Don't Get Ripped Off at IMAX Movies

Over the next couple weeks, a bunch of summer blockbuster films—namely Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen and Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince—are being released into IMAX theaters. But buyer beware: Before you plunk down close to 20 bucks for the larger format, keep in mind that a lot of these so-called IMAX auditoriums don't have the gigantic, awe-inspiring screens that you're used to.

I know what you think when you hear the word IMAX: a towering screen, between six and eight stories tall, that makes you go "oh, wow!" as soon as the movie starts. And, until recently, that's what you were getting.

Now, however, the IMAX Corporation has decided that the word "IMAX" refers to its superior projection and sound system, and not necessarily to the big screen. A few new IMAX theaters have opened under this principle, with slightly larger-than-average screens in them, but nowhere near as big as the ones that are six stories tall. In general, these faux-IMAX screens are about a quarter of that size. The lovely projection and sound is nice, but, come on, when the Autobots get into it with the Deceptacons, you want the big freakin' screen. The worst of it is that both the older, eight-story-tall IMAX screens and the newer, smaller IMAX screens charge exactly the same, increased price for tickets—and you get much, much more for your money on the older screens.

This subtle shift in IMAX screens has been going on for a while (anecdotal evidence among my friends says since at least 2005), but the problem got much wider attention when comedian/actor Aziz Ansari wrote an expletive-filled blog post about his experience at Star Trek. In his rant, he linked to this post in the LF Examiner (the "LF" stands for "Large Format"), which does a better job of explaining the differences between the two kinds of screens (using more sober language). That article includes a great to-scale graphic representation of the screen sizes, so you can see just how much of a ripoff the new IMAX screens are.

Okay, so here's the important part. If you go to the IMAX website and search for all the IMAX theaters in the Hudson Valley, here is the list that's returned to you:

Regal New Roc City (New Rochelle)
City Center 15: Cinema De Lux (White Plains)
IMAX Theater at Palisades Center (Nyack)
Regal Crossgates Stadium 18 and IMAX (Albany)

Of those, ONLY the Regal New Roc City and the IMAX Theater at Palisades Center are TRUE, BIG-SCREEN IMAX theaters. The other two are phony baloney, and you don't want to waste your money there. (Also, if you happen to be in the City and are thinking about catching an IMAX move there, there are only two real IMAX screens: the Lincoln Plaza multiplex on 68th and Broadway and the American Natural History Museum.)

Consider yourself warned.

Photo Credit: © 2009 DW Studios L.L.C. and Paramount Pictures Corporation. All Rights Reserved. HASBRO, TRANSFORMERS and all related characters are trademarks of Hasbro. ©2009 Hasbro. All rights reserved.

Reader Comments:

Old to new | New to old

Jun 17, 2009 12:12 pm

Posted by jardon007

This article is inaccurate. The new screens are not a quarter of the size of the traditional screen. I have been to 2 of the "new" imax screen and they seemed at most 15-20% smaller. To be honest one of them (AMC Mercado in Santa Clara CA) seemed as wide, if not wider than a standard IMAX.

IMAX has stated that they will be clarifying the size of the screens at each theater. In any case, the screens are not a quarter of the size of standard screens.

BTW, the picture is definitely CLEARER and SHARPER than standard IMAX, due to the all-digital nature.

If you truly love movies, I don't see anyone not wanting to pay an additional $4 to see a movie on these screens. If you don't want to pay, might as well wait to watch it on DVD.

Jun 17, 2009 12:22 pm

Posted by Marisa LaScala, Articles Editor

Oh, Jardon007, we have a real difference of opinion.

I don't have the exact figures of the screen sizes, but the newer IMAX screen I went to here in Westchester felt more like a normal movie screen. It was a big screen, sure, but not all that impressive. The screen didn't tower over the seats, and the seats were arranged like a typical stadium-seated theater, not on the huge incline of normal IMAX. Wide is fine, but tall is what gives you that "oooohhh" feeling when you walk into the theater. I would tell any reader that if they pay close to 20 bucks for an IMAX movie in Nyack or New Rochelle, they will have a much, much cooler experience than the reader who pays the same amount for an IMAX movie in White Plains. It's just not all that impressive.

Really, though, I'm against the idea that moviegoers should pay a premium for a better experience. Movie theaters should provide correct framing, great-quality projection, and superior sound with the standard ticket price. That's the job of a movie theater. To me, saying that the movie theater only has to show the movie in any haphazard condition, but an extra five or six dollars would make sure they do it *right*, is not the way to get people to go out to the movies.

Jun 17, 2009 12:33 pm

Posted by SweetNuthin

The difference between real IMAX and faux-IMAX becomes even more crucial when filmmakers choose to shoot certain scenes with actual IMAX cameras. If you saw Dark Knight on a traditional IMAX screen, you know what I'm talking about: most IMAX-experience movies on the traditional IMAX screens don't take up the full screen (because the screen is shaped differently than most movies; as such, the movies play letterboxed, as they would on many television sets). But a few sequences in Dark Knight took up the full multiple-story screen (a taller image than the rest of the movie), and it was breathtaking. The faux-IMAX screens are not nearly this tall, and can't really display footage shot with IMAX cameras in their full grandeur. In a real IMAX theater, this footage will take the movie from big to even bigger. I don't know that this is possible with the differently shaped faux-IMAX screens which are closer to the regular multiplex ratio, even if they are bigger than average.

Few movies have employed this technique; The Dark Knight and Transformers 2 are two of the only live-action features to use it so far because the logistics of shooting this way are tricky. But I find it especially perverse that just as this technique is gaining traction, IMAX is undermining it by putting its stamp on these big-but-not-huge screens.

Jun 17, 2009 12:38 pm

Posted by Marisa LaScala, Articles Editor

Good point, Sweetnuthin. I'm interested in hearing how these new theaters will handle the full-IMAX size of Transformers 2--but not so much that I want to go to a smaller IMAX to check it out for myself.

Jun 17, 2009 02:15 pm

Posted by jardon007

The new screens will show the IMAX filmed scenes at the same exact aspect ratio as at a traditional IMAX screen. This has been confirmed by IMAX, and can be confirmed by any viewer at the IMAX screens that notices the bars on the top and bottom of the standard 16x9 films.

I have not seen the new IMAX screens on the East Coast, so maybe you are correct about the smaller screens, but in the SF Bay Area, everyone I have talked to has been very pleased.

Jun 17, 2009 03:56 pm

Posted by SweetNuthin

The letterboxing you mention (indicating a correctly sized IMAX screen) wasn't there at the AMC Empire IMAX in Manhattan when I saw The Day the Earth Stood Still, nor when I saw Poseidon at the Cinema De Lux in White Plains. The image that would've been letterboxed on an original IMAX screen took up most or all of those screens. They may be able to fit full-IMAX-sized images on these screens in the correct aspect ratio, but these scenes won't be anywhere near as tall as they could be. Rather than blown up to a huge size that happens to be a different shape, it'll mainly just be a different shape. The increased spectacle will be lost.

I doubt this problem is exclusive to the east coast. There's no way the extra IMAXes springing up all over the country are the same size as the originals -- basically, if a new IMAX is installed in an auditorium that used to hold a regular multiplex screen (even the largest one in the building), there's no way for it to match the size of a stand-alone IMAX screen (basically, the pre-2005 kind).

I understand why the IMAX company is doing it; it's a lot easier to convert an existing auditorium and give it a nicer projection system than it is to build new actual IMAX screens. But charging the same price and not indicating that it's any different from a true IMAX experience seems like a ripoff to me. They should've given it a different name.

Jun 17, 2009 04:58 pm

Posted by parashoes

Oh my, this all smacks of the exact same thing manufacturers are doing with our products in the supermarkets....they are finding creative ways to make us think we are getting the same amount of ingredients in things like cereal boxes, detergent boxes, peanut butter etc., when in reality, they are cheating us by charging the same for less....let us rise up and get angry and not take it anymore.....thanks for giving me the heads up on this new ploy to remove me from my money....especially in today's economy, i think twice before i go out anyway and now i will think three times before entering an IMAX theater....

Jun 17, 2009 06:26 pm

Posted by jardon007

I hear what everyone is saying. The good news is that there are plans to change the name and inform the viewer of the size of the screen before they pay for the movie.

I think a price adjust would make sense as well, probably $1-$2 premium for traditional IMAX vs. newer IMAX.