If you hear that a movie’s being presented in IMAX format, would you assume that it was going to be on a really huge screen?
Well, guess what: turns out IMAX is just a brand name and not necessarily a description – so fans are being suckered into shelling out extra cash to see movies on screens that are called “IMAX” but are only slightly larger than a regular screen. (Conical hat tip to AICN.)
Here’s a size comparison of standard IMAX screens versus the new tinyfied verisons:
Spread the word – ’cause IMAX really deserves to take a financial hit over this.
There are also differences in terms of where the seats are positioned relative to the screen.
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090308/LETTERS/903089997/-1/letters
IMAX is also a film type, one with much better resolution than standard 35mm film, so even displayed on a smaller screen it should look better.
Okay — but the company knows damn well that when a film is advertised as IMAX people are expecting a humongous screen.
It’s as though Kleenex also made sandpaper, so if I offered you Kleenex and then gave you sandpaper I would in some sense be giving you a Kleenex, but …
I am glad to know however that the Lincoln Center IMAX is full sized!
Someone ought to make a website listing where all the real, full-sized IMAX’s are.
Online film critic James Berardinelli devoted a recent column to this issue:
http://www.reelviews.net/reelthoughts.php?identifier=580
I want to see My Dinner With Andre in IMAX and 3D!
I went to see Star Trek yesterday at the real IMAX theater in Manhattan. I probably would’ve ended up scammed as AMC 25 had I not been a regular reader of this blog and looked for the one on 1998 Broadway.