|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Movie-Theater Chains Take On IMAX
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Terry Lynn-Stevens
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1081
From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Dec 2012
|
posted 12-29-2013 11:17 PM
quote: Marcel Birgelen
and IMAX DOES market it as exactly the same product, they don't even WANT you to know the difference. If you want to know, you have to turn to unofficial sources that aren't reliable, because things tend to change or are different between shows...
I hear what you are saying, both you and Edward make enough valid points, but I think Edward gets it a little more right that you do. I do believe Gelfond has said that IMAX is not just about 15/70 it is more than just that, therefor he is not really lying. Is he? I think he even addressed situation in how the chains wanted separate branding.
Some of the people on here make the claim that IMAX means 15/70 and without 15/70 it is not IMAX. I don't really know about that claim to honest. I always thought IMAX meant giant screen, and you were closer to that giant screen because of specific design to the theatre, that is what it always meant to me growing up. If I were to walk into a MPX or digital conversion theatre, I might feel as those the screen was not as big as I assumed it to be. But on the other hand, the IMAX cinema that I go to is a purpose built IMAX venue that is in a multiplex and the screen is in fact not as wide as the largest former THX theatre in the same complex. Does that not make it an IMAX theatre? Remember, the theatre I am talking about is a purpose built IMAX venue that only has 262 seats in it and has a screen that is not as wide as the largest 500 seat theatre in the same complex.
quote: Marcel Birgelen
and IMAX DOES market it as exactly the same product, they don't even WANT you to know the difference.
Marcel, you are not exactly correct. IMAX 15/70 presentation usually run a pre-show at the beginning that explains what you are about to watch, I saw this pre-show on every 15/70 presentation I have seen. IMAX digital runs a different pre-show and then clearly states after the countdown trailer that the presentation is powered by "DLP Digital Cinema Technology"
Also, titles that are "The IMAX Experience" are Hollywood movies that have undergone the DMR process. I have yet to see a traditional filmed in IMAX documentary use the term "The IMAX Experience"
But yes, I can see how some might find it misleading on the IMAX website. The IMAX website does not make it exactly clear if the theatre is film or digital for most theatres.
The listing for the Airbus IMAX, Stephen F. Udvar-Hazy Center is clear on the IMAX website that Catching Fire The IMAX Experience is 15/70. It is called an IMAX theatre. The same cannot be said about the Bob Bullock theatre in Austin nor can the same be said about the Ford Museum.
But overall, Edward gets it right, most moviegoers do not view IMAX in the same way we do on this forum.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Edward Havens
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 614
From: Los Angeles, CA
Registered: Mar 2008
|
posted 12-30-2013 02:22 AM
quote: Bobby Henderson
I tried to be nice about how I put it with the last response, saying what theater managers have the time to do on the job. So I'll just call bullshit to your notions about what the audience has accepted or not. Your conclusion is not anymore accurate than mine.
Of course you call bullshit. It's a classic move. Personal Incredulity. Because you found something difficult to understand, or are unaware of how it works, you make out like it's probably not true.
quote:
If you're a theater manager I know for a fact you do not have time to quiz every single person entering and leaving an IMAX Digital screen to get their honest accounts of why they visited the theater at that particular time and what they thought of the experience. Having "butts in the seats" alone is not an outright endorsement of the product. There are other factors putting the butts in seats besides that IMAX logo. You can ignore those factors if you like, but it ruins any credibility of your argument (sic).
I don't need to quiz every single person entering and leaving an IMAX digital screen to get their honest accounts. But when I see the same people coming back to my theatre time and time again, seeing movies on my IMAX screen time and time again, regardless of what type of movie it is, I can make logical conclusions. When I have people ask my why they should see the movie they want to see in IMAX, and then thank me for the suggestion at the end of their movie, I can make logical conclusions. Because I am there five days a week, eight to twelve hours a day, seeing how people react to The IMAX Experience, I can make logical conclusions.
Oh, and when you keep falling back on the same "points" time and time again to support your argument, it ruins all credibility to your argument.
quote: Bobby Henderson
I've seen a few movies in IMAX Digital auditoriums. Do I sound like an enthusiastic endorser of the product? For example, I watched Skyfall in an IMAX Digital theater because the Warren Moore Theater's Grand Auditorium and no kids allowed balcony area was already sold out. I had to settle for the LieMAX screen. I watched the first Hobbit movie in the same IMAX branded theater for the only benefit I see with IMAX Digital: brighter 3D.
Well, aren't you a prince?
quote: Bobby Henderson
Insulting me because I'm not a IMAX theater manager is a very hollow tactic. For one, you may be biased, wanting to protect the business of that IMAX auditorium. Next: other theater managers in this forum have been saying the same things I have. Why aren't you getting snippy with them? The technical comparisons I have been making between IMAX Digital, the wannabe LieMAX screens and true large format processes has been correct.
If you think I am insulting you, you have some serious thin skin.
The main problem here is, you keep bringing up points I'm not arguing to prove a case I'm not arguing. I'm not arguing that 15/70 is inferior to digital. I'm not arguing about anything technical. I am arguing about mass public acceptance, which you refuse to acknowledge.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 12-30-2013 03:08 AM
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
I hear what you are saying, both you and Edward make enough valid points, but I think Edward gets it a little more right that you do. I do believe Gelfond has said that IMAX is not just about 15/70 it is more than just that, therefor he is not really lying. Is he? I think he even addressed situation in how the chains wanted separate branding.
This is just splitting hairs and accomplishes nothing, nobody is referring to what Gelfond said, he can say everything he wants, that doesn't change history. IMAX has always been more than just a film format, but IMAX has also been synonymous for its 15/70 film for decades. Before they silently started to switch to digital, they themselves made sure everybody knew that. And as I stated before, almost everybody would've expected them to eventually move away from film, once the technology allowed it. Well, they obviously didn't wait until the digital technology was up-to-standard, even 5 years later, their system is not significantly better than that other theater down the hall...
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Some of the people on here make the claim that IMAX means 15/70 and without 15/70 it is not IMAX. I don't really know about that claim to honest. I always thought IMAX meant giant screen, and you were closer to that giant screen because of specific design to the theatre, that is what it always meant to me growing up. If I were to walk into a MPX or digital conversion theatre, I might feel as those the screen was not as big as I assumed it to be. But on the other hand, the IMAX cinema that I go to is a purpose built IMAX venue that is in a multiplex and the screen is in fact not as wide as the largest former THX theatre in the same complex. Does that not make it an IMAX theatre? Remember, the theatre I am talking about is a purpose built IMAX venue that only has 262 seats in it and has a screen that is not as wide as the largest 500 seat theatre in the same complex.
Even before there was MPX, there were scope screens that were wider than some IMAX screens. And you never heard me telling that screen size is the ultimate measure, actually, just the opposite. Screen size has almost nothing to do with how close you sit to the screen and how "immersed" you are in the movie. But resolution and brightness are two very important factors. IMAX Digital doesn't remotely come close on that resolution aspect and brightness is not a big issue on medium sized screens either. Wall-to-wall, bottom-to-ceiling sized screens and luxury seating haven't been exactly a novelty since the multiplex building boom and stadium seating conversions started. I can visit a multitude of local multiplexes with OK sound and wall-to-wall, bottom-to-ceiling screen and sit somewhere in the front and my experience is "just as good" as that famed "Digital IMAX experience" and I even don't have to pay a hefty premium for it...
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Marcel, you are not exactly correct. IMAX 15/70 presentation usually run a pre-show at the beginning that explains what you are about to watch, I saw this pre-show on every 15/70 presentation I have seen. IMAX digital runs a different pre-show and then clearly states after the countdown trailer that the presentation is powered by "DLP Digital Cinema Technology"
And that's only because the exhibitor does this, many museum and purpose-built locations also offer small exhibits and glass windows to get a glimpse into the booth. But that's the exhibitor that invested millions in the IMAX brand. IMAX HQ is doing quite the opposite, they do everything to conceal that the stuff called IMAX in that multiplex is just a cheapskate ripoff of "the original". The multiplex also has NO interest at all in claiming that their room is in any way sub-par to any of the original build-outs. They got into the IMAX game rather cheap and it might give them a competitive advantage while it lasts, they're part of the lie... or deception...
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Also, titles that are "The IMAX Experience" are Hollywood movies that have undergone the DMR process. I have yet to see a traditional filmed in IMAX documentary use the term "The IMAX Experience"
Yeah, sure. So, a documentary filmed in IMAX is just IMAX and a movie blown up to 15/70 OR projected in oversized 2K is "The IMAX Experience"? So, The Dark Knight Rises is about 1/3rd "IMAX" and 2/3rd "The IMAX Experience"? Even if that would be true, I guess it's not the slightest bit confusing... or... misleading?
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
But yes, I can see how some might find it misleading on the IMAX website. The IMAX website does not make it exactly clear if the theatre is film or digital for most theatres.
Not exactly clear? Let's keep it this way: It doesn't make it clear at all. There is no "more information" button or something that lists some technical specs regarding the theater.
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
The listing for the Airbus IMAX, Stephen F. Udvar-Hazy Center is clear on the IMAX website that Catching Fire The IMAX Experience is 15/70. It is called an IMAX theatre. The same cannot be said about the Bob Bullock theatre in Austin nor can the same be said about the Ford Museum.
Yet again, this is the exhibitor at work, not IMAX HQ. I guess they got sufficient inquiries about it, so they put it on their website or maybe they're just proud about the fact they show it in a REAL Large Format.
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
But overall, Edward gets it right, most moviegoers do not view IMAX in the same way we do on this forum.
I guess we all got that part right, still that doesn't justify lying to them. Or as Edward put it, deceive them.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Terry Lynn-Stevens
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1081
From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Dec 2012
|
posted 12-30-2013 09:49 AM
quote: Bobby Henderson
The Warren Theater only has it in 2D and IMAX 3D now. I'm satisfied with having watched those two movies in 2D with Dolby Atmos sound.
I looked on the website for Warren 14, they make no mention of THX or Dolby Atmos. Are you sure you saw it in Atmos?
quote: Marcel Birgelen
So, The Dark Knight Rises is about 1/3rd "IMAX" and 2/3rd "The IMAX Experience"? Even if that would be true, I guess it's not the slightest bit confusing... or... misleading?
Dark Knight is not a traditional IMAX movie yes it has some IMAX sequences but end to end it is not an IMAX movie, IMAX movies are usually documentaries. I think we can all agree The Dark Knight was a rarity in that it got studio support in telling the audience where to see it in 15/70.
quote: Marcel Birgelen
They got into the IMAX game rather cheap and it might give them a competitive advantage while it lasts, they're part of the lie... or deception...
At the end of the day, it really is not going to make much a difference to the average moviegoer.
quote:
IMAX has always been more than just a film format,
I forgot to add, to me IMAX was always a very large screen and documentary films. I never once associated a Hollywood type movie with IMAX until in and around The Dark Knight release.
I personally think the buzz of "filmed in 15/70" is over. Catching Fire had footage filmed in the format and it got almost no press or fan boy talk. I thought there would be more talk about it and such but that did not happen. It will be interesting to see that happens when "Interstellar" is released, I am almost certain there will no chance that it will be released in 15/70 in my area.
quote: Edward Havens
I am arguing about mass public acceptance, which you refuse to acknowledge.
I don't think Bobby can accept it or maybe he is afraid to accept it. This past weekend "The Hobbit 2" grossed about $29 million, 17% of the gross came from just 300 IMAX screens, these types of numbers are simply astonishing.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 12-30-2013 12:30 PM
quote: Edward Havens
Of course you call bullshit. It's a classic move. Personal Incredulity. Because you found something difficult to understand, or are unaware of how it works, you make out like it's probably not true.
Edward, you have no way to back up your claim (audiences are unanimously embracing LieMAX) with any specifics. Throwing around your authority as a theater manager does nothing get around it. In terms of scientific hypothesis your claim cannot be proven.
quote: Edward Havens
I don't need to quiz every single person entering and leaving an IMAX digital screen to get their honest accounts. But when I see the same people coming back to my theatre time and time again, seeing movies on my IMAX screen time and time again, regardless of what type of movie it is, I can make logical conclusions.
You're jumping to conclusions and not proving your point. You don't know what's going on in the heads of every single customer unless you actually ask them, and even then there's no guarantee you'll get a completely honest answer. Marketing companies try as hard as they can with focus groups, surveys, etc. and even then they classify their results as not being scientific.
You rudely dismissed my reasons for visiting the Warren Moore's IMAX theater with that "aren't you a prince" remark, completely missing or ignoring the point. Do you think I'm the only person who ever set foot in an IMAX Digital theater who was less than thrilled with the quality of the product?
Location, location, location. That's really the biggest factor putting butts into the seats at movie theaters. If that wasn't the biggest factor all the bad theaters many of us love to hate wouldn't be able to stay in business. Here in Lawton the Carmike 8 is best theater in town in terms of presentation quality, but the Central Mall 12 theater has much higher ticket sales despite being a lesser quality theater. More people go there because it's in the mall, near the center of town.
Certain fans of IMAX Digital love to talk about the box office grosses of IMAX Digital theaters while ignoring some important factors, like location. A bunch of these IMAX Digital screens were added on or retrofitted into theaters that already had very high customer traffic levels. IMAX Digital takes over the biggest room in a high traffic theater, add in the surcharges for The IMAX Experience and 3D, not to mention taking over the best show times and its pretty easy for IMAX to come up with very impressive yet very colored box office numbers.
In Oklahoma City, the Warren Moore 14 and AMC Quail Springs Mall 24 were already the most busy theaters in the OKC area. AMC converted one of the biggest rooms in its 24-plex to an IMAX Digital screen while Warren built a new auditorium on the north side of their building. I doubt if the addition of IMAX Digital has made a huge difference in either theater's overall attendance numbers.
quote: Edward Havens
Oh, and when you keep falling back on the same "points" time and time again to support your argument, it ruins all credibility to your argument.
I have been repeating the points because it doesn't seem like you're listening to any of them. If I'm wrong about any of those specific points would you care to actually disprove any of them? Throwing around the "I'm an IMAX theater manager" card doesn't refute anything I've said.
quote: Edward Havens
If you think I am insulting you, you have some serious thin skin.
The thickness of my skin is besides the point. The tone of your responses isn't polite.
quote: Edward Havens
The main problem here is, you keep bringing up points I'm not arguing to prove a case I'm not arguing. I'm not arguing that 15/70 is inferior to digital. I'm not arguing about anything technical. I am arguing about mass public acceptance, which you refuse to acknowledge.
You're assuming every audience member in an IMAX Digital theater sees The IMAX Experience in the same positive light. I believe the truth is more complicated.
quote: Marcel Birgelen
IMAX has always been more than just a film format, but IMAX has also been synonymous for its 15/70 film for decades. Before they silently started to switch to digital, they themselves made sure everybody knew that.
Prior to the rollout of IMAX Digital just about every 15-perf 70mm based IMAX theater had display cases showing 15-perf 70mm film next to 4-perf 35mm. They were proud of that gigantic size difference in film formats. Some IMAX theaters I visited were designed so the projection booth was visible to the public behind large glass windows. IMAX wanted customers to get the point that this wasn't any ordinary film projection system.
IMAX went completely in the opposite direction with digital. In being at least misleading to the public they have made themselves vulnerable to the all these Johnny come lately house brand big screen concepts.
If the public doesn't know or care about any of the technological particulars that make up The IMAX Experience and its high ticket price they have nothing of reference to use in measuring these other premium house brand big screen theaters. To the customer it may appear all these acronym labeled theaters are all the same. And that opens the door for theater chains to take misleading tactics another step farther and cut corners to increase profit margins with the premium big screen concept.
If IMAX had been more open and honest about the specifics of IMAX Digital from the start, including making clear distinctions between the film and digital formats the movie theater chains might have been forced to compete with IMAX on its level with those house brand premium big screens. There might have actually been healthy competition to raise the quality bar higher. Instead, we could be going in the reverse, downward direction. Since the public doesn't know or care about the specifics the theater chains can do whatever they want with their premium screens. IMAX isn't going to call them on any compromises that might be taking place -like installing single projector 3D instead of dual projector 3D.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Edward Havens
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 614
From: Los Angeles, CA
Registered: Mar 2008
|
posted 12-30-2013 12:51 PM
Bobby, of course a retrofitted IMAX screen is going to go in to a location's largest auditorium. Putting what's going to be a large screen in anything less than the largest auditorium would be pointless.
I've made my point. You don't want to believe it. Fine. I acquiesce that nothing I write will ever convince you that your position might not be entirely correct. I accept that, to borrow a line from one of my favorite movies, having a conversation with you is like a Martian talking to a Fungo. I can make a point about how you haven't spoken to every theatre manager operating an IMAX screen about their experiences with their guests and instantly dismiss your opinion because of it, but you won't see the irony or acknowledge the fallacy in that point. You're just going to keep thinking what you want, unable to open up to the possibility that you might be uninformed in one or two avenues of thought.
So have a good life, Bobby. I am done with you. Of course, you'll need to respond to this post, to always have the last word. I know how important that is to the likes of you. So knock it out of the park, Sparky. Shellac me. Give me my due.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
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
Topic Closed
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
. My guess is that it searches for the first match in reverse order and puts the name of that poster besides it. In this particular case it also added "was the last to post".
Printer-friendly view of this topic