Christopher Nolan Explains Choice of No 3D in Batman 3

Published 4 years ago by , Updated February 15th, 2014 at 4:25 pm,

batman 3 the dark knight rises 3d Christopher Nolan Explains Choice of No 3D in Batman 3

While comic book fans and movie buffs theorize on what characters, villains and stories Christopher Nolan is drawing from to conclude his Batman trilogy with The Dark Knight Rises, we do have some important hard facts about the film. What may be the most interesting design choice about the movie – and certainly very pleasing to moviegoers – is that Nolan will not will shooting Batman 3 in 3D, nor converting it afterward as per the desire of Warner Bros.

Nolan’s interest in utilizing IMAX tech may lead to them shooting most, if not all, of The Dark Knight Rises in the higher resolution (and expensive) format instead. And if director of photography, Wally Pfister, has his way, he’d love to do the entire movie in IMAX as well. But with 3D offering and obvious method of bringing in more cash for the studio, why didn’t Nolan share his Inception in 3D and why will The Dark Knight Rises not be shot that way either?

Deadline interviewed the revered director about the experience and development of Inception, where they touched on the subject of the 3D phenomenon and Nolan’s choice to not make use of it (yet).

“We looked at shooting Inception in 3D and decided we’d be too restricted by the technology. We wouldn’t have been able to shoot on film the way we’d like to. We looked at post-converting it, actually did some tests, and they were very good. But we didn’t have time to do the conversion that we would have been satisfied with. Inception deals with subjectivity, quite intimate associations between the audience and the perceived state of reality of the characters.”

Warner Bros. has made it known that their next major ongoing film franchise to fill the void soon to be left from the conclusion of the Harry Potter series will make use of their vast library of DC Comics characters, and that all of these films along with their other big budget blockbusters, will be in 3D. Nolan’s Batman Begins and The Dark Knight didn’t make use of the third dimension, but why not jump in on the fad for The Dark Knight Rises?

christopher nolan the dark knight rises Christopher Nolan Explains Choice of No 3D in Batman 3

Nolan continues:

“In the case of Batman, I view those as iconic, operatic movies, dealing with larger-than-life characters. The intimacy that the 3D parallax illusion imposes isn’t really compatible with that. We are finishing our story on the next Batman, and we want to be consistent to the look of the previous films. There was more of an argument for a film like Inception. Ive seen work in 3D like Avatar that’s exciting. But, for me, what was most exciting about Avatar was the creation of a world, the use of visual effects, motion capture, performance capture, these kinds of things. I don’t think Avatar can be reduced to its 3D component, it had so much more innovation going on that’s extremely exciting. 3D has always been an interesting technical format, a way of showing something to the audience. But you have to look at the story you’re telling: is it right?”

Yes, very. With his recent successes, Nolan has earned the right to make whatever movie he chooses in whatever method we wishes, and we can applaud him for not forcing 3D into Inception and sticking to his guns in ending his Batman trilogy in the same style he shot the first two installments. It’s much preferred over the post-converted route Green Lantern is taking.

For most live-action films to date, I would happily choose the 2D option over its overpriced counterpart. And if IMAX were the other alternative, if shot that way, I would always go with that, especially on a Nolan project.

3D or IMAX. Which would you prefer for your superhero movies?

The Dark Knight Rises begins production in May and is scheduled for theatrical release on July 20th, 2012.

Follow us on Twitter @rob_keyes and @screenrant.

Source: Deadline

Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:


Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.

If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it. Keep in mind that we do not allow external links in the comments.

  1. You guys do realize this is a movie based on a comic book right? I mean, it’s not like we’re talking about real cinema here, this is a big budget popcorn flick. I’m all for it, as I like this sort of shlock, but I’ll take it in 3D anyday!

  2. I agree with Wassail, also whoever wishes to watch it in 2D can do so, 3D has the 2D element in it.

  3. Honestly, I’d take 3D over IMAX. With how far away the closest IMAX theater is too me, the price of the tickets, even excluding snacks and stuff, a single IMAX movie would cost me over $50 for one person. This is why I have never, and unfortunately may never see a movie in IMAX.

    As far as 2D, I can get that at home. If a movie is in 2D, I refuse to see it, and I wait for the DVD or Blu-ray and watch it that way (I may make an exception here, just out of love of Christopher Nolan’s films such as Prestige and Memento.)

    If I ever get a current 3D viewing method at home, I will never go to the movies again (with VERY few exceptions).

  4. 3D is a gimmick forced upon the movie going sheep of the world.

    A guy thrusting his sword at the screen or seeing feces in the third dimension a la Jackass add nothing to the movie unless you’re lowest common denominator.

    Classic early adopter idiocy.

    • I do not agree, I love 3D movies. It adds demension and FUN for me. I’m not movie purist, I go and have fun once in a while. Whatever.

  5. It’s OK to say that 3D might be more of a distraction and money leecher than an added value, but unfortunately i feet at loss.

    For me, 3D (not the effects per se, but the tech) makes the image a lot more polished than when i watch it on a simple 2D place. We don’t have IMAX over here, and it seems that on your cinemas they won’t display 2D if they have 3d, which i think is the problem for all of you.

    I think that if you don’t “fight” against the 3D but against the 3D-exclusive-if-the-movie-has-the-format cinemas, you would be making it better for everyone, i really don’t need the 3D effects but i need the quality of the image i’m watching to be better than the traditional 2D, watching 2D right now just feels poor quality, when i go to 3D i feel i’m watching a blue ray 2D film with 3D effects, effects that i can’t care less.

    It will be always global that the most formats it has, the greater number of choices we get, and as far as i know that is better for all consumers and applies to everything, as long as the quality is preserved in one or more of the formats.

  6. SI no es en 3d es pésima, mejor me voy a ver VALIENTE, por que no se actualizaron, por que no hacen lo que el público quiere ver, no lo que la Warner quiera, así quiebran grandes compañías, por ese tipo de decisiones.

    • Mira ignorante, quien dijo que la pelicula era en 2D fue Nolan, la Warner la queria en 3D y Nolan dijo que eso cambiara la perspectiva de la pelicula, 3D no es considerado un avance entre los cinofilos sino una molestia, ver imagenes borrosas por la falta de desarroyo que aun tiene la tecnologia, ademas de las distracciones que proporciona. Esta pelicula, como todas las ultimas taquilleras de Nolan fue hecha para apreciarse en miles de detalles profundos e importantes, no para distraerse con las cosas que intentan volarte a la cara.

      La desicion de nolan solo fue pesima por que las personas no tuvieron la oportunidad de escojer como querian ver la pelicula.

      Antes de comentar en un foro angloparlante, APRENDE INGLES!

  7. Honestly, I enjoy 3D. It’s gimmicky, it’s cheesy, and it’s over-priced, but I still genuinely enjoy 3D movies. That said, I hate it when they make things fly at me, that is just stupid, it over does the gimmicky aspect. I liked the Avengers because they DIDN’T throw Cap America’s shield at me, Thor’s hammer didn’t come at my face, and none of Hawkeye’s arrows were flying at me randomly. Same with Brave, the 3D just added something subtle and wonderful.
    If given the choice though, for the average movie, I would much rather see it in Imax, or Imax 3D. I LOVE Imax, I think it is beautiful, especially if filmed specifically FOR Imax, and think it should be implemented in all theaters. I consider myself extremely lucky to live near an Imax theater, and wish everyone could experience the awe inspiring effect of a good Imax movie.

  8. No 3D? I will just wait for it to come out on Blu Ray and rent it then. The only reason I go to an actual theater is to see a movie in a way that my home theater cant provide.

  9. Today, I went to the beach with my kids. I found a sea shell and gave it to my 4
    year old daughter and said “You can hear the ocean if you put this to your ear.” She put the shell
    to her ear and screamed. There was a hermit
    crab inside and it pinched her ear. She never wants to go
    back! LoL I know this is entirely off topic but I had to tell someone!