|
|
This topic comprises 9 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Gravity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 10-22-2013 06:54 PM
It looks like this discussion has become yet another IMAX discussion. Seems like IMAX still manages to unleash emotions, even way beyond the screen. Probably not the emotions they hoped for ![[Wink]](wink.gif) .
quote: Mike Blakesley
The show we saw, they DID have disposable glasses. They were yellow in color and the frames were too tight. I was glad the movie was short.
Are they seriously still using those crappy yellow flexible plastic glasses in cinemas those days? Although the polarizers are probably more or less the same in the more ergonomically shaped black glasses, those glasses are designed for stuff like theme park rides and not for feature length movies…
Is IMAX really selling those things to their exhibitors or are those exhibitors buying them for cheap from somewhere else? And if that happens, does IMAX approve those practices?
quote: Mike Blakesley
Reading these last few posts makes it clear that there's really not much consistency between different converted "LieMax" locations. No wonder people are starting to distrust the name.
The inconsistency already starts at their website, that refuses to list the basic difference between the few remaining 15/70 venues and the now common digital installations, although they promised to “fix” this in the past. IMAX is BELIEVING, so it's a lot like a cult. If you believe it's the best, maybe it feels like the best too...
quote: John Roddy
Now I'm curious. Do other IMAX venues have an upcharge for 3D? The IMAX screen at my theater has a $14.00 ticket price regardless of whether or not it's available in 3D. As far as I know, IMAX doesn't require any upcharge at all.
The venues around here (Western Europe) usually charge extra for the “privilege” of watching (Digital) IMAX movies in 3D. But upcharges for anything you can dream of have become a common thing, many chains even charge you transaction and handling fees for tickets you buy on-line, even if you bring your own printed tickets to the cinema. So it’s often cheaper to pay a real living person in cash and let him/her print your ticket on their paper...
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scott Norwood
Film God
Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 10-23-2013 08:06 AM
The glasses that I used were some dark color (dark green? black?) and the actual polarizers were flexible plastic--sort of a slightly thicker version than the plastic used in old-style disposable cardboard 3D glasses.
I assumed that they were reusable because they were handed to me out of a dishwasher tray and there was a big bucket into which used glasses were to be returned. I suppose that there was nothing to stop me from walking off with a pair, though.
Are all Lie-max shows in 3D? Do all of the theatres have silver screens?
I don't get the linear polarizer thing at all, though. Circular polarizers are a big improvement, and, when I accidentally tilted my head, I was shocked to realize that Imax was not using them in this new-ish installation.
In fairness, the experience was not bad. The picture was bright and sharp (for 2K DLP) and the sound was clear. But I would expect this in any top-quality cinema (and a normal cinema would have proper masking, too). For something called "Imax" that has a ~50% ticket price premium, I would expect much more than just a "good" cinema experience.
So, then, my objection to Lie-Max is not that it is a bad experience (it isn't), but rather that they are calling it something that it is not ("Imax") and charging too much for it.
I really do think that all of these little surcharges (3D/"Imax"/"Imax" 3D/ etc.) will eventually cause great harm to an industry that has long thrived on the promise of inexpensive out-of-home entertainment. It seems to have worked in the short term, but I really do expect that audiences will get tired of it. How long will it be before a trip to the movies for a family of four costs $100? And how many people will pay that when they can buy the Blu-Ray in six months for $15?
Edit: I found the exact screen size for this house: 29'x64' (2.2 ratio?!?). The 35mm screen that it replaced was 23'x56'. Not much of an improvement, really, although the sound system is better than it was before.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Terry Lynn-Stevens
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1081
From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Dec 2012
|
posted 10-23-2013 09:59 AM
quote: Scott Norwood
I really do think that all of these little surcharges (3D/"Imax"/"Imax" 3D/ etc.) will eventually cause great harm to an industry that has long thrived on the promise of inexpensive out-of-home entertainment. It seems to have worked in the short term, but I really do expect that audiences will get tired of it.
I totally agree, the current surcharges will eventually cause great harm to the industry. IMAX has done very well in the short term and IMAX has the backing of the studios when releasing their movies. But it is pretty clear IMAX is living off of the reputation they built with their older purpose built venues. Some of these older venues are now showing digital projection, the world's largest IMAX theatre is now showing digital IMAX which is simply not good.
Long term IMAX will suffer and will probably fizzle out. Right now IMAX is making its money off of the joint concept of multiplex/IMAX. They get a hold of a hot product such as gravity and they ride that wave to incredible returns at the multiplex while most of the older 15/70 museum theatres are left to suffer.
The only thing I actually like about Liemax is that at least I know what I am getting when I arrive a theatre with IMAX. In my area I know where the good theatres are that have masking, a good sized screen and good sight lines, but there are a lot of bad cinemas out there that just do it all wrong.
I would see a brighter long term future for IMAX if they were willing to announce a commitment to 15/70 in the future for those theatres that are capable of playing it. There should be no reason why a movie like the upcoming Hunger Games Catching Fire should not play in 15/70 where applicable. The incredible demand for 15/70 screenings of The Dark Knight Rises or MI4 prove this.
With all the surcharges, lack of masking, dimly lite screens, a return of THX would be the perfect thing to hit the industry right about now.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stephen Furley
Film God
Posts: 3059
From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 10-23-2013 10:17 AM
quote: Scott Norwood
So, then, my objection to Lie-Max is not that it is a bad experience (it isn't), but rather that they are calling it something that it is not ("Imax") and charging too much for it.
Is it really that different to Technicolor being both a company, and at least five different processes (Additive, Cemented positive, two colour imbibition, three strip three colour imbibition, Monopack)? Saying that a film is 'In Technicolor' doesn't really mean anything. 'Colour by Technicolor' probably at least tells you who did the work.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Terry Lynn-Stevens
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1081
From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Dec 2012
|
posted 10-23-2013 12:00 PM
Stephen, I get what you are saying. I think more recently, the whole bash on IMAX is the "in" thing to do. I don't particularly care much for digital IMAX but I don't really care to bash it either. I would never pay to see a digital IMAX movie, however I would pay to see a 15/70 Hollywood movie and the surcharge for that would not bother me.
To me the idea IMAX always was documentary movies shown on a really big screen in a unique purpose built theatre that only IMAX would design. They never really advertised or promoted the fact that they were 15/70 (I could be wrong but I never saw any promoting) and why would they start all of a sudden now. I never put 15/70 and IMAX together until The Dark Knight put 15/70 on the map for the regular movie goer.
quote: Mike Blakesley
But what I also wonder is, how many of those Imax customers are now convinced that THIS is the best way to see a movie?
That is probably the case as all these RPX, AVX, ETX theatres that don't have masking is what is in right now. I don't really care if the movie goers wants that, if I was a theatre owner and they were willing to pay a premium for a theatre with no masking over a theatre with it, I probably would give then what they want. I know I won't pay for a movie without masking.
quote: Mike Blakesley
But the more "bad publicity" gets out about how Imax is diluting its brand, the less they will be fooled
Totally agree, but right now they are performing way better than I would of ever expected. Long term IMAX will fall apart. My prediction is it will happen when the purpose built cinemas start closing up for lack of new 15/70 product as IMAX appears to have completely abandoned them.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 10-23-2013 12:48 PM
quote: Scott Norwood
The real 15/70 Imax sound systems that I have heard have all completely blown away what would be found in a good 35mm house.
While I'll give IMAX some credit for the huge speaker systems and immense amount of amplification they have put into classic 15-perf 70mm IMAX theaters, those theaters have never really been great in terms of overall sound quality. To me, the tone of those sound systems is kind of on par with the sound systems I hear at a good rock concert. They can get really loud, but not exactly very clean and well balanced. The GCC Northpark #1 THX sound system could get every bit as loud as a true IMAX theater, but it had tighter, cleaner sounding sub bass and the overall tone was a lot better. Music material sounded great at the Northpark theater. I've heard music scores sound terrible in IMAX theaters.
And I just have to keep slamming IMAX for its minimal number of surround speaker cabinets. Any theater built new for IMAX digital will only have two surround speaker cabinets. That's it. No "Voice of God" in the ceiling either. But the two surround cabinets will be stuffed up in the rear ceiling corners if that counts for anything.
Dolby Atmos just blows away all of that. It's the direction where movie theaters need to be going. And it has an advantage of not being able to be duplicated in home theater. 5.1 is very common in the home environment.
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
I can't stand Liemax as the lack of masking sucks big time but the numbers are off the chart. It also is not much of an upgrade over a cinema with real masking but from everything I have seen, the general public like it and don't seem to care what industry insiders know.
It's obvious that commercial movie theater screening room designs are taking the general public's lack of knowledge into account, thus making many new theaters more shitty.
I'm reminded of Santikos Theaters' "AVX" deal with the suburban Houston theater my girlfriend and I visited last May. Pretty much no masking or anything around the wall to wall, floor to ceiling screen. You could see some of the stuff stretching the screen into shape. It's obvious they were trying to copy an IMAX look, but apply it to a normal stadium seated theater design. The visual result was not good. It felt like watching a movie projected on a big white trampoline rather than a proper movie theater screen. But hey, the lobby decor was kick ass!
Some theater chains do go beyond the bare minimum and actually make some effort to please theater customers who know better. I think Warren Theaters fits more into this category. Their "LieMAX" screen in Moore, OK is one of very few IMAX branded theaters that has a screen not only equipped with masking, but it also has friggin' curtains too! The auditorium is somewhat similar in appearance to the Moore location's two balcony equipped Grand Auditoriums.
IMHO, any business with a policy of cutting corners or offering up an inferior product due to customers not knowing any better is a business that deserves to go out of business. I don't do my graphic design job in that kind of half-assed manner. I do my work so it will stand up to criticism from other professional graphic designers. Lots of trades, professions, etc. have various regulatory bodies that enforce some level of professional standards. The steering committee for digital cinema in theaters apparently have some standards too: standards of which are being ignored by numerous theater chains.
quote: Scott Norwood
Are all Lie-max shows in 3D? Do all of the theatres have silver screens?
They occasionally show 2D movies. I don't know about the silver screen part of it. The ones around here usually have their own standard upcharge above what it costs to watch a 2D movie in a standard theater. Then they tack another $3 on top of that for 3D.
quote: Mike Blakesley
I know for myself, now that I've seen it, I wouldn't go out of my way to see a movie in an Imax again.
We're thinking about seeing Gravity again this weekend to check out the 3D version, and will probably go to Moore Warren location to see it. The movie will be playing there in IMAX Digital 3D and another "standard" yet THX-certified house will have it in Dolby 3D and 7.1 surround. I'm leaning toward watching the Dolby 3D version. The picture may not be as bright as the IMAX branded house, but the tickets will cost $3 less and the sound quality will be better.
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
I think more recently, the whole bash on IMAX is the "in" thing to do. I don't particularly care much for digital IMAX but I don't really care to bash it either. I would never pay to see a digital IMAX movie, however I would pay to see a 15/70 Hollywood movie and the surcharge for that would not bother me.
People who are bashing IMAX aren't doing so out of it being some kind of fad. The only fad involved is people unwittingly paying extra to watch something branded as IMAX that ain't really IMAX. I'll happily pay extra to watch a documentary or Hollywood movie filmed in 16/65mm and shown on a 15-perf 70mm print. That's a big deal to me. But paying extra for HDTV resolution imagery and plain 5.0/5.1 audio just isn't worth it regardless of what kind of acronym they stick on the theater marquee.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 10-23-2013 03:08 PM
quote: Scott Norwood
The glasses that I used were some dark color (dark green? black?) and the actual polarizers were flexible plastic--sort of a slightly thicker version than the plastic used in old-style disposable cardboard 3D glasses.
Well, maybe they come in different colors too . But did they look like this or more like this?
quote: Scott Norwood
Edit: I found the exact screen size for this house: 29'x64' (2.2 ratio?!?). The 35mm screen that it replaced was 23'x56'. Not much of an improvement, really, although the sound system is better than it was before.
I would ask for a 6% refund.
Seriously, 1:2.2 and no masking? So no current movie will ever fit on screen without pillar-boxing or even worse, cropping the edges?
quote: Stephen Furley
Is it really that different to Technicolor being both a company, and at least five different processes (Additive, Cemented positive, two colour imbibition, three strip three colour imbibition, Monopack)? Saying that a film is 'In Technicolor' doesn't really mean anything. 'Colour by Technicolor' probably at least tells you who did the work.
Yes it is different, at least in the current context. Technicolor nowadays is almost irrelevant as a brand for cinema-goers. Technicolor isn't the big name on the poster and neither on the marquee. And yes, IMAX can even call a VHS tape projected via a CRT projector IMAX if they want too. Still, IMAX has built a reputation with their 15/70 format the last decades. IMAX was synonymous with that specific format. But nowadays, IMAX doesn't even want you to know if a venue uses a 15/70 or their digital system.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Terry Lynn-Stevens
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1081
From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Dec 2012
|
posted 10-23-2013 04:20 PM
quote: Marcel Birgelen
Still, IMAX has built a reputation with their 15/70 format the last decades. IMAX was synonymous with that specific format.
Marcel, I don't exactly agree with you. IMAX built their reputation with documentary films shown on a ultra large screen in a purpose built auditorium that was usually in a museum or special event place. I don't remember IMAX ever advertising 15/70 during the 70's, 80's or 90's. Perhaps they did but I never saw it.
The 15/70 nomenclature is a more recent thing with the average person. I think Dark Knight was the movie or event that made people aware of it. Before that, people just knew it as ultra large screens showing documentary movies. That is what I remember.
So yes, 15/70 is what made IMAX, but the average person never really knew what or how large the format was.
quote: Scott Norwood
But it is not in the same league as the 15/70 systems on which Imax built its reputation.
Totally agree, but those folks in China or the little ones who never saw the The Dark Knight in 15/70 will never know the difference.
I personally would like to see IMAX at least commit to 15/70 for those who can play it. I hear Hunger Games Catching Fire is opening in a number of museum locations, have these converted or are these 15/70? I would pay the premium to see it in 15/70, not a chance in IMAX digital.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 10-23-2013 04:54 PM
The 15/70 film format has been the backbone of all their technology (IMAX, IMAX 3D, OMNIMAX/IMAX Dome, IMAX HD), up until the very first digital installation.
The IMAX film technology itself is still highlighted in many 15/70 venues around the world, some of them even installed glass walls so people can look into the booth while it's operating. Many venues specifically explain the difference between 35mm and the IMAX film format, the enormous projectors and Xenon bulbs being used, etc.
Before the IMAX corporation switched to an almost all-digital operation, all those things were very prominent on their site too.
IMAX never called it "15/70" in their advertising, because they didn't have to. IMAX was synonymous with 15/70 film, there was nothing else.
The reason why we started calling it "15/70" is because the IMAX corporation itself does nothing to distinguish their inconsistent, sub-par 2K product from the thing that used to be the real thing(tm).
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 10-23-2013 05:30 PM
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
I don't remember IMAX ever advertising 15/70 during the 70's, 80's or 90's. Perhaps they did but I never saw it.
In the "pre-DMR" era, where museums were primarily the only venues showing IMAX content, IMAX didn't have to use the "70mm" term in any advertising. The large format film component of the presentation was understood.
The museum theater venues did a lot to show off the immense difference between ordinary multiplex 35mm presentation and 15/70mm. Most of the museum style IMAX theaters I've visited have made projection booths visible to customers, especially IMAX dome installations. They often had lobby displays showing the huge size differences between an IMAX film frame and a standard 4-perf 35mm film frame.
Theater chain multiplex IMAX theaters often have not followed that classic IMAX theater formula. The booth is usually hidden from customers, usually because it is part of the booth for the entire multiplex. They don't often show customers displays showing the difference between 4/35 and 15/70. The multiplex operators only want people thinking about the screen size and little else.
quote: Scott Norwood
At this point, I expect Imax to go the way of THX over the long term. Sure, they still exist, but THX means nothing as long as there are "THX certified" VHS tapes and crappy computer speakers.
I agree.
IMAX started watering down its brand with the "DMR" approach to taking Hollywood movies shot on 35mm or HDTV quality video and blowing them up to 15/70 film prints. Look what happened to the standard 5/70mm format. In the late 50's and throughout the 60's most movies shown in 70mm were shot on 65mm negatives. 70mm made a resurgence in the late 70's all due to Dolby Labs and what it did with 6-track magnetic sound. So we had a big hey day of 70mm blow-up releases throughout the 80's. But when 5.1 digital sound arrived in the 1990s all that 5/70 blow-up print production dried up fast. No more 5/70. The 5/70 format might have stuck around longer if more movies had been filmed natively in the 5/65mm process.
The same analogy is playing out via DMR 15/70 blow-up releases disappearing and more IMAX branded movie releases going out in 2K digital only.
Christopher Nolan has almost single-handedly been trying to save the true 15/70 IMAX format by shooting natively in that format. It's a sure bet if The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises were filmed only in 4/35 anamorphic there wouldn't be any 15/70 projector installation left in commercial movie theaters. As it stands 15/70 projectors are disappearing from the classic museum IMAX sites. Once they're gone IMAX will complete its transition from being a "best of breed" brand to more of a "so what" brand unremarkable from many other companies offering essentially the same product or a product that's even better.
I think IMAX is in really serious danger. Kind of like Nokia and Blackberry in the mobile phone market (10 years ago they were leading the market and now appear doomed). The 4K laser projection system they're working on is their only salvation, but only if the technology is exclusive to them. It doesn't appear that's the case. If IMAX's rivals (XD, ETX, RPX, Big D, AVX, etc.) can install their own twin 4K projection systems and even do laser it kills any technical advantage IMAX would seem to have. Add to that the obvious factor far better sound systems like Dolby Atmos are available than the system IMAX is using.
Over the next few years I can see various rivals one-upping IMAX at its own game. It's pretty easy to do with digital technology. It was far easier for IMAX to stay way in front of its rivals when it was all about 15/70mm. With digital no one is special.
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
I personally would like to see IMAX at least commit to 15/70 for those who can play it. I hear Hunger Games Catching Fire is opening in a number of museum locations, have these converted or are these 15/70? I would pay the premium to see it in 15/70, not a chance in IMAX digital.
If the movie is shot with video cameras and DMR blown up to 15/70 I'm not going to bother with it. The end results are just too damned fuzzy. According to IMDB, The Hunger Games: Catching Fire was shot on film, mostly 35mm using Arriflex and Panavision cameras. Some scenes were shot in 15/65 with IMAX cameras.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mike Blakesley
Film God
Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 10-28-2013 12:47 PM
We're having a weird experience with this movie, from the viewpoint of the customers. Listening to comments by patrons on the way out, almost nobody is calling this movie 'awesome' or 'great' or similar words. I'm hearing those kinds of words from a person here and there, but certainly not the majority. Most people are walking out kind of stone-faced, and the highest praise I'm hearing is, "it was pretty good" or "it was all right." Or, "that was different." (Which is code for "I didn't like it.")
I think some of this might have been caused by the high praise and lavish attention that's been heaped on this movie, not just by critics but by articles in magazines and so on. The movie's great, but not the best movie in the history of the world -- but people are expecting that due to over-hyping.
One guy last night told me he thought the ending was "stupid."
I wonder why this is? And is it just here, or are reactions everywhere like this? Are people so used to simplistic stories these days that they aren't even aware that there's a below-the-surface story?
I'm getting the strong feeling that a lot of these people are just not "getting" the main gist of the story. (As noted back on page 1, I didn't really focus on that the first time I saw the movie either, but I was caught up with looking at all the details of our Imax experience, so attributed it to that.) I just wonder if it's a local thing here or is that happening with typical audiences other places?
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 9 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
|
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
Printer-friendly view of this topic