Behind The Lies Of The 'Skyfall: See It In IMAX' Advertising Campaign

[willdude]

But a well-designed 'scope image can't just be unpicked to become an equivalently well-designed IMAX image. It doesn't work that way. The difference between a well designed 'scope shot and a well-designed IMAX shot isn't just bolting a bit more on the top and bottom.

I dunno, I guess I disagree with the general notion that an image can be more or less "well-designed", and thus make a movie more or less what the filmmakers intended, simply by adding or subtracting image relative to what was originally shot.

I saw Dark Knight Rises in both real IMAX and Liemax, and while the latter wasn't as good of an experience, I wouldn't say that it wasn't what the filmmakers intended. The same can be said for both DKR and MI4 -- just because there are multiple versions with varying heights doesn't inherently mean that one is preferred over the others simply because image was added or subtracted. In fact, Brad Bird didn't want the IMAX version released on Blu-ray because it wouldn't replicate the real experience, which I happen to disagree with.

Ultimately, it comes down to whether or not you believe they intended to have the two formats while shooting. Unless Deakins/Mendes say so explicitly, we can't know for sure.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

While I also question whether this taller IMAX picture is really the filmmakers' preference, talking like the bigger image was derived by the studio completely after the filmmakers had their input isn't really true either. There are so many post-production things done to the image -- special effects, color timing changes -- that the director and cinematographer are still involved in, and I can't believe that they went through that whole process with no intention of having it in the 1.9:1 format. It's not like Sony went back to the raw digital images themselves; they were given this larger image by the filmmakers.

Sure, Nolan knew it was happening, and contributed to it, but in those side by side Batman shots, they are both communicating a different message - he must have had one in mind, and I'd bank it's on the perfectly framed shot, not the unbalanced IMAX one.

(Is the cinematographer that involved in post-production? Traditionally they'd move on to other films. Not sure how it goes with digital effects these days.)

One could argue that he's at least somewhat covering up for the marketing decisions, but I have a hard time believing that the bigger image was never their intention.

I think they took it into account - I'm sure there's nothing distracting just outside the WS frame, I just struggle to believe either Deakin or Mendes honestly don't have a preference for the framing of their film.
Aspect ratio isn't chosen at random, it's a big decision when making a film as it changes how you frame the shots, and both Mendes and Deakin's past films have very specific framing. I'm just not buying that with this film they wanted to do a Lars Von Trier style experiment/stylistic change-up.
Total guess - IMAX paid the producers a lot of money, and so Mendes and Deakin dutifully made space for IMAX like good-work-for-hire men do. I bet they're ok as the majority of the audience seeing it in it's intended aspect ratio.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

The same can be said for both DKR and MI4 -- just because there are multiple versions with varying heights doesn't inherently mean that one is preferred over the others simply because image was added or subtracted. In fact, Brad Bird didn't want the IMAX version released on Blu-ray because it wouldn't replicate the real experience, which I happen to disagree with.

If Kevin Smith had a film in both formats and said he didn't have a preference, I'd believe it. The other directors mentioned - Mendes, Nolan, Bird - are all visual storytellers, and each shot is there for a reason, and framed for a reason.

[CBattles6]

So if I accept Brendon's arguments, should I be seeing anything in IMAX? It's hard not to read his article as an indictment of the whole format, even though I don't think that was his intent. Here's the train of logic:

I haven't heard of any movie being shot specifically for IMAX, other than educational documentaries. I don't think that IMAX theaters are plentiful enough to justify such a move for a wide-release movie. So that means that almost every movie released in IMAX was "designed" for a smaller aspect ratio by the cinematographer and director, then altered somehow to create the IMAX cut. Therefore, the IMAX version of a movie is rarely, if ever, the viewing experience that the filmmakers intended.

So should I be seeing anything in IMAX? I mean, I've always enjoyed the "bigness" of the experience, but if that's the only thing redeeming about it, and it's coming at the expense of the filmmaker's vision, I would probably be inclined to stop.

[BigAl6ft6]

Are you sure they benefitd? Did you check the version you saw against the one the filmmaker intended in a normal theatre, or you just saw it at the IMAX and enjoyed it there?

Sure benefited me as in very simple equation, larger = better. For the record, I saw DKR twice in the digital IMAX format (in a row!) and the IMAX-shot scenes looked great, even if not a true IMAX screen, but the resolution and opening up the frame looked gorgeous. I was actually annoyed when the flick switched to non-IMAX shots cuz I kept noticing the small aspect ration switch but that's the filmmaker's choice. Amazing Spider-Man I saw twice, once in regular theatre in 2D and once in imax 3D and I have to say I did enjoy the film a bit more in the digital IMAX format. Prometheus was the also the IMAX / regular 2D show but even though the IMAX version of Prometheus was slightly cropped compared to the way it was shot, once again, bigger screen for me = more immersive and benefited the movie to create a better film experience.

To dumb it down a shade. Big good. Cropping not a dealbreaker. Didn't exactly see 5 foot boom mics in the shot, y'know? Also the level of cropping in moving a flick to IMAX is not as egregious as what happened in the old VHS pan and scan days. (see Pee Wee's Big Adventure pan and scan version for a shot of him pulling stuff out of a bag being ruined by the aspect ration shift)

[Deke]

You make a great case, Brendon. It may save me a few dollars. In this case, I think you have convinced me. I am also sympathetic to BigAl--I think some films are more enjoyable on LieMax; and, yes, I've seen the same film on IMAX, standard 3D, and standard so I can compare them.

The point I really want to make is: what about the sound? I have found that in theaters in big and small markets that the sound in LieMax theaters is a lot better than the sound in even the "best" theaters. I saw Raiders in LieMax. Was I impressed by the visuals of a film not designed for any sort of IMAX being projected onto a LieMax screen: maybe, a little (it was a nice Blu-ray transfer). But, basically, the visuals were not worth any extra charge. The sound, however, was fantastic--Ben Burt's sound design (the crack of the whip!) and John Williams' score blew me away. It would not have been the same experience in a non-IMAX theater. There is no reason a standard-aspect projection theater could not have great sound--but, they don't in my experience.

Now, I also recently saw Lawrence of Arabia which would have been a disaster on an IMAX screen (even though it was shot in an aspect ratio that does not exist anymore). Back to Bond: because of messing with the visal compositions of the shot, I might not go to the LieMax. However, wouldn't the score sound fantastic? In some films, the sound is more important than the visuals--at least, it is for me.

[BigBlack]

Brendon:

I feel that your argument is 100% subjective, and assumes a lot, not the least of which is that you can peer into the heads of both Mendes and Deakins. It also doesn't jive with the other comparison shots I've seen which show the image in both presentations: there's simply more image in the IMAX one, and you are inferring a LOT to claim that it's a lie, rather than planned for. I haven't seen one boom mike yet, and I feel its disingenuous for you to extrapolate the framing problems of fucked-up open matte presentations in the days of yore as a comparison to the state of the art features appearing in larger formats we can see today.

If the image was blown up or otherwise up-scaled to the larger IMAX format, meaning it's not a 1:1 resolution conversion, then this article would have a solid point. Instead, you are essentially claiming that no planning or talent on the part of either Deakins or Mendes could justify using so much extra space at the top and bottom of the image, and that the somewhat more confining space of a scope frame somehow forces more passion and artistic value to occur within the smaller, matted image. Am I wrong?

That's how I read you, anyway, and I am forced to dispute the basis of your entire argument. Furthermore I think this smacks of a weird 180 of the bizarre opinions of Jeffrey Wells at Hollywood Elsewhere, who ALWAYS prefers boxier frames when given the choice, regardless of any reason, citing the 1:85 'tyranny' of our current widescreen televisions as the source of his agony, and the cause for so many theatrical releases films to lose the boxy headroom he loves in favor of being pre-formatted for our televisions. Maybe you and him should have a fist-fight while we all pick our own formats of choice?

Btw, here's a different image Mr. Wells had linked to, showing how the framing difference:

Breathing Space :: Hollywood Elsewhere


I actually really like the more open composition in the larger IMAX frame.


I have to agree with the previous poster who said that, essentially, you appear to favor one aspect ration over this larger, boxier one. Being a fan of old movies my entire life, many of which possess aspect ratios that are quite 'boxy', I call a friendly bullshit here on your proclamation that we are all being cheated when we pay to see this in IMAX: many talented directors love the headroom and squareness of the boxy ratios, and I've liked what I've seen from the various IMAX frame grabs, and understand exactly how much more image we will be getting when I see this film tomorrow. You may not like it; you may not like the ticket prices; but to call this a lie is fucking hysteria, man.

[Brendon Connelly]

I feel its disingenuous for you to extrapolate the framing problems of fucked-up open matte presentations in the days of yore as a comparison to the state of the art features appearing in larger formats we can see today.

You are essentially claiming that no planning or talent on the part of either Deakins or Mendes could justify using so much extra space at the top and bottom of the image, and that the somewhat more confining space of a scope frame somehow forces more passion and artistic value to occur within the smaller, matted image. Am I wrong?

You may not like it; you may not like the ticket prices; but to call this a lie is fucking hysteria, man.

The comparison to open matte presentations on VHS, etc. was to show that both are distortions of the original or at least preferred aspect ratio.

The effort went into composing for 2.4:1 and protecting for 1.9:1. Composing beats protecting.

The lies I am referring to are in the ad campaign - the misleading image and video.

Incidentally, I had a long chat with some guys from IMAX today and I will be posting quotes from them over the weekend.

[Kuma]

I saw it last night on a 4k projection. It looked phenomenal and the sound was great. IMAX has been lessening the sound quality for years. I do love IMAX for movies that are originally intended for it but Skyfall is unfortunately not one of those.

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Sure benefited me as in very simple equation, larger = better.

Cool.

I was actually annoyed when the flick switched to non-IMAX shots cuz I kept noticing the small aspect ration switch but that's the filmmaker's choice.

I'd say that's what they are trying to get around by doing it this way with Sky Fall.

To dumb it down a shade. Big good. Cropping not a dealbreaker. Didn't exactly see 5 foot boom mics in the shot, y'know? Also the level of cropping in moving a flick to IMAX is not as egregious as what happened in the old VHS pan and scan days. (see Pee Wee's Big Adventure pan and scan version for a shot of him pulling stuff out of a bag being ruined by the aspect ration shift)

If you had fun, you had fun - I'm not judging you on that.
I'm much more in the 'I want to see it how the filmmaker intended it' type vein, as that's the sort of thing that gives me my film kick, but I can see the appeal of watching an action spectacle on the biggest possible screen.

(My pan and scan weird one was Pulp Fiction. I'd always loved the shot that panned quickly from the guy on the couches face, up the gun, to Samuel L Jackson - just thought it was interesting, as it was quite sifferent to the test. Saw it on DVD, it was a static wide shot.)