The movie is drenched in production value and replete with ravishing shots of sunrises and sunsets, but it’s in the scenes of fleeing, of battle,…
From Name Withheld:
I just read the letter Mr. Williamson sent to IMAX on RogerEbert.com and am glad that someone out there is as frustrated as I am.
I currently work as a projectionist in a true 70mm-film IMAX theater and while I hate to bite the hand that feeds, knowing that the new digital IMAX screens are being promoted right along side our tried-and-true original IMAX screens is extremely aggravating. Our screen is 60ft.x80ft. and it's being overshadowed by the "brand new!" digital screens going up in the surrounding area.
All the while IMAX says it's not going to differentiate in advertising between the two. It's basically killing what made IMAX special in the first place. As you said, converting an old cinema screen into a faux-IMAX theater is not worth the extra price of admission. And if that's not enough, there's talk of phasing out film all together. Why shoot in IMAX if it's just going to get cut off in the future-majority of IMAX theaters?
So thank you for fighting the good fight and getting the word out that there is a difference in what sort of IMAX presentation people see. Hopefully the company will get the message and stop killing their own name-brand. IMAX does stand for Image Maximization after all.
A review of the "Mystery Science Theater 3000" revival that's now playing on Netflix.
This message came to me from a reader named Peter Svensland. He and a fr...