The Dark Knight BD Live Chat with Christopher Nolan

[namtaB]

I have a feeling that we will hear nothing official concerning the TDK sequel until Summer 09.

Safe assumption. It wasn't until July 2006 that WB officially announced a new Batman film titled Dark Knight, Nolan returning as director, and Ledger cast as the Joker. Eckhart wasn't announced as being in final negotiations for Dent until February 2007.

 

[HanaBi]

New theory for the "5 dead". Nolan is a huge fan of Blade Runner. In the original film, there is a scene where Deckard (Harrison Ford) is being briefed on some escaped androids. The officer tells him 6 escaped, on got killed escaping, so that leaves 5. But we only ever see 4 androids total throughout the movie. The 5th was a cut scene or was never filmed I believe.They later changed the line to be correct in the Final director's cut. It's possible that Nolan did this just as a "homage" to Blade Runner, since the number of people killed by Dent is irrelevant to the fact that he DID kill them anyways. Or maybe he really does have an explanation. But that's my guess if he didn't even bother to state it directly during this thing.

I've always associated this debate with the Bladerunner thing too! Coincidence...or homage?

 

[I Am The Knight]

As per The Final Cut, 6 replicants escaped, 2 got killed, leaving 4 still alive (not counting Rachael).

 

[bluedragon77]

hey i cant belive i missed it, i signed up for it, then got completly hammered and forgot about it lol. can somebody make or has somebody made a transcript? please pm me thanx..

 

[mclay18]

Nolan mentioned the fact that Two-Face was not in any IMAX scenes because of the CGI being rendered at a lower resolution than IMAX film. Well I would say Transformers 2 is screwed then, unless they have magically been able to build some supercomputers over night to handle the rendering of the robots for IMAX resolution. Bay's going to shoot IMAX scenes of people and then slap much lower resolution CGI robots on top of the fim. What a wonderful idea. LOL, total abomination (as expected from that dip****).

Thank you. Couldn't have said that better myself.

TDK just came out of nowhere (and becomes the biggest film of the year), and now Bay wants to try the same gimmick. I very much doubt he's done the same amount of research that Nolan and Pfister did before TDK started shooting.

I bet anything he was like, " 'Kay, Steven, I'd like to shoot part of TF-2 in IMAX pronto!"

If anything the IMAX shots for TF-2 will look horrible, due to that shakycam and 360 camera movements Bay's fond of. If anything in TF-2 is like that puny climax in the first flick, it'd probably make me seasick.

 

[Crook]

IMAX is a gimmick now, really?

 

[Anita18]

IMAX is a gimmick now, really?

It is if Bay is claiming he'll film CGI robots with it.

 

[Crook]

Not following the logic of that.

 

[Anita18]

Not following the logic of that.

I thought we'd gone through this already.

Nolan and Pfister intended on shooting with the biggest, highest-resolution film possible. Nearly all of the IMAX scenes were shot on location, for real. This is already Nolan's preferred way of working, but it's also the most logical thing to do because currently, CGI cannot be done (at least in a timely manner) in 18K, full IMAX resolution. Whatever CGI is in on screen, is with a lower resolution and you lose part of the reason why you filmed with IMAX cameras in the first place.

Michael Bay sees the awesome IMAX shots in TDK, and sees the success of TDK in IMAX theaters. He thinks, "Cool, I can get in on the fun too!" He doesn't realize (maybe he does, but anyway) that since no special effects houses work in 18K, none of the robots will be rendered in full IMAX resolution. Hence, his reasons for shooting in IMAX is more gimmicky than Nolan and Pfister's reasons for shooting in IMAX.

 

[Crook]

I thought I had read some of the effects were done in IMAX resolution? At least the batpod ejection sequence. I distinctly remember a sfx supervisor talking about having more to do in the film, because they had to make the cgi look passable for the higher resolution.

In any case, let's not pretend that most of this backlash isn't solely because of Bay himself. If this were any other director, no one would have said anything. Nolan paved the way for IMAX-filmed scenes, and we should all be happy that it's brought great attention to that method of filmmaking. Plain and simple, it looks terrific and is to date the best cinematic experience you can get. Hopefully one day there will be a time where entire films are shot in that format. Until then, we should all embrace the adoption of new ways of filming. These complaints are blatantly biased. Especially when we know nothing of their approach towards it.

 

[Anita18]

I thought I had read some of the effects were done in IMAX resolution? At least the batpod ejection sequence. I distinctly remember a sfx supervisor talking about having more to do in the film, because they had to make the cgi look passable for the higher resolution.

In any case, let's not pretend that most of this backlash isn't solely because of Bay himself. If this were any other director, no one would have said anything. Nolan paved the way for IMAX-filmed scenes, and we should all be happy that it's brought great attention to that method of filmmaking. Plain and simple, it looks terrific and is to date the best cinematic experience you can get. Hopefully one day there will be a time where entire films are shot in that format. Until then, we should all embrace the adoption of new ways of filming. These complaints are blatantly biased. Especially when we know nothing of their approach towards it.

No, the IMAX CG shots were done in 8K, which is the full resolution that normal 35mm film scans at. That's why it was passable - normally, 35mm CG shots are done at 2K. All CG is done at lower resolution than a full film scan.

Well, a big part of it is that it's TRANSFORMERS. We all know action scenes involving big giant fast-moving robots cannot be done for real.

Bay can blow up a lot of things real pretty, and if he was going to shoot that in IMAX, I'm sure it would look fantastic. I just think the current situation is misleading, since he makes it sound like the Transformers robots will be nothing but shot-on-IMAX-film-awesomeness, which is simply impossible at this point in time.

I have no idea what their logistical approach of the CG rendering is right now, anyway. None of the press releases state it. If by next year, it's publicized that Bay and his team developed 18K CG robot shots, then that's great and I will take back everything I've said. But as of now, I can very safely assume that isn't going to happen.

 

[redfirebird2008]

No, the IMAX CG shots were done in 8K, which is the full resolution that normal 35mm film scans at. That's why it was passable - normally, 35mm CG shots are done at 2K. All CG is done at lower resolution than a full film scan.

Well, a big part of it is that it's TRANSFORMERS. We all know action scenes involving big giant fast-moving robots cannot be done for real.

Bay can blow up a lot of things real pretty, and if he was going to shoot that in IMAX, I'm sure it would look fantastic. I just think the current situation is misleading, since he makes it sound like the Transformers robots will be nothing but shot-on-IMAX-film-awesomeness, which is simply impossible at this point in time.

I have no idea what their logistical approach of the CG rendering is right now, anyway. None of the press releases state it. If by next year, it's publicized that Bay and his team developed 18K CG robot shots, then that's great and I will take back everything I've said. But as of now, I can very safely assume that isn't going to happen.

My guess is they will try to do them at 8k (or 4k if they want to save time and money) and then the IMAX footage will be similar to TDK at a resolution of 5.6k for most shots and 8k for landscape shots.

 

[Crook]

So if I'm reading this right, then:

Regular CGI = 2K
TDK IMAX CGI = 8K
True IMAX CGI = 18K

Yes?

Technical details aside, the most important facet is if it looks good in the final product. The average movie-goer doesn't give a s**t, and I certainly don't give a s**t, so as long as that thing looks amazing in IMAX.

Hypothetically speaking, if the CGI looks just as mind-blowing on IMAX without going full 18K, and people still b***h about it...then they're morons.

 

[mclay18]

Not following the logic of that.

Maybe I should've said "try the same thing for TF-2." The IMAX scenes in TDK were anything BUT a gimmick.

But Bay is trying to jump on the bandwagon to say that TF-2 will be the second motion-picture to be shot jointly in 35mm and IMAX. But it was a few months before shooting wrapped that Paramount/Dreamworks announced that bit.

 

[Anita18]

So if I'm reading this right, then:

Regular CGI = 2K
TDK IMAX CGI = 8K
True IMAX CGI = 18K

Yes?

Technical details aside, the most important facet is if it looks good in the final product. The average movie-goer doesn't give a s**t, and I certainly don't give a s**t, so as long as that thing looks amazing in IMAX.

Hypothetically speaking, if the CGI looks just as mind-blowing on IMAX without going full 18K, and people still b***h about it...then they're morons.

Very true. I personally didn't know that the entire Batpod ejection sequence was CG until I read about it.

I still think it's misleading. But that's marketing for you.

 

[redfirebird2008]

So if I'm reading this right, then:

Regular CGI = 2K
TDK IMAX CGI = 8K
True IMAX CGI = 18K

Yes?

Technical details aside, the most important facet is if it looks good in the final product. The average movie-goer doesn't give a s**t, and I certainly don't give a s**t, so as long as that thing looks amazing in IMAX.

Hypothetically speaking, if the CGI looks just as mind-blowing on IMAX without going full 18K, and people still b***h about it...then they're morons.

Yes, most people can't even tell the difference between 35mm blown up on the IMAX screen and actual IMAX footage. Kinda like a lot of people can't tell the difference between DVD and Blu-ray. But I can.

Now, at high resolutions like 4k, it shouldn't be a problem. The problem is when there's a big discrepancy. Like if you have 2k CGI laid on top of 8k footage, that would probably be noticeable to videophiles. But if you have 4k laid on top of 5.6k IMAX footage then it would be a much better integration. Rendering CGI at 4k is challenging when there's as much of it in each scene like there is for Transformers.

 

[Crook]

Maybe I should've said "try the same thing for TF-2." The IMAX scenes in TDK were anything BUT a gimmick.

But Bay is trying to jump on the bandwagon to say that TF-2 will be the second motion-picture to be shot jointly in 35mm and IMAX. But it was a few months before shooting wrapped that Paramount/Dreamworks announced that bit.

Is it really that bothersome? IMAX has been around for over a decade. The technology to logistically shoot a Hollywood film hasn't even been tapped yet. It's slowly building up to it. Nolan has started it, why can't other film makers continue it?

Again, this goes back to Bay and his notorious rep for being clowned on by internet users for every move he makes. I am not convinced this has anything to do with the actual method of shooting with IMAX.

 

[Crook]

Yes, most people can't even tell the difference between 35mm blown up on the IMAX screen and actual IMAX footage. Kinda like a lot of people can't tell the difference between DVD and Blu-ray. But I can.

You'd have to be blind dimwit not to notice either. Or are in the unfortunate situation of having a crap screen that doesn't showcase the true capabilities of the high-definition technology.

Now, at high resolutions like 4k, it shouldn't be a problem. The problem is when there's a big discrepancy. Like if you have 2k CGI laid on top of 8k footage, that would probably be noticeable to videophiles. But if you have 4k laid on top of 5.6k IMAX footage then it would be a much better integration. Rendering CGI at 4k is challenging when there's as much of it in each scene like there is for Transformers.

I am aware of such discrepancies. But again, we are not informed about how they are going about this process. So it is absolutely pointless to even start complaining and criticizing.

 

[Anita18]

Again, this goes back to Bay and his notorious rep for being clowned on by internet users for every move he makes. I am not convinced this has anything to do with the actual method of shooting with IMAX.

I actually think I'm the biggest "Michael Bay using IMAX" hater on SHH, and it's definitely more because it's "Transformers filmed in IMAX" more than Bay himself. If was another director shooting Transformers in IMAX, I'd call him an idiot/liar too.

Like if they wanted to shoot another Pirates movie in IMAX, involving supernatural pirates again. Just about as equally idiotic.

 

[Crook]

I actually think I'm the biggest "Michael Bay using IMAX" hater on SHH, and it's definitely more because it's "Transformers filmed in IMAX" more than Bay himself. If was another director shooting Transformers in IMAX, I'd call him an idiot/liar too.

Like if they wanted to shoot another Pirates movie in IMAX, involving supernatural pirates again. Just about as equally idiotic.

And again, you have lost me. Giant robots, supernatural pirates, whathaveyou, these are the types of visuals that would benefit from being shot specifically for IMAX.

If a damn city overview can take your breathe away, imagine what unreal things, that LOOK real, can do in IMAX resolution. It provides for lots of potential. It'd be like Jurassic Park all over again.

 

[alexdunn]

And again, you have lost me. Giant robots, supernatural pirates, whathaveyou, these are the types of visuals that would benefit from being shot specifically for IMAX.

If a damn city overview can take your breathe away, imagine what unreal things, that LOOK real, can do in IMAX resolution. It provides for lots of potential. It'd be like Jurassic Park all over again.

But you're not "shooting" robots in imax. You're making them in post and they wouldn't be in full IMAX res. They may look good, but there's still no point in filming a backround in IMAX that a non-imax cg robot will cover up.

 

[Crook]

But you're not "shooting" robots in imax. You're making them in post and they wouldn't be in full IMAX res. They may look good, but there's still no point in filming a backround in IMAX that a non-imax cg robot will cover up.

1) Please point me to these giant robots that can be shot with a camera

2) All CGI is post

3) Regardless if the CGI is technically in full-IMAX or not, it doesn't really matter if the final product looks mouth-droppingly good. Considering ILM is on-board, and they're past amazing work, I'm not really too concerned with technical mumbo-jumbo.

 

[redfirebird2008]

And again, you have lost me. Giant robots, supernatural pirates, whathaveyou, these are the types of visuals that would benefit from being shot specifically for IMAX.

If a damn city overview can take your breathe away, imagine what unreal things, that LOOK real, can do in IMAX resolution. It provides for lots of potential. It'd be like Jurassic Park all over again.

But at the moment it is physically impossible to provide it at an IMAX resolution without crashing the post production companies' computers. It is years away from where it needs to be. Eventually it will get there. I'm glad they have started at least looking into it though because I was not impressed by the regular theatrical version of TDK at my local theater. The projectionist screwed up the surround sound (it kept dropping out right in the middle of dialogue) and he/she had the projector's brightness turned down too much to where the whole film looked dimmer than it should. That's not to say the same kind of thing couldn't happen at an IMAX showing, but you would think they'd try a bit harder to get it right in that case. My IMAX viewing (in another town on the other side of the state) was excellent. The 5 other viewings were annoying b/c it was the same problem every time. And the Blu-ray is a hell of a lot better than the regular theater, at least my local theater.

 

[alexdunn]

1) Please point me to these giant robots that can be shot with a camera

2) All CGI is post

3) Regardless if the CGI is technically in full-IMAX or not, it doesn't really matter if the final product looks mouth-droppingly good. Considering ILM is on-board, and they're past amazing work, I'm not really too concerned with technical mumbo-jumbo.

My points exactly! You can't shoot robots in IMAX becasue you can't shoot robots.(hence my quotation marks) And if they can make it look good enough then there's no point in shooting in IMAX! The point of shooting in IMAx is to get the highest res possible, but if most of the movie can't be made with IMAX, why shoot in IMAX? See where I'm going here?

 

[Crook]

My points exactly! You can't shoot robots in IMAX becasue you can't shoot robots.(hence my quotation marks)

So what was the significance of that statement? To state the obvious?

And if they can make it look good enough then there's no point in shooting in IMAX!

IMAX is an entire entity in and of itself. I've seen nature documentaries shot in IMAX, and it's absolute eye-candy. The CGI doesn't have much to do with the advantages in shooting with this format. It is mere icing on the cake.

The point of shooting in IMAx is to get the highest res possible, but if most of the movie can't be made with IMAX, why shoot in IMAX? See where I'm going here?

Yes, you're about to say "TDK should have never been made with IMAX", if you are to follow the logic of that bolded question.