On GAF? You must be new here.
On GAF? You must be new here.
Didnt think GAF would lap this up like this.
Came here expecting pages of hatin'
You dont know about the Nolan-hate club on GAF?
You dont know about the Nolan-hate club on GAF?
And that tiny minority is more vocal most of the time.Most of GAF(and everywhere else) really likes Chris Nolan. The haters are a tiny minority.
We're not talking about Cameron here.There is no Nolan hate club. There are posters that enjoy really enjoy his films and think he's a very talented filmmaker, but enjoy tearing down those that act like he's Kubrick. On GAF, 'hate' seems to mean a lack of unquestioning loyalty and verbal blowjobs.
And that tiny minority is more vocal most of the time.
We're not talking about Cameron here.
I have read somewhere that color reproduction / dynamic range on digital is still inferior to film. I have no idea if that is actually true.
![]()
You dont know about the Nolan-hate club on GAF?
If there is a hate club for Cameron, there is one for Nolan.Of course we're not. Plenty of people show actual, ridiculous hate for Cameron.
Being oblivious -100 points.Incorrect use of gif. -50 points.
Seriously, the Nolan 'hate' is limited to people who thought Inception wasn't the best film ever made and who felt Batman Begins was a tighter, far superior film to The Dark Knight. That's it. There is no 'hate', only mild disappointment.
Like King Kong is better than all of Nolan's movies, right?![]()
How about this? Every successful person/thing will have their share of haters. You cant disagree with that ..Dead was certainly mad with that quote, yet that still doesn't suggest he hates Nolan. He might just really, really love King Kong. It baffles me, but it doesn't make him a Nolan hater.
How about this? Every successful person/thing will have their share of haters. You cant disagree with that ..
Haters gonna hate.
Despite its baggy middle, I would call King Kong a better film than The Dark Knight. That's probably the only Nolan film I ever thought was average at best.
Well then dint feel guilty when I call out the haters.Whatever makes you feel like you've got a cause to fight for, bro.
Well then dint feel guilty when I call out the haters.
I really hope IMAX takes off over 3D.
Inception wasn't brilliant, but it was complete, paced fairly well and had complete character arcs. The Dark Knight did not have any of that.You guys are mad. TDK is better than both Inception and Insomnia (& Following, but who is counting that?)
No way man, that article from WIRED said my newborn son won't be using glasses for 3D! Or a mouse for desktop computers! Or telephones!I'm hoping that in five years time we can have the best of both worlds. That is how far we are away from glassess-less 3D.
Inception wasn't brilliant, but it was complete, paced fairly well and had complete character arcs. The Dark Knight did not have any of that.
Nope. He went from state one to state two. That was a linear descent (brought on for motherfucking stupid reasons, "oh, the Joker gave me a speech, now I'm going to be a murderer with a probability complex!"). It wasn't an arc.Harvey Dent didn't have a character arc? The fuck am I reading.
Nolan said:I find stereoscopic imaging too small scale and intimate in its effect.
The thing with stereoscopic imaging is it gives each audience member an individual perspective.
Using a proper stereo base and convergence, 3D is superior in scale to 2D.I prefer the big canvas, looking up at an enormous screen and at an image that feels larger than life. When you treat that stereoscopically, and we've tried a lot of tests, you shrink the size so the image becomes a much smaller window in front of you.
At this point, I wouldn't say color reproduction is inferior. In terms of dynamic range, film is usually loved because of how it handles highlights (they roll off smoothly, instead of clip in digital), but even that advantage is slowly being whittled away. In terms of low-light performance, digital is far superior to film now. Overall, I still think film has a pleasing 'look' to it, but digital is so close now that I honestly don't have a preference anymore.I have read somewhere that color reproduction / dynamic range on digital is still inferior to film. I have no idea if that is actually true.
Edit: Did't they had to make the "the Hobbit"-set and make up super high in contrast and with very strong colors to get the right look on digital?
I doubt the viability of glass-less 3D, doesn't that depend on the viewer position? If so, how would that work in a family of four?I'm hoping that in five years time we can have the best of both worlds. That is how far we are away from glassess-less 3D.
This transcends Nolan-hate. Even if I didn't like Nolan's movies I'd fully support his "3d can eat my dick" stance.
Nope. He went from state one to state two. That was a linear descent (brought on for motherfucking stupid reasons, "oh, the Joker gave me a speech, now I'm going to be a murderer with a probability complex!"). It wasn't an arc.
And that would have been fine had it been given more breathing room and other characters (BRUCE WAYNE) the opportunity to have an arc of their own.
I doubt the viability of glass-less 3D, doesn't that depend on the viewer position? If so, how would that work in a family of four?
Besides you can't recreate IMAX experience at home, so that's a good reason for people to still go to the theaters.
Inception wasn't brilliant, but it was complete, paced fairly well and had complete character arcs. The Dark Knight did not have any of that.