Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Thor: The Dark World

This is topic Thor: The Dark World 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=001992

Posted by Stu Jamieson (Member # 4626) on 11-02-2013, 06:46 PM:

Joss Whedon has no explicit connection to Thor: The Dark World but his hand can be felt. The dialogue contained within is distinctly Whedonesque which helps to keep the fun factor elevated and rescues what would otherwise be a fairly moribund movie.

Thor: The Dark World is not as interesting as it's predecessor and that film was by no means the best of The Avengers tie-in prequels. From frost giants in the first film to dark elves here, the villains are getting smaller and so is the scope of the films. This is stock action CGI fantasy where nothing new is learnt about any of the characters; it's merely goodies versus baddies albeit presented in a slick, entertaining package. The 3D presentation makes little use of depth and is unworthy of the ticket premium.

After sitting the game out in The Avengers, Natalie Portman (Jane Foster) returns and is shoe-horned into the action by some amazing stroke of coincidence (which is never satisfactorily explained). Tom Hiddleston (Loki) scores the most interesting subplot and Kat Dennings (Darcy) steals every scene she's in. Chris Hemsworth flexes his pecs once or twice (or maybe even thrice) and fulfils his obligations to the project.

Suffering from sequelitis, Thor: The Dark World is saved by token of it's fun factor and, like it's predecessor, is a harmless piece of fluff (but not quite as good).

6.5 out of 10

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 11-06-2013, 05:51 PM:

For me, the start of the movie got interrupted by broken 3D glasses. One of the polarizers was blurry and a replacement was needed... Although the replacement resulted in a clearer vision, the 3D was just plain bad and therefore just an unnecessary distraction. Why go trough the pain and have people wear glorified sunglasses if you don't do anything interesting with the format?!

I watched this in Dolby Atmos and although it does have an Atmos soundtrack, it didn't sound like it. Just like the stereoscopic 3D, the experience remains flat and rather boring. The mix totally ignores the possibilities of the format, so no need to go see this in Atmos, 7.1 or even 5.1 would be perfectly fine for this lame mix.

No less than three screenwriters were necessary to complete the screenplay of this movie. To me, that's a bad omen... And at least one of them must have been playing Portal quite recently.

The result is a mix of different styles and a generally uninteresting story, even the climatic twist at the end deserves no spoiler tag, as you can see it coming from light years away.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-06-2013, 05:58 PM:

I think there needs to be a new term, "Cash Grab 3-D" for those movies that are in 3-D for no particular reason except to make more money off them.

Of course that could pretty much apply to all 3-D movies this year with the exception of "Gravity."

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 11-06-2013, 06:37 PM:

"Cash Grab 3-D" would be the perfect category for this one. I need to remember that [Wink]

.

And yes, for most movies, 3D is just a distraction, or maybe even a source of evil, because it also imposes unnecessary constrains on the cinematography.

I would like make a little nuance though. Although most movies are perfectly fine without 3D, some of those that do use 3D at least get their stuff together and provide a sense of depth. The sense of depth in this movie wasn't any better than that of a bunch of cardboard cutouts.

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 11-06-2013, 08:46 PM:

I completely agree that the 3D doesn't really serve a purpose in this movie, but I thought it was done well enough to not be a distraction - aside from wearing the glasses.

My complaint about Thor: The Dark World, is basically the same as with Iron Man 3: the big battle scenes just aren't very interesting. Super being vs super being as everything around them is destroyed. These big set pieces don't offer anything new or interesting. I find the interplay between the characters to be far more interesting. While Thor suffers from not being as charismatic or interesting as Tony Stark, the other characters are interesting enough to at least keep me entertained. d

On a side note, the Captain America 5 minute preview wasn't really anything to get excited about. It's a short clip from the movie followed by the preview (minus the green band and studio logos).

Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 11-08-2013, 11:04 AM:

CINEMA: AMC Council Bluffs 17, Council Bluffs, IA
AUDITORIUM: 11
PRESENTATION: AMC Recline-O-Vision Mystery Meat Digital (2D)
PRESENTATION PROBLEMS: Picture slightly out of focus
RATING: Two and one half stars (out of four)

I've resolved my own complaint about the footrests on the reclining chairs (how it comes up first so if you want to recline without the footrest, you're screwed) by realizing that I can still put my feet on the floor even with the footrest up because it isn't as wide as the chair. I know you're all terribly relieved.

THE PLOT: An old enemy awakens. Wackiness ensues.

I loved the first Thor. The moment I really fell in love with that movie was the scene where Thor and Jane sit atop her New Mexico lab and he explains the realms to her. That's when she really falls for him. It's far more subtle than when they effectively recreate the scene in the sequel and she says "I like how you explain things". Yeah, we know. It suddenly felt sort of forced. And that's true about most of the quirkiness of these characters over the first movie, though Thor hanging his hammer on Jane's coat rack was absolutely hilarious.

Couple that with a mind-numbing plot, murky action sequences, and a not terribly impressive CGI world, and you end up with a decent couple of hours, but not a really great couple of hours.

Posted by Connor Wilson (Member # 6088) on 11-09-2013, 07:42 PM:

Alamo Drafthouse One Loudoun, Ashburn, VA
11/09/2013, 2:55 pm show
Auditorium #6
Presented in Sony 4K, RealD 3D, Dolby 7.1*
Issues: Dim 3D, left side of screen was darker than right side

While Iron Man 3 had a direction in the plot, Thor: The Dark World seemed to be numb. Fight, Talk, Fight, Plot, Fight. Not as good as the first film. The 3D was here and there, a bit blurry at times. Interesting to note that although it was shot with the Arri Alexa, they used anamorphic lenses while the camera's sensor was set to 4:3. This should gain higher resolution, but the DI was 2K so to heck with that!

Rating: 4 out of 10

*The Alamo in Ashburn is supposedly 7.1 on all screens. This movie had a bombastic sound mix, not like the thunderous mix for the first film. It sounded like a 5.1 movie, no back surround activity. It wasn't that clear. I read Marcel's Atmos experience, and what I was trying to say came out of his/her mouth. Thor: The Dark World doesn't have a lame mix, but it could've been improved.

Posted by Michael Kurtzke (Member # 7512) on 11-10-2013, 12:10 AM:

Hey Connor, Michael from the Alamo here with answers!

quote: Connor Wilson
Presented in Sony 4K, RealD 3D, Dolby 7.1*
Issues: Dim 3D, left side of screen was darker than right side

I will just say this. Our 3D houses are a major embarrassment.
I think that they went with too high of a gain on our 3D screens.
Also, the exhaust fan in #6 died last month and when they replaced it, it just never seemed to pull as much air as it used to. This causes massive flickering if I push the 4.2kW lamps past 80%. A lamp running at 80% + Bad Screen + Sony 3D = embarrassing image. For the next location, since they want to stick with Sony, I'm pushing for Dual 320's in any 3D house.

quote: Connor Wilson

*The Alamo in Ashburn is supposedly 7.1 on all screens. This movie had a bombastic sound mix, not like the thunderous mix for the first film. It sounded like a 5.1 movie, no back surround activity. It wasn't that clear. I read Marcel's Atmos experience, and what I was trying to say came out of his/her mouth. Thor: The Dark World doesn't have a lame mix, but it could've been improved.

We do have 7.1 in every house. However, I actually never received keys for the 7.1 version in two of our houses. Those houses [3 and 6] have the Sony 320's instead of the Sony 515's.

It was a lame mix. And the picture is very soft, even in 2D. Overall, not an impressive movie.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 11-10-2013, 07:27 PM:

quote: Connor Wilson
It wasn't that clear. I read Marcel's Atmos experience, and what I was trying to say came out of his/her mouth. Thor: The Dark World doesn't have a lame mix, but it could've been improved.

It's his

. For 7.1, it would've been acceptable but far from good or even great, for Atmos, it was outright lame.

For a big-budget special effects extravaganza with the power of Disney behind it, we should expect better.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-18-2013, 10:01 AM:

Cinema: Harkins Theatres Bricktown 16
Screen: Cine Capris
Format: 2K 'scope, 2D, Dolby Atmos
Presentation Problems: Slightly fuzzy image
Rating: 2.5 stars out of 4

Thor: The Dark World is a serviceable, but not great, entry in the lead-up to the next Avengers movie (complete with an end credit teaser involving Benicio Del Toro). I liked the first Thor movie considerably more than this one. There's some decent scenes of action and spectacle, but hardly of any of it gives a lasting impression. Some of this is due to audience members having zero doubt about the main characters surviving the movie. Add to that some obvious problems with suspension of disbelief -like one Azgardian gatekeeper being able to take out a huge enemy fighter ship by leaping on it and stabbing it with a sword. Nah, action movies today don't have to be plausible at all; they just need to look cool, that's all. Some of the plot turns are very predictable. The Dark Elves seem like something lifted from a bad Star Trek movie. Some of the plot feels a bit forced, or even stupid, for how certain turns of events happen. Some could have been easily prevented, but then we wouldn't have much of a movie then, would we?

Tom Hiddleston, as Loki, steals virtually every scene that includes him. Fortunately, Loki makes the movie more interesting. Chris O'Dowd (from Bridesmaids) is wasted in the role a would-be human love interest for Natalie Portman. Stellan Skarsgård gets to run around in his tidy whities.

Given some of the other comments, I suspect the slightly fuzzy image quality I observed to be a fault of the videography and 2K resolution digital intermediate. I watched the movie in 2D. So imagine the converted 3D image might have been even more fuzzy.

We watched the movie in the same Dolby Atmos-equipped theater where we saw Gravity. Hardly any of Thor: The Dark World sounded like it was mixed in Atmos at all. There were a few hints of creative surround use at times and some bursts of deep bass from different corners of the room at a few points in the movie. But overall this was the least impressive Atmos mix I have heard to this point.

Honestly, the mix of Thor: The Dark World was a let down right from the start. The Harkins Bricktown 16 theater played the Dolby Atmos Amaze trailer prior to the show. The Amaze trailer was pretty impressive. It really showed off the highly layered capabilities of Atmos. To go from that to a Marvel Studios logo that sounded like the meat had been cut from the tonal range was fairly sad.

If a movie production is going to bother creating a Dolby Atmos mix, and even putting the Atmos logo on the poster, they need to actually use the freaking format. The Thor mix is pretty much Atmos in name only.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-18-2013, 06:20 PM:

Maybe nobody has ever emailed the image file of the Dolby Atmos logo to the one-sheet design houses.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-18-2013, 08:11 PM:

I've seen the Dolby Atmos logo placed on a couple posters (Iron Man 3 and, interestingly enough, Thor: The Dark World. However, the logos are so tiny they're easy to miss. These days most one sheets only want to mention IMAX and RealD brands and nothing else.

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 11-18-2013, 11:05 PM:

I'll also chime in and state the Atmos mix really didn't add that much, it was pretty much on par with 'Iron Man 3' Atmos mix, truly uninspiring, under utilized and completely mediocre. [The new Atmos rain forest trailer though... holy cannoli [beer]

]

re: the movie - eh, nowhere as good as the first film and for some reason I thought it dragged.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 11-19-2013, 03:13 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
These days most one sheets only want to mention IMAX and RealD brands and nothing else.

I don't think Dolby Atmos has much of a chance long term it will go the way of EX and 7.1, I thought Dolby was pushing 7.1 more recently but I could be wrong.

The studios push IMAX because they use IMAX as the launching pad for many of the big blockbusters. There is absolutely no doubt, IMAX makes the studios money and they do create enough awareness.

I just watched Thor in Atmos in an AVX Theatre using ReadD 3D, seriously, before the show started we saw a feature presentation ad, the realD recycle your glasses ad, an AVX ad and then the Dolby Atmos ad. Way too much crap to confuse the customer.

In the past, we would see 70mm Dolby 6-track, maybe THX as well, in either way it got the point across that you were hearing Dolby sound.

For Dolby to be successful, they will need to adopt the IMAX approach and that is to brand the auditoriums as a Dolby 3D theatre with Atmos. Without the branding the customer just won't care. They are on the right track with the branding of the Dolby Theatre in L.A. but they will need to do this at the multiplex to be successful.

I know a lot of people can not stand IMAX for what they have done, I for one hate the LieMax experience, but it is pretty obvious that the IMAX marketing is pretty damn good and consumers are responding.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-19-2013, 04:24 PM:

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
I don't think Dolby Atmos has much of a chance long term it will go the way of EX and 7.1, I thought Dolby was pushing 7.1 more recently but I could be wrong.

Why would Dolby Labs be pushing 7.1, particularly after Atmos has been introduced? That doesn't make any sense. There's nothing brand-specific about 7.1; it's "plain" linear PCM audio. Dolby has nothing to gain from promoting that. The "Dolby Surround 7.1" branding scheme is something Dolby should never have launched. At least Atmos is a Dolby-specific audio format.

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
The studios push IMAX because they use IMAX as the launching pad for many of the big blockbusters. There is absolutely no doubt, IMAX makes the studios money and they do create enough awareness.

Movie studios used to be real big about using the THX brand. Now they don't bother since hardly any theaters still participate in the THX certification program. Remember all those THX-certified Laserdiscs and DVDs. They've hardly bothered with that on Blu-ray (and I don't see how it could even apply on quality compromised movie streaming). The same kind of abandonment can happen to IMAX. Right now the theater chains and movie studios are playing along. A few years from now the situation could be starkly different.

In terms of digital cinema, IMAX doesn't bring anything unique to the experience. Dual HDTV resolution DLP projectors? Any theater chain can install that without paying big bucks to IMAX for their brand. Powerful sound systems? Again, any theater chain can do that without paying IMAX. On top of that, IMAX' concept of theatrical sound is not very good, especially in terms of surround field coverage. It's inferior to Barco's 11.1 format. And it's grossly inferior to Dolby Atmos' object based sound format.

The money being made in IMAX branded theaters is largely incidental. IMAX branded auditoriums in the typical multiplex have higher seat counts than the rest of the theater's rooms. Add to that the hefty price premium. The people who are actually searching out the IMAX brand and deliberately paying extra for digital IMAX shows really don't know just what they are buying.

IMAX at least appears to be doing something about the projection end of things with 4K laser projectors being developed, but not yet installed. Unfortunately it doesn't appear that IMAX has an absolutely exclusive deal on using laser-based projectors. If any theater chain can install their own 4K laser based projectors without paying the extra expense to involve IMAX they going to do so in increasing numbers.

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
In the past, we would see 70mm Dolby 6-track, maybe THX as well, in either way it got the point across that you were hearing Dolby sound.

The newspaper stack ads and theater marquees were the main things promoting 70mm and 6-track Dolby magnetic sound back in the 1970's and 1980's.

In all of the 70mm features I have seen, I never saw one with a trailer that promoted the 70mm film format. THX trailers? Yeah, those would play regularly. A Dolby format trailer was rarely seen in analog presentations. I've seen Dolby SR trailers played before shows only a couple times. Dolby Digital trailers on 35mm were far more common, but that also depended on the movie theater chain. Some chains used them regularly; others didn't bother.

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
I just watched Thor in Atmos in an AVX Theatre using ReadD 3D, seriously, before the show started we saw a feature presentation ad, the realD recycle your glasses ad, an AVX ad and then the Dolby Atmos ad. Way too much crap to confuse the customer.

As opposed to 20-30 minutes of movie trailers, TV commercials, etc? At least the viewers know by the time they start seeing ads for RealD or whatever they can anticipate the movie is finally fixing to begin.

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
For Dolby to be successful, they will need to adopt the IMAX approach and that is to brand the auditoriums as a Dolby 3D theatre with Atmos.

Dolby Atmos doesn't have to be tied to Dolby 3D or any specific theater branding scheme to be successful. The only thing Dolby Atmos needs is more movies mixed to fully utilize the process. The Dolby Atmos Unfold and Amaze trailers are great demonstration clips. If more movies are produced in Atmos the way Gravity was and the viewers associate it with those Atmos trailers then it will create enough positive impact to spread good word of mouth.

Dolby Atmos wouldn't be going anywhere if every Atmos mix was like the one I heard in Thor: The Dark World.

I'd like to know just how much a movie theater has to pay IMAX in terms of licensing fees before it even builds/converts an auditorium to IMAX branding. I have a hunch it costs more than going with an in-house DIY "large format" brand, installing dual projectors and well configured Dolby Atmos capable sound system.

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
I know a lot of people can not stand IMAX for what they have done, I for one hate the LieMax experience, but it is pretty obvious that the IMAX marketing is pretty damn good and consumers are responding.

If you got down to the real truth most customers probably wouldn't care, know better or know the difference between IMAX Digital, RPX, ETX, XD, AVX, etc. They're just wanting to see the movie on a big screen. The mere existence of all those also-ran premium priced big screen houses show a weakness in the IMAX Digital business model.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 11-19-2013, 04:55 PM:

Hey, it looks like the IMAX v.s. Dolby Atmos / RealBigXtreme discussion has finally taken over this thread too.

I'm not the big boss around here, but wouldn't it be better for the discussion to keep it in it's own thread? [Wink]

Posted by Michael Gonzalez (Member # 593) on 11-19-2013, 04:57 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
Given some of the other comments, I suspect the slightly fuzzy image quality I observed to be a fault of the videography and 2K resolution digital intermediate. I watched the movie in 2D. So imagine the converted 3D image might have been even more fuzzy.

Any chance this might have been due to watching a 2D version through a 3D lense?

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 11-19-2013, 05:46 PM:

What do you mean with a 3D lens? You're referring to the polarizer?

Some theaters are too lazy to remove the RealD XL unit for 2D shows. That can cause some "blurriness" because you get two pictures on screen that possibly don't exactly overlay each other.

But this movie was generally very soft. I guess this style was chosen, to hide some flaws in the over-abundant CGI. Although some shots look rather stunning, there is a general lack of detail and overall quality in many of them.

Besides the big budget, this movie feels rather cheap: an unimpressive sound mix, sub-par 3D and a blurry picture.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 11-19-2013, 05:55 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
I'd like to know just how much a movie theater has to pay IMAX in terms of licensing fees before it even builds/converts an auditorium to IMAX branding.

The cost is paid for mostly by IMAX and partly by the theatre, this is more recent for the digital conversions and multiplex showings. The equipment belongs to IMAX.

quote: Bobby Henderson
Dolby Atmos doesn't have to be tied to Dolby 3D or any specific theater branding scheme to be successful.

You couldn't be more wrong. Dolby Atmos has no chance IMO at being successful long term, it will need the Dolby 3D theatre naming to have a chance.

quote: Bobby Henderson
The "Dolby Surround 7.1" branding scheme is something Dolby should never have launched.

That might of been the thing that they were recently pushing a few years ago.

quote: Bobby Henderson
The money being made in IMAX branded theaters is largely incidental.

Bobby, the averages are off the chart for the IMAX screens. I really didn't believe the IMAX screens were grossing what they were grossing until I dug into them a bit. Are you saying they are not?

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-20-2013, 04:51 PM:

quote: Michael Gonzalez
Any chance this might have been due to watching a 2D version through a 3D lense?

No. I watched Thor: The Dark World at the Harkins Theaters Bricktown 16, on their Cine Capris screen. It isn't equipped for 3D.

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
You couldn't be more wrong. Dolby Atmos has no chance IMO at being successful long term, it will need the Dolby 3D theatre naming to have a chance.

You're doing nothing to prove me "wrong" or prove your point by spouting opinion as fact. I've never said Dolby Atmos is guaranteed to be a success. However, technologically speaking, it blows away any other theatrical sound format that has preceded it, including anything from IMAX. That can be stated as fact.

It's obvious in order for Atmos to succeed it needs more Atmos-equipped theaters and more movies to properly utilize the process -not just more movie titles to populate a movie releases list. The arguably lame mix in Thor: The Dark World doesn't do much to sell Atmos, or any sound format for that matter. Gravity had a far better Atmos mix. I'm wondering if The Secret Life of Walter Mitty will have an aggressive Atmos mix since Skip Lievsay (the same re-recording mixer who worked on Gravity) is working on the project.

Tying Atmos in with Dolby 3D wouldn't make any sense, particularly since some Atmos-equipped screens are using competing 3D formats like RealD. Making the sound format more "open" will allow Atmos to be installed in more theaters. Dolby is making Atmos compatible with servers and IMBs made by other companies like Doremi, Sony, GDC, etc. I don't know how much progress has been made on that front, but it should help push Atmos into more theater booth racks. A Dolby-branded equipment only policy would be self destructive. Dolby already tried taking a Dolby Digital Cinema only approach with Dolby 3D. Today Dolby 3D works with other digital cinema servers.

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Bobby, the averages are off the chart for the IMAX screens. I really didn't believe the IMAX screens were grossing what they were grossing until I dug into them a bit. Are you saying they are not?

This is what I'm saying: all of those premium priced, acronym labeled, big screen theaters are bringing in far above average grosses. It doesn't matter so much whether the theater is branded by IMAX or carries another label like RPX, XD, ETX, AVX, etc. They're raking in above average numbers for reasons other than the theater's label.

The typical multiplex boasting one of those premium priced big screens always books the most anticipated new release of that week in that large house. If the movie is playing on two or more screens in the multiplex the premium priced big screen will always have the better evening show times while the other houses get the odd-ball times and fewer showings throughout the day. The premium priced big screen typically has a much higher seat count than all the other rooms in the complex. Even without the high surcharges the big screen theater would still blow away the combined totals from other screens in the multiplex showing the same movie. By the time demand for a particular movie has waned it will have already been shuttled off to a smaller house.

Of the grosses in IMAX branded houses, how much of the take are theaters having to give up to IMAX via revenue sharing? If the theater chain didn't pay big bucks up front for a new IMAX theater or theater conversion, having IMAX foot the bill for the hardware, it's absolutely certain they're paying IMAX a bunch on the back end from the box office take. Not every theater chain likes that kind of arrangement. It's one of the bigger selling points for Dolby 3D -pay them a one time fee up front rather than paying RealD big $$$ on the back end.

Posted by Michael Kurtzke (Member # 7512) on 11-22-2013, 10:10 AM:

quote: Marcel Birgelen
What do you mean with a 3D lens? You're referring to the polarizer?

Sony Projectors have an entirely separate Lens for 3D that takes about 5-10 minutes to swap in and out. If I'm not working that shift/day, we leave the 3D Lens on if there is going to be a 3D show in that house. I just don't trust anyone else to swap lenses at my theatre [Frown]

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 11-23-2013, 05:02 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
Of the grosses in IMAX branded houses, how much of the take are theaters having to give up to IMAX via revenue sharing? If the theater chain didn't pay big bucks up front for a new IMAX theater or theater conversion, having IMAX foot the bill for the hardware, it's absolutely certain they're paying IMAX a bunch on the back end from the box office take. Not every theater chain likes that kind of arrangement

Bobby, the theatre has the regular price of the ticket, then the IMAX fee is charged on top of the regular price. The theatre does not see any of the surcharge, the surcharge goes to IMAX which then pays a portion to the studio.

quote: Bobby Henderson
Dolby Atmos doesn't have to be tied to Dolby 3D or any specific theater branding scheme to be successful.

Well, I do not agree with you. I don't see Atmos doing very much to pull in moviegoers long term. It might stick around but it certainly won't be relevant IMO.

quote: Bobby Henderson
However, technologically speaking, it blows away any other theatrical sound format that has preceded it, including anything from IMAX. That can be stated as fact.

Which will make no difference to whether Atmos succeeds or not. It is all in the marketing.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 11-23-2013, 06:30 PM:

Hey, it looks like I'm taking part in this IMAX v.s. Atmos discussion in the entirely wrong thread [Wink]

.

Comparing IMAX and Dolby Atmos is a bit like apples and oranges... It would be better to compare IMAX to THX or the stuff that's supposed to come after THX sold its soul to the highest bidder...

But, I don't think Dolby Atmos is dead in the water, not even remotely. It would also be utterly stupid to declare it dead already, it's been on the open market for how long exactly?!

It just takes one chain to embrace the format. Just recently, Kinepolis installed Barco Auro 11.1 in all their 25 theaters in their complex in Antwerp. I don't give a rats *ss about Barco Auro 11.1, for a brand new sound system, it's already an outdated concept, only with more channels. But if one or two other big chains would do the same with Atmos, it could easily bring the needed critical mass.

Here in mainland Europe, the only big chain doing serious business with IMAX is Pathé/Gaumont, so there is no big traction for IMAX in much of Europe. On the other hand, Dolby Atmos is slowly but steadily making its way in. So, I see a bright new future for object based sound systems... let those be our new overlords please.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 11-24-2013, 12:40 PM:

Marcel, I would not call Atmos dead and I hope I did not give the impression that it is. The way I see is that Atmos will not be as relevant as IMAX when it comes to promoting or pushing the movie. Catching Fire will sell out with or without Atmos. I think Atmos will just get lost in the shuffle of RPX, Real D etc etc. The marketing behind Atmos kind of sucks.

What IMAX has done on the other hand is pretty impressive and that is why IMAX is on the posters with big letters. It was on the ropes a few years ago and has now become a huge launching pad for tent pole titles. Even though LieMax is a lie, the numbers are indeed impressive. I will agree with you that IMAX is closer to the idea of THX as you generally know what you will likely be getting at an IMAX venue. With Atmos, anyone can just install it in any of their auditoriums, good or bad.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-25-2013, 04:13 PM:

Terry, here's the problem with IMAX. IMAX Digital is nothing more than a marketing concept for otherwise ordinary digital cinema technology. If you want to throw around the term "relevance" IMAX has a much bigger problem with relevance than Dolby. With d-cinema IMAX has nothing technologically unique to set itself apart from its rivals. Eventually all the sheeple eating up IMAX' hype are going to get wise to this, especially when they've been paying the premium price for it.

The difference betwen Dolby Atmos & IMAX Digital: Atmos is part of the movie production process. Movies can be mixed specifically in Dolby Atmos. Not only that, Atmos has defined the new state of the art level for movie sound production & presentation. Dolby Atmos has been installed in the top movie post production facilities in the United States and the rest of the world. Dolby has provided tools that allow Atmos to be folded into existing sound design work flows.

quote: Marcel Birgelen
But if one or two other big chains would do the same with Atmos, it could easily bring the needed critical mass.

I wish Atmos was being installed in theaters at a faster pace. IIRC Dolby technicians are currently setting up all the Atmos installations. Maybe there's only so many Atmos systems they can install in a given amount of time. Atmos isn't a cheap or easy surround sound system to install. If a theater is going to go to the trouble and expense of installing Atmos it only makes sense to do it right or not bother at all.

Regal and AMC have a few dozen Dolby Atmos installations between them across the US. Harkins Theaters installed Dolby Atmos on all of its Cine Capri screens last summer. Several other regional theater chains have installed Dolby Atmos. The rollout of Atmos appears to be going at a pace similar to Dolby Digital in its first years. I would expect the pace of Atmos installations to pick up as newer server models, amplifiers, etc. are introduced.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 11-26-2013, 09:57 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
Eventually all the sheeple eating up IMAX' hype are going to get wise to this, especially when they've been paying the premium price for it.

Bobby, I don't see this happening any time soon. The numbers continue to show that people are willing to pay to see it IMAX, liemax or not.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-27-2013, 04:13 PM:

The numbers also show a troubling trend for IMAX. Just about every movie theater chain that has installed IMAX Digital screens has also diversified, launching their own self-branded premium screen labels. And the theater chains are installing more of those in house branded premium screens than they are of the IMAX branded variety.

The pressure is on IMAX to use more than their name to one-up all of those competing large screen premium houses. I'm skeptical about them being able to do that. They might be able to manage installing a twin 4K laser projection system that is better than rival designs. But they are way behind when it comes to sound.

Another part of this diversification is the dinner and/or bar within a movie theater concept. IMAX has no foothold in this area, which is growing in popularity.

Dolby Atmos can be installed in any type of theater, not just giant screen houses. The sound format can go into plush luxury screening rooms, dinner & a movie houses and even regular theaters with no fancy label.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 11-27-2013, 09:42 PM:

Bobby, dinner and bar etc are irrelevant.

IMAX just set a record for attendance for its box office for Catching Fire. I look at the numbers first and then the so called quality of the product after the numbers. IMAX was smart to push digital and brought it to the marketplace in a cheaper format, it is about making money. Even though I don't agree with it, if I was investing it, it would not make a difference as digital IMAX is proving that it makes money.

As for Atmos, it is cute and all, but I just don't see it making a splash long term. I see Atmos being just as relevant as Dolby EX and that did not do all that well.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-27-2013, 10:51 PM:

You guys are being ridiculous. (Well Terry is.) You're arguing two different things. It's like saying which is better, a Ford or Exxon?

Imax has the advantage of having name recognition all on its own. People automatically think "Imax = biggest screen, big sound, stadium seats." Whether that's entirely true or not these days, is another matter for the moment; right now in 2013, people hear Imax and believe they're getting the best premium experience on an Imax screen.

People KNOW that not all screens in a complex are going to be Imax. But they ASSUME that any theater they visit is going to have good sound. They hear Dolby and think "good sound," but it's a diluted name...many, many standard theaters (not just high-end ones) have Dolby sound processing, plus there is the fact that Dolby doesn't have any control over what speakers, amplifiers and so on are used in a given location. It's entirely possible to have the latest greatest Dolby processor, but still have totally crappy Dolby sound.

Atmos has further problems in that it's an unknown name (so far). Most people would say "Huh?" upon hearing the name. Actually the bigger problem is, it's too expensive. One reason DTS got such a foothold in the digital sound wars was, it was affordable...I think it only cost us about 6 grand to get into the digital sound business. Most owners, once digital got its foot in the door, installed digital sound in all screens. Atmos costs what, at least $50,000 per screen when you factor in the amps, speakers, processor and installation? Maybe more?

So no multiplex owner is going to want to invest the kind of money it takes to equip all his screens with it, especially if he's still paying off his large investment in digital projection. And single-screen owners like me aren't exactly jumping all over it either because, alongside the cost, there's also the fact that many singles are fairly small and really don't need to have 128 speakers or whatever.

Therefore, Dolby would stand a chance of damaging its good name if they were to spend a ton of money on marketing a system that's only available in a very limited number of places and on a limited number of movies. They need to get the cost down somehow, then market it relentlessly to the exhibition community, THEN once it's available almost everywhere, start pushing it to the people.

Maybe they could come out with an "Atmos Lite" type of thing that has a less-fancy equipment package (maybe not so many channels, at lower cost?) so a smaller exhibitor (or a multiplex with small auditoriums) would be tempted to go "All Atmos."

Then it'd have a better chance of going mainstream, the same way "regular" Dolby is now.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 11-28-2013, 02:33 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
Whether that's entirely true or not these days, is another matter for the moment; right now in 2013, people hear Imax and believe they're getting the best premium experience on an Imax screen.

That is correct, and Dolby Atmos sound alone is not enough to sway consumers away from IMAX. IMAX set a number of attendance records this year in many different markets, in fact they set two different records in two different markets for two different films in the same weekend, so I wonder why Bobby is so worried about the numbers for IMAX?

There is a whole generation who have never seen an IMAX 15/70 presentation, many of the Chinese fans have never seen anything other than IMAX digital. I am betting most of these people will not give a shit about Dolby Atmos as they never grew up with it like I had. I for one know that IMAX digital is a scam and it is not the same as true IMAX. I am fortunate to have four former purpose built IMAX theatres in my area showing DMR films, yes they are now converted to liemax but at least they are still the purpose built real IMAX layouts.

IMAX pretty much invented this premium priced stuff. I have not seen anything come close to the averages that IMAX is pulling in. Some the averages for single screen IMAX auditoriums are just off the charts and they continue to show demand, I know a lot of people argue that IMAX digital is just 2K and is nothing special, but to say that their concept is not a money maker is just plain ignorant.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 11-28-2013, 04:49 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
Maybe they could come out with an "Atmos Lite" type of thing that has a less-fancy equipment package (maybe not so many channels, at lower cost?) so a smaller exhibitor (or a multiplex with small auditoriums) would be tempted to go "All Atmos."

The Atmos sound processor is, indeed, way too expensive for many smaller scale deployments right now. But that price will come down sooner or later. I also expect that some serious competition, using another object based sound format will eventually come by and will force Dolby to lower prices.

As for the channel thing: you can have anything UP TO 64 channels right now*, but for a smaller room, there really is no need to put like 64 speakers in. Although it would be rather pointless for now, you could even install a CP850 and keep your current 5.1 or 7.1 B-chain. But as soon as the CP850 will go for the same prices as the CP750 or even CP650, you could start with getting your A-chain ready for Atmos and optimize the B-chain later, by putting in more, better speakers and amps.

* Actually, the CP850 itself only supports direct output of 16 analog channels, if you want to break out to more analog channels, you need a DAC3201, which offers an additional 32 analog channels.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-29-2013, 02:06 PM:

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Bobby, dinner and bar etc are irrelevant.

It matters to non-techie theater customers. The dinner in a movie theater concept is the thing I hear people talk most about when it comes to seeing movies in theaters, especially female movie-goers. A few years ago very few theaters offered the dinner/bar in a theater concept. It was just Studio Movie Grill, Alamo Drafthouse and maybe a couple others. Now more theaters are moving in that direction. Even big chains like AMC are trying it. It's a significant trend that competes against what IMAX is selling.

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
As for Atmos, it is cute and all, but I just don't see it making a splash long term. I see Atmos being just as relevant as Dolby EX and that did not do all that well.

Cute and all? Now you're just plain trolling. Calling Atmos "cute" and equating it to Dolby•EX is an ignorant statement.

quote: Mike Blakesley
Imax has the advantage of having name recognition all on its own. People automatically think "Imax = biggest screen, big sound, stadium seats." Whether that's entirely true or not these days, is another matter for the moment; right now in 2013, people hear Imax and believe they're getting the best premium experience on an Imax screen.

Every fan of IMAX doesn't have a clue of just what he's getting for that high priced ticket. He doesn't know anything about the projection technology or that it isn't even 15-perf 70mm film. He doesn't know what the hell "laser aligned sound" means. He doesn't know how any of that stuff compares with the hardware in other theaters. The popularity of IMAX' digital theaters is built entirely on brand worship and misinformation. That's a recipe for disaster in the long term, regardless of Dolby Atmos being available or not.

IMAX is making itself vulnerable in the very same way THX did back in the late 1990s. THX was big and popular up to the mid 1990s. Even The Simpsons spoofed it. THX made various choices to make more money while watering down the integrity of its brand name at the same time. Some theater chains tried to rip off THX, but could go only so far because of certain sound system features patented by THX. Ultimately, theater chains decided they didn't need THX anymore and started abandoning it in 1995 as they started building stadium seated theaters.

IMAX is lucky no theater chains have started advertising Better than IMAX claims about their own house-brand premium screens. It's only a matter of time before some theater chain starts doing it, probably one with no IMAX-branded screens to protect.

quote: Mike Blakesley
Atmos has further problems in that it's an unknown name (so far). Most people would say "Huh?" upon hearing the name. Actually the bigger problem is, it's too expensive.

The Dolby CP850 has a list price of over $30,000, but Dolby says no one really pays that price. Atmos is currently too expensive and complicated to install in just any theater. However, it is feasible for large screen theaters, especially those which charge a premium to enter. Atmos is ahead of its time in respect to some pieces of movie theater hardware. Dolby is working with manufacturers of speakers and amplifiers to make Atmos more practical to install in the future. Dolby struggled with the 1st & 2nd generations of Dolby Digital processors. Then it hit a home run with the CP500. They may go through the same thing with Atmos capable processors.

The bigger threat I see in the near term for Atmos is movies not properly using the format. If someone goes out of their way to see a movie mixed in Atmos in an Atmos-equipped theater and it ends up sounding not much different than regular 5.1 that customer will be disappointed.

For instance, there's hardly anything special at all about the Atmos mix to Thor: The Dark World. The only thing you'll hear that shows off Atmos is the Dolby Atmos trailer played before the show (if the theater bothers playing it).

Movies are what really drive new developments in theater technology. It took a decade after Apocalypse Now was released before 5.1 audio became the high end standard for movie theaters. If Apocalypse Now hadn't featured such a then revolutionary 5.1 mix the lossy digital sound formats, home theater and HDTV might have standardized on 4.1 or 4.2 audio. Dolby needs more mixes like that of Gravity to sell Atmos to more theaters.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-29-2013, 04:44 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
The dinner in a movie theater concept is the thing I hear people talk most about when it comes to seeing movies in theaters, especially female movie-goers.

Personally I don't see why this whole dinner-in-a-movie thing is so popular. First, I don't relish the idea of not being able to see what I'm eating. Second, when I'm watching a movie I want to watch the movie, not be occupied with chewing, cutting up a steak or something, reaching for condiments or whatever, and dealing with staff walking around delivering drinks and whatnot. The whole concept just seems ridiculous to me. When we go out on a "date night," I'd prefer to go eat first and THEN see the movie, or vice versa. (But then, our kidless selves are not paying $$$ an hour for babysitters I guess.)

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-30-2013, 11:06 AM:

At first I didn't understand the dinner in the theater concept for the same reasons. To this day, when I watch movies at the theater I prefer to give them 100% of my undivided attention. I don't want any distractions coming from other people in the audience either.

I think the dinner in the theater concept is gaining popularity for a few reasons. Customers believe they're getting a good value with the meal and movie combined together. It's arguably more convenient, saving time and reducing travel. The environment is a little more relaxed and even fun for some people. When people watch movies at home they tend to do all sorts of multi-tasking. The dinner in the movie concept allows more of that while traditional theaters are starting to clamp down on things like phone use during the movie.

The bar in the theater or no kids allowed kind of experience is just as important a trend. Some adults love the idea of watching a movie with a mug of beer or glass of wine and without any disruptive children or teens allowed in that screening room or separate seating area (like a balcony).

The dinner/bar in the theater idea isn't easy. Running a restaurant is one of the more difficult managerial jobs one could take. One of my closest friends is a restaurant manager and I don't know how he has kept his sanity with it. If the restaurant has a bar there's additional issues to handle. Running a movie theater isn't exactly easy either. If all the ingredients come together right it can be a big hit with customers.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 12-01-2013, 03:01 PM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
Personally I don't see why this whole dinner-in-a-movie thing is so popular.

It is not popular and nobody is really doing it and it is stupid to think that it would succeed. There are a few locations that might succeed but that is it, I think they are in the southern states. To start up a dinner and a movie idea is setting yourself up for an EPIC FAIL.

To put it into perspective, Cineplex Odeon in Canada has 70+ percent of the market, 71 million people visited a Cineplex Cinema in 2012, not one person saw a dinner and movie at Cineplex dinner and movie concept. However, 29% of the people who saw movies at Cineplex did pay an up charge for either IMAX, AVX or VIP.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 12-01-2013, 04:29 PM:

While it might be a niche market in the bigger picture, the Alamo Drafthouse has quite successfully proven that there is a market for this concept...

Also, the real dinner experience hasn't taken hold around here yet, but a concept known as "service cinema", where you can order drinks and snacks and have it delivered to your seat, has been around for about 20 years and is doing quite well in a few niche markets.

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 12-01-2013, 05:55 PM:

Marcel, what exactly has Alamo Drafthouse really proven? To me not much as there about 15 locations in the United States, well there also 4000+ other cinemas. From what I understand, the Alamo Drafthouse is a franchise, I would really like to see the grosses of the Alamo Drafthouse against a competing theatre, for one thing they do not charge a premium on the ticket price for a movie so it is nice for the cinema franchisee to sell some dinners but the theatre is still not charging a premium on the ticket price for the experience. AMC Dine-in at a movie is a little better of a concept and they also have the cinema suites, but there are still so few of these theatres that it really makes no difference, AMC does charge a premium for it from what I am seeing online.

quote: Marcel Birgelen
but a concept known as "service cinema", where you can order drinks and snacks and have it delivered to your seat, has been around for about 20 years and is doing quite well in a few niche markets.

Yes, you are right this concept does alright. We have the concept in my area, it is called Cineplex VIP and it took about 15 years for Cineplex to get it right. At first they offered a cinema of about 30 seats, you have food delivered to your seats and screens were about 15 feet wide. Finally Cineplex got it right when they made the size of the theatre 150 seats, they offered reserved seating, slightly nicer chairs, a bigger space between seats and they delivered to your seat. They also allow alcoholic drinks into the theatre and nobody under 18 is allowed into the theatre.

The big difference between dinner and movie concept and the VIP concept is that they charge $19.99 for a ticket before you buy any food or drinks.

Cineplex offers IMAX at $19.99, Ultra AVX at $15 and VIP at $19.99, all at one venue and all combined that is about 800-1200 total seats at one of their theatres, that is called making some serious money. All before a customer has even bought a concession item. Cineplex also charges a surcharge for Dolby Atmos, but it is rolled into the AVX pricing.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-01-2013, 07:53 PM:

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
It is not popular and nobody is really doing it and it is stupid to think that it would succeed. There are a few locations that might succeed but that is it, I think they are in the southern states. To start up a dinner and a movie idea is setting yourself up for an EPIC FAIL.

No. "Epic Fail" is writing an ignorant comment like within a forum where the site owner is deeply involved with Studio Movie Grill, one of the chains that has been pioneering the concept.

Also, using the outdated, tired term "Epic Fail" or even "Epic" is a failure.

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Cineplex also charges a surcharge for Dolby Atmos, but it is rolled into the AVX pricing.

If Cineplex Odeon wasn't in bed with IMAX on some of its theaters it would be beating up IMAX with negative advertising to promote its Ultra AVX theaters as being BETTER THAN IMAX. Regal, AMC, Cinemark, Consolidated Theaters and a few other chains could be doing the same thing. They all have premium priced, large screen theaters carrying a different acronym than IMAX and some of those theaters are clearly better than an IMAX Digital screen.

Executives at IMAX are completely foolish if they think they can merely get by on their brand name. Without 15-perf 70mm film they have giant bullseye painted on them. Their level of hubris has them asking for it big time.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 12-02-2013, 02:42 AM:

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Marcel, what exactly has Alamo Drafthouse really proven? To me not much as there about 15 locations in the United States, well there also 4000+ other cinemas.

I wouldn't exactly call a company that expanded from a single to 15 locations a failure. As I stated before, it is still a niche, but a niche with "followers" like Studio Movie Grill and AMC and they don't seem to be totally unsuccessful either.

You know, the essence of a niche market is this: it doesn't need to conquer the whole world do be successful. And for all we know, within 30 or so years, cinemas without restaurant service will be the niche market.

quote:
From what I understand, the Alamo Drafthouse is a franchise, I would really like to see the grosses of the Alamo Drafthouse against a competing theater, for one thing they do not charge a premium on the ticket price for a movie so it is nice for the cinema franchisee to sell some dinners but the theatre is still not charging a premium on the ticket price for the experience.

From what I know, they operate both their own locations but also do have franchised locations. And I don't understand why I should be paying a premium on my movie ticket for the added service of food and drinks at my seat, shouldn't that be covered by that same service? Besides that, a theater that also operates a restaurant service, should make much more margin per seat than a normal movie theater, so why would you want to rip off the customer with dubious added premiums?

quote: Bobby Henderson
Executives at IMAX are completely foolish if they think they can merely get by on their brand name. Without 15-perf 70mm film they have giant bullseye painted on them. Their level of hubris has them asking for it big time.

It will probably take a bit of time, but eventually, what goes around comes around...

Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 12-02-2013, 08:21 AM:

Marcel, I am not for raising the prices of the tickets for customers who get served food and drinks at their seats, nor am I for raising prices for tickets at any other theatre. But, the price of the movie ticket is rising and consumers are not having any issues paying an inflated price for their tickets. The facts are that people are paying for IMAX, Liemax, VIP, and the RPX BS experiences. IMAX, Liemax, VIP and the BS RPX segments is where the real money is (at least for the box office), lets also not forget that 3D adds a surcharge as well.

My main issue is when Bobby said that IMAX is losing out in the dinner and a movie segment as they have no foothold in the segment, what are they losing out on? IMAX is not in the business of selling popcorm, drinks or steaks, they are in the business of selling premium priced tickets for a premium priced movie going experience. And selling premium priced tickets is something they have shown they are very successful at, both Gravity and Catching Fire set records for attendance levels for IMAX so it is not like people are turning off of it.

I really would like to see the financials of the dinner and movie concept. The financials for IMAX, AMC and Cineplex are all public. For simple box office take, the dinner and movie concept has no chance as the ticket prices are just standard prices. The dinner and a movie concept might be a niche idea, it probably does okay for the franchisees, but I highly doubt these theatres are grossing anywhere near what a single IMAX screen is grossing.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-02-2013, 09:15 AM:

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
But, the price of the movie ticket is rising and consumers are not having any issues paying an inflated price for their tickets.

Baloney. If that was the case movie theaters wouldn't have to run alternative 2D shows for many releases in their theaters. They could go 3D only. Some people don't like watching movies in 3D. Far more hate paying extra for it. There is already a large percentage of the American public that doesn't watch movies in theaters at all, and it's not just older Americans either. Many don't go to movie theaters anymore primarily due to cost. The movie industry has been pushing their luck with all the price gouging in recent years on tickets, drinks & snacks.

At some point the movie distributors and theaters are going to go too far testing how much price fatigue they think the public can handle. Then they'll be marketing to an even smaller segment of the general public.

quote: Marcel Birgelen
It will probably take a bit of time, but eventually, what goes around comes around...

All it takes is for the consumer to get the slightest bit educated to the fact he's not seeing any different an image with IMAX digital versus what he would see in an ordinary 2K movie theater (or really in 1080p on his TV set at home). Back when theaters were running 35mm film it didn't cost extra to see 35mm projected on a giant screen. Good sound didn't cost extra.

These premium priced theaters have to deliver something more than ordinary picture and halfway decent sound to justify a surcharge. The "plain" theaters should be delivering great picture and sound quality in the first place. The acronym labeled theaters have to deliver something on top of that. Right now, most are not. Dolby Atmos is one step in the right direction though.

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
My main issue is when Bobby said that IMAX is losing out in the dinner and a movie segment as they have no foothold in the segment, what are they losing out on?

IMAX is selling a product based on a lie. Eventually that lie is going to catch up with them.

In the "digital" realm IMAX is doing something anyone else can copy or even outdo. That wasn't the case with 15-perf 70mm film. In the film days IMAX had exclusivity with some 15/70mm titles which kept them from being played on competing special venue theater screens run by Iwerks and others. IMAX has no exclusivity on Hollywood movie titles. Any digital movie featuring an IMAX logo on the poster can be played in any competing big screen theater. IMAX' sound system sucks. Dolby Atmos is going into dozens of competing premium priced big screen theaters. That's opening an area of vulerability for IMAX. Several digital projector manufacturers are working on laser projection designs. So it's obvious IMAX isn't going to have a corner on the laser projection market.

Overall, I think the premium priced big screen concept could be in trouble in the long run due to consumer ticket price fatigue. Unlike 15/70mm film, big screen digital doesn't deliver a fundamentally different experience from that of a standard digital theater.

Movie theaters chains compete with each other and have to appeal to as many market segments as they can. The dinner in theater concept is growing in popularity. In time you could see theaters dropping those big premium screens just like they dumped THX. Theaters could branch more and more into the restaurant and bar business, showing more alternative content, especially as Hollywood studios keep pushing to narrow movie release windows or even do day & date releases.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 12-02-2013, 02:54 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
IMAX is lucky no theater chains have started advertising Better than IMAX claims about their own house-brand premium screens. It's only a matter of time before some theater chain starts doing it, probably one with no IMAX-branded screens to protect.

It's definitely not "just a matter of time" for that to happen. That's because, legally, if I were to advertise that I'm the best in town, I don't have to prove it but if I were to advertise that I was better than my competitor, I'd have to definitively prove it/back it up.

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Marcel, what exactly has Alamo Drafthouse really proven? To me not much as there about 15 locations in the United States, well there also 4000+ other cinemas. From what I understand, the Alamo Drafthouse is a franchise, I would really like to see the grosses of the Alamo Drafthouse against a competing theatre, for one thing they do not charge a premium on the ticket price for a movie so it is nice for the cinema franchisee to sell some dinners but the theatre is still not charging a premium on the ticket price for the experience. AMC Dine-in at a movie is a little better of a concept and they also have the cinema suites, but there are still so few of these theatres that it really makes no difference, AMC does charge a premium for it from what I am seeing online.

It makes absolutely no difference whether they are charging a premium or not. What matters is if the concept of dinner theaters works. And the fact that both Studio Movie Grill and Alamo have expanded pretty well in the last few years tends to indicate that it can definitely work. And while both are based in the south, your claim that this only has worked in the south ignores that they both expanded elsewhere.

And to be frank, your idea that dinner theaters are merely "nice for the cinema franchisee to sell some dinners" is pretty inept considering that regular cinemas work the same way (them being nice for the location to sell popcorn, soda, candy, etc).

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 12-02-2013, 03:45 PM:

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Marcel, I am not for raising the prices of the tickets for customers who get served food and drinks at their seats, nor am I for raising prices for tickets at any other theatre. But, the price of the movie ticket is rising and consumers are not having any issues paying an inflated price for their tickets. The facts are that people are paying for IMAX, Liemax, VIP, and the RPX BS experiences. IMAX, Liemax, VIP and the BS RPX segments is where the real money is (at least for the box office), lets also not forget that 3D adds a surcharge as well.

You know what's funny? I went exactly here (warning: it's Dutch, but I'm sure you can manage to see what I'm pointing at) to watch The Hunger Games: Catching Fire in D-IMAX. As you can see on the current schedule, they're showing Catching Fire both in D-IMAX and "normal digital". When I was there, the movie was just a few days out, the IMAX theater was actually rather deserted*, the other show, starting about an hour later, was almost completely sold out.

Just a freak incident you'll guess? Well, I don't... I also don't think there is this big difference in mentality between North America in general and this part of Europe, that could explain it. Most people definitely don't want to pay the extra, if they don't have to. If you don't give them the choice, they will pay the surcharge, because they came to see that movie, but they're not going to like you, because they paid extra for the privilege...

To be honest, I personally hate the concept of those surcharges for "premium service", which is only available on one or two select movies. You know why? I don't like the idea that you're going to give me a sub-par experience, for that movie on which you don't even give me the option to upgrade, because it's not playing in your most kick-ass room...

* I actually spoke to some of the people around me. The people behind me explicitly choose the IMAX version, because they liked the bigger screen and louder sound, so those were the fanboys. The people on the right of me choose this version, because 3D and IMAX versions were included on their flat-fee Pathé Unlimited Gold Membership card...

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-02-2013, 04:06 PM:

If you interviewed 100 different people in any showing at a multiplex and asked them why they picked THIS particular show in THIS particular auditorium, I'm sure the answers would range something like:

This was the most convenient showtime
I like the big screen in here
I dunno, I just said what movie I wanted and here I am
My girlfriend / boyfriend picked it
This screen has better sound
I like 3-D
I don't like 3-D

and so on. But I'll bet at least 75% of the people would give that first reason.

If you were making this study in one of the "premium" screens, a big percentage would say things like "Well, it's the biggest and costs more so I think it's probably the best" without really knowing why it's supposedly the best.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-02-2013, 06:34 PM:

Jumping back a couple of pages was this wise statement.

quote: Marcel Birgelen
Hey, it looks like the IMAX v.s. Dolby Atmos / RealBigXtreme discussion has finally taken over this thread too.

I'm not the big boss around here, but wouldn't it be better for the discussion to keep it in it's own thread?

The next post should be a NEW thread in a suitable forum, linking back to this please.

Please reserve future replies to this thread as actual movie reviews to this Thor thing.