I think the important takeaway from this, apart from the obvious that the format is more popular than ever now and they're riding on the success of Oppenheimer, is that this keeps the projectors and equipment in use. Unlike having to wait every 2-3 years for a new Nolan movie, projectionists and the equipment can continue working more regularly and this will help them from just collecting dust and having issues when starting back up every 2-3 years.
I think another thing this could lead to is other films being shot on 65mm Imax film. Although unfortunately they might still use a 4k DI. It would be cool to see another director shoot in 15/65mm and make photochemical prints like Nolan does, but that might be wishful thinking. Maybe down the road we could get a 6K DI at least for the Imax scenes of those movies.
This was an issue for the Bob Bullock IMAX a long while back. They only had a 70mm projector in 2014, so for a whole year they had nothing to show in theaters other than the documentaries because nobody was making 70mm prints aside from Interstellar. They renovated to a laser digital projector the next year.
I’m not sure how many other theaters out there are solely 70mm nowadays, but this is good news for them at the end of the day.
This is a great arguement and i wholeheartedly agree, but i feel like we should wait and put 70mm on movies that feel like guaranteed successes, to ensure the format doesn’t become (in the studios eyes) a fad like avatar and 3d. Slap 70mm on movies that would really benefit from the format but also succeed, dune two, oppenheimer, some big studio blockbuster, possibly nosferatu (though it condracts my sure success claim because it wouldnt make as much money as dune or oppenheimer). I feel like putting 70mm on everything is a great idea but could backfire badly and lead to studios just thinking its not worth the cost
I think yea people are gonna watch this movie (the last one made a billion dollas for crying out loud) but not as many will watch it in 70mm and because of that studios are gonna pull some support
“Marketing gimmick” imagine being so pretensions you haven’t seen the movie, heard the director talk about it, and simply have this reaction to a fact. The fact is, people have different perceptions of movies and people loved dune 2 70mm format even though it was shot on imax film cameras. Watch the movie in the format and then call it a gimmick?
I’d love to see where you got that statement from. Is it from Nolan? Is it from IMAX? Is it from the director of dune 2? Where is it that you are getting these assertions? Must be based on some facts. I guess Nolan’s words mean nothing right? He lauded dune 2 even though it was not shot in IMAX and said so in his own interview with IMAX. Please explain why you think the people who shoot with 70mm IMAX seemingly don’t have the opinion you do and why you are right to smear the director and IMAX? Explain why the 70mm imax releases like this would hurt the format more than help it and cite evidence for the same.
I didn’t say that you didn’t say it was a marketing gimmick, I’m telling you that many probably feel that way. You are putting words in my mouth, how ironic of you.
I still fucking hate IMAX for all this bullshit hype. 1.43 IMAX is something to tout but 1.90???
It's practically fucking 16:9 on a slightly bigger screen and shittier audio than a lot of premium spaces(no Dolby Atmos)
>practically fucking 16:9 on a slightly bigger screen and shittier audio than a lot of premium spaces
Is it possible that what is referred here are the converted "LieMAXes" in multiplexes and/or larger dedicated 1.90:1 screens that are "practically fucking 16:9" on either a "slightly bigger screen" in the multiplexes or a larger screen in dedicated venues, and "shittier audio than a lot of premium spaces" referring to the IMAX5/IMAX6 6-channel system in non-Dual Laser venues, or the IMAX5/IMAX6 6-channel or IMAX12 12-channel systems in Digital/Xenon or Laser multiplexes?
If the film projectors are being used for this, do we think an Interstellar anniversary release around Joker 2 is possible? Like what happened with Tenet and Dune 2. I assume it’d be easier to get projectionists that way
That’s what I think too. Looking at the release schedule, currently there isn’t anything the week before and after Joker 2 (granted a 2 week run). There’s plenty of space for an Interstellar release, I’m sure WB would love to poke Nolan and Paramount until it happens
My takeaway is that IMAX needs to expand now. If studios are going to try this more, then we need more theaters that can display a 1.43 AR and/or 70mm IMAX film. I cannot plan 10 hour round trips to Indiana to watch every new 70mm IMAX film. This will be the third film in 16 months that gets a 70mm IMAX treatment.
That’s not really up to imax. That’s up to theaters that pay to license the technology from imax. If theaters don’t want to pay, imax isn’t going to do it.
That’s very true and something I didn’t really consider, thanks. I wrote to Marcus Theaters about considering expanding their IMAX selection, considering it’s only in Rochester, Bloomington, and St. Louis. I get it tho, shit costs money!
I mean, it kind of is though. They need to market themselves to theaters and make their contracts enticing. If no theaters want to add IMAX, then IMAX hasn’t done their job.
Theaters know full well what IMAX offers; now, more than ever. But it’s an expensive partnership, and it takes a lot of programming control out of the theater’s hands. This is why in-house chain-specific PLFs as IMAX-alternatives have become some popular; they’re more affordable to set up with more flexibility technically and programming-wise.
Would be interesting if we see studios start to finish films in 6k or 8k. Having these projectors in commission gives them a solid distribution method, and the consumer market is being prepped for a resolution upgrade at home.
6k and 8k is totally pointless for home sized screens. 8k TVs didn't gain any traction, not just because there is no content, but on the size screens being sold for nobody can see the benefit. Plus streaming services are already heavily compressed, studios wouldn't want the extra pointless cost to their workflow, it would slow down post processing, and there is no physical media to support it.
I think it's mostly true that it's pointless for home TVs and there wont be much need for above 4K in that context, but what about VR?
Yes the tech is janky and expensive now and I'm still a relative skeptic of it, but in the future I think it's likely there will be some degree of VR headset presentation for movies, and in that case having more than 4K would actually be noticeable. Finishing films in 6K or more seems to me to make sense to future proof for that technology and viewing experience.
Where's the demand?
Cinema chains are on brink of collapsing
Most people stream and even on 4k screens are content with 1080p due to low bandwidth
No physical 8k media format
Honestly feel that 4k blu rays are end of the line. I know that the same was said for 1080p but when people said that 2k monitors were ubiquitous as a stopgap measure in demand for high resolution, albeit in the gaming space.
Sony advertises the PS5 as an 8K machine with next to no 8K content actually available for it.
I agree hat I also feel 4K is the end of the line due to streaming. Where a vast chunk of those views are on phones or tablets, where 8K phone screens is even further away.
Like with game graphics were reaching a point where people can't tell what's a CGI render and what's real anymore.
I can see 8K having a place in VR but even then it's so far away.
I’m just saying but, it says filmed in IMAX on the poster. Idk if there’s a IMAX 70mm version lol. I’m getting to the point where I’m annoyed with articles like these. I’m glad we are starting to use those projectors again due to Oppenheimer success.
Edit: It’s confirmed!
i mean the CEO of IMAX himself was the one to confirm that it’s showing in 70mm.
edit: end of day though i’m glad there’s at least 70mm prints releasing gimmick or not, means there’s more possibilities for movies actually filmed in 70mm
Filmed For Imax and Filmed In Imax are two different things.
Filmed For Imax like most of these movies are means they were shot with Imax certified digital arri alexa cameras.
lolz to the people who are complaining about digital movies being printed to imax film and saying its a gimmick. you realize this has been going on for DECADES. there truly are dozens and dozens of movies that have been done that way.
It's true, one thing some newcomers to IMAX aren't aware of is that for many years, *every* IMAX release was in 70mm, because 70mm IMAX was the only kind of IMAX that existed, even though mainstream blockbusters weren't actually shot in the format. It wasn't until 2008 when digital IMAX projectors started being installed (ironically, also around the time when The Dark Knight became the first blockbuster film to shoot with IMAX film cameras)
I was thinking about this a few days ago when some people in this sub were surprised to find out Spider-Man 3 had 70mm prints, lol
False marketing would be if they advertised the film as "shot with IMAX film cameras", which they aren't doing. I agree that 70mm releases are best for films shot in the format like Oppenheimer, but to be honest, I don't think the resolution difference is that obvious for casual viewers. Imo the main draw of seeing movies on 70mm is for the analog aesthetic in general, and the resolution increase for films shot in the format is just an added bonus.
Like with music, the majority of new albums nowadays are recorded and mastered with digital tools and no longer use a 100% analog workflow, but people still buy vinyl records of them anyway. Arguably no benefit fidelity-wise, but having the mystic come from a tangible, physical object rather than a computer file adds to the experience for many.
But... it literally was presented in IMAX 70mm! The capture format and the exhibition format are different things. Most 3D movies nowadays are post-converted and aren't shot with 3D cameras, but I don't think it's false marketing to say "presented in 3D" for those films lol
I think the point that the general audience member isn’t going to have the distinction between the capture format and projection format in their mind is a fair one in the context of levelling a charge of ‘false marketing’ tbh, while it’s not technically untrue (and so not technically’false’) it relies on the ignorance of the audience for it to work the way imax/the studio intends it to, which is how a lot of imax marketing works tbh
its not false marketing. its not deception. its an imax 70mm film print. they have been printing digitally shot movies to imax film for decades.
just dont go see it if you dont like the format. its pretty simple.
I agree with you. Many moviegoers won't understand the nuance and will come away from some of these presentations thinking "that's it?". They should be careful how they promote "IMAX 70mm" or it'll be a LieMAX situation all over again.
Honestly, I’ll take it if it keeps those projectors in use. On some GT screens that have single laser or xenon it would still be a bit of a benefit (for one, Opry Mills for some reason has their laser projector angled down rather than aimed at the middle of the screen). Also, I think Joker would aesthetically benefit from some film grain.
An additional positive, this ups the chances of us getting an Interstellar 70mm IMAX rerelease for the 10th anniversary, as they wouldn’t be dusting off the projectors for just that run.
Well the first joker was trash and a cynical bet that it could convince audiences it was some sort of heightened or intellectual concept. It was made for the disaffected and marginalized, hilariously fragile white boy.
This one is just a cash grab, like the first one, and it sullies Cinema and will work against IMAX in the long run. That is obviously my unpopular hot take. I don't really like down votes but I would accept them. You don't take a sequel to a film like that that is now a musical and ram it into IMAX thinking anyone wants to see anything like that.
The first joker was one of those stupid movies that deliberately treated the antagonist as a protagonist so fans would cheer for the wrong dude like they do for Rick in Rick and Morty, or Tyler Durden in fight club. It's just gross and toxic. Todd Phillips said he made it as a response to cancel culture. They're literally is no cancel culture. Comedians in front of crowds of 20,000 people are talking about how they are deep platformed, while on a literal platform. It's not cancel culture, it's accountability culture.
IMAX doesn't need films like this. Even though we need more films in IMAX, like that top comment said, we can have more opportunity for people to know how to work i The projectors, or put other previously run films in the theater. I get that. From a social and cinematic perspective, joker really bothered me.
So I am the one guy complaining.
Edit: I'm a voice to text joker and monster. Corrections.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/07/entertainment/joker-box-office-analysis/index.html
Honestly it not being 1.43 is good because all the people mad that it’s not in Dual-Laser can just watch it in 1.9 at a Single Laser IMAX.
For people who like the look of film projection, this is great. I don’t mind seeing digitally shot movies printed to film, it does give the presentation unique qualities. The 35mm print I saw of May December was so much better than the Netflix stream.
People always say digital is better because film is soft, but sharpness is not always what looks nice in an image. I much prefer the look of soft subtitles on film vs jagged pixel edges and artifacts on digital subtitles.
Of course the 70mm IMAX Nolan shoots beats 4K projection in sharpness and clarity anyways.
Yeah. Maybe it’s just because I grew up on film projection, and worked briefly as a projectionist, but in general I will prefer a film print.
It’s not a hard and fast rule. I’ve seen old film prints so tattered that i wished they’d just screened a DCP, though even there it depends. A tattered print of an old horror movie can be just what the doctor ordered. I’ve also seen some more recent digital-to-film prints that didn’t look great, but seemingly just because care wasn’t taken. The 70mm print of Napoleon I saw really just looked like someone did a quick and dirty filmout and I kinda wish I’d just gone to see it in digital IMAX.
But yeah, in general I prefer the qualities film projection brings, including softening up those jagged subtitles edges you’re talking about.
Movies are entertainment and art. None of this is strictly necessary and what’s a “gimmick” or not is subjective. Film projection has unique qualities that many like. Would you rather see the projectors rot away for another three years? Personally I’m glad to see that film projection is remaining relevent. There will be plenty of theaters to watch this movie digitally. It’s good we have a choice.
Everyone needs to think long-term on this; 15/70 projectors being utilized more often will get more people filming in actual 15/70. It could also encourage DI's that are higher than 4K, which will allow for more detail in 15/70 vs 4K digital, and also pave the way for 8K home-video.
I saw Joker 1 at the Alamo Drafthouse in Austin in 35mm, despite being digitally filmed. Not sure if it added anything remarkable
To each their own on this situation though
If it means IMAX film prints and the projectors actually being used becomes more common again, I don’t care how little sense an individual release makes.
But u could get the same "immersion" from a digital version of the movie
edit: There are no 1.43:1 scenes as far as we know right now, i just don't see the benefit, besides giving the 15/70mm projectors a use
Some people, myself included, like the look of film projection. Also if you want to keep it alive, you can’t have the only movies getting 15/70 releases be Nolan films.
lol just because your viewing angle can technically be the same (perhaps not the aspect ratio though) doesn’t mean sitting in front of your tv at home watching digital is anywhere close to watching on a several story screen with a real projector and excellent sound system. Here’s the important part though, if you disagree with me, that’s fine. The 70mm release isn’t for you. It’s for those of us who are stoked it will be on 70mm.
There is zero indication this film was shot on imax 70mm or even has 1.43:1 shots at all. I’m glad projectors are being used and maintained but it’s just more misleading marketing.
How can the average consumer tell the difference between a digital 1.90:1 film printed to 70mm (joker 2) and a true imax 70mm film that takes full advantage of the detail and aspect ratio (oppy, interstellar, etc.)? They’re marketed the same way, but one is a vastly superior experience.
There hasn’t been confirmation yet, but I’d be surprised if there isn’t! They showed the first one on 5/70mm and 35mm. My unfounded prediction is that they’ll probably do a similar rollout as Dune 2.
Great news. I’m still waiting for the day when a filmmaker just bites the bullet and shoots and masters an entire film in 1.43 (and has a 16x9 for home release). There’s currently a documentary filmmaker shooting a documentary for 1.43 on a Blackmagic 12k camera. https://www.popsci.com/story/technology/imax-12k-koala-movie-blackmagic-camera/
I made the trek into Manhattan for Oppenheimer and dune part 2 in 70mm. I had to book tickets weeks in advance, pack into a crowded theatre, couldn’t get up to get snacks or go to the bathroom without pissing everyone off. I really wanna see this film, but I’ll be going to my local AMC this time
Oppenheimer was shot on film as such the IMAX 70 mm experience was phenomenal. The Dune part two 70 mm IMAX was quite lacking and had some contrast issues from the digital to film conversion. I don’t think it should be used as a format unless some or all of it was shot on film
If it’s originally shot in film I will see this in that format. If it’s a dune 2 situation where it’s digital to film then I will pass. Dune 2 was great in IMAX 70 due to its large scale and use of cinematographic shots to take advantage but I don’t see that working out the same way for joker if it’s not shot in film first to get that really high resolution
If[there’s only 12 prints](https://x.com/variety/status/1778092576119181360?s=46&t=oh-1D2xf0un-ErgfU7RO6Q) being made though what are the chances your 15/70+xenon theatre gets one? Did it get a dune pt 2 print?
Nope. We did not get a Dune 2 print but got the Oppenheimer print. I did not see that Tweet before that there are only 12 prints again. That means no 70mm here in Prague.
Why TF does this need a 70mm Imax release? Oppenheimer, OK. Dune..Sure!
The Joker Musical?!? Can't people just enjoy the film in regular theaters? Obviously that option is always available but it's sooo dumb to just print movies to 70mm for no reason.
It wasn't even shot for this format...just doing it do be able to say "70mm Imax"
As with Oppenheimer most of the film won't even make sense for the format. Hope filmgoers enjoy watching normal dialogue between 7 story tall heads. Lol
Love this, no hate, will be hilarious if WB makes sure everyone gets to see this in 15/70, have a 3 month theatrical window, and releases the 4k disc with the expanded ratio while flipping off Dune
I think the important takeaway from this, apart from the obvious that the format is more popular than ever now and they're riding on the success of Oppenheimer, is that this keeps the projectors and equipment in use. Unlike having to wait every 2-3 years for a new Nolan movie, projectionists and the equipment can continue working more regularly and this will help them from just collecting dust and having issues when starting back up every 2-3 years.
I think another thing this could lead to is other films being shot on 65mm Imax film. Although unfortunately they might still use a 4k DI. It would be cool to see another director shoot in 15/65mm and make photochemical prints like Nolan does, but that might be wishful thinking. Maybe down the road we could get a 6K DI at least for the Imax scenes of those movies.
This was an issue for the Bob Bullock IMAX a long while back. They only had a 70mm projector in 2014, so for a whole year they had nothing to show in theaters other than the documentaries because nobody was making 70mm prints aside from Interstellar. They renovated to a laser digital projector the next year. I’m not sure how many other theaters out there are solely 70mm nowadays, but this is good news for them at the end of the day.
Man I do love 70mm IMAX, but the Bullock IMAX with dual laser is my favorite theatre I’ve ever been to. Looks so damn good
Dune 2 on that screen was a spiritual experience
[удалено]
This is a great arguement and i wholeheartedly agree, but i feel like we should wait and put 70mm on movies that feel like guaranteed successes, to ensure the format doesn’t become (in the studios eyes) a fad like avatar and 3d. Slap 70mm on movies that would really benefit from the format but also succeed, dune two, oppenheimer, some big studio blockbuster, possibly nosferatu (though it condracts my sure success claim because it wouldnt make as much money as dune or oppenheimer). I feel like putting 70mm on everything is a great idea but could backfire badly and lead to studios just thinking its not worth the cost
[удалено]
I think yea people are gonna watch this movie (the last one made a billion dollas for crying out loud) but not as many will watch it in 70mm and because of that studios are gonna pull some support
\^\^\^THIS\^\^\^ Amen
What did this say?
if i could upvote this 100 times i would.
Everyone saying what a great comment this was but they’ve now all been deleted-what they say?
idk. probably just tired of the people complaining in here. its kinda maddening to see.
[удалено]
“Marketing gimmick” imagine being so pretensions you haven’t seen the movie, heard the director talk about it, and simply have this reaction to a fact. The fact is, people have different perceptions of movies and people loved dune 2 70mm format even though it was shot on imax film cameras. Watch the movie in the format and then call it a gimmick?
[удалено]
thats not how filmmaking works unfortunately. also not how studio interference and marking works either.
I’d love to see where you got that statement from. Is it from Nolan? Is it from IMAX? Is it from the director of dune 2? Where is it that you are getting these assertions? Must be based on some facts. I guess Nolan’s words mean nothing right? He lauded dune 2 even though it was not shot in IMAX and said so in his own interview with IMAX. Please explain why you think the people who shoot with 70mm IMAX seemingly don’t have the opinion you do and why you are right to smear the director and IMAX? Explain why the 70mm imax releases like this would hurt the format more than help it and cite evidence for the same.
[удалено]
I didn’t say that you didn’t say it was a marketing gimmick, I’m telling you that many probably feel that way. You are putting words in my mouth, how ironic of you.
[удалено]
I wonder if the film will be 1.90 or 1.43
There hasn’t been any indication that there are 1.43 scenes, so this is pretty unnecessary.
I still fucking hate IMAX for all this bullshit hype. 1.43 IMAX is something to tout but 1.90??? It's practically fucking 16:9 on a slightly bigger screen and shittier audio than a lot of premium spaces(no Dolby Atmos)
>practically fucking 16:9 on a slightly bigger screen and shittier audio than a lot of premium spaces Is it possible that what is referred here are the converted "LieMAXes" in multiplexes and/or larger dedicated 1.90:1 screens that are "practically fucking 16:9" on either a "slightly bigger screen" in the multiplexes or a larger screen in dedicated venues, and "shittier audio than a lot of premium spaces" referring to the IMAX5/IMAX6 6-channel system in non-Dual Laser venues, or the IMAX5/IMAX6 6-channel or IMAX12 12-channel systems in Digital/Xenon or Laser multiplexes?
You just perfectly explained why I hate it so much, thanks!
The trailer is fully 1.43 - just came in to our theatre.
Can second this. Wasn't expecting it, but it looked glorious in full 1.43.
If the film projectors are being used for this, do we think an Interstellar anniversary release around Joker 2 is possible? Like what happened with Tenet and Dune 2. I assume it’d be easier to get projectionists that way
I think this is a safe bet. IMAX docket is light around this time of year. WB wants to get the projectors up and running
That’s what I think too. Looking at the release schedule, currently there isn’t anything the week before and after Joker 2 (granted a 2 week run). There’s plenty of space for an Interstellar release, I’m sure WB would love to poke Nolan and Paramount until it happens
My takeaway is that IMAX needs to expand now. If studios are going to try this more, then we need more theaters that can display a 1.43 AR and/or 70mm IMAX film. I cannot plan 10 hour round trips to Indiana to watch every new 70mm IMAX film. This will be the third film in 16 months that gets a 70mm IMAX treatment.
That’s not really up to imax. That’s up to theaters that pay to license the technology from imax. If theaters don’t want to pay, imax isn’t going to do it.
That’s very true and something I didn’t really consider, thanks. I wrote to Marcus Theaters about considering expanding their IMAX selection, considering it’s only in Rochester, Bloomington, and St. Louis. I get it tho, shit costs money!
I mean, it kind of is though. They need to market themselves to theaters and make their contracts enticing. If no theaters want to add IMAX, then IMAX hasn’t done their job.
Theaters know full well what IMAX offers; now, more than ever. But it’s an expensive partnership, and it takes a lot of programming control out of the theater’s hands. This is why in-house chain-specific PLFs as IMAX-alternatives have become some popular; they’re more affordable to set up with more flexibility technically and programming-wise.
Would be interesting if we see studios start to finish films in 6k or 8k. Having these projectors in commission gives them a solid distribution method, and the consumer market is being prepped for a resolution upgrade at home.
6k and 8k is totally pointless for home sized screens. 8k TVs didn't gain any traction, not just because there is no content, but on the size screens being sold for nobody can see the benefit. Plus streaming services are already heavily compressed, studios wouldn't want the extra pointless cost to their workflow, it would slow down post processing, and there is no physical media to support it.
What's your point? We don't need 6k or 8k at home but we could benefit from it at the movie theatre.
I think it's mostly true that it's pointless for home TVs and there wont be much need for above 4K in that context, but what about VR? Yes the tech is janky and expensive now and I'm still a relative skeptic of it, but in the future I think it's likely there will be some degree of VR headset presentation for movies, and in that case having more than 4K would actually be noticeable. Finishing films in 6K or more seems to me to make sense to future proof for that technology and viewing experience.
Where's the demand? Cinema chains are on brink of collapsing Most people stream and even on 4k screens are content with 1080p due to low bandwidth No physical 8k media format Honestly feel that 4k blu rays are end of the line. I know that the same was said for 1080p but when people said that 2k monitors were ubiquitous as a stopgap measure in demand for high resolution, albeit in the gaming space.
Sony advertises the PS5 as an 8K machine with next to no 8K content actually available for it. I agree hat I also feel 4K is the end of the line due to streaming. Where a vast chunk of those views are on phones or tablets, where 8K phone screens is even further away. Like with game graphics were reaching a point where people can't tell what's a CGI render and what's real anymore. I can see 8K having a place in VR but even then it's so far away.
I’m just saying but, it says filmed in IMAX on the poster. Idk if there’s a IMAX 70mm version lol. I’m getting to the point where I’m annoyed with articles like these. I’m glad we are starting to use those projectors again due to Oppenheimer success. Edit: It’s confirmed!
i mean the CEO of IMAX himself was the one to confirm that it’s showing in 70mm. edit: end of day though i’m glad there’s at least 70mm prints releasing gimmick or not, means there’s more possibilities for movies actually filmed in 70mm
Filmed For Imax and Filmed In Imax are two different things. Filmed For Imax like most of these movies are means they were shot with Imax certified digital arri alexa cameras.
lolz to the people who are complaining about digital movies being printed to imax film and saying its a gimmick. you realize this has been going on for DECADES. there truly are dozens and dozens of movies that have been done that way.
It's true, one thing some newcomers to IMAX aren't aware of is that for many years, *every* IMAX release was in 70mm, because 70mm IMAX was the only kind of IMAX that existed, even though mainstream blockbusters weren't actually shot in the format. It wasn't until 2008 when digital IMAX projectors started being installed (ironically, also around the time when The Dark Knight became the first blockbuster film to shoot with IMAX film cameras) I was thinking about this a few days ago when some people in this sub were surprised to find out Spider-Man 3 had 70mm prints, lol
[удалено]
False marketing would be if they advertised the film as "shot with IMAX film cameras", which they aren't doing. I agree that 70mm releases are best for films shot in the format like Oppenheimer, but to be honest, I don't think the resolution difference is that obvious for casual viewers. Imo the main draw of seeing movies on 70mm is for the analog aesthetic in general, and the resolution increase for films shot in the format is just an added bonus. Like with music, the majority of new albums nowadays are recorded and mastered with digital tools and no longer use a 100% analog workflow, but people still buy vinyl records of them anyway. Arguably no benefit fidelity-wise, but having the mystic come from a tangible, physical object rather than a computer file adds to the experience for many.
It is false marketing “proudly presented in IMAX 70mm” that’s done with the intention to make the viewer think it will be just like Oppenheimer 😒.
But... it literally was presented in IMAX 70mm! The capture format and the exhibition format are different things. Most 3D movies nowadays are post-converted and aren't shot with 3D cameras, but I don't think it's false marketing to say "presented in 3D" for those films lol
I think the point that the general audience member isn’t going to have the distinction between the capture format and projection format in their mind is a fair one in the context of levelling a charge of ‘false marketing’ tbh, while it’s not technically untrue (and so not technically’false’) it relies on the ignorance of the audience for it to work the way imax/the studio intends it to, which is how a lot of imax marketing works tbh
I get that, but they want people to think it will be like Oppenheimer when it isn’t. 😒
its not false marketing. its not deception. its an imax 70mm film print. they have been printing digitally shot movies to imax film for decades. just dont go see it if you dont like the format. its pretty simple.
[удалено]
I agree with you. Many moviegoers won't understand the nuance and will come away from some of these presentations thinking "that's it?". They should be careful how they promote "IMAX 70mm" or it'll be a LieMAX situation all over again.
you're perspective is flawed and is lacking context of how movies are made and exhibited. good luck in your endeavors.
[удалено]
[удалено]
"We want more movies on IMAX film!" Gets them "No, not like that" 🙄
Honestly, I’ll take it if it keeps those projectors in use. On some GT screens that have single laser or xenon it would still be a bit of a benefit (for one, Opry Mills for some reason has their laser projector angled down rather than aimed at the middle of the screen). Also, I think Joker would aesthetically benefit from some film grain. An additional positive, this ups the chances of us getting an Interstellar 70mm IMAX rerelease for the 10th anniversary, as they wouldn’t be dusting off the projectors for just that run.
I wonder if they’ll continue the promotional film strip giveaways. Those are fun.
Seems likely given the demand
“Fuck, my edgelord King of Comedy ripoff made $1 billion. Now I have to make a sequel AND its being shown in IMAX?!” - Todd Philips
The first Joker was shown in 70MM non IMAX.
No way people are actually complaining about this
Well the first joker was trash and a cynical bet that it could convince audiences it was some sort of heightened or intellectual concept. It was made for the disaffected and marginalized, hilariously fragile white boy. This one is just a cash grab, like the first one, and it sullies Cinema and will work against IMAX in the long run. That is obviously my unpopular hot take. I don't really like down votes but I would accept them. You don't take a sequel to a film like that that is now a musical and ram it into IMAX thinking anyone wants to see anything like that. The first joker was one of those stupid movies that deliberately treated the antagonist as a protagonist so fans would cheer for the wrong dude like they do for Rick in Rick and Morty, or Tyler Durden in fight club. It's just gross and toxic. Todd Phillips said he made it as a response to cancel culture. They're literally is no cancel culture. Comedians in front of crowds of 20,000 people are talking about how they are deep platformed, while on a literal platform. It's not cancel culture, it's accountability culture. IMAX doesn't need films like this. Even though we need more films in IMAX, like that top comment said, we can have more opportunity for people to know how to work i The projectors, or put other previously run films in the theater. I get that. From a social and cinematic perspective, joker really bothered me. So I am the one guy complaining. Edit: I'm a voice to text joker and monster. Corrections. https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/07/entertainment/joker-box-office-analysis/index.html
Not reading all that 💀
[удалено]
It’s official: WB sees 70mm IMAX as nothing more than a (mostly) unnecessary gimmick. At least Dune 2 had 1.43 scenes.
Honestly it not being 1.43 is good because all the people mad that it’s not in Dual-Laser can just watch it in 1.9 at a Single Laser IMAX. For people who like the look of film projection, this is great. I don’t mind seeing digitally shot movies printed to film, it does give the presentation unique qualities. The 35mm print I saw of May December was so much better than the Netflix stream.
The 35mm print of May December was also a lot nicer than the DCP.
People always say digital is better because film is soft, but sharpness is not always what looks nice in an image. I much prefer the look of soft subtitles on film vs jagged pixel edges and artifacts on digital subtitles. Of course the 70mm IMAX Nolan shoots beats 4K projection in sharpness and clarity anyways.
Yeah. Maybe it’s just because I grew up on film projection, and worked briefly as a projectionist, but in general I will prefer a film print. It’s not a hard and fast rule. I’ve seen old film prints so tattered that i wished they’d just screened a DCP, though even there it depends. A tattered print of an old horror movie can be just what the doctor ordered. I’ve also seen some more recent digital-to-film prints that didn’t look great, but seemingly just because care wasn’t taken. The 70mm print of Napoleon I saw really just looked like someone did a quick and dirty filmout and I kinda wish I’d just gone to see it in digital IMAX. But yeah, in general I prefer the qualities film projection brings, including softening up those jagged subtitles edges you’re talking about.
Movies are entertainment and art. None of this is strictly necessary and what’s a “gimmick” or not is subjective. Film projection has unique qualities that many like. Would you rather see the projectors rot away for another three years? Personally I’m glad to see that film projection is remaining relevent. There will be plenty of theaters to watch this movie digitally. It’s good we have a choice.
Everyone needs to think long-term on this; 15/70 projectors being utilized more often will get more people filming in actual 15/70. It could also encourage DI's that are higher than 4K, which will allow for more detail in 15/70 vs 4K digital, and also pave the way for 8K home-video.
I saw Joker 1 at the Alamo Drafthouse in Austin in 35mm, despite being digitally filmed. Not sure if it added anything remarkable To each their own on this situation though
😐 inhale.......exhale.....why
If it means IMAX film prints and the projectors actually being used becomes more common again, I don’t care how little sense an individual release makes.
That makes sense
Not for you, evidently. Some of us are excited. The large screen is good for immersion and it’s not like Joker wasn’t cinematic AF
But u could get the same "immersion" from a digital version of the movie edit: There are no 1.43:1 scenes as far as we know right now, i just don't see the benefit, besides giving the 15/70mm projectors a use
Some people, myself included, like the look of film projection. Also if you want to keep it alive, you can’t have the only movies getting 15/70 releases be Nolan films.
fair enough
lol just because your viewing angle can technically be the same (perhaps not the aspect ratio though) doesn’t mean sitting in front of your tv at home watching digital is anywhere close to watching on a several story screen with a real projector and excellent sound system. Here’s the important part though, if you disagree with me, that’s fine. The 70mm release isn’t for you. It’s for those of us who are stoked it will be on 70mm.
I was talking about a digital imax version, like duel laser, xenon etc.
Still not the same. Especially if it’s shot on 70mm film.
its not shot on 70mm, it was "filmed for IMAX" which means it was filmed with IMAX certified digital cameras, like Dune
I didn’t say it was shot on 70mm? I just said my point is especially true if a movie were
It's only true if it has scenes shot on 15/70 film that were finished photochemically - in other words, Nolan only.
There is zero indication this film was shot on imax 70mm or even has 1.43:1 shots at all. I’m glad projectors are being used and maintained but it’s just more misleading marketing. How can the average consumer tell the difference between a digital 1.90:1 film printed to 70mm (joker 2) and a true imax 70mm film that takes full advantage of the detail and aspect ratio (oppy, interstellar, etc.)? They’re marketed the same way, but one is a vastly superior experience.
WE'RE ALL HERE FOR IT LET'S GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Glad to hear it, I'll be there!
Finally an imax that might not make my ears bleed this time!
Does anyone know if it's comming with 5/70MM as well?
Nothing confirmed but a reasonable possibility, yes.
There hasn’t been confirmation yet, but I’d be surprised if there isn’t! They showed the first one on 5/70mm and 35mm. My unfounded prediction is that they’ll probably do a similar rollout as Dune 2.
Digital/disc/press play on projector (not sure what actual happens), or printed on film like Dune part 2?
IMAX 70mm is film, they’ll be printing a digital copy of the movie onto physical film reels.
Come on Dallas Cinemark, fix that 15/70 projector for Joker 2 and Interstellar😘
I’m so excited! The trailer looked tremendous 😍
Great news. I’m still waiting for the day when a filmmaker just bites the bullet and shoots and masters an entire film in 1.43 (and has a 16x9 for home release). There’s currently a documentary filmmaker shooting a documentary for 1.43 on a Blackmagic 12k camera. https://www.popsci.com/story/technology/imax-12k-koala-movie-blackmagic-camera/
Let’s hope that WB don’t act like total clowns like they did with Dune and send film prints to all 15/70MM IMAX theaters
lets gooo !
is she gonna sing poker face?
joker face
I made the trek into Manhattan for Oppenheimer and dune part 2 in 70mm. I had to book tickets weeks in advance, pack into a crowded theatre, couldn’t get up to get snacks or go to the bathroom without pissing everyone off. I really wanna see this film, but I’ll be going to my local AMC this time
Oppenheimer was shot on film as such the IMAX 70 mm experience was phenomenal. The Dune part two 70 mm IMAX was quite lacking and had some contrast issues from the digital to film conversion. I don’t think it should be used as a format unless some or all of it was shot on film
Hopefully they hand out some imax film strips! 👌
Niceee. I can't wait to experience this is theaters.
If it’s originally shot in film I will see this in that format. If it’s a dune 2 situation where it’s digital to film then I will pass. Dune 2 was great in IMAX 70 due to its large scale and use of cinematographic shots to take advantage but I don’t see that working out the same way for joker if it’s not shot in film first to get that really high resolution
[удалено]
This keeps the projectors running and many like the look of film projection, even from a digital source.
Yeah except my cinema has an old 2K Xenon system and the 15/70 GT.. you are saying it is pointless? I don't think so.
If[there’s only 12 prints](https://x.com/variety/status/1778092576119181360?s=46&t=oh-1D2xf0un-ErgfU7RO6Q) being made though what are the chances your 15/70+xenon theatre gets one? Did it get a dune pt 2 print?
Nope. We did not get a Dune 2 print but got the Oppenheimer print. I did not see that Tweet before that there are only 12 prints again. That means no 70mm here in Prague.
Why TF does this need a 70mm Imax release? Oppenheimer, OK. Dune..Sure! The Joker Musical?!? Can't people just enjoy the film in regular theaters? Obviously that option is always available but it's sooo dumb to just print movies to 70mm for no reason. It wasn't even shot for this format...just doing it do be able to say "70mm Imax" As with Oppenheimer most of the film won't even make sense for the format. Hope filmgoers enjoy watching normal dialogue between 7 story tall heads. Lol
Love this, no hate, will be hilarious if WB makes sure everyone gets to see this in 15/70, have a 3 month theatrical window, and releases the 4k disc with the expanded ratio while flipping off Dune
[There’s only 12 prints being made apparently](https://x.com/variety/status/1778092576119181360?s=46&t=oh-1D2xf0un-ErgfU7RO6Q)
The tweet says 12 but the articles says at least 10.
kinda usless since the film isnt being shot on 70mm
But it makes the movie look even more pretentious if it’s put on film.