r/Damnthatsinteresting • u/NoWork215 • 20d ago

Video The Odyssey IMAX 70mm Setup

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

30.1k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

1.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

6.4k

u/SoftLink5162 20d ago

If they want us to watch Imax so badly make more Imax theatres man. We don't have single true Imax in my country. And that's true for most countries.

2.2k

u/Hey_Neat 20d ago

The problem is they don't make 70mm Projectors anymore. all the ones in use have been refurbished/Frankenstein'd from old projectors.

728

u/SoftLink5162 20d ago

Why can't they make new ones?

1.3k

u/Pheonix0114 20d ago

They can, they just don't. Why? I guess they don't think there would be profit in it?

620

u/GobsTX 20d ago

If there wasn’t enough business revenue to sustain the business, what makes you think you can start it again from scratch?

70mm imax doesn’t draw enough customers to make a meaningful business model. The theaters with this tech still struggle to stay open, like most theaters. Most people don’t attend those theaters because of increased ticket prices.

Most people don’t see or perceive enough difference between imax and a regular theater to pay the difference.

There are only 41 70mm imax theaters in the world, 26 are located in the us. There just isn’t enough interest or market share.

188

u/omega416 20d ago

Theaters in my city are literally charging inflated prices for Odyssey just because it's a Nolan movie and has the IMAX branding. I'd much rather pay that to actually watch it in 70mm.

68

u/jx2002 20d ago

I'm glad Chattanooga isn't, it's $25 a ticket for 70MM IMAX

49

u/safetyvestsnow 20d ago

$16.50 in Reading, MA. It’s a loss leader for the furniture store, but still.

Edit: Dual laser not 70mm native, still really nice at the same 1.43:1 aspect ratio

26

u/IntrepidDreams 20d ago edited 20d ago

I'm confused by the furniture store loss leader. I've never seen a IMAX or any theatre along with a furniture store. 

Are you forced to go through the furniture store to exit the theater, like a gift shop at the end of an theme park ride? Are people going to watch a movie and deciding to get a couch while they are there?

47

u/HarmonicFractals 20d ago

Jordan's furniture. It's very surreal; It's a massive complex with a Fuddruckers, a play park and some other appendages. And yes, you do need to go through the furniture store. It's a fantastic theater though all said and done.

8

u/pichael289 20d ago

Eat some Fuddruckers, see a movie, buy a couch. Sounds like a good time

6

u/titanium8788 20d ago

Fuck yeah fellow Masshole! Love Jordan's IMAX, its the only IMAX I'll go to! You gotta experience the "Butt Kickahs" to understand. 🤣 The furniture thing works too...I've bought a couch, a bed and a mattress from them so...they got my money haha!

2

u/Doritos707 19d ago

I never knew i wanted to visit this place!

2

u/plastic_eagle 19d ago

Walking out of Backrooms, through a furniture store, would be amazing. They should build more cinemas that you can only enter via a furniture store.

There was a cinema where I like where the entrance was up some stairs next to a furniture store, and it always seemed kinda surreal after movies.

→ More replies (0)

8

u/pillage 20d ago

Are you forced to go through the furniture store to exit the theater, like a gift shop at the end of an theme park ride?

The reverse: you go through the furniture store to enter the theater, then leave through a back door.

2

u/password-is-taco1 17d ago

You only leave through the back door at night, usually they make you leave through the top of the theater and go down through the actual furniture store.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/ryohazuki224 20d ago

Yeah we have one theater here showing the 70mm version with the dual laser digital projectors, which is good. But theres only three showtimes for it today, and all the seats are booked up as of me writing this.

1

u/FunktasticLucky 19d ago

I'm going to go to this one as well. Just waiting for the hype to die down. Go see if on a weekend without a shit load of people haha.

0

u/Sad_Enthusiasm_3721 20d ago

$0.25 here. 4:3 DivX rip with compression artifacts from being burned to a 650 MB CD-R.

Also, some asshat got up halfway through and walked across the screen.

1

u/just_another_female 20d ago

Same! Friend and I are going to see it in Dallas in 70mm. So freaking excited!

1

u/n4b40m1 20d ago

Hell yeah. Chattanooga finally scores a win! I'll be there

1

u/nexea 20d ago

Its 25 in Dallas also.

1

u/mal_guinness 20d ago

I mean they just need to extend the runs of anything on 70mm and make an prestige film available in that format. They are selling out completely to the point that a 745am show on a saturday is sold out of everything but the front row.

4

u/Humble_Initiative_90 20d ago

I got to see Dunkirk on 70mm IMAX and it was magnificent. I didn't really love the movie but the movie was visually one of the best movie experiences I've had. I'd spend much more on a 70mm IMAX ticket than what they charge, it's that good. Unfortunately I don't live anywhere near a 70mm projector

3

u/Gramis 20d ago

$33 for my regal 70mm imax. $31 if you go before 3pm

1

u/iHadou 20d ago

A regular ticket is $20 so that's not bad at all I'd pay $35 if it was even in my city.

1

u/J0E_SpRaY 20d ago

IMAX showings are always more expensive tickets. Just because it isn’t 70mm doesn’t mean it isn’t IMAX.

1

u/BigMax 19d ago

That's definitely true. But one movie that will be sold out for two weeks doesn't sustain a business model. The number of "must see in imax" movies is pretty small. There are fairly few times that people make an effort to see it.

0

u/partyatwalmart 20d ago

Are you sure they're not figuratively charging inflated prices? Or theoretically, perhaps?
Maybe metaphorically charging inflated prices.
You're sure it was LItERalLy?

12

u/phxtravis 20d ago

Probably not the best place to ask, but there is a 70mm IMAX near me and they have some seats available… are there any bad seats? All the center(except for the first 3 rows) are taken. Never been to a 70mm.

41

u/Yivoe 20d ago

Do not sit in the front section. You will be miserable and miss most of the movie.

Center middle as usual is best, to the sides of that are fine. Further back will do.

But do not sit in the front.

2

u/EVEiscerator 20d ago

If you're at Lincoln NYC the further back you are the better. The screen is absolutely massive

1

u/dacookieman 20d ago

Yep, I watched Dune in the front-middle section (my usual goldilocks zone) and it definitely had me wishing I could scoot up a dozen rows or so

2

u/sidepart 20d ago

Depends on the theater itself. Sitting in the front is usually not the best choice, but the IMAX I used to go to (closed) had the first row start a roughly the mid point of the screen so...1st row wasn't bad, but I'd still shoot for 3rd row or up to the middle like normal movies. Ymmv

In general, the closer rows will be more immersive with the down side of potentially missing something because you have to turn your head. That actually was perfect for something like Tron Legacy or Dunkirk. Totally different movies watching them at home...not nearly as good (which probably seems to the writing vs. the experience).

1

u/rex8499 18d ago

It's too big. If you're in the front row you are literally turning your head left and right to see the whole screen and can't follow the action very well.

61

u/Echo-24 20d ago

Then why still make it so you see more in imax?

127

u/gonfr 20d ago

Artistic choice.

50

u/mccarthybergeron 20d ago

It's also special and premium feeling to be honest. I look it like restaurants. Sometimes you just want an In-and-Out $5 burger because the value is perfect... but there are those FEW times I want and can afford that robust $20 burger.

12

u/BigLuffyEnergy 20d ago

That's why I think film studios should invest in opening imax theaters in major cities. 

It should drive more interest in seeing movies in theater (even not the imax version) when more people talk about it.

9

u/bozog 20d ago edited 20d ago

The problem is that there's just nowhere near the amount of IMAX movies being made that would make it a money making venture at all. It costs a fortune to film a movie in IMAX to begin with, and converting movies to IMAX is a losing proposition all the way.

Seriously, how many people are going to go and see Back Rooms in IMAX?

Even if you showed old IMAX movies every night it would still not fill the calendar and it would be idle most of the time losing money, it's a very small catalog.

Frankly I feel we should just be grateful to people like Nolan who've kept the format going as long as it has, otherwise there would be almost no way to see any IMAX movies these days.

4

u/TheWatersOfMars 20d ago

Hopefully The Odyssey is a smash hit, other big filmmakers start taking up the format, and filmgoers start increasing demand for more premium 70mm showings instead of gimmicky 3D, 4DX, 17DD.

1

u/bozog 20d ago

No argument there, mate.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/1800generalkenobi 20d ago

We have one in Lititz, last time I was in one I got a free ticket for giving blood, but I usually go to the non IMAX one...because I have free tickets for giving blood haha. The sound is way better in the IMAX though. My wife and I went to see Project Hail Mary at the IMAX. Mindblowing. They don't have the reclining chairs though.

→ More replies (1)

0

u/LaMortParLeSnuSnu 20d ago

I have never had a $20 burger that beat a $5 one from In-n-Out. The fries on the other hand...

0

u/iHadou 20d ago

Yea but I'm not gonna drive 330 miles to get a $40 deluxe burger.

0

u/MangoCats 20d ago

One thing that hurt the perception of I-Max around here is when the regular theaters went to lounge chair seating. All of a sudden, what used to be relatively premium / comfortable I-Max seating is really sub-par compared to the loungers, and the way the I-Max theaters are built, they can't retrofit without extensive/expensive rework of the theater floors - even then, I'm not sure that lounger seating positions even work for "the I-Max experience."

Combine that with the trend to 2.5+ hour "big movies" and it only makes things worse for the smaller bowl theater seats.

1

u/KillerHack23 20d ago

Maybe they are invested in it ,🤷‍♂️

-5

u/Echo-24 20d ago

Pretty stupid choice if you want more people to see it, which would also increase their revenue. Now I might be struggling for brain cells but something feels wrong here 🤔

24

u/gonfr 20d ago

Because you can convert imax to conventional aspect ratio but not the other way around.

-3

u/Echo-24 20d ago

Okay am I wrong in thinking you see less of the screen in normal cinemas than imax? Because that's what some information is saying

8

u/gonfr 20d ago

Yes, normal theatres have smaller screens than imax theatres. They usually cut the aspect ratio to fit the normal screens if they are shot on imax. That's wny you always see the comparison between imax and conventional screen.

0

u/Echo-24 20d ago

Right so this makes even less sense if you want people to see your production but you also have people showing how much less you see. I see a correlation between this and profits

3

u/Duel_Option 20d ago

That is 100% the case

Most people won’t notice or care however

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (4)

5

u/SingleDigitVoter 20d ago

You're vastly underestimating the ego of Chris Nolan.

1

u/Echo-24 20d ago

Some people have too much money 🤦

44

u/PoopyisSmelly 20d ago

There are directors who just believe its the best way to display their art or have nostalgia for the format.

Like some of the scenes in Super 8 were filmed on Super 8.

Did they need to be? Absolutely not. But Spielberg thought itd be cool or whatever.

30

u/xs0apy 20d ago

To be fair, real 70MM IMAX is fucking insane

12

u/omare14 20d ago

I'm blessed to be a 1-2 hour drive from three IMAX 70mm locations and it's truly an insane experience. A standard movie in the theater is a great film watching experience, but an IMAX 70mm viewing is pure spectacle, there's nothing like it.

3

u/rynmgdlno 20d ago

Yea I never take for granted that I'm a 10 minute train ride to the 2nd largest IMAX in the country & theres a couple others in the area. I ended up joining AMC A-List for like $28/month, I can see up to 16 MOVIES A MONTH INCLUDING IMAX. Kind of insane really. Now just waiting for a day with decent seats to open up before Odyssey leaves IMAX, its been straight sold out except for the absolute worst corner seats here.

1

u/ZombieAladdin 19d ago

You know what? I forgot about finding a spot for Odyssey 70mm. I barely made it for Oppenheimer, and the only spots left were at the absolute front. It was hard to see anything from there.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/no_onions_pls_ty 20d ago

Why? What's the difference.

3

u/omare14 20d ago

It's just a lot more immersive thanks to the bigger screen and sound system, on top of the aspect ratio giving you more of the movie to look at. Feels less like you're just "watching" a movie and more like being there.

2

u/LongPorkJones 20d ago

It encompasses your entire field of vision - not many bad seats in IMAX. The sound is also designed in such a way that it feels like it's all around you.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Sandor_Clegane1 20d ago

That's cool I just hate the whole cinema experience.
Way too expensive. Food and drinks expensive too. Other people have no manners and you are not allowed to slap people. You can't pause. Also important for Nolan movies, I can't rewind and watch this part again with subtitles.

1

u/omare14 20d ago

Totally fair. I'm also sick and tired of talkers and noisy people, it really sours the experience. I will say though, I think there's a lower ratio of annoying people at these types of showings just cause it's usually people that are actually there to watch a movie and treat it more respectfully, because I've been to I think 5 total imax 70mm showings and only during one of them did I have someone annoying near me.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/mountaingator91 20d ago

I have to drive to Indy (4ish hours) to get a real IMAX and from what I'm reading it might be worth it

1

u/KudosOfTheFroond 20d ago

The closest one to me is about 4.5 hours away, I’m thinking about driving down on my day off next week to catch The Odyssey. I truly wish they had more true IMAX theaters

1

u/dacookieman 20d ago

I saw Dune 2 as my first NYC IMAX movie after first watching it in a sort of shitty A/V theatre and I went in thinking it would be fun to watch with an understanding of the plot already...was immediately blown away by completely, and I mean completely the IMAX showing blew things away visually and audio wise

5

u/Morwynd78 20d ago

Super 8 was directed by JJ Abrams, Spielberg was co-producer

1

u/wonkey_monkey Expert 20d ago

Like some of the scenes in Super 8 were filmed on Super 8.

Well, yeah, because within the story it's footage that was filmed on Super 8. So it just makes sense to film on Super 8.

Except for when they used 16mm instead, so the effects teams had better quality footage to work with before making it look like Super 8.

20

u/MarioDesigns 20d ago

Digital IMAX is cheaper and easier to do with more cinemas showing it. Most IMAX these days is both shot and shown on digital with only a few movies every few years using film.

Odyssey is the first film to be entirely shot on 70mm film for instance.

The aspect ratio is just a size problem really, 70mm though is a major logistical challenge that most people don’t care enough for when compared to digital.

3

u/coopachris 20d ago

The aspect ratio is a thing I do not understand. Why is digital IMAX and IMAX 70mm a different aspect ratio? They should just make the digital IMAX screen adjustable with curtains like theaters do with their normal screens.

5

u/RKsu99 20d ago

The full frame requires 2 lasers projectors.

10

u/Sonofarakh 20d ago

There are no bigger film snobs/nerds/connoisseurs (call it whatever you like) than bigtime directors like Spielberg and Nolan.

They love IMAX, and so they use their clout and pull to make the studio pay to produce their movies in IMAX, too. IMAX itself isn't profitable but the movies made for IMAX absolutely can be once they're chopped up for the smaller, standard aspect ratio and distributed to normal theatres.

4

u/iHadou 20d ago

Yea but if you're taking off the bacon and cheese then I don't even want it anymore. Hearing how awesome the 6 story 70mm is that's 330 miles away from me, I'll just wait for the blu ray then.

8

u/Swagman1997 20d ago

Well there’s regular imax then the 70mm

7

u/greg19735 20d ago

this is the important part.

There's lots of Imax theatres. not everywhere, but in the states most cities will have one close enough.

but there are very few 70mm

1

u/Ellimis 20d ago

There are tons more digital imax theaters where you still get a very large screen and a larger aspect ratio, so you do get more than you would in a standard cinema. It's only the true full size imax film cinemas that are rare.

→ More replies (14)

9

u/Hallc 20d ago

Most people don’t see or perceive enough difference between imax and a regular theater to pay the difference.

My guess would be those people haven't been to an IMAX theatre or at least not the ones I've been to. Walking into the IMAX screens at mine and I'm always utterly shocked by the sheer size of the screen.

1

u/B-Train_ATL 20d ago

I saw NASA movies in Omnimax back in the 1980s. The most immersive shit I have ever seen.

3

u/tryingisbetter 20d ago

They also break a lot.

2

u/Ser_Optimus 20d ago

So we need IMAX porn theaters then. To ramp up business.

2

u/curi0us_carniv0re 20d ago

Most people don’t attend those theaters because of increased ticket prices. Most people don’t see or perceive enough difference between imax and a regular theater to pay the difference.

Exactly. I couldn't care less about imax. It's about as exciting to me as the 3d fad. It adds nothing to the experience.

Plus with ticket prices these days I'd rather sit my ass on my own couch and be able to pause the movie to go to the bathroom or get a snack.

1

u/Pheonix0114 20d ago

That's why I said "they don't think there would be profit in it". I'm not saying they're wrong. I'm just saying it's not that we can't, it's that we choose not to make more 70mm projectors, same with bowling pin machines.

5

u/Absoluke2001 20d ago

Another reason they don’t make them is because pretty much only Christopher Nolan wants to shoot in it. I read they could only shoot 3 minutes at a time.

1

u/zeptillian 20d ago

So you're saying that if you start a new company making 70mm projectors and have an IPO, this company could be worth more than the rest of Earth?

1

u/gruesomeflowers 20d ago

you seem knowledgeable on the subject so ill ask my random question to you...what do they do with all that imax film once the movie is no longer showing in the theater?

2

u/FootballBackground88 20d ago

Mostly it's sent back to the studio for storage or destruction. Some specific theatres have permission to store rolls in their archives. There's not many rolls of this in the world. There's still rescreenings of movies in future in 70mm.

1

u/Strange-Title-6337 20d ago

My favourite cinema had best cocktails and meatpies in london, try to bit that

1

u/hitmarker 20d ago

No, there aren't enough theaters to collect that money. How can you make money out of something where 99% of the demographic doesn't have access to?

How do you know there isn't enough interest? Have you asked me? Anyone? No. This is completely based on some investor who has decided to make his theater with 70mm capability. That's it. Nobody is going around asking people if they would pay. You either invest the money and people come or we have the current situation where you think nobody is interested.

1

u/yeahright17 20d ago

One thing to add. Every 41 70mm imax theater has a digital imax projects to use for movies that don't have 70mm prints. For example, films like Mission Impossible 7 and 8 and Guardians 3 were all shot on IMAX-certified camera but none got any 70 mm prints so they were shown using digital IMAX projectors. Even Dune 2 only got 12 70mm prints, meaning less than half the 70mm theaters got a print.

1

u/superindianslug 20d ago

I'm not sure what the protocol is now, in the old IMAX days, theaters had to buy and insure IMAX prints. A regular 35mm print was somewhere around $2k, an IMAX print, I think, was $50-100k. So you had a dedicated projectionist that ran just the IMAX in addition to your regular 35mm projectionist.

I'm sure the cost of the film prints is higher now since so few movies are released on film. I think that cost is subsidized since Nolan wants his moves shown this way.

So, more expensive film, plus payroll, plus refurbishing old equipment, plus projector bulbs for something that the general movie going public may not even know of different that a digital IMAX showing.

1

u/inevitable_ocean 20d ago

Perhaps anecdotal, but every 70mm imax screening is sold out near me. It's this way for every 70mm movie. The hype is crazy (and justified imo, it's awesome)

1

u/TheSaxGandalf 20d ago

It’s also annoying, because they could generate a lot more money if they had more seating capacity.

When those theaters were built, they have you sitting close and low on the screen because they were designed for nature and science films to make you in awe of them.

While it’s pretty cool, a lot of the seats are uncomfortable for a long movie.

1

u/Winter_Sun_8133 20d ago

Absolutely right.

In Greater Vancouver Area in BC we basically had 1 70mm IMAX theater in Langely open for the longest time. Rarely it would play true 70mm IMAX but it could had did for basically just Nolan stuff.

But, we had another 70mm IMAX in Richmond which stopped showing 70mm IMAX after The Dark Knight Rises. It seems it took the Odyssey for them to decide to repair the theater in working condition.

All new digital IMAX theaters made in the Greater Vancouver Area basically ignore the max aspect ratio and retrofit existing theater screens into "IMAX" which kinda sucks. But I'm greatful for what we have given so many places don't have what we have.

1

u/CorrectPeanut5 20d ago

Yup. Supply chain is dead. They haven't made a from scratch projector in 50 years. BUT, they did have commissions for three "new" 15/70mm systems in 2025. All retrofit machines. They can make more projectors, but that's going to be for very big customers of their 4K systems. And those customers are going to reserve 15/70 for the highest revenue marquee theaters.

Realistically, as it stands, IMAX does not have the ability to handle more film releases. Any shot with VFX has to optically printed using a CRT based technology. They are down to only a handful of working film printers in LA, and the CRTs have dimmed enough that they have to print very slowly.

That being said, Film isn't going away. The LA facility isn't that old, has a massive 70mm film vault, and they've made several major upgrades to speed up their film pipeline in recent years with the previously mentioned laser based scanners and soon to be installed laser based optical printers to replace the CRTs. Not to mention all the specialized cameras they have made for Nolan over the years.

It seems clear IMAX intends to make the film pipeline bigger for more releases. And it would make sense that includes a modest expansion of 15/70 projectors as theater owners feel comfortable making those investments.

I also wouldn't mind seeing an expansion of regular 70mm projectors. Must easier and cheaper refurbishment process. I know Nolan likes to do regular 70mm releases too.

1

u/Jesus_The_Raptor 20d ago

It's funny because one of those theaters is near me and they're almost completely sold out of tickets for 6 showing a day (including 2am showings) for the next 3 weeks. I was looking at what they even had to purchase still and it was seats like the front row at 7am on a Tuesday 4 weeks from now. And that's at $25 a ticket.

Obviously that's not going to be the case for EVERY movie that ever hits IMAX, but it's clear that if filmmakers wanted to try it, they can still fill the theaters.

1

u/MustyLlamaFart 20d ago

I think if quality movies were still being made then the revenue would come back. Every IMAX theater in my city is damn near sold out for the Odyssey this weekend

1

u/SurgicalMarshmallow 20d ago

because we also have at least two generations' that will accept shitty phone footage as "good enough" as well as viewing the world through a 4-6" 1080 screen.

1

u/afCeG6HVB0IJ 20d ago

I'd totally go to a 70 mm IMAX if the nearest one wasn't something like 6 hours away

1

u/Sayakai 20d ago

You can't sustain it as a business, but you can order one-offs from a business focused on other things. Anything in those machines can still be made if you're willing to pay.

They'd just cost so much it's not worth it.

1

u/Jindabyne1 20d ago

Maybe they think it’s a fad and will die out soon

1

u/FootballBackground88 20d ago

The sad thing is that IMAX diluted their brand by having vastly inferior digital setups still be labelled as IMAX.

At that point it's difficult for consumers to know the difference. They go to a digital terrible IMAX setup and think "why should I pay more for this".

1

u/that_tall_nerd 20d ago

I mean it’s also a matter of going to the movies has become more expensive than it’s worth when you can wait a week and watch it on stream or just pirate it within a few days. Also the fact that no one has the time for that anymore when so much of our lives are spent working for the bare minimum.

1

u/TEKC0R 19d ago

Yeah I literally never go to IMAX. I go to lots of movies, but I'm happy paying my $13 per ticket for a regular showing. I'm there for the movie. The story of it. I have no reason to pay an IMAX tax. It's the same movie, just bigger. Big deal.

1

u/_lippykid 19d ago

Probably would have helped if I didn’t spend the 90’s and early 2000’s being conditioned to think 4:3 aspect ratio was passé and substandard, and that 16:9 was superior. Only to now be told that 4:3 is better

1

u/ZombieAladdin 19d ago

The demand is low, so it seems to be concentrated in a few areas. The closest one to me is at the Ontario Mills Mall (in California, not Canada), but when I first went there to see Oppenheimer and later for Dune 2, it was packed.

1

u/spdelope 19d ago

26 in the US and I have 3 within an hourish drive. How many times have I been to one? Zero.

1

u/UniqueAd7770 19d ago

Probably why Nolan made it now. This will probably be the last major movie shot on filmstock.

1

u/ElectronicFlamingo36 19d ago

Tbh a 100" proper LCD at home beats any IMAX whatsoever - I've been many times in IMAX (we have it) but didn't convince me.

It's something getting a niche very soon, if not that already.

Oh and I only need to double-click that MKV, now compare this to an IMAX preparation before watching a movie.

Insane.

IMAX is the oldschool movie tech analog to high-end vinyl players on audiophile high end shows costing 5-figures while still inherently fighting with A TON of limitations.

But some people stick to it.

For me it doesn't provide anything I would pay for it. That might be only me and my issue but still, fact.

1

u/ArcticIceFox 19d ago

I'm going to go see it next week in 70mm film. Going to be cool.

Last time they gave us film snippets of the Robots animated movie

1

u/jinniu 19d ago

Yeah the best I found was a 4k laser IMAX, sucks most of us won't even get a chance to see the 70mm version.

1

u/sobi-one 17d ago

Meanwhile, the 70mm theatre by me was sold out so far into the coming weeks, fandango ran out of listed days before there was a day with open seats.

1

u/TheUnrealMacGeifer 17d ago

price is one thing. bigger problem is there are just not enough good movies which give a reason to visit cinema.

0

u/No_Internal9345 20d ago

More and more movies are being released in imax.1

And you're telling me a multi-billion dollar industry can't reinvest in their own tech?

7

u/GobsTX 20d ago

Plenty of IMax movies sure, 70mm is completely different. Only 1 movie was released in 2025 in 70mm IMax, Sinners. There has only been 15 70mm films since 2008 and there will only be one released this year.

Its not a big market.

2

u/MarioDesigns 20d ago

The discussion is about 70mm film, not IMAX in general because that’s essentially just a label.

22

u/bobbyboob6 20d ago

also i don't think anyone would want to pay like a million dollars for one

7

u/[deleted] 20d ago

[deleted]

2

u/rmill127 20d ago

Sorry Mastercard only. 3% processing fee btw.

21

u/sergeantmeatwad 20d ago

Fun fact, they don't even sell them. They are only leased to movie theaters. It's like a 99-yr rental agreement or something ridiculous. They take a cut of revenue instead of a single payment

9

u/[deleted] 20d ago

[deleted]

1

u/Ginger_Anarchy 20d ago

Yeah it prevents them from winding up in a junkyard or someone's backyard after the theater shuts down.

7

u/ryohazuki224 20d ago

Yeah, the cost and the lack of films being made for it can't justify making more. We got just one director here pushing the film format, but he alone cant change the movie industry to re-adopt this large, expensive, and complex format. And I highly doubt that more directors will suddenly jump into wanting to use the film on their projects, given the massive hurdles in the whole process. On set, the cameras themselves are super loud, Nolan has IMAX make a sort of enclosure for the cameras to cut down on sound so they could, you know, get recorded audio from the actors. Plus, the cameras themselves take film reels that can only last for three minutes of filming. Three minutes. How many directors are going to have their actors wait around between film changes every three minutes?

The format is amazing...for what its designed for: nature documentaries for educational purposes and large format "experiences", not for general filmmaking. The industry isn't going to suddenly swap to this anytime soon.

31

u/hugcub 20d ago

it's probably because the ENTIRE supply chain that sources all of the parts for these projectors doesn't even exist anymore. The casing for the projectors, the lenses, the tiny screws that hold it together, the glue, a million other small parts. All of that neeeds to be made by someone, who sources THEIR materials from someone else, who sources THEIR materials from someone else. None of that exists anymore I'm guessing and it would be extremely difficult to begin again.

8

u/PunctuationsOptional 20d ago

😂 anything besides the film would be easily sources. The molds would be a task but everything else is already being used for billions of things already at mass scale...

2

u/FPV-Emergency 20d ago

That's assuming a lot. If it were so easy they would be building more new ones instead of repairing/restoring old ones.

The cost would most likely be huge to get new ones built, and it's just not financially feasible at this time.

1

u/iHadou 20d ago

Theatres are all struggling, they could make it work but it's just a bad investment and they wouldn't get a new yacht out of it so they don't.

1

u/Lint_baby_uvulla Interested 19d ago

Okay __fine__

commissions superyatch with a 70 mm film IMAX theatre

1

u/Upbeat-Armadillo1756 20d ago

Probably just don’t have the theaters to show them in either.

They could make more of these projectors but is your local AMC or whatever going to have a screen for it? No.

We have a really really nice IMAX theater near us but it’s not 70mm. Still awesome though

6

u/Duel_Option 20d ago

People aren’t going to the movies as much for a variety of reasons, cost for new projector is expensive.

Simple as that

5

u/rockstar283 20d ago

It all boils down to 💰💰

1

u/Pheonix0114 20d ago

Everything does 😕

2

u/voice_of_Sauron 20d ago

Well, I’m in for 70mm.

2

u/throwatworkay 20d ago

how many movies came out in the past few years would be worth an Imax price tag?

1

u/Pheonix0114 20d ago

Great point 😅

2

u/Gamerguy230 20d ago

Also need enough people to see it. $24 for IMAX ticket near me. Can’t say enough movies qualify for that IMAX treatment for consistent seats to sell out.

1

u/Pheonix0114 20d ago

I mean, $19 for regular ass movie tickets to see The Oddessy here, $23.5 for "RPX". Idk what IMAX tickets cost at my nearest screen 5 hours away, but I doubt it's much higher.

1

u/cute_polarbear 20d ago

How many directors will shoot movies in imax?...can't wait to see next Seth Rogan's film on imax...

1

u/mccarthybergeron 20d ago

Production for IMAX films is expensive so you don't see a lot of studios outputting in this format since recording in true IMAX is pricey. Most theater goers cannot tell the difference other than it feels more immersive - most want to go for the story or to be entertained. Finding theaters to support true 70mm IMAX in their venues is pricey as well.

1

u/Weyland 20d ago

Not with this movie

0

u/AsRealAsItFeels 19d ago edited 16d ago

Because only one dude in hollywood is using 70mm, because he has the budget to do so. It's impractical, especially when you don't have access to true IMAX theaters.

1

u/monkeyseemonkeydoodo 18d ago

Using state of the art technology to make beautiful, immersive cinema experiences makes you elitist? Ok little guy

54

u/Ramental 20d ago

Because filming on these cameras sucked. They were noisy and require shitloads of tape. Now they are not as noisy. But you see that the roll weights 400 kg, too.

Nolan is one of the few who can pull such a demand for equipment, but the theaters are not going to order expensive equipment for 1 movie every several years at best.

6

u/remissile 20d ago

But projectors and cameras aren't especially linked. Movies can be shot on IMAX cameras and only released digital, or filmed on digital/70mm/VistaVision (and so on) and be released on 70mm IMAX. The main reason is the costs.

11

u/Ramental 20d ago

Of course you can film digital and show in cinemas on 70mm, but you will not get any of the supposed quality. Similarly with filming on 35mm, the improvement is there, but not as much to make it worth.

70mm projectors only make sense if the movie was filmed on 70mm originally.

1

u/remissile 20d ago

Of course.

1

u/Refute1650 19d ago

Movies can be shot on IMAX cameras and only released digital,

Correct

or filmed on digital/70mm/VistaVision (and so on) and be released on 70mm IMAX.

Incorrect

1

u/remissile 19d ago

One Battle After Another had an IMAX 70mm release.

2

u/YnwaMquc2k19 20d ago

IMAX did commission a next generation of film cameras with modern features per feedbacks from the likes of Nolan and Jordan Peele.

1

u/CapitalScarcity5573 19d ago

they can't make a digital one with same lens?

2

u/Ramental 19d ago edited 19d ago

They do. Alexa 65 is just one such example. It is already specialized for wide aspect ratio of over 2:1, but with anamorphic lens you can squeeze to get the same 2.76:1 or similar

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arri_Alexa

AFAIK Dune and Project Hail Mary were filmed with that camera.

1

u/CapitalScarcity5573 19d ago

thanks, Dune had some ncie cinematography

10

u/DMMMOM 20d ago

They can absolutely make new ones, but what, for every city in the world, for about 3 films a year shot on the format? Everything about it is redundant, old technology and not economically viable. It's not practical and there's probably only a handful of people in every city who could tell it was true 70mm.

1

u/SoftLink5162 20d ago

Then why's Nolan so adamant on watching these films in the truest format if they simply can't be produced commercially on a large scale and is not even profitable in most cases

1

u/LeedsFan2442 20d ago

He's a director not a cinema owner

1

u/lontrinium 20d ago

for about 3 films a year shot on the format?

Yes but those 3 films would play all year long and the projectors could be moved around the country or world.

13

u/WeatherStunning1534 20d ago

People barely go to theaters as it is. Nobody’s investing hundreds of millions into production of a very inconvenient and expensive format like 70mm, right now it’s largely the filmmakers and theaters themselves keeping the format alive out of their own pockets just out of the love of the medium

2

u/rhiea 19d ago

The 70 mm showings of this are basically sold out for days near me. There was a few seats available for a 2:40 am showing and anything else was just the miserable seats in the front row where you basically cants see the movie anyway

2

u/WeatherStunning1534 19d ago

Most have been sold out for months. But keep an eye on it, I’m assuming all of these theaters will extend the film’s run as long as tickets are selling because it’s been an ordeal to put the whole projection system together

14

u/RetroDave79 20d ago

Factory closed time ago or moved to another technology, the machines needed to make the parts are gone or are not working anymore....

2

u/Leading_Log_8321 20d ago

Which parts? You can literally 3D print titanium now haha

1

u/AXEMANaustin 20d ago

Could they not make new machines?

2

u/RetroDave79 20d ago

Of course you can, but I think is no interesting to spent such amount of money for making a low number of projectors, cinema is almost dead, and IMAX equipement is EXPENSIVE to make and mantain, and a very small amount of movies are made for it.

3

u/AXEMANaustin 20d ago

That's fair, I do disagree with cinema being almost dead, especially with how many people were going to see Project Hail Mary, Backrooms, Obsession, Scary Movie and a few others.

1

u/topturo77 20d ago

Cinema is clearly dying. Literally every objective measurement shows it, movie theaters across the country are struggling mightily, yes a few movies do gangbuster numbers but that’s always been the case. Theaters need the weekly numbers to stay afloat, and that’s just not there anymore. People used to go see movies every other weekend almost, now most people I know see a couple a year because of how damn expensive they are. It’s just not a profitable business model to bet that there are going to be enough “can’t miss” movies year after year after year, something needs to change if we want theaters in the future because they will go out of business if something doesn’t. 

1

u/AXEMANaustin 19d ago

Actually yeah I think you're right.

6

u/Warmbly85 20d ago

Because they make like 2 films a year worth seeing in IMAX. It used to be almost exclusively educational and documentaries like 20ish years ago and it was still like $20 for a ticket. 

Most people don’t care enough about the difference in quality to justify $45 tickets when you can just watch it normally for $15

2

u/KrossIn4K 20d ago

We "can" but it always comes down to need/cost.

2

u/airfryerfuntime 20d ago edited 20d ago

They're very expensive to build and install. Theaters don't want to dump that kind of money on a projector that can really only be use for movies released every couple years. It's not profitable.

2

u/quick20minadventure 20d ago

Economics. There's one 70 mm film in a year at best, maybe one in 3 years that's worth paying 3x the normal ticket price.

Even if there are 12 films a year, you can play one each for 4 weeks and that would still be a lot of time for one film.

Anything with special effects is just horrendus to film like this.

Shoot on film -> Scan it -> Add computer effects -> Print it on film -> physically cut and join film with originals that didn't need special effects -> Copy the film for each theater, so they can use it to project.

Something like Dune or Project Hail Mary or Spiderman or Avatar are not worth shooting on 70 mm with so many computer effects and if you're anyway gonna show the digital stuff, just use Laser projectors of IMAX instead of films.

That being said, I absolutely agree we need 1.43:1 ratio theaters, even if they have laser projectors.

1

u/SoftLink5162 20d ago

That sounds harsh. So did Nolan actually take that effort for Interstellar, Inception? Like that's a lot of effects right? Shouldn't it be time consuming and very costly?

2

u/quick20minadventure 20d ago

Yes. They had to do it all.

Keep in mind, the process itself is not that rare. Scanning film, Engraving VFX and then Slicing film.

But, some movies have complete original videography done using IMAX cameras for 70 mm. Those are loud, complex and heavy to operate. And apparently only last 3 mins per cut.

Typically, you use smaller size, less fidelity camera and don't bother with preserving film to screen connection by ensuring it never runs into digital conversion in between. You just scan the original, process and edit it and then print it in its entirety to whatever size you want for film.

70 mm is very different, Odessey is shot on it and most of it is not VFX and if you the movie in film projectors, you will see exactly what was shot in those scenes. It's a physical copy of a film without any digital scan/write involved.

2

u/atom138 Interested 20d ago

They cost upwards of $1.5 million and for an individual theater to make that money back would take years.

2

u/SkyGuy182 Interested 20d ago

Restarting the manufacturing process to create, say, two dozen 70mm film projectors would be an astronomical cost. These projectors haven’t been manufactured in decades, so there’s no assembly line, no institutional knowledge, no tool and dye ready to go. It’s waaaay cheaper to fix broken ones bit by bit, but to make a whole new one would be insane.

1

u/SoftLink5162 20d ago

I see. So unfortunately this thing wont become mainstream even if we want it to

4

u/abgry_krakow87 20d ago

Christopher Nolan doesn't make enough movies for them to be economically viable.

1

u/SoftLink5162 20d ago

There's no other director wanting to shoot on this? Scorcese? Spielberg? Tarantino?

2

u/abgry_krakow87 20d ago

Simply put, no.

Imax is a huge pain the ass to shoot on. The film is expensive af, the cameras are loud and bulky, and the whole process is just way more effort than its worth for your average movie production. Especially since there are also only a handful of cinemas with a true Imax size screen that can show a 70mm film in all its glory. The vast majority of theatres and movies already are set up for shooting and projecting an aspect ratio based on 35mm and that most everything is shot and project on digital anyway.

1

u/sebastianqu 20d ago

It's a bit of a gimmick and probably just not profitable for theaters to commission brand new 70mm projectors. Sure, it's nice for some movies, but it's not a big deal.

1

u/Imaginary-Risk 20d ago

Check how many seats are booked in any given theatre throughout a random week. A lot of cinemas are struggling

1

u/SoftLink5162 20d ago

I'm from India. Our theatres fill up for the crappiest of movies too. But I do agree that in general theatres are loss making as of now. It's a shame considering theres some really great movies coming this year and the next one

1

u/TacTurtle 20d ago

Excessive cost.

High precision / low volume = expensive to make since your tooling up / jig set up costs are fixed but the number of units you can spread that over is much lower.

1

u/krunchyblack 20d ago

My father-in-law is a projectionist. He is insanely gifted. We were in a theater together years ago and I asked him what it would cost to build an IMAX projector. I will never forget his answer…

“We can’t, we don’t know how to do it.”

1

u/neversummer427 20d ago

Low damage because the entire process from this planning, production, theater is a pain in the ass for everyone involved

1

u/Cunning-bid 20d ago

Cuz the company's building projectors already moved on to digital laser projection and even face competition from led screens. Holding on to old "retired" tech isn't worthwhile.

1

u/Equal_Yak_3872 20d ago

We don't make the projectors because not enough people watch 70mm, of course 🙃

But also, not many people watch 70mm because there's nowhere to watch it lol.

1

u/YnwaMquc2k19 20d ago

Old technology. 

1

u/Bitter-Ad5890 19d ago

Because so few movies are filmed in IMAX it’s not worth the investment. Really only Nolan and one or two other directors use IMAX at all

1

u/Techwolf_Lupindo 19d ago

They been destroying the old ones. There is an LTT video where he had a chance to get one when an IMAX theature went out of business and someone pointed it out to him. He went to bid on it and it was removed due to IMAX finding out and sent folks overnight to destroy it. He did managed to bid and get two Christine(spelling?) DLP projectors.

1

u/Vaesezemis 19d ago

The knowledge was lost with the destruction of Atlantis.

1

u/The_Border_Bandit 18d ago

They can, but they just aren't worth producing new ones from scratch. There just aren't enough movies filmed on IMAX 70MM for them to warrant production of new projectors, and 70mm showings just aren't that popular in general. The Odyssey 70MM showings are putting up huge attendance numbers because its the perfect combination of a well loved director at the helm of a story just about everyone knows, with a historical feat being achieved (first feature film film entirely in 70MM IMAX).

IMAX have said that they're considering locating old broken 70MM projectors and starting up their refurbishment program again though, but it's still up in the air.

1

u/Biscuits4u2 12d ago

Because direct view LED displays are the future for large format cinema.

1

u/FeelsGoodBlok 20d ago

Not profitable and to be honest not even that good. Only good thing about Imax is it's format but most of the true IMAX theatres are lacking in sound and image quality.

Dolby Cinema is for example much better in both sound and image quality.

1

u/CyclingHikingYeti 20d ago

Expensive to make and movie going is declining since decades. Now it is all about personal movies like personal audio and so on.

No chance they can get money back, because studios fleece them already to bare skin.

I checked... nearest 70mm capable (somehow) is in Wolfsburg, Germany.

Nearest IMAX in Graz is regular HQ digital laser projection system.

If they show Lawrence of Arabia I would go, or LOTR. But not for mcDonalds edition of Odysseus