What's new

Forrest Gump: An IMAX Experience (1 Viewer)

Wayne_j

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2006
Messages
4,898
Real Name
Wayne
Today I saw the IMAX release of Forrest Gump.

I was the only person in the theater, but I still had a good time.

Although this movie has often been maligned since winning the 1994 Oscar for Best Picture, I have always enjoyed it, I thought that it held up well.

Unfortunately, visually it wasn't great. They ran the film through an excessive amount of DNR, hardly any sign of grain was left except for the "Historical" footage scenes. I checked my copy of the Saphire series blu ray since coming home and that disc is much better than the IMAX release. I hope future releases aren't based on the IMAX "restoration".
 

andySu

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2006
Messages
2,858
Wayne_j said:
Today I saw the IMAX release of Forrest Gump.

I was the only person in the theater, but I still had a good time.

Although this movie has often been maligned since winning the 1994 Oscar for Best Picture, I have always enjoyed it, I thought that it held up well.

Unfortunately, visually it wasn't great. They ran the film through an excessive amount of DNR, hardly any sign of grain was left except for the "Historical" footage scenes. I checked my copy of the Saphire series blu ray since coming home and that disc is much better than the IMAX release. I hope future releases aren't based on the IMAX "restoration".
You got lieMAX-ed and ripped off. The wise people no doubt went to see a real projected film. Even I would know this without having to seeing it. You should have raised complaint and got your money back and buy some cool drinks.

I only have the film on PAL laserdisc and region 2 DVD. Its not something I would have rushed out too in lieMAX or any digital cinema that will no doubt have the same DNR SmoothAvision look.
 

TonyD

Who do we think I am?
Ambassador
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 1, 1999
Messages
24,241
Location
Gulf Coast
Real Name
Tony D.
Imax and real film together is a lost battle. How many are left maybe a dozen?
 

andySu

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2006
Messages
2,858
TravisR said:
Did they borrow Doc Brown's DeLorean because time travel is about the only way that you'd see a projected film in a chain theater anymore.
No, but I wouldn't go near a digital cinema or lieMAX with barge pole. I'm done with going to cinema now, if there going to bullshit with this 4k rubbish and DNR-ing films to death, they can keep it.
 

Josh Steinberg

Premium
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2003
Messages
26,271
Real Name
Josh Steinberg
TonyD said:
Imax and real film together is a lost battle.How many are left maybe a dozen?
I think there are about 100 theaters in the U.S., give or take a few, that have the capability of playing 15/70 films.

Unfortunately, the studios decided around mid-2013 that they weren't going to pay for prints for the majority of their IMAX releases. (Up until then, it was the studios and not the IMAX corporation that paid for the prints.) I read an interview with one of the IMAX bigwigs where they said their dilemma was, do they keep "Elysium" running in 15/70 houses from it's August 2013 release until "The Hunger Games: Catching Fire" came out in November 2013 on true 15/70 film, or should they install digital projectors in those cinemas ahead of schedule so that they could at least be showing movies in those spaces? "Elysium" wasn't a huge grosser for IMAX, not a "Dark Knight" type hit that could run for months and months on end. Showing nothing didn't seem a viable option, running "Elysium" over and over for months to empty houses didn't seem a viable option, so they did the best they could by putting in DLP projectors in auditoriums that had screens that were too large for the smaller image those projectors were capable of showing. I think the laser projectors that they're set to debut at the end of this year (or early next year) will look a lot better in the old 15/70 houses than the current DLP projectors do, but that's just a (hopeful) guess on my part. I'd prefer to see an IMAX movie on 15/70 film above all else, but if that's not an option at all (and it hasn't been for any 2014 IMAX releases so far), I'd still rather see a movie on the biggest screen possible, and in my neighborhood, that means IMAX, even if it is digital.

By the way, for anyone interested in seeing Forrest Gump in IMAX, I've gotten emails from both Regal and AMC chains that members of their different clubs can get 2 for 1 tickets by purchasing at the box office. Definitely something worth keeping an eye out for if you're a Regal Crown Club member or AMC Stubs member and planning on seeing it. Hoping to get out to it, but I've been a little under the weather so I'm not sure if it's in the cards for me before the limited run ends.
 

Wayne_j

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2006
Messages
4,898
Real Name
Wayne
Digital Cinema doesn't have to mean DNR'd mess, at the moment there is the marvelous release of Ghostbusters with all the grain intact, previously on IMAX from Paramount were Raiders of the Lost Ark with the grain intact, and Top Gun where the grain was removed and then added back in again.

Recently I have also seen outstanding DCP's of Godfather 1 and 2.
 

MrMiniver

Auditioning
Joined
Aug 21, 2014
Messages
8
Real Name
Mark
Josh Steinberg said:
I think there are about 100 theaters in the U.S., give or take a few, that have the capability of playing 15/70 films.

Unfortunately, the studios decided around mid-2013 that they weren't going to pay for prints for the majority of their IMAX releases. (Up until then, it was the studios and not the IMAX corporation that paid for the prints.) I read an interview with one of the IMAX bigwigs where they said their dilemma was, do they keep "Elysium" running in 15/70 houses from it's August 2013 release until "The Hunger Games: Catching Fire" came out in November 2013 on true 15/70 film, or should they install digital projectors in those cinemas ahead of schedule so that they could at least be showing movies in those spaces? "Elysium" wasn't a huge grosser for IMAX, not a "Dark Knight" type hit that could run for months and months on end. Showing nothing didn't seem a viable option, running "Elysium" over and over for months to empty houses didn't seem a viable option, so they did the best they could by putting in DLP projectors in auditoriums that had screens that were too large for the smaller image those projectors were capable of showing. I think the laser projectors that they're set to debut at the end of this year (or early next year) will look a lot better in the old 15/70 houses than the current DLP projectors do, but that's just a (hopeful) guess on my part. I'd prefer to see an IMAX movie on 15/70 film above all else, but if that's not an option at all (and it hasn't been for any 2014 IMAX releases so far), I'd still rather see a movie on the biggest screen possible, and in my neighborhood, that means IMAX, even if it is digital.

By the way, for anyone interested in seeing Forrest Gump in IMAX, I've gotten emails from both Regal and AMC chains that members of their different clubs can get 2 for 1 tickets by purchasing at the box office. Definitely something worth keeping an eye out for if you're a Regal Crown Club member or AMC Stubs member and planning on seeing it. Hoping to get out to it, but I've been a little under the weather so I'm not sure if it's in the cards for me before the limited run ends.
Hi Josh, interesting post. I believe IMAX supplies the 15/70 distribution via Kodak in New York, but the studios do pay for the print costs.

I happen to believe that there is a bit of a conspiracy on the part of IMAX and the end of 15/70 prints. Here is why:

1. IMAX knew Gravity was going to be a hit. So did the studios, in order for a lot of theaters to get Gravity, they needed to install digital IMAX. (IMAX pushes the digital system as it is much more profitable). Holding back on 15/70 Gravity release prints was intentional IMO.

2. Right now, there are no more 15/70 Hollywood movies released in 15/70. I think this is deliberate on the part of IMAX. IMAX has the new laser projectors coming out, and all multiplex 15/70 locations were upgraded to digital before Gravity. Now, for those large purpose built locations, they have to upgrade to digital laser to get the Hollywood films.


As for Forrest Gump, I am curious to see what IMAX has done to the image, I know digital IMAX is not the sale as 15/70, but I still like it.
 

DP 70

Screenwriter
Joined
Oct 16, 2011
Messages
1,076
Real Name
Derek
No, but I wouldn't go near a digital cinema or lieMAX with barge pole. I'm done with going to cinema now, if there going to bullshit with this 4k rubbish and DNR-ing films to death, they can keep it.
Not all cinema is Digital rubbish if you had seen Baraka in 4K 7.1 you would change you mind.
 

andySu

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2006
Messages
2,858
DP 70 said:
Not all cinema is Digital rubbish if you had seen Baraka in 4K 7.1 you would change you mind.
Well I think it is and even director Lewis Gilbert, TSWLM was skeptical at, the empire leicester square, when it showed in DNR and EE and dodgy sound that packed up 60 mins into the film with total loss of centre channel. That tech crew must have been hard of hearing not to notice or see any of them out in the foyer red faced, (as I was) I saved and planed for weeks to watch a digital lemon. He was right. I sixth sense doubt it would be great. The opening/closing credits was shrank inwards and that wouldn't happen on 35mm.
 

MrMiniver

Auditioning
Joined
Aug 21, 2014
Messages
8
Real Name
Mark
andySu said:
Well I think it is and even director Lewis Gilbert, TSWLM was skeptical at, the empire leicester square, when it showed in DNR and EE and dodgy sound that packed up 60 mins into the film with total loss of centre channel. That tech crew must have been hard of hearing not to notice or see any of them out in the foyer red faced, (as I was) I saved and planed for weeks to watch a digital lemon. He was right. I sixth sense doubt it would be great. The opening/closing credits was shrank inwards and that wouldn't happen on 35mm.
Digital cinema is not bad at all, it can look bad but so can film presentations.

Digital IMAX benefits from dual projection which IMO is better than most single projection digital shows. Especially if the screen is more than 50 feet wide.
 

TravisR

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2004
Messages
42,426
Location
The basement of the FBI building
MrMiniver said:
Digital cinema is not bad at all, it can look bad but so can film presentations.
The sad fact is that since digital somewhat idiot-proofs the presentation, it's cut way down on the amount of errors that I used to frequently experience with film. I wish chain theaters were capable of properly presenting 35mm film but for years, they demonstrated that they can't so the switch to digital has been a boon to the presentation in every theater I've been to.
 

MrMiniver

Auditioning
Joined
Aug 21, 2014
Messages
8
Real Name
Mark
TravisR said:
The sad fact is that since digital somewhat idiot-proofs the presentation, it's cut way down on the amount of errors that I used to frequently experience with film. I wish chain theaters were capable of properly presenting 35mm film but for years, they demonstrated that they can't so the switch to digital has been a boon to the presentation in every theater I've been to.
No doubt it, 35mm can look great and so can 70mm IMAX. However both can look awful, I have seen bad 70mm IMAX a few times with dim bulbs and scratched prints.

Single projection digital usually looks great on smaller screens while IMAX dual projection digital can look very good on larger screens.
 

Josh Steinberg

Premium
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2003
Messages
26,271
Real Name
Josh Steinberg
MrMiniver said:
Hi Josh, interesting post. I believe IMAX supplies the 15/70 distribution via Kodak in New York, but the studios do pay for the print costs.

I happen to believe that there is a bit of a conspiracy on the part of IMAX and the end of 15/70 prints. Here is why:

1. IMAX knew Gravity was going to be a hit. So did the studios, in order for a lot of theaters to get Gravity, they needed to install digital IMAX. (IMAX pushes the digital system as it is much more profitable). Holding back on 15/70 Gravity release prints was intentional IMO.

2. Right now, there are no more 15/70 Hollywood movies released in 15/70. I think this is deliberate on the part of IMAX. IMAX has the new laser projectors coming out, and all multiplex 15/70 locations were upgraded to digital before Gravity. Now, for those large purpose built locations, they have to upgrade to digital laser to get the Hollywood films.
Hi Mark,

I don't see it as a conspiracy, but we may just agree to disagree :) I wish I could remember where I had read the interview I did, but in it, one of the IMAX people was saying that the studios had paid for prints in the past, but were no longer willing to, which is why they had to go exclusively digital on Hollywood films last summer.

If IMAX was willing to pay for the prints, I'm sure the studios would be happy for 15/70 to have continued. But studios in general have been slowing down on prints, period. Last December, Paramount stopped making 35mm prints, period -- if you're a domestic theater and you want a Paramount movie, it's digital or nothing. Other studios will follow, if they haven't already.

We did get both "The Hunger Games: Catching Fire" and "The Hobbit: The Desolation Of Smaug" in 15/70 at the end of last year. "Catching Fire" was a no-brainer because the film was partially shot in that format. Christopher Nolan's upcoming "Interstellar" is also partially shot in 15/70, so I expect we'll get some prints of that as well. He's a huge proponent of both photochemical film in general and IMAX specifically, so I can't see any way that he'd shoot in that format and then not have the film go out that way. I wonder if there's something in his contract about that, it wouldn't shock me, but that's pure speculation on my part. I'm really curious to see if there will be 15/70 prints of the final Hobbit film, or if "Interstellar" will be the last. I've also seen a couple stills showing JJ Abrams with the 15/70 IMAX camera on the set of Star Wars Episode VII, so I'll be curious if they make any prints for that as well.

Gravity would have been amazing in 15/70 - I consider it a lost opportunity.

My issue with the IMAX DLP projectors in the 15/70 locations is that it doesn't fill the screen in any way. Most Hollywood films that had been shown in 15/70 weren't shot with IMAX cameras and were blow-ups from 35mm, but the images filled the entire width of the screen, even if they didn't take advantage of the complete height. At the 15/70 Lincoln Square auditorium in NYC, the digital projectors do not fill the width of the screen, so we're stuck with a pillarboxed image -- black bars on all four sides. That, to me, is terrible. It's like looking at a postage stamp on a large envelope. Objectively speaking, it's still a gigantic image onscreen that's bigger than anything you can get anywhere else -- but I find that once the movie starts, subjectively all of the dead space on screen has the effect of making everything seem smaller than it is. It's my opinion that the current DLP projectors just don't have the resolution to fill the entire screen - I base that opinion on the fact that when I saw "Gravity" there (multiple times), there were parts that were very pixelated, you could see the image starting to break apart. I haven't noticed that with any other films I've seen there since, so maybe there was simply an error in the digital copy of the film they had at that theater, or maybe that film specifically was of lower resolution than others they've shown since, but whatever the reason, it wasn't pretty.

I'm hoping that the upcoming laser projectors will at least allow for the image to once again fill the entire width of the screen.
 

Josh Steinberg

Premium
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2003
Messages
26,271
Real Name
Josh Steinberg
andySu said:
Well I think it is and even director Lewis Gilbert, TSWLM was skeptical at, the empire leicester square, when it showed in DNR and EE and dodgy sound that packed up 60 mins into the film with total loss of centre channel. That tech crew must have been hard of hearing not to notice or see any of them out in the foyer red faced, (as I was) I saved and planed for weeks to watch a digital lemon. He was right. I sixth sense doubt it would be great. The opening/closing credits was shrank inwards and that wouldn't happen on 35mm.
The Bond DCPs that MGM made are terrible, and in my opinion should not be used as a judgment on the quality of digital cinema in general. The DCPs are made using the same masters that they made the Ultimate Edition DVDs (and later, the Blu-rays) from, so they're based on older scans, older cleanups, and were really done for the home market. All of the compromises that MGM made on the discs were baked into the masters, such as squeezing the title sequences. Those masters should never have been used for theatrical exhibition in my opinion.

But to use that as an example for why all digital projection is terrible, to me that's like throwing out the baby with the bathwater. It's my preference to see repertory film on film, but in this day and age, that's quickly becoming a thing of the past. But I have seen some DCPs that looked film-like and were visually pleasing to the eye, and I'm usually a tough critic (I've made other posts on this forum before where I've criticized poorly made DCPs that seemed no better than an existing mediocre-quality Blu-ray of the same title - if the studio didn't put the time, effort or money into doing a good Blu-ray, chances are the DCP isn't going to be much better). The Bond DCPs I'd put as being among the worst because they are so clearly home video masters with the title sequences squeezed and pillarboxed, protecting for overscan which is rarely a problem with HDTVs and never a problem with digital projectors. They're the wrong masters for the format. On the other hand, I saw "A Hard Day's Night" not long ago, and it looked fantastic. As did "Blue Velvet", the original Japanese "Godzilla", and "Raiders of the Lost Ark". I haven't gotten a chance to see it yet, but I would imagine "Ghostbusters" and "Lawrence Of Arabia" probably look pretty good - Sony has had a pretty good track record of late for these types of things.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
356,813
Messages
5,123,616
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top