This is topic Gravity in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews 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=4;t=001984
Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 10-05-2013, 09:10 PM:
 
It's a fun ride, if a bit "one-note." I want to see it again and it's been a long time since I have felt that way. Recommended.

I saw this on the big "Cine Capri" screen at the Harkins Northfield (4K 2D), which has become my go-to theatre since Regal F'ed up the Continental. The Atmos sound was put to really good use. Everyone says to see this in 3D, and though I am not a fan, I can understand the appeal. I say: see it in Atmos.

However, the image seemed slightly "misaligned." It seemed as if everything had a greenish edge to the bottom right and a reddish edge to the top left. It was very minor, and mostly visible in onscreen titles, but it was new - this was not happening earlier this summer at WWZ and MoS.

Question: Is this something that can be easily fixed? Is it worth my time to call and complain?
 
Posted by Carol May (Member # 4068) on 10-06-2013, 09:53 AM:
 
My father and I saw Gravity last night at the Motion Picture Academy, and we had pretty much the same opinion: Eh.

Where was the suspense? Where was the rush? Where was the tension? It was a technical tour de force, but I would have been sorely disappointed had I paid $13-17 to see it in a first run theater.
 
Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 10-06-2013, 04:08 PM:
 
CINEMA: AMC Council Bluffs 17, Council Bluffs, IA
AUDITORIUM: 7
PRESENTATION: RealD 3D, AMC Recline-o-Vision
PRESENTATION PROBLEMS: None [Cool]
RATING: Three stars (out of four)

THE PLOT: Space cadets make a service call. Wackiness ensues.

THE GOOD NEWS: If you've been hoping for a movie where Sandra Bullock grunts a lot, this is your lucky day.

THE BAD NEWS: It's not a porno.

It is, however, quite a ride.

The cinematography, despite the Oscar calls for Bullock, is the real star here. There's a lot of amazing shots that seem to be uninterrupted for long periods of time, following Bullock and Clooney fluidly through space in varying motions, many circular. If you get queasy with dizzying motion easily, I'd suggest skipping the snack bar. But suspense-wise, this one absolutely holds your attention without overstaying its welcome. It was a smart move to get in and out at around 90 minutes.

Well worth the bother.
 
Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 10-06-2013, 05:42 PM:
 
quote: Carol May
Where was the suspense? Where was the rush? Where was the tension?
1. You must be hard to please.

2. Are you sure you saw 'Gravity'?
 
Posted by Connor Wilson (Member # 6088) on 10-06-2013, 06:38 PM:
 
Regal Kingstowne Cinemas 16, Alexandria, VA
10/06/2013, 3:10 pm show
Auditorium #1
Presented in RPX, RealD 3D, Dolby Atmos
Issues: No proper masking for scope films (as expected in RPX/ETX/AVX setups), minimal flicker towards the end.

Two star actors, one other actor. You don't need that big of a cast to make a great movie. But the cinematography standed out greatly. I felt like I was in space. Takes in this film seem to take its time (the opening being 17 minutes without any cuts), and it never felt boring. The Dolby Atmos sound mix incredible, definetly the best yet. It further immersed me in the story, as did the 3D. Soon to be a timeless classic. Loved it.

Rating: 9 out of 10
 
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 10-07-2013, 03:37 AM:
 
The story of this one is paper thin, but story clearly not the selling point of this movie. Don't go see this on a small screen with mediocre sound, it will not deliver the whole potential.

There are probably a gazillion goofs in this movie, regarding the way it depicts space and current technology, but this one is probably the first one since Apollo 13 that gives a shot at making it feel real.

The trailer is false advertising, in the movie, there is no sound in space. This must be the first motion picture in a long time, that gives a try at depicting (near) weightlessness in a realistic manner. Also, the depicted cockpits and instrument panels all look a lot like the real thing.

It almost makes you forget questions like: Is it plausible for the IIS, the Hubble and the supposedly Chinese space station really to be in such short range from each other?

As for the show itself, I really loved it.

I've seen it in dual projector 3D and Atmos on a large scope screen (I've seen Riddick here before, the experience was mediocre at best). It's really the preferred way to see this. The only thing that I could wish for is 4K 3D.

quote: Geoff Jones
I saw this on the big "Cine Capri" screen at the Harkins Northfield (4K 2D), which has become my go-to theatre since Regal F'ed up the Continental.
AFAIK there are no 4K 2D DCPs around? The movie wasn't shot in 4K anyway. That's also why I opted for the 3D version straight away. Besides me not being the greatest supporter of stereoscopic 3D, it really worked in this movie.

quote: Geoff Jones
However, the image seemed slightly "misaligned." It seemed as if everything had a greenish edge to the bottom right and a reddish edge to the top left. It was very minor, and mostly visible in onscreen titles, but it was new - this was not happening earlier this summer at WWZ and MoS.
A common problem with all multi-DMD projectors and one of the biggest issues in Digital Cinema. Over time, the color convergence will stray off, it can usually be easily adjusted, but rather often this gets unnoticed for months or even years. It seems to be hard, in a world were projectionists are an almost extinct kind, to keep equipment well adjusted...
 
Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 10-07-2013, 12:23 PM:
 
Carol, I'm not a person who typically piles on, but . . .
quote: Carol May
Where was the suspense? Where was the rush? Where was the tension?
Seriously? Seriously?!?!

quote: Marcel Birgelen
It almost makes you forget questions like: Is it plausible for the IIS, the Hubble and the supposedly Chinese space station really to be in such short range from each other?
No, it's not plausible at all, and that is why viewers who know something about outer space will fly up out of their seats in protest; the Hubble and the ISS are nowhere near each other; the Hubble is about 350 miles above the equator, the ISS is about 250 miles over Russia. But, show me the science fiction film that doesn't have such leaps in science and logic. You're gonna be hard-pressed to find one.

But Gravity is still a terrific picture, very tense and moving at the same time. Most of the movie is Bullock alone, and I thought she nailed it. Clooney not so much, in fact this is one of the few movies that I thought he was actually miscast in. Too much annoying square-jawed bravado for the role. The scene about 3/5 in where it appears that the Bullock character has given up was really spoiled by his character (even in the context that he appeared in).

But this is still great bang-for-the-buck movie going. By all means see it in 3D, something that I don't ordinarily recommend, it truly adds another, ummm . . . dimension to the film.
 
Posted by Jason McMillan (Member # 5542) on 10-07-2013, 01:10 PM:
 
We saw this yesterday at Studio Movie Grill Copperfield here in Houston... they didn't offer any afternoon 3D showtimes, so we elected to see it in 2D. Made this decision after reading this thread. All I could think of as I sat there with my food watching the movie was "I'm pretty sure I couldn't watch this in 3D and eat at the same time, anyway".
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-07-2013, 01:41 PM:
 
Cinema: Harkins Theatres Bricktown 16
Screen: Cine Capris
Format: 2K 'scope, 2D, Dolby Atmos
Presentation Problems: None
Rating: 4 stars out of 4

Gravity is a really good thriller and roller coaster ride of a movie. It's not real deep in terms of character, despite the Oscar buzz over Sandra Bullock's performance. She does a good job of rising above the visual effects and getting the audience to empathize with her predicament. George Clooney plays the same strong male type character he has played in so many other movies. The drama and tension in this movie is all about characters trying to hang onto something and not run out of air while all hell is breaking loose. A few scenes really had me squirming in my seat.

The visuals were pretty awesome. I don't think I missed too awful much watching the movie in 2D. One bad thing about 3D: it makes big things seem small due to exaggeration of the 3D effect. 2D on a huge screen gave the movie a better sense of scale (I just wish it had been produced in 4K). A hell of a lot of work went into the CGI models and how they were torn apart by bits of space junk hitting at high speed. The cascading domino effect of destruction was spectactular and even had a certain beauty about it. The practical sets (space ship interiors, etc.) were well crafted. Alfonso Cuarón and Emmanuel Lubezki did a great job orchestrating all the spinning, rotating camera shots. There's little, if any, shaky cam crap in this movie. Still, I could see some viewers getting queasy watching the show.

Steven Price's music score was pretty effective. Gravity is one of very few science fiction movies to observe the fact there is no sound in space. The music score created some of the emotional noise needed for many bits of space debris silently demolishing a space station.

I had a tough choice over where to see Gravity: either in 2D on the only Dolby Atmos equipped screen in Oklahoma or any number of 3D equipped locations in Lawton or the Oklahoma City area. There was probably a one week window for seeing Gravity in Dolby Atmos; some other new release would likely be moved on that screen next Friday. Gravity would likely play in various 3D formats for at least a few weeks.

I'm glad I picked the Atmos show. Gravity made great use of Dolby Atmos' capabilities right from the start. Elements of headset chatter tracked all over the theater from various spots on the side and back walls (and the ceiling) to any point on screen. The combination of ceiling surround speakers and front stage speakers allowed some dialog elements to seem like they were floating in front of the screen. Sound element positioning and layering in this mix simply blew away what is possible in a conventional 5.1/7.1 mix.

IMHO, IMAX needs to shit can its "laser aligned" sound system, which typically features just two big speaker cabinets in the top rear corners of the room. They need to make a deal with Dolby and put Atmos in its theaters.

BTW, the "attached" trailer for The Hobbit: the Desolation of Smaug had an Atmos mix. All the trailers that preceded it were in regular 5.1 with rather unimpressive EQ. When the new Hobbit trailer started the sound quality got a huge boost (much more powerful sub bass and more layered sounding audio). The Dolby Atmos trailer played after that and drew a lot of "wow" type responses from the audience.
 
Posted by Connor Wilson (Member # 6088) on 10-07-2013, 09:15 PM:
 
Bobby, I am now disappointed that the Atmos trailer for The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug wasn't in the show playlist at the RPX show I attended. Akin to your experience, the trailers before the film had unimpressive EQ. Even after the movie, my dad said if the movie sounded like the trailers, he wouldn't watch the feature presentation. So it goes to show you that even a less technically-inclined person like my dad can tell the difference.

There was no Atmos trailer that played before my show. Just an RPX trailer that is surprisingly quiet (like last time during Pacific Rim). One the film started and the main title appeared, there was a noticeable boost in quality with a crescendo that was chilling.
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-07-2013, 10:57 PM:
 
That's pretty ridiculous if Regal Cinemas is going to the effort & expense of installing Dolby Atmos but doing next to nothing to promote it.

If any executive from Regal happens to be lurking on this forum I have a message for him: the Dolby brand name has a hell of a lot more prestige and history than the "RPX" thing, which smacks of wannabe IMAX or THX style branding. The RPX thing isn't going to persuade me to drive out of my way, much less pay a price premium, to experience it. I didn't pay anything extra above the standard admission price to watch Gravity on the Cine Capris screen in 2D with Dolby Atmos sound.

Some of this gets back to my complaints about how poorly Dolby Atmos is being marketed to the general public.

When my girlfriend and I watched Gravity we sat through the credits so I could see if any mention of Dolby Atmos would be listed. Nope. The logos for Dolby Digital, Datasat Digital and SDDS were listed -as if there's actually very many theaters left able to play those lossy compressed 35mm film sound formats. As far as I could tell none of the movie posters for Gravity or any of the movie's marketing material carried a Dolby Atmos logo. The "see it in RealD and IMAX 3D" branding is prominent. There is nothing mentioned about Dolby Atmos in any of the ads.

I did find a couple videos with Gravity director Alfonso Cuarón and sound re-recording mixer Skip Lievsay talking about the movie's sound design and how Dolby Atmos opened up new creative possibilities. Cuarón called Atmos a dream come true for what he's been wanting in a movie sound format. You have to go out of your way to find those videos. I doubt if any of that material will end up on the Blu-ray.

A few days ago I rented Iron Man 3 on Blu-ray. That one had the Atmos logo on the end credits. Some of the posters carried a tiny Dolby Atmos logo positioned above a tiny Dolby Digital logo. Of course, the IMAX 3D branding took huge prominence on the poster.

I think Dolby needs to step it up a few notches with how it is promoting Atmos. I think any movie that is mixed in Dolby Atmos needs to feature the Dolby Atmos logo more noticeably on movie posters, TV commercials, etc. even if that means shoving the Dolby Digital brand out of the layout to give Atmos its well-deserved prominence.

To this day, I still don't understand why IMAX and RealD get such overwhelmingly favorable treatment in movie advertising over other formats like Dolby 3D, XpanD 3D, etc. I think Dolby Atmos is the most revolutionary thing to happen with movie theater sound in over 20 years. Atmos deserves a hell of a lot more attention.
 
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 10-08-2013, 08:56 AM:
 
quote: Bobby Henderson
I still don't understand why IMAX and RealD get such overwhelmingly favorable treatment in movie advertising over other formats like Dolby 3D, XpanD 3D, etc.
The reason is because IMAX theaters whether they are digital or film based out gross non IMAX auditoriums. Gravity averaged about $15,000 per location over the weekend, Gravity in IMAX auditoriums averaged a whopping $36,000 per location.

The brand power of IMAX is higher than Dolby right now. The studios use the IMAX brand to help push the movie. The branding of Dolby is no longer relevant to the younger generation of moviegoers. There is a tremendous buzz right now about IMAX so the studios will push it.
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-08-2013, 09:38 AM:
 
That's bullcrap.

The logic does not hold at all, especially when you consider Real D is getting just as much prominence. Real D is merely a single projector 3D format. Some contend Dolby 3D is better than Real D. So why doesn't Dolby 3D get any big notice on the movie posters? Customers have to pay a premium to see movies in Dolby 3D just like they do for Real D or IMAX/IMAX 3D.

I think the only logical reason why IMAX and RealD are getting such notice on the posters, movie trailers, etc. is they are probably paying the movie studios a shit load of money as if they are buying advertising space on the poster.

It sure as hell doesn't have anything to do with IMAX offering something better than Dolby or anything like that. People who actually know a thing or two about movie presentation technology are honestly aware IMAX has badly tarnished its brand name via the tremendous downgrade from 15/70mm film projection to HDTV resolution video projection. Or rather "digital" projection (sorry to the digital fanboys out there).

The only benefit of watching a movie in a IMAX digital theater: 3D is brighter. That's it. But then any dual projector 3D setup is going to offer a brighter image. IMAX doesn't have a corner on that market. And IMAX' sound systems aren't very good (their idea of surround sound sucks).

Dolby Atmos is very unique. Right now no other surround sound format compares to it. It is top dog now.
 
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 10-08-2013, 09:56 AM:
 
quote: Bobby Henderson
So why doesn't Dolby 3D get any big notice on the movie posters?
Bobby, Dolby is dead, it is nothing like it once was, can you agree to that? Real D likely out screens Dolby 3D 4-1 (perhaps someone can verify that) so this should tell you why the studios push Real D.

The IMAX thing is a whole different story the studios are making a ton of money with the IMAX branding and it helps the movie gain traction or word of mouth. Star Trek Into Darkness grossed close to $49,000 at IMAX locations across North American, I can't think of a format that grosses averages per location like IMAX is getting right now.

quote: Bobby Henderson
Dolby Atmos is very unique. Right now no other surround sound format compares to it. It is top dog now.
And sadly, almost nobody cares.
 
Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 10-08-2013, 10:53 AM:
 
quote: Geoff Jones
I want to see it again and it's been a long time since I have felt that way. Recommended.
Same here! Next time I'll try it in 3D, but I'm not looking forward to some of the gratuitous stuff they did. Even in 2D it seemed gratuitous to have Clooney zipping near and far, or to linger (quite unnecessarily) on a floating teardrop, and what was up with the frog?

I would LOVE to do a double-feature of this and Apollo 13.

quote: Carol May
Where was the suspense? Where was the rush? Where was the tension?
Jane, you ignorant slut! [Razz]

quote: Sam Graham
The cinematography, despite the Oscar calls for Bullock, is the real star here.
The visuals -- I wouldn't give ALL the credit to the cinematographer. There's a TON of CGI going on here.

The 2D screening I attended (AMC 11 in Bloomington, IN) was marred by being noticeably out of focus. I went up to the screen during the credits to verify. And when I looked up at the booth I saw -- DUAL IMAGES BEING PROJECTED.

However, despite what this article says, the image was not dim. In fact, it appeared over-lit! Note that I say "appeared" over-lit. I'm not sure -- could be that the contrast wasn't that great. Blacks weren't black but, then, the highlights seemed kinda washed out too.

-----------

Here's the text from that collider article:

Movie Theaters Continue to Rip-Off Patrons with Incompetent Projection of 2D Movies
by Matt Goldberg

While theater owners moan and make empty threats in response to the studios’ premium VOD Service, they’re doing nothing to make the moviegoing experience any better for patrons. The Boston Globe’s Ty Burr discovered that theaters are bringing the poorly-lit experience of 3D to their 2D movies. Theaters are misusing their digital project equipment and leaving in the 3D lens when they should be swapping it out if they’re showing a 2D movie. Burr found the issue not only at the AMC Loews Boston Common on Tremont Street but also at Regal Fenway where regular brightly lit 35mm prints of Water of Elephants and Madea’s Big Happy Family where playing against their own poorly-projected versions. The problem across theater chains appears to be Sony’s new 4K Digital Projectors and leaving them on when playing a 2D film

A professional projectionist explained the problem with the lenses:

He explains that for 3-D showings a special lens is installed in front of a Sony digital projector that rapidly alternates the two polarized images needed for the 3-D effect to work.

“When you’re running a 2-D film, that polarization device has to be taken out of the image path. If they’re not doing that, it’s crazy, because you’ve got a big polarizer that absorbs 50 percent of the light.’’

So how can you tell if you’re getting the correct brightness level?

There’s an easy way to tell. If you’re in a theater playing a digital print (the marquee at the ticket booth should have a “D’’ next to the film’s name), look back at the projection booth.

If you see two beams of light, one stacked on top of the other, that’s a Sony with the 3-D lens still in place. If there’s a single beam, it’s either a Sony with the 3-D lens removed or a different brand of digital projector, such as Christie or Barco.

So why aren’t theaters fixing the problem? For the same reason they don’t do anything about patrons who are chatty or text on their cell phones: it takes time, money, and manpower.

James Bond, a Chicago-based projection guru who serves as technical expert for Roger Ebert’s Ebertfest, said issues with the Sonys are more than mechanical. Opening the projector alone involves security clearances and Internet passwords, “and if you don’t do it right, the machine will shut down on you.’’ The result, in his view, is that often the lens change isn’t made and “audiences are getting shortchanged.’

First off, if you’re not listening to a movie projectionist named “James Bond”, you’ve already failed on so many levels. But no one is asking theaters to retrofit theaters or change the entire way they do business. The fix is a couple of competent employees who should get paid a little extra for their expertise and skill with the 4K projectors (pictured right) so they can do what movie theaters were designed for: showing movies. While theaters make their business at the concession stand, no one is going to the snack bar of an AMC or a Regal Cinemas for the cuisine.

When reached for comment, both AMC and Regal, the nation’s largest theater chains, were half-hearted in their explanations. Here’s what a spokesman for Regal had to say:

“Patron response has been overwhelmingly positive toward digital cinema and all of the associated entertainment options provided by this technology.”

Really? Are people going up to the managers and high-fiving them for the awesome projection job? I’d like to see that.

And here’s a comment from Dan Huerta, Vice President of Sight and Sound for AMC:

“Obviously, if we know there’s a 2-D movie that’s going to be shown through a 3-D lens, we would have to make sure that the manager or a technical person could make the call.”

So it’s not the company’s fault. It’s the responsibility of the manager or “technical person” (which is what I’m sure it says on their business card), and to an extent, I agree with that. But it looks like neither company is willing to address the problem on a wide scale and are either pretending it doesn’t exist or passing the buck on to individual managers (as if the managers didn’t take their orders from corporate).

The obvious solution would be for patrons to complain every time they see an under-illuminated picture. I’ve pretty much given up on getting theaters to project 3D films at the correct luminosity. The bulbs are expensive, theaters are cheap, and they don’t expect the majority of audiences to know any better. But when it comes to 2D, this is a problem that comes down to sheer laziness. Nothing new has to be purchased. The expertise costs money but so does any profession. Why promote incompetence?

And yet consumers have to shoulder some of the blame because they may not notice or even care. Also, do you really want to get out of your seat, track down the manager, and stop the movie so they can adjust the lens? The better solution is to sit through the movie and then afterwards complain to the manager about the issue. They’ll most likely give you a free pass in order to shut you up. But if they have to give out enough of those passes because every screening has them getting bothered by unhappy patrons, it might just make them change their ways. Or they’ll just jack up prices at the concession stand because that’s the only thing they’re good at.

-----------

...and speaking of "jacked up" concession prices...

Ticket (2D).................................................$7.50
Small Popcorn and Small Bottled Water.....$10.25
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-08-2013, 11:22 AM:
 
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Bobby, Dolby is dead, it is nothing like it once was, can you agree to that?
No.

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Real D likely out screens Dolby 3D 4-1 (perhaps someone can verify that) so this should tell you why the studios push Real D.
Installation numbers doesn't make Real D automatically better. Dual projector setups are better for 3D. But there are far more single projector 3D systems installed. By your logic the single projector setups are better since there are more of them.

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
The IMAX thing is a whole different story the studios are making a ton of money with the IMAX branding and it helps the movie gain traction or word of mouth.
Thanks in large part to an unwitting customer base not knowing it is getting screwed.

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
And sadly, almost nobody cares.
Terry, you may not care. But Dolby Atmos is overwhelmingly better than IMAX' "laser aligned" sound system.
 
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 10-08-2013, 12:10 PM:
 
quote: Bobby Henderson was the last to post
No.
Well, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but to me Dolby is nowhere near what it once was. I eventually see Atmos going the way of Dolby Digital EX barring a miracle.

quote: Bobby Henderson
By your logic the single projector setups are better since there are more of them.
When did I say they were better? I simply said that the studio is willing to promote Real D as there are more of them.

quote: Bobby Henderson
Terry, you may not care. But Dolby Atmos is overwhelmingly better than IMAX' "laser aligned" sound system.
Totally agree with you, I saw Gravity in Atmos, but judging by the ticket grosses, it seems to me that the general public could care less if Atmos is better than IMAX.
 
Posted by Connor Wilson (Member # 6088) on 10-08-2013, 04:05 PM:
 
quote: Bobby Henderson
Real D is merely a single projector 3D format.
That's not true. The RPX and ETX setups were dual-projector and used Real D technology. For example:

Two Sony 4K Projectors in Real D at AMC Garden State 16 for Life of Pi ETX (aud #3)

Two Christie 4K Projectors in Real D at AMC Tyson's Corner 16 for Transformers: Dark of the Moon ETX (aud #11)

Two Christie (I think) 4K Projectors in Real D at Regal Kingstowne 16 for Gravity RPX (aud #1)

Those were a selection of my experiences. With the exception for Tyson's Corner for having misaligned 3D, these setups have bright 3D. Even the dual Sony setup had bright 3D (and I think that's because "Pi" had a 4ftL version on the DCP). "Gravity" also had a "white" and "silver" version which I'm not sure about the respective ftL for each version.
 
Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 10-08-2013, 08:52 PM:
 
I just saw GRAVITY today at the Dole Cannery 18 here in Honolulu in IMAX 3-D and what a "trip out of space" it was. The movie was so good it surpassed my expectations and consider it among the best movie I had seen this year.Those of you who had seen this movie in 2-D because Dolby Atmos was more important to you or you feel 3-D is a hype, did yourselves a great disservice. Among all of the 3-D movie I had seen since AVATAR, I feel GRAVITY's 3-D was better than that film and equally as good as HUGO and THE LIFE OF PI because all of
these films were all photographed in native 3-D and not 3-D converted like GRAVITY.I also found nothing wrong with the IMAX sound. If fact, it was awesome!

The reason why this movie is excellent in my opinion is the way it grabs your attention from the very beginning and keeps you glued to your seat until the very end, I think both Sandra Bullock and George Clooney were excellent and I feel Miss Bullock stands a very good chance of winning another Academy Award for her performance in this movie.

-Claude
 
Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 10-08-2013, 09:17 PM:
 
Bullock should certainly be nominated -- no question there. She is great in this movie, but I'm not sure this role offered her enough to warrant an Oscar win.

Sigourney Weaver in ALIENS would have been more deserving -- especially when we see the range of that role in the extended cut (which I happen to prefer).

On the other hand, Bullock *does* single-handedly "carry" this movie.

Hmmm. Maybe that's worth something...
 
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 10-09-2013, 03:41 AM:
 
quote: Mark Ogden
No, it's not plausible at all, and that is why viewers who know something about outer space will fly up out of their seats in protest; the Hubble and the ISS are nowhere near each other; the Hubble is about 350 miles above the equator, the ISS is about 250 miles over Russia. But, show me the science fiction film that doesn't have such leaps in science and logic. You're gonna be hard-pressed to find one.
You had me thinking there, but both Hubble and IIS are not geostationary, they're constantly moving in regards to the surface of the earth. They do also not share the same orbit. They *might* be close to another from time to time, but the distance is constantly changing. Which would it make hard to target that object anyway, without the help of computers or sophisticated navigation equipment.

There is a whole list of flaws I could come up with. It did not ruin the show for me, as it sometimes does. This movie had enough stuff going for it.

It seems to be very hard to create stories that depict technology in a realistic manner. I don't really know a single sci-fi movie that I would consider to be 100% "technically accurate", but that's probably were the fiction part comes in. I wanted to point out Apollo 13, but that one is no science fiction, they had the real events and a bunch of NASA guys to help them to get the stuff right and then again, they made a whole bunch of factual technical errors (and I don't count the ones were they stayed off the real chain of events for dramatization).

quote: Claude S. Ayakawa
Those of you who had seen this movie in 2-D because Dolby Atmos was more important to you or you feel 3-D is a hype, did yourselves a great disservice.
Atmos and Stereoscopic 3D don't bite you know. I've seen it in Atmos AND dual projector 3D. I really liked the 3D in this one, but if I had to choose between Atmos 2D and IMAX 3D, I would choose Atmos 2D without doubt. There is another reason why I would not have watched in D-IMAX: the aspect ratio. Those D-IMAX screens really aren't that big, especially if you loose a big part of the top and bottom of it. Also, no IMAX theater I know, actually employs masking.

Regarding that old D-IMAX discussion. It seems, from what I conclude, that MOST people around here agree that Digital IMAX is, in it's current state, just hogwash.

I do agree with Terry, that they seem have a better marketing department than Dolby. But then again, it is hard to compare Dolby to IMAX. IMAX is more like THX in the sense that it's a concept. And unlike those other 2 or 3-letter acronyms those multiplex chains are inventing themselves, they do have exposure.

Also, I don't think Dolby is anywhere near dead. They might have had bigger brand recognition in the past, but they do have a huge install base. Even in the world of DCPs, they're still the number one sound processor choice.

Dolby Atmos might not see the same adoption rate as other new sound systems in the past, but that might be due to the fact that it only makes sense if you go all the way and install the whole array of speakers and amps.

But then again, in large parts of the world IMAX isn't going anywhere soon. In Germany for example, there is, until now, just a single D-IMAX installation and that opened just a few months ago.
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-09-2013, 11:38 AM:
 
I have no regrets about watching Gravity in 2D. I might check out the 3D version sometime, but I have reservations about it. 3D movies have a nasty habit of making big things look small. The movie-makers try various tricks increase the 3D depth effect to satisfy audiences, but in doing so often screw up the sense of scale. That was my biggest complaint about the 3D in The Avengers, despite a lot of that movie's 3D being 2D/3D converted.

The Atmos mix of Gravity delivered the most vivid use of screen & surround panning I have ever heard in a movie. There's just no way for 5.1 or 7.1 to match that. I doubt Barco's "11.1" setup could compare favorably to Atmos either.

For more than a decade I had been wanting companies like DTS or Dolby to deliver a 10.2 channel system to theaters, in part to elevate commercial cinema above home theater once again. DTS & Universal Studios had an opportunity to deliver something like 10.2 surround back when the DTS XD10 scalable processor was first introduced. Out of the box, it was capable of 8 channel operation and that didn't even get used by movie studios. With Atmos, Dolby not only made my wishes come true for a proper movie theater sound format they surpassed what I requested by delivering something even better.

I don't expect Dolby Atmos to be installed in just any movie theater auditorium. It's too expensive for that. However, any theaters charging a premium just over the size of the room and screen (like RPX, XD, ETX, BigD, etc.) ought to be installing Atmos. I'm not going to settle for plain vanilla 5.1/7.1 in that kind of environment.

That gets back to IMAX. Sooner or later the bloom is going to come off that rose. I don't like IMAX' sound systems. Those plain 5.1 channel systems with only 2 surround speaker cabinets are a big liability. A rival with a big screen can install a dual 4K projector setup with a Dolby Atmos capable sound system and just trounce IMAX-D.
 
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 10-09-2013, 03:11 PM:
 
quote:
I have no regrets about watching Gravity in 2D. I might check out the 3D version sometime, but I have reservations about it. 3D movies have a nasty habit of making big things look small. The movie-makers try various tricks increase the 3D depth effect to satisfy audiences, but in doing so often screw up the sense of scale. That was my biggest complaint about the 3D in The Avengers, despite a lot of that movie's 3D being 2D/3D converted.
I agree with you, 3D has the nasty habit of pulling things out of proportion, or rather, to squeeze things out of proportion. I'm not entirely certain, but it seems to happen more with the overuse of negative parallax (the in your face effect). But in this movie, it actually worked, at least for me. It brought back some memories of Space Station 3D (a real 15/70 IMAX feature) and I really liked the 3D in that one, it really brought "space" a bit closer. This movie managed to do the same and the 3D actually helped (at least for me). There was one scene, were some of the debris flies right at you, I really had to blink with my eyes several times. Even my head was in "collision avoidance mode", it's been a long time a 3D presentation did that to me.

quote: Bobby Henderson
That gets back to IMAX. Sooner or later the bloom is going to come off that rose. I don't like IMAX' sound systems. Those plain 5.1 channel systems with only 2 surround speaker cabinets are a big liability. A rival with a big screen can install a dual 4K projector setup with a Dolby Atmos capable sound system and just trounce IMAX-D.
Technically, that's absolutely true. Dolby Atmos is the sound system I've been waiting for, for years. An "object/vector" based sound system, that can potentially fit any room and reproduce real, "3d" immersive sound.

The theater I've been to, to see Gravity, beats an average D-IMAX installation on any aspect: Screen size, sound quality, sound impact and projection quality. This experience was branded as "XD". But whatever nonsense XD may stand for, it's not something that's been marketed with the same power as IMAX. IMAX is on the film poster, in the trailers and also featured in the marquee of an increasing number of movie theaters.

I do perfectly know that this "XD" bullshit brand stands for something much more sophisticated than ultra-boomy 5.1 sound on an oversized, flat screen with 2K projection. I did do my homework, because I care.

But Terry might have a point (and it has been discussed here before): many people unfortunately don't care. D-IMAX is probably "good enough" for them, which, in my opinion is a sad thing... I know lots of people that still watch crappy low-bitrate SD content on their super-size HD screen and 7.1 setup, even though the 1080p HD with SRD and/or DTS version of the same channel is just two button-pushes away, they don't seem to notice the difference or just don't care...
 
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 10-09-2013, 09:18 PM:
 
I just saw the movie in Dolby 3D with Dolby Surround 7.1.

The movie has wonderful eye-candy but the sound was the most impressive part for me. They clearly put a LOT of time into that mix. I can only imagine it in Dolby Atmos...it would have to be almost goosepimply good. In 7.1 they made great use of all of the speakers without being gimmicky. Hopefully folks tuned their system well and didn't cheap out on the surrounds because this movie will have talking out of all of the speakers.

Given a choice between 3D/5.1 and 2D with 7.1 or Atmos, I'm going with the better sound. 3D for this film is fun for the first 10 minutes but once again, it doesn't help me with the movie any. I'll say this...I didn't experience any eye strain on it and the image I saw was very even and well lit...even for being in outer space.
 
Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 10-09-2013, 11:14 PM:
 
quote: Bobby Henderson
The Atmos mix of Gravity delivered the most vivid use of screen & surround panning I have ever heard in a movie. There's just no way for 5.1 or 7.1 to match that.
It sounded fine in 5.1 -- better than most movies -- it's a great mix.

It is worth giving this film a listen in 5.1 because I think it actually illustrates that it's not as "bad" a format as people have come to believe. The industry just got lazy, creating "rules" like: dialogue in the center channel, music and sfx in L/R, ambience in the surrounds. And then the format gets a bad rap, "necessitating" something like Atmos.

Yes. It's possible that Atmos inspired this particular use of surround sound. Would they have mixed it this way if Atmos didn't exist? Who knows?

But, rest assured: the downmix works very well!

One wonders how long it will take before a formulaic approach to using Atmos takes hold. At which point, we'll all cry out for "the days when dialogue got panned...into the surrounds."
 
Posted by Joseph L. Kleiman (Member # 3097) on 10-10-2013, 08:46 AM:
 
quote:
Manny Knowles: what was up with the frog?
That bothered me too and it opened up a Pandora's box of possible answers when I looked it up. Ancient Mediterranean civilizations, including the Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans considered frogs to be signs of fertility. And a number of European societies still believe frogs house the spirits of dead children.

Then you could go the religious route. If you consider the Hubble, with its outstretched solar panels to be representative of the cross, you can take into account how early Christians considered the frog a symbol of the resurrection of Christ.

Or it could have just been a frog.

I felt the symbolism too contrived and didn't take anything from the "spiritual journey" that Cuaron keeps talking about. It was a great action film with one of Bullock's best performances to date. That was all. And I saw it in Atmos, which was an amazing audio mix.
 
Posted by Victor Liorentas (Member # 5272) on 10-10-2013, 10:29 AM:
 
I just saw Gravity in a Cineplex Ultra AVX bla bla theater but it was equipped with Dolby Atmos!Projection was single projector Real D and showed typical hot spotting. Plenty of ghosting as well.
The movie was fantastic and had me in it's grip from beginning to end.The 3D was fantastic and very appropriate for this movie!

The Dolby Atmos sound was just unbelievable! I think it's the best thing that's happened to theater sound since digital sound was introduced. I was seated dead center but I would love to try a crummy seat to hear how well the Atmos stands up.

I would love to see this in good 2D with Atmos and better 3D with Atmos.
I must say that Imax and Liemas dual projection 3D quality was sorely missed by me during this movie but the Dolby Atmos more than made up for it.

Dolby Atmos really is something! [Smile] [beer] [beer]

After thought...The image at times had a video noise look going on? Not sure if it was the mediocre projection or the movie itself? Still great though.
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-10-2013, 10:50 AM:
 
quote: Manny Knowles
Yes. It's possible that Atmos inspired this particular use of surround sound. Would they have mixed it this way if Atmos didn't exist? Who knows?
The videos I mentioned earlier, featuring director Alfonso Cuarón and sound re-recording mixer Skip Lievsay, sort of answer that question. The movie's sound design was composed first in 7.1 surround. Then, as Skip Lievsay put it, they "doubled down" with making the object placement and surround pans more precise in Dolby Atmos.

Alfonso Cuarón talks about Dolby Atmos

Alfonso Cuarón & Skip Lievsay on Gravity Sound Design

quote: Manny Knowles
It is worth giving this film a listen in 5.1 because I think it actually illustrates that it's not as "bad" a format as people have come to believe. The industry just got lazy, creating "rules" like: dialogue in the center channel, music and sfx in L/R, ambience in the surrounds. And then the format gets a bad rap, "necessitating" something like Atmos.
5.1 surround is great if you're sitting in the right place within the auditorium and the theater's sound system is properly designed and maintained. All too often 5.1 surround is pretty limiting in a commercial theater auditorium because the conventional surround speaker array projects a left wall-right wall stereo effect to most of the viewers. Only a few people sitting in the theater's sweet spot experience truly enveloping surround. Surround•EX, DTS-ES and, more recently, discrete 7.1 with four surround channels all intended to solve that problem.

How a sound format is used is another matter that changes from one movie to the next. Too many movies are mixed in a very conventional manner, even a lot of loud, bombastic action movies. I watched Man of Steel in Dolby Atmos. That mix didn't do nearly as much the mix of Gravity did with the creative possibilities of Dolby Atmos.

Alfonso Cuarón wanted a more "literal" sound field in Gravity. In real life we hear everything in a three dimensional way. 5.1/7.1 surround is limited in how it can present that. Even Atmos has its limits, but it's a whole lot closer to realistic 3D sound than 5.1/7.1.

Meanwhile, I think Woody Allen is still having his movies mixed in mono, right? Digital mono though.
[Razz]
 
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 10-10-2013, 12:09 PM:
 
I remember some of Woody Allen's movies being LCR. Guess he expanded at some point, right? [Wink]
 
Posted by Jim Cassedy (Member # 4115) on 10-10-2013, 08:52 PM:
 
quote:
Bobby, Dolby is dead,
Yes. He died about 3 weeks ago. But that's probably not what you meant.

.... and I don't know why everyone is wasting time discussing the sound.
Technically, this movie should have been a silent picture since, as everyone knows,
there's no sound in outer space. So any discussion of audio is academically moot. [Razz]
 
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 10-10-2013, 10:12 PM:
 
quote: Marcel Birgelen
I do agree with Terry, that they seem have a better marketing department than Dolby. But then again, it is hard to compare Dolby to IMAX. IMAX is more like THX in the sense that it's a concept. And unlike those other 2 or 3-letter acronyms those multiplex chains are inventing themselves, they do have exposure.
There a few marketing things that set IMAX apart from Atmos. I can only speak of my area but an IMAX movie in digital theaters do not have commercials before the coming attractions, there are only IMAX trailers, and then the IMAX countdown ad. Right from the start it is just IMAX and IMAX only. Nothing at all to confuse customers.

With Atmos, the Atmos ad gets lost in everything, there are so many freaking commercials and ads before the feature presentation ad that the Ultra AVX ad shows up and then the Dolby Atmos ad shows up. Wait? Did I just pay extra to see the movie in the Ultra Audio Visual Experience (UltraAVX) and if I did then what the heck is Atmos then?

Visit IMAX or ReelD.com and they both support the movies that are currently playing in those formats, they also support the new upcoming movies as well. I Googled Dolby Atmos and the main for Atmos comes up and you have to go into a few menus before you get to the movie list and the link to the movie website or IMDB.com. It seems very amateurish to for a big company like Dolby.

There were a few posters advertising Dolby Atmos and there were a couple of ads here and there inside the cinema lobby. For Wolverine they even gave away white Dolby Atmos t-shirts. So there is some marketing for it, but it is not very good.

As much as I loved Gravity in Atmos, I don't see Atmos succeeding.

If Atmos is to succeed, Dolby will have to market the format within the trailers of the movies as well as in print ads and posters. My local television advertises movies with "See it in IMAX, Ultra AVX and other large formats" this is the approach Dolby will need. Perhaps even some sort of exclusive for some movies, but I think that will be very hard to do, looking back at DTS and SDDS, Universal and SONY movies were elusively in those formats which no doubt helped both of those brands compete with Dolby at that time.

Dolby was smart to obtain the naming rights to the former Kodak Theatre, this was a right step in the right direction. For the multiplex, I am sure Dolby could market a something like a Dolby Atmos 3D Cinema, that could succeed.
 
Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 10-11-2013, 05:42 AM:
 
First on the technical stuff which did take away from the film for me. If you're going to make it science fiction, don't use real stuff and then do things that are completely unrealistic. Michael Cricton was a master at making "believable" sci-fi.

It is 100% impossible for a jet pack or a Soyuz (which I don't understand why Clooney mispronounced) to get from the Hubble Telescope to the ISS and/or ISS to Chinese Station. Forgetting altitude, HST is in a 28.5 degree orbit (a function of it being the most efficient orbit from Kennedy Space Center which lies at 28.58 degrees) meaning if you make that angle from the equator, the orbit is a circle "tilted" at that angle. The ISS is in a 51.65 degree orbit and the Chinese Tiangong is at 42.78.

You need an incredible amount of fuel to change orbits by that much. No spacecraft carries anywhere near that much fuel. The orbital inclination is set by the launch rocket. It's the same reason why Space Shuttle Columbia (which was in a 28.5 degree orbit) would not have been able to get to the ISS even if they knew about the damage.

Not to mention that the Soyuz flight suit wouldn't have been able to do an untethered spacewalk(not sure if it could have done tethered).

Then there are other things like that a Mission Specialist (Sandra Bullock's character) would have absolutely no idea how to fly anything. I also don't think a Commander of a shuttle would go on a spacewalk since they are pretty important for re-entry and landing. I'm also confused as to why they lost contact with the ground. While there are areas that require TDRS satellites to communicate, much of the time they have line of sight to Houston.

All that said, the movie was just OK for me. The visuals were amazing and the simulated zero-g was very good (except for the manuals). At the beginning, the movie did a great job creating the sense of panic/fear/isolation that the astronouts would experience.

Spoiler Alert - Click to Toggle
it turned into something along the lines of James Bond in space and lost all sense of realism. That's fine for James Bond because it doesn't take itself seriously but it was a huge problem here.

Frankly it felt a lot longer than 90 minutes and not in a good way. I wish I'd have seen it in Atmos but didn't want to see it in 3D which I would have had to do at any Atmos location within 200 miles.

2 1/2 stars out of 5 for me
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-11-2013, 12:47 PM:
 
quote: Lyle Romer
First on the technical stuff which did take away from the film for me. If you're going to make it science fiction, don't use real stuff and then do things that are completely unrealistic.
Yeah, it did occur to me right from when the movie's first catastrophe hit that all those different orbiting sites (Hubble, ISS, the Chinese Tiangong) weren't positioned so close together in reality. The close proximity of all three made it seem like space agencies across the planet were working on building an orbiting town of sorts.

Satellite orbiting "belts" are positioned at a number of different altitudes and locations in part as an insurance policy against the very disaster this story dramatizes. I still found the story fascinating, entertaining and thought provoking. There is a lot of space junk agencies like NASA must track.

Back in high school I wrote a term paper about how a rouge nation or terrorists equipped with good enough rockets could lay waste to our satellites. Launch a rocket with a payload of ball bearings, dust and other kinds of trashy debris. Sling-shot it around the moon and back to earth in an ideal retro-geosynchronous orbit. Release the garbage and let it trash anything going the opposite direction in that orbit. It would be pretty easy to do if you didn't have any satellites of your own in that orbit or care about the political consequences.

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
There a few marketing things that set IMAX apart from Atmos. I can only speak of my area but an IMAX movie in digital theaters do not have commercials before the coming attractions, there are only IMAX trailers, and then the IMAX countdown ad.
That's theater chain policy, not anything to do with IMAX.

I've been in multiplex theaters, Cinemark for instance, that ran a lot of trailers and even commercials before an IMAX movie. That sort of thing is very easy to do with digital projectors by the way. When I watched The Dark Knight Rises in 15-perf 70mm film projection Cinemark's IMAX theater only ran the movie. Nothing else would fit on the film platter.

Warren Theaters has a policy of not showing TV commercials and loads of trailers before the feature. At most, you'll see one or two "attached" movie trailers that came with the DCP. It doesn't matter whether the movie is in one of their standard theaters, one of their IMAX digital theaters or their director's suite screening rooms. IMAX doesn't make them do that. They had that policy before ever starting to do business with IMAX.

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
With Atmos, the Atmos ad gets lost in everything, there are so many freaking commercials and ads before the feature presentation ad that the Ultra AVX ad shows up and then the Dolby Atmos ad shows up.
Again, that's theater chain policy and nothing to do with sound/projection formats. At least you got to see the Atmos trailer. Some chains, such as Regal, don't even run any sound format trailers. That problem dates back to the 1990s. It's customary for any theater chain to run their pre-show program of movie trailers, policy/snack counter snipes and even TV commercials. The better theater chains don't subject the audience to 20 minutes or more of that shit. It's flat out crazy for anyone to expect a company such as Dolby to mandate limits on what a theater chain can do with its pre-show program.

Harkins Theaters didn't hammer me with a half hour of trailers and commercials on the front of Gravity. In their pre-show they had the big curtain-opening with their Harkins Cine Capris logo. They played, I think, 3 or maybe 4 movie trailers and their branded feature presentation snipe. Then they played the Dolby Atmos Unfold trailer directly in front of the movie. There's nothing wrong with that approach. It's not any different from the old days of seeing a THX trailer and DTS/Dolby Digital trailer directly in front of the movie.

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Visit IMAX or ReelD.com and they both support the movies that are currently playing in those formats, they also support the new upcoming movies as well.
The average movie-goer will never visit those web sites.

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
I Googled Dolby Atmos and the main for Atmos comes up and you have to go into a few menus before you get to the movie list and the link to the movie website or IMDB.com.
Your web browser sucks then.

In Google Chrome, when I type "Dolby Atmos" in the address bar (omnibox) I get Dolby Atmos' movie page at the top of the search list. The Dolby web site navigation structure isn't the greatest, but it's still is fairly simple. The theater locator map is easy to find. And unlike IMAX, Dolby actually says specifically what Dolby technology each theater supports. IMAX prefers keep visitors in the dark, never saying if a theater is equipped for IMAX film projection or HDTV resolution video projection.

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
If Atmos is to succeed, Dolby will have to market the format within the trailers of the movies as well as in print ads and posters.
Dolby Atmos is starting to appear on some movie posters and end credits. But it needs to be visible in more places, like the credits on movie trailers and TV commercials. Theater chains have their own roles to play in hyping IMAX, RealD, Dolby3D, Dolby Atmos, THX, etc.

Word of mouth will eventually help Dolby Atmos. It is a far better sound format than the plain 5.1 system IMAX uses. Atmos can be used as a piece of leverage for movie theater chains who don't want to buy into the IMAX thing. As I said earlier, if I had a choice between a theater with dual 4K projectors and Dolby Atmos versus an IMAX-D theater, I'd absolutely be choosing the non-IMAX site.

Make no mistake about it, IMAX absolutely needs this new dual 4K laser projection system they've been spouting vaporware talk about to work out great. IMAX' current dual 2K DLP setup is already being out-classed by other alternatives that don't require the expense of buying into the IMAX brand. IMAX' sound system is out of date with 7.1 LPCM surround in standard theaters and the newer alternatives like Barco 11.1 and Dolby Atmos. IMAX can suffer the same fate as THX if they keep doing things business as usual. For me, personally, the only draw IMAX has for me is 15-perf 70mm projection, and IMAX is trying its best to phase out that film system that made the IMAX name mean something in the first place.
 
Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 10-11-2013, 02:21 PM:
 
Ever since Consolidated Ward 16 got Dolby Atmos for their Titan XC auditorium, they have inserted in bold red letters in larger text than movie and scheduled show times - Titan XC, Dolby double D logo and Dolby Atmos in their newspaper show time listing everyday, If a non Atmos show is running, only Titan XC appears .

-Claude
 
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 10-11-2013, 05:55 PM:
 
quote: Bobby Henderson
Back in high school I wrote a term paper about how a rouge nation or terrorists equipped with good enough rockets could lay waste to our satellites. Launch a rocket with a payload of ball bearings, dust and other kinds of trashy debris. Sling-shot it around the moon and back to earth in an ideal retro-geosynchronous orbit. Release the garbage and let it trash anything going the opposite direction in that orbit. It would be pretty easy to do if you didn't have any satellites of your own in that orbit or care about the political consequences.
I don't think it will be easy to get anything into retro-geostationary orbit, at least for a whole while. And you probably need a lot of debris, which needs to be carefully placed so it stays in orbit. And then again, the chances of hitting one or two satellites will probably be quite good, but to hit a lot of them, it will still be a very lucky shot. It's still like randomly firing bullets in the dark on a very small target.

This is also one of the problems in the movie, together with this one: The debris field started in an orbit below and moved up. If it moves up, why is it hitting again after 90 minutes?

quote: Lyle Romer
I'm also confused as to why they lost contact with the ground. While there are areas that require TDRS satellites to communicate, much of the time they have line of sight to Houston.
While it might probably be possible to capture the broadcasts from the spacesuits without the shuttle acting as relay, I don't think those suits would be capable of receiving ground communications directly.

The communications systems in IIS might be damaged beyond repair and while inside the Chinese station, there simply was no time for any chatter. The Soyuz had some working communications systems, as it was capable of communicating with somebody in China...

Spoiler Alert - Click to Toggle
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
With Atmos, the Atmos ad gets lost in everything, there are so many freaking commercials and ads before the feature presentation ad that the Ultra AVX ad shows up and then the Dolby Atmos ad shows up. Wait? Did I just pay extra to see the movie in the Ultra Audio Visual Experience (UltraAVX) and if I did then what the heck is Atmos then?
All D-IMAX locations around here show both commercials AND non-IMAX trailers. The new, local Atmos house around here shows commercials and trailers and then shows not only one but two Atmos trailers. The first one is "Amaze", the second one "Unfold". The "Unfold" trailer plays at such a volume, that you almost get blown out of your chair. The raw bass that this trailer produces, beats anything I've ever heard from D-IMAX and at a clarity and dymanic range D-IMAX can only dream of. People are actually looking at each other after the trailer and the WOW is clearly on their faces. Compare that to this: Every time that stupid "IMAX theater optimization cross-check" trailer plays, I'm inclined to cover my ears...
 
Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 10-11-2013, 10:13 PM:
 
Marcel,

I like your spoiler thought. Especially since that is what would really happen (although much sooner).
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 10-11-2013, 11:44 PM:
 
We saw this in 3-D at the "Imax" screen at the Edwards 21 in Boise, Idaho. We were attending the Rocky Mountain Theatre Convention and had some spare time, so we decided to see a movie (go figure). Neither my wife or I had never seen a feature film in "Imax" before so I figured this would be a good one to try it out.

A lot of people call this "LieMAX" but to me a better word would be "WideMax." After all, it is still just as wide as a standard Imax picture. (But what if the movie is "flat?" Is the picture floating in the middle of the screen?) Anyway, the unmasked top and bottom of the screen were distracting. I'm amazed that a company that's claiming to deliver "the ultimate movie experience" would leave out such a simple detail.

I was kind of underwhelmed by the sound. I thought it would be louder than it was. It sounded good, but not amazingly so.

As for the movie itself....it's technically amazing, but the story (or lack of it) kind of left me cold. It would have been nice to have some character development and some backstory. Maybe a few characters in Houston on the ground so we knew what was being done to find out what was happening up there.

By the time the movie was over it was getting kind of boring since really it is a one-person show for 3/4 of the movie. As great as Sandra Bullock is (and I've been a longtime fan) she still needs some other people to play off of.

So for me: The technical achievement: 5 stars. The story: 2 stars. The "WideMax": Oh, maybe 2.5 stars. Would have been just as good sitting in the 5th or so row of a regular theater (if it had decent sound).
 
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 10-11-2013, 11:48 PM:
 
Marcel, regarding your theory of what happened to Bullock at the end, the ending is about transformation. It is a rebirth of her.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/10/08/alfonso-cuaron-explains-the-darwinian-ending-of-gravity.html
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-12-2013, 02:32 AM:
 
Finally got around to seeing this tonight. (Finally, as in one week later. [Razz] )

I didn't bother with Atmos, even though I wanted to see it in Atmos. Every Atmos auditorium within any reasonable driving distance is shitty because people are too cheap to install masking...and no way can I watch a movie like that and actually enjoy it. All of that IMAX, XD, ATX, AVX, HDX and XXX nonsense sucks because to my knowledge NONE of them install simple masking. Yes masking...something that is required by the DCI specifications and is a mandatory aspect of showmanship. You people are doing it wrong! [fu]

So I saw it in 5.1 and even in 5.1 I could tell they spent quite a bit of time moving things around in the sound field. So kudos for that, but some sequences were a bit "noisy", meaning the overall tone could've been tweeked a bit. Some of this was equalization in the mix but other minor issues was simply "too many" sounds. For example, a shot of 40 people walking across a street does not sound realistic if 40 people's footsteps are foley'd into the mix. However putting 6-8 people's footsteps into the mix does sound realistic. A few spots of Gravity suffered from "too much" of this. Sometimes, less is more.

From a sound aspect "in space", I found the opening scene from Contact far more impressive than the opening scene from Gravity. I have a feeling that issue was caused by the desire to place too many objects into the Atmos mix (hence my footsteps point above).

I did not care for the music score in this. I understand the intention, but I found it more "musical noise" than music.

A note of clarification on my sound comments. When I judge a sound mix I judge it in two ways. First and foremost I judge it with one ear. Literally, I throw out ALL steering of the sound and judge it by "how would this SOUND to a person with normal hearing in one ear, but fully deaf in the other?" Second comes the steering and placement. In other words, I would rather watch a movie well mixed in mono than one with lots of movement to the sound that just didn't "sound" that good.

3D or 2D? Well, being that I hate 3D, I opted for good old fashioned realistic 2D. [thumbsup] Unfortunately that's where a problem occurred. Watching this movie in 2D was distracting at MANY points because it was obvious they were more worried about the 3D gimmick. As a result, many of the special effects just didn't hold up in 2D as they looked like bad blue screening. [thumbsdown] Then again had I watched this in 3D, I would've been constantly reminded that I was watching a 3D movie because of the gimmicks as opposed to getting lost in the movie and forgetting that I was watching a movie (which just isn't possible with 3D).

Also I'm well aware of what the title of the movie was. When it was over, I did not need to be reminded of it at the beginning of the end credits. Furthermore I did not need to be reminded of it AGAIN partway into the credits. Really??? I walked out before the end of the credits, but I have a feeling it was the last thing in the credit roll too. [Roll Eyes]

Regardless of the above nitpicks, I give the movie itself 4 out of 5 stars. I give the overall sound mix 3.5 out of 5 stars and the object placement in the sound field 5 out of 5. As Manny said, it did fold down nicely to 5.1
 
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 10-12-2013, 05:28 AM:
 
Spoiler Alert - Click to Toggle
Spoiler Alert - Click to Toggle
quote: Mike Blakesley
A lot of people call this "LieMAX" but to me a better word would be "WideMax." After all, it is still just as wide as a standard Imax picture. (But what if the movie is "flat?" Is the picture floating in the middle of the screen?) Anyway, the unmasked top and bottom of the screen were distracting. I'm amazed that a company that's claiming to deliver "the ultimate movie experience" would leave out such a simple detail.
I guess this was a former IMAX MPX 15/70 location with a 1.33:1 screen? In that case, you’re wasting about 1/2 of the available screen with scope... The "new installs" usually have a screen with a 1.77:1 aspect ratio. A flat movie usually fills the whole screen, they probably crop the left and right edges of the image to fit on screen.

Flat movies on those 1.33:1 screens fill it from left to right, so there is still some unused screen at the top and the bottom, but it is obviously less. I don't think Digital IMAX installations are even capable to fill the entire 1.33:1 "classic" IMAX screen.

quote: Mike Blakesley
I was kind of underwhelmed by the sound. I thought it would be louder than it was. It sounded good, but not amazingly so.
Those converted 15/70 locations usually don’t sound as loud as the "new installs". I guess that’s because they not only left the screen, but also most the old sound system in place.

quote:
All of that IMAX, XD, ATX, AVX, HDX and XXX nonsense sucks because to my knowledge NONE of them install simple masking. Yes masking...something that is required by the DCI specifications and is a mandatory aspect of showmanship. You people are doing it wrong!
While I fully agree that you should use proper masking, what I don’t understand is: none of those MegaTHXD theaters around you has a native scope screen? Since everything has gone digital, masking has become a luxury and I’m choosing theaters based on the aspect ratio of the movie. Luckily, the local SuperHDXX theater decided to install a scope screen (alas without movable masking) for which I’m very grateful.
 
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 10-12-2013, 07:56 AM:
 
While I would concede that the Gravity mix would not fold down well into mono since directional audio was part of the mix, remember, 7.1 audio was the native mix...it was then folded down to 5.1 (should be very passable) and expanded out to Atmos.

If you are a Center-Surround theatre (using mixers of some sort...including those in some processors) it is going to be a bit odd and those that folded down completely to mono on the conversion (particularly if the surround tracks are left out) are going to be missing dialog. Then again, with a stipulation of 5.1 audio as the minimum for the industry, it was reasonable to presume that the surround channels were there to put audio in.

I found the audio in this movie very easy to listen to and did not fatigue of it as others have described. The 3D, which I don't think really added to the movie (for me) also did not strain my eyes and I didn't mind it so much...then again, I was in a Dolby 3D theatre...not a crappy silver-screen hot-spotty theatre.
 
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 10-12-2013, 10:37 AM:
 
quote: Marcel Birgelen
While I fully agree that you should use proper masking, what I don’t understand is: none of those MegaTHXD theaters around you has a native scope screen?
I totally agree with you on the lack of proper masking. I am sure many of these mega theaters were native scope and then the chains just chopped it up a added a wall to wall screen. I saw the Butler on a wall to wall screen, it looked horrible as the theater was obviously not designed for a picture that big.

quote: Marcel Birgelen
I don't think Digital IMAX installations are even capable to fill the entire 1.33:1 "classic" IMAX screen.
The digital presentations at some of the former classic IMAX screens in my area do not fill the whole screen, the presentation really looks like crap, I think there was pillar boxing on the sides and then no pillar boxed white screen at the top. This was before Dark Knight Rises was released in film at those same theaters so I am not sure if they have since changed up the screens.
 
Posted by Markus Ito (Member # 6207) on 10-12-2013, 03:16 PM:
 
Cinema: Arclight La Jolla
Format: 3D Xpand, Dolby Atmos
Presentation Problems: None
Rating: 5/5

This was an incredible movie. Yes, there were some stretches when it came to the position of the ISS, Hubble, etc., but they didn't detract from the plot. The premise it not entirely unimaginable (remember the Chinese shot up one of their own satellites and I think doubled the amount of space junk in orbit) and is plausible through extremely bad luck. The pacing was good I think they were wise to limit it to 90 minutes.

The 3D looked good. There were times when I forgot I was watching it in 3D, but was reminded when something started floating at the screen. Overall I think that it certainly added to the experience but I would have to see the 2D version to make any definitive comment about its efficacy.

Dolby Atmos is what made this film particularly enjoyable. Even before the film started, just listening to the Atmos trailer was enough to make me want to see it a second time. I think the weightless nature of space lends itself very well to the object-oriented sound positioning that Atmos employs. Of the movies I have seen in Atmos, I think this has the best implementation of it so far. I thought the music score was well done and reminded me of some similar scenes in Apollo 13.

Definitely a film to go and see. I'm interested to see what comes of the Academy Award rumors, but this definitely deserves several nominations.
 
Posted by Stu Jamieson (Member # 4626) on 10-12-2013, 07:51 PM:
 
I wish we had Atmos here in Oz. I think there's only one cinema in Melboring that has it.

"Prolific" is not a word readily assigned to Mexican director, Alfonso Cuarón. Gravity is only his third feature since his "foreign" hit, Y Tu Mamá También, from 2001. And there's been a lengthy seven year gap since his last feature, the excellent Children of Men. But Cuarón has a reputation for quality cinema (even his Harry Potter entry is regarded as one of the best) and so it is that Gravity arrives with an expectation of excellence.

Described widely as a sci-fi film, in reality there is little (if any) science fiction in it. Rather, Gravity is a solidly entertaining space disaster flick which has more in common with The Poseidon Adventure than 2001: A Space Odyssey. This is not a criticism, however, as there are few better breathtaking, seat-of-your-pants survival thrillers than Cuarón's space race against time.

Cuarón brings his cinematographer, Emmanuel Lunezki, with him from Children of Men and, as in that film, the camera work here is suitably impressive. The many tracking shots are nothing short of gobsmacking: floating freely about space, shifting seamlessly between 3rd and 1st person perspectives - the film is almost one long tracking shot.

There are problems, however, which mar this piece of cinematic near-perfection. In it's single-minded mission to pile thrill upon thrill, the film does stray at times a little far from reality. Some cinematic licence is expected, of course, but given that Cuarón strives so hard to look authentic, these lapses are mildly disappointing nonetheless. The film's final act, in particular, stretches credibility to near breaking point, thus foiling Cuarón's attempt to deliver a masterpiece.

So, a masterpiece it is not, but it comes oh so close. Definitely compelling viewing.

8.5 out of 10
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 10-12-2013, 08:34 PM:
 
quote: Marcel Birgelen
I guess this was a former IMAX MPX 15/70 location with a 1.33:1 screen? In that case, you’re wasting about 1/2 of the available screen with scope... The "new installs" usually have a screen with a 1.77:1 aspect ratio.
I think the Imax was added on to this location. I'm not sure when it was. But, the sign out front says "Edwards 21," but it has 22 screens counting the Imax. The building has a large "box" tacked onto the end of it where the Imax is located -- it even has its own boxoffice and concession stand. We were a bit late arriving and we left during the credits because we had to get back to the convention, but I would *guess* that it was a 1.77 screen. Definitely not 1.33, at any rate.

quote: Brad Miller
I'm well aware of what the title of the movie was. When it was over, I did not need to be reminded of it at the beginning of the end credits. Furthermore I did not need to be reminded of it AGAIN partway into the credits.
Yes....what is the purpose of doing that? I've noticed it more and more lately, putting the title of the movie at the very end.

Somebody here once posted something about it being the director's way of "reinforcing" what you just saw so you remember the movie better, or something like that. I don't know what other reason there could be.
 
Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 10-13-2013, 02:31 PM:
 
quote: Stu Jamieson
Some cinematic licence is expected, of course, but given that Cuarón strives so hard to look authentic, these lapses are mildly disappointing nonetheless. The film's final act, in particular, stretches credibility to near breaking point, thus foiling Cuarón's attempt to deliver a masterpiece.
I agree with this 100%. They could have kept it much more realistic and still made the same movie. The problem is that for somebody that has a lot of knowlege about space travel, these unnecessary leaps into complete unrealism hurt the movie.

Some simple things like instead of having the Hubble being serviced near the ISS, they could have been doing some kind of repair on the ISS or working on a fictional module to add to it. The eenie meanie miney moe method of flying the capsule was also preposterous.

I didn't need the movie to be 100% scientifically accurate like Space Station 3D, but it could have been kept much more realistic and still delivered the sense of terror of the situation.

For the ending, they could have also added a more Apollo 13 like solution instead of what they did.
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 10-19-2013, 09:52 AM:
 
quote: Bobby Henderson
The only benefit of watching a movie in a IMAX digital theater: 3D is brighter. That's it.
Well now having seen the movie in my own theater (with Dolby 3D and a 4kw Ushio bulb in an NEC 2000 projector) I can say that ours is just as bright as the Imax we saw in Boise. Maybe they are not using a dual-projector setup there?

quote: Marcel Birgelen
It seems to be very hard to create stories that depict technology in a realistic manner. I don't really know a single sci-fi movie that I would consider to be 100% "technically accurate", but that's probably were the fiction part comes in.
The reason sci-fi movies aren't more technically accurate is because they're supposed to be entertainment, not documentaries. There was an article about this when "Apollo 13" was coming out. Tom Hanks said that if they tried to make it 100% accurate, the audience would be asleep before the mishap ever happened. Thus most of the technical jargon is axed, scenes are consolidated from several similar scenes, etc.

quote: Jim Cassedy
Technically, this movie should have been a silent picture since, as everyone knows, there's no sound in outer space.
When watching "Gravity" for the second time, I paid a lot more attention to this thought. It's really kind of amazing how they do the whole movie without really using much in the way of sound effects. Instead, you hear what the astronauts would hear (accompanied by dramatic music of course). This movie is a lot more pleasant to listen to than a lot of action movies because you don't have the constant crashing and bashing sounds.

quote: Brad Miller
I did not care for the music score in this. I understand the intention, but I found it more "musical noise" than music.
I think that was the point. Since they didn't have regular sound effects, the music score was really doing double duty. It's certainly not going to sell as a soundtrack album but I thought it was effective in the movie.

I liked the movie a whole lot better on the second go-round. I think it could have been partly because we were in a regular sized theater and I could take in the whole picture more easily, but I think mostly it was because I paid more attention to the emotional side of the story this time. The first time I wasn't really tuned in to that part of it and more concentrating on the action and adventure. I wonder if people who don't like this movie or find it too predictable might be doing the same thing I did...not getting the whole picture, so to speak.
 
Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 10-19-2013, 08:29 PM:
 
I thought the 3D post conversion looked great - one instance I jerked my face thinking that a piece of debris was going to hit my face. The Atmos mix was simply outstanding - for once a less bombastic annoyingly loud action film - the use of the swirling dialogue was superlative.
 
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 10-20-2013, 05:58 PM:
 
quote: Mike Blakesley
Well now having seen the movie in my own theater (with Dolby 3D and a 4kw Ushio bulb in an NEC 2000 projector) I can say that ours is just as bright as the Imax we saw in Boise. Maybe they are not using a dual-projector setup there?
I'm pretty sure you've seen a dual-projector setup, otherwise it would be a rather unique IMAX setup [Wink] .

Usually, brightness is one of the bigger advantages of the digital "reïncarnation" of IMAX, compared to venues of similar size. They're actually doing almost everything possible to make it bright: silver screens with lots of gain, dual projectors (both are running in 3D and also in 2D mode) and old-school linear polarization, rather than more sophisticated solutions like circular polarization (RealD and others), shutter glasses (there have been IMAXes with shutter glasses) and color spectrum filters like Dolby3D.

Brightness is often hard to judge in an objective way. The lack of proper masking will have a huge impact on the perceived brightness and your cinema probably has proper movable masking, also your screen is probably a whole lot smaller than those maxed-out Digital IMAX screens.

quote: Mike Blakesley
The reason sci-fi movies aren't more technically accurate is because they're supposed to be entertainment, not documentaries. There was an article about this when "Apollo 13" was coming out. Tom Hanks said that if they tried to make it 100% accurate, the audience would be asleep before the mishap ever happened. Thus most of the technical jargon is axed, scenes are consolidated from several similar scenes, etc.
Also, the movie didn't take almost 6 days to unfold [Wink] . I totally agree that movies aren't documentaries and for good reasons. Still, I would really like movies that take themselves seriously, to portray stuff in a more accurate way. It's not really a point I'm making in regards to this movie, because it did so many things right, to not be constantly nitpicking on the remaining flaws, but more in a general sense.

quote: Mike Blakesley
When watching "Gravity" for the second time, I paid a lot more attention to this thought. It's really kind of amazing how they do the whole movie without really using much in the way of sound effects. Instead, you hear what the astronauts would hear (accompanied by dramatic music of course). This movie is a lot more pleasant to listen to than a lot of action movies because you don't have the constant crashing and bashing sounds.
When I first saw the trailer, I was worried about this aspect, because that one does have all the explosions and crashing sounds in outer space. But the sound mix reminded me a lot of 2001 A Space Odyssey, one of the very few other movies that is very true to the nature of sound in space.
 
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 10-21-2013, 03:00 AM:
 
quote: Jonathan Goeldner
I thought the 3D post conversion looked great
Considering how much of the movie was CG, isn't it a bit dubious to refer to it as a "post conversion"?
 
Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 10-21-2013, 09:36 AM:
 
well what would you call it then? a lot of special effects movies does 3D CG rendering when they are initially created but given that there's also 'live action' footage that was not shot in stereo - a 'post' conversion is still a conversion, one way or another.
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 10-21-2013, 11:36 AM:
 
This movie seems to have strong appeal for senior citizens, at least around here. I never would have thought that....I guess it's the cast.

Many of them seem pissed that it's in 3-D. We tell them, We're having some 2-D shows next week. They say, We're here, we'll suffer through it. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 10-21-2013, 05:46 PM:
 
Having seen it in 3-D I'd have a hard time to even want to see it in 2-D... even no matter what audio frills might be attached otherwise... period.
 
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 10-21-2013, 06:00 PM:
 
quote: Jonathan Goeldner
well what would you call it then? a lot of special effects movies does 3D CG rendering when they are initially created but given that there's also 'live action' footage that was not shot in stereo - a 'post' conversion is still a conversion, one way or another.
Even Avatar had scenes shot in 2D and converted, but I wouldn't call the movie "post converted." I guess I would neither call Gravity "post converted" nor "shot in 3D"; the former lumps it in with the movies that were primarily 2D then converted and the latter implies it in 100% native 3D.
 
Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 10-21-2013, 09:00 PM:
 
^ ugh - my head hurts... [uhoh]
 
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 10-21-2013, 09:10 PM:
 
Liked it, didn't love it. Some of the physics were questionable. The 3D was surprisingly good (and this is from someone who doesn't really like 3D).

This was my first experience with Lie-Max (at the AMC/Loews Boston Common theatre). I was underwhelmed. Theirs was a conversion from the biggest house in a multiplex. Basically, they took out the first few rows of seats and installed a taller screen without masking. It looks nothing like a "real" Imax screen, and has an aspect ratio of roughly 2:1 (which is hard to guess, as the screen is curved). The movie filled the screen, so there was either extra height information in the "Imax" version or the edges were cropped. Having the screen fill more of one's field of view sounds like a good thing, but really isn't, especially with 2K [dlp] in which the pixels are visible and distracting from the front half of the auditorium. The 3D effect was good and the picture was bright (this system used two projectors), but both of these can be said of many venues. The sound system was nothing more than what one would find in a good 35mm house (actually, they had regular JBL surround speakers on the walls...nothing Imax specific...not sure what was behind the screen). It was good, but not amazing. 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. This system was not in that category.

So, basically, Lie-Max is OK, but not amazing, and is certainly not worth $18.50. For the most part, it really just does what any good cinema should be doing. It looks and sounds nothing like 15/70 Imax and should never have been given the same name. I feel badly for the people who are running real Imaxes who need to compete with these venues.

In this AMC house, they even played the same crappy commercials (on a small LCD video projector) that they play in their regular houses before the show.

The sound mix appeared to be standard 7.1 or 5.1 and had no information in the "voice of God" channel that Imax uses (do the Lie-max houses even have this?). Maybe someone else can comment on whether or not this is the same mix as in the 35mm and non-Imax DCP versions of the movie.

Also, what is the deal with Imax 3D glasses? Why are they still using linear polarizers? And why are they not doing disposable glasses?
 
Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 10-21-2013, 10:04 PM:
 
^ I haven't heard the 5.0 IMAX sound mix, but the Atmos mix places dialogue in some truly amazing sound points around the audience. Remember the scene in the Hobbit movie where the disembodied voice of Gollum seems to reverb in his lair from every nook and cranny - think of that mixing done for nearly the entire 87 minutes of 'Gravity' (minus the credits). The Atmos mix also placed exploding fire above Sandra Bullocks character inside the space station - it's a startling burst of sound that pummels the audience from above.
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-21-2013, 10:39 PM:
 
quote: Scott Norwood
they had regular JBL surround speakers on the walls
From what I've heard conversion auditoriums just leave up the old surrounds. Not sure why. Maybe to give the impression that something wasn't taken away?

quote: Scott Norwood
Also, what is the deal with Imax 3D glasses? Why are they still using linear polarizers? And why are they not doing disposable glasses?
Is one not supposed to be throwing away IMAX 3D glasses? I always have. Is this bad? I make it a policy to never return 3D glasses to a theater's bin. It seems morally wrong to give them back when I paid extra for the ticket.
 
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 10-22-2013, 04:17 AM:
 
quote: Scott Norwood
The movie filled the screen, so there was either extra height information in the "Imax" version or the edges were cropped.
Either this must be the first scope D-IMAX installation I've heard of (doubtful), or this was a serious screw-up.

quote: Scott Norwood
The sound mix appeared to be standard 7.1 or 5.1 and had no information in the "voice of God" channel that Imax uses (do the Lie-max houses even have this?). Maybe someone else can comment on whether or not this is the same mix as in the 35mm and non-Imax DCP versions of the movie.
Most Digital IMAX installations don't have the height channel and I doubt there is a single IMAX DCP that actually uses it.

quote: Scott Norwood
Also, what is the deal with Imax 3D glasses? Why are they still using linear polarizers? And why are they not doing disposable glasses?
That's part of the experience: If you avoid tilting your head ever so slightly, you're more part of it [Wink] .

From what I've been told, those linear polarizers are more efficient and result in a brighter picture.

quote: Joe Redifer
From what I've heard conversion auditoriums just leave up the old surrounds. Not sure why. Maybe to give the impression that something wasn't taken away?
Simple: Because it costs extra money to remove them and obscure the spot where they've been mounted?

But yeah, those "old" JBL speakers are not being used for an IMAX presentation. Maybe they're still being used for something else, like 35 mm presentations, but that's highly doubtful.

quote: Joe Redifer
Is one not supposed to be throwing away IMAX 3D glasses? I always have. Is this bad? I make it a policy to never return 3D glasses to a theater's bin. It seems morally wrong to give them back when I paid extra for the ticket.
No, you're not [Wink] . Those glasses are rentals and being paid for by the exhibitor. In most Digital IMAXes I know they're actually collecting them afterwards.
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 10-22-2013, 12:23 PM:
 
quote: Scott Norwood
The movie filled the screen, so there was either extra height information in the "Imax" version or the edges were cropped.
Must have been cropped edges...the one I saw, there was at least 6 feet of blank screen on top and bottom with a standard-shaped scope image in the middle.

quote: Scott Norwood
Also, what is the deal with Imax 3D glasses? Why are they still using linear polarizers? And why are they not doing disposable glasses?
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.

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.
 
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 10-22-2013, 02:31 PM:
 
Mike, I am wondering where you got the idea that people are distrusting the name. From the numbers I am seeing, IMAX is doing better than it ever has, Gravity is an all "Liemax" release and is average $110,000 per location, just 318 location have grossed $38million.

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.
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 10-22-2013, 03:08 PM:
 
I was referring to "people in the know" distrusting the name. Just a casual Google will turn up plenty of evidence of that.

The general public is another matter. But the more "bad publicity" gets out about how Imax is diluting its brand, the less they will be fooled (although you can never underestimate the gullibility of the public, I guess).

A lot of those higher numbers can be attributed to the higher ticket price and (in the case of this movie) the 3-D upcharge. We paid $16 each to see it in Boise...the averaget ticket price these days is around $8. 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? 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.
 
Posted by John Roddy (Member # 7348) on 10-22-2013, 03:58 PM:
 
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.

Also, IMAX glasses come in many different flavors. The ones we have are reusable, but still only recommended to be used over a limited number of times (the exact number eludes me), with a run through the dishwasher between each use. Generally, I just throw them away when I start seeing scratches or noticeable imperfections. We've also gotten a few cheaper-looking glasses designed to be thrown out after just one or two uses. I guess it just depends on what the venue is willing to invest in.
 
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 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] .

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...
 
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 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.
 
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 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.
 
Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 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.
 
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 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.
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 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.
 
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 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 [Wink] . 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. [Wink]

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.
 
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 10-23-2013, 03:30 PM:
 
The glasses that I had were more like the first version (I think), but did not say "Imax" on them.

As for the Technicolor comparison: the difference for me is that no one is charging a 50% premium to see Eastman prints made at the Technicolor lab.

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.

If Imax had called their digital multiplex system something other than "Imax," I don't think that anyone here would be complaining about it. It is a decent (though overpriced) product. But it is not in the same league as the 15/70 systems on which Imax built its reputation.
 
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 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.
 
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 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).
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 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.
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 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?
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-28-2013, 12:50 PM:
 
quote: Mike Blakesley
One guy last night told me he thought the ending was "stupid."
It was. There was simply no reason to re-tell us the name of the movie we were watching at the end. [Razz]
 
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 10-28-2013, 01:09 PM:
 
That's less stupid than having the rating tag play after the credits are completely over, though of course they did that too.
 
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 10-28-2013, 01:43 PM:
 
quote: Mike Blakesley
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.
That's why I tend not to read too many reviews before seeing a movie. If your expectations are too high, it can practically only disappoint.

Still, many movies I now view as "the greatest ever" didn't start as such. A really great movie still needs to "mature", at least with me. I would never call a movie the greatest ever after seeing it just once or even twice.

quote: Brad Miller
It was. There was simply no reason to re-tell us the name of the movie we were watching at the end.
That seems to be popular. Avatar for example, did this too. Actually, it didn't even tell us what movie we were watching until right at the end.

quote: Chris Slycord
That's less stupid than having the rating tag play after the credits are completely over, though of course they did that too.
Man on the Moon rolled the end credits right before the actual movie started. [Wink]
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-28-2013, 03:39 PM:
 
quote: Mike Blakesley
The movie's great, but not the best movie in the history of the world -- but people are expecting that due to over-hyping.
This is why I wait for the home release on many movies. That way I can wait for people to shut the eff up about it and I can enjoy it in peace.

quote: Chris Slycord
That's less stupid than having the rating tag play after the credits are completely over, though of course they did that too.
The ratings tag at the end of movies was invented for two reasons: to drag across the floor in platter houses and to slap the bottom of the projector for 30 seconds as the reel spins down in changeover houses. With digital, you're supposed to add some compression artifacts to the end tag after you ingest it.
 
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 10-28-2013, 04:47 PM:
 
quote: Mike Blakesley
One guy last night told me he thought the ending was "stupid."
I hope it doesn't turn out to be her father! [Razz]
 
Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 10-28-2013, 05:13 PM:
 
Saw it yesterday at the AMC formerly known as Rave. First digital 3D (RealD) I've seen and everything they say about dimmness is true.
Trailers were played 2D before the show and they were dim, unevenly illuminated and fuzzy. In short, everything I've come to expect out there. The feature was, however, sharp where it was supposed to be. Is that a function of running it in 3D?

The movie itself worked until (spoiler alerts)

the appearance of George Clooney's ghost. Then it is just piling on the obstacles for her to overcome in the heroic dedicated way, complete with a tribute to Gus Grissom screwing the pooch.

Do have to congratulate the director for not being afraid of long takes, especially in what is essentially a chase movie. Even if the long takes were computer generated, they added to the tension and disorientation of space.

Great movie? No. 3/4's fun. Sure.
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-29-2013, 12:40 PM:
 
Alfonso Cuarón seems to be a fan of long takes from a single camera. He put a couple of impressive ones into Children of Men. The best was an urban street battle sequence near the end of the movie. I don't know if there was some CG help involved, but the shot covered a bunch of distance through streets and buildings. The shot looked very seamless.
 
Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 10-31-2013, 03:51 PM:
 
Bobby, there is at least one "edit" (maybe a morph) in that "long take" you're talking about -- watch the lens suddenly clean up when they go inside the building and up the stairs.

For me, the mind-blowing take was the one inside the car.

Having said that, I actually find myself taken OUT of the movie when directors pull these kinds of stunts -- that's all they are, IMHO. At some point, I start to wonder about the MAKING of the movie. Thus, the characters and story take a back seat and the suspension of disbelief is ruined.
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-01-2013, 08:14 AM:
 
Yeah, the action sequence inside the car (with a bunch of stuff going on outside) was very impressive. But I knew that scene in Children of Men utilized multiple cuts and a good dose of CGI/effects compositing to realize.

I figured the street battle sequence had at least a "morph" or two (or several) to piece together that whole tracking shot. I found that shot to be a little more realistic since the camera was merely following alongside people on foot. A car interior is a very cramped space to get all the shot coverage you need in an action sequence.

Long shots like these are indeed directorial stunts. It's another matter whether the viewer likes them or not. I think those types of shots are pretty cool since they're so very rarely used. They require a hell of a lot of hard work in terms of planning and "choreography" when shooting them.

I suppose it's artistically bad in terms of unbroken shots calling attention to themselves. OTOH, it's a refreshing change from all the rapid fire edits, shaky cam and other style over substance directorial clip art we're beaten over the head with by so many other movie makers.

Children of Men (and Gravity) have had a somewhat unfair advantage in being able to use CGI and compositing applications to create what looks like long unbroken shots.

Old school "analog" movies that did unbroken shots all on film, getting all the action in camera with no post production tricks, are arguably even more impressive. Orsen Welles' noir classic, Touch of Evil set the gold standard for the long unbroken tracking shot with its opening scene.
 
Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 11-01-2013, 10:37 AM:
 
Touch of Evil certainly is the gold standard for film.

The most amazing long take from the early days of digital has to be Russian Ark
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0318034/?ref_=nv_sr_1

A 99min take that goes through 200 years of history. Yes, it is a gimmick, but a quite spectacular one.

Honorable mention has to go to I Am Cuba for some of the most hilarious long takes.

Then, there are all those Warhol movies [Wink]
 
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 11-12-2013, 10:31 AM:
 
quote: Marcel Birgelen
Usually, brightness is one of the bigger advantages of the digital "reïncarnation" of IMAX, compared to venues of similar size. They're actually doing almost everything possible to make it bright: silver screens with lots of gain, dual projectors (both are running in 3D and also in 2D mode) and old-school linear polarization, rather than more sophisticated solutions like circular polarization (RealD and others), shutter glasses (there have been IMAXes with shutter glasses) and color spectrum filters like Dolby3D.

Brightness is often hard to judge in an objective way. The lack of proper masking will have a huge impact on the perceived brightness and your cinema probably has proper movable masking, also your screen is probably a whole lot smaller than those maxed-out Digital IMAX screens.
I saw Gravity in IMAX 3D last night, this would be the third time I have seen it, I saw it in UltraAVX with Atmos, regular AMC RealD and now IMAX 3D. I was invited to see it with promotional tickets.

I was kind of interested to see it in IMAX as I just recently saw an IMAX 15/70 museum feature two weeks prior and I was interested to see the comparison. The IMAX theatre I saw Gravity in is a former 15/70 purpose built IMAX venue that used to show the 40 minute IMAX features.

Overall, the best 3D was the IMAX theatre, it appeared to have the most depth. The image was also the brightest. The screen was about 60 feet wide. I like how the screen is closer to you in the IMAX venue.

For sound, all three theatres sounded good but I think this is because the sound mix for Gravity is a good one. Atmos provided the best sound experience.

After coming off a real 15/70 screening, it sounded to me like the Digital IMAX sound is a significant step down from the 15/70 venue. I saw Niagara Myths and Miracles and I was amazed a how good the older IMAX venue sounded, the sound was incredible. Compared to Atmos, the 15/70 sound system was still better.

For the lack of masking in scope presentations on the AVX and IMAX screens, the IMAX screen did not bother me as with glasses on I could not really tell that there was no masking. AVX I could easily tell that there was no masking. The less expensive ticket for the RealD presentation had real masking. Go figure?

In no way did the 2K resolution really bother me, this was no Dark Knight Rises and I knew that going in. Niagara Myths and Miracles looked good in 15/70 but not as good as Fighter Pilot and nowhere near as good as The Dark Knight or Dark Knight Rises. I was able to confirm that the prints of Niagara are new and new prints are stuck every six months or so. Niagara Myths and Miracles is shown on two different prints every other hour. The prints looked good in IMAX 70mm but not great, perhaps the printing process has an affect?

Where does this all leave me on my opinion? If IMAX could partner with Dolby Atmos I could accept the surcharge for the ticket prices. A combination of the IMAX image presentation and the Atmos sound would work for me. The sound of the digital IMAX compared to the 15/70 I recently watched was what I really noticed and the IMAX digital just does not sound as good.

All of the above leads me to believe that there is also a big mess in movie theatres today. We popped into one of the largest regular theatres at the same venue, and I could not believe one of the screens was showing a movie with out the bottom part of the masking. The AVX had no masking but had Atmos and the regular cheap theatres had masking. What a mess. A THX comeback would be perfect right now.

I also can't believe that someone at IMAX can't figure out that by keeping a select few theatres and showing the occasional 15/70 would keep lore, myths and incredible demand for those seeking the 15/70 presentations. After all, IMAX is living off what 15/70 created for them. I am still kicking my ass for not going to see Elysium in 15/70, that might of been the last Hollywood film I would ever have seen in the format and I didn't go.
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-13-2013, 09:57 AM:
 
THX, or rather the original intent behind THX, needs to make a comeback big time.

Movie theater sound is so inconsistent from one auditorium to the next. If there is any consistency at all it seems to be in the form of bland, unimpressive audio in regular auditoriums and loud, boomy, slobbity-flobbity audio in premium priced auditoriums.

Too many movie theater chains are taking a McDonald's fast food approach to screening room design. They don't want to take the time and effort to design screening rooms properly so they have great acoustics. They don't want to go to the expense of installing the right kinds of sound system hardware, or the expense and effort of setting it up properly and maintaining it properly. There is a lot of variables that can make a movie theater sound really great or mediocre or really bad.

This crap so many are doing with projection and movie screens is making matters worse. I hate common width screens; they make "flat" movies bigger than 'scope movies.

I hate the new trend of trying to copy the IMAX screen look. It doesn't work. For one thing the screens don't have the scale of a true IMAX screen designed for 15-perf 70mm projection. They're just regular sized movie screens without all the necessary stuff to make them look finished -like masking, curtains, etc. That shit needs to stop. It looks like hell.
[Mad]

The theater chains doing IMAX-branded digital screens and other acronym labeled screens need to take an approach a little more like what Warren Theaters does with its IMAX branded screens:
-

Still, I don't like the sound systems in IMAX theaters. The sound systems in the original film-based houses may be powerful. But I've never liked the surround coverage. The digital-based IMAX theaters are worse in this regard.

IMAX needs to do something to reinvent its sound system and adapt to the changes that are coming with how movies are being mixed. Or they can cut to the chase and create a partnership with Dolby and start sticking Atmos into those auditoriums.
 
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 11-13-2013, 10:09 AM:
 
quote: Bobby Henderson
need to take an approach a little more like what Warren Theaters does with its IMAX branded screens
IMAX was actually opposed to the Warren IMAX theatre, after a long process, IMAX finally caved. So far the Warren IMAX is one of the most successful IMAX screens.
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-13-2013, 11:14 AM:
 
The Warren IMAX screen in Moore, OK looks like a real movie theater rather than a big room with seats featuring a trampoline mounted on the wall.
[Razz]
 
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 11-13-2013, 08:32 PM:
 
Warren IMAX is supposed to be the largest IMAX screen in the United States. It looks pretty impressive from the You Tube videos. I think the largest IMAX refers to seat count and not screen size.
 
Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 11-13-2013, 10:38 PM:
 
Regal Atlantic Station RPX Dolby Atmos

I had a Regal 7 dollar VIP discount pass. Upcharge was 6.50. For 13.50 , its an OK deal. I wouldn't pay anymore than that for the RPX experience, certainly not face value.

Dolby Atmos sound was great. Having said that, for the customer experience, I think an image projected in a great manner makes a bigger difference than Dolby Atmos vs another premium sound format. Most of the digital sound formats are good enough. The bigger variables are your theater acoustics and projection quality.

Enjoyed the movie as it is a movie that is suitable for the theater experience. I dont care for 3D normally, but this worked for me great here. I didn't even find a big difference in Avatar 3D vs 3D. Here, for Gravity, the 3D made a difference to me.

Solid movie with solid acting. Certainly don't think Bullock shold get an oscar even if she did a very solid job.
 
Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 12-24-2013, 05:41 PM:
 
Any idea if this movie is returning to large format once all the Christmas releases finish their run? With digital, it would have been nice if they retained Gravity in only the large format since it should be easier to have multiple movies sharing the same screen at different times.

I recommended it some relatives but not sure if I should tell them to check it out in the very few digital non large format 3D screens or may see it again in a large format screen when the Oscar nominations come through.
 
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 12-26-2013, 12:42 PM:
 
quote: Pravin Ratnam
Any idea if this movie is returning to large format once all the Christmas releases finish their run?
Once Oscar nominations are released, Gravity will be re-released. Not sure about large format venues but I know two rep theatres that tried to book Gravity and were turned down.

The other movie is 12 Years a Slave, that will be released again.
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-26-2013, 12:47 PM:
 
No "re-release" is necessary. Both of those movies are still in release and could be booked by a mainstream cinema. They are both playing in under 100 locations but they are still out there. Whether some chains decide to put the movie back on their biggest screens would depend on what other releases they have booked.
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-26-2013, 01:09 PM:
 
Gravity would certainly be worth a re-release in Dolby Atmos equipped theaters. Unfortunately I don't think Oscar nominations will provide enough of a bump to get it into very many Atmos houses. The Oscar nominations will be announced January 16. I, Frankenstein (mixed in Atmos) will arrive in theaters the same week. Perhaps if that movie turns out to be a dud then there might be an outside chance of some theaters showing Gravity in Atmos the following week (I'm thinking NY, LA and little else).
 
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 12-26-2013, 04:36 PM:
 
Bobby, it would kind of neat to see Gravity get some press in Atmos for a re-release. I don't think that will happen but you never know. Gravity sounded good in all formats that I heard it in but it did sound best in Atmos, I am pretty sure it will win for best sound.
 
Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 01-05-2014, 12:04 PM:
 
My question is how tough would it be for a multiplex already showing Gravity on a smaller screen have it play for a single show in a PLF or IMAX type theater instead on weekdays once kids are back in school. Are the logistics easy enough to do that in digital? WHat would it entail - some lens adjustments? With digital, it would be cool to take advantage to have more movies share the premium format screens which are so limited in quantity in each multiplex.
 
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 01-05-2014, 12:33 PM:
 
Pravin, I have seen IMAX digital split the screen with multiple IMAX titles, it does not happen very often but it does happen sometimes. IMAX 15/70 based theatres also do it as well.

As for having more titles sharing the screen or show in PLF, I am not sure why anyone would want that? Generally the newest title that is sure to do well at the box office will occupy the PLF screen and that is what you generally want to have. Usually movies do not increase in weekend take after the first week.

Trailer pack requirements are often determined based on 2D, 3D, IMAX and the PLF screens which can all be different. Studios are now advertising to the PLF screen differently than the non PLF screen in some cases.
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-06-2014, 08:56 AM:
 
quote: Pravin Ratnam
My question is how tough would it be for a multiplex already showing Gravity on a smaller screen have it play for a single show in a PLF or IMAX type theater instead on weekdays once kids are back in school. Are the logistics easy enough to do that in digital?
It shouldn't be very difficult at all. I see movie theaters "double up" two movies on the same theater screen all the time. Sometimes a screen will be showing three movies on a single screen. I've seen theaters do this with 35mm as well. Usually this sort of thing takes place in one of the smaller houses in a multiplex as some movies are ending their run.

I don't know the networking setup in every theater chain and I'm sure there are some big differences. Most locations usually have a SAN (storage area network) server that can hold many movies, trailers, etc. and distribute them to the movie player on each digital projector. That can save some time compared to manually ingesting the movie in a different digital projector every time the title moves from one screen to another.

So, yeah, it should be pretty easy for a theater to double up multiple movies on a single premium priced big screen. I'd be very suspicious of management at a theater that tried to give technical limitation excuses for not being able to do that.
 
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 01-06-2014, 01:00 PM:
 
Please notice that IDF requires their special IMAX DCPs and accompanying KDMs to get "The IMAX experience".

Cinemas without a beefed up content network and NAS or spread out on multiple locations and without something like fiber between them can still just ship the hard disk around and ingest the content on multiple screens. You need valid KDMs for either the whole location or all screens you're going to play that content on though.
 
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 01-06-2014, 02:35 PM:
 
quote: Bobby Henderson
So, yeah, it should be pretty easy for a theater to double up multiple movies on a single premium priced big screen
It is not easy to double up unless you are booked to do it, also see Marcels comments about the KDM keys. AMC is already splitting their AMC Prime screens with two and sometimes three different movies. Keep in mind that there are only three AMC Prime locations currently open but the North Point 12 has American Hustle, Saving Mr. Banks and the Secret Life of Walter Mitty playing at various times on the same screen.
 
Posted by Philip Jones (Member # 6677) on 01-06-2014, 02:40 PM:
 
In the US do they issue keys only for the screens you've booked then?

In the UK always get keys for all (both) screens regardless of which a film will be playing in and we always move films about to maximise occupancy
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-06-2014, 02:51 PM:
 
I thought the distributors issued KDMs based on theater locations.

Whatever is taking place, it is very common for movie theaters to double up and even triple up shows on the same screen -usually after the movies involved have been out for a few weeks and are playing to very light crowds. There must not be too much of a difficulty involved.
 
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 01-06-2014, 03:06 PM:
 
In Europe, studios/labs usually send out keys for the full FLM (as in all the equipment in a certain location) and I guess they do the same in the US. Special screenings such as early releases however are sometimes locked to a certain screen.
 
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 01-06-2014, 03:09 PM:
 
quote: Bobby Henderson
I thought the distributors issued KDMs based on theater locations.
That is not correct.

quote: Marcel Birgelen
(as in all the equipment in a certain location)
DCI compliant locations will receive one key for one server. So if you have multiple servers in a location, you will need specific keys for each server.
 
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 01-06-2014, 03:29 PM:
 
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
DCI compliant locations will received one key for one server. So if you have multiple servers in a location, you will need specific keys for each server.
Sorry, but that's just b.s. Maybe they do stuff differently in Canada, the studios are even more paranoid or maybe the location you work for has decided they want a different KDM per screen (for whatever reason), but both the protocol supports multiple authorized devices and studios/labs are actively using it.

Digital IMAX requires a seperate KDM, but they use an entirely different DCP, at least for "The IMAX Experience" feature content...

Edit:

I want to take the opportunity to note that yet again, a movie review thread is being misused for an entirely different purpose. (And yes, I plead partly guilty.)
 
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 01-06-2014, 05:06 PM:
 
Getting back to the subject:

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Gravity sounded good in all formats that I heard it in but it did sound best in Atmos, I am pretty sure it will win for best sound.
How many of those Oscar jurors will watch such a movie in a screening room equipped with Atmos? [Razz]

Many of them just watch it on a crappy DVD at home, at least that is how many movies got leaked to the Internet until some years ago.
 
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 01-06-2014, 05:22 PM:
 
quote:
How many of those Oscar jurors will watch such a movie in a screening room equipped with Atmos? [Razz]
Dolby Atmos is not going to make any difference in whether the members of the Academy award Gravity with the Oscar for Best Sound. Gravity sounded good in all sound formats I saw it in, regular 5.1, IMAX D (no 15/70 release) and Atmos, I was lucky enough to see Gravity in all three.
 
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 01-06-2014, 05:32 PM:
 
Sure, it sounded great in 7.1 too.

I have no clue how the actual voting happens, they claim that sound editors nominate sound editors, so let's hope they actually listen to it in a somewhat decent screening room and take the awesome use of surround sound into account.
 
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 01-06-2014, 05:36 PM:
 
I agree, I hope the Academy members would try to listen to the movie in good room with surround.
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-06-2014, 06:07 PM:
 
I think most Academy members watch screeners in their houses, so you have to hope they have a good TV setup. This is the reason for all those bootleg movies which are uploaded from Academy "screeners" that fall into the wrong hands.

Which is too bad. I think they should be required to see the movies in a theater to vote. Gravity will seem cheesy on a TV set.
 
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 01-08-2014, 12:47 PM:
 
For those who have not yet seen Gravity, Warner will be releasing the movie for a second time this Jan 17th, Warner is looking at a 1000+ screens for this re-release that comes one day after the Oscar Nominations.

I think Gravity will be the best picture winner this year.
 
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 01-08-2014, 04:36 PM:
 
quote: Mike Blakesley
Which is too bad. I think they should be required to see the movies in a theater to vote. Gravity will seem cheesy on a TV set.
I agree on that one, but those awards have always been something like a sham at best. The voting procedure is totally nontransparent, so they could as well pull those nominations and awards out of their heads. It's good for publicity and it might sell some additional tickets during re-releases. Besides being a very subjective matter, but how often for example, has the "right" movie actually won an Oscar for "the best picture"?
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-08-2014, 05:04 PM:
 
Oh I think if you went back thru all the years, and took a poll of movie critics (people who actually study movies, not just movie fans) you would find that the most critically acclaimed film among the nominations probably won the Best Picture Oscar more often than not.

I'm not a sophisticated movie fan by any means. I'm a mainstream movie fan, and my favorite genre is action/comedy. So it's very rare that a movie I actually like ever wins Best Picture.
 
Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 01-08-2014, 05:12 PM:
 
One should also consider a film doesn't need a majority to win, just a plurality. Now that there are up to 10 nominees for Best Picture, a film could actually win with 11% of the vote.
Imagine how much fun the Awards would be if there had to be a majority and they did the run-offs live on network TV!
 
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 01-08-2014, 05:23 PM:
 
quote: Mike Blakesley
Oh I think if you went back thru all the years, and took a poll of movie critics (people who actually study movies, not just movie fans) you would find that the most critically acclaimed film among the nominations probably won the Best Picture Oscar more often than not.
Actually, sounds like a pretty interresting oportunity for an in depth article, you would expect somebody would've done this by now.

quote:
Imagine how much fun the Awards would be if there had to be a majority and they did the run-offs live on network TV!
Yeah, why isn't there such a show on TV actually? [Smile] Might be a refreshing alternative to all those stupid talent shows that have been milked dry around the globe.
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-08-2014, 06:26 PM:
 
Well in the U.S. we have the "People's CHoice Awards" which are pretty much that. But I think there are already too many awards shows. They mainly exist to sell commercial time.
 
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 01-10-2014, 01:50 AM:
 
quote: Martin McCaffery
One should also consider a film doesn't need a majority to win, just a plurality. Now that there are up to 10 nominees for Best Picture, a film could actually win with 11% of the vote.
It is lame that they have up to 10 nominees. I liked it better when there were five.
 
Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 01-10-2014, 08:05 AM:
 
quote:
Yeah, why isn't there such a show on TV actually? [Smile] Might be a refreshing alternative to all those stupid talent shows that have been milked dry around the globe.
Voting, of course, would be limited to members of the Academy. So we would have the attendees of the ceremony voting and lobbying at the same time, while their agents and flunkies would be bribing and harrassing the really old geezers who couldn't make it to the show, and the really young geezers who couldn't get tickets would be selling their votes out front. Good times!
 
Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 01-12-2014, 11:01 PM:
 
Golden Globe win for Cuaron:

Best Director - Motion Picture
 
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 02-07-2014, 10:35 PM:
 
These are some spectacular numbers by IMAX. $156,000 average per screen.

Gravity Crosses $100 Million Milestone In IMAX® 3D Theatres Worldwide

Nominated for 10 Academy Awards®, Alfonso Cuaron's Acclaimed Drama Continues to Attract Moviegoers to the Format that Shines a Spotlight on the Masterpiece's Cinematic Beauty

LOS ANGELES, Feb. 7, 2014 /CNW/ - IMAX Corporation (NYSE: IMAX; TSX: IMX) and Warner Bros. Pictures, a division of Time Warner Inc. (NYSE: TWX), today announced that Gravity™ has passed the $100 million global box office benchmark in 639 IMAX® 3D theatres worldwide since its initial release Thursday, Oct. 3, 2013. As of Feb. 5, 2014, the film had reached $48.6 million in 330 IMAX 3D theatres domestically and $51.5 million from 309 theatres internationally. Gravity represents the third IMAX Hollywood film to cross the $100-million threshold, following Avatar in 2010 and The Dark Knight Rises in 2012.

(Logo: http://photos.prnewswire.com/prnh/20111107/MM01969LOGO)

Gravity continues to pull moviegoers in to IMAX theatres, with a Jan. 31, 2014, re-release into 330 IMAX 3D locations in North America and other international territories.

Filmmaker Alfonso Cuaron's internationally lauded drama, which stars Sandra Bullock and George Clooney, has been a hit with audiences and critics alike, closing in on the $700 million mark at the global box office, while receiving 10 Academy Award® nominations, including Best Picture. Demand for the film -- which was also nominated for four Golden Globes, with Cuaron winning Best Director -- has been particularly high in IMAX 3D. Opening Oct. 4, Gravity was the highest-grossing IMAX release of 2013, both domestically and globally.

"We congratulate our longtime partners at Warner Bros., along with writer-director-producer Alfonso Cuaron, and producer David Heyman, for crafting a visually and emotionally stunning film that appeals to IMAX audiences around the world and has also garnered widespread acclaim," said Greg Foster, CEO of IMAX Entertainment and Senior Executive Vice President, IMAX Corp. "We continue to be thrilled by the strong, enduring appeal of Gravity and look forward to even more moviegoers discovering this spectacular film in IMAX 3D over the coming weeks."

The IMAX release of Gravity has been digitally re-mastered into the image and sound quality of The IMAX 3D Experience® with proprietary IMAX DMR® (Digital Re-mastering) technology. The crystal-clear images coupled with IMAX's customized theatre geometry and powerful digital audio create a unique environment that make audiences feel as if they are in the movie.

http://www.newswire.ca/en/story/1302411/gravity-crosses-100-million-milestone-in-imax-3d-theatres-worldwide
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-08-2014, 12:03 AM:
 
The numbers aren't quite so impressive if you break it down into actual tickets sold. A 3D movie in an IMAX branded theater is going to cost at least $16 per ticket. For a $156,000 per screen average it would take less than 10,000 tickets to deliver that. A 500 seat theater would need only 20 shows filled to capacity to bring in $160,000 at $16 per ticket.
 
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 02-14-2014, 10:07 PM:
 
quote: Geoff Jones
I want to see it again and it's been a long time since I have felt that way.
Are you planning on picking up the bluray or dvd?

It comes out in a week and a half and the bluray quality reviews are stellar. I am glad they have kept it 5.1 for the home (never liked 7.1). I might actually pick up the bluray myself.
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 02-25-2014, 06:37 PM:
 
I just saw this. Skipped it in theaters. Pretty good! I know everyone else is saying "best movie ever made or will ever be made" and all that. Not so. Sound mix was good I guess but I didn't really pay attention to it. The main thing that stood out to me was Sandra Bullocks. She did not look like Sandra Bullocks. She must have had some work done. Like a bad facelift, a nose trimmin' and puffiness added to her lips. Why did she do that?

quote: Terrance
I am glad they have kept it 5.1 for the home (never liked 7.1).
Yeah 7.1 is teh sux. I'm with you. I only like 5.1. Actually screw that mono really is the best anything more is stupid. You think you're hardcore by not liking 7.1 but I am more hardcore than you. Hell I don't even like sound at all. BEAT THAT!
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-25-2014, 08:19 PM:
 
quote: Joe Redifer
She did not look like Sandra Bullocks. She must have had some work done. Like a bad facelift, a nose trimmin' and puffiness added to her lips. Why did she do that?
She spends too much time around movie industry types in Los Angeles.
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-25-2014, 10:14 PM:
 
I had a friend see this on video and he said he didn't see what all the shouting was about. I told him, you needed to see it in a theater. (His TV setup is nothing special, just a 42" on the wall and a crappy sound system.) I would expect Joe has a setup that would make the movie look good -- but I'll bet about 95% of video watchers will see it on their dinky TVs and go, "that's it?"
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 02-25-2014, 11:13 PM:
 
If that's truly the case, then it means the movie itself doesn't hold up. It relies on big visuals and that's it.
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-26-2014, 12:49 PM:
 
Well the other likelihood is, he watched it with a bunch of friends and they were just watching it for the action parts and didn't grasp the "deeper" meanings in the movie. I know that happened to me the first time I saw it....I got so caught up in the action that I didn't pay enough attention to the other layers of the movie. I liked it a lot better the second time I saw it.
 
Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 02-26-2014, 02:46 PM:
 
Some movies really only work in theatres.
Reminds me of My Big Fat Greek Wedding, a horrible movie that people loved so much in theatres they kept coming back for more. But then it came out on video and everyone said "Eh, What's the big deal."
Turns out if you watch a movie that is essentially an extended version of Love American Style on TV, it looks and feels just like a TV show.
 




Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2