The Dark Knight Rises Discussing the Third Movie and 3D

[KalMart]

Well most everyone here is pretty happy with his work, more or less.

Yes, especially in the batsuit and Scarecrow discussion threads. t:

 

[batlovescatDC]

Okay, I'm just going to say this once. If anyone thinks that Nolan is going to have 3D in his Batman film just because the studio wants him to... then you're out of your mind. If Nolan WANTS to do 3D then he will and more power to him because I trust the guy when it comes to any film approach what-so-ever. But if he doesn't want to, then it won't be in 3D.... and I can't see Nolan wanting to do a Bat3D film. Nolan, Batman, and 3D just don't seem to go together.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

^I agree. Ultimately the decision will rest on Nolan. He has the keys to WB now. WB wants to keep him under their tent and Nolan has had nothing but a good experience working with them. Not to mention once Harry Potter is through, WB execs have gone on record stating that the DC library will be exploited now more than ever to fill the void. Right now, Nolan is practically in charge of the DC movieverse with what Batman is now and the overseeing of Superman. WB knows how vital these characters are to their economic future and because of this they will make sure to keep Nolan happy and continue to allow him complete creative control.

 

[weezerspider]

Nolan's realism style doesn't fit 3D to me. A Batman movie in 3D that I'd be stoked for: The Dark Knight Returns in 3D, directed by Zack Snyder. Yah, I'd dig that.

 

[Cunning Stunts]

Considering I don't see in 3D to begin with, maybe this will be a fun new way to watch Batman.

 

[firstclassclown]

I don't think Nolan will use 3D for the next Batman film or with the new Superman film(s) either. His goal seems to be to maximize the use of the screen without manipulating our eye sight.

 

[Cunning Stunts]

He doesn't have to use the 3D technology during filming. Alice in Wonderland wasn't filmed in 3D, but it was edited to work with the technology.

 

[weezerspider]

He doesn't have to use the 3D technology during filming. Alice in Wonderland wasn't filmed in 3D, but it was edited to work with the technology.

Alice's 3D was also garbage.

 

[Anita18]

Alice's 3D was also garbage.

Clash of the Titans' 3D is also reportedly garbage. Thanks Avatar.

I've only seen three movies in 3D: Coraline, Up, and Avatar, all of which were very good visually. The former two weren't live action, and Avatar was natively filmed in 3D and was mostly computer-generated anyway, haha. So judging from that, I think you should only do 3D in live-action if it's shot in 3D. Studios AND audiences can save their money.

 

[the dmg]

Clash of the Titans' 3D is also reportedly garbage. Thanks Avatar.

I've only seen three movies in 3D: Coraline, Up, and Avatar, all of which were very good visually. The former two weren't live action, and Avatar was natively filmed in 3D and was mostly computer-generated anyway, haha. So judging from that, I think you should only do 3D in live-action if it's shot in 3D. Studios AND audiences can save their money.

Up looked great in 3D.

 

[Cunning Stunts]

Alice's 3D was also garbage.

Then I'd like to see the math equation that says that Batman 3 will in turn be garbage.

 

[Anita18]

Then I'd like to see the math equation that says that Batman 3 will in turn be garbage.

Clash's 3D is also reported garbage. The odds going for post-Avatar, post-processed 3D isn't looking very good right about now.

If the technology improves to the point where Chris Nolan can shoot live-action in 3D with the same quality as 35mm film (forget the post-process crap), I don't think he'll do it.

 

[Cunning Stunts]

Clash's 3D is also reported garbage. The odds going for post-Avatar, post-processed 3D isn't looking very good right about now.

If the technology improves to the point where Chris Nolan can shoot live-action in 3D with the same quality as 35mm film (forget the post-process crap), I don't think he'll do it.

I heard the opposite about Clash's 3D. I just heard the movie itself was garbage.

Besides, if this movie did go 3D, post-processed or not, I have no doubt in my mind Nolan will try to tell WB, "I'm going to do it." The man's demanded complete authority over his projects (and Batman) thus far, I don't see why he wouldn't put the same time and precision into that part as well.

 

[Anita18]

I heard the opposite about Clash's 3D. I just heard the movie itself was garbage.

Besides, if this movie did go 3D, post-processed or not, I have no doubt in my mind Nolan will try to tell WB, "I'm going to do it." The man's demanded complete authority over his projects (and Batman) thus far, I don't see why he wouldn't put the same time and precision into that part as well.

Well two separate AICN reviews mentioned how sometimes the hair would be on a completely different plane from the character's face, and how shapes would sometimes be very distorted in the 3D. I think that counts as garbage.

Yeah, if Nolan were to go 3D, I imagine he'd be quasi-Cameron about it with the meticulousness.

 

[DarkKnight FTW]

Yes, especially in the batsuit and Scarecrow discussion threads. t:

Oh please. People need to grow up. You'll never satisfy everyone. People complain about comic interpretations. As long as the vast majority of people are satisfied ($1 billion says it is), then its gravy. You don't think so, go back and watch those Schumacher train wrecks!

 

[KalMart]

Oh please. People need to grow up. You'll never satisfy everyone. People complain about comic interpretations. As long as the vast majority of people are satisfied ($1 billion says it is), then its gravy. You don't think so, go back and watch those Schumacher train wrecks!

Some may even prefer those.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

Clash's 3D is also reported garbage. The odds going for post-Avatar, post-processed 3D isn't looking very good right about now.

If the technology improves to the point where Chris Nolan can shoot live-action in 3D with the same quality as 35mm film (forget the post-process crap), I don't think he'll do it.

A weekend estimate of $70 mil says otherwise. You think WB cares that there are plenty of reviews trashing this movie's 3D? The only thing they care about is whether the general audience shows up or not. And as of right now, they are showing up. So you can bet your ass WB will put just about every movie they release now through post-processing 3D. Dramas, comedies, romances, WB sees the green now. They won't care how shoddy it looks.

COTT needed to bomb and have the GA complain vociferously about the 3D for WB to even reconsider their misguided use of 3D. Reviews from sites such as AICN weren't going to get the job done. Unfortunately, with the way COTT is performing, the studio will only continue down this path.

 

[FatmanReturns]

I don't get why everyone hates 3D so much. Of all the movies I've seen in 3D, it never really harms the actual film. And to whoever said, "the realistic style of Nolan's movies would be ruined by 3D," couldn't be more wrong. I don't think everyone gets it: we naturally see in 3 dimensions. That is what the human eyes produce. If anything, 3D technology helps a film and makes it even more real.

 

[Anita18]

A weekend estimate of $70 mil says otherwise. You think WB cares that there are plenty of reviews trashing this movie's 3D? The only thing they care about is whether the general audience shows up or not. And as of right now, they are showing up. So you can bet your ass WB will put just about every movie they release now through post-processing 3D. Dramas, comedies, romances, WB sees the green now. They won't care how shoddy it looks.

COTT needed to bomb and have the GA complain vociferously about the 3D for WB to even reconsider their misguided use of 3D. Reviews from sites such as AICN weren't going to get the job done. Unfortunately, with the way COTT is performing, the studio will only continue down this path.

I wasn't referring to box office, I was referring to how good the technology is at this point in time. If it looks like crap, Nolan won't use it. I think that's really the bottom line. I really don't see him selling out for some fad just because.

The way this is going though, with anything even resembling a blockbuster getting the 3-D treatment and people gobbling it up, I see WB begging Nolan on their hands and knees to do it. (I'm personally hoping the fad won't be so crazy by then. ) Maybe the technology will improve in 2 years. Otherwise Nolan should demand some Cameron-esque control over the conversion. They did crop each IMAX shot for the regular screens themselves.

 

[Anita18]

I don't get why everyone hates 3D so much. Of all the movies I've seen in 3D, it never really harms the actual film. And to whoever said, "the realistic style of Nolan's movies would be ruined by 3D," couldn't be more wrong. I don't think everyone gets it: we naturally see in 3 dimensions. That is what the human eyes produce. If anything, 3D technology helps a film and makes it even more real.

It's not that it won't make the movie unrealistic, it's just not necessary to enjoy a movie, because it doesn't help with the story itself. And the problem with that is studios will spend money shooting movies in 3-D or converting them in post when they should have been spending money on better screenwriters, better directors, or better actors. I would have preferred seeing Avatar with better-written characters than having the 3-D option. But that's just me, and I apparently have higher standards than the general public.

3-D does not make a movie better, even though it ensures better box-office takes. It's analogous to Hollywood reverting to the dumb blockbuster formula. Who cares if it's good as long as it makes money, etc. Do we really want to go back to that?

 

[KalMart]

I don't get why everyone hates 3D so much. Of all the movies I've seen in 3D, it never really harms the actual film. And to whoever said, "the realistic style of Nolan's movies would be ruined by 3D," couldn't be more wrong. I don't think everyone gets it: we naturally see in 3 dimensions. That is what the human eyes produce. If anything, 3D technology helps a film and makes it even more real.

Should painters start painting in 3D as well?

 

[firstclassclown]

Should painters start painting in 3D as well?

A Salvador Dali in 3D would be amazing. JK... sorta

 

[darknight7]

I think 3D would work well for Superman, better for Green Lantern and BEST for Spider-man.

Batman, I don't like that idea.

Especially not for Nolan's Batman. It's so classy, so epic and well done. The 3D would just make it gimmicky and cheap, IMO

--dk7

 

[Crook]

It's not that it won't make the movie unrealistic, it's just not necessary to enjoy a movie, because it doesn't help with the story itself. And the problem with that is studios will spend money shooting movies in 3-D or converting them in post when they should have been spending money on better screenwriters, better directors, or better actors. I would have preferred seeing Avatar with better-written characters than having the 3-D option. But that's just me, and I apparently have higher standards than the general public.

It's not really like the 3D option is taking away resources from the other branches of production. They're all separate foundations hired specifically for a certain task. Avatar's story wasn't hurt because of 3D, that was all on Cameron.

Asking "what does 3D add to the story" is a pretty self-defeatist concept. Stories in their most basic form can be relegated to spoken word or text. Anything beyond that could be considered "unnecessary" elements to the narrative, is it not? Because if so, cinema as an artform is irrelevant going by your standards of narrative implementation.

3-D does not make a movie better, even though it ensures better box-office takes. It's analogous to Hollywood reverting to the dumb blockbuster formula. Who cares if it's good as long as it makes money, etc. Do we really want to go back to that?

We've been there for the past 2 decades. Where are you?

 

[IBRAH08]

Oh please. People need to grow up. You'll never satisfy everyone. People complain about comic interpretations. As long as the vast majority of people are satisfied ($1 billion says it is), then its gravy. You don't think so, go back and watch those Schumacher train wrecks!

They both made a trashload of money. Batman Forever out grossed Batman Returns so I guess, by your logic Schumacher's films were actually not train wrecks but, in fact, successes. (also Schumacher's films weren't anmore accurate to the comics than any of the other movies, so it didn't satisfy the nit picky fan boys either)