Need some IMAX opinions! (1 Viewer)

[Robert Crawford]

I'm just so happy to have an original, 60 foot IMAX theater just 5 miles from my home that only charges $16 for a reserved seating ticket. My 3D screening of Doctor Strange in this venue was probably the most impressive visual experience I've ever had in a movie theater.

My IMAX charges $10.00 for matinees and $13.50 for evening showings.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

My IMAX charges $10.00 for matinees and $13.50 for evening showings.

My IMAX 2D ticket for Logan tonight is $25.29. I want your prices!

 

[Colin Jacobson]

I'm just so happy to have an original, 60 foot IMAX theater just 5 miles from my home that only charges $16 for a reserved seating ticket. .

Yeah, I'm also lucky that I live within 25 miles of three "real IMAX" screens!

I still need something special to get me to one of them, though. If the movie doesn't have "true IMAX" footage, I won't bother - digital IMAX with its 1.9:1 ratio is a waste of time, IMO...

 

[Colin Jacobson]

My IMAX 2D ticket for Logan tonight is $25.29. I want your prices!

You're paying for the right to be Mr. First Nighter!

 

[Wayne_j]

No, they would charge the same amount no matter what night he sees it. I'm pretty sure he's from NYC, the most expensive market in the country.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

You're paying for the right to be Mr. First Nighter!

Nope, that's just the regular ticket price. Beauty And The Beast is having special "first showing" pricing that will be $35 a ticket - but Disney is bundling the film this way for all of the first screenings, regardless of format. If you want to see the 6pm first showing of BATB, whether you're in NYC or the middle of nowhere, you'll be paying an extra fee for it. But the pricing for Logan is their normal price.

I'm pretty sure he's from NYC, the most expensive market in the country.

Yup!

 

[steve jaros]

My IMAX 2D ticket for Logan tonight is $25.29. I want your prices!

Damn .... If i was inclined to see Logan in "IMAX" 2D tomorrow, the matinee price at my theater is $9.34. Even if i insisted on seeing it tonight at 7 PM, i could get in for $12.64. And this is full blown state of the art theater with food and drink service at your seat and those new "luxury recliners".

Then again, in NYC you get to see every movie released, whereas down here loads of interesting independent and foreign films never make it my market, so I'd rather have your situation.

But if you just like seeing the big blockbuster hollywood movies, my market is tough to beat. We have three huge multiplexes with all the bells and whistles, and matinee 3D and IMAX showings are around $10 a ticket (3D for around $8.50).

 

[steve jaros]

Yeah, I'm also lucky that I live within 25 miles of three "real IMAX" screens!

I still need something special to get me to one of them, though. If the movie doesn't have "true IMAX" footage, I won't bother - digital IMAX with its 1.9:1 ratio is a waste of time, IMO...

You're very lucky. To my knowledge, the closest "real" IMAX screen to me is almost 300 miles away!

We have two "fake" (multiplex) IMAX screens near my house, but I won't patronize them.

For example, tomorrow morning I plan to see "Logan". The matinee price for IMAX 2D is $9.34, but for the regular 2D showing at the same time it is only $4.50! Is the IMAX a little better, sure, the screen is a little bigger and the sound a little more dynamic, but IMO not worth more than double the price.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Then again, in NYC you get to see every movie released, whereas down here loads of interesting independent and foreign films never make it my market, so I'd rather have your situation.

That's definitely an advantage, but unfortunately, those movies aren't priced any better - it's usually $16 a pop for one of those. I find that when there's a choice between seeing an independent or foreign film in the theaters, or seeing it at home if the studio has made it one of those titles that plays simultaneously on streaming and PPV services and theaters, I'm now picking the "at home" option most of the time. It's really hard for me to justify spending $16 on a ticket (or more likely, $32 on a pair) for something I can watch at home at the same time for only about $5. Many of the theaters that do show indie and foreign films show them on such tiny screens that watching it on my home projector is the better option.

But if you just like seeing the big blockbuster hollywood movies

It's not even that those are the only ones I want to see - but they're the easiest to justify. Logan on an IMAX screen will seem larger in life in a hopefully memorable and unforgettable way. But I just saw all of the Best Picture winners in a conventional theater last week, and based on the size of the screen offered, I'm not sure any benefited from being seen that way instead of on a home screen. I wish that weren't the case but as long as regular theater screen sizes keep shrinking while prices keep going up, it's harder and harder for me to financially justify seeing non-event movies in theaters.

 

[steve jaros]

It's not even that those are the only ones I want to see - but they're the easiest to justify. Logan on an IMAX screen will seem larger in life in a hopefully memorable and unforgettable way. But I just saw all of the Best Picture winners in a conventional theater last week, and based on the size of the screen offered, I'm not sure any benefited from being seen that way instead of on a home screen. I wish that weren't the case but as long as regular theater screen sizes keep shrinking while prices keep going up, it's harder and harder for me to financially justify seeing non-event movies in theaters.

That's a difference in our situations. The two AMC theater complexes near me have BIG regular screens. Sure, I have a 120" screen and projector at home, but the AMC screens are massive, it's no comparison, and at $4.94 a pop for an 11 AM showing (2D) every day, I see as many films in the theater as i can (about 140 in 2016). That's how I'm seeing Logan tomorrow.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

That's a difference in our situations. The two AMC theater complexes near me have BIG regular screens. Sure, I have a 120" screen and projector at home, but the AMC screens are massive, it's no comparison

I'd love to be able to say the same here - I'd say there's always hope, but in NYC, nothing's ever gonna get bigger, it's all about fitting more things into less space. Even the AMCs here (which I generally frequent over the other chains) vary wildly within the complex - I'd swear at least a couple are around that 120" size. There are some new theaters opening up in the area, or that opened in recent years, that are positioning themselves as young, hip places to see movies - places where they don't allow little kids into late night "R" rated movies, where they have increased gourmet food and beverage options, repertory screenings, even screenings of film actually on film - but for me, the screen size is the fatal weakness at all of these new places. As the service amenities seem to increase, screen size mostly seems to decrease around here. And for me, the thing is, they can have the best food offerings or the most comfortable chairs, but for almost twenty bucks a pop on screens equivalent to what I have at home, it's not really worth it as much as it used to be.

 

[TravisR]

My IMAX 2D ticket for Logan tonight is $25.29. I want your prices!

How is it possible that the price at my theater in suburban Philadelphia is within $5 of the prices in one of the most expensive cities in the world?

 

[Josh Steinberg]

How is it possible that the price at my theater in suburban Philadelphia is within $5 of the prices in one of the most expensive cities in the world?

Is it part of a chain like AMC? In my experience, the "chain" locations end up costing more than the ones run in museums and other special installations.

Just out of curiosity, what's a regular 2D ticket in suburban Philadelphia? It's $16 in NYC, and about $14 in the suburbs here where my parents are.

edit: rising prices are out of control here. They just raised the 2D IMAX price from $24.99 to $25.29 about a month ago, and the last price increase prior to that was two months earlier. Less than five years ago, IMAX tickets were still under the $20 threshold here, but they now raise the prices several times a year. I have to wonder what their ceiling is and if there's a line that's a bridge too far. I know that five years ago, if I liked an IMAX movie, I'd see it at least twice in that format. Now, even if I love the move, I'm done after one screening.

 

[TravisR]

Is it part of a chain like AMC? In my experience, the "chain" locations end up costing more than the ones run in museums and other special installations.

Just out of curiosity, what's a regular 2D ticket in suburban Philadelphia? It's $16 in NYC, and about $14 in the suburbs here where my parents are.

$11.05 for a 2-D matinee and $13.05 at night and $3 more for 3-D. I haven't been to an IMAX screening since a recent price increase but it must be a hair over $20 now.

And yeah, it's a chain (Regal) and while I have to say that the quality is high, you do pay for it.

 

[cinemiracle]

I know this will come off sounding like a sour threadcrap, but if it's a "LiMax" theater I wouldn't bother making the drive for any film, the scaled down "IMAX" that they've put in multiplexes is IMO a pale imitation of the real, wondrous giant IMAX screens of the 1980s and not worth bothering with.

But if that's not your perspective, or if your ticket is to what I regard as a real IMAX screen, then I would definitely see "Kong", as the previews seem to indicate it will be even more laden with SFX and loud dynamic sounds than "Logan", though I suspect "Logan" will be the better film.

I totally agree with you re Imax (aka LIE MAX). Most Imax screens have gone they way of The Incredible Shrinking Man! At least in Australia we have the world's biggest Imax screen. IMAX is only superb when you see an actual film projected and not the dreadful digital experience. Most Imax films to-day don't even fill the complete screen - only about 2/3 of it. The quality is also reduced as the screen is a grey color so that 3-D films can be shown.You no longer get true white colors on the screen.

 

[cinemiracle]

Sadly, that's been my experience at all of my local theaters, regardless of viewing format - at best, maybe you can get a pass to return for another showing, but it seems that there's no one on hand to actually address issues as they come up. I've noticed that at both the megachains and the smaller theaters, it just seems to be an across-the-board calculation that most people won't notice presentation problems, and for the rare time when someone does complain, it's cheaper to give out one free pass every now and then than it is to have an extra employee on salary who actually knows how to service the equipment. And I'm in NYC, not the middle of nowhere, so it's surprising me that presentation standards have sunk so far. That particular bad experience I spoke about was at a Regal theater - the manager there told me it was company police not to give refunds once the show began. I tried to take him through the logic of "how was I supposed to ask for a refund before the movie started if the problem started with the movie?" but that didn't really get me anywhere. But it's really been my same experience at all of the chains I've been to of late. Even places that used to offer quality presentations five years ago have slipped.

It's just a totally different ballgame with IMAX and customer service. When they renovated one of the screens that I frequently attend (and had written to them about before), they went so far as to email me personally to welcome me to the new renovation and to ask for my feedback after going. Their multiplex screens are, granted, not as big as their original 15/70 installs, but to me, they are still the largest screens in that given multiplex, and are well-maintained compared to the rest of the theaters in the same complex. If I buy a ticket to a regular showing of a movie, I have no idea what I'm going to get - it could be absolutely fine, or it could be a problem, but I don't know (but I do know that if there's a problem, it won't get fixed). If I buy an IMAX ticket, I'll at least get it on a slightly larger screen (if not a much larger screen), I know that it'll be in focus and the 3D quality will be fine (if it's a 3D movie), and if anything goes wrong, I know it'll get fixed.

I think a really good argument could and should be made that all theaters should be offering the customer service that IMAX does, but since they don't, that's where I'm at. But I respect your choice and am appreciative of you explaining why it isn't a good value for you.

It may not be the customer service but the real problem,as I mentioned elsewhere, it that the screen is of a grey color ( so they can show 3-D) and the digital quality is woeful-even worse on an Imax screen. The price ($A35 in Australia) is a turn-off for me. However they are always selling tickets for $A15 on line on such sites as Scoopon or Groupon. To-day Imax films usually only fill 2/3 of the screen if they are digital. So why call them IMAX? Maybe you can also call it fraudmax!

 

[steve jaros]

I totally agree with you re Imax (aka LIE MAX). Most Imax screens have gone they way of The Incredible Shrinking Man! At least in Australia we have the world's biggest Imax screen. IMAX is only superb when you see an actual film projected and not the dreadful digital experience. Most Imax films to-day don't even fill the complete screen - only about 2/3 of it. The quality is also reduced as the screen is a grey color so that 3-D films can be shown.You no longer get true white colors on the screen.

Yes, thinking about my exchange with Josh about this, I guess maybe it's a matter of age perspective. I'm 50-ish, and the IMAX i grew up with was the giant white screen with 70mm film, a combination that IMO was the best visual experience on the planet, and despite all the developments in digital technology over the past 40 years, still is. And for example I enjoyed Fantasia 2000, which i saw at a real (meaning huge) IMAX screen and was blown away by, even though I assume it was upconverted from 35mm or somesuch. So the small-screen "digital IMAX" introduced in 2008 or so will never be "real" IMAX to me, regardless of what the IMAX corporation says, LOL.

As I indicated, to me, the multiplex version of IMAX is just a slight improvement over the regular theater experience, so even if i wasn't philosophically opposed to the new format, it still just isn't worth the ticket premium. This morning, i can see "Logan" in digital IMAX for $9.34 or in regular digital presentation for $4.94. To me, the latter is a no-brainer.

 

[Brent Reid]

Don't worry Steve, it's got nothing to do with your age and everything to do with commercial dishonesty. By the company's own definition, for the best part of four decades IMAX meant, among other things, but foremost. a giant screen experience – one far bigger than could be had anywhere else. After a reshuffle at the top, the decision came to expand their brand and market share, which is fair enough. However, the only practical way they could achieve this was by going down, in terms of screen size at least, and to redefine what IMAX meant.

I don't begrudge them any of this but the fact remains that they've done it in a very underhanded way, by relying on the technical ignorance of the vast majority of the cinema-going public. Aside from cinema (as opposed to just film) buffs and friends in the industry, I've yet to encounter anyone who's actually aware of this downgrade prior to me informing them. Most folk simply get stoked that they're finally getting to see films at one of the legendary 'extra-big screen' IMAX venues they've been hearing about for such a long time.

What IMAX the corporation should have done was to add a prefix or suffix to distinguish their original, actual extra-big screen venues and their new LIMAX/LIEMAX screens, eg "IMAX Extra" or "IMAX Mini". But, based on their behaviour so far they're not likely to do that, because that would be transparent and honest. They're obviously concerned such a move would enlighten their customers to the fact that only a tiny minority of them are now getting the full, as-originally-defined IMAX experience.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Let's remember those older IMAX theaters were restricted to a few select cities so many of us, didn't really have a chance to experience them unless we travel a great distance in many cases. I was in LA, when I attended my first showing.

Anyhow, this discussion has shifted from my first question to another "complaint session" about another subject matter that wasn't the intention for this thread. Funny, how this type of activity happens in so many threads.

Off to see "Logan" at my local theater so my IMAX question has been answered.