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

[Geoff D]

The 15/70 version of Interstellar looked pretty darn good. Contrast was good in the brighter scenes but the blacks did suffer a bit with very dark shots, like when Coop gets woken up at the beginning. I also noticed some banding on the Warners shield at the start, very odd that.

The 35mm DMR sections held up pretty well. Some weren't as sharp as others, that's due to the idiosyncracies of anamorphic glass, but some of the close-ups looked terrific. The 70mm stuff was awesome though, as IMAX has this rich, smooth quality (I make it sound like instant coffee) but with loads of detail and the effect is amazing. There's some shots in there which are so crisp and clear they're basically the highest-quality pieces of film that I've ever seen with my own two eyes. Nolan doesn't add sharpening during the DMR process unlike other 15/70 shows that I've seen (Ghost Protocol had some noticeable halos, even the large format shots) so his images always retain that organic filmic sheen.

I read critical complaints about how the format turns an intimate close up into a massive screen filling experience but the added spectacle doesn't detract from the drama for me because it furthers it, you can see every emotional nuance writ large and I 'got' what Nolan was driving for instead of being over-awed by the imagery.

[Geoff D]

One more thing: I could see some slight yellow fringing on the wider-angled 35mm shots, it's the sort of chromatic aberration you'd have to look real hard to see on the average home display but on a 65-ft tall screen it was fairly obvious.

[MrsMiniver]

Originally Posted by jscoggins

I saw the first two in IMAX but can't see the third one in IMAX?

I am plenty pissed too, I saw the first two movies in IMAX and had a great time. Not being able to see the third part is stupid but apparently I will be able to see the fourth.

I know that IMAX will play the movie longer if the IMAX cameras were used, so that has to have some reason. But IMAX could of put Mockingjay in some IMAX locations and then leave the 15/70 still running Interstella .

[jscoggins]

Originally Posted by MrsMiniver

I am plenty pissed too, I saw the first two movies in IMAX and had a great time. Not being able to see the third part is stupid but apparently I will be able to see the fourth.

I know that IMAX will play the movie longer if the IMAX cameras were used, so that has to have some reason. But IMAX could of put Mockingjay in some IMAX locations and then leave the 15/70 still running Interstella .

Well, if Interstellar continues to underperform, IMAX might ask Warner to shorten the engagement time. It's happened before. Dark Shadows had to share screen time with The Avengers, Transcendence was dropped after one week so that Captain America 2 could return, etc. (Coincidentally, both instances involved Warner giving way to Marvel, lol.)

[MrsMiniver]

Originally Posted by jscoggins

Well, if Interstellar continues to underperform, IMAX might ask Warner to shorten the engagement time. It's happened before. Dark Shadows had to share screen time with The Avengers, Transcendence was dropped after one week so that Captain America 2 could return, etc. (Coincidentally, both instances involved Warner giving way to Marvel, lol.)

I do after with you. However Interstellar did perform very well in IMAX and Mockingjay is just 9 days away.

[bootsy]

Originally Posted by jscoggins

Well, if Interstellar continues to underperform, IMAX might ask Warner to shorten the engagement time. It's happened before. Dark Shadows had to share screen time with The Avengers, Transcendence was dropped after one week so that Captain America 2 could return, etc. (Coincidentally, both instances involved Warner giving way to Marvel, lol.)

They aren't and they shouldn't hater.

[Flatnate]

Interstellar still met Paramounts original box office opening goal as well as other studios projections, and IMAX alone accounted for a quarter of the opening weekend ticket sales. There is no way is IMAX yanking the plug on Interstellar early on the 15/70mm locations.

[jscoggins]

Originally Posted by Flatnate

Interstellar still met Paramounts original box office opening goal

No, the movie fell short of expectations.

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

The 15/70 version of Interstellar looked pretty darn good. Contrast was good in the brighter scenes but the blacks did suffer a bit with very dark shots, like when Coop gets woken up at the beginning. I also noticed some banding on the Warners shield at the start, very odd that.

The 35mm DMR sections held up pretty well. Some weren't as sharp as others, that's due to the idiosyncracies of anamorphic glass, but some of the close-ups looked terrific. The 70mm stuff was awesome though, as IMAX has this rich, smooth quality (I make it sound like instant coffee) but with loads of detail and the effect is amazing. There's some shots in there which are so crisp and clear they're basically the highest-quality pieces of film that I've ever seen with my own two eyes. Nolan doesn't add sharpening during the DMR process unlike other 15/70 shows that I've seen (Ghost Protocol had some noticeable halos, even the large format shots) so his images always retain that organic filmic sheen.

I read critical complaints about how the format turns an intimate close up into a massive screen filling experience but the added spectacle doesn't detract from the drama for me because it furthers it, you can see every emotional nuance writ large and I 'got' what Nolan was driving for instead of being over-awed by the imagery.

Overall I agree. The 35mm sequences looked quite good overall (much better than I expected) and the IMAX sequences were like butter as it's super sharp and detailed with rich colors but a very pleasant organic smoothness to it. It is truly one of the best movies I can think of to demonstrate why I love the look of film so much.

The transition between the formats was handled very well and I like how it was used for intimate scenes in addition to the big space ones. Like you
said, you can see every little detail and emotion in their faces.

I'm a bit conflicted about the movie overall (it was rather flat for me most of the time) but the theatrical experience was very, very impressive.

[Flatnate]

Originally Posted by jscoggins

No, the movie fell short of expectations.

No, Paramount lowered its $50 million dollar expectation by $3 million, but it did better overseas than expected, and my point was that other studios estimates were accurate. Forbes claims it still hit $49.7m total weekend because you need to account for the 48 hours it played as "film only" exclusive. The only one was surprised by its first weekend was Paramount and the press. Regardless, IMAX carried a quarter of ticket sales and could have done better but most likely ran in to a lack of capacity. It was sold out when I attended.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmen...isappointment/

And you are correct, I typed that incorrectly. The movie met Paramount's REVISED goal, not the original, but only by $300,000 if you account for the 48 hour film exclusive.

[Tony208]

It's not like a franchise film with sequels riding on it so why care about the box office?

[jscoggins]

Originally Posted by Tony208

It's not like a franchise film with sequels riding on it so why care about the box office?

The worse it does, the more likely IMAX will consider showing Mockingjay Part 1 instead.

Also, Flatnate, you can't add three days' worth of additional showings to a movie's weekend total. That's called lying.

[Flatnate]

Originally Posted by jscoggins

The worse it does, the more likely IMAX will consider showing Mockingjay Part 1 instead.

Also, Flatnate, you can't add three days' worth of additional showings to a movie's weekend total. That's called lying.

Fair enough, but Hollywoodreporter and Forbes are both throwing these combined numbers around, and honestly both are quoting totally different numbers near about to $50 million. So whatever really, I'm not going to try to analyze that.

The real thing I'm noticing is that it performed way below the number you quoted from BoxOffice.com, but not really that far from studio expectations. So my question is where was BoxOffice.com coming with those numbers? And why is the media calling this a disappointment given it was pretty close to studio expectations, mindful that it isn't a franchise film and that essentially performed on par with Gravity?

[jscoggins]

Originally Posted by Flatnate

Fair enough, but Hollywoodreporter and Forbes are both throwing these combined numbers around, and honestly both are quoting totally different numbers near about to $50 million. So whatever really, I'm not going to try to analyze that.

The real thing I'm noticing is that it performed way below the number you quoted from BoxOffice.com, but not really that far from studio expectations. So my question is where was BoxOffice.com coming with those numbers? And why is the media calling this a disappointment given it was pretty close to studio expectations, mindful that it isn't a franchise film and that essentially performed on par with Gravity?

Prerelease estimates ranged from $55 to $65 mil. As the weekend progressed, it actually did worse and worse. By Monday, we found out that the movie didn't even clear $50 mil.

[Spike M.]

Interstellar was tracking at a 50-55 million opening weekend (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=3953&p=.htm), and ended up just short of that, while still swiftly beating everything in it's path internationally. It was hardly the box office disappointment you seem to be painting it as, and certainly didn't come to close to the line in which IMAX begins discussing pulling it from theaters early. Particularly considering the pull Christopher Nolan has at IMAX, what with him being the single largest factor for IMAX's boom in popularity and surge in company growth. A Nolan IMAX film isn't just "another blockbuster" for the company, they see it as their pride of the year.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by jscoggins

The worse it does, the more likely IMAX will consider showing Mockingjay Part 1 instead.

Also, Flatnate, you can't add three days' worth of additional showings to a movie's weekend total. That's called lying.

Man, you're determined about getting to see Mockingjay in IMAX aren't you? I don't want to see any headlines reading 'IMAX theater hijacked by Hunger Games nut' in the coming days...

[jscoggins]

Originally Posted by Spike M.

Interstellar was tracking at a 50-55 million opening weekend (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=3953&p=.htm), and ended up just short of that, while still swiftly beating everything in it's path internationally. It was hardly the box office disappointment you seem to be painting it as, and certainly didn't come to close to the line in which IMAX begins discussing pulling it from theaters early. Particularly considering the pull Christopher Nolan has at IMAX, what with him being the single largest factor for IMAX's boom in popularity and surge in company growth. A Nolan IMAX film isn't just "another blockbuster" for the company, they see it as their pride of the year.

http://pro.boxoffice.com/featured_st...t-interstellar

Interstellar Nov 7, 2014 Paramount $79,000,000 $332,000,000

Also, from the article that you linked:

Still, a so-so final push doesn't really negate the fact that this is one of the most anticipated movies of the year. Paramount is expecting $50-to-$55 million for the three-day weekend, though it wouldn't be surprising if it tipped over $60 million: Fandango is reporting that it's outselling Inception, Gravity and Prometheus.

People were expecting higher, and it still fell short of even the lowest projections.

[Jonno2009]

I too would like to see Mockinjay (Catching Fire in IMAX was pretty damn sweet with the IMAX shot scenes) in IMAX but wow the crusade you’re on about it and the whole ‘shaft’ it got because of Interstellar and your hate of the movie because of it is bordering on ridiculous…

[Spike M.]

Originally Posted by jscoggins

http://pro.boxoffice.com/featured_st...t-interstellar



Also, from the article that you linked:



People were expecting higher, and it still fell short of even the lowest projections.

I'm not sure how a purely theoretical article posted in September on a site that makes educated guesses of box office numbers that are routinely inaccurate qualifies as a more valid source than the numbers posted by the leading box office authority going into the movie's opening weekend.

I'm also not sure how "the studio wouldn't be surprised if-" is qualitatively the same as "the studio expected that-".

[Flatnate]

Honestly, I have not seen a Dolby Atmos title in a theater as of yet, so given a choice I would rather catch Mockingjay in an Atmos theater with a 4K projector regardless. Near me, Mockingjay may only play in our regions single Atmos equipped theater for a limited time before The Battle of Five Armies comes along with an Atmos soundtrack pushing it to another screen.