Jump to content

The Dark Knight


Recommended Posts

  • Premium Member

I thought it was dull, about forty minutes too long, with rubbish fight scenes, and due to where I was sitting in the idiotplex I couldn't understand a word that Batman said because of all the compression that they put on his voice. Heath was fun to watch, but not a patch on his turn in Bareback Mountain and I personally preferred Gary Oldman's performance. The best bits were when Christian Bale was allowed to act, as his turns as Bruce Wayne are fun. I really like Bale which is perhaps one of the reasons why I found it so frustrating. I wonder if the concept is to make him so wooden as Batman that there is no issues when the stuntmen have to take over. There was also no need for two face- I have no idea why the hollywooden men in tights films insist on more than one baddy, it comes across like a spinal tap amp up to 11 concept. Still Maggie was such a relief after watching the cruister's missus play his love interest in the first film. At the end people in the cinema actually clapped. In London. Which made the experience even more depressing. I am yet to be convinced that Nolan is some kind of genius. Momento was interesting. But his films leave me feeling cold, they seem clinical, and he is technically not good enough for that not to be a problem. And I still haven't forgiven him for Prestige's scoobydoo plotline. All in all I was left feeling depressed that so much tallent and money had been wasted on such a pointless film. Having said all that I am still keen on seeing it in Imax, to see how the Imax sequences look full frame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 230
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Site Sponsor
If it is any sort of salute to the Bush years than i will not spend a penny of my money going to see it !!!

 

 

I did not get that impression it is certainly worth seeing in imax if only for the photography. Any salutes to george-bin-cheney et all should be performed with a middle finger, imo.

 

-Rob-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did not get that impression it is certainly worth seeing in imax if only for the photography. Any salutes to george-bin-cheney et all should be performed with a middle finger, imo.

 

-Rob-

 

LOL! But I agree with you. The photography is stunning. Certainly worth seeing the movie just for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought it was dull, about forty minutes too long, with rubbish fight scenes, and due to where I was sitting in the idiotplex I couldn't understand a word that Batman said because of all the compression that they put on his voice. Heath was fun to watch, but not a patch on his turn in Bareback Mountain and I personally preferred Gary Oldman's performance. The best bits were when Christian Bale was allowed to act, as his turns as Bruce Wayne are fun. I really like Bale which is perhaps one of the reasons why I found it so frustrating. I wonder if the concept is to make him so wooden as Batman that there is no issues when the stuntmen have to take over. There was also no need for two face- I have no idea why the hollywooden men in tights films insist on more than one baddy, it comes across like a spinal tap amp up to 11 concept. Still Maggie was such a relief after watching the cruister's missus play his love interest in the first film. At the end people in the cinema actually clapped. In London. Which made the experience even more depressing. I am yet to be convinced that Nolan is some kind of genius. Momento was interesting. But his films leave me feeling cold, they seem clinical, and he is technically not good enough for that not to be a problem. And I still haven't forgiven him for Prestige's scoobydoo plotline. All in all I was left feeling depressed that so much tallent and money had been wasted on such a pointless film. Having said all that I am still keen on seeing it in Imax, to see how the Imax sequences look full frame.

 

Keith, you didn't like the story for "The Prestige?!?!" Thought it was one of the best scripts in the past decade myself. . .

 

I don't think this film is a Bush Chenney salute. I don't think the writers of this script are as George-Lucas-obvious at hating on a particular presidential administration during the course of said administration.

 

I think it is more of a non-specific endorsement of violation of some individuals' rights for the safety of all.

 

Otherwise, that would mean Batman was George Bush and Morgan Freedman was Dick Chenney! I find that hard to swallow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keith, you didn't like the story for "The Prestige?!?!" Thought it was one of the best scripts in the past decade myself. . .

 

I don't think this film is a Bush Chenney salute. I don't think the writers of this script are as George-Lucas-obvious at hating on a particular presidential administration during the course of said administration.

 

I think it is more of a non-specific endorsement of violation of some individuals' rights for the safety of all.

 

Otherwise, that would mean Batman was George Bush and Morgan Freedman was Dick Chenney! I find that hard to swallow.

 

If this last statement is directed towards my previous post; that wasn't my meaning. I never meant that Batman was Bush and Cheney was Lucious Fox. What I meant was the Joker is essentially a terrorist. And Batman ignores certain civil liberties in favour of capturing the Joker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey guys, slightly off topic. I saw the movie and enjoyed it. I went to: http://www.theasc.com/ to read the article on "The Dark Knight". While I was there I went to the store heading and went to back issues. They still have some great back issues, from the 90's, for only $1. I bought 17 of them and they already arrived. They were crisp and clean like they just came off the press. I'm very happy with this purchase. I'm not affiliated with the magazine and I hope I'm not violating any forum rules by passing this along. I just thought some here would like to know. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this last statement is directed towards my previous post; that wasn't my meaning. I never meant that Batman was Bush and Cheney was Lucious Fox. What I meant was the Joker is essentially a terrorist. And Batman ignores certain civil liberties in favour of capturing the Joker.

 

I know it wasn't your meaning, but you can't really separate one meaning from the other, because Cheney as Fox and Batman as Bush are essentially the roles that the administration would be filling if they were running Gotham City instead of the United States of America.

 

Now THAT would be a funny spoof, GHWB as Batman. Awww, poop, how do I start this friggin' batmobile again?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saw it last night and even though it wasn't at the IMAX (impossible to get a decent ticket) I thoroughly enjoyed it.

I liked the style of lighting, composition, movement, angles, production design, costume, make up, acting etc......

 

I really only have a couple of tiny little things that stood out as less than the rest of the film.

Batman's voice (sounded like the guy who does all the trailers vo's....you know the one!!)

and the angle of the Joker's pov when Batman is giving him a hiding in the cell.....that choice looked naff.

 

Apart from that I can say that I'm more than happy to have payed the £30 for taking the troops to the cinema.

 

Oh one last thing......Heath was brilliant!! RIP.

Edited by Serge Teulon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to prove I am not full of poop, here is the article from ASC Magazine on "The Matrix Reloaded":

 

Libreri decided to use both film and digital still cameras to acquire the images. "The advantage of the digital cameras is that they can take more than 100 shots in one go, dramatically reducing the time you would spend loading film every 36 frames," he notes. The photographers used Canon D60 cameras with the uncompressed Canon file format, and Libreri points out that they were utilized differently than the film cameras: "We used two custom-built camera support systems for the stills shoots. In conjunction with film stills shot on set, we used a asystem we call the "Tile-Maker.'[sic] built by Innovation Arts in Alameda, which engineered the Canon lenses for the 'Flo-Mo' rig used in The Matrix." The film stills were photographed with Canon EOS 1v cameras on Kodak Vision 200T 5274, and then scanned as 6K 10-bit log Cineon files in the Vistavision format.

 

The Canon D60s were often used to photograph buildinggs in the center of Sydney. Given that the dynamic range of digital stills currently lags behind that of film, Libreri reports that to "meet the resolution standards of a motion picture, we needed to shoot many more stills with the digital cameras. These images were also tiled together with our custom software."

 

So, unless there is a digital camera that can produce 24MP 10 bit files, I think film still has its place. Also, they could have easily gotten Nikon F3s with 10-meter backs for 250 shots, or Fs with 100-foot backs for 750 shots, or even used Vistavision cameras for even longer periods of uninterupted shooting. IDK why they had to opt for the 1v, unless they really needed a dedicated meter (which I find questionable).

 

Give me all the flack you want, but if the final Matrix film used scanned film over digital, and it *didn't* have the money to shoot segments in Imax, IDK why you think you can criticize me as advocating the use of film over digital in "The Dark Knight", especially on that big Imax screen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Things have changed in the last five years, back in 2002/3 when the third Matrix film was shot they probably had good reason to shoot film for photographic reference - in other words they compared the two and made a decision that going with film would provide a better result in certain cases. These days digital is the preferred method for gathering photographic reference, for various reasons - yes even for the people who did the effects on the Matrix films.

 

The trick is digital images can be combined very easily to give many more stops of latitude and much greater resolution than a single film image can contain.

 

Sure film has it's place, heck they shot certain background plates in IMAX. But just consider that these days film might not be the best tool in the toolshed.

 

And if your advocating for quality then surely you need to have an open mind as to which is the best tool to use to obtain that quality?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Things have changed in the last five years, back in 2002/3 when the third Matrix film was shot they probably had good reason to shoot film for photographic reference - in other words they compared the two and made a decision that going with film would provide a better result in certain cases. These days digital is the preferred method for gathering photographic reference, for various reasons - yes even for the people who did the effects on the Matrix films.

 

The trick is digital images can be combined very easily to give many more stops of latitude and much greater resolution than a single film image can contain.

 

Sure film has it's place, heck they shot certain background plates in IMAX. But just consider that these days film might not be the best tool in the toolshed.

 

And if your advocating for quality then surely you need to have an open mind as to which is the best tool to use to obtain that quality?

 

Umm, you realize that you can do HDR from a single film frame, as opposed to 5 with digital, right?

 

Or you can shoot three film frames and have a 12-15 stop extended range on top of film's already greater dynamic range.

 

I disagree that scanned film is anymore difficult to work with than native digital files, and, again with good scanners, it will produce superior results.

 

The only time that digital wins over film is with issues of time, and money, and these aren't always as big as one would think when you factor in the amount of extra memory you need with digital as opposed to film. Also, if one has access to MP scanners, they are orders of magnitude faster than anything available to still photographers.

 

Saying that digital is just as good as film is wrong on multiple levels, color, bit depth, resolution, latitude. If you want to say "Karl, we didn't have enough time to shoot all of that footage on film because of a tight deadline." I would have left it at that. I just don't buy this "Oh, no one can tell the difference" bullshit. Pardon my french. The whole point of "The Dark Knight" was to show that people *could* tell the difference and that they appreciate it when a high-quality product is presented to them.

 

This is just your typical IT BS that makes my skin crawl, undermining great cinematography with short-cuts and half-assed work. Again, it's one thing if there were time restrictions. But "Hey, I'm too lazy to scan film" is not the attitude that a passionate professional would take. End results make all of the hardships in getting there worth it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went to see TDK today in IMAX and I must say, though I wasn't that impressed with the film itself, seeing it in IMAX was a great experience. I'm guessing that the Print is imported from the US, as the Subtitles where projected separately and the print was in pristine condition (never seen such a good print here in Mexico, NEVER!). Guess the IMAX guys don't take kindly on scratched prints, haha.

On the film, I thought it was not bad, it missed a little somthing, something that made it special and unconventional, like I found Speed Racer to be (admittedly I saw it high). So it turned out (in my view) to be not much more than a glorified, quite well done, action flick, with all the might of IMAX added as a special. It was interesting as it was a new take on the Joker and Two-Face, both of which seemed pretty neat interpretations of both caracters. But overrated as hell, that's for sure. Great to see that 65mm and 35mm in anamorphic was used, that was really something else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, and I almost forgot... one last thing that bothered me was the occasional bad cgi-effect, like the one when batman, holding the asian guy, is pulled away by the airplane and flies just next to the picture... crappy cgi at its zenith, IMHO... not all cgi was that bad, but this was not the only instance of bad special effects, there where a few more, like one or two involving two-face's face.

I should have edited, how do I do that? ... Oh, there it is... why didn't it appear on the previous post??

Edited by Alessandro Malfatti
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will what is this trick ?

 

Two ways. For latitude you shoot the same frame at several different exposures and then convert them into a HDR (High Dynamic Range) image, which allows you to capture a greater range of light intensity than taking a single photograph. For resolution you can shoot panoramic tiles, which depending on the AoV used to shoot each tile can result in rather high resolution images, as an example say each tile was shot at 7.5 degree increments covering a 10 degree AoV (the tiles require some overlap), stitched together you could create a new image with a wider AoV which retained all the detail from the original tiles, so stitched together we could create a 90 degree AoV made up of several 4K (or whatever resolution the tiles were shot at) images. You can also combine these two techniques together.

 

Umm, you realize that you can do HDR from a single film frame, as opposed to 5 with digital, right?

 

A film image still has a fairly limited range, and it isn't that much greater than a digital image. So no.

 

Or you can shoot three film frames and have a 12-15 stop extended range on top of film's already greater dynamic range.

I disagree that scanned film is anymore difficult to work with than native digital files, and, again with good scanners, it will produce superior results.

 

Yes you can do HDR images and panoramic tiles with film. The process can be a bit more involved but it's doable, does it produce better result? Well that's another question. Fairly recently I was working with some plates shot of a street set - some of the plates were shot on film, the rest shot as digital stills, the quality of the film plates were good and worked great in the shots they were intended to be used, but because I was using the plates to create backgrounds for new shots, the film plates proved difficult to deal with - I still used them, if only because the digital stills didn't cover the whole set.

 

But "Hey, I'm too lazy to scan film" is not the attitude that a passionate professional would take. End results make all of the hardships in getting there worth it.

 

Neither is "hey, I'm only working with film, because it's the greatest and everything else sucks" the right attitute for a passionate professional to take.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neither is "hey, I'm only working with film, because it's the greatest and everything else sucks" the right attitute for a passionate professional to take.

 

So do you take the attitude of the Superman that digital cameras aren't just as good as 35mm, they're as good as 65mm because they're grainless?

 

Are you honestly of the opinion that digital is *more seamless* in a film-shot, optically-timed, motion picture than more film? I've done film HDR, and there were at least 3-5 extra usable stops of latitude more than a single digital frame, so it is very realistic to get a good HDR from neg. film. I've even seen good HDRs from slides. At worst, it'd be 3 film frames being able to do what five digital frames can do. I'm not making this stuff up, I've done it and seen the results, and this was not even a million dollar cine scanner like the industry guys have access to, so I can only assume I would have gotten far better results with one of those.

 

Sorry, I still do not get it. . .

 

I have worked with a great deal of MiniDV, HDV, HD, etc, and while I don't have any problem with those media (I really don't, they make shooting some things possible that would have been impossible with film), I have a huge problem with the attitudes of the people using them that they will be able to do things they were not.

 

It's like the guys that think you can blow up S8 to 35mm with great results. S8 is great, but sorry, no, that will be very noticeable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Late comer. Just saw it.

 

This films belongs to Wally Pfister hands down - very solid work.

 

The rest I was entertained by whenever Heath was on the screen, otherwise not. And the whole Two Face subplot was just one plot too many.

Nolan's action scenes have also not gotten much better since the last one. He fails to show the geography of the fights and they're cut, cut, cut.

 

But nice setpieces, nice camera work and an A for effort.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But nice setpieces, nice camera work and an A for effort.

 

Howabout an "A+" for effort? I think this movie seriously deserves it, even if it does not surpass Titanic's box office record.

 

Heath Ledger was amazing, but I think overall, this film had very solid acting in it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So do you take the attitude of the Superman that digital cameras aren't just as good as 35mm, they're as good as 65mm because they're grainless?

 

No I don't believe digital motion picture cameras are currently up to the quality of film motion picture cameras - wasn't the point I was trying to make.

 

My point was that a passionate professional, striving for the highest quality work will objectively access all the tools and techniques available to him/her and figure out which will give the best and highest quality end-result (the part that matters). In the case of shooting a major motion picture and the question is "I want the best, what medium should I shoot my film on?" then the answer is still film.

 

But stubbornly being attached only to film without considering other formats or techniques limits you to the same "it's good enough" attitude that your trying to argue against. Film is great and I hope more films are shot large like TDK, but film itself has it's cons which no longer makes it the only or easy answer in filmmaking - even if the question starts with "I want the best and neither money or time is an obstacle".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No I don't believe digital motion picture cameras are currently up to the quality of film motion picture cameras - wasn't the point I was trying to make.

 

My point was that a passionate professional, striving for the highest quality work will objectively access all the tools and techniques available to him/her and figure out which will give the best and highest quality end-result (the part that matters). In the case of shooting a major motion picture and the question is "I want the best, what medium should I shoot my film on?" then the answer is still film.

 

But stubbornly being attached only to film without considering other formats or techniques limits you to the same "it's good enough" attitude that your trying to argue against. Film is great and I hope more films are shot large like TDK, but film itself has it's cons which no longer makes it the only or easy answer in filmmaking - even if the question starts with "I want the best and neither money or time is an obstacle".

 

Frankly, unless it is done for a specific effect, I always think that the mixing of formats is problematic. 35mm anamorphic and IMAX, on the same stock, have differences too, but they have the same characteristics, just less and more detail, respectively.

 

When you mix something completely different into the mix, like E-6, VNF-1, C-41, HD, SD, RAW, JPEG, unless it is for a specific effect, like a shot of a movie playing in a theatre on a projector within another movie, or an HDTV in a shot, I just don't like mixing formats, because there are always seemlessness issues.

 

I'd advocate digital stills over 35mm in a digitally-captured movie for the same reason. If you want to work with a certain medium, master it, don't make excuses to the contrary.

 

I guess, psychologically, this is as bothersome to me as someone making a documentary about pollution, and leaving sets full of refuse after ever shot they do. Or people that shoot 16mm for slow-mo on HD shows "because it's easier", and there are to my knowledge HD cameras available that will be far more seamless, albeit perhaps more expensive or more difficult to get ahold of. To me it is like a person who says one thing and does another. An environmentalist that drives around in a hummer is similarly befuddling to me, or a cavalier person who doesn't believe in global warming buying a hybrid. Believe in what you believe in and stick with it while that belief holds true!

 

Again, I really don't know why we are arguing. Even people that behave in the manner I describe (saying one thing and doing another) outwardly always admit to be repulsed by these behaviors. I think *uniformity* and consistency are important in a movie, and I feel this is a surprising compromise for an action film that, for the first time ever, shot segments in IMAX. So again, why are we arguing? Can you at least say that you see my point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

It started last week in Germany and I just saw it on IMAX in Berlin.

 

I was simply blown away, the film itself is very good (by comic/action-standards even a masterpiece) but the technical quality of the projection was simply OUTSTANDING!

 

The screen is 21x28m (are there bigger IMAX screens in America?) and everything, the colors, the contrast, the steadiness and even dirt (I've noticed two tiny dirt particley in 152min with an one week old copy!) were close to perfection. The image sharpness was great, even in the 35mm-segments but the wideangle-cityscapes in IMAX were simply the best thing I've ever seen in movie history!

 

Pppppllllllleeeeaaaaasssseeee all Spielbergs, Camerons, Nolans, Scorseses, Malicks, Lubezkis, Ballhauses, Tolls out there... stop using inferior technology on big productions! THIS IS WHAT CINEMA IS MADE FOR! That's what keeps audiences from watching cheap copies on tiny TVs! Use at least 65mm (nealry as big as IMAX when considering the aspect ratio - IMAX is not much wider, "only" higher) and present them on IMAX! Or use the coming-up great 4k-transfers of modern films and classics (e.g. Blade Runner) to make IMAX-prints and show them there! It's cheaper than producing boring 50min 3D-Canyon/Dinosaurs...-films and people will watch them, then after one month, change the copies from city to city so e.g. NYC can watch Blade Runner, while Chicago has a 70mm-copy of a critically acclaimed movie from last year...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Just wanted to resurrect this thread. . .

 

I ended up seeing this film closing weekend in IMAX again (unfortunately I guess I'll need to find a second-run 35mm theatre to see it in that format), and I wanted to correct some of my earlier assertions:

 

The soft focus shots I blamed on IMAX were actually all 35mm shots. It is actually surprising how good the 35mm looks through the DMR process compared with IMAX-originated stuff.

 

Closing weekend, I saw one scratch for maybe a second or so on the print. So essentially, the IMAX theatre was able to keep a print spotless throughout a FOUR MONTH theatrical run. I ask again why we don't hold 35mm projection to the same quality standards. Something I've never seen in 35mm projection though, there was a moth or something that got on the lens of the projector. When I told the concessions folks about it they *shock* immediately called the projection room, who said they didn't see it, but would keep checking. Moth eventually disappeared so they either got it or it decided to theatre-hop ;-)

 

What disappoints me, maybe because I expect my vision to be better, is that, seing the film a second time around, the IMAX doesn't have as big of a wow-factor. Maybe I hyped myself up too much, or maybe I need a new prescription, but it actually seemed sharper sitting half-way back the first time around than seeing it front-row the second time around. Despite the fact that maybe IMAX doesn't help that much for closeups, because you don't need as much fine-detail resolution (I noticed it didn't help much when Batman is driving his luxury car), it definitely does make a huge difference in the overhead shots. So hopefully this is the start of a new trend in big-budget blockbusters like this. Or maybe they can work 65mm 5 perf. and IMAX together and drop 35mm altogether. In any case, I think IMAX remains overkill for closeups.

 

Now I am curious to see how this film looks to those of you that have it on HD-DVD and a 1080P television set. Having just seen "No Country for Old Men" in HD, 4K definitly benefits over 2K or a std. HD finish, so I am curous to know how the improved detail holds up on the small screen, especially the IMAX stuff and if it is perceptably better than the 4K scans.

 

Does anyone know if they took the IMAX transfer or the 35mm transfer to use for the HD copy? I know you get to see contact-prints for the IMAX portions in the IMAX theatre and contact-prints for the 35mm portions for a 35mm projection, so am curious to know what they did for the final consumer product.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

The IMAX shots seem marginally better-looking than the 35mm anamorphic shots on the Blu-Ray disc -- it all looks very nice actually, and you can spot the IMAX shots easily because they are full-frame 16x9 HD, whereas the rest is letterboxed to 2.40. IMAX seemed like a great call for shooting those aerial establishing shots of Chicago and Hong Kong, plus the wide shots in the action scenes, like the truck-flipping shot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Forum Sponsors

BOKEH RENTALS

Film Gears

Metropolis Post

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Visual Products

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineLab

CINELEASE

Cinematography Books and Gear



×
×
  • Create New...