IMAX Tries 'Avatar,' Jedi Mind Trick to Cover Up Size Issues
Filed under: Exhibition, Movie Marketing
.jpg)
"These are not the screens you want," IMAX is, in effect, claiming, trying a Jedi mind trick to downplay recent consumer anger over the smaller, unadvertised size of their new-fangled digital screens, for which they charge a premium of up to $5.00 per ticket. Yesterday, they tried to "wow the media," says The Hollywood Reporter, " while also performing a bit of damage-control."
IMAX claims that it's an "old issue" because the average size of an IMAX screen has been "just slightly bigger" than conventional screens for six years. Really? They also claim that they have a "nice problem: having to choose among films offered for release." Yet the New York Times reports that the company "has not lined up any other Hollywood movies for its ultra-big screen theaters" [emphasis added] after James Cameron's Avatar opens on December 18, leaving the schedule clear until Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland on March 5. (The article mentions size three times, so they haven't gotten the company message.) The company intimates that it wants to be able to "satisfy demand."
IMAX is a public corporation, and their first obligation is to their shareholders. But, clearly, they are so preoccupied with profit that they are ignoring the legitimate concerns of the moviegoing public. (Check out the comments when we originally posted about this.) If IMAX is so convinced that their smaller digital screens provide an "immersive experience," why not disclose it? Why not promote it? "IMAX: Size Doesn't Matter!" or "IMAX: Small is Powerful!" Instead, they claim that interest will be so high that it will take three months for everyone to pay more money to see Avatar on a smaller screen that's only "slightly bigger" than other screens (that charge less) in the same multiplex. Here's another slogan: "IMAX: Taking Your Money and Running."
Tom Cruise and J.J. Abrams Reunite for 'Mission Impossible 4'
'Big Top Pee-Wee': The Original Benicio Del Toro Wolfman
Spin-ematical: New on DVD and Blu-ray for 2/9
Watch This: Brilliant Oscar-Nominated Short 'Logorama'
Chris Nolan to Lead 'Superman' Reboot!?
_thumbnail.jpg)
_thumbnail.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
5-20-2009 @ 4:03PM
cromag99 said...
Hmmm, A publicly traded company trying to make money?
Uninformed consumers being duped?
Hype triumphing over substance?
Nothing seems new here.
The new Digital Imax screens are a joke, but its the digital projection companies' and the DCIA's fault. They are pushing for theaters to convert to digital projection and distribution, but put no effort into marketing this to consumers. The consumers don't know the difference, so there is no motivation for the theater circuits to switch over because they can't charge more for a ticket. but with 3d and Imax they can charge more, as well as use realD or Imax name to give themselves a perceived advantage over other theater complexes that don't have the newer technology. Its all about the bottom line folks, don't for a minute think it isn't
Reply
5-20-2009 @ 4:13PM
Jay said...
This probably has something to do with how incredibly expensive it is to buy and maintain 70mm film (or whatever giant-sized film IMAX of old had used) and the corresponding equipment. It's far cheaper to maintain the gigabytes of data that digital projectors use.
Reply
5-20-2009 @ 5:17PM
Jon P said...
If you want to see a revolutionary milestone in picture that is so detailed and nuanced that you feel like you're peering through a window, then see an actual Imax FILM print. Not a feature film shot on 35 and blown up to Imax. I'm talking about a film shot in imax...especially the portions in the Dark Knight that were Imax (the single most amazing visual cinematic experience I have had). This is coming from someone who has seen dozens upon dozens of the highest end 35mm and 2K digital projection systems. I used to rave about 4k projection , now it's about how briliant the Imax segments of Dark Knight were.
Reply
5-20-2009 @ 6:00PM
Chris G. said...
Well, Imax screens, at the smallest, are still bigger than a regular screen? So whats the big complaint, that they aren't big enough to overwelm you to the point where you literally can't take in the whole image at once?
Also, the smaller the Imax screens are, the closer they are positioned to the audiance, from what I hear, so that distance from the screen sort of makes up for the lack of insane, too big is too big, size.
Also, Imax sound systems are also the best around, and thats something that is not effected by screen size.
Reply
5-21-2009 @ 3:53AM
newsismurder said...
"So whats the big complaint, that they aren't big enough to overwelm you to the point where you literally can't take in the whole image at once?"
Yes.
"Also, the smaller the Imax screens are, the closer they are positioned to the audiance, from what I hear, so that distance from the screen sort of makes up for the lack of insane, too big is too big, size."
This is exactly why everyone buys 10" TVs and puts their nose up to them.
7-30-2009 @ 7:33AM
Russ said...
IMAX has, for years, missed a huge opportunity by not encouraging the production of feature films in 1570 (IMAX) format and then offering to downconvert them to 35/70/digital for free.
While the DMR upconversion process arguably saved the IMAX format (and its theatres) from a slow death, an upconverted "standard" film leaves nearly half of the huge IMAX screen black, and the result isn't nearly as clear as native IMAX. The 3D conversion process is similar: Okay, it's 3D, but not nearly as good as IMAX 3D that was actually filmed stereoscopically.
The direction that IMAX takes with IMAX Digital is entirely backwards -- and couldn't come at a worse time. After decades of shrinking theatre screens and miserable sound/picture quality, consumers started beefing up the home theatres and opting to stay home. Finally, the theatre owners noticed, and we're in the middle of a renaissance of comfortable, stadium seating, better sound and projection, and better service. Digital 3D projection is becoming standard; some movies are starting to show up in Sony 4K digital projection, and 60fps and higher resolutions are around the corner.
IMAX's delays in moving to digital, and then the unforgivable decision to move to a lower-quality format, open the door for the competition to come in and just blow IMAX away -- just as the media is starting to discover that people really love the IMAX (film) formats.
Yes, they'll probably be able to fool people into watching small-screen, lower-res "IMAX" -- once. And only once.
A better move would have been to develop a much higher resolution (at least 4K, if not 8K), higher speed (60fps) system that could be retrofitted into existing IMAX (film) theatres, and encourage feature film production in that format, downconverting to whatever other formats the studios want. Moviegoers would certainly notice the difference; and so would the theatre owners; and IMAX Digital would have been the gold standard.
Reply