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

O, pa, odlično to, dobro zvuči. Pogledaćemo!


Ja još samo da dam par napomena u vezi Avendžersa, pa u krevet.

Prvo, kako je Whedon i najavio, nema post-credit sekvence pa nemojte da je čekate. Mid-credit sekvenca je vrlo kratka ali je izazvala salvu aplauza jer se pojavljuje baš onaj za koga se očekuje da se pojavi. Film je i inače pretrpan naklonima stripu i referencama koje ga ne opterećuju ali će ljubiteljima Marvelovih stripova biti drage.

Najinteresantniji detalj koji mi je u akciji natrpanom (i preopterećenom, jer se gubi nit) finalu upao u oči je to insistiranje da se SVI civili moraju odvesti na sigurno pre nego što Avendžersi i pomisle da stupe u akciju. Ovo ne samo da je u skladu sa temeljitim superherojskim kodeksom već mi je delovalo i kao suptilan ali značajan pogled upućen Man of Steelu. Nije da sam ja među onima koji smatraju da je taj film jako loš i da je destrukcija koja se u njemu vidi dokaz da je Supermen nebrižljivi zaštitnik građana, ali ovo jeste narativ koji ovaj film prati, pa su, deluje mi, Feige i Whedon otišli ekstra korak dalje da pokažu kako to ZAPRAVO treba da se radi.

Superheroji delom
nastaju od traume i sakaćenja, ako se građani sklone - kako obnoviti superherojske redove?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

O, pa obnovili su se oni već u ovom filmu. Kako rekoh, u Infinity War će problem biti previše likova. Ne zaboravimo da će u tom filmu biti i likova iz Guardians of the Galaxy a akoMarvel u međuvremenu izpregovara sa Foxom, možda uleti i neko iz X-Men...

Nego evo ova analiza:
Hollywood Reporter exposes faults in the bedrock of Warner Bros.' DC Comics films

Quote

A story from an upcoming issue of The Hollywood Reporter may rely heavily on unnamed sources, but they're all saying the same thing: Warner Bros.' attempts to spin DC Comics into cinematic universe gold are just producing a lot of straw.


And while most of its upcoming films are still in script stages, even those early processes are creating cause for alarm. The WB is essentially farming its screenwriting: hiring writers not to collaborate but to each craft a competing script when only one will eventually be chosen. It's a process one source described as "throwing shit agains the wall to see what stuck."

Five writers for Wonder Woman, another handful for Aquaman. A writer on the latter submitted a script only to be told that the previously laid out "rules" of the setting had changed, making their take no longer usable. Before five screenwriters started pitching for Wonder Woman, Warner Bros. may have contacted a screenwriter who turned them down completely, already wary of how many cooks were in the kitchen.

From its inception, Warner Bros. spokespersons have stressed that their take on a superhero universe will improve on Marvel's winning formula. They've also stressed that they're going to do things entirely differently, by making the team movie before the solo films, for example. A Warner Bros. insider told The Hollywood Reporter that the company is going for a "filmmaker-driven" strategy in its productions, to contrast with Kevin Feige's iron hand on the overall arc of the Marvel Cinematic Universe over at Disney. But lack of direction seems to be one of the primary struggles of the nascent franchise. "They just haven't been thorough about their whole world and how each character fits and how to get the most out of each writer's time by giving them direction," says one of THR's sources. "Obviously, Marvel's very good at that."

For a "filmmaker-driven" focus it certainly seems to be annoying many filmmakers, from the writers and agents who represent them, to director Michelle MacLaren, recently removed from the production of Wonder Woman for "creative differences." Complicating things is that no one seems to be certain who, exactly, is in charge of crafting the overall rules of the movie version of the DC Universe.

Zack and Debbie Snyder, currently wrapping up Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, are clearly involved, but between Man of Steel's controversial deviations from what many fans see as the core themes of Superman and the lukewarm (to put it mildly) buzz over the first footage from Batman v Superman, Snyder isn't looking like the greatest horse for Warner Bros. to hitch their setting to.

According to The Hollywood Reporter the folks in charge of crafting the direction of Warner Bros. DC Universe include the Snyders, "a team of Warners executives," producer Charles Roven, DC Entertainment's president Diane Nelson and Green Lantern scribe Geoff Johns. That's a mere two or three folks who came up in the industry from the creative side rather than the business one.

It takes a team to make a Justice League, but perhaps not a Justice League franchise. And it's hard to call a thing "filmmaker-driven" when there are almost no actual filmmakers in charge of it.

Originalni tekst:

Superman vs. Batman? DC's Real Battle Is How to Create Its Superhero Universe

Quote

When Warner Bros. CEO Kevin Tsujihara took the stage at the annual CinemaCon gathering of theater owners April 21, he reiterated what has become the studio's mantra for the next five to seven years: Warners will build its slate around The Lego Movie sequels and offshoots, J.K. Rowling's Fantastic Beasts trilogy and no fewer than 10 movies based on DC Comics characters through 2020.

With the March opening of Zack Snyder's Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice many months off (an ominous teaser trailer debuted to a mixed response April 17 and racked up 47 million YouTube views during its first week), it's obviously too early to know whether Warners can execute a series of interlocking tentpoles based in the DC universe. But with the stakes very high, Wall Street and Hollywood are asking: Can all the cooks in the studio's kitchen create films featuring Batman, Wonder Woman and even Aquaman and the Flash to rival the nearly $7 billion in global box office Disney's Marvel Studios has generated from nine films since 2008, including Iron Man, Thor and Guardians of the Galaxy? Plus, the May 1 release of Avengers: Age of Ultron is sure to bring in another $1 billion.

"Marvel has been an unbelievable platform for Disney to build and foster franchises," says BTIG analyst Richard Greenfield. "The question for Warners is, can they replicate that strategy using DC?" No one doubts the value of the DC intellectual property, but as analyst Michael Nathanson of MoffettNathanson observes, "It's all in the execution."

In the early going, some in Hollywood are questioning whether Warners has acted too much in haste without having fleshed out the world on which so much hinges. Grumbling among talent reps came especially in response to the studio's strategy of hiring five writers to compete for a job on Wonder Woman, which has a June 2017 release date. On Aquaman, set for 2018, sources say Warners commissioned scripts from three writers, one of whom followed the studio's direction only to be told the rules governing the universe had changed and his work no longer was usable. Another writer has been on hold for the film for months as the studio works to define its vision. "They just haven't been thorough about their whole world and how each character fits and how to get the most out of each writer's time by giving them direction," says a rep with knowledge of the process. "Obviously, Marvel's very good at that."

A Warners insider acknowledges that the studio's approach on Wonder Woman, set to star Gal Gadot (who will be introduced in Batman v. Superman), has been "unorthodox," but he says Warners is developing its own "filmmaker-driven" strategy in contrast with Marvel, which generally is ruled by producer Kevin Feige and which has hired such untested directors as Joss Whedon (The Avengers), Joe and Anthony Russo (Captain America: The Winter Soldier and two planned Avengers movies) and James Gunn (Guardians). Further, he says Warners has great confidence in its intellectual property, as do even those outsiders who have questioned the studio's actions.

In October, Warners trotted out Snyder, 49, and Batman v. Superman stars Ben Affleck and Henry Cavill at a dinner for analysts in New York before the company's investor-day conference. Snyder presented his vision for the film, and Nathanson says he found it "very impressive." The following day, Tsujihara laid out his plan that resembles the silo approach that has worked so well for Disney with its Marvel, Pixar and Disney Studios brands and with Star Wars movies to come from Lucasfilm.

But exactly who is in charge of the DC universe remains blurry. Snyder, now finishing Batman v. Superman, is a key player, along with his wife, Debbie. Also in the mix are producer Charles Roven and a team of Warners executives, including president of creative development and worldwide production Greg Silverman and executive vp Jon Berg as well as DC Entertainment president Diane Nelson and DC chief creative officer Geoff Johns. In addition, various filmmakers will over­see individual movies, with Fury director David Ayer said to be given broad creative control over next summer's hero team-up film Suicide Squad.

Without a single guiding force like the 41-year-old Feige, sources say Warners has leaned on Snyder to help play out the parameters for other DC movies. Snyder laid the groundwork for the new universe with 2013's Superman reboot Man of Steel ($668 million worldwide), produced with previous Batman director Christopher Nolan, who no longer is involved in any­thing DC-related beyond an executive producer credit on Batman v Superman. But Snyder has been busy with Batman v. Superman, which has a budget said to be well more than $200 million. "You can't just give it to a filmmaker," says a Marvel insider. "You have to give it to someone who has an institutional knowledge of these characters."

On Wonder Woman, Warners hired five writers not to work together but to compete. Each was given a treatment and asked to write a first act. Based on those efforts, the studio winnowed the number to two: Jason Fuchs (Pan) and another writer whose name the studio declines to reveal. A source not involved in the films but with close ties to the studio says the process on Wonder Woman "felt like they were throwing shit against the wall to see what stuck."

Before the five writers were brought aboard, sources say Roven asked Kelly Marcel (Fifty Shades of Grey, Saving Mr. Banks) to work on the script, though a Warners insider says she was never officially hired. Sources say she decided not to proceed based on her concern about the number of players who were involved — particularly when Warners hired director Michelle MacLaren, whose vision contrasted sharply with Marcel's. MacLaren subsequently left the project and was replaced quickly by Patty Jenkins, who, ironically, had been dropped by Marvel on Thor: The Dark World after being heralded as the studio's first female director.

Warners has had several writers pen scripts for Aquaman, set to star Jason Momoa, who will feature in November 2017's Justice League movie. Those writers include Will Beall, Jeff Nichols and Kurt Johnstad, who now is on hold until the studio is ready to proceed. Warners' Silverman will say only that "we're on track to deliver a slate of films that will delight audiences everywhere thanks to the efforts of the many exceptionally talented people invested in the success of this universe." But Nathanson is prepared to wait and see how the films turn out. "Embedded in my earnings forecast [for Time Warner] is some estimate of success for DC, but I would say we're conservative in our outlook," he says. "I'm not giving anyone credit for a movie until we see the product."

Quote from: Meho Krljic on 30-04-2015, 00:53:08

Najinteresantniji detalj koji mi je u akciji natrpanom (i preopterećenom, jer se gubi nit) finalu upao u oči je to insistiranje da se SVI civili moraju odvesti na sigurno pre nego što Avendžersi i pomisle da stupe u akciju. Ovo ne samo da je u skladu sa temeljitim superherojskim kodeksom već mi je delovalo i kao suptilan ali značajan pogled upućen Man of Steelu. Nije da sam ja među onima koji smatraju da je taj film jako loš i da je destrukcija koja se u njemu vidi dokaz da je Supermen nebrižljivi zaštitnik građana, ali ovo jeste narativ koji ovaj film prati, pa su, deluje mi, Feige i Whedon otišli ekstra korak dalje da pokažu kako to ZAPRAVO treba da se radi.

Nisam jedini koji je ovo uočio:

In Age of Ultron, The Avengers Do the Thing That Superman Didn't

Quote
Man of Steel went dark in its interpretation of Kal-El's mythos. Some would say too dark, that the character was barely recognizable as a Superman. The trailer for Batman v. Superman—complete with a Dark Knight who seems intent on making Superman bleed—indicates that the sequel will be staying in that desaturated mood. While Age of Ultron shoulders its own heavy themes, it's different from Man of Steel in one crucial way: it goes out of its way to show the Avengers saving the lives of individual people. A lot.

pa dobro, warner se bazira na autorima, disney na prodicentima, bilo
i biće. warner je poznat po gajenju autora, od clinta eastwooda do olivera stonea. to su sve tradicije studija...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Pogledao sam MY FAVORITE WIFE Garsona Kanina, film koji je 23 godine kasnije rimejkovan kao MOVE OVER, DARLING. Nažalost, rekao bih da je MOVE OVER umnogome unapredio ovaj inicijalni raz iz 1940. godine u kome mi je možda i najzanimljiviji deo bila činjenica da Cary Grant i Randolph Scott igraju rivale za naklonost Irene Dunne. Mimo toga, MOVE OVER je ne samo superiorna kopija, pošto praktično prepisuje sve najbolje momente ovog filma ali ih znatno obogaćuje razvojem odnosa među likovima, i u pogledu humora i u pogledu melodrame. U tom smislu, možemo reći da je MOVE OVER, DARLING vidno razvijeniji film i sa širom ambicijom ne samo u kreativnom pogledu već i u domenu utiska koji želi da ostavi na gledaoca.

Ako izuzmemo Randolpha Scotta koji je u ovom filmu poslastica posebne vrste, jedini istinski inspirisan igrač na ekranu je Cary Grant. Irene Dunne mu ne parira. A o poređenju sa Doris Day da i ne govorimo.

Ako svemu dodamo postmoderno poigravanje da su u MOVE OVER, DARLING junaci svesni postojanja filma MY FAVORITE WIFE praktično nemam dilemu da je rimejk daleko superiorniji.

* * 1/2 / * * * *

Big Will u SUICIDE SQUADu




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Pogledao sam AGE OF ULTRON i nema tu ništa novo da se kaže u odnosu na ono što su mi bile primedbe i na same AVENGERSe. Pozitivan trend koji je Marvel pokazao sa GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY se ovde nije nastavio. Naprosto, ove je isto kao AVENGERS, samo sa nešto više besciljnih dijaloga u letargičnim pokušajima da se desi nešto među likovima. Ipak, Joss Whedon ne uspeva ono što je pošlo Gunnu a to je da napravi neki arc, nekakvu transformaciju među svojim junacima, možda zato što su oni svoje arcove i transformacije već odradili u solo filmovima, neki uspešnije a neki manje uspešno i sada ulazimo u onaj režim TV serije gde je ključna stvar da se junak zapravo ne promeni. Otud ovde filmsku dramaturgiju zamenjuje televizijska - dok se filmska prevashodno bavi junakovom putanjom, televizijska se bavi očuvanjem statusa quo. I zato AVENGERS ne može funkcionisati onima kojima oživljavanje Marvelovih junaka nije dovoljno da bi mogli uživati u filmu.

S druge strane, Avengersi sada već pakuju toliko moći da im ni Loki pa ni Ultron nisu dostojni protivnici. Naročito ne Ultron koji veći deo filma pokušava da ih posvađa u čemu ne uspeva, ali nas to ne sprečava da prođemo kroz čitavu seriju besmislenih digresija o tome, bsmislenih dijaloga, informacija koje nam ni na jednom nivou nisu potrebne (Hawkeye ima decu, "sipaj hulče ja sam nerotkinja"-pasaž itd.). Ovo je film u kome Ultron dakle mudro pokušava da posvađa Avengerse jer zna da ga oni mogu sprečiti da uništi svet. U tome ni u jednom momentu ne uspe. Ali, onda ipak pokuša da uništi svet. I oni ga, kao što je i sam znao u tome spreče.

Kako to da se Avengersi nisu posvađali među sobom, kako se to nije desilo. To ostaje enigma Marvelovog pristupa filmu gde imamo 140 minuta i previše likova ali umesto složenog mehanizma zapleta i angažovanja tih likova, mi imamo krajnje rudimentarnu postavku koja je prejednostavna za praćenje. Ne znam da li je to ustupak činjenici da je ovo obrni-okreni film za decu, ali naprosto sama mehanika priče je u ovom filmu uvredljivo simplifikovana, i mislim da bi AVENGERS štošta u tom pogledu mogli da nauče od X-MENa gde takođe imamo tim superheroja, imamo sada i vremeplov, ali imamo i zaplet koji je složeniji i čije se kockice kako film odmiče slažu u celinu.

Bez složenijeg zapleta, toliki broj likova nema funkciju i o tome najbolje svedoči završna akciona scena u kojoj su likovi civila možda uvedeni kako bi se poslala poruka Man of Steelu (da nije film za decu, što se znalo čim je Nolan bio mozak iza Snyderovog rukopisa) ali zapravo oni služe da bi Avengersi imali šta da rade, jer problem koji je izazvao Ultron naprosto ne iziskuje angažman svih Avengersa.

Ta cela priča o civilima deluje kao pokušaj da se na neki način steriliše strateško opredeljenje serijala da svoju kreativnu impotenciju nadoknadi razaranjem civilnih objekata (takvi prizori inače nisu dovoljno dovoljno retki u ostalim serijalima poput TRANSFORMERSa pa nam Marvel nudi ekskluzivnu priliku) a poseban fetiš Whedon ima na gradski prevoz koji se čuka u ovom filmu u više gradova i kad treba i kad ne treba.

Nažalost, tokom dva i po sata ovog filma uglavnom sam mislio na bolje filmove ovih glumaca, recimo koliko su ScarJo i Sam snimili bolje comic book filmove sa LUCY i KINGSMANom, zatim koliko je Hemsworth spremniji za ozbiljnje stvari na osnovu RUSH i BLACKHATa. Jedini me Evans nije ponukao da pomislim na SNOWPIERCER jer je u ovom filmu zaista grozan i prepušten jezivom materijalu.

Doduše, za razliku od WINTER SOLDIERa ovde barem deluje da su scene dijaloga i scene akcije delovi istog filma, nema one radikalne razlike u kadriranju i montaži.

Gledati Downeya kako se blizu trećeg doba vaćari po plafonu sa specijalnim efektima postaje tužno a Mark Ruffalo sve vreme deluje kao da bi radije bio u nekom drugom filmu.

Razbijački rezultat AGE OF ULTRONa na blagajnama pokazuje da još nismo ni blizu zasićenja superherojima.

* 1/2 / * * * *

Sukob sa FANTASTIC FOUR se preneo i na STAR WARS:

Josh Trank will no longer direct the "Star Wars" spinoff for Disney and Lucasfilm.

The studio made the announcement with Trank on Friday.

"It was a privilege to collaborate with Josh," Lucasfilm said in a statement. "We are grateful for the energy and love of 'Star Wars' that he brought to the process, and we wish him all the best."

Sources close to the situation tell Variety that Trank and screenwriter Simon Kinberg weren't thrilled with the idea of working together again. The duo apparently clashed while filming 20th Century Fox's "Fantastic Four" reboot, which opens later this summer, and Kinberg wanted another director.

Also a writer of Fox's "X-Men" films, Kinberg is a major force in Disney's "Star Wars" universe. He recently served as a creative consultant on J.J. Abrams' "Star Wars: The Force Awakens," which bows in December, and continues to help shape the cherished fantasy series.

Trank's exit on Friday wasn't a total shock. Less than two weeks ago, the "Chronicle" director was a no-show to Disney's Star Wars Celebration at the last minute, prompting internet speculation that something was afoot. The 30 year-old quickly apologized on Twitter, telling fans that he was sick with the flu.

"Hey all. So, so, so sad to have missed today. Worst flu of my life," he wrote.

Disney later backed his claim, saying Trank notified the studio the morning-of the event about his illness. They also insisted he was still attached to the movie. Other rumors suggested that Disney told him to skip the event.

The untitled "Star Wars" movie won't be released until 2019, according to sources. It's one of two standalone pics Disney and Lucasfilm are developing. Gareth Edwards' "Rogue One," starring Felicity Jones, opens next year.

Another oddity from the Star Wars Celebration on April 19 event came when 20th Century Fox released the "Fantastic Four" trailer during the Trank and Gareth Edwards' scheduled panel, leaving industry observers scratching their heads: Why would a major studio film drop a high-profile trailer on Sunday morning? Were they trying to send a message?

Fox, of course, used to distribute the "Star Wars" films before Disney bought Lucasfilm for $4 billion in 2012.

News of Trank's exit was announced the same day that Disney released its biggest film of the year, "Avengers: Age of Ultron."

In a statement posted on the "Star Wars" official site, Trank said: "After a year of having the incredible honor of developing with the wonderful and talented people at Lucasfilm, I'm making a personal decision to move forward on a different path. I've put a tremendous amount of thought into this, and I know deep down in my heart that I want to pursue some original creative opportunities. That said, the 'Star Wars' universe has always been one of my biggest influences, and I couldn't be more excited to witness its future alongside my millions of fellow 'Star Wars' fans. I want to thank my friends Kathleen Kennedy, Kiri Hart, Simon Kinberg, and everyone at Lucasfilm and Disney for the amazing opportunity to have been a part of this. May the Force be with you all."

As for Trank's next move, a rep for 20th Century Fox told Variety that no director or writer has been set for the "Fantastic Four" sequel. Starring Miles Teller, Kate Mara, Jamie Bell and Michael B. Jordan, the new "Fantastic Four" will be released Aug. 7.

A spokesman for Trank could not be reached for comment.

Pogledao sam STEEKSPEL crowd-kreirani srednjemetražni film Paula Verhoevena koji po svom stilu umnogome podseća na holandske sapunice, između ostalog i onu na osnovu koje su snimljene ŽENE SA DEDINJA.

STEEKSPEL je sapunski postavljena melodrama o nevernom suprugu kog oko pedesetog rođendana zadesi čitava bujica neprijatnosti i ženama u njegovom životu koje mu naizmenično zagorčavaju i spasavaju život.

Samo razrešenje njegove situacije nimalo nije moralizatorsko, cinično je i vrlo slobodno, i to bi se moglo pogrešno tumačiti kao Verhoevenov touch iako je zapravo to više mentalitetska crta Holanđana koja je izrazito prisutna baš u njihovim sapunskim operama.

Verhoeven je rečju snimio zaokruženu srednjemetražnu sapunicu na steroidima, ali ipak jako daleku od njegovih značajnih dela, čak i onih u domenu televizije.

Suicide Squad na okupu...

http://variety.com/2015/film/news/suicide-squad-cast-photo-david-ayer-1201486433/

Big Willy podelio i ovo...

Pola Interneta je, vidim, užasnuto i naziva ovu sliku u najboljem slučaju ambicioznim kosplejom...

vidim da su hteli da im kostimi lice na serijal video igara Batman Arkham,,,,ali ovo izgleda ko gomila obicnih thugova iz istih igara,nikako na vodece antagoniste....ili ove druge...
ako razocarenja ima,ja ga razumem gde je....nadam se iskreno da je ovo vise koncept nego ril dil....

Pa meni se ovo dopada. Ja stvarno ne razumem vise te internet hejtove, jebiga, muka mi je vise od njih.
Da se razumemo, uopste nisam fan ovih likova niti tog tima, ali meni je ovo sasvim OK. Cak postoje velike sanse da cu pogledati ovaj film u bioskopu.

Ovo izgleda grungy a opet superherojski. El Diablo mi naročito ima horor vajb, možda i efektniji nego u stripu. Sa Ayerom na čelu, optimističan sam. U SABOTAGE je pokazao da ume da vodi filmove sa velikim ansamblima zvezda i comic book akcijom. Sa više para i još jačim zvezdama, neka samo ponovi taj know how i peva kuća...

PRVI SPLITSKI ODRED Vojdraga Berčića počinje natpisom "po istinitim događajima - likovi su stvarani slobodno" što dosta ometa recepciju filma pošto govori o ekstremnim naporima sa kojima se suočila naslovna formacija i junaštvu kojim su sve to prevazišli. Ovo je film u kome karakteri čine događaje pa je samim tim ova uvodna napomena dosta dezavuisala pouzdanost filma.

Od ove uvodne kontradiktornosti, one se gomilaju i u samom filmu. Od uvoda u kome je diletantski snimljena serija kadrova iz aviona, preko zanimljivih i ekspresivnih lokacija u dalmatinskom kamenjaru, od zanimljive podele koja ponekad pruža dosta a ponekad mora da plasira plakatske odgovore, od scena vatrenih okršaja u kojima se smenjuju lucidno kadrirane deonice sa krajnje konvencionalnim, ovaj film čine naizmenični nastupi rediteljske lucidnosti i početničkih ili barem rutinerskih grešaka.

Ovo ne važi samo za scene borbe i kamenjaru već i za vrlo interesantne scene torture u splitskom zatvoru.

Među scenaristima nalaze i Slavko Goldstein, odgovoran za nekoliko zanimljivih scenarija o NOP u Hrvatskoj i saradnik Žike Mitrovića u par navrata; i Ratko Đurović, profesor i script doctor koji je doprineo partizanskom filmu sa nekoliko značajnih i ekscentričnih filmova.

Žarko Radić je u svojoj prvoj filmskoj ulozi više iskorišćen nego Aleksandar Berček i Milan Štrljić koji su ovde takođe debitovali.

* * 1/2 / * * * *

Izlazak KINGSMANa je definitivno gurnuo novi film Kylea Newmana BARELY LETHAL izvan okvira neke široke bioskopske distribucije. Teško je u istoj godini ponuditi jedan tako superioran i jedan ovako tanak produkt na temu inicijacije tinejdžera u svet špijuna, u istom bioskopskom formatu. Kyle Newman je u ulogama tinejdžera okupio Hailee Steinfeld i Thomasa Manna, dvoje mladih glumaca koji su se poslednjih godina istakli kvalitetom, ulogu mentora dobio je Samuel L. Jackson (još jedna kopča sa KINGSMANom) a negativca Jessica Alba. Nažalost, scenario je prilično nemaštovit i bavi se već trođenom premisom kako je čak i za treniranog operativca srednja škola prekomplikovano bojno polje, i ima tek nekoliko duhovitih situacija. Kada tome dodamo krajnje nemaštovitu i u pogrešnom pogledu svedenu režiju Kylea Newmana, dobijamo film koji je po svojoj egzekuciji jako blizu naslova od pre skoro tri decenije kada je ovaj podžanr bio aktuelan, ali je slabiji i od GOTCHA i od IF LOOKS COULD KILL.

Hailee Steinfeld je raspoložena da izvuče maksimum iz glavne uloge u potencijalnoj franšizi ali zaista nema adekvatan materijal.

Kyle Newman nije imao budžet uporediv sa KINGSMANom i to je jasno. Međutim, ključni problem je to što u ovoj žanrovskoj mešavini on nije umeo da se opredeli koji će žanr više istaći špijunsku akciju ili omladinski film, i na kraju nije postigao ništa osim podnošljivog materijala za popodnevni gledanje na televiziji.

* * / * * * *

da mi se ovo ne sviđa, ja bih se ozbiljno zamislio...

Margot Robbie on set of the movie 'Suicide Squad' in Toronto, Canada. Margot Robbie was dressed in costume as Bad Ass Harley Quinn, carrying a baseball bat and wearing a shirt that says "Daddy's Monster". She also had Pink and Blue Hair with lots of Tattoos, wearing a Jacket that says "Property Of Joker" (The Joker is played by Jared Leto).

Još slika raznih likova...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-3066849/Margot-Robbie-transforms-colorful-Harley-Quinn-s-seen-Suicide-Squad-set-time.html

Jbt Dzej Kortni sa bradicom isti Tom Hardi, jos se mislim sta ce on na slici kad je otkazao...

Mislim da je današnji izbor Dragana Bujoševića za direktora RTSa pokazao da se ovog puta nije birao čovek za čelo Javnog servisa, nego neko ko će izigravati Tijanića. Rezultat je "Tijanić koji ćuti", autor emisije "Nije srpski ćutati" koji doduše nikada nije preterano insistirao na tome da je Srbin. Ono što je trebalo da se desi jeste da se na čelo RTSa dovede neko ko nije novinar ali može da pomeri sa mrtve tačke programske celine koje Tijanića nisu zanimale. Ovako ćemo nastaviti da se "igramo Tijanića" umesto da se napravi neka dinamika gde se RTS neće neprekidno svoditi na napredak informativnog programa i stagnaciju većine ostalog. A posledica svega toga će biti informativne emisije kojima ćemo verovati u skladu sa svojim raspoloženjem i dalja erozija kulturnog modela koji bi RTS morao da definiše.

Bujošević u Politici ništa nije pokazao, tako da ni informativa neće napredovati. Čuvar plaže u zimskom periodu.


inače, opet se igraju u Baltimoru

Joss Whedon je (ponovo) napustio tviter zbog zahuktale rasprave o tretmanu Crne Udovice u Avendžersima, uopšte u MCU i u merčandajsingu. Evo kako i zašto:

Black Widow: This Is Why We Can't Have Nice Things

Bolje bi prošao da je učio da režira nego što je tvitovao...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nikad nije kasno...

boles' 

https://storify.com/Astojap/wehdon-twitter-hate

Međutim:
Avengers director Joss Whedon says angry feminists didn't drive him away from Twitter  

Quote"Believe me, I have been attacked by militant feminists since I got on Twitter. That's something I'm used to," Whedon said in an interview with BuzzFeed News on Tuesday. "I saw a lot of people say, 'well, the social justice warriors destroyed one of their own!' It's like, Nope. That didn't happen." The real reason for his departure, he said, was his return to writing after a frustrating creative process and his need to shut out the noise of Twitter in order to do so. "I just thought, 'wait a minute, if I'm going to start writing again, I have to go to the quiet place — and this is the least quiet place I've ever been in my life."

I

Quote"For someone like Anita Sarkeesian to stay on Twitter and fight back the trolls is a huge statement," he told BuzzFeed. "It's a statement of strength and empowerment and perseverance, and it's to be lauded. For somebody like me to argue with a bunch of people who wanted Clint and Natasha to get together [in Age of Ultron], not so much." The director said Sarkeesian even contacted him shortly after he disappeared from the service to check he was okay, but that he had been conditioned to expect vitriol from comic book fans by writer Brian Michael Bendis many years before.

Pogledao sam SUITE FRANCAISE Saula Dibba, ekranizaciju bestselera Irene Nemirovski, francuske Jevrejke koja je nastradala u Holokaustu, a rukopis je pronađen šezdeset godina kasnije. SUITE FRANCAISE je film koji bih najpre poredio sa KAKO SU ME UKRALI NEMCI, i nažalost Radivojevićev fim je neuporedivo snažniji. Oba su izvesnom smislu bazirana na svedočanstvima ili osećanjima ljudi koji su bili savremenici rata, ali SUITE FRANCAISE ima na svojoj strani nekoliko specifičnosti. Prvo, novele na kojima je baziran napisane su do 1942. godine i u sebi ne nose onu naknadnu pamet koju imaju autori kada iz današnje vizure gledaju na Drugi svetski rat. Irena Nemirovski nije mogla znati kako će se za vršiti Drugi svetski rat, ali je Nemce, sudeći po ovom filmu - knjigu nisam čitala - pokazala kao negativce među kojima ima i jedan "čovek" koji če to postati tek onda kada okrene leđa Rajhu.

Kako rekoh, knjigu nisam čitao ali ako je SUITE FRANCAISE skrupulozna adaptacija, onda je svakako Irena Nemirovski pisala sa punim uverenjem u pobedu Saveznika. S druge strane, tekst očigledno koketira i sa promenama u odnosima među klasama koje su nastale posle okupacije, i nudi prilično odmeren prikaz okupacije.

Samim tim je šteta što SUITE FRANCAISE s jedne strane ima sve elemente melodramske postavke svojstvene sapunici, ali Michelle Williams igra previše diskretno i zatvoreno da bi se uklopila u taj žanr. Otud i njena romansa sa nemačkim oficirom kog igra Matthias Schoenaertz deluje usiljeno i potpuno neautentično. Samim tim i slom koji usledi zbog te romanse deluje krajnje iskonstruisano, kao i katarzični efekat kada ljubav izleči Nemca od nacizma.

Dibbova režija je zanimljiva utoliko što Francuzi među sobom govore na engleskom, ni ne pokušava da fingira akcente, a Nemci govore na nemačkom, i ta konvencija funkcioniše. Nažalost, tehnička realizacija filma je tek pristojna.

* * / * * * *

Recepcija filma CHILD 44 kod angloameričke kritike pravi je zločin. Espinosa je snimio moćan film inspirisan imaginarijumom Staljinovog SSSRa i umnogome unapredio Smithov roman time što je zadržao vizuru ljudi opečenih suncem revolucije ali nije svakodnevicu prikazao u skladu sa standardima zapadnih liberala. Ono što je zadržao iz romana je zapravo jedino što ruski reditelji ne umeju da naprave - priča o sukobu nekorumpiranog pojedinca sa trulim sistemom koji ne može da spozna zločin, a to je suština američkog policijskog filma.

Bila bi prava šteta ako Tom Rob Smith ne shvati da je Espinosa uzeo njegov solidan i vrlo vešt roman za koji je bilo jasno da mu je ishodište u ekranizaciji i napravio od njega ambiciozan film vrlo specifičnog, gotovo evropskog senzibiliteta, omekšavši književnikove pulp momente i gradeći svet Staljinovog SSSRa kao gotovo opipljiv pokušaj nasilne modernizacije koji truli pred svojim učesnicima.

Oliver Wood je snimao i prethodni Espinosin film, SAFE HOUSE u kome je Šveđanin pokazao da nije došao u Holivud kako bi učio Amerikance pameti u pogledu filma. Specijalista za snimanje akcijaša se međutim odlično pokazao i u filmu, praveći moćnu atmosferu i nudeći jedan od najsnažnijih holivudskih prikaza ove epohe, dakle i mesta i vremena na filmu.

Tom Hardy je sasvim sigurnop pretvorio ovaj film u svoju krčmu i on glumi a ostali prate, i uprkos tome što mislim da on sasvim sigurno nema onu pitkost glumačkog izraza koja je potrebna za status superstara za koji su ga pripremali, u ovom filmu donosi silovitost Marlona Branda iz vremena kada je njegova gluma još uvek imala smisla. U odnosu na Hardyja, svi ostali su svedeniji, ali on i jeste lik kroz koji se prelama najviše trauma. Espinosa nema slabo mesto u podeli. Noomi Rapace nikada nije bila bolja. Joel Kinnaman je izuzetan kao vrlo tihi, podmukli negativac iz službe, Gary Oldman kao lokalni policajac koji se lomi, Jason Clarke kao disident u bekstvu a Nikolaj Lie Kaas je napravio minjon kao nastavnik-disident. U podeli nema nijednog Rusa što je vrlo zanimljivo a Espinosa stavlja akcenat na svoje Švede i na Danca kod kog je studirao. Meni taj tvrdi ruski akcenat nije bio problem, mada vidim da je značajan deo engleske kritike imao teškoće sa tim.

Pored atmosfere, glumačkih sučeljavanja i ekskluzivne fizičke rekonstrukcije epohe, Espinosa je ponovo vrlo visceralan i vrlo retko CHILD 44 povuče na "film iz epohe". U odnosu na roman, rekao bih da je čak Espinosa smanjio akcionu dimenziju, tamo je bilo više dužih set-pieceova, ali kada kod Espinose krene ripper sekvenca ili borba to je u bukvalnom smislu na krv i nož.

Ono što na početku krene kao skoro pa hladnoratovska propaganda, sa sve naglašavanjem državne gladi izazvane u Ukrajini, koja dolazi baš u trenutku kada treba pravdati kijevske fašiste, na kraju se pretvara u američki policijski film u domenu značenja. Naime, sunce revolucije jeste pržilo ali je bilo zraka u njemu koji su grejali. I na kraju krajeva, Hardy igra heroja koji zapravo vraća veru u sistem kao što je to činio Serpico. Propagandna oštrica Smithove knjige ubola je samog autora kao bodež disidenta u filmu. Kada tome dodamo da Espinosini junaci za razliku od junaka romana imaju mnogo veće razuemvanje za teškoće u periodu Staljinovih devijacija i da ne očekuju EU standarde ljudskih prava, onda je CHILD 44 prilično dostojanstven prikaz svog vremena.

Price i Espinosa su u razrešenju ponešto od nedostataka romana i popravili.

Sudeći po poseti u četvrtak, roman ima dovoljno čitalaca u Srbiji da garantuje barem dobro otvaranje. Greh je što u SAD koja ipak diktira globane distrubuterske trendove ovaj film nije bio ozbiljnije pušten u promet. Ipak, siguran sam da će na kućnim formatima biti adekvatno valorizovan.

* * * 1/2 / * * * *

Stari je sažeo svoja razmišljanja o avremenom ratnom filmu u prigodan tekst za Dan pobede, sedam decenija kasnije.

http://beforeafter.rs/art/pobeda-u-ratu-pobeda-u-bioskopu/

Sinoć se Stari obratio ilegalcima putem Radio Beograda...

http://www.rts.rs/page/radio/ci/story/27/%D0%A0%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BE+%D0%91%D0%B5%D0%BE%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B4+1/1908617/%D0%9D%D0%BE%D1%9B%D0%BD%D0%B8+%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BC+-+%D0%9D%D0%B5%D0%BA%D0%B8+%D1%82%D0%BE+%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B5+%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%9B%D1%83.html



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Razne kurio anegdote vezane za Mad Max i Road Warrior. Taman da se pripremimo.

While director Josh Trank said Friday that he had "made a personal decision" to leave the Star Wars universe, sources say reports of the young director's unusual conduct during the making of Fox's upcoming Fantastic Four movie had raised alarm among Lucasfilm executives that were entrusting him with the second Star Wars stand-alone film.

Trank, 30, had raised eyebrows in April when he didn't appear as scheduled at a Star Wars celebration in Anaheim. At the time, both Disney and the director cited illness as the cause but multiple knowledgeable sources say the studio had asked the filmmaker not to attend while considering whether to proceed with him on the second spinoff in a planned series of films.

Indeed, producers on Fantastic Four, set for release on Aug. 7, are said to have faced great challenges pulling the film together given behavior described by one insider as "erratic" and at times "very isolated." Trank did not offer clear direction, this person adds, saying, "If you've got someone who can't answer questions or who isn't sure or is in hiding, that's not good."

Read More How 'Star Wars: Episode VII' Lost Control of Its Secrets

A Fox spokesman says the studio is "very happy with the movie and we can't wait for audiences to see it" but acknowledges, "There were definitely some bumps in the road."

Among those bumps: Trank has several small dogs who were left in a rented house in New Orleans while the film was shooting there. According to sources, as much as $100,000 worth of damage was done to the property. A source says the production considers any destruction of the property to be Trank's responsibility.

Citing Trank's work on the 2012 found-footage superhero movie Chronicle, an insider says: "No question there's talent there. You can't do Chronicle by accident." But Trank seemed "like one of these kids who comes to the NBA with all the talent and none of the character-based skills to handle it. There's equipment he doesn't yet have."

According to sources, Trank was sometimes indecisive and uncommunicative. Producers Simon Kinberg and Hutch Parker had to step in to help pull the film together, though sources stress that Trank was still on set and directing the film. (Were that not the case, the production could have run afoul of the Directors Guild of America.)

Just over three months from opening, Fox's Fantastic Four has done re-shoots. Those were complicated because stars Miles Teller, Kate Mara and Michael B. Jordan had obligations on other films. The most recent round, which involved three days of re-shoots at the end of April, had to take place on weekends because of Teller's work on Todd Phillip's Arms and the Dude. Parker and Kinberg are said to have been heavily involved in those re-shoots, pulling them away from duties in Canada on X-Men: Apocalypse, which they also are producing.

Given the issues with Trank's performance, the production added Stephen Rivkin (Avatar) to help pull the film together. Trank had hired his Chronicle editor, Elliot Greenberg, on the project.

Fantastic Four is meant to reboot the Marvel superhero franchise for Fox. The comic is venerated for its place in history as it launched Marvel Comics in 1962 and was the early creation from Stan Lee and Jack Kirby. Fox made two movies, released in 2005 and 2007, that made $330 million and $289 million respectively but failed to capture moviegoers' imagination. Fox hastened to make a new movie as it risked having the rights revert back to Marvel.

Kinberg, who is producing the second Star Wars stand-alone project (the first, Rogue One, is being directed by Gareth Edwards for a December 2016 release), is said to have communicated his displeasure with Trank to Kathleen Kennedy and the team at Lucasfilm. As the Star Wars brain trust heard more about Trank's behavior and working style, they became less confident in handing over the film to him.

Now, having decided to part ways, the studio is searching for another filmmaker to take over the project.

Disney declined to comment.

Pogledao sam HOT PURSUIT Anne Fletcher. Reč je o klišetiziranom, priglupom, vulgarnom, ali prilično efikasnom filmu snimljenom po formuli. Ovo je čak i za opus Anne Fletcher tanko režiran film, vrlo grubo insceniran, ali mu teško možemo osporiti da je prilično smešan na mestima na kojima treba da bude, no definitivno de dobacuje do letnjih hit-komdija koje su New Line izbacivali proteklih godina poput WE'RE THE MILLERS ili HORRIBLE BOSSES. Međutim, ako imamo u vidu kakav je ovo zapravo B-rad, prilično je smešan. Deo negativne recepcije na koju je naišao sigurno proističe i iz visoke reputacije koju je stekla Reese Witherspoon u međuvremnu kao glumica u neprestanoj poteri za "oskarima".

* * 1/2 / * * * *

Pogledao sam TESTAMENT OF YOUTH Jamesa Kenta, ekranizaciju memoara Vere Brittain. U ovom filmu je mnogo šta impresivno, a pre svega glavna uloga Alicije Vikander, Šveđanke koja ovde igra kvintesencijalnu Britanku. Bez ikakvih problema sa adaptirala na drugi jezik i jednu vrlo zahtevnu ulogu koja je kičma ovog filma i bez koje on ne bi bio isti.

Drugi značajan zahvat jeste vođenje ove priče koja je prepuna događaja koji bi mogli pobuditi jeftinu sentimentalnost i to je izbegnuto, između ostalog i kroz igru Alicije Vikander ali i kroz odabir situacija, jer u pojedinim fazama prikazuje neke događaje koji obično nisu prikazani ili nisu na takav način postavljeni u melodramama tog tipa.

U krajnjoj liniji, Kent sasvim sigurno pokazuje da vrlo zrelo može da realizuje istorijsku melodramu, ali i da pored niza osvežavajućih elemenata koje unosi u žanr, ipak ne može da crossoveruje do onih koje ta vrsta priče a priori ne zanima.

Ono što je međutim ključno u vrlo potresnoj životnoj priči Vere Brittain u kojoj je ona izgubila brata, verenika i udvarača jeste zapravo ta studija jedne genracije u ratu, gde su mladi muškarci videli Veliki rat kao priliku da sami oblikuju istoriju, a žene su kroz njega lutale pokušavajući da prepoznaju svoju ulogu i unutar toga pronađu prostor za emancipaciju. Kent vrlo jasno izražava taj kontekst i zahvaljujući tome TESTAMENT OF YOUTH nije samo melodrama, ali svakako da maksimalno zadovoljava apetite i te ciljne grupe.

Alicia Vikander je okružena odličnim glumcima, od KINGSMANa Tarona Egertona kao svežeg otkrića, preko Kita Harringtona i Haley Attwell sa televizije do Dominica Westa koji je spona do iskusnijih Emily Watson i Mirande Richardson. Međutim, u njenom slučaju ovo ipak nije film u kome je glavni glumac dobar jer je okružen odličnom podelom jer veliki deo teških lomova, junakinja preživljava sama, i u okolnostima i u kadru.

U produkcionom pogledu, film izgleda vrlo bogato iako je zapravo prilično jednostavan. Tema je Veliki rat ali umeće je veće od finansijskog izdatka što govori u prilog teze da teme iz epohe ne moraju nužno iziskivati pljačkanje državne kase, kako to zamišljaju naši producenti i autori.

* * * / * * * *

Pogledao sam MAGGIE Henryja Hobsona, film koji je pristojno tehnički realizovan ali ne samo da nije dobar već odiše jednim specifičnim tipom besmisla. MAGGIE je film o nekoj infekciji koja podseća na zombi epidemiju, ali je po žanru melodrama, i to bi bilo u redu da osnovna tema filma nije zapravo priča o ljudima koji su neizlečivo bolesni i da on po većini simptoma i ne izgleda baš kao takav film. Ako je Hobson želeo da izbegne weepie momenat filmova o neizlečivo bolesnim ljudima i ako je to želeo da postigne kroz uvođenje zombi virusa, nije mi jasno zašto je u svim ostalim aspektima zadžao tu strukturu filma o smrtonosnoj bolesti?

Kada se tome doda Arnold Schwarzenegger kao glavni glumac, onda ni ta melodrama zapravo ne funkcioniše. Ne samo zato što se Arnold po mnogim elementima izdvaja, a izdvaja se i ne uklapa u pastoralnu melodramu, već i zato što se ne može pobeći od utiska da je reč o stunt castingu.

MAGGIE nije film od kog će Arnold imati koristi, niti će on mnogo pomoći Hobsonu osim kao bizaran detalj po kome će ovaj film lansirati pred publiku, ali ga isto tako i opteretiti pred njom.

* 1/2 / * * * *

Wired Max
http://www.wired.com/2015/05/mad-max-fury-road/



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Kritika je nadražena na FURY ROAD a ispunjava se izgleda slutnja da će film vredeti zbog Charlize.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: crippled_avenger on 08-05-2015, 15:18:15
Sinoć se Stari obratio ilegalcima putem Radio Beograda...

http://www.rts.rs/page/radio/ci/story/27/%D0%A0%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BE+%D0%91%D0%B5%D0%BE%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B4+1/1908617/%D0%9D%D0%BE%D1%9B%D0%BD%D0%B8+%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BC+-+%D0%9D%D0%B5%D0%BA%D0%B8+%D1%82%D0%BE+%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B5+%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%9B%D1%83.html



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Слажем се углавном сем оног у вези домаћих издања и продавнице дискова. На Западу физичке продавнице убрзано пропадају и Београд ту не може бити изузетак. На форуму на којем највише висим, повремено се појављују питања, путујем у неки велики град у иностранству, гдје бих могао да набавим DVD или Blu-ray неких мало познатих филмова а одговори су углавном никакви. Зато су ту виртуелне продавнице. Конкретно, диск Ко то тамо пева може се наручити у продавници Мала српска продавница и има енглеске, француске и њемачке титлове.

Pogledao sam DEMONIC Willa Canona, nestvarno loš film koji se prodaje kao horor a u stvari je jedno veliko ništa, kom me je privukla činjenica da u njemu igraju Frank Grillo i Maria Bello, glumci koji su kadri da uzdignu film iznad onog nivoa koji su mu namenili produkcija i režija. Međutim, njih dvoje u ovom filmu zapravo imaju nevažne uloge. Oni su policajac i psihološkinja koji istražuju slučaj ubistva u koći koju su pohodili "lovci na duhove" a to rade preko video snimka. Njihove uloge su maltene na nivou okvira koji se gradi oko found footage snimka, s tim što film ni u tome nije dosledan i ovakvu "prevaru" sa poznatim glumcima u filmu kojih u njemu zapravo nema nisam sretao veće decenijama, naročito ne sa tako uglednim imenima.

djvaso, kao kolekcionar sam vrlo dobro upoznat sa situacijom na terenu. ne brini. kod nas je međutim radnja još uvek optimum jer nije dovoljno razvijena kultura naručivanja preko interneta. drugo, izdanja ne postoje.

Pogledao sam WELCOME TO ME Shive Piven i moram priznati da ovaj film o duševno oboleloj osobi deluje kao making of samoga sebe. Naime, film govori o duševno oboleloj ženi koja dobije 86 miliona dolara na lutriji i odluči da napravi svoj talk show po u uzoru na Opru i sl. U ovom slučaju deluje kao da Kristen Wiig, popularna američka komičarka zloupotrebljava svoje povremene vrlo velike komercijalne uspehe kako bi se na sličan način iživljavala, samo ne u formi talk show emisije nego indie filma.

WELCOME TO ME je priča koja ako ima ikakvog smisla on je jasan posle prvih nekoliko minuta i nije naročito ekskluzivan. Sve ostalo je potonuće u nekakvu ne naročito maštovito grotesku za koju sam iskreno šokiran da je naišla na bilo kakve simpatije kritike.

Wiig i ekipa glumaca očigledno misle da rade nešto značajno u ovom filmu ali čak ni njihovi nastupi nisu naročito upečatljivi. Wiig reprizira svoje role iz nekoliko indie filmova, a ostali nude ravne površne role u kojima samo izgovaraju tekst i trude se da se previše ne mešaju u svoj posao. Film traje osamdesetak minuta ali i to je predugo za ovoliku oskudicu ideja.

* 1/2 / * * * *

S.Korea says North executed defence minister with anti-aircraft guns

Quote
Seoul (AFP) - North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un has had his defence minister executed with anti-aircraft fire for insubordination and dozing off during formal military rallies, South Korean intelligence said on Wednesday, hinting at possible instability in the Pyongyang leadership.

If confirmed, it marks another demonstration of Kim's ruthlessness in dealing with even the most senior officials suspected of disloyalty, following the execution of his uncle and one-time political mentor Jang Song-Thaek in 2013.
It also points to possible power struggles within the top leadership, following Kim Jong-Un's decision to cancel a scheduled visit to Moscow last week in order to deal with "internal issues".
Late last month, the NIS reported that Kim had ordered the execution of 15 senior officials so far this year, including two vice ministers, for questioning his authority.
In a briefing Wednesday to a parliamentary committee, Han Ki-Beom, the deputy director of the South's National Intelligence Agency (NIS) said hundreds of people witnessed the execution of minister Hyon Yong-Chol, which was believed to have been carried out with an anti-aircraft gun around April 30 at a military academy in northern Pyongyang.
- Violent execution -


Such a violent method of execution has been cited in various unconfirmed reports as being reserved for senior officials who the leadership wishes to make examples of.
Last month, the US-based Committee for Human Rights in Korea published an October-dated satellite image of the same academy that analysts said showed a shooting range with anti-aircraft guns lined up in what appeared to be preparation for an execution.
The details of the NIS briefing were relayed to local reporters by a ruling Saenuri party lawmaker who attended the parliamentary committee.

The NIS told the committee that the minister had been arrested for expressing dissatisfaction with Kim's leadership, repeatedly ignoring his orders and dozing off during a rally that Kim presided over.
The agency said there were also some unconfirmed intelligence reports that he had committed an unspecified act of treason.
Hyon, who was appointed to the post of Minister of the People's Armed Forces less than a year ago, was last seen in public attending musical performances on April 27 and 28.
In North Korea, the defence minister is mainly in charge of logistics and international exchanges. Policy-making is handled by the powerful National Defence Commission and the party Central Military Commission.
- Surprising purge -
Yang Moo-Jin, a professor at the University of North Korean Studies in Seoul, said Hyon's purge and execution was a shock.
"Hyon was seen as one of the three closest military officials to Kim Jong-Un," Yang told AFP.

Hyon had visited Russia in April -- partly to pave the way for Kim's scheduled trip to Moscow to attend a May 9 parade marking the 70th anniversary of the victory over Nazi Germany in World War II.
Yang speculated that the minister might have botched his mission, amid reports that he had been tasked with brokering a weapons deal in return for Kim's presence at the Moscow event.
Kim cancelled his attendance just days before the parade, citing "internal North Korea issues".
"An inexperienced leader like Kim can often display a tendency for overtly dramatic and brash moves... and for me the situation looks quite worrisome," Yang said.
"It also suggests Kim is politically frustrated," he added.
Since taking over power in North Korea following the death of his father, Kim Jong-Il, in December 2011, Kim Jong-Un has repeatedly reshuffled his senior military leaders.
His most high-profile purge to date has been that of his once powerful Jang Song-Thaek, who Kim condemned as "factionalist scum" following his execution.
Jang had played a key role in cementing the leadership of the inexperienced Kim after he took the reins of power.
But analysts said Jang's growing political power and intervention in the lucrative coal trade was resented by his young nephew.

Whoa:

Age of Robots: How Marvel Is Killing the Popcorn Movie

Quote
Some time in the middle of Avengers: Age of Ultron, I came to terms with the fact that there will never be any more decent Marvel movies. In fact, there can't be.
Some of what I have to say is going to read as genre snobbery. So let me get this out of the way: I fucking love stupid popcorn movies. They can be about superheroes, dinosaurs, aliens, a bus that can't slow down; I'm not picky. Movies are unparalleled in their ability to portray scale. If you have a giant screen, huge speakers capable of blasting everyone with earth-shattering noise, and hundreds of people gathered together in the dark, you can — and should — occasionally use those tools to provide pure, overwhelming spectacle.
So I don't object to Marvel, or to Avengers: Age of Ultron, just because it's not an artful, subtle little movie. That's part of it: A pop-culture intake comprised of nothing but big spectacle is just as bad for you as an all-cheeseburger diet. But if I wanted to see something artful, I could have gone to watch Ex Machina or whatever that new David Cronenberg movie is supposed to be. I didn't. I went to see Avengers on opening weekend. What I really dislike about Marvel is what they're doing to stupid popcorn movies. This is a genre I care about, and they're fucking it up.
A stupid popcorn movie by Joss Whedon has every reason to be a great experience. I'm no super-fan, and he's done things that are pretty dreadful (if you've never seen In Your Eyes... look, do yourself a favor,don'tsee In Your Eyes) but silly fun is his wheelhouse. Cabin in the Woods is hardly an intellectual little art-house film, yet when I saw it in theaters, my friend Kelly and I left the theater gasping and whooping with exhilaration, as if we'd just gotten off a roller coaster. For at least ten minutes after that movie ended, the only thing we could say to each other was "OH MY GOD." It was pure, stupid adrenaline, and it was wonderful.
Moreover, Whedon has a remarkable gift for taking extremely silly subject matter just seriously enough to make you feel something. He's not Christopher Nolan or Zach Snyder, thank God — no movie posters that look like Trent Reznor threw up in a clown car, no excruciating pseudo-realist interludes in which we have to sit there and contemplate the dark enormity of Batman's feeeeeeelings — but he can balance an adult awareness of how silly comics are with real, emotionally resonant character work.
Age of Ultron is quite possibly the worst movie of Whedon's career, and I can't get over it. I've been obsessed with this movie for a week now, poking through it in my mind, trying to figure out what went wrong. I mean, it's just plain hacky, in ways I frankly have trouble comprehending: It's riddled with cliches, shortcuts, set-ups without pay-offs, elements that seem, not like bad choices, but like actual mistakes.
The worst thing about it, I think, is that it's not even honestly bad. Bad can be entertaining: Thor, for instance,is a very bad movie, yet Thor's badness gave me the gift of laughter, thanks to a little wonder known as "Odinsleeping." ("Wait. The guy's Dad just keeled over and went into a coma. Now they're saying he does this often?" "He goes into a coma so often that comas are named after him.") Age of Ultron is just pervasively mediocre, not even interesting enough to be awful.
The reason for this, I would submit, is that Marvel has a palpable — and growing — contempt for its audience. Lots of people have been parsing Marvel's politics in recent weeks, but I'd submit this is beside the point in some ways: Marvel has been racist and Marvel has been sexist, but Marvel's most profound failing is that it just plain doesn't care about people. Age of Ultron is the clearest demonstration yet of the problem. And you should care about this problem. Because it's getting worse, and because you can't get away.

---

I know Joss Whedon can make a good popcorn movie. In fact, I know he can make a good popcorn movie about the Avengers: That first movie is a stone-cold classic. Therefore, I'm disinclined to blame the badness of Age of Ultron on Joss Whedon. If you've watched someone throw a ball fifty times, and then, the fifty-first time, he just drops the ball at his feet and stands there motionless, you don't assume that he can't throw. You assume something is wrong.
When you look at the formal requirements imposed on Whedon's script by Marvel, it's clear that AoU actually couldn't have been good — that Marvel, not knowing or caring how good movies work, mandated that Whedon make a bad one. To name just a few of those requirements:

   
• Too many characters. This is standard Marvel strategy — they go by the premise that all it takes to gratify their base is dropping a name that's familiar from the comics, and so far, it's paid off — but the never-ending quest to "improve" each movie by adding a sidekick, and another sidekick, and three villains this time, plus that other superhero you might know about if you read every Avengers comic from 1971 through 1973, has resulted in a movie with, by my count, fourteen central characters. The movie is only 141 minutes long; that might seem lengthy, but if you were to somehow divide it up so as to give each character an equal amount of uninterrupted focus, you'd only have around 10 minutes for each character. In practice, you get less than 10, because
• No matter what, Marvel's structure mandates at least one fight scene every 20 minutes, and most of the time, those characters aren't having in-depth discussions while they fight. This has to happen even though we almost always know how those fights will end, because
• The movie also has a pre-determined narrative, which we know because it's the same narrative every Marvel movie adheres to, which is, roughly: There's a thing and a bad guy and the bad guy steals the thing, so they fight. They lose one fight and then they lose another fight and then they win the last fight. The end.
• We also need to end the movie in such a way that all of the characters with ongoing franchises can go back to those franchises, alive and more or less unchanged.
• So, once Marvel's formula has deprived the movie of (a) time for the characters, (b) the potential for the story to unfold in a surprising way, and (c) meaningful consequences, we then get each character's maximum 10 minutes of focus (which is now more like five or six) cut down even further, with ads for other Marvel products. In Age of Ultron, we lose several minutes of valuable time that could be spent developing our characters to visit Wakanda and establish Andy Serkis as a villain, not because he's important to the plot — he'll totally disappear after this one scene — but because there's going to be a Black Panther movie. Thor has to be taken out of the action for a while so that his scientist friend can help him hallucinate the premise of Infinity War. Captain America gets a flashback that doesn't relate to the plot, but does remind you that he used to date Peggy Carter, who you can catch every week on ABC's own Agent Carter!Etcetera.

With all these requirements eating up the screen time, there's practically no room left to make a movie. There's definitely no room to make a Joss Whedon movie, because Joss Whedon movies are about two things: Character development and dialogue. I don't have a particular stake in whether Joss Whedon is a great feminist or not. (Again: please don't watch In Your Eyes.) What I know he can do is people talking.

---

The reason the first Avengers was so much fun, despite its generic, weirdly evil climax in which the heroes prove their valor by slaughtering waves of faceless Stormtroopers with no names or histories or families or feelings, was that it turned a mega-budget cross-over action movie into a hang-out comedy. The most important scenes in that movie are the ones in which the characters just sit around together, bickering, trading opinions, asking each other questions and scoring one-liners at each others' expense. The Stormtroopers were obligatory action junk. The conversations — will these people like each other, and if so, why? — were the story.
That can't happen here. Because there is no time to develop characters organically, because the characters all have to be rammed through the same thing-bad guy-lose-lose-win beats in tandem, because this has to be done in a way that allows for the maximum number of fight scenes (look for and then the good guy and the other good guy disagree so they fight to be deployed, too; it's what Marvel does every time a plot gets too talky), and because even this has to be interrupted with ads, there's simply no time for the movie to accomplish its goals with something as old-fashioned as a story.
Character arcs are crowded out, or so compressed that they're barely legible. For example: One arc that's pitched, and then never executed, is that Tony Stark is coming face to face with his own narcissism. Ultron is his karma, his shadow self, his punishment for believing he's smart enough to save the world single-handedly. That's interesting. That's a solid character-based story. It does what good stories do: Zones in on a character's biggest flaw, and dramatizes it, so that he can come to a profound realization about himself and his place in the world, and triumph by using what he's learned.
Yet if that's what the movie is doing, why is the problem "I fucked up by building an overly powerful, self-aware robot" resolved with "I built an overly powerful, self-aware robot?" Symmetry is one thing: This is a story where the character does not meaningfully change. He doesn't learn. He doesn't grow. He just remembers to push the "NOT a genocidal monster" button on his robot-designing machine.
I mean, tell me: What was Captain America's arc in Age of Ultron? Why does he need to be there, what's his personal investment in the problem, and what does he learn about himself by solving that problem? Tell me how Thor grew or changed over the course of this movie. Tell me why Nick Fury or Maria Hill were essential to the story. When Maria Hill tells the story of Ultron to her grandchildren, how will she say these events changed her life? How will she say she felt about her friend Tony's choice to build a genocide-bot? Did she feel anything? Or was she just, you know, there?

---

Character arcs aren't negotiable. They're not highbrow or pretentious or complicated. Character arcs are essential to the success of any story in any genre. To understand why all this matters, look at the Hulk's arc in the first Avengers, which many people consider to be the most successful part of that movie. I would argue that it's actually the most successful element of any Marvel movie to date. In the first Avengers, the Hulk (1) hates being the Hulk, (2) encounters a situation that can only be resolved by becoming the Hulk, and (3) embraces being the Hulk. Simple, right? Stupid simple. Yet it landed like a ton of bricks in the theater, because that's what stories are. Stories use cause and effect to dramatize a process whereby a person is forced to change.
Hulk's arc, simple as it might be, was a cause-and-effect process that dramatized a universal human problem: You might not always like yourself, so you can identify with someone who doesn't like himself, and therefore, you will experience catharsis when a story gives the both of you permission to love yourselves. When he goes on that final rampage and slams Loki into the floor, that's not just a cartoon causing some corporate-mandated violence: That's you, loving your body despite being the "wrong" size, or making feminist points in a conversation without worrying that someone will call you a buzzkill, or being proud of your art despite the fact that it's been rejected, or deciding that you can leave your abusive relationship because you are worthy of respect. Hulk smash inner self-loathing, and thereby becomes the most powerful force in the universe.
So finally, our hero, a suicidal man who has spent the whole movie telling himself he's worthless and intrinsically inferior to other people, encounters Loki, an arrogant, sneering, hyper-critical, hyper-verbal character — a character who mysteriously chooses that very moment to begin a monologue about how worthless the Avengers are, and how inferior they are to him — and suddenly, Loki hits the floor. Hard. And every time Loki hits that floor, all over the world, the theater erupts with screams of joy. There is a release that goes beyond the rational or the personal, here: The noise of hundreds of strangers united for just one second in the realization that deep down, despite all the pain, despite all the shit they put themselves through, despite the endless cruelty that inner critical voice subjects them to, they don't have to let it keep talking. Deep down, they are not ugly or stupid or unlovable or bad or worthless. Deep down, they are strong. They are heroes.
Speaking of heroes, here's Joseph Campbell: "Atonement consists in no more than the abandonment of that self-generated double monster — the dragon thought to be God (superego) and the dragon thought to be Sin (repressed id)." When the superego's judgment is no longer powerful enough to annihilate us (puny God) and the id is accepted by the ego without fear (I'm always angry), our wholeness is restored, our place in the cosmos is found, and we are free. It hits us so hard, all we can do is scream.
Don't let anyone tell you that silly popcorn movies don't matter, or that they can't be smart or beautiful or profound. A silly popcorn movie can change your life. All it has to do is create characters with identifiable, human problems, and let them work out those problems over the course of the story. Stories are about change, and about people, because ultimately, they are about you, the person sitting in a dark theater, working out your baggage by projecting it onto CGI cartoons of overly handsome actors.
Here's another way to put it: The extent to which a movie invests in character-based, character-driven storytelling is the extent to which it recognizes, appreciates, and honors the humanity of its audience.
So when Age of Ultron doesn't invest — when it goes by the assumption that the formula, and the formula alone, is enough to appease the popcorn-eaters — it says something pretty bad.

---

And now we can talk about the sexism.
My ultimate take on Joss Whedon's "feminist" screenwriting is that it's a byproduct of good writing, period. The writer he most reminds me of is Charlie Kaufman: They're both deeply personal writers, who clearly have a wide variety of sexual hang-ups, and to the extent that these hang-ups center on women, they probably do affect their perceptions of real-life women in many ways. Plenty of women have noted that Whedon's fixation on emotionally vulnerable, eighty-pound teenage girls is disturbing and off-putting, and I would tend to agree. Charlie Kaufman's apparent belief that a sexually awakened, self-realized woman wouldn't need him, and would therefore abandon him to a hostile universe, is also kind of weird and upsetting, or (at least) a good reason not to ask Charlie Kaufman out on a date. However, because Kaufman and Whedon are good writers, who understand why stories work, when they sit down to write a story, they feel the obligation to make all of the characters identifiably human, including the women. This is, sadly, so rare that their female characters are often more well-rounded and interesting than almost any other characters out there, including a lot of characters written by people with better sexual politics.
But when the character-based screenwriting breaks down, so does the feminism. Black Widow is just as ill-served as every other character in that story, but because she's a woman, it's politically offensive as well as aesthetically offensive.
Let's take a moment to recognize that, given the paucity of time for character work in Age of Ultron, nearly all of the character development is done with shortcuts. I'm talking real hack stuff, like "each character has a hallucination establishing his inner conflicts and backstory," or "we know this character is old-fashioned because he doesn't like swearing" (brought up so many times that I get the sense it was meant to pay off, in the same way the constant questions about Banner's "secret" paid off last time — was there a climactic F-bomb from Steve that got cut for the rating?) or even "the circle of life is established by naming a baby after the dead guy." (This, aside from giving me flashbacks to the infamously terrible ending of Harry Potter, is especially egregious because the baby's mother never met the dead guy — and, if she ever knew that the dead guy existed, which is highly debatable, she knew him as "that guy who's trying to murder my husband." She names her baby after someone she never met, on the premise that her husband once slightly got along with him for about two hours. Stirring!) Jokes get underlined by characters explaining them and noting that they were humorous. Some characters just walk into a room, announce their backstory, and leave. ("How are you, Sam?" "I AM HAPPY PURSUING OUR MISSING PERSONS CASE IN DC.") Nothing ever really gets written, or earned, just vaguely outlined. It's a whole script made of placeholders.
But when you're doing all your character work with shortcuts, and you have to write a shortcut for your female character, what do you come up with? She's that one dude's girlfriend, obviously, is a time-honored shortcut, used or teased by every Marvel writer who's put Black Widow in a movie — as a woman, she's an Other, and a sexual object, and therefore must be deployed as a potential or actual sexual reward for a male viewpoint character, rather than being a viewpoint herself. But that's the same problem you find with every woman in every Marvel movie (Gamora, Agent Carter, Pepper, whatever Natalie Portman's name is supposed to be) except for Maria Hill, who is clearly saving herself for her one true love, Exposition. If you want to deepen your female character past being a sexual object, in a movie that has no time or patience for anything resembling "depth," what conflicts do you give her? Well, women have babies, right? Women want babies. Okay. She can't have babies. She's sad because she can't have babies. There you go! Depth established!
I mean, it's disgusting. Defining your female character's motivation solely around the Betty Crocker axis of "wants boyfriend" and "wants babies" is 100% disgusting. But if you look around, all of this is disgusting, because all of the characters are exactly this vapid, because Whedon can't get more than five or ten minutes to establish or complicate their motivations, because Marvel is mandating that he not waste screen time on things like the characters' motivations when he could be shooting ads for their other movies, because Marvel doesn't care about men, women, or anything except getting you to show up in a few years for the next installment of Avengers.
I never thought I'd be the kind of person who believed that a crime against feminism was less important than a crime against storytelling, but in this case, they're so interconnected that it's hard to tell the difference. When you can't write, you can't write women.

---

There's an alternate interpretation for that Hulk-slams-Loki scene in the first Avengers. I try, very hard, to believe it's not the correct one. Because it's an evil message, which cynics will tell you is at the heart of every comic book movie. It is: Punching is better than talking.
It happens in a lot of big, commercial movies, right? There's a guy who talks a lot, thinks, plans, tries to get somewhere by thinking. In the end, that guy is evil, because thinking is bad. He has to be subdued by the heroic brute: The guy who's just "normal," who's more like you, more pure, because instead of thinking and analyzing, he just feels and does. Loki thinks he can get somewhere with a monologue, but surprise! Giant biceps trump clever monologue, every time.
So there's your other interpretation, the thing I think is at the core of Marvel's contempt for people: Punching is better than talking. Doing is better than thinking. Instinct is better than intellect; big is better than smart. We don't need to understand the Stormtroopers; we don't need to talk to them. That's thinking, which is boring. We just need to kill: They don't have names or histories or families or feelings, and by slaughtering them, thousands of them, we prove that we can do.
The audience doesn't need dialogue or character or psychological growth. The audience needs explosions, because they're animals, and all they want is blood on the floor. The audience doesn't need to be surprised or challenged with a new story. The audience wants the old story, because they've bought it ten times already, and at the end of the day, we just convinced these fucking yahoos to wait three years and pay us twenty dollars so we could tell them to come back in four years and pay us $40. Now you think they want personal growth? Give me a break. They're barely even people.
I mean: You pump this message out into the atmosphere, and then you're surprised when the biggest fans are ready to send death threats to a director to save the Almighty Brand? Punching is better than talking, rage is better than understanding, conflicts are resolved by annihilating the other person without feeling bad about it: You just told them that. Over and over, and made them pay for the privilege of hearing it. You can't possibly be surprised that they believe it's true.
It kills me that I am so bothered by this. I understand that these movies are power fantasies for nine-year-olds: At the end of the day, accepting that they're stupid is probably smarter than wishing for them to be smart. But this is the epicenter of pop culture. Everyone is expected to share power fantasies with nine-year-olds now, and worse than that, to take them seriously; to make them into a lifestyle. The Marvel virus has already overtaken movies; now, it's infiltrated a new host, TV, and is hollowing it out from within.
The aim is not one or two bad movies a year, it's a total lifestyle regimen of bad pop culture: In order to keep up with the Avengers, you need to keep up with Iron Man, Captain America, and Thor, and in order to keep up with those, you should probably be watching Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., which will really help you keep up with Ant-Man, Doctor Strange, Captain Marvel, and Guardians of the Galaxy, and in order to make sure you're on top of these nine essential movie franchises and able to make sense of their plots, you'll need to keep a constant stream of Marvel product in your life, so make sure to tune in for Agent Carter, Daredevil, Jessica Jones, and, of course, the forthcoming Hulu triumphs, Ant-Man's One Weird Friend Gary and Guy Running Away From Explosion In Panel 17.
The problems with Marvel's storytelling will be the problems of narrative storytelling for the foreseeable future. Once this is over, we'll be dealing with a generation raised on this stuff, who believes it's how storytelling ought to work: Harry Potter came out when I was in high school. I'm in my thirties, and I still haven't seen the end of the "serialized YA fantasy" onslaught. Something this big sticks around.
I love stupid popcorn movies. I do. I believe they can be emotionally resonant, mythic, that they can do the same thing all stories are meant to do — speak to the soul; challenge us to be more and better than we were — and can use big, fantastic elements to tell big, human truths. I also believe that Marvel has no investment in doing so; that, even if they manage to grab a director who is capable of doing those things, the prioritization of the brand and the formula over individual creators will ultimately sabotage the attempt.
Avengers: Age of Ultron wasn't just bad. It was, to me, proof that Marvel movies, even at their best, can only be bad. And that they are going to get worse. The human mission has been lost: these are faceless Stormtrooper movies, unleashed in waves upon the presumed-to-be-faceless Stormtrooper audience. Stories are an affirmation of our human value; they teach us what life means, make and keep us human. Marvel, by removing the human from its storytelling, may be bringing about the end of story altogether. Fuck Ultron: Marvel Comics has built the army of machines that might really end the world.

Mehmete, ovo govorim godinama pa me ne citiraš...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Pa, citiraću te kad budeš na Mediumu ili u Wiredu.  Ali ovo sam ovde stavio da vidiš da se ozbiljni mediji slažu sa tobom.

...e moj Kriple...nikad prorok u svome selu...dil vid it....

nikad prorok u svom seulu


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk