The Dark Knight Rises (2012)

[Kaiju]

Originally Posted by Ironhorse75

Non IMAX scenes are really disappointing. Especially when scenes that are covering one sequence switch back and forth. Bane's fight outside (1.78) being taken inside (2.40) comes to mind.

Well, at least they're better than the non IMAX scenes in The Dark Knight.

[paper tiger]

Originally Posted by 42041

Nolan's use of IMAX IS a gimmick.
If he wanted it to not be gimmicky, he'd shoot the whole movie in it.

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

You don't know much about IMAX filming I see. Read up before making such silly claims.

Originally Posted by 42041

What do I need to know? I don't care if it's hard to shoot a movie in IMAX. If half your movie is flipping between the two formats, it's an irritating gimmick.

Originally Posted by saprano

Surprised this is coming from you, 42041.

There's a reason why the whole movie isn't shot that way and mostly only actions scenes. Im sure you know this already.

As I said in an earlier post, an IMAX camera is huge, heavy, loud and very cumbersome which limits the movements it can make as well as having to go back in and edit out the loud camera noise and redo all audio and vocals. IMAX is a great technology and Nolan and his Batman movies are really the first use of them in an actual hollywood movie. Before that it was just documenteries and stuff like that.

Nolan wanted to use it mainly for the action scenes to open up the shot. To film a 2 1/2 hour long movie completely in IMAX would take forever and be very costly. I like how Nolan has done The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises with the alternaiting aspect ratios. The movie is just so much better looking for the IMAX shots.

I agree with everyone else, please do a little research before making silly claims. Google is right there at your fingertips.

Originally Posted by Ironhorse75

Non IMAX scenes are really disappointing. Especially when scenes that are covering one sequence switch back and forth. Bane's fight outside (1.78) being taken inside (2.40) comes to mind.

Yeah, that was the only scene which was a little irritating. But besides that I loved the open IMAX action scenes. The switching back and forth between scenes doesn't really bother me, but the clarity seemed to drasticly drop when the 2.40 aspect ratio clicked in. It also seemed too dark at times, even for a movie called The Dark Knight Rises!

[Todd Smith]

Originally Posted by MercsOwnz

I didn't say it looked bad by any means, but you can tell its obviously not as good as the scenes in IMAX.

Not only that, but the variable aspect on a 2.35 screen doing the "zoom" method flat out does not work. Not only do you not get the intended effect, but it looks like $hit when the frame opens up and spills over the top/bottom of your screen. Dealing with this for 72 bi-polar (lots of switches in this one from the sounds of it!) minutes in TDKR.......................

Because of all this, I am returning my unopened copy and am just going to rent the VUDU HDX version which IS a constant aspect 2.40. Not quite blu quality I am sure, but still 1080p and DD+ audio, so not far off either. They really do need to offer a constant aspect version for the CIH users out there though just like they did for Transformers 2.

[zombied]

Picked up a steelbook from Best Buy and noticed under the cover has a scratch on it under the Blu-Ray paper flap. Anyone else find theirs damaged?

[paper tiger]

Originally Posted by zombied

Picked up a steelbook from Best Buy and noticed under the cover has a scratch on it under the Blu-Ray paper flap. Anyone else find theirs damaged?

I have never had good luck with steelbooks. Either they are dented, bent, or scratched. I would try and return it to BB. If you're going to have and pay more for a steelbook, it should be tip top!

[Early Memphis]

Originally Posted by retablo

It's nice of so many people to just "ignore" the awful moments and terrible writing... like a few "plot holes" are just no big deal. That's why we have to many bad movies these days - people's ability to praise films out of bias instead of seeing them for what they really are. I guarantee, if it was almost any other movie, the message boards would be ripping the same plot hole a new one.
I'm on the fence about picking it up to complete the trilogy. It's certainly not "Hollywood at its finest", as you say... that would be a great film with NO plot holes or eye-rolling moments, don't you think?
Not ripping your opinion, just the hypocriticalness of it.

Ah, another critic who can't accept that he doesn't speak for everyone. You know, this is why replacing monarchy with democracy was/is so tuff. There's a fascist tendency in all of us that wants everyone to see the obvious truth - our point of view. If you think there were "awful moments and terrible writing", if you think it was a "bad" movie - why would you be "on the fence about picking it up to complete the trilogy"? What is that - OCD? Or just a HUGE plot hole?

You have a different opinion than some other folks - that doesn't make you right or them wrong. It's just a frickin' movie for Christ's sake, not real life (which, in my case anyway, has plenty of plot holes and bad writing - to say nothing of bad acting ). I've never seen a perfect movie, only some great ones. We all decide if this or that film has more "good stuff" for us than "bad stuff" for us -it's a personal thing, a value judgment. I like Armageddon, a film that makes some peoples skin crawl. Should I not like it because they don't? Should I watch Swedish art stuff or Kung Fu films if I don't get off on them? My mother watches hours of that house painting, bathroom building, home improvement crap. Should I watch that sh*t with her or just go rip her "plot hole a new one"?

All I'm saying is that we all have different tastes and that's why there are so many different movies - not because "of people's ability to praise films out of bias instead of seeing them for what they really are". Taste and desire are bias. There is no "what they really are". That's a compulsive illusion. There's different folks with different needs and desires looking for different things. If you can't live with the democracy inherent in that, with that meager bit of freedom in a cold fascist world, then you'd better hope that the next dictator has similar tastes to your own.

[42041]

Originally Posted by paper tiger

As I said in an earlier post, an IMAX camera is huge, heavy, loud and very cumbersome which limits the movements it can make as well as having to go back in and edit out the loud camera noise and redo all audio and vocals. IMAX is a great technology and Nolan and his Batman movies are really the first use of them in an actual hollywood movie. Before that it was just documenteries and stuff like that.

Nolan wanted to use it mainly for the action scenes to open up the shot. To film a 2 1/2 hour long movie completely in IMAX would take forever and be very costly. I like how Nolan has done The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises with the alternaiting aspect ratios. The movie is just so much better looking for the IMAX shots.

I agree with everyone else, please do a little research before making silly claims. Google is right there at your fingertips.

lol... what makes you think I haven't done the research? You're right, those are all very good reasons to not shoot a movie in IMAX. I'm not saying it's an easy format to work with. I'm saying Nolan's use of it is gimmicky, and precisely for that reason. Yes, the IMAX scenes look pretty, but for me the overall movie experience becomes a weaker one, due to the distraction of the image constantly jumping around in size and quality.

[Jumpman]

Originally Posted by 42041

lol... what makes you think I haven't done the research? You're right, those are all very good reasons to not shoot a movie in IMAX. I'm not saying it's an easy format to work with. I'm saying Nolan's use of it is gimmicky, and precisely for that reason.

So, what would you prefer then?

[paper tiger]

Originally Posted by 42041

lol... what makes you think I haven't done the research? You're right, those are all very good reasons to not shoot a movie in IMAX. I'm not saying it's an easy format to work with. I'm saying Nolan's use of it is gimmicky, and precisely for that reason.

He's really the first director to use it this way. I don't think it's gimmicky, he had an idea and he's going with it. And I think for the most part everyone loves it... besides you that is.

[AreaUnderTheCurve]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

You don't know much about IMAX filming I see. Read up before making such silly claims.

He managed a few scenes with dialogue.

[42041]

Originally Posted by Jumpman

So, what would you prefer then?

in descending order...
Shoot it completely in 5-perf 70mm, a perfectly workable format that should still look spectacular on an IMAX screen. Shoot the IMAX scenes on IMAX, and cut them with a higher-quality format such as Vistavision, 5-perf 70mm, or at least full-aperture Super35 without the AR shifts. Or shoot it completely in 35mm, which I would honestly prefer over the experience of watching this in IMAX, though I'm probably a minority.

[bigdaddyhorse]

I'd prefer if they stuck with one aspect ratio throughout, but after a bit of research these BD's are kinda the best of both worlds. The IMAX scenes aren't matted to 2.4 like they were when I saw it in a normal theater, and teh 35mm scenes aren't cropped to 1.78 like IMAX showings were. Knowing this makes me sleep easier and not get annoyed by ratio switches. Ideal would probably be an option of which ratio to view in, but as is won't trouble me knowing I'm missing anything from cropping.

Nolan may be the first to do this with IMAX. but is not the first director to use various ratios in a film. Although it's ironic that it didn't do this in theaters ala Dr. Strangelove, just on the blu-rays. I know TDK dvd was 2.40 all the way through, is TDKR dvd also one ratio, or did they do the IMAX switch this time?

[Jumpman]

Originally Posted by 42041

in descending order...
Shoot it completely in 5-perf 70mm, a perfectly workable format that should still look spectacular on an IMAX screen. Shoot the IMAX scenes on IMAX, and cut them with a higher-quality format such as Vistavision, 5-perf 70mm, or at least full-aperture Super35 without the AR shifts. Or shoot it completely in 35mm, which I would honestly prefer over the experience of watching this in IMAX, though I'm probably a minority.

All valid ways of shooting the film but that's not what he did so why complain about it?

[paper tiger]

Originally Posted by bigdaddyhorse

I'd prefer if they stuck with one aspect ratio throughout, but after a bit of research these BD's are kinda the best of both worlds. The IMAX scenes aren't matted to 2.4 like they were when I saw it in a normal theater, and teh 35mm scenes aren't cropped to 1.78 like IMAX showings were. Knowing this makes me sleep easier and not get annoyed by ratio switches. Ideal would probably be an option of which ratio to view in, but as is won't trouble me knowing I'm missing anything from cropping.

Nolan may be the first to do this with IMAX. but is not the first director to use various ratios in a film. Although it's ironic that it didn't do this in theaters ala Dr. Strangelove, just on the blu-rays. I know TDK dvd was 2.40 all the way through, is TDKR dvd also one ratio, or did they do the IMAX switch this time?

O yeah, throughout the years and years of movie making multiple aspect ratios have been used in a single film, some of that had to do with different cameras needed which could do different things and because of special effects editing.

I really like how Nolan has done these films in IMAX and I am glad, on Blu-ray at least, that they have kept his original idea in tact.

According to the back pic of the DVD it just has the standard Warner DVD Widescreen Version message. The Amazon specs just say 1.77:1, which may or may not be correct.

[Jumpman]

Originally Posted by bigdaddyhorse

I'd prefer if they stuck with one aspect ratio throughout, but after a bit of research these BD's are kinda the best of both worlds. The IMAX scenes aren't matted to 2.4 like they were when I saw it in a normal theater, and teh 35mm scenes aren't cropped to 1.78 like IMAX showings were. Knowing this makes me sleep easier and not get annoyed by ratio switches. Ideal would probably be an option of which ratio to view in, but as is won't trouble me knowing I'm missing anything from cropping.

Nolan may be the first to do this with IMAX. but is not the first director to use various ratios in a film. Although it's ironic that it didn't do this in theaters ala Dr. Strangelove, just on the blu-rays. I know TDK dvd was 2.40 all the way through, is TDKR dvd also one ratio, or did they do the IMAX switch this time?

Scope the whole way.

[rickah88]

Originally Posted by Jumpman

All valid ways of shooting the film but that's not what he did so why complain about it?

Well I think everyone has the right to voice their opinion.

[joenostalgia23]

Originally Posted by bigdaddyhorse

I'd prefer if they stuck with one aspect ratio throughout, but after a bit of research these BD's are kinda the best of both worlds. The IMAX scenes aren't matted to 2.4 like they were when I saw it in a normal theater, and teh 35mm scenes aren't cropped to 1.78 like IMAX showings were. Knowing this makes me sleep easier and not get annoyed by ratio switches. Ideal would probably be an option of which ratio to view in, but as is won't trouble me knowing I'm missing anything from cropping.

Nolan may be the first to do this with IMAX. but is not the first director to use various ratios in a film. Although it's ironic that it didn't do this in theaters ala Dr. Strangelove, just on the blu-rays. I know TDK dvd was 2.40 all the way through, is TDKR dvd also one ratio, or did they do the IMAX switch this time?

Nothing was cropped for IMAX.
35mm played letterboxed at 2.40
IMAX footage played in 1.78

This BD tries to replicate that presentation, though the IMAX scenes have been cropped to 1.78 to fill the screen(though the shots are composed for 2.40 so nothing is lost)

I personally like the aspect ratio shifts.
Though some do annoy me such as

[Show spoiler] the cuts to Alfred in Italy as he's talking to Bruce. It almost gives away the ending since it does make you wonder why they shot such a brief flashback in IMAX.

[Jumpman]

Originally Posted by rickah88

Well I think everyone has the right to voice their opinion.

It's the constant complaining that's the problem.

The best thing for him to do is just watch the DVD. It's not like WB didn't release a constant aspect ratio version.

VUDU has a HD version of the film in constant ratio.

No need to complain really. Options all over the place.

[timcat4843]

Originally Posted by Alphamale87

I always have the chips, popcorn and soda when making it a movie night. If there's still room...I'll add in the ice cream. Now that I have the trilogy complete, I'll go watch them in order. I see you're the proud owner of this as well. When did you pick it up?

I got it bright and early Tuesday morning at Walmart.
"Blind Buy" for me and will probably watch it tomorrow.
Thursday night is pizza night in my household.

Even though I love popcorn, I can't eat it.
More often than not, it winds up getting stuck in my teeth.
I almost developed an abscess because of it, not to long ago.

[rickah88]

Originally Posted by Jumpman

It's the constant complaining that's the problem.

The best thing for him to do is just watch the DVD. It's not like WB didn't release a constant aspect ratio version.

VUDU has a HD version of the film in constant ratio.

No need to complain really. Options all over the place.

Well I'm not going to debate on the behalf of another member, just stating that when you throw a bunch of people in a thread there are bound to be different opinions.