WorstPreviews.com Logo Join the community [Login / Register]
Follow WorstPreviews.com on Twitter
What\ News Coming Soon In Theaters On DVD Trailer,Posters,Pictures,Wallpapers, Screensavers PeliBlog.com Trivia/Quizzes
News/Headlines
Trailer for "Midnight Special" Sci-Fi Film, with Michael Shannon and Joel Edgerton
Nov 23rd, 2015
Trailer for "Central Intelligence" Comedy, with Dwayne Johnson and Kevin Hart
Nov 23rd, 2015
Trailer for Melissa McCarthy's "The Boss" Comedy
Nov 23rd, 2015
Trailer for Juan Antonio Bayona's "A Monster Calls"
Nov 23rd, 2015
First Look at "Central Intelligence" Comedy, with Dwayne Johnson and Kevin Hart
Nov 19th, 2015
Trailer for "Zoolander 2" Arrives Online
Nov 19th, 2015
Official Trailer for "Now You See Me" Sequel
Nov 19th, 2015
Trailer for Chris Hemsworth's "The Huntsman: Winter's War"
Nov 19th, 2015
Trailer for Keanu Reeves' "Exposed" Thriller
Nov 19th, 2015
First Look at Chris Pine on "Wonder Woman" Set
Nov 16th, 2015
Ridley Scott Reveals Another Title for "Prometheus" Sequel
Nov 16th, 2015
Gerard Butler is a God in "Gods of Egypt" Posters
Nov 16th, 2015
First Look at Liam Neeson in Martin Scorsese's "Silence"
Nov 16th, 2015
New Trailer for "The Divergent Series: Allegiant"
Nov 16th, 2015
Trailer for "Moonwalkers" Comedy, with Ron Perlman and Rupert Grint
Nov 16th, 2015
Trailer for Charlie Kaufman's "Anomalisa" Stop-Motion Film
Nov 3rd, 2015
Poster for "Warcraft" Arrives Online, Trailer Coming on Friday
Nov 3rd, 2015
There's a Good Reason Why Luke Skywalker Isn't on "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" Poster
Nov 2nd, 2015
First Trailer for Sacha Baron Cohen's "The Brothers Grimsby" Comedy
Nov 2nd, 2015
"Spectre" Breaks Box Office Records Overseas
Nov 2nd, 2015
Final Trailer for Ron Howard's "In the Heart of the Sea," with Chris Hemsworth
Nov 2nd, 2015
New Photos From "Warcraft" Video Game Movie
Nov 2nd, 2015
Lots of New Photos From "Suicide Squad"
Oct 30th, 2015
Trailer for "Dirty Grandpa" Comedy, with Robert De Niro and Zac Efron
Oct 30th, 2015
Sandra Bullock to Star in Female Version of "Ocean's Eleven"
Oct 30th, 2015
Trailer for Jared Hess' "Don Verdean" Comedy, with Sam Rockwell
Oct 30th, 2015
"Indiana Jones" Producer Says Harrison Ford Will Not Be Recast
Oct 28th, 2015
Trailer for Adam Sandler's "The Ridiculous 6" Comedy
Oct 28th, 2015
"The Walking Dead" Fan Kills Friend Who Turned Into a Zombie
Oct 28th, 2015
Another "Monopoly" Movie in the Works
Oct 28th, 2015
"Jumanji" Remake Hires "Con Air" Writer
Oct 26th, 2015
Disney's "Tower of Terror" Park Ride Movie Moving Forward
Oct 26th, 2015
Johnny Depp and Edgar Wright Team for "Fortunately, the Milk"
Oct 26th, 2015
Previous News Stories Next News Stories

Christopher Nolan is NOT a Fan of 3D, But "Batman 3" Might Be in 3D

Posted: June 14th, 2010 by WorstPreviews.com Staff
Christopher Nolan is NOT a Fan of 3D, But "Batman 3" Might Be in 3DSubmit Comment
Christopher Nolan recently revealed that he is not interested in incorporating 3D technology in his movies since it makes the picture darker and more difficult to make the movie intended by the filmmaker.

"I'm not a huge fan of 3D," he said. "But really it's going to be up to audiences to decide how they want to watch their films."

He added, however, that he's not against making the third "Batman" movie in 3D and has already played around with the technology. "We did tests on 'Inception' to look at the post conversion process," he revealed. "And they worked very well. It's quite easy to do, in fact. But it takes a little time, and we didn't have the time to do it to the standard that I would have been happy."

Warner Bros will likely push Nolan to make "Batman 3" in 3D, especially since the director would rather convert the film in post-production than shoot it with 3D cameras. The conversion process is much cheaper, easier to do, takes less time and doesn't restrict the filmmaker during production.

Source: THR


Bookmark and Share
You must be registered to post comments. Login or Register.
Displaying 72 comment(s) Profanity: Turn On
Max Rockatansky Junior writes:
on June 14th, 2010 at 8:20:51 PM

God, for the love of all that is human ... NO. Someone needs to once and for all not f*ck up a good thing.

3D is good for sh*tty B Movies about monsters that look like their made out of paper mache and acting by actresses whose last paying gig was dancing naked behind a c*m stained one way mirror in a sleazy part of town ...

not Batman.
Crazyhorse writes:
on June 14th, 2010 at 8:32:59 PM

Ive seen enough 3D to last me a decade.

3D for cartoons yea

for The Batman
Please Nolan read this carefully NNNNONOOOO

Leave the 3D crap to Shrek
Max Rockatansky Junior writes:
on June 14th, 2010 at 8:34:17 PM

Warner Bros will likely push Nolan to make "Batman 3" in 3D, especially since the director would rather convert the film in post-production than shoot it with 3D cameras. The conversion process is much cheaper, easier to do, takes less time and doesn't restrict the filmmaker during production.

TRANSLATION : WARNER BROTHERS IS THAT RETARDED BROTHER IN THE TRUNK THAT JUST WON'T DIE NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES YOU HIT HIM WITH THE TIRE IRON. OR COC. OR DEATHPROOF88. OR ALL THREE OF THEM IN A GANGBANG IN THE TRUNK WITH A STRAPON, CRISCO OIL AND HALF OF A BASEBALL BAT (AND NOT THE GRIPPING HALF).
Max Rockatansky Junior writes:
on June 14th, 2010 at 8:35:11 PM

You tell 'em, CrazyHorse!
Gates writes:
on June 14th, 2010 at 8:35:54 PM

Inception looks like it would have been a f*cking great movie to incorporate 3D technology.
NO MORE REMAKES writes:
on June 14th, 2010 at 8:38:08 PM

The only way this is going to stop is if people stop going to the 3D showings. Until they lose money. 3D movies are more expensive and less entertaining. The Film companies don't change what they do until it hits em where it hurts...their pockets.
WV-Films writes:
on June 14th, 2010 at 8:40:52 PM

"Warner Bros will likely push Nolan to make "Batman 3" in 3D, especially since......."

WRONG. After coming close to raking in a Billion dollars, WB will let Nolan shoot Batman 3 on a Hi8 for all they care.

Again WP reports it's opinions over fact.
asylum writes:
on June 14th, 2010 at 8:42:29 PM

I bet Dustin Putman loves 3D. I bet he cant wait for Cats & Dogs 3D.

Join the cause! Fire Dustin Putman!

http://tinyurl.com/firedustinputman
Crazyhorse writes:
on June 14th, 2010 at 8:43:22 PM

3D

Just another way "Holy wood" can pick pocket my wallet for a "FEW DOLLARS MORE"

Popcorn anyone, just $10 dollars a barrel?
realgirl76 writes:
on June 14th, 2010 at 8:47:55 PM

@ Crazyhorse
A barrel? More like $10 a baggie. JK
The Skippy Spartan writes:
on June 14th, 2010 at 8:51:08 PM

Finally a director that actually hates 3D like me. Nolan by now should have some power over producers to tell them to f*ck off and leave his project.

I would get it if Dark knight tanked and the producers would think that making it into 3D would gain some profit, but since Batman Begins and TDK were successful in many ways, there is really no need for a 3D. Just an excellent script, great cast, great crew and of course an excellent director that can't be replaced by anyone!!
blinkbomber writes:
on June 14th, 2010 at 8:55:41 PM

so i guess it'll be official soon... the title of the next movie will be "Batman 3D"

even Heath would roll over in his grave from this. RIP.
nope.com writes:
on June 14th, 2010 at 9:07:03 PM

IMAX > 3D

plain and simple
nope.com writes:
on June 14th, 2010 at 9:07:42 PM

didn't you learn from Clash of the Titans WB & Legendary Pictures?
Peter Parker writes:
on June 14th, 2010 at 9:10:45 PM

So, he's not a fan, but he might do it anyway?
That's the same mentality of women who are not fans of anal, but they might do it too, in an effort to give that little extra pleasure.

If that was Nolan's mindset when he considered the 3D possibility, to give the viewers some extra pleasure with the illusion of images coming out of the screen, then I can circle back to my initial analogy and honestly say:

- Mr. Nolan, you can shove the 3D up your ass.

johnny_boy writes:
on June 14th, 2010 at 9:38:27 PM

All he has to do is threaten WB that he will quit if he has to do it 3d. I'm sure they'll do what he wants in fear of loosing him
jigsaw23 writes:
on June 14th, 2010 at 9:45:57 PM

f*ck 3d
SquirrelFlyer writes:
on June 14th, 2010 at 9:51:57 PM

obviously conversion sucks, watch clash of the titans to see full proof of that, either shoot in 3D or dont bother, i submit dont bother and shoot in IMAX again, that worked very well
Crazyhorse writes:
on June 14th, 2010 at 10:01:23 PM

I need $5 dollars

My wallet is empty from watching all the 3D crap
Billy Bob writes:
on June 14th, 2010 at 10:16:34 PM

You guys are a bunch of whiny dumbasses. If you don't like 3D, you DON'T have to watch ANY movie in 3D. That's because every 3D movie also has cheaper 2D screenings, so there is always a choice. People like @crazyhorse act like 3D is being shoved down their throats and is eating up all of their money, when you're never obligated to see any movie in 3D if you don't want to. So basically, STFU!

On a side note, I think that if anyone could utilize 3D technology for the betterment of cinema, it would be Nolan. I would see Batman 3 in 2D and 3D. But to each is his own.
Sinestro writes:
on June 14th, 2010 at 10:22:57 PM

As long as he makes the movie he wants to make first, I couldn't care less if they went ahead and converted it to 3-D after the movie was done. What I would f*cking loathe is for things to be changed in order to make 3-D friendly scenes. I'm not spending an extra 5 bucks to watch it in 3D anyway.
CCBlev writes:
on June 14th, 2010 at 10:31:41 PM

This I might watch in 3D, but at the same time enough with the 3D bull sh*t. Imagine when they fianlly get 4D ready that they're talking about doing.
@Trailer
I know at somepoint you'll be on here, but that movie was twisted. Check it out.
sc_kg writes:
on June 14th, 2010 at 10:33:01 PM

"The conversion process is much cheaper, easier to do, takes less time and doesn't restrict the filmmaker during production,"

One more thing- it sucks.
OneTime writes:
on June 14th, 2010 at 10:54:50 PM

WHAT THE f*ck
DeVries writes:
on June 14th, 2010 at 10:57:23 PM

I never saw a 3D movie and I don't f*cking care. Am I normal anymore?
Sinestro writes:
on June 14th, 2010 at 11:20:25 PM

"Am I normal anymore?"

No, sir. And very soon, the 3D crazy majority will hunt people like us down and make us watch Clash of the Titans in 3D before taking us to some public place to be GLASSED! Glassed, by the way, is a lot like being stoned, except they throw those horrible plastic 3D glasses at us until we die. Slower, more tedious and less dignified.
Aingx writes:
on June 14th, 2010 at 11:29:55 PM

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Have some balls you rat bastard!
Webslinger1187 writes:
on June 14th, 2010 at 11:35:45 PM

HELL NO!!!! NO MORE 3D!!!! EVER!!!!
SACdaddy writes:
on June 15th, 2010 at 12:01:34 AM

f*ck
SACdaddy writes:
on June 15th, 2010 at 12:21:10 AM

Alright, I've been holding this back for some time, but now seems like the most opportune time to let it rip. I been getting a real bad feeling about Inception ever since I heard most of the actors (especially Leo) didn't understand what the hell they were filming or what the movie was actually about. Since then, I've been a little skeptical about what trailers I've seen and what news I've heard about it. There's been a sh*tload of hype behind this film, but I've only seen one thing in the trailer that looks somewhat interesting. I understand the enthusiasm surrounding Nolan's next project, but have the trailer really given us anything that deserves such praise before viewing? Other than the scene of the city rolling up like a joint, nothing has been very impressive about these clips. No Goyer or
SACdaddy writes:
on June 15th, 2010 at 12:34:35 AM

cont.

When Nolan doesn't work with his brother or David Goyer his track record isn't as impressive (Insomnia, Batman Begins). It begs to ask where the true talent of the family lies. With Jonathan and David, Nolan's great, without them he's just an average director. 3D is very "average" and Nolan's decision to consider this cheap parlor trick filmmaking (after a film like Iron Man 2 has proven it unnecessary) is very revealing imo. All things considered, I suspect Inception may be a huge failure :(
ian_918 writes:
on June 15th, 2010 at 12:35:14 AM

Yeah he needs to stand up to them and say f*ck YOU HOLLYWOOD.
Rio14 writes:
on June 15th, 2010 at 12:40:30 AM

I think it's a bad idea, until it comes out, then we might be like "Hey this is AWESOME!" or we might scream out loud in the theaters "Why!!!!!"
otis writes:
on June 15th, 2010 at 12:46:46 AM

I used to be a 3D virgin, but unfortunately I was dragged to Clash of the Titans- it was my first.

And it impregnated me with the spawn of Satan.
Peter Parker writes:
on June 15th, 2010 at 1:04:44 AM

@ SAC:

High expectations frequently lead to disappointment. Being somewhat apprehensive about this movie, the way you seem to be - in case I correctly interpreted what you said - is probably the best way to approach the hype the film has been getting.
And when Nolan himself says that "it's going to be up to audiences to decide how they want to watch their films", I interpret that as a symptom of a director that starts thinking more about the money, that the movie itself.
Not good signs.

@ Billy Bob:

So, people who express their opinion regarding 3D films are "whiny dumbasses", and yet, here you are, being a dumbass who whines about that precicely.
What does that make of you? Exactly, a whiny dumbass.

And you're completely missing the point.
The problem with 3D is NOT because it takes away the option of watching movies in 2D (even though, in some cases, it does).
The problem with 3D is that it has been like a bloody cancer to the movies industry. And this is not a random analogy. Much like cancer cells that spread across healthy tissue, taking over and destroying the organs, 3D has been smothering movies with nothing but eye-candy, replacing elements like a solid script, an interesting plot and credible acting performances by a pretty little colorful digital imaging technique wrapping paper. They're hollow.
Want examples of movies that didn't benefit from being converted into 3D? Think of the ones we've seen so far, all of them, and take your pick.

"I think that if anyone could utilize 3D technology for the betterment of cinema, it would be Nolan"

- Oh really? What makes you think that, genius? What in Nolan's past could possibly give you the impression that he'd do a better job at using 3D technology than others we've seen until now?
Your assumption comes from wishful thinking, I believe, and has no grounds to support it.

And it's only normal that people will express feelings of outrage towards the possibility of having "Batman 3" in 3D.
The two previous movies were supported by the elements I've mentioned above, among others, and NOT by eye-candy.
People expect the third installment to be just as good, if not better, and not to see it turned into cartoons for mass consumption.

But please, don't STFU. Keep on enlightening us with your brilliant theories about how theaters can still exhibit movies in 3D, and other outstanding revelations that none of us has ever thought of.

Sinestro writes:
on June 15th, 2010 at 1:06:12 AM

"When Nolan doesn't work with his brother or David Goyer his track record isn't as impressive (Insomnia, Batman Begins)"

He worked with Goyer in Begins. Please don't tell me you're trying to give the dude responsible for The Unborn any credit for Nolan's success.
masht7 writes:
on June 15th, 2010 at 1:21:34 AM

No one will go and see B3 if it's converted into 3D. I'm just like Chris, I'm not a fan of 3D but I don't consider it to be a trashy towards films (it's only burning a hole in your pocket).
encoreyourface writes:
on June 15th, 2010 at 1:31:55 AM

let me guess ... "Batman 3...D" is the title?
SACdaddy writes:
on June 15th, 2010 at 2:06:09 AM

@Sinestro: Of course Goyer was the main writer on Begins but there was no Jonathan involved. That movie lacks the excellence of TDK and the BO returns proves it. I'm not putting Nolan out to pasture because of one 3D report. I'm just saying he alway succeeds with his brother, without him not so much. Maybe he'll prove me wrong with Inception, I doubt it though.
encoreyourface writes:
on June 15th, 2010 at 2:30:27 AM

PP-nice post. at least this guy hasn't made an entire ass of himself ... yet.
trailertrash writes:
on June 15th, 2010 at 3:06:45 AM

CC- Nice one mate , i will do ....
lost_addict writes:
on June 15th, 2010 at 3:29:21 AM

recently saw 'shrek 4' and was pleasantly surprised both from the movie and the 3D.I say go for it...
Rodan writes:
on June 15th, 2010 at 3:36:47 AM

"3D has been smothering movies with nothing but eye-candy, replacing elements like a solid script, an interesting plot and credible acting performances by a pretty little colorful digital imaging technique wrapping paper. They're hollow."

@PP, it sounds like your problem is more with sh*tty scripts and plots than 3D. You are against 3D because the 3D movies have sh*tty stories, but you don't think there will ever be a 3D movie with a good plot? Wouldn't Batman 3 have a chance of falling in that category? As far as the "eye-candy" goes, couldn't most special effects we see nowadays be called the same thing? In the Dark Knight, Nolan had a scene where Batman glided off the top of a building in Japan (haven't seen it in awhile so my memory may be incorrect). In another scene where the Joker and Batman face each other the dude flipped a f*cking 18-wheeler. I would call those eye-candy. sh*t, Michael Bay has made his career off of it. Basically, why is 3D drawing all of your ire instead of sh*t filmmaking? (Sorry for writing practically every other sentence in the form of a question)
DaveThePhotoGuy writes:
on June 15th, 2010 at 4:06:36 AM

First thing's first***NO f*ckINING 3D!!!! AND DEFINETLY NOT BATMAN!!!!*** ok rant over.

There is a film critic in Britain that is not to everybody's taste his name is Mark Kermode and what he says about 3
DaveThePhotoGuy writes:
on June 15th, 2010 at 4:10:35 AM

NO f*ckING 3D!!! AND DEFINETKY NOT BATAMN!!!!
ok rant over.

A film critic we have in Britain has said something about 3D which is very true...

"Studios only want to do 3d not because of the entertainment value but beacuse it is harder to pirate copy a 3d movie thana 2d one"

so basically it all comes down to money, he knows that some movies do work well with 3d, but he can also see why the studios want to do it.
DaveThePhotoGuy writes:
on June 15th, 2010 at 4:12:41 AM

jesus christ! write half of an opinion press the wrong button and it get's entered, when I do actually write what I wanted to write I then spell a word wrong!!!
AYT BALL writes:
on June 15th, 2010 at 4:25:03 AM

Er no chris, just no
trailertrash writes:
on June 15th, 2010 at 4:29:53 AM

dave- having a good morning mate ...
DaveThePhotoGuy writes:
on June 15th, 2010 at 4:33:03 AM

the bestest ever!!!
trailertrash writes:
on June 15th, 2010 at 4:37:31 AM

lol
DaveThePhotoGuy writes:
on June 15th, 2010 at 4:40:45 AM

wait a minute morning??? it's 5pm where I am...what the hell am I talking about!
Whitta writes:
on June 15th, 2010 at 5:02:30 AM

No Chris!!! tell them all to f*ck off
trailertrash writes:
on June 15th, 2010 at 5:03:30 AM

haha lucky you , your working day is nearly over !!
encoreyourface writes:
on June 15th, 2010 at 5:46:55 AM

it's almost 3 Am .... i have a serious problem with staying up to late.
trailertrash writes:
on June 15th, 2010 at 6:00:17 AM

i know what you mean mate !!
Sonic writes:
on June 15th, 2010 at 7:00:37 AM

Batman won't work in 3D (Bat-No3D)
DaveThePhotoGuy writes:
on June 15th, 2010 at 7:56:30 AM

@encore- I knw what you mean too
TH3D4RKKN1GH7 writes:
on June 15th, 2010 at 8:27:17 AM

Batman Begins suffered from coming out after Batman and Robin and it was obvious. Everyone was skeptical of the film, but once DVD came it sold like hotcakes. Batman Begins is a fine piece of work and in some ways better than The Dark Knight. What was wrong with Insomnia? Fine performances, interesting sequences as far as editing goes, workman like script. It wasn't some huge affair like The Dark Knight but it was perfectly fine film. Memento was also incredible, some people think Nolan's brother really is the mastermind of that but that isn't the case. The script was finished before the short story and they are vastly different.

Also, things to get excited about INCEPTION are the visuals, it's shot by Wally Pfister again and it looks beautiful. They've got almost all the gold standards in there besides IMAX. The set pieces look marvelous, everything from the rotating hallway set to the massive crumbling towers. It's great a great esemble cast. Leo, JGL, Marion, Ken, and Cillian. And an interesting idea at the heart. Here is this guy who has this contraption that allows him to enter the minds of corporate CEOs and steal their thoughts. I don't see what's not to like, especially considering the films this summer haven't exactly been marvelous.

koul writes:
on June 15th, 2010 at 8:57:30 AM

i really don't care at all if this comes out in 3-d or 2-d. it doesn't even matter
ChainsawX writes:
on June 15th, 2010 at 9:34:42 AM

and by the way if they had not seen clash of the Titans the conversion process sucks...either film it in 3d right out the gate or not at all
SACdaddy writes:
on June 15th, 2010 at 9:52:46 AM

No offense TDK, but Batman Begins was kinda of a snooze fest compared to Burton's original and TDK. Don't get me wrong, it was still better than most of the crap that gets put out now, but by Nolan standards its towards the bottom of the food chain imo. As for Inception, its got a $200mill budget to live up to, so the bar is already set a little high. Trippy mindbending films are usually asthetically pleasing and thought provoking but rarely translate into BO success. The Matrix blew up at the BO, but films like The Cell, What Dreams May Come, and Dark City were complete failures. We'll see which way Inception goes with its lofty expectations and gigantic budget. Leo's fame alone should deliver half of the profits, the rest is up to Nolan.
johnthemon writes:
on June 15th, 2010 at 10:56:30 AM

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO HECK NO HELL NO NO NO NO NO f*ck NO!
Inception writes:
on June 15th, 2010 at 10:57:43 AM

If Inception would have been made in 3D everyone would have died of a heart attack or some sh*t. It's not in 3D and look how freaking real and outstanding the effects in the film looks. Christopher Nolan doesn't need 3D, that's for people who basically don't have imagination and creativity.

On Batman (3D)

I say stick with the original format and don't change the trilogy. After that do whatever the hell you want to do, even if it is porno films in 3D (not a bad idea). But no Batman 3 in 3D, it's gonna ruin the franchise he lifted from the ground. If he goes 3D that means there isn't a good solid story like TDK, and he had to go with 3D to make back the money back. If Batman is 3D then expect the story not to be like TDK, is going to be less unique and creative.
Bunny X writes:
on June 15th, 2010 at 11:42:03 AM

Goes to show you Nolan's no dummy. He obviously knows as good as TDK was and asa much as he's one of the hottest directors out right now, he knows it's still the studious ball, court, and game. He's going to have a very long career.

As far as Batman 3D, it's not an effect riddled (no pun int) film to warrant 3D so I don't see the pull towards it. For something heavy in effects and battles, I can live with 3D. It's like saying they're filiming Memento in 3D, Nolan's Batman has transcended the standard comic book movie.

@SAC, I am soooo agreeing with you in regards to Inception. Visually, it looks incredible. But story-wise, are we just lining up to see a nicely packaged Dreamscape minus Dennis Quaid?

I'll go into it with an open mind and lower expectations and hope to be surprised. I'm sure it will make a ton of money just with Leo and Nolan's names attached. Nowhere near TDK money but it will crush opening weekend.
TH3D4RKKN1GH7 writes:
on June 15th, 2010 at 11:59:57 AM

You may think that but the general consensus on Batman Begins was that it was a fantastic reboot and many were throwing it up as the best comic book film with Spiderman 2 before TDK hit. Batman Begins was a fantastic film with a lot of heart.

This isn't the standard mind trip also. Nolan has called it his "James Bond film" you've got set pieces that none of those films you mentioned could even dream of. You've also got a stellar cast with a director on the rise. The film has ultimately got to deliver sure, but I'm not worried about it in the slightest. Again the man has never made a bad/mediocre film, from what I've read of INCEPTION's narrative, and what I've seen in trailers, I have no reason to believe this will be his first one.
billofill writes:
on June 15th, 2010 at 1:24:58 PM

These Batman films arent action packed enough for 3d .
darkraven28 writes:
on June 15th, 2010 at 3:59:21 PM

And Nolan really just needs to say four words:
a billion dollars made.

Now f*ck off, studio.
Billy Bob writes:
on June 15th, 2010 at 5:40:35 PM

@PP - what Rodan said. Clash of the Titans was going to be sh*tty well before it was converted to 3D. It was filmed without any notion of 3D in mind and suffered because of a weak script, not from the addition of 3D technology. Ditto Alice in Wonderland. There's a difference between poor storytelling and overuse of 3D, and I think that most of the weak 3D films that have come out so far fall into the first category. I still think its possible for a film to utilize 3D to enhance rather than hinder storytelling, and I stand by my statement that Nolan could pull it off. Do you really, truly think that he would sacrifice story and character for 3D effects? Last I checked, he's a director that tends to favor substance over style. So why don't we just keep our cool, stop bitching and moaning (like a bunch of whiny dumbasses), and let the chips fall as they may, because it's out of all of our hands anyway. Seacrest out.
Aaron writes:
on June 15th, 2010 at 7:20:35 PM

"Every 3d film made has been sh*tty, thus 3d makes films sh*tty."

(crickets)
Peter Parker writes:
on June 16th, 2010 at 2:57:11 AM

@ Rodan:

Thank you for your comment.
Even though I understand where you’re coming from, a big part of what you said is pure insanity, or perhaps you just didn’t reflect on your words enough. And I’ll tell you why.

“As far as the "eye-candy" goes, couldn't most special effects we see nowadays be called the same thing?”

- Absolutely not! It’s even preposterous that you’d put something like that in the same category as 3D techniques. You mentioned the gliding stunt in TDK and the 18-wheeler scene as examples of special effects that one could compare to 3D filming/conversion. Do you honestly NOT see the difference between the two?
Special effects that actually TAKE PLACE IN the movie contribute to the story/plot/action. Despite of the fact that they share a certain element of "spectacularity" with 3D images, stunts and special effects, they are NOT some sort of sugar-coating over images to make them look all pretty and sh*t. Those stunts, and others, are within the realm of the essence of the movie. Whether they’re filmed in (or converted into) 3D, that’s really not important, they’re still part of the movie. They were IN the screenplay, and that’s essentially the main difference. Special effects are tools to tell a story. 3D, by itself, tells no story.

“it sounds like your problem is more with sh*tty scripts and plots than 3D”

- Absolutely! Although I find nothing particularly appealing in the concept of 3D cinema, I also have nothing against it.
What I am, in fact, against, is using 3D to try and make sh*t smell good (or look good, in this particular case)

“You are against 3D because the 3D movies have sh*tty stories, but you don't think there will ever be a 3D movie with a good plot”

- Sure I do! However, have we seen one so far? No. Until I see one, I’ll play with the cards I have.
One note, though: I’ve seen 3D working relatively well in animated movies. Maybe it’s the element of fantasy that make animation and 3D go well together, I’m not sure. “Beowulf”, for example, used it well. But that’s as far as my exception goes.

“Wouldn't Batman 3 have a chance of falling in that category?

- It most certainly does. However, when Nolan himself says things like “it's going to be up to audiences to decide how they want to watch their films“, do you really think that he’s thinking of using 3D to somehow benefit the movie?
Or could it be that he’s considering taking a shortcut and relying in the popularity that 3D movies enjoy nowadays, instead of going after the same formula he used in TDK?
Only time will tell, right? Notwithstanding, from what I’ve seen so far, I can only remain skeptical.

“Basically, why is 3D drawing all of your ire instead of sh*t filmmaking”

- Because every studio is using it as a shortcut. Real storytelling went to sh*t. It is being grossly misused, so it’s a technique that has no sympathy from me.
I’d love for someone to come along and make me a believer, though.
I doubt Nolan will.
Peter Parker writes:
on June 16th, 2010 at 3:27:01 AM

@ Billy Bob:

“Clash of the Titans was going to be sh*tty well before it was converted to 3D. It was filmed without any notion of 3D in mind and suffered because of a weak script, not from the addition of 3D technology. Ditto Alice in Wonderland.”

- You do realize you’re agreeing with me there, right? Like I said before, 3D has added nothing to the actual stories or scripts. It’s candy to lure in the kids.
It’s also a crutch on which movies are relying now to become commercially successful.

“I think that most of the weak 3D films that have come out so far fall into the first category.”

- Again, you’re agreeing with me. So far, we’ve seen nothing that could prove how 3D contributes to the actual story. At best, it makes them look pretty. But then again, even a pile of sh*t can, to some degree, look better on screen if it is in 3D.
Will it still be just a pile of sh*t? Yup.

“I still think its possible for a film to utilize 3D to enhance rather than hinder storytelling”

- Dude, of course it’s possible! Just because the movie is in 3D, doesn’t mean it’s a poor movie! But I never said that either. What I said in my initial reply to you comes from empirical evidence, not from conjecture.
Take “Avatar”, for example (the best example so far). Cameron takes pride in parading to the world his so called new technology, the “film revolution”, repeatedly mentions how he spent more than 10 years making that movie, exacerbates the quality of the graphics and the three-dimensional effect, yada, yada, yada… And what did we get?
A regurgitated and unoriginal story, poor acting, shallow characters and a predictable movie.
Of course, this is not a rule. Not every director is going to make the same mistake (I hope). But, does it tell us something about how the 3D frenzy can take over a movie? It most certainly does.

“Do you really, truly think that he would sacrifice story and character for 3D effects?

- Do priests f*ck little boys?

“So why don't we just keep our cool, stop bitching and moaning”

- That’s absurd! Let’s bitch, moan, scream and raise a f*cking hell. This is the Internet, it’s a place to express ourselves and exercise freedom of speech to its fullest.
And, in that sense, these discussions are great.

As far as letting the chips fall as they may, I plan on doing that. Not in silence, though.

Cheers.

Salvador writes:
on June 16th, 2010 at 1:26:28 PM

No...
...No
....and BIG NO!!!

Nolan, you're a genius, you don't need that S*** of 3D technology to make a good movie.

There's a Good Reason Why Luke Skywalker Isn't on "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" Poster

"The Walking Dead" Fan Kills Friend Who Turned Into a Zombie

"Indiana Jones" Producer Says Harrison Ford Will Not Be Recast

Ridley Scott Reveals Another Title for "Prometheus" Sequel

Johnny Depp and Edgar Wright Team for "Fortunately, the Milk"

"Spectre" Breaks Box Office Records Overseas

"Star Wars: The Force Awakens" Demolishes Pre-Sale Records

Paul Bettany Responds to Jason Statham's "Avengers" Insult

Daniel Craig Would Rather Commit Suicide Than Return as James Bond

Marvel Has Contingency Plans In Case It Regains Rights to Superheroes
Lace Wedding Dresses from ViViDress UK online shop, buy with confidence and cheap price.
WorstPreviews.com hosted by pair Networks WorstPreviews.com
Hosted by pair Networks
News Feeds | Box Office | Movie Reviews | Buzz: Top 100 | Popularity: Top 100
Poster Store | About Us | Advertising | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Web Tools | Site Map
Copyright © 2009 WorstPreviews.com. All rights reserved