Hear that? It’s the sound of millions of fanboys panting with anticipation over the arrival of Christopher Nolan’s impending new film, “Inception.” The Leonardo DiCaprio, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Ellen Page, and more-starring, topsy-turvy sci-fi mind-f-ck creation that’s been mystifying and fascinating observers since its announcement opens July 16. And as the film’s release draws closer, we can expect more and more chatter about what might be next for Nolan. In other words, a third Batman entry.
Okay, so nothing’s official yet, but Bat-news continues to leak in drips and drabs; Nolan himself has not made a formal announcement, and in his recent LA Times interview he kept mum on the subject. The latest bit of info comes from cinematographer Wally Pfister. As he was being honored by the Dallas Film Society on April 16 for his cinematographic successes — including Nolan’s “The Dark Knight,” Memento,” “The Prestige,” and “Insomnia”— he talked with the Cinematical about shooting the third installment, and apparently, 3D is a possibility.
As Pfister put it, vaguely, “What Chris and I have talked about doing is something cool and something interesting … I think Chris is game for doing something like [3D]; Lord knows that the 3D fad might pass by the time that summer comes around.” Which summer, Wally? 2011? 2012?! Notice he isn’t committing to 3D, or much of anything, either (Might “something interesting” be more IMAX?)
Suffice to say, Nolan would be the “edgiest” director yet to take on a 3D project, but we honestly doubt this will happen. Hot on the heels of Martin Scorsese’s official use of the technology in his upcoming Melies-fueled kid pic “The Invention of Hugo Cabret,” perhaps we have an indicator that 3D efforts will start to be undertaken by filmmakers whose previous works don’t include it, but again, speculative at best.
In other words, once Hal Hartley and Vincent Gallo are promoting their 3D works, well, then we’ll know it’s here to stay. Don’t get your hopes up quite yet. Update: Interestingly enough, in a different recap of the same event the writers says Pfister says, “he doesn’t like 3D and thinks it’s a fad. He hasn’t seen Avatar yet, but was told it’s more about the imagery than about original storytelling. He prefers IMAX, saying that the larger film frame provides the best sharpness and clarity and the huge screen size provides the best visual experience.”
He says in other interviews that he hates 3D and would rather shoot in IMAX…leaving 3D for theme park rides like Honey I Shrunk The Kids and calls it gimmick…unlikely Batman 3 will be 3D
"But I know one thing about the film that Chris is adamant about is that he wants to shoot on film," Pfister said. "He doesn't want to shoot on video, and I'm the same way."
3D is shot digitally. Surely that answers any questions about Batman being shot in 3D.
Good point Adam, except that if they shoot the entire film in IMAX then shooting on film and in 3D is still possible.
But I believe there is a limit to the length of an IMAX film and even how long a single take can be. Also, the cameras are apparently quite noisy.
So yeah, doesn't seem like it will happen.
They are difficult to work with.
I'm not even sure a whole movie in IMAX would work. Could a really intimate scene or a powerful close-up work with such a large picture?
The action sequences in IMAX only work when contrasting with other scenes in regular dimension.
If 'Batman 3' lives up to 'The Dark Knight' then I'm sure few would mind having to pay an extra $3 to see it even if it isn't in 3D.
I'd pay $3 extra just for it not to be in 3D.
I agree. The reason IMAX is special is because it's balanced with non-IMAX scenes.
A movie all in IMAX would be very in your face and almost headache-inducing in dramatic scenes and close-ups.