Question: Is the IMAX Experience Worth It?

imax2

As IMAX technology has become a more popular filmmaking process over the past few years, we’ve tried to keep up with it as much as we can here at /Film.  Just this past week, I wrote about how the Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen IMAX experience compares unfavorably with The Dark Knight from last year. I’ve also urged people to see Watchmen in regular format before you check it out in IMAX. On this week’s episode of The Totally Rad Show, /Film friend Dan Trachtenberg opined that the Transformers IMAX experience rendered the action scenes virtually unwatchable. This raised the question for me: With ticket prices already high as they are, is the IMAX experience really worth it?

There is a sense of awe to be had when walking into an IMAX theater, and it still washes over me each time I behold the enormity of the screen. I love the sound and the clarity of the picture, but at too close a distance, I feel like one needs to work too hard to comprehend what’s on the screen. Your eyes need to dart from one side to the other and you occasionally need to crane your neck just to take in the whole image. In my opinion, there are only between 5-10 rows of seats (out of several dozen rows) that really offer a remotely pleasurable viewing experience. In other words, it can be hard work to enjoy the IMAX experience.

That being said, when you have the exact right spot in the theater and the print of the movie is good and the state-of-the-art sound system is firing on all cylinders, it can be absolutely magical. But for 80% of the people in the theater, it may be too much trouble for an experience that doesn’t measure up to a plain old regular theater screen with some good surround. But what do you guys think?

Discuss: In your experience, have you found the IMAX experience worth it? Where do you usually like to sit when you see a film in IMAX, and how does that affect your viewing of the film? What have been some of your favorite/least favorite IMAX experiences in the past?

[Photo by Flickr user Code Martial]

  • Marc Levy
    I've found the IMAX experience worth it when the movie is right.
    i.e Quality is good, not too much grain.
    Also seating is key. Dead center is the only place to sit, otherwise, get money back.
  • Mack41
    Exactly. Even with the Dark Knight, the IMAX scenes were breath taking and epic. But, when the film switched back to standard it looked worse than an average theater and was kind of a let down after watching a scene in IMAX
  • Dhelt
    "Dan Trachtenberg opined that the Transformers IMAX experience rendered the action scenes virtually unwatchable. "
    what a load of bull
  • I wouldn't call the action "unwatchable" in IMAX, but there many times during fight scenes when I had no idea which transformer was kicking ass. It may sound contradictory, but I still enjoyed the action. Maybe that's because I don't really care who wins in a robot fight. The fact that robots are fighting is good enough for me.

    That said, I have only seen Transformers: ROTF in IMAX so I don't know if the fights are easier to follow on a regular screen, though I imagine that they are.
  • Chris
    I find that watching a movie in IMAX can be unbearable when it isn't shot in IMAX. It can get blurry as hell, especially in action scenes.
  • Erich
    I think its way too unpredictable to be a good decision. The Dark Knight was a rare exception, otherwise I find everything just too overwhelming. I remember seeing one of the Matrix sequels in IMAX and having to turn my head back and forth just to follow conversations. Not interested in doing that ever again.
  • Scorpiuss
    I've only ever seen Darknight in IMAX. I'm planning on going to Harry Potter in IMAX opening night.
  • Molee
    You won't be able to. There'll be a 2 week delay between the wide release of HP and its release in IMAX, because of Transformers' contract.
  • Justin
    I find it's generally a gimmick; not as bad as 3D but pretty much useless, in terms of watching a motion picture. The human being's field of vision just generally doesn't need a screen of that size. It doesn't increase the "illusion" or the enjoyability (whether it's Dark Knight or Star Trek).
  • Having never seen The Dark Knight on IMAX, I'm wondering how different the story is for those who did see it on the bigger screen? Did Rachel still die? Did the Joker still do his magic trick?? Oh, the things I MUST be missing out on because I'm not seeing it BIGGER.

    Totally not worth it. Never was.
  • tom.
    "Did Rachael still die? Did the Joker still do his magic trick??" You are missing the point. You may as well just read the script if you think these are the only things that make a movie experience. Plus, there is no way you can make a valid argument without having seen both sides.
  • If you can drive your car to get from A to B, why would you bother paying more to take the same trip in a Ferrari? The journey and the destination is the same, no? The car is gimmick. It's not (supposed to be) about the car. It's about the journey. Hell, take the bus... (probably small TV screen, in this case).
  • jamesm
    Such a stupid argument.
  • Appreciate your input. Way to go, you.
  • Um, the journey _is_ the experience _to_ the destination. The 2 are definitely not the same. I'd have to say that everyone here but you will agree with me that the vessel(IMAX, Ferrari, Bus, Car, Plane, Train) that takes you on the journey affects the outcome of your experience. So yeah, if I was able to choose a Ferrari and drive 1200 miles to a destination(IE: "Top Gear" challenge races) instead of taking a bus, I'll take the Ferrari. The journey/experience definitely won't be the same if you take the bus.

    So I guess in your case you could have watched TDK opening night/day on a tv and would have been ok with it. Whatever floats your boat. As for the rest of us, most of us found the IMAX experience for TDK incredible.
  • Okay, I concede here, definitely. Sincerely and without sarcasm admit this comment has sold me on both the POINT of IMAX as well as how lame my weak analogy was to begin with.
  • DESTROYED!

    Just kidding. I wasn't trying to come across as mean if you caught that vibe. I can agree with you on the price point though. Reading about what others pay ($18-$20) for a IMAX ticket is a little much. However, for the real IMAX experience here in Jax, FL, it's only $2 more than a regular theater ticket($10).
  • Nah I didn't catch a mean vibe at all -- just good discussion/argument about the topic at hand. More than happy to concede (see: be 'destroyed') when a good and valid point is made.
  • YOU may not be able to appreciate the difference, but SOMEONE else will. Someone who has driven a Ferrari before (even once) will probably enjoy the increased speed, handling, etc. and will pay more (if they can) to enjoy it again. Same goes for theaters. Even take IMAX out of the equation - I'll pay $1 more to go to the nice theater with the good screen instead of the closer theater with the shitty, small screen.
  • Yeah, I already conceded that my car/vehicle analogy was L A M E. But, let me ask a sub question to the main topic here (being is IMAX worth it?), so you pay $1 more to see Transformers 2 on a bigger screen... did that make Transformer s 2 any better? How exactly does the size of the screen improve a film when the film itself is abysmal?
  • Joshua Ruth
    Transformers was a crappy film so no, seeing it in IMAX probably wouldn't matter a lot at all. But with Dark Knight, that's a whole different story. Everything that Christopher Nolan did with Gotham City in that film was to make it seem huge, as if it were a character itself. Think Los Angeles in 'Blade Runner.' It's about scale, it's about contrasting the massive city, it's crime and problems. The small people who keep it from the edge of chaos and those who try to push it over that edge.
    I completely see your point that bigger is not always better, but I would disagree with the blanket statement that bigger doesn't ever mean better. It just has to be in the right hands. The Dark Knight showed us how it can be done right.
  • Sketch
    I agree, the only thing you can really comment on is how pretty it looks or how fast. But then again if you're going to fast everything blurs so what's the point? Take your time and take it all in and enjoy it.
  • Oh and I HAVE seen IMAX before. It was lame. So no way was I paying more just to see The Dark Knight bigger.
  • Chris
    That'll show 'em.
  • Keeping in mind, of course, the question being asked is: "Is the IMAX experience worth it?" I'm saying no... because the STORY DOES NOT CHANGE. And for what Imax offers - a few 'awesome looking shots', I just can't justify dropping extra money for those brief moments when it doesn't affect the experience of the story in any way.
  • jamesm
    The opening of the Dark Knight in Imax was absolutely incredible. I saw this in a normal theater and it could not compare.
  • I've seen movies in a FAKE IMAX (AMC Columbia 14), and two real IMAXes (Maryland Science Center and San Jose Tech Museum). I believe the one at the San Jose Tech Museum is a special dome one. Seeing Fantasia 2000 there was one of the most enjoyable film watching experiences of my life. If more screens were domed like that, I would definitely pay the premium. Oh, and I noticed something funny. It costs $12 to see Transformers: RotF on IMAX at the Maryland Science Center, the real one, but it costs $14 to see it at the FAKE one.
  • SALVE,

    SONO L'AUTORE DI ALL-NEWS.MYBLOG.IT . PROPORRI UNO SAMBIO LINK O BANNER COL VOSTRO SITO SE E' POSSIBILE.... ATTENDO VOSTRE NOTIZIE



    FRANCESCO ALL STAFF


    ********

    italy
  • I've seen The Dark Knight, Watchmen and Revenge of the Fallen in IMAX. TDK was the best experience by far because Christopher Nolan planned out the sequences well in advance, and thus the transition in the picture size was very smooth.

    Having said that, I do believe that the only good seats at IMAX are in the middle and as far back as possible, I was about 3 rows down from the back for Revenge of the Fallen and even that was too close (although I think Michael Bay's shakey cam might have had something to do with that as well).

    In short, if a film is planned well, then the IMAX experience is worth the extra money. If done well, it beats out an average cinema in every way...they just need to work on planning the shots and perhaps, even the physical seating, if they're wanting this to become a trend which sticks around.

    Oh and Captain_Howdy, TDK in IMAX was a fantastic experience. Sure the movie is the same, but I saw that film many times in normal theaters and the IMAX screening was by far the best. The sheer size, visual/audio quality is amazing.
    Why pay more for Blu-Ray when you have DVD? It's kind of a similar thing.
  • beto
    I'd have to agree with you on planning shots in IMAX. Nolan did a hella of a job with the opening scene in Dark Knight. After the bank robbery (IMAX) it went to a night scene with the dope sellers (widscreen), so your eyes get adjusted and the aspect ratio isn't as noticeable.

    Although the DVD and Blu-ray argument can be made to the degree that in Blu-ray you have the ENTIRE movie in 1080p, where the DVD you have standard 480. In IMAX for the most part you just getting a few scenes here and there. Unless the entire movie is shot in IMAX.
  • Nox
    I am willing to pay the 3 euro extra for a 9.5 euro iMAX ticket just because those screens have audiences who are more interested in watching the movie then chatting with their friends.

    Only a few people seem to notice any significant difference, and most of them stop noticing when they get into actually watching the movie instead of studying the visual and audio quality.
  • jamesm
    The experience is definitely worth it, I have seen both Transformers, The Dark Knight and 300 at the imax and all were great experiences. I did however learn after the first couple of times that the only acceptable seats are dead centre and at most 3 rows forward from the back. Anything further forward makes it too hard to watch as mentioned in the above article. This is for the London BFI Imax.

    This sadly means that if you are not prepared to sit in any other seats you often have to wait to see a film, or go to a very late night showing (00.00am Transformers 2, 02.00am Dark Knight) because the good seats fill up so quickly.

    Big films also sell out far too quickly. For Transformers 2 the 'good seats' for the entire 3 week run were booked up within 48 hours! I wanted to watch it a second time but couldn't :-(!

    I cannot wait for Avatar in imax and 3D!!!
  • Jerry Smith
    The AMC IMAX is not true IMAX. The screen is not even double the size of conventional theater screens. The real IMAX would be at e.g. the Tropicana in Atlantic City. That is the real IMAX.
  • Rolso
    There's only one "real" IMAX theater in close vicinity to me, and in order to get a decent seat (or sometimes, any seat at all before the show sells out), you have to get there at least an hour early and wait in line. For movies like Watchmen, Transformers & Dark Knight, this means you have to block off almost 4 hours of time, and that's hard to coordinate for me sometimes. Shows for even a semi-popular movie pretty much sell out for the first couple of weeks except for odd times like during the work week, so it becomes a huge deal to plan and prepare for these. I used to try to catch everything that came out at my IMAX, but I've given up on it (or, will see it later in its run, if I can wait or like the movie enough)
  • I always take the IMAX option. The "real IMAX" option that is, with 80 foot screens. It gives me the sense of awe and wonder I had as a kid going to the movies. I love that.

    Also, when done right (like TDK) it's technically astounding and a superior experience.
  • jay
    the issue here is that there are two different IMAX setups. the digital setup which is much smaller than the regular setup, the advantage is that it is cheaper so theaters like AMC set many of them up but it doesn't come close to the standard IMAX. even the NRC levels are not the same and the standards are not the same. the audio quality i've found to be unmatched by any regular theater standards. for movies like the dark knight the true imax was much more involving than at a regular theater. it just missed the huge dynamics in the sound and the picture quality. nolan did a very good job of splicing these scenes in and gave a very huge picture of gotham city and hong kong. it made the cities look enormous and the action scenes filmed in 70mm had such a huge look to them that it really immersed you into the movie. i didn't think they did such a good job with ROTF. it left something to be desired.
  • some_dude
    IMAX would be worth it if the whole movie was done that way. As it is for the few shots that are done in IMAX it's just not worth the extra cost to me ... and yes I did see TDK in IMAX and normal and just did not feel that the few IMAX shots was worth the difference in price.
  • Michael Bay Sucks
    IMAX is definitely worth it, for a movie in the hands of someone who knows how to make movies. I saw U23D and it couldn't have been more amazing. The Dark Knight speaks for itself.

    If you give the technology to a car salesman with ADHD and a hard-on for military machinery like Michael Bay...of course the product is going to suffer.

    I just think you've been "Bayed" by IMAX right now.
  • I think the reason why TDK is the best IMAX movie thus far is because they not only shot entire sequences in IMAX, they actually studied how the format works and how others have used it. Everyone else is simply converting stuff shot on 35mm to IMAX, forcing it onto a format it wasn't meant to be on.
  • topheavy
    Me and my girlfriend are boycotting it due to the Emperial(?) IMAX experience. Talk about anger, man... that made me want to fling my pooh at the screen.
  • beto
    I checked out Transformers 2 in IMAX and it was great. We got seats in back, the sound wasn't as great, we were kinda behind the speakers. Visually it was awesome! The Forest scene was fantastic! Although towards the end with the Constructicons, some scenes were shot in IMAX then it went back to widescreen.. those were pretty rought on the eyes. Is it worth the extra $5? I would say yes, but you have to pick and choose your battles with movies. I would say though it's not worth paying extra to watch a "couple" of scenes in IMAX.
    Good in IMAX: Dark Knight, The Polar Express, Star Trek and Transformers ROTF
    Not so great: 300, Watchman and Night At The Museum.
  • my friends never make it to movies until they're bout to start and i refuse to go with them when they see imax cause it is a waste to sit on the end of the rows, gotta swoop those good seats early then get a beer
  • PJthaBear
    If your theater supports digital projection in line with the imax portions i would recommend imax 100%
  • I don't think it is. I caught transformers 2 in IMAX and it doesn't make me feel the need to keep going to IMAX theatres.
  • I loved the IMAX experience for pretty much my entire life whether it was the 45 minute nature documentaries at the Ontario Place Cinesphere (the original IMAX theatre) as a kid to the current features released in the format.

    I won't see every film released in the format, but I will still prefer seeing the big releases in the format. There really isn't anything like it.
  • Avi
    no IMAX in Israel.. :(
  • If the film used IMAX cameras, as The Dark Knight and Transformers 2 did, the filmmakers intended the audience to see it on IMAX screens. It immerses you in the experience that much more. The potential pitfall with IMAX films is where you sit, but I think that's a problem with any movie or theater. I feel IMAX is the preferred way to see The Dark Knight and Transformers 2.
  • hkghj
    not worth the additional money....watched transformers 2 in both imax and normal......same experience either way....so might as well take the cheaper option everytime!
  • Joshua Ruth
    As long as it's not a LieMax, sure why not? A few extra bucks doesn't matter much when you're already paying $10.

    What I don't like, though, is that they try to cram all the seats they can and some sucker is stuck with the terrible front seats (sometimes that sucker is me.) In that case, it's really bad. Especially in 3-D. Saw 'Superman Returns' that way and it runined it. I wish they would just have a huge space in front of the screen with no seats like the old school true IMAX screens.

    Also, I don't know if anyone else has had a problem with this, but the IMAX I usually go to now has a really dirty screen. It's as if some d-bags threw sodas at the screen and now there's big stains. It was especially bad in 'Star Trek' which is such a bright movie and it's washed with light a lot of the time. I wasn't able to be sucked into the film because I was distracted by those stains.
  • Facebook User
    Only movie I can really relate to is the Dark Knight. I saw it 3 times on regular screens and once on IMAX. IMAX was something a lot different, but the theater was not the best if you were not early. We were near the front and to the far left. So I had to look up and to the right most of the movie. Close up shots were hard to look at just because a head was bigger then most the theater. I like the idea, but depending on the setup I don't think it's really worth it at this point.
blog comments powered by Disqus