(This post might get a bit technical and nerdy, but I’m technically a nerd, so no apologies).
There are many things that make me proud to be Canadian, such as our diverse cultural heritage, our laid-back nature and the fact that our cases of beer have handles big enough to allow mittens to fit through them. Another thing is that IMAX is actually a Canadian company, which not a lot of people know. But the way that the famous giant film screen company has been behaving lately has made me wonder what they’re thinking. Indeed, their current expansion efforts are progressing in such a way that will likely piss people off, and may even kill the once-rad name.
My only real experience with IMAX has been with documentaries, which is, historically, what the chain has been known for. But ever since they realized that certain movies would get some extra oomph from the huge 70mm format (twice that of regular movie film), they’ve discovered that there’s a huge demand and are rightly milking it. To be honest, I’ve always thought regular movies in IMAX were a bit lame – more often than not they just projected a 35mm print onto the huge screen, which made the picture look grainy. But when they do it right – when part or all of a movie is filmed specifically to be shown on IMAX – it’s breathtaking.
Not see: breath.
But now that 3D is all the rage, it adds an even deeper level of immersion to the experience. However, previous 3D IMAX movies have never convinced me that it’s anything more than a cheap gimmick designed to get asses in seats – until I saw Avatar. For the first time I saw 3D as a legitimate film making tool. It was superb, a truly unique and original experience (not to mention helping Avatar make over $1 billion in three weeks).
But then I was reminded of an issue that popped up in May of 2009, one which I really hope doesn’t serve to trash all the good that the release of Avatar has done for the format. Essentially, IMAX is opening new theaters under the IMAX brand (called ‘IMAX Digital’), but the screens are barely bigger than regular movie screens – they’re just closer to the audience.
A regular IMAX screen compared to an IMAX Digital screen compared to a woman pretending to be a dude. Boo!
When this news broke last year it caused quite a stir, which was covered in this great article and again by Roger Ebert here. Basically, IMAX is telling you that sitting closer to your TV is just as good as buying a bigger one.
From the first article:
But I object when anyone claims that two patently different things are the same. Where I come from that’s known as “lying.” And call me naïve, but I don’t believe that any company whose business plan is based on deceiving its customers can succeed with that strategy for very long.
Since I love complaining, I wrote a letter to IMAX corporate. In their defense, a Sarah Armstrong got back to me right away with a polite, if vanilla, email. It said (emphasis mine):
Thank you for your email. The IMAX Experience® is about more than just screen size or any one individual characteristic or feature. It is made possible through the combination of the world’s sharpest and brightest images, the clearest and most accurate sound available and IMAX’s immersive theatre geometry.
While I appreciate their attention to customer emails, and do think the sound and general layout of an IMAX theater are part of the experience, I think they’re way off base. The size of the screen is the only reason people go to IMAX. I’ve been to lots of movies in lots of theaters in lots of cities, and no one has ever said to me, “Let’s see it in IMAX, the sound is so much better.” It’s the picture, man, the picture!
For now, Bangkok only has one IMAX cinema, at Paragon Mall. If they open a new one, let’s hope it’s a regular size one and not the pee-wee crapola they’re passing off as a real IMAX experience. It’s important to note that, as far as I can tell, the IMAX Digital screens are only being installed at AMC Entertainment and Regal Entertainment theater chains in the US. For now.
C’mon IMAX… keep the big screen big.
Big is good, but so is resolution. I would think resolution has more to do with enjoyment of a detailed movie like Avatar. If the 57 foot screen has the same amount of pixels as the 97 food screen – you are seeing the exact same thing, just different sized dots. There may be something awe inspiring about walking in to a massive screen, in a massive room, but that may be a seperate experience.
@4amexpat I disagree.
It may be simply considering that pixels does matter, but actually human eyes’ limit does too. With small screen, I think we can miss some detail easier than a bigger one. Anyway, I don’t know whether IMAX really has done a research or just made their own words.. :/
Well, I should have mentioned in the post that the IMAX Digital screens do use two 2K projectors, so the resolution is pretty badass, and probably looks great. But the main point I wanted to get across was that IMAX has spent millions of dollars and years of PR to condition the public that IMAX=HUGE SCREEN. Some of the comments on the stories I linked to above were from angry people who felt they were tricked into paying more for a movie they thought was going to be on a huge IMAX screen. I’d be pissed too.