IMAX

[Antoine Doinel]

Roger Ebert ran two letters in the past few days, one from a moviegoer and another from a projectionist, in which they rail against the "new" smaller, digital IMAX screens that are going up around United States. The only IMAX screens I've experienced are the true 60 x 80 ft. monoliths -- I frankly had no idea IMAX was selling miniature versions of themselves. So, is this the general IMAX experience in the United States? The IMAX screens I've been to in Canada have all been the true size and able to handle 70mm film. In fact, the one in the multiplex in downtown Montreal has a mini-laser light show before the screening that shows off the visual and audio prowess of the entire setup.

[Cde.]

What IMAX are doing is a complete joke. They are setting up the new digital theaters in Australia as well, and they are nothing like the 70mm IMAX theatres whatsoever. They a barely larger than the average multiplex screen, so the only real advantage they provide is digital projection (debatable whether this is even an advantage at all) and high quality sound. These screens are being installed in multiplexes, which are charging a premium for 'the IMAX experience' that means that to watch, say, Watchmen in the cinema's 'IMAX' theatre instead of on the regular screen costs about $5 more, even though the experience can only really be argued to be negligibly better. Roughly the same ticket price as in Sydney's only 70mm IMAX theatre. IMAX theatres have something of an excuse for the higher than normal ticket prices, considering that IMAX reels and projector maintenance are much more expensive than reels and maintenance for a 35mm theatre, but -correct me if I'm wrong- wouldn't the maintenance of a digital theatre be less than that of a regular cinema considering that reels aren't used?
IMAX are simply taking advantage off the brand associations that they have established over many years in order to obtain mass profit. The worst thing about this is that, with the new digital IMAX theatres (which are not distinguished in name or marketing from 70mm theatres) set to pop up in many more markets and almost double the number of 'IMAX' screens worldwide, many people will be introduced to the brand through these screens and be turned off, perceiving it to be overpriced and offering an experience barely better than that of regular cinema. This could seriously hurt IMAX in the long term.

The screens aren't even set for IMAX ratio of 1.44:1 but a much wider scope like ratio, meaning that now that IMAX have finally convinced Hollywood to use their proprietary cameras and film on major productions, the benefits will be completely unseen in a cinema that can't even display the top and bottom of the frame, let alone all of the size and resolution that the film has captured.

[Antoine Doinel]

Aziz Ansari rants about his fake IMAX experience.

[swo17]

That is amazing how many people are siding with IMAX in the comments section.

[domino harvey]

IMAX is the Audie Murphy of screen formats

[Cde.]

That is amazing how many people are siding with IMAX in the comments section.

IMAX have been employing people to fight the negative PR on the internets.

[dx23]

Yahoo has an article on Ansari's remarks on it's front page. The "I don't know what the hell I'm talking about" quote goes to IMAX CEO Richard Gelfond:

IMAX co-CEO Richard Gelfond argued that such a distinction is unnecessary because, "People don't say 'The 3 isn't a real BMW because it's smaller.'"

Thankfully, the LF examiner responded:

As the LF Examiner -- a journal devoted to "large format" film -- points out, this is an illogical analogy: car buyers would be plenty upset if they paid around $120,000 for 7-series Beemer and instead received 3-series worth only $30k.

I don't know too much about law, but isn't this some type of bait and switch practice that states frown upon? IMAX is saying that you will be getting a filet mignon when in fact you are getting a hamburger. I supposed that this is something the FTC will have to look at since Regal and IMAX are clearly defrauding the customer.

[knives]

I have no vested interest in this, imax gives me motion sickness, but this might be able to go under false advertising, or at least misleading advertising, since they calling it the imax experience when it isn't completely. Also if you take the CEO's comments to the next logical step there is no difference between a regular screen and these smaller imax screens. Not only is this not true, but it reflects his product badly, something I'm sure is not in his interest.

[MichaelB]

I'm not a big fan of IMAX either, largely because the films I've seen have been so terminally bland (the story of how they got an IMAX camera up Everest is a damn sight more interesting than the film they shot with it), but it seems to me that this shows a lamentable understanding of the importance of branding.

It may be technically correct to describe these screenings as 'IMAX', given that the company's proprietary technology was involved, but to 99.9% of people IMAX means high definition and giant format. And if this is no longer the case, then genuine IMAX films will become harder to sell - which is presumably the last thing they want (unless they're cynically trying to run them down, of course...)

[tenia]

Well, the fact is that Ansari and the LF examiner are right. Gelfond can answer anything he wants : you pay $5 more for watching a movie on a original IMAX-screen. If it's not the original IMAX-screen, you have to be informed of that or having a different price, otherwise, it's juste fake advertising.

Knives is, imo, perfectly right on this : the position taken by Gelfond is a real mistake cause it would say that the 2 IMAX screens are the same. Not only he knows it's completely false, it will deserve his public image as a real big fat liar, and, something I personally think it's worse, someone that doesn't care about quality.

So, basically, he's just answering as a greedy moron. And I don't really think it's the right thing to do. As said by the LF examiner, if they want to do numerous products, they can't sell it at the same price, as it's not the same quality.

And, if they want to make a difference with the names, why don't they just call it 'IMAX 28x58' and the genuine one 'IMAX 76x97' or something ?

[colinr0380]

I'm not a big fan of IMAX either, largely because the films I've seen have been so terminally bland (the story of how they got an IMAX camera up Everest is a damn sight more interesting than the film they shot with it), but it seems to me that this shows a lamentable understanding of the importance of branding.

I guess I got lucky with the one IMAX show I have been to so far in 1996 (in what was then called the National Museum of Photography, Film and Television in Bradford: "the first IMAX screen in Europe"!). I don't remember the name of the film now but it began with an Academy ratio clip of the 1930s King Kong, as all the characters stand around and discuss getting biplanes to shoot the giant ape. Even at this point I was a bit overwhelmed by the size of the image, and as I started to realise what was coming I felt a strange mixture of excitement and absolute terror of whether I could get through the experience! Of course then the screen expanded all the way into an enormous recreation of the final Empire State Building sequence! Having never had a good head for heights I was holding on to my seat for dear life, especially during Kong's final plunge from the building!

Then the model of Kong gets caught in a net held by the technicians and the film turned into a special effects making of documentary. It was interesting but nothing could match up to that spectacular first sequence! Although the ending where we were teased with the scene of the White House being blown up in the forthcoming Independence Day (which sadly turned out to be the best sequence in the film itself!) was almost as spectacular.

After experiencing that I was a little surprised that it still took ten years or so for special effect heavy action and adventure films to embrace IMAX, but then the lack of equipped cinemas was likely the reason. It does seem a shame, as mentioned above, that IMAX seems to have compromised their core gimmick of screen size in the quest to get more IMAX-branded screens.

[Antoine Doinel]

IMAX CEO Rich Gelfond still insists size isn't everything, while Aziz Ansari challenges him to a televised debate.

[Antoine Doinel]

IMAX plans 400 more screens in the US by 2010. According to Variety,

"...the newer installations use a 1.9:1 aspect ratio instead of the 1.43:1 aspect ratio of the old Imax screens and a pair of 2K digital projectors instead of a super-high-resolution 15/70 film print, which brings the cost of Imax within reach of many more theaters."

[solaris72]

I don't know too much about law, but isn't this some type of bait and switch practice that states frown upon? IMAX is saying that you will be getting a filet mignon when in fact you are getting a hamburger. I supposed that this is something the FTC will have to look at since Regal and IMAX are clearly defrauding the customer.

I wouldn't go that far- in the eyes of the law I'm pretty sure IMAX is just a brand name. They can put it on any size movie screen they like. I think the FTC would have no more recourse against IMAX for branding small screens than they would against Criterion for releasing films with non-anamorphic transfers or MAR.
Not that I don't think this is a crappy thing IMAX is doing. I've been steering clear of AMC IMAX theaters ever since I attended a free screening of Eagle Eye at such a place.

[dx23]

I don't know too much about law, but isn't this some type of bait and switch practice that states frown upon? IMAX is saying that you will be getting a filet mignon when in fact you are getting a hamburger. I supposed that this is something the FTC will have to look at since Regal and IMAX are clearly defrauding the customer.

I wouldn't go that far- in the eyes of the law I'm pretty sure IMAX is just a brand name. They can put it on any size movie screen they like. I think the FTC would have no more recourse against IMAX for branding small screens than they would against Criterion for releasing films with non-anamorphic transfers or MAR.
Not that I don't think this is a crappy thing IMAX is doing. I've been steering clear of AMC IMAX theaters ever since I attended a free screening of Eagle Eye at such a place.

The comparison you are making between Criterion and IMAX is not completely accurate. Criterion will be liable if they state in the package that they are going to provide something like an extra or a commentary and then the item is nowhere to be found. Criterion legally will have to either provide the missing content or refund the amount paid for the item. IMAX needs to give in advance a disclaimer that the movie they are about to see is not in the true IMAX big screen format to make things correct.

The funny thing is that this situation already happened in Puerto Rico almost 7-8 years ago. The largest mall in the island, Plaza Las Americas, along with the local movie theater company, Caribbean Cinemas, remodeled their 10 theater structure and expanded it to 12, including according to them, the inclusion of 2 IMAX screens. About 2 years later, some Puertoricans living in D.C. went to some film in this IMAX theaters and the found out that Caribbean Cinemas was lying about the IMAX experience since the screens where the size of the Ansari's mentions in his rant and complained to the theater manager. The manager refused to give them a refund and continued to ignorantly state that the IMAX technology didn't have to do anything with the screen size, that it only applied to the quality of the projector. One of the guys wrote a letter to the local Consumer Affairs Department, claiming that customers going to see IMAX films in the island where being deceived. The government officials then fined Caribbean Cinemas for false advertising and ordered them to either change the screen to the real IMAX or put a disclaimer. Citing low ticket sales and high cost of licensing, Caribbean Cinemas decided to eliminate the 2 faux-IMAX screens and turned them into 2 additional regular movie theaters.

[Jun-Dai]

This seems like it would fall under a legal grey area.

If IMAX has, in the past, made claims about what, technically and in unambiguous terms, the IMAX brand means, and they've never clearly indicated that that branding has ceased to involve those technical requirements, then I'd imagine they'd be somewhat liable for false advertising ("IMAX used to mean X, and now you're giving us Y without warning."). This would be something along the lines of Criterion explicitly stating that all their transfers would henceforth be anamorphic, and then a year later releasing a non-anamorphic transfer with no indication of such on the box.

If, on the other hand, IMAX has only outlined the technical specifications for specific theaters, and never explicitly set guidelines for what a generic IMAX screen requires, then it seems like they'd only be liable in the loosest sense ("you sort of implied X and we got Y"). This might be like Criterion trying to sneak out a non-anamorphic transfer without explicitly indicating that it was non-anamorphic. All their widescreen releases have been anamorphic for some time, and they always indicate when they are not anamorphic, yet it wouldn't exactly be a slam-dunk case that they had deceived you about the disc's anamorphicness.

I'm sure IMAX's lawyers have gone over this with a comb repeatedly. That doesn't mean that they aren't liable or that they won't find themselves with an unhappy result from a class action lawsuit, but I'm guessing that we're dealing with the second scenario here, not the first one.

Class action lawsuit aside, they definitely seem to be throwing their brand into the garbage bin for a quick buck. I wonder what the long-term effects of this will be? Probably something of a policy change ("we hear our customers demands") and they split it into two brands IMAX classic vs. IMAX lite or "IMAX digital" or something like that. I imagine there won't be that many people that will have such a bad taste over the whole affair that they refuse to see another IMAX presentation after that, but who knows?

[Cde.]

Richard Gelmond, the CEO of IMAX has now said that they will introduce indicators of the size of the size of all of their screens, and they are conducting market research to determine how far to take this. The best outcome would be a branding split, but I'm guessing they'll actually opt for some kind of symbol or explanation in theaters/online about the screen and projector specifications.

[colinr0380]

Can we copyright the names "IMAX-mini" or "MinIMAX" before they do?

[Jun-Dai]

It may be small in comparison to "real" IMAX, but I'm guessing the last thing they'd want to do is emphasize the smallness of it (e.g., minIMAX). Probably they'd be more inclined to emphasize the digitalness of it, or the largeness of the original. IMAX classic vs. DIGIMAX?

[Cde.]

Sounds about right. Most people would be happy with that, and in the long-term it would be a much better for their brand's reputation.

[Antoine Doinel]

Ebert gives a thumbs down to IMAX and 3D and a thumbs up to MaxiVision.