May 12, 2009, 12:59 a.m. CST
May 12, 2009, 1:01 a.m. CST
The seats have BUTT-KICKERS! They, like, kick your butt, you know.
May 12, 2009, 1:01 a.m. CST
Uh, yeah. Sure. Cinerama screens back in the day were much bigger. Check the Seattle Cinerama or the Big Newport. Oh yeah, your home theater still sucks.
May 12, 2009, 1:04 a.m. CST
this is such an idiotic practice by IMAX....when you think of imax its about the screen size....
May 12, 2009, 1:06 a.m. CST
I've always felt it was quite large, but not compared to those theme park IMAX screens...where should we get info on where REAL imax theaters are?
May 12, 2009, 1:14 a.m. CST
by Retlaw Kciuq
How about how they eliminated my position in the company and thereby I got the shaft and demotion all the way down to a measly overrated janitorial position. I could hardly give a shit if he got Fake-Max... I got the shaft ultimately! FUCK AMC and their Starbucks honcho..
May 12, 2009, 1:17 a.m. CST
Damnit, I knew it was missing some "oomph."<br><br>Is there a listing somewhere of real IMAXes? This sucks, man! P.S. Aziz was hilarious in Observe & Report, and is an early candidate for best film line of 2009: "My dick is brown, motherfucker!"
May 12, 2009, 1:18 a.m. CST
by Retlaw Kciuq
Unless the entire credits had ran, this guy could have gotten his money back. He was BS'd straight away at Guest Services.
May 12, 2009, 1:18 a.m. CST
Went to see I Am Legend there for the Dark Knight footage. Blew me the fuck away. Have since seen the Dark Knight there twice and Watchmen. It's amazing. When I go see Star Trek again it will be in IMAX for sure.
May 12, 2009, 1:23 a.m. CST
newest and best. I saw Trek there last Thursday, and wow, It was fantastic.
May 12, 2009, 1:25 a.m. CST
May 12, 2009, 1:27 a.m. CST
when my local regal theater in brooklyn starting advertising for an imax theater when there was no way a real imax screen (like the one in manhattan that i'm used to) would fit there without some major construction. <br><br> i checked out the screen before seeing a movie in a different theater and it was certainly bigger than normal, but no way near "real" imax size. ive yet to see a movie in there but my friend was actually telling me today how he tried it and had a good experience, great sound and less chance of getting a seat with awful angles. <br><br>its interesting to finally hear other examples of this stuff, i wonder if all theaters r the same quality as aziz's. better be, cuz theyre sure charging the same elevated price
May 12, 2009, 1:28 a.m. CST
The one in SF is the real deal, but I went to the "Imax" at Bay Street 16 and it was nonsense. Imax prices for a screen that was no bigger than their marquee theater. All of these faux-Imax screens should be outed.
May 12, 2009, 1:31 a.m. CST
..some of it's old magic, they go and diminish it like this. And don't get me started on fucking light leaks, blown speakers, jittery films ALL the way through, volume so low that when someone chews on a twizzler you actually miss dialogue and many other little things they've been doing to make we want to stay home and watch on my 46 incher. No, do not get me started. Too late now I guess.
May 12, 2009, 1:33 a.m. CST
I have only seen the last reel of a film backward and upside down ONE time.
May 12, 2009, 1:34 a.m. CST
by Series 7
Only like One Screen? Every IMAX I've been to was a stand alone theater, and had posters for all those nature docs no one sees. <P> Also maybe Harry can answer this, what is the deal with some IMAX's only showing the nature doc movies? Sure its at a Museum, but it doesn't seem like just showing those movies would generate enough business to keep the theater alive? Also why not have some special showings of the big movies?
May 12, 2009, 1:43 a.m. CST
Here in Arizona we have two Cine Capri theaters which show movies on a 70 foot Wide by 30 foot tall screen with surround sound that will blow your clothes off. It may not be as BIG as the IMAX, but it's damn close, and you know you're gonna get a great show every time.
May 12, 2009, 1:46 a.m. CST
Yeah, I saw it in Baby IMAX at the Mercado in San Jose. Same deal. $15 and sure it was big and loud, but it was no real IMAX experience. Next time it's the Metreon or nothing. And here I was, all excited that I didn't have to drive to SF anymore...
May 12, 2009, 1:48 a.m. CST
by Series 7
But it doesn't beat Warren Theaters.
May 12, 2009, 1:52 a.m. CST
but he did watch the whole movie. I wouldn't have given him $5 back either. You know that's not the manager's fault. I would have probably written AMC.
May 12, 2009, 1:53 a.m. CST
I remember going to my local mall recently and seeing an Imax sign and going "when the hell did we get an Imax screen?" To see what was up, I poked my head into the Imax theatre before heading into the theatre that my flick was playing in and the screen was maybe 30% bigger than your average screen. I hereby declare it ImaxINO.
May 12, 2009, 1:55 a.m. CST
Not Bulloch. Fuck man read over your shit before you submit it.
May 12, 2009, 1:59 a.m. CST
At the Long Beach town center Edwards 26. Saw Trek on it. The screen was much nicer than any of the others there to be sure, and the images crystal clear, but it's definitely not as large as other IMAX screens. I agree that the prices should reflect the difference.
May 12, 2009, 2:01 a.m. CST
Just recently I noticed a new "IMAX" sign over one of the screens at the AMC 30 South Barrington, IL (outside Chicago). I was thinking "when the hell did they do that... and how is that possible? It wouldn't fit!"<br><br>Sure enough, I read this article, and find out how... cuz it ISN'T Imax. Glad I found out before paying for a movie there! (though I wouldn't have - just buy a ticket to a regular screen and walk into the Imax one)
May 12, 2009, 2:01 a.m. CST
(That I know of) the Bridge Theater at the Howard Hughes center and the Universal City-Walk Imax. Saw The Dark Knight in both theaters. I enjoy one over the other, but I won't tell you why because I don't want you going there and taking up all my tickets. It was hard enough getting ST tickets as it is.
May 12, 2009, 2:04 a.m. CST
Has anyone seen an IMAX or "IMAX" showing in the AMC Empire 25 in NYC? I was thinking of seeing Trek there or in the REAL IMAX AMC Lincoln Center 13...
May 12, 2009, 2:04 a.m. CST
Harry is overstating the difference between older IMAX screens and newer locations. I know some of the new screens are being placed in existing locations, but they meet IMAX specs and are built, installed and maintained by IMAX techs. True, the screens might be smaller than some of the old locations, but the new digital projectors absolutely kick the film projectors butts in terms of visual prsentation. The sound systems are absolutely outstanding. If you're hung up on screen size, you should look elsewhere. But, remember that almost every hollywood release will not use the entire screen anyway. IMAX crops a scope image...always. Yes, this includes Star Trek! The nature documentaries, etc. are filmed with IMAX cameras and that's why they fill the enire screen. With the notable exception of a few scenes in a small number of films (such as TDK and Transformers 2), the major hollywood films can't/won't be shown on the entire screen.
May 12, 2009, 2:08 a.m. CST
But...but...IT's NOT IMAX! From Mike Williamson, Burbank: The writer is a filmmaker. I tried to go see WATCHMEN in supposed "IMAX" today at a newly installed IMAX theatre here in my local BURBANK multiplex. Below is the email I sent to IMAX after walking out a couple minutes in. * * * Whoever is receiving this email, I encourage you to forward to the appropriate departments, including all top staff. I just got back from the new IMAX in Burbank, CA and I have to say...THIS IS NOT IMAX! As soon as I walked in the theatre, I was disgusted. This is NOT an IMAX screen. Simply extending a traditional multiplex screen to touch the sides and floor does NOT constitute an IMAX experience. An IMAX screen is gargantuan. It is like looking at the side of a large building ,and it runs vertically in a pronounced way. It is NOT a traditional movie screen shape. A traditional multiplex theatre can not house a true IMAX screen without STRUCTURAL CONSTRUCTION to raise the ceilings, etc. What I saw today was more like the European standard of 1:66-1. IMAX screens are constructed to be your ENTIRE field of view. This screen was PATHETIC by IMAX standards. I understand in a movie like WATCHMEN, which is not shot in IMAX, that the image will be letterboxed on the screen. HOWEVER, for a movie like THE DARK NIGHT, specific scenes would NOT be able to be shown in the proper aspect ratio at this theatre. It would be CROPPED at the top and bottom. What's the point? Why would I pay extra for this??? Additionally, IMAX seating traditionally puts you IN the movie. The screen is so large that the seats loom ABOVE it, and close to the screen. You almost feel as if you are being DROPPED into the film. The "IMAX" (yes, I am putting quotes around it now) seating at the Burbank 16 has NOT changed one bit since it was just a regular multiplex!!! A screen that's, oh, about 20% bigger than a standard multiplex theatre should NOT BE CALLED IMAX!!!!!! This is FALSE ADVERTISING. When the show started, I lasted about 2 minutes before walking out and demanding a refund. THE PROJECTION WAS DIGITAL!!! You think we can't tell the difference between digital projection and beautiful, crisp 70mm film?!!!? Guess what. We can. I don't care if you DO have two DLP projectors running simultaneously. It's not the same. Not by a long shot. IMAX should be ashamed of itself as a company. Willfully downgrading itself to nothing more than a standard shit multiplex screen on a wee bit of steroids. Disgusting. If this is the future of IMAX, then your company is heading towards a PALE shadow of itself. What once was a unique film going experience is now almost completely indiscernable from a regular multiplex screening. Congrats guys. Paying too much attention to how to do things on the cheap just completely destroyed your company. If it's NOT 70mm film. If it's NOT a giant square screen. If it's NOT seating which puts you in the center of the action...Then it's NOT IMAX. I got my money back. I won't be tricked again. And I suggest you start informing customers in advance what is a TRUE IMAX presentation, and what is a shitty digital presentation on a kinda-bigger multiplex screen. A former enthusiast, Mike Williamson Burbank, CA http://www.nickeleyepictures.com/ http://www.blacklight-pictures.com/
May 12, 2009, 2:10 a.m. CST
Saw Star Trek on Regal's "new IMAX" screen at Aliso... and um... it wasn't Imax. I mean, the camera was Imax and the clarity and sound were awesome... but the screen was just a normal screen stretched taller in a normal theater. $16 bucks for that.
May 12, 2009, 2:14 a.m. CST
I'm so happy this topic is finally put out there. I live in Knoxville TN and there's this regal theater that thinks they're hot shit. out of 18 screens they only have 2 digital screens and they say they have an IMAX. I went to see I Am Legend there in IMAX and I was just pissed that it wasn't a real IMAX after they promoted the shit out of it that winter before they started showing "IMAX" movies. All it is is a bigger screen and it just sounds like they turned up the sound. Plus isn't IMAX supposed to be digital? This was 70mm film and you could see little scratches here and there. People need to wake up and start looking into what they're paying 5$ more for.
May 12, 2009, 2:21 a.m. CST
Really someone should make a list of these FakeMAX theaters because I'm too lazy to do it. I hear the one in Augusta is a fake one. I'm keen on seeing Star Trek in IMAX there but I'm afraid I'll get ripped off.
May 12, 2009, 2:27 a.m. CST
Asking for the 5 bucks back once the movie's over is pretty weak. The poor sap manning the ticket counter doesn't make the rules, so why'd they have to get yelled at? Star Trek was probably playing in regular auditoriums as well, so the Ghosts of Girlfriends Past thing wasn't what they meant. I don't know. I agree that this IMAX practice is BS. But I don't know that being a dick to the theater employees is the best way to go about changing things.
May 12, 2009, 2:28 a.m. CST
May 12, 2009, 2:29 a.m. CST
Ah the power of wikipedia...!
May 12, 2009, 2:34 a.m. CST
Went to see TDK for a second time last summer and decided to check it out in the realtively new 'Imax' theater which opened at my local Muvico. I was expecting big fucking in your face Imax and instead got what amounted to a slightly larger than normal screen. It's a shame that some people, who might never have been to a true Imax film, are going to these theaters and probably being underwhelmed.
May 12, 2009, 2:35 a.m. CST
5th Element quote. Thank you very much!
May 12, 2009, 2:42 a.m. CST
So it's been going on for a very long time.
May 12, 2009, 2:43 a.m. CST
Though more screens have the digital technology installed. Standard IMAX is 65/70mm film, the twist being that it's shot and projected horizontally, rather than vertically. Also, the soundtrack isn't on the film itself, but on separate tape and synchronised to the picture. The vast majority of "IMAX" films are nothing of the kind, but 35mm blowups shown on an IMAX screen, though not shot with IMAX cameras.
May 12, 2009, 2:49 a.m. CST
I've frequented "real" IMAXes in Nashville, Chicago, & San Francisco. Can't get enough of 'em. Then I moved to the DC area and went to one of these new AMC IMAX theaters, and I was SHOCKED (and angry) at what I was getting for the same price as a true IMAX, as it was only slightly bigger than a normal screen. Totally undeserving of the IMAX name. Thankfully, we've got the Udvar-Hazy IMAX here, so that's the only IMAX I'll be seeing from now on, even if it is 40 mins away.
May 12, 2009, 2:52 a.m. CST
Haven't seen anything on the Bridge's Imax screen, but the Citywalk's screen does kick some serious ass. I'll have to check out the Bridge's theatre and find out which I prefer.
May 12, 2009, 2:53 a.m. CST
go to bigmoviezone.com<p> Do a search for your theater and look at the "Theater Stats." Under "Screen Format," the true giant IMAX screens will read "1570," and the new smaller ones will say "Digital."
May 12, 2009, 3:02 a.m. CST
The NYPost had an article complaining about the fake IMAX at the Empire:<p>http://tinyurl.com/5truhh
May 12, 2009, 3:15 a.m. CST
I wrote about these ripoff "IMAX" screens here: http://tinyurl.com/cz9fkt I am fucking pissed about this. IMAX should be sued for deceptive marketing practices. I saw WATCHMEN on a FAKE IMAX in Century City, and I could see the pixels on the screen 8 rows back. And the screen was no bigger than your average regular theater screen.
May 12, 2009, 3:16 a.m. CST
flickchick85 is right: The smaller theaters are all IMAX digital. They use two 2K digital projectors. The resolution doesn't compare to IMAX 70mm 15-perf film. It's a disgrace and will ruin the IMAX brand.
May 12, 2009, 3:19 a.m. CST
by Particularly Hard Vato
and holy shit is it worth the ticket price- saw star trek, batman, harry potter, some 3d fish movie, everything is bitch-in' on that screen. I hope they get the balls to put some d-Box seats in there. Then it will be perfect!
May 12, 2009, 3:19 a.m. CST
by Mr. Profit
Has "Fake" IMAX. But it's still cool. It's better than going to the "Real" IMAX at New Roc City. At Cinema De Lux in White Plains, the seats are more comfortable, and while the screen isn't the size of a building, the sound and quality were top notch. I also saw "I Am Legend" there and "The Dark Knight". No issues. But at New Roc, their IMAX screen, while the real size, leaves a lot to be desired for films reformatted to fit the screen. Plus that theater is full of dickhead kids. So I'll take the fake screen over the real one any day.
May 12, 2009, 3:28 a.m. CST
Just warning all you Los Angeles movie fans.
May 12, 2009, 3:30 a.m. CST
by ye olde shiza
Does anyone know if it's a real IMAX at AMC Deer Valley in Phoenix? I would be able to tell the difference (saw Matrix Reloaded on a real one), but I don't want to drive all the way out there to find out if I don't have to.
May 12, 2009, 3:31 a.m. CST
by Droogie Alex
anything else is a standard film shown a big(er) screen. A true Imax ratio is a big square picture. Like 2 35mm images stacked on top of each other. Re: those big sceens in the last Batman
May 12, 2009, 3:35 a.m. CST
yeah, Ansari is right, but how is your twittering Paris Hilton bullshit relevant to anything, Harry?
May 12, 2009, 3:38 a.m. CST
by ye olde shiza
Seeing this Star Trek on a "real" IMAX screen would only make it grainy because it wasn't filmed with IMAX film. Has anyone seen this Star Trek on a "real" IMAX screen, and if so, what's the difference? My girlfriend's never been to an IMAX movie, but I might just take her to some Dinosaur IMAX showing at the Science Center as well as Star Trek on the "baby IMAX," so she can experience both.
May 12, 2009, 3:40 a.m. CST
There are only something like three IMAX theatres in Germany and I can't reach any of them without sitting in a train for at least 4 hours! And as far as I know they don't even show Star Trek there.
May 12, 2009, 3:42 a.m. CST
but you won't go as far to support his call to boycott IMAX, AMC and Regal.
May 12, 2009, 3:42 a.m. CST
"Re:" means "regarding"<br><br> I think you mean "e.g." which means "for example" (an abbreviation of the latin) or "i.e." which is "in other words..."
May 12, 2009, 3:45 a.m. CST
by ye olde shiza
Yeah, according to what I read, it was released on 29 IMAX screens, internationally, and according to this list - http://trekmovie.com/2009/04/28/full-list-of-imax-theaters-carrying-star-trek-imax-trailer/ - Germany isn't carrying.
May 12, 2009, 3:46 a.m. CST
by Bungion Boy
So happy to hear Aziz is fighting the good fight. I live in New York and the AMC 42nd Street theatre added an "IMAX" screen. The bestowed that title on their already largest screen, which already featured digital projection. I saw several films there before, at regular price. If I wanted to go in there now, it would be 5 dollars more, for the same thing. I walked into that theatre last fall, just to check it out. It looked identical. Movie prices in New York are already $12.50. Matinee prices don't exist. The price goes up about a quarter a year. Usually in time for a big event film. I actually expected them to go to $13 this summer. Hasn't happened yet, but I'm waiting. In this economy, there should be some solution out there to give us regular movie-goers a break. I can't believe that for a family of 4 to see a movie nowadays it's 50 bucks. That's disgraceful. I love the big IMAX picture, and would be willing to pay more for it, but I want something for my money. Let's get organized, people.
May 12, 2009, 3:47 a.m. CST
Don't take her to Imax Digital. The image is very pixelated, as it is being projected from a 2k projector (about the same resolution as an HDTV). Also, even 35 mm movies "blown up" and printed on 70 mm film look amazing. IMAX has a process they call DMR which removes much of the grain. And 35 mm films can look extremely crisp (the resolution of 35 mm film is around 4k, or four times the number of pixels found in most digital projection films.)
May 12, 2009, 3:48 a.m. CST
May 12, 2009, 4:02 a.m. CST
by ye olde shiza
Hmm ... they say the rising cost of tickets is due to the rising cost of movies, no? Well, here's a solution: for every $1 million dollar pay cut a star actor takes, 2,000,000 people can receive a .50 price cut on their ticket. $10,000,000 = 20,000,000 movie fans with a little extra change. Won't ever happen, of course, because to bring back that old saying ... J.J. Abrams gotta eat!
May 12, 2009, 4:09 a.m. CST
FAKE IMAX! Avoid it. Go up to Ontario Mills.
May 12, 2009, 4:23 a.m. CST
Shouldn't win a ticket buy just because it's 2d. The sotry looks bland. I get it. It's one of those let's support it so 2d comes back. I'm afraid no... You support a good film. Not a bad film using a good medium. Three or 4 thread on this movie in less than 3 days. What happens when someone makes a real shitty man in suit flick. Do we give them the same trumpet fair?
May 12, 2009, 4:29 a.m. CST
Trailer for Princess Frog, because it shows you the collective animation gems of the past before it shows the actual trailer. As squid head would say "It's Twap!"
May 12, 2009, 4:43 a.m. CST
by Juror Number 8
yeah, i know exactly what you mean about the assholes at the city center. for non-imax movies i'll choose the port chester theater any day of the week over the shitty service and dickish crowds at the city center. if you want the real authentic imax experience take the extra 20 minutes to drive to the palisades mall theater. the imax there is legit, plus you can ride the ferris wheel after.
May 12, 2009, 4:51 a.m. CST
I've seen most of the films released on it recently. For some inexplicable reason, it never showed Watchmen. Star trek was awesome though. Minus shakey-cams and quick cuts obviously.
May 12, 2009, 4:53 a.m. CST
I've always wanted to see a movie on a huge IMAX screen, but there aren't any real ones around (at least that show non-documentary films). I have seen real IMAX before (the first time in a planetarium, which was weird), but they were only documentaries. When they started releasing non-documentary movies on IMAX, I thought it would be amazing. But there were none playing. Finally Louisville and a theater I've been to in Cincinnati got them. I drove 2 hours to Louisville to see Superman Returns on IMAX. The screen was lousy. It seemed even smaller than normal screens that I'm used to. It looked like someone just sat a giant silver piece of cardboard on the floor, like someone would if they were building one in their backyard. Luckily I enjoyed seeing the 3D scenes, and I did drive back to see Harry Potter with 3D. But now that we have digital screens in my area, I get pissed when Warner Bros. has to release their 3D scenes (not even entire movies) in IMAX. I had several people looking to drive the distance to see Dark Knight and even Watchmen in IMAX, but I talked them out of it. It's just not worth it for these screens. As for people who say they would just pay for a regular ticket and jump theaters. The theaters that I have been to actually have people standing outside the IMAX theaters making sure you have tickets for IMAX. Of course, I've never understood IMAX's strategy since I saw my first IMAX movie in a planetarium and everything was REALLY curved.
May 12, 2009, 4:53 a.m. CST
I sicken myself.
May 12, 2009, 5:06 a.m. CST
The only real IMAX screen that we have here it's not showing movies anymore (last one, and I think the only one, was Matrix Revolutions). All they programe is T-Rex, Deep Sea Whatever and that crap. The rest of IMAX screens are fake IMAX, by Yelmo Inc.
May 12, 2009, 5:16 a.m. CST
by Six Demon Bag
whoops, saw watchmen on it...kicked ass
May 12, 2009, 5:24 a.m. CST
I grew up watching docos in an OmniMax (the domed Imax thingy), last year I was in CO Springs and they were advertisting IRON MAN on the IMAX so I convienced a bnch of my buddies we needed to see it again in IMAX, and yeah it was a nice big screen but it wasn't at all what I was expecting. I wasn't expecting the domed screen that makes you feel like you're in the freaking thing, but I was expecting a LARGE screen with the curve to it (similar to the IMac I saw in FL at the Space Center), color me disappointed
May 12, 2009, 5:32 a.m. CST
It's a fake IMAX (never been to it, used the site Flickchick provided). I almost went to this one on Sunday, but thanks to roadwork, I gave up and instead went to the Cinemark 18 at the Pittsburgh Mills in Tarentum. Not only was this one real IMAX, but it was $4.50 cheaper for the ticket.
May 12, 2009, 5:35 a.m. CST
For anyone like me in central Florida: Orlando has 3 IMAX screens. Only one is a real IMAX (Regal Pointe Orlando Stadium 20 & IMAX) and two fake IMAX screens (Regal Waterford Lakes Stadium 20 & IMAX and AMC Altamonte Mall 18). I've been fucked by both smaller screens.
May 12, 2009, 5:47 a.m. CST
I almost saw it at the real IMAX in NY but ended up going to a regal cinema because it was closer. I already contacted IMAX and regal. This sucks. I paid $16 times 3 to see it and it wasn't any better than my local screen.
May 12, 2009, 5:57 a.m. CST
by Mr. Triffid
mithrandir16, They are all DLP arent' they? Or is Regal Pointe actual 70mm IMAX Film? Have seen Trek at both the AMC and Regal Pointe, and actually perferred AMC's -- but want have to go back and compare Waterford Lakes to Regal Point before Trek leaves.
May 12, 2009, 5:59 a.m. CST
when they announced that we would be getting an IMAX cinema here in Perth, Australia, because they have ones in elsewhere in the country and I've been waiting to see what the experience would be like. I went to the opening day, Christmas Day showing of The Day the Earth stood Still. Sound was amazing but the screen was not really that big at all and i'm pretty sure it wasn't the right aspect ratio. The seats weren't that great either. and they cost $22(AU) each! overall it was disappointing. I thought it might have been the movies fault but i saw watchmen there and then at a regular big screen cinema and there wasn't much difference at all. Infact with watchmen the sound was better at the normal cinema. And i don't know if it is possible with digital projection but I sware there was a bit cut out of the IMAX version that was in the normal cinema release I saw.
May 12, 2009, 6:10 a.m. CST
by Mr. Triffid
Here's yet another article from the Large Fromat Examiner: <p> http://tinyurl.com/pr932u
May 12, 2009, 6:11 a.m. CST
there is a REAL IMAX screen closer by that is just sitting there unused. And they even closed down the curved OMNI max screen that was around. upsetting.
May 12, 2009, 6:15 a.m. CST
by Emit Brown
Can you not fuck over us IMAX stockholders with your bullshit rant. Thanks cocksucker.
May 12, 2009, 6:18 a.m. CST
Will it be fakeMax? For that matter, will it ever be completed? They announced it a fucking year ago. It shouldn't take a whole year to build a screen and some seats, should it?
May 12, 2009, 6:23 a.m. CST
I mean, it doesn't count when the chick's a dude, right?
May 12, 2009, 6:34 a.m. CST
I was so pissed when I went to see ST at the AMC on 42nd St in NY.
May 12, 2009, 6:34 a.m. CST
The IMAX people really need to get off their duff and give MS an IMAX theater. Either put it along the coast or even up in Jackson or Hattiesburg. Either way there's a market here for IMAX, and they should get it done. Not the Fake IMAX that all of you are talking about, but a real one with the 1570 large screen format.
May 12, 2009, 6:47 a.m. CST
I saw WATCHMAN twice. Once on a normal screen and once on an AMC IMAX. Honestly, I didn't notice a difference! Luckily for me though, where I live it only cost $3 extra.
May 12, 2009, 6:50 a.m. CST
If the screen isn't Harry size..walk away..
May 12, 2009, 6:50 a.m. CST
Saw Watchmen there, and was very underwhelmed at the screen size, especially since I'd just seen "Kilimanjaro" at the Science Center IMAX a week before. Now THAT'S a big-@ss screen! Columbia's sound was impressive, but I'm pretty sure the screen is the same size as every other theater there. Someone correct me if I'm wrong...
May 12, 2009, 6:52 a.m. CST
IMAXINO is what it is, though!
May 12, 2009, 6:56 a.m. CST
ManaByte is right about the Mira Mesa "IMAX." The better one is in Irvine.
May 12, 2009, 7 a.m. CST
AMC theatres have this thing called the "Enhanced Theatre Experience," which is like the poor-man's IMAX (bigger screen, but not that much bigger) I saw Star Trek in ETX last weekend, mostly because the closest IMAX theatre showing the film was outside the city (don't see why they decided to make it a LIMITED IMAX release)
May 12, 2009, 7:02 a.m. CST
Dont go to it. I was really disappointed. People were turning to me and asking "this is the right theater right?". One guy got up to complain and the employee said it was up to IMAX standard. Not even close. Avoid.
May 12, 2009, 7:05 a.m. CST
is if Hollywood decides to make full-length features in the format. Which they never will.
May 12, 2009, 7:06 a.m. CST
by Bouncy X
the IMAX in my area was simply added into an existing theater, they didnt have to build a new place or anything, they just took an existing theater and made that one IMAX only. yes its true, the screen isnt as big as the ones you'll find in museums but there's a reason, they are different. The ones in museums are the full on IMAX experience, down to the fact people with motion sickness can't watch, it envelopes your senses and all that jazz. What they are installing in movie theaters isn't the whole shebang and was never meant to be. Its just a bigger screen, better picture and better sound version of the other screens in the theater. Its basically just the blu-ray version of a movie theater. People expecting to be blown away by the awesomness have probably been to a museum IMAX and are expecting too much, i'm speaking from personal experience here. So just realize its not a life changing experience, it IS better than regular theaters but its not a blow your mind kinda of difference.
May 12, 2009, 7:11 a.m. CST
Cinema De Lux was hte only IMAX I've been to (didn't know it was a "fake"). I can tell you I was impressed. (I am Legend, Dark Knight, Monster Vs. Aliens 3d, etc...) I've become an IMAX slut.
May 12, 2009, 7:11 a.m. CST
by Kentucky Colonel
I dunno if it's 70ft or not, but it's pretty damned big. But as anybody with half a fucking brain knows the ONLY screen to see an event movie in DC is the UPTOWN theater, an Art Deco wonder (recently aquired by AMC) that is damned near a cinerama screen. One wonders when they will can "State of Play" and put "Trek" up...c'mon already!!!
May 12, 2009, 7:12 a.m. CST
That's so fucking ridiculous.
May 12, 2009, 7:19 a.m. CST
The new screens meet IMAX standards? Sure, maybe they meet the 'new' standards that were created to allow this cash cow through, but they do not in any way but sound match the standard of the old cinemas. 'The new digital projectors absolutely kick the film projectors butts in terms of visual prsentation'? That's just a LIE. You're LYING. 15/70MM film has an absolutely MASSIVE RESOLUTION while the digital projectors in new cinemas are slightly better in resolution than standard DLPs without IMAX branding. The screen size and lack of resolution in the projector means that all the detail in the image is not visible on the digital screens as it is in true IMAX screens. You're right that the sound is outstanding, but it's the same standard as the regular IMAX cinemas that have better resolution and a giant screen as well. Speaking of which, you say 'If you're hung up on screen size, you should look elsewhere.' No sane person without an agenda would say this. The giant screens are amazing, not to mention they are what IMAX has built its reputation and name upon. 'IMAX'='image maximum'. Remember that you're paying the same price for your ticket as you would in a 15/70 cinema. Wouldn't you rather get the bigger, crazier experience? IMAX are cashing in on people's trust in the brand to suck people into something, without telling them it's a totally different (and worse) experience than what was offered before. Before I go, one more blatant lie to bust. ' remember that almost every hollywood release will not use the entire screen anyway. IMAX crops a scope image...always. Yes, this includes Star Trek! The nature documentaries, etc. are filmed with IMAX cameras and that's why they fill the enire screen. With the notable exception of a few scenes in a small number of films (such as TDK and Transformers 2), the major hollywood films can't/won't be shown on the entire screen.'. NO. IMAX show films shot in widescreen or scope with black bars at the top and bottom of the image, so no cropping takes place. It's true that few films fill the screen, but films are never cropped to be shown in IMAX. AS OPPOSED TO THE SITUATION IN THE DIGITAL IMAX CINEMAS, where anything in IMAX ratio actually IS cropped. This means that the IMAX camera shot sequences in The Dark Knight and Transformers 2 and anything else have the top and bottom of the image cropped off when they are shown on digital IMAX screens. And that is fact. Hifidog, your post reeks of damage control. Are you being paid by IMAX? I think you are. I've seen a few IMAX staffers trying to fight off the overwhelmingly negative response to this already. To everybody else: Digital IMAX sucks, Hifidog is a liar. Always demand better for your money.
May 12, 2009, 7:24 a.m. CST
Which I will never go to again to see ANY movie. Cost me $12.50.
May 12, 2009, 7:25 a.m. CST
The screen is not at all the size or shape of a real IMAX, the theater is too small, the seats are not stadium-set, and the sound really lacks impact. Some big screen movie theater they are selling as IMAX, just to get to charge twice as much as a "regular" screen. BULL-FUCKING-SHIT. Imax has lost any credibility it used to have.
May 12, 2009, 7:28 a.m. CST
May 12, 2009, 7:31 a.m. CST
We had it here in Tijuana, except we call it MACROPANTALLA ( Spanish for big-ass screen). It was installed in 1997 haha! Seems that not only are you getting fake Imax, but you are paying around $20 for something that we pay four dollars to see here in TJ.
May 12, 2009, 7:34 a.m. CST
How about the name and address of someone we can heap tons of complaints upon? Empower your people!!!! --G
May 12, 2009, 7:37 a.m. CST
Good props on that! Great sound, authentic IMAX, and tempurpedic seats. I also second the idea of AICN compiling a list of faux-IMAX theaters so they can be outed. There's supposed to be an IMAX going into the Cinemagic in Saco, ME shortly. Any way to find out if its the real deal or not?
May 12, 2009, 7:39 a.m. CST
May 12, 2009, 7:39 a.m. CST
In addition to this terrible tragedy, there are also terrible things going on in Darfur. Please Google around for more info on how to help there.
May 12, 2009, 7:44 a.m. CST
by Mr. Triffid
Here's a list of IMAX. The ones marked 1570 are 15 perf 70mm, the ones with just a "D" are digial -- ie. FakeMax two 2k DLP projectors do not = 15 perf 70mm in resolution.
May 12, 2009, 7:45 a.m. CST
by Mr. Triffid
OOPS.. here's the url for the Unitied States. Seems mostly up-to-date. http://tinyurl.com/o8yoj4
May 12, 2009, 7:46 a.m. CST
$16.50 now. Sneak in your own candy & soda. But just FYI ... this is a real IMAX. Someone should start an independent blog/registry about the real vs. fake Not seen Star Trek yet but Dark Knight was awesome. Also, there was no cropping in Dark Knight's standard vs. IMAX camera work. When the IMAX camera work kicked in, the whole screen took over. But the majority of the film wasn't IMAX and while there were black areas above and below, you just wouldn't notice. Audio is flawless in that theater.
May 12, 2009, 7:54 a.m. CST
I feel your pain Aziz. I feel bad for the poor shlubs who ponird up for Star Trek the IMAX... oh sorry LIEMAX (Good idea Phimseto!)Experience. It wasn't any better than Star Trek... the regular experience except the screen was a little bigger.
May 12, 2009, 8:08 a.m. CST
The AMC Theatre in Elmwood, which is about twenty miles west of New Orleans, had an auditorium recently "converted" to IMAX in preparation for the wave of 3-D films being released. I saw Watchmen on a normal sized screen, but let a friend talk me into seeing it again in IMAX. I bought a premium ticket and all I got was the same visual experience with the audio kicked up to 11. I was pissed. I know IMAX, and I should have known better when I saw the screen was the same as my previous viewing. I thought maybe the resolution would be better, but no, I got fucked! The real IMAX in New Orleans in downtown, next to the Aquarium, but it only shows movies shot underwater or in space or in mountains--no real movies.
May 12, 2009, 8:12 a.m. CST
Regal in King of Prussia, and the IMax in the Franklin Institute. Both are the real deal.
May 12, 2009, 8:13 a.m. CST
Denver Museum of Nature & Science IMAX -- I know this is real but they ain't playing Star Trek. AMC Highlands Ranch 24 (Highlands Ranch) -- I'm guessing this one will be fake. AMC Orchard 12 Theatres (Westminster) -- Ditto. UA Colorado Center Stadium 9 & IMAX (Denver) -- I'm guessing this one would be real. Cinemark Carefree Circle (Colorado Springs) -- not sure.
May 12, 2009, 8:15 a.m. CST
When the theater first opened it was 95% documentaries still. The first thing I saw there was Fantasia 2000, which was so overwhelming it looked 3D just because of its size. The first regular release I saw was the first Harry Potter, but that was before they had actually equipped the theater to be a full on major release IMAX screen and the process of showing regular film still resulted in a smaller picture. For the release of Spiderman in May of 02 they fixed that problem and so the first time I ever saw Spiderman his head was as big as an office building, just as Sam Raimi envisioned. Anyone who defends a fake IMAX needs to be burned at the stake for their herecy. I can't afford to see movies on our REAL IMAX but maybe one movie a year, and the idea of people being ripped off like this infuriates me. The original IMAX experience is in no way comparable to a regular movie viewing. By the time you get to the theater you should feel like you just traveled a mile through space, and once you walk in you should get a sudden onset of vertigo. That's IMAX, or at least it used to be. I don't particularly feel like ever going to mine again knowing that my money would be rewarding them for their malicious business practices.
May 12, 2009, 8:17 a.m. CST
I was saying the same things after I was ripped off seeing Watchman at the "IMAX" at the AMC here in Cherry Hill. Since then I refuse to pay the extra $ to see a screen that is maybe 20% bigger then the biggest standard screen they have. The sound was good but not THAT good to warrent the extra cash. If you want real IMAX your not going to find it in these multiplex's unless they freaking build one next door.
May 12, 2009, 8:21 a.m. CST
I paid proper IMAX prices to watch Star Trek on a fake IMAX screen - it wasn't even the right proportions!! it was WIDESCREEN! <p> sound was awesome tho - floor shakingly awesome - it's been too long since the floor shook for me... <p> but I digress- <p> just call it BIGGED-UP screen or (I think there's a brand out there called CineMAX?) or whatever but DON'T call it IMAX!! <p> -and FOR FUCK'S SAKE DO NOT EVEN THINK ABOUT charging IMAX prices for it! <p> <br> fuck that
May 12, 2009, 8:26 a.m. CST
Yeah, same thing here from what you're saying. I saw both the Dark Knight and Harry Potter 5 there. Don't get me wrong, it's a nice looking screen - and the sound in both cases was impressive, but too small by your typical IMAX standards. I think it's $4 more than their normal price to see a movie on it, but their DLP theatre is just as impressive. Sad thing is I don't know of any real IMAX screens nearby. I imagine the one at Cosi is but I haven't seen it. If you want the best theatre experience in Columbus, the Arena Grand or Marcus Cinemas are the best I've seen. Both have huge screens, Arena Grand has the reserved seating up top to avoid the noisy assclowns, and only old people go to Marcus it seems.
May 12, 2009, 8:29 a.m. CST
Thanks for that link. Both illuminating and disappointing.
May 12, 2009, 8:31 a.m. CST
The AMC 15 in Century City is LIEmax, which I discovered on opening night for Watchmen. I let it go at the time because I was using one of those bargain Costco "Golden Tickets", which makes the ticket price just $7.50. Now AMC is adding a $6 surcharge for those tickets, so the cost is $13.50 per ticket. As long as I get the real deal and not LIEmax, I'm fine with it. But I'm not going to pay $13.50 or $18 at some IMAX theaters for LIEmax. Make a note of it AMC and IMAX...
May 12, 2009, 8:35 a.m. CST
Another fake-Imax theatre.... I paid to see Watchmen in "Imax" there, walked in and the screen is the size of a regular movie screen and the sound was totally ordinary. It's a fuckin rip-off and i'll never fall for that again. The only real IMAX in NYC at the Loews at 1998 Broadway.
May 12, 2009, 8:55 a.m. CST
Friends and I went to see Trek there this weekend and discovered the dirty truth... http://crypt-orchid.blogspot.com/2009/05/antimax.html Stick to the one on 68th St. It's apparently the only true IMAX in NYC (aside from the one in the Natural History Museum); this city really needs more IMAX screens.
May 12, 2009, 9:07 a.m. CST
by Mr Lucas
My local FakeMax charges the equivalent of over $20 for a seat. To park will cost another $5. It actually cost me less to get on the train and go to the real IMAX (the BFI one in London near Waterloo Station). If anyone's Trekking on Thursday afternoon - see ya there!
May 12, 2009, 9:14 a.m. CST
Not a true IMAX screen, still big with good sound, but not a big-ass wrap-around with great sound.
May 12, 2009, 9:14 a.m. CST
Not a true IMAX screen, still big with good sound, but not a big-ass wrap-around with great sound.
May 12, 2009, 9:19 a.m. CST
it's at http://destroyfakeimax.blogspot.com Email me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the address of your real/fake IMAXes, and I will map them.
May 12, 2009, 9:20 a.m. CST
by Stuntcock Mike
May 12, 2009, 9:21 a.m. CST
If I'm doing my math correctly, in Austin it's actually MORE EXPENSIVE to see Fake IMAX films than feature length films shown in real IMAX theaters. Fake IMAX = $14.00 adult ticket, real IMAX = $12 (when purchased at box office). *sigh*
May 12, 2009, 9:25 a.m. CST
It's not Imax, not 100% Imax, what have you. It's annoying, especially since the Bridge and Citywalk are out of the way. And maybe it's just in Valencia but they have a screen that used to be Imax, now it goes by another name- the ticket-sellers get real fussy when you ask for an Imax ticket but you can see the Imax name on the mall direction board outside the theatre.
May 12, 2009, 9:25 a.m. CST
May 12, 2009, 9:31 a.m. CST
I'll start paying my $$ to got to the Air & Space Annex in Chantilly VA - it's REAL IMAX. Saw Transformers for my first IMAX experience - and I can vouch for the "screen door" effect/square pixels on the mini-IMAX screen. Was very distracting for my viewing of Star Trek. If there wasn't a lot of action, it was *very* noticeable to me.
May 12, 2009, 9:35 a.m. CST
So, this guy is a generalizing douche bag.
May 12, 2009, 9:40 a.m. CST
<P> ...I've now taken to calling them Killian theaters because, like Killian, they are lying to you. <P> "Who loves you and who do you love?" <P> "IMAX!" <P> "YESSSSSSSSS!"
May 12, 2009, 9:42 a.m. CST
besides some films are better off on the smaller IMAX screens..i dont want to see forty foot high nasal hairs in close up in Star Trek thanks...
May 12, 2009, 9:50 a.m. CST
Back in the early 90's, when I was going to school in NYC, the Beacon Theater was renovated (at a cost of $1 Million) to accomodate "The Rolling Stones At the Max." I thought it was awesome at the time, and I've seen a number of nature docs at IMAX theaters since. Narrative films, however, do not really work for me in the format. Unless the film is purposely shot as an IMAX film, just blowing it up and showing it on a big screen often makes the experience TOO immersive, in my mind.
May 12, 2009, 9:55 a.m. CST
by ye olde shiza
The REAL one mentioned by the Aquarium of the Americas is where I saw Matrix: Reloaded at. So, at some point, it did indeed show reg. movies, and probably could again. I'm guessing that the fake IMAXs are simply to lure unsuspecting movie fans into paying high prices for an experience they've heard about, but have never seen. People unaware of the difference being suckered ... man, what a shitty way to run a business and ruin a brand.
May 12, 2009, 9:58 a.m. CST
I wish I was there to see Aziz's outburst. I'm always entertained by real life outbursts and fights. Doesn't cost me a cent.
May 12, 2009, 9:59 a.m. CST
When I was a kid in the 80's our small town had a space museum and planetarium. There was an IMAX theater there and at the time, get this, it was one of 13 IMAX projectors in the world! The seats were different, you were almost laying down, and the screen (to me at the time, we are talking early 80's, lol) seemed to have more of a curve to it. I saw Star Trek this weekend on our local Imax (which is the real deal) and it seemed much better than Dark Knight. I felt like I was watching a larger movie, instead of the occasional large scale shots used in DK. It was amazing and worked perfectly for a film where the ships seemed larger than life. This film was formatted for this screen and I agree, films like Star Wars episode 2, where they just cut and pasted, didn't work at all. It boils down to this, it's your money, before you spend it you want to do your homework and actually read about the movie BEFORE you go. If you aren't sure about the theater you probably want to check on that as well. Our IMAX screen has been around a few years and there is no doubt it's the real deal.
May 12, 2009, 10 a.m. CST
by Snake Foreskin
Anybody want to go in with me on it? I figure if we get about 10,000 people or so, we could:<p> a) Get IMAX to change their licensing policies to better reflect the classic IMAX experience<p> b) Sue both IMAX and the theater chains for deceptive trade practices and price gouging<p> c) File a court injunction that would prohibit IMAX and the theater chains from presenting any more showings in "IMAX" unless the specifications of IMAX were truly being adhered to<p> The upside is that it would make you feel better because you took a stand on principle.<p> The downside is that IMAX could simply change its specifications to the newer theater configurations, effectively diluting both their trademark appeal and the efficaciousness of the class action lawsuit.<p> And if you think somehow you will be reaping large monetary awards in pursuing a class action lawsuit, after expenses you will probably get the price of admission for one. And I don't even mean at IMAX prices.<p> But hey, I'm up for the challenge if you are.
May 12, 2009, 10:05 a.m. CST
by Snake Foreskin
They are built more like a planetarium with a dome and reclined seating. The projected image is in front of you, above your head, and all around you. It is a surreal viewing experience.<p> I have never seen a regular movie in it, so I don't know how something like Star Trek would look. But the IMAX movies shown in OMNIMAX theaters are far superior in terms of overall "Wow Factor".
May 12, 2009, 10:10 a.m. CST
happened to me, my best friend and my girlfriend. we went to the "FAKE IMAX" in aventura mal in miami,florida-and was DISSAPOINTED.the screen was the same size as the rest-and the seating as the same as well.The only difference was the sound-it WAS louder.I vow to NEEEEEVER go there again.it pissed us off big time.Because the REAL IMAX experience is amazing!!!
May 12, 2009, 10:17 a.m. CST
Let's file a class action suit against Tom Rothman for raping Marvel franchises. I care more about that than Baby Imax.
May 12, 2009, 10:35 a.m. CST
by Snake Foreskin
I just checked out their website. They have NO specifications about it having to be a 70-foot-tall screen or 70mm film or anything like that.<p> They just say that it is an auditorium designed and implemented to provide a more immersive experience. They talked a little bit about digital projection and the audio, but no real specs were advertised. They also discussed how megaplexes can retrofit theaters with stadium seating to their IMAX format. So you can have varying degrees of "wow factor" based on which IMAX theater you go to.<p> Basically they have just watered down their own brand identity. If I were an investor I would be wary of the company's expansion plans and tactics. Eventually you could have competitors who smell blood and provide a much more spectacular product that makes IMAX obsolete.<p> They will probably still succeed, however, especally in the short term, because the masses tend to be gullible when it comes to marketing and easily cowed into submission.<p> Once again, like with most bottom-line driven corporate decisions, the people who get hurt most are the true fans. The ones who most love having a really fantastic experience when going to the movies.<p> And yes, Tom Rothman is a shithead. While we're at it, I'd like to file a class-action suit against Dreamworks' marketing department for Happy Feet. And Hollywood marketing departments in general. Every time I see a trailer or ad that makes a film look exciting or otherwise interesting, and then I go to see the movie and it is a big pile of poo, I want to be able to sue the shit out of the studio for blatantly lying about the quality of their product.<p> It's like buying cage-free organic eggs and finding out that they really came from Tyson's Concentration Camp for Chickens.
May 12, 2009, 10:36 a.m. CST
by Mr Nicholas
May 12, 2009, 10:44 a.m. CST
by ye olde shiza
Who knew?! Man, he's zany.
May 12, 2009, 10:51 a.m. CST
and there's no confusion. Actually, IMAX proper isn't that great, unless you're sat right in the centre. If you end up in the bottom corner, it's worse than watching the movie on an old CRT, not to mention physically painful. And you've still paid premium for the privilege, just so they can cram more people in.
May 12, 2009, 10:51 a.m. CST
I went to see Star Trek at the palladium IMAX in San Antonio and was extremely disappointed in the experience. The first thing I noticed walking into the theater was that the screen didn't appear all that big. Looked maybe 30% bigger then a normal screen. The sound was not all that great either and went out three times during the movie for about 3 to 5 secs each time. The real kickers is unlike what others are reporting here in the talk backs & what the linked article reports the screening was certainly NOT digital. It was a film print and a dirty one at that. I actually saw smudges appear on and off during the film that really took away from the viewing. I am confused then. It seems to be that everyone is saying these baby IMAX screens use digital projectors, but how is that possible if the screen was clearly showing some kind of smudges on the "print." Somethings up? As for the movie itself. Fantastic. Could not have asked for it to be better.
May 12, 2009, 10:53 a.m. CST
by Snake Foreskin
He has to feed the angry pickle!
May 12, 2009, 11:02 a.m. CST
"all the fury of a yawn" is right. totally crazy... how can they do that? it SUCKED and they should shut it down.
May 12, 2009, 11:36 a.m. CST
I'll be Trekkin' there too on Thursday afternoon! Good call on that venue!, the BFI IMAX, WATERLOO, LONDON, is indeed a proper IMAX site - and a fantastic one!, I saw SUPERMAN RETURNS there, and it was a perfect 70mm print, with crystal-clear, deep sound, the best big screen presentation of a film, that i've ever seen, worth every penny! I declare that we all rename the fake IMAX Theatres: "IMOCKS"!! haha!
May 12, 2009, 11:41 a.m. CST
For real IMAX the Lowes on the west side is your only option. Otherwise go to the Zeigfeld theater on 54th. Massive screen and great sound, regular digital projection, but better and cheaper than that crap on 42nd St.
May 12, 2009, 11:46 a.m. CST
I have seen Transformers, I Am Legend, The Dark Knight, Watchmen, and Monsters vs. Aliens 3D all in IMAX at the Palladium and I can say that it IS infact an IMAX screen. The sound and the screen size fit the proportions of what IMAX should be. I have been to the one in downtown San Antonio, the one at the Moody Gardens in Galveston, and the one at NASA in Houston, and I can say that all those ARE IMAX. I have yet to run into one that is not. I'm afraid that now that I've moved here to Georgia I might run into a fake one.
May 12, 2009, 11:50 a.m. CST
This was reported about - from the same theater actually - on Roger Ebert's site a few months ago, as well as other places. But hey, if an overrated comedian can bring more light on the subject, so be it...
May 12, 2009, 11:52 a.m. CST
I've been going to the Palladium since it opened last year and it is an IMAX screen. It's disappointing to hear about the sound and image issues you had, but when I went last Thursday for the 7 PM showing of Star Trek, it was a near flawless experience. No sound dropouts but there were a few occasional dust specks I could see on the print.
May 12, 2009, 11:53 a.m. CST
IMAX has a lot of things going for it,but everyone should know that IMAX does not have a discrete subwoofer channel. Even a $200 home theater system has that. Trust me, it makes a difference. Come on IMAX, get it together...
May 12, 2009, 11:56 a.m. CST
Everybody seem to hate this guy.
May 12, 2009, noon CST
is that when this Aziz guy is a famous comedian (Never heard of him, but that doesn't mean anything), why can't he come up with a better reply than "You IMAX apologist"? He repeats it a million times!
May 12, 2009, 12:02 p.m. CST
Deer Park Regal Cinemas: FAKE IMAX. <p>To think that I was so happy that I didn't have to drive to Manhatten and worry about parking or pay the overpriced MTA trains.... ugghh.
May 12, 2009, 12:03 p.m. CST
Saw Star Trek there at the weekend and it was pretty impressive but I agree with the guy who said you've got to be in the middle... when I saw Watchmen I was in the bottom corner and it was a almost impossibe to watch. Superman Returns was pretty cool tho, especially with the added 3D scenes.
May 12, 2009, 12:04 p.m. CST
1) Denver Museum of Nature & Science IMAX - this is a true IMAX . 2) AMC Highlands Ranch 24 - This is a regular 35mm auditorium that was converted. The sound has a god awful slap echo, light from the lobby shines in on the screen and is just a generally crappy experience for the price. Avoid it. 3) AMC Orchard 12 Theatres (Westminster) - This theatre is basically the same design as the Harkins 16 in Stapleton, only smaller. While it does have the claim of Denver's first all digital location, it's one of AMC's little faux IMAX sites. The regular 35mm screen at the Continental is bigger than this IMAX. UA Colorado Center Stadium 9 & IMAX - This is an honest to god IMAX that you would expect with great picture and sound. It opened with Fantasia 2000. Cinemark Carefree Circle (Colorado Springs) -- This is an honest to god IMAX. The screen is slightly smaller than the Colorado Center site, but it's pretty much your only choice in Colorado Springs.
May 12, 2009, 12:05 p.m. CST
We have "real" IMAX at the Seattle Science Center where they exhibit both the IMAX-shot nature films as well as theatrical features. And now we have "The IMAX Experience" at AMC locations (Southcenter Mall) where I recently saw Watchmen and Star Trek. The AMC screen didn't feel any bigger or better or crisper or louder than any decent-sized conventional theater screen. <P> It's probably not false-advertising though, for them to brand it "The IMAX Experience" That phrase assures nothing other than maybe some guarantee that your multiplex isn't screening your film in a dinky side-theater.<P>Having said that, I have seen theatrical features on the "real" IMAX (Matrix sequels, Willy Wonka) and found it all a bit too much to take in terms of sensory overload and in terms of Lawrence Fishburn's face (topographic map of the ocean floor anyone?) The downsized new IMAX Experience or a nice large regular screen (like our restored Cinerama here in Seattle) is plenty big and immersive enough for a theatrical feature, IMHO. Just don't charge me extra for it (Southcenter AMC).
May 12, 2009, 12:05 p.m. CST
May 12, 2009, 12:14 p.m. CST
And with many of the managers I've spoken to in my work, I've been told to expect further price jumps. The Colorado Center IMAX is $15 for an adult currently...and is possibly expected to go up to $16-18 by July. The surcharge for 3D Digital films (IE: Monsters vs. Aliens, Coraline, Ice Age 3, etc) is currently $3 - and slowly being ramped up to $5 by July. This is in response to the dispute of Fox wanting theatres to start paying for the 3d glasses starting with Ice Age...do a google search. It's frakking ridiculous that the prices are going this high this quickly...
May 12, 2009, 12:16 p.m. CST
lol..Harry Knowles the IMAX crusader now? lol..How fucking hard is it to check the screen before the movie? or ask about the screen size..Jesus you're a fucking baby.
May 12, 2009, 12:23 p.m. CST
by Cletus Van Damme
I'm from the area myself and you are 100% correct.
May 12, 2009, 12:23 p.m. CST
May 12, 2009, 12:23 p.m. CST
Lets get working people!
May 12, 2009, 12:26 p.m. CST
Went to the Bob Bullock Texas State History Museum last Friday with my dad to watch the movie. It was pretty epic on the big screen.<br /><br /> On the one hand, it's downright deceptive to promise the "IMAX Experience" at some run-of-the-mill movie theater; on the other hand, everybody knows how enormous an IMAX screen is. Unless there's a giant 10-story add-on to the movie theater, where the hell did you think they were going to fit the screen?
May 12, 2009, 12:28 p.m. CST
Fake IMAX is fucking amateur!!!
May 12, 2009, 12:30 p.m. CST
"Harry here...there is a terrible thing happening at concession stands at movie theaters..the large tubs of popcorn aren't actually really that large, I mean their big but not sure as shit IMAX size tubs of popcorn"
May 12, 2009, 12:32 p.m. CST
Thanks for the professional reminder.
May 12, 2009, 12:39 p.m. CST
The country getting fucked by The Man. Bale save us.
May 12, 2009, 12:42 p.m. CST
If I push your eyeballs up to my TV screen? Apparently the IMAX CEO has no problem with that.
May 12, 2009, 1 p.m. CST
by Cosmo Nautilus
It's awesome when the lazy asses employed there actually do their jobs.
May 12, 2009, 1:04 p.m. CST
by andrew coleman
You should know by now where the real IMAX places are. Because it is obvious why they are doing this trick people into thinking they are watching IMAX and make them pay 12 dollars a ticket or more. IMAX is nice but I save it for really big movies I want to see like Star Trek. Maybe I will for Harry Potter but that's about it.
May 12, 2009, 1:05 p.m. CST
He really shouldn have been yelling at the theater people - it wasnt their call. BUT, I'm glad this issue is getting some publicity.
May 12, 2009, 1:07 p.m. CST
seriously, they dont add much to the film. in some cases, I think it takes focus AWAY from the movie and relies too much on the gimmicks. if we were talking normal prices here, id be ok with it, but those upcharges (and the fact that they are further rising?!) Forget it!! <br><Br>and like i said, nev er pay the upcharge. Buy a ticket for a different (normal) screen, and walk into the 3-D and/or IMAX one. (keep your glasses on a previous visit)
May 12, 2009, 1:20 p.m. CST
We have a real Imax Screen here in Dublin California but my problem is with the screen size. IMAX is peachy if your flying over parts of the world or it’s taking you underwater or to some exotic place. When you watch a regular Hollywood release on IMAX it’s like having a woman shove her enormous breast in your face (without the fun), you’re smothered by the image. You can’t enjoyably take it all in. IMAX is Hollywood’s last ditch effort to bring people back to the theater when instead they should send out training films that teach audiences how to behave in and sneak in candy concessions. They did the bigger screen thing before back when TV was taking a bite out of studio profits. You better start backing more independent film makers Hollywood like you did back in the 70's or the beached whale that you are will be dead for good.
May 12, 2009, 1:31 p.m. CST
by Flames gotta Eat
When IMAX theatres were first built yes most of them were stand-alones and mostly included with museums because as we all know Hollywood films weren't ever shown on IMAX theatres until this decade. I know here in LA true IMAX screens are in Universal City Walk as part of their multi-plex and also at The Bridge, another mall. So a true IMAX screen can be at a multi-plex, viewers have to be really careful now not to get duped. And museum IMAX's seem to only show IMAX docs because they dont want a normal movie crowd crowding up the museum grounds and they dont want to have to pay the movie licensing fees either. They do just fine financially showing docs all day because families who attend the museum almost always see an IMAX film. If you ever go to those screens they're always full cause it give the parents a chance to rest and the kids love the flicks.
May 12, 2009, 1:50 p.m. CST
It's pretty much THE industry blog, and she's publicizing this scam, brought to light by some articles and now by Aziz. IMAX is in for some angry emails/calls/customers!!<br><br>http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/is-imax-digital-scamming-moviegoers/<br><br>(remove any spaces AICN puts in that url)
May 12, 2009, 1:59 p.m. CST
Wow, really? It just didn't seem that big of a screen to me. I had been to the one downtown SA years ago and remember it being bigger.
May 12, 2009, 2:02 p.m. CST
Ok so it's an Imax projector at an Omnimax theater, thanks for clearing that up. That would explain things, lol. What's the deal anyway, did they just open up all these small theaters overnight and all of you went for the first time to see Star Trek?? Crap it's like no one set foor in these things before now, you honestly didn't know about the type of Imax theater in your own movie theater? Hell if it sucks, just don't go. When they lose their asses they will know they made a mistake. I'm pretty sure anyone with a brain can take a look at the room and tell the difference in two seconds. Vote with your dollar$ and just don't go to the new smaller size theater. Our theater still shows the docu-type flicks and regular movies. Seems to work really well but you better believe they would only fool me once with that trick and I wouldn't be back. People will catch on and if they don't like it will stop going. Just support larger Imax theaters if you plan on spending money.
May 12, 2009, 2:05 p.m. CST
So, if the Mira Mesa IMAX is a fake (I've never been there), I think the only other IMAX in the city is at the Ruben H Fleet Science Museum. Does anybody know if they ever screen anything besides science documentaries there? I'm simply unwilling to drive all the way up to Irvine to see a movie.
May 12, 2009, 2:06 p.m. CST
May 12, 2009, 2:08 p.m. CST
Poster said this has "fake" IMAX. According to Big Movie Zone, it is 1570, which is "real" IMAX. The theater is also very steep, and has assigned seats. Now I am confused, because according to another poster if it says 1570 on Bigmoviezone it is real IMAX. I saw Star Trek there over the weekend, and I didn't notice any pixelization, but what I DID notice were the huge soda stains and tears in the screen. The problem I have with the Palisades IMAX is that, while it is bigger, there is a railing at the bottom of the screen that intrudes on the pic, and there is no reserved seating. Cinema De Lux in White Plains used to be a "destination" theater, but has really gone to seed in last few years, with a distinct decrease in quality. But the question is, is it real IMAX?
May 12, 2009, 2:11 p.m. CST
If that is anywhere near the actual exchange he had with employees then is Aziz a prick to the extreme. You're crapping down the ear of people who have absolutely no control over what you're complaining about. If you were upset you should have left and got your money back. Don't watch the whole thing and then make the excuse, "But it's Star Trek." Then don't go there again and put your money into the arclight. I worked at a movie theater for three years and made minimum wage almost the whole time and had to listen to people like you bitch and bitch. If someone told me that they had 25,000 followers on Twitter it would take all of my strength not crack a smile. You know how irrelevant that is? Ashton Kutcher has the most followers of anyone! The workday is eight hours long and fuck you for making it even longer for the underpaid. As a comedian you should know exactly what its like to struggle and apparently you've forgotten about that now that you're making money. Go to corporate, those are the assholes you want to talk to.
May 12, 2009, 2:14 p.m. CST
at AMC loews. Theres another theater, 20 miles from Pittsburgh, called Cinemark that has an honest-to-goodness 5 story tall IMAX. I will make the extra 16 mile drive to them from now on.
May 12, 2009, 2:16 p.m. CST
this is actually a bigger issue than you might realize, and I'm glad to hear that it's getting some time here at an Ain't It Cool forum, cause it's something A LOT of people don't know about and aren't aware of. I'm an IMAX projectionist ("true IMAX") and I cannot tell you how many people that come to my theater are BLOWN AWAY when they see the difference of what they were told was IMAX and seeing the REAL THING. here's the deal: IMAX is a brand name, it stands for Image MAXimum. it's 70mm film shot and projected in a totally different way that essentially captures the image TEN TIMES the frame size of a traditional 35mm film frame. it's then magnified some 586times and projected on screens six stories tall and larger. (*the guy who said that there is no "real" IMAX in NY is WRONG. there is: there are two, 1) Museum of Natural History & 2) 66th & Broadway -- one of the largest in the world. the 42nd St. "IMAX" is their new IMAX Digital format -- which is another story.) when they have IMAX in other make-shift locations, those do run IMAX film, on an IMAX projector (it's like a mini-projector they call an "MPX") but not projected on an IMAX screen. so viewers will notice a level of clarity that they hadn't seen before, but that's about it. certainly NOT SIZE. the IMAX corporation sold these projectors to the theater chains to keep themselves afloat -- so I understand WHY. but, because of it, the audience is getting the tail end of the stick. there have been MANY, MANY industry wide debates among those in the GSCA (Giant Screen Cinema Association) about how diluting the brand is just slowly killing IMAX. in fact, it was Warner Brothers who really revived IMAX in a big way when they learned that theaters with an additional (true) IMAX screen made more money, that they whole heartedly started investing in IMAX releases. it's also filmmakers that have given IMAX a boost. when Christopher Nolan SHOT sequences of THE DARK KNIGHT in IMAX that was groundbreaking cause it SHOWED OTHER FILMMAKERS HOW YOU CAN USE IMAX and it's NATIVE FORMAT in a feature. go back and read up: Favreau said he sat next to Michael Bay and they both said "ah, so THAT'S how we can use it." now both are said to have IMAX sequences in their new movies. but what made the STUDIOS pay attention of course is the fact that DARK KNIGHT made all that money last year -- 2nd highest box office of all time. the studios responded my working out deals for DMR IMAX releases. (*DMR is the process where they take a 35mm film negative and digitally enlarge it over many passes, removing noise and artifact and create an IMAX negative. that's why the aspect ratio still comes out slightly cropped.) IMAX needs to stay alive, so they've been trying to develop a digital solution, and they release theirs last fall, but it wasn't finished and again, it CERTAINLY WASN'T IMAX. it's big and it's pretty, but it's not the same resolution as IMAX. to be clear: if we were to take the highest video resolution available, we'd have HD = 1920pixels/1080pixels. if we were to accurately digitize IMAX FILM we'd need 10,000pixel/7,000pixels. that's an enormous difference. IMAX is hoping to get by long enough until technology can catch up and they can deliver the truIMAX 10THOUSAND/7THOUSAND digital image, and they're hoping that "as long as it's higer res than HD projectors (which it is) then we're okay." (that's their actual words.) so what does this all mean? don't hate on IMAX. but, BUT, seek out TRUE IMAX theaters. honestly, if you're a movie lover, there's absolutely NOTHING LIKE IT. it's worth the wait, it's worth the price. Harry is right, the way to tell is if the building with the theater in is is HUGE and oddly shaped, then you're probably going to a "real" IMAX theater. (*you also DO NOT want to see a hollywood feature in an IMAX DOME theater, cause you'll be turned off too.) but I say, the way to do it is to really see for yourself. I promise that, seeing it for real, you all won't be sorry and you'll DEFINITELY SEE THE DIFFERENCE.
May 12, 2009, 2:20 p.m. CST
It's like when blu-ray gets poor transfers of movies, which aren't much better than dvd. Basically, it's like shooting yourself in the foot. Customers will not come back! --Duh!
May 12, 2009, 2:22 p.m. CST
Plus don't go in Printworks virgin active gym, it's shit
May 12, 2009, 2:22 p.m. CST
The Irvine spectrum in orange county IS a real imax. However, the two imax theatres in the san diego area, Edwards mira mesa 18 and Escondido regal 16 are fake...
May 12, 2009, 2:27 p.m. CST
If you buy blu-ray movies, read disk reviews before you buy...because not all movie transfers take advantage of the format.
May 12, 2009, 2:29 p.m. CST
Four words: The Bridge at Howard Hughes. Also reserved seats are a mad bonus. Showed up 2 minutes before the show sat down with my snacks and the movie started. No problems. This is the only IMAX in LA I found that offers reserved seats. It also has a great bar too and has theaters very similar to the Arc Light like Director's Halls and stuff. Very cool place. Little further south but worth it.
May 12, 2009, 2:30 p.m. CST
I'm from the Bay Area, too. I've been to the Eastridge IMAX, which is fake. I haven't been to Mercado, but apparently that's the same thing. The Metreon in SF is the real deal, as is the one in Dublin, correct? Is that it? Does anybody know of any more in the bay that are legit?
May 12, 2009, 2:36 p.m. CST
The big dedicated IMAX screens probably won't get these Hollywood releases anymore down the road and they will be put into these multiplex retrofits - the main reason being that it costs a good amount of money to create one of those DMR prints and they would probably rather use the digital only theatres that are being put into these existing auditoriums.
May 12, 2009, 2:38 p.m. CST
Real IMAX at the Regal 20 & IMAX in Lincolnshire. Saw Dark Knight there; it was the shit.
May 12, 2009, 2:42 p.m. CST
two other theaters in the city have Lie-max screens
May 12, 2009, 2:47 p.m. CST
http://gizmodo.com/5250625/ Looks like somebody is paying attention...
May 12, 2009, 2:47 p.m. CST
the problem is expense -- because the cost to create the DMR negative is an additional $1 million. but then IMAX film is INCREDIBLY HEAVY AND EXPENSIVE. it's very expensive to ship an IMAX print. we're at an era where theaters are just now moving away from film to viable digital solutions. unfortunately, MOST THEATERS don't employ projectionist that give a damn, but rather popcorn managers that just push buttons and run back downstairs to count receipts. movie chains DON'T WANT good projectionists, they want a button to push. when your quality is sacrificed, they don't really care. it's only when real money is made or on the line, that's when they pay attention. (*I do think "Lie-MAX" is a bit harsh.) it will still be a while before IMAX can work digitally, but I give it another ten years. but between now and then, again, do yourselves a service and see the "real" thing.
May 12, 2009, 2:47 p.m. CST
by Kid Z
...being the subhuman bottom-feeders that they are will continue to pull s**t like this until we rise up en masse and start nailing a few of them to random interstate barrier walls with the spraypainted caption "I am what happens to lying, thieving, inhuman scumbags!"
May 12, 2009, 2:49 p.m. CST
I saw Star Trek there last night and it was worse than seeing it on film the first time I saw it. What a ripoff!! It was a waste of $13 bucks. At least I'm supporting Star Trek though. Screw IMAX!!!
May 12, 2009, 2:55 p.m. CST
IMAX screens it seems likely they will not be getting these Hollywood releases in the future, unless they are also upgraded for digital, which seems unlikely. It was pointed out at Finke's blog how silly this is since there are actually films being made natively in IMAX now after Nolan showed how to do it - but they will probably be confined to these newer versions of IMAX auditorims, kind of negating the point of shooting that way in the first place. If the big dedicated screens can stay in the mix it's probably not a huge deal and I get that it makes sense to have a premium offering at an existing movie theatre but there isn't much evidence it will turn out that way so far. Who knows.
May 12, 2009, 3:09 p.m. CST
there's a whole issue about the aspect ratio that I didn't get into. and YES, if a movie is SHOT IN IMAX and then transferred to the digital IMAX format, then all of the advantages to it being shot in IMAX are lost (basically). with each production there are so many variables, and then adding 3D (which is largely a gimmick, but many people love it) creates more variables. since MPX projector do run IMAX film, it's IMAX, that can't be disputed. but "the IMAX experience" can only truly be witnessed in a true IMAX theater (IMAX film, projector, sound & screen). if you get all those, you won't demand your money back, you'll demand to see it again. earlier this year we had WATCHMEN, MONSTERS VS. ALIENS, and now there's STAR TREK, NIGHT AT THE MUSEUM 2, TRANSFORMERS 2, HARRY POTTER 6... with Jim Carrey's digital mocap movie CHRISTMAS CAROL coming this winter. I don't know if James Cameron's AVATAR will be in IMAX but with those offerings, if they do well, they will dictate what the next year's slate of films will be. (IRON MAN 2 is already slated for an IMAX release.)
May 12, 2009, 3:11 p.m. CST
It's like calling Maxwell House, Star Bucks and charging the same price.
May 12, 2009, 3:15 p.m. CST
personally I'm still sad that Omnimax didn't catch on better...it was superior to Imax.
May 12, 2009, 3:35 p.m. CST
We should have a complete list of them.
May 12, 2009, 3:37 p.m. CST
I don't know if they charge extra for the "Imax Experience", but when I went there last week to see Wolverine, I noticed the first theater screen I passed in my hallway had an "IMAX" theater card next to it (showing "Monsters vs Aliens". <p> I thought that was strange, not remembering there being any construction there to make their screens exponentially larger, but I didn't think much else of it. <p> Now I know better. <p> So to anyone else in the Charlotte, NC area, beware the Regal at Stonecrest and their advertisements of IMAX (though I don't know if they charge extra). The only place you can see a real IMAX film is at Discovery Place uptown.
May 12, 2009, 3:37 p.m. CST
and I have the bleeding eardrums to prove it. Glad we have a real one, I would hate to pay for a half assed version.
May 12, 2009, 3:42 p.m. CST
Its about time someone said something about it.
May 12, 2009, 3:51 p.m. CST
whats that shit, i thought it was only made for porn.
May 12, 2009, 3:53 p.m. CST
by The Reluctant Austinite
All the "IMAX" screens here in Louisville are fake except the one at the Louisville Science Center downtown, which only shows the standard educational 40 minute IMAX films. All the National Amusements Theaters in Louisville have "IMAX experience" theaters and sell tickets for like $15, but it's a total scam. I saw "The Dark Knight" in one of those theaters, and I swear the screen was smaller than the screen in some of some of the standard theaters (only boxier).
May 12, 2009, 4:05 p.m. CST
by The Reluctant Austinite
I think the IMAX brand is in serious danger of becoming like the THX sound brand. It seems like anybody can slap it on their theater as long as they pay a lisencing fee to use the brand name. In my mind, a 40 foot square screen is not IMAX. A digital print is not IMAX. IMAX must screen the big IMAX film. THX sound can now be found on direct-to-video, shot-on-video crap as long as they paid Lucas to do a final sound pass for a fee. The same thing is going to happen to IMAX.
May 12, 2009, 4:16 p.m. CST
I wrote the following to IMAX Corporate, both by e-mail and printed snail-mail: "I went to see 'Star Trek' on the supposedly IMAX-sized screen at the 'Regal El Dorado Hills Stadium 14 + IMAX' in El Dorado Hills, CA. After many visits to the much older 'Esquire IMAX Theatre' in Sacramento, CA, I was looking forward to seeing "Star Trek" on a similarly massive screen. Imagine my disappointment (duplicated, I'm sure, thousands of times across the country in similar circumstances) when I discovered that, while advertised as an IMAX theatre, this was actually some sort of 'Mini-Digital' IMAX screen. You know, if the theatre had been advertised as being an IMAX variant... digital, bigger than an average movie screen, better sound... I don't think I would have been so disappointed. In fact, aware that it was a new and different variant, I probably would have been prepared and happy at the enhanced experience. But no, it was billed as IMAX. And it fell far short of the previously established IMAX standard. It will take a long time before I get the bad taste out of my mouth. And, in the meanwhile, you can be sure that I will NOT be spending any extra moviegoing dollars going to the 'Mini-IMAX.' Maybe you need to reexamine your marketing plan."
May 12, 2009, 4:22 p.m. CST
There are so many crappy theaters with the THX logo on it, and the quality of those theaters are FUCKING HORRIBLE! It's used to suck up idiots into going to their movie theater instead.
May 12, 2009, 4:26 p.m. CST
We just got an IMAX at the AMC Palace Theatre Elmwood here in New Orleans (Summer '08). My friend and I went to see "Watchmen" and he left complaining that the screen wasn't a real IMAX screen. Having never been to an IMAX before, I figured they all had to be the same, so this was just as big as the others. Turns out the asshole was right. Shit! I'm never gonna live this down.
May 12, 2009, 4:31 p.m. CST
May 12, 2009, 4:35 p.m. CST
fake-imax(dot)blogspot(dot)com send your reports to the(dot)censory(at)gmail(dot)com
May 12, 2009, 4:43 p.m. CST
May 12, 2009, 4:46 p.m. CST
Stargate would look in Imax
May 12, 2009, 4:47 p.m. CST
yeah ur right they are a joke, they certified my penis! fuckers whoring their logo to genitals.
May 12, 2009, 4:49 p.m. CST
you should be banned fucker. i hope you go to hell.
May 12, 2009, 4:53 p.m. CST
Is also a joke of disappointing proportions. BFI Southbank still rules.
May 12, 2009, 4:57 p.m. CST
I saw Watchmen at this exact theater, it's Imax Digital. It's not FAKE, per say, as it's still an Imax projector, and you're still getting better picture quality than an HD projector. I don't understand exactly why Imax isn't calling this new format "Imax Digital." That being said, this is going to become a new trend, as most cities only have 1 or 2 imax theaters and it's easier to drive 5 miles to to your local multiplex and watch an Imax Digital then to drive an hour to a real Imax, or go to a Museum to see a movie. I'm not a huge fan of Imax, I get motion sickness on occasion. For Star Trek I have to decide if I want to settle for Imax Digital (probably not) or go to Citywalk and deal with the spanish commentary track throughout.
May 12, 2009, 4:57 p.m. CST
A stone's throw from the PIXAR hq. I almost went to see my second viewing of Star Trek there, but now I'll wait until I can get over to the Metreon in SF. Fuck fake Imax.
May 12, 2009, 5:05 p.m. CST
Yelling at theater employees for things they cannot control is just bullying. I understand mentioning issues such as lights turning on, broken prints, things that are the theater's fault. But do you think some 17 year old kid making minimum wage has any say in the theater's marketing, or any idea what the difference is between Imax Digital and actual Imax? When I saw Watchmen, someone complained to one of the ushers, who just replied with "I don't know," which lead to that customer throwing a hissy fit when the usher legitimately had no idea. If you can tell before the movie starts that it's not what you wanted, leave and get your money back. Don't watch the entire movie then say "gimmie a refund," that's like eating all of your meal at a restaurant then saying you didn't like it and wanting it comped. And yelling at underpaid ushers/managers/etc. about things they have no control over just makes you look like a tremendous douche.
May 12, 2009, 5:10 p.m. CST
May 12, 2009, 5:15 p.m. CST
i tell them to keep some kids quiet and they do nothing.
May 12, 2009, 5:23 p.m. CST
May 12, 2009, 5:32 p.m. CST
by Mr. Triffid
Thank you for a very lucid and knowledgeable post.<p> Don't come here often, do you? :)<p> <p> One interesting thing happened on Friday night when my wife and I were at a Fake-Max screening. The entire picture just froze for like 5 minutes. I thought their disc-array must have gone down -- but it eventually restarted. Now there's something you don't see in Real-Max
May 12, 2009, 5:38 p.m. CST
May 12, 2009, 5:48 p.m. CST
by My best friend
The only real IMAX is the one in the Luxor (they only play 3D dinosaur type flicks though) and the one at Brenden Theatres at the Palms. They have a few Regal Cinemas here but they are FAKE IMAX! I saw a few IMAX movies at Regal and they were on a huge screen, and the sound was great, but not like the Brenden Theatre's IMAX screen. I saw Superman Returns there and although the movie was so - so, the sights and sounds were INCREDIBLE!!
May 12, 2009, 5:48 p.m. CST
Not to be missed.
May 12, 2009, 5:52 p.m. CST
like i can tell that women fake orgasms but its still fun
May 12, 2009, 5:55 p.m. CST
They just put one of these screens up near me. When Watchmen came out I saw that my local theatre was showing "Watchmen: The IMAX Experience". I was confused as to how exactly they had fit an IMAX screen in there with seemingly no construction. I heard later that it wasn't really IMAX. This is the movie theatre equivalent of hooking up an HDTV with composite cables. You get people complaining they can't see any difference.
May 12, 2009, 6 p.m. CST
by Urge to Kill
Is totally fake IMAX, go to the Colorado Center for real IMAX
May 12, 2009, 6:06 p.m. CST
thats what it is.
May 12, 2009, 6:09 p.m. CST
why the fake???!!!!!!!!!!!!!
May 12, 2009, 6:09 p.m. CST
AMC Deer Valley Blows. Its not a massive IMAX screen. It is listed as Digital projection here - http://www.lfexaminer.com/theaUSA.htm#AZ and listed as 1570 here - http://www.bigmoviezone.com/txshows/theaters/index.html?uniq=919 . The 2nd link also states that it uses IMAX MPX - which is the digital version, and from my viewing experience the 2nd listing is correct. Does AZ Mills have the real deal? I haven't been there - and both locations cited above list it as 1570.
May 12, 2009, 6:31 p.m. CST
Isn't the Red Rock IMAX real? I sad Eagle Eye there and it certainly seemed gigantic, at least twice the size of the Burbank "IMAX" (IMIN?)
May 12, 2009, 6:42 p.m. CST
in this fake IMAX shit too. Needless to say I was pissed. I don't think any of my friends had ever been to a real IMAX theatre as they did know what the fuck I was talking about when I brought it up after the flick. I had no idea though that they were doing this Nation wide.
May 12, 2009, 7 p.m. CST
It annoyed the fuck out of me. Not only did that HUGE piece of debris (relative to screen space) show up about 30 seconds or so but the entire image was covered in crap. The sound drop outs came at a horrible time (like there's a good one)--still don't know what the fuck Scotty says when they first meet him. I stayed afterwards and got a raincheck but it was a small condolence. It wasn't like we were seeing friggin Hotel For Dogs on opening day. This was STAR TREK. You know, one of your biggest openings of the year? The theater guy was defensive about it, blaming it on the fact that this was "a new print and needs to be shown a few times to clear all the dirt off." WTF??--clean the projector gate more than once a year, assholes.
May 12, 2009, 7:03 p.m. CST
....I WAS underwhelmed with the "Imax experience" when I saw Watchmen....does anyone know whether or not the Imax at Anaheim Gardenwalk is true IMAX or LIEMAX?
May 12, 2009, 7:14 p.m. CST
According to bigmoviezone.com, the Phoenix Imax at Deer Valley is indeed a real Imax theater. I saw TDK there, and it was pretty cool. From what I remember of the old Imax theaters I used to go to, it seemed like the real deal.
May 12, 2009, 7:15 p.m. CST
May 12, 2009, 7:17 p.m. CST
Real IMAX movies usually do that thing where they play that advertisement showing you how awesome they are with the fancy laser lights, big ass speakers behind the wall and race car sounds! At least that's what they always do on real IMAX films here in Canada. If you don't see that ad showing off the screen, they're bullshitting you!
May 12, 2009, 7:46 p.m. CST
Kudos to the person upthread who wants it to be called LIEMAX. Perfect. I urge everyone to get this term out there into general usage. LIEMAX LIEMAX LIEMAX! Down with LIEMAX!
May 12, 2009, 8 p.m. CST
It's as fake as a strippers breasts at Babe's Caberet. The only theater in the Valley with true sound and projection equipment for IMAX is at AZ Mills.
May 12, 2009, 8:12 p.m. CST
I paid 14 bucks to see Trek in IMAX last week. Shit.
May 12, 2009, 8:20 p.m. CST
by The Amazing G
I had to watch Star Trek in a tiny theater (despite going the Friday after it opened) and the whole audience was packed in like sardines, fuck my theater
May 12, 2009, 8:20 p.m. CST
by The Reluctant Austinite
I don't think any of us knew that this was a national or maybe even global film issue. I kind of thought I was alone in my disappointment of the "IMAX Experience" in my town, but now I'm finding out that many of you have had the same experiences. I'd pay $15 to see big, event pictures in actual IMAX format on an actual IMAX screen, but to date the only feature film I've seen that way was "Fantasia 2000" (and even then not every sequence was in IMAX; "The Sorceror's Apprentice" bit wasn't). Instead of really building IMAX sized screens, the theater chains are just updating old theaters and dragging the screen all the way to the floor. Boo.
May 12, 2009, 8:25 p.m. CST
Love the name.
May 12, 2009, 8:30 p.m. CST
by The Amazing G
May 12, 2009, 8:34 p.m. CST
Someone mentioned it passed the "real IMAX" inspection? Yay, that's where I'm seeing Trek and it's practically around the corner!
May 12, 2009, 8:34 p.m. CST
con't remember completely though. <BR><BR> I was hammered.
May 12, 2009, 8:35 p.m. CST
So AZ Mills is the real deal? What about Gateway 12 in Mesa and the AZ Science center downtown? lfexaminer.com says they are the real deal.
May 12, 2009, 8:52 p.m. CST
Harry - I propose AICN do some good. I propose you guys put up a dedicated thread called FAKE IMAX / REAL IMAX LOCATIONS, listing all 50 states and the locations of all the real IMAX theaters and all the fake ones. Leave up the thread and also put down addresses and contact information for where to write to IMAX to complain and demand that there be a name change or that the theaters remove the IMAX name. What do you say? You willing to be a rebel again and fight for the real heroes, the audience?
May 12, 2009, 8:55 p.m. CST
Harry, change the headline, and let's get this term out there. <p> It's probably an idea for someone go and buy liemax.com ( i think it's available) and create a list of PLACES TO AVOID.
May 12, 2009, 8:57 p.m. CST
May 12, 2009, 9:03 p.m. CST
by Bob Loblaw Law Blog
It includes a link to a HUGE Google Map with IMAX and "LieMAX" locations!
May 12, 2009, 9:04 p.m. CST
It's a figment of Mormon imagination. If in fact Mesa existed it's the doorstep to hell and a place I avoid. AZ Science Center, don't know, maybe?<p> I use to know a chick middle management type in AMC Corporate so that's where I got my info.
May 12, 2009, 9:05 p.m. CST
you keep giving us this bi-weekly "dvd" roundup but keep whinging about blu-ray.<br> quit bitching.
May 12, 2009, 9:06 p.m. CST
May 12, 2009, 9:06 p.m. CST
so i'll link something up when it clears
May 12, 2009, 9:31 p.m. CST
Can be found here. http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?hl=en&ie=UTF8&t=h&source=embed&msa=0&ll=11.005904,-84.726562&spn=76.455485,113.554688&z=3&msid=113621990356540393221.000469b6c5915161c3667
May 12, 2009, 9:40 p.m. CST
I don't feel cheated at all. Would 70ft Imax have been better? of course it would, but I don't feel cheated AT ALL. Just saw Star Trek in a recently outfitted "Imax Digital" theater with DLP and it was fucking fantastic. Regular digital projection has never looked or sounded that good. The screen was much larger than a normal theater, the picture was extremely clear, the color excellent and the sound was fucking fantastic. It is how I will see every worthy movie from this day forward. If you didn't get a similar experience, maybe you should take it up with the theater for not setting their shit up properly, but if you're bitching for paying an extra $5 for what I saw this evening, which is undeniably a huge step up from any normal theater, you're just silly.
May 12, 2009, 9:44 p.m. CST
What the fuck is this world coming too?????
May 12, 2009, 9:50 p.m. CST
by Bouncy X
i will never understand its point. its basically a "status update" program...like what the hell? people are too lazy to even do blogs, now its just one sentence comments? sad sad world. lol
May 12, 2009, 10:03 p.m. CST
But on a more relevant point (and by relevant I mean that twitter will die when counter culture rebels against the shallow nature of telling everybody what the fuck you think [it goes in cycles]), I began to realize what Aziz has when I saw Watchmen at a FakeMax at Universal City. While I was in line, there was a number of us asking whether or not this had the highest quality of Dolby Sound and whether the print was digital. After the showing, we realized it wasn't. I was thoroughly displeased with the screening. Then again, at the time, I worked at the Arclight in Hollywood, and having being spoiled by watching every movie free in comfy ass chairs, the highest quality in digital projection and dolby 6.1, my standards were raised a bit. For Star Trek, I saw it at the Arclight with the same people I saw Watchmen with. Most, if not all of them, agreed that we should forget about the cheap gimmicks to get us into the theaters. Fuck you FakeMax. FUCK YOU.
May 12, 2009, 10:04 p.m. CST
May 12, 2009, 10:07 p.m. CST
We had to talk to people around water coolers. and Christian Bale had yet to ass kick anyone. He was still a kid looking at planes in Steven Spielberg movies!
May 12, 2009, 10:10 p.m. CST
Now points to that map. And thus ends my public service for the day.
May 12, 2009, 10:14 p.m. CST
The screen is designed by IMAX The Speakers are all replaced with IMAX's speakers The Sound Rack is all IMAX Equipment The Projectors are 2 2K projectors with software by IMAX It is a larger screen than the 35mm screen that is replaced the screens are one of a few specific sizes provided by IMAX. The image is designed to fit the screen perfectly with no masking so the screen is moved forward costing the theatre the first few rows of seats, so that the image will go side to side with no crop IMAX native content fills the screen top to bottom, but transfers of 35mm films keep their 1.85 or 2.37 aspect ratios so they are letterboxed. This is true of both 1570 and Digital IMAX The presentation is brighter and the sound more immersive than the 35mm that it is replacing. IF you go to the Empire, go into house 6 which is Star Trek in 35mm and then walk into house 1 which is Digital IMAX. There is a huge difference. Nowhere does AMC or Regal or any other chain using the MPX or the Digital IMAX advertise the Digital IMAX as being a Large Format presentation. AMC has 3 large format IMAX locations. Lincoln Square in Manhattan, Metreon in San Francisco and Universal Citywalk in LA. I am not saying you need to just be satisfied with the presentation. If you want Large format, go to the Large format locations. But the blame for this product lies exclusively with IMAX. AMC and Regal, et al are buying a product. And it is an improvement over the equipment that it replaced in that auditorium. Oh, whomever it was that said that the Empire replaced a digital projector with Digital IMAX, they are mistaken. The only digital houses that the Empire had before the Digital IMAX were on the 4th and 5th floors (both are in the teens I think) and are DLP with RealD capabilities. The Digital IMAX is in House 1, next to their Customer Service desk
May 12, 2009, 10:14 p.m. CST
When I said cropped, I should have said that the films which I had referenced would be shown letter box style. They don't fill the entire screen. My general point is that the new IMAX screens are better than most anything else going. Are they the same or better than the small number of Giant IMAX screens of old? I think that depends on your preference. They're definitely not if your #1 priority is screen size. But, Hollywood is not going to support a film-based product moving forward. Everyone needs to get over that, because film is a dinosaur that won't be coming back. Many 70mm locations could not ply Star Trek because the economics simply do not support the cost of making a print for a two week run. I'd imagine every digital location is playing Star Trek. That's the economics of Hollywoood and there is nothing IMAX can do about it. As someone else pointed out, you can't even see everything that is happening when you watch something on the extra large screens. That is kinda cool and sorta the whole point (gimmick?) when your trying to make someone feel like they're in a nature documentary. It can be a drawback to people wanting to enjoy a more traditional film. Also, IMAX would be completely out of business if it hadn't made the transition in its business model. The concerns about damage to the IMAX brand seem to be valid. It would probably be wise for IMAX and the various theatre chains to address this via better marketing, but I feel they have a solid product that is a significant upgrade over most any other presentation found in the mainstream market place. I generally trust the market to set the price. So, ultimately, patrons will vote with their dollars. And,I'm fine with that.
May 12, 2009, 10:15 p.m. CST
or a serious drama. I'm tired of action only IMAX.
May 12, 2009, 10:39 p.m. CST
seems to me this is basically just a way of getting digital projectors into theatres and fleecing Joe Public in the process <p> it's an expensive process to refit your cinema complex with a DLP and a decent digital sound system - but do you think your average movie-goer would be prepared to pay extra for the privilege, so they can recover their costs? <p> sadly I think the answer is yes but it seems the Film Industry has yet again underestimated the intelligence of its clientele and has decided the best course of action would be to resort to low-down dirty underhanded tricks like slapping a well known brand such as IMAX on the door, in order to get people to cough up an extra five bucks <p> once again I find myself using the word despicable to describe these people...
May 12, 2009, 10:44 p.m. CST
May 12, 2009, 10:47 p.m. CST
IMAX is the name of the company. It is their Digital product. They advertise it as Digital IMAX. It is their equipment, why shouldn't they call it by their name? It is tehir proprietary screen, their proprietary sound system, their proprietary software. Why should they not call it by their name?
May 12, 2009, 11:26 p.m. CST
May 12, 2009, 11:32 p.m. CST
is 60 x 80. What does that make it?
May 12, 2009, 11:34 p.m. CST
...if these douches at IMAX are truly behind this kind of bullshit I just saw my last IMAX movie, Star Treck, and buy the way it was awesome. Feel, sorry enough for those of you that got duped to call bullshit, and not go to another one again. Once again FUCK'EM and fuck penguins marching..KING OF THE RUN ON SENTENCE
May 12, 2009, 11:37 p.m. CST
Where the fuck is that?
May 12, 2009, 11:38 p.m. CST
should call it IMAX light, less taste less filling
May 13, 2009, 12:40 a.m. CST
sick i wish i wouldve caught PoA in imax...wouldve been amazing
May 13, 2009, 12:55 a.m. CST
Aziz, I’ve worked for Regal Cinemas—in city that holds their cooperate headquarters—and personally detest the tread toward surcharging for “experiences”. These giant cooperations of Regal and AMC are all about optimizing the processes surrounding watching a movie to squeeze every drop of profit they can from the huddled masses that thrill to cinematic tales. While there’s so many rants available here, I like that you have focused your discussion on one issue: the surcharges placed on fake experiences. Our viewing of movies these days is already muddled with so many distractions by these corporate chains. I often ask myself “what movie did I pay to see?” by the time the last trailer unrolls. After enduring 20 minutes of “Preshow” extended ads, two minutes for National CineMedia’s trailers, 4-6 MPAA approved trailers, I’m often exhausted! It’s to the point that patrons can nearly count on being 5-10 minutes late, fumbling through the aisles, crashing down in a nosy heap and still not miss the roll of the credits. Now, after peddling the preshow time to any number of hungry media outlets desperate for audiences, Regal and AMC expect those of us who love movies to dump $5 extra bucks on top of the exorbitant ten dollars we normally dish to endure a fake-ass IMAX? We have every right to demand a higher standard. I’m one of those people that adores going to the movies. I love the process of finding a time, organizing groups of friends, and arriving 2-3 hours early for midnight shows (which doesn’t mean as much in NYC as it did in Knoxville, TN). I still haven’t invested in home theater systems or Blu-Ray because I hold theatre going to be wholly different, something amazing, quasi-spiritual. And even after working behind the scenes, learning to thread the polyester strand through the intermittent sprocket, and seeing the cold-business behind distribution, I stand behind watching movies multiple times in the darken auditoriums for one reason: immersion. And once the first frame of Abrams’s Star Trek came on screen, you wanted nothing more than to be immersed, to be baptized in this new vision for the initial mission of the starship Enterprise. You wanted this bad enough to pay $5 extra. And what you got instead was disappointment. IMAX format of years past has a great potential to immerse. That’s one reason why documentary filmmakers were one of the first adapters of this medium. The presentation used to be stunning! I recall the advertisements of screens 7 stories high, with 6 channels of discrete sound. Sadly, those innocent days are in danger with practices such as “The IMAX Experience.” I say the disappointment of a slightly larger yet not 7 story screen is enough to distract your full immersion. I caught the midnight show of Watchmen on the smaller IMAX screen at the AMC Empire 25 off 42nd St/Times Square. I thought to myself where’s the subwoofer? Shouldn’t that boom be louder? And even if the screen is a bit larger, shouldn’t the rows be steeper? For the first time in these smaller IMAX screens, our $5 bought us distraction not immersion. It’s high time we call these dubious business practices out and expect what the adverts claim to provide: a true IMAX experience. And with the power of tribes like AICN and social networking outlets like Twitter and Facebook, we’ll find those who are outraged by these changes and hold AMC and Regal accountable. Best of luck in the word wars to come!
May 13, 2009, 1 a.m. CST
I'd say IMAX are hurting their brand by not distinguishing for the customer between these two (vastly different) products. The major issue is that IMAX are charging the same price for both products. You say that patrons will vote with their dollars and the market will set the price, but right now it's hard for people to do so because of the way that IMAX have arguably mislead the public through exclusion of information. Most people don't know about the difference between the products (why should they? IMAX never told them), which results in situations like that with Aziz. It's going to take a long time for word to get out about the new product, if it ever happens. I'd say a lot of the sales of tickets will be from people expecting a different product to what they'll get. Many people don't visit IMAX very often or only on special occasions, so this will probably go on for a while. You mention that 70mm is an expensive business and allege the old business model is financially inviable. I personally believe that IMAX could have focused marketing on getting big numbers of people into 15/70 screens, with much less expansion in the strategy, but obviously IMAX felt differently. But this raises a question. When 70mm IMAX is, as you say, so much more expensive than the digital equivalent, is it fair that both products are the same price? Clearly IMAX are making a much larger profit from the sale of a ticket to a digital screen movie than from a 70mm one. They're also using the same price the market dictated for 70mm films and applying it to a totally different product and expecting the public to pay because of the IMAX name. The point is, IMAX had an excuse for charging so much at the old cinemas. 70mm film and the projectors and other equipment they used is much more expensive than in a standard 35mm cinema. But the new, equally expensive product is much cheaper to run not only than 70mm IMAX, but I think also than 35mm screens. That alone is a strong indicator that the major motivator behind this new business strategy is maximum profiteering, with no regard for quality of service or equivalence to the brand's legacy.
May 13, 2009, 1:02 a.m. CST
...in Terrence Malick's new double project The Tree of Life/The Voyage of Time, which should see some kind of IMAX exhibition. That will be no action move by any means.
May 13, 2009, 1:03 a.m. CST
Bob Bullock and the giant screen that stands in his memorial will not stand for this besmirching! Wait, no... it doesn't matter.
May 13, 2009, 1:05 a.m. CST
I used to think he was just an annoying troll, but jesus...he's in EVERY talkback now yelling at Harry, Mori, pretty much anyone about...well...anything.<p>it's kinda sad...he seems to spend a couple hours a day on a site that he loathes. that's pretty pathetic.
May 13, 2009, 1:15 a.m. CST
the IMAX in portland is pretty small. granted it's extremely hi-def and made 'U23D' pretty cool to experience. however, like i said; pretty damned small. my original understanding of IMAX was that it was supposed to cover much of the peripheral trajectory. nope, not in my town.
May 13, 2009, 1:51 a.m. CST
We could use his rational, well-reasoned powers of argumentation about now.
May 13, 2009, 2:26 a.m. CST
Keep in mind that IMAX doesn't set the ticket price. That's the individual theatres/chains. They partner with IMAX who gets a % of the ticket price. I'm pretty sure the major theatre chains now base their price point on a comparison between their IMAX screens and all their other screens. (for example: 35mm and Standard digital $9, 3D digital $12 and IMAX $14) Also, it can't be stated often enough that IMAX was absolutely on it's last legs before shifting to the new business model. Simply put, IMAX had to evolve or die. Film-based 70mm has no future to speak of outside museums and theme parks. Even those will fade away as new equipment is needed. I get (and appreciate) the anger some feel, because so much of this doesn't seem to pass the smell test. But, if people don't feel they are getting a good deal with the new IMAX, those people will skip it on future visits and instead choose the other screens. I disagree that it will take the public very long to figure it out. Most won't cause a scene or try to organize a revolt. They will simply mention it to a friend or two and buy a ticket to a less expensive showing from that point forward...the benefit of attending a multi-plex. Give it time and let the market decide. For me, the product is very good if a little pricey. But, I can't imagine choosing 35mm or Standard Digital over the new IMAX presentation.
May 13, 2009, 2:46 a.m. CST
Seems Investor day is being held at the real IMAX, not LIEMAX. This link will provide u with the email of VP Investor Relations, and the live webcast today 5/13/-0 9am ET. http://www.imax.com/corporate/investorRelations/
May 13, 2009, 2:54 a.m. CST
...and I'm so fucking annoyed that when I say "that ain't no fucking IMAX" I know I'm wrong... because apparantly it really is an 'I-MAX'. I saw 'Red Cliff', 'Quantum of Solace' and 'Kungfu Panda' on Shanghai People's Square 'I-MAX' screen and though all were entertaining films, each experience was a huge let down. Unfortunately we exiles in China dont have many alterntaives. Fuck the fake I-MAX. I'd rather watch it on a cell phone screen.
May 13, 2009, 2:58 a.m. CST
differences in eye shape, the Chinese seem to have GREAT difficulty putting anything in focus at ANY cimemas ANYWHERE in China. Maybe it looks in focus to them.
May 13, 2009, 3:17 a.m. CST
This whole thing can simply be boiled down to one simple question: Why do we go see IMAX movies? Because it's special, because it's different and therefore worth the extra money. Fake IMAX (like we have in Shanghai, China (I know, I know, fake stuff in China, go figure) is crap. It's a big screen, sure, but they only use a portion of it and the sound is pretty crap (though again, this is China). Basically, fake IMAX is like buying a Ford Fiesta with racing stripes ('Transformers' reference)...at the end of the day, it's still a Fiesta.
May 13, 2009, 4:40 a.m. CST
by Motoko Kusanagi
Just askin' 'cause I hate foots'n'inches.
May 13, 2009, 4:54 a.m. CST
the seating wasn't as steep (which makes sense considering the screen was nowhere near as DEEP as it was WIDE) as a proper IMAX theatre - where the screen takes up your ENTIRE field of vision NO MATTER WHERE you sit <p> this time, I had the TOP OF SOMEONE'S HEAD partially obscuring some of the picture for the entire film <p> HOW THE FUCK IS THAT AN IMAX EXPERIENCE??
May 13, 2009, 5:03 a.m. CST
First, the rant posted is not for the Empire AMC but the Burbank AMC theater in Los Angeles. I have lived in Los Angeles my whole life and have been to almost all the different theaters in the area. Lets start with the one the rant was based on which is the Burbank IMAX screen. When you walk into the theater you can tell that yes this IMAX screen is smaller then some. The theater was originally built without an IMAX screen in it but had two auditoriums that were very large. They converted one of these into a digital IMAX theater. The screen was enlarged to the maximum length it could go. I have seen both the Watchmen and Star Trek on this IMAX screen. Is the screen larger then a normal movie screen, or the screen that is in the same size auditorium located in the same theater? Yes, it is much larger. The digital projection using the two digital projectors is a very bright, crisp, and clear picture. When they showed a bright planet or a sun in the film you almost had to close your eyes. How was the sound you ask? I have seen movies in Arclights Dome, Grumans Chinese, Mann Village, AMC IMAX Universal, etc, and the sound at the Burbank IMAX has more bass then any of them. I myself, being an avid fan of the Dome in Hollywood, am passing up movies there to go to this IMAX. If you like your films so loud it almost blows your eardrums this is the place to see Star Trek. One more positive thing about this IMAX screen that I actually prefer is the seating. They did not convert the seats to the standard straight back and no leg room IMAX. These seats recline and are very comfortable. I am surprised at the backlash against the AMC Burbank IMAX (and no I don’t work there, I live in Santa Clarita) and no one complains about the AMC Universal IMAX. That one is the king mother lode of rip off. First you have to pay for parking only to get a coupon good at the concession stand. The IMAX screen is large and well designed but the auditorium was very poorly designed. Most theaters have doors you enter, turn, walk down a hallway and then enter the theater so no outside lights shine in. Not at this IMAX. You open the door and walk straight into the theater. Ever watched a movie here during the day? The light pierces the theater and shines right onto the screen any time someone opens the doors. You almost want to yell at anyone who gets up to use the bathroom. The sound is average with no real bass as well. The seats are the standard IMAX seats with the back straight up (great for viewing but uncomfortable on the back), and no leg room.
May 13, 2009, 5:12 a.m. CST
Good to here that IMAX aren't setting the price. In Sydney, tickets for these digital multiplex IMAX screens are around 50 cents to a dollar less than at Sydney's only 15/70 screen (for the record, the largest non dome IMAX in the world). Considering the money saved in skipping film handling, I see this as totally unjustifiable. If this situation is not reflected in other markets, well, good. As for the anger some people feel at 70mm disappearing? Yeah, I am pretty angry. It's an amazing or unique experience that shouldn't die off. Not to mention that it has BY FAR the best resolution of any semi wide spread distribution method in the world. What IMAX were offering with giant screen cinemas was unmatched by anyone and anything else. What they are offering on the digital screens will be matched by other companies within a matter of years. Hardly an adequate replacement. Maybe the traditional IMAX had no future financially, but I'm not so sure. I don't know the statistics, but it seems to me like IMAX have actually been experiencing a sharp upturn in popularity over the past few years as Hollywood has embraced the 'IMAX Experience' idea. And IMAX seem to have survived alright for thirty or so years. Not to mention there's been a massive increase in demand for IMAX Cameras, even from big Hollywood productions, suggesting a bright future for huge screen film. I don't see the enormous screens as a gimmick. I think that the right projects, designed for the medium, could take great advantage of its unique qualities. It's a shame that just as it seemed to be finally picking up steam we're talking about this exhibition type being killed off.
May 13, 2009, 5:27 a.m. CST
Looks like you've actually coined the new term! People seem to like referring to it is "LieMax", and one guy above even ran with it and created a website for it. I know I'll be using it from now on. <p> Good work, sir!
May 13, 2009, 5:40 a.m. CST
is IMAX even relevant?...until they start making complete mainstream films in IMAX, it will not be relevant...and I mean entire movies, not a few scenes shot with IMAX cameras like The Dark Knight and Transformers 2...gimme an entire 2 hours of IMAX candy...oh and it's good that we in NYC at least have 1 true IMAX screen...they are even building a fake IMAX screen at the Kips Bay theatre on 2nd avenue
May 13, 2009, 5:46 a.m. CST
one more thing...is DLP being replaced by this new IMAX digital?...in NYC there have been special DLP showings of movies for years now and I always bought tickets for the DLP showing vs the standard showing (since they were the same price)...so digital projectors have been in place for years...so isn't IMAX digital the same as DLP and if so why are they all of a sudden jacking up the price by $5 and calling it by a different name?
May 13, 2009, 6:26 a.m. CST
May 13, 2009, 6:31 a.m. CST
And I actually paid more than the BFI would've cost me, because I went "Premiere" (i.e. reserved seating). I wondered beforehand where they'd fit the new screen, answer: they didn't, they just used one of their old ones.
May 13, 2009, 7:15 a.m. CST
<P> I'm glad to see the revolution started without me. It is great that people have adopted the term. I hope that this is a short-lived cause, meaning that something tangible and good comes out of it. <P> For any of you in the college set or who live in cities, have you ever seen those imitation colognes for sale? The ones the vendors swear smell like the real deal? LIEMAX is the new imitation cologne. <P> My father was very excited about an IMAX opening up by him. I had taken him to a couple of legit IMAX screenings down by me. He was a kid who grew up with the movie palaces of NYC, so the IMAX experience was actually as large and bombastic as his nostalgic remembrances of movies in his childhood. Of course, yesterday's research showed that the IMAX opening up by him is actually a LIEMAX. It's that kind of subtle duping on the part of IMAX that irritates me. I'm glad I saved him from finding out the hard way, but all his months of patient waiting and enthusiasm...
May 13, 2009, 7:38 a.m. CST
I think you win the Clever Award for this TB.
May 13, 2009, 8:28 a.m. CST
Covered most of it above but yeah it essentially boils down to people expecting a traditional IMAX auditorium when they walk in so the actual presentation, regardless of quality, is kind of a secondary point. They should have called it something else. The tech is indeed IMAX. Dual digital projectors, new sound system, screen brought forward and extended from wall to wall and ceiling to floor, tilted, curved, etc. but it is designed for Hollywood-style productions and aspect ratios. Going to a traditional film based IMAX theatre where Trek is playing for example will yield a huge image of course but it's not actually in IMAX - the top and the bottom of the screen are not used and a sort of letterboxing effect is created. It's really not an issue as I still think it looks great but as big as those screens are they aren't being fully utilized unless the production itself has some native IMAX sequences (like Dark Knight and upcoming Transformers 2) - which in truth are the only types of films that would suffer from being in one of these digital IMAX screens. The Finke blog had a statement from IMAX that said they were reluctant to call them Digital IMAX because they expected the public to stigmatize/ghettoize the traditional installations but it seems there is more confusion than that at this point. As for the ticket prices...yeah it seems like it's getting a little out of control. People will respond accordingly but I'd be willing to bet that side by side the Digital IMAX auditoriums (unless they truly are smaller than the other screens in the complex, which makes no sense) will outclass exhibition in other auditoriums, and will have the built in ability for 3D because of the dual digital projectors as pointed out by other posters above. Just seems they should call it something different because IMAX has been around long enough for people to have some idea of what that represents. The other problem is that all films presented in IMAX theatres aren't actually IMAX films like I mentioned above so there is some odd disconnect with audiences there too I think.
May 13, 2009, 8:29 a.m. CST
It's being called IMAX so people who have heard of IMAX will say "WOW, there's an IMAX theater near me!" and go to see a Liemax instead. That way, they get the extra $ for the ticket, but don't have to fork over the cost of building a real Imax theater screen and installing real Imax sound. Yay! It's a lie designed to steal from the public.
May 13, 2009, 8:31 a.m. CST
I am VERY pleased to see this backlash against Fake-IMAX theaters, because my own complaints about a so-called IMAX theater in Sydney (at HOYTS, Fox Studios), were completely ignored. I sent the same letter to IMAX and received no response. I once worked at the only real IMAX theater in Sydney (the 8 storeys-tall Darling Harbour "LG" theater), as a projectionist, and was saddened and angry when I saw what was being advertised by HOYTS was nothing more than a 2K digital projection on screen smaller than a typical 35mm screen. I saw "The Day the Earth Stood Still" there, and complained to the manager as well. Inevitably, they did not see their advertising as misleading. A poster showing a person reaching out toward a giant screen was not misleading! What a lot of people are missing in this talk-back, is the fact that real IMAX uses 70mm film, run horizontally, with a 15-perforation frame size. That is a frame roughly 9 times larger than a 35mm frame (double the width and 5 times taller). That is why real IMAX movies can be shown on screens up to 8 storeys tall, as the one in Darling Harbour is. It is such a shame that IMAX is letting almost 40 years of high standards be tarnished by this new expansion into multiplexes. The general public are not going to notice the difference unless they are educated. They are being ripped off. I'd love to see directors like Christopher Nolan and Michael Bay speak up about this. After all, their films are the ones people want to pay more to see in real IMAX.
May 13, 2009, 8:49 a.m. CST
I wonder what HE has to say. Or even better, David "fucking cellphones" Lynch!
May 13, 2009, 9 a.m. CST
but being from a town with only the traditional Museum national geographic style IMAX, this shit is facinating, i had no idea all this stuff was going on... we had the first transformers in IMAX like, 4 months after it was in theatres... now I'm wondering what it was like, out of curiosity.
May 13, 2009, 9:43 a.m. CST
by Orbots Commander
...at the Cradle of Aviation museum in Garden City, NY---it's on Long Island for those not in the know. Basically, it sucked. The dome theater is basically the kind used in planetariums and for laser light shows. The image is curved and distorted and round at the top and it's a neck straining experience for all audience members. I hope it's not indicative of all IMAX venues.
May 13, 2009, 9:46 a.m. CST
That's an invitation for a headache and butchery of the movie too. I'm shocked they even try to exhibit on the domed screens.
May 13, 2009, 9:49 a.m. CST
by Orbots Commander
...disorienting migraine. Never going to watch a movie at the Dome Theater again.
May 13, 2009, 10:10 a.m. CST
the theater manager came out and gave us the longest fucking talk ever before watchmen started. he kept talking about how amazing imax is and that soundwaves will be booming at us so loud that we wont even hear ourselves. then he kept talking about the previews coming up...then he came back again and kept talking...then he came back again to advertise food...THEN HE CAME BACK again and started talking about his staff...AND THEN HE FUCKING CAME BACK AGAIN and started talking about his staff. god he wouldnt shut up.
May 13, 2009, 10:26 a.m. CST
OK, aside from Dark Knight...these films are NOT shot to be in IMAX, meaning a signifigant portion of that 70 foot screen isn't being used (Think Letterboxed), or they're cutting off the ends of the frame. Look at the IMAX screen in the link: It's a TV screen aspect ratio!! So, honestly, this Fake IMAX is presenting a screen actually formatted to the fracking movie you are watching. It's still bullshit to charge more for it, but honestly folks...The IMAX thing is marketing garbage...Aside from Dark Knight, or anything that's shot with IMAX cameras...
May 13, 2009, 10:30 a.m. CST
by Cotton McKnight
I would have thought that the Regal Gateway in Austin had an IMAX screen. It's a big theater (I think it has 16 screens) but come on. Even if they combined two theaters into one big screen, it still wouldn't be tall enough. I guess what I am saying is, I would have been misled just like this guy, but there is NO way I would have thought I was seeing an actual IMAX proportion movie. I agree about dilluting the brand, though. It's a big deal to get an IMAX theater- hell, Austin only has one and it's relatively new- under 10 years old.
May 13, 2009, 10:49 a.m. CST
Absolutely right about Dark Knight. My point is, that, to date, it's the only "real" IMAX dramatic film experience, because they shot at least portions with an IMAX camera. Everything else is putting a square peg into a square hole that's 3 times larger.
May 13, 2009, 11:03 a.m. CST
Will be whether or not the traditional (true IMAX) installations will still be getting these Hollywood releases down the road. One would hope so since more filmmakers are actually filming (at least sequences) in IMAX now (a la The Dark Knight)...something that has been lobbied for for years. It will be sad beyond belief if, now that it is actually happening, there will be no reason to because of the expense of DMR over these new digital houses. The film presentations in the dedicated houses are fantastic though...it's a shame these retrofits are apparently so uneven in relative comparisons (i.e. some are probably decent in size while others are plainly shoehorned into undeserving footprints, etc.).
May 13, 2009, 11:25 a.m. CST
I consider my self very Tech Savvy but I must say this is very confusing. I live in ST. Louis MO now and I have read the ImAX at my theater is not real ImAx. I thought it was fake too. STar Trek looked and sounded not that great there. In fact it looked at sounded better at a different theater. BUT someone stated if the screen format said 1570 then it is true IMAX...my theater says 1570 but if it is true IMAX then I'm not impressed. please someone explain..lol
May 13, 2009, 11:50 a.m. CST
This is a very good issue whoever brought it up. We got a new IMAX theater close to my house recently, the radio station I work for even gave away tickets to the first showing, and I was thinking this is so cool, IMAX. I had to work that night and didn't get to go but my friends did. When I asked him if it was like the theater at Cedar Point amusement park, the only IMAX theater I've been to, he said no but it was pretty cool. I figured it was maybe just slightly smaller or something but not that much smaller. Charging the higher price is total fraud since according to that website bigmoviezone.com all the rest of the IMAX theaters in Michigan are real IMAX size. Has anyone written to the main stream media about this, say ABC's John Stossel? He exposes fraud all the time. Getting this story off the net would be a good idea. Not all movie goers are net savy or read forum posts.
May 13, 2009, 11:54 a.m. CST
but worth a look if not: http://gizmodo.com/5250625/cineplexes-getting-imax-but-is-it-imax-or-conspiracy
May 13, 2009, 12:03 p.m. CST
by Bouncy X
i'm in Ottawa, we have an IMAX at our Silvercity theater. i've seen like 3 or 4 movies there and i'm just curious if thats supposed to be a so called "fake"? my guess would be no because the screen is significantly better, the sound destroys the regular theaters in there and you can actually see the IMAX speakers spread about the theater itself. There's even this lightshow that explains the technology before each movie and it even shows you even more speakers behind the screen. so i'm pretty sure its "real" but if it isnt, then i dont see the complaint because its a significantly different experience than regular theaters. we're only charged about 2$ extra as well.
May 13, 2009, 12:09 p.m. CST
by Anything But Tangerines
May 13, 2009, 12:12 p.m. CST
by Anything But Tangerines
Find in page - "IMAX"
May 13, 2009, 12:56 p.m. CST
Where they say they are playing an Imax show but it's just on a planetarium screen. No I'm not kidding I paid 12 bucks to see TDK last summer to watch it on a distorted as fuck planetarium screen. I seriously asked the manager for my money back, and filed a complaint with the better business buero. NEVER go see and 'imax' film at discovery place in Charlotte, you will only leave pissed with a thoroughly crained neck. seriously how do places get away with this?
May 13, 2009, 1:39 p.m. CST
Since the IMAX webpage doesn't detail it very well, and not many others do - I found the FAQ from the Sydney, Australia theatre to be pretty concise and informative. HEre's a quip... The giant screen IMAX Theatre Sydney in Darling Harbour uses the IMAX GT mechanical film projector to project films on 70mm/15perforation film, the largest commercial film format, with a film frame size approximately 10 times larger than a 35mm film frame. The IMAX digital system uses two 2k digital projectors to create a high quality digital cinema image. Both systems are capable of showing 2D and 3D films. There is more info here: http://www.imax.com.au/faq/
May 13, 2009, 1:43 p.m. CST
this is a bit more than a little mess. I'll try my best to give it a shot: IMAX is technically anything with their name on it. it's true. BUT, they'd become known as makers of 15perf/70mm film based cinema projected to "giant screens" (yes 60ft/80ft is the beginning of "traditional" IMAX screen). technically, the actually is not a "higher res" than IMAX in terms of image delivery/exhibition. that's Image MAXimum. now: it's also limited because every screen is unlike every other screen. EACH SCREEN is custom built. recently there's a "spec" that has been used as a general draft for retrofits and so forth, but the fact of the matter is EACH AND EVERY IMAX SCREEN is CUSTOM BUILT to the theater and building that it resides in. again, in the past, this screen size generally STARTED around 60feet tall by 80feet wide, but once you got to the particulars, those measurements could change by a few inches to a few feet. the IMAX image is made to be tall and wide, more like a 4:3 image, than 16:9 (or what was originally called 1:1.85 to 1:2.35 widescreen). when we're talking about THAT, we're talking about ASPECT RATIO. that's literally THE SHAPE OF THE IMAGE not the shape of the screen (and not the size of the screen). so, when a director like John McTiernan makes DIE HARD he shoots "2.35" and the image is wider than it is tall -- "cinema scope" -- and when we get it home on our old televisions to see everything on his frame the size of the image needs to be reduced to fill all of the width of the image into the 4:3 shape of older tv screens. NOW: we're at a slightly different time. where tv is changing over to a 16:9 (wide) screen shape, and essentially all of broadcast and media is getting behind it. all that is good. even if a director shoots "2.35/cinemascope" which is wider than 16:9, the "black bars" at the top and bottom will be minimal. but here's the thing: IMAX's film SHAPE is 4:3. because it's designed to me immersive in a different way. originally IMAX was shot for the human eye to look into the lower center of the frame (where you eye naturally gravitates to when seeing a "traditional" IMAX documentary) and the rest of the frame therefore acts as a "peripheral" image, and since it's SO BIG, it feels like it almost fills your entire field of view. BUT, if a director shoots a widescreen movie, or any movie really, the image on film or video will be 1.85, 2.35, or 16:9 none of which fill the frame of an IMAX screen. so those "black bars" need to be added. IF YOU SAW DARK KNIGHT at a "true IMAX" screen, you saw moments where the director Christopher Nolan used IMAX cameras in certain sequences. the screen would SUDDENLY FILL UP. it was dramatic and an amazing use of IMAX technology -- and the first time ever used in a studio feature. the debate then really is this: should IMAX continue to brand things as "the IMAX experience" when they are not the traditional IMAX experience? should they educate the audience? many in my field think that they should just call the digital video projection "IMAX DIGITAL" there by letting people know it's not IMAX, but it's better than film, and other digital projection. (*by the way those projectors are not standard DLP projectors.) again, I completely understand IMAX's motivations, they want to make some change from their cool invention, and what many don't know, is that movie theaters and theater owners and chains HATE changing anything, and are notorious for not upgrading JACK S#!T. we will get digital projectors in standard theaters now, because their old projectors are breaking down and they're realizing that certain digital projectors can really be run by hitting a button and walking away. I think for better movies, this is fine, I'm sad that I know it means the end to an era of projectionists that really take pride in their work and put care in their jobs. IMAX is just trying to get ahead of the curve of this upgrade. and they're trying to get paid for it too. again, if you've got a business, you're in it to make money while you provide a service. no one faults that. BUT, adding "The IMAX Experience" actually IS hurting them. with all the clutter I've said above, that applies to each theater, seen on IMAX film, or IMAX digital, seen in traditional IMAX sized theaters 60/80feet or larger, or the smaller retrofitted screens that do run IMAX film, but to smaller screens (in 16:9), they've inadvertantly cause a shit storm that now can only sound like BACKPEDDLING when trying to explain. we totally except different models of cars made by the same company, Ford makes trucks, two-seaters & mini-vans. we need to know that, if IMAX isn't going to adhere to a STANDARD, then they should educate their consumers that there are different MODELS, and not brand each one with the loosely defined "The IMAX Experience." (cheers to MrTriffid for the shout out) *sorry this is so damned long. but I hope it makes sense.
May 13, 2009, 1:45 p.m. CST
by JimmyJoe RedSky
im not kidding - the chains doing this along with imax are making millions and dont give a shit about the customer - this needs to be made more public and stopped - people generally do care - when you pay more to get more you need to get what you pay for - imax is going to be the venue to see every big movie in - so this shit has to stop - the imax screen near me is a real imax screen - you will know if its the real deal or not as soon as you walk into the auditorium - if you walk in and see this giant fucking screen (more square than rectangular) and think "holy shit" the way i do, then its the real deal
May 13, 2009, 1:57 p.m. CST
by Bob Loblaw Law Blog
Two of them are the real deal: One is the OmniMax at the Oregon Museum of Science and Industry (OMSI) in downtown Portland, the other is at the Evergreen Aviation Museum in McMinnville, about 30 miles SW of Portland (this is where Howard Hughes' "Spruce Goose" airplane now resides...).<p>The problem is, those mostly show science-type films (and, watching a feature in the OMSI OmniMAX dome, would drive me insane, I think. I could barely handle a 50-minute film about dolphins there).<p>Meanwhile, I have seen TDK and WATCHMEN at the IMAX screen at the Regal Cinemas Bridgeport Village in Tigard (just south of Portland and my home in suburbia)... and while I realized that this screen was much smaller than the gigantic IMAX screens, it was still an enjoyable experience.<p>I'm confused, though, because bigmoviezone.com says that theater is in 1570 format... but lfexaminer.com says it's an IMAX Digital. I'm thinking lfexaminer.com is correct.<p>Either way, I always use the Regal passes my wife gets at school, which are only $5. For WATCHMEN, they charged me $2.50 surcharge, so I ended up seeing it for $7.50, which is nearly $3 less than it would have cost me to see it on a regular screen (plus Oregon = no sales tax!).<p>I wouldn't pay $5 extra to see it on these smaller IMAX screens, but I'd pay $2 extra. If I use the Regal passes from Costco (2 for $15), I'm not charged any extra.<p> Either way, I plan to finally see STAR TREK there on Saturday. To bad there's no way to measure the screen... I'd love to know its actual dimensions. Perhaps I'll ask.
May 13, 2009, 2:22 p.m. CST
Digital IMAX is 2 DLP projectors projecting at once. So in 3d one projector handles each eye, and in 2D films the images overlay each other for a much brighter picture and what you will get from either a single DLP or 35mm. I looked it up. At the Empire houses 12 and 17 are DLP. House 1 was 35mm film up until it became Digital IMAX. IF you are in a digital IMAX house and only see light coming from one source instead of 2, go bitch. Someone is trying to save on lamp life. All Digital IMAX should have both lamps going for both 2D and 3D films
May 13, 2009, 2:56 p.m. CST
by Anything But Tangerines
May 13, 2009, 3 p.m. CST
by Anything But Tangerines
The seating goes up at a 90 degree angle with a 7 story wall not 30 feet in front of you that you literally have to look side to side to see the whole image. IMAX is immersion. IMAX should make going to a normal theater seem like watching TV.
May 13, 2009, 3:12 p.m. CST
Saving lamp life while Im getting jacked at the box office? You bet I'd bitch.
May 13, 2009, 3:45 p.m. CST
There is no theater in Burbank called Empire 25, nor a 25 screen theater, just FYI....
May 13, 2009, 3:47 p.m. CST
Get another job! Don't complain here. This is not about you.
May 13, 2009, 4:14 p.m. CST
you get a sore neck from looking at people's huge ass nostrils on the screen.
May 13, 2009, 4:22 p.m. CST
No one is expecting digital IMAX to go away but they need to designate it in their marketing which is which. Personally, I think IMAX missed the boat here. In trying to ditch the very expensive IMAX format 70mm 15 perf film prints I think they should have considered a proprietary version of conventional 70mm 5 perf for the Hollywood blow-ups. The proprietary part would be using their DMR system when blowing up from 35mm. They would give it a name IMAX-blah blah to differentiate it from the 15 perf IMAX theatres. Eventually some filmmakers might shoot in 65mm and these releases could be designated IMAX-blah blah HD or something. It would blow away anything that can be done with a pair of 2K d-cinema projectors. A couple of other thoughts: IMAX digital 3D is simply the two d-cinema projectors beaming left and right eye images, simple polarizers, and simple passive polarized glasses. ANY theatre can do this and it's far better than Real D. Just need to have twin projectors but you save on the licensing fees of Real D. Further, if this fake IMAX is viable (meaning people continue to fork over an extra 4 or 5 dollars) other theatres could do much the same thing. I don't know what sort of proprietary hocus pocus is involved in driving the twin projectors but I'm sure someone else could come up with something similar. Just come up with a catchy name and avoid having to pay big bucks to IMAX. That processing is the only proprietary part of the system.
May 13, 2009, 4:44 p.m. CST
Aziz: Don't you know who I am? Manager: I... think I saw you on Scrubs once. Aziz: And I'm in a new sitcom on NBC! Manager: Yeah. I thought I recognized you when everything you said to me was unfunny.
May 13, 2009, 4:52 p.m. CST
AMC just "converted" their biggest theater into an IMAX theater....their claim is the screen is 25% larger...they in fact got the theater to open for STAR TREK...it sucks because right next door is a closed IMAX theater (since 2003)...i remember seeing "FANTASIA" there and was blown away ...thought AMC was just using that theater and got excited...now I did the research and find nope...im still going to see STAR TREK this weekend in IMAX and will report back what THEIR IMAX is all about ....
May 13, 2009, 5:04 p.m. CST
Why not just call it MINIMAX, and only charge a couple of bucks? Bigger is bigger, and as long as you don't try to mislead me, I'd pay a few buck for a nice big screen.
May 13, 2009, 5:28 p.m. CST
It does have an official name which is IMAX Digital MPX. (MPX was also the name of the version of the IMAX film projector installed in multiplex theatres.) ...... However thus far they are refusing to give the digital system any sort of public designation. I think that's all anyone wants...to let people know what they're getting. ...... I've heard all sorts of suggestions like IMAX DIGITAL, IMAX JR., MINI-MAX, etc. ..... Personally, I call it IMAX-BOGU. No, I didn't forget an S from "Bogus." No, this BOGU is an acronym. I don't want to say what it stands for on a G rated web site but the first part is "bend over." You can Google for the whole thing.
May 13, 2009, 5:38 p.m. CST
by Anything But Tangerines
thinks this is a G-rated website. filmteknik is illiterate
how many G-rated movies have you seen laced with vicious, sexual and scatological profanity? Yeah, hold your tongue here, not in front of the children! Earmuffs!
May 13, 2009, 6:02 p.m. CST
Unfortunately, in my area, the only digital projection within about 100 miles is the "IMAX Experience" in El Dorado Hills. I do and will continue to visit it because I can see a movie weeks after release and it still looks as good as opening night. Is it really IMAX? Hell no, but it is a digitally projected 2k master, and until the licensing deals with the Sacramento IMAX theatre can be worked out, it's the best game in town. Sac IMAX has some "non-competition clause" that prevents them from opening a first-run theatrical movie until several months after it plays in the cineplexes. Totally sucks.
May 13, 2009, 6:48 p.m. CST
I guess I'm lucky in the fact that here in Phoenix, we had one of the first DLP projectors in a theater (Harkins Arrowhead). But for IMAX to slave two of these machines together and call that the IMAXexperience is just wrong. It IS NOT the IMAX Experience. 15/70! We Want Real Optical Analog 15/70 FILM! Bring back the Cine Capri, too....Harkins! Are you listening? 70mm is NOT dead. Fuck it. I'm gonna plan a trip to LA to watch Lawrence of Arabia at the Arclight.
May 13, 2009, 6:57 p.m. CST
by casual george
go to the IMAX site and look up a theater near you. I'm not sure how the "fakes" can get away with it and not be sued but... whatever. Just check the site and you won't get screwed.
May 13, 2009, 7:03 p.m. CST
IMAX.com does NOT differentiate between 15/70 film locations and digital projection locations, nor does it offer screen sizes for the theaters. They are treating both exactly the same - thats the whole point of this topic.
May 13, 2009, 7:09 p.m. CST
It's their trademark so they can use for anything they like. They could project Super 8 film and legally call it IMAX but that doesn't make it right. I think all anyone is asking is that they designate them in some way. Tangerines: Sorry you didn't get my joke. Oh well.
May 13, 2009, 7:23 p.m. CST
when I saw Trek at this new LIEMAX theatre, it was still superior to most other movie experiences - notably within that very same establishment, where I had seen another movie the previous week which was partially projected onto the curtains and I was told by the theatre manager "there's nothing we can do about that in these older theatres" <p> and the sound absolutely ROCKED <p> so it WAS worth a couple extra bucks - and as somebody else pointed out, the flipside of this is those "older theatres" deserve to be a couple bucks CHEAPER, while we're at it... <p> BUT was it worth the SAME PRICE as a PROPER IMAX with a GIANT SQUARE SCREEN?? <p> <br> <p> NOT A FUCKING CHANCE
May 13, 2009, 7:38 p.m. CST
Here's something funny. <p> AMC recently announced they are going ahead with the conversion to digital and they have signed with Sony for their 4k projectors. (I guess they didn't learn their lesson with SDDS.) Supposedly IMAX considered Sony but it didn't work out. That doesn't surprise me but here is my point: Right now most digital releases are in 2K but soon 4K data will become the norm. Note that 4K is not double 2K, it's 4 times because both horizontal and vertical resolution is more or less doubled. <p> Anyway, when this all comes to pass it means that you will see a far sharper picture in one of their conventional theatres than you will in the fake IMAX!
May 13, 2009, 8:54 p.m. CST
...that a few posters linked to above. <p> "I know what you're thinking: Why didn't IMAX just use a 4K projector and save the hassle, especially with AMC announcing that all of their theaters would be equipped with 4K Sony projectors by 2012? IMAX does believe their projector offers a sub-pixel accuracy that, when combined with some extra imaging processing, looks better than Sony's 4K. <p> "You can see imperfections in their digital projection system just like any digital system. The screen door effect, while minimized, can be noticed in bright spots of the image—if you're looking as closely and skeptically as I was. And you only need to move back in the theater to realize that the picture does appear sharper as you step away from the screen. In other words, it's not hitting some theoretical maximum perceived resolution…or even the best of what IMAX film can show. (As IMAX archives their own film into 8K and 12K prints, you can assume that the company feels the resolution of their product is much higher that their digital projectors may show). <p> "The good news is that IMAX's digital projection system is "projector agnostic," meaning if a more suitable base projector comes around (be it 2K, 4K or higher), the realtime syncing and adjustment system can scale accordingly. In other words, when every AMC is stocked with 4K projectors in a few years, hopefully IMAX will be upping the ante as necessary by dual wielding 4K+ projectors instead."
May 13, 2009, 8:58 p.m. CST
...the correct term is "LieMAX." ;-)
May 13, 2009, 9:44 p.m. CST
I went and saw Star Trek at a fake Imax, and im sitting there thinking that Blu-Ray at home with my setup is far superior. I paid $14 to be crowded, uncomfortable, and watch the movie on a decent, but not spectacular screen. Sounds was so,so. I would much rather pay $21 and watch it at home.
May 14, 2009, 12:02 a.m. CST
May 14, 2009, 12:09 a.m. CST
aziz is a funny mafucka...i tried to watch park and recreations cos he was in it...but that show sucks balls
May 14, 2009, 1:19 a.m. CST
No, you're absolutely right. I saw Watchmen at the same theater and while the picture was sharper and the sound was intense, the size of the screen was severely disappointing. I watched Star Trek there today and the picture quality was pretty weak. This is ridiculous.
May 14, 2009, 1:43 a.m. CST
by Citizen Sane
But all these Imax Experience showings are, in fact, 70mm screenings. They are not true imax either. The difference is blatantly obvious in films that feature scenes that are in true Imax (such as Dark Knight). So it is a lie to begin with anyway. The movie industry is just bending use over and giving us the shaft again (that's is what they are best at)
May 14, 2009, 2:23 a.m. CST
Anyone else notice that SONY (the film studio) only signed on to the digital agreement between theatres & studios AFTER AMC agreed to buy 4K projectors (Currently only available from Sony) and Regal stated that they are considering the same decision. I sure didn't.
May 14, 2009, 2:23 a.m. CST
Anyone else notice that SONY (the film studio) only signed on to the digital agreement between theatres & studios AFTER AMC agreed to buy 4K projectors (Currently only available from Sony) and Regal stated that they are considering the same decision. I sure did.
May 14, 2009, 2:24 a.m. CST
I did, I Really DID!
May 14, 2009, 6:37 a.m. CST
by maximilian merkins
Much better, thank you Aziz.
May 14, 2009, 8:25 a.m. CST
Thanks Lightstormer for the reference; I had not come here by way of Gizmodo. :) <p> For various technical reasons the Sony 4K projector is a questionable choice (go to www.film-tech.com and search for discussions) but I'm glad if it puts pressure on TI to come up with an improved chipset. <p> Sorry but while 2K digital is better than 35mm film done badly it's not as good as film done well (meaning a pure film-finish not handicapped by 2K digital intermediate which has reduced the image quality of film release prints these last several years). Not to mention not having anything to show for this huge investment except savings on film prints. <p> Even the overall savings is highly debatable depending on how many years the projector lasts and you can amortize the cost over before they fail in a way that's not worth fixing or become obsolete. No way will they compare with film gear that easily lasts several decades. I'm in favor of going digital but not a 2K level that you can almost match at home with HD. The standard should have been set at 4K and I hope others besides Sony offer it. For $75K-100K per screen the picture quality ought to blow everything away.
May 14, 2009, 7:02 p.m. CST
by Primal Vampyre
was featured on YAHOO today
May 14, 2009, 7:47 p.m. CST
May 14, 2009, 11:10 p.m. CST
You had to watch a movie that was just gigantic instead of enormous? The sound only came from from 7 speakers? I bet those fuckers even made you watch the movie in less than 3 dimensions! Fucking cavemen.
May 14, 2009, 11:18 p.m. CST
But also tell him he's fucking awesome in Flight of the Conchords, and everything else he's ever done. I don't want to make that guy mad.
May 15, 2009, 9:51 a.m. CST
I know this isnt what you wanna hear but i think sometimes imax lite is just what the doctor ordered. I've been to real imax theaters to see dark knight and that was great as it utilized the taller screen. I saw star trek last nite at the gulf cove imax in ft myers. The screen was 30ft tall. The picture and sound were excellent two projector DLP. I think for coventional widescreen movies these screens may be as good or better than the bigger ones. One big plus is that you dont have to limit your seating to the last 5 rows as the smaller screen can look pleasing from a wider range of positions, if you want more picture just sit closer. The smaller screen doesnt overwhelm you as you dont have to constantly dart your eyes around to take in the whole picture, also not as much motion sickness which you know is a prob with ST. After the show I ducked into a DLP screening to compare and the picture was much less resolution than the lite max. For further comparison I went into a 35mm screening and this was even worse. So I see lite max as an acceptible alternative that delivers superior picture and sound on a larger screen that won't make you sick. But of course if the film has actual imax shots ala dark knigh there will be compromise. If they can keep the qaulity of picture up I have no problems as long as I know which Imax to go to for each film. I think most of these high octane adventure films benifit from the reduced screen size.
May 15, 2009, 11:29 a.m. CST
May 15, 2009, 2:44 p.m. CST
You people are nuts. yes, the screens are not typical imax size, and i agree that it should be advertized a bit diferently.. However, if you cant appreciate the difference between these Imaxes and your regular 35mm prints that theatres usually play, then you probably cant and never could see the difference between DVDs and VHS. These smaller IMAXes are heads and shoulders above 35mm film, and even standard digital projection. On Imax you have 2 digital projectors, each with a 6,000 watt bulb, projecting the movie at the same time. The picture quality is amazing. I strongly suggest you walk out of one of those imaxes and immedately after go see a 35mm film, and the difference will be obvious! Another thing is, these movies, such as star trek, were not shot on imax cameras. If you noticed there was lots of unused screen on top and bottom, thats why. we obviously have to maintain the aspect ratio the movie was shot in. Movies shot in Imax cameras will use the full screen. ALso, everything is proportionate. The screen will always be proportionate to the amount of seats in the auditorium. I understand the initial disappointment, but saying that its crap is absolutely ignorant
May 15, 2009, 5:07 p.m. CST
by Mr. Triffid
I'll be keeping you and your kind in business tonight when I see Trek at the local Regal. :)<p> Since the wife is out of town and I have no life, I'll catch it again tomorrow at the local "real" IMAX.<p> While I don't doubt it's better than DLP or even the run of the mill 35mm, it's the branding thing that still sticks in my gut.<p> Don't serve me rabbit and tell me it's steak -- esp. when I can get steak elsewhere for the same price.
May 15, 2009, 6:31 p.m. CST
Realize that the quality of 35mm film prints these days has been handicapped by going through a digital intermediate state...usually at 2K. A pure film finish, particularly for real Scope (anamorphic negative, not Super 35 blowup) will blow away any 2K digital projection. <p> Naturally there's no avoiding a digital stage on a big effects picture but in the future these things will be done at 4K or better and the film prints will go back to looking better than 2K digital. <p> The reason film done off 2K can look worse than the 2K digital projection is that the film-out still has to go through a couple of generations of printing. On a purely film finish the image degrading steps are mitigated by the fact that the camera negative has so much resolution to burn--you can go through a couple generations and still deliver great prints. But with digital intermediate at 2K you take a HUGE hit on resolution right off the bat. Then spit out a negative from digital that is already compromised and to through the same lossy printing processes and what worked well for pure film looks far less good. <p> As for IMAX-BOGU (digital IMAX) let's face it. IMAX moved too soon on this. A super duper digital system would be great but they aren't there yet and this is really scaming consumers. At least label it for what it is.
May 15, 2009, 8:59 p.m. CST
Sure enough, alst night, I bought tickets for Star Trek at an AMC IMAX. After reading Aziz's rant abotu the AMC having the smaller digital screens, I called the box office, and they've got the smaller screen. One flash of credit card later, I've got tickets at a REAL screen, and hopefully, I can run a refund at AMC tonight. Thanks y'all. :)
May 15, 2009, 9:01 p.m. CST
Not to mention it was actually $10 cheaper at the 70 foot IMAX screen. :)
May 16, 2009, 2:12 p.m. CST
Oh but that ten bucks would have enabled you to enjoy IMAX's *patented* process of removing a few rows of seats and moving the screen up a bit. Yes, they have patented it. <p> Brought to you by the geniuses at the US Patent and Trademark Office who have also granted patent protection for existing genes. <p> Hey, what do folks think about the idea of doing some informational picketing outside IMAX-BOGU theatres.
May 17, 2009, 11:47 a.m. CST
its too much and most people eat themselves sick not really enjoying the food. With real imax your brain can't register all the picture unless your in the back rows. I dunno, I suggest going to the cineplex and duck into the litemax, dlp and 35mm screenings of ST and see the differences.
May 17, 2009, 8:54 p.m. CST
I've been to quite a few legit IMAX theaters in many different cities, all over the country over the years, but my favorite one has to be the one at the San Francisco Metreon. Great theater, true IMAX, fantastic presentation. It's run by AMC now, since Regal or Cinemark had to divest themselves of ownership. It's worth it just for when they do the pre-show IMAX teaser: an on-screen presentation of the capabilities of the IMAX format with lights that display the whole speaker arrangement behind the screen. It's timed to some fast-tempo music and never fails to wow the crowd.
May 18, 2009, 3:50 p.m. CST
Orcus was in a 5th Element mood
May 19, 2009, 9:10 a.m. CST
by most excellent ninja
cunts like you helping this bullshit corporate scams need to kill themselves. This is purely deceptive. People don't go to Imax for quality, they go for the fucking big screen you cock. Charging the same price and in most places more than Real Imax is a scam, it's purely deceptive business. Your argument about films not being shot in Imax make little difference, Star Trek in Real Imax is fucking immersive, as was Watchmen, Transformers. The Projection Size due to the DMR processing makes a huge fucking difference. Fucking Cunt. Just know that most likely this stupid practice by Imax will mean you won't have a job since people are turning away in droves. Cunt.
May 19, 2009, 9:14 a.m. CST
by most excellent ninja
And only charging $1 dollar extra. People would pay for it. And people would pay an extra dollar for better quality(not much though). If you think this isn't feasible to your profits, well you should of thought about that before you tried to scam everyone by building fake Imax's everywhere. Your own fault. i can see Imax falling through the cracks because of this.
May 19, 2009, 10:26 a.m. CST
by Royston Lodge
. . . the IMAX theatre at the Canadian Museum of Civilization in Gatineau QC.<p> The screen was big, sure. But the IMAX screen at the above-mentioned museum takes up your entire peripheral vision, and seriously fucks up your sense of up vs. down.<p> When I saw Blue Planet at the museum, it really felt like if you stepped out of your seat you would fall UP, towards the screen. It was a serious sense of vertigo.<p> The screen at the movie theatre where I saw Star Trek had none of that.<p>In fact, I really cannot see what benefit I got from the extra $3 I had to spend for the priviledge.
May 19, 2009, 10:42 a.m. CST
by Royston Lodge
... I went to see Star Trek. Sure enough, the theatre where I saw Trek was fake Imax.<p> http://tinyurl.com/q9y426
May 19, 2009, 1:09 p.m. CST
by most excellent ninja
hahaha good luck getting Batman 3 on anything other than true Imax you dumb cocks.
May 19, 2009, 2:50 p.m. CST
by most excellent ninja
Many people don't know what Imax is in the first place, so they're assuming this Fake Imax is the real deal and don't get the fuss. Imagine if this shit was up and running during Dark Knight. There is a reason Nolan filmed it that way. Imax needs to stay afloat but change the name "digimax" because it's not Imax, not even "Imax Digital" works.
May 19, 2009, 3:54 p.m. CST
There are actually a couple of real IMAX screens in DC, the one at the original Air and Space being (I believe) the first IMAX screen in the country...but like me, I live in Leesburg so Udvar-Hazy is an easy 20 min. drive. But, to the point of the thread, don't dilute the name, IMAX. I want 12-track digital sound and bigg-a** speakers and screens for my IMAX Experience!
May 19, 2009, 6:26 p.m. CST
Locally in the SF Bay Area, we've started calling those screens IMAX Lite. Yea it's disappointing, but it is an upgrade from our current screens. It is a bit over priced for the value.