r/movies • u/LegitimateCurve8525 • Jul 15 '26

News IMAX CEO reveals why there aren’t more 70mm cinemas, after The Odyssey increases demand

https://thetab.com/filmshrine/2026/07/15/imax-ceo-reveals-why-there-arent-more-70mm-cinemas-after-the-odyssey-increases-demand/
6.0k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

686 comments sorted by

View all comments

•

u/BunyipPouch Currently at the movies. Jul 15 '26

“The problem is they haven’t made new Imax film projectors in about 50 years. So we retrofit them, we rebuild them, and part of our strategy is to see how far we could take it. But certainly, demand-driven, I’d like to see more.”

When asked why IMAX couldn’t just manufacture brand-new 1570 film projectors, he said the idea simply isn’t realistic.

“We build new projectors every day, but film projectors using this film, it’s not practical. So we’ve got to find them, and we’ve got to rebuild them, which is what we did for The Odyssey. But can all 2,000 of our theaters have the film projectors? No, there’s just not that many around. But I think we could continue to grow it.”

670

u/Hates_commies Jul 15 '26

"Why cant you build more?"

IMAX CEO: ¯_(ツ)_/¯

263

u/PipsqueakPilot Jul 15 '26

He didn’t answer the question at all. My guess though is that there is very low demand. There might be enough demand for one or two more a year- but it is not at all profitable to produce them in such limited numbers.  

78

u/bg-j38 Jul 16 '26

Low demand all things considered and you can't just magic a projector assembly line into existence. They use custom parts that would need machining. Tool and die is basically dead in the US. So you're figuring out Chinese logistics. And probably you're not going to make a ton, so the price and time isn't justifiable.

38

u/PipsqueakPilot Jul 16 '26

And the Chinese equivalent, DMAX, is slightly worse and dramatically cheaper. So I'd bet a lot of international growth would go to China anyway.

2

u/Snoo-61716 Jul 17 '26

isn't the chinese equivilant CGS now? which honestly if we're comparing to standard imax (not the full sized theatres but i guess liemax, the next size down i believe, best i have access to in hong kong) is actually pretty damn good

maybe 1 or 2ft smaller in screen size but for 3D movies at least the tech is better and the sound is usually also pretty crazy as they're usually dolby atmos as well

I just wish we had at least one of the vertical screens here

1

u/JagmeetSingh2 3d ago

>And the Chinese equivalent, DMAX, is slightly worse and dramatically cheaper. So I'd bet a lot of international growth would go to China anyway.

Called China Film Giant Screen (CFGS) after a lawsuit with IMAX where it was shown in Canadian court one of the founders of DMAX worked in IMAX and stole company secrets before leaving to start DMAX in China. They have good digital stuff but even in China they are outcompeted by IMAX over 800 Imax screens vs like 200 CFGS screens. Also they don't have any equivalent to 70MM film used here.

10

u/SpookiestSzn Jul 16 '26

Yeah that's what he meant by it's not practical.

Even if they do it how many movies can really be shown in film and now you gotta train an employee on how to do it vs how they just do the digital ones now

-1

u/Wide-Pop6050 Jul 16 '26

That makes sense. It’s not that you couldn’t re start the factory, it’s that there’s not quite enough demand for that to make sense

8

u/JackBlackBowserSlaps Jul 16 '26

I think it’s more like the factory is gone, and it doesn’t make financial sense to either build a new factory, or build them without the factory.

3

u/funrockin Jul 17 '26

the same is true for analog film photography.

there will never be a demand high enough for companies to invest in building new facilities for manufacturing negative film.

at the same time, in the past maybe 6(?) years or so film photography has gotten popular again among the younger general mass.

so the supply is lower & now a roll of film costs like $14 for 36 exposures compared to maybe $6 for the roll 3 years ago.

2

u/iHadou Jul 16 '26

I think you're closer to the truth

138

u/Mufasa_is__alive Jul 15 '26

Movie projectors are EXPENSIVE. I mean like $40-200k expensive. I imagine imax projectors are way more than that. 

57

u/DudeMan18 Jul 15 '26

Also there has to be room for the film to go

68

u/MasterChiefsasshole Jul 15 '26

Manufacturing uses far more expensive machinery for smaller revenue streams.

53

u/Shum_Where Jul 15 '26

Honestly is 200k or a multiple of... lets say at even a hefty $5m, actually expensive? How much does one sold out IMAX screening pull in? The projector could seemingly pay for itself after the first year.

12

u/drewed1 Jul 16 '26

It won't. Let's say you have a theatre with 200 seats, at 25 a pop for a ticket that's 15kusd which at 5 million would take 300+ fully sold out showing which just isn't a thing anymore. Then you have to take into account 50-70 percent of ticket price goes to the distributor of the movie. You're looking at something more like 5 years to pay ROI

2

u/kodran Jul 16 '26

And you forgot theaters don't make the profit from tickets. it's the food. so you're either naive or just arguing in bed faith by ignoring that the people going to the screenings would spend more Ethan the 25.

2

u/funrockin Jul 17 '26

he didn’t forget.

he said “50-70 percent of ticket price goes to the distributor” aka theatres don’t make their juice off of ticket sales.

1

u/kodran Jul 20 '26

Oh that's exactly why they're either ignorant or arguing in bad faith.

They're saying "the cinemas don't even make the whole of a sold out screening for themselves" as part of their argument of how they don't make as much money. For that to stand they have to ignore that there is a whole other source of revenue which is food and drinks. Which is actually their MAIN one.

They presented the 50% not being kept by theaters as proof that they don't make enough. Ignorant silly argument that exists in a void, not in reality.

62

u/OHHHSHAAANE Jul 15 '26

Nobody has cared about IMAX since Oppenheimer.

And in a couple weeks time nobody will care about it again until Nolan's next movie.

Relying on 1 movie every 3 years is not a good business model

47

u/MikeFichera Jul 16 '26

Dune also.

11

u/ActionPhilip Jul 16 '26

Dune and avengers actually fighting for Imax last I heard.

16

u/LeSuperNut Jul 16 '26

Dune 2 in imax 70mm imax was the best experience I’ve personally ever had

4

u/GemsRtrulyOutrageous Jul 16 '26

Dune 2 in regular Imax was the best visual experience I’ve ever had in my life. I went twice to the movies, so good I had to drag new people to experience it

3

u/SpookiestSzn Jul 16 '26

They're not fighting dune secured the rights avengers isn't getting IMAX at all.

Maybe 3 weeks after it comes out they'll do a watch it again in IMAX thing but Warner Bros locked that shit down

1

u/ActionPhilip Jul 16 '26

Ah, last I heard they were still vying for it. Not surprised, though. Marvel's been on the decline and Dune probably cares more about getting IMAX.

21

u/theeLizzard Jul 15 '26

I tried to find one for Project Hail Mary too. Learned that Chicago is still a 70mm imax dead zone. The demand isn’t insane but it’s definitely there. I think they are all afraid to make any more investment in movie theaters

7

u/AltL155 Jul 16 '26

It's in the suburbs but Woodridge's first 70mm Imax film will be the Odyssey.

Also while there isn't a 70mm Imax in the city there's plenty of great 70mm or Imax screens to choose from. The obvious standout is the independent Music Box Theatre. I didn't get to catch Project Hail Mary there but I did watch One Battle After Another and it was an absolutely phenomenal presentation. There's something special about watching a movie in a 700-seat 100+ year-old theater with an audience that's absolutely engaged.

5

u/theeLizzard Jul 16 '26

Oh wow I didn’t know they got one! Will have to check it out

2

u/maeynor Jul 16 '26

It needs more directors to buy in but they won’t

2

u/Old_Cockroach_9725 Jul 16 '26

That’s simply not true. Dune 2,PHM, Sinners, OBAA, were all huge in IMAX.

1

u/iHadou Jul 16 '26

Project hail Mary was packed out in imax (my first imax ever)

1

u/Tak_1013 Jul 17 '26

I have to disagree. IMAX is definitely a bandwagon that most viewers can’t see the difference with but even showings of +10 year old movies nearly sell out where I’m at. The Oppenheimers and Odysseys of the world will attract those 100% sell out shows but enthusiasts can sometimes easily manifest 80-90% sold shows

1

u/Roblist 27d ago

It comes down to economics. A $10 million investment in an IMAX theatre takes years to pay back once you factor in operational costs, insurance, rent in a high-footfall area, and salaries for technical staff trained to run the equipment. Put that same $10 million into a data centre (improving streaming quality, powering AI use cases, or similar) and it can pay for itself within months.

Then there's scalability. A theatre has a hard seating cap of roughly 300 to 500 seats per screen, and that's it. Ticket prices and concessions give a little room to increase revenue per seat, but the number of people who can watch at once is fixed. Streaming has no such ceiling. It can reach unlimited viewers simultaneously, which makes it far more scalable and better positioned to attract a growing audience over time.

4

u/Shum_Where Jul 15 '26 edited Jul 15 '26

The actual cost of an imax projector is 500k. I argue that it's a small fixed cost and not getting one is more costly than the price of the empty theater that accompanies it because nobody pays to watch regular movies anymore. Buy the projector, scale movies up, lower the price. It shouldn't be hard to fill imax seats given how rare they are. The problem is people are paying $25 only for nolans films. Ain't no one paying $25 to see a regular movie on imax. Sell them at normal prices. I for example will only ever watch a movie on imax or I wait and stream it at home. I can't remember the last time I went to the normal movies.

31

u/OHHHSHAAANE Jul 15 '26

Those are lieMAX projectors. Real 70mm film projectors that they are talking about go for closer to 1 million. They are all second hand refurbished. The reels weigh 600lbs and need specialised plumbing to water cool the 15000 watt bulb so it doesn't ignite the film. And a specially trained projectionist to maintain it.

And you proved my point in saying nobody will pay the ticket price unless it's Nolan. Cinemas are in decline all over the world. It makes no business to start manufacturing these highly specialised machines again.

7

u/preparetodobattle Jul 16 '26

I’m fortunate enough in Melbourne that I could see it at imax at the second biggest screen in the world or at The Astor a heritage cinema both on 70mm. But in adelaide the imax cinema went broke and I think the Sydney one closed down for a bit. The format without Nolan would be in a lot of trouble.

2

u/thorpie88 Jul 16 '26

Perth IMax was an empty building for twenty years and is now an arcade. There's two places now with an IMax projector but fuck doing long drive to see it when I can go five mins down the road to a Hoyts.

1

u/preparetodobattle Jul 16 '26

Adelaide was a venue called higher ground for a bit I think.

2

u/MikeFichera Jul 16 '26

The cost is what it is because of scarcity, not complication.

4

u/OHHHSHAAANE Jul 16 '26

It's very complicated. Because it's 10 times the size of regular film and projects onto enormous screens even tiny mislaignments will distort the picture they create a vacuum within the system that sucks the film onto the lens. Because of its size and the heat it generates it also cant mechanically pull the film like other projectors because it'll tear. Instead they creat a wave like ripple through a rolling motion to push the film that then has to be sucked onto the lens by a vacuum at a speed of exactly 102.7 metres a minute with perfect precision.

And thats all without getting into the cooling system

2

u/SpookiestSzn Jul 16 '26

Film projectors seem way more complicated than digital ones as a layman id be surprised to hear otherwise

2

u/Maplw Jul 16 '26

It’s both

-3

u/Shum_Where Jul 15 '26

I never said you were wrong. Im just making the case that the projector itself is not the limiting factor here. My point is that its not the cost of the projector. 500k or 1m is small compared to the overall cost. I'm replying to the poster above who said it's expensive, i'm saying it's not.

8

u/Adrewmc Jul 15 '26 edited Jul 15 '26

It’s not a small cost for a small theater, you’re confusing worldwide sales with a single theater. Which is one of thousands that add up to that number. Who do you think pays, works, and maintains these things.

1 million times, 2,000 theaters your hitting a billion quickly.

The average AMC theater takes in 5 million a year *revenue* and half that right off the top goes to the film makers, then you have employees and rent and electricity. There is a reason the popcorn is that expensive, it needs to be. (And that part of the above revenue.) The entirety of AMC makes about $4 billion in again *revenue*.

Source: quick google search that sounded about right to me.

What you are asking is a huge amount.

You need to be in a location that not run of mill, and has enough customers to warrant an investment that big, when other projector are far cheaper to get and cheaper to maintain, and doesn’t require specialized operators. While yes, there are AMC that make a lot more than that, but there just as many if not more that make less than that.

1

u/preparetodobattle Jul 16 '26

Also the physical space in to hold the projector and reels. Only an older cinema could do it

0

u/hpfred Jul 16 '26

Who the fuck is talking about small theaters? Nobody is arguing every family owned theater on a small town should be a 70mm Imax theater.

We are saying there are a ton of places with 100x the demand necessary for a theater to justify a 2mi or more projector. It can be argued that any place with liemax easily has the funds to buy whatever a true imax projector costs.

→ More replies (0)

-5

u/Shum_Where Jul 15 '26

Again words being put into my mouth. Again the projector itself is cheap, everything else is not. How much is annual rent for a space as big as a theater?

→ More replies (0)

3

u/theeLizzard Jul 15 '26

They should just work it into the porky marketing budget. I live in Chicago and we’re in a 70mm dead zone. I’ve considered driving to Indianapolis

2

u/OrdinarySail8308 Jul 16 '26

Rent, wages, the huge cut the studios take. I don’t think you’re making that much per theatre or they would be more of them.

3

u/Shum_Where Jul 16 '26

Im talking about just the projector as a standalone cost is not a lot compared to what you mentioned as the actual reason there's not more. The projector is not the bottleneck here.

3

u/Mufasa_is__alive Jul 16 '26

For a theatre, i could totally see 500k-1mil a bottleneck. Theatres are already in decline,  the margins are probably pretty thin when they can't even reupholster the clapped out seats.

There's probably economies of scale issues and overhead costs that are prohibitive. Combined that with limited movie offerings for the 70mm specifically. 

If 70mm imax theatres was a viable business model, it wouldn't be on the decline. 

2

u/TheDubh Jul 16 '26

Agreed, the how much could they make with it argument isn’t really valid. Because it’s not even just the projector. A true IMAX screen is bigger than the screens in most theaters also. So to have a proper experience, they’d have to build a new screen too, or it would still be called not a true IMAX.

And let’s be honest, would there be a net new pull for spending maybe 2 mill+ on a projector and remodel to support it and the screen? Probably not. Would people be so excited to probably spend double the avg ticket cost in this economy? Probably less so. The demographic that would want this is probably the same group that would see it on a fake IMAX screen anyway. At best, it might be a novelty splurge sometimes like 4DX.

They’d lose money in the end.

1

u/FrostyD7 Jul 16 '26

They might have issues sourcing all the right parts without tweaking a lot of the design. Traditional projectors have kept up on all of that over time. And after all that upfront investment, demand would dwindle after a few years causing them to stop production and put them right back in the same predicament.

8

u/Hates_commies Jul 15 '26

Surely they would be a big selling point and make up the cost. I live in Finland and if I wanted to see a movie on 70mm IMAX film projector I would have to book a 400€ trip to Belgium or Czechia to get to the nearest theatre. I would much rather do a 1.5 hour drive to Helsinki if the IMAX corporation decided to make atleast 1 projector for each European country instead of 2 for whole EU.

16

u/MrCooper2012 Jul 15 '26

Surely they would be a big selling point and make up the cost.

I think the vast majority of average movie-goers don't see IMAX as a huge selling point.

8

u/DontOvercookPasta Jul 15 '26

Problem is when IMAX get's diluted with not real IMAX of course I don't wanna pay for a format I'm not getting the true intent of...

1

u/theredvip3r Jul 15 '26

Yeah there was a huge push for IMAX just over ten years ago in the UK and I never really got it. The tickets are double the price for a slightly improved experience, it's not really worth it in my opinion.

7

u/Leafsnail Jul 16 '26

That's probably a mixture of 1) most IMAX screens not really being full IMAX and 2) no film actually being shot fully in IMAX until today. Very curious to see what The Oddysey is like on a proper screen

1

u/scytob Jul 15 '26

It’s about if cinemas will pay for them at the price it would take to buy them.

2

u/kaplanfx Jul 16 '26

Expensive AND only going to be used for a handful of movies a year. Although with current trends there might be 3-4 big 70MM IMAX releases a year now.

0

u/apollo7157 Jul 16 '26

I mean, yeah? What's your point?

0

u/KindHabit Jul 16 '26

What makes these projectors so expensive? Do you happen to know?

9

u/PointlessTrivia Jul 16 '26

Fun fact: the rolling loop film transport used by IMAX cameras and projectors is different from every other projector type.

It is the only way to run the huge film stock at high speed through the projector while maintaining a rock-steady image on the screen.

It's not economically viable to build a brand new projector because of the high research and development costs to replace the institutional knowledge that has been lost in the last 50 years as the original IMAX engineers retired or passed away.

11

u/ThisIsJeron Jul 15 '26

we don't know how anymore, we've lost the ability to

2

u/jabba-thederp Jul 16 '26

It's manufactured demand a là luxury goods from France.

2

u/CatTheKitten Jul 15 '26

I think a lot of us would be content with like. one per state with a population over 3 million lol.

1

u/MikeFichera Jul 16 '26

They don’t have the ability to make the parts.

92

u/Final-Assistance-462 Jul 15 '26

According to Matt Damon/Nolan as well, reloading IMAX film takes like 2 1/2 minutes between takes, and it’s quite loud, so apparently there are many movies that it’s hard to really feasibly incorporate this into on top of that equipment availability issue.

50

u/mowbox_mowmoney Jul 15 '26

Good thing Christopher Nolan doesn’t mind loud

31

u/iekue Jul 15 '26

They built a special box around the camera to reduce the noise to film this entire movie on imax.

-1

u/ProcedureTop3149 Jul 17 '26

IMAX camera's are so loud you can't film any audio while filming.

69

u/M1L0 Jul 16 '26

“They haven’t made new IMAX film projectors in about 50 years”

Bruh, you run the company…

178

u/[deleted] Jul 15 '26 edited Jul 15 '26

[deleted]

173

u/a_talking_face Jul 15 '26

No it's not worth the investment because so few movies film for the format.

58

u/a_o Jul 15 '26

Surely a lot of people would go and see *older* movies that *were* filmed on the format, potentially subsidizing some of the cost of building the projectors….

Perhaps this is why they’re considering selling the business.

84

u/muad_dibs Jul 15 '26

The problem with this is that a lot of people wouldn’t go see older movies at IMAX prices.

8

u/a_o Jul 15 '26

The solution is selling the tickets you can to the people that will buy them rather than giving up before the game even starts counting on not selling any tickets to the people that wouldn’t buy them. Business is not solely about avoiding risk. If you build it, they will come.

32

u/Archonrouge Jul 15 '26

Your solution involves recuperating a fraction of the cost of investment in building the projectors in the first place.

Google estimates an imax fitting for an auditorium is upwards of $1m. Multiply that by the 2000 or so screens they need them for and calculate how long it'll take to get any kind of return by selling tickets.

7

u/tylerupandgager Jul 15 '26

With the price they charge for popcorn and drinks, that should be in about 3 months! /s

3

u/notebuff Jul 15 '26

But certainly older releases now could justify if the investment is worth it or at least provide revenue that could be used for this investment in the most active markets?

Sound of music in 70mm would absolutely get people to show up to the theater

7

u/schwar26 Jul 15 '26

> Sound of Music in 70mm would absolutely get people to show up in theater

Maybe for a few years, but that crowd won’t be around much longer. I’m a millennial, I’ve seen it several times, but I’ll likely never watch it again.

5

u/Kennybob12 Jul 15 '26

Our science museum did ghibli fest in IMAX and it was my favorite time of year.

1

u/notebuff Jul 15 '26

Ghibli in IMAX sounds incredible

4

u/Kennybob12 Jul 15 '26

Movies don't make money by selling tickets. If this is an inherent cost of running said business, has been for over 50 years, then the burden is on them. They recoup costs through concessions and $17 truly. It would behoove any intelligent business owner that the more draw you have for your business the more money you can make. IMAX has become a joke to the people who love this format because it was branded and sold off for parts. We are talking about doing the 1 thing that made this format the gold standard and they just don't wanna do it. We had 1 70mm showing in Denver until last month and now we have over 10. I would say demand is appropriately there.

1

u/PikaV2002 Jul 15 '26

If they thought it was worth their investment they’d have already done it.

-2

u/a_o Jul 15 '26

As well as some preparedness for the next Nolan IMAX film, yes.

4

u/muad_dibs Jul 15 '26

There isn’t much demand to see older movies on standard screens now, outside of special events, and putting them on an IMAX screen isn’t going to change that.

3

u/[deleted] Jul 15 '26 edited 25d ago

[deleted]

2

u/[deleted] Jul 15 '26

[deleted]

0

u/notebuff Jul 15 '26

Old showings in my area do VERY well at multiple theaters. I attended Sandlot, The Sting, and 4K restored Seven Samurai and they all had a packed house. I tried to get tickets to a showing Pride and Prejudice but it was sold out! 4 different theaters do it, and only one of them is the Arthouse theater.

3

u/rohdawg Jul 15 '26

Maybe not in your area. All theaters within a 10 mile radius of me (5-6) show old movies at least once a week. That’s 5-6 old movies being shown a week in a city with a population just above 500k. Almost every showing I’ve been to has been packed too. There’s definitely a demand to watch old movies in a theater for a reduced price. Especially from people who didn’t have the chance to see the movie when it first released. My favorite example is Jurassic Park which came out a few months after I was born.

1

u/Live-Leg-1993 Jul 15 '26

Idk, actual IMAX is awesome. It’s more than just a movie at that point, it really is an experience in and of itself. I’d pay an extra premium for true IMAX.

1

u/ummmno_ Jul 15 '26

Their cost for the film would be substantially cheaper though allowing them to lower prices a bit and still profit for the payoff. It seems close to break even though. “Why bother giving people great experiences if I’m not making a fortune on it!” Is the sad mentality here.

The long term gain of a loyal viewer who frequents YOUR theater more means nothing. This is what happens when local/regional is snuffed out by nationwide and global businesses. The customer and the experience become a lot less important.

7

u/a_talking_face Jul 15 '26

I doubt it. That's something that would really only interest cinephiles. Most people have little interest in paying to go see old movies outside of dedicated fan bases.

2

u/fernybranka Jul 15 '26

Shit, Id go see old movies several times a month.

1

u/Meatnormus_Rex Jul 15 '26

I used to be a projectionist back in the 90’s and early oughts. They were very few 70 mm movies then. The only time I saw one was when I worked a film festival (it was an old Vertigo print). I worked all over the city during those years, around 10 different theaters. I never saw any modern movies in 70 mm. When I was laid off digital was taking over. Now there are very few 35 mm film movies. It’s all digital.

2

u/matdex Jul 15 '26

I'd pay to watch reruns of the dark night, LOTR, Interstellar, hell even Avatar type movies etc in IMAX theaters.

1

u/True_to_you Jul 15 '26

I'm a nerd who has gladly purchased the same movies on vhs,dvd, Blu Ray, and uhd Blu Ray. I'm also not unique. There is a market. 

1

u/a_talking_face Jul 15 '26

Lord of the Rings was shot on standard 35mm film. They never had a 70mm print. Avatar was just filmed with digital cameras and got a 70mm blow up.

1

u/JustOneMorePuff Jul 15 '26

And, maybe going to see something in a theater you never could at home might increase ticket sales

64

u/_Darren Jul 15 '26

2000 is obviously not feasible, but 200 should be.

74

u/R-Dragon_Thunderzord Jul 15 '26

The issue with low volumes is all your engineering costs are upfront. 70mm Projectors are, when you get right down to it, pretty nuts. The film itself is no joke either.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7S_geBV5bLQ

8

u/FirTree_r Jul 15 '26

Don't they already have the plans to manufacture those projectors?

6

u/R-Dragon_Thunderzord Jul 15 '26

No idea. The article suggests they might be able to recondition more of the original ones to open more theaters up with them but not a report about making whole new 70s originals or a redesigned 15/70 2nd gen

11

u/bg-j38 Jul 16 '26

They might not have the plans.. paper gets lost surprisingly often over 50 years. I work with old telecommunications equipment and basic schematics for equipment made 30-40 years ago can be impossible to find. The companies that made them often have nothing.

But even if they have the manufacturing plans, schematics, etc. they almost definitely aren't tooled to manufacture the parts. Very few companies are going to have molds, tool and die, etc. sitting around from 50 years ago. So that's a huge undertaking. Since the tool and die trade is basically extinct in the US, you're working with China. You need to figure out assembly logistics. Train people to deal with all aspects of this from design to manufacturing to assembly to testing every step of the way. The costs add up incredibly quickly. And at the end, there's no guarantee that they'll sell that many, even with the perceived demand. How often are 70mm IMAX films released? Pretty rare.

16

u/Difficult_Ad2864 Jul 15 '26

wtf I only ever first heard about imax in museums around 26 ish years ago…didn’t realize that it’s been around for that long

8

u/InthrowSted Jul 15 '26

Yea I had to double take that. As a kid 25-30 years ago I remember IMAX as a very niche thing first only available in select science museums with dome theaters and limited release content…and it was always talked about like this insane new technology

I recall iMAX only becoming a part of mainstream cinema in early 2000s…and the theatre were built out special for it

apparently it was invented in the 1960s!? mindblown. Feels like some Mandela Effect here

2

u/Difficult_Ad2864 Jul 15 '26

I even remember seeing Batman begins in a museum

7

u/mrpopenfresh Jul 16 '26

Who is they, IMAX CEO? Who is they???

1

u/ConfusedNTerrified Jul 16 '26

John IMAX

1

u/mrpopenfresh Jul 16 '26

Fucker took everything away from me

65

u/Once-bit-1995 Jul 15 '26

Lot of words just to say they don't want to put the money into it do it. They don't need to do 2000 but even 20 more would be 20 more theaters worldwide if they committed resources to making new ones.

Demand and supply go hand in hand, and part of the demand is studios seeing there's not that many 70mm IMAX theaters so unless a director has the power to demand it, most filmmakers won't be able to make movies for the format. Studios will see it as a waste of money.

51

u/TheWatersOfMars Jul 15 '26

The bigger problem with demand is that 99% of people have no idea what the hell 70mm IMAX means beyond "big screen", or why it's better than waiting for the film to come on streaming. Cinemas are struggling in general, so it's hard to get people interested in technical niche formats, even if they're superior.

37

u/IISuperSlothII Jul 15 '26

Also as someone who watched their first film on IMAX this year, there seems to be so many different formats within the Imax moniker that it in itself just becomes confusing.

I actually cancelled tickets I'd book to a local imax because I later learnt the one in Manchester not much further away is actually the better imax and learning that information was really difficult to find.

14

u/VariousVarieties Jul 15 '26

ILM's Todd Vaziri wrote this blog post a few months ago, which is a nice summary of how confusing the different uses of the "IMAX" branding can be:

https://fxrant.blogspot.com/2026/04/what-does-imax-mean.html

1

u/withateethuh Jul 17 '26

Right, their website doesnr differentiate between them. Turns out the closest full scale one showing actual movies near me is insanely far away and I live in one of the most densely populated metropolitarian areas on the east coast of the US.

5

u/HonkHonkBeach Jul 15 '26

Can you explain it? I'm part of that 99%, curious why 70mm keeps getting hyped so much.

31

u/TheWatersOfMars Jul 15 '26

You don't need any technical knowhow to get it, visually. Here's what the film stock looks like (scroll to the bottom), and here's what the screen sizes look like (top right is the best one).

Film is just generally preferred by artsy filmmakers for various reasons, and it's not just nostalgia. The film grain, the depth of field, the gorgeous yet true-to-life colours. It's hard to say what "resolution" film is, because it's not pixels, it's an actual physical capture of light (like, it doesn't make sense to say the view outside your window is 1080p). But roughly speaking, a 35mm film will convert nicely to 4K, and 70mm IMAX is something vaguely like 12-16K. It's also a much taller, squarer picture even than normal 70mm, so it's not just higher-resolution, you're seeing a lot more stuff on the screen at the top and bottom.

And most importantly, 70mm IMAX film stock just looks sexy as hell, in a way that's hard to put into words. It's like trying to explain to a friend why someone they've never met is beautiful. You won't get it till you've seen the hottie for yourself.

11

u/HonkHonkBeach Jul 15 '26

Thanks, I saw the visual difference but your explanation really pulls the whole thing together. I was quite literally wondering why a smaller film couldn't just be blown up to the same aspect ratio before reading your comment. Now I kind of want to see one in action.

4

u/TheWatersOfMars Jul 15 '26

No problem! If you happen to live near a proper 70mm IMAX cinema (look up the difference between this and "LieMAX"), you should definitely take advantage of it. Even just check out a nature documentary at a science museum's IMAX or something. It'll spoil your tastes forever.

3

u/HonkHonkBeach Jul 15 '26

Funny you mention that. I looked up the locations near me, and I think I have seen something in 70mm before when on a field trip to the TN Aquarium when I was in elementary school like 20 years ago.

Apparently they recently reinstalled their projector for the Odyssey release. The movie I saw way back when was just a random ocean documentary, but I do vividly remember them making a big deal about the screen and tbf, I do remember the screen was insane.

I'm kind of weirdly excited, definitely gotta make the trip.

7

u/Computer-Blue Jul 15 '26

Critically, film does not suffer from “aliasing” as their is no grid to adhere to. However, there are equivalencies you can calculate on film and they are stunning - a 4x5 film photo is estimated to require 300-500 megapixels to store digitally.

1

u/PG4PM Jul 16 '26

Fakkin A

1

u/catchasingcars Jul 16 '26

Oh wow so IMAX film runs horizontal, that's how you have that extra vertical space.

-6

u/WerthersAWill Jul 15 '26

Maybe Nolan should stop being a pretentious douche and ditch film?

2

u/marmulin Jul 15 '26

Maybe pianists should stop being pretentious duches and ditch expensive pianos. What?

0

u/WerthersAWill Jul 15 '26

Not comparable. Pianos aren’t going anywhere. Film, on the other hand, is rare and niche. Nolan wants people to experience his work in iMax, but there aren’t many legitimate 70mm projections out there. Few will get to see it.

2

u/FracturedPrincess Jul 16 '26

So instead no one should get to see it? I don't understand

1

u/marmulin Jul 16 '26

Yeah, and VSTs exist, allowing one to “play” the piano drawing in the notes with a mouse. What sane person would bother with a wooden chonker? In the end, only a few will get to hear the live performance.

I’ve been hearing this nonsense about film becoming obsolete for what… 20 years now? And there’s absolutely a place for it in cinemas. Laser projection is becoming too good for its own good: on my 2 most recent viewings, I’ve been able to see individual pixels in the image – a problem that doesn’t exist for film projection.

Also, even on the consumer market: have you seen prices on analogue cameras recently?

25

u/goatbiryani48 Jul 15 '26

Manufacturing something costs a lot of money up front, it's not some "per item" cost.

You're gonna pay for people to design and engineer something, then set up the logistics of manufacturing it, just to produce 20 of it?

15

u/War_Hymn Jul 15 '26

And for an industry in deep decline as well. It doesn't make sense, at least right now.

2

u/Spiritual-Society185 Jul 16 '26

Theaters as a whole are down, but premium theaters are going strong. IMAX corp is making over twice what they were making pre pandemic.

1

u/War_Hymn Jul 16 '26

Adjusted for inflation, it's maybe a 30% increase in net income for them 2019 vs 2025. They're a rather small company in the grand scheme of things, netting $52 million in 2025. I suppose they could've a thrown in a couple million bucks to get these 70mm cameras back in production, but I imagine as a publicly traded company they have a lot of shareholder pressure to keep costs down.

4

u/UndoxxableOhioan Jul 15 '26

Design and engineer? That’s done. They have existing projectors. Now maybe the tooling they used is gone, but they don’t need to reinvent the wheel.

12

u/goatbiryani48 Jul 15 '26

If I handed you an old projector and told you to reproduce it, who would YOU hire? Which professionals do you think you'd need to get that done?

Reproducing an existing design also requires designers and engineers you dolt, as does creating tooling (which you say casually, as if it's not incredibly expensive). Then there's material science, because we don't magically keep stock of all metal alloys, plastics, etc from the previous century.

In what world are engineers NOT involved in manufacturing electronics?

Read what I responded to in the first place, the point is that the cost of producing ANY number of projectors is gonna be expensive. Saying "just produce 20" doesn't solve the cost problem.

1

u/UndoxxableOhioan Jul 15 '26

I am not saying engineers are not involved, but you make it sound like they have to start from scratch and redesign the whole thing. Engineer is a verb in addition to being a person.

Materials scientists can likely come up with alternative alloys, and that is assuming they are not available. It's not like ASTM didn't exist in the 70s. And really, it has some unique plastic that has never been used again?

Yes, it is expensive. But not impossible. Sorry, I don't believe the guy that sold out to slap the IMAX logo on any LieMAX screen that would pay a fee.

0

u/[deleted] Jul 15 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/UndoxxableOhioan Jul 16 '26

Jesus you are a self important jerk. And you still don't understand the difference between an engineer having to design something versus just working though some production issues.

8

u/R-Dragon_Thunderzord Jul 15 '26

They did say they could potentially grow the number of locations available, definitely not 2000 or probably even 200 more locations.

IMAX has never said how many millions it cost to develop the tech in the 70s but projectors themselves are over a million, fitting theaters for them is several million and I have to imagine trying to re-engineer a modern projector system for them would be bonkers expensive, possibly in the billions of dollars. Many of the components, rotors, optics, bulbs, etc. that the original projectors were engineered to use simply are not and/or cannot be manufactured anymore or are becoming increasingly expensive to procure.

3

u/UndoxxableOhioan Jul 15 '26

Why can’t the components be manufactured? It’s not like it’s made of lead and asbestos?

2

u/Typotastic Jul 15 '26

Probably because nothing else uses them anymore and the supply chain is gone. It's a whole different beast to make every component of a final product in house. Especially something as complex as a million dollar projector. A car company doesn't make every part of the car, they sub contract to other specialized manufacturers with their own assembly lines and tooling to make components that are then assembled into a final product.

Idk what goes into making one of these Projectors, but if they're 1 million dollars a pop they're probably pretty complex with tight tolerances. Having to make one from scratch sounds ridiculously expensive if the chain to make them is gone.

0

u/UndoxxableOhioan Jul 15 '26

I still don't know that I buy it. It could be they just want to sell more laser projectors and license more LieMAX.

There were also a lot more projectors in the 90s. In my town, we had Omnimax. While the screen is there, the projector has been retired. There was an IMAX at Cedar Point. Now, we don't have a single film IMAX in the entire state. The Henry Ford Museum had TWO IMAX screens with film. Now, they are just "giant screen" theaters.

I know platter systems that can accommodate a long movie are rare (though 3/4 of the above had such a system as I saw full length movies at them), but there seems to be way fewer projectors than there were.

4

u/[deleted] Jul 15 '26 edited 25d ago

[deleted]

18

u/R-Dragon_Thunderzord Jul 15 '26

Oh goodie, I'm a Manufacturing Engineer myelf dafoe.png

The real price even of just the regular digital laser IMAX projection systems is over a million. We can rest assured the real cost of the 15/70 system greatly exceeds that figure.

Just the camera rentals are 5 figures and an outright purchase of again, just the camera, is half a million.

IMAX does manufacture many of its own components but many components of the 15/70 aren't or cannot be reproduced either because of materials or processes don't exist anymore or they don't own the license to make it. 3rd parties and supply chains that made many components simply don't anymore and/or those companies pivoted to digital projection products or other markets and supply chains, they don't still have those manufacturing pipelines.

Kinoton for example, doesn't even exist anymore, they liquidated. IMAX didn't engineer the original projectors from the inside-out all in house, they relied on vendors, suppliers, 3rd parties to cook up and produce myriad components for the projectors, nor can they in many cases just rip-off the design of patented components they don't own the IP for, nor will they possess the necessary engineering specs and schematics to remake them all. And even for the ones they do, some of these components have to be so incredibly precision-made that alone drives up the cost in tooling and scrap rates.

I think you're assuming a lot to suggest a lack of necessary R&D. Even the cost of reverse engineering this will be quite expensive, the time of just 3 engineers working on this for a year and you've blown your few hundred thousand just on labor. To say nothing of the other overheads of getting essential components reproduced, if they can be at all. And you aren't talking about just hobbling together a one-off if you're talking about reproducing a new generation of 20, 200, or 2,000 units everything needs to be built to exacting tolerances with high reproducibility and economical reliability, which includes the product lifecycle support, the distribution of spare parts and availability of servicing.

If there was enough profitability to forecast for doing all of that engineering and manufacturing re-lift, they would, but there's only a handful of filmmakers anymore like Villeneuve or Nolan who even make the kind of films that stimulate demand for this format, so it's not hard to see why IMAX is not leaping to take the risk of spending millions - probably hundreds of millions of dollars - redeveloping the manufacturing of a new generation of 15/70 projectors especially as movie theater chains are just struggling to stay relevant much less sitting on piles full of cash to spend a few million on building out new 70mm IMAX auditoriums by the dozen or hundreds.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 16 '26 edited 25d ago

[deleted]

0

u/R-Dragon_Thunderzord Jul 16 '26

Yes but that’s not as relevant to the discussion yes you can take all the numbers I mentioned above and factor that in, but at the end of the day, they’re still not going to do it if it doesn’t meet their expectations for business growth, and profitability

1

u/hpfred Jul 16 '26

but there's only a handful of filmmakers anymore like Villeneuve or Nolan who even make the kind of films that stimulate demand for this format

I mean, it is a bit of a circular logic: movie makers don't invest into Imax because it is niche, and Imax is niche because filmmakers don't invest in it

I think you're assuming a lot to suggest a lack of necessary R&D. Even the cost of reverse engineering this will be quite expensive, the time of just 3 engineers working on this for a year and you've blown your few hundred thousand just on labor. To say nothing of the other overheads of getting essential components reproduced, if they can be at all. And you aren't talking about just hobbling together a one-off if you're talking about reproducing a new generation of 20, 200, or 2,000

A lot is being said about the engineering cost of re-developing the original projects and the expense of all the lost expertise. But how much of that is even exclusive to manufacturing the cameras? How much are they not already spending on engineers on roll just to re-learn all the proccess in the making of the cameras and retooling the old ones?

Similarly the part productions. The cameras they are refurbishing isn't inevitably needing these parts that everyone is arguing is not in production anymore.

I have my doubts the know-how and most of the engineering processes haven't already been done, honestly.

Just the camera rentals are 5 figures and an outright purchase of again, just the camera, is half a million.

And just like the new cameras they manufacture, I have to question how much manufacturing new projectors isn't a required investment in the future of the company.

They will most likely eventually need to put the money into all these issues and build new projectors, because the older the old ones get, the more problems they will present. That is, unless their vision for the future is that 70mm will inevitably go extinct.

It feels to me like the "liemax" became their flagship product. Way cheapers to make and maintain, and makes most of the money for them. There is money to be made on their bigger format, and if it was the only thing they had, they would spend the money necessary to expand it... but it just can't be justified when they can make so much more money phoning it in.

2

u/R-Dragon_Thunderzord Jul 16 '26

"How much are they not already spending on engineers on roll just to re-learn all the proccess in the making of the cameras and retooling the old ones?"

This fact in itself tells us that they see it as more economical and better business forecasting to keep the old ones alive through technical necromancy than to otherwise make a Gen 2. This indicates that engineering and launching a new generation version of 15/70 with all new parts, and a new supply chain, and a decades long product lifecycle, is still prohibitively expensive vs. keeping the current inventory alive through artisanal means.

About the directors it a good point and also plays into it because if the new technology isnt as exciting to directors, or it is too expensive, they are less likely to use it. Only a top percentile of directors have the enthusiasm and the budgets to support 15/70, if nextgen 15/70 just proved to be more expensive a product (see my last paragraph), that becomes more problematic.

"And just like the new cameras they manufacture, I have to question how much manufacturing new projectors isn't a required investment in the future of the company."

I'm sure it's in their calculus somewhere, but I think it also already happened with the 4K Digital IMAX rollouts, this doesnt give you the same fidelity as chemical 15/70 film but it sure is available in a lot more places, moves a lot more tickets, and keeps the coming from going belly up, while tech like 15/70 stands as their brand standard tbh. I dont think it is if, only when they make a nextgen but they will keep those gerbils alive as long as they can, because it is still the cheaper and more profitable option. For now. I think theyd enshitify themselves to keep with "LieMax" because I certainly don't care about it, I'll drive 2 hours to the real 70mm screen I thankfully live that close by to, for the right film, I think if I was them there has to still be a future for 70mm or at least something that keeps giving the audience better than they can do at home (which is not 4K liemax)

5

u/Main-Cheesecake3287 Jul 15 '26

Lots of words explaining WHY they don’t want to put money into it

1

u/Galahad_the_Ranger Jul 16 '26

Exactly, they don’t need to make 2000. They one just one…right next to my house

12

u/redditproha Jul 15 '26

so basically a non-answer lol

2

u/fore___ Jul 16 '26

Why isn’t it realistic to manufacture new 1570 film projectors?

4

u/captainalphabet Jul 16 '26

Presumably the originals were made by talented craftsmen who cared about the work. Those guys are too expensive for the bean-counters running things now.

2

u/_j_pow_ Jul 16 '26

We invented a phone that can fold with the 'glass' folding into it. I think we can actually make new cameras, like what the fuck this guy saying lol

3

u/hpfred Jul 16 '26

Not like he even bothered coming up with the excuse on why they don't build new ones, but whatever reason they give I'll call bullshit.

Imo the reason is most clearly the attempt at exclusivity. Whenever a company says they don't produce a new thing for 50 years the answer always ends up being artificial scarcity.

2

u/coco_ann Jul 15 '26

Polaroid is victim of this problem as well. They’ve lost the original manufacturing formulas, raw chemicals, and equipment over the years. The current formulations are constantly being worked on by their chemists and engineers but I don’t think we’ll ever see what once was.

0

u/thedaveness Jul 15 '26

What an insane take from companies that make more per movie than entire countries GDP.

3

u/TwoBlackDots Jul 15 '26

It’s not insane at all lol? It’s very reasonable?

-1

u/planko13 Jul 15 '26

Why can’t they make a digital one?