Movies Is IMAX anti-art?

[OsirisX]

Personally, I don't think so, Patrick.

So if you're on twitter you may have seen some of the discourse surrounding The Odyssey. There seems to be an alarming amount of people that think it's anti art, or somehow unfair that the movie was shot for IMAX when not every theater is IMAX (Let alone, idk, your fucking television set at home)

So what's your take? Personally I think the notion that artists should make their art accessible, rather than in the format they wish to is a much more anit-art sentiment. I also feel that while watching a movie in full IMAX may be pretty cool, there is also a FOMO factor attached to it that is at the root of this discussion.

 

[electro56]

no, but it is an overpriced gimmick though

 

[RageBurner]

Kind of incredible how places like Twitter are quick to generate polarizing, triggering talking points; as if people didn't already hate each other enough.

Can't say if it is anti-art, per se - the way I see it, anti-art is destroying movies, pictures, books, games and any other medium through which it can manifest. Anything else is just a choice.

 

[Psychonara]

Seriously, who cares?

 

[Vexicrypt]

So if you're on twitter

See, that's the actual problem here.

 

[Ikagura]

My issue is the polar opposite: people claiming that "if you don't watch the movie the way the director intended then you haven't actually properly seen it" (or not appreciate the art at the right value).

Then if the movie came out decades before we were born, that the movie had a limited release or was only released in VoD in your region then it means you're de facto a person that had an inferior version therefore have an invalid opinion about a movie?

I don't need to watch Avatar the Way of Water in 4DX with water being squirted at you when there's a scene with water to be fully immersed or actually enjoying the movie.

In fact: I think that if you need to watch under specific conditions it means the movie has a fundamental flaw and cannot be good on its own...

no, but it is an overpriced gimmick though

I think most modern cinemas are trying to sell their gimmick because people nowadays would either buy the blu-ray or watch them in VoD than having to physically move to a place with people potentially ruining the experience for you.

So what's your take? Personally I think the notion that artists should make their art accessible, rather than in the format they wish to is a much more anit-art sentiment. I also feel that while watching a movie in full IMAX may be pretty cool, there is also a FOMO factor attached to it that is at the root of this discussion.

And I also think that a movie director saying "watch this movie in xxxx format or else you aren't actually seeing that movie properly" is basically a red flag to me and almost feels like he made a deal with cinema brands.

 

[contrail_]

I don't think this movie's main problems are related to imax.
That being said, I was coerced into watching Openheimer back when it came out, but I didn't see it in imax. The movie looked pretty lackluster, which came as a surprise to me at the time, since everyone was harping on about its pleasant visuals. I still think it was all just viral marketing, but who knows, maybe it does look stunning in imax.
I mean, I saw the second part of Dune in imax, but as far as I'm concerned it just made the female lead's face look jarringly big...

 

[gwardojones]

Haven't seen anything in iMAX, so can't really comment on it. But I can say Christopher Nolan's refusal to remix the audio of his movies for home release is really irritating. I couldn't understand a god dang thing said in TeneT.

 

[Morgan Katarn]

No im not on twitter I don´t hate my self that much to mingle with people that are dumber than a box of fish sticks.
I mean according to twitter Mathematics is fascistic. Well ofc it is if you to R word to understand it.


Anyway no Imax is not Anti-art it is a FUCKING projection systems that have the capacity to show movies on larger screens and with better quality than regular film projection systems.

So not sure how it can even be anti-art it´s a fucking system to deliver art on bigger screens and with better quality.

It would be like me saying Microwave are anti-food because it´s a thing designed deliver prepared food faster than regular oven.

 

[Ikagura]

So not sure how it can even be anti-art it´s a fucking system to deliver art on bigger screens and with better quality.

It still makes me wonder if remastering movies for a bigger screen cannot end up making it worse as you could more easily notice imperfections and tricks that you wouldn't have on the original release and older screens. This has always been the challenge when you use cables that can hardly get noticed when they're now obvious.

It would be like me saying Microwave are anti-food because it´s a thing designed deliver prepared food faster than regular oven.

Now the question is mostly about the nutritional value of the food usually cooked in them and some dishes are meant to be slowly cooked (then again in non microwave cooking you can still accidentally produce burnt food that is carcinogenic).

But that's another debate.

 

[zerodayhx]

i think whats happening is people are mistaking the odyssey with odysseus which is an ai generated slop movie

 

[ArchienineZXAdventArchienineZXAdvent's icon]

Imax is only a expensive format

 

[beefbowl]

"People" on twitter seem to be mixing anti-art and anti-consumer in this situation. Directors can film their movie in any format they want, and edit it however they want. That's called artistic freedom, they may made a movie entirely in 4:3 because it aligns with their artistic vision. But they are making movies to make money and companies want money, so they have to be widely accessible. Nolan's just making movies to get money, this whole IMAX thing is just an attempt to be perceived artsy and a higher-form than other blockbusters.

Either way, Nolan sucks.

 

[Ikagura]

"People" on twitter seem to be mixing anti-art and anti-consumer in this situation. Directors can film their movie in any format they want, and edit it however they want. That's called artistic freedom, they may made a movie entirely in 4:3 because it aligns with their artistic vision. But they are making movies to make money and companies want money, so they have to be widely accessible. Nolan's just making movies to get money, this whole IMAX thing is just an attempt to be perceived artsy and a higher-form than other blockbusters.

Either way, Nolan sucks.

Now I agree about the anti consumer aspect.

 

[bombatomba77]

"People" on twitter seem to be mixing anti-art and anti-consumer in this situation. Directors can film their movie in any format they want, and edit it however they want. That's called artistic freedom, they may made a movie entirely in 4:3 because it aligns with their artistic vision. But they are making movies to make money and companies want money, so they have to be widely accessible. Nolan's just making movies to get money, this whole IMAX thing is just an attempt to be perceived artsy and a higher-form than other blockbusters.

Either way, Nolan sucks.

I agree in that I think people (especially people on twitter and reddit) LOVE to get bent out of shape about something (or anything). Were these same people getting all bunched up when the third season of Twin Peaks was released only on Showtime? Probably. Yet that is what Lynch wanted and Showtime was willing to foot the bill, so for better or worse we have Twin Peaks season 3.

Also I think the whole arguement about people making art is a bit of a slippery slope. Once that happens we have to start considering things like Return of the Jedi, which was made to satisfy Lucas' artistic vision, but was also (subjectively) made to sell merchanidise.