STAR TREK by Abrams will be even better in IMAX

okay, holy cow. that was pretty cool. of course what I'm talking about here is the first official trailer of the new STAR TREK directed by J.J. Abrams (and written by the guys who did Transformers). (*fyi: the whole lot of 'em created Fox's great series FRINGE which is top notch too!)

okay, so I guess I'm showing my cards early, but who cares? it looks great and looks like it'll be great fun. I'm hearing (reading) online that there are some "fanboys" out there that are hating this movie. well... I mean... what can I say about that. I would really like to rant, really like to rave. really like to cave some heads in frankly. I mean... how can you NOT like that trailer?

the beauty of any trailer is that it whets the appetite. it teases. it gets you excited. and it does so by showing the good parts. (and in many cases, too many of the good parts!)

but this trailer gave all the goods, without giving away too much of anything. it gave us a glance of the vision, allowing us to peer into what this "re-imagining" really looks like, and showed us beats from the movie free of the burden of the logic of plot.

not knowing anything about the new movie's story, the trailer tells us this: that it's a hero's journey. and often, those are the best. that hero we see quickly is Captain Kirk. now, sure, the hardest of hardcore trekkies/trekkers would tell you that story doesn't need telling, but give me a break. often, it's not even considered "true canon" unless it's made committed to film. (and even THAT isn't perfect in the Star Trek Universe - which is rife with contradictions as you can find online in many YouTube compilations.)

what we're really talking about here when you see people not liking something of this nature seems pretty clear to me: lack of vision. now this is not me name-calling the name-callers. but I am trying to make something clear for myself (and the one other person out there who's reading this too). when you hear people (often my fellow nerds & geeks) bashing something new or that's finally getting it's treatment to film, what is really happening is the bashers are unable to see beyond what has already been presented. whether that's what's been shown in the comics, cartoons, previous movies or even the depths of their own imaginations, unfortunately, most who are bashers just aren't able to visualize anything completely -- and won't be able to, until they've seen the completed work.

(*and let's be clear: Fanboys aren't the best judges before the finished work. they were up in arms about Bryan Singer doing the X-MEN when they heard he wasn't that big a fan of the comics growing up. Fanboys have a history of calling major foul on casting choices and director hires only to quietly disappear in the roar of praise heaped on the same works when done. many cringed when Christian Bale was chosen as Batman, or Robert Downey, Jr. as Iron Man -- and now love those choices. and probably their biggest blunder, TONS of Fanboys were ready to commit mass sepuku because of the casting of Heath Ledger - 'the gay cowboy' - as Batman's arch nemesis The Joker. we all know how epic that turned out to be, and you can't find ONE fanboy now who would say they were ever against it. so...)

but see, that's why we need and use VISIONARIES. that's the purpose of some one, a director in this case, who has A VISION. because they CAN SEE something that's not there, and when they're really good, they can get all those on board who can help to execute that vision.

now listen, as huge a fan as I am of Abrams, this movie could end up not so good, but what I'm talking about here is the trailer, and the promise that the trailer lays out. and that promise is GOOD. that promise is hearty. that promise looks like good old fashioned FUN and I personally can't wait.

lastly, and this is the biggie, I heard today, just before watching the trailer in all it's Quicktime-age splendorific glory, that this new STAR TREK movie will be "in theaters and... (wait for it...) in IMAX" next year!!! IMAX. wow. that movie in IMAX will just be... amazing.

I can't wait.

Harry Potter 6 with new IMAX 3D footage

today I saw an announcement that Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (HarryPotter6) will be running with 25 minutes of IMAX footage.

http://www.empireonline.com/news/feed.asp?NID=23296

of course, that's really cool and all that good stuff, but a lot of people don't know what that really means and because I got a few emails asking, I'm gonna explain it in the most non-technical way I can.

first of all: yes, movies in theaters are still on film, 35mm film (there are a growing number of digital theaters, but for the most part it's emulsion running through sprockets on reels in the projection booth.

IMAX film is the biggest film format of them all -- the frame size is almost TEN TIMES the size of a 35mm film frame. when people come to visit my booth, I compare the two to show just what I mean. "IMAX" literally stands for "IMAGE MAXIMUM."

when an announcement like today's is made, what they're really saying is the traditional movie is being transfered to IMAX 70mm, and something called a DMR print is being made. "DMR" is IMAX's term for the digital remastering process where a 35mm negative, print, or digital source is essentially "upres'ed" to the IMAX 15/70 film format. (*of course, most digital sources, if they know from the start that it'll end up in IMAX there maybe no upres'ing needed.)

this is different from what Christopher Nolan did for THE DARK KNIGHT -- Nolan had realized or had the foresight that an IMAX print would be made, and so, shot his 35 minutes of footage with IMAX CAMERAS. but the rest of the movie was shot on 35mm and upres'ed.

http://www.wired.com/entertainment/hollywood/magazine/16-07/ff_darknight
http://www.filmwad.com/nolan-to-shoot-i-dark-knight-i-in-imax-format-2642-p.html

anyone who caught The Dark Knight in it's IMAX version knows that there are entire sequences that suddenly and dramatically "GO WIDE" and the image is even more stunning and breathtaking. this is the difference between film that's been converted and footage specifically shot in IMAX.

then of course, there's IMAX 3D, which means, two entire prints of film running with either dual projectors, or with an "over-under" system that ran the right eye and left eye of each print. this is costly, cumbersome and creates twice as many problems when problems arise. most recently BEOWULF was in IMAX 3D and it was stunning.

on the horizon and in the near future comes yet another format: IMAX is stepping into the DIGITAL 3D environment.

just two weeks ago, I attended the Giant Screen Cinema Association convention where I saw, among other things, the demo of the new IMAX DIGITAL system. there were a few issues with this, but on the whole, the system looked FANTASTIC. was it the shape of traditional, "classical" IMAX movies? no. but it was higher res than any HD image available, it could handle HIGH CONTRASTS (which is a huge issue between digital video and film) and the image was sharp (for the most part). where it also excelled was with 3D. it handled the 3D better than any RealD or other digital 3D system out there, and to my eye (and many others in attendance) was better looking than 3D on film.

what does this all mean for the public? hopefully, continued trips to the theater. I can't help but get giddy about the whole thing. I usually get criticized for my enthusiasm (because nobody can believe I like my job this much) but bigger picture, better sound, and continued 'A' level content.

frankly, I think nothing's cooler.

IMAX @ natural history

right now I'm sitting in the IMAX projection booth at AMNH.

(that'd be the America Museum of Natural History.)

I love it here.

currently we're running the same slate of films that I run during the week at my other place The Maritime Aquarium: SEA MONSTERS & WILD OCEAN.

here in New York, they're only running 'OCEAN because it was recently nominated for some kind of Academy award. I say "some kind" because it was always my understanding that the Oscars were announced in like, february for a mid-march show. but I guess that since it's a documentary, they do that sort of business earlier.

anyway, the movie certainly deserves it. congrats to those who worked on it -- it's pretty good. the images are stunning, and the music is dramatic and robust. (right now I'm looking at a swirl of fish that form a massive sphere -- it's pretty cool to see).

what's also pretty cool (*you call that writing? "pretty cool", jeeze dave... I'm just not feeling like adjective-guy right now) is how it's shot half IMAX cameras, and half underwater-HD. the transfer and color correct is pretty strong and you can only tell if you're a video pro and know where to look.

that's about it for now, gotta get back to it.