Chris Nolan Won’t Make Another Batman Movie, Has No Love For Digital: Produced By Conference
Christopher Nolan made two things extremely clear today as the Produced By Conference got underway on the Sony lot in Culver City. He will 
definitely not be making a fourth Batman movie, and he believes that digital filmmaking is “devaluing of what we do as filmmakers.” The Dark Knight Rises director said he actually never had a plan for any Batman sequels when he made 2005′s Batman Begins. “We never had a specific trajectory,” Nolan noted. “I wanted to put everything into making one great film, I didn’t want to hold anything back.” And Nolan certainly didn’t hold anything back on his feelings about Hollywood’s “rapid” move to digital moviemaking. Nolan said to the audience, which included Warner Bros‘ Jeff Robinov, that he “didn’t have any interest in being the research department for an electronics company.” Nolan added, “It’s like filmmakers are being encouraged to buy cameras like we are buying iPods.”
Earlier in the session with his producing partner Emma Thomas on stage beside him, the usually reticent Nolan made it very clear that he believes that film is a superior medium for both filmmakers and film lovers. The director specifically chose to illustrate what he feels is the increasingly lackluster experience that filmgoers have in theaters that use digital projectors. “You really are kind of sitting in your living room now watching moves.” Use of digital projection, the director said, “is reducing most theaters to showing TV commercials.”
Nolan was quick to dismiss those who praise the low cost of digital filmmaking as ignoring the hidden costs involved for digital such as the image rendering that’s necessary in post-production. Nolan, who was very specific in describing technical standards and specs, cautioned the crowd that when most people are talking about digital they’re really talking about “video, like television.” With all that, Nolan did not entirely shut the door on shooting in digital himself. “When it is as good as film and makes economic sense, I’d be completely open to it.”
The man knows whereof he speaks. Good for him!
Kodak sponsored his speech today at the Producer’s Conference. Kodak just went through a bankruptcy filing. Sad, but the world has passed film by and there is no going back.
it is a real shame that a film manufacturing co. like kodak has to file for bankruptcy – shouldn’t there be at least 1 place to buy film in case of emergencies?
My eyes started to hurt while watching a projected video movie the other weekend. I’ve never had that feeling watching 35mm on the screen.
You need glasses.
Yah, because every movie filmed ever in digital format has sucked.
No wait, that’s not true at all.
Nolan should be introduced to Red Epic camera’s
Yeah, Im sure Christopher Nolan has NEVER heard of, touched, or been near a Red Epic… What an obscure camera that major filmmakers never see or use… goodness, if only he could touch a Red Epic, his whole perspective on digital would change…
/Sarcasm
how are those in terms of cost though? One of his major gripes seems to be not that digital can’t be at film quality but that digital culture encourages cheapest versions which means cheap digital camera which don’t have the quality he looks for.
Are these RED Cameras both great quality AND cheap as or than film?
Yes. The Red Epic, ready to shoot sans the lenses, runs about $60k. A 35mm motion picture camera can run 70k to 110k+. But at the moment, there is little competition in the digital realm…your options are pretty much Red and Arri. Sony will soon be a player and Canon will eventually release a quality camera that is not rendered obsolete prior to release. Point being, prices will drop as more companies enter the field.
Your pricing is waaaaaay off. You don’t BUY 35mm cameras, you’d be an idiot to do so, but if you WANT to, you can buy used Arri BL2s and 3s for less than $10,000. With lenses. VisualProducts.com sells used Aarons, Arris and MovieCam packages, all under 20k.
-RnsW
Sony will soooon be a player? Sony (with Panavision) pioneered digital cinema back in 1999-2000. Way before RED or even ARRI were on the scene. A short list of movies produced with Sony digital cameras?? STAR WARS II & III, MIAMI VICE, REEL STEEL, RED TAILS, TRANSFORMERS: DARK OF THE MOON, COLLATERAL, SIN CITY, TRON: LEGACY, and AVATAR. Not to mention that their newest camera, the Sony F65, is arguably the best digital camera made.
Nolan is right. Film is simply better. Once you have seen something you actually shot in 35 projected in a theater, you would feel the same way. Properly exposed 16/35/65mm film can look better than real life IMO.
Notice whenever you hear someone talk about digital they always talk about “the film look”, or how much digital resembles 35mm film.
Forget RED Epic. ARRI Alexa is the real deal.
Lets see what he says in 3 years when no one will work with him anymore unless he does another Batman movie and shooting on film will be pretty much ancient history
After making $1 billion for the Dark Knight and Inception being incredibly successful, I don’t think that Nolan has to worry about finding work anymore. It’s been widely reported that Warner Bros. wants to continue working with him a lot.
Yes, no one will want to work with Nolan in three years. As if BATMAN movies are all he’s made. Have you seen INCEPTION? THE PRESTIGE? He’s one of the top filmmakers working in HOLLYWOOD. I’d highly doubt he’ll be irrelevant in three years.
How out of touch are you?
Warners has made it pretty clear that they don’t intend to stop making Batman movies (at the very least, they’ll put him front and centre in the planned JUSTICE LEAGUE film). In a few years, the idea of Nolan reclaiming the franchise will be about as unlikely as Tim Burton doing so.
He’s producing Superman, which will, presumably have sequels, I believe he’s attached as producer or exec producer (but won’t write or direct) another Batman series in the future (which will exist in a different continuity than this current one) and it wouldn’t shock me if WB tries to attach him to Justice League at some point.
And as mentioned, it’s not like his only successful, or good, films have been Batman. While I wasn’t a fan, Inception was a massive hit. The guy will have no problem making films for years to come.
My guess is he has other projects in the pipeline.
Yeah, beacause Nolan needs to do batman movies to be able to work in hollywood… Inception didn’t make 800 million worldwide, and memento and The Prestige were such shitty movies…
At Andrew S – You, sir, are an idiot… Nolan is a member of a very small club of filmmakers. He has Carte Blanche at any studio in town. He will have to retire himself before studios retire him… Please stay off this board numbskull. Thank u.
@Andrew S. LOL. Wake up. You’ve been incepted.
Appreciate and admire Nolan for his stance. Keep up the good fight.
It is one, however, that will be lost in the long run. The benefits from technology are often good yet this technology leaves a toxic trail in its path.
And, just ask any cinematographer why he works with digital cameras, and far too often, the answer is the producers wanted digital. When I ask why…the answer always the same. “Because they think it is less costly than film…not necessarily better for the shoot..just cheaper.”
So it goes…
I agree with FTCS. While in conjunction with superb lighting, film can present a certain texture that becomes a part of the story itself. Digital presents a sort of “immediacy” that producers desire…”lemme see what ya shot five minutes ago”…Digital is here to stay as long as it is deemed cost effective and the herd follows the bottom line. I am neither for it or against it…it just is what it is…a sign of the changing times.
Forget cost, there is an argument that digital is better quality. Anyone who grew up pre digital will remember going to see films covered in artefacts, hairs and gunk. Digital prevents any deterioration in quality between the first screening and the ten thousandth. It means the audience will always see the film as intended and not a print that has degraded over time. Digital also offers cost benefits and a great workflow in post. No point trying to fight the future.
I’ll put this in layman’s terms:
Lots of movies still shoot on film, they’re posted in digital. Look at RUM DIARY, it was shot on 16mm, and then DI’d at 2K. Looks fabulous, without any artifacts WHATSOEVER.
What you’re really talking about is digital projection, which has no wear and tear.
You’re confusing the two methods. You can still shoot film (any format, 16, 35mm, 65mm) and post it digitally and get the cleanest result manageable.
The problem with SHOOTING digitally is it all looks the same. RED has a sodium problem due to the bayer chip pattern.
-RnsW
and by the way, I’m an associate member of SMPTE.
You’re 100% spot on. Many non-pro’s don’t understand the distinction between using digital technology for image capture vs. projection.
As a long time visual effects professional, I can second Chris Nolan’s statement that film is a far superior media for live action shooting – from it’s ability to capture extraordinary detail at both ends of the luminosity scale, to its richness in color reproduction. Plus it just looks better.
On most tentpole films where there are a lot of visual effects (perhaps 50% of the movie – or more), the negative is digitally scanned so shots with VFX can be worked on in the computer at the VFX facilities, and later matched with non-VFX shots in the color grading suites, so the whole film has a consistent look. Starting with film, though, makes all the difference in the final product.
My feeling is at this point – once the film exists entirely within the computer – a digital projection isn’t necessarily inferior to a film projection. But I could be swayed…
Nolan seems to be anti-digital color grading and projection, which doesn’t bother me as much, since many theaters project film with old bulbs at less than desirable foot-lamberts, and the audience seeing the film on the 4th weekend is seeing the same clean movie as those who saw it opening night. Plus I think you can get a much better match between VFX shots and Drama shots with digital color grading than you can with the photochemical process, but hey – he’s pretty damn successful with his technique – so it’s hard to argue…
There was an article in LA Weekly a while back that also conflated those two completely separate issues (digital shooting and digital distribution). Freakin’ maddening.
Robert Not So Wise – thanks for clarifying this for a lot of folks here. I’m pretty much well-versed in both mediums so I get the whole debate.
16 and 35 aren’t going anywhere as shooting formats, imo. For sure, the companies that manufacture them will downsize, as the demand will decrease. But, 35mm prints are going to be phased out by the studios by the end of 2013.
Film is now a choice. Digitizing it in 2K in post doesn’t take away from film’s intrinsic look; it actually enhances it better than the old chemical bath.
The least of Nolan’s concerns is the “film/lab” budget line item on his films, so for him it IS a choice. Though he did shoot his first feature “Following” in 16mm b/w on a shoestring.
He stands by his decision and I like that he actually spoke his mind on the subject……
Nolan will be just fine.
I admire filmmakers who care enough about the craft to fight for it. I wish there were more.
Why? Epics have the highest postproduction cost of any camera on the market.
Proof
He won’t have any. I’ve worked on several B-Movies that use Epics simply to save money.
But isn’t it possible that the use of video will hasten the end of the movie business and of theatrical – certainly as we once knew it? His point – a good one I think – is that now everything – including watching a movie – is an extrapolation of the TV viewing experience. What’s ironic is that most often movie audiences reject serious movies that smack of TV. Without the bells and whistles of the franchise pic – Batman included – where would the movie business be? Where it is I guess. On your TV, computer, phone. I would be curious to know if people believe that working in video has had an impact on what constitutes a movie star today. The big movie stars today – originally became stars on film. Compare FILM movie stars to VIDEO movie stars. Do people believe that film makes a difference in this regard? Also : why can’t film be improved upon? Generally speaking though it seems to me that the business of Hollywood, in the long run, is often its own worst enemy. Impulsively react immediately based on this year’s numbers. Theoretically “fix” the reaction at some point later on. In contemporary terms this keeps Wall Street/hedge fund capital spinning…and guessing. All you have to do is look at any metropolitan multiplex where you can bounce from screen to screen to see where it’s already arrived : movies are the new free TV. Like walking down the street during the Great Depression and hearing different radio shows out of different living rooms.
I think there is sort of a hybridization happening between movies and TV but I think it might ultimately be a good thing. It is my opinion that the success of many film series (LOTR, Harry Potter, Batman, etc.) is because audiences crave on-going plotlines with characters they get to know. Shows like “Lost” and “The Walking Dead” for example have some of the epic qualities of a movie but with each episode, we already know the characters and their backstory. I think the audience craves on-going episodic stories with feature film production value. Screenwriters no longer have to be bound by length — you can tell an on-going story if you have the audience because the technological limitations of distribution are evolving. Think what filmmakers like Tarantino, Oliver Stone, Scorsese, JJ Abrams, Spielberg and Whedon can do under those circumstances.
Fine, Ben. Audiences may crave “on-going plotlines with characters they get to know,” but sometimes they want closed-ended stories, too. The STAR WARS saga, for example, works fine as a serial, but CASABLANCA wouldn’t work that way. Neither would BODY HEAT, BUTCH CASSIDY AND THE SUNDANCE KID, THE GREAT ESCAPE or THE SOCIAL NETWORK.
“Stand-alones” provide their own satisfaction, and I just hope both kinds of stories can co-exist in the marketplace or the more “old school” fogies like me will feel screwed.
I have news for you. If Casablanca came out next weekend, and was a hit, it too would become a series. I’d certainly be intrigued to see a sequel.
I agree, that people now want longer. deeper stories. Ok, I’ve made the commitment to get to know these people, now what happens? “Breaking Bad” is exactly the kind of thing that would have been an indie movie one-off in the 90s, that is far richer as a TV show 20 years later. Almost all the ‘great’ indie films of that time could be TV series if done today. ‘Baghdad Cafe’, ‘Red Rock West’ etc.
On the Nolan front, film aquisition still looks better in 99.9% of cases. Just saw Prometheus – the EPIC wasn’t doing Ridley any favours there.
There actually was a Casablanca TV show. It was lousy, didn’t work, and nobody wanted to watch it. Because Casablanca was a film, not a TV show idea.
And you’re defining movies only in terms of money-making franchises, which doesn’t account for all of film. The Artost was a pretty big hit and had a very solid critical reception (may have even won some award…), and it’s a one-off movie story. Film is a different medium from TV, and while I personally don’t mind certain gaps being bridged, the film medium will always have something specific and unique to offer from ongoing serials (and that includes sequels which 99% of the time are produced as movies and not under any of the rules of ongoing TV story structure).
Nice to have a proper storyteller like Nolan standing up for film. Digital film-making in its current state makes everything look like a cut scene from a video game.
not due to the hardware but the editing and director’s vision. Read.