The Inhumans Marvel/IMAX
- Thread starter Turtletrekker
- Start date
Yeah, that's the thing. For decades, movies tried to compete with TV by saying, "Look! We can make the picture so much wider!" But making movie screens much wider than they already are would produce diminishing returns, and now TV screens have gotten wider too, so now the movies are trying to compete by saying, "Look! We can make the picture so much taller!"
Rather than IMAX, I wish Omniax had become more of a thing. They have one at the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago that we went to when I was a kid back in the '90s. The screens are domes that go overhead and around both sides of the audience. I just checked on Wikipedia and they go 180 degree horizontally, 100 degrees over the horizon, and 22 degrees below the horizon for the viewer. They're pretty much all in museums, so they show mostly documentaries, but I would love to see some movies like the Star Wars, MCU or DCEU movies on those screens, and I'm thinking 3D would be pretty mind blowing.
I couldn't find any decent videos of ones on Youtube, but apparently they do show some regular movies on them, including TFA and Dunkirk judging by videos I saw.
I couldn't find any decent videos of ones on Youtube, but apparently they do show some regular movies on them, including TFA and Dunkirk judging by videos I saw.
Last edited:
I don't see the point of something like an Omnimax screen for watching fiction. If it's for something like the Smithsonian's To Fly film that I saw on a screen of that type decades ago, something to simulate the experience of being immersed in an environment, that's one thing. But when I'm watching a show or a movie, I don't want to be immersed in the environment. I want to be in the audience, watching the specific part of the environment that's relevant to the story. If a character is making an important speech, or getting shot, or hiding a document that will be important later on, I want my attention to be directed there rather than be distracted by something way off to the side. The frame exists for a reason, to exclude things that aren't narratively important. There are certain contexts where the overall environment is narratively important -- like in a Western scene where the vast openness of the landscape helps set the tone and convey the isolation of the characters from civilization -- but plenty where it isn't.
I seem to recall this being the exact opposite opinion from Geordi Laforge on the Holodeck.
See now, it's the kind of thing that would work great as an exhibit, but be bloody awful for telling a cohesive narrative. With a 360 degree image you run the risk of the audience looking at the wrong part of the screen when something important happens.
Certain video games run into this problem all the time, which is why they will sometimes try to use visual clues to draw the eye so the player doesn't miss something important. Or use the more direct method of restricting the camera controls, or taking them away entirely at key points.
Bottom line, you end up in a Catch-22 where you're either giving the audience more information than they can take in, or micro-managing where they should look and when, at which point why even bother with such an expansive view? it just not practical for the most linear narrative experiences.
Last edited:
Speaking for myself, I'm easily distracted. Even with normal TV and movies, I'm often looking at the background scenery when I'm supposed to be focusing on the actors. So I don't want the extra distractions of a wraparound image. I might be looking the other way entirely when something important happens.
I can understand that, I'll admit I've been know to get distracted like that, but I'd still love to get a fully immersive experience for something like the Star Trek or Star Wars universes. I can't help but imagine how awesome things like the Helm's Deep or Pelennor Fields in LOTR, or the Chitauri or Ultron fights in the Avengers movies would be in a Omnimax screen or even a VR experience.
I really want to try VR, but I've had several people tell me that my sensory integration issues would probably make it hard for me.
A holodeck is pretty much my absolute dream entertainment experience.
I really want to try VR, but I've had several people tell me that my sensory integration issues would probably make it hard for me.
A holodeck is pretty much my absolute dream entertainment experience.
Last edited:
But how do you know which direction the interesting thing is about to happen? Do you expect an audience to be constantly craning their necks and spinning around on the spot? They're not psychic, they don't know ahead of time when somethings going to appear on screen, much less where. Alternatively, if you're only using a small arc of the screen all the time then what's the point?
Also consider that making the audience turn their heads too much will cause disorientation, even motion sickness which is bad enough on a normal screen when in the hands of less than competent film-makers. There's a science to framing a shot, which is why some "shakey cam" type action scenes work and some don't. The ones that don't are that way because they're framed and edited by people who don't understand or don't care how the audience's eyes are drawn to action. How composition works and how the brain registers motion in relation to even a simple "shot reverse shot" dialogue scene.
The only way you can control this is by knowing where the edges of the screen are and where their audience's gaze will always be centred. Without that, they'd be lost.
Again, this sort of technology may work for theme park rides, art or museum exhibits, or interactive experiences to a degree, but for linear narrative storytelling (ie: most movies), it'd be bloody awful.
There are plenty of 100% interactive video games, VR experiences, and even a few 360 degree movies that have found ways to keep people's attention on the important things. I mean we basically do this every day when we're talking to people or watching something happen near us. All you really need to do is makes sure the important thing is the most interesting thing around.
As I said, I can understand that working in something like a VR game when you want to feel like you're there in the scene. But when it's a narrative story, you're not in the scene. You're just a spectator. There's going to be no narrative logic to you being standing in the middle of the room just passively watching while a bunch of characters walk around you and completely ignore your presence. Especially if the scene is something private, like a top-secret interrogation or a heartfelt personal confession or a love scene. For that kind of experience, for a normal work of narrative fiction where the audience does not participate in the events, there's no sense in an immersive experience. A story and a game are two very different types of entertainment. What works for one doesn't work for the other.
I'd just find it weird. If I'm watching a play, I don't want to be up on stage in the middle of the actors, I want to be in the audience where I'm supposed to be and where I can see the whole stage. My own presence in the scene would be an intrusion unless I were actually supposed to be a participant in the story -- and that's only one specialized type of story, so what works for it wouldn't work for other kinds of story.
There's a domed IMAX theater near me that shows narrative films, and I'll say with full conviction that it's not worth it (based on seeing Rogue One and Dunkirk). The nature documentaries made for domed screens can be shot with wide, fish-eye lenses so they look right projected back onto a sphere. Narrative movies are shot to be exhibited on flat screens, so there's massive distortion in the picture outside of the center, which is bad since most movie shots have the focus somewhere other than dead center screen. Non-IMAX footage doesn't look good since it's enlarged so much (more of an issue on R1, which as far as I know had no scenes in IMAX format, than in Dunkirk). You're missing most of the picture, honestly, which is fine for sweeping vistas and flocks of penguins, but it's no fun when you're trying to follow a conversation between two people's smushed faces at the extreme left and right of your field of view. Plus (and this may depend on venue, I can't remember if I've been in another dome), there are only, like, four good seats where you aren't squeezed in like a sardine (and only a handful more where you aren't practically looking behind you at the screen).
There are other premium options in my area if I want to see a fancy movie (and I do!), and Dolby Cinema has matinee prices, to boot.
But I'm not seeing Inhumans in IMAX, domed or otherwise, because it's consistently sounded terrible from day one, and I'd have to watch the episode on TV again anyway to see all the missing scenes. Such a weird choice.
I've felt very iffy on the project since the first trailer. The second one was an improvement but my doubts lingered. Still, I was going to commit and go see it in IMAX.
Then, the information broke about the televised version having some extra 8 minutes. WTF?
Is that to ensure more ratings cause what it'll do is give you a smaller theatrical return.
I'm still trying to decide what to do.
I wonder if both versions will be on iTunes?
That does sound annoying, but I'm thinking if it really took off and the started filming movies to be shown on a dome, the way they do regular IMAX now, it might not be as much of an issue.