Thoughts on the IMAX/Not-IMAX Debate as Night at the Museum 2 Replaces Star Trek in the Nation's IMAX Screens

Just for the record, if the Star Trek grosses for weekend three take a slightly bigger dive than expected, you might need to remember that it won't have the IMAX advantage that it had in its two previous weekends. After a mere two-week engagement, the Paramount picture is being supplanted by the 20th Century Fox tent pole, Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian. Whether the film is good or bad (I didn't care much for the first one), I must confess that this is a refreshingly appropriate choice to receive the enhanced IMAX treatment. After all, until recently, IMAX screens were mainly the mainstay of museums that used them to show shorter educational features. The film actually had its official premiere at the Smithsonian IMAX theater in Washington, DC. What better cross promotion than a big budget film series that is set in a museum which features various historical characters coming to life?*

Oh, and about that ridiculous ongoing debate about the new digital IMAX screens popping up in retrofitted conventional movie theaters, here's the thing: IMAX is not just about screen size. It's about picture quality, sound quality, and the theoretical ability to completely immerse yourself in the film. Yes some of the original screens are 72-feet tall, but that's not a requirement. This Wired article sums up the issue nicely. As for actor Aziz Ansari, who started this debate with a critical blog entry about paying for an IMAX ticket at the AMC Burbank 16 and being dissatisfied with the screen size, I have two things. First of all, you can't watch the whole movie and then go out to the ticket booth and demand a refund. Just like you can't eat your whole steak and then complain that it was overcooked. Second of all, he claims he drove out of his way to see Star Trek in IMAX. Fair enough, but (out of pure curiosity) the heck didn't he just drive about five minutes 'that way' to the Universal City Walk theater with a truly giant 'traditional' IMAX screen?

I happened to have seen Monsters Vs. Aliens 3D at the AMC Burbank 16 several weeks ago. I knew darn well that the screen wasn't as big, but the showtime and location was more convenient than the Universal City Walk, I didn't have to pay for parking, and I wanted to try out the newfangled IMAX. Guess what? It was still a completely immersive experience, so much so that I almost enjoyed the otherwise mediocre movie. Sure for something that I truly want to drown myself in (Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince, Transformers 2: Revenge of The Fallen), I'll do my best to get to the Universal City Walk. But for other films that happen to be available in IMAX (cough-Night at the Museum 2-cough), I'll gladly accept a 90% IMAX experience for 300% more convenience. I live in Woodland Hills, so I have yet another new IMAX screen at the AMC Promenade 16.

As IMAX becomes the new normal for tent pole pictures, theaters have no choice but to find a way to meet the demand. And its a good thing that those who would otherwise have to drive hours to find an old-fashioned IMAX screen to now have a comparable option at their local megaplex. If size is the key factor, then consumers have the choice to not pay the premium price for an up-converted IMAX film (or they can just sit really close to the screen). Just remember, if you walk into your local mall theater and see that it now has an IMAX auditorium, don't be shocked when they didn't magically put a 72 foot long screen right next to the food court.

Scott Mendelson

* In case you're curious, an IMAX contact graciously provided me with a list of museum-specific theaters that are playing Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian.

Alabama
Birmingham - IMAX Dome Theatre at McWane Centre
District of Columbia
Washington - Samuel C. Johnson IMAX Theater at the National Museum of Nat. History
Washington - Lockheed Martin IMAX Theater at the Smithsonian Institute
Florida
Fort Lauderdale - AutoNation® IMAX® Theater at Museum of Discovery and Science
St. Augustine - World Golf Hall of Fame IMAX Theatre
Iowa
Des Moines - Science Center of Iowa & Blank IMAX Dome Theater
Maryland
Baltimore - Maryland Science Center IMAX Theater
Michigan
Dearborn - The Henry Ford IMAX Theatre
New York
Garden City - Leroy R. and Rose W. Grumman IMAX Dome Theater
North Carolina
Raleigh - Wachovia IMAX Theatre at Marbles Kids Museum
Pennsylvania
Harrisburg - Select Medical IMAX Theater at The Whitaker Center
Texas
Austin - The Bob Bullock Texas State History Museum IMAX Theatre
Fort Worth - Fort Worth Museum Omni Theater
Houston - Wortham IMAX Theatre
Washington
Seattle - Pacific Science Center Boeing IMAX Theatre

Comments

[elcid]

Count me among the IMAX fans for seeing wide-release movies. Though I enjoy the larger screen and (generally) taller seating, I prefer IMAX theaters for (a) better picture quality and (b) better sound quality. Here in Georgia one IMAX theater has a sound system that simply outdoes the other theaters in the same complex. Yet I doubt that the theater chain has the capacity to install similar sound systems in every theater.

I'll pay a little extra for non-IMAX DLP digital cinemas -- although film projection done right looks best, often I wind up in a theater with a lackluster projector and film that acquired imperfections. With digital DLP I can avoid both of those problems.

I've enjoyed 3D in both digital cinemas and IMAX, and I encourage its development as a way of advancing filmmaking. I'm hope (based on the development I've seen in recent years, not just technophilia) that as 3D technology develops it will begin to interest the audience in more than just objects zooming out or away, but in portrayals of depth which bring the movie experience much more alive, even for non-action­/spectacul­ar films.

However, by emphasizing all these techno-options you have continued emphasis on the largest, most expensive action-spectaculars in order to draw large audiences which can support the technical investment. Perhaps theater chains can think of marketing and pricing methods to draw people to see non-spectaculars at lower prices in the less super-techno theater rooms.

[Madmac]

Recently I saw Star Trek at a Faux-MAX theater and to say I was disappointed was an understatement. After seeing the movie on a substandard screen with substandard sound, I decided to boycott All AMC theaters and only go to IMAX Theaters that I know fit the true IMAX standard. The truth of the matter is that IMAX's certifying and licensing their name to these substandard theaters is doing a major disservice to people that want to see films the way they should be seen.

[Bryan Gillett]

Davaldod is exactly right on this issue, and Scott, you are exactly wrong. In fact, you sound like nothing so much as an IMAX apologist. All they've done with this new "marketing" push and tie-in set is to weaken their own brand and water down the legitimacy of any future "real" IMAX releases. Oh, that and make me decide to go out of my way to see movies in theaters that DO project in digital but DON"T utilize the fauxmax marketing schtick.

[Davaldod]

And yet the real scandal in the whole IMAX/Not IMAX kerfuffle is often missed. And that is simply that most of these movies being presented in IMAX are not IMAX films. They are not movies shot on 65mm negative moving horizontally through the gate 15 perfs at a time. This is not an opinion; this is what IMAX is. Films like the new Star Trek are shot using 3 or 4 perf 35mm negative - no more IMAX than your old Kodak Instamatic. 'Night At the Musuem' was shot in 35mm (probably finished in 2K) then blown-up to IMAX release print. That doesn't make it an IMAX presentation any more than printing a 2 megapixel photo the same size as a 28 megapixel photo makes the former the same resolution as the latter.

IMAX is supposed to be special because the larger photographic negative, combined with the vacuum pressed transport in the projector gate creates images of astounding clarity and stability. So to advertise a movie filmed in 35mm as being an "IMAX" film is fraud, pure and simple. Yes, certain films (such as "The Dark Knight") have shot sequences in true IMAX. But how does that redeem the bogus marketing of films like "Star Trek" and 'Night at the Museum' in which the IMAX claim is patently, demonstrably false?

[mredder4]

Now I'm just curious how much you got to plug a lot of "museum-specific theaters" just before the museum-specific movie premiere weekend.

[Scott Mendelson - Huffpost Blogger]

Actually, I asked for a list because I was curious, and the IMAX guy happily obliged.

[jrb35]

IMAX is not just about size? That's like saying 3-D is not just about being able to see depth in the frame. The reason Ansari's blog struck a nerve is because he's right. The extra $5 is for a big screen. That's what the brand name means, regardless of what the CEO of IMAX says. He's diluting the product to maximize profit and it's a disgrace. Go ask a thousand people what IMAX is and 999 will tell you it's a giant movie screen. I like a higher quality image as much as the next movie fan but if I'm charged an extra $5 for IMAX it better be a giant movie screen. That's what the name "IMAX" promises. Anything else is a rip off.

Also, I wouldn't go to Universal City Walk even if I lived across the street from it. Too many tourists and a whole lot of boring restaurants. Burbank has much better places to eat, better bars and not nearly as many yokels.

[Scott Mendelson - Huffpost Blogger]

Exactly (your second point)... the question is whether it's worth a smaller screen to see an IMAX presentation in the superior AMC Burbank 16 vs. the much less pleasant Universal CityWalk.

[LMPE]

I don't have much opportunity to attend the theater anyway.

[Skwege]

The FauxMax also cost me $3 more than the real thing.

Either way IMAX announced they will continue midnight showings of Star Trek. Many IMAX theatres were upset that they couldn't run it longer. I bet it comes back for a full IMAX rerelease later this summer.

[Scott Mendelson - Huffpost Blogger]

I heard that late last night. I doubt it'll be re released in IMAX anytime before the tail end of the summer, as Transformers 2 gets the screens on June 24th (Bay shot several sequences on IMAX cameras) and Harry Potter 6 snags them for a climactic 3D sequence on July 15th.

[Colin Campbell]

"Bay shot several sequences on IMAX cameras..." But I thought "IMAX is not just about screen size. It's about picture quality, sound quality, and the theoretical ability to completely immerse yourself in the film."

So while IMAX may not be "just" about screen size, it looks like to you and darn near everyone else - including, apparently, Michael Bay, that when it comes to IMAX, screen size DOES matter.

BTW: "Small screen IMAX" seems like an interesting direction to take a brand that's synonymous with a giant screen movie-going experience. Why companies keep having to repeat the "New Coke" experience over and over again, I'll never understand... but "Small Screen IMAX" makes about as much sense as "Kentucky Grilled Chicken."