I asked a similar question back in 2009, but the multiplex landscape has changed so much since then that I think it’s worth discussing again:
Is IMAX worth the premium upgrade?
One of the things that prompted me to ask again is Christopher Nolan’s use of IMAX for Oppenheimer, which is not at all the sort of movie we’ve come to expect to see in this very large and immersive format. A new Indiana Jones movie or the latest Mission: Impossible flick? Sure. But a three-hour historical docudrama that most definitely does not have any interest in putting the viewer in the middle of an atomic explosion? Seems kinda odd! What’s more, Nolan insists that the absolute best way to experience his movie is not only in IMAX but projected from 70mm film. (Most movies are projected digitally these days, even if they were shot on film.) This is such a niche way of showing movies right now that only 30 cinemas on the entire planet are capable of this.
I’m lucky enough that one of them is just down the road from me, which is where I saw Oppenheimer. (My review coming very soon… though I might want to see the movie again before I write.) I think IMAX works incredibly well in this instance, for reasons I’ll go into in my review. But of course I’m a mega film nerd. The fact that these 70mm IMAX screenings are selling out days and weeks in advance suggests that I’m not alone in thinking IMAX is worth it. (I did pay for my expensive IMAX ticket to see Oppenheimer… as well as my expensive IMAX tickets to see both Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny and Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One. I didn’t get press screenings of any of them.)
What do you think? Does IMAX make a film feel more like an event in a way that cannot be replicated even with the best home setup, or even in small multiplex screens? Or does IMAX come at too high a price for a movie?
It's funny because I am a very technical thinker in my job and, since I work on post production, formats and specifications are second language to me. I care about delivering the highest quality possible that works smoothly and error free to the target platform. I deeply love color and want the output to match the exposure and look intended.
But most of that technical geekery really strikes me as woo. There are real issues like the dearth of trained projectionists resulting in dimmed bulbs and the oncoming cliff of digital projection planned obsolescence (basically, just as the theatres finish paying off the digital projectors they took out debt to update to, they're going to need to be replaced), but pouring through auditorium specs to ensure you get the exact experience Nolan watched in his QC suite is silly.
The point of ensuring a print is right is that it works as well in the small community microcinema as it does the megaplex in the (increasingly empty) mall. Not to force the microcinema audience to track down a specific megaplex.
I think, occasionally, it's worth it, but usually not. And the occasions when it is worth it, for me, are films like Oppenheimer. Films that are epic in scope and visual, but also films of artistic vision and achievement, not just spectacle designed to titillate and make bank. I do not want to spend the money and sit in a less comfortable theater (based on what is available to me, at least) to experience sensory overload for maximalist, unbalanced spectacle.
I saw Oppenheimer in IMAX. I am glad I did; I think the long runtime may have started to drain me if I was not in such an immersive viewing experience, but I also think the film intends a type of overwhelm that the IMAX experience really enhanced. I do not live near enough one of the theaters that projected from a print (I briefly considered a road trip though. . .), but even with my viewing taking an unscheduled 45 minute intermission due to a fire alarm, it was a premium experience and worth the upgrade. (ftr, to my memory this is the only feature film I have seen in IMAX; at the very least, the only one I have actively chosen IMAX for.)
I see the vast majority of films in the standard 2D projection and I agree with DB; if it doesn't look and sound good in a standard viewing then it's just not been done well. Occasionally, due to convenience of showtime mostly, I've gotten the upgraded viewing experience that isn't IMAX but is. . . I mean, here each multiplex chain calls it something different, but yknow, it's the premium fuel experience. It's not usually worth it to me. This probably has to do with my taste as much as anything; big blockbusters, the films this experience is used for, are not films I tend to go for as a rule. That said, I did see No Time To Die in the AMC Dolby theater, it's the only thing I have seen in that particular upgrade, and it. was. Amazing. But! I was really looking forward to this film, and I made a point of seeing it in that upgrade because I had read how much it enhanced the film.
So on the whole, it's a pass for me, but every so often, when it's a film I want to make a true Event out of seeing, and I trust the director and filmmaking team to have put together something worth the splurge, I lean in intentionally. It can be great, but throwing whatever they can into the premium theater just to put something up isn't worth it.
I tend to choose the basic 2D option.
It's funny because I am a very technical thinker in my job and, since I work on post production, formats and specifications are second language to me. I care about delivering the highest quality possible that works smoothly and error free to the target platform. I deeply love color and want the output to match the exposure and look intended.
But most of that technical geekery really strikes me as woo. There are real issues like the dearth of trained projectionists resulting in dimmed bulbs and the oncoming cliff of digital projection planned obsolescence (basically, just as the theatres finish paying off the digital projectors they took out debt to update to, they're going to need to be replaced), but pouring through auditorium specs to ensure you get the exact experience Nolan watched in his QC suite is silly.
The point of ensuring a print is right is that it works as well in the small community microcinema as it does the megaplex in the (increasingly empty) mall. Not to force the microcinema audience to track down a specific megaplex.
I think, occasionally, it's worth it, but usually not. And the occasions when it is worth it, for me, are films like Oppenheimer. Films that are epic in scope and visual, but also films of artistic vision and achievement, not just spectacle designed to titillate and make bank. I do not want to spend the money and sit in a less comfortable theater (based on what is available to me, at least) to experience sensory overload for maximalist, unbalanced spectacle.
I saw Oppenheimer in IMAX. I am glad I did; I think the long runtime may have started to drain me if I was not in such an immersive viewing experience, but I also think the film intends a type of overwhelm that the IMAX experience really enhanced. I do not live near enough one of the theaters that projected from a print (I briefly considered a road trip though. . .), but even with my viewing taking an unscheduled 45 minute intermission due to a fire alarm, it was a premium experience and worth the upgrade. (ftr, to my memory this is the only feature film I have seen in IMAX; at the very least, the only one I have actively chosen IMAX for.)
I see the vast majority of films in the standard 2D projection and I agree with DB; if it doesn't look and sound good in a standard viewing then it's just not been done well. Occasionally, due to convenience of showtime mostly, I've gotten the upgraded viewing experience that isn't IMAX but is. . . I mean, here each multiplex chain calls it something different, but yknow, it's the premium fuel experience. It's not usually worth it to me. This probably has to do with my taste as much as anything; big blockbusters, the films this experience is used for, are not films I tend to go for as a rule. That said, I did see No Time To Die in the AMC Dolby theater, it's the only thing I have seen in that particular upgrade, and it. was. Amazing. But! I was really looking forward to this film, and I made a point of seeing it in that upgrade because I had read how much it enhanced the film.
So on the whole, it's a pass for me, but every so often, when it's a film I want to make a true Event out of seeing, and I trust the director and filmmaking team to have put together something worth the splurge, I lean in intentionally. It can be great, but throwing whatever they can into the premium theater just to put something up isn't worth it.