It turns out that Aziz Ansari only thought he had exposed a major moviegoing scandal. After the comic last week Twittered his outrage over a $5 surcharge to watch Star Trek on an IMAX screen only slightly bigger than a conventional screen, the exhibitor's front office said in a presentation Tuesday that was just old news. In fact, they've been misrepresenting their product for years now.
The Ansari fuss was just a hiccup, apparently, in a system that has installed cheaper IMAX systems in participating multiplexes for going on six years. The retrofitting for smaller theaters costs less than a third of that for the better-known 76-foot-high screens ($1.5 million, compared to $5 million) and includes removing the lower rows of seats in stadium-seating venues to create "the perception of greater screen size and viewing immersion." The only actual difference, it seems, is the IMAX's remastering job that supposedly "boosts image resolution and brightness." Everything but its size.
So, just to get this straight: IMAX calls a conference and says its conventional screens have been around a while. They cost theater owners $3.5 million less to install than a real IMAX screen, but they cost you $5 extra every time out, regardless of the size. All you get for your money is "perception." And because no one complained before last week, it's old news. Please prove me -- and them, in the end -- wrong about that last part.
ยท Imax execs downplay importance of screen size [Reuters]