|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Megaplex in Sandy, Utah converting to real IMAX
|
|
|
|
|
Monte L Fullmer
Film God
Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004
|
posted 07-30-2005 05:24 AM
quote:
"....owns a competing IMAX Theater at Jordan Commons and a theater at the Gateway. The Mayor always stresses that the County should be run like a business, but no sensible business would put a direct competitor of their facility on their Board.
Course, this is a false statement being that LHM doesn't have an IMAX at the Commons - just a "Giant Screen" setup using the MegaSystems 8/70 format. Thus, LHM is not in any form of practicing "conflicting interest" using this format.
If LHM wants to stay on the Planitarium Board (Clark Planetarium - next to the Megaplex 12 at the Gateway), he could install the CDC system at the Commons - a system that still uses the 15/70 film format, but isn't, in any way or form, have the name or is called IMAX. Using the CDC system, the words "IMAX" will not be displayed on his complex in Sandy.
Amazing - that when anyone see the words "IMAX", they automatically think of that in any form of large screen presentation. Big time catagorizing on this one.
"IMAX(r)" is a trademark name for that company's version of large screen presentation.
...like Kleenex Tissue to facial tissue....which catches the eye first?
-Monte
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster
Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 07-30-2005 09:02 AM
quote: Joseph L. Kleiman
The following appeared in the minutes of the Salt Lake County Council for their Jan. 21, 2003 meeting.
All that REALLY shows how belligerent council members Hatch and Dayton really are. Cricket is the sponser of the Mega Screen at Jordon Commons, not the liscensee of it. These guys obviously don't know how to research anything or clearly have not done ANY homework. The Imax at the Planetarium and the Gateway Theatre which is less than a stones throw away actually compliment one another, they are really not competetors. Would an Imax at Jordon Commons bite into the Planetarium's crowd... definately not. The Planetarium has typically shown a completely different fare with the majority of it being the Imax documentaries. Many of these documentaries have been shown at Commons in 8/70 with dismal grosses. The planetarium gets bus loads of kids every day in there from schools... same as T.P. gets em in conjunction with the dinosaur museum. Commons is clearly interested in playing the DMR Features and I don't blame them one bit, its time to make good use of that space.
I can't see that he would have much time to devote to the SLC board nor do them any good. Larry's worth billions, owns the local minor league ball team, the Utah Jazz basketball team, is building another 20 screen theatre in South Jordon, announced another one in the Ogden area and owns at least a hundred car dealerships... among other things.... so he's got a lot of tires in the fire so to say(pun intended!). I agree that he should NOT be on the Planetarium board of dumpkoffs. First off he is not a dumpkoff and wouldn't fit in there, it would certainly cause many a conflict at meetings having someone with some brains and know how. But I just don't see how he would have the time nor could he contribute much energy to it on a regular basis.
Re: the Planetarium..... It was ALOT nicer operation when it was in the old building and it had class and an atmosphere to it that was unbeatable for a museum. The new location coupled with the Imax has no where near the class that the location had over on State St., its too sterile and boreing now.
I also can't see the County supporting the Imax over the long haul either... its too conservative a town and the expense of it is very wasteful of tax payers money. Some news reporter will blow that one wide open in due time... its just the way this town works.
quote:
But one will wonder if LHM will go for the CDC system instead of IMAX - to get out of the lease and outright purchase the units. And since LHM is a stickler for quality,
Probably not CDC he should really go with Imax. The booth at Jordon Commons may not be large enough for a pair of CDC machines, let alone a GT or pair of SR. I'd bet on the new MPX machine.... BTW: Stands for Many Problems with Experimental machine ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) . Keep in mind that LHM could BUY Imax!
Quality.... LHM is too micro-managed and as a result he's installed and is installing Strong equipment in all his booths, and installed used Simplex's with straight GATES(and 3 to 7kw lamps!) at the GATEWAY(pun intended?), I think he learned a lesson on that one though. I don't see too much quality equipment being installed overall, its either run of the mill or quite substandard equipment overall as compared to what it could be... literally, he could own the best equipped theatres in the country but hasn't come close yet. Never the less I commend Paul S. and the projection staff at Gateway and Commons for making do with the junk they have and still generally giving a very good presestation. His theatres also need curtains on the front ends to add some class to the operation. They are all curtainless!
What Larry is really after is to utilize that giant screen space at Commons... its ALOT of wasted space that has cost HIM alot of money to support. The Mega 8/70 system has always had a problem with it of one sort or other and never performed very well, ever(Thank You Strong!). Its also never made any $$ and like most 8/70 systems the gorsses are dismal. Going Imax for access to the DMR features is a smart buisness move for that location and will bring more folks and $$ to Commons and that space will finally be properly utilized.
Mark
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster
Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 07-30-2005 10:03 AM
Joe,
Its clear that the Planetarium won't run any of the DMR features because that fare just doesn't fit into the theme of the Planetarium at all. Its strictly a science place. They may have run one DMR there since opening but I don't see aay of that sort of activity happenning there again nor at T.P., the James Cameroon film was really more science than not so that ran at T.P. and the Planetarium may run simmilar fare as well in the futire but I don't think regular film features.
They are about 7 to 10 miles or so apart.... not sure the exact distance and it doesn't really matter anyway since its two very different operations.
quote: Joseph L. Kleiman
Will the public IMAX be able to show the same film at the same time as JC? If so, will the area be able to tolerate it in two theaters simultaneously?
Who cares really but I don't think the Planetarium folks are stupid enough to book simultaniusly. Commons would certainly cream them if they did. For instance T.P. and The Planetarium both wanted "Bugs" at the same time but were not allowed to play it at the same time, ditto for Ghosts Of The Abyss. both eventually played the other films though.
quote: Joseph L. Kleiman
Will they try to remove the Cricket Super Screen license
Well, if they don't do their homework and discover that Cricket is really a sponser and not a Liscensee thay might try to. Then they would look stupid for sure and its about time they did.
quote: Joseph L. Kleiman
I'm sure someone on the council has a political agenda involving LHM.
Its not so much a political agenda as much as its an ego thing for all involved including LHM. Keep in mind that the LDS still really control this area and it has a very different political agenda/ego than other places have. Its a very HUGE ego in general..... Remember that not many Churches are in the real estate buisness, cattle buisness, nor own alot of any downtown area in a large city they may be in among others.
Its funny that you mention Dale and CDC and the comments. Dale has no direct experience with CDC nor its inatallations, nor Imax nor any of its installations, nor does he have any technical background to make any technical judgement call. Dale is just management and no more.
The problems with the CDC system at T.P. more directly reflect the extremely poor managemment at T.P. than it does the equipment itself. If you or he want to know about CDC installs then contacting other simnilar CDC booths, say Zion Canyon, St. Louis Arch, or Kansas City that are properly run booths will gnerate proper feedback still both good and bad about the equipment. Then the feedback can be weighed against the problems both good and bad that Imax booths typically have and an intelligent judgement call made as to which system to go with. Keep in mind that I also happoen to know the head operator at the Planetarium, also keep in mind that he is a VERY experienced Imax projectionist! So I could also relate the large amount of problems they've had THERE with the SR system and that Imax has had with its D-Tac sound system, and Imax technicians telling me about the crappy lenses. I'm sure thet Monty could relate similar experiences with the Imax SR system in Boise where there were also ALOT of problems.
Keep in mind that all systems have problems of one type or another and that how badly those problems show thorugh reflects directly on the technical abilities and technical knowledge of the booth people. Indeed all of T.P.'s problems are self induced from poor staff experience in this format and the T.P. management in general that also has zero experience with film at all..... BTW: they had the opportunity to hire the ex-Zion Canyon head operator but passed on it because they were obviously afraid that they'd have someone smarter than the management themselves on staff, that was VERY obvious back when that system was installed and which I worked on. As a result of hiring all inexperienced to no experienced operators that has caused tremendous problems there and it unfortnately shows. BTW: That guy T.P. passed on hiring was the operator that got 5000 faultless passes out of the first Zion Canyon print running it on a CDC projector!
quote: Joseph L. Kleiman
This is a matter of software, not hardware. Only IMAX theater owners can show DMR and original IMAX 3D productions.
Of course thats the reason... You seemed to miss my point though and that was that if they still weighed both systems in an honest fashion they will find that they will have a similar amount of problems with either of the systems...... perhaps and possibly even more problems with the new and really unproved MPX system. The folks at LHM don't seem to know how to do that... if they did honestly weigh the differences in equipment they purchase they would NEVER be installing any Strong equipment.
Myself personally I dislke the DMR stuff and would never see a film presented that way. It looses all imtimacy that a film could ever attempt to convey!!
Mark
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Joseph L. Kleiman
Master Film Handler
Posts: 380
From: Sacramento, CA
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 07-30-2005 12:15 PM
Mark,
I'm not trying to downplay the quality of the CDC equipment. I've been around enough projectors - GT's, SR's, 8/70, VistaVision, and Showscan to name a few - and seen enough problems that I know a lot has to do with not only how well the equipment is designed, but how well it's maintained. Even the new MPX that just opened at Pittsburg Mills has been having problems, causing the theater to close for periods at a time. I also know fully well that CDC is a great system. Rick Gordon uses a CDC in his screening room at RPG. However, when it comes to programming, CDC suffers the same issues that 8/70 has. There are no Hollywood films available. Look at the Kinoton system which opened this year in Appleton, WI. They were planning to show Hollywood films, like the Disney movies, along with traditional fare. Suddenly, Disney pulled out of releasing feature length films after this project was already underway. If you're a commercial operation, because of the number of Hollywood films available, you're screwed if you don't go with IMAX.
The switch to an IMAX system (and this has not been officially announced, only spoken about in the radio interview) is simply a ploy to make use of an existing space and show a product no other theater in Utah can. They are, however, confirmed for the REAL D system. It's all about offering films in ways their competitors can't.
As for DMR, it's a mixed bag for me. I've liked them all, though I have a lot of issues with fast cuts and pans. I also feel that most of them are too long - 90 minutes is about the right length for both a viewer's enjoyment and increasing profits. I found myself fidgeting through the five hours that were Harry Potter. However, I was surprised by Charlie. This film felt like it was framed for the LF screen. But I digress. I don't want Adam posting on here telling me to take it to another thread.
Joe
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Joseph L. Kleiman
Master Film Handler
Posts: 380
From: Sacramento, CA
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 07-30-2005 03:44 PM
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
T.P. played Ghosts Of The Abyss and eventually Bugs.
I don't consider either of those films Hollywood films, but rather specialty films. Sure, Ghosts was by a Hollywood director, but it was less than an hour in length and restricted to only LF and 35mm theaters equipped with over/under 3D systems. And Bugs is a traditional large format film. By Hollywood films, I mean exactly what DMR and the Disney animated films are - films that are intended for conventional 35mm presentation and then are blown up onto large format stock.
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
So when you go to a 15/70 its not necessarily a film that originated that way. I've alwyas felt thata film is done that way the paying public should know.
So you would recommend advising the audience that Human Body was not shot entirely on 15 perf/65 mm film stock, but rather is a combination of 15/65, 8/65, 4/35 and HD video? Do you think the audience really cares? I agree with you that it would be great to disclose such information, but post in large format has progressed to the point of almost all films are done with a DI now, and it really no longer matters what form the film was shot in. Roar was shot in 8/65 and 4/35 over a matter of weeks. But when put together by Tim Sassoon, it looks like it was shot in 15/65 over a single day. Do we need to disclose this as well? I've had many arguments with Jim Matlosz over his comments that "if it's to be shown on film, it should be shot with film, and if it's to be filmed digitally, it should be shown digitially." I think that both Cameron's IMAX films, which were shot digitally, along with digital presentations of MGF films proves Jim wrong. As long as it looks good, synchs the different filmed formats well, and is composed (and this is the key here) for presentation on the LF screen, it shouldn't matter. If the ultimate goal is to present the film as a large format movie - and I'm not talking reformatted Hollywood flicks here - then it should be considered a large format movie.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster
Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 07-30-2005 04:58 PM
quote: Joseph L. Kleiman
I don't consider either of those films Hollywood films
Joe,
It doesn't matter if they are Hollywood or not they were big films in their own right and made a ton of money for all the exhibitors that ran them.
quote: Joseph L. Kleiman
So you would recommend advising the audience that Human Body was not shot entirely on 15 perf/65 mm film stock, but rather is a combination of 15/65, 8/65, 4/35 and HD video? Do you think the audience really cares?
Actually you might be surprised how many would be interested in knowing how a given film was shot. Dolby and THX didn't become household names because the average Joe is not capable of being at least somewhat technically knowledgable. In reality, today the average Joe is far more technically knowledgable about film/video that he was 20 years ago!! Program books are also a long missing part of this industry and truth in advertising doesn't hurt either and there's a distinct lack ot that today. Formats USED to be truthfully advertised for the most part unless it was an ad matte slip up of some sort. Imax is SUPPOSED to be a special thing and to me a 15/70 film thats originated in 15/70 is indeed special. I can very easily see the difference in the formats mixed into in a 15/70 film. If Imax is to stay a special thing then at least some truth in advertising should be disclosed, the fact that Imax is that flexible would just make it that much more of a special thing if the marketing folks knew how to hamdle it. Today you're lucky to find a film marketing person that even knows what 70mm is.
quote: Joseph L. Kleiman
I've had many arguments with Jim Matlosz over his comments that "if it's to be shown on film, it should be shot with film, and if it's to be filmed digitally, it should be shown digitially."
I agree, he's smoking that I-95 stuff! Ghosts actually looked decent considering this is early HD Digital stuff that was transfered. Film transfered to Digital HD actually makes digital HD look better, but it does not necessarily make the film look better. Gee, we just uncovered a way to transfer the average Hollywood film so ANY 15/70 location could show it! I'd bet that it would also be alot less expensive than DMR transfers and it would still look acceptable too. IMHO though digital cameras really need 20 more years to gestate.
Mark
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 12 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 ... 10 11 12
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
I'm sure someone on the council has a political agenda involving LHM.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
.
Printer-friendly view of this topic