Why Batman 3 Will Not Be Shot Fully in IMAX

Posted by Neil Miller (neil@filmschoolrejects.com) on August 26, 2009

chrisnolan-imax-header

Not a month goes by that we aren’t reminded that another Batman movie isn’t in the works. I’m sure it’s just as bad for director Christopher Nolan, who is probably trying his hardest right now to get the word out on Inception, his high-concept sci-fi movie slated for release next year. After directing his way to one of the biggest movies of all-time in The Dark Knight, Nolan has become person of interest numero uno for fanboys and fangirls across the web. Everyone wants to know: when is another Batman movie happening, what will the story be, and what characters will be involved?

Throwing aside the obviously ridiculousness of such rumors as Megan Fox as Catwoman (thanks, British tabloids) and Eddie Murphy as, well, any character, I would like to address a new rumor that has popped up over at Ain’t It Cool News. According to high-flying Headnerd Harry Knowles, an inside source has said that “the third chapter of Christopher Nolan’s Caped Crusader’s saga could very well be FULLY shot in IMAX, not IMAX Digital, but the beautiful, stunning IMAX that we saw pieces of The Dark Knight in.” Bad grammar and unnecessary use of caps aside, this is an interesting proposition. Fans who beheld The Dark Knight in IMAX know what I’m talking about here — the sequences shot in true IMAX were breathtaking.

And while I, like many of you, would love to see Nolan take IMAX to the full-length level, it just won’t happen. And I will tell you why…

1. There aren’t enough real IMAX venues to make it worth it. Sure, IMAX is great — but when it comes to making a heavy duty blockbuster movie, a studio is going to look for the biggest bang for its buck. Currently, that doesn’t necessarily apply to IMAX. As of June, there were just over 300 IMAX-capable venues in over 42 countries. There are over 29,000 screens in the United States alone. It is unknown (at least to Google) how much it costs to take IMAX film and downconvert for a 35mm projection system, but I doubt that it’s cheap. Therefore, the studio — in this case, Warner Bros. — would be required to shell out extra money just to put its movie in regular theaters. Not exactly the sort of move studios jump to make.

2. It is just too expensive. Estimates place the cost of production — including the time it takes to move cameras, build custom rigs, change reels, as well as the heightened cost of materials — in the range of 50-100% higher than that of standard film production. Those sequences we all enjoyed in 2008’s episode of the Batman saga could have cost upwards of 2x more than other sequences in the film. To shoot an entire movie in this fashion, even with cost-saving advancements and aggressive innovation, could still drive the film’s production north of $300 million. And despite the fact that The Dark Knight brought in almost $1 billion worldwide at the box office, it doesn’t make sense to push production costs on the next one that high. For WB, it is a simple decision: spend $300 million and hope you make that $1 billion again, bringing in $700 million in profit (marketing and other undisclosed costs aside). Or make a third movie for $185 million (the reported budget of TDK) and possibly bring in another $915 million in profit.

chrisnolan-imax

3. Box office success is not guaranteed. With The Dark Knight, there were other factors impacting its box office take, including the death of star Heath Ledger in the year leading up to the film’s release. Say what you want about how much it did or didn’t impact the numbers. From where I’m sitting, it did have an effect on the film’s success. People went out to see his epic final performance, a posthumous Oscar worthy performance. That will draw crowds. As well, there is a statistical trend working against a third movie — third movies traditionally don’t do as well as their predecessors. For example:

  • Terminator 3 cost $100 million more than T2, and made $50 million less.
  • Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End cost $75 million more than Dead Man’s Chest, and grossed $115 million less domestically.

There are obvious exceptions to this rule, including The Bourne Ultimatum (which added $50 million to the box office take of The Bourne Supremacy) and The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (which bested The Two Towers by $38 million). But both of these are incremental increases. And neither of these saw a major rise in production cost. Not to the tune of 50-100% more, that’s for sure. Put simply, the risk would be too high for Warner Bros. to sink all that money into IMAX.

4. The movie might not happen at all. Through all of this, I think we miss the most obvious points. There is no script, the director has not signed and there has been no official indication that a third Batman movie will happen anytime soon. Sure, it is easy to assume that Warner Bros. will want to make another film and capitalize on the heat generated from The Dark Knight, but that doesn’t mean they will be able to get Chris Nolan back on the horse. He has said time and time again that the story needs to be there. What if it is never there? And if the movie never happens, it can’t be in full IMAX then, can it? I know it’s semantics, but I like to reinforce my arguments — especially when I’m clearly right.

Don’t get me wrong, kids, I’m with you. I would love to see a big, beautiful IMAX explosion for a third Batman movie as much as any of you. However, right now it is little more than a pipe dream. The way I see it, there is too much risk in such a venture. And in this economy, I doubt Warner Bros. would be willing to spend the extra money on IMAX when they can have Christopher Nolan spend the same amount of money that he did on TDK and likely see similar profit margins. Could they spring for a few more minutes of IMAX? Sure. Will they spring for 2.5+ hours of IMAX? Not likely. It all comes down to simple financial risk assessment.

Feel free to spread your own opinion on the matter in the comment section below…


Read more articles by Neil Miller

« Previous Article | Next Article »

Related Topics:

Movie News, Opinions, , ,

Related Reading:

Your Ad Here

Comment Policy: No hate speech allowed. If you must argue, please debate intelligently. Comments containing selected keywords or outbound links will be put into moderation to help prevent spam. Film School Rejects reserves the right to delete comments and ban anyone who doesn't follow the rules. We also reserve the right to modify any curse words in your comments and make you look like an idiot. Thank You!

  • Brettcarlton
    I've seen Christopher Nolan quoted as saying that he won't do a third bc it can't possibly top the dark knight. That's when rumors were circulating about Johnny depp as the joker.
  • alexboultwood
    I totally agree with you, IMAX just doesn't make sense to shoot it, it would be beautiful to look at, but the average joe isn't going to go, Oh yeah lets see batman 3 at IMAX cos its shot especially for IMAX theatres with IMAX cameras they're just wanna go and see if for the explosions and fights! There WILL be a Third Batman as Bale is contracted to do it, but Nolan isn't. So who could they replace Nolan with? Hmmm whats Ratner doing these days?
  • ladyofthelake
    I wanna see a third Batman film reguardless, but I don't care about IMAX. It won't top the hype or sucess of the Dark Night, but who cares, it could be awesome. You'll still have Bale as Bruce/Batman, Michael Caine as Alfred and Gary Oldman as Gorden, I'll be there hands down, like many other people. What's really important is that if Nolan doesn't come back you have a strong director to replace him, but it's still way to early and Nolan might come back. They'll throw buckets of money at him.
  • Cole_Abaius
    I'm sure McG would love to shoot it in IMAX.
  • ladyofthelake
    Don't jinx it. Even though I like Salavation just because alot of shit blew up, I don't want him anywhere near Batman. I'm still scared from when Joel Schumacher nearly killed the franchise. I'm shivering at the thought, and not in a good way.
  • chille
    To be fair, T3 made less money because it had been so long people had lost interest in the franchise, and Pirates 3 made less because nobody liked Pirates 2.
  • Rohith
    I agree. I did not think T3 was a bad movie, sure the story was a bit complicated for an average viewer to understand but maybe because I read a detailed review before I watched the movie...I have a better undertstanding of exactly what's happening in the movie and why it is happening.

    n fact, I think Terminator 3 was better than Transformers 2 overall (story and graphics as well

    I thought Disney decided to make Pirates of the Carribean 4...what happened to that?
  • 1570
    Converting IMAX to 35mm would be cheaper and will have a better result than the cost of upconverting 35mm to IMAX via IMAX's proprietary DMR process; but you are right the film will likely not be shot all in IMAX. It could all be shot in 70mm, shoot the dialog scenes in 5/70 and the action scenes in IMAX (15/70). The Panavision and Arri 5/65 cameras are more user friendly and would give 100% more negative space for uprez to IMAX. With 4K DLP and Sony projectors rolling into more cinemas in 2010 it makes sense to shoot 5/70 because the quality difference will be noticable in 4K digital, just like you see the difference in the quality of the IMAX scenes and the 35mm on the Blu-ray version of TDK. Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet was the last film to really shoot an entire film in 5/70, and the entire budget was $18 Million for a 3 hour movie. The cost of shooting a combination of 5/70 and IMAX should be only 5% more than The Dark Knight. Warner Bros. will want to up the ante for the next Batman and a 5% bump for a film entirely shot in 70mm will accomplish this goal.
  • djjeffhall
    The big problem with a third Batman movie. None of the principals have to make it. Nolan is set for life as a director, Bale is set as an actor. They can pick and chose what they want to do forever.

    So ask yourself, do Nolan and Bale want to make another Batman film? Unless the answer is emphatically yes, I think they will both move on. (Much to my personal chagrin.)

    As for IMAX, well, that would be great, but the production costs would be insane. I don't see a fully IMAX picture being made.
  • Actually Christian Bale, Michael Caine, and Morgan Freeman are all contractually obligated to appear in the 3rd movie. No matter who directs it, those 3 are either in or out of a shit ton of money and fucking over one of the biggest studios on Earth really sullies your reputation. Batman 3 will happen, Bale will star. 100%. Nolan will direct 98%. He's playing coy or whatever, but he'll be back. Especially after no one gives a fuck about Inception.
blog comments powered by Disqus