The Dark Knight Rises Discussing the Third Movie and 3D

[KalMart]

Despite the 'gritty' approach and non-cgi actin sequences, they still had great depth and movement which would very much lend themselves to 3D. It doesn't always have to be big-time CG effects. Even if you did a conversion for BB and TDK now....there are a lot of scenes that would look pretty darn cool in 3D, if the conversion is done well.

But obviously, he's most likely be opposed to filming in 3D or having it affect how he films. But even when you're shooting regular 2D...effects or not...you are always working with depth/foreground and 'extending' the world your portraying beyond the plane of the screen.

 

[Mr. Earle]

He did shoot with IMAX cameras which compromised how he filmed and took a lot of effort and money. And back then, it was a gimmick to draw the public because it was the first film to use it. So he already used one gimmick. If he snubs 3D it will be because he didnt do it first and he doesnt want to follow the others.

 

[KalMart]

He did shoot with IMAX cameras which compromised how he filmed and took a lot of effort and money. And back then, it was a gimmick to draw the public because it was the first film to use it. So he already used one gimmick. If he snubs 3D it will be because he didnt do it first and he doesnt want to follow the others.

Not quite to the same degree. Using IMAX is still very much in the vein of regular 2D photography, but with the added benefits of greater resolution and depth to the image. His approach to shooting and composing the shots was still a pretty 'regular' one, despite the added complications of the equipment. Shooting in 3D, on the other hand....you start thinking about what will extend out of the screen as opposed to fall back into depth more, etc. And if you don't, then there's no point in shooting in 3D anyway, really. Add to that you've got a lot more limitations as far as lenses and what have you, and you'd have to shoot everything in the 3D digital format...whereas with IMAX, you can still combine it with 35mm because it's still a single-lens approach. So shooting 3D would introduce a lot more creative compromises in addition to the technical ones, whereas IMAX is more about the former while still actually enhancing the creative palette by giving you what you'd want from 35mm, but just bigger, clearer and richer.

IMAX screening as a gimmick...to some degree, perhaps...but it's still 2D, just bigger screens, and yeah, it'll cost more because the processing and equipment costs more for fewer theaters.

 

[Texas Zombie]

Yeah its not really a gimmick to use imax, and it has been done before, just not on big budget action films.

 

[KalMart]

Plus...the whole concept of using that extra dimension as an artistic tool/composition has yet to really evolve as well. If you look at what photographers/cinematographers do within that 'frame' as somewhat akin to painting, in terms of framing/composition et al....then in 3D, we might be moving it more towards...sculpture, or the like....as now your frame/platform extends front and back as well. But then, you're still forcing a perspective on the viewer, which is that brick wall of 2D even when it's '3D-like', whereas with sculpture, you can walk around and look at different perspectives of your own choosing.

So then, maybe we're talking about something like a play in a circular theater/square....and that's a lot different than blocking and composing for that one perspective in 2D film. It changes everything....and that's why it's not just a simple analogue of the transition to color and sound. I guess a more apt nomenclature would be 'enhanced 2D', rather than true 3D....hence still being more gimmick than advancement.

 

[3atman]

I'm all for this, since you'll still be able to watch it in 2D. Plus it will be a better film than ava***tar. Due to the success of the last one, the extra price of 3D for some, the better quality, the hatred guys like me have for the biggest sack of crap movie to ever get praise since...ever, plus the fact that there is going to be a lot more hype coming, that means 3atman should beat Avatar in box office.

 

[FCEEVIPER]

before you know it, there will be oscar category best 3d

 

[FlawlessVictory]

I'm all for this, since you'll still be able to watch it in 2D. Plus it will be a better film than ava***tar. Due to the success of the last one, the extra price of 3D for some, the better quality, the hatred guys like me have for the biggest sack of crap movie to ever get praise since...ever, plus the fact that there is going to be a lot more hype coming, that means 3atman should beat Avatar in box office.

By the time Batman 3 comes out, so many movies including romances, comedies and dramas will be in 3D. The novelty will have wore off which is what partially helped Avatar in its BO success.

Plus, it's not as simple as just skipping it in 3D and seeing it in 2D. Imax will only carry the 3D version of it, not 2D as well. So, if I want to see it in Imax 2D I will be screwed.

 

[Doctor Jones]

I still don't think Batman needs to be in 3D. I mean really, can anyone think of anything that serves the story? IMAX was great because it enhanced what Nolan described a film that was larger in it's plot and IMAX was perfect to use it. The opening shot of TDK was effective enough on IMAX. Plus, i think Nolan isn't for 3D.

 

[Avengers-Report]

I feel confident saying Nolan would never use 3D, and with all the control WB gives Nolan, I feel even more confident that there is nothing to worry about.

 

[Dark_Lord]

I feel confident saying Nolan would never use 3D, and with all the control WB gives Nolan, I feel even more confident that there is nothing to worry about.

There's nothing to worry about because you'll still be able to watch the 2D version of the movie. And when did Nolan say anything about 3D? What if he likes it? Either way, I don't see why he'd have a problem with it since WB wants to convert the movies in 3D, in post. He'll still get to film the movie the way he wants, but after it's finished, they'll convert it in 3D. I really don't see what the big deal is.

 

[redhawk23]

He did shoot with IMAX cameras which compromised how he filmed and took a lot of effort and money. And back then, it was a gimmick to draw the public because it was the first film to use it. So he already used one gimmick. If he snubs 3D it will be because he didnt do it first and he doesnt want to follow the others.

or maybe he considers the merits of filming action scenes in 70mm to be greater than a technology he does not enjoy. it doesn't have anything to do with being first. if he was like that would he be doing films in a long standing franchise? sure he aproached manythings differently but theres a lot the same like rubber suits. i doubt his denial of 3d tech is anything as snotty as that.

 

[redhawk23]

There's nothing to worry about because you'll still be able to watch the 2D version of the movie. And when did Nolan say anything about 3D? What if he likes it? Either way, I don't see why he'd have a problem with it since WB wants to convert the movies in 3D, in post. He'll still get to film the movie the way he wants, but after it's finished, they'll convert it in 3D. I really don't see what the big deal is.

I don't have links but their are interviews out their where he voices his opinion of 3-d movies and the tech in general and he doesn't have the most positive view of it and expressed that he doubts hed use it in his films.

 

[TheBatman072]

He did shoot with IMAX cameras which compromised how he filmed and took a lot of effort and money. And back then, it was a gimmick to draw the public because it was the first film to use it. So he already used one gimmick. If he snubs 3D it will be because he didnt do it first and he doesnt want to follow the others.

It's not a gimmick if you're the first to do it.

 

[Marx]

Not everything needs to be shown in 3D.

 

[Crook]

I still don't think Batman needs to be in 3D. I mean really, can anyone think of anything that serves the story? IMAX was great because it enhanced what Nolan described a film that was larger in it's plot and IMAX was perfect to use it. The opening shot of TDK was effective enough on IMAX.

How exactly did IMAX enhance the story?

 

[Mr. Earle]

How exactly did IMAX enhance the story?

Nolan used it so IMAX is godly. When Nolan uses 3D, it will be purged of sin too and nobody will question it ever again.

I bet my house that if Nolan hadnt used IMAX, everyone would be hating it and would be sure that he'd never use such a gimmick. It might distract his attention from the storytelling.

 

[Marx]

I don't think IMAX added anything to the story itself.

 

[Travesty]

How exactly did IMAX enhance the story?

Oh, since TDK was so huge in size and scope, not only in the atmosphere, but through the characters/plot, IMAX conveyed how heavy of a burden Batman had, while......ok, you know what, I'll just stop with the fan-boy psycho babble. IMAX didn't enhance the story at all.

 

[Mr. Earle]

Oh, since TDK was so huge in size and scope, not only in the atmosphere, but through the characters/plot, IMAX conveyed how heavy of a burden Batman had, while......ok, you know what, I'll just stop with the fan-boy psycho babble. IMAX didn't enhance the story at all.

 

[KalMart]

I don't think IMAX added anything to the story itself.

Yeah, as I said earlier, it was really just a clearer, sharper, and richer version of what he would have done using only 35mm anyway. Now...one could possibly look at 3D in the same vein, as if it were just what you'd do on film/2D...but just with more apparent depth etc. (heck...3D didn't exactly expand the storytelling in Avatar either). But as we also discussed, 3D is digital with a more limited range of lenses that you can use and so on, so it is compromise as far as tools that are important to the filmmaker, if he knows he wants to use something else.

 

[hatebox]

3D in its current form is a waste of time. Out of curiosity I watched Avatar in both 3D and 2D (please, don't call me a hero) and found it no more/less impressive either time. My experience of Avatar 3D was :

First half and hour - hmm, this 3D is kind of annoying
Rest of the movie - totally forgot about it. WHich is not a good thing. It means it's pointless.

 

[TheGlassPrison]

Oh, since TDK was so huge in size and scope, not only in the atmosphere, but through the characters/plot, IMAX conveyed how heavy of a burden Batman had, while......ok, you know what, I'll just stop with the fan-boy psycho babble. IMAX didn't enhance the story at all.

That's not exactly fan-boy psycho babble considering Nolan said it himself.

And I don't think anyone is suggesting that the IMAX format is somehow adding content to the story. We're only saying it *enhanced* what was already there in the script.

In the same way, color and sound didn't add anything to the story either. Nor did Ledger's performance or Pfister's cinematography or the costume design or visual effects. All of these things simply enhanced the content that was already there.

 

[KalMart]

That's not exactly fan-boy psycho babble considering Nolan said it himself.

And I don't think anyone is suggesting that the IMAX format is somehow adding content to the story. We're only saying it *enhanced* what was already there in the script.

In the same way, color and sound didn't add anything to the story either. Nor did Ledger's performance or Pfister's cinematography or the costume design or visual effects. All of these things simply enhanced the content that was already there.

So can 3D enhance things too?

 

[Travesty]

That's not exactly fan-boy psycho babble considering Nolan said it himself.

And I don't think anyone is suggesting that the IMAX format is somehow adding content to the story. We're only saying it *enhanced* what was already there in the script.

A. It was a joke.

B. I would LOVE to see where Nolan said IMAX enhanced the story. Not the visuals, not the "theater experience", but the story.

C. It was a joke.