This is great for people with home projectors. One of the things I hate about BluRay is that most movies seem to be in 2.x by 1 format. I get why they do it, but when you have a 84" screen, you really don't want the movie showing in a small rectangle in the middle. It's still larger than a widescreen TV, but if I have 84" available, I want to use them all.
They should call it 2.5D because there is no way in hell it is 3D yet. Until I can actually physically see 3D projections coming out of the screen without needing 3D glasses I will ignore these pseudo 3Dness.
Depth is a great aid to the story, given some story are better off with the out it,
there are some BW films that are better than color, there are some Gorgeous color films out there by the same token
Alice in Wonderland, Clash of the Titans, The Last Airbender were 3D conversion movies. Toy Story 3 , How to train you r dragon were CG movies that were rendered in stereoscopic 3D. Avatar was shot in 3D with a lot of CG 3D footage. Final Destination 4 was shot in 3D.
I saw Avatar and TS3 in RealD 3D. It is worth the extra money for the depth perception. The higher price also keeps out the unwashed masses who can't afford the extra $4 per ticket.
I saw Inception in LieMax (AMC Del Amo 18). It was incredible and I will fully support that format as well.
3d is cool but not EVERY movie has to be 3d. Also if they are going to make a 3d movie they better shoot it in 3d like Avatar and not convert it after.
I hope not. Adding color made films appear more like real life, since real people are in color. However, 3D makes things float....do real people float?
Float? lolwut? 3d makes images have a 3rd dimension, meaning your eyes can determine exactly how far something is away. Real life is exactly like that.
Well people pointed out that Color was just a sales gimmick and added nothing to story or film. And in a sense that is true but its what consumers want. or lets just make it really simple. $$$
is 3d making big money? in theaters, yes. in homes, not yet.
the difference tho between b & w and 3d is that color just added to ur original film and nothing else was changed.
But with 3d, ur changing the way its watched, the way its played, the way the movie is shot, etc. so instead of an upgrade from b & w to color this is a total change from 2 dimensions to 2 dimensions with a third added. ( improvised depth. because regular depth is already captured so 3d is just the distortion of the layers. however our eyes are incapable of seeing 2 dimensions of depth so glasses are needed to add the improvised depth).
Probably not a good analogy. I feel like people look at black and white movies today as something we've improved. 3D movies are more likely to be a fad which will pass at which point we'll go back to "regular" movies.
I think a better analogy might be, well, 3D movies from the 1950s.
The only reason 3d did not expand to full use in the 50's was because it was too expensive to do then. Now it's not. 3d will become the new color, it's just a matter of time. It WILL be the new standard whether you like it or not.
The way you act I'm guessing you also thought surround sound, DVDs, and High Definition were all fads... *sigh*
Also consider that black and white movies were much more challenging in their heyday to actually make well. Cameras don't just automatically make those shading gradients. That requires lighting and aperture artistry on the side of the cinematographer. Also, they had to work a lot harder to get across subtextual references in many occasions where using a different color to stand out wasn't an option.
3D is a very cheap way of bringing people to the theatre. I do believe that it will improve in the future and won't be as tacky as it seems now. Now, it just seems like movies like avatar and toy story are pushing out an unfinished technology.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
3D is anything but cheep, even to convert it is a very painful very, very Expensive process.
where just seeing what the matrix did, bring us something amazing and have tons of people copy it.
Films that were still in post rushed to get converted, to get a buck, there is no excuse for not shooting with two cameras for a left and right eye, given that a sense of depth does not aid every story, black and white films can be more compelling than color, there are still some gorgeous Color films out there.
Avatar helped redefined 3D technology by using special cameras designed to film EVERYTHING in 3D. Toy Story 3 and any other 3D film can be rendered in 3D or 2D with a simple swap of the virtual camera. While not perfect, it's hardly "unfinished technology". I should probably throw Coraline into this set of 3D films done right.
Now, the older techniques used in Alice in Wonderland or Clash of the Titans were converted to 3D simply to sell more expensive tickets without really adding to the experience. This wasn't real 3D and was very time consuming to create so it could be used in only very limited places. I know it's popular to hate on 3D but most of these people are faux film elitists who think they know more then they actually do and instead of educating themselves and potentially having their minds changed they clam up and shut out new technology, deriding it as if it somehow makes the film experience impure. You know who else did something like that? Perhaps I shouldn't really go there...
Here's my issue on 3-D. It may look amazing, but so far it has not been used for anything other than a "gimmick" so to speak. Avatar is by far the worst. I'm not saying the 3-D was bad, no just the opposite; the whole movie was simply made to showcase this new technology. But at the cost of a mediocre story with on par average from the male lead. It's sort of like how Crysis has amazing graphics, but uses that to hide the fact it is poorly coded and inaccessible.
What IMAX does though is increase the canvas so to speak and that is why Nolan likes it. With the extra space, the directer as an artist can convey more information to the audience. I remember seeing a Dark Knight comparison scene of an IMAX shot with regular theater shot and the amount of things cut out to fit it onto a regular screen is substantial. I will acknowledge it's usefulness when 3-D is stopped being used as a spectacle like in a Disneyland ride and used to help move along the story and provide more substantial information for the audience.
Not knowing a lot about IMAX, would the film be able to be shown in non-IMAX theatres? If it can, woohoo all for it. If not, seems like it'll miss an awful lot of people
well there are a lot of areas with no IMAX theatre close by. I've got one now, but where I grew up it was a 3-4 hours drive to the nearest IMAX theatre, and still is. Just saying it would miss most of that market for example if you couldn't see it on a regular screen. But since you can, it's irrelevant anyway
We have an IMAX in Denmark, but it only shows documentaries for educational purposes, because it is owned buy the goverment. I wrote emails to them in hope, about TDK and Inception but they do not want to make an exception.
Of course you can see in non-IMAX theaters... but you won't get the full benefit of IMAX. The Dark Knight, especially the action scenes like the opening, was so much better seen in IMAX that seeing it in a regular theater the second time around seemed like the same magnitude downgrade as going from any theater and seeing it at home on a 32" TV.
I live in a relatively small town in southern Utah so we NEVER get anything cool here.. If it weren't for the WalMart, Best Buy, and Staples in town, we'd have to do almost all of our shopping on the net.
With ONE exception...
We have one of the f**king coolest IMAX theaters in the country within about 45 minutes from here. Not only is it IMAX, but it's in Zions national park so it has one of the most beautiful surroundings EVER. Just the drive there alone is worth the trouble, the badass movie at the end is like an iced cake on top of another f**king iced cake.
No they didn't.
A) Superman was shot with a digital cinema camera it was never shot with an IMAX camera. It was not even shot on film.
B ) The 3D was a conversion, not real 3D. An early conversion.
It was never shot in 3D, let alone shot in IMAX 3D.
A few documentaries were shot in IMAX 3D.
Superman was blown up to be screened in some IMAX theater even though it was never shot in IMAX. The Dark Knight has several sequences shot in IMAX and those images were crystal clear.
I think aquapete was just saying how Superman had scenes with 3D and you had to keep putting on glasses throughout the movie. This is how it was because I experienced it too.
So I'm not sure who you're trying to convince, lcworld. :)
@craighwk is right i was actually just talking about having to put on glasses. i tend to close out the world around me when im watching a movie and i see things like putting on 3D glasses mid movie just as annoying and interrupting as someone trying to have a conversation with you during a movie.
Yes, the guys that get to shoot the third epic Batman film...I feel so sorry for them, they must hate their jobs and consider suicide every night, especially with those paychecks...
Just to give you and idea: regular film stock for major motion pictures as most people know is 35mm film, which is a pretty large frame in its own respect. IMAX, film stock however, is 85mm film. That is a HUGE piece of film with a massive frame.
The first thing that popped in my head is: how the f**k can they pull off all the awkward shots with IMAX cameras? I imagine there's a few tight shots in small areas and so on that are gonna make that a pretty huge pain in the ass.
From the nature of Inception in a theatrical sense this will literally blow our minds.
Christopher Nolan rocks.
Sure his little brother will probably screw up Superman, but after the Dark Knight, we saw the potential a dark gritty Batman can be.
IMAX it all the way, then I'll pre order bluray.
And If I'm rich enough by then, 3d bluray.
Close one eye? :P Actually I think a good tradeoff later on would be having both 3D and 2D glasses. That way, the theatre doesn't have to have separate 2D and 3D rooms for every movie!
I am not sure I would say mostly. Supposedly six major action-heavy sequences, along with various high-altitude shots, were filmed on the IMAX ratio. The one I remember specifically is the scene when the joker is about to be caught with the semi and Batman on the cool lookin' motorcycle.
I have no problem with 3D so long as it's not a gimmick to cover up the fact that it's a s**tty movie. However, Batman 3 will be awesome and total IMAX cinematography will be amazing. I just wish there was more than one IMAX screen in St. Louis. It's going to be a bitch getting tickets to that.
If Christopher Nolan wanted to do a 3D movie about apes f**king I would watch it. He's got enough street cred in my books to warrant a trip to any movie he churns out. Inception was that good for me.
I argue that 3D in it's current form absolutely CAN NOT add enough of a benefit to counter it's negative aspects like having to wear uncomfortable glasses.
I do however believe that holographic materiel and stuff that's truly 3D will have a HUGE impact on media's... impact.
Today's "3D" is NOT 3D. It's just 2D stuff that's layered on top of other 2D stuff, there's nothing close to real depth in the image.
I was bummed to pay $17 for Inception on IMAX when it appeared as if none of the scenes were shot in the format. Thankfully the movie was so good I forgot about the price.
Will be nice to see Batman get the full treatment.
3d still just feels like a gimmick to me. Even in Avatar I didn't feel it added anything. All it did was reduce the clarity and make everything darker. Skin tones looked like s**t and I had a headache and had to wear stupid f**king glasses.
3d will be cool when the technology has been mastered, but until then, stop ruining so many movies with it. I'm glad not everyone is all for this. I'll look forward to seeing Batman in full IMAX.
IMAX is a worthless designation like Angus beef or "all natural" You are paying a premium for a commodity level product. And you still have to be a retarded little prick wearing glasses to watch a blurry movie.
I'm liking Nolan more and more everyday. 3D sux. It adds nothing to the movie viewing experience and it's nothing but a cheap gimmick that the theater can charge you extra for.
Figures since Pfister is the best DP in Hollywood while Nolan is becoming the best director. I think they're using M. Night Shalaman as a voodoo doll or something, sacrificing his downward spiral for their opposite gain
I love the fact that this is going to be all IMAX, but, the one problem that I have with the format is that now we're basically going back to a 4:3 aspect ratio. We started off with that ratio, went to 16:9 and then to 1.85:1 and 2.39:1, and now back to 4:3.
For all you fans of imax, the majority of you haven't even seen an imax film.
The main thing about imax is the film, not the projector or screen. (Although they help). Before you couldn't call a movie an imax movie unless, well you know, it was shot in imax.
Alternatively, you could not be a leeching **** and watch it at a normal theater. Just because they're filming it in IMAX doesn't mean it won't be released in normal theaters.
Just because that is what you would do doesn't mean everyone is that stupid.
There are only 400 IMAX theaters in 40 countries[1], while there are over 26 000 standard movie theater screens in North America alone[2]. Believe it or not but the studio might actually want to make money and so they might make it available to the widest audience possible.
3D is literally only a gimmick for the studios to make a few more quick bucks. My friends at Paramount told me that when The Last Airbender was in post-production and they realized it sucked and wouldn't make budget:
"Well, we'll just release it in 3D"
"....but we didn't shoot any of it 3D"
"Who gives a f**k, there's gotta be a filter that does that in After Effects"
"Whatever you say..."
A couple months later, many unfortunate people were wondering what the point of a 3D The Last Airbender was when the only 3D effects were the floating titles whenever there was a new location.
i dont know why all the hate for 3D, i think its just the hate for lame 2D movies they just slap the "3D" title on......it's like all the shovel ware titles for the Wii......purely whoring out the gimmick of technology.
how to train your dragon did a fantastic job of using 3D, we need more movies like that.
So far, Avatar was truly the only movie worth watching in 3D. I really do hope that they exclude 3D in the third Batman film and fully support IMAX. Inception in IMAX was just amazing!
sweet. i was watching the dark knight a few days ago when it shockingly occurred to me that the sequel would most certainly be shot in 3d. thank you internet for putting the nerd part of my brain at ease.
dabrownguy13Jul 21, 2010
Yes, please! And THANK YOU for not supporting 3D
jmurrzJul 21, 2010
3D is basically a horrendous sexually transmitted disease movie wise.. however that works.
kageryuJul 21, 2010
3D is a movie VD.
level32Jul 21, 2010
3D is the herpes of cinematography
4degreesJul 21, 2010
celluloid syphilis.
aarons44Jul 21, 2010
This is great for people with home projectors. One of the things I hate about BluRay is that most movies seem to be in 2.x by 1 format. I get why they do it, but when you have a 84" screen, you really don't want the movie showing in a small rectangle in the middle. It's still larger than a widescreen TV, but if I have 84" available, I want to use them all.
The IMAX scenes in The Dark Knight filled pretty much the whole screen. It was epic.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
reposadoJul 22, 2010
U r being dugg down because diggers are the sour grape jealous types.
vagrantwadeJul 22, 2010
Because no one but aarons can spend a few hundred on a projector bro. Times are tough!
fattehboiJul 22, 2010
all it is a f**king dumb trend that will be gone within 2 years.
addiktionJul 22, 2010
They should call it 2.5D because there is no way in hell it is 3D yet. Until I can actually physically see 3D projections coming out of the screen without needing 3D glasses I will ignore these pseudo 3Dness.
pathouston22Jul 21, 2010
I've seen 2 movies in 3D. Avatar and Toy Story 3. I'm still trying to figure out the point of it. Most of it looks 2d except for particle effects.
goobadyJul 21, 2010
You're lucky you only saw those two, they have the best use of 3D. The other ones are even more pointless, dim, and distracting.
andrewdbJul 21, 2010
Avatar has the best use of 3d? What the HELL are you on?
Toy Story 3.. yes.. Avatar? No. Hell no.
lcworldJul 21, 2010
Yeah, Clash of the Titans STank in 3D.
4degreesJul 21, 2010
hopefully TRON will be good in 3D
Closed AccountJul 21, 2010
Depth is a great aid to the story, given some story are better off with the out it,
there are some BW films that are better than color, there are some Gorgeous color films out there by the same token
rudegarJul 21, 2010
when you have seen 45 then you can say "I've seen 2D mobies in 3D" :Pp
chesdougJul 21, 2010
If you'd seen Avatar in 3D you would know what the medium looks like done well.
psypherJul 21, 2010
That's because there is a huge difference between shooting a movie in 3D and adding 3D during post production.
sindexJul 21, 2010
I'm pretty sure people have only seen one movie in 3D and that's Avatar. Hasn't everything else been a 2D to 3D conversion in post?
I could be wrong...
lcworldJul 21, 2010
Alice in Wonderland, Clash of the Titans, The Last Airbender were 3D conversion movies. Toy Story 3 , How to train you r dragon were CG movies that were rendered in stereoscopic 3D. Avatar was shot in 3D with a lot of CG 3D footage. Final Destination 4 was shot in 3D.
Closed AccountJul 22, 2010
I actually prefer Avatar on Blu-ray 2D
SoCalLongieJul 22, 2010
I saw Avatar and TS3 in RealD 3D. It is worth the extra money for the depth perception. The higher price also keeps out the unwashed masses who can't afford the extra $4 per ticket.
I saw Inception in LieMax (AMC Del Amo 18). It was incredible and I will fully support that format as well.
antdudeJul 22, 2010
3D don't work with my eyes. :(
row3bo4tJul 21, 2010
f**k 3D.
beatsnwafflesJul 22, 2010
As a man with only one working eye, I digg you loud and proud.
machocheese34Jul 22, 2010
do you wear an eyepatch?
tona107Jul 22, 2010
f**k depth perception!
yoder141Jul 21, 2010
3d is cool but not EVERY movie has to be 3d. Also if they are going to make a 3d movie they better shoot it in 3d like Avatar and not convert it after.
rolfJul 21, 2010
I wonder if 3D is going to be a generational thing, and in 30 years, people will look at normal 2D kinda like we look at black and white movies today?
newerakbJul 21, 2010
I hope not. Adding color made films appear more like real life, since real people are in color. However, 3D makes things float....do real people float?
It's a pointless addition.
morphinapgJul 22, 2010
@newerakb:
Float? lolwut? 3d makes images have a 3rd dimension, meaning your eyes can determine exactly how far something is away. Real life is exactly like that.
zirchxworldJul 22, 2010
Well people pointed out that Color was just a sales gimmick and added nothing to story or film. And in a sense that is true but its what consumers want. or lets just make it really simple. $$$
is 3d making big money? in theaters, yes. in homes, not yet.
the difference tho between b & w and 3d is that color just added to ur original film and nothing else was changed.
But with 3d, ur changing the way its watched, the way its played, the way the movie is shot, etc. so instead of an upgrade from b & w to color this is a total change from 2 dimensions to 2 dimensions with a third added. ( improvised depth. because regular depth is already captured so 3d is just the distortion of the layers. however our eyes are incapable of seeing 2 dimensions of depth so glasses are needed to add the improvised depth).
root45Jul 21, 2010
Probably not a good analogy. I feel like people look at black and white movies today as something we've improved. 3D movies are more likely to be a fad which will pass at which point we'll go back to "regular" movies.
I think a better analogy might be, well, 3D movies from the 1950s.
morphinapgJul 22, 2010
The only reason 3d did not expand to full use in the 50's was because it was too expensive to do then. Now it's not. 3d will become the new color, it's just a matter of time. It WILL be the new standard whether you like it or not.
The way you act I'm guessing you also thought surround sound, DVDs, and High Definition were all fads... *sigh*
undercoverdrunkJul 22, 2010
They're not?
*Rewinds VHS*
notzakJul 21, 2010
Also consider that black and white movies were much more challenging in their heyday to actually make well. Cameras don't just automatically make those shading gradients. That requires lighting and aperture artistry on the side of the cinematographer. Also, they had to work a lot harder to get across subtextual references in many occasions where using a different color to stand out wasn't an option.
cruciusJul 22, 2010
You mean like they did in Avatar?
lpermhsuJul 21, 2010
3D is a very cheap way of bringing people to the theatre. I do believe that it will improve in the future and won't be as tacky as it seems now. Now, it just seems like movies like avatar and toy story are pushing out an unfinished technology.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountJul 21, 2010
holy f**k... lol your an ignorant mother f**ker
3D is anything but cheep, even to convert it is a very painful very, very Expensive process.
where just seeing what the matrix did, bring us something amazing and have tons of people copy it.
Films that were still in post rushed to get converted, to get a buck, there is no excuse for not shooting with two cameras for a left and right eye, given that a sense of depth does not aid every story, black and white films can be more compelling than color, there are still some gorgeous Color films out there.
But what do I know i'm just a Visual Effects artist who works in the industryComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
scuba7183Jul 21, 2010
*you're
*cheap
But I agree
captininsanityJul 21, 2010
It depends. What's cheaper: 3d film editing or a good team of writers.
stubearJul 21, 2010
Avatar helped redefined 3D technology by using special cameras designed to film EVERYTHING in 3D. Toy Story 3 and any other 3D film can be rendered in 3D or 2D with a simple swap of the virtual camera. While not perfect, it's hardly "unfinished technology". I should probably throw Coraline into this set of 3D films done right.
Now, the older techniques used in Alice in Wonderland or Clash of the Titans were converted to 3D simply to sell more expensive tickets without really adding to the experience. This wasn't real 3D and was very time consuming to create so it could be used in only very limited places. I know it's popular to hate on 3D but most of these people are faux film elitists who think they know more then they actually do and instead of educating themselves and potentially having their minds changed they clam up and shut out new technology, deriding it as if it somehow makes the film experience impure. You know who else did something like that? Perhaps I shouldn't really go there...
lcworldJul 21, 2010
I agree.
BTW, do u mean ahem, Nolan amd Pfister?
blaqreaperJul 22, 2010
Here's my issue on 3-D. It may look amazing, but so far it has not been used for anything other than a "gimmick" so to speak. Avatar is by far the worst. I'm not saying the 3-D was bad, no just the opposite; the whole movie was simply made to showcase this new technology. But at the cost of a mediocre story with on par average from the male lead. It's sort of like how Crysis has amazing graphics, but uses that to hide the fact it is poorly coded and inaccessible.
What IMAX does though is increase the canvas so to speak and that is why Nolan likes it. With the extra space, the directer as an artist can convey more information to the audience. I remember seeing a Dark Knight comparison scene of an IMAX shot with regular theater shot and the amount of things cut out to fit it onto a regular screen is substantial. I will acknowledge it's usefulness when 3-D is stopped being used as a spectacle like in a Disneyland ride and used to help move along the story and provide more substantial information for the audience.
mrmango786Jul 22, 2010
While I'm glad they shot the 3D in the new way, it wasn't very good.
lalalalalala321Jul 21, 2010
http://spiele-mich-nackig.net/?id=1027760
lcworldJul 21, 2010
GREAT NEWS!
It'll make a billion bucks, at least.
They need to built more IMAX theaters around the world seriously.
hyperionhkJul 21, 2010
Not knowing a lot about IMAX, would the film be able to be shown in non-IMAX theatres? If it can, woohoo all for it. If not, seems like it'll miss an awful lot of people
thatbuffaloJul 21, 2010
Seems like an awful lot of people would go out of their way to see it an an imax to me.
hyperionhkJul 21, 2010
well there are a lot of areas with no IMAX theatre close by. I've got one now, but where I grew up it was a 3-4 hours drive to the nearest IMAX theatre, and still is. Just saying it would miss most of that market for example if you couldn't see it on a regular screen. But since you can, it's irrelevant anyway
corellJul 22, 2010
We have an IMAX in Denmark, but it only shows documentaries for educational purposes, because it is owned buy the goverment. I wrote emails to them in hope, about TDK and Inception but they do not want to make an exception.
darkshroudJul 21, 2010
Yes it will be able to be viewed in non-IMAX theaters.
rolfJul 21, 2010
Of course you can see in non-IMAX theaters... but you won't get the full benefit of IMAX. The Dark Knight, especially the action scenes like the opening, was so much better seen in IMAX that seeing it in a regular theater the second time around seemed like the same magnitude downgrade as going from any theater and seeing it at home on a 32" TV.
thanakarJul 21, 2010
There is only 1 IMAX theatre within two hours of here.
maxxellJul 21, 2010
Move
artworkz918Jul 21, 2010
....the theater
hybred1234Jul 22, 2010
Sucks man. I have 3 all within 30-40 minutes. One of the few perks to Northern VA, it tries to be everything.
Closed AccountJul 22, 2010
3 hrs for me.
heasbyJul 22, 2010
Mine is 10hours away.
fugeesnfunionsJul 22, 2010
I live in a relatively small town in southern Utah so we NEVER get anything cool here.. If it weren't for the WalMart, Best Buy, and Staples in town, we'd have to do almost all of our shopping on the net.
With ONE exception...
We have one of the f**king coolest IMAX theaters in the country within about 45 minutes from here. Not only is it IMAX, but it's in Zions national park so it has one of the most beautiful surroundings EVER. Just the drive there alone is worth the trouble, the badass movie at the end is like an iced cake on top of another f**king iced cake.
Closed AccountJul 21, 2010
thats a more retarded idea than stereoscopic cinematography
Nolan is a man to fight any trend with a gimmick
gv402Jul 21, 2010
the hell are you talking about?
heasbyJul 22, 2010
You're weird. Not in the good way.
Closed AccountJul 21, 2010
stop dissing 3D. Its the future of corporate profits
factorof13Jul 21, 2010
There isn't an IMAX around here that shows theatrical films. The only one I know of is in a museum and only shows educational films.
lcworldJul 21, 2010
OR.. how about the WHOLE movie in IMAX and a few sequences in IMAX 3D? Hmmm....
aquapeteJul 21, 2010
they did that with superman and it while it looked great. i dont want to be interrupted by having to put on glasses when the screen tells me.
lcworldJul 21, 2010
No they didn't.
A) Superman was shot with a digital cinema camera it was never shot with an IMAX camera. It was not even shot on film.
B ) The 3D was a conversion, not real 3D. An early conversion.
It was never shot in 3D, let alone shot in IMAX 3D.
A few documentaries were shot in IMAX 3D.
Superman was blown up to be screened in some IMAX theater even though it was never shot in IMAX. The Dark Knight has several sequences shot in IMAX and those images were crystal clear.
craighwkJul 21, 2010
I think aquapete was just saying how Superman had scenes with 3D and you had to keep putting on glasses throughout the movie. This is how it was because I experienced it too.
So I'm not sure who you're trying to convince, lcworld. :)
aquapeteJul 21, 2010
@craighwk is right i was actually just talking about having to put on glasses. i tend to close out the world around me when im watching a movie and i see things like putting on 3D glasses mid movie just as annoying and interrupting as someone trying to have a conversation with you during a movie.
techoboJul 21, 2010
That works out great, because regular movies and I are done professionally.
bling4uJul 21, 2010
OHHHHH GOOOOOOOD FOR YOU!
jrhodes88Jul 21, 2010
The cameramen for Batman 3 are going to cringe when they hear this...an IMAX camera is so beastly big.
http://www.lastrefuge.co.uk/images/photo_articles/gorilla/IMAX_Gorilla16.jpg
lcworldJul 21, 2010
They already know, they used it in Batman 2 for several sequences.
darkshroudJul 21, 2010
Yeah I'm wondering if they have some type of reload or cartridge system for the film if they're going to do the whole thing in IMAX.
jordanlgtaJul 21, 2010
Yes, the guys that get to shoot the third epic Batman film...I feel so sorry for them, they must hate their jobs and consider suicide every night, especially with those paychecks...
gv402Jul 21, 2010
Just to give you and idea: regular film stock for major motion pictures as most people know is 35mm film, which is a pretty large frame in its own respect. IMAX, film stock however, is 85mm film. That is a HUGE piece of film with a massive frame.
fugeesnfunionsJul 22, 2010
The first thing that popped in my head is: how the f**k can they pull off all the awkward shots with IMAX cameras? I imagine there's a few tight shots in small areas and so on that are gonna make that a pretty huge pain in the ass.
But would it all be worth it? f**k yes it would.
aquapeteJul 21, 2010
This will gain them a lot of respect, and hopefully others will follow.
giancarlo1003Jul 21, 2010
From the nature of Inception in a theatrical sense this will literally blow our minds.
Christopher Nolan rocks.
Sure his little brother will probably screw up Superman, but after the Dark Knight, we saw the potential a dark gritty Batman can be.
IMAX it all the way, then I'll pre order bluray.
And If I'm rich enough by then, 3d bluray.
fugeesnfunionsJul 22, 2010
"IMAX it all the way, then I'll pre order bluray.
And If I'm rich enough by then, 3d bluray."
EDIT: Replace "rich" with "gullible enough"
charlesdkraussJul 21, 2010
I don't mind movies being in 3D so long as I can also watch them in non-3D if I choose.
fxpookyJul 22, 2010
Close one eye? :P Actually I think a good tradeoff later on would be having both 3D and 2D glasses. That way, the theatre doesn't have to have separate 2D and 3D rooms for every movie!
michirican123Jul 21, 2010
a
synchroJul 21, 2010
I am not sure I would say mostly. Supposedly six major action-heavy sequences, along with various high-altitude shots, were filmed on the IMAX ratio. The one I remember specifically is the scene when the joker is about to be caught with the semi and Batman on the cool lookin' motorcycle.
lcworldJul 21, 2010
A few scenes were shot with IMAX. Mostly the more action packed scenes and the scene between Batman and Joker in the interrogation room.
liam2012Jul 21, 2010
I have no problem with 3D so long as it's not a gimmick to cover up the fact that it's a s**tty movie. However, Batman 3 will be awesome and total IMAX cinematography will be amazing. I just wish there was more than one IMAX screen in St. Louis. It's going to be a bitch getting tickets to that.
Closed AccountJul 21, 2010
If Christopher Nolan wanted to do a 3D movie about apes f**king I would watch it. He's got enough street cred in my books to warrant a trip to any movie he churns out. Inception was that good for me.
vociferunbannedJul 22, 2010
If he produced/directed the next Twilight movie would you see it?
kalahan6Jul 22, 2010
I still can't believe how good Inception was! Just saw it yesterday. Seriously considering watching it again today...
synchroJul 21, 2010
So 3d is a visual element that can be used correctly to add to the movie, just like IMAX, but too often lately 3d is a gimmick and it looks like it.
fugeesnfunionsJul 22, 2010
I argue that 3D in it's current form absolutely CAN NOT add enough of a benefit to counter it's negative aspects like having to wear uncomfortable glasses.
I do however believe that holographic materiel and stuff that's truly 3D will have a HUGE impact on media's... impact.
Today's "3D" is NOT 3D. It's just 2D stuff that's layered on top of other 2D stuff, there's nothing close to real depth in the image.
ronnisrJul 21, 2010
Even more gay than Batman & Robin!
thinboyslimJul 21, 2010
There's also firm evidence that The Riddler will be the villian
http://digg.com/movies/Evidence_that_The_Riddler_is_the_villian_in_Batman_3
sindexJul 21, 2010
There's also firm evidence that Nolan said specifically he won't be.
Specifically that Nolan said he won't be.
craighwkJul 21, 2010
I was bummed to pay $17 for Inception on IMAX when it appeared as if none of the scenes were shot in the format. Thankfully the movie was so good I forgot about the price.
Will be nice to see Batman get the full treatment.
fugeesnfunionsJul 22, 2010
Inception is the first thing that's made me wish I smoked weed still in a looong time. Going to that movie lit would be insane.
nephilim08Jul 21, 2010
Just bring us 3d Porn with flyin V-Juice!
newerakbJul 21, 2010
3d still just feels like a gimmick to me. Even in Avatar I didn't feel it added anything. All it did was reduce the clarity and make everything darker. Skin tones looked like s**t and I had a headache and had to wear stupid f**king glasses.
Bad technology is bad.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
bodomxJul 22, 2010
IMAX =|= 3D.
Closed AccountJul 21, 2010
3d will be cool when the technology has been mastered, but until then, stop ruining so many movies with it. I'm glad not everyone is all for this. I'll look forward to seeing Batman in full IMAX.
norman619Jul 21, 2010
IMAX is infinitely preferable over gimmicky 3D. It's also far more mature as a technology.
hoffeyJul 21, 2010
Just film it already! 2012 is right around the co
ronnisrJul 21, 2010
Just hope it'll be released before 21 December or we might not ev
factorof13Jul 21, 2010
Who let the ninjas out? I told you guys not to kee
Closed AccountJul 21, 2010
How are these replies getting submi
factorof13Jul 21, 2010
Who let the ninjas out? I told you guys to kee
Closed AccountJul 21, 2010
Wait, how are these replies getting submi
tona107Jul 22, 2010
f**k if I kn
braininaboxJul 22, 2010
Incepti-
heasbyJul 22, 2010
That joke is really getting old. Why don't you try to think of something a li
lukejc1Jul 21, 2010
I don't like this trend of 3D as a movie's primary format. It was cool for animated films such as Beowulf, but that's about it.
specimen7Jul 21, 2010
IMAX is a worthless designation like Angus beef or "all natural" You are paying a premium for a commodity level product. And you still have to be a retarded little prick wearing glasses to watch a blurry movie.
What's wrong with you assh**es paying extra money for a gimmick that's been played out since the 1960s?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
drvthrupnkJul 21, 2010
you don't wear glasses for IMAX
Closed AccountJul 21, 2010
You've never watched a real IMAX movie before, have you?
dalhectarJul 21, 2010
If you can't tell the difference between 70mm film and 35mm film... I don't know what to tell you.
rain12913Jul 22, 2010
He's one of the fools who goes to those fake IMAX theaters and doesn't know the difference.
leif777Jul 21, 2010
I'm liking Nolan more and more everyday. 3D sux. It adds nothing to the movie viewing experience and it's nothing but a cheap gimmick that the theater can charge you extra for.
codymanJul 21, 2010
Figures since Pfister is the best DP in Hollywood while Nolan is becoming the best director. I think they're using M. Night Shalaman as a voodoo doll or something, sacrificing his downward spiral for their opposite gain
caughtthinkingJul 21, 2010
Nolan, I love you. You are singlehandedly saving Hollywood.
kalahan6Jul 22, 2010
He's my new hero. Not the one I deserve but the one I need.
caughtthinkingJul 22, 2010
I really hope more people got that reference that just me.
catboxeddieJul 21, 2010
This is relevant to my interests.
4degreesJul 21, 2010
watch me make 3D disappear...
jarshtJul 21, 2010
3d comes and goes it seems, don't potentially butcher a movie on a trend. Good on him.
rat_manJul 21, 2010
Then Cameron will one up him and dierect a movie in complete Imax 3D.
pedmanJul 22, 2010
Too late.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghosts_of_the_Abyss
kronos6948Jul 21, 2010
I love the fact that this is going to be all IMAX, but, the one problem that I have with the format is that now we're basically going back to a 4:3 aspect ratio. We started off with that ratio, went to 16:9 and then to 1.85:1 and 2.39:1, and now back to 4:3.
dalectricsJul 21, 2010
Coming this fall - IMAX- \ /\ /idescreen... 3D!
sark666Jul 21, 2010
Finally!! a feature length movie in IMAX!!!
For all you fans of imax, the majority of you haven't even seen an imax film.
The main thing about imax is the film, not the projector or screen. (Although they help). Before you couldn't call a movie an imax movie unless, well you know, it was shot in imax.
Now it's all upsampled and called imax. blah
Just look at this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Imaxcomparison.png
Nuff said
freezerburn666Jul 22, 2010
i'm sure as hell not driving for 2 hrs to a s**thole like toronto to see it, i'll just download it i guess.
tona107Jul 22, 2010
Alternatively, you could not be a leeching **** and watch it at a normal theater. Just because they're filming it in IMAX doesn't mean it won't be released in normal theaters.
Just because that is what you would do doesn't mean everyone is that stupid.
There are only 400 IMAX theaters in 40 countries[1], while there are over 26 000 standard movie theater screens in North America alone[2]. Believe it or not but the studio might actually want to make money and so they might make it available to the widest audience possible.
[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMAX
[2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cinema_and_movie_theater_chains
braininaboxJul 22, 2010
3D is literally only a gimmick for the studios to make a few more quick bucks. My friends at Paramount told me that when The Last Airbender was in post-production and they realized it sucked and wouldn't make budget:
"Well, we'll just release it in 3D"
"....but we didn't shoot any of it 3D"
"Who gives a f**k, there's gotta be a filter that does that in After Effects"
"Whatever you say..."
A couple months later, many unfortunate people were wondering what the point of a 3D The Last Airbender was when the only 3D effects were the floating titles whenever there was a new location.
/whistleblower
fugeesnfunionsJul 22, 2010
3D is not "literally" a gimmick. Your use of "literally" WAS literally an incorrect way of using it though.
/literal nazi (meaning that I'm like the police of using the word literal, not that I'm actually a nazi)Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
caughtthinkingJul 22, 2010
You're literally being an assh**e.
l0nerJul 22, 2010
you mean an extra 5 dollars per ticket?
sulakattackJul 22, 2010
i dont know why all the hate for 3D, i think its just the hate for lame 2D movies they just slap the "3D" title on......it's like all the shovel ware titles for the Wii......purely whoring out the gimmick of technology.
how to train your dragon did a fantastic job of using 3D, we need more movies like that.
Closed AccountJul 22, 2010
So far, Avatar was truly the only movie worth watching in 3D. I really do hope that they exclude 3D in the third Batman film and fully support IMAX. Inception in IMAX was just amazing!
ciarJul 22, 2010
does this mean I'll only be able to go to an imax theatre to see it? not going to play at regular theatres?
ridley80Jul 22, 2010
Only a matter of time til this man and his team will get his much deserved Oscar
blklightningJul 22, 2010
sweet. i was watching the dark knight a few days ago when it shockingly occurred to me that the sequel would most certainly be shot in 3d. thank you internet for putting the nerd part of my brain at ease.