Lyft Industrial Deals Beauty Little FIres Everywhere Shop new men's suiting nav_sap_hiltonhonors_launch Weekly One ft Vant PCB for Musical Instruments Starting at $39.99 Grocery Handmade Tote Bags Book a house cleaner for 2 or more hours on Amazon Fall TV Binge-worthy season premieres are here Fall TV Binge-worthy season premieres are here Fall TV Binge-worthy season premieres are here  Introducing Echo Show Introducing All-New Fire HD 10 with Alexa hands-free $149.99 Kindle Oasis, unlike any Kindle you've ever held Tailgating FFII_gno
Customer Discussions > Blu-ray forum

The Dark Knight Rises

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-11 of 11 posts in this discussion
Posted on Nov 18, 2012, 3:50:07 AM PST
B. B. says:
3D is stupid, its just another gimmick hollywood is using so they don't have to make good films. hehe, its pathetic how hollywood has basically recycled old characters over and over and sell it to a dumbed down public including batman.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 16, 2012, 1:31:38 PM PST
Elder Dave says:

My position is that any piece of art may be altered as long as the original remains intact and available whether the maker is with us or among the dear departed. Sometimes it's just cheap parody, sometimes brilliant upgrade. For instance, I am eagerly (and a little anxiously) awaiting "The Wizard of Oz" 3-D conversion. It could be wonderful or a garish mistake. As for "Citizen Kane", I'd watch any version, but I have a feeling I'd want to enshrine the original. Welles was so careful and specific in his choices that I think color/3-D might detract from the spare power of the film. Same with Bergman's "The Seventh Seal" and others of that ilk. Still, I'd be happy to see those films colored or three dimensionalized. Just leave me the originals.

You lament (perhaps too strong a characterization?) that "the majority of 3D films have been poorly executed". I have found the opposite. I have found many great documentaries from deep ocean studies to space station to Hubble telescope to mummies to surfing to safaris, to legends of flight etc. that are beautifully shot and give you the delight of "being there". Most recently, I've truly enjoyed "Prometheus", "The Avengers", "Titanic", "Dial M For Murder" (wonderful, but the film does show a little wear), "Peter Gabriel's New Blood", "Coraline", "Carmen", and "Avatar". Most are on Amazon's 3-D top 100 list on its Blu-ray page.

I've had an opportunity to see what conversion can do to history. On DirecTV's 3Net, they've shown documentaries in which historical footage of Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Yellowstone and other subjects have been converted to 3-D, and it's quite impressive. Makes me think that, used judiciously, conversion can be a useful and enjoyable tool.

This has been a very enjoyable colloquy (though certainly not formal!), JMM. We've pretty much had this thread to ourselves, but I look forward to communicating further on the Blu-ray forum. Thanks for your time and thoughts.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 15, 2012, 7:07:06 PM PST
JMM says:
You have very good points about there being multiple versions of E.T. and Blade Runner - and I suppose if one looks at a 3D conversion as just another form of an "Alternate Cut", then it makes it an easier pill to swallow. So as long as the filmmaker is involved, I would not object to a 3D conversion of older films.

But if, for example, the filmmaker is no longer alive, I would argue that his/her work should NOT be altered (that rules out such films like Citizen Kane and Lawrence of Arabia) - I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on that scenario.

Also, I'm glad you mentioned Star Wars, because I think it's the perfect example of how not to treat your audience. I am actually one of those who defends the altered films because Mr. Lucas owns the films and he can change them if he wants. However, it's kind of rude to not at least provide the original versions for the fans who want it. I suppose this scenario applies to 3D as well - I don't mind if everything gets converted to 3D, as long as the original 2D version remains available to those who want it (and I assume this won't be a problem).

I talked briefly about IMAX previously, and I love large format films... one thing that really annoys me is that 3D movies that are released in IMAX are only shown in IMAX 3D - there is no option for those who want the large screen and immersive sound experience of IMAX, but without the 3D aspect. This is another reason why I was relieved that TDKR was not in 3D, because I wanted to see it in IMAX and a 3D release would have likely resulted in all IMAX screening being IMAX 3D (hopefully I explained that in a way that makes sense).

This seems to be an argument of art vs. commerce (as it often is with filmmaking). If there is a desire for 3D content, then filmmakers and studios would be foolish not to take advantage of that. But if for whatever reason a filmmaker (such as Nolan) does not want his film in 3D, then it shouldn't be in 3D - no matter who applies pressure, no matter what the audience wants, or even if the movie is based on a cultural icon.

As you can probably tell, I'm not a big fan of 3D -- that's not because I'm against it in principle, but rather that the majority of 3D films have been poorly executed IMO. I think as 3D progresses, it will improve. There are currently a number of issues related to 3D that affect many moviegoers - poor quality conversions, low light levels, quality/comfort of the glasses, and of course the ticket prices - once these are solved in a satisfying manner, I will be a much bigger fan of the format.

Thanks again for the great discussion.

Posted on Nov 15, 2012, 2:52:57 PM PST
Elder Dave says:

Good point about the "dark color palette". There are quite a few films shot dark and in 3-D and are not good representatives of the format.

Perhaps opposite to your feeling though, I think they should convert whatever they wish, and I'll let tell me if it worked! "Titanic" is a colossal success as a post-converted film. It's possible others can do just as well. As you point out, there should be choice. I used to be a fanatic about not converting B&W into color or 2-D into 3-D (or, as in the case of the Beatles, mono into stereo in some cases), but I've mellowed. Let everyone have what he wants, and, besides, some post-converted B&W to color have been a happy change. Those wanting only the original have them available.

This does bring up the question of the artist's creative choice. Must we always accept it? Sure, if it's unique and not subject to change (Mona Lisa, The Winged Victory of Samothrace, etc.) But what about interpretation and art-for-the-consumer? Look how people howled when Spielberg took "penis breath" out of "E.T." or Lucas made any of his many changes in the Star Wars films. Spielberg's answer was to provide the original and the revised. Same thing happened with "Blade Runner". My point is that we become invested in a work and feel we should have some say about what happens to it. Remember New Coke? I don't know whether, in a consumer society such as ours, we shouldn't be able to demand that reasonable choices stay on the table, and I put post-conversion of consumer works in that category. The artist looking for our consumption may lead us where he will, but in the final analysis, he must make us want to reward him if he is to survive as an artist.

Sorry to be so long-winded, but this is an important subject for me. I wouldn't want anyone changing my poetry or songs or any of my other artistic output, but I think auteur status can only be granted for new and original ideas. With Batman, Superman, Spider-man, Bourne, Bond, Captain America etc., etc......., we're all in this together. The makers need to give the movie-going public and the Blu-ray crowd what we want 2-D, 3-D...11-D (if you're a String Theorist)!

IMHO, of course.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 14, 2012, 11:36:58 PM PST
JMM says:
Elder Dave,

Thanks for the response, and I am enjoying reading your thoughts on the issue. As long as it's the filmmaker's preference, I am a big fan of 3D. If a director specifically planned or shot the movie in 3D, then I make an effort to watch it that way. And as I said before, I like variety and diversity in the marketplace - we as moviegoers should always have a choice between 2D and 3D.

Like you, I find it interesting to speculate about what films would have been great in 3D. But that's only in theory, not in practice - because in terms of post-conversion, I think it is a very bad idea to convert films that weren't originally intended to be 3D. While not exactly the same scenario, I would compare it to adding color to films that were originally B&W. If the director and cinematographer did not shoot the film with 3D in mind, then I don't think a post-conversion would really make for a good 3D experience anyway.

The exception to the above would be a post-conversion like Titanic, where the director was very involved in the 3D process and the studio allowed for sufficient time/money to do a quality conversion. But Titanic was the exception, not the rule -- so many other conversions have been half-baked attempts of the studios for some quick cash. In some cases, the 3D was poorly done; in others, the movie wasn't really suited for 3D in the first place.

To bring the discussion back around to Nolan: TDK films generally have a dark color palette, which does not lend itself to 3D because it further darkens the image. Although I must say, there is one Nolan film that I would be very interested in seeing in 3D: Inception.

Posted on Nov 14, 2012, 10:52:30 PM PST
Elder Dave says:

I agree with almost everything you say, except for one or two points. I am usually aware throughout a film that I am more immersed in the action, and I find myself marveling at it. I realize this flouts the general artistic goal of subjugating the medium to the message (except for art that makes the medium the message), but it gives me a heightened sense of participation. I generally prefer the 3-D except in those cases in which the project is mainly an intellectual exercise, though I have more than 100 2-D BD's and many DVD's with which I would not part. Each to his own. Still, I wish a film like "The Tree of Life" and many others had been shot in 3-D. Think of the possibilities! But.....unless they post-convert, it's all water under the bridge.

I'm casting my mind back, and I remember seeing an amazing 3-D film on what I recall was a full-sized IMAX screen at the Canada Pavilion at the Vancouver World's Fair--not digital, of course--that depicted the history of Canada up to the then-present that blew me off my chair. It was amazing, and more fascinating than any other film (non-3-D) that I've seen on a big IMAX screen. I believe it was a 70mm print, but I can't be absolutely sure--it was huge, overwhelming and involving, and the audience kept gasping and sighing.

I agree that filmmakers (and all artists) must have the creative choice for their art, and you're right: Nolan has other sensibilities. As I say, it's (TDKR) a fine film, and I enjoyed it greatly. Nolan did a terrific job. It's all good.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 14, 2012, 8:15:53 PM PST
JMM says:
Elder Dave,

I agree with many of your points. But if respecting the filmmaker's decision is "bowing to authority", then I would argue that bowing to authority is good in this case. It should be the director's choice whether or not to make his/her film in 3D. I hate it when I read about the studios forcing post-conversion 3D on filmmakers just to make an extra buck.

The truth is that most of the time I watch 3D, 10-15 minutes into the film I forget that I'm even watching it in that format. That does not mean that 3D does not add something to the experience - but the filmmaker has to embrace the format in order to use it correctly, and Nolan clearly does not embrace 3D at the present time.

As someone who prefers to see all different types of films in all different types of formats, I just want diversity in the marketplace. I really appreciate that fact that rather than transition to Digital and 3D, Nolan still shoots on film and has embraced the IMAX technology, which provides extremely high-quality images. 3D has enough filmmakers backing it; we need more directors shooting with large-format cameras. If you ever get the chance (perhaps you have) to see a 70mm film print on a full-size IMAX screen, I would argue that is a far superior experience to seeing a movie in 3D.

Posted on Nov 14, 2012, 7:00:50 PM PST
Elder Dave says:
I don't mean to prolong yet another 3-D discussion, but I feel obligated to share my laughter at EdM's Nolan quote," In the case of Batman, I view those as iconic, operatic movies, dealing with larger-than-life characters." I have "Carmen" in 3-D, and it's iconic, patently operatic and therefore deals with larger-than-life characters. It's a joy to feel the immersion experience, an experience I would have liked to have had with TDKR--though I'm sure "joyous" would not describe the experience. TDKR is, nevertheless, an amazingly good film that could have been even further enhanced by 3-D. Thinking back, can't you just imagine Heath Ledger in your face as the Joker? Ah, well. A lot of us would have made another choice than Nolan, but--like so many times in life--we find ourselves bowing to the guy with authority, no matter how questionable his choices. Just my opinion, but I find Nolan's "operatic" comment silly, even as I understand his desire to protect his baby.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 14, 2012, 1:16:17 PM PST
EdM says:
One argumentative opinion:

"Nolan: The Dark Knight Rises Isn't in 3D Because Nobody Likes 3D"

"... filmgoers are of mixed feelings, at best, when it comes to 3D. High ticket prices, bulky, uncomfortable glasses, dim picture quality, and literal headaches have all been cited as reasons why 3D might just be a dead technology...again..."

Because Nolan chose to have no 3D, a later version w/3D is unlikely.

"Christopher Nolan Explains Choice of No 3D in Batman 3"

" 'In the case of Batman, I view those as iconic, operatic movies, dealing with larger-than-life characters. The intimacy that the 3D parallax illusion imposes isn't really compatible with that. We are finishing our story on the next Batman, and we want to be consistent to the look of the previous films...' "

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 14, 2012, 6:32:45 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 14, 2012, 6:32:51 AM PST
Oskar2525 says:
All movies should be in 3D, but unfortunately they are not. I will e-mail Chris Nolan and ask him to put this movie out in 3D in time for the holidays.

Initial post: Nov 14, 2012, 5:58:46 AM PST
Mike says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]
‹ Previous 1 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in

Recent discussions in the Blu-ray forum

  Discussion Replies Latest Post
Guardians of the Galaxy 2 in 3D 11 16 days ago
Why are BluRay DVD's so ugly? And can we lose the blue? 74 17 days ago
Season 7 of Adventure Time. No Blu Ray release unless you're in Australia. Import won't work because it's locked to Region B. 1 21 days ago
What does "Digital Copy" mean? 35 22 days ago
Are steel books worth the price ? 18 Aug 2, 2017
DVD vs Blu Ray 262 Jul 27, 2017
Condition of used blu-ray cases in marketplace often mispresented 24 Jul 11, 2017
anyone know why you can't preorder disney blurays (moana, doctor strange, & rogue one) 26 Jul 9, 2017
What happened to Blu-ray at Walmart? 122 Jun 16, 2017
Created order with a preorder item in it 1 Jun 15, 2017
What good is a 4K television really? 360 Jun 6, 2017
Amazon now Charging Tax! 964 Jun 6, 2017

This discussion

Discussion in:  Blu-ray forum
Participants:  6
Total posts:  11
Initial post:  Nov 14, 2012
Latest post:  Nov 18, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.