Tags:


Apollo XIII converted to Imax
March 23, 2002 5:50 AM   Subscribe

Apollo XIII converted to Imax, to be followed by other standard films, only bigger. Good choice. I want to see Contact. What do you want to see, or does Imax make you dizzy?
posted by Zootoon (56 comments total)

 
Toynbee ideas in
Kubrick's 2001 resurrect
dead on planet Jupiter
posted by BentPenguin at 6:26 AM on March 23, 2002


Oh, Apollo 13...it's not the best first movie they could have chosen, but it's good enough for me. Guess I'll be heading to my local IMAX theatre...
posted by Spinderella56 at 6:44 AM on March 23, 2002


If they could work out the 3-d effects, 1953's "House of Wax" with Vincent Price.
posted by mischief at 6:59 AM on March 23, 2002


2001
the first Star Wars movie
Close Encounters
Scanners (okay, ew)
Sound of Music
Wizard of Oz
Gone with the Wind
The Abyss

Geek alert.
posted by ebarker at 7:11 AM on March 23, 2002


It's kinda crap, but Innerspace seems somehow right for this. I'd also like to see Princess Mononoke and Top Gun.
posted by kahboom at 7:30 AM on March 23, 2002


I'm interested in seeing this. IMAX films are shot in a certain way--emphasizing scenery and avoiding closeups-- so as not to scare the fuck out of the audience with, say, a 30-foot nose hair.

I'm not sure the result of converting mainstream films to IMAX will be at all pretty.
posted by frykitty at 7:33 AM on March 23, 2002


North by Northwest or Vertigo.
posted by eyeballkid at 7:35 AM on March 23, 2002


Howard the Duck!
posted by o2b at 7:35 AM on March 23, 2002


Behind the Green Door.
posted by Tacodog at 7:44 AM on March 23, 2002


Blair Witch, just to see if motion sickness can actually kill people in an audience.
posted by Nothing at 8:04 AM on March 23, 2002


Seriously though, Matrix and Fifth element would be cool, as well as Contact, and I'd love to see 2001 in IMAX format. I think it would be really great if they did some old silent films: Metropolis, Passion of Joan of Arc.

Also: Aguirre, the Wrath of God would be cool.
posted by Nothing at 8:15 AM on March 23, 2002


The Rocky Horror Picture Show.
Just to give people another excuse to see it again.
posted by jonmc at 8:27 AM on March 23, 2002


Who needs an excuse to see The Rocky Horror Picture Show? Midnight shows abound across the contry.
posted by bjgeiger at 8:39 AM on March 23, 2002


true bj, but just imagine the beauty of Tim Curry singing "Sweet Transvestite" in full blown IMAX, not to mention those lips coming at ya...
posted by jonmc at 8:43 AM on March 23, 2002


I vote for The Matrix too, but you know Jurassic Park in IMAX would scale the dinos to their normal height... in most cases.
posted by riffola at 9:09 AM on March 23, 2002


Wouldn't IMAX-projected standard film just look very, very grainy and flickery?
posted by five fresh fish at 9:24 AM on March 23, 2002


I would also like to see the Matrix, but I would just geek-out if Tron was in IMAX.
posted by mkelley at 9:28 AM on March 23, 2002


Tron
posted by Mick at 9:36 AM on March 23, 2002


2001: A Space Odyssey.
posted by andrewraff at 10:26 AM on March 23, 2002


Lawrence of Arabia
posted by Voyageman at 10:38 AM on March 23, 2002


Wouldn't IMAX-projected standard film just look very, very grainy and flickery?
According to the article they've spent 5 years on the resolution and sound problems. Great suggestions everyone. Wow. Lawrence of Arabia. Can't you just imagine that long shot of Omar Sharif appearing out of the haze?
posted by Zootoon at 11:19 AM on March 23, 2002


I really want to see The Beatle's Yellow Submarine in IMAX. That would be a great "trip."

I'd also like to see Baraka, because that movie is simply awesome.

…And any James Cameron flick. Whatever happened to that Mars IMAX feature he was producing?
posted by Down10 at 12:05 PM on March 23, 2002


Bachelor Party
posted by aaron at 12:12 PM on March 23, 2002


Freddy Got Fingered.
posted by billman at 12:32 PM on March 23, 2002


Aaron is a real Tom Hanks fan. He also wanted to mention Turner and Hootch, but was afraid of overdoing it.
posted by frykitty at 12:53 PM on March 23, 2002


No, I hated that fucking dog. I last thing I want is to see him three stories tall.
posted by aaron at 1:03 PM on March 23, 2002


Didn't the dog drool a lot? Ew! I bet that would clear the theatre.
posted by frykitty at 1:45 PM on March 23, 2002


kooyanisquatsi
posted by crunchland at 2:13 PM on March 23, 2002


Electric Dreams
Adventures in Babysitting
St Elmo's Fire
Mallrats
Crush Groove
posted by feelinglistless at 2:15 PM on March 23, 2002


dude! electric dreams! that's the film I was trying to explain to someone recently where the guy fries his motherboard and somehow it becomes artificially intelligent and romances his neighbor. phil oakey and giorgio morodor did the music ("good times, bad times"). i just couldn't think of the name. sweet!
posted by eyeballkid at 2:27 PM on March 23, 2002


ditto on Koyaanisqatsi
posted by billder at 2:28 PM on March 23, 2002


After a run in with the local IMAX it was a common place to lean in at a strange angle stretching out your fingers at another's eyeball. When sitting you'd hear someone whisper from left ear to right, "S-T-E-R-E-O". Ah.. In other words, IMAX was a technology preview taken too far.

(or am I thinking of IMAX 3D?)
posted by holloway at 2:54 PM on March 23, 2002


Count me in on Koyaanisqatsi also.
posted by pmurray63 at 3:07 PM on March 23, 2002


dude!

Ahem
posted by feelinglistless at 3:34 PM on March 23, 2002


Koyaanisqatsi or 2001. Totally disagree with Apollo 13, it had few interesting visuals and was poorly paced in general.
posted by wackybrit at 3:39 PM on March 23, 2002


I don't understand. I thought the key to IMAX was that the movie is shot on the cinematic equivalent of medium-format film. How does transferring a regular-format film not just create a rough and grainy image? If regular cinema film already had enough detail to look good on the IMAX scale, then what would be the point of those expensive IMAX cameras and their special film?

So, what is this expensive conversion process they've cooked up? Digitally filling in a level of detail not there in the original? It doesn't sound real to me.
posted by Zurishaddai at 3:52 PM on March 23, 2002


Apocalypse now
Silence of the lambs
Trainspotting
Face/off
Jaws
and even...
Independence Day
posted by Baud at 4:17 PM on March 23, 2002


i'm never going to wander into an imax theatre for a converted feature release til they do the chiodo brothers classic "killer klowns from outer space". i also may make it in for "manos: the hands of fate", but that'll be a stretch.

seriously tho. even if "final fantasy" didn't do that well in theatres i think it would look amazing up on that big screen.
posted by boogah at 4:31 PM on March 23, 2002


Here at the Cinerama in Seattle, movies are delivered and projected on 70mm film, and they look fantastic. 2001 was here in October; I saw X-Men and Fellowship of the Ring there on their respective opening days. It is wonderous, and I thank Paul Allen for it.
posted by j.edwards at 4:40 PM on March 23, 2002


Baud -- A couple months ago, Apocalypse Now Redux was playing on the IMAX screen at the Metreon theater in San Francisco. My ass went numb watching it, but it was worth it.
posted by DakotaPaul at 5:36 PM on March 23, 2002


Let's hear it for Pearl Harbor on IMAX...or, for that matter, any movie heavy on the fx.
posted by Spinderella56 at 7:06 PM on March 23, 2002


Dude. Godzilla.

And Akira. Sweet!
posted by furiousthought at 7:22 PM on March 23, 2002


"This is Spinal Tap," so we can *really* see that dwarf tread on the Stonehenge replica.

And wouldn't the Trojan rabbit from "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" inspire awe descending from the sky on IMAX?
posted by diddlegnome at 8:06 PM on March 23, 2002


For the first time, I think, I agree with five fresh fish (and also, to be fair to the people on this thread, with Zurishaddai).

You cannot retroactively increase the resolution of an image that you have already captured on film, and is no longer there in reality for you to shoot. You can only, as Zurishaddai suggested, artificially re-create your own idea of what the image might have looked like if you had shot it with a higher resolution.

Yes, I would like to see Rocky Horror with the beads of sweat on Tim Curry's lips standing out, but it will never happen. The most of the image that was ever captured was on the original negative of the film. It's true that some transfer processes preserve the image on the negative better than others; e.g. there are some cases now where watching a classic film on a DVD made from either the negative or the answer print, may actually give you a clearer idea of what the director intended than it would have to watch the same film in the theater when it was first released! Still, the resolution of the original film at its sharpest is just that, and nothing more.

This is a big PR stunt that isn't really about anything except a lack of creativity. What I want to see are new IMAX films that include extremely high-res imagery that is not computer-generated or -enhanced. Otherwise, it's not really IMAX anyway, it's animation.
posted by bingo at 8:21 PM on March 23, 2002


Just the chase scene from Bullitt.
posted by catatonic at 10:00 PM on March 23, 2002


...there are some cases now where watching a classic film on a DVD made from either the negative or the answer print, may actually give you a clearer idea of what the director intended...

actually, this is a big problem - the clarity of some shots sometimes wasn't intended. Scenes either shot on sets or with rear projection expected some level of graininess, and now when the films get transfered to dvd, the restorers go crazy and clean it up as much as possible, making the film super-crisp and thus making it really look like a set or rear projection. I like grain.

IMAX films are made to overload you, with the the image in and beyond your field of peripheral vision. Yes it looks cool, but to transfer past "classics" it is sort of disrespectul to the director's and cinematographer's vision. Doing that should be equated with pan-and-scan: toleratable but not ideal.

PS eyeballkid, Vertigo was re-released a few years ago on 70mm, but sadly there are very few places in America that still have 70mm projection.
posted by panopticon at 12:01 AM on March 24, 2002


IMAX is the wrong aspect ratio for most movies.

The proportions are almost like TV (about 1.4:1), whereas most movies made in the last 50 years are much wider than that (some are more than twice as wide). Nearly all movies seen in theatres in the last 20-30 years are one of two aspect ratios -- 1.85:1 or 2.35:1. Fitting those wider frames into an IMAX frame presents exactly the same problem that showing them on TV does. You have to fit a rectangle into a square, rougly speaking. That means either letterbox or pan-and-scan.

However, Apollo 13 will probably transfer to IMAX fairly well, because it was shot in Super 35, which even though it usually is used to produce a 2.35:1 widescreen image, actually has a negative area that is much more squarish (again, about 1.4:1). So I would imagine that the IMAX transfer will make use of that extra image area. For more info on Super-35 see here, about 3/4ths the way down the page.

Still, many of the movies people mentioned in this thread were shot in widescreen processes other than Super-35, and would have to either be severely cropped, or letterboxed within the IMAX frame, in order to be shown from IMAX projectors.

The right thing to do would be to bring back 5-perforation 70mm, which has a nice wide aspect ratio of 2.20:1. During the years from about 1976-1996, most major studio releases had at least some 5-perf 70mm prints struck. Chances are, if you went to the movies in a major US city during that time, you saw a number of films in 70mm six-track, perhaps without even knowing it. (The process was killed off by digital sound in the mid-to-late 1990s.)
posted by Potsy at 3:56 AM on March 24, 2002


At least this guy will be happy...
posted by feelinglistless at 7:37 AM on March 24, 2002


I should clarify -- 5-perf 70mm existed long before the years I listed, but it was mainly used for films that were actually shot in 65mm. The time period I referred to is merely when 35mm->70mm optical blow-ups were popular. This new IMAX process sounds like a bit of a throwback to those days, but at the expense of correct aspect ratios.
posted by Potsy at 8:06 AM on March 24, 2002


Oh god, "Koyaanisqatsi." If I ever have to see that movie again, I'm going to slit my wrists. I suppose it would have been less painful if I liked techno, but as is...ew.

To let you know, (and so I don't sound like a troll) I can understand that some people would want to see it and even love it. But for me, it was like sitting through a couple of hours of rap music or country. Personal preference is everything.

Ummm, I'd like to see Fifth Element, Run Lola Run, and The Holy Grail by Monty Python, and all the star wars and Lord of the Rings movies there.
posted by stoneegg21 at 5:47 PM on March 24, 2002


I suppose it would have been less painful if I liked techno

Techno? Philip Glass?

Ummm, I'd like to see Fifth Element, Run Lola Run

But isn't Lola techno?
posted by rodii at 5:56 PM on March 24, 2002


Well, if not techno, how about extremely repetative. And Lola is not the same thing, at all. The soundtrack to that movie actually has words and the occasional tune. Plus it ends. In less time than Koyaanisqatsi at least.
posted by stoneegg21 at 8:28 PM on March 24, 2002


I think koyaanisqatsi would be one of the few mentioned that would "work" in the imax format. The exterior scenes in something like North by Northwest would be great, but interior scenes and closeups would be overwhelming.

koyaanisqatsi is not for everyone, but what is? I have it on laserdisc and the reaction is usually either love or hate.

Otherwise, I'd say just get quality porn film and blow it up. Real big. I'd like to l(o)(o)k at that.
posted by groundhog at 6:35 AM on March 25, 2002


Oh, I thought of another one. Woodstock would be cool. I saw a Rolling Stones concert film at an Imax theatre, it was pretty impressive. And speaking of oversize body parts, man, those lips...
posted by groundhog at 6:39 AM on March 25, 2002


There already is a film that is pretty much the same as Koyaanisqatsi filmed in IMAX format called Chronos. It was filmed by the same guy who filmed Koyaanisqatsi, but he also directed.

One thing that is going to be interesting to see is how the film reels are dealt with. This may have changed, but the reels used to only hold one hour of film. The reels are about 4 feet if stood on end

There is no auto change over system. Unloading and rethreading the projector takes a minimum 3 to 5 minutes if you are good. It also helps to have really long arms and be tall.

I will be interested to see how this works out.

Oh and if you want to see the clock that was discussed in this thread, Chronos has a pretty interesting sequence.
posted by lampshade at 3:58 PM on March 25, 2002


> This is a big PR stunt that isn't really about anything
> except a lack of creativity. What I want to see are new
> IMAX films that include extremely high-res imagery that is
> not computer-generated or -enhanced. Otherwise, it's
> not really IMAX anyway, it's animation.

OK, re-make Attack of the Killer Tomatos.
posted by jfuller at 3:18 PM on March 26, 2002


« Older DEA leaked report on Israeli spy ring...  |  The state of college discussio... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments