The Dark Knight changing Aspect Ratio feels like a Joke (1 Viewer)

[JoshB]

The title of this thread needs to be changed (to accomodate pie)...

 

[Clinton McClure]

The Dark Knight changing Aspect Ratio feels like pie

 

[RickER]

The Dark Knight changing Aspect Ratio feels like pie

Yep, both are good things! mmmm

 

[Clinton McClure]

I finally got a chance to watch The Dark Knight tonight.
Add me to the list of the aspect ratio change taking away from the movie. I understand Nolan's intention but it was poorly executed. I think the presentation would be better with a constant AR, not a variable one.
And I really really like pie.

 

[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.

 

[Douglas Monce]

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.

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

 

[Cees Alons]

....
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.

I don't think it's legitimate. It's their fault they have a system that cannot cope with a higher image (just like people without a CIH setup can't complain when a widescreen version isn't displayed wider on their screen), not a fault of the produced BD.
Cees

 

[PaulDA]

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

I disagree. I think the IMAX cameras were used for elements that clearly benefited from them. If Nolan could have shot the entire movie in IMAX, he would have. That he could not left him with the option to use IMAX wherever possible--the exterior shots of Hong Kong, as well as the opening bank job scene particularly benefited from the approach. I would grant that where the snippets are very short, they were perhaps superfluous, but the lengthier scenes, IMO, were greatly enhanced by the IMAX format.

 

[Citizen87645]

I don't feel it's arbitrary either. The AR switch doesn't tie into the story the way the other films do, but there's clearly an intention and purpose behind which scenes were done in IMAX.

 

[Clinton McClure]

As a result it seems to have nothing whatever to do with the story telling, and seems just like a gimmick.

Exactly. It would be less gimmicky if the only thing shot in IMAX were cityscape scenes, but doing so with other scenes which really didn't to be IMAX, it cheapens the impact of the IMAX footage. It's annoying and I'm not impressed.
I'm not going to comment further since I've already beaten my dead horse and fed it some pie.

 

[Edwin-S]

screen), not a fault of the produced BD.
Cees

It is the fault of the produced BD if it doesn't contain the version, widely distributed theatrically, that would have satified the needs of people with CIH set ups. The beef would be illegitimate if this film had only been released in the IMAX format.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

IMAX
Wont the new digital IMAX cameras solve some if not all of that?

So the theory goes. I'm of the belief that the quality of digital cameras cannot yet replicate the full resolution of the larger IMAX frame. The filmmakers on The Dark Knight admitted as much when they spoke about having to do digital effects work on some of the IMAX footage--that they felt that it worked, but just, and took a lot of time, effort and money to get right.
There still aren't that many digital IMAX cameras in the world either, and very few facilities equipped to deal with processing and editing that footage, and few special effects and post-production facilities that are capable of working at that level. That's not to say that they couldn't upgrade and design whatever new tools were needed; it's just that to date, there hadn't been much of a demand for it.
I still think old-fashioned film IMAX cameras will yield better results, but perhaps a combination of those film cameras and quieter/smaller (?) digital cameras for more dialogue-oriented scenes might be one solution. Or VistaVision or conventional 65mm cameras; certainly it would be an upgrade over 35mm.
The thing for studios is, these things cost a lot of money. They need to have a financial justification for doing so. And I think The Dark Knight served as a first step in that process, because it's had the kind of success it had in IMAX theaters because of the extra work that was done in IMAX; I don't think it would have been as huge of a success for IMAX theaters. Very big for sure, but not as huge.
Already since the success of The Dark Knight in IMAX, Michael Bay and Paramount announced that parts of the Transformers sequel coming out next summer will have select scenes shot in IMAX. Personally I could care less about Transformers, but that just goes to show that now that The Dark Knight had demonstrated there's an audience for this, studios and filmmakers are going to start embracing it, at least on a limited scale.
This could be the beginning of something very exciting for the filmgoing audience.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

It doesn't feel gimmicky to me either. However, there definitely are some shots in there that didn't *need* to be in IMAX, and in interviews the filmmakers has said as much; once they did the first aerial shot in IMAX, for instance, they figured it looked so good there was no reason not to do all aerial shots that way. I think all of the aerial shots, for instance, do a great job of giving you a rush and a sudden "you are there" sort of feeling at the beginning of any transition... but some of them don't do any more than just that and I can understand wanting or expecting more.
Hong Kong being (mostly) IMAX made sense to me... this is the first time (in film, anyway) that we've seen Batman (not Bruce Wayne) leave Gotham and essentially invade another country to kidnap someone... he's acting as a bounty hunter I suppose, and those scenes being in IMAX really help to enhance that short sequence and give it the sense of scope and importance it needs. It's a major plot point and sets everything in motion... Batman undeniably breaking a whole bunch of laws there is the line he crosses that gives the mob the final push into crossing their line by hiring The Joker. The capture of Lao leads to the arrest of all of the mobsters, the Joker getting their money, challenging Batman and trying to take over the city... all of those things are set in motion by the Hong Kong trip. Yet, it's not a plot point that needs a lot of time to go over, so making a sequence any longer than that wouldn't serve the film... but putting it into IMAX gives it the sense of scope that it needs.
Scenes with Bruce driving his lambourgini in IMAX seem more like "we shot it because we could" rather than because they needed to. But it certainly helps to show the distance between Bruce in those scenes and the rest of the action, as if he's a protector and observer of this world but not a participant in it.
Big finale action scenes look cool in IMAX, that's the only justification the Prewitt building sequence needs in my mind

 

[Cees Alons]

It is the fault of the produced BD if it doesn't contain the version, widely distributed theatrically, that would have satified the needs of people with CIH set ups. The beef would be illegitimate if this film had only been released in the IMAX format.

Edwin,
That's quite a different point, in fact I get the impression that that specific point has been made once or twice earlier in this thread already.
I, however, was reacting to a post by David Forbes (who I quoted in my post, and) who mentioned that he much preferred "the shifting aspect ratio of the Blu-ray. Doesn't distract me at all, and it did not distract me in the only-20%-real-IMAX version."
He added: "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."
(Note, that this is about being distracted by the pseudo-IMAX parts, when they are there.)
I remarked that this beef then should not be with the BD, but with the fact that they were using a system not suited for it.
Cees

 

[Douglas Monce]

I disagree. I think the IMAX cameras were used for elements that clearly benefited from them. If Nolan could have shot the entire movie in IMAX, he would have. That he could not left him with the option to use IMAX wherever possible--the exterior shots of Hong Kong, as well as the opening bank job scene particularly benefited from the approach. I would grant that where the snippets are very short, they were perhaps superfluous, but the lengthier scenes, IMO, were greatly enhanced by the IMAX format.

I suspect the next film will be shot entirely in IMAX.
Doug

 

[Douglas Monce]

There still aren't that many digital IMAX cameras in the world either, and very few facilities equipped to deal with processing and editing that footage, and few special effects and post-production facilities that are capable of working at that level. That's not to say that they couldn't upgrade and design whatever new tools were needed; it's just that to date, there hadn't been much of a demand for it.

There are no digital IMAX cameras that I'm aware of. (unless there is a prototype floating around somewhere) The highest resolution digital movie camera available is the Red One at 4k. Soon the Red Epic will be available that will be able to shoot up to 28K, which should be roughly the equivalent of IMAX. There is also a Red 3D variant coming. Also the DALSA camera shoots at 4K.
Imax has developed a digital projection system which started showing up in Imax theaters in June of 2008.
Doug

 

[Nathan Eddy]

I finally rented this. I'm in the "looked great, didn't distract" camp. I loved the IMAX footage, and wish the entire movie looked that good. I don't understand how anyone can complain about such beauty. "Distract" me with gorgeous hi-def scenes any time you want, Hollywood!

 

[Craig Beam]

I'm in the "looked great, didn't distract" camp. I loved the IMAX footage, and wish the entire movie looked that good. I don't understand how anyone can complain about such beauty. "Distract" me with gorgeous hi-def scenes any time you want, Hollywood!

Agreed. we watched it last night (early Christmas present from the wife), and I thoroughly enjoyed the IMAX footage, and didn't mind the shifting aspect ratio at all. Didn't feel gimmicky... quite the opposite: I felt the incorporation of the IMAX footage stepped up the showmanship, as it were. Did it draw attention to itself? Yeah, maybe a bit. But shit, it looked spectacular, so why not? It's a hybrid film, for Chrissakes, so none of the normal rules apply. I was more than impressed with the presentation.
My only gripe is with the film itself: Batman's voice was WAY overdone. In fact, we've been growling at eachother 'round the house all morning, making fun of it.

 

[Patrick Sun]

My only gripe is with the film itself: Batman's voice was WAY overdone. In fact, we've been growling at eachother 'round the house all morning, making fun of it.

 

[Dan Keliikoa]

Agreed. we watched it last night (early Christmas present from the wife), and I thoroughly enjoyed the IMAX footage, and didn't mind the shifting aspect ratio at all. Didn't feel gimmicky... quite the opposite: I felt the incorporation of the IMAX footage stepped up the showmanship, as it were. Did it draw attention to itself? Yeah, maybe a bit. But shit, it looked spectacular, so why not? It's a hybrid film, for Chrissakes, so none of the normal rules apply. I was more than impressed with the presentation.
My only gripe is with the film itself: Batman's voice was WAY overdone. In fact, we've been growling at eachother 'round the house all morning, making fun of it.

On the A/R question...very well said, Craig. I thought the BD looked fantastic and was not distracted or pulled out of the movie in the least by the switches. In fact, the IMAX stuff served to pull me in even further. Very well done, IMO.
As to the Batman voice..LOL. So true. I wish he could have stuck with his Batman voice from the first film....just a little TOO much this time.