Up

[Alex]

I generally avoid IMAX for feature length movies. I don't sit in the front row of movie theaters and don't particularly like feeling like I am even in the last row of an IMAX theater.

But I also prefer my TVs farther away from my living room seating than the various home theater guides will tell you is the desired size/distance ratio.

Though there is the fact that the majority of new multiplex IMAX theaters aren't actually true IMAX experiences (more just slightly enlarged regular screens).

[mousepod]

Wow. I didn't know anything about this Fake IMAX trend. Is there a list somewhere of the "real" IMAX screens?

[Alex]

Information on the situation in this article.

A map showing all IMAX theaters in the US and where they fit in the spectrum of IMAX screens here (the link is in UPDATE to the article I linked above). According to it, the GardenWalk IMAX screen is one of the bad ones.

[innerSpaceman]

Originally Posted by Alex

and where they fit in the spectrum of IMAX screens here

Haha, another Alex unintended pun. The only real non-Museum IMAX screen in Southern California that I'm aware of is at the Irvine SPECTRUM. TeeHee.

I'll check that link, but I think the one at Universal CityWalk may be "real" as well, but I hate that theater too much to ever find out.


I've gone down to Irvine a couple of times to see things in IMAX. Nice, but not necessarily worth the drive. I've never seen one of those films where only certain segments are in IMAX. That seems like it would be rather disconcerting.


(Though there was a movie I loved, Brainstorm, that had "mind-reading" segments in a wider aspect ratio - to good effect.)


I've been fooled by those claims of IMAX that are really just larger-than-average theater screens. Bah.

Unfortunately, there's only 3 large theater screens left in L.A. But each of those is bigger than your typical multiplex FauxMax screen.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Worse than a film with only certain segments in IMAX are films with only certain segments in 3D (Superman). That was obnoxious, having to keep an eye out for when to put on and take off the 3D glasses.

[Prudence]

Anyone else see that 1961 3D version of The Mask? Whenever I put on 3D glasses I hear that voice in my head: "Put the mask on now!"

[innerSpaceman]

I call shenanigans on that IMAX locator. According to it, the only authentic IMAX screens in Southern California are at the California Science Center in downtown L.A. (check), the Irvine Spectrum in Irvine (check), and the Bridge in West L.A. (bogus!!!)

I've been to all of these theaters, and the Bridge is a real IMAX if my dog can talk. It's a smaller screen than either the Village, the Chinese or the Dome (the remaining big screen theaters), and it's way smaller than the IMAX at either the Spectrum or the Science Center.

Yet the site claims the Bridge screen is only 4 feet less wide and 8 feet less tall than the Spectrum's (and 1 foot less wide, 2 feet less tall than the Science Center's).

My experience says otherwise.

Of course, the site says both the Spectrum and the Bridge opened the same year, in 2002, and I was under the distinct impression the Spectrum was around loooong before the Bridge. Anyone in the OC know when the Spectrum was built?

[Alex]

According to the Spectrum page at Wikipedia, phase 1 started in 1995 and phase 3 completed in 2002. No idea what phase the IMAX theater was in. The IMAX site certainly doesn't tell you.

Can't comment on how accurate the list is, that just the only one I can find.

Another thing to know about IMAX screenings is that just because your theater is showing it on an IMAX screen doesn't mean it is an IMAX movie. My theater has an almost full size screen but most of the movies shown on it aren't listed as IMAX but rather LF for large format. This means their just projecting a normal 35mm movie to fill a larger screen. The picture isn't better, just bigger (and that means, to a certain degree, worse).

[innerSpaceman]

The one movie I saw at the Bridge "IMAX" was certainly not an IMAX movie. Worse, it was a Panavision aspect ratio film, which does not take advantage of the height of an IMAX screen nearly as much as a more common Widescreen aspect ratio film would. So, I was disappointed.

And being very family with the 3 (at that time, 4) big screen theaters in L.A., I called shenanigans on an "IMAX" screen being smaller than any of these ... and I tried to base that estimate on the actual screen size rather than the relatively narrow size of the projected image.



In any event, I recommend not falling for gimmicks like IMAX or 3-D. Just see the movie. If you can make it to The Village or The Dome or The Chinese, do that. But gimmicks are lame.

[RStar]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

The one movie I saw at the Bridge "IMAX" was certainly not an IMAX movie. Worse, it was a Panavision aspect ratio film, which does not take advantage of the height of an IMAX screen nearly as much as a more common Widescreen aspect ratio film would. So, I was disappointed.

And being very family with the 3 (at that time, 4) big screen theaters in L.A., I called shenanigans on an "IMAX" screen being smaller than any of these ... and I tried to base that estimate on the actual screen size rather than the relatively narrow size of the projected image.



In any event, I recommend not falling for gimmicks like IMAX or 3-D. Just see the movie. If you can make it to The Village or The Dome or The Chinese, do that. But gimmicks are lame.

Is it me, or are the IMAX screens at the Anaheim Garden Walk only slightly larger than a standard screen? They sure looked smaller than the ones in Irvine.