Hey Aziz. I'm a big fan. Anyways what you should do is bring this to the attention of the Colbert Nation. This is the stuff Colbert loves and the Colbert Report targets the same demographic movie theaters go after for the most part. It would bring some serious pressure down on IMAX to fix this farce.
Alex.
· 7 months ago
that is a great idea. bring it to their attention.
John
· 7 months ago
I agree
Kyle
· 7 months ago
Great, on top of being a liar and and a scammer, he's also one of those nut bag enviro-nazis.
James Peach
· 7 months ago
here's something I just posted at my spot.
I've got everything in that I've been emailed about up until now. Hit me at jamespeach@gmail.com if you have more, or any corrections. This has been a lot of fun so far. I'd love to get every single IMAX in the U.S. logged in here. It's certainly info that could be used in the branding argument, and we've already learned today that IMAX can't be trusted to represent numbers fairly, as evidenced in these shenanigans.
I've had a couple of friends ask me why this gets under my skin so much, so I'll tell everyone here. I have always ridden pretty hard for IMAX. I've got certain friends and acquaintances spread across the country that I've always insisted go to see films on an IMAX screen. My reasons include sound, seating, and most of all, immersion from sheer size of the screen. Resolution was never part of the argument. Sure, I would love if all Hollywood films were shot to fill the screen, but a Hollywood 35mm movie on the IMAX is still pretty damn enjoyable, and much harder to accidentally pull yourself out of.
I've had a couple of people come back to me and say their local IMAX wasn't all that different, in a tone that suggested I was a bit of a loon it my fanaticism for the IMAX Experience. Now I know why, and it's extremely annoying.
So, supposedly these IMAX digital smaller screens have great resolution and such. That's cool. Not mad at that. However, that's not what I expect when I see "IMAX", and that's not an expectation I built all by my lonesome. The IMAX folks are trying to use that good ol' Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field by claiming that the "IMAX Experience" is still happening in these much smaller auditoriums. I suppose that, technically, that's still the case. Those auditoriums ARE running on tech owned by IMAX, after all. However, if they are going to throw out reasoning and numbers that defy logic, they have to also take other cues from Steve. You don't just sell people different sized iPods with different features, simply label and advertise them all as "iPod", and charge the same price for them. If that happened, iPod would NOT be iPod.
Fix your mistakes, IMAX. It's not that hard. You don't have to slight your new brand in the process, you just have to figure out a way to label your different products that gives props to them both. No, I can't do it for you. I don't get paid to make those decisions. YOU do.
uknowbetter
· 7 months ago
The big issue is that they don't even mention the difference on their site. I went to the IMAX website to find out what differences there were between stand-alone IMAXs and movie-theater IMAXs. There was nothing.
My friends assumed it was a fairly big difference (screen size sure is) so we just saw it at a regular theater instead of going out of the way to find a movie-theater IMAX.
I'm sure those are still an improvement over regular theaters, but IMAX would be better served by notifying people of the differences.
James Peach
· 7 months ago
Here's some ammo for the argument, Aziz, in case you need it. When I just went to the IMAX website, I looked at Manhattan. There were two theaters showing. One is known to be a giant screen, the other one of these bullshit smaller screens. The website shows no difference between the two regarding size. Now let's say "The IMAX Experience" is still a valid term for the smaller, but supposedly still superior to regular size screens...why not draw SOME SORT of distinction between the two for the consumer? It certainly could prevent nonsense such as this. It creates expectations in the customer.
Alex
· 7 months ago
You really are self-diluted!
1. You threatened to use your massive Twitter following to somehow hurt a chain -- but directed this at a local theater manager.
2. You asked for $10 ($5 x 2) back and, instead, received two movie passes (valued at $20 ($10 x 2), and you feel "robbed".
3. Your outrage is based on your feeling duped into seeing a movie on an IMAX screen that is smaller than what you believed and assumed to be a "normal" IMAX screen -- so you watched the movie and then complained after the fact.
4. You've attempted to back-petal your Twitter threat by claiming it was a joke -- either in keeping with the fact you're a horrible comedian (and something not one of your fans picked up on, which speaks volumes) or that it was just an attempt to disarm one of the arguements about you having a un-deserved sense of celebrity.
5. You now demand/request a televised debate with the CEO of the company -- a demand that is so far beyond rational, it's becoming funny.
For your fans, they're following you blindly and you've become the poster child for whiny consumers who want as much as they can suck out of any company who's name ends with "Inc.".
For those that don't know you, you've painted the perfect picture of a man who's minor celebrity has pumped his ego beyond his own understanding. Far cry from the young, talented comedian from UCBT. You've come a long way, or so you think. Calm the fuck down, you're beyond yourself.
nathansmart
· 7 months ago
You probably don't want people to get access to affordable health care as well.
Alex
· 7 months ago
That's your argument? An attempt at making me look illogical?
Short answer: No, I do believe in universal health care.
nathansmart
· 7 months ago
Alex just sounds like the name of a person who hates poor people.
uknowbetter
· 7 months ago
I hate poor stupid people. I hate all stupid people. I say let's tax the stupid and give the money to the smart.
Alex
· 7 months ago
Yet you have yet to defy my argument. I punched numerous holes in the logic your fighting for, and you have yet to counter.
yomommma
· 7 months ago
Alex can go make love to all these stupid fake imaz screens
nathansmart
· 7 months ago
What arguments? The ones that have nothing to do with the original point that Aziz is making? Forget all the fake importance he is giving to this issue. Forget all the "whining" about it - because a) it's a joke and b) there is a real issue here where a corporation is using its perceived reputation to squeeze out more from its customers.
What do you think when you think of IMAX? I know personally that when I think of IMAX I think of huge screens because every single IMAX-branded movie experience I've ever had since I was a child has been a giant screen. I've never once thought about the digital cameras that IMAX makes because it's never been presented as such before. This is a new thing for IMAX.
And that's fine! If they want to market a new digital quality camera they can but MARKET IT THEN. They aren't marketing it. Instead, they are just putting their name on a movie with no information as to what you're paying extra for. In my case, and in the case of everyone who is complaining, I would expect to see a giant screen.
You can't spend years building up a reputation for your name (where your name is synonymous with the product like Band-Aid or Kleenex) and then all of the sudden expect people to know what your new product is when it's completely different than the reputation you built for it!
That's the problem here and your "arguments" address a fake problem, not the real issue that Aziz is bringing up.
Alex
· 7 months ago
You said it yourself -- it's what *you* think of. IMAX does use different product names for these theaters you're complaining about ("IMAX 3D"). If you failed to read that, or failed to understand that is different from standard IMAX Theaters, it's on YOU.
Nobody has any requirement to teach you anything.
And more importantly, Aziz's argument falls flat because he watched the movie and then complained. If he felt wronged, it's up to him to leave and go to another theater.
nathansmart
· 7 months ago
I did a quick search around on google and found a bunch of reports from a while back talking about Star Trek being released as an IMAX feature (in addition to the regular). Every single one of those articles mentioned how breathtaking it would be to see it on a large IMAX screen. None of them talked about the digital camera.
And when you take a look at how it's being advertised it isn't separated. It's called Star Trek: The IMAX Experience. There's no indication that you aren't going to be seeing it on the traditional IMAX screen. Sure, if it said IMAX 3D as it did when I saw Superman I would be expecting a 3D experience. But "The IMAX Experience" gives no indication about what it's going to be other than what the consumer already thinks about IMAX. You are delusional if you think that people don't expect something specific when the name IMAX is used.
And it doesn't matter what Aziz says or does. He could've watched the movie 15 times and even said he loved it better on a small screen. It is still a deceptive move to trick consumers into buying a product they are convinced is something else. And it's not like I can say to the ticket teller, "Do you mind if I take a look at the screen to see if it's what I think IMAX is?" Sure, you could ask the person if it's the true IMAX screen but why would anyone even think to???
Of course, now we will because of Aziz mentioning it. Thanks Aziz.
nathanfuckingdumb
· 7 months ago
I guess we should all be happy that ticket sales for these IMAX 3D theaters are dropping...
Oh, Nathan -- you're kinda oblivious, so just FYI -- that was sarcasm. Ticket sales are increasing. I guess all the people that got ripped off went back.
nathansmart
· 7 months ago
Or maybe they were seeing a different movie because Star Trek isn't playing IMAX 3D.
Not Alex
· 7 months ago
There is a difference between a standard theater and IMAX's "IMAX 3D". It's an experience, an up-charge. Just because you or anyone else fails to recognize what that difference is (or simply jumps to the conclusion physics were defied and your local theater has a 72-foot screen in what used to be a small theater) does not make IMAX, AMC or anyone else involved dishonest. If you were promised a 72-foot screen and didn't get it, yeah... that's a definable moment you can call "dishonest". That didn't happen... you made an assumption, so did Aziz.
And it does matter what Aziz does -- he walked into the theater, realized it wasn't what he expected but sat down and took it anyway. At that point, the sale is complete.
nathansmart
· 7 months ago
If I sell you a box of Kleenex and when you open it, it turns out to be notebook paper and Kleenex is branching out but they didn't mention anything about it being notebook paper, then you have been duped by the Kleenex company - all because you just assumed that when Kleenex is plastered on a box, it is tissue paper.
And it doesn't matter what Aziz does - because the issue isn't whether or not he got his money back. The issue is whether or not IMAX is duping its customers to get more money.
And it is.
Alex
· 7 months ago
But they ARE distinguishing a difference -- even if it's adding "3D" to the end of the name.
More to the point, because you're obviously too up your own and Aziz's ass to realize what my argument is -- would you use all the notebook paper and THEN try to return it, or try to bring it back when you first open the box and realize the difference?
nathansmart
· 7 months ago
3D would've been a helpful difference - but there is no distinguishing difference. It's listed as Star Trek: The IMAX Experience.
aziz
· 7 months ago
The notebook paper is a different situation! It doesn't work. The airline ticket analogy is more fitting, would you get off the flight, drive home, rebook yourself, and then come back to fly on a new flight? Or just tell them, "Fuck, okay I'm not going through that hassle, I'll get on the flight and get refunded for first class when we land."
aziz
· 7 months ago
Alex, if you read the comments plenty of people have went in expecting one type of IMAX and getting stuck with the other, I think its clear they have a perception problem and they need to correct it by differentiating the two types of screens. Look at that diagram, you really think those two are comparable and both should have the same surcharge? I've explained why I saw the movie up top, I'm not inconveniencing myself because I was a victim of false advertising and I happily paid my $10 to see the film.
Alex
· 7 months ago
There is a difference and misconception, I agree. I'm not arguing that. What I am arguing is that under your personal circumstance, you waived your right to get any sort of refund. According to you, your math equation was:
Convenience > Principals
That's not how it works. To hit every analogy everyone below has attempted to make -- you can't buy a book, read it and return it -- you can't eat at a restaurant and ask for a refund after eating everything on your plate -- and you can't watch a movie and, after it's over, ask for a refund because it wasn't what you expected.
And you are NOT a victim of false advertising. You're throwing out random cliche lines -- and I don't even believe you're Aziz, because he's not that dumb.
If IMAX (for a long time) only made theaters with the 72-foot screens and then, one day, decided to produce different products -- it's not their requirement to educate everyone on the difference between their original product and this.
I do, however, agree the up-charge amount is a little high -- but even if you agree with that, it's an issue with AMC, not IMAX.
Spence
· 7 months ago
Yes it is the company's requirement to educate the consumer on the differences. It's like going to Burger King and they had "the Whopper Experience" on the menu without explanation and someone orders it at the Whopper price and goes home and opens their bag to find a slighter larger than normal burger. I know I'm going to eat the damn burger cause I'm hungry but I'll be calling shortly after and letting them know what the hell is up. I'm not going to drive my ass back there right away cause they tricked the consumer. Apparently you have more time to stop in your day and complain about shit than normal people. It's the same if you got on a plane after paying for a 1st class ticket and then getting on and finding out it was coach. Are you seriously going to get off and bitch right then or go on your flight and complain after the fact. You do not seem to understand the principle of the whole situation. And yes you can eat a whole meal and then complain and get a refund. I have worked in food service all my life and people do it all the time. That AMC manager is a jackass and you would think that to promote good business he would have refunded the $5 because it's good for business. But now because of him AMC looks like a bunch of jack-offs. Seriously, what good manager in their right mind actually argues with a customer?
Alex
· 7 months ago
I was going to counter your point, but then you added: "I have worked in food service all my life..."
I think it ends there.
Also, your "people do it all the time" point is typical.
A company does not have any requirement to educate people. If you see a new/different product, you have the right to ask questions. There is no obligation to explain a difference. However, you do have the right to ask/inquire/request more information. If you fail to do so -- buyer beware (it's on YOU).
nathansmart
· 7 months ago
Actually, there are Consumer Rights in this country and if a company is found to be actively deceiving a consumer by not giving them all the information up front, then they can be held liable.
aziz
· 7 months ago
Alex you ARE WRONG. Under your logic, BMW could sell the 3 series and the 7 series for the EXACT same price and not tell the buyer the difference. Under your logic, Gatorade can sell two bottles of Gatorade for the same price fill one with piss and say "Buyer beware! You should have checked to make sure this wasn't piss!" You CAN'T do that. Alex, if IMAX changes their policy, what would you do? Can we make a bet? You are SO wrong on this its ridiculous.
Nemo
· 7 months ago
The problem is that no difference is even indicated. What don't you get about that?
Your argument makes no sense. I had the same experience as Aziz, and I can say that I will not be going back to the fake IMAX. NOW I will call and ask, but how could I have even known to?
I will admit the picture was a little clearer than in a normal theater, but it wasn't the IMAX experience I was expecting. I didn't ask for a refund.
I am not going to bother with analogies. They have all been made. Think what you will. Obviously, you are of the school that thinks it's ok to operate in a deceptive manner as long as you are making money for your shareholders. You are operating from the "we have no legal obligation" standpoint. What about ethical obligations?
What you don't realize is the long term damage that you are doing to your own companies with this kind of behavior.
GM and all of the banks and all of the other companies that are going down right now operated from that same standpoint. People stopped buying from them. The same will happen to IMAX if they don't at least disclose the truth. Shitting where you eat is stupid no matter how big of a dog you are.
I agree that maybe Aziz should have walked out of the movie, but I think his main point is still valid.
GabbyD
· 7 months ago
alex, the fact that one refused a higher value prize for the sake of an idea/principle, speaks greatly to how he values said principle...
to spell it out -- the principle is truth in advertising for IMAX.
aziz, i think that the cinema should clearly indicate on the window what the size of the IMAX screen is. good luck to you!
Alex
· 7 months ago
You think the theater should display the size of just IMAX 3D screens or all their screens?
Also, principle is negated after 2 HOURS of watching the movie.
Ken
· 7 months ago
I don't really feel Aziz invalidated his claim to a partial refund by watching the entirety of the movie. Nor is it fair to say this was not a case of false advertising. Based on the second point, the first can still be debated.
He went out of his way to experience what has become the singular iconic characteristic of IMAX films: the immense proportion of the screen itself. IMAX has developed a generic association with this characteristic in much the same way the word “iPod” at times is used as a generic reference to any MP3 player.
Let’s say iPod has, theoretically, for years been selling one line of iPods which were all 9 gig. Now without notice or differentiation they suddenly started shipping 2 gig iPods in addition to 9 gig units. Now you as a consumer purchase an iPod in good faith expecting the product delivered to be consistent with all prior known models and accordingly agree to purchase that product at the equilibrium price established with respect to the 9 gig product line, but are then surprised to discover you received a 2 gig unit. It might be argued that you’d been defrauded due to a willful negligence of dispelling false pretenses. In a very similar manner IMAX appears to have acted in bad faith by using their prior brand association to force an inferior product on customers through capitalizing on a temporary delay of their knowledge regarding the service for which they are purchasing.
Was this illegal on AMC’s, Regal’s, or IMAX’s part? I doubt it would take much of a lawyer to get them out of any serious charges. But was it a stupid, stupid move on IMAX’s part? Absolutely. Why would anyone choose to drive the extra 20 minutes, 40 minutes, or even the extra hours to see an “IMAX” experienced film when it is a toss up, a bloody gamble on whether the defining characteristic that had made such extra effort worthwhile even will be delivered? The appeal of IMAX is going to die, and die fast. Can you sue them for being swindled? Probably not. Would I still feel swindled after paying 5 dollars for a huge screen and being cheated due to a lie of omission? Hell yes I would. I’m not even going to say I’m boycotting IMAX, but I am going to say I’ll never go out of my way to see something experienced in an “IMAX” ever again. Why bother?
p.s. Alex, you are aware you’re definitively what people call a “Troll,” right?
Alex
· 7 months ago
YOU'RE ANALOGY PROVES MY POINT!
Apple began selling the iPod Mini and the iPod Shuffle. Yes, in certain places -- you could find out what the sizes were, what the differences were. You asked questions to sales people, you looked on their website, you INQUIRED. Nobody did that here.
P.S. - Define "Troll"...
nathansmart
· 7 months ago
Actually, no matter where you go to try and buy an iPod, you will see either a chart explaining all of the differences or under each iPod display, there is an explanation of what you're getting. Not to mention, the real point (which is what you don't seem to be getting) is that each iPod has its own distinguishing name that lets you figure out what you're getting.
That's why Apple is a smart company and IMAX is a jerk.
aziz
· 7 months ago
ONE IS CALLED THE MINI, ONE IS CALLED THE SHUFFLE! YOU PROVED EVERYONE ELSES POINT! THEY DIFFERENTIATE!!!!!
Ken
· 7 months ago
Straight from wiki: "In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion."
Mostly, it a combination of characteristics that leads others to believe the "troll" seems to have nothing better to do largely due to a lack of positive influences in their own private life. These individuals in an attempt to dispel their own private irrelevancy vent unwanted and inappropriate aggression without just cause as an outlet for escapism by creating any form of interaction through inflammatory behavior to counter the lack of healthy stimuli in their own lives, albeit in the aforementioned unhealthy manner. At least that's been the defining characteristics others I've discussed this with attribute to internet "trolls" as the justification for their behavior.
I'm not saying this is true about whomever it is penning under "Alex," simply that by and large that's likely the impression others are going to assume. Play nicer man, you'll get further... You seem too intelligent to be so consistently and ceaselessly rude.
nathansmart
· 7 months ago
They don't have to display the size of their regular screens - we can already assume the size because they've been the same size for as long as we can remember. And we don't go to a movie screen based on its size - oh, except of course if it's an IMAX one.
Alex
· 7 months ago
You made an assumption!
as·sump·tion : a fact or statement (as a proposition, axiom, postulate, or notion) taken for granted. (Example, "I made an assumption that the IMAX 3D screen was large, instead of doing any research and then I just blamed everyone except myself.")
nathansmart
· 7 months ago
Man, I would hate your life. Doing a Google search before you brush your teeth, just making sure the toothpaste you're using is still the same one that you bought yesterday.
aziz
· 7 months ago
I assumed IMAX is IMAX. You assume Gatorade is Gatorade. That is what a branded product is you idiot. When you buy Gatorade do you research every time to make sure it isn't filled with piss? Because under your logic, they can just fill it with piss and say "You assumed this was like all the other bottles of Gatorade, but now we fill it with piss! Didn't you do your research?"
Caligula
· 7 months ago
When the CEO said 90% of the comments were favorable to IMAX, I think he was referring to Alex's comments only.
Frank
· 7 months ago
Then you'd have to tax yourself!
OOOOOOH BUUUUUUUURN!
heh. Seriously though. You're an idiot.
Awesomeguy13
· 7 months ago
Your use of the word 'diluted' hurts your point. Which was stupid anyway.
Ant
· 7 months ago
It looks like IMAX has hired some goons to troll these comments to give Mr. CEO Bullshitter some more ammo. Fact is, IMAX is classless as a company. When I think IMAX, I think of the larger than life screen and sound. If I had one of these "watered down" IMAX theaters in my area, I would NEVER pay an extra $5 for that garbage. IMAX, do the right thing, charge less for these theaters, and slap a disclaimer on the product. It should have been as simple as that! Who the hell is making decisions for your company?
Azizisawesome
· 7 months ago
I don't disagree. I wouldn't be surprised at all if IMAX did that
Rico
· 7 months ago
To be fair it wouldn't be the first company. Over the last 5 years there has been at least a dozen companies that have ended up in the NYT or some similar news system for hiring people or simply having certain employees whose jobs are nothing more than locating criticisms and attacking them.
Cute stuff though a little misguided.
Alex
· 7 months ago
Nope -- I'm just someone who is a fan of Aziz's work and this bullshit argument popped up on my Facebook. And, yet again, you have no counter to my point -- you just pointed fingers thinking I have some connection to IMAX because I disagreed.
Oh, and to that point -- IMAX is a brand, not a product. IMAX Digital, IMAX 3D -- those are products. I too thought about going to see Star Trek in IMAX. I went online, pulled up their website to find all the IMAX theaters around New York City. I checked out the ones outside Manhattan and realized they were labeled different -- I read their website and found out it wasn't the same. Of course, I could just go to one of the AMC IMAX theaters and just bitch about it on my blog and Twitter.
yomommma
· 7 months ago
or u can make manlove with IMAX ceo
Alex
· 7 months ago
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOH SNAP!
Tom
· 7 months ago
Alex, You are so worried that no one counters your "points" - here you go (that will be $5 please)
1. You threatened to use your massive Twitter following to somehow hurt a chain -- but directed this at a local theater manager. TRUE - and I don't know Aziz's from Adam - but I was laughing - of course the local manager doesn't care - he is making $8/hour to deal with angry people - that is why that part was funny. He did not realize, or care, that by being obstinant he was creating a PR nightmare for IMAX. IMAX would glady have paid him $1,000 to not have a few thousand (and then a few thousand more and so on and so on - this has caught fire given that myself, someone who has never heard of Mr. Aziz, am reading about it)
2. You asked for $10 ($5 x 2) back and, instead, received two movie passes (valued at $20 ($10 x 2), and you feel "robbed". Reading FAIL. Mr. Aziz clearly and repeatedly states he wanted the $5 differential refunded - for value NOT received. Granted he received more "value" but that misses the point that is was a principled request and the theater operator refused to yield on the principle.
3. Your outrage is based on your feeling duped into seeing a movie on an IMAX screen that is smaller than what you believed and assumed to be a "normal" IMAX screen -- so you watched the movie and then complained after the fact. THIS IS THE LAMEST POINT EVER. Should he have gotten up and disturbed everyone else in the theater so he can get a refund!? This would be rude. It appears you desperate to have a reason to dispute his actions.
4. You've attempted to back-petal your Twitter threat by claiming it was a joke -- either in keeping with the fact you're a horrible comedian (and something not one of your fans picked up on, which speaks volumes) or that it was just an attempt to disarm one of the arguements about you having a un-deserved sense of celebrity. Reading FAIL (sorry to be redundant - so are the "points" we are begged to refute. Twitter=joke. Darfur=joke. This is obvious on the first read. Who cares if he twitters 1,000,000? I thought he actually said it to the theater guy and that he was therefor a truly inspired comic.
5. You now demand/request a televised debate with the CEO of the company -- a demand that is so far beyond rational, it's becoming funny. Sense of humor FAIL. Dude that would be funny. And I for one am tired of being screwed by corporate America. If IMAX wants to dilute their brand with tiny screens fine, but don't expect adoring fans to gush about how great the tiny screen experience is.
For your fans, they're following you blindly and you've become the poster child for whiny consumers who want as much as they can suck out of any company who's name ends with "Inc.".
I don't understand why you are so angry with Mr. Aziz. He was wronged. He sought appropriate redress and was shot down. So he told people about it. The facts stand for themselves. And I own a corporation that ends in Inc. and people do try to screw the corporation, but I offer so much value to my customers that they fail - people say what are you complaining about!? But if I offered fakeImax instead of true IMAX I would be ashamed.
For those that don't know you, you've painted the perfect picture of a man who's minor celebrity has pumped his ego beyond his own understanding. Far cry from the young, talented comedian from UCBT. You've come a long way, or so you think. Calm the fuck down, you're beyond yourself.
As I said, this is my first awareness of Mr. Aziz. I am looking forward to seeing his work, as he seems both sincere and funny.
Tom
You are now completely refuted. Will you kindly be quiet? Thank you.
Alex
· 7 months ago
1. Yes, this "twitter joke" was obviously a joke -- which is why Aziz's own fans didn't pick up on it.
2. You throw out the work "principle" and "value" a few times -- you agree with my point, but then dispute it. I'm just gonna skip this one, because it seems like not even you had a strong argument on this.
3. According to your logic, it would take a while (at least until the movie was past the credits) to recognize the screen is smaller? That doesn't seem like it makes much sense. Your logic is a bit flawed there. Are we just now assuming Aziz realized the screen was smaller by the end credits? I'd rather give the guy more credit and assume he recognized this when he first walked into the theater.
4. Throwing out a joke about Darfur or Twitter does not make him an "inspired" comic. What happened -- after writing his rant, he decided to tone it down with the Darfur reference. The Twitter thing was legit.
5. Ah, there it is -- you're "tired of being screwed by corporate America". There is your underlying true reasons for being annoyed with this. This isn't about IMAX or AMC, this is about YOU. You won't admit this, because you need to admit it to yourself first.
6 (etc). I'm not angry, I just disagree. Not so much with what happened (Aziz made a mistake by assuming something, should have left, went back to the box office, expressed concern, got a ticket for a standard theater). That is the flaw in this argument. If you have issue, it's easy to take the convenient road, argue later and blog about it. Aziz took the easy, lazy road and is trying to paint himself as some patriot.
And I DO know Aziz personally -- unlike you. This is why I know exactly how he is acting, what he is trying to get across.
Alex Sux
· 7 months ago
#1 it's back-pedal...
Furthermore, he is a fucking comedian. He is being allegorical and trying to make a joke out of a situation that he realizes isn't a big deal or an important issue. That is why he made the reference to Darfur. He received the movie tickets and is complaining still because it is not about the money, but the principle. If the movie theater is willing to give him 20 dollars worth of tickets, then why wouldn't they be willing to give him a 5 dollar refund. That is the point. The televised debate request is also, of course, a joke. I can't tell if this is someone who is intentionally trying to piss people off or if you are really that dumb.
Alex Sux -- Sucks
· 7 months ago
...which is why he's continuing to defend his stance with a second post?
And, your own arguement made a hard-left turn: "He is being allegorical and trying to make a joke out of a situation that he realizes isn't a big deal or an important issue." "He received the movie tickets and is complaining still because it is not about the money, but the principle"
So, is that your defense or are you just trying to find a defense? Try harder.
Alex Sux -- Sucks -- SUXCKS
· 7 months ago
argument*
Tom Landry
· 7 months ago
Please shut up, B-List celebrity. IMAX isn't only about screen size. Go back to where you belong: Vh1's "Best Week Ever".
Mike B
· 7 months ago
No one said it was ONLY about screen size. As previously stated, it's an entire experience, part of which is the idea that you are able to view said IMAX screen. To sell a product in such a manner is almost the equivalent of selling me a novel, and handing me the Sparknotes; still get all the information, but in a much smaller sense than I had expected
Alex
· 7 months ago
Read the Sparknotes, bring it back, ask for a refund of the difference between that and the real book. Get coupon for cost of full book, threaten to Twitter your experience.
Chris Ess
· 7 months ago
The Sparknotes analogy is wrong. When Aziz went to the movie he went their with an embedded idea of what he was getting than payed. When you buy a book, you can look at it before you buy it. Aziz was trapped into buying this fake product.
If you lie and are dishonest you should own up to it. There is something called business ethics. I'm no business major, but I understand Aziz is, perhaps this is what is fueling his comedic and ethical fire.
Jack
· 7 months ago
Read the Sparknotes(figure out the last chapter is missing), bring it back, ask for a refund of the difference between that and the (complete)real book. Get coupon for cost of full (maybe incomplete)book, threaten (after being offered lousy compensation to Twitter your experience.
Mike
· 7 months ago
A better analogy would be:
Go to Asian massage parlor, pay for full service, get naked, start getting an HJ, get into it, she walks away not finishing the HJ no BJ and no "Love you long time", get dressed, complain to management...
I feel his pain.
Not Alex
· 7 months ago
Buy the Sparknotes, read the whole thing, realize the font was smaller than you expected, bring it back and ask for a refund of the difference of the Sparknotes and Louis Anderson's biography. Realize the manager is Louis Anderson, twitter your experience.
Aaron
· 7 months ago
Dude... While I agree with much of your sentiment, please, please, please don't just randomly misspell several words making you look like a retard. It's DELUDED, and PEDAL.
Your Mom
· 7 months ago
nice spelling
Alex Sux -- Sucks
· 7 months ago
Well, I guess my entire argument is fucked now.
Robin
· 7 months ago
While, he did go a little far in his rant, he did bring light to the fact that the company is false advertising their "experience" there does need to be a distinction made, a disclaimer on the ticket perhaps, something that protects the company from this kind of thing, especially if they are going to charge the same price for two different kinds of products.
Not Alex
· 7 months ago
So, AMC is at fault then...?
Jake
· 7 months ago
Alex is an individual who likes to hear himself type! I feel sorry for you bro. Pathetic! I have to tell you this: You don't give up. The shit just keeps spewing out of your keyboard, digging a hole! Ha! Cheers, and happy commenting!
Kyle
· 7 months ago
It's not a matter of five bucks vs. a twenty dollar movie pass. It's a matter of right and wrong. If I tell you I'm selling you a car, you buy it, and I ship it to you and it doesn't have an engine or any fucking wheels on it. Well it's still a car isnt' it? But it's not the definition of a car that any normal person would expect. Same thing here, if they say it's IMAX, you're expecting the big screen. That's what IMAX has built it's name on. If someone asked me if I wanted a Mustang or a Ferrari, and I picked the Ferrari... and I walked out to my driveway the next morning to see a shiny red mini-van sitting there, I'd be like "what the fuck is this". Oh, I guess I expected the sports car, you know, what Ferrari is KNOWN FOR. Like IMAX is KNOWN FOR giant ass screens. Not the damn mini-van they just started making and selling under the sporty name.
And you health care / darfur people need to get a fucking life. The guy is trying to talk about one damn experience HE had, and explain how this company is screwing people, and you idiots are turning around talking politics and bullshit. That's like you coming home and telling your roommate "Hey man, I just hit a huge pothole in the middle of main street, they really need to fix that". And your roommate responds with "hey man, screw your pothole, don't you know people are starving in Africa and there are endangered water fowl somewhere that need a home?"
WTF is with you people? You should be stoked that a dude in the industry is still down to earth enough to know when the little guy is getting duped and says something about it.
People Like Alex Make Me Post
· 7 months ago
What the hell are you talking about? You must be the CEO of IMAX. Intelligent response earlier, really.
How can you not understand that this is a principle thing? You can't stick the same label and price tag on something that is absolutely different.
Let's pretend that Samsung makes two plasma TVs. The picture quality is equally good, they both bear the same name and price but one is 42" and one is 63".
Does it make sense now moron?
Cody Clarke
· 7 months ago
The negative comments on the original post are retarded. CEO Richard Gelfond is retarded. This is a non-issue, as there is no possibly way anyone could argue the FAKE IMAX screen should cost as much as REAL IMAX screen. That's completely stupid.
mrtony
· 7 months ago
For reals. I also think you are kind of pretty.
Alex
· 7 months ago
I'm not arguing that. You're right -- IMAX is fucking stupid for not distinguishing between "IMAX Experience" and the true, original IMAX screens.
James Peach
· 7 months ago
The IMAX vs. LIEMAX map is coming along nicely, but I need lost more, folks. Hit me up at jamespeach@gmail.com with the address and name of your local IMAX theater and whether the IMAX is real or fake, meaning giant screen or not.
If IMAX refuses to rebrand these crap spots (or, hell, I guess they could just rebrand the awesome spots) then we could at least have a map that shows which is which.
mrtony
· 7 months ago
It isn't worth paying an extra $5 for an IMAX movie that wasn't filmed with an IMAX cameera. It is like when people use the word "epic" every 5 minutes. It begins to lose it's meaning.
Dan
· 7 months ago
I paid the extra $5 to see it in IMAX , a real IMAX acreen, and I feel it was worth it.
mrtony
· 7 months ago
The one near my house looks average size. It just wasn't the same.
docfilms
· 7 months ago
it has nothing to do with the camera...it has to do with the print of the film...(considering that most films today are not shot on 70mm cameras anyway). So unless they're "printing" it, or blowing it up to 8k+ resolution and digitally projecting it on a 70 foot screen, it's not IMAX in the traditional sense.
Ravinder Pulia
· 7 months ago
I got ur back , Jai Hind and PK Zindabad!
joebuck
· 7 months ago
YEAH!!!! they rape you at the movies anyways, that shit used to be affordable, now its like prosports
JaBoy3000
· 7 months ago
I couldn't believe all the negative comments, on the original post. I figured they had to all come from one source.
Get 'em, Aziz! You're awesome!
Naked Comedy
· 7 months ago
If you get the debate, I'll make sure you get on trending topics so the twitter world can show its support!
Max
· 7 months ago
I'd watch the debate. Rootin' for you.
Lorin
· 7 months ago
Bring the heat, Aziz.
Mick
· 7 months ago
I'm on your side Aziz
kristenbeaman
· 7 months ago
I agree with AZIZ- Hey Dick, accept the challenge.
spacechef81
· 7 months ago
i would stop going to amc if we had any here. all our theaters are cinemark. i'm with you though. it's good to see one man can get such a huge response in such a short amount of time. with all of these social networking sites now big companies should start thinking twice before screwing people over. word gets out fast. i'm really interested to see how this turns out now. keep on fighting aziz.
redban
· 7 months ago
Let me just say that as a former projectionist for 10 years, I had worked with Richard Gelfond. It was also his idea to charge $10 for $1 worth of Coke in the concession stand.
Richard Gelfond is also a horrible lover.
Unsilent
· 7 months ago
Don't fuck with Aziz. Dude knows Kanye. KANYE!
TheBeeOBee
· 7 months ago
Eh, knowing a gay fish is not much to brag about.
South Park Rulez
· 7 months ago
I thought he just liked fish STICKS in his mouth
Cams
· 7 months ago
Get that sucker to pony up a 5 dollar refund for everyone who responds with a "fake" imax ticket stub, and a statement that they in fact felt duped. Instead of giving it back to the people have him agree to donate it to charity (something Darfur related springs to mind). Also great appearance on Kimmel.
Alex
· 7 months ago
Yep -- victims in Darfur need coupons to AMC theaters. Ya know, to get their mind off the war.
sugarvenom
· 7 months ago
i'm putting my $5 on aziz...
HP
· 7 months ago
I'm with you, Aziz. Remember corporations and media often fight back with pure lies. Should you fight back doing the same? I don't think so. But you should add to your posts "I'm Aziz Ansari and I approve this message" :P
Jennifer
· 7 months ago
I would tune in and pay $5 to see/hear this debate on a non-72foot screen. I think its time CEO's take ownership for their faults.
And 90%?! Sounds like he needs to hire a new statistician.
Evan
· 7 months ago
I liked IMAX better when they just showed 45 minute documentaries in it at my local science center. :(
TheKillerBeeRelayteam
· 7 months ago
THIS^
Sean Scott Maguire
· 7 months ago
Obviously, Richard Gelfond is a Fascist. Not the Nazi kind of fascist. More like the Franco kind of fascist. Or whoever the fascist leader of Portugual was.... Sylvester or something? I don't know, but Richard Gelfond is a fascist.
William
· 7 months ago
Yeah nobody finds that comment as funny as you probably did while typing it.
Alex
· 7 months ago
^Read this post with Dennis Miller's voice and it's funny. Not a funny joke, just funny that it is something he'd say.
Tristan
· 7 months ago
DEBATE DEBATE DEBATE DEBATE . . I know he would never agree but I would pay PPV type money to watch it lol. keep up updated on twitter
yen
· 7 months ago
good luck, aziz! blast this guy for (continually) trying to take advantage of the audience he's profiting from!
nevermind the poor economy and people wanting to "escape" by going to the movies. this CEO can't take a hint from other failed industries and see that corporate greed is bad!!
i hope you get your $5 back.
JuanBeast
· 7 months ago
lol leave it to our fucked up society to take what you said and twist and turn it and try to find lil things within the story to bitch and gripe about trying to cut you down when they would prolly feel the same way if they had first experienced it themselves
Alex
· 7 months ago
Well, it's a good thing they all stopped going to AMC/Regal IMAX theaters. The fact people are returning and even more people are going to these theaters each year is probably some corporate spin.
They're probably not counting the thousands that watch the movie and complain after. I can't be certain, but I think they're required by law to subtract your ticket from the totals if you threaten use of your Twitter account or blog.
Dancin Mike
· 7 months ago
An IMAX screen is 72 feet. Not 72 feet? Not IMAX. Go get 'em Aziz!
Alex
· 7 months ago
YEAH! Disregard the fact they're marketed as "IMAX Digital", a separate product name. Go get 'em Aziz and Dancin Mike!
Alex, Alex...why are you trying so hard? What stake do you really have in this? I love you, you big bafoon! Never ever ever give up!
aziz
· 7 months ago
Alex is the best! Alex if they change the policy and prove we are right, what will you do then? Can we get you to make a bet with us?
Chuck
· 7 months ago
I agree with aziz, imax's big draw was the huge screen with crisp picture. With regular cinemas getting digital projection for their small screens, the image quality is acceptable. if Imax's new digital format includes a shrink down to accommodate lower resolutioned digital images, then what's the point in imax? When i first heard about digital imax i assumed it would be of the same resolution (especially since they announced that they'd be using massive hard drive storage for movies)...Now that Aziz has made it clear Imax movies aren't in their former format/resolution its very disappointing. Also like in Dark knight, shooting 3 scenes in Imax and up converting the rest is a crap shoot. Its almost the equivalent to stretching a standard definition tv image on a wide screen high definition tv. Yah you see everything bigger, but its blurrier and you'd rather watch it the way it was meant.
EdwinWorkman
· 7 months ago
Epic. I posted on the previous post, and I'll gladly do it again. To say this is anything but a ripoff is ridiculous. And those of you saying "what about Darfur?" you obviously know very little to nothing about sarcasm. Of course Darfur is a serious issue. The thing is, this should not. IMAX= big fucking screen, not slightly bigger one, and if the "wow" factor is really what that CEO says it's all about, well, that's relative, isn't it? I welcome this debate, and to all of you saying Aziz should stop complaining because he can afford it or some other bullshit, fuck off. Your obviously not getting it.
TheKitchenSink
· 7 months ago
GO AZIZ!!!
Chuck
· 7 months ago
One other thing... Digital Imax, was supposed to drive down operating costs in order to save Imax's stock options and regain profitability... It'd be nice if they passed such benefits on to their consumers!!! Wtf happend to movies? They keep making box office record profits, yet the prices go up...its like oil these days!
CR
· 7 months ago
Yeah, it's like paying for a blowjob but getting the teeth. I'm not going to pull out but I am going to politely ask the pimp for my money back.
Brian Seaver
· 7 months ago
I too agree that this fake IMAX is complete BS. They should be ashamed of themselves. I discovered this when I went to see Day The Earth Stood Still. I will definitely support a boycott until this stopped
@MiLiTARYiV
· 7 months ago
"WHAT A SURPRISE ANOTHER IMAX LIE. Who did those numbers? The same guy who measures your bullshit tiny IMAX screens??? "
LMAO!!!1 btw Parks & Rec = EPiC WiN! NBC Thursday! ParKs & Rec > Your Thursday TV show
Sara
· 7 months ago
I'm with you, Aziz! I'd love to see you debate the issue with that guy!
Chase Roper
· 7 months ago
The CEO is using percentages of sales as a means to prove how satisfied movie goers are with the smaller IMAX screens but what those numbers don't tell him is how many customers were disappointed after paying the extra money and then didn't say anything about it at all. Aziz, you are the whistle blower my friend. You should make up some "Fu&K IMAX" shirts and donate the proceeds to help Darfur.
Louie
· 7 months ago
Richard Gelfond is a dirty man with greedy fingers! Salty, dirty, greed fingers!
Natasha P.
· 7 months ago
I love how moronic the public can be about things. I can't believe how many negative comments were on the original post, either! Please debate! I'm behind you for sure! Why anyone would defend being ripped off by a corporation completely stumps me.
Drew
· 7 months ago
I am completely on your side Aziz! Good luck man!
TC
· 7 months ago
Im in your camp Aziz, I got suckered the same way last year by IMAX.
dalas v
· 7 months ago
Hunh, guess that CEO won't be paying attention to the poll results from that article:
WHAT DO YOU THINK? Would you feel duped paying for a smaller IMAX screen?
Yes! A bigger price should mean a bigger screen. 81.8% No! The quality makes up for the size. 4.5% I'll just go to the regular movies. 13.6%
TheBeeOBee
· 7 months ago
BOYCOTT!!!!!
Chuck
· 7 months ago
YOU SHOULD PUT THIS DEBATE IN PARKS AND REC!!!! some how some way it would make a great story arch or recurring theme.
TIM
· 7 months ago
LET'S GOOOOOO
VonHelff
· 7 months ago
It's sad that so many people are calling Aziz a loser and the like. But of course, there are so many people used to "The American Way" of lying down and enjoying the anal reaming perpetrated upon the American consumer. IMAX is just another company who will try to get away with as much as possible, hoping people didn't catch on to their deception while screwing the little guy (and girl) out of more of their hard-earned money. I can only imagine the naysayers posting against Aziz's legitimate points back in Colonial America, musing about how the tyrannical British rule wasn't that bad, or goose-stepping to the masses in pre-World War II Germany. If you don't stand for anything, you'll fall for somethin
J Crowley
· 7 months ago
Yeah, if they're thinking that 25%-sized screens equal 100%-sized screens, then "90%" could mean just about anything. Hell, it might not even mean a number, coming from a company so damn bad with proportions and percentages.
"People continue to buy tickets" is a specious as fuck basis for a rebuttal, by the way. It's like if someone was bitching about their internet service, and the CEO of the ISP was all "hey, you're wrong, and everybody thinks that you're wrong because they're still buying our internet service." Sure it seems plausible, if you assume that everybody in the world knows about the issue, has a choice in the matter (and no screaming kids demanding to see "IMAX"), etc.
What a dickass.
monkeybeat
· 7 months ago
iMAX stock dropped from $7.24 to $7.02. I'm sure the web-noise about Aziz's issue has nothing to do with that. After all the commenters are all on iMAX's side, right?
Roger
· 7 months ago
This argument is solid, Aziz. It is a cheat to advertise the theaters as IMAX when they do not offer what that brand has come to represent. I'm not sure how that cannot be seen as dishonest. Keep the argument going because it was acceptable to ask for the $5 surcharge back.
Jason
· 7 months ago
If IMAX would just own up, people would be cool with it.
Denying the problem is making a mockery of customers. Quite probably the worst way to handle a public relations situation.
Good job IMAXMONEYBYRIPPINGMYCUSTOMERSOFF.
Manny
· 7 months ago
I paid $17.50 to watch the Dark Knight in "IMAX" at an AMC in Times Square. The screen was tiny compared to a real IMAX screen like the one at the Metreon in San Francisco. If I'm going o pay an extra $5 to watch a movie in IMAX, the sound is secondary to the huge fucking screen. Going to an IMAX movie is supposed to cause discomfort from trying to see the entire screen, it should be that big. Instead, at AMC Empire 25 234 West 42nd St., they sold me a ticket to a screening of TDK on a slightly bigger screen. FUCK AMC and FUCK THE BULLSHIT IMAX EXPERIENCE (unless its on giant 72 ft screen, then I love IMAX).
Glenn
· 7 months ago
I'll show my support by continuing my 29 year boycott of IMAX.
Also, I don't know why the movie manager gave you such a hard time. I got a refund for the sound going out for like 30 seconds during Crank 2: High Voltage.
Lyd
· 7 months ago
Sincerely doubt he'll accept that debate. People who know they are wrong tend to avoid debates about what they are wrong about.
ben
· 7 months ago
go for it. ask if his balls are bigger than yours.
Adam Van Houten
· 7 months ago
I think the debate should be broadcasted live on all IMAX and fake IMAX screens across the country.
Matt_Y
· 7 months ago
Ya man I totally agree, IMAX used to be unreal and the films that were filmed with IMAX camera on Imax screens were seriously worth it. I was totally down to pay the extra fee cus I knew it wouldve been well worth it. Now it's such a ripoff since it's just a regular shit screen with the picture blown up a little bit. There used to be an IMAX in Vancouver that was a dome that projected the movie all the way from floor to ceiling and on the sides of your peripherals, it was amazing. This IMAX guy is being a douche bag and ruining his company's reputation. IMAX used to be awesome and unique, now they're selling out and being just like everyone else. You're doing a good thing Aziz, and it's been great to follow your battle. If you can get Kanye to put your cousin on the front page of his blog, then you can debate the shit out of this CEO asshole. Or since you know Ye, just get Yeezy to drop a new diss track on this fool!
Matt Gourley
· 7 months ago
Fess up IMAX, you're caught and you know it. Anything other than an admission on your part from here on out is going to look very Bush administration. People don't go for that anymore, remember?
Frank Miller
· 7 months ago
Aziz,
This is truly criminal. I like your airplane analogy. I think I'll boycott IMAX entirely and not give that company and CEO any more money until they admit that the smaller screens do not warrant the extra $5. I enjoy seeing an event movie on a real IMAX screen, but I'll skip it now. Plus the IMAX in my area doesn't get the good movies until months after the films have already opened. Why would I pay an extra $5 for a movie that's 2-3 months old? I'm not paying $10 to rent a movie on DVD.
Ernest
· 7 months ago
I had the same experience. Totally unfair and illegitimate business practice. I want my $5 dollars back!
Dante Kleinberg
· 7 months ago
Holy crap! I'm very happy I found your blog (from avclub.com). I went to see The Dark Knight at the AMC Burbank at the "IMAX" and was hugely disappointed. However, I'd never been to an IMAX before so I thought it was just not all it was cracked up to be. To me, the screen seemed the same size as a normal screen. I felt like I'd spent an extra $5 for no reason, but because I had no prior IMAX experience, I didn't know enough to ask for my money back. I wish I had.
What's worse is I'd already seen The Dark Knight at a regular theater, and was only going again because I loved the movie and was curious about IMAX. What a rip! Plus I drove all the way from f***ing Canoga Park for it when I could have just gone to the Winnetka 21 or anywhere else for that matter. Damn it! This was months ago and now I'm upset all over again.
Ferngully
· 7 months ago
I think the question on everyone's mind is: will the debate be shown in IMAX?
goldiestereo
· 7 months ago
imax is wrong - we're on your side. i'm not paying $5 more for the same size screen.
Jacob
· 7 months ago
Please go on live tv and rip Richard Gelfond a new asshole, or at least get your five dollars back?
aziz is boring
· 7 months ago
aziz, dude, get a life.
brad skaar
· 7 months ago
fuck you, it takes a complete loser to post that comment on someone elses blog, who doesnt have a life, you have lots of time to think of that clever name
God
· 7 months ago
Get a life? Says the retard reading other people's blogs?
Go 40-man raid your mother to get full World of Warcraft experience you toolbag.
William
· 7 months ago
Go 40-man raid your mother to get full World of Warcraft experience you toolbag???
Says some guy who knows more about World of Warcraft than I ever hope to.
ryan
· 7 months ago
Gelfond made $11 million off of Star Trek last weekend, and says this in his defense:
“IMAX did 15% of Star Trek’s total domestic box office in the whole country on only 138 screens," which is less than 2% of all movie theatres, says Gelfond. "This is compared to the earlier releases of Watchmen, where we did 12% of the box office and Monsters and Aliens, where we did around 10%. Clearly a lot of people are going back to IMAX theaters.”
No, clearly a lot of people want to see a real IMAX movie. What he doesn't mention is whether or not the people who paid $11 million were satisfied with their "IMAX experience." Most people shelled out that much cash expecting something they didn't get. Just because he made the money doesn't mean he should have made it.
I should have asked for my money back like Aziz.
RobK208
· 7 months ago
I agree the comments on the first blog were mostly people who have nothing better to do than go around and heckle people that they would never really go face to face and say those things to. If I'm gonna pay $5 extra it better be a frakking 72' screen. If it's 71'6" I'd still be pissed. False advertising. Call it 3D or Enhanced or even the Viva Viagra Version, just not IMAX. I've got your back
RobK208
· 7 months ago
Most of the comments on the first blog were from hecklers who wouldn't have the balls to walk up to you and even say that they didn't like the show you were on let alone cuss you out. The internet is truly a gift and a curse. They could call it 3D or Enhanced or even the Viva Viagra Version, but to call it IMAX is wrong. Anything short of 72' should not be allowed to be called IMAX. You've got my support.
Bryan
· 7 months ago
I didn't know about this until Aziz pointed this out. I won't be seeing an IMAX movie for a long long time.
Stand By Your Principles!
· 7 months ago
You got ripped off. And the CEO is a tool. It isn't really up for debate. He owes you, and everyone else who got had, $5. You pay for IMAX, you should get IMAX. Not some watered down version of it. I'm for a debate! And maybe the CEO should ask actual theater-goers when they leave the theater if they felt the IMAX-lite experience was worth it.
Emily
· 7 months ago
that website has a poll up on how people feel about this topic. here are the current stats:
What do you think? Would you feel duped paying for a smaller IMAX screen?
Yes! A bigger price should mean a bigger screen. 88.9%
No! The quality makes up for the size. 2.8%
I'll just go to the regular movies 8.3%
that speaks for itself!
Anna
· 7 months ago
He would crush you hate to tell ya. He's been running IMAX for years and years, it's a world class company, publicly traded with amazing professionals on staff
Graham
· 7 months ago
^ IMAX employee
reen53
· 7 months ago
I definitely agree, I went to see star trek at an "IMAX" at an AMC and it was barely bigger then a normal screen. HUGE disappointment
Bobby
· 7 months ago
The size of the screen and seating arrangement both matter in this issue. A Big Mac that's the size of a double cheeseburger is a double cheeseburger. Just because they both have the same grade of meat and bread doesn't make it the same burger.
wringz
· 7 months ago
you fight the good fight Aziz.
DylanSFC
· 7 months ago
i'm with you all the way aziz. i spent 15 bucks at a fake imax about a month back and felt dirty afterwards. heres hoping gelfond takes you up on the debate.
adam
· 7 months ago
Aziz. You are a fucking idiot. I hate how you look and act. You don't know anything either.
Danny
· 7 months ago
Wow. Get a fucking life, you pathetic excuse for a human being. It's frightening that people like you have the ability to communicate.
Greg
· 7 months ago
I'm not an Aziz fan---I barely knew who he was before this flap. So nobody can accuse me of being a blind follower. But I don't see how anyone can be defending IMAX in this argument unless you work for IMAX. If IMAX wants to make smaller screens, that's fine, but brand it as something else and charge only an extra dollar, not five. IMAX's arrogance in how they're responding to this PR nightmare is actually pissing me off more than trying to pull one over on us. They know that people are unhappy, but they're trying to spin. I'll boycott IMAX altogether just because I don't want any of my money going to those smug bastards.
Jake B
· 7 months ago
Aziz is right. the only time I go to see IMAX is because of the screen size.
Adrian Hickman
· 7 months ago
Hey. Aziz,
I absolutely agree with you. They simply cannot build enough proper IMAX screens, so they ruin what used to be a special experience by downsizing it and still calling it the same thing.
The sad part is that I am sure the film looked great, and had you wanted to see STAR TREK, that would be fine, but you wanted to "experience" STAR TREK in IMAX, and IMAX is supposed to denote a special experience, not faux IMAX
The sad thing is that this is not new. Going back to Cinerama, which was the 50's equivalent of IMAX, they would simply show a film on a Cinerama screen that wasn;t shot in the CINERAMA process, and still advertise the hell out of it being CINERAMA. It has happened all through the years, and people put up with it. They need to stop.
In the end, you are correct. You paid a premium for something that you did not get, and expected to get, based on previous experience as well as IMAX reputation.
I totally agree, and public relations alone should tell Mr. Gelfond that his response is actually dismissive and insulting, and he really could have diffused this with better tact.
Deepak
· 7 months ago
Mr. Gelfrond is wrong, and should know it. There's no need to defend these pseudo-IMAX screens. I'm not gonna bash IMAX entirely because I've got a real one very close to where I live and am very satisfied with it (waiting on Transformers 2!), but if this digital IMAX problem becomes a pandemic, something needs to be done. Aziz, you've taken an awesome first step towards rectifying this.
Kevin
· 7 months ago
For me, IMAX means a huge enveloping screen likely to enduce heart attacks in old people and panic attacks in... panicky people. Labelling a 25ft screen IMAX is a load of shit! I'm sure thousands of people left Star Trek saying "... yeah the movie was good but that IMAX shit just ain't worth it. IMAX can caress my balls while she blows me."
In fact that's a direct quote from a ten year old I overheard leaving the theatre.
Alex
· 7 months ago
I really don't get why people would try to defend a company for lying about its product.
Nate
· 7 months ago
Dear IMAX, I also think this is bullshit, do not misconstrue my comment - this is a clever ploy but deception nonetheless. I will gladly pay more for a REAL IMAX screen, invest your resources in making that possible more often.
Johnny Hugel
· 7 months ago
What a joke that CEO is. There should totally be a live, televised debate. Maybe Current or someone can use CNN's debate polls.
And if someone's counting this was the first time I spent the $5 for fake IMAX and I feel ripped off especially we had to drive 25 minutes to get there.
erika
· 7 months ago
you should add a line on parks and rec about this... not sure how it could work into the plot and/or if you do any writing on the show, but saying something on TV would be hilarious annnnd maybe work at getting the CEO's attention.
kristin
· 7 months ago
I think it's stupid that they're calling a smaller screen an IMAX screen. I was going to suggest that some friends and I go down to the IMAX theater for them to see Star Trek, but now I guess I won't. And also, for the refund, they expect you to walk out of the movie? What if you didn't have time to see it again (as you pointed out), or more relevantly, how can you say that you didn't like it if you didn't watch the whole thing?
...Screw them. I'm with you, Mr. Ansari.
ksk
· 7 months ago
I'm with you Aziz. I went to the new IMAX near my place, excited because I found out that it just opened on friday. I was really looking forward to seeing the movie on a super huge screen but when I got there I thought I had stepped into the wrong theatre. Even the guy sitting next to me was complaining about it. I figured it was just this particular location and then I read your blog post. Whoever's responsible at IMAX is cheating a lot of people.
Bill Bixby
· 7 months ago
I support Aziz Ansari
notouchtolose
· 7 months ago
UNBELIEVABLE that IMAX would defend this. Sure, it's an "experience", so go ahead and name it as such. For unsuspecting movie goers to walk into a cinema with a regular sized screen, when IMAX (at least now) knows that people associate their brand with a HUGE screen.... It's ludicrous. And don't let big companies push you around. LABEL YOUR SHITTY B-LEVEL PRODUCT APPROPRIATELY IMAX. And that letter from the CEO was condescending and patronizing. Way to smooth things over.....
Tom
· 7 months ago
I'm with you Aziz, you have my support!
Drew Vinson
· 7 months ago
"And consumers are confirming this with their continued purchases of tickets."
I would argue that consumers are being tricked time and time again by this bullshit; that's why they continue to buy the tickets. I don't know how long they've been pulling this but I'd like to see how many people, if they had the choice to go to the $10 theater vs the $15 ripoff fake imax, would choose the imax. I'm pretty sure this time and time again arguement wouldn't hold up under that kind of scrutiny.
NPP
· 7 months ago
Just because its not as big an issue as Darfur doesn't mean people should just be passive about consumer exploitation. When the theaters all doubled ticket prices at the same time, the country collectively whispered "mutherfcker!" to itself and took it up the butt. Maybe it was harder to fight that kind of thing then, but the net, the 'sphere, the cloud, and the tweet all make for good boycott tools, and the movie industry really deserves to be slapped for this.
Also, F8CK IMAX shirts with proceeds to Darfur = genius.
triffo
· 7 months ago
hey man, i don't know if this helps, but here in Australia, Hoyts (one of Australia's leading cinema complex) has IMAX and it costs $A22 compared to the regular screen which is $A16. And yes Hoyt's IMAX is smaller than the regular IMAX.
I think all cinemas should should be IMAX digital (cause the quality is better) at the same cost as the normal cinemas, and the normal cinemas should be cheaper, cause the quality of them is pretty shit. My LCD screen at home is better than most cinemas
by the park and rec, kicks ass! no seriously it really does!
Hammermememer
· 7 months ago
"all cinemas should should be IMAX digital"
Yes. As long as the stock studios film on fits the aspect ratio of the screen. Until then it'll be like watching standard def on a High def tv set and that's just wrong. Sad thing is the younger gen will get used to it and wonder what the fuss is about similar to when most original theatres were fighting with multiplexes in the 80's. Now we simply accept any movie on a poorly lit and in terrible sounding theatres. LIEMAX experience should be the new general standard but not for more $$$. They should be happy ppl are going back to theatres. By cheating those who are obviously trying to stay loyal to the experience of going to a theatre they're inevitably pushing everyone toward home cinema cos in the long run it'll be less expensive to simply steam it to your big-ass flat screen.
I saw TDK at (the only) IMAX in Melbourne, Australia and was blown away. Only finding out later a few scenes were shot in true IMAX 70mm. It was a great film so no real complaints but with more features leaning toward doing the same and charging full (IMAX) price for a few scenes isn't worth the extra $$$. If they want sitting in another true IMAX theatre it'll only be for features captured soley on 70mm. Not interested in anything else.
bobbydigital
· 7 months ago
To add insult to injury, Star Trek was not even shot in IMAX format to begin with, to quote: Star Trek was shot in cinemascope, an anamorphic format that squeezes the image on the film, but projects it through lenses that stretch it back out horizontally to its 1:2.35 aspect ratio. C-scope is run through a normal movie camera vertically, (90 degrees to a still camera) and exposes a frame taking up four perfs of film - about half the film area of a 35mm still camera.
You can read more about it if you search boingboing gadgets for IMAX and Star Trek. So you got ripped off twice.
twitter/bobbydigital
Fake Steve Buscemi
· 7 months ago
YAY! YOU ROCK AZIZ! YOU ARE PRETTY BRAVE FOR DOING THIS! GOOOO!!!
THX
· 7 months ago
This is why I will continue to watch and laugh at everything Aziz is in. The first post was funny as fuck, and seeing the comments bashing him made it even funnier.
Amelia
· 7 months ago
I TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU AZIZ!! its some bullshit and americans should not stand for it!!! IMAX EXPERIENCE?? FALSE!!
Doug
· 7 months ago
I guess "The Imax Experience" is similar to hiring a hooker for "the girlfriend experience." It's kind of the same thing but at the same time not at all the same thing. Although, much like with a hooker, Imax screwed you and everyone else who's expecting something more.
Carry on the good fight, Aziz! I agree with you 100%.
Dane Deasy
· 7 months ago
I agree with Aziz. It's a lie that they are perpetrating on the consumer. Deception is the name of their game. Total crap. Why don't they just call the new screens "IMAX branded fancy Digital Screens!" rather than trying to trick people into expecting something it isn't. TELEVISION DEBATE FTW!
CEO of TNT
· 7 months ago
If this gets you to stop bashing our great channel, I'm all for it.
nifer
· 7 months ago
"And consumers are confirming this with their continued purchases of tickets.”
I think that part is really interesting, because these consumers are probably continuing to buy tickets because they don't know they're being ripped off. That doesn't confirm that ppl disagree with you, that confirms that this IMAX CEO is a fucking idiot.
liquidhalcyon
· 7 months ago
I'm with you, Aziz! Get 'em! I almost got ripped on the same type of "IMAX" screen, before my friend warned me about it.
traeblain
· 7 months ago
Cinemark in my area chose to call it DX or XD (something like that) instead of the IMAX...get them though. I would have assumed the same thing if it said IMAX.
They should then air the debate in IMAX theaters (real ones) to ensure people get the true experience!
Kyle Woollums
· 7 months ago
It's too bad that IMAX is continuing this marketing disaster. The "true" IMAX experience is a fantastic one... one that simply put, cannot be duplicated digitally at this time. That's why IMAX's digital screens are so small... the rushed-to-marked digital projectors can only play on the brands tiniest screens.
Real IMAX is breathtaking...
Digital IMAX is not. It's almost not even worth it to see it in those theatres... you can't even tell that a film was shot in IMAX in those theatres because the digital quality is so poor.
Having worked at a "real" IMAX, I know why people love IMAX. Evidently the corporate offices don't.
Wayne
· 7 months ago
Yeah Aziz! GET EM SON!
Megan
· 7 months ago
You are absolutely right. Also...there is basically no fucking way that you are NOT right. Anyone who tries to argue otherwise clearly has their head up their ass and/or cannot read/reason/appreciate the value and principle of our barter system (i.e your $5 is worth something in return). Besides, they messed with Star Trek. Enough said.
The value of my opinion on this matter might be somewhat lessened, since I'm pretty sure that I'm basically in love with you because you are awesome, and this renders me biased. But IMAX is going down. This is a war.
Brianne
· 7 months ago
I totally support you, Aziz!
Henry Martin
· 7 months ago
I agree with Aziz.
Dear IMAX,
Please stop lying to us.
Signed, A Former IMAX fan
CJ
· 7 months ago
Keep fighting the good fight Aziz. I'm glad this is getting some attention. I've been telling everyone I know about it after I went to the AMC here in NYC to see Watchmen in what I thought was going to be a real IMAX screen and instead of huge ass screen I got a regular screen and had to pay extra for that "experience". I was pissed like you too and just started telling everyone I know about the differences and to avoid that AMC 25 at Times Sq. b/c the IMAX theater is a rip off. And you can tell that people want the real IMAX b/c the theater at Lincoln Ctr. w/ the 72ft screen - their showings of Star Trek are continuously sold out. I think getting the word out there and letting people know that they are indeed being ripped off is a good thing.
t-dog
· 7 months ago
dude, nothing but support.
gelfond looks at a bunch of forum trolls, and his generation doesn't get it. "wait! they're calling him gay cuz I'm right! I'm a genius! let's keep ripping them off!"
Vendrell
· 7 months ago
Go Aziz! Fight the good fight.
ax
· 7 months ago
To: IMAX CEO.
As a consumer I would like to experience IMAX in a 72ft screen. If you dont rebrand the IMAX experience in small screen theaters with a different name, customers like me wont even bother looking up and driving to the nearest IMAX theatre to be disappointed. Also based on last 3-4 movies as data points you want to brag about the success of your fraud, looks like you are one of the golden parachute CEO type!
Michael Midnight
· 7 months ago
Aziz I fully support you, and your call for the IMAX CEO to bring this matter to a public debate. I, along with a friend, became victims of this sad IMAX Degradation back in early 2009 when "The Dark Knight" went back on the big screen. My friend, having the better eye, noticed that the screen was far too small for be considered an IMAX screen, but I just couldn't believe it. IMAX couldn't steep to something that dastardly. Sadly it appears they have.
Luckily for me, I'm close to the Arclight Cinemas and watch movies there when I can. Though I hope this movement gives rise for a change, I think what we can do to really stick it to IMAX is to avoid their "regular" IMAX screens. Though I won't go as far as saying skipping all IMAXs, for I want people near real IMAX screens to see films there, I hope by skipping the whored-out-IMAX named theatres out, it will send a stronger message to force change.
maggie
· 7 months ago
you paid to see a fucking IMAX movie on an IMAX screen.... they falsely advertised. what is there to fucking debate!?!?!?!
DesolePas
· 7 months ago
Aziz's post contains a R. Brooks-endorsed message.
IMAX is full of shit.
And to those saying Aziz is petty, then do you think "Consumer Reports" magazine is petty?
I think it's just basic business ethics to not be dishonest to your customers. IMAX got caught and should deal with the ramifications/act as an example regarding what businesses SHOULD NOT be doing. Namely, falsifying their product's worth while hiding under a name-brand guise that is misleading.
Bob The Builder
· 7 months ago
I definitely agree with Aziz on this. IMAX is using it name to get more money out of movie goers that are already paying expensive movie tickets (my star trek ticket was 10.50 for a normal screen! where as less than a decade ago tickets were closer to 5 bucks) . IMAX is falsely advertising their product and needs to be held accountable!!!
15 dollars for a movie ticket is rediculous GO AZIZ!
Ztraveler
· 7 months ago
Aziz, I've worked for Regal Cinemas--in city that holds their cooperate headquarters--and personally detest the tread toward surcharging for "experiences". These giant cooperations of Regal and AMC are all about optimizing the processes surrounding watching a movie to squeeze every drop of profit they can from the huddled masses that thrill to cinematic tales. While there's so many rants available here, I like that you have focused your discussion on one issue: the surcharges placed on fake experiences.
Our viewing of movies these days is already muddled with so many distractions by these corporate chains. I often ask myself "what movie did I pay to see?" by the time the last trailer unrolls. After enduring 20 minutes of "Preshow" extended ads, two minutes for National CineMedia's trailers, 4-6 MPAA approved trailers, I'm often exhausted! It's to the point that patrons can nearly count on being 5-10 minutes late, fumbling through the aisles, crashing down in a nosy heap and still not miss the roll of the credits. Now, after peddling the preshow time to any number of hungry media outlets desperate for audiences, Regal and AMC expect those of us who love movies to dump $5 extra bucks on top of the exorbitant ten dollars we normally dish to endure a fake-ass IMAX? We have every right to demand a higher standard.
I'm one of those people that adores going to the movies. I love the process of finding a time, organizing groups of friends, and arriving 2-3 hours early for midnight shows (which doesn't mean as much in NYC as it did in Knoxville, TN). I still haven't invested in home theater systems or Blu-Ray because I hold theatre going to be wholly different, something amazing, quasi-spiritual. And even after working behind the scenes, learning to thread the polyester strand through the intermittent sprocket, and seeing the cold-business behind distribution, I stand behind watching movies multiple times in the darken auditoriums for one reason: immersion. And once the first frame of Abrams's Star Trek came on screen, you wanted nothing more than to be immersed, to be baptized in this new vision for the initial mission of the starship Enterprise. You wanted this bad enough to pay $5 extra. And what you got instead was disappointment.
IMAX format of years past has a great potential to immerse. That's one reason why documentary filmmakers were one of the first adapters of this medium. The presentation used to be stunning! I recall the advertisements of screens 7 stories high, with 6 channels of discrete sound. Sadly, those innocent days are in danger with practices such as "The IMAX Experience." I say the disappointment of a slightly larger yet not 7 story screen is enough to distract your full immersion.
I caught the midnight show of Watchmen on the smaller IMAX screen at the AMC Empire 25 off 42nd St/Times Square. I thought to myself where's the subwoofer? Shouldn't that boom be louder? And even if the screen is a bit larger, shouldn't the rows be steeper? For the first time in these smaller IMAX screens, our $5 bought us distraction not immersion. It's high time we call these dubious business practices out and expect what the adverts claim to provide: a true IMAX experience. And with the power of tribes like AICN and social networking outlets like Twitter and Facebook, we'll find those who are outraged by these changes and hold AMC and Regal accountable. Best of luck in the word wars to come!
lara
· 7 months ago
Aziz, you are right! Way to stick it to big business! About time some one said something about this instead of letting them swindle people out of the extra cash! Get those bastards!
Kevin
· 7 months ago
Tear Imax up Aziz.
Jimmy Barrett
· 7 months ago
I agree with you, Aziz, 100%. IMAX is totally ripping all of us off. Its bullshit and completely unfair. BRING EM DOWN!!!!
ExpensiveHat
· 7 months ago
Today will be memorable. It will be known as the day I found a new hero... Aziz Ansari.
Cotie
· 7 months ago
Keep up the crusade! Forget Imax anyway, they tried to steal Real D technology too, so lame.
Ayyaz
· 7 months ago
You're totally right, All they're doing is slapping a big "IMAX" sticker on these movies, and selling them for higher prices. It's the same exact thing really, I wish I had thought about doing that whole talking to the manager thing when I first saw an "IMAX" film at AMC. I felt completely ripped off, and since then I've boycotted all IMAX, and told all my friends about how it's a total lie. MY SUGGESTIONS: 1. Go on Oprah 2. Make a reference to this in your show, Parks and Recreation, LET'S MAKE A COMMITTEE! 3. In your next television interview, call this dude out.
I'm also sending these blog posts to FOX ,NBC, and ABC, to see if we can get this on the national news.
Aziz Obama, bringing Change to the Bigscreen.
Elak Swindell
· 7 months ago
I love IMAX in the stand-alone theaters for their immersive qualities due to the huge screen. When you watch one of the films, you experience being in the situation on the screen, especially the 3D movies. But when it comes to these converted smaller screens in normal film houses like AMC, Regal, etc., they can not even come close to being labeled IMAX. The feeling of immersion into the film is lost and the sound, at least in my local theater complex, is deafening. I've only seen one normal blockbuster movie in the "IMAX Experience" format and that was "Watchmen". I liked the movie since I love the comic, but when it came to watching it on the so-called IMAX bigger screen, it was just a glorified bigger widescreen film with a louder soundtrack, sometimes ear-damaging loud. BFD. It didn't even fill the whole screen like a normal IMAX movie would in their stand-alone theaters. So, I really don't even have any further desire to see a film in this format since a normal theater will give the same experience for less money and my ears will survive afterwards.
But, I do have to give kudos to the IMAX 3D movies shown on the converted screens. They look great and have the same beautiful depth of field-sequential 3D as that of the normal nature and science IMAX films. This surprises me, though, since the process uses polarized lens for the glasses instead of electronic flicker glasses, but whatever works best wins out. "Monsters vs. Aliens" was not only a great and funny film, but the 3D on the IMAX screen was something not to be missed. Sure, it would have been 100 times better on a normal giant IMAX screen, filling the whole frame and making me feel like I'm there with the characters, but the film still looked excellent. The 3D films are the only ones I will willingly pay to see on the theater IMAX screens.
A perfect example of how dumb the IMAX Experience can be for a blockbuster (not in 3D) can be can be found on the "Dark Knight" Special Edition DVD. You are given the chance to see selected scenes filmed in that format on your TV. Was it in any way different than the scenes in the actual film? Absolutely not. They were a total waste of DVD space that could have been used for something else, like more making-of material.
Matt
· 7 months ago
Right on, Aziz. I'm very much on your side. I'm glad you brought it to light and I'm going to be checking from now on.
If Mountain Dew sold dixie cups of their beverage, charged full price and called it "the 2 liter experience", people would up in arms across the board.
IANBLACKLEY
· 7 months ago
Do it. They should work on customer satisfaction. Customers run the business, if you are not satisfied they should do whatever to make you satisfied with your purchase.
More Pete
· 7 months ago
Just entered the fray, Aziz -- I'm co-author of a book about empathy in business. This is one of those counter-examples, I would say...
For the people here who really want to make an issue out of this, and at the same time direct some headaches the those running IMAX at the top direct your complaints to this address:
By all means be as direct and mature with your complaints/concerns as possible. Remember this is about standing up for what is right and wrong about their branding decision, not to reak havoc upon them. Also remember that as a people we can make corporations change their attitude toward the way they treat us as consumers - if we go about it the right way.
Good luck to you all and thank you Aziz for being another ballsy consumer to stand up for themselves :D
Jon
· 7 months ago
"I’ve been dying to see the movie and I finally had a window of time to see it. I was going to watch the movie. I didn’t want to deal with that hassle and not get to see it."
You're trying to have your cake and eat it too. You can't get on a soap-box and claim you have principals while not following them yourself.
Alex
· 7 months ago
You really are self-diluted!
1. You threatened to use your massive Twitter following to somehow hurt a chain -- but directed this at a local theater manager.
2. You asked for $10 ($5 x 2) back and, instead, received two movie passes (valued at $20 ($10 x 2), and you feel "robbed".
3. Your outrage is based on your feeling duped into seeing a movie on an IMAX screen that is smaller than what you believed and assumed to be a "normal" IMAX screen -- so you watched the movie and then complained after the fact.
4. You've attempted to back-petal your Twitter threat by claiming it was a joke -- either in keeping with the fact you're a horrible comedian (and something not one of your fans picked up on, which speaks volumes) or that it was just an attempt to disarm one of the arguements about you having a un-deserved sense of celebrity.
5. You now demand/request a televised debate with the CEO of the company -- a demand that is so far beyond rational, it's becoming funny.
For your fans, they're following you blindly and you've become the poster child for whiny consumers who want as much as they can suck out of any company who's name ends with "Inc.".
For those that don't know you, you've painted the perfect picture of a man who's minor celebrity has pumped his ego beyond his own understanding. Far cry from the young, talented comedian from UCBT. You've come a long way, or so you think. Calm the fuck down, you're beyond yourself.
A
· 7 months ago
I agree with Aziz, you're all a bunch of fucking morons. (lol @ putting words in his mouth).
But seriously, they are bullshit IMAX screens...
I haven't gone to any IMAX in Montreal other than the science museum,but if I got fucked like that I'd be pissed too.
Simple solution (which we all know won't happen), do the whole rebranding thing, that way the consumer knows what he's in for.
Rich Gedney
· 7 months ago
I recently viewed the new "Star Trek" film on a "Mini-Max" (which is what it should be called) and enjoyed the film.However I noticed only a slight increase in screen size.Which was very disappointing.I agree that they are misrepresenting the "Imax Experience",I went in thinking that they had probably demolished an adjacent theater to enlarge the screen and saw that they had only removed seats and brought the screen forward.Very disappointing experience.The Imax name should not be associated with this product.To spend time branding a product then to cut it in half!WTF.Bad play Imax folks!
Tim From Albany NY
· 7 months ago
I agree w/ you 100% about this non-issue. I almost pooped my pants when I read we were getting an IMAX theater here in Albany NY. I went to a real IMAX theater in Boston as a kid... decided to check out 'the watchmen'... I was a fan of the real IMAX & the watchmen comic going in... I cam out very very disappointed w/ both.
I honestly thought the ticket taker directed me to the wrong theater. The screen was tiny, and the sound was waaaaaaay too loud. NEVER AGAIN
Rzasa
· 7 months ago
Didn't you stop to question how a small standard theater could fit an IMAX screen before you paid the extra $5? What kind of moron wastes more money on an already overpriced experience without knowing exactly what is included? If it's not clearly detailed online, call someone. Don't start a bullshit debate with a figurehead CEO who doesn't give a rat's ass about your whining. What a puss.
harlan talbot
· 7 months ago
I purposely did not go to see Star Trek in IMAX cause the last time I went to see 'IMAX' at the AMC Bay Street in Emeryville it was fake 'imax' and I didn't want to get ripped-off AGAIN. What was a cool, unique branded experience is now (for me) something to be wary of. There's usually just one IMAX in big cities - like the Metreon in SF - Bay Area brothers and sisters - you've been warned.
Justin
· 7 months ago
A dance off would be hilarious compared to a debate.
Alex
· 7 months ago
Wow, with jokes like that, you'll be making great jokes like "I'll use my twitter on you!" in no time!
tinyhands
· 7 months ago
I have to say that I don't feel very strongly about it, but I support Aziz. Rather than taking a principled stand, Gelfond defends his company with the "but our customers don't MIND being screwed" defense.
Mel
· 7 months ago
I agree! I have totally been duped by the Bullshit IMAX Screen. Booooooo. DEBATE!
Jen
· 7 months ago
I was so excited when a bunch of new IMAXs opened in NYC. But then I went to one and saw that it was bull. I love IMAX. But I'll only go to the one true IMAX - Lincoln Square - from now on, even if I have to wait in line for 2 hours to see a film on opening day.
strangedavid
· 7 months ago
All I want is to be able to know what I'm getting when I go. That's it. Tell me if it's the HUGE screen or the super-duper-still-awesome-but-not-huge-awesome screen.
It's the reason I haven't gone to IMAX here in Indianapolis -- I don't know what I'd be getting.
D
· 7 months ago
IMAX vs imax I went to see The Dark Knight in IMAX last summer, and I went to see Watchmen in imax this spring.
The opening scene of TDK had people literally GASPING at the sight of the aerial views and high speed action sequences in IMAX.
Watchmen in imax almost put us all to sleep. I couldn't tell the difference between imax and a regular cinema. It was a huge disappointment, affected my opinion of the movie as a whole (negatively), and left me with a feeling of Why didn't that look as awesome as TDK?
nikkyole
· 7 months ago
it really sucks that people can't get a joke. He's a comedian people! the twitter thing was a joke. He didn't actually say that to the manager
god let one misunderstanding out on the internet and you get a whole mass of irrational dorks.
I'm with you. They should demand the same price for both screens. I'll pay maybe a dollar or two more but if i can get a better experience for the same amount of money.
It makes sense to me. I don't really get what people are getting all confused and angry about
stupidity=confusion=anger=idiocy=making a fool of yourself
both sides: think for a sec, will you?
Alex
· 7 months ago
I think the true outrage about this isn't at IMAX, it's at Aziz for bombing on that joke.
As having been slashdotted a couple of times in the past, I can totally sympathise (not under this alias). You're gonna get scrutinized more closely than a vice presidential candidate.
I'm in 100% agreeance with your stance. Being forced to watch endless commercials at the time the movie was officially scheduled to start is bad enough: paying $5 for the "privilege" of watching HD playback on what used to be a regular movie screen is shit, pure and simple. This is NOT IMAX and is diluting the brand - which will, in short time, render their product worthless (i.e. the 72' screen will be labelled "IMAX Plus" or something equally brainless and "IMAX" will be the label for paying $5 extra to watch a movie on a screen roughly the size we used to watch it 15 years ago before multiplexes were invented.)
Complete bullshit.
Alex
· 7 months ago
In Darfur, they REALLY DO force you to sit and watch the movie. Seriously, that place is fucked up.
I'm sure the end of a shotgun barrel was pressed against your spine while being "forced" to watch your movie/previews/commercials.
S. R. Meaney
· 7 months ago
Damn right the smaller IMAX is a rip. If I want that small, I'll buy myself a projector and hook it up to my blueray player and project the entire five seasons of LOST on my bedroom wall. At least I'll be comfortable when the blueray induced headaches start.
Gaskill
· 7 months ago
Aziz Ansari, you pathetic, petty mutherfucker. The world has gone to hell in a hand-basket and you whinning about 5 extra bucks you dropped on a bad showing of a good movie. Fuck you.
aziz
· 7 months ago
Ugh. I know this is stupid and ther are more important things. That's why I made the comment about Darfur. Its not petty though, they are deceiving thousands and thousands of customers and its wrong. So... FUCK YOU SIR.
Benjamin Epps
· 7 months ago
I'm with you Aziz. I went to a MINIMAX ('cause it's little and big all at the same time) at AMC Century City this past weekend. I was skeptical prior to going in, because I had never heard of an IMAX at this location, but the Bridge IMAX screening time didn't work with my schedule. So, I gave it a whirl. And "wow" was I surprised when I saw the MINIMAX screen's massive smallness. I kinda wanted to leave, but my wife would have been pissed at my nerdy protest. Plus, I also really wanted to see Star Trek (which was pretty bad-ass by the way - nice job J.J. and crew). So, of course, I bit the bullet and stayed.
The MINIMAX theater did sound great. But, the digital projection wasn't properly calibrated. The black levels were far too crushed, which didn't really work well for an already dark space movie. I work as a freelance color correctionist for films from time to time so I can be picky about color, but the IMAX has never disappointed me before. The MINIMAX digital projection was definitely not properly calibrated for Star Trek.
I am a huge IMAX supporter. Hell, I own stock in the company. I have for 9 years. So, I am on their side 99% of the time. But, these MINIMAX screens are not up to traditional IMAX standards and need to be corrected. Toute suite! Because as a consumer, it was certainly was not worth $15 to see a way too dark version of a movie on a slightly bigger screen with slightly better sound. And as a stockholder, it concerns me even more, that IMAX thinks that they can fudge their specifications and get away with it with the consumers. Their SPECS are their business model! Their SPECS are what makes them IMAX! Don't mess with the SPECS! (By the way. I'm applying for a trademark for MINIMAX today, so you're gonna have to buy it from me, IMAX. Booyah! ... I may take stock options depending on the outcome of this debate. Thank you.)
willwhutson
· 7 months ago
In that article Gelfond uses the logic that IMAX screens did a monster amount (15%) of the Star Trek opening gross while only having (2%) of the screens nationwide.
That's some pretty shady math, I'd like to see the overlap between the total # of screens start trek opened on - probably north of 3k - and the total # of screens IMAX is on - and then use THAT overlap to see what type of "choice" consumers were actually given. He thinks that his IMAX brand actually compelled more people to see THE movie event of May.
Really? Brand Dilution INDEED.
BOYCOTT IMAX.
yllama
· 7 months ago
I'm down with boycotting IMAX. Richard Gelfond ought to be ashamed of himself.
ben
· 7 months ago
I agreee 110% was Aziz!
LIEMAX screens stink!
They whole argument about the LIEMAX experience being more than the giant-ass screen is debatable. It reminds me of my asshole audiophile friends who try to convince me that a mono Coltrane recording on reel-to-reel is *so* much better than anything else.
I want a giant eye-fucking screen that makes me nauseated for the first ten minutes of the film. Furthermore, I could give two tugs of a dead dogs cock about the 'superior db range of the left rear speaker channel' (note to audiophiles, yes I know that is bullshit. And fuck you.)
I will be seeing Aziz at Bonnaroo is a few short weeks and this pleases me! Immensely.
ben
· 7 months ago
Goddamnit.
I let the thoughts flow from my head to the keyboard and my first sentence is "They whole argument about the LIEMAX experience being more than the giant-ass screen is debatable. "
I didn't mean 'they' I meant 'the'.
I lack of an edit function is making my OCD flare up. Big time.
Roy
· 7 months ago
I'm on Team Aziz. I paid $20 to see Star Trek yesterday on the Lincoln Square IMAX in Manhattan (72 ft. screen) and it was totally worth it. If I had paid that price and walked into a theater with a regular sized screen, I'd be just as angry as he is.
IMAX CEO Richard Gelfond is a liar, and seriously delusional if he thinks that people don't associate IMAX with big screens. That's how they built their fucking brand in the first place! Just label the small screens differently, jackass. And give Aziz his $5!
Big Sur Real Estate
· 7 months ago
I love it. I try to avoid IMAX movies now, unless I am in a large city where I know it is a full sized IMAX screen.
Alex
· 7 months ago
YES! YES! COMMON SENSE!
I'm sorry, this was the first time I saw someone with common sense on this page.
peterwknox
· 7 months ago
Yeah, this is bullshit. I want to be able to say I saw an IMAX movie and then not have to clarify that it wasn't REALLY an IMAX movie.
Alex
· 7 months ago
So, your issue is you'd be embarrassed?
You own an iPhone. I bet you one IMAX movie ticket.
Jason Cross
· 7 months ago
Regardless of what you think of Aziz or his personality or tactics, there is a fairly objective issue here:
You're paying the same additional price ($5 more) to see an "IMAX" version of a movie whether it's on a modified theater where you just sit closer to a normal-sized screen or whether you truly see it on a huge screen. The price upsell is the same, but the final product is not. Yes, the smaller screen IMAX retrofits have special IMAX digital projectors and upgraded sound systems, which is good. They could probably charge more for that. But if they make no distinction - in name nor price - between that and the traditional enormous-screen IMAX, they're being disingenuous with customers.
Zizzy
· 7 months ago
I agree with you. IMAX Lite does not equal IMAX.
I've seen a number of movies in the past year in 'real' IMAX both at the Whittaker Science Center in Harrisburg, PA, and at Baltimore's Maryland Science Center.
This past weekend I saw 'Star Trek' at our local AMC's version of IMAX.
I was sorely disappointed.
The screen, while bigger than your average multiplex, was not much bigger than that of my beloved art deco Senator (http://senator.com). The digital project and sound were great, but I was greatly underwhelmed with the size. Furthermore, the rows were ridiculously close together, so when even the slightest lean pushed the chairbacks into the other customers legs.
It's not huge, it's not immersive, it's not IMAX
Alex
· 7 months ago
Blah, blah, blah ... assumption ... blah, blah, blah ... lack of common sense ... blah, blah, blah ...
Even I'm getting tired of pushing my stance on the debate.
rob
· 7 months ago
Calling it IMAX is a lie - when i hear IMAX i think massive experience. Charging more for the same size as other non-imax movies is wrong as well.
Neil
· 7 months ago
Aziz (and everyone else who is unhappy and connected), don't back away from your statement about having 25K followers on Twitter. Joke or not, don't back away from saying it, and don't be afraid to say it. That is our power as consumers. Especially you, Aziz. You have the ability to tell major companies, "I am unhappy with your service, and will do everything in my power to make you stop treating consumers this way." Power to the people. What you're asking for makes logical sense, and don't shy away from telling these companies they can't push us around anymore. We're all linked, and we owe it to each other, and the communities we live in, to make people conduct good business. This is better than politics and voting for Obama, because your vote against a business actually means something.
Alex
· 7 months ago
Wow, okay -- I'm gonna break from my string of sarcastic posts to say something to you, Neil...
IMAX is a company and IMAX Digital and the rest of what they offer are their products. IMAX is where it is today because of the word-of-mouth it gained from the great experience people left their theaters with. If you, Aziz and others feel your experience wasn't what you expected -- MOVE THE FUCK ON!
It's a product -- you didn't like it, so don't buy it. Your argument is self-defeating -- you demand a company do what you want, "or else". It's a company -- they produce what they choose as a product.
As a consumer, you have a choice -- purchase a product or don't. No company has any obligation to you or anyone else to change what they're doing, especially if it's working. Furthermore -- who are you hurting? You make some wild remark that "...companies can't push us around anymore" -- how are they doing that!?!? You're not forced to go to a certain movie chain! If you stop going, along with others, then ticket sales drop, managers see their budgets tank, layoffs begin and then the economy suffers again.
I could go on, but fuck this -- the soapbox in this place is starting to break into pieces.
aziz
· 7 months ago
Its like the Coke analogy someone made. If I buy a Coke, I expect a Coke, not 3/4s of a can. They have to differentiate between two different products. They don't do that. They even say so on the website. When I bought a ticket, nothing told me this was a different type of IMAX.
Alex
· 7 months ago
That's my point -- the DO differentiate the two. At least IMAX does! On their website, when you search for a theater, there are three options: IMAX Theater IMAX 3D IMAX Dome
I'll go back to the "Coke" analogy you love so much -- if you don't understand the difference between Coke and Diet Coke (or just fail to read the name and just recognize the "Coca-Cola" logo), you can't blame coke when you realize it's not the same thing (especially when you drink the whole thing and then complain afterwards).
aziz
· 7 months ago
IMAX Theatre = Both the traditional IMAX and the much different, new retro-fitted smaller ones. They are both $5 extra. On websites that list movies like Fandango or Google or Yahoo, nothing tells you the IMAX in Burbank is vastly different than the IMAX in Universal City. If I'd known that, I would have went to Universal City. That's my point.
Alex
· 7 months ago
...and if the ticket and theater never told you the difference, or marked it "IMAX 3D" -- then why are you directing all this at IMAX and not AMC?
Hans Moleman
· 7 months ago
Don't expect those IMAX numbers to keep going up, Dick. I know a lot of people who finally decided to see a Hollywood movie in IMAX for the first time after seeing it advertised all over and armed with their memories of seeing documentaries in IMAX at their local museum. These same people, myself included, felt ripped-the-fuck-off when we discovered we'd paid extra cash for no apparent reason. Maybe this is just a NY thing, but there are a ton of theaters that had digitally projected movies before IMAX screens started popping up everywhere and the picture/sounds in these theaters is no different, except they don't come with an extra surcharge.
IMAX made their name based on crazy-huge screens that totally immersed the audience in the film they were viewing. For them now to pretend otherwise is nothing short of dishonest. I'm sure Dick won't agree to the debate, but in another couple of years it's not going to matter anyway because everyday new crowds of people are uttering the phrase "what the fuck?" after paying extra money to see Hollywood movies on a bullshit-IMAX.
Zach
· 7 months ago
All the people defending IMAX are ridiculous. Whatever happened to honesty? That is the heart of the issue
Ayumusoft
· 7 months ago
The next thing is an IMAX iPhone App, so you can get the "IMAX Experience" on your phone.
Alex
· 7 months ago
OH MY GOD! That was hilarious. I totally LOLz'D
You not only referenced the topic, but also an iPhone! EVERYONE loves the iPhone (aka -- God's Cellular Phone). Ever take a class at UCBT? If not -- do so immediately. Then, kiss one of the co-owner's asses until they bring you into a TV project they get.
Also, don't ever perform in a showcase for Lorne's people -- you'll fall flat on your face and just need to go back to my first piece of advice. Oh, and get a pilot picked up by MTV and then act like an asshole.
Aziz, you're rich. Just eat the $5. What a whiner.
SethO
· 7 months ago
Didn't even occur to you that this warning has already saved OTHER people the cash, did it? I'll go slow, try to keep up...
That....was...the...point.
Hm. I have a feeling I still lost you.
KB
· 7 months ago
I agree with you 100% Aziz. I won't be shelling out for Bullshit IMAX anytime soon.
Josh
· 7 months ago
AMC IMAX is bullshit. Saw ST in Century City this weekend. Total ripoff at $18. I'm never paying to go to a AMC Imax again. I advise everyone to avoid them also, find a theater with a "real" IMAX screen. Perhaps Bridge by LAX.
one
· 7 months ago
Totally agree with your comments, Aziz, I thought the same thing when I went there this weekend and vowed never to come back. AMC Burbank has lost me as a customer. Good luck with your debate! and hope you can spread the word so that no more people is cheated on in the fuure (like I was...)
Peter
· 7 months ago
Fight the good fight.
newsiesfan
· 7 months ago
this is america and you can protest/boycott/organize if you want to. your point about only asking for the $5 and not the whole ticket price is legit. also i haven't been to the burbank imax yet (that amc is my default theatre) but i can say now that i will not be going. thanks, aziz, for sticking up for the little guy!
tapion786
· 7 months ago
i don't understand stupid people. the point is that different size IMAX screens should not cost the same. period. forget picture quality and sound. if an IMAX is the same size as a reg movie, you should not pay the same price for a 72ft IMAX.
Alex
· 7 months ago
Agreed. If this was Aziz's original post, I would FULLY CONCUR. However, your stance lacks something Aziz's post had -- whining, complaining and lack of standing on the very same principal being argued.
Stephen
· 7 months ago
It's the same in Columbus, OH. Went to see Watchmen at the Weemax in Easton AMC for the first time and thought I had walked into the wrong theatre. I did not notice any quality difference from the regular movies in the same complex; There may have been a slight difference, but it was greatly overwhelmed by the greatly underwhelming size difference.
Having only paid $6 at the local science theatre to experience a TRUE IMAX with beautiful cuts of mountainous expanses, I expected a $15 ticket to give me about that much more.... lame.
Capital Markets
· 7 months ago
Aziz you have tapped a hyper sensitive industrial nerve and that it is coming from a guy who plays a part on a NBC UNIVERSAL 'Television' Series entitled "Parks & Recreation" is all the more entertaining - if not ironic. As many know, the IMAX Saga has been playing out for some time but is now coming to a head as the digital transition business moves into a higher gear. Most of us who toil in the "Film" Industry are aware that film exhibition - whether 35mm or 15/70 mm - is still the superior medium. (For capture and storage see the Academy publication "Digital Dilemma"). The real question, as always, remains one of quality and economics. Does digital equate with better? So far the answer where IMAX 15/70mm is concerned is a resounding NO - especially when it comes to projection. And ask yourself why Chris Nolan/WB chose to shoot large parts of THE DARK KNIGHT in 15/70mm? Without getting into a long winded treatise on photochemical emulsive processes; generally film registers light, colour, saturation and depth better than any current or foreseeable electronic system when it comes to high resolution consumer entertainment markets. The more interesting debate and what we are really witnessing in the digital revolution is a breakdown in the century old conventions of the movie business - namely the top tier of rich media premiering on the BIG Screen and then filtering all the way down to your smartphone = analog dollars for digital cents. What IMAX Corp is aiming to do is quietly dilute their traditional very high caliber cinema experience in order to strengthen its cash position so that it can compete against the substantial and intense capital requirements needed to fund the digital transition. While this economic conundrum is somewhat interesting the real friction now rests in how "alternative media" might access your local art house cinema or big box movie palace. The user generated content interactive cinema scenario. With circuits such as AMC committing to 5000 4K projectors the DCI industry has come a very long way in terms of arresting the digital debate. Now however with $5000 Digital SLR's starting to capture HD video as well as 21MP stills the issue has become will theaters harness the digital creative explosion and thus be able to regain their status as primary cultural venues by becoming more interactive or will they stick with the big budget push media model. The issue of what exactly constitutes an IMAX/GIANT SCREEN 'Experience' and what content goes on it will only become more pronounced in the coming 12-18 months. When it comes to media creators - the traditional IMAX producing community had pretty much exhausted itself with Science, Nature, Parks and Recreational content thus IMAX Corp, facing a sink or swim scenario, decided to concentrate on Studio Marketing Deals. In 2004 along came "The Polar Express" and the very nature of what cinema could become changed the way Hollywood thought. With the onslaught of the small screen internet - 3D was the thing that would save big budgets movies. Turns out digital proliferation and the financial crisis have thrown a more complex curve ball into the game. Some time in the not too distant future we will find out whether IMAX will once again seize the mantle of a movie market leader or simply whither away as just another brand. Aziz you have very astutely placed yourself in the middle of this debate. May you live long and prosper - on a 72ft screen!
Alex
· 7 months ago
Your enter key called, it misses your sweet tender touch.
Alex
· 7 months ago
You left one detail out -- a fucking paragraph break.
David
· 7 months ago
I went to see a Star Trek at the AMC on 42nd Street in New York and it was a terrible theatre. I went later to see it with other people at Lincoln Center, just a regular theatre, and the sound and picture quality and size were far superior to the "IMAX" experience I had a few days before.
chase
· 7 months ago
I 100% agree with Aziz on this! I saw Star Trek at what was billed as an IMAX screen and thought there must've been some mistake. that was NOT an IMAX screen! I wanted the image to completely envelope my peripheral vision, draw me into the movie in a way that standard screens cannot, and i PAID MONEY for this, and did not get it. it's pretty much FRAUD, i think. Advertising one thing, and getting another.
Dirty Steve
· 7 months ago
"If you agree and have been duped or feel this is a ripoff, add it to the comments..."
I agree, and thank you for calling attention to this BS!
Emmy
· 7 months ago
XD this is hilarious, but yeah, I agree, the IMAX people are MEANIES
ihateaphids
· 7 months ago
the IMAX people, while still making good products of awesomeness, are very wrong here. I once went to a regular movie theater in CA, was shunted to an upstairs theater and got a maybe 15 foot screen. WEAK. i demanded my money back, and got it! they need to advertise size of screen before purchase. i'll see a movie on a small screen and largely not care, because it's fun to go to the movies, but if it's a small screen then charge less! it's simple. fuck IMAX until they apologize.
Michael Stat
· 7 months ago
Keep fighting the good fight Aziz.
This story has been picked up all over the internet as I'm sure you know, and 95% of the comments are from pissed-off moviegoers who were duped into seeing a film at a LIEMAX.
People are starting to organize blogs and lists of all the Fake IMAX screens.
Keep up the good work Aziz! I hope this leads to a change in IMAXs practices.
Alex
· 7 months ago
Yeah! GREAT JOB!
They should change their practices. Maybe, just maybe, they'll make a separate name for these installations. They can call it, "IMAX Digital".
HORRAY FOR AZIZ! UCBT! P&R! HG! SNL ... oh wait, Jean and Lori thought your set was "unfocused".
Danny Muthatruka
· 7 months ago
A+++++
tc
· 7 months ago
Yeah stick it to the man. The IMAX mini is lame. Not worth the surcharge. Realy IMAX, that's worth it.
Ntinsley
· 7 months ago
They're also trying to mask even worse IMAX screens, ones with much lower quality digital projectors as IMAX Digital screens, where you pay more for the tiny screen and a shitty projector.
Support Aziz.
Cotton
· 7 months ago
I don't know how anyone can not be siding with Aziz here. IMAX should be IMAX. If they're trying to sell us on these bullshit screens, they should be called "IMAX Jr." or something to avoid the confusion. Otherwise, they're lying about the product you're buying from them.
Jeff Tom
· 7 months ago
This IMAX asshole's a cunt, nothing compares to the real thing. Write this rant into a Parks & Recreation storyline.
Jeff Tom
· 7 months ago
Although I am kind of mad that you weren't at SXSW with Eugene Mirman when billed, but I blame Eugene Mirman for that lie, who I know call Liegene. Mirliarman.
xoValeriexo
· 7 months ago
For the record, Aziz, I agree with you. It is bullshit and they should lower the surcharge THEN call it something other than IMAX because people expect a big screen.. not the IMAX film or a digital screen.. the main thing they want is for the screen to be fucking huge. So.. call it a digital screen, charge less, and, jesus h., the customer is always right.
Katy
· 7 months ago
I was equally disappointed that the screening I saw was dubbed "IMAX", but clearly was just a regular ole digital screen. That said, I enjoyed the movie immensely, and preferred the smaller screen since real IMAX tends to make me nauseous. Nevertheless, I actually didn't realize I was being charged extra for fake IMAX (the dangers of clicking too fast through fandango). Boo AMC!
Realist
· 7 months ago
Thanks for the tip, Aziz - I'd have been pretty ticked off if I'd paid the extra money for the phony "Imax Digital" version. Your post saved me the trouble.
For the life of me, I can't understand why Imax is destroying their brand this way. Yes, it's inconvenient to build real Imax theaters, but that doesn't mean you just slap up some BS and call it Imax. Unfortunately, the Imax people appear to have succumbed to the current trend in business where companies simply rip off their customers and then stonewall and refuse to admit to any error when they get caught. Yeah, that's going to work.
Dan Zee
· 7 months ago
I wrote some articles about this for CinemaTreasures.org last year. The IMAX folks have a history of downgrading their own format. The company started a couple of decades ago with the OMNI-MAX format, but theaters cost $30 million to build, so only museums and aquariums could afford to build them. They then went with the flat IMAX format which cost only $5 million to build, so many more museums and regular movie chains could afford them. Now, they've created IMAX Digital (although they refuse to differentiate the formats in their marketing materials), that only cost about $1 million to build, and the Regal and AMC chains are adding them like crazy. The format uses two digital projectors synced together and uses the latest 4k (4,000 pixels wide) technology. This means that the picture quality is about 4x better than standard digital projection and the picture is about 50% brighter. Screens are a little larger, and theaters are designed to have the stadium seating closer to the screen than other theaters to give the illusion of a larger screen. IMAX says they so some kind of special enhancement of the digital print so it looks better. Most people believe this enhancement is a kind of noise reduction which removes film grain.
The criticism of this format is that 4k is about the quality of 35mm film (according to Kodak), so although you might be getting a brighter image, you're not getting a more detailed picture than with regular film. Technically, 70mm film quality is about 8k and IMAX (140mm) quality is about 16k, so moviegoers are being shortchanged in this area, (although you can debate that you're not adding any quality when you blow up 35mm movies to IMAX.)
The bottom line is that the IMAX folks don't care as long as moviegoers keep paying the extra $5 per ticket (which goes directly to IMAX). Star Trek brought in approximately $3 million to IMAX last weekend alone!
Lenny
· 7 months ago
I just commented on another site, that believe that it all comes down to IMAX's strategy towards marketing and branding. With their transition to digital from film-based projection, their expansion strategy is being tied to joint ventures with the theater chains. Instead of building a new theater, older ones are retrofitted to - as close as possible - give an IMAX experience. The company may have been better off to re-brand these theaters as IMAX-Digital or something like that, to distinguish them from the older film-based dedicated theater screens. However, the experience seems to be substantially better in any IMAX theater vs. the other screens at the multiplex, but those who are expecting the giant screens found in all the film-based theaters would definitely be disappointed. Because IMAX as a company has not been clear to make any distinctions, I think most people do have the expectation of a "monster" theater as opposed to an upgraded "IMAX-Digital" theater. In order to get the brand-name and associated technological benefits to more people at a quicker pace, they have been limited to the size of the existing structure for retrofitting. Therefore, the sizes of screens would vary depending on the theater, however, at least you are guaranteed to be seeing the largest screen at that particular location, and the "IMAX-Digital" screen is still heavily customized to give you the best perception possible of a "monster" viewing experience, within the constraints of the building structure.
I paid extra for star trek at that same theater in Burbank. Movie was awesome. The Imax simply wasn't imax.
They should have just called it something else, like "Mega Screen Digital".
Also people don't get your jokes.
slapjaw
· 7 months ago
This is freaking stupid on the CEO's part. The only thing people disagreed with was the order in which you asked for a refund. I think everyone would strongly agree that labling all of the theaters the same creates confusion and is just made to trick people into paying more for a standard theater experiance.
Who ever did those numbers probably was only looking to see who disagreed with Aziz in a general sense because then they figured those people would ignore him in the point he was actually trying to make. Which I think very few people did/would disagree with.
IMAX should be labling these theaters as "IMAX standard digital theater" and their old ones as "IMAX Experiance" and make a small compain to distinguish the two different models in their brand.
I hope the CEO smartens up and changes the name(all he really has to do, take a couple thousand dollars to do it for all the current shit theaters).
I'm going to try and keep following to support, because I wouldn't want to be ripped off like this and I don't have the balls to complain to a manager. I hope you get it done Aziz.
Farzad
· 7 months ago
I'm totally with you. Also, the Darfur thing was funny, not the actual situation but mentioning of a real crisis after a rant on wanting your money back from IMAX b/c they lied to you about screen size.
kp
· 7 months ago
Thanks man. I am not reading this blog weekly.
kp
· 7 months ago
I meant I am!!!
kp
· 7 months ago
I meant I am!!!
Mork
· 7 months ago
YES on all of this. I was at AMC in Times Square last night for the IMAX Star Trek. As soon as I got settled in my seat I thought, "wait a minute...I thought this was IMAX?" Lame. I've seen the "real" IMAX and it's awesome. This was not. (Though the movie was great!)
JohnnieM
· 7 months ago
You Tell Em, Aziz.
Gelfond is a lying, greedy douche. Charging the same for an inferior experience is outright theft.
I'm filing formal complaints tomorrow with the consumer protection agency in NYC, and with the FTC for misleading advertising. Let's see if Douchey thinks its a joke when some government types crawl up his ass.
Matt
· 7 months ago
Hey Aziz. I'm a big fan. Anyways what you should do is bring this to the attention of the Colbert Nation. This is the stuff Colbert loves and the Colbert Report targets the same demographic movie theaters go after for the most part. It would bring some serious pressure down on IMAX to fix this farce.
Alex
· 7 months ago
Aziz,
You're correct, this is ridiculous, and I will absolutely boycott those companies.
FUCKimax
· 7 months ago
That is a fucking ripoff! I like the analogy used on yahoo news by the LF Examiner "this is an illogical analogy: car buyers would be plenty upset if they paid around $120,000 for 7-series Beemer and instead received 3-series worth only $30k. "
Fuck IMAX. If they wont distinguish between the two, I just won't pay for either.
Fran
· 7 months ago
I so agree with you, no way would I want to pay the additional $5 and get the tiny screen instead of a real IMAX. I want to watch the debate and maybe we can call in so Gelfond with no our real opinion.
Samantha
· 7 months ago
I had never been to one of the large IMAX theaters but I had heard about them. I brought my grandchildren to an IMAX theater wanting to give them a special treat. When we walked in I was surprised to see that the screen was not that large. I shrugged because not ever have been to one before I just assumed my expectations of a huge screen were wrong. But now I realize that I was at one of the "fake" IMAX theaters. I had driven way out of my way passing by 3 or 4 other theaters showing the same movie to treat the kids to IMAX. What a joke. No wonder the kids weren't that impressed. I think that they should definitely include the size of the screen in their advertising so people know what to expect. I wouldn't want to pay for a filet mignon only to get a hamburger and then have them say to me, "hey it's beef isn't it?"
Rick
· 7 months ago
You know, this really is absolute bullshit. No one goes to see an IMAX film just for the resolution. They go because they want to see a film on a huge screen and enjoy that experience.
Absolutely ridiculous that IMAX is so out of touch with their customers that they insist that there's nothing wrong with what they're doing.
Mad at IMAX
· 7 months ago
Aziz is right, I went to see Dark Knight in IMAX and was extremelt disappointed, the screen was not bigger than a normal screen, the sides were just sightly curved. I remember when IMAX debuted, the screen was basically a HUGE semi circular affair that made the experience "awesome" .
These theatres that supposedly show IMAX are nothing like that and very disappointing, especially to have to pay more for this sham of marketing they call IMAX.
so go on and lambaste them because the public is being fleeced by this sham.
Carissa
· 7 months ago
I went to an "I Max" theatre once. I will never go again. I nearly walked out of the movie theatre and demanded my mo ney back. It was such a HUGE letdown. THANK YOU for making people aware of this. This needs to be brought to the american consumers attention as fiercly and as often as possible.
THANK YOU SIR!
showgunone
· 7 months ago
I was told by my video engineering teacher a few years back that in order for it to be a real IMAX movie it needs to be shot on IMAX film. The difference is normally defintion movies are at 30 frames per second, high defintion is 45 frames per second. IMAX film is at 120 frames per second so it takes a lot more film. Its impossible for a studio to shoot the same exact movie twice for the real IMAX experience. All you're paying for is the digital conversion that takes place and the improved audio quality. So IMAX is BULLSHIT!
Raheem
· 7 months ago
Thanks for finally creating a stir about this. The IMAX experience should be what i get at the museum. I don't think the director of the film imagines you watching it on a screen any smaller either. They need to change it up.
dbriere
· 7 months ago
IMAX is diluting its product faster than the Dummies book series is. I used to revel in a full screen IMAX experience but now having been burned on a small screen, I don't know what I'm going to get, so I just don't bother doing IMAX anymore. It's their fault for just making a stupid decision to so bastardize their product. Next thing you know, they'll be telling me that IMAX on my cell phone screen is the same thing as the big screen (and apparently just as good as a MatchBox BMW!)
PS: The CEO will never have the guts to face-off on TV. Heck he would not even do it as IMAX PPV!
Adam
· 7 months ago
Thanks Aziz. Corporate accountability is essential to not screw us all in the a-. Keep it up.
D'Andre
· 7 months ago
You have a good point! I saw Star Trek on IMAX at The Bridge Cinema De Lux in Culver City and can say, that location has a real IMAX screen. You were duped into seeing the film with the IMAX Digital projector which cannot be displayed on a true IMAX screen thus it's smaller, much smaller...
IMAX should not trade their name on products that do not represent it's purpose. If they want to expand their product line than they should call it "Digital Screen" by IMAX so people know it's not the usual, "Giant Screen" by IMAX. I would have walked out and got my refund for false advertising...
And the Star Trek movie was DAMN good on the "REAL" IMAX!!!
Zachary Winters
· 7 months ago
DIGITAL IMAX IS BULLSHIT!!!!!! I WANT A REAL FUCKING IMAX EXPERIENCE!!!!!!! THE CEO OF IMAX IS JUST A MONEY HUNGRY DOUCHE-BAG!!!!! DOWN WITH IMAX!!!!!
flaming_mo
· 7 months ago
In hard economic times like these, many folks have to seriously debate whether or not they are willing to hand over their hard-earned spare cash to a movie theater. Additionally, it is very likely that the same prospective patron is weighing corollary considerations, such as becoming more discriminating about which films they choose to see on the big screen (as opposed to viewing via pay-per-view at home), as well as the quality of the venue. When a vendor such as IMAX fails to differentiate between different products and then tries to pass off an inferior substitute, that is a "bait and switch", which is a form of fraud.
Sure, this matter isn't Darfur, or many other grievous situations that are happening on this planet, but everyone who comes to a theater for a genuine "IMAX experience" should expect to get the value of the real deal for their money, period. Five bucks may not seem like much to some people, but it can otherwise pay for a lot of things, such as DVD rentals, pay-per-view, or a lot of ramen/rice and beans.
annoyed
· 7 months ago
It is your own freaking fault if you don't know ahead of time that the theater you are going to doesn't have the full IMAX screens!!! Are you that stupid??? Seriously, it is very easy and obvious to find out where full IMAX theaters are. How do you not know that??? So because you didn't check into it to see if the theater you were going to actually had the full screen, you go on a publicity seeking rampage... Well I guess that worked, and now you perpetuate the idea of celebrity entitlement. Don't blame someone else because you weren't smart enough to check on something before you went dipshit.
aziz
· 7 months ago
Dude, I checked on Yahoo movies and on Fandango and they just said IMAX. So I have to research that and make sure its IMAX and they aren't lying? Are you kidding me? Both the IMAX in Burbank and the IMAX in Universal City are just labeled IMAX, however they are very different. That's the point. They can't call both those screens IMAX when they are very different.
annoyed
· 7 months ago
LOL. Yahoo movies and Fandango?!? You just proved my point!!! You have to check the actual theater. Who doesn't know that the theater they're going to isn't an actual IMAX theater??? Maybe we live in crazy town up here in Seattle, but everyone here knows where the full IMAX screen is. If my local theater says IMAX experience, I am going to wonder when they did the construction to add a HUGE FREAKING IMAX SCREEN!!! Seriously, I feel like I'm taking crazy pills! All you crazies that are complaining about this are the people we make fun of when you do something completely stupid. pull your heads out...
aziz
· 7 months ago
IT SAID IMAX ON THE MARQUEE. I BOUGHT THE TICKET. IT SAID ITS IMAX. I EVEN PAID $5 MORE. THERE ARE HUGE IMAX SCREENS INSIDE THE BRIDGE CINEMA AND THE UNIVERSAL CITY AND THERE'S NOTHING ON THE OUTSIDE THAT ALLOWS YOU TO TELL THEY HOUSE A HUGE IMAX SCREEN.
So what should I do in the future? Call and make sure that when it says IMAX they aren't lying? Should I make sure there really showing Star Trek and not just playing The Lion King? Its false advertising.
annoyed
· 7 months ago
Yeah, I'd say if you're going to a theater that is not well known to have a full IMAX screen(as most that have them are), then a simple phone call might be a good idea. Or even just asking the kid at the ticket window if they have the actual huge IMAX screen before handing them your money... You know, stuff people do to be informed...
aziz
· 7 months ago
I (and many others) didn't even know these new ones existed! This is crazy. Read all these comments, all of these people that felt duped like I do should have somehow guessed they are now building new smaller screens, but still calling them the exact thing? Are you nuts? Should I call the theatre and make sure they are really showing Star Trek and not showing Hotel for Dogs and just calling it Star Trek?
Gavin A.
· 7 months ago
i felt exactly the same way... when spider-man 3 opened, we just got our first "I-Max" screen here in san diego... the theater was 45 minutes away, but that seemed worth it, since before that, the closest I-Max theater was an hour and a half drive away... we paid about 14 dollars for each ticket... as soon as we sat down, i asked my friend, "does this really look like an i-max screen?... it doesn't seem much bigger than a regular screen"... i went outside to ask, and they told me the same thing you were told... "it's i-max picture and sound quality"... what the fuck?... i want a huge screen... i don't give a fuck about supposed imax picture and sound quality... if the picture isn't huge, than it isn't imax...
sleepy
· 7 months ago
Someone should print up some "LIEMAX" stickers in a faux IMAX logotype and sticker LIEMAX theater signage with them.
AtomicSquid
· 7 months ago
He must be one of those guys who defends his small penis by saying it's not the size that matters but how he uses it?
Mark
· 7 months ago
No, no, no...it's not the size...it's the "experience"!
movieman
· 7 months ago
Imax is ripping people off. I would be mad as hell if I paid for an Imax ticket and the screen was one of those small screens.
Kevin Wetmore
· 7 months ago
Thank you so, so much for speaking out on this issue. That this cheap digital projection is being marketed around the country as an "IMAX experience" is a total sham . If more people are educated to this, they will stop buying tickets. Gelfond's response is even more disturbing than the crime itself.
j
· 7 months ago
Aziz .............. LIIIIIIIIIIIGHT!
oNe
wickedjewel
· 7 months ago
I took my son to see "The Day the Earth Stood Still" at the IMax in downtown Ft. Lauderdale. Not only was the movie not that good- I got a stiff neck from watching it... going for the "IMAX experience" was not only disappointing it was expensive too!
Jason Race
· 7 months ago
gutless turd will never debate you in public becaue he knows that he is wrong...just another scam aimed at naive consumers...i'm behind you Aziz...go get'em!
Mark
· 7 months ago
Since Richard Gelfond seems to think the Fake IMAX uproar is a tempest in a teapot, I thought it might be time for the barbarians to storm the gate.
Judging from their press releases, they use a standard first initial+last name prefix for email addresses. So following that logic, we should email complaints to :
What they're doing is FRAUD. They need to differentiate between their Imax Digital and Imax Film.
Dave Osbourne
· 7 months ago
Dude, I read and understand the issue you have with your notion you were duped into paying a premium for an above-normal-theatre experience. You watched the entire movie, got the information and experience of the movie. You didn't walk out as you should have, and blogged about how you avoided being duped. Instead, you're an idiot that wants attention for the sake of your self, not to help others as you claim in your blogs. Your a self promoting POS, get a life and rent the movies or torrent them at home and watch them on your own big screen. Sit real close to it, and you'll think your right in a genuine 72' imax theatre too.
aziz
· 7 months ago
I'm not a self promoting POS, you ass. The reason this thing is spreading around is because the problem resonated with people. Get lost.
Pete
· 7 months ago
I too wanted to experience seeing Star Trek on the large Imax screen. After reading this, forget about it! This Imax small screen is Bullshit. It's I-----MAX! Not I-kinda-MAX or I---regular! This reminds me off going to Denny's for the first time and seeing the beautiful pictured menu. When the food comes it looks nothing like the pictures! THe bottom line is, it's misleading IMAX people!!!!!
marty
· 7 months ago
IMAX is TOTALLY full of shit.
True IMAX uses special IMAX cameras which is the only way to get the large screen viewing experience.
If they now brand screens as "IMAX" they need to differentiate what the "IMAX Eperience" really is. Is it a special camera, big screen experience or is it something else?
It sure sounds like it is something else and they sure as shit need to call it something else.
Asshole marketing on IMAX's part. Fucking douchebag crooks.
bo
· 7 months ago
If you check out the IMAX website, their virtual tour is the BIG SCREEN experience ONLY.
There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that would let you know that they also have a non-IMAX camera, small screen digital product. NOTHING.
That's FRAUD.
Suck my hairy bean bag IMAX.
John451
· 7 months ago
"Yet you have yet to defy my argument. I punched numerous holes in the logic your fighting for, and you have yet to counter."
Overuse of the word "yet". "Your" should be "you're". And "I" should be "I've".
The only point worth taking away from everything that Alex has written is that he is a pompous illiterate blow-hard who isn't remotely educated.
Kevin Brueck
· 7 months ago
Aziz is right on the fucking money. I go to the AMC Burbank theater all the time mainly because they allow you to bring in your Chipotle. I don't see their IMAX movies cause it's on a shitty screen.
Fuck all the noise about everything else. The core issue here is paying a "premium" price for a "premium" experience. IMAX is all about one thing: Giant Ass Screens. If you don't get that premium experience then they should call it IMAX Light, IMedium or IMehhh. The fact that the CEO is trying to pull a fast one with consumers by not differentiating between the two is just plain wrong. I hope you get to debate him Aziz and I hope you wipe the smug look off his face. Fight the mutha fuckin' power beyotch!
And to everyone giving Aziz shit about the Darfur comments give it a rest. I know a good proctologist that can remove the giant sticks from all your asses. Its a joke, he's a comedian. Lighten the fuck up.
Seacrest out, Kevin Brueck
Mark
· 7 months ago
Oh very good, personally I like IMEHHH, that sums it up perfectly!
BoltBait
· 7 months ago
I've seen movies on both sizes of IMAX screen and I can tell you that there is no comparison. They are NOT the same thing. Even the sound system in the smaller theater didn't compare with real IMAX.
Seriously, IMAX, we are all huge fans of IMAX. That's not the issue. We just don't want to be disappointed when we pay the extra money and show up to a much smaller screen.
Is IMAX lite worth extra? Sure. Due to the fact that we all have large screen TV's at home now, the regular movie screens just don't do it for us anymore... I would gladly pay a little extra to see a movie on IMAX lite. However, don't call it IMAX. That's just dishonest.
Nate
· 7 months ago
About fucking time someone said something. Here in Orlando there are three Imax screens, one real and two fakes and I've been arguing with people about these fake Imax screens for months! I'm posting about your challenge and spreading the word.
alex
· 7 months ago
Thank you!! I went to go see Star Treck Tuesday at the Ontario, CA IMAX at the Regal Cinema 22. And while the movie was freaking awesome it was a total waste of the extra $9 (matinee) that I paid. One of their regular larger screens would have sufficent.
LMFan4Ever
· 7 months ago
I'm afraid I don't know who Aziz is and have no knowledge of his acting abilities or his career. But after reading this story on the internet I believe that this guy is way over the top with his complaining and whining about $5.00. I would think he would be wealthy enough to afford the extra money. And I still don't get why he didn't walk out and get his money back if the screen was not to his satisfaction. Quite an odd story, really...
aziz
· 7 months ago
For God's sake, I said its not about $5, its the principle. Read all these comments of other people who felt ripped off. They are using false advertising its wrong.
LMFan4Ever
· 7 months ago
I understand it's not necessarily or entirely about the $5.00 but it just still seems way over the top and a bit excessive. At least you have eyes to see the movie and ears so that you can hear it. There are some that do no have even that and would be grateful if they could at least have those pleasures, I am sure. It's the little things that are often the most important but often overlooked. But since it does seem so important to you I wish you well in your endeavors.
Ross White
· 7 months ago
Why do people always assume that because you are on TV, in any capacity, that you are rich?
Mark
· 7 months ago
And I'm sure that you're aware that there are people who fight for the rights of those who do not have eyes or ears. Well, Aziz (light!) is fighting for all of those people who don't have $5 because a large corporation decided it was going to rip off people by telling them it was selling them a solid gold goose egg and all they got was a regular chicken egg that was painted a gold color (I used a nursery rhyme analogy to make it easier for you)!
Now LMFan4Ever, if your so wealthy that you can throw away $5 bills then I'm so happy for you and it's nice that you can throw your money away and not worry about it. But to many of us $5 is important, if you're talking about taking a family of four to the movie that's $20. So those of us that aren't apathetic about being ripped off by large corporations, yes, this is important to us. Since it's not important to you...why bother commenting at all? And the whole eyes and ears argument(?)...useless!
Thanks Aziz (light!) {"Aziz, light!" from The Fifth Element..ha!}
But Aziz (light!) is making it clear that there are probably thousands, if not tens of thousands, of people out there who feel that they were ripped off by being promised an IMAX (large screen format movie) and all they got was a regular sized screen.
footballer
· 7 months ago
then you missed the whole point, obviously. read the other comments and may finally get a clue.
Anon
· 7 months ago
You are so right on with all this. When I saw that "Monsters vs. Aliens" could be seen in IMAX 3D," I thought "wow! can you imagine that 3D on a massive screen!" So I went out of my way to get to that theatre, still incredulous that there was an IMAX venue outside of the city science center.
Well, I was completely bummed by what I found, and felt faked out. The marketing guys at IMAX have spun so much that they themselves even believe their own spin, apparently. Unfortunately they should have listened to the theatre owners who were trying to convince them to side-brand as "IMAX Digital," or similar.
I will not patronize that "IMAX" theatre again.
Anon
· 7 months ago
PS - Anybody who gives you sh*t on complaining about this is moronically blind to *50% (ticket price) INFLATION*! Gouging should not/never be tolerated in any setting.
Anon
· 7 months ago
PPS, last comment - The "BMW" analogy is preposterous. Let's say I propose to you that I'll sell you a brand new real BMW for $50,000. So your first question is? "A BMW <what?>"
You have to know the model number before you know if you want the car or not, or if you're getting a good deal, and getting what you want and expect.
If you just say "a BMW for $50,000" (a premium price), that's not enough.
Kt
· 7 months ago
I totally agree with you about this IMAX thing...I was so disappointed when I paid extra to see an IMAX and the screen was tiny! I don't think they should be allowed to call them IMAX unless they're the original ones on really huge screens. Thank you for fighting this!
David Ngo
· 7 months ago
oh my god. an aziz/CEO debate about IMAX screen sizes?! i want to watch this. And aziz, if he doesn't agree (which he most definitely won't), then you should re-enact how it would have gone in a video sketch. Bring your "human giant" buds in on it. It would be hilarious.
Jack
· 7 months ago
At some point, Imax stock (ticker: IMAX) will be an amazing short as the whole scheme backfires on them, and being an "IMAX" theater with the jacked-up ticket prices will become a full-on liability rather than a presumed asset, and theater owners work as fast as they can to rip the system out, reduce back their costs/prices, and distance themselves from the tainted brand... in my opinion.
So sad, it didn't have to be that way. Maybe if the company works hard on damage control and rebranding, they can save it - but their heads seem so far up their asses I doubt it.
matt
· 7 months ago
FYI Projectionists, theater managers, etc. generally agree with you. There's a discussion over on Film-Tech.com in the Large Format forum about your blog. I think everyone there (including myself) are on your side.
RogerDodger
· 7 months ago
Dear "New" IMAX,
Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on ...
Never again.
Signed, A Former Fan.
Raider32Assassin
· 7 months ago
That is a debate i would love to watch. Kick his ass Aziz!
Keegan
· 7 months ago
YEAH!!! I would definitly watch that debate. You would kick that guy's ass!! Go Aziz!!!!!!
w
· 7 months ago
Dammit why do you have to call him sir? challenge you to a televised debate sir? Would you like a cup of chai sir?
Richard GayFuck gets one iMAX bitch to post a comment and then prances around in his panties saying 90% do not agree. That deserves a sir as much as a child molester.
matt
· 7 months ago
i'm with you on this one aziz, you need to serve Richard Gelfond on the national stage. he looks kind of like an oompa loompa - you could take him, no doubt.
Nate
· 7 months ago
This is BULLSHIT. They should differentiate the two types.
Steve
· 7 months ago
Aziz, All the issues in the world and IMAX theatre is the hot topic? How about the NY Yankees. Avg ticket price is $125 and they really suck. Maybe debate George Steinbrenner. Wait a minute. I just realized I am not forced to go!! And I can choose my own theatre too! Discussion over spoiled-too-much-free-time asswipes.
SuperJo
· 7 months ago
So, I used my miles to charter a flight to Darfur, to watch Star Trek in IMAX there, figuring my authentic experience would inspire bloggers all over the sphere, and it turns out those 3rd world sumbitches don't even offer Buttered popcorn OR soda at their movies. I want to encourage EVERYONE to boycott IMAX movies in Darfur, as well as the other shit Aziz is bitching about. It's all about the unity, brothers.
b
· 7 months ago
Aziz, my man! The truth of the situation, regardless of what anyone believes otherwise, is that this matter is about the principle of being cheated; not about the $5, not the 'complaining' and 'whining', esp. not about people in Darfur or individuals that are deaf or blind. IMAX, Regal, & AMC are not the only ones who practice this type of false advertising; if we look close enough numerous corporations are guilty of the same acts, but it's because of wonderful people like YOU (coupled with modern technology) that information like this is able to spread, and we are able to actually do something about it. That is the principle. Love all your stuff, keep it up!
Ross White
· 7 months ago
I had this exact argument when the movie "300" came out and I paid extra to see it on the "Imax" [sic] screen. It was hardly noticeable that the screen was any bigger than the standard screen. You would think that IMAX would be aware that they were diluting their brand.
cheryl
· 7 months ago
I agree with Aziz. I've been burned too, and it sucked. Boo to IMAX for thinking we aren't bright enough to notice the stunt they are pulling with these theaters.
GiGi
· 7 months ago
I don't have anything to bring to the table other than fight the power.
Stephen W.
· 7 months ago
Couldn't agree more. I went to see "The day the Earth stood still" some moths ago in what was supposedly an IMax theater. I was the first time that I had ever been to an IMax movie and remember thinking, this is definitely not worth the extra five bucks and that I would never go again. Little did I know that I was not sitting in a real IMax theater until now. Thanks for blowing the whistle on this one. I wish I could get my money back!!
Mads
· 7 months ago
Joke or not, great information.
I decided to look into my local IMAX theaters here in Dallas, Tx available to the public for blockbuster movies. The first built in 1999 is projection-based with a flat 3D screen overhead that measures 50x70 feet. The other built in 2009 also dubbed the "IMAX Experience" is a digital projection screen of only 33x66 feet.
Considering that "true" IMAX is designed for a 1:1.375 aspect ratio, the first theater though admittedly smaller than the theater in Lincoln Square fits the bill while the second newer theater is no doubt a "fake" and shall never receive my business.
Cheers!
stan
· 7 months ago
I recently saw Star Trek too! When I walked out I was thinking...is it me or IMAX screens aren't as big as they use to be. Honestly, I just thought I was all in my head. This was the first feature film I watched on IMAX and thought maybe thats how they all are. Other films were IMAX made films most of them some type of nature film.
All that aside...I paid 27 dollars for 2 tickets...and was waiting for the IMAX experience. Instead it felt like a big screen but not the gigantic IMAX I remembered. The "real" IMAX screens are where? I now know Palladium IMAX Theaters in San Antonio are not the REAL IMAX.
I wasn't as upset as you...mostly because its been a while since I watched an IMAX Film.
BUT thanks for bringing this out and goodluck! I Feel kind of cheated now.
stansfield
JB
· 7 months ago
Aziz, I'm totally with you on the un-huge IMAX screens. IMAX is synonymous with massive screens and that's just what you should expect to see when you pay that extra $5. The first time I ever got to see a movie on IMAX was at Great America sometime in the mid 80's. I think it was touted as being something like six or seven stories tall. *THAT* is/was an IMAX screen, not what they are trying to cram into the newer cineplexes, like most AMCs in my area.
You've done something that not many people have been able to do and that is raise some serious awareness to this scam. I applaud and thank you. Now, let's see if the rest of the moviegoing public will wake the hell up.
Dave
· 7 months ago
dude, if you were in Burbank you were only 5 minutes away from the real IMAX screen at Universal City. But it's good you're getting the word out so others won't be duped as well: there are only 2 legitimate IMAX theatres in the L.A. area--Universal CityWalk and the Howard Hughes Center. All others are pretenders.
Albert
· 7 months ago
You screwed up I Max I for one will let everyone I know about this and until you fix the problem I will urge people to boycott your establishments. In case the brick hasnt hit you hard enough yet..YOU ARE RIPPING PEOPLE OFF. An for this ass-hole Alex, you missed the point. Or you have a hidden agenda for the long winded answer. Like maybe you have stock in the company.
Herb Brookens
· 7 months ago
The real problem with Hollywood and the motion picture industry is that they keep spoon feeding consumers the same BULLSHIT over and over again. How many remakes are people going to pay to see? Hollywood hasn't come up with an original idea in 50 years. They keep going to the idiot well and the idiots are more than happy to keep filling the well with hard earned dollars. The Star Trek movie is no better than any ST:The Next Generation, Deep Space Nine, Voyager episode ever to air on national television for free, but at least 12 million idiots paid to see it. But your complaint isn't with the rehashed bullshit that is hollywood it's the fact that you feel cheated out of the true "imax" experience, you should be angrier that the story line was anything but imaginative, and that they're probably already in talks to make another piece of shit just like this one. The mere fact that people are paying to see this remake/pseudo prequel will perpetuate the greed that is hollywood. Your disdain for the size of the screen that the remake is played on will be but a drop in the ocean to the movie industry, the ripples will not be felt as far as you think as long as we the consumer continue to fuel the bonfire of remakes that are blazing to the theaters hot on the heels of each other. I just can't wait NOT to see Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hide this summer. Boycott imax theaters??? i say boycott Hollywood until they deliver us from repeating I dream of Genie, or Leave it to Beaver the motion picture! But you have a valid point, you are due what you paid for, I just hope you spend your money more wisely in the future and rent the originals instead of giving the crooks money they didn't earn!
Mark
· 7 months ago
I can tell you that most people associate IMAX with the size and shape of the screen, not the "experience" or the technical quality of the film. When I worked at a planetarium there was a version of IMAX called OMNIMAX that showed IMAX movies on planetarium domes, the only difference...the size and shape of the screen.
After years and years of driving the IMAX brand as those giant screen movies and getting people to associate the brand with the big screen it is simply a cheat to imply that a smaller screen conveys the same experience. In fact, I would probably go so far as to say that it would probably fall into the "bait and switch" type of retail fraud that may be actionable in court.
With over $35 million in box office in the first day of it's release and more since then STAR TREK is definitely a popular movie. I wonder how many people have been to FAKE IMAX to see it?
If you really wanted to make your point, you should see about the possibility of filing a false advertising claim or a class action suit on behalf of all STAR TREK fans conned into the FAKE IMAX experience and see about getting everyone their $5 back.
Phildaman88
· 7 months ago
Honestly...I've heard both sides argue the case in great detail and I could not agree with you more, Aziz. IMAX is ripping off the American public and IMAX(as well as the major theaters that associate themselves with IMAX) think we are stupid enough not to notice the huge difference in screen sizes.
A. Smith
· 7 months ago
Aziz, STFU you stupid loser. I have not seen such an example of pathetic childish behavior by a television "personality" in quite some time. Can you reply to the security reports that you give many of your proceeds to al qaeda and other anti-Coalition terrorist groups? I have seen many of them and the evidence is overwhelming, no wonder you are being investigated and watched at all moments.
footballer
· 7 months ago
A. Smith, IMAX will surely include you in the "90%" you have to tell them this is a joke. :D
aziz
· 7 months ago
You are a racist idiot.
FightThePower
· 7 months ago
How clueless this CEO must be when faced with a public relations disaster to start lying about the people who are upset about it. IMAX means the big screen and it is fraud to charge extra and pretend otherwise.
Keep up the fight. The truth is minus a few idiot griefers here and there(who probably work for IMAX) the large majority of people are annoyed by this. I for one will never go to an IMAX showing again unless this clown is fired as CEO and they start being honest about their screens.
Adjudicator
· 7 months ago
Aziz... I think you are 100% correct. I am a fairly neutral party, I don't know you, or watch your show. I have also never seen an IMAX film. However, what I do know is that IMAX made its name by being a very LARGE screened format/venue, giving viewers an "in-the-movie feel." Even if the new smaller IMAX theaters are superior to regular theaters, the fact is, people go to IMAX expecting the IMAX they know (or have heard of), namely the IMAX with the 72' screen. Let's be honest, IMAX built its awesome reputation on the large screen format--not this smaller, johnny-come-lately bastard son of IMAX. If the IMAX people believe that the size of the screen is not relevant, then they should have distinguished the smaller screen venues with the "IMAX Digital" or IMAX Junior, or whatever demarcation they could come up with. To leave them undistinguished was deceptive--they were very wrong, and you are right.
Tres Leches
· 7 months ago
Aziz. This is absurd, yet entertaining! Can't wait for the debate!
footballer
· 7 months ago
just dropping in to add to the statistics. im with aziz. it's really a non issue. for anyone with a brain.
DeathSniper
· 7 months ago
Aziz - Screw IMAX they are a farce unless the film is truly filmed with all the special IMAX cameras on the large format film.
Come to Arizona and sit at the Cine Capri cinemas at Harkins. The screen is larger and all the films take up the screen. The audio system is better and the theater is much bigger.
They even go so far as to have the curtain closed before the film starts and the start of the film is announced by a theater employee...curtain starts to open as the theaters film starts to roll - much like the olden days.
Look me up and I will show you a real movie going experience without the lame excuses. Oh, the best thing is it's only $1 more for that theater.
Will
· 7 months ago
HELLS YA!!.. Thats the way to run a buisness.. Give the customer a little something extra with out the big cost....you will insure repeat buisness. I think the owner of that place should take over IMAX..
Dr. Jim
· 7 months ago
Just read about your blog calling out IMAX on CNN and had to stop by and comment. I just saw Monsters vs. Aliens a few weeks ago on "IMAX" in 3D. If it had not been in 3D I would have walked out...that was not an IMAX theater as I know it. That is false advertising. And to say the quality on the smaller digital screens is a little better than "normal" is a sham. There is no way in Hell I would pay what they are asking for a slight increase in resolution. So I am boycotting IMAX and asking all my friends to do the same.
john o'keefe
· 7 months ago
i am amazed at how people can be so insulting when one person makes a point. i agree that "imax" on a small screen is a wrong that needs to be addressed. i agree that corporate greed has turned a blind eye to the consumer; i agree that this greed is seeded in the minds of people making millions telling people making a living what they should like and not like - and because of that "imax" will not get a penny from me - my choise, my voice - it is just that simple
Milkbone
· 7 months ago
What I have not seen anywhere during my skimming over the posts is the word standards. I am a blue collar, dislocated worker. For me to see Star Trek, I had to go over the budget and wait until Monday after-noon, so I could see it for $6.00. No popcorn, no soda, that stuff is so outrageously priced. Not only are the prices out of control, but I have to sit through commercials. Pepsi, automobile, and all kinds of other advertisements. Going to the movies is no longer an escape, it's a place where standards no longer exsist.
So my point is, we as a whole can change the system. If IMAX wants to fool the consumer for an extra $5.00, then we can all go to the regular theater. It makes no sence to me that people will just swallow whatever the big companys feed us.
Your wasting your time trying to call this guy out. You know he will not respond directly. So go with your instinct and tell your twitters to stay away from IMAX. Thats what is supposed to be great about a free country. I think 25,000 people costing them $375,000 is a good start at showing the big companys that "We are not going to take it." At least this way they will have to be honest about their "IMAX experience."
OH and whatever happened to the customer is always right? I just can't understand how these Managers don't go out of their way to satisfy their customers. I figure it this way, if he refused me my refund, then I got of cheap. It only cost me $5.00 to know i'll never go back there again.
Will
· 7 months ago
AMEN... Plus..Fuck it.. I can download it for free in a few weeks.. ANd then I can have a Jack n Coke with the movie..lol.
BC in Chicago
· 7 months ago
Mr. Gelfudgy's response is typical corporate misdirection and, with your gentle prodding, Aziz, will probably spell the end of the IMAX brand. Way to go. All you have to do now is get some short seller hedge funds in your corner and bye-bye IMAX. (I am in no way advocating stock manipulation, simply just punishment for a stupid corporate idea and idiotic PR handling.)
Jay Bedsaul
· 7 months ago
Richard Gelfond needs to remember that honesty is the best policy and that, no matter how much money is made from ripping off moviegoers, it will never be enough to buy back his integrity.
Lucy
· 7 months ago
The internet is a wonderful thing... you can contact friends and family in moments, you can blog for a boycott, you can RESEARCH about shit you nothing about. I would have to say that anyone who walks into a two story tall building expecting to see a film on a four story tall screen is a fucking idiot. I saw ST on a Giant IMAX, and the first thing I looked for when arriving at the theater, was the height of the building, especially since it was sharing the same building as standard screens. Guess what, the area of the building that housed the Giant IMAX screen was more than twice the height of the rest of the building. Here's the info that you should have researched: IMAX really doesn't refer to the size of the screen, it is the type of film/camera/etc. that is used. It's the different between an analog signal and a digital signal. One would think that someone in your business would know that. If you want to see a movie in IMAX make sure they have an IMAX projector and a digital screen. If you want to see a movie on a Giant IMAX screen, make sure the building is atleast four stories high. Here endeth the lesson. Another thing, don't boycott all the business' just because of the one you're pissed at. That would be like boycotting Yosemite National Park because your show sucks and you're a fucking idiot. Next week's blog, Retard Aziz will announce a boycott of Blue Ray 'cause it sucks on his 13 inch, 20 year old analog tv that he got on clearance from Montgomery Ward
Will
· 7 months ago
OMG.. Have you ever heard of counter sinking a floor?? Ya thats where u dig down lower then the floor base.. make a four story building out of a 2 story one.. Also before you go talking shit on someone, mainly cuz their famous and your a loser, READ WHAT THE FUCK THEY WROTE. And you might want to do a little research yourself. IMAX also includes wrap around screen size. And don't talk shit about Montgomery Wards, just because your to stupid to know that you cant play a digital format on an Analog screen...I'm not trying to be disrespectful but come on. You would be pissed if you paid the extra money for a product and got ripped off.
J9G
· 7 months ago
I had no idea who you are until I saw an article on Yahoo about the Imax issue...you ROCK. My son is turning 10 this weekend and I WAS going to take him to see Star Trek on Imax but after reading these articles.....I changed my mind. Another show of a big company trying to "dupe" Americans into forking over their hard-earned money and not delivering on what they promised. I agree with you 100 percent and right on for calling this out. Hopefully Imax will get so much bad PR about this they will have to own up to their scam. I know I will spread the word. Thanks.....from NH
Will
· 7 months ago
"Fuck them, Fuck them up there stupid asses" as the immortal words of Kevin Smith says. I completely agree with you, Aziz. I will be damned if I a pay the extra money and get, for lack of a better term. bent over with NO LUBE.. I have been to a few"REAL" IMAX screens and loved it. Especially the 3D ones.. But if I went in and saw that it was more of the regular size screen, well then fuck someone will hear about it after I was done watching. You pay the extra money for the experience, then dammit you should get your moneys worth. If this prick doesn't have the balls to debate you, then I will debate him myself. Thats right, just me, a little no body in the eyes of the press. But I am the one who fucking pays this guys check. Just like Aziz. So if you cant even debate on a customer's complaint, then you have know right running a company. OK.. I'm done venting know.
Will
· 7 months ago
P.S. I also beleive that this CEO is not at fault. Mainly becuase his wife keeps telling him that size dosent matter...LOL.. Hey Aziz, I've got a million of these.
anmi
· 7 months ago
If the theaters truly believed that we (the public) were indifferent, they would not hesitate to identify the smaller screens. The issue here is one of expectations. IMAX, by it's name creates an expectation -one that is not met. ANY marketing student will tell you that this is the perfect recepie for dissatisfied customers. The simple, yet often forgotten recepie for satisfied customers is: Create an expectation and then exceed it. If the theaters are listening, I think you owe me $13 !!
SID
· 7 months ago
LETS START A CLASS ACTION SUIT AGAINST IMAX !!!
Any good lawyers out there who want to take this on? Where is Milberg Weiss when you really need them??? There is clearly an intent to deceive and the effort to defend their deceptive actions when they were brought to light.
Dave
· 7 months ago
Bro I could give a rat's testicle about seeing this film at all, whether in IMAX or SUPER IMAX or Toronto. BUT - You are absolutely right about the principle of the whole thing! You could have taken the popcorn and the soda and sold it for way more than 5 bones, but I'm glad you didn't cause I would have lost respect for you. IMAX is full of shit. AND - anyone that can't decipher between what is tongue in cheek and what isn't doesn't deserve an explanation beyond "chill the fuck out".
Andrea - Berkeley, CA
· 7 months ago
To reiterate: I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH YOU. Extra caps so everyone can notice. I went to Star Trek with friends expecting something HUGE. But lo, I got a regular sized screen. Seriously, it's practically the same size. I SIGHED so much at the beginning while watching the previews. There goes my $5... It honestly does NOT make sense. Imax is selling two, COMPLETELY different movie going experiences as the same, and the consumer has no way of knowing this? Thank you Imax, for being such a, ahem... selling yourself out.
Cheryl
· 7 months ago
Honey child, that debate will NEVER happen. Just starting watching your TV on-line now. Hope it gets better. You're funny in it, but not in it enough. Back to the show!
John
· 7 months ago
I for one went and saw Star Trek this weekend on imax in mira mesa ca. I wanted to see what all the hype was about and having paid a higher fee to see it I was expecting to see a huge screen that took up most of my vision range and, not to mention, superior sound quality. In fact what I got was a bullshit slightly bigger screen with a sound system that had way to much treble and not enough bass or mid range sound. I feel that it is a rip, its false advertising, period! Imax is the giant screen and sound, no less, this is how it has always been advertised, if you are going to charge extra for a imax show that is shown on a screen that is a quarter of the traditional imax screen then you should charge a quarter of the price, not 5 bucks extra. I am all for your Argument Aziz, corporations like this need to be put in check, especially in today's economy where five bucks is not enough to buy lunch anymore. I agree 100 percent.
John
· 7 months ago
I for one went and saw Star Trek this weekend on imax in mira mesa ca. I wanted to see what all the hype was about and having paid a higher fee to see it I was expecting to see a huge screen that took up most of my vision range and, not to mention, superior sound quality. In fact what I got was a bullshit slightly bigger screen with a sound system that had way to much treble and not enough bass or mid range sound. I feel that it is a rip, its false advertising, period! Imax is the giant screen and sound, no less, this is how it has always been advertised, if you are going to charge extra for a imax show that is shown on a screen that is a quarter of the traditional imax screen then you should charge a quarter of the price, not 5 bucks extra. I am all for your Argument Aziz, corporations like this need to be put in check, especially in today's economy where five bucks is not enough to buy lunch anymore. I agree 100 percent.
J. Ortiz
· 7 months ago
I never could see the difference between Imax and a regular screen - - now I know why. I've never actually had an "Imax experience". I've been ripped-off. FUCK YOU, RICHARD GELFOND!
Bill Jones
· 7 months ago
You are SO TOTALLY RIGHT!!! IMAX is blowing it big time. Screw 'em! Stupid IMAX, a respected brand is shooting itself in the foot. I'm going to see Star Trek at the Alamo Draft House, where I can be served wine and artichoke pizza by friendly waitstaff. Screw the popcorn and soda theaters!!!!
Papa John
· 7 months ago
So true - this is bullshit. At the least, IMAX should say whether the screen at each theater is their 70 footer or the regular screen size, so we can make an educated consumer choice.
John
· 7 months ago
i support that debate challenge. lets see how many sweat glands start rupturing in that ceo's skin when coughing up an answer and explanation to f*cked upd fake imax screens
WB
· 7 months ago
I totally agree with you. AMC is nothing but rip off artists, I refuse to have anything to do with them. If you get the debate ask why we have to watch commercials when we are paying to see a movie, not commercials. I hope Gelfond has sack enough to agree to the debate, I am interested in hearing his response in that type of quarry!
Sean
· 7 months ago
Aziz your a legend, and I couldn't agree with your arguement more... Ive had the same thing happen to me and honestly it sucks
JOHN
· 7 months ago
I too was expecting a large IMAX screen and felt ripped-off.... the movie was good.... BUT I WANTED TO SEE IT ON A BIG (F%$#ING SCREEN).....
Ron Beitler
· 7 months ago
Simply call your local IMAX. Ask them if the film is 15/70 imax. Simple, most are. This is true imax. Idiots buy things without doing their research.
Even the "smaller" imax screens are still digital and still larger then most average showcase theaters - AMC/Showcase screen size (largest auditorium)=27'x46' (53' diagonally)
Your title is right, you are bored. The press your getting for this "blog rant" is absurd. The media these days.... why dont we just cause another stupid non-existant swine flu panic.
lame
colin
· 7 months ago
Rip him up. He's begging for it.
DUH!
· 7 months ago
One could argue that you should know which IMAX you're seeing. If the movie theater near you has never shown an IMAX movie before, well, then, logically it's probably NOT the 15 story screen. COMMON SENSE PEOPLE! LET'S BRING IT BACK.
Stevilicious
· 7 months ago
A comment to Imax CEO, Richard Gelfond:
Sir,
Your comment about the screen size and the BMW analogy was truly a corporate cop-out! I saw the Star Trek movie on an inferior "Imax" screen, and even though the awesome movie made up for my let down, the "Imax Experience" was horrible! You need to realize that the primary demographic for the real Imax moneymakers have large HDTVs at home and are only willing to fork over the ridiculous amount money to a real theater if it has incredible picture and sound like Imax! In the end the moviegoers, (ie: the people who keep your format in business) ultimately get screwed here!!! You have a strong brand in the Imax name, and it is wise that you protect it at all cost while maintaining value in this tight market! It is YOUR responsibility to enforce that theaters notify their customers if they want to utilize your brand! But, what do you care... as long as you add more theaters to the Imax name, even if they are a sorry excuse, bait and switch scam!!!
Sincerely, A ripped off moviegoer
Brendan
· 7 months ago
IMAX = big screen (period)
Go get them Aziz! Also you are the only thing that makes me watch Parks & Rec.
Rhett
· 7 months ago
Aziz, you're so right about the IMAX thing. It's like taking a hot chic home, then before you bang her, she takes off her wig, pulls out her fake teeth, the stuffing falls out of her bra, etc. Are you still gonna bang her? Of course, you're drunk. Will you complain about it later? Of course. See, same thing. Keep on fighting the good fight. Coming to you from Charleston, SC.
gotothemat
· 7 months ago
Aziz - Totally agree. The IMAX branding and the increased ticket price for the BS IMAX screen seem deceptive to me. You should consider filing a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission (no I'm not kidding). https://www.ftccomplaintassistant.gov/
They may sit on it, but then again they may not. You can bet IMAX's lawyers are wringing their hands about the FTC implications right now.
Keith
· 7 months ago
Couldn't agree with you more - another scam.
Movie execs & theatre owners wonder why people would just as soon wait for movie to come out on DVD as see it in the theatre - rip-offs like this (...and food prices, inability on unwillingness to deal with jackass moviegoers texting/talking throughout the film, etc.) should offer some insight.
Chris
· 7 months ago
Hey Aziz, I totally support you and keep up the funny. Thanks for the IMAX info, I'll be careful in the future about seeing movies. Ironic thing is that Star Trek wasn't even filmed in IMAX so it probably looked better on your smaller screen than a big one. Come down to Texas again sometime.
Allysa
· 7 months ago
I completely agree and this whole issue is the reason I DIDN'T see Star Trek in "IMAX". The last movie I wanted to see we saw in fake IMAX and I was so pissed. Kudos to you for telling them what's up.
Roland Hulme
· 7 months ago
What is the correct response if somebody DOES threaten you with Twitter?
Hey, Aziz - I've been a fan of yours for ages, ever since you made that BRILLIANT comment about the Sen. from Texas fucking a box turtle. I have used that every time anybody tries to argue the subject of gay marriage with me and, before you threaten to sue, I ALWAYS mention that it's your joke and not mine.
Anyway. This is great that you've opened up the whole IMAX debate. My wife KEEPS pressuring me to go and see new movies in IMAX and I was excited at the thought of that 72ft screen - but if they're really putting them on the smaller screens and charging the same that's just a HUGE ripoff (not that the cinema is exactly a bargain. $8 popcorn, anybody?)
Anyway. Kudos for keeping up the crusade and rock on with your comedy routine - you're a legend.
alexis
· 7 months ago
I completely agree with you. If IMAX refuses to disclose which locations have the larger screens and which have the smaller ones, then they're obviously trying to hide something. They know no one would pay an extra $5 for nothing.
Thanks so much for you post. I will now never bother going to see IMAX at a local theater. They rip us off enough with $10 to see a movie anyway, they can go to hell if they want to scam us for even more!!
WIll
· 7 months ago
Aziz, I've put way too much thought into this.
You should lead a reverse boycott.
Either for the next big summer movie, or just some random saturday, get as many people as you can (which should be a large number) and go to a theater with a fake IMAX.
Buy tickets to the movie, walk in, walk out and immediatley demand a refund... all 200+ of you.
amy
· 7 months ago
YEAH!!!! Get them...I HATE when businesses pull stunts like this...get 'em GOOD!
Rico
· 7 months ago
In defense of IMAX I'd like to just point out that this is the inevitable direction that any business travels when dealing with free market capitalism.
All the new versions of Toys I got back in the 90's are poorly made and their points of articulation are hard and essentially for show (plastic joints vs metal joints).
Any sort of entertainment medium has gone up in price with no appreciable increase in quality (aside from graphics which really only go so far, when a million dollar project doesn't produce things much better than a weekend effort on DeviantArt it is not worth mentioning).
Medicine has been shoveling out the same 4-5 compounds for the same illnesses with a different name and an increase in cost of 125%
In the case of Movie theaters you have no longer got someone inside the rooms to bitch slap that asshole screaming at the screen or chatting on his cellphone but you still pay far more than you used to. Again in my area since the 90's the price has gone up over 5 bucks, which I'll admit isn't a huge deal but paying an extra 5 bucks for less service is a bit odd to me. Which is why I only go to the drive in now, that way the only people talking during the movie are people who know when the appropriate goddamn time to talk is.
I'm sure just about anywhere you look you are receiving less overall with an increase in price, which is simply because you have two groups of people that facilitate this business model.
A) Idiots with money. B) Idiots with money who think they aren't idiots.
The first group is simple, they see something shiny and they buy it. They are the staple consumer that CEO's get erections over. The second group is the kind of person that comes into an article about how annoying it is to get charged for something misleadingly and actually attacks the person upset.
These people are helping nobody but the businesses that use the shoddy tactics and money making schemes. Do they realize that? No...because they are idiots who are so idiotic they don't even realize they are idiots.
It's a vicious cycle but I suppose it is just the nature of things in a capitalist country whose education system is so poor that something like one in three people can't even name all three branches of their own government. Then again since when was it actually important to know even rudimentary stuff like that.
I bet every person that has bashed the Darfur joke can't even locate it on a map nor can they (without Wikipedia or Google) break down the conflict into its base parts and explain how it could be resolved. We are quick to snap at others for being insensitive but we tend to be pretty reserved about admitting our own ignorance on what we say offends us.
Coos
· 7 months ago
You are such an ass. You really need to get over yourself.
WTF?
· 7 months ago
Awesome Aziz - I felt completely ripped after paying for "IMAX" in Richmond, Virginia. I walked in and said "that's it?" - several people in the crowd also spoke up. Luckily, the movie made up for it but I won't see another movie for +$5 with no matinee pricing.
Alex
· 7 months ago
I thought i was the only one pissed about this. i actually live in manhattan and goto the true IMAX at lincoln square and the fake one at empire 25. the only reason i went to the empire is because its in time square and its a block away from me. they just recently opened the new one in Empire earlier this year. i first watched watchmen on it, and not only was i shocked, but the actual theater did a piece of shit job organizing the place for their first large debut imax movie. it was an utter mess and there was no place to put the lines. the imax screen didnt have its own floor because essentially they revamped theater 1 to become "imax" so the theater was the first one at the escalators and had no place for a long line to form. the managers were rude and very stupid with no logic, as well as the employees. they did not form a line until 30 minutes before the movie. this was on an OPENING WEEKEND at PRIME Showing time of 7pm! yet the lines formed at 630, and there was havoc because people who arrived at 630 were getting mixed in with people who were there since 430. Employees must of been complete amatuers because they laughed at me when i arrirved at 5:00 for a 7:00 show. these new IMAX's lack the know-how, and the screens. not to mention, both times i went to the empire 25 IMAX, the sound was messed up. this is a brand new "imax" and already the thing is malfunctioning. the part where they advertise about imax, the blurb in the beginning "... crystal clear screens, 10,000 watts of audio..." they were ALL IN MUTE with no SOUND. how ironic. they write crystal clear screens when it looks like an ordinary DLP movie on a standard size screen.
warplayer
· 7 months ago
It's so great to know you are reading these comments Richard. Let me say, then, that I completely agree with Aziz. I'm not really angry with IMAX, just dissapointed that you would soil your own brand with sub-par theater experiences. Everyone knows that IMAX means the giant, skyscraper sized screen. Sure digital sound and a crisp image is great, but go visit the Krikorian theater in Buena Park and you will see that other people actually provide an equal experience in sound and visual quality, if not better. There's simply no excuse to brand these digitally projected theaters as IMAX. I really thought the whole IMAX Digital idea makes sense, and is actually awesome. Why not upgrade the typical movie going experience? But don't cheat me out of an extra $5 and call it IMAX - everyone knows that means you get the giant screen along with the digital quality.
movietheateremployee
· 7 months ago
People like you are the reason people like me hate working in customer service. Jackass.
Lucy
· 7 months ago
Some people have sort of pointed something out here. If you were so disappointed, why didn't you get your ass up, walk out and demand a refund. Theaters may not give refunds just because you don't like the movie, but they have to give refunds under federal and state laws if the customer is disappointed with the service of the business itself. But I don't think this had anything to do with whether or not you were trully disappointed. This was a promo gig. Nothing better than negative feedback to promote something. Worked for Mel Gibson and others. Maybe it'll work for your show. When the ratings drop again, and you're in jeapardy of the show being cancelled, what are you going to do then? Attack Disneyland? Good for you, pat your head. BTW - you volunteered to part of a business that has been gouging the public for years, and lobbying for laws to protect them to do so. If any other business outside the film industry increased resale by upwards of 1000% they would be dragged before the courts and congress. No other "corporation" has been given the freedom to do as they wish, including open search warrants without names, just cause, etc., to hack people's computers and search their homes. So I think it's funny that you are boycotting yourself. The rules and regulations of the theaters are managed, thought up and approved by the MPAA, et all. THAT is one of the reasons why ST was the first film I've seen at a theater in almost three years. I usually just wait for DVD, and NetFlix it. Fuck 'em.
Brent
· 7 months ago
Aziz more than adequately explained why he did not just walk out: "I've been dying to see the movie and I finally had a window of time to see it. I was going to watch the movie. I didn’t want to deal with that hassle and not get to see it."
You can buy that or not, but I can imagine feeling that way about the right movie -- for me, that might have been "Lord of the Rings" or "Everest" or a Harry Potter movie, but the ambivalence about being ripped off or else not seeing the movie as planned would be the same.
Moreover, simply walking out and getting a refund in this situation really isn't full justice, not after the wasted drive (substantial for many people, like myself), frustrated anticipations, and ruined plans (for instance, if you're on a date or out with friends for a night you've all been looking forward to). IMAX and the other companies mentioned ought to show more respect than that, and, if not, then they need to feel some heat.
BTW, I have to wonder if your cynical, hypersarcastic, and grossly undersupported take on Aziz's motives don't reveal as much about you as they do about Aziz. Maybe you're normally more fair-minded and respectful.
Brent
· 7 months ago
In case it's not clear, this was written as a response to Lucy. Sorry for the omission.
Brent
· 7 months ago
Sorry for back-to-back posts; submitted this yesterday, but it didn't show up:
They should call these ordinary-sized screenings IMIN or MINIMAX. (I also like the "LIEMAX" moniker I saw in one of the comments here.) This happened to me once, and I definitely felt ripped off, though I had no idea of the true scale of the problem (pun intended).
Thank you, Aziz, for raising my awareness of what is going on with IMAX today. Now I know my experience wasn't an anomaly. (I think I originally wrote it off to being in a National Park area. I'm used to being -- or at least FEELING -- ripped off on almost anything you have to pay for in the vicinity near a National Park.) Next time, I'll know to do some research. Or maybe I'll just boycott.
It sounds like many here share my impressions of IMAX being essentially synonymous with oversized screens. Speaking for myself, what makes the traditional "IMAX experience" distinctive is the sense of being swallowed up in colossal size and sound. It's majestic!
On the other hand, I've really never even thought about better resolution being part of the IMAX experience, though, of course, this is also a big part of what makes an IMAX viewing so potentially impressive. A super-sized screen with a crappy picture would be glaringly awful. But whenever I've considered going to an IMAX show, my decision has always centered on the question of whether it's worth the extra money to be blown away by the sheer scale.
It's kind of like when I decide whether it's worth the extra bucks to go to even an ordinary theater -- say, for "Lord of the Rings" -- rather than simply renting a movie and watching it on my poor little ol' television at home. Size matters, when that's what you're paying for. Imagine going to the theater and being "treated" to a really high-quality showing on a home entertainment center!
I think it would be interesting if the IMAX folks (or some independent party) did a survey to find out what percentage of IMAX patrons would actually volunteer (with no prompting) the notion of "superior resolution" as one of the premium features of the IMAX experience. Just a simple "What are the key features of an IMAX experience?" survey. Maybe I'm out of touch, but it would be interesting to know what people would say.
Rameez
· 7 months ago
aziz zindabad! aziz zindabad!
John
· 7 months ago
I'd be PISSED if I paid extra for an imax movie and got the little screen crap. Go Aziz.
Fanners
· 7 months ago
The last IMAX I attended was a lonely rundown theatre with two seats and a television. I couldn't quite put my finger on what was different, but Richard assured me 90% of people didn't notice a change. And with statistical evidence pulled out of your ass like that, who couldn't agree!
sincerely, -Dakota Fanning
ps i looked up Darfur... not a fan.
Marco
· 7 months ago
I got ripped off too. All they need to do is tell us the difference in the theaters, the stoopid pigs.
moses valenzuela
· 7 months ago
Being an actor. One might know which has a REAL IMAX. The only REAL IMAX is at The Bridge Cinema Deluxe in Westchester. Someone should have done their research beforehand.
aziz
· 7 months ago
Why is that responsibility on me? If I see Chips Ahoy, do I need to research and make sure its not a bag of shit? NO! I assume its Chip Ahoy because taht's what it says! I WIN THE ARGUMENT! YOU LOSE!
Mo
· 7 months ago
This is rad. I've never been to one of the smaller screens, only the giant one at City Walk in LA, but if I had paid extra and it wasn't that giant screen I would be PISSED. Having the smaller screen named differently so that the customer could make an informed choice is responsible marketing. Would it be too much for us to ask that we be marketed to accurately? Keep it up! If Gelfond takes you up on your offer, sign me up for a seat at THAT debate!!!
dreuters
· 7 months ago
I saw it at AMC Mercado 20 in Santa Clara, CA. I was very disappointed and felt that the $5 surcharge was ridiculous. I was expecting IMAX and got a regular digital movie.
joe citera
· 7 months ago
the imax digital screen is a ripoff..if i wouldve known it wasnt the normal 75 ft screen at the regal movie theatre 5 min from my house i wouldve just gone into nyc to see it at lincoln sqaure..its just another corporation lying to the public just to make a quick buck..they should have signs posted in the lobby of the theatres telling customers that its not a real imax screen i agree and will never spend another dime to have a fake imax experience
messi
· 7 months ago
LOL Richard Gelfond - what a shit cunt. You should check the message boards around the internet, the big gun ones like aintitcool where everyone wants to burn your house down.
I propose they change the name to "Digimax" - reason is I don't want anyone seeing the next Batman Film on Fake Imax where the aspect ratio doesn't adjust. Chris Nolan basically saved Imax from death and broke new ground and for what? No fucking reason because Imax are happy for Nolan's attempt at art to be half assed.
MS
· 7 months ago
right on aziz. i went to a bullshit imax screening of watchmen at the amc 25 in times square a few months ago. there were many complaints in the theater to the tune of "wtf is this shit," and many people were also complaining to the manager of the theater, who said there was nothing they could do because it qualified as imax quality picture and sound. sure it was a digital screen, but it's still not imax unless it's digital quality on a huge ass screen four times the size. i was fleeced and i tell everyone i know not to go to that theater.
messi
· 7 months ago
Alex - You fucking idiot. They are doing something wrong and it's fucked. Nolan filmed Dark Knight for the big aspect ratio on a huge screen, it made people think that the experience is worth it, now they want to squeeze money out of people by deceiving them into thinking they are getting a Dark Knight type experience. It's evil and you're just a massive apologist cunt.
Teeni
· 7 months ago
That's not a very good analogy there. First of all, the IMAX screen IS bigger, has a better picture quality, and sound quality. The regular screens don't have those features. You are implying that the IMAX is the exact same as the regular screen, which it clearly is not. You could have easily left the IMAX theatre to watch Star Trek on a regular screen.
A more comparable analogy would be you eating a whole meal, then afterwards saying, "It wasn't cooked right."
aziz
· 7 months ago
But its NOT nearly as big as what is normally thought of as an IMAX screen by myself and apparently judging by the way this has spread a great many other consumers think of as IMAX. They are two different types of screens. One system costs $1.5 million to put up, the other is $5 million. Its like paying $5 for something and getting something worth $1.5.
Teeni
· 7 months ago
That's not a very good analogy there. First of all, the IMAX screen IS bigger, has a better picture quality, and sound quality. The regular screens don't have those features. You are implying that the IMAX is the exact same as the regular screen, which it clearly is not. You could have easily left the IMAX theatre to watch Star Trek on a regular screen.
A more comparable analogy would be you eating a whole meal, then afterwards saying, "It wasn't cooked right."
Vince
· 7 months ago
Teeni,
I think it's about expectations. Before major commercial releases came to IMAX, we used to watch Space walks or other documentaries on IMAX. Growing up with those screens, we correlate IMAX with large screens.
You're right, the smaller IMAX screens are larger than a regular screen. However, it's not what people are expecting. A lot of people feel cheated because they feel as if they've just been a victim of a bait and switch scam.
IMAX is losing credibility. Almost 50% of their screens are of this smaller "IMAX" screen. While it's great for both the theaters AND IMAX because they can charge more, it's not the experience consumers are looking for.
Imagine if they had simply branded things "IMAX" and "IMAX-lite." Something as simple as that would bypass all the outrage.
I saw an analogy floating around: It's like paying for a 5 series BMW and getting a 3 series instead. You are getting German engineering and the BMW name, but it's just not what you expected.
Erica
· 7 months ago
I've have not had the misfortune of being duped in such a fashion, but I totally agree that its BS. If you are paying for an IMAX screen you should get a giant IMAX screen not some regular sized pseudo-IMAX screen. And if it's going to be that size I think they should have it advertised as such, maybe like Mini-IMAX experience, you know so you can make an informed decision on whether or not you want to get ripped off.
Trevor
· 7 months ago
My roommate saw star trek in Imax and said the exact same thing. The screen wasn't big enough, and the "experience" really wasn't that great. I'm really glad you posted this Aziz, I didn't realize it was an actual corporate move to downgrade the screen sizes and charge the same. Complete rip-off. I will definitely be going to Bridge in the future.
IMAX CEO Richard Gelfond vehemently sucks testicles. Intertubes ftw!
Anonymous
· 6 months ago
IMAX CEO Richard Gelfond vehemently sucks testicles. Intertubes ftw!
Anonymous
· 6 months ago
IMAX CEO Richard Gelfond vehemently sucks testicles. Intertubes ftw!
Kolby
· 5 months ago
you are totally right dude...I got ripped off too, FUCK REGAL
Jess
· 5 months ago
Alex,
Your argument that everyone assumed and therefore it is their fault is completely invalid. This screen, which is far less advanced, expensive and large costs the same as a large IMAX screen, that is, even if they had called it something identifiably different, a rip-off. But to on top of it, trick you INTO assuming it’s an IMAX by calling it such furthers the fact that it’s a rip off. If you’re so in defense of this why don’t you pay for the difference everyone paid? Since you think the price makes sense somehow.
Jess
· 5 months ago
Alex,
With mention that you know Aziz personally, it reveals how personal this is toward him and not about the issue at hand. So you instead are blindly defending something preposterous and going against average good people who just don’t want to be tricked to pay EVEN MORE for a movie when they’re already expensive to have it not even be what it advertises with its name. This is clearly just something for you to use for your personal issue with Aziz. Where as the rest of us, some fans of him as a comedian, some not, are talking about an issue and with good reason.
Basically…just shut the fuck up already
Name
· 5 months ago
I just got conned tonight in Japan by this mini-Imax experience. I agree it is a rip off and IMAX needs to change the name to differentiate between full IMAX and mini-IMAX.
All Comments
the first 10 seconds speak for themselves.
I've got everything in that I've been emailed about up until now. Hit me at jamespeach@gmail.com if you have more, or any corrections. This has been a lot of fun so far. I'd love to get every single IMAX in the U.S. logged in here. It's certainly info that could be used in the branding argument, and we've already learned today that IMAX can't be trusted to represent numbers fairly, as evidenced in these shenanigans.
I've had a couple of friends ask me why this gets under my skin so much, so I'll tell everyone here. I have always ridden pretty hard for IMAX. I've got certain friends and acquaintances spread across the country that I've always insisted go to see films on an IMAX screen. My reasons include sound, seating, and most of all, immersion from sheer size of the screen. Resolution was never part of the argument. Sure, I would love if all Hollywood films were shot to fill the screen, but a Hollywood 35mm movie on the IMAX is still pretty damn enjoyable, and much harder to accidentally pull yourself out of.
I've had a couple of people come back to me and say their local IMAX wasn't all that different, in a tone that suggested I was a bit of a loon it my fanaticism for the IMAX Experience. Now I know why, and it's extremely annoying.
So, supposedly these IMAX digital smaller screens have great resolution and such. That's cool. Not mad at that. However, that's not what I expect when I see "IMAX", and that's not an expectation I built all by my lonesome. The IMAX folks are trying to use that good ol' Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field by claiming that the "IMAX Experience" is still happening in these much smaller auditoriums. I suppose that, technically, that's still the case. Those auditoriums ARE running on tech owned by IMAX, after all. However, if they are going to throw out reasoning and numbers that defy logic, they have to also take other cues from Steve. You don't just sell people different sized iPods with different features, simply label and advertise them all as "iPod", and charge the same price for them. If that happened, iPod would NOT be iPod.
Fix your mistakes, IMAX. It's not that hard. You don't have to slight your new brand in the process, you just have to figure out a way to label your different products that gives props to them both. No, I can't do it for you. I don't get paid to make those decisions. YOU do.
My friends assumed it was a fairly big difference (screen size sure is) so we just saw it at a regular theater instead of going out of the way to find a movie-theater IMAX.
I'm sure those are still an improvement over regular theaters, but IMAX would be better served by notifying people of the differences.
1. You threatened to use your massive Twitter following to somehow hurt a chain -- but directed this at a local theater manager.
2. You asked for $10 ($5 x 2) back and, instead, received two movie passes (valued at $20 ($10 x 2), and you feel "robbed".
3. Your outrage is based on your feeling duped into seeing a movie on an IMAX screen that is smaller than what you believed and assumed to be a "normal" IMAX screen -- so you watched the movie and then complained after the fact.
4. You've attempted to back-petal your Twitter threat by claiming it was a joke -- either in keeping with the fact you're a horrible comedian (and something not one of your fans picked up on, which speaks volumes) or that it was just an attempt to disarm one of the arguements about you having a un-deserved sense of celebrity.
5. You now demand/request a televised debate with the CEO of the company -- a demand that is so far beyond rational, it's becoming funny.
For your fans, they're following you blindly and you've become the poster child for whiny consumers who want as much as they can suck out of any company who's name ends with "Inc.".
For those that don't know you, you've painted the perfect picture of a man who's minor celebrity has pumped his ego beyond his own understanding. Far cry from the young, talented comedian from UCBT. You've come a long way, or so you think. Calm the fuck down, you're beyond yourself.
Short answer: No, I do believe in universal health care.
What do you think when you think of IMAX? I know personally that when I think of IMAX I think of huge screens because every single IMAX-branded movie experience I've ever had since I was a child has been a giant screen. I've never once thought about the digital cameras that IMAX makes because it's never been presented as such before. This is a new thing for IMAX.
And that's fine! If they want to market a new digital quality camera they can but MARKET IT THEN. They aren't marketing it. Instead, they are just putting their name on a movie with no information as to what you're paying extra for. In my case, and in the case of everyone who is complaining, I would expect to see a giant screen.
You can't spend years building up a reputation for your name (where your name is synonymous with the product like Band-Aid or Kleenex) and then all of the sudden expect people to know what your new product is when it's completely different than the reputation you built for it!
That's the problem here and your "arguments" address a fake problem, not the real issue that Aziz is bringing up.
Nobody has any requirement to teach you anything.
And more importantly, Aziz's argument falls flat because he watched the movie and then complained. If he felt wronged, it's up to him to leave and go to another theater.
And when you take a look at how it's being advertised it isn't separated. It's called Star Trek: The IMAX Experience. There's no indication that you aren't going to be seeing it on the traditional IMAX screen. Sure, if it said IMAX 3D as it did when I saw Superman I would be expecting a 3D experience. But "The IMAX Experience" gives no indication about what it's going to be other than what the consumer already thinks about IMAX. You are delusional if you think that people don't expect something specific when the name IMAX is used.
And it doesn't matter what Aziz says or does. He could've watched the movie 15 times and even said he loved it better on a small screen. It is still a deceptive move to trick consumers into buying a product they are convinced is something else. And it's not like I can say to the ticket teller, "Do you mind if I take a look at the screen to see if it's what I think IMAX is?" Sure, you could ask the person if it's the true IMAX screen but why would anyone even think to???
Of course, now we will because of Aziz mentioning it. Thanks Aziz.
Oh, Nathan -- you're kinda oblivious, so just FYI -- that was sarcasm. Ticket sales are increasing. I guess all the people that got ripped off went back.
And it does matter what Aziz does -- he walked into the theater, realized it wasn't what he expected but sat down and took it anyway. At that point, the sale is complete.
And it doesn't matter what Aziz does - because the issue isn't whether or not he got his money back. The issue is whether or not IMAX is duping its customers to get more money.
And it is.
More to the point, because you're obviously too up your own and Aziz's ass to realize what my argument is -- would you use all the notebook paper and THEN try to return it, or try to bring it back when you first open the box and realize the difference?
airline ticket analogy is more fitting, would you get off the flight,
drive home, rebook yourself, and then come back to fly on a new
flight? Or just tell them, "Fuck, okay I'm not going through that
hassle, I'll get on the flight and get refunded for first class when
we land."
one type of IMAX and getting stuck with the other, I think its clear
they have a perception problem and they need to correct it by
differentiating the two types of screens. Look at that diagram, you
really think those two are comparable and both should have the same
surcharge? I've explained why I saw the movie up top, I'm not
inconveniencing myself because I was a victim of false advertising and
I happily paid my $10 to see the film.
Convenience > Principals
That's not how it works. To hit every analogy everyone below has attempted to make -- you can't buy a book, read it and return it -- you can't eat at a restaurant and ask for a refund after eating everything on your plate -- and you can't watch a movie and, after it's over, ask for a refund because it wasn't what you expected.
And you are NOT a victim of false advertising. You're throwing out random cliche lines -- and I don't even believe you're Aziz, because he's not that dumb.
If IMAX (for a long time) only made theaters with the 72-foot screens and then, one day, decided to produce different products -- it's not their requirement to educate everyone on the difference between their original product and this.
I do, however, agree the up-charge amount is a little high -- but even if you agree with that, it's an issue with AMC, not IMAX.
"I have worked in food service all my life..."
I think it ends there.
Also, your "people do it all the time" point is typical.
A company does not have any requirement to educate people. If you see a new/different product, you have the right to ask questions. There is no obligation to explain a difference. However, you do have the right to ask/inquire/request more information. If you fail to do so -- buyer beware (it's on YOU).
the 7 series for the EXACT same price and not tell the buyer the
difference. Under your logic, Gatorade can sell two bottles of
Gatorade for the same price fill one with piss and say "Buyer beware!
You should have checked to make sure this wasn't piss!" You CAN'T do
that. Alex, if IMAX changes their policy, what would you do? Can we
make a bet? You are SO wrong on this its ridiculous.
Your argument makes no sense. I had the same experience as Aziz, and I can say that I will not be going back to the fake IMAX. NOW I will call and ask, but how could I have even known to?
I will admit the picture was a little clearer than in a normal theater, but it wasn't the IMAX experience I was expecting. I didn't ask for a refund.
I am not going to bother with analogies. They have all been made. Think what you will. Obviously, you are of the school that thinks it's ok to operate in a deceptive manner as long as you are making money for your shareholders.
You are operating from the "we have no legal obligation" standpoint. What about ethical obligations?
What you don't realize is the long term damage that you are doing to your own companies with this kind of behavior.
GM and all of the banks and all of the other companies that are going down right now operated from that same standpoint. People stopped buying from them. The same will happen to IMAX if they don't at least disclose the truth. Shitting where you eat is stupid no matter how big of a dog you are.
I agree that maybe Aziz should have walked out of the movie, but I think his main point is still valid.
to spell it out -- the principle is truth in advertising for IMAX.
aziz, i think that the cinema should clearly indicate on the window what the size of the IMAX screen is. good luck to you!
Also, principle is negated after 2 HOURS of watching the movie.
He went out of his way to experience what has become the singular iconic characteristic of IMAX films: the immense proportion of the screen itself. IMAX has developed a generic association with this characteristic in much the same way the word “iPod” at times is used as a generic reference to any MP3 player.
Let’s say iPod has, theoretically, for years been selling one line of iPods which were all 9 gig. Now without notice or differentiation they suddenly started shipping 2 gig iPods in addition to 9 gig units. Now you as a consumer purchase an iPod in good faith expecting the product delivered to be consistent with all prior known models and accordingly agree to purchase that product at the equilibrium price established with respect to the 9 gig product line, but are then surprised to discover you received a 2 gig unit. It might be argued that you’d been defrauded due to a willful negligence of dispelling false pretenses. In a very similar manner IMAX appears to have acted in bad faith by using their prior brand association to force an inferior product on customers through capitalizing on a temporary delay of their knowledge regarding the service for which they are purchasing.
Was this illegal on AMC’s, Regal’s, or IMAX’s part? I doubt it would take much of a lawyer to get them out of any serious charges. But was it a stupid, stupid move on IMAX’s part? Absolutely. Why would anyone choose to drive the extra 20 minutes, 40 minutes, or even the extra hours to see an “IMAX” experienced film when it is a toss up, a bloody gamble on whether the defining characteristic that had made such extra effort worthwhile even will be delivered? The appeal of IMAX is going to die, and die fast. Can you sue them for being swindled? Probably not. Would I still feel swindled after paying 5 dollars for a huge screen and being cheated due to a lie of omission? Hell yes I would. I’m not even going to say I’m boycotting IMAX, but I am going to say I’ll never go out of my way to see something experienced in an “IMAX” ever again. Why bother?
p.s. Alex, you are aware you’re definitively what people call a “Troll,” right?
Apple began selling the iPod Mini and the iPod Shuffle. Yes, in certain places -- you could find out what the sizes were, what the differences were. You asked questions to sales people, you looked on their website, you INQUIRED. Nobody did that here.
P.S. - Define "Troll"...
That's why Apple is a smart company and IMAX is a jerk.
ELSES POINT! THEY DIFFERENTIATE!!!!!
"In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion."
Mostly, it a combination of characteristics that leads others to believe the "troll" seems to have nothing better to do largely due to a lack of positive influences in their own private life. These individuals in an attempt to dispel their own private irrelevancy vent unwanted and inappropriate aggression without just cause as an outlet for escapism by creating any form of interaction through inflammatory behavior to counter the lack of healthy stimuli in their own lives, albeit in the aforementioned unhealthy manner. At least that's been the defining characteristics others I've discussed this with attribute to internet "trolls" as the justification for their behavior.
I'm not saying this is true about whomever it is penning under "Alex," simply that by and large that's likely the impression others are going to assume. Play nicer man, you'll get further... You seem too intelligent to be so consistently and ceaselessly rude.
as·sump·tion : a fact or statement (as a proposition, axiom, postulate, or notion) taken for granted. (Example, "I made an assumption that the IMAX 3D screen was large, instead of doing any research and then I just blamed everyone except myself.")
a branded product is you idiot. When you buy Gatorade do you research
every time to make sure it isn't filled with piss? Because under your
logic, they can just fill it with piss and say "You assumed this was
like all the other bottles of Gatorade, but now we fill it with piss!
Didn't you do your research?"
OOOOOOH BUUUUUUUURN!
heh. Seriously though. You're an idiot.
Cute stuff though a little misguided.
Oh, and to that point -- IMAX is a brand, not a product. IMAX Digital, IMAX 3D -- those are products. I too thought about going to see Star Trek in IMAX. I went online, pulled up their website to find all the IMAX theaters around New York City. I checked out the ones outside Manhattan and realized they were labeled different -- I read their website and found out it wasn't the same. Of course, I could just go to one of the AMC IMAX theaters and just bitch about it on my blog and Twitter.
You are so worried that no one counters your "points" - here you go (that will be $5 please)
1. You threatened to use your massive Twitter following to somehow hurt a chain -- but directed this at a local theater manager.
TRUE - and I don't know Aziz's from Adam - but I was laughing - of course the local manager doesn't care - he is making $8/hour to deal with angry people - that is why that part was funny. He did not realize, or care, that by being obstinant he was creating a PR nightmare for IMAX. IMAX would glady have paid him $1,000 to not have a few thousand (and then a few thousand more and so on and so on - this has caught fire given that myself, someone who has never heard of Mr. Aziz, am reading about it)
2. You asked for $10 ($5 x 2) back and, instead, received two movie passes (valued at $20 ($10 x 2), and you feel "robbed".
Reading FAIL. Mr. Aziz clearly and repeatedly states he wanted the $5 differential refunded - for value NOT received. Granted he received more "value" but that misses the point that is was a principled request and the theater operator refused to yield on the principle.
3. Your outrage is based on your feeling duped into seeing a movie on an IMAX screen that is smaller than what you believed and assumed to be a "normal" IMAX screen -- so you watched the movie and then complained after the fact.
THIS IS THE LAMEST POINT EVER. Should he have gotten up and disturbed everyone else in the theater so he can get a refund!? This would be rude. It appears you desperate to have a reason to dispute his actions.
4. You've attempted to back-petal your Twitter threat by claiming it was a joke -- either in keeping with the fact you're a horrible comedian (and something not one of your fans picked up on, which speaks volumes) or that it was just an attempt to disarm one of the arguements about you having a un-deserved sense of celebrity.
Reading FAIL (sorry to be redundant - so are the "points" we are begged to refute. Twitter=joke. Darfur=joke. This is obvious on the first read. Who cares if he twitters 1,000,000? I thought he actually said it to the theater guy and that he was therefor a truly inspired comic.
5. You now demand/request a televised debate with the CEO of the company -- a demand that is so far beyond rational, it's becoming funny.
Sense of humor FAIL. Dude that would be funny. And I for one am tired of being screwed by corporate America. If IMAX wants to dilute their brand with tiny screens fine, but don't expect adoring fans to gush about how great the tiny screen experience is.
For your fans, they're following you blindly and you've become the poster child for whiny consumers who want as much as they can suck out of any company who's name ends with "Inc.".
I don't understand why you are so angry with Mr. Aziz. He was wronged. He sought appropriate redress and was shot down. So he told people about it. The facts stand for themselves. And I own a corporation that ends in Inc. and people do try to screw the corporation, but I offer so much value to my customers that they fail - people say what are you complaining about!? But if I offered fakeImax instead of true IMAX I would be ashamed.
For those that don't know you, you've painted the perfect picture of a man who's minor celebrity has pumped his ego beyond his own understanding. Far cry from the young, talented comedian from UCBT. You've come a long way, or so you think. Calm the fuck down, you're beyond yourself.
As I said, this is my first awareness of Mr. Aziz. I am looking forward to seeing his work, as he seems both sincere and funny.
Tom
You are now completely refuted. Will you kindly be quiet? Thank you.
2. You throw out the work "principle" and "value" a few times -- you agree with my point, but then dispute it. I'm just gonna skip this one, because it seems like not even you had a strong argument on this.
3. According to your logic, it would take a while (at least until the movie was past the credits) to recognize the screen is smaller? That doesn't seem like it makes much sense. Your logic is a bit flawed there. Are we just now assuming Aziz realized the screen was smaller by the end credits? I'd rather give the guy more credit and assume he recognized this when he first walked into the theater.
4. Throwing out a joke about Darfur or Twitter does not make him an "inspired" comic. What happened -- after writing his rant, he decided to tone it down with the Darfur reference. The Twitter thing was legit.
5. Ah, there it is -- you're "tired of being screwed by corporate America". There is your underlying true reasons for being annoyed with this. This isn't about IMAX or AMC, this is about YOU. You won't admit this, because you need to admit it to yourself first.
6 (etc). I'm not angry, I just disagree. Not so much with what happened (Aziz made a mistake by assuming something, should have left, went back to the box office, expressed concern, got a ticket for a standard theater). That is the flaw in this argument. If you have issue, it's easy to take the convenient road, argue later and blog about it. Aziz took the easy, lazy road and is trying to paint himself as some patriot.
And I DO know Aziz personally -- unlike you. This is why I know exactly how he is acting, what he is trying to get across.
Furthermore, he is a fucking comedian. He is being allegorical and trying to make a joke out of a situation that he realizes isn't a big deal or an important issue. That is why he made the reference to Darfur. He received the movie tickets and is complaining still because it is not about the money, but the principle. If the movie theater is willing to give him 20 dollars worth of tickets, then why wouldn't they be willing to give him a 5 dollar refund. That is the point. The televised debate request is also, of course, a joke. I can't tell if this is someone who is intentionally trying to piss people off or if you are really that dumb.
And, your own arguement made a hard-left turn:
"He is being allegorical and trying to make a joke out of a situation that he realizes isn't a big deal or an important issue."
"He received the movie tickets and is complaining still because it is not about the money, but the principle"
So, is that your defense or are you just trying to find a defense? Try harder.
If you lie and are dishonest you should own up to it. There is something called business ethics. I'm no business major, but I understand Aziz is, perhaps this is what is fueling his comedic and ethical fire.
Go to Asian massage parlor, pay for full service, get naked, start getting an HJ, get into it, she walks away not finishing the HJ no BJ and no "Love you long time", get dressed, complain to management...
I feel his pain.
And you health care / darfur people need to get a fucking life. The guy is trying to talk about one damn experience HE had, and explain how this company is screwing people, and you idiots are turning around talking politics and bullshit. That's like you coming home and telling your roommate "Hey man, I just hit a huge pothole in the middle of main street, they really need to fix that". And your roommate responds with "hey man, screw your pothole, don't you know people are starving in Africa and there are endangered water fowl somewhere that need a home?"
WTF is with you people? You should be stoked that a dude in the industry is still down to earth enough to know when the little guy is getting duped and says something about it.
How can you not understand that this is a principle thing? You can't stick the same label and price tag on something that is absolutely different.
Let's pretend that Samsung makes two plasma TVs. The picture quality is equally good, they both bear the same name and price but one is 42" and one is 63".
Does it make sense now moron?
Here's the map: http://destroyfakeimax.blogspot.com
If IMAX refuses to rebrand these crap spots (or, hell, I guess they could just rebrand the awesome spots) then we could at least have a map that shows which is which.
Get 'em, Aziz! You're awesome!
Richard Gelfond is also a horrible lover.
And 90%?! Sounds like he needs to hire a new statistician.
nevermind the poor economy and people wanting to "escape" by going to the movies. this CEO can't take a hint from other failed industries and see that corporate greed is bad!!
i hope you get your $5 back.
They're probably not counting the thousands that watch the movie and complain after. I can't be certain, but I think they're required by law to subtract your ticket from the totals if you threaten use of your Twitter account or blog.
right, what will you do then? Can we get you to make a bet with us?
LMAO!!!1
btw Parks & Rec = EPiC WiN! NBC Thursday!
ParKs & Rec > Your Thursday TV show
WHAT DO YOU THINK?
Would you feel duped paying for a smaller IMAX screen?
Yes! A bigger price should mean a bigger screen. 81.8%
No! The quality makes up for the size. 4.5%
I'll just go to the regular movies. 13.6%
"People continue to buy tickets" is a specious as fuck basis for a rebuttal, by the way. It's like if someone was bitching about their internet service, and the CEO of the ISP was all "hey, you're wrong, and everybody thinks that you're wrong because they're still buying our internet service." Sure it seems plausible, if you assume that everybody in the world knows about the issue, has a choice in the matter (and no screaming kids demanding to see "IMAX"), etc.
What a dickass.
I'm sure the web-noise about Aziz's issue has nothing to do with that. After all the commenters are all on iMAX's side, right?
Denying the problem is making a mockery of customers. Quite probably the worst way to handle a public relations situation.
Good job IMAXMONEYBYRIPPINGMYCUSTOMERSOFF.
Also, I don't know why the movie manager gave you such a hard time. I got a refund for the sound going out for like 30 seconds during Crank 2: High Voltage.
This IMAX guy is being a douche bag and ruining his company's reputation. IMAX used to be awesome and unique, now they're selling out and being just like everyone else.
You're doing a good thing Aziz, and it's been great to follow your battle. If you can get Kanye to put your cousin on the front page of his blog, then you can debate the shit out of this CEO asshole. Or since you know Ye, just get Yeezy to drop a new diss track on this fool!
This is truly criminal. I like your airplane analogy. I think I'll boycott IMAX entirely and not give that company and CEO any more money until they admit that the smaller screens do not warrant the extra $5. I enjoy seeing an event movie on a real IMAX screen, but I'll skip it now. Plus the IMAX in my area doesn't get the good movies until months after the films have already opened. Why would I pay an extra $5 for a movie that's 2-3 months old? I'm not paying $10 to rent a movie on DVD.
What's worse is I'd already seen The Dark Knight at a regular theater, and was only going again because I loved the movie and was curious about IMAX. What a rip! Plus I drove all the way from f***ing Canoga Park for it when I could have just gone to the Winnetka 21 or anywhere else for that matter. Damn it! This was months ago and now I'm upset all over again.
Go 40-man raid your mother to get full World of Warcraft experience you toolbag.
Says some guy who knows more about World of Warcraft than I ever hope to.
“IMAX did 15% of Star Trek’s total domestic box office in the whole country on only 138 screens," which is less than 2% of all movie theatres, says Gelfond. "This is compared to the earlier releases of Watchmen, where we did 12% of the box office and Monsters and Aliens, where we did around 10%. Clearly a lot of people are going back to IMAX theaters.”
No, clearly a lot of people want to see a real IMAX movie.
What he doesn't mention is whether or not the people who paid $11 million were satisfied with their "IMAX experience." Most people shelled out that much cash expecting something they didn't get. Just because he made the money doesn't mean he should have made it.
I should have asked for my money back like Aziz.
What do you think?
Would you feel duped paying for a smaller IMAX screen?
Yes! A bigger price should mean a bigger screen. 88.9%
No! The quality makes up for the size. 2.8%
I'll just go to the regular movies 8.3%
that speaks for itself!
I absolutely agree with you. They simply cannot build enough proper IMAX screens, so they ruin what used to be a special experience by downsizing it and still calling it the same thing.
The sad part is that I am sure the film looked great, and had you wanted to see STAR TREK, that would be fine, but you wanted to "experience" STAR TREK in IMAX, and IMAX is supposed to denote a special experience, not faux IMAX
The sad thing is that this is not new. Going back to Cinerama, which was the 50's equivalent of IMAX, they would simply show a film on a Cinerama screen that wasn;t shot in the CINERAMA process, and still advertise the hell out of it being CINERAMA. It has happened all through the years, and people put up with it. They need to stop.
In the end, you are correct. You paid a premium for something that you did not get, and expected to get, based on previous experience as well as IMAX reputation.
I totally agree, and public relations alone should tell Mr. Gelfond that his response is actually dismissive and insulting, and he really could have diffused this with better tact.
In fact that's a direct quote from a ten year old I overheard leaving the theatre.
And if someone's counting this was the first time I spent the $5 for fake IMAX and I feel ripped off especially we had to drive 25 minutes to get there.
...Screw them. I'm with you, Mr. Ansari.
And that letter from the CEO was condescending and patronizing. Way to smooth things over.....
I would argue that consumers are being tricked time and time again by this bullshit; that's why they continue to buy the tickets. I don't know how long they've been pulling this but I'd like to see how many people, if they had the choice to go to the $10 theater vs the $15 ripoff fake imax, would choose the imax. I'm pretty sure this time and time again arguement wouldn't hold up under that kind of scrutiny.
Also, F8CK IMAX shirts with proceeds to Darfur = genius.
I think all cinemas should should be IMAX digital (cause the quality is better) at the same cost as the normal cinemas, and the normal cinemas should be cheaper, cause the quality of them is pretty shit. My LCD screen at home is better than most cinemas
by the park and rec, kicks ass! no seriously it really does!
Yes. As long as the stock studios film on fits the aspect ratio of the screen. Until then it'll be like watching standard def on a High def tv set and that's just wrong. Sad thing is the younger gen will get used to it and wonder what the fuss is about similar to when most original theatres were fighting with multiplexes in the 80's. Now we simply accept any movie on a poorly lit and in terrible sounding theatres. LIEMAX experience should be the new general standard but not for more $$$. They should be happy ppl are going back to theatres. By cheating those who are obviously trying to stay loyal to the experience of going to a theatre they're inevitably pushing everyone toward home cinema cos in the long run it'll be less expensive to simply steam it to your big-ass flat screen.
I saw TDK at (the only) IMAX in Melbourne, Australia and was blown away. Only finding out later a few scenes were shot in true IMAX 70mm. It was a great film so no real complaints but with more features leaning toward doing the same and charging full (IMAX) price for a few scenes isn't worth the extra $$$. If they want sitting in another true IMAX theatre it'll only be for features captured soley on 70mm. Not interested in anything else.
to quote:
Star Trek was shot in cinemascope, an anamorphic format that squeezes the image on the film, but projects it through lenses that stretch it back out horizontally to its 1:2.35 aspect ratio. C-scope is run through a normal movie camera vertically, (90 degrees to a still camera) and exposes a frame taking up four perfs of film - about half the film area of a 35mm still camera.
You can read more about it if you search boingboing gadgets for IMAX and Star Trek.
So you got ripped off twice.
twitter/bobbydigital
Carry on the good fight, Aziz! I agree with you 100%.
I think that part is really interesting, because these consumers are probably continuing to buy tickets because they don't know they're being ripped off. That doesn't confirm that ppl disagree with you, that confirms that this IMAX CEO is a fucking idiot.
They should then air the debate in IMAX theaters (real ones) to ensure people get the true experience!
Real IMAX is breathtaking...
Digital IMAX is not. It's almost not even worth it to see it in those theatres... you can't even tell that a film was shot in IMAX in those theatres because the digital quality is so poor.
Having worked at a "real" IMAX, I know why people love IMAX. Evidently the corporate offices don't.
The value of my opinion on this matter might be somewhat lessened, since I'm pretty sure that I'm basically in love with you because you are awesome, and this renders me biased. But IMAX is going down. This is a war.
Dear IMAX,
Please stop lying to us.
Signed,
A Former IMAX fan
gelfond looks at a bunch of forum trolls, and his generation doesn't get it.
"wait! they're calling him gay cuz I'm right! I'm a genius! let's keep ripping them off!"
As a consumer I would like to experience IMAX in a 72ft screen. If you dont rebrand the IMAX experience in small screen theaters with a different name, customers like me wont even bother looking up and driving to the nearest IMAX theatre to be disappointed. Also based on last 3-4 movies as data points you want to brag about the success of your fraud, looks like you are one of the golden parachute CEO type!
Luckily for me, I'm close to the Arclight Cinemas and watch movies there when I can. Though I hope this movement gives rise for a change, I think what we can do to really stick it to IMAX is to avoid their "regular" IMAX screens. Though I won't go as far as saying skipping all IMAXs, for I want people near real IMAX screens to see films there, I hope by skipping the whored-out-IMAX named theatres out, it will send a stronger message to force change.
IMAX is full of shit.
And to those saying Aziz is petty, then do you think "Consumer Reports" magazine is petty?
I think it's just basic business ethics to not be dishonest to your customers. IMAX got caught and should deal with the ramifications/act as an example regarding what businesses SHOULD NOT be doing. Namely, falsifying their product's worth while hiding under a name-brand guise that is misleading.
15 dollars for a movie ticket is rediculous
GO AZIZ!
Our viewing of movies these days is already muddled with so many distractions by these corporate chains. I often ask myself "what movie did I pay to see?" by the time the last trailer unrolls. After enduring 20 minutes of "Preshow" extended ads, two minutes for National CineMedia's trailers, 4-6 MPAA approved trailers, I'm often exhausted! It's to the point that patrons can nearly count on being 5-10 minutes late, fumbling through the aisles, crashing down in a nosy heap and still not miss the roll of the credits. Now, after peddling the preshow time to any number of hungry media outlets desperate for audiences, Regal and AMC expect those of us who love movies to dump $5 extra bucks on top of the exorbitant ten dollars we normally dish to endure a fake-ass IMAX? We have every right to demand a higher standard.
I'm one of those people that adores going to the movies. I love the process of finding a time, organizing groups of friends, and arriving 2-3 hours early for midnight shows (which doesn't mean as much in NYC as it did in Knoxville, TN). I still haven't invested in home theater systems or Blu-Ray because I hold theatre going to be wholly different, something amazing, quasi-spiritual. And even after working behind the scenes, learning to thread the polyester strand through the intermittent sprocket, and seeing the cold-business behind distribution, I stand behind watching movies multiple times in the darken auditoriums for one reason: immersion. And once the first frame of Abrams's Star Trek came on screen, you wanted nothing more than to be immersed, to be baptized in this new vision for the initial mission of the starship Enterprise. You wanted this bad enough to pay $5 extra. And what you got instead was disappointment.
IMAX format of years past has a great potential to immerse. That's one reason why documentary filmmakers were one of the first adapters of this medium. The presentation used to be stunning! I recall the advertisements of screens 7 stories high, with 6 channels of discrete sound. Sadly, those innocent days are in danger with practices such as "The IMAX Experience." I say the disappointment of a slightly larger yet not 7 story screen is enough to distract your full immersion.
I caught the midnight show of Watchmen on the smaller IMAX screen at the AMC Empire 25 off 42nd St/Times Square. I thought to myself where's the subwoofer? Shouldn't that boom be louder? And even if the screen is a bit larger, shouldn't the rows be steeper? For the first time in these smaller IMAX screens, our $5 bought us distraction not immersion. It's high time we call these dubious business practices out and expect what the adverts claim to provide: a true IMAX experience. And with the power of tribes like AICN and social networking outlets like Twitter and Facebook, we'll find those who are outraged by these changes and hold AMC and Regal accountable. Best of luck in the word wars to come!
MY SUGGESTIONS:
1. Go on Oprah
2. Make a reference to this in your show, Parks and Recreation, LET'S MAKE A COMMITTEE!
3. In your next television interview, call this dude out.
I'm also sending these blog posts to FOX ,NBC, and ABC, to see if we can get this on the national news.
Aziz Obama, bringing Change to the Bigscreen.
But, I do have to give kudos to the IMAX 3D movies shown on the converted screens. They look great and have the same beautiful depth of field-sequential 3D as that of the normal nature and science IMAX films. This surprises me, though, since the process uses polarized lens for the glasses instead of electronic flicker glasses, but whatever works best wins out. "Monsters vs. Aliens" was not only a great and funny film, but the 3D on the IMAX screen was something not to be missed. Sure, it would have been 100 times better on a normal giant IMAX screen, filling the whole frame and making me feel like I'm there with the characters, but the film still looked excellent. The 3D films are the only ones I will willingly pay to see on the theater IMAX screens.
A perfect example of how dumb the IMAX Experience can be for a blockbuster (not in 3D) can be can be found on the "Dark Knight" Special Edition DVD. You are given the chance to see selected scenes filmed in that format on your TV. Was it in any way different than the scenes in the actual film? Absolutely not. They were a total waste of DVD space that could have been used for something else, like more making-of material.
If Mountain Dew sold dixie cups of their beverage, charged full price and called it "the 2 liter experience", people would up in arms across the board.
http://www.wiredtocare.com/?p=1470#more-1470
info@imax.com
By all means be as direct and mature with your complaints/concerns as possible.
Remember this is about standing up for what is right and wrong about their branding decision, not to reak havoc upon them. Also remember that as a people we can make corporations change their attitude toward the way they treat us as consumers - if we go about it the right way.
Good luck to you all and thank you Aziz for being another ballsy consumer to stand up for themselves :D
You're trying to have your cake and eat it too. You can't get on a soap-box and claim you have principals while not following them yourself.
1. You threatened to use your massive Twitter following to somehow hurt a chain -- but directed this at a local theater manager.
2. You asked for $10 ($5 x 2) back and, instead, received two movie passes (valued at $20 ($10 x 2), and you feel "robbed".
3. Your outrage is based on your feeling duped into seeing a movie on an IMAX screen that is smaller than what you believed and assumed to be a "normal" IMAX screen -- so you watched the movie and then complained after the fact.
4. You've attempted to back-petal your Twitter threat by claiming it was a joke -- either in keeping with the fact you're a horrible comedian (and something not one of your fans picked up on, which speaks volumes) or that it was just an attempt to disarm one of the arguements about you having a un-deserved sense of celebrity.
5. You now demand/request a televised debate with the CEO of the company -- a demand that is so far beyond rational, it's becoming funny.
For your fans, they're following you blindly and you've become the poster child for whiny consumers who want as much as they can suck out of any company who's name ends with "Inc.".
For those that don't know you, you've painted the perfect picture of a man who's minor celebrity has pumped his ego beyond his own understanding. Far cry from the young, talented comedian from UCBT. You've come a long way, or so you think. Calm the fuck down, you're beyond yourself.
But seriously, they are bullshit IMAX screens...
I haven't gone to any IMAX in Montreal other than the science museum,but if I got fucked like that I'd be pissed too.
Simple solution (which we all know won't happen), do the whole rebranding thing, that way the consumer knows what he's in for.
I honestly thought the ticket taker directed me to the wrong theater. The screen was tiny, and the sound was waaaaaaay too loud. NEVER AGAIN
It's the reason I haven't gone to IMAX here in Indianapolis -- I don't know what I'd be getting.
I went to see The Dark Knight in IMAX last summer, and I went to see Watchmen in imax this spring.
The opening scene of TDK had people literally GASPING at the sight of the aerial views and high speed action sequences in IMAX.
Watchmen in imax almost put us all to sleep. I couldn't tell the difference between imax and a regular cinema. It was a huge disappointment, affected my opinion of the movie as a whole (negatively), and left me with a feeling of Why didn't that look as awesome as TDK?
He's a comedian people! the twitter thing was a joke. He didn't actually say that to the manager
god let one misunderstanding out on the internet and you get a whole mass of irrational dorks.
I'm with you. They should demand the same price for both screens. I'll pay maybe a dollar or two more
but if i can get a better experience for the same amount of money.
It makes sense to me. I don't really get what people are getting all confused and angry about
stupidity=confusion=anger=idiocy=making a fool of yourself
both sides:
think for a sec, will you?
http://uk.reuters.com/article/rbssTechMediaTele...
azizisbustingitup.com
I'm in 100% agreeance with your stance. Being forced to watch endless commercials at the time the movie was officially scheduled to start is bad enough: paying $5 for the "privilege" of watching HD playback on what used to be a regular movie screen is shit, pure and simple. This is NOT IMAX and is diluting the brand - which will, in short time, render their product worthless (i.e. the 72' screen will be labelled "IMAX Plus" or something equally brainless and "IMAX" will be the label for paying $5 extra to watch a movie on a screen roughly the size we used to watch it 15 years ago before multiplexes were invented.)
Complete bullshit.
I'm sure the end of a shotgun barrel was pressed against your spine while being "forced" to watch your movie/previews/commercials.
why I made the comment about Darfur. Its not petty though, they are
deceiving thousands and thousands of customers and its wrong. So...
FUCK YOU SIR.
The MINIMAX theater did sound great. But, the digital projection wasn't properly calibrated. The black levels were far too crushed, which didn't really work well for an already dark space movie. I work as a freelance color correctionist for films from time to time so I can be picky about color, but the IMAX has never disappointed me before. The MINIMAX digital projection was definitely not properly calibrated for Star Trek.
I am a huge IMAX supporter. Hell, I own stock in the company. I have for 9 years. So, I am on their side 99% of the time. But, these MINIMAX screens are not up to traditional IMAX standards and need to be corrected. Toute suite! Because as a consumer, it was certainly was not worth $15 to see a way too dark version of a movie on a slightly bigger screen with slightly better sound. And as a stockholder, it concerns me even more, that IMAX thinks that they can fudge their specifications and get away with it with the consumers. Their SPECS are their business model! Their SPECS are what makes them IMAX! Don't mess with the SPECS! (By the way. I'm applying for a trademark for MINIMAX today, so you're gonna have to buy it from me, IMAX. Booyah! ... I may take stock options depending on the outcome of this debate. Thank you.)
That's some pretty shady math, I'd like to see the overlap between the total # of screens start trek opened on - probably north of 3k - and the total # of screens IMAX is on - and then use THAT overlap to see what type of "choice" consumers were actually given. He thinks that his IMAX brand actually compelled more people to see THE movie event of May.
Really? Brand Dilution INDEED.
BOYCOTT IMAX.
LIEMAX screens stink!
They whole argument about the LIEMAX experience being more than the giant-ass screen is debatable. It reminds me of my asshole audiophile friends who try to convince me that a mono Coltrane recording on reel-to-reel is *so* much better than anything else.
I want a giant eye-fucking screen that makes me nauseated for the first ten minutes of the film. Furthermore, I could give two tugs of a dead dogs cock about the 'superior db range of the left rear speaker channel' (note to audiophiles, yes I know that is bullshit. And fuck you.)
I will be seeing Aziz at Bonnaroo is a few short weeks and this pleases me! Immensely.
I let the thoughts flow from my head to the keyboard and my first sentence is "They whole argument about the LIEMAX experience being more than the giant-ass screen is debatable. "
I didn't mean 'they' I meant 'the'.
I lack of an edit function is making my OCD flare up. Big time.
IMAX CEO Richard Gelfond is a liar, and seriously delusional if he thinks that people don't associate IMAX with big screens. That's how they built their fucking brand in the first place! Just label the small screens differently, jackass. And give Aziz his $5!
I'm sorry, this was the first time I saw someone with common sense on this page.
You own an iPhone. I bet you one IMAX movie ticket.
You're paying the same additional price ($5 more) to see an "IMAX" version of a movie whether it's on a modified theater where you just sit closer to a normal-sized screen or whether you truly see it on a huge screen. The price upsell is the same, but the final product is not. Yes, the smaller screen IMAX retrofits have special IMAX digital projectors and upgraded sound systems, which is good. They could probably charge more for that. But if they make no distinction - in name nor price - between that and the traditional enormous-screen IMAX, they're being disingenuous with customers.
I've seen a number of movies in the past year in 'real' IMAX both at the Whittaker Science Center in Harrisburg, PA, and at Baltimore's Maryland Science Center.
This past weekend I saw 'Star Trek' at our local AMC's version of IMAX.
I was sorely disappointed.
The screen, while bigger than your average multiplex, was not much bigger than that of my beloved art deco Senator (http://senator.com). The digital project and sound were great, but I was greatly underwhelmed with the size. Furthermore, the rows were ridiculously close together, so when even the slightest lean pushed the chairbacks into the other customers legs.
It's not huge, it's not immersive, it's not IMAX
Even I'm getting tired of pushing my stance on the debate.
IMAX is a company and IMAX Digital and the rest of what they offer are their products. IMAX is where it is today because of the word-of-mouth it gained from the great experience people left their theaters with. If you, Aziz and others feel your experience wasn't what you expected -- MOVE THE FUCK ON!
It's a product -- you didn't like it, so don't buy it. Your argument is self-defeating -- you demand a company do what you want, "or else". It's a company -- they produce what they choose as a product.
As a consumer, you have a choice -- purchase a product or don't. No company has any obligation to you or anyone else to change what they're doing, especially if it's working. Furthermore -- who are you hurting? You make some wild remark that "...companies can't push us around anymore" -- how are they doing that!?!? You're not forced to go to a certain movie chain! If you stop going, along with others, then ticket sales drop, managers see their budgets tank, layoffs begin and then the economy suffers again.
I could go on, but fuck this -- the soapbox in this place is starting to break into pieces.
Coke, not 3/4s of a can. They have to differentiate between two
different products. They don't do that. They even say so on the
website. When I bought a ticket, nothing told me this was a different
type of IMAX.
On their website, when you search for a theater, there are three options:
IMAX Theater
IMAX 3D
IMAX Dome
I'll go back to the "Coke" analogy you love so much -- if you don't understand the difference between Coke and Diet Coke (or just fail to read the name and just recognize the "Coca-Cola" logo), you can't blame coke when you realize it's not the same thing (especially when you drink the whole thing and then complain afterwards).
retro-fitted smaller ones. They are both $5 extra. On websites that
list movies like Fandango or Google or Yahoo, nothing tells you the
IMAX in Burbank is vastly different than the IMAX in Universal City.
If I'd known that, I would have went to Universal City. That's my point.
IMAX made their name based on crazy-huge screens that totally immersed the audience in the film they were viewing. For them now to pretend otherwise is nothing short of dishonest. I'm sure Dick won't agree to the debate, but in another couple of years it's not going to matter anyway because everyday new crowds of people are uttering the phrase "what the fuck?" after paying extra money to see Hollywood movies on a bullshit-IMAX.
You not only referenced the topic, but also an iPhone! EVERYONE loves the iPhone (aka -- God's Cellular Phone). Ever take a class at UCBT? If not -- do so immediately. Then, kiss one of the co-owner's asses until they bring you into a TV project they get.
Also, don't ever perform in a showcase for Lorne's people -- you'll fall flat on your face and just need to go back to my first piece of advice. Oh, and get a pilot picked up by MTV and then act like an asshole.
That....was...the...point.
Hm. I have a feeling I still lost you.
Having only paid $6 at the local science theatre to experience a TRUE IMAX with beautiful cuts of mountainous expanses, I expected a $15 ticket to give me about that much more.... lame.
it's pretty much FRAUD, i think. Advertising one thing, and getting another.
I agree, and thank you for calling attention to this BS!
this is hilarious, but yeah, I agree, the IMAX people are
MEANIES
fuck IMAX until they apologize.
This story has been picked up all over the internet as I'm sure you know, and 95% of the comments are from pissed-off moviegoers who were duped into seeing a film at a LIEMAX.
People are starting to organize blogs and lists of all the Fake IMAX screens.
Keep up the good work Aziz! I hope this leads to a change in IMAXs practices.
They should change their practices. Maybe, just maybe, they'll make a separate name for these installations. They can call it, "IMAX Digital".
HORRAY FOR AZIZ! UCBT! P&R! HG! SNL ... oh wait, Jean and Lori thought your set was "unfocused".
Support Aziz.
For the life of me, I can't understand why Imax is destroying their brand this way. Yes, it's inconvenient to build real Imax theaters, but that doesn't mean you just slap up some BS and call it Imax. Unfortunately, the Imax people appear to have succumbed to the current trend in business where companies simply rip off their customers and then stonewall and refuse to admit to any error when they get caught. Yeah, that's going to work.
The criticism of this format is that 4k is about the quality of 35mm film (according to Kodak), so although you might be getting a brighter image, you're not getting a more detailed picture than with regular film. Technically, 70mm film quality is about 8k and IMAX (140mm) quality is about 16k, so moviegoers are being shortchanged in this area, (although you can debate that you're not adding any quality when you blow up 35mm movies to IMAX.)
The bottom line is that the IMAX folks don't care as long as moviegoers keep paying the extra $5 per ticket (which goes directly to IMAX). Star Trek brought in approximately $3 million to IMAX last weekend alone!
The following article is fairly informative:
http://gizmodo.com/5250625/cineplexes-getting-i...
I paid extra for star trek at that same theater in Burbank. Movie was awesome. The Imax simply wasn't imax.
They should have just called it something else, like "Mega Screen Digital".
Also people don't get your jokes.
Who ever did those numbers probably was only looking to see who disagreed with Aziz in a general sense because then they figured those people would ignore him in the point he was actually trying to make. Which I think very few people did/would disagree with.
IMAX should be labling these theaters as "IMAX standard digital theater" and their old ones as "IMAX Experiance" and make a small compain to distinguish the two different models in their brand.
I hope the CEO smartens up and changes the name(all he really has to do, take a couple thousand dollars to do it for all the current shit theaters).
I'm going to try and keep following to support, because I wouldn't want to be ripped off like this and I don't have the balls to complain to a manager. I hope you get it done Aziz.
Gelfond is a lying, greedy douche. Charging the same for an inferior experience is outright theft.
I'm filing formal complaints tomorrow with the consumer protection agency in NYC, and with the FTC for misleading advertising. Let's see if Douchey thinks its a joke when some government types crawl up his ass.
You're correct, this is ridiculous, and I will absolutely boycott those companies.
Fuck IMAX. If they wont distinguish between the two, I just won't pay for either.
I brought my grandchildren to an IMAX theater wanting to give them a special treat. When we walked in I was surprised to see that the screen was not that large. I shrugged because not ever have been to one before I just assumed my expectations of a huge screen were wrong.
But now I realize that I was at one of the "fake" IMAX theaters.
I had driven way out of my way passing by 3 or 4 other theaters showing the same movie to treat the kids to IMAX. What a joke. No wonder the kids weren't that impressed.
I think that they should definitely include the size of the screen in their advertising so people know what to expect.
I wouldn't want to pay for a filet mignon only to get a hamburger and then have them say to me, "hey it's beef isn't it?"
Absolutely ridiculous that IMAX is so out of touch with their customers that they insist that there's nothing wrong with what they're doing.
I remember when IMAX debuted, the screen was basically a HUGE semi circular affair that made the experience "awesome" .
These theatres that supposedly show IMAX are nothing like that and very disappointing, especially to have to pay more for this sham of marketing they call IMAX.
so go on and lambaste them because the public is being fleeced by this sham.
THANK YOU SIR!
PS: The CEO will never have the guts to face-off on TV. Heck he would not even do it as IMAX PPV!
IMAX should not trade their name on products that do not represent it's purpose. If they want to expand their product line than they should call it "Digital Screen" by IMAX so people know it's not the usual, "Giant Screen" by IMAX. I would have walked out and got my refund for false advertising...
And the Star Trek movie was DAMN good on the "REAL" IMAX!!!
Sure, this matter isn't Darfur, or many other grievous situations that are happening on this planet, but everyone who comes to a theater for a genuine "IMAX experience" should expect to get the value of the real deal for their money, period. Five bucks may not seem like much to some people, but it can otherwise pay for a lot of things, such as DVD rentals, pay-per-view, or a lot of ramen/rice and beans.
IMAX. So I have to research that and make sure its IMAX and they
aren't lying? Are you kidding me? Both the IMAX in Burbank and the
IMAX in Universal City are just labeled IMAX, however they are very
different. That's the point. They can't call both those screens IMAX
when they are very different.
EVEN PAID $5 MORE. THERE ARE HUGE IMAX SCREENS INSIDE THE BRIDGE
CINEMA AND THE UNIVERSAL CITY AND THERE'S NOTHING ON THE OUTSIDE THAT
ALLOWS YOU TO TELL THEY HOUSE A HUGE IMAX SCREEN.
So what should I do in the future? Call and make sure that when it
says IMAX they aren't lying? Should I make sure there really showing
Star Trek and not just playing The Lion King? Its false advertising.
crazy. Read all these comments, all of these people that felt duped
like I do should have somehow guessed they are now building new
smaller screens, but still calling them the exact thing? Are you nuts?
Should I call the theatre and make sure they are really showing Star
Trek and not showing Hotel for Dogs and just calling it Star Trek?
oNe
Judging from their press releases, they use a standard first initial+last name prefix for email addresses. So following that logic, we should email complaints to :
rgelfond@imax.com
or
Christine Tasto (VP Film Marketing, IMAX)
ctasto@imax.com
-This should be fun!
IMAX.
NOW.
What they're doing is FRAUD.
They need to differentiate between their Imax Digital and Imax Film.
spreading around is because the problem resonated with people. Get lost.
True IMAX uses special IMAX cameras which is the only way to get the large screen viewing experience.
If they now brand screens as "IMAX" they need to differentiate what the "IMAX Eperience" really is. Is it a special camera, big screen experience or is it something else?
It sure sounds like it is something else and they sure as shit need to call it something else.
Asshole marketing on IMAX's part. Fucking douchebag crooks.
There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that would let you know that they also have a non-IMAX camera, small screen digital product. NOTHING.
That's FRAUD.
Suck my hairy bean bag IMAX.
Overuse of the word "yet".
"Your" should be "you're".
And "I" should be "I've".
The only point worth taking away from everything that Alex has written is that he is a pompous illiterate blow-hard who isn't remotely educated.
Fuck all the noise about everything else. The core issue here is paying a "premium" price for a "premium" experience. IMAX is all about one thing: Giant Ass Screens. If you don't get that premium experience then they should call it IMAX Light, IMedium or IMehhh. The fact that the CEO is trying to pull a fast one with consumers by not differentiating between the two is just plain wrong. I hope you get to debate him Aziz and I hope you wipe the smug look off his face. Fight the mutha fuckin' power beyotch!
And to everyone giving Aziz shit about the Darfur comments give it a rest. I know a good proctologist that can remove the giant sticks from all your asses. Its a joke, he's a comedian. Lighten the fuck up.
Seacrest out,
Kevin Brueck
Seriously, IMAX, we are all huge fans of IMAX. That's not the issue. We just don't want to be disappointed when we pay the extra money and show up to a much smaller screen.
Is IMAX lite worth extra? Sure. Due to the fact that we all have large screen TV's at home now, the regular movie screens just don't do it for us anymore... I would gladly pay a little extra to see a movie on IMAX lite. However, don't call it IMAX. That's just dishonest.
I'm posting about your challenge and spreading the word.
these comments of other people who felt ripped off. They are using
false advertising its wrong.
Now LMFan4Ever, if your so wealthy that you can throw away $5 bills then I'm so happy for you and it's nice that you can throw your money away and not worry about it. But to many of us $5 is important, if you're talking about taking a family of four to the movie that's $20. So those of us that aren't apathetic about being ripped off by large corporations, yes, this is important to us. Since it's not important to you...why bother commenting at all? And the whole eyes and ears argument(?)...useless!
Thanks Aziz (light!) {"Aziz, light!" from The Fifth Element..ha!}
But Aziz (light!) is making it clear that there are probably thousands, if not tens of thousands, of people out there who feel that they were ripped off by being promised an IMAX (large screen format movie) and all they got was a regular sized screen.
read the other comments and may finally get a clue.
Well, I was completely bummed by what I found, and felt faked out. The marketing guys at IMAX have spun so much that they themselves even believe their own spin, apparently. Unfortunately they should have listened to the theatre owners who were trying to convince them to side-brand as "IMAX Digital," or similar.
I will not patronize that "IMAX" theatre again.
You have to know the model number before you know if you want the car or not, or if you're getting a good deal, and getting what you want and expect.
If you just say "a BMW for $50,000" (a premium price), that's not enough.
So sad, it didn't have to be that way. Maybe if the company works hard on damage control and rebranding, they can save it - but their heads seem so far up their asses I doubt it.
Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on ...
Never again.
Signed,
A Former Fan.
Richard GayFuck gets one iMAX bitch to post a comment and then prances around in his panties saying 90% do not agree. That deserves a sir as much as a child molester.
All the issues in the world and IMAX theatre is the hot topic? How about the NY Yankees. Avg ticket price is $125 and they really suck. Maybe debate George Steinbrenner. Wait a minute. I just realized I am not forced to go!! And I can choose my own theatre too! Discussion over spoiled-too-much-free-time asswipes.
I decided to look into my local IMAX theaters here in Dallas, Tx available to the public for blockbuster movies. The first built in 1999 is projection-based with a flat 3D screen overhead that measures 50x70 feet. The other built in 2009 also dubbed the "IMAX Experience" is a digital projection screen of only 33x66 feet.
Considering that "true" IMAX is designed for a 1:1.375 aspect ratio, the first theater though admittedly smaller than the theater in Lincoln Square fits the bill while the second newer theater is no doubt a "fake" and shall never receive my business.
Cheers!
All that aside...I paid 27 dollars for 2 tickets...and was waiting for the IMAX experience. Instead it felt like a big screen but not the gigantic IMAX I remembered. The "real" IMAX screens are where? I now know Palladium IMAX Theaters in San Antonio are not the REAL IMAX.
I wasn't as upset as you...mostly because its been a while since I watched an IMAX Film.
BUT thanks for bringing this out and goodluck! I Feel kind of cheated now.
stansfield
You've done something that not many people have been able to do and that is raise some serious awareness to this scam. I applaud and thank you. Now, let's see if the rest of the moviegoing public will wake the hell up.
In case the brick hasnt hit you hard enough yet..YOU ARE RIPPING PEOPLE OFF. An for this ass-hole Alex, you missed the point. Or you have a hidden agenda for the long winded answer. Like maybe you have stock in the company.
After years and years of driving the IMAX brand as those giant screen movies and getting people to associate the brand with the big screen it is simply a cheat to imply that a smaller screen conveys the same experience. In fact, I would probably go so far as to say that it would probably fall into the "bait and switch" type of retail fraud that may be actionable in court.
With over $35 million in box office in the first day of it's release and more since then STAR TREK is definitely a popular movie. I wonder how many people have been to FAKE IMAX to see it?
If you really wanted to make your point, you should see about the possibility of filing a false advertising claim or a class action suit on behalf of all STAR TREK fans conned into the FAKE IMAX experience and see about getting everyone their $5 back.
I have not seen such an example of pathetic childish behavior by a television "personality" in quite some time.
Can you reply to the security reports that you give many of your proceeds to al qaeda and other anti-Coalition terrorist groups? I have seen many of them and the evidence is overwhelming, no wonder you are being investigated and watched at all moments.
have to tell them this is a joke. :D
Keep up the fight. The truth is minus a few idiot griefers here and there(who probably work for IMAX) the large majority of people are annoyed by this. I for one will never go to an IMAX showing again unless this clown is fired as CEO and they start being honest about their screens.
Can't wait for the debate!
im with aziz.
it's really a non issue.
for anyone with a brain.
Come to Arizona and sit at the Cine Capri cinemas at Harkins. The screen is larger and all the films take up the screen. The audio system is better and the theater is much bigger.
They even go so far as to have the curtain closed before the film starts and the start of the film is announced by a theater employee...curtain starts to open as the theaters film starts to roll - much like the olden days.
Look me up and I will show you a real movie going experience without the lame excuses. Oh, the best thing is it's only $1 more for that theater.
So my point is, we as a whole can change the system. If IMAX wants to fool the consumer for an extra $5.00, then we can all go to the regular theater. It makes no sence to me that people will just swallow whatever the big companys feed us.
Your wasting your time trying to call this guy out. You know he will not respond directly. So go with your instinct and tell your twitters to stay away from IMAX. Thats what is supposed to be great about a free country.
I think 25,000 people costing them $375,000 is a good start at showing the big companys that "We are not going to take it." At least this way they will have to be honest about their "IMAX experience."
OH and whatever happened to the customer is always right? I just can't understand how these Managers don't go out of their way to satisfy their customers. I figure it this way, if he refused me my refund, then I got of cheap. It only cost me $5.00 to know i'll never go back there again.
Here's the info that you should have researched: IMAX really doesn't refer to the size of the screen, it is the type of film/camera/etc. that is used. It's the different between an analog signal and a digital signal. One would think that someone in your business would know that. If you want to see a movie in IMAX make sure they have an IMAX projector and a digital screen. If you want to see a movie on a Giant IMAX screen, make sure the building is atleast four stories high.
Here endeth the lesson.
Another thing, don't boycott all the business' just because of the one you're pissed at. That would be like boycotting Yosemite National Park because your show sucks and you're a fucking idiot.
Next week's blog, Retard Aziz will announce a boycott of Blue Ray 'cause it sucks on his 13 inch, 20 year old analog tv that he got on clearance from Montgomery Ward
Any good lawyers out there who want to take this on? Where is Milberg Weiss when you really need them??? There is clearly an intent to deceive and the effort to defend their deceptive actions when they were brought to light.
I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH YOU. Extra caps so everyone can notice. I went to Star Trek with friends expecting something HUGE. But lo, I got a regular sized screen. Seriously, it's practically the same size. I SIGHED so much at the beginning while watching the previews. There goes my $5... It honestly does NOT make sense. Imax is selling two, COMPLETELY different movie going experiences as the same, and the consumer has no way of knowing this? Thank you Imax, for being such a, ahem... selling yourself out.
Even the "smaller" imax screens are still digital and still larger then most average showcase theaters - AMC/Showcase screen size (largest auditorium)=27'x46' (53' diagonally)
Your title is right, you are bored. The press your getting for this "blog rant" is absurd. The media these days.... why dont we just cause another stupid non-existant swine flu panic.
lame
Sir,
Your comment about the screen size and the BMW analogy was truly a corporate cop-out! I saw the Star Trek movie on an inferior "Imax" screen, and even though the awesome movie made up for my let down, the "Imax Experience" was horrible! You need to realize that the primary demographic for the real Imax moneymakers have large HDTVs at home and are only willing to fork over the ridiculous amount money to a real theater if it has incredible picture and sound like Imax! In the end the moviegoers, (ie: the people who keep your format in business) ultimately get screwed here!!! You have a strong brand in the Imax name, and it is wise that you protect it at all cost while maintaining value in this tight market! It is YOUR responsibility to enforce that theaters notify their customers if they want to utilize your brand! But, what do you care... as long as you add more theaters to the Imax name, even if they are a sorry excuse, bait and switch scam!!!
Sincerely,
A ripped off moviegoer
Go get them Aziz! Also you are the only thing that makes me watch Parks & Rec.
They may sit on it, but then again they may not. You can bet IMAX's lawyers are wringing their hands about the FTC implications right now.
Movie execs & theatre owners wonder why people would just as soon wait for movie to come out on DVD as see it in the theatre - rip-offs like this (...and food prices, inability on unwillingness to deal with jackass moviegoers texting/talking throughout the film, etc.) should offer some insight.
I totally support you and keep up the funny. Thanks for the IMAX info, I'll be careful in the future about seeing movies. Ironic thing is that Star Trek wasn't even filmed in IMAX so it probably looked better on your smaller screen than a big one. Come down to Texas again sometime.
Hey, Aziz - I've been a fan of yours for ages, ever since you made that BRILLIANT comment about the Sen. from Texas fucking a box turtle. I have used that every time anybody tries to argue the subject of gay marriage with me and, before you threaten to sue, I ALWAYS mention that it's your joke and not mine.
Anyway. This is great that you've opened up the whole IMAX debate. My wife KEEPS pressuring me to go and see new movies in IMAX and I was excited at the thought of that 72ft screen - but if they're really putting them on the smaller screens and charging the same that's just a HUGE ripoff (not that the cinema is exactly a bargain. $8 popcorn, anybody?)
Anyway. Kudos for keeping up the crusade and rock on with your comedy routine - you're a legend.
Thanks so much for you post. I will now never bother going to see IMAX at a local theater. They rip us off enough with $10 to see a movie anyway, they can go to hell if they want to scam us for even more!!
You should lead a reverse boycott.
Either for the next big summer movie, or just some random saturday, get as many people as you can (which should be a large number) and go to a theater with a fake IMAX.
Buy tickets to the movie, walk in, walk out and immediatley demand a refund... all 200+ of you.
All the new versions of Toys I got back in the 90's are poorly made and their points of articulation are hard and essentially for show (plastic joints vs metal joints).
Any sort of entertainment medium has gone up in price with no appreciable increase in quality (aside from graphics which really only go so far, when a million dollar project doesn't produce things much better than a weekend effort on DeviantArt it is not worth mentioning).
Medicine has been shoveling out the same 4-5 compounds for the same illnesses with a different name and an increase in cost of 125%
In the case of Movie theaters you have no longer got someone inside the rooms to bitch slap that asshole screaming at the screen or chatting on his cellphone but you still pay far more than you used to. Again in my area since the 90's the price has gone up over 5 bucks, which I'll admit isn't a huge deal but paying an extra 5 bucks for less service is a bit odd to me. Which is why I only go to the drive in now, that way the only people talking during the movie are people who know when the appropriate goddamn time to talk is.
I'm sure just about anywhere you look you are receiving less overall with an increase in price, which is simply because you have two groups of people that facilitate this business model.
A) Idiots with money.
B) Idiots with money who think they aren't idiots.
The first group is simple, they see something shiny and they buy it. They are the staple consumer that CEO's get erections over. The second group is the kind of person that comes into an article about how annoying it is to get charged for something misleadingly and actually attacks the person upset.
These people are helping nobody but the businesses that use the shoddy tactics and money making schemes. Do they realize that? No...because they are idiots who are so idiotic they don't even realize they are idiots.
It's a vicious cycle but I suppose it is just the nature of things in a capitalist country whose education system is so poor that something like one in three people can't even name all three branches of their own government. Then again since when was it actually important to know even rudimentary stuff like that.
I bet every person that has bashed the Darfur joke can't even locate it on a map nor can they (without Wikipedia or Google) break down the conflict into its base parts and explain how it could be resolved. We are quick to snap at others for being insensitive but we tend to be pretty reserved about admitting our own ignorance on what we say offends us.
But I don't think this had anything to do with whether or not you were trully disappointed. This was a promo gig. Nothing better than negative feedback to promote something. Worked for Mel Gibson and others. Maybe it'll work for your show. When the ratings drop again, and you're in jeapardy of the show being cancelled, what are you going to do then? Attack Disneyland? Good for you, pat your head.
BTW - you volunteered to part of a business that has been gouging the public for years, and lobbying for laws to protect them to do so. If any other business outside the film industry increased resale by upwards of 1000% they would be dragged before the courts and congress. No other "corporation" has been given the freedom to do as they wish, including open search warrants without names, just cause, etc., to hack people's computers and search their homes. So I think it's funny that you are boycotting yourself. The rules and regulations of the theaters are managed, thought up and approved by the MPAA, et all.
THAT is one of the reasons why ST was the first film I've seen at a theater in almost three years. I usually just wait for DVD, and NetFlix it. Fuck 'em.
You can buy that or not, but I can imagine feeling that way about the right movie -- for me, that might have been "Lord of the Rings" or "Everest" or a Harry Potter movie, but the ambivalence about being ripped off or else not seeing the movie as planned would be the same.
Moreover, simply walking out and getting a refund in this situation really isn't full justice, not after the wasted drive (substantial for many people, like myself), frustrated anticipations, and ruined plans (for instance, if you're on a date or out with friends for a night you've all been looking forward to). IMAX and the other companies mentioned ought to show more respect than that, and, if not, then they need to feel some heat.
BTW, I have to wonder if your cynical, hypersarcastic, and grossly undersupported take on Aziz's motives don't reveal as much about you as they do about Aziz. Maybe you're normally more fair-minded and respectful.
They should call these ordinary-sized screenings IMIN or MINIMAX. (I also like the "LIEMAX" moniker I saw in one of the comments here.) This happened to me once, and I definitely felt ripped off, though I had no idea of the true scale of the problem (pun intended).
Thank you, Aziz, for raising my awareness of what is going on with IMAX today. Now I know my experience wasn't an anomaly. (I think I originally wrote it off to being in a National Park area. I'm used to being -- or at least FEELING -- ripped off on almost anything you have to pay for in the vicinity near a National Park.) Next time, I'll know to do some research. Or maybe I'll just boycott.
It sounds like many here share my impressions of IMAX being essentially synonymous with oversized screens. Speaking for myself, what makes the traditional "IMAX experience" distinctive is the sense of being swallowed up in colossal size and sound. It's majestic!
On the other hand, I've really never even thought about better resolution being part of the IMAX experience, though, of course, this is also a big part of what makes an IMAX viewing so potentially impressive. A super-sized screen with a crappy picture would be glaringly awful. But whenever I've considered going to an IMAX show, my decision has always centered on the question of whether it's worth the extra money to be blown away by the sheer scale.
It's kind of like when I decide whether it's worth the extra bucks to go to even an ordinary theater -- say, for "Lord of the Rings" -- rather than simply renting a movie and watching it on my poor little ol' television at home. Size matters, when that's what you're paying for. Imagine going to the theater and being "treated" to a really high-quality showing on a home entertainment center!
I think it would be interesting if the IMAX folks (or some independent party) did a survey to find out what percentage of IMAX patrons would actually volunteer (with no prompting) the notion of "superior resolution" as one of the premium features of the IMAX experience. Just a simple "What are the key features of an IMAX experience?" survey. Maybe I'm out of touch, but it would be interesting to know what people would say.
sincerely,
-Dakota Fanning
ps i looked up Darfur... not a fan.
research and make sure its not a bag of shit? NO! I assume its Chip
Ahoy because taht's what it says! I WIN THE ARGUMENT! YOU LOSE!
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/41049
A more comparable analogy would be you eating a whole meal, then afterwards saying, "It wasn't cooked right."
screen by myself and apparently judging by the way this has spread a
great many other consumers think of as IMAX. They are two different
types of screens. One system costs $1.5 million to put up, the other
is $5 million. Its like paying $5 for something and getting something
worth $1.5.
A more comparable analogy would be you eating a whole meal, then afterwards saying, "It wasn't cooked right."
I think it's about expectations. Before major commercial releases came to IMAX, we used to watch Space walks or other documentaries on IMAX. Growing up with those screens, we correlate IMAX with large screens.
You're right, the smaller IMAX screens are larger than a regular screen. However, it's not what people are expecting. A lot of people feel cheated because they feel as if they've just been a victim of a bait and switch scam.
IMAX is losing credibility. Almost 50% of their screens are of this smaller "IMAX" screen. While it's great for both the theaters AND IMAX because they can charge more, it's not the experience consumers are looking for.
Imagine if they had simply branded things "IMAX" and "IMAX-lite." Something as simple as that would bypass all the outrage.
I saw an analogy floating around: It's like paying for a 5 series BMW and getting a 3 series instead. You are getting German engineering and the BMW name, but it's just not what you expected.
Your argument that everyone assumed and therefore it is their fault is completely invalid. This screen, which is far less advanced, expensive and large costs the same as a large IMAX screen, that is, even if they had called it something identifiably different, a rip-off. But to on top of it, trick you INTO assuming it’s an IMAX by calling it such furthers the fact that it’s a rip off. If you’re so in defense of this why don’t you pay for the difference everyone paid? Since you think the price makes sense somehow.
With mention that you know Aziz personally, it reveals how personal this is toward him and not about the issue at hand. So you instead are blindly defending something preposterous and going against average good people who just don’t want to be tricked to pay EVEN MORE for a movie when they’re already expensive to have it not even be what it advertises with its name. This is clearly just something for you to use for your personal issue with Aziz. Where as the rest of us, some fans of him as a comedian, some not, are talking about an issue and with good reason.
Basically…just shut the fuck up already