-
Website
http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/ -
Original page
http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/news/why-batman-3-will-not-be-shot-fully-in-imax.php -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
Top Commenters
-
mychaleg
85 comments · 2 points
-
Peter Donohue
123 comments · 83 points
-
littlemovieman
58 comments · 2 points
-
Rohith
48 comments · 1 points
-
Reebee7
114 comments · 59 points
-
-
Popular Threads
-
Twilight Saga: New Moon Sets Records, Hauls in $140 million
11 hours ago · 7 comments
-
Caption This: Win Uwe Boll’s Far Cry on DVD!
1 day ago · 22 comments
-
New Moon Topples The Dark Knight’s Opening Day Record
1 day ago · 18 comments
-
Here’s Your Chance: What Did You Think of Twilight: New Moon?
2 days ago · 24 comments
-
Facebook Fans: Win a Copy of North by Northwest on DVD!
15 hours ago · 2 comments
-
Twilight Saga: New Moon Sets Records, Hauls in $140 million
n fact, I think Terminator 3 was better than Transformers 2 overall (story and graphics as well
I thought Disney decided to make Pirates of the Carribean 4...what happened to that?
So ask yourself, do Nolan and Bale want to make another Batman film? Unless the answer is emphatically yes, I think they will both move on. (Much to my personal chagrin.)
As for IMAX, well, that would be great, but the production costs would be insane. I don't see a fully IMAX picture being made.
I guess Nolan just want's more money to direct the next moive, but he doesn't want to put it that way. I am sure WB can convice him with lots of $$$ to be the director of the next Batman movie.
And I agree that Nolan will direct because of money. Having a set of values is one thing, having your own private island is another. If Nolan wants to hold out for money, WB will give it to him. I wouldn't be surprised if he could negotiate something like ridiculous, like 10% of the films budget, which would be $18.5 million or so. I'd direct a dog shitting into my own mouth for $18.5 million.
The demand for more money being given to Nolan would directly relate to the success of Inception. If Inception turns out to have an excellent run at the box office then what you said might be true. I am not impressed with the teaser trailer of Inception though.
WB's not stupid enough to give Nolan a $200 million blank check on "Inception" without asking for anything in return. Simply said, Gary Oldman wasn't lying at Comic-Con.
WB is a studio that has always been in the top one or two spots of the studio market share for the past five years (excluding 2006) and so I think it can afford the budget if it wants to but I think WB is too cheap to do that. Maybe, if Disney was producing the movie it might spend over $300 million as it did for Pirates of the Carribean 3.
I hope there will be a movie within the next five years that is shot fully in IMAX. I understand the complications of operating IMAX equipment, but it would be awesome to see any movie in IMAX. (Excluding Transformers 2 which has done a poor job in making the graphics for IMAX as I felt like it was blurry sometimes and barely noticed the robots transforming or fighting(clearly) as it was "too" fast due to the unnecessary extreme close up shots of the movie)
IMAX cameras are VERY HEAVY compared to the regular cameras and so moving it requires powerful cranes and good experience. The reel of the film is also very expensive so if you make a mistake while acting in regular scenes, it is expensive to take several shots. In terms of technical issues, IMAX cameras can only shoot about three minutes of footage at a time, before they must change reels. The cameras are so noisy, that all dialogue has to be re-recorded in post production. Shooting with IMAX cameras is a very tough job.
Definitely using today's cameras, this would be a nightmare...the magazines are like 2 minutes a piece and I guess the cameras sound like a small aircraft.
It sure would be amazing. I saw The Dark Knight four times in IMAX and it was nothing short of breathtaking.