It was with some dismay that I read comedian Aziz Ansari's rant about the new IMAX theaters sprouting all over the country. The theaters have nice digital projection and sound and slightly bigger screens, but aren't true IMAX theaters. Aziz was NOT amused by this.
]]> See the illustration above for the size difference between a standard IMAX theater and the new IMAX theaters sprouting in regular malls. It's impressive.Aziz wrote,
Some people at Regal and AMC both wanted to call these screens IMAX Digital so as to differentiate it somehow from the giant IMAX screens people are used to associating with the name IMAX. Apparently IMAX doesn't see anything wrong with duping customers like this and insisted on simply keeping it as IMAX. Well, I have a better term how about - "BULLSHIT IMAX." Cause that's what it is.
People in the field have been talking about this for a while, but it's the recent high-profile releases that have packed theaters, IMAX and IMAX lite alike, and got people talking about this. LF Examiner, a large format movie industry journal, addressed the issue in an article by editor James Hyder, published in October of last year.
In more than 24 years in the business, I have personally been in 132 giant-screen theaters of all brands, formats, and sizes, including four MPX (15/70 film) theaters and five IMAX digital screens. I may be jaded, but none of those nine coaxed even a faint "wow" from my lips, because all were merely ordinary multiplex houses that had been modified slightly. The seating rake was unchanged and nowhere near the 20–25-degree angle that is standard in purpose-built IMAX theaters. The room's depth, from the screen to the last row, may have been reduced slightly by moving the screen forward and removing a few rows of seats. But most were still significantly deeper than the width of the screen, thus providing the audience a narrower (i.e., less immersive) average field of view.
Hyder's article was also the source of the illustration for this post. (Here's a bigger version, since this post is all about screen size.) The interesting thing about this is that it's not the theater operators' choice not to differentiate between the larger and smaller IMAX systems; it's IMAX's. You know, the company that used to use the slogan "Think big." They meant well, at least, not wanting to imply that the smaller theaters were inferior. Except for how they sort of are.
So, what can the average movie consumer do? Find out the screen size at your local IMAX theater before shelling out an extra $5. Complain to the theater operator and to IMAX, if it is the smaller IMAX Digital system, and you feel so inclined.
Is IMAX the next "New Coke"? [LF Examiner]
REBLOG THE FUCK OUT OF THIS. WARNING: AMC theaters are running FAKE IMAX's and charging $5 extra for a slightly bigger screen. Boycott IMAX, AMC, and Regal. Don't let them fool you. [Aziz is Bored]
I saw it at the local megaplex (the Montreal Scotia Bank Cineplex, formerly the Famous Players Paramount).
The theatre has a typical number of screens (16? I don't recall), and one of them is a full-sized IMAX. This is in the middle of downtown Montreal in a building that isn't all that large (the theatre is mostly vertical with restaurants/ordering on the first floor, theatres on the second/fourth floor, and IMAX on the third).
If it's not hard to fit a full-sized IMAX screen in a high-density downtown block, I don't see why it'd be hard anywhere else.
It is kind of expensive though. Regular tickets are, IIRC, $12 CAD ($5 on Tuesday). IMAX is $17 ($7 on Tuesday).
I buy all my tickets online (I have a loyalty card so I get points) from the company itself. There are no service charges (it's free), I get extra bonus points, and I can take my print-out right to the entrance of the room itself and skip the boxoffice (they stamp it although I think they intend to eventually scan the barcode).
]]>@Audiyoda:
]]>Now this is getting a lot more press thanks to a pissed off celebrity
[movies.yahoo.com]
I complained to the manager and asked for a refund. Despite the manager's complete understanding of the issue, and her statement that "you're not the only one, this happens all the time, the first time was Eagle Eye", she denied me and my three friends a refund. Her justification was that if she gave us a refund, everyone would get one. I think there's a memo from AMC's executives to not issue refunds for Bullshit IMAX.
]]>The IMAX films we're seeing in theatres now are just upscaled films.
]]>Yes. Yes you can. That's the entire concept behind a brand. Honda (brand) is associated with reliability (aspect). Sony (brand) is associated with quality (aspect). The entire purpose of branding your product in a certain way is so that the attributes of your brand can be carried over from one product to the next. Sony makes nice TVs, so when they took the Sony brand over to computers, the attribute of quality is associated with the Sony brand. You think Sony, you think "must be good".
That is branding. Claiming that IMAX can just slap their name on something and expect people to be able to differenitate it from another, different product, with the same name, is ridiculous.
]]>It's one thing to call a tiny-ass screen IMAX. When I think of IMAX, I think of HUGE screens. This screen is maybe a bit bigger than the others.
But to have the pre-show lie right to our faces about the size of the screen? Look. The damn building isn't even 6 stories high, so I know the screen isn't!
And most theatres are switching to digital projection anyway. The value just isn't there.
And one last thing: Real IMAX projectors are kept in these vacuum sealed rooms to prevent dust from getting on the lens. A spec of dust on the lens of am IMAX projector ends up being almost the size of a frigging person when it's projected onto the screen. I was at Star Trek and a speck of dust hit the lens and it looked like someone just threw a can of black paint on the screen.
These IMAX theatre things are a frigging rip off. The sound quality isn't that much better, and the picture isn't either.
]]>People People People... AMC doesn't charge the higher price for the IMAX "Experience", then put you in a smaller screen theater. Come on!!!
The IMAX "Experience" is this... They take one of their stadium size theaters, remove the first 3 rows of seating, install a 30% larger screen than the original which is also curved to fit the IMAX film formatting. They also install an IMAX digital projector which can also handle 3D movies (very well I might add), as well as new digital sound system.
Why don't people ever ask what they are paying for??? You can only blame yourself if you got screwed!
]]>If Aziz dont like IMAX Lite, they he can stay home. Before I went to an IMAX Lite, I called the theater to have them explain the difference. I'm okay with it... except for the steep extra cost.
]]>It's not that IMAX Lite is a problem. It's that in NYC, the IMAX Lite was $1 less than regular IMAX.
]]>@bornonbord: The problem is that it isn't "one aspect" of the brand. It's the overwhelming majority of it. The screen is closer to a non-IMAX in scale, the seating pitch is nowhere near as steep as true IMAX, and the projectors use a digital conversion rather than true analog, resulting in lower image quality. About the only thing that was even remotely close according to the very Gizmodo article you linked is the sound system - and they're decidedly unclear on that.
There is no way this should be confused with true IMAX at all. This is the problem people have. IMAX is deliberately conflating the two, for no valid reason.
(Idly, Halifax must be the luckiest city in the world when it comes to theaters - a cineplex with a true IMAX screen, something like thirty or 40 screens total in a relatively small city, and every one of the regular ones is so close to the same dimensions as to be indiscernable - with the exception of the Oxford, which I find is actually superior.)
]]>I also knew a guy who smuggled in an entire bucket of KFC and nobody said a thing to him. Usually I just keep it simple and bring in something semi-healthy like fruit.
]]>Wondering that same thing myself. I saw The Dark Knight there (the projector eventually overheated and we went home), and I don't remember it being 50 feet tall. Not sure though.
]]>"One true IMAX theater would take so much money and space that I doubt it's been done before."
That sounds pretty cut and dry to me, and so when you start saying, 'No, I meant one theater couldn't have multiple screens" I start to wonder on what planet "one true imax screen" and "multiple imax screens" mean the same thing.
]]>The theater near our house has an IMAX lite version; we checked it out to go see The Dark Knight I think....I remember it was neat because it was slightly larger, but it didn't "wow" me.
]]>as for the guy complaining about the size being impossible to afford. at ticket prices over 12 dollars thats how much screen we should expect from imax. its mostly vertical space anyways.
]]>The IMAX in Denver at the United Artists theater off Colorado Blvd. was both massive and badass. I walked away impressed.
]]>the Omnimax is a much better show. It's like the whole dome is the screen!
They had the rolling stones live in concert there. I think Mick's lips would have given me nightmares on a screen that large!
]]>P.S. The museum ends its display of aviation history with a prototype warp drive and a picture of the Enterprise-D, just to see if museumgoers have a sense of humor.
]]>I didn't see "IMAX Digital" anywhere. So I paid an extra $5 on top of my $9 ticket for what I thought was standard, literal IMAX. I don't know if that counts as deception. If I'm going to contact IMAX, should I contact AMC (either corporate or my location) too? Not saying I expect any money in return, but in all seriousness, don't expect me to buy anything that says IMAX on it now, and don't expect me to walk into an AMC for a little while.
]]>@logicalnoise: Thank you as well! Lincolnshire is closer for me as well, than downtown.
]]>I prefer to go to the regular movie on Sunday morning, when everyone's in church. Less annoying people then.
]]>BTW, Harry Potter in IMAX (Boston by the harbor) is absolutely amazing.
]]>It is possible, with proper foresight and site planning, to provide an authentic IMAX experience in a normal commercial building, and not a museum. I have no doubt that it is more difficult than plonking a faux IMAX venue in a standard multiplex, which is why IMAX is doing it.
]]>Funny, I think a good lawyer could make a case that the general public views "IMAX" to be a certain SIZE SCREEN and stop the use of the brand "IMAX" on screens of another size.
It does confuse the public.
]]>They may be liars, but you're still acting like an asshole.
]]>IMAX is a set of standards - not not one of which mentions screen height. Those specs include film size (70mm), camera aperture (70mm x 52mm), projection aperture (20mm less than camera aperture on the vertical axis), projected aspect ratio or 1.44:1 and 24fps. There are a few others but they aren't coming to me right now.
But that's it - it has nothing to do with the size of the screen. The first IMAX installation was just over 80' tall, the second was even larger @ 90'. That one was installed in Spokane, WA for the 1974 World's Fair. It was temporary and was later replaced by a permanent screen only 67' tall. Then there's the Disney World Dome IMAX - one of the largest IMAX screens ever installed - 180 degrees of viewable screen - enough elicit motion sickness if you're not careful. All those venues have one thing in common - the IMAX standard, not screen real estate.
]]>Check out Gizmodo's take on this:
[gizmodo.com]
Crappy digital IMAX, by IMAX's own admission, is about 1/4 of the resolution of real IMAX. It is not projected using the same technology at all. So not only is the screen smaller, it's a lot lower resolution image as well, and it's the resolution that is supposed to be the big "wow" with IMAX.
They do uprez 35mm films, such as Star Trek, for better sharpness when showing on IMAX, but I would think all the benefit would be lost if it's not projected at higher resolution too.
Why am I not surprised that IMAX whored out its brand name? I'm sure that the AMC and Century theaters paid a bunch of money for this gimmick to bring in more viewers, but it is NOT real IMAX, and should be referred to as "imax lite" or something to clearly distinguish it from the real thing.
]]>Saw it in the xd3 theater in Plano, was nice. Had nice fake leather seats and everything...Sat 500+ people...
]]>The Trillium Theater in Grand Blanc Michigan has one and it's AWESOME!!!!
]]>I'm trying to suggest that this is not someone trying to pull a fast one; Consumers need to be more educated in this case.
]]>So if you have one kid, and you want to take them to the theater, that's one thing. But a family of five probably doesn't spend much time going to the theater.
]]>There's not really any such thing as a "true" IMAX screen, at least as far as sizes go; IMAX specifications include aspect ratio and film stock (even if you film it on a regular camera, you still need to convert it to IMAX 70mm stock), but I don't think the screen size itself is mandated anywhere. What Wikipedia calls the "standard" size isn't a technical standard, just a customary one, I believe.
]]>So if you go to the store, ask for Kleenex and they hand you Kleenex brand soap, you wouldn't be annoyed?
]]>I saw Star Trek at the Jordan's Furniture* in Reading, MA. It's a great theater with a real IMAX. As they liked to brag in the pre-previews, the chairs are tempurpedic and have those sound amps built in. It was only like $12 or $13 for an adult ticket and worth every penny.
*On a related note, Jordan's is also a very pleasent place to buy furniture from, too. When i closed on my condo a year and a half ago, I got about half of my stuff from them, and the flat $100 shipping was very reasonable.
]]>my local regal in lincolnshire IL is a full size IMAX(55 feet).
]]>@devwar: Both of the Jordan IMAX's are real IMAX.
]]>@Who wants chowdah??: I wasn't proposing, just asking. Can't hurt to ask, right?
]]>I actually hate the omnimax screens for watching movies not designed for it - the curvature makes the stuff on the side distorted, and non-panoramic shots look very weird.
]]>It's like "Kleenex" doesn't necessarily mean a tissue, it's a brand.
]]>@ElizabethD: if i recall correctly the man, nay, the legend, that is SteveDave is actually named neither steve nor dave. but then again, i could be horribly mistaken and you know him personally...
]]>I had the same reaction to Laurence Fishburne's pockmarks - when his acne scars are the size of trash can lids, you know it's a big screen.
]]>And to clarify (I don't think you meant this anyway), I mean multiple true IMAX screens in one theater, not one true IMAX screen with a bunch of smaller regular screens. I don't think there are many, if any, museums or cultural areas that have multiple IMAX screens in one theater.
]]>Interestingly, both of the screens used for comparison up there are in regular multi-theatre cinemas in NYC. The "real" IMAX screen the graphic uses for comparison is just another theatre at the Lowes Lincoln Square 13. And that one, at 30m x 23m, is even larger than a standard IMAX, which according to Wikipedia is 22m x 16.1m,
]]>What some will let you do is call ahead and reserve, sometimes even buy a pair.
Not usually for big releases that are selling out, though.
]]>@bornonbord: sure I may be getting a larger or smaller screen, but if I'm paying EXTRA specifically for the large screen, then yes I would feel cheated when they tell me "well its not what we led you to believe, but its a little larger, so its ok right?"
]]>I think IMAX can learn from Starbucks and call the tiny IMAX "IMAX Tall", the Larger IMAX, "IMAX Grande" and the even bigger Omni-Max, IMAX "Venti".
Clearly IMAX has diluted their brand and I question anything now that they've shown that they are willing to compromise on the screen size without telling anyone. For all we know, the resolution is less, the screen is certainly smaller, the coating of the small screen may be missing because on the small screen, who needs extra reflecting. The sound system is probably lite too since you don't need all the power and speakers for a smaller screen. The IMAX lite is probably trying to appeal to multiplex owner who don't want to invest in a real IMAX setup for a variety of legitimate reasons. But don't try to pass it off as a regular IMAX setup. Already I have a problem keeping Omni-MAX (at the Museum of Science in Boston) differentiated with the other type of IMAX on a flat screen. Now I have to consider if the "IMAX" I'm going to see is Omni-MAX, IMAX or IMAX Lite. Just don't call the Big IMAX "IMAX Monster" or Monster cable will come after you.
]]>I'm happy to say my local movie theater has true IMAX screens, probably because they built it before this IMAX-Lite was made. The screen had to be air lifted into the cinema. And of course, people would notice if it weren't true IMAX since the science center nearby has a real IMAX screen as well.
]]>And WHAT an IMAX, that theater is excellent.
]]>We have a True IMAX in Buffalo. Tickets were $13 for Star Trek and they were WELL worth it!
]]>I just remember being annoyed at documentaries I've seen at true IMAX theaters at the past, which seemed to be specifically directed to induce motion sickness.
]]>My local Lowes charges a $4 difference between "IMAX" and regular. I do think that's a bogus charge though.
]]>30/23= 1.304:1
58/28= 2.071:1
The aspect ratios aren't even the same.
]]>If you go to an AMC with 30+ screens, some of them are bigger than others, are you pissed off when you see your movie in a smaller theater and are paying the same? No - you deal with it because it's still projecting a 35mm film on a screen bigger than your house.
Being "duped" is a bit of stretch... You can't associate a certain aspect with a brand name. They aren't advertising these new places to be as big as the others. If they want to charge more to see a movie, they can. Different 'brands' of theaters charge different prices.
Don't get me wrong, I love a huge screen, but it's totally up to them whether or not they make their screens as big as one another.
]]>That's what I thought as well. IMAX is basically a 1.78:1 (16x9) resolution as opposed to the 1.85:1 or 2.39:1 of normal films.
For example, I watched the Dark Knight Blu-ray on my HDTV and I could always tell the IMAX scenes since those parts would display full screen on my TV while non-IMAX scenes would be top/bottom letterboxed.
A giant screen isn't very useful, if you are only sitting 20 or 30 feet away from the screen. It would be like sitting a foot away from a 52 inch TV.
]]>(And the theater's a million times cleaner and more pleasant. Although we got stuck in the third row and that was pretty neck-breaking.)
]]>Standard film, on which movies are shot, is 35mm wide. Some movies, which look gorgeous, are shot on 70mm wide film. IMAX film also measures 70mm, but totally not the same way. (Here's a good diagram: [entertainment.howstuffworks.com] ).
The catch there is, a lot of movies shown in IMAX theaters are not IMAX-native. The Dark Knight actually did shoot some scenes in IMAX, and you could see the difference if you were watching on an IMAX screen. It manifested in the letterboxing going away and the (vertigo-inducing helicopter) shot of Gotham suddenly taking up the FULL screen, which is why it looks like an aspect ratio change.
(Star Trek, which I just saw in a real IMAX theater at the Air & Space Museum annex just outside of DC, is not IMAX-native and so was basically upconverted in projection to fill the space of the screen.)
]]>$12 for adults at IMAX
$9.50 at regular theatre.
$9.50 kids at IMAX
$6.50 at regular theatre.
I went to see "Star Trek" on an IMAX lite screen, but I knew that was what I was getting; that said, I am planning to go back and get the real thing on the next go.
]]>We're blessed with three genuine, multi-storied IMAX screens within a short drive of our home. It's magical enough to make Monsters vs Aliens worth watching.
]]>$12 for adults at IMAX
$9.50 at regular theatre.
$9.50 kids.
$6.50 at regular theatre.
Nice pickup line there Dave! lol
]]>'But Gelfond flatly rejected this possibility, offering an absurdly flawed analogy with BMW automobiles. He said that the German carmaker offers the 7-series line of larger, more powerful, luxury models as well as the smaller, entry-level 3-series cars. "People don't say 'The 3 isn't a real BMW because it's smaller.'"
Of course, this ignores the fact that the model numbers, to say nothing of the prices, clearly distinguish BMW's different product lines in consumers' minds, while maintaining the unity of the brand. No car buyer believes he has bought a $125,000 760Li only to receive a $30,000 328i.'
When you build your brand on one thing, and then suddenly start giving people something else, saying that your brand was never about that one thing, that's a problem.
]]>Also, I don't think most IMAX lite theaters charge that much more...that said, the IMAX theater at the Air and Space museum doesn't really charge more than regular theaters.
]]>isn't IMAX just an aspect ratio?
]]>