Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

The Dark Knight...

Thomas Veil said:
I considered that but find it unlikely (though not impossible) that they would construct a complex of buildings taking up a good part of a city block, and then blow it up. Fantastically expensive, even for a high-budget movie...plus you only get one shot at getting it right.
Click to expand...

If memory serves, the "hospital" was actually an old multi-storey car park that was due for demolition. Add some window and fake walkways, and there you go a hospital.

One or two of the Chicago MR members saw or at least heard it...

Edit: It wasn't a car park, it was a "four-story building on the former Brach Candy factory site"
 
Yeah, I had heard it was real as well, which makes it an even more impressive peice of cinematography.

James Cameron did this on a slightly smaller scale in T2 when he blew up the Cyberdyne Systems head office. No CGI there either.
 
Piarco said:
If memory serves, the "hospital" was actually an old multi-storey car park that was due for demolition. Add some window and fake walkways, and there you go a hospital.

One or two of the Chicago MR members saw or at least heard it...

Edit: It wasn't a car park, it was a "four-story building on the former Brach Candy factory site"
Click to expand...

Yep- I was gonna correct you, but you did it for me.
 
Over the weekend managed to see Dark Knight at the BFI imax.

I must admit that it has been a very long time since a film has "moved" me… alas. Dark Knight didn't either.

IMO it was over-long… and maybe seeing it on "The UK's Biggest Screen" didn't help as both me and my partner felt a tad exhausted when we left. :eek: It just came across as a 2-3 hour long visual and aural assault with an inch thick veneer of heavy handed moralising to give it some "depth". Meh…

Heath Ledger had all the best lines — and if it wasn't for "The Joker" we probably would have left half way through. But then "bad" guys are always much more fun. :D Unless someone else pops out of the woodwork before hand, he's probably a shoe-in for the Oscar — self-congratulatory weeping standing ovation and all.

Strangely for me the closest I felt to being touched was when the "Batmobile" (?) said "Goodbye…" before it self-destructed.

I am sure going against general opinion does me no favours, but each to its own.
(And I wish they had made Two Face's damaged face a bit more shall we say… "drippy and oozy…" It was all just too neat.)
 
arkitect said:
Over the weekend managed to see Dark Knight at the BFI imax.

I must admit that it has been a very long time since a film has "moved" me… alas. Dark Knight didn't either.

IMO it was over-long… and maybe seeing it on "The UK's Biggest Screen" didn't help as both me and my partner felt a tad exhausted when we left. :eek:
Click to expand...

I have to say I agree on that front. For some reason the IMAX format didn't do it for me either, and I was tired at the end of it, really feeling the 2.5 hours of the film.
Then seeing it on a normal cinema screen in Wimbledon made a huge difference. It felt faster and zipped along at a good pace. Maybe IMAX isn't for us all!
 
I saw it yesterday and Ledger's performance was absolutely incredible. It wasn't so much as 'Ledger playing the Joker' but he *was* the Joker. Awesome film, can't wait to go see it again.
 
Shadow said:
I saw it yesterday and Ledger's performance was absolutely incredible. It wasn't so much as 'Ledger playing the Joker' but he *was* the Joker. Awesome film, can't wait to go see it again.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I never once though of him as Heath Ledger during the film, that's for sure.
 
While i was watching it, it was like Heath was alive but every 20 mins or so, I had to keep reminding myself that he is no longer with us. It was/is really sad. :(
 
just watched it tonight, thought it was superb. Maybe a bit long and the boat scenes didn't really matter but apart from that a great film. much better than the original films with micheal keaton
 
redgaz26 said:
much better than the original films with micheal keaton
Click to expand...

I still like the 1989 Batman a lot. Batman Returns wasn't as good, but far better than the horrible sequels that Shumacher destroyed the franchise with. And remember that Keaton was only in the first 2, not the last 2 which were easily the worst of the quadrilogy.
 
I saw 'The Dark Knight' on IMAX last night and I found it rather annoying when they switched the aspect ratios between 4:3 and 16:9 - I would have rather the whole thing been in 4:3 then the switching.
 
MacGeek7 said:
I saw 'The Dark Knight' on IMAX last night and I found it rather annoying when they switched the aspect ratios between 4:3 and 16:9 - I would have rather the whole thing been in 4:3 then the switching.
Click to expand...

They did that?! I haven't seen it on IMAX yet but will watch to see if they do that at the theater here as well... that seems odd... :confused:
 
MacGeek7 said:
I saw 'The Dark Knight' on IMAX last night and I found it rather annoying when they switched the aspect ratios between 4:3 and 16:9 - I would have rather the whole thing been in 4:3 then the switching.
Click to expand...

Oh absolutely. I hated it when the quality and size of the image was better and bigger than normal. I would have much preferred they only used 30% of the extra large screen I paid twice as much to sit in front of. :rolleyes:
 
benmrii said:
Oh absolutely. I hated it when the quality and size of the image was better and bigger than normal. I would have much preferred they only used 30% of the extra large screen I paid twice as much to sit in front of. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Sarcasm duly noted and appreciated by the MacRumors Bastard™ of course, and also I now understand what he was getting at. To me that wouldn't be an issue at all - as you alluded to, it's a frickin' IMAX screen! :D :cool:
 
~Shard~ said:
They did that?! I haven't seen it on IMAX yet but will watch to see if they do that at the theater here as well... that seems odd... :confused:
Click to expand...

They used 4:3 for all of the city shots

benmrii said:
Oh absolutely. I hated it when the quality and size of the image was better and bigger than normal. I would have much preferred they only used 30% of the extra large screen I paid twice as much to sit in front of. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

~Shard~ said:
Sarcasm duly noted and appreciated by the MacRumors Bastard™ of course, and also I now understand what he was getting at. To me that wouldn't be an issue at all - as you alluded to, it's a frickin' IMAX screen! :D :cool:
Click to expand...

The IMAX screen wasn't the issue - I just found it distracting more than anything - other than that it was really good
 
MacGeek7 said:
The IMAX screen wasn't the issue - I just found it distracting more than anything - other than that it was really good
Click to expand...

No worries, just giving you crap. All out of love. <3

Personally I don't want to see it again except on IMAX. The use of 4:3 when flying through the city or panning around Batman on a ledge was exciting. I rarely noticed the change as a sudden or distracting one, but often found myself excited to find the entire screen being utilized, particularly in the major scenes.

To each their own. :) In any case, we agree on the important part: good movie.
 
Thomas Veil said:
I considered that but find it unlikely (though not impossible) that they would construct a complex of buildings taking up a good part of a city block, and then blow it up. Fantastically expensive, even for a high-budget movie...plus you only get one shot at getting it right.
Click to expand...

I believe it was an abandoned hospital in the Chicago area that was already set for demolition. It wasn't a set.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back