Overstreet wrote:
: Those who celebrate it as a defense of Dubya-ism are assuming that we're supposed to root for Batman at every turn. But this movie muddies the waters considerably. Or better, it admits that they're very, very muddy to begin with.
Quite so. Though you can defend Dubya, and Batman, without rooting for them at every turn. That may, itself, be the muddy water that is being admitted here.
To put this another way: Is it a better world, or a worse world, if someone doesn't stop the Joker?
And before someone raises the question of "escalation" and whether Batman is responsible for attracting the Joker to Gotham City in the first place, we should also ask: Would it have been a better world, or a worse world, if Batman had not risen up to stop Ra's al Ghul and the Scarecrow from destroying Gotham City in the previous film?
(And now I am vaguely reminded of all those James Bond films where he Saves The Planet from some villain's evil plan, and how I have always thought that the villains in the subsequent films could have shown a little more gratitude, considering Bond had saved their lives and all. Not that they knew that, of course.)
SDG wrote:
: I also agree that the series needs at least a third film that offers more redemption than this one. This film offers hope, and gratifying flashes of goodness. But it works for me the way a good dark middle chapter works, like The Empire Strikes Back. Let's have a persuasive finale, please.
Agreed, definitely.
Full Version: The Dark Knight
QUOTE
I also agree that the series needs at least a third film that offers more redemption than this one.
Really? If this were a Superman series, I'd say yes. But Batman has always seemed too conflicted a character to end up with a very "redemptive" conclusion. Superman's about redeption, Spider-man's about responsibility, and Batman's about paradoxes and conundrums.
But listen to me, the guy who doesn't read comics.
Overstreet wrote:
: . . . Batman's about paradoxes and conundrums.
Perhaps, but at the very least, I wouldn't mind a third film that puts things back to the way they were: Batman's in his cave, and all is well with the world, etc., etc.
Think of how Star Trek III: The Search for Spock -- the middle part of the "trilogy" that began with Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan and concluded with Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home -- ended with the destruction of the Enterprise and the partial revival of Spock and the fugitive status of Kirk and all his friends. We needed a third film that would put things to right, a third film that would reconcile Kirk and his crew to the Federation, a third film that would bring Spock back to his old self, a third film that would bring back the Enterprise.
The Dark Knight ends with Batman as a fugitive, just like Kirk and the others were fugitives (albeit of a different sort) at the end of Star Trek III, and just like the Rebels were on the run at the end of The Empire Strikes Back. That's a good cliffhanger, but it's not a very good ending.
Personally, I am curious to see how Bruce Wayne balances his public playboy persona with his Batman-as-fugitive alter ego. I mean, just because Batman is on the run doesn't mean that Bruce Wayne has to be on the run. Y'know?
: . . . Batman's about paradoxes and conundrums.
Perhaps, but at the very least, I wouldn't mind a third film that puts things back to the way they were: Batman's in his cave, and all is well with the world, etc., etc.
Think of how Star Trek III: The Search for Spock -- the middle part of the "trilogy" that began with Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan and concluded with Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home -- ended with the destruction of the Enterprise and the partial revival of Spock and the fugitive status of Kirk and all his friends. We needed a third film that would put things to right, a third film that would reconcile Kirk and his crew to the Federation, a third film that would bring Spock back to his old self, a third film that would bring back the Enterprise.
The Dark Knight ends with Batman as a fugitive, just like Kirk and the others were fugitives (albeit of a different sort) at the end of Star Trek III, and just like the Rebels were on the run at the end of The Empire Strikes Back. That's a good cliffhanger, but it's not a very good ending.
Personally, I am curious to see how Bruce Wayne balances his public playboy persona with his Batman-as-fugitive alter ego. I mean, just because Batman is on the run doesn't mean that Bruce Wayne has to be on the run. Y'know?
Pete Rollins
QUOTE
Brecht once famously wrote, “what is the crime of robbing a bank compared to the crime of founding one?” Is this not the very sentiment that we must bare in mind as we watch Batman at work? By day he is Bruce Wayne, a wealthy industrialist, by night he is Batman, combing the streets of Gotham City for criminals to beat up and people to save
Matt
Oh, to be "bare in mind."
Art of Darkness
“BROKEN pipes, broken tools/People bending broken rules,” sings Bob Dylan in “Everything Is Broken.” The words are set to a guitar riff familiar from the ’60s “Batman” television show starring Adam West, my ur-Batman, cheesy and harmless though he may be. I thought of “Everything Is Broken” when I marked a return to my own Gotham City — Brooklyn, domesticated and oversold as it may be — by seeing “The Dark Knight,” now nestling into place between “Titanic” and “Star Wars” as the second-most-popular film of all time.
This was after a long summer spent laboring in the salt mine of a novel-in-progress, far from multiplexes and beyond reach of a reliable wireless signal. That’s to say I’d been deaf to tabloid and blog reality, gleaning the culture merely through the tinny earpiece of a daily paper (this one) that on this particular Maine peninsula is delivered by truck to local stores, usually by 11. Most days I remembered to pick up a copy.
When I parted ways with the wider datastream in early June, Bill Clinton was still furious and red-faced, “Palin” the name of my favorite member of Monty Python and “The Dark Knight” a would-be summer popcorn hit made awkward by the sad death of a young actor. I don’t mean to play dumb: before I switched off my sonar, Heath Ledger’s extraordinary physical projection into nihilistic madness as Batman’s nemesis, the Joker, was already widely and disturbingly in evidence in the form of publicity stills and YouTube clips, a premonition of something — but of what? Three months later, “The Dark Knight” having been ratified as the movie we all desperately needed to see, we ought to understand.
Coming home afterward, I still didn’t. Instead, in a season bullied by whole families of hurricanes and bankruptcies, and with the less controversial of our simultaneous wars now meandering across the Cambodian — excuse me — the Pakistani border, and with a resurgently belligerent Russia apparently having inched into view across the Bering Strait when no one was looking, I felt disabled by the film, and demoralized. . . .
No wonder we crave an entertainment like “The Dark Knight,” where every topic we’re unable to quit not-thinking about is whirled into a cognitively dissonant milkshake of rage, fear and, finally, absolving confusion. . . .
If everything is broken, perhaps it is because for the moment we like it better that way. Unlike some others, I have no theory who Batman is — but the Joker is us.
Jonathan Lethem, New York Times, September 21
“BROKEN pipes, broken tools/People bending broken rules,” sings Bob Dylan in “Everything Is Broken.” The words are set to a guitar riff familiar from the ’60s “Batman” television show starring Adam West, my ur-Batman, cheesy and harmless though he may be. I thought of “Everything Is Broken” when I marked a return to my own Gotham City — Brooklyn, domesticated and oversold as it may be — by seeing “The Dark Knight,” now nestling into place between “Titanic” and “Star Wars” as the second-most-popular film of all time.
This was after a long summer spent laboring in the salt mine of a novel-in-progress, far from multiplexes and beyond reach of a reliable wireless signal. That’s to say I’d been deaf to tabloid and blog reality, gleaning the culture merely through the tinny earpiece of a daily paper (this one) that on this particular Maine peninsula is delivered by truck to local stores, usually by 11. Most days I remembered to pick up a copy.
When I parted ways with the wider datastream in early June, Bill Clinton was still furious and red-faced, “Palin” the name of my favorite member of Monty Python and “The Dark Knight” a would-be summer popcorn hit made awkward by the sad death of a young actor. I don’t mean to play dumb: before I switched off my sonar, Heath Ledger’s extraordinary physical projection into nihilistic madness as Batman’s nemesis, the Joker, was already widely and disturbingly in evidence in the form of publicity stills and YouTube clips, a premonition of something — but of what? Three months later, “The Dark Knight” having been ratified as the movie we all desperately needed to see, we ought to understand.
Coming home afterward, I still didn’t. Instead, in a season bullied by whole families of hurricanes and bankruptcies, and with the less controversial of our simultaneous wars now meandering across the Cambodian — excuse me — the Pakistani border, and with a resurgently belligerent Russia apparently having inched into view across the Bering Strait when no one was looking, I felt disabled by the film, and demoralized. . . .
No wonder we crave an entertainment like “The Dark Knight,” where every topic we’re unable to quit not-thinking about is whirled into a cognitively dissonant milkshake of rage, fear and, finally, absolving confusion. . . .
If everything is broken, perhaps it is because for the moment we like it better that way. Unlike some others, I have no theory who Batman is — but the Joker is us.
Jonathan Lethem, New York Times, September 21
Incidentally, with $521.9 million in North America as of today, The Dark Knight is still #2 on the all-time domestic list (behind 1997's Titanic, $600.8 million) and #27 on the all-time adjusted for inflation list (right behind 1965's Thunderball).
With an extra $449.1 million overseas, the film is only #26 on the all-time overseas list; but if you put the two figures together, it has earned $971 million worldwide, thus making it the #5 movie of all time -- and in a week or two it should pass 2001's Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone to become #4 on the worldwide list.
The funny thing is, The Dark Knight is currently the only film in the Top 20 that has made LESS money overseas than it has in North America. And once you bracket off 1982's E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (#22) and 1977's Star Wars (#26), which were produced a generation ago and have the further complication of having been re-issued multiple times in North America (but were they re-issued overseas?), the only other film in the Top 40 that made LESS money overseas than it has in North America is 2004's The Passion of the Christ (#40).
And FWIW, the only other film in the Top 50 that has made LESS money overseas is this year's Iron Man (#47). And the only other films in the Top 60 that have made LESS money overseas are 1980's The Empire Strikes Back (#52) and 2004's Meet the Fockers (#57). After that it becomes a fair bit more common, with five such films between #61 and #70.
So. Anyway. If you look at the Top 50 films of all time worldwide, it turns out that The Dark Knight is one of only five that were more popular in North America than they were overseas. Of those five, two are science-fiction movies produced over 25 years ago (when the economics of international distribution were presumably a whole lot different), one is a death-of-Christ movie, and two are superhero movies produced this year.
Who knows, perhaps there are still some international territories waiting to see this film (and Iron Man), and maybe the overseas grosses will overtake the domestic grosses eventually. But at this stage, I'm not counting on it.
Oh, one other factoid: Of the six live-action Batman films produced in the past 20 years, only one has made more money overseas than it did in North America. That film was 1997's Batman and Robin. All the other films directed by Burton, Schumacher and Nolan made between 54.7% and 61.1% of their money in North America. (The Dark Knight currently sits at 53.7%, so it's in that general ballpark.) But Batman and Robin made only 45.1% of its money here. For whatever that's worth.
With an extra $449.1 million overseas, the film is only #26 on the all-time overseas list; but if you put the two figures together, it has earned $971 million worldwide, thus making it the #5 movie of all time -- and in a week or two it should pass 2001's Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone to become #4 on the worldwide list.
The funny thing is, The Dark Knight is currently the only film in the Top 20 that has made LESS money overseas than it has in North America. And once you bracket off 1982's E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (#22) and 1977's Star Wars (#26), which were produced a generation ago and have the further complication of having been re-issued multiple times in North America (but were they re-issued overseas?), the only other film in the Top 40 that made LESS money overseas than it has in North America is 2004's The Passion of the Christ (#40).
And FWIW, the only other film in the Top 50 that has made LESS money overseas is this year's Iron Man (#47). And the only other films in the Top 60 that have made LESS money overseas are 1980's The Empire Strikes Back (#52) and 2004's Meet the Fockers (#57). After that it becomes a fair bit more common, with five such films between #61 and #70.
So. Anyway. If you look at the Top 50 films of all time worldwide, it turns out that The Dark Knight is one of only five that were more popular in North America than they were overseas. Of those five, two are science-fiction movies produced over 25 years ago (when the economics of international distribution were presumably a whole lot different), one is a death-of-Christ movie, and two are superhero movies produced this year.
Who knows, perhaps there are still some international territories waiting to see this film (and Iron Man), and maybe the overseas grosses will overtake the domestic grosses eventually. But at this stage, I'm not counting on it.
Oh, one other factoid: Of the six live-action Batman films produced in the past 20 years, only one has made more money overseas than it did in North America. That film was 1997's Batman and Robin. All the other films directed by Burton, Schumacher and Nolan made between 54.7% and 61.1% of their money in North America. (The Dark Knight currently sits at 53.7%, so it's in that general ballpark.) But Batman and Robin made only 45.1% of its money here. For whatever that's worth.
I know there's been some speculation that Johnny Depp would make a good Riddler, but I submit this as an alternative....
Crispin Glover as Edward Nygma... Just a thought...
Crispin Glover as Edward Nygma... Just a thought...
Looks like Willy Wonka
QUOTE (Alan Thomas @ Oct 28 2008, 05:28 AM) 
Looks like Willy Wonka
He is wearing the Willy Wonka costume. In fact, I did crop out the Wonka bar that he is holding in his left hand. Apparently, Crispin likes to dress up. I thought about photoshopping the pic some more, and adding a lot of green, but that just takes too much time.
QUOTE (Baal_T'shuvah @ Oct 28 2008, 07:59 AM)
QUOTE (Alan Thomas @ Oct 28 2008, 05:28 AM)
Looks like Willy Wonka
He is wearing the Willy Wonka costume. In fact, I did crop out the Wonka bar that he is holding in his left hand. Apparently, Crispin likes to dress up.
He played Willy Wonka in the terrible Epic Movie.
Given how soon this franchise is following on from the last batman franchise, I can't help wondering if any of the original stars could reprise their roles. I'm not saying I'm keen to see Carey in his green suit again, but, y'know.
Matt
Matt
Christopher Nolan on 'Dark Knight' and its box-office billion: 'It's mystifying to me'
Ths is the first of a three-part interview with Christopher Nolan, the director of the astoundingly successful summer film “The Dark Knight,” which has pulled in $528 million in the U.S. alone (a total second only to “Titanic”) and has worldwide grosses that are now approaching the $1 billion mark.
The 38-year-old London native has just returned home to Los Angeles (where he attended the Spike TV Scream 2008 Awards, pictured above) after a monthlong stay at Anna Maria Island on the west coast of Florida where, along with playing on the beach with his children, he contemplated the commercial success of his grim superhero epic — as well as the industry buzz about the film’s chances during the upcoming Oscar season. In today's installment, he talks about the perceived politics of the movie, his plans for the future and that staggering box-office total.
Geoff Boucher, Los Angeles Times, October 27
Christopher Nolan revisits and analyzes his favorite scene in 'Dark Knight'
The "Dark Knight" director gives a deep dissection of his single favorite scene in the movie -- the gripping interrogation sequence, which (with no special effects and only bare-bones lighting) would become "the fulcrum on which the whole movie turns."
Geoff Boucher, Los Angeles Times, October 28
Ths is the first of a three-part interview with Christopher Nolan, the director of the astoundingly successful summer film “The Dark Knight,” which has pulled in $528 million in the U.S. alone (a total second only to “Titanic”) and has worldwide grosses that are now approaching the $1 billion mark.
The 38-year-old London native has just returned home to Los Angeles (where he attended the Spike TV Scream 2008 Awards, pictured above) after a monthlong stay at Anna Maria Island on the west coast of Florida where, along with playing on the beach with his children, he contemplated the commercial success of his grim superhero epic — as well as the industry buzz about the film’s chances during the upcoming Oscar season. In today's installment, he talks about the perceived politics of the movie, his plans for the future and that staggering box-office total.
Geoff Boucher, Los Angeles Times, October 27
Christopher Nolan revisits and analyzes his favorite scene in 'Dark Knight'
The "Dark Knight" director gives a deep dissection of his single favorite scene in the movie -- the gripping interrogation sequence, which (with no special effects and only bare-bones lighting) would become "the fulcrum on which the whole movie turns."
Geoff Boucher, Los Angeles Times, October 28
Victor Morton:
Christopher Nolan says his Batman doesn't play well with others
The director of "The Dark Knight" talks about the problems with teaming up Batman with other superheroes and also discusses the potential for an Oscar nomination for the late Heath Ledger.
Geoff Boucher, Los Angeles Times, October 29
In THE DARK KNIGHT, Nolan makes it explicit, indeed impossible to miss via the last scene, both (1) that Batman accedes to a Socratic noble lie a la MEMENTO about Harvey Dent (and it’s not the only one in the movie — consider the burning of a letter, a public assassination, Batman turning himself in — and contrast it with an explicitly demanded lie: the “it’ll be all right, son” scene) and (2) that Batman’s vocation — like Leonard’s crime investigation, like Borden’s magic act, like Angier’s scientific investigation — will ultimately destroy him, or at a minimum cast him as the eternal despised outsider. He even has to give up his position as Bruce Wayne and destroy stately Wayne Manor.- - -
Indeed, the best analogy I can think to the Batman character is from “The St. Petersburg Diaries,” a work by Count Joseph De Maistre — an anti-Revolution French philosopher hardly known (unjustly so) outside the circle of right-Catholic reaction. In that work, among the lather of ironies and paradoxes De Maistre has endless fun with, he describes the executioner as the man on whom society’s order relies but whom society despises. In this day and age, we’re so squeamish about the death penalty that we try to make as euphemize it as much as possible in our method and go to elaborate measures to remove the responsibility away from any given man — multiple switches on the drug machine, blanks in some firing squad guns, etc. As the man who gets his hands dirty, Batman has to be an outsider for the sake of the rest of our self-images.
Christopher Nolan says his Batman doesn't play well with others
The director of "The Dark Knight" talks about the problems with teaming up Batman with other superheroes and also discusses the potential for an Oscar nomination for the late Heath Ledger.
Geoff Boucher, Los Angeles Times, October 29
There was a time where I shuddered with anticipation at the thought of a Justice League film, principally because I used to love the Batman and Superman and Justice League cartoons as a kid.
Now, the notion of it rings hollow. I am glad that Nolan doesn't want Batman to "play" with the other heroes. Such is the power of Nolan and company's new Batman franchise that no other vision of the character, nor of Gotham City and the rest of the Bat-trappings, excites me at this point. Maybe some day it will. But not now.
Also, FWIW, no other actor's characterization of Batman can really match up to that of Christian Bale (and I highly doubt he would commit himself to two Batman /superhero franchises at once). Unless Bale is involved...I don't want to see anyone else inhabiting the Batsuit.
Yes, this is a fan-boy style rant post. Well, I don't care. Ignore it if you like. I am an unabashed Dark Knight apologist and I care not what others think!!!
December 9th can't come soon enough!
Now, the notion of it rings hollow. I am glad that Nolan doesn't want Batman to "play" with the other heroes. Such is the power of Nolan and company's new Batman franchise that no other vision of the character, nor of Gotham City and the rest of the Bat-trappings, excites me at this point. Maybe some day it will. But not now.
Also, FWIW, no other actor's characterization of Batman can really match up to that of Christian Bale (and I highly doubt he would commit himself to two Batman /superhero franchises at once). Unless Bale is involved...I don't want to see anyone else inhabiting the Batsuit.
Yes, this is a fan-boy style rant post. Well, I don't care. Ignore it if you like. I am an unabashed Dark Knight apologist and I care not what others think!!!
December 9th can't come soon enough!
As this movie approaches $1 billion in worldwide grosses, someone in Turkey is expressing his displeasure with the Batman franchise.
same link twice?
QUOTE (SDG @ Nov 12 2008, 04:52 PM)
same link twice?
Thanks for pointing that out. Sorry. Link has been fixed.
um, wow. most frivolous lawsuit ever?
QUOTE (SDG @ Nov 12 2008, 06:28 PM)
um, wow. most frivolous lawsuit ever?
Well...it's kind of an amped up version of the parents who sue heavy metal bands because their kids committed suicide and were big fans of said band.
So...I guess...yeah...most frivolous lawsuit ever.
The music score for The Dark Knight has been disqualified for Oscar competition.
Full story here.
QUOTE (Variety)
Sources inside the (executive Academy) committee said that the big issue was the fact that five names were listed as composers on the music cue sheet, the official studio document that specifies every piece of music (along with its duration and copyright owner) in the film.
Zimmer said, in an interview with Variety prior to this week's Acad action, that listing multiple names on the cue sheet was a way of financially rewarding parts of the music team who helped make the overall work successful. (Performing-rights societies like ASCAP and BMI use the cue sheet to distribute royalties to composers.)
Zimmer, Howard and the other three individuals -- music editor Alex Gibson, ambient music designer Mel Wesson and composer Lorne Balfe -- reportedly signed an affidavit stating that the score was primarily the work of Zimmer and Howard.
That apparently wasn't enough for the majority of the committee, which was also supplied with documentation indicating that more than 60%, but less than 70%, of the score was credited to Zimmer and Howard.
Zimmer said, in an interview with Variety prior to this week's Acad action, that listing multiple names on the cue sheet was a way of financially rewarding parts of the music team who helped make the overall work successful. (Performing-rights societies like ASCAP and BMI use the cue sheet to distribute royalties to composers.)
Zimmer, Howard and the other three individuals -- music editor Alex Gibson, ambient music designer Mel Wesson and composer Lorne Balfe -- reportedly signed an affidavit stating that the score was primarily the work of Zimmer and Howard.
That apparently wasn't enough for the majority of the committee, which was also supplied with documentation indicating that more than 60%, but less than 70%, of the score was credited to Zimmer and Howard.
Full story here.
Just got the Blu-Ray. In the technical specs on the back, it says the main feature comes in "Variable 2.4:1 and 1.78:1 (IMAX Sequences)". So the black bars at the top and bottom will vanish when the IMAX sequences play? Interesting! But the IMAX screen itself is not 1.78:1, is it? There would still be SOME visual information missing, right?
And what about the regular DVD?
(Oh, and re: the score, it has been un-disqualified for the Oscars. It may be nominated, again, now.)
And what about the regular DVD?
(Oh, and re: the score, it has been un-disqualified for the Oscars. It may be nominated, again, now.)
QUOTE (Peter T Chattaway @ Dec 9 2008, 06:40 PM)
Just got the Blu-Ray. In the technical specs on the back, it says the main feature comes in "Variable 2.4:1 and 1.78:1 (IMAX Sequences)". So the black bars at the top and bottom will vanish when the IMAX sequences play? Interesting! But the IMAX screen itself is not 1.78:1, is it? There would still be SOME visual information missing, right?
And what about the regular DVD?
(Oh, and re: the score, it has been un-disqualified for the Oscars. It may be nominated, again, now.)
And what about the regular DVD?
(Oh, and re: the score, it has been un-disqualified for the Oscars. It may be nominated, again, now.)
Just watched the bluray. My theater has a 2.4:1 "scope" aspect ratio, so the experience was a little different for me than it will be for most, but on a 16:9 screen yes, the black bars will disappear during the IMAX sequences. I believe true IMAX aspect ratio is 1.66:1, so they did "adjust" it to fit the 1.78:1 of 16:9 tvs. Of course, almost every 1.78:1 movie does this nowadays, as "enhanced for widescreen dvds" that you see on most dvds basically means they've cut the original 1.85 to fit 1.78, otherwise you'd have little black bar slivers on almost every movie. (And of course when shooting film, there's traditionally at least some visual information missing even on a standard 35mm print being shown on a 1.78 screen, as the director typically has "title safe" areas that all the important information is kept within due to overscan on the projectors at the theater, variance in masking standards from theater to theater (among theaters that mask at the lens instead of just letting the "extra" information bleed out onto the black masking around the screen), etc....)
FWIW, when I tried it in my theater with my screen in 16:9 mode, I didn't find the experience to be all that impressive, probably because the changes to 1.78 are not as drastic as 1.66 would have been in the IMAX. It definitely wasn't enough of a wow factor for me to abandon watching it in full 2.4 scope mode. Which basically replicated the non-IMAX theater experience; no changing aspect ratios, but no black bars at all at any time.
Oh, and from what I've read, the regular dvd just does the 2.4 without the 1.78 stuff.
EDIT: Just for you Peter, because I know you like arcane trivia like this so much: there's a bit of a mini-uproar among a subset of CIH (constant image height) home theater aficionados over the decision by WB to do the switching aspect ratios on the bluray without providing a 2.4-only option like the regular dvd uses. Why, you ask? Because whereas most CIH theaters (like mine) use a scaler to scale the 2.4 image to the full 1.78 height, effectively cutting out the black bars in the process, some do a sort of "poor man's CIH" where they just zoom the projector image so that the black bars are projected off of the screen onto the masking.
On TDK bluray, when I watch it using the scaler, the "extra" IMAX bits just get scaled off into never-never land and they never factor in to my viewing experience. For those using the zoom method, the IMAX image is now projected off the top and bottom of their screen onto their masking, or wall, or whatever. Which obviously isn't the look they're going for. But anyway, all this may be outside even your bounds of curiosity...
popechild wrote:
: I believe true IMAX aspect ratio is 1.66:1 . . .
Really? It always seemed more like 1.33:1 to me.
[ pause to check Wikipedia. ]
Aha, it seems the IMAX ratio is 1.43:1 -- so it's just a hair wider than the old-fashioned TVs but not as wide as the European (1.66:1), HDTV (1.78:1), American (1.85:1) and ultra-widescreen (anywhere from 2:1 to 2.76:1) standards.
(Note: animated films are often done in the 1.66:1 format too, though they may have been cropped to 1.85:1 for American theatres. On DVD, they sometimes keep the 1.85:1 cropping, and sometimes show the entire 1.66:1 image -- which results in slight pillarboxing. The original Mulan DVD had 1.85:1 and 1.33:1 versions of the film, while the re-issued two-disc set had a 1.66:1 version; but I have not yet done a side-by-side comparison to confirm which version is the cropped one. Also confusing matters is the fact that, in the '60s and '70s, a number of Disney films were animated 1.33:1, on the assumption that they would go to TV, but very little happened in the tops and bottoms of the frame, so that the image could be cropped/masked in theatres. Hence, the original DVDs of The Jungle Book, The Aristocats and Robin Hood were 1.33:1, but the new DVDs are all 1.66:1 or 1.78:1 -- and if you ask me, the new DVDs look rather pinched. And that's before we get to the fact that almost every company out there routinely crops All Four Sides of the image whenever they convert an animated film to DVD anyway -- which is very, very annoying, because animators tend to use the Entire Frame in a way that live-action directors don't. But I digress...)
So, when the IMAX portions are shown in 1.78:1, they are definitely losing a bit off the top and the bottom.
: Of course, almost every 1.78:1 movie does this nowadays, as "enhanced for widescreen dvds" that you see on most dvds basically means they've cut the original 1.85 to fit 1.78, otherwise you'd have little black bar slivers on almost every movie.
I've noticed that quite a few of the DVDs I have screen-capped have had black-bar slivers at the top and bottom. When I post a screen-cap on my blog, if it's 1.85:1, I post it the way I found it, whereas if it's 2.35:1 or whatever, I crop the black bars first (but if there are black slivers on the SIDES, I leave them in). For an example of this, check this post at my blog, where I show the various actors who have played John Connor (including Dark Knight star Christian Bale!). The first Terminator was shot in 1.85:1, so you can see the black slivers at the top and bottom. But all the sequels have been formatted in 2.35:1 or something very similar to it, so I cropped the black bars. (I almost said the sequels were "shot" in 2.35:1, but that's not quite true; the DVD for Terminator 2 has a featurette which shows how they shot on a bigger frame, and then cropped it one way for the "widescreen" version of the film while cropping it another way for the "fullscreen" version, or something like that. I forget what the name of that process is.)
: Oh, and from what I've read, the regular dvd just does the 2.4 without the 1.78 stuff.
If I read the back of the discs correctly, it seems that the DVD has the IMAX scenes as a stand-alone feature, so that you can watch them the way they were "meant" to be seen. But what does that mean? 1.43:1 on a 1.78:1 screen with massive pillarboxes? Slightly cropped or letterboxed to fit a 1.33:1 screen? Or have they been cropped to fit the 1.78:1 frame on the DVD, too?
: EDIT: Just for you Peter, because I know you like arcane trivia like this so much: there's a bit of a mini-uproar among a subset of CIH (constant image height) home theater aficionados over the decision by WB to do the switching aspect ratios on the bluray without providing a 2.4-only option like the regular dvd uses. Why, you ask? Because whereas most CIH theaters (like mine) use a scaler to scale the 2.4 image to the full 1.78 height, effectively cutting out the black bars in the process, some do a sort of "poor man's CIH" where they just zoom the projector image so that the black bars are projected off of the screen onto the masking.
I have to admit, I am vague on what it means to "scale" the image. If you are not zooming, then what are you doing -- stretching it?
: But anyway, all this may be outside even your bounds of curiosity...
Scaled, as it were? No, I find this formatting stuff fascinating. Chesterton once said that art, like morality, consists of drawing the line somewhere, and I am fascinated to see how and why people draw the various lines when it comes to stuff like this.
: I believe true IMAX aspect ratio is 1.66:1 . . .
Really? It always seemed more like 1.33:1 to me.
[ pause to check Wikipedia. ]
Aha, it seems the IMAX ratio is 1.43:1 -- so it's just a hair wider than the old-fashioned TVs but not as wide as the European (1.66:1), HDTV (1.78:1), American (1.85:1) and ultra-widescreen (anywhere from 2:1 to 2.76:1) standards.
(Note: animated films are often done in the 1.66:1 format too, though they may have been cropped to 1.85:1 for American theatres. On DVD, they sometimes keep the 1.85:1 cropping, and sometimes show the entire 1.66:1 image -- which results in slight pillarboxing. The original Mulan DVD had 1.85:1 and 1.33:1 versions of the film, while the re-issued two-disc set had a 1.66:1 version; but I have not yet done a side-by-side comparison to confirm which version is the cropped one. Also confusing matters is the fact that, in the '60s and '70s, a number of Disney films were animated 1.33:1, on the assumption that they would go to TV, but very little happened in the tops and bottoms of the frame, so that the image could be cropped/masked in theatres. Hence, the original DVDs of The Jungle Book, The Aristocats and Robin Hood were 1.33:1, but the new DVDs are all 1.66:1 or 1.78:1 -- and if you ask me, the new DVDs look rather pinched. And that's before we get to the fact that almost every company out there routinely crops All Four Sides of the image whenever they convert an animated film to DVD anyway -- which is very, very annoying, because animators tend to use the Entire Frame in a way that live-action directors don't. But I digress...)
So, when the IMAX portions are shown in 1.78:1, they are definitely losing a bit off the top and the bottom.
: Of course, almost every 1.78:1 movie does this nowadays, as "enhanced for widescreen dvds" that you see on most dvds basically means they've cut the original 1.85 to fit 1.78, otherwise you'd have little black bar slivers on almost every movie.
I've noticed that quite a few of the DVDs I have screen-capped have had black-bar slivers at the top and bottom. When I post a screen-cap on my blog, if it's 1.85:1, I post it the way I found it, whereas if it's 2.35:1 or whatever, I crop the black bars first (but if there are black slivers on the SIDES, I leave them in). For an example of this, check this post at my blog, where I show the various actors who have played John Connor (including Dark Knight star Christian Bale!). The first Terminator was shot in 1.85:1, so you can see the black slivers at the top and bottom. But all the sequels have been formatted in 2.35:1 or something very similar to it, so I cropped the black bars. (I almost said the sequels were "shot" in 2.35:1, but that's not quite true; the DVD for Terminator 2 has a featurette which shows how they shot on a bigger frame, and then cropped it one way for the "widescreen" version of the film while cropping it another way for the "fullscreen" version, or something like that. I forget what the name of that process is.)
: Oh, and from what I've read, the regular dvd just does the 2.4 without the 1.78 stuff.
If I read the back of the discs correctly, it seems that the DVD has the IMAX scenes as a stand-alone feature, so that you can watch them the way they were "meant" to be seen. But what does that mean? 1.43:1 on a 1.78:1 screen with massive pillarboxes? Slightly cropped or letterboxed to fit a 1.33:1 screen? Or have they been cropped to fit the 1.78:1 frame on the DVD, too?
: EDIT: Just for you Peter, because I know you like arcane trivia like this so much: there's a bit of a mini-uproar among a subset of CIH (constant image height) home theater aficionados over the decision by WB to do the switching aspect ratios on the bluray without providing a 2.4-only option like the regular dvd uses. Why, you ask? Because whereas most CIH theaters (like mine) use a scaler to scale the 2.4 image to the full 1.78 height, effectively cutting out the black bars in the process, some do a sort of "poor man's CIH" where they just zoom the projector image so that the black bars are projected off of the screen onto the masking.
I have to admit, I am vague on what it means to "scale" the image. If you are not zooming, then what are you doing -- stretching it?
: But anyway, all this may be outside even your bounds of curiosity...
Scaled, as it were?
No, I find this formatting stuff fascinating. Chesterton once said that art, like morality, consists of drawing the line somewhere, and I am fascinated to see how and why people draw the various lines when it comes to stuff like this.
My bad on the IMAX aspect ratio. I was getting it confused with the European thing. (Can you tell I've only rarely even been to an IMAX theater?)
The scaling thing is not zooming, but it does involve stretching. The overall purpose of a CIH theater is to replicate what you see traditionally in movie theaters - a "constant image height" whether you're watching 1.85 or 2.4. Instead of adding black bars to the top and bottom for stuff wider than 1.85, you simply open the sides curtains wider.
The result is that 2.4 stuff always looks "bigger" than 1.85 stuff in a scope theater (the way God intended
). At home, whether I watch 4:3, 16:9, or 2.4:1, everything stays a constant height, but the picture gets wider or narrower. 4:3 stuff is the smallest, 16:9 is in the middle, and 2.4:1 is the biggest. On a 16:9 screen, 16:9 material looks the biggest and 2.4 material has the huge black bars. (Unfortunately some theaters are starting to add masking to the top and bottom instead of the sides now as well. A prime example was when I went to see Australia at a different theater than I'm used to. To my dismay, we were treated to 20 minutes of trailers and commercials in 1.85, then the screen shrunk for the supposedly epic movie. It just felt wrong.)
Back to the scaling thing. One way to technically accomplish the above is to literally zoom the projector so the black bars go off the top and bottom of the screen. Of course this zooms the sides out as well, which makes the picture fit properly on a wider scope screen. BUT, you're only using about 66% of the vertical pixels on the projector because many of them are being wasted on black bars you're not seeing. This means you're getting worse resolution, bigger, more noticeable pixels, and you're losing 1/3 of the projector's light potential as well.
The other option involves scaling the images instead of zooming it. Picture a 2.4 image on a 16:9 screen. Now imagine that you have a device (sometimes the projector, sometimes an external scaler) that is capable of removing the black bars and stretching the image vertically to fit the full screen. Now you're using all the light output of the projector, and you're using all of the projector's pixels. Of course, the image is stretched vertically though, which is why the key component in a scope theater is an anamorphic lens adapter that stretches the image the same 33% horizontally that the scaler stretched it vertically. Now you've got your 2.4 image with no black bars, you're using 100% of the projector's pixels and light, and you get to watch scope material in the largest size possible.
(BTW, if you've ever seen a strip of anamorphic 35mm film, this is exactly the way that they do it as well. The film frames are each "stretched" vertically to fill the roughly 1.85 aspect ratio of the film frame, and then the theater's projector uses an anamorphic lens that stretches it horizontally to achieve the proper ratio.)
Here are a few pics of the end result on my theater. (I also slightly curved the screen and put the speakers behind it to really try to replicate the theater experience.)
4:3 (image is washed out, but you get the idea)
16:9
2.4:1
But I suppose we're pretty OT here at this point. Sorry Alan...
The scaling thing is not zooming, but it does involve stretching. The overall purpose of a CIH theater is to replicate what you see traditionally in movie theaters - a "constant image height" whether you're watching 1.85 or 2.4. Instead of adding black bars to the top and bottom for stuff wider than 1.85, you simply open the sides curtains wider.
The result is that 2.4 stuff always looks "bigger" than 1.85 stuff in a scope theater (the way God intended
). At home, whether I watch 4:3, 16:9, or 2.4:1, everything stays a constant height, but the picture gets wider or narrower. 4:3 stuff is the smallest, 16:9 is in the middle, and 2.4:1 is the biggest. On a 16:9 screen, 16:9 material looks the biggest and 2.4 material has the huge black bars. (Unfortunately some theaters are starting to add masking to the top and bottom instead of the sides now as well. A prime example was when I went to see Australia at a different theater than I'm used to. To my dismay, we were treated to 20 minutes of trailers and commercials in 1.85, then the screen shrunk for the supposedly epic movie. It just felt wrong.)Back to the scaling thing. One way to technically accomplish the above is to literally zoom the projector so the black bars go off the top and bottom of the screen. Of course this zooms the sides out as well, which makes the picture fit properly on a wider scope screen. BUT, you're only using about 66% of the vertical pixels on the projector because many of them are being wasted on black bars you're not seeing. This means you're getting worse resolution, bigger, more noticeable pixels, and you're losing 1/3 of the projector's light potential as well.
The other option involves scaling the images instead of zooming it. Picture a 2.4 image on a 16:9 screen. Now imagine that you have a device (sometimes the projector, sometimes an external scaler) that is capable of removing the black bars and stretching the image vertically to fit the full screen. Now you're using all the light output of the projector, and you're using all of the projector's pixels. Of course, the image is stretched vertically though, which is why the key component in a scope theater is an anamorphic lens adapter that stretches the image the same 33% horizontally that the scaler stretched it vertically. Now you've got your 2.4 image with no black bars, you're using 100% of the projector's pixels and light, and you get to watch scope material in the largest size possible.
(BTW, if you've ever seen a strip of anamorphic 35mm film, this is exactly the way that they do it as well. The film frames are each "stretched" vertically to fill the roughly 1.85 aspect ratio of the film frame, and then the theater's projector uses an anamorphic lens that stretches it horizontally to achieve the proper ratio.)
Here are a few pics of the end result on my theater. (I also slightly curved the screen and put the speakers behind it to really try to replicate the theater experience.)
4:3 (image is washed out, but you get the idea)
16:9
2.4:1
But I suppose we're pretty OT here at this point. Sorry Alan...
QUOTE (popechild @ Dec 9 2008, 11:37 PM)
Oh, and from what I've read, the regular dvd just does the 2.4 without the 1.78 stuff.
Interestingly, the digital copy I downloaded last night (sure am glad WB fixed that by the time this Blu-Ray hit stores) *does* switch back and forth on my iPod.
QUOTE (Peter T Chattaway @ Dec 10 2008, 12:19 AM)
; the DVD for Terminator 2 has a featurette which shows how they shot on a bigger frame, and then cropped it one way for the "widescreen" version of the film while cropping it another way for the "fullscreen" version, or something like that. I forget what the name of that process is.)
Are you talking about "Pan and Scan"?
Backrow Baptist wrote:
: Are you talking about "Pan and Scan"?
I guess so, though I have always associated that term with taking a widescreen image and chopping off the sides. In this case, they had a square-ish image that they cropped one way for the widescreen presentation and another way for the fullscreen presentation -- and as you can see, the window for the fullscreen presentation got bigger or smaller, depending on the needs of the individual shot.
: Are you talking about "Pan and Scan"?
I guess so, though I have always associated that term with taking a widescreen image and chopping off the sides. In this case, they had a square-ish image that they cropped one way for the widescreen presentation and another way for the fullscreen presentation -- and as you can see, the window for the fullscreen presentation got bigger or smaller, depending on the needs of the individual shot.
QUOTE (Peter T Chattaway @ Dec 10 2008, 04:51 PM)
Backrow Baptist wrote:
: Are you talking about "Pan and Scan"?
I guess so, though I have always associated that term with taking a widescreen image and chopping off the sides. In this case, they had a square-ish image that they cropped one way for the widescreen presentation and another way for the fullscreen presentation -- and as you can see, the window for the fullscreen presentation got bigger or smaller, depending on the needs of the individual shot.
: Are you talking about "Pan and Scan"?
I guess so, though I have always associated that term with taking a widescreen image and chopping off the sides. In this case, they had a square-ish image that they cropped one way for the widescreen presentation and another way for the fullscreen presentation -- and as you can see, the window for the fullscreen presentation got bigger or smaller, depending on the needs of the individual shot.
Wow, that's strange. I've never seen that before. (Panning-and-scanning outside the 2.4 image.) What sort of film were they shooting that they felt they had enough resolution to not use the full image for the desired framing? It makes me think of the new camera coming out from RED that will shoot up to a ridiculous 28k. My plan is to set one up pointed out a window of a downtown highrise at the city streets and just let it roll for a few hours. Then I'll spend a few years in post zooming into all the different parts of the image to find interesting things going on and cut a story together with them.
Rachel Weisz as Catwoman?
Probably not, but it's fun to imagine it. I wouldn't be troubled if it were true.
Probably not, but it's fun to imagine it. I wouldn't be troubled if it were true.
I include the disclaimer at the bottom of this quote, because this tidbit from WENN just reeks of BS... but what the heck...
QUOTE (WENN)
Murphy And Labeouf For Batman
17 December 2008 5:29 PM, PST
Eddie Murphy and Shia Labeouf have been lined up to star in the next Batman movie, according to reports.
The Beverly Hills Cop actor will star as The Riddler and Labeouf will play the caped crusader's sidekick Robin in the next instalment, tentatively titled Gotham.
Actress Rachel Weisz is reportedly in the frame to play Catwoman. Christian Bale will return as Bruce Wayne and Michael Caine will again play his assistant Alfred, according to British newspaper The Sun.
The movie, which is slated for a 2010 release, will be directed by Christopher Nolan, who made The Dark Knight such a huge success when it was released this year.
A source says, .Chris wasn.t sure if he wanted to do another movie but as soon as he decided to, he got the wheels in motion. Eddie.s a fantastic addition. Everyone.s excited to see what he does as the Riddler..
IMDb.com, Inc. takes no responsibility for the content or accuracy of the above news articles. News articles are published for the entertainment of our users only. The news items do not represent IMDb's opinions nor can we guarantee that the reporting therein is completely factual. Please visit the site responsible for the article in question to report any concerns you may have.
17 December 2008 5:29 PM, PST
Eddie Murphy and Shia Labeouf have been lined up to star in the next Batman movie, according to reports.
The Beverly Hills Cop actor will star as The Riddler and Labeouf will play the caped crusader's sidekick Robin in the next instalment, tentatively titled Gotham.
Actress Rachel Weisz is reportedly in the frame to play Catwoman. Christian Bale will return as Bruce Wayne and Michael Caine will again play his assistant Alfred, according to British newspaper The Sun.
The movie, which is slated for a 2010 release, will be directed by Christopher Nolan, who made The Dark Knight such a huge success when it was released this year.
A source says, .Chris wasn.t sure if he wanted to do another movie but as soon as he decided to, he got the wheels in motion. Eddie.s a fantastic addition. Everyone.s excited to see what he does as the Riddler..
IMDb.com, Inc. takes no responsibility for the content or accuracy of the above news articles. News articles are published for the entertainment of our users only. The news items do not represent IMDb's opinions nor can we guarantee that the reporting therein is completely factual. Please visit the site responsible for the article in question to report any concerns you may have.
Oh for crying out loud.
There's no freaking way.
I withdraw any shred of willingness to believe in the Weisz rumor anymore. Not if it's tied to THAT.
There's no freaking way.
I withdraw any shred of willingness to believe in the Weisz rumor anymore. Not if it's tied to THAT.
"...according to British newspaper The Sun." That's all you need to know right there. This is total bull.
QUOTE (morgan1098 @ Dec 18 2008, 12:55 AM)
"...according to British newspaper The Sun." That's all you need to know right there. This is total bull.
Considering how adamantly Nolan has expressed no dire to add Robin to the series, the idea that he was so quick to add Robin makes it highly unlikely that this is anything but a hoax. I wonder if I could get a really good casting rumor going.
I do wish they'd get Rachel Weisz for Catwoman and Philip Seymour Hoffman for the Penguin...yet how often do rumors like this turn out to be true?
From AIC on the rumors. (Lots of typical AIC language.)
In other Batman related news, singer Eartha Kitt, one of the 60's Catwoman actresses, has passed away
Story here.
Story here.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.