The Dark Knight Rises Discussing the Third Movie and 3D

[ross2287]

Imax >>>>>>>>>>>> 3d

 

[Mister J]

Lord knows that the 3-D fad might pass by the time that summer comes around.

Dear God, please.

 

[akfj]

I agree, and like everyone learned from Nolan and is using IMAX, Nolan could shoot in 3D and not snub it because someone else did it first.

Where did Pfister give that as the reason why they won't be using it? They won't be using it because they feel it adds nothing of value to the movie and could actually be a distraction.

 

[Anita18]

I agree, and like everyone learned from Nolan and is using IMAX, Nolan could shoot in 3D and not snub it because someone else did it first.

But Nolan and Pfister have one rule that trumps everything - they want (nay, need) to shoot on film. You can't do that with 3-D.

 

[Doctor Jones]

The fact is, Batman doesn't need to be in 3D. Spider-Man? Superman? Could do it, but I'd rather see them in 3D then Batman.

 

[Jokers_Wild]

Even if they could shoot 50% of the sequel in IMAX...that would be fantastic!

I'm soooooo glad that Nolan and Pfister refuse to jump on the 3D bandwagon!

I also completely agree that the TDK IMAX experience was much more immersive for me than seeing Avatar in 3D.

 

[The Joker]

Imax >>>>>>>>>>>> 3d

Amen to that. The IMAX sequences in TDK were fabulous. I'll take more of them over 3-D any day.

 

[matrix_ghost]

So if people like 3D, or are convinced by Cameron that 3D is cool, why dont Nolan and Pfeister want to please them and give them what they want? Is it because someone else did it first?

I don't think that directors have to go such an extent to please fans. THere are just as much 3-d fans out there as there are people who are critical or plain hate the format.

Having said that i do think that Pfeister attitde is a bit snobbish. I'm am a 3-d fan and while i can perfectly understand Pfeisters and Nolan's criticism i don't think that it's fair to call 3-d a fad. THe arguments that Michael Bay and James cameron are using are valid , in that studios are forcing 3-d and therefore there is a big danger of the studio choosing a lesser quality version of 3-d ( as we we got with COTT).
But the fact that guys like Spielberg , Alfonso Cuaron , Martin Scorcese , Ridley Scott and others directors who their stuff when it comes to shooting movies want to shoot in the 3-d format certainly proves that there is a healthy interest in 3-d and it's anything but a fad.
THe argument that guys like Spielberg , Peter Jackson and others are using when it comes to making 3-d is the immersion that the audience feels.
Which is also the same argument that Noland co are using when they talk about wanting to shoot something in the IMAX format.

Now if it's a fad when it comes to studios applying 3-d to every movie out there..yeah. Then i'll agree with Pfeister in hoping that it passes over. I don't mind if a movie is either shot in 3-d or converted. In both cases the end result is important and if a filmmakers understand the process then he/she should be able to give something worthy of the price you're paying for. .
For me at least i think the 3-d format works best for visually interesting films. I have no need to see a drama or a comedy movie in 3-d . There are rumors that WB is considering to release Sherlock Holmes 2 and The Hangover 2 in 3-d. My thoughts on that ": "REALLY ******ED IDEA"
There is absolutely nothing whatsoever that 3-d can do in making those movies any more special. In that sense it is just for a quick buck.



Anyway going back to what Pfeister said.
I don't think that they will shoot the entire movie in IMAX. FOr example dialogue scenes are so incredibly difficult to shoot because the camera is so loud meaning that you'll need to do ADR for those scenes. SO they'll probably go the TDK route. SHoot the major action scenes in IMAX. But i think that Inception may convince them to shoot the other scenes in 65 mm format. That's pretty close to the IMAX resolution and by combining both i think they can get the best result.

 

[ross2287]

I also completely agree that the TDK IMAX experience was much more immersive for me than seeing Avatar in 3D.

I saw both TDK and Avatar at the same IMAX theatre (I think I even sat in the same row) and everything about my experience with TDK was better than my experience with Avatar.

 

[Sharkboy]

oh god, boo to 3d, it's a stupid stupid fad, even Cameron is apparantly kicking himself because of all the shoddy 3d conversions that are going on nowadays. I'd like them to find a way to film more scenes in that Imax format, those scenes alone were more breathtaking than any scene in avatar (i loved avatar btw)

 

[mclay18]

Even though Nolan and Pfister insist on not shooting in 3D for Batman 3, Mike Fleming's DHD post about the release date says that "The film is expected to be done in 3D."

http://www.deadline.com/2010/04/wb-sets-batdate

God, I hope WB sees the light and doesn't do it in 3D.

 

[JackBauer24]

I actually think this might end up being a dealbreaker for Nolan. He's a successful filmmaker in his own right now - Batman needs him more than he needs it. If WB push too hard to shoot or even post-convert to 3d, I can see Nolan walking.

I really hope that it isn't made in 3d. Initially I was excited by the idea of 3D cinema - but frankly, it doesn't live up to the hype. At least until they start shooting at 48 or 60fps, the judder becomes really noticeable and headache inducing in 3d.

Also, I don't know why, but 3D seems to make everything in the image look smaller. I saw Avatar on the biggest IMAX screen I could, but as soon as I put the glasses on, that sense of enormous scale just disappeared - and it felt like everything was taking place on a two-foot screen right in front of my face. Converting to 3D would absolutely kill that sense of grandeur you got when you saw TDK in IMAX.

TDK in IMAX was 1000x more huge and impressive than Avatar was. That's because it was in 2d.

 

[cchriswake13]

worthless thread considering it's been confirmed for IMAX releases

 

[Naite22]

http://www.slashfilm.com/2010/03/18/all-warner-bros-tentpole-movies-will-be-released-in-3d/

Warner Bros will be releasing five movies in 3D in 2010 and nine movies in 2011. Alan Horn announced at ShoWest that all the studios tentpole movies, superhero films, and big special effects releases, will be distributed in 3D. He called it the new standard for the company. And yes, he was clear to say all of the future DC Comic Books films while making the statement. That means that the new Superman and third Batman will be released in 3D.

This Is DUMB.

Why is that dumb??? Just use Camerons Fusion camera and it'll be kickass!

 

[GlasgowBat]

it's dumbe for several reasons, many of which depend on wether you are a fan of 3D or not.

If you are, then this is still dumb. Why? because it may result in Nolan abandoning ship.

 

[redfirebird2008]

But i think that Inception may convince them to shoot the other scenes in 65 mm format. That's pretty close to the IMAX resolution and by combining both i think they can get the best result.

I agree. Give us around 30 minutes of IMAX footage mixed with 65mm Panavision for the rest of the movie and we will have the best Hollywood IMAX visuals ever. One of these days they will finally have a camera with less noise and we will get a full Hollywood movie in IMAX.

 

[King K]

Never seen a 3D movie and don't plan on it. I hope WB just opens up the bank and buys enough IMAX cameras for Nolan and Phister to shoot the whole thing in IMAX.

3 minutes max is how long you can use an IMAX camera before running out of film if I remember correctly which would lengthen the filming considerably but it would be worth it.

 

[Anita18]

Why is that dumb??? Just use Camerons Fusion camera and it'll be kickass!

They won't, unless they have an extreme change of heart. Nolan and Pfister are film devotees. They've never shot on digital, they don't even use a digital intermediate for post-processing, which IIRC is standard on everything else.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

So they use traditional photochem ? They really are oldschool.

 

[TheBatman072]

So if people like 3D, or are convinced by Cameron that 3D is cool, why dont Nolan and Pfeister want to please them and give them what they want? Is it because someone else did it first?

I agree, and like everyone learned from Nolan and is using IMAX, Nolan could shoot in 3D and not snub it because someone else did it first.

You are hilariously sad.

Completely bound and determined to fault the makers of these movies at every step of the game.

 

[Mr. Earle]

Why do you always have to be offensive like that?

 

[redfirebird2008]

Why do you always have to be offensive like that?

Probably for the same reason that you keep making assumptions about Nolan's character? Nolan doesn't like shooting digital. He prefers the resolution of film. It has nothing to do with being jealous of whoever decided to make a 3D movie first.

 

[Crook]

Probably because you unequivocally come off as an extreme basher of Nolan, almost at every turn.

You're essentially faulting Nolan for not following the crowd, and what he thinks is artistically fitting for him as a director. Somehow Nolan shoulduse 3D because it's proven to please audiences. Which is interesting, because I can gather up several of your posts dismissing anyone daring to replicate Nolan's success with Dark Knight. A film that was also voted by the fans and audiences alike to suit their interests.

So which is it?

 

[Mr. Earle]

And that justifies him attacking people at every single one of his posts?

Crook, i understand that i've stepped up my Nolan whining and i'll try to tone it down, but its only because i want the best for Batman and i am surprised that someone like Favs can outdo a director of Nolan's caliber in some of the easiest aspects of superhero moviemaking.

 

[redfirebird2008]

And that justifies him attacking people at every single one of his posts?

Crook, i understand that i've stepped up my Nolan whining and i'll try to tone it down, but its only because i want the best for Batman and i am surprised that someone like Favs can outdo a director of Nolan's caliber in some of the easiest aspects of superhero moviemaking.

Speaking of Favreau, you're gonna love this. It just highlights your hypocritical potshots at Nolan. Favreau chose not to shoot Iron Man 2 in 3D for the exact same reason that Nolan doesn't want to use 3D: it requires shooting with digital cameras instead of film. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a director wanting to shoot on film. In fact, I prefer it by a long shot to the disastrous look of Michael Mann's digitally shot Public Enemies. That movie looks like a cheap TV soap opera.

http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/ne...-jon-favreau-talks-3d-imax-for-iron-man-3.php

Favs noted that his cinematographer Matthew Libatique likes to shoot on film, and both were impressed with the look that film gave to the first Iron Man.

Now, are you going to accuse Favreau of refusing to use 3D/digital because of his ego?