The Dark Knight Rises Discussing the Third Movie and 3D

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.
I know, that's always been Cameron's limitation. :oldrazz: But for other films, movies are allowed a certain budget, right? And then it's doled out to the separate departments. Spending money on 3D has to come from somewhere else. Or maybe all the budgets will go higher since the 3D will add a certain percentage to the box office take. :funny:

What I mean is that studios will use 3D as a crutch to prop up and excuse an otherwise weak film instead of trying to make the movie itself better. It's not a question of whether 3D will add to the film, it's what the looming presence of 3D technology might take away from the making of it, if you're not James Cameron and have an unlimited budget and power.

3D can add to the experience of a film, if done right and the movie is still pretty strong. Avatar would still be visually beautiful without the 3D. I haven't bothered to spend the money watching Alice or Clash in 3D (both of which have reportedly terrible post-processed 3D), but if the results are still poor for most films, then it's still just used as a cash grab. I don't respect that.

We've been there for the past 2 decades. Where are you? :huh:
I''m sorry, I thought we were starting to move away from that with TDK and IM. :oldrazz:
 
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'm opposed to bad 3D conversions, so I'm hoping COTT's weekly drops will be enormous. Maybe then WB will get the picture.
 
I watched Clash in 2D and Clash in 3D(my best friend is the GM at my theater, I get in free). The 2D was way better, no joke. The 3D looked like garbage and if anything, distracted me and took away from the film.
 
Then I'd like to see the math equation that says that Batman 3 will in turn be garbage.

Movie + 3D conversion = Garbage.

Alice's 3D conversion was garbage
Clash's 3D conversion was garbage
If Batman 3 is just converted to 3D I put all my money it will be garbage.
 
^I don't think it's that simple. Movie + 3D conversion does not equal automatic garbage. If it did, why would Cameron bother to convert Titanic into 3D?

"We're converting Titanic, but we're doing it right," Cameron said. "What I'm not a fan of is a rushed or slapdash conversion that's not done right. And, I'm certainly not a fan of conversion when you could shoot the movie in 3D."

The main problem here is the rush job. When you have a deadline to meet(the scheduled release date) then the audience is left with a shoddy conversion. Cameron has the luxury to work on Titanic's post 3D coversion for as long as he wants, movies meeting a release date don't have the same luxury.

Maybe Nolan will film Batman 3 in 2011, on film as he prefers, and then spend as much time as he needs(years if necessary) converting it properly to 3D to satisfy WB. So maybe we won't see the finished film until 2016. :hehe:
 
Movie + 3D conversion = Garbage.

Alice's 3D conversion was garbage
Clash's 3D conversion was garbage
If Batman 3 is just converted to 3D I put all my money it will be garbage.

Well, aren't you just a little closed-minded. And unfunny.

As I said before, I'm pretty damned sure that Nolan will either step in and say, "My movie will not be 3D," or, "If my movie is 3D, I'm going to oversee the process."
 
Nolan just shared his Post-Avatar thoughts on 3D at Wondercon:

One thing that Nolan was really emphatic about was his skepticism about 3D. He said: "I have a rigorous approach to image quality. We're thinking about 3D, but nothing today competes with large format film. I think there's a lot of misinformation about where cinema is heading." He remains committed to traditional film, which he rightly pointed out can create an intensely immersive experience. So there will be no 3D Batman movies in the near future.
http://io9.com/5508968/

Can't say I'm disappointed, since it looks like there's a pretty good chance I'll still get my 2D IMAX Experience now.
 
Last edited:
Interesting. We could be headed for a bit of a 3D showdown between WB and Nolan. I really hope this doesn't turn badly.
 
Nolan's hesitant on going for an inferior technology, but I feel his apprehension would not matter for long. Digital cameras, which are necessary for 3D, are fast approaching the clarity and resolution of even IMAX cameras. While experimental, it's gotten to the point where it will be usable sooner rather than later. Considering he was the first to try and implement new technology to a studio film, this would be an opportunity to do the same for the sequel.

You get your large-scale canvas, and you don't sacrifice image quality. With the sharp detail, the 3D would actually prove to be more impressive than that of Avatar. Everyone gets what they want.
 
Some artists just like to paint a certain way, he shouldn't have to work in a way he's not comfortable with. The guy likes film, simple as that, he should be allowed to film it the way he feels will do the movie justice.
 
He was speaking solely on image quality. That's what I've addressed.
 
He was speaking solely on image quality. That's what I've addressed.
Nolan still doesn't use a digital intermediate, which is the industry standard. He's probably more picky than most when it comes to image quality. :oldrazz:
 
Nolan still doesn't use a digital intermediate, which is the industry standard. He's probably more picky than most when it comes to image quality. :oldrazz:
As with most traditionalists, I think it's a matter of sticking to what works for you and what you're used to, as opposed to any statistical differences.

The Red One camera at it's optimal settings can downscale to 4K. That fits right in line with the size of a native IMAX screen. So this can't possibly be a question on image quality. Digital and Film are practically neck-and-neck depending on what tools you use.

Not to mention that IMAX themselves are already testing out a 3D camera for official release next year....
 
As with most traditionalists, I think it's a matter of sticking to what works for you and what you're used to, as opposed to any statistical differences.

The Red One camera at it's optimal settings can downscale to 4K. That fits right in line with the size of a native IMAX screen. So this can't possibly be a question on image quality. Digital and Film are practically neck-and-neck depending on what tools you use.

Not to mention that IMAX themselves are already testing out a 3D camera for official release next year....
It's not about the resolution quality, when I heard Pfister speak at a panel, he explaining they loved the way film captured deep blacks and you couldn't get that with digital.

Not that I could tell, but Wally Pfister can tell. :oldrazz:
 
Ah, dynamic range. Yes that's a very prevalent discussion in the film vs. digital debate, but it's also a gap that has gotten closer and closer as time goes by.

I don't even really think it's a very significant factor in real-world usage. At this point it's just come off as who has the better numbers, when they're both more than apt for film. I highly doubt the likes of Lucas, Spielberg, and Cameron would opt for a medium that doesn't provide excellent image clarity and dynamic range.
 
Don't forget, Nolan had that quote a while back about how we "haven't even begun to push the limits of 2D filmmaking yet" or something to that effect as well. So it sounds to me not like he's necessarily set in his ways, but rather that the direction he's intending to push in is just different from the one that the rest of the industry is crazy about at the moment.

I'm really beginning to suspect that he and Wally are serious about that more feature-suitable IMAX camera they were talking about wanting to develop a while back, so that they could take the IMAX stuff to another level. And that 3D is just not really on his technological radar right now.
 
Last edited:
Interesting. We could be headed for a bit of a 3D showdown between WB and Nolan. I really hope this doesn't turn badly.

Dear WB,

However Nolan wants Batman 3 filmed and presented, leave him the F alone.

Sincerely,
FlawlessVictory
 
As with most traditionalists, I think it's a matter of sticking to what works for you and what you're used to, as opposed to any statistical differences.

The Red One camera at it's optimal settings can downscale to 4K. That fits right in line with the size of a native IMAX screen. So this can't possibly be a question on image quality. Digital and Film are practically neck-and-neck depending on what tools you use.

Not to mention that IMAX themselves are already testing out a 3D camera for official release next year....
I terms of comparable resolutions, the RED isn't quite IMAX level at native 4K (which in itself is a slightly compressed codec), it's more along the lines of Super 35...although there's no one way to accurately compare 'per pixel' resolution. And even at that level, it's only recently with technology like in the Red Rocket that we can even play full 4K resolution in real time. Film is still king in terms of pure image quality. But with that comes costs and physical size/logistics as you start to approach larger formats like IMAX.

That's not to say that you can't get a movie to look 'great' in digital...and in some cases, 99.9 times out of 100, it'd be very difficult to tell the difference depending on how it's finished. But if a certain filmmaker prefers to work in celluloid, and has the finances to do so, it's certainly not an antiquated format, not yet.

As far as 'dynamic range' goes, it's kinda' meaningless unless you specify where and how it comes into play. Some digital formats can actually reach down into darker areas and pull out more information....but then if someone thinks that they don't have to use as much light, then sure, they can perhaps film more in less light, but the resulting image may end up looking like crap anyway because the lighting is crap. Not to mention that you may be working with a lens that doesn't open up any more than an F3.2 or what have you anyway. So in that respect, it's not so much about how much range you have on tap, but what you do with the range that you're working in, and how well you light.
 
Last edited:
A 3D movie shot in IMAX?

Well that seems ridiculous. I imagine it won't happen as Nolan seems to be an old school auteur who doesn't need some of these bells and whistles that are still very clearly in their crude infancy. And given that he made such huge bank off TDK for them, WB will leave him alone. Or they'll retrofit the film and I'll just watch it in 2D. Either way, it is fine, I guess.
 
A 3D movie shot in IMAX?

Well that seems ridiculous. I imagine it won't happen as Nolan seems to be an old school auteur who doesn't need some of these bells and whistles that are still very clearly in their crude infancy. And given that he made such huge bank off TDK for them, WB will leave him alone. Or they'll retrofit the film and I'll just watch it in 2D. Either way, it is fine, I guess.
 
If want Nolan to convert to 3D, all Nolan needs to do is pull out his, "Then I won't do Batman 3" device from his utility belt and WB will step off.
 
3D sucks balls....discuss!!!

case in point...clash of the titans.

I rest my case your honor.
 
A 3D Batman film would be a disaster. If some scenes of the film where shot in IMAX, You wouldn't need 3D. The aspect ratio for IMAX is big enough. 3D for other Superhero films can work. But not for Batman. He's not that kind of character. Chris Nolan knows how to make a good film without all the flash. Plus, IMAX makes you feel like your in the movie, I don't want the Batmobile coming towards me while I'm trying to enjoy a Batman film.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,267
Messages
22,076,163
Members
45,875
Latest member
Pducklila
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"