Interstellar - Part 9

[Travesty]

Well, IMAX is in sorts a lot like 3D, in that it's very gimmicky to watch it in that format. And that's not to say that the term "gimmick" is in any means negative. If you have a chance to see it in that format, you should definitely do it, but after its out of theaters, the IMAX doesn't mean dick anymore. Who cares that Nolan shot all of that in IMAX when you're watching it on your 40" TV? And again, same with 3D: who cares?

 

[TheGuy]

Because seeing in IMAX is the best venue to properly judge the film's merits?

 

[Harley2004]

Well, IMAX is in sorts a lot like 3D, in that it's very gimmicky to watch it in that format. And that's not to say that the term "gimmick" is in any means negative. If you have a chance to see it in that format, you should definitely do it, but after its out of theaters, the IMAX doesn't mean dick anymore. Who cares that Nolan shot all of that in IMAX when you're watching it on your 40" TV? And again, same with 3D: who cares?

There is difference when you see it in a 70mm IMAX, theater. It's not a gimmick. You can't compare it to 3-D. 35mm film is roughly equivalent to 4K, and how much detail is on the film. IMAX the detail is close to 8k.

 

[DA_Champion]

Does IMAX have better colours?

 

[Travesty]

There is difference when you see it in a 70mm IMAX, theater. It's not a gimmick. You can't compare it to 3-D. 35mm film is roughly equivalent to 4K, and how much detail is on the film. IMAX the detail is close to 8k.

What are you talking about? You just said there is a difference to seeing it in 70mm. So wouldn't that be a gimmick, if you can't see it otherwise? And since that format isn't abundant, wouldn't that mean it's attracting you to pay more to see it in a format that isn't available to the masses? I mean, that's the definition of the word.

 

[Kane52630]

Well, IMAX is in sorts a lot like 3D, in that it's very gimmicky to watch it in that format. And that's not to say that the term "gimmick" is in any means negative. If you have a chance to see it in that format, you should definitely do it, but after its out of theaters, the IMAX doesn't mean dick anymore. Who cares that Nolan shot all of that in IMAX when you're watching it on your 40" TV? And again, same with 3D: who cares?

With this movie, I gotta agree. The constant switches between IMAX and regular 35 was keep taking me out of the movie.

 

[AnneFan]

Well, IMAX is in sorts a lot like 3D, in that it's very gimmicky to watch it in that format. And that's not to say that the term "gimmick" is in any means negative. If you have a chance to see it in that format, you should definitely do it, but after its out of theaters, the IMAX doesn't mean dick anymore. Who cares that Nolan shot all of that in IMAX when you're watching it on your 40" TV? And again, same with 3D: who cares?

IMAX is great to see but yes, I agree with you Trav. The same experience doesn't translate onto home video.

 

[TheGuy]

The issue is not the blu-ray/dvd quality of the film, but on the theater itself. And the real aspect ratio of the IMAX is meant to enhance the artistic quality of the film, not just to earn more cash.

 

[Travesty]

With this movie, I gotta agree. The constant switches between IMAX and regular 35 was keep taking me out of the movie.

Exactly. And again, when I say "gimmick" I'm not having any kind of negative connotations attached to it, but it's just that, a gimmick.

 

[Kane52630]

The issue is not the blu-ray/dvd quality of the film, but on the theater itself. And the real aspect ratio of the IMAX is meant to enhance the artistic quality of the film, not just to earn more cash.

 

[redhawk23]

Well, IMAX is in sorts a lot like 3D, in that it's very gimmicky to watch it in that format. And that's not to say that the term "gimmick" is in any means negative. If you have a chance to see it in that format, you should definitely do it, but after its out of theaters, the IMAX doesn't mean dick anymore. Who cares that Nolan shot all of that in IMAX when you're watching it on your 40" TV? And again, same with 3D: who cares?

Its not really a gimmick though. Seeing it in a smaller format means that you are missing a large part of the image. TV's can replicate that aspect ratio and they have included the full IMAX framing on Nolan releases in the past.

Its like the difference between watching a film in full screen pan and scan with half the image cut out and watching it in anamorphic widescreen.

It's like saying the care put into sound design doesn't matter because so many people will just watch it on laptops through ear buds anyways. That's not the presentation they are tailoring the film to.

 

[Harley2004]

What are you talking about? You just said there is a difference to seeing it in 70mm. So wouldn't that be a gimmick, if you can't see it otherwise? And since that format isn't abundant, wouldn't that mean it's attracting you to pay more to see it in a format that isn't available to the masses? I mean, that's the definition of the word.

It's how much information you get on that film, right there is a difference. It's not going anywhere, and eventually the "masses" will not just be watching 1080p tv's. I guess what you're saying is that it's pointless, because there's not native 8-k Blu-rays or something? 3-d is A gimmick, IMAX is a superior format.

 

[redhawk23]

IMAX is great to see but yes, I agree with you Trav. The same experience doesn't translate onto home video.

Have you considered that Chris Nolan doesn't give a **** about the home video experience?

 

[DA_Champion]

Have you considered that Chris Nolan doesn't give a **** about the home video experience?

Sounds about right .... on the other hand ... word is we got The Dark Knight because Batman Begins had good DVD sales.

 

[redhawk23]

With this movie, I gotta agree. The constant switches between IMAX and regular 35 was keep taking me out of the movie.

In this case, that problem is less a matter of it being "gimmicky" and more of a matter of the format being used in a less careful way.

The Dark Knight Rises had a lot more careful cutting between the two formats, timed to changes in scene and once even timed to a gate being slammed shut. It was a lot less jarring.

This film though there would just be random shots of the truck for a second or just people talking. Very haphazzard.

 

[TheGuy]

How much did the IMAX totaled for Interstellar? AFIK, I remember TDKR having 1hr+ or so of IMAX.

 

[AnneFan]

Have you considered that Chris Nolan doesn't give a **** about the home video experience?

No, that didn't enter my mind. I just agreed with my mate Trav's observation.

 

[titansupes]

Well, IMAX is in sorts a lot like 3D, in that it's very gimmicky to watch it in that format. And that's not to say that the term "gimmick" is in any means negative. If you have a chance to see it in that format, you should definitely do it, but after its out of theaters, the IMAX doesn't mean dick anymore. Who cares that Nolan shot all of that in IMAX when you're watching it on your 40" TV? And again, same with 3D: who cares?

Yup. Maybe I'd have more of an appreciation for it if there was still an IMAX in my state, but there isn't. And even then, that only works for the time the movie's in the cinemas. After that, it's life is forever on home video. And all you get there is aspect ratios shifting in and out to distract you. I'm not a fan.

 

[Kane52630]

In this case, that problem is less a matter of it being "gimmicky" and more of a matter of the format being used in a less careful way.

Yeah I don't know about that...when the movie is constantly selling you a different format through ads and interviews and what we get is scenes that go back and forth constantly on the thing you are selling, it's a gimmick to me. It bugged the hell out of me in TDKR as well.

When Cameron made Avatar in 3D he made sure every single thing worked for the movie and it looked absolutely incredible the whole time. And since then you've seen studios without any care take that and use it just to add box office numbers, then it became a gimmick. I'm gonna try to wait until Nolan or someone else finally shoots a movie entirely in IMAX before I pay the same price for 3D.

 

[Tequilla]

I think Interstellar could be made into a series. Maybe just loosely based off one another.

It's not like it's called "Escape From Earth" or "Cooper's Journey" or something. The movie is about surmounting space and time for the sake of humanity and for the sake of love. It could easily be continued in a sequel.

Think of the sequels to 2001 (the book obviously).

Interstellar , Inception , any of these movies could be transformed into a franchise. Inception lays a perfect universe where you can simply continue to tell stories , while Interstellar has the entire space to explore . Maybe if Nolan can't keep up with his successes , he might resort to some sequels.

Yeah I don't know about that...when the movie is constantly selling you a different format through ads and interviews and what we get is scenes that go back and forth constantly on the thing you are selling, it's a gimmick to me. It bugged the hell out of me in TDKR as well.

When Cameron made Avatar in 3D he made sure every single thing worked for the movie and it looked absolutely incredible the whole time. And since then you've seen studios without any care take that and use it just to add box office numbers, then it became a gimmick. I'm gonna try to wait until Nolan or someone else finally shoots a movie entirely in IMAX before I pay the same price for 3D.

Avatar looks beter in 2d. That's when you know 3d is a gimmick (and a piece of ...)

 

[Travesty]

Avatar looks beter in 2d. That's when you know 3d is a gimmick (and a piece of ...)

Being a gimmick has nothing to do with what you feel is better/worse. A gimmick is something that gets you to pay more attention to the said product.

What you're doing, is laying down the word "gimmick", as always relating to something negative, when that's just not the case all the time.

 

[redhawk23]

Yeah I don't know about that...when the movie is constantly selling you a different format through ads and interviews and what we get is scenes that go back and forth constantly on the thing you are selling, it's a gimmick to me. It bugged the hell out of me in TDKR as well.

When Cameron made Avatar in 3D he made sure every single thing worked for the movie and it looked absolutely incredible the whole time. And since then you've seen studios without any care take that and use it just to add box office numbers, then it became a gimmick. I'm gonna try to wait until Nolan or someone else finally shoots a movie entirely in IMAX before I pay the same price for 3D.

So a gimmick is less gimmicky if its consistent? Because Avatar lived and died on its gimmicky element. The 3d was the only hook. It was more or less the sole appeal* of the film and its only legacy. No one went to see Avatar to see Australian Ken Doll #132's performance as Jake Sully.

*Okay not the sole appeal. That movie deserved 300 million for Hammerhead Elephants alone.

 

[dark_b]

time to bring out the numbers. how much did Avatar made with 2d and 3d screenings?

only 3D? come oooooooon

 

[Tequilla]

Being a gimmick has nothing to do with what you feel is better/worse. A gimmick is something that gets you to pay more attention to the said product.

What you're doing, is laying down the word "gimmick", as always relating to something negative, when that's just not the case all the time.

Then watching a film in a movie theater instead of waiting it to be transmitted at national tv at home is a gimmick ?

It fits your criteria.

To me a gimmick is something that attracts you to pay for something more without actually adding anything. To me Avatar looks great in 2d. I don like the mushy colors , the blurring of fast kinetic scenes , the dim contrasts , the smaller compositions , even the screen looses scale. That's why i think its a gimmick. It doesn't add to my experience. It actually diminishes it.

If you tell me i can't replicate the Imax experience at home i agree. But i would stretch that to even normal 35mm projection.

 

[Travesty]

So a gimmick is less gimmicky if its consistent? Because Avatar lived and died on its gimmicky element. The 3d was the only hook. It was more or less the sole appeal* of the film and its only legacy. No one went to see Avatar to see Australian Ken Doll #132's performance as Jake Sully.

*Okay not the sole appeal. That movie deserved 300 million for Hammerhead Elephants alone.

"The only hook"? I'm sorry, but Avatar didn't make that much money due to its 3D alone. It was far from being the first 3D movie. But was the 3D a gimmick in that movie? Sure, it definitely was. But so are all of Nolan's half-IMAX'd movies. I'm not sure how you can't see the difference? You seem to be hiding behind some moniker of artistry in defense of IMAX, when in reality, IMAX isn't doing anything more than selling tickets and attracting attention to it, just like 3D. The only difference, is you happen to like the quality in IMAX over 3D, but failing to see that both are gimmicks.

Stop applying negative connotations to the word "gimmick", and see it for what it really is.