IMAX CEO boldly defends smaller screens, seeks out new reasons for $5 surcharge
Filed under: Shopping, Technology, Consumer Complaints
The fight/debate over paying $5 more to see the new "Star Trek" movie on an IMAX screen, only to find out that it's not playing on a huge IMAX screen but on a movie screen that is only a bit bigger than a regular one, is getting a little juicier.Tuesday, the CEO of IMAX, Richard Gelfond, defended the more modest IMAX screens, saying the extra price is worth it, even if the screen size isn't much different than a traditional movie theater, according to MainStreet.com.
Using a process called Digital Remastering, the resolution is increased, the sound quality is enhanced, and several front rows are removed to improve the viewer's experience, according to Gelfond.
Actor and comedian Aziz Ansari on Monday slammed IMAX on his blog, complaining that the $5 surcharge is a ripoff because it wasn't the regular IMAX screen that customers have come to expect for that price. Ansari wanted his $5 back on principle, but was instead offered free popcorn and a soda.
Ansari is now calling Gelfond out to go on television and debate the issue with him. Going up against an actor and a comedian? It's doubtful Gelfond will go for it.
But in the MainStreet.com story, Gelfond said that the more modest IMAX screens have been around for at least six years and that positive feedback from consumer testing and ticket sales at those theaters is significant.
"IMAX did 15% of Star Trek's total domestic box office in the whole country on only 138 screens, which is less than 2% of all movie theaters, Gelfond said. "This is compared to the earlier releases of Watchmen, where we did 12% of the box office and Monsters and Aliens, where we did around 10%. Clearly a lot of people are going back to IMAX theaters."
Ansari makes the point that before he bought his ticket for "The IMAX Experience," he had no way of knowing that it was for a smaller screen. Paying $5 more should have put him "in" the movie, as IMAX likes to advertise.
Aaron Crowe is an unemployed journalist in the San Francisco Bay Area. Read about his job search at www.AaronCrowe.net
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
5-13-2009 @ 7:38PM
cyber5 said...
Nice article. I've been following this with interest. I hope IMAX reconsiders its concept of not differentiating between the two formats.
As for Gelfond's quotes about resolution being enhanced - I don't see that as applicable to this situation, where IMAX Digital projectors are being used at about a 2megapixel resolution, whereas true IMAX is shot on 15perf/70mm film (thats horizontal, so bigger than traditional 70mm film shot vertically). From my research - 8-10 megapixels is about the equivalent of "standard" 35mm print film, although after all processing/handling of standard 35mm movie film its probably equivalent to about 2megapixels, also.
Gelfond is twisting the numbers. If you notice my 2megapixel comparison is comparing 35mm to digital, not 15/70 to digital. I don't know what 15/70 equates to in digital, but its a hell of a lot higher than the digital projectors they are using at these "LIEMAX" sights.
Never mind the screen size, nor the aspect ratios...
I'm not saying IMAX digital is BAD, I'm saying they need to inform the public that this is much different than real IMAX.
Reply