UPDATE: Turns out that Aziz Ansari of Parks & Recreation started this ball rolling by twittering last night about what he calls these “fake IMAX” screens and urging a boycott of IMAX, AMC, and Regal theaters. “Don’t let them fool you. I went with a friend of mine to see Star Trek: The IMAX Experience at the AMC Theatre in Burbank today. I drove out of my way to see the film on the large IMAX screen and paid an extra $5 for the ticket, which felt worth it at the time. However, we get in the theatre and its just a slightly bigger than normal screen and not the usual standard huge 72 ft IMAX screen. I was very upset and apparently this problem is happening all over at Regal and AMC theatres. “REGAL, AMC, and IMAX – You are liars! Boycott them. Fuck them for taking advantage of people and charging them $5 extra. If you’re in LA, go to the Arclight from now on, and fuck the IMAX screens (fake and real).”
Here’s the background: AMC and Regal theaters have been advertising a new kind of IMAX experience, apparently duping people out of $5 for a screen that’s only slightly larger than a standard one. So claims an excellent article in LF Examiner, the independent journal of the large format motion picture industry. It chides the Imax Corp for not differentiating its new digital projection system in any way from the 15/70 film systems it has been installing in giant-screen theaters since 1970. This despite the fact that, according to Imax VP Larry O’Reilly, its two major digital partners, AMC Entertainment and Regal Entertainment Group, both originally wanted to brand the new screens as “IMAX Digital.”
But customers who pay $15 to see Eagle Eye: The IMAX Experience at New York City’s new AMC Empire 25 IMAX digital theater, with its 28 x 58-foot (8.5 x 18 meter) screen, ”see the IMAX name on the theater and have no idea until after their ticket has been torn and they walk into the auditorium that [the] screen is about the same size as the one in the adjacent 35mm auditorium, and less than a quarter the size of the one in the AMC Lincoln Square IMAX 15/70 theater, 26 blocks away. The screen in the older film theater is 76 x 98 feet (23 x 30 meters).
Richard Gelfond, co-CEO of Imax Corp, explains that the company feared an “IMAX Digital” brand might cast the older film-based theaters as “second-class citizens” in the public’s mind, since “digital” generally has connotations of “newer,” and “cooler.” ”It seems far more likely that the company was worried that ticket buyers who noticed the difference between the average 4,800 square-foot (450 square-meter) 15/70 film screen and a digital one 1,250 square feet (120 square-meters) in area wouldn’t return to the smaller if they could see the same movie on the larger. Widespread public preference for the “classic” experience would harm Imax’s return on the tens of millions of dollars it is investing in the 170+ joint venture deals it has signed… It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that even a very wide screen is not nearly as impressive as a one that towers six or eight stories high.
Concludes publisher/editor James Hyder, “I object when anyone claims that two patently different things are the same. Where I come from that’s known as ‘lying.’ And call me naïve, but I don’t believe that any company whose business plan is based on deceiving its customers can succeed with that strategy for very long. Imax Corporation, whose very name means “image maximum,” has spent four decades persuading the public that that name is synonymous with ‘big,’ with giant screens, with an experience that is completely unlike that of conventional multiplex cinema. If, for perfectly understandable business reasons, Imax now has to move into those smaller screens, let it distinguish this new product from the other screens in that theater, as a ‘premium multiplex experience.’ But expecting the ticket-buying public to believe that that experience is identical to one on a screen three or four times larger is insulting. People who have been to a true giant-screen theater will realize they have been misled, and will be disappointed, if not angry. Those who haven’t will wonder what the big deal about IMAX is, and will assume that any real giant-screen theater they come across in the future has nothing better to offer and perhaps never will have the real IMAX Experience….
“The tragic irony is that, forty years after Imax Corp. started trying to persuade Hollywood to shoot with IMAX cameras, the success of Chris Nolan’s The Dark Knight, the first to do so, has finally encouraged several other directors to follow suit. Three or four coming films may incorporate 15/70 footage. And yet, by the time these movies open, the majority of IMAX theaters may be digital screens with 1.9 aspect ratios that make the dramatic transitions in resolution and image size all but invisible. What a waste!”
Editor-in-Chief Nikki Finke - tip her here.


Ugh, I experienced just that at the movie theater in White Plains, NY when I went to see Watchmen in IMAX Digital. I thought I was going to be in for an experience like what I enjoyed when I went to see The Dark Knight at the IMAX in Universal City (HUGE screen), but instead I got a 35mm-sized screen. I was enraged, since there was literally no point to me paying five extra dollars for that ticket. I felt completely ripped off.
I gave the AMC 25 Imax screen a try a few months back and it was a complete disappointment. It was no different than seeing it on one of their large screens and they charge you for delivering almost nothing extra. I won’t be repeating that experience.
Great piece Nikki and certainly true regarding this entire over hyped IMAX format which is now being sneakily downsized. Reminds of supermarket downsizing, they try to sneak it in a bit where you may not notice it!!
Back in the glorious day of single screen theaters, it was standard to have a 30′ x 63′ screen in most theaters exceeding 1000 seats in almost every major chain such as General Cinema, Stanley Warner, etc. For more info on this, look at individual theater profiles on cinematreasures.com.
Thanks again for an eye opening piece the major media won’t touch!!!
IMAX got its hand caught in the b.o. till years ago when they were revealed to be showing IMAX films in OMNIMAX theatres, taking a 4×3 aspect ratio and splaying it across a wide, curved screen. Public and press didn’t know the difference then. They do now. Contrast this with Panavision, which made a distinction between saying “Panavision” as an anamorphic wide screen process and saying “filmed with Panavision equipment” on flat films. Very few theatres outside of LA actually care what their projection looks like, as LucasFilm’s TAP (Theatre Alignment Program) policed. Alas, IMAX reminds us once again that size matters.
Granted, Imax Digital is a bit of trickery on the part of Imax, but really hasn’t the past decade been filled with Imax fraud? Theaters have been selling tickets to regular movies blown up and projected on Imax screens for years, now. That, alone, waters down the Imax experience. Worse, I remember going to see Van Helsing at the Lincoln Square Lowes, and the image was 35mm that wasn’t blown up. True, the bigger crime was that I bought tickets to see Van Helsing, but, needless to say, I decided not to go see anymore “Imax” movies at that theater.
Kudos to Sumner Redstone — his theaters still have REAL Imax screens, notably at the Bridge Cinema De Lux down by the airport.
But man the “IMAX” (in name only) at Century City AMC is a friggin JOKE. Totally different experience than a real Imax.
I LOVE IMAX…. Nothing beats it… Every movie released in the format is heighten by it in my opinion…. 300, matrix reloaded/revolutions, Harry Potter, Superman, and Star Trek to name recent few…
I being someone who goes on opening weekend here in NYC and will wait 2 or 3 hours on a line to get good seats know what to expect when I see an IMAX movie…
All that being said I am also am one of the people who decided to try Eagle Eye at AMC 25 upon its “IMAX” opening… and was underwhelmed and almost insulted by the theater size and presentation…
It was in no way a true IMAX experience and I felt duped into a second rate viewing…. These smaller scale IMAX releases should rethink the way they are presenting them selfs to the market.
….. After seeing one “IMAX-light” film… I have sworn never to go back to AMC for IMAX features and have told others to do the same.
Thanks for posting this to give some insight into what happened there!
This happened to me this weekend. I purposely paid the extra $ to see Star Trek in imax at the AMC and couldn’t even tell the difference. People were complaining as we walked out of the theater. Definitely a rip off – I’ll probably still go see imax but will make sure from now on the sceen is the larger one. Though I shouldn’t considering their deceit.
I remember searching for the “Watchmen IMAX Experience” when it was sold out at The Bridge IMAX in Culver City. It showed two nearby AMC’s having IMAX theatres. I thought, “I never saw an IMAX screen in those new complexes?!” (And I never did as I haven’t gone once)
This is a real PR problem here. The IMAX corp announced in 2007 about many more venues on the horizon but I don’t think the public or filmmakers expected to see them do this. With the record breaking ticket sales this year I would expect AMC and Regal to invest in the real IMAX product for the future.
My wife and I saw Monsters v. Aliens in “IMAX 3-D” out in Simi Valley. But is was not the big screen we have all grown accustomed to. Sounds like they’ve found another way, besides concessions, to make money. Next week, I here Angels and Demons will be release in some theaters on FILM (requiring an extra $10 service charge.)
I actually went to the exact same AMC Aziz mentions, back in January when The Dark Knight was re-released in IMAX. When I entered the theatre I thought I was in the wrong one, having expected the large screen. I was disappointed to not get the true IMAX experience but I do have to say the picture quality was better than regular film and the sound was awesome.
But still, next time, I’m making sure it’s a real IMAX screen before ponying up the extra dough.
Could this be related to the AMC announcement of the purchase of a thousand Sony 4K projectors? If you had 4K projectors (ok, and 4K material to feed them!) then a big IMAX style screen makes sense.
glad i read this… was going to see trek at burbank. now i won’t. i was wondering how they got these big screens inside these already existing theaters… i had doubts. i hate liars.
http://gizmodo.com/5250625/cineplexes-getting-imax-but-is-it-really-imax
Check out this article on Gizmodo, it explains everything about the “mini-IMAX”
I saw Star Trek on IMAX and honestly, I didn’t see much of a difference between a regular movie and IMAX screen. Except that the screen was a little bigger and very loud! Didn’t help sitting next to the speaker. Anyway, I wasn’t impressed with the IMAX experience.
My wife and I were surprised to see our local AMC theatre in Emeryville, CA (just across the bay from SF) advertising “New Imax” theatre. We popped in before seeing our scheduled movie to look at this new Imax theatre. We’re frequent movie goers so we don’t recall any construction to modify the existing space.
To our surprise and anger at AMC, it looked liked any other theatre. Nothing like the IMAX screen in SF. Yelp your local theatre on reviews of these new “Imax” theaters before plucking down an extra $5.
After reading these comments I feel ripped off. I thought it was strange that my local theater said IMAX. A real IMAX theater has a totally different screen and architecture, doesn’t it?
I went to see “The Day the Earth Stood Still” in Regal’s paltry excuse for an IMAX theater. I paid the full ticket price of IMAX cos I wanted it to be pretty to look at – imagine my disappointment. Sure the sound was good, the picture wasn’t better than a standard projector, though, and I felt ripped off. This could backfire and make people associate IMAX with normal-screens that aren’t bigger and ticket prices that are. But I’ll gladly carry the ‘boycott-AMC-Regal’ banner.
So… Does this explain the numbers reported from last weekend, claiming Star Trek beat Dark Knight’s IMAX opening weekend record? I’m guessing the two movies opened on roughly the same number of true IMAX screens, but if AMC’s throwing these fake IMAX screens up at a rapid pace, and the money taken in for those screnings is being counted as “IMAX,” then it stands to reason that’s how Trek supposedly bested Dark Knight’s IMAX total.
I mean, I remember Dark Knight selling out showings and playing virtually around the clock all over the country (during it’s opening weekend) last summer. I haven’t heard the same thing about Star Trek (not to mention Trek, while opening strong, didn’t even match Wolverine’s overall opening weekend).
White Plains, NY Woot Woot!!!
The number for Century City’s AMC 15 customer service…
(310)277-2262
Now while its not the fault of the people who work there — it’s the corporate leadership — you can at least make your thoughts known about being ripped off.
You can contact the IMAX corporation to let them know you don’t appreciate their lying to their customers at…
Phone: 905-403-6500
Fax: 905-403-6450
(they’re in Canada.)
Email: info@imax.com
Got jipped too. At the very same theater. For Watchmen. I still enjoyed the film (really) but definitely felt cheated. It won’t happen again. Based on some comments, seems the Science Museum downtown is not the only “true” IMAX in L.A. Anybody has a list?
I was confused what all the fuss was about because I only go to the IMAX at The Bride (a true IMAX screen). Didn’t realize these other branded “IMAX Experience” auditoriums weren’t the real deal. What a rip!
4k Digital projectors won’t cut it. Full Size Imax is 8k.