The Dark Knight Discussion **CONTAINS SPOILERS**

[Tommyklaid]

Re: The Dark Knight Discussion **CONTAINS SPOILERS**

If these rumors are true...

1. J. Depp as (the Riddler)

and

2. P. Hoffman as (the Penguin)


wow....this could ultimately be one of the highest grossing trilogies of all time! (look out Lord of the Rings!!!)

[jmood88]

Re: The Dark Knight Discussion **CONTAINS SPOILERS**

If the exec has any sway in picking the next actor to play a villain then it's guaranteed that Nolan will not be directing the next film. The next movie is increasingly in danger of becoming what the previous franchise became. A vehicle just to showcase today's most famous actors hamming it up to give the movie marquee value just to guarantee a big box office. With all due respect to Hoffman and Depp, who when given the right roles excel at thier craft, the next Batman movie just becomes a Depp or Hoffman movie which happens to have Batman in it. Seeing Nolan's casting choices in the past there is little chance that he wants either to be in the 3rd installment as thier fame will be a distraction to the movie.

One other actor that I think might make a great Riddler would be Ben Foster. Watch him in Alpha Dog, he's the older brother of the kid who is killed. He was also fantastic in 3:10 to Yuma. The guy has a great look for the Riddler and apparently he's very much like Ledger in preparing for his roles and seems perfectly natural playing a maniac.

Poor writing is what made the series bad. I can't see any movie with Johnny Depp and Nolan being as bad as the later Batman movies were. The distraction thing is also a pretty lame complaint. The Dark Knight became Heath Ledger's Joker more than it was about Batman but that didn't take away from the movie.

[Cebby]

Re: The Dark Knight Discussion **CONTAINS SPOILERS**

If the exec has any sway in picking the next actor to play a villain then it's guaranteed that Nolan will not be directing the next film.

I could understand if they were pushing someone like Jessica Alba or that annoying Shia kid, but Depp and PSH? I don't think there's been a directer in the history of movies who would consider them pushed on him to play supporting roles.

[Seymour Scagnetti]

Re: The Dark Knight Discussion **CONTAINS SPOILERS**

You guys really need to think outside the box. It's so predictable that for the next movie it has to be the biggest stars but no one seems to realize that Depp has never played a sinister character in his life at least to the point that it wasn't a total ham job. What he has played effectively is amusing caricatures of villians not to be taken seriously. He plays quirky characters well but not to the point of scary unless Captain jack gives you nightmares. He is tailor made for the Burton Batman movies. He's too much of a pretty boy to belong in Nolan's movies especially as the maniacal Riddler. I know Ledger was considered a pretty boy at one point but that was early on in his career while Depp has always been treated as an heartthrob. Ledger looked much more rough around the edges than Depp will ever look.

Based on Nolan's history he does think outside the box. He cast Ledger, Robin Williams and Cillian Murphy as villains when no one else would of so I would think Depp is probably at the bottom of Nolan's list. Sorry folks it ain't happening if Nolan is on board.

2 actors that would easily be more effective than Depp was the previously mentioned Ben Foster and Casey Affleck. Both have that crazy look in thier eyes that they are somewhat unstable and would fit the Ridder perfectly. Go watch The Assassination of Jesse James for Affleck or Alpha Dog and 3:10 to Yuma for Foster and try to honesly tell me that Depp could do a better job than these guys playing the Riddler.

While Hoffman would be somewhat better, I didn't think he was that effective as a bad guy in Mission Impossible and since the Penguin is the only possible villain he could play which Nolan is not a fan of it's a mute point he will appear in the next film.

[TheMatrix31]

Re: The Dark Knight Discussion **CONTAINS SPOILERS**

Ben Foster as the Riddler would be pretty damn good.

[Blzer]

Re: The Dark Knight Discussion **CONTAINS SPOILERS**

So wait...













Is there any chance the place where it says "Includes ACTION PACKED IMAX framed sequences" mean our movie is going to stretch out vertically for those scenes? Or...

[Seymour Scagnetti]

Re: The Dark Knight Discussion **CONTAINS SPOILERS**

So wait...













Is there any chance the place where it says "Includes ACTION PACKED IMAX framed sequences" mean our movie is going to stretch out vertically for those scenes? Or...

I don't know what you're trying to imply but the TDK trailer (aka the bank scene) in the blueray for Begins was stretched out that way so I'm assuming it's yes.

[Blzer]

Re: The Dark Knight Discussion **CONTAINS SPOILERS**

I don't know what you're trying to imply but the TDK trailer (aka the bank scene) in the blueray for Begins was stretched out that way so I'm assuming it's yes.

Really? That's pretty awesome.

Basically, what I mean is the movie would normally be 2.35 : 1 or whatever, but for those IMAX shots they would be around 1.80 : 1 or something, I don't know.

[Seymour Scagnetti]

Re: The Dark Knight Discussion **CONTAINS SPOILERS**

Really? That's pretty awesome.

Basically, what I mean is the movie would normally be 2.35 : 1 or whatever, but for those IMAX shots they would be around 1.80 : 1 or something, I don't know.

That's the impression I get too. So I think the bank scene and several other scenes will be 1:85:1 but I really don't see the big deal with that. There are alot of movies that are shot in 1:85:1. One thing I did notice with my bluray disc was that the bank scene sneak preview was a lot crisper Hidef picture than the entire Begins movie. Don't know if that was because of it being in IMAX or Begins not being a great BRay transfer, probably a little bit of both.

[Blzer]

Re: The Dark Knight Discussion **CONTAINS SPOILERS**

That's the impression I get too. So I think the bank scene and several other scenes will be 1:85:1 but I really don't see the big deal with that. There are alot of movies that are shot in 1:85:1. One thing I did notice with my bluray disc was that the bank scene sneak preview was a lot crisper Hidef picture than the entire Begins movie. Don't know if that was because of it being in IMAX or Begins not being a great BRay transfer, probably a little bit of both.

The difference is the quality. Think of it this way, instead... think of a full screen TV, watching a movie on widescreen then the same movie on full screen. What do they do? Do they add more image on the top and the bottom? Not exactly... they ZOOM in on the widescreen image that we have, cutting off the sides that we originally had in widescreen and slightly reducing the quality.

Same applies for a movie shot in 1.85:1 vs one shot in 2.35:1. Say you had the same movie shot in both... then think of 1.85:1 as your full screen and 2.35:1 as your widescreen. When I refer to The Dark Knight's scenes, they will be shot in similar quality as 2.35:1, but in a 1.85:1 ratio. Essentially, it's like the first example... only we're ADDING image, not "zooming in" on our image like full screen does.

Hope that makes sense. IMAX isn't simply breathtaking because it's a taller screen, otherwise we would be all gung-ho about 4:3 again. It's simply because of the quality they maintain with smaller images on the shots.

[Seymour Scagnetti]

Re: The Dark Knight Discussion **CONTAINS SPOILERS**

The difference is the quality. Think of it this way, instead... think of a full screen TV, watching a movie on widescreen then the same movie on full screen. What do they do? Do they add more image on the top and the bottom? Not exactly... they ZOOM in on the widescreen image that we have, cutting off the sides that we originally had in widescreen and slightly reducing the quality.

Same applies for a movie shot in 1.85:1 vs one shot in 2.35:1. Say you had the same movie shot in both... then think of 1.85:1 as your full screen and 2.35:1 as your widescreen. When I refer to The Dark Knight's scenes, they will be shot in similar quality as 2.35:1, but in a 1.85:1 ratio. Essentially, it's like the first example... only we're ADDING image, not "zooming in" on our image like full screen does.

Hope that makes sense. IMAX isn't simply breathtaking because it's a taller screen, otherwise we would be all gung-ho about 4:3 again. It's simply because of the quality they maintain with smaller images on the shots.

I kinda understand what you're trying to get at but you could then say every 1:85 (American gangster for example) is shot in 2:35 quality and is not zoomed in. The 1:85 aspect of TDK shouldn't be any better in quality than American Gangster because neither is zoomed in. It's thier original aspect ratio.

IMAX movies are shot in 70mm so that's why they are sharper images but that has nothing to do with aspect ratios. Nolan could have simply stated that some of TDK is shot in 1:85 that fills the screen but I think the selling point of the IMAX claim is the superior image of 70mm film whether it be 2:35 or 1:85.

[Blzer]

Re: The Dark Knight Discussion **CONTAINS SPOILERS**

I kinda understand what you're trying to get at but you could then say every 1:85 (American gangster for example) is shot in 2:35 quality and is not zoomed in. The 1:85 aspect of TDK shouldn't be any better in quality than American Gangster because neither is zoomed in. It's thier original aspect ratio.

IMAX movies are shot in 70mm so that's why they are sharper images but that has nothing to do with aspect ratios. Nolan could have simply stated that some of TDK is shot in 1:85 that fills the screen but I think the selling point of the IMAX claim is the superior image of 70mm film whether it be 2:35 or 1:85.

Yeah I didn't know the size of the film so I couldn't use that term. Whatever the actual term is that we should use, supposedly the IMAX shots are "taller" than the regular shots, which is why I gave the ratio numbers.

I haven't ever seen a movie in IMAX before, so I honestly don't know either way... but the general consensus is that the IMAX-specific shots in this movie will blow you away.

[Thrasha]

Re: The Dark Knight Discussion **CONTAINS SPOILERS**

I actually had the chance to watch TDK in imax in Charlotte a couple months ago and I have to admit my jaw was on the floor.

It was my second time seeing the movie so I actually was able to watch it with a good idea of what was going to happen. A little bit more able to take enjoy it and take it all in better then the first.

The scene that takes the cake on the imax screen is the car chase when the 18 wheeler is flipped by the bat cycle.

And also when the Joker is walking down the street, begging Batman to hit him, while shooting at cars and pedestrians.

It brought back the excitement of why I love going to the movies, and seeing great cinematography.

If you have the chance to see this movie in imax, I strongly recommend you do it.

[Salhus]

Re: The Dark Knight Discussion **CONTAINS SPOILERS**

Anyone know where I can find a real authentic joker coat?? That's all I want is that thick, purple, shoulder padded, long coat that he has in the movie. Thanks much...

Oh yeah, please spare me the "just look on ebay" talk. I can only find poor replicas on the web. Thanks again.

[ExtremeGamer]

Re: The Dark Knight Discussion **CONTAINS SPOILERS**

This movie gets better everytime I see it. Been watching it on my iPod the last few weeks, and it's just an incredible movie from beginning to end.