This is topic Hollywood films to hit the big, big screen in forum Large Format Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=14;t=000032

---

Posted by Bob Brown (Member # 1205) on 11-27-2002, 04:47 PM:
 
Well, anyone have any comments?

Hollywood blockbusters will be shown on Imax screens next year, ushering in what could be one of the biggest revolutions in film-going since Cinemascope.

Up to now, the nine giant Imax cinemas in Britain have been limited to showing the small number of films shot using specially adapted cameras, usually mountaineering or adventure epics, educational films or the handful of Walt Disney animated features shot in the format.

But a breakthrough in remastering technology will allow all films to be adapted to be shown on the massive seven-storey-high wrap-around screens. The technique was pioneered on Ron Howard's film Apollo 13, about the disastrous US mission to the moon, and proved a huge hit again this month in the US with Star Wars: Episode II Attack of the Clones.

Although Imax bosses yesterday refused to divulge which film would be first to be seen at the same time as it was released in conventional cinemas, there is strong specula tion it could be the third instalment of the Lord of the Rings trilogy .

Imax's joint chief executive Brad Wechsler said the company planned to release one remastered classic "like Lawrence of Arabia, and two big event-type pictures like Harry Potter III and Lord of the Rings on the same day as the normal release next year".

Imax technicians in Toronto have done tests on Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone and the first Lord of the Rings film. Its director, Peter Jackson, said: "This is the way I dreamt my movie would be shown."

Mr Wechsler said if the third part of the Rings were shown, it would not be cut, unlike Apollo 13, which lost nearly a fifth of its length in the transition to the very big screen. Star Wars was also cut, apparently because Imax projector booths cannot handle films longer than two hours. "We will probably have to put in an intermission for the public to recover, it might be a little overwhelming for them. Imax are not like normal cinemas, it's far more full-on," Mr Wechsler said.

He said at between $2m and $4m, the cost of transferring films to Imax was cheap by Hollywood standards. "Putting a film on an Imax screen can turn a good film into a great film, and make a great one better. People will go to see an Imax film long after it has stopped showing in normal cinemas."

Admission prices to see an Imax version of a blockbuster will be a third more than normal cinemas.

It could be five years, however, before the first 3D films are released at the same time as their two-dimensional counterparts in multiplexes. But Mr Wechsler claimed it would be relatively easy to release computer-generated animation films like Toy Story and Shrek in 3D versions. "We could have Buzz and Woody flying around Imax cinemas right now with children reaching out to touch them. In fact, the studios were so impressed with our technology there were worried if they showed them in Imaxes no one would go to see them in normal theatres."

The cost of transferring normal films to 3D is likely to be much steeper, close to $10m. That, however, would not stop them making new films in the format, he said.

Imax cinemas are showing a remastered version of Disney's The Lion King over Christmas with one of their own 3D animated features, Santa vs the Snowman.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-27-2002, 04:49 PM:
 
This is ridiculous. Just bring back normal 70 5 perf and let normal theaters run it on giant sized screens. IMAX's aspect ratio and general theater design leaves much to be desired with the standard composition of Hollywood movies. Leave IMAX to run IMAX-specific films, the way it should be.

This is also not primarily a manager related topic. Moving thread.
 

---

Posted by Bob Brown (Member # 1205) on 11-27-2002, 04:52 PM:
 
OOPS!! Sorry about that Brad, I was not sure where to put it.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-27-2002, 05:31 PM:
 
I agree with Brad. Can you imagine the ENTIRE Lord of da Ringz movie (any of the three) sitting on an IMAX platter? It can't be done. IMAX cannot handle films that have any sort of length to them. So the movies must be compromised in length. Then there is the screen, which I believe is the same aspect ratio as a TV.

With 5-perf 70mm playing in a real movie theater, it would cost less and be presented in a far more appropriate fashion. This whole IMAX thing boggles my mind.
 

---

Posted by Bob Brown (Member # 1205) on 11-27-2002, 06:06 PM:
 
Joe Said: "Can you imagine the ENTIRE Lord of da Ringz movie (any of the three) sitting on an IMAX platter? It can't be done."

Well I think it can be done. I will leave the why and how's to Adam or Gordon, as I am still a rookie in the IMAX world, but I CANT WAIT to see it!
 

---

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 11-27-2002, 08:43 PM:
 
Another vote for Brad. Even ignoring the diff in intended AR (yes, Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings both could be opened up, since they were shot in Super 35 instead of true scope)IMAX is a process of SCALE and HEIGHT. Humans are not MEANT to be shown giant-sized in IMAX; they are supposed to be shown as human-sized. It's the surrounding world that engulfs them, which is why IMAX is really not that suited for dramatic storytelling (see WINGS OF COURAGE as a perfect example). IMAX should juust concentrate on what it does best, museum science, nature and history productions. This melding with Hollywood will probably doom it alltogether.

I fail to understand this rush to IMAX when, as Brad pointed out, 5 perf 70mm(since Im dreaming anyway, maybe IB Technicolor for 70mm too!)would be far more ideal on a properly masked screen in a conventionally-designed theatre is perfectly suited to dramatic storytelling. Hollywood forgets that buzzwords like IMAX have very short lives when the product doesn't live up to the hype.
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 11-27-2002, 09:26 PM:
 
Well just do changeovers and then there will be no problem with length
 

---

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 11-27-2002, 10:18 PM:
 
As for IMAX 3D you have one print for the left and one for the right eye, it should indeed be possible to run longer shows by changing over between the two prints. Of course, the two 3D prints are supposed to run at the same time, but I guess it would not be a too drastic modification th the system to show them one after another.
Apart from that, I also think it is not a good idea because of the aspect ratio. Obviously IMAX is not doing very well, so they have to develop "new ideas".
 

---

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 11-27-2002, 11:04 PM:
 
People like large screens, and most multiplexes have smaller screens. To run regular 5/70 films (even if they were avaiable) on the average multiplex screen isn't enough to satisfy the average moviegoer into thinking they are getting something "different" or "better."

Patrons don't care about most techinal details. The aspect ratio doesn't matter (ie: projecting a 1.85 picture on a large format 1.33-ish screen.) After running Beauty & Beast, Lion King, not one patron even mentioned the AR difference.

Personally, I think there may be money in having a large format theater, provided the projector can run regular (35mm) and 70mm films. I don't know how to explain it, but it's the same kind of reasoning some people had when they bought the LOTR DVD when it first came out, then again when the special edition DVD came out. They want the film; then they want even 'more."
 

---

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 11-27-2002, 11:06 PM:
 
Michael, the SR projectors are already capable of doing a single changeover during a show.
 

---

Posted by William Leland III (Member # 1400) on 11-27-2002, 11:25 PM:
 
I just became an IMAX operator in July, so naturally I think showing new Hollywood movies on 70mm/15 would rock. The sound is better, the picture is better, look at SWEP:II. There is no comparison to the 35mm format. Who really cars what size the people are. Most IMAX features have people staring in them. Yes, we would have trouble with platters. Challenges are what propel this industry. Intermission would have to used. Brad I don't see why you be apposed to this. It makes film better, new technologies will come of this.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-27-2002, 11:35 PM:
 
I am opposed to the general idea because at least in the Dallas area IMAX theaters leave much to be desired. We have a choice here of the Cinemark with it's incredibly bad sound, dust issues with the projection and flat screen with the picture hitting the hand railings, or we can go to the IMAX at Fair Park where they are afraid to turn it up past maybe 60-70db or so and watch scratched prints with a honky sound quality to it. Oh yeah, I can't wait.

Also, IMAX by it's nature was designed so that the center point of attention of the image is toward the bottom of the screen. The exact opposite is true of Hollywood films. This forces you to constantly be looking up past an awkward point if you were to watch a mainstream film with it's intended cropping. There is also the argument that just like how people do not like pan and scan videotapes and prefer letterbox, IMAX is destroying the movie in the same manner.

The only "IMAX" presentation I have been impressed with is at the Omni Theater in Fort Worth. Those guys have a great setup and know how to do it right, but I would never watch a Hollywood movie there. If more IMAX theaters were like the presentations I have seen at the Omni, then I might be somewhat interested in checking it out just for kicks. But the sheer design of the 1.33 screen just sucks for Hollywood movies.

IMAX needs to stick with what it does best and stay away from Hollywood films.
 

---

Posted by William Leland III (Member # 1400) on 11-28-2002, 12:02 AM:
 
Brad, Sorry to hear about the crappy IMAX theatres, in your area. If you are ever in Charleston come see us. Charleston IMAX Theatre. You won't be disappointed.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-28-2002, 02:10 AM:
 
Just because it is IMAX does not automatically mean it has better sound than 35mm theaters. I have heard a few IMAX's in my time, and all of them have had their asses kicked BAD by your typical mall theater when it comes to sound.

I find it amusing how people on this forum whine and bitch about proper aspect ratio, but turn a blind eye when it comes to IMAX. Nothing pisses me off more than people who are hipocritical.
 

---

Posted by Dick Vaughan (Member # 540) on 11-28-2002, 03:20 AM:
 
Longest run currently on a single IMAX plate is 120minutes so a SR equipped theatre with 4 120 minute platters could run 4 hours using changeovers

there are plans to introduce a 150 minute platter so up to 5 hours on changeovers

Time to reinforce those projection room floors and beef up those muscles
 

---

Posted by Dick Vaughan (Member # 540) on 11-28-2002, 03:24 AM:
 
Brad
Aspect ratio for IMAX is 1.43:1 though some theatre designs mean the screen may be reduced.

Apollo13 in IMAX was 1.66:1 which was the safe area on the original feature

SW epII was repurposed to an AR of 1.80:1
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-28-2002, 07:40 AM:
 

quote:

---

Apollo13 in IMAX was 1.66:1

---

Aha, but Apollo 13 in regular theaters was 2.39!!!!!

It was also the format for which the movie was optimally composed for. Yeah sure the extra headroom is on the film, but I couldn't care less. It would be like watching a 1.85 movie on tv that was transferred full frame or watching a 1.85 film with the framing out of rack. The composition just doesn't look good.

Now if only IMAX would use FlikFx technology, then that might be a different story.
 

---

Posted by Thomas Hauerslev (Member # 566) on 11-28-2002, 08:15 AM:
 
Or why not stack two 2,39:1 images on top of each other on the IMAX screen and charge the audience twice the money (or run Episode 1 and 2 at the same time on top of each other)? That would look really interesting, or how about fixing a "screen widener" on both sides of the IMAX screen (some problems in IMAX Dome must be expected), and then project an anamorphic IMAX picture on that screen. Final proposition would be to use a 90 degree "image tilter", and then run a standard 70mm print through the IMAX machine.

I've seen "Dances with Wolves" in 70mm in Bruxelles, and it looked absolutely stupid when letterboxed on the IMAX screen and it gave me absolutely no reason to watch another "normal film" on an IMAX screen, re-purposed for IMAX or not. I've seen "Fantasia/2000" and must admit it looked good, but "Lawrence of Arabia" in "IMAX-O-Rama 70" in nonsence to me. What they should do, is to produce some interesting and watchable films in 15 perf 65mm.
 

---

Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 11-28-2002, 09:31 AM:
 

quote:

---

What they should do, is to produce some interesting and watchable films in 15 perf 65mm.

---

quote:

---

Just because it is IMAX does not automatically mean it has better sound than 35mm theaters. I have heard a few IMAX's in my time, and all of them have had their asses kicked BAD by your typical mall theater when it comes to sound.

---

• There's a black bar at the top of the screen. (Obiously from someone who refuses to buy letterboxed videos thinking bigger is better, regardless of intended composition. Yes, it would be great to show SW:Ep2 in 2.39:1. At 80-feet wide, it would easily be twice the size you can get at your best local giga-plex.)
• "You" cut out parts of the movie. (Same species of idiot, who thinks that the movie theater makes the movie.)
• It's too loud. (Different species, who was expecting Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones to be a nice, quiet documentary.)

• Huge picture
• Huge sound

If some people are willing to pay $15 to see Yoda, who in reality is three feet tall, 40 feet tall on the Imax screen (and who were willing to do so with a crappy 35mm print [blown up and grainy and cropped and dim, at that]), why shouldn't I take their money?
.
Let's face it, this industry is all about giving the cattle, I mean customers, what they think they want. Stadium seating with poor projection angles, wall-to-wall screens with top-bottom masking that makes wide-screen processes smaller, eight-thousand-print opening weekends to let them ALL see it on opening weekend at the exact moment in time that they feel like it.
And you know what? We are still selling out our 400-seat theater with a movie that's widely available on home video. At $12-15 per head.

And our print is not scratched. And I just replaced our third HF diaphgram in three months. I've decided to start a collection, writing the culprit movie on each one ... Space Station, Apollo 13, Star Wars II ... if it's too loud, you're too old.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 11-28-2002, 02:26 PM:
 

quote:

---

Yes, it would be great to show SW:Ep2 in 2.39:1. At 80-feet wide, it would easily be twice the size you can get at your best local giga-plex.

---

Nope! Nope nope nope nope nope nope nope!!!!

Not at all true.

Wow, didn't that one theater, the UA Galaxy, yeah that was it, have TWO screens over 80 feet wide? I do believe they showed Episode 2 as well. So that comment is not true, it's not twice as big as the best multiplexes. That is also assuming that multiplexes can not have screens larger than 40 feet under ANY circumstances! You IMAX people are funny!
 

---

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 11-28-2002, 02:27 PM:
 
80 feet isn't even twice the 55 foot DLP screen I slept in front of.
 

---

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 11-28-2002, 02:31 PM:
 
Sorry, I meant "typical" but seem to have typed "best". I don't know what came over me. I should probably also qualify that (before Joe yells at me again!) by "typical" I mean built in the last 15 years and "the big house" seats just 250 or so. The Galaxy has always been the exception, with it's "Largest 35mm Screen in Texas".

At any rate, I've added projector and speaker photos to the "IMAX Basics" thread.
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 12-01-2002, 05:08 PM:
 
I saw the SMPTE demo of APOLLO 13 at the Sony IMAX in NYC. Now, I don't know what IMAX theatres you guys have been to where you found the general presentation to be lousy and where the sound in particular was crappy. Every IMAX I've ever been to -- Gordon's Cinesphere, the IMAX at the Smithsonian in DC, the IMAX in Vancouver and the one in a theme park somewhere north of Chicago, each had the top end of the scale for the highest presentation values including sound. All that I have been in have been miles above even the few theatres left that run 70mm here in NYC.

I don't see how releasing Hollywood films to this format will be the abomination that you guys seem to think.

Would it be better if the old 70mm format were resurrected and the high-end 70mm theatres with curved 70 and 80 ft screens were also resurrected to be able to show them? Sure, but that's not reality. The reality is there are existing IMAX installations able to show 70/15 and as far as my experience, they are by far, well run and attentive to presentation detail, more so than many top chain theatres even here in Manhattan.

Plus, using IMAX to convert a film composed in S35mm is not the big aspect ratio mortal sin you are accusing it of. When a filmmaker uses S35mm, he's doing it for only one reason -- so that his film can be shown in every aspect ratio from 1.33 TV to mild letterboxed 1.85 for DVD and 2.39 for theatrical. What makes you think it is the theatrical ratio that is "THE ratio" he's composed for? On the contrary, it may very well be that he sees the theatre as only a stepping stone to the LARGER income markets of cable, broadcast and home video and it is THOSE he really composes for while the theatrical scope ratio may very well be the most compromised aspect ratio of the lot. For example: there is no doubt in my mind that the full frame version of BEAUTY AND THE BEAST was the way the shots were really composed; the 1.85 cropping in the theatrical release print was just that -- the compromised aspect ratio -- force that way out of expediency due to the fact that 99% of the theatrical venues can't correctly project 1.37. The theatrical 1.85 crop resulted in heads being chopped off, characters moving out of frame where, in the full frame they stayed in frame, properly composed. Put the two side by side and it is immediately apparant which of the two is the compromised aspect ratio. The theatres got the badly cropped version, the home video got the much better looking version.

My point is, there is no reason why the filmmaker, who plays with safe areas and cropping all the time in today's world of varied markets, can't compose knowing he will be releasing to a 1.66 IMAX aspect ratio if he's shooting in S35. For films shot anamorphically in scope, there is no reason why IMAX 70/15 cannot be used to present 2.39 scope in just that format, centered for optimum viewing in the middle of the IMAX screen. It is still 70mm with a bigger frame geography and still resulting in a MUCH larger images than most multiplexes. Plus, IMAX theatres have uniform quality, repeatable, higher presentation values (like we used to expect when going to 70mm releases in Todd-AO 70mm theatres years ago) than most multiplexes.

And Dallas's 80 wide 35mm screen not withstanding, come to any multiplex theatre here in Brooklyn, a large market of more than 3 million people -- no small back water town, and, believe me, you are not going to find many screens larger than even 50 ft. let alone 80, the average being a LOT smaller -- 30ft screens are not uncommon -- and these 30 footers are perched 12 feet above the floor so that, short of coming to the theatre wearing a neck brace, the audience leaves with neck and back pain worse than whiplash. Fact is, there simply are no longer those great 70mm installations where you knew when you made the decision to go to see a film "In 70mm" it meant you were getting the very best presentation. IMAX theatres come the closest to that kind of quality. So why not utilize them as our closest single screen 70mm theatres of old?

And this thing of people are supposed to be "people size" on the theatre screen. In huge Todd-AO screens, people weren't people size. That was the same argument that was made during the silent era for not using close-ups -- people's faces were never meant to be 20 ft tall. Admittedly, that was the one negative I saw in the IMAX APOLLO 13: close-ups were so big that the face actually decomposed -- you didn't see the whole face, but could only see facial hairs, pimples, a nostril or eye but not the whole face at once. But this could be easily compensated for in composition when the filmmaker knows he is shooting for an IMAX release, just as filmmakers routinely compose scope shots to be sure they keep important elements in the TV safe area and not on opposite sides of the scope frame. And this will only be a problem with S35 cinematography. Features shot anamorphically will not have that problem because presumably these will be shown in the slightly cropped 2:1 ar in the middle of the IMAX screen. Their relative size will be the same as if it were a standard 70/5 on a large 70mm screen, only with less grain.

Bottom line, APOLLO 13 looked spectacular on the IMAX screen -- bright, color saturated, almost no grain -- and with great sound. And I wouldn't mind paying a premium price to see other features in this format, just as I used to pay extra to see 70mm versions of major Hollywood releases years ago in flagship 70mm single screen theatres. IMAX is our next best bet.

The big plus? This may actually encourage shooting again in 65mm neg so that the IMAX digital DMR monkey-business doesn't have to work as hard cleaning up grain. And once you have a 65mm neg, it isn;t that big of a jump to a 70/5 release print, if you could find theatres that would play it without distroying it within the first week of play.

Frank Angel
 

---