My apologies if this has been posted already, but I don't think I've seen it here. I was just reading an interview with director Chris Nolan in the new issue of Wired, and it's got me more excited for The Dark Knight than ever (even if the artice does use those stupid, never-going-away "bam!" and "zowie!" slugs).

Anyway, maybe I haven't been paying attention, but I didn't know the movie was filmed in Imax and that the image of Batman standing on the Sears Tower (shown at the opening of the trailer) is really Christian Bale actually on top of the Sears Tower. Nolan's using as little CGI as he can in the film, which makes me happy. I think CGI is an overrated, overused filmmaking technique.

After reading this article, I really can't wait for this movie.

Here's a link to the whole article: http://www.wired.com/ente..._darknight

its out at the beginning of july , right?

And, CGI still never looks real to me. Not even plausible.

Glad to hear Nolan's minimizing its use. This movie's going to rock.

horatio said:

July 18

Efan said:

ThreadBare said:

It's mostly why I've avoided seeing The Hulk. CGI characters' movements are always awkward and weird looking. I thought CGI was way overdone even in the Spider-Man movies.

Efan said:

Yeah, they're not normal, organic, recognizable or familiar movements. They're jerky and obviously "programmed."

That's what's kept me from seeing the Hulk, too, come to think of it. Fooey on CGI.

It always seems like an overdone remake of a Peter Gabriel video to me.

I think the Spidey movies could justify it being heavy on the CGI tho, I mean look at all the crazy movements and stuff he does when his web slinging. It would be pretty much impossible to do that with a real life person.

Its not like it was The Matrix where they went extremely overboard with the CGI and made it very obvious as well.

But its good to hear that Batman is going to have minimal CGI...lets just hope it really is

I'm really looking forward to this one

kcwm said:

Same with The Hulk. How else are you going to depict a green, 7-foot, 1000 lb. mfer who can leap miles at a time?

uPtoWnNY said:

Exactly they are superhero movies they are allowed to have some leeway. But if it were something like Die Hard and it had chronic CGI in it then theres plenty of reason to be angry about the use of CGI as it has no place in those sorts of movies!

uPtoWnNY said:

There are lots of ways. Movie special effects people are geniuses, and they've got plenty of experience creating monsters. I don't think it would even be hard for them. I wouldn't mind CGI if it were better, but it's an obvious switch to a cartoon in a live-action movie. It looks only moderately okay on a big screen, and when you watch it on a TV, it's really bad. It's just not my preference.

Im so excited! I didn't know it was going to be shown in IMAX!!

IMAX gives me motion sickness, and I always throw up during the show, but my brother will love to see it there...I guess I'll sacrifice