Comments on: Why Batman 3 Will Not Be Shot Fully in IMAX

By: MovieRobot

MovieRobot — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 09:24:37 +0000

i hope it happens

By: trueman

trueman — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 01:57:33 +0000

WB studio knows that they cant make another dark night, so they should call zack snyder to make it better! Nolan is no coming back thats for sure!

By: Andy III

Andy III — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 08:46:03 +0000

You know though…by the time they go to shoot this thing, the next generation RED cameras might be available, allowing Christopher Nolan to shoot it digitally for IMAX. The biggest one of those was IMAX size.

Definitely using today's cameras, this would be a nightmare…the magazines are like 2 minutes a piece and I guess the cameras sound like a small aircraft.

It sure would be amazing. I saw The Dark Knight four times in IMAX and it was nothing short of breathtaking.

By: Rohith

Rohith — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 11:42:11 +0000

lol, would 10% of the film's budget for a director be the highest share ever ?

The demand for more money being given to Nolan would directly relate to the success of Inception. If Inception turns out to have an excellent run at the box office then what you said might be true. I am not impressed with the teaser trailer of Inception though.

By: RobertFure

RobertFure — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 10:27:58 +0000

They each signed a contract for 3 movies. After the third one, the WB would have to renegotiate contracts with each of them to get them to appear in any future Batman movies.

And I agree that Nolan will direct because of money. Having a set of values is one thing, having your own private island is another. If Nolan wants to hold out for money, WB will give it to him. I wouldn't be surprised if he could negotiate something like ridiculous, like 10% of the films budget, which would be $18.5 million or so. I'd direct a dog shitting into my own mouth for $18.5 million.

By: Rohith

Rohith — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 09:54:34 +0000

Are they contractually obligated for the Batman franchise for as long WB wants them, or is it just for these three movie?

I guess Nolan just want's more money to direct the next moive, but he doesn't want to put it that way. I am sure WB can convice him with lots of $$$ to be the director of the next Batman movie.

By: Rohith

Rohith — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 09:47:55 +0000

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?

By: RobertFure

RobertFure — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 05:19:21 +0000

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.

By: Rohith

Rohith — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 04:47:55 +0000

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?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 04:41:00 +0000

Although it is disappointing to hear that BATMAN will not be released FULLY in IMAX, I already assumed earlier that it would be almost impossible to make the entire movie in IMAX. Maybe if the third movie also makes over a billion $$$ ( which is probably not going to happen), they will make the fourth movie in full IMAX with a budget of over $300 million making it the most expensive movie ever made. (not considering inflation)

WB is a studio that has always been in the top one or two spots of the studio market share for the past five years (excluding 2006) and so I think it can afford the budget if it wants to but I think WB is too cheap to do that. Maybe, if Disney was producing the movie it might spend over $300 million as it did for Pirates of the Carribean 3.

I hope there will be a movie within the next five years that is shot fully in IMAX. I understand the complications of operating IMAX equipment, but it would be awesome to see any movie in IMAX. (Excluding Transformers 2 which has done a poor job in making the graphics for IMAX as I felt like it was blurry sometimes and barely noticed the robots transforming or fighting(clearly) as it was “too” fast due to the unnecessary extreme close up shots of the movie)

IMAX cameras are VERY HEAVY compared to the regular cameras and so moving it requires powerful cranes and good experience. The reel of the film is also very expensive so if you make a mistake while acting in regular scenes, it is expensive to take several shots. In terms of technical issues, IMAX cameras can only shoot about three minutes of footage at a time, before they must change reels. The cameras are so noisy, that all dialogue has to be re-recorded in post production. Shooting with IMAX cameras is a very tough job.

By: RobertFure

RobertFure — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 00:19:21 +0000

By: someone

someone — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 22:41:55 +0000

If “Batman 3″ is not happening, would you care to explain what the “Batman 3″ that both Legendary and WB have on their slates (not publicly, obviously) is?

WB's not stupid enough to give Nolan a $200 million blank check on “Inception” without asking for anything in return. Simply said, Gary Oldman wasn't lying at Comic-Con.

By: djjeffhall

djjeffhall — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 21:20:16 +0000

The big problem with a third Batman movie. Non 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.)

By: 1570

1570 — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 21:07:45 +0000

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.

By: ladyofthelake

ladyofthelake — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 17:17:40 +0000

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.

By: chille

chille — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 17:15:03 +0000

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.

By: Cole_Abaius

Cole_Abaius — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 16:32:00 +0000

I'm sure McG would love to shoot it in IMAX.

By: ladyofthelake

ladyofthelake — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 13:18:44 +0000

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.

By: alexboultwood

alexboultwood — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 12:54:10 +0000

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?

By: Brettcarlton

Brettcarlton — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 12:21:13 +0000

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.