IMAX: How to Ruin a Great Product [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : IMAX: How to Ruin a Great Product



Woochifer
06-30-2009, 07:29 PM
Despite (or perhaps because of) the recession, 2009 has been a record setting year so far at the box office. Adding to the tally has been record box office takes for IMAX movies. Last year, The Dark Knight opened on just under 100 IMAX screens and set new box office records for the format.

Around that time, IMAX announced that they would begin installing their new digital projection system in hundreds of new theaters over the next few years, basically tripling the number of IMAX screens. The expansion has already paid dividends at the box office. Just in the past couple of months, Star Trek opened on 138 IMAX screens and set a new box office record for IMAX. Last week, Transformers 2 did the same thing with 169 screens.

All of this is good news, right? After all, IMAX represents the highest quality theatrical presentation. Bringing this quality presentation to more people is supposed to be a good thing. Not if you read the (unavailable) fine print.

GOING ON THE CHEAP
Unfortunately, it seems that IMAX has embarked on an expansion strategy that risks watering down a premium brand that took 40 years to establish. Basically, IMAX is adding new IMAX theaters that fall woefully short of the standards that IMAX has used over the last 40 years. This cheapening of the IMAX brand is starting just as the format gained significant momentum with audiences and Hollywood directors in light of Christopher Nolan's usage of IMAX cameras to make The Dark Knight.

The IMAX release of Star Trek was the first wide audience for many of the new IMAX digital systems, and it unleashed a massive backlash last month. I already knew that the new digital projection system lacked the resolution of the 70mm/15perf film format. I wrote about this last year, and was already concerned that IMAX was sacrificing quality as they go to a cheaper digital system. Turns out that the new installations are even more inferior than I could've imagined.

IMAX isn't even using the 4k digital projectors, which are the best ones currently available for theaters. Rather, they use two overlapping 2k projectors, which are not even up to the resolution of 35mm film. In addition to a downgraded projection setup, these new digital IMAX installations also use a significantly downsized screen AND a 1.9:1 aspect ratio (the normal IMAX installation used a 1.33:1 aspect ratio). This is NOT IMAX as far as I'm concerned.

Traditionally, IMAX required constructing a separate building with a higher ceiling that would accommodate a screen 6 stories tall. The seating was setup using identical proportions that allowed for the use of surround speakers clustered in the corner for more precise imaging.

These new IMAX digital installations simply retrofit existing multiplex auditoriums with IMAX digital projectors and slightly enlarge the screen. The screen no longer envelops the peripheral vision, and is not much bigger than a standard multiplex screen. I also doubt that they can optimize the surround speaker placement in the same way because these auditoriums are built to different proportions. The diagram below from Roger Ebert's blog illustrates the difference between traditional and "fake" IMAX. The digital IMAX screen in Burbank is actually smaller than many of the non-IMAX screens around L.A. An unsuspecting customer won't know they're getting IMAX Lite until after they've already bought their ticket. Yet, with all these compromises, the ticket prices at these new digital IMAX theaters still command the same $5 surcharge as traditional IMAX theaters.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/tdk-imax-compare.jpg



THE BACKLASH AND WHAT'S NEXT
Industry professionals had already written negative critiques (http://www.lfexaminer.com/20081016.htm) of the new IMAX digital system back in November when it was unveiled. But, it did not gain traction until last month when comedian Aziz Ansari posted a scathing expletive-ridden blog entry (http://azizisbored.tumblr.com/post/106587114/reblog-the-****-out-of-this-warning-amc-theaters-are) after he saw Star Trek at the new IMAX Lite theater in Burbank. He knew what IMAX was supposed to look like, and felt ripped off when the Burbank theater was nothing more than a glorified multiplex auditorium.

After Ansari's post went viral, all of the major industry trades, the LA Times, and Roger Ebert (http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/05/thats_not_the_imax_i_grew_up_w.html)weighed in on the subject -- uniformly deriding IMAX for diluting its product and not warning customers about it. Rather than apologizing and announcing that IMAX would clarify that the new installations are different from previous IMAX theaters, CEO Richard Gelfond insisted that their market research found that customers were just as happy with these new miniaturized IMAX theaters as they were with the older ones. He even denied that IMAX was about the big screen size, but rather the "immersive experience." CEO Gelfond said that a BMW 3-series is no less a BMW than a 7-series model, and the same thing applies to the IMAX brand.

Sorry, but that's just moronic marketingspeak. Even theater chains AMC and Regal wanted to identify the new IMAX theaters as "IMAX Digital" in order to prevent customers from confusing the now two-tiers of IMAX theater types. After getting called out by the LA Times (and seeing their stock price plunge in light of the negative publicity), Gelfond finally indicated that IMAX would look into ways of identifying the screen size for customers that want that info. Just as IMAX was beginning to get some long-needed market attention and buzz, seems that the CEO is determined to piss away IMAX's reputation and long-standing commitment to quality for sake of short-term gain (and probably more compensation for him personally).

Hopefully, this botched launch of the IMAX digital format means that they won't pursue their original plan of retrofitting their existing film-based installations with the inferior digital projectors. IMAX is trying to expand and cut costs, but destroying the company's brand equity in the process is not a good way of going about it.

Woochifer
06-30-2009, 07:52 PM
Anyone who wants to check on the type of IMAX theater in their area should refer to the map link below. It clearly spells out which IMAX installations use the 70/15 projectors, and which ones are the new inferior digital IMAX versions.

http://www.lfexaminer.com/ImaxMapUS.htm

anamorphic96
06-30-2009, 08:17 PM
I completely agree with you. Gelfond is a complete moron and has severely tarnished IMAX's reputation. Especially since there charging 5.00 dollars more per ticket. I could understand maybe 3.00 dollars at the most but even then your really pushing it.
Especially since the average public can't tell the difference between DLP and film.

Mr Peabody
06-30-2009, 08:53 PM
The CEO is really an idiot because if they label the inferior Imax "digital" most people will think that's the best version and think they got a deal. Then he could say, "well, I told them". :)

Seriously though that is a shame. I really don't see how our economy will ever recover at the hands of stupid people full of greed.

Woochifer
07-01-2009, 04:54 PM
I completely agree with you. Gelfond is a complete moron and has severely tarnished IMAX's reputation. Especially since there charging 5.00 dollars more per ticket. I could understand maybe 3.00 dollars at the most but even then your really pushing it.
Especially since the average public can't tell the difference between DLP and film.

With The Dark Knight, where you have scenes shot with IMAX cameras and using the full 70/15 film image area, the higher ticket price was worth every penny. For many people in the audience, TDK was their introduction to IMAX and it generated very strong word of mouth, so much so that the IMAX screenings commanded a higher and higher % of TDK's box office take with each successive week.

IMAX had big time momentum coming out of TDK's record breaking run. Directors were inquiring about using IMAX cameras and film stock on upcoming movies, audience awareness was growing, and the IMAX screenings were getting a lot of positive reviews.

It just amazes me that this greedy SOB in charge of IMAX would take the company's hard fought reputation and literally piss it all away in an ill-conceived expansion plan. Sad part is that it will look good on the books in the short-term, and he'll get a fat bonus and golden parachute when he ejects before it comes crashing down.

With the Star Trek IMAX screenings (which BTW looks only okay even in the IMAX 70/15 format because all the post production was done digitally at 2k resolution and then retransferred onto 35mm film), I saw a lot of negative comments. People who are used to the IMAX 70/15 format are pissed because they see a bait and switch with the new digital auditoriums. People who are IMAX newbies are throwing their hands up and wondering what's so great about IMAX. Owners of existing IMAX 70/15 theaters are pissed because these new fake IMAX theaters built on the cheap are marketed as basically the same thing.

Either way, this is a potentially toxic situation for IMAX if they don't do something about it and fast. I think they need to immediately differentiate between those theaters that use the 70/15 format and those that use the inferior digital projection and downsized screens. With the large audiences for Star Trek and Transformers 2, IMAX is potentially alienating a very large segment of the audience who paid an extra $5 only to find that the IMAX screen is inside an auditorium that only charged regular admission a few months ago. IMAX's biggest asset is its massive towering screens and high resolution. It's just maddening that a clueless CEO like Gelfond can say that it makes no difference to chop the screen down to a normal size, use digital projectors with sub-35mm resolution, and still call it IMAX.

nightflier
07-02-2009, 12:12 PM
...and still call it IMAX.

Well it seems that the simple solution is for people to stop calling it IMAX and to have a lower price for the IMAX-lite version. If people are paying full price for IMAX-lite, then aren't they just being asked to pay for a product they are not getting? If so, I would consider that grounds for a lawsuit.

Personally, the most impressive IMAX feature has always been the tall screen which makes you feel so much smaller and thus impresses the viewer with the immensity of the movie. If it's going to be widescreen, then it better be even larger. I think the widescreen part is what throws the public off, because for the past several years widescreen was touted as the newest, best, greatest. The fact that it's called "IMAX-Digital" perpetuates the lie as well.

And this brings up another point: why are more people not pissed off? Honestly, I have a feeling that Gelfond is betting on people just not knowing or caring enough to actually make a difference in the long run. He's gambling, yes, but could he be betting correctly on the public's general apathy?

bobsticks
07-02-2009, 02:20 PM
CEO Gelfond said that a BMW 3-series is no less a BMW than a 7-series model, and the same thing applies to the IMAX brand.

What an idiot. Hopefully his secretary hands him a helmet, pats him on the ass, and wishes his team well in the Special Olympics...

Woochifer
07-02-2009, 04:09 PM
Well it seems that the simple solution is for people to stop calling it IMAX and to have a lower price for the IMAX-lite version. If people are paying full price for IMAX-lite, then aren't they just being asked to pay for a product they are not getting? If so, I would consider that grounds for a lawsuit.

Wouldn't surprise me if that happened. When I think of IMAX, I think of the 70/15 film format, the massive 1.33:1 screen, the high powered sound system with clustered surround speakers, and the nearly identical room proportions used in all IMAX theaters. This new digital system has none of the above when it gets retrofitted into an existing multiplex auditorium. The IMAX DMR process is still used for retaining the detail on both the digital and film transfers during the magnification process, but the IMAX digital projection is at such a lower resolution that it might not be needed.


Personally, the most impressive IMAX feature has always been the tall screen which makes you feel so much smaller and thus impresses the viewer with the immensity of the movie. If it's going to be widescreen, then it better be even larger. I think the widescreen part is what throws the public off, because for the past several years widescreen was touted as the newest, best, greatest. The fact that it's called "IMAX-Digital" perpetuates the lie as well.

To some degree, IMAX shot themselves in the foot with some of their early Hollywood reissues. I recall that the IMAX releases for Apollo 13, Attack of the Clones, and others used the full height and width of the IMAX screens, but they also panned and scanned the image in the process! This not only chopped off the action on the sides, but it made the scenes almost impossible to follow because of how it made everything so extremely close up.

With their most recent releases over the last few years, they got the aspect ratio right by letterboxing the widescreen image. You don't see the full height of the IMAX screen, but the 90+ foot screen width still created a larger-than-life effect while not making the action on screen impossible to follow. The newer 58' IMAX multiplex screen is now smaller than many of the showcase theaters around SoCal (e.g., the 70' wide screens at the Big Newport and Cinerama Dome, the 60' wide screens at Lakewood Center, Grauman's Chinese, and the Mann Westwood Village)

I have no problem with IMAX using the "IMAX Digital' moniker, but they also need to use an alternative for the 70/15 theaters like "IMAX 70" that confirms which theaters use the larger screens and 70/15 projection equipment. Some of the trade editorials have suggested using an "IMAX Multiplex" label, which is probably the most accurate description.


And this brings up another point: why are more people not pissed off? Honestly, I have a feeling that Gelfond is betting on people just not knowing or caring enough to actually make a difference in the long run. He's gambling, yes, but could he be betting correctly on the public's general apathy?

Believe me, there were a LOT of pissed off people last month after Star Trek came out, with one blog alone accumulating over 7,000 comments on the topic. Aziz Ansari's original tirade went viral with his 25,000+ Twitter followers, and got posted all over the geek/fanboy and movie websites like Ain't It Cool, Den of Geek, Techdirt, IGN, Gizmodo, Cinema Blend, Slash Film, and many others. Trek was the largest IMAX release to date, and about 1/3 of the screens were the new digital ones. The Star Trek audience is probably more tech-savvy than the average movie audience, and they immediately noted that something was amiss. The movie theater reviews for those multiplexes with the new digital IMAX screens on Yelp have also been slammed with "fake IMAX" warnings (and one-star ratings) over the last few weeks.

You're right that Gelfond is betting that the audience won't know the difference, and when I first heard about IMAX's digital plans, I thought that would probably be the case if all they were doing was switching out the 70/15 film projectors for digital ones. But, with these digital IMAX retrofits, I had no idea that they'd compromised the IMAX concept to the extent that they also downsized the screens, and simply retrofitted existing multiplex auditoriums.

The public is generally apathetic and not exactly discerning about what constitutes good film presentation. But, this time I think the bar has been lowered so much that even the general public has taken notice, especially since they are asked to pay $5 extra for a supposedly premium experience. Doesn't take a very sophisticated moviegoer to notice that the much touted "big" IMAX experience is taking place in the same auditorium that was showing regular movies just a few weeks ago. Unless IMAX does something and quickly, this digital expansion has the potential to blow up in their face big time, if it hasn't already.

Woochifer
07-02-2009, 04:10 PM
What an idiot. Hopefully his secretary hands him a helmet, pats him on the ass, and wishes his team well in the Special Olympics...

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to bobsticks again.

bobsticks
07-02-2009, 05:15 PM
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to bobsticks again.


Don'tchu threaten me...I like you, but it won't stop me...

Woochifer
07-02-2009, 05:37 PM
Here's a list of the many articles that have come out since Aziz Ansari's blog post was first posted last month. Judging by the articles and the comments, IMAX is taking a PR beating and from what the LA Times' Patrick Goldstein wrote, the controversy also led to IMAX's stock price taking a tumble until CEO Gelfond changed his tune and said that they would look into clarifying which theaters are the new digital ones.

http://www.lfexaminer.com/20090525c.htm

Woochifer
07-02-2009, 05:38 PM
Don'tchu threaten me...I like you, but it won't stop me...

Stop yer whinin' and take your greenies, you puss! :cool:

nightflier
07-10-2009, 01:50 PM
I did a quick little survey here in the office and not one person could tell me the difference, any difference for that matter, between Digital IMAX and the regular IMAX. And not to add salt to the wound, but they all thought Digital IMAX was better and would go to that theater instead.

Mr Peabody
07-10-2009, 06:47 PM
I did a quick little survey here in the office and not one person could tell me the difference, any difference for that matter, between Digital IMAX and the regular IMAX.

{And not to add salt to the wound, but they all thought Digital IMAX was better and would go to that theater instead.} I nailed this one! See one of my prior posts here :) "Digital" has become Pavlov's Dog to the unlearned consumer.