It started for me with a letter from a Los Angeles filmmaker named Mike Williamson, who contacted me March 7 in outrage about a bait-and-switch involving IMAX. He paid an extra fee to see a movie in Burbank, and wrote the company in protest: "As soon as I walked in the theatre, I was disgusted. This was not an IMAX screen. Simply extending a traditional multiplex screen to touch the sides and floor does not constitute an IMAX experience. An IMAX screen is gargantuan. It is like looking at the side of a large building, and it runs vertically in a pronounced way. It is not a traditional movie screen shape....This screen was pathetic by IMAX standards."
If you will click to enlarge the graphic below, you will see that Williamson has a point. The illustration comes from Jeff Leins of newsinfilm.com, based on one with a useful article by James Hyder, editor of the LFexaminer, devoted to this issue. But documentation isn't really necessary. Most of us know what an IMAX screen looks like,
and we instinctively know one wouldn't fit inside our local multiplex. What "IMAX" means in such situations is that the company has taken over the largest screen in the complex, removed a few of the front rows of seats, and moved a somewhat larger screen that much closer to the audience. The picture is not projected through large format 70mm film, but with dual "high end" digital projectors. Every digital projector ever introduced was "high end" at the time.
James Hyder makes bold to mention the elephant in the room: New Coke. That marketing fiasco gave financial meaning to the old saying, If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Twenty-four years after millions were spent to roll out New Coke, the multiplexes of the world sell Old Coke, Old Pepsi, and in India, the admirable Thums Up Cola. There is a lesson there somewhere. The lesson is, if you have advertised Kleenex, don't fill the box with paper towels.
IMAX created a spectacular film format, and found universal customer satisfaction. I'll bet 98% of the people who experienced it loved it. In a piece written the other day by Patrick Goldstein for the LATimes, he wrote that when he interviewed IMAX CEO Richard Gelfond, the CEO "got right to the point. He continues to insist that Imax enjoys enormous customer satisfaction, backing up the claim with a market-research study that found that 98% of Imax moviegoers had enjoyed their experience at the new, medium-size theaters as much as at the older giant screens." Uh, huh. If I were Gelfond and market researchers gave me that result, I'd fire them. I certainly wouldn't be trusting enough to quote them.
Executives need a seat-of-the pants instinct. Coca-Cola's expensive surveys assured them that people preferred the taste of New Coke. The fact is, they didn't.Anyone reading this could have told them that for free. Yet Hyder quotes Gelfond: "we don't think of IMAX as the giant screen. Rather, it is the best immersive experience on the planet." His problem appears to be that most people do foolishly persist in thinking of IMAX as the giant screen. The "IMAX" version offered in multiplexes could be duplicated by any multiplex that was willing to sacrifice a few rows of seats and install the nice projectors. It's even possible that you could have an equivalent of the experience simply by taking a seat closer to the front.
The obvious solution is to brand "new IMAX" so customers know what they're getting. Call it IMAX Lite, IMAX Junior, MiniMAX or IMAX 2.0. Or call the old format "IMAX Classic." Hey, that worked for Coke. Significantly, a lot of exhibitors favor specifically identifying the new format, perhaps because they're offering something better than on their other screens, yet getting flack from customers because it's inferior to IMAX Classic. One reason exhibitors are friendly to IMAX is that the company is spending money to convert the target theaters. The exhibitors themselves, however, are expected to pay for an upgrade to the latest 3-D technology. Everybody is short of money these days, and both formats offer an excuse for a $5 surcharge.
The business model makes sense for IMAX because it plans to identify its trademark with "tentpole movies." You won't be seeing "Let the Right One In" anytime soon on their screens. They offer studios a bonus in terms of ticket pricing for giving them films like "The Dark Knight," "Iron Man," "Watchmen" and so on. Their opening weekend tentpole target customers, fanboys, don't mind the five bucks as much as a family with four kids.
Michael Todd and Brian O'Brien Jr., technician of the Todd-AO camera during "Around the World in 80 Days
Theaters feel a sense of urgency because they're being squeezed by cable, view-on-demand, DVD, Blu-ray and other less expensive ways to see a movie. As analysts have observed time and again, when radio squeezed theaters, the response was talkies. When TV did, the response was a different viewing experience: Wide screen, original 3-D, and so on. The compromise today is, the industry is offering an ordinary good viewing experience as somehow a superior one.
Why doesn't every screen offer a picture as good as IMAX? Will the customers in the other theaters in the same multiplex feel like second-class citizens? My guess is, they will not. If a film is properly projected and has good sound, it is as immersive in regular theaters as in upgraded ones. Immersion is an experience of the imagination, not the body. Besides, not everybody wants to have a head trip at the movies. Some people want to sit outside the film and simply look at the damned thing.
My belief is that 3-D does not aid in immersion. As Goldstein writes, it "still largely looks like a marketing hustle designed to grab more dollars from gullible moviegoers." I've written a lot about 3-D, which has admittedly been effective if seen through advanced glasses on IMAX screens with films like "The Polar Express" and "Beowulf." On an ordinary screen with ordinary glasses, I recommend 2-D as superior. For most films, 3-D is an annoyance and a distraction. Yes, I'm told, but just you wait for James Cameron's "Avatar" to open this December. That film has been 10 years in the making at a reported cost of $300 million. I fully expect to be impressed. I doubt if the same effect can be achieved more quickly and cheaply, and by a director less immersed in technology than Cameron.
The fact remains that most movies should look better than they do today, even at their best, if they're to compete with a family sitting happily at home in front of a big screen, watching Blu-ray. There is a mature format that can easily achieve that, called 70mm, but the industry is unwilling to spend the money. Is there no possibility of a breakthrough?
Of course there is, and faithful readers know what it is: Maxivision. This is the system that projects film at 48 frames per second through a stable (non-vibrating) gate, and achieves a picture quality better than anything you've seen: Four times as good, in fact. Those who have seen it demonstrated know what I'm talking about. It has been ten years since I joined Todd McCarthy, chief film critic of Variety, and two leading cinematographers, Allen Daviau ("E.T.," "Bugsy") and Dean Cundey ("Jurassic Park," "Apollo 13"), in making a pilgrimage to Maxivision headquarters in San Luis Obispo, where the Oscar-winning film editor Dean Goodhill demonstrated the system he had invented. We were all seriously impressed by it. I wrote about the stats:
It can project film at 48 frames per second, twice the existing 24-fps rate. That provides a picture of startling clarity. At 48 frames, it uses 50 percent more film than at present. But MV48 also has an "economy mode" that uses that offers low-budget filmmakers savings of up to 25 percent on film. The MV48 projector design can switch on the fly between 24- and 48-fps formats in the same movie, allowing extra clarity for scenes that can use it. And it can handle any existing 35mm film format - unlike digital projection, which would obsolete a century of old prints. MV48 uses a new system to pull the film past the projector bulb without any jitter or bounce. Goodhill explained that MV48 completely eliminates the jiggle that all current films experience as they dance past the projector bulb.
Watching it, I was startled to see how rock solid the picture was, and how that added to clarity. The result: "We figure it's 500 percent better than existing film." It is also a lot cheaper, because it retrofits existing projectors, uses the original lamp housings and doesn't involve installing high-tech computer equipment. MaxiVision's business plan [at that time] calls for leasing the projectors at $280 a month, but if you wanted to buy one, it would cost you about $10,000. Estimates for high-end digital projectors range from $110,000 to $150,000 per screen.
So what's the problem? Frankly, I think the problem is that many studio executives are focused on their own survival and their current grosses much more than emerging technologies. They're mesmerized by the word digital and hope that by pouring money into digital technology they'll cover their bases. Digital is the safe and obvious choice. Not Maxivision, which costs a fraction as much, is many times superior, uses existing projectors and proven technology, is backward compatible with the film heritage, and in Econo-Mode would reduce the film footage needed for an ordinary movie.
I've been saying that for years. I'll keep on saying it. Sooner or later, someone will listen. Holllywood must still have a few visionaries like Mike Todd and Douglas Trumbull. The case for Maxivision is too compelling. I remember something Goodhill once told me in an e-mail: "I'll make a special offer. We're leasing MV48 for $280 a month, but for $2,800 a month, we'll throw in a little chrome plate that says 'digital' on it."
¶Maxivision at Wikipedia.
¶
Trailer: "House of Wax" in the "Third Dimension"
¶
Mike Todd appears on "What's My Line?"
¶
Here's one viewer who saw films on IMAX and didn't like it. It may have been because the films were gigantic spectacles with huge computer-generated armies, the Lord-of-the-Rings and similar stuff, dragged by my kids. I probably wouldn't have liked those films anyway. The unrealistic armies would have been equally numbing on any screen. Maybe "Gone with the Wind" would have been good on IMAX, they'd have the burning of Atlanta as a larger spectacle. I prefer cozy films that rely on story and acting and that play just dandy in art houses.
The thing you are overlooking with Maxivision is on the distribution side. It is much cheaper to digitally deliver a film then to have to deal with film canisters as has been the case up until now. I'm sure the cost up front is much higher with digital, but I wonder if over time, the money saved in delivery costs would make up the difference.
Not to mention the fact that film degrades over time, so if I don't see the picture in the first few weeks, then I'm likely going to be looking at a more scratchy print.
Ebert: True, but we're talking picture quality, not delivery cost.
And Maxivision does not scratch a print! The film is pulled through with a patented process which does not use sprockets, and at the same time eliminates the "jiggle."
I couldn't believe it when a Regal Theater here in Knoxville retrofitted an existing room (granted, one of the largest) and branded it as IMAX - it's a cross-breed, as it has actually run true IMAX film as opposed to only being one of the newer digital projection IMAX rooms, but there's hardly *any* difference in a normal theater experience unless you sit in the front rows... they didn't bother to retrofit the seats at all - it's a standard stadium section and lower floor section arrangement...
I've avoided it ever since - it's not worth the premium price they ask for something that's almost identical to exhibition in the other massive room that sits right next to it - especially when they're running an up-conversion of a scope film, like "Star Trek"...
Wow would I be cheesed off if I went to an IMAX showing and got tricked like these people were.
Total hogwash!
I'll be seeing Up tomorrow night on the Ziegfeld, Manhattan's largest movie screen - and it doesn't have the Imax brandname anywhere near it! Woohoo!
What I miss most about the original IMAX theaters are the documentaries like "Space Station 3-D" and "Shackleton's Antarctic Adventure", which have been pushed out of theatrical distribution so we can have more prints of more mindless and annoying action tentpoles clogging up the IMAX screens. Sad.
Regarding the new-and-improved IMAX: This sounds like blatant false advertising to me. Have the suits made it perfectly clear to the public that they're being cheated by half the screen size and full ticket price? I doubt it: A friend from work told me last week that she was excited about seeing a movie at the "new IMAX" that just opened at one of our many Long Beach multi-plexes. When I explained how she would be cheated, she was appalled, and promptly cancelled her plans. One down, millions to go, and the folks at "imax" should be ashamed of themselves. Pirates.
Maybe Maxivision needs a good PR person. That seems to be the problem with what could have been great things, unfortunately.
This feels like a knee-jerk reaction by IMAX to create a new revenue stream. Digital projection technology is constantly improving, and the dual-2K projectors used by IMAX are not nearly sharp enough, nor are the screens large enough, to deserve the label IMAX without some sort of caveat.
Theaters similar to the current Fake IMAX setups, with a pair of 4K or better projectors (and potentially projecting material authored at 48fps or above), could reasonably be called IMAX Digital or IMAX Cinema.
And Red just announced a camera with a sensor roughly the size and resolution of IMAX film stock that's capable of capture at 48fps. So it doesn't seem like a stretch to imagine digital projectors, maybe 10 years from now, in Real IMAX theaters displaying super-high res imagery with no stutter and massively reduced production and distribution costs.
Sadly, IMAX seems bent on making a quick buck, as the slate of 35mm unconverted "DMR" films and this latest IMAX fiasco make clear.
Ah-hah! But, in the short run, there is no money to be made on efficiency. Sure, you can pop corn in your stained, little, beige microwave, but Sears shareholders won't see much of a benefit unless we sell you this stainless steel one with a green sticker on it! (Sears accepts no responsibility for the flavor of your popcorn. Take that up with the people who own the rights to Orville Reddenbacher's name.)
Bless Roger and his tilting at windmills!
Don't bother me with your facts, please. There are some twenty-something fashion models on screen running around computer-generated spaceships, chasing comic book tropes and I MUST experience them as their accountants intended!
I saw my first 3D film last night- it was of "Up" and luckily I had already seen the film in 2D the night before. After much pressure and lot of eye rolling the theatre I work at finally got a digital projector and 3D glasses this week. And no one's all that happy about it. It's not that our 3D technology is inferior, we're using the same glasses an an IMAX theatre- but over half the people who've seen a 3D show have complained of head pain afterward and a lack of USE for the 3D . . . put simply the technology seemed to add nothing worth adding, it acts simply as an annoying toy, a gimmick.
It takes away from what matters about film.
Imax, can be really cool and exiting given the right movie. But I don't think it's anything to cinema like what cinemascope or 5:1 sound did for movies. Not in it's unique way to keep you on the edge of your seat, immersed in a sort of fantasy land. But because I just don't know how versitle it'd be. For example... for a personal drama/ tradgedy I guess like the upcoming "Tetro" by Francis Ford Coppola. Who knows, maybe I'm wrong and this could actually be a "new wave" in cinema. Or the even more freightening outlook is that maybe I'm not wrong, and due to its incompatability, these films would just stop being made or be even possible to see at your local cinema. It's not that I don't like Imax, by all means I do. But when I'm watching it I feel like I'm having a home-movie experience, even though the screen is so remarkably eventful and huge and exciting. It just isn't the same as hearing a good old fashion projector go off, watching the various colors of light beam threw the air and its mist, projecting it's dream upon a screen, and turning around to see the light on people's faces as they react with oh so many expressions. In fact to me it feels more or less like a theme park rather then a dream or a fantasy. I think even Hitchcock, Kazan, wilder, Scorsese, Allen, Di Palma and obviously so many more would agree. But then again... I just don't know.
Wow, I had no idea that cinemaphiles were this irked at the IMAX: The Brand Spanking New 20th Century Digital Experience.
I should really count my blessings for living in the birthplace of IMAX with five IMAX (Classic) theatres within the driving distance.
For example even though I was really pissed that the Scotiabank (formerly Paramount) Theatre near the Queen Street in Downtown was not playing Star Trek in order to keep Monsters versus Aliens on, luckily I had other venues available, a choice which I do not think many other citizens of North America have.
How can you discuss this without mentioning the fact that regardless of when someone wrote you a letter, the only reason this is being discussed elsewhere is because of Aziz Ansari's Twitter rant put it out into the zeitgeist?
And this isn't just trying to have you give credit where credit is due - it illustrates that one of the benefits of the new age we live in, even a D-list celebrity can bring pressure to bear on faceless, unresponsive corporations. IMAX had been blowing off the public until this PR s**tstorm came about.
Ebert: It was an Ansari blog post (and not Twitter) on May 8. It cites James Hyder. We ran the letter from Williamson in early March, and it inspired several more, including one from an angry projectionist. Hyder deserves credit for being way out in front of the curve, in his original piece at LFexaminer.com, which is very much worth reading.
If you're worried about whether an IMAX in your area is the real deal, here's a map to help you out. The green markers are IMAX. The red ones are LIEMAX.
http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?hl=en&ie=UTF8&t=h&source=embed&msa=0&ll=11.005904,-84.726562&spn=76.455485,113.554688&z=3&msid=113621990356540393221.000469b6c5915161c3667
PS. I did not invent the word LIEMAX. I wish I had.
Dear Roger,
Oh the joy of seeing a sharp picture, sitting in the perfect spot, listening to the perfect sound. Your articles convinced me to watch "Up" (hopefully this weekend) in 2-D. We know how important the color palette is in Pixar movies, and I think your argument that the glasses reduce the colors is very strong.
By the way, maybe they should call these new IMAX theaters something like IMED. Then, they can have a home version called IMIN. Naturally, I'm kidding, though IMAX-Lite is a good one.
Speaking of these names, I think it's time we switch to the letter O for naming things. We had A-Bomb and ASAP and A-Game. And, we had E-Mail, E-Text, E-Book. And, we have IMAX, iMac, iPhone, yadda, yadda, yadda.
Now it is time for O.
Very respectfully,
O-mer.
Ebert: Let's start with O-bama.
James Cameron has been a huge proponent of 48 frames per second, but favors doing it digitally (for ease of use with 3D as well as lower distribution costs).
from [url]http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117983864.html?[/url] :
Cameron: "Of course, the ideal format is 3-D/2K/48 fps projection. I'd love to have done "Avatar" at 48 frames. But I have to fight these battles one at a time. I'm just happy people are waking up to 3-D.
Maybe on "Avatar 2.""
Hello Roger,
Glad to see you trying to keep the rational and more beautiful Maxivision dream alive.
I was thinking: since the IMAX Classic screen is 76 feet high, and the Fake IMAX screen is 28 feet high, shouldn't the New Coke/Coke Classic graphic be adjusted to show the New Coke can as roughly 1/3rd as high, since that's what we're getting in comparison?
ps. 'Kinatay' on IMAX! [Just kidding.]
A few months ago I went and saw the movie "Coraline" in the theater. I was interested in seeing it for a few reasons, such as the fact that I loved the Neil Gaiman book it was based on and by the fact that it was in really good stop-motion animation style. Also, I had never seen a 3-D movie in a regular cinema before. So I forked a couple extra dollars just to say that I had done it. The movie overall was excellent but I think I would have been just as happy with 2-D. One distinct feature I remember that was 3-D was in the opening when you see the mechanical hands knitting; the viewer can see the needle popping out at him or her. But other than that I wasn't really as immersed or impressed by the 3-D.
I have enjoyed 3-D in the past though. When visiting Disney World I have both enjoyed and been impressed by such attractions as "Muppet-Vision 3-D." On that and other rides I was thoroughly impressed by the 3-D effects. Being in a theme park may have also aided in the enjoyment of the 3-D attraction too.
Great article. I've been reading more and more about this "controversy" (if it can be called that yet) within the past few months, so obviously viewers are starting to catch on. I haven't been to an IMAX theatre in years, but I'm sure if I paid the extra ticket price I'd want the the full experience, too, and would most likely feel cheated if it wasn't a proper size.
I have a sneaking suspicion that part of the reason for these overzealous expansions of IMAX has to do with plans for 3-D and digital projections; I don't know enough about the specifics, but I'd assume the sudden saturation of non-IMAX 'IMAX' screens might have to do with meeting the demands for all these current -- and upcoming -- 3-D features. That way when big flicks like "Avatar" are released, they can sell more tickets to IMAX showings and meet the demand.
Friends of mine got taken by the "IMAX" scam in Indianapolis. Bait and switch.
I think the movie studios are simply looking for short term profits. The executives want to make their money right away before they get fired for creative incompetence.
Penny wise, Pound foolish.
I think I saw Star Trek on the same Burbank screen that Mike Williamson did. I was excited to see the movie (which I had previously seen on a "normal" screen) in IMAX glory.
Let's say I was distinctly underwhelmed. I now understand why.
I got tricked into one of these phony IMAX situations when I went to see WATCHMEN. At the time I was annoyed, but then when I went to see Star Trek at a proper IMAX theater and found it almost impossible to watch (probably because I had to sit toward the side), I appreciated the WATCHMEN "IMAX" experience more.
So now I don't know if the fake "IMAX"es are so bad after all.
I've been to the "new IMAX" type theater, and you are absolutely right about the viewing experience. There are 30 screens in the local theater and only one of them is IMAX, so most people think they are experiencing a slightly better movie-going experience. However, it's a rip-off for $5 more per ticket. I've never heard anyone say they love the new IMAX either. At least with the "New Coke" experiment, people preferred the old Coke taste, and the original "Coke Classic" returned to the shelves a few months later. Hopefully more people will realize the "new IMAX" really isn't a better viewing experience and these screens will be de-IMAX-ed, saving people from paying extra money for already high ticket prices these days.
Carol, it sounds like you're trying to convince yourself. Any movie, especially the bad ones, look better on a bigger, sharper screen. I think we can all agree on that.
The next improvement in frame-rate for film will likely be 60fps projected in digital cinemas. Digital cinemas are probably already capable of 60fps (60p) while Blu-ray and modern flat-screens can do 60fps@1080p for the home. While 48p Maxivision may look great, there is NO infrastructure to display this in the home. Down-sampling 48p to 24p or up-converting 48p to 60p Blu-ray would not look good.
When Directors and Studios can confidently generate their revenues from digital cinemas and Blu-ray exclusively, I believe we'll start seeing live-action movies shot at 60fps (60p). In the mean time, I would like to see animated studios "re-render" their movies in 60p for digital cinema projection and Blu-ray distribution.
I have a few ideas about which films would look excellent in IMAX. In no particular order these would include...
1) "The Wizard of Oz." I can just imagine how the tornado scene alone would look on that huge screen.
2) "2001: A Space Odyssey." In fact I think I saw a clip of this film in an IMAX documentary on space exploration once.
3) "Ran." This Kurosawa picture would look amazing in IMAX. Probably the best one from his canon of films if any of them were going to be in that format.
4) "Princess Mononoke." In fact any of Miyazaki's films would look excellent in IMAX, but this is one of his most epic.
5) "Citizen Cane." I can picture the scene with Charles Foster Cane giving his speech in IMAX.
Oh, and here's one more IMAX candidate. "The Life Aquatic with Steven Zissou." So far out of all of Wes Anderson's films this would probably work best in that format. It's quite a unique epic, if that's the right word.
If you think an IMAX-branded screen at the local multiplex is weird, how about an IMAX-branded DVD?
http://shop.nationalgeographic.com/product/161/3456/104.html
The "IMAX" on the package is so dominant it seems to promise something special. Somehow I don't think that's possible when I'd be playing it on a TV that's smaller than an IMAX film reel.
As for Maxivision, I think it'd be hard to sell a new film technology these days. How about 48 fps digital projection? Though today's electronics probably couldn't keep up, that's the sort of problem that will solve itself in just a few years' time.
The first IMAX experience I had was visiting Universal Citywalk in L.A. when I saw Spider Man 2 there. Yes it was a digital remaster and not shot in IMAX, but WOW was it still impressive. The sheer size of the screen and clarity in picture and sound was amazing.
There were no easily accessible IMAX theaters where I lived in NC, so I was overjoyed that when I moved to CT last year the theater around the corner had an IMAX. The first thing I went to see was Dark Knight on opening night and was very excited. You got to pick out your seats (which were assigned) and they served you refreshments in the theater.
And then I walked into the auditorium. The screen was smaller than most of the other screens in the multiplex, but it touched the floors and walls, and seemed closer to the front. The screen was wide and not square like an IMAX screen would be. I spent the next twenty minutes waiting for the movie to start, complaining how this was not a real IMAX. After that night I made sure to tell EVERYONE I knew that it was not a true IMAX screen, in spite of what they say. Ever since then I have only gone to the regular screens at that theater, gotten a larger screen, and saved myself $5 a movie.
Seeing all these stories now I know it is simply just branding and not a true experience. I hope that all the negative attention brought to it will make IMAX rethink their strategy and perhaps get real IMAX screens out there. Unfortunately most people do not know what they are missing, and while your small graphic is very handy for showing the difference, the real eye opener is seeing a true sized IMAX screen. Marketing has blinded everyone into believing that all these LieMAX screens are the real deal, and they continue to pump money into the lies. Let us hope people come to their senses soon.
Ebert: Maxivision does not scratch a print!
Really and for true? Holy of holy's, batman! I can remember watching the episode of S&E eons ago where you first talked about this film breakthrough, and have been eagerly awaiting it's inception on my local screens to no avail. In that time my hometown got it's first IMAX screen, owned by National Geographic so "tentpole movies" are pretty rare, are limited to G and PG material and arrive long after they have left the regular theaters. I do recommend 'Journey to Mecca' highly though.
But no scratches... that alone would make it worth upgrading the damn projectors. They've all done it before, when I was a kid it was pretty common to see a hair caught in the projector in theaters (or on TV for that matter) and that never happens anymore. I have sat fuming through 'Slumdog Millionaire' and 'Letters from Iwo Jima' and other films at different multiplexes in town constantly annoyed at long scratches on the print. I think I might just take the initiative and print out this entry and post it up on the front doors of every place in town.
In Portland, we have one "IMAX" screen in a large multiplex, which does seem to have a larger than usual screen and better sound system, although I'm not certain how it compares to the really large ones as we have an OmniMax theater instead of the older IMAX here. I've seen a couple of films in the new one, and the thing that caught my attention was how much clearer the image was compared to the usual 35mm or even normal digital projection. I don't know if they're using hi-res digital or film projection in it, but it was clearly noticable.
It was a nice improvement for some of the films I wanted to see when it was $2 more a ticket. Since that has now gone up to $5 more per ticket, I don't bother anymore. With more and more cookie-cutter films aimed at the teenage boy market coming out these days, and ticket prices that seem to rise every few months, I don't see as many in the theater anyway.
Roger
Another very timely post and welcome back from Cannes!
Having run a multi billion dollar brand I can only add that the latest approach by IMAX is commercial suicide. They are devaluing a unique asset for a quick buck. They are either in financial difficulties or lost without a compass.
It's actually quite sad as I vividly remember my Imax experiences at the Kinepolis (biggest theater in the world) in Brussels, Belgium. There was awe in watching those movies and the premium paid was good value.
Rob
Ebert: Their mistake was to invite negative comparisons with IMAX instead of positive experiences with other screens. Perhaps their message should have been: We can't put an IMAX in every multiplex, but we can do the next best thing!
What I'm unclear about is why new IMAX is better than the regular screen if you simply sat closer to it.
I wonder if the reason that IMAX is still getting good feedback from their mini-IMAX screenings is because many of those people have never been to a real IMAX theater. Some of us who live in large metro areas have likely experienced a real IMAX movie. But if you've never had the pleasure of being wowed in that manner, maybe this bogus IMAX still comes off as impressive compared to the average theater experience.
Regardless, I think the whole think stinks if they are going to offer IMAX-lite but still charge the full IMAX rate. If audiences are going to get a fraction of the experience, they should only have to pay a fraction of the surcharge.
If you are looking for a place to check if an IMAX theater is the "real deal" check out this link:
http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&oe=UTF8&msa=0&msid=113621990356540393221.000469b6c5915161c3667
People write in and report if the theater is IMAX or "LIEMAX." Pretty handy.
Even "Coke Classic" is phony. When it came out, I checked the ingredients list. Coke Classic uses corn sweeteners; "Old Coke" used sugar.
If you look at a graph of the average weight of everybody in the USA, it turns sharply skyward in the mid 1980s -- precisely the time of the introduction of New Coke and then Coke Classic.
If you want the Real Thing -- Coca Cola with sugar -- you can get Mexican Cokes in many Mexican groceries and restaurants. Also, in the spring, look for "Kosher for Passover" Coke, in two-liter bottles with yellow caps.
If what you say is true, then I am all for this maxivision, it sounds fabulous,
Oh and on a side note, I finally got to see Lawrence of Arabia and Branagh's Hamlet on a proper 70mm, two of the greatest experiences of my life, 70mm is just amazing!
Ebert: We were able to show both of those at Ebertfest.
"Irreversible: The 3-D Experience"
One can dream, right?
It seems like "IMAX" theaters are popping up in every new mall development in the Phoenix suburbs. I saw "The Dark Knight" at one and I must admit I was let down. It had been years since I'd seen a real IMAX (though I have a lovely memory of taking a field trip in grade school to an ocean documentary) and thought I'd just forgotten what it was like. I'm gratified to know that yes, indeed, I was not seeing IMAX.
It does seem like marketing more than anything else. If you call it IMAX, people will pay more for it and think they're getting IMAX at their suburban multi-plex, and it'll /feel/ more special than seeing a "regular" movie. Rip-off artists. I'm never paying cold hard cash for a mid-MAX screen again.
Actor and comedian Aziz Ansari has been blogging about the "Bullsh*t IMAX" (his words) controversy the past few weeks. Aziz's rant has even caught the attention of the IMAX CEO, who responded that most people don't care. It's worth searching for Aziz's original rant.
I think it's an incredible selling out of the IMAX brand name, but what do I know, I just go see a movie every weekend.
Watching at home on Blu-ray or DVD is one thing, but in theatres we should see real movies. A real movie in its most basic form is light -- flickering light shone through tinted celluloid. Digital projection does not qualify. Nor, I believe, does it satisfy at the deepest levels.
I enjoyed my experience at the local "IMAX Experience" where it's not the "giant screen" all these articles whine about. Wanna know what? The statement about customer satisfaction is TRUE! I love it, don't mind paying an extra 5 bucks at all. You'll find that only the whiny blogger geeks are complaining about this. 99% of the people who go to these IMAX Experience shows come out impressed and satisfied. Quit blowing this story up to be bigger than it is. And you know what else? THIS ISN'T NEW! The local IMAX Experience has been around for years! What does that mean to you? What it should mean is that the only reason this is "news" is because some actor twittered about it. Get over it.
Ebert: The new format has been around for well under a year.
I went to one of these new IMAX theaters once. Never again. It is simply a cheat and a scam compared to real IMAX.
One problem I have with both Maxivision and Blu-Ray technology is that there's very few places where we can actually SEE these technologies in perfect conditions. When there's a trailer for a Blu-Ray movie on my standard DVD, or a YouTube clip of a Maxivision projection, I can't really tell the difference because I'm watching it on "old" technology. I wish movie distributors would give consumers easier access to these technologies so we cold make decisions for ourselves.
For that matter, I think what IMAX is doing is 100 percent bullshit. I frequently attend the Navy Pier IMAX and I saw that a local theater out here in the suburbs added an IMAX-Lite screen recently. I will not be giving them my extra $5.
On another note, the best theatrical projections I've seen outside of IMAX are the theaters that offer digital projections of films. Not only do these showings largely eliminate the pre-film commercials, but everything from the trailers to the credits are crystal clear and super sharp. I saw Star Trek in both a regular theater and digitally projected and was astonished at the difference it made. Film is a fantastic medium, but for $10 a ticket, I don't want to be seeing poorly lit, scratched up, older prints that aren't worth the ticket price.
I think your comments comparing New Coke to the the current digital "revolution" in film are slightly confused. As I understood the situation, the problem with New Coke didn't have anything to do with taste quality, but with expectations of the Coke brand. To many Americans, Coke basically qualified as a minor national institution, and the very idea of changing the formula was repugnant, regardless of how the changed formula ended up tasting. The expectation was that something labeled "Coca-Cola" should taste like Coca-Cola, and not like something else, regardless of whether that something else tasted better. The statisticians missed this phenomenon because they'd made the taste tests blind- people who didn't know what they were tasting generally preferred New Coke, but the researchers didn't realize that the bias they were eliminating in the lab would still figure heavily in the real world.
Based on my entirely anecdotal observations, the opposite is true of Digital- people expect something that is Digital to be better, whether or not it actually is. I've had people brag about the clarity of their HDTVs to me while their HDTVs are receiving a regular cable signal, which is no clearer than it would be on a regular TV. It's worth noting that the people who brag about this invariably set their displays to "Zoom" so that the regular signal fills up the full widescreen TV- chopping off the top and bottom of the picture in the process, and stretching out the picture so that it actually looks worse than it would on a smaller screen.
These people's opinions of Digital may be laughable, but many people seem to equate Digital with "superior quality" without thinking twice. It's important to remember that every once in a while, marketing can trump reality.
I really didn't know I was walking into a "fake" IMAX for "Watchmen". I've been in a real IMAX theater before, and I was heartily expecting to see explosive and visually mind-blowing action on a gigantic screen. I didn't seem to mind the screen as it still looked stunning - just not nearly as much as an IMAX would have put out. Walking out of the theater I thought about the film's impact, but what appeared to linger more in my mind was that it was not a true IMAX experience.
I can't really relate to the whole "New Coke" craze as I was not even alive at the time, but I can understand the concept. In a way to create more revenue they'll release some new brand that sounds fresh yet exactly the same, and yet in the end it's the old formula that succeeds, as that is the product that brought and continues the popularity in the first place.
It puzzles me as to why Hollywood loves to revitalize certain techniques and aspects of the industry that not only hinder the experience but detract from what the original product brought to us that made us love it. Every time I read an article of yours detailing the hinderance of 3-D on perfectly acceptable (and brighter and colorful) 2-D film. But let's not get into that territory. The point is I don't seem to understand the love for these techniques. Considering that I am majoring in Film and I want to enter the industry, I want to be able to present my film in the way that sees perfectly suitable for it's impact, and that would appear to be the way that works best for any film, all the time.
Dear Roger,
Now what about those of us without a Golden Ticket? Is there any way that those of us in the market for new projecting equipment can see this demonstrated?
Sincerely,
Nic Lawrence
Ebert: Goodhill has been demonstratimg it in San Luis Obispo.
I'm glad you, and others, are raising a ruckus about the NEW IMAX.
What is most shocking and appalling about the issue is that IMAX seems to have no conscience at all. Reading interviews with PR people, and from top CEO's is mind boggling. The conversations might as well read like this:
Journalist: So, you're charging customers the same price that you charge for regular IMAX, but this is not regular IMAX?
CEO: It's IMAX.
Journalist: But the screen is significantly smaller.
CEO: It's IMAX.
Journalist: But it's projected digitally, not on large format 70mm.
CEO: It's IMAX.
Journalist: So, you're basically ripping people off. You're not giving them complete disclosure, but still charging the same amount?
CEO: But, it's IMAX.
I don't know how a company that has upheld such high standards for so long can just lose any sense of responsibility, or even respect, for their customers. I guess maybe they caught a glimpse of the profit possibilities with the release of "The Dark Knight", but do they really need to go this far? Couldn't they just admit that it's not the same as regular IMAX, but still a little better than standard projection? They could charge $2 or $3 dollars extra. They'd market their brand name a bit, not water it down, and make a little bit more money. The way they are going, they will start to alienate loyal customers that have been forking out for expensive tickets all these years. Don't they realize this? Grown men and women run this company, right?
I completely agree with this opinion and was disappointed when going to the new IMAX in Camarillo, CA. I used to frequent an IMAX in Lincolnshire, IL and though not a full dome, it was enormous compared to what I just saw in Camarillo. The sound was great and the picture was brighter than normal, but there wasn't the normal IMAX "wow" and a lot of people in the crowd agreed. I emailed IMAX directly to provide my opinion and hope the leadership team eventually decides to get back to IMAX's roots. At this rate they'll one day create an IMAX IPod Nano.
"[Enter your AMC/Regal proprietary name here], presented by IMAX"...now how hard was that?
http://destroyfakeimax.blogspot.com/
Please note: The url added is not mine. It's a grass roots project by someone else and I think he deserves some attention for his effort.
Like others, I'm glad that more than one online personality--and this time a true journalist instead of an actor--is highlighting this issue. It's important to keep pressure on the IMAX company, or the issue would die out and IMAX would have no reason to make alterations. (I'm absolutely sure they'd prefer to leave the branding as-is.)
I tried one of the IMAX Jr.--love the moniker--theaters for both Star Trek (2D) and Monsters vs. Aliens (3D) and felt a real lack of the 'wow' factor I'd had when I had seen documentaries on the real IMAX screen at our local Science Center. I hope that the media continues to keep this issue alive until the company is forced to re-brand.
As it stands, I have no intention of ever seeing a film again in the IMAX Jr. format, though the cost was never a factor. If a company willfully deceives me, I will not patronize them again.
When I was a kid, coke came in a glass bottle for 10 cents. And when allowed to sit in a bucket packed with ice, nothing tasted better on a hot day. I can still feel the cold frosty glass against my forehead for pressing it to my temple after taking a swig; the coke burning down my throat from the carbon bubbles.
Coke in a bottle tastes better than tin, which always has this tell-tale metal aftertaste. Besides, you can see through glass - and when held up to the sun, coke is one of the most beautiful colors in world! It's also kinda cool if you leave a bit in the glass; it turns to this sticky stuff you can play with, but I digress. I remember when they changed the logo and added some red to it; before that it was just white script. But I didn't mind too much; it still tasted the same.
Then they introduced "new" Coke.
You know how there are fans boys out there who think George Lucas raped their childhood? That's how bitter I was when they introduced "the abomination" as I call it. I'd like to call it much worse but the spam filter won't let me. It was like a sacred trust had been broken and the universe thrown out of balance. You changed my soda pop! And you made it WORSE! Eeeeek! And even after they re-introduced "Classic Coke" it was never the same again.
For now Coke was tainted by "the man." Coke had gone... corporate. Shudder. And I knew he was not to be trusted! The man was a mother-beeper and a son-of-a-female-dog beep-sucker! At least according to the U.S. draft dodgers living across the street from my house when I was a little kid; the first Americans I ever met. :)
And now the suits over at IMAX have apparently been pulled over to the dark side too - trying pass off their "new IMAX" as being just as good when it's not. Well, I may not be 19 years old and hiding from the U.S. Army, but in the immortal words of a dude who once was: "Hell no, I won't go" - and you can't make me!
B.C. Canada: "Cineplex SilverCity Riverport IMAX Theatre", in Richmond. This is the "fake" IMAX (digital) and below its ticket prices. (NOTE: The real IMAX Theater is in downtown Vancouver at Canada Place.)
"Please note that the admission pricing listed below excludes Real D (3D), IMAX®, IMAX® DMR and IMAX® 3D presentations. Admission pricing for Real D (3D), IMAX, IMAX DMR and IMAX® 3D presentations are subject to a premium." - Cineplex SilverCity Riverport IMAX Theatre
General Admission (14 and over) $20.95
Child (3 - 13) $17.80
Senior (65 and over) $18.85
So like I said, "the man" sucks. $21.00 CAN and not even for fake 3D and the location requires a car and even then it's a pain to go there.
Pixar's "UP" is playing at regular theaters in Vancouver on 2D screens, and in "Real 3D" (screen's a little bigger, but not much.)
General Admission (14 and over) $12.50 (Regular screen) $14.50 3D
Child (3 - 13) $9.99 ($11.99 3D)
Senior (65 and over) $9.99 ($11.99 3D)
I plan to see "UP" but on a regular screen. The only thing tempting me to pay more (as I think it would be cool on an IMAX screen) is ironically an Indie film made for around $5 million bucks and due out mid-June called "Moon" directed by Duncan Jones (David Bowie's son) and produced by Trudie Styler (Sting's wife) and starring Sam Rockwell - think Kubrick's 2001 or Silent Running....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIexG8179K8
It looks haunting. The way "Let the Right One In" made use of the stark, white snow, "Moon" feels the same somehow, with all the grey.
That aside, and when it comes to image quality, I care. I care because I've got the eyes of a hawk - years of training will do that to you. I can tell when something's not right. And when I spot stuff, it drives me nuts - like how craptastic those Star Wars prequels were; I saw them on regular screens and they were muddy in the shadows and there was a loss of definition. Oh, and the stories sucked too.
Whereas MaxiVision sounds totally awesome! 48-fps on a flutter-free projector head using a sophisticated grid tracking Charge-Coupled Device - and according to Wiki: "the image is exposed into the region ordinarily reserved for the analog optical sound track which is rarely used anymore. This allows for a wider image on the same size film. This also reduces the need for cropping of the image and makes for a 30% larger total frame area than traditional projection even though less film is used."
Sweet.
Note: I love photography and film. Not just painting. I'm a closet geek - I care about the technical stuff, too. Ever see "Visions of Light: The Art of Cinematography"..? I have that on DVD. I wish I could see it in Maxivision.
Anyhoo, it's pretty obvious Maxivision is superior and the Studio suits are on crack - in the same way there's an "Ansel Adams" B/W photograph, and then there's a polaroid. They both show you an image but it's not the same thing unless you don't care, eh? And for what's it worth, you can add my name to the list who do.
P.S. I finally saw Tom Twyker's "The International" last night at my brother's. The gun fight inside the Guggenheim - whoa! That was cool! Like the tracheotomy scene under a truck in The Princess and the Warrior; won't be forgetting it any time soon.
You know that's almost exactly the same reaction I had when I went to the IMAX here in Raleigh for the first time. Now I know why. Even though its supposed to be one of the good ones, its just not as good as the converted planetariums using the film format. They were the best by far, really made you feel like you were moving during helicopter shots.
I am so confused. Roger, you say, "We instinctively know [a real I Max screen] wouldn't fit inside our local multi-plex." Huh? Isnt' that where I-Max screens currently are located? There has been an I-Max screen in my "local multi-plex" for years and it is listed as a "real I Max".
I am sure I am being stupid here. But I honestly dont' know what you meant. I get that you can't retrofit one existing theater screen. I guess that is what you meant. The truth is I have no interest in any I-Max experience. I've been a few times and I find them ponitless. As long as a movie isn't actually blurry I just don't care "how it looks". I know most people do. I just don't. I either get lost in the story or I don't. And I find "spectacle" scenes (of battles or disasters, scenes of space or scenery or anything like that) interminably boring.
Ebert: It may be attached to the multiplex complex, but the screen is far too high to accommodate the multiplex architectural scale.
Roger,
Thanks for keeping the public up-to-date on such industry info. Unfortunately, most current businesses aren't about progresses, motivated only by short gains that keep their CEO in office for another quarter. That's worked out pretty well, huh?
However, I'm still tring to come to grips with how poor projection has become in regular movie theaters, as you've mentioned time and time again. Trips to various venues almost always reveal poor focus and off-center projections that make me wonder where my $10 is going and why I'm not watching it on my HD surround sound setup at home. Oh yeah, I'm paying for the constant chatter of those around me who actually think they are in their living rooms since the theater no longer provides professional ushers. It's gotten to where I want to wait for a movie to come to DVD if it's one I'm really excited about, so I can enjoy it. That's backward.
As technologies like Netflix and others begin streaming HD-quality movies directly to tv's, I think theaters are going to slowly go away. Unless they put their gamefaces on, which they show no signs of doing.
I went to film school, and like most film students, I was obsessed with celluloid as a "canvas". Like most of my pretension friends, I scoffed at digital media.
That was a decade ago, and I was just a dumb kid.
Today I'm more concerned with environmental sustainability than I am with "art theory". Digital technology may not be the aesthetic ideal, but it is much less wasteful.
According to a report released today by the UN Commission on Climate Change, 300,000 die per year due to climate change, which is a direct result of man-made Greenhouse Gas emissions.
Film: the chemicals used to make it, the vehicles used to transport it, the facilities used to project it, is a big part of the problem. How many miles of film are produced for a movie that typically screens for little more than a month before being destroyed or shelved forever? What a terrible waste.
In my opinion, preventing the Maldives and all of their inhabitants from being swallowed up by the ocean easily trumps any notion of artistic purity or visual clarity.
This whole thing is getting blurrier and more confusing all the time. To wit:
There are genuine IMAX theaters that show genuine IMAX movies (consisting mostly of all those nature docs everyone seems to miss).
There are genuine IMAX theaters that show "upconverted" regular movies whose images are almost as big as genuine IMAX movies and whose clarity is almost as crisp as genuine IMAX ("Star Trek", for example, which looks pretty good in this format).
There are genuine IMAX theaters that show hybrid versions of regular movies: the upconverted faux-IMAX mentioned above with a few genuine IMAX scenes peppered throughout ("The Dark Knight" did this last year).
There are many regular auditoriums converted to the controversial IMAX-Lite your article talks about, which presumably are showing upconverted, faux-IMAX versions of regular movies. Never saw one of these exhibitions (I'm spoiled by the wonderful genuine IMAX audiorium at the King of Prussia Mall just outside Philadelphia).
There are a variety of 3-D IMAX movies, some intended from the start to be 3-D and some simply a 3-D version of a film that is showing in 2-D in most places.
It's enough to make your head spin.
Sadly, CEO's have yet to learn, if one kills the customer's admiration and awe of your luxury product it will take many years if ever to recover. Cadillac Cimarron, Sharper Image air cleaners, IMAX. GM - bankrupt, Sharper Image - bankrupt; and IMAX?
I had never heard of this new IMAX format, but would have guessed your conclusion that it hardly measures up. My first IMAX movie I thought I was going to fall out of my seat the experience was so startling. A bigger screen does not an IMAX movie make.
But the old idiom 'If it ain't broke don't fix it' should be retired. You pegged it right that these idea-havers are all obsessed with career advancement and survival more so than maintaining a quality product. I've worked for several different companies in the last twenty years and have seen in each some jack-ass who wanted to reinvent the wheel even though it was rolling along just fine. Inevitably as well as obviously the wheel had to stop turning completely for that to happen. I think these people are afraid of seeming insignificant if they just mainatin a working model; they have to put their own stamp on it.
It used to be genius was in the creation of new and brilliant ideas, now genius is just being smart enough not to screw up a good thing.
Mr. Ebert,
Thank you for all of your thoughts and writings on movie formats. For those of us who don't seek out the technological information, these articles of yours are indispensible.
It seems to me that one of the best things about Maxivision is that every movie, regardless of quality, will benefit from it as every film made would have a greater stability and clarity. A bad movie might still be unpleasant to watch, but at least it won't be annoying from a projection standpoint.
Conversely, I think that's why I have no interest in either IMAX or 3-D. I did see an original IMAX movie once when I was younger (back when it was called Omnimax for a brief period, if I recall correctly) about skydiving clowns. It may sound preposterous, but that ludicrousness is why I can recall it with such clarity. One of the skydiving clowns was standing on the wing of a bi-plane ready to plummet into the Grand Canyon and the camera was affixed above his head, looking down. Not only did I get ill from severe vertigo but I had nightmares for weeks. It was then, and is now, as "real" as anything I've seen. And perhaps I owe Mr. Gelfond a thank you letter.
But while Maxivision can improve any movie, I don't think the same can be said for 3-D or IMAX. Would seeing Chuck Norris and Lou Gossett, Jr. in "Firewalker" at 96 feet high have changed anyone's opinion? Or if "Battlefield Earth" had been submitted in 3-D? I doubt it seriously.
I go to the movies to see them on a big screen with other people. It's a communal experience and that's the treasure of going to the theater. (Seeing "City Lights" at Siskel Film Center and hearing a hundred sniffles and sobs at the final scene is a memory I will keep for a long time.) That part of the experience, in my opinion, cannot be improved upon. IMAX or 3-D cannot make a great movie even greater, cannot make a good movie great and cannot make a bad movie worth watching. The gimmicks always fade, but the great movies never do.
I was excited to see Speed Racer when it came out on IMAX. What a let down. Not only did the movie stink, but the image was the same as watching the original movie, just a little bigger. I saw it at the Air and Space Museum in DC where they have a true IMAX screen and equipment. I had seen movies there before. This was not the same. It did not fill up the entire screen at all. I will never see a feature film in IMAX again, unless it was filmed specifically for IMAX>
I saw the fake imax badging in front of a separate theater when I went to see Star Trek last weekend with my SO. I hadn't heard of this before, so it had me puzzled because I didn't think they'd added 3 stories to the building just for a real IMAX screen. I haven't seen a movie on that screen yet, but count me among the people that think IMAX means "The BIG screen." No matter what the local movie theater can do, they'll never replace some of the true IMAX films like "Africa: The Serengeti" and "Everest". Go ahead, I dare you to show those on MiniMAX, or LIEMAX, or whatever, and I bet you'll be disappointed.
I guess I've had experience with all three proposed ways of being totally immersed in a movie: Sitting very close, going to an IMAXmini screen, and actually going to a dedicated IMAX theatre.
To be absolutely honest, I didn't mind my IMAXmini experience at the time. I didn't go to the theatre to see I Am Legend, but the first ten minutes of The Dark Knight. $13.50 well spent, I thought.
Then I went to see The Dark Knight at midnight, the night of its release. Packed theatre. Took a seat in the front row. Slouched in my chair with my neck crained at an ungodly angle, the experience I had that night was much more immersive than at the IMAXlite theatre.
I've also seen The Dark Knight in IMAX - the difference doesn't need to be explained. Your graphic does it justice.
I saw it in IMAX at Navy Pier. If I remember correctly, it cost someting like $15. So for an extra $1.50, the screen grows dramatically. It's not just a matter of bait-and-switch - consumers are being ripped off dramatically for a vastly inferior service.
Not that it really matters - films that are shot in 35mm will never look as good on an IMAX screen, any IMAX screen, as films that were actually made for the format.
The solution is (obviously) to find a real IMAX theatre and go to it. Museums and tourist traps often feature one.
Have you ever seen anything in OmniMAX? Now that's an annoying way to watch something.
I live in Tampa, where we have two legitimate (huge) IMAX screens and a few of the new smaller ones.
I was very annoyed when I bought tickets to see Watchmen on a supposed IMAX screen, just to have a screen that was at best slightly larger than a regular screen. The improvement in size and clarity was NOT enought to justify the higher ticket prices, and I have no intention of ever going to that screen again.
The irony is that IMAX is setting their customers up for disappointment by not clarifying what size screen a person is buying tickets for. I may have been happy with the new smaller IMAX screens if I had not been expecting the huge screens IMAX is typically known for. The executives at IMAX who claim the customers are happy with these changes are lying through their teeth, or extremely stupid.
Is MaxiVision still in business? Their website has been shut down for a long time. When the website was up, I would e-mail Dean Goodhill and ask questions about MaxiVision. He sounded like a pretty optimistic person when it came to the process itself. Do you know how I can contact Mr. Goodhill these days? The fact that MaxiVision seems to be stuck in the mud for the past 10 years is something I find disturbing.
Ebert: Definitely still in business.
Although not a critic I had a media job that allowed me to attend free screenings of every major new movie days before it's release. I stopped going after a while. The experience at the theater was not worth the commute. Muddy and grainy this major theatrical exhibition chain was obviously dimming the bulb in their newly built, state-of-the-art facility. After a showing of "Master and Commander" I asked my companions if they noticed anything about the book the boy was looking at after he lost his arm. The projection was so dim not one noticed that Admiral Nelson's portrait showed he also had one arm. If theaters would focus on showing films in the best light possible then maybe attendance would go up. I was getting in for free and I stopped going!
I used to be a big fan of the IMAX format, but after seeing The Dark Knight, I was disturbed by the flaking of the film that occured, from what I assumed was caused by the heat of the lamp, and this was in the IMAX Classic theater here in Houston (we've since been seeing MiniMAXes show up).
I have now come to appreciate the digital format. First, the picture is pristine, no fading, scratches, or reel snaps like I have expirienced in other theaters. The theater I go to now in Houston is the Silverado 19 uses mostly DLP projectors, which have impressed me with it's quality. The irony is that this theater also has a MiniMAX, which is nowhere near the quality of the DLPs.
Could I be converted to Maxivision? Maybe, but after seeing perfection on a film like Revolutionary Road or Watchmen, why would I want to revert back?
Another related issue that needs to be brought up is the still common, but totally mistaken, notion amongst IMAX and OMNIMax exhibitors that dimming the projector bulb somehow extends its life and saves money. Several years ago, I saw the astounding "Blue Planet" IMAX movie at the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum in DC, projected on a real IMAX screen. The view was so bright, clean, stable, and view-filling, that the screen itself seemed to melt away. I truly felt as if I was floating in space as I the Earth drift past. I was deeply moved by this experience.
A few years later, hoping to recapture this magic, I visited our local "science" museum when this same feature was played on their OmniMax screen. The experience was less than thrilling. The screen seemed muddy and dark, the image didn't feel as sharp, the top and bottom edges of the screen were "vignetted"- that is, darker than the rest, and, most importantly, much of the "you are there" sensation was lost. A short while later, doing a volunteer program at the museum, I spoke directly to the manager of the OmniMax theater and learned that she did, in fact, order the bulb to be dimmed to "save bulb life." I tried to set her straight, to no avail.
Tonight, I have an invitation to see the feature "Fire and Ice". It's been a few years. I'll report back to see if they've finally gotten their act straight.
I guess I am in a small minority based on the past posts here. I do not enjoy "real" IMAX! I have seen 4 movies in that format, both ones shot specifically in the format and ones adapted to it. All resulted in the same, uncomfortable, experience. The center of the action was at an angle such that I just could not enjoy the movie and I had trouble focusing.
Now, I have not had any such problems with other large screens. Cinerama, Todd-AO: wonderful experiences. And 2001: A Space Odyssey in its original Super Panavision 70 was awe inspiring.
I have recently seen two movies in IMAX-Lite which I did enjoy very much. The reason? Screen size. I find that I need to sit a certain minimum distance from any screen (that includes even when I saw the older formats in the previous paragraph). That distance with a normal movieplex screen results in the screen filling hardly any more of my visual field than my large HDTV does at home. The much larger IMAX-Lite screen gives me a movie experience not too different than I got as a kid at my local theaters.
On a different note, I find the discussion of frame rates quite amusing. Digital camera manufacturers and digital filmmakers, both professional and amateur, have been falling all over themselves for the last several years to make the digital images more "film-like." The primary method? Using real or quasi- 24fps! The reason? Faster frame rates just give too stable and sharp an image! So now we have one camp trying to degrade digital images to look more like film and a second camp trying to improve film images to look more like digital! The grass is still greener on the other side.
I've been hoping that MaxiVision would catch on ever since you first wrote about it years ago. Maybe the MaxiVision folks could put together some capital, finance a few films (perhaps with sympathetic filmmakers who are already sold on it), and put on a MaxiVision Film Festival.
The hard part, though, is that the general public does not always make choices in their best interest when it comes to the viewing experience. I spent a few years working in a video store, and it was impossible to convince an awful lot of people that pan and scan was vastly inferior to letterboxing, even when showing them side-by-side comparisons of screen shots. They had to change the shape of people's tvs to get them to watch the entire film. I feel like this could be an analogous situation where some people will be convinced that digital (or fake IMAX) is better even if they see visual evidence that contradicts it. If only everybody cared as much about how their films looked as they do when their soda's taste changes or facebook decides to change its layout.
Here in Kansas City we've seen one real IMAX close and two IMAX Jrs open. We've got one real IMAX left (although it's not an official IMAX theater). It just plays nature films with six month runs - not something that draws a big audience - which might be IMAX's real problem. It's not enough having a great movie experience - you also have to have something worth experiencing. A lot of those "save the planet" documentaries have been pretty lame. I have yet to see one as good as the first one I saw - "Survival Island".
Luckily there's another trend in this town - boutique theaters that are smaller than normal and offer real food, alcohol, leather recliners, and tables to eat on. They also charge more for these theaters. A few tiny films have been successful on these screens, some running for several months.
So the kids can go to their multiplex and ride their visceral rollercoasters, and the adults can have their luxury and ride the emotional rollercoasters. I can see this divide growing wider until the multiplex is a thing of the past.
This all boils down to me watching even more movies at home. With (fake) IMAX and 3D jacking up ticket prices, even a matinee show can cost close to what I make in a hour at my job. I can have an immersive experience in the comfort of my living room.
Poor projection and bad sound irritate me so much I consistently walk out of movies of this ilk. I attend IMAX films not for the aspect ratio and the gargantuan screen, but for the quality control. So when I learned I could go to a local multiplex and pay an extra five bucks for an 'IMAX Experience' projection of the new 'Star Trek,' I happily ponied up. The picture was huge and pristine and the sound was wonderfully mind-shattering. No complaints here. I loved it.
Whatever form beautiful projection and sound takes, I'll support it. I don't care much how it's done, but I will pay extra for a better experience.
I’m all for cheaper ways at producing and effective, clear picture on screen. But, from what I’ve heard Maxivision’s technique does improve quality, but doesn’t it also give it that weird look that British TV shows have? Almost like a soap opera look, like something isn’t quite right, but we can’t put our finger on it?
Sorry I’m not too versed on frame speeds and all that, but if it makes it look like British TV or a soap opera then I wouldn’t want to watch it.
Also, if that is untrue, and Maxivision truly does just clarify the picture for us without making it look weird, is there some kind of list where we can find theaters with the Maxivision projectors within our states?
perhaps this will stray from the original intent of the article (very informative, by the way),however, I just have to comment about "new Coke".
Let me preface my observations by stating that I grew up drinking the original Coke in 6-1/2 ox glass bottles, dispensed from a machine at my parent's workplace.
I believe that "new Coke" was simply a smoke screen that enabled Coke to change its original formula to one that contained the much cheaper (at the time) High Fructose Corn Syrup (the original formula contained sugar only). Most folk hated new coke so much that they all rejoiced at the return of Coke, now labeled Coke Classic. They were sold a bill of goods, and either didn't remember what the original Coke tasted like, or lacked the palate to diferentiate. But I sure could tell the difference!
Check out the Coke "hecho en Mexico" - it still contains sugar and is far superior to the swill that Coke has been forcefeeding the unsuspecting public for the last 20 years.
Perhaps this sounds kind of "grassy knoll", and I think it would make a great movie: "The Fleecing of America". Maybe Coke's original intent was only to market a new product (introducing the Edsel), but in the end they certainly recouped their losses by watering down their original product.
On the downside ...
Many people (like me) aren't anywhere near an IMAX screen--let alone LIEMAX. And so the discussion moves somewhere beyond us, an academic exercise in abstracts. (Although I do have a memory of being 11 and seeing 2001 in Cinerama--went four or five times, first row, looking way up; I still have the Cinerama-shaped program. *sigh*)
But even more dismaying ...
In the end, what we want won't matter--well, depends on the "we." The great majority of movie-goers could care less about these issues, so the powers-that-be will simply find the cheapest, easiest way to present movies, regardless of picture quality, sound, etc. As always, VHS wins over Beta, and we get what they decide they're willing to give us. So--considering the rattletrap condition of our town's single octoplex, less than a decade old and already merely serviceable--I'm saving up for the best home theater I can afford: the duck-and-cover school of filmgoing.
My husband and college room mate covered this same topic (out of disgust with the industry) on their Podcast. My URL will take you to the link for show. I would love for Mr. Ebert to take a listen to it (and so would my husband, Andy). Thanks for continuing to educate the movie going world on what is true - and what is not!!!
That's exactly what they should call the traditional IMAX -- classic IMAX -- what they don't seem to understand is that they are promoting this imax experience but with these new smaller versions they are creating this backlash or "what's the big deal" attitude that will threaten to very fabric of IMAX. People need to know what they are getting. They can't call the 7 story IMAX the same as the slightly larger version of a normal screen -- the same thing -- that would be like calling a frozen pizza the same as a gourmet one.
What's the big deal -- all we are asking is that they change the name and they refuse to do so.
Totally unrelated to your blog but last night we watched you and Gene's guest spot on The Critic in rerun.
Brilliant!
I was an usher at theater for a long while, and back in '04 I heard that the theater would be getting an IMAX installed. A few managers, a few random employees and myself got to take a short trip to Indianapolis for a presentation by some folks from IMAX to inform us about what we would be getting. They made it very clear that a big part of what our company was investing in was the IMAX name itself. Fortunately the equipment that was installed was the real deal, a full on 70mm IMAX film projector. Unfortunately, they didn't alter the existing auditorium by much, just installed a new, closer screen (silver-coated to aid in light reflection for 3D films).
It's been a very successful format for that location, and the films look lovely, but what I found funny is how ignorant people were of what IMAX was. The first film that had a run in the new format was POLAR EXPRESS 3D, and for some reason AT LEAST half of our patrons assumed that IMAX=3D. I don't know how many times I had to explain what IMAX was. What's even worse is that our town has had a traditional IMAX theater at the local science center since 1988!
Quote from Dick Cavett: "I read fiction for the story, I go to movies to see how they come out, and I feel that the basic value of sex is that it feels good."
I think we've been on this ride before, and none of us are likely to change our positions, without some kind of theatrical epiphany. Every Next Big Thing that has ever come along has had its staunch advocates (most often the inventor, the financial angel, or the promoter - who frequently turn out to be the same guy). So we get the Big Build-Up, followed closely by the Big Let-Down. Roger is right in pointing out that the tale of the tech all too often gets in the way of the story being told on the screen, which is (or should be) the reason we all came out in the first place.
Consider this: would a novel be more effective if it employed multiple typefaces, changing from chapter to chapter, or perhaps page to page? Maybe if the pages changed color every so often, or some of the text was gatefolded out? Hey, you could do all kinds of things with illustrations, or special bindings that could cahnge the shape of the book as you are reading it! Maybe that's what book publishing needs to get out of the doldrums!
Of course, publishers have tried many of these tricks to attract attention. They succeed at the attention part, but soon enough they turn out to be just tricks. The same principle applies with movies: a gimmick is, at long last, just a gimmick, but a story is something you can take home wtth you.
It's a bit like going to a ball game: Bill Veeck once wrote that as a baseball owner, he was selling fans the idea that they were having a good time, which is an ephemeral concept at best. It helps if your team wins, but if you're going to be coming back, there ought to be a solid reason (so to speak) beyond rooting to do so. With movies, the "moviegoing experience" is touted as something superior to what we get at home: bigger, louder, more involving. Back in the day, when theaters were built like palaces, moviegoing really was an experience; nowadays, with plexes in most malls, that 'experience' has flattened out. Thus the gimmick parade; if a story is all you want, you can just wait for the DVD, and you won't have to worry about getting a sitter, you'll have all the food you want on hand, and in case of an intestinal necessity, you can stop the picture and attend to the matter. As home theater tech continues to improve, the need to go to an overpriced mall screen diminishes; the question becomes "Is it really necessary to see this on a wall when the story could be just as effective on a smaller screen?"
Personally, I'd love to see some of the old Poverty Row programmers on an IMAX screen; how do you suppose "Detour" would look, blown uo to a 75-foot image?
On the other hand, it's nice to know that Maxivision is alive and plugging away, although those of us who can't get to San Luis Obispo on our lunch breaks will have to take your word for it.What Mr. Goodhill needs is a big name to be his Face Out Front, as Lowell Thomas was for Cinerama. Suppose anybody might be interested?
I loved the Mike Todd clip. I understand there was a plan to make a film bio of Todd, but family politics got in the way: Mike Todd Jr. wanted Peter Falk, but Elizabeth Taylor wanted a more conventional (read: handsome) leading man. (This was long before Falk hit stardom with Columbo: he was still playing fast-talking toughs in movies and TV.)Today, do you suppose Joe Pesci might be interested? Just an idle thought...
Im not sure i want my "jiggle" eliminated.
Ebert: For a time there was talk of addingjiggle to films on digital.
I like the IMAX digital retrofits, even though I strongly wish there was a brand distinction between the IMAX digital theaters and the IMAX 65mm giant screens. The sound quality is identical to the film theaters, and the different seating alignment brings far more seats into the "optimal" viewing range. Being hard-of-hearing, the extra volume and clarity dramatically improves my experience.
I do have a problem with the decision to go with 2k digital projectors instead of the 4k projectors that have recently been introduced. 4k digital projection accurately approximates a 35mm film experience on a large screen; 2k digital projection does not. Even though the digital IMAX screens are dramatically smaller than than full IMAX, they are still much larger than the size screen 2k projection was designed to accomodate. This creates a "screen door" effect in the first few rows that is quite irritating.
Here in Albany NY, we have four main theaters: the two mall multiplexes owned by Regal, an arthouse theater downtown, and a college theater downtown.
The older mall theater, built before Hoyts pulled out of the Northeast, has the city's largest screens and biggest stadium seating. Other than the recently retrofitted digital IMAX, a few screens have been outfitted with digital projection and silver screens for 3D projection. The rest still use film, which is a horrifying experience. I think a professional projectionist comes by twice a year to calibrate the projectors, which means that over the course of the six-month cycle you're guarunteed an increasingly out-of-focus, improperly matted experience.
The newer mall theater opened less than a year ago and is all digital, with a few theaters also equipped with film projectors for studios without digital copies available. Maybe because the film projector is used far less frequently, but both the digital and film presentations there have been exceptional. While digital is only 90 percent of the quality of a decent film presentation, it usually wins by sheer consistency since film presentations are so rarely 90 percent of the quality of a decent film presentation.
The arthouse theater is still all film and the presentations are reliably in-focus and properly matted. It also takes requests, which is how we finally got "Let the Right One In" -- which started as a limited engagement but took off for quite a long run here.
Which leaves the college theater, only film, only mainstream pictures, and reliably terrible presentation. Useful for low-brow movies on the cheap with an entertaining audience only.
Given the options, the digital (L)IMAX even with its faults and limitations tends to be the best presentation in town. It's certainly better than driving a few hours to Rochester, NYC or Boston for the real deal.
Even the "real" IMAX, on a flat screen, is nothing like IMAX in a dome, where if you sit close enough, the screen is above and on both sides of you. Google "IMAX dome" and your state, and see if you can find one. It's worth it.
One of the first posters made the point that having a digital film delivered costs less than having film canisters delivered, saying that over time the cost of delivery for digital film could be significantly less than the cost of canister delivery. However, with a fixed price for both the product and for delivery, I don't see how it's possible that canister delivery would end up costing more over time.
If canisters cost X and digital films costs 10X, and delivery for digital film costs Y and delivery for 70mm film costs 10Y, then 70mm plus delivery (X + 10Y) would have to be greater than digital plus delivery (10X + Y). Which, I highly doubt, is the case. Maybe I'm wrong though.
However, I am guessing that theaters want digital precisely because it never scratches or fades and because people love to see movies that are advertised as "digital." It brings in money, so the greater cost seems justified.
I would be interested to see a theater in town open up with just maxivision projectors and see how long it takes people to catch on or for its greatness to spread via word of mouth.
Growing up in Toronto and going to Cinesphere (the world's first permanent IMAX screen), they used to annually play Hollywood films in either 70MM or - later - 35MM, and would still attract huge crowds, because the image still took up a good portion of the screen, and the sound was incredible. Of course, they weren't advertised as being in IMAX, but people didn't care. The acoustics and projector quality was still better than anything else in town. Sadly, the government owned theatre has been neglected of late, and doesn't do much to attract audiences.
So I'm not opposed to showing Hollywood movies on those screens - it's still the best place to see those movies. But I was distressed when I went to see "Night at the Museum 2" at a real, honest to goodness IMAX screen the other week (and no, not because the movie wasn't any good).
As I sat there and saw the 20th Century Fox logo, I noticed that the lines seemed a little jagged. It was a digital projection! Earlier IMAX blow-ups of 35mm film had the pristine quality one associates with IMAX. This had the quality of a really neat HD screen. There is no reason to spend that extra money and not even get the "IMAX Experience."
As a Canadian, I'm proud of IMAX's success, but I can't believe they are diluting their brand this way. IMAX execs should all be forced to watch "North of Superior" and remind themselves what their company's product is supposed to be.
It's especially unfortunate that the IMAX corporation is committing this destruction of their fabled brand just as IMAX is finally breaking through into mainstream filmmaking. The success of The Dark Knight has inspired other filmmakers to use IMAX technology. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen will have IMAX-caliber action scenes. Ironman 2 might be filmed in the same way. Terrence Malick's long-gestating Tree of Life will have extensive portions filmed specially for the IMAX screen.
Now, I don't think anyone is going to film an entire feature film in IMAX (the IMAX frame is suited for spectacle. Small, quiet scenes wouldn't benefit much from being filmed in 15/70), but I can imagine a future time when action sequences, the all-important bread and butter of summer blockbusters, will be routinely filmed in IMAX for that extra punch. This new miniMAX garbage is standing in the way of all that.
The more merciless of us film technology buffs frown even at the IMAX DMR process. Obviously, it's not true IMAX, but in my opinion, there are many films out there that would be even more enjoyable in a true IMAX theater. We like our blockbusters to be big, and it doesn't get much bigger than IMAX, even if it's a 2.35:1 film letterboxed in the square IMAX frame. It's obviously the ultimate way to watch any movie. And don't even get me started on the bazillon-channel surround sound.
I'm dreaming here, but there is a significant back-log of classic films just begging to be exhibited on the IMAX screen. I'm talking about any and all 70mm films, and great marvels of cinematography like Apocalypse Now, Blade Runner, The New World, Spartacus, Once Upon A Time In The West, etc. A man can dream, can't he?
These digital IMAX theaters were probably put into motion long before Chris Nolan got the idea to film The Dark Knight in IMAX. These digital theaters are specifically designed with DMR blockbusters in mind, which is why they are roughly 1.85:1, instead of the tall 1.44:1 frame of classic IMAX. The massive IMAX theater success of The Dark Knight ($70 million and counting) was achieved through about 80 15/70 prints which were screened exclusively in traditional IMAX theaters. You couldn't even screen a true IMAX movie on a digital IMAX screen because the screen isn't shaped right.
As people have said, Hollywood seems to have given up in the battle for the viewer's time and money. Back in the day, whenever cinema faced a threat from another entertainment medium, it would call the finest innovators in the field to its aid. Radio was defeated by sound film, and then by color. TV was defeated by CinemaScope and 70mm. Now, films seem to be merging with more utilitarian, less involving mediums. Thus the push for digital technology. Hollywood can't admit that it's losing the battle, so they pretend that all this digital non-sense is new and better, when it rarely is. Especially in this current situation. The uneducated viewer, when given the choice of "IMAX Classic" and "IMAX Digital" will invariably choose Digital. And then he will walk out wondering why the heck he chose to spend $5 extra on this. And then he will ignore all future IMAX theaters, even real, purpose-built 15/70 ones.
The day will come when we will no longer be able to enjoy a great epic projected on a massive screen from a wide-gauge print. We'll be sitting at home peering at our hi-def televisions, watching movies from spotless 4K data files, observing completely clean, perfect, sharp, digitally-acquired images. Sounds terrifying, doesn't it?
Blake Hollon - "IMAX or 3-D cannot make a great movie even greater, cannot make a good movie great and cannot make a bad movie worth watching. The gimmicks always fade, but the great movies never do."
Oh, I highly disagree. You are correct, IMAX cannot turn a bad movie into a good movie. But, it can turn a memorable movie experience into one that will sear itself into your memory for the rest of your life. I saw The Dark Knight in a regular theater the first time I saw it. I liked it immensely. Then I made a trek to the great IMAX theater at the Lincoln Center AMC in Manhattan. I might as well have watched a completely new movie. The film's impact was magnified many times over. What is a very good movie on a regular screen suddenly becomes a near-masterwork when watched the way it is supposed to.
Mr. Ebert himself can testify for Lawrence of Arabia. It's merely spectacular on a big-screen TV. You can some sense of the vastness and magnificence of David Lean's vision. But to watch it in 70mm is to be transported into the Arabian desert, to feel the searing heat and the intense thirst, to lean forward and strain (as Mr. Ebert brilliantly put it) as you struggle to recognize the dashing figure of Omar Sharif emerge out of the unforgiving harshness of the desert. You can't experience that anywhere else.
Roger,
I'm in total agreement.
It's a crying shame that you're no longer on television. A five minute rant from you at the end of "At the Movies" would CRUSH this dodge of IMAX's by placing it firmly in the public's consciousness. I understand that the internet can provide a groundswell of consensual outcry... but TV seems to do it so much more efficiently.
All that to say: you're missed on the tube.
Wow - I guess I can have IMAX in my hometheater if I just push my sofa forward so it's only five feet from my 110" screen...
After seeing 'Star Trek' at the Cinerama Dome on Sunday of the opening weekend, we went again to the LIEMAX on Topanga that night - although the sound was excellent (particularly the low-end) the picture just lacked a crispness. When I returned home from LA I went to see it again at our local IMAX, and the difference in the picture was like night and day.
Thanks to those who posted the Google Maps link showing the real IMAX theater locations.
Oh, and Pepsi's now selling sugar-based Pepsi ("Throwback") too, which is more tasty that regular corn-syrup Pepsi.
While I might agree with you regarding Maxivision, 70mm or any other enhanced delivery vehicle the fundamental problem is consumer discrimination, cost and convenience. iPods have proved that less will be accepted as more. Cell phones generally offer abominable sound quality and indifferent reliability but great convenience so quality and reliability doesn't matter nearly as much.
Your efforts to improve projection quality through explaining the false economy of dialing down the lamp has made little or no impact on the chronic offenders and people still go to those theaters. This goes on until a clear, equally affordable, or more convenient alternative comes along and then the seller starts to go down the tube and cries "woe is me, save me, save me" and it's too late. With rare exceptions corporate management prove themselves to be poor listeners and short sighted to boot.
The entire film industry, as currently constituted, is in big doggie doo, just like the auto industry. They just haven't figured this out yet.
I rarely go to the theater anymore and even find the DVD experience less than compelling. Mostly this is because they have turned me off by clustering all the movies I would like to see into a 6 week period from Thanksgiving to New years. I can't get to all of those and the rest of the year is a wasteland with the occasional oasis of decent story telling thrown in. If you don't partake in the week or two that decent story is around you're lost.
I guess I digressed but format is irrelevant when the problems are far larger than that.
And again you bring up the point of proper projection, which is becoming rarer these days. At the 24-o-plex (not it's actual name) in Oaks, PA, I've gotten presentations that were too dark, slightly unfocused, and even quieter than an average speaking voice. Will I ever go there again? No I will not. If a movie excites me enough (and that is rare: I still haven't seen Wall-E or The Dark Knight,) I'll see it in King of Prussia, because they take care of the important things there.
And I have to respectfully disagree about 3-D. If used tastefully, it's a fun added texture. The Nightmare Before Christmas was a treat in 3-D. Coraline also.
As for Maxivision 48, please, you make me cry by teasing me with this beautiful dream.
Previous postings by Eric Isaacson and Paul Sandberg are correct. Though Snopes disputes it, original Coke was changed to facilitate the switch to cheaper high fructose corn syrup. The New Coke dog was a gamble, and when it ultimately (immediately) failed, the Coke Classic without real cane sugar was widely introduced to a stupidly grateful public.
Roger, I am not so certain that a film needs to be shown in an IMAX format, or any gadgetry-based format for it to be enjoyed. In point of fact, the gadgetry might be a detriment to viewing the movie.
I will give a personal example. A few weeks ago, I, on the basis of your review, went to see "Battle for Terra", easily one of the better animated films I have seen to not come from Disney/Pixar. The one drawback I had was in seeing the movie in "Real 3D", using transparent eyeglasses to gain a better picture quality of the movie. While the 3D effects were rather interesting, I found the experience to be not without some annoyance. You see, I wear glasses due to my eyesight being, well, blurry without them. Now, the 3D glasses are not corrective lenses; they are, in effect, no different than sunglasses in that regard. I cannot, therefore, easily see the movie with just the 3D glasses on: I need to see the movie with both the 3D glasses and my prescription glasses on simultaneously.
By comparison, earlier today I went to see "Up", yet another Pixar gem of a film. In this case, while the multiplex I went to had 3D and digital projections for the movie, I chose easily to see it in 2D, so to speak. It was a more fulfilling experience, in both movie quality and in comfort of seeing the film.
I would say that unless the film being shown in 3D or in Imax or Smell-O-Vision is in the tradition of William Castle's audience participation movies, then it is not neccesary to see a well-done movie with these peripherals. Filmgoers, for an example, do not come to see a Martin Scorsese movie in either Imax or 3D, because it is not needed. It can stand on its own.
You know, in a way, this newfound interest in peripheral film marketing ploys reminds me a bit of perhaps one of the worst movies we have come across, "Mr. Payback." That film, I believe, was either your choice or Gene Siskel's choice for the worst movie of 1995; I can't quite remember which one of you guys it was. Anyway, I saw it one time on cable I believe: too short, too gimicky, and just plain bad writng and acting, to see nothing of the actual filmmaking. Yet, "Mr. Payback" was perhaps made for the audience participation crowd, and only for that crowd. Wheras "Battle for Terra" and "Up" can adopt to Imax and 3D but works best as they are.
Well, that is my position on all things 3D and Imax and what have you. One more query yet, though I suppose it is a chore to ask and to read: is there a new film in the Great Movies canon on the way, or perhaps a book collection? Thank you again, and be well in health and spirit.
Best Regards,
Robert Kelly
rkelly83@optonline.net
I agree completely, IMAX is no longer an "experience." I have seen Spiderman and Harry Potter on TRUE IMAX screens, and have been immersed and impressed. Here in the Richmond, VA area, we have a multiplex, (which will not remain nameless so I can save other people the sticker shock), the REGAL COMMONWEALTH 20, with a "quote-unquote" IMAX screen. Upon my first (and last) entry into the theatre, I was unpleasantly surprised and underwhelmed with the standard theatre size, SLIGHTY (and I mean slightly) elongated screen and substandard IMAX picture and sound quality. The theatre manager looked at me like I was crazy when I complained, and since I was with my kids, my stink was minimal. But I believe using the IMAX banner and charging extra for this theatre is tantamount to false advertising, and the Better Business Bureau may get a carefully crafted ear-ful very soon.
As a lover of cinema, I do want to see the best format with the best audio possible. This is especially true when I'm seeing popcorn movies. However, over the past decade, I've found myself attending less films then ever before (minus the obligatory trips for a Disney or Pixar film for the kids). The reason why has little to do with the size of the screen or the sounds emaninating from the speakers. Its because of the sounds I don't want to hear, people talking through the movie, cell phones buzzing or ringing, and babies doing what babies do best. So I have to pay more for my tickets but, because of the uncaring audience, I end up hearing less of the film itself.
Therefore, I end up loading my Netflix queue or buying a PPV. Luckily I've recently moved to San Diego and stared in wonder at the fact that a couple drive-ins still existed. Now, the quality of the projection harkens back to the 80's and the sound is only as good as what you've invested into your auto but I don't have to put up with anyone's cell phone or anyone talking (well, except for my family and they usually know better).
The point of this way too long rambling is to say that if theaters cant get control of their audience then it really doesn't matter how they show the movie. People like me will just end up staying home so we can watch the movie in peace and quiet.
I have read through the comments and no one seemed to make the point that made the Liemax (love that term) hugely worth it to me and my friends. In the two different chain theaters that I patronized with this format, they had no commercials. Not even the piped in commercial music, available now for purchase or download. It was like going back in time to my childhood, where a theater was quiet before the movie, and you only had three previews. In Los Angeles, we are accustomed to seeing, at a minimum, a commercial for the Los Angeles Times, a commercial for Coke and at least one car commercial. One chain shows "preshow entertainment" that consists mostly of commercials for TV shows, before they begin the real commercials. The commercials are followed by so many movie previews that I never remember what looked interesting by the time the movie starts. And don't get me started on the commercial slide show flashing across the screen before the "preshow entertainment."
The biggest issue that I had with the Liemax movies was that the sound quality was poor, and, to my mind, they tried to hide the poor sound by turning the volume up so high that I had to watch large portions of the movie with my finger in my ears.
So, I will pay the premium for Liemax again as long as it remains commercial free, but I'll take my ear plugs. Unless it's 3D. I always get a headache in 3D movies.
I would expect that a lot of the people polled expressing satisfaction at their Liemax movie experience are commenting more on the commercial free zone than the actual picture and sound quality.
As a film student at Hollins University, I've become increasingly dismayed by recent trends in filmmaking. Nothing disturbs me more than the new trend towards 3-D as if it's the next big thing, probably because I'm part of the 10% of the population that's stereoblind and cannot see 3-D (like Andre de Toth, director of House of Wax, the first 3-D film).
What got people back to seeing movies after the popularization of television was not widescreen, in the end. The 50s and 60s are littered with awful widescreen, overblown, big event monsters; it was an era of cinematic elephantitis. What got people back to seeing movies was better films. Young people in the late 60s and 70s were exposed to the products of the film school generation filmmakers, and they wanted to experience these films in a communal setting.
A better film experience, whether it's 3-D or IMAX, will not draw people back to the theaters so much as better product will, films that people want to share. Looking at a list of films from 1999, just ten years ago, I see about 20 films that are better than anything the studios have released this decade. Very few films get me excited enough to want to leave the house.
The best analogy for IMAX and faux IMAX is not Coke and New Coke. What's happening in the film world nowadays is that real Coke (good studio films) has been universally replaced with New Coke (current studio films) and people are arguing between the most advanced can to put it in (IMAX) versus the can that's merely slightly improved (faux IMAX) from the traditional aluminum (standard movie theater screens).
A quick aside to the reference of what many people call the New Coke fiasco. I've never heard my theory purported elsewhere, but it has long been my contention that the so-called marketing disaster had more to do with Coke's desire to switch their sweetener from cane sugar to high fructose corn syrup. They needed to give "Classic Coke" a hiatus to remove to taste of the cane sugar product from the public's memory. Many die-hard Coke drinkers would agree that the original formula was never resurrected. Those who might agree with me will also recall the superior flavor of McDonald's fries when they still used lard before cholesterol became a widespread concern.
So I went and saw "Up" last night in Disney Digital 3-D at an AMC theater in NJ (home of one of the "LieMax" screens.) As much as I enjoyed the film, I didn't enjoy the 3-D virtually at all. It added so little to the film and by the end, I did have eye strain. I will be taking this wonderful film in again tomorrow in 2-D and I'm sure that I'll enjoy it more. The sad thing is that there was such a LONG string of trailers before the movie for upcoming 3-D attractions (some supposedly also in Imax) that I'm wondering if the "mass audience" will even know that they're paying more for less (as opposed to real Imax etc.)
As a theater manager thirty years ago, it grieved me to see enchanting community movie theaters carved up into two, three or four ugly houses with sound leak, narrow seating areas and inferior picture quality. That at least was apparent to everyone who bought a ticket. With what's being foisted today upon a less experienced mass audience, the "it's Imax - Big Lie" will probably just take root and move on. I hope not due to blogs like this and dedicated film fans spreading the news but I'm not optimistic.
Robin Pruter - "The best analogy for IMAX and faux IMAX is not Coke and New Coke. What's happening in the film world nowadays is that real Coke (good studio films) has been universally replaced with New Coke (current studio films) and people are arguing between the most advanced can to put it in (IMAX) versus the can that's merely slightly improved (faux IMAX) from the traditional aluminum (standard movie theater screens)."
I think that the lot of us can agree that there is a perceptible decline in the state of cinema in the current years. I myself, an aspiring art filmmaker, shudder at the prospect of attempting to produce personal, artistically-oriented films in today's film marketplace. It seems like an impenetrable challenge. But we do our best, fighting tighting studio dollars and shortening attention spans.
And you are right, we are arguing merely about the quality of exhibition, not the quality of films. But in my opinion, the two are inseparable. Between the projector and the screen, there is an audience, and the audience will always be more highly involved and satisfied when there is a properly tuned projector in back, and a vast, flawless screen up front.
OK, 3-D is mostly a lost cause, being useful only for trying to rip hard-earned dollars out of viewers' pockets. But IMAX and great projection in general is not merely a way to dress up poor filmmaking, it can also do great justice to worthy films. The only obstacle standing between great movies and great exhibition is cost and effort. We can stand here pissed off that movies ain't what they used to be nowadays, or we can help and encourage filmmakers to make better movies by giving them the proper mediums. We can demand that widescreen movies be made in glorious Panavision Anamorphic, or we can be satisfied with flat-looking, inferior Super 35. We can shoot an independent movie in digital video, or we can help the independent filmmaker get his hands on lustrous, beautifully grainy 16mm. And lastly, on the topic that this discussion has hinged on, we can accept a great epic in pedestrian 35mm, or we can see it in mesmerizing, properly vast, 70mm.
to discuss 3D a bit here...
for me, the real attraction of seeing a movie in 3D in theatres is not because it looks more nifty or i like the illusion of a ping pong ball flying right at me, but because it really and truly can only be experienced once - in the theatre. whenever a movie is in Real 3D, i go see it as soon as i can, because i know i won't be able to see the movie like that ever again.
and why is that? because when the film is released on DVD, it doesn't come with the Real 3D glasses, which admittedly makes the picture a little darker but is still definitely the best representation of 3D i've ever seen. no, the DVD's come with those ancient and absolutely useless cardboard red/blue glasses, which not only make the picture way darker, but give double image on everything and doesn't even really make the illusion that something's popping out from the screen. buying Polar Express 3D on DVD was one of my young life's biggest disappointments - missing the 3D experience in theatres, i've long wanted to see that (one of my favourite movies) in 3D, and the DVD release of it was so dark, grungy, and double-visioned that it was like i was watching the movie drunk.
if the studios could figure out a way to release the big expensive glasses on DVD's without making it way too cost prohibitive (i would pay 50 bucks to get a really good 3D quality copy of Pol-Ex, but Journey to the Center of the Earth? no freakin' way), then the appeal of seeing movies in 3D in the cinema would go way down, for me and surely others. we know that if we miss out on our chance to see it in theatres three dimensional, we'll never really get to know what it could've looked like at it's best and brightest (without, y'know, just watching it in 2D). 3D's a gimmick, absolutely, but one that's sort of been keeping theatres alive when compared to DVD's, for better or for worse.
although, now that i've written that, maybe that's why they're refusing to make Real 3D glasses on DVD's. it's keeping us in the cinema's, where they most want us. crap.
Thank you so much for clarifying something that's been bugging me for over a year now. I used to love IMAX and hadn't seen one for ages until I went to my neighborhood theater to see "Shine A Light" about the Rolling Stones. I got so dizzy I had to close my eyes for the first 15 minutes and after a half hour finally had to leave the theater or risk vomiting in the aisle. That hasn't happened to me since Blair Witch Project, another story entirely. Anyway, I was so disgusted especially after paying the IMAX premium price. I just racked it up to the small theater size, even though I was sitting in the back row, but now I'm thinking since they've changed the format that must be the problem. Does that make sense?
Francine
Ebert: At classic IMAX, I always prefer the back row.
I remember going to see a showing of a 70mm print of "Lawrence of Arabia" at a local theater in the Twin Cities a few years ago. Expecting to see it on a huge screen, I am still ticked off that it was shown on a regular size screen. Part of the magic of the movie is seeing the little speck that is Lawrence coming towards you from the desert. Is the difference between 70mm and 35mm films related to the size of the screen or the clarity of the picture?
Ebert: Picture quality in theory, but 70mm was designed for theaters with the old big screens, not the current smaller ones.
After seeing Zack Snyder's "300", I decided to see it for the third time in so-called IMAX at a suburban multi-plex (even paid for my friend's tix so she could drive me out to the theatre in the burbs). We stayed for ten minutes then walked out (I was agast at how bad the film looked). Luckily only had to wait a few minutes to see "300" projected in a regular format at the same multi-plex. Now I'm sorry I didn't ask for my money back at the time since I paid extra for the so-called IMAX screening. I see between 4-6 films a month and I have never again and never will pay extra for "imitation-IMAX". And I'm looking forward to seeing UP in 2-D this weekend (those stupid 3-glasses never fit on top of regular prescription glasses).
Tim Ifill wrote on May 29, 2009 10:42 AM – "I spent a few years working in a video store, and it was impossible to convince an awful lot of people that pan and scan was vastly inferior to letterboxing, even when showing them side-by-side comparisons of screen shots."
Did you ever get a customer who, conversely, was constantly bugging you whenever they came into the store because they couldn't find a film in letterbox? If you ever did and on a spiritual level, I'm related to that person. :)
Actually, the first time I saw letterbox was on TV (not a rental) and it was THE quintessential Art House film no less - "Last Year at Marienbad" as shown one Sunday afternoon on PBS:
http://www.criterion.com/films/1517
If you watch the streaming trailer for it, at one point, the subs read "better than 3-D". Oh, the irony. :)
Note: I was 5 years old in 1969. That's when I met my first Americans - who introduced the neighbourhood to strange music and funny smells. And who, along with the Catholic Church, helped to shape my character thereafter. I mention this because that's around the time I started to drink coca-cola. So whatever the recipe was then, that's what I liked. When they changed it, I noticed. Also, Coke has a faint "orange" bite to it and so if you make it sweeter, you undercut its "inner marmalade" so to speak, within the caramel. Classic coke still isn't original coke, but it's better than "the abomination" from the 80's.
Oh, and you can play with Classic Coke! You can undercut the sweetness. Drop an Orange pekoe black tea bag into a glass, pour in the coke and once full, pull out the bag. :)
In the wake of all this talk about IMAX, I went online to see what the BIG screen is showing at Canada Place (440 seats, five-stories high) in Vancouver...
1. Under the Sea in 3D
2. Space Station in 3D
3. Deep Sea in 3D
4. U2 in 3D. Concert footage.
Canada Place is a Hotel and Convention Centre built on a pier which juts out into the ocean like a finger. The roof of the convention centre looks like 5 white sails on a ship - at the end of which, is the IMAX Theater, as seen in this video clip showing a tour of IMAX and the projection room:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55OKr76c1-c
And how does THAT look like a screen you can find inside a theater complex, eh? So again, what are the suits at IMAX smoking? IMAX means MASSIVE BIG SCREEN and extra-super duper image quality and sound.
Now here's "digital" alla Star Wars and all that: albeit 2006...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7WnJtSpIP4
This is still basically what IMAX is trying to re-sell. That's the size of the screen. So WTF? When I go to the movies however, I don't sit up close because I see too much crap on the screen when I do, like pixels or dust and grain. So I sit in the exact middle; and not too high or too low. Then I pray that teenagers don't sit behind or in front of me.
Not every film needs to be shown in IMAX. Some films are just "popcorn" movies; harmless mindless entertainment for 2 hrs. Case in point: "Twilight". Teenage girls have just as much right to squeal over Robert Patterson as teenage boys to be entertained by cool stuff exploding. To each his own, share the planet and all that. BUT...
If I go to see "Inglourious Basterds" I want the theater doors to be closed before the film starts. I want the bulb in the projector to be turned UP to full power. I want the dude in the projection booth to be paid enough to stay awake. And all the cell phones turned off. If people whisper very quietly directly into the ear of the person next to them to share a thought, I don't mind that; you can do that without being overheard. Anything else is selfish. If you need to move your legs, please don't kick the back of my chair. Chew your food with your mouth closed! Do not slurp your drink! What, you were raised in a barn?!
As I agree with the person who mentioned there's also the experience itself to take into consideration. It's not just how the film looks, it's how the audience is behaving - that can ruin a movie too. That can also drive people out of theaters and compel them to stay at home. Heck, that's 90% of the reason I watch so much on DVD these days; I've had too many films ruined for me.
Don't get me wrong, I don't hate digital; it's a medium - how you use it is what matters. Rather, I hate when it's done poorly or paying for a bad experience - especially if I'm being over-charged for it. And ideally, I'd like to see movies in Maxivision as I can "picture that" in my mind's eye; how awesome it would be! And then, for the special movies like 3D or space and nature films, go to a big IMAX screen.
Seeing traditional movies in IMAX, either IMAX Jr. or the original, has always been difficult for me. The true IMAX experience used to be long static shots of landscapes, space, underwater. Concerts were great as the sound system allows the audio to be played behind the lead singer, wherever he is on the stage. You'd watch Mick walk across the stage and hear his voice go with him. It was an experience on the 8-Story screen because there wasn't a lot of movement.
Putting action movies on IMAX just leads to visual confusion. There is no way the eye can take in the action of a movie on the 80 Ft screen.
Want true IMAX? It is a nature movie. It is usually under an hour and you walk out knowing something you didn't know when walking in. It also starts with an introduction, complete with lights where the speakers are, to explain the IMAX experience. Fortunately, that introduction hasn't changed since I was a kid.
I don't blame any company for trying to make money. In this case, selling the name. I am thankful that up here in Canada, the birthplace of IMAX, we still have the true experience available even though I will always pass on seeing a regular movie on the big screen.
By coincidence, I saw my first IMAX movie last weekend. I went to see the Denver Musuem of Nature and Science, and bought the IMAX package. 66 X 44 foot screen. A documentary about the Colorado River, with lots of rafting through the Grand Canyon. It was immersive, yes, and quite enjoyable. But it was the stunning photography that made the experience for me. The creative content.
Not by coincidence, but by plan after reading your Cannes report, I saw "UP" a couple of hours ago - in 3D. I thought the glasses were quite good, better than I expected. The 3D was very real, and an overall positive experience. But not memorable. What's memorable is the brilliant and sweet opening sequence about Carl and Ellie. The creative content.
Lastly, I am really regretting my decision to skip "Let the Right One In" at Eberfest and get back on the road home at a decent hour. (And not finding a way to say hello!).
Ebert: Yeah, after having come all that way!
Do you think this is a good size for a screen?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNVuR1bx2J0
Ebert: One of mine is that size.
I personally love the IMAX format, but it can't make up for shoddy or mediocre filmmaking or storytelling (examples: Night at the Museum, Monsters Vs Aliens).For some films, it doesn't necessarily make the film any better nor does it take anything away (Star Trek - which was a fun movie, but maybe JJ Abrams lack of cinematic flair didn't lend itself to IMAX enhancements per se). However, for the right movie (Watchmen, Happy Feet), it's an unforgettable experience. But I would be pretty angry if I had went to see these films in a "fake" IMAX theater. I only go to the IMAX at 68th Street & Broadway (Lincoln Square) & never to the fake one at 42nd Street because I know that it's just a normal size screen without staggered seating.
On a completely different note, why no review for Sam Raimi's Drag Me to Hell? Have you not seen it yet? Just curious if you didn't get to see it at Cannes? I saw it tonight with a rowdy Times Square audience & loved it. Then again, I loved the Evil Dead films.
IMAX is following in the footsteps of Cinerama which dumbed itself down by showing ordinary movies on their special deeply curved screen and quickly found themselves out of business.
In my view they have followed the wrong path to expand the brand and reign in the cost of those giant IMAX format film prints.
What I would have done would have been to use their proprietary DMR grain reduction process on Hollywood films to enlarge them to conventional 70mm format. Equip theatres with top quality projection, sound, and viewing conditions including a reasonably big screen. But no fooling the audience into thinking it's regular IMAX so I'd give it a special name like maybe IMAX PDQ (just to make something up).
THEN I would encourage filmmakers to shoot in 70mm (technically it's 65mm) and such films could be called IMAX SUPER PDQ or maybe PDQ HD.
Shooting in conventional 65mm is much easier than true IMAX, in fact it differs little from ordinary 35mm shooting. Plus it has the wide aspect ratio expected for feature films. The improved picture quality would be seen not only on the 70mm prints but even in 35mm, DVD's and Blu-ray. That would be an appropriate way to move into conventional movie exhibition.
Sadly IMAX chose a path which seeks to deceive the public. It seems likely that they will be forced to brand the Liemax theatres or the traditional ones differently in some way. But that still doesn't make Liemax worth the premium ticket price.
Ebert: Steve Kraus is a deeply experienced projection expert.
Just a few points I think need to be made, so that all sides can be taken into account.
The main piece of information actually comes from url in the LF Examiner article, at this location: http://www.lfexaminer.com/theaUSA.htm
This is a definitive list of all the IMAX theaters. What I find most interesting, is that many will argue that the screen dimensions are not listed as well. Wouldn't one argue though, that if the theater is listed as 1570, then it must be "classic IMAX"? It isn't necessarily true because near me is the AMC Studio 30, in Olathe, Kansas. I have a friend who works there and showed me the booth area last summer when "The Dark Knight" came out, and due to a issue they had with their 1570 projector, had to cut a few frames out of the beginning which he was able to give to me since I am a film nut. I can verify it as the IMAX70mm stock they used. He called me to come see the movie again this past January, when the movie was re-released, and showed me the booth again, which now, to my surprise was fitted with a small Digital IMAX DLP projector. This is interesting for the 2 following reasons; A) the list on LF Examiner states that the IMAX there is 1570 still (even though it is now Digital) and B)it also says that the theater opened 6/15/2005. Which Mr. Ebert (who I hold in high esteem, with all respect in the world) early made the comment to a comment, "The new format has been around for well under a year."
How exactly can this be if this movie theater that does not include a 72ft. screen, is listed as an IMAX theater, but has been around just shy of 5 years. Is LF Examiner lying? At worst they are at fault for not updating their information as to what IMAX theaters are still running 1570 or less, or have made the switch over to digital. Again, as noted before, the site also does not include the size of said screens. If the actual issue here is that people are not getting the IMAX experience they feel they are paying for, why not inform them where to go and where not to go?
To illustrate further the confusion let me add this into play. The following are IMAX theaters, by city, location, if it is an IMAX, the format, if it is 3D or not, if it is flat or dome, the capacity, and finally the date it opened.
Phoenix AMC Deer Valley 30 IMAX D 3D F 296 6/15/2005
Knoxville Pinnacle Stadium 18 IMAX D 3D F 12/14/2007
Tigard Regal Bridgeport Village 18 IMAX D 3D F 318 5/4/2007
Las Vegas Red Rock Stadium 16 IMAX D 3D F 350 12/14/2007
Four theaters listed as being BOTH Digital IMAX, and theaters that opened more than a year ago. Take into account the fact that there are several other IMAX theaters listed on that page that "have" opened in the last year, but are shown to be run with the 1570 format.
All I am trying to do is shed some light on how far this issue reaches. I for one am interested in why this is just coming to light now, if people have been fine with how things were up to this point. More over, I wonder if some type of effort could be made from theater-goers to help LF Examiner update their IMAX page, to have the correct format listed for each theater, as well as the appropriate screen proportions, to help elucidate further problems.
But then again I did choose my name from "Dead Man".....'He who talks loud, saying nothing.' So maybe this is all for naught.
I have always been skeptical of ads for IMAX films at regular old multiplexes. I just couldn't believe that there were real IMAX screens in there; and, now, I see that there aren't.
I don't need IMAX to get freaky; heck, I just about tripped out this week during a long dialogue-free sequence in The Window while sitting in the microscopic screening room at Facets Cinematheque on Fullerton Avenue.
Ebert: It is indeed small, but in fairness I should add that their main theater is considerably larger.
Classic IMAX is great but it's been around a long time (wasn't this first shown in the early 80's as "Incredidome" at amusement parks?) and I've been disappointed too many times by too short G rated Family documentaries that IMAX has sorta left a bad taste in my mouth. IMAX-Lite further dilutes my desire to see another movie in this format.
However, I agree with Roger - a marked improvement in picture quality is what is needed in theaters. If Maxivision is 500 percent better than what's showing now, including 3-D, then I think that's the way to go. With Blu-Ray and other ways to deliver High Def movies directly to your home 50' then Maxivision is simply a no brainer to me.
Of course, deliver it digitally!
And no scratches ever? Count me in on that too!
Better is always better, unless you try a trick like what IMAX is pull on us now.
Speaking of technology, what is the best blu-ray player available? I want to buy one, but I am paranoid of choosing the wrong one.
My wife Janny and I have been to the IMAX theater in Montreal and when we saw that the new Star Trek movie was to be offered on IMAX here in Albany, there was no other way we were going to see that movie! Well we went to see the Imax Star Trek at the Regal Crossgates Mall Cinema and paid the obligitory extra money for the seats. When we walked in to the room found our seats and sat down, I blurted out "this isn't IMAX!...were is the rest of the screen?" I could feel some of my excitement waning as I gazed at the empty screen. The theater was much smaller than I had expected and I now know that was because of the way Imax was installed there. Nevertheless, it was going to be a new Star Trek movie and that alone was a good feeling. One of the immediate benefits of this Imax was that they couldn't play all of the commerials and advertisement that we are usually bombarded with at this place. One other immediate discovery however was that the sound projection was not up to par there. Even though the size of the screen was smaller than expected and the sound was not as good as other places, the movie made up for it in quality. We both thought that it was one of the best Star Treks that we had ever seen.
I have never understood the need to blow up regular 35mm or 70mm features to the IMAX format. I have seen exquisite documentaries shot specifically in IMAX for IMAX screens, but movies like Batman Begins or the new Star Trek are filled with extreme close-ups, hand-held shots and fast cuts are clearly not meant for giant screens. You stated you always sit way in the back for IMAX, but why should any film be shown where that is the only way to enjoy it properly?
When Cinerama was introduced, the directors composed their shots to take advantage of the wide format. Few directors today compose or edit with IMAX in mind. They're watching the dailies on little video monitors, seeing the future DVD version. Even Chris Nolan's "Dark Knight" -intentionally including IMAX shots - still had giant camera-up-the-nostril close-ups and choppy fight scenes. It forces us viewers to yearn for the DVD, where we don't have to turn our heads to get the side of the screen we missed.
Perhaps IMAX should come out with an intentionally medium-sized digital IMAX screen and market it as "Big Enough."
Ebert: It is indeed small, but in fairness I should add that their main theater is considerably larger.
Oh, I was in the main theater . . . I just meant it's microscopic compared to a real IMAX theater. At any rate, I have no trouble enjoying films in the smallest of screening rooms. If I want IMAX I'll go to the Museum of Science and Industry.
Been quiet for a week+ (see my link for the whys), but I have to chime in on this.
Ditto. I've told you about the horror of seeing TDK in the front row (far left side, to boot) at an IMAX screening. You just can't take in that much visual information that close; you have to scan the screen constantly, and you're missing other parts of the screen when you do that.
I am pleasantly surprised, but saddened that it has taken this long for the degradation of the giant screen experience to reach a critical public mass.
The rapid expansion of IMAX's digital "minimax" is just the latest inception of its MPX (multiplex) program that has been around for several years.
Industry insiders have been lamenting and adapting to the changing landscape for sometime now.
From 2003: http://www.bigmoviezone.com/articles/index.html?uniq=168
A great article on a very interesting topic.
I think it shines some light on how marketing chooses to manipulate messages, and how it's evolved (or hasn't). It also might shines some light on, dare I say, the current state of the e-word?
But I'd rather talk about the screens themselves and not their economic/social impact.
One problem I do have with watching a film on a 'real' IMAX theater, is that the aspect ratio is much different than that of a normal theater. That's always been somewhat of a noticeable qualm I have. There's something magical about the 16:9 ratio and similar wide-screen formats. They almost have a cinematic quality that you don't get from a 23x30 giant IMAX screen. And just to think, we could never fully appreciate the aesthetic of Wes Anderson if we only had 'real' IMAX screens.
And also, in all fairness the picture quality is much more crisp and sharp than on standard projection. The IMAX projectors are on a much different picture quality level, similar to that of the smaller amount of digital projectors available at our theaters today. Response times, color correction and light balance are all specifications that are very sophisticated when it comes to digital projectors. It allows for a such a clarity and equal balance of light, coupled with a high resolution and high response time. The audio system on many 'fake' IMAX theaters are also actually much better than what normal theaters have. Both the front projection and bass have equipment with higher wattage and fidelity.
All in all, I'm all for pushing the quality of audio and video in our theaters in any way possible. But I still believe wholeheartedly that all theaters should equip 35mm projectors regardless. I think it is important for people now, just like the Lumiere's and Edison back in the day, to advance the sophistication and potential of cinema and videography as much as we can.
Keep fighting the good fight, Roger - being a cinematographer, I literally swoon at the prospect of shooting in Maxivision. Alas, it feels like a distant dream, as I must relent to baffling market-trends and suffer through the horrible color palatte and crushed dynamic range of the oh so 'superior' HD video formats.
Le sigh.
Hello Roger,
You talk about Maxivision a lot, and every time you do I become eager to see what some Maxivision footage looks like. This has yet to happen.
The first two pages of Google results for Maxivision seem to be for a dietary supplement, with a couple of blogs and such commenting on the film. The Wikipedia page for Maxivision does not seem to provide a link to any website for Maxivision, only a list of patents.
One of the big rules for movies is "show, don't tell." You've gone on and on about Maxivision, now could you please direct us to this company's website, maybe a video of some footage shot on Maxivision so that the difference can be appreciated? If I want to find examples of footage shot on Red One Digital, I don't have to look far. Could you maybe put the links after the other videos you found? I think that would be very helpful in moving this discussion forward.
Ebert: There are no videos. I don't see how one could illustrate Maxivision anyway, since it could not be in Maxivision.
A pair of puzzlers: the Seattle Center advertises two IMAX theaters--but one is 60 x 80 feet, the other, 35 x 60 feet. How to categorize them?
http://www.pacsci.org/imax/
Please let me me know!
10,000$ sounds like a deal, compared to 280$ a month.
I think when I saw "Across the Universe" and "The Dark Knight" in IMAX, it wasn't as big as a shark movie I saw when I was younger at IMAX. The seating was kind of stadiumesque, and almost didn't resemble movie theater seating. I'm not sure if that's the kind of thing we're talking about, but I do remember thinking "That's not the IMAX I grew up with."
Funny story.
Two weeks before it opened, my wife and I prepurchased opening Friday tickets for Harry Potter 4 in an AMC that has one of the refitted IMAXes (in the same room where we saw Harry Potter 1, actually, pre-refit) and purchased tickets for the opening Wednesday showing of HP4 at the true IMAX screen at The Henry Ford. (We like the experience of the IMAX, and on the regular size screen we pick up details.)
A week later we went to see a different movie, walked up to the auto-kiosk to buy our tickets, and in the process we got a stub saying that our showing of HP4 had been cancelled.
Further investigation revealed that we could no longer purchase tickets for any of the Friday showings except for the one in, you got it, the refitted IMAX. Thursday, yes. Saturday, yes. Sunday, yes. But not Friday. But they'd be happy to give us tickets for the IMAX for Friday. I said no, and the lovely girl behind the counter said, "You don't care for the format?"
What I didn't say--what I should have said--was, "No, because that's not IMAX. We've got tickets for the real IMAX in Dearborn."
The manager reopened the Friday night show sales long enough to give us our tickets back, which was nice enough, and somewhere in here there's a lesson learned about prepurchasing tickets for one movie and then going to see a different one. But. I know a cheap marketing ploy when I see one, and strictly speaking I haven't even "seen" this one yet.
J.C. wrote on May 29, 2009 10:57 PM - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNVuR1bx2J0
That took me to a lame amateur video called "Future Clips" on You Tube about a guy pretending to be an android. WTF? Roger has one that size too? HUH? Chuckle!
Meinert Hansen wrote on May 30, 2009 12:45 PM - "...but movies like Batman Begins or the new Star Trek are filled with extreme close-ups, hand-held shots and fast cuts are clearly not meant for giant screens. ... Few directors today compose or edit with IMAX in mind. They're watching the dailies on little video monitors, seeing the future DVD version. Even Chris Nolan's "Dark Knight" -intentionally including IMAX shots - still had giant camera-up-the-nostril close-ups and choppy fight scenes..."
Meinert; are you located in Montreal, and work in Television and Film as a conceptual artist and matt painter? No, no, we've never met, but your name rang a bell. And so I looked it up, and found a guy with your name who'd worked on various well-known projects, for example, Frank Miller's "300". Is that you? If so, I like your robots. :)
And I couldn't agree with more with your comments!
This has always been a huge peeve of mine - pointless and extreme close-ups when combined with shaky camera work.
My eyes do not shake inside my head when I run. If they do in yours, immediately seek medical attention. A little of that goes a long way when aiming to convey "being there" so to speak. When used to excess, it's annoying and off-putting. Case in point, the last James Bond movie "Quantum Solace" was so badly shot at times, I couldn't follow the action!
A general rule of thumb (for action in Animation at any rate) is that while you don't want to telegraph the plot in advance, at the same time, you need to anticipate "where" the human eye will want to go next a split-second before it goes looking for it. That's why if you're showing a lot movement, you have to think ahead a bit. And imo, that works best in live action when it's smooth and fluid - example: a Canadian Roller coaster ride!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07bvHB9r-CI&feature=fvsr
Perspective is everything and so too, a point of reference. And why that roller coaster works; you get to see enough of the track up head. Same applies here - check out this awesome BIG wave surfing clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BOhDaJH0m4
Without the sky, you can't tell how big the wave is, eh? That would make for an awesome IMAX movie, actually! But only if they avoid extreme close-ups; otherwise, I'd get totally lost in the water, visually.
Call me a snob, but I think most directors aren't artists and it shows. They often approach stuff too clinically when aiming to convey a thing. Ie: if you try and recreate (on film) the chaos and confusion of the real world when events are happening fast, you end up LITERALLY filming the confusion. And that's not telling a story; that's a smacking you with the medium used to tell it.
And at the end of the day, technology and the rush towards it, towards BIGGER, BETTER, BE THERE, LIVE IT - all feels like this to me, albeit in another guise: G.I. Joe commercial 1960's...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLL67CN2hnw&feature=related
One day, someone's going to invent IMAX digital 3D in smell-o-rama and touch-o-vision so when they fire bullets, you can feel one brush against your cheek and smell the stench of warfare - cool stuff like that; chuckle!
And it'll probably look like the evolution of this... and yes, please do that, ask your parents first for permission. :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ru9EDf9pm2s&NR=1
I always felt that when Imax eclipsed any possibility of SHOWSCAN becoming a more popular format, that it was like VHS winning out over the technically superior Beta. I never got a chance to see SHOWSCAN, but if it eliminated the strobing problems that Imax at 24fps has on a giant screen, I'm all for it. Sadly, a lot of the Showscan ride films ended up being digital/video based toward the end of that company's life. There's also a new 70mm format that shares certain technical aspects with Maxivision called Superdimension 70. That's what the next Batman should be shot in. :)
http://www.superdimension70.com/process/
Every time you write about Maxivision I wonder when Hollywood will give it a shot. It sounds like a dream come true: higher resolution with less wasted film, a higher frame rate to reduce image judder, eliminates frame weave, and works with existing cameras and projectors. With advantages like that why would you look digital in the face?
Digital has the edge on 3D material, but there's still a lot of money to be made with people who don't like 3D, or don't like wearing the glasses (I'm guessing that's a large number).
I hope the company has been demonstrating the system to the ASC, Panavision and every major studio and producer they could get on the phone.
I would love to hear what cinematographers have to say about shooting in 3-D or IMAX and how they feel about their work being presented in various movie theatres. Do they ever go to theatres outside Los Angeles or other big cities to see how their movies look in Montana or West Virginia?
Strangely, I have never gone to the cinema for a 'viewing experience'. Nor do I intend to.
I'm still confused about how the aspect ratio issue is handled. Your graphic shows that the true IMAX image is almost identical to the good old-fashioned 1.33:1 Academy Aperture, while the imaxNOT is more like the big-budget 2.0:1 widescreen. If you know the studio is going to do an IMAX release, how are you going to shoot it? No matter what format your camera negative is, you'll need to crop the image drastically to fit the other format, which means you have to frame all your shots in a fairly small safe zone so that you don't lose anything important when you crop the left and right of a widescreen frame to fit IMAX, or the top and bottom when you fit an IMAX frame to widescreen. It only seems to mean one more headache for the cinematographer, and for what?
I can see the potential for a true IMAX release of a classic Academy ratio movie like "The Wizard of Oz" or "Gone With the Wind", but only if they could make the release prints from the original three-strip separation negatives. Going directly from those black-and-white negatives to an enormous color IMAX print would be well worth buying a premium price ticket. If the IMAX is struck from a later color internegative you'd just be looking at football-sized blobs of grain swimming across the screen.
If the MaxiVision camera runs at twice the speed of regular (48 vs. 24) it's going to take 100% more film, not 50% more. Two times the film, twice as much. 36 fps would take 50% more.
But to the point, this discussion is all just the sensation part of filmmaking. They would get a better bang for the sensation buck by building an actual rollercoaster in the parking lot.
I recommend keeping production values as they are and spending all the extra money on the screenplays.
Ebert: So it would seem, but Maxivision reallocates the available real estate on a frame of film by using the parts above and below the visible image, and dropping the analog sound track. AS an editor, Goodhill was struck by how much of the negative area the picture was not using.
Ah, what a topic. I have always been extra sensitive to film presentation in theaters and I often end up looking like a snob. My goal is simply to see a film the way it was intended by the cinematographer! A dim or blurry film can completely change the experience for me, which is why it is so much easier for me to wait for Blu-ray these days. Sorry Roger, I know you've said that if a film is worth seeing, it is worth seeing in a theater. Not these days. This 3D mess is only pushing me away more. I can avoid the Monsters Vs. Aliens crap, but it's more troublesome when studios with high standards in filmmaking, like Pixar, jump on the 3D band wagon. I feel that making a film in 3D forces the filmmakers to compromise in some ways in order to exploit the gimmick. The wonderful Ratatouille and Wall-E used techniques to match the look of film. That's sort of out the window now. No matter how close to the foreground something is, it's gotta be sharp. It's maybe easier to accept 3D for what I consider experimental films, like Zemeckis' stuff, or the upcoming Avatar.
70mm has been brought up a lot. Boy, what an experience that is! Greatest film experience for me was seeing Lawrence of Arabia (for the first time about 7 years ago) projected in 70mm at New York's amazing Ziegfeld theater. Saw it twice, will never forget what it was like to see a film in a theater that takes great care in presenting a film as it was originally intended. A rarity for sure, even in New York.
I saw The Dark Knight at an IMAX theater last year. The most awe inspiring part of seeing that film on a huge screen was not the stunts and chases but the Joker's scarred visage. The scope made me appreciate Heath Ledger's performance even more.
i think the biggest problem is that the imax itself is located only at a few locations, like only 1 in phoenix (technically tempe)and they offer no matinee or student pricing...so by doing what theyre doing now people just hear the name imax and go oh! ehy i can finally see a movie in imax in my local cineplex! not realizing what they are missing...also imax movies are very synonymous with pbs/ discovery channel type shows...as awesome as they are thats still is a small viewing audience...does this forgive them for the "new imax"? no it doesnt...that says more about our lack of knowledge than anything else...sigh...
I've been to the fake IMAX screens popping up all over America. The screens are much smaller than real IMAX, obviously - but they are noticably larger than conventional screens.
That said, the aspect ratio is the same as most theatres. It reminded me of 70MM presentations in days of yore. It's not IMAX, but it is great. So, does anyone know whether it is possible to have a screen that size and show regular 35MM movies?
Because if it was, why couldn't more cinemas have screens that large?
I've read about the cine Capri in Phoenix and have seen advertisements for "Giant Screen" presentations at Edwards Cinemas in California. Are they comparable?
Hi Roger,
A few years ago I took my kids into Hollywood to the Cinerama Dome so they could see "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World" presented in Ultra Panavision 70mm. After the wonderful overture and the dramatic dimming of the house lights, you could see the black outline of the 70mm frame on the curtains, and then they began to open and open and open. To see the look of awe on my kids face was worth every penny.
In fact my daughter uttered a very loud "Holy Crap" when the film finally faded in, and people started applauding. When was the last time you heard anyone applaud the opening of a film? This is what's wrong with the movies today - there is no awe, no showmanship, no craft. The only sound studio exec are wanting to hear is "ka-ching".
Some films would lose a lot without jiggle. Russ Meyer's, for instance!
An IMAX theater in New York State's capital district was long in discussion, would Albany get it or Schenectady? Albany, ultimately, but it turned out to be one of the LIEMAX ones (love that name). There's a recorded audio introduction before every screening from a local media personality raving about IMAX, followed by a silly IMAX introduction "optimizing image... optimizing audio..." which was made more silly by the fact that the first time I saw it there was no picture at all. They had some kind of technical problem and were very slow to realize it (well into the first trailer), and when they did they told us they had no idea how long it would take to fix, and if we left we could get our money back, "maybe." I see no reason to be paying extra for fake IMAX. I would not be sorry to see it die out.
It does strike me as false advertising. Incidentally, I wonder why it's legal in our country to call horseradish "wasabi"? That irritates me too.
The first time I ever saw Hayao Miyazaki's "Princess Mononoke" was on a beat-up VHS tape on a groaning player with a blurred-on-the-edges 13 inch color tv. It was the most immersive film experience of my life. Technology is great, important even, but content is everything.
Gelati are rich, delicious Italian ice creams. So when Rita's mixes water ice with frozen custard and calls it gelati, you bet that makes me angry.
Could the essence of 3D be expressed more concisely or more completely than in the brief scene in de Toth's "House of Wax" with a carnival barker (or rather a House of Wax barker) batting a rubber ball at the camera with a paddle?
Ebert: An effect that has been repeated in other 3D films, to put it mildly.
Dear Roger,
How are you doing?
Didn't SCTV have some 3D cooking show, where the chef had a really long knife that kept zooming out at the viewer, until it hit and cracked the camera lens? Might have been SNL, but I think it was SCTV. I couldn't find it on YouTube.
Requisite post-UP-in-2D-viewing comments: So, when "Up" began, I wanted to try to figure out what would have been enhanced by 3D. And, as is to be expected, the film pulled me in so quickly that I forgot to look for anything except for "what happens next." Meaning, UP was A W E S O M E.
So, you've probably already mentioned this point many times, but at the end of the day, what matters is that the technique -- 3D or IMAX or Smell-o-Vision -- enhance the film, not distract from it. Otherwise, it's just a gimmick. Thus, for these techniques to be effective, they would usually have to be subtle; they would have to act in service of the story, not despite it.
My point here is not to state the obvious, but to state that now that I've seen Up in 2D, I realize that I do want to see it in 3D. I so thoroughly enjoyed that movie, that I'm not expecting the 3D to offer much. Rather, I'm hoping the 3D can help me notice some things that I didn't appreciate before.
So, I'm asking: beyond the dimmed picture and uncomfortable glasses, what are your thoughts on seeing a movie in 3D in follow-up viewings? Not the initial viewing, but in follow-up viewings.
I hope all is well.
Omer M
Ebert: I think it's a perfectly logical idea. Everyone should arrive at a personal decision.
I don't care if a movie is on a 50-foot screen or on an I-Pod. If a movie sucks, then the size and sound of the screen doesn't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world… …Nobody's perfect, but frankly my dear, I don't give a damn when it comes to corporations using the force to pull a saddle over our eyes and con us out of our hard earned money… Do you know what an I-Max ticket costs in Amsterdam?... Too damn much, that's how much.
When I was a kid, I-MAX was really cool. When a car moved, or when a bird's eye view flies over the horizon you can be sure that you felt it. You were on a roller-coaster ride. However, now that I'm an adult the size of the screen itself doesn't make that much of an impact (when you put on 3-D glasses the size of the screen looks the same as a multiplex). Even when I first saw "The Dark Knight" on I-MAX, the clarity and sound and size was thrilling at points to be sure. However, in the back of my mind I knew I was simply watching a blown-up image of the original aspect ratio. It didn't totally blow me away like the parting of the red seas, but I suppose I'm being too picky.
I'm beginning to understand that the corporations are simply plugging the sound quality and crystal-clear images that the I-MAX camera produces over the actual size of the screens themselves. My prediction is that in the future when most middle income families find it necessary to have a 50 inch television, their trips to the theater will slowly diminish (having the government spend billions on a stupid digital conversion ad-campaign when they could be curing AIDS or feeding hungry children does make you wonder).
I miss being a kid. I relish the feeling of being in a nice theater, with a nice 'grain-filled' projector. Full of film texture and ample sound (slightly dark even in light capacity--so as not to make it look like a stupid blown-up DVD like those damn digital projectors). There's something truly romantic about that experience. Nowadays its all about I-Max, the next fancy gimmick, the next special effect, the next commercial or that blasted 3-D nonsense. Drive in movies used to be fun too, but those are slowly diminishing across the country. But I suppose when there's no reason to drive cars for fun nowadays and the economy is in shambles and when the High School kids of today think they're smarter than your average stockbroker of the 80s with their portable phones and blackberries then what's the use? Which brings me to my point: These realities are simply the movie industry's way of trying to cover up the fact the movies are simply not that good anymore. I still have hope that the perfect blockbuster or drama has yet to be made but as a society we are quite a long way from a new revolution in cinema (much like the 70s was a revolution in storytelling). We are currently stuck in the CGI-filled, drive audiences in like cattle, overcharging candy/lame story execution type of culture. Our movies are mostly remakes, sequels, prequels, spin-offs or spoofs. Most have bad actors, the era of the star is slowly coming to an end. There will still be a need for stars, but its high time the storytellers presented us with credible characters we can relate to. Human beings no less. I suppose for this reason theater and literature will still find life. Movies are a very young pastime after all but a great one.
What makes movies work of course is not just the technology and spectacle but also how they make us feel connected to humanity itself. In the greatest and most thrilling of stories, we see reflections of our lives played out on the big screen. We thrill to the human adventure and we learn something as a result. Jaws, Close Encounters, E.T., Indiana Jones, Star Wars are all examples of high concept pictures that still remember the old Hollywood sensibilities of good-old-fashioned storytelling (most of those titles involved just two influential storytellers—talk about rare commodities!). And yet, in any era of storytelling from the dawn of Shakespeare up to now, can you recall a more sad state of the storytelling process than our most current movie culture? It seems to evolve more and more into a money making scheme and less and less as an entertainment and artistic outlet (which is what it should be first and foremost). Then again, maybe everything was like that to begin with.
Perhaps its not the movies that suffer but instead the audiences that are suffering? Are audiences becoming less and less sophisticated, more cynical more distracted?... Well, not really; I don't really think so. I think one of the main problems is this idea that Hollywood has to recruit so many millions of viewers for movies that they might not even care about. What we get is a bunch of crying babies going to see “Terminator Salvation” when they should be at home taking a nap watching Teletubby re-runs. It seems to me that parents have become a little dumber too. They think that movies theaters are an emotionally detached day care center rather than a shared family experience. There’s nothing wrong with bringing your kids to the movies, just make sure that you actually want to take them. Mom and Dads deserve a night out too, sometimes its best to get a sitter or just wait till your kids are old enough to enjoy the films. But again, I understand that life is ever so complicated. The movies are often an idealized version of who we are and what we can be. Adventure stories that whisk us off to another place in the imagination. In real life that is often not the case, however, this doesn’t mean we should stop going.
I recently attended a screening of Disney Pixar’s “Up” (In 2-D no less). It was quite wonderful. I noticed that the Parents who took their children initially had no desire to be there. However, once the movie got going and they realized that it was really more for grown-ups than for children; the parents not only found their kids falling asleep but they remembered how going to the movies could be so much fun in the first place (all the kids laughed when the bird and dog showed up). Perhaps I'm being too critical about this but much of this rings true for the most part in today's movie-going culture. Remember when families saw movies together? Instead now we get these twenty something’s who don't know jack shit about cinema who bring their new born babies to see "State of Play", thinking they'll shut up. Bring them to Monsters v. Aliens or G-Force... Again, no offense. I'm not talking about every person here, just isolated and frequent cases (maybe I should move to a new neighborhood where they have nicer theaters—I don’t think it would make much difference).
I'm sure many people believe that what I’m saying is utter nonsense and self-indulgent boo-hooey but it matters to people who want to see the arts survive well into the next century. I hope that we don't become drones eager for the next fix, instead of listening, learning, hearing and smelling the flowers around us. The arts reflect our cultural subconscious and our cultural subconscious in turn reflects the art we create. Let's try to create some good stories for the future instead of squandering in misery and cynical commerce. Yeah, that'll be the day... I've seen the movie "Network".
I have a question: Just how the heck do all those theater chains get so many copies of the can-of-film to so many multiplexes so damn fast? I've always wondered that? Are they actually delivering reels of film on trucks or is it another method altogether? I heard that when Peter Jackson delivered The Return of the King they barely made the release date within hours. How the hell did every theater in the world screen the film on the same day?
Ebert: They've been delivering the cans for a century, so they have practice.
Digital is cheaper and faster. This will be a decision driven by only one consideration: Cost.
Anybody catch this report from the Times? Looks like Hollywood is being won over by IMax.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/01/business/media/01imax.html
The company CEO rules out any qualms about "new IMax".
Mr. Gelfond said Imax had hired a consumer research firm to study whether consumers truly were concerned about the bigger-yet-smaller screens. Over all, he dismisses the complaint. “The blogger point of view on this is the minority one,” he said. “With transition comes change, and some people embrace it and other people feel uneasy about it.”
Ebert: Nobody is opposed to improving the mutiplex viewing experience, which is often disappointing. IMAX however has made the marketing mistake of devaluing its core trademark. They should have started with a positive spin, trumpeting "NewMAX," instead of deciding to baity-and-switch.
IMAX has another problem coming down the pike. Their expensive new projectors are already obsolete. Steve Kraus, he learned Chicago projection expert (Lake Street Screening Room), informs me:
Four times better. And what a short time since 2K was state of the art! Since IMAX uses two projectors at the same time, 4K would cost them a fortune. Or, by using one, they'd still get twice the resolution.
I vividly remember when I watched IMAX movie with my mother in 1989. 63 building(the tallest building in Seoul) has big IMAX theater, and we had a great time in there. IMAX movies were usually big version of National Geographic documentary, and it was about Hawaii. It was awesome to see volcanoes, plants, and animals.
Last year, I went to IMAX screening room of some multiplex in Seoul for watching "Dark Knight". I was immediately disappointed because the screen was far smaller than IMAX theater at 63 building. I still enjoyed watching "Dark Knight", but I felt cheated. I agree with your criticism of these small IMAX theaters. It is not so different from big screening rooms in my town.
In case of the word "digital", I can't help but think about placebo effect. Okay, I have chosen "digital version" whenever there are two versions shown in the multiplex. However, I have not noticed any big difference except in case of "WALL-E". Nevertheless, I find myself choosing "digital version". It's the magic word, isn't it? Well, at least, ticket costs same as film version.
I read your article about Maxivision in "Awake in the Dark", and have some interest in it. However, I bet nobody is interested in Maxivision in Korea. They do not listen to your argument for years, so what do I expect here? Audience are behaving well(it's usually very quiet), but multiplex theaters do not even fix screen ratio problem sometimes. And they are also following 3D trend. "Coraline" was nice with 3D, but I like 2D more. I'm going to watch 2D and 3D versions of "Ice Age 3" and "Up" for my personal reviews, but I'm tired of this 3D trend. As Peter Travers said, the dimensions that count are in the movie's mind and heart
P.S.
1. Finally I watched "Mother" by Joon-ho Bong(that movie about a mother defending her dim-witted son against a murder charge). Watching Hye-ja Kim, I thought Brenda Blethyn or Imelda Staunton or Melissa Leo will be good choice for the remake(but I don't want it). I read the interview with the director from movie magazine, and he said western critics may not understand well that shaky last sequence. How about you?
2. One interesting experience with subtitled movies. I showed my family "House of Games". You probably remember card game sequence at house of games, and my father saw through their scheme very quickly. And he was inebriated a little.
Ebert: I believe I understood it. Unless of course he intended to imply something more.
Wow, I didn't realize that there are alot of these so-called "IMAX" theaters going up all over. I recently had an experience at one of these IMAX theaters. The seating was completely different than any IMAX theater I had been to in the past. Yeah the screen was much larger than a normal screen but because the seating was so spaced out from it, the experience did not feel at all like an "IMAX experience". 16 bucks for a ticket to see a movie on a really big screen. I definately felt ripped off. I completely agree that these new types of "IMAX" set ups need to be identified in some way so people know what they are getting when they buy the tickets.
280 a month!? seriously!? Can I lease one for my local art house (the KY Theatre)? I figure I lease it for them, I get free movies for life-- it's a win win.
Hey, this got mentioned in the New York Times as part of a larger article about how IMAX have turned themselves into a success via going into multiplexes.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/01/business/media/01imax.html?th&emc=th
We're doomed.
Roger,
There was an earlier post by "Jana" regarding her confusion about the fact that IMAX has been part of her local multiplex for years.
I am from Toronto and there are at least 2 "multiplexes" that do indeed have the "IMAX Classic" format. As you correctly noted these particular multiplexes are larger than some other multiplexes in order to accomodate the larger screen.
Having said this, in an era of megamalls, I can easily understand how a customer purchasing a ticket for IMAX Lite could mistakenly believe/assume the multiplex he/she is entering is large enough to accomodate an IMAX Classic screen.
The fact that there are other multiplexes out there that do have the traditional screens makes IMAX's marketing of their new theatres all the more disingenuous.
Maxivision sounds like a first cousin to Douglas Trumbull's Showscan, a 60 fps 70mm process that he has apparently forsaken in lieu of designing interactive theme park rides. I saw Showscan years ago -- and this may account for why it never caught on -- by paying the kid at a Showbiz Pizza place in Virginia to run it for me in the basement theatre where the two companies had a tie-in. The effect was as stunning as I imagine "This is Cinerama" was to audiences in 1952. Alas, IMAX has been sullied by its promoters. I stopped reviewing them decades ago when they insisted on showing IMAX movies in OMNIMAX houses, stretching a 3x4 image across an elliptical screen. I still cringe at watching their film on the history of the Grand Canyon and having a Native American's fifty-foot-wide butt squat in front of me. At least Panavision had the honorable idea: a "Panavision" movie is in the company's anamorphic process; if not, it is "made with Panavision equipment." Heads up, IMAX.
By Omer M. Mozaffar on June 1, 2009 1:42 AM: "Didn't SCTV have some 3D cooking show ..."
I remember two SCTV 3D movies: Dr. Tongue's 3D House of Stewardesses (with Woody Tobias, Jr.) and Tip O'Neill's 3D House of Representatives--oh, that pen coming at you, ready to turn a bill into a law! Scary business, boys and girls!
Me, I still want my Cinerama.
Thank you for this information. I went to see The Dark Knight on opening weekend in an IMAX theater built in the 70's in Spokane, Washington. My breath was completely taken away by the opening IMAX shots, and I even had a sense of vertigo from the amazing shots of Hong Kong ("Gotham"). Shortly after I moved to New York and forced my girlfriend to go see the movie with me at a Loew's IMAX. I must say the aforementioned scene was a completely underwhelming experience in this theater.
Since then I have been to see a few blockbusters in the Fake IMAX, notably Star Trek. While I don't mind shelling out a few extra dollars for this experience once in awhile, I can guarantee you that it is my no means a selling point any longer.
I find it rather pathetic that technology from the 70's still seems to outshine what we are seeing in the theaters these days. Sadly, this seems like business as usual in America these days. Sell an inferior product and focus on the branding.
It's a good thing innovation isn't so stifled in the consumer electronics area - where I can not get a theater like experience for a fraction of the price.
For what it's worth, if multiplexes were responsible with their prints (not plattering prints, staffing more than a single projectionist for twelve screens) and maintained their equiptment adequately prints wouldn't be ruined. I run film at an art house in Chicago and we play our prints about 18 times in a week long run, 99.9% of the time they're shipped back in the same condition they came in. I have prints in my private collection that are about 70 years old, and they still run fine and look amazing. Any prints made today will essentially last forever because they're printed on polyester stock.
Shipping film is good for the economy: fedex has to pay their employees somehow. It costs between $50 and $150 to ship a 35mm print two way, shipping maxivision prints would be $200 max. That's 20 tickets - not a big deal.
35mm presentations handled by projectionists who actually care about presentation are already perfect, I can only imagine how mouthwatering Maxivision would be.
Personally, I wouldn't mind if all multiplexes went digital if studios would start striking 35mm prints for rep. houses again, which are suffering extensive blows across the country as American film culture is dying. Nobody wants to see a digital projection of North by Northwest. Digital projection is like AstroTurf, swell for people who don't mind a total lack of substance though.
Obviously, there is substantial savings in shipping costs with digital compared to 35mm or IMAX prints, and I can tell you that once a digital master has been created, the cost of making duplicates is nominal compared to manufacturing multiple film prints. Eventually, there will be no shipping costs at all because theaters will simply download from a satellite. Unfortunately those are some of the reasons the studios and theaters are moving (rapidly) toward D-Cinema (IMAX as well), even though in doing so they open themselves up even more to the potential for piracy, thus the industry eats itself.
So I finally saw "X-Men Origins: Wolverine" last night. It was an R5 release and fell off the back of a truck called the Internet. :)
I live in British Columbia where some of the film was shot, and for that reason was curious enough to check it out. But here's the thing, according to the list of filming locations, they shot at "Hatley Castle" - part of the Hatley Park National Historic Site located 25 miles west of Victoria, on Vancouver Island (it serves as the Xavier Institute for Higher Learning and also Lex Luthor's estate on Smallville) and at the University of British Columbia, in Vancouver. Re-shoots were done at the Vancouver Film Studios. Everything else was either Australia or New Zealand.
WHAT?!
Are you telling me those "weren't the Canadian Rockies? And that "wasn't" the rural interior of British Columbia? And you "weren't" logging BC trees in that shot? That instead, you were passing off New Zealand as CANADA?! How lame is that!
Oh don't get me wrong, New Zealand looks cool and "Crowded House" is one of my favorite bands but jeeesh! That's why I bothered to watch the stupid film in the first place - to see British Columbia. And it was incredibly stupid; I can't believe it's made
$300 million world wide to date. Talk about a massive brain fart.
Someone submitted a letter recently to Roger wherein they grumbled that he doesn't appreciate Video Games in the wake of a comment taken from his review of "Terminator Salvation" -
"It gives you all the pleasure of a video game without the bother of having to play it." - Roger
That's EXACTLY what I was thinking while watching X-Men Origins. I could see the video game! Go here, kill this guy, blow that up (insert cut-scene alluding to character/plot development) resume game play, repeat.
Also, and I'm probably overreaching, but the Watchmen was shot in Vancouver around the same time. Did someone from that set talk to someone on the other set while hunched over a beer, maybe? Is that why X-men Origins also incorporates a like-minded sequence wherein they supply a quick back story for the brothers via the film's "opening credits"? Or did they simply rip it off in Post, after seeing how the other guys had used it?
Either way, it paints the pathology of Liev Schreiber's character "Victor Creed aka Sabretooth" in such broad strokes that he was little more than a cartoon of a psychotic/would-be rapist/homicidal maniac aka mad dog. Making Logan's reaction all the more ludicrous - what, you've got principles dude, but blood is thicker than water? Ie: he didn't immediately cut him loose after Nam and part company. Okay dokie.
Seriously - how could anyone release this film thinking it was good?! There's no story, the plot's retarded, the characters don't engage you, and the super-cheesy hamfisted overhead shot of Logan screaming in "over-wrought emotional pain" because he believes his wife has died, pretty much seals it.
This film sucks and blows at the same time.
Chuckle! You have to laugh - what else can you do with it, eh?
So much has been said lately of technology and its latest inroads into Film; from advanced CGI and digital to 3D and now IMAX-lite. I honestly don't care at the end of the day HOW you do it - as long as the film doesn't suck, you know? As a 35mm print doesn't make a bad film better anymore than digital does, eh? I wish Hollywood would focus first and foremost on telling a story well - which means having to think beyond demographics and cliched stereotypes; pandering to which amounts to a movie version of a trip to McDonalds.
And I don't think it's too much to ask for Steak n Shake, instead. :)
Meanwhile, I also saw Steven Soderbergh's new film "The Girlfriend Experience" - five eventful days in the life of a call girl as she negotiates her love life and the ups and downs of her career in the midst of 2008's economic meltdown. And at least that's trying to be about something and ironically, not sex; quite the opposite. And I liked your review of it Roger - I thought it was very observant and insightful; you saw beneath the surface of things. But good luck checking out Sasha Grey's "previous" film work, although this might be interesting: a porn parody of Star Trek, in which Grey plays the requisite sexy Vulcan, is supposedly due out soon. :)
A person has a right to choose his or her own path and clearly, she's not clueless about the nature of it all. Ie: if this is what Grey wants to do; live and let live. But me? I think she's emotionally detached (in a way I wouldn't want to be) from the part of herself she's selling (re: adult films) and that's why it doesn't feel like she's pimping herself out or engaging in acts of self-degradation, for it being consensual. And it's also what Soderbergh's caught on film - Sasha Grey herself. Not just the character she was hired to play aka Chelsea.
And how ironic! You hire the thing you're partly trying to comment upon in order to help you show it, eh? The buying and selling of people as things.
"These men don't want a girlfriend experience. They want a boyfriend experience. They want to feel as if they're on a date. They will be listened to. Their amazing comments will be smiled at. Their hair will be tousled. They will be kidded. They have told Chelsea about their wives and children, and she remembers their names. They can kiss her. There is no illusion that they are leaving their wives, and none that she wants them to. She simply empowers them to feel younger, more looked up to, more clever, than they are.
What draws a powerful man to pay for a women outside of marriage? It's not the sex. In fact, sex is the beard, if you know what I mean. By paying money for the excuse of sex, they don't have to say: I am lonely. I am fearful. I am growing older. I am not loved. My wife is bored with me. I can't talk to my children. I'm worried about my job, which means nothing to me. Above all, they are saying: Pretend you like me." - from Roger's excellent review
Ie: as long as I end up feeling what I need to, I won't care if it's all a lie, Chelsea.
Which, when come to think of it, is akin to using technology and all its bells and whistles to get you into a theater so can enjoy "the movie-going experience".
There's nothing there. It's all a lie. But if you buy into it, if believe in what X-Men Origins and Terminator Salvation aka "Chelsea" is selling, then we the Studios promise: you're going to like what you've convinced yourself was "a really good time" at the movies.
I suppose we should be grateful it's not $2,000 a ticket, eh? :)
Ebert: Sasha Grey has made about 160 porn films. What I don't understand is why that many porn films even exist. Few things are less attractive to me than the obligatory "money shot." Orgasm and ejaculation are interior, not visible experiences.
Russ Meyer, who never shot a hard core scene in his life and made more money from X-rated films than anybody else, used to rumble, "from a visual point of view there's nothing going on down there. If it's performed correctly, there should be nothing to shoot, and no comfortable position from which to be shot. Breasts on a woman are like the petals on a flower--a lure to aid fertilization."
Sadly, the real elephant in the corner is that no one in the exhibition business cares about the quality of exhibition. I upgrade my home equipment more often (and with better results) than any local theater. Maybe this is because we pay BEFORE we see a movie, instead of after (as in a good restaurant). It is pretty hard to get a refund or pass after you've sat through a poor presentation. And since the projection booths are unstaffed, the burden is on the viewer to insist to the teenage ushers that the focus is off--and they just can't see it.
Another theory is that the multiplexes are really in the refreshment business, as the studios take most of the ticket income. Exhibiting the movie is secondary to theaters. (The sad fact that their refreshments are also awful means they are competent at neither.)
To the IMAX point, I always saw the IMAX experience as more than just image and sound quality. It was presented in a nicely tiered theater that did not serve refreshments. No sticky floors or crunching sounds next to you. It was all about the best possible movie experience. Someone even came out and made an announcement about no one leaving the theater and being sure to turn cell phones off. It was a class act and well worth it.
"Obviously, there is substantial savings in shipping costs with digital compared to 35mm or IMAX prints, and I can tell you that once a digital master has been created, the cost of making duplicates is nominal compared to manufacturing multiple film prints. Eventually, there will be no shipping costs at all because theaters will simply download from a satellite. Unfortunately those are some of the reasons the studios and theaters are moving (rapidly) toward D-Cinema (IMAX as well), even though in doing so they open themselves up even more to the potential for piracy, thus the industry eats itself."
But all this digital garbage is going to end up hurting the economy. The MORE films are stuck, shipped, and projected, the cheaper that (superior)technology becomes. If everyone took presentation and film and art in general as seriously as they should, there wouldn't be a problem. Speaking of proven technologies, cutting corners never gets good results, especially when those corners are essential.
Ebert wrote: "Sasha Grey has made about 160 porn films. What I don't understand is why that many porn films even exist. Few things are less attractive to me than the obligatory "money shot." Orgasm and ejaculation are interior, not visible experiences."
I agree. I've seen my share of adult movies (I was very curious in my 20's) and again to each his own, but from my perspective it's about as exciting as watching someone go to the bathroom or blow their nose. It reduces it to a mere bodily function, in other words. And it's kinda icky.
My friends and I have a theory about Porn and why so much gets made. Namely, most men would rather see sex as "an act taking place so as to project themselves into the scene - that's me, I'm that guy" whereas women prefer to "imagine it for themselves inside their heads" so they can custom tailor the experience to their liking. And to the extent there's a LOT of porn out there, it's matched if not dwarfed by romance novels and bodice rippers.
Mr. Darcy from "Lost in Austen"? Porn for girls. :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfPmwtOOUOs
Some of us like adult movies too, but more so as an exception to the rule. Besides, it's WAY more fun to watch Judy Davis and Sam Neill in "My Brilliant Career" having their now infamous pillow fight! (It's a metaphor for sex.) It's also an Australia film from 1979 available on DVD. It won 6 Australian Oscars.
"Russ Meyer, who never shot a hard core scene in his life and made more money from X-rated films than anybody else, used to rumble, "from a visual point of view there's nothing going on down there. If it's performed correctly, there should be nothing to shoot, and no comfortable position from which to be shot. Breasts on a woman are like the petals on a flower--a lure to aid fertilization."
Ahh, Russ Meyer. The bigger the breasts the better, eh? :)
I known a lot of women are offended by his films and while I'm all about supporting the sisterhood and attending the monthly meetings 'round the cauldron (grin) I was born in 1964; by the time I got to see them, I was in my mid-20's and they were totally dated at that point and cartoonish. "Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!" in particular is hilarious!
"Narrator: [opening narration] Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to violence, the word and the act. While violence cloaks itself in a plethora of disguises, its favorite mantle still remains... sex. Violence devours all it touches, its voracious appetite rarely fulfilled. Yet violence doesn't only destroy, it creates and molds as well. Let's examine closely then this dangerously evil creation, this new breed encased and contained within the supple skin of woman. The softness is there, the unmistakable smell of female, the surface shiny and silken, the body yielding yet wanton. But a word of caution: handle with care and don't drop your guard. This rapacious new breed prowls both alone and in packs, operating at any level, any time, anywhere, and with anybody. Who are they? One might be your secretary, your doctor's receptionist... or a dancer in a go-go club!" - IMDB
That's right, dudes! So keep your eyes open - your mom's friends could be lurking behind a tree just waiting to pounce like cougars! Chuckle!
They say sex starts in the brain and I think that's true. And because I do, why I think a lot of men are actually missing out for cheating themselves of an even richer experience.
Oh well, at least I've got Mr. Darcy in the lake. :)
Ebert: Of course they were intended to be hilarious.
You aware, I'm sure, that John Waters described "Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!" as "the best film that has ever been made, and ever will be made." Tarantino is remaking it.
Hi, Roger,
Insightful blog entry, as always -- but a slight correction to a comment you made about Aziz Ansari. His rant against the "Fake IMAX" actually did start on Twitter on May 11. The following day he wrote up the blog entry that was picked up by various media.
And while he may not have been as eloquent as you in discussing his concerns, he raised enough of a stink to warrant a weasel-phrased response from IMAX's CEO pretty darned quick.
The more criticism of this deceptive practice the more likely it is to be changed. Trying to squeeze a fairly substantive premium (30-40%!) from consumers-- particularly when ticket prices are already high-- for a slightly larger screen while still calling it "Image MAXimum" is just disingenuous.
Ebert wrote: "Of course they were intended to be hilarious.
You're aware, I'm sure, that John Waters described "Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!" as "the best film that has ever been made, and ever will be made." Tarantino is remaking it."
Yup!
And I eagerly look forward to Tarantino's remake! All I ask is that as in the original film, Quentin allows the girls to wear "sensible footwear" if he sets them in the desert; yes, I noticed that. As otherwise, it'll totally ruin it for me; chuckle!
Note: I live on the sloping base of a mountain on the edge of a temperate rain forest - proper footwear is a sign of intelligence, not morality...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T86YAN2T-hs
I'll never match Tarantino's vast and extensive knowledge of film for want of having worked in a video store, chuckle, but thanks to many a long and dreary Canadian winter, I've seen a lot of films over the years.
Remember "Serial Mom" by Waters? I loved that one!
"Behind her genteel facade, Baltimore housewife Beverly Sutphin (Kathleen Turner) is really a sociopathic serial killer, cheerfully decimating those whom she deems a threat to her traditional family values. However, after the police finally expose her heinous crimes, she finds herself thrust into the spotlight and becomes an unwitting celebrity." - Wiki
Not that I'm a closet serial killer looking to live vicariously through film characters, you understand. I just get so tired of seeing the same female characters over and over again; same goes for men, they're stuck in a rut, too. It's too easy to see how everything's going to play itself out; been there, done that, you know? Especially given how Hollywood tends to cast people.
No imagination.
As for the remake of "Faster Pussycat, Kill, Kill" - the last I heard, Quentin was rumored to be considering porn star "Tera Patrick" for the lead, as she's a dead ringer for Tura Satana.
P.S. I just received this in an e-mail from my friend and fellow coven member Cheryl, who read your comment:
"btw, the only reason I can think of for the obligatory and icky money shot, is to prove that the sex is real. Well everybody knows that by now, so why is it still in every porn film? It just seems so retrograde and obvious to be, and unnecessary to me." - Cheryl
See? Even girls wonder about it, Roger. :)
Roger,
The IMAX website quotes you here:
"As the average American movie screen grows smaller and smaller, as palaces are phased out for multiplexes, why isn't IMAX the natural home for the great Hollywood epics?"
- Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times
Source: http://www.imax.com/vancouver/theatreinformation/imaxexperience.htm
A previous commentor has said that the SilverCity IMAX in Richmond, BC, is a Liemax. This is incorrect. All the IMAX theaters in Greater Vancouver area are genuine large screens.
1. Langley, Famous Players IMAX Theatre, The Colossus
2. Richmond, Famous Players IMAX Theatre, Silver City
3. Vancouver, Alcan OMNIMAX Theatre, Science World at Telus World of Science (DOME IMAX)
4. Vancouver, CN IMAX Theatre, Canada Place - (the first permanent IMAX 3D theatre in the world)
Victor in Vancouver
I sincerely hope this is an ill-fated move in brand dilution.
What motivated this dumbing down of the brand? Simply, the owners of IMAX set financial targets to achieve which were not feasible without retro-fitting existing theaters and compromising on the original IMAX concept. Building dedicated IMAX theaters was cost-prohibitive and would take too long to achieve the targets set by ownership. Typically, IMAX theaters need to be built in high population centers to make it worth while. By nature, these cities with sufficient density also tend to have expensive real estate. Expansion by ala carte construction is hence, not feasible.
Plan B was to graft on IMAX to existing theaters. IMAX lobbied theater owners to install the digital IMAX format by telling them they could charge more per ticket.
With only IMAX originated programming which is by nature, slow, tedious and expensive (the very things which make IMAX great), people were not revisiting IMAX theaters frequently enough to make it pay. Enter DMR aka Digital Remastering (or upconverting) Hollywood movies to IMAX display format. IMAX would benefit from selling digital copies of Hollywood DMR movies and regular IMAX programming. That way DMR licensed movies and regular IMAX acquired programming would provide sufficient content to feed the display chain. People would go more frequently to IMAX theaters. The theaters get to upcharge per ticket, and make more money with concession sales inspite of North American obesity levels and everyone is happy. IMAX could co-exist with Hollywood and theater owners in a symbiotic way.
However, IMAX isn't just an acquisition and display format, it is also a visual and auditory standard. The auditory standard can be achieved by upgrading the audio equipment. I am less sure about the visual standard. The digital IMAX theaters don't have the screen aspect ratio of the genuine IMAX theaters.
Here's the easiest way to tell. When you walk into an IMAX theater, look at the blank white screen. If it looks more like a square than a rectangle and towers over you by several stories, its the real thing. If it looks like a rectangle and doesn't tower over you by several stories, walk out and ask for your money back.
Like Esau in the Bible story, IMAX has sold out long term gain for short term profit. IMAX's birthright of "Image Maximum" has been exchanged for brand proliferation. Only time will tell if this is sufficient for IMAX to survive.
The retro-fitted
Hey Roger;
I wrote the name of a well-known porn star re: rumored casting for Tarantino's remake of "Faster Pussycat, Kill, Kill" in my reply to you, and I while don't think that should be a problem with the spam filter, if you don't see my new post by 9:30 pm Chicago time, check your spam folder! :)
Meanwhile, I'm still waiting to hear back from your techie dudes.
Assuming of course, they even received my e-mail? What if the spam filter blocked it - for knowing what I'm up to?! GASP. Not that I'm paranoid. I'm sure it's not actually sentient and malevolent.
Although that would explain a great deal. :)
I saw UP on the weekend, I tried to see it in good old 2d but out of 3 different multiplexes in town none were showing the 2d version - even when the screen was the smallest one they had! So I paid the extra $5 at the best screen in town to see it in 'real 3d'. Enjoyed it a lot, but really the movie didn't benefit from the 3d experience. It wasn't produced in 3d for one thing, so the director's vision was in 2d. Also I noticed many times in the background characters had the 'halo effect' of watching 3d without the glasses - due to unfinished processing or just a drawback to the real 3d process I don't know. All I know is I would've appreciated the choice to see it the way it was meant to be seen. Adding 3d is like colorizing a black and white film - how would Steven Soderbergh react if studio bosses did that to 'The Good German' before release?
A while back I wrote a rant on the 'new IMAX' that my friend Joel reprinted at BoingBoing Gadgets:
http://gadgets.boingboing.net/2009/05/08/vfx-engineer-on-why.html
It goes in to depth on the resolution of film scans for visual effects work and shows how much less visual information you are getting with the new 'IMAX Lite.'
I wrote the rant before seeing Star Trek in 'IMAX', and since then, I have seen it projected in a real IMAX theater on a giant 76 foot screen, and to my amazement, projected on 70mm film. While this indeed meant that the screen was huge and the film was projected properly, it was still soft. Very soft. I could see the grain structures of the 70mm film vs that of the 35mm film it was sourced on. (pretty easy to see, really, the 35mm grain was twice as wide as it was tall as Star Trek was shot in Cscope.) And because it went through another optical generation to get to 70mm film, it was softer than the Cscope version I had seen projected before.
I am in total agreement with you about IMAX diluting its brand. I would love to see MaxiVision projected sometime, but I shudder a bit from a visual effects artist standpoint, as they will have twice as many frames to work on, but that will possibly be made less onerous by the reduced motion blur in each frame.
Dear Victor;
They're calling it the "IMAX Experience" at Riverport and Langley - but in reality, it's not the larger 5 story IMAX screen at Canada Place in downtown Vancouver.
Ie: it's IMAXlite. Bait and switch. They're just piggy-backing off the brand name to sucker folks into paying more for their ticket. True, it's somewhat bigger than the other screens but that doesn't mean you should be paying $20.00!
THIS is what they've done:
http://gizmodo.com/5250625/cineplexes-getting-imax-but-is-it-imax-or-conspiracy
And this is "Science World" in Vancouver, Roger - and the Skytrain, which you'll see periodically in Kansas aka "Smallville" ( smile.)
http://vancouverfurnishedsuites.com/images/attraction02-b.jpg
Science World has an OMNIMAX screen - the film projects onto the inside of that big ball. NOTE: you can watch 2 movies for $15.00 CAN! Ooo, and look at this Roger - there's currently a film at Science World all about Van Gogh's brushstrokes! I wish I could take you and Chaz, 'cause that looks super trippy, eh? And the film before it is all about Beavers; chuckle!
http://www.scienceworld.ca/exh_shows/omnimax/van-gogh.html
About the screen:
"The OMNIMAX Theatre seats 400 people. Its "DOME" screen is 27 metres in diameter. The theatre’s sound system uses high-fidelity, six-channel, two-way sound with sub-bass to create an unparalleled surround sound experience. Twenty-eight speakers are located in clusters behind the theatre’s screen. A 45-minute film requires about four kilometres of OMNIMAX film stock. The 15,000 watt xenon lamp that lights the screen is so bright that if you placed it on the surface of the moon and focused it at a spot on Earth, you could actually see its light."
Note: 1 kilometer = 0.62137 miles. I know, I know; I hate Metric too and I'm Canadian. :)
I wonder if the move to digital cinema as an end-to-end process, rather than just digital projection, might give something like Maxivision another chance. A camera and projector that can handle digital files at 24fps should be able to do the same at 48, or 72, right? And without film, there's less of an obvious cost disadvantage. Hard drives for storing the video are commodity items that double in size ever year.
Of course, then you lose film, but for action movies (which is where I really want to see high-frame-rate projection, because a lot of action seems to disappear between frames these days) that'd be acceptable.
Is actual film still being projected in any IMAX theater, even the real ones?
Dennis said: Could the essence of 3D be expressed more concisely or more completely than in the brief scene in de Toth's "House of Wax" with a carnival barker (or rather a House of Wax barker) batting a rubber ball at the camera with a paddle?
Hardly, in my opinion. The placement of the scene (the beginning of Part II) and the dialog Price delivers right after: "I hope you don't think I've gone too far hiring this fellow to bring people in [...] let's try it for a week or two and once we're established, we won't need that sort of thing." Clearly the filmmakers in the '50s weren't oblivious to the fact that the gimmicky stuff was to fall out of favor with the general public.
Mr. Ebert Said:And Maxivision does not scratch a print!
While the benefits and detriments of the Maxivision system have been discussed, I must chime in: projectors don't scratch prints, Mr. Ebert, bad operators do. You can have the best projector in the world and the worst operator and the print's still going to look like manure in the end.
One BIG advantage of films in IMAX theaters (even the "LIEMAX" ones) that nobody seems to have mentioned: no COMMERCIALS before the movie! No inane dancers singing about Fanta. And just one or two movie previews, not six or seven.
That's worth the extra $5 to me, even on a normal-sized screen.
Just to clarify the occasional highjacking, Coke was not changed to New Coke for the purpose of introducing High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) into Coke. The story goes that when Coca Cola decided to introduce a diet version of its flagship product they did not simply remove sugar and add artificial sweetener. They reformulated the product from the ground up and introduced it as "Diet Coke". It was very successful. They were losing market share to Pepsi (the whole Pepsi Challenge thing was taking its toll) and, ironically, even to their own Diet Coke and research showed that consumers preferred a sweeter product. Coca Cola decided to take the popular Diet Coke formula and sweeten it with HFCS and call it "New Coke". What they didn't take into account was the brand loyalty that kicked in. Coke had been part of people's lives for the better part of the century and the familiarity of Coke as an old friend trumped any alleged improvement in taste (which was just that it was sweeter, not really improved). So, Coke brought back the old formula as Coke Classic and quietly retired New Coke (A.K.A. Coke II). They also took the opportunity to convert 100% to HFCS, even though many of the bottlers had already been using HFCS even before New Coke came out. So, to sum up, Diet Coke was so popular that Coke mistakenly thought they could use the Diet Coke formula to revamp Coke and it failed. Coke did use the incident to convert entirely to HFCS, but that was a by-product, not the actual cause of the change. On a side note, Coke Zero is actually Coke Classic formula with artificial sweetener.
Leaving aside IMAX for the moment, I do agree with you about 3D. Even 3D that 'works' is a gimmick and nothing more. I find it distracting and annoying, even when watching a grade-z horror flick. Can you imagine trying to watch a great movie like 'The Godfather' in 3D?
Ebert: Since this particular blog has been linked all over everywhere, it's surprising that so few defenders of 3-D have come forward.
When SUPERMAN RETURNS hit cinemas I drove with eight people nearly two hours to see it in IMAX. When we arrived, we were stunned to find the screen was so small that it was smaller than numerous screens less than an hour from us. Hundreds of people had the same reaction, but we were stuck. We had no choice but to see it and it just didn't cut it. A week later I took the train into Manhattan and saw the film at a REAL IMAX theater and it was jaw dropping. This FAKE IMAX has got to be stopped. It is an abomination and a fraud.
IMAX
Stands for Image MAXimum. That is the company's logo. That is what the company was created for. To provide the very best theater presentation of filmed content - with the very best film format ever invented - 15/70mm. Anyone who has ever seen IMAX has experienced this. The real IMAX, with it's massive screen, steeply raked seats and bombastic sound system.
And what a shme that IMAX has decided to use their good name to dupe the public in an effort to raise their stock price. I believe the term is "selling out."
Calling this "new" digitally based presentation IMAX is well . . .
It's like calling a Chevy Chevette - a "Vette".
Here's another location guilty of converting an old theater into a "faux" IMAX theatre: the American Museum of Natural History in New York City. It was nothing more than an extended screen covering the original screen, poorly trimmed at the edges. And to add insult to injury, the room was like a horrible echo chamber! A complete mess!
Unfortunately, IMAX appears to have gone down the same road as THX, where the brand name is now a warning sign to stay away as far as possible.
it's surprising that so few defenders of 3-D have come forward
I love 3-D. That's one reason why i like broadway shows, symphony concerts, and live sports.
Simply put, the "3-D" movie experience is not "3-D"; it's too artificial to be anything more than a gimmick with your typical movie.
I have seen one good "3-D" movie, that is the Muppet 3-D show at Disneyworld.
I think the rub is that, in 20 to 40 years, it will be unlikely that we'll be using any sort of film at all. Digital can provide all of the benefits you cite with Maxivision and so much more. So, what you're asking people to do is to upgrade twice, once to Maxivision and again later to digital. Given the logistical inertia that such upgrades must overcome, doing it twice is a pretty tough pill to swallow, even if the cost for Maxivision is reasonable for a short-term improvement.
As for 3-d, I think it can work with movies whose selling point is that the viewer really wants to be immersed in that world, for example The Lord of the Rings trilogy or perhaps even Star Wars. If pulled off properly, those movies could have been incredible in 3-D. In contrast, Up feels like a novelty at best, while many movies would probably even be hurt by the distraction of 3-D.
Why has no one considered the idea that a large number of film lovers (as opposed to movie fans) couldn't care less how a "perfect" the visual from the screen is or how impressive the sound.
Some of us just want an intriguing story, skilled acting, and if we are fortunate enough, good editing, lighting, directing and cinematopgraphy. That's it. Why can't hollywood focus on that?
If the movie is banal or has a story we have seen before who cares how clear and large the picture is? Give me a good film on a small black and white tv using an antenna then the usual dreck on a really big, high definition screen any day.
It's probably already been mentioned, but IMAX is even planning on going all digital. This essentially means that now all that IMAX offers is a much bigger viewing area, without improving upon the quality of the image. There isn't yet a viable shooting or projecting format that can match the quality of 65mm (or IMAX 70mm) film stock.
Being a budding filmmaker, I wholeheartedly support the digital revolution, but only when it actually improves upon an already existing "mechanical" technology. Basically, the IMAX we all knew and loved is dead, and in its place, is a cold, lifeless, digital corpse...
On a side note, I completely disagree about 3D in film. It hasn't yet been used to its fullest potential (how long did it take film makers to get their act together when color first arrived?), and there are still some technological hurdles to overcome in order to bring it into the mainstream of cinema. First, we NEED to have a standardized 48fps projector system in place for 3D because otherwise the motion becomes too jittery and choppy to be watched without developing serious eyestrain. Second, we need to develop an "eyeglassless" system of 3D that polarizes the two images within the projector, without the aid of something we have to wear. Once those two conditions are met, 3D will be just as common as color or sound, and WILL become another tool in a director's ever-expanding utility belt (think of it as depth of field 2.0).
Thanks for reading my wall o' text!
On the topic of 3D; while it has been by and large a format created simply as a marketing gimmick, with little to no additional value(even detraction) from the 2D version of the film, I will go out on a limb to say that it is the next natural evolution in film, just as sound and color were. It just hasn't been used correctly.
For one thing, 3D film prints need to take into account the darkness of the glasses used, and color-adjust accordingly to keep the film as bright and cheery as it should be. It would take work, perhaps, but making the film overall much brighter to compensate could work as a short-term fix until more advanced glasses-based 3D technology, sans glasses, or even glasses-free 3D, is available and commonplace.
Avatar, I expect, could be one of the first movies to actually do 3D correctly; to add depth to a film that would not be there without the use of it.
One possibility that I am impossibly excited about is the as-yet untouched area of hand-drawn animation in 3D. I don't mean 2D animation with 3D elements ala Treasure Planet or Titan A.E., but 2D, fully 2D animation, animated in layers, with the 3D adding a depth of field between said layers, similar to a ViewMaster(TM) or the effect binoculars give. If pulled off, this could lead to some really, really impressive and creative movies animated traditionally.
Sadly, 2D has faltered in popularity ever since Pixar began the CGI movie trek; they make fantastic films, to be sure, but the side-effect of their movies(and their imitators) is the lack of interest in 2D animation, even now. At least in the States. Japan has it right, for the most part.
Here's hoping Princess and the Frog and the domestic release of Ponyo will help to fix this.
-RJ!
just watched Star Trek in IMAX (rather what-they-call-IMAX and i see this as just a simple-big-screen with more sound)
i wish they called it something different. frankly. the premium charged is not worth it and most important call it the right name!!
feel duped by this new strategy. wish the imax executives have better sense in terms of how they market this.
I think the old IMAX was a promise that was never really fulfilled.
It is the biggest screen and the most immersive projection technology, but it required movies filmed specifically for it. And I am not talking about just using bigger camera and wider film. Directors need to compose the shots very differently, in order for them to look good on IMAX screen.
Regular movies just don't look good on IMAX. I saw Lord of the Rings projected on old IMAX, and it was just too much. Instead of being entertained, by the end of it, I was just tired from trying to keep track of all that was happening. Because if you don't pay attention in one shot, then the next shot loses half of its meaning.
So the 1st rule of filming for IMAX needs to be that you should be able to follow the movie, even if you only see what is happening in the center of the screen. And if you want your audience to really take in the entire image, then you need to keep it steady for much longer than you would on a regular/smaller screen, so that your audience gets a chance to turn heads and look around, since the whole purpose of old IMAX was that it is impossible to see the whole screen if you just look straight.
Then I saw Star Wars II (of the new ones), and it was supposedly re-mastered and re-edited specifically for IMAX. But even then, it had issues. When they had close-ups of the faces of the main characters, instead of giving you a chance to take a good look at their facial expressions, it just looked creepy on such a gigantic screen.
So certain shots that are OK for regular screen or TV, are not OK for IMAX.
Finally, there are shots that are possible only on IMAX screen, and of course none of the movies filmed for traditional screens, were taking advantage of that.
So the bottom line is that in order for a movie to look good in IMAX, it has to be filmed for IMAX, and it will likely look like crap on regular screen. And the opposite is true as well.
The gap between regular screens and old IMAX is so huge, that if you try to film targeting something in-between, it will likely look like crap both on IMAX and regular screens.
So the only way to for a director targeting wide audience, including TV and regular movie screens, to give you great IMAX experience as well, is to film you an entirely different movie.
I know you all want it, but it is unrealistic to expect it to happen. At least on a large scale.
But as long as those old IMAX theaters were standing around showing movies no one wanted to see, they represented a promise, that one day maybe some big summer blockbuster will get filmed specifically for IMAX.
Unfortunately, it was not happening, and as such, those IMAX screens were not adding any value to a regular movie goer.
But now, the new IMAX, being a small (but noticeable) incremental improvement over the regular movie screen, is actually capable of showing regular movies, but with better picture and sound, and you are all up in arms?
It is undebatable that it is sad that the promise of old grand IMAX goes away, but it was unrealistic to hope for it to be fulfilled.
But with new IMAX, all of us will actually get to experience better picture and sound on our regular movie trips (instead of once in a blue moon), and this is bad how?
Now, if you anger is strong, at least direct it to the right people. I am sure IMAX would be happy to show you your regular weekly Hollywood releases, if they looked any good on their “classic” screens.
It is the movie studios, who are not willing to foot the bill for making a 2nd version of every movie, just so that they can show it to you on gigantoMAX while making sure it is actually a good experience. But I guess it is hard to be angry at them, because it is not an entirely unreasonable decision.
Mr Ebert
Is there a possibilty that the technical device of MAXIVISION would be use combining IMAX or CGI graphics? I think that in the motion picture industry has been a constant struggle on the technical and marketing process since the beginning of cinema. The important thing is, in the art of filmaking has the imperious necessity of create and tell stories with a dose of curiousity, vision and ambition to awake the soul on us. Our heart and our minds.
I happen to love real IMAX. In 1999 I made a completely cameraless animated IMAX short called Pandorama, which James Hyder wrote about in 2000:
http://www.ninapaley.com/pandorama-maximage.html
There's only one print in existence, still distributed by XLargo in Paris. I met a lot of really warm, friendly, good people in the large format film world. I wouldn't have been able to make "Pandorama" without 'em.
There used to be a program of IMAX shorts called, appropriately enough, Big Shorts, with some pretty compelling visual treats including "Fire" and "Internegative." Also Mike Osborne's stop-motion animated short "More" was shot on IMAX.
IMAX really blew my mind, back in the day.
By Peter on June 3, 2009 5:06 PM
Is actual film still being projected in any IMAX theater, even the real ones?
Yes, traditional IMAX theaters still use film.
As for 3D, I personally am not a huge fan...UNLESS it is done well, such as "Bugs 3D" and "Space Station 3D" With most of the 3D films I've seen however, the three dimensional component seems to be an after thought and something that either makes no impact, or in some cases (Wild Safari 3D) detracts from the experience.
The worst 3D experience though is with the Hollywood films that present only select scenes in 3D (Superman, the last and upcoming Harry Potters). These films have flashing lights near the screen or messages on the screen that instruct viewers to put on or remove the glasses. I found this a disappointing intrusion into the fantasy world in which I'd become immersed. My hope is is that the 3D phase is just that--a phase.
Roger, I'm going to use the "laserdisc" example to let you know there MAY be hope for Maxivision 48. Laserdisc, as I remember, was introduced in the early 1980s. Because of VHS, and the fact that the makers spent next to nothing on software, it did not exactly catch fire, and it appeared to be dead in the water. That is until about 1987 or so when the CD player was gaining in popularity. Because of the CD player, people got interested in the Laserdisc format and, surprise, it came back from the dead. Maybe not a big splash like VHS, but the people who invested in the laserdisc were entirely devoted to it. Okay, so the laserdisc went on to die just as it was REALLY catching fire, but you can't argue the DVD was an awful thing. It became a better version of the Laserdisc (though quite frankly, I miss those gigantic special edition laserdisc boxes). So with all this controversy over IMAX and such, hey, maybe Maxivision 48 still has some chance of being resurrected. If only they would do some demos of the Maxivision process for the public, the word of mouth will certainly help out. In this tough economic environment, you used better buzzwords then "state of the art", and that singular buzzword is "cheaper". I sure as heck will do my part to bring it attention. Just what can an ordinary film goer from Whittier, California (yeah, the hometown of Richard Nixon - but that wasn't my fault) do to help out?
Thanks for the post Roger. While this is not the first time I've heard about this, it is something I have had to inform a friend / coworker about it. He told me that he saw "Star Trek" in IMAX. I then asked him where he saw it. Once he told me, I told him about the format difference. I then proceeded to pull up the format information on the theater he went to. Indeed, it was in the "fake" IMAX format. As expected, he was more than slightly upset about what he described as false advertising.
From what I have read, AMC and Regal both wanted to call their format "IMAX Digital", thereby eliminating the confusion between the 15/70 format and the digital projection that is being displayed in most big city multiplexes. IMAX declined and thus we have the confusion.
I am planning on organizing a boycott against watching "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" in IMAX Digital. Knowing that portions of the film were shot with IMAX cameras and will take up the entirety of the giant screen, seeing it in anything but true IMAX would be a rip-off. I am hoping this will get a good response.
I don't mind the new "IMAX" theaters - I watched Star Trek in one and then compared with the regular screen at the same theater and it was a far superior experience. But it does annoy and confuse me for there not to be better descriptive terminology to differentiate it from the original IMAX. On the other hand, even in the original IMAX theaters, they will play regular movies and just blow them up larger; they don't make it entirely obvious which of their films is actual IMAX film and what's a regular film blown up or what's digital, etc. I guess the crappy stuff will get a boost from the IMAX name, but the IMAX brand will have a watered down reputation in return. It's better to have proper product labels.
I must also chime in properly maintained film projectors do not scratch prints. Maxivision might have a new-generation type of film transport, but the prints will still have to be handled by operators. Also, at such high framerates the projector will powering through about 180-ish feet of film per minute. Any problem with projector lacing, or platter/tower systems that are supplying film to and from the projector, would be much more devastating at these speeds.
Hey Mr. Ebert,
Just wondering if you know anything about this...I was touring Panavision and they mentioned, what I beleive was Maxivision, and when asked why it was not in every theater, the response was that it makes people sick. He talked about studies where something projected at that speed on that large of scale induced motion-sickness, vertigo, and headaches amongst the viewers. He said that they have yet to be able to make something mainstream at a speed faster then 24 frames a second through a shutter and not induce illness. Please let me know if you have any further information on this.
Thanks,
Jeff
Ebert: IMAX, Todd AO and ShowScan are all 30 fps or higher.
I know this piece was mainly about IMAX and the main-stream movie going experience of picture quality and large screens etc, but since I work for an arthouse chain that mostly deals with independent and foreign films, I can not fairly comment on such things.
We only rely on the films themselves to drive in business. We do not have the luxury to promote IMAX “quality” screens, stadium seating, or digital projection. And for many of the films we show, we don’t need to. (I don’t think many will be swayed if we advertised Ma Vie En Rose or Food Inc. now in digitally projected 150ft. screens!) We have continued with the “arthouse experience” for over 80 years, riding the bipolar economy wave, mainly because people will still come out to see a good film.
But we are still a business and what will change our industry is (and has always been) cost, as Ebert pointed out. Digital projection will allow us to use non-union projectionists (we are one of the few theatre chains that still employs professionally trained projectionists) as the projectors are “point and click” and in most cases the digital projectors are so automated and advanced we won’t even need projectionists at all. I can use my laptop to "start and stop" a movie, all the while enjoying dinner at home. Downloading digital prints from studios and filmmakers will remove delivery costs, print costs and any refurbishing costs from old, aged prints. No longer will we need trained professionals to correctly place 35mm trailers before these prints. That’s done digitally too, with “drag and drop” from a mouse. We currently have two salaried employees, one of which spends 60% of his time with print delivery to and from theatres. The other, spends about half of his time on shipping and gathering trailers to and from theatres. A digital change will eliminate one full-time job between the two of them. Not to say that our main goal is to elimate employees, which it isn't, but like it or not, we must bow down to the nature of business from time to time.
Besides all that, another reason for a digital change is for the filmmakers. A good percentage of our films are made without studios (or with smaller ones) which have little money to even make a single print. Most of our academy qualifying season is spent moving around borrowed digital projectors at cost to the filmmakers, from theatre to theatre in order to screen live and animated shorts from a broad range of digital media (and sometime even projected DVD! Gasp!) Those indie studios and broke filmmakers will jump at a chance to simply “upload” their film once and be done with it.
But there is a bit of a fight as to who should pay for this digital inevitability? Is it the exhibitors? Or should it be the big studios? The big studios, with their prints in the thousands, stand to gain a huge savings. But usually the exhibitors end up paying upfront costs for these types of changes, as our efficiency and financial needs trump the need for big studios to shave a few million dollars off the next blockbuster.
Ebert: "We only rely on the films themselves to drive in business."
Imagine that.
Yes, digital has improved enormously.
I just found out that a fake IMAX theater is being installed at my local multiplex. What makes it worse is that a true IMAX theater is less than a 15 minute drive away from where they are installing the new theater. Needless to say I'm furious. I've already put up a blog entry to inform my friends of the difference and hastily e-mailed my local paper in hopes that the word will get out and inform the community about the difference in format and about what I believe amounts to false advertising.