Ain't It Cool News (
Movie News

Updated! Cinematographer Wally Pfister Talks 3D And IMAX Possibilities For BATMAN 3!

Beaks here...

Cinematical's Todd Gilchrist caught up with Christopher Nolan's longtime cinematographer, Wally Pfister, last weekend, and, wouldn't you know it, BATMAN 3 came up! As expected, Pfister was tight-lipped on details, but he did make a few semi-revealing remarks about the possibility of Nolan's third go-round with the Caped Crusader being shot in stereoscopic 3D or IMAX. According to Gilchrist, while Nolan and Pfister share a "disinterest" in the 3D format (Pfister calls it a "fad"), they have yet to shoot down the idea of utilizing the format. "What Chris and I have talked about is doing something cool and something interesting," said Pfister. Does this mean shooting the entire film in IMAX? Perhaps. Pfister said he's talked to Nolan about it - though he also acknowledges, once again, that the IMAX cameras are very unwieldy (i.e. heavy and really fucking loud). So Nolan and Pfister are not fans of 3D, but they could be open to going that route if they can find a way to do something "interesting" with the technology. I'm sure Warner Bros. is full of suggestions as to how to make it "interesting" - like "We financed INCEPTION; you're doing this in 3D." Nolan's a very smart man, so I'm sure he understands that 3D is and always will be a gimmick, and that the IMAX portions of THE DARK KNIGHT were far more immersive than anything in AVATAR. To that end, I'm thrilled to hear that he'll be shooting BATMAN 3 on film; this means you can rule out Nolan using the new IMAX 3D digital cameras, which are expected to be ready to go in early 2011. Head over to Cinematical for more Pfister talk.

Update: Cain Rodriguez sent me the following summary of Pfister's comments from Dallas. Very interesting stuff...
-- Pfister, just like Nolan, does not like digital cameras: "The image quality of film" exceeds that of the high end digital cameras like "the Genesis camera and the Red camera." He said that he and "Chris [Nolan] are 'devotees' of film." -- Because of his and Nolan's feelings toward Digital Cinema, Pfister does not want to shoot in 3D. He actually had some pretty harsh things to say about the format, he says that "it's great for like amusement park rides like the 'Honey I Shrunk The Kids' ride at Disneyland." He said that 3D is not realistic and "it's a distraction. Can you imagine Memento in 3D? With Joey Pantoliano's glasses sticking out 'a few feet' with his hair all the way back there?" --Pfister said that he met with Brad Bird a few days ago and that Bird told him that his teenage sons thought that the IMAX used in The Dark Knight was more realistic than the 3D in these new movies. --He loves the clarity and latitude that shooting in 65 mm and in IMAX gives him. He can "underexpose by as many as 5 F-stops and overexpose by two. The digital cameras can't do that." --His heroes include: Gordon Willis, Stanley Kubrick, Roger Deakins, and some French cinematographer whose name is escaping me. He also mentioned loving the cinematography in Terrence Malick's films. --Tips for shooting digitally: "If you really have to shoot daylight [exteriors, you have to] use as [much] soft light as possible. Shoot at magic hour: Dawn and Dusk. Stop shooting in the afternoon." --Although he loves the image and large frame provided by IMAX in The Dark Knight, he would much "prefer [everything] to be in 2.35:1"

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • April 20, 2010, 6:17 p.m. CST

    there we go


    404 error no more!

  • April 20, 2010, 6:18 p.m. CST

    Fuck 3-D

    by DutchRudder

    That is all.

  • April 20, 2010, 6:18 p.m. CST

    Let's see if Nolan will destroy 2 IMAX cameras this time


    that tunnel scene was worth every cent.

  • April 20, 2010, 6:21 p.m. CST

    i wanna see the batcave in IMAX

    by MonsterKilledThePilot

    hopefully it'll be rebuilt for the this last one.

  • April 20, 2010, 6:22 p.m. CST

    Here's hoping Nolan shoots in everything in 70mm...

    by Daytripper69

    ... I think that's a very acceptable "compromise." As said before, IMAX is loud and unwieldy, and would definitely get in the way of storytelling if he used those cameras throughout the entire movie. But 70mm blown up to IMAX size would be so much better than 35mm blown up to IMAX size.

  • April 20, 2010, 6:24 p.m. CST


    by Righteous Brother

    started his career in porn so his name is quite apt.

  • April 20, 2010, 6:25 p.m. CST

    I just wanna see the Batcave, period...

    by JayLenoTookMyJob

    ...No more of this underground flourescent-lit garage headquarters shit.

  • April 20, 2010, 6:25 p.m. CST


    by vini77

    It's not like movies will come out in 3D only, you will always have an option to see it in 2D. So shut the fuck up. Let them release in both formats so people who do enjoy "gimmicks" like 3D, get a chance to see it in 3D. The rest of us sane people will see it in 2D.

  • April 20, 2010, 6:27 p.m. CST

    He's a great cinematographer

    by Lloytron

    But unfortunately he's also a cracking double entendre.<p>Mister Pfister? How is that not the best porn name ever?

  • April 20, 2010, 6:29 p.m. CST

    WB pushing Nolan around?

    by mascan42

    I think that maybe as the writer director & producer of the #3 grossing film of all time, he might have a tiny bit of a say in how he makes the next one.

  • April 20, 2010, 6:30 p.m. CST

    IMAX the whole movie!!!

    by BackRiverCatfish

    So what if the cameras are loud, that's why there are sound editors and ADR!

  • April 20, 2010, 6:30 p.m. CST

    Nolan is so far up his own ass

    by JonOfTheShred

    "What Chris and I have talked about is doing something cool and something interesting," said Pfister. Fucking snobs. That's the point of 3D, you condescending pricks, to be cool and interesting. What is Nolans problem? He actually believes the hype of his own movies or something, he's always acting like stuff he disagrees with are "childish" and of a lesser intelligence than his more 'realistic' ideas.

  • April 20, 2010, 6:30 p.m. CST


    by Lloytron

    Yes, the films come out in 2D too, and you watch them and you then have to endure the inevitable 'throw things at the screen' scenes, that really stick out.<p>Avatar was fantastic in 3D and each scene was engineered beautifully to show real depth, but even then we still had things being thrown at the screen, which jarred in 2D.

  • April 20, 2010, 6:31 p.m. CST

    oh, and fuck 3D!!!

    by BackRiverCatfish

  • April 20, 2010, 6:31 p.m. CST

    2-D, 3-D...

    by UltimaRex

    Shadow of the Bat will rock regardless. So I'm not fussed. Bring on full IMAX though.

  • April 20, 2010, 6:34 p.m. CST

    Some of us don't give a fuck about IMAX either

    by Chewtoy

    Give me an entertaining film, and I don't care if it's in color, 3-D, IMAX or smell-o-vision. And I know the drooling fan-boys will say that the Dark Knight was perfect, but there was surely room for improvement. Please don't assume the only way the next flick could be improved is with a larger film stock.

  • April 20, 2010, 6:35 p.m. CST

    I would hope that by the time of shooting

    by J.B.M.A.

    the new RED Epic system will be out, at least one form of which is capable of shooting close to IMAX ratio. If he's willing to go digital of course.

  • April 20, 2010, 6:35 p.m. CST

    I'm calling it Shadow of the Bat...

    by UltimaRex

    ...until we get the official title. Which I'm hoping is... Shadow of the Bat.

  • April 20, 2010, 6:36 p.m. CST

    How about a Batman who can talk properly?

    by Tandemar

    I mean what's with the fucking voice? Christian Bale couldn't act his way out of a paper bag so he thinks a gravelly voice is what Batman's about? For fuck's sake.And when is the World's Greatest detective actually going to detect instead of relying on fucking gadgets?

  • April 20, 2010, 6:36 p.m. CST

    Why not 70mm?

    by Phimseto

    That would work for me.

  • April 20, 2010, 6:37 p.m. CST

    ↑All IMAX, ↓3-D

    by JohnnyLaBamba

  • April 20, 2010, 6:37 p.m. CST

    YES TO IMAX!! 3D can go fuck itself!!

    by Toulon

    Just sayin.

  • April 20, 2010, 6:37 p.m. CST

    Dark Knight wasnt perfect, just better than 99%of comic book mov

    by BackRiverCatfish

  • April 20, 2010, 6:38 p.m. CST

    We just need a great story!

    by mark2010

    Anyway, I've enjoyed this last series of Damages

  • April 20, 2010, 6:39 p.m. CST

    TDK isn't perfect...

    by UltimaRex

    But it's one of the closest things I've ever seen.

  • April 20, 2010, 6:39 p.m. CST

    I only suggest this because

    by J.B.M.A.

    short of the utter bullshit notion of ADRing an entire movie (any good director will tell you to fuck off BlackRiverCatfish) you need an averagely quiet camera which the Red systems are (until they overheat!).

  • April 20, 2010, 6:42 p.m. CST

    Bollck to 3d

    by donkey_lasher

    That is all

  • April 20, 2010, 6:44 p.m. CST

    J.B.M.A., you read the article?

    by BackRiverCatfish

    "Does this mean shooting the entire film in IMAX? Perhaps. Pfister said he's talked to Nolan about it" How would they do it?

  • April 20, 2010, 6:46 p.m. CST

    Get The Story Right, then worry about what you are shooting it i

    by Alice Cooper Stalker

  • April 20, 2010, 6:47 p.m. CST

    Fuck 2-D

    by mistergreen

  • April 20, 2010, 6:51 p.m. CST

    Nolan > Cameron

    by Trannyformers_Apologist

    "The IMAX portions of THE DARK KNIGHT were far more immersive than anything in AVATAR."

  • April 20, 2010, 6:56 p.m. CST

    Imagine Batman's Sonar thing in 3D

    by RPLocke

    Headache inducing.

  • April 20, 2010, 7 p.m. CST

    Amen on the detecting, Tandemar

    by schadenfreudian

    Would love to see some detectiving happen. Maybe if there's some kind of riddle to solve? <BR> And speaking of his voice, I don't understand how Bruce Wayne wouldn't have access to some kind of voice modulator or pitch shifter that he could build into his cowl to give Batman a truly terrifying voice instead of sounding like he needs a Ricola.

  • April 20, 2010, 7:05 p.m. CST

    hehe and i was wondering when they are going

    by ominus

    to talk about Batman in 3D.heh.

  • April 20, 2010, 7:05 p.m. CST

    Why not IMAX?

    by Stuntcock Mike

    Nolan's not into the big showy shots anyway. Let 'er rip.

  • April 20, 2010, 7:06 p.m. CST

    Nolan < Cameron

    by ominus

    Search your feelings tranny,you know its true.Btw Avatar fucked TDK in the ass as domestic ticket sales are concerned.imagine that.

  • April 20, 2010, 7:07 p.m. CST

    Only one way this will work in 3D

    by Continentalop


  • April 20, 2010, 7:16 p.m. CST

    Shadow of The Bat in IMAX (FUCK 3D!!!)

    by Thanos0145

    I'm liking that title too. More detective skills and no more reliance on Fox inventing gadgets for Batman.<p>Oh yea, GET RID OF THAT BATMAN VOICE BALE. It wasn't very PROFESSIONAL.

  • April 20, 2010, 7:16 p.m. CST

    Here's my idea

    by TotoroSan

    You only do a small portion of the film in 3D. But that portion is POV from Batman's mask while he is chasing down some bad ass villain. I like the idea of using 3D to do the full immersion thing and give viewers a look at what a fight is from Batman's perspective.

  • April 20, 2010, 7:22 p.m. CST

    Ace of Wands is correct. Remember when

    by ominus

    Charlie Chaplin thought that sound in films was a gimmick.He initially refused to use it but eventually he made some films with sound. <p>3D is not a gimmick,its just one more technology like color and sound to enhance the immersion of a film.And yes i do believe that it can also contribute artistically to the story,to become a storytelling device by itself.Avatar already proved that.I can explain how if you want.

  • April 20, 2010, 7:26 p.m. CST

    Cuz the IMAX footage WASN'T a gimmick right?

    by REVENGE_of_FETT

    Let's deal with reality. Cameron shot down all the gimmick shit by showing us a z plane ADDS to a films cinematography. How you UTILIZE the tool determines whether or not it's a "gimmick".

  • April 20, 2010, 7:32 p.m. CST

    3D is COOL, just not for Batman....

    by Sicuv Uyall

    Iron Man, maybe. Spider-man, for sure. 8 foot tall blue aliens, hell yeah!! But for the Dark Knight.. either way as long as it's in IMAX again. Maybe because Nolan doesn't really have to use it.

  • April 20, 2010, 7:37 p.m. CST

    IMAX in Knight being more immersive than Avatar? fucking bullshi

    by awepittance

    it was almost as jarring and gimmicky as the 3d in Superman returns, if the whole movie was shot in IMAX it would be a different story.

  • April 20, 2010, 7:38 p.m. CST

    3-D would be horrible for Batman though

    by Continentalop

    Because of the z plane. That extra depth makes doing fight scenes really hard because it is easier to see that they are really missing each other with their swings. <o> The fight stuff has always been the worst part of Nolan's Batman series, but throw in 3-D (especially with Nolan's quick, choppy cutting during the fight scenes giving the audience no time to reestablish themselves after a cut) and you'll be totally taken out of the illusion that Batman exist in a real world. <P> Superman, however, could work really well.

  • April 20, 2010, 7:38 p.m. CST

    Yeah, screw 3d go with IMAX

    by m_reporter

    TDK in IMAX was one of the most awe inspiring theatrical experiences of my life, Avatar, while impressive in 3d, doesn't even come close. <p> The Fact that the cameras are unwieldy will definitely have the most influence on their shotlist. But considering what they shot in IMAX for TDK I wouldn't worry too much, just wouldn't expect elaborate handheald or steady-cam shots like the one when Joker crashes the party in TDK.

  • April 20, 2010, 7:39 p.m. CST

    Ace of Wands qft

    by awepittance

    man speaks the truth and isn't taking the curmudgeonly 'old man' approach of dismissing new technologies as 'gimmicks'

  • April 20, 2010, 7:45 p.m. CST

    What Nolan should really be concerned about

    by ominus

    are some more serious things: 1.Ledger is dead.His death and his performance made TDK the big success it was.Lets face it Mr Nolan,your movie, although great, it is very bloated and with a lot of things which didnt make sense.Your new movie is not going to surpass the success of TDK (in ticket sales not profit) in any way,so my advice is dont use the same formula of TDK because it worked,instead try to make something entirely new and different and with villains which are not mafioso or lunatics with political ideologies.You already did this in 2 movies,please try something new this time. 2.His action scenes.They sucked in BB,and they also sucked in TDK especially with the batovision crap.He should take a hint from Favreu and ask the help from someone who knows how to make cool action scenes. 3.Enough with Gotham City,we get it,its a character as much as Bats is.But is it not time to concentrate a bit more on Bats/Wayne? because lets face it Bale in TDK didnt have enough character exposition compared to Two-Face and Joker.The films are about batman after all right? The detective Batman,the lonely Wayne who lost his love interest,so much material to explore with the Wayne/Batman please try to do it this time. 4.I know that we are going to have the Batcave back in the new film.They must have built it after all this time that passed.Since we are getting the new fresh painted and upgraded batcave back,can we please get a new bat-mobile which is not a tank? Burton's batmobile is my favourite bat-car in all the comics and movies,nothing matches its beautiful design.Unfortunately we are stack with a tank which destroys half the city before it captures the bad guy.and for a director whose vision is realism,it is very strange that he has stuck with this design for 2 movies until now.

  • April 20, 2010, 7:47 p.m. CST

    3D can suck it

    by spaceworlder

    I refuse to ever seen another movie in 3D. It's a pointless gimmick, created with the intention of charging a higher ticket price to audiences. Fuck that.

  • April 20, 2010, 7:47 p.m. CST

    What Nolan should really be concerned about

    by ominus

    are some more serious things: <p>1.Ledger is dead.His death and his performance made TDK the big success it was.Lets face it Mr Nolan,your movie, although great, it is very bloated and with a lot of things which didnt make sense.Your new movie is not going to surpass the success of TDK (in ticket sales not profit) in any way,so my advice is dont use the same formula of TDK because it worked,instead try to make something entirely new and different and with villains which are not mafioso or lunatics with political ideologies.You already did this in 2 movies,please try something new this time. <p>2.His action scenes.They sucked in BB,and they also sucked in TDK especially with the batovision crap.He should take a hint from Favreu and ask the help from someone who knows how to make cool action scenes. <p>3.Enough with Gotham City,we get it,its a character as much as Bats is.But is it not time to concentrate a bit more on Bats/Wayne? because lets face it Bale in TDK didnt have enough character exposition compared to Two-Face and Joker.The films are about batman after all right? The detective Batman,the lonely Wayne who lost his love interest,so much material to explore with the Wayne/Batman please try to do it this time. <p>4.I know that we are going to have the Batcave back in the new film.They must have built it after all this time that passed.Since we are getting the new fresh painted and upgraded batcave back,can we please get a new bat-mobile which is not a tank? Burton's batmobile is my favourite bat-car in all the comics and movies,nothing matches its beautiful design.Unfortunately we are stack with a tank which destroys half the city before it captures the bad guy.and for a director whose vision is realism,it is very strange that he has stuck with this design for 2 movies until now. <p>thats my main concerns with the new movie.

  • April 20, 2010, 7:49 p.m. CST

    Tank > Batmobile, too.

    by spaceworlder

  • April 20, 2010, 7:52 p.m. CST


    by m_reporter

    Wow what a load of crap that was. <p> I'm aware that it's all your opinion, but at least lose the authoritative tone when you type something like that. Also concerning action in TDK, I think it was by far the best shot action of that year. Especially Batman soaring through the skies in Hong Kong and the insane truck flip. <p> Action is more than fights people...

  • April 20, 2010, 7:53 p.m. CST

    The Scene In TDK Where The Batbike....

    by bigjeffrey

    ....goes through the shopping mall has some of the worst editing I've ever seen committed to film!

  • April 20, 2010, 7:56 p.m. CST

    That was the worst editing you've seen in film?

    by Continentalop

    I'm not even a fan of the movie, but I seem to remember that entire truck sequence, including the batpod going through the mall, was very mell assembled. <P> What was your problem with it big jeffrey?

  • April 20, 2010, 7:57 p.m. CST

    "was very WELLl assembled"

    by Continentalop

    Fuck it. Sign for me to close shop and head home.

  • April 20, 2010, 7:57 p.m. CST

    Arkham Asylum is in 3D

    by ominus

    i am not talking about the nvidia S3D vision,i am saying that all the games are already 3D,they use technologies which give the impression of 3D in a 2D surface. <P>For instance if you have played FPS like MW2,then you are already playing in 3D dimensions,the S3D is coming to amplify this effect,to make it more real to the brain. <p>What i am trying to say is that Arkham Asylum,a game with 3D graphics,is one of the best experiences of how is to be Batman and doing what you are best at: stealthing and kicking ass. <p>Nolan is an idiot if he thinks that 3D is only a gimmick and that it does not contribute to the experience of the film.He should play Arkham Asylum and see by himself how nicely the 3D graphics created the world game of Arkham Island and how Batman interacted in that 3D world.And games dont differ very much from movies,they are both similar visual mediums.So Nolan stfu and take notes from the game as 3D is concerned.

  • April 20, 2010, 7:57 p.m. CST

    Oh and exposition doesn't make a character...

    by m_reporter

    ... choices do. <p> For example that cellphone/sonar machine Batman built at the end of TDK reveals more character than any exposition ever could.<p> It offers true insight in to how far Batman is willing to go in his vendetta, even revealing a somewhat fascist vein in his approach.

  • April 20, 2010, 8:01 p.m. CST

    m_reporter batman soaring the skies

    by ominus

    is not an action scene.the action scene was when he was fighting the asians in the building office.I dont know about you,but i was not at all satisfied with the action there.The same goes with the action in the last act with the hostages in the building.what pos was that? <p>Nolan is very good with his car chase action scenes,but his fighting action scenes SUCK.

  • April 20, 2010, 8:05 p.m. CST


    by Continentalop

    You ever see a 3-D fight scene? They look horrible. You can tell everything is staged as hell. And in a movie like Batman, where they are trying to make it look plausible and realistic, that is just going to be ridiculous. <P> You can do a 3-D computer game because the characters are all artificially created, but unless you have Bats and all his foes be CGI than I doubt 3-D will work good for this series.

  • April 20, 2010, 8:08 p.m. CST


    by ominus

    true insight how? he made a very expensive machine in order to use it to help GC.He tells that to Fox and then he gives the control of the machine to him and the code to destroy it !!! all that in the same scene. <p>Please could you explain to me how exactly Batman went from point A (to build a machine to fight crime) to point B (to destroy it immediately after its first use) in one single scene? Because i didnt see anywhere else in the movie,directly or indirectly, his concern about what he was building. <p>the machine was an ex-deuce machine in the movie,not character exposition.

  • April 20, 2010, 8:10 p.m. CST

    French Cinematographer Raoul Coutard

    by saint seiya

    is in my opinion one of the best cinematographers ever.

  • April 20, 2010, 8:13 p.m. CST

    Continentalop Virtua Fighter,Tekken,DOA,MK

    by ominus

    they are all 3D fighting games and they dont cause any problem with the experience.Was the fighting between Quaritch and Jake/Neytiri,a live/cgi mixture, in Avatar fake? i dont think so. <p>Look if you dont even try to make a test,an experiment,a test-drive just to see how 3D is going to work in your film,how are you going to be sure that they are 3D is not going to work at all?

  • April 20, 2010, 8:14 p.m. CST

    Why does everyone obsess about TDK's Imax sequences???

    by manifestchaos

    They were completely indistinguishable from the rest of the movie. There, I fucking said it. Indistinguishable. Maybe not to some razor-eyed film buff who watches Kevin Smith movies every night until his eyes move, but to this film student and published critic (I'm not trying to suggest I'm expert authority, but you can't dismiss me as some illiterate moron who's never watched a movie that wasn't advertised on MTV), it wasn't possible to tell where one ended and the other began, and I saw the movie on a supposed IMAX screen, twice.

  • April 20, 2010, 8:14 p.m. CST

    errrrr, "until his eyes BLEED" is what I meant

    by manifestchaos

    goddamn fat talentless bastard kevin smith.

  • April 20, 2010, 8:16 p.m. CST

    JonOfTheShred (oh yeah, fuck 3D)

    by SSquirrel

    3D isn't cool and interesting anymore. When I saw Jaws 3 in 3-D as a kid it was neat and new. Now when every movie they think might have a few bucks gets converted into 3D (often badly, ie Clash of the Titans) 3D in a movie is about as unique as Auto-Tune being used on someone's vocals.

  • April 20, 2010, 8:17 p.m. CST

    Why? I found them to be very rewarding

    by m_reporter

    Sure, a lot of people don't like the editing or the choreography of those scenes, and I can understand that. <p> But fight scenes usually tend to be pointless beyond a superficial level. In TDK every fight scene is revealing of character, hence done well in the larger scheme of things. They show that, even if outnumbered, Batman is an extremely skilled individual that's in his element. This is achieved through that fast editing and the brevity of those fight scenes and it's perfectly contrasted when he Faces something that he doesn't know how to handle. Like the interrogation scene, because you can see Batman falling apart when his physical abilities are of no use. Again, this reveals character, and if you had a 5 minute fight between Batman and all those thugs the effect of a much more important scene like the mentioned interrogation scene would be diminished. Hence those fights people complain about are much more rewarding to me. <p> On a visceral level they also work. Like the mentioned Hong Kong scene for example. Batman's preparation and the delay of that fast paced action by having Bats soar through the skyline only builds up and ultimately enhances it's visceral punchline.

  • April 20, 2010, 8:17 p.m. CST


    by D o o d

    Call a spade a spade and a fad a fad!<p>The sooner we see the end of 3D in cinemas the better!

  • April 20, 2010, 8:20 p.m. CST

    I hate color in films

    by RPLocke

    black and white makes dark movies really dark.

  • April 20, 2010, 8:21 p.m. CST


    by m_reporter

    Have you seen the movie in a real IMAX theater? <p> The difference between the IMAX footage and the 35mm blown up stuff is staggering to say the least.

  • April 20, 2010, 8:22 p.m. CST

    Because people have done the test ominus

    by Continentalop

    Guys who shoot and make 3-D movies have already check out and seen what works best and what doesn't. <P> Batman takes place in the real world. That has been Nolan's goal all along. To make it feel real. You put CGI in there and sorry, but it no longer feels real. Yes, CGI can look good and it can even be hard to distinguish, but people can detect that it doesn't feel right. It is the same reason why guys like Andrew L. Stone in the 40s and 50s refused to shoot on sets and only locations - he could subconsciously detect that the audience would be able to tell it is fake and not buy it. <P> Having said that, they have tested trying to do fight scenes and shoot them on 3-D. They are hard to sell because the audience has more room to look around and see the distance between the two opponents. <P> In short, you make a Batman fight CGI opponents and it won't feel real anymore; you have him fight stuntmen and the audience will be able to see it is faked (plus they will also see the fakery in car crashes and chase scenes - anything involving tricking the audience into believing things were closer than they really were). <p> I believe 3-D can work in movies, I just don't think it is something that fits the world of Nolan's Batman. Just like I don't think 70mm would fit the world of Taxi Driver.

  • April 20, 2010, 8:27 p.m. CST

    "these films is address Batman's psychosis"

    by Continentalop

    Not to be mean, but I don't think any of these films portray any sort of psychosis by Batman. Bruce Wayne/Batman might be haunted and traumatized by his parents and Rachel's death, but Nolan and co. never play him as insane or suffering from any thought disorders. He is actually depicted as being very healthy mentally. <P> I think saying he is suffering from psychosis is us fans reading into it. There is no scenes I can think of that explicitly or even suggest that he is nuts or crazy. In fact, quite the opposite. <p> That is my two cents anyways.

  • April 20, 2010, 8:30 p.m. CST

    IMAX'ing the whole movie "problem"

    by kuldan

    One real and true problem with shooting an entire "talkie" motion picture in the IMAX format (with the fact that it is loud) is that you tend to lose more of the performance of an actor if all of the performance has to/can be done in ADR. Imagine the subtleties, the "in-the-moment" breaks in tone of voice, in voicing matching reaction to facial and body expression - all of that could be lost if shooting IMAX meant, as George Lucas put it, "we can do it all in post." Chris Nolan is very good at directing performances, and when you give the actor the idea that "all/most of your dialogue will be redone in post-production," any good director will see the pitfall in the potential laziness of a performance. Remember Liam Neeson seemingly 'sleeping' through his performance in "Star Wars-Episode One?" The same could almost be said for telling an actor that half their performance will need to be redone anyway.

  • April 20, 2010, 8:33 p.m. CST


    by richievanderlow

    You are the man. Spot on with the 3D analysis. It worked well for Avatar, but it is a gimmick. As for film v. digial, I fundamentally agree, but there have been those that have used digital to obtain a certain aesthetic, like Michael Mann in Collateral and Miami Vice as opposed to just convenience, like George Lucas in the prequels, and when used properly to achieve a certain look and feel, its worked well.

  • April 20, 2010, 8:35 p.m. CST

    I prefer IMAX over 3D. No all we need is to stop those fake-litt

    by MrFloppy

  • April 20, 2010, 8:35 p.m. CST


    by kuldan

    I agree with what you just said - the reason I feel these movies worked so well was that we have a character who ISN'T dealing with a split-personality disorder, or an identity conflict. He is a very strong man who knows what NEEDS to be done, and WHEN to do it. He knows the importance of both his alter-egos, and utilizes them for the good of the city and the people who inhabit it. I always found it a little hard to connect with a "good guy" or "hero" lead character when they are clearly mentally insane. You understand them and their trauma, but you can't quite connect with them. With Nolan's projection and Bale's performance, they give you (like what was said) TWO characters to connect to, and not just one.

  • April 20, 2010, 8:36 p.m. CST


    by MrFloppy

  • April 20, 2010, 8:38 p.m. CST

    Ace of Wands i dont disagree

    by ominus

    its just that i love Burton's batmobil.i want to see something similar in Nolan's movie.

  • April 20, 2010, 8:40 p.m. CST


    by ominus

    can you give me links with the tests they did? i am very interested to read their analysis on this.

  • April 20, 2010, 8:46 p.m. CST

    Well said Ace

    by m_reporter

    Nolan has established a realistic world where a dude dresses as a bat to beat up criminals. <p> I think people take the superhero theme here for granted, without thinking about or analyzing the psychological implications to that person, which Nolan openly invites with his realistic portrayal.<P> I also agree with your description of Bruce Wayne, who juggles 3 personas through these movies, and his arc is very tragic. He consciously wants to eliminate the Bat out of his life, but I think subconsciously he opposes that notion, which makes him an even more tragic character in many ways. Like you said, Bale deserves more credit for this than he gets.

  • April 20, 2010, 8:47 p.m. CST

    NOLAN >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CAMERON

    by J-Dizzle

    I know, I know, the truth hurts.

  • April 20, 2010, 8:48 p.m. CST

    I agree with everything that I understood.

    by beastie

    about 10%.

  • April 20, 2010, 8:51 p.m. CST

    I am not talking about exploring Batman

    by ominus

    as a psychotic person,but as a human being.For instance his love interest was killed.shouldnt that affect his efficiency as Batman? and when he is Wayne in a philanthropic party and a hot woman flirts with him,how he reacts after the recent death of his love? Like what Raimi and Favreu did with their movies,Stark and Parker are not psychotic,they remain the same person with or without the mask and the directors explore how this double life affects the character from both sides.I want the movie to be more about Wayne/Batman's adventures and life than a social analysis of a society.

  • April 20, 2010, 8:51 p.m. CST

    mmmm, not sure I agree with...

    by Jaka

    ..."were far more immersive than anything in AVATAR". In fact, I'm pretty sure most people would loudly disagree with you. Wasn't really aware that you were an Avatar hater, and maybe you're not. But that's how that statement comes across. Avatar is the single most immersive film I've ever experienced. Granted, I didn't see The Dark Knight in an IMAX theater. Did you? How many people who saw it in a theater did so? I know there were a few scenes in TDK that left me slack-jawed in amazement (like when he jumped of the sky scraper and flew through Gotham). I'm sure those scenes were filmed in IMAX. But I didn't seen them in an IMAX theater. All that aside, I'd love to see B3 in all IMAX, but don't really care if it's 3D or not.

  • April 20, 2010, 8:54 p.m. CST

    Enough of this Nolan shit. And very overrated cinematographer

    by Proman1984

    Batman Begins was nothing special.

  • April 20, 2010, 8:56 p.m. CST

    Wally Pfister is an elitist moron!!!

    by MainMan2001

    I don't care who he is or what he shot. His attitude told digital is complete and utterly wrong. First of all 4k and 35 are completely comparable. Simple. 2nd of all, everyone doesn't have a 100million dollar budget dick head. With digital everyone can tell their stories at a reasonable price and it can still look great if you know what your doing. You see, everyone gets caught up(especially camera freaks) on what look is better, ect, ect but no body takes into account that if it works it works. Wally doesn't like that fact that everyone can make a movie now instead of just a selected few. Boo-hoo for you. Fincher and Soderbergh work on digital has been amazing. Zodiac is one of the best looking movies of the new decade for sure. I can't wait until film is dead so people like Wally can shut up so the revolution of the industry can fully begin.

  • April 20, 2010, 8:56 p.m. CST


    by richievanderlow

    My problem with Avatar and the 3-D, as visually spectacular as it was, is that it was distracting from what was actually happening in the particular scene. In light of how banal the dialouge was, I suppose I should be grateful for that. But.. in that sense, it was not immersive.. it may have drew me into Cameron's created world, but not to the film itself. I definitely get what he's saying and I agree.

  • April 20, 2010, 8:58 p.m. CST

    Did Dark Knight really need to be on IMAX?

    by RPLocke

    The biggest action set piece involved guys standing around on ferries.

  • April 20, 2010, 8:59 p.m. CST


    by Continentalop

    Not year when Burbank holds the HD Expo, go there and sit in on the 3-D panel. They do a pretty good job going over it's strengths and weaknesses.

  • April 20, 2010, 8:59 p.m. CST


    by m_reporter

    Well we got a lot of that in Batman Begins. TDK was a battle for Gotham between Batman and the Joker, so the city itself plays a major character in TDK.<p> I'm sure that for the 3rd film we'll go back to more personal themes. I'd actually love it if he'd make a Batman film on a smaller scale, which he just might end up doing if his next film is Batman 3 (considering he did 2 monster movies in a row). Also, when looking at Nolan's filmography he doesn't seem like a guy who likes to repeat himself much. Only theme he likes to go back to is false perceptions, which fits well with Batman.

  • April 20, 2010, 9:02 p.m. CST

    I love it when AICN writers speak for Directors

    by EddieMurphysLaugh

    Name one IOTA of proof you have that supports the theory of this sentence: "Nolan's a very smart man, so I'm sure he understands that 3D is and always will be a gimmick"...Jesus Christ.

  • April 20, 2010, 9:05 p.m. CST


    by Continentalop

    If I remember right that joke he makes about a man dressing up as a bat was done as Bruce Wayne. Is that admitting psychosis or misdirection? I think the later is much more likely. It would be like Sir Percy Blakeney or Don Diego Vega saying something at the expense of the Scarlet Pimpernel or Zorro to throw off suspicion. Hardly an admittance to his own mental problems. <P> Yes, Frank Miller showed him as being nuts, but I don't think Nolan has done any of that. Dressing up as a bat because he was afraid of them isn't the work of psychosis but psychological warfare (he is following the advice of his mentor Ra's al Ghul about mystery and drama). <p> Like I said, I think we comic book fans are projecting our own views because we are so similar with how he is portrayed in the comics (especially post Miller) but I don't think Nolan is going that route. In fact, his Bats is much more like Denny O'Neil's and in that sense he is completely sane (and don't say that no guy dressed up as a Bat could be sane because this is a pulp universe where such decisions are completely logical).

  • April 20, 2010, 9:06 p.m. CST

    yeah but that was when he was starting

    by ominus

    after the major events of the second movie,i think its a good time to explore what Wayne thinks of the Batman thing,if it was worth it and if he has regretted it or not,especially now that the whole city is after him since he considers him a criminal.

  • April 20, 2010, 9:07 p.m. CST

    I actually always thought the Tumbler was a mistake

    by Continentalop

    And probably Goyer's doing. Batman is someone who relies on stealth and mystery - why the fuck drive around in a tank?

  • April 20, 2010, 9:08 p.m. CST

    Bitches leave

    by Six Demon Bag

    PB party + 8

  • April 20, 2010, 9:09 p.m. CST

    I saved you a seat 6DB

    by Continentalop

    Right here at the bar with me.

  • April 20, 2010, 9:12 p.m. CST

    Well, Batman always had a car

    by m_reporter

    Why would he drive something like a more conservative (lol) batmobile in this setting? I mean, what if he get's stuck in traffic with that thing? <p> The tumbler has no obstacles. :P

  • April 20, 2010, 9:13 p.m. CST

    Yeah, but m_reporter

    by Continentalop

    The thing is a bitch to park. And don't even get started on the gas mileage.

  • April 20, 2010, 9:15 p.m. CST

    He's Bruce Wayne (spoiler!)

    by m_reporter

    He can afford gas. And he can park it on top of other cars. Or on a rooftop, as demonstrated in Batman Begins.

  • April 20, 2010, 9:15 p.m. CST

    And try to change those tires on the side of the road

    by RPLocke

    pain in the ass.

  • April 20, 2010, 9:15 p.m. CST

    Continentalop exactly my point

    by ominus

    and m_Reporter batman has also a bat-plane in case he cant use the roads.In fact i think its time to see one of those in the next movie.why not?

  • April 20, 2010, 9:19 p.m. CST

    Ominus, not to give away any ideas for free

    by Continentalop

    But I always thought they should pull out the original Bat vehicle in the next movie - and updated version of the Batgyro, Batman's first vehicle. Something that carries him over the traffic and obstacles and allows him to glide down from. <P> Mr. Nolan and crew, if you are reading this, may I suggest Canard Rotor/Wing as the new Batcopter/jet: <P>

  • April 20, 2010, 9:20 p.m. CST

    If he needs to change a tire

    by m_reporter

    He probably just initiates the self destruct. I mean, he's a Billionare, if Alfred's not around to change the tire he might as well blow the thing up and drive the bat-pod home. He's probably got like 2 dozen tumblers anyway. <p> But what if a front tire blows? Oh dear...

  • April 20, 2010, 9:22 p.m. CST

    Does Batman have AAA?

    by Continentalop

  • April 20, 2010, 9:26 p.m. CST

    Yes, Two Face was awesomely dealt with...

    by m_reporter

    ... as a mirror image to Batman and a representation of his rage. I hope they build up on it in the next film, because Harvey Dent became what Bruce could end up as.

  • April 20, 2010, 9:33 p.m. CST

    Batman has to call Enterprise rent a car

    by RPLocke

    when the Tumbler is in the shop.

  • April 20, 2010, 9:34 p.m. CST

    While I like 3D... not for Batman

    by Adelai Niska

    What I DO want: <p> Batcave (the real deal with all the crazy shit Bruce would ever need for any possible scenario. <p> Matches Malone. <p> Batman meeting with Gordon while cops outside the office are planning to capture him. <p> Anyone else feel like the next logical villain is Clayface?

  • April 20, 2010, 9:35 p.m. CST

    Fuck Avatar

    by Frat Boy

    Fuck it up its blue cliche-filled ass. That movie was absolutely nothing special and everyone knows it. Now give us Batman 3 as soon as possible!

  • April 20, 2010, 9:35 p.m. CST

    Regarding a Batplane...

    by m_reporter

    ... or helicopters, I don't think they'd work in this universe because of the realism involved.<p> And besides, he has his glider cape which is way more practical and stealthy.

  • April 20, 2010, 9:36 p.m. CST

    richievanderlow, cool, cool

    by Jaka

    That's a different context in which I was not viewing the statement. I understand what you're saying, but I still can't agree. I'm not an Avatar lover, but I did like it quite a lot. Simple dialogue and (to me - something very few people comment on) slightly forced action scenes are definite weaknesses. But I stand by it being the most VISUALLY immersive film I've ever seen in a theater. Saw it twice in IMAX 3D and found it completely mind-boggling. I wasn't distracted at all by the 3D IMAXness of it all. I was draw in and surrounded by it. Completely enveloped to the point I forgot I was wearing 3D glasses watching a 3D movie. I didn't get that from TDK at all (and I LOVE TDK). Like I said, though, I didn't see it on an IMAX screen, either.

  • April 20, 2010, 9:36 p.m. CST

    Clayface is not realistic

    by ominus

    so we are never going to have him in a movie

  • April 20, 2010, 9:38 p.m. CST

    But it is more realistic m_reporter

    by Continentalop

    Batman glides. So he needs a vehicle that places him higher up in the air or else he can't do that. <P> With a helicopter like vehicle he can have it hover, go into stealth mode, jump out and fight crime and then return to it (using his grapple gun or something else) when he is able to. <P> Personally I think a copter like vehicle makes more sense for him, and is even more plausible than a tank like tumbler. He's fighting an urban war on crime, be like the army and use Apaches and air support.

  • April 20, 2010, 9:40 p.m. CST

    The Basil Karlo Clayface is

    by Continentalop

    But I doubt fans would go for an insane actor killing people trying to remake his most famous movie.

  • April 20, 2010, 9:41 p.m. CST

    i fucking agree boys

    by Waka_Flocka

  • April 20, 2010, 9:43 p.m. CST

    "that it IS there if you wish to notice it"

    by Continentalop

    But that is the point Ace. Sometimes you notice things and read stuff in there because you want to. So far Nolan has not done anything that explicitly states that Bruce is crazy or has a psychosis. Anything we read in there is us interpreting it that way. <P> I'm not saying it is wrong to view it that way, but once again there is no hard evidence. Everything said is just conjecture and interpretation.

  • April 20, 2010, 9:43 p.m. CST

    with nolan & pfister that is, not u talkbacker twats

    by Waka_Flocka

  • April 20, 2010, 9:44 p.m. CST

    The point of the Tumbler...

    by Mr. Nice Gaius quite simple. It's the chassis or foundation with which Wayne/Batman will design a more recognizable Batmobile. You do remember that the first movie was called BATMAN BEGINS, right?! Of course he's going to have an early model car. It's kind of like Iron Man's MARK-I armor.<P>I don't care what you thought his car should have looked like at the outset. The Tumbler was absolutely bad-ass. To say otherwise is simply crazy talk.

  • April 20, 2010, 9:45 p.m. CST

    shadow of the bat

    by Waka_Flocka

  • April 20, 2010, 9:46 p.m. CST

    Yeah, but was it believable and plausible MNG?

    by Continentalop

    That is the problem some of us had with it. Lots of things are bad ass but they still cause us to have problems suspending our disbelief, and this is a movie that is trying to make Batman plausible and realistic.

  • April 20, 2010, 9:50 p.m. CST

    Villains for Batman 3

    by m_reporter

    What TDK did great (just like BB before it) is set up the next film perfectly. <p> I'm sure now that Batman is being hunted that it will open a window for a new breed of criminal. I doubt we'll see much of organized mafia since everyone there was imprisoned or killed in TDK. And in the end of the movie Bruce finally realized Batman's limits, so we need a guy who can challenge those. <p> Joker is of course the absolutely perfect choice, but since Heath's death I don't see this working. His portrayal is too iconic now to be recast, and it would be a complete disservice to have a great actor do an impression if they do decide to recast. But the Joker was also arrested at the end of TDK, which kind of gives him a free pass for not showing up.<p> Looking at Batman's villain gallery I really don't see anyone else but the Riddler filling Joker's shoes. He might need some readjusting for Nolan's universe, but he definitely has the potential to challenge Batman in so many ways.

  • April 20, 2010, 9:50 p.m. CST


    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    Yeah, I thought it was somewhat believable and absolutely plausible. The only time I had a little trouble with it was when he was driving on the rooftops of buildings that did not look like they could support the weight.<P>Other than that, I thought it was great and I LOVED the fact that it was a practical effect. (Same with the Batpod.)

  • April 20, 2010, 9:51 p.m. CST

    Bitches leave

    by Six Demon Bag

    PB party + 8

  • April 20, 2010, 9:55 p.m. CST

    Besides the rooftops MNG, the problem I had

    by Continentalop

    Was when he drives out of the city with Rachel in BB. Like the cops couldn't follow that thing? Shit, people on the side of the road would be calling in to the cops a tank with it's lights off drove by 20 minutes ago. You could track it by 911 calls alone. <p> I think it worked better in TDK during the Joker scene where it kind of operates for a specific function (in this case as an armored escort for Dent).

  • April 20, 2010, 9:56 p.m. CST

    I'm all for 3D

    by GhostofLesterBangs

    I find it enhances the viewing experience and makes it more interesting to watch. I think an entire BATMAN 3D in IMAX directed by Nolan would get multiple tickets bought from me.

  • April 20, 2010, 9:57 p.m. CST

    Thing about the helicopter is...

    by m_reporter

    ... that it's being flown over a huge city. It's kinda hard not to notice and follow since both reporters and police have helicopters of their own. Same could be said about the tumbler I guess, but a car does seem much more plausible considering the setting, and it's much easier to hide a car even a one as unique as the tumbler.

  • April 20, 2010, 10:01 p.m. CST

    "is and always will be a gimmick"

    by TheHumanBurrito

    AMEN. "Check it out, this effect looks DIFFERENTLY fake! Wasn't that worth an extra $4 and wearing dark glasses?!"

  • April 20, 2010, 10:01 p.m. CST

    Regarding Batman's mental state

    by Jaka

    I'm a pretty big Batman comic book geek. I've always viewed him as broken, but aware and in control of it. That's the impression I get from Nolan's Batman, too. Especially with the different personalities presented (as Bruce to the public, as Bruce to those who "know" him and as Batman) throughout the film. This is totally different than most of the Batman villains who are broken, mostly unaware and often not in control of it. This is why Batman works so well for me. He's not a pure hero. He understands a bit of what he's fighting against.

  • April 20, 2010, 10:01 p.m. CST

    Actually m-reporter a helicopter would be harder to follow

    by Continentalop

    Especially one like the Canard Rotor/wing, which is an experimental design where it transforms from rotor wing vehicle (copter) into a fixed wing (plane/jet). Basically it can function as a VTOL helicopter OR as a jet. <P> So it can fly and hover around gotham, it's lights turned off and in stealth mode making as much noise as Blue Thunder did in the movie, and then if cops or reporters start to tail it switch to Fixed wing jet and blast off at a speed they could never match. <P> And of course, if any planes try to track it switch back to copter and go to tight locations where they can't maneuver.

  • April 20, 2010, 10:02 p.m. CST

    And as far as villains in the next film

    by Jaka

    I want Riddler and/or Penguin. I definitely DON'T want a Catwoman. I think it would be cool if Joker returned in the future, but it's too soon to put somebody else in the roll no matter how well they played the part.

  • April 20, 2010, 10:03 p.m. CST

    Well, that chase scene was at night...

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    ...and he did have the ability to go immediately "off road". But it's also a movie and sometimes you need to make concessions in order to make an entertaining scene.<P>I agree with you on that scene in TDK. In fact, I loved it when the Tumbler took the dump truck(?) head on and up-ended it from underneath. Granted, it probably would have caused far worse damage than it appeared in the film...but it was still way cool.

  • April 20, 2010, 10:06 p.m. CST

    Plus if you go by the police copter idea

    by Continentalop

    The hardest thing for criminals to escape is the police copter. The saying is once the eye in the sky lands on you you're as good as busted. <P> Well once again that is where a batcopter would come in handy. He is able to track criminals no matter where they run because he can see over the obstacles. Hell, with infrared and all the other modern devices nowadays (including Batman's own sonar) he can see through obstacles as well). <P> And once again, with the light off and some sort of hi-tech stealth mode, no one is going to know he is up there. A Batcopter wouldn't need lights because he could use infrared and other sensors. <P> Not that I have given this much thought.

  • April 20, 2010, 10:06 p.m. CST

    What's the deal with the batpod?

    by SimonDunkle

    Was it originally a part of the tumbler design or did Wayne tinker with it? Most people would say that Wayne installed it, but that's a lot of screwing around with military software/hardware. And why?

  • April 20, 2010, 10:09 p.m. CST

    Fuck Avatar


    The Biggest Flash In The Pan In History...

  • April 20, 2010, 10:10 p.m. CST


    by m_reporter

    I definitely agree on that. Bruce is aware of his state and in control, which is maybe the only thing that distinguishes him from the people he's hunting down.<p> Thing I loved about TDK is that they made that difference even slighter with the Joker, who also seems to be aware of his state, but doesn't control it or care. When he says that he's "a dog chasing cars" I always took it as a half truth since he's as much calculated as the schemers he's fighting against, but his ruling goal is the one of chaos and ultimately anarchy.

  • April 20, 2010, 10:14 p.m. CST


    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    There is no way of knowing for sure since it wasn't addressed in the film. As for why, don't you think it makes sense to have a means of escape should the main vehicle suffer catastrophic damage?

  • April 20, 2010, 10:18 p.m. CST

    Ahhhh, it's JettL1993

    by Jaka


  • April 20, 2010, 10:19 p.m. CST


    by Ribbons

    Unfortunately the director of the #2 and #1 grossing films of all times has embraced the 3D format. Also, that sound you hear is every single producer in Hollywood collectively popping a chubby at the concept of being able to charge almost twice as much for a 3D ticket and getting people to pay anyway. It is unfortunate and hopefully they don't lean on Nolan to shoot any future projects in digital and/or 3D, because one of the things I was really starting to like about the Hollywood landscape before Avatar came along and raped the box office was how many different ways had evolved to actually make a big-budget picture, whether it be animation (CG, hand-drawn or stop-motion), mocap (a la Beowulf and A Christmas Carol), digital (Public Enemies), Nolan's love for IMAX and film, and, yes, 3D. It'd be a shame to see half of those techniques, some of which have taken decades to develop, wiped out in the next five years.

  • April 20, 2010, 10:19 p.m. CST


    by Jaka

    Totally agree with you about the Batman/Joker relationship in TDK. They did a great job of making you believe that the two were very much alike. They just have vastly different goals, as it were.

  • April 20, 2010, 10:19 p.m. CST

    You might be right about the advantages of this aircraft...

    by m_reporter

    ... what I fear though is that it would take some drama out of the film beyond the initial wow effect, giving maybe too much power to Batman. Still, I think I'm getting way too deep in to the possibilities and effects of this thing. Thankfully it's not on us to decide what the next film should have and have not.

  • April 20, 2010, 10:20 p.m. CST


    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    Geez, man! Still at it, eh?

  • April 20, 2010, 10:25 p.m. CST


    by SimonDunkle

    It would be safe to assume that in most catastrophic situations, the batpod would have gone up with the tumbler - it wouldn't survive. Or if the tumbler fell into a river, the batpod would be useless. See what I mean? He got kind of lucky in the movie. Anyway, I still totally love that bit where the batpod pops out. (onlookers have expression of surprise)

  • April 20, 2010, 10:27 p.m. CST


    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    Allllllrighty then.

  • April 20, 2010, 10:30 p.m. CST


    by SimonDunkle

    I read your post on the Oscars talkback about you doing research on talkbackers for a movie, being semi-famous, coming clean about being annoying on purpose etc. have you withdrawn your statement?

  • April 20, 2010, 10:31 p.m. CST

    Man he doesn't give up does he?

    by Continentalop

    Maybe Jett should be the next bat-villain. The Bullshitter.

  • April 20, 2010, 10:32 p.m. CST


    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    True, in those particular scenarios one can assume that the Batpod wouldn't be of much use. However, simply using it as an escape vehicle may have not been it's only purpose. Perhaps a vehicle was needed in a place or environment where the Tumbler would have been rendered useless.<P>I agree with you on the Batpod's reveal. That scene along with the one where it does a flip off the wall (after launching the Joker's truck) got cheers out of the crowd in the theater I was in.

  • April 20, 2010, 10:32 p.m. CST

    geroge ulcas shall forever more be the name of...

    by Jaka

    ...George Lucas' mighty chin. "I am geroge ulcas! Fear me!"

  • April 20, 2010, 10:32 p.m. CST

    Who's the french cinematogrpher Pfister admires?

    by m_reporter

    Is it Henri Alekan? I really want to know damnit...

  • April 20, 2010, 10:33 p.m. CST

    m_reporter, just one thing to add drama

    by Continentalop

    Stinger missiles. They are deadly for our troops in Afghanistan and they would take down a Batcopter as well. And completely realistically as well since you can buy them on the black market.

  • April 20, 2010, 10:34 p.m. CST

    Oh yeah. Speaking of the Academy Awards Jettl1993

    by Jaka

    How about that Brittany Murphy tribute you were working on? I guess they ran out of time for that one. Douche.

  • April 20, 2010, 10:41 p.m. CST

    3D is not a gimmic

    by Rupee88

    Beaks you are wrong

  • April 20, 2010, 10:46 p.m. CST

    ROBOCOP by MGM also In Real Imax (70m)

    by organicstudios

    Darren Aronofsky also in talks to shoot the entire film With Real Imax camara's (on Film) COOl.

  • April 20, 2010, 11:09 p.m. CST

    3d is a gimmick

    by m_reporter

    Movies are already shot to convey a sense of three-dimensionality, and it's used not just for visuals but also for storytelling purposes.<p> 3D is only there to enhance the visuals, hence it's a gimmick. And it's very restrictive to the filmmakers technique wise. So basically, the only purpose to shoot a film in 3D is to charge more and profit on the fad.

  • April 20, 2010, 11:41 p.m. CST

    Beaks, awesome last paragraph to your article

    by YackBacker

    You summed it up well.

  • April 20, 2010, 11:46 p.m. CST

    I just want a date.

    by BlackBriar

    If I had to guess July "Friday the 13th" 2012... The Riddler will be waiting

  • April 20, 2010, 11:57 p.m. CST


    by BringingSexyBack

    We don't need this in 3-D. IMAX, yes.

  • April 21, 2010, 12:40 a.m. CST

    Everyone keeps saying that TDK was near perfect

    by spike fan

    But I scratch my head why. The last 30 mins of the movie felt like a different film and it really should have ended with Rachels death, Harveys burning,Batman defeated and the Joker in the police car triumphant. While Two Face the villan should have been left for a sequel and his motivation made no fucking sense he spares the Joker the guy who killed his woman but is going to shoot a child WTF!. And lets not forget the God awful Ferry scene I get sick of people talking about how dark and edgy TDK is when that scene was trite cliched cheese. I mean come on people.

  • April 21, 2010, 1:06 a.m. CST

    the bat-voice

    by Aquanaut

    i seem to recall reading somewhere in a behind-the-scenes book that there was a device in the suit that made his voice sound like that..which is why he has that voice no matter what while wearing the costume.<p>also i think catwoman would work perfectly fine in the next movie. make her less of a burglar and more of a ruthless anti-hero vigilante in the vein of robin hood who is inspired by batman but does not share his code of ethics..kind of the next step in the evolution of the bat-fakes we saw in TDK. riddler could be would be great if we didn't even see him through most of the movie..a mastermind behind the curtain kind of character.<p>a more subtle version of bane might be a surprising element too. javier bardem, maybe? a character who is a strategist, but can also beat batman within an inch of his life. not a complete steroid freak like in the comics, but with artificially enhanced strength.

  • April 21, 2010, 1:15 a.m. CST

    Spike fan

    by Aquanaut

    two-face would have killed the joker too, but apparently the coin landed good side up. and the kid would have been spared too..depending on the outcome of the coin flip. clearly a warped sense of justice but not incoherent.<p>and how was the ferry scene trite and cliche?

  • April 21, 2010, 1:17 a.m. CST

    film vs. digital... / 3D or not... / IMAX or not... / Batman 3

    by HarryWannaBe

    I think it's a lil' ignorant of Pfister to say something like "The image quality of film exceeds that of high end digital cameras", because "image quality" is subjective and it can vary depending on the intent of the cinematographer and/or director. Being simply against one format or the other is kind of silly because each has advantages over the other (just as each has disadvantages as well). I can understand having a preference, but that doesn't mean the format you don't like isn't just as valid. // Same kind of thing goes for 3D. Sure, it's a fad and it works for some films ('Avatar', 'How To Train Your Dragon', etc.) and doesn't for others ('Clash Of The Titans'), but that doesn't make 3D, as a whole, bad. Just like cinematography...there are good and great examples of it out there just as well as bad and horrible examples. (That said, it definitely doesn't belong in the Nolan Batman films!) // IMAX. Love it, but only if it's actually filmed with IMAX cameras and not converted for IMAX after the fact...much like the 3D debate. // Given how they set up Batman as "the bad guy" (taking the rap for Two-Face's actions in order to save Harvey's legacy) and how they introduced the group of Batman wannabes trying to "help" Batman...I'd love to see the introduction of a grown-up Dick Grayson. He could be some form of equal to Bruce Wayne in the public eye/citizen life, all while secretly acting as a vigilante at night as Nightwing...helping take up the slack for Batman who hasn't been as active as normal since he's a wanted man. This way you could bring in a cool character but avoid the whole "Bruce Wayne's ward"/"little boy in tights" aspect. As for villain(s)'s hard to not go for the Riddler predominantly. Given the universe Nolan and Goyer (and the rest) have developed, it's the natural progression, at least as far as mainstream/recognizable villains go. I don't think Catwoman is impossible, but it'd be a tougher one to develop...but if they went with Selina Kyle, they could work a potential love-triangle between her, Bruce and Dick. [*shrugs*, just rollin' with it here] And lastly (for now), let's get back to the Batcave already!

  • April 21, 2010, 1:24 a.m. CST

    "3D is and always will be a gimmick"

    by MattmanReturns

    I disagree with the "always will be" part of that statement. We humans have two eyes, therefore we see things in three dimensions. Therefore the natural next step for cinema, gaming, and TV is 3D. 3D has been very gimmicky in the past, but that doesn't mean it always will be.

  • April 21, 2010, 1:27 a.m. CST

    Can we call it Batman 8 please

    by TakingScorpiosCalls

    You cant just sweept previous Batman movies under the rug even if you dont like them, thats just like what Hitler tried to do.

  • April 21, 2010, 1:34 a.m. CST

    Regarding the car

    by twitterkiller

    Burton's, and Schumaker's, batmobiles are "artistic" absurdities. For all the criticism the Tumbler received, and still does, it is the most practical application of what Bats needs to travel around in. What would you have Batman do, go to school for another 5 years, double majoring in an engineering discipline & industrial design, then build a mobile expression of his inner angst, that is entirely impractical for street warfare? If there really was Bats, how he obtained his car in BB is exactly what he'd do...not even think to have a car until he came across such a machine in has vast industrial resources this hypothetical billionaire would have. And if he did fancy the idea of specifically having a batmobile as a prerequisite to his crimefighting career, he'd hire engineers away from General Dynamics to build it, not angst-ridden artists & designers who got laid off from Mattell designing toys.

  • April 21, 2010, 1:51 a.m. CST

    Spike fan, your ending would've sucked

    by MattmanReturns

    And also would have removed the whole hero-becoming-the-villain aspect of the story. The film ends with the city's ray of hope dead and hero taking the blame for his murders. If that's not dark, I don't know what is. And what did you want of the ferry scene? I fully expected those ferries to go up in flames, and the film (which had already established itself as very dark) switched it up and surprised me. There was nothing godawful about that scene, and I think the people on the boats acted EXACTLY as real human beings would act. When it comes to pressing that trigger, most people wouldn't be able to do it. It was realistic, not a fucking SAW movie.

  • April 21, 2010, 1:53 a.m. CST


    by MattmanReturns

    I'm pretty sure you just compared Batman and Robin to the Holocaust... which is fairly accurate now that I think about it. Good work.

  • April 21, 2010, 1:58 a.m. CST


    by gruemanlives

  • April 21, 2010, 2:13 a.m. CST

    Have any of the Batman films been numbered?

    by Jaka

    I don't think they have... sooo... no! No Batman 8.<P>I think TDK is a spectacularly good film, especially considering it's genre. But I don't think it's perfect by a long shot. The Two-Face character and the way it was handled is definitely a weak spot for me, too. I didn't even like Aaron Eckhart in the role. Everybody else in that film felt weighty, but their performances were given with such ease. Eckhart as Dent and Two-Face felt too light, and as an actor he was trying too hard. Biggest piece of miscasting in that movie, for me. Also, while I don't agree with Spike Fan about where the movie should have ended, it did feel like everything after Rachel's death was rushed.

  • April 21, 2010, 2:27 a.m. CST

    Hey if they use VistaVision

    by polyh3dron

    The image quality in that format is damn close to what IMAX film can provide if I'm not mistaken. Transferring it to an IMAX print could be almost as good as if it was originally shot on IMAX. I think they are considering this because some of Inception was shot on VistaVision.

  • April 21, 2010, 2:51 a.m. CST

    Batman could get a modified blackhawk helicopter

    by RPLocke

    Fox could touch it up with missles and a cloaking device, or whatever. He can use rooftops of Gotham as landing pads.

  • April 21, 2010, 4:37 a.m. CST

    We'll see about Red

    by CmdX

    when Jim Jannard flys out to England to do a full presentation of the IMAX-resolution Epic cameras

  • April 21, 2010, 4:40 a.m. CST

    Asking how Joker rigged the explosives is insanely annoying

    by IndustryKiller!

    and it seems to me like yet another byproduct of the idiotic "let's try and explain EVERYTHING" tone of Batman begins. The best thing Nolan did int he Dark Knight was bring the tone of Gotham City back to it's pulpier roots. How did the Joker rig the explosives? Because he's the Joker and he's clever. If you can't at least give the film that much then don't read or watch anything to do with comic books. it's like asking how Tony Stark built the ark reactor, because he's a fucking mega genius that's why. Getting ultra realistic with superhero properties is not only a landmine, but it's an artistic dead end. If you are making a superhero film, your job as a director is to establish a world that is heightened from our own, one in which the impossible is somehow possible, and then ground it to humanity with the characters. nolan did that beautifully in The Dark Knight. With a Gotham city full of corrupt cops, crazy mafioso, and a man who could conceivably take over a city dressed as a clown. But it's the characters, even the Joker, who has a very unsettling realism and pain behind his sociopathy (an aspect of the character that never seems to get noticed but is absolutely present), that make the film believable and recognizeable despite the over the top reality. Perfect. people asking for five minute explainations for such rudimentary comic book staples such as explosives rigging or how a bus that just backed into a murdering spree in a bank didn't get caught just don't get it on a very primal level.

  • April 21, 2010, 4:44 a.m. CST


    by kwisatzhaderach

    "the IMAX portions of THE DARK KNIGHT were far more immersive than anything in AVATAR." - <p> Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. <p> Jesus Beaks.

  • April 21, 2010, 5:52 a.m. CST

    Virtua Fighter,Tekken,DOA,MK...

    by UltimaRex

    are as 3-D as "2-D" film. They share the same depth of field.

  • April 21, 2010, 6:06 a.m. CST

    It's not about the format

    by BendersShinyAss

    It's about the lens. and he's right, shoot it in that super widescreen he said he wanted!

  • April 21, 2010, 6:09 a.m. CST

    beaks - what up?

    by BendersShinyAss

    'IMAX portions of THE DARK KNIGHT were far more immersive than anything in AVATAR'. <p>dude? how do you keep a straight face?

  • April 21, 2010, 6:11 a.m. CST

    Batman is just a gimmick

    by BendersShinyAss

    Fuck, this sophisticated intellectual filmmaking cloud that hangs over the current batman really does piss me off. I get it, it was good. But geeesuz it was NOT phenominal

  • April 21, 2010, 6:23 a.m. CST

    no 3d. yes IMAX Talia al Ghul as primary villian.

    by Chain

    Catwoman has been done to death. And Nolan's Bruce Wayne has yet to have to deal with a femme fatale with a hidden agenda. Talia as the main villain with Hugo Strange as the secondary villain sub plot. He could be the t.v. psychiatrist trying to profile Bats. Who gets chosen to help the police strike force hunt him down. Talia is of course seeking revenge for her father who is still alive and still wants to recruit Bruce. But she falls in love with Bruce and gets preggers by him. yeah I know these storylines have played out in the comics but they haven't made it to film and they're good canon to draw from. Nolan.Goyer sorta copied Miller's "sons of the bat" idea for TDK. And the Tumbler is a bit like Miller's ROTDK batmobile.

  • April 21, 2010, 6:32 a.m. CST

    Gotham City's Protector....

    by Arturo

    I hear thats the new title....Unless they change it again???

  • April 21, 2010, 6:56 a.m. CST

    You're all missing the most important fucking point

    by silentjay

    Pfister was meeting with Brad Bird. Hello? Fucking awesome. If Nolan can Bird on as some sort of consultant or script doctor to work with his brother ... christ that would rock.

  • April 21, 2010, 7:17 a.m. CST

    TDK more immersive than avatar?

    by spider_neil

    *COUGH* BULLSHIT! *COUGH* TDK maybe a better movie but as a immersive spectacle avatar SHITS on TDK.

  • April 21, 2010, 7:24 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Psychosis doesn't mean psychopathy. Many people make that confusion, because of movies, Tv shows and,unfortunatly, the press and news outlets using the two trms interchangably.<br><br>A psychosis is just a harsher form of neurosis. Basically, a neurosis can be cured or overcome, even by sheer willpower. A psychosis is definitive, and informs all your character traits. Bruce Wayne's psychosis is the traumatic death of his parent,s which fuels and influences everything he is and did in his life. His parents' death made him aware of the wrongs in the world, how the criminals exploit the weak and the poor, made him want to first revenge, and then go on a path of justice, with extreme prejudice. That's what a psychosis is. Psychosis doesn't necessarily means one's crazy, but that one has an issue which chances are cannot ever be overcome, no matter what teraphy or cathartic atempts you try.<br><br>A crazy person migth haver psychosis, but a person with psychosis is not necessarily crazy.<br><br>The real problem here is that most defenitions that go around are misunderstood by people and they keep on being eprpectuated. It's like that nonsense of calling quantum leaps to big changes, when in fact the expression described quite the opposite effect.

  • April 21, 2010, 7:24 a.m. CST

    All this TDK

    by MorganLeafy

    reminds of that scene with the shoe in 'The Life of Brian'. Ace of Wands, you just read too much into it. Yesterday I saw Das weisse Band. Might I suggest you watch it and try to wrap your brain around that? It's probably far more satisfying!

  • April 21, 2010, 7:26 a.m. CST

    NOLAN IS A GOD INDEED - Fuck 3D, yeah!

    by ricarleite2

    Just shoot the damn thing in 32mm film like real directors used to do and get over it. And if Nolan says he will not do Batman in 3D, Warner will fucking obey. If Nolan wants ir rated R, Warner will greenlight. If Nolan wants to call it "Fucko the cum pooping wolf", WARNER WILL FUCKING GREENLIGHT WITH A SMILE ON THEIR FACES WHILE THEY GIVE HIM A BLANK CHECKBOOK.

  • April 21, 2010, 7:37 a.m. CST

    Excellent. Less shakycam and fast cuts in the fight sequences

    by Mr Nicholas

    would be appreciated too.

  • <P>Beaks you know what they say: if you tell a lie many times,eventually you will start believing it.

  • Beaks you know what they say: if you tell a lie many times,eventually you will start believing it.

  • April 21, 2010, 8:03 a.m. CST

    The IMAX Portions Were More Immersive

    by Crow3711

    You don't have to say it a bunch of times for it to be a fact. Avatar was brilliant, but I'll take the Dark Knight anyday. I'd rather watch Dark KNight in imax 100 times than avatar one more time in 3d.

  • April 21, 2010, 8:04 a.m. CST

    This's the MOST intelligent thing I've ever read on the site

    by ZoeFan

    Calling 3D a fad. Insisting on shooting on film. Acknowledging how great IMAX 65mm is. Tooling on Digital. Aknowledging Kubric and Malick as two of his heros. GREAT stuff!!!

  • April 21, 2010, 8:07 a.m. CST

    has to be the riddler

    by Waka_Flocka

  • April 21, 2010, 8:19 a.m. CST

    Put me down for IMAX over 3D

    by thatswhatshesaid

    DK looked amazing in those IMAX shots. I too am not buying this 3D fad. I think its great and works for some movies like Avatar, but just like a piece of chewing gum...the morons in Hollywood will chew it up so quickly any flavor will be gone by 2011.

  • April 21, 2010, 8:24 a.m. CST

    Thank Christ we know what Bird's kids think.

    by moorE12

  • April 21, 2010, 8:55 a.m. CST

    all these people saying that IMAX is less effective than 3d

    by m_reporter

    Makes me doubt you guys even saw TDK in an IMAX theater. Or at least a real IMAX theater...

  • April 21, 2010, 9:36 a.m. CST

    Overall, Dark knight >>> Avatar

    by Shadow Warrior

    I loved T2 and True Lies, but I have absolutely no desire to sit through Avatar again even if it was offered for free in Imax 3D. I barely remember anything from that movie. Dark Knight is the 3rd highest grossing movie ever, after Titanic (TITANIC! Which little girls kept watching over and over with their bfs/parents), and Avatar (1st full 3D-shot live action, of course people are curious).

  • April 21, 2010, 9:47 a.m. CST

    Scientific FACT on Film vs. Digital

    by ZoeFan

    35mm Film has more resolution than the best Digital available. Infact film is downconverted when being transfered to HD for Blu-Ray. And an IMAX negative has almost 10x the negative area that 35mm has.

  • April 21, 2010, 10:07 a.m. CST

    He's right about 3-D

    by SithMenace

    Which is possibly why I didn't enjoy Avatar. I'm anxious to see it on Blu-Ray without the 3-D to see if I like it any better.

  • April 21, 2010, 10:09 a.m. CST

    3D a Gimmick?

    by Toonol

    I don't get people that still think that. Have they come to grips with the gimmicks of color and sound, yet?<p> Real life is in 3d. 3d films have more verisimilitude; they're inevitably going to replace 2d. It's just a question of when. Maybe now, maybe in a decade.

  • April 21, 2010, 10:23 a.m. CST

    IMAX and Nolan RULE!

    by fassbinder79

    Fuck 3D. Stick to what you do best, CN. Don't get sucked into the hype about 3D right now. Dark Knight was one of the highest grossing films of all time WITHOUT 3D tech. Imax is the way to go!

  • April 21, 2010, 10:24 a.m. CST

    Panasonic just announced they have sold out of 3DTVs

    by REVENGE_of_FETT

    Even though you could only buy them at Best Buy Magnolia stores, they sold the entire year's worth in a fucking week.</p><p>And of course 70% of Avatar's gross was from 3D.</p><p>Still think nobody gives a shit about 3D?

  • April 21, 2010, 10:27 a.m. CST

    Also 1/3 of ALL THEATRICAL REVENUE was from 3D!

    by REVENGE_of_FETT

    Here's that Panasonic link by the way:</p><p></p><p>And here's a chart showing how much 3D showings outgrossed 2D showings:</p><p>><p>Yeah, nobody gives a shit about 3D. *eyeroll*

  • April 21, 2010, 10:30 a.m. CST


    by fassbinder79

    Best buy could sell out of the latest Lady Gaga album. That doesn't mean its going to stand the test of time. And who wants to have to put on 3D glasses to watch a film at home. Not me. And I will bet you that by year's end plenty of folks will regret that purchase. The Imax scenes in Dark Knight were MINDBLOWING. Avatar in 3D was decent. But it definitely wasn't Dark Knight quality. I still get goosebumps thinking about how I felt when that opening shot of the building happened in Imax from Dark Knight. Can't be topped. Imax is the way to go.

  • April 21, 2010, 10:35 a.m. CST

    On my 46 inch HDTV...

    by fassbinder79

    ...I just want the Imax quality shots from Dark Knight. I don't want the pain of 3D glasses how it fucks with my eyes afterwards. And after seeing Avatar in the theater all I could think about is will this film hold up on Blu Ray NOT in 3D. That is not something a filmgoer should be thinking after seeing a film. Imax is the better move for Hollywood because it will force more filmmakers to do better compositions of shots and create a more cinematic experience that will be just as good @ home. There is a reason that the 3D fad died out after the 50's.

  • April 21, 2010, 10:38 a.m. CST

    Screw the cityscapes

    by HapaPapa72

    I agree with some early TB'er. The BATCAVE in IMAX. Take us somewhere we really wanna see. Screw Chicago.

  • April 21, 2010, 10:44 a.m. CST

    Eric Bana as Bane!

    by westie

    I always thought Bane was one of the most unappreciated and misused of Batman's foes. Excellent physical condition, well read and learned almost to the point of rivalling Batman himself, a murderous rage. Bana is 6'4. Think of the muscle he had in Troy. Bulk him up more than that, make him ultra strong because of amphetamines or something like that, a nightmare evil version of Batman. It would be great. As long as they leave behind the Lucha Libre suit.

  • April 21, 2010, 10:54 a.m. CST

    If they would have actually made GOOD 3D movies in the 50's...

    by REVENGE_of_FETT

    Maybe it would have stuck around.</p><p>Plus the new technology is way better than the crap they had back then. Dude, again.....ONE FUCKING THIRD OF ALL THEATRICAL REVENUE LAST YEAR WAS FROM 3D! 3DTVS are selling the fuck out in a week!</p><p>CONCLUSION: PEOPLE LIKE 3D!

  • April 21, 2010, 11:14 a.m. CST

    The flash in 3-D

    by ORIONgods

    i would like to see that

  • April 21, 2010, 11:16 a.m. CST


    by fassbinder79

    Lady Gaga sells out too. That doesn't mean she's a better investment long term than a band like Radiohead. 3D is a fad. And overexposure of it will kill the industry. Even Jeffrey Katzenberg has said recently he has concerns about the popularity and push for 3D right now: At the end of the day it should be about making a good film FIRST. And the I personally believe that the quality of the films produced will be of a higher standard if the focus is put more on Imax cameras/ aspect ratios ect...rather than on 3D glasses. The biggest weakness for the Dark Knight on Blu Ray was that the whole film hadn't been shot in Imax. I can tell you for certain that if Nolan goes and shoots Batman 3 ALL in Imax then that will change the entire discussion forever and the focus will go back to Imax specifically. 3D is only good for studios in that it tricks a very stupid filmgoing public into believing something is good in the short term only to realize later (on home video) that it is a shitty product that they have distributed to the masses. Beowulf = Cool in 3D & a total disappointment on Blu Ray. I expect that Avatar will be the same thing. Blade Runner may not have been a hit when it was released in theaters but from what I understand its one of Warners highest grossing dvd titles of all time. If Warners or a studio like them has a choice between short term profits like Alice and Wonderland and the long term re-watchability and sales value of Dark Knight I think they will go with DK.

  • April 21, 2010, 11:17 a.m. CST

    3-D won't replace 2-D until they can

    by SithMenace

    do it without the glasses. No one wants to wear sunglasses while watching the nightly news.

  • April 21, 2010, 11:36 a.m. CST

    So you think the acting will improve...

    by REVENGE_of_FETT

    With a camera the size of a Volkswagon that sounds like a 747 launching careening towards them? But that will be far less intrusive than....shooting with a completely silent and not much larger camera?</p><p>I refuse to battle an unarmed man in a battle of wits.

  • April 21, 2010, 12:02 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    "The thing is a bitch to park. And don't even get started on the gas mileage."<br><br>Where the Tumbler can't park, it creates parking space by blowing up the obstacle. Besides, you think Batman would park the tumbler in a curb and leave? He does search and destroy tactics, he doesn't leave the car in one place and return hours later, as if he went to the movies.<br><br>Secondly, you think BILLIONAIRE Bruce Wayne is the kind of person who would worry about the price of gas? Beside,sthe Tumbler is gasoline-electric hybrid, it can go fully electric, that's how it can cruise on stealth silence mode, as we saw in the highway chase in BATMAN BEGINS.

  • April 21, 2010, 12:03 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    What kind of Volkswagen? The VW Fox are pretty small.

  • April 21, 2010, 12:05 p.m. CST

    3D is the moment's fad.

    by AsimovLives

    Sure, people are likign 3D. Because suddently a massive movie was in 3D and was alowed to be watched at a quantity never before. But it will die out. It's a fad. But wait until many crappy movies made in 3D will show up, and people will start to equate 3D with crappy bad movies using a technological gimmick as a clutch for bad story.

  • April 21, 2010, 12:08 p.m. CST

    I'd rather have IMAX over 3D

    by AsimovLives

    If i had to chose, i'd go with IMAX. While a movie like AVATAR sure provided spectacle, the most amazing images i ever seen in my life as projected on a big screen came from IMAX, not 3D. IMAX, far better then 3D, gives me a sense of beign there. I findthe 3D perspective trickery a bit distracting, while i find IMAX truly submersive. Give me IMAX any day of the week. I think nolan and pfister are into something, and they are really smart dudes.

  • April 21, 2010, 12:11 p.m. CST

    Listen Up:

    by Chadley BeBay

    The Dark Knight was a masterpiece. YOU FUCKING UNDERSTAND THAT? Bale was think his voice sucks? YOU SUCK! the last scene of Batman talking about how the Joker can never win??! A guy in a Batsuit actually ACTING and ACTING WELL is an acheivement of massive proportions. Naysayers: there is not one action/adventure movie of the last 25 years that holds a candle to the Dark Knight so go FUCK. YOUR. SELVES.

  • April 21, 2010, 12:20 p.m. CST

    Chadley BeBay

    by SithMenace

    I love your subtlety.

  • April 21, 2010, 12:28 p.m. CST

    I'm also not saying Batman 3 SHOULD be filmed in 3D

    by REVENGE_of_FETT

    I will leave that up to the director to decide. I just take issue with the idea that 3D is a "gimmick" that will fade out fast when every indication is the exact opposite. People said the same shit about Blu-ray not very long ago and look how that turned out.

  • April 21, 2010, 12:38 p.m. CST

    Now it's Batman 3, in 3D?!?

    by Stalkeye

    Check please.

  • April 21, 2010, 12:48 p.m. CST

    Aspect ratios

    by film11

    These guys care so much about how the films are seen, they don't even bother to at least make HBO show TDK in 2.35:1!!!

  • April 21, 2010, 12:53 p.m. CST

    Toonol - as I said before

    by m_reporter

    Movie's are already shot to convey a sense of three-dimensionality, not only for the visual style of the picture, but also for storytelling purposes. Putting a 3rd dimension in to play is only for a visual effect. It serves absolutely no other purpose, hence it's a gimmick. <p> Sound and color as well are used for storytelling purposes, and I don't mean only dialogue, but sound effects and music. Color on the other hand greatly influences the mood of the picture, so putting a dramatic scene in a dark green room with minimal lighting has a completely different effect than placing it in a bright yellow room.<p> 3D technology serves absolutely zero storytelling purpose. Only real reason to use it is to maximize profit on the novelty of the fad.

  • April 21, 2010, 1:04 p.m. CST

    Chadley BeBay

    by HapaPapa72

    It was alright. Bat's voice didn't bother me. But just like in 1989, by the time the Joker's hanging by a bat-thread off a tall building, I just kinda got tired of hearing his forced cackling laughter. The Dark Knight was very,very good. But not life-changing. Sorry. Time to go fuck myself, I guess. Good thing I'm a cheap date.

  • April 21, 2010, 1:19 p.m. CST

    the complains about Batman's voice in TDK and BB is dumb

    by AsimovLives

    I'm sorr,y but there is no other way i can put this, but to say that the complains about Batman's voice in BATMAN BEGINS and THE DARK KNIGHT are not very smart. I mean, how would he talk to his preys, with his normal voice? Him, Gotham's most well known and recognizable person? Nobody would ever be unto him, ever? You kidding me?<br><br>As for his batvoice with Fox and Rachael, that's Wayne inhabiting his batman persona. That he retains character while dressed is a good idea. What would happen if he dropped it, but somebody else, an enemy, eve-dropped on them? If anything, Wayne as Batman still using his batvoice is a great precautionary movie and attention to detail. There is only one single sequence in the two movies where Wayne as Batman droppes his voice and goes to his normal voice, and that happens in BATMAN BEGINS when he's alone with Rachael in the Tumler and she dozzes off under the effects of the poison and Wayne panics. The only time, and even then, it's in a controlable enviroment where nobod else but Raachael could hear him.<br><br>Like everything else, the Batvoice is another intelligent element in the nolan's Batman movies that makes them so great.

  • April 21, 2010, 1:21 p.m. CST

    Time will make THE DARK KNIGHT...

    by AsimovLives

    ... even better then it already is.

  • April 21, 2010, 1:22 p.m. CST

    Asi, you really think the Tumbler is realistic?

    by Continentalop

    For a guy who is supposedly trying to be stealthy and do search and destroy missions like you said? The thing calls attention to it like no other object. When undercover cops do raids they don't pull up in a huge tank because it will alert the bad guys. Well, what the fuck do you think that thing does? <P> The tumbler was Goyer (and maybe Nolan) trying to do the tank from TDKR thinking it was cool. Sorry, cool isn't always cool. It makes Batman implausible, which is what this series was trying to avoid. <P> Like I said above, I don't mind the idea of Batman holding on to the tumbler for certain emergency situations, like when he needs to make a big raid or be an armored escort like in TDK, but to actually drive around in that thing on patrols (like they insinuated in TDK when he captures Scarecrow) is like US Special Forces guys always traveling by tanks. Sorry, but you've just lost the element of surprise and every body in a five mile area knows where you are.

  • April 21, 2010, 1:25 p.m. CST

    Amen to that!

    by HardSteel

    3-D is just so....underwhelming.

  • April 21, 2010, 1:29 p.m. CST


    by m_reporter

    One word for you: suspension of disbelief.<p> The tumbler might not be realistic, but then again neither is a man who dresses up like a bat and successfully fights the underworld almost single-handedly.

  • April 21, 2010, 1:31 p.m. CST

    Continentalop, should Batman drive a Prius then?

    by SithMenace

    To blend in? It makes sense for Batman to drive the tumbler because it can do things no other vehicle in Gotham can do. Does it stand out? Yes, but the other features more than make up for that.

  • April 21, 2010, 1:32 p.m. CST


    by Continentalop

    Read Ace's post, He is clearly insinuating psychosis as some sort of psychological problem with Batman, as if he is partly insane. <P> Is Nolan and Bale's Batman hurt? Traumatized? Yes, of course. But does he suffer from insanity or is he any way off his rocker? The Nolan universe insinuates he isn't. This isn't the Batman from Arkham Asylum cutting himself to keep his thoughts together, or enjoying being beaten on. This is a mentally healthy Batman making rational thoughts and decisions and understanding the consequences of his actions. Far from the "Batman with psychosis" that Ace was talking about. <p> And please don't tell me what words I don't understand. It is very condescending.

  • April 21, 2010, 1:36 p.m. CST

    m_reporter then why the use of 3D sound

    by ominus

    in the movies? why not stereo or only mono? why the THX,and the Dolby and the DTS? you say that sound serves the storytelling.does this include the 3D sound or is it just a gimmick and we can enjoy a movie the same with only mono/stereo sound in the cinema/home cinema?

  • April 21, 2010, 1:38 p.m. CST

    m_reporter, SithMenace

    by Continentalop

    Hey, you guys like the Tumbler. Fine. But I'm sorry, suspension of disbelief requires a certain level of plausibility. For me the Tumbler broke that plausibility, and once again this is a film series trying to make you believe a guy in a bat costume is plausible and realistic. <P> And SithMenace, the advantages of the Tumbler don't outweigh the disadvantages IMO. Batman is a Detective, which requires stealth and be unnoticed. Hardly words that fit the Tumbler's description. <P> Nolan has expressed he wanted to go back to the Batman as he first appeared in 1939-40, before Robin and all the camp. Well, the thing is Batman didn't have a Batmobile back then. His first car was a nondescript sedan. It was only AFTER he was accepted by the cops that he started driving around in a Batshaped car. <P> So, if you want to say in TDK it was plausible because Gordon and GCPD accepted and worked with Batman, then ok, I'll go with that. But to say the Tumbler was plausible in BB were he was still an outlaw vigilante and was doing hit and run missions, sorry. But the car didn't work for me.

  • April 21, 2010, 1:43 p.m. CST

    Batman should drive a Segway

    by BurnHollywood Nuh nuh nuh nuh nuh nuh nuh nuh<br> Nuh nuh nuh nuh nuh nuh nuh nuh<br> BATMAN!

  • April 21, 2010, 1:49 p.m. CST

    There's no such thing as 3d sound, sound is always stereo

    by m_reporter

    Directional sound on the other hand can be called a gimmick. THX, DTS and Dolby labels are more connected to the postproduction remix of the soundtrack, and that's where storytelling with sound usually happens.<p> I've got nothing against 3d, I enjoyed Avatar a lot and the 3d did enhance my experience. But that doesn't make the film itself any better. That's why it's a gimmick.

  • April 21, 2010, 1:59 p.m. CST


    by GhostofLesterBangs

    Yes, but think of 3D IMAX in the hands of a gifted director like Nolan. Could make AVATAR look like step one.

  • April 21, 2010, 1:59 p.m. CST

    The straight shit about 3D

    by Sonny_Williams

    It's here. It's not going away. This is not the 50's. What WILL go away, and the sooner the better, is the GIMMICKY USAGE of 3D by hacks who have nothing else to offer to get asses into seats. Right now everybody except Cameron is too much the kid with the new toy with 3D. They think every scene has to scream "Look, it's 3D, shit's coming at ya right out of the screen, ain't it GREAT?" No, it isn't great, it's SHIT! But too many of you are confusing misuse of technology with unnecessary technology. When a competent filmmaker puts together a great story with a great cast and crew and utilizes 3D to serve the scene and the story (as color, composition, sound design, and such do) this "gimmick" talk will go away. I remember when stereo sound first caught on and how misused it often was, calling attention to itself with "ping-ponging" from side to side for no damn reason, sonic placement of instruments in jarring juxtaposition just for the sake of constantly reminding the listener that hey, this is STEREO!!! These excesses didn't mean that stereophonic sound was nothing more than a gimmick though, likewise with 3D. Once everyone, filmmakers and audiences, is over the gee-whiz phase of this new toy and it's used for artistic value rather than "wow" factor, movies should be the better for it.

  • April 21, 2010, 2:07 p.m. CST

    It's cool continentalop, I was just joking anyway

    by SithMenace

    But for me the tumbler worked because it kept with one of the themes of Nolan's Batman, which was Batman having the advantage by having access to advanced military prototypes. Missiles, stealth mode and a hidden motorcycle imo definitely offer an advantage over a sedan. <p>Any disadvantage from the tumbler attracting attention isn't really a problem anyway since he's a ninja. If he does park his car and people see and follow him, he's gonna lose them, so he can do his recon/detective work and get out of town. Not that unbelievable to me.

  • April 21, 2010, 2:48 p.m. CST

    m_reporter so you do agree that THX,DOLBY

    by ominus

    etc,are only gimmicks.because thats what i understood from what you said.

  • April 21, 2010, 2:57 p.m. CST

    sounds like a lot of people have to much ego

    by cloudrider`

    so this dude and nolan staked their choice with imax camera, and when cameron shot in 3d and the trend takes flight and stole nolan's imax thunder, he the 3d tech? <p> how small is his penis? i think dark knight becoming a huge hit has boosted his ego. spielberg, jackson, soderberg, cuaron, these guys thought cameron's 3d cameras are cool enough they're doing their next projects using it. nolan thinks he knows better than those guys? yeah right.

  • April 21, 2010, 3 p.m. CST

    3-D IS a fad, and not the latest

    by SithMenace

    Since everyone wants to mention innovations that stuck around, I'll bring up a few gimmicks that didn't, Sensurround, Smell-o-vision and Cinescope. Whether or not 3-D sticks around remains to be seen, but a few more movies with terrible 3-D like Clash of the Titans and it'll be yesterday's news.

  • April 21, 2010, 3:11 p.m. CST

    Glad some other pros see 3d for what it is

    by alienindisguise

    total fucking garbage! I hope they don't use it at all for the next Bats.

  • April 21, 2010, 3:17 p.m. CST

    pardon my sucky grammar above

    by cloudrider`

    let's face it, for a $185 million batman movie, the dark knight sure lacks spectacles. i mean, a flipping truck? that's the best to come out of nolan's imagination in terms of action? <p> talk to cameron on how to stage cool action scenes. dissing his 3d when you're just a freshman in the major league only makes you sound like punk ass. heck, i love darkknight and hate avatar, but his comment just irriates me.

  • April 21, 2010, 3:20 p.m. CST

    clash of titans wasn't shot on 3d

    by cloudrider`

    there's real 3d and then there's conversion from 2d. learn to know the difference.

  • April 21, 2010, 3:47 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Completly realistic, maybe not, but plausible, hell yeah. One day, a vehicle like that could be made. Actually, it could be made today, if a real function to it was to be found. Hell, even the movie says as much, it was a prototype which was developed but nobody saw a real praticality to it, until Bruce Wayne decided to use it as his crime prevention vehicle to kick ass.

  • April 21, 2010, 3:56 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Having a psychosis doesn't make you mad. Mad people might have psychossi, but so do too people who are otherwise mentally welthy. don't get distracted with the fact that the words psychosis and psychotic are similiar just because both are based on the greek word "pyche". Psychosis just means a psychological problem, which is unsoluvable and can be debilitating. Shall i give you an example? Consider keptomania. People who suffer form it can't help but steal stuff, even against their better judgement. They can barely control it, if at all, and it will never go away. Another example is the perpectual loser, people who can have been handled the best cards in their life, and get great chances, and yet they constantly blow it, they can never get ahead, despiste help, starting with an advance and good luck. Most lost cases ar epeople who suffer from some form of psychosis.<br><br>Again, psychosis is not psycopathy. Bruce Wayne can be characterizwed as an individual with a psychosis, his unresolved trauma of the death of his parents that informs everything he is and does, directly and indirectly. And don't take to heart what i said about thsi subject. So what if i point this out? i hjave learn lots of stuff about all things Batman from you, it's the least i can do to point out some misundestandings you migth have about this subject like psychosis. Take it easy, dude. Take this in the spirit of friendship that it is, OK?

  • April 21, 2010, 4 p.m. CST

    The 3D of CLASH OF THE TITANS was ass!

    by AsimovLives

    The floating hair! The double faces! It was terrible. and in the words of Christian Bale, fucking distracting! It didn't helped that the story of the movie, as it is, was pretty dumb too. The movie didn't knew what it wanted to be. Only good thing in it was Gemma Arterton in her glorious prettiness.

  • April 21, 2010, 4:08 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Let me just say this, until THE DARK KNIGTHa, nobody had ever flipped a 18 wheels truck. Nobody evne knew how to achieve it without CGI. And they did achieved it without CGI... ON A REAL CHICAGO STREET.<br><br>Actually, one of the reasons why the movie cost so much was that the street scenes, with some few exceptions, was shot on location. And then there's the lots of CGI. And you are asking, what CGI? EXACTLY! You can't see it, it's in the most unexpected scenes, and for the vast majority of the time it's compeltly invisible, and that's the most expensive kind there is. And let me tell you, TDK has spectacle indeed. The best kind. The kind that is not distracting you from a bad story. TDk is one of the rare movies made this days where the spectacle is there to help tell the story, instead of replacing it. And thus, some people fail to see it. But it's there, if your deal in watching the movie is to watch a story, instead of special effects.<br><br>Another reason was the way Nolan used Imax, specially on the action scenes, which had not be done before on such a scale before and with such complexity, and with all the aparatus that it enthailed. And that costs. A lot. A hell of a lot.

  • April 21, 2010, 4:09 p.m. CST

    i think i might have one of my eyes removed

    by slappy jones

    i am sick of walking around seeing everything all gimmicky and shit.

  • April 21, 2010, 4:15 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Call me a conservative, but i think IMAX with 3D is over-kill. I think it would produce some kind of visual stimulus saturation that would hurt more then help the viewing experience. I found AVATAR's 3D tiring. The movie was just too long to be watched for such a long time in 3D. And i even had a intermission break in my theater, and still i found the experience exausting more then thrilling. IMAX, howeve,r i find it a thrilling way to view something, specially if it shows REAL IMAGES PHOTOGRAPHY. Full CGI images in IMAX, however, gives me motionsickness. But real life images never bothered me in Imax, quite the contrary.<br><br>And then there's one side benefit for the bulkiness of the Imax camera aparatus: it prevents filmmakers to shot an action scene, by it a fight or a car chase, in shaky-o-cam. It means that the filmmaker has to reply on storytelling skills to pull one of those off. Which Nolan did fantastically in the truck chase scene.

  • April 21, 2010, 4:19 p.m. CST

    AsimovLives, read Aces post

    by Continentalop

    He isn't using psychosis as a description of someone just suffering from trauma, he is insinuating Bruce Wayne is not all there (he brings up "What kind of man would dress up as a Bat" line). In that context, he is using the word psychosis to suggest a psychotic nature. That is what I am responding to. <P> The dictionary defines psychosis as: a mental disorder characterized by symptoms, such as delusions or hallucinations, that indicate impaired contact with reality. <p> 2. any severe form of mental disorder, as schizophrenia or paranoia. <p> Nolan and Bale's Batman do not suffer from any of these problems, he might be traumatized but he is not delusional or crazy, so he is not suffering from psychosis.

  • April 21, 2010, 4:19 p.m. CST

    And another thing...

    by AsimovLives

    ... anybody who thinks Nolan can't do action scenes is off the mark like Michael Bay ws when he made Pearl Harbor. And that's a lot, baby. If people think that a good action scene is what Bay does, then forget it, you know nothing of the subject. What Nolan knows about makign action scenes, Bay will never ever learn. Nolan is ahead of such hacks as Bay as the Everest Mountain is taller then an anthill. What Nolan knows Bay will never know.<br><br>Nolanis evne one of the rare filmamkers, togethe rwith Paul Greengrass, who actually understand the porpose and utility of the shaky-o-cam for the porpose of the story instead of a gimmick to disguise poorly staged and poorly developed and though out action shit.<br><br>People who claim that Nolan can't film an action scene don't know what they are talking about. Nolan's action scenes are way over their heads.

  • April 21, 2010, 4:21 p.m. CST

    AsimovLives, you got to agree

    by Continentalop

    Nolan isn't very good at fight scenes. Has he made horrible fight scenes? No. But he hasn't elevated the fight scenes in Batman to the same level as some of the other action pieces. I am hoping in the next movie he corrects that and figures out a way to make an interesting fight scene.

  • April 21, 2010, 4:24 p.m. CST

    I do know the difference cloudrider

    by SithMenace

    but it was advertised as 3-D and presented in 3-D and was terrible. Do you really think the average filmgoing public is going to learn the difference and make decisions based on that? So think about what you're saying before acting like yet another ignorant dick on AICN<p>Btw, movies can't get by on spectacle alone. TDK had three things Avatar could only dream of, interesting characters, a good story and oscar winning performances.

  • April 21, 2010, 4:30 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Well, obvious, Bruce Wayne is not all there. He's not a normal person indeed. But it helped him function. It made him to become Batman. Now, is Wayne insane? In that i agree with you, never once Nolan and Bale perform Bruce Wayne as a mad man, or a psycho at the brink of losing his shit. and in fac,t i think one of the porposes of THE JOKER is exactly tha,t it's as if the Brother nolans are saying "this is how a psychotic in this universe really looks like". It makes Bruce Wayne off the hook on the mental madness department.<br><br>But still, the movie doesn't shy away from the notion that Bruce WAyne has issues. He does have a psychosis. Which causes him to do soemthign that's botherline immoral and compeltly illegal, and that using a surveilance that completly exposed people's privacy. That Wayne is not mad is that he decides to leave the final fate of the machine, and it's use to one of the most moral men in the story. The destructuion of the device is an echo of what Harvey Dent said before about the role of a roman dictator in ancient rome, that of a man whose job was not a reward but a moral obligation with full on responsabilites, and one which after it's usefulness in a momentof crisis, was taken away. In that, Batman does the same thing that the ancient roman dictators did, most notably in the case of Cincinnatus, the very roman dictator from which the american city of Cincinnati is named after (too bad the movie doesn't name the clear historical example of the moral roman dictator who viewed his dictatorship as a duty and not a goal).<br><br>The beauty of THE DARK KNIGHT, combined with BATMAN BEGINS, is that it's filled to the grills with details, some more subtle, all there, that gives the movie a profoundity and intelligence that has never been seen befoe in acomic book movie. Or in most other genres, for that matter. When Nolan says that Blade Runner is his favorite movie and the one that most influences his movies, he's not making lip service, he's for real. It shows.

  • April 21, 2010, 4:37 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Nolan is exceletn at fight scenes. I rather watch any fight scene form any of his moveis then any bulslhit i see form most so-called expert action filmmakers. The thing most people keep on mising the pointis that the fight scene sin his Batman movies, specially in BATMAN BEGINS, are done from a specific perspective. The perspective of Batman's targets, who are never aware where the blow came from. And it's as it should. It reflects the disorientation the people who get attacked by Batman experience. The final fight between Wayne and Ducard represents the fight of two impossible fighters, people so up in the skilsl of martial arts that no man alive could match it. that's the point, that no mortal man could see clearly what this two are doing to each other. Batman in BB and TDK is portaited as the ultimate ninja, a man of impossibly skills and speed and even strengh, so much so that no actor or stunt could ever make justice.<br><br>One of the interesting thing in TDK is that, since Batman no longer as an opponent as skilled as Ducard, the movie tones down Batman. He's still the best fighter in the whole of the town, but this time we can see what he does to the thugs, we see the punches clearly. And still nobody can match him, except by cuning, like the servian crimelord's wardogs, which The Joker reuses in the climax to great effect. Actually, TDK is one of the few mvoies that actually portaits realistically how dangerous dogs like those really are. They are extremely fast, as in, very very very fast. Most movies underestimate how fast dogs are, but not TDK. Of all things, a comic book movie.

  • April 21, 2010, 4:43 p.m. CST

    And Continentalop

    by AsimovLives

    another thing i thank Chirstopher Nolan is that all his figth scebnes, and action scenes, are there to advance the story. No "stop the movie to show off an action/figth scene". All action and fight scenes are there to advance the plot, and serve no other propose. While looking glorious. This is what seperates Nolan from the little boys like JJ Abrams, Michael Bay, Zack Snyder, John Moore, and all other hacks.<br><br>For Nolan, action serves the story, it doesn't replace it. And that's how it should. If you want to watch a fight for tintitaltion, go watch a girlfight between two babes. I go watch a Nolan movie for a great story told by an expert at filmmaking, including the Batman's.

  • April 21, 2010, 4:49 p.m. CST

    I hope we get wayne manor and the batcave back

    by MariusXe

    and the real batman from the comics! I mean bales bat in the first two was a work in progress because both are essentially year one. in the third movie i want to see the transition from the beginner bat to the stone cold, almost inhuman, never surprised, never outmatched and outwitted, never joking batman we know from the comics. the guy who basically prepares for everything.

  • April 21, 2010, 4:52 p.m. CST

    and here i thought shaky-cam is a gimmick

    by cloudrider`

    i dont know, but i like my actions done old school with well composed shots well edited, ala john woo or cameron. in the best of their films, the actions never distract the story either, they are the extensions of it. nolan is far far from being an accomplished action director. and paul greengrass?? because he shoots from all angles and splices them all? <p> flipping an 18 wheelers is not an original nor an exciting idea. after seeing cars being flipped all the time, seeing an 18 wheelers doing the same thing is just tedious. just because it's never been done life doesnt it's a cool idea. cameron at least always try to come up with something exciting when staging his actions, and some of them done practical as well, with no cgi. for a $185 million, if the biggest set piece is a truck getting flipped, then you really have no imagination for action. and yes, after two bat films he still cant stage nor shoot fight scene well.

  • April 21, 2010, 5 p.m. CST

    $185 million for a truck flip and street scene?

    by cloudrider`

    forrest gump has more crowd scenes and bigger action and more invisible cgi and it cost only a fraction of what nolan got. really... i cant see the money on the screen. some directors are very good about showing the money on he screen. nolan is not one of them.

  • April 21, 2010, 5 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    It's only a gimmick if it replaces the story instead of telling it. It's a gimmick if there is no real porpose behind it other then followuing a fad or disguising stroy shortcomings. The shaky-cam in BATMAN BEGINS is integral to the telling of the tale. It serves a deliberate and thoughful porpose. Me, i like some clearly shown fights too,i prefer themthat way. However, if shaky-cam is used with a porpose, like in BATMAN BEGINS or THE BOURNE SUPREMACY or SEVEN or SCHINDLER'S LIST, then it's good stuff.<br><br>There are no bad filmmaking techniques, only bad filmmakers.

  • April 21, 2010, 5:04 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    "$185 million for a truck flip and street scene?"<br><br>Don't be daft. Think of what was shown, how much was shown, in the movie IN REAL LOCATIONS, and in how many cities, and in how many countries. You think filmmaking shooting is cheap? It is if you are making movies guerrilla style without paying permition, stealing shots and running from the cops. Otherwise, it's VERY FUCKING EXPESIVE. But it payed off, aestetically, in the telling of the story, in the appreciation of the audiences, and finally, in the box office.

  • April 21, 2010, 5:06 p.m. CST

    let's also not forget LOTR cost half that

    by cloudrider`

    and it has to create an entire world, quite a few cultures worth of props and costumes, visible and invisible cgi, tons of environment and army and monsters, big set pieces, and i'm talking BIGGER than an 18 wheelers. and still, it cost only half of nolan's budget. or maybe you'd use new zealand currency as an excuse? if you want to do that, please refer to my previous post regarding forrest gump. some can show the money, some cant.

  • April 21, 2010, 5:19 p.m. CST

    real locations

    by cloudrider`

    you kept bringing up that point as if most hollywood movies are not shot in real locations. they are. and many have crowd scenes, in busy streets, and many dont cost that much, with a flipping truck included or not. dark knight is a busy film, but it's busy because of the story(which i love), not because of scale in terms of location and set. a $185 million movie it does not look.

  • April 21, 2010, 5:26 p.m. CST

    shaky-cam is a gimmick

    by cloudrider`

    michael bay does it. tony scott does it. and if you slip a greengrass's or nolan's shaky scene into bay's or scott's film you wont even know the difference. why? because the aesthetic is the same. there's only ONE way to do a shaky scene after all. just SHAKE and SHAKE your camera and shoot from all angles, then edit them while your ass is burning on fire. <p> whatever happened to good old fashioned choreographed shots well edited? any action scene john woo did in hardboiled is more beautiful more artful, more exciting more kinetic more adrenaline pumping than anything i've seen in the bourne series.

  • April 21, 2010, 5:32 p.m. CST

    AsimovLives, there is always room for improvement

    by Continentalop

    Even Jordan during his hayday and Tiger Woods don't rest on their laurels. You are a big Nolan fan and are bias, so that prevents you from saying anything other than it is perfect. But nothing is perfect - even Citizen Kane (the makeup on Joseph Cotton for example when he is old). <p> Maybe the fight scenes worked for you and the majority of people, but I think we can say that is the one area where Nolan can try something different and expand on. I think in a third movie if he only shows the scenes through the eyes of his opponents it will feel old and tired. It already feels that way for me because I also think the fight scenes prevent me from finding this Batman plausible. I don't think they show me enough to make me believe he is skilled enough to take on a bunch of armed guys with only his fist and a couple of gadgets. <p> I don't want fight scenes for the sake of it, but some of the fight scenes in SHERLOCK HOLMES and final fight scene in LETHAL WEAPON both reflect something of the protagonist character. I would love to see something similar in the next Batman movie, other than just KFM and say "ooh, he is tough."

  • April 21, 2010, 5:40 p.m. CST

    That about sums it up.

    by Gozu

    I think that enough projects are shot on the Genesis, Viper, and RED without people knowing/caring that they can get away with it, but he's absolutely right about film still being a finer medium. As for 3D, yup, it's for fucking amusement park rides and I got so much more out of the IMAX in "Dark Knight" than the XBox graphics of "Avatar."

  • April 22, 2010, 1:24 a.m. CST


    by MandrakeRoot

    You sound like the biggest fucking douche-bag ever. People promoting the fact that 3D is a gimmick are the people who don't get it. When used properly the potential is huge, and cinema will be a far more immersive, personal experience. It's in the baby stages, and Avatars success means movies already filmed had 3D shoehorned in there to make extra money, so yes, it's gonna look like shit. But the people have spoken, they want to see films in 3D. When the technology becomes more familiar to directors, it will be utilized to it's full potential. To say it's a gimmick is fucking idiotic and shows a complete lack of understanding on the subject. To TDK - which is a "good" film at best - was more immersive then Avatar is perhaps one of the stupidest things ever posted by one of this sites contributors. It's like saying Burtons Batman is grittier then Nolans. FUCKING. DUMB.

  • April 22, 2010, 1:26 a.m. CST

    Oh and Cameron > Nolan

    by MandrakeRoot

    Let's see if Nolans sci-fi movie is a zit on the ass of T1, T2, and Aliens. Nolan has made some fine films, Cameron has made some of the greatest ever, and everytime he releases a movie, he re-invents the wheel. What would TDK have been without Ledgers performance (and untimely death)? A decent rip-off of Heat.

  • April 22, 2010, 1:44 a.m. CST

    You can count on Noland and crew

    by Kamikaze_red

    Films made for 3D and actual movies are 2 very different things. One's a cheap way to enhance an already established art form and the other is the artform itself.

  • April 22, 2010, 2:17 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    You are wrong again. The LOTR ring movie that costed less then 100 millions was THE FEOWSHIP OF THE RING... ALONE. You know how much costed THE RETURN OF THE KING itself? About 200 millions. For that movie alone. Think about it. While the inicial pricetag for the 2 LOTR was indeed something close to 200 millions, the budget was expanded after the sucess of the first movie, when more nd more stuff was shot for the next two moviesand the special effect sequences were expanded. Hell, even Peter Jackson says so himself in the making off.<br><br>And beleive it or not, those huge world are cheapper to create in a studio then in real life locations. And the movie was made even cheapper by beign shot in New Zeland, it cut the pricetag by about 1/3rd. Shooting in USA is very, very expensive. Why you think so many TV shows are shot in Toronto, even though the story is set in New York?

  • April 22, 2010, 2:20 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Christopher Nolan has a career made of movies which are more then just fine movies. This is not to cast aspersion on Cameron, but you know, two goods do not a bad make. Cameron is great, and so is Nolan. And frankly, as things are now, i'm far more interested in watching a new Nolan movie then a Cameron.

  • April 22, 2010, 2:29 a.m. CST

    Ace of Wands

    by AsimovLives

    "where does the idea that Batman was using it for hit and run raids in Batman Begins come from? I think that it only has three major scenes; when Wayne first tries it out in applied sciences; when Batman uses it to rescue Rachel from Arkham (Gordon's expression on seeing it, "Ive gotta get me one of those!" and the Police having to give the Black Tank description indicates that it hasn't been seen in action before); and the end jump into the narrows and Gordon's driving of it."<br><br>You have asnwered your own question there, friend. In apost above, i said that Batman used the Tumbler for search and destroy type of actions. Which you called hit and runs, which is close. I never said sneaking or stealth (though the tumbler has a form of stealth). Search and destroy actions, which today are called SHOCK AND AWE, are not ment to be sutble, but to do a forceful attack that suprises the adversary and take advantage of the confusion to take them down. Grat example in real life was the infantry attacks by helicopter that were done on the villages suspected of VC activity in Vietnam. Batman does something similiar with his Tumbler in the two Batman movies, he strikes suddently and with force, creating confusion among his foes and taking advantage of it. When he decides to go subtle, he doesn't use the Tumbler. But the Tumbler does have a stealth mode, as seen in BATMAN BEGINS, when in the highway and to shake lose the heli survailance and the cruisers, he cuts all lights and goes on a silent mode with it's electric engine, thus becaming quite silent. Have you ever driven an electric car? Or an gas-elecric hybrid, for that matter? They are extremely quiet, very silent. And with lights cut out, a car at night is nearly invisible. and you will notice thatinthe scene,the highway has no illumination except of the cars' own lights. Have you ever driven at night on an unilluminated stretch? Even cars with ldim lights are hard to notice, much less one that has the lights cut out. Think about it. Nolan certainly did.

  • April 22, 2010, 2:35 a.m. CST

    Ace of Wands

    by AsimovLives

    Wait a minute, was your post that i cut and pasted a reply to somebody. Becasue i read soem of your psots above and it seems you made an argument similiar to mine. Seems that in all things Nolan's Batman, we are in much agreement. Tell me if i'm misreading your posts, please.<br><br>As for our estemed Continentalopb friend, soembody who i admire his intelligence and knowledg,e he does admire, technically, the Nolan Batman movies, but he does have a sore elbow about them in that they do not reflect exactly his vision of what a Batman movie should be like. This is why he can conflict with people who like Nolan's Batman movies even though he likes them himself. I would evne say he conflcits mroe wth the people like you and me who love the Nolan's Batman movies then those who bash them. Because the later, he seems to not give a rat's ass.

  • April 22, 2010, 2:35 a.m. CST

    And yes, Continentalop, i know you are here

    by AsimovLives

    How are you, friend?

  • April 22, 2010, 4:09 a.m. CST


    by carraway

    what else did he not say?

  • April 22, 2010, 4:19 a.m. CST

    Asimovlives...I agree with you about the voice thing

    by thatswhatshesaid

    Some dude on TV was complaining about it right after the movie came out and how silly it was. But all I could think of was how silly it is that no one knows Clark Kent is Superman because of glasses.

  • April 22, 2010, 5:18 a.m. CST

    Ace of Wands

    by AsimovLives

    I agree. From the movie,s one has the idea that Batman's use of of The Tumbler is restricted to a specific porpose, an dit's not a all around transportation. Remember in BATMAN BEGINS, when Batman is poisoned by the Scarecrow, it's Alfred who rescue him IN HIS LIMO! Batman didn't jumped to the tumbler and let it go on auto-pilot to the batcave. Which means, he didn't go there in the Tumbler, which means, he doesn't use it all the time.<br><br>One thing that makes me laugh about people complaining about The Tumbler but praising the shit out of Burton's Batman batmobille is that the later was the most impratical car in all matters. The prodcution of Batman Begins constructed a Tumbler that could be drivable but also could curve in speed. When the tumbler curves, it's the actual vehicle, it's not CGI. In Burton's movies, the batmobille could one go straigh ahead, they need trickery and special effects to make it look like it did a curve. The desing was also inpratical like hell. The movie itself acknowledges that, when Batman, running from the cops, needs to throw an harpoon to a streetlamp so it can help the batmobille make a circle from inertia and do a fast curve. It's pathetic!<br><br>The Tumbler itself and the way Wayne gets his hands on it is one of those elements that proves how smart and thoughful the movie is.

  • April 22, 2010, 5:57 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    The thing that both amuses and upsets me about the complains about Batman's voice is that in both BATMAN BEGINS and THE DARK KNIGHT he uses it in a limited capacity and in specific scenes. But in WATCHMEN, Rorsharch speaks with an even raspier voice ALL THE TIME, but nobody complains and clal the voice stupid. And he speaks with it all troughout the movie without breaks. If this is not hypocrisy, i don't know what to call it. Me, i have no complains bout the voices in those two characters in those two movies because they fit the characters. In the words of Christian Bale, what's so fucking hard to understand? What don't fucking they understand?

  • April 22, 2010, 7:19 a.m. CST

    The Batmobile

    by MorganLeafy

    Burton’s Batmobile was slender with a low center of gravity. Nolan’s Batmobile was big, clunky with a high center of gravity. Ergo Burton’s Batmobile can take turns better. Do Formula One cars look like the Tumbler? You can argue about the movies (BTW Burton’s version was better) but there’s no arguing about that.

  • April 22, 2010, 9:16 a.m. CST

    The action of TDK:

    by REVENGE_of_FETT

    First of all, a movie is based on STORY and TDK had an EXCELLENT story! But this idea that all TDK had for action was a fucking truck flip is completely ridiculous. So here's a list of the action in TDK:</p><p>1)Opening bank robbery. The movie OPENS with smashing out a window and zip-lining to a rooftop, that's the opening fucking shot! A shootout, smashing a bus through a FUCKING BANK. Wow, sound slike some big action there, and a great fuckign story too!</p><p>2)Parking garage shootout and fight between multiple Batmen wannabes, gangsters, Scarecrow's men, dogs and the real Batman. The Tumbler blowing shit up, jumping several stories and caving in the roof of a speeding van. Wow, this movie just started and so far it's fuckign PACKED with action! Hmmmmm.</p><p>3) Flying over Hong Kong, smashing through windows, fucking up every mother fucker that walks, blowing out the fucking windows and getting sucked out of the building on a damn cable attached to a plane. COOL FUCKING ACTION!</p><p>4) Shootout at the Mayor's speech.</p><p>5)HUGE chase scene involving a bazooka blowing up the Tumbler, which careens through lower whackom, turns into a bike which blows up cars left and right, smashes through shopping areas, careens down alleys, flips the truck, fells a chopper, etc.</p><p>6) Lamborghini gets smashed protecting car.</p><p>7) MASSIVE hospital explosion.</p><p>8) Fight at Dent's fundraiser leading to Rachel dangling off highrise.</p><p>9) High speed chase to save Rachel and Dent leading to a massive warehouse explosion.</p><p>10) Batman beating the shit out of Joker in the interrogation room.</p><p>11) Batman taking out the SWAT guys.</p><p>I probably missed a few things in there, but there is TONS of action in TDK, and it all feeds into an excellent story.</p><p>Anybody bashing TDK is someone who cries while masturbating because they're living a miserable fucking existence. FACT MOTHER FUCKER!

  • April 22, 2010, 10:28 a.m. CST


    by gotilk

    Beaks cannot see 3d. A fad? Jesus, look around a bit, will ya? It was a fad in previous decades. They got it right this time out. Get over it.

  • April 22, 2010, 10:29 a.m. CST

    and fassbinder79

    by gotilk

    Lady Gaga isn't a format, or even the way reality is experienced. She's a pop star. Analogy fail.

  • April 22, 2010, 10:31 a.m. CST

    You've lost.

    by gotilk

    Drop it, it's getting old now. I'm starting to feel guilty about reminding everyone.

  • April 22, 2010, 11:19 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Nonsense! Burton's Batmobille is build like a dragracer, and dragracer's chassis are the worst to make car curve. The car in the movie couldn't curve. The Tumbler CAN CURVE at speed. The Tumbler is no taller then most sport SUVs, and in fact the car's chassis was inspired by the Lamborghinis. And in case you ar enot aware, Lamborghini also makes SUVs. In fact, many tall cars are build to be able to make curves. I know that miht be a strange idea in USA, because there evne normal cars are not good at curving, but believe you me, elsewhere, cars are build to curve, including SUVs and assorted tall cars. Hell, if you watch carefully, in nolan's Batman movies you can see the front wheels suspension systems working that makes the Tumbler curve efficiently. Remember, Christopher nolan is english, he cames from a country where there's a long tradition of building sport cars and All-Terrain Vehicles that can both speed AND CURVE AT SPEED. Burton's batmobille was made by americans that forget that cars should also curve, and the only way they can make them is to build them very low so they can curve in white curbs at very low speeds.

  • April 22, 2010, 11:21 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Right on! You said it as it is, friend.

  • April 22, 2010, 12:11 p.m. CST

    The action in TDK resonates

    by SithMenace

    Because the setpieces aren't just in there to break monotany, the action is set up legitimately by the story, and for that reason pays off completely. Add to that characters that you can actually care about and it's no wonder the film is so rewatchable.

  • April 22, 2010, 12:36 p.m. CST

    FETT, would you say Batman's hand-to-hand fighting

    by Continentalop

    Was well done? That is the one area a lot of people find lacking in Nolan's Batman movies. And yes, that is a problem because through the history of the comic book character he has been shown to be a tough fighter and takes on guys with his fist. The comic book panels don't just show his arm flaying and bad guys falling down, they also show him using a wide variety of techniques and isolated some of his moves. <P> Batman had good action sequence, but the fight choreography was far from special. Rationalize that it was through his opponents POV, but if you are depicting the world's greatest hand-to-hand fighter on film, sometimes you have to demonstrate why he earned that title. <p> Like I said before, the hand-to-hand fight scenes in the one are very lacking in Nolan's films, and it is the one are where he can try something completely different next movie (well, different but still within the style of his movies).

  • April 22, 2010, 12:43 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    FRankly, the constant i have found in the people who complains about the figth scenes in Nolan's Batman movies are the type of people who think Michael Bay can do action. As such, i give such opinions little regard. Again, there's people whos eem they can't or are unwilling to see the obvious idea and methode behind the stylistic choices that Nolan did for his movies.<br><br>Again, i repeat, there are no bad filmmking style,s only bad filmmakers. Nolan knows how to use the shaky-cam. Most don't. The fight scenes in Nolan's Batman are integral to the story. They inform the character of Batman. Very few movies do that, it's unusual, and as such, people have became complacent about action scenes, and mistake Nolan's fight sceens as a wrong choice or bad filmamking. Which isn't. and what i find suprising is people, like you, not understanding this. Because for me, it's beyond obvious.

  • April 22, 2010, 12:46 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    Indeed. The actions cenes in nolan's Batman works the same way that the action scenes in Raiders Of The Lost Ark and Temple Of Doom did, which is, they inform about the character in ways that no dialogue scene could. nolan uses the action scenes in his Batman movies in ways which are just perfect for storytelling porposes. Nolan uses action scnes to help tell the tale. Only good filmmakers do that. And it seems, most movie audiences, even among the geekry, are not used to watch such filmmaking excelency as Nolan's. Which, frankly, is understandable, given the current scenario.

  • April 22, 2010, 1 p.m. CST

    And rationalize the Tumbler all you want

    by Continentalop

    It is still a ludicrous vehicle. The correct answer for anyone should have been (and i believe someone said it up above) that it looked cool and had cool action scenes with it. Because trying to come up an explanation how "realistic" the Tumbler is doesn't work. <P> Asi, have you ever been in the armed forces? The army? Then tell me, what kind of stealth ground tank exist? Tanks and large vehicles naturally bring attention to you, they are noticeable miles away, and people don't need to hear the tumbler's engine because it is so big people will feel the ground shake when it goes by. <P> The army and cops use big assault vehicles when they have the numbers to cut off any suspects or opponents from fleeing, because once the tank is brought into play, everyone will be aware of it. <P> And the idea you could just park that thing and walk away is absurd because people will notice a parked tank, and you have to drive it somewhere first before you can park so people will notice it. The Tumbler is completely inappropriate for a hero like Batman who operates on stealth. There is a reason special forces don't use tanks - because how do you perform a surprise mission with one in tow? <P> It is still a ludicrous vehicle. The correct answer for anyone should have been (and I believe someone said it up above) that it looked cool and had cool action scenes with it, and people were willing to suspend disbelief. Because trying to come up an explanation how "realistic" the Tumbler is doesn't work. <P> Asi, have you ever been in the armed forces? The Army (in Portugal I guess)? Then tell me, what kind of stealth ground tank exist? Tanks and large vehicles naturally bring attention to you, they are noticeable miles away, and people don't need to hear the Tumbler's engine because it is so big people will feel the ground shake when it goes by. <P> The army and cops use big assault vehicles when they have the numbers to cut off any suspects or opponents from fleeing, because once the tank is brought into play, everyone will be aware of it. Even when Batman went after Scarecrow it was a bad move to bring his Tumbler because the chances of someone (possible a look out or even a simple pedestrian) spotting it and blowing the stake out was incredible high. Why? Because the thing is a frigging tank, that is why! You notice those kinds of things (well, unless you are in a comic book movie). <P> And the idea you could just park that thing and walk away is absurd because people will notice a parked tank, and you have to drive it somewhere first before you can park so people will notice it. The Tumbler is completely inappropriate for a hero like Batman who operates on stealth if this is supposed to be set in the real world. There is a reason Special Forces don't use tanks - because how do you perform a surprise mission with one in tow? You can’t. <P> You can try and come up with a rational, and talk about how brilliant Nolan was to realize how realistic this thing is, but that wouldn’t be true because it isn’t. This is a comic book movie trying to look realistic but still pushing the edges of reality (because Batman by his nature is not truly realistic, he is only plausible), and once in awhile when that happens you make something that still seems plausible or realistic to some people but not to others. Obviously the vast majority of people were able to suspend disbelief about the Tumbler so Nolan made the correct decision about it, but don’t try to mock those who don’t find it realistic or believable because it isn’t no matter how hard you try to spin it that it is a feasible ground vehicle that could work in the real world. It is something you are either willing or able to accept on the grounds that this is just fiction or you are not, but you can’t say people have to buy it because it is "realistic" or would really work.

  • April 22, 2010, 1:09 p.m. CST

    Batman needs an E-Bike!

    by Dirk_The_Amoeba

    Like they have in China, zipping around Beijing, running fools over - without making a sound! <p> Stealth-E!

  • April 22, 2010, 1:23 p.m. CST

    Asi, stop being an asshat

    by Continentalop

    "...the constant i have found in the people who complains about the figth scenes in Nolan's Batman movies are the type of people who think Michael Bay can do action. As such, i give such opinions little regard." What kind of dickish backhanded insult is that? Did I ever bring up Michael Bay? No. Am I a fan of Michael Bay's -no. I just don't worship at the infallible altar of Christopher Nolan like you do, who has turned him into prophet who’s every edict and action must not be questioned. <p> Does Batman really look like he knows how to fight? Yes. Does he really look like he is the greatest fighter alive, someone who could really take down a bunch of thugs? No, not really, or at least they haven’t demonstrated that. All they have done is have every scene be him conveniently attacked where by swinging his arms around he is able to dispatch foes. He never has to use a wide range or variety of techniques, which is what you would expect from a man of Batman’s skill level. And that takes me out of the movie. <p> Batman feels like fight scenes done by and for people who know nothing about fighting. Fine if it works for you, but it doesn’t work for me because I know a little bit about fighting. <p> “as such, people have became complacent about action scenes, and mistake Nolan's fight sceens as a wrong choice or bad filmamking. Which isn't. and what i find suprising is people, like you, not understanding this. Because for me, it's beyond obvious.” <p> Never said bad filmmaking, I said he doesn’t know anything about fighting and how it really feels (especially if it was through the eyes of Batman which is what we want, because he is the character we are projecting ourselves into). And I would say you probably don’t know anything about an actual fight either, because for me, it's beyond obvious

  • April 22, 2010, 1:42 p.m. CST

    my god, the way you talk about nolan...

    by cloudrider`

    it's like he's the best filmmaker of all time or something. he's great with characters. he's great with drama. he's great writing dialogue. he SUCKS at directing action! this is coming from a guy who appreciates actions scenes in films like hardboiled, wild bunch, cameron films, frankenheimer films, etc etc. and absolutely hates shaky-cam blurry shit like in bay films. so you hate bay's blurry shit but nolan's brand of shaky n blurry shots are okay since batman is 'world class fighter'??? that's your excuse? that it's the "POV" of the opponent??? some excuse. everybody was a world class fighter in crouching tiger. all the fight scenes in there were shot clear and clean but that doesnt diminish our impression of the fighters. bruce lee was a world class fighter and there's no need to blur the shots to sell that point. in fact, with the wide and clear shots we can SEE clearly for ourselves how tough those guys are. no need for the camera to shake fast to try to tell us that batman is tough. let us judge it with our own eyes. <p> and FETT: yes, all those shootouts and chases and fights happened, but it's obvious the flipping truck was the money shot. it's marketed as the biggest set piece of the entire film, and it was. and anybody who has seen enough action films in their lifetimes would notice that a flipped truck is not that cool an idea. every b action movie has a flipped vehicle or two. it's the most generic idea you could think of in terms of action. <p> and asimov, i fail to see how you bringing up the fact that only the first LOTR cost 100 million challenged my point. does that first film cost half of dark knight's? does it look more expensive than dark knight? so? like i said, some directors know how to put the money on the screen, some just simply cannot. and nolan cannot.

  • April 22, 2010, 2:01 p.m. CST

    Nolan may not be the best at directing fights

    by SithMenace

    but the man knows how to construct a story and direct actors. His action scenes are among the best I've ever seen also. The whole sequence where the Joker is trying to kill Harvey Dent is one of the best action sequences I've ever seen. Is a truck flipping over really exciting? No. But a truck flipping over in the context of that scene was great. It was a sigh of relief, the first indication that this 20 minute rampage the Joker went on was over. It's all about context, and Nolan knows how to make something average matter in the right context.

  • April 22, 2010, 2:10 p.m. CST

    TDK Convoy scene = worth admission price

    by NotEnoughBiehn

    Personally I thought that was a fucking great action sequence, almost Spielberg level and one of the best in recent memory. One thing that stood out to me was the lack of score during that scene, which gave it a bit more realism an power.

  • April 22, 2010, 2:13 p.m. CST

    SithMenace I agree with you there

    by Continentalop

    But my point is that the fight scenes are the one area where Nolan can really improve in the next Batman film. However, some people think it is blasphemy to dare bring up the idea that there is room for improvement or that Nolan has any weaknesses or things he might not be great at.

  • April 22, 2010, 5:27 p.m. CST

    Yeah but the increase in quality from BB to TDK

    by SithMenace

    in the fight scenes was really apparent. I agree, Nolan's not perfect, but I'm able to overlook those things because everything I look for in a filmgoing experience he is able to do and then some. <p>But I did see a huge improvement in the fight scenes between the two movies, so hopefully it'll improve that much more for the third one.

  • April 22, 2010, 8:35 p.m. CST

    "spielberg level"???

    by cloudrider`

    you guys really know shit, dont you? for pete's sake. nothing nolan has done in terms of acton is of spielberg's quality. nothing. that convoy seen is so poorly staged and edited i couldnt make out where the the bad guys vehicles are in respect to the tumbler, or even how many vehicles are the baddies's. his direction of that chase scene is the same like his direction of the fight scenes. no geography, just quick cuts. that is the sign of a lousy action director. <p> "It was a sigh of relief, the first indication that this 20 minute rampage the Joker went on was over. " - of course it was. a good action sequence has a rhythm, it has ascent, coma, full stop, etc. that truck scene was the full stop. my beef is that full stop is not the most original idea. you want cool full stops or even cool comas, watch cameron or john woo or even wachowskis films.

  • April 22, 2010, 8:45 p.m. CST

    Ace of Wands

    by cloudrider`

    you're talking of that one fight scene in the dock where batman revealed himself in costume for the first time. yeah, that was done to highlight the bat's 'shadow'. the rest of the fight scenes in BB(the early fight in the burning temple, the fight with the ninjas in the narrows, the fight with ra's in the train), is the same quick cut shaky cam bullshit that are everywhere in dark knight's fight scenes.

  • April 22, 2010, 9 p.m. CST

    They might have improved from BB to TDK

    by Continentalop

    But TDK still has room for a lot more improvement in that area. One of the problems I have with Nolan's fight scenes is they seem to be done as just a necessity instead of feeling really important or integral to the film. They are shot just because Batman is a fighter who needs to use his fist and it is needed to show him beating people up just for the plot, not as an idea to truly show or reflect on anything of Batman's character. <P> One of the reasons it feels that way is because Nolan doesn't really do much besides just have Batman punch and kick people up. Maybe the KFM looked interesting in the first movie because we hadn't seen it before (and really didn't see much of it because the fight scene were done so choppy), but on it's own it makes Batman just look out of control and not much of a fighter. <P> Look at LETHAL WEAPON and even SHERLOCK HOLMES. I'm not saying those two movies are anywhere as good as TDK, but I will say they had better fight scenes, and also fights scenes that said stuff about the character and conveyed character traits. The styles, methods and techniques that Riggs and Holmes used said a lot about who they were. Both used a wide variety of styles of fighting which suggest that they have spent a lot of time studying, which then suggest how seriously they take what they do (compared to Batman who only functions as a tank). Plus boths style of fighting showed how the character went through life (Riggs total disregard for his own life was displayed in how he fought, and Sherlock treated each fight like a chess match). <P> The other problem with how Nolan did the fights was that he cuts them up way to match, making us never feel as if they are really happening. Fight scenes are a lot like musical dance numbers - the more you cut things up to make the person look like he can dance, the more it feels unreal. There is a reason why Fred Astaire and Gene Kelly, and Bruce Lee, had long takes when they did scenes to demonstrate that this was for real. <P> Now one of the reasons why I can understand Nolan did what he did was because Batman wasn't really challenged physically in either movie. Only Ra was a challenge to him, and he was armed with a sword. So maybe it might be nice if Batman faces a hood or thug who is a little more of a challenge for him. They used to do that all the time in the GA Batman which has been a big inspiration for Nolan, having Batman fight some tough Cossack, Hindi, Circus Strongman or Big Goon who works as the main villains henchman. So maybe if he fought one or two slightly tougher hoods than just the small fry he has been fighting, we could see Batman pushed and forced to demonstrate why he is so dangerous. <p> And I know some guys, just because it is Nolan, will say I am wrong, but like I said before maybe fight scenes are the one are Nolan can improve himself and do better in the next movie. Even FFC talked about how he had to improve himself from Godfather I to II, so I don't think it is blasphemous to say that about Nolan.

  • April 22, 2010, 11:02 p.m. CST

    Ace of Wands

    by Continentalop

    Weren’t you the guy who insisted Eli is an amoral serial killer in LET THE RIGHT ONE IN and that love had nothing to do with it, so I had to pull out the interview with the director where he explicitly state that it was a love story. Wasn’t that you? <P> So this will be no shock you are wrong again. Here is why: <p> 1) I never said shit about Nolan being bad with action - I thoroughly enjoy the chase scene in TDK and think it is well made - but that he can’t do FIGHT SCENES. So don’t try to paint me with a broad brush to score cheap points. <P> 2) Do you know what I do for a living? I’m a film editor. I cut movies for a living. Now you can say I am just some loser editor who hasn’t worked on any big movies, and yeah, that might be true, but you know what? That still means I know more and have more experience on movies than you, armchair critic, and I can tell you the fight scenes are not well done. I at least get to play on the field, you just sit back and watch it on TV and act like you know something. <P> 3) My opinion that the fight scenes are not great don’t hold any water? OK, how about critic David Edelstein who stated “He got away with the chopped-up fights in Batman Begins because his hero was a barely glimpsed ninja, coming at villains from all angles in stroboscopic flashes. There are more variables here, which means more opportunities to say “What the f--- just happened?”” ( <P> 4) OK, how about David Denby at the New Yorker? “...there are many fights that employ the devastating martial-arts system known as the Keysi Fighting Method. Christian Bale, who plays Bruce Wayne (and Batman), spent months training under the masters of the ferocious and delicate K.F.M. Unfortunately, I can’t tell you a thing about it, because the combat is photographed close up, in semidarkness, and cut at the speed of a fifteen-second commercial. Instead of enjoying the formalized beauty of a fighting discipline, we see a lot of flailing movement and bodies hitting the floor like grain sacks.” ( <P> 5) Still not good enough? How about Glen Erickson, film teacher and film editor, saying that Nolan is “ producing fight scenes composed of little more than a few fast shots where we can't see what's really happening. Instead of pulling back to display the action, the camera pushes in tight, producing shots that look like a close-up of an electric blender at work. Considering the fact that Batman almost never loses, it might make sense to turn his combats into blurred impressions, but it's a bit frustrating not to see what makes the Caped Crusader always come out on top. I mean, how effective can his exalted fighting skills be when he wears a mask that makes turning his head so difficult?” ( <P> 5) OK, so none of our opinion is as good as yours and your obviously superior knowledge of film and film editing and fight choreography. So let me add my personal experience of being a student of martial arts and practitioner of combat sports: how would Batman handle someone putting him in a chokehold? How about if he was taken to the ground? How about if he is mounted or if someone shoots for a takedown on him? How would Batman handle those situations? We don’t know because Batman conveniently just faces foes he can dispatch with punches and kicks, unlike in a real fight where a million variables pop up. And yes, I understand it is a comic book, but even in the GA comic book Batman would very throw out special techniques for special circumstances (”Batman uses the Japanese art of Ju-Jitsu to throw the opponent off of him using his own weight and leverage!”). The way it is done know is just to have a bunch of wild cuts and flailing limbs in the attempt to imply that Batman is an ass-kicker. Well, maybe it works, but it is kind of like watching Richard Gere dancing in CHICAGO - we know it is fake and not nearly as graceful or feels as real as Patrick Swayze in DIRTY DANCING. Same concept. <p> You like Nolan and TDK, I got no problem with that. He is obviously very talented. You can also say that PERSONALLY enjoy the fight scenes and have no problem with them. But when you try to insist that any one who has criticism of the fight scenes is completely wrong and has no basis, and even worst that they obviously “don’t get” how brilliant the fight scenes are, I disagree. You seem to be reading into the fight scenes and justifying them as if everything in Nolan’s TDK is beyond reproach. It is like talking to religious zealots who spin back words from the bible as proof that evolution didn’t exist or who pull out a banana as proof of Creationism. Sorry, but saying “brilliant sequence” and “economy of movement and kinetics” isn’t proof, it is just you sprouting off talking points that don’t really exist.

  • April 22, 2010, 11:14 p.m. CST

    Siding with Continentalop on this.

    by anonymoose

  • April 22, 2010, 11:18 p.m. CST

    I'm sorry, Conti, but this banana...

    by anonymoose

    ...proves that Nolan can direct fight scenes. <P>

  • April 22, 2010, 11:23 p.m. CST

    yeah, the fights scenes are different indeed

    by cloudrider`

    one happened inside the train, another had some explosions. one fight is one on one, the other is one against many thugs. yeah, different alright. moron. <p> i'm not talking about context of each scene, i'm talking about the style. and nolan's style for all his fight scenes are the SAME -> quick cuts + quick edits = blurry shit. <p> anyone notice this air of elitist superiority from these nolan fanatics, like if you like nolan you are way superior to all others? one criticizes nolan's directing style and he's branded a michael bay fan, or van damme fan. how about a fan of good old fashioned filmmaking, one that doesnt have to rely on cheap gimmick of shaking the camera like crazy to create tension? you dont like it when michael bay did it, but now that nolan did the same thing it's okay? alright, fanboys, take it up your ass some more since you like so much.

  • April 22, 2010, 11:26 p.m. CST

    Like a surgeon, 'Lop.

    by Subtitles_Off

    Cut that fish up and squeeze some lemon on it. I've had a craving for a little sashimi.

  • April 22, 2010, 11:32 p.m. CST

    "...take it up your ass some more...."

    by Cheeses_of_Nazareth

    since you like so much."<p>Your thinking of Blank....Blank takes it up the ass...

  • April 22, 2010, 11:33 p.m. CST


    by cloudrider`

    great post. some people just have no clue.

  • April 22, 2010, 11:36 p.m. CST

    I agree with Cloudrider...

    by Cheeses_of_Nazareth

    'Lop has the wisdom of Moses in a convienient mortal form...

  • April 22, 2010, 11:54 p.m. CST

    shaky cam + quick edits = blurry shit

    by cloudrider`

    was what i meant. quick cuts = quick edits, obviously.

  • April 23, 2010, midnight CST

    and i'm missing the blank, yes...

    by cloudrider`

    obviously. sorry.

  • April 23, 2010, 3:20 a.m. CST

    Re: the Batmobile

    by MorganLeafy

    Since this TB is apparently not dead allow me to reply. I just googled what a Le Mans car looks like and this is what I came up with : Well, I think the 1989 Batmobile looks a lot more like a Le Mans car than the Tumbler. There is a reason why they don’t use SUV’s in races: that’s because they are not as apt at taking turns as vehicles that are low to the ground (granted the Tumbler is pretty wide, but does also mean it’s slower). Furthermore, what is the matter with all the anti-American sentiment? You do realize that is an American site where we discuss American movies for 95% of the time, right? The real reason why they changed the Batmobile is that Nolan wanted a radical change from the Burton version. That is exactly why I prefer Burton’s version: along all the bad they also changed all the good.

  • April 23, 2010, 7:49 a.m. CST

    Quick cuts in BB

    by Shadow Warrior

    Isn't it obvious? Bale or the stunt guy can't move around much in the suit, and it will somehow show when shot steadily with minimum cuts. He still had the same suit in the beginning of TDK, so I guess Nolan probably kept the other scenes the same for consistency. I do like the idea of a fight scene showing Wayne's true character like the Lethal Weapon 4 final fight scene between Jet Li and the two leads, that would be great with one of his physical villains like Bane. But in BB and TDK, the standard Bats beating up bad guys quickly works. Hopefully in the next one the melee fight scenes are shot better. Also the chase shootout scene could be clearer with what someone said about where the other vehicles were relative to the tumbler and how many vehicles there are. There were times I thought Dent's van was the target of the first/second bazooka blast. But maybe Nolan meant it to be kind of confusing and disorienting like what it would really be like in real life. No big deal, it was still an awesome scene.

  • April 23, 2010, 9:13 a.m. CST

    Shadow Warrior

    by Continentalop

    Thank you! You said the answer I've been waiting for. The fight scenes were a compromise between making Bats look tough while hiding how cumbersome and awkward looking the Batsuit is (even in The Dark Knight the suit was still cumbersome). So maybe Nolan did the best he could with what he was working with, and I give him credit for that. <p> I was waiting for one of the Nolan zealots to say that but that would meaning saying Nolan was only able to make adequate fight scenes because of the limitations, , and of course we know everything in TDK has been done better than anything anyone else has ever done and can't be criticized. <p> Hopefully next movie they make an even better Batsuit so we can see him do more.

  • April 25, 2010, 12:22 p.m. CST

    Ace of Wands

    by Continentalop

    Wow. Great reply, How is this for an idea - reply to what I actually said. <P> Did I ever say it was "badly edited?" Oh no, I didn't. In fact, I praised the editing of the chase scene involving the police escort in TDK (at Apr 20th, 2010, 07:56:12 PM). So me criticizing the editing is completely false. Of course sticking to the facts hasn’t been your strong point. <P> What I said was the FIGHT SCENES are not that good. You know, the part where Batman throws a blow and then another blow and that is all he does? A fight scene is made up of more than just editing - maybe if you knew something about movies you would understand that. <P> Sydney Lumet in his book “Making Movies” (you should read it, you might learn something for once) said you can only judge an editor by what he did with what he was given. Well Mr. Smith did as good as job with what he had to work with (also read “In the Blink of an Eye” by Walter Murch and he’ll tell you not to try to make something it wasn’t meant to be). Lee Smith deserves a lot of credit for TDK, but despite how good of job he did I found the fight scenes lacking. And so did a lot of others. <p> Criticize my “experts” all you want, but they have two things in common: they all found the fight scenes in TDK to not be as great as the TKD diehards on this site declare them to be; and they all know a hell of a lot more than you do (which isn’t hard). In fact, I got some more for you: <P>,, <p> They also show that not everyone is sold on the greatness of TDK’s fight scenes. Hell, read even a lot of reviews in praise of the movie and they talk about how they are visually incohesive (of course you’ll rationalize all this away as these guys being losers, sour grapes, or part of the New York conspiracy against TDK. But how does the Illuminati fit into this Ace?). <P> And I could care less if you believe I am an editor or not - what you think is the least of my concerns. But I do laugh at the idea of you mocking me for taking martial arts. That says more about you than it does me. I never said I was a master or anything, just that I practice and study them and a fan of them, and the fact is millions of Americans study martial arts or practice and watch combat sports, but to you the idea seems preposterous or impossible. I guess the only type of fight you want to be prepared for is opening that bag of Cheetohs, and even that is a struggle for you. <p> In closing my unpardonable sins were to say I thought the Tumbler was illogical if you think about it (”Oh no, the Tumbler is completely, 100% realistic and don’t you dare say it wouldn’t work in the real world”), that I thought you were full of shit about Batman and his psychosis and were projecting your own views of Batman onto Nolan’s work (which would be strange that if Batman was nuts like you were insinuating Harvey Dent, the symbol of decency and nobility in TDK, would only have praise for him), and daring to say that the fight scenes in TDK weren’t that great and that there is room for improvement in the next movie. All of these apparently are blasphemy in the eyes of the Cult of Nolan and the Church of the Dark Knight, which is what you have turned this movie into (fuck, your counter point above was the fact was telling me who edited the Dark Knight, as if that is proof of it being infallible alone; it is like saying “John, who knew Jesus, said this” so end of argument). <p> Now Shadow Warrior actually brought up an intelligent point - something you have yet to do - and that is the Batsuit is to bulky to for a stuntman and Bale to pull off a lot of moves. So, Nolan and Lee made the best with what they had, and that is very commendable. They tried to be like Verna Fields and Spielberg with JAWS and the malfunctioning shark, but I don’t think they were quite as successful at it. I still stand by my assertions that the fight scenes are something that can be improved upon next movie. In fact I am hoping INCEPTION proves this and the action/fight scenes with Leo show that Nolan can do a great one, and he takes that to the next Batman movie. <p>

  • April 26, 2010, 5:38 p.m. CST

    Ace of Wands

    by Continentalop

    I’m going to apologize. After your last reply, I took the opportunity to look back at the past post and saw that I took way to much offense to your replies. I’m sorry. If you look back you’ll see other people replying to my post and basically attacking my person or my opinions - since your comments came at the same time as theirs you got lumped in with them. This in no way an excuse for what I did, but I hope you understand when someone says you are a Michael Bay fan because you find faults in TDK that can make you pretty pissed off and things can escalate after that. But still, I did act like an asshole. Once again, I apologize. Now this is not me ceding any of my points on our debate. But instead of me insulting you and attacking your person, I am instead just going to list my points (and there will be many of them, so you’ve been warn it will be long) and you can either agree, disagree, ignore them or even tell me to fuck off. That is your right. I linked those critics because I thought each one had a valid point about the problems with the fight scenes in TDK, points that I agree with. And once again, I don’t think TDK is badly edited (or even shot or directed or even the fight choreography was that bad) but instead I think the fight scenes themselves were not as great as they could be and that they were the weakest part of the film (especially considering the fact you are doing a movie about a two-fisted hero like Batman). They were not terrible per say but I personally, and others, found them lacking, and for me they were something that interfered with my ability to suspend disbelief and occasionally they took me out of the film. <P> Now, believe it or not, I am an editor. I’ve been doing online and offline for nearly 13 years (plus sound editing and a dozen other jobs to help me try and survive). Now that doesn’t make my opinion more valid or important than yours, but it does color my opinion thanks to my background. I see things, for good or bad, with a different eye than other people (and once again, that doesn’t make it the right opinion, just a different viewpoint). Like I said and have said, I don’t find the editing of the movie or even necessarily the fight scenes bad, but the idea and style they were shot and cut in to be one . <P> (And no, even though I am saying the editing and editor a lot here, I am not blaming Lee Smith; see my above comment about “In The Blink Of An Eye.” Lee Smith had to edit something as it was designed to be edit, he can’t magically extend a shot or create that something that doesn’t exist. As editors we know that. The choppy editing style was what Nolan intended and for all I know he made it a lot better than what it could of been.) <P> The quick cuts and choppy style might seem grittier and more realistic to a lot of people, but it does not to me because it reminds me that I am watching a movie. Thanks to the constant edits and shaky cam I see the artifice. The goal of editing is to make something invisible and seamless, to cut two imagines together and have it serve a greater meaner (”the juxtaposition of images” as Eisenstein used to say) without the audience becoming aware that is what you are doing (hence the term “invisible art” for describing editing). But the style of TDK fight scenes just remind me that they are faking that they are fighting and takes me out of the fantasy of what is going on. I said that there really isn’t fight scenes in TDK, but instead scenes about fighting, and I stand by that. Some people might praise this impressionist style, and I can understand why, but I find it to damage the illusion for me that they are fighting. <P> Once again, it is like dance numbers in musical movies. Many people in the audience might enjoy watching Richard Gere “dance” in CHICAGO or Ewon McGregor and Nicole Kidman “dance” in MOULIN ROUGE!, but to me I can just see it is an illusion of them dancing, compared to the reality of Fred Astaire, Gene Kelly, Danny Kaye or even Patrick Swayze. They are trying to convey an impression that they are dancing, much like how TDK is trying to convey an impression that people are fighting. It is the same reason why I think the chase scene in THE FRENCH CONNECTION still cannot be topped, because the camera stays on the action long enough to ensure the audience what they are seeing is reality (or a heightened reality, at the very least) and not something created completely through the use of edits and special effects (see almost every car chase scene made nowadays). <p> Now, I am not saying Nolan’s styles for the fight scenes would be completely inappropriate. In past TB and in person I defended some of the jumpy style of BB because I agree, it is the idea of showing it through a subjective camera as if you are a criminal being attacked by Batman. In TDK you could argue the style switched from someone being attacked by TDK to the viewpoint of someone witnessing it firsthand (the Fake “Batman” in the garage in TDK, for example, sets the stage for this interpretation because he does in fact witness from a nearby distance the skill and ability of Batman - why him and his cohorts can never be Batman). However, in both cases those styles only work for a short while and if played to much become redundant and pull us (or me, at least) out of the picture. Also, in both cases we do not truly witness Batman fighting but instead are actually witnessing someone else’s interpretation of Batman fighting and how they experience it. <P> Now my other point is that I am a student of martial arts and fan of combat sports (once again, believe or not) and what I want to see might be different from what others need or want to see. But for me to believe in the idea of a Batman (and the entire point of Nolan’s movies is to make him plausible) I need to see more than just him using KFM to believe that he is who he is. <P> KFM is something Batman would obviously use, but it isn’t the end-all-be-all (and obviously you don’t have to take my word for it, you can do your own research or just make up your own mind). The entire point of KFM is to be a self-defense system, to train you for situations that pop up when you are suddenly are thrust into danger, even when facing superior numbers. Hence the reason why in KFM that you see them moving around chaotically and keeping their hands and arms up to protect the head. The entire idea of the “Thinking Man” is basically protecting the most vulnerable part of the body, the head. A head shot will disorient you, knock you out or cause brain damage so that is the area you have to protect more than any other. It is the idea of defending and protecting yourself when placed in a situation where you can’t see attacks coming from and can’t afford to be stunned. <P> The thing is though KFM isn’t always the most appropriate way to fight. It is great for when you are attacked out of nowhere and surrounded (and therefore would be useful for Batman to know) but it isn’t always the case that Batman will be in those situations. Many times Batman will initiate fighting (that is his method after all to sneak attack his foes) so why instantly assume a stance and style that operates under the idea that you don’t know where attacks are going to come from? Or a style that is more geared towards protecting yourself than it is to dispatching your opponents in the best manner. Plus why assume a style that requires your opponents to be so close unless necessary (of course they will get closer as the fight progresses) and give up using your long range attacks like your kicks and your jab? <p> Of course, I am sure KFM doesn’t teach it’s students to use that pose and style all the time, but even then to imagine someone as great as fighter as Batman to not have studied other martial arts and not to use them is insane. He has to be one of the best fighters in the world, if not the best. And if he only uses KFM how well is he going to stand up against a foe who maybe used to box or wrestle or knows how to fight (which is very likely, criminals actually know how to fight in the real world). Many times he might be required instead to rely on being a better boxer, wrestler, judoka, or whatever than his opponent. <P> And for anyone to say that a KFM fighter could take a fighter in another style, I just have to ask why don’t they dominate in MMA? Because they leave themselves open to much to attacks by a truly skilled fighter. So if Batman ever faced a truly skilled fighter in another style, he would be in deep trouble if he just relied on his KFM training (which is inappropriate for one-on-one fighting). <p> I imagine that for someone to be Batman he has to master many martial arts, and I want to see him display some of those skills. LETHAL WEAPON did this with Riggs, and so did SHERLOCK HOLMES (where we see Holmes use boxing, jujitsu, savate de rue, la canne, maybe even some scientific wrestling, etc). Showing Batman using only KFM does show he knows how to fight, but not that he is the best or one of the best fighters in the world. For someone to be Batman, I have to believe he studied and mastered half-a-dozen martial arts and not just KFM, and by showing him put those skills out there it would reflect how well trained he is. <P> So when I say the fights scenes in TDK could be improved I mean it. I for one would like Batman to finally face an opponent in a hand-to-hand fight who is a match for him (doesn’t have to be a villain - in the Golden Age many villains had tough thugs and henchmen working for them that could give Batman a real fight, at least for a couple of panels). I want to see Batman demonstrate how well trained he is and how tough he is by being pushed a little bit, and I want to see more of him fighting so I can see it really is “Batman” and not just editing tricks and the fabrication of a fight scene. <P> And with that, I am out (and excuse all typos and grammar errors).