THE IMAX EXPERIENCE - modage wuz robbed!

Started by modage, May 30, 2007, 10:55:03 AM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

modage

ok, maybe i was naive about this but when i see a poster like this



i am under the impression that i am seeing an IMAX film.  it wasnt until yesterday when i read that it was all a lie.

Although it is not unusual for 35mm-lensed features to be remastered to screen in Imax theaters, "Dark Knight" is the first major feature to be even partially shot using Imax cameras. These sequences will be combined with the rest of the film -- lensed in 35mm -- to produce the final product.

What the use of Imax technology in the production means for audiences in Imax theaters is that when the select scenes are shown, the aspect ratio will morph to the larger size, expanding the image to fill the entire screen. In traditional theaters, the goal is that the Imax-lensed sequences "would jump off screens ... and give patrons an experience they haven't seen in 35mm presentations," said Dan Fellman, Warner Bros. president of domestic distribution.


isnt that bullshit that you're paying for THE IMAX EXPERIENCE and really just getting a film that's been blown up and stretched to fill a larger screen?  not increased resolution and everything else that other REAL IMAX films have.  that sort of pisses me off.  i wish Nolan were allowed to film the entire thing with those cameras because a few scenes, while cooler than nothing is sort of like making 20 minutes of a movie 3D.  go all the way or don't go at all.
Christopher Nolan's directive was clear to everyone in the cast and crew: Use CGI only as a last resort.

grand theft sparrow

I don't know.  I've seen a few films in IMAX but overall, even if it's just a 35mm blow-up, I've been satisfied.  Maybe not as satisfied as true IMAX but I've always known they blew up the prints.  The only one that sucked was Attack of the Clones because the fact that it was shot digital was very very evident.  However, I have no complaints with how the 35mm blow-ups that I've seen in IMAX look (Matrix Reloaded in particular looked great) and I don't feel scammed.  I'm still seeing a giant print of it, so you get to see all the nooks and crannies of Laurence Fishburne's giant fucking face.

That all being said, I think the studios should be selective about what films (or more to the point, which directors or cinematographers) they dump extra money into for IMAX sequences.  They're not getting THAT much money from the IMAX screens, right?  And I really doubt most people give a shit about or would even notice the difference between blown-up 35mm and true IMAX.

Christopher Nolan and his Oscar-nominated DP Wally Pfister... YES!  Let them shoot a sequence in IMAX for what is likely going to be a great popcorn film.  Even giving Jon Favreau and (specifically) Matthew Libatique the chance to shoot some IMAX sequences for Iron Man would be fine.  But so help me God, if they give Ratner an IMAX camera...

modage

yeah, its not that i've been disatisfied with the presentation.  its more that their intentions have not been made clear.  they have sold these movies as THE IMAX EXPERIENCE even going as far as having separate posters when in actuality the MT. EVEREST and SPACE movies are the only true IMAX films. 
Christopher Nolan's directive was clear to everyone in the cast and crew: Use CGI only as a last resort.

Ravi

I remember seeing the phrase "enhanced 35mm" in the ads for some of these IMAX screenings.  They don't shoot entire films in IMAX because the film stock alone would be a ton of money.  The only IMAX films I've seen are Superman Returns and Ant Bully, so I've never seen anything blown up from 35mm.

grand theft sparrow

Superman Returns wasn't shot with the extra large IMAX lenses so I think that would count as a blow-up, despite it being shot on HD.  Though I'm not sure how it works with a digital source now that IMAX is digital projection.

MacGuffin

I remember around the beginnings of IMAX they would show presentations and have displays in the lobby on how the negative was larger and so were the cameras, so I never felt 'duped' knowing that none of these 'studio' films were made in the true IMAX format. I wouldn't call mod naive, but I kinda thought that this was known; that all you were paying for was to see it on a much larger screen.
"Don't think about making art, just get it done. Let everyone else decide if it's good or bad, whether they love it or hate it. While they are deciding, make even more art." - Andy Warhol


Skeleton FilmWorks

Kal

I went to see some other 3D type films in IMAX and it was cool... but when I went to see Superman Returns I was very disappointed. I dont know about most IMAX theatres, but the one here in South Florida is an old theatre with little ass seats and no leg room. It was uncomfortable to sit for over two hours there and watch something very similar to what I saw in the regular theatre. The 3D scenes were cool, and the sound maybe was better, but no big deal.

For me going to the theatre is already an experience to watch it with better sound and a bigger screen, so at least I want to be comfortable. If it wasnt for the big screen I would watch all movies from my living room.

RegularKarate

Quote from: MacGuffin on May 30, 2007, 03:26:34 PM
I wouldn't call mod naive

I'm gonna go ahead and call mod naive. 

Seriously, Mod, you thought they were shooting these movies on Imax cameras just to have the majority of people see it shrunk down to 35?  Have you seen the Imax camera?  it's huge.

Imax really is best when it's short subject.  I love going underwater or into space.

Ravi

Quote from: RegularKarate on May 31, 2007, 11:44:52 AM
Imax really is best when it's short subject.  I love going underwater or into space.

I used to go to the Omnimax (domed screen) theater regularly but there are only so many fish and space films I can take.  Maybe if they made one about a fish in space...

OTOH, Hurricane on the Bayou looks like a good film.

pete

I seriously thought everone'd know that feature film can't be shot on imax with our current technology--those cameras are clumsy and costly.
"Tragedy is a close-up; comedy, a long shot."
- Buster Keaton

modage

well i feel like if thats the case they shouldnt sell it as IMAX.  thats like making a vhs copy to dvd.  they should just say EXPERIENCE IT ON A HUGE SCREEN, not EXPERIENCE IT IN IMAX.  because that is a lie.
Christopher Nolan's directive was clear to everyone in the cast and crew: Use CGI only as a last resort.

MacGuffin

Quote from: modage on June 01, 2007, 03:51:20 PMthey should just say EXPERIENCE IT ON A HUGE SCREEN, not EXPERIENCE IT IN IMAX.

This is the fancy way of saying that:

Spider-Man 3: The IMAX Experience has been digitally re-mastered into the unparalleled image and sound quality of The IMAX Experience® with proprietary IMAX DMR® technology. This riveting adventure will transport audiences to thrilling new heights as they experience Spider-Man 3 on the world's largest screens, surrounded by state-of-the-art digitial surround sound.
"Don't think about making art, just get it done. Let everyone else decide if it's good or bad, whether they love it or hate it. While they are deciding, make even more art." - Andy Warhol


Skeleton FilmWorks

Kal

Well its just a brand buddy... and thats their marketing strategy... if you want to go after IMAX you have to go after many brands, as everyone does the same...

last days of gerry the elephant

Quote from: modage on May 30, 2007, 10:55:03 AM
i wish Nolan were allowed to film the entire thing with those cameras because a few scenes, while cooler than nothing is sort of like making 20 minutes of a movie 3D.  go all the way or don't go at all.

Maybe you can envision how the film would look with the two cut together already but I am picturing something a little more favorable (stylistically speaking). He said the IMAX cameras would be used during the fight scenes and all I can really imagine at this point is sharp/fast paced fight scenes which isn't necessarily throwing you off from the momentum of the story. It can turn out to be a great integration, right? And I guess all I'm saying is... let's wait before we jump to conclusions.

MacGuffin

Imax, AMC ink deal for 100 theaters in U.S.
Source: Hollywood Reporter

TORONTO -- Imax on Friday unveiled a 100-theater deal with AMC Entertainment that promises to greatly enlarge its U.S. commercial footprint.

Friday's joint venture agreement will see 100 digital-projection systems from Toronto-based Imax go into 33 AMC locations during the next three years.

An initial 50 Imax digital-projection systems will be installed from July at AMC theaters in 24 of 33 selected U.S. markets, with another 25 set for rollout in 2009 and 25 more in 2010.

Once all 100 theaters are installed, Imax said it will have doubled its 3-D large-format theater presence in North America and extended its reach in the suburban multiplex market.

"An agreement of this magnitude not only bolsters our goal of expanding the network more rapidly, it also enables us to receive a more significant part of the Imax boxoffice from the theaters, as well as a continuing piece of Imax film revenues from the studios," Imax co-CEO Bradley Wechsler told analysts during a conference call Friday.

Wechsler also touted the AMC deal as beneficial in financial and strategic terms as it coincides with the major studios embracing the 3-D format as digital cinema is rolled out.

Imax estimated that the AMC deal will annually add $30 million-$35 million in incremental cash to its bottom line once all 100 proposed theaters come on stream by 2010, as scheduled.

As part of its agreement, Kansas City-based AMC proposes to retrofit existing auditoriums with an Imax digital-projection system designed for multiplexes. This will take place, for example, in six multiplexes in Los Angeles, including the AMC Burbank 16 and the AMC Century City 15, and six more New York venues, including three in Manhattan.

Other AMC locations to receive the Imax treatment include AMC South Barrington 30 in Chicago, AMC Mesquite 30 in Dallas and AMC Neshaminy 24 in Philadelphia.

The Imax-AMC joint venture theater agreement is set to run for seven years, with an option to continue for three more years.

As part of the deal, AMC will cover the cost of retrofitting its auditorium with a bigger screen and reconfigured seats, while Imax will carry the cost of manufacturing and installing its digital-projection systems at $500,000 per theater.

Imax and AMC will then share boxoffice revenue as part of a prearranged split during the course of the joint venture agreement.

"We are committed to delivering a premium entertainment experience by offering a menu of entertainment alternatives inside our facilities," AMC Entertainment chairman and CEO Peter Brown said.

"Our expanded relationship with Imax and the deployment of its state-of-the-art, next-generation digital-projection systems is a key part of our strategy of continuing to broaden and enhance the AMC experience," he added.

The Imax digital-projection system, now in development and slated for launch in mid-2008, will enable theaters to receive movies on a hard drive for exhibition. That eliminates the need for costly and heavy Imax film prints that require loading on bulky projection systems.

Imax argues the switch to digital projection should boost profitability for studios, exhibitors and itself by cutting out costs for film prints and increasing the number of movies passing through Imax theaters.

Typically, an Imax 2-D film print costs about $25,000, and a 3-D movie runs to about $45,000 a print.

Imax is betting that eliminating film print cost for studios will sharply increase a gross margins for an Imax release of a traditional 35mm movie, as the only remaining major cost to studios will be P&A.
"Don't think about making art, just get it done. Let everyone else decide if it's good or bad, whether they love it or hate it. While they are deciding, make even more art." - Andy Warhol


Skeleton FilmWorks