Originally Posted by bud16415
Thanks for the two replies and I will comment a little on both here. I understand the first showing as being special and if you haven’t read the book or watched to many spoiler vids watching a good story unfold for the first time can’t be beat. Many movies I enjoy equally but different the second or more time I watch them. One thing we can’t do in a movie not unlike a circus is to watch all 3 rings at once. Good directors and actors like good ringmasters like to overwhelm us with action. Knowing the story line is just some of it and sometimes during a repeat showing I find myself watching the supporting actor or even extras, or even just taking in the backgrounds and how the movie was crafted.
You are clearly taking in a lot of ideas and thinking about what is important for yourself and that is the way to do it.
that's a good point. many 'good' movies make the second or third watch almost as good (but in a totally different way) because you watch it in a completely new way. i think of something like the sixth sense. i often watch movies with zero prior exposure before the first watch. and if i enjoy them, dig a little deeper with commentary or film theories, and the second watch can be quite entertaining again. that first 'sacred' watch is really about the experience, more than the story. tv or theater, the story doesn't change. but the explosions, shaky cams, etc, feel different in a decent theater. obviously there's a reason we're all spending so much time and money on building them.
The factor that hasn’t been factored in yet in the experiment as to what is comfortable is the cinematography. Our boring daily life is a much wider FOV than even the original IMAX but close. It is far wider than the new IMAX that is 1.89:1. and given a scope image the same width as the IMAX 1.89 it is much taller. The cinematography is what directs us to look where we look on the screen and 99% of the time in an IMAX1.89 movie what you need to see is in the scope FOV. The extra is peripheral vision and shouldn’t bother us anymore than what is peripheral to the sides in a scope image. That being said it clearly does bother people as can be seen by all the opposition to it. Is it that people have been conditioned to it on the sides over a lifetime of watching it that way or is it they play regular 16:9 or 1.85 media that size and find it overwhelming because its cinematography has not been shot intended to be IMAX?
post the other day was very enlightening when he talked about showing Avatar full blown and it was a fun roller coaster ride. That cinematography was intended by the director to be watched just like he watched it. Watching Wheel of Fortune that size would be awful.
again, interesting points. i suspect a lot of the 'too tall/too wide' complaints are because we haven't learned how to watch that way, and a small part directors haven't learned how to present that way. if the point is to cover our peripheral vision, then i think it's important that nothing along the borders of the screen ever really appear in focus. when they do, we start scanning, and that's what causes the uncomfortable viewing experience, part of that is training yourself not to look at the borders too, which i can fully say is not how i watch. if something is there, i look at it. in real life, we look around, but in a movie the camera looks around for us. that way we see what we're supposed to, when we're supposed to. the imax theory, and beyond, is a lot more than just making a screen big enough to cover our peripheral vision(it's not even close for me btw), they need to develop techniques to work with it too. watching a normal 16:9 tv show on a imax screen would be brutal.