Jump to content

Batman 3


ClayMeow
 Share

Recommended Posts

It's going to be another two years until we get to enjoy the next Batman flick, but just found this article about its production:

 

Those who've seen The Dark Knight on Blu-ray surely have noticed the somewhat distracting change in aspect ratio between the scenes that were shot in IMAX and those filmed on traditional stock. If cinematographer Wally Pfister gets his way however, Batman 3 will be an all-IMAX adventure.

 

Pfister is Christopher Nolan's go to guy, working as director of photography on every one of Nolan's studio films, from Memento to Inception. As a third Batman comes closer and closer to being a reality, Pfister is hoping that he will be able to shoot it entirely in IMAX, and furthermore, not in 3D.

 

Speaking to MTV News, Pfister stated, "I can't say until I read the script, but it would certainly be my preferred, amazing goal to shoot the whole movie in IMAX... Chris' films are so densely layered and have so much going on visually in every way that IMAX helps enhance that because of the scope and the scale of it- it becomes a much larger canvas to paint on. That's what we found on Dark Knight."

 

For movie goers who don't consider 3D an awe-inspiring experience, Pfister had some encouraging words. "I'm not a big fan of 3D. I liken it to my View-Master I had 40 years ago. Are you really getting more out of the story with 3D? When you separate those different planes and you're creating artificial depth, it looks phony to me."

 

Pfister certainly has his work cut out for him as he makes preparations to top the visuals in The Dark Knight and Inception, but just thinking about what the team will come up with makes waiting for the July 2012 release date seem like an eternity. With Thor and Captain America going the way of 3D, it seems that Nolan and Pfister would be making a huge statement against the format if they opt for their Batman saga to remain two-dimensional. Whether Warner Bros. agrees with their sentiment remains to be seen.

 

Source

 

I don't really care either way about 3D, as studios give you the choice between 3D and 2D (at least they have thus far). I'm worried about shooting entirely in IMAX though. I saw The Dark Knight in IMAX and it was amazing. If you didn't see it in IMAX, it's hard to explain, but essentially, there were sections of the movie where it took up the full IMAX screen, and then there were sections where it just took up part of the screen (horizontally full, but not vertically full...almost like the black bars you'd see on TVs with different aspect ratios). The IMAX sections were generally used for aesthetic purposes, like when Batman's atop a building in Hong Kong.

 

There are two problems with IMAX:

 

1. Not everyone has a conveniently-located IMAX theater, so if there is no non-IMAX version, wouldn't that affect sales?

2. Though the experience was great, the action sequences were hard to follow. I've heard that they were hard to follow even on a regular screen, so maybe it's not as bad as I think, but it's still bothersome. For some IMAX theaters this may not be an issue, but the one I went to was a "true" IMAX experience, where the "screen" is curved, almost wrapping around you.

 

Now I could be reading this wrong. Maybe he wants to shoot it entirely in IMAX for the IMAX theaters, but still have the "regular" version for the regular theaters? He doesn't actually make that distinction, but I hope so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the IMAX version just means, basically, a higher rez version. Everytthing gets shot with what I believe is a 16:10 ratio, instead of the standard widescreen 16:9. Or it might be reversed, in any case, a film shot in IMAX resolution will still be able to be played in a normal theatre. And thank god he hates 3D, I saw Avatar in 3D, and while it was kinda cool, it got very gimmicky and distracting very fast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There are two problems with IMAX:

 

1. Not everyone has a conveniently-located IMAX theater, so if there is no non-IMAX version, wouldn't that affect sales?

2. Though the experience was great, the action sequences were hard to follow. I've heard that they were hard to follow even on a regular screen, so maybe it's not as bad as I think, but it's still bothersome. For some IMAX theaters this may not be an issue, but the one I went to was a "true" IMAX experience, where the "screen" is curved, almost wrapping around you.

 

Now I could be reading this wrong. Maybe he wants to shoot it entirely in IMAX for the IMAX theaters, but still have the "regular" version for the regular theaters? He doesn't actually make that distinction, but I hope so.

It's a lot easier to go from imax ratios to normal ratios because all you have to to do is cut the top and bottom off. You can't do it the other way because you would just be stretching the screen.

 

Well the IMAX version just means, basically, a higher rez version. Everytthing gets shot with what I believe is a 16:10 ratio, instead of the standard widescreen 16:9. Or it might be reversed, in any case, a film shot in IMAX resolution will still be able to be played in a normal theatre. And thank god he hates 3D, I saw Avatar in 3D, and while it was kinda cool, it got very gimmicky and distracting very fast.

imax is a lot taller than 16:9 or 16:10. Theres a list of aspect ratios here.

Edited by TheHippi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only the major cities have IMAX theaters. I had to see Avatar in IMAX 3D in Vegas - was already there, btw.

 

The newer IMAX theaters are moving away from the curved screens, which I am thankful of. I think they're too distracting as I never quite feel I am enjoying the movie to its fullest extent. If something catches my eye on the left side than I lose track of the right side. Bleh.

 

As far as the no 3D thing goes, I don't expect a Batman movie to be in 3D. I want to focus on a good story with the special effects backing it up - not the other way around. To me, Avatar was the perfect movie for 3D as not only did they do a fantastic job on the 3D aspect, the storyline wasn't all that complex. It was pure enjoyment movie rather than an intellectual one. Batman movies are typically investigative, action packed drama movies.

 

 

Now Transformers 3 would make a good IMAX 3D movie as it is purely for fun and requires no brain cell activity to enjoy. Course would have been nicer to see Megan Fox's lovely lady lumps in 3D, but that's a different topic. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't like IMAX...

 

I feel like I'm sitting wayy too close and my head hurts. I could care less about 3D (2.5D more like it...)

 

If it doesn't come out in a normal theater...I'll watch it on blu-ray. :mellow:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with IMAX is that most of the Theater Imax experiences aren't really that great. Marcus Theaters in the Midwest here have a screen that walks all over the Theater grade IMAX screens (The Ultrascreen). The problem they project on it with the normal film.

 

I saw Avatar on a AMC IMAX screen and I was really disappointed with the screen size. When you think IMAX you think HUGE screens, but IMAX is marketing this cheap alternative to theaters, which sucks imo...

 

 

I personally perfer this than the crappy Theater IMAX screens.

7019_large.jpg

 

 

maybe its just the screen that AMC chose to install up here, but in comparison the screen is like 190sq ft smaller than Marcus's screen.

226xRefer.jpg

 

 

 

Now the real IMAX screens are amazing, no arguing there.

imax-theater-interior.jpg?w=400&h=312

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with IMAX is that most of the Theater Imax experiences aren't really that great. Marcus Theaters in the Midwest here have a screen that walks all over the Theater grade IMAX screens (The Ultrascreen). The problem they project on it with the normal film.

I saw Avatar on a AMC IMAX screen and I was really disappointed with the screen size. When you think IMAX you think HUGE screens, but IMAX is marketing this cheap alternative to theaters, which sucks imo...

I personally perfer this than the crappy Theater IMAX screens.

PICTURE!

maybe its just the screen that AMC chose to install up here, but in comparison the screen is like 190sq ft smaller than Marcus's screen.

PICTURE!

Now the real IMAX screens are amazing, no arguing there.

PICTURE!

I agree, all the "IMAX" really is now is just a louder version of the movie. True IMAX is that third picture, I was just as let down as you when I went into the movie theaters and a normal sized screen lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...