[Mierzwiak]

(13-10-2013, 15:30)Indroman napisał(a): Nie przeszkadza mi, że fabuła jest zbyt płytka. Przeszkadza mi bardziej, że do stricte konceptualnego filmu starano się za wszelką cenę wcisnąć jakąś głębię.

To zabawne, że według Ciebie w tym filmie jest wręcz za dużo treści, podczas gdy przeważają raczej głosy (wśród tych krytycznych, ale nie tylko) że jest jej z kolei za mało ;)

Przeczytajcie sobie, co do scenariusza chciał wcisnąć Warner:

Alfonso Cuarón napisał(a):“[They said] you need to cut to Houston, and see how the rescue mission goes. And there is a ticking clock with the rescue mission. You have to do flashbacks with the backstory.” But we were very clear that this was the film that we wanted to make. [They wanted ] the whole thing of the flashbacks. A whole thing with… a romantic relationship with the Mission Control Commander, who is in love with her. All of that kind of stuff. What else? To finish with a whole rescue helicopter, that would come and rescue her. Stuff like that.

You have to understand that in this is the process… in many ways I don’t know how they did it. Because they put a lot of money [into Gravity] and they couldn’t see absolutely anything for not months, years. And not because I didn’t want to show them anything. Just to put together the footage took years. So while the process goes, everybody gets a little nervous. A little anxious. “Are you sure you don’t need this? Are you sure we don’t need to pump up the action value, like having an enemy, like a missile strike?” Everybody is just dropping stuff, because they are flying in the blind. Literally that sentence “Houston in the blind,” which is something used in the space program. Pretty much, the studio was flying in the blind.

Plus fotka z planu: