Hollywood actor boycotts IMAX version of Star Trek at AMC

posted by moviebuff82 on May 14, 2009 at 3:40 pm

According to sources, Aziz Ansari, a movie actor best known for starring in NBC’s “Parks and Recreation”, spent an extra $5 to see an IMAX screening of “Star Trek” at a 16-screen Burbank theater owned by AMC. After watching with disbelief, he posted a blog online calling for moviegoers to boycott the small IMAX screens, which he calls “fake”.

Read more at the pitch.

Comments (20)

JodarMovieFan on May 14, 2009 at 5:15 pm

You mean to tell me that after a 9 month roll out, someone’s eyes are open to the fact that the AMC IMAX installs are really IMAX-lite ? Yet, in some markets, they charge even more than the REAL IMAX theaters? Here in the DC area, the Chantilly VA IMAX theater run by the Smithsonian charges $12.50 for the IMAX version of Star Trek. Yet, the area DC AMC IMAX-lite theaters charge $14.50 and up. After 5 screenings, I still think the THX Dolby Digital Cinema presentations are the overall superior theatrical experience. For me, the superior sound separation, clarity and bass boom just doesn’t cut it in the advertised 12000 watts of power that the AMC IMAX-lite venues boast.

CinemarkFan on May 14, 2009 at 7:15 pm

Ha ha, IMAX corp won’t like this. Now people will know the difference between 6 story real IMAX, and the overhyped 1.85: 1 DietMAX screens that AMC are trying to shove down throats.

Giles on May 14, 2009 at 7:40 pm

actually IMAX-lite aspect ratio is 1.76 I’d boycott them too, but not all the Smithsonian IMAX screens can’t or won’t book the Hollywood fare (i.e, Transformers 2) and Udvar Hazy the one that does book them, is not 3D equipped.

moviebuff82 on May 14, 2009 at 7:49 pm

I think the Smithsonian IMAX will show Night at the Museum 2 since that takes place in the Smithsonian.

Giles on May 14, 2009 at 8:05 pm

yes at both museums on the Mall: Natural History and Air & Space

Giles on May 14, 2009 at 8:06 pm

thankfully ‘Star Trek’ will remain at Udvar Hazy.

KramSacul on May 15, 2009 at 1:00 am

I’ve been boycotting that horrible multiplex since it was built.

budyboy100 on May 16, 2009 at 1:34 am

I saw The Dark Knight at Regal Dubliin California, and it contained scenes that filled the whole screen, top to bottom, side to side, while most of the film just filled side to side but not full height. When I went to Watchmen, it only filled side to side, never did full full height.

I asked for, and got a tour of the projection room after Dark Knight. They actually have two projectors up there, the cool IMAX one, and another normal on for showing regular films. So, for sure not everything shown in IMAX is even 70mm IMAX film, the theaters should disclose what product is being presented, and charge accordingly

budyboy100 on May 16, 2009 at 1:46 am

IMAX or Lie-Max link. see if it’s real or fake……

View link

Ret. AKC (NAC) CCC Bob Jensen, Manteno, Illinois
Ret. AKC (NAC) CCC Bob Jensen, Manteno, Illinois on May 16, 2009 at 1:21 pm

EVERYONE, look at the budyboy100, what a useful site!

Michael Furlinger
Michael Furlinger on May 16, 2009 at 5:31 pm

I just reopened an old Imax theater and we put in a 74 ft screen…..The new Imax is a way to push digital to save costs.You can not project over a 50 ft image in digital at this time.Thats why the small screen..SCAM

John Fink
John Fink on May 16, 2009 at 6:06 pm

Some of the “fake I-Max” sites aren’t that bad – City Center in White Plains is pretty good and that was a retrofit of a giant 400-seat auditorium. National Amusements also retrofitted a screen at Buckland Hills which was pretty bad, Buckland Hills was retrofitted into an existing building already. While the theater itself is fine, good projection, seats and customer service – the IMAX screen is tiny in a 250 seat (or so) theater – they should have retrofitted a screen at their Showcase Cinemas West Springfield instead.

The real vs. fake is a great argument – IMAX needs to set some standards here – $5 to see a film on a slightly bigger screen with better sound seems like a major rip-off, I can understand if it was in 3-D. I was at Buckland once and they had shown a 35MM film (Cry Wolf) for the late show, at regular price in IMAX – since there screen was so small the quality of it looked fine.

If people continue to pay 5 extra bucks to see a movie at a mini-IMAX, then its our own damn fault. What I think is horrible is new constructions with mini-IMAX theaters – why not have the balls to build a big, classic style IMAX, if the market is going to be saturated, why not have the biggest and the best in your theater. Can’t digital handle it?

e1337n00b on May 17, 2009 at 9:05 am

Theater 8 or 9 at W. Springfield would make a great IMAX, even the screens at flat i think are bigger than Buckland’s LIEMAX. I was thinking that while attending the NESN HD GameNight at W.Springfield which was held in one of the 2 next to the boxoffice. As much as I like Buckland Showcase, they should’ve waited for after the renovation and added an IMAX in the new wing that holds Theaters 4 and 5.(Which are nice theatres in their own right, almost as big as W. Springfield’s)

Jon Lidolt
Jon Lidolt on May 17, 2009 at 6:08 pm

This same thing happened with the original Cinerama 3-projector system. When they switched to showing standard 70mm prints on their deeply curved screens there was nothing Cinerama about it except for a Cinerama logo added to the movie ads (I used to work on these ads). And not much later these same theatres even projected 35mm scope prints on these oversized screens which resulted in fuzzy images and nothing remotely resembling the “You Are There” Cinerama experience. I think we’re now witnessing the same, slow torturous decline and death of the wonderful, original giant screen Imax process.

JimMann9 on May 18, 2009 at 12:32 pm

When Cinerama went to Ultra-Panavison and called itself Cinerama it died a slow death. Two respected formats but none the less different ideas I must say. IMAX is following the same path…..doom.

vic1964 on May 29, 2009 at 6:45 pm

Digital cannot handle it!
Up until The Dark Knight ,no feature film director would dare try to shoot in IMAX.
Chris Nolan didn’t complain about the difficulties involved with shooting in IMAX.
He just did it! Guess what? It turned out fantastic and made boatloads of deserved money.
The new IMAX digital plan is a scam!

Mike (saps)
Mike (saps) on May 30, 2009 at 9:34 am

I agree. When they installed “Imax” at the AMC Empire 42nd Street, I thought they’d raise the roof or build it on one of their many balconies. But, no, they just put a slightly bigger screen in one of their original auditoriums. (#1 I think.) Same with Regal Sheepshead Bay. I peeked in one day and the movie they were showing (at a premium price) didn’t even fill the screen.

moviebuff82 on May 30, 2009 at 5:37 pm

Night at the Museum 2 is playing in blown up IMAX for a few more weeks until Transformers 2 comes out….that movie and the upcoming Harry Potter movie will have select scenes shot in true IMAX (3D for Harry Potter).

Giles on June 1, 2009 at 7:58 pm

‘Harry Potter’ had 3D added to select scenes, but was not filmed with IMAX cameras/film stock.

Giles on June 1, 2009 at 8:04 pm

what’s dumb about the movies that are selected for IMAX presentations that neary 90 % of the films chosen are 2.35 scope films, that are supposed to be seen on a large W-I-D-E screen not a box like aspect ratio screen where black borders are above and below the image, of course it seems like a rip off when you can easily see that movie on a very large DLP/Sony 4K digital projection system and screen.

You must login before making a comment.

New Comment