Open Forum Friday: Will IMAX Eventually Overtake 3D?

Posted by on August 17th, 2012   Filed under: Open Forum Friday

Over the past year or so, we’ve been starting to see more and more doubt being cast on 3D movies as the format of choice for the average moviegoer. Although the Avatar craze initially ushered in the technology with a bang, the higher ticket prices and the lack of comparable films has caused public demand to drop off throughout 2011 and now into 2012. A recent U.K. survey found that only 30% of moviegoers believe that 3D improves the experience and even less think it is worth the inflated ticket prices. Interestingly, on the flip side, IMAX screenings for The Dark Knight Rises have been breaking records and fans generally seem to feel the extra money is well worth it. Could we be seeing momentum shift towards a different technology?

IMAX theatres can also do 3D, but it is the giant screen, high resolution image and enhanced sound that seems to be wowing audiences. This week it was announced that a remastered version of Raiders of the Lost Ark will play in IMAX and Steven Spielberg appears to be a big supporter of the format, even hinting that he may shoot his upcoming film Robopocalypse with IMAX cameras. It seems to me that the larger IMAX screen creates a noticeable, quantifiable difference, not something subtle like 3D, which means it is a difference that people are willing to pay a premium for. But is it just exciting because Christopher Nolan puts it to such great use? Would moviegoers still be as enthusiastic about it if every major film started to be released in IMAX or would it just become old hat? What do you think, would you like to see IMAX become the next big thing? Does it offer better value for your money than 3D? Give us your thoughts here on Open Forum Friday.



  • Gil

    I just hate the aspect ratio. But I’d rather that ugly aspect ratio than 3D any day.

  • Roger C.

    IMAX is overrated. I actually prefer 3D, and will pay extra. IMAX hurts my head.

  • FoxMulder

    I fucking hope so!

  • John

    IMAX, as long as it is not in the fake-max format (small theaters, often converted to IMAX) is in my opinion the best overall projection format. However, as noted, a lot depends on whether the filmmaker can use the format to the best advantage. I don’t think IMAX should be the release format for everything, but for certain event films it is great. I find 3D generally disappointing; other than Avatar, it has underwhelmed, and the glasses and darker screens are generally annoying.

  • patrik

    One can only hope.. I’d take lieMAX over 3D.

  • cap

    I think IMAX is still a rather niche thing and probably will stay that way. I just don’t see it as having a broad appeal that 3D (still) has. One big factor: kids. A kid probably wouldn’t give a shit about IMAX, but you give them those glasses and they loose their shit. That’s why pretty much evey single cartoon is in 3D. Plus 3D is still doing pretty well internationaly. It also seems like it’s easier and cheaper for the theaters to screen 3D movies, whereas for IMAX you have to have a whole different set up. So, in short… no.

  • BobTheAvenger!

    How about BetaMax In IMAX in 3D for adults?!?!?…

  • Gerry

    Having recently bought a passive 3d TV and watched the opening ceremony of the olympics in HD 3d as well as olympic highlights in 3d, all with a highly impressive 3d effect, I have to say that 3d is here to stay.

    The problems causing it’s current low adoption / regard are 1) that TV manufacturers are focusing on active 3d TV’s which induce headaches, don’t provide a decent 3d effect in bright daylight and use expensive re-chargable glasses, rather than on passive 3d TV’s.

    2) that a lot of 3d movies are post converted rather than shot in 3d.

    3) 3d blu rays are sold at excessively high prices.

    4) a premium is charged for 3d cinema movies.

    If TV manufacturers, film companies and cinema owners rectify the above then I feel that 3d will have a fighting chance at mass adoption.

    I love imax, even though my local multiplex’s imax seems to be fake max.
    I sincerely hope both technologies have a bright future.

    Don’t forget we are at the dawn of both technologies. It will take time for good (and bad) film-makers to learn how to get the best out of both formats.

    Look at early sound films and early colour films and you’ll see how shit some of them are.

    Film-makers and greedy studios need time to come to terms with this new technology.

  • Colin

    I go to IMAX showings locally (we have a stand alone IMAX and an AMC, “fake” IMAX) occasionally because of two reasons:

    1. The sound quality and volume are incredible when compared to a regular theater.
    2. The projectors and picture quality are much better than the usual digital projector.

    The size of the IMAX screen vs. a normal theater screen is fairly irrelevant to me, but I feel it’s sometimes worth it (i.e. for The Dark Knight Rises) to see a movie in IMAX if I know that sight/sound are of the utmost importance.

  • dan day

    I wish it would, but it won’t. The reason? Every new, genuine IMAX screen requires building a new cinema, which costs millions. Showing 3D is a hell of a lot cheaper.

  • Dave

    Hope so! They can surely fake both – but I’d take fake or real IMAX over fake or real 3D any day.

  • Maopheus

    I think this is the only true way to achieve a three-dimensional effect, if we are still constrained to capture a natively two-dimensional image. The only real reason we have two-dimensional vision ourselves is that we have two eyes in our heads that both point in the same direction. Imagine how a deer or a squirrel would see things, with eyes almost opposite from each other. Until we can truly achieve a usable, realistic holographic effect, then this is the best we can do for 3-D.