Discuss: The Bigger They Are
Filed under: Action, Comedy, Sci-Fi & Fantasy, Thrillers, Paramount, Warner Brothers, 20th Century Fox, Family Films, Dreamworks, Remakes and Sequels
It's hard to deny that, in any format, The Dark Knight has made a considerable impression on the moviegoing landscape (current gross: a bajillion dollars and counting), yet it's equally difficult to deny that the IMAX showings held their own potent appeal, thanks to director Christopher Nolan's use of proper cameras to help the action fill the screen -- and if any of you haven't noticed, that's a lot of screen to fill.
ComingSoon.net has confirmed that next summer's Night at the Museum and Transformers sequels will be showcased in IMAX, while it remains rumored that this fall's Eagle Eye and next spring's Watchmen will be as well. Now, while Paramount/Dreamworks and Warner Brothers have often been equally eager to offer up super-sized blockbusters in the format, I'm curious to know if audiences have subsequently raised their expectations for this fare. For me, the nearest location is well across town, and before The Dark Knight, the last thing I bothered to catch there was Beowulf in 3-D. (I can, however, attest that announced plans to format several theaters in the AMC chain for the IMAX experience are indeed underway a wee bit closer to my neck of the woods.)
So, without the draw of IMAX in its full effect, or even the likes of 3-D technology, do you find it any more worthwhile to go out of your way and catch an anticipated film at your nearest location, or will it take something truly special from here on out?
Harrison Ford Returning for 'Indiana Jones 5'?
A Trailer for Gyllenhaal and Maguire's 'Brothers'
Ron Weaseley Has Swine Flu
Quick List: Romance for Boys
Christian Bale's Rollercoaster Career
_thumbnail.jpg){kind=spacer}
_thumbnail.jpg)
_thumbnail.jpg){kind=spacer}
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
8-13-2008 @ 9:20AM
Peter Hall said...
I for one go out of my way to see films in IMAX, but it isn't always easy. In Northern VA, the Air and Space Annex earlier this year became the closest theater to exhibit Hollywood films. Great for me as it is only a mile or two from my office, but the theater itself is terribly disorganized. There are no lines, merely a holding pen for us sheeple. When staff open the doors it becomes a free for all, completely negating how early you've arrived for good seats. I hate it.
AMC just retrofitted a theater even closer to my house with one of IMAX' new proprietary digital projectors, however they are not allowed to show The Dark Knight. I was told by management that TDK producers forbade the film to be distributed digitally (the new digital projectors use a portable hard drive delivery, not the $30k+ film stock standard IMAX installments spool). If this is going to be a trend for future high profile films, IMAX has a huge wrinkle in their delivery plan, and as an investor, that kind of pisses me off.
Reply
8-13-2008 @ 10:06AM
Christopher Campbell said...
We really desperately need another IMAX in NYC. Or another five.
Reply
8-13-2008 @ 10:54AM
Kurt said...
I saw The Dark Knight on a regular AMC screen and then again at an IMAX, and I gotta say that the only real difference for me was that I kept watching the edges of the screen to see when the picture changed to IMAX-film and back.
At some point you hit the wall of diminishing returns. Is a big screen experience better than a home theater experience? Yes, especially if it's something that isn't available at home. Is a huge screen better than a simply big screen? Maybe a little. Is it an-extra-$4-per-ticket better? Probably not.
Also, bigger screens often make it easier to pick things apart. I saw Revenge of the Sith at the Arclight dome in Hollywood, which is a gi-normous screen, and a lot of digital work looks really fake at that scale--even innocuous things like the digital matte sunset at the end or the artifacts from comping backgrounds behind Anakin's hair.
I actually prefer Lord of the Rings on my home theater system because a lot of the effects simply don't hold up at large scale. Specifically, I remember a distant shot in the third film where you can see that Pippin is actually a scale double in a rubber Billy Boyd mask--it was kind of off-putting.
There's a similar argument to be made against Blu-Ray. Why watch a movie in high-def if that's just going to expose the seams where the effects were stitched in?
Reply