Showing 1 - 25 of 38 comments found
(At 1.78:1 60'ish width for the Rockaway IMAX and at 2.35:1 70'ish width for the Manville big screens I guess the total surface area is about the same for both so I guess they are sort of tied, along with likely a couple other digital IMAX screens, for largest in the state when they are all showing a film that matches the screen’s native native aspect ratio (although for 2.35:1 movies the Manville screen might look somewhat noticeably bigger while for 1.85:1 movies I guess the Rockaway would look bigger though).
Hard to be quite sure since the information seems to be closely held and hard to track down reliably. But being essentially tied for largest screen in the state and having no postage-sized stamps screens in any theater it’s about as good as it gets for NJ I think (although CA and some other areas can easily put it to shame).
(Largest screen in the nation is in NYC Lincoln Square but it’s kind of a nightmare to go into NYC just for a movie.)
They messed up the aspect ratio when they showed One Life. They masked it to 2.35:1 but I’m 95% sure it was supposed to be 1.85:1.
“moviebuff82: From what I read, Nolan shot the film in two aspect ratios….2:35.1 for the Panavision footage and 1:44.1 for the IMAX scenes. The digital imax is cropped to fit the small screen, so i’ll just go for regular digital anyways. Not much information is lost in the regular format (Just like with Dark Knight, nolan also shot it in regular alongside the IMAX cameras).”
Yeah it really is a shame that they never built a true IMAX screen here. I kept begging them to do it right and put in a giant real IMAX and a couple regular but ultra sized screens as well.
The IMAX Batman at Palisades theater in NY (72' wide IMAX which isn’t even all that large as IMAX goes) was unbelievable, lots of scenes took up the entire IMAX screen and they were so unbelievably sharp you thought that you were literally on the streets of NYC looking around.
They didn’t do too badly as multiplexes go though at Rockaway as even the smaller 8 screens are all at least an acceptable size, unlike at almost every other and perhaps even every other theater in the state, and then the four biggests ones are 50' and 56' sized I believe and the one converted to IMAX is probably a 60' 1:78:1 screen now.
That said we still have nothing to match what other parts of the country get with their 65'-85' regular screens and 75'–‘97 IMAX screens (and CA is just chock full of them giant IMAX screens plus regular screens that are 70-85’ wide). (I think the Reading Manville theaters in NJ has two 70' screens though, largest in the state I believe. Not sure. I don’t think any other screen anywhere in the state is larger than the 60' or so digital IMAX at Rockaway, although I think a few of the other digital IMAX screens in the state tie it).
For all the population and money in NJ we’ve typically been stuck with small screens. With the new theater building and all the room they had every chance in the world to finally give NJ a truly giant screen.
He meant total seating got slightly lowered when the put the IMAX screen in a few years ago since they removed the first few lower front rows of seats.
No it is NOT weird that that it was kept dim during the credits. That is how the movies always used to be, certainly in the 70s, 80s and much of the 90s. The whole raise the lights and everybody stampedes out instantly is a recent and sometimes annoying phenomena. I hate when a movie ends on some dramatic note and you are still sucked into and boom they flip up the lights and it’s elephants charging out. It also makes it tricky to pull of fake endings ala Ferris Bueller these days. It was pretty annoying during Fast Five when everybody starts trying to charge out even though they even left that one dark and the ushers had to run in and try to re-seat everyone. And even more annoying when during two movies they actually raised the lights BEFORE it got to the credits, for the final3 or 4 minutes of a couple movies one of which was in the midst of a very dramatic ending scene. People are way too damn impatient. I’m glad that theaters are starting to at least keep the lights dimmed into at least half the credits now more and more.
What is wrong with the current IMAX projection here? It looks brighter to me than on any of the other large screens here already and the 3D on it has a lot less ghosting due to cross-talk between L and R images partially showing through to the wrong eye than the Real 3D screens do.
I think IMAX may be going to Barco laser projection eventually. Their really big screens, the true IMAX ones, would need that and I think have first priority. I didn’t think Rockaway was getting one as soon as Dark Knight, but I don’t really know for sure.
Has anyone noticed how insanely loud they have the volume set in some of the screens?
Most of all now the IMAX #8 is pumped up to insane levels now,it was always incredibly loud but now it seems even louder. So over the top I had to get ear plugs and even with full size ear plugs that make even a rock concert sound not all that loud I could still even the quietest whisper of dialogue without even a strain. I even tested holding my ears for a second on top of full size ear plugs and I could still hear characters whispering at the quietest moments with ease. Even with ear plugs most of the loud parts still made my ears bleed. Insane. I know the theaters are desperate to bring people in and give an experience you can’t get in the home but there is no way those levels can’t be causing permanent hearing damage even over just a short two hour movie, even with ear plugs, at those levels since they don’t block all frequencies all that well I don’t think it can be good.
Mission Impossible Ghost Protocol had over the top volume there and Underworld was actually even turned up louder yet in screen #8.
Even the bathroom a couple screens down rumbles and you can sometimes hear the IMAX #8 audio in it now.
I should also say that people sometimes say I play movies at home too loudly too so if I think the volume at theaters is getting out of control I think it is getting out of control.
I wouldn’t think Dark Knight nor even Avatar by any means (the latter got pushed out early). Also keep in mind that back in the 80’s even an only semi-decent hit would hang from May to September, now only mega-ultra-giants hit doing anything like that and that some movies mega-movies could go for like a full year!
I recall Titanic stayed around for a LONG time. That’s the only semi-recent movie that come close to how long stuff like Star Wars, ET, Jaws and all that sort of stuff did I’d bet.
Certainly SW1-3, DK, Avatar held pretty long, maybe shockingly long for this day and age, but this day and age is BOOM first weekend take and then quickly fade away, for the most part.
Heck, I bet even the last Rambo hung around just about as long as DK and Avatar.
well, the IMAX screen will still be film though I’d imagine?
one thing is those imax documentaries are probably shot in true IMAX format so they would be hugely sideboxed at rockaway though no? aren’t they 1.4:1 and liemax often 1.78:1ish?
the imax screen is still a little larger though than the Real3D one though no? and on the real3d screen, well like all at the new rockaway, 1.85:1 so that would be letterboxed too.
what screen will clash of titans get? imax? or does dragon have some deal to lock up the imax?
I still vaguely remember when AMC discounts went until 4:30PM or something like that, none of this having to wake up at the crack of dawn to get the ‘twilight showing special’ nonsense hah!
The oldest ticket stub I have is 7/25/89 License to Kill Rockaway6 for a grand total of…. $3 for the 4:10PM showing!
yeah it seems a bit dodgy this move, 3D really only just became truly out and out mainstream a few months ago, all it could take is some evem crazier new prices and a few stinkers to knock off some of the lustre and if likely not at all kill off the phenom maybe end up slowing the spread of new screens
i would hope they won’t incread the film imax prices too! $16 is already getting a bit crazy!
sidenote i passed by palisades today and was what the hell, interestingly Alice used the full screen there even though Avatar did not (talking width here of course none of these are tall enough to fill bottom to top), Avatar lost a good 8' of screen width.
I wonder if they projected Avatar smaller because they knew it would have a crazy long run and they wanted the print to hold up while OTOH they knew Alice was locked into a short run due to Dragon so they projected full size??
Full size projection there does look very, very noticeably bigger than the mall liemax, really impressive. I knew they shoulda put in 70-75' screen to start. (although i have to say ALice at the end of the film run at palisades did look duller and with less contrast than at the amll digital imax for sure, i think it is also harder to sync the double reels exactly since i could swear this time there was more doubling showing through on fast action, maybe a frame off?)
(the fake 2D->3D of Alice also revealed itself even more on the giant film projection, again it is still but Cameron is so right you gotta film stuff to be shown in 3D IN 3D! kinda seems obvious. i mean they do do better than you would ever expect but all the same it is so easy to tell that things are just not quite right most of the time)
oh yeah for avatar i knew it was 3D that was the big pull, heck I don’t even personally know anyone who saw it in 2D hah
If by 100k you really do mean $100,000, what is that? That’s barely a blip on ticket sales for a bomb, so if that is all the first few pulled in and some were concerts and specials i’m sure those ones really count as mainstream 3D yet, most of the money for those titles must’ve come through 2D.
anyway whatever the case 3D is certainly totally mainstream now and on a real roll
Interesting, I had thought that the 50’s 3D stuff had been big for 6-8 years, if not extending well into the 60’s continuously, judging from how people had talked! I guess I was wrong about that.
I guess I don’t think of the current trend as being 5 full years, since for the most part I never really heard much talk about it from anyone until shortly before Avatar. Pretty much nobody I knew had even seen a hollywood 3D movie this go around until last fall (and even historically speaking, almost none had seen any of the 80’s 3D releases either), so I was counting the current trend as only like 8-12 months long so far since it really didn’t seem mainstream to me until this fall, just the odd release at certain theaters in certain regions and almost soley pure computer rendered cartoons, which seems to me like a much less mainstream start than what it had been back (or at least I had imagine it had been and perhaps i’m wrong) in the 50’s.
yeah, i don’t see what the big deal about the glasses are, heck those giant D&G sunglasses all the girls wear are like twice as big anyway haha
and skiing googles are a beast of whole nother level and nobody complains about those
i’m definitely on board with the current 3D trend (can’t comment on 50’s stuff, way, way, way before I was even born haha) and again this coming from someone had been pretty dubious about the whole thing coming in
I still think that it is very important to sit close for 3D films, few other than maybe Lincoln Square have a screen large enough otherwise. For 3D you really want it enveloping you and making it feel like you are there, which means pretty close at the mall IMAX (although definitely NOT on the lower part below the stadium seating!) even though it is a pretty decent, if not breathtakingly large screen.
saying that Jaws 3D was the highest grossing summer 3D film is like saying an Apple computer is the highest selling brand in an Apple store! In the 80’s 3D was a failure, most people never even saw a single 3D movie and the one that did the best was only 15th best for the year! The 1950’s trend obviously lasted longer than the current one (but I think, only because the current trend really only just started in any serious way, can’t make a comparison at this point).
Anyway I was one of those who hadn’t been that big on 3D and kind of thought it would be a waste, but after Avatar and Alice, I’ve definitely changed my mind.
(BTW Cameron absolutely was right that to really make 3D look real you have to use 3D cameras. I don’t know who all those fools were trashing him for saying that and claiming 2D conversion won’t be distinguishable and that with carefully converted films nobody will ever be able to tell! Alice was converted carefully and it was clear that is was a conversion (as to be expected barring actual magic). That said they did pull it off a lot better than I imagined and it certainly was cool. But very definitely you could tell easily that it was a conversion so I do hope they only use 3D cameras in the future. And I think the cheap quick 4-8 week conversions will look really flimsy.)
Anyway all that said the 3D, even if added on (carefully) afterwards, still did enhance Alice and the movie itself was way better than I had expected, nothing at all like the unwatchable Chocolate Factory which I couldn’t stomach for more than 10 minutes, Tim Burton is definitely back, very, very nice and well done movie. He’s had has abominations like Chocolate Factory and Apes, but this surely is not one of them.
I can’t possibly see them replacing it yet. What would they do with all of the super hi-res 2D prints (even the 4k from an IMAX in 2D still doesn’t match a top real IMAX film print)?? Do the digital projectors even support native IMAX aspect ratio? The digital projectors top out at 70' width and Lincoln square goes to 97' width screen (granted for some reason IMAX Palisades didn’t use the full screen width using film-based 3D for Avatar though but I’m sure they do at least for 2D stuff).
Despite a few things perhaps being a little worse with the filmm-based 3D, all I can say is that overall the film-based Avatar showing still looked a little better than even teh best IMAX Digital 3D ones IMO.
Once they get to the 8k and 100' digital projectors they may switch over since it would be a lot cheaper for them to send around digital copies of the scanned original true IMAX stuff.
I’ve been reading a lot of comments about how the faked up 2D->3D 3D for Alice looks a let less real than the real 3D-filmed 3D of Avatar. Is that the consesus for those who have seen both at the same screen at Rockaway?
sounds no different than digital imax, they just bump the screen up a touch closer and make it a touch larger, not like they are all gonna be giant movie palace screens
20% is relative, if they start with a theater that tops out at 40' screens it will still be smaller than many regular screens
Thanks, but, no, that is not what I meant.
Palisades IMAX has the standard IMAX ratio, too tall for Avatar (1.78:1 for IMAX 3D) so they will obviously not be able to use the top and bottom part of the screen but that is not what I am talking about. I am talking about side-boxing. At least the time I saw it there they did not use the full screen WIDTH despite the screen already having far more than enough height to support using the full screen width (I forget what IMAX is something like 1.44:1 or 1.6:1), it was not just letterboxed but also side-boxed as well. Maybe they didn’t use or don’t have a bright enough bulb to project film in 3D at their full screen width??
Anyway I was wondering whether or not the Lincoln Square screen is using the full 97' width or not. If so it might be cool to check it out there even though it is a major pain to get there, but if they are also stuck just using like a 65'-70' width too then there is no point in going through the mess to get to that theater in the middle of Manhattan.
I’m confused, how can Empire’s IMAX be a larger screen than here when someone said this theater’s largest screen is larger than Rockaway 16’s largest screen when Rockaway’s IMAX screen is larger than Empire (NYC)’s IMAX screen??
Which is the largest liemax in NJ? Here, Rockaway or Jersey Gardens?