Star Trek in IMAX (1 Viewer)

[questrider]

I saw this on Digg this morning. Perhaps all this fake-IMAX business needs its own thread to inform those who aren't reading this Star Trek-themed thread.

IMAX or LIEMAX? - Google Maps

 

[RolandL]

Thanks Bryan. That's a great list. Not all of the "1570" are large screen. Back in 2004, IMAX started converting regular theatres to IMAX. The one we have in Manchester, CT - "Showcase Cinemas Buckland Hills" is "1570" but the screen is not large and has a 2:1 aspect ratio. They showed a few films that were shot in IMAX at first but, they had to cut off the top and bottom on the frame to fill the 2:1 screen. It looked very bad in some scenes. Films that are 2:35 are cropped on the sides so they can fill the full screen.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Had prior business in Connecticut one time before the Albany digital location opened, so I was excited to stop at the Buckland Hills IMAX along the way. Saw I Am Legend: The IMAX Experience. Utterly horrendous. They just took IMAX speakers and an IMAX projector, and stuck them in a regular Regal auditorium. Bad picture cropping on all sides during the Dark Knight prologue, and dicey presentation for the feature film itself. I would honestly never go back there, and much prefer the fully retrofitted digital IMAX with the IMAX seats and look to the half-ass job at the Buckland Hills theater.

 

[RolandL]

The screen at Buckland Hills is larger than the other auditoriums as it fills the front wall but I would rather see an Imax film at the Providence Place Imax.

 

[Patrick Sun]

Tonight's the last night for Star Trek on most Imax screens since the "Night at the Museum" sequel will take up most of the Imax screens starting tomorrow.

 

[Claire Panke]

Alas, too true.

However...

According to the message boards at treknation.com some few IMAX theaters are having special showings of Trek at midnight Fri-Sat and Sun over the holiday weekend since the IMAX Treks are still doing boffo business. Pittsburgh is one location where I know that's happening.

We're going tonight at the regular time. Last week on a Thursday the manager said it was nealry SOLD OUT.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I wonder if Night At The Museum will do anywhere near the IMAX business that Star Trek has done, and if not, if Star Trek will make a return appearance.

The only thing I have to compare this to is when Superman Returns came out in IMAX 3-D, and there was another IMAX film (The Ant Bully, I believe) that was coming out three weeks later that kicked Superman Returns out of the IMAX theaters. Well, no one saw Ant Bully, and within a few weeks, Superman was back.

I'm just saying... there's not a chance in hell you could pay me enough to see Night At The Museum (I don't even wanna sit through the dumb trailer again!) but I'd be glad to fork over another $15 to catch Star Trek in IMAX again.

 

[Jason Seaver]

I suspect that unless A Night at the Museum is a huge disappointment (possible, I guess), it will run straight through to Transformers.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Yeah, you're probably right.... although it would be cool at least if some IMAX theaters snuck a few Star Trek screenings, maybe let Night At The Museum have the mornings and afternoons and Star Trek in the evenings... I just don't see Night At The Museum breaking records on IMAX screens. No doubt it'll do at least decently well at the box office, and will probably be a hit, but I don't think it's going to have the same IMAX appeal that some other titles have had.

 

[Tino]

I saw it 4 times in IMAX and was spectacular every time! Hope it comes back.

 

[LarryH]

(deleted by poster - sorry to be off-topic)

 

[Clinton McClure]

I saw it first on a regular DLP screen and was less than impressed with the presentation and thought the movie stunk.

I couldn't help but feel I was missing something so I went to an IMAX (1570) theater on Wednesday morning (the Dickinson IMAX on Chenal Parkway for those in central Arkansas) and saw the film in a whole new light. I still thought the movie was a stinker but the presentation was much better. In the regular DLP theater, the on-screen captions (Vulcan, Iowa, etc...) were completely cut off and the image seemed to be zoomed too close. The IMAX theater showed the entire frame and everything was focused much better.

 

[Jason Seaver]

Apparently some theaters are having late-night shows of Star Trek this weekend... Shame I can't get to the Reading and back for the midnight shows this weekend.

On the other hand, looking at the IMAX schedule, there seems to be a big gap between Harry Potter in July and A Christmas Carol in November. Depending on when Paramount is planning on putting Star Trek out on home video, I wouldn't be totally shocked to see it popping back up on some screens come September, especially for the evening shows. Heck, here in Boston, we're still getting weekly shows of The Dark Knight and U2 3D at the Aquarium a year later.

 

[Claire Panke]

I see by the local listings that Star Trek is back in two Indianapolis IMAX theaters for midnight shows this weekend. One of the theaters is advertising multiple shows as well as the midnight ones. The concession manager told me last night that they don't expect big business from the IMAX Night At The Museum - Trek was still going strong.

I LOVED ST on IMAX - even if y'all think it's faux-max. I'm a picky viewer but Kerasotes Theater's presentation was excellent. The movie was razor sharp and the sound was soooo much better. That's the way to see a movie like this, and I will go back again at least once. Given the choice of seeing ST for 9.75 in the regular DLP theater or 12.50 for it on the a bigger IMAX screen (with the powerful sound) it's a no brainer for me to opt for the IMAX. The difference is around half the cost of a small bag of popcorn.

I have no intention of seeing Night At The Museum either. I probably won't see another theatrical film in IMAX until Harry Potter.

 

[Chris Will]

Gotta see Transformers 2 in IMAX since, like TDK, a few scenes have actually been shot using IMAX cameras.

That is going to be awesome but only if Bay pulls the camera back a little for those IMAX scenes. The way he like to shoot the action so close may be unbearable on an IMAX size screen (although it doesn't bother me in tradition theaters).

 

[Claire Panke]

Gosh, Bay couldn't have gotten any closer to the action than Abrams did with Star Trek! And the whole ST film was FULL of close-ups - hardly any medium shots.

Transformers just doesn't do it for me, although if you like that sort of thing it has every chance of being great fun in IMAX.

I'm up for "Up".

I'm happy for "Harry".

I'll see Trek one more time in IMAX.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Isn't it beautiful? The Aquarium has the biggest screen in New England; unfortunately, they don't get enough mainstream releases. I understand their need to play more educational, documentary material during the day, but I wish they'd show more commercial stuff in the evenings. The Dark Knight and U2 3D are a great step in the right direction for them. I caught Dark Knight there in January and U2 3D in March (I had seen both before) and it was great. If I can get a Friday or a Saturday without plans anytime soon, I'm definitely going back for more.

 

[Jason Seaver]

I suspect that Jordan's has a deal for exclusive rights in the Boston area, and the Aquarium doesn't push too hard against it because they are in it for the docs; I think they actually co-produce some of the marine-life-oriented stuff. Don't get me wrong, I love that stuff, sea and space photography in IMAX 3-D is utterly fantastic (although after a while, the ones I've seen and the ones I haven't start to run together). The Dark Knight only showed up when the furniture stores were done with it, though, just like Superman Returns a couple years ago, and U2 3D is, IIRC, a fundraiser for National Geographic.

Of course, I also wonder if they figure the DMR stuff hurts their docs, in that it generally isn't nearly as stunning as the real IMAX productions. If people think only looks as good as the upconverted 35mm productions. They may be leaving a bit of money on the table by not picking up Star Trek right now, but it protects their perception.

Now, what I'd really like is if they were to start playing some mainstream films around the same time the AMC (which still has a big old "Loews" sign) a couple blocks away opens their long-planned Min-Imax screen. It'd be just a ridiculous side-by-side comparison (and the Aquarium would probably be cheaper, too!).

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I actually worked at the Aquarium's IMAX theater for about five minutes in 2006... well, a week, before the job I had really been holding out for finally opened up for me. And actually I had a talk with a couple of the managers there about it, and it has nothing to do with any exclusive rights by Jordan's or anything like that, if what they told me was true. What they said was that they had tried showing new release IMAX DMR films during their first run for the previous couple of years (the Matrix sequels, Batman Begins, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban). With the competition in town from the big chains, along with the fact that IMAX DMR hadn't quite taken off yet in popularity, it just wasn't worth it financially they thought. Unfortunately, they haven't revised their thinking since then. Especially with a movie like "Star Trek", where it's disappeared from most of the other commercial IMAX theaters, I think would be successful enough to justify doing it. The more likely culprit might be that IMAX prints are ridiculously expensive to make, so they really only make as many as they need. If the Aquarium was unwilling to dedicate a certain number of screenings to the film (and I'm just speculating), a studio might have said, hey, we can't make the cost of the print back from you showing it once a night, so if you can't promise us X number of showings, we'll give it to someone else. I'd believe that. Might also explain how they got films like The Dark Knight way later -- the prints are already in existence and not being used, so it doesn't cost the studio anything beyond shipping, and with no immediate need to have it returned, the Aquarium can just run it every Friday and Warner will be very happy to cash the checks for a film that's long been out of theaters.

As for U2 3D, from what I remember reading on the band's website and in some trade mags, the band actually paid for the film out of pocket. Another distributor had originally planned on handling the release (I can't remember who) but they bailed out at the last moment, and National Geographic stepped in. I know the movie has recouped its production costs but I'm not sure how much of a profit it's made. I know the members of U2 and the filmmakers have stated that they didn't make the film to make money but to bring the concert experience to people who couldn't get in to see the tour or who wanted to relive it. They were hoping the film could continue to play over a long period of time (as it's currently doing at the Aquarium), so it could be a perennial attraction. So far, so good, at least up here.

 

[TheBat]

just a heads up.. paramount is re-releasing star trek in imax for 2 weeks starting this friday september 5th. www.imax.com for details.

Jacob