*** Official WATCHMEN Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[Citizen87645]

FWIW, that was in the book...

 

[Jeff Cooper]

Oh. I saw it in the IMAX. I read through this entire thread and didn't see any mention of the IMAX credits being shorter. I think this actually is the first time I've ever heard of the two versions being different in that regard.

 

[TonyD]

Hmm, Someone mentioned it. May have edited the post.
The movie was too long for IMAX so they shortened
The credits.

 

[Scott Simonian]

Funny that you mention that the IMAX version was cut short. Or at least, just the credits. I was thinking about this and Dark Knight being longer movies yet played full length in IMAX. No actual movie content is cut, as far as I've heard. Yet, back a few years ago, Apollo 13 was re-released in IMAX format and had about 20 mins cut out from it.

IIRC, Apollo 13 was shorter than both of these theatrically. Guess those IMAX projectors have bigger platters these days.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Originally, the platters for IMAX could only accomodate 120 minutes of film. After the cuts imposed on Attack of the Clones drew a lot of media attention, the platter capacity was increased to 160 minutes. While films longer than 160 minutes have been shown in IMAX theaters, they've been projected using regular 35 mm projectors and are not marketed as "The IMAX Experience".

 

[Jefferson Morris]

My "IMAX" viewing was a little disappointing. It may have been IMAX format, but it wasn't on a proper, 5-story IMAX-sized screen--just a largish screen that had been converted at my local gigaplex (AMC Hoffman 22 in Alexandria, Va., if you're interested). The picture was crystal-clear, but I'm probably not going to bother with "IMAX" at that particular theater again.

--Jefferson Morris

 

[Citizen87645]

Sadly, that's the only option I have in my entire state for feature films (well, other than films like Madagascar 2). The sound system is impressive though...

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

It's the new IMAX Digital format. Personally, I think it was a mistake not to brand it differently from the full 65mm IMAX theaters. Those who haven't experienced "real" IMAX won't see what the fuss is all about. We got one here in Albany a few months back, too. The sound is fantastic, all 22,000 watts that you get at the full IMAX. The screens are a bit larger than average for a multiplex (using be a retrofit of the largest screen at a given theater), which actually causes problems since IMAX decided to go with Christie 2k projectors instead of the new Sony 4k projectors. Even the smaller digital IMAX screens are large enough to reveal the limitations of 2k digital projection in a way the a normal digital theater won't. You're just too close to the screen for 2k.

That being said, it's still the best presentation in the area for me, though not to the substantial degree real IMAX is.

 

[Jefferson Morris]

Ah, I never even got the distinction between digital IMAX and the real deal. But you're right, I think IMAX is diluting its brand name.

Meanwhile, it's unfortunate that 'Watchmen' is taking such a tumble at the box office. Unfortunate, but perhaps not unexpected, given the challenging nature of the material.

--Jefferson Morris

 

[cafink]

Wasn't the capacity previously even shorter than this? I recall reading that Disney's Fantasia 2000 ran just shy of 75 minutes specifically because that was the maximum running time of an Imax movie. That would be sufficient for the type of documentary pictures typically shown in Imax, but it obviously had to be increased once they started showing Hollywood movies.