IMAX Tagged Articles at Cinematical

Last year's Aziz Ansari-initiated uproar over digital IMAX versus "real" IMAX did little to stop the spread of the "poor man"'s large format. More and more theaters are charging extra for converted theaters with slightly larger screens and high-end digital projection and sound. As you may know, IMAX is no longer the only player in the game: over the past few months, Cinemark has been rolling out something it calls "XD" or "Extreme Digital Cinema" at theaters across the country. (IMAX and Cinemark have since hit each other with patent and breach of contract lawsuits.) It promises "extra large, extreme entertainment" and an "intense experience in every seat." But intense sensory experiences don't come cheap: a ticket to an XD showing will run you $3 dollars extra. Here in San Francisco, seeing a movie at the only XD theater costs $14.

I went to see Edge of Darkness in XD on Friday. What struck me was how little effort was even made to pitch it as some sort of "sensory experience." Were it not for a brief, flashy intro -- the sort of AV exhibition we used to see for Dolby Digital and THX -- and the hefty price tag, I wouldn't even have known that I was watching anything special. Once the movie started, I got what I would ordinarily expect from a new, high-end movie theater: a big screen, excellent projection, and powerful sound. No one could have mistaken it for a "large format."

IMAX and Summit are joining forces to bring you all the shirtless vampire and werewolf action your eyeballs can handle in the third Twilight movie, The Twilight Saga: Eclipse. The third movie in the Twilight series will be remastered using the IMAX Digital Re-mastering system. Since the announcement that 30 Days of Night director David Slade will be behind the lens, writers and fans have been wondering if Eclipse will offer more action and bloody bits to draw a more male audience, especially since Eclipse features a full-on battle between Victoria (Bryce Dallas Howard who took over the part after Rachelle Lefevre parted ways with the series) and her vampy army versus the Cullens and the werewolves.

In fact, Ashley Greene, who plays Alice Cullen, told MTV that Slade is "a little more focused on it being real and maybe it being gorier and a little dark and kind of dramatic... The first one was very focused on this love story and really sweet and it was beautiful, but it didn't have a lot of stuff that guys would go, 'Yeah, I want to go see that,'... There's going to be a lot more focus on [action], and the fight scene will have more emphasis on it. I definitely think it will be a little more guy-friendly."

Now you can mark your calenders, and make a note to pre-buy your IMAX tickets for two of the most highly anticipated geek movies of 2010 and 2011. According to The Hollywood Reporter, Tron: Legacy is getting an IMAX release to coincide with its ordinary theatrical print on December 17, 2010. The film was not actually shot for the IMAX format, but Disney will be digitally remastering the film in order to produce a super-sized version for IMAX theaters. Someone with more technical knowledge will have to tell me if that's a good or bad way to release a film in IMAX, because I'm baffled beyond "Wow, look how big the screen is!" I'm honestly surprised Tron: Legacy wasn't shot with IMAX cameras because if there ever was a film begging to use the technology to the fullest extent, it's this one.

Spider-Man 4 also has its IMAX dates booked. It's set to go wide in IMAX and conventional multiplexes on May 6, 2011. This has been standard for Spidey, as all three films have been released onto IMAX screens. The official press release didn't mention whether the fourth will actually be shot using IMAX cameras, but the general belief online is that it won't.

Presumably by 2011, real IMAX screens (as opposed to those faux imitations) will be more readily available so that more moviegoers can benefit from the experience. It would be even better if the price came down a bit. Maybe I'm just a cheapskate (probably) but it's hard to justify an IMAX Experience for every genre movie, and I'm not sure I see that changing for a lot of people by 2011.

Cinematical has received four exclusive new character banners and the final IMAX poster for Where the Wild Things Are, the eagerly anticipated Spike Jonze adaptation of Maurice Sendak's timeless children's picture book. In fact, for people born after the book's first publication in 1963, Where the Wild Things Are may just be the most anticipated release left on the 2009 calendar. I can't recall the last time - if there ever even was one - a simple trailer for a film was met with such an overwhelming degree of universal admiration (watch both trailers after the jump), which leads me to believe the five posters in the collage above and the ones in the gallery below are bound to adorn the walls of dorm rooms, home theaters, and living rooms around the world.

And that's not just blind hyperbole for a movie I am deeply looking forward to. I've seen the trailer for Where the Wild Things Are cause grown men to shed tears. And while I may not share so strong a reaction to it, it's hard to deny that Spike Jonze's gift for truly beautiful imagery combined with Dave Eggers' (the brilliant author behind the WTWTA adapted screenplay) talent for reducing all of us to vulnerable children has created a palpable tingle in the film loving air.

Warner Brothers shows us Where the Wild Things Are in IMAX and regular theaters on October 16th.

Check out the new banners and poster in the gallery below, along with the previously-released banners and poster.

Despite the fact that James Cameron took 12 years to produce a fiction follow-up to his blockbuster, award-winning Titanic, he has wasted no time letting folks know that the forthcoming Avatar is destined to be a masterpiece. And yet, given what he showed today at the San Diego Comic-Con, one can hardly blame him for a surplus of confidence. Screening some 25 minutes of material to a capacity crowd for the first time anywhere, Cameron proved that recent interviews, public appearances and hype opportunities are more than just big talk.

Among the information revealed or exposed about Avatar:

"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."

Is IMAX still IMAX if it's not on a giant-sized, skyscraper-like screen? Last fall, the company introduced its new digital projection system, "intended to be retrofitted into 35mm multiplex auditoriums," reported LF Examiner. The screens are "less than one-third the area of the average film-based IMAX screen." The company maintains that it's not just the size of the screen that matters, it's their "revolutionary projection system, a powerful digital audio system and customized theatre geometry" that make up "The IMAX Experience." Operators of existing IMAX film-based theaters were reportedly not happy with the company's decision.

The issue was resurrected today by Nikki Finke of Deadline Hollywood Daily, who linked to a LF Examiner article from last October in which editor / publisher James Hyder provided a detailed analysis and a screen size comparison (see above). He concluded: "I object when anyone claims that two patently different things are the same. Where I come from that's known as 'lying.'"

The first time I walked into a giant IMAX theater at a museum years ago, it was freakin' impressive. More recently, I've been dazzled by the immersive experience of The Dark Knight in IMAX, and I'm hoping to see Star Trek again, this time in IMAX, before its limited two-week engagement ends. Many theater owners have made substantial investments to improve the moviegoing experience, and I'm willing to (selectively) pay more, as long as I know what to expect. If IMAX is charging a premium (up to $5.00) for "The IMAX Experience," shouldn't they differentiate between "the classic IMAX (film-based) experience" and "the newer, smaller IMAX (digitall) experience"? Have you bought tickets for an IMAX screening and then felt ripped off when you realized the screen was smaller than expected?

I was compiling my tentative best-of-the-year list yesterday (there are three or four contenders I have yet to see, but a Cinematical deadline forced me to jump the gun), and surprised myself somewhat by how high I wound up placing The Dark Knight. I loved the movie back in the summer, but my tendency with these films is to geek out initially, then come to my senses after a few weeks. But The Dark Knight stayed with me after two theatrical viewings, and the Oscar campaign Warner Bros. is ramping up suddenly seems like serious business.

If anyone is still on the fence about the film -- or if, God forbid, anyone hasn't seen it -- you'll get another chance to check it out in theaters on January 23rd, according to a press release making the rounds yesterday. There was some speculation just this week that the planned January rerelease wouldn't include another IMAX appearance by The Dark Knight, but this isn't so. The nationwide rerelease will include both IMAX and regular theaters. This is good news for me, since I never got around to seeing the film in IMAX. Initially, I was afraid that Christopher Nolan's fondness for quick edits and choppy cinematography would make The Dark Knight a blur on the huge screen, but everyone says it's glorious, so I'll give it a shot.

Part of the motivation here is surely to have The Dark Knight surpass $1 billion in worldwide grosses, which it is less than $4 million from doing. It would only be the fourth film in history to do so. It is currently sitting $70 million behind Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest, so it is likely to remain in fourth place for the time being.

Meanwhile, The Dark Knight hits DVD on December 9th. Will you go back to the theater in January?

A couple of months ago -- and after watching the film spit out monster box office totals -- there was word Warner Bros. would throw The Dark Knight back onto IMAX screens (and possibly conventional theaters) for one last run. With the flick currently lingering around the $996 million mark, a re-release would all but guarantee it the much sought-after $1 billion. However, according to Superhero Hype, it's not gonna happen. They don't give much of a reason or a statement, just that plans to re-release on IMAX screens have apparently been scrapped.

It's unfortunate, too, because the DVD (which we'll review tomorrow) includes a few great behind-the-scenes features on the film's IMAX sequences. And, as someone who did not have a chance to catch the flick on IMAX screens, I was kinda looking forward to taking in a screening this January during the re-release after watching how they went about shooting it. Considering Christopher Nolan and his crew made history by becoming the first major feature film to shoot partly using IMAX cameras, you'd think folks might want to stage an encore engagement. Oh well.

Also of note: Variety reports that The Dark Knight will arrive via video-on-demand in South Korea two weeks before the DVD hits shelves, making it the first Hollywood blockbuster release to go VOD before DVD.

Were you looking forward to watching The Dark Knight again on IMAX screens?

UPDATE: BoF reports (via a Warner Bros. source) that this is not true, and that the film will indeed be released on IMAX screens in January. Superhero Hype has removed the original story from their website. We'll let you know when something a little more official hits, but it looks good for fans ...

With the success of The Dark Knight in both IMAX and conventional theaters, chances are our next big superhero movies will take a page out of Christopher Nolan's playbook and shoot a few scenes in IMAX. Not only does it look hella cool, but it's also a great marketing tool. Beyond that, it won't be long before we're watching our first live-action Marvel flick in 3-D too, and if Jon Favreau has his way, Iron Man 2 might just be that film.

Speaking during a mini press conference for the Iron Man DVD, Favreau addressed a few questions regarding the highly-anticipated sequel. Collider tells us this: "... the highlight was Jon saying he'd love to do Iron Man 2 in 3D! He also called the IMAX Dark Knight footage a game changer and he said he'd love to shoot part of Iron Man 2 in IMAX. Regarding the 3D, he said it's all about the cost, but if they can make it happen he'd like to do it. He talked about getting to see the armor in 3D and how cool it would be."

Personally, I'm not so sure I'd want to see Iron Man 2 in 3-D. That, coupled with the whole IMAX what-to-do, just feels a little too gimmicky for me. I'd rather see them concentrate on creating a sequel that's more entertaining than the first, with a better story, engaging characters and awesome fights. I'll take the IMAX scenes, sure, but hold back on the 3-D for now.

But what do you think?

Iron Man 2 is scheduled to hit theaters on April 30, 2010.