Slashdot Mirror
Matrix Revolutions To Be Released On Imax
captain igor writes "IMAX.com is reporting that Matrix Revolutions is going to be released at select IMAX theatres on November 5th, with a wider range of theatres picking the movie up shortly thereafter. (Link includes list of IMAX theatres that will premier the movie.)" We mentioned earlier this year that the Matrix sequels would be Imax-sized.
I can only imagine how big Larry Fishburne's gut will look on an Imax screen. I never knew there was a Crispy Creme in Zion.
You aren't free to do anything, until you've lost everything.
Neo: I seem to recall this being posted on slashdot before!
Trinity: Deja Vu, its a glitch in the Matrix. Is it a different article? Or the same article twice?
As much as I would like to be against big ass theatres and corporate mega-complexes, the metreon in SF is actually a great theatre. I will definitely be seeing this there...
Oh, I really hope someone can get a digital rip of that... better than DVD quality screener!
---
Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
It has been out on the Sony Metrion IMAX theatre in San Francisco for some time now. It is truley a different movie when seen on the big big screen. The action scenes are emersive and you really feel like part of the movie.
Probably does not translate as well to IMAX as some other films with more picturesque fly-by shots of detailed landscapes like say... LOTR, but still worth a second (or Nth) view
One thing will keep me from seeing this at my local IMAX.
Popcorn!
They don't allow food and beverages in the IMAX here. What's a movie without a $10 bucket of popcorn and a 7.50 keg of cherry coke!?!
How long before everything is IMAX since we can approximate the current movie setups with our wide screens and dvds?
Davak
Just to let you know, this isn't any better than seeing the film in a normal theatre. The film wasn't shot in IMAX, and the quality isn't any better. It's just an excuse to charge a couple of extra dollars.
In fact, I think regular movies look worse shown in IMAX theatres, personally. It's like sitting in the front row at the theatre, the screen is just way too big.
This is referencing revolutions (3rd film) not reloaded (2nd film)
will there still be dialog?
that could be a deal breaker.
-=tonyt=-
It's hard enough watching all the movement and action on a normal cinema screen. Neck strain as well as eye strain? :)
I would get plenty of sleep before going to that screening, you'll need to be in good shape.
Thats Great, I would love to see on an IMAX screen, too bad that movies for IMAX can't be longer then 120 minutes or so.. So it will have to be cut down from the regular version, as Reloaded was. Not to mention that it costs 12$ here in NYC.
Imax in 3D, now that would be cool!
As per usual, we 'Down Under' miss out :(
I find it strange since the movie was produced in Sydney.
(...and yes we do have Imax)
Oh wells.
I think we can all tell i'm not being serious, but my point is that when a good movie comes out, we will all pay to see it. if the movie industry tries to shovel some crap out the door and call it a movie, dont be surprised if we download that shit instead of paying for it.
Well, there are a number of factors, but presumably the first is cost. Most movies don't have the initial budget to be able to distribute copies to every cinema around the world all at once. Not to mention all the time it would take to make that many copies, without any of them being leaked prematurely.
Now, given the size of the Matrix phenomenon, is it any wonder that the Wach. Bros. franchise can afford to open at the same time (zero hour) at major sites around the world?
Support FSF: Stop thinking with your wallet, and think with your imagination. (cc/non-commercial)
Simple economics. Compare the population of the UK to the US.
Once the frenzy dies down here, we can send our used movie reels to you for your showing. That's right, you get sloppy seconds.
-- Will program for bandwidth
From what I understand, it has something to do with the release in the rest of Europe. Since they usually release the movies in all of europe at the same time, at that dubbing the movies takes time, it gets released later.
Since the link from the original slashdot post is gone... here's the information on the conversion process.
-----------
IMAX(R) DMR
From traveling back in time to the pre-historic age of the dinosaurs, to looking into the future on board the International Space Station, the unparalleled image and sound quality of the The IMAX ExperienceO transports audiences to places far beyond the reach of most people. Now, through the magic of IMAX(R) DMR(TM) (Digital Re-Mastering), movie-goers can also experience the larger than life adventure, drama and emotion of their favorite Hollywood films, such as "Apollo 13," which won two Academy AwardsO in 1995, and Star Wars: Episode II Attack of the Clones. Coming to IMAX theatres this Spring and Fall will be The Matrix Reloaded and The Matrix Revolutions, the second and third chapters in the Wachowski Brothers' revolutionary film trilogy. The release of The Matrix Revolutions on November 5, 2003 will mark the first time ever that a Hollywood live action event film is released concurrently in 35mm and in IMAX's format.
IMAX motion picture systems, invented and developed by IMAX Corporation (IMAX), are the most technically advanced motion picture systems in the world. Images of unsurpassed size, clarity and impact, enhanced by a superb specially-designed six-channel, multi-speaker sound system, are projected onto giant rectangular screens, up to eight stories high and 120 feet wide in IMAX(R) theatres, and in IMAX(R) Dome theatres, onto domes as large as 27m (88'-5") in diameter.
The film format used by IMAX (15/70) image is ten times larger than a conventional 35mm film and three times bigger than a standard 70mm film. The sheer size of a 15/70 film frame, combined with the unique IMAX projection technology, is the key to the extraordinary sharpness and clarity of films exhibited in IMAX theatres.
IMAX(R) DMR(TM)
IMAX Corporation has developed a total system to re-master 35mm live-action films into 15/70 film format for exhibition in IMAX theatres. Known as IMAX DMR this proprietary, patent pending technology digitally enhances the image quality of 35mm motion pictures for projection onto screens up to eight stories high and up to 120 feet wide. The resulting images are every bit as big, sharp and beautiful as those of the classic, visually stunning films originally produced in the 15/70 format.
The core of the IMAX DMR process is based on our in-depth knowledge and understanding of the 15/70 format and the projection environment in IMAX theatres.
There are no other systems available that can provide this degree of image enhancement. IMAX DMR is much more than just a software tool. It is a complete, purpose-built, end-to-end system designed to accommodate the high demands of day-and-date releases.
The Process
IMAX DMR starts by scanning, at the highest resolution possible, each individual frame of the 35mm film and converting them into digital images.
Next, proprietary image enhancement tools, developed and refined over many years, optimizes each image for printing onto 70mm film. The useful information contained within the small area of the 35mm format is analyzed. Some of the techniques used to enhance the digital image include sharpening, color correction, grain removal, and eliminating unsteadiness.
The enhanced digital signal is then recorded onto 15/70 film resulting in a visual presentation which, when projected on IMAX's state-of-the-art rolling loop projection system, is bright, crisp, steady and absolutely stunning.
The highly automated IMAX DMR system allows the process to meet rigorous film production schedules.
Sound
For IMAX DMR releases, the original soundtrack of the 35mm film will be re-mastered for IMAX's six-channel loudspeaker system. Unlike conventional theatre sound systems, IMAX sound systems are uncompressed, full fidelity and use proprietary l
You'll be sorry.
"Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
Whoops. I guess I should have RTFA or at least RTFT (RTF Title).
Why do people keep resorting to this site. It's tired and old.
I saw Apollo 13 on IMAX when it was the brave new world of 35mm blowups, and I was underwhelmed. It was exciting, sure, but it didn't add a lot to the movie.
... you get the idea.
For one, the movie's length exceeded the capacity of the reels for the projector, so they had to cut something like a half hour from it. Knowing the movie really well (it really outfoxes other space movies), it was irritating, but to my friend who had never seen it before, it was downright confusing. "Day 4" led to "Day 6"; not only did they cut some needed exposition, but a lot of the smaller moments that make the movie rich. Disclaimer: I think they've solved this issue and Revolutions will not be similarly cut. Which is why I'm presenting these criticism in increasing order of importance.
More severe is the clipping of the sides. An IMAX screen is proportioned to 1.66:1, which is closer to the 1.33:1 of TV than the 2:35:1 of movies like Apollo 13. The solution is to cut off the sides, like in the rightfully derided pan-and-scan telecine methods for TV. So for all the progress we've made in getting the mainstream public to embrace letterboxing with DVDs, this is a leap backward.
The print just didn't look good. I mean, whether you show it on a 80-foot screen or 800-foot screen, you only shot it with so much grain in the negative, and you can only get so much detail on the way out. It looked incredibly fuzzy and indistinct next to movies that were shot natively in the jumbo IMAX format. When you watch Everest and other IMAX-shot movies, they look like they have as much detail as a regular movie, but the screen extends far in every direction. Whereas blowing up 35mm 8 stories high produces roughly the same effect as sitting 3 feet away from a normal screen. They had to pipe the movie through all sorts of algorithms to reduce what would have been enormus "grain flicker," but instead, it looked awfully posterized and compressed.
Which leads me to the biggest point -- it was just overwhelming. For "epic" sequences like the liftoff, sensory overload is a good thing. But a lot of the latter part of Apollo 13 is played in close-ups -- scene after scene of Tom Hanks's face, 8 stories high. The face is so huge, it takes extra work for the eye to scan and recognize it. You have to turn your head, not just your eye, to get a bearing of where a scene is taking place. It's like watching a regular movie through a paper towel roll.
The director shot the movie with the assumption that you would be able to scan the whole frame relatively quickly. You can shoot close-up and your brain will understand that the scene goes beyond the edges of the frame. Directors who shoot for IMAX or other large-frame formats know to keep everything really, really wide, so you don't get disoriented. The purpose is to immerse you in a certain place, to eliminate the constant reminder in your peripheral vision that you are looking at a "finite" image. When you shoot it wide and project it big, the focal length ends up back in the league of normal movies, and that's what happens. But when you shoot it close and project it big
In short, IMHO, IMAX is a great format for certain types of movies, but keep 35mm prints on the normal screen where they belong.
I too thought Matrix Reloaded was a disappointment, which is why I am not really interested in seeing this one at all. If I hear its really good, then maybe. But I doubt I'd pay $10 to see it, even on IMAX.
I am worried that the matrix series is going to end with "not a bang but a wimper."
Releasing the movie on IMAX and the regular theater at the same time doesn't make sense (cents?) otherwise.
The last matrix flick did it correctly. Fans will go to the regular theater to see it on release day... and then spend the extra dollars to see it larger than life later.
For the third flick, die hards will see it on IMAX and then just purchase the DVD later... leaving the theaters out of the action. Are they afraid that after people see it in the theater that there will not be enough excitement to pay off the IMAX investment?
Is it going to be that big of a dud? Gawd, I hope now.
I guess alternatively this could just be IMAX's way of trying to position itself as a theater alternative...
Davak
Brilliance. Does the movie close with ghosts of Smit, Morpheus, and... uh... someone else who died looking proudly at Neo?
Honor Among Slackers. A veri
IMAX vs dlp!
Did the last matrix come out in dlp format?
I would imagine that this digital format would be better than our typical theaters... but what about IMAX?
I am almost certain that the last two starwars movies came out on IMAX and dlp... so maybe somebody could compare those for us.
Davak
Isn't Revolutions supposed to have a worldwide simultaneous premiere, though? Or was it something else?
Honor Among Slackers. A veri
and
(emphasis added)
I guess it averages out to being simply "whelmed".
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
I also saw Reloaded at the Sacramento IMAX theater.
Yes, it was worth it - an awesome experience. Unfortunately, when you blow up the picture that big, you get to see all the bad with the good...
like a closeup of Laurence Fishburne's complexion. Ugh.
What you want is irrelevant; what you've chosen is at hand! - Spock, ST VI
I thouhg he was busy uniting the Triforce and saving Princess Zelda...
It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
Not to mention IMAX was invented in Canada.
1. A really blatant and horrible edit mistake during the big dance scene in Zion. For some reason, Trinity and Neo had sex, then met at the dance. Everything else was the same, and there were no other (noticable) edit problems.
2. Due to the high level of detail, I could fairly easily notice when CG was being used. This was most problematical during the big 100 Smiths battle.
What was good about it?
Totally immersive! The superbike sequence was awesome, much better than the small screen. It's true that some of the fight sequences were more difficult to digest visually, but that was more than made up for by the awesome display of enormous images.
As for your critiques:
1. or one, the movie's length exceeded the capacity of the reels for the projector
As you mentioned, this is no longer a problem.
2. More severe is the clipping of the sides.
As far as I could tell, there was no clipping. The film was shown in it's normal proportions, which meant that it did not take up the full height of the screen. Still, it was twice as large as the normal screen (4x the area).
3. The print just didn't look good.
I know what you mean by posterized. Yes, it was pretty obvious that some post production had taken place. But I wouldn't characterize it as not looking good. It was more than satisfactory.
4. Which leads me to the biggest point -- it was just overwhelming.
Yea, that's the idea. I like walking out of the theatre with my eyes moving in different directions!
I am definitely going to see the next installments of the Matrix and LOTRs on IMAX. I'm not even going to think about going to the regular theatre. Big, flashy, epic films look great on big, flashy, epic screens.
It's a shame that we are missing out. I wonder if an expression of interest sent to sydgroups@imax.com.au might convince them to get it in.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
" It is truley a different movie when seen on the big big screen. The action scenes are emersive and you really feel like part of the movie."
I wanted to take a potshot at Matrix Reloaded here, but something occured to me. Did they edit the movie's length for IMAX? I sorta vaguely recall reading something about the movie being made shorter for IMAX. 1.) Is this true? 2.) Did it help the pacing of the movie?
That movie was entirely too long for my tastes, but if they had edited it down to say 45 minutes, I probably would have enjoyed it. Did that happen here? If so, I might see the third one in IMAX.
"Derp de derp."
It's Krispy Kreme you insensitive clod!
The hot light is always on... In my pants
Ya I'll probably just wait and download a screener.
I downloaded the second one on VCD, very glad I didn't pay to see it. It sucked in my opinion.
It didn't suck totally like kill bill but it was just kind of a medoicre showing for all the hype and the potential of the original.
That's your problem. Some movies are meant to be watched on the big screen -- not at 320x240 and crappy bitrates.
Coming soon - pyrogyra
...I recently saw Reloaded at the IMAX theater in the Luxor in Vegas. It rawked. I had an almost perfect seat, halfway up and halfway across. Very immersive, in some cases (e.g. the outdoor scenes) almost vertigo-inducingly so.
Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
IMAX will probably be more popular in the future. However, I think the movie would need to be totally reshot for it to fit well: IMAX screens are large enough that standard shots look strange on them. More importantly, many people get nauseous when they watch IMAX movies: The total surrounding screen can cause vertigo.
Not a sentence!
No, he just got tired of fighting with Dr. Strangepork and 1st Mate Piggy.
I spent a year in Iraq looking for WMD and all I found was this lousy sig.
>However I don't reckon that we have IMAX cinemas over here in the good ol' U of K.
There are IMAX cinemas in London, Bristol, Bournemouth, Birmingham, Bradford, Manchester and Glasgow.
For some reason, they seem to be unusually heavily concentrated in cities beginning with B. Coincidence? I think not!
VCD or actually SVCD has the same resolution as a TV and the same frame rate.
Actually, only SVCD can claim that - the OP. said "VCD", which is 320x240. Television is 720x480 (D1).
Also, resolution has nothing to do with bitrate, which is the main problem with SVCD and VCD.
And yes, I've seen them. I've made my own. They look like crap. Which is why I burn DVDs today, instead of SVCDs or VCDs. (That, and DVD burners got cheap enough).
Coming soon - pyrogyra
The official Win32 one does (as of 3.3) as long as you say "no" at the prompt asking you if you have donated yet. So you just called someone a troll when in fact he/she wasn't. Are you going to apologize?
However, the OT is wrong on many other counts. If the GUI client is installed correctly, then he/she should simply have to "open" the torrent url/file and the client should take over from there. Also, since there's many different clients, it is a tad bit smarter to address a specific client like "Official BitTorrent 3.3 sucks on Win32". If someone says "BitTorrent sucks" I take it to mean the protocol, not a particular implementation.
Belief is the currency of delusion.
Am I missing something? Is 2.5 million people not enough? It's not because we don't have a theater either, we have a IMAX theater. So who decided the theaters?
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
This was announced before Reloaded hit theatres, and it was met with an equally fervent response. Oh, and by the way, the 35mm film hits theatres on November 5!
The only way I want to view the matrix movies from now on is with a kanji-fied aalib...
I haven't seen Reloaded on IMAX yet (going tomorrow, hopefully) but I read somewhere that it has not been edited. IMAX theatres used to only be able to handle 2 hour films or less, but many (most?) of them have gotten upgrades that let them handle 150 minute movies. Reloaded clocks in at 138 minutes so theatres with the upgrade should be able to handle it.
That's a LOT of film though...
Hi... I'm Larry... the shivering chipmunk... brrrrr!... I'm cold... I need a sweater...
I first read that as "Matrix Revolutions to be Released on Linux"
I'm not that much of a Linux geek, am I?
I saw Reloaded in Manchester.
the amount of detail was impressive. when I watched the DVD I noticed the lower detail.
I didn't notice any cut ends, and it wasn't edited.
You just know that in the Matrix they will be saved by some cute and furry creatures at the end that will immediately go on sale in stores everywhere on November 6.
Watch Star Wars Episode III come out a winner and the Matrix Revolution turn out to be a dud.
This is my sig.
I'm guessing "digital remastering", changed to "digital movie remastering" after the term "DRM" became associated with negative feelings toward digital restrictions management schemes that introduce infuriating barriers to fair use of copyrighted works.
Will I retire or break 10K?
I'm not that much of a Linux geek, am I?
You missed the even more obvious Mac joke. Imagine an iMac hooked up to Frank's 2000" TV.
Will I retire or break 10K?
It would be almost physically impossible to split the movie between two reels.
Fist off, the 70mm Imax film zipps along at 5.5 feet per second. That means a 120 minute long film uses 40,080 feet of film. All wound up it sits on a 5 foot platter that has a couple of hundred pounds of film on it.
The reason you wouldn't be able to split the film on 2 rolls is more of a logistics problem. First off, you would need 2 projectors (which most Imax theaters don't have, except for the 3D ones). Even in these few theaters, the projectors are designed to run at the exact same speed (in order to keep the frames in sync) and although these systems have a mode to allow you to run with only 1 projector for showing a regular Imax features there isn't a way to run both projectors not synced.
Sound would also be a large problem because there is no time code/sound tracks recorded on the film itself. The projector just sends out a pluse for every frame that rolls by, and an external decoder counts these pulses and turns them into a SMPTE track (therefore at the beginning of the show the first "Start" frame must be loaded in the exact first frame opening for everything to be synchronized). This SMPTE track is then feed into a computer which locks to it and plays the audio according. With two projectors, you would have a very difficult time getting the sound to transition over smoothly, since the time it takes to rev up a projector (remember it has to speed up to 334 feet pre minute!) could vary widely. Even if you could somehow get it to within a reasonable tolerance, the SMPTE counter would have to know when exactly to roll over to the new source.
I saw Reloaded on IMAX. It was *big* and *loud*.
I recommend sitting near the back. Or better yet, see it on a normal screen.
Will it feature those groovy red-orange dots?
No movie should be without them!
PjotrP
I refuse to see movies that are advertisements for other movies. When a feature-length picture ends in "to be continued", you should ask for your money back.
As a result, I don't care about the latest lemming-creating release on this thread of mediocre cinema. Wake up. Don't be a pawn to hollywood.
However, if one of the IMAXs in Calgary decided to show all three in a marathon, I'd be there in a heartbeat...
Condemnant quod non intellegunt.
Honestly I think the review at bestbuy.com for Matrix Reloaded is fitting and accurate. I figure I'm going to buy the movie, edit it on the computer to get rid of everything that doesn't advance the movie or plot... and end up with about 30 minutes of material.
;-)
Put in a 5 disc DVD changer and I can watch the entire marathon, assuming the 3rd one is as good as the first, and not have to get up. If the 3rd is as pathetic as the 2nd, then I might be able to fit the trilogy onto 2 dvds
Link to BestBuy's review
Exactly, an SVCD looks a hell of alot better than a VHS but people watched VHS for years and found it just fine for movie viewing.
Sure, if you can't see artifact noise on MPEG compression, I imagine you're quite happy with it.
VHS is lower "resolution" than SVCD. But it's really just lower bandwidth. Because it's an analog signal, all that means is smears. With digital, lower bandwidth means more artifacts, which are more visible.
So sure, some SVCDs might look great, but most don't. That's why we have DVD - not SVCD - as the main format out there right now. And given that we were originally talking about VCD, not SVCD... just exactly how does this relate to the original point at all?
Coming soon - pyrogyra
Yeah, I'm feeling a little pissed off now, as the Dearborn Greenfield Village Imax only picked up Reloaded for like 12 days, none of which I had time in to go catch it, and it doesn't look like they are picking up Revolutions at -all-, at least it's not on their calendar.
.. Gotta drive from the big city of Detroit to the little village of Grand Rapids to see it? that's bullshit.
So the next closest theater is Grand Rapids
"Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
Some friends and I watched Revolutions in the IMAX at Waterloo in London, UK about a month ago.....
It only ran for a couple of weeks...most people seemed to be complaining that the screen is so huge, it's difficult to keep up with the action. That's certainly how I felt.
However, the sound was very good indeed.....
Great, now Keanu can suck in much larger than life size!! Whoah....
The "burly brawl" doesn't look realistic on any size screen. They did an excellent job mapping Smith's face onto all the extras hired to walk up and say something, but the body motion in the fight itself just isn't right. (And no, Matrix apologists, it's not because they're using superpowers.)
Now, the highway scene... mmmmm... I'd definitely like to see that in IMAX. The bit where the camera viewpoint goes underneath a CG truck and comes out the far side was a very neat thing.
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
The film is showing in three Imax theatres in three cities in all of Canada -- Halifax, Winnipeg and London (couple hours west of Toronto). What gives? Famous Players has spent millions placing Imax theatres in just about every Silver City/Metropolis multiplex they've built. Cities like Vancouver and Calgary have more than one Imax theatre, Vancouver alone has four or five of them. So much so that it is common place to see a feature film in an Imax theatre. I recently watched Underworld in an Imax theatre and there are benefits, larger and closer to the screen, generally beefier sound, food is permitted, etc. The movie is projected on the Imax screen with the aspect ratio intact, the film is simply projected on the larger screen in the same width and height.
It is quite common for popular movies to spill over to the Imax theatre when the demand seems to justify it as the most common theatre company here in Canada, Famous Players, has built Imax theatres in most of their multiplex theatre locations. I have seen quite a few movies on an Imax screen because of this policy. I find it bizarre that the film would not be seen on more of these Imax screens initially in more populated cities like Vancouver or Toronto than Winnipeg and Halifax. The Imax web site does point out that more Imax locations will follow the initial release so I look forward to it here in Calgary on Imax eventually.
I saw Matrix Reloaded at the local IMAX. It was obvious the movie had not been shot for and IMAX screen. The aspect ratio seemed wrong. The resolution and focus also weren't that great in this movie, as there were a lot of scenes where the director wants you to look at a particular character so more focus is on them and not their surroundings. This is fine for the 16:9 cinema screen but when you are looking at a 3 story IMAX screen, your eyes want to wander and look at all the details. This, I thought, was a little disappointing. The smoother flowing scenes, such as scenes of Zion looked incredible.
You'll also be able to see Trinity's blond nose hairs a number of times. The fact that the prop cars on the freeway action scenes have no motors in them becomes very apparent. I could go on for an hour about the visual flaws with the Matrix series on IMAX, but I'll stop my complaining there. Oh okay, one more: the oracle's skin. EWWWWWWWW. Get that lady some scar cream, stat!
I'd say to go see the new one on IMAX, but not for the visual difference (it's just bigger, blurrier, and choppier looking), go for the audio. IMAX theaters tend to have very strong, very clear, sound systems that really add to action sequences. The can really feel the music when the fighting breaks out.
It also would have helped a lot if the movie had been shot at ~60 fps. I've seen movies shot for IMAX and they didn't appear to have such jagged motion when panning and, overall, more focus and attention to visual details. The focus seems clearer for a whole scene in an IMAX native film, too.
I thought the title said "... to be released on Linux."
That would be cool. Just "apt-get install matrix", load the USB brain electrode module, jack in, and you're good to go.
Would you trust your brain to Windows?
That's "Mr. Soulless Automaton" to you, Bub.
saw reloaded in Calgary on an IMAX screen when it came out too...
also saw both LOTR movies on an IMAX screen as well.
Here's a tip, I don't know if the Loew's nazis will catch on, but it's worth a shot - Next time you go to the theatre, but the bigass jumbo mofo tub of popcorn, the one that comes with free refills. Enjoy the movie and the popcorn, but don't throw out the tub! Bring it back with you next time, go to the snack counter and get your free refill. I don't think the pimply-faced squeaky-voiced kid is going to realize that the second (and third, and fourth, etc) time you go to the movies and get a free refill that you hadn't already bought the tub that day. So after the 3rd refill, you've FINALLY gotten $8 worth of popcorn. I think the same goes for soft drinks too, especially when the "free refill" size comes in a plastic cup. (Obviously, if either container has a promotion on it for a movie that's no longer in the theatres, this probably won't work)
Isn't it interesting how you come to recognize posters based solely on their sigs???
We certainly have IMAX cinemas here in England. There's one here in Bristol, and there are plenty of them around the country.
The local IMAX was showing Matrix: Reloaded in IMAX format last week.
~S
I prefer IMAX since although the film may be expanded rather than shot at IMAX size, it's still more immersive when all you can see is the action, no borders around it.
My only problem is the lack of legroom at the Bradford one, I'm not particularly tall (~5'10) and there is no way in hell I can cram into one of those seats without being near the aisle. It doesn't make sense, there's a big wide walkway at the back but they squash all the seats further forward.
Cowboy Curtis, please!
We really need a "Morpheus for dummies" -type production with Morpheus explaining the philosophy of the Matrix according to Aristotle, Buddha, Christ, Nietzsche, Marx, Baudrillard and Debord... If you yawn you just don't get it!
And god was it awsome.
the detail was amazing, and everything looked more lifelike. I was watching matrix on a rip aafterwords, and watch the previews, and everything seems to look much more computerized on non imax. i realy enjoyed watching it for the first time (and without watching any previews) in the imax. It was worth every penny of the $31 that it cost (those bulbs they use cost like $5000 and only last for couple thousand hours).