The Dark Knight Rises 6 Minutes of TDKR footage attached to Mission Impossible 4!

[Seen]

Well, the midnight screening is the only one available (so far) on the schedule:

http://imaxtixs.easytixs.com/ImaxChicago/TicketingTodaysEventsPage.aspx?BusinessDate=2011-12-15

So (as of now), that's the one I'm planning on attending. t:

I'd assume more dates will pop up soon. But I am mildly concerned.

EDIT: It's also not sold out.

I have been planning on attending the one on the 16th with some friends but of course I have nothing against checking it out multiple times. Have you guys purchased tickets yet?

 

[Boom]

What if you pay me back in pounds of flesh?

My girlfriend would probably take issue with that .

 

[Mako]

Rocketman, I appreciate the offer (and believe me, the Greyhound trip would be a comedy of its own), but I'm afraid I don't have the time or money for that endeavor.

That's why I'm just so frustrated with this situation. There isn't a single IMAX theater within two hours of me.

Damn that sucks , but just think almost a month from now you'll be hearing prolouge and trailer descriptions ! That is of course they don't somehow leak.

 

[Boom]

I don't know. It might actually be better for me if I don't see it.

Spoiler

Could you imagine if I was actually like that?

 

[Rocketman]

I have been planning on attending the one on the 16th with some friends but of course I have nothing against checking it out multiple times. Have you guys purchased tickets yet?

I haven't ordered tickets yet.

I'm going to have to request time off work, make sure I have sufficient funds to do this, and at least find a buddy to go with for this 6 hour endeavor. It's going to be a serious undertaking that I need to carefully plan within the next week or so, but I am 99% certain that I am going. If it's the last goddamn thing I do.

 

[Goku Goes Crazy]

Yeah sorry to those who don't have IMAX's around you.

That really isn't fair to you.

Who knows...maybe WB will put it online?

Spoiler

They wont.

 

[Mako]

Yeah sorry to those who don't have IMAX's around you.

That really isn't fair to you.

Who knows...maybe WB will put it online?

That would be awesome

Spoiler

They wont.

Spoiler

 

[Char]

Anyone remember the thread for the TDK prologue back in 2007? Or does anybody remember the trouble we had?

 

[Figs]

I wasn't able to see the prolouge for a week and I remember being pissed about having to trying and watch both vids at the same time in a formation of sorts.

I mean, you couldn't blame the uploaders either. At least they tried and I was grateful for the effort but... why did they have to sit too far to the right or left or upclose?

Hahaha.

We need two people to go together. One films the upper half, the other films the lower half, and then they can try to edit them together. t:

 

[Rocketman]

Won't this be attached to regular theater showings of M:I starting on December 21st? Just not in IMAX format?

I was under the impression that the 70mm IMAX was just for people who went early on the 16th, and that the Prologue would still be shown anyway at regular movie theaters during the official release of M:I.

I just don't understand why WB would NOT want this 6 minute prologue to reach as many people as possible. Surely it will be available to everyone at some point. Why wouldn't it be? Why wouldn't you want to market your movie?

 

[Rocketman]

No. This is only for IMAX. For us less fortunate folks- we get the standard trailer, which will be attached to Sherlock Holmes 2.

That makes no sense to me. It causes people to bootleg. It encourages illegal actions. It would make so much more sense to just put it online at TDKR's website, and then put it with M:I in the theaters, and have it be seen in HD as opposed to crappy iPhone quality. It seems like the complete opposite of Nolan's way of thinking. He wants to put this on the largest IMAX canvas possible, but only 7 people will be able to see it, while everyone else has to look at it on a fuzzy drowned out YouTube link that's titled "Little Jacob's Football Game 11/16".

 

[RedSkull]

Got my tickets! I hope this month goes by fast!

 

[Rocketman]

None of this whole thing makes sense to me. First of all, why only release the prologue in 70mm projection IMAX theaters when the movie itself will play on every screen in the US- digital or not. This is a disservice to the fans right off the bat.

That's definitely another good point, lol.

If you think about it for more than 5 minutes, there's very little logic in the whole thing. It's a 6-minute clip. Why put a 6-minute clip in 70mm IMAX that only a handful of people will be able to see, only to release the entire movie anyway in regular theaters six months later?

1. Word of mouth won't be so great if not everyone has access to it.
2. Everyone will see it anyway because it will get bootlegged.
3. The bootlegs will just be horrendous quality, which means that the majority of people who see it will see a crappy bootleg.

They're essentially marketing the movie by releasing a crappy bootleg. It's pretty much A to B to C here. They might as well just release the damn thing for everyone.

 

[KRIM]

None of this whole thing makes sense to me. First of all, why only release the prologue in 70mm projection IMAX theaters when the movie itself will play on every screen in the US- digital or not?

Why is any promo released? This is a directed approach at showcasing native IMAX footage. Releasing it in all formats would undermine the whole point of trying to allure people to see it in the best way possible. At the time of release, of course it will be available everywhere. But in a time where they want to promote a specific medium, there's nothing wrong in highlighting IMAX as the top king.

This is a disservice to the tens of thousands of devout fans right off the bat.

What other films give you a prologue half a year before its release? This is a treat for those fortunate enough to enjoy the resources. You might as well rant against Comic Con panels and their exclusive footage while you're at it.

 

[Rocketman]

Well, it could be a ploy on Nolan's part to make people realize how superior film is to digital. If people flock to the IMAX theaters in droves, we might re-discover the power of film on such a high scale, that we'll demand more films be presented this way.

IMAX should seriously be the next trend after 3D. 3D is a stupid gimmick that should've never caught on, and it's in no way the true way to enjoy a well-made film. 70mm, on the other hand, should be the thing that's sweeping the nation, and it's of course, not.

Seeing a movie in 70mm is not a gimmick in itself. It's simply the highest possible quality you can achieve in film. I don't understand why people would prefer fuzzy 3D crap as opposed to gargantuan screens that literally suck you into another world without the use of plastic glasses.

And to all the people who claim that there's no difference anymore between film and digital, that's completely false. Digital is still inferior to film, and probably always will be. I don't care how great David Fincher's movies look. Wally Pfister knows exactly what he's talking about when it comes to this subject.

 

[Boom]

If he's such an advocate for this format, Nolan should be getting on IMAX's case for not having more theaters with 70mm screens.

I can't even enjoy the film as he intended it .

 

[Rocketman]

If he's such an advocate for this format, Nolan should be getting on IMAX's case for not having more theaters with 70mm screens.

I can't even enjoy the film as he intended it .

Maybe that's the point. Just piss everyone off.

Now we're demanding it. And we can't have it. That has to send a powerful blow to them. Digital IMAXes will have empty seats, and then they'll know why.

Really, the fact is, there should be a real 70mm IMAX theater within an hour of everyone in the country. There should be one in every city. This will teach everyone a lesson. And it will make people realize that putting on cheap glasses and seeing a cartoon dragon flying toward your face is not the best experience you can get in a theater.

 

[KRIM]

IMAX should seriously be the next trend after 3D. 3D is a stupid gimmick that should've never caught on, and it's in no way the true way to enjoy a well-made film. 70mm, on the other hand, should be the thing that's sweeping the nation, and it's of course, not.

Seeing a movie in 70mm is not a gimmick in itself. It's simply the highest possible quality you can achieve in film. I don't understand why people would prefer fuzzy 3D crap as opposed to gargantuan screens that literally suck you into another world without the use of plastic glasses.

When the market demands it and some of Hollywood's most respected and prolific directors are jumping onto the wagon, it's probably for a reason. If you're going to let the medium's worst representations define its image, I don't know how you can enjoy anything. There are more bad products out there (of any given type and category) than there are good. It's just a fact of the mass market.

Digital is still inferior to film, and probably always will be. I don't care how great David Fincher's movies look. Wally Pfister knows exactly what he's talking about when it comes to this subject.

What about one of the most highly acclaimed cinematographers who has ever lived and one of Wally's biggest idols; Roger Deakins? He's gone digital. Does he not know what he's doing?

 

[craigdbfan]

Aren't there filters anyway to simulate film grain when shooting with digital anyway? I feel like this is one of those issues that have always been blown out of proportion.

 

[Rocketman]

What about one of the most highly acclaimed cinematographers who has ever lived and one of Wally's biggest idols; Roger Deakins? He's gone digital. Does he not know what he's doing?

Just because he's "gone digital", doesn't mean he thinks it's better.

And frankly, I think a lot of cinematographers are "pushed" into digital, unfortunately. Deakins probably gave in to the nudging.

Nolan tries to avoid CGI at all cost. He hasn't (and won't) give in to 3D. He still uses real film. Yet, he's making billion-dollar blockbusters. He's like the freakin' Robin Hood of the Hollywood scene.

And call me crazy, but Inception would've been a completely different experience had it been shot on digital, and it would've been noticeable. Pfister has gone on record saying that they tried a few scenes of Inception using digital, and they had to reshoot all of it with real film because it looked like crap. This isn't me saying that, that's Oscar winner Wally Pfister.

 

[Boom]

The 3D craze doesn't bother me. I still have the option to see the film in 2D. Meanwhile, there are people who legitimately enjoy 3D films. They shouldn't suffer just because many people find it to be a stupid gimmick.

The day high-profile films are only made available in 3D, then I'll understand the backlash. But until that time, nobody is forcing you to watch it that way.

 

[Rocketman]

Exactly. The only reason most filmmakers have gone digital is because it is easier to deal with and saves a lot of money.

Yep. The equipment is lighter, and it's easier to edit. And it's cheaper. You don't have to keep reloading endless rolls of film. It's definitely the easy way out, but it unfortunately does not produce the best image possible.

To me, it's kind of like making S'Mores. You can take the easy way and throw all the ingredients into a microwave, and it'll probably taste good. But building a campfire and sticking a marshmallow on a stick and waving it over real heat will taste like a real S'More.

 

[KRIM]

Just because he's "gone digital", doesn't mean he thinks it's better.

And frankly, I think a lot of cinematographers are "pushed" into digital, unfortunately. Deakins probably gave in to the nudging.

So what you're saying is you'd rather engage in confirmation bias than actually look into what the man himself has said on the subject.

Nolan tries to avoid CGI at all cost. He hasn't (and won't) give in to 3D. He still uses real film. Yet, he's making billion-dollar blockbusters. He's like the freakin' Robin Hood of the Hollywood scene.

And call me crazy, but Inception would've been a completely different experience had it been shot on digital, and it would've been noticeable. Pfister has gone on record saying that they tried a few scenes of Inception using digital, and they had to reshoot all of it with real film because it looked like crap. This isn't me saying that, that's Oscar winner Wally Pfister.

Newsflash: Wally isn't the barometer for film making. I couldn't care less how he or any other person feels about specific shooting styles, as they are not god and as such their own experiences have little to do with defining the tech on its own merits.

Your issue with subjectivity and freedom of choice is puzzling.

 

[Rocketman]

The 3D craze doesn't bother me. I still have the option to see the film in 2D. Meanwhile, there are people who legitimately enjoy 3D films. They shouldn't suffer just because many people find it to be a stupid gimmick.

The day high-profile films are only made available in 3D, then I'll understand the backlash. But until that time, nobody is forcing you to watch it that way.

It's definitely been implied, and that concerns me. I think Thor was originally supposed to be only in 3D, and it was changed last-minute.

 

[Boom]

Because Marvel probably realized that they were about to commit financial suicide.