#34572 - 01/25/10 10:00 PM
Re: Avatar
[Re: GillesdeRais]
|
Michael A.Aquino
veteran member
Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 1247
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
|
What I said about Avatar in one of the Temple of Set's forums:
The situation of the Na'vi in Avatar is much like that of the Quendi (Elves) in the Morlindalë: They are attuned to & harmonious with nature (Pandora or Arda), but for the same reason are bounded and limited by it. Within that environment they are masterful and regenerative. But they are constitutionally unable to perceive or even survive beyond it.
Within Egyptian metaphysics they would be like initiates of all of the neteru except Set. Setians recognize themselves to be distinct from and outside of nature, which is, as we know, at once a blessing and a curse. It dashes from our lips the Cup of Lethe and offers instead the Grail of the Psyche. It is the eating of the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, the acceptance of the Fire of Prometheus, the Black Flame, the Spear of Odin, the Fire of She, and the One Ring.
Setians can never again lose themselves in nature; they can intelligently coexist with it, use it either constructively or harmfully. They can improve it by stopping forest fires and healing injured or sick animals, or they can devastate it [as dramatized in Avatar]. That choice is unavoidably the responsibility, the ethics, of each individual Setian; and it is an endless confrontation of choices. The Setian can never stop, never go back, except by willful Self-annihilation: the drinking of the Kheft.
In this ultimate sense, Avatar is a morality epic about nonSetians and Setians. It portrays nonSetians most blissfully and Setians most viciously: gods initiating Ragnarök for the sheer nihilistic wantonness of it. It is a graphic illustration of the danger of the Gift of Set, the Id-Monster of Forbidden Planet remanifesting through war-technology.
Finally, of course, Avatar is but the latest and most lavish illustration of this dilemma, which has been held up to conscious humanity over and over again since the first man-ape touched the Monolith. For noninitiated viewers, this film offers a simple message: that immersion in nature is better than transcendence of it. [That is the same message offered by conventional religions/the RHP, though all that they can really deliver is the illusion of it.] The Setian, I think, will emerge from the theater with a much more complex paradigm in mind: that the Gift of Set can be, and has all too often been, loathsomely abused by humanity. We, its sacred guardians, must always aspire to its purification, not degradation. If Setians visited Pandora, the Na'vi would have no reason to hate and fear us - though we would be as incomprehensible to them as the Asgard of Stargate SG-1 or the aforementioned 2001 Monolith.
More than a few viewers have commented about the replayed theme of the "White Messiah" (Jake) who seems indispensable to lead/rescue ignorant natives. It doesn't work out well all the time, as for instance in Apocalypse Now, wherein the WM Colonel Kurtz became psychotic and suicidal. Lawrence of Arabia didn't work out very well either, nor did Khartoum.
One of the curious aspects of such films is the theme of the WM "going native" to gain their trust, as though merely coming in as a charismatic outsider is not sufficient. Avatar carries this to a sci-fi extreme with not only a behavioral "going native" but a complete physical robot/cyborg impersonation as well. This theme originated most famously in Metropolis, in which the oppressed-class leader Maria is imaged into a malevolent robotrix for the purpose of leading her trusting followers to their doom. Look familiar?
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino
[On Ignore: Dan_Dread, 6Satan6Archist6, Caladrius, MindFux]
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#34903 - 02/01/10 02:44 AM
Re: Avatar
[Re: 111Cal]
|
ThinkingCap
stranger
Registered: 09/11/09
Posts: 11
Loc: Tennessee
|
Maybe its because I saw the 2-D version (sorry but my head just cant take 3-D for more than a few minutes!)
Normally I'd be with you on this one, can't seem to escape from a headache when I watch normal 3-D films. But Avatar used different technology to get the 3-D effect which made it so that I could watch it for almost three hours without having to take the glasses off because my head hurt too much.
See, before filmmakers would just take the original film, double it up, and overlay the two sets so that when you put the glasses on it would look 3-D. Avatar used two separate cameras though, set a little ways apart, to film the entire thing. When those images were put together, a much more natural 3-D comes out. That is what made me fall in love with the movie.
Here's a little article on it. Not that extensive, but you get the point. So you may want to give it a shot, the effect it created was astounding and they didn't exploit it with cheap shots of things randomly flying at the screen.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#37106 - 03/28/10 01:18 PM
3D TV
[Re: Arianwen Seren]
|
Michael A.Aquino
veteran member
Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 1247
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
|
Just as an aside, if you enjoy 3D, this actually works very well (albeit a bit pricy), and the three movies are fun & well designed to make maximum use of 3D with being slapstick about it (e.g. Comin' at Ya).
Other 3D DVDs, which just use the old red/blue glasses, don't seem to work very well with television. Too bad, because there are many '50s films such as House of Wax & Revenge of the Creature that were enhanced by it.
Surprising the number of films using this technology today. Sooner or later some geek genius will probably figure out a computer program to 3D old 2D movies. They can start with The Rocketeer, Bullitt, Gone in 60 Seconds, & Stargate. 
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino
[On Ignore: Dan_Dread, 6Satan6Archist6, Caladrius, MindFux]
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#37107 - 03/28/10 02:49 PM
Re: 3D TV
[Re: Michael A.Aquino]
|
Jake999
senior member
Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2174
|
I'm waiting for the even geekier technology of holographic entertainment. Was at the Werby "chalet" for his daughter's wedding party long ago and as you walked into the foyer, there was a life size headshot of Don Werby that puffed on his ever-present cigar and blew out the smoke. It had the typical "green tinge" look of the holograms in the 80's but even so, it was quite impressive. He said that it was a hell of a production to manufacture it and very expensive at the time.
A more aestheticly acceptable depiction of the thing I'm referencing would be the diagnostic hologram they use in the TV program BONES.
BUT,,, the only problem I have with 3D today is the glasses. Regular glasses are of course too expensive to use in movie theaters, but the paper ones are awful, usually fall apart half way through the movie and you have to hold the stupid red and green plastic up, so you can't grab some popcorn, and if you DO, your plastic gets so smeared that it looks like getting cataracts.
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#37194 - 03/31/10 04:37 PM
Re: 3D TV
[Re: Michael A.Aquino]
|
Meq
Banned
active member
Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 861
Loc: UK
|
Today's technology in 3D TV typically involves plasma or high-quality LCD screens, which can run at a framerate of 120 frames per second. This is the MINIMUM you'll need to avoid eyestrain, and hence is usually branded as "3D ready", in contrast to standard TVs which run at 60FPS (or 50FPS in PAL or SECAM regions such as the UK). Of course, these 3D screens also do normal 2D.
The 3D ready screen is typically used in conjunction with a pair of LCD active shutter glasses, which may cost at least $150 each. The screen displays one frame for the left eye, followed by one for the right eye, then repeats. The glasses are synchronized with the screen and simultaneously block out the right eye for the first frame, then the left eye for the second, and so on. This creates a 3D effect with each eye receiving 60 frames per second, good enough to avoid eyestrain imposed by the shutters.
To complete a 3D setup, you'll need a compatible set-top box for 3D TV channels (if there's any available in your area yet!), and perhaps a 3D Blu-Ray player (recently standardized).
For 3D gaming, you'll want a high-end PC (or Mac with BootCamp) with a compatible video card (and the glasses need to be compatible with both). Expect to pay more for compatible hardware if you go the Apple route.
Alternatively there may be a 3D upgrade for consoles such as the PS3 (with compatible glasses) - although the next generation's consoles and PCs (over the next few years) are very likely to push 3D hard, giving a far more photorealistic "virtual reality" experience - for both games and more serious applications.
3D ready CRT (cathode ray tube, the old 'box' TVs and monitors) screens have been available for some time now - however, the dominance of flatscreen LCD (and larger plasma) screen has led to an extraordinary thing to happen - technological development went backwards.
With flatscreen all the rage, the 3D technology which was almost ready for prime time on CRT screens became obsolete. Unfortunately, LCD and plasma screens weren't up to doing the required 120FPS - that is, until very recently.
Now, for several grand, anyone with the cash can get a pretty good 3D setup.
It'll just take a while before enough movies and games become available - by which time your shiny expensive setup will be obsolete - but that's technology! 
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#37196 - 03/31/10 04:55 PM
Re: 3D TV
[Re: Meq]
|
Meq
Banned
active member
Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 861
Loc: UK
|
An alternative method to the above setup is to use the method used in 3D cinemas - a dual polarized projector, a suitable screen to project to, and a pair (or dozens of pairs) of cheap passive polarized 3D glasses. (As before, this should also function as a 2D display.)
This works by a very different method, utilizing a physical property of light: The projectors polarize the two images using polaroid filters at right-angles to each other, and project them onto the screen on top of each other. The polarized 3D glasses then separate out the two images for the left and right eyes, creating the 3D effect.
This is a similar (but much better) technique to the old "anaglyph" effect utilising colored glasses, as this method does not fuck up the color, as well as working much better.
(You can however use anaglyph 3D without any special hardware - just some tacky glasses  )
Both of these methods have their pros and cons.
It should theoretically be possible to use the same 3D movies, TV channels, and 3D games and applications on both types of setup (active shutter glasses and passive polarized glasses, or even crappy anaglyph for those without the hardware).
I'm not sure how standardized these things are as yet however, although it would be good to see 3D media working seamlessly with different methodologies.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#39773 - 07/02/10 01:22 AM
Re: Avatar
[Re: Arianwen Seren]
|
NeoZombie
pledge
Registered: 06/21/10
Posts: 60
Loc: Minnesota, USA
|
I do not like one line-liners but, Avatar really was a waste of money. MAA did do a nice analyses of the movie spot on.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
Moderator: fakepropht, Nemesis, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Mercury_Templar, Woland, Bacchae, Morgan, Diavolo, Asmedious, Fist
|
|
Sweet Dreams. =)
