The Dark Knight Rises (2012)

[imsounoriginal]

PTA reverted back to 35mm for Inherent Vice, no? He used the format wonderfully in The Master, wish I could've seen it projected on film rather than digital.

And yeah, Rick's trick is a good one.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

Yup. Just wish QT was as embracing of home video/Blu-ray as Nolan has been

It's highly ironic that a movie geek who seemingly got his film education in a video store treats the home iteration of his movies as some sort of leprous offshoot. Yes QT, we get that you've got your own haul of prints and have your own cinema where you can show whatever you want on glorious film, but don't penalise folks who can't make it out to one of your 'special' presentations. I'm all for 'event' cinema but in this day and age far more people will see the movie on home video than will EVER catch it in the cinema, and Nolan - as the more populist filmmaker - is seemingly more aware of this fact than his celluloid-loving stablemate.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by rickah88

Click on the post number and then edit that way.
I run into the same problem with "first page" posts.

Nice one. I try just about every other button on the page but never thought of trying that. Cheers!

[imsounoriginal]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

It's highly ironic that a movie geek who seemingly got his film education in a video store treats the home iteration of his movies as some sort of leprous offshoot. Yes QT, we get that you've got your own haul of prints and have your own cinema where you can show whatever you want on glorious film, but don't penalise folks who can't make it out to one of your 'special' presentations. I'm all for 'event' cinema but in this day and age far more people will see the movie on home video than will EVER catch it in the cinema, and Nolan - as the more populist filmmaker - is seemingly more aware of this fact than his celluloid-loving stablemate.

Not only that, but home video is now closer than ever to being able to replicate a theater-quality experience (depending on your setup, it might even be better). So QT's claims of the magic of the cinematic experience, while certainly noble, hold less water than ever.

Anyway, back on topic -- TDKR sucks, visually and just in general.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

Not only that, but home video is now closer than ever to being able to replicate a theater-quality experience (depending on your setup, it might even be better). So QT's claims of the magic of the cinematic experience, while certainly noble, hold less water than ever.

Agreed, it's like he thinks people are still watching movies at home on 14" CRTs or something. I was...25 years ago.

Anyway, back on topic -- TDKR sucks, visually and just in general.

That about sums it up on both counts, yep

[happydood]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Agreed, it's like he thinks people are still watching movies at home on 14" CRTs or something. I was...25 years ago.



That about sums it up on both counts, yep

I whole-heartedly disagree. I won't change anyone's mind and won't try to as I know the movie doesn't make total logical sense, but for me it does make emotional sense. But I can understand the counter-argument to that, though I don't accept it.

But 'visually sucks?' That's just crazy talk. Crazy, nutballs, crazy talk.

[Geoff D]

Oh, the IMAX stuff is gorgeous (if unambitious in its framing), it's the 35mm stuff that looks like it was shot with golden syrup poured over the lens which is the issue for me.

[Ben_UK]

One problem I have with a lot of Nolan's films is that they have a lot of black crush, or what I deem to be "black crush". No real detail in the dark areas of the frame and combine that with overly orange skin tones.

[42041]

Originally Posted by Ben_UK

One problem I have with a lot of Nolan's films is that they have a lot of black crush, or what I deem to be "black crush". No real detail in the dark areas of the frame and combine that with overly orange skin tones.

Well, that's the aesthetic he goes for... If you don't dig it, cool, but I've always thought this whole "black crush" as an objective picture quality metric thing is one of the sillier concepts the internet home theater community has produced.

[42041]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Oh, the IMAX stuff is gorgeous (if unambitious in its framing), it's the 35mm stuff that looks like it was shot with golden syrup poured over the lens which is the issue for me.

Either look by itself would be fine for me... I'm a fan of that glassy, soft anamorphic look. It's the senseless switching between the two that irks me.

[imsounoriginal]

Originally Posted by 42041

Either look by itself would be fine for me... I'm a fan of that glassy, soft anamorphic look. It's the senseless switching between the two that irks me.

Not exactly senseless, I appreciate the scale it gives to action sequences and establishing shots. But the use of it in TDKR did become increasingly arbitrary. Again, indicative of a lack of effort and anything being well thought-out.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by 42041

Either look by itself would be fine for me... I'm a fan of that glassy, soft anamorphic look. It's the senseless switching between the two that irks me.

I'm a HUGE fanboy for anamorphic and I can appreciate that there's definitely an element of the 15/70-to-4/35 contrast in Nolan's movies which makes the former look so good and the latter so meh (in my eyes), but Nolan's idiosyncrasies still rankle. I was watching snippets of Blade Runner and Alien just yesterday and I think it's barmy how anamorphic shows approaching their 4th decade can absolutely kill such a modern movie in terms of sharpness. But hey, that's Nolan's bag, baby.

As for the switching ratios, I dunno if you just dislike that mojo in general but I agree with iso above that Nolan's use of it has become ever more arbitrary over the last few years.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by Doctor Jack

I was being sort of sarcastic. I personally hate it but I said it as a joke.

I was just sassin' you in return, hence the smiley.

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Oh, the IMAX stuff is gorgeous (if unambitious in its framing), it's the 35mm stuff that looks like it was shot with golden syrup poured over the lens which is the issue for me.

Indeed. Good discussion between you guys.

[dvdmike]

It's not as ugly as interstellar tho

[imsounoriginal]

Interstellar's purdy doe.

[Blu-21]

It's almost like Nolan is trying to be as authentic or as old school as possible when it comes to his 35mm shooting, and yet as a result it ends up looking soft, ugly and digital looking. Hell actually shooting the content with digital cameras would probably better blend with the 70mm stuff than the actual 35mm at least in terms of resolution

[Ray Jackson]

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

Not only that, but home video is now closer than ever to being able to replicate a theater-quality experience (depending on your setup, it might even be better). So QT's claims of the magic of the cinematic experience, while certainly noble, hold less water than ever.

Anyway, back on topic -- TDKR sucks, visually and just in general.

[Arch Stanton]

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

Interstellar's purdy doe.

I thought so too, but you can tell Nolan doesn't lend himself well to visual storytelling.

Interstellar was better because Wally Pfister wasn't involved. Very mid-tier DP, imo.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by Blu-21

It's almost like Nolan is trying to be as authentic or as old school as possible when it comes to his 35mm shooting, and yet as a result it ends up looking soft, ugly and digital looking. Hell actually shooting the content with digital cameras would probably better blend with the 70mm stuff than the actual 35mm at least in terms of resolution

Can't agree with "digital looking." The Dark Knight looks processed because it was, but Dark Knight Rises and Interstellar look thoroughly like film, even if they're soft and dark (by design).

[Blu-21]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

Can't agree with "digital looking." The Dark Knight looks processed because it was, but Dark Knight Rises and Interstellar look thoroughly like film, even if they're soft and dark (by design).

Good argument. I guess its hard and even a bit unfair to throw TDK in with the others because even though its soft and dark by design like the other 2, the processing applied to the actual BD transfer itself has a lot to do with it looking the way it does, which when it comes to the 35 content is nothing like film IMO.