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

translation: I am afraid to try because I may fail to deliver my movie in 3D successfully. Avatar, Avengers, Dark of the Moon, Hugo, and any Pixar in 3d are all stunning. He's just trying to justify his laziness and fear. Oh, and there is a little thing called the current depression that is preventing many from seeing movies in 3d...enough to make a difference. I found that the above movies succeeded because the director had to raise the bar and shoot for 3d in mind. It adds a whole new element to lighting, camera placement and staging. Some directors try and fail miserably. Some are brave and excel. Seems like Nolan is scared to me.

Did you actually read the whole article? There is no translation needed--

Nolan said he’s open to shooting in 3-D one day, but only if it would enhance the story. He considered converting his 2010 blockbuster “Inception” to 3-D, saying the added dimension might have been a nice fit with the film’s dreamscapes. But he dropped the idea because there was not time to do a quality 3-D conversion.

Nolan recently saw footage of Baz Luhrmann’s 3-D “The Great Gatsby,” coming out in December with Leonardo DiCaprio, Carey Mulligan and Tobey Maguire. He figures he’ll see that one in 3-D because it looks like a wild trip where “you’re going to be inside Baz’s head.”

“I’m fascinated to see what he’s going to do, but I don’t want any filmmaker to be pushed into doing something they don’t want to,” Nolan said. “3-D did not feel like the right thing for this movie.”

The problem is the execution, and the lack of consistency within the format. Shot in 2D, then lazily converted. Shot in 2D, but planned as 3D shots for better conversion. Shot in 3D. Rendered in 3D. Varying degrees of depth and pop-out. And if all those variables don't mesh up right, then the result is middling at best, and the audience won't care one way or the other. I can definitely see where he's coming from, but he's also clearly wrong about how "no one likes 3D", given 3D ticket sales and 3D home video sales.

You're kidding, right? Nolan is a risk taking filmmaker who creates intellectually stimulating and challenging movies. Momento? Inception? Not the movies of a lazy or scared man.

People who have no idea of what goes into making a movie sit in judgement of men (and women) of huge accomplishment?

At least he's putting his work out there with his real name attachd to it. Not some alias.

I'd say considering his body of work if he wanted to deliver a movie in 3D he could and would do so successfully.

Nuff said.

Shoot in 3D or 2D, do whatever you want, but please don't talk crap about how "nobody likes 3D." Especially when you're producing your own 3D movie which will probably suck, Man of Steel.

There have definitely been films that I have only had interest in because of how they looked in 3d. I would not watch Avatar or Hugo in 2d for example because the story/plot just didnt seem to entertain me as much as the visuals added by the third dimension did. That being said there is movies that are in 3d where I feel the story/plot was more entertaining than any added visuals and therefor I generally watch the 2d version and could argue whether it was even necessary for them to be in 3d (the Harry Potter films). I saw Prometheus opening night in IMAX 3d and remember thinking to myself (and even commenting on these boards) that it didnt even seem necessary to have been in 3d, that I did not feel a strong presence of added depth or anything from the 3d. I saw it in 2d a few days later and it felt like the difference between watching it on a blu ray vs VHS. Maybe this had more to do with IMAX vs non-IMAX, I do not know but I definitely left the theater that second time appreciating how I saw it the first time. That being said, had I seen it the reverse would I feel the same way or would I have even gone back for a 3d viewing? I think thats the real argument. Something like Prometheus I enjoyed in 2d, but I enjoyed it more in 3d and will be purchasing the 3d version. I love 3d but I see his point, if it doesnt add to the film why use it, why put the people through the higher costs and the potential discomfort. I do think its a lot of gimmick to increase profit, as I said there have been films that I questioned if it truly added any thing more than fun to the film or if it was just done for the profit but then I also feel that there are films that the true artistic talent of the film genuinely came from it being 3d, again like Avatar and Hugo. Both of those movies only entertainment with me is how visually appealing it is in 3d and to me that isnt a gimmick, thats talent.

Nolan is nothing compared to Scorsese. Scorsese loves 3d. Hugo was a masterpiece showing how restrained use of 3d could help the camera tell a story.

How can you put quotes around something that he didnt actually say? He actually says "I never meet anybody who actually likes 3D". (According to the article as quoted)

Not impressed with this 3D gimmick with the exception of few titles. Thanks to Nolan for opting out of 3D for TDKR.

Ahem...

Nolan also said 3D is "something that nobody seems to really say they have any great love for." Not people he met. Just nobody at all.

Naturally he used the word "seems," so it can be completely untrue and it's still ok to say it :/
Edited by cakefoo - 7/19/12 at 2:07am

If and when CN decides he's got a good script for a 3D film, he'll blow us all away. I think he's afraid of what people would think of him, which is really kind of valid considering how a lot of the people his movies cater to have a cynical attitude that 3D sux and is teh kiddie gimik, just because they're suckers to marketing hype for similar comic book superhero movies that turned out to be lackluster 3D conversions like Thor, Captain America, Green Lantern, and tons of other teeny action movies.

Cameron supplied people with the inspiration and some of the basic tools, but now it's up to people to put those elements to good use. My logical thinking is, if you've seen one good 3D film, then you know that 3D is not just a gimmick, but rather filmmakers are the variable.
Edited by cakefoo - 7/19/12 at 2:05am

I read the whole article on Yahoo two days ago, but that last sentence in your quote confuses me. So one of the reasons that Nolan doesn't want to film in 3D is because of the higher price of admission. Yet he films 72 minutes of The Dark Knight Rises with 15/70 IMAX cameras that will cost more for consumers to see at real 15/70 IMAX theatres anyway, regardless of 3D. Now I'm not saying that Nolan should not have filmed the movie in IMAX, it just sounds like he's contradicting himself since IMAX theatres charge more for ticket prices over 'normal' theatres.

That being said, I'm still on the fence myself on whether I should see TDKR at a 15/70 IMAX theatre, since the closest one to me is 173 miles away. The local one at my area multiplex is digital only. So I don't know if it's worth spending the gas money for just one movie though, and this is coming from (me) a former 15/70 IMAX Projectionist as well! Go figure.
Edited by Mr Fusion - 7/19/12 at 2:21am

Quite! Precisely what I was thinking.

If CN did say that then he is grossly mistaken. Try asking the right people.
Edited by cbcdesign - 7/19/12 at 3:29am

"Led by families, interest in 3D is plummeting among U.S. consumers" Article dated July 14, 2012

http://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/led-by-families-interest-in-3d-is-plummeting-among-u-s-consumers/

"As the cost of viewing a film in 3D continues to rise within the United States, cost-conscious consumers are passing up the glasses when they visit their local theater.

Detailed in The Hollywood Reporter this week, attendance of 3D versions of films is dropping due to exceedingly high ticket prices and a lack of interest from the average American family. For example, the percentage of revenue that comes from 3D versions of Pixar films has fallen dramatically over the last two years. When Toy Story 3 was released, the opening weekend box office take was over sixty percent 3D viewings and the 3D revenue from the entire run was responsible for 56 percent of all revenue. Moving ahead in time, 3D revenue from the opening weekend of Cars 2 was 40 percent of the total revenue. Even more recently, 3D viewings during the opening weekend of Brave only accounted for 32 percent of all revenue."


Use the link to read the entire article. It is too soon to write of 3D and they hint that large populations in places like China may provide enough growth in attendance to make it really take off. Surely, once the equipment conversion costs to the theater owners have been recouped, they will be able to start bringing the prices down to closer to those they charge for the 2D versions, and if that happens then the future for 3D movies will look much rosier?!


Here is the link to the Hollywood Reporter article.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/box-office-amazing-spider-man-avengers-347202

Box Office Mid-Year Report: What's Worrying Hollywood

"Domestic revenue is at a record level, so why aren't studios smiling? Between the dramatic slide in 3D attendance and a string of jaw-dropping disappointments, there's little reason to celebrate."
Edited by greenland - 7/19/12 at 9:06am

*cough* this thread is about a director who declared he didn't like 3D himself...How did these blasphemous remarks end up in the 3D software forum?

I am completely against all 3D movies that weren't shot in 3D. I agree with most commentor on here that say there are movies and storylines that excel in 3D. My belief however is that all movies that are post production converted from 2D to 3D hurt the viewing experience. In addition 3D television are a gimic. I will never want to watch a sporting event or tv show in 3D with current technology. They always look distored and distracted from the show. It makes polished movies look like they are still on the cutting board. just my 2cents.

. I'm a guy who loves 3d, two 3d tvs 40+ 3d bluray movies and I always see the 3d version in theaters. Prometheus had little to no 3d depth, I remember taking my glasses off and you could have watched the 3d version just fine without them. This seems to be the trend they are going with a very subtle 3d effect. When I'm paying $50 to go to the theaters and paying a premium for 3d, I want to see the 3d effect. I'm not sure people don't like 3d it just the new subtle 3d trend people just aren't seeing the 3d effect and feel paying extra isn't worth it.

Theatres will NEVER bring the price down no matter what, only up.

I agree with Nolan. While I have certainly seen some films in 3D that created "Wow" moments, for the most part I find the 3D in movies to be either annoyingly distracting or something that I complete forget about after the first half hour, and either way my eyes feel strained by the end. There are movies that really take advantage of it like Avatar or Hugo but I still feel those films are just as enjoyable in 2D for the most part. And even then were talking about a very small amount of films. Many films with 3D are still either using it as a tired gimmick or poorly implemented it as a way to make more money off ticket sales.

If that wasn't bad enough, if I want to see a 3D movie I have to choose to see it alone. My girlfriend is part of the 10% who can't see 3D, and all my friends either dislike it or get nausea or headaches viewing it for too long.
I don't think that's contradictory at all. He feels like filming in IMAX adds to the movies he makes, and he doesn't feel the same way about 3D.

Anyways, glad he's not making 3D movies if he doesn't like them, because obviously that would be a negative experience for all involved. I'm sure some directors aren't free to make that choice and I suspect many post-conversions happen without their permission.

In an IMAX 15/70 film theater, the image will expand from 2.40:1 to 1.44:1 during the scenes shot in IMAX format.

In a digital IMAX theater, the image will expand from 2.40:1 to 1.9:1 during the scenes shot in IMAX format.

In any other type of theater, the image will be 2.40:1 throughout.

"XD" is just Cinemark's designation for "slightly larger than average screen and better than average sound system." Regal calls their version "RPX." AMC calls it "ETX." Showcase adds dining service and calls it "Cinema de Lux." All of these play the same digital file as any other non-IMAX theater.

It's a self-serving statement that DOES contradict himself. It's OK to charge more for IMAX because he likes IMAX, but it's not OK to charge more for 3D because he doesn't like 3D. It's as simple as that.

I have a VT30. Tons of blu rays in 3D and hate watching the 3D version. I still feel its a gimmick and nothing more than a way for movie companies, producers, and directors to profit more on exploiting mostly badly converted 3D films. I end up thinking about the glasses on my face more than the movie. It's a shame that artistic integrity is constantly challenge by the almighty dollar.

I am still on the fence about watching films in 3D and am waiting to see how they will look on a 55 LG OLED TV, with Passive 3D glasses.

I am curious about why you accumulated "tons of blu-rays" in 3D since you hate watching them in that format? It would seem that you should have been able to discover your dislike of viewing them in that format, after having watching the first few of them that you acquired.

3D is not a "gimmick." It is just another tool in a movie maker's toolbox like multichannel sound or 2.39 AR versus 1.85 AR.

But the industry looked at 3D as a Godsend. Let me explain . . .

The industry knew it had to upgrade the 39,000+ screens in the USA from 35mm to Digital as digital movie making began to replace 35mm movie making. The cost to do so was massive . . . $100,000 per screen. So who was to pay for that massive upgrade. The theaters felt that Hollywood should because by going digital, they no longer had to bear the cost of making 35mm prints for all the movies made. That cost was somewheres around $800 million per year. Of couse Hollywood, being the greedy bastards that they are, wanted the theaters to pay for the upgrades. And then came 3D. VOLIA! A way to pass the cost of the upgrade onto consumers by charging a premium for 3D tickects. So with the popularity of AVATAR in theaters, the upgrade went full steam ahead because now there was an additional revenue stream to cover the massive costs.

Get all you can as soon as you can for history has shown that 3D runs in cycles - it becomes popular, then fades for a while, then becomes popular, then fades for a while. It's a cycle that started 60 years ago and continues today. Yes is cycle is longer than previous cycles, but there is no guarantee that it will continue forever.

Not really. What he's saying is that he doesn't want to use a technology if he personally has no reason to do so other than increasing ticket prices.

Exactly.

I also don't think a figure of speech should be held as an absolute standard. I took his meaning as he doesn't run into droves of 3D fans or people who ask him "why don't you do your movies in 3D?"

I don't enjoy 3D because I find the glasses bothersome, I get headaches if the movie runs more than about 90 mins and a lot of brightness is sacrificed. I understand, however, that my personal take on 3D is not universal, nor do I go around telling people they shouldn't bother with 3D. I don't think Nolan is doing that either.

Aside from the reasons Mr. Nolan gave; it strikes me that it made sense to remain consistent with how how he shot his entire Batman trilogy; rather than have the final one alone shot in 3D.

He did not use IMAX cameras in BATMAN BEGINS. So all you are saying it that he started in 2D, he finishes in 2D.

I go out of my way to NOT see movies in 3D. In fact, I now think that if a movie I was eagerly anticipating were released ONLY in 3D, that I would just skip it completely.

To me, it distracts from the visuals and ironically is LESS immersive than a good 2D movie. I spend the whole time conscious of the glasses, my eyes being awkwardly crossed, and the depth that is un-natural in the 3D theatre format. I almost always walk out of a 3D theatre feeling drained. Plus, add that you have to pay 50-100% more and it is not for me. Even if they were the same price, I would still avoid 3D. Like Nolan mentioned I have yet to see a movie that made the experience BETTER. Avatar was the closest to being tolerable... but I stil enjoyed the 2D version more when I re-watched it.
Edited by grooves12 - 7/19/12 at 11:29am

All 3D does is give me a headache and make me miserable and I know I'm not unique in that regard.