When's an IMAX not an IMAX?
Controversy has been brewing about IMAX movie theaters this week, and what constitutes an official "IMAX" theater.
When we go to a movie theater that has the IMAX name on it, we expect to be immersed in a gigantic 72-foot image. Except IMAX has been lending its name to some Regal and AMC theaters that don't do that. The "IMAX-D" theaters have screens that are only slightly larger than usual, with digital projection and sound. That's nice, but that's not what people expect when they pay higher ticket prices for an IMAX experience.
On Tuesday, Aziz Ansari posted a blog entry complaining that the IMAX corporation is ripping people off. He says:
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 screens which people would expect. However, they still charge $5 more for tickets as they would for the regular IMAX.
Mainstreet caught up with IMAX CEO Richard Gelfond for his response. Gelfond said:
The overwhelming majority of comments on that guy's blog this morning, more than 90 percent of them, are vehemently disagreeing with him. And consumers are confirming this with their continued purchases of tickets.
Austin-based News in Film responded by calling bullshit on Gelfond's claims and sleazy IMAX practices. They point out that the 90 percent statistic is a lie, and that the comments lean toward supporting Ansari. They suggest that IMAX might be a little loose with other numbers too, noting that the company is under SEC investigation.
News in Film then cites the Bullock Museum theater as an example of another bad IMAX practice:
Another element that isn't being discussed and is entirely "Imax" is a widespread complaint about being too close to the screen. The Bob Bullock Museum theater here in Austin is a perfect example of rows of seats almost on top of the screen. That's perfect when the camera is gliding over images of the Grand Canyon, but it's difficult to follow the frantic motion of action movies when your head is on a swivel.
Although the Bullock Museum theater is true IMAX and not the misleading IMAX-D, Hollywood Elsewhere blogger Moises Chiullan notes other disappointments with the theater's setup:
The projector lens is rarely free of dust (who knows if it's ever cleaned), and the location of the exit presents a more disruptive experience than most theaters. You enter underneath the auditorium seating, as in many museum-bound IMAX theaters, and the exits are directly behind the back row. Kids leaving slam the push bars like they're trying to knock someone down in the schoolyard. Daylight floods in during matinees, ruining the integrity of the viewing experience.
I was thinking of going to the Bullock Museum IMAX to see Star Trek. Now I'm thinking I may be happier giving my business to the Alamo.
[Photo credit: "Texas State History Museum" by David A.G. Wilson. Used under Creative Commons license, found on Flickr.]
No problems at IMAX in Austin here
Hm. I didn't have any problems with folks leaving during Star Trek and we were there at noon on a Sunday. Also, the picture quality was excellent, and there was no dust on the lens that I could see. YMMV, of course.
Not Impressed with Big Films on IMAX
The AICN screening of Star Trek was at the Bullock, and despite it only being the second time that print had screened, the first being the tech run, the occasional bit of dust turned into a near dust storm by the end. And honestly, I wasn't impressed with the bigger screen. Perhaps if it was shot in IMAX, which it wasn't. It just felt like a larger screen.
I enjoyed the film, and the chance to see it again, but I won't go out of my way to see a film not shot in IMAX there again.
I Didn't like Star Trek at my newer, local IMAX-D theater
Last night I saw the new Star Trek movie for the first time at my first time at one of the new IMAX theaters (Jordan's Furniture, Reading, MA.). It boasts 12,000 watts and they show 3D films there, which makes me think it's a digital projector. I have not been to a movie theater in a couple years, and far longer than that for a "major" motion picture.
I too ended up having to sit too close, needing to Pan and Scan myself the way films get re-formatted for 4:3 TV!!! Still, not as bad as Boston's first IMAX screen that is bent around the audience (Nemoy still doing the "sound check" intro last time I went). I too got to see dust specks appear, move, and migrate on the screen. 3M Filtrete home furnace filters should probably do the job for the cooling blower intake.
Image quality was poor: Low saturation and contrast (35mm resolution projected large or digital projection limitation?). Any and all details in darker areas (all scenes with Nemo's ship) were non-existent -- crushed to black.
Sound quality was also poor. Worst were bass frequencies. Boomy, un-detailed, under-damped, and under-powered, like a cheap home or car sub-woofer. 12,000 watts would be needed to just drive the butt-shaker drivers in all the seats alone (some reported not sensing anything, mine was a subtle effect), not 5.1, 7.1, or whatever. Hell, I use a modified Crown Studio-1 amp (2,000 watts@6 Ohms) to drive my 3-way speakers at home in just stereo and a much smaller room. Above bass frequencies, the quality reached mediocre levels of resolution and distortion. It was also under-powered for the excessive volume level. Turning up the volume to 11 does not restore detail lost in bad electronics, speakers, and wiring. I perceived little of the motion effects purported for Surround-Sound (TM).
Now, I remember why I just rent films, and it isn't the $10.50 ticket or $5 popcorn. Not people talking, cell phones ringing, or seat kicking; our audience was great. I get as good or better sound/picture at home without the lines and car ride.