The new Imax experience: Is it a big screen or a big scam?

I haven't seen Aziz Ansari yet on NBC's "Parks and Recreation," where he plays the character of Tom Haverford. But I love the character he plays on the blogosphere--the outraged moviegoer who gets ripped off going to see "Star Trek" at the Imax Experience at the AMC multiplex in Burbank. If you haven't seen Ansari's rant yet on his blog, it's a doozy, ripping Imax a new one for showing "Star Trek" in a theater that, while billed as an Imax giant screen--and costing a $5 premium for admission--was barely any bigger than an average-sized theater screen.

Ansari accused Imax CEO Richard Gelfond of "duping" customers and "whoring out their brand name" by charging an extra $5 for an inferior moviegoing experience, which Ansari dubbed "FAKE IMAX." Or as he put it (minus some expletives): "Gelfond said the company only puts IMAX digital systems into multiplex auditoriums that meet certain criteria. He jokingly said, 'It's a very scientific test. It's called the 'wow' factor. So if you don't go in and go 'wow,' we won't do it.' HAHAHA! REALLY FUNNY RICHARD!!! What happens if I go into the theater and go, 'This isn't a [expletive] IMAX screen. I just got ripped off for $5!! Do I get my money back?"

If nothing else, this is citizen journalism at its best. Imax has apparently been on an expansion binge for quite a while, building similar less-than-true-Imax-size screens, but the mainstream media, having lost hundreds upon hundreds of reporters to budget cutbacks, hadn't gotten around to exposing the practice. Ansari's blog post touched a populist nerve, getting picked up everywhere in the blogosphere, where Ansari was treated as a Seymour Hersh-style investigative hero. New York magazine's Vulture blog headlined its post "Ansari Uncovers Massive Fraud" while MTV Movies blogger Adam Rosenberg also sided with Ansari, saying that selling the Imax Experience on small-sized screens "strikes me as profoundly deceptive."

By Tuesday, with Ansari having gone on Twitter to marshal support for a consumer boycott, Imax was in full crisis management mode. Gelfond, whom Ansari nicknamed Darth Vader, gave an interview to Mainstreet,com, where he insisted that the company has been getting nothing but positive feedback from moviegoers, boasting that Imax did 15% of "Star Trek's" total domestic box office on only 138 screens. Gelfond even used a populist tactic of his own, claiming that 90% of the comments on Ansari's own blog vehemently disagreed with his own posting.

Not everyone bought this argument, with MTV's Rosenberg pointing out that the Imax CEO didn't bother to address the most pivotal issue--why are so many screens so much smaller than IMAX fans have come to expect? I'm not much of a geek about these issues, so if you want a more in-depth, objective analysis about what's going on, I recommend this post from Mark Wilson at Gizmondo (the Gadget Blog). He explains in plain English what's happening. Like all corporations in the modern capitalist world, Imax has felt the pressure to grow to prosper. Having previously built its own theaters in its own buildings, the company has now struck deals with major theater chains to turn various AMC and Regal screens into Imax Experiences. Imax handles the projectors, speakers and screens--meaning the quality control--while the theaters pay for structural renovations.

It's the retrofitting that has caused the uproar, with many of the new screens being far smaller than the original enormous wall-sized systems that came to represent Imax. I'm sure that Imax provides superior sound and picture quality, but theaters have upgraded the moviegoing experience many times in the past, via stadium seating, Dolby sound, digital projection, etc., without making us foot the bill. So why should we have to pay $5 extra if we're not getting the genuine Imax immersive experience? I'd love to hear your thoughts, but for now, it's something of a wonder to see that it was an enraged comedian-actor, not a seasoned reporter, who almost single-handedly made this a front-burner issue for moviegoers everywhere. 

Photo of  Aziz Ansari by Jason Merritt / Getty Images.

Comments

[Vanessa]

I'm going to avoid all theaters that say they have IMAX screens because I do not want to pay extra to watch a screen that's only a little bit bigger than a normal screen. It's a rip off and agree with Ansari. Save myself money and won't be fooled.

[Shoot Film]

IMAX digital is two 2K digital projectors (providing 3D or extra foot lamberts in 2D) putting out 2.2 million pixels. 4K and 35mm are theoretically 8.8 million pixels and the theoretical limits of IMAX film are about 200 million pixels. Aziz is correct that 2K is not IMAX at theoretically 1/100th the resolution not to mention the incorrect IMAX aspect ratio or the dynamic range superiority of film.

IMAX has been in the business of fooling the public and getting away with it for a while; trying to pass off Hollywood blow-ups to IMAX (DMR) as true IMAX and now trying to pass off a digital projection designed to replace 35mm as IMAX. The Dark Knight with several scenes shot in IMAX or the documentaries shot in IMAX are amazing and worth a premium for any fan of cinema but the DMR and digital imax at higher prices are a scam.

If IMAX wants to be in the business of digital projection fine... it is your brand you're killing; but don't try to trick people that it is better then standard digital or 35mm projection and do not try to charge a premium for the service.

IMAX is simply cashing in on the reputation created by the amazing IMAX theaters built in museums and some multiplexes over the last 30 years, but at the same time doing damage to not only their reputation and brand but these same museum theaters which are still showing films shot in the IMAX format. Boycott digital imax!

[Atticus Finch]

We paid $5 extra per ticket for an "IMAX" screening of "Star Trek" at a Regal Theatre in Aliso Viejo and the only thing different was a slightly larger screen and a nicer seat. It is a scam.

[Oregnian]

One point that does not seem to have been made yet is that IMAX does differentiate between theater types on their website theater locator, just not in all the necessary ways. The results show which theaters are capable of showing 3D and which are not. The locator also applies a symbol to signify dome theaters.

For example, input zip code 97224 into the theater locator and you'll get 3 results. One is a dome theater and the others are shown as 3D IMAX. From personal experience I now know that the Bridgeport IMAX theater is one of the farce small screen theaters, and the McMinnville IMAX is true IMAX.

This leads us to a basic conclusion:

When choosing how to informe consumers of the type of experience to expect IMAX deliberately failed to distinguish between traditional, huge screen, IMAX theaters and the smaller screens.

IMAX, do you really think it is more important to tell consumers that a theater is a dome IMAX than it is to tell them that the screen isn't huge?

Come on people, IMAX meant HUGE. To fail to differentiate between the huge screens and the smaller screens while taking care to let us know which are 3D and domes speaks to a deliberate misleading of the consumer.

[mike]

You might also want to note that the tirade you linked to is pretty laced with profanity. Not the kind of thing you want to read at work, but might want to bookmark for when you get home instead.

[jericho]

I've been to various-sized IMAX screens, and the experiences were always pretty stellar, especially the sound. But all of these were true IMAX film-projector screens, not this new batch of dual-digital-projector IMAX retrofits. I forgive the variance in screen/stadium size if it remains the true high-resolution, film-based IMAX system (overall, the images are still FUCKING HUGE), but to call a 2K-resolution digital projector system the same as the true IMAX experience is completely DISHONEST. To me, it's like comparing a mini-cooper and a hummer. I've been to multiplexes where they don't bother to tell the moviegoers the entire place runs digital projectors, and always i get PISSED, so hearing about this deception is really making me bounce off the walls.

I don't think it's wrong to charge an extra fee to the digital IMAX screens, since it does offer a superior experience to other screens. I don't even care if the prices for digital IMAX and real IMAX are the same. But you must let your customers know that you are offering two completely different products. Let the customers choose if they want to pay premium for the product IMAX provides, don't deceive them.

[Oyez O.]

I've started a petition at bit.ly/liemaxpetition to tell AMC, Regal and IMAX this is simply deceitful and we will not stand for it.

Please sign it and pass it on if you agree.

[Dave]

How many of us are getting the old bait & switch by IMAX at our local movie theaters! These screens are 1/4 the size of real IMAX and they are charging full price and hoping we won't notice!

Look at this link for more info and a shocking picture of the size difference!

http://www.lfexaminer.com/20081016.htm

Did they think we wouldn't notice the screen is 4x smaller than its supposed to be??

[JOhn]

I think it's a rip off and a dishonest way of scamming people out of an extra five dollars. I just went and watched Star Trek, it was my first imax experience and I must say, I was disappointed. For starters, I was told it was six stories and it wasn't only slightly bigger than a regular screen, the sound quality may be a little better, but in today's economy every last dollar helps and spending 5 dollars for something that isn't what you are told is a rip. Personally they shouldn't call it imax if it isn't truly imax. I feel that at this point now that it is getting attention that people should get a brake and start charging a regular admission fee instead of this bogus extra five dollar's, or since it is only a quarter of the size of a normal imax screen charge a quarter of the price of that five bucks, dont charge for something that isn't.

[BillK]

While I disagree with Ansari's having stayed for the whole movie before asking for a refund - I've walked out of a movie with my expensive popcorn and drink before when I found out a film I was about to see was an unadvertised DLP presentation rather than film - I agree wholeheartedly with the basis of his argument.

IMAX means one thing and only one thing to most people - large screen film projected on a mind-bogglingly large screen.

Instead, this is as if theatres started advertising "Cinerama" but instead of getting what you do at the Dome, you got a wider screen stuffed into an AMC-sized theater.

All IMAX is doing is cheapening their brand, and the extra IMAX fee is simply adding insult to injury.

If they want to charge an extra buck or two and call it Digital IMAX or "Theatre IMAX" that's fine (Regal already does this for their "Giant Screen" theatres); calling it IMAX is the motion picture theatre equivalent of the 1982 Cadillac Cimarron - a Chevy Cavalier with Cadillac badges and leather seats.

IMAX has over three decades of good will stored up in the minds of consumers that they're flushing down the toilet by doing this.