The Dark Knight Rises - Pre-release Discussion [** NO SPOILERS PLEASE **]

sillo

krudler wrote: »

the tunnel chase with the swat van is an editing and continuity nightmare,the sense of direction is all over the place in it, I never realised how much until I watched a video on youtube detailing it, cant find it at the mo though.

QFT - that whole scene was a mess.

pixelburp

krudler wrote: »

the tunnel chase with the swat van is an editing and continuity nightmare,the sense of direction is all over the place in it, I never realised how much until I watched a video on youtube detailing it, cant find it at the mo though.

I remember that video, in fact I thought I came upon it via this very thread, but can't seem to find it here

Sad Professor

There’s two ways of looking at pacing. In terms of speed, in which case Nolan’s films are fantastic. Or in terms of flow and continuity, in which case they are a mess. As I’ve said before he comes from that George Lucas/Peter Hunt school of editing that prioritises speed above all else, including continuity.

His editor Lee Smith’s influence has to be taken into account as well. Prior to Nolan, I was familiar with Smith mostly for his work with Peter Weir on The Truman Show and Master and Commander, both of which had very choppy editing. In fact, The Truman Show was massacred in the editing room. Weir apparently did it by choice, but it resembles a studio hack job.

However, it should still be pointed out that modern film editing frequently uses montage-like editing techniques and jump cuts. They aren’t necessarily a mistake. It’s just the style of editing chosen by the director and his editor. Nolan is certainly aware that his action scenes contain jumps in continuity. He simply doesn’t think it matters to the audience.

Manco

pixelburp wrote: »

I remember that video, in fact I thought I came upon it via this very thread, but can't seem to find it here

This? http://blogs.indiewire.com/pressplay/IN_THE_CUT_The_Dark_Knight_by_Christopher_Nolan

senordingdong

pixelburp wrote: »

Hmmm, I'm watching it on TG4 & wouldn't say that the pacing is completely off; sure there's a lot to take in, and we're only half an hour in, but I don't think it's to the film's detriment. If anything, to me it's the visual continuity that I found the biggest problem with the movie, with scenes such as the Joker's gatecrashing of the dinner party et al...

Sorry, you kinda worded my point better than I did.
There is too much crammed into too small a time frame, in most of frames of this movie. I think it is HUGELY to the films detriment.
The visual continuity is a part of this too.

If I had to take a guess, I would have said that Nolan made some six hour epic of a movie and then had to cut it to a two hour cinema release. The result to me was a train crash that needed multiple watches and careful attention to follow...and it still doesn't make sense to me so I have to say that the story is whack to boot.

Sad Professor

senordingdong wrote: »

If I had to take a guess, I would have said that Nolan made some six hour epic of a movie and then had to cut it to a two hour cinema release.

Yeah, that's a big part of the problem with both films. The script for TDK was 167 pages long. Based on the one-page-per-minute-rule this would have suggested a 2 hour and 50 minute film, though in practice films tend to run longer. The finished film is 2 and half hours long including credits and I’m not aware of any deleted scenes apart from the short one of the Joker and his goons leaving the party.

So that’s a lot of material crammed into a relatively short running time. This was achieved mostly though a lot of short trims throughout the film. Notice how the film cuts on the dialogue and rarely holds on the face of the actors after they finish speaking. It's very tightly edited. I would have liked to have seen an earlier, slower paced cut of the film as I suspect it would have worked better.

I still think the editing in Begins is far worse though. The final 30 minutes are completely incoherent. The IMAX sequences in TDK actually forced Nolan to slow down.

krudler

Sad Professor wrote: »

I still think the editing in Begins is far worse though. The final 30 minutes are completely incoherent. The IMAX sequences in TDK actually forced Nolan to slow down.

I thought the first half of Begins was brilliantly paced but yeah once the ninjas show up in Gotham it goes a bit mental for the climax. I did think the editing in Inception was superb though, especially in the climactic jump back through the levels, it fit together really well given such a complex sequence, must have been a nightmare to visualise and edit that together.

Boo Radley

Apparently the changes have been made in the sound mix.

pixelburp

Boo Radley wrote: »

Apparently the changes have been made in the sound mix.

Great news if this is indeed true & the new sound mix is already doing the rounds in IMAX theatres. Must dig out some movie blogs and see if there have been any testimonials as to Bane's re-engineered voice...

paddy kerins

pixelburp wrote: »

Great news if this is indeed true & the new sound mix is already doing the rounds in IMAX theatres. Must dig out some movie blogs and see if there have been any testimonials as to Bane's re-engineered voice...

Not true

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/Wolvie09/news/?a=52192

corcaigh07

hopefully the movie will have a more understandable voice audio. I never ever called for a re-recording of Hardy but some tweaks to it are definitely needed, couldnt make him out in the cinema at all...

Boo Radley

corcaigh07 wrote: »

hopefully the movie will have a more understandable voice audio. I never ever called for a re-recording of Hardy but some tweaks to it are definitely needed, couldnt make him out in the cinema at all...

It really does strike me as the most absurd situation that Nolan finds himself in. I'm not sure about his claims that, paraphrasing here, it doesn't really matter if you can make out what is being said since the visuals are just as important. Surely we deserve both? Why must it be a dichotomy?

I'm beginning to suspect that Nolan and co. have made quite a serious blunder and are trying to sell their mistake as intentional. I could be wrong but it seems all so very unnecessary.

I think I've seen all of his previous films and don't recall him enforcing this philosophy of 'it doesn't matter what the characters are saying because it's not a radio play', again paraphrasing. In fact, didn't he do quite the opposite with 'Inception' where everything was explained and talked about to within an nth of its life?

It annoys me that I find myself being drawn into this discussion because in reality it is the story being told that should be the focus not whether we can hear one of the main characters speak or not.

I do agree with what you said though that it would be a shame to re-record Hardy's voice work and that a remix of background would be preferable. I'm planning on going to London IMax to see it and I can tell you now I'd be pretty bloody annoyed if I can't hear one of Batman's supposed greatest foes explain himself.

Handsome Bob

^ If I recollect correctly, Nolan said that in response to what was a very sarcastically put question. There was something else that Nolan said that made me think he was giving a sarcastic answer to a sarcastic question. I'll try and find the link.

Handsome Bob

Found the quote:

"Probably not. He has the mask on, the apparatus, and he has the accent. It's a tough one. He's incredibly hard to understand. Of course, the whole movie doesn't take place on a plane...This insures that you'll go back and see the movie a couple of times in the theater."

http://www.movieweb.com/news/exclusive-first-7-minutes-of-the-dark-knight-rises-seen-christopher-nolan-talks-about-the-incomprehensible-nature-of-bane

That bolded part really makes me doubt he was being serious. Also, when he says that Bane is incredibly hard to understand....I find it hard to believe that Nolan would actually admit to that as whichever way he spins it, it will still come across as a major flaw and will put off casuals from seeing it.

senordingdong

Boo Radley wrote: »

It really does strike me as the most absurd situation that Nolan finds himself in. I'm not sure about his claims that, paraphrasing here, it doesn't really matter if you can make out what is being said since the visuals are just as important. Surely we deserve both? Why must it be a dichotomy?

I'm beginning to suspect that Nolan and co. have made quite a serious blunder and are trying to sell their mistake as intentional. I could be wrong but it seems all so very unnecessary.

I wouldn't just say he made a blunder, I would suspect he is being down right arrogant since he reckons he can hear it just fine when in actual fact he probably knows the lines off by heart.

I think it stands to reason that he has an unusual attitude towards the audio scope of a movie, I mean, at no point in the editing of TDK did he feel the batvoice might need to be toned down. And it seems anyone that questions him is deserving of a good talking down.

The again, as we were discussing the other day about his 'editing style' he definitely doesn't give enough credence to dialogue.

Sad Professor

No way Nolan said that. That quote is made-up. Nolan doesn't speak like that. The blogger seemed like a bit of an idiot:

"The Dark Knight Rises prologue is a complete 360."

Anyway, I'm amazed by what a big deal everyone has made out of this. You never hear people get so upset over a film being visually incoherent. Shows you just how much audiences rely on dialogue to know what's going on.

Mitch Connor

Sad Professor wrote: »

No way Nolan said that. That quote is made-up. Nolan doesn't speak like that. The blogger seemed like a bit of an idiot:

"The Dark Knight Rises prologue is a complete 360."

Anyway, I'm amazed by what a big deal everyone has made out of this. You never hear people get so upset over a film being visually incoherent. Shows you just how much audiences rely on dialogue to know what's going on.

wasn;t one of the big criticisms of the Transformers movies that it was too hard to track what was going on - is that not getting upset over a movie being visually incoherent?

al28283

Mitch Connor wrote: »

wasn;t one of the big criticisms of the Transformers movies that it was too hard to track what was going on - is that not getting upset over a movie being visually incoherent?

Yes, it was also a issue with Batman Begins with a lot of complaints about it being difficult to make things out during fight scenes.

syklops

Boo Radley wrote: »

It really does strike me as the most absurd situation that Nolan finds himself in. I'm not sure about his claims that, paraphrasing here, it doesn't really matter if you can make out what is being said since the visuals are just as important. Surely we deserve both? Why must it be a dichotomy?

I'm beginning to suspect that Nolan and co. have made quite a serious blunder and are trying to sell their mistake as intentional. I could be wrong but it seems all so very unnecessary.

I think I've seen all of his previous films and don't recall him enforcing this philosophy of 'it doesn't matter what the characters are saying because it's not a radio play', again paraphrasing. In fact, didn't he do quite the opposite with 'Inception' where everything was explained and talked about to within an nth of its life?

It annoys me that I find myself being drawn into this discussion because in reality it is the story being told that should be the focus not whether we can hear one of the main characters speak or not.

I do agree with what you said though that it would be a shame to re-record Hardy's voice work and that a remix of background would be preferable. I'm planning on going to London IMax to see it and I can tell you now I'd be pretty bloody annoyed if I can't hear one of Batman's supposed greatest foes explain himself.

There is always the possibility that Nolan thinks(knows) that TDK is a work of art and is held up on a pedastle by a lot of fans, likewise TDK trailer is revered by fans the world over, so is hoping a poor trailer, with poor audio will lower expectations for the third film, giving him the opportunity to knock it out of the park, so to speak.

Liamario

I've seen less analysis on movies that have actually been released!

Sad Professor

No one made that big a deal out of Transformers being incoherent. THere wasn't online petitions for Michael Bay to hire a storyboard artist and learn how to shoot a film properly. The previous film was the exact same. It didn't stop everyone going to the film.

I just think it's silly how everyone has gotten so upset over 7 minutes of footage. I'd be far more worried about Nolan screwing up the actions scenes than not understanding Bane over the sounds of an airplane. Everyone seemed to understand him just fine in the trailer.

syklops

Sad Professor wrote: »

No one made that big a deal out of Transformers being incoherent. THere wasn't online petitions for Michael Bay to hire a storyboard artist and learn how to shoot a film properly. The previous film was the exact same. It didn't stop everyone going to the film.

Ah here there was a massive big deal about Michael Bays Transformers. The standard defence for which is "its a movie about robots fighting, your over thinking it, its a kids movie, chewing gum for the brain, bla bla" There were some very heated exchanges on boards on the subject.

Sad Professor wrote: »

I just think it's silly how everyone has gotten so upset over 7 minutes of footage. I'd be far more worried about Nolan screwing up the actions scenes than not understanding Bane over the sounds of an airplane. Everyone seemed to understand him just fine in the trailer.

This is the sequel to one of the highest grossing movies of all time. The 7 minutes of footage is the only footage we have, it contains the only clues to whats going to be in the sequel and we cant understand whats being said. Also, I didn't understand anything Bane said in the trailer either. Its frustrating.

ADarkKnight88

To be honest the only time i found Bane hard to understand was in the prologue when he speaks to one of his henchmen and the Doctor right before the end, and that was because it was very noisy at that time in the prologue.

Everything else is pretty clear, if you could not understand what he said in the trailer than i dont know what to say. Some people aren't happy unless they are complaining about something.

Temaz

A new audio mix for the Dark Knight Rises prologue has reportedly been sent to theatres.

A number of fans and critics expressed difficulty understanding the villain Bane's (Tom Hardy) dialogue clearly in the six-minute prologue to the highly-anticipated film.

According to previous reports, director Christopher Nolan has said that he will only tweak the sound mix slightly rather than completely change it.

A source has now claimed that IMAX theatres have received a new mix for the prologue, in which Bane's dialogue has been "cleaned up".

"A friend of mine who is an IMAX projectionist told me they received a new soundtrack for the Dark Knight Rises prologue," the insider told Collider.

"He said it's now a combo soundtrack with Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol, but the cool thing about this is that they've cleaned up the dialogue," the source added. "They've gone in and lowered the background noise of the plane and other things, thus making Bane's dialogue clearer and more understandable.

http://www.digitalspy.ie/movies/news/a358196/dark-knight-rises-prologue-gets-new-audio-to-clean-up-bane-voice.html

Vokes

paddy kerins wrote: »

Not true

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/Wolvie09/news/?a=52192

From reading that, it appears nothing has changed at all (yet) ?

Temaz

NME reporting this. Who knows what is happening behind the scenes.

"Viewers have seen both and reporting that it is indeed a much cleaner version. Looks like they just don't want to own up."

http://www.nme.com/filmandtv/news/the-dark-knight-rises-warners-deny-bane-audio-re/256617

Cantona's Collars

Has anyone seen this yet? Brilliantly synched from the Dark Knight Rises Trailer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NRsPDhyHrc

Boo Radley

ADarkKnight88 wrote: »

Everything else is pretty clear, if you could not understand what he said in the trailer than i dont know what to say. Some people aren't happy unless they are complaining about something.

Well, I suppose an ad hominem is one approach to take to the topic being discussed.

Boo Radley

Sad Professor wrote: »

Shows you just how much audiences rely on dialogue to know what's going on.

I think that is a fair enough point to make. If this was a David Lynch film I think I, like others here, would approach it with a very different attitude. As you know his work is challenging and certainly doesn't rely on convention to tell a story.

However, this is a batman film. When I go to see it I expect to understand what is being said and if TDK is anything to go by the amount of dialogue thrown out will be quite a bit. If important parts of it are difficult to decipher it will be an enormous pain in the ass.

If we couldn't understand what the Joker was saying I think a lot of the subtlety of the philosophical battle between him and Batman (not to mention the wonderful schizophrenic 'Wanna know how I got these scars' soap boxes), which would not have been satisfactorily conveyed by the visuals provided alone, would have suffered.

Anyway, as I said before it is a shame this is even a topic for discussion. Even though it is only a 6 minute prologue that this argument is being based on, as has been pointed out by another poster, it is all we have to go on. If there was a problem with the sound and it would later be fixed surely they should have waited. But I suppose marketing and all that dictates certain deadlines.

Rabidlamb