Large Format/"Premium" Theaters (IMAX 15/70, Digital IMAX, XD, ETX, RPX, etc.)

[MrsMiniver]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

If you turn it into an event, it can make money. And it doesn't have to make a lot since prints don't have to be made and it doesn't have to be heavily promoted.

Every summer in Bryant Park in NYC, they have a once-a-week film festival where they play old WB movies. It's free and it's outdoors and you get to hang out with your friends and have wine and food. Over 6000 people show up each week to watch a poorly projected movie on a too-small screen in which you can hardly hear the dialog because the sound (mono) bounces off the surrounding buildings and causes echo. But it's an event, so everyone comes and people have a great time. Seeing a movie with 6000 people instead of 250 is a completely different experience.

The promise of digital was that because expensive film prints don't have to be produced and it's easier to load up a DCP than to wind a film onto a platter, there could be far more variation in what theaters played and more independent films could be presented. That hasn't really happened.

But it seems to me that if a digital IMAX theatre is playing a film that's not doing great, they could certainly alternate some showings with another film and that other film could be an older film brought back in revival. Even though digital IMAX is not as good as true 70mm IMAX, there's still enough of a difference to get people out of their homes and into the theatre. Most films make most of their revenue on the weekend. I see no reason why an IMAX theatre couldn't play other films during the week. (Their contracts would probably prevent them from doing so in the first few weeks of a film, but they could probably do so afterwards). And this could definitely be done in complexes that have more than one IMAX theatre. I think films like the Harry Potter series, Interstellar, Gravity and Hobbit/Lord of the Rings could do quite well in IMAX revival if the theaters create an event around it. In fact, in cities that have multiple IMAX theaters, I could see one being dedicated to nothing but revivals.

They have tried to the return to theaters thing in IMAX. Wizard of Oz, Forrest Gump, and Raiders of the Last Ark. Rereleases rarely ever make much money. Jurassic Park was released as well.

[Dreamliner330]

Originally Posted by MrsMiniver

They have tried to the return to theaters thing in IMAX. Wizard of Oz, Forrest Gump, and Raiders of the Last Ark. Rereleases rarely ever make much money. Jurassic Park was released as well.

The mistake your making is thinking I'm talking about mega old movies that have to be remastered and have money spent to get it ready to show. Movies that came out in the last few years are just digital files. If WB has a turd like Seventh Son, they could swap it out with another WB title for a few showings or until their time is up. That would likely make the theater and studio more money than continuing to show a crappy title.

I still think they should have like 'Throwback Thursdays' or something and replay hit movies from the last few years.

[MrsMiniver]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner330

The mistake your making is thinking I'm talking about mega old movies that have to be remastered and have money spent to get it ready to show. Movies that came out in the last few years are just digital files. If WB has a turd like Seventh Son, they could swap it out with another WB title for a few showings or until their time is up. That would likely make the theater and studio more money than continuing to show a crappy title.

I still think they should have like 'Throwback Thursdays' or something and replay hit movies from the last few years.

I am hoping we can discuss and not turn this into a huge digital vs film debate and not make it personal.

IMAX as a whole when it comes to multiplex locations is a premium add-on to a studios major release. If a film bombs or just plain performs poorly, IMAX locations will suffer as well. With Everest and The Walk, IMAX is desperately trying to use their brand to push the word of mouth release, when audiences flat out rejected both the movies, IMAX was stuck with palydates. That is how it goes. The paying consumers did not reject IMAX, they rejected the Walk and Everest.

On the other hand, in hindsight, The Martian was the movie that IMAX should of released but 20th Century Fox does not release a lot of titles in IMAX. IMAX is stuck in a difficult position when they do not get the hit or if the movie performs poorly.

I do appreciate the idea of throwback Thursdays or older films, but historically older films rarely if ever perform well.

It's either hit or miss, and most big blockbusters are hit and that is why IMAX looks so great. Everyone who releases a movie like Mocking Jay II and Star Wars will do very well. So will IMAX

The bigger picture about the poor performance of the Walk and Everest is that IMAX as a brand is clearly not strong enough to launch a movie and generate the word of mouth required for a movie to well.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by MrsMiniver

They have tried to the return to theaters thing in IMAX. Wizard of Oz, Forrest Gump, and Raiders of the Last Ark. Rereleases rarely ever make much money.

Give me numbers. Otherwise it's just an opinion with no basis. For example, did the re-release of Raiders do better or worse than say, the fifth week of a current film?

[xbs2034]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

Give me numbers. Otherwise it's just an opinion with no basis. For example, did the re-release of Raiders do better or worse than say, the fifth week of a current film?

Forrest Gump tanked at less than $400k opening weekend, Wizard of Oz did well at over $3 million opening, and Top Gun and Raiders were in-between (not including Titanic and Jurassic Park as they were in theaters other than just IMAX, but heard JP did very well in IMAX- I think it was also the only one to get a 15/70 release rather than digital only).

Also, Everest did well in IMAX (good limited release, and on the wide opening weekend still 19 of the 20 highest grossing locations were IMAX) it just didn't generate interest beyond the IMAX plays.

[MrsMiniver]

Originally Posted by xbs2034

Forrest Gump tanked at less than $400k opening weekend, Wizard of Oz did well at over $3 million opening, and Top Gun and Raiders were in-between (not including Titanic and Jurassic Park as they were in theaters other than just IMAX, but heard JP did very well in IMAX- I think it was also the only one to get a 15/70 release rather than digital only).

Also, Everest did well in IMAX (good limited release, and on the wide opening weekend still 19 of the 20 highest grossing locations were IMAX) it just didn't generate interest beyond the IMAX plays.

Titanic had a 15/70 print.

And Everest did OK not great.

[xbs2034]

Interesting that Titanic got some prints, I remember seeing it at Kips Bay cause Lincoln Square (which was 15/70 back then) wasn't playing it (though I actually did see it in 5/70 back in grade school with the original release- I think the only time I saw a picture in that format prior to The Master and Interstellar recently).

I wonder how that worked, as I remember that due to platter size limits, 15/70 prints have to be under 170 minutes (I know they sped up the credits in Avatar Special Edition for this, and I heard they did similar things for other films including Interstellar). But the film is so far over the limit they either had to edit it like some early 15/70 releases, or I guess they could include the film on two separate prints. But that would probably require a lot of work and lengthy intermission to load the next print, and as a dual strip 3D title, I'm sure that would be a monster sized amount to film to deal with.

[Spike M.]

Originally Posted by xbs2034

Interesting that Titanic got some prints, I remember seeing it at Kips Bay cause Lincoln Square (which was 15/70 back then) wasn't playing it (though I actually did see it in 5/70 back in grade school with the original release- I think the only time I saw a picture in that format prior to The Master and Interstellar recently).

I wonder how that worked, as I remember that due to platter size limits, 15/70 prints have to be under 170 minutes (I know they sped up the credits in Avatar Special Edition for this, and I heard they did similar things for other films including Interstellar). But the film is so far over the limit they either had to edit it like some early 15/70 releases, or I guess they could include the film on two separate prints. But that would probably require a lot of work and lengthy intermission to load the next print, and as a dual strip 3D title, I'm sure that would be a monster sized amount to film to deal with.

I'm pretty sure Kips Bay is a retrofit that never had a 15/70 system. It's the most famous example of a Liemax that the internet uses.

[xbs2034]

Originally Posted by Spike M.

I'm pretty sure Kips Bay is a retrofit that never had a 15/70 system. It's the most famous example of a Liemax that the internet uses.

That's why I thought Titanic had no prints made (along with the running time issue). I always looked to Lincoln Square (a 15/70 location for another year and a half at that point) first, but they didn't play it, while the digital Kips Bay (and another digital location in Manhattan) did.

[MrsMiniver]

Originally Posted by xbs2034

Interesting that Titanic got some prints, I remember seeing it at Kips Bay cause Lincoln Square (which was 15/70 back then) wasn't playing it (though I actually did see it in 5/70 back in grade school with the original release- I think the only time I saw a picture in that format prior to The Master and Interstellar recently).

I wonder how that worked, as I remember that due to platter size limits, 15/70 prints have to be under 170 minutes (I know they sped up the credits in Avatar Special Edition for this, and I heard they did similar things for other films including Interstellar). But the film is so far over the limit they either had to edit it like some early 15/70 releases, or I guess they could include the film on two separate prints. But that would probably require a lot of work and lengthy intermission to load the next print, and as a dual strip 3D title, I'm sure that would be a monster sized amount to film to deal with.

Intermission is what they used, usually a 10 minute was programmed. The 15/70 prints were about 15 in quantity.

[MrsMiniver]

Originally Posted by xbs2034

Interesting that Titanic got some prints, I remember seeing it at Kips Bay cause Lincoln Square (which was 15/70 back then) wasn't playing it (though I actually did see it in 5/70 back in grade school with the original release- I think the only time I saw a picture in that format prior to The Master and Interstellar recently).

I wonder how that worked, as I remember that due to platter size limits, 15/70 prints have to be under 170 minutes (I know they sped up the credits in Avatar Special Edition for this, and I heard they did similar things for other films including Interstellar). But the film is so far over the limit they either had to edit it like some early 15/70 releases, or I guess they could include the film on two separate prints. But that would probably require a lot of work and lengthy intermission to load the next print, and as a dual strip 3D title, I'm sure that would be a monster sized amount to film to deal with.

Kips Bay has always been a Digital 2 Xenon projector retrofit location.

[f451]

ITM, far away in Casper, WY -- return of the Cooper Theater --

http://www.meyersound.com/news/2015/...y_mesa_cooper/

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by f451

ITM, far away in Casper, WY -- return of the Cooper Theater --

http://www.meyersound.com/news/2015/...y_mesa_cooper/

wow - great looking place - although I would assume the screen rolls horizontally for flat (1.85) films.

[xbs2034]

Force Awakens will get a 15/70 release, IMAX Sydney has confirmed it.

However, it will be 2D only (probably as Disney doesn't want the added expense of creating a dual strip print now that film prints are getting rare and expensive to make) and it will be focusing on those film only locations which may have never added 3D capability (I think of IMAX domes in particular)- seems to be between 8-20 prints will be created.

[Poya]

Originally Posted by xbs2034

Force Awakens will get a 15/70 release, IMAX Sydney has confirmed it.

However, it will be 2D only (probably as Disney doesn't want the added expense of creating a dual strip print now that film prints are getting rare and expensive to make) and it will be focusing on those film only locations which may have never added 3D capability (I think of IMAX domes in particular)- seems to be between 8-20 prints will be created.

Fine by me. The 3D is a conversion job and I doubt it would've been on the same tier as Gravity's. 15/70 is way more than enough for all of us.

[The Debts]

Originally Posted by xbs2034

Force Awakens will get a 15/70 release, IMAX Sydney has confirmed it.

However, it will be 2D only (probably as Disney doesn't want the added expense of creating a dual strip print now that film prints are getting rare and expensive to make) and it will be focusing on those film only locations which may have never added 3D capability (I think of IMAX domes in particular)- seems to be between 8-20 prints will be created.

Holy crap, really? That's actually kind of awesome. Hopefully, they'll be some kind of listing a la Interstellar last year.

[xbs2034]

Originally Posted by The Debts

Holy crap, really? That's actually kind of awesome. Hopefully, they'll be some kind of listing a la Interstellar last year.

Yup, confirmation right here https://mobile.twitter.com/IMAXSydne...21312320831488

Someone else has said he called various IMAX domes and they stated they will play 15/70 prints (I think many are still film only as digital is hard to do on domes)

[xbs2034]

The IMAX in Downtown Indianapolis has also confirmed they are playing Star Wars in 15/70

https://mobile.twitter.com/imaxindy/...22623629676544

As for a theater list like Interstellar, I would prefer it: list all locations by laser (which should be at least 15 locations by then with AMC Universal Citywalk and Meteron finishing laser renovations if they haven't already, and maybe the other Smithsonian theaters for US locations, and some more in Europe in time for Spectre), film, and digital. But they only seem to have done so for Nolan's last two films, and probably won't in this case.

[Dubstar]

Disney's El Capitan theater also confirmed that 'Star Wars: The Force Awakens' is a Dolby Vision release which also means it's getting mixed in Atmos, hence also the requisite 12-channel mix will be on the IMAX-laser DCP's.

likewise, for all those who are keeping tabs on Dolby Atmos releases, the theater also confirmed that Pixar's 'The Good Dinosaur' is also getting an Atmos mix as well.

[Speakerband]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

Disney's El Capitan theater also confirmed that 'Star Wars: The Force Awakens' is a Dolby Vision release which also means it's getting mixed in Atmos, hence also the requisite 12-channel mix will be on the IMAX-laser DCP's.

likewise, for all those who are keeping tabs on Dolby Atmos releases, the theater also confirmed that Pixar's 'The Good Dinosaur' is also getting an Atmos mix as well.

Will Star Wars the force awakens play in 3d at the el capitan theatre? Does anyone know if inside out played in 3d at the el capitan?