The Dark Knight changing Aspect Ratio feels like a Joke

Re: The Dark Knight changing Aspect Ratio feels like a Joke

If you are going to try to argue a point then at least make sure that you understand what other people have been saying. No one is using OAR to argue that Nolan's preference shouldn't be on home video. What has been said is that Nolan's preference shouldn't be the only one available on the BD. Nolan can have his preference on the BD, but the theatrical scope version of this film should have been on the BD as well.

Now we have learned that the DVD has the scope version and Nolan's preferred version as a digital copy. The DVD is actually a more complete set than the BD and it is going to cost less. It is patently ridiculous that the high definition set of this film does not contain both versions, especially in light of the fact that the DVD set does. I guess when it comes to DVD Mr. Nolan's preferences are more malleable.

Re: The Dark Knight changing Aspect Ratio feels like a Joke

No, just thought that review would help you understand since I was not getting through that the variable AR version IS the way this film was meant to be seen. I dont think you are stupid, just stuborn. You have a nice day as well

Re: The Dark Knight changing Aspect Ratio feels like a Joke

Nicely put, and agreed.

Re: The Dark Knight changing Aspect Ratio feels like a Joke

Agreed, including the caveat about "revisionist filmmaking". Criterion, did you hear that?

Still, it probably would've been best if Warner/Nolan had simply included the constant 2.40:1 version via seamless branching. There just doesn't seem to be much solid reason to exclude it, especially considering this IMAX influenced version is probably *not* Nolan's true prefered/definitive version -- that one requires the true IMAX experience (at an IMAX theater) as pointed out by some others.

_Man_

Re: The Dark Knight changing Aspect Ratio feels like a Joke

Sheesh! Talk about stubborn. You keep repeating the notion that this IMAX influenced version should be the right way to go (and defending the exclusion of the theatrical version that was shown in 98% of theaters) as though you have an inside track on Nolan's thinking. Did you even experience this film in a true IMAX venue??

_Man_

Re: The Dark Knight changing Aspect Ratio feels like a Joke

Or he compromised with Warner on the DVD but refused to do so for the BD. He prefers people watch it in HD on Blu-ray, but understands that the masses have the inferior SD DVD format, which will sell a lot more for Warner. This is the same thing as him wanting people to see it theatrically on IMAX, but knowing that he'd have to release it scope to other theaters as well, simply because that is what the market demands.

Simply put, Nolan considers the scope version inferior. He made it for inferior theaters and inferior home video formats in order to please the masses and his employer. Could Warner have put both on the Blu-ray? Perhaps. I tend to think the evidence points towards Nolan refusing to do so.

So, of course Nolan's standards (not preferences) are more malleable on DVD - there's a Full Screen version, too. The reason for the lower standard on DVD is *money*.

Re: The Dark Knight changing Aspect Ratio feels like a Joke

In Criterion's defense, they do what the filmmaker requests. It's the only sane policy, even if in this one instance it was controversial.

Re: The Dark Knight changing Aspect Ratio feels like a Joke

That's certainly one plausible explanation that makes sense if true.

_Man_

Re: The Dark Knight changing Aspect Ratio feels like a Joke

That I don't really agree since I don't believe Storraro's revisionism is valid enough to deserve the kind of exclusive treatment given. There are some key points of difference between what Storraro did and what Nolan is doing here.

Besides, if Storraro's brand of revisionism does not meet the caveat you suggested above, then what would??

Considering Criterion's target audience, I would've expected them to not fall in line w/ Storraro quite so easily on this matter. Certainly, if they really believed in Storraro's line, they should've offered a much better explanation to convince us than what was given, IMHO.

_Man_

Re: The Dark Knight changing Aspect Ratio feels like a Joke

...IN IMAX.

This is the point that you (and others) can't seem to get your head around. Of course the IMAX version is Nolan's preferred version when it is viewed in an IMAX venue. Nolan clearly says in some of the documentary material that his use of the IMAX format in certain sequences is for dramatic effect. That effect is lost on home video.

Nolan's comments indicate that he thought the increased resolution of Blu-ray would allow the viewer to still discern the difference in clarity and density between the 35mm and IMAX foootage hence his decision to use the IMAX version on Blu-ray. This is obvious and not a point of contention (with me).

My point is, after seeing both versions of the film in 1080p, in practice, there is no real difference in the clarity and density between the 35mm and IMAX shots with a 2K transfer. The only real difference is in aspect ratio and that is not enough of a difference even on a very large home theater screen to replicate the IMAX experience.

Lastly, and I do mean lastly, the 35mm scope version of the film was approved by Nolan (he shot it) for "regular" theaters. This is the version most people saw, and is therefore the version those people should be able to watch on Blu-ray. If Nolan wanted to include the IMAX version for those that either saw the film in IMAX (gee, what a letdown after that) or are curious what that might have looked like, then that version could have been included separately ala How The West Was Won.

What is getting under my skin is some people's slavish devotion to what they perceive as "director's intent". Claiming the 2.35:1 version of this film is "wrong" just because the director prefers to see the IMAX scenes in IMAX is itself just plain wrong.

Re: The Dark Knight changing Aspect Ratio feels like a Joke

You make a lot of assumptions for someone whose name isn't Christopher Nolan.

Re: The Dark Knight changing Aspect Ratio feels like a Joke

Re: The Dark Knight changing Aspect Ratio feels like a Joke

No, its not lost. The BR is not perfect for this "effect", but it is the closest we have and still provides quite the impact. Have you seen the BR?? I have. I also saw this at the IMAX and the BR comes VERY close to providing that same "effect". A constant 2:40 image will loose ALL of the "effect" while the BR retains I would say ~80%-85% of it which is the best we have and I want to view it as Nolan visioned it, or atleast as close as possible which is what the BR gives us

You are not going to convince me and I am not obviously going to convince you. We are just going in circles at this point


Agreed. Glad somebody else in this thread understands this.


“Some of the smaller Imax theaters are a smaller aspect ratio which is 16:9 as well,” Nolan said. “It's still quite a difference from the 2.40:1 [aspect ratio] to a 16:9. So I think you'll get some sense of it.”

And he is correct. Like I said, ~80-85% which is FAR better than a straight 2:40 presentation which gives you.............0%


How many of you guys arguing this have actualy seen the BR presentation? I have, and it is obvious that this is the way (closest to it) it was meant to be seen as the jump from 2:40 to 1:78 provided a awesome (IMO) "effect" that was obviously done for this purpose. This is the way the film is meant to be seen and a 2:40 version IS a compromise plain and simple. If that compromise bothers you or not is a dif topic and to each their own

Re: The Dark Knight changing Aspect Ratio feels like a Joke

I said (about those who have NOT seen it) stop bitching about it until you have actually seen it, but was ignored. People complain for the sake of complaining I suppose. I haven't seen it but want to, and who knows? I DO want to see the shifting AR and may hate it! Those who complain now may love it!

Like I said, wait and see instead of making assumptions.

Re: The Dark Knight changing Aspect Ratio feels like a Joke

Exactly. Atleast give it a chance before making a final judgement. If you still hate it at that point, you are certainly entitled to that opinion. I have simply been arguing what I percieve to be tech correct from everything I have read and experienced first hand (with the IMAX version and now the BR), but we are all obviously entitled to our personal opinion after experiencing the tech correct version.

Re: The Dark Knight changing Aspect Ratio feels like a Joke

Oh, I agree that Storraro's situation is different than Nolan's. I was simply pointing out that 99.9999% of the time that Criterion's policy of doing the wishes of the filmmakers (and it was both Storraro and Bertolucci that insisted on the 2.00:1 AR) is the right one, so it's the correct policy to have. So, if one wants to blame anyone, I wouldn't blame Criterion, but Bertulocci and Storraro.

Re: The Dark Knight changing Aspect Ratio feels like a Joke

On the contrary, Nolan has made himself quite clear.

Re: The Dark Knight changing Aspect Ratio feels like a Joke

Nolan's intentions are easy to find. I found them simply because I remembered he was planning this BD release in advance of the film's opening.

Re: The Dark Knight changing Aspect Ratio feels like a Joke

I think most of the people that are complaining without having seen it have already made their decision so actually viewing will not change their opinion.

Re: The Dark Knight changing Aspect Ratio feels like a Joke

Which is a real shame. If they could just be open to this vision so to speak, it is a realy cool effect

Re: The Dark Knight changing Aspect Ratio feels like a Joke

I haven't seen the IMAX version of the film, but I know enough about IMAX to realize that removing mattes on a 16:9 size image on a 57" TV isn't going to come anywhere close to replicating the director's "intent".....no matter what he wants to believe. This version of the film on BD is a gimmick, nothing more. For me, watching this version will be for curiousity only because I know the intended effect of all of the IMAX shots will be lost due to the lack of engagement of peripheral senses.

To me, all this BD version will be is a series of "shutters" opening and closing at various times throughout the film. The IMAX effect is lost due to lack of size and detail. Now I'm sure this version will impress quite a few people but I highly doubt it is going to impress me. That is why I feel that the scope version of this film should have been included because that is the way I saw it at the theatre.

It is complete nonsense that Nolan considers the scope version to be an "inferior" version for "inferior" theatres. Nolan has stated that the IMAX version is his preferred version, but nowhere has he come out and stated that the scope version is an inferior version for inferior theatres. Nolan knew from the get go that the film was going to be shown mostly in scope in regular theatres, so the composition of shots had to be planned around the scope version of the film.

TDK, visually, plays very well as a scope picture which proves that Nolan took into consideration where the majority of viewing was going to take place. There is nothing inferior about the scope version. It is just another version of the film and it should have been on this disc. It is called choice. People who buy the DVD set are getting the ability to choose which version they like better and so should people who buy the BD. It is that simple.

Re: The Dark Knight changing Aspect Ratio feels like a Joke

I have made my points and stand by all of them 100%, especialy having first hand experience with the BR which most of you guys who are arguing this havent which is very interesting to me. Glad some of you understand Nolans vision and/or atleast have an open mind to the directors intent for this film which the BR most closely matches. Take care

Re: The Dark Knight changing Aspect Ratio feels like a Joke

This might put things in perspective for those who have not been to an "IMAX Experience" theatrical film presentation. I'm also curious whether others had a similar experience.

The Dark Knight was the first feature film I'd seen in IMAX. It was not what I was expecting.

I was expecting the five-story tall, extreme pitch stadium seating I was used to seeing at science museums across the country. But the "IMAX Experience" theater was nothing like that. It looked pretty much like your standard stadium style seating theater. There was even the useless, flat seating "wasteland" in the very front, made all the more useless because of the film's changing aspect ratio. The best seat to see everything was actually the second row from the bottom of the stadium section, which was high enough to see over the heads of those sitting in the wasteland as well as the safety railing of the stadium section.

The screen looked a little larger than normal, but not by much.

So ultimately the "IMAX Experience" for the Dark Knight was not the same as my other IMAX experiences with roller coaster, race car and charging bear films. There was no overwhelming image size and manipulation of one's peripheral vision. I could seen an increase in resolution with the IMAX footage, but nothing that blew me away. Maybe it would have if I'd been sitting closer, but then my view would have been obstructed by people's heads.

So ultimately I was a little underwhelmed by the visual component and was kind of scratching my head over what was really IMAX about the experience. The audio system of the theater actually left a bigger impression on me.

So those who are saying the IMAX effect is lost on BD...well, I would say there was not much of one to begin with, at least based on what many associate as "IMAX."

Re: The Dark Knight changing Aspect Ratio feels like a Joke

If something is considered preferred, then by definition the other options are inferior. Even if the value difference is small, it's still present. So, if Nolan's preferred is a 10, and the non-preferred is still a very good 9, it's still inferior.

The matter really comes down to, IMO, whether one supports the filmmakers' right to present his film the way he wants, or if one prefers one's own experience to that of the filmmakers' intent. Usually a filmmaker will give the viewer a choice, such as Darabont did with The Mist. Sometimes he won't. When he doesn't, I support the filmmakers' decision out of principle, and its especially easier to do that when little time has passed since the film was created.

Re: The Dark Knight changing Aspect Ratio feels like a Joke

Well, this description suggests to me that altering the AR was nothing more than a gimmick, adding very little to the film, even in theatrical showings. I was under the impression that the IMAX version was made for the ultra-large screen IMAX venues. Wasn't that the case? Does this film actually have three OARs: the scope version, the small venue IMAX version and a standard IMAX version? If that is the case then all of this talk about director's intent is just a bunch of hogwash. The only intent was to put the film on as many screens as possible.

Re: The Dark Knight changing Aspect Ratio feels like a Joke

Again...

“Some of the smaller Imax theaters are a smaller aspect ratio which is 16:9 as well,” Nolan said. “It's still quite a difference from the 2.40:1 [aspect ratio] to a 16:9. So I think you'll get some sense of it.”

Sounds like Cameron saw it at one of these theaters, and simply disagrees with Nolan's feeling that it still provides "quite a difference". Nolan still feels it is superior to the scope version. One can be free to disagree with Nolan, but Nolan's viewpoint is crystal clear.

Re: The Dark Knight changing Aspect Ratio feels like a Joke

So, in other words, you are saying that if Coppola suddenly decided that APOCALYPSE NOW REDUX would be the only version of the film made available then you are fine with that? Even though the majority of people who saw the film think that the original theatrical cut is the superior version of the film. People should just accept the suppression of original cuts of films because their directors may suddenly become delusional about the "superiority" of their later cuts? That appears to be what you are saying and I vehemently disagree with that view.

Re: The Dark Knight changing Aspect Ratio feels like a Joke

Some of you keep saying that Nolan is saying the IMAX version is superior when all I see is someone saying that it is different or provides a different experience when seen in that format. I don't see him saying that one is inferior to the other, just that each version will give a different experience. How about actually finding some quotes where Nolan comes right out and says that the scope version is inferior and post those. Oh, that's right, I'll bet you won't be able to find any.

Re: The Dark Knight changing Aspect Ratio feels like a Joke

Ultimately, yes. I can hate that he does it, but I'll defend his artistic right to do it.

I still haven't purchased The Last of the Mohicans since the VHS days because I prefer the theatrical cut over Mann's preferred Extended Cut. I don't like that I can't purchase my favorite version in a better format, but I'll defend Mann's right to do with his film as he sees fit.

Re: The Dark Knight changing Aspect Ratio feels like a Joke

The people that will love this release the most are the people that are forced into watching all their content in a fixed width set-up. As much as they may profess to love scope and respect studios who put out wide OAR releases on disc, I'm sure the thought of getting a handful of 'impact' scenes where all the LBX bars are removed, is a highly appealing one. Made even moreso since they don't have to feel guilty about liking it since it was (kind of/sort of) a theatrical AR.
Except as has been pointed out, 1.78 is a modified AR . The people that are arguing to respect the directors 'vision' here would likely be VERY disappointed (and vocal) if the Imax shots were presented in their true AR and they had to go back and forth from letterbox to pillarbox. Let's hear them defend Nolans 'preferred vision' then . I agree with Edwin in that, since this is not really respecting the true Imax AR, it is being used more as a gimmick than anything, and withholding a straight scope version of the film now easily allows for a more compelling double dip down the line. In the past this wouldn't have been Warners M.O., but we have clearly entered a new age with the new leadership. This is the age of the Casablanca "here's looking at you, kid" Edition.
The thing that concerns me is that people have reported noticing EE/artifical sharpening in the theater at the Imax presentations , apparently used in an effort to not make the scope material look too soft in comparison in a huge venue. And the EE has carried over here. I can work around the spillover from the Imax stuff in my constant height set-up, I can't work around EE and halos.