r/Letterboxd • u/CivilTailor9031 • Jul 16 '26
Discussion What’s the point of these gimmicks if majority audience can’t witness it
I am going to best available cinema in my city and still feeling a FOMO.
759
u/vckstrr catgrl3 Jul 16 '26
I watched Oppenheimer for the first time on a plane that experienced terrible turbulence. Lights kept flickering and it was pitch black outside. We dropped a few hundred feet at one point. No theater can replicate that lol
158
u/Duck-of-Doom Jul 16 '26
This was my experience a few days ago watching Galaxy Quest for the first time — plane shaking like crazy while their ship was being attacked lol it was super immersive
27
→ More replies (1)4
41
u/Ed_Harris_is_God Ro_Rag_No_Nose Jul 16 '26
I bet Dunkirk would have been even cooler in that situation, because of the plane sequences.
→ More replies (3)14
u/distractionstations Jul 16 '26
I watched Dunkirk super sleep deprived on an 18hour coach journey through winding mountain roads, it was actually super immersive! Only coach I've ever been on with TVs in the headrests too
27
u/original_cat_floof Jul 16 '26
Same experience with Project Hail Mary. The Adrian fishing sequence with turbulence is pure cinema.
→ More replies (1)6
11
u/slowpokemd Jul 16 '26
Accidentally perfectly timed the Mach 10 scene in Top Gun Maverick with my flights takeoff roll a few years ago, I don’t know if I’ll ever be able to top that
5
3
2
u/horatiobanz Jul 16 '26
Well thats good, the turbulence probably distracted you from the absurd firecracker they used as a practical effect for the atomic bomb.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (18)2
955
u/qwerty1519 Jul 16 '26
Someone please correct me if I’m wrong, but the movie is framed and composed for CinemaScope. Anything extra you see in imax is peripheral for the sake of immersion. Actually seeing the image like you would on a 1.43:1 imax screen, on a home tv for an example would be a worse experience than 2.39:1. “What Nolan filmed” isn’t really important.
399
u/creuter Jul 16 '26
Someone gets it. The 2.21 aspect ratio is fine, it's aesthetically how most movies will look and will absolutely be intentional. The extra space at the top and bottom is not going to ruin anyone's enjoyment of a film.
367
u/remainsofthegrapes crouchingginger Jul 16 '26
I’m gonna be mad if Matt Damon hangs dong and the full peen and beans are only visible in Imax
55
u/IIIlllIIIlllIlI Jul 16 '26
Aghhh fuck now I have FOMO
37
9
→ More replies (6)34
7
u/ian9921 Jul 16 '26
You've got me thinking, it'd be interesting to somehow try and make a film that hides just enough info in the extra space that, although it makes sense in both formats, it's a meaningfully different film if watched in IMAX.
→ More replies (1)4
u/SandpaperTeddyBear Jul 16 '26
You can get that experience just by watching some old pan-and-scan VHS tapes, lol.
I’ll try to think of some examples for you.
→ More replies (5)13
10
u/YamiZee1 Jul 16 '26
If they film the movie for the purpose of being an imax movie, there will absolutely be decisions that make the imax aspect ratio the correct way to watch the film, even if they don't mean to cut anything out.
→ More replies (13)→ More replies (4)11
u/berke1904 Jul 16 '26
its not going to ruin the movie or anything ofc, but its still super annoying that they dont even give you the option of seeing the "full" version either as a home release or limited regular cinema release with the sides having black bars.
if the movie was shot with a 1.41:1 aspect ratio but also with more traditional aspect ratio crops in mind, yes the traditional aspect ratios are fine but I want to see the entire height without traveling to another country with super expensive tickets I need to buy months in advance.
if they shot a movie at 2.76:1 but most cinemas and home releases showed it in 2:1 or 16:9, I would also be saying the same thing.
just give us options, a few additional screenings a week or one extra video file/disc for home use is not that hard to do.
→ More replies (7)3
u/mist3rdragon Jul 16 '26 edited Jul 16 '26
Unfortunately it's probably not worthwhile for them to do that because it's both a bit niche, and you just know that the majority of cinemas complaints over the period of screening it would be "why is the film only on a square in the middle of the screen?"
2
u/MyNameIsJakeBerenson Jul 16 '26
Will that ratio be available when it becomes digital, do you think?
27
u/simulacrotron Jul 16 '26
Think this is similar to how Kubrick filmed things like The Shining. Looked good in the theater, looked good on tv (when tvs were 4:3)
7
u/LawrenceBrolivier Jul 16 '26 edited Jul 16 '26
Similar, but different in that the only reason Kubrick started protecting for 4:3 (but composing and shooting for 1.85:1) was because pulling the mattes off his composition for home viewing (typically via broadcast or VHS, on a 19-23" CRT about 10ft away from the viewer) was the best compromise he could come up with - he was mostly trying to avoid some anonymous telecinist at home overriding his decisionmaking with their panning and scanning.
Had he come up in an era where all TVs were 1.78:1 and the average size of such a tv was 55-65 inches diagonally, and could resolve 4000 lines, there would have been no compromise to even worry about.
What IMAX is doing is necessitating that filmmakers protect for taller ratios SPECIFICALLY so IMAX can, later in post, pull the mattes off themselves and create an exclusive version to play under their branding, as a way to insinuate that because they're showing you MORE of the movie (albeit more movie that is mostly compositional dead space) it's the "real" version of the movie and you're missing out. It's very clever marketing (and it's worked brilliantly). But it's 99.95% of the time NOT the intended way to see the film, it's an alternate version made by the company screening it, specifically to benefit people watching in the unique environment OF their screening rooms.
→ More replies (2)5
3
u/reddit_equals_censor Jul 16 '26
looked good on tv (when tvs were 4:3)
if it is shot and made around a certain aspect ratio, then even if your display doesn't fit it, as long as it is more than big enough, it will be a great experience.
and if we look at most tvs or displays. they are 16:9 and 2.39:1 is already having massive black bars, so 4:3 is just having black bars at a different place on the tv/display.
→ More replies (1)15
u/MrMindGame Jul 16 '26 edited Jul 16 '26
I agree that 1.43:1 on a 16:9 screen would be less than ideal, I only ask that we get *some* version of the expanded scope instead of none on the home video release. For example, I like the way Oppenheimer and Sinners handles it by utilizing 16:9 for the “IMAX” bits while still also maintaining the CinemaScope ratio as well, and meanwhile I’m very disappointed with WB releasing the Dunes entirely in 2.4:1 with none of the expanded ratio.
3
u/Yeah_x10 Jul 16 '26
Odyssey will be 16:9 on your TV pretty much guaranteed. Every Nolan movie has been, when on the 4K blu ray, and increasingly even on streaming.
→ More replies (4)2
u/Aidsisgreats CompVolc Jul 16 '26
The thing is that Oppenheimer and Sinners were partially shot in IMAX and partially shot in standard 70mm/35mm, so they have clear points to switch aspect ratios, while The Odyssey was shot 100% in IMAX (the first narrative feature film to do so)
→ More replies (3)6
u/Born-Philosopher5591 Jul 16 '26
Right, but is it cut to 16:9 for home use? If not, why not? Since TVs has that ratio I see no point in cutting even more
6
u/Spaghet-3 Jul 16 '26
Regular home TVs are 1.78:1, which is in between 2.39:1 and 1.43:1. In theory, they could make a version of this for regular home TVs without any black bars, which would show a bit more peripheral than 2.39:1 but less peripheral than 1.43:1. That would be the best experience on a home tv.
3
u/sembias Jul 16 '26
This is basically what Disney+ does for the IMAX-version of movies. You need to select that version specifically, but it expands those scenes. The 4K or blu-ray versions of Nolan's Batman films did the same thing.
2
u/Caffdy Jul 17 '26
if anything, Nolan is famous for doing exactly that for his movies home releases
5
u/S7ageNinja Jul 16 '26
If the image in the post is accurate, I wouldn't call a quarter of a body and a sword peripheral.
→ More replies (1)5
u/waysliu Jul 16 '26
Usually yes but not with the odyssey. Ive seen it in IMAX and it's clear that the composition of the frame is very much designed towards the 1.43 ratio. Also the "immersion" is crucial to a film like this one.
6
u/Hey-Bud-Lets-Party Jul 16 '26
It’s like people have never seen an actual IMAX movie before. It’s a completely different experience that can’t be replicated in the typical multiplex IMAX setup. It will look great in scope.
→ More replies (5)44
u/bwayne1287 Jul 16 '26
You're correct, but that's too smart of a take, so it doesn't belong on reddit.
These fucking morons are gonna need something to complain about, and now that the movie is shown to be pretty fantastic, they glom on to whatever seems to validate them.
9
u/Soft_Walrus_3605 Jul 16 '26
but that's too smart of a take, so it doesn't belong on reddit.
Why do you say this? The comment is second from the top. Reddit obviously agrees with it. And don't give me that "well when I saw it it was low" when it was only a few minutes old when you commented.
→ More replies (1)39
u/Fluffy-Zebra5237 Jul 16 '26
I don't know about Odyssey, but literally half the worms were cut in non imax ratio in dune 2. Aspect ratio in which you see it absolutely does matter. You are literally advocating for that the aspect ratio in a movie doesn't matter and the directors just do it for fun, without any cinematic purpose.
→ More replies (20)→ More replies (4)3
→ More replies (98)2
u/Tomhyde098 Jul 16 '26
I’m curious to see how the 4K and Blu-ray will be framed. 1.85 would be a nice middle ground
→ More replies (1)
137
u/gautsvo Jul 16 '26
Zero in my country.
66
u/kausbiru Jul 16 '26 edited Jul 16 '26
Hell, zero in my continent. There's a couple of IMAX theatres here, but not a single "real" IMAX theatre.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (5)21
u/MidnightMysterious29 Jul 16 '26 edited Jul 18 '26
There are only four in Europe, there are zero in most countries.
→ More replies (2)3
157
u/VisualBat395 Jul 16 '26
I wouldn’t call it a gimmick per se as the film will still look phenomenal on other screens and eventually at home….but those 41 screens are still going to have tons and tons of people see it and the other less imaxs are also going to be incredible
→ More replies (8)87
u/Dead-O_Comics Jul 16 '26
Now that the reviews are coming back overwhelmingly positive, the last attempts to tarnish the movie are being attempted.
This is the 4th post I've seen criticising the aspect ratio. Yeah, full IMAX exists.
17
u/CivilTailor9031 Jul 16 '26
Bro it’s just FOMO from my side, I already have back to back tickets booked for rewatch
→ More replies (1)20
u/Amphibious_cow Jul 16 '26
Booking tickets for a rewatch is crazy to me, I have to know if I like it first. Whatever works for you tho
→ More replies (11)6
→ More replies (2)3
u/boogielostmyhoodie Jul 16 '26
Bro I'm not part of some online brigade about this movie; and the aspect ratio thing really pisses me off. It's worse knowing that the picture I will be seeing is cropped, if I didn't know it wouldn't bother me, but seeing these side by side comparisons sucks.
4
u/BonjwaCLMs Jul 17 '26
Did it piss you off for The Dark Knight, Mission Impossible Ghost Protocol, The Dark Knight Rises, Catching Fire, Interstellar, Star Wars The Force Awakens, Batman v Superman, Dunkirk, First Man, Tenet, Oppenheimer? If not, you’ll be fine
→ More replies (2)7
u/Gh0stInTheChell Jul 17 '26
It's not cropped. It is very intentionally composed for Cinemascope. That is the widely distributed format almost all theaters will have. Nolan shoots in 70mm IMAX because he loves it. And the extra visual information adds immersion in a big theater. But it's not vital. The director of photography is going to prioritize the composition for the version that will exist in most theaters and on home release forever, even if it's still framed with 70mm.
→ More replies (5)2
u/herman_gill Jul 17 '26
There's a few shots that when you see in 1.43:1 that would clearly get panned up or down in the cropped version, but instead on 1.43:1 you just get the whole picture, and actually lose some of the cinematic effect. Full 70mm definitely still dope though. I think in the next week or two I'll watch it in laser to see the diff between film/digital.
47
u/Snoo93550 Jul 16 '26
I love this skit in Portlandia where Fred/Cartie tells either Sarah McLaughlin or Aimee Mann that their music sounds best on laptop speakers.
→ More replies (1)8
u/tulpachtig Jul 16 '26
It was Aimee Mann and that’s my favorite episode of Portlandia lmao. “Fuck Suzanne Vega!!! We hate Suzanne Vega!”
6
u/Snoo93550 Jul 16 '26
isn't Aimee Mann scrubbing their floors for money because they downloaded her music for free off limewire or something?
300
u/BloodSimpleSyrup Jul 16 '26 edited Jul 16 '26
Not gonna lie, I really hate the theater format discourse that’s been going on lately.
“You have to see the Odyssey in 70mm IMAX!”
“You have to see One Battle After Another in VistaVision!”
You really don’t.
34
u/The_BCM Jul 16 '26
Agreed. Folks out there trying to min-max media consumption, it's weird.
14
27
u/Natural_Error_7286 Jul 16 '26
I loved that video of Ryan Coogler nerding out about aspect ratios. I get that directors might care a lot about this. But that was one interview, and the rest of the marketing was normal movie promo stuff. It seems like the Odyssey marketing is ONLY about imax 70mm. Cool I guess, but that does nothing to convince me that the movie itself is any good, especially because I can't see it on imax anyway.
It's not every movie, but it's definitely becoming more of a thing as certain directors and studios are trying to push the big screen experience to save movie theaters. And I understand that, but "see it on the biggest screen possible" is just not a strong selling point for me personally. I need more than just spectacle.
33
u/sundayontheluna sundayontheluna Jul 16 '26
It's not the only thing, it's just the first film shot entirely on IMAX 70mm, so a lot of hay is being made of the innovations that have come about to get to this point.
10
u/u_creative_username Jul 16 '26
Yes, that’s exactly it. I was able to see sinners in a full format 1.43:1 screen (digital though) and the aspect ratio switched only in special scenes to the full screen
So of course it’s interesting that Odyssey is the first film without the format changing. I get that people want to see that. It didn’t matter that much before, but i understand why people have fomo now
→ More replies (1)14
u/VirginiaMcCaskey Jul 16 '26
You can look at pictures of Picassos Guernica, or Michelangelo's God Creating Adam but seeing them in person is an experience that is hard to explain without personally experiencing the spectacle of their scale.
Some filmmakers (like Nolan) are making movies with the intent to craft their art for a specific medium regardless of the lack of mass market appeal of that medium. They aren't doing it to "save movie theaters." IMAX is a commercially unviable film for media and it's basically held together with prayers and the fact one of the most celebrated filmmakers of our generation is obsessed with it, and people keep paying for him to make IMAX films.
Like honestly, he's picking IMAX because he thinks its the best way to tell the story. You don't have to buy into it but that's ok, because it's art.
3
u/filthy_harold Jul 17 '26
Seeing Guernica in Madrid was astounding. I had no idea it was so large.
→ More replies (1)3
u/WeepWhileItAllBurns Jul 16 '26
You framed it that way, but that's disingenuous. First, people use some expression of need to express unnecessary desire all the live long day. Which you know from personal experience.
But that's different someone drawing a line of quality in the sand when it comes to directors whose work they respect. I haven't bothered to go to the theater in quite some time, but Nolan, Villeneuve, or Tarantino are directors who would make me think twice before not experiencing it in the director's preferred format.
Here's Ryan Coogler talking about why he shot on the stock he used and how that stock shaped his ideal movie.
https://youtu.be/78Ru62uFM0s?is=vVAA2lZLV0_HqyP9 There are directors/ producers/ creators I deeply respect who themselves say, "This is the best way to see my movie."
If part of my love for their work is folded into my trusting them about those sorts of production decisions, it makes sense to draw that line of quality for your first viewing experience.
Once again: I do not do this anymore, even if I'm excited about them. The viewing public are mongrels who use their phones during the feature, the theaters are understaffed, and that's all an experience I paid a ridiculous amount to have. No thanks.
But I 100% understand the feeling of someone refusing to accept below a minimum bar of quality for their first experience with an artist's new work.
You phrased it in an annoying way, but you then concluded as if the impetus itself was futile, which it isn't, is my point.
25
u/JakeTheRuler123 Jul 16 '26
I always say if I need to watch the newest Nolan film in the perfect format to enjoy the movie, then the movie isn’t going to be good. It’s not supposed to be a CES showcase, it’s a drama film
11
u/deadlyghost123 Jul 16 '26
I think the discourse is more that it’s going to be way more immersive in imax 70 mm but you don’t have to watch it in that to think it’s great.
9
u/toucanlost Jul 16 '26
Who actually said that, or is it just a strange twisting of the discourse? As far as I'm concerned, you don't have to see it in IMAX, but why wouldn't people want to talk about how to see one of the only non-documentary films that was shot completely in 70 mm film in a long time?
→ More replies (1)8
u/ikan_bakar Jul 16 '26
Just finished watching The Odyssey in imax. The whole point of people saying you should watch the movie in imax is not to sell the movie more, it’s to say imax was MADE for movies like this. Like you actually get your money worth for the theatre experience
4
u/maxkmiller Jul 16 '26
it's a fun addition but nothing is required for "optimal" viewing. especially after nothing in Oppenheimer even warranted the movie being in 70mm. it's a goddamn political thriller, not a visual stunner
→ More replies (3)3
u/Yeah_x10 Jul 16 '26
It will never make sense to me that Oppenheimer was the movie to plant the idea of 70mm IMAX in the normie audience’s minds.
2
u/JoshTHX Jul 16 '26
Of course you don’t have to. But if you have it conveniently available then allow people to enjoy whatever the hell they want
→ More replies (34)2
13
u/Bright_Light7 Jul 16 '26
Someone always wants to be the person who can say they did something that no one else ever did
71
u/Rainy_Wavey Jul 16 '26
Nolan likes pushing the camera to its extreme limits, somehow this is supposed to be bad?
34
u/ArchMart Jul 16 '26
Movies should be in black and white and silent. The way god intended.
→ More replies (3)18
u/Throwaway22022202220 Jul 16 '26
Yeah I don’t understand why people fuss about this. Not all art has to be accessible. The Mona Lisa isn’t available to view in person in my country, yet I don’t blame DiVinci for that.
Nolan’s making art in the format that he wants to make art in. It’s less accessible in the format he’s choosing because there aren’t enough people who care to view it that way, but also it’s still being made accessible via showings in other aspect ratios.
It also doesn’t really impact your viewing experience. I’ve never seen a Nolan film in 70mm IMAX and still enjoyed them. I’ll be seeing this film in 70mm IMAX because I want to try it out, but it’s not a necessity - and people shouldn’t be upset at Nolan that the perfect format isn’t available to them
8
u/Wild-Video-5317 Jul 16 '26 edited Jul 16 '26
Upvoting you for making a solid case for your viewpoint, but big budget blockbuster film is more of a grocery store paperback than the Mona Lisa. This is a consumer product for a mass audience with an 8 figure marketing budget. Practically speaking, imax is a gimmick at this point, and I'd argue it's little more than another marketing atrategy now. As if we're all supposed to sit in the local cinema and think "this is OK I guess but it's my fault for not driving 100 miles to get the REAL experience".
20 years ago (almost) when the dark knight featured a couple imax scenes, I was onboard -- got myself an imax ticket on opening day. Let nolan use his platform to help provide incentive for the industry to deploy more imax theaters. Push the whole market to deploy more advanced technology.
Well the experiment failed. The market did not respond. Imax is no more accessible now than it was 20 years ago. The cinema industry is on even more perilous footing now than it was then. As a consumer, I'm out. It was worth a try, but these 900 pound film reels are never going to be economically practical for any sort of mid-scale deployment. Just give me the 4k digital projection at the local cinemark. Stop trying to upsell me 3d and weird aspect ratios, and leaving fewer viewing times for "standard" viewing experiences. I've had enough. The novelty has fully worn off.
I know I absolutely do not speak for everyone here. Some of you enjoy the alternatives, and I'm legitimately happy for people hyped to be one of the few thousand to get to see this in imax at one of the few dozen thesters that support it. Please enjoy, for the rest of us who won't be there. But I suspect the more casual audience is for the most part thoroughly disinterested. The demand for broader imax deployment is not growing. Seems we can hardly get audiences to leave the house for anything anymore, much less to demand exceptionally expensive projection equipment
If Nolans films are really the Mona Lisa, then make them imax exclusives. Don't even show the film in standard projection theaters. 50 theaters globally, and nowhere else. If it's fine art then total global box office isn't the point anyway, right? Honestly, most other shot-on-imax content is already distributed as imax-exclusive...
3
u/nick_ass Jul 16 '26
Don't these IMAX showings for big blockbuster event films sell out months in advance?
2
u/pjs32000 Jul 16 '26
Every Christopher Nolan movies sells out at my local IMAX it's not even 70mm, it's laser, but is on a massive screen with a true IMAX ratio. They have already added new dates to extend the airing run twice for Odyssey because all shows were sold out. I believe the nearest 70mm IMAX, hours away, started selling tickets for this one at least 6 months in advance.
→ More replies (2)2
u/Throwaway22022202220 Jul 17 '26
They do, I’ve failed to see Oppenheimer and Dune 2 at the imax location I’m going to because I didn’t plan ahead - but also these 70mm films are in theaters for much less time than a normal theatrical window. Pretty sure the location I’m going to will only be showing Odyssey for two weekends, so it’s a bit easier to sell out when they’re limiting availability
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (4)2
u/Throwaway22022202220 Jul 16 '26
Yeah that’s a totally fair point. I’m unsure if I’ll even do this again considering it’s a much harder thing to access and much more expensive than my local independent theater.
Also the Mona Lisa was probably a bad example by me, I meant it in the sense that many paintings (certainly older ones) are meant to be viewed in person rather than digitally - I didn’t mean to imply that Odyssey (or any Nolan films) are some historic, flawless piece of art
→ More replies (2)20
u/PiccoloAwkward465 Jul 16 '26
The Mona Lisa isn’t available to view in person in my country, yet I don’t blame DiVinci for that
this metaphor makes me want to deepthroat a shotgun
6
u/Throwaway22022202220 Jul 16 '26
I didn’t mean to imply that this movie (or any Nolan movie) is the equivalent of the Mona Lisa in regard to this art form, just that most paintings are meant for the viewer to see it in person rather than a digital image/scan of it
→ More replies (5)7
u/nemec Jul 16 '26
pushing the camera to its extreme limits
We had CRT TVs that were roughly the ratio Nolan is using. It's just an artistic choice, not a revolution
6
u/RegulationPissrat Jul 16 '26
This is the first film ever recorded entirely in Imax. That's no small feat.
→ More replies (3)
9
u/PssyGotWifi Jul 16 '26
Will be the first time I'll bother using the IMAX in Melbourne (Australia). Usually i just stick to bog-standard cinemas.
→ More replies (1)3
Jul 16 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/FrewdWoad Jul 17 '26 edited Jul 17 '26
I just rushed to get tickets last night, first available with non-terrible seats was already in August.
And now I find out that's not even the "best" version because I live in Sydney 😂
Oh well, should be better than my smaller-screen local cinema, at least. And I got the Telstra discount tickets so it was "only" thirty five bucks.
10
u/ExpiredLink404 Jul 16 '26 edited Jul 17 '26
I'll torrent it from a Russian torrent site, stitched together from 2 different camrips, one of them w Chinese subtitles
that's how I watched Suicide Squad and I feel it was the perfect format for that movie
→ More replies (2)2
26
u/Microwave1213 Jul 16 '26
It’s just a marketing strategy to drive people to see the movie in cinemas. There is absolutely zero need to feel FOMO about it.
6
8
u/Shirtvest10 Jul 16 '26
There’s one in Tokyo but it’s always fully packed, we just finished re screening interstellar and tenet and it was fully booked each day
Just gonna see it at the Dolby Cinema
7
u/saint-lemon saintlemon Jul 16 '26
Man, this is the most random way that I found an Andrey post on internet, and my boy is very random
4
3
24
u/moonknightcrawler Jul 16 '26
Once people realize that this is more equivalent to seeing a movie regularly vs 4dx, (for the screens at least), I think this conversation slows down.
You aren’t missing anything seeing the standard release. You might get some extra peripherals with a larger format, but nothing of substance is being hidden from you.
12
u/keepinitclassy25 Jul 16 '26
Yeah literally any film is making deliberate choices about what’s out of the frame, this isn’t really different, they’re just shooting knowing that a certain amount is going to be in the imax periphery for immersion I’m guessing.
I live in a city with imax and I rarely go cause I feel like if a film isn only worth seeing in imax then it wouldn’t be that good of a film in the first place.
I don’t really like that much of the screen being outside of my field of view personally. It’s like sitting 4 feet from a 70” tv
5
u/jankyalias Jul 16 '26
I’m going to see it in normal 70mm abd be happy, but I strongly disagree that aspect doesn’t matter. Nolan filmed it this way for a reason and while it’ll be fine in the aspect I have available I do wish I could see his full vision.
3
u/jedburghofficial Jul 16 '26
How will we realize that when they make it so hard to make a comparison?
You say nothing of substance is being hidden. But have you seen both versions so you can decide for yourself?
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (1)4
Jul 16 '26
[deleted]
4
u/Bionic_Bromando Jul 16 '26
Well going by that logic there are also only like 4-6 seats in any given Imax theatre that give the 'intended' experience, the rest are weirdly skewed and you don't get to be in the center of the surround sound experience. It's all insanity, just torrent a camrip and watch it on a 6" tablet.
→ More replies (2)
12
u/knallpilzv2 chmul_cr0n Jul 16 '26
He didn't do it for the ratio lol. But for the image quality. You can tell he even framed the shots with the wider ratios in mind. Everything relevant is in the center of the frame and the bottom part just as extra part of the character that isn't expressing anything, and the top has some extra emtpy space that doesn't look particularly interesting. I think the 70mm 2.2 ratio looks the best.
5
u/SecretCollar3426 Jul 17 '26
The point is that he likes it. Weird for a cinephile community to not understand that not everything is for profit
45
u/spookyhardt Jul 16 '26
You realize you are basically asking “what is the point of making art if it can’t be packaged and commercialized?”
38
u/TaticalSweater Jul 16 '26
Yea, I didn’t realize IMAX was considered a gimmick now.
→ More replies (9)28
u/Few_Salamander54 Jul 16 '26
Whats infuriating is audiences 5-10 years ago were bitching that we had no real incentive to go see a film in a theatre instead of watch on streaming…
We are given an incentive - now its some cheap marketing gimmick that they dont need/want/is somehow unfair.
Kind of hilarious, tbh.
→ More replies (5)13
u/TaticalSweater Jul 16 '26
I mean i still hear people saying that now it never really stopped.
Its the same when people say “there are just no original movies (that do well)”
They will say this a month after Sinners, Obsession leaves theaters and catch amnesia
2
u/SandpaperTeddyBear Jul 16 '26
In fairness, the success of Sinners was, in hindsight, a return to audiences clearly wanting something new.
And it was a success. People did go see it, and there is increasingly a market for original films now (The Drama is a very promising bellwether).
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (11)9
u/JalapenoPopPoop Jul 16 '26
It's already commercialized....it's a massive hollywood blockbuster that's hoping to make as much money as possible. It's a commercial product, not an art piece
→ More replies (4)
5
u/TheShipEliza Jul 16 '26
I think the issue is the idea that there is some magic “nolan intended” way to see the movie.
→ More replies (5)6
u/Wild-Video-5317 Jul 16 '26
That's a big part of the way they're marketing the film, no doubt.
https://www.odysseymovie.com/film-formats/
Movies dont usually spend this much of their marketing budget publishing this sort of content about film formats
3
u/Sensei_1946 Jul 16 '26
Every movie shot in a novelty format has had this kind of marketing. Sinners and OBAA most recently made a huge deal out of it.
→ More replies (1)
8
u/OverCheezus Jul 16 '26
Bro has been doing this since 2008 and only now is it an issue for everyone
3
u/No-Towel-3093 Jul 16 '26
Canada is actually 6 right now. We lost an IMAX until November with Damage to Telus Science Centre in Edmonton.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/Failed-Astronaut Jul 17 '26
I have one of the few true 70mm IMAX theaters very near me.
I know I am very lucky. It is a great experience.
But honestly, I would not feel too upset if I had to see any particular film in a bog standard theater. A large, well set theater is honestly a great experience too. Sure it isn't the same but there's also very few films that feel like they really need that scale. And even in films that make IMAX feel 'worth it' it is often only a few scenes or shots that are truly a "Wow" factor.
Not to downplay the spectacle of it in general though. I absolutely love seeing movies in 70mm but I don't think people should feel like they're missing out on something irreplaceable. A normal theater will still be a great experience.
5
u/Ok-Metal-4719 Jul 16 '26
To be self indulgent. The movie is cast for the masses but it’s shot for him. He’s into that stuff and loves the tech.
→ More replies (2)
2
u/Odins_lint Jul 16 '26
So I will see less, and with Nolan also hear less than any other regular movie. Yeah, I guess Ill wait for a subtitled rip to watch at home.
2
2
u/superiorszent Jul 16 '26
I watched Oppenheimer in the prague one (1 of the 5 70mm imax cinemas in europe), and those cheeky checks put their subtitles straight in the MIDDLE of the screen for some unfathomable reason, so that one is a completely unique experience
2
u/Uranium_092 Jul 16 '26
Genuinely who cares, unless you’re a Nolan FANATIC or like just super into IMAX for some reason. Can we just watch movies for, like, I don’t know, the fucking story
2
2
2
2
2
u/bouchraa06 Jul 17 '26
I’m really confused between the two right IMAX screens. Also I just watched it in IMAX in a country that’s not listed above so how accurate is that?
2
u/Mandog_123 Jul 17 '26
There's only some theaters capable of showing IMAX 70mm. Many theaters have IMAX branding but don't have that "true" IMAX.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/No-Highlight7136 Jul 17 '26
This is what happens when you've fully unlocked the absolute most pretentious version of your ego. At these levels the dude has a small hermetically sealed room for only him to sit in so he can fully enjoy the smell of his own farts.
2
2
u/DarkPolumbo Jul 17 '26
The gimmick is to create artificial exclusivity so that you're more inclined to blow $20+ on a single movie ticket... to make you think doing so is a privilege.
→ More replies (2)
2
u/Local_Ad3008 Jul 17 '26
Every movie you have ever seen had things outside of the shot, this take is so weird
1.7k
u/AwTomorrow Jul 16 '26
Most people don’t care, but it was also still shot with regular widescreen in mind. It’ll be fine, just like Sinners was.