Theatrical Captain America: Civil War (2016) (1 Viewer)

[TravisR]

I saw this in an Imax but didn't even notice the enlargened shots so when did that happen?

The airport fight sequences.

 

[TonyD]

I figured as much. Just so into the movie I didn't notice the change.

 

[TonyD]

Btw how about fixing the title of this topic?

 

[Colin Jacobson]

I figured as much. Just so into the movie I didn't notice the change.

You probably didn't notice because it's not a big aspect ratio change. It's not the jump from 2.35:1 to 1.44:1 we got with flicks like "Interstellar" - instead, it's the change from 2.35:1 to 1.90:1 seen with the last "Transformers" movie.

Congrats to IMAX for dumbing down the format to make it more LIEMAX friendly!

 

[Sam Favate]

This is pretty funny, and it does sort of take Marvel to task for something that's been happening for nearly 50 years:

Hayley Atwell weighs in on Captain America’s Civil War love interest

http://www.ew.com/article/2016/06/06/captain-america-civil-war-hayley-atwell-steve-sharon

Of course, Sharon was originally written as Peggy's younger sister, with whom Steve fell in love.

 

[Jonathan Perregaux]

I wouldn't exactly call it a "love interest." Or even an "interest." At least based on the way the scene was staged in Civil War. It was merely a physically interesting pressing of the lips to satisfy some vaguely prurient curiosity. Now satisfied and... moving on.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

You probably didn't notice because it's not a big aspect ratio change. It's not the jump from 2.35:1 to 1.44:1 we got with flicks like "Interstellar" - instead, it's the change from 2.35:1 to 1.90:1 seen with the last "Transformers" movie.

Congrats to IMAX for dumbing down the format to make it more LIEMAX friendly!

Don't blame IMAX, blame the Russos who had no interest in shooting with the 15/70 film camera.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Don't blame IMAX, blame the Russos who had no interest in shooting with the 15/70 film camera.

I blame IMAX for making the 1.90:1 ratio an option and calling it "IMAX"...

 

[George_W_K]

This is pretty funny, and it does sort of take Marvel to task for something that's been happening for nearly 50 years:

Hayley Atwell weighs in on Captain America’s Civil War love interest

http://www.ew.com/article/2016/06/06/captain-america-civil-war-hayley-atwell-steve-sharon

Of course, Sharon was originally written as Peggy's younger sister, with whom Steve fell in love.

If he wasn't frozen in time, maybe I could see the issue. I was more bothered by the direction they said the comics were going with Steve Rogers.

 

[TravisR]

I was more bothered by the direction they said the comics were going with Steve Rogers.

I don't really read superhero comics but as a comic shop goer, I heard alot of... passionate debate when that twist happened and if I had to guess, I'd say all the freaking out is unwarranted. I think it was all a 'lie' for the sake of a cliffhanger or to get people talking about this year's crossover event and it'll work out that he's not that or he's a robot and the real guy will be back or he was mind controlled or some silly explanation. Even if they set out for that to be true, they'll be changing their plans as soon as possible because have fans lost their damn minds over it.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I blame IMAX for making the 1.90:1 ratio an option and calling it "IMAX"...

I don't have an issue with it. Most IMAX theaters are not at a 1.44:1 ratio, and even mine now uses digital projectors only capable of 1.90:1 even though the screen is a 1.44:1 height. Part of this transition was due to studios refusing to take on the cost of film prints as they once had. Now, I love 1.44:1 and I think true IMAX is a glorious thing to behold, but 1.90:1 on a giant screen still is huge. I don't really get this whole business of calling it "Liemax" or insulting names. The IMAX name means you're seeing a movie that's been specifically remastered by the IMAX corporation to play on their larger screens, so by default, anything that IMAX is showing is in IMAX. To me, the real scam is the so-called "premium large format" theaters. With the exception of the handful of PLF screens using the brand new Dolby Vision technology, the DCP being shown in "premium large format" theaters is exactly the same one being shown on regular screens, so there's nothing "large format" at all about it. With IMAX, they're using dual projection for 3D which gives you better brightness and clarity and reduces ghosting, on a version of the film that's been specifically remastered for those larger screens, and that's something that the overwhelming majority of the so-called "premium large format" theaters can't offer.

And in my experience, IMAX has by far the best customer service of any major theater company out there. At the end of every one of their movies, they show a card with contact information for them, and encourage you to write in with your thoughts. They have always responded to my emails, usually within a couple hours, and on the rare times when something has gone wrong, they've gone above and beyond to fix it. When I go to an IMAX theater, I know that the movie will be properly framed, projected in focus, and if it's in 3D, I know that the 3D presentation will be of high quality. I don't really feel I get that guarantee with any other type of theater. Heck, at one of the theaters I go to, I can't even get them to acknowledge when the picture is out of focus or that a speaker is busted. In NYC, seeing a regular 2D movie is now about $16 - that's a lot of money to spend for theaters that won't guarantee quality. At least when I pay $23 for IMAX, it's going to be perfect or they're going to make it right if it's not. If nothing else, that would be worth the premium for me.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I don't really read superhero comics but as a comic shop goer, I heard alot of... passionate debate when that twist happened and if I had to guess, I'd say all the freaking out is unwarranted. I think it was all a 'lie' for the sake of a cliffhanger or to get people talking about this year's crossover event and it'll work out that he's not that or he's a robot and the real guy will be back or he was mind controlled or some silly explanation. Even if they set out for that to be true, they'll be changing their plans as soon as possible because have fans lost their damn minds over it.

One of my pals is a huge Captain America comic book fan, and he's somewhere between laughing and shaking his head at the audience response. Apparently in the history of that comic book, they've frequently done stories like that where Captain America suddenly seems like the bad guy, and in the end, there's always a twist that reveals that Steve Rogers is in fact a hero and not a bad guy. Always.

Spoiler

My friend tells me that there's a strong hint that the reality shown in that book has been affected by the cosmic cube, so it's a distorted version of reality that someone manipulated, and the likely resolution will be that Rogers will start remembering the real universe and ultimately undo the fake reality.

So I completely agree, the freaking out seems unnecessary. My friend's theory is that most of the noise is coming from people who have never read the comics and just know Cap from the movies. These are serialized stories anyhow - I don't know how you rate one part of it without seeing the whole. It's clearly just the start of something larger, and not the end of the story. The point of the reveal is to get you interested in coming back to read next week's or next month's.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

I don't have an issue with it. Most IMAX theaters are not at a 1.44:1 ratio, and even mine now uses digital projectors only capable of 1.90:1 even though the screen is a 1.44:1 height. Part of this transition was due to studios refusing to take on the cost of film prints as they once had. Now, I love 1.44:1 and I think true IMAX is a glorious thing to behold, but 1.90:1 on a giant screen still is huge. I don't really get this whole business of calling it "Liemax" or insulting names. The IMAX name means you're seeing a movie that's been specifically remastered by the IMAX corporation to play on their larger screens, so by default, anything that IMAX is showing is in IMAX. To me, the real scam is the so-called "premium large format" theaters. With the exception of the handful of PLF screens using the brand new Dolby Vision technology, the DCP being shown in "premium large format" theaters is exactly the same one being shown on regular screens, so there's nothing "large format" at all about it. With IMAX, they're using dual projection for 3D which gives you better brightness and clarity and reduces ghosting, on a version of the film that's been specifically remastered for those larger screens, and that's something that the overwhelming majority of the so-called "premium large format" theaters can't offer.

And in my experience, IMAX has by far the best customer service of any major theater company out there. At the end of every one of their movies, they show a card with contact information for them, and encourage you to write in with your thoughts. They have always responded to my emails, usually within a couple hours, and on the rare times when something has gone wrong, they've gone above and beyond to fix it. When I go to an IMAX theater, I know that the movie will be properly framed, projected in focus, and if it's in 3D, I know that the 3D presentation will be of high quality. I don't really feel I get that guarantee with any other type of theater. Heck, at one of the theaters I go to, I can't even get them to acknowledge when the picture is out of focus or that a speaker is busted. In NYC, seeing a regular 2D movie is now about $16 - that's a lot of money to spend for theaters that won't guarantee quality. At least when I pay $23 for IMAX, it's going to be perfect or they're going to make it right if it's not. If nothing else, that would be worth the premium for me.

If you like IMAX on a smaller screen, great - but don't dismiss those of us who think they're dumbed down their product for mass(er) consumption.

There's no difference between the smaller screens branded as IMAX and decent-sized screens from other brands.

IMAX used to mean a HUGE screen, and films shot with IMAX cameras were something special.

Now? Not so much...

 

[TravisR]

One of my pals is a huge Captain America comic book fan, and he's somewhere between laughing and shaking his head at the audience response. Apparently in the history of that comic book, they've frequently done stories like that where Captain America suddenly seems like the bad guy, and in the end, there's always a twist that reveals that Steve Rogers is in fact a hero and not a bad guy. Always.

Spoiler

My friend tells me that there's a strong hint that the reality shown in that book has been affected by the cosmic cube, so it's a distorted version of reality that someone manipulated, and the likely resolution will be that Rogers will start remembering the real universe and ultimately undo the fake reality.

So I completely agree, the freaking out seems unnecessary. My friend's theory is that most of the noise is coming from people who have never read the comics and just know Cap from the movies. These are serialized stories anyhow - I don't know how you rate one part of it without seeing the whole. It's clearly just the start of something larger, and not the end of the story. The point of the reveal is to get you interested in coming back to read next week's or next month's.

I remember a Star Wars comic book last year where a woman showed up saying she was Han's wife. I read it and thought "That's a lie but it makes an interesting cliffhanger". Then in the next day or two, the media got a hold of it and then it was "WTF?! HAN SOLO HAS A WIFE!!!!!!!!"

 

[Josh Steinberg]

If you like IMAX on a smaller screen, great - but don't dismiss those of us who think they're dumbed down their product for mass(er) consumption.

There's no difference between the smaller screens branded as IMAX and decent-sized screens from other brands.

IMAX used to mean a HUGE screen, and films shot with IMAX cameras were something special.

Now? Not so much...

I'm not dismissing you...I just don't think they're lying. Yes, the screen size is different, and yes, the purpose built auditoriums are larger than the retrofitted multiplex ones. But the projection quality is still improved, and as I mentioned, they have unique DCPs that are specially enhanced for their screens. When you buy a ticket to see an IMAX movie, you're paying to see a movie in an auditorium run by IMAX and with their special DCP or print of the movie, and you're getting that regardless of whether it's a 1.44:1 or a 1.90:1 auditorium.

No one is lying to you about anything, though, and that's why I hate the term LieMax. Especially when people use it repeatedly. (ex "I just saw another movie at the liemax"). If you feel you're being cheated, then why go back?

I'm very happy to have a discussion on the merits of IMAX in bigger vs larger spaces and whether it's worth the premium or not, but it's hard to even have that when people just wanna call it a lie.

And, for what it's worth - blame should go as much to the studio and filmmakers as the IMAX company for the slowdown in 15/70 titles. Around 2013, the studios said they weren't going to pay for the 15/70 prints anymore. Most filmmakers aren't interested in using their cameras. According to the American Cinematographer article on Civil War, the Russos never even considered using the 15/70 camera - you can't fault the IMAX company for that. And when a filmmaker does use it, as JJ Abrams did for Star Wars: The Force Awakens, the studio cheaped out and was only willing to pay for about ten 15/70 prints, and in 2D only (3D prints cost twice as much) - so even when a filmmaker is using the camera, the studio isn't supporting the release in that format, which can't be very inspiring for the filmmakers. And then why should IMAX build more 15/70 sized screens if no one is shooting that format anymore?

I thought after The Dark Knight that we might get a new age of films shot in 15/70 and am disappointed it never really took off. But there's plenty of blame to go around on that one.

 

[George_W_K]

If you like IMAX on a smaller screen, great - but don't dismiss those of us who think they're dumbed down their product for mass(er) consumption.

There's no difference between the smaller screens branded as IMAX and decent-sized screens from other brands.

IMAX used to mean a HUGE screen, and films shot with IMAX cameras were something special.

Now? Not so much...

How many huge screens did IMAX have around the US? The only huge IMAX screen here in Cleveland is at the science museum, but they show the space and nature movies, not Hollywood. It's called Omninax, not sure if that's a museum thing or if it's not even related to IMAX at all. There's a smaller IMAX screen at a local shopping center and the presentation is always fantastic. I love the sound system there and 3D always looks better than any other choices around here.

But that's all we've had in this area. When they replayed Interstellar one last time, I would have had to drive two hours to see it and I never got a clear answer on if it was the 70mm print.

I guess my point is IMAX meant a huge screen for some of you lucky ones, but I'm not sure the majority of movie goers were able to experience true IMAX. I'm jealous to be honest.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

I'm not dismissing you...I just don't think they're lying. Yes, the screen size is different, and yes, the purpose built auditoriums are larger than the retrofitted multiplex ones. But the projection quality is still improved, and as I mentioned, they have unique DCPs that are specially enhanced for their screens. When you buy a ticket to see an IMAX movie, you're paying to see a movie in an auditorium run by IMAX and with their special DCP or print of the movie, and you're getting that regardless of whether it's a 1.44:1 or a 1.90:1 auditorium.

No one is lying to you about anything, though, and that's why I hate the term LieMax. Especially when people use it repeatedly. (ex "I just saw another movie at the liemax"). If you feel you're being cheated, then why go back?

I'm very happy to have a discussion on the merits of IMAX in bigger vs larger spaces and whether it's worth the premium or not, but it's hard to even have that when people just wanna call it a lie.

FWIW, I call it "LIEMAX" as a convenience. I agree it's a silly name, but it's easier to call it "LIEMAX" than "IMAX on smaller screens with a different, non-1.44:1 aspect ratio", isn't it?

And also FWIW, I think a lot of people who go to LIEMAX screens do so with the expectation that they'll get the "full IMAX experience" - or at least that used to be the case. I remember when the local AMC opened an IMAX screen, I was excited - and then I went there and discovered it was just a standard screen that was a bit bigger than usual,

I don't claim LIEMAX presentations are good - I just don't like the way they've influenced cinema, as I believe the push toward the (IMO) pointless 1.90:1 "IMAX" is due to the prevalence of the non-real-IMAX screens...

 

[Colin Jacobson]

How many huge screens did IMAX have around the US? The only huge IMAX screen here in Cleveland is at the science museum, but they show the space and nature movies, not Hollywood. It's called Omninax, not sure if that's a museum thing or if it's not even related to IMAX at all. There's a smaller IMAX screen at a local shopping center and the presentation is always fantastic. I love the sound system there and 3D always looks better than any other choices around here.

But that's all we've had in this area. When they replayed Interstellar one last time, I would have had to drive two hours to see it and I never got a clear answer on if it was the 70mm print.

I guess my point is IMAX meant a huge screen for some of you lucky ones, but I'm not sure the majority of movie goers were able to experience true IMAX. I'm jealous to be honest.

Hey, I might have 3 "real IMAX" screens within 45 minutes of my house, but to go to the ones in DC, I take the Metro. Do you know what a mess the Metro is these days? The trip could literally kill me!

But seriously - I know I'm "lucky" because I have 3 "real IMAX' screens so close, and I know a lot of people don't have any.

I don't see why this should prompt IMAX to dumb down the product, though. Real IMAX movies played just fine on LIEMAX screens, didn't they? It's not like "Interstellar" was only exhibited on full-size IMAX screens and the rest of the world wasn't able to see it...

 

[Josh Steinberg]

FWIW, I call it "LIEMAX" as a convenience. I agree it's a silly name, but it's easier to call it "LIEMAX" than "IMAX on smaller screens with a different, non-1.44:1 aspect ratio", isn't it?

And also FWIW, I think a lot of people who go to LIEMAX screens do so with the expectation that they'll get the "full IMAX experience" - or at least that used to be the case. I remember when the local AMC opened an IMAX screen, I was excited - and then I went there and discovered it was just a standard screen that was a bit bigger than usual,...

I call it "IMAX Digital" when referring to the smaller auditoriums. That seems to convey the point without silly name calling in my opinion.

I agree that there are likely some folks who first went to a digital IMAX theater expecting a larger screen - I did the first time I went. I was just mentioning in the context of people who go over and over. One person on this forum for instance always notes when he saw a particular new release at the Liemax - and again, I ask, I get it the first time you go, but if you feel ripped off, why keep going back? Once you know what the theater is, can you really still claim you're being lied to?

I'm sorry, this may just be a silly pet peeve, but I don't think anyone is lying to anyone so I really don't like seeing that accusation being thrown around, even as a shorthand term.

To me, IMAX means their mastering and presentation overall as much as their screen size.

As I mentioned earlier, I think the real "lie" is the so-called "premium large format" screens which charge IMAX prices but show you the same standard DCP as regular theaters, and use RealD for 3D instead of two projectors, and use a 1.90:1 screen even though their DCP does not have the shifting IMAX ratios. Those so-called PLF theaters are promising you an IMAX type experience but merely delivering a regular theater experience on a slightly larger screen.

 

[Sean Bryan]

What are your thoughts on the IMAX/Arri camera being used to film the Infinity War movies (and the airport scene in Civil War)?