The IMAX Corporation have announced that The Dark Knight will open on 94 IMAX theatres domestically, and in 15 IMAX theatres day-and-date internationally, with at least 23 additional international locations opening in the coming weeks. This is not only a new IMAX record, but the advance ticket sales are through the roof, already surpassing $2 million on IMAX sales alone, more than a week prior to opening. Over 100 IMAX shows are already sold out.
93 of the 94 domestic IMAX theatres have added midnight screenings. Many of the locations are also adding 3:00am shows, and some are theatres are even screening non-stop for 24 hours to meet the high moviegoer demands. Chicago, where the film was shot, will run shows non-stop for 72 hours at the Navy Pier IMAX theatres. The Palisades Center in West Nyack, NY IMAX theatre is also running a non-stop 72 hours of screenings.
If I haven’t stressed this enough yet, let me say it again: You have to see The Dark Knight on IMAX. This is not a marketing gimmick. Six sequences and most of the establishing shots were filmed using 70mm IMAX cameras. The experience is amazingly vivid, and unlike any superhero movie you have ever seen before. It’s the difference between watching standard and High Definition. If you have the option, you must see this movie in IMAX.
Also, IESB is reporting that there will be a short 15 second teaser trailer for Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince on IMAX screenings of The Dark Knight. Just another reason to see Batman’s return on the big big screen.
July 10th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
I was thrilled to get the last 3 tickets for the midnight show when they finally went on sale for the only commercial IMAX theater in Utah. I’m so excited.
July 10th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
peter -
if the 35mm is being blown up to 70, is it a noticeable difference when it switches back and fourth? especially from imax back to 35?
July 10th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
I have a ticket for the midnight showing and will be seeing it in IMAX at least once after that with my other friends. I might see it more than that, but I will at least see it twice in IMAX.
July 10th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
I would have contemplated seeing the film on IMAX if the tickets for this film weren’t $15. And yes the quality for those six scenes may be stellar, but I will not spend $15 to see a film in the theaters.
July 10th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
september11th: It’s not distracting, but obviously there it a huge difference.
July 10th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
@september11th
You’ll notice the difference anyway, sine the aspect ratio will change for those six scenes.
July 10th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
$15-18 on opening night to see on imax lol
July 10th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
I’m so glad I got lucky enough to grab a ticket yesterday… I was so close to not being able to see it in IMAX.
July 10th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
The tickets we got for midknight were only $5 each. Wooo. After that I will be seeing it in the afternoon when tickets are $8, not $15.
July 10th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
someone buy and re-open the imax theater in Hawaii before this movie comes out please.
July 10th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
But, will the Watchmen teaser be on the IMAX reels? Because if it is. I will nerdgasam.
July 10th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
I wanted to see it in IMAX but they weren’t selling the IMAX screenings online at that time for midnight showing, so I got 35mm for the midnight showing. I’ll see it on IMAX on Sunday.
July 10th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Peter– I heard your comments on the /Filmcast about how *the only way* to see TDK is on IMAX because (one of the reasons I inferred) that you think you won’t get Chris Nolan’s intended vision if you see it normal 35 mm. Well, to play Devil’s Advocate, Nolan probably composed all of the IMAX shots in the movie so that they would work in both 35 mm and IMAX, similar to how film-makers like Cameron or Tarantino use Super 35 mm film-stock with their movies. If you look at those two images at the top, both work equally well. I think the only difference will be that of image quality.
July 10th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Me need to proofred comments.
July 10th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
I’m totally stoked for this movie…but I have to say…I don’t know how I feel about the IMAX thing. I understand that it will look amazing, but the aspect ratio is going to switch back and forth which will be very distracting. I’ve read all about the filming of this movie in American Cinematographer and it just doesn’t seem to be worth it. I’ll check out the Digital Presentation at my theater instead.
July 10th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
guys/peter
Are you aware that the comments don’t fit into the column? or is it just me?
any chance this bug is being fixed anytime soon. It’s annoying.
July 10th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Mash, new site design will launch next week and fix these issues
July 10th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
Sorry to be off topic but..
@Mash - It seems to be a bug that does not appear when browsing with Firefox.
@Peter - Very excited for the new site design :) It shall be stellar!
As for the IMAX viewing… I don’t know. I wonder what the difference will be like on DVD as compared to the theatre? I suppose it’s akin to the Full Screen vs. Wide Screen debate. I like to believe that Nolan is a proffesional enough director to ensure that both versions will be equally enjoyable. I wish I could see it at an IMAX ;_;
July 10th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Apparently the Blu-ray release will also change aspect ratios during the IMAX scenes. I think that sucks, personally. 2.35:1/2.40:1 > 1.85:1.
July 10th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
To split hairs, one more thing: I work as a projectionist, and the image sample of the 35 mm frame is not how anamorphic 35 mm film looks. It tooks up the entire frame and looks compressed, just like how it would look if you tried to play a 16×9 DVD image on a normal 4:3 TV.
July 10th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
@Jimmy: I don’t understand how it’s going to be distracting. It’s going to change and then what, are you going to keep thinking about the fact that the picture is a different size? It’s not like it’s going to flicker back and forth constantly. I’d say it’s going to be about as distracting as the reel change, which I hardly ever notice, and when I do after about a second I’m back to watching the movie.
July 10th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
check out this batman song LOL
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_HhOGjfxMA
July 10th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
Man it’s going to be great. I know I’ll be in a trance from the film being so good that I won’t notice the aspect ratio change.
July 10th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
15 Imax tickets on my desk as we speak.
Me so horny!
July 10th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Reels are obsolete. Theaters need to go digital.
July 10th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
I have 8 IMAX tickets for the opening night in Amsterdam (The Netherlands) we have only 1 IMAX theatre, It begin at 19:45 and the price for one ticket is € 14,5 euro that is almost $23,-
July 10th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
I don’t know. I have tickets to a regular screening on Friday, but I wasn’t too keen on IMAX. I saw 300 and Beowulf 3D in IMAX, and was pretty disappointed both times. Not in the movies, but the experience. To me, no matter how far back you sit in the theater, the screen’s just way too big. It was hard to focus on anywhere but the middle of the screen, which I suppose is the intent, but what else is widescreen for? Just periphery? I’ll be happy when this comes out on blu.
July 10th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
@Tim
I completely agree about the screen size. I don’t want to have to move my entire head around to see what’s going on. And when you do that, you miss things.
July 10th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
Tim,
Both of those films didn’t use Imax cameras. TDK was recorded in various scenes using them. So the picture quality will not only be better but much more fitting on the Imax format.
The perfect seating for an Imax film is the top, back, row. You can see the whole picture with no problem
July 10th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
fantastic.
Looking forward to the redesign now,
as for the film. Damn you Americans.. I have to wait until the 27th to watch it over here in London due to work commitments and stupid friends.
You guys are complaining about paying $15? I paid £26.00 for two IMAX tickets! Worth it though. I’ve never anticipated a film as much as this before
July 10th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
I just watched the 5 minute IMAX clip from the Dark Knight on the Blu-Ray version of Batman Begins. I noticed that the imax footage filled my tv completely where as the 35mm footage from Begins was anamorphic. I assume that when Dark Knight comes out on Blu-ray / dvd the Imax scenes will not be cut off the top or bottom but the aspect ratio will change allowing for the full image (even though it is scaled down) to be viewable.
Thats just my take on it.
July 10th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
That is correct, Bob Dance, on the Blu-ray release anyway. More info here: http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=1488
July 11th, 2008 at 12:20 am
I don’t understand why people complain about seeing on film. instead wanting to see it in a digital theatre. Any film make could tell you how silly that is.
It’s like analogue vs digital:
analogue can vary depending on source. Digital is either on or off. digital is always easier to work with but at times at the expense of qaulity
No digital projector to date can outperform celluloid print in regards to picture qaulity. Why you ask?
35 mm film requires 10mp/4k resolution to create a digital copy with the same level of detail. Most films seen are trasnferred in 2k resolution or sometimes 4k
Digital cinemas at the moment only do just above 2k resolution. Not many cinemas have 4k projectors.
Film has 4x the resolution of digital.
Imax has the highest resolution in the world being 10 000x 7000 pixels. The lighting latitude is unsurpassed. Imax and 35mm film have far higher contrast than digitals. The best commercial digital projectors in regards to contrast can do 10 000:1. Your looking at well over 30 000:1 on film.
The only reason why digital cinema is being pushed is because of costs. A film reel costs $45 000 for 1 complete print. A digital copy over secured network costs around $800.
Do a little research and u’ll realise the only real advantage of digital is non wearing image and at times clarity.
Conclusion:
For those who complain about film. stop and remember that the dark knight and 90% of films are recorded on celluloid. why? because they carry more detail. The digital cinemas are just showing electronic film footage.
Look at star wars 2 and 3(2k digital) then watch batman begins (4k+celluloid film). Star Wars has less detail with the only asset being clarity. until your seeing 4k projectors in cinemas dont’t choose a digital over film for qaulity.
big problem is the negative celluloids are of really high qaulity. most is loss in trasffering to a positive. Films are scanned digitally then printed.
These are my research and findings. these are my understanding alone thus i suggest do some research on celluloid vs digital.
July 11th, 2008 at 4:34 am
chris,
Pretty much. Celluloid has a massive high-res raw image quality that has yet to be fully unlocked in any of the modern mediums used today. It’s why watching a film like Casablanca (fully-restored) looks fucking amazing and more crisp than an all-digital shot film made today.
Maybe in another 5-10 years we can get closer to that type of resolution found on celluloid?
I can dream right?
July 11th, 2008 at 4:38 am
“Maybe in another 5-10 years we can get closer to that type of resolution found on celluloid?”
I meant films being put on disc.
July 11th, 2008 at 7:30 am
IMAX San Antonio at the Palladium is also doing the 72 hour straight Dark Knight thing.
And in true SA fashion, they’re giving out free breakfast tacos to the loons who go see it from 4-8am on Friday morning.
Gotta love San Antonians….we’ll do anything for a free taco.
July 11th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
The aspect ratio switching sounds like a bad idea. They should have matted down the IMAX image to 2.40:1 to match the anamorphic 35mm. First, it will be jarring to viewers at the IMAX theatre to switch back and forth (unless this was considered in editing and somehow the editing makes the transitions less noticeable). Second, when the movie comes out on DVD/Blu-Ray it will have to be matted down anyway so that the IMAX moments don’t play squished on your widescreen TV.
July 13th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
i live in chicago, and i will probably go to imax to see tdk (if the aspect ratio changes during certain scenes, i will probably think it’s distracting and lame). but have you experts had the opportunity to see a movie in 4k digital? if not, maybe you should. i’ve seen plenty of movies in both imax and, in the past 6 months, in 4k, and 4k is mind-bendingly good. but i have not come to digital easily. i love film. i always believed that movies should be shown on film. i saw my first digital movie back in 99 (bicentennial man in what i think was 1k). it sucked hard, and i didn’t go back for many years. but i have to tell you, there is nothing that comes close to the rock-solid, edge-to-edge clarity and pop of 4k. once you see it, you will never look at film the same way.
July 16th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
The Batman Begins Blu-Ray has the bank robbery IMAX scene from Dark Knight. It looked amazing and filled the whole 16:9 screen.
4K should be amazing if they encode it at 4K. If they release only a 2K encoded digital file I doubt upconverting it would be an improvement.
Any one know if Dark Knight or and new movies are encoded in 4k files?
I am sure the Imax scenes will be great, but the 35mm scenes, most of the movie, will be even more grainy on a giant IMAX screen, so I bought tickets for the 2k digital show near me, rather than driving to Milwaukee of Chicago to see it on IMAX of 4k.