ITW in IMAX?

[Gothampc]

Posted: 1/8/15 at 6:43pm

Disney didn't give Into The Woods the IMAX treatment. Were they expecting it to be a bomb or is the IMAX process still too expensive? Disney did Fantasia 2000 in IMAX. Can Disney reprocess the film into the IMAX format?

[Wildcard]

Posted: 1/8/15 at 6:49pm

There isn't much to see in IMAX. Most of the film is set in a dark, claustrophobic forest. Would be a waste of IMAX

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 1/8/15 at 6:56pm

I gave up on IMAX awhile ago. Much like 3D, it is used primarily to jack up the price for no real reason. 3D of the 50' was better (depth was better) than the current versions and glasses were free. IMAX is good for a travelogue or a film of the same nature. Doubt it would add 1 iota to ITW.

Updated On: 1/8/15 at 06:56 PM

[JP2]

Posted: 1/8/15 at 7:00pm

IMAX screens were/are occupied by THE HOBBIT.

Updated On: 1/8/15 at 07:00 PM

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 1/8/15 at 7:28pm

I saw ITW and IMAX would have done nothing for it

In addition, I have seen none of the Hobbitt movies so no idea what IMAX would or would not have done for them.

[TheatreFan4]

Posted: 1/8/15 at 7:37pm

Roxy, no one cares what you think 3D would add to anything when you spout such idiocy as this "3D of the 50' was better (depth was better) than the current versions"

[haterobics]

Posted: 1/8/15 at 7:46pm

Most people think the things from their youth were better... not surprising.

[TheatreFan4]

Posted: 1/8/15 at 7:48pm

But Roxy was in like his 70s back then, which is granted younger...

[thebeautyis3]

Posted: 1/8/15 at 8:35pm

I saw Into the Woods in RPX (Regal Cinemas' large format theater), and I didn't really think it was all that special. Maybe because it wasn't filmed in IMAX format, but. It was fine. I wasn't disappointed or impressed.

[somechrysanthemumtea]

Posted: 1/9/15 at 9:31pm

JP2 is right, most if not all IMAX screens are taken up by the final HOBBIT movie, which works very well on IMAX (as it has a lot of fighting and action that seems to jump out at you etc), whereas Into The Woods does not seem to have many IMAX-able moments and would just be a move for more money.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 1/9/15 at 9:37pm

Not unrelated: INTO THE WOODS isn't as visually inviting or impressive via the DVD, at least on my television. I went to the theater before watching the screener, and was surprised at how dark the film looks at home. Granted, my peek was in the daytime, but still. I will say: the sound is glorious, the singing crisp and every song lands. I just wish it wasn't quite so hard to see. The Bakers, in particular, seems always in shadow (Corden just disappears sometimes.) "Last Midnight," at home, is almost in the dark. Meryl's face is illuminated artfully, but a lot of the scene is in near blackness, or rather blue-ness. It's a beautiful movie, to be sure, but it still looks better on the big(ger) screen to my eyes.

[best12bars]

Posted: 1/10/15 at 7:25am

Into the Woods was made relatively cheaply for a (now-considered) modest $50 million. They decided against IMAX and 3D very early on when the financing was first approved.

On the other hand, the movie is closing in quickly on $100 million at the box office, so they've doubled their investment.

Smart move.

[Bucky Builder]

Posted: 1/10/15 at 7:57am

I don't really see the point in doing it in Imax. Besides, It's not like this is a run away hit. Why spend the extra money when the interest isn't there?

[mikey2573]

Posted: 1/10/15 at 8:20am

I read somewhere, though I don't recall where, that the director chose not to film in IMAX due to the cost and time it would take . The article quoted Marshall saying that, if I recall.

[Bucky Builder]

Posted: 1/10/15 at 8:22am

That would make sense. The film was on a tight schedule budget, which is why we didn't get a giants in the sky flashback showing the giants and the house. Just wasn't in the budget.

[Huss417]

Posted: 1/10/15 at 9:47am

@Auggie27

Watched it last night over a friends who gets the screeners. I thought the dvd was clear and not as dark as I thought it might be. It did make me want to see it on the big screen though.

[Rainbowhigh23]

Posted: 1/10/15 at 10:16pm

I saw it at the AMC Empire - the film had a bright, 4K HD quality to it and the sound was amazing. There was really nothing in it that justified filming in IMAX. I was happy with the sound and the singing.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 1/11/15 at 9:01am

Also, since Marshall chose to film it in full widescreen, the film would have to be completely re-framed for Imax even more than a non-widescreen film would. (Yes, I know my use of technical jargon is amazing...)

[Nikeca]

Posted: 1/11/15 at 2:18pm

The Hobbit was more interesting at that time and personally i dont see THAT much of a difference between IMAX and normal 3D, the only difference that i see is in HFR.

[Alan Henry]

Posted: 1/11/15 at 5:21pm

I've seen a Woods screener DVD - and just to comment:

What you see on a screener DVD is not what ultimately gets released via DVD/Blueray. A lot of work goes into putting a movie on DVD so it displays properly on all kinds of TV's. It's as much an art as it is a science - they don't just copy the theatrical release to a disc. (With that said, the screener I saw looked fine on the TV I saw it on.)

I also find a lot of the default modes on TV's nowadays are very dark and I always do a custom setting and adjust the colour/contrast/backlight until I am satisfied.

[Rainbowhigh23]

Posted: 1/11/15 at 9:56pm

PROPERTY OF DISNEY

DO NOT DUPLICATE

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 1/11/15 at 10:00pm

The only bootlegs worth a dam come out around Oscar time & say "For Your Consideration". To sooth the fears of purist, my wife and I did see it in a movie theater.

Updated On: 1/11/15 at 10:00 PM

[trentsketch]

Posted: 1/11/15 at 10:03pm

They did spend the money on an enhanced audio release in select theaters. Much better use of money than formatting it for IMAX.