I know I’m joining the fray late but I just saw Star Trek in a digital IMAX venue and I have to say – digital IMAX is nothing special. It’s 2K digital, nothing more, nothing less – on a larger screen than some. The picture actually didn’t fill up the entire screen either, but that’s probably a problem with the construction of the theater. Digital IMAX combined with smaller, retrofitted screens, while offering good sound, will be the death of IMAX unless more 3-D features are produced in the format. 3-D is a justification to spend more money, sure, but the IMAX part, not so much.
Digital 3-D of coarse has been done well in certain cases, but it’s not the greatest thing ever, there is still a loss of light. The best use of it I think was in an awfully sub-par (and would have been bad in 2-D flick My Bloody Valentine where a packed house jumped at the horror/slasher images – and had a great time). However, some films don’t work no matter how they’re shown (Monsters Vs. Aliens would have been awful in any format). Star Trek is an engaging film, but I have a feeling I could have the same experience seeing it in a non-IMAX theater.
And here’s where I add something new to the conversation: at one point I thought IMAX at one point was going to change cinematic storytelling. The large screen could allow you to do much more and some filmmakers were using 3-D to create experimental works, documentaries and short narratives. Stan Brakhage even made a film on the IMAX format (I would love to see it on a real IMAX screen, but haven’t had the chance).
I knew it was only a matter of time before a feature film was made in that format, and one that would play with the confines of what you could do on a much larger canvas. We did get that – Fantasia 2000, which combined live action, animation and restored classic animation into a visual tapestry that created an emotional and visceral experience.
The next one we got was The Matrix Reloaded, a good movie, but a movie-movie. The IMAX presentation was an afterthought. It would continue to be as such in the entertainment film arena, save for a few large format documentaries but no new visual ground in the format has really been broken since MacGillvray Freeman pioneered the large format documentary. A few experiments have come from major studios, including Warner Brothers who made short subject documentaries on a variety of subjects including space, underwater and NASCAR, but these were fillers until the studio product dominated the weekend. These films because they are special to see in IMAX and are intended to be exhibited in the format, have a much longer shelf-life than the studio features.
This is not to say studio product is bad, but the fake IMAX digital set-ups are basically to push only studio product. The Omimax domes at the science museums will probably continue to show the science documentaries and specialty programs; perhaps with the studio films at night once the museum closes (perhaps the new Night at the Museum can play there).
There is so much product now on the IMAX screens that the traditional focus on the new cheapo-fake IMAX retrofitted sites is a second screen for its regular product. Now with digital IMAX it’ll become more accessible to any major studio film, even independent film – which would be nice for certain documentaries (think how cool it would be to see a Matthew Barney film in IMAX), but I doubt they’ll get to play on the multiplex screens. The real issue is how small the screens are and how poor quality the digital experience is. I can tell digital apart from film most times, here it was a dead give away from frame one. The image lacked the depth and grain of film, you might not like film grain – but then again you’re an idiot. The image, like early digital lacks life.
I don’t mind seeing a documentary produced on a shoe-string budget on video at the Quad Cinema, I understand that (most of the time those films are shot in DV anyway), but this is IMAX, come on. IMAX is the gold standard for presentation and digital isn’t ready for prime time yet. 4K digital is an improvement over 2K digital IMAX, why not wait until the technology is ready and you can do amazing things in digital, you could see details and clarity you could never see in film. Instead they’ve chose the cheap option, they’re charging you more for a sub-par experience, I doubt, however there will be wide spread outrage over this practice.
What I really think is a horrible practice is new theaters opening retrofitted IMAX auditoriums, this is a terrible way to build credibility when a major attraction to your complex is an afterthought. I’d be curious to see if an “original” sized, large IMAX screen could be digital, even on a retrofitted screen like the one at
It’s a shame AMC and Regal have really committed to this new format, and hopefully it’ll be a regrettable one. IMAX hasn’t addressed the issue of small screen size, citing numbers. They are a brand now more than an experience. They’ve compared themselves to Starbucks, which offers both an experience and a high quality product. The junior IMAX, in 2D is just offering a brand, no experience and product that’s comparable to any screen in a large auditorium, it barely caries the excitement of seeing a film at a major film festival. Theaters would be better equip to figure out how to bottle the energy and excitement of a film festival – get em’ hooked by giving them a great experience instead of selling them a brand name that means virtually nothing, like THX.
Chains departed from THX because people don’t care about a certification, in fact most auditoriums are probably well designed anyway in that they qualify for certification, why pay George Lucus for nothing but a brand with minimal value? Same thing with IMAX – retrofit a theater with giant screen and digital projection and call it something else – oh wait, Cinemark and AMC have started doing that too, already. (And charging more for the “experience”) If they get away with it, I blame all of you, John Q Public.
No comments:
Post a Comment