Estás usando un navegador desactualizado. Es posible que no muestre este u otros sitios web correctamente. Deberías actualizar o usar un navegador alternativo.
Nolan's The Odyssey - Potentially could be epic or an epic flop.
It make the entire backstory (and based on trailers, I'm assuming the opening prologue to this film - unless Nolan tells the story out of order and we end up with Iliad flashbacks in the middle of The Odyssey story - I'm not sure how much of The Iliad/Trojan War stuff is in this film) seem like a joke.
Beauty standards change over time, and the ancient Greek ideal of feminine beauty is far removed from ours. A modern audience would never accept a big-titted, narrow-waisted woman with long, elaborately-coiffed hair, carefully applied makeup, fine jewelry, and a colorful outfit accentuating her natural features as some kind of beautiful princess.
Can you imagine a modern film portraying women like these? There are several obvious problems with that approach. First, casting a European woman as a European woman would be undeniably racist. There's just no avoiding that. Second, casting a physically attractive actress as the most beautiful woman in history is simply pandering to the male gaze. (That's totally different from pandering to the male gays, which is something the film should do, but that's another discussion.) Finally, colorful costumes are known to detract from the grayness we expect in modern film. All of that might make an interesting experimental or art house film, but it would not be pleasant viewing.
Modern blockbuster film is in the trash so deep. Spielberg (as an example) hasn’t made anything good since the 21st century started, Nolan’s always been hacky but he really is riding on his own name, actors have no pride in what they do, they’re just celebrities dropped into a character so that people can wig out when they see someone they recognize.
Film is really cool and it’s a shame that there is no passion in most of what is made these days. It used to be that there was always something to look forward to, now it’s one or two things a year MAYBE. I’m excited for Dune part 3 and I like Villeneuve and Ari Aster, but there aren’t many other good established names making films regularly.
I think this is a good thing and an opportunity for the old to die away and new young, hungry and skilled filmmakers to fill that desire.
A South Korean dude being in the movie is unexpected, the immersion-breaking "diversity" in these movie is basically always browns and blacks. It's never 'hey, we cast a big-titted Japanese chick as Helen of Troy for diversity!" it's always some fatigue person.
Obviously this would still be bad in terms of accuracy to the source material, era, and geographic location but they usually default to blacks and jeets so koreans being with bronze age era Greeks is a new one.
A South Korean dude being in the movie is unexpected, the immersion-breaking "diversity" in these movie is basically always browns and blacks. It's never 'hey, we cast a big-titted Japanese chick as Helen of Troy for diversity!" it's always some fatigue person.
Obviously this would still be bad in terms of accuracy to the source material, era, and geographic location but they usually default to blacks and jeets so koreans being with bronze age era Greeks is a new one.
actors have no pride in what they do, they’re just celebrities dropped into a character so that people can wig out when they see someone they recognize.
Reminder that Robert Pattinson is the only one who asked to see the script before signing on and Lupita Oogabooga didn't know the Odyssey despite going to Yale. No one working on this film cares about the craft, just a payday.
Reminder that Robert Pattinson is the only one who asked to see the script before signing on and Lupita Oogabooga didn't know the Odyssey despite going to Yale. No one working on this film cares about the craft, just a payday.
Nolan really appeals to the midwits who think his movies are complicated studies of psychology or science. "This movie had ACTUAL SCIENTISTS WHO DID THE SCIENCE FOR THE MOVIE"... and then one of the characters was like "...but the power of love!" And I say this as a fan.
Reminder that Robert Pattinson is the only one who asked to see the script before signing on and Lupita Oogabooga didn't know the Odyssey despite going to Yale. No one working on this film cares about the craft, just a payday.
Still can't believe that an adult who's around my age wouldn't know what the Odyssey is even about. Even if you didn't read the book, it's perhaps the most referenced story if you're remotely well educated or went to school alone, even.
Third, it's been around for decades and still hasn't hit economy of scale, thus proving it's a dead-end format. The purpose of IMAX is that it enhances already good movies, not be a standard that forces movies to downgrade their quality when they aren't IMAX.
I will respond to what you said in multiple points to basically how much IMAX is in the shitter. First, some dumb information regarding . Then I will move onto the projectors, first with the film ones and then later the digital ones with Xenon, and the Laser ones. Then, I will move onto some historical stuff with the transition from docs to movies, and why The Odyssey is interesting but yeah, it is really a dead-end format because of 1: projector production issues, 2: what IMAX is actually for, and how both IMAX corporate and Disney decided to abuse it as a brand for them to use [and why the Marvel stuff is going to backfire hard in the years to come, with this really being set in course because of Dune part 3], and why we're basically at the height of IMAX at a format, with the future being uncertain - It's going to be up for sale, say hello to Private Equity.
It's been around for around over half a century. It was an experimental format combing essentially 3 5perf 70mm frames together, [hence IMAX 15/70] with some other differences such as it being horizontal film compared to vertical. However, this isn't unique 8 perf exists, and so does 10 perf. There were also other 15perf formats. IMAX was originally a film format made for documentaries, hence the big screen element, and it was made to focus on one specific thing in an environment and is some of the best foutage we have gotten. There are a ton of older docs that I'd love to see in an actual IMAX film theatre.
Now, the problem with this is that there are ton of different forms of IMAX. IMAX digital is what actually took off, and is worse than what you'd get in a dolby [or even most multiplexes these day]. Most older digital theatres use a pair of digital xenon projectors, with these being mass produced when IMAX decided to go into the multiplex business [multiple screen auditoriums, where the IMAX screen was meant to be the biggest one]. Now, this was good back in 2008, and is what allowed them to rapidly expand and build their brand. But this is where the term liemax comes from. It doesn't enhance most movies, you get more image from
Aspect ratio difference [doesn't really highlight most of the difference, a lot of the image is useless but is meant to be for peripheral vision for docs]
But, yeah, most Dolby screens do give a 1.85:1 aspect ratio, and has better digital projection and sound systems. Marvel was the main push factor for IMAX 1.90:1 [only Eternals and Fantastic Four had 1.43:1 shots] which helped build the brand, but Disney is moving away. Oppenheimer [and Dune] helped for pushing 1.43 with films like Sinners, Joker 2 [lol, remember that having a cropped IMAX print because Warner thought it'd print money?] as well as others. One Battle After Another shouldn't really count as it was filmed on an older film format, Vistavision [which does prove hella sexy film dyes, source just look at Vertigo] which produced an aspect ratio similar to IMAX, which was used to create IMAX film prints at 1.43:1 with this following on from the Brutalist, which I am still pissed that I missed a train to a free showing of but I digress].
Anyways, back to IMAX film. For the Odyssey, there are 41 locations showing it on IMAX 70mm. This is a reference to... Anyways, there are no more mechanical IMAX 70mm projectors being produced. This is for a lot of reasons, but there were quite a few in storage, with these being single rotor projectors {there should also be some of the larger . I will now clarify what I mean by these projectors
PROJECTORS [FILM]
Terms [GT means Grand Theatre, the larger IMAX theatres], SR is single Rotor which is used for a projector with only one rotor. The reason for this difference is that the original, larger GT projectors were made to project with 3d in mind, where 2 reels would go through at the same time. Hence why you would need 2 single rotor projectors for 3d. Single Rotor projectors for smaller 1.43:1 screens were also made less powerful so they would have less heat, hence the bulb would not need to be as bright as it would not have to cover as much surface area with a smaller screen. I have included a screen image after clarifying the main projectors in a non liemax, liemax being a 1.90:1 aspect ratio, whilst actual IMAX is 1.43:1].
These are the GT, GT projectors. [the larger one in white. This picture is from the BFI IMAX which gives good size comparison as the smaller black IMAX projector is a COLA, single laser, 1.90:1 IMAX projector whilst the one next to it is a christie digital projector which is why the BFI IMAX is one of the few screens to include both IMAX and standard digital showings. Standard digital is basically the same as IMAX Cola there, if there is a 4K dcp. I have been to showings there before. And they include other film formats such as 16mm, 35mm and 5 perf 70mm, you can see a dual 35mm and 70mm projector to the left of the white IMAX film projector].
These are GT SR projectors
As you can tell, there are also two of them. These are used for the larger GT screens, where you would use a single projector for standard presentations, and both for when you want 3d. With The Odyssey, pairs of SR GT projectors were split up and sent to different locations like Kinepolis in Brussels, Belgium.
And these are SR, SR projectors.
As you can tell, they are a lot smaller. They were meant for the smaller class of IMAX screens, with there being multiple different locations that they were sent to. Quite a few in Canada, as well as one being sent to TCL when they did some renovations to make it so the screen could show IMAX 70mm on an actual IMAX aspect ratio screen, where the screen was previously used for LIEMAX [they masked part of the screen, as you can see here:
It is usually used as a LIEMAX screen.
And these are for the screens that they are made for:
[This comes from LFExaminer, Large Format Examiner ,which is the best source for stuff like this]. So SR screens are smaller ones, and were pushed when IMAX was trying to become more mainstream.
[I still prefer projection on film to digital. Laser projection can be annoying when it comes to Laser Speckle. There are mitigations for this but it never always works. I don't mind the constant flickering]
No film projectors are in production. All the film projectors that are used are being from storage. No more than around 45 projectors were used for a single run, with the highest amount of film locations being with the Dark Knight Rises, this being because of a lot of build up that started with The Dark Knight, where a lot of films tried to take on the format, with Transformers 2 and Mission Impossible using it, as well as Hunger Games Catching Fire. - Which I am sorta pissed that I missed out on a showing of in London, but it was at a horrible cinema that is meant for documentaries, so showings of about 45mins.
I will now briefly move onto current IMAX digital projectors.
Digital Projectors:
There are currently four film projectors in use. These are:
Xenon 2k projectors [the earliest from back in 2008, released with TDK]
Dual Laser projectors. These were the first laser projectors, which moved from a 5:1 sound set up, to 12 channels. Note, film is still limited to 5:1 as far as I am aware. It might be changing, not sure but Nolan is known to prefer that format. They are the only digital projectors to do both 1.43:1 and 1.90:1 locations because of them being the first. They are no longer in production because the maufactourer stopped making the parts for them. There are two of these per installation.
Commercial Laser [COLA]: These are designed for 1.90:1 screens, where because of the competition IMAX wanted a cheaper option to move towards 4k laser showings. These still offer 12 channels.
XT laser. These are the newest projectors. They are designed to be cheap. There are 5:1 and 12 channel options offered for the purposes of getting as many 4k lasers as possible in LIEMAX screens.
Dual Laser projectors are pretty big. A COLA image was included earlier with the BFI. This is a pair of Dual Laser projectors next to a GT projector.
I am not going to include an image of Xenon or XT projectors as they are only relevant in so far as them meant to push cheap, LIEMAX screens.
It is also imperative to note that not all film projectors are used for 1.43:1 showings. It is only a recent phenomena post Oppenheimer that studios would produce prints. But, beforehand, IMAX dual laser was the only way to usually see a 1.43:1 movie. Nope for instance did not have a film print, nor did James Bond no Time to Die [despite both films having portions shot on IMAX film]. There are many other films that I shall not list, and indeed even now there are films that include full IMAX portions that do not get prints, as producing prints and hiring projectionists is an added cost, as well as these projectors requiring a lot of maintenance.
History stuff:
So how did it all come to this?
With IMAX being originally a documentary company, they would originally find that there was more revenue to come with pushing into movies and hollywood. Who would be the first to really get into this? Well, Disney. But this had been something that had been in the works for the while.
There was interest that came from the possibility of using IMAX screens. They were big, obviously, but the original IMAX projectors were first limited to around 45minutes for documentaries. By the late 90s, modern GT projectors were coming into fruition and IMAX screens were being pushed into the forefront.
There are some pretty cool stuff to come from these documentaries, like this recreation of the Star Wars opening as essentially a tech demo of what IMAX is capable of. This is a french recording from one showing of the special effects documentary that includes the recreation of the opening of Star Wars
The first major film to come into this format was animated with Fantasia 2000, with this being animated.
Disney did actually set up a non permanent screen for it, however there is no [as far as I am aware] remaining images of the screen. But it did exist, as per articles from the time.
It would be in 2002 that standard, Hollywood feature films would be converted which was when iMAX started to come into the forefront with Apollo 13 and Star Wars Attack of the Clones later that year. The problem? It was first limited to 2 hours because of platter space, [current IMAX film platters are limited to 3 hours with the Oppenheimer expansions]. Films at this point usually cut stuff out, and would zoom in to try to cover the frame up. There have been interesting recreations of Attack of the Clones that I have seen, and some actually do prefer the edit.
Then the Dark Knight would shoot with film projectors because of Nolan's autism, and he'd be the main guy associated with the format which he has gradually been building up to try and shoot a film in the format. Others have tried to be more liberal in its use. Quite a few films only had limited five min sections, like Star Wars The Force Awakens, Transformers 2, Mission Impossible with the Burj Khalifa and Batman Vs Superman. Whilst others have included larger set pieces, with The Hunger Games Catching Fire probably being the most notable where the stuff outside of the arena is on scope. Whilst, the arena itself is in 1.43:1.
But, a lot of this stuff involved fancy camera tricks. What's the main problem with IMAX film other than the cost?
The cameras are loud.
Only recently did IMAX produce quieter cameras with the Odyssey, but with the older ones you could not film dialogue. Catching Fire for instance [as well as other films] used other film formats, like 35mm to capture dialogue. Oppenheimer switched from ADR added over, 5perf 70mm and 15perf 70mm.
Even still, it is very unlikely that IMAX 70mm is going to be around for much longer. IMAX does not produce film projectors as noted, and have been bringing them out of their stock pile, and are likely cannibalizing parts. They have had to bring out projectionists from retirement for showings, these will be on and off hirings with the next movie on film being Dune Part 3 in December.
And Dune Part 3 has done a lot of damage to the format because Warner was able to secure and exclusive contract to the format, which pissed Disney off as Disney wanted the window for Avengers Doomsday. Why didn't Doomsday get it? Warner booked in advance, and what this means is that the Liemax aspect ratio is now being pushed to other screens. Good for consumers as they aren't being tricked into paying more for a subpar experience - You are throwing money away by going to a Xenon showing, which most IMAX screens are. IMAX has made a lot of bank off of that scam, and most people not being able to tell the difference.
Now, IMAX is currently up for sale and chances are it'll either be bought the likes of Disney, which doesn't care much for 1.43:1 [as noted, only Eternals and Fantastic Four had 1.43:1 shots in digital IMAX
So yeah, IMAX really cannot hit an economy of scale. especially now that their entire production line is fucked, their multiplex strategy is about to hit an end, [dolby and others are pushing Large Premium Formats, a niche that IMAX did hold onto] and the only thing IMAX really has is their film, and they cannot really employ it as they have limited projectors, and you need to hire on and off projectionists, whilst also requiring a production line that does not exist. And post buy out, it's likely that 1.43:1 will be seen as a waste. It'll probably go the way of Cinerama [I should totally go to a Cinerama showing]
IMAX is used for immersion, most people only go for big screen. It has benefited from TikTok and influencer trends but it won't last.
I mean, I loved seeing Project Hail Mary at a digital GT showing with dual laser working, as well as the screen shakers doing the job to stop speckle but they are really rare. IMAX may be working on a new IMAX GT digital projector, given that there have been new IMAX GT builds with Regal abroad. This is only relevant because their parent company Cineworld built them before 1: Going Bankrupt and 2: Being notorious for hating film format, with them rushing a transition to digital and being a very early supporter pushing for IMAX digital.
There is A LOT banking on The Odyssey for IMAX as a whole. They may get some help if it does poorly with Dune P3. but there's no major IMAX 1.43 release next year as far as I'm aware other than SpiderVerse. And Disney is going on the offensive with their InfinityVision brand. There are no Marvel movies being released in IMAX [Note, LIEMAX, as that is Marvel's favoured format] this year in the US.
Lupita is pulling feminism cards already.
Remember that Homer had so much more detail on the lives of women in the epic that there was a theory Homer was a woman.
Wakanda of Troy has spoken, and she wants to lecture Homer and then give him the side-eye.
0:17
Reminder, she supposedly has a Master of Fine Arts degree from Yale. yet she not only has never read or heard of The Odyssey, but also doesn't know Homer was blind.
Her whining is especially retarded as there are many prominent female roles in The Odyssey that play important parts in the story. Penelope, Athena, Circe, Calypso, Eurycleia, and so on.
In fact, there's so much female representation in the Iliad and the Odyssey that scholars have argued Homer might have been a woman, going back at least a century. Some even think that Nausicaa is a self-insert character. Robert Graves (I, Claudius) worked that into one of his novels on Homer back in the 50's.
Anyway, I've gone from not knowing this chick exists to actively disliking her. Very much the Kenyan Rachel Zegler.
Lupita is pulling feminism cards already. Ver archivo adjunto 9237620
Remember that Homer had so much more detail on the lives of women in the epic that there was a theory Homer was a woman.
