar emails from some of you other readers also wanting me to address this story.

So I wrote Cameron to get his reaction and here's what he wrote back this afternoon...

Harry,

Good to hear from you. As usual the rumor mill is grinding out mostly spurious stuff. I have no plans at present to go to Showest, and in any event we have decided not to unveil material there.

As to the trailer story, I have no idea where that came from but I haven't rejected any trailers (yet) since I haven't seen any yet. They're still working on them for presentation, which presumably will be soon. I'm sure I'll reject a couple once I have the chance. Right now I'm just focused on having a movie to sell.

The cut is shaping up nicely and the stuff coming in from Weta Digital is astonishing. Every once in a while, as we are absorbed in some intensely detailed discussion about sub-surface scattering or the way a tail is moving in the animation, I'll just stop and have this moment of clarity, as if seeing it for the first time. And I realize that's what the lunar astronauts must have felt like. They'd be in the middle of some complex set of procedures and they'd look out the window and go "Oh, yeah. That's the frickin' moon!" It feels like that.

Anyway, back to the grind.

Jim out




So there you go, that's where things are currently on AVATAR.

The Next Dimension
By Josh Quittner Thursday, Mar. 19, 2009Cameron, center, revolutionized the 3-D business with his Fusion high-definition video cameras.
Art Streiber for TIME
ENLARGE +
Print
Email Share
Digg
Facebook Yahoo! Buzz Mixx Permalink Reprints Comments Correction Appended: March 20, 2009


Related
Audio
3-D is all the rage in Hollywood, and Steven Spielberg and James Cameron are at the forefront of the technology

Download | Subscribe

Technology

TIME's Best Inventions of 2008
Super Bowl XLIII

The Best and Worst Super Bowl Commercials 2009
More Related
Super Bowl Commercials: Get Out the 3-D Glasses
What Will You Put on Your Face for TV's Sake?
It's a Mad, Mad, Mad Madagascar 2
The lights dim in the screening room. Suddenly, the doomed Titanic fills the screen--but not the way I remember in the movie. The luxury liner is nearly vertical, starting its slide into the black Atlantic, and Leonardo DiCaprio is hanging on for life, just like always. But this time, I am too. The camera pans to the icy water far below, pulling me into the scene--the sensation reminds me of jerking awake from a dream--and I grip the sides of my seat to keep from falling into the drink.

Most of us have seen the top-grossing film of all time. But not like this. The new version, still in production, was remade in digital 3-D, a technology that's finally bringing a true third dimension to movies. Without giving you a headache. (See the 100 best movies of all time.)

Had digital 3-D been available a dozen or so years ago when he shot Titanic, he'd have used it, director James Cameron tells me later. "But I didn't have it at the time," he says ruefully. "Certainly every film I'm planning to do will be in 3-D."

Digital 3-D, which has slowly been gaining steam over the past few years, is finally ready for its closeup. Just about every top director and major studio is doing it--a dozen movies are slated to arrive this year, with dozens more in the works for 2010 and beyond. These are not just animations but live-action films, comedies, dramas and documentaries. Cameron is currently shooting a live-action drama, Avatar, for Fox in 3-D. Disney and its Pixar studio are releasing five 3-D movies this year alone, including a 3-D-ified version of Toy Story. George Lucas hopes to rerelease his Star Wars movies in 3-D. And Steven Spielberg is currently shooting Tintin in it, with Peter Jackson doing the 3-D sequel next year. Live sports and rock concerts in 3-D have been showing up at digital theaters around the U.S. nearly every week.

With the release on March 27 of Monsters vs. Aliens, Jeffrey Katzenberg, the head of DreamWorks Animation SKG, is betting the future of his studio on digital 3-D. While he's not the first to embrace the technology, he has become its most vocal evangelist, asserting that digital 3-D is now good enough to make it--after sound and color--the third sea change to affect movies. "This really is a revolution," he says.

Over the past few years, Katzenberg has repositioned DreamWorks as a 3-D-animation company. From Monsters on, all its movies will be made, natively, in 3-D. (Many animation studios create the 3-D effect in postproduction.) That's a pretty big commitment since 3-D involves even more computer power than usual. The DreamWorks crew invokes "Shrek's law," which holds that every sequel takes about twice as long to render--create a final image from models--as the movie that preceded it. Authoring the movie in 3-D effectively doubles the time called for by Shrek's law.

That requires an extreme amount of horsepower--the computational power of DreamWorks' render farm puts it roughly among the 15 fastest supercomputers on the planet. The studio partnered with Hewlett-Packard and Intel and built an enormous test bed on more than 17,500 sq. ft. in California. The Silicon Valley companies are hot on 3-D because they believe it's how people will navigate the Web and the desktops of their PCs and that it will be standard on computers and HDTVs.

At DreamWorks, I watched a Monsters filmmaker peer through an elaborate camera rig that allowed him to "previsualize" a scene before shooting it. As he panned across the room we were standing in, he flew over a computer-generated 3-D image of the White House war room--the set for a scene in which the President (voiced by Stephen Colbert) meets with his staff to discuss an alien invasion. The camera let the director precisely manage the z-axis and decide which elements in the background, midground and foreground needed to be lit and focused.


Related
Audio
3-D is all the rage in Hollywood, and Steven Spielberg and James Cameron are at the forefront of the technology

Download | Subscribe

Technology

TIME's Best Inventions of 2008
Super Bowl XLIII

The Best and Worst Super Bowl Commercials 2009
More Related
Can This Man Save The Movies? (Again?)
52 Years Ago In TIME
For Children of All Ages
Katzenberg says going 3-D adds about 15% to his costs--which is nothing compared with the profits studios anticipate as the digital transformation takes hold. Digital 3-D movies usually gross at least three times as much as their flat-world counterparts--thanks in part to the higher ticket prices and longer runs they garner. Another benefit: 3-D films are far more difficult for digital-camera-toting moviegoers to pirate. (See pictures of movie costumes.)

Beyond the venal, however, filmmakers say that 3-D, like sound and color, really breaks down the barrier between audience and movie. "At some level, I believe that almost any movie benefits from 3-D," Lord of the Rings director Jackson says. "As a filmmaker, I want you to suspend disbelief and get lost in the film--participate in the film rather than just observe it. On that level, 3-D can only help."

3-D Movies, Take 8
If the return of the 3-D movie sounds like a rerun, that's because it is. By some counts, this is 3-D's eighth incarnation, and to date, it hasn't exactly revolutionized the industry. The first stereoscopic movies appeared in the U.S. before the last Great Depression, disappeared, then enjoyed a schmaltzy revival in the 1950s with such blockbusters as House of Wax (1953). They've cropped up intermittently ever since, typically attached to high-camp vehicles like Andy Warhol's Frankenstein (1973).

"To me, 3-D has always been the circus coming to town," says Daniel Symmes, a 3-D historian and film-industry veteran. Symmes worked on the soft-core 3-D hit The Stewardesses, which was produced in 1969 for around $100,000. It grossed more than $27 million, making it the most profitable 3-D movie ever. Symmes scoffs at today's digital 3-D and its big budgets and says it's déjà vu. "Does the circus stay around?" he says. "No. If it does, attendance drops off, the novelty is gone and the circus goes away."

But proponents say digital 3-D is a different animal from the analog stuff that came before 2005. Viewers often wore cardboard glasses with red and cyan cellophane lenses (similar to but somewhat different from what you see in this magazine). As just about everyone knows, old-school 3-D was less than awesome. Colors looked washed out. Some viewers got headaches. A few vomited. "Making your customers sick is not a recipe for success," Katzenberg likes to say.

It was cumbersome to produce too. In the old days, two 65-mm, 150-lb. film cameras--each shooting the same scene in sync--were used to make a 3-D picture. The gap between the lenses simulates the space between our eyes, adding space perception. But with film, you never knew how the shot would turn out until later.

The birth of high-definition, digital filmmaking changed all that. Cameron and an associate, Vince Pace, developed the 3-D-capable Fusion camera system, which is cheaper, smaller--13 lb. each--and way more versatile than the old film rigs. "Every movie I made, up until Tintin, I always kept one eye closed when I've been framing a shot," Spielberg told me. That's because he wanted to see the movie in 2-D, the way moviegoers would. "On Tintin, I have both of my eyes open."

A Beverly Hills company called Real D took the lead on the theater side. It leases out a kind of digital shutter system that sits in front of digital projectors, alternating the two views of each frame 144 times per sec.--fast enough to achieve stereovision. The new system uses polarization, rather than color-coding. Gone are the completely cheesy cardboard glasses, replaced with slightly less cheesy disposable plastic-frame glasses that have gray lenses. "Someday," predicts Katzenberg, "people will buy their own movie glasses, which they'll take to the movies--like people have their own tennis rackets."


Related
Audio
3-D is all the rage in Hollywood, and Steven Spielberg and James Cameron are at the forefront of the technology

Download | Subscribe

Technology

TIME's Best Inventions of 2008
Super Bowl XLIII

The Best and Worst Super Bowl Commercials 2009
More Related
Can This Man Save The Movies? (Again?)
The Consumer Electronics Show: Tom Hanks, 3D TV's
Beowulf and Grendel — and Grendma
Even if you're willing to grant him the glasses, there's still one problem. For digital 3-D to work, the movie theater must first convert from analog to digital--that is, from reels of film to data feeds. Theaters have been slow to do it, citing the expense and security. Disney chairman Dick Cook is credited with breaking the initial logjam with Chicken Little in 2005. About 75 theaters converted to digital to show the film, and a surprising thing happened: 3-D theaters reported three to four times the box-office gross as those that showed the 2-D version. (All 3-D movies can easily be stepped down to 2-D and are typically shown in both forms.) That was the jump start digital 3-D needed. Katzenberg predicts that more than 2,000 theaters will be 3-D-ready by this week. (See the top 10 movie performances of 2008.)

But in this economy, will people spend as much as $15 a ticket for a movie? Katzenberg is optimistic, pointing out that consumers are cutting back on everything but cheap entertainment. "The movies have been the greatest beneficiary of this," he says. "So to offer a new, exciting premium version of a bargain will be a big winner."

The Future of 3-D
Cameron's Avatar, due in December, could be the thing that forces theaters to convert to digital. Spielberg predicts it will be the biggest 3-D live-action film ever. More than a thousand people have worked on it, at a cost in excess of $200 million, and it represents digital filmmaking's bleeding edge. Cameron wrote the treatment for it in 1995 as a way to push his digital-production company to its limits. ("We can't do this," he recalled his crew saying. "We'll die.") He worked for years to build the tools he needed to realize his vision. The movie pioneers two unrelated technologies--e-motion capture, which uses images from tiny cameras rigged to actors' heads to replicate their expressions, and digital 3-D.

Avatar is filmed in the old "Spruce Goose" hangar, the 16,000-sq.-ft. space where Howard Hughes built his wooden airplane. The film is set in the future, and most of the action takes place on a mythical planet, Pandora. The actors work in an empty studio; Pandora's lush jungle-aquatic environment is computer-generated in New Zealand by Jackson's special-effects company, Weta Digital, and added later.

I couldn't tell what was real and what was animated--even knowing that the 9-ft.-tall blue, dappled dude couldn't possibly be real. The scenes were so startling and absorbing that the following morning, I had the peculiar sensation of wanting to return there, as if Pandora were real.

Cameron wasn't surprised. One theory, he says, is that 3-D viewing "is so close to a real experience that it actually triggers memory creation in a way that 2-D viewing doesn't." His own theory is that stereoscopic viewing uses more neurons. That's possible. After watching all that 3-D, I was a bit wiped out. I was also totally entertained.

The original version of this story misstated the cost of the film Avatar as being in excess of $300 million. The correct figure is in excess of $200 million.

Ovo bi trebalo da je power odelo.

(https://www.znaksagite.com/diskusije/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi40.tinypic.com%2F5jzhb6.jpg&hash=4d202150d36fbd8fa69b41c289c9bc2ed13a9e73)

5:20PM Guillemot introduces ... James Cameron! The crowd goes insane, of course. (There are nerds here, remember?)

5:21PM Cameron delves into some Avatar backstory: He wrote the first treatment over a decade ago, but was balked at by his special effects guys, Digital Domain. Now, with photorealistic CG being attainable, Cameron resurrected the project. The story takes place in 22nd century, with most of the action taking place on an earth-like planet, Pandora.

5:23PM The navi -- humanoid inhabitants of Pandora -- live among a myriad of alien creatures, some beautiful and some extremely dangerous. This is sounding a lot like Los Angeles, but with better draw distances.

5:25PM Jake Sully is the main character, who explores Pandora in an Avatar body. It allows him movement from a distance, even though he's really paralyzed. As he goes deeper into the Navi culture, "he ultimately has to choose sides" in a battle. Oh, which is the "mother of all battles," adds Cameron. Special effects extravaganza confirmed!

5:26PM December 18 is the film's release date. One would assume that Ubisoft's game adaptation will arrive at around the same time. "A fully immersive cinematic experience" is promised by Cameron, who! says it 's the biggest and toughest project he's ever done.

5:27PM Cameron met with Ubisoft in 2006. Ubisoft was pitching a title that was already in line with the spirit of the film, which filled him with confidence that he was choosing the right partner. Cameron's theory: "I didn't want anything associated with Avatar to suck."

5:29PM Cameron notes that the timing for typical game-movie transitions is too brief -- Avatar's game development started over two years ago, which he hopes will avoid that demonstrable problem usually suffered by film tie-ins.

5:31PM Ubisoft came up with a player's choice addition to the Avatar universe, allowing gamers to choose whether they would adopt a Navi perspective during certain events. Ubi is committed to make Avatar the first major stereoscopic 3-D title, adds Cameron. The initial demo blew him away, it seems.

5:32PM The world of the game is, in some ways, a richer version that you won't find in the film. "The perfect confluence between these two different media." Cameron adds, "Neither one is the red-headed stepchild of the other."

5:33PM "Ubisoft has done it." Cameron warns us to not play the demo during E3, however, because it might make us afraid. "It's pretty darn exciting."

Krasan tatkov intervju, straight outta gejming sekcije:

http://www.edge-online.com/features/interview-james-cameron

With a US$300 million budget, a three-month IMAX run, and the hopes of the stereoscopic 3D movement on its shoulders, all eyes are on James Cameron's Avatar. Not just moviegoers', either. The videogame tie-in, in development at Ubisoft Montreal, hopes to spearhead 3D's move from the big screen to the television. But as industry insiders are discovering, the movie isn't just a pioneer for live-action 3D, but for next-gen motion capture as well. This, the director of Aliens and Titanic tells us, will benefit avatars of every description.

How involved have you been on a day-to-day basis with the Avatar game?
I wouldn't say day-to-day but month-to-month. They'd come back with art, storylines, characters, and concepts for how they wanted the gameplay to work. And they'd either come in person or they'd send it to me and I'd make comments. Usually, it was the visits where they brought in the development kit and we'd watch it, play it, and talk about it. But this isn't every day. I'm making my movie every day; they're making their game every day.

I gave them a lot of latitude. I created some boundaries for areas I didn't want to go, if not to protect the movie then to protect the sequel possibilities – stuff like that. It was a really good collaboration. They were really respectful. They wanted to make a great game, but they also weren't inhibited. They came up with some great ideas I wouldn't have thought of, where I thought, 'if I can't work them into this film, I can certainly work them into a sequel'.

Do you play games yourself?
I'm not super into it in that I sit and play for hours on end, but I have five kids. My brother and his two sons are avid gamers – we're talking 100 hours a week. So I use them to get the pulse of the business and what the serious gamers really like. In fact, I incorporated him on this project because I wanted a consultant who really knew what people wanted to see.

So my brother Dave came to me and said the first thing they showed him was a firstperson shooter. And they all loved it and it was really cool shooting a Na'vi bow, but you might not have a good sense of yourself as a Na'vi. So they switched it to thirdperson, where you kind of switch to right over the shoulder when you shoot.

Was the plot of the film a natural fit for a game?
Absolutely. You've got an antagonism between philosophies: you've got technological humans and the Na'vi, who live on a Neolithic level but are very harmonious with their environment. They can harvest from it what they need in a time of great crisis. It's a conflict that will play out over time and over an entire world. And we've seen this conflict – with the Europeans coming to the Americas, and in our own history – and we know it tends to end badly for the indigenous people. But the Na'vi aren't to be discounted. They've certainly got some tricks up their sleeves.

The creature designs are, I think, some of the best I've ever seen. And we drove the creature design group to not only do something really good but incredibly detailed in terms of the lifecycles of the animals and how they move. Their structure is very well thought out, and the flight dynamics: the way they breathe, the way they move, the way they perch. So a lot of that just got dropped straight into the game. There's a richness of imagination where [Ubisoft] started with that foundation and just took off from there.

What were their faces like when you said you wanted full 3D in the game?
To be honest, they were hesitant – they didn't even think it was possible. But I planted the seed. I didn't say, 'Guys, you've got to do this. It's deal or no deal.' But I said they should really think about trying to do this in stereo because it's the right way to do it. They went away, and a couple of months later they came back and showed me a stereo demo that convinced us all that was it.

Will 3D have the same impact on games as it's having on cinema?
These changes are led by individual titles, not ideas or philosophies on new technology. The idea of stereoscopic digital projection has been around for about seven or eight years. It's only taking off now because there've been a number of good films to drive it.

What we're doing with this game is really important, because if the game's successful and other people try to emulate it, then stereo game development will become a major thing. And if it does, it's going to drive stereo in the home. It's going to drive TV companies to build the big screens. We already have Xbox 360 in stereo; the others will have to adopt. I think it's going to be huge.

How will the relationship between games and movies have developed five years from now?
You'll still have the straight licence deals and they'll be OK – as good as the game guys can do. But if we do our jobs well with this one then maybe others will look and say, 'Oh yeah, this is how you do it.' I would look at a sequel to Avatar being something where I sit in a room with their creative people and we think about cool ideas that should be in game and movie simultaneously. So there might be a portal or place in the game that you can't pass through, but there'll be clues in the movie, and vice-versa.

You've been quoted as saying Avatar's motion capture technology was a lot like a game engine.
It was a game engine. A game authoring package.

What kind of shot does it allow you to do?
It's not so much that we searched for a strange or wacky CG shot. I actually pulled back from that. I think a lot of stuff looks like CG because it doesn't look like there was a camera there. So by introducing a camera instead of just watching mouse-clicks, it actually takes on a very naturalistic style.

That's much of the strength of what we're doing. I did all the live shots myself – except the Steadicam shots 'cause I don't operate a Steadicam – and operated 100 per cent of the virtual photography. So the same body language was used in both media, and I think they converge in a way where it looks like one piece. So, curiously enough, we were working using game authoring tools to shoot the movie.

What about the uncanny valley phenomenon?
We talked about it a lot. Game cinematics are honestly still in the uncanny valley, but they'll get through it. The limit is in the speed of real time rendering. A given frame in Avatar might take 50 to 100 hours to render. That's per frame, per processor, so they have 6,000 processors running in parallel at a render farm so they can do five or six shots per night. But I think our fingernails are locked in the cliff on the other side of the uncanny valley; sometimes we climb up, sometimes we slip back.

If you watch the movie, is every shot out of the uncanny valley? I think one in ten slips back, but at that point the narrative is propelling you along and it doesn't matter. And interestingly enough, we first thought we were safe because these are blue guys on another planet. I've since realised that it's much harder to light blue skin than human skin – a lot of the tricks don't work. So, in that sense, I think we're a lot closer to doing a human than a Na'vi. I actually think you could do a photoreal human right now, no problem.

But it's a huge investment. The thing that people don't realise is that the technology is not based in how accurate the data set is, but how good the rigging of the model is that the data is then applied to. Yes, you still need good data, and our image-based facial is working very, very well. We've got great eye and eyelid data, and all the facial muscles are properly accounted for. So we're getting extremely accurate performances out the other end. But it's the twelve to 14 months of rigging that model in between that make the characters real.

The first thing you see is a little bit ghastly. But you study it and make little tweaks to the push and pull of the facial muscles, and after a while it all comes into focus. It's an amazing process that could also be applied to the cinematics in games, but it's not an automated one, and I don't think it ever quite will be. Not until we go to a level beyond just scanning, and beyond image-based facial capture, to some kind of realtime MRI scan of the facial muscles firing – something that may not exist for 20 years. It's muscles behind the surfaces that make the expressions. You can't just take a scan, map it to your fantasy character and expect it to work.

James Cameron Shows Twenty-Four Minutes Of AVATAR!!!
Beaks here...



I wonder why James Cameron chose to unveil the first chunk of finished footage from AVATAR in Amsterdam?

Reactions are starting to leak out of today's presentation at CineExpo in Amsterdam (despite Fox's attempts to keep any kind of impression from being reported), and, shock of shocks, they're of the "Holy Fuck!" variety. Here's a sweet tweet from Unique Cinema Systems:

"Footage from "Avatar" at #cinexpo was stunning, literally jawdropping. Amazing visuals unlike any before seen, with incredible detail."
UCS is also posting images from the AVATAR after-party, and while there's no actual footage being looped, this production artwork is pretty sumptuous.



For more, check out UCS' Twitter feed.

According to The Hollywood Reporter, Cameron showed around twenty-four minutes of footage, and declared that the 3-D "renaissance" has arrived. He was joined by AVATAR cast members Sam Worthington, Sigourney Weaver, Zoe Saldana and Stephen Lang, as well as producer Jon Landau and Fox chairman Jim Gianopulus. (No Rothman, huh?) I've learned that the folks at CineExpo saw this via the RealD XL Cinema System. It was a 3D presentation on a 55 foot screen with nearly 10 foot Lamberts of light. Nifty!

Now that the cat's out of the bag, does this mean Cameron's bringing this footage to Comic Con? Or is he going to stash it and make us wait until freakin' December?

Obviously, I'll update this story if we get any more images or reactions.

As always, you should check out MarketSaw, which has been AVATAR news central throughout this film's production.

Regarding the 2-D presentation of AVATAR, the Reporter quotes Cameron as saying, "I just want to say that I think 'Avatar' is going to play great in 3-D, 2-D, any 'D.' "

ComingSoon.net has posted a detailed description of the footage.

http://g4tv.com/comiccon2009/pressconference/20th-century-fox-and-james-cameron-present-avatar/29/ (http://g4tv.com/comiccon2009/pressconference/20th-century-fox-and-james-cameron-present-avatar/29/)

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/41793 (http://www.aintitcool.com/node/41793)

(https://www.znaksagite.com/diskusije/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Forigin.aintitcool.com%2Fimages2009%2Favatarposter.jpg&hash=6f075f52a748d1bf9884630c3550de100ac5e3a8)

nije ni čudo da se pozivaju na titanik, treba da se vrate te pare. realno, ovo kao da je poster za ambis 2, kao da se kameron vraća u okeansku fazu...
jel još neko misli da ovo ima sve obrise katastrofe? ono, daleka planeta, epske razmere, vanzemaljci sumnjivog dizajna... na stranu to što igru rade paceri. želim da verujem, džejmse, ali nisi mi pokazao dovoljno, samo zlokobne nagoveštaje!  :cry:

Ovi Na'viji se doimaju kao blueneck civilizacija:

(https://www.znaksagite.com/diskusije/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi31.tinypic.com%2F8wm5cp.jpg%255Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fi31.tinypic.com%2F8wm5cp.jpg&hash=f26fdfff1b94e77ae846055ea3cf3948ff213883)

(https://www.znaksagite.com/diskusije/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Forigin.aintitcool.com%2Fimages2009%2Favatarstill.jpg&hash=5ade022431fb9336486fa0e314b19971b92a450f)

http://specials.divertissements.fr.msn.com/cinema/avatar/default.aspx (http://specials.divertissements.fr.msn.com/cinema/avatar/default.aspx)

pa, izgleda kao da je lajon king upao u farbu tokom parenja sa legolasom u parku iz doba jure sranje

Dobio sam karte za "ekskluzivno: 15 minuta filma AVATAR" u 3D teknologiji u Koloseju večeras, pa javim kako se doima u izvornom mediju...

Već sam se uzvrteo... :)

...upravo sam se vratio iz Koloseja sa projekcije zbirkice uzoraka iz Cameronovog AVATARa...budući se da se rad o random uzorcima, ne mogu da iznesem sud o kakvoći celine, ali ono što sam video na planu vizuelnog (taj breathtaking hiper-3D mod) je zaista nešto zadivljujuće, i usudio bih se da ustvrdim da je Cameron što se tiče likovnosti probio sve dosadašnje granice i dobacio do poetske lepote; jedino strepim da bi se taj tehnološki aspekt mogao pokazati kao previše agresivna tehnika kada se u obzir uzme čitavo trajanje filma, mislim, po gledaoce... ali, što se mene tiče, već sada - standing ovations bez imalo zadrške!!!

...pored puta, ZS fandom je, sudeći po zastupljenosti na ovoj projekciji, žestoko podbacio... Milosh, Zelič, Kunac i ja, niko više...ŠTETA!!!

I meni se prilično svidelo ovo što sam video. Nekoliko napomena... Način na koji je Cameron iskoristio 3D tehniku, bar koliko se moglo videti iz ovih inserata, je inovativan u tome što 3D nije tretirao poput gimmicka kako se isti koristi u raznim hororima (tj. da je 3D bitan samo kad nešto treba da iskoči sa platna i sl.), već se izgleda potrudio da osmisli same kadrove tako da film može komotno da funkcioniše i u običnoj varijanti dok će mu 3D ipak pružiti jednu dodatnu dimenziju koja bi trebalo da bude relativno ujednačena tokom čitavog filma. To se naročito da videti u scenama jurnjave kroz šumu gde se različiti planovi brzo smenjuju, a vidno je i u relativno statičnim scenama. CGI, oko koga se lome koplja na internetu trenutno, meni deluje sasvim dobro, mada ga ne bih nazvao revolucionarnim na osnovu ovoga što sam video, dok se ne slažem da izgleda kao cartoon. Odnosno, mislim da takav utisak neko može da stekne zbog izgleda sveta (a posebno stvorenja) u kome se film dešava, ali to je, rekao bih, prvenstveno stvar dizajna, izbora boja i sl. a ne toliko efekata, mada za konačni utisak po ovom pitanju čekam da vidim film u celini. I na kraju, kao možda i najvažnije, ono što će po meni da prelomi ovaj film nema veze sa tehničkom stranom, već se odnosi na to koliko je dobra priča i koliko su likovi jaki i upečatljivi. U trejleru je naglasak bio na akciji i sve scene su iz prve polovine filma, kako je i sam Cameron rekao, ali iz same premise se mogu naslutiti neki motivi koji Camerona i inače zanimaju: melodrama kao nukleus oko koga se plete sva akcija, jak ženski lik i sl., i pitanje je kako je to dalje razvijeno. Sve u svemu, ja sam zadovoljan ovim što sam video i jedva čekam da u decembru pogledam film u celini.

da, i u intervjuima je pominjano da dobar 3d film treba da funkcioniše i kada je lišen te mogućnosti (prednosti?).

mene zanima kako su vam izgledala ta plava stopala na platnu kada se uporedi sa trejlerom kod kuće? koliko su naviji uklopivi uz ljudska bića, da li može bez većih problema da se poveruje u to da stoje pored čoveka? jasno je da će u bioskopu štošta biti drugačije; bilo bi skandalozno da kameron u dizajnu džungle ne može da prešiša video igru kakva je crysis makar to tako izgledalo na kompu.

meni je najupadljiviji problem na osnovu viđenog mimika likova, šablon u kretnjama. recimo, navi u jednom kadru pravi maltene identičnu facu kao aladin/simba/koji već pametno sladak i srčan diznijev lik. takođe kada se pojavi onaj monstrum/dinosaurus imamo milion puta viđenu stomp-stomp-CHOMP sekvencu (druga varijacija je ono kad se prodere do krajnika, po mogućstvu nekom u facu). ne mora svako da priželjkuje od kamerona standardno tech okruženje (koje postoji), ali dizajn same džungle i navija deluje šablonski... opet, i world of warcraft je mega popularan. mene je sve to dosta podsetilo na albion (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxiKi_zwP5Y#normal), solidan rpg devedesetih.

kameron zaslužuje sav mogući kredit, ali samo na neviđeno.

I ja pogledah, uz izvesne nesporazume i teškoće i Sandru Bulok...


Materijal je fragmentiran ali nije random, daje nam priču u grubim crtama, i ne deluje kao stupidarija. Nisam ni tražio nekakvu dubinu i životne mudrosti od ovoga, te ako na kraju zadrži bar ovaj nivo biće ok.

3D je odlično iskustvo. Semplovao sam Ledeno doba i ovo, i AVATAR je tehnički vidno u višoj kategoriji, ima mnogo više planova i akcije u svakom kadru. U ponekim trenucima mi je bio vizuelno pretrpan jer ima toliko toga što se mrda pred očima da nisam znao gde i u šta da gledam.

Sve u svemu, vrlo sam zadovoljan i jedva čekam film.

Znači, tatko se vratio.

http://www.littlewhitelies.co.uk/blog/avatar-first-look/ (http://www.littlewhitelies.co.uk/blog/avatar-first-look/)


Avatar: First Look

Adam Woodward | 21.08.09
Related reviews and interviews

    * Terminator Salvation
      Related: Sam Worthington
    * Terminator Salvation: First Look
      Related: Sam Worthington

Following the official online release of yesterday's trailer, today at long last comes a first proper glimpse at James Cameron's futuristic fantasy epic. Today is Avatar day, and LWLies got an exclusive seat at the BFI IMAX this morning for the world premiere of specially compiled footage from the film.  As you can imagine our appetites were well and truly whet with anticipation. So has the wait been worth it?

Thrown into complete unknown, the multi-layered world of Avatar is nothing I could have prepared for. The action sequences are astonishing (if a little disorientating at first) and the cinescapes utterly breathtaking. By the looks of it Cameron has got it spectacularly right. The sprawling landscapes are dense and vibrant, but there seems to be a rich story woven into this vast tropical tapestry. For all the innovative special effects on show a film of such grandiose cannot survive without some sort of narrative, and from this sneak peek Avatar seems remarkably closer to home than I initially presumed.

Our protagonist, a wheelchair-bound marine named Jake Sully (Sam Worthington), is given a new lease of life after being transported to Pandora, a distant forest-soaked moon; where he takes host of an alien body. Here we see his first encounter with Neytiri (Zoe Saldana), a native Na'vi warrioress who fits the bill as Sully's extraterrestrial love interest. So there is some heart here, which could prove a vital narrative element if the film is to transcend a fanboy audience.

There is certainly plenty to get your juices flowing then, but let's not forget in the end it is just a film. So far much of the attention has been on the immense budget – anywhere between $250 and $300 million is the ballpark – but Cameron and co have sensibly kept exact details closeted. It would be easy to get carried away, of course, but it is refreshing to see a filmmaker with the clout of Cameron retain an air of modesty. In any case, it will be interesting to see how the marketing campaign continues after today.

While it may look spectacular, however, I couldn't help feel disenchanted by the CGI overload. Such saturation transports you to another world, but once there, there is no escape.  The main problem, however, seems to be that it looks less like a film (in a traditional sense) and more like well polished video game, albeit a bollock-bustingly spectacular one. Ultimately it might not be to everyone's taste, but there is no question Avatar is hugely significant; it's revolutionary new motion capture "fusion camera" system, which Cameron and his crew invented, is already being prophesied to pioneer a new era of digital cinema.

When it hits cinemas this winter there will be no avoiding Avatar, but it is difficult to predict how the film will fare. After all it is Cameron's first fictional film since 1997's Titanic, the concept is entirely original and therefore unfamiliar, and it is very, very geeky. Whatever the anticipatory buzz, Avatar is unlikely to reach the wearying heights of The Dark Knight, though, and in that respect it is hard to see how Cameron and 20th Century Fox can possibly make a financial return.

Regardless of how audiences respond come December 18, it is unlikely this sci-fi extravaganza will be forgotten in a hurry. From the looks of things the 3D revolution starts here and from now on it's all eyes on Avatar.

Quote from: crippled_avenger on 22-08-2009, 15:54:20
Znači, tatko se vratio.

nadam se da se vratio tatko na terminatora a ne tatko na titanika.

Ja nisam mogao da odem na 3D prezentaciju zbog nekih neodložnih obaveza (da, bile su do te mere neodložne da nisam mogao da izrespektujem Tatka) ali trejler mi se izuzetno dopao. Live action scene deluju vrlo momački, Worthington ima harizmu, dizajn je na linji ALIENSa što je super jer taj film zaista ima svevremen dizajn. Ono što je naravno ključno pitanje je CGI svet koji uvek po definiciji deluje malo sporno dok se gledalac ne navikne. Ali, kad/ako se navikne, što inače nema veze sa tehnikom, nego sa nekim dubljim psihološkim elementima o kojima sam detaljnije diskutovao prošle godine povodom HULKa, onda to funkcioniše. Od svih CGI univerzuma koje sam do sada gledao a da su pretendovali na fotorealističnost, AVATAR mi je bio najmanje iritantan na prvi pogled, ovi vanzemaljci su mi ubedljiviji od Hulka, i pitkiji od BEOWULFa za koji mi je trebalo malo vremena da se ukačim na film (i posle sam uživao). U tom smislu, verujem da kad se bude pojavio film i kad budemo mogli da percipiramo dizajn likova u kontekstu priče, da će to sve biti odlično.

E sad, čiji je tatko došao, ne znam, ali mislim da je možda došao tatko na teminatora ili tatko na ambisa.

"Sanctum" has found its sea legs. Wayfare Entertainment has committed to finance the $30 million 3-D underwater survival drama that will shoot with James Cameron's "Avatar" cameras and 3-D technology.

Pic is expected to begin lensing in Australia late this year.

Alister Grierson ("Kokoda") will direct from the script penned by Andrew Wight and John Garvin. Wight, who has collaborated with Cameron on such docus as "Aliens of the Deep" and "Ghosts of the Abyss," is the producer. Cameron is executive producer, along with Wayfare principals Ben Browning, Michael Maher and Peter Rawlinson.

FilmNation's Glen Basner is handling offshore sales, and CAA, which put together the package for the filmmakers, will sell domestic. FilmNation's Aaron Ryder is co-producer.

"Sanctum" is a fictional drama inspired by Wight's near-death experience when he led an expedition of 15 divers into a remote underwater cave system below Australia's Nullarbor Plain, and then watched a freak storm collapse the cave entrance. It became a two-day battle to survive until all 15 were rescued, an ordeal recounted in the 1989 docu "Nullarbor Dreaming."

In "Sanctum," a hard-edged father and his teen son lead a diving team, and the true character of the divers surfaces when they are faced with adversity.

"As one who was nearly killed in that cave collapse, I thought there was great stuff in how people react in crisis, and become heroes or cowards," Wight told Daily Variety. "Jim and I spoke about all this while working on these 3-D adventure projects, and we had a burning desire to make a gritty film about what it's like to be on an expedition and have it all go horribly wrong. We wanted to show that the 3-D equipment and technology can be used to tell a story in a modest budget independent film."
More than one option

    * (Co) Daily Variety
      Filmography, Year, Role
    * (Co) Daily Variety

"Sanctum" was originally developed at Rogue, then came loose when Universal sold Focus Features' genre arm to Relativity. CAA is shopping domestic rights at a potentially fortuitous time by following the out-of-left-field success of the Peter Jackson-produced "District 9."

Like "District 9," "Sanctum" is also a modestly budgeted drama with a director new to Hollywood, godfathered by an iconic filmmaker using his facilities. "Sanctum" is an example of Cameron's post-"Avatar" desire to generate films to feed exhibitors' growing appetite for 3-D titles.

Gotham-based Wayfare is funded by hedge funds and institutional investment companies, according to Browning. Wayfare is prepping for production on the Focus Features adaptation of the Ned Vizzini novel "It's Kind of a Funny Story," with the "Half Nelson" team of Ryan Fleck and Anna Boden. Wayfare is also packaging an adaptation of Neil Gaiman's "The Graveyard Book," with a script by Neil Jordan.

When James Cameron and Fox Filmed Entertainment co-chair Jim Gianopulos slipped into the back row of the Bridge Imax Theater on Friday night, it was for one of the more daring test screenings in recent memory.

The public was getting its first glimpse of Cameron's 3-D pic "Avatar," which blends live-action with CGI on a large scale.

Screenings of 16 minutes of footage from "Avatar" were held across the country in 102 Imax locations and in 238 additional theaters overseas. Tickets were free and given out during an online lottery.

The reason behind Fox's decision to mount "Avatar Day" was two-fold: To whip up a fan base among moviegoers and encourage theater owners to install more 3-D screens before "Avatar" opens Dec. 28.

Filmmakers are generally leery about showing clips so early in the game, but in this case, Cameron and Fox have decided it is more important to get the word out.

"Jim Cameron's use of technology is groundbreaking. He's created the most immersive 3-D experience yet, leaving preview audiences around the world wanting more," said Fox senior VP of distribution Chris Aronson, who intro'd the "Avatar" clip at the Bridge Imax screening in West L.A. on Friday.

It was an experience that rival studios wanted to check out as well, considering "Avatar" is Cameron's first film since 1997's "Titanic." Attending one of the shows Friday at the Bridge were Paramount co-chair Rob Moore and Marvel's Kevin Feige.

There are roughly 1,700 3-D locations domestically, including Imax. That's well short of the 2,500 locations Fox would like to be in place before "Avatar" bows. There are north of 2,100 3-D playdates overseas.

"Avatar," like other 3-D movies, also will be released in 2-D on conventional screens.

Many theater owners remain reluctant to spend the money to convert conventional screens to 3-D. But if the demand is there, exhibs will have incentive to convert.

The upcharge of a 3-D ticket can dramatically boost a film's box office revenues. Rarely are studios and exhibs able to create an added stream of revenue.

Fox's 3-D toon "Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs" has grossed $615 million at the international B.O., the most of any film this year and surpassing "Titanic" in a handful of Latin American markets. On "Ice Age 3's" opening weekend, the 3-D screens repped only 18% of the total theater count, but made up more than 35% of the gross, at least.

In the months prior to the release of "Monsters vs. Aliens," DreamWorks Animation topper Jeffrey Katzenberg became a 3-D ambassador, urging exhibitors around the world to take the plunge and go 3-D.

Fox and Cameron decided to go a different route and use "Avatar" itself to do the talking. Nearly all the 3-D films up until now have been animated or motion-capture, making "Avatar" distinct.

The public screenings capped a busy travel schedule for "Avatar" filmmakers. Cameron and Fox first showed clips of the movie to international exhibitors gathered in Amsterdam for CinemaExpo. They repeated the event for U.S. exhibs in July, just before they went to Comic-Con.

Audiences attending worldwide screenings of a 16-minute preview of James Cameron's Avatar applauded enthusiastically Friday night. The reaction was in stark contrast to the mixed reaction that a two-minute trailer received when it was posted online a day earlier. A common reaction then was that the movie looked more like a videogame than a movie and such being the case, "I'd rather play it than watch it," in the words of one online viewer.

...

Donekle i jeste olakšanje čuti pozitivne stvari o Cameronovom Avataru, nakon ovog malecnog pretprikazivanja, medjutim sve fanovske panegirike treba uzeti sa zrnom sumnje. Trejler je zbilja djelovao odurno, meni recimo nije ličio na vidio-igricu koliko na apdejtovanu verziju Lion Kinga, ili možda crtka Wall-e. S te strane, ne mogu reći da mnogo očekujem od Avatara, pošto pompa oko njega polako počinje da podsjeća na nevjerovatnu The Last Action Hero marketinšku kampanju iz 1992-93., što nije tipično za Camerona.

Ipak, The Last Action Hero promijenio je način na koji gledamo i pravimo filmove, u eri kada je tzv. Novi Holivud postao nešto nadasve novije. Nakon njega, uslijedio je i nezaboravni True Lies... tako da film koji držim za posljednji akcioni – žanrovski – film Novoga Holivuda, megabudžetni The Fugitive iz 1993, više skoro nikada nije snimljen na staroškolski gritty način na koji je to uradio Endru Dejvis. Naravno, snimani su još mnogi slični filmovi na slične načine, ali samo iz razloga nevelikog budžeta, ili jednostavno zato što je svaki iole senzacionalistički imaginativan stvor ukapirao koliko se tek prilika pruža u ovakvome postmodernističkom pristupu Holivudu što je eventualno priprijetio da postane pretjerano djetinjast.

Najzad, ne mogu da prokljuvim šta to novo i originalno treba da nam pruži Avatar u Holivudu koji je sve osim originalan. Po sinopsisu filma, a i sada već zastarjelom trejleru, bih rekao da je to svaki fentazi film koji smo gledali do sada u novom ruhu od $300 miliona. Pritom, naravno, ne mogu da ostavim Cameronovu dramaturgiju po strani, obzirom da sam Titanic nedavno odgledao i po treći put, ali sa velikom glavoboljom, kao uostalom i prva dva puta. Potom je uslijedila ona decenijska pauza gdje je snimio par dokumentaraca, igrao u par epizoda serije Entourage (gdje je zbilja bio cooler than cool) i onda uvjerio nas anti-religiozne konspiracioniste da je neki Isus sigurno postojao (ne zna se, pak, je li njemu prezime bilo Hrist), što je bila najniža tačka u njegovoj karijeri, vjerovatno je jednim dijelom potpuno i obesmislivši.

Prirodno je da ne mislim da će Avatar biti katastrofa i u to se nikada ne bih mogao kladiti, kao što za Tarantina jesam mislio da će biti skoro negledljiv. Na kraju krajeva, Cameron je čovjek koji je potpisao toliko smiješno dobrih scenarija da ne bi imalo smisla uopšte ih i nabrajati. Moj omiljeni je Strange Days, techno-noir koji rado redovno stavljam među 15 najboljih filmova.

Iako je potpuno preuzeo a potom i modifikovao premisu filma Trambalovog SF-a iz 1983, Brainstorm, uspio je napisati, kako je sam izjavio, ultimativni Memetovski SF noir. I jedini SF noir u stanju da mu se iole primakne, ako ne i da stane rame-uz-rame sa njime, jeste Watchmen, 15 godina docnije. A sve ono što je, i prije toga, uslijedilo nakon Camerona – Alien 4 (pa i Alien broj 3, na neki način) + Terminator 3 i 4 – toliko je jalovo i ništavno da ima moć i da nasmije čim se spomenu ti naslovi.

Odgovor na debatu kako je moguće da su dvadeset godina mlađi filmovi tehnički i dramaturški bolje realizovani od današnjih, veoma je jednostavan: zbog dobrog scenarija. Po čemu je Cameron, makar u mome univerzumu, najviše prepoznatljiv. Tako da zaista, pa i da hoću, ne mogu da osudim Camerona zbog Avatara. U najmanju ruku očekujem solidnu priču, ali ne i nešto što će me prikovati za sjedište vizuelnim ugođajem, jer je toga u međuvremenu bilo tušta i tma i a zato što sam prilično oguglao na to. Naime, radije bih sada odgledao u bioskopu Termish 2 (i to onu njegovu verziju sa dodatih par scena za Artisanov DVD) ponovo, nego Avatar. Makar znam da ću dobiti besprijekornu avanturu. A opet, nedavno sam odgledao i prvog Terminatora i zaprepastio se koliko film izgleda svježe. 

Druga stvar je da Cameronu – nakon toliko vremena – treba originalan PG-13 hit a la The Lord of the Rings, a moguće je i sjeme za buduću trilogiju ili tetralogiju (zato se udružio sa Wingutom Petera Jacksona; isto je uradio i Spilberg za svojega Tintina). Bilo kako bilo, $300 miliona u Americi jedva da mogu da naslože i sva djeca koja su čitala i odrasla uz Harija Potera, a opet jedan simpatični R-rangirani The Hangover – i bez djece – lagano je došao nadomak $200 miliona. Međutim, nakon Titanica, očito ne vrijedi raspravljati o stvarima ekonomske prirode, premda se Titanic danas, u godinama, čini udaljen od nas ništa manje nego poput Isusovog groba u Cameronovom dokumentarcu.

S druge strane, 3D tehnologija nema tako jak imprint na američku bioskopsku svijest, a poznato je da se gubi jedna mala nijansa kvaliteta kada se takvo ostvarenje prikazuje u 2D bioskopu (tek na mahove sam toga bio svjestan dok sam gledao Monsters Vs. Aliens). Na TV-u sam vidio tu, istina daleko grozomorniju, distinkciju kad je jedna epizoda bljutave NBC serije "Chuck" snimljena u 3D; gledanje te epizode bez onih cvikera bilo je kao gledati one prve najgore VHS pirate filmova Cape Fear v.1991 i Clockers. 

Treća stvar je sva ta pompa oko Avatara, pretprekazivanja i slično, što se prvi put dovodi u vezu sa Cameronom, manijakalnim zaštitnikom svojih filmova. On do sada nije bio vičan tim stvarima, a naročito kada se napravi retrospektiva njegovih ranijih filmova. Avatar je, naime, jedini projekat što je najednom postao dostupan svima. Moguće je da je to zbog toga što je sada Fox odlučio da raspusti uzde oko marketinga – ipak ovaj film navodno košta $300 miliona i to bez marketinga; troškovi marketinga nikada se ne zaračunavaju u finalni budžet filma. A moguće je da se čovjek i raspilavio od kada je otkrio Isusov grob i voljan je više komunicirati sa ljudima; štaviše, na plakati bi, ispod naslova, trebalo da piše "čovjek koji je otkrio Isusov grob". Recimo, na Artisanovom DVDu Terminatora 2 Cameron je dao svoj prvi komentar, koji je kao što se i očekivalo, izvrstan. Vjerovatno će i Avatar doživjeti sličnu sudbinu, ako ikada izađe na nečemu što mogu prihvatiti naši PC i kućni plejeri.

Na kraju, gostovao je Tom Arnold kod Howarda Sterna prije par nedjelja i, na pitanje da li ima šta od True Lies 2 (pitanje koje mi je u tom trenutku zvučalo sasvim beznadežno), Arnold je s entuzijazmom izjavio da on i Švarceneger uskoro trebaju da se sastanu sa Cameronom i popričaju o True Lies 2. Navodno Cameron ima par izuzetnih ideja i da će sigurno raditi taj film nakon dva projekta za koje je trenutno vezan. Švarceneger je takođe potvrdio svoje prisustvo u True Lies 2.

Kao što rekoh, današnji Super-novi Holivud uopšte nije originalan. Ali kada već treba da gledam reciklažu, neka to bude od ljudi koji su i stvorili originale.

Hitler learns that the Avatar trailer sucks. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAPyipuT-Jg#normal)

Jel ima neki tekst o počecima upotrebe ovog klipa? Čini mi se da sam pogledao desetak potpuno različitih verzija, Hitler ovo, Hitler ono... :!:

Hahah, da, Hitler je potpuni meme na JuTjubu, evo ti sa wikipedije (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler_in_popular_culture#Hitler_as_Internet_Meme):

QuoteThanks to YouTube and other video sites, parodic clips from the 2004 film Downfall have proliferated internationally.[8] They are subtitled with references to Hitler getting angry about Australian Rules Football, online gaming, gridiron football, X-Box Live, the downfall of Morris Iemma, the Vancouver Canucks signing of Mats Sundin and other events - this meme is current in August 2009. The phenomenon started in English but has spread to other languages including Dutch, Spanish, Malaysian and Bulgarian (It was used to ridicule Bulgarian president Georgi Parvanov for being a State Security agent during the communist dictatorship and for being a poacher[9]). Some of the parodies turn on surrealism and intentional anachronisms to make a comment on present day subjects, especially the everyday prevalance of failures of computer and internet resources, while other parodies centre more on humorously interpreting events in the bunker on April May 1945. A further driver of the jokes would be collective memories of the overall poor standards of subtitling and dubbing internationally in cinema during the mid twentieth century, especially with low budget films such as the sword and sandal genre, including poor synchonisation and comically inaccurate translations. The most popular clip is the scene where Hitler receives news of the advancing Red Army vastly outnumbering the forces commanded by Felix Steiner. However, other clips from Downfall are beginning to appear with subtitles.

Kao sto rekoh, Cameronovi nastavci su kategorija sama za sebe, pa i po misljenju casopisa EMPIRE.

    http://www.empireonline.com/50greatestsequels/ (http://www.empireonline.com/50greatestsequels/)

 Hitler learns that the Avatar trailer sucks. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAPyipuT-Jg#normal)

Road_warriore, koncentriši se malo. Kačiš klip koji se već nalazi na ovom topiku. Čak čitava četiri posta prije tvog. xtwak

to on vraća dimbu, koji takođe ne čita tuđe postove, i ima sklonost da kači vesti i linkove koje su drugi - na tom mestu ili drugde - već okačili.

To okacih sinoc u neko zlo doba i odmah sam video sa sam se zajebao  :x ali me mrzelo da brisem.  :)

sočno štivo:

http://io9.com/5354315/avatar-concept-designer-reveals-the-secrets-of-the-navi (http://io9.com/5354315/avatar-concept-designer-reveals-the-secrets-of-the-navi)

QuoteWhat about the sex appeal aspect of it? Was the sexiness something James Cameron emphasized with you?

Well, he wanted them to be very beautiful. And I do believe that, at some point, he said something to the effect of...the audience has to want to fuck her. I mean, Jim is very plain in his language.

So, I went, "All right?" So I made something that, I don't know if I really particularly wanted to fuck it, but it was certainly a beautiful alien. He definitely, he wanted it — because he really prefers women that are kind of athletic, and buff and stuff like that, so I, you know, designed something with big hands and feet, a big presence that felt really big and strong.

So it was designed for his personal preferences in terms of sexiness?

It certainly wasn't mine. I mean, I would have sculpted, I don't know, Gretchen Mol or something. But I sculpted this big, tall, buff, kind of tough-looking, kick-ass woman.

QuoteWhat about the feline aspect? Do you have any indication of why they are so feline?

I don't know. It's probably because he thinks that cats are elegant, and they are. I mean, so are horses, but we don't have horse-faced aliens, I guess. So, I think it was a matter of elegance, and he wanted them all to be trim — I guess they don't have Ding-Dongs on Pandora.

dakle, iza tatkovog pet projecta krije se furry fetiš.

I to butch fury fetish. Drugi furry fanovi pišu fen fikšn i crtaju smešne manga crteže, a Kameron je uspeo da prevari ljude da mu daju pare da snimi ceo film o tome. Rispekt.

izašo trejler - recimo da sam tek sada blago uzbuđen.

NEW Avatar Trailer! Cam (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhkPpcbu-Ts&feature=player_embedded#normal)

James Cameron's megabudget sci-fi spectacle "Avatar" is one of the most anticipated films of the year. The road to its upcoming December release has been filled with artistic, financial and creative obstacles. For production designer Rick Carter, the big challenge was getting inside Cameron's head.

Working on "Avatar," Carter had to envision the planet Pandora in detail.

"It was literally as if Jim had been to this place," says Carter, a Hollywood Award honoree for production design. "He was coming back with fragments and glimpses he could express to us, but then we had to try to figure out how to make that come alive for him and something we felt an audience could relate to."

"Avatar" tells the story of an extreme rehabilitation program: In an attempt to walk again, a paraplegic former Marine named Jake travels to the jungles of the extraterrestrial realm called Pandora, home of the Na'vi, a technologically primitive but physically superior race.

To picture Pandora, Carter created what he calls a "lush homegrown forest that's way overscale for anything we've ever experienced, but also has enough alien qualities that you realize what you're seeing is not just a few flowers poked into the midst of an otherwise normal environment. The essence of it is very different."

At night, the forests of Pandora light up like a psychedelic black-light poster. Cameron's inspiration for that, Carter believes, came from his deep-sea diving experiences.

"The whole idea of (that) bioluminescent world at night is something he'd actually witnessed when he was down at the bottom of the ocean during his 'Titanic' time," Carter says. "That bioluminescence is almost like a nervous system of the planet, and that's what's at stake in the movie, as you start to get past the initial foray into the Na'vi culture and seeing the drama start to emerge between the military-industrial complex that wants to exploit the world."

In order to breathe on Pandora, humans have created human-alien hybrids (the eponymous avatars), and it's through one of these creatures that Jake is able to walk again. But will he remain human or go native after he falls in love with one of the locals, a girl named Neytiri? Intergalactic peace depends on it.

What spells success for "Avatar," however, is good old human identification. "The real challenge is whether you feel the emotion coming through from the characters, especially the Neytiri character and ultimately Jake's avatar," says Carter. "When you look into those eyes, do you feel the connection's real? And then, can you give yourself over to it and not look at it at arm's distance and think, 'Yes, that's wonderful technically, but I don't really feel anything.' "

For Carter, "Avatar" is a movie "where the form and the content come together. We can really relate to the digital imagery in a way that not only suspends our disbelief but invites us to be immersed in this new world."

Definitely, "the medium has evolved," says Carter, looking back at his first production-designer gig, on Hal Ashby's "Second Hand Hearts," in 1981. "And with the introduction of all the digital imagery, there's been a whole new ability to create worlds far beyond what it was when I started."

Carter was also there on "Back to the Future" II & III, "Jurassic Park" and "Forrest Gump," among others, and he's moved into worlds where it's all digital and there's motion capture, he says. Along the way, Carter has "found it very interesting to tap into some of the visual effects designers who are coming from the other side of the equation, the post-production, bringing them forward. The two of us collaborate from the beginning on the look of the movie, especially with things that have never been done before."

Carter uses the words "us" and "we" a lot when he talks about his film work. On "Polar Express," he brought on Doug Chang, a visual effects designer. On "Avatar," which Carter calls "a hybrid movie comprisedof live action and motion capture," he turned to Bob Stromberg.

"Bob had been instrumental in the design of much of the ecosystem of the planet Pandora. It just seemed natural to have him share credit. So it's unusual," Carter says of his penchant for collaboration, "but I see it as a way to move into these films. We used to joke we're creating the airplane in flight, because we're actually making the movie but we don't even know the road we're on to create the movie until you do it."

Recently, Cameron told his "Avatar" production designer, "I'm the one who could pose the question, but it took everybody to collaborate, to come together and find the answers."

"He'd never said that before," says Carter, "I just thought I'd leave you with that."

http://www.playboy.com/articles/james-cameron-interview/index.html (http://www.playboy.com/articles/james-cameron-interview/index.html)

Quote from: crippled_avenger on 09-01-2007, 02:22:41
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/31185 (http://www.aintitcool.com/node/31185)
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/08/movies/08cnd-cameron.html?ei=5094&en=0bc81ed724640090&hp=&ex=1168318800&adxnnl=1&partner=homepage&adxnnlx=1168292526-5jQDX0DlIh2XSEtq+0aaiQ (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/08/movies/08cnd-cameron.html?ei=5094&en=0bc81ed724640090&hp=&ex=1168318800&adxnnl=1&partner=homepage&adxnnlx=1168292526-5jQDX0DlIh2XSEtq+0aaiQ)

Novi Kameronov film, sudeci po onome sto sam dosad procitao, ima da bude teski flop. Zaplet je neverovatno, ali NEVEROVATNO sraaaanje!!! A ako je plot shit onda nema tu produkcije koja ce to da popravi.

A i zelim im da puknu bar pola milijarde! Dosta bre vise epic djubreta...

:-)

Ma otkad je zaplet presudan, bitno je dal se uzmu na kraju filma!

Pogledao sam trailer za AVATAR. Ovo je UŽASNO (sic!)!! Izgleda da je tatko konačno izgubio i posljednje zrnce razuma - iz aviona se vidi njegova tradicionalna moronska patetika koja, apparently, iz filma u film poprima sve strašnije dimenzije (u Aliens je bilo malo, ništa strašno, već u Abyss je ozbiljno nervirala i ometala gledanje inače simpatičnog filma, onda je došao Titanik o kome ne treba trošiti riječi, a Avatar će njega na tom polju naprosto da pregazi), imbecilni likovi bez trunke harizme (o smislu za humor da i ne govorim), bla bla čojstvo, bla bla junaštvo, bla bla ljudska prava, bla bla borba protiv ugnjetavanja...
Avatar će sasvm sigurno biti jedan od najgorih filmova decenije, ali nadam se da će u 3D bar biti prijatan za oko. Oh, let's face it, od "tri de prikaza" na bosanski način dobiću samo glavobolju :-(

I u Terminatoru i u Ejlijenu su žene iznele glavni teret a ne on.

Saut Park ga lepo oplete sa onim "Dances with Smurfs," i kako sada da se ne kikocem dok ga budem gledao?

Dragi svi,

Obavestavamo vas da su kompanija MTS Telekom Srbija i distributerska kuca Tuck Vision pokrenule novu MOBI-Karta uslugu za korisnike MTS mreze, uoci najiscekivanijeg filma u 2009. godini.



Vasu MOBI-Kartu za premijeru  filma ''Avatar'' kao korisnik MTS mreze, mozete obezbediti i putem SMS-a tako sto cete poslati poruku sa tekstom AVATAR 1 za 1 kartu ili AVATAR 2 za 2 karte na broj 5000.



Cena MOBI- Karte je 300 dinara, plus 50 dinara i PDV.



Premijera filma ''Avatar'' je zakazana za 16. decembar u Sava centru sa pocetkom u 20:30h.







S postovanjem,



Nevena Radulovic

PR Manager

Da se mi lepo organizujemo za tu premijeru, da idemo svi?

Meho je pogledao screener AVATARa čija je specifičnost u tome da se pušta na XBOXu i da moraš da kontrolišeš glavnog junaka...

Muahahaha :D

Jel to film za decu?

Simon Pegg Tweetuje:

simonpegg
 
Avatar ........................ tweetless. Just tweetless in the best possible way.

Dok se broje dani do premijere, evo muzike iz filma:

http://rapidshare.com/files/318931381/avascoree.rar

Tom Kameronu bi najbolje bilo da otvori štand sa limunadama jer je to jedino što zna da pravi.

AP review: Effects wow but story limps in `Avatar'

By JAKE COYLE, AP Entertainment Writer Jake Coyle, Ap Entertainment Writer   – 1 hr 53 mins ago

When a film brashly asserts that it will change moviemaking forever, one feels the urge to either take its "king of the world" arrogance down a notch or hail it as the masterpiece it claims to be.

But — and forgive us if this sounds too much like the dialogue in President Obama's war room — what if there's a third option?

James Cameron's 3-D "Avatar" has all the smack of a Film Not To Miss — a movie whose effects are clearly revolutionary, a spectacle that millions will find adventure in. But it nevertheless feels unsatisfying and somehow lacks the pulse of a truly alive film.

"Avatar" takes place in the year 2154 on the faraway moon of Pandora, where, befitting its mythological name, the ills of human life have been released. The Earth depleted, humans have arrived to mine an elusive mineral, wryly dubbed Unobtainium.

The Resources Developmental Administration, a kind of military contractor, is running the operation. At the top of the chain of command is the CEO-like Carter Selfridge (an excellent, ruthless Giovanni Ribisi), who's hellbent on showing quarterly profits for shareholders. His muscle and head of security is the rock-jawed Col. Miles Quaritch (Stephen Lang), who curses Pandora's inhabitants (the Na'vi) as savages and considers the place worse than hell.

In fact, it's a paradise. In Pandora, Cameron has fashioned a sensual, neon-colored, dreamlike world of lush jungle, gargantuan trees and floating mountains. Its splendor is easily the most wondrous aspect of "Avatar."

Cameron, like the deep sea diver that he is (his only films since 1997's "Titanic" have been underwater documentaries), lets his camera peer with fascination at the glow-in-the-dark plant life, the six-legged horses and — especially beautiful — the nighttime frog-like creatures that, when touched, open a bright white sail and spiral into the air.

It's this sense of discovery — in Pandora, in the wizardry of the filmmaking — that makes "Avatar" often thrilling.

Our main character is Jake Sully (Sam Worthington), a brawny former Marine who lost the power of his legs in battle on Earth. His scientist twin brother has just died and Sully, having a matching genome, is invited to replace him in a mission to Pandora.

He joins a small group of scientists lead by Dr. Grace Augustine (Sigourney Weaver) who are attempting to learn more about the Na'vi by conducting field studies and doing a bit of undercover science. They've created avatars of themselves to go about Pandora as a living, breathing Na'vi, while their human bodies lie dormant in a sort of tanning bed (they return to them when their avatars sleep).

The Na'vi are a 10-foot-tall species with translucent, aqua-colored skin, 3-fingered hands and smooth, lean torsos. They have long, neat dreadlocks for hair and wide, feline foreheads. The smart freckles on their brow faintly light up like tiny constellations.

With beady headdresses and skimpy sashes, the Na'vi are clearly meant to evoke Native Americans, as well as similarly exploited tribes of South America and Africa. They pray over a slayed animal and feel at one with nature. Their tails (oh, yes, they also have tails) even connect — like nature's USB port — to things like mystical willow branches, horse manes or the hair of pterodactyl-like birds.

It's no coincidence that the Na'vi chief Eyukan is played by the Cherokee actor Wes Studi, whose credits include "Dances with Wolves," perhaps the film most thematically akin to "Avatar."

"Avatar" is essentially a fairy tale that imagines a more favorable outcome for the oppressed fighting against the technology and might of Western Civilization. Sully, who quickly takes to life as a Na'vi, begins to feel his allegiances blurred.

Though he has promised Quaritch to spy on the Na'vi (their home lies atop an Unobtainium deposit), he begins to appreciate their ways. He also falls for Neytiri (Zoe Saldana), the Na'vi princess and the one who introduces him to the tribe.

Many Na'vi are suspicious of Sully — "a demon in a fake body" — but they eventually embrace him. They accept him as a leader, even though he occasionally goes limp and vacant when his human body isn't connected. This off-switch makes for questionable leadership skills — as if George Washington had been a narcoleptic.

The inevitable battle has overt shades of current wars. Quaritch, drinking coffee during a bombing with a cavalier callousness like Robert Duvall in "Apocalypse Now," drops phrases like "pre-emptive strike," "fight terror with terror" and even "shock and awe," a term apparently destined to survive for centuries in the lexicon.

These historical and contemporary overtones bring the otherworldly "Avatar" down to Earth and down to cliche. The message of environmentalism and of (literal) tree-hugging resonates, but such a plainly just cause also saps "Avatar" of drama and complexity.

It's also a funny message coming from such a swaggering behemoth of technology like "Avatar." As for the effects, they are undeniable. 3-D has recently become en vogue, but only know has it been used with such a depth of field.

The movie is also a notable advance for performance capture, which is how the Na'vi were created. As was done with Gollum in "The Lord of the Rings" and King Kong in "King Kong," the Na'vi were made with cameras and sensors recording the movements of the actors and transposing them onto the CGI creatures.

Seldom has this been done in a way that captured the most important thing — the eyes — but Cameron employed a new technology (a camera rigged like a helmet on the actors) to capture their faces up close. The green, flickering eyes of the Na'vi are a big step forward, but there's still an unmistakable emptiness to a movie so filled with digital creations.

Ultimately, the technology of "Avatar" isn't the problem — moviemaking, itself, is an exercise in technology. But one need look no further than Wes Anderson's "Fantastic Mr. Fox" to see how technique — whether it be antique stop-motion animation or state-of-the-art 3-D performance capture — can find soulfulness at 24 frames per second.

"Avatar," a 20th Century Fox release, is rated PG-13 for intense epic battle sequences and warfare, sensuality, language and some smoking. Running time: 161 minutes. Two and half stars out of four.

Kod nas stize i 3D verzija?

Quote from: nemanja on 11-12-2009, 11:41:50
Kod nas stize i 3D verzija?

To je ono što i mene kopka. Naime, ako je premijera u SC - to znači da će film biti prikazan u 2D. jedino Kolosej ima tehničke uslove da prikaže 3D filmove. On nam je poslednja nada. Raspitaću se.

Da vas utješim - sigurno stiže 3D verzija. Naime, čak i u Banjaluci će da bude prikazan u 3D, pa bi bilo prosto nevjerovatno da se to ne desi u Beogradu.

Pitao sam i dobio brz odgovor. 3D varijanta Avatara stiže u Srbiju.

Variety:

Avatar
By TODD MCCARTHY

A 20th Century Fox release presented in association with Dune Entertainment and Ingenious Film Partners. Produced by James Cameron, Jon Landau. Executive producers, Colin Wilson, Laeta Kalogrios. Co-producders, Brooke Breton, Josh McLaglen. Directed, written by James Cameron.

Jake Sully - Sam Worthington
Neytiri - Zoe Saldana
Grace - Sigourney Weaver
Col. Miles Quaritch - Stephen Lang
Trudy Chacon - Michelle Rodriguez
Parker Selfridge - Giovanni Ribisi
Norm Spellman - Joel David Moore
Moat - CCH Pounder
Eytukan - Wes Studi
Tsu'tey - Laz Alonso
Dr. Max Patel - Dileep Rao
Corporal Lyle Wainfleet - Matt Gerald
  The King of the World sets his sights on creating another world entirely in "Avatar," and it's very much a place worth visiting. The most expensive and technically ambitious film ever made, James Cameron's long-gestating epic pitting Earthly despoilers against a forest-dwelling alien race delivers unique spectacle, breathtaking sights, narrative excitement and an overarching anti-imperialist, back-to-nature theme that will play very well around the world, and yet is rather ironic coming from such a technology-driven picture. Twelve years after "Titanic," which still stands as the all-time B.O. champ, Cameron delivers again with a film of universal appeal that just about everyone who ever goes to the movies will need to see.
Cameron reportedly wrote the story, if not the full script, for "Avatar" at least 15 years ago but decided he had to wait until visual effects capabilities advanced sufficiently to credibly render his imagined world and its inhabitants. On this fundamental level, the picture is a triumph; it's all of a piece, in no way looking like a vague mish-mash of live-action, CGI backdrops, animation, performance capture and post-production effects. On top of that, the 3D is agreeably unemphatic, drawing the viewer into the action without calling attention to itself. The third dimension functions as an enhancement, not a raison d'etre, so the film will look perfectly fine without it. (When it opens domestically on Dec. 15, approximately 2100 screens will feature 3D, with another 1200 in 2D.)

Then there's the appearance of the indigenous Na'vi clan. In the wake of the still photographs, trailers and 15-minute appetizer offered up by Fox in recent months, a certain wait-and-see reaction could be felt that raised mild doubts about how physically appealing the protagonists would be. But once they're introduced in the context of the picture, these blue-skinned, yellow-eyed creatures quickly become captivating, even sexy, with their rangy height, slim and elongated bodies and skimpy wardrobe, and the grace and dexterity with which they move.

A few more lines of exposition might have helped explain why, in the year 2154 (according to the press notes), Earthlings, represented exclusively, for some reason, by the United States armed forces, need to travel light years away to Pandora to mine a precious mineral that will help rescue the planet from ecological disaster. (Does the U.S. now rule the world? Or is this nation, exclusively, concerned about the environment? Is it the only country left? Or is it simply the best villain for global consumption?)

After the death of his identical-twin scientist brother, wheelchair-bound former Marine Jake Sully (Sam Worthington) takes his place to become an Avatar, a hybrid being that combines human DNA with that of the Na'vi; achieving the Avatar status occurs under lab conditions, with the subject experiencing his or her alternate state as if in a dream. The official hope is that negotiations can help persuade the natives to move aside and allow further exploitation of their land, although hawkish mission commander Col. Miles Quaritch (Stephen Lang) enlists the gung ho Jake's help as his personal military spy.

Early glimpses of the intergalactic spaceship, weightless crew members and Avatars floating in liquid-filled cylinders are mere teasers for the wonders awaiting on Pandora itself. Unlike most sci-fi and action films, which seem compelled by formula to kick off with a slam-bang opening and then punctuate things with more mayhem every 20 minutes or so, "Avatar" more gently escorts the viewer into its new world while utilizing a classical three-act structure.

Unavoidable Vietnam vibes emanate from the scenes of futuristic choppers descending upon the verdant jungles and mountainsides of Pandora, a land filled with exotic insects, giant airborne reptiles and birds, dinosaur-like beasts and fearsome, dog-like attack animals. Separated from his scientific companion and fellow Avatar Grace (Sigourney Weaver) and stranded at night, Jake is rescued from becoming a midnight snack by Na'vi warrior Neytiri (Zoe Saldana), who subsequently shows the interloper around and very gradually warms to him as he demonstrates an aptitude for native ways.

Cameron's extensive experience on deep-water ocean dives, which resulted in a couple of Imax 3D documentaries, no doubt influenced the glowing, luminous nature of some of the plant life and floating seeds that waft through the environment's atmosphere, while the grander landscapes offer staggering vistas of places that are perhaps most reminiscent of South America, just as the Na'vi most strongly call to mind the natives of the Americas in their customs and tribal manners. For their language, which is extensively spoken with subtitled translation, Cameron had a professor, Paul Frommer, invent a tongue of more than 1,000 words from scratch, although Neytiri, among others, has previously learned pretty good English from Grace.

Although the young Na'vi males resent him, Jake learns quickly and earns his stripes by successfully piloting a giant flying banshee. After three months, however, just as the colonel is ready to send his young charge back home, Jake crosses over and, inspired by his intimacy with Neytiri, goes native. It's "A Man Called Horse" all over again, with Jake, believing he can help the clan repel the invaders, taking up the role of a resistance leader against overwhelming odds.

Final stretch is devoted to the ferocious battle between the Earthly maurauders, with their huge airborne battleships and mighty arsenal, and the nearly naked home team, armed mostly with bows and arrows. Despite the latter fighting on friendly terrain, the mismatch is just too great, and the way things pan out strikes the one somewhat discordant dramatic note in the picture, resulting in a bit of final-reel deflation; surely, a more complex but believable climax and aftermath could have been found.

Thematically, the film also plays too simplistically into stereotypical evil-white-empire/virtuous-native cliches, especially since the invaders are presumably on an environmental rescue mission on behalf of the entire world, not just the U.S. Script is rooted very much in a contemporary eco-green mindset, which makes its positions and the sympathies it encourages entirely predictable and unchallenging.

On an experiential level, however, "Avatar" is all-enveloping and transporting, with Cameron & Co.'s years of R&D paying off with a film that, as his work has done before, raises the technical bar and throws down a challenge for the many other filmmakers toiling in the sci-fi/fantasy realm. The lead team from Weta in New Zealand as well as the numerous other visual-effects and animation firms involved have done marvelous and exacting work, a compliment that extends to every other craft and technical contribution on view.

Playing a grunt in a crewcut before his transformation, Worthington is tough, gruff and assertive as the genetic pioneer turned insurrectionist, while Saldana proves her mettle as yet another kickass Cameron heroine. Lang, already seen to great advantage this year in "Public Enemies," is a relentless militarist par excellence, while Weaver, looking great wearing a Stanford T-shirt, no doubt a personal touch by the alum, is wonderfully authoritative as a scientist so unimpeachable that she can get away with smoking on board an intergalactic spaceship.

Camera (Deluxe color, widescreen, HD, 3D), Mauro Fiore; editors, Stephen Rivkin, John Refoua, Cameron; music, James Horner; production designer, Rick Carter, Robert Stromberg; supervising virtual art director, Yuri Bartoli; lead supervising art director, Kim Sinclair; supervising art directors, Kevin Ishioka, Stefan Dechant, Todd Cherniawsky; virtual production art directors, Andrew L. Jones, Norm Newberry; art directors, Nick Bassett, Rob Bavin, Simon Bright, Jill Cormack, Sean Haworth, Andrew Menzies, Andy McLaren; costume designers, Mayes C. Rubeo, Deborah L. Scott; sound (Dolby/DTS), Jim Tanenbaum, William B. Kaplan; supervising sound editor/sound designer, Christopher Boyes; re-recording mixers, Boyes, Gary Summers, Andy Nelson; senior visual effects supervisor, Joe Letteri; Weta visual effects supervisors, Stephen Rosenbau, Eric Saindon, Dan Lemmon, Guy Williams; ILM visual effects supervisor, John Knoll; visual effects and animation, Weta Digital, Industrial Light & Magic, Prime Focux; visual effects, Framestore, Hybride, Hydraulx, BUF; animation supervisors, Richard Baneham, Andrew R. Jones; ILM animation supervisor, Paul Kavanagh; visual effects supervisors, John Bruno, Steven Quale; performance capture technology and production services, Giant Studios; conceptual design, costume and specialty props, Richard Taylor; Stan Winston character design supervisor, John Rosengrant; lead creature designer, Neville Page; vehicle designer, Tyruben Ellingson; initial creature concepts, Wayne Barlowe; Na'vi language created by Paul Frommer; stunt coordinators, Garrett Warren (U.S.), Stu Thorpe, Allan Poppleton (New Zealand); associate producer, Janace Tashjian; assistant director, Josh McLaglen; L.A. unit camera, Vince Pace; casting, Margery Simkin; initial casting, Mali Finn. Reviewed at 20th Century Fox Studios, Los Angeles, Dec. 10, 2009. MPAA Rating: PG-13. Running time: 163 MIN.

Avatar -- Film Review
By Kirk Honeycutt, December 10, 2009 06:38 ET
"Avatar"  Rate This Film
Cast and CrewProducer: James Cameron
Producer: Jon Landau
Director: James Cameron
Screen Writer: James Cameron
Prod. Designer: Rick Carter
Visual Effects Supervisor: Brooke Breton
Cast: Sam Worthington (Actor), Zoe Saldana (Actor), Sigourney Weaver (Actor), Joel Moore (Actor), C.C.H. Pounder (Actor), Peter Mensah (Actor), Laz Alonso (Actor), Wes Studi (Actor), Giovanni Ribisi (Actor), Matt Gerald (Actor), Dileep Rao (Actor)
Bottom Line: A titanic entertainment -- movie magic is back!
A dozen years later, James Cameron has proven his point: He is king of the world.

As commander-in-chief of an army of visual-effects technicians, creature designers, motion-capture mavens, stunt performers, dancers, actors and music and sound magicians, he brings science-fiction movies into the 21st century with the jaw-dropping wonder that is "Avatar." And he did it almost from scratch.

There is no underlying novel or myth to generate his story. He certainly draws deeply on Westerns, going back to "The Vanishing American" and, in particular, "Dances With Wolves." And the American tragedy in Vietnam informs much of his story. But then all great stories build on the past ( "Avatar" premiered Thursday in London).

After writing this story many years ago, he discovered that the technology he needed to make it happen did not exist. So, he went out and created it in collaboration with the best effects minds in the business. This is motion capture brought to a new high where every detail of the actors' performances gets preserved in the final CG character as they appear on the screen. Yes, those eyes are no longer dead holes but big and expressive, almost dominating the wide and long alien faces.

The movie is 161 minutes and flies by in a rush. Repeat business? You bet. "Titanic"-level business? That level may never be reached again, but Fox will see more than enough grosses worldwide to cover its bet on Cameron.

But let's cut to the chase: A fully believable, flesh-and-blood (albeit not human flesh and blood) romance is the beating heart of "Avatar." Cameron has never made a movie just to show off visual pyrotechnics: Every bit of technology in "Avatar" serves the greater purpose of a deeply felt love story (watch the trailer here).

The story takes place in 2154, three decades after a multinational corporation has established a mining colony on Pandora, a planet light years from Earth. A toxic environment and hostile natives -- one corporate apparatchik calls the locals "blue monkeys" -- forces the conglom to engage with Pandora by proxy. Humans dwell in oxygen-drenched cocoons but move out into mines or to confront the planet's hostile creatures in hugely fortified armor and robotics or -- as avatars.

The protagonist, Jake Sully (Sam Worthington), is a crippled former Marine who takes his late twin brother's place in the avatar program, a sort of bone thrown to the scientific community by the corporation in hopes that the study of Pandora and its population might create a more peaceful planet.

Without any training, Jake suddenly must learn how to link his consciousness to an avatar, a remotely controlled biological body that mixes human DNA with that of the native population, the Na'vi. Since he is incautious and overly curious, he immediately rushes into the fresh air -- to a native -- to throw open Pandora's many boxes.

What a glory Cameron has created for Jake to romp in, all in a crisp 3D realism. It's every fairy tale about flying dragons, magic plants, weirdly hypnotic creepy-crawlies and feral dogs rolled up into a rain forest with a highly advanced spiritual design. It seems -- although the scientists led by Sigourney Weaver's top doc have barely scratched the surface -- a flow of energy ripples through the roots of trees and the spores of the plants, which the Na'vi know how to tap into.

The center of life is a holy tree where tribal memories and the wisdom of their ancestors is theirs for the asking. This is what the humans want to strip mine.

Jake manages to get taken in by one tribe where a powerful, Amazonian named Neytiri (Zoe Saldana) takes him under her wing to teach him how to live in the forest, speak the language and honor the traditions of nature. Yes, they fall in love but Cameron has never been a sentimentalist: He makes it tough on his love birds.

They must overcome obstacles and learn each other's heart. The Na'vi have a saying, "I see you," which goes beyond the visual. It means I see into you and know your heart.

In his months with the Na'vi, Jake experiences their life as the "true world" and that inside his crippled body locked in a coffin-like transponding device, where he can control his avatar, is as the "dream." The switch to the other side is gradual for his body remains with the human colony while his consciousness is sometimes elsewhere.

He provides solid intelligence about the Na'vi defensive capabilities to Col. Miles Quaritch (Stephen Lang), the ramrod head of security for the mining consortium and the movie's villain. But as Jake comes to see things through Neytiri's eyes, he hopes to establish enough trust between the humans and the natives to negotiate a peace. But the corporation wants the land the Na'vi occupy for its valuable raw material so the Colonel sees no purpose in this.

The battle for Pandora occupies much of the final third of the film. The planet's animal life -- the creatures of the ground and air -- give battle along with the Na'vi, but they come up against projectiles, bombs and armor that seemingly will be their ruin.


   
As with everything in "Avatar," Cameron has coolly thought things through. With every visual tool he can muster, he takes viewers through the battle like a master tactician, demonstrating how every turn in the fight, every valiant death or cowardly act, changes its course. The screen is alive with more action and the soundtrack pops with more robust music than any dozen sci-fi shoot-'em-ups you care to mention (watch the "Avatar" video game trailer here).

In years of development and four years of production no detail in the pic is unimportant. Cameron's collaborators excel beginning with the actors. Whether in human shape or as natives, they all bring terrific vitality to their roles.

Mauro Fiore's cinematography is dazzling as it melts all the visual elements into a science-fiction whole. You believe in Pandora. Rick Carter and Robert Stromberg's design brings Cameron's screenplay to life with disarming ease.

James Horner's score never intrudes but subtlety eggs the action on while the editing attributed to Cameron, Stephen Rivkin and John Refoua maintains a breathless pace that exhilarates rather than fatigues. Not a minute is wasted; there is no down time.

The only question is: How will Cameron ever top this?

Opens: Dec. 18 (20th Century Fox)
Production companies: 20th Century Fox in association with Dune Entertainment and Ingenious Film Partners
Cast: Sam Worthington, Zoe Saldana, Sigourney Weaver, Stephen Lang, Michelle Rodriguez, Giovanni Ribisi, Joel David Moore, CCH Pounder, Wes Studi, Laz Alonso
Director/screenwriter: James Cameron
Producers: James Cameron. Jon Landau
Executive producers: Colin Wilson, Laeta Kalogridis
Director of photography: Mauro Fiore
Production designers: Rick Carter, Robert Stromberg
Music: James Horner
Senior visual effects supervisor: Joe Letteri
Costume designers: Mayes C. Rubeo, Deborah L. Scott
Editors: Stephen Rivkin, John Refoua, James Cameron
Rated PG-13, 161 minutes

Avatar
11 December, 2009 | By Mike Goodridge


Dir/scr: James Cameron. US. 2009. 161 mins.


12 years after Titanic, James Cameron delivers his latest blockbuster and once again takes cinema to a new level of remarkable spectacle. An epic film born entirely of Cameron's imagination, Avatar uses tailor-made technology to create the most astonishing visual effects yet seen on screen and blends them seamlessly into a mythical sci-fi story about an ancient alien civilisation fighting the encroaching human menace. It's an unprecedented marriage of technology and storytelling which is on the whole remarkably successful.

Cameron's legendary attention to detail is of course in evidence
Although Fox and Cameron showcased 20 minutes of footage earlier this year, audiences will still be astonished by the gigantic sci-fi tapestry that the film-maker has woven here in crisp and striking 3D images. Avatar should see large figures on opening December 18, but business will also be sustained over subsequent weeks as word of mouth spreads.

Could it hit Titanic numbers? Probably not, as Avatar is more of a boy's own adventure, lacking the DiCaprio factor which so obsessed teenage girls back in 1998. It does have its own zeitgeist feel, however, with the visual wow factor augmented by its resonant contemporary themes (environmental destruction, war and corporate corruption) in the context of a sci-fi adventure story. And if that's not enough, it features a love affair between two blue-skinned aliens which is surprisingly romantic and affecting.

Fox has a lot riding on the film which it says cost $237m to produce and $150m to release. It should recoup that, and unlike Titanic, where it brought in Paramount to co-finance, Fox has no distribution pot to share, although the studio has financial partners in Dune Capital Management and Ingenious Film Partners. International revenues should dwarf domestic, as happened on Titanic, and, in acknowledgment of the film's global prospects, the world premiere took place in London on Dec 10.

Avatar will also benefit from higher priced tickets at 3D theatres and IMAX screens, not to mention the added boost it could get from awards recognition.

The story is an amalgam of numerous well-worn genres and inspirations – the western, the Pocahantas story, The Last Of The Mohicans, Cameron's own The Abyss, Star Wars, Dances With Wolves and more. Cameron's characterisations and dialogue are often crude and cliched, as Titanic demonstrated, although Avatar's hackneyed dialogue feels more appropriate to the adventure genre he is tackling.

Taking place in 2154, the film follows a wheelchair-bound US marine called Jake Scully (Worthington) who wakes up from six years of cryogenic sleep on the distant planet of Pandora, where a large corporation is mining a powerful mineral that could help solve the earth's energy crisis.

He has been recruited as a "driver", a human whose consciousness is linked to an avatar. This remotely controlled biological body is a genetically engineered hybrid of human DNA and DNA from the Pandora natives, 10-foot-tall blue humanoid creatures called Na'vi.

Jake is charged with infiltrating the Na'vi and learning their ways in order to persuade them to cooperate with the mining operation. This happens sooner than he expected when his life is saved by a Na'vi female called Neytiri (Saldana), and he is taken in by her clan. But he soon learns to love the culture and values of the Na'vi, who have a magical connection to the forest they live in. As the human forces start to move in and seize the minerals, Jake finds himself torn between two bodies and two loyalties.

The motion capture technique which Cameron pioneered with Weta Digital is extraordinary, and the expressiveness of the Na'vi, as based on full body performances by Worthington, Saldana, Weaver and others, is immensely engaging. The technique moves film leaps and bounds beyond Gollum, King Kong or anything from the Robert Zemeckis canon with the result that Avatar's digital characters are as compelling as any humans. Most of the Pandora sections are fully animated, yet it is frankly impossible to tell exactly what is and what isn't while watching.

Cameron's legendary attention to detail is of course in evidence, not just in the alien language designed for the film but in some of the frames so overstuffed with creatures, insects, colours and painterly compositions that they cannot be adequately appreciated on one viewing. Fox will be hoping, that, like Titanic, one visit to Avatar will not be enough for millions of cinemagoers around the world.

To sign up for Screen's weekly Reviews Newsletter with all the week's new releases, international openings and full festival reviews delivered free to your mailbox every Friday, please click HERE

Production companies

Lightstorm Entertainment

Ingenious Film Partners

Worldwide distribution

20th Century Fox/Fox International

Producer

Jon Landau

Cinematography

Mauro Fiore

Production designers

Rick Carter

Robert Stromberg

Editors

James Cameron

John Refoua

Steven Rivkin

Music

James Horner

Main cast

Sam Worthington

Zoe Saldana

Sigourney Weaver

Stephen Lang

Michelle Rodriguez

Giovanni Ribisi

Joel David Moore

CCH Pounder

Wes Studi

čak se i rts oglasio povodom avatara:

Повратак филмске магије

Дуго очекивани сај-фај спектакл Џејмса Камерона је на самом старту добио одличне критике, уз оцену да је ,,краљ света" вратио филмску магију у биоскопе. ,,Аватар" је већ стављен на списак филмова који ће бити разматрани приликом номинација за Оскара за специјалне ефекте.

Џејмс Камерон је, дуго пре премијере ,,Аватара", најављивао да ће отићи корак даље у употреби специјалних ефеката и поставити нове стандарде у снимању научно-фантастичних филмова.

Само два дана после претпремијере у Лондону, Америчка филмска академија је потврдила оно што су сви очекивали - ,,Аватар" је стављен на списак 15 филмова који ће бити узети у обзир за номинације за Оскара у категорији специјалних ефеката.

Нико не сумња да ће 7. марта, на додели Оскара, Камерон и његов филм имати запажене улоге и то не само када је о наградама за специјалне ефекте реч.

Критике ,,Аватара", који је у четвртак претпремијерно приказан у Лондону, званично није требало да буду објављене до понедељка, али су неки медији прекршили тај договор и похвалили ,,неодољиви спектал", а Камерона прогласили ,,краљем света".

,,'Аватар' је неодољив спектакл који одушевљава", пише ,,Тајмс", који је филму дао четири од могућих пет звездица.

,,Тродимензионална технологија је одлична, али је оно што фасцинира велика необичност тог новог измишљеног, тропског и дречећег света", пише лист.

И ,,Гардијан" је 3Д технологију у филму назвао ,,одличном", а специјалне ефекте ,,изузетним".

Новинари који су гледали филм ,,тврде да Камеронова суперпродукција иде ,,корак даље од свега што су до сада видели", пише лондонски дневник.

,,То је филм о којем ће људи за неколико година говорити да је изменио кинематографију", пише високотиражни ,,Сан".

,,Једини разлог због којег 'Аватар' неће надмашити 'Титаник' у биоскопима је то што у свету нема довољно нумеричких екрана на којима може да се приказује у свој својој раскоши 3Д технике", наводи лист.

Једнако одушевљење филмом влада и на другој страни Атлантика - ,,Холивуд репортер" је филм назвао ,,огромним спектаклом".

,,Филмска магија се вратила! Дванаест година после ('Титаника'), Џејмс Камерон показује да је био у праву: он је краљ света", наводи холивудски дневник.

Радња ,,Аватара" смештена је у будућност, у време када људски род истражује удаљене планете, користећи вештачка тела реалистичног изгледа, названа ,,аватари".

Међутим, аватари улазе у конфликт са ванземаљцима, по узору на које су направљени (Нави), а који насељавају егзотични свет Пандору.

Ванземаљци су високи око три метра, плаве боје, изгледају привлачно и представљају спој покрета глумаца и дигитализованих слика.

,,Аватар" користи нову технику која спаја снимљене и синтетичке слике, што је омогућило Камерону да у реалном времену мења заступљеност та два елемента у различитом односу.

Главну улогу у филму тумачи Сем Вордингтон, Аустралијанац који се прославио последњим наставком ,,Терминатора", а у још једном спектаклу у најави, ,,Борба титана", тумачи лик Персеја.

Поред њега, глуме и Сигурни Вивер, Зои Салдана и Стивен Ланг.

,,Аватар" у европске биоскопе стиже 16. децембра, када је премијера и у Србији, а у северноамеричке два дана касније.

Његови творци надају се да ће поновити успех ,,Титаника", филма награђеног са 11 Оскара који је зарадио 1,8 милијарди долара, што је рекорд за неки филм у светским биоскопима.

http://rts.rs/page/magazine/ci/story/401/%D0%A4%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%BC/364221/%D0%9F%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BA+%D1%84%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%BC%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B5+%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%B8%D1%98%D0%B5.html (http://rts.rs/page/magazine/ci/story/401/%D0%A4%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%BC/364221/%D0%9F%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BA+%D1%84%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%BC%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B5+%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%B8%D1%98%D0%B5.html)

Wow! Čovjek zaista mora biti impresioniran ovim silnim pohvalama za scenario, režiju, glumu,... [/sarkazam]

Još bolji od Titanika! WOW!!!!

Od svih koji su gledali na internim projekcijama čujem samo ekstatične pohvale. Doduše, svi su Cameronovi fanovi...

Od najvećeg reditelja svih vremena logično je očekivati samo najbolje filmove ikada.

Quote from: Alex on 13-12-2009, 18:20:16
Od najvećeg reditelja svih vremena logično je očekivati samo najbolje filmove ikada.

Da, ali ovo je topik o filmu Džejmsa Kamerona.

Ahhh, mi fanovi ćemo zavaljeni u fotelju u prazničnim zimskim noćima pijuckati šampanjac, dok nas mediji budu izveštavali o milijardama koje zarađuje Avatar, o maksimalnim ocenama koje dobija u recenzijama i o desetinama oskara koje će dobiti.

Dok će neki crkavati od muke i iskaljivati bes na svom hrčku uskraćujući mu redovne obroke.

Avatar će biti ljigavština i u 2D i u 3D i u 6D (ako postoji i takva verzija, a nema razloga da ne postoji), zaradio milijarde ili desetine hiljada bilo čega.

Jedva čekam da ljudi počnu da izlaze sa projekcija sa glavoboljom od višečasovne patetike.

Ako je patetičan, znači da je strastan, osećajan; dirljiv; ganutljiv, uzbudljiv, potresan; koji izaziva uzvišena osećanja, uzvišen; snažan i dostojanstven.

Patetično, može biti negativna stvar samo za ljubitelje alternativnog rocka i ljubitelje horora - a oni da znaju za bolje ne bi bili to što jesu. :idea:

Jedva čekam kaće Vojo i Kusto da ga sarane tamo u Ksilopolisu...

Quote from: Alex on 13-12-2009, 21:09:39Patetično, može biti negativna stvar samo za ljubitelje alternativnog rocka i ljubitelje horora - a oni da znaju za bolje ne bi bili to što jesu.

Hvala bogovima, tako jeste, tako će i ostati.

Juče sam pričao sa jednim od prvosveštenika kameronizma kod nas, njegovim najstarijim fanom, koji je imao priliku da vidi film i kaže da je fenomenalan a da je Sam W. novi Michael Biehn! :)

...s tim što je meni, recimo, taj Michael Biehn oduvek bio jedno mrtvo puvalo za koje nikako nisam shvatao šta taj kameron vidi u njemu, jer njegovi su filmovi bili bolji uprkos binu u njima, a ne zbog njega.

Pa meni je Biehn bio dobar u nekim filmovima i izvan cameronovog opusa, ali generalno svakako da nije bio glumac koji može sam za sebe da funkcioniše. On nije zvezda tog formata ali u pravom kontekstu jeste jako dobar.

U Terminatoru je dobro legao, kad treba da odigra izbezumljenost. Ali za drugo, izgleda da se nije dokazao.

Kao predigru za AVATAR predlažem gledanje epizoda serije ENTOURAGE u kojima se govori o Cameronovom filmu AQUAMAN.

Zar nije bolje da jednostavno pogledamo Titanik?

ja sam u sklopu priprema za tatka repriziro ABYSS, koji bih opisao kao 3/5 odličnog filma, 1/5 dobrog filma i 1/5 besramno imbecilne bljuzge.
govorim, dakako, o director's cut verziji.

takođe sam pogledao Ghosts of the Abyss (doc), koji je svakako bolji i pošteniji film od TITANIKA.

Quoteja sam u sklopu priprema za tatka repriziro ABYSS, koji bih opisao kao 3/5 odličnog filma, 1/5 dobrog filma i 1/5 besramno imbecilne bljuzge.
govorim, dakako, o director's cut verziji.

Davno sam gledao, ali njušim da bi ondašnji ja ovo potpisao. Koja bi to ocjena bila po tvojoj tarifi?

zaista je teško numerički opisati odličan film koji se tako blatantno posere po samom sebi u zadnjih pola sata.

zbog onog dobrog što je tome prethodilo, negde oko 3+/4-

Ja sam bukvalno na ivici samoubistva. Kao što je poznato ne izlazim iz kuće kad je sneg, a sad je sneg. Sad kad je AVATAR. Poludeću...

Quote from: Ghoul on 15-12-2009, 00:48:27zbog onog dobrog što je tome prethodilo, negde oko 3+/4-

To je ocena za director's cut? Koju ocenu bi dao bioskopskoj verziji?

mislim da sam oba puta gledo full, u svakom slučaju, sad na reprizu sam gledo dir. cut i jedino prema njemu imam stav.

Quote from: crippled_avenger on 15-12-2009, 01:51:42
Ja sam bukvalno na ivici samoubistva. Kao što je poznato ne izlazim iz kuće kad je sneg, a sad je sneg. Sad kad je AVATAR. Poludeću...

Dilema dostojna Šekspira, nema šta.

Očekivao sam mnogo više. Vizuelno je film spektakularan (i to u 2D verziji), dok je scenario blago rečeno problematičan tj. priča je prilično tanka, prozaična i infantilna, dijalozi su loši, naracija je trapava i para uši, a najgore od svega, film je prilično dramaturški ravan i predvidiv. Stephen Lang je napravio fenomenalnu epizodu i izvukao najbolje iz Cameronovog crno-belog sveta kad je reč o likovima, a trenutak (spoiler) na kraju kad uđe u egzoskelet i krene u jedan na jedan obračun, jedan je od najboljih momenata i dobra inverzija završetka Aliensa (ovde je čovek taj koji je monstrum a ne vanzemaljac). U suštini, ovo je jedna staromodna avantura, začinjena sa malo ne previše ubedljive melodrame, upakovana (vrhunski!) u SF ruho, dok je u sve zamuljano malo new age mistike koja deluje naivno i nedomišljeno. Ko je očekivao thinking man's SF neka pogleda ponovo District 9, pošto ovo NIJE takav film. Efekti su sjajni, i tu nema mesta kritici, baš kao i dizajn čitavog sveta, stvorenja, biljki, letilica, oružja i sl. i prava je šteta što Cameron nije napisao bolji scenario koji bi poslužio kao kičma za vizuelnu feštu. Ovo je 3+ i to uz mnogo dobre volje, i mada ću ga svakako pogledati i u 3D nisam previše nestrpljiv da ga repriziram. Šteta.

Već iz trejlera se vidi da je film ideološki "prljav"...

Mislim da je preteerano reći za DISTRICT 9 da je thinking man's film osim ako taj koji želi da misli uz taj film nije ometen u razvoju. Ja inače volim DISTRICT 9 ali ne smatram da mu je lepota unutrašnja :)

Nažalost, bio sam sprečen da prisustvujem današnjem misteriju, ali sve što čujem o filmu me ohrabruje, čak i negativni komentari. Najbitnije mi je to što još uvek niko nije rekao da je film dosadan.

Druga lepa stvar je što čujem da su ovi vanzemaljci u stvari u poziciji Srba na Kosovu i ne daju Amerikancima da im ruše svetinje. Ameriko, platićeš ti svoje, zbog Kosova i Pandore moje.

AVATAR je vizuelno fascinantan. U to nema sumnje. Odlazak u bioskop je a must, ovo je film koji se gleda na velikom platnu - i to po mogucstvu u 3D. Pune oci. Tatko se zaista vratio na velika vrata i to sa stilom.

E sada, da razmak izmedju ovog filma i prethodnog nije bio toliki koliki je, ja se ne bih mnogo zalio. Kako jeste, ostaje fakat (Milosh je to lepo primetio) da scenario nije bas inovatorski. Zaplet ne moze da se meri sa spektakularnosti i
vizuelnog dela. Ne kazem da je prica katastrofa, ali ocekivao sam vise od film ovog kalibra. Puno je pozajmica i opstih mesta, to ume da ugusi verziranijeg gledaoca (klinci ce, s druge strane, biti odusevljeni).

U svakom slucaju - veoma se radujem sto cu za vikend AVATARA pogledati i u 3D. A vec i to nesto govori.

što prljav?
dobri zeleni vegani protiv zlih korporacija i mašina...

Quote from: crippled_avenger on 15-12-2009, 18:34:29
Mislim da je preteerano reći za DISTRICT 9 da je thinking man's film...

U odnosu na Avatar svakako jeste...

Kad već pominješ, meni film jeste bio na momente dosadan, ali nisam to isprva pomenuo pošto sam se više koncentrisao na one objektivnije probleme, ali nije to drastično, već je više stvar u tome da ovde realno ne postoji dovoljno priče za 150 minuta filma, pa lako sve sklizne u lepu razlednicu, ali zato u trenucima kad nešto krene da se dešava (posebno u drugoj polovini) to ni najmanje nije dosadno.

Quote from: Kunac on 15-12-2009, 18:37:51Puno je pozajmica i opstih mesta, to ume da ugusi verziranijeg gledaoca (klinci ce, s druge strane, biti odusevljeni).

I meni se čini da bih odlepio na film da imam duplo manje godina, kad sam bio klinac omiljeni SF film (i jedan od glavnih razloga što sam se zainteresovao za žanr) mi je bila Linčova Dina...

Quote from: Ghoul on 15-12-2009, 18:42:00dobri zeleni vegani protiv zlih korporacija i mašina...

Plavi su...

smešan je svako ko očekuje 'inovatorski' scenario od nečega što je koštalo bar 320 MILIONA dolara (a verovatno mnogo više).

kad su tolike pare u igri - a slučaj TITANIKA je to već pokazao - onda naravno da će da se ide na klišee i bljuzgu.

što reče dimbo, samo da ne bude dosadno, a sve ostalo je plus.

Dobro, prva dva komentara (Milosha i Kunca) očigledno pokazuju da sam ocjenu kvaliteta filma ispravno ekstrapolirao na osnovu trejlera. Prekosutra gledam u 3D, jedva čekam! Njam njam!

Quote from: Ghoul on 15-12-2009, 18:48:38smešan je svako ko očekuje 'inovatorski' scenario od nečega što je koštalo bar 320 MILIONA dolara (a verovatno mnogo više).

kad su tolike pare u igri - a slučaj TITANIKA je to već pokazao - onda naravno da će da se ide na klišee i bljuzgu.

U većini slučajeva to jeste tako, ali kad je reč o Cameronu ne bih se složio i mislim da on sve radi zato što misli da to tako treba, uključujući i klišee; slično kao i Spielberg, s tim što je Cameron do sada dobro balansirao melodramu. Ukratko, mislim da u ovom slučaju nije bilo nikakvih kompromisa i da je on snimio tačno onakav film kao što je i želeo. E sad, što se godinama bavio samo tehnikom, a kao pisac ne da nije napredovao nego je i regresirao, to je već posebna priča...

Inače, pitam se dokle li će ovim svijetom da vlada taj odurni Star Trek sindrom da se "vanzemaljci" dobijaju tako što se ljudima zašilje uši i/ili iscrta nekoliko ukrasa na faci. Ne mogu da vjerujem da taj blentavi Kameron, koji još od Titanika kenja kako oće da snimi ovaj film samo "tehnologija nije dovoljno uznapredovala", nije za vanzemaljce mogo da smisli ništa pametnije od vilenjaka ofarbanih u plavo. Izem ti njegovu "maštu". Kladim se u košulju da bi sa ovolikim parama Don Bluth snimio tristo pedeset miliona puta bolji film.

Quote from: Ghoul on 15-12-2009, 18:42:00
što prljav?
dobri zeleni vegani protiv zlih korporacija i mašina...

Ili - obratno  :P

Quote from: Ghoul on 15-12-2009, 03:18:16
mislim da sam oba puta gledo full, u svakom slučaju, sad na reprizu sam gledo dir. cut i jedino prema njemu imam stav.

Koliko se sećam, mada sam bioskopsku verziju odavno gledao, ta kraća verzija je zapravo bolja nego director's cut (što važi i za ostale Cameronove filmove), nema talasa i poruke koja se čekićem ukucava u glavu.

Quote from: Milosh on 15-12-2009, 18:55:54

Quote from: Ghoul on 15-12-2009, 18:48:38smešan je svako ko očekuje 'inovatorski' scenario od nečega što je koštalo bar 320 MILIONA dolara (a verovatno mnogo više).

kad su tolike pare u igri - a slučaj TITANIKA je to već pokazao - onda naravno da će da se ide na klišee i bljuzgu.

U većini slučajeva to jeste tako, ali kad je reč o Cameronu ne bih se složio i mislim da on sve radi zato što misli da to tako treba, uključujući i klišee; slično kao i Spielberg, s tim što je Cameron do sada dobro balansirao melodramu. Ukratko, mislim da u ovom slučaju nije bilo nikakvih kompromisa i da je on snimio tačno onakav film kao što je i želeo. E sad, što se godinama bavio samo tehnikom, a kao pisac ne da nije napredovao nego je i regresirao, to je već posebna priča...

Mislim da on nikad nije bio pretjerano krvavo dobar pisac, ali uspio je da napiše jedan stvarno izvanredan scenario koji, gle ironije, nije režirao, a poslije toga je sve i konačno otišlo u materinu.

Quote from: Milosh on 15-12-2009, 18:58:50

Quote from: Ghoul on 15-12-2009, 03:18:16
mislim da sam oba puta gledo full, u svakom slučaju, sad na reprizu sam gledo dir. cut i jedino prema njemu imam stav.

Koliko se sećam, mada sam bioskopsku verziju odavno gledao, ta kraća verzija je zapravo bolja nego director's cut (što važi i za ostale Cameronove filmove), nema talasa i poruke koja se čekićem ukucava u glavu.

Više se i ne sjećam koja je "poruka" filma bila, ali taj talas je bio spektakularan i šteta je bilo izbaciti ga iz filma. Meni se čini da su obje verzije bile pune baljezganja, a da je director's cut bogatiji za taj talas i možda još ponešto. Mada, moguće da griješim, sve sam to davno gledao.

Quote from: Harvester on 15-12-2009, 18:56:39nije za vanzemaljce mogo da smisli ništa pametnije od vilenjaka ofarbanih u plavo. Izem ti njegovu "maštu".

pa jeste. tako je.
samo još ako i ta planeta ispadne ko neka malo našminkana 'srednja zemlja', i eto nama kiča...

Radnja ovog filma se upravo odvija uživo u džunglama Perua, gde zle korporacije uz pomoć lokalne vojske tamane domoroce koji ne žele da dozvole eksploataciju. Ovo "uživo" čitaj - "umrtvo". Pa sad, nek se deca zamajavaju šarenom lažom, dok se posao ne završi. Baš me zanima za koga navijaju deca? Zna li neko od ovih koji su gledali film u bioskopu?

Quote from: Harvester on 15-12-2009, 18:56:39Inače, pitam se dokle li će ovim svijetom da vlada taj odurni Star Trek sindrom da se "vanzemaljci" dobijaju tako što se ljudima zašilje uši i/ili iscrta nekoliko ukrasa na faci.

Pa, eto ti Odiseja 2001 i crni monolit, i to pre više od četrdeset godina. Problem je što je u tom slučaju malo teže snimiti akcionu scenu, a ako se odlučiš da ne bude antropomorfno, a da ne bude ni apstrakcija, pošto je Kubrick već sve objasnio po tom pitanju, onda na kraju to bude neki dobar sf-horor kao Alien ili Thing ili pak gomila loših sf-horora kao... (upišite sami)

da ne rasplinjavamo ovde priču AMBISOM - imaš na imdb-u detaljno, taxativno, šta je sve 'novo' u dir. cut verziji, tj šta sve nema u bioskopskoj (oko pola sata razlike, čini mi se).

a za iskrenost, što reče miloš: pa da, znam, tj verujem da je kameronov um sada skroz u tom fazonu i da on stvarno jeste naporavio priču i likove i zaplet kakve je hteo.
kad dugo gledaš u kič, jedeš kič, razmišljaš kič, onda i kič počne da gleda u tebe - i iz tebe.

Quote from: Lord Kufer on 15-12-2009, 19:02:43
Radnja ovog filma se upravo odvija uživo u džunglama Perua, gde zle korporacije uz pomoć lokalne vojske tamane domoroce koji ne žele da dozvole eksploataciju. Ovo "uživo" čitaj - "umrtvo". Pa sad, nek se deca zamajavaju šarenom lažom, dok se posao ne završi. Baš me zanima za koga navijaju deca? Zna li neko od ovih koji su gledali film u bioskopu?

Što se filma tiče, službenici korporacije i vojska (tj. pukovnik koji zapoveda marincima) su negativci i to je veoma jasno tj. crno-belo postavljeno. Dobri momci su urođenici, a od ljudi: naučnici, i po neki od vojnika koji se na kraju u borbi pridruže urođenicima... Ali, to je sve valjda jasno već iz trejlera.

ljudska mašta je ograničena kad treba zamišljati dobrice.

uvek se svede priča na neke antropomorfne anđele, vilenjake, ili pak medvediće (ewoks!), buljooke lutkice (ET) i to je to.

s druge strane, zlo je mnogo inspirativnije i kreativnije - zato su alieni u hororima uvek bili beskrajno originalniji nego u SF-u.

Quote from: Ghoul on 15-12-2009, 19:02:00pa jeste. tako je.
samo još ako i ta planeta ispadne ko neka malo našminkana 'srednja zemlja', i eto nama kiča...

Mislim da je u ovom slučaju dosta i stvar konteksta; meni se dizajn sviđa, posebno kad je u pitanju planeta puno je toga osmišljeno da deluje drugačije i strano, ali stvar je u tome šta je sa tim dizajnom urađeno, i onda se opet vraćamo na priču tj. sve njene nedostatke...

Quote from: Ghoul on 15-12-2009, 19:07:54
ljudska mašta je ograničena kad treba zamišljati dobrice.

uvek se svede priča na neke antropomorfne anđele, vilenjake, ili pak medvediće (ewoks!), buljooke lutkice (ET) i to je to.

Ali, nije to samo stvar mašte nego je realno teško postići da gledalac oseća empatiju spram nečeg neljudskog...

Quote from: Ghoul on 15-12-2009, 19:07:54
zato su alieni u hororima uvek bili beskrajno originalniji nego u SF-u.

Osim u Odiseji ;-)

Quote from: Milosh on 15-12-2009, 19:12:51

Quote from: Ghoul on 15-12-2009, 19:07:54
ljudska mašta je ograničena kad treba zamišljati dobrice.

uvek se svede priča na neke antropomorfne anđele, vilenjake, ili pak medvediće (ewoks!), buljooke lutkice (ET) i to je to.

Ali, nije to samo stvar mašte nego je realno teško postići da gledalac oseća empatiju spram nečeg neljudskog...

Pa to nije baš tačno. Priznaj da si plakao kao kiša kad je Gart Marengi zapjevao držeći ono ogromno oko u rukama ;-)

@Milosh

Odlicna kritika. Otprilike onako kako smo svi mislili da ce i biti, nadam se. Takodje je poredjenje sa Distriktom 9 sasvim ocekivano. Ja sam i dalje fasciniran Watchmen-ima [gledao sam ga tri puta], pa mi je i padalo na pamet da mozda Cameron, covjek iza Strange Days, imao neki dramaturski kec u rukavu i da je u stanju naciniti nesto cemu ce sadrzina biti primarni stozer i mozda nadmasiti taj film. Prirodno je da na ovolikom projektu prica donekle bude savrseno sporedna stvar.    

Zar ono sam Cameron u 'Entourage' ne rece (ali saljivo): "Uskoro nam glumci uopste nece trebati za filmove." Generalno ne bih volio da zazive ovakvi CGI filmovi bas zbog toga. No, svakako se radujem necemu sto je van poimanja drekovima kao Star Trek i slicnim anti-spejs operama. I nesto sto svakako nije zamorni fentazi...

Kako god bilo, kladio bih se da je za nijansu bolji od Titanika. I vidim da Jimbo po prvi put nema svoj standardni tim montazera sa sobom, Buffa i Co. Zanimljivo. Uostalom, samo neka me ne zamori materijalom - kao sto je bo slucaj sa Titanikom - i ja cu biti srecan sto sam potrosio novac i vrijeme.       

Bilo bi prilično kretenski kad bi CGI grudi zamijenile prave.

Mislim da je Ghoul rekao vrlo bitnu stvar. Što je film skuplji, sve je teže raditi nešto što je inovativno i potencijalno odbojno. AVATAR ni u jednoj fazi nije smeo da bude film koji će bilo koga odbiti. U tom smislu, sasvim je očekivano da se film oslanja na neke poznate obrasce, da nosi jednu prihvatljivu poruku.

U tom smislu, meni je čak i vrlo intrigantan taj DANCES WITH WOLVES sukob sa Amerikom.

Što se tehnologije tiče, jedan od bitnih aspekata filma kao medija je tehnologija. Razvoj tehnologije je bio osnovni hook na samim počecima, film je u početku samo i gledan kao tehnička inovacija. U tom smislu tehnološki razvoj i perfekcija jesu jedan od vrlo bitnih domena filmskog izraza i cameron se očigledno posvetio tome da proširuje horizonte u tom domenu.

Inače, vrlo je zanimljivo kako su James i Kathryn ove godine nastupili sa različitim filmovima, i koliko su AVATAR i HURT LOCKER zapravo suprotni polovi na neki način.

U svakom slučaju, vrlo me intrigira to da je AVATAR film koji ima kapacitet da zabavi klince. Često se veteranima desi da se ne snađu u tom domenu i snime film koji ne appealuje klincima.

Quote from: Harvester on 15-12-2009, 19:14:27Pa to nije baš tačno. Priznaj da si plakao kao kiša kad je Gart Marengi zapjevao držeći ono ogromno oko u rukama ;-)

Ali to oko je sasvim ljudsko, samo što je malo veće i fali mu ostatak lica i tela...

QuoteAVATAR ni u jednoj fazi nije smeo da bude film koji će bilo koga odbiti

Ali mene npr. izrazito odbija. Druga je stvar što sam toliki ljubitelj tehnologije i specijalnih efekata da ovo ne bih propustio ni da su scenario pisali Ahmed Imamović i Enver Puška, ali kad je riječ o samoj priči - mrzim te tugaljive poglede i veličanstvene izjave i velike odluke koje likovi donose uz maksimalnu pompeznost i naduvanost (no pun intended)... Sto posto sam siguran (nek me ispravi neko ko je već gledao film ako griješim) da u Avataru nema ni trunka humora. Screw film u kome nema humora!

Quote from: Milosh on 15-12-2009, 19:20:08

Quote from: Harvester on 15-12-2009, 19:14:27Pa to nije baš tačno. Priznaj da si plakao kao kiša kad je Gart Marengi zapjevao držeći ono ogromno oko u rukama ;-)

Ali to oko je sasvim ljudsko, samo što je malo veće i fali mu ostatak lica i tela...

Pa da, oko jeste ljudsko, ali kad se posmatra kao dio ljudskog tijela. Ali kao entitet koji je sposoban da se sam od sebe kreće, djeluje i čak analno siluje i impregnira čovjeka, to postaje prilično neljudski :-)

Quote from: crippled_avenger on 15-12-2009, 19:18:59Mislim da je Ghoul rekao vrlo bitnu stvar. Što je film skuplji, sve je teže raditi nešto što je inovativno i potencijalno odbojno. AVATAR ni u jednoj fazi nije smeo da bude film koji će bilo koga odbiti. U tom smislu, sasvim je očekivano da se film oslanja na neke poznate obrasce, da nosi jednu prihvatljivu poruku.

Opet ću da ponovim da to važi u načelu, ali ne i na nivou svih pojedinačnih slučajeva, uostalom Cameron se valjda borio za dizajn vanzemaljaca i kad su neki u Foxu hvatali za glavu i uspeo je da zadrđi repove. Problem Avatara nije čak ni to što nije inovativan ili rizičan kad je reč o priči, već što je i o okvirima konvencija mogao da bude bolje napisan: bolji likovi, dijalozi, da ne teče ravno, da su ideje razrađenije i sl. I sve je to moglo da se postigne i u okvirima tako masivne produkcije i zadatih konvencija, samo što Camerona to očigledno nije previše zanimalo tj. i ovakva priča je njemu očigledno bila prihvatljiva. Nažalost.

Sve ove priče o kiču, kao da slušam Corneliusa pod različitim imenima.

Ne razumem ljude koji traže nešto tamo gde se zna da toga nema. Koliko sam ja video u trejleru, meni Avatar deluje kao spejs opera. Možda grešim, ali na osnovu uzorka to mi je prva socijacija. Onda očekujem od filma sve što (filmska/stripovska) spejs opera treba da sadrži, a to su, između ostalog baš, stereotipna priča uvijena u drugačije ruho, uprošćeni karakteri i međuljudski i socio-politički i svakakvi drugi odnosi. Nekakva SF bajka, u kojoj mašta može da se raznmahne i ode dalje nego što može u realističnom okruženje.

Dakle - zabava, namenjena mladima, onima koji još uvek vole sadržaje koje su voleli kad su bili mladi i ljubiteljima pod-žanra spejs opere. Plus ljubitelji filmske akcije u bilo kakvom ruhu.

Ako može biti reči o elementima umetnosti (ne znam da li može dok ne odgledam) onda ih treba, svakako, tražiti u savršenstvu forme, ne u sadržaju.

Ljudi su eksplicitno zli. Podseća me to na komentare u vezi s Bitkom kod Krugera (lavovi protiv bikova). Većina komentara je bila u korist lavova, pošto su bikovi krdske zveri, nemaju inicijativu...

Svakako, tehnički izgled filma me privlači, ali moraću da dobro udahnem vazduh pre nego što odem da gledam.

Avatar ce klincima biti predugachak i prespor. Dok se dodje do prvog dela koji ce prosechnom gledaocu ispod 25 biti zabavan, vec je proshlo dva sata filma.

Shto se mene tiche, film je bolji nego shto sam ochekivao, a ochekivao sam vrlo malo. Sve u svemu, film je jedan krajnje neupechatljiv akcionash rezhijsko-montazhne estetike iz 80-tih, i od sveg hajpa i proricanja nechega novog, nevidjenog i groundbreakingog nishta se ne vidi u samom filmu.

Jedino shto ga izdvaja iz mora slichnih naslova jeste taj zhar i slast u pobijanju americhkih vojnika, shto je zaista, ovako kako je ovde predstavljeno, prilichno hrabro. Jer, ovde nije chak ni onaj sluchaj "vojnici moraju da slushaju naredjenja" vec su svi do poslednjeg peshadinca kezece ubice koje rade ono shto vole i vole ono shto rade, makar to bilo i bombradovanje plave machkaste dece. Zhivo me zanima kako ce ovakav pristup biti primljen u americhkim medijima, jer ovakvo ocrnjavanje americhke vojske nije vidjeno mnogo puta do sada.

Emerih je u Danu nezavisnosti, potpuno nezavisno od glupe priče, razvio izvanredan doživljaj zbog duhovitog tretmana svake pojedine scene. Ako je tako i u slučaju Avatara, možda ga treba tako i gledati?

film je mnogo više nego lepa razglednica, u pitanju je prava revolucija kad je u pitanju cgi i način pravljenja filma uopšte. sad, suptilnost u građenju međuljudskih odnosa nikad nija bila cameronova jača strana, ali meni je ovaj nacrtani par bio uverljiviji nego jack & rose u titanicu.

što se tiče dizajna na'va (velikih plavih vilenjaka iz avatara) mislim da ideja i nije bila da se prave vanzemaljci koji će biti nešto u potpunosti drugačije od čoveka već oni treba da predstavljaju neki ljudski ideal, rusoovskog plemenitog divljaka u (ovde i fizičkom) dodiru sa prirodom...

Quote from: mrkoye on 15-12-2009, 20:20:18
film je mnogo više nego lepa razglednica, u pitanju je prava revolucija kad je u pitanju cgi i način pravljenja filma uopšte. sad, suptilnost u građenju međuljudskih odnosa nikad nija bila cameronova jača strana, ali meni je ovaj nacrtani par bio uverljiviji nego jack & rose u titanicu.

To, savršenstvo forme -  ne kao savršenstvo u tehničkom smislu, već forma - stil, skup vizuelnih pripovedačkih elemenata koji pobuđuje ljudske emocije, osećaj uživanja.

meni je avatar legao mnogo više od titanica - koji je jedini cameronov film koga nisam poželeo da pogledam više od jednog puta.

da li je avatar kvalitetniji/bolji od terminatora 2 ili aliensa? meni nije, ali ja sam odrastao na ova dva filma i za njih me vezuje snažan sentiment.

avatar je u tehničkom smislu najvece cameronovo dostignuće - u tom domenu film je superioran u odnosu na sve što je jc do sada režirao - što i ne cudi imajuci u vidu koliko je tehnologija uznapredovala.

Priznajem da sam uživao u mnogim Kameronovim filmovima (Titanik sam gledao prvenstveno zbog Kejt Vinslet, koju volim da gledam), ali uživanje je jedno, a zvati ih "savršenstvom forme" je drugo. Ako film nema

Quotemoćnu katarzu koja priziva sve događaje koji su prethodili vrhuncu

ne može da se nada da će dostići gornje klase umetnosti. Ili može da se nada. Ljudski je nadati se. Dok se broje dolari. Milioni.  :cry:

Ako je popularnost merilo kvaliteta, onda je Den Braun Bog književnosti.

Ako su Oskari merilo kvaliteta, onda sam stekao pogrešan utisak, a mogao sam da se kladim da u kategoriji filmske muzike, koju sam detaljno pratio, daju nagradu "Najgora muzika od 5 ponuđenih, a možda i šire".

Sve u svemu, volim da ga pogledam, drag mi je, pogledaću i Avatar sigurno, ali ne bih Kamerona ni u ludilu zvao najvećim režiserom svih vremena.

Ali, Cameron jeste najveći reditelj svih vremena. Čak i onda kad se potpisuje svojim pseudonimom Kathryn Bigelow :)

Zamislite da su James i Kathryn imali dete? Ono bi sigurno bilo najveći reditelj svih vremena.

Quote from: crippled_avenger on 15-12-2009, 21:23:42
Ali, Cameron jeste najveći reditelj svih vremena. Čak i onda kad se potpisuje svojim pseudonimom Kathryn Bigelow :)

Pod tim pseudonimom je snimio svoj najbolji film :-)

Ne znam, možda se "vreme" stanjilo od kod sam zadnji put gledao. Svejedno da se potpisivao i kao Stanley Kubrick - i to bi bilo podložno diskusiji. Ali prepucavanje oko toga nas neće nikud odvesti. Svaka čast Cameronu što je uspeo da napravi u okviru Hollywooda i ovoliko, ali meni je njegov "mindset" suviše predvidljiv, takoreći "lak", da bih njega smatrao najvećim. Jedino što ima neku postojanost u kvalitetu isporučivanja.

Ne bih to nazvao američkim mindset-om, jer Titanik je najgledaniji film svih vremena upravo zbog popularnosti u ostatku sveta, tako da se ne može reći da je njegova priča samo po "američkom ukusu". Ali, opet, svejedno mi je kako se to zove. Zabavlja me, ne intrigira me.

Meni su ČUDNI DANI podjednako dragi kao ALIENS i T2.

ČUDNI DANI su definitivno najprecenjeniji film među kameronofilima i k-kultistima.
to je, zapravo, jedan toliko oduran film da ću mu jednog dana svakako posvetiti podužu analizu.

Ne ostavljaj za sutra ono što možeš da otaljaš danas.

Quote from: Ghoul on 16-12-2009, 00:55:47
ČUDNI DANI su definitivno najprecenjeniji film među kameronofilima i k-kultistima.
to je, zapravo, jedan toliko oduran film da ću mu jednog dana svakako posvetiti podužu analizu.

Šta fali tom filmu, osim groznog kraja?

kraj je toliko gnusno oduran i degutantno ogavan da mu i ne treba ništa više da ga usere.

Quote from: Ghoul on 16-12-2009, 02:13:37
kraj je toliko gnusno oduran i degitantno ogavan da mu i ne treba ništa više da ga usere.

Mislim da preteruješ. To je slab i zbrzan kraj jednog do tada skoro pa savršenog filma, što je nedovoljno da do te mere pokvari utisak, a da ne pričam što taj film ima jednu od najbolesnijih scena viđenih u nekom mejnstrim filmu ikada; doduše, sve to kažem po sećanju starom više od deset godina...

to je kraj koji bukvalno negira ono što mu je prethodilo i toliko je kukavički odvratan da mi je muka kad samo pomislim na njega.
gledano na parčiće - da, ima tu dobrih parčića, kao i uvek kod katarine.
ali kao celina, sa TIM krajem, th krahom, to je tek jedan žešće okrnjen filmić.

Tja, mogao bih da ga repriziram...

Krajeve obično treba preskakati i ne računati u ukupno delo.

Čudni dani su odličan film i to bi bilo to. Kada kažem odličan, mislim na sve segmente - od početka do kraja. Posebnu draž mu, slično Skrobonjinom Okotu, daje činjenica da se njegova budućnost (1999) u međuvremenu već dogodila. Ova činjenica prilično menja ponovno iščitavanje filma.

Kad smo već počeli slightly da oftopikujemo, evo mog haiku (rasističkog) rivjua Strange Days sa topika "šta sam lepo gledo a da oror nije".

STRANGE DAYS

Ovo je preko dva sata bio izvanredan film i onda se desio onaj neviđeno tupadžijski nigger-loving završetak (potpuno predvidljiv "plot twist" sa izdajničkim likom ne računam u mane jer valjda ide uz ovakve noar (or whatever) filmove). Naravoučenije: Nikad ne šalji ženu da radi posao Romana Polanskog.

Nu u sljedećem postu sam napomenuo da je film odličan bez obzira na taj kraj.

Krajeve skoro uvek prave producentski/ulizički umovi.

Holivudski kraj je najčešće kompromis.

Kraj je uvek teško napraviti u kreativnom smislu. Otud recimo u jednoj izrazito autorskoj kinematografiji kao što je naša, imamo jako loše i neubedljive krajeve obično bazirane na tome da se junak ubije ili bude ubijen.

Jezik vanzemaljaca

Jezik kojim govori pleme vanzemaljaca u filmu Avatar, Jamesa Camerona, osmislili su stručnjaci za lingvistiku sa Univerziteta u Južnoj Kaliforniji.

Profesor Frommer sa tog univerziteta, i Cameron, radili su četiri godine na osmišljavanju vanzemaljskog jezika Na'vi, pošavši od oko 30 reči za imena junaka i delove tela koje je Cameron već osmislio, prenosi BBC.

"Ovo je vanzemaljski jezik, ali ga izgovaraju glumci, pa mora da se bazira na glasovima koje ljudi mogu lako da izgovaraju", objašnjava proferos Frommer prve korake u osmišljavanju sintaksičkih i gramatičkih pravila Na'vi jezika.

Dok su prve reči koje je osmislio Cameron, prema mišljenju ovog stručnjaka, imale polinežanski prizvuk, većina članova lingvističkog tima je predložila da vanzemaljski jezik treba da zvuči kao grčki ili japanski.

"Ovaj jezik svakako pozajmljuje različite gramatičke strukture i zvukove koji postoje u drugim jezicima – ali, nadam se da je kombinacija svega toga u Na'vi jeziku autentična", zaključuje Frommer koji je, pored osmišljavanja jezika, podučavao glumce i kako da govore na ovom jeziku.

Na'vi jezik do sada ima oko 1.000 reči, a profesor Frommer još uvek radi na rečniku.

"Voleo bih da mogu da ga govorim tečno. Trenutno sam jedini koji u potpunosti razume gramatiku ovog jezika. Voleo bih da nas jednog dana bude više", komentariše Frommer navodeći primer klingonskog jezika osmišljenog za sporazumevanje plemena Klingonaca u Zvezdanim stazama.

"Danas postoji prevod Hamleta na klingonski, kao i klingonski klubovi širom sveta – grupe posvećenika koje se nalaze i pokušavaju da komuniciraju na tom jeziku. Ako se nešto slično desi sa Na'vi jezikom, bio bih presrećan", zaključuje profesro Frommer

To sa ubijanjem junaka je biranje najlakšeg puta. Junak mrtav: the end. Neki put to ima smisla, često je nakalemljeno u nedostatku boljih ideja.

Pa, naravno. Ali, teško je smisliti dobar kraj...

Quote from: crippled_avenger on 16-12-2009, 15:38:06"Danas postoji prevod Hamleta na klingonski, kao i klingonski klubovi širom sveta – grupe posvećenika koje se nalaze i pokušavaju da komuniciraju na tom jeziku. Ako se nešto slično desi sa Na'vi jezikom, bio bih presrećan", zaključuje profesro Frommer

Star Trek Klingon Hamlet taH pagh taHbe' (To be or not to be) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiRMGYQfXrs#normal)

Što bi rekli Neon Neon:

She had a face from an animation
Before a cinema screen projection
And if you ever got bad reception
She'd flash a smile and change the perception

She got suspicious of my intention
I didn't give her enough attention
Like I would give into some temptation
I think her head needed medication

I told her on Alderaan
That nothing else was going on
x4

One day I took her to see the doctor
He put her in a cell and locked her
And all the patients, they started to mock her
For ever thinking that someone would leave her

I told her on Alderaan
That nothing else was going on
x4

Quote from: crippled_avenger on 16-12-2009, 15:34:47
Kraj je uvek teško napraviti u kreativnom smislu. Otud recimo u jednoj izrazito autorskoj kinematografiji kao što je naša, imamo jako loše i neubedljive krajeve obično bazirane na tome da se junak ubije ili bude ubijen.

Zato kraj ne treba ni praviti  xrofl

Večeraske ću da gledam Avatara pa ću da ga ispljujem samo tako  :evil:

Quote from: Lord Kufer on 16-12-2009, 16:56:28
Večeraske ću da gledam Avatara pa ću da ga ispljujem samo tako  :evil:

Slađe je kad se pljuje po nejači. Na primer: po Robu Bradonji Zombiju.

Doduše, i Kameron je bradonja. Ali više klase. Mada, izgleda da je u poslednje vreme počeo da se brije...

(https://www.znaksagite.com/diskusije/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww4.pictures.zimbio.com%2Fgi%2FVariety%2B1st%2BAnnual%2BPower%2BWomen%2BLuncheon%2BInside%2BNGS9-r0dzWwm.jpg&hash=e5512d9ae0cb8bcc6f8a8145fde2ea23b07d7c50)

James Cameron Addicted to Avatar Special Effects (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jk7tUKaW59I&feature=player_embedded#normal)

Inače, kad je reč o sličnosti Sigourney u AVATARu sa likom iz GORILLAS IN THE MIST, podsećam da je MIST bio Tatkov projekat...

Ja sam Kameronu davnih dana oprostio Titanik. Uostalom, ako su svi njegovi drugi filmovi bile muške testosteronske fantazije, valjda je bio red da snimi i nešto za dame. Ponesite maramice u bioskope i ono to.

Avatar je korak u pravom smeru - povratak tradicionalnim kameronskim vrednostima - i to kakav korak! Gargantuovski. Ciljana publika je nešto mlađa nego što bih ja želeo, pa su pojedini elementi morali biti ublaženi, ali bez obzira na određena ograničenja, Kam je napravio film kojim može da se ponosi. Avatar je, na primer, neuporedivo bolji od nove trilogije Zvezdanih ratova. Lukasov pristup je bio previše mek, pičkast, Kameron zna da pokaže snagu kada je potrebno. Videćete to u završnici. Kada krene konačni obračun - nema više zajebavanja.

Uz to, kao trešnja na vrhu torte, tu je i Sigorni. Moja obožavana Sigorni. Žena-zmaj. Ultimativna akciona heroina. Istina, godine su je stigle, ne bi više mogla da se na podjednako silovit način uhvati u koštac sa Kraljicom i spase uplašenu plavokosu curicu ispod rešetki, ali srce joj je još uvek mlado. Udara ispod junačkih grudi.

Sa zadovoljstvom mogu da napišem da je njena uloga u Avataru velika, dostojanstvena i suštinski važna za priču. Uplašio sam se da će Viverova ovog puta biti ograničena samo na simpatičnu epizodu - ali sam se grdno i na sreću prevario. Bez starca - nema udarca, bez starice - nema travarice. A Sigorni dokauje da još uvek može da smućka vrhunsku rakiju.

Posveta Gorilama u magli je neodoljiva. Doktorka Grejs Avgustin je zapravo naučno-fantastična verzija Dajan Fosi - Kameron je išao toliko daleko da je preoznatljivu tamnu kosu Viverove ofarbao u riđe kako bi sličnost bila što očiglednija. Zahvaljujući Avataru, Kameron je ispunio svoju fantaziju i sa 20 godina zakašnjenje konačno režirao Gorile u magli - doduše u SF oblandi...

Naravno gde su Kameron i Viver, tu je i neizbežna veza sa serijalom Osmi putnik...

Kada su se vrata na komori otovrila i kada je Viverova iskočila napolje i zatražila cigaretu - sledio sam se. Pred očima mi se odmah ukazala Elen Ripli. Zapravo, dobro je što se Kameron potrudio da u Avataru oneobiči izgled glumice. Da se u filmu pojavila sa tamnom kosom - ne bih mogao da se otmem utisku da na velikom ekranu gledam neki uvrnuti spin-off Osmog putnika sa Riplijevom u pivotalnoj ulozi. Doduše, kad o tome malo bolje razmislim, to i ne zvuči tako loše...

Film je prava pljeskavica za oči.
Ma šta pričam, papazjanija! Ne, ne, klin čorba!

Prva polovina filma, koja je mogla da bude malo kraća, je upoznavanje s Pandorom (nesretno li odabranog imena). Druga polovina je klasični akcioni rasplet, dosta uprošćen.

Što se efekata tiče, grdno se nakrao iz raznih filmova, a najviše iz Zvezdanih ratova. Glavna bitka je slična onoj s početka 3. filma iz SW serijala, ali mnogo slabija i neće biti upamćena.

Ima dosta dečje pornografije, naga tela ofarbana dečjim bojicama. Sike-like, repići, i tako to.

Nema karakterizacije likova, samo tipizacije. Najbolji lik je ženski CGI. Sigurni nije dobila priliku da glumi, kao i niko uostalom.

Endžin filma je, osim razvučenosti u prvoj polovini, dosta dobar i može da se gleda. Ali ako čovek poželi da razmišlja o onome što vidi, bolje da to ne čini.

Po mom skromnom mišljenju, film će se izvikivati i uterivati u uši i nos, ali mislim da tu nema štofa da se oko njega napravi nekakav kult.

Sve u svemu, od Kamerona sam očekivao više na umetničkom planu. Tu je potpuno omanuo.

kameron je bio umetnik u ranoj fazi karijere.
ali već duže vreme on je samo tehničar.
istina, vrhunski.
ali ipak samo tehničar.

Najgore od svega u tom filmu je tretman glumaca. Međutim, nije li to ideal Holivuda...

S tog mesta više ne treba očekivati dobre filmove. Nekada su umeli da naprave pravi spektakl ali ne na račun drame (recimo Ben Hur i mnogi drugi). Ali sad je to baš outruled.

Treba okrenuti oči k Rodrigezu i Melu Gibsonu  xrofl

Praviće se , bez sumnje, i dublje analize filma Avatar i porediće se s američkom situacijom, nalaziće se elementi postmodernizma, indikacije tamo gde je već ionako sve prilično eksplicitno...

Mogao je Kameron da pokrade i Soldier Blue i Little Big Man - barem bi konačna bitka bila efektnija i logičnija - ali nekako je sve ublažio. Kao da je pravio film za sve uzraste (što podrazumeva pedagoško laganje pred decom).

Ima dosta toga što njih tamo boli pa misle da će da se iskupe tako što izmišljaju da stvari idu nabolje.

O tehničkim novotarijama, digitalna slika, (3D nisam gledao), grafički likovi (videli smo mi to i u sada već davnoj Final Fantasy) može se reći da su u dobroj meri ovladali konstrukcijom okruženja (ali i to smo već videli u Gospodaru prstena). Šestonogi konji-kolibri deluju dosta nenormalno, a nosorozi-ajkule-čekićare veoma uverljivo (kao onaj badža iz arene u SW).

Poslednji nalet letelica u gomili deluje prilično nenormalno i već viđeno (iz Apocalypse Now ili iz Independence Day), prosto sam se brinuo da će iz takve gužve da se izrodi mnogo friendly fire žrtava.

Verovatno će se deci film najviše dopasti, jer ona nemaju u iskustvu i bolje stvari. Na to se verovatno i računalo.

Što se mene tiče, ocena između 6 i 7.

Mogući razlog, ali neću da kažem verovatan, za ime planete Pandora, je taj što je Frank Herbert imao serijal romana o svetu koji je u potpunosti neprijateljski prema ljudima. Tu baš svaka životinja ili biljka ratuju protiv ljudi i - odnose pobedu.
Mislim da te knjige nisu prevođene na srpski.

O manama Avatara se moze rasparavlajti u nedogled. Ali to ne menja cinjenicu da je upravo Avatar film iz 2009. koji najvise zasluzuje da bude pogledan u bisokopu. Pravi spektakl u najboljem smislu tih reci. Distrikt 9 je meni uostalom jos od prvog gledanja izgledao kao kameronovski derivat.

Takodje, dosta toga sto je LK napisao - ne stoji. Bar ne iz moje perskeptive. Naravno, ne osporavam mu pravo na misljenje i cenim napor da se sve opservacije/zamerke sistematicno iznesu. AKo danas budem imao vremena iznecu neka svoja zapazanja u vezi sa nekim od iznetih konstatacija...

Pozdrav svima! :)

U životu sam video dosta paradigmatičnih filmova i ovome ne mogu da dam bolju ocenu. A mogu da gledam samo svojim očima...

Što se mene tiče, slažem se da je film poprilično derivativan. Gledajući ga, uživao sam intelektualno, ali nisam imao osećaj deep impacta kao kod gledanja "Gospodara prstenova" ili Kopolinog "Drakule". S druge strane, prema LotR i Drakuli imam izgrađen odnos iz detinjstva, pa im praštam sve mane - kojih nije da nema - dok je "Avatar" seme koje pada na jalovu zemlju u tom smislu. S druge strane, ovo je vrhunski prepričana priča o Pokahontas. Ni u jednom me trenutku nije razočarao - poginuli su svi što je trebalo da poginu, preživeli svi što je trebalo da prežive, svaka situacija ima očekivano rešenje. Mislim da nije nimalo čudno što se ovaj film mesto leti daje u prazničnoj sezoni. Meni je solidna 8.

Rambovski je to kad poginu svi koji je trebalo da poginu, kao i oni koji nije trebalo da poginu  8-)

Quote from: nightflier on 17-12-2009, 13:48:26Meni je solidna 8.

Ja bih se saglasio oko ocene.

Koliko god da je Kameron u Avataru pozajmljvao - a jeste - opet mu treba odati priznanje da je pokušao da ponudi nešto novo - tj. nije posegnuo za postojećom franšizom ili književnim predloškom. Pandoru je stvorio od nule, bez tuđe pomoći, a to nije bilo lako. Imajući to u vidu --- rezultat je sasvim zadovoljavajući.

Film je u svakom slučaju gledljiv.
Ono veliko drvo sam negde video, mislim u Icewind Dale-u  xfrog
Prava novina (da li?) je to što je Kameron praktično napravio veliki film od sve samih semplova.

Ideja povezivanja ljudi i životinjki preko interfejsa, možda je logična posledica analogije s modernim kompjuterskim interfejsima, ali ima toga u Hothouse-u Briana Aldisa, gde je jedno pleme naslednika ljudskog roda doslovno pupčanom vrpcom vezano za veliko drvo i u njegovoj je funkciji. Inače, ko nije čitao ovu izvanrednu knjigu, u njoj je preovlađujuća životna i inteligentna forma drveće. Šume ratuju, itd. Odavde su mnogi uzimali detalje (drveće koje izbacuje eksplozivna punjenja na neprijateljsku šumu, itd.).

Zašto je Avatar veliki film?
Goran Skrobonja nudi odgovor: http://www.goranskrobonja.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=14&Itemid=35 (http://www.goranskrobonja.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=14&Itemid=35)

Zašto AVATAR i pored vizuelne grandioznosti ipak NIJE veliki film:

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/43400 (http://www.aintitcool.com/node/43400)

Gotovo u potpunosti se slažem sa ovim prikazom, osim dela u kome se implicira da je čak i TITANIK bolji od AVATARA.

Tačno je da je Zoe Saldana izvadila stvar. I, opet, to (skoro) uvek rade glumice u Kameronovim filmovima.

Dobar prikaz.

Ovaj aicn citat says it all:

Quotefor the first time in his career, it feels like he's going through the motions rather than telling a story in which he's emotionally invested

Quote from: Le Samourai on 17-12-2009, 17:29:20
Ovaj aicn citat says it all:

Quotefor the first time in his career, it feels like he's going through the motions rather than telling a story in which he's emotionally invested

To uopšte ne mora biti loše. Kad priča priču u koju je "emocionalno investirao", dobijemo bljuzgave scene iz Abyssa ili Titanik.

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/43406 (http://www.aintitcool.com/node/43406)

Quote from: Harvester on 17-12-2009, 18:02:29

Quote from: Le Samourai on 17-12-2009, 17:29:20
Ovaj aicn citat says it all:

Quotefor the first time in his career, it feels like he's going through the motions rather than telling a story in which he's emotionally invested

To uopšte ne mora biti loše. Kad priča priču u koju je "emocionalno investirao", dobijemo bljuzgave scene iz Abyssa ili Titanik.

Meni je nejasno kako osoba sa averzijom prema bljuci ikada uspe da razvije afinitet prema Kameronu. On ide na patetiku u bukvalno svakom filmu, i sveukupna poenta kojom svaki film potcrta je bez izuzetka makar malo cmizdrava. Meni ta melodrama u njegovim filmovima ne smeta, jer sam vec nauchio da je dozhivljavam kao sastavni deo njegovog autorskog pristupa.

Kameron se uvek bavi osnovnim emocijama koje ne mogu toliko da smetaju ukoliko ne skrenu u "finesu". U Terminatoru je bilo dosta humora koji je ostao nezaboravan, tu je iskoristio Švarcenegerov pravi karakter. Ali toga ovde u Avataru nema, osim jednog kratkog vica sa Sigurni, a već sam ga zaboravio...

Titanik mi se nije dopao jer jer pravu titaničku dramu preklopio pričom u čiju uverljivost me ni ona baba nije mogla uveriti. Najgore su upravo one priče koje pretenduju na istinitost, jer nisu ništa bolje od dogme ili šablona. Izgleda da Kameron ima problem s tim šta je pravi izvor drame - razlika u potencijalu a ne poravnanje (entropija) potencijala.

Zaključak - ljudi koji imaju probleme sa ispoljavanjem emocija, koji su vaspitani da je to nešto loše, da emocije treba prikrivati, ne podnose čiste, otvorene, iskrene ljudske emocije ni u umetnosti, filmu, muzici i neophodan im je humor ili ironija da bi suočavanje sa emocijama bilo za njih prihvatljivije.

Emocije su uslovljeno ponašanje. Programirano. Razmisli o tome. Intenzitet doživljaja može da se ispolji i bez emocija, i to mnogo jače.
Iskrenost je upravo ono što nedostaje glavnom muškom liku, a pogotovo onim negativcima, koji su u potpunosti u vlasti emocija. Iskrenost je zapravo ono što oni pokušavaju da unište.

Ispoljavanje emocija je vid komunikacije koji je nastao pre govora. Nema tu ničeg programiranog.

Kako nema. Ima u ovom filmu baš to: Zli pukovnik je potpuno u vlasti emocije koja opravdava njegovo nasilno ponašanje. Upravo je emocija izvor nasilja. On je sve to naučio i sledi protokol. I naučnici u Avataru samo slede protokol: skupljaju semplove. Nemaju pravu etiku, već trening.

Potreba za skladom uopšte nije emocija, već stav zasnovan na iskustvu.

Quote from: Alex on 17-12-2009, 19:13:25Zaključak - ljudi koji imaju probleme sa ispoljavanjem emocija, koji su vaspitani da je to nešto loše, da emocije treba prikrivati, ne podnose čiste, otvorene, iskrene ljudske emocije ni u umetnosti, filmu, muzici i neophodan im je humor ili ironija da bi suočavanje sa emocijama bilo za njih prihvatljivije.

Kakve sad ovo veze ima sa Avatarom?

Quote from: Milosh on 17-12-2009, 19:33:36

Quote from: Alex on 17-12-2009, 19:13:25Zaključak - ljudi koji imaju probleme sa ispoljavanjem emocija, koji su vaspitani da je to nešto loše, da emocije treba prikrivati, ne podnose čiste, otvorene, iskrene ljudske emocije ni u umetnosti, filmu, muzici i neophodan im je humor ili ironija da bi suočavanje sa emocijama bilo za njih prihvatljivije.

Kakve sad ovo veze ima sa Avatarom?

Posredne.

Quote from: Alex on 17-12-2009, 19:13:25
Zaključak - ljudi koji imaju probleme sa ispoljavanjem emocija, koji su vaspitani da je to nešto loše, da emocije treba prikrivati, ne podnose čiste, otvorene, iskrene ljudske emocije ni u umetnosti, filmu, muzici i neophodan im je humor ili ironija da bi suočavanje sa emocijama bilo za njih prihvatljivije.

Kako si ovo zaključio? Pitam zato što je pogrešno. Nikakvo vaspitanje na svetu ne može da ubije sklonost, može samo da je uspava...

Praktično od rođenja nas uče kako da reagujemo u određenoj situaciji. To su emocije - reaktivno ponašanje. Lako ih je pobrkati s osećajem (ne osećanjem) intenziteta. U akcionom filmu, na primer, dominira intenzitet iz kojeg proističe akcija, ali to nisu emocije.

U Avataru ima i dosta kiča, ono što je nacrtano kao "lepo" a da to nije, i to je, recimo, naučeno. Isto tako ima i kič emocija.

Kameron je u Avataru uspeo da nas natera da strepimo za CGI likove i saosećamo sa njima. To je postignuće hvale vredno.

To su uspeli još mnogo, mnogo godina pre... dok smo gledali crtaće.  :!:

Quote from: Lord Kufer on 17-12-2009, 22:08:15
To su uspeli još mnogo, mnogo godina pre... dok smo gledali crtaće.  :!:

ali ne u kombu igranog i animiranog... možda zeka rodžer........

Pa dobro, to je nova tehnologija u korišćenju animacija. Animacije postoje oduvek, u mašti, recimo, u bajkama. Tehnologija određuje konačni, pojavni oblik, ali suština je praktično oduvek tu.

Ipak, iza ove cgi pojave, stoji glumac (glumica). Teško da bi bez te sprege mogla da funkcioniše na nekom suptilnijem nivou. Ako i uspeju u tome, volećemo crtane likove. To je već isprobano u Japanu, bila je jedna cgi pevačica tamo, koliko se sećam, pre izvesnog broja godina. Bila je i ona serija Max Headrow, nije to bilo loše.

Quote from: ridiculus on 17-12-2009, 20:54:54

Quote from: Alex on 17-12-2009, 19:13:25
Zaključak - ljudi koji imaju probleme sa ispoljavanjem emocija, koji su vaspitani da je to nešto loše, da emocije treba prikrivati, ne podnose čiste, otvorene, iskrene ljudske emocije ni u umetnosti, filmu, muzici i neophodan im je humor ili ironija da bi suočavanje sa emocijama bilo za njih prihvatljivije.

Kako si ovo zaključio? Pitam zato što je pogrešno. Nikakvo vaspitanje na svetu ne može da ubije sklonost, može samo da je uspava...

Odgovaram zato što je tačno.

Vaspitanje u najširem smislu, kao osobine koje smo stekli interakcijom sa okruženjem, ne samo u porodici, nego pod uticajem društva, "ulice", medija...

Da parafraziram nekog (dal beše Brian Eno?, Endi Vorhol?) - doći će trenutak kada će ono što je lepo, normalno, humano, emocionalno (kao estetske kategorije) biti odbačeno kao neuobičajeno, nepoželjno, prevaziđeno, ekscentrično, a ono što je nekada smatrano bizarnim, pomerenim, dehumanizovanim biće opšte prihvaćeno i poželjno.

Živimo u takvom vremenu izvrnutih vrednosti i kriterijuma i to mu je to.

Quote from: Kunac on 17-12-2009, 22:05:46Kameron je u Avataru uspeo da nas natera da strepimo za CGI likove i saosećamo sa njima. To je postignuće hvale vredno.

Uspeo je to i Blomkamp ove godine u Districtu 9 i pritom snimio bolji film.

Jel bilo ovo ovde?

The Hollywood Reporter; Entrevista Directores parte 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uG7pBZOYcQk#normal)

The Hollywood Reporter; Entrevista Directores parte 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dw5ZLo0RLsI#normal)

The Hollywood Reporter; Entrevista Directores parte 3 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9a0Kfw5yrY&NR=1#normal)

Zašto Džekson sedi na podu?

OK, ovo što Kameron kaže... Pravljenje filma ovolikih razmera na mnogo suptilniji način potrajalo bi još 7 godina, verovatno. Nadam se da će u sledećem projektu iskoristiti ovo iskustvo.

Quote from: Milosh on 18-12-2009, 01:31:48

Quote from: Kunac on 17-12-2009, 22:05:46Kameron je u Avataru uspeo da nas natera da strepimo za CGI likove i saosećamo sa njima. To je postignuće hvale vredno.

Uspeo je to i Blomkamp ove godine u Districtu 9 i pritom snimio bolji film.

MNOGO bolji film. Tachnije, snimio je VRLO DOBAR film, za razliku od Kamerona koji je snimio losnjikav, ali ipak TEK PRISTOJAN film.

Quote from: Milosh on 18-12-2009, 01:31:48

Quote from: Kunac on 17-12-2009, 22:05:46Kameron je u Avataru uspeo da nas natera da strepimo za CGI likove i saosećamo sa njima. To je postignuće hvale vredno.

Uspeo je to i Blomkamp ove godine u Districtu 9 i pritom snimio bolji film.

To je tvoje mišljenje. Ja ga cenim. Ali ga ne delim. D9 je solidan film - ali je manje raskošan i boluje od istog stepene derivatizma kao Avatar, ako ne i više.  Alien Nation, anyone?

Da se ne zna ime čoveka koji je snimio D9 i da treba da se film pripiše reditelju koji je najviše uticao na taj film, onda bi ga svakako potpisao Cameron. Ja čak ne samo da bih citirao ALIEN NATION kao uticaj (a svi znamo da je Cameron radio na tom filmu) nego bih čak išao toliko daleko da naslutim da je D9 rip-off AVATARa. Blomkamp je svakako imao access to material dok se vrzmao po WETA studijima pripremajući HALO (AVATAR je pripreman uporedo sa HALOm, to mi je pričao Steva kad je bio u WETA studijima, tad se D9 još nije pominjao) dok su oni već radili na AVATARu. Interesantno je da filmovi imaju sličnu priču - zla korporacija želi da iskoristi resurse humanoidnih vanzemaljaca, službenik zle korporacije koji prelazi na njihovu stranu i pretvara se u jednog od njih čak i fizički, finale sa egzoskeletom na tragu ALIENSa. Hm...

Ne bih ja išao toliko daleko... Ne verujem da je Blomkamp zavirivao u Cameronove spise o Avataru... A i da jeste, ne bi pročitao ništa što već godinama nije u kolektivnoj svesti - već smo rekli da na nivou scenarija Avatar ne nudi inovaciju. Meni D9 jednostavno nije veličanstven na način na koji Avatar jeste. Dobar je to film, ali nema onu epsku skalu koju zahvata Cameron u svom najnovijem. Ni približno.

Sedeli su u istoj kancelariji i jednom je Big Daddy otišao po kafu ostavivši svoj radni sto nezaključan. Mislio je da mladi Afrikaaner neće učiniti ništa nevaljalo... :)

Zbog tih situacija treba zapošljavati kafe kuvarice koje će skuvati i doneti toplu tekućinu.

Još nisam gledao Avatara, ali ovako odokativno, postoji još jedan film koji bi mogao važiti kao ripof - Battle for Terra. Tu imamo nacrtane simpatične vanzemaljce i Zemljane, teraformere, koji bi im oteli planetu. Nervozni oficir, vojničina, koji nema strpljenja za birokratske procedure i pregovore. Vojnik koji (zbog ljubavi prema vanzemaljki) prelazi na stranu neprijatelja (to se u davna vremena zvalo "postane izdajnik") i u finalnoj borbi odigra odlučujuću ulogu u pobedi simpatičnih vanzemaljaca.

BfT, doduše, mlako pokušava da opravda svoje zlikovce činjenicom da ljudskoj rasi otkucavaju poslednji dani i da se nalaze u situaciji teraforming-ili-propast, a simpatične vanzemaljce koji žive u skladu sa prirodom ko jebe. Međutim, iskren da budem, ti (auto-?) rasistički filmovi mene teško mogu da kupe, pre svega svog svoje predvidljivosti. Ne razumem čemu ta manijakalna potreba za polivanjem pepelom i zauzimanjem moralnog stava. Štaviše, išao bih toliko daleko da bih "filmom sa mudima" nazvao neki koji bi borbu za opstanak (pa i resurse) okončao pobedom najgramzivijeg i najsnažnijeg, što je (da se razumemo) uglavnom i slučaj. Čak, da dozvolim konspiratologu u meni da se razmaše, moralističke filmove bih čak smatrao delom zle agende gramzivih jer impliciraju (laž) da će dobro pobediti samo zato što je dobro, a ne dovoljno snažno; ili će bar neki izdajnik priskočiti u pomoć u poslednjem trenutku.

ha, ha , ha, zar nije žena ta - koja će stotinu vjera promijeniti da bi srcu svome ugodila  :twisted:

SPOJLERI:

Nije ljubav prema vanzemaljki (u pitanju je vanzemaljska devojčica), nego je vanzemaljka spasila život junaku i negovala ga dok je bio onesposobljen, pa su se sprijateljili, i zajedno pronašli rešenje za Zemljane koje ne podrazumeva uništenje Terijanaca (napuštena Terijanska tehnologija, ali ne i zaboravljena). Junak na kraju žrtvuje svoj život (između ostalog i da bi spasao život svom bratu) da bi spasao obe strane od bespotrebnog uništenja, s obzirom da Terijanci nisu nimalo naivni kad aktiviraju svoj konzervirani vojni arsenal.

Ovo barem ima zaplet.

Quote from: mac on 18-12-2009, 18:26:13
SPOJLERI:

Nije ljubav prema vanzemaljki (u pitanju je vanzemaljska devojčica), nego je vanzemaljka spasila život junaku i negovala ga dok je bio onesposobljen, pa su se sprijateljili, i zajedno pronašli rešenje za Zemljane koje ne podrazumeva uništenje Terijanaca (napuštena Terijanska tehnologija, ali ne i zaboravljena). Junak na kraju žrtvuje svoj život (između ostalog i da bi spasao život svom bratu) da bi spasao obe strane od bespotrebnog uništenja, s obzirom da Terijanci nisu nimalo naivni kad aktiviraju svoj konzervirani vojni arsenal.

Ne, ne... Neće se ovo pretvoriti u još jedan sagitaški pedofilski topik!  :lol:

Što se tiče žrtvovanja, nije bilo zbog sprečavanja daljeg uništenja, pošto je point of no return teraforminga bio skoro dostignut. Terijanci su se, fakat, pokazali kao tvrd orah, ali je zanimljivo i što je "zli" general pokazao da ima petlje, igrao na sve ili ništa i tom taktikom bi pobedio sigurno da nije bilo izdaje. Žrtvovanjem je onaj lik, zaboravih mu ime, pre svesno osudio ljude na propast jer nije mogao biti siguran da će kupola biti uopšte napravljena, kamoli završena na vreme. Kupola mi se u celoj priči čini kao nekakav afterthought i definitivno mislim da bi BfT bolje funkcionisao, bio provokativniji i zapaženiji da se završio logično - vojnom pobedom Zemljana.

Bio bi provokativniji i zapaženiji, ali ne bi bolje funkcionisao. Gde je tu katarza?

Twentieth Century Fox's "Avatar" grossed $3.5 million in midnight runs from approximately 2,000 locations in a strong start for James Cameron's sweeping 3D sci-fi fantasy.

Friday matinees are also selling out.

Many of the midnight runs were in 3D locations.

"Avatar" has a strong shot at securing the best December bow of all time. Current record holder is Will Smith starrer "I Am Legend," which posted an opening weekend gross of $77.2 million. That film grossed roughly $30.6 million on its first Friday, including $1.7 million in midnight grosses from roughly 1,100 theaters.

"Avatar" also is expected to do big business in its day and date international launch, having already scored impressive first-day launches in a number of territories, including France.

"Avatar" faces the challenge of being an original title, versus a franchise sequel.

Quote from: mac on 18-12-2009, 23:10:51
Gde je tu katarza?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catharsis_%28medicine%29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catharsis_%28medicine%29)

QuoteIn medicine, a cathartic is a substance which accelerates defecation.

:lol:

Pogledao sam Avatar. Realno gledano, film je dno dna, ali trodimenzionalnost donekle vadi stvar. Prvi put da me kod nekog 3D filma nije zaboljela glava. Kameronov pristup tu je bio dosta suptilan, nije bilo kopalja, strijela i kamenja niti ispruženih prstiju pravo u oči. Međutim, ili ja imam neki problem sa očima ili se objekti u prvom planu jednostavno ne vide najbolje. Kad su u pokretu, onda su samo zamrljani. Tek kad miruju, počnete da primjećujete da npr. nečija ogromna glavurda bježi s ekrana i ispunjava kino dvoranu.

Sve ostalo je blaga katastrofa. Ja ovde čuh silne pohvale na račun nekakve Tatkove "hrabrosti" i nekakvih "američkih" vojnika koji nešto ubijaju. Moguće da su se pojavili u onom dijelu kad sam zaspao, ali u ostatku filma vidio sam samo no-name futurističke Zemljane. Znam, preneseno značenje and all that crap, ali to sve smrdi na kilometre. Nije ovo nikakav Soldier Blue ili sličan film koji zločince imenuje imenom, prezimenom i zastavom. No, pravim digresiju. Dakle, to NIJE mana filma, samo ispravljanje nečijeg krivog navoda.
Ono što JESTE mana filma jesu toliko generički, predvidljivi i stupidni likovi da ozbiljno pariraju Emerihovoj 2012. Ozbiljno pariraju, kažem, ne dostižu niti prestižu. Ali, dok sam kod gledanja 2012. i npr. scena sa Denijem Gloverom konstantno imao utisak da se Emerih valja od smijeha iza kamere, strava leži u tome što je potpuno očigledno da Tatko samog sebe shvata smrtno ozbiljno. Ne da mi se ni da nabrajam sve te klišee od likova, a i scenario je papazjanija skrpljena od gomile raznoraznih starijih (boljih) filmova, sa očiglednim uticajima revizionističkih vesterna (Soldier Blue, Dances With Wolves, etc. etc.). Takođe, patetika (sorry, Alex) koju Kameron dostiže u pojedinim scenama stvarno izaziva povraćanje. Historijski herojski govori, sa sve gudačima u pozadini koji kreću tiho pa su sve jači što se heroj bliži vrhuncu (govora), da bi sve na kraju eksplodiralo u prelijepoj eksploziji osjećanja čojstva, junaštva i herojstva, daklem ti govori su u meni izazvali žaljenje što nemam pored sebe kesu u koju bih mogao da deponujem svoje mišljenje o takvim scenama.
Film je ekstremno predug, bar sat vremena, a predug je zato što Kameron takes his sweet time da bi nam šoukejsovao ljepotu svijeta koji je kreirao kroz gomilu besmislenih scena. I na kraju, posljednjih pola sata je bilo baš ko u Titaniku: "Ajde završavaj već jednom, LJEBA TI!". A taj Kameronov prelijepi svijet zapravo uopšte nije toliko spektakularan - 3D na stranu, Avatar po vizuelnom utisku može samo da pljune pod prozor recimo Gospodaru prstenova, koji je eto star skoro čitavu deceniju.
A tek oni Indijanci, pardon Nabisti, pardon Na'vi'ja'či ili kako li se već zovu... Pa to je tek urnebes - Ejva, pa Drvo Duša, pa Drvo Glasova, sve neke ultrafensi prirodne tvorevine koje ko da su maznute iz nekog trećerazrednog Zagorovog romana.
Ukratko, tokom gledanja Avatara nijednom nisam pomislio "Wow, ovo moram ponovo da gledam!", što je katastrofa za jedan 3D film.
U odbranu filma valja priznati da (vjerovatno) ne gubi mnogo od vizuelnog izgleda (koji je odličan, uprkos mom zanovijetanju) ako se gleda u dvije dimenzije, sve to zahvaljujući prilično pametnom kadriranju. Nije ni pretjerano dosadan, ali treba se skratiti za bar 45 minuta. I mislim da je konačno vrijeme da Tatko pusti nekog maštovitijeg da mu piše scenarije jer je, realno gledano, ovaj film slabiji i od Titanika.

Harvi nema pojma, kao i obično. :evil:

Film je ODLIČAN. Ja sam uživao svih dva sata i 40 i nešto minuta i nisam se dosađivao niti jedne sekunde. I ja jesam pomislio "Wow, ovo moram ponovo da gledam!", i pogledaću uskoro ponovo, u 3D naravno, jer mislim da se mnogo gubi gledanjem u 2D. Likovi jesu generički i predvidljivi ali u ovakvoj bajkovitoj priči takvi i treba da budu. Patetika je krajnje umjerena i ne zauzima mnogo minutaže filma i meni nije ni najmanje smetala, iako se inače grozim patetičnih scena u filmovima (napominjem da Titanik nisam gledao, niti namjeravam). Na'vi su odlično urađeni, kao i flora i fauna planete. A 3D prikazi šuma i litica su me ostavili bez daha, prosto sam u tim scenama uživao kao malo dijete i oduševljeno se cerio od uva do uva. Od mene čista desetka! Tatko, hvala ti! xjap

Wow, super! Nisam znao da u isto vrijeme sa Avatarom igra još jedan 3D film sa Na'vijima, samo bolji. Kako se zvao taj film, da ga i ja pogledam?

gledo sam avatara u koloseju, 3-d i sve po ps-u.

pošto ionako nemam vremena sada, samo ću da potpišem sve što je harv gore rekao čime je pokazao da za njega još uvek ima nade.

znači, avatar je besramno patetična hipi-baljezgarija, čak još banalnija i gluplja nego što sam mislio.

Eto vidite.

A u klinici su rekli da sam lud.

Quote from: Ygg on 19-12-2009, 02:34:19
Harvi nema pojma, kao i obično. :evil:

Nogekako. Harvi je ekvivalent Edu Woodu u pisanju o filmu. Zato i volim njegova pisanija, koja nepogrešivo idu protiv dobrih, a uzdižu loše filmove,  za razliku od Ghoula koji se uvek trudi da bude mrtav ozbiljan i autoritativan, a ispada nekako... patetičan, u odnosu na Harvija. :evil:

Hm. Ja sam stekao utisak da moja laprdanja redovno idu protiv loših filmova, a uzdižu dobre.

ma pusti alexa: on da zna nešto o filmu, ne bi mu kompas bili imdb i oskari.

Odgledao sam Avatar.  :D

Tatko se zbilja vratio.  xjap

Najbolji film godine, i najbolji SF još od Starship Troopers.  :|

Još ne mogu da se oporavim. Idem u ova dva-tri dana na još jednu Big Daddy terapiju, a onda da se prisaberem i sumiram utiske.  :D

ma ekstra je Avatar,meni nema nikakvi zamerki cista destka :) idem opet  :|

Opening 12 years, almost to the day, after his behemoth film "Titanic," James Cameron's 3D sci-fi spectacle "Avatar" drew a strong $27 million in its first day at the box office from 3,452 theaters.

First day for 'Avatar' is the highest for a Twentieth Century Fox release opening outside the summer frame. Previous champ was 2006's "Ice Age: The Meltdown" which took in $21.8 million.

Among all opening days which are Fridays in December, "Avatar" ranks behind Will Smith's 2007 sci-fi tentpole "I Am Legend" which grossed $30.1 million. 2003's "Lord of the Rings: Return of the King" continues to own the all-time opening day record in December with $34.5 million, however, that film unspooled on a Wednesday.

It's quite possible that the east coast winter storms cut into the opening day figure for "Avatar" a bit. However, much like Cameron's "Titanic," "Avatar" is bound to sprout a fantastic set of legs based on word of mouth -- a huge asset heading into the Christmas holiday, which falls on Friday. Immediately evident: the exit polls for 'Avatar,' both stateside and abroad, have been truly fantastic.

When "Titanic" was released on Dec. 19, 1997, it posted a first day gross of $8.7 million and an opening weekend of $28.6 million -- figures which were respectable, but far from being records. However, with Christmas falling on a Saturday in 1997, "Titanic" saw boffo gains of 40% on its second Friday and 24% for its second weekend. "Titanic" finaled its domestic tally at $600.8 million.

The box office champ in terms of opening records back in 1997 was Steven Spielberg's "The Lost World: Jurassic Park," which bowed over the Memorial Day frame that year with a first day record of $21.6 million and a three-day haul of $72.1 million according to Rentrak Theatrical.

Coming in second on Friday was Disney's hand-drawn animated toon "The Princess and the Frog" which generated $3.4 million at 3,475, down 52% in its second Friday of wide release. Since bowing four weeks ago, "Princess" has accumulated an estimated domestic gross of $35.9 million.

Staying tough in third was Sandra Bullock's football drama "The Blind Side" which counted $3.2 million at 3,407 in its fifth Friday ,down 33% with a domestic B.O. of $157.9 million.

Vying to counterprogram "Avatar," Sony's new comedy this weekend "Did You Hear About the Morgans" with Hugh Grant and Sarah Jessica Parker collected an estimated $2.4 million from 2,718 in fourth.

Summit Entertainment's "The Twilight Saga: New Moon" slotted fifth with $1.4 million from 3,035, repping a 43% decline and a running domestic tally of $271.6 million.

Upravo stigoh iz Koloseja gde sam se smrzla, u sali nije radilo grejanje.
Al bes koji je rastao u meni kako je film odmicao je zagrejao moj smrznuti ogranizam. Svi pokusaji da film posmatram ko fantasy, nisu urodili plodom. Titanik je vrhunska nepatetika za Avatar. Znaci, najnize moguce ispoljavanje i prikaz emocija, a daleko od toga da se gadim pateticnih filmova.

Eto, moram reci i da su mi se dopali CGI, kao i fluorescentna shuma. I to je otprilike to.

E da, srecom sam se utesila arabiatom sa linguinima u Vapianu, inace propas'.

Quote from: lilit_depp on 19-12-2009, 20:42:29Znaci, najnize moguce ispoljavanje i prikaz emocija, a daleko od toga da se gadim pateticnih filmova.

tačno tako.

mislim da je ovako pompezni hardver filma savršeno nevredan, tj protraćen na onako infantilan, površan, detinjast, hippie softver.

tehnologija - odlična; priča - budalaština; likovi: tipovi (klišei); situacije - predvidive, otrcane, samo ovde našminkane svim šarenim lažama koje 320 miliona $$$ mogu da plate.

od autora TITANIKA zaista nisam mnogo očekivao, ali ovo je još ispod tih smanjenih očekivanja - kao da je pokušavao da napravi još klištetiziraniji, površniji, debilniji film od spilberg-lukasovih, i u tome je, na žalost, i uspeo.

ako hoćete, smatrajte ove moje izjave 'pomodarstvom' (kao da mene zabole koga je 'in' hvaliti ili pljuvati, i kao da ja pratim bilo koje trendove), ali eto, ja kao običan konzument koji je došao na kameronov rolerkoster nisam dobio skoro nimalo onog andrenalina, saspensa, akcije i ostalih čari koje je čak i TITANIK imao.

sve je ovo fejk fejk fejk, emotivno potpuno prazan i čak smešan film.

Quote from: Ghoul on 19-12-2009, 21:17:09
mislim da je ovako pompezni hardver filma savršeno nevredan, tj protraćen na onako infantilan, površan, detinjast, hippie softver.

tehnologija - odlična; priča - budalaština; likovi: tipovi (klišei); situacije - predvidive, otrcane, samo ovde našminkane svim šarenim lažama koje 320 miliona $$$ mogu da plate.

od autora TITANIKA zaista nisam mnogo očekivao, ali ovo je još ispod tih smanjenih očekivanja - kao da je pokušavao da napravi još klištetiziraniji, površniji, debilniji film od spilberg-lukasovih, i u tome je, na žalost, i uspeo.

ako hoćete, smatrajte ove moje izjave 'pomodarstvom' (kao da mene zabole koga je 'in' hvaliti ili pljuvati, i kao da ja pratim bilo koje trendove), ali eto, ja kao običan konzument koji je došao na kameronov rolerkoster nisam dobio skoro nimalo onog andrenalina, saspensa, akcije i ostalih čari koje je čak i TITANIK imao.

sve je ovo fejk fejk fejk, emotivno potpuno prazan i čak smešan film.

Toliko loše? :?
Dakle, neću da se smaram. Hvala Ghoule. :)

ček, ček, polako: nisam reko da je film negledljiv pa ni užasno loš per se: numerički, moraću da mu dam nešto kao trojku - nije mi bio previše dosadan, čak i ti otrcani i predvidivi delovi zanimljivi su za oko, barem za jedno gledanje, ali zaista nisam siguran da ću nešto mnogo da se zaletim ponovo da ga gledam.
možda ga odgledam jednom i u 2D, za mesec dana, for the hell of it, ali sigurno me ne zanima ni da posedujem dvd ni da pratim extra dodatke, making of, intervjue ili bilo šta vezano za ovaj kičasti svet i njegove nabudžene a šuplje stanovnike.

za jednokratnu exkurziju, avatar je ok... može se izdržati ako niste nešto preterano alergični na hipi tree-hugging bullshit i na zaslađene debilne verzije bajki o 'majci prirodi' i sl. sranjima.
ja sam uzdisao glasno i proizvodio neke zvukove samo na 4-5 mesta u filmu, ostatak sam se suzdržavao i samo kolutao očima.

Ako liči na DISTRICT 9, neću da ga gledam. Ovaj me zdravo smorio... :(

Distrikt 9 je odličan, a Avatar koliko znam ni po čemu ne liči na njega. Ali vrijedi za jedno gledanje jer je svijet koji je Kameron kreirao prilično lijep (vizuelno). Dakle, ko što već rekoh prije (ili možda nisam reko, ali sigurno jesam pomislio), uz neki kvalitetan MP3 plejer sve će biti mnogo bolje. Inače, zaboravio sam da spomenem da je muzika odlična, u nekim dijelovima skroz minimalistička, kao Jarreov Cousteau.

Iz čistog rišpekta prema nekadanjem mužu Linde Hamilton, koju su sklonili, onako, da ne smeta...

(https://www.znaksagite.com/diskusije/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcomixed.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F12%2F129053027903090394.jpg&hash=7dcd61cae9b4a722724dcc9fb06dafead21584f0)

http://comixed.com/2009/12/18/comics-comic-strip-yonkoma-avatar-summary/ (http://comixed.com/2009/12/18/comics-comic-strip-yonkoma-avatar-summary/)

Quote from: Harvester on 19-12-2009, 02:11:21
Pogledao sam Avatar. Realno gledano, film je dno dna, ali trodimenzionalnost donekle vadi stvar. Prvi put da me kod nekog 3D filma nije zaboljela glava. Kameronov pristup tu je bio dosta suptilan, nije bilo kopalja, strijela i kamenja niti ispruženih prstiju pravo u oči. Međutim, ili ja imam neki problem sa očima ili se objekti u prvom planu jednostavno ne vide najbolje. Kad su u pokretu, onda su samo zamrljani. Tek kad miruju, počnete da primjećujete da npr. nečija ogromna glavurda bježi s ekrana i ispunjava kino dvoranu.

Sve ostalo je blaga katastrofa. Ja ovde čuh silne pohvale na račun nekakve Tatkove "hrabrosti" i nekakvih "američkih" vojnika koji nešto ubijaju. Moguće da su se pojavili u onom dijelu kad sam zaspao, ali u ostatku filma vidio sam samo no-name futurističke Zemljane. Znam, preneseno značenje and all that crap, ali to sve smrdi na kilometre. Nije ovo nikakav Soldier Blue ili sličan film koji zločince imenuje imenom, prezimenom i zastavom. No, pravim digresiju. Dakle, to NIJE mana filma, samo ispravljanje nečijeg krivog navoda.
Ono što JESTE mana filma jesu toliko generički, predvidljivi i stupidni likovi da ozbiljno pariraju Emerihovoj 2012. Ozbiljno pariraju, kažem, ne dostižu niti prestižu. ( xrofl) Ali, dok sam kod gledanja 2012. i npr. scena sa Denijem Gloverom konstantno imao utisak da se Emerih valja od smijeha iza kamere, strava leži u tome što je potpuno očigledno da Tatko samog sebe shvata smrtno ozbiljno. Ne da mi se ni da nabrajam sve te klišee od likova, a i scenario je papazjanija skrpljena od gomile raznoraznih starijih (boljih) filmova, sa očiglednim uticajima revizionističkih vesterna (Soldier Blue, Dances With Wolves, etc. etc.). Takođe, patetika (sorry, Alex) koju Kameron dostiže u pojedinim scenama stvarno izaziva povraćanje. Historijski herojski govori, sa sve gudačima u pozadini koji kreću tiho pa su sve jači što se heroj bliži vrhuncu (govora), da bi sve na kraju eksplodiralo u prelijepoj eksploziji osjećanja čojstva, junaštva i herojstva, daklem ti govori su u meni izazvali žaljenje što nemam pored sebe kesu u koju bih mogao da deponujem svoje mišljenje o takvim scenama.
Film je ekstremno predug, bar sat vremena, a predug je zato što Kameron takes his sweet time da bi nam šoukejsovao ljepotu svijeta koji je kreirao kroz gomilu besmislenih scena. I na kraju, posljednjih pola sata je bilo baš ko u Titaniku: "Ajde završavaj već jednom, LJEBA TI!". A taj Kameronov prelijepi svijet zapravo uopšte nije toliko spektakularan - 3D na stranu, Avatar po vizuelnom utisku može samo da pljune pod prozor recimo Gospodaru prstenova, koji je eto star skoro čitavu deceniju.
A tek oni Indijanci, pardon Nabisti, pardon Na'vi'ja'či ili kako li se već zovu... Pa to je tek urnebes - Ejva, pa Drvo Duša, pa Drvo Glasova, sve neke ultrafensi prirodne tvorevine koje ko da su maznute iz nekog trećerazrednog Zagorovog romana.
Ukratko, tokom gledanja Avatara nijednom nisam pomislio "Wow, ovo moram ponovo da gledam!", što je katastrofa za jedan 3D film.
U odbranu filma valja priznati da (vjerovatno) ne gubi mnogo od vizuelnog izgleda (koji je odličan, uprkos mom zanovijetanju) ako se gleda u dvije dimenzije, sve to zahvaljujući prilično pametnom kadriranju. Nije ni pretjerano dosadan, ali treba se skratiti za bar 45 minuta. I mislim da je konačno vrijeme da Tatko pusti nekog maštovitijeg da mu piše scenarije jer je, realno gledano, ovaj film slabiji i od Titanika.

to harvi! ovo mora da se kvotuje.  :lol:

Juče sam pogledao AVATARA u 3D, onako kako Bog i Kameron nalažu. Uživao sam više nego prvi put. Sada sam shvatio št znači kada kažu film veći od života. Kameron je omogućio da za 500 dinara "otputujete" na nepoznatu planetu i upoznate njene stanovnike. Opšta mesta u scenariju u "dramski naboj na granici patetike" su mi ovoga puta smetali mnogo manje nego tokom prvog gledanja, znao sam šta da očekujem pa sam se samo zavalio, prepustio filmskoj magiji i uživao. Ljudi u sali su dobro reagovali na film, na kraju je čak pao i aplauz... To se ne događa često kada odete u bioskom a da nije premijera.

xcheers

Jedino što su oni u Koloseju poludeli. Kada sam došao da kupim karte, rekli su mi da je projekcija u 17 pod znakom pitanja zato što je 6D sala hladna. Okej, uzeo sam karte za 18:10, za projekciju u drugoj sali. Kada smo ušli i krenuli ka sali - posle cepanja karata - čekalo nas je izneneađnje. Naočare su se iznajmljivale odvojeno. Naplaćivali su ih 100 dinara. Pitao sam kako sad to - zar nije logično da su naočare obuhvaćene cenom karte (kao gledati 3D film bez 3D naočara?). Zaposlene počele da izvinjavaju... Kažu, tako je naređeno, nisu one krive, priznaju da je svinjarija ali ne mogu ništa da urade itd.

Da stvar bude gora, kada smo ušli u 3D salu ustanovili smo da je poprilično hladna. Znači, grejanje u obe sale sa 3D tehnikom (6D i 3D) se pokvarilo. Pre početka filma, ušle su dve devojke koje rade u Koloseju i objasnile da grejanja neće biti. Ko želi da film gleda u 2D u drugoj sali ili da mu se vrate pare - biće mu omogućeno, rekle su.

Niko nije izašao. Ni tada, ni tokom projekcije - bez obzira što je postalo ozbiljno hladno posle sat i nešto. Kameronova magija nas je sve zagrejala.

Siguran sam da nećeš zaboraviti taj doživljaj  xflowy

Da doplatiš za naočari!?!!! Užas! Hohštapleraj!

za inat posle filma dušmanima nisam vratio naočare - jer to je 'najlepše' u toj idiockoj priči, ti plaćaš 100 din za IZNAJMLJIVANJE, a na izlaznim  vratima te posle sačekuju da ti ih oduznu!

naravno, ja sam reko - možete mi ih uzeti samo iz mojih hladnih, mrtvih, zgrčenih prstiju, svinje!

pošto su moji prstići, kao što vidite, još uvek topli, živi i razigrani, eno mi ih naočari za uspomenu i neko naredno gledanje. :)

Na njihovom sajtu piše da se naočare iznajmljuju ekstra. Istovremeno piše i da je cena 3D karte vikendom 370 dinara. "Čudno" da nepoklapanje informacija ide na štetu kupaca. Da li je ovo posao za tržišnu inspekciju?

a možda će da traže doplatu za grejanje?

znači, 300 din je osnova karte + 70 din: taxa za vikend + 100 din. za đozluke + 100 din za grejanje + 200 din. reket/osiguranje da neko ne upadne usred filma da vas bije + 125 din taxa za luxuz (na ovu krizu oćete da gledate extravagancije kao što je 3-D film, dok narod nema ni za leba? ima da platite) + PDV...

Lepo Zak kaže: HOHŠTAPLERI!

Quote from: Ghoul on 20-12-2009, 15:15:10
a možda će da traže doplatu za grejanje?

znači, 300 din je osnova karte + 70 din: taxa za vikend + 100 din. za đozluke + 100 din za grejanje + 200 din. reket/osiguranje da neko ne upadne usred filma da vas bije + 125 din taxa za luxuz (na ovu krizu oćete da gledate extravagancije kao što je 3-D film, dok narod nema ni za leba? ima da platite) + PDV...

ovo, k'o da je reklama za mastercard. :idea:

Kod nas u Banjaluci karta za 3D projekcije je 7KM a za 2D 5 KM. A đozluke naravno dobiješ besplatno, ne kad kupuješ kartu, već pri ulasku u salu, i uz njih čak dobiješ i paket maramica (da đozluci mogu da se obrišu).

I ja sam pao u iskušenje da zdipim naočale, ali sam se suzdržao u zadnjem momentu. Možda to uradim kad budem gledao film ponovo. :evil:

QuoteKod nas u Banjaluci karta za 3D projekcije je 7KM a za 2D 5 KM. A đozluke naravno dobiješ besplatno, ne kad kupuješ kartu, već pri ulasku u salu,

Možeš to i tako da posmatraš. A možeš i onako kako jeste, tj. da naplaćuju iznajmljivanje cvika 2 KM :-)

Quote from: mac on 20-12-2009, 15:00:40
"Čudno" da nepoklapanje informacija ide na štetu kupaca. Da li je ovo posao za tržišnu inspekciju?

Jeste, neko bi to trebo da prijavi.

Pokušavam ceo dan da ih nazovem da pitam za grejanje. Prvi put (11h) niko se nije javio. Svaki sledeći put je bilo zauzeto.

ko je uopšte distributer lopuža?

73 milja za vikend.

hm, pa i nije baš tako spektakularno.

ne znam samo dal su računali i pare iz srbije. ovo je, slutim, samo usa skor.

Alex, koji je očekivao da će zadovoljno da trlja ruke kako Kameron bude slagao milijarde na svoj bankovni račun, moraće da prizna da je Tatka do nogu potukao moj favorit Roland Emerih! :!:

Stvari ipak nisu tako crne. Vikend karta je 370 dinara, kao što i piše na sajtu, a i grejanje je bilo sasvim prihvatljivo. Što se tiče samog filma u pitanju je prvoklasni spektakl i za oči i za dušu. OVO je film, a ne onaj 2012. Zamerke o bajatoj priči mogu da upućuju samo oni koji su sve velike priče već pročitali, ali oni bi trebalo da shvate da su sve velike priče već i ispričane. Svet Pandore je već opisan u Legvinovom romanu "Svet se kaže Šuma". To je ta priča. I to fercera bez greške.

Nameravao sam da pogledam AVATAR ponovo u 3D verziji, ali kad smo se smestili u praznjikavu salu takvuda gde je u okviru redovne projekcije trebalo da bude i nova novinarska, obavestili su nas da je projekcija otkazana iz tehničkih razloga. Tja. E sad, za neki drugi film bih bez problema dao i 500 dinara da ga ponovo pogledam u 3D verziji, ali kad je reč o AVATARU, shvatio sam, kad su mi se utisci još malo slegli, da ja naprosto nemam želju da ovo gledam ponovo, pa bio film u 7D. Mislim da to najbolje sumira moje razočarenje.

Zanimljivo mi je da čitajući kritike (pretežno fanovske), još uvek nisam naišao ni na jednu argumentovanu pozitivnu kritiku i sve se svode na ekstatično oduševljenje koje meni, moram priznati, deluje potpuno iracionalno. E sad, iracionalnost jeste bitan deo filmskog doživljaju, ne želim to da negiram, ali u ovom slučaju to je do te mere ekstremno da zaista imam problem da razumem čime su se to silni ljudi oduševili.

Takođe, ne slažem se sa tom pričom, koja se manje ili više suptilno protura, kako su svi oni kojima se AVATAR ne sviđa previše zapravo cinici koji imaju averziju spram jednostavnih priča koje stavljaju akcenat na čistu emociju na granici patetike (melodrama). Ja nemam ništa protiv takvih filmova, ali pod uslovom da su zanimljivi, da su originalni, da su uzbudljivi, da imaju interesantnu priču koja nije ravna i predvidiva, da imaju zanimljive junake koji mogu biti i skice, pod uslovom da su vešto ocrtane, da imaju replike koje se pamte, bar neku scenu koja se na prvo gledanje ureže u svest, ali ne zbog efekata, već zbog svega ovog prethodno pobrojanog. Cameron je ranije snimao takve filmove, ali vremenom kao da je prestao da mari za scenario i ostao je samo suv hardver koji ma koliko da je impresivan ne može da iznese film. Najgore od svega, AVATAR me je ostavio gotovo potpuno ravnodušnim u smislu bilo kakvog emotivnog angažmana spram onoga što gledam; završni jedan na jedan sukob gde se te sirove emocije, kojima Cameron redovito barata, filtriraju kroz fizički sukob i borbu je i jedini trenutak za pamćenje, ali too little too late.

Prerafaelitsko šarenilo prija čulima, a još više prija to što ne mora da se razmišlja. Oni koji (ionako) razmišljaju, ne mogu da uživaju u tome. Merila su potpuno drugačija. Jedno ide na ono "jao, što je lepo" a drugo na "jao, što je dobro".

Voleo bih da je moguće to tako lako razdvojiti, ali ima pametnih ljudi koji se oduševljavaju ovim filmom, tako da verovatno nije ključno ni to što je nešto 'dobro', ni 'lepo', već emocija koju pobuđuje kod nekih gledalaca, a tek je to subjektivno...

Ovo je i dobro, i lepo, i zanimljivo. Jedino je priča stara ko biblija. Zamerati svakom bogovetnom filmu da ne pruža ništa novo je suviše egocentrično. Nije novo vama, ali ima kome jeste.

Traže nešto drugo. Neki sistem koji je u vezi s upotrebom nove tehnologije, ili koji je zabavan pre svega. Ako je u skladu s nečjim predstavama, takvi će reagovati pozitivno.
Da sam klinac, sigurno bih uživao u tome kako je sve predivno animirano. Ali sada tražim još nešto pride.

Ja sam film doživio kao nekakvu bajku i zaista mi je legao. I priča kako je film patetičan mi je besmislena. Onda isto možemo tvrditi da je "Snježana i sedam patuljaka" ili "Pepeljuga" patetična priča.

I moram priznati da sam bio iznenađen. Očekivao sam bezvezan film sa dobrim efektima, i da film nije prikazivan u 3D ne bih ni išao u kino da ga gledam. Nisam očekivao da je Tatko još uvijek u stanju da napravi dobar film. Dakle, nisam njegov fan (Titanik nisam gledao i ponosim se time  :lol:) i nisam imao nikakvih pozitivnih predrasuda prema filmu. A još manje sam fan fensi šmensi specijalnih efekata. A iz kina sam izašao naprosto ushićen. I to me još uvijek drži.

Sreća tvoja što te ovde većina ljudi ne zna, pa ne mogu sebi da predstave šta znači tvoje USHIĆENJE nekim filmom ;-)

Ja bih gledao neki dobar film, ali ne prave ih više.
Gledao sam Humanity's end. Simpatično.
Pandora - malo sam se mučio.
Gamer - preskakao.
District 9 - socijalna alegorija (Alien Nation 2).
Avatar - od Kamerona bih očekivao nešto sasvim drugo, ali šta ćeš. On je doživeo regresivnu transformaciju ličnosti.
Jedino još Rodrigez ume da napravi dobar film.

Quote from: Harvester on 21-12-2009, 01:00:51
Sreća tvoja što te ovde većina ljudi ne zna, pa ne mogu sebi da predstave šta znači tvoje USHIĆENJE nekim filmom ;-)

Ali tebe na žalost poznaju sasvim dobro, tako da znaju šta znači tvoje USHIĆENJE nekim filmom. xfrog
:D :D :D

Quote from: Lord Kufer on 21-12-2009, 01:06:04Jedino još Rodrigez ume da napravi dobar film.

Odmah je jasno da nisi gledao poslednji mu film Shorts. Auh, kakva skaradna i ponizhavajuca loshost!

Quote from: Lord Kufer on 21-12-2009, 01:06:04Ja bih gledao neki dobar film, ali ne prave ih više.

Ako ovde misliš na dobre SF filmove oni jesu retki, ali ih ima. Ja bih tu svakako ubrojio pomenuti District 9, a iz poslednjih godina bih dodano Children of Men (remek-delo) i sjajni Sunshine koji priča već viđenu priču, ali na, po meni, efektan način i to posebno vizuelno (ali ne u smislu efekata već režije). Moon iz ove godine je vredan pažnje, mada je mogao biti i bolji, a Los Cronocrimenes iz prošle godine je jedan od najboljih filmova na temu puta kroz vreme, iako je u osnovi pre svega odličan triler.

Children of Men i District 9 su poprilično dobri, mada ih ja ne bih nazvao remek djelima. Los Cronocrimenes je strašno zabavan filmčić, zaista sam uživao dok sam ga gledao. A Sunshine je bezveze. Dosadan je, mislim da sam negdje na pola filma prestao da pratim priču. Ako je priče uopšte i bilo. Moon još uvijek nisam pogledao.

Sunshine ima strashan problem u trecoj trecini, kada sa jedne filozofsko-kontemplativne ravni horor izmeshta u neke skroz neodgovarajuce slesher okvire.

Pa ipak, uprkos toj velikoj mani, ne mogu da kazhem da nije odlichan zbog svega ostalog shto je uradio kako valja.

Meni je ta filozofsko-kontemplativna ravan bila potpuno šuplja. Tako da sam izgubio interesovanje za film prije te zadnje trećine. Kolega i ja smo negdje napola prestali da pratimo svu tu nazovi filozofsku priču i ostatak filma smo gledali površno uz ćaskanje. Možda bismo i prekinuli sa gledanjem da se odjednom nije počelo kao nešto dešavati (to je ta zadnja trećina), te smo ipak istrpili fim do kraja. Sve u svemu, razočarenje.

Pogledaću ove bandite.
Sunshine mi je bio malko dosadan.
Za Rodrigeza, mislio sam na Planet Terror.
A ovaj dečji film sam gledao, pa i nije baš tako katastrofalan, daleko od toga.
Moon je simpatičan, ali koliko su ga hvalili unapred, stvarno ne zaslužuje.

Zanimljivo, svojevremeno je bio jedan odličan španski film, Mutanti, super dobar crni humor i zajebancija. Nema ništa od njih novo?


Ove godine je bio i Star Trek. Dobar kao pilot epizoda eventualno nove serije. Ali, što vreme više odmiče, nemam neki posebno negativan odnos prema tom filmu, osim što mislim da je priča previše ekstravagantna da bi se uklopila u ST timeline. Ne bi bilo loše da naprave seriju, ionako nema nikakvih SF serija na vidiku.

Zna li neko hoće li biti možda serija Caprica?

Quote from: Lord Kufer on 21-12-2009, 02:01:07Zanimljivo, svojevremeno je bio jedan odličan španski film, Mutanti, super dobar crni humor i zajebancija. Nema ništa od njih novo?

misliš na Acción mutante.

njegov reditelj je nanizao više odličnih i vrlo dobrih filmova, ali je njegov zasad najnoviji - The Oxford Murders (2008) - zabrinjavajuće BLJUZGAVO BEZUKUSAN i šupalj i bez duha.

Koji su mu još dobri, da to overim?

EL DIA DE LA BESTIA - filmčina!

sad odosmo u skroz drugu temu, al ajde:

OBAVEZNO:
El día de la bestia (1995)
Perdita Durango (1997)
La comunidad (2000)

MOŽE:
800 balas (2002)
Crimen ferpecto (2004)
Películas para no dormir: La habitación del niño (2006) (TV)

E super! Sad imam šta da gledam... Izgubio sam ga iz vida, a on je režirao onog popa s đavolom  8-) To je super film.

Quote from: Lord Kufer on 21-12-2009, 00:47:29
Traže nešto drugo. Neki sistem koji je u vezi s upotrebom nove tehnologije, ili koji je zabavan pre svega. Ako je u skladu s nečjim predstavama, takvi će reagovati pozitivno.
Da sam klinac, sigurno bih uživao u tome kako je sve predivno animirano. Ali sada tražim još nešto pride.

klinci ne uživaju u tome kako je sve predivno animirano, nego uživaju u tome što se identifikuju sa junacima jedne epske priče, koja jeste ispričana sto puta - ali je ipak nova nekome ko ima petnaest godina.

Milosheva lista je dosta diskutabilna,

SUNSHINE Danny Boylea je nezapamćena budalaština kakvu nismo očekivali od velikog reditelja. Ja sam taj film već uspeo da potisnem i na neki način izbrišem iz svojih sećanja na Boylera. Nemam problem sa tim što se Milosh loži na ovaj film. Svako ima pravo da se loži na neki glup film, a ja to pravo koristim svakog dana, ali ipak nije okej da se ljudi pogrešno ubeđuju da je ovaj film zaista dobar.

CHILDREN OF MEN je cool ali najpre kao eye candy zbog svojih famoznih kadar sekvenci. Ipak, ja volim taj film, ali teško da ga je moguće voleti zbog nekog intelektualnog sadžaja. Realno, u ovom filmu, koga briga što se ne rađaju deca, glavna je jurnjava i dizajn.

DISTRICT 9 je old school Cameron. Time me je pre svega kupio i njega isto volim, ali opet teško da tu ima neke emotivne produbljenosti i intelektualne dimenzije. Ako je koji film cheesy onda je to ovaj u kome on spakuje cvetić ženi uprkos tome što se pretvorio u vanzemaljca. Mislim, to je okej, sve u rok službe, ne možemo stalno gledati filmovi u kojima sodomizuju decu, ozleđuju genitalije i slave ništavilo (naprosto nema ih dovoljno :) ), ali nemojmo se praviti da je ovo suptilno ostvarenje.

Što se MOONa tiče, o njemu smo Mehmet i ja već rekli toliko toga da je to već zamorno...

Međutim, ono što je interesantno na ovoj listi jeste da su svi ovi filmovi u polazu na neki način pretenciozni (izuzev DISTRICT 9 koji ima tu političku dimenziju ali je u suštini zezanje). Zanimljivo je kako je sine qua non kvalitetnog SFa u poslednje vreme postala pretencioznost.

I još je zanimljivije kako ona ima sve manje pokriće u filmovima poslednjih godina. Na neki način, pretencioznost je postala neka vrsta šminke na filmovima, kao što je ranije bio eye candy, dopunski humor ili šarm zvezda. Sad je kao, "aj da snimamo rokanje, ali i da ubacimo kako stvarnost u stvari nije stvarnost" a bottom line je rokanje. Ili, "aj kao da ubacimo vanzemaljce koji su došli na Zemlju sa svojim moćnim energetskim oružjem i da bude rokanje, ali pošto je malo glupo da tako bude banalno, aj da bude i priča o različitosti..."

To je meni okej, ali nas vraća na ono što je govorio Will na temu NINE MILES DOWN. Teorijsko tumačenje žanrovskog filma je počelo previše da utiče na autore, sad svi oni namerno ugrađuju podtekst umesto da se opuste i da prave spontane narative koje ćemo mi sami promišljati.

To je ta tzv. estetika remek-dela sa kojom je počeo Cameron (i njegova generacija uopšteno gledano), a to su potpuno zaokružena dela koja pokušavaju da funkcionišu na svim nivoima, s tim što verujem da je to kod njega išlo spontano. Onda se potom razvila ta ideja filmova koja moraju svima da se dopadnu, koja mogu i za svadbu i za sa'ranu, koja su unapred i denotativna i konotativna. To je dovelo do pojave tih reditelja koji su jači na rečima nego na delu tipa Guillermo Del Toro.

Ili recimo, Alfonso Cuaron, koji je sjajan reditelj, na DVDu CHILDREN OF MEN ima Žižekove komentare. Pazite, on već na DVDu ima teoretičara koji je tu da objasni. Dakle, dobijaš ceo paket. I film, i filozofiju iza filma. I delo, i objašnjenje zašto je ono značajno. To smo ranije sretali u nekim knjigama, uglavnom klasičnim gde se u predgovoru da neka vrsta konvencionalnog teorijskog tumačenja dela.

Priznajem, SUNSHINE se zaista nije prikrivao iza pretenzije. U njemu nema rokanja, u njemu ničega, "osim milion tona teškog Sunca." :)

Potpisujem ovo za Đecu i za Distrikt, a Mjesec i Sanšajn nisam gledo. No mislim da se mora priznati da Distrikt, jednom kad prođe onaj idiotski dokumentarni dio, postaje đavolski gripping akcioni film.

dimbo je, ovog puta, 100% u pravu.
po SVIM stavkama.

s tim što je meni CHILDREN OF MEN mnogo više od rokanja i kadar sekvenci: ja sam tu plakao ko malo dete prvi put kad sam gledo (a i na reprizu isto), i to prosto mora da se računa, makar i ne mogla da se oko toga isplete neka grdna diskurs-analiza i isprđevina od mega-teorije.

prosto, ja retko telesno reagujem na filmove - retko se glasno smejem, retko puštam suze, a još ređe se ježim ili uzdrhtim (erotske nadražaje ne računam, jer je njih mnogo lakše izazvati na nesuptilne načine) - i zato svaki put kad me film isprovocira na ovu vrstu reakcije, ja to poštujem.
čak i onaj nesrećni PARANORMAL ACTIVITY, koji mi je sasvim gnusan ideološki i estetski - ne mogu da poreknem da me je naježio na 3-4 mesta.

znači, ja poštujem tu visceralnost ugođaja, čak i kad je ispražnjena od značenja ili je upitnog značenja (kao u TERMINATORU 2, npr.), i veoma poštujem kamerona zbog njegovog umeća pravljenja nail-biting adrenaline-pumping akcionih scena.

u AVATARU nema ništa od toga.
fletlajn.

nit me je nasmejao (humora vrednog pomena nema nimalo), nit me je naježio (kako je to, recimo, na bezbroj mesta činio u prvom, pa i drugom TERMINATORU, o ALIENS da ne govorim), nit me je uzbudio svojom akcijom u smislu 'jo, šta će dalje biti, kako će iz ovoga da se izvuku, gotov je, nema šanse, nema spasa, sad je jebo ježa, evo poginu, oh nene ne ne neee...'

i ovo poslednje me je najviše zaprepastilo.

sve, sve, al nisam očekivao da ću ovako neinvolvirano da posmatram tatkove akcione scene.
čak i u jebenom TITANIKU, kad je leo vezan lisicama u potpalublju a voda nadire, bilo mi je beskrajno napetije i uzbudljivije nego u bilo kojoj sceni AVATARA.

Quote from: Ghoul on 21-12-2009, 04:13:32čak i jebenom TITANIKU, kad je leo vezan lisicama u potpalublju a voda nadire, bilo mi je beskrajno napetije i uzbudljivije nego u bilo kojoj sceni AVATARA.

I samo zbog ovoga, neko bi trebalo da PLATI.

@avenger

Dakle, ako sam dobro shvatio, ti zapravo ne voliš kad sam autor unese ili bar pokuša da unese značenje, ideje, simboliku i sl. u svoje delo na očigledan način, već bi radije da bi to naknadno pročitaš ili učitaš ukoliko te konkretni film inspiriše. Ok, i to je legitimno, mada ja nešto drugačije pristupam filmovima, i mislim da je baratanje podtekstom više stvar veštine nego stvar nekog opšteg principa. Savršeno me zabole šta je npr. Cuaron stavio na DVD kao dodatak i sa kakvim je pretenzijama pristupio filmu dok god su te ideje dovoljno zanimljive i prisutne u filmu kao njegov integralni deo i u tom kontekstu funkcionišu. AVATAR je film koji je, osim na nekom bazičnom nivou, toliko lišen ideja da nudi dosta prostora za učitavanja, međutim, nije baš inspirativan za to, pošto je i na nivou proste žanrovske priče film otaljan - dakle, podtekst na stranu, film ima problema sa tekstom - tako da jedino može pasivno da se gleda i da se u tome koliko-toliko uživa. Bar što se mene tiče. Svi ovi pobrojani filmovi imaju da ponude više, kad je reč o priči i likovima, a to što su neki od njih u startu pretenciozniji od AVATARA ja ne smatram kao zamerku.

Quote from: Ghoul on 21-12-2009, 04:13:32znači, ja poštujem tu visceralnost ugođaja, čak i kad je ispražnjena od značenja ili je upitnog značenja (kao u TERMINATORU 2, npr.), i veoma poštujem kamerona zbog njegovog umeća pravljenja nail-biting adrenaline-pumping akcionih scena.

u AVATARU nema ništa od toga.
fletlajn.

nit me je nasmejao (humora vrednog pomena nema nimalo), nit me je naježio (kako je to, recimo, na bezbroj mesta činio u prvom, pa i drugom TERMINATORU, o ALIENS da ne govorim), nit me je uzbudio svojom akcijom u smislu 'jo, šta će dalje biti, kako će iz ovoga da se izvuku, gotov je, nema šanse, nema spasa, sad je jebo ježa, evo poginu, oh nene ne ne neee...'

i ovo poslednje me je najviše zaprepastilo.

sve, sve, al nisam očekivao da ću ovako neinvolvirano da posmatram tatkove akcione scene.
čak i u jebenom TITANIKU, kad je leo vezan lisicama u potpalublju a voda nadire, bilo mi je beskrajno napetije i uzbudljivije nego u bilo kojoj sceni AVATARA.

I meni je to bio najveći problem tokom gledanja filma, inače bih bio spreman da oprostim neke stvari, ali kada te neki film do te mere ostavi hladnim nekako je prirodno da se čovek zapita zašto je to tako tj. da li se filmu ima šta realno zameriti.

inače, tačno je ovo, da je pogubno po film kada se podtext suviše samosvesno ubaci u text: najbolji primer je pozna faza opusa dejvida kroneberga.
on je praktično sjeban kada je pročitao previše analiza svojih filmova i kada je suviše samosvesno pristupio gradnji zapleta ovih novijih, sa barem pola mozga (ako ne i više) svesnog značenja koja pritom proizvodi.

ne verujem da je kroni tačno znao o čemu mu je SHIVERS, RABID, BROOD, SCANNERS ili VIDEODROME - mislim, znao je instinktivno, ali je pre svega pričao neke priče koju su mu se 'javljale', nije tim filmovima pristupao kao esejima.

počev od MUVE pa nadalje, on pravi ESEJE u slikama.
neki su (meni) zabavni zbog audio-slika (kao CRASH) ali neki su mi baš žešće iritantni u svojoj autoreferencijalnosti (kao EXISTENZ) ili u svojoj banalno-očiglednoj jednodimenzionalnosti (SPIDER, HISTORY OF VIOLETS...)

Pogubno je samo onda kad nije dovoljno dobro promišljeno i kad to rade oni koji tome nisu dorasli, mada je ponekad čak i u takvim slučajevima moguće poštovati nameru. Ja inače volim filmove-eseje kad ih snimaju oni koji imaju šta da kažu, a i znaju kako da to vizuelno ispričaju na efektan način, tako da ne smatram višak samosvesti kao nešto što je loše po sebi (inače bih mogao da otpišem kompletnog von Triera npr.)

Avatar is king of the world with $159.2m overseas launch
20 December, 2009 | By Jeremy Kay

Avatar recorded the sixth highest day-and-date launch in history as Fox International's epic adventure grossed an estimated $159.2m from 106 markets.


Combined with the $73m North American debut, James Cameron's film has amassed $232.2m worldwide in its first weekend and should see Fox International past the $2bn mark by Monday. Fox International will become the second company this year after Sony Pictures Releasing International to achieve the feat and only the sixth in history to do so.

Fox sources said based on early market-by-market analysis this was the highest non-franchise, non-sequel launch ever recorded. In the company's widest launch to date Avatar played on 14,461 screens, of which an industry record 3,671 showed the film in 3D. Avatar's launch had long been regarded as a litmus test for the format and results were encouraging as 3D accounted for roughly 25% of the total screen count and brought in 56% of the gross. It should not be forgotten that heatre owners charge premiums on 3D tickets.

This was the fourth highest day-and-date launch of an extraordinary international year behind $237.1m for Warner Bros Pictures International's Harry Potter 6, $166.2m for Sony Pictures Releasing International's 2012 (adjusted for markets), and $165.4m for Paramount/PPI's Transformers 2. The all-time mark remains $251m set by Pirates Of The Caribbean 3 in 2007.

There was a new record for IMAX, too, rounding off a strong year for that company. Avatar played on 58 IMAX screens internationally and set the highest grossing opening weekend on $4m and recorded IMAX's first $1m-plus single-day gross on Sunday.

The opening weekend grosses in descending order:


Russia.
353 3D screens – 27% of total screen count, 54% of total box office.
Second highest industry launch behind Fox's Ice Age 3

France– $19m (€12.7m) from 1,083 for 60% market share
450 3D screens – 41.5% of screens, 70% of total box office.
Second highest Fox launch behind Star Wars: EP3

UK– $14.2m (£8.6m) from 1,130
456 3D screens – 40% of screens, 76% of total box office.

Germany– $13.2m (€8.8m) from 1,128 for 58% market share.
350 3D screens – 31% of screens, 70% of total box office.

Australia– $11.3m (AUD $12.3m) from 588.
264 3D screens – 45% of screens, 68% of total box office.
Third highest Fox launch, including previews, behind The Simpsons and Stars Wars: EP3

Spain– $11m (€7.4m) from 789 for 65% market share.
225 3D screens (28.5% of screens) generated 48% of total box office.
Highest Fox launch excluding previews

South Korea – $10.8m (KRW 12.5m) from 860.
116 3D screens – 13.5% of screens, 31% of total box office.
Highest Fox launch

Mexico– $5.8m for 61% market share.
241 3D screens – 16% of screens, 46% of total box office.
Second highest industry launch for non-sequel behind Spider-Man

Brazil– $5.5m.
16% 3D screens, 36% of total box office.
Third highest Fox launch behind Ice Age 3 and Wolverine.

India– $4.3m (203.1m rupees) from 756.
54 3D screens – 7% of screens, 26% of total box office.
Highest Hollywood launch

Taiwan– $3.5m (TWD 115.3m) from 254
254 3D screens – 44% of screens, 75% of total box office.
Highest Fox launch.

Sweden– $2.2m (SEK 15.6m)
22 3D screens – 15% of screens, 36% of total box office.
Highest Fox launch

Elsewhere, Avatar grossed $2.1m from 145 in Holland; $2m from 102 in Denmark for Fox's highest launch; $1.9m from 68 in Hong Kong (where 3D was on 90% of the screens and accounted for 97% of total box office); $1.8m from 355 in Thailand for Fox's highest launch; $1.7m from 196 in Belgium; $1.7m from 140 in Switzerland; $1.6m from 101 in Singapore for Fox's highest launch; $1.4m from 123 in Norway.
The film took $1.3m from 185 in Malaysia; $1.3m from 185 in Austria; $1.1m from 92 in New Zealand; $1.1m from 298 in The Philippines; $1.1m in Chile for the highest non-sequel and December industry launches; $1.05m from 147 in Indonesia for Fox's highest launch and fifth highest industry launch; and in another record Fox launch, $155,000 in Vietnam from 17 including two 3D screens for 26% of total box office.
Summit International's New Moon added $10.7m from approximately 6,200 sites in 67 territories for $381.1m.

Sony Pictures Releasing International's 2012 grossed a further $9.3m from 6,350 screens in 77 markets for $574.1m. Cloudy With A Chance of Meatballs added $1.8m from 905 in 27 for $75m.

Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures International's A Christmas Carol added $6.3m from 1,650 sites in 44 territories for $159.1m, while The Princess And The Frog added $5.7m from 2,250 sites in 11 territories in its second weekend for $15.8m.
Up added $4.4m from 1,868 in 21 for $409.8m and will overtake Ratatouille by the middle of the week to become Pixar's second highest overseas grosser. Old Dogs grossed $1.5m from 1,200 in ten for $15.7m.
Warner Bros Pictures International's German title Zweiohrkuken added $3.8m in Germany from 907 screens nationwide and has amassed $24.3m. Where The Wild Things Are added $2.7m from 1,526 screens in ten markets, for $10.4m.

Ninja Assassin stands at $1m from 975 screens in 19 territories for $19.3m. In its second weekend in South Africa Invictus added $155,000 from 73 screens nationwide for $567,000.

PPI launched Broken Embraces in Australia, reporting $111,000 from 23 sites. The international running total including UPI territories stands at $32m. Celda 221 continued to perform strongly in Spain, grossing $501,000 from 219 locations in its seventh weekend of release for a $12m running total. Law Abiding Citizen added $477,000 from 314 sites in the UK for $9m.

Universal/UPI's Public Enemies added $900,000 from 324 sites in Japan for $4.5m after nine weekends. The international running total stands at $113.4m.

The Mexican family film Nikte opened in Mexico on $400,000 from 423 sites and ranked fifth. Latest figures from UPI put The Invention Of Lying on $13.4m, Inglourious Basterds on $198.3m, and A Serious Man on an industry-wide $7m.

Prevedeno na jezik brojki u odnosu na budžet, AVATAR je za prvi vikend otplatio 116 miliona svog budžeta.

  All Energy Is Borrowed: A Review of Avatar

by Gary Westfahl

All right; the special effects in James Cameron's Avatar are indeed dazzling, and one can regard the film as ground-breaking in demonstrating, more so than any other recent film I know of, that computer animation can not only hold its own against live-action film but might actually replace it. Yes, 500 million dollars invested in the latest technology does enable a filmmaker to make twelve-foot-high, blue-skinned aliens generated through performance capture just as sympathetic and involving as skilled actors filmed in the ordinary fashion. Still, after filmgoers have emotionally experienced those aliens' agonies of defeat and thrills of victory, some will feel compelled to actually think about the story that has enthralled them for almost three hours, and they are the ones who will feel less inclined to celebrate Cameron's achievement.

Prior to the film's release, the internet buzz was that Avatar was a ripoff of Poul Anderson's classic novelette "Call Me Joe" (1957), and admittedly there are some significant similarities: both stories involve paraplegic men who assume mental control of artificially created alien beings designed to survive on harsh alien planets, decide that they prefer being active aliens to being handicapped humans, and eventually choose to be aliens all of the time. But Anderson's novelette took place on Jupiter, not a distant world named Pandora, and featured a newly created sort of intelligent being introduced to an environment without intelligent life, not an enormous humanoid crafted to resemble, and mingle with, members of an indigenous intelligent species. Thus, even if its basic concept is not entirely original, the film does take it in a different direction. Yet the film also recalls Anderson's work in a broader fashion: one of that author's many talents was filling his alien worlds with memorably distinctive flora and fauna, as indicated by one evocative passage from "The Queen of Air and Darkness" (1971): "Blossoms opened, flamboyance on firethorn trees, steel-flowers rising blue from the brok and rainplant that cloaked all hills, shy whiteness of kiss-me-never down in the dales. Flitteries darted among them on iridescent wings; a crownbuck shook his horns and bugled." Here, although the larger, dinosaur-like creatures that inhabit Pandora are mostly things that we have all seen before, Cameron additionally provides his world with many smaller and subtler forms of bizarre alien life — such as tiny purple lizards, floating fluorescent wisps, and spiraling plants that contract into a bulb when touched — that represent precisely the sorts of extraterrestrial life that Anderson might have envisioned and described.

Anderson is not the only science fiction writer that this film brings to mind: its larger-than-life warsuits, manipulated by soldiers inside of them, are reminiscent of predecessors ranging from the fighting suits of Robert A. Heinlein's Starship Troopers (1959) to those in the Gundam Mobile Suit anime series (1979-1980), and a key subplot, depicting how members of the Pandoran race, the Na'vi, form a lifelong mental bond with large flying creatures that they then ride upon, seems lifted right out of Anne McCaffrey's Dragonflight (1968) and its many sequels. Still, the science fiction story that most closely resembles Avatar has to be Ursula K. Le Guin's novella "The Word for World Is Forest" (1972), another epic about a benevolent race of alien beings who happily inhabit dense forests while living in harmony with nature until they are attacked and slaughtered by invading human soldiers who believe that the only good gook is a dead gook. In sum, recalling the old Hollywood axiom that stealing from one source is plagiarism while stealing from several sources is research, one can say that James Cameron's Avatar is well researched. Or, as Cameron might defend himself, quoting one of his platitude-spouting Na'vi, "All energy is borrowed, and someday you have to give it back."

When you follow in the footsteps of giants, though, you may also replicate their mistakes, and this enormous exercise in borrowing-and-giving-it-back is particularly striking in the ways that it echoes both the virtues of Le Guin's story — a richly developed alien ecosystem and culture — and its major flaw — a one-dimensional portrait of an implacably evil military commander which engenders a one-dimensional and unpersuasive message about saintly savages being oppressed by scientifically advanced warriors. The problematic and uncharacteristic didacticism of her story was recognized by Le Guin herself in the "Afterword" she wrote for its original appearance in Harlan Ellison's Again, Dangerous Visions (1972), wherein she complained that in creating the story she had been forced by her muse to "moralize," even though "I am not very fond of moralistic tales." Of course, while Le Guin was writing, the still-raging Vietnam War was very much on her mind, and "The Word for World Is Forest," like Avatar itself, invites consideration as a parable about that conflict. Yet emotions that were appropriate in 1972 can seem anachronistic in 2009, and while one might posit that all filmmakers who matured during the Vietnam War must someday deal with that subject in their work, Cameron is entering the game rather late in his career, which makes his state-of-the-art film seem curiously old-fashioned in one respect. Bluntly, a character like Cameron's Colonel Miles Quaritch (Stephen Lang), who calls the natives "roaches" and is eventually observed grinning in glee as he kills yet another alien, might have been acceptable thirty years ago, but he must be regarded today as nothing more than an outdated and offensive stereotype; Vietnam was one thing, but whatever else occurred in Iraq, there were no psychopathic American colonels fiercely dedicated to the genocidal slaughter of its citizens. (And a brief reference to "shock and awe" tactics cannot conceal the fact that this film is all about Vietnam and has nothing to do with the Middle East.) One might posit, perhaps, that this film was intended as Cameron's belated apology for Aliens (1986), a film that appeared to glorify all-out war against beings that didn't look like you — which might explain why he summoned Sigourney Weaver, the chief alien-killer in that film, to here play Dr. Grace Augustine (whose very name announces graciousness and nobility), a compassionate scientist who opposes military action against the aliens on this world.

As another similarity, Le Guin's story, like Avatar, is moralistic about not only the oppression of native peoples, but thoughtless destruction of the environment as well. In this case, the violent elimination of the aliens on Pandora is primarily motivated by a desire to gain access to rich deposits of a valuable gravity-defying metal (and hey, if you want to demonstrate your complete contempt for scientific plausibility, you might as well call this impossible, McGuffin-like substance "unobtainium"). We are told that in the twenty-second century, humans have already despoiled their own planet — "there is no green there" because "they killed their mother" — and Earth is later described as a "dying world." The hoped-for happy ending to Avatar is that the human race might be stopped before they can utterly ruin a second planet. If these environmental concerns seem more contemporary than condemnations of the Vietnam War, they are ultimately just as clichéd, and the best commentary on the merits of this theme is provided by Cameron himself: when the alien-inhabiting Jake Sully (Sam Worthington) is first being instructed by Neytiri (Zoe Saldana) in the wise ways of her people so as to earn acceptance into her tribe, he responds to one of her lectures by thinking, "I hope this tree-hugger crap isn't on the final." Soon, however, Sully has swallowed all of her tree-hugger crap hook, line, and sinker, and knowing that "the wealth of the world is all around us," and that there is a "network of energy that flows through all living things," Sully is properly indignant that the human settlers on Pandora would strive to destroy the Na'vi's sacred tree to do some mining, and he joins his adopted people in resisting their efforts.

If these stale sentiments do not seem as offensive as those in the 2008 The Day the Earth Stood Still (review here), that may simply reflect the fact that Cameron has placed them in a more intriguing setting and chosen actors more talented than Keanu Reeves to deliver them. What is disturbing is that Avatar marries its argument against ravaging one's environment to an argument against scientific progress itself. The film's position could not be clearer: Living off the land in a forest is good; living in a protective metallic shelter filled with scientific devices is bad. Killing animals with a bow and arrow is good; killing them with machine guns is bad. Riding through the air on the backs of pterodactyl-like creatures is good; riding through the air in futuristic helicopters is bad. Using scientific methods to turn you into an alien is bad; hoping that a magical goddess in a tree can perform the same trick is good. The only value of machinery is that, in a pinch, natives are allowed to temporarily employ guns and grenades in order to destroy the people who brought them and restore the planet's preindustrial tranquility. And this has to represent the ultimate irony of Avatar: James Cameron has spent half a billion dollars on the most advanced technology available in order to argue that we all need to abandon advanced technology and return to the simple lifestyles of ancient Native Americans and other noble savages. Well, if that's the way you feel, Mr. Cameron, why don't you abandon filmmaking and go live with the natives in Papua New Guinea, where you could assist them in staging the rituals that help to make their simple lives so much more satisfying than ours?

Cameron also conspicuously stacks the deck in arguing for the benefits of living naturally: when Sully first enters the Pandoran forest, the film acknowledges that nature is filled with both wonderful and terrible things when Sully is almost killed by two gigantic predators and by smaller dog-like animals. However, once the Na'vi resolve to teach Sully about their idyllic lives and benign philosophy, these dangerous animals completely vanish from sight, the forest is re-envisioned as a lush paradise, and the only perils involve the Pandoran habits of running madly along narrow tree branches and leaping across chasms (which would logically result in most natives dying from fatal falls well before they reached adulthood, but hey, this is a movie, and having them move with more reasonable caution would be much less exciting). Then, just when you have entirely forgotten that this wondrous forest was ever home to horrible monsters, all of them abruptly reappear — because it's revenge-of-nature time, and now they are the good guys since they are trying to kill humans instead of aliens.

A related irony is that the philosophy being espoused in this movie — give up your scientific devices, simplify your lifestyle, find happiness in everything that is natural — was once epitomized in the phrase, "Small is beautiful." Yet in Avatar, more often than not, large is beautiful. As if convinced that audiences would only feel they were getting their money's worth if everything was big, big, big, Cameron has focused his creative energies on one enormous construct after another: huge warplanes, towering fighting suits, twelve-foot-high aliens, monstrous trees, dinosaur wannabes, an immense waterfall, huge floating mountains . . . . After a while, your mind becomes numb, these objects no longer impress, and you long for more of the aforementioned little touches of the outré that were observed earlier in the film. Frankly, Cameron should have spent more time on rainplant and flitteries instead of flying tanks and thundering triceratops. (Yet this tendency toward gigantism may also be a subconscious byproduct of undertaking to make an incredibly expensive film that surely represents one of the most mammoth projects in the history of cinema; indeed, so many people contributed to this production that, for the first time I can recall, the closing credits did not place every name on its own line, but crammed related names together into paragraphs. Clearly, it would have taken much too long to list them all in the usual fashion.)

If there is a theme in Avatar which is not entirely threadbare, it lies in the notion that it will someday not only be possible, but even desirable, to give up one's natural identity and assume an artificial identity. Traditional narratives often argue that people should accept who they really are and should not try to be something they are not, as illustrated by stories like the Twilight Zone episode "The Trade-Ins" (1962) and the film Seconds (1966). But here, Jake Sully comes to reject his real life as a partially paralyzed soldier and embraces a new unreal existence as an athletic alien: mentally returning from one experience in the forest to his human base, he says that "Everything is backwards now. Outside is the real world; back here is the dream." Crafting and inhabiting a dream world, then, is being celebrated, not chastised. It might have been more interesting if Avatar had posited that all of the Na'vi, not just a few agents like Jake Sully, were originally created by human scientists as convenient devices to explore a hostile alien world, although they soon went entirely native and were inspired by the new environment to develop their own distinctive culture and beliefs; this would have made the entire race the embodiment of a human dream and might have made the unlikely pleasures of the Pandorans' lives, and their evident mimicking of the practices of pre-technological humans, a bit more palatable.

In addition, the process of profitably reinventing oneself undoubtedly had personal relevance to James Cameron, since Avatar represents his return to feature film directing after a twelve-year hiatus, and there is evidence that he regarded the task as his own rebirth as a new kind of film director. Prior to being formally accepted as a member of the tribe, Jake comments that "Every person is born twice. The second time is when you earn a place among the People." I wasn't keeping track of every single date in the small print at the bottom of Jake's video reports, but I believe that Jake's initiation and second "birthday" was exactly, or almost exactly, the two-hundredth anniversary of Cameron's own birthdate of August 16, 1954. And while I would not be enthusiastic about seeing another film like Avatar, Cameron's record as a director indicates that he rarely chooses to repeat himself, and he may be capable of next producing a film that would blend the technological breakthroughs of this one with a more original and meaningful story — that is, if Avatar is successful enough to earn him another 500 million dollars to play with.



Gary Westfahl's works include the Hugo-nominated Science Fiction Quotations: From the Inner Mind to the Outer Limits (2005) and The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy (2005); samples from these and his other works are available at his World of Westfahl website. His recent books include two collections of essays -- Science Fiction and the Two Cultures, co-edited with George Slusser, by various hands, and The Science of Fiction and the Fiction of Science, by the late Frank McConnell -- the Second Edition of Islands in the Sky: The Space Station Theme in Science Fiction Literature, and its companion text The Other Side of the Sky: An Annotated Bibliography of Space Stations in Science Fiction, 1869-1993.

kao i u slučaju TITANIKA, tako će se i sada rulji mazati oči ciframa o ZARADI; ok, sve je to lepo - i kad smo već kod rasprave o PARAMA a ne o VREDNOSTI, kako glase SRPSKE CIFRE?
kolko je AVAVTAR steko u srbskim ćumezima, ovaj bioskopima?

Ima svi redom da ga tuže za svoj deo ćara  xuzi xtwak :shock: xuss
Biće belaja  :D

Otkud ti to da će da ga tuže? Pa film se vrlo dobro isplaćuje.

Awards Watch: Directors Roundtable

Dec 15, 2009, 06:09 PM ET
In the last of The Hollywood Reporter's annual Awards Roundtable series, THR's Elizabeth Guider and Matthew Belloni gathered six A-list directors -- Kathryn Bigelow ("The Hurt Locker"); James Cameron ("Avatar"); Lee Daniels ("Precious"); Peter Jackson ("The Lovely Bones"); Jason Reitman ("Up in the Air"); and Quentin Tarantino ("Inglourious Basterds") -- for a candid discussion of filmmaking at the highest level.

The Hollywood Reporter: Do you guys consider yourselves outsiders or insiders?

Jason Reitman: Dead silence. (Laughs.)

James Cameron: If we're all outsiders, who's on the inside?

Quentin Tarantino: Well, actually, that's a very interesting question to start off with because I did my first movie in '92, so this was the year I actually counted how long I've been in the business. Officially as a director, that's 17 years, and I think for the first 10 years I did consider myself an outsider. But if you last this long and you're not just doing marginal work -- which could be great work -- but you're not just doing marginal work for the people who like your stuff at film festivals, then I guess you actually kind of are in the inside. I remember going to the Governors Ball dinner and actually feeling like I was part of the room -- that these are my people.

Peter Jackson: I guess I'm the guy with the geographical situation, living in New Zealand. So I definitely feel like an outsider. Like, in New Zealand, we don't film ourselves having breakfast. It just never happens.

Reitman: I've done this every day of my entire life. (Laughs.) My father set up a camera.

Jackson: To me, this is an alien culture. Hollywood is the other side of the world and it's another planet.

THR: Even though you directed one of the most well-received trilogies in film history.

More awards coverage




More awards roundtables:
Actors
Actresses
Writers
Cinematographers
Producers
Crafts
Composers    
Jackson: I'm not really thinking about filmmaking as such. I'm thinking about the culture of Hollywood and the business. We're so far removed from it, which I like. I'll be staying down there, having my breakfast in peace and quiet.

Cameron: I'd like to answer his question for him. You're an outsider by process but you're an insider by the types of films that you make. You love the big spectacle films.

Jackson: Yeah, sure I do.

Cameron: And I think I'm probably the same in the sense that I like to make films for the mainstream, for the global audience. I'm not interested in making a film for film festival crowds. I'd just as soon not meet people and talk about the movie. And I don't mean that in some disdainful way, it's just the movie should be the movie. But I don't consider myself a Hollywood insider in the sense that, well, first of all, I didn't have an agent for 15 years and don't have a manager, don't have a publicist, I just like to live quietly and stay out of the public view as much as possible. I don't go to parties, don't do lunches, don't do dinners, I just like to hang with the fam when I have free time. So I guess that's an outsider by process and insider by result, maybe.

Kathryn Bigelow: I think of it as a community that's very pourous. I don't think of it in a bifurcated way. There's a ton of mobility and it's really all based on the content, the idea. If your idea is strong enough, you're embraced. Otherwise you're marginalized. I think it's really a merit-based, very porous, elastic community.

Reitman: I somehow grew up inside without ever feeling inside, and by the time I was trying to be a director I felt completely outside. I was told my entire life that nepotism was going to pave the way for my career -- and no one wanted to make my first film. I had "Thank You for Smoking" written for five, six years and no one would finance it. Nepotism failed me. My first film was financed by a San Francisco Internet millionaire, one of the guys that created PayPal, and my entire career has been film festivals. It was the independent directors -- I remember lining up to see "Pulp Fiction" in Westwood -- and it was directors like Quentin and reading Robert Rodriguez's book. I remember telling Kevin Smith, "You're one of the reasons I became a director," and Kevin said, "You were on the set of 'Ghostbusters,' I'm the reason you wanted to become a director?' " (Laughs.)

Jackson: So every time we use eBay and PayPal are we still paying off your first film?

Reitman: Those comic books you bought helped pay --

Lee Daniels: I feel like an outsider, and even the films I've produced have been done in Harlem and I only come here to cast. I never felt embraced.

THR: But what about the strong response in Hollywood to "Precious"?

Daniels: It's really nice. Now I feel sort of embraced. I feel this weird, sort of, "Am I part of (Hollywood)? Oh my God, I guess I am. I don't know.

THR: Kathryn, you've seen filmmaking from inside and outside the system, correct?

Bigelow: Actually, all my films have been independent. So even though some people think they're studio films, they were only studio at the end of the day when we had a distributor.

Tarantino: Talking about seeing films at a film festival, I saw "The Loveless" during its one screening at FilmX, all right.

Bigelow: That was '82

Tarantino: It was '82 and you know why I saw it? Because I was a huge fan of Robert Gordon. It was like, "Oh, wow, the Rockabilly singer is in a movie? Cool!" It was just one screening of "The Loveless."

Bigelow: And that was it. (Laughs.)

THR: Jim, you mentioned wanting to make films for the big global audience. But it's getting more expensive to produce those kinds of films. How much is money now a factor in the creative decisions you're making?

Cameron: Money is always a factor at any scale of film production, and sometimes smaller films are much harder to finance than bigger films. In fact, I would say almost always smaller films (are harder). It took me two years to put together the financing for a $20 million film ("Sanctum") that we're doing down in Australia right now, and it took almost no time at all to put together "Avatar" -- at least to get "Avatar" rolling in the sense that the studio was funding preproduction to develop the look; they still had a bail-out (opportunity) at a certain point if they didn't want to go forward. It was easier to get that process going because of my history with Fox, but doing an independent film, it's much harder putting the money together, and you've got to really, really do exactly what you say you are going to do. There's no room for experimentation and there would be no way to make a movie like "Avatar" under those constraints because there's too much R&D involved, there are too many variables going into it.

THR: Do you end up underestimating what you think the budget will be in order to get financiers interested or overestimating so there are no surprises later?

Daniels: Go on the low side and then ask for extra later, once they like it.

Reitman: I've always wanted my movies to be as cheap as possible so I have as much control as possible. My first two films cost $6 million and $7 million each and this one cost $25 million and that freaked me out a little because I thought I'd be giving up control, to a certain extent. I almost wanted to try and pull it back, but with the amount of cities we were shooting, it was impossible.

Cameron: It didn't go any farther than the $6 million or $7 million, though, did it? When you make a movie for $20 million, you feel like you don't have any more money than when you were doing it for $6 million.

Reitman: Yeah, you know, you're absolutely right. It wasn't all of a sudden as though we had luxuries on set. It was the same.

Tarantino: I want my movies to cost as little as they possibly can so they have to make back as little. The pressure is less and I want my stock to stay good. As far as cost and what we get back, track record is not bad. The last three movies I've been wrong by $6 million or $7 million but I'm always trying to do it for $30 million or something and it turns out to be $38 million.

THR: That doesn't get you into trouble?

Tarantino: The only time I ever had a situation like that -- and it worked out fantastic -- was on "Kill Bill" because we were trying to do some action sequences that really had never been done before. I was trying to do them Hong Kong-style, not the American style of shooting, and -- these guys can tell you -- to do some of the best action you're ever going to see, it takes time. It just takes time. You need to be there. It takes days. And you don't know you're done until you're done. You can try and put it on a schedule, but if you ain't done you ain't fucking done! If it's not getting you off, it ain't done, so that means it just takes time. You can make up time with story points but on the action it's going to take it's own rhythm.

Cameron: Don't get worked up about it. I've been wrong by more than that entire budget. (Laughs.)

Reitman: That's the line of the morning.

Tarantino: We literally had a situation where it was like this runaway train because "Kill Bill" was actually costing drastically more than what we said it was going to (cost). While we were in China, Harvey (Weinstein) went down to the editing room and my editor had to show him an assembly of some of the stuff we had done and Harvey had to decide: Do I go forward with them or do we pull the plug or do we put a big leash on him, what's the deal? And after he saw the footage, he liked it so much he called me up and said, "Quentin, just go make your movie."

Reitman: And then you got two movies!

Tarantino: It worked out really good.

THR: Quentin, at the producers roundtable, Lawrence Bender mentioned that for "Inglourious Basterds" you funded development and some preproduction yourself. Why?

Tarantino: Oh, that was easy to do. I know my movies are going to get made, so that's not an issue for me. But I don't like to make a deal unless everything is completely -- I want my deal to be good, so I don't make it under any situation where I am in a negative place. And I knew we needed to get going right away, so I just financed everything until we made our deal. I didn't want to have to make a deal in order to do some cockamamie bullshit. I know it's gonna get made so it's not a big thing.

Jackson: It's the same here. We always find that it's easier if you fund your script development yourself, you don't take a fee for the script.

Tarantino: I completely agree with that.

Jackson: "The Lovely Bones," which we've just done, we paid for the rights to the book ourselves, we wrote the check, we developed it ourselves. If we're doing conceptual art, we pay for that ourselves. We only ever go to a studio when we have a complete package and know the budget. It comes down to people. It comes down to you and somebody else (at the studio) on the other end of the phone that you're talking to, and I think that transparency counts for a lot. Honesty and transparency, and then if you do get into the situation where you're going $6 million over or whatever it is, everybody can see it happening way in advance -- you're not hiding it -- and people can make very rational decisions. The only conflicts we have are procedural ones. Like the process we always insist on now with making films is we always build into our budget a pickup shoot in postproduction. Because I feel once you've shot the movie and you've cut the movie, you want to do another three weeks of shooting. You're just going to want to because there are ways of making the film better. Studios will always say, "Don't put that in the budget, we don't want that in the budget, if you want to do that come and see us, we'll decide," and I never trust that, so we always insist that our pickup shoots are part of the budget. That's the argument we always have, but on the other hand we usually win that argument because it's common sense and we shop (the project) to different studios and we go with the one that agrees to allow us to do that. But honestly you're dealing with a person, you're not dealing with a faceless corporation, you're dealing with other human beings and having a relationship with those people is very, very important.

Bigelow: I think that transparency is really important. On "Hurt Locker," I had to convince people that shooting in the Middle East was going to be all right and nobody was going to be killed, so I went over there, financed it myself and did the scout, came back with all the materials and the locations and met with the Royal Family (of Jordan). I don't think anyone would have taken a flier unless that initial leap had been done.

Cameron: You have to do your due diligence so that (the studio) can do theirs. They're responsible to their boss and to a board or whatever it is. They're going to have to do the due diligence on your project, (figure out) that you're not going to go psycho, you're not going to go out of control, that it makes sense, that the film that you're making makes sense at the budget that you're making it at.

Jackson: From a dealmaking point of view, where you lose ground a lot is if you do the deal to make the movie too early ... and (there are) a whole bunch of things you haven't thought of. Then suddenly you have to ask for things, they chip away at your deal, and they want things in return. So it's better to spend your own money and get things sorted out. Then it's pretty straightforward.

THR: Lee, did you have money problems getting "Precious" made?

Daniels: I went over budget on my film because the financier -- I had just finished producing a film for her and she's like, "OK, what do you want to do next?" And I said, "I want to direct a movie about a 400-pound black girl," and she said, "OK." I said, "What? What?" So I rushed into production without really thinking about the crew that I normally work with because they were all scattered. I was so shocked that I started hiring people without really doing the due diligence. Then, as I was two weeks into production, I hated everyone, there was no one I had worked with, they weren't responding, they didn't get the story, they didn't get me, and I had to go back to the investors and say, "Listen, guys, I have to shut down production and reshoot most of this."

Cameron: That's a tough conversation.

THR: You did that face to face?

Daniels: I did, and it was really a great thing. They really believed in me and it was beautiful that they did.

Cameron: I'm gonna try that next time.

Tarantino: Good for you. Good for you for (saying), "You know what, this isn't working and I can't tell my story with these people," as opposed to just persevering and making the best out of a bad situation. Good for you because you wouldn't have that movie that you have now if you had worked under those situations.

Jackson: You've got to rely on your instincts. There are always those moments that come when you just want to go the easy way out but your gut is screaming that you've got to make those changes and you've got to follow your instincts. You've got to do it and it's always the hard road. You ignore that at your peril.

Tarantino: If you really love your project you have to make some choices from time to time that risk it going away. You actually have to risk killing your baby if your baby is going to grow up the way you want it to.

Cameron: To make the movie in any way that you will want to put your name on it, from the very first conversation you have to be willing to walk out the door. Only by being willing to walk away from it can you have the strength to make the film the right way. The first time you cave, it's just a series of caves.

Tarantino: You get no respect for it, either.

THR: Tell us about one particular moment where you had to do that.

Cameron: That started for me pretty early on. I was four or five days from starting to shoot "The Terminator" and I was meeting with (producer) John Daly -- may he rest in peace -- and he said, "I don't really understand this story about this guy that comes from another planet and we need to have a story conference." And actually it was (writer-producer) Gale (Anne Hurd) that had the balls; she stood up and said, "That's ridiculous. We're four days from shooting." (She) walked out and I was like, "What she said!" (Laughs.)

THR: Was there a point where you almost walked away from "Avatar"?

Cameron: Well, you know, "Avatar" is a little bit different because I talked these guys (at Fox) into writing this big check and if I'd walked out, that would have been just too irresponsible. No matter what went wrong on the shoot, we had to figure it out. I told them, "No, it's going to be fine, we've got this all worked out," (then, aside), "Guys, do we have this worked out yet?" And we didn't.

THR: What are specific sacrifices you're willing to make to maintain final cut?

Reitman: Less money. At the end of the day, I feel like there are many versions of the same movie that can be made. I'll just take mine, for example. There's a version of "Up in the Air" that can be made for $500,000 and there's a version that can be made for $100 million. I would do it for as little as possible to make sure that I still had complete control. I remember the big question: We had George Clooney but there was a question about Vera Farmiga early on, and I was getting pressure because I had written a great women's role that there was a lot of interest in, and I wrote it for Vera. I just believed in her. I remember seeing her in "Down to the Bone" at Sundance and thinking she was spectacular. I thought she was amazing in "The Departed." I had met with her and I just knew she was the one. She was going to have a baby two weeks before we started shooting and because of that there was this additional amount of pressure of, "Look, she's going to have a baby two weeks before she starts, and by the way, this actress and this actress, they would love to come and play across George." And there was just no fucking way.

Daniels: There are a couple films that I've been offered that I love (but) I ended up taking a film that I love more because they offered me final cut. The payday is not there but I have final cut so that's important.

Cameron: I've had final cut for a long time and I've never invoked it.

Daniels: Really?

Cameron: Because I've always believed that the people paying the price, writing the check, have an opinion and we need to work this out and we need to be partners. If they feel strongly about something --

Tarantino: But that's a great loaded gun to have in your holster.

Cameron: Better to have a gun and not need it than to need it and not have it.

More awards coverage




More awards roundtables:
Actors
Actresses
Writers
Cinematographers
Producers
Crafts
Composers    
Reitman: Once you have final cut, you actually don't get into those conversations. I find it becomes much more relaxed. I had it for the first time on this film and this time I never had to say, "Well, by the way, I have final cut," because wow! We're having such a reasonable conversation. They supported you throughout, right?

Daniels: They completely supported me.

Reitman: So it's not as though you felt, "Thank God, I have this gun in my pocket."

Bigelow: I didn't have to invoke it on "Hurt Locker."

Reitman: They must have been scared of you after seeing your film!

Tarantino: Actually, the thing to me that is more of a dealbreaker than final cut -- because I've had final cut for a long time, I can't imagine not having it now -- is the whole market research process. I have in my deal: I don't do that. I have one screening with an audience -- no cards, no focus group, I just watch the movie with the audience, me and (editor) Sally (Menke), we see how they react. Two weeks later, locked cut.

Reitman: Wait, didn't you show ("Basterds") at Cannes and make adjustments after that?

Tarantino: Yeah, but that's not a market research screening, that's a screening at the Palais.

Reitman: You should have handed out cards at the Palais. (Laughs.)

Tarantino: I always do something after that market research screening but I don't care about the audience's opinion individually. I don't care about the cards.

Cameron: It's the vibe in the room.

Tarantino: It's the vibe in the room. Look, you know when your movie plays well and when it doesn't, and what'll happen oftentimes is a movie totally plays well, everyone's happy and then the cards contradict exactly what you watched happen in the room.

Daniels: What do you think when that happens? Because that's happened to me.

Tarantino: I think people get holier than thou when they get these cards. They take the high road. If you're doing genre shit, then you're really in trouble.

Jackson: I also think the problem is the interpretation of the cards. The difficulty is that somebody sees the result on a card and they think it's because of this, but the real reason why people are responding is because of a combination of six other things. So there's a skill in actually knowing how to interpret (the feedback) and the danger is not so much the fact that you're showing it and getting feedback but in how people interpret that feedback. Somebody could say, "I didn't like this because this guy got killed," but it could (have) nothing to do with that, in reality. It's psychological.

Cameron: As long as the filmmaker is in charge of the market research process. That's the way it needs to work. You can have audiences saying things that are kind of a gestalt effect over the course of a film and the second the studio asks you to take this out because somebody didn't like it in that moment, they're not thinking about the effect it might have six scenes later and how something that they loved and that plays beautifully now won't play. They don't think holistically, and the problem with the cards is it gives the studio guys ammunition for specific agendas that they've had all along. They've got a hard-on for this scene or they've got a hard-on for this scene and all they've got to have is one card they can point to that doesn't like the scene and suddenly they're right.

Bigelow (to Cameron): On "Blue Steel" -- I don't know if you remember this -- somebody in the focus group said they didn't like Ron Silver -- and he's the bad guy. They were like, "Reshoot it!"

THR: What did you do?

Bigelow: I just held firm.

Jackson: Final cut is one thing but there's also casting approvals, script approvals are very important, there is a whole range of approvals. Final cut is just one thing. With most of the people at this table, if you're originating a project and you're not reading other people's scripts, if you're actually originating the thing from the very beginning, then to me it's a natural that you've got to have control over everything from the very beginning. Because it starts in your brain; that's where it comes from.

Cameron: I was just thinking to myself, "How long does it take a discussion of directors sitting around a table to devolve to kvetching about the studios? Four minutes?" (Laughs.)

Reitman: It's a weird thing. I've been around directors my entire life. I grew up the son of a director, so I've been kind of conscious of this for a long time: There are very few people who understand how to direct. It's one of the most complex things. It's impossible to explain. All of us have done so many panels and sat through so many interviews where you're asked, "Why did you do this? How did you do that?" Process questions. You would never ask a musician why they play notes. It is an impossible thing to explain why a scene here will make the audience feel this way so by the time they get here they will feel this (way and) that will make the ending whole. There is no way to describe why a scene is important or why it works. We want our audience to feel a certain way and instinctually, through trial and error, we have found the way. If I do this and this and this and I make these thousand decisions right every day, they will simply feel this feeling as they walk out of the theater.

Cameron: It's trust in your instincts.

Reitman: There are maybe a few hundred people on Earth who understand that, yet there are tens of thousands of people telling those few hundred how to do it better. (Laughs.)

Cameron: I was having this conversation with myself coming over here about instinct. Because every filmmaker says it's instinct. It is instinct, instinct informed by an extremely analytical process. And usually what happens is you have an analysis that's Byzantine that connects down to a moment where it's a flip of the coin -- and then it's instinct. But the important thing is once you've made that instinctive decision you shouldn't have to justify it because you're getting paid to have that filter. You've proven you have that filter and you're getting paid now for that filter.

Reitman: But you have to learn how to justify it. That becomes part of the job, frighteningly enough.

Cameron: I've found that big-budget movies are a curse and a blessing. You can do amazing things, you can do amazing visuals, you get that big machine all warmed up and you're turning out spectacular stuff. But you're playing a different game. You're playing a game where all those controls that you can have as an auteur on a smaller scale, you don't have any more. You have them but you don't have them, because you have to be very realistic about the fact that you are now spending so much of the studio's money it shows up on the radar of their annual budget, so they are your partners and you've got to bring them along by the hand, they've got to understand why you're doing things. The better you can elucidate why you're doing something -- even if you're doing it instinctively -- if you can analyze and elucidate your instinctive call and give it some form, give it some wordplay, it just works better for them. If you go, "I just feel that way, damnit!" It freaks them out.

Bigelow: You're sharing ownership.

Tarantino: Let me ask you a question, though. That brings up something that's interesting. You are in a situation where you're making the movies you want to make but they cost a whole lot so you have to be responsible for that. So in that scenario -- I'm going to use the Laser Disc example because I'm assuming it's on DVD but I know it's on Laser Disc -- there is the version of "The Abyss" that played theatrically and then there was your big Laser Disc version. Which do you consider your movie?

Cameron: This is interesting. I was led astray by the market research process. I was not savvy. I had never done it before. We didn't do it on "Aliens," didn't do it on "Terminator." We just finished the film, put it in theaters, no bullshit, no screening, nothing.

Reitman: Shut up.

Cameron: I showed it to the studio but we didn't have time to do a screening on "Aliens." So, the first time I did it was on "The Abyss," and I misinterpreted the cards because I didn't know how to operate the process. And we showed it to an audience in Texas, two screenings back to back. One with the wave scene at the end, and one without. And they hated both versions! (Laughs.) So I said, "Well, at least make it short." So, to answer your question, I like the wave version better when we finished the visual effects on it and it worked.

Tarantino: It's funny. You immediately go to the wave thing. I'm thinking about all the camaraderie stuff you have with the guys at the very beginning. When I saw the big version, I thought, this is so wonderful! This is really bringing it together.

Cameron: Well, look, I learned some lessons from that. I learned: One, the filmmaker's got to be in charge of the market research process and not let other people interpret the cards for you. You've got to sit with the cards in some kind of Zen state and try to first of all get past the egregious handwriting. (Laughs.) You've got to look at the author: 12-year-old male. You've got to get patterns. And the patterns are like going through the chicken guts. You become a shaman.

Reitman: You're like a psychologist. Why does someone say something? This is a metaphor for everything in the directorial process. You realize that you didn't know enough about that part of filmmaking and you realize you have to become an expert in each element or have someone that you trust implicitly that may as well be attached to you, part of your DNA. You have to become a producer, you have to become a writer, you have to understand all these jobs.

THR: What's the toughest scene to film?

Daniels: There was a dance scene, a party scene in "Precious" where Precious got her award. And it didn't feel like a party to me. It didn't feel real, it didn't feel honest. I fixed it to my liking in post where I actually went into parties and the environment and actually put a mike around and brought words and sentences and phrases into the scene to make it honest.

Tarantino: The scenes that always give me trepidation leading up to them are the big cinematic scenes, big action scenes. Because I don't want to be a piker. I want them to be awesome, all right. So if I'm doing the car chase in "Death Proof" I want it to be one of the greatest car chases of all time. But I've never shot a car chase before. Part of it, if you haven't done it before, is you're gonna learn how to do it as you do it. You gotta know, I'm not going to know exactly how to do it on the first day, but I'll figure it out over the course of it and that's going to be cool. But there's trepidation leading up to it because I want it to be great and I want it to be awesome and it's mine to eff up. I always look at it -- like, the fire scene, say, in "Basterds" or the fight sequences in "Kill Bill" -- and it's like, I think I'm pretty good, so I want them to be magnificent. And if they're not, then I've officially reached the ceiling of my talent.

Cameron: Don't worry, you'll work again.

Tarantino: I always want to risk bumping my head. I want to see where that ceiling eventually happens.

Bigelow: Shooting in a Palestinian refugee camp, there was a lot of trepidation. Everybody said, "That can't be done." We had Americans running around in digitals shooting M4s at 3 o'clock in the morning. There was a lot of anxiety about it. We had a little extra security. (But) I was determined to shoot there, architecturally it was perfect and you know what it's like when you get it in your head, this is where you want to shoot. So we went in there, shot the sequence, and at about 2 o'clock in the morning a camp elder -- there was a little disruption at the beginning, a little friction, a few riots, very small -- but a camp elder came out and gave me tea. So I knew we were going to be all right. But we hadn't done the gunfire. So at about 4:30 in the morning -- now, this is a Palestinian refugee camp, and we're running around shooting their M4s and I'm thinking the place will explode. Not even a bathroom light goes on. (Laughs.)

Cameron: They could hear it wasn't an AK-47 so they went back (to sleep).

Bigelow: Another night, another M4.

Reitman: "Really, the M4s are starting at 4:30 this morning? Oh ..."

Jackson: I like shooting a lot of big stuff and I'm not really so worried about that. If I wake up in the morning and say, "Oh, I've got to go shoot that bloody scene," it's usually sitting around the dinner table talking. With all the eyelines. The worst example was on the first "Lord of the Rings" movie, we had this thing called the Council of Elrond where the group of characters all had to sit in a circle of chairs. There were about 12 leading characters and eight pages of dialogue with people in these chairs. One person talks to this guy, then this guy talks and he's got to swivel his head. And I had to get all the eyelines right. It took me about five days to shoot that and it was torture. It was hell on earth and it was the most simple scene in the world. I didn't do anything fancy. Those are the scenes where I don't have fun and I don't particularly enjoy what I'm doing.

Cameron: Group scenes are difficult, I always dreaded them. Shooting under water is difficult. Doing big action, shooting a lot of extras. All those things are difficult. But if we define "hard" as the thing we're most anxious about, then for me, it's times when I'm going for something that is a little bit cinematically vague and stylized. I'm trying to do something that I haven't done before, I'm trying to give the audience a feeling through the use of camera, and I'm looking for something and I don't know what it is. You can take the most complicated, big action sequence and you can break it down, storyboard it and deconstruct it down to its components, and you've always got a map. But if you're there with some extras and you're trying to do something odd -- like the actor is dying and you're trying to put the audience in their head to see what they're seeing, and you don't know, are you going to do it with lighting? Are you going to do it with some kind of lens effect?

Jackson: I've just done an entire film like that! And it was hell on earth, but carry on ...

Cameron: When you're going for some kind of cinematic trope, you see other people do it but it never applies. You can't take their idea.

Jackson: One thing that helps me with those scenes is to play music on the set. Do you do that?

Daniels: I do. To get me in the mood.

Jackson: It depends a little on the dialogue but I'm happy to loop a lot of the dialogue later. If it helps the actor who has to get into the state of mind you're describing, I'm very happy to have music playing on speakers.

Cameron: (Jackson) said he did it in an interview and I went, "That's a good idea," so I did it.

Tarantino: I actually have music playing in between takes. My sound guy has a bunch of songs, we're always playing music as the crew is getting ready for the next take. For instance, (in "Basterds") that whole thing with David Bowie's "Cat People", as she's putting on her shit, I played "Cat People" every time we did all that stuff. And actually Melanie (Laurent) is really musical so she really got into the rhythm. The whole crew gets into the rhythm. If you're using music and you're kinda doing it like it's gonna be in the movie, that's the stuff that the crew actually feels like they're watching the movie. It's not just a separate piece. They all get their dick hard, they all go, "Oh, this is gonna be awesome!"

Bigelow: I never have any time in between takes. I'm always shooting. I can't imagine that. I want that schedule.

THR: Jason, you were shooting in airports, so --

Reitman: Oh, there was music, we just couldn't turn it off. (Laughs.) I got so close to ripping a speaker out of the ceiling. It's one of those moments where you realize you've done everything you can, you have hundreds of people on the set, you've spent the money, you've done the right prep work, your lights are there, and you're in an airport so you've dealt with 12 different security departments, and then all of a sudden, you're about to do a take, and there's this twinkling coming from the speaker above your head. And you realize there's one human being who controls this Phil Collins song, and there's nothing you can do about it.

Cameron: You're in his world now.

Reitman: Exactly. And that the moment where you go, "OK, I guess I can be one of two directors. I can be the director who literally reaches up in the ceiling, rips the speaker from the panel." That's one director. Or I'm just gonna sit here and we're going to think about looping it. Actually, someone found a way to unplug the speakers. But that speaks to another element that's important to directing, which is: every time you go to direct something, you're doing something that no one has ever done for the first time. It's part of the reason that all of us got excited about directing in the first place. But it makes every day shooting insane. But if you were doing something that someone had done before, then it would be boring, there would be no reason to do it.

THR: Do you guys believe there is such a thing as a director's personality?

Reitman: I used to think that. But then I started meeting directors and they completely run the gamut. I've had conversations with Spike Jonze, who is so quiet and uncomfortable, and I've talked to Quentin, for example. (Laughs.) They're all storytellers. I think there's perhaps a confidence and arrogance in knowing we have something to say but the way that each one goes about it seems to be very different.

Tarantino: You would think being a leader is one of those ingredients, but it often isn't. You would think being decisive would be one of those ingredients, and it often isn't. (Laughs.)

Cameron: Is there a good director's personality? I'd say decisiveness might be required.

Jackson: If you're not decisive, you've got to pretend you are.

Tarantino: It doesn't have to be the right decision, it just has to be a decision.

Cameron: It's binary. Everybody comes to you for the decision and you're the decision mechanism.

Jackson: At the beginning of the day when I walk on set and privately I'm thinking, "What the hell am I gonna do?" and I go on set and I say as decisively as I can, "OK, let's get the actors, let's do the blocking, and we'll do this, this and this, and then we block it a few times," and I'm desperately trying to cover and not let anyone know that I don't have a clue. By the time you've blocked it a few times, you've got a plan and everything's OK. But (there's) that first 10 minutes on set where you've got to fake it and you don't really know what you're doing.

More awards coverage




More awards roundtables:
Actors
Actresses
Writers
Cinematographers
Producers
Crafts
Composers    
Cameron: It's critical to create an environment among the crew and the actors that allows for the fluidity to find the thing you're there to do. And be honest about it. "All right, guys, I don't know what the hell we're doing. Let's do this, go over there, that's good." There's a finite amount of time you can fuck around but be honest about the fact that you don't know exactly how it's gonna work. That puts the ball in the actors' camp.

Jackson: I always think it's great to have the actors run a scene, not at full performance pitch, but simply half-energy, run the scene a few times and I just walk around in circles. I just circle, looking for interesting little lineups, little accidents, where things pop into nice compositions, and you slowly just get your shot list together.

Reitman: When was your first movie where you were confident enough to do that? My first movie, "Thank You for Smoking," I had everything planned out, and I was terrified to show up at set not knowing what to do. And "Juno," I was more confident, but this was the first time where I would show up on set and feel like it's OK that I don't know what I'm going to do because I'm confident in myself, I'm confident I have the right people and we're going to find it.

Cameron: On "Terminator," which was really my first film because I got fired after a few days on what is supposedly my first film, I mapped it all out, I storyboarded everything, I was super prepared, I had my roommate at the time, Bill Wisher, who was another writer, I got a camera and took pictures of him acting out every moment of the film. In wardrobe. And from those I drew everything out. I was super, super prepared. Now I've never done that since. That gave me my confidence to come in and say, "Camera goes here, stand there." You know what I mean?

Reitman: So by "Aliens" you were willing to show up and go, "You know what, today I don't know what we're doing."

Cameron: No, I'd show up with a Viewfinder and I'd look around the set and I'd figure it out. I didn't try to preimpose my architecture. I wanted the place to talk to me.

Bigelow: I have to physicalize it. I have to get out there in the location, not hypothetically, and look at the actors.

Reitman: And see what happens when people talk to each other. Or shoot each other. (Laughs.)

Bigelow: In this environment, that's going to dictate if you're going to go from A to B and your set's maybe 300 meters long, that's going to dictate. You're not going to be able to do it at a table read.

Jackson: Storyboards and your shot list are almost like a fallback position. If you can't think of anything else, you've got that to fall back on.

Cameron: Storyboarding is the act of removing possibility before you have enough information to remove it. That's why I don't believe in it. I don't do it.

Tarantino: I don't do it, either. One of the things that's interesting, though, is there's another artistic reason for everything we're talking about, and that is: Look, I don't do storyboards, from time to time I'll do shot lists, just to shoot it for free, basically. If I need some weird piece of equipment, I figure it out that way. Then I leave them at home and show up and make it up. One of my big reasons for doing that is, look, I've written the scene, rehearsed the scene, maybe -- or not -- and maybe I know what I wanted when I wrote it. But now we're shooting the scene and it's Tuesday. Tuesday's got to play into this artistic process. How you feel today, the day you're shooting the scene, how you feel driving into work today, if something fucking happened that changed shit yesterday and now you have a different feeling, now the actors have a different feeling. That's what we're here to do, capture these feelings on these days. It's got to be a living, breathing organism.

THR: Would it bother any of you if the studios thought of you as a "difficult" director?

Reitman: James?

Daniels: James?

Cameron: I was waiting for that. (Laughs.) It would bother me, one, if it were true. And, two, if my cast thought that. I don't care what the media thinks because they're not standing on my sets seeing what goes on. It would bother me a lot if my cast thought that. Hasn't happened yet, so --

Tarantino: That probably would bother me. But what does that even mean? If my crew feels that way ... well, they don't. They have a great time. You tend to work with the same people, but then that's a weird thing too because after a certain point you don't want to get too comfortable, all right, so that's something you've got to be careful about. That's the way directors tend to go, the older they get. I'm still in that place. I want to people who know me and know what I want, but at some point there needs to be new people added to that thing or you just ...

Daniels: What defines "difficult"? Difficult is knowing what you want and not leaving until you get it?

Reitman: That's directing. Every actor I do a Q&A with says, "Well, Jason knows what he wants." And it half sounds like an insult but half is like, "Yes, that's my job."

Daniels: Often times that is perceived as difficult.

Tarantino: When I think "difficult" I think, you're trying to cut your movie and you're fighting with the studio about it. And you're not letting them in on the process.

Bigelow: It's a collaborative process. And I try to keep it as collaborative as possible.

Reitman: I'd rather be difficult than lost. I'd rather my actor say, "Well, he keeps on coming at me until I give him what he needs," than, "He doesn't seem to know what the hell he wants or what he's doing."

Daniels: There's a scene in "Precious" where Mo'Nique is dancing with a leotard on and it made no sense at all. She was like, "Why am I dancing here?" And I said, "Just because. Just do it." She couldn't figure it out. Then she succumbed and she did it and it just, sort of, was. It was a moment.

Bigelow: It's trust, more than anything else.

Cameron: You've got to explore stuff even if you don't exactly know why. You're the only person on set that can do that. An actor can go after something but really they're going to ultimately be judged by the editor or the director. But the director is the only one that can get a scent and go after it. I think the most important thing, I've found, is to give yourself the freedom, at least within boundaries, to do that. To go off the map, to go off the plan. It's the hardest thing to do. OK, we briefed on this, this is what we said we were going to do today but we're shooting this direction.

Tarantino: One of the most exciting times on a set, though, is if it's your last day on a location, and you know you probably need about 35 shots to get it off and you don't think you're going to get those 35 shots and you're freaking out the next night, and you come up with a way, at midnight, after everyone's gone, to do it all in one shot. So you can get out of there. And you show up the next day and you're like, "Guys, guess what?" Not only are we not going to do those 35 shots that we know we can't do, this is gonna be a one-er. That's exciting. That's filmmaking. The cinematographer freaks out, but that's his fucking job.

THR: Over the past few years studios have begun questioning the value of casting star actors. Do you agree?

Bigelow: You cast not for marquee value but for performance and talent. The right actor for the part. Anything else is a compromise.

Daniels: I like working with friends that I'm comfortable with that know my DNA and also fit the character descriptions. I'd rather work with someone I know personally than a mega-star or a really talented, brilliant actor.

Reitman: George (Clooney) made my movie so much easier to make. And most importantly he was perfect for the part. But there was just as much interest in Ellen Page playing Juno as there has been in George playing Ryan Bingham in "Up in the Air." So it was a blessing to get the movie made, but once we were making it, he was perfect for it, and now that we're actually putting it out there, I've found that there's just as much excitement about what he's bringing to the role as there was about this young girl who's playing Juno.

Bigelow: I found the same thing with Jeremy Renner. Same kind of interest. Who is this guy?

THR: But Jim, you must have known you'd have an easier time interesting a massive audience in "Avatar" if you'd put a major star in the lead role.

Cameron: We figured we were going to be spending so much on the effects that there wasn't going to be a whole lot of coin left when you turn the bag upside down to hire a $20 million actor. And I think the studio felt the same way. I'm comfortable working with unknowns or relative unknowns and making my own judgments on whether they're the right people for the roles. The only real stars I've worked with were Sigourney (Weaver) and Arnold (Schwarzenegger), if you think about it. I worked with Arnold three times but the first time he wasn't a movie star yet. He's a friend and Sigourney's a friend, so I feel very comfortable working with them. For me to work with a star, it's not something I wouldn't consider, but I'd have to do my due diligence, find out what they're like, get to know them. Find out if we can be eye-to-eye.

THR: The director Renoir made a lot of films and then stopped to write novels. Is there anything you'd consider doing instead of directing?

Tarantino: I intend to quit at 60. And I'm going to do exactly what he did. I'm going to write novels and cinema literature, stuff like that.

Bigelow: You have a plan?

Daniels: And he's very serious about it.

Tarantino: Well, she brought up exactly what I plan to do.

Cameron: I want to die directing. But I took my hiatus already because I figured I can still be directing when I'm 80 but I can't be doing the deep ocean expeditions, riding around in a zodiac on a 20-foot sea when I'm 80, I'll break my neck.

Tarantino: I would add more to that. If it actually gets to the place where you can't show 35mm film in theaters any more and everything is digital projection, I won't even make it to 60.

Cameron: Oh. Nobody's told you? (Reaches out hand.)

Tarantino: It hasn't happened yet!

Reitman: Let's not turn this into a fight.

Jackson: It's coming down the pike pretty quickly, Quentin.

Tarantino: Well, maybe I've got one more.

Daniels: I'd like to teach acting in the Bronx.

Reitman: If I couldn't direct I don't know what I'd do. I'd want to tell stories in one way or another, whether it was just convincing people to listen to me or whether I became I writer. I can't help but feel that's what I was put on Earth to do. I was scared of the idea of becoming a director and I went to college and I went premed. Because I was very familiar with the idea of how people perceived the children of famous filmmakers. If you were the son of a famous director, most likely you were a talentless spoiled brat with an alcohol or drug problem to boot. Why enter a profession where that was the going idea of me? I went and I thought, "I'll be a doctor, no one questions why you become a doctor." And my father took me aside and said, "Being scared is no reason to do anything." He told me to follow my heart and become a storyteller, and I realized in that moment that my entire life, all I've wanted to do was tell stories. So I really don't have an answer to your question. Because it seems like dying.

Bigelow: I always want to make films. I think of it as a great opportunity to comment on the world in which we live. Perhaps just because I just came off the "Hurt Locker" and I'm thinking of the war and I think it's a deplorable situation. It's a great medium in which to speak about that. This is a war that cannot be won, why are we sending troops over there? Well, the only medium I have, the only opportunity I have, is to use film. There will always be issues I care about.

Jackson: There's one area of directing that I'd love to improve upon. I tend to get involved in big movies that take two or three years of your life and I see what Clint Eastwood does and what Ridley Scott does, and they're able to do those films and also mix it up with these in-n-out, seven- or eight-month (films). I think that's a real skill and talent. I'd love to learn how to do that. So not everything took three years for one project. I'd love to reinvent the way I work, to some degree.

Quote from: mac on 21-12-2009, 16:43:28
Otkud ti to da će da ga tuže? Pa film se vrlo dobro isplaćuje.

Ovi što im je pokrao štoseve i teme.

ne bi mu bilo prvi put.

tako je još sa prvim pravim filmom krenuo u neovlašćenu pljačku, al je na kraju morao da isplati harlana elisona + da ga kredituje, za TERMINATORA.

he he, kameron je tatko na hohštapleri! :)

A to. Bre što sam glup, nije ni čudo što mi se film sviđa ;-)

Jedna od prednosti rada u Srbiji je to što kritičari slabo prate filmove i onda ne znaju odakle si šta ukrao, naročito na nivou replika :)

Quote from: mac on 21-12-2009, 17:30:02
A to. Bre što sam glup, nije ni čudo što mi se film sviđa ;-)

you can say that again! :)

I love AVATAR – and it isn't because of the 3D, the big blue people, the alien landscape with floating mountains and it's version of flying critters. It isn't because of the mech armor, the flying battleships and the wasp-like helicopters. It is because of the story.

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/43430 (http://www.aintitcool.com/node/43430)

 qpuke

Kod nas je imao 15 092 gledaoca...

Quote from: crippled_avenger on 21-12-2009, 18:34:00
Kod nas je imao 15 092 gledaoca...

opsa.
lepo.

šta je second best, iza ovoga?
mislim, u skorije vreme.

anyway, ja rekoh, a vi vidite:
http://ljudska_splacina.com/2009/12/avatar-2009.html (http://ljudska_splacina.com/2009/12/avatar-2009.html)

Hm, pa 2012 se lepo otvorio svojevremeno...

muziku kao da je pokrao od Bregovica, pola filma kuknjava....

eto, muzika je toliko bezlično ogavno užasno generička da sam je smesta izbrisao iz sećanja i nisam je ni pomenuo u rivjuu. :(

Quote from: Ghoul on 21-12-2009, 20:17:59
anyway, ja rekoh, a vi vidite:
http://ljudska_splacina.com/2009/12/avatar-2009.html (http://ljudska_splacina.com/2009/12/avatar-2009.html)

Ovo je jedan od najpromašenijih rivjueva koje sam pročitao ikad. Ti kao da uopšte nisi vidio film, već si prošao pored njega. Ne slažem ama baš ni sa čim što si naveo u rivjuu.

A to me iznenađuje, jer su mi tvoji prikazi horor filmova odlični i redovno ih iščitavam. Ponekad mi se dopadne neki film koji ti popljuješ ili ne dopadne film koji ti ishvališ, ali bez obzira na to, nikad do sad nisam imao zamjerki na tvoje rivjue. Ali sad sam morao da reagujem.

Dakle, reakcija:
xuzi xtwak xqqd xplasmw xmgw xchain

he he, već sam navukao grdan hejt na sebe na netu - avatarulja će da me razapne, grdni neki linkovali ovaj rivju, pljuvanje po ghoulu sve u 16.
ali, to je sve business as usual.

ja rekoh i spasih dušu svoju.
ti mi reci šta je to trebalo da vidim u filmu, a nisam.

btw: ocena 3 (***) nije loša; to što se u rivjuu zadržavam na lošim stvarima je samo zbog disproporcije očekivanje-isporuka.
iako je ovo groundbreaking TEHNOLOGIJA, nesporno je da je u pitanju jedan od slabijih kameronovih filmova. čak i AMBIS je bolji od ovoga.

Pročitao sam reakciju one Ivanice i jedno nikako ne shvatam. Zašto se ljudi LJUTE kad naiđu na nekog kome se ne sviđa isto što i njima ili je prosto neistomišljenik? Nema tu ni pokušaja kontraargumentacije, čak i pošalice, sprdnje, zezanja, makar i malicioznog. Jok, bato, odma' - ne valja ti ovo ništa, nikad od tebe čovek, trte-mrte. To, čini mi se, (a i to mi ide na živce, pa je 100% povezano) ima koren u tome što gomila iskreno smatra da je njihov ne stav... nego guzica... pardon, mišljenje, najispravnije moguće, a da su oni sami na nekom više evolutivnom stepenu, šta li, otvorilo im se treće oko i sve im je jasno, te svako ko ne vidi tim trećim, automatski je crvoliki stvor kakav na planeti iz Avatara nema. Često srećem te komplekse više vrednosti, imam čak i teoriju o genezi istog, ali neću mnogo da tupim. Tehnika je nikad jeftinija i svako može da se dokopa kompjutera i Interneta, pa je to u VR-u izraženije, ali je česta pojava u RL-u.

Razmišljam sad nešto, što bi ja kao poštovalac lika i dela Uveta Boleta trebalo da radim?

Emocije su izvor nasilja... xuzi
Emocionalna inteligencija - izvor ratova  xuss

Da je Ghoul rekao samo "ne sviđa mi se Avatar" niko mu ne bi "A" rekao. Evo sličnog primera: koja je razlika između iskaza "ne sviđa mi se tvoja žena" i "tvoja žena je gnusobna greška prirode"?

Nema bitne razlike, samo je veća verovatnoća da će reči "gnusoba" i "greška prirode" naići na unapred pripremljenu reakciju.

Quote from: mac on 22-12-2009, 01:51:04Da je Ghoul rekao samo "ne sviđa mi se Avatar" niko mu ne bi "A" rekao. Evo sličnog primera: koja je razlika između iskaza "ne sviđa mi se tvoja žena" i "tvoja žena je gnusobna greška prirode"?

Ali Avatar, suprotno verovanjima, nije ljudsko bice sa emocijama koje bi trebalo uzimati u obzir.

Ne reaguju ljudi nego emocije. One su mehanizam, a ljudi ih trpe.

Quote from: Ghoul on 21-12-2009, 22:57:05he he, već sam navukao grdan hejt na sebe na netu - avatarulja će da me razapne, grdni neki linkovali ovaj rivju, pljuvanje po ghoulu sve u 16.
ali, to je sve business as usual.

Stoji to što kaže John (uostalom samo bacite pogled na imdb forum), ali ja mislim da je problem sa nekim tvojim rivjuima što su tako napisani da se stvara utisak da ti želiš da te ljudi hejtuju zbog njih, a naročito je problematično to što povremeno prozivaš potencijalnu publiku nekog filma u smislu da su oni kojima se to sviđa su takvi i takvi. To se naprosto ne radi. Ne zbog nekakve finoće ili korektnosti, već zato što je to onda loša kritika i ja sam ti ovo već sto puta rekao i još toliko ću puta ponoviti ako treba. E sad, u slučaju ove konkretne kritike to i nije tako strašno, mada imaš taj jedan pasus pri kraju gde to potežeš, a i smaraš već uveliko sa tim fejk, fejk, fejk (ovde si to ponovio dva puta, jednom velikim slovima i jednom obično). Sem toga, ja se u velikoj meri slažem sa napisanim, a i sam sam u mojoj kritici koju danas poslah nešto slično napisao, samo dosta uopštenije i sažetije (i nešto finije), a i dao sam filmu istu ocenu. A da li će biti hejt mejla, to ćemo tek da vidimo...

Marketing. Gul zna da provokacija izaziva emocionalnu reakciju, čak zna i tačno koji ključ da upotrebi  xnerd

Ja sam reagovao zbog ovog:

Quoteočito je da ima rulje kod koje tako jeftini trikovi pale – prostota se da zaseniti tim ćiribu-ćiriba forama i hipnotisati tehnički, veštački, neumetinički proizvedenim zamućenjem vida. a to je tako zbog toga što ciljna publika ovog filma nisu oni koji su odrastali na knjigama (iz kojih je maznuo neke krupne elemente zapleta) niti na filmovima (onim pravim, pre lukas-spilberg-džekson zaglupljenja), već na video-igricama. as simple as that! ko se napaja fejk svetovima iz igrica, njemu će fejk svet nesrećno-nazvane pandore (?!) da legne ko budali šamar, a svo to mrdanje i vrtoglavica i 3-D efekti biće tom nesrećniku ekvivalent 'avanture'. ali za moje pare, avantura je LORENS OD ARABIJE, a ne ovaj 3-D mikijev zabavnik za retarde nacrtan u kompjuteru.

Dakle, ljudi kojima se Avatar svidio su rulja, nepismeni, prostaci, nisu odrasli na dobrim knjigama niti filmovima već na video igricama (Meho, reaguj!), a na kraju su i retardi.

Quote from: Milosh on 22-12-2009, 02:27:15povremeno prozivaš potencijalnu publiku nekog filma u smislu da su oni kojima se to sviđa su takvi i takvi. To se naprosto ne radi. Ne zbog nekakve finoće ili korektnosti, već zato što je to onda loša kritika

aman.
ovo nije kritika nego rivju.
to sam jasno razlučio na blogu, i mislio sam da su bar pažljivi čitaoci to primetili.
KRITIKU ću pisati za FILAŽ ili tako negde.

osim toga, kako da se u rivjuu ne osvrnem i na rulju koja na ovo seče vene kad je njiov tok svesti otprilike ovakav - sledi KVINTESENCIJALNI avatar komentar sa jednog foruma:
"Vizuelno savrsenstvo. Vizuelno ce se filmovi dijeliti na prije i poslije Avatara. Prica je blago receno banalna ali koga je to briga kad one biljke svjetlucaju onako lijepo. Nova era u holivudu je pocela."

:roll: :twisted: :evil: :cry: :x :x :P xrotaeye xrotaeye xfoht xrofl

     Da se i ja prijavim na listing, samo kao anti-hejter. Ocito je da sam kupio govna svojim predvidjanjima o Avataru i otisao vjerovatno predaleko u tome. Svakako sam otisao da gledam sranje (zato sam i poveo sestrica sa sobom, da ne kazem kako sam uzalud trosio pare, noge i razum). I izisao sam iz bioskopa... moze se reci, pa, i vise nego iznenadjen. Stoga cu se truditi da vise ne radim te stvari. Recimo, do juce sam mislio da ce i Kingov novi roman biti nesto vrijedno citanja, jer mi je falio neki novi dobri horor kojim bih omrsio brke - ali cesto fulam na najprostijim stvarima, valjda zbog vlastitog entuzijazma koji uposlim u tu svrhu.  

    vec sam rekao Willome of the Whipsu da je mi je Avatar nadomjestio sve sto sam propustio preziruci filmove kao sto su Star Trek i Star Wars. Sto sam stariji sve manje strpljenja imam da slusam njihove fanove i ozbiljnije teoreticare kako udaraju po bubnjevima deklamujuci imena tih filmova...

    Jednostavno ne shvatam te serijale danas, kao sto ih nisam shvatao prije 20 godina (Mad Max 3 cak i kao klincu bio mi je jaci od svih). S druge strane, LOTR trilogiju sam pogledao dvaput i dopala mi se, i to ce biti citava moja avantura sa fentazijem. Kako god bilo, uvijek bih dao prednost vanzemaljcima i kolonizacijama drugih planeta, nego vilenjacima, pingvinima i zlim carobnjacima. Avatar se valjda nekako podvukao pod pravila - da se tako izrazim - mojih skrivenih tendencija da konacno pronadjem neku infantilnu, solidnu spejs-operu koju bi valjalo pogledati mozda i nekoliko puta. I ne samo to; ponekad volim i procitati takvu vrstu SFa.


    Necu spominjati pricu, jer se o njenoj banalnosti vec raspredalo tusta i tma po Forumu, premda sam misljenja da nije impresivno losa poput Titanika. Prvo sto me je odusevilo i donekle zapanjilo nisu efekti koliko mizantropska i ekstremna anti-americka poruka, koju bih mozda i prokljuvio da sam svjestan da je takav jedan film radio iranski ili iracki reditelj; odnosno bilo ko drugi. Prilicno jednostavno je svedena svrha citave ljudske civilizacije i to bez isusovskih ili bilo kakvih religioznih referenci koje su umalo upropastile District 9 - svakako bolji film od 'Avatara'. Sve ostalo sto nalikuje religiji pretpostavljeno je prirodi, i ti naizgled priprosti antropoloski izleti (koji u stvari cine pola filma) - mene su potpuno prikovali za stolicu. Ja sam i u ovoj nasoj realnosti manje-vise opcinjen time, a narocito BBC okumentarcima Dejvida Atenboroua, i necu kriti da mnogo puta nisam pomislio kako je Kameron toliko toga capio upravo od Atenboroua.

  Dakle, jesam uzivao u 'Avataru' i progutao sve sto se moglo progutati, ali znajuci Kamerona ovo je moglo imati daleko, daleko jaci rejting i nivo ozbiljnosti i nemilosrdnosti koji PG-13 djecica i ne bi trebala ni da pokusaju da razumiju [a da se pritom, naprotiv, srz fabule uopste drasticno i ne mijenja]. Naravno, u to ime i danas stoji 'Starship Troopers', medjutim on se dogodio prije 12-13 godina, i ta bizarna perfekcija jeste cedo neke druge i manje sladunjavije ere, cini se.

  ...Ovako mi 'Avatar' sa bebi-rejtingom vise djeluje kao neka reklamica za novo doba CGI i mam osjecaj da ce uskoro poceti da se sve cesce rade ovakvi projekti, ali isto tako mislim da prema njima, na svu srecu, nece biti iskazana toliko velika tolerancija, kao sto se inace ocekuje.    
     

  Kada sam odgledao Watchmen dao sam mu 9, iz predostroznosti da se mozda nisam prevario posto mi se cinilo da sam ovako ozbiljne adaptacije generalno sretao malo puta do sada. Na drugo gledanje sam odmah to povisio na 10. Cak je i trece gledanje potvrdilo [meni samome] da je film bezmalo besprijekoran. I momentalno razmatram da li bi ga vrijedilo staviti medju 15-20 personalnih omiljenih filmova.

  'Avataru' bih na prvo gledanje dao 8/10, pa cu vidjeti da li to valja da ide nize ili vise nakon drugog gledanja jer, makar iz ove moje perspektive, tvrdim da taj film sigurno zavrijedjuje da se pogleda jos jednom.


      P.S. I, da, kada vec Ghoul pomenu Hornerovu muziku u 'Avataru' - da li je ko, osim mene, vidio djelimicnu kopiju Hornerove teme iz 'Troje', jos jednog filma koga prilicno simpatisem? Kako je to Kameron mogao dozvoliti? Ja ne bih. Medjutim, da li se radi o otvorenom omazu tome filmu ili mozda samom Horneru - it's worth pondering about.   

       Btw, Ghoul - odlicna kritika.

Quote from: Le Samourai on 22-12-2009, 02:18:06Ali Avatar, suprotno verovanjima, nije ljudsko bice sa emocijama koje bi trebalo uzimati u obzir.

Dobro onda, evo malo jasnije, koja je razlika između "ovaj film mi se ne sviđa" i "ti si budala što voliš film pravljen za budale"?

hvala, tripe, mogo bi i ti nešto za blog sročiti na ovu temu, da imamo različita mišljenja (pošto onu mrcinu whipsa mrzi da kuca).
inače, čudi me da nisi ispravio moj lapsus za knjigu TRAGOM ATLANTIDE - siguran sam da si to čitao, je li? ja tek sad primetih da sam malkice izmenio orig. naslov, pa sam smesta editovao.

Quote from: mac on 22-12-2009, 10:02:25

Quote from: Le Samourai on 22-12-2009, 02:18:06Ali Avatar, suprotno verovanjima, nije ljudsko bice sa emocijama koje bi trebalo uzimati u obzir.

Dobro onda, evo malo jasnije, koja je razlika između "ovaj film mi se ne sviđa" i "ti si budala što voliš film pravljen za budale"?

razlika je u tome što "ovaj film mi se ne sviđa" nije ni kritika ni rivju ni ništa - to je, prosto, opinion - a opinione, kao i asshole, ima svako, pa zato i nemaju neku težinu, tako izloženi.

ono što macu izmiče jeste da moj RIVJU nema oblik "ti si budala što voliš film pravljen za budale" (kako se njemu prividelo, jer ga je očito lično shvatio), već "koji elementi filma AVATAR njega čine naročito pogodnim za to da se dopadne budalama".
to je već, ako ne KRITIKA, a ono barem RIVJU: svakako 2-3 nivoa iznad golog opiniona "ovaj film mi se (ne) sviđa."
pritom, moja teza uopšte nije da je svako kome se avatar dopao budala, već samo da je film naročito prilagođen tome da osobama poput gore-citrane-i-u-moj-potpis-stavljene budale najbolje legne.
to ne isključuje da će nekim drugim svojim aspektima apelovati na neke nebudalaste osobe iz nekih njihovih razloga - koje tek treba da čujemo, jer AVATARObranitelji zasad ne iznesoše ovde ništa više od opiniona tipa "ovaj film mi se sviđa."

Quoteavatar je besramno patetična hipi-baljezgarija, čak još banalnija i gluplja nego što sam mislio

Avatar je spirit lifting epopeja s kojom sve normalne osobe mogu da se identifikuju.

Quoteto je jedna zaslađena, ljupka džungla nekoga ko nije pažljivo gledao filmove vernera hercoga, recimo, i ko stoga nema pojma o tome kako takav eko-sistem stvarno funkcioniše.

U pitanju je ekosistem bitno različit od našeg, jer gde mi imamo samo Gaja teoriju oni imaju samu Gaju. Otkud ti znaš kako funkcioniše vanzemaljski ekosistem?

Quoteu AVATARU nema ništa od moćno-osmišljenih priča krcatih zanimljivim likovima i situacijama i – naročito – natrpanih saspensom

Nisi u pravu. Priča jeste moćna, a likovi jesu zanimljivi. Možda ne tebi, ali ima kome jesu. AVATAR nije ni koncipiran kao triler, tako da saspens nema funkciju. Nisi u pravu kad insistiraš na saspensu.

Quoteemotivno potpuno prazan i čak smešan film.

Opet, to važi za tebe, a moje je iskustvo potpuno drugačije. Emotivno ispunjavajući film. Mogao je i duže da traje što se mene tiče, nisam ni primetio da je prošlo tri sata.

Kao i svaki film tako neuračunljivo velike ambicije, AVATAR sigurno ima puno problema. Ali, ono što je glavno pitanje jeste da li ima ključni problem, a to je funkcioniše li ili ne, i to ćemo videti.

Što se mene tiče, celo jutro dobijam SMSove od prijatelja koji kažu da se sneg topi i da se moj susret sa Tatkom približava, ali od mene ne treba očekivati "objektivnost", iako sumnjam da je ona i inače moguća.

Što se argumenata tiče, ni protivnici AVATARa se nisu pretrgli od argumentacije, osim opštih mesta baziranih opet na ličnom utisku. Nisam video neke argumente i ubedljive formulacije koje objašnjavaju zašto nešto nije dobro, zašto je glupo i sl. To su sve neke paušalne kvalifikacije.

Da je nešto glupo to ne znači ništa. Isto tako i "banalno". Procene emotivnog utiska u smislu "meni ovo..." isto nisu neki argument. Ne mislim ja da Ghoul i Milosh lažu, i razumem njihovu potrebu da sad dočekaju nekog s kim bi mogli da raspravljaju ali ovde nekog štofa za ozbiljnu raspravu nema.

No, nije AVATAR Memorandum SANU. To je isto film koji ljudi vole ili ne vole. Zašto bi se iko raspravljao sa Ghoulom oko toga?

Vidim da se Ghoul oštri sa neku vrstu konflikta, sukoba, vređanja, da jedva čeka da mu se neko usprotivi, međutim očigledno je AVATAR blagotvorno delovao na one koji su ga razumeli i oni ne žele da ulaze u klinč sa Ghoulom. Zašto bi neko kome je prijatno posle nekog iskustva poput AVATARa, filma jednog velikog reditelja, uvodio osobu kao što je Ghoul u svoj život i, polemisao sa njiim, kada zna da to ionako nema svrhe, da Ghoul ionako neće prihvatiti nijedan tuđi argument ili utisak, i da je jedino što ga može dočekati neka neprijatnost ili uvreda?

@Tripp

Hmmm... Dali smo "Avataru" istu ocenu. Kada si pomenuo "Nadzirače", zatekao sam se potaknutim na razmišljanje o tome kako bih taj film ocenio. U suštini, isto osmicom. Zanimljivo mi je što su mi se "Nadzirači" gdegde činili razvučenim i dosadnjikavim, naročito kada dominira unjkavi glas Dr Menhetna. Nasuprot tome, "Avatar" mi ni u jednom trenutku nije bio dosadan, niti sam primetio koliko je vremena prošlo od početka projekcije do kraja, unatoč relativno neudobnim sedištima centra "Sava". Ko god da je režirao "Nadzirače" nije bio u stanju da Murovo ludilo potpuno pretoči na platno, dok je Kamerun od jedne planetarne romanse (kako su inostrani teoretičari žanra klsaifikovali "Avatara") napravio više nego gledljiv i zabavan film, mada malčice nedovoljno ispunjavajući. Možda bi bilo bolje da film nije baš toliko očigledno koketirao s konzumentima WoWa i sitnom đecom uopšte. U svakom slučaju, nadam se da će toga biti još. Nimalo mi ne bi smetalo da se "Avatar" pretvori u trilogiju. Setimo se samo da je Pandora većim delom neistražena i da su plemena koja su se sukobila s rudarima došla s udaljenosti od najviše dve nedelje puta. Dakle, ako nam je Kamerun pokazao elfove, a što ne bi nešto kasnije i dvorfove? "Avatar" svakako ima potencijala da se pretvori u nove Star Wars.

    Slazem se da Watchmeni nemaju bezgresno preveden Murov suludi univerzum na celuloid, medjutim taj film prvobitno nikada i nije trebao da bude snimljen. Mene je prvo zaprepastila dramaturska adaptacija, pa tek onda sve sto ono slijedi, jer nisam vidio nimalo smisla u odluci da se snimi anti-superhero film sa implikacijom da od gledaoca posto-poto iziskuje da bude dovoljno bezvoljan i fatalistican kako bi pratio seciranje jedne globalne melanholije kao sto je homo sapiens. Zato mogu reci da sam tek na drugo gledanje konacno i odgledao Watchmen. Na kraju, Watchmeni su u potpunosti destimulisuci film, i to je jedan aspekt koji 'Avatar' mislim da nema, bez obzira sto prvi svoju pricu zasniva na antiutopiji a drugi na utopiji - dakle na potpuno dva razlicita filozofska koncepta - iako je obojici tematika bezmalo identicna; mogu cak reci i da funkcionisu iz istog izvora.

    Takodje, nije da Avatar ne obiluje stupidnjikavim i derivativnim, obligatornim, momentima, ali da ne postoji  prividna kameronova tezina iza svega toga (a ovaj je, za razliku od 'Titanika', garantovano nosi)  - sigurno bi mi bio daleko manje znacajan,a ocito i ljudima u sali.

    Recimo, na mojoj projekciji NIKO nije ni zucnuo (pravo malo cudo), sto malko govori i o utisku koji je ova bajka programirana da ostavi na sve uzraste. Uostalom, i sa mnom je bio isti slucaj - nisam ni stigao da provalim da film traje toliko koliko traje.

    U stvari nije prica nikakav problem koliko neizgradjena karakterizacija, medjutim ako se popuse prvih 30-ak minuta, mislim da ce u 'Avataru' fin broj ljudi biti osudjen da ipak nadje malo magije. Na kraju krajeva, ja se nisam zaljubio u talente bilo kojih glumaca [mada Zoe Saldana jeste sexy a multitalentovanog Stephena Langa volim nista manje nego kada sam, ga prvi put vidio u 'The Hard Way' a potom i u 'Tombstone'], kao sto mi se, recimo, dopala vecina pojedinaca iz 'Watchmena' kada sam ga odgledao. I vezujem to za nedostatak valjanijeg podteksta kod karakterizacije. Znaci, za sada u tome vidim jedinu slabiju kariku 'Avatara'.   

    Sto se tice nastavaka, momentalno ne bih bio raspolozen za tako nesto, a prevashodno zato sto bi Kameronu takav projekat oduzeo jos nekih 5-6 godina zivota i plus sto bi jos vjerovatno usput zaradio i Zemeckis-virus i nikada se ne bi skinuo sa ovakvih stvari. Istovremeno, mozda bi nastavak bio nadasve bolji (a razloga za nastavak sigurno ima), ali bi onda taj projekat odstranio unikatnu iluziju koju posjeduje ovaj film.

THE SCIENCE OF AVATAR

Historically, movie directors have had their asses kicked by
astronomers as far as taking us to exotic worlds. For the most part,
movie planets look like an extreme form of Earth -- they almost always
have an oxygen atmosphere at an Earthlike pressure and gravity. Movie
planets don't even come close to matching the diversity of worlds in
our solar system: the surface of Io is a mottled, sulfurous
orange-yellow, constantly being repaved by volcanoes shooting hundreds
of miles into the sky. Titan has a thick smog atmosphere that blots
out the sun and rains hydrocarbons. Mars has planet-wide dust storms
and a 17-mile-high volcano that nearly reaches above the atmosphere.
Venus has a crushing, choking sulfur dioxide atmosphere with a
pressure 92 times that of earth, and a temperature that can melt lead.
Enceladus shoots ice geysers into space. And the real Pandora orbits
within the rings of Saturn. These are only a few of the hundreds of
planets, minor planets, and moons in our solar system: we've
discovered hundreds elsewhere in the galaxy, some of which seem even
crazier: super-Earths, nearly boiling puffed-up Jupiters, and objects
that may be free-floating rogue planets without a star.

So I can't think of a better use for 3d and a few hundred million
dollars of effects than filmmakers starting to raise the bar to
finally approach the awesome reality of nature. Due to the limits of
budgets, finances, and creativity, I can't think of another film that
has attempted something near the scale of what Cameron has done here.

I'll address the different aspects of the science in sections.




FLORA AND FAUNA


From a visual perspective, Avatar's Pandora is breathtaking. While
most movies have only hinted at the exotic nature of their worlds with
an establishing matte painting or two, here Cameron takes us on an
elaborate three-dimensional tour though various habitats, from the
treetops to the forest floor. He's created a whole ecosystem, from
semi-intelligent trees to giant land and air creatures. Most seem
inter-related via symbiotic relationships. In fact, Cameron has taken
the Gaia hypothesis, that the biosphere of the Earth is itself a kind
of living entity, and sexed it up – the biosphere of Pandora is
essentially a god, and it's networked! Creatures can plug into each
other via what amounts to USB hair and fiber optic roots. While some
of these ideas are not without their faults (see below), Cameron gets
points for creativity – this is true science fiction, not space opera.

I do have one minor complaint, that given their networking abilities,
the Na'vi should not be so technologically inferior to the humans. On
Earth, the largest barrier to technological progression was that
information that existed in the brains of primitive humans could not
be easily shared or preserved. As soon as writing was developed,
suddenly it was possible to store information outside of the brain,
and record and build upon knowledge. The knowledge available to a
human or tribe went from one brain's worth (and a minimal amount of
oral tradition), to thousands, and ultimately billions of brains'
worth. The result was a technological and social explosion. Hominids
have had technology like spears for about half a million years, but
only 7,000 years after the development of writing we had left the
planet. And the sharing of knowledge is still undergoing a revolution
with the development of the internet. Now we have instantaneous
access to the combined knowledge of the entire history of humanity.

Since the Na'vi have had the ability to download information and share
it in a massive network for long periods of time (evolutionary
timescales), they should be way ahead of us in terms of technological
development. Still, I have to give Cameron a pass here. It is
thematically necessary that the Na'vi are technologically primitive,
and their root-network is necessary to the plot. Maybe you could say
that they could have evolved more technology, but they don't need it
or want it. Still, that reeks of the "Noble savage" idea, and I have
to agree with Stephen Pinker that that is a bunch of hoo-ha.

But my major complaint from an evolutionary standpoint is that there
is no way in hell that life on Pandora would evolve to look so similar
to Earth life: there are humanoids, space horseys, hammerhead
rhinoceri, and pseudo-pterodactyl beasties. And to make it worse,
they have DNA, and the DNA is close enough to our own that Na'vi and
human DNA can be combined! Again, I have to give Cameron a pass.
First, it is easier for the audience to relate to familiar things.
And more than that there is a significant plot point that I won't
spoil towards the end of the film that hinges on humans and Na'vi
having similar DNA.

One way out of both my evolutionary nitpicks is the panspermia
hypothesis -- that life in the galaxy was seeded in multiple places by
an advanced civilization. But even then the odds against evolution
producing such similar animals on different planets is astronomical.
Since we have a clear record of evolution on Earth, some civilization
would have had to keep taking specimens from earth, first
pterodactyls, and ultimately humans (after they evolved), and then
would have had to deliver them to Pandora, possibly modified via
genetic engineering. That would be an interesting sequel: humans and
Na'vi come together to confront their godlike humanoid ancestors!

Grade on astrobiology: A for the scale of the ecosystem, C for being
too much like Earth – call it a B overall.




WORLD AND STAR SYSTEM


Pandora is a moon of Polyphemus, a fictional gas giant orbiting Alpha
Centauri A. I've always wanted to know what the view would be from
the moon of a gas giant. Can you imagine a quarter of the sky being
taken up by a massive cloud-covered planet visible night or day? We
get to see it in Avatar, and since Jupiter is the king of the gods,
maybe majestic is an appropriate word to describe it. I wonder if
Cameron's choice to set this on the moon of a gas giant wasn't a slap
in the face to Lucas, as if to say "this is RETURN OF THE JEDI done
right." (I know it is ambiguous in the Star Wars universe whether or
not Endor orbits a gas giant.)

But what had me really geeking out is the choice of the star system.
Alpha Centauri A is perfect. First, as the closest star system to the
sun (4.37 light years), it may well be the first star we travel to.
Second, it is familiar in that you can see it with the naked eye if
you live in the southern hemisphere – it is the brightest star in
Centaurus. Actually, what appears to be a single star can be resolved
as a binary system if you use a telescope. It is Alpha Centauri A, a
bit more massive than the sun (1.1 solar masses), and Alpha Centauri
B, a bit less massive than the sun (0.9 solar masses). The choice of
G-type stars near the mass of the sun is great – they last for
billions of years – plenty of time for life to evolve. They are in an
elliptical orbit around a common center of mass, which means they come
together and drift apart over the course of one 80 year orbit. The
two stars get as close as 11 astronomical units (an AU is the average
Earth-Sun distance; 11 AU is about the distance to Saturn), and get as
far apart as 36 AU (about the distance to Pluto).

Would you see the companion star (Alpha Cen B) in the sky from
Pandora? That depends on where it is in its orbit. At the farthest
distance it would be a few hundred times the brightness of the full
Moon as seen from Earth. But your eyes are logarithmic detectors, so
it would actually only seem a few times brighter than we perceive the
Moon. At its closest approach, Alpha Cen B would be a few thousand
times as bright as we see our Moon. This is not all that bright – in
comparison, on Earth the Sun is about half a million times brighter
than the Moon. So on Pandora, if Alpha Cen B is up in the daytime
then you might not even notice it, depending on how far away it is in
the sky from Alpha Cen A. But if it is up at night (as it would be
for half the year), it would never get completely dark – the sky would
just be kind of dark blue.

Technically, there is a third star in the system, Proxima Centauri,
but it is a tiny red dwarf a huge distance, about 12,000 AU, away – it
is not even clear it is bound to the system. At any rate, it would
not be prominent in the sky as seen from Pandora. Incidentally, my
first job as a graduate student was to help calibrate the fine
guidance sensors on the Hubble Space Telescope to help my advisor look
for planets around Proxima Centauri. Sadly, we didn't find any.

It is an interesting question as to whether planets around either
Alpha Cen A or B could exist in stable orbits that would last for
billions of years. You might think they couldn't because the gravity
of the other star would perturb any forming planet.
However, simulations show that at least at Earth-like distances,
stable planets can form in that system.

Grade for astronomy: for the choice of star system, setting in on a
moon, and around a gas giant, Cameron gets an A+.




THE STAR'S EFFECT ON LIFE


Electromagnetic radiation comes in many forms, gamma rays, x-rays,
ultraviolet, visual, infrared, and radio. Our eyes evolved to see in
the narrow range that the sun has its peak output -- the visual band
-- and the flora and fauna of Earth evolved pigments and colors that
work at these wavelengths. But this isn't universal -- some animals
can see a narrower region of the spectrum than us, and others see
farther into the ultraviolet or infrared. Our cornea blocks most UV
light, but bees, for example, don't have one and can see farther into
the UV. They can see patterns in flowers that we can't.

In fact, colors are really something manufactured in our brain –
physically colors are just different wavelengths of light ranging
uniformly from short wavelengths (violet) to long (red). What we see
as blue or green or red helps us differentiate sky from grass from
blood, but to a creature from another world, all these things might
appear as the same color. In fact, you could imagine that bats might
use echolocation to "see" rough surfaces as one color and smooth
surfaces as another. So since colors are something created by our
brains and not intrinsic to the universe (only wavelengths of light
are), it is virtually certain Pandorans would see color differently
than we do.

Alpha Cen A has almost the same temperature as the Sun, but it is just
a bit hotter. As a result, the star puts out most of its light at
visual wavelengths just like the Sun. But the star's output is only
part of the story – the oxygen and ozone in our atmosphere block much
of the ultraviolet light from the Sun, and water vapor blocks some of
the infrared light. Pandora doesn't have an oxygen atmosphere (if the
movie mentioned what gasses it contains, I didn't catch it), so we
might expect more of the ultraviolet light to reach the surface. The
creatures there might be able to see farther into the ultraviolet.
There might be all kinds of patterns that the inhabitants of Pandora
can see that just look blue to us. Maybe that's which there are so
many blue colors in the film. To take this a step farther, I would
have loved to see a scene where a character sees beautiful colors or
patterns as an Avatar, only to have this beauty evaporate into a
uniform sea of blue when he sees the same vista with human eyes.

Another feature of Pandora adding to the ubiquitous shades of blue is
that bioluminescence seems to be a staple of the ecosystem. As
Massawyrm points out, this makes sense for a world that may spend days at a time
shrouded in darkness. Remember that a day occurs when Pandora rotates
on its axis. But it might take a month or so to orbit its gas giant,
which we know looms large in the sky, and could blot out the sun for
days.

Grade for the astrophysics: For the fact that this world doesn't have
an oxygen atmosphere, and the plausible use of color, A.




PHYSICS


Since Pandora is a moon and is presumably smaller than the Earth, the
gravity would be lower. This is alluded to in the film, and creatures
do grow larger and survive falls from greater heights than you could
on Earth. I wonder if Cameron dialed in a different gravity to the
physics engine rendering everything. To my eye, for at least the
human scenes, the gravity looked just like Earth gravity, but then
again if the gravity is close the differences can be subtle.
Virtually all science fiction movies feature planets with gravity at
1g, since, of course, until now, filming has always been done on
Earth. Since here so much of the world was created inside the
computer, I would have liked to see this aspect pushed a bit farther.

In one of my biggest pet peeves regarding the science of Avatar, there
is one scene where the gas giant, Polyphemus, can clearly be seen to
be rotating in the span of about a second or two. Let's say it
rotates about a degree out of 360 degrees in those 2 seconds. That
means it makes one rotation in 720 seconds, or 12 minutes! Jupiter
takes about 10 hours to rotate. So the gas giant in Avatar rotates
about 50 times faster than Jupiter. Winds on Jupiter can exceed 100
meters per second, so the winds on Polyphemus would have to exceed
5000 m/s – this is supersonic and clearly implausible. Here's one
case where Cameron opted for visual effect over realism, but to me the
bargain isn't worth it. It looks unrealistic and takes me right out
of the movie. But I do like the look of the clouds on Polyphemus –
they look like a cross between Neptune and Jupiter. The highlight is
a giant storm resembling Jupiter's Great Red Spot. That is
particularly appropriate for Polyphemus, named after a mythological
cyclops.

But my biggest beef in Cameron's trading physics for visuals is those
goddamn floating mountains. Seriously, floating mountains? How the
hell do they stay up there? This is such an egregious flouting of the
laws of physics that surely there is some reasoning behind it.

Between the fact that Pandora seems to be sort-of at 1g, the
impossible rotation of Polyphemus, and the floating mountains, physics
is one one area AVATAR gets a marginal fail on Copernicus' Law of
Science Fiction. But on all the other aspects of science, Cameron
gets either a pass or passes with flying colors.

The dream of interstellar travel will only become a reality far beyond
our lifetimes. But I love the fact that today I can be deeply
immersed in not just a plausible, but a compelling alien world just by
putting on a pair of 3D glasses and visiting my local theater. Even
if I have to drive 100 miles to see it in IMAX, that is nothing
compared to interstellar distances! And I love that there is a
filmmaker that plays more than lip service to the science in his
films, stimulating discussion and thought about distant worlds among
geeks everywhere. I was inspired to do astronomy after seeing STAR
WARS as a kid. I'm willing to bet that a fair fraction of tomorrow's
astronomers will have decided to devote their life to the discovery of
new worlds because of AVATAR.



Mail Copernicus

-- Copernicus

Ni ja, kao ni Tripp, ne bih voleo da Cameron krene da prirprema Avatar II. Bar ne još uvek. Godine i gravitacija čine svoje, a ja bih najviše voleo da Cam ispovrti jedna mračniji sf dragulj pre nego što iz njega ishlape životni sokovi - a ne da čekamo 15 godina or so na sledeći film. Battle Angel mi se dopada kao koncept, voleo bih da to bude sledeće i da se dogodi u naredne 3 godine...

BATTLE ANGEL bi bio pravi potez.

Na kraju će da napreve i obavezne studije Avatara, unezveritetski grad Pandorum (po uzoru na Biznislend), napisaće tomove knjiga o tome kako je Avatar zamišljan, pravljen, kako je rađen casting, kakve su sve CGI novotarije korišćene - hiljade ljudi živeće od ove nove industrije. Dejms Kameron će dobiti titulu "sir" od engleske kraljice, Legiju časti od Sarkozija, Vatikan će ga proglasiti svecem jer je na najbolji mogući način opisao Raj, teroristi će mu se zahvaliti na najbolji mogući način jer im je ukazao na slabosti okupatorske ideologije, dobiće Nobelovu nagradu za najbolji film (Avatar će biti povod da se osnuje ta nova fondacija), Žene u crnom će mu dodeliti plaketu jer je u filmu osuđeno masakriranje nevinih biljaka, bubamare i kolibri će mu isplesti venac od ladoleža, evolucija čitavog zemaljskog života doživeće snažan boost, a ljudski rod će se preporoditi i dobiti rep, pošto je to sjajna ideja koju je Bog, praveći Papana i Kevu propustio da realizuje na pravi način...

Moja pretpostavka o nastavku filma zasnovana je na premisama a) Da će se film pokazati zlatnom kokom, što će producente privoleti da se bace na izmuzivanje rečene koke; b) Da ne mora nužno Kamerun da bude režiser - dovoljno je da poput Džeksona bude producent i c) Čini mi se da je "endžin" za film urađen. Ne mora, valjda, da se razvija ništa novo, sem novih živuljki. Pretpostavljam da bi značajno pojeftinilo snimanje.

ma naravno: zlatnu koku su proizveli, legije konzumenata tih jaja orne su za još, nema razloga da iz njih ne izmuzu još dolara.

Ali pricha? Gde je tu pricha za nastavak? Shta sada sledi? Antropoloshki kvazi-dokumentarac o mirnom zhivotu u skladu sa fluorescentnom prirodom?

kameron megalomanski najavljuje:
AVATAR 2 će za AVATAR biti ono što je ALIENS bio za ALIEN!

=još više vojnika, još veće oružje, još više štrumpfova, a možda će i ova njihova gea da se materijalizuje kao džinovska matica (ovog puta kao pozitivac), a protiv nje će da se pesniči neka nova vojničina (sa povezom preko jednog oka, i sa brčićima koje uvrće dok se cereka: 'a ha ha haaaa, štrumpfovi, smrsiću vam konce, polupaću vam lonce, a ha ha ha haaaa!")

Quote from: Le Samourai on 22-12-2009, 15:43:52
Ali pricha? Gde je tu pricha za nastavak? Shta sada sledi? Antropoloshki kvazi-dokumentarac o mirnom zhivotu u skladu sa fluorescentnom prirodom?

Vidi, ljudi su na Pandoru došli zbog onog imbecilno nazvanog minerala. Šta misliš, da će tek tako prihvatiti poraz? Ne, u filmu ima više nego dovoljno repova da bi se napravila trilogija.

Edit: Bio sam u pravu. Evo vest:

QuoteJames Cameron plans not one but two 'Avatar' sequels

ames Cameron describes sequel production plans to MTV News.
» Click to enlarge image
The story of Jake and Neytiri may continue in two more "Avatar" movies.



RELATED STORIES
Nobody blue about big 'Avatar' opening Roger Ebert: Review of 'Avatar'

Yes, there will be a sequel.

James Cameron, director of the weekend's hit sci-fi film "Avatar," tells MTV News he doesn't plan to follow the story of Jake and Neytiri for one more film — he's planning two more.

"I have a trilogy-scaled arc of story right now, but I haven't really put any serious work into writing a script," he said.

This first installment took four years to create, but fans might not have to wait that long for the next chapter. Much of the work on the original movie perfected the process for the next two, he said.

"Part of what we set out to do is create a world and create these characters," Cameron said. "From the time we capture and finish the capture, it's literally nine to 10 months to get the CG characters working, to get their facial musculature working. ... So now we have Jake, we have Neytiri. Sam can step right back into it, the characters will fit them like a glove, and we'll just go on. So a lot of the start-up torque that had to be done for one movie really makes more sense if you play it out across several films."

"Avatar" opened this weekend to a $232.2 million worldwide gross.

Last week, Cameron reflected on his previous successes — and when, in the process of the films' rollouts, he knew they were successful enough at the box office to cover their enormous production costs. He said he didn't expect the kind of big opening weekend for "Avatar" that he got with his other landmark movies, such as "Titanic" (which has now grossed nearly $2 billion) and "Terminator 2: Judgment Day."

"Let's face it. It wasn't settled on 'Titanic' till week 10. 'Titanic' was the No. 1 picture for 16 weeks. I don't expect that kind of performance out of 'Avatar."'

But, he added, "if we announce the sequel, then we hit the number."

Quote from: Le Samourai on 22-12-2009, 15:43:52
Ali pricha? Gde je tu pricha za nastavak? Shta sada sledi? Antropoloshki kvazi-dokumentarac o mirnom zhivotu u skladu sa fluorescentnom prirodom?

Mogući nastavci:

1. Korporacija se vraća, ovog puta spremna na sve (ovo je realan scenario)

2. Šteta koju je korporacija načinila u prvom delu uništava balans u prirodi, i nastaje kuršlus za koji ljudi više i nisu potrebni. Ovaj unobtanijum ipak čini da planine lete, to meni ne deluje kao stabilno okruženje.

2b. Uticaj koji je korporacija načinila u prvom delu uništava balans u glavama nekih Na'vija, i nastaje kuršlus za koji ljudi više i nisu potrebni. Ali ljudi sad imaju petu kolonu na planeti.

3. Dolazi treća vanzemaljska strana koja je nemilosrdnija od ljudi. Ovo je podvrsta prvog scenarija, gde ljudi imaju priliku da ovog puta budu s dobrim momcima, i gde se pokazuje da tehnologija nije sama po sebi loša, ako je u rukama dobrih momaka.

4. Naš avatar ima zdravstvenih problema jer ipak nije 100% Na'vi, tako da mora da ode na drugi kraj meseca i ubere pandoranski runolist potreban za čarobni napitak koji će ga izlečiti.

a možda bi najbolje bilo da ALIENS dođu među ove štrumpfove i pokažu im svoju mamu-prirodu!

Vern je pogledao AVATAR:

http://outlawvern.com/2009/12/22/avatar/#more-6399 (http://outlawvern.com/2009/12/22/avatar/#more-6399)

Gomila CGI-ja, 3-D? Ocito nesto prikrivaju. Nisam gledala, niti cu.

Eto, već svi pričaju o AVATARSU i jedva čekaju  xcheers

Quote from: Ghoul on 22-12-2009, 16:09:50
a možda bi najbolje bilo da ALIENS dođu među ove štrumpfove i pokažu im svoju mamu-prirodu!

In Ghouleta we trust!
A najbolje od svega da Predatori dodju brodom i posipaju one facehuggere da nakote Aliene!
A usput skupljaju trofeje od Nosocekicara i Crnopasova!!!

Quote from: Ella on 22-12-2009, 16:23:49
Gomila CGI-ja, 3-D? Ocito nesto prikrivaju. Nisam gledala, niti cu.

Takođe. xcheers

Ovo je pravi trenutak da se prisetim leta te 1985. ili je ipak bila 1986. godina? Tada su filmovi u domaćim bioskopima kasnili bar godinu - dve. Stigao je Terminator u moj bioskop i rekoh sebi - 'ajde da vidim, je li Švarceneger uspeo da snimi neki dobar film posle Konana. Inače, u to vreme sam se već 2-3 godine ozbiljnije interesovao za film i pratio dešavanja, što je u mladosti dug period. Jedino predznanje o Terminatoru mi je bio negativno intoniran tekst-prikaz u YU videu.

Po izlasku iz bioskopa bio sam ošamućen, kvalitet filma je bio iznad svih očekivanja, utisak fantastičan, sa režijom koja je nadmašivala sve moje dotadašnje favorite, poput De Palme, Voltera Hila, Karpentera, Bedema. Taman što sam izašao iz bioskopa, iz prve predstave, naišao je moj prijatelj (k'o juče beše) koji je krenuo u drugu i postavio mi uobičajeno pitanje - kakav je film? Teško je objasniti, biće ti jasno kad odgledaš, sačekaj me da kupim i ja kartu, idem ponovo. Sutradan smo gledali opet, a posle njegovog prvog, a mog drugog gledanja rekao sam mu - pamti moje reči prijatelju, ovaj čovek će postati najbolji režiser današnjice.

Tako i bi.

Završiće on na groblju Ksilopolisa, uskoro...

Quoteovaj čovek će postati najbolji režiser današnjice.

Ti si nešto pobrkao. Terminatora nije režirao Piter Vir nego Džejms Kameron.

Quote"Vizuelno savrsenstvo. Vizuelno ce se filmovi dijeliti na prije i poslije Avatara. Prica je blago receno banalna ali koga je to briga kad one biljke svjetlucaju onako lijepo. Nova era u holivudu je pocela."

Eto, ovo je na primjer vrlo interesantno. Ja sam uvijek za ignorisanje priče ako film lijepo izgleda, obožavam Matriks, Gospodara prstenova, Titan A.E. i svašta drugo. Ako me neki film oduševi svojim fenomenalnim izgledom, a priča nije baš previše iritantna, redovno sam sklon da takve filmove nazovem remek-djelom. Dakle, teško da postoji veći šareniš-paćenik od mene. A i obožavam video-igre.

Tragedija je što Avatar NIJE vizuelno savršenstvo, filmovi se NEĆE dijeliti na one prije Avatara i one poslije njega (jer sva tri filma koje sam gore nasumice nabacao izgledaju spektakularnije od Avatara iako su 10 godina stariji od njega), biljke certainly svjetlucaju lijepo, ali nova era u Holivudu NIJE počela, bar ne sa Avatarom.

Priče o tom navodnom "fenomenalnom" vizuelnom izgledu su čisti hajp koji je jedino utemeljen u busanju u prsa samog Tatka, samoproglašenog "kralja svijeta".

Quote from: Harvester on 22-12-2009, 23:22:18

Quoteovaj čovek će postati najbolji režiser današnjice.

Ti si nešto pobrkao. Terminatora nije režirao Piter Vir nego Džejms Kameron.

Piter Vir je respektabilan filmmejker. Nije sve zgodno za poređenje, ali se može reći sledeće: Vir je svojim australijskim filmovima The Year of Living Dangerously i Gallipoli krenuo stopama Dejvida Lina, ali ga nije dostigao.

Što se tiče njegove američke faze - Svedok je odličan, ali slabiji od T2 (a bogami i od prvog T), Master and Commander je lošiji od Aliensa, a Trumanov šou ne doseže Ambis. Oko Titanika se možemo sporiti, ali jači je on od Dead Poets Society.

Fearless, Green Card i Obala komaraca su možda solidni filmovi, ali su ispod Kameronovog nivoa, poprilično.

(Sledeći besmislen korak bi bio poređenje Ingmara Bergmana sa Kameronom...)

Quote from: Alex on 22-12-2009, 23:53:41
(Sledeći besmislen korak bi bio poređenje Ingmara Bergmana sa Kameronom...)

Hour of the Wolf vs T2?

Inače, što se avatara tiče, ovako, na neviđeno, fali mu podnaslov - kako je mali đokica video svet se kaže šuma.

Quote from: Peter WattsAnd most tellingly, am I the only one out there to remember an obscure 1975 novel by Alan Dean Foster called Midworld? About a planet sheathed in deep forest, and the six-legged fauna that lived there, and the ruthless Human industrialists who come to exploit its riches only to be fought by the gone-native descendents of an earlier expedition that had learned to live in harmony with nature? A novel in which it was ultimately revealed that the fauna and the flora were essentially part of a single interconnected network? Yes? Anyone?

  Ovo od Wattsa su lijepe, ako ne i ocekivane, vijesti; uostalom, od koga li je sve to Foster marnuo - ima u toj postavci tome dosta Tolkiena i C.S.Lewisa. Kao sto sam napisao o tekstu o Kingu, prirodno je da svi krademo. Krali su i mnogi veci od nas a i od Kinga, i pravili, na kraju krajeva, vjerovatno bolja djela. Misljenja sam da pojedincima - kao sto je Kameron - uvijek treba 'sigurna'/tudja prica kako bi poceli sa svojom. I to sam vremenom poceo da postujem. Kameron inace veoma pokorno, koliko shvatam, prati SF. Neko doba se pricalo kako treba da radi Mars Trilogiju K.S. Robinsona.     

     Jedna retrospektiva, sa anotacijama:


     'Terminator' navodno pocinje pricom da ga je Kameron odsanjao. Naravno, svako eventualno odsanja nesto sto odgleda vise puta. Zato 'Term' za izvor ima Ellisonova dva skripta za seriju 'Outer Limits', odnosno epizode 'Soldier' (nju pogotovo) & 'Demon With a Glass Hand', kao i pricu 'I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream'. Mada motiv vojnika koji dolazi iz daleke buducnosti seze jos ranije, iz romana 'The Legions of Time' (1938) Jacka Williamsona. Naravno, one rupice u skriptu koje ni sam Kameron nije mogao da otkloni vremenom smo naucili da ih prenebregavamo i gotivimo.   

     'Aliens' ima Ejlijena kao zacetak dobrog pocetka a i Scottov 'Alien' od koga se valjalo dobrano odaljiti. Generalno je u pitanju akciona hard-SF avantura stilski ne mnogo drugacija od 'Terminatora'.

     Njegova izjava kako zamislja nastavke; mozda se moze podvesti pod ovo razmatranje da je svaki Kamaronov film nastavak nekog drugog (djela): "You can take that mental programming that the audience has from the first film and work little twists and turns on it, and play against their expectations... but not in a hostile way... What I try to do in 'Aliens' is make the scenes function if you haven't seen the first film, but have a second layer of resonance for those who have... It goes back to the idea of film being a participatory experience rather than just a passive one."


     'The Abyss' - iza svega stoji samo savrseni podvodni predvidljivi 'Close Encounters' sa anti-militaristickim tendencijama; veliki omaz ne samo Spilbergu koliko filmu 'The Day the Earth Stood Still' (1951). Kameronovo moralizovanje o ljudima dosegnuce vrhunac u 'Avataru'. 

    [Orson Scott Card je doveden da napise movie tie-in; i ne samo to. Prethodno je napisao nekoliko poglavlja karakterizacije i njihovih detaljisanih medjusobnih istorija koje je potom predao glumcima, prije snimanja filma, ne bi li imali pravu motivaciju. Kard zato svoju novelizaciju 'Ambisa' ne zove novelizacijom koliko romanom. To se desilo valjda zato jer je imao odrijesene ruke dok ju je pisao, znaci nesto sto ne postoji prilikom rada na novelizacijama...]


     'Terminator 2' nikada nije ni trebao da se desi; vremenske masine su unistene odmah posto je Kyle Reese poslat u proslost - dakle, one masine koje samo mogu da istrpe prenos ljudskog tkiva (nikako metala); a u prvom filmu cak i saznajemo da su ljudi umalo dobili rat protiv masina. Ali magija dobrog skriptasa upravo ovdje ostaje neosporna. Pomagao mu je William Wisher koji je raduckao na skriptu prvog 'Terminatora'.   


     'True Lies' je radjen po nacrtu francuskog scenarija.

      U pratnji 'The Last Action Hero', ovaj film je okrenuo Novi Holivud naopacke. Mnogi to danas tvrde i za 'Avatar' ali ja se ne bih slozio sa time. Do tada, do 1994. godine, posljednji novoholivudski film ostaje Dejvisov 'The Fugitive' - i odatle krece CGI papazjanija koja ne omogucava da se likovi mnogo razvijaju u narednim visokobudzetnim projektima. [Tada je Kameron potpisao nevjerovatan dil sa 20th Century Foxom - u zamjenu za kompletnu slobodu na snimanju i petsto miliona dolara trebao je da im posveti 12 narednih svojih projekata.]   


     'Strange Days' ima temu/nit bestidno preuzetu i uproscenu iz izvrsnog Trambalovog filma 'Brainstorm' (1983). Nakon ovoga filma, Kameron je anulirao svoj dil sa Foxom. Prica se da je Kameron toliko uronio u likove da je bezmalo poceo pisati hibrid izmedju novelizacije i tritmenta [on je 'Strange Days' zamisljao kao totalni SF projekat sa tek blagim dodirima sa danasnjim svijetom i realnoscu]. Jay Cox je doveden da smanji tu tezniju i da skript vrati na pravu stazu. Za ostalo se pobrinula Kathryn.     


     'Titanik' - jedini njegov film koji niposto ne funkcionise - makar meni - jer je, moguce je, jedini njegov pokusaj da - zahvaljujuci CGI-u - bude originalan. Donekle.


     A potom ovo sa 'Avatarom'. Looks like a major lawsuit just waiting to happen. Mogao je makar priznati da je ove motive vec negdje sreo, iako okosnica industrijalizacije Avatara neodoljivo podsjeca na squid-tehniku iz 'Strange Days' [odn. 'Brainstorm']. Medjutim, vrlo je moguce da se dvije identicne teme sudare, s vremena na vrijeme, bez nikakvog znanja njihovih autora. Desavalo se.     

     Za kraj, i T.S. Eliot je toliko bio zaludjen Serlokom Holmsom da je za 'Murder in the Cathedral' doslovce ukrao skoro pasus iz Dojlove price 'Ritual porodice Masgrejv'. I, stavise, nikada za zivota nije napisao ni rijec hvale o velikom Dojlu.

Quote from: Tripp on 23-12-2009, 10:10:33
  Ovo od Wattsa su lijepe, ako ne i ocekivane, vijesti; uostalom, od koga li je sve to Foster marnuo - ima u toj postavci tome dosta Tolkiena i C.S.Lewisa. Kao sto sam napisao o tekstu o Kingu, prirodno je da svi krademo. Krali su i mnogi veci od nas a i od Kinga, i pravili, na kraju krajeva, vjerovatno bolja djela.

Sa ovim se potpuno slažem. Gledano po savremenim merilima, dobar deo istorije umetnosti se sastoji od krađe ideja. Ali, današnji svet je opterećen idejama kao pronalascima i kao vlasništvu.

Postoji još jedna stvar u vezi Kameronovih pozajmica, a o tome sam već pričao na nekom topiku o mangama. Ali zašto da se ponavljam kada su to u Guardianu već rekli:

QuoteBut perhaps manga's best-known Hollywood exponent is James Cameron, director of the Terminator films. In 1996 it was revealed that he had optioned the rights to Hitoshi Iwaaki's Parasite, a manga unknown in the West but which had won a major award in Japan. The comic book, published in the late eighties, tells of a Japan invaded by vicious, bodysnatching aliens, and is notable for its shapeshifting assassins who turn their bodies into fluidic, metallic weapons - much as the assassin in 1991's Terminator 2 shapeshifted.

There is no question of plagiarism on Cameron's part regarding Parasite. Nevertheless, his purchasing of the rights is an astute buy. Hollywood lawyers talk of the problems of 'simultaneous creation', and Babylon 5 producer J Michael Straczynski has outlined the problem for aspiring writers, suggesting that originality is a difficult concept to define: 'The odds are that somebody out there has had the same idea, and you can only hope and pray that this person has never sent your studio an unsolicited manuscript or published his story in some little magazine somewhere, or you're going to be on the receiving end of a subpoena.' Cameron had already faced a successful plagiarism suit from the writer Harlan Ellison over coincidences of plotting in the first Terminator film, and it seems that buying up even remotely similar works is a far cheaper option than risking another legal battle.

Ovde je napravljeno par greškica, ali nebitno, poenta stoji. Davno sam pročitao kako je Kameron bio oduševljen kada je video naslovnu ilustraciju koja prikazuje transformaciju jednog parazitskog stvorenja - mislim da je to bilo 1990. Danas mi je nemoguće naći taj tekst, naravno, ali ostaje činjenica da je Kameron kupio prava za film. Zašto bi to iko uradio za tada nepoznatu mangu van Japana? Znači da je on bio upućen.

Ali, k'o što rekoh, to mi nije toliko bitno. Bitnije mi je šta je on uradio sa tim idejama.

Kako stvari stoje, večeras gledam AVATAR.

Tatka ću prvo overiti u 2D. Ja sam konzervativac i za mene je film dvodimenzionalna stvar. 3D nije ono što je nekada bio, znam, ali ne mogu da pobegnem od svog doživljaja filma. Potom, pogledaću naravno i 3D kao experience.

ubija me napetost!
da li će dimbu tatko da se dopadne?!
DA LI ĆE???!!!

Jos nisam odgledao Avatar, te najbolje sto mogu da ponudim je ovaj Language Log post gde se prica o Na'vi jeziku, koga je izvesni Paul Frommer skrojio za potrebe filma:
(https://www.znaksagite.com/diskusije/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg1.ipbfree.com%2Fuploads%2Fipbfree.com%2Fsvabotralala%2Femo-linknd8.gif&hash=23eccb7b2b4ea348ddecce73ce88ee06db71853e) (http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1977)

Pazi, ja sam toliko opčinjen Tatkom da nemam sklonost da mu iz ljubavi nešto prebacujem ili budem strog. Ima nekih autora koje volim i prema kojima sam strog, Tatko nije među njima. U tom smislu, moj utisak će verovatno biti tek pokušaj argumentacije zašto je film super...

Quote from: Ghoul on 22-12-2009, 10:09:35
hvala, tripe, mogo bi i ti nešto za blog sročiti na ovu temu, da imamo različita mišljenja (pošto onu mrcinu whipsa mrzi da kuca).

Jeste da me mrzi da radim bilo šta što ne moram, ali nakon još jednog gledanja - napisaću nešto, jer nema smisla da se govori kako je ovo loš, prosječan, okej, whatever film. Jer to nije. Radi se o sjajnom filmu.

Quotejer nema smisla da se govori kako je ovo loš, prosječan, okej, whatever film

Loš nije. Za okej i whatever ne znam, ali prosječan sigurno jeste ;-)

Harv, s obzirom na to da i ti misliš da je Piper Perabo jedno predivno biće i potcijenjena glumica, opraštam ti izlive neukusa po ovom pitanju.

Hvala!

Nema na čemu. Ijopen, tj. svaki put kad pogriješiš. :D

Ako je zajebavanje nestalo kada je Tatko počeo da snima AVATAR, onda ga ima još manje sada kada ge je Cripple pogledao u 2D.

Reći da AVATAR nije gamechanger može samo čovek koji inače svakog vikenda gleda pandoranske partizanske filmove o njihovoj oslobodilačkoj borbi protivu Zle Korporacije. Pošto je za sada, Pandora jedna imaginarna planeta, i pošto sudeći po AVATARu, meštani tamo mahom provode vreme baveći se lovom, ekstremnim sportovima i komunikacijom sa precima, i nemaju kinematografiju, rekao bih da je takvih ljudi jako malo.

Što se gamechanginga tiče, činjenica da je ovo film u kome gledalac prati priču i korespondira sa CGI likovima bez ikakvih problema, jeste suština gamechanginga. Posle ovog filma, u teoriji, zaista više nema granica. Jedina razlika je u tome što je AVATAR once in ten years experience jer se po preciznosti ovog filma vidi da nije reč o projektu snimljenom usput za godinu dana.

Reći da priča filma ne valja je takođe blasfemija. Reč je o jednom wagnerijanskom mitu koji na ideološkom planu uopšte nije bezveze i iako može biti doživljen kao treehuggerska fantazija, to nimalo nije. Naime, da, priča je jednostavna, nema ogromnu količinu dodataka, preokreta, iznenađenja, jer je ovo priča o čoveku koji u promenjenim okolnostima postaje heroj.

Glavni junak Jake Sully, je možda najsličniji Johnny Utahu iz POINT BREAKa. On dolazi iz jedne oportune pozicije plaćenika koji je postao invalid i čiji život može da dobije smisao isključivo spletom okolnosti da ima iste gene kao brat. Premešten na planetu Pandoru u telu vanzemaljca on počinje prvo da prevazilazi svoju invalidnost, zatim sreće društvo koje je drugačije od onog koje je na zemlji i konačno počinje da prevazilazi svoje mogućnosti i postaje heroj. U tom smislu, iako je AVATAR jedna zaokružena priča, realno to je origin story Jake Sullyja.

Jake Sully ima tri vrlo interesantna aspekta kao junak. Najočigledniji je onaj socijalno-politički. On je vojni invalid koji mora da se dopunski ponizi ne bi li dobio operaciju koja će mu ponovo omogućiti da hoda. On je postao vojni invalid u Venecueli, koja vrlo slična Pandori ima velike resurse i vlast koja poštuje vlastita pravila.

Drugi aspekt je svakako aspekt njegove gotovo cronenbergovske simbioze sa avatarom. Naime, on komunicira sa avatarom preko STRANGE DAYSičnog devicea, koji u suštini nema veze sa MATRIXom jer naprosto smrt avatara ne znači smrt "vozača". Međutim, on kada postane avatar, prvo stupa u jednu fizički opipljivu vezu sa prirodom ("planeta koja misli" dosta podseća na SOLARIS čiji je dosta slabi rimejk Cameron producirao) a potom razvija i neku vrstu seksualnog nagona prema vanzemaljki što je prilično transgresivna tačka. Iako je njihova ljubavna priča iz domena očekivanog, po zakonitostima bajke, jer ona je njihova princeza i sl. vrlo je neobično da neko ko je nesumnjivo ipak čovek (u telu vanzemaljca) sposoban da razvije fizičku privlačnost sa bićem druge rase, konstitucije itd.

Treći aspekt je ono što Jake donosi kao čovek, belac, među vanzemaljce. Ono čemu ih on uči zapravo jesu dve stvari. Jedno je efikasnije ubijanje, dakle, on donosi organizovan mehanizam ubijanja u njihov svet jer je očigledno to jedino čemu ljudi mogu da ih nauče. I druga stvar kojoj ih uči je ratna propaganda. U suštini, njegov ključni potez kojim se vraća u pleme jeste vid ratne propagande, a to je pripitomljavanje nepripripitomljive ptice kojim on svesno stiče status polubožanstva.

Dakle, njima belac pomaže da se odbrane, ali daleko od toga da ih belac nauči ičemu lepom.

Što se Na'avija tiče, njihov život se s jedne strane može čitati kao klišetiziran prikaz života primitivaca. Ali, sa druge strane, oni ipak nisu na nižem evolutivnom stepenu. Štaviše, ja bih rekao da oni žive kao današnji bogataši koji su rešili svoje probleme, dakle bave se ekstremnim sportom, lovom i pokušavaju da komuniciraju sa iskustvom predaka. Kada sam letos upoznao Jana Kounena, jednog nesumnjivo modernog i imućnog čoveka koga tehnika, savremenost i sl. vrlo zanimaju, tema koja ga je u razgovoru najviše uzbuđivala bilo je konzumiranje ajovaske koje mu je omogućavale da prolazi kroz neka halucinantna stanja i po svom uverenju između ostalog komunicira sa precima i sl. Na'avi imaju biološki osnov za to i oni kroz svoj biološki stupanj mogu biti tretirani ili kao korak iza nas u evoluciji ili kao korak ispred, kao kultura koja još nije stekla gard ili kultura koja ga nije podigla. Isto tako, vrlo je interesantno da Cameron njihovoj veri daje biološke osnove koji su doduše naučnicima sa Zemlje nedovoljno razumljivi.

Što se vanzemaljaca tiče, moram priznati da su mi Jake i Neytiri bili appealing, da sam kupio i njihov odnos i da sam im verovao kao likovima. Naravno, najveću vizuelnu ekspresivnost imaju scene kada su njih dvoje u svojim izvornim stanjima, ona kao Na'avi a on kao čovek, i to Cameron maestralno koristi.

Ono što je gamechanging na nivou režije jeste upravo smrtno ozbiljan tretman animiranih likova i konstruisanje nekoliko pregnantnih dramskih situacija između njih. U pojedinim scenama jedino što nas podseća na efekat jeste to što znamo da nema glumaca koji su vitki plavi džinovi.

Inače, vitki plavi džinovi sa prenaglašenim ljudskim proporcijama na neki način apsolutno su na liniji fetišizacije Arnieja koji je nešto slično samo što nije specijalni efekat. Cameron voli takve glumce koji ljudske fizičke osobine dovode do ekscesa.

Akcione scene su prepune omaža samome sebi, nije tu samo ALIENS u igri, ključni centerpiece sa raketom i velikom letilicom direktan je citat TRUE LIESa a kroz ceo film Tatko je fino rasporedio detalje koji asociraju na njegove ranije radove. Iako je završna akcija impresivna, i sadrži upravo ono što je oduvek činilo Tatkovu akciju impresivnom a to je spoj odluka karaktera sa neverovatnom brigom o detaljima, sukobom koji može da podstakne navijanje i sl. mislim da je pogrešno tumačiti da je taj set-piece ključni cameronovski touch u filmu. Štaviše, rekao bih da je to prosto prirodna kulminacija izgradnje glavnog lika i odnosa među njima.

Pažnja posvećena likovima ako imamo u vidu da je reč o CGI filmu zaista je neverovatna i po tome se vidi da je Tatko čovek od integriteta koji igra po svojim pravilima.

Antiamerički sentiment je otvoreno zastupljen i negativci su dvodimenzionalni utoliko što se ponašaju BUKVALNO kao američki političari. U tom smislu, čini mi se da će svaki narod koji su Amerikanci maltretirali u poslednje vreme imati sa čim da se identifikuje.

Priča o borbi na prostoru na kome su sadržane svetinje i celokupna tradicija jednog naroda mene jako podseća na naš slučaj sa Kosovom u kome svetinje zbog svog kulturnog značaja u periodu tuirske vladavine imaju ne samo sakralnu već i kulturnu vrednost. Naravno, naš narod nije kao Na'avi, ali u suštini, ja sam se identifikovao sa njihovom borbom. Naravno, nije Cameron snimao film o Kosovu, ali čini mi se da je AVATAR univerzalni film o američkom zločinu i olakšanju koje potlačeni ima kada im uzvrati manje-više istom merom.

U krajnjoj liniji dakle očuvanje drveta nije vezano za očuvanje prirode kao takve, biološke vrste, već tradicije i načina života koji su sticajem okolnosti povezani sa prirodom. Mnogo pre hipika i tree huggera bili su mnogi, koje bi čak danas mogli smatrati i desničarima koji su delili takve sentimente. U tom smislu, Na'avi nisu GreenPeace već pre bića sa nekim dubljim doživljajem sveta.

Kao i svakom odličnom filmu, AVATARu je moguće naći gomilu mana, i to je sudbina velikih dela. Međutim, interesantno je koliko posle naslova koji su bili relevantni na ulicama celog sveta, Cameron danas konstituiše neo-mit koji je realno najaktuelniji na pločnicima Bagdada, Kosovske Mitrovice, Karakasa i Teherana.

Auh, Kripe, ti ZAISTA volish Kamerona.

Jeste. Drago mi je da se ta emocija prenosi čak i preko niza uzbunjenih elektrona.

Nije pitanje da li Krip voli Camerona, jer je ljubav očigledna, već to da je pomenuo one stvari koje čine ovaj film velikim. Naravno, ono što je meni, kao simbiotu politikologa i antropologa, najinteresantnije jeste da je Krip treći čovjek kog znam (drugi čovjek kog znate vi jeste Tripp), a da je shvatio da Avatar nije treehugging epopeja, već da su stvari mnogo kompleksnije nego što se čini.

Ipak, ti i Tripp dolazite iz srpske Sparte, tamo se muškarac ne rađa nego postaje. :)

I Amerikanci kanda počinju da shvataju. Ovaj članak na Jahuu (http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/hmg-avatar-hidden-messages.html) je stvarno urnebesan. Avatar, kažu oni, sve se naglas pitajući, možda ima i neki podtekst.

Da li se ovi zajebavaju? Shta je sledece? Tekst naslovljen Does Avatar Contain Hidden Blue Cat-like People?

Does the corporate-military complex have a hidden agenda with the Alien spawn in Aliens?Is Arnold Schwarzenegger actually a robot in Terminator franchise??

da li je pile prešlo ulicu?

MArko Kostić overio Tatka...

http://popboks.com/tekst.php?ID=7811 (http://popboks.com/tekst.php?ID=7811)

au

Pominjanje Vuka Draškovića je... Nemam reči.

Neverovatno!

Ovo je Koski jedan od poslednjih tekstova pre odlaska na robiju zbog nameštanja Konkursa FCS. Normalno je da je malo zbunjen.

Hm, ja sam od Kostića očekivao mnogo luđu kritiku, ovaj tekst je još i razumljiv, iako poslednji pasus stvarno jeste WTF!?

Inače, ipak pogledah Avatara ponovo, ovog puta u 3D, i premda sve zamerke i dalje stoje, ovaj put mi je film nešto više prijao, ali ne bih rekao da je za to zaslužan 3D, pošto sve ono što me je nerviralo tokom prvog gledanja sam lakše svario na drugo. Možda je pomoglo i to što nisam spavao prethodnu noć.

miloše, drugi put uvek manje boli.

Tatko je u Srbiji na 28 129.

Mene ovaj film sumanuto podseća (po poetici, zapletu, emocijama, muzici) na crtani film Zvončica, prvi deo.

Quote from: crippled_avenger on 24-12-2009, 20:55:10
Tatko je u Srbiji na 28 129.

samo svi kritikujte a raste nenormalno gledanost :)

grdni neki čitaoci su moj rivju AVATARA postovali na raznim net forumima, gde je pretežno izazvao hejt hejt hejt.
što je i normalno i predvidivo.

ipak, evo i jednog glasa vapijućeg u pustinji, neki "Steve Jobs", koji kaže:
"Ghoulova recenzija ovog filma je nesto najobjektivnije sto sam procitao vezano za temu.Ghoul,veruj mi ti bi ozdravio filmsku kritiku.S obzirom da je danas pisu pop culture masturbatori i zombie govnogutachi kao Dimitrije Vojnov,tebi skidam kapu na totalno brutalnom,istinitom i oldschool pogledu na kinematografiju.Svaka cast za Lorensa od Arbije!Care!"
ovde:
http://www.yumetal.net/forum/topic/43528-a-v-a-t-a-r/page__st__80 (http://www.yumetal.net/forum/topic/43528-a-v-a-t-a-r/page__st__80)

attention whooooore

Danas Sandra Perović u Dnevniku 1 reče nešto, otprilike, ovako - prvo padaju u oči zaslepljujući vizuelni efekti i prikaz flore i faune, a iza toga prikazana je sama suština ljudskog društva danas. To se amerikancima baš i ne dopada, pa zato ne spominju Avatar kao ozbiljnog konkurenta za oskara (između redova - trebali bi!).

Ovaj Ghoulov fan očigledno ne zna šta govori pošto bi u protivnom primetio da se ja već tri godine ne bavim filmskom kritikom.

Quote from: crippled_avenger on 24-12-2009, 16:40:13
Ovo je Koski jedan od poslednjih tekstova pre odlaska na robiju zbog nameštanja Konkursa FCS. Normalno je da je malo zbunjen.

I Mikael Blomkvist je išao na robiju. To ga je samo ojačalo.

e, sad je vreme zajebavanje!

(https://www.znaksagite.com/diskusije/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi256.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fhh183%2FVoivodBG%2F1261850388008.jpg&hash=7ee3c48895d24d126fbe0637fa037289c5842744)

(https://www.znaksagite.com/diskusije/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi256.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fhh183%2FVoivodBG%2F1261850333051.jpg&hash=ad1397b0e6cdf8cbc0ce539f6d9ed357015c0f8f)

(https://www.znaksagite.com/diskusije/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi256.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fhh183%2FVoivodBG%2F1261850538633.jpg&hash=f20ad730ff000b83e3bbaad9d808ab30b355e317)

Quote from: crippled_avenger on 26-12-2009, 21:10:35
Ovaj Ghoulov fan očigledno ne zna šta govori pošto bi u protivnom primetio da se ja već tri godine ne bavim filmskom kritikom.

to je nebitno; važno da je ovo za "zombie govnogutache" pogodio u centar!

Ljudi koji me mrze imaju grupu na Facebooku (http://www.facebook.com/#/group.php?v=wall&ref=search&gid=6667013340 (http://www.facebook.com/#/group.php?v=wall&ref=search&gid=6667013340)) i topike na brojnim forumima. Da li si razmišljao o tome da im se pridružiš ili želiš da uživaš u tome sam i da me mrziš na svoj način?

Možda bi mogao da upoznaš nekog interesantnog na tim mestima?

ne trebaju mi grupe niti društvo da bilo koga volim ili mrzim.
ja ratujem sam.

Cripple, možda je Ghoul samo ljubomoran što tebe mrze više nego njega ?  :idea:
Ja čisto sumnjam da te on mrzi (zašto bi?)...mani patetiku. :lol:

dimbo je, za svaki slučaj, da mu ne bih zavideo na ovoj grupi, na novim kadrovima oformio anti-ghoul grupicu.
za sad mu samo dexa i kunac prave društvo, ali... ko zna?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LF2U2nqk-k

THE STRANGLERS  The Man They Love To Hate...samo za Crippla i veselo društvo  xyxy  :lol:

o Ghoule hvala ti za postere usrecio si me  :|

pih, pogledah sad ovu grupicu dimbomrzitelja na fejsbuku: sve sami amateri, laici, anonimusi i nikogovići. ni za jednu od tih osoba nikad nisam čuo.

plus, mrze ga iz skroz pogrešnih razloga - što je debeo, antipatičan i ružan.

vidi se da nemaju pojma.

Mislim da bi Cripple trebao da podnese tužbu i traži odštetu od te grupice degenerika, jer ima osnova za to. Zaslužuju da im se kaže par reči, ali nemam nameru da pristupam toj fejsbuk budalaštini.

Inače, kad sam ga svojevremeno uporedio sa Britni Spirs, baš sam bio u pravu, i ona ima te hejt klubove i sajtove.

Quote from: Ghoul on 27-12-2009, 04:15:45
pih, pogledah sad ovu grupicu dimbomrzitelja na fejsbuku: sve sami amateri, laici, anonimusi i nikogovići.
vidi se da nemaju pojma.

Pa u grupi je i Vesna Vukelic!  8-)   :!:

Quote from: Ghoul on 27-12-2009, 04:15:45
pih, pogledah sad ovu grupicu dimbomrzitelja na fejsbuku: sve sami amateri, laici, anonimusi i nikogovići. ni za jednu od tih osoba nikad nisam čuo.

plus, mrze ga iz skroz pogrešnih razloga - što je debeo, antipatičan i ružan.

vidi se da nemaju pojma.

Kakvi bezveznjakovici.Videla ga skoro moja sestra negde i kaze da je bas kul sa nekom super simpa t shirt maicom,,Pobedio sam anoreksiju,,.
Ja ne znam da li neko ovde licno poznaje Halida iz ,,Intrudera,, e kad se moja drugarica Marija( sada vec njegova zena) smuvala s njim ja sam bila u soku,ali kad sam ga upoznala moj sok je bio jos veci  jer je njegov mozak poceo da deluje na mene kao afrodizijak,ja bolju ,interesantniju ,i talentovaniju osobu  dugo nisam sela ,tako da mi  je bilo jasno zato je uvek setao samo dobre ribe.Tako pricaju njegovi drugovi.
A ova grupa dokonasa sa fejsa neka nadju prave neprijatelje,i neka se o svom jadu zabave.

...glede Avatara, po mom sudu ovo jeste najvažniji filmski događaj godine na izmaku, i da nije The Hurt Locker-a, svakako bi, barem po mom sudu bio film godine... Avatar predstavlja veliki film velikog (ako ne i najvećeg) reditelja, i, premda stoje zamerke na nivou ishitrenosti scenarija, sada sa distance od deset dana od dana gledanja (na gorepominjanoj ponižavajućujoj chilly-lihvarskoj projekciji u Koloseju) usuđujem se da ustvrdim da bi razrađeniji i inovatnivniji scenario zapravo zasmetao i da bi AVATAR, već prezasićen Cameronovim krupnim ambicijama i tehničko-režijskim savršenstvom, postao nepodnošljiv za gledati, nepodnošljiv u smislu iritantne perfekcije... ovako je prava mera, pun užitak, eye-candy nezapamćen do sada i konačno jedan kvalitetni crowd-pleaser....

Quote from: crippled_avenger on 26-12-2009, 22:16:15
Ljudi koji me mrze imaju grupu na Facebooku (http://www.facebook.com/#/group.php?v=wall&ref=search&gid=6667013340 (http://www.facebook.com/#/group.php?v=wall&ref=search&gid=6667013340)) i topike na brojnim forumima.

Amateri. Jedva skupili 100tinjak članova. A još su i pičke pa nemaju muda da budu radikalniji i da pozivaju na ubistvo. Plaše se pandura, sisice.  8-) ;)

Pusti ti to, nego reci ti meni: Jesi ti oženjen odgledao Avatara?

Vrlo zanimljiv post o Avataru, sas sve kojekakvi linkovi (http://www.thevalve.org/go/valve/article/avatar_and_the_war_of_genres/)

Avatar je ko i svaki sport. Nastavlja svoj život u tabelama i statistikama...

Quote from: Ghoul on 26-12-2009, 22:30:25
dimbo je, za svaki slučaj, da mu ne bih zavideo na ovoj grupi, na novim kadrovima oformio anti-ghoul grupicu.
za sad mu samo dexa i kunac prave društvo, ali... ko zna?

Link?

Quote from: Harvester on 27-12-2009, 14:35:33

Quote from: Ghoul on 26-12-2009, 22:30:25
dimbo je, za svaki slučaj, da mu ne bih zavideo na ovoj grupi, na novim kadrovima oformio anti-ghoul grupicu.
za sad mu samo dexa i kunac prave društvo, ali... ko zna?

Link?

veruj mi, ne želiš da gacaš po tom đubretu.

možda ti link da neki drveni advokat koji te ne voli, ali veruj mi: nećeš mu biti zahvalan na tome.

Od kada toliko brines o Harvijevoj higijeni? Daj coveku link  :?:

Quote from: zakk on 27-12-2009, 12:57:29
Pusti ti to, nego reci ti meni: Jesi ti oženjen odgledao Avatara?

Sinoć, tj. noćas. Krenuo na projekciju od 20h, a uspeo da kupim karte tek za 23:20h, i to za drugi red. Gledao u 6D sali, koja je zapravo samo 3D jer Avatara nema u 6Du. I još samo morao da doplatim po 100 dinara za 3d naočare, na kartu od 370.
Film je meni kul, s tim što sam malopre shvatio da sam ga već zaboravio.

zar ti nemaš neki kao fejk index?
za studente daju popust, čujem.

Ponedeljkom u bioskopu Roda Avatar 3D je 300 din.

Kakav vikend :)

Tri filma sa preko 50 miliona, i jedan s preko 20. Kao i u vreme TITANICa, jedan dominantan blokbaster umesto da gazi konkurenciju može podigne čitav box-office.

1 1 Avatar Fox $75,000,000
2 N Sherlock Holmes WB $65,380,000
3 N Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel Fox $50,200,000
4 N It's Complicated Uni. $22,114,000

Ukupna zarada u svetu se popela na 616 miliona...

Da, Fox je izvukao preko 300 čisto, dakle Tatko je isplatio čak i najnaduvaniju cenu filma...

Quote from: crippled_avenger on 27-12-2009, 21:17:24
Da, Fox je izvukao preko 300 čisto, dakle Tatko je isplatio čak i najnaduvaniju cenu filma...

Zar je iko sumnjao?

Vrlo zanimljiva diskusija sa dva razlicita stava. Verujem da je film kvalitetan vizuelno, ali me unapred odbija sve sto je suvise izvikano. Sta cu, to je psiholosko ogranicenje. ;)

Dragan Jeličić na Blic blogu najavio da će u sledećem postu pisati o dilemi James Cameron vs Kathryn Bigelow

Za mene tu nema dileme.

Quote from: Bilja on 28-12-2009, 11:56:34
Vrlo zanimljiva diskusija sa dva razlicita stava. Verujem da je film kvalitetan vizuelno, ali me unapred odbija sve sto je suvise izvikano. Sta cu, to je psiholosko ogranicenje. ;)

Biljo, Avatarova priča je izvikana koliko i neka priča iz Biblije, recimo o Samsonu i Dalili. Je li to razlog da ne odgledaš dobar film? Mene su Ghoulovi komentari nekoliko puta prevarili da ne odgledam neki kvalitetan film, tako da njega slušam samo ako kaže da je nešto dobro, ili ako je ocena dva minus ili manje.

neki ovde se ili namerno prave glupi, ili im to prirodno polazi za rukom.
možda je moj rivju AVATARA trebalo da sažmem u 3-4 proste rečenice kako bi shvatili da moja glavna zamerka *nije* to što priča nije originalna.

ali ja ne mogu i ne umem da pišem sms reviews for dummies.

AVATAR je u Srbiji imao skok 44% i sada je na 48 747 gledalaca.

Upravo odgledala 3D verziju u ,,Rodi,,i mogu samo da kazem da sam uzivala u svakom trenutku,i ako su stanovnici planete Pandora plavi Kameron je jos jednom dokazao da je on jedan veliki ,,zeleni ,,cika.
Uzivajte u filmu i zaboravite na kritike ,zasto bi klinci od 12-13 godina vise uzivali od nas gledajte ovaj film decijim ocima,jer ovo je ipak bajka ,posto svako ima svoju verziju mene je podsetilo na ,,Pokahontas,, i nista mi nije zasmetalo ,ma ja sam izasla sa najvecim osmehom na svetu. :)

Quote from: crippled_avenger on 28-12-2009, 21:11:00
AVATAR je u Srbiji imao skok 44% i sada je na 48 747 gledalaca.

Quote from: crippled_avenger on 28-12-2009, 21:11:00
AVATAR je u Srbiji imao skok 44% i sada je na 48 747 gledalaca.

Ludilooooo :)

U hrvatskom Plejboju intervju sa Tatkom! Na šest strana! Upravo iščitavam.

Quote from: Ygg on 29-12-2009, 00:07:21
U hrvatskom Plejboju intervju sa Tatkom! Na šest strana! Upravo iščitavam.

ako je tatko na duplerici, pošalji dimbu.

Dođavola, nisam kupio Plejboj! Moram sutra...

To je preveden intervju koji sam vec postovao. Ipak, skeniraj ga zbog Ghoula, znamo da on slabije divani engleski...

Quote from: crippled_avenger on 29-12-2009, 03:06:35zbog Ghoula, znamo da on slabije divani engleski...

'znate' vi mojega...

Avatar: The Making of the Bootleg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thsc60UTUIE#normal)

niko nije prokomentarisao onu scenu kad žejk kroti veliku crvenu karakondžulu? odnosno skok na leđa, crno, pa dolazak na plemenski savet. meni je to baš tatkov fail, ispuštanje dizgina iz ruku, kao da je osetio da bi se previše razmahao da prikaže i to kroćenje, pa je ključan mobilizacioni detalj ispao nešto što se toliko podrazumeva da ne mora ni da se prikaže.

u svakom slučaju, dizajn navija je sasvim prijemčiv i super kada stoje u manje čarobnom okruženju, dizajn ostatka pandorine faune je prosečan do katastrofalan (kad se pojavi onaj nosorog, šta li je, cgi izgleda sasvim osrednje i ozbiljno liči na običnu animaciju). props za saldanu čija mimika kraljicu furija čini veoma simpatičnom, posebice u scenama kukumavčenja. film ne bih nazvao lošim uprkos tragičnim detaljima - uber patetičan i mega jednostavan scenario, razvučenost srednje deonice i, pre svega, upadljivo robovanje postavke mnogih scena tehničkim mogućnostima, dakle fokusiranje na 3d prikaz, iako film može i treba da može da se gleda i bez toga i bla bla. završni okršaj je uglavnom majstorski. kameron definitivno nije izlapeo, avatar porukom dosta podseća na završnicu abyssa... na kub. uvek je bio takav, jedino se plašim da sada ne zaglavi u ovoj franšizi mesto da radi alitu i druge lepe tehno vejstlend stvari. osim naravno ako avatar 2 ne bude kraći edukativni film o orbitalnom bombardovanju ili dugometražni o rezurektovanju pukovnika kvarića.

naravno, svima je jasno da su naviji oblik života koji je stvorio dr. menhetn mešanjem sopstvene plave boje, ljudske dnk i bubastisa.

evo, alex ne sumnja u dobre namere ekipe ali ukazuje na ponornice kojih nisu svesni.

Review of Avatar - Alex Jones 12-20-09 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48Om_Myyp78#noexternalembed-normal)

Evo jednog teksta koji se nadovezuje na priču o AVATARU:

http://www.popboks.com/tekst.php?ID=7824 (http://www.popboks.com/tekst.php?ID=7824)

odličan text (i još odličniji naslov), ali:
"...pre svega ogleda u VASKRSEĆU jednog..."

mora da je lektorka već na NG proslavi...
imenica je: 'vaskrsnuće' ili 'vaskrsenje'

Izgleda da nisam mogao da se odlučim između te dve varijante, pa sam ih iskombinovao. :lol:

Evo, i ja odgledao AVATAR. Uz sve moguće tehnike. 6,5$+2,5$ za 3D. Stvarno sam uživao. Kameron je ponovo uradio dobar posao i nikom nije oprostio. Čak je potkačio i sistem zdravstvenog neosiguranja, odmah, na početku. A, tek replike na temu: "Sve su zapalili, a mi smo teli samo malo kamenja." Jeste film prvog reda.

Gledao sam Apokalipto sinoć i zaključio da je Avatar načinjen kako bi kontrirai i uništio pozitivan efekat koji Apokalipto ostvaruje. U Avataru je sve netačno i naopako u poređenju s Gibsonovim filmom. Priroda kakvu slika Kameron nema blage veze s pravom prirodom, a prirodu ljudskih bića je toliko našminkao da je ona potpuno neprepoznatljiva u njegovom filmu. Čista, isprazna propaganda koja apeluje na čula i ljude čini tupim.

Sinoć am gledao Eli Rothov kratki film iz INGLOURIOS BASTERDS i on me je podsetio na reditelja koji je zapravo snimao takve filmove za naciste, a danas je porpuno zaboravljen, to je Herbert Selpin.

E Selpin je snimao svoju verziju TITANICa, i snimanje njegove verzije imalo je brojne sličnosti sa Cameronovim...

Titanic was a 1943 Nazi propaganda film made during World War II in Berlin by Tobis Productions for UFA.

History of the film
The film was shot on board the JJ Cap Arcona, a passenger cruise ship which itself was sunk in the last weeks of World War II with a loss of life far heavier than that on the actual Titanic. The scenes with the lifeboats were filmed on the Baltic Sea and some of the interior scenes were shot in Tobis Studios.

Titanic was the most expensive German production up until that time and endured many production difficulties, including a clash of egos, massive creative differences and general war-time frustrations. The unfinished film, the production of which spiraled wildly out control, was in the end completed by Werner Klingler. The reason that the production "spiraled wildly out of control" was that the original director, Herbert Selpin, made a unflattering comment about the Kriegsmarine. This was reported to the Nazi party and Selpin was then arrested by the Gestapo. Shortly thereafter, he was found hanged in his jail cell.

The premiere was supposed to be in early 1943, but the theatre that housed the answer print was bombed the night before the big event. The film went on to have a lacklustre premiere in Paris around Christmas of that same year, but in the end, Goebbels banned it altogether, stating that the German people, at that point going through almost nightly Allied bombing raids, were less than enthusiastic about seeing a film that portrayed mass death and panic. Titanic was re-discovered in 1949, but was quickly banned in most western and capitalist countries. After the fifties, the film went back into obscurity, sometimes showing on German television. But in 1992, a censored, low quality VHS copy, was released in Germany. This version deleted the strongest propaganda scenes, which immensely watered down its controversial content. Finally, in 2005, Titanic was completely restored and, for the first time, the uncensored version was released in a special edition DVD by Kino Video.

[edit] Plot
The movie opens with a proclamation to the White Star stock holders that their stocks are currently falling. The president of White Star Line J. Bruce Ismay promises to reveal a secret during the maiden voyage of the Titanic that will change the fate of the stocks. He alone knows that the ship can break the world record in speed and that, he thinks, will raise the stock value. He and the board of the White Star plan to lower the stocks by selling even their own stocks in order to buy them back at a lower price. They plan to buy them back just before the news about the record speed of the ship will be published to the press.

The issue of capitalism and the stock market plays a dominant role throughout the movie. The hero of the film is fictional German First Officer Herr Petersen (played by Hans Nielsen) on the ill-fated voyage of the British ocean liner RMS Titanic in 1912. He begs the ship's rich and snobbish owners to slow down the ship's speed, but they refuse and the Titanic hits an iceberg and sinks. The rich are shown as sleazy cowards, while Officer Peterson and a handful of German passengers in steerage are shown as brave and kind. Peterson manages to rescue many passengers, convince his lover to get into a lifeboat (in a scene which was famously echoed in the 1997 film) and saves a young girl, who was obviously left to die in her cabin by an uncaring, callous British capitalist mother. The film makes the allegory of the Titanic's loss specifically about British avarice rather than, as most Titanic retellings do, about general human arrogance and presumption.

This film does include all the "classic" trappings of a Titanic film. The numerous subplots include greed, arrogance, star-crossed lovers, young love, old flames meeting again on the doomed ship and has an emotional scene where a wife refuses to leave her husband on the doomed liner. Ironically, the real-life couple on which this scene was based were Jewish, a fact which was not set forth in this 1943 German film.

11. januara u Komarčiću pričamo o AVATARu. Bilo bi jako dobro & zanimljivo da neke od ovih tema a i duskutanata prenesemo na tribinu. Cripple? Miloše? Cuttere? Kunče? Gingere? Kufere? Samuraje? Ghoule, tu li si za priliku?

za sada nisam imao planove za dolazak 11og: u bg sam 22og.
ako ispadne da zbog nečeg dolazim ranije, javiću, ali prilično mrka kapa.

Kod nas je na 76 555. Ili jezikom novca, 255 884 eura.

U svetu prešao milijardu $!

moj muz hteo veceras opet gledati avatar. kad njega slusam, ko da kripl progovara. :)

Quote from: lilit_depp on 04-01-2010, 23:47:25
moj muz hteo veceras opet gledati avatar. kad njega slusam, ko da kripl progovara. :)

Mora da je strašno kada neko iz okoline zvuči kao ja, a nekmoli najbliži.

Vizuelno jeste sjajno, ali iskreno me ta prica u filmu nije mnogo dotakla.
Toliko sablonizirano i plitko- Zla ljudska civilizacija koja bez milosti unistava drugi svet; bivsi marinac koji se zaljubljuje u taj svet i domorotkinju, i menja stranu; zli.. porucnik, cini mi se ? Naucnica.. totalno predvidivi likovi, bez ikakve dublje karakterizacije.
Opet, da ne bi bio pogresno tumacen, to je moje misljenje i nikog ne prozivam niti napadam kome se film dopao. Mene je razocarao.

Pogrešno si shvatio film. Prvo, šabloni nisu nešto loše, a drugo, stvari nisu baš tako jednostavne. Drugi svet ne uništava ljudska civilizacija nego ljudska korporacija. Korporaciju na terenu vodi samo jedan čovek, a ostale je potrebno indoktrinisati da bi prihvatili ubijanje domorodaca. Čak i taj jedan čovek je primoran na svoje postupke, jer njegova jedina funkcija je da isporuči velike količine nemoguće skupog elementa.

Drugo, bivši marinac nije tek bilo koji rednek. Njegov brat blizanac je bio naučnik, dovoljno priznat da mu je poveren jedan avatar. Možemo pretpostaviti da naš bivši marinac vrlo dobro koristi moždane vijuge, i da nije promenio stranu razmišljajući samo kako da ga umoči.

Naučnica je sporedan lik u radnji, a malo glavniji u uticaju na glavnog junaka. Zamerati da je ona predvidiv lik je isto kao zamerati Šekspiru da nije valjano okarakterisao Merkucija pre nego što ga je ubio u Romeu i Juliji. Besmisleno.

Korporacija je produzena ruka, ona ovde mislim da predstavlja ljudsku civilizaciju, ili uprosteno sistem, kako americki tako i globalni.
Dve osnovne stvari zameram filmu. Prvo, likovi su ocajni, toliko uradjeni po stereotipima, da nakon pola sata za svakog mozes predvideti sta ce i kako raditi.
Drugo, cela prica o ekosistemu i prirodu je mogla dobiti mnogo dublju i bolju dimenziju, ali se nije islo na kvalitet nego na uspeh; dobilo se nesto sto ce doneti profit i puniti bioskopske sale, ali naustrb kvaliteta. Mladoj publici ce biti zanimljivi efekti i cudovista sa Pandore, lebdece planine, ali za nekoliko godina, kad izadje kakvo novo tehnolosko cudo, ko zna koliko ce ih se secati ovog filma ?
Recimo ona scena kad on dolazi u pleme.. odmah imamo zenu koja se zaljubljuje u njega, tipa koji se mrsti na njega i odmah bi da ga secne, to smo gledali xy puta u raznim filmovima. Ako cemo vec o ekosistemu, meni je to mnogo bolje uradio Herbert u Dini.

Quote from: crippled_avenger on 05-01-2010, 01:35:17

Quote from: lilit_depp on 04-01-2010, 23:47:25
moj muz hteo veceras opet gledati avatar. kad njega slusam, ko da kripl progovara. :)

Mora da je strašno kada neko iz okoline zvuči kao ja, a nekmoli najbliži.

Nije to strasno. Strasno je sto ne mogu da opovrgnem tu argumentaciju. :lol:

Pretio je da će odvesti decu ako ne zavoliš AVATAR?

Pa da ga je barem taj tip secnuo, ali nije. Oni su u stvari svi dobri i poslušni i samo malo emocionalno inteligentni.

A marinac je ko da nikad nije ni bio marinac. Ja mislim da nije... To je jedan stereotipni lik na koga je kao karakterni trait nakačena neverovatna tvrdnja da je bio marinac, iako to nije bio, pa su mu još i noge polomljene, kao dokaz da je bio marinac (a uopšte nije bio marinac).

Megalomanska šarena parada
Film ,,Avatar", scenario i režija Džejms Kameron, uloge: Sem Vorington, Zoi Saldana, Stiven Lang... Trajanje 161 minut, proizvodnja SAD, 2009.

Konfuzan i predugačak, otupelih oštrica, sav podređen efektima i upakovan u priču koja se da svesti na osrednju bajku za uzrast deteta od desetak godina – takav je, u najkraćem, ,,Avatar", novi film Džejmsa Kamerona.

Velikom filmskom magu se ipak mora priznati da niko kao on ne ume da potroši i zaradi tako ogromne pare. Čak i za nešto što se, na nivou sadržaja, može nazvati i najobičnijim ,,mlaćenjem prazne slame", a na nivou forme i spektakularnom vizuelno-tehničkom ekstravagancijom kojom više treba da se bave kompjuterski genijalci, recenzenti video-igara, majstori fotošopa, negoli filmski kritičari.

No, šta je tu je. Pred nama je najskuplja filmska produkcija svih vremena, film u 3-D tehnici, bliskiji animiranom nego klasičnom igranom filmu, megalomanska šarena parada najnovijih tehničko-tehnoloških dostignuća, s kojima Kameron ni izdaleka ne nudi ono što je nudio u svojim prethodnim filmovima, poput ,,Terminatora", ,,Istinitih laži", a o ,,Titaniku" da i ne govorimo. Sve su to, baš kao i ,,Avatar", bile komercijalne bombe ali su ih, za razliku od ovog poslednjeg filma, krasile inventivnost i stvaralačka originalnost.

Štos sa avatarima, odavno popularizovan zahvaljujući kompjuterskim igricama, već je viđen i iskorišćen u nizu filmova, a Kameron sada samo pokušava da mu pridoda jednu novu dimenziju baveći se projekcijom sveta budućnosti. Taj svet smešten je na daleku planetu Pandora, na koju su se iskrcali zemaljski naučnici u nameri da se domognu dragocenog minerala koji bi rešio zemaljsku energetsku krizu. Da bi umilostivili domorodačka plemena, visoka bića plave kože i žutih očiju, Zemljani su smislili avatare – imitacije domorodaca, sa zadatkom da nagovore stanovništvo Pandore da prepusti nalazište minerala...

Tu sada nailazimo na prilično problematičan i neinventivan zaplet. S jedne strane, priča o sukobu ,,okrutnih" zavojevača i ,,idiličnih" i neiskvarenih domorodaca poprima sve obrise praistorijske filmske matrice naučene napamet još iz vremena filmova o kaubojima i Indijancima. S druge, Kameron na iznenađujuće providan način pokreće aluzije na niz američkih intervencija po svetu, od Vijetnama do Iraka, na uništavanje prašuma i sve moguće goruće probleme sveta, usput se služeći čitavim serijalom banalnih dijaloga. Uz sve to, baveći se i tragičnom sudbinom kolektiva, opasno ,,gazi" i po patetici.

Za ,,Avatar" se može još reći i da je očekivano politički korektan film. Iako vidno fasciniran vojnom tehnologijom, Kameron ipak kritikuje militarizam, uz to i pohlepu velikih kompanija, a samim tim i surovost kapitalizma. Međutim, i ove su priče već hiljadu puta ispričane, a jednu od njih priča trenutno i Obama. No, Kameron kao da o tome nije obavešten, kao da je izgubio kontakt sa realnošću, pao s Marsa ili Pandore, svejedno. Neko sa njegovim talentom, zanatskom veštinom i vizuelnom darovitošću, ovo sebi ipak nije smeo da dozvoli.

Dubravka Lakić

http://www.politika.rs/rubrike/Kultura/Megalomanska-sharena-parada.lt.html (http://www.politika.rs/rubrike/Kultura/Megalomanska-sharena-parada.lt.html)

Iako vidno fasciniran vojnom tehnologijom, Kameron ipak kritikuje militarizam, uz to i pohlepu velikih kompanija, a samim tim i surovost kapitalizma.

Pljuneš na nekog velikog i veruješ da si i sam veći. Ovaj naš nepatvoreni debilitet viđam svakodnevno. Što je stvaralac uspešniji više kretena se osovi i izmisli nedostatke koje je ovaj sebi "dopustio". Rečenica koju sam izdvojio je ostavila na mene najveći utisak u ovoj pomami. Prosto ne mogu da zamislim šta je po uverenju autora prikaza Kameron trebalo da snimi, pa da bude pošteđen? Ustvari, mogu: kritičaru je bilo svejedno, čekao je da se film pojavi i da ospe paljbu.

I, primedba da je Kameron bio suviše eksplicitan. Treba da sedite u SAD da bi vam bilo jasno da se ovde ne može biti suviše eksplicitan. Komentari koje sam čuo izlazeći iz sale nisu imali veze sa filmom. Jeste, prikovao im je dupeta za stolice, ali su tintare ostale u teškoj magli. Entertaintment dovede publiku u sale, ali ih sadržina i dalje ostavlja nezainteresovanim. Muka je biti veliki reditelj u SAD i težiti da se ostane zapamćen po veličini, a ne po količini (dolara). I Tesla je bio bezveze (nije zaradio dolare).

 Avatar: The Film That's Good For Somebody Else, Joseph Kugelmass (http://www.thevalve.org/go/valve/article/avatar_the_film_thats_good_for_somebody_else/)

Shvatili smo odavno da Amerikancima treba sve nacrtati. Avatar je film za Amerikance i oni će mu i dati svih 15 oskara.

AVATAR je prešao LORD OF THE RINGS i sada je drugi najgledaniji film u istoriji, na nivou celog sveta, kad je reč o zaradi sa bioskopskih blagajni.

Ja sam negde propustio deo u kojem stoji podatak da su kritichari prigrlili Avatar, te da je isti jedan od favorita za sve Oskare.

Nije da sam gajio previsoka ochekivanja za buducnost i razvitak chovechanstva, ali ovo je i po tim niskim kriterijumima prilichno porazhavajuce i ponizhavajuce.

Pa na metacriticu ima prosečnu ocenu 84. To je dosta solidan skor. Nisu ga prigrlili Duda Lakić i Ghoul. Njih nažalost ne konsultuje metacritic.

To i kazhem. Mislim da je sve to prilichno shokantno i obeshrabrujuce za bilo koga ko film voli i njime se bavi.

šta je obeshrabrujuće?
što metakritik nije pito mene i dudu, ili što je pito kripla, raju, gaju i vlaju?

Cripple se odavno ne bavi kritikom. Problem je u tome što je njegov trag toliko dubok da svi misle da se i dalje bavi.

Shto ima ljudi zdravih, pravih, u razumnoj meri cenjenih koji misle da Avatar nije prosek proseka na mahove premalan plavom bojom.

Pa, ima ih, ali šta sad možemo?

As "Avatar" continues to make box office history, James Cameron is eyeing a slice of history for a potential helming gig.
The "Avatar" director has optioned Charles Pellegrino's upcoming nonfiction tome "The Last Train From Hiroshima: The Survivors Look Back" with his own personal funds.

While in Japan in late December promoting "Avatar," Cameron asked 20th Century Fox for a day off Dec. 22 in order to visit Tsutomu Yamaguchi, one of the last survivors of the U.S. bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during WWII. Yamaguchi died Monday at the age of 93.

Pellegrino's book, published by Henry Holt, is set to hit bookstores Jan. 19. Advance reviews have been glowing for the title, which takes place over two days and weaves together eyewitness accounts of the Japanese civilians and American pilots who experienced the atomic explosions firsthand. According to the book, 30 people are known to have fled Hiroshima for Nagasaki -- where they arrived just in time to survive the second bomb. Yamaguchi was the sole survivor who experienced the full effects of the detonations at ground zero both times.

At this point, project is not set up at Fox or Cameron's Lightstorm Entertainment.

Veruje li neko zaista da će se, nakon drastičnog smanjenja troškova snimanja filmova zbog pojave digitalne tehnologije snimanja, sada sve usmeriti na skupe projekte zbog uvođenja ove nove 3D zajebancije?
Eto čemu služi Avatar, da reklamira skupe studije za jeftine animirane trikove.

Koliko su oni plavi, Navi-šta-li, zapravo RUŽNI...

A zašto je Kameron hteo da se sretne s Japancem koji je preživeo dve atomske bombe? Iz čovekoljublja? Ili prosto da ga upotrebi?

Evo, jutros malo raspravljali o 3D TV. Povezano sa AVATAR-om, a sa ciljem da se saopšti vest da će uskoro početi i TV emitovanja sa 3D tehnologijom. Kao, već od Svetskog prvenstva u fudbalu u Južnoj Africi, biće programa u 3D. Najpre oni sa izražajnijim kretanjem, a kasnije i drugi. Tehnologija, po gostu (pojma nemam ko je), već postoji, a zadovoljstvo će, u početku, koštati 1500-2000$. Evo dobrog razloga za snažnu podršku Kameronovom filmu. AVATAR je sjajna promocija novog 3D sistema TV.

Lično sumnjam da je tehnologija koja zahteva cvikere podobna (kako će oni koji već nose cvikere sa različitom dioptrijom? Hoće li oni naručivati 3D cvikere sa svojom dioptrijom?). Međutim, vizuelnost iste je opčinjujuća.

Mislim da će se ići na tu vrstu 3D s ciljem da se iskombinuje s nekom vrstom virtuelne stvarnosti uz pomoć kompjutera - dakle, ne ginu nam karakondžule od slušalica i vizira. Ili možda čip u glavi...

Pravi holografski 3D je nezgodan za korišćenje u filmovima, jer objekti moraju da se snimaju s tri strane istovremeno. Možda bi uspeli samo neku pozorišnu predstavu tako da snime, sa fiksiranim ili malo pokretnim kamerama.

106 727 u Srbiji.

Zaboravio sam da napišem, ali, kad smo mi išli da gledamo AVATAR, u Tulsa, Oklahoma su u IMEX bioskopu bile rasprodate karte, unapred, za 48 sati. Tako nečega se moja ćerka ne seća. U drugom bioskopu, na periferiji Tulse, na šetalištu kraj reke Arkanzas (tu ljudi slabo dolaze zimi), morali smo da čekamo u redu za 3D projekciju. AVATAR jeste postavio nove aršine, ali to neće dugo trajati. Prekretnica nije stožer.

http://www.foxscreenings.com/media/pdf/JamesCameronAVATAR.pdf (http://www.foxscreenings.com/media/pdf/JamesCameronAVATAR.pdf)

QuoteThe forest will heal, and so will the
hearts of the People. New life keeps the
energy flowing, like the breath of the
world.

Legenda, legenda  :x

(CNN) — James Cameron's completely immersive spectacle "Avatar" may have been a little too real for some fans who say they have experienced depression and suicidal thoughts after seeing the film because they long to enjoy the beauty of the alien world Pandora.  On the fan forum site "Avatar Forums," a topic thread entitled "Ways to cope with the depression of the dream of Pandora being intangible," has received more than 1,000 posts from people experiencing depression and fans trying to help them cope. The topic became so popular last month that forum administrator Philippe Baghdassarian had to create a second thread so people could continue to post their confused feelings about the movie.  A user named Mike wrote on the fan Web site "Naviblue" that he contemplated suicide after seeing the movie.  "Ever since I went to see Avatar I have been depressed. Watching the wonderful world of Pandora and all the Na'vi made me want to be one of them. I can't stop thinking about all the things that happened in the film and all of the tears and shivers I got from it," Mike posted. "I even contemplate suicide thinking that if I do it I will be rebirthed in a world similar to Pandora and the everything is the same as in 'Avatar.' http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/Movies/01/11/avatar.movie.blues/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/Movies/01/11/avatar.movie.blues/index.html)

Kamo sreće kad bi takvi moroni prešli s kontemplacije na akciju...

Uz 3D naočari treba da dele besplatno kool-aid...

Quote from: Milosh on 12-01-2010, 15:40:56
Kamo sreće kad bi takvi moroni prešli s kontemplacije na akciju...

Unfortunately, they never do...

pogledo i ja, bajka sa velikim štrumfovima, ništa posebno, ali sreo sam đejka koji ga gledao 4 put plus mi je rekao da zna čoveka koji ga je gledao 7 puta :?

Šta si ti, "posebno", očekivao?

mapu  xfrog

Film je odlican.Odgledao sam ga u jednom dahu.I mogao bih jos jednom, a mozda i vise puta.

Za sve one koji su u dilemi da li da se ubiju ili da pogledaju Avatar još po koji put, evo i treće varijante - originalni scenario koji uključuje i scene kojih u filmu nema: http://www.joblo.com/JamesCameronAVATAR.pdf (http://www.joblo.com/JamesCameronAVATAR.pdf)

Eh, kad se EF ne može bez mape. xfrog

A, Miloš bi mogao da skine i sačuva scenario. Meni se mnogo dopao, ali sam lenj. Moglo bi se iz toga štošta naučiti.

Quote from: Ubik on 12-01-2010, 23:14:57
Film je odlican.Odgledao sam ga u jednom dahu.I mogao bih jos jednom, a mozda i vise puta.

Za Avatar, tri puta je prava mera.
Titanik je ipak bolji,to sam gledala bar 5-6  puta u bioskopu ,sad kad se setim stvarno sam bila dete debil ,ma i sad sam ,kad se setim onih postera koje sam skupljala ,pa razglednice sa Leonardom koje jos uvek cuvam imam ih 77, zao mi je sto nisam sacuvala XZabavu posvecenu titaniku ,uh kakve su to bile novine kakav crni yellow cab.

Quote from: smrklja on 12-01-2010, 22:48:36pogledo i ja, bajka sa velikim štrumfovima, ništa posebno, ali sreo sam đejka koji ga gledao 4 put plus mi je rekao da zna čoveka koji ga je gledao 7 puta :?

it figures.

ipak je đejk naš predstavnik (i pobednik) na natjecanju 'koliko poznajete X-FILES'!
plus, frikšo-kripšo fanatik za DARK TOWER serijal, i za HARIJA POTERA.

AVATAR je tačno za takve - tailor-made!

A ogovarate me, a? :D
Lepo si me opisao Gulino :lol:

Nego, ja Avatar neću više gledati u dogledno vreme :lol:

O fala kursu.  :lol: Ovaj forum bez Đejka nije... ovaj forum.   :lol: :lol: :lol:

Definitivno nije.

Dzejk  xremyb. Nego, i ti dobio dojavu ili tajno citas ZS?  xrofl

Ja nikad ništa ne čitam tajno, jer sve što je tajno, postane i javno  :!:
Dojava, naravno :lol:

 xrofl

eto, pa posle neko nek kaže da moj provereni princip provokacije ne funkcioniše! :)

Hahahahah Conan:

Conan Speaks Na'vi! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYBKCIcqa50#normal)

i onda se čudi što ga ukidaju.

Oni ne ukidaju NJEGA, već im je gledanost Lenoove emisije mala pa njega guraju  :mrgreen:

Evo i naši mudruju o suicidu  :D

http://www.pressonline.rs/sr/vesti/dzet_set_svet/story/95878/%E2%80%9EAvatar%22+izaziva+depresiju+i+poziva+na+suicid (http://www.pressonline.rs/sr/vesti/dzet_set_svet/story/95878/%E2%80%9EAvatar%22+izaziva+depresiju+i+poziva+na+suicid)

Zato je tu Press da te odmah prodju depresivne misli.  xrofl

možda je bilo

http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/5661/avatarvzy.jpg (http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/5661/avatarvzy.jpg)

Ja u naredne tri godine ne smem da se ubijem jer sam potpisala neki ugovor sa winerom i sad ako se roknem -pisi propalo.A stvarno mi komicno kolko ova Lidija Cuk sebe shvata ozbiljno
U ovakvim filmovima poremećen je koncept realnosti, jer je radnja daleko od stvarnosti. Posle projekcije ne može da vam bude dobro. To je patogen, bizaran svet. Tu nema jasnih granica između sveta u kome živimo i onog koji nam je predstavljen. Isti slučaj je i sa ,,Gospodarom prstenova" i ,,Harijem Poterom". Oni menjaju prirodne komponente prostora i stvarnosti - kaže Lidija.
A sto se tice Avatara jedva cekam south park parodiju do tada
South Park LOTR owns Harry Potter (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APhdCSj-j8Q#normal)

Blog Dragana Jeličića

http://www.blic.rs/blog_article.php?id=218#komentari (http://www.blic.rs/blog_article.php?id=218#komentari)

Vatikan kritikuje skrivene doktrine filma "Avatar"
Tanjug | 14. 01. 2010.

Sveta stolica se oglasila povodom filma "Avatar" koji se sa ogromnim uspehom prikazuje u mnogim zemljama, ističući da to delo predstavlja apologiju paganizma.

Sa dosadašnjom zaradom od preko 1,34 milijarde dolara, "Avatar" je na putu da postane najrentabilniji film u istoriji sedme umetnosti.
Najnovije ostvarenje reditelja Džejmsa Kamerona koje doživljava ogroman uspeh, a koji prate pozitivne, ali i negativne kritike, privuklo je i pažnju Vatikana.
Medjutim, kako prenose strani mediji, Rimokatolička crkva nije zauzela baš najpovoljiniji stav prema novom blokbasteru.
"Planeta Pandora na inteligentan način flertuje sa pseudodoktrinama koje ekologiju pretvaraju u veru milenijuma", izjavio je portparol Vatikana.
Rimokatolička crkva u imaginarnoj planeti Pandori vidi apologiju paganizma i podseća da nikako ne treba mešati prirodu i Boga, pošto priroda nije božanstvo već božije delo.
Vatikan, takođe, žali što u filmu ima malo istinskih osećanja.

Pa, Vatikan je na Ghoulovoj i Miloshevoj liniji. I njima je falilo osećanja.

Nema li izraz "sveta stolica" idolatrijski prizvuk  :evil:

Ima malo skatološkog u tome.

Nemam ništa protiv uvođenja novih tehnologija, ali kad se i Vatikan oglašava zbog falš etosa koji se ugnezdio u njoj, to nije samo zbog njihove navike da sole pamet i da se bore za duše, nego znaju da će ovo ići do F.K.Dickovskog "kraja sveta", odnosno do "neohrišćanstva" posle kraja istorije, kakvu poznajemo. Do totalnog "sitcoma"...

bravo đejms

kamerun u kući, u kući rože mila

Neke od inspiracija za kadrove u AVATARu potekle iz istorije slikarstva. Ako neko ima capove iz filma, može da ih stavi radi komparacije,

Scena kada Jake postane Toruk Makto

(https://www.znaksagite.com/diskusije/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.znanje.org%2Fi%2Fi24%2F04iv07%2F04iv07141519%2FZbor%2520ustanika%2520u%2520Takovu_files%2Fybor%2520ustanika%2520u%2520takovu.jpg&hash=a07d96f70f6acc307b957a20db26aad651422f22)

Scena reanimacije Jakea u ljudskom obliku

(https://www.znaksagite.com/diskusije/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fforum.krstarica.com%2Fpicture.php%3Falbumid%3D3284%26amp%3Bpictureid%3D28501&hash=c2462f0ea1a85b37c12a8281a34f9d83e8fbfd58)

Scena proterivanja Na'avija u zbegove posle prve bitke

(https://www.znaksagite.com/diskusije/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.badzic.com%2Fgallery%2Fistorijske%2Fseoba-srba-kopija-paja-jovanovic.jpg&hash=54454d0b71f0e1c4b3f4fa1e7bf50bb65b0a2527)

Kako je Tatko pregazio BOOK OF ELI ovog vikenda. U petak je ELI nadmašio Tatka na početku MLK vikenda, jednog od bitnih frejmova tokom zime, ali se na kraju sve pretvorilo u 41 prema 31 za tatka. Inače, i dalje se nastavlja trend generalnog povećanja B.O. zahvaljujući AVATARu. Dakle, filmovi rade svoj rutinski biznis koji bi radili i inače, pod pokroviteljstvom Tatka s prvog mesta. U tom smislu, kao i HOLMES, i ELI se otvorio odlično, ja bih čak rekao i bolje nego što se očekivalo imajući u vidu profil projekta.

Golden Globes, USA: 2010

Best Director - Motion Picture

Winner: James Cameron for Avatar (2009)     xcheers

Kathryn je realno zaslužila da dobije za režiju; makar su bili toliko razumni pa nisu nominovali Avatar za scenario, a sve mi se čini da će se ponoviti Titanic na dodeli Oskara i da će uzeti sve osim za scenario i uloge...

Best Motion Picture - Drama

Winner: Avatar (2009)   xcheers  xcheers

Lakše malo sa tim kriglama, napićeš se...

Ne može nam niko ništa, jači smo od sudbine.
Mogu samo da nas mrze oni što nas ne voleeeeeeee!!! :!:

Predlažem obradu obrade čuvenog hita (Na'vi Mix): U plavo obojeno u meni je sveee...

Quote from: Milosh on 18-01-2010, 05:38:16
Kathryn je realno zaslužila da dobije za režiju; makar su bili toliko razumni pa nisu nominovali Avatar za scenario, a sve mi se čini da će se ponoviti Titanic na dodeli Oskara i da će uzeti sve osim za scenario i uloge...

Ne daj Bože. Avatar je super film ali budimo realni... The Hurt Locker je superiorniji i kao celina a i u pogledu režije. Na kraju se , izgleda, sve svodi na to ko ima bolju zaleđinu. A tatko je ima. Bilo bi zaista sramota da tatko dobije Oskara za film i režiju pored žive Kathryn. 

Sinoc odgledah Avatar: Creating the World of Pandora i stvarno je fascinantno sta su i kako su ljudi radili.

Stiglo i u Blic-Strip :)

(https://www.znaksagite.com/diskusije/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.blic.rs%2Fdata%2Ffiles%2F2010-01-17%2F82_blicstrip1049cmyk.jpg&hash=02a549889bdf8a5a77cc02e169c97e9b2d9ee68d)

Quote from: Ygg on 18-01-2010, 06:10:01
Ne može nam niko ništa, jači smo od sudbine.
Mogu samo da nas mrze oni što nas ne voleeeeeeee!!! :!:

Skoro si pogodio. Naime, oni što vas ne vole mogu da vas mrze, to je tačno, ali takođe mogu i da bez vas gledaju kompletan serijal Strava u Ulici Brijestova.

Avatar wins Golden Globe for Best Drama, and James Cameron wins for Best Director   :x :x

Kad su ga "proglasili", Kameron je uputio kompliment mis Bigelou.

Quote from: scallop on 18-01-2010, 16:25:15
Kad su ga "proglasili", Kameron je uputio kompliment mis Bigelou.

šta joj je reko?
CLOSE, BUT NO CIGAR, HE HE HE!

Kameron zna da Bigalou ima bolji film. Da je pravde, dao mi joj 100 miliona dolara i odrešene ruke da svoj sledeći film onako kako ona želi...

Tuga.

Pre će biti da će platiti da je onemogući...

Tatka treba sprečiti po svaku cenu da se dokopa još jednog Oskara u kategrijama najbolji film/režija. To bi zaista bila neviđena travestija.

Quote from: Kunac on 18-01-2010, 17:48:28
Tatka treba sprečiti po svaku cenu da se dokopa još jednog Oskara u kategrijama najbolji film/režija. To bi zaista bila neviđena travestija.

Potpisujem. I sigurno bi opet arlaukao u mikrofon i ponašao se kao seljačina.

On i Abama, zajedno, poKUPIĆE sve moguće nagrade...

Inače, jedno malo upozorenje... Juče sam bio u Koloseju (Ušće) na pogledam Kelijevu Kutiju. Jeste bila nedelja i jeste bilo popodne (doduše, ne pozno - negde oko 17h), ali je ispred blagajne bioskopa vladao apsolutni haos. Na kartu je čekalo jedno 200 ljudi. Red je bio ogroman, takav nisam video još od prošlog veka... Sve je bilo zakrčeno. Posetioci su čekali da podignu karte za Kameronov film i za Šerloka Holmsa. Devojka koja tamo radi mi je rekla da se za ova 2 filma karte moraju rezervisati 3 dana unapred... Posle reda za kartu, čekao se red za ulazak - i to pozamašan, pa red za iznajmlivanje naočara... Haos.

Čak je i projekcija Kutije bila prilično popunjena - oni koji nisu našli karte za Avatar, prelili su se tu...

Da i ja sam Holmesa gledao zato što nisam našao karte za Avatar. Onakve redove nisam video od 1985...

sve sve, ali "avatar" je meni jedan film za decu. uostalom, sav taj "mambou-džambou" malo podseća na "peti element", kao, pisao je film od najranije mladosti, izmišljao vrste i jezik, itede.
mislim, o-kej, spektakl je, i sve to, ali mi razlog za veliko oduševljenje izmiče.

Ne bi gledo taj avatar ni da mi plate, bas ono retardirani deciji film sa ruznim i antipaticnim likovima . Ja kad sam gledo 3D u bioskopu to je bila Ajkula u Odeonu i to je bilo zakon, a ovaj crtac je smesan, no o tome najbolje govore nagrade koje je pokupio po americi. Samo cekam da pokupi i sve Oskare, e to bi bio hajlajt  xrofl

Tatko je uvek bio raspoložen da pomogne Kathryn sa snimanjem filmova. U to ne treba imati sumnje.

Meni je isto žao što Kathryn nije uzela Globe, njoj to više treba nego Tatku, ali Tatko je tatko, od ovih nominovanih, osim nje, nema tu kandidata njegovog kalibra. Mislim, tu je Clint, ali realno ovaj INVICTUS je čak i na nivou trejlera sumnjiv.

Tako da mogu samo da se pridružim Yggu u višeglasnom pevanju...

James Cameron has had five wives. Until Tuesday morning (December 15), the director had never found himself competing against one in an awards show. All that changed when the Golden Globe nominations were announced and both Cameron ("Avatar") and his ex Kathryn Bigelow ("The Hurt Locker") were recognized in the Best Director category.

Cameron produced Bigelow's 1991 thriller "Point Break," but the couple divorced shortly after Cameron finished filming "Terminator 2: Judgment Day." The exes remain friends. In fact, they've continued to work together after their marriage fell apart. Bigelow directed "Strange Days" in 1995, a film Cameron wrote and produced.



"We're on very good terms," Cameron told MTV News. "I couldn't be happier to see her get a nomination, because it's a recognition that's long overdue. I've known that she's a genius filmmaker for a long time, and she's always flirted with this sort of critical success. This film is such a slam dunk. 'Hurt Locker' is such a great film."

Their films will also face off in the Best Motion Picture - Drama category. "Hurt Locker" nabbed three nominations, including Best Screenplay, while "Avatar" reeled in four, including Best Original Score and Best Original Song.

"I've been divorced more times than I've been nominated," Cameron admitted. "I don't really know which one is more awkward."

Cameron said the four Globe nominations were a validation of his creative team's efforts. "What makes it particularly special to me is when I think about the many artists that worked on this film to bring this world and these alien characters, these improbable blue characters to life, and what it took over a four-and-a-half-year period," he said. "I just couldn't be prouder of them, and I know they're going to be really pleased by this, because their hopes and dreams poured into this thing."

Directors James Cameron and Kathryn Bigelow may be ex-spouses going head-to-head this awards season with Avatar and The Hurt Locker, but it sounds like things are better than good between the two.

At least according to Cameron.

"It's fun," he insisted at the Critics' Choice Awards before Bigelow beat him for best director and best picture. "You know, Kathryn and I have worked together a lot, and we'll probably work together again. And if she wins, I'll be cheering."

When asked about his favorite movies of the year, Cameron said...

"I happen to particularly like The Hurt Locker," he said. "That's both the beauty and the oddness of this type of an event where you have to pick one. How do you pick one from so many disparate subjects and styles?"

Cameron insists he didn't expect all of the success Avatar has already had.

"We expected the film to be commercially successful, but not on the level that it is by any stretch," he said. "We didn't really see it as a film that would break through into the critics' consciousness because typically they don't look at science fiction the way they look at more 'serious' movies."

Even so, Cameron is confident that his blue world of Pandora will stand the test of time à la...William Shakespeare.

"I think Avatar and Titanic both have a sort of classicism in that there are references from movies that were 10 or 20 or 30 years earlier," he said. "They're kind of timeless stories. Boy meets girl, like Romeo and Juliet. I think that's like 500 years old."

Avatar je bacanje para. Cuo sam na BBC ocenu jednog britanskog kriticara:
"Trijumf moderne tehnologije i marketinga, sa scenarijom na nivou petogodisnjeg deteta..."

Pala prva žrtva Avatara

(kopipejstovano)

TAJPEJ  19. 01. 2010

BETA

Srčani udar zbog Avatara

Jedan 42-godišnji Tajvanac, umro je od srčanog udara koji je verovatno izazvalo uzbuđenje pri gledanju naučnofantastičnog filma "Avatar", izjavio je jedan tamošnji lekar


Muškarcu, identifikovanom imenom Kuo, pozlilo je tokom projekcije filma u gradu Hsinšu početkom ovog meseca. Prevezen je u bolnicu, gde je ustanovljeno da ima moždano krvarenje.
"Simptome je verovatno izazvalo preveliko uzbuđenje pri gledanju filma", kazao je lekar Peng Čin-čih.
Kuo, koji je ranije imao problema sa visokim pritiskom, umro je 11 dana kasnije.
Neki ljubitelji filma napisali su na svojim blogovima da su posle gledanja filma Džejmsa Kamerona (James Cameron) osetili glavobolju, vrtoglavicu, muku i da su imali probleme sa vidom.

Posle onih nominacija za oskara na koje je naseo Ghoul, Popboks nudi još jednu neobičnu vest.

Popboks kaže:

Kineska kritika Avatara

Kineska premijera Avatara je zvanično otkazana.

Prema navodima u kineskoj štampi razlozi za odlaganje prikazivanja Cameronovog filma u Kini su velika zarada koju bi ovaj film ostvario u odnosu na domaće filmove u bioskopima, kao i mogućnost izbijanja nereda zbog sličnosti koja je uočena između naroda Na'vi u filmu i Kineza koji su proterani sa svojih imanja zbog pohlepe građevinskih kompanija, prenosi Wikeez.

Kritika je upućena Avataru i iz Vatikana zbog navodne promocije idolopoklonstva prema prirodi kao supstitucija religije.

Neke američke političke grupacije takođe su osudile Cameronov film zbog antiamerikanizma i antimilitarizma.

A na drugom sajtu kaže ovo:

China, though, was Avatar's top market of the week at $17.9 million, and the movie is already the country's highest grosser ever with $75.6 million in the till.

Hm, neko tu laže...

Quote from: Event Horizon on 18-01-2010, 20:02:09
sve sve, ali "avatar" je meni jedan film za decu. uostalom, sav taj "mambou-džambou" malo podseća na "peti element"

Ajd što je mambo-džambo i što ti liči na "5. element" (bez naznake iskopiran iz Mebijusovih stripova), ali je i plagijat romana braće strugacki "Полдень, XXII век" (1962), koji se odigrava u 22. veku (Avatar isto), na planeti Pandora (Avatar isto), u ogromnoj džungli (Avatar isto), plemenu koji se zove Nava (u Avataru su Na'vis). Kameron kaže da je to čista koincidencija.

Boris treba da ga tuzi za sve pare.

Pa da, al zar sam Boris Strugacki nije negirao sve to, mislim, da se radi o blatantnom kopiranju?

Boris, kaže, da još nije video film.

Strugacki, zvuče kao neki prečani... :)

Ma, jok... Strugacki su Goranci.

KUSTA JE OBJASNIO:
,,I ranije su postojali blokbasteri. Međutim, osamdesetih godina, kada sam i ja počinjao, blokbaster je bio 'Povratak u budućnost', na primer. Taj film je ozbiljno antropološko filmsko delo, koje danas izgleda kao čista filozofija u odnosu na destruktivnog 'Avatara' i druge filmove koji liče na video igrice"

http://www.danas.rs/vesti/kultura/povratak_u_buducnost_je_filozofija_u_odnosu_na_destruktivnog_avatara.11.html?news_id=181617 (http://www.danas.rs/vesti/kultura/povratak_u_buducnost_je_filozofija_u_odnosu_na_destruktivnog_avatara.11.html?news_id=181617)

Kusta nije gledao AVATAR. Mislim da ga je samo iskoristio kao primer. Šteta što nije gledao pošto bi ga onda verovatno drugačije tumačio.

Povratak u budućnost je genijalan film.

Retard. Nice se lepo pokenjao po onima koji glorifikuju staro i pljuju novo. Svi bi morali nesto da nauce od njega.

Od Ničea? Ma daj.

Sve više beba dobija ime po likovima iz ,,Avatara" xseaeek

20.01.2010. - 02:24
KUM Sa više od 5,1 milijardu dolara ,,Avatar" Džejmsa Kamerona je neprikosnoven na top listama, a pomama za filmom dovela je dotle da je sve više beba sa imenima glavnih junaka. Novopečeni roditelji za devojčice biraju ime Nejtiri, po princezi ratnici, a popularno je i ime Pandora, i to najviše u Americi i Britaniji. Producenti filma su izjavili da je, čim je film zaradio svoju prvu milijardu, krenula nova moda u davanju imena. Istovremeno, zabeležena je prva žrtva ovog blokbastera. Jedan Tajvanac (42) umro je od moždanog udara uzrokovanog prevelikim uzbuđenjem za vreme gledanja ,,Avatara" u 3D verziji. Doktor koji ga je lečio izjavio je da je preveliko uzbuđenje bilo okidač i da je previsok pritisak izazavao krvarenje u mozgu pacijenta kome se zna samo prezime, Kuo.

Avatar vs. World of Warcraft (http://pc.ign.com/articles/106/1062782p1.html)

Quote from: sfpogled.netDnevni list Danas je na svojoj drugoj stranici, u okviru (anketne) rubruke "Pitanje Odgovor" imao za temu izjavu reditelja Emira Kusturice o "Avataru". Naime, pre nekoliko dana u tekstu "Povratak u budućnost je filozofija u odnosu na destruktivnog Avatara" preneta je izjava Kusturice sa njegove radionice održane pretposlednjeg dana filmskog i muzičkog festivala na Mokroj Gori. Kusturica je tada rekao:

"I ranije su postojali blokbasteri. Međutim, osamdesetih godina, kada sam i ja počinjao, blokbaster je bio 'Povratak u budućnost', na primer. Taj film je ozbiljno antropološko filmsko delo, koje danas izgleda kao čista filozofija u odnosu na destruktivnog 'Avatara' i druge filmove koji liče na video igrice".

Ova izjava je, dakle, dovela do pitanja: Da li se slažete sa ocenom Emira Kusturice da je Avatar destruktivan film? Evo šta su anketirani izjavili:

Ivan Karl
urednik filmskog programa RTS

Avatar je u tehničkom smislu svakako korak napred kada je reč o filmovima kojima je vizuelna atraktivnost jedini kvalitet. To što se time briše granica između filma i video igrica je posebno pitanje. Da li je destruktivan? Verovatno jeste u onoj meri u kojoj su to i ostali slični akcioni i avanturistički spektakli, koji podilaze najširoj publici i samim tim generišu velike prihode.

Boban Jevtić
urednik filmskog programa Doma omladine Beograda

Ako je Kusturica mislio da je destruktivan u smislu industrije, da dovodi u pitanje način snimanja filmova, o tome bi se dalo raspravljati. S druge strane, ideologija samog filma potpuno je antikolonijalna, "ekološka" u bukvalnom i prenesenom značenju. Baš se spremam da ga vidim po drugi put.

Goran Marković
filmski reditelj

Ne slažem se. Mislim da je Avatar vrlo interesantan. To nije nikakvo remek delo, ali je u tehnološkom pogledu velika novina. Ne vidim da u estetskom smislu ima neki destruktivni uticaj. Samo su me nakon gledanja bolele oči od 3D naočara, a bolela me je i glava nakon tri sata gledanja filma s tim naočarima. Vredelo je da se film vidi jedanput, pa možda više nikad.

Stevan Filipović
filmski reditelj

Apsolutno se ne slažem. Mislim je Avatar revolucija u kinematografiji i, ako gledamo na lokalnom nivou, doprineo je vraćanju publike u domaće bioskope i napravio od njih mesta kolektivnog gledanja filma. Mislim i da je 3D tehnologija apsolutno korak u budućnost u filmskoj industriji i u Avataru nisam primetio ništa destruktivno. Politički gledano, možda može da bude zloupotrebljen ako je perspektiva iz koje se gleda u nacionalističkom ključu. S pozicije spoljne politike, mislim da je Avatar u potpunom "green peace" duhu.

Nenad Dukić
filmski kritičar Radio Beograda

Ne bih ja taj film tako okarakterisao. To je jednostavno jedan od ko zna kog broja filmova te vrste koji ne poseduju nikakve vrednosti, a na planu filmske atrakcije i demonstriranja tehnike i tehnologije već počinju da zamaraju i najširu publiku.

Stevan Filipović je odgovorio na pitanje, za razliku od ostalih  :)

Steva je stari LDPovac. Upozorava na zloupotrebu filma u nacionalističkom ključu. :)

DANAS je zaista neverovatan, pokušavaju da naprave aferu od svega, čak i od Kustinog usputnog lajna o filmu koji nije gledao.

Ne mogu oni bez Kuste, pa to ti je...

Mislim da bi Kusta odbio velike pare da snimi 3D film po sopstvenoj volji. Svi ti komentari pomalo mirišu na obran vinograd. Meni je film više iskaz autora nego 3D tehnologija.

3D tehnologija, uostalom, po svojoj konfiguraciji, ne može biti rešenje. Ona se već duže vreme mota po filmskoj industriji, ali bez trajnog impakta. Gadno je nositi specijalne cvikere, k'o čip u mozak da ti meću. Ja sam morao da imam dva para (i svoje za gledanje na daljinu), pa nisam mogao da mrdnem dva i po sata. Ali, film me je vratio u salu. To nije samo povratak u domaće bioskope (sic!) i u SAD ne možeš ni unapred da kupiš kartu. Jesu šarene kerefeke dovele publiku u salu, ali sadržina je ono što ih udara u glavu, ako glave ima. Takve poruke moraš zaviti u mnogo oblandi da bi bile konzumirane. Da su ponuđene crno-belo većina gledalaca ne bi ni u bioskop ušla.

Video sam večeras Kamerona u Krunskoj.

misliš klunija?

(https://www.znaksagite.com/diskusije/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg14.imageshack.us%2Fimg14%2F883%2Favatar1gn.jpg&hash=84d0fcd48ad4ac403653635c28a103d4dcaa241b)
:idea:

Čista poezija, ovo kradem i mećem na Fejsbuk! :!:

Quote from: Harvester on 24-01-2010, 03:05:30
Čista poezija, ovo kradem i mećem na Fejsbuk! :!:

kao i obično, kasniš.

ovo videh na fejsbuku još pre... bar 10 dana.

A kačeno je čak i na ovom topiku:

http://www.znaksagite.com/diskusije/index.php?topic=3911.msg227252#msg227252 (http://www.znaksagite.com/diskusije/index.php?topic=3911.msg227252#msg227252)

Hm, biće da sam propustio da kliknem na link. Nema veze, bilo prije ili ne, svakako je odlično.

Pre nego što odgledah blokbaster znao sam da film sigurno vredi. A evo i zašto.
Najpre sam čitao da ga Vatikan i Papa žestoko napadaju jer navodno umesto hrišćanstva i hrišćanskog boga, film propagira neku alternativnu, ekološko-pagansku new age religiju, po kojoj je sama planeta (priroda) najveće božanstvo i najveća vrednost.
Zatim su film napali i islamisti, pa jevreji, a onda čuh i pravoslavce. Svima su motivi isti.
Umesto učvršćivanja vere u ,,ispravnog'' boga i učvršćivanje patrijarhalne tradicije, film ,,Avatar'' radio je relativizaciju ,,jedine ispravnosti'' i prikazao alternativnu civilizaciju vanzemaljaca – Pandoraca, u pozitivnom svetlu.
U toj civilizaciji je vrlo lako prikazan koncept alternativne, a jako lepe religije, u kojoj je, na zgražavanje svih verskih poglavara, vrhovno božanstvo ženskog roda i zove se Ejva (što na njihovom jeziku znači Priroda).
Zato sam i pre gledanja shvatio da film mora biti dobar.
Iskustvo mi govori da kad god nešto napadnu poglavari katolika, muslimana, jevreja, pravoslavaca i DSS pero Slobodana Antonića, to jest oni, koji misle da samo oni imaju pravo na etiku i tumačenje istine, to jednostavno mora da valja!
Ostvarenje Kanađanina Džemsa Kameruna zaista je nesvakidašnje. Najpre će vam pre ulaza u salu dati 3D naočare da i pored jednodimenzonalnog platna osetite dubinu. Zatim će vas izvanredna i vrlo zahtevna gluma likova, koji moraju da glume i ljude i plave Pandorce, ostaviti bez daha.

Pored novozacrtanih tehničkih standarda, vrednost filma i jeste pre svega u tom relativizovanju koncepta, po kome je jedina ispravna i superiorna civilizacija ona, koju su stvorili belci – hrišćani. Ona, koja ima tehniku, oružje i pismo...
Posle stotinu snimljenih filmova i serija, u kojima smo mi Zemljani, najlepši i najpozitivniji, dok ostatak svemira manje više čine monstrumi-rugobe, pojavio se film, u kome, negde na pola, shvatamo da su ti drugi u stvari bolji od Zemljana. Toliko bolji da je jedino dobro rešenje biti izdajnik. Stati na stranu Pandoraca radi višeg cilja - humanosti.

Civilizacija Pandoraca (Avatara) podseća na afrička plemana, dok su Zemljani ekvivalent imperijalističkih sila – Engleza, Španaca, Francuza, Portugalaca, Holanđana, Rusa, Amerikanaca, ali i skoro svih belaca, čije su države nekad bile dovoljno velike da osvajaju teritorije onih drugih (Afrikanaca, Azijata, Indijanaca) i nameću svoj koncept civilizacije negirajući sve tuđe i ,,varvarsko''.
Kao takav ovaj film (inače zajedničko čedo Kanade i SAD, s tim što je reditelj iz Kanade, a skoro svi ostali i sve ostalo iz SAD) je i pomalo antiameričko (doduše samo anti-republikansko ali ne i anti-demokratsko) i pro-levičarsko delo.

Ono što mi se nije svidelo u filmu, a neće se svideti nijednom prosečnom zrelom muškarcu starijem od trideset godina i nijednoj ženi je ADRENALITIKA radi ADRENALITIKE.
Toliko je akcionih scena, toliko situacija borbe na ivici života i smrti, da se čini kao da je sve namenjeno isključivo mladom testosteronu (prosečnim muškima od 13 do 26 godina).

Matriks mi se svideo zbog ideje, ne mora baš toliko akcije i adrenalina!
Pa mi se Titanik svideo zbog ideje i priče. Ni tu nije bilo neophodno toliko fajta.
Pa mi se idejno dopao i ,,Terminator'', pa ,,Dan posle sutra''.
Ali Holivudu ne vredi pričati!

Savremen američki blokbaster izgleda ide na to da se prvenstveno svidi prosečnim klincima, koji najviše i imaju vremena za bioskop, do čijih se umova po pravilu ne može dopreti samo odličnim i originalnim idejama, već im se mora pružiti i koncept s nebrojano mnogo borbenih scena. Mora im se u okviru filma ubaciti sport!
Ne bih da mi neki klinac zameri zbog ovog mog ejdžizma. I među njima postoji procenat onih, kojima bi i filozofske ideje bile dovoljne, ali da je sve idejno-miroljubivo, ne bi film imao toliko posetilaca. (Jedan od klinaca hvalio se vršnjacima da film gleda već treći put)

Da se pitaju žene i muški, stariji od 30 (prosečni predstavnici) pola adrenalinskih scena bilo bi izbačeno iz svih savremenih holivudskih blokbastera.

Tako da koliko god da je film u jednom pogledu (idejno) antiimperijalistički i dosta antiamerički-republikanski, u ovom drugom pogledu (atmosferno) je američki toliko da ne može više.

Holivude bre, daj nam nešto, takođe idejno originalno, ali s mirnijom atmosferom.
Da malo razmišljamo umesto što se svakog sekunda štrecamo.
Ne treba nam prenesena atmosfera sa stadiona. Film je ipak art.
Nešto idejno dobro, al' da je prekomerna akcija zamenjena dobrim humorom, filozofijom...

U sali su mladi momci većinom bili oduševljeni, devojke se štrecale na svaku drugu scenu, a stariji muškarci i žene (nije ih baš mnogo bilo) su dosta i zevali kapirajući da već milioniti put vide jedno te isto. Scene borbe, za koje se zna da će se glavni junak na kraju izvući.

Al' kako god... pogledati vredi... Bar zbog ovog alternativnog koncepta pogleda na život.

To je divno. A sad možeš da ideš da se kupaš u sumpornoj kiselini.

Okej, izvinjavam se, ustao sam neuobičajeno rano za svoje pojmove pa nisam primijetio očiglednu ironiju u tvom postu.

QuoteOstvarenje Kanađanina Džemsa Kameruna zaista je nesvakidašnje. Najpre će vam pre ulaza u salu dati 3D naočare da i pored jednodimenzonalnog platna osetite dubinu. Zatim će vas izvanredna i vrlo zahtevna gluma likova, koji moraju da glume i ljude i plave Pandorce, ostaviti bez daha.

:!:

Ima rečenica koje su zez, no mene zanima još nešto.

Ako je Pandorcima nervna konekcija u kosi, šta će biti kad ostare i oćelave?
Kako jahati?

Quote from: Lomljavina on 24-01-2010, 13:53:26Ako je Pandorcima nervna konekcija u kosi, šta će biti kad ostare i oćelave?
Kako jahati?

onda će se konektovati kroz dlake koje su im malo niže i sjedalu bliže.

Quote from: Ghoul on 24-01-2010, 14:17:49

Quote from: Lomljavina on 24-01-2010, 13:53:26Ako je Pandorcima nervna konekcija u kosi, šta će biti kad ostare i oćelave?
Kako jahati?

onda će se konektovati kroz dlake koje su im malo niže i sjedalu bliže.

Aha ha ha haaaaa. Sirote životinje.

 xjump xjump

Jelke objasnio...

http://www.popboks.com/tekst.php?ID=7854 (http://www.popboks.com/tekst.php?ID=7854)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8480954.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8480954.stm)

China renames 'Avatar' mountain in honour of film
Avatar Hallelujah Mountain in Hunan/ A scene of Pandora in Avatar
Officials said the film's images (R) were based on photos of the mountain

A Chinese mountain has reportedly been renamed in honour of the sci-fi film Avatar, after claims it had inspired scenery in the fantasy blockbuster.

The Southern Sky Column in Zhangjiajie, Hunan province, will now be known as the Avatar Hallelujah Mountain.

Local officials said photographs of the mountain had been used as the basis for Avatar's fictional world of Pandora.

Avatar has become the most popular film ever in China, making $80m (£50m) at the box office so far.

Xiaoxiang Morning News said the mountain was officially renamed at a ceremony on Monday.

The paper said a photographer from Hollywood had visited the Wulingyuan Scenic Area, the location of the mountain, in 2008.

"Many pictures he took then become prototypes for various elements in the Avatar movie, including the 'Hallelujah Mountains'," Reuters quoted the website as saying.

Avatar tours

The renaming of the mountain is one of the several attempts by Zhangjiajie to capitalise on the success of Avatar.
People queue to watch Avatar in Anhui province, China (Jan 2010)
The film has been a huge success throughout China

The municipal government website has also adopted the slogan "Pandora is far but Zhangjiajie is near", while tourists are being offered tours of the locations which allegedly inspired the film, Reuters reports.

Avatar follows the plight of the blue N'avi people as they fight to protect their land from a mining operation.

The film has been showing on 2,500 screens across China. One-third were Imax and 3D screens while the rest were regular 2D screens.

But earlier this month, China pulled 2D versions of the film from cinemas, saying they were not doing well commercially.

Critics said the move was to make way for domestic films - especially the state-backed biopic of the philosopher Confucius - and because the plot too closely mirrored forced land evictions in the country.

Quote from: Elizabeth Story
Now, don't get me wrong, there was a lot to like in Avatar. But there was a lot I was disapointed with. Perhaps my biggest disapointment was the lack of blue wang. I mean, COME ON, James Cameron. With Watchmen out, you had the chance to make 2009 the Year of the Blue Wang, but noooo, you had to go for the fanservice to the boys. So predictable.

:D
http://jadesfire2.livejournal.com/

zvanicno avatar prestigao titanik

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/world/ (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/world/)

Quote from: zakk on 27-01-2010, 11:21:38

Quote from: Elizabeth Story
Now, don't get me wrong, there was a lot to like in Avatar. But there was a lot I was disapointed with. Perhaps my biggest disapointment was the lack of blue wang. I mean, COME ON, James Cameron. With Watchmen out, you had the chance to make 2009 the Year of the Blue Wang, but noooo, you had to go for the fanservice to the boys. So predictable.

:D
http://jadesfire2.livejournal.com/

Ćorava je.