The Dark Knight Rises I'd Like Batman 3 To Be In 3D

[RustyCage]

No...not every film has to be 3D. That would just be pointless imo. Keep it in 2D. Batman is not a visual spectacle...people watched BB and TDK for the plot, interesting characters, suspense, and action.

Again, what exactly is the harm of adding 'visual spectacle' ontop of all that other awesomeness?

What makes you people assume that because Batman is well written that it can't look cool too? Give me a break.

 

[flickchick85]

It already looks cool. And there are some of us that don't think 3-D would make it look cooler.

 

[FCEEVIPER]

Just got back from seeing Avatar, and all I can say is WOW. That was probably the most immersive and breathtaking experiences I've ever had, and it was all thanks to the new 3D technology. It adds an entirely new dynamic. I want to see every movie filmed like this from now on.

Batman 3 by christopher nolan in 3D would be incredible, and he's the kind of director that would tackle that kind of project.

I can see an interest in the technology of Avatar leading to an increased interest for nolan in filming batman 3. Seeing the first movie ever entirely filmed in 3D and imax being a batman movie would be unbelievable.

Go see avatar nolan!

Nays, I still feel 3D is still a gimmick- to me.

So, I say no.

 

[Texas Zombie]

Avatar 3d just took away from the actual movie, which is over hyped.

IMAX is way better, speaking from someone who saw avatar 3 times(2 regular, and 1 3d), and saw TDK(4 times, 3 reg, 1 imax), 3D just takes away from the movie value, IMAX makes it better(ps, i didnt pay for all my tickets, and i didnt sneak in either).

Avatar 3D wasnt very 3D either, more like a waist of 2 dollars.

 

[mothy]

batman 3d?

no thanks.

 

[Mr. Earle]

Nolan used IMAX, not 3D. Therefore as a loyal Nolan fanboy i think that 3D sucks. Until he uses it and then it will be the best thing ever!

 

[General_Obol]

And what's IMAX?

In simplest terms, HD. 3D is just a gimmick.

 

[Crook]

I've no idea what you mean by HD. Films, when measured by resolution are all HD. Has been for quite a while. IMAX simply has more resolution.

IMAX is just as much of a gimmick as 3D is, so I do wonder why there's such an animosity towards it. Neither technologies are necessary to fully enjoy a movie. They may provide a more engulfing experience, but by no means are they quintessential.

 

[Mr. Earle]

I've no idea what you mean by HD. Films, when measured by resolution are all HD. Has been for quite a while. IMAX simply has more resolution.

IMAX is just as much of a gimmick as 3D is, so I do wonder why there's such an animosity towards it. Neither technologies are necessary to fully enjoy a movie. They may provide a more engulfing experience, but by no means are they quintessential.

The difference is that Nolan used IMAX but not 3D. Had he not used IMAX in TDK, most fans would have dismissed it as yet another gimmick.
"IMAX? No, i'd rather watch a good film. IMAX is distracting. Its a gimmick."

 

[Sentinel X]

Again, what exactly is the harm of adding 'visual spectacle' ontop of all that other awesomeness?

What makes you people assume that because Batman is well written that it can't look cool too? Give me a break.

...The Dark Knight already looks cool. It had excellent cinematography and a great look. Adding 3D is not going to make it any cooler...it'll just make it tacky. 3D should be used tastefully, it is there to enhance a viewers experience. How is 3D going to enhance a batman movie? "You feel like you're in dark alley with him"...big whoop!!

However, I do disagree with all the people in here saying 3D is a gimmick. It certainly is not. Just because you have a ton of films that use it wrongly doesn't mean its a gimmick

 

[Marx]

Not everything needs to be in 3D.

 

[weezerspider]

Why? Is it one OR the other?

Well we are comparing it to AVATAR and it certainly didn't have both.

 

[Mr. Earle]

Well we are comparing it to AVATAR and it certainly didn't have both.

No we arent comparing it to Avatar. And anyway if Avatar didnt have both, why cant B3 have both?

 

[Texas Zombie]

The technology isNt developed enough still, even avatar was somewhat blurry, and nothing ever came out at you in 3d in avatar, it was just something they just threw in there(no popping out moments).

IMAX makes the movie amazing, it will take away from the movie.

I don't think Nolan follows popular trend, he just makes some of the best movies out there.

 

[Dark Knight]

Nothing wrong with having an option to watch it in 3D....like what is happening now.

Folks can watch in conventional 2D or watch it a normal theater screen in 3D or go to IMAX and see it in 3D.

Then again that would increase the cost of disribution....but it will still end up making great money regardless.

 

[weezerspider]

No we arent comparing it to Avatar. And anyway if Avatar didnt have both, why cant B3 have both?

I never said it couldn't

 

[Texas Zombie]

They make up what they lose.



Does 3D really fitthe style of nolans films though.

 

[TheBatman072]

They make up what they lose.



Does 3D really fitthe style of nolans films though.

No. No it does not.

 

[flickchick85]

Especially considering how 3D makes the picture darker, and Nolan's preferred visual palette isn't exactly bright and colorful like Cameron's.

 

[weezerspider]

No. No it does not.

Thank you, I've been trying to say that all along.

 

[General_Obol]

I've no idea what you mean by HD. Films, when measured by resolution are all HD. Has been for quite a while. IMAX simply has more resolution.
IMAX is just as much of a gimmick as 3D is, so I do wonder why there's such an animosity towards it. Neither technologies are necessary to fully enjoy a movie. They may provide a more engulfing experience, but by no means are they quintessential.

Let me re-phrase. IMAX is to movies what HD is to TV. The animosity toward 3D is because of those ****ing glasses.

 

[Texas Zombie]

Avatar was good, but not in the story and character development part, it made up for that with stunning visuals and great action.

I would rather have the scenes shot almost complete IMAX. Amazing story is what batman is known for, let's not ruin the series.

 

[Texas Zombie]

Avatar was good, but not in the story and character development part, it made up for that with stunning visuals and great action.

I would rather have the scenes shot almost complete IMAX. Amazing story is what batman is known for, let's not ruin the series.

 

[weezerspider]

Nolan used IMAX, not 3D. Therefore as a loyal Nolan fanboy i think that 3D sucks. Until he uses it and then it will be the best thing ever!

I'm no Nolan fanboy. I'm a movie fanboy and by looking at say, Avatar and TDK side by side, I see a really stale, boring and poorly written movie in Avatar and then I see a really interesting, well written movie in TDK. Avatar's 3D effects didn't make the George Lucas-esque dialogue any better. 3D effects didn't make the unoriginal story any more original. 3D isn't needed to make a good movie. IMHO, it doesn't really help either. I enjoyed the 2D Avatar as much(or little) as the 3D AVATAR. I'm not saying its a gimmick. I'm just saying its unnecessary. It doesn't add to the substance of films and ,again IMHO, I care much more about substance than special effects. Its been pretty obvious for awhile Nolan feels the same way. Just look at the little CGI used in BB and TDK. Nolan cares about substance. 3D won't make its way in his films anytime soon.

 

[Crook]

Especially considering how 3D makes the picture darker, and Nolan's preferred visual palette isn't exactly bright and colorful like Cameron's.

Well that's why you amp up the light emitted from the screen, to offset the dimness caused by the glasses.

Does 3D really fitthe style of nolans films though.

Well people have kinda presented themselves with a catch-22 here. When most people think 3D, they think of the cool effects garnered from those pop-out moments in the film, that are supposed to bewilder your eyes every other scene. Does that particular style fit Nolan's sensibilities? Absolutely not.

But this is the same type of effect that naysayers bring up against the technology. So then you go the alternative presentation of 3D, which is merely to enhance the picture in a not so overt manner. Namely immersion through the perception of depth. Cameron executed this well with Avatar. Does this particular style fit Nolan? Well, I certainly wouldn't say it doesn't. It's not a method exclusive to any genre or story. It complements the picture rather than take over it. In this regard, I would say 3D is just as valid as widescreen or surround sound.