The Dark Knight Slow Motion

[thedarks0ldier]

In Batman Begins we saw no slow motion, which helped separate it even more from films like Spider-Man or other action flicks. There is some beautiful cinematography in 'Begins that as somebody pointed out in the 'Begins thread, only had the chance to be fully appreciated as a picture of still.

Do you think The Dark Knight should employ some slow motion during some fights, probably during a beating like some boxing movies or in Fight Club (which I think had the best use of slow motion in a movie.)

I personally think the hallucination scenes could have been way more effective had they emphasized the bats or maggots coming out of cranes head. Or like during the Carmine/ Scarcrow scene, something could have been done there to enhance the effect of the hallucination scenes.

As long as they dont do the pointless Peter Jackson slow mo we saw in King Kong or Lord of the Rings I am for the slow motion.

 

[Crooklyn]

It should be used sparingly, but I think using it in fight scenes and for those "iconic" shots would be ideal.

 

[Ronny Shade]

Slow mo is awesome if used right.

No action scene bullet time crap, tho.

 

[Rynan]

Nah, I like my Batman quick, fast and with surgical precision.

 

[Ronny Shade]

I generally tend to feel that way as well.

But I'd be open to the idea of slow mo

 

[Nepenthes]

Nah, I like my Batman quick, fast and with surgical precision.

Yes ^


Slo mo should only be used in 'altered reality'. That is flashbacks, dreams, hallucinations etc.

The directing style in BB was pretty low-key. Which lets the characters be the stars of the film. Comapre that to something like Matrix or Sin City (EXTREME examples) where every second shot you're going wow, regardless of the story.

 

[Ronny Shade]

Which IMO was one of the problems with it.

They got the characters way righter than Burton did, but they sacrificed the iconography. *See my rant in the bike thread.

 

[Darknightnomis]

How 'bout Super Slo-Mo like they have in Football?

While you're at it, throw in "instant replay" so we can immediatley see a scene that was just shown as well as have an audience "time out" to review a scene to determine if it fits with the rest of the movie.

 

[Ronny Shade]

"after reviewing the play, there is idisputible video evidence that joker sprayed Batman with acid. First Down."

 

[Ronny Shade]

WTF? sorry

 

[Darknightnomis]

"after reviewing the play, there is idisputible video evidence that joker sprayed Batman with acid. First Down."

LOL! t:

 

[Anita18]

Hah!

I'm usually against the idea of slow-motion, especially for a film that pretends as if it could be real as BB was. I'm more amazed by fast and precise movements, not long drawn-out ones. It's more badass.

Actually, I can't recall a single instance in any of Nolan's films where slow-motion was used...I haven't seen Insomnia in a while nor Following, but I don't recall it in Memento, BB, or The Prestige.

 

[JBElliott]

N o o o o o o

 

[batman7289]

i think the perfect moment for slow motion is when you first see the joker.
like if he was wearing a top hat and they reveal his face the turn could be in slow motion

 

[Rynan]

i think the perfect moment for slow motion is when you first see the joker.
like if he was wearing a top hat and they reveal his face the turn could be in slow motion

Nah, I'd rather have it in real time. Villians make more of an impact when they they are viewed normally. Enough time to process it, but yet, not enough time to truely comprehend it.

 

[lujho]

You people are talking about slo motion as if it's some flashy, showy technique used by directors who emphasize style over substance.

There's NOTHING wrong with slow motion in any film, in action scenes or non-action scenes, if used well. Nothing wrong with using it in films that are supposed to be realistic. It's an utterly old-school, classic technique that's been used for decades - a very influential use of it in action films was when Akira Kurosawa used it in Seven Samurai, over 50 years ago.

It can help emphasize important moments visually by letting them linger on screen longer than they would actually take. Frankly, Begins could have used some slow motion at key points, but then along with many others I think the editing of the film as a whole was complete $h*t.

 

[StorminNorman]

Nah, I like my Batman quick, fast and with surgical precision.

Actually thats an area I think Slow Mo could be used very effectively. The audience would be able to appreciate his surgical percision if they actually see it.

 

[Keyser Sushi]

I really didn't have any problem with the way Begins was done. I'm not against slow-motion (I love LOTR and the Spidey movies, and both of those franchises use slo-mo quite often) but I don't know that I think Batman *needs* it.

When I first watched Begins, I was a little put off by the lack of flash and "gee whiz" moments, a little put-off by the complete lack of slo-mo emphasis on any of the big moments - whether it be the deaths of Thomas and Martha Wayne, or any of the "stuff exploding" scenes. I wasn't sure what to think of it.

So I watched the movie a second time. And what I decided was that, as Nepenthes said earlier in this thread (I find myself agreeing with this guy all the time!) the style of Begins really didn't call attention to anything except the characters. And the characters were so good, and so well done, that was all it took.

I really don't need Nolan to do anything different from what he did last time. But unless he seriously farks up, I probably won't mind if he does.

 

[lujho]

Actually thats an area I think Slow Mo could be used very effectively. The audience would be able to appreciate his surgical percision if they actually see it.

Yeah... like, slo-mo close-ups of striking nerve-bundles and pressure points, or whatever. Intercut with wide shots showing the whole picture at normal speed. Actually, those close ups would probably be better at normal speed.

But I know what you mean.

 

[The Kid]

If it's used properly then i'm for it, but I don't want any gratuitous 'show off' slow mo.

 

[Ronny Shade]

I really didn't have any problem with the way Begins was done. I'm not against slow-motion (I love LOTR and the Spidey movies, and both of those franchises use slo-mo quite often) but I don't know that I think Batman *needs* it.

When I first watched Begins, I was a little put off by the lack of flash and "gee whiz" moments, a little put-off by the complete lack of slo-mo emphasis on any of the big moments - whether it be the deaths of Thomas and Martha Wayne, or any of the "stuff exploding" scenes. I wasn't sure what to think of it.

So I watched the movie a second time. And what I decided was that, as Nepenthes said earlier in this thread (I find myself agreeing with this guy all the time!) the style of Begins really didn't call attention to anything except the characters. And the characters were so good, and so well done, that was all it took.

I really don't need Nolan to do anything different from what he did last time. But unless he seriously farks up, I probably won't mind if he does.

Something wrong with having both?

 

[Anita18]

When I first watched Begins, I was a little put off by the lack of flash and "gee whiz" moments, a little put-off by the complete lack of slo-mo emphasis on any of the big moments - whether it be the deaths of Thomas and Martha Wayne, or any of the "stuff exploding" scenes. I wasn't sure what to think of it.

That's interesting, since the Wayne death scene affected me more in BB than in B89 (where a lot of slow-mo was used). It captured the feeling of what it would be like witnessing such an act - one moment they're alive, and suddenly they're not. The reality of it hit me like a train.

 

[Dark Guardian]

I'm sorry, but Slo-mo, especially during fight scenes, just makes it look crappy. Its like laughing at your own joke. Oh yipee, we're gonna slow it down so you can see just how cool this action is.
No. Batman fights, and he fights well. The whole point is that he's so good you can't see what he's doing. We don't need slo-mo to accentuate it.

 

[Katsuro]

I'd prefer they leave out slo-mo. I became disgusted with the entire slo-mo concept after watching the Lord of the Rings movies. Fans complain about all the stuff cut from those movies, but if they just cut back on the use of slo-mo they could've fit an extra hour's worth of stuff in each movie. Oh no, Frodo got stabbed again, time for more slow-motion!!

 

[Crooklyn]

^ No one here wants Matrix-type slow mo where it's every 10 seconds, but I don't think it'd harm the film if we get like 2 or 3 scenes in the film where they slow it down and let the audience sink it in for a moment.

And the point of Batman is his moves are rapid/effecient. For film, I think it's better if you actually let the audience see it. The whole "you can't see what he's doing" concept was fine for Batman's first appearance, but having it in every damn fight is so confusing/irritating. We're in a new time now, I wanna see my Batman kick ass for once and be able to enjoy it.

Nolan, take a few hints from the fighting in Bourne Identity.