Imax3d Tagged Articles at Cinematical

Just when you were thinking "Say, whatever happened to all that Avatar day talk?", the details have finally come online. According to The Hollywood Reporter, you too can see the footage that made thousands of people lose their minds by getting tickets from AvatarMovie.com starting this Monday. Keep checking the website for information, and the participating IMAX theater nearest you. The tickets will only be available online, and the website will eventually reveal just how and where you get them.

The 16-minute Avatar trailer will show at 6-7 pm on August 21st, sandwiched between IMAX showings of Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince and will be a blend of what screened at ComicCon, but with some brand new footage added. Though IMAX and Fox are predicting a general geek stampede, they're trying to combat the frenzy by limiting tickets to two per person. (So pick which friend or family member you like the most!) For those of us who don't nab a golden ticket, there's still hope. An alternate, "conventional" trailer will be debuting the same time in 2D and 3D, and will play before Post Grad, Inglourious Basterds, and other summer and fall releases. You won't be able to get away from Avatar footage.

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."

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?

It's only been three months since I began this column on theater exhibition and movie going, but already I've covered all kinds of experiences, both good and bad. And now I'd like to recap the year, concentrating on that quarter year in which The Exhibitionist existed, in order to present you with the best and the worst theatrical experiences I had in 2007. However, while this may seem like a cheap way to link back to previous writings and make an easy article out of that, I assure you that it's only a coincidence that some of my favorite and least favorite moments in exhibition happened since October. Anyway, there are plenty of moments I cite that were never mentioned in The Exhibitionist, so regular or new reader, read on:


Theatrical Experiences of 2007 Part I: The Worst


Pan's Labyrinth at Cobble Hill Cinemas, Brooklyn, NY, 01/16/07

I came away from watching Guillermo del Toro's "masterpiece" underwhelmed, thanks primarily to my inability to appreciate the Oscar-winning cinematography of Guillermo Navarro. How so? Well, the projection of the film where and when I saw it was terribly underlit. At least, I'm guessing it was. I've only seen the film partially since then, on DVD, and at that time it looked much brighter than I remembered.

At the time I saw the film theatrically, though, I just assumed the film was really that dark. Well, actually I thought it could be faulty projection, but I didn't want to get into the issue with the management. Most theaters are quite defensive when it comes to the subject of whether or not they dim the projector bulbs, and whether or not it matters. Even before I became a projectionist I knew thanks to Roger Ebert's Answer Man columns about the stupidity and annoyance of turning down the power on projector bulbs, but unfortunately not everyone else seems to know.

Here's some great news for all those who felt left out of the Beowulf IMAX 3D experience: 100 new IMAX screens will be installed in cinemas throughout the U.S. over the next three years. According to the Hollywood Reporter, IMAX made a deal with AMC Entertainment to put its digital projection systems in 33 of the theater chain's locations. The first 50 will begin installation next July, with 25 more installed in 2009 and a final 25 installed in 2010. Apparently this will double the amount of IMAX 3D screens in the country. Had this happened prior to the release of Beowulf, the movie could have been twice as popular -- and twice as big a hit (currently it is just barely a success).

This is a big deal, considering I always just imagined IMAX screens were a luxury. Now more people will be able to see the IMAX 3D versions of Monsters vs.Aliens and Avatar if they are available in the format (I don't see why they wouldn't be). I didn't even really like my recent experience with IMAX 3D, yet I did promise to give it another shot. Unfortunately, it seems IMAX is more interested in broadening its reach rather than concentrating on my own satisfaction. Yeah, I'd be pretty stupid if I thought they'd spend money on fixing the problems I alone have with the format, but I will optimistically imagine the company will at least try to make the new locations as close to perfect as possible. Since AMC will be in charge of reconstructing its existing auditoriums, I hope that they fix the usual seating arrangement so all viewers have the same optimal experience.

Well, I did it. I saw Beowulf in IMAX 3D. It cost me $17.50, which included the Fandango service charge (I knew it would sell out, even for a 1:45 showtime on a Monday afternoon). And guess what? I don't think the price was worth the experience. Maybe it would have been worth a regular ticket price ($11), but I'm not even sure about that.

Now, here is not the place for me to discuss the actual movie. Both Scott Weinberg and James Rocchi have already delivered you their reviews, and I think their thoughts were sufficient. This is also not the place for me to discuss the box office -- which was relatively disappointing considering its budget, yet relatively successful in terms of the per screen average of its 3D screens (I may comment on the 3D box office later).

Instead, this is the place for me to comment on the experience of Beowulf's exhibition in the IMAX 3D format. First, I'd like to apologize for not being able to afford the money or the time to see the regular 2D version, or even the non-IMAX 3D presentation, either via Real D or Dolby Digital's technology. I can just barely compare this to my prior experience with Real D 3D, which I've raved about and have honestly championed as a possible future for the success of cinemas. Fortunately it's the non-IMAX technologies that will end up in most theaters, since not every screen in the world can be an IMAX.