The Dark Knight to be multiple AR on Blu-ray

[George Bellefontaine]

The voice is electronically altered (in the movie--via an electronic device that is part of the cowl/mask; in real life, at the sound board) to disguise it--it's not Bale simply speaking in a forced guttural voice.

Maybe that device needs a little retooling.

[Ovation]

No argument from me on that front.

[emig5m]

I might be the only one on the planet that likes the voice...lol. :E

[audioqueso]

The voice is electronically altered (in the movie--via an electronic device that is part of the cowl/mask; in real life, at the sound board) to disguise it--it's not Bale simply speaking in a forced guttural voice.

Oh, is that so?
We were all talking about this in the movie section when the movie came out. I had mentioned how I felt it really was out of place and out of character to force his voice like that so much. Interesting... I didn't know that. I wonder why though.

[Ovation]

The idea is to mask the voice so it can't be traced back to Bruce Wayne.

[audioqueso]

I guess. Not really in tradition with comic books NOR comic book movies. I mean, in the comics no one has to fake disguise their voice, Batman never had to use a device to disguise his voice, it's just part of the fantasy world that the mask hides the identity. And even with comic movies, the part is portrayed in the same manner. So it's not wrong to say that it's "unrealistic" because in the comic book world, that is how it is. That is the reality in the comic book world, that the mask covering their face gets the job done in hiding their true identity. And even in the comic book world movies, that is how it has been as well. So when this new Batman does it, it's just... out of place and odd. Like asking "why is there a need to do that???"
That's why, I wonder why they need to do that.

[Race Car Driver]

It is official, The Dark Knight is the fastest selling Blu-ray movie ever. Many have speculated that the movie would push Blu-ray mainstream, similarly to the way The Matrix pushed DVDs mainstream back in 1999. At this rate, Blu-ray players may become the de facto standard for many homes by next year.

According to Yahoo, The Dark Knight managed to sell more than 600,000 units on its first day. This shatters the previous record set by Iron Man, which sold 260,000 on its first day. It took a week for Iron Man to even sell 500,000. The Dark Knight is expected to sell over a million copies over the weekend.

The Matrix managed to sell 780,000 units during its first week back in 1999 on the DVD. This is a good sign because The Dark Knight managed to sell close to what The Matrix sold in one week. Considering that the price of Blu-ray players has reached the $200 price range and with the sales up for the holidays, it is starting to look like the transition from DVD to Blu-ray is going smoothly.

Many shoppers have stopped purchasing DVDs altogether after the purchase of a Blu-ray player. I know I haven’t purchased a DVD movie in about a year. I have been building a nice Blu-ray movie collection with The Dark Knight as my latest addition.

The Dark Knight on Blu-ray presents the movie in a variable aspect ration with IMAX sequences framed in 1.78.1. Which look very nice on a 52″ hi-def LCD TV. Sales of Blu-ray players have also picked up dramatically over the holiday season with the release of practically every major movie title on the Blu-ray disc.

It seems like the Blu-ray player is quickly turning into the holidays must have gift item.

http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:%20/2008/12/13/the-dark-knight-pushes-blu-ray-past-dvd-sales-of-the-matrix/

[Chris D]

Wow, I guess I need to see this movie! Only reason I'm hesitant to buy it, is knowing that they'll make more and create a big box set someday. That's why I held off buying LOTR, too.

I guess. Not really in tradition with comic books NOR comic book movies. I mean, in the comics no one has to fake disguise their voice, .

Yeah, just look at Superman! Just had to put on a pair of glasses, and everybody thinks he's Clark Kent!

(there was a funny SNL skit about that, starring The Rock)

[Ovation]

When the box set comes out, just give away the current one as a gift--I do that with my double dips.

As for the voice thing, in the animated series (as well as the George Reeves TV show), both Superman and Batman alter their voices somewhat (usually with a deeper tone). The old Spider-Man cartoons from the sixties did the same.

[Gremal]

Bale talks about getting the voice right in the extras on the Batman Begins Blu-ray. He said it was difficult at first, but once he had practiced a few times he could slip into the voice easily.

[Ovation]

Well then the articles I read were wrong. I stand corrected about the electronic device explanation.

[Chris D]

Had a movie night tonight. Couldn't put it off any longer--bought it on BD.

Whoa. INTENSE movie. This may set a new mark for superhero movies. In conjunction with Iron Man, I've got high hopes for superhero flick futures. I very much appreciated that so much was live action and NOT CGI--that's what blew Spiderman 3 for me, more than anything else. This was a deep, dark, immersive film, really going into the psychosis and character motivations, not just action and fluff. I also appreciated that the hero isn't just a sterile, shiny golden boy. Not pure good battling pure evil. Very good move that especially in the end, the hero also becomes the villan to be the hero.

Awesome score by Hans Zimmer.

FANTASTIC picture and audio quality on BD.

Honestly, I completely forgot about the AR change, and got caught up in the movie experience. On my 100" front projection 1.78 screen, I didn't even notice and didn't think about it until it was all over and rememberd I should have been looking for it. Other 3 people watching with me didn't notice it either. Watching it a 2nd time, the 16:9 shots really do look the best. I'm guessing it's partially just because of being a bigger picture area, but also because of the IMAX resolution and coloring.

I don't think it's been said here--what AR was the IMAX shot it? IMAX originally was 4:3 ONLY, but I'm remembering new techniques used for the Matrix sequels that allowed 1.78 IMAX. That's what showed up in BD for the IMAX shots, so I'm guessing that was native. Why not just show the entire flick in 1.78 then? (I like it)

Heath Ledger really did do a great job--made a villan that was more than just insane, but really had depth and character--I really did like, for example, Heath's little smacks he did with his tongue, like his mounth was dried out from his scarred deformities. Not sure about his "let me tell you how I got my scars" stories, though.

Yeah, I thought the Batman voice distortion was a bit much, too.

Warning, spoilers for those who haven't seen the film!

So apparently Joker's alive, but of course Heath isn't. Too bad we won't be seeing more of that combination.

What a story, that Joker created Two-Face, corrupting the incorruptible, creating the biggest villan from the biggest hero! At first, I was skeptical of Aaron Eckhart playing Two Face, but he did a good job.

I too, am a bit confused about Two Face's ending. How can Two Face be dead? He didn't even truly enter the criminal realm! But the film seemed very firm that he actually died, and Dent actually had a memorial.

Wait a second--that's Scarecrow that's in the 2nd scene, right? With the copycat Batmen? What's up with that? Supposed to be some connection to the first film?

Now... the extra features indicate that the Lambourghini crash is a REAL Lambourghini. I find that just a bit incredible--they really destroyed a 6-figure car on purpose?

I'm not disappointed that we don't be seeing more of Maggie Gyllenhal. She's cute, but something just bugs me about her... we'll leave it at that.

I guess we do have the loophole left open (intentionally?) that the lawyer is still alive, knowing Batman's true identity.

Everybody's seen the shot, now, at the end of the Bat Pod (motorcycle) chase, where he comes out of an alley sideways and skids to a halt. Are the wheels in that supposedly going sideways?

[Chris D]

The Riddler has always been my favorite Batman villan, so I hope we get him next.

Catwoman? ehhhhhh... I'll watch since they're make her hot, for sure, but not my favorite.

[George Bellefontaine]

Wow, Chris, that was quite a post. Now tell us how you really liked this film...

I may buy the Blu when it becomes available used just so I can see what I was missing, but I am so used to watching scope films masked that I know the AR changes will annoy me. But for most people this is not a problem. Still, I do hope Chris Nolan will film the next one in one ratio only. I don't care which, as long as it's only one. I am also interested in who will be The Riddler and Catwoman. Maybe even Robin will enter the picture: oh, God, please don't let it be Shia LeBoeuf. :roll:

[Ovation]

IMAX was 1.44:1 at the cinema, not 1.78:1.

Nolan is on record: No Robin while he is making Batman films, so not to worry about "the beefster".

[George Bellefontaine]

Nolan is on record: No Robin while he is making Batman films, so not to worry about "the beefster".

He's one cut of beef that doesn't appeal to me so that is good news.

[Ovation]

I still think he knows where bodies are buried. There is no other rational explanation for the number of roles he's offered.

[Chris D]

1.44:1? So even the IMAX shots in the BD are cropped? That is NOT ok with me. Shifting AR that I didn't notice is one thing. But I was to see ALL the original movie that was shot, not cutting out pieces of the picture. Booooooooooooooooooo.....................

Eh... I don't think it would be too bad to introduce Robin. If we're being true to the original stories, and deep roots of the Dark Knight, Robin is part of that, like it or not. Just keep it away from the pedophile/Gary and Ace sort of storylines.

[George Bellefontaine]

Eh... I don't think it would be too bad to introduce Robin.

... or even a cute little Bat Girl...

[Ovation]

1.44:1? So even the IMAX shots in the BD are cropped? That is NOT ok with me. Shifting AR that I didn't notice is one thing. But I was to see ALL the original movie that was shot, not cutting out pieces of the picture. Booooooooooooooooooo.....................

Eh... I don't think it would be too bad to introduce Robin. If we're being true to the original stories, and deep roots of the Dark Knight, Robin is part of that, like it or not. Just keep it away from the pedophile/Gary and Ace sort of storylines.

This is a debate that has raged on several fora--essentially, it comes down to the creator's intent. Nolan knew beforehand that he wanted the variable AR on the Blu-ray (he negotiated the ability to get that) and he also knew that he wanted the screen to fill entirely (even if that meant cropping the IMAX scenes top and bottom). A close examination of the 1.44:1 footage (ironically, only available as an extra on the SD release) reveals that the IMAX scenes were "protected" for a 16:9 (1.78:1) screening (the cropped footage is not simply evenly cut from top and bottom but is adjusted to keep what Nolan wanted in the 16:9 space). In the end, Nolan was aiming for a specific effect (filling the screen with imagery at certain moments) and switching ARs both vertically AND horizontally would A) not accomplish this on 16:9 screens and B) would very likely be far more jarring and intrusive to the viewing experience. You could look at it as the 1.44:1 IMAX footage being "open matte" (just with extra care to avoid showing things top and bottom that don't belong) and the 16:9 version as the intended ratio (an argument supported by the "protection" afforded that ratio in the footage). I've not seen Nolan himself make this argument, but I think it a fair extrapolation from his other remarks.

As the creator, and one who negotiated an unusual level of control for the presentation of his work, Nolan appears to have had two intended ratios (the cinema IMAX with variable AR and the home BD version with a different ratio) along with a compromise (to him) ratio of 2.40:1 for non-IMAX and non-HD presentations. While I may not necessarily agree with all his choices (I think the fixed AR version should also be available on BD), I am very sympathetic with creators retaining rights over their work--even at the cost of sometimes being disappointed with their choices.

[KeithM]

TDK was actually the first movie I watched on my BH200 Christmas present to myself and the switching aspects was not bothersome to me on a 92" screen. In fact, I loved it, along with the even better PQ of the IMAX cameras.

[George Bellefontaine]

the switching aspects was not bothersome to me on a 92" screen.

It would be if you used a masking system for watching 2:35 material, which is what I do on my 92 " screen.

[KeithM]

It would be if you used a masking system for watching 2:35 material, which is what I do on my 92 " screen.

I'd agree with that.

With BD-live, would it be possible to fix the movie to a 2.40 ratio for those who opt to without buying a new disc?

[George Bellefontaine]

I'd agree with that.

With BD-live, would it be possible to fix the movie to a 2.40 ratio for those who opt to without buying a new disc?

I don't use BD Live but I doubt if it would allow a fix to a 2:40. The only way to get the movie at an all 2:40 aspect ratio is to buy the standard dvd, which is what I did. But I would much rather have owned it on Blu-ray. Watching a 2:35/2:40 AR movie on a 1:85 screen without masking just drove me nuts so I opted a long time ago to use a masking system. Occasionally I will watch the odd movie in my collection that has a 2:20 or 2:21 AR ( Apocalypse Now and Force 10 From Navarone are examples ) and I even found the smaller bars distracting and annoying. Unfortunately my masking system was made for a 2:35 or wider ratio.

[Burke Strickland]

Being wrapped up in the story and action, I didn't even notice the change of aspect ratio while watching the "Dark Knight" on BluRay. But I was not using a masking system.

I do have a continuously adjustable masking system (horizontal and vertical) on my 110 inch projection screen, but I hardly ever use it any more. I've found that the "black bars" on non-1:1.85 material are usually dark enough to not require masking. If the movie is so boring that I start paying attention to the borders beyond the video frame, I switch to music listening for the evening. :>)

I'd be interested in knowing how those who are distracted by unmasked "black bars" coped with the "black arcs" on the SmileVision version of "How the West Was Won".

Burke

[George Bellefontaine]

I'd be interested in knowing how those who are distracted by unmasked "black bars" coped with the "black arcs" on the SmileVision version of "How the West Was Won".

Burke

Thing is, Burke, with my BenQ the black bars are near black, but not entirely. So I still find the bars noticable enough to detract a little from the movie. But as far as How The West Was Won, I did manage to watch it and though I watched it first on Blu-ray in the 2:89 non Cinerama AR, I did watch it a few days later in the Cinerama format and, perhaps because of the novelty of it all, I wasn't bothered by the smile-box black area. Though I did find I had to move my chair a few feet closer to the screen to really feel the Cinerama effect. Now if I had to sit through it while it switched back and forth occasionally from Smilebox to a 2:89 AR, I would probably find myself climbing the walls.