var json_comments = new Array("
\"user-pic\"
taking_this_easy
May 12, 2009 4:13 PM
Moderate | Flag for review

isn't IMAX just an aspect ratio?

Reply
6 replies
\"user-pic\"
ceilingFANBOY
May 12, 2009 4:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@taking_this_easy:

30/23= 1.304:1

58/28= 2.071:1

The aspect ratios aren't even the same.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ceilingFANBOY
May 12, 2009 4:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ceilingFANBOY: I just realized that I used feet for one and meters for the other, but the math still works out.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Morac
May 12, 2009 4:30 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@taking_this_easy:

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
farcast
May 12, 2009 7:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Morac: Um, no. IMAX is a type of film, 10 times larger than 35mm film. Like the difference between normal kodak film (if the still made it) and medium format. Now when you start playing other types of film in an IMAX theater, it's not really IMAX anymore.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Morac
May 12, 2009 4:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Morac:

My local Lowes charges a $4 difference between \"IMAX\" and regular. I do think that's a bogus charge though.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Etoiles
May 12, 2009 4:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@taking_this_easy: No. It's more like a resolution. The confusion between the two is very similar to the idea that \"HD\" means \"16x9.\" (It doesn't, but sometimes it might as well...)

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.)

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
pecan 3.14159265
May 12, 2009 4:13 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I saw Star Trek at an IMAX lite theater, and I knew it was such. If anyone has ever seen a true IMAX theater, it's nearly impossible to house multiple screens in one theater. The screen is beyond massive. One true IMAX theater would take so much money and space that I doubt it's been done before. Most IMAX screens are in museums, and most only have one of them for good reason. Not only do you have the humongous screen, you have to house the speakers and the sound, and because you've spent all that money on a giant screen you have to have enough seats to stretch farther back so you won't get 20 people up front who have neck damage.

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.

Reply
15 replies
\"user-pic\"
guspaz
May 25, 2009 6:54 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265:

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).

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Toffeecake
May 13, 2009 1:02 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265: My husband works at the Smithsonian NASM....I've been wondering what regular movie they have playing. I'm sure they'll have Night at the Museum II when it comes out; maybe I'll bug him to try to get us some free tickets...

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
syzygy
May 12, 2009 8:18 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265: I am currently sitting in my office, with a true IMAX theater in a multiplex across the street (Regal, no less). I have enjoyed many films there. Most were not true IMAX, in that they didn't fill the full vertical, but even though the 6 stories of height weren't filled, the whole width was, and the sound system didn't sound any smaller, that's for sure.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
GMFish
May 12, 2009 6:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265: \"One true IMAX theater would take so much money and space that I doubt it's been done before\"

The Trillium Theater in Grand Blanc Michigan has one and it's AWESOME!!!!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pecan 3.14159265
May 12, 2009 7:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@GMFish: What I mean is, I doubt that one theater can house multiple true IMAX screens without it costing too much to be worth it. Does the Trillium theater have multiple true IMAX screens?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
eXo
May 13, 2009 1:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265: If thats what you meant, then learn to type it properly.

\"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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
That-one-guy-that-was-in-that-one-thing
May 12, 2009 9:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265: I have been there, and no - it isn't multi-IMAX screen. Trillium has 14 screens and 1 true IMAX screen that they added on recently. I am satisfied that we have the one at least - and that it isn't this IMAX Lite that seems to be going around.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
EarlNowak
May 12, 2009 4:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265: The paramount movie theatre in downtown montreal has a full size IMAX theatre. It's built into a skyscraper, and designed vertically, the first floor is ticketing, second and third floors are regular theatres, and the fourth, fifth, and sixth floor are taken up by the IMAX.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Etoiles
May 12, 2009 4:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265: We saw Star Trek at the Air & Space annex out by Dulles. I think it's $15 per person but since I got used to paying $11 per person for an ordinary Thursday night movie in Manhattan, yeah, not that much worse.

(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.)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pecan 3.14159265
May 12, 2009 4:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Etoiles: Really? I just checked online and it was $12.50.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Etoiles
May 12, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265: Eh, I didn't do the buying so I could be wrong. (I did the, \"Yes dear, I agree that we need to go to where the real Enterprise is to see Star Trek. You're driving\" end.)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Charlotte Rae's Web
May 12, 2009 4:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265: Star Trek on a real IMAX wasn't that much more for us.

$12 for adults at IMAX
$9.50 at regular theatre.

$9.50 kids.
$6.50 at regular theatre.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
sponica
May 12, 2009 4:22 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265: the IMAX lite in hooksett nh def charges more...I shelled out 14 bucks not including the service fee to see Star Trek @ an IMAX lite screen. AND the projector was broken. I think the regular price is like 9 dollars

Reply
\"user-pic\"
parad0x360
May 12, 2009 8:30 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@sponica: The IMAX in Hooksett NH is not an IMAX Lite and i heard nothing about the projector being broken from anyone. Between all the people I know who saw the movie between Thursday and last night they had to have seen every show at that theatre with no issue.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
sponica
May 12, 2009 8:42 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@parad0x360: well I was there for the 7 PM show opening night...and about 10 minutes beforehand they announced WE'RE SORRY BUT THE IMAX PROJECTOR IS NOT WORKING, we got to see the regular version of the movie and got IMAX rain checks. In my mind it is a lite version because it is substantially smaller than the behemoth in Lincoln Square that I'm so accustomed to...and it's not that much bigger or superior than the other cinemas in that theater. Granted it could be that Batman I had to watch from the 2nd row in the IMAX there, so my opinion of it is less than stellar

Reply
\"user-pic\"
sponica
May 12, 2009 8:43 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@sponica: by opening night I mean thursday night...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
GavinEstecado
May 12, 2009 4:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@sponica: I agree, I drove up from Nashua only to be disappointed that it was only slightly different that the other screens in that Cinemagic theater....

Reply
\"user-pic\"
chiieddy
May 12, 2009 5:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@GavinEstecado: Doesn't Jordans in Reading MA show real IMAX features?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pecan 3.14159265
May 12, 2009 4:24 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@sponica: You were charged a service fee for ordering online, right? I think most theaters let you buy tickets in advance on premises, which is something moviefone and fandango don't like to advertise.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
sponica
May 12, 2009 7:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265: yes they do let me buy on premises...which doesn't help me much when the theater's in NH and I'm in NY til day of show....long story

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Wombatish
May 12, 2009 5:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265: Yeah, but that involves going there early.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Charlotte Rae's Web
May 12, 2009 4:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265: Sounds like it - here is a $2-3 convenience fee per ticket for ordering online.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
TheTriStatesBestSide_GitEmSteveDave
May 12, 2009 4:16 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

You're a Nerd, you like Star Trek, and you write for Consumerist? Any chance your finger is bare?

Reply
5 replies
\"user-pic\"
danger the pirate
May 12, 2009 5:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@GitErSteveDave!: ah yes, GitEmSD, always creepin around, hittin on the ladies of the interwebs.

@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...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
TheTriStatesBestSide_GitEmSteveDave
May 12, 2009 5:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@d★nger the pirate: You are correct. I take my name from a character from Kevin Smith films, as well as it will be the name of my first male offspring, as I doubt \"Short-round\" will be approved ;)

@Who wants chowdah??: I wasn't proposing, just asking. Can't hurt to ask, right?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Who wants chowdah??
May 12, 2009 6:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@TheTriStatesBestSide_GitEmSteveDave: How very Seinfeldian. Can't be turned down if you weren't proposing in the first place.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
TheTriStatesBestSide_GitEmSteveDave
May 13, 2009 2:21 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Who wants chowdah??: Did I sound creepy? B/c I didn't mean to be. I don't want to scare anyone.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
calquist
May 12, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ElizabethD: Anything for a lab coat, even marriage.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Charlotte Rae's Web
May 12, 2009 4:18 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Laura, some museum IMAX shows regular movies too. Ours is one of them, usually just one at a time but they do all the hot ones. [www.imaxraleigh.org]

Reply
5 replies
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
May 12, 2009 6:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Charlotte Rae's Web: The Detroit Science Center has just actually done a fair bit of upgrading to their IMAX dome to be able to show Hollywood films alongside their generic edutainment fare. I think it's $15 for a film, and their concessions are pretty decently priced, too. And while you're there, you get to explore a pretty spiffy museum while you wait to see the film. (If you go there before September and before the movie goes out of theatres, you can see the Star Trek exhibit with authentic movie/show props *and* the movie in IMAX and feel like a true nerd!)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Laura Northrup
May 12, 2009 4:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Charlotte Rae's Web: Some of the museum theaters near me show some of the releases, but at limited times and you have to live near a museum with such a theater. There wasn't one in my area.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Laura Northrup
May 12, 2009 4:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Laura Northrup: Argh, take out the \"near me\" in that first sentence. This is why I can't write even a blog comment when someone is interrupting me every 30 seconds.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pecan 3.14159265
May 12, 2009 4:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Charlotte Rae's Web: Yep. And a lot of museums are going to show Harry Potter too because they know a huge part of their audience is children and their parents.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Charlotte Rae's Web
May 12, 2009 4:26 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265: Yup - next up is Night at the Museum 2. The prices aren't terrible - I posted this on your other thread.

$12 for adults at IMAX
$9.50 at regular theatre.

$9.50 kids at IMAX
$6.50 at regular theatre.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Radi0logy
May 12, 2009 5:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Charlotte Rae's Web: Sounds pretty terrible to me.. 2 parents, 3 kids, some popcorn and sodas and gummi bears and youre over 100 bucks. For 2 hours of entertainment.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
korybing
May 12, 2009 6:44 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy: You could always just bring a bag and smuggle in some apples and juice. That's what my parents always did with us when we went to movies. I've also developed an ability called \"make a free cup of water last a whole movie\" so I don't have to drop 5 bucks on a drink. Our theater charges 5 bucks for a SMALL popcorn. That is ridiculous and I refuse to pay that much for something like freakin' popcorn.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
sponica
May 12, 2009 7:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@korybing: AMC (back when I used to work there) doesn't have a no outside food policy...they just don't advertise it.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pecan 3.14159265
May 12, 2009 8:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@sponica: I don't get how they can attempt to search a bag, either, so I just take in candy if that's what I want. I still buy popcorn because I love movie theater popcorn.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
korybing
May 13, 2009 2:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265: I've NEVER been hassled about bringing food into a theater. I don't make it super obvious that that's what I'm doing, but nobody has even attempted to check me. In high school my friends would try to see how crazy we could get before they caught on, and they never did. Not even after we brought in a loaf of french bread, some popcorn chicken, and a block of cheese.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pecan 3.14159265
May 12, 2009 6:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy: If you've got three kids, you're probably not going to take them all to the movie theater anyway, IMAX or not. It's becoming more expensive for a big family to go see a movie..and I suspect most parents secretly (or not so secretly) hate being in a movie theater with a bunch of loud kids.

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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
W10002
May 12, 2009 4:20 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The IMAX theater near my house isn't quite the size of Lincoln Square's IMAX. It's only 67' x 91'. And the IMAX near my work is only 65' x 90'. Still, that size is nothing to sneeze at. So I don't have to worry about IMAX lite.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
NightSteel
May 12, 2009 4:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I gotta say, I think it's pretty skeevy of them not to distinguish between a real IMAX screen and the smaller one in some way. According to the articles, a lot of people *wanted* to do that--pretty much everyone but IMAX themselves.

'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.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
solareclipse2
May 12, 2009 4:22 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Yeah, a real IMAX is 50 some ft tall. I'd get irked if I went to one of these smaller theaters an expected an IMAX screen like at Navy Pier.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
ElizabethD
May 12, 2009 4:22 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

We have a Real IMAX theater at our local mall (Providence Place), adjacent to a regular 16-theater cineplex. The huge, steep IMAXes are truly an experience unto themselves. Geek warning: My friend and I were near the front of the line for the first midnight IMAX showing of Star Wars 2. (No prequel disses, please.) AOTC in IMAX made me so dizzy, I had to close my eyes for a lot of it! Went back and saw it again; desensitized a little, so I could watch most of it. Excellent!

Reply
5 replies
\"user-pic\"
me and the sysop
May 12, 2009 6:18 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ElizabethD: I never believed the \"sense of motion\" warning they play beforehand until I saw Batman jump off that building in China. Whoa, not cool for an anti-height person.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
hedonia
May 13, 2009 12:52 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@me and the sysop: Yeah, I had a deathgrip on my chair through that whole movie. The tilt of the chairs, plus the inability to see the sides of the screen from my seat, made me feel like I was about to tumble down the whole auditorium. I was terrified, and my husband was just smirking at me =)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Sean Masters
May 12, 2009 4:32 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ElizabethD: I used to go there all of the time, and it's frankly the only IMAX I've ever been impressed with. I think the Providence Place theater got everything - the screen size, sound, lighting, and seating - just right.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pecan 3.14159265
May 12, 2009 4:25 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ElizabethD: I saw Transformers in IMAX. Wow. You know things are getting good when you can feel the rumble of Optimus Prime's steps.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Charlotte Rae's Web
May 12, 2009 4:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265: We saw one of the Matrix movies and the MOLES on the Oracle's face made me SO queasy!!!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
NeverLetMeDown
May 12, 2009 5:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Charlotte Rae's Web:


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.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
dandubois
May 12, 2009 4:24 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

anyone know if the one in Natick, MA is \"real\" imax?? I went there first time to see Star Trek. It was badass.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
Critcol
May 12, 2009 8:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@dandubois: Natick and Reading are both real IMAX theatres, but the Natick theatre is about 300 seats and the Reading theatre is about 500 seats. Always go for Reading if you have the choice. And remember to buy early.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
devwar
May 12, 2009 4:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@dandubois: The ones at the Jordan's Furniture? If it is anything like the one in Reading (where I saw Star Trek), then it should be a real IMAX...

And WHAT an IMAX, that theater is excellent.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
dragonpup
May 12, 2009 5:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@devwar: Both of the Jordan IMAX's are real IMAX.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
yagisencho
May 12, 2009 4:25 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
picardia
May 12, 2009 4:25 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
idx
May 12, 2009 4:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I don't think size really has that much to do with it. Imax screens are different than regular screens in several different ways. Most importantly, they are coated with some kind of silver composite that makes them much sharper and brighter (at least in marketing terms). Also, doesn't something have to be filmed with an IMAX array to really be IMAX?

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
chenry
May 13, 2009 5:24 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@idx: Yeah, a true IMAX film is done from the start using a big-ass IMAX camera.

The IMAX films we're seeing in theatres now are just upscaled films.

Reply
","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
bornonbord
May 12, 2009 4:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

It just seems like people are perceiving the IMAX name to be associated with the massive screens and are being let down when the screen isn't as big as at a different theater.

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.

Reply
5 replies
\"user-pic\"
chenry
May 13, 2009 5:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@bornonbord: You can't associate a certain aspect with a brand name

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
RandomZero
May 13, 2009 3:08 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
SteveZim1017
May 12, 2009 5:02 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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?\"

Reply
\"user-pic\"
bornonbord
May 12, 2009 5:20 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@SteveZim1017: Then you don't understand that IMAX isn't necessarily just a big screen. It's a brand.

It's like \"Kleenex\" doesn't necessarily mean a tissue, it's a brand.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
sqlrob
May 12, 2009 5:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@bornonbord:

So if you go to the store, ask for Kleenex and they hand you Kleenex brand soap, you wouldn't be annoyed?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
bornonbord
May 12, 2009 6:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@sqlrob: Nope, I'd go into a store and ask for \"Kleenex Tissue\" or \"Kleenex Soap\"

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
faintandfuzzies
May 13, 2009 5:04 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@bornonbord:


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!

Reply
","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
bender123
May 12, 2009 4:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Check me if i am wrong, but I think all IMAX films are filmed in analog, too, so an all digital IMAX theaters would inherently be cowpoop...The digital projection is just a digitized version of film stock.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
gqcarrick
May 12, 2009 4:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

We have a True IMAX in Buffalo. Tickets were $13 for Star Trek and they were WELL worth it!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
morganlh85
May 12, 2009 4:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

In Pittsburgh, our science center has OMNIMAX. It's totally sweet.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Laura Northrup
May 12, 2009 4:42 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@morganlh85: The science museum in my native Syracuse has one of those, too. It ruined me even for the ginormous regular IMAX screens.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
NeverLetMeDown
May 12, 2009 5:20 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Laura Northrup:


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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
SpenceMan01
May 13, 2009 3:15 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@NeverLetMeDown: I agree 100%. I saw Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (the Burton one) on an Omnimax screen and it was terrible. Hollywood features are NOT in the correct format to be viewed properly on an Omnimax dome.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Kogenta
May 12, 2009 4:43 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
vastrightwing
May 12, 2009 4:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
steveliv
May 12, 2009 4:46 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

is there any site that lists the larger imax theater locations?

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
telarium
May 13, 2009 8:15 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@steveliv:

The IMAX in Denver at the United Artists theater off Colorado Blvd. was both massive and badass. I walked away impressed.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pecan 3.14159265
May 12, 2009 4:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@steveliv: imax.com has the listings of all the true IMAX screens.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
steveliv
May 12, 2009 4:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265: but it also lists the smaller screens as well, i guess i need to read the legend on their map

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pecan 3.14159265
May 12, 2009 4:54 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@steveliv: I think it's rare to have a standalone IMAX theater, so you can probably safely ignore the AMCs and other theater chains. Most of the true IMAX theaters are associated with museums and cultural areas (like Navy Pier in Chicago).

Reply
\"user-pic\"
sponica
May 12, 2009 7:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265: The AMC/Loews up in Lincoln Square is freaking GINORMOUS....now if only I could convince the BF to go above 14th street...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
steveliv
May 12, 2009 4:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pecan 3.14159265: i agree, but it seem the museum/cultural imaxes around here are playing the science films, and not feature ones :(

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pecan 3.14159265
May 12, 2009 5:06 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@steveliv: In that case, you might be out of luck. I know a lot of science museums are eager to play Star Trek.

Reply
","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
steveliv
May 12, 2009 4:56 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

If you go to imax.com, you can \"Find Your IMAX Theater\", after you type in your zip code you get a map with the theaters marked. If i'm not mistaken, i believe the ones marked \"3D IMAX\" are the smaller theaters. I watched Star Trek this weekend at a IMAXlite theater, and while the experience was good, i want to watch it at a huge IMAX screen. Trouble is, that i can't seem to find a way to distinguish the sizes. I live in zip 29841, anyone else in this area know where to find one?

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
SidusNare
May 13, 2009 7:27 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@steveliv: The 3D Imax simply means they have 2 projectors that project stereoscopically

Reply
\"user-pic\"
SpenceMan01
May 13, 2009 3:20 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@steveliv: Not true. There is a screen near me that I know to be true Imax that is marked at Imax 3D. The theaters' 3D capabilities seem to have no bearing on their size.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
steveliv
May 12, 2009 5:01 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

also funny enough, the smaller screens actually do feature something larger than their true IMAX brethren.. a pricier ticket!

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
44 in a Row
May 12, 2009 5:08 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I saw Star Trek at an IMAX lite theater, and I knew it was such. If anyone has ever seen a true IMAX theater, it's nearly impossible to house multiple screens in one theater. The screen is beyond massive. One true IMAX theater would take so much money and space that I doubt it's been done before. Most IMAX screens are in museums, and most only have one of them for good reason. Not only do you have the humongous screen, you have to house the speakers and the sound, and because you've spent all that money on a giant screen you have to have enough seats to stretch farther back so you won't get 20 people up front who have neck damage.

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,

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
pecan 3.14159265
May 12, 2009 5:17 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@44 in a Row: So the true IMAX screen in the graphic isn't a true IMAX screen? i didn't pay much attention to the graphic other than noting the size differences.

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.

Reply
","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
quagmire0
May 12, 2009 5:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Is it too late to mention that Star Trek wasn't filmed in IMAX, thus all you're really paying for is stretching the movie to a larger screen than usual? :D

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
ToddBradley
May 17, 2009 6:19 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@quagmire0: And if you want to pay extra to take a regular film and blow it up to a larger screen, can I sell you my old DVD player to use with your HDTV? It's the same concept. You're not getting any more fidelity of an image with the BullMAX fake IMAX system, you're just stretching a lower fidelity image to make it look bigger. It's like the bartender at Applebee's who thinks that taking an SD sports program in 4x3 aspect ratio and stretching it to 16x9 magically turns it into HDTV.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
rhys1882
May 12, 2009 6:58 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@quagmire0: What, so that means it's OK to screw us out of the extra money for a half-assed upgrade? If anything that emphasizes the point. We go to see these films on IMAX screens not because they are on IMAX film, which could only be played on an IMAX screen, but because we want them larger with better sound. If they are skimping on the sole reason to go to an IMAX screen for a film not filmed in IMAX, then that is a total rip-off.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pecan 3.14159265
May 12, 2009 5:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@quagmire0: No, but that's not the point. I know it's not filmed in IMAX, but I still want to see Kirk kick Romulan ass on a super giant big screen.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
logicalnoise
May 12, 2009 5:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

my local regal in lincolnshire IL is a full size IMAX(55 feet).

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
britne
May 12, 2009 9:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@logicalnoise: Thank you as well! Lincolnshire is closer for me as well, than downtown.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
the dodo, the cuckoo, and the nene
May 12, 2009 6:59 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@logicalnoise: Thanks. I was just searching for an IMAX theater closer than Navy Pier. Good to know that the Lincolnshire one is full sized.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
dragonpup
May 12, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
44 in a Row
May 12, 2009 6:15 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

So the true IMAX screen in the graphic isn't a true IMAX screen? i didn't pay much attention to the graphic other than noting the size differences.

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.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
B
May 12, 2009 6:25 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

To answer your question: I wish. My local theater has a regular sized screen, an out of date projection/sound system, really uncomfortable seats and concessions that don't quite pass the health code. I've stopped going there altogether, and if I can't see the movie someplace else, I'll wait till it's on Netflix.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
JulesWinnfield
May 12, 2009 6:30 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I have a choice of seeing Star Trek in a new digital DLP theater or an IMAX Lite. Which would you choose?

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
MitchEvious
May 12, 2009 6:54 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Saw it in the xd3 theater in Plano, was nice. Had nice fake leather seats and everything...Sat 500+ people...

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
calchip
May 12, 2009 6:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Not only is the screen tiny, but real IMAX uses 70mm film and the image is imposed on the film sideways, so it's about 4 or 5 times the image area of regular 35mm film, thus much higher resolution.

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.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
rhys1882
May 12, 2009 7:02 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The IMAX in Fresno is pretty large, with the super inclined seating, but it didn't have the IMAX sound introduction at the beginning. It was big enough and loud enough to satisfy me, but my girlfriend seemed to think it was a little smaller then the IMAX in San Francisco we are used to (which is a true IMAX).

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Span_Wolf
May 12, 2009 7:20 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

My local theater just added 3 IMAX screens, from the article it seems like they are probably the scammy ones, but it doesn't stop them from charging 16 bucks a ticket.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Audiyoda
May 12, 2009 7:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

WTH???

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.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
May 15, 2009 10:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The problem is, IMAX digital doesn't meet any of the standards you listed. It will never be able to show 70mm film quality because what it shows is just a video with resolution slightly better than blu-ray. Its projection system is totally different, and its screen aspect ratio is also not 1.44:1. I don't think you fully understand what IMAX digital really means. You just heard that it is a smaller screen. Do some research.

@Audiyoda:

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Kishi
May 12, 2009 7:55 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

While I agree with him that there's a difference between a real IMAX screen and what they're pushing as an IMAX in this case, he's still a dick for A) watching the whole movie and *then* complaining, dude, get your damn difference back and watch it on a regular screen if that's the problem, B) the whole \"Do you know what Twitter is?\" bit, and C) the update tag on the end, referring to this as a tragedy, while also talking about Darfur? Uh-huh.

They may be liars, but you're still acting like an asshole.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
PLATTWORX
May 12, 2009 8:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
H3ion
May 12, 2009 8:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Real IMAX uses a bigger camera and a different film format. The year that there were multiple climbing deaths on Mount Everest, National Geographic had a film crew on the mountain filming an ascent. Only a small part of the footage that made it into the final movie was real IMAX. The rest was normal sized movie film. They just couldn't handle the weight at those altitudes.

BTW, Harry Potter in IMAX (Boston by the harbor) is absolutely amazing.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
HogwartsAlum
May 12, 2009 9:13 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I've never been to an IMAX theater. There's one about 30 miles from me, though. Maybe someday

I prefer to go to the regular movie on Sunday morning, when everyone's in church. Less annoying people then.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Darklighter
May 12, 2009 9:24 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Am I the only one who thinks Aziz is being a bad consumer? I mean, I understand being upset with the size of the screen, but he didn't need to wait until after the film to complain about it. Isn't the correct thing to do after walking into the theater and noting the size of the screen to walk right back out and get your money back? And then there's his pompous comment about his Twitter followers...

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Chris Stone
May 12, 2009 9:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

As someone who just saw Star Trek: The \"IMAX\" Experience (imagine heavy air quotes there), I noticed it was a bit different than when I saw The Dark Knight: The IMAX Experience. Thanks, Consumerist, for confirming my suspicions. I think I actually will contact them.

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.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
RB_Bhoy
May 13, 2009 2:14 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Chris Stone: try your CC company. i called the theater i went to, and the kid told me \"nah, it's not a true real IMAX screen. it DOES curve, though.\" i bought my tickets 3 weeks ahead of time online, and i called chase about it. i told them how it wasn't a real IMAX screen, the employee even admitted it, and chase said it would work best under a \"product not as described\" claim. we'll see if it goes through.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
RB_Bhoy
May 12, 2009 11:25 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

i'm guessing now i was at IMAXlite, too. when i walked into the AMC in hamilton, nj (drove about an hour out of the way to see it in IMAX, too) i was disappointed. i assumed it was just cuz the only 2 times i saw anything in IMAX was grammar school, over 12 years ago, and i didn't remember, and it only APPEARED huge cuz i was so small/young. lame.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
RB_Bhoy
May 12, 2009 11:26 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@RB_Bhoy: ironically i could have gone to the lincoln square one, but didn't want to pay $18 to take the train into NYC.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
RB_Bhoy
May 12, 2009 11:30 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

can you do a chargeback to get money back for IMAXlite? false advertisement?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
professorjonathan
May 12, 2009 11:46 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I'm going to the Cradle of Aviation Museum on Long Island Saturday night to see Star Trek in IMAX; that's true IMAX, not just \"lite.\" {ProfJonathan}

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.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
aristan
May 13, 2009 1:55 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I saw Star Trek on an IMAX lite screen as well, sad because I was expecting something HUGE but only got merely large. Great picture & sound though. I ended up off to one side and near a wall. So much vibration I thought I should put quarters in it or light up right after the movie.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
May 13, 2009 2:00 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

My Mom went to a AMC IMax and the 3d was horrid compared to The Henry Ford Imax. Well, if the theater is not 3-4 stories tall, do not bother. The Henry Ford, you enter on the first floor, leave on the 2nd and the projector is on the 3rd. iMax boasts up to 16,000 or 12,000 watt sound system. THF has 8,000-10,000. Wonder if I would ever know. Blows any local theater sound system away.

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
frogman31680
May 13, 2009 3:40 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

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!

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
SidusNare
May 13, 2009 7:29 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Anyone know if the Mall of Georgia IMAX is full size?

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
T-Bone (KoKo the Monkey)
May 13, 2009 2:22 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@SidusNare:

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.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Justifan
May 13, 2009 11:56 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

thats just dodgy, i wouldn't pay extra for imax lite.

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.

Reply
","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
nocturnal99
May 13, 2009 3:25 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I've seen many movies in IMAX at NYC's Lincoln square theater, and then tried seeing Watchmen at the new IMAX in Times Square, not realizing it was Lite. It blew.

It's not that IMAX Lite is a problem. It's that in NYC, the IMAX Lite was $1 less than regular IMAX.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
faintandfuzzies
May 13, 2009 4:58 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
chenry
May 13, 2009 5:16 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

We've had these in Canada for a while, and yeah. They're kind of a rip off. The one I got to occassionaly runs a very obnoxious laser-light show before the movie, yakking about how awesome and huge the screen is. They even boast that the screen is over 6 stories tall.

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.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
chenry
May 13, 2009 5:18 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@chenry: There's a real IMAX theatre around town too, but it never shows anything Hollywood. Just documentaries and stuff.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
May 13, 2009 5:22 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

here are some emails for execs for IMAX, REGAL, AMC and Credit Suisse the financial investor. adiorio@amctheatres.com; administrator@amctheatres.com; cramsey@amctheatres.com; dickw@regalcinemas.com; gslayton@amctheatres.com; gthyer@amctheatres.com; juscott@amctheatres.com; mbell@amctheatres.com; mzwonitzer@amctheatres.com; pblase@amctheatres.com; sgormley@imax.com; slarson@amctheatres.com; zbaze@amctheatres.com; jthomison@hilliard.com; scott.barry@credit-suisse.com; dmiller@cariscompany.com; george.hawkey@barclayscapital.com; jeffrey.logsdon@bmo.com; mharrigan@wundernet.com; chris.white@wedbush.com; bmogil@westwindpartners.com; mbacker@researchassoc.com; david.gober@morganstanley.com; jhindelong@mchny.com; ewold@mcfco.com; dick.westerling@regmovies.com; dick.westerling@regmovies.com; mark.leonard@regalcinemas.com; gm925@regmovies.com; don.delaria@regmovies.com; larry.lutz@regmovies.com; npimaxsales@imax.com; humanresources@imax.com; info@imax.com; rgelfond@imax.com;

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
a3ulafia
May 13, 2009 7:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I went to the AMC Empire 25 Bullshit IMAX theater last night to see Star Trek. The ticket cost $17.50. The regular screen was $12.50. I have been to this theater before to see animated movies labeled \"digital\", probably cause they have this fancy Sony 2K digital projector. These animated movies cost $12.50, even though they were on the Bullshit IMAX screen. So...AMC theaters built a Bullshit IMAX theater where they play non-IMAX projections and charge less than the Bullshit IMAX prices.

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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
LittleBit12
May 13, 2009 9:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I thought what truly designated a movie as IMAX was if it was filmed in IMAX format. Here in Seattle, we have two IMAX theaters at the Pacific Science Center. One is newer and is a huge one (6 stories high and 80 feet wide), but the other is older (opened in 1979) and is only 35 feet high and 60 feet wide. Does that mean that second theater is not really an IMAX theater? While it may not be one of the larger theaters now, it was large for its time. Granted, the blockbuster movies like Dark Knight and Star Trek are shown in the bigger theater, but I still consider that smaller one to be an IMAX theater. A local multiplex just converted one of their regular screens into an \"IMAX\" screen. It may not be true IMAX, but I still think Star Trek looked pretty cool on the screen. It also only cost about $3 more than a regular theater, so I figured, why not?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Kris123
May 14, 2009 9:32 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Now this is getting a lot more press thanks to a pissed off celebrity
[movies.yahoo.com]

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
daisukeumon
May 15, 2009 9:45 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

From now on here at Consumerist, we should call it \"BullMAX\" from here on out. What do you think?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Android8675
May 15, 2009 4:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

saw star trek at SF Metreon, a full iMax, talk about awesome. hard part was I was kind of close to the screen. gave me whiplash, but it was a fun ride.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Bs Baldwin
May 16, 2009 7:10 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

So no curved, wrap around screens? That isn't Imax, it is just a regular theater with a slightly bigger screen.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
ToddBradley
May 17, 2009 6:15 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Bs Baldwin: The IMAX standard doesn't specify anything like \"curved, wrap around screens.\" The spec describes the film used and the projection method.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
feeheelee
May 17, 2009 5:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I think this is all overblown nonsense. Ok, so the IMAX Lite that is everywhere isn't the same as the BIG IMAX that show Under Sea Voyages and Dinosaur somethings. But the fact remains that the screens are bigger than most standard cinemas, the picture quality is miles better and the sound in immense.
Not all movies are \"IMAX\"ed so the full screen isn't used for all movies. Like The Dark Knight, that had IMAX scenes where you got extra screen, but Watchmen and Start Trek are not IMAXed, they are just really really good looking. And there's nothing wrong with being ridiculously good looking is there?
I wasn't expecting the behemoth IMAX, I just wanted bigger and better and I got that. If you want \"proper\" IMAX go visit one, but chances are they aren't showing what you want and if they are it's a lot more than an extra $5... So stop crying!!

Reply
","");