The Dark Knight Rises Discussing the Third Movie and 3D

[KalMart]

Well for old films what can you do their already shot. But for new films why not go for the gold?

Because maybe that's not the intent of the actual filmmaker when making it...and it forces you to shoot on a particular format that may not be what the filmmaker wants to shoot on. Sure, the conversion may be a 'gimmick', but will distributors apologize for that if they're specifically looking at it as a way of making more money? The point is that if it's going to be done, then hopefully they'll do it to the best that it can be done...and there's a lot of different competing processes that vary in results. The danger is in choosing inferior methods based on price.

Cameron spent so much time developing his own 3d filming process that i undertstand why he'd get pissed at movies skipping over that and releasing these inferior converted films.

Yeah, he's got his own personal reasons, which is understandable. At the same time, we could just as easily get 'pissed' at him for using a very unoriginal/contrived movie to introduce the technology with no real narrative/artistic contribution from said technology....which kinda' contradicts taking a certain artistically-moral stance on it or what have you. So take it with a grain of salt.

 

[JAK®]

People should read my sig to find out my opinion on this.

 

[KalMart]

I'd love to see a well-converted Blade Runner in theaters.

 

[Bruce Malone]

All i know is i've seen quite a bit of 3d films but none of them with maybe the exception of avatar have blown me away visually as much as TDK in IMAX.

Most of the 3d we get goes almost unoticed after about the 1st 20 minutes its not ground breaking stuff imo. and yes its a gimmick.

Its the reason why i wont see Iron man in imax because it wasnt shot in Imax and it will look sub par to what we got in tdk. If im paying extra i want the full thing not second best.

 

[KalMart]

All i know is i've seen quite a bit of 3d films but none of them with maybe the exception of avatar have blown me away visually as much as TDK in IMAX.

Most of the 3d we get goes almost unoticed after about the 1st 20 minutes its not ground breaking stuff imo. and yes its a gimmick.

The process is still young...it needed something like Avatar to break the doors open, so to speak, at least for giving '3D' a marquee value. Of course you're going to get a period of 'bum-rushing' to the 'new thing'...it's only natural. But in the meantime, we still have options...with the unfortunate exception possibly being a regular 2D IMAX version.

Its the reason why i wont see Iron man in imax because it wasnt shot in Imax and it will look sub par to what we got in tdk. If im paying extra i want the full thing not second best.

Well, the majority of TDK was still shot 35mm, and the next will still likely have a lot shot on 35 as well just because of limitations of the equipment and stock size itself, as discussed earlier. A lot of that also depends on how well it's 'upconverted' and processed. So like with 3D conversion...a lot depends on how keen those doing the distributing are on quality differences and details, etc., or where in the prepping stage a certain creative supervisor will fight for maintaining that quality in the face of costs.

 

[Brother Jack]

Let's hope Inception performs mighty well, then. If not, we could be in for some trouble...

You may be incorrectly writing off the fact that TDK made over a billion dollars world-wide. I'm not saying that if Inception bombs (God forbid) WB won't care, but I do think Nolan has earned his tenure with the studio and that that won't easily be broken.

 

[KalMart]

How did The Prestige do before TDK?

 

[batman11]

How did The Prestige do before TDK?

Worldwide = $109,676,311

 

[KalMart]

Worldwide = $109,676,311

Well...if that didn't keep him from TDK, Inception (starring a certain well-known actor) should do him okay. Then again, the Scorcese-helmed "Shutter Island" is 'only' at around $166M or so right now. But really, even if Inception's a bomb, I doubt they'd not want the director of TDK to do another.

 

[jmc]

Let's hope Inception performs mighty well, then. If not, we could be in for some trouble...

If the studios start interfering I'm betting Nolan walks.

 

[KalMart]

If the studios start interfering I'm betting Nolan walks.

I would think the same if they try to force him to shoot in 3D.

 

[Avengers-Report]

No way inception will bomb, but its not going to be a blockbuster, thats for sure.

 

[Crook]

You may be incorrectly writing off the fact that TDK made over a billion dollars world-wide. I'm not saying that if Inception bombs (God forbid) WB won't care, but I do think Nolan has earned his tenure with the studio and that that won't easily be broken.

In Hollywood, you're only as good as your last film. TDK may have made crazy amounts of money, but Inception cost just as much, without interference, and will be marketed as a mainstream (albeit smart) blockbuster.

If it fails, I am positive WB will be hesitant in giving Nolan so much free reign the next go-around. To what degree is questionable, but it sure as hell will be some sort of factor.

 

[BasicHen]

As long as the use of 3D is approached well (and I know it will be if Nolan decides to go with it), I'd be happy. Alice In Wonderland in 3D was nothing special.

 

[KalMart]

As long as the use of 3D is approached well (and I know it will be if Nolan decides to go with it), I'd be happy. Alice In Wonderland in 3D was nothing special.

It might also be out of his hands if it's done as post-processing.

 

[KalMart]

In Hollywood, you're only as good as your last film. TDK may have made crazy amounts of money, but Inception cost just as much, without interference, and will be marketed as a mainstream (albeit smart) blockbuster.

If it fails, I am positive WB will be hesitant in giving Nolan so much free reign the next go-around. To what degree is questionable, but it sure as hell will be some sort of factor.

How the heck does M. Nite Shalawalladoo keep getting hired, then?

 

[Crook]

His films aren't mega-expensive.

 

[Marvel Spider]

I wasn't really expecting THIS to be 3D.

 

[KalMart]

His films aren't mega-expensive.

They're mega-crappy, though...and keep getting worse and less successful with each try.

 

[JAK®]

3D is the next colour film. Obviously studios are treating it as a cash cow right now but eventually that will mellow out.

 

[KalMart]

The big damper is the whole glasses thing, though. Maybe look at it as a way of weaning us towards the experience, until the time when you can actually capture and project holographically or the like.

 

[JAK®]

I believe that they are actually developing 3D technology that doesn't rely on glasses.

 

[horrorwriter]

How the heck does M. Nite Shalawalladoo keep getting hired, then?

Thank you. LOL. I concur that M. Night's movies suck the gravy.

 

[KalMart]

I believe that they are actually developing 3D technology that doesn't rely on glasses.

Well...aside from some sort of new actual 3D projection (like holographic), I wonder how they can externally control what one eye sees as opposed to the other.

 

[jmc]

I believe that they are actually developing 3D technology that doesn't rely on glasses.

And that will be the true revolution as opposed to dressing up what's come before.