Such a weird take imo, you can argue the same thing about normal movie theaters, “I can’t afford to see the movie in a theater how dare they release it in a theater” an artist is going to make their art however they see fit it’s not up to the artist to determine how that art is distributed, do we get angry at da Vinci for only painting one Mona Lisa that I have to fly to Paris to see instead of painting multiple so more ppl can see it? No, so why treat Nolan differently

1

Comment Deleted

0

It’s called an analogy, Nolan made his art the way he wanted and you’re still capable of seeing a portion of it just like how da Vinci made his art the way he wanted and you can see portions of it from pics etc but if you want the full experience you gotta pay more to see the real thing just like the odyssey you gotta pay more to see the full thing it’s very similar

1

Comment Deleted

0

So you want Nolan to create not the best way he can just to appease people who can’t afford to see it that way

0

Comment Deleted

0

Basically what you’re saying

-1

Anonymous OP 9w

“Oh no I can’t afford the filet at the steak restaurant, therefore they shouldn’t sell the filet” “oh no there’s better graphics on the PS5 compared to my PS4 for the same game therefore they shouldn’t sell a PS5”

-1

Comment Deleted

0

And poor ppl won’t have an orgy with you

-1

Comment Deleted

0

Comment Deleted

0

i think ultimately while it is a cool format the whole idea of the 70mm imax is to create artificial exclusivity to prop up an industry that started suffering after covid. telling someone they didn't experience a movie the "right way" is pretentious and dumb

3

The film type isnt required to be shown in select theater types. It can be shown anywhere. They could absolutely play it in the aspect ratio it was shot in in normal theaters, it just wouldn’t look as good because they’d have to “shrink” it and it wouldn’t take up the entire screen. I don’t think it’s pretentious either. It’s antiquated technology, and his use of it is almost single handedly reviving it, and it will only become more widespread. It’s keeping a dying craft alive, and keeping …

2

Anonymous #3 9w

Certain craftsman employed

1

Anonymous #3 9w

It’s also not making it worse for poor people. It’s just shot in a way that has the potential of being shown in better way using exclusive tech. The version in normal theaters doesn’t look worse than any other movie. It’s like saying that a movie that’s mixed in Dolby special is made worse for poor people when it plays in normal theaters. Or like saying that recording a concert and posting it is making it worse for poor people because they couldn’t be there in person. Or that when they used …

1

Anonymous #3 9w

… to pan and scan movies for tv’s was making it worse for poor people

1

Actually poor people are more likely to spend frivolously so chances are lots of them saw it the way it was intended. Rich people often pinch pennies on things like this.

0

people just now discovering what imax is after decades is so funny you have probably watched dozens of movies in your house that were shot for imax and you had no idea and liked the movie all the same, it’s mostly a gimmick it doesn’t make that big a difference in the grand scheme of the movies quality

5

Saying “pretentious” should be a bannable offense in film forums. Never heard that word being used in a way that wasn’t incorrect and totally braindead.

3