|
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Thor: The Dark World
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 11-20-2013 04:51 PM
quote: Michael Gonzalez
Any chance this might have been due to watching a 2D version through a 3D lense?
No. I watched Thor: The Dark World at the Harkins Theaters Bricktown 16, on their Cine Capris screen. It isn't equipped for 3D.
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
You couldn't be more wrong. Dolby Atmos has no chance IMO at being successful long term, it will need the Dolby 3D theatre naming to have a chance.
You're doing nothing to prove me "wrong" or prove your point by spouting opinion as fact. I've never said Dolby Atmos is guaranteed to be a success. However, technologically speaking, it blows away any other theatrical sound format that has preceded it, including anything from IMAX. That can be stated as fact.
It's obvious in order for Atmos to succeed it needs more Atmos-equipped theaters and more movies to properly utilize the process -not just more movie titles to populate a movie releases list. The arguably lame mix in Thor: The Dark World doesn't do much to sell Atmos, or any sound format for that matter. Gravity had a far better Atmos mix. I'm wondering if The Secret Life of Walter Mitty will have an aggressive Atmos mix since Skip Lievsay (the same re-recording mixer who worked on Gravity) is working on the project.
Tying Atmos in with Dolby 3D wouldn't make any sense, particularly since some Atmos-equipped screens are using competing 3D formats like RealD. Making the sound format more "open" will allow Atmos to be installed in more theaters. Dolby is making Atmos compatible with servers and IMBs made by other companies like Doremi, Sony, GDC, etc. I don't know how much progress has been made on that front, but it should help push Atmos into more theater booth racks. A Dolby-branded equipment only policy would be self destructive. Dolby already tried taking a Dolby Digital Cinema only approach with Dolby 3D. Today Dolby 3D works with other digital cinema servers.
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Bobby, the averages are off the chart for the IMAX screens. I really didn't believe the IMAX screens were grossing what they were grossing until I dug into them a bit. Are you saying they are not?
This is what I'm saying: all of those premium priced, acronym labeled, big screen theaters are bringing in far above average grosses. It doesn't matter so much whether the theater is branded by IMAX or carries another label like RPX, XD, ETX, AVX, etc. They're raking in above average numbers for reasons other than the theater's label.
The typical multiplex boasting one of those premium priced big screens always books the most anticipated new release of that week in that large house. If the movie is playing on two or more screens in the multiplex the premium priced big screen will always have the better evening show times while the other houses get the odd-ball times and fewer showings throughout the day. The premium priced big screen typically has a much higher seat count than all the other rooms in the complex. Even without the high surcharges the big screen theater would still blow away the combined totals from other screens in the multiplex showing the same movie. By the time demand for a particular movie has waned it will have already been shuttled off to a smaller house.
Of the grosses in IMAX branded houses, how much of the take are theaters having to give up to IMAX via revenue sharing? If the theater chain didn't pay big bucks up front for a new IMAX theater or theater conversion, having IMAX foot the bill for the hardware, it's absolutely certain they're paying IMAX a bunch on the back end from the box office take. Not every theater chain likes that kind of arrangement. It's one of the bigger selling points for Dolby 3D -pay them a one time fee up front rather than paying RealD big $$$ on the back end.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Terry Lynn-Stevens
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1081
From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Dec 2012
|
posted 11-23-2013 05:02 PM
quote: Bobby Henderson
Of the grosses in IMAX branded houses, how much of the take are theaters having to give up to IMAX via revenue sharing? If the theater chain didn't pay big bucks up front for a new IMAX theater or theater conversion, having IMAX foot the bill for the hardware, it's absolutely certain they're paying IMAX a bunch on the back end from the box office take. Not every theater chain likes that kind of arrangement
Bobby, the theatre has the regular price of the ticket, then the IMAX fee is charged on top of the regular price. The theatre does not see any of the surcharge, the surcharge goes to IMAX which then pays a portion to the studio.
quote: Bobby Henderson
Dolby Atmos doesn't have to be tied to Dolby 3D or any specific theater branding scheme to be successful.
Well, I do not agree with you. I don't see Atmos doing very much to pull in moviegoers long term. It might stick around but it certainly won't be relevant IMO.
quote: Bobby Henderson
However, technologically speaking, it blows away any other theatrical sound format that has preceded it, including anything from IMAX. That can be stated as fact.
Which will make no difference to whether Atmos succeeds or not. It is all in the marketing.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 11-23-2013 06:30 PM
Hey, it looks like I'm taking part in this IMAX v.s. Atmos discussion in the entirely wrong thread ![[Wink]](wink.gif) .
Comparing IMAX and Dolby Atmos is a bit like apples and oranges... It would be better to compare IMAX to THX or the stuff that's supposed to come after THX sold its soul to the highest bidder...
But, I don't think Dolby Atmos is dead in the water, not even remotely. It would also be utterly stupid to declare it dead already, it's been on the open market for how long exactly?!
It just takes one chain to embrace the format. Just recently, Kinepolis installed Barco Auro 11.1 in all their 25 theaters in their complex in Antwerp. I don't give a rats *ss about Barco Auro 11.1, for a brand new sound system, it's already an outdated concept, only with more channels. But if one or two other big chains would do the same with Atmos, it could easily bring the needed critical mass.
Here in mainland Europe, the only big chain doing serious business with IMAX is Pathé/Gaumont, so there is no big traction for IMAX in much of Europe. On the other hand, Dolby Atmos is slowly but steadily making its way in. So, I see a bright new future for object based sound systems... let those be our new overlords please.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Blakesley
Film God
Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 11-27-2013 10:51 PM
You guys are being ridiculous. (Well Terry is.) You're arguing two different things. It's like saying which is better, a Ford or Exxon?
Imax has the advantage of having name recognition all on its own. People automatically think "Imax = biggest screen, big sound, stadium seats." Whether that's entirely true or not these days, is another matter for the moment; right now in 2013, people hear Imax and believe they're getting the best premium experience on an Imax screen.
People KNOW that not all screens in a complex are going to be Imax. But they ASSUME that any theater they visit is going to have good sound. They hear Dolby and think "good sound," but it's a diluted name...many, many standard theaters (not just high-end ones) have Dolby sound processing, plus there is the fact that Dolby doesn't have any control over what speakers, amplifiers and so on are used in a given location. It's entirely possible to have the latest greatest Dolby processor, but still have totally crappy Dolby sound.
Atmos has further problems in that it's an unknown name (so far). Most people would say "Huh?" upon hearing the name. Actually the bigger problem is, it's too expensive. One reason DTS got such a foothold in the digital sound wars was, it was affordable...I think it only cost us about 6 grand to get into the digital sound business. Most owners, once digital got its foot in the door, installed digital sound in all screens. Atmos costs what, at least $50,000 per screen when you factor in the amps, speakers, processor and installation? Maybe more?
So no multiplex owner is going to want to invest the kind of money it takes to equip all his screens with it, especially if he's still paying off his large investment in digital projection. And single-screen owners like me aren't exactly jumping all over it either because, alongside the cost, there's also the fact that many singles are fairly small and really don't need to have 128 speakers or whatever.
Therefore, Dolby would stand a chance of damaging its good name if they were to spend a ton of money on marketing a system that's only available in a very limited number of places and on a limited number of movies. They need to get the cost down somehow, then market it relentlessly to the exhibition community, THEN once it's available almost everywhere, start pushing it to the people.
Maybe they could come out with an "Atmos Lite" type of thing that has a less-fancy equipment package (maybe not so many channels, at lower cost?) so a smaller exhibitor (or a multiplex with small auditoriums) would be tempted to go "All Atmos."
Then it'd have a better chance of going mainstream, the same way "regular" Dolby is now.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Terry Lynn-Stevens
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1081
From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Dec 2012
|
posted 11-28-2013 02:33 PM
quote: Mike Blakesley
Whether that's entirely true or not these days, is another matter for the moment; right now in 2013, people hear Imax and believe they're getting the best premium experience on an Imax screen.
That is correct, and Dolby Atmos sound alone is not enough to sway consumers away from IMAX. IMAX set a number of attendance records this year in many different markets, in fact they set two different records in two different markets for two different films in the same weekend, so I wonder why Bobby is so worried about the numbers for IMAX?
There is a whole generation who have never seen an IMAX 15/70 presentation, many of the Chinese fans have never seen anything other than IMAX digital. I am betting most of these people will not give a shit about Dolby Atmos as they never grew up with it like I had. I for one know that IMAX digital is a scam and it is not the same as true IMAX. I am fortunate to have four former purpose built IMAX theatres in my area showing DMR films, yes they are now converted to liemax but at least they are still the purpose built real IMAX layouts.
IMAX pretty much invented this premium priced stuff. I have not seen anything come close to the averages that IMAX is pulling in. Some the averages for single screen IMAX auditoriums are just off the charts and they continue to show demand, I know a lot of people argue that IMAX digital is just 2K and is nothing special, but to say that their concept is not a money maker is just plain ignorant.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
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
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic