I mean, from a business standpoint Batman 3 doesn't need it, it's a guaranteed success.
There really is no practical need for 3D for a batman movie. No need at all. GL, Superman, Flash sure, but not this.
This is just a cash in and a gimmick.
3D is also good for business because it will urge people to get to the cinemas to "get the full experience", rather than wait for the DVD or pirate it.
Wait, they were showing TDK when it was released in cinemas?That's the new mentality of Hollywood. 3D, like early Cinemascope, or even IMAX, is to get people out of their homes and into theaters. Give them a unique experience so you can charge more. It's brilliant if you ask me. Nolan understands business and he also understands cinema as an art form. The IMAX release will be converted to 3D. No big deal.
HBO was showing The Dark Knight 'round the clock when it was released for the home market. Sony is going to use Spiderman 4 to sell 3D glasses-free TV's so all of this makes sense.
Wait, they were showing TDK when it was released in cinemas?
^ Is Nolan releasing the movie or is WB? WB will, without a doubt in my mind, release it in 3D in some capacity. Nolan has no say.
Thanks!Home Market = DVD, Blu-ray, On-Demand, itunes, ect.
I think Magnolia films are released the same day on HDNET when it hits theaters. HBO does no such thing.
Then again, we are talking about the tentpole franchises for the studio here. So if 3D really is a money-maker, it'd be very difficult to let that go for such high-ticket titles. If there's a possible opportunity for their biggest money-makers to make even more, from a business standpoint it behooves them to at least look seriously into it.
Unfortunately.
If Nolan were to walk on this next Batman, do you guys think the cast members would follow? I REALLY don't see Bale and Caine being all that motivated to do another Batman without Nolan.
http://gizmodo.com/5649740/simon-pegg-is-worried-about-what-3d-is-doing-to-the-movie-industryEchoing the opinions of Francis Ford Coppola and Roger Ebert, Simon Pegg took to Twitter today to voice his opinions on 3D movies. Even 3D porn was under fire: "Could you seriously *********e knowing you look like the nutty professor?"
Comics writer Mark Millar sparked Pegg's Twitter tirade, after tweeting "Please don't force Nolan to direct Batman in 3d, Warner Bros. REAL LIFE is 3D. It's not a novelty anymore."
Nolan isn't exactly a fan of 3D, having said recently that "on a technical level, it's fascinating. But on an experiential level, I find the dimness of the image extremely alienating."
After retweeting Millar's tweet on the subject, Pegg then coughed out 10 tweets on his concerns about the future of indie movies, the cinemas' restrictions on showing 3D movies, and like Ebert said, how 3D is just an excuse to charge more money.
Because 3D makes movies look darker an blurrier, and if it's a post production conversion there's no reason to watch it in 3D at all since you'll barely see a difference. It's only a scam to get more money out of customers even though all it does for most movies is make them look worse. Even movies filmed in 3D can turn out looking like crap, like Resident Evil: Crapterlife.I haven't read all the posts in this thread just yet, but I'm having trouble fathoming in what way this could possibly hurt a Nolan film, or any film in general. A bad film is a bad film, a good film is a good film. Whether or not it's in 3D is incidental.
Nolan simply said they didn't have time to do the post-conversion right on Inception, so they didn't do it in the end. I imagine he might be considering it, but he's a smart guy - it'd be on a case by case basis.He allegedly had say with Inception, but B3 may be too big for WB to resist doing it. Still...if he is adamant about it never being converted, he could just refuse to sign on to do the film. I think he'd ultimately be okay with it if he knew that the majority of releases would be regular 2D, so audiences wouldn't be forced out of seeing it the way that at least he intended.
Right but if you notice, most of the films coming out in 3-D now are already gimmicky (seriously, Jackass 3-D?), and it's less than a year from Avatar's release. Frankly it doesn't look too good for the technique if shortly after Avatar, all the public got were weak conversions and stupid gimmicks, let alone two years from now.you can't blame WB for wanting to do 3D as you can charge higher ticket prices in every cinema that shows the movie as apposed to only being able to charge high ticket prices purely for IMAX. then you have to take into consideration spidey and avengers will be in 3D. it's entirely possible more people will see batman but spidey and avengers ends up making more money.
do the math, it plain to see why WB would want batman in 3D. the question is, will nolan back down?