If you don’t want the whole long story, I did some research online and found this article that explains it. Basically IMAX is whoring out their brand name and trying to trick people. These new “IMAX” theatres are really just nice digital screens with good sound, but they ARE NOT IMAX, in that they don’t have the huge 72 ft gigantic screen which people would expect. However, they still charge $5 more for tickets as they would for the regular IMAX.
The IMAX brand is basically self-destructing, and it’s sad because the IMAX format really is something special (it’s more than just a big screen, it’s big film shot on big cameras). After getting duped last year by AMC Empire I decided I was done with regular 35mm movies blown up to IMAX size, but I’ll still see movies that use the real IMAX format (e.g. Dark Knight), I’ll just go to Lincoln Center where they have a real IMAX setup.
If your local multiplex suddenly offers an “IMAX experience” and they haven’t been under construction for months to put in a 72-foot tall screen, be suspicious; it’s probably just a 2K digital projector. What’s IMAX going to do when all movie theater projectors inevitably go digital? According to /Film, AMC is putting Sony 4K projectors into all their theaters by 2012. Oops.
By the way, my favorite theater in New York for most movies is the Ziegfeld on 54th, which has a single screen with an awesome NEC 2K projector that’s on par with what they’re now calling “IMAX”, but they won’t charge you an extra $5. It also happens to be a cool building that retains its beautiful ’60s red velvet & chandelier interior.
Stupid IMAX.
This sucks on a couple of levels. On one hand, I completely see why folks are pissed about IMAX essentially misleading people. That is lame and should not be tolerated.
On the other hand—I don’t like the idea of boycott simply brecause I would be devastated to see IMAX go away. My city doesn’t have a “faux-IMAX”, just a real one. The pure IMAX experience is, without question, the most amazing movie-going experience one can have. If you never saw the 20-or-so minutes of The Dark Knight that was actually shot on IMAX film, you truly missed something extraordinary. The clarity, contrast, and amazing sharpness were a marvel to behold. (For those that don’t know, IMAX film is almost 10 times the size of normal 35mm film. For the photographers out there, that’s almost like shooting a movie on 4x5. For the non-photographers: IT’S MASSIVE.)
I don’t necessarily agree that IMAX is self-destructing. I do think they are screwing up big time in the cases where they are being false. However, I think support for IMAX has never been higher. I sincerely hope they don’t derail themselves by stupidly lowering their standards.
What we need is more support for REAL IMAX. Shame on you, IMAX, for diluting what makes you great.
jstn:
This sucks on a couple of levels. On one hand, I completely see why folks are pissed about IMAX essentially misleading people. That is lame and should not be tolerated.
On the other hand—I don’t like the idea of boycott simply brecause I would be devastated to see IMAX go away. My city doesn’t have a “faux-IMAX”, just a real one. The pure IMAX experience is, without question, the most amazing movie-going experience one can have. If you never saw the 20-or-so minutes of The Dark Knight that was actually shot on IMAX film, you truly missed something extraordinary. The clarity, contrast, and amazing sharpness were a marvel to behold. (For those that don’t know, IMAX film is almost 10 times the size of normal 35mm film. For the photographers out there, that’s almost like shooting a movie on 4x5. For the non-photographers: IT’S MASSIVE.)
I don’t necessarily agree that IMAX is self-destructing. I do think they are screwing up big time in the cases where they are being false. However, I think support for IMAX has never been higher. I sincerely hope they don’t derail themselves by stupidly lowering their standards.
What we need is more support for REAL IMAX. Shame on you, IMAX, for diluting what makes you great.