IMAX screen comparison (LFE Examiner)

"These are not the screens you want," IMAX is, in effect, claiming, trying a Jedi mind trick to downplay recent consumer anger over the smaller, unadvertised size of their new-fangled digital screens, for which they charge a premium of up to $5.00 per ticket. Yesterday, they tried to "wow the media," says The Hollywood Reporter, " while also performing a bit of damage-control."

IMAX claims that it's an "old issue" because the average size of an IMAX screen has been "just slightly bigger" than conventional screens for six years. Really? They also claim that they have a "nice problem: having to choose among films offered for release." Yet the New York Times reports that the company "has not lined up any other Hollywood movies for its ultra-big screen theaters" [emphasis added] after James Cameron's Avatar opens on December 18, leaving the schedule clear until Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland on March 5. (The article mentions size three times, so they haven't gotten the company message.) The company intimates that it wants to be able to "satisfy demand."

IMAX is a public corporation, and their first obligation is to their shareholders. But, clearly, they are so preoccupied with profit that they are ignoring the legitimate concerns of the moviegoing public. (Check out the comments when we originally posted about this.) If IMAX is so convinced that their smaller digital screens provide an "immersive experience," why not disclose it? Why not promote it? "IMAX: Size Doesn't Matter!" or "IMAX: Small is Powerful!" Instead, they claim that interest will be so high that it will take three months for everyone to pay more money to see Avatar on a smaller screen that's only "slightly bigger" than other screens (that charge less) in the same multiplex. Here's another slogan: "IMAX: Taking Your Money and Running."