Senses:// Re-engineered

Over the past couple of weeks the term "Dunkirk Spirit", or the lack of it, has been overused by the media in slating the public service's inability to cope with the onslaught of white stuff. I have always imagined the essence of that to be "EVERYONE chipping in at the times of adversity" (e.g. how every sea-worthy ship, big or small went out to rescued those stranded on the French coast). A lot of people seems to be under the impression that since they have paid their dues, the council should do everything for them.

Sorry but this is a 1-in-30 years snow for Britain and on very rare occasions are systems designed to cope with such probabilities.

No councils would hire the amount of staff or stock the level of grit, on standby, to cope with this kind of weather. And even IF there is enough staff and IF there is enough grit, the geographic locations of some places would probably mean that the logistics won't reach them until all the snow has melted.

Some people even questioned why the army has been drafted in to provided relief to the local councils, since good tax money has been paid in the form of council tax. Why can't the council take care of themselves? The simple answer would be: Civilian Infrastructures are designed for "Return Periods" much shorter than those of the military. It is therefore natural for military resources to be deployed during freak weathers such as this.

The local councils are all struggling, some worse than others, because it is uneconomical to cater for 1-in-30 year occurences like the one we are experiencing. It wouldn't make sense to stock up on grit and ploughs for one year and having them go to waste in the other 29.

Government/military and other mission critical installations (power plants, water pumps) are designed for 1-in-50. This is the reason why some roads are fucked but we still have the basic essentials like gas and water. The entire Gloucester was fucked over by that 1-in-50 years storm and even the military struggled to cope with the rescue operations.

Same with the flooding up in Cumbria which have washed away a couple of bridges last year. They were all designed for 1-in-20 storm and they got washed away by a storm beyond 1-in-20 occurance... So the Military came in and built a 1-to-100 year temporary bridge, within 5 days, because they are equiped to do so.

Pretty much everything we are seeing now are unfolding like they are meant to. All the numbers are pretty much laid out like poetry on paper...

My first experience with mainstream Hollywood 3D make-overs was when I saw "The Final Destination". The whole thing was pretty much a normal gore flick with loads of cheese, intermitted with 3D bits - objects flying out of the screen, objects with high depth differentials (e.g. stick/knife poking out at you). There were some "Wow!" elements, but a lot of the techniques felt really inelegant. A lot of "start-and-stop" and obvious "rough seams" where you can see the director thought it might be a good idea to be 3D so he's poured EVERYTHING 3D he has in his scrapbook without much thoughts or care. As dispensable as the experience was, I did get to witness my first 3D softcore porn scene. That was fun! I was reaching out for the screen, scratching wildly at thin air, like a child would when a cute flying cartoon creature emerge from the screen. Although I could see the potential in 3D cinema, I was left unconvinced with "The Final Destination".

Then came Avatar.

I could understand the general complaint - there is nothing inspiring with the story. A lot of the things were already seen in previous Cameron movies. It was almost like they were included on purpose so more attention can be spent on the budding new technology. It was James Cameron's first attempt in making a 3D movie and all the filming methods and technologies are still at their infancy, so he had to keep everything else simple to make sure he gets the 3D parts right. The 3D depths of the scenes need to be done so they change into one and other gradually, otherwise people with poor eyesights (and weak eye muscles) can't focus and will end up feeling sick or getting a headache.

The way the 3D-ness in Avatar was used were VERY subtly and served to draw you in slowly into being a part of the scenes and emotion. The restraints it had in many of the places (build up to the flight scene) added to the final flurry of colours, motions and depths.

The castings were perfect! Sigourney Weaver was a stroke of genius and a no-brainer at the same time. She pretty much picked up where she had left off from "Aliens" and "Gorillas in the Mist".

Zoe Saldana was amazing for the part of Neytiri too. All her features really came through on the CGI replication and all her emotions conveyed across well. The techheads did a good job giving her an air of ethereal quality during the transition.

Stephen Lang's army hard man kind of reminded me of Apocalypse Now's "I love the smell of napalm" Kilgore but with a nice blend of gang-ho, comic book-styled marines from the "Aliens" to him to make him hype real and fun.

I literally LOLed when I saw Michelle Rodriguez. I don't think I could think of anyone in movie history who have managed to play the same character, using the same facial expressions, in virtually the same wardrobe, in so many movies. She is a genius in her own right. She is like the crocodile, having stayed virtually the same biologically since the prehistoric age because it has attain the anatomy of the perfect predator. Rodriguez has evolved to the point of being so perfect for her persona that she no longer requires any further evolution to adapt to her movie. As a matter of fact, when I first saw one of Rodriguez's pictures (left) on Google Image, I had to do a double-take to see if it's a picture of her assuming her role in Avatar or as Vin Diesel's girlfriend in Fast & Furious. She even had a dog-tag there, but I guess her leaning on a car was kind of a give-away.

Worthington's Sully was pretty hollowed out or "empty" has it was said in the film but served to allow the audience to channel through him. The concept of the protagonist transplanting his consciousness to a new body (ala Matrix), therefore acquiring a new sense of reality, ran parallel with the audiences' cinematic experience, many of whom are probably watching their first 3D movie. This is a very smart way of "breaking the fourth wall", similar to that seem in "Neverending Story" (which had me screaming a random girl's name at the screen near the end of the movie). The effectiveness of the movie in striking a chore with the audience was particularly obvious in light of news reports of fans becoming suicidal after forming deep-rooted connection with the world of Pandora, making their joyless lives seem EVEN more joyless.

All in all, Avatar has Cameron's fingerprints all over it. Even the final showdown between the Colonel in A.M.P. suit vs Neytiri on a Thantor was reminiscent of Ripley in robotic-suit vs Queen Alien. It was a very well played and planned out. A lot of safe techniques were used to ensure the new 3D technologies goes off without a hitch (although I kept seeing "ghosting" at the extremes during some scenes).

So what now then? After Cameron's box office success, other movies will undoubtably get the 3D treatments and based on some of the previews, it's all looking very good! And don't let the "Tron Guy" (picture right) put you off. The trailer for Tron Legacy is looking very promising indeed. Then again, I guess we can't really pass judgement until reports come through on how many fans are feeling suicidal because they thinks the real world has too little to offer after experiencing marvel of the Tron universe. :p