The Dark Knight Rises Discussing the Third Movie and 3D

[Nirvana]

No thanks. I'd rather they film the entire movie with IMAX camera, that would be amazing! 3D is starting to become really gimmicky, and will the 3rd Batman really benefit from it? Not at all.

 

[KalMart]

He should skip 3D along there and go right for smell-o-vision....pioneering that before anyone else. Ha, take THAT Cameron!

 

[Travesty]

He should skip 3D along there and go right for smell-o-vision....pioneering that before anyone else. Ha, take THAT Cameron!

Mmmmmm, smell-o-vision.

 

[Brother Jack]

No thanks. I'd rather they film the entire movie with IMAX camera, that would be amazing!

And too impractical and cumbersome.

 

[TheGlassPrison]

So can 3D enhance things too?

Ya, 3D can enhance things when done well, like in Avatar or Up, but those were both shot specifically in 3D and both contain very whimsical, fantasy like subject matter that I think is conducive to the 3D format. I'm not sure a more realistic crime drama is the best subject for 3D.

With Batman, since Nolan has expressed a distaste for 3D, I'd imagine him shooting in 35 mm and them converting to 3D in post production, like 'Alice', which I hated in 3D.

Also, if Nolan wanted to shoot some of Batman 3 in native IMAX, there would be a problem with which to show at IMAX venues.

So, to summarize, I don't personally hate the 3D format as a whole, I just hate post-produced 3D that also conflicts will the directors vision and the public's perception of the film.

 

[KalMart]

Ya, 3D can enhance things when done well, like in Avatar or Up, but those were both shot specifically in 3D and both contain very whimsical, fantasy like subject matter that I think is conducive to the 3D format. I'm not sure a more realistic crime drama is the best subject for 3D.

Oh I dunno...I'd venture to say that something as gritty and realistic as this....

...could be quite cool and, dare I say, enhanced in 3D. Even the converted kind, if they use a really good process.

With Batman, since Nolan has expressed a distaste for 3D, I'd imagine him shooting in 35 mm and them converting to 3D in post production, like 'Alice', which I hated in 3D.

Also, if Nolan wanted to shoot some of Batman 3 in native IMAX, there would be a problem with which to show at IMAX venues.

Not really, as it wouldn't be any different than showing the mostly-shot-in-35mm TDK in IMAX theaters (just upres the 35mm stuff). If they convert the whole thing to 3D, then that's what they'll show at the theaters that are capable of it.

So, to summarize, I don't personally hate the 3D format as a whole, I just hate post-produced 3D that also conflicts will the directors vision and the public's perception of the film.

I still think a lot of it depends on which conversion method is chosen, as there are several different ones with different results competing. There are cheap/fast ways, and there are more involved/expensive ways. If price conscoiusness is the order of the day, and/or they don't take the time and effort to be selective, then yeah...you'll get a lot of varying results. Some do little more than offset the 2D images for left/right eye view...others (like Dimensionalization¡™) actually do a digital process that adjusts the perspective in each one using stuff not too different than what's used in morphing/'bullet-time', but more subtle for just the perspectives. So a lot will depend on what they choose, or if they're actually selective about it.

 

[TheGlassPrison]

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

You were calling the scope/scale/atmosphere argument "fan boy psycho babble" which is what I was referring to when I said that Nolan had mentioned it himself.

And yes, IMAX can enhance the story, in the same way that color and sound enhance the story.
Enhance is defined as, "to heighten or increase desirability or attractiveness", or "to make greater in beauty or effectiveness."

So yes, watching Batman jump off a building in IMAX makes the story more effective than if we just read it from the script.

 

[Travesty]

You were calling the scope/scale/atmosphere argument "fan boy psycho babble" which is what I was referring to when I said that Nolan had mentioned it himself.

And yes, IMAX can enhance the story, in the same way that color and sound enhance the story.
Enhance is defined as, "to heighten or increase desirability or attractiveness", or "to make greater in beauty or effectiveness."

So yes, watching Batman jump off a building in IMAX makes the story more effective than if we just read it from the script.

Way to miss the point, and try to cover up your own mistake. You're now just searching for ways you were right, in order to save face on the internet. I get it, I've done it too, but I'm sorry, you have completely missed the point, and are doing EXACTLY what I was joking around about, and coming up with fan-boy psycho babel. No, IMAX can be watched in both version, and adds absolutely NOTHING to the table. So you can try to defend your silly argument with definitions all you want, but just know of what we were actually talking about.

By the way, a little hint as to what we were talking about. The story doesn't rely on whats on the screen. The story can be also be interpreted by the script, which you cant view in IMAX. We're talking about the STORY not the overall presentation. Jeesh.

 

[TheGlassPrison]

Oh I dunno...I'd venture to say that something as gritty and realistic as this....

...could be quite cool and, dare I say, enhanced in 3D. Even the converted kind, if they use a really good process.

You could be right, but if Batman 3 were to be shown in 3D, I would want Nolan to shoot it consciously with 3D in mind, with the best 3D technology available.

Not really, as it wouldn't be any different than showing the mostly-shot-in-35mm TDK in IMAX theaters (just upres the 35mm stuff). If they convert the whole thing to 3D, then that's what they'll show at the theaters that are capable of it.

I mean, if Nolan wanted to shoot Batman 3 partially in native IMAX, how would that be shown on IMAX screens when those venues would likely be used for IMAX 3D screenings? And if he did shoot in native IMAX, that would require a post produced 3D conversion which I don't think looks nearly as good as something shot in 3D (although you say they can look pretty good).

 

[TheGlassPrison]

Way to miss the point, and try to cover up your own mistake. You're now just searching for ways you were right, in order to save face on the internet. I get it, I've done it too, but I'm sorry, you have completely missed the point, and are doing EXACTLY what I was joking around about, and coming up with fan-boy psycho babel.

I honestly have not the slightest clue what you are talking about. I'm not trying to "cover up my mistakes" (I don't know of a mistake I've made), nor am I trying to "save face on the internet".

What was the point that you were making since I missed it so badly?

 

[KalMart]

You could be right, but if Batman 3 were to be shown in 3D, I would want Nolan to shoot it consciously with 3D in mind, with the best 3D technology available.

I really don't think he will shoot it in 3D, for a variety of reasons that we've gone over previously. My hope is that if it's going to be converted...that IT uses the best that's available, it's approved by Nolan, and only shown in theaters that specifically have that system.

I mean, if Nolan wanted to shoot Batman 3 partially in native IMAX, how would that be shown on IMAX screens when those venues would likely be used for IMAX 3D screenings?

You convert the whole film...IMAX and 35mm shots alike...to an IMAX-3D compatible format....just like they do for other films not natively shot on IMAX or with other formats mixed with IMAX. They could do it with the IMAX versions of TDK if they wanted to right now.

And if he did shoot in native IMAX, that would require a post produced 3D conversion which I don't think looks nearly as good as something shot in 3D (although you say they can look pretty good).

Again, it depends on what you've sampled. The better ones are more expensive and time-consuming to process the whole film before being projected and all, the lesser ones are quicker and cheaper and involve less meticulous processing...hence, lesser results. Obviously, if there's a lot of penny-pinching involved on WB's part, such is the apprehension of having the crappier ones out there.

If we had the patience, I could go into a little more detail in terms of the differences, but I do hope that you trust me enough to hold off a bit before judging the whole thing as one.

In the meantime, here's some more info on one partiicular process....

http://magazine.creativecow.net/article/freeing-artistic-vision-from-3ds-limitations

 

[Travesty]

I honestly have not the slightest clue what you are talking about. I'm not trying to "cover up my mistakes" (I don't know of a mistake I've made), nor am I trying to "save face on the internet".

What was the point that you were making since I missed it so badly?

IMAX can't enhance the story. Not talking about your experience, not eye-candy, but straight up story. It can't. I can read TDK novel, and may have the same experience, so how does IMAX bring something new to the actual story? What does it tell us, that we would have missed, by watching it without IMAX? What message did you see, with IMAX, that you couldn't without IMAX.

 

[TheGlassPrison]

If we had the patience, I could go into a little more detail in terms of the differences, but I do hope that you trust me enough to hold off a bit before judging the whole thing as one.

In the meantime, here's some more info on one partiicular process....

http://magazine.creativecow.net/article/freeing-artistic-vision-from-3ds-limitations

Oh ya, I'll take your word for it. I don't mean to oversimplify things, I'm just speaking from the perspective of a moviegoer who's had both good and bad experiences with 3D formats. I guess at the end of the day, I'd like a movie to be created and viewed in the way the creator desires it to.

 

[KalMart]

Oh ya, I'll take your word for it. I don't mean to oversimplify things, I'm just speaking from the perspective of a moviegoer who's had both good and bad experiences with 3D formats. I guess at the end of the day, I'd like a movie to be created and viewed in the way the creator desires it to.

Yeah, and I definitely have concerns about them 'going cheap' as well, which really will be just a gimmick. But I also believe that we can all take comfort in that it will be shown in 2D as most theaters around the world still show primarily that. And if he makes the movie well enough in whatever format he chooses, that'll still be what comes out most...I don't think a 3D treatment will ruin it.

 

[TheGlassPrison]

IMAX can't enhance the story. Not talking about your experience, not eye-candy, but straight up story. It can't. I can read TDK novel, and may have the same experience, so how does IMAX bring something new to the actual story? What does it tell us, that we would have missed, by watching it without IMAX? What message did you see, with IMAX, that you couldn't without IMAX.

I really don't think we are in any real disagreement here. You only disagree with my terminology of "enhances the story".

I agree that the format does not change the actual content of the story. Not IMAX, 3D, color, or sound will add to the content that is in the script.

However, I don't think the term "enhance" is the same as "adds to the content of". If something like an IMAX sequence of the Joker robbing a bank augments how the audience feels about the threat of the Joker; if it makes the audience fear the Joker more, than I believe it has enhanced the story.

 

[Travesty]

I agree that the format does not change the actual content of the story. Not IMAX, 3D, color, or sound will add to the content that is in the script.

However, I don't think the term "enhance" is the same as "adds to the content of". If something like an IMAX sequence of the Joker robbing a bank augments how the audience feels about the threat of the Joker; if it makes the audience fear the Joker more, than I believe it has enhanced the story.

Not that I agree with you on this, but how does IMAX make the audience fear The Joker more, then watching it on a regular screen? It's almost like saying, if you've been far-sighted, and can't see to well, that if you have a better prescription of glasses, that it enhances the story, because you can see the screen better. The only thing it enhances, is your viewing/experience, not the story.

I'm sorry, but I'm done with this. You either get it, or you don't, and I can see you don't.

 

[TheGlassPrison]

Not that I agree with you on this, but how does IMAX make the audience fear The Joker more, then watching it on a regular screen? It's almost like saying, if you've been far-sighted, and can't see to well, that if you have a better prescription of glasses, that it enhances the story, because you can see the screen better. The only thing it enhances, is your viewing/experience, not the story.

I'm sorry, but I'm done with this. You either get it, or you don't, and I can see you don't.

No, you're the one that doesn't get it.

If you saw someone standing in front of you being shot with a gun, that is going to have a much greater effect on you than if you'd read about someone being shot in a book. That doesn't change the fact that the same exact thing is happening: someone is being shot.

Read that again. It will have a greater *EFFECT* on you, which is the definition of the word "enhance".
Therefore, what is happening; the "story", is being enhanced based on the format that you are experiencing it in. It changes the way you react to and think about the characters and the story.

I get that nothing about the CONTENT of the story has changed. I've acknowledged that all along.

 

[flickchick85]

If this has been posted here, sorry I missed it:

Christopher Nolan: Well, I've never been particularly interested in 3D filmmaking, mainly because you have to wear those goofy glasses, but actually, on a serious note, there are a lot of disadvantages with 3D because of the polarization of the lenses and the glasses, there's very little light that actually comes to the eyes. It's a very dim image, compared with 2D presentations. The grand scale of the cinema screen, the IMAX screen particularly, when viewed in 3D, becomes much more intimate. It shrinks it, effectively, and I think that my interest in cinema, to this point at least, has been in creating something that is larger than life and that speaks of a certain grandeur. 3D is a very intimate thing, and so it's not so much an audience experience as an individual experience. So, it has it's own requirements and demands, and as it develops as a technology I think it'll become more and more interesting, but I think at the moment we haven't yet pushed anywhere near as far as we should or could in terms of creating immersive 2D cinematic experiences. So, I would be interested in shooting a whole film in IMAX. The big hurdle to doing that is um, it's very, very hard to see how you do dialogue scenes, because the cameras are so noisy. And the lenses are so wide, you're shooting this conversation, the cameras go you know, 18 inches from your nose, basically, and it sounds like one of those small portable generators. That's about the level of volume of it. So to just speak over that and to act as if that's not there is very tough.

That was in a TDK interview, so it'll be interesting to hear his post-Avatar opinions on the matter when the question is inevitably asked again during Inception's press circuit. But the part I bolded kind of makes it sound like he won't be fan of the idea any time soon.

Frankly, I don't care if there are some prints in 3D, as long as we still get some IMAX versions in 2D - that's the one part I'm concerned about here.

 

[Mr. Earle]

Why is 3D an intimate thing?

 

[KalMart]

Why is 3D an intimate thing?

Because it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

 

[Crook]

Yeah, I was never quite sure what he meant with the 3D intimacy connection. I mean, I was in one of the first public reveals of Avatar on IMAX 3D.. and I can assure Nolan we all shared the same awe as an audience when we first saw the action scenes, as we were during TDK's first IMAX opening shot.

Granted, it was an IMAX screen, but the 3D most definitely enhanced the already large viewing canvas to higher immersible levels.

 

[KalMart]

Perhaps he means that with 3D and added depth/dimension, you notice the cutoff of the frame edges more as these floating/deep images suddenly disappear out of thin air at the sides or top/bottom, as if it's limiting the space that your trying to view...effectively 'shrinking' things into a limited box. Whereas with regular 2D, its more like a 'window' into a broader world that exists outside the confines of the frame, and you feel that expanse more while watching it. Like if half an object is cut off by a frame edge..in 2D your mind still tells you it extends beyond that...whereas if it's got 3D depth out in front of you, it's strangely 'chopped' off as if nothing can exist beyond that edge.

Or...something like that.

Forgive the roughness of this quick diagram I whipped up.....

 

[flickchick85]

I think he may also be referring to how its harder to see the scope of the picture...if I can even explain this. It's kind of like the difference between standing in front of your window and looking at the battle happening outside - you can focus on everything at once. But if the battle suddenly comes through the window, you have to do some "selective focusing," as this story (on how to avoid headaches when watching Avatar) suggests:

http://www.shadowlocked.com/index.p...adache-while-watching-avatar&catid=41:feature

IDK, what he's saying kinda makes sense in my head, but like him I'm having trouble articulating it more clearly.

 

[JAK®]

Perhaps he means that with 3D and added depth/dimension, you notice the cutoff of the frame edges more as these floating/deep images suddenly disappear out of thin air at the sides or top/bottom, as if it's limiting the space that your trying to view...effectively 'shrinking' things into a limited box. Whereas with regular 2D, its more like a 'window' into a broader world that exists outside the confines of the frame, and you feel that expanse more while watching it. Like if half an object is cut off by a frame edge..in 2D your mind still tells you it extends beyond that...whereas if it's got 3D depth out in front of you, it's strangely 'chopped' off as if nothing can exist beyond that edge.

Or...something like that.

Forgive the roughness of this quick diagram I whipped up.....

One of the things I remember about Avatar was how it felt like the scenes were going on around me. I didn't feel like it limited what I saw it all.

 

[Grommers]

I think avatar is different because it was CGI...like all of it.

Where as nolan doesn't like CGI at all.

They have some seriously talented artists for Avatar design sets and backgrounds and characters that were able to make it feel it went on beyond the camera.

Dunno, how you could do that with a real life film.

Mind you, if anyone could do it, it would Chris Nolan.

Either way, Batman 3d or not 3d, all i know is regardless i'm going to be paying to see it a couple times.