Dark Knight Director Doesn't Like 3D

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Dark Knight Director Doesn't Like 3D


3D Movies? Christoper Nolan, the director behind Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, isn't a fan.

At a Q&A session at the LA Times' Hero Complex Film Festival, director Christopher Nolan talked about 3D movies, and why he isn't really keen on them.

"[O]ne of the reasons why I'm a little reluctant about 3D at the moment [is] because I find it, as a viewer, impossible to forget that I'm watching a film. I think until they can find a way around that, it's going to be problematic."

Nolan also said there were technical details to consider and that 3D glasses, not to mention shooting in 3D, reduces the quality of the movie. "The truth of it is, when you watch a film here [in 2D], you'll looking at a 16 foot-lamberts . When you watch it through any of the conventional 3D processes, you're looking at three foot-lamberts. It's a massive difference. Having struggled for years to get theaters to get up to the proper brightness, we're now seeing polarized film going back to worse than we were. There are a lot of problems with it."

"One of the things that people don't talk about is shooting in 3D requires shooting on video. If you mask it to 2.40 [aspect ratio], you're only getting 800-900 lines of resolution. You have to use a beam splitter [a device that splits an image so that it can be displayed in 3D]. There are enormous compromises in other words," he added.

Despite his reservations, Nolan did consider adding 3D to his upcoming film Inception by converting the film after it was shot. He ultimately decided against it however, saying: "We didn't have time to do it to the standard I would have been happy with. Post conversion technology I think probably for me would definitely be the future, but really it's going to be up to audiences to decide how they watch their films."

Source: Sci Fi Wire

[b][a href='/news/view/101329-Dark-Knight-Director-Doesnt-Like-3D' target='_self']Permalink[/b]

Uh oh Logan you may have to fix something.

OT: Thank goodness! 3d strains my eyes heavily, and I find it a waste to have to pay twice over for a film.

Ah well, to each his own.

Personally I have nothing against 3D movies, but I don't mind when movies aren't in 3D either.

Good, i'm glad someone in the movie industry doesn't like it. This whole 3D fad at the moment is annoying.


Anyway, it's good to see Nolan not concerning with the latest gimmick.

Finally someone in the industry who doesn't like 3D

I hate it. It hurts my eyes, makes me sick, and gives me headaches. Plus I can't even see the 3D, so paying extra for something that will only hurt me is the dumbest thing I could ever do.


I know, in many years time everyone is going to look back at this era and it's 3D fad and say "what were they thinking?"

3d is a gimmick. I'm glad that Christopher Nolan dislikes 3d.

You want 3D go watch a show on Broadway. This whole 3D thing is just another marketing stunt to make people pay for something extra for no real reason. As stated before me, it gives you headaches and your eyes hurt and all kind of shit you don't want a movie to do to you. I;m glad Nolan feels the way he feels about 3D.

Can someone explain me what is the point of watching movies in 3D? Does it somehow change the plot, acting or anything really important?

3D works well when there's a movie designed with 3D in mind and is used to showcase beautiful environments or add to the action (Avatar is a good example. The 3D basically compliments the beautifully designed environments and the action).

"Shovelware" 3D where the 3D is added after the movie is finished just so there's a "reason" for moviegoers to pay the extra $$ is what I absolutely despise. If you want to make a good 3D movie then base your film around 3D.

Really? He doesn't dislike 3D because it's lame, but because it's complicated and doesn't look real enough... Twit.

I can't say I disagree. I am also not a 3D fan mainly beacause people like myself with lazy eye can't use it...

Oh, thank Christ.

Each time he issues any sort of release or interview, he always rewards my faith in his no-nonsense, grounded approach to movie making.

I for one fucking hate 3D.

The glasses are a pain, make the screen rather difficult to see as they darken the image, and being someone who works in a cinema, are a huge pain in the arse to collect/ distribute to Johnny Public, the everyman asshole.

Mr.Nolan, I think you're absolutely right to stay the hell away from the shoddy gimmick that is 3D.
It's not cinema, it's a cheap money spinning fad.

Perhaps you should consider Imax.... lol. Worked great for the bank heist in The Dark Knight, after all.

Thank god, I hope he manages to convince his fellows in the industry of his opinion. I despise this stupid 3D trend.

I love Christopher Nolan. I will watch all this man's movies and have all his children. 3D is a gimmick. A headache-inducing, non-immersive gimmick. I especially agree about not being able to forget you're watching a film, which if 3D were a giant mutant bent on world destruction, would be its laser targeted nuke launcher.

Finally. Nice to know I'm not the only one. I mean, Avatar was alright, but considering the fad it started, I'd rather it didn't exist.

I can't say I disagree. I am also not a 3D fan mainly beacause people like myself with lazy eye can't use it...

I get lazy eye when drinking, my right eye goes mental and twitches all over the place, great fun in a nightclub but I had difficulties with Avatar.

I couldn't understand anything.

Wasn't this 3D craze big back in 1998? Or is it just because i went to Universal Studios in Florida in that year?

@ Deofuta: Yeah, I think a few bits of code might be missing. But it's near the beginning of the summer, so everyone might be on a tight schedule.

That said, I'm glad someone isn't regarding 3D as the next 'discovery of electricity.' I personally went to go see Avatar in 3D, and while it didn't *diminish* the experience, it wasn't as if it was so much better. In other words, the cost doesn't seem to excuse all the trouble you have to go through. As for Inception, I'm certainly intrigued by the movie itself- here's hoping it will be a nice summer surprise as opposed to just overrated, as some people sadly think it will be.

BB code FTW!

and Good! Me thinks this is a smart move!

I enjoy 3D, but only in movies that suit it. a Chris Nolan film wouldn't work in 3D, it just wouldn't.

However, a film like Avatar does, because it suits the medium.

So, I don't mind 3D, and it is a fun experience, but they can only use it where appropriate.

And to be honest, I think they should keep it in cinemas. Keeps the effect.

Yeah, I'm getting pretty tired of every movie being in 3D these days (and not the good kind of 3D, like Avatar, the shitty kind of 3D, where they make like 5 random objects pop out at you throughout the movie, and the rest is as 2 dimensional as the characters from Twilight). Still, if any movie looks like it could have benefited from 3D, it's Inception, but regardless of whether it's in 3D or not, I'm seeing it, it looks fantastic.

Fair enough, 3D's cool, but I'm not too bothered by it. In most films, they use it alot in the beginning, and less and less as the film progresses. Weird.

Nolan, you rock hard. Hard.

I mean, it's alright in some movies, where it serves the immersiveness and was built in with the movie from the start. But it's usually pretty stupid. Nolan has a lot of integrity and vision, and he knows how to use it well, apparently.

Glad to see that most of the comments here are much like I think about it. 3D isn't something that makes a movie good.

I think 3D is a nifty effect and all, but every time I see a movie in 3D I walk out of the theater with a massive headache. That and the ridiculously large glasses get uncomfortable after a while.

Really? He doesn't dislike 3D because it's lame, but because it's complicated and doesn't look real enough... Twit.

Yhea imagine that, real reasons. Like not wanting to reduce the integrity of the movie for a stupid gimmick.

good, 3d sucks major balls

thank goodnes
so tired of all this 3d nonsense

So the new Batman will be normal? Good, those films are brilliant enough with them being ruined by baterangs "flying out of the screen at me".

I agree with old Chris, 3D sucks!

This is a highly technical, well spoken argument that runs parallel to what I've been saying all along: 3D movies suck.

Is it wrong that while reading this all I wanted to know was what movie was the inset pic from?


In all honesty, I went to Clash of Titans 3D, biggest failure ever.

The screen brightness went down with a shitload of notches making it all more dark. Also the action was unclear and all kind of vague shit. Sometimes you saw a rope being 3D, that's it but such moments are too far in between. Also, makes me sick and whatnot, so I will be watching, Avatar: The last airbender 2D if possible.

Excellent. Christopher Nolan is a great director, and it's good to see him bucking the trend. I think people are likely to listen to his opinion on the subject, seeing as this is the guy who managed to make a superhero blockbuster one of the most engaging and critically acclaimed films of 2008.

It's also nice to see someone criticising 3D for technical reasons (read any interview with him; he really knows his stuff), rather than based on cost of tickets or personal preference. Seeing as this is objective information he's offering here rather than opinion, I hope people will pay attention to it.

Bottom line: 3D is an expensive, unnecessarily complicated gimmick that needs to be used a lot less. It can certainly add to the flim if it is designed from the ground up for it, like Avatar, but converting films to the format after the fact is just a blatant money grab that adds little or nothing to the experience.

Is it wrong that while reading this all I wanted to know was what movie was the inset pic from?

It's from The Prestige, aka Batman vs. Wolverine.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Posting on this forum is disabled.