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.
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.