My and my 13 year old are going to see this tonight. Looking forward to it
***DUNE*** (Denis Villeneuve)
221,369 Views |
2442 Replies |
Last: 2 yr ago by Bird Poo
Timothe Chalamet is in a movie called The King on Netflix.
He's really good in that one also. If you havent seen it, it's worth a watch.
He's really good in that one also. If you havent seen it, it's worth a watch.
— replying "@ArtDecider?" to woman's selfie (@alexqarbuckle) October 21, 2021
DVC2010 said:A is A said:Thanks for your post here.TCTTS said:
One other quick note...
The 1.43:1 full/true IMAX format basically only pertains to Nolan movies, Villeneuve movies, and Mission: Impossible movies, with rare exceptions. Because Marvel movies "shot on IMAX" only shoot in the 1.9:1 LieMAX aspect ratio, and the same goes for the upcoming Top Gun: Maverick. Neither go full 1.43:1, nor do most blockbusters shot on IMAX. At least up until now. Villeneuve will probably change that, as I *think* he was the first to shoot IMAX digitally in 1.43:1, though I could be wrong. I just know he had access to brand new, state-of-the-art IMAX cameras no one else had used before.
Regardless, up until now, it's been a rarity that you even had to seek out full/true IMAX, as most "shot on IMAX" movies shot in the 1.9:1 aspect ratio, so the type of IMAX theater you saw it in - LieMAX or the real deal - hasn't mattered as much. Again, I imagine that's about to change going forward, though.
All that said, most movies shown in IMAX aren't even "shot on IMAX," a la the Star Wars movies, the Fast & Furious movies, Free Guy, etc. Those are simply 2:39:1 aspect ratio movies being projected onto an IMAX screen. So there's no version where you get more picture vertically depending on the type of IMAX theater you see it in. You're getting the exact same aspect ratio wherever/however you see it.
So according to IMAX - only Austin has a tru 1.43:1 experience.
https://www.imax.com/news/dune-experience-up-to-40-percent-more-picture-only-in-select-imax-theatres
I noticed your post in the Chinese Theatre - is that a lieMax, too? It is not listed in IMAX's list? Or is there more to this list that I am missing.
I have tickets for Regal Lone Star IMAX in Houston - as this thread has directed me there. Should I call the establishment to confirm? in a later post on Pg 50 you mention MarqE as being true. There is a MarqE in downtown Hoston, again, not listed on Imax's link above about 40% more.
I saw No Time to Die at Lonestar last weekend and Dune at MarqE last night. It certainly looked like MarqE had a more vertical aspect ratio.
Thanks for the intel. What are the seats like? It seemed a different setups.
Sorry but I'm going to disagree with you here. What really matters is what portion of your vision the screen occupies. And this is not only dictated by the screen size but also distance to the screen. And of course given the distance and size the resolution/pixel size may or may not come into play (the eyes can only resolve so much detail).TCTTS said:
I posted my main reaction in the spoiler thread, so all I'm going to say here is this…
Watch this movie in a damn theater.
IMAX, preferably.
Because afterward, when I got home, I rewatched a couple scenes on HBO Max, and it doesn't even remotely come close to the theatrical experience. To the point where it almost looks/feels like a different movie. And this is coming from someone who has a big ass, perfectly calibrated 4K TV.
This is an experiences that DEMANDS to be seen on the biggest possible screen you can find.
Seriously, do yourself that favor. You won't regret it.
Admittedly, it helped that the sold-out crowd tonight went nuts for it - cheering multiple times throughout and applauding at the end - but even still, it's the utter scale and jaw-dropping cinematography that is never not overwhelming, in the best possible way.
Also, regarding aspect ratios - usually what is released on video is the preferred aspect ratio from the film's creators. This is most often an aspect ratio that is wider than 16:9. I imagine for IMAX screenings they are forced to change the aspect ratio from its preferred (native?) ratio to that of the cinema being shown in. I wouldn't necessarily say that aspect ratio is "best" since that would have been the native aspect ratio the film would have been made in if that were the case. I would just qualify it as...different.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Ben Franklin
And *I'm* sorry, but I have no idea what your argument is, or what, exactly you're disagreeing with. That people shouldn't see this in a movie theater? That seeing this on the big screen isn't a more rewarding experience than seeing it on your TV? Because that's somewhat of a weird position to take.
Did you mean to quote my post about aspect ratios and not this one? Either way, I know all about aspect ratios and the director's intent. Neither change the fact that, at home, I don't want black bars on top and bottom instead of more movie vertically. I don't care what Villeneuve prefers I see. I want more image, if more image exists, and is being shown elsewhere. Especially for a movie that focuses so much on scope and scale, 2.35:1 hinders the presentation of that scope and scale. For me, it's as simple as that.
Did you mean to quote my post about aspect ratios and not this one? Either way, I know all about aspect ratios and the director's intent. Neither change the fact that, at home, I don't want black bars on top and bottom instead of more movie vertically. I don't care what Villeneuve prefers I see. I want more image, if more image exists, and is being shown elsewhere. Especially for a movie that focuses so much on scope and scale, 2.35:1 hinders the presentation of that scope and scale. For me, it's as simple as that.
A is A said:DVC2010 said:A is A said:Thanks for your post here.TCTTS said:
One other quick note...
The 1.43:1 full/true IMAX format basically only pertains to Nolan movies, Villeneuve movies, and Mission: Impossible movies, with rare exceptions. Because Marvel movies "shot on IMAX" only shoot in the 1.9:1 LieMAX aspect ratio, and the same goes for the upcoming Top Gun: Maverick. Neither go full 1.43:1, nor do most blockbusters shot on IMAX. At least up until now. Villeneuve will probably change that, as I *think* he was the first to shoot IMAX digitally in 1.43:1, though I could be wrong. I just know he had access to brand new, state-of-the-art IMAX cameras no one else had used before.
Regardless, up until now, it's been a rarity that you even had to seek out full/true IMAX, as most "shot on IMAX" movies shot in the 1.9:1 aspect ratio, so the type of IMAX theater you saw it in - LieMAX or the real deal - hasn't mattered as much. Again, I imagine that's about to change going forward, though.
All that said, most movies shown in IMAX aren't even "shot on IMAX," a la the Star Wars movies, the Fast & Furious movies, Free Guy, etc. Those are simply 2:39:1 aspect ratio movies being projected onto an IMAX screen. So there's no version where you get more picture vertically depending on the type of IMAX theater you see it in. You're getting the exact same aspect ratio wherever/however you see it.
So according to IMAX - only Austin has a tru 1.43:1 experience.
https://www.imax.com/news/dune-experience-up-to-40-percent-more-picture-only-in-select-imax-theatres
I noticed your post in the Chinese Theatre - is that a lieMax, too? It is not listed in IMAX's list? Or is there more to this list that I am missing.
I have tickets for Regal Lone Star IMAX in Houston - as this thread has directed me there. Should I call the establishment to confirm? in a later post on Pg 50 you mention MarqE as being true. There is a MarqE in downtown Hoston, again, not listed on Imax's link above about 40% more.
I saw No Time to Die at Lonestar last weekend and Dune at MarqE last night. It certainly looked like MarqE had a more vertical aspect ratio.
Thanks for the intel. What are the seats like? It seemed a different setups.
I don't even remember the seats from last weekend. Last night they were pretty typical theater seats.
Your claim that the size of the screen is what matters:TCTTS said:
And *I'm* sorry, but I have no idea what your argument is, or what, exactly you're disagreeing with. That people should see this in a movie theater? That seeing this on the big screen is a more rewarding experience than seeing it on your TV? Because that's somewhat of a weird position to take.
Did you mean to quote my post about aspect ratios and not this one? Either way, I know all about aspect ratios and the director's intent. Neither change the fact that, at home, I don't want black bars on top and bottom instead of more movie vertically. I don't care what Villeneuve prefers I see. I want more image, if more image exists. For a movie that focuses so much on scope and scale, 2.35:1 hinders the presentation of that scope and scale. It's as simple as that.
"This is an experiences that DEMANDS to be seen on the biggest possible screen you can find"
Saying size is the only thing that matters is an oversimplification here and is technically not correct.
Regarding aspect ratios...your preference to "fill the screen", while valid, is just that...a preference. Many prefer to see movies in their intended aspect ratios instead of cropping the image to "fill the screen". It really depends on what you prefer to see. I, like many other movie lovers, like to see the aspect ratio desired by the films creators and not have their film cropped and shoved into some standard size box.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Ben Franklin
House Atreideez Nuts
— 0SharkGuy (@0SharkGuy) October 22, 2021
A is A said:Thanks for your post here.TCTTS said:
One other quick note...
The 1.43:1 full/true IMAX format basically only pertains to Nolan movies, Villeneuve movies, and Mission: Impossible movies, with rare exceptions. Because Marvel movies "shot on IMAX" only shoot in the 1.9:1 LieMAX aspect ratio, and the same goes for the upcoming Top Gun: Maverick. Neither go full 1.43:1, nor do most blockbusters shot on IMAX. At least up until now. Villeneuve will probably change that, as I *think* he was the first to shoot IMAX digitally in 1.43:1, though I could be wrong. I just know he had access to brand new, state-of-the-art IMAX cameras no one else had used before.
Regardless, up until now, it's been a rarity that you even had to seek out full/true IMAX, as most "shot on IMAX" movies shot in the 1.9:1 aspect ratio, so the type of IMAX theater you saw it in - LieMAX or the real deal - hasn't mattered as much. Again, I imagine that's about to change going forward, though.
All that said, most movies shown in IMAX aren't even "shot on IMAX," a la the Star Wars movies, the Fast & Furious movies, Free Guy, etc. Those are simply 2:39:1 aspect ratio movies being projected onto an IMAX screen. So there's no version where you get more picture vertically depending on the type of IMAX theater you see it in. You're getting the exact same aspect ratio wherever/however you see it.
So according to IMAX - only Austin has a tru 1.43:1 experience.
https://www.imax.com/news/dune-experience-up-to-40-percent-more-picture-only-in-select-imax-theatres
I noticed your post in the Chinese Theatre - is that a lieMax, too? It is not listed in IMAX's list? Or is there more to this list that I am missing.
I have tickets for Regal Lone Star IMAX in Houston - as this thread has directed me there. Should I call the establishment to confirm? in a later post on Pg 50 you mention MarqE as being true. There is a MarqE in downtown Hoston, again, not listed on Imax's link above about 40% more.
It's somewhat complicated with the Chinese Theater. Yes, it's technically LieMAX, in that it only shows a 1.90:1 IMAX aspect ratio and not the tallest/fullest 1.43:1 IMAX aspect ratio. However, it's still the third largest screen in North America, and the largest movie theater in the world in terms of seating capacity. So, yes, you lose a bit of image real estate, but the sheer size and the experience itself more than make up for it.
Otherwise, the only true IMAX screen in LA (save for the IMAX headquarters theater, which isn't open to the public, and a museum theater near downtown that doesn't show regular movies), is the Universal Citywalk AMC, which is a nightmare of tourist kitsch and some of the most expensive parking in LA. We call it "Universal Sh*tty Walk" and I avoid that place at all costs.
As for the Regal, it looks like your question was answered, otherwise, yeah, just call the theater and confirm.
Quote:
Saying size is the only thing that matters is an oversimplification here and is technically not correct
That's not what she said. Nor did the sandworms.
Thanks!
Did some digging. MarqE Edwards was 70mm 1.43 but when Regal took over converted to a single laser, 1.90 per this thread:
https://www.reddit.com/r/imax/comments/ig4cfq/edwards_marqe_imax_aspect_ratio/
Found this about Regal: 1.90 also. Looks like MarqE is larger as it was built for a 1.43, just when Regal took over they ruined the experience.
https://www.reddit.com/r/imax/comments/pohqja/is_regal_lone_star_in_houston_texas_143_or_190/
Did some digging. MarqE Edwards was 70mm 1.43 but when Regal took over converted to a single laser, 1.90 per this thread:
https://www.reddit.com/r/imax/comments/ig4cfq/edwards_marqe_imax_aspect_ratio/
Found this about Regal: 1.90 also. Looks like MarqE is larger as it was built for a 1.43, just when Regal took over they ruined the experience.
https://www.reddit.com/r/imax/comments/pohqja/is_regal_lone_star_in_houston_texas_143_or_190/
To amend my post above regarding aspect ratios...those comments are meant to be general comments about movies.javajaws said:Your claim that the size of the screen is what matters:TCTTS said:
And *I'm* sorry, but I have no idea what your argument is, or what, exactly you're disagreeing with. That people should see this in a movie theater? That seeing this on the big screen is a more rewarding experience than seeing it on your TV? Because that's somewhat of a weird position to take.
Did you mean to quote my post about aspect ratios and not this one? Either way, I know all about aspect ratios and the director's intent. Neither change the fact that, at home, I don't want black bars on top and bottom instead of more movie vertically. I don't care what Villeneuve prefers I see. I want more image, if more image exists. For a movie that focuses so much on scope and scale, 2.35:1 hinders the presentation of that scope and scale. It's as simple as that.
"This is an experiences that DEMANDS to be seen on the biggest possible screen you can find"
Saying size is the only thing that matters is an oversimplification here and is technically not correct.
Regarding aspect ratios...your preference to "fill the screen", while valid, is just that...a preference. Many prefer to see movies in their intended aspect ratios instead of cropping the image to "fill the screen". It really depends on what you prefer to see. I, like many other movie lovers, like to see the aspect ratio desired by the films creators and not have their film cropped and shoved into some standard size box.
My understanding about Dune is that it was filmed in multiple IMAX aspect ratios - both 1.9 and 1.43.
So for those that saw this in IMAX did you notice a change in aspect ratios during the movie?
And (for the record) I would agree that seeing this film (as far as aspect ratios go) would be better on IMAX given the filming.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Ben Franklin
No change in aspect ratios. The entire movie was shot in IMAX. With all the newer, smaller, and quieter IMAX cameras, hopefully shifting aspect ratios throughout films like this are a thing of the past.
Wait, yours didn't change aspect ratio?
Definitely did at my showing. It was filling the screen for maybe 30% of the movie. (Also a Liemax.)
Definitely did at my showing. It was filling the screen for maybe 30% of the movie. (Also a Liemax.)
My understanding is that it will show both 1.9 and 1.43 if viewing on a 1.43 IMAX screen. If you are viewing it on a 1.9 IMAX screen then 1.9 is all you get. But maybe that isn't 100% true or there or is some other decision point at play here as to whether or not you get both aspect ratios.Brian Earl Spilner said:
Wait, yours didn't change aspect ratio?
Definitely did at my showing. It was filling the screen for maybe 30% of the movie.
So it would seem the best (as intended) viewing experience would be on whatever IMAX theater is showing both aspect ratios.
From:Quote:
Dune will have sections in both of the aspect ratios
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/imax-partners-with-leading-camera-makers-to-open-up-its-large-format-production-to-more-filmmakers-exclusive-4062214/
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Ben Franklin
See! Just another reason to watch at home. Don't have to worry about the different aspect ratios.
Confusing that both TC and I saw it in 1:90 theaters and yet it filled the screen there the whole time.
Makes me wonder if they weren't cropping/zooming on that version like a pan and scan tv.
Makes me wonder if they weren't cropping/zooming on that version like a pan and scan tv.
Umm.... you're wrong?
I would think that a movie filmed specifically for the Imax aspect ratio and then cut down to fit a wider aspect ratio was mean to be seen in the Imax ratio. Why would a director film it that way and say, "I meant for my art to be hacked up to fit a different aspect ratio!"
I would think that a movie filmed specifically for the Imax aspect ratio and then cut down to fit a wider aspect ratio was mean to be seen in the Imax ratio. Why would a director film it that way and say, "I meant for my art to be hacked up to fit a different aspect ratio!"
That's super weird. I know for a fact my showing stayed in 1.90:1 the entire time. Never once went to 2.35:1.
True Imax is 1.43:1
Nevermind I had those backwards.
Yeah that's definitely weird if the whole movie was ONLY shot in 1:43 and 1:90.
My best guess is there are portions shot in standard non-IMAX and maybe certain theaters or projectors have the ability to crop to fill the screen.
Yeah that's definitely weird if the whole movie was ONLY shot in 1:43 and 1:90.
My best guess is there are portions shot in standard non-IMAX and maybe certain theaters or projectors have the ability to crop to fill the screen.
DallasTeleAg said:
Umm.... you're wrong?
I would think that a movie filmed specifically for the Imax aspect ratio and then cut down to fit a wider aspect ratio was mean to be seen in the Imax ratio. Why would a director film it that way and say, "I meant for my art to be hacked up to fit a different aspect ratio!"
I don't doubt I could be wrong, but you might need to clarify what exactly!
I agree the best experience is as the director intended. And from what I have read that is viewing the film in multiple aspect ratios. Now that second part may be incorrect, but if it is then it isn't clear if either 1.9 or 1.43 is the preferred ratio.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Ben Franklin
Just got out. Wife and I both loved it.
I was pretty let down. Seemed about on par with a sci-fi channel remake.
Oh wait. I might have watched the wrong movie
https://m.imdb.com/title/tt15331462/?ref_=ext_shr_lnk
Oh wait. I might have watched the wrong movie
https://m.imdb.com/title/tt15331462/?ref_=ext_shr_lnk
Duncan Idaho said:
I was pretty let down. Seemed about on par with a sci-fi channel remake.
Oh wait. I might have watched the wrong movie
https://m.imdb.com/title/tt15331462/?ref_=ext_shr_lnk
In what aspect ratio though?
Duncan Idaho said:
I was pretty let down. Seemed about on par with a sci-fi channel remake.
Oh wait. I might have watched the wrong movie
https://m.imdb.com/title/tt15331462/?ref_=ext_shr_lnk
How can you remember what you watched before. You lose your memory when you get remade.
Guess Sean Young was fooled too?
Baron Von Flag Smasher said:Duncan Idaho said:
I was pretty let down. Seemed about on par with a sci-fi channel remake.
Oh wait. I might have watched the wrong movie
https://m.imdb.com/title/tt15331462/?ref_=ext_shr_lnk
Is what aspect ratio though?
Best of anyone on the thread. I watched it vertical on my iPad mini.
Until...Mathguy64 said:Duncan Idaho said:
I was pretty let down. Seemed about on par with a sci-fi channel remake.
Oh wait. I might have watched the wrong movie
https://m.imdb.com/title/tt15331462/?ref_=ext_shr_lnk
How can you remember what you watched before. You lose your memory when you get remade.
I loved that Denis featurette. I'm so into what he directs.
My favorite part was him describing who he directed the movie for... "For the first time I directed a movie for myself". It's always interesting to see what happens when someone makes their dream and make no doubts... This is his dream movie.
Sublime.
My favorite part was him describing who he directed the movie for... "For the first time I directed a movie for myself". It's always interesting to see what happens when someone makes their dream and make no doubts... This is his dream movie.
Sublime.
#Dune kicks off with $5.1M on Thursday, headed toward a $30M+ weekend while debuting simultaneously on HBO MAX https://t.co/br10J9Ug0V
— Aaron Couch (@AaronCouch) October 22, 2021
Box Office: ‘Dune’ Opens Strong With $5.1 Million in Thursday Previews https://t.co/BIX99EcJoK
— Variety (@Variety) October 22, 2021
Box Office: If #Dune legs over the weekend like THE SUICIDE SQUAD, it'll still only open with $32 million. But if it legs like NO TIME TO DIE, it'll nab a $45 million opening weekend... https://t.co/9EA0y1nQ9m
— Scott Mendelson (@ScottMendelson) October 22, 2021
Featured Stories
See All
9:11
4h ago
2.4k
42:45
12h ago
3.0k
The Good Ol' Days: Reminiscing on Texas A&M's magical spring of '89
by David Sandhop
35:53
15h ago
3.4k