TDKR: Christopher Nolan Discusses Shooting THE DARK KNIGHT RISES In IMAX And Not In 3-D

that man is a truly old-style filmmaker and I applaud him for that. Now that increased 2D ticket prices will partially be funding 3D films it seems like 3D will soon be the only option. Studios want it, executives want it, distributors want it, the public does not want it but it's being rammed down our throats by directors such as Ridley Scott and James cameron because they know it makes more money for them, without making the experience in any way more memorable. Lets not forget the 30 % colour loss, the headaches, the stupid 3D glasses, etc.

@WesleyGibson: good article but maybe you could include the parts about CGI and his answers about the IMAX questions as well? That would be really great because it would show just what he thinks IMAX has to offer.

WTF??
"it gives each audience member an individual perspective. It’s well suited to video games and other immersive technologies, but if you’re looking for an audience experience, stereoscopic is hard to embrace."
i think nolan hasn't saw a 3D movie...every member of the audience sees the same thing in a 3D movie! it's always an "audience experience" because everyone sees the same thing! o.O you just can see the depthness of the scene and that's all ok, for the bigger canvas, but THIS?!? ._."

The studios are raising 2D ticket prices and lowering 3D ticket prices (slightly) so that there is one price (as if tickets weren't expensive enough already) so that you're going to effectively pay the price of a 3D ticket even though you're going to watch a 2D film. the studios are going to force the price on you and, unless you like to go watch films at an independent arthouse cinema, you're going to have to pay more for the same experience.

@PartyHard: One part of the article discusses his choice to continue shooting on film whereas everybody today goes digital. Now tell me that someone holding on to the old vestiges of cinema is not an old-style filmmaker. here's the exerpt:

"Q: You and your cameraman, Wally Pfister, are—along with Steven Spielberg—among the last holdouts who shoot on film in an industry that’s moved to digital. What’s your attraction to the older medium?

A: For the last 10 years, I've felt increasing pressure to stop shooting film and start shooting video, but I've never understood why. It's cheaper to work on film, it's far better looking, it’s the technology that's been known and understood for a hundred years, and it's extremely reliable. I think, truthfully, it boils down to the economic interest of manufacturers and [a production] industry that makes more money through change rather than through maintaining the status quo. We save a lot of money shooting on film and projecting film and not doing digital intermediates. In fact, I've never done a digital intermediate. Photochemically, you can time film with a good timer in three or four passes, which takes about 12 to 14 hours as opposed to seven or eight weeks in a DI suite. That’s the way everyone was doing it 10 years ago, and I've just carried on making films in the way that works best and waiting until there’s a good reason to change. But I haven't seen that reason yet.

Q: Have you ever thought about communicating your feelings to the industry and other directors?

A: I’ve kept my mouth shut about this for a long time and it’s fine that everyone has a choice, but for me the choice is in real danger of disappearing. So right before Christmas I brought some filmmakers together and showed them the prologue for The Dark Knight Rises that we shot on IMAX film, then cut from the original negative and printed. I wanted to give them a chance to see the potential, because I think IMAX is the best film format that was ever invented. It’s the gold standard and what any other technology has to match up to, but none have, in my opinion. The message I wanted to put out there was that no one is taking anyone’s digital cameras away. But if we want film to continue as an option, and someone is working on a big studio movie with the resources and the power to insist [on] film, they should say so. I felt as if I didn’t say anything, and then we started to lose that option, it would be a shame. When I look at a digitally acquired and projected image, it looks inferior against an original negative anamorphic print or an IMAX one."

@FrankieDedo: no, it's not the same experience for everyone because many of us don't care for the stupid glasses or the headaches, the darker screen, the colour loss, etc. 3D is alienating the audiences in many different ways. also, try watching "Jaws 3D" with that little guppy/"shark" biting your ear. In the remake of Clash of the titans the monsters were made smaller because of 3D. It's dying and people are allowed to voice their disdain for it. it's just that his argument for not using 3D is much more professional and sophisticated because he works within the industry that a lot of us don't know too much about. We know the borad strokes but that guy works every day with studio executives, cinematographers, etc. so I expect that a lot of people on here are just bashing him again because he made batman films that express the way he views the characters and many people like those films, a fact that noone seems to have gotten over here.

i don't care for imax,too much traveling just to see another batman film.

normal screening will do me.

@FrankieDedo actually, no two people see the same thing in a 3D screening; the way in which the technology works forces a different perspective of the image depending on where you're seated in the cinema auditorium. If you're sat right in the center, you tend to get the best viewing experience in 3D, while if you're sat at the edges, the image seems more blurry and awkward. It's all about the way the two images are overlaid onto each other, and how the glasses force each image together when you look through them. Of course, the problem isn't as bad if it's filmed with a 3D camera (like Amazing Spider-Man), as the two camera lenses also film at a slightly different perspective, making it more natural when the images are compressed by the glasses. Post converted 3D on the other hand is generally very awkward to watch for most audiences. Plus then the loss of colour, and the way many people feel the glasses separate them from the screen, it does seem to ruin the audience experience.

That's why it tends to work better on video games, etc, because they're not used by hundreds of people sat around one screen, it's usually just the one person.

So yes, it would be the same film in both 2D and 3D, but in 3D you lose a lot of the quality of the film in exchange for a gimmick that is almost always very forgettable. And it's always awful when films specifically insert 3D 'pop out' moments into films.

And at the very least for consistency's sake, it's a good thing Chris Nolan has rejected 3D for his last Batman flick, as it wouldn't fit in with the other two films.

@marvel72, you might not care for IMAX but it truly is a breathtaking experience. Not everyone lives in the middle of Kansas and traveling isn't a deterrent to IMAX for most people. IMAX>3D, Nolan cares about his audience's perspective and that's why he hasn't disappointed me yet

Shitt azz blab pab [frick] [frick] [frick] fu ck

I think a lot of the problem with 3D falls on the projectionist and lack of digital screens. My local AMC has 16 digital screens and one IMAX but the projectionist is still not used to the new tech so it's always 50/50 on the 3D experience. But when they are on their game digital 3D has less color and clarity loss. When more theaters can make the conversion and more people are properly trained I think the quality of 3D will improve.

For now I stick to the 2D

@SHO1138: I think that the problem with digital projection (which came about because of 3D) has actually led to the disappearance of the profession of the projectionist, since now all that is required is to push a button in a centralised screening room. There's just one projectionist for 10-12 screens. I was not fooled by the 3D craze because I watched Avatar in 2D and saw it for what it was: an uninspired, derivative work that was more like Big Smurf Dances with Wolves in Space. The special effects were good but nothing else really and I've remained sober ever since regarding 3D. maybe films like Avengers and Prometheus are the same in 2D and 3D but your wallet says what the difference is. i'm not going to pay a 3D ticket price, even for films like these.

I applaud Nolan. Hate his @$$kissing disciples called fans but I applaud the man himself.

He's right.

You can get extreme depth without steroscopic filming by layering, positioning, scale and occlusion. I draw and paint, both traditionally and digitally and I'll tell you, layering will give you serious depth, it's just falling inward instead of outward.

3D is just a fad to make easy money. Unless it's actually shot in 3D(Avatar, Transformers: Dark Of The Moon, Amazing Spider-Man, Prometheus), it usually doesn't work. IMAX>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>3D.

3D is whack. And I'm only slightly biased by the fact that I can't see it.

I am actually more impressed with DBOX movies in theaters. At least the action and horror movies. Now for animated films I totally dig the 3D because it looks amazing. That said I have to be honest in the fact that my Favorite 3D movie so far has to be Harold & Kumar 3D. They used the 3D element better than anything else I have seen.

nolan said it best
and as for a new trailer I honestly think it will be the weekend before the avengers or the weekend of the avengers attached to the movie..has to thats the only big movie coming out soon early MAY or release it online

Much respect to Chris Nolan, Awesome film maker!

@Azazel1

"could you have imagined Avatar being the same experience in 2d?"

I think I know what you're asking, but in all fairness, even shitty 3D is a different "experience" than a 2D movie- Unless it's Clash of the Titans 3D where the film is 2D with or without the glasses.

But no, the experience would not be the same. Avatar took a standard story, some proven tactics of appeal and added really crisp 3D. It's a full package novelty. Watching Avatar in 2D defeats part of it's purpose on a whole. The 3D is not just an additive to the movie, it's a component of the movie. It's part of it.

Can I watch Avatar without 3D? Yeah, I could. You see, the cliche elements of the story, the by-the-numbers familiarity of it's visuals and events are ironically part of it's appeal. Being somewhere you've been before may not be new, but there's comfort. Add a few colorful elements and mediocrity is acceptable entertainment. Add 3D to it and it may appear to be the best thing since toothless blowjobs.

ps: Avatar's 3D is more of an HD with depth than it is a coming-at-you, pop-out 3D.