What other films is Disney gonna release on IMAX?

[Prince Adam]

I think that all of Disney's animated features should be re-released in theatres (and not just IMAX-they'd make more money in regular theatres) only to be followed by a 2-Disc DVD Set about a year later. ANd that my friends, would be the Walt Disney Definitive Collection

[michelle]

how many IMAX theatres are there anyway?

[MickeyMouseboy]

I have one where i live like 8 miles from me.

[Just Myself]

Hey...

When did Aladdin come out in IMAX? and when is Mermaid coming out? Help?

[Wonderlicious]

Hey...

When did Aladdin come out in IMAX? and when is Mermaid coming out? Help?

Sad to say, they were both cancelled. I would have loved to see Little Mermaid all big, but nevermind.

[Just Myself]

I firgured that Aladdin didn't come out, and could have geussed Mermaid wouldn't see the giant screen, whatwith it being rerelease 7 years ago.

[Mushu2083]

Disney stopped doing the IMAX re-releases because Beauty and the Beast and Lion King didn't make that much money in re-released. I'd love to see Treasure Planet in Imax.

[azul017]

Given that The Little Mermaid made quite a profit when it was re-released in theaters on November 1997, but that was a two-week run. In any case, if Disney has truly given up on re-releasing their animated classics, I think they should try once more by re-releasing The Little Mermaid in IMAX and regular theaters simultaneously, like what the WB did for the theatrical release of Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban.

And given that I am a huge TLM fan, I would definitely shell out the cash for two IMAX showings. That movie, and a small amount of other Disney titles, practically deserves to be seen on the largest screen possible.

[deathie mouse]

Well some problems with making a standart film into an IMAX release are:

Imax prints, by cellulloid material alone, cost 8 times what a 35mm print costs. That's not counting that 35mm prints are done in large quatities, and not all labs are equiped to handle 70mm wide film, so they cost even more much more to proccess than 8x, making IMAX prints true "limited" editions, so it may not be cost effective to do an IMAX release

As Luke mentioned in this post some 35mm films blown up straight might not take kindly being enlarged up to 11x times their original designed size (as would be the case, for example, of The Little Mermaid, which most of it wasn't done in the CAPS format)

IMAX prints have an image area roughly 50mm x 70mm, while Litle Mermaid's negative was (@1.75) 12mm x 21mm (or if you included the whole extra image area of the camera aperture around it till it reached the rightmost sprocket and the left sound area (and present it 1.66), 13mm x 22mm)
so an IMAX film, at the sizes/seating distances presented wouldnt reach its potential (woudn't look totally sharp) till it had a 4000 x 6000 pixel resolution source or maybe even more!

That may be one of the reasons IMAX releases of the CAPS features get redrawn/re-rendered: to increase the detail cus in the IMAX screen they really need it (For curent home video formats, which is around 400-500 pixels, that new detail is mainly redundant )

Having said that, and with today's (or tomorrow's ) technology, it may be posible to scan the ORIGINAL negatives (which have the most detail and the least grain) and digitally apply NON-DESTRUCTIVE grain removal (if it's the bad kind, your detail gets wiped out with the grain) and advanced upsampling and judicious sharpening and create a QUASI-4000 x 6000 image and laser burn that into an IMAX print which would give the finest presentation possible of the movie so it wouldn't look worse that the 35mm version but might look the best ever and probably with more edge sharpness and steadier image. (Cus the projectors vibrations and the lens aberrations of the projector's AND blow-up lenses are reduced or eliminated, and you're making a laser positive, in a sense, of the fully extracted original negative data)


But hey add up that to the cost and you see why we no get that much IMAXES


azul017 wrote:
That movie, and a small amount of other Disney titles, practically deserves to be seen on the largest screen possible.



YES!


______________________
I want 2000 x 5600 pixel 25:9 DVI displays

[KevinTRod]

Disney stopped doing the IMAX re-releases because Beauty and the Beast and Lion King didn't make that much money in re-released. I'd love to see Treasure Planet in Imax.

Actually "Beauty & The Beast" made over $25 million and "The Lion King" made over $14 million (and Disney severly cut back on advertising for that film). Considering how many IMAX's were out at the time, that is pretty good money (and the fact that Disney only spent a several hundred thousand dollars restoring the films). But judging by the fact that we now have "Spider-Man 2," "Harry Potter," "Star Wars," and coming soon "The Polar Express" on IMAX, well I guess you can't say there isn't any money to be made in IMAX. If Disney wants to do this properly they should have the movie exclusive to IMAX for about 3 months, and THEN include the movie in a regular theatrical run! But to expect more then $20 million on an IMAX re-release exclusive (which included a good 30 or so IMAX'S) was probably more wishful thinking then anything. Of course now there are twice as many IMAX's now then there were when "The Lion King" came out, so I'm actually willing to bet that "Aladdin" and "The Little Mermaid" would have done good business. Shame that we'll never know.