post #541 of 600
12/18/08 at 12:37pm
Be a part of the community.
It's free, join today!
|
Originally Posted by RobertR
Eating half a pie is not "very little". You're confusing "very little" with "getting less than what you paid for". In the case of The Dark Knight, can you show me ANY advertising that told people the ENTIRE movie was filmed with IMAX cameras? If not, then your whole "I was cheated" contention falls apart.
|
| I all so posted "less than half"; in this case 20%. You keep quoting me as saying "half". Maybe that's what's getting you? I don't know. |
| Do the people defending this release against any joke references feel this is a perfect release (nothing done wrong)? Thanks. |
|
Originally Posted by David Willow
I'm one of the "people" you referred to in the quote I included in my reply. I DID NOT notice it after I stopped looking for it. Are you saying that I am lying... That I really did notice it and I'm just telling you I didn't?
Quote: Originally Posted by Ed St. Clair It all so cracks me up that people are posting that they barely or didn't even notice the VAR! That's got too be the JOKE of the yr! [on Nolan; all that for nuttin, on the BD; why release it that way when it makes little or no diference, & HTF; where OAR used too be "everything"] |
| today i was able sneak peek the br of the dark knight. audio and video quality are top notch. but that wasn't my concern in the first place. my concern was the changing aspect ratio in the movie. every time the aspect ratio changes, i got a bit moved out of the movie. the imax scene do like pretty nice but they wont make much of a difference in the home theater. the film was shown in full 2.35:1 in it's theatrical run but warner opmits this version by only including the imax experience. i find this as a bad move. we don't even get an option to choose which version we wanna see and i would've preferred the full widescreen experience over the imax release version. i know it is mr. nolan's vision but it doesn't mean it's the better one. sorry warner, no purchase from me on this. maybe if it's in a bargain bin or the full widescreen version is released on blu-ray. till then i give the br back to my friend who lent it to me for watching the film. |
|
Originally Posted by Josh Steinberg
Because of the success of TDK in IMAX (both technically, artistically and financially), we now probably will see select films shot mostly or entirely in IMAX within the next few years. There are still problems to be solved, like the noise issue (the cameras are very noisy, so if they're used for scenes with dialogue, all of that dialogue would have to be re-recorded and dubbed in during postproduction, and some directors aren't big fans of that), the size issue (the cameras are extremely large and bulky, so they may not be able to fit in every spot the director might want to put one, and some directors may not be willing to make those compromises just to shoot in the larger format), the film length issue (IMAX cameras can only hold a few minutes of film at a time, compared to regular cameras that can hold 10 minutes or longer), not to mention the added costs of using the larger format, that there are only several of these cameras worldwide, etc., etc. Those are all major hurdles that will have to be solved, but before TDK, I'm not sure that there were too many people interested in solving them. Now there are.
|
|
Originally Posted by Ed St. Clair
David,
I FINALLY got it! (after reading your re-post three times!!!) Just so you know, this was how I was going too answer (B4 I got it): I did not think you or anyone else lied when thinking about my post. I did not post that you or anyone else was lying on my post. I did not believe you or anyone else was lying after I posted. Since I got it: You thought my saying it was a joke that you & others saw & forgot or didn't notice the VAR at all, that I was calling you & others liers. Such is not the case (thank goodness). I was only saying that people posting they didn't see or notice the VAR was funny (or a joke in this case because of the thread title). Here we had had this BIG discussion pre-release on the VAR, then some people didn't even notice. Too me, that was funny, a joke. Not people lying. People had posted they were looking forward too the VAR; then people posted they didn't even notice. People had posted they would hate the VAR; then people posted they didn't even notice. (not the same people, mind you, still a pretty BIG swing in postings) Just we were having this BIG brouhaha about "TDK" VAR, then it was released, & people didn't even notice! Too me that's hilarious, not lying! |
| But really, Ed, when people say they didnt notice the change in AR, i think what they mean, and its what i mean...the change in AR didnt take me out of the movie. |
|
Originally Posted by TonyD
so you have this pie(movie) that is 20% one flavor.
this isn't saying that you only have 20% of the pie. the entire pie is still there. just that 80% of it is another flavor. both flavors are delicious, but the 20% is extra delicious. what's wrong with that. |
|
Originally Posted by Steve_Pannell
I have a question.
The OP said: He is specifically talking about the Blu-ray. Did any of you who saw this in an IMAX theater (I didn't) feel this way? FWIW, I have the Blu-ray and even though I did notice the VAR I didn't feel taken out of the movie. Quite the opposite, in fact. |
|
Originally Posted by Ed St. Clair
IMAX
Wont the new digital IMAX cameras solve some if not all of that? |
|
Originally Posted by Clinton McClure
The Dark Knight changing Aspect Ratio feels like pie
|
|
Originally Posted by Stephen_J_H
I think I've finally glommed onto what really annoys some people about the aspect ratio change (apart from not having both versions available, and that horse has been flogged into dog meat by now): it seems arbitrary. Look @ other films with changing ARs: Abel Gance's Napoleon, Brainstorm, The Crocodile Hunter: Collision Course, Brother Bear and Enchanted are a few that come to mind. In each case, the changing aspect ratio was either meant to signify a change in milieu. With Napoleon, the Polyvision finale was to display a grand battle; Brainstorm used a change from flat 35mm to 70mm to differentiate between reality (1.85:1) and the Brainstorm experience (2.21:1 70mm); Crocodile Hunter shot the TV show-style segments in 1.85:1, while the main plot was 2.35:1. Brother Bear and Enchanted both transition from one "world" to another by widening the frame: when Kenai becomes a bear, we go not only into a 'Scope universe, but the colour palette changes; When Giselle enters New York, the frame widens and we switch to live action.
Next to these changes, it's not to hard to see that some would view the AR changes in The Dark Knight as somewhat arbitrary. I don't personally, but it seems that some do. |
|
Originally Posted by David Forbes
....
As I said, the only people who have a legitimate beef with this are those few with CIH setups, where the variable AR has no good solution. |
|
Originally Posted by Douglas Monce
I think at least for me you have hit it on the head. The aspect ratio changes in the films you talk about for me are somewhat like the change from b&w to color in The Wizard of OZ. It is very specific and has meaning to the story. The changes in DK seem arbitrary and not a lot of thought went into what should be in IMAX and what shouldn't. More like "Hey we've got the Imax camera now lets shoot this with it."
As a result it seems to have nothing whatever to do with the story telling, and seems just like a gimmick. Doug |
| As a result it seems to have nothing whatever to do with the story telling, and seems just like a gimmick. |