Chris Nolan on why Dark Knight is 2D: "I never meet anybody who actually likes 3D"

I have a great deal of respect for Nolan and his films, but re: 3D, he's clearly talking to the wrong people about the benefits of 3D. Just look no further than Ridley Scott and how well h utilized 3D for 'Prometheus'.

He's never asked me. I LOVE 3D, when done right.

Well, that's the big problem though.

I have never seen a 3D movie I liked better then the 2D version. I didn't HATE, prometheus 3d, didn't like it though, and I saw it in IMAX too. I would see 2D over 3d 10 times / 10

I agree. I've seen enough 3D (both well done and not) and I don't see what the big deal is. I choose 2D every time and I also save a few bucks.

Guess he's not friends with James Cameron or Peter Jackson huh?

I liked the 2D version of Avatar better too.

Not into wearing the glasses for 3D.

Nolan is so mislead. It's 3D for pete's sake. A whole new dimension has been added. Plus, we've been told it's better since it's more expensive. Not to mention the good folks who make movie trailers have gone through all the trouble to make absolutely sure we know a movie is in 3D so it's safe to go see. I still laugh at people who think 3D is a gimmick. Those higher ticket prices are justified because 3D made the movie better. Nolan simply has no future in movie making if he continues down this path. What a hack.

While I don't mind seeing a movie in 3D once in a while for me it adds nothing to the movie experience. On the contrary, having to wear uncomfortable glasses and those weird cross-eyed moments that happen from time to time, I'd say it actually takes away from the movie experience.

Oh, and 3D is a gimmick. More than some simply a technological advancement, it's a calculated marketing move rolled out when ticket sales sag. I'm glad to see someone commenting honestly on it. Up to now the only press you see are the marketing people and the fanboys. I wonder if someone as respected as Nolan bucking the 3D trend will be the tipping point for 3D. While I don't care if it exists--I'd like it to be available for those who prefer it over 2D--if it's ever between 3D and 2D I'll opt for the 2D.
Edited by repete66211 - 7/18/12 at 12:33pm

3D seems really hit or miss..but I do get pissed off having to pay double the price for sure.

In my opinion anything fast moving looks like rubbish - fuzzy, blurry, and just generally out of focus. Objects are moving too quickly for your eyes to figure out whats going on and what you are supposed to focus on.

Any of the converted films look bad. Objects have positional depth, but are still flat themselves.

I very much enjoy Imax for the size of the screen and the higher quality sound. All of the films released in 3D only play that way in the Imax auditoriums during their run. I'm excited to see TDKR in an Imax theater without having to deal with 3D.

Or Martin Scorsese or Ridley Scott.

Well I kinda agree with Nolan. Hmm out of all the 3D movies I have seen Avatar really stood out. Hugo and Prometheus were decent. Otherwise meh I would rather watch a 2D movie over 3D on a big screen with great sound like IMAX, Ultra AVX with cineplex or ETX at AMC theaters.

Well , we can say one thing about Nolan's preference in film making . . . he chooses to shoot footage in IMAX 15/70. Unfortunately, every year, the number of IMAX 15/70 theaters decreases due to the massive expense of running them (print costs, projector usage and maintenance)

I agree with him too. I just saw Spider-Man yesterday. It was in 3D but what I enjoyed was the movie, not the 3D. The 3D is in some very rare instances a cool bonus, but the movie in question is never "better" because of it. Even when "done right", everything looks like we're watching a model kit of a town or a landscape through those damn glasses (Spidey, the cars, outdoor shots in Prometheus), it looks more fake than 2D, there's no sense of "volume" just a vague sense of depth from time to time. I usually make the effort of seeing native 3D films in 3D, always thinking there must be something this time that I'll like "more", but no, I always leave the theatre disappointed. Even when done right, the result is still wrong.

I'm not a big fan of 3D either (the ones I have seen in theaters...still yet to see a home version of 3D). To me it just just feel right or something is just off. I also seem to think it messes with the colors somehow, especially natural colors like trees and dirt. IDK, I could be wrong there. I suppose I will keep trying it from time to time, but for me it just seems a little painful or something.

3D in its current form originally came out when ticket sales at the box office plunged. People stopped seeing movies on the big screen and opted for more price friendly options at home. Now there are some movies that I liked in 3D, but can't say that they were that much better because of it.

Now, more and more people have 3D at home. Heck, we even have a new 3D projector in our house, but we have zero 3D movies and don't plan to get any. Nobody in my family values 3D and the glasses, plus my wife gets headaches from watching them.

Now, there are "test" theaters overseas trying out 4D theater setups. The movie industry is seeing a plataeu in ticket sales and with 3D at home the have lost their gimmick. Now they will force people to see movies out again if they want the "full" experience with fog machines, strobe lights, "seat ticklers", tactile transducers, etc. Don't forget the smell-o-vision.

I've seen some specialty theaters do 4D shows. These are usually at science centers or the like and they are neat. I even saw a condenced 25-30 minute version of The Polar Express in one, and smelling the hot chocolate was cool. BUT... The price was astronomical for what you got.

Now there are people trying to add useful stuff to movies, like Dolby Atmos. I've experienced it, and it was pretty cool, but I was on vacation and won't see it implimented here any time soon. Again, how manay people are going to have the massive space required to add THAT many channels of audio at home? If they could, then they could afford to watch whatever they wanted to, whenever they wanted to anyway.

Lastly, I haven't seen the 3rd installment in this current Batman franchise, but from what I've seen, 3D doesn't do as well with dark, fast moving action and few movies are shot as darkly as these Batman movies, and there is always action. I think that Mr. Nolan made the right call to stick with 2D.

What's with the influx of "I hate 3D" trolls in the 3D Software forum? Why are you guys reading this thread in this forum in the first place?

Well, the article is on the front page, so...

This article is timely, because just last night my wife insisted that this weekend she wants to see the new Batman on IMAX, because she hates 3D!
I think she assumed all new movies also have 3D versions

I'm still open minded about it at the theater.
However; for home I'll wait for it to mature even further generation, 2, or 3, or..... (or maybe I'm just cheap and still loving my RS-1)

Avatar... $1 billion... it was a average story and a strong showcase for 3D. The audience has spoken with their wallets already. Some people just don't want to listen it.

My problem with 3D is that there are so many variables that can go wrong that rarely have I seen a fully successful showing of a 3D film in theaters. It's either too dark, or there's too much crosstalk, or the glasses are uncomfortable, or I don't get an ideal seat...the list goes on. Nolan has also said 3D actually reduces the scale of a film rather than enhancing it and there's some truth to it. I found HUGO very claustrophobic in 3D, and I remember there were some wide shots in THOR which looked bizarrely like miniatures. In the end, I just want to see a good movies, regardless of the number of D's.

The problem here appears to be that Nolan doesn't see an artistic merit to 3D, unlike other directors such as Cameron, Jackson, Scott, etc. From his quote, to him it's a question of whether or not other people want him to do it. If he has no interest in delivering 3D himself, then I think it's really best he not try. I love 3D for it's artistic merits, and it's too bad that Nolan isn't in the same boat, but I wouldn't want to see a director pursuing something they're not interested in. Besides that, I'm just as happy to see him putting his creative visual energy into the IMAX format.

I love 3D but I avoid superhero action flicks in the theater because thus far I'm not fond of what I see in the theater in 3D. My RS45 looks much better even with all it's issues. Having said that it's sad that Nolan is shunning 3D because displays will get better and TDKR will not be available in native 3D.

i know this might be a bit off topic , but i dont know where else to ask: After much research online, I am still completely confused. Some people claim True IMAX > XD > Liemax (Digital Imax), while some others claim True IMAX > Digital Imax > XD . Which is true? And when I ask that question, my main cocern is this: The dark knight rises has 72 minutes of IMAX footage. Will the footage be chopped down on Cinemark XD? How about on Digital IMAX? Or neither? Input is greatly appreciated.

Quoted for truth. Only 2 movies that I have seen in 3D really made me say "That was worth the price of admission." Avatar and Up. I have yet to see Prometheus.

Oh and HI!! This is my first post here.

If he hasn't met anyone who likes 3D he must live under a rock.

In that case it explains his obsession with bats.

I'm not a big fan of 3D either. What I found everytime I watch a movie in 3D, is that after a certain amount of time, it seems I forget it's in 3D and just watch the movie like it was a normal one.

Yes. Thank you. Could not agree more.