May 13 2009Aziz v. IMAX

I live in Orlando and we have 2 Imax screens one is a true giant IMax and the other I found out the hard way is just like the one this guy saw. I saw Monsters Vs. Aliens 3D on this putrid turd and spent 15 freaking bucks, needless to say I was none to pleased. Sucks b/c that one isn't too far from me but the real Imax is a bit of a haul. I realize no one cares but I figured I'd try to be relevant to the topic for once lol.

i have a feeling Aziz just brought us the "This IMAX screen is only slightly bigger than your normal movie screen" notice that you'll see put up at every new IMAX theater door :) the revolution is being blogged, people.

The NYC screen image comparison is no joke! I've been to both of them. The quality on the smaller screen is not that great. I saw Watchmen on the smaller screen and the presentation was just crap. It's a huge rip off.

http://www.lfexaminer.com/20081016.htm

This article, that Aziz linked to in his original post, is a much better, more informative read on the whole situation. It makes a great New Coke analogy about it.

The future of IMAX-lite will be in Year Two. Most people go see something new to check it out - but will they think that IMAX-lite is so cool they'll continue to shell out 50% more per ticket? I doubt it. I think you'll see the attendance drop and so will the ticket prices. So enjoy your money while you can, Mr. Gelford.

I agree with you and the blogger. IMAX Lite does not equal IMAX.

I've seen a number of movies in the past year in 'real' IMAX both at the Whittaker Science Center in Harrisburg, PA, and at Baltimore's Maryland Science Center.

This past weekend I saw 'Star Trek' at our local AMC's version of IMAX.

I was sorely disappointed.

The screen, while bigger than your average multiplex, was not much bigger than that of my beloved art deco Senator (http://senator.com). The digital project and sound were great, but I was greatly underwhelmed with the size. Furthermore, the rows were ridiculously close together, so when even the slightest lean pushed the chairbacks into the other customers legs.

It's not huge, it's not immersive, it's not IMAX.

Aziz is totally justified in his dissatisfaction, as was I. Gelfond is a dirty, greedy profiteer and can suck it. AMC too.

IMAX is stupid. All it does is make you walleyed because the damn picture is wider than anyone's peripheral vision. If you want to get the IMAX experience in a regular theater, just sit in the front row.

Glad the silence has finally been broken. We have a huge IMAX here in Jacksonville, Florida but you gotta get on the highway and drive for half an hour to get to it, so when we found out our local AMC was playing Watchmen on their IMAX, we were super pumped. The moment we stepped into the theater, there was a collective "uhhhh?" upon viewing the only slightly bigger than normal screen. I was swearing up and down that maybe the roof was on hydraulic lifts or the seats were gonna sink into the floor to make that damn screen seem bigger, right up until the movie started. Thanks IMAX and AMC for fucking us, fucking us big time!

Yeah, in GA, we have these smaller "Imax" screens also...was really disappointed the first time I paid for one...

Hell yea! that'd be awsome if they were all that big.... weeell some are pretty huge.. I live in Vegas, which is a VERY important place, so the screens are much better then yours #10

I went to AMC in columbia, md for star trek. It has imax-lite. I had been to the air & space in dc for superman returns, and it was huge. The small imax is bullshit. It's like watching 1080p tv on a 14 inch screen. It just doesn't make sense. I enjoy having to move my head around to see the whole screen, and I paid a premium for it. Don't bother with imax at amc.

I saw Star Trek on Sunday at the AMC Century City IMAX, and as soon as I walked in I thought I was in the wrong theater. I heard several people around me making similar comments. It was a little bigger than the normal screens, and yes the sound did sound better, but I paid $18 for that ticket. SOOOOO not worth it. It's deceptive, and a rip off. I've heard Bridge by LAX is better, but haven't been yet.

I went to a new theatre on Long Island that aggressively was pushing their new IMAX theatre. Being to a REAL one before, I was excited that I could now go to one that was so close, but I got screwed just like this guy did. The ironic thing about it is outside of the theatre, televisions advertise the "IMAX experience", but show screenshots from the inside of an actually large, regular IMAX theatre! You'd never know until you got in there and realized it was almost the same as any other screen in the building. Total crap.

yah a regal theater nearby recently added IMAX. I was suprised, and excited that there was an imax close by ( so that we didnt have to drive all the way to LA anymore...) .

anyways, it wasn't true imax. all they did was upgrade the screen to be slightly bigger, and they put in new speakers.

we didnt care though because we get free movie tickets.

The only theater I've ever been to where it was worth it to pay $15 was the Arclight in Hollywood. Everything about that theater is excellent.

The one experience I've had with an IMAX in an AMC was in Lincoln Square in Manhattan and I paid the extra money to see an IMAX 3D movie that I couldn't see most of because I wasn't sitting in the top 4 rows of the theater. That was annoying and the 3D crap looked terrible and made me nauseous. In this case the large size was stupid in relation to the seating arrangements.

I will never pay to see an IMAX movie again unless it's at the Arclight for a movie that has been out long enough to gain credible reviews. IMAX is a ripoff on either side of the argument.

all right here we go, if you go to a theater that doesnt have atleast one wall that isnt over 5 stories tall, then you aint getting a true IMAX screen. its not rocket science. just look at the damn building you. what was you expecting when you are walking to a theater thats only 2 stories tall. i say if you got ripped off you deserved it.

people are stupid zzzzzzzzzzaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!~

It's the same in Columbus, OH. Went to see Watchmen at the Weemax in Easton for the first time and thought I had walked into the wrong theatre. I did not notice any quality difference from the regular movies in the same complex.

Having only paid $6 at the local science theatre to experience a TRUE IMAX with beautiful cuts of mountainous expanses, I expected a $15 ticket to give me about that much more.... lame.

watching imax on a small screen is like watching blu-ray movies on a standard definition television using A/V cables. there's no point to it. if i'm paying the extra money for imax movies, i'd better be getting the full imax treatment/experience.

I felt your pain. Eventhough the Empire 25 IMAX screen in Time Square is SMALLER than the IMAX screen in Lincoln Square, but I still paid the same $18 for both both IMAX theaters. Richard Gelfond is an asshole.

i saw the watchman on the small imax thinking it was going to be huge, but it was just small and the sound was loud and i fell asleep during a few scenes. i didn't know there was a "real" imax. if i knew i would have complained more. if manhattan man's penis dangled largelier, then i would have had a great movie experience.

I was hearing grand things of the IMAX screen from people that had been to such theaters. I come from a city of 2000 people so yeah... no IMAX for us, but I recently moved to LA so I had to see Star Trek in IMAX, and I was quite disappointed to have paid so much more for the ticket for the picture just being what 5ft or more wider.

There is a theatre in Ypsilanti, MI that recently put one in. They took out A LOT of seats and then moved the screen really close, so if you were ASSIGNED a seat and the bottom there would be NO way you'd see the movie well OR walk out with your normal vision.
Also, the sound is so loud you can hear it in the theatre next door, DURING the other movie. Maybe they should have put some sound dampening in?
I never paid to watch anything in it because I don't want you telling me where to sit for a "slightly larger" screen and $15+. I'll take my moderately large, digital normal screen for $5-10, thanks!

I paid $17 for an IMAX ticket at our theater and the screen was barely larger than normal. Sooo not worth it. If I had known I would have just paid $7.25 to see it on the normal screen.

I'm with 8. Don't even go to any IMAX. Just sit in the first freakin row. Some theaters have special reclining seats in the first row now.

I agree with Aziz. I decided to go to a new IMAX screen that opened up in a Brooklyn Regal cinemas and when I walked in I was like WTF!! This is just a slightly bigger screen. I'm spoiled by the sony IMAX theatre on68th Street. If it's at least that big I don't go to it. It's 15 dollars. I can go to many theatres in manhattan with big screens and great sound. Just go to the Zeigfled. Great sound and giant screen. If you're going to build a theater and call it IMAxX Richard Gelfond it has to be Much bigger that the biggest screen in the area, I mean much bigger. Don't get me started. Once you go to the IMAX on 68th street every other IMAX screen just doesn't cut it unless it's close to it.

I believe that it all comes down to IMAX's strategy towards marketing and branding. With their transition to digital from film-based projection, their expansion strategy is being tied to joint ventures with the theater chains. Instead of building a new theater, older ones are retrofitted to - as close as possible - give an IMAX experience. The company may have been better off to re-brand these theaters as IMAX-Digital or something like that, to distinguish them from the older film-based dedicated theater screens. However, the experience seems to be substantially better in any IMAX theater vs. the other screens at the multiplex, but those who are expecting the giant screens found in all the film-based theaters would definitely be disappointed. Because IMAX as a company has not been clear to make any distinctions, I think most people do have the expectation of a "monster" theater as opposed to an upgraded "IMAX-Digital" theater. In order to get the brand-name and associated technological benefits to more people at a quicker pace, they have been limited to the size of the existing structure for retrofitting. Therefore, the sizes of screens would vary depending on the theater, however, at least you are guaranteed to be seeing the largest screen at that particular location, and the "IMAX-Digital" screen is still heavily customized to give you the best perception possible of a "monster" viewing experience, within the constraints of the building structure.

The following article is fairly informative:

http://gizmodo.com/5250625/cineplexes-getting-imax-but-is-it-imax-or-conspiracy?skyline=true&s=x

I've seen good movies in cinemas on crap quality screens.It's important for the movie as well to show it on a quality screen.

I've been duped by this at a couple movie theaters. I was SO MAD. $13 for a slightly-larger-than-normal screen.

Yes I agree. I was severely disappointed when I went to see Star Trek at the AMC Theatre. It was NOT very much bigger than a regular screen!

What a weak puny bunch of tards you all are.