Superman Returns IMAX 3D Experience

Milkman95 said:
The only way to see this film is in the IMAX format, both regular and 3-D. Batman Begins was much better on an IMAX screen as well.

Go see it at a regular crap theater after........
:( That's the only place I have to see it is a crap theater.
 
Metropolis_Man said:
Ill raise your challenge of 4 to 5, anyone want to raise it higher?

Well with 2 free viewings i get at my military theater on the 25th, then the premiere twice on the 27. Then taking my kids on the weekend. Plus the imax viewing and the other 2 or so times i see it at my regular theater, i will give you 7 to 10 times for me.
 
Just got my imax ticket for the 27th at 10 pm goodness its gonna be so crowded. but at least the theater is only an hour away, or so
 
IMAX in my area runs about $13-$15. There's no way I can turn it down though. That's gonna be awesome.
 
I paid 11.75 for mine. 75 cents extra to reserve it online
 
Yeah, seeing it in Imax every time I see it.

1. Bigger screen
2. Better Picture (Imax Experience)
3. Better Sound (Imax Experience)
4. 3D

More than likely ALOT of people, most who have the option, will go see SR in the IMAX. Thus, undoubtably making it- I believe- impossible for POTC2 to beat even if audience number for POTC2 is ahead by a couple counts.... that money will add up.
 
The picture is crystal clear, WAY better than HD-TV. Just saw POSEIDEN Imax Experience. Plus, remember that the camera used for Supes will probably evene be clearer.
 
DvilDog said:
This will be my first imax experience
you will enjoy it!

i saw Spider-Man 2 on Imax....omg, it was amazing. i could see the pores on Tobey Maguires face!!! hehe

but seriously...the screen is so huge that it takes up most of your view. the picture goes almost from one side of your eye to the other...
 
Also- don't sit so close to the screen. The further back the better- in Imax case. I tend to go in the near the top, but not very top.
 
I don't like Imax. almost half the seats are terrible and the screen is too big to take everything in.
 
3D sucked waaay back when the cheap 1950s horror movies did it. Then it sucked back when it the Jason movies tried to revive it. Then it sucked a couple years ago when Spy Kids tried to revive it...again. It'll probably suck now.

And that isn't a rip on the movie, before every fan boy comes with the hater comments...it is simply a commentary on how 3D movies generally have a tendency to suck.

And anyone who doesn't think WB will release a "Super special 3D DVD edition" two weeks before Superman Returns 2 comes out...is just stupid.
 
How many calories does being relentlessly negative burn? I might need to try this diet.
 
Fatboy Roberts said:
How many calories does being relentlessly negative burn? I might need to try this diet.


Name one movie with 3d where it is moore than a stupid gimmick that doesn't work.

'nuff said.
 
suckage depends on scenes.how sick would the plane ben 3d? itd be like the wing was rly gonna hit u.
 
Fatboy Roberts said:
How many calories does being relentlessly negative burn? I might need to try this diet.
don't do that...you might turn into this dude...

grouch.jpg


Matt said:
Name one movie with 3d where it is moore than a stupid gimmick that doesn't work.

'nuff said.
i'd love for you to tell that to James Cameron.
 
The past is prologue. The new 3d method's gotta be good at SOMETHING if it's getting damn near every big-budget blockbuster luminary that's still alive to jump on the bandwagon.

But yes, 3d has been gimmicky before. Yunno what else was introduced as a gimmick? Anamorphic lenses. Widescreen. COLOR. Surround sound. All those things were initially introduced and written off as gimmicky huckster crap. And eventually people figured out a way to use it and use it so that other filmmakers thought it necessary to adopt the techniques themselves.

If you're hooking Cameron, Lucas, Jackson, Spielberg, Coppola, Rodriguez, I'm thinking there's something worthy there. All of them innovators and excepting Rodriguez, legends in the field, and pioneers in cinema. If they've got faith, I've got faith they see a way to use it that previous directors never did.
 
i remember when 3d games were gimmicky...

...i guess they're still just stupid gimmicks huh?

edit: OMG!!! 3d RULZ!!!

Old_Stone_Gate.gif

Flippant_Venus_Plunge.gif

095b3f19.gif

holomind.gif
 
Fatboy Roberts said:
The past is prologue. The new 3d method's gotta be good at SOMETHING if it's getting damn near every big-budget blockbuster luminary that's still alive to jump on the bandwagon.

But yes, 3d has been gimmicky before. Yunno what else was introduced as a gimmick? Anamorphic lenses. Widescreen. COLOR. Surround sound. All those things were initially introduced and written off as gimmicky huckster crap. And eventually people figured out a way to use it and use it so that other filmmakers thought it necessary to adopt the techniques themselves.

If you're hooking Cameron, Lucas, Jackson, Spielberg, Coppola, Rodriguez, I'm thinking there's something worthy there. All of them innovators and excepting Rodriguez, legends in the field, and pioneers in cinema. If they've got faith, I've got faith they see a way to use it that previous directors never did.

It won't be revolutionary until Cameron gets it.....just right.
 
DorkyFresh said:
i remember when 3d games were gimmicky...

...i guess they're still just stupid gimmicks huh?

edit: OMG!!! 3d RULZ!!!

Old_Stone_Gate.gif

Flippant_Venus_Plunge.gif

095b3f19.gif

holomind.gif

Thanx, awesome pics :up:
 
If they have it in Vegas I will see it on Imax in July
 
Hey all, I live like 10 minutes away from an IMAX. I was doing some research on them and I was wondering do you need to pre-purchase tickets for an IMAX film or can you just show up and buy a ticket moments before the film like a normal theatre? Thanx for any help.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,414
Messages
22,099,654
Members
45,896
Latest member
Bob999
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"