WSJ What Makes IMAX So Expensive?

[David Sekanina]

...with a sneak peek at their new camera development:

 

Edited March 6 by David Sekanina

[Tyler Purcell]

Tis a pretty cool video AND time period we live in. 

Alas, I don't think the studios will be green lighting any big 15P movies anytime soon. This may all be for nothing. 

[Robert Houllahan]

17 minutes ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Tis a pretty cool video AND time period we live in. 

Alas, I don't think the studios will be green lighting any big 15P movies anytime soon. This may all be for nothing. 

Uh the films made the studios billions of dollars in profits why would they not green light more 65/15p films when they clearly make huge returns and audiences love them?

[Tyler Purcell]

33 minutes ago, Robert Houllahan said:

Uh the films made the studios billions of dollars in profits why would they not green light more 65/15p films when they clearly make huge returns and audiences love them?

Oh because the entire film industry was shut down in 2023 and right after the negations were finished for the new contacts, they all announced 20 - 30% cutbacks on new projects AND substantial reduction in budgets for future releases. An example of their idiocy is the canceling of Dune 3. Warner finally has a "batman" franchise on its hands and they CANCELED the 3rd installment? Of course,  it'll eventually happen, but doubtful in the next 3 - 4 years. The decisions they're making are horrible. I also think a few of the big releases shot on IMAX lost their shirts financially outside of Oppenheimer. "Nope" was a financial disaster supposedly, don't know how with such a reasonable budget, maybe they spent 500M in marketing? 

With my ear on the concrete here in LA, I can tell ya right now, this is what the last recession felt like. Everyone is selling their gear, people are moving out of town, nearly all of my production friends are doing personal projects not commercial projects. Even my friend who works with Hoyte said, he's been pretty dead as well. I think the studio's are freaking out with Sora's announcement and the impending IATSE and Teamsters strike. Plus the Paramount and Warner merger which is still up in the air. Disney is also several billion in debt and is trying to shed assets, but nobody appears to be buying. 

Na, none of this is good and I feel by the time the new 15P camera is out, the studio's will find it tricky to green light those shows. Just remember, Tarantino proved 70mm print screenings, sell better than standard digital with Hateful 8, but the film wound up doing poorly in the box office. We didn't see another big push for film prints until Dunkirk, which also did poorly. Tenet was a wash out due to Covid and honestly, Oppenheimer was the first big 15P release since Dunkirk, what... some 6 years later? I don't think the studio's are horribly excited about risking another release shot and finished on 15P. Dune II will do well on 15P per screen, but I believe that's the future for the format; digitally shot, film projected. 

[Jay Young]

I may be an out of work IATSE member, but for me, IMAX has always been more about the presentation than production.

Certainly 15p projection is a spectacle.  In the proper setting it can be a wonder to behold.  However, at my local AMC, IMAX means nothing more than a larger screen, and sound pressure levels so high it physically hurts.  People walk out of shows because the sound volume is so great.  This is not a "fun" entertaining experience, its perhaps something one can't get at home, but most assuredly a money grab from cinema owners because of branding. 

After the past years experiences, I will not attend an IMAX showing if it is not traditional presentation.  I have heard the arguments made about the audio, even that mixing engineers mix at 130+ dB.  Impossible, they would permanently damage their hearing.  Rumors that Mr. Nolan prefers his explosions to be lifelike even in the theatre.  Nonsense.  Cinema managers state they have no control over the volume.  Utter garbage.  There is a single dial, usually set at 7.  Turn it down. 

That is to say nothing of the actual visual presentation, which is lackluster.  I notice no difference between the normal projection of digital shows, and the much hyped laser systems.  Perhaps there are a handful of cinemas that care about presentation, but they are far and few between. 

Having seen the roadshow presentation of Hateful8, I was quite pleased.  Having seen a 70mm showing of 2001 gave critical insight into the film I had never experienced.  Having seen the rest of the so called IMAX shows in properly branded theatres, I can say I would have much more enjoyed being at home, watching on my hi-fi with the two speakers.

Presentation needs to change.

[Jon O'Brien]

I'm glad that the big movers and shakers in the world realise that film is so good and that interest in film is finally coming back and that the industry seems to be readjusting after more than ten years of the digital revolution. There's now definitely a growing feeling amongst the more 'with it' in the creative arts that film might have advantages for dramatic narrative. Film gives more of a sense of theatre on the screen.

If I was a director and could choose any format I'd simply go back to 35mm cinematography for most movies, with a bit of 65mm 5 perf for some more epic productions. I think IMAX is so expensive that it risks ruin. It wasn't originally intended for drama. 65mm 5 perf is as sharp and as clear and as impressive as you would ever need for dramatic works. For mere spectacle, yes, IMAX is better, but that's a very different kettle of fish.

I suspect that the too eager change over to full digital production everywhere has to some extent damaged the film industry. Movies are less interesting than they used to be and it's because we've forgotten that it's not just good stories we need, it's stories told very well. A great story told not very well will not attract a soul. To tell a story well you need to make use of art and you need to know for a start what art even is. Film is a proven performer in captivating an audience because film is inherently a form of art, where as digital is a merely utilitarian process ideally suited to documentary, studio shows, news etc. But film is better for narrative drama and it's difficult to say just why it is, but it is. The film projector starts to roll, the audience goes quiet, and sits back and watches and magic happens. Digital just doesn't have that vibe and, what's more, never will, no matter how good the technology gets.

I'm all for IMAX film though if it helps the 'real film industry' (or is it the 'reel film industry').

Edited Sunday at 11:19 PM by Jon O'Brien

[Jon O'Brien]

I've noticed that a lot of cinematographers now seem to have one foot in the video gamer industry as well as filmmaking, at least in terms of where their true interest lies. Gaming is of course a 100% digital endeavour, with its own inimitable visual style. Many were also raised in the filmic traditions of the wedding videographer ie. lots of glidy side to side hand held shots, no interest in the tripod, a quick flashy and glib style. I'm not at all sure these are a good training ground for narrative cinematography and might explain why many gear head style DPs have no interest in film.

Edited Monday at 12:10 AM by Jon O'Brien