Movie News

Jon Favreau Sez "I Want To Do IRON MAN 2 In IMAX 3-D!!! Provided Paramount's Willing To Foot The Bill!!!"

Published at: Sept. 11, 2008, 5:07 p.m. CST by mrbeaks

Beaks here... If you're Jon Favreau, how do make an IRON MAN 2 that tops THE DARK KNIGHT? How 'bout you keep Chris Nolan's IMAX gimmick while shooting the whole damn movie in 3-D? According to Frosty from Collider.com (who attended today's IRON MAN Blu-ray/DVD press conference), that's what Favs is thinking at the moment. Obviously, he's still months and months away from principal photography (the release date is still summer 2010), but this makes perfect sense. That said, I was just talking with Quint, and I kind of agree with his notion that Favreau should jettison the 3-D idea and simply shoot the entire film in IMAX. Frankly, all action-oriented summer tentpoles should go this route; after THE DARK KNIGHT, the old way of doing things just won't cut it. Read Frosty's story at Collider for more IRON MAN 2 teases from Favreau. Additional info is available at CHUD.

Readers Talkback

comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • Sept. 11, 2008, 4:52 p.m. CST

    too expensive

    by THE KNIGHT

    the budget would skyrocket if the whole film was shot on imax.

  • Sept. 11, 2008, 4:53 p.m. CST

    First!

    by unuseddraft

    Again?

  • Sept. 11, 2008, 4:53 p.m. CST

    Dang

    by unuseddraft

    Oh well, I live to fight another day.

  • Sept. 11, 2008, 4:53 p.m. CST

    Oh great, lets IMAX everything now...

    by Mike_D

    posers!

  • Sept. 11, 2008, 4:55 p.m. CST

    Jon

    by THE KNIGHT

    seems to really admire Nolan and it looks like he definitely wants to take Iron Man to Dark Knight levels, but whether he shoots Iron Man in IMAX or not, I just don't think he can make it an epic like Knight. <p> The iconography of a Batman/Joker showdown can't be topped in my opinion. <p>

  • Sept. 11, 2008, 4:55 p.m. CST

    3D sucks.

    by hegele

    IMAX on the other hand, rocks.

  • Sept. 11, 2008, 4:57 p.m. CST

    Framing 2:40:1 / IMAX

    by THE KNIGHT

    I'd really like to read more about framing for the Imax aspect ratio and framing for a 2:40:1 aspect ratio at the same time. <p> Anyone has any insight into this?

  • Sept. 11, 2008, 5:01 p.m. CST

    "Bitch please..."

    by PirateEmery

    "You try to fire me, think you apes can try to do a good Iron Man 2 without me. Then you realize that you need me? Well, guess what, Paramount?! You're going to be paying through the nose now, and I'm going to like it. Now, kneel and suck it."<p> -Jon Favreau (2008)

  • Sept. 11, 2008, 5:09 p.m. CST

    3D no, IMAX yes

    by Heckles

    Filming in 3D means you have to pander to that gimmick.

  • Sept. 11, 2008, 5:09 p.m. CST

    Favreay is a fat dick

    by stinkyfingerz

    He is not nearly as awesome as he makes him self out to be. A complete smug asshole. If you ever work on a movie he directs, you will see this in action. Plus, IM was waaaaayyy overrated...just my opinion.

  • Sept. 11, 2008, 5:10 p.m. CST

    Or Favreau...

    by stinkyfingerz

    whatever. No god damned edit button!

  • Sept. 11, 2008, 5:11 p.m. CST

    the camera's too loud

    by Vern

    That's what Chris Nolan said in an interview. He said he's interested in doing a movie in all Imax but the camera is huge and loud so you can't really do dialogue scenes with it. That's why most or all of the Imax shots in DARK KNIGHT are shots of the city, action scenes or those big, dialogue-free closeups of the Joker's face.

  • Sept. 11, 2008, 5:12 p.m. CST

    Imax is nice but stick to the story first ok...

    by Evil Hobbit

    Iron-man had a great fleshed out Tony Stark character but the rest of the script, plot and characters where underdeveloped and sometimes even cliched. Batman didn't succeed because of Imax but because of it's brilliant screenplay. And then it enhanced the experience with Imax sequences.

  • Sept. 11, 2008, 5:19 p.m. CST

    Iron Man 2 in IMAX?

    by dioxholster

    if IMAX aint 3D then what is it? is it just a different aspect ration or what.

  • Sept. 11, 2008, 5:25 p.m. CST

    ah jeez.

    by Alec.Eiffel

    3D would be cool in the theatre. Once. After that the movie will suffer because it will be too gimmicky and won't hold up at home because let's face it, no matter how a good a set up you have 3D will still suck at home if you can even get it to work at all. Just tell a good story, keep building up the Marvel universe The last thing I want to see is Iron Man reaching his hand toward the camera every two minutes. 3D will become more than a novelty only once the people making the movies realise that the thing is going to be in 3D whether or not something is flying at the camera and quit pandering to the technology. Stop showing off, 3D isn't new anymore, just tell us a damn story.

  • Sept. 11, 2008, 5:30 p.m. CST

    Poeticwarrior

    by PlanetOfTheRapes

    That's brilliant what you just said, brilliant.

  • Sept. 11, 2008, 5:31 p.m. CST

    IMAX?

    by SUPERJIM

    What the fuck is IMAX by the way? The fact that I do not have an IMAX theatre within a couple of hundred miles of home means that I aint ever been to one. What's all the hype about? Also, if they shoot a movie in IMAX, does it look any better in a standard cinema? 2nd also, you Americans have 3d cinema? Is it the coloured glasses crap that was all the rage when I was a young boy?

  • Sept. 11, 2008, 5:36 p.m. CST

    Ignore my last post.

    by SUPERJIM

    I looked it up. Anyone from the UK know if we have any of that IMAX 3D shit over here?

  • Sept. 11, 2008, 5:38 p.m. CST

    Well Vern, that and the fact that

    by half vader

    the big IMAX shots were 'vertical' shots of cityscapes, and the regular 'horizontal' dialogue/character scenes were in regular scope. I thought it was pretty logical and worked really well!

  • Sept. 11, 2008, 5:39 p.m. CST

    Yes, it's in the UK

    by Tom Whitaker

    The London Waterloo one can definitely do it. In fact, as far as I know, all IMAX screens are 3D-capable, but I may be wrong. There's one in Bradford too.

  • Sept. 11, 2008, 5:40 p.m. CST

    And as for the glasses...

    by Tom Whitaker

    ...yes, you have to wear them. No, they're not the blue/red ones of yore. They work really well.

  • Sept. 11, 2008, 5:40 p.m. CST

    diox

    by half vader

    the size of the negative is a shitload bigger too so quality-wise it's like a professional's Hassleblad vs your own dinky 35mm.

  • Sept. 11, 2008, 5:42 p.m. CST

    Half Vader...here ya go...

    by the_patriot

    The BFI London IMAX and the London Science Museum IMAX are 3d sites. Those are the only ones I can verify as 3d right now in the UK!

  • Sept. 11, 2008, 5:42 p.m. CST

    Iron Man could actually really work like that

    by half vader

    If there were lots of cool flying sequences - the 3d would be really effective with IM and jets/enemies floating free in front of the blue void...

  • Sept. 11, 2008, 5:44 p.m. CST

    Patriot

    by half vader

    Wasn't me that was asking, it was Superjim. I got an IMAX literally 5 minutes down the road from me (I'm downunder).

  • Sept. 11, 2008, 5:46 p.m. CST

    Poetic Shitstain

    by odo19

    So I guess Terry Gilliam and his fans should be jumping for joy since he should be able to get any project greenlit after The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus(which has Heath's actual last performance) will surely make 500 million plus as well. Oh wait, no it won't. It will bomb just like every Gilliam flick. But Heath is dead......and he's in it....what gives? Oh right, you're a fucking idiot.

  • Sept. 11, 2008, 5:46 p.m. CST

    Oldman said it was too loud too

    by Aeghast

  • Sept. 11, 2008, 5:47 p.m. CST

    Typical

    by SUPERJIM

    I had assumed there were no IMAX cinemas anywhere near home as I had only ever seen one in London. Just looked it up and there are....no IMAX cinemas anywhere near home. As if the fucking stupid town that I live in needed one more reason on a massive list of reasons why it is shit.

  • Sept. 11, 2008, 5:47 p.m. CST

    I never seen IMAX before

    by dioxholster

    so what are 'vertical' shots and 'horizontal' shots? and does an IMAX theatre look any different than a normal theater? and one lame question; for 3D do i gotta wear these glasses because i wont be able to see a thing since im short sighted, i need my normal glasses to see the screen duh :)

  • Sept. 11, 2008, 5:52 p.m. CST

    IMAX is the only way to watch "event" films...

    by krull rules

    ...it is up to AVATAR to sell 3D IMAX to the world, if it sucks, forget about it...I just read this movie cost $300+ million dollars, making it the most expensive movie in history, sounds like James Cameron to me...

  • Sept. 11, 2008, 5:53 p.m. CST

    Damn near impossible

    by Mattyboy122

    Maybe shooting the film on regular film and screening it in Imax 3-D is okay (a la portions of Superman Returns), but Imax cameras are HUGE. They're big, they're loud. Which means that you have to dub everything and get good performances out of your actors despite the fact that they've got a really loud camera whirring. What's more, because the camera is so heavy it's difficult to move around in a really dynamic way. Steadicam shots would be very difficult, for example. Iron Man was a fun flick, and Favreau ought to stick to fun, because The Dark Knight slapped it (and him) around like a $2 whore.

  • Sept. 11, 2008, 5:54 p.m. CST

    Fuck IMAX.

    by HoboCode

  • Sept. 11, 2008, 5:55 p.m. CST

    Give it a few more years...

    by El Mamerro

    ...and you could probably shoot IMAX digital with a RED camera at 10K.

  • Sept. 11, 2008, 5:55 p.m. CST

    How Does Favs Top Nolan?

    by LaserPants

    He doesn't because he can't. He can do an admirable job, though. Make a cool follow up to a cool movie. A respectable effort compared to Nolan's making a BRILLIANT, INSTANT CLASSIC, ASS-KICKING, BRAIN BUSTING, SOULGASMING follow up to an AWESOME movie.<br><br> In other words, Nolan is much more talented than Favs. I thought IRON MAN was cool, but TDK was AMAZING.

  • Sept. 11, 2008, 5:57 p.m. CST

    Imax format

    by Mattyboy122

    Okay, well Imax is in 1.44.1., which is quite close to the Academy ratio (which old films were shot in before the advent of widescreen). Academy ratio is very much like a square, as opposed to more widescreen ratios like 2.35.1, 2.4.1, 2.55.1, 2.75.1, etc. An Imax screen is kinda like a huge square, and when you see The Dark Knight on it, the parts of the film shot on 35 mm (normal film) don't fill the whole screen, they only fill a rectangular portion of it (in the ratio of 2.4.1). When the Imax footage appears, the whole screen is filled. The difference is clear in terms of picture quality; the Imax format is much larger and can thus record more information, producing a crisper picture. But until they get the camera size and sound down a bit, shooting an entire picture with it would be difficult.

  • Sept. 11, 2008, 5:58 p.m. CST

    Revulcanize the tires and fill it with petroleum thistleate, pos

    by dr sauch

    Just make the movie.

  • Sept. 11, 2008, 6 p.m. CST

    I trust this man with ol' Shellhead

    by DonQuixote

    He did such an amazing, sassy job with the first one--he sounds completely juiced for the second. Please, Marvel Studios, please? Give this man what he wants! Sounds completely awesome to me. So long as they get a great script first. And yes, do the entire film that way, none of these "last 10 minutes" in 3D stuff anymore. I saw the IMAX for "Superman Returns" with that gimmick...(I realize it wasn't quite the same technology at work)...and it was poorly done, a real waste.

  • Sept. 11, 2008, 6:01 p.m. CST

    "IMAX is for sizequeens"

    by LaserPants

    Oh fuck you, but that was pretty fuckin' funny though.

  • Sept. 11, 2008, 6:03 p.m. CST

    You really can't compare IM and TDK.

    by PirateEmery

    IM is more for the Marvel fans and those that just want to go to the theaters to have a good time.<p> TDK is more for the Batman fans that want a dark and brooding Bruce Wayne (the best kind, btw). The movie plays out like a long novel, rather than a short two hour jaunt.<p> Two very different animals...

  • Sept. 11, 2008, 6:15 p.m. CST

    WAY WAY WAY too expensive!

    by HamsterDK

    You would have too render 70% more CGI effects and at a much much higher resolution. It can be done but it will be extremely expensive. It would also mean that 70% of these expensive CG renders will be lost when watched in regular theaters. Don't think the producers will be too happy about that!

  • Sept. 11, 2008, 6:18 p.m. CST

    IMAX's sound problems

    by conniebrean1

    In a nutshell: The problem is that the film for the IMAX camera is so fucking huge that it can't just be held in by the pressure plate, but actually needs a big-ass suction system to keep the film to the gate which causes a shit load of noise. Even as the cameras continue to get smaller with more incarnations, it will most likely always need some sort of suction system because the film isn't going to get any smaller so it's always going to be noisy as a motherfucker. That makes dialogue hard, because don't nobody but nobody want to ADR a whole fucking movie.

  • Sept. 11, 2008, 6:19 p.m. CST

    IM and TDK CAN'T be compared....

    by TheWaqman

    Two completely different movies. As a whole if I had to compare them then yes TDK blows that shit away. But the style of both movies are so different. Iron Man is like your traditional comic book movie, with the slightly campy villain, the sleek visuals and just overall fantastical elements. And The Dark Knight is the complete opposite of that. Also The Dark Knight had some Real bad guys (Joker and Two Face), I forgot the name of the bad guy in Iron Man.

  • Sept. 11, 2008, 6:28 p.m. CST

    IMAX Good 3D Bad

    by OGREISHERE

    Jon stay away from 3D it is just a gimick. However an all IMAX production would be incredible. Beisdes my gut is telling me that what Nolan is going to do with Batman 3.

  • Sept. 11, 2008, 6:36 p.m. CST

    Shoot IM2 in daguerreotype!

    by RobertBaron

    cause that would be rad

  • Sept. 11, 2008, 6:44 p.m. CST

    Iron Man and TDK were about equally as "good"

    by Rupee88

    They were both OK entertaining movies...both are overrated. HL > RDJ so maybe TDK was slightly better..maybe.

  • Sept. 11, 2008, 6:45 p.m. CST

    Yes, RobertBaron!

    by mrbeaks

    With Mathew Brady as DP!

  • Sept. 11, 2008, 6:49 p.m. CST

    just do IMAX

    by kafka07

    no need for the whole 3-D thing really. And top Dark Knight by just making a good story.

  • Sept. 11, 2008, 6:52 p.m. CST

    TDK and IM

    by Lashlarue

    Way too different to be compared, but both are fantastic! IM brought back my interest in the comic book films, and TDK restored my faith in films period.

  • Sept. 11, 2008, 6:54 p.m. CST

    Shoot it in 1-D

    by blindambition238

    Now, that would be something.

  • Sept. 11, 2008, 7:04 p.m. CST

    Fuck it... just shoot it in "D"

    by mefrog

    It will soon be fucking with Avatar's eyeballs.

  • Sept. 11, 2008, 7:05 p.m. CST

    Action sequences

    by enderandrew

    Iron Man had decent action sequences at best. The film worked on the whole because of Downey's charm. It had humor, and you cared about the story. But the Iron Monger fight at the end was especially disappointing. While watching TDK, I kept going "Oh shit" every few minutes, because the action was visceral and jarring. If IM2 has that type of action that warrants IMAX, then bring it.

  • Sept. 11, 2008, 7:09 p.m. CST

    won't happen

    by Rupee88

    again how does this pass as "news"? There's no way it will be in 3D because that hasn't been perfected yet for live action. Maybe there will be some IMAX sequences but they probably won't bother to shoot the entire thing that way because it's a pain in the ass and there aren't enough IMAX theaters. Anyway just shoot it the normal way and show it in IMAX and most people won't know the difference.

  • Sept. 11, 2008, 7:15 p.m. CST

    Just curious about 3D..

    by Lemming

    is it still that red and blue shit? Because sorry, No film is worth sitting through if it's two colours...

  • Sept. 11, 2008, 7:26 p.m. CST

    3D Technology

    by enderandrew

    3D technology is considerably better than what many people remember, and no, you don't wear the red and blue glasses anymore. You wear different glasses.

  • Sept. 11, 2008, 7:32 p.m. CST

    how about you concentrate on the script?

    by Mr Gorilla

    like nolan did. when that's good - THEN we can talk IMAX

  • Sept. 11, 2008, 7:36 p.m. CST

    SHOOT WITH THE DAMN RED CAMERA!

    by BrowncoatJedi

    Shoot Red fer chrissakes! 4000p! www.red.com

  • Sept. 11, 2008, 7:37 p.m. CST

    IMAX camera being too loud.

    by blackmantis

    I'm sure with a few months of tinkering they can design a quieter IMAX camera.

  • Sept. 11, 2008, 7:41 p.m. CST

    Mikey Bay should shoot Transformers only in IMAX

    by blindambition238

    Its perfect for him: He likes shooting pretty pictures and the sound of constant explosions and new metal should drown out the camera sounds. And its not like the dialogue or dramatic scenes will suffer if we can't hear them. It might be an improvement actually.

  • Sept. 11, 2008, 7:45 p.m. CST

    Why Not?

    by the1980mutant

    It will enhance the experience for those who have access to IMAX. Although my town doesn't have an IMAX theatre, 3-d Imax sounds awesome. I guess the main factor would be it if greatly influences the budget of the film so much that it takes away from what could be done with the movie. I'll take an Iron Man movie anyway I can get it though, the first was surprising really really good and down to earth yet "comicky". Favreau knows what's up!

  • Sept. 11, 2008, 7:49 p.m. CST

    And suddenly everything in the world became clear

    by cornponious

    IMAX 3D for IM2 is a stroke of genius. I said it.

  • Sept. 11, 2008, 7:55 p.m. CST

    IM and TDK are both highly overrated

    by Ash Talon

    Favreau should just concentrate on giveing IM2 a good story. <p> IM was overrated, but at least it was fun and had good energy. <p> TDK was too full of itself and just about everything else. I wish people could get over the hype and look at it with an objective eye. It's just not that good. No plot. No likeable character. Too many acts. More unrealistic than IM in my opinion...how many car crashes and plummets from skyscrapers can people survive without being injured? What is this a Bourne movie? <p> Maybe Favreau can have Tony Stark whine about quiting being Iron Man and hoping someone else will take over for him. Pepper Potts can then give Stark long boring talks about something kinda related to a message, and we'll just all laude the movie as being intelligent. Then can ask the Wachowski brothers to help write these speaches, since they're really good at them.

  • Sept. 11, 2008, 7:56 p.m. CST

    THere's no reason

    by TheAD

    that they shouldn't just matte the whole frame while shooting (or in post).. At least that way you won't get alternating aspect ratios... Besides, widescreen or at least 16x9 is a more natural shape... especially when the picture is blown up to IMAX proportions.

  • Sept. 11, 2008, 7:56 p.m. CST

    sorry about the typo...

    by Ash Talon

    should be "speeches". My apology.

  • Sept. 11, 2008, 8 p.m. CST

    anybody else think iron man was lame?

    by LORDRANDO

    ...just puttin' it out there. But compared to other movies of its kind...it was just kinda boring. It seemed like amateur night to me, whereas TDK was a fully realized work by pros...but thats me...I heard it was only good because Heath died, or so says some cunt up there....

  • Sept. 11, 2008, 8:02 p.m. CST

    M.O.D.O.K.!

    by fiester

    C'mon...they gotta have M.O.D.O.K. and A.I.M. in this next one, please.

  • Sept. 11, 2008, 8:08 p.m. CST

    Iron Man was better then The Dark Night!

    by ganymede3010

    Yes it was, Marvel > DC!

  • Sept. 11, 2008, 8:12 p.m. CST

    Iron Man

    by Mr. Profit

    RDJ basically made the role work. But the movie was a bit on the boring side. The action sequences were average. And Favreau should focus on directing a good movie and not get ahead of himself. 3D? Knock it off. Him and Peter Berg both made action films this summer that looked exactly the same. Capable but not spectacular with no visual flair. Iron Man was also silly at times. He takes most of the films running time learning to use and master a suit he created, only to get his ass beat in the end by a dude that seemingly learned to use it in 10 mins. Also I said it before, I'll say it again, the final battle was a big budget remake of Robocop 2.

  • Sept. 11, 2008, 8:18 p.m. CST

    Marvel vs DC

    by Mr. Profit

    Is a stupid fucking argument. Both have mishandled their properties. With the more blatant offender being Marvel, although I prefer their characters. But to think that the success of Iron Man and promise of a fully realized marvel universe on film will erase the memories of their shitty prior output is crazy. But I hope that grown men are really not seriously debating that old 5th grade Marvel vs DC shit.

  • Sept. 11, 2008, 8:26 p.m. CST

    Does he really think he can beat Dark Knight?

    by A for Aristocrat

    I know Downey and him are both pissed that Dark Knight stole their thunder but he cant believe that. All the 3-D, Imax, Smellovision in the world isnt going to recreate that.

  • Sept. 11, 2008, 8:37 p.m. CST

    Beowulf 3D was disappointing...

    by Strabo

    Beowulf was the first IMAX 3D feature I've bothered to attend. I was very disappointed. Half of the scenes didn't even appear in focus for me...I could see both images ghosting on top of each other. When it did actually work though, it was kind of nice.

  • Sept. 11, 2008, 8:40 p.m. CST

    Overated ?

    by Phategod2

    I think SOme people dis TDK just to be non conformist but if you truly believe it was a bad movie then thats your opinion and your entitled to it. But I think back to the scene where Harry is in the Hospital and he you see the side of his face for the 1st time there where two girls in the theater who screamed when they saw it and crowd cheered when that happend I'd never seen that before. Things like that make the movie special for me.

  • Sept. 11, 2008, 8:46 p.m. CST

    Let's just...

    by Lukin

    Let's just get get dark knight on blu ray with IMAX scenes intact then we can rock and roll!!!

  • Sept. 11, 2008, 9:08 p.m. CST

    Watchmen, maybe do FF the right way....

    by rben

    and then knock off. I'm 51 now, maybe if i live to 70 Hollywood will finally get the superhero phase out of their system and movies for adults will be made. elitist maybe but obviously i'm not 20 years old anymore...

  • Sept. 11, 2008, 9:10 p.m. CST

    Let's See if Theroux Can Pen It

    by cowboyone

    Before we haggle about formats.

  • Sept. 11, 2008, 9:19 p.m. CST

    WHY!?!?!?!?!?!

    by j2talk

    what is the benifit? IMAX is nothing but a gimmick....sure, if you happen to live near one it is a good show, but how many people do? Then there is the added factor of the DVD market- what do they get out of having the movie filmed for IMAX-NOTHING....Just make a good movie.....wanna truly innovative idea? how about using 70mm prints instead ....

  • Sept. 11, 2008, 9:24 p.m. CST

    TDK > IM

    by LaserPants

    !!!

  • Sept. 11, 2008, 9:27 p.m. CST

    Eventually There Will Be IMAX PORN

    by LaserPants

    A FORTY FOOT PUSSYHOLE!!! LIke some Giant Cthuluian Pleasure Beast!

  • Sept. 11, 2008, 9:29 p.m. CST

    Every Pustule, Every Wart... MAGNIFIED

    by LaserPants

    Hold onto your dignity its time for self abuse!

  • Sept. 11, 2008, 9:38 p.m. CST

    Iron Man vs Batman vs Devastator.

    by Banzai Rootskibango

    Let's get it on.

  • Sept. 11, 2008, 9:56 p.m. CST

    Make It So!

    by Evil Chicken

    The future includes a 70 foot tall Shellhead on an Imax screen. Life is good.

  • Sept. 11, 2008, 10 p.m. CST

    RE: IMAX PORN

    by Phategod2

    "Filthy.........Yet Genuinely arrousing."

  • Sept. 11, 2008, 10:03 p.m. CST

    Only a fool pays for porn. Imax porn will never work

    by ganymede3010

    NEVER!

  • Sept. 11, 2008, 10:05 p.m. CST

    I attended the Autodesk conference at SIGGRAPH

    by Johnno

    That was this year and they showed off a bunch of cool 3D shit. It was awesome!!! 3D really has come a long way. The Star wars films looked crazy!!! Particularly the space scenes with ships and lasers and explosions all over the place!! When Tobey finally gets Robotech going, I'm hoping to see that shit in IMAX 3D! Anyway, there's no reason why they should try and purposely make popping images in 3D for Iron Man. I see no problem with just filming the film as oyu normally would, and simply put 3D onvertop of it after the fact. If Star Wars a New Hope and the Phantom Menace can look as amazing as they did at Siggraph, I see no reason why Iron Man can't either... though perhaps making it 3D after filming would be mroe difficult or more expensive than filming it with stereoscopic cameras. Anyway, someday we'll have 3DTVs and theatre screens that don't require glasses, and that is really gonna be something!

  • Sept. 11, 2008, 10:11 p.m. CST

    If you've guys have seen U2-3D

    by T 1000 xp professional

    then ALL of you will be excited for this idea....this is a good thing. Avatar will start a new era.

  • Sept. 11, 2008, 10:14 p.m. CST

    U2-3D

    by Banzai Rootskibango

    Was awesome.

  • Sept. 11, 2008, 10:20 p.m. CST

    Eh...bring back 70MM...

    by REDD

    or Cinerama.

  • Sept. 11, 2008, 10:27 p.m. CST

    "Let's just get dark knight on blu ray with IMAX scenes intact"

    by Strabo

    This is the dumbest fucking idea ever. If you were watching the film on a wide screen TV, you would have shots go from 2.35:1 (on a 1.85:1 or 16:10 set), and then suddenly, your horizontal black bars at the top and bottom of the screen would disappear to be replaced by vertical black bars at the left and right of the screen for the 1.4:1 IMAX shots. This would be happening with great frequency in some scenes and would be incredibly, no, INCREDIBLY fucking annoying. <BR><BR>Sadly, after TDK leaves the IMAX screens, those shots should be forever gone except _maybe_ in pan-and-scan disc editions of the film.

  • Sept. 11, 2008, 10:30 p.m. CST

    To illustrate...

    by Strabo

    IIRC, the Hong Kong scenes are 1.4:1 IMAX frames on all of the exterior shots, yet 2.35:1 for the interior shots. So, the scene where Batman kidnaps Lau (the businessman), would be switching back and forth between the two aspect ratios every few seconds in the latter part of the scene where the plane is coming in to extract Batman and Lau.

  • Sept. 11, 2008, 10:30 p.m. CST

    fuck IMAX and fuck 3-D

    by necgray

    Can't we just get a movie for a movie theater screen? Is this ridiculous techno-fetish bullshit going to take over my beloved medium? I guess if any film should be sucking the techno-fetish dick, it's Iron Man, but honestly, this is ridiculous. Make a fucking movie, not an experience. I don't want an experience. I'll go camping or rock climbing or jump off a fucking bridge if I want an experience. Just tell me a goddam story!

  • Sept. 11, 2008, 10:33 p.m. CST

    How can anyone find IM better than TDK

    by RobertBaron

    TDK had more emotional depth, better action, great fucking villain, etc etc. All IM really had was kickass first 30-45 min. As soon as Stark gets back to LA, the movie sinks into mediocrity. The villain sucks. The action is serviceable and then it ends. whoopty fucking do

  • Sept. 11, 2008, 10:46 p.m. CST

    Imax 3D?!

    by Kampbell-Kid

    You know how bad that will hurt my temples. I came out of Beowulf 3D with a migrane. Technology needs to still improve a bit or at least hand out complementary Zanax in the theater.

  • Sept. 11, 2008, 10:48 p.m. CST

    Get this through your heads TB fuckwits -

    by half vader

    You can like BOTH Iron Man AND Dark Knight. Iron Man was the fun summer Batman movie (he's essentially Marvel's knockoff of Batman anyway). and DK was the Dark and Gritty Batman movie. <p> Oh sorry, did I just overload your tiny spitefilled minds?!

  • Sept. 11, 2008, 10:59 p.m. CST

    I <3 Iron Man

    by Sasquatch-The Legend of Bigfoot

    I found this awesome webseries online! Check it out... www.47northproductions/Adler-Zenith

  • Sept. 11, 2008, 11:13 p.m. CST

    Give the man whatever he wants...

    by br1947

    If not for the Dark Knight, Iron Man would have been THE movie of the summer, easily. Hell, we're STILL talking about it even after Dark Knight which was a far, far better movie than any of us really expected. Iron Man kicked all sorts of ass and did it the first time out. Batman Begins was good but still flawed, Dark Knight built on the good of the first and went way beyond. Favreau & RDjr knocked it out of the park on the first swing, give them whatever they want for round two. Nolan threw down the challenge to everyone big time, I'm ready to see how Favreau follows up!

  • Sept. 11, 2008, 11:49 p.m. CST

    Iron Man is a good property for 3D

    by veritasses

    IM's fighting style is a combination of long range as well as close quarters combat so you can play around a ton with the depth, plus he flies which adds another dimension to create some cool shots. With the right choreography and planning, a full 3D IM fight sequence might be one of the best superhero fights ever. But it'd be near impossible to pull off without it coming off as gimicky. I'd say it's too much of a gamble. The money would be better spent on other things. Maybe for the Avengers though...

  • Sept. 12, 2008, 12:07 a.m. CST

    Doesn't anyone realize how amazing it is...

    by submarinevoyage

    Iron Man was a movie about a character little known outside comics fans, except maybe a vague familiarity with the name... and it ended up being a critically acclaimed, huge blockbuster hit with tremendous good will, that did the kind of money only the biggest superheroes like Batman and Spider-Man have made at the movies before. Was Dark Knight "better?" If you MUST compare (guess what? I loved them both!), okay, sure. But this was the SIXTH chance at a Batman movie in the past 20 years. I think they had the time to get it this good by now, no? I can't wait for Nolan's next Batman movie, but I'm fucking psyched for the Iron Man sequel.

  • Sept. 12, 2008, 12:18 a.m. CST

    it'd be a hard sell

    by WolfmanNards

    Most people don't know the difference between something being shot on imax film, or blown up from 35mm. If it's on imax, it's imax to them. So I don't think you would get more people in the theater than you would if it were just 35mm blown up.

  • Sept. 12, 2008, 12:20 a.m. CST

    Poetic Dipshit aka ignorant negative fuck

    by odo19

    LOl, love how you completely ignored my point you stupid fag. What's the matter? Can't respond with an actual argument? Have to just spit tired pathetic vitriol at me because you know you're wrong? You and every other TDK hating moron, like yourself, can say that bullshit all you want but in the end you know the movie made the money it did because it was a great film and was hands down better than whatever fucking tripe you happen to think is better. Just because you're jealous and have no taste does not mean you have to be such an annoying little cunt all the time, though with you I guess it's unavoidable. I say again, if you think TDK's success was solely because of Ledger's death than you are a fucking idiot. If his last movie had been anything else, like his actual last movie, it would have bombed. It made the money it did because it was fantastic to begin with and great word of mouth afterwards.

  • Sept. 12, 2008, 1:08 a.m. CST

    TDK was great. Iron Man was great.

    by IAmMrMonkey!

    End of.

  • Sept. 12, 2008, 1:10 a.m. CST

    3d

    by Shakes

    as cool as I think that could be I'd much rather be able to watch Iron Man 2 on tv 10 years from now without it looking weird and dated like Jaws 3.

  • Sept. 12, 2008, 1:17 a.m. CST

    TDK is not that great that nothing could top it

    by DarthBakpao

    You just have to come up with great story and greater actions to top it.

  • Sept. 12, 2008, 1:30 a.m. CST

    IMAX: More novelty than art

    by Bartleby T. Scrivener

    Although I appreciate IMAX for what it is, I am more of a widescreen man myself. Example: the Arclight's dome theatre. To me, nothing feels more like a movie than seeing a screen go from wall to wall. With IMAX, I feel like I am on top of the movie, and I am not experiencing it. I do love seeing digital prints and listening to digital sound, but IMAX will always be a curiosity. I'll take a Cinerama Dome, or a Mann's Chinese anyday.

  • Sept. 12, 2008, 2:03 a.m. CST

    Here's why he should jettison the IMAX idea but still shoot it i

    by Brendon

    The IMAX frame is a) an inferior aspect ratio and b) too large for the full wealth of compositional techniques and, frankly, tricks, to be useful unless the audience are position so far back it may as well have been a normal sized screen anyway. The REAL D 3D process, on the other hand, is by and large fantastic. 3D cinema is genuinely an advance - like surround sound and colour film before, the movie to stereo vision is a leap forward for the medium, removing an another of the implicit aesthetic distances built into the first film format.

  • Sept. 12, 2008, 2:12 a.m. CST

    Uh, Strabo, Varan The UnBelievable was also shot with different

    by Maegnarval

    And that was just because the American production company pulled out & Left Toho to play with itself.

  • Sept. 12, 2008, 2:14 a.m. CST

    Strabo, Varan the UnBelievable was....

    by Maegnarval

    Also Shot with different Screen Aspect Ratios & that was just because the American production company pulled out & left Toho to play with itself. By the way, the movie was still watchable & enjoyable.

  • Sept. 12, 2008, 2:15 a.m. CST

    So when will Imax go all Digital?

    by Maegnarval

    and ditch the giant roll of film? That should make the camera smaller & quieter.

  • Sept. 12, 2008, 2:21 a.m. CST

    poeticwarriorIV

    by deanbarry

    Crass and vulger accusations like that are not appreciated by fans and common decent people, period. Sure, I'm positive you'll respond to this with some call of "fag" or "asshole", but that's what i expect from ignorance. By all means, voice your opinion, but do so with the expectation of low tolerance. Heath died, tragically. Show some respect.

  • Sept. 12, 2008, 2:25 a.m. CST

    Well what the fuck

    by dirtsandwich

    is Cameron doing? He's shooting it with the Pace cameras in 3D then that'll probably be converted to IMAX. Or is he shooting it all in IMAX 3D? So how does he get around the loudness problem? So what ever JC is doing Jon can do. I'm all for it. It doesn't need to be gimmicky. Just film the fucker in 3D. It'll look titties.

  • Sept. 12, 2008, 2:27 a.m. CST

    Nolan's gimmick?

    by Kirbymanly

    I'd be willing to listen if you would back that comment up, Beaks. I've seen it in both forms and have my own opinion... but you're making the IMAX version sound like its "The Tingler" at William Castle's best.

  • Sept. 12, 2008, 2:36 a.m. CST

    NO NO NO wrong!

    by drturing

    The Dark Knight worked perfectly by mixing it up between the two formats. I think making the film shift during certain types of scenes was the perfect way to handle things. Conventional cross cutting in dialogue between closeups in Imax doesn't work as well... It would diminish the story by putting a layer of gimmick between audience and film. This is just wrong. Nolan got things right by noting that 3d is just not ready yet, but by switching to a higher end format when needed it made the film felt like watching a 70 mm print of Lawrence of Arabia. But truth be told, there were times watching the imax version of the dark knight where the action scenes were a complete disorienting mess that were not so in a 35mm projection.

  • Sept. 12, 2008, 2:37 a.m. CST

    digital cameras upressed to imax do not make noise

    by drturing

    they are digital and dont have physical film moving within them.

  • Sept. 12, 2008, 2:39 a.m. CST

    as long as Favs has Downey and a great script

    by the podosphere

    I don't care if he shoots it with Thomas Edison's first motion picture camera.

  • Sept. 12, 2008, 2:40 a.m. CST

    strabo it's not stupid

    by drturing

    on the batman begins blu ray, the imax opening sequence of tdk is present and its presented as 16:9, so its a little cropped from the imax version. i think i read that nolan was thinking of doing the blu ray where it would shift between that framing and 2.35:1. it looks fucking awesome that way, by the way. one huge problem with imax is that editing is done on screens the size of a 46 inch display. i know some animators who like to cut out sillhouettes of an audience and put them at the bottom of their monitor to remind themselves of the proprotional sizes in proejction

  • Sept. 12, 2008, 3:03 a.m. CST

    drturing...

    by Kirbymanly

    Wishful thinking... but WBs will never let that happen. It'll be 2:35 or nothing. Sad, isn't it? In some ways I wish Blue Ray is like what Laser Disc was back in the day... only for true film nerds. Howvever, they're marketing it for the masses. It seems like this is a perfect way of introducing the average film-goer of what they are missing but they're hawking the picture quality and not the overall theater experience. Sad.

  • Sept. 12, 2008, 3:12 a.m. CST

    If its not broke dont fix it!!

    by wowsah156

    Favreau is making things difficult for himself. He needs to watch the making of The Dark Knight footage to see how much extra work and time would be needed to use the Imax cameras. Remember Nolans crew had to create and build from scratch camera rigs just for the clunky Imax cameras. Also their clunkyness affects what type of shots you can get out of them . This makes us all realise how gifted intelligent and foresighted Nolan was/is. Favreau is a good film maker, but i fear Iron Man 2 will be bogged down in technical details that will add to the cost and duration of filming. If its not broke dont fix it!!

  • Sept. 12, 2008, 3:25 a.m. CST

    No to Gimmicky shitty 3D, big fucking yes to Imax.

    by WhinyNegativeBitch

    Imax is what will save cinema, not fucking irritating, stoopid ass 3D. Just follow the simple rule of making shit BIGGER.

  • Sept. 12, 2008, 4:56 a.m. CST

    Shoot it in 4D. Use the hadron collider

    by Dingbatty

    to reach into the future and snag the sequel so we don't have to wait. Grab the next Bats movie, as well. And Avatar, so people will quit with telling us it'll fuck our eyeballs.

  • Sept. 12, 2008, 5:28 a.m. CST

    TDK Was AMAZING, IM Was Good

    by LaserPants

    And I plan on owning both. Actually, isn't Iron Man due on dvd soon? TDK won't be out till December.

  • Sept. 12, 2008, 5:38 a.m. CST

    Wow, there's NO story here.

    by DOGSOUP

    Unlike at that other site where they converse with Fav and offer tidbits like: He was just at RDJ's house the day before talking about the movie, While it's still early in the process, Favreau said that he very much wants War Machine in the second film. He said that Rhodey had a smaller than anticipated role in the first movie and that he would like to rectify that,Don't expect to see The Mandarin in robes jumping around shooting freeze rays. They were thinking that a traditional Mandarin might work until they saw the trailers for the new Mummy - 'They had The Mandarin and Fin Fang Foom!' Favreau said, The reality of Iron Man is something he's very concerned with when it comes to The Avengers. Favreau thinks Hulk and Captain America work to an extent in Iron Man's universe, but he's not 100% sure about Thor,the burgeoning new Cold War interests Favreau. World events have made many of Iron Man's stories and enemies current again,Favreau is aware that the end battle of Iron Man wasn't that spectacular, and he's looking to really up the ante on the action next time. He said that he learned a lot about shooting action on the first film; the scene where Iron Man shoots the hostage takers in the desert town was the very last bit that Favreau shot for the film after reshoots, He's really excited about Matt Fraction's run on the Iron Man comic, and he hints that these comics - which he feels also feed off the movie - will inform the next film. He's looking to meet with Fraction soon, Demon In A Bottle is coming. Favreau sees his trilogy as almost one long story, comparing it less to the Spider-Man films, which are modular, and more to The Lord of the Rings or even a season of a TV show. So there are more bones for you to chew on.

  • Sept. 12, 2008, 6:09 a.m. CST

    That "gimmick" is FUCKING TALENT!

    by frg10

    Favrou is nowhere near Nolan and his Iron Man is Good while Knight is Masterpiece. And we all know that Batman 3 won't be as good as Knight, no chances. I already accepted this fact.

  • Sept. 12, 2008, 6:28 a.m. CST

    Iron Man was deeply average

    by kwisatzhaderach

    I guess you have to be a comic book geek to get the most out if Iron Man. As a piece of filmmaking it was ok, but nothing to write home about. I've forgotten what happens in the film now actually, after the desert sequence at the start. And The Dark Knight was good but overrated. Too long, no need for Two-Face. More concentration on the Batman/Joker characters rather than wasting time on a preachy subplot. My two cents. Cue the fanboys wrath.

  • Sept. 12, 2008, 6:33 a.m. CST

    John Favreau sez...

    by unionJACKass.webs.com

    ... stop writing those embarrassing headlines, Beaks?

  • Sept. 12, 2008, 6:34 a.m. CST

    Yay!! Two-minute film mags with...

    by MaxTheSilent

    ...cameras so noisy as to render dialogue recording impossible. Nice one, Favs.

  • Sept. 12, 2008, 6:34 a.m. CST

    IRON MAN didn't suprise me at all

    by unionJACKass.webs.com

    I saw nearly every key moment either on the trailer or tv spots. When are the studios gonna stop this? IRON MAN was a good film, though. Nowhere near as good as THE DARK KNIGHT, mind.

  • Sept. 12, 2008, 6:37 a.m. CST

    THE CHANGELING trailer now online!

    by unionJACKass.webs.com

    http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1809945088/video/9690286

  • Sept. 12, 2008, 6:42 a.m. CST

    Can we please stop

    by kwisatzhaderach

    using exclamation marks all the time here on AICN? It makes it look as though it's written by 10 year olds.

  • Sept. 12, 2008, 7:49 a.m. CST

    Reshoot the last BSG episodes in 3-D

    by teethgnasher

    so we can watch them in 2 years. Fuck Sci-Fi.

  • Sept. 12, 2008, 7:53 a.m. CST

    Just shoot it all on a Scarlet Camera

    by Chishu_Ryu

    It's a 4K digital video camera which is the equivalent of IMAX. Plus, I agree with dturing, the impact of the IMAX TDK was that the appropriate scenes were only in IMAX, increasing the visual effect of those scenes.

  • Sept. 12, 2008, 8 a.m. CST

    3d who cares, Fav better fix --- - -

    by m_prevette

    The HORRIBLE score Iron Man was saddled with ... themeless synth crap...HIRE JOHN DEBNEY who WANTS to score this movie

  • Sept. 12, 2008, 9:05 a.m. CST

    OGREISHERE - 3d bad??

    by NeilF

    Yeh! Who ever wants to see things life like in 3D... Who wants to make what they see on the screen even more believable... Sigh!

  • Sept. 12, 2008, 9:20 a.m. CST

    I MAX aspect ratio

    by natbru

    I MAX ratio projected is 1.43.1 a 2.40.1 aspect is anamorphic were as I MAX is spherical(flat) that means 2.40.1 would be twice the lenth of the picture now!

  • Sept. 12, 2008, 9:22 a.m. CST

    I MAX 3D

    by natbru

  • Sept. 12, 2008, 9:22 a.m. CST

    I MAX 3D

    by natbru

  • Sept. 12, 2008, 9:28 a.m. CST

    I MAX 3D

    by natbru

    I MAX 3d is far better thenreal 3D. Its brighter clearer simply because of the large film format. no 35mm or digital projection can compare to I MAX!!!

  • Sept. 12, 2008, 9:28 a.m. CST

    Why not use the "Phantom" camera? (1,000 fps)

    by JDanielP

    (Frank Miller is using the new Phantom digital camera on "THE SPIRIT") Otherwise, I suggest going the ol' fashion route. It will allow the team to focus on what's most important. And why not wait for technology to improve?

  • Sept. 12, 2008, 9:33 a.m. CST

    I MAX

    by natbru

    The reason i know about IMAX is that i am a motion picture projectionist & video tech. and have been one for 30 yrs.

  • Sept. 12, 2008, 9:36 a.m. CST

    wtf is it with ignorant geeks and the red and phantom

    by drturing

    the phantom is for one thing only: high end slow motion. that's why it shoots 1000fps. and every film discussion on the internet can't be had without some geek trying to prove their cred by namedropping the Red. Well, the Red has some serious issues in post production pipelines in regards to color correciton and data management and storage space, and a publicly known issue involving horizontal movement. dpn't get me wrong, it's a great camera, and i've seen that it at least offers DPs the ability to pull information from blown out highlights as never before on any digital camera, but you know what - I still think wally pfister's work on TDK looks a lot fucking cooler than the work on Soderberg's Che.= from a purely cinematographic point of view. TDK IMAX was a pure bit of joy because it was awesome to see audience members remember what it meant to see a movie in theaters as opposed to home... Fuckers were blown back silent in their seats communing with the movie screen. Unlike when I caught Wall-e opening day and knew then and there that six months later i'd be seeing the film as intended at home on Blu Ray instead of the awful out of focus bad pin registered mess that was the projection in the AMC theater in NYC.<p> As for TDK on bluray having two aspect ratios - don't count it out. If it's something Nolan wants to do, believe me, WB will do it to make him happy. They also know that's going to be a killer app for BluRay and they need to do a much better job than a shitty Bluray like they're doing to Speed Racer.

  • Sept. 12, 2008, 10:05 a.m. CST

    The Phantom camera

    by JDanielP

    The additional frames per second (1,000 fps!) would also mean (vastly) more frames required for CGI. So, it would seem that "motion capture" technology needs to play catch up, which would make the Phantom... a more viable option. If Fav wants a new toy, it is an option (though an unnecessary one). Like I said, I suggest they stay the course...and wait for technology to improve. Focus on what's most important.

  • Sept. 12, 2008, 11:14 a.m. CST

    glad you recognize IMAX is a fucking gimmick.

    by DANNYGLOVERS_DICKBLOOD

  • Sept. 12, 2008, 1:01 p.m. CST

    Jdanielp

    by drturing

    does the p in your name stand for piss, cause that's what your brain is made of. don't talk like you know what you're talking about when you don't. see previous post. "more frames required for CGI" wtf are you talking about? Oh shit, I know, you must one of Sarah Palin's kids. J Daniel Palin. Got it.

  • Sept. 12, 2008, 4:48 p.m. CST

    All I know is Beowulf in IMAX 3D was tits...

    by Engelhast

    And I will be first in line to get Nightmare Before Christmas IMAX 3D tickets when it opens in October. And when Lucas gets around to doing the orginal trilogy in IMAX 3D I will be there for that also.

  • Sept. 12, 2008, 5:55 p.m. CST

    TDK IMAX - only some scenes?

    by TallBoy66

    I know they only shot a few scenes with IMAX cams, but I thought the entire movie was digitally changed to fit the IMAX screen, but my friend saw it and he said only the IMAX shot scenes (opening / truck chase) were IMAX style, and then the image shrunk down for the "regular" scenes? Is that how it played out? My enthusiasm for seeing it IMAX, it's about a 2 hour drive total to see it, kind of dropped if it swaps like that throughout the film.

  • Sept. 12, 2008, 6:02 p.m. CST

    Imax 3D with the LSD glasses!!!

    by CGI_Pants

    LSD Glasses. Just sayin'.

  • Sept. 12, 2008, 6:17 p.m. CST

    who really cares

    by davidaq

    about IMAX. i saw dark knight in IMAX, and while it was cool for the few scenes that used it, i certainly wouldnt have bothered unless the film was actually any good. i really dont see any point in all the hassle and expense for shooting an entire film in this format, when there are only a cpl hundred screens worldwide that can actually use it. sure its a nice gimmick, but id take a good film over a crappy one shot in IMAX any day.

  • Sept. 12, 2008, 6:17 p.m. CST

    TallBoy66

    by Strabo

    That is exactly how it works, TallBoy66. The outdoors/exterior city shots are mostly done in IMAX with the projected image shrinking to 2.35:1 for the interior shots. <BR><BR>If you have the chance, I highly recommend seeing the film on IMAX if for nothing other than the size of the screen. The clarity and expansiveness of the view on the IMAX-specific scenes is definitely worth it.

  • Sept. 12, 2008, 7:21 p.m. CST

    bring on the IMAX 3D HUD!!

    by Maniaq

    OK this is purely anecdotal, but let me tell you a little story about The Dark Knight. A film-buddy and I were planning on seeing it together but our schedules clashed and he ended up seeing it at a regular theatre, whereas I saw the IMAX version. <p> I'd heard good things about the Harry Potter 3D at IMAX and even though this wasn't going to be 3D, I wanted to check it out. <p> So I was BLOWN AWAY by my Dark Knight experience - my friend, not so much... Didn't exactly think it sucked, but he just didn't see it. <p> Looking back, in retrospect, there are a lot of plot points you could pull apart and maybe the story isn't going to hold up too well under scrutiny - not sure how much of that has to do with the death of one of the leads, I think maybe not much? <p> Point being I *didn't care* about that stuff! I was being THOROUGHLY entertained by these absolutely gorgeous shots on a giant square screen, fighting a feeling of vertigo when the camera follows Batman off the top of a building, basically enjoying every minute of it! <p> Not saying story doesn't matter, but it doesn't hurt to completely immerse yourself, in a fantasy film like this - I think it sort of helps you suspend your disbelief, you know? <p> Sure, it may not be so appropriate for dialogue scenes and, let's face it, you don't NEED it for those scenes - I don't think anyone is talking about doing an ENTIRE movie in the format here, just the PRETTY stuff...

  • Sept. 12, 2008, 9:46 p.m. CST

    The image 'shrunk' down? You idiots!

    by half vader

    Gah. You guys are the sort that say they put black bars 'over' a picture. <p> Strabo, (& Tallboy) the scope picture is NOT 'shrunk' from the Imax formatted bits. Choose your words better. Most of the pic is in regular cinemascope format, rezzed-up for the big Imax screen. Then certain bits like the cityscapes are shot in the more vertical Imax format. The width stays the same, but the height increases to the full 5-stories high or whatever. <p> How hard can that be to get through your thick skull, tallboy? And are you incapable of reading all the posts where this has already been answered?

  • Sept. 13, 2008, 8:31 a.m. CST

    drturing

    by JDanielP

    Big freakin' deal. So, maybe they can selectively choose digital frames taken with the Phantom, to speed up or slow down what they've captured in frame. Okay, so it won't be showing at 1,000 fps when you see it at your local movie-house. Okay, so the fps gets narrowed down and the CGI would only be required, as usual. Big deal if I'm not up on current technologies and techniques in Hollywood. -But you? You're just a pussy behind a computer. Sometimes I'd love to knock the livin' fuck out of shitheads like yourself. (And in person, odds are great that I certainly could, if I so chose.)

  • Sept. 13, 2008, 9:02 a.m. CST

    did you read the wikipedia entry on fighting?

    by drturing

    face it shitbird, you tried to pretend you knew what you're talking about, and you didn't. you still don't. the biggest pussies are the ones who try to win arguments on the internet saying they could kick your ass. stupid muhfucker, you couldn't beat a bowl of egg whites.

  • Sept. 15, 2008, 7:28 a.m. CST

    He should shoot it with a

    by Dingbatty

    PXL2000.

Top Talkbacks