IMAX is DOOM.

[Kaizar]

Yakuzaice said:

Kaizar said:

VitroBahllee said:
He's not only posting a four month old article, he's posting it only because he doesn't understand why people would say Nintendo are in trouble because of a stock drop and not make a big deal about Imax's stock. Probably, buddy, because you don't hang out in Cinema Business web forums.

I'm posting this because a lot of theaters have their own version of IMAX, but with 4K projectors, which is better then 2K projectors that are still use in a lot of IMAX screenings.

Plus I always see people paying to see 2D & 3D, but IMAX seems to not have that many people care, especially 2D IMAX. It just seems like IMAX screenings always make the least percentage of paid screenings for a movie, at least for 2D movies anyways.

3D manages to get over 30% to over 80% of the paid screenings in America, but IMAX has been around with pure praise and can't even hope for those numbers. To add insult to injury, the international market seems to get 88% of its Box Office revenue from pure 3D screenings of movies that have a 3D screening.

You got to admit, sells wise, IMAX never seems to catch on. I mean people still have to pay extra for 3D at certain American theaters like AMC ($4 extra for 3D). And international theaters all still charge extra as far as I know.

I'm curious how much better 3D will do in theaters now that a lot of theaters charge the same for both 2D & 3D in America since somewhere from August to December 2013 (can't pinpoint exactly when it took into effect). I wonder if those theaters will even have the cashiers mention that the 3D screenings now cost the same as 2D screenings.

Not sure why you would expect IMAX to be able to outgross traditional theaters.  As of 2009 there were almost 39k screens at 5.6k theaters in the US alone.  In comparison there are only 767 IMAX theaters worldwide, and I'd imagine they don't average ~7 screens per theater.  Probably closer to 1.  A lot of them are at museums as well so they are rarely if ever showing normal commercial films.

As for why there are so few, the cost to make a theater 3D capable is pretty insiginificant compared to building a proper IMAX theater.

Not sure what theaters have actually gone through with making 2D and 3D the same price, but it doesn't seem to be any near me.  AMC, Regal, Cinemark, and Alamo Drafthouse all charge more for 3D.

I'm also still not sure how any of that is a reason to post a three and a half month old article about IMAX's stock price though.

Good point.

There are a lot of theaters with their own version of IMAX (like Rave XTREME & Cinemark XD), but I'm not sure if those sells get counted seperately from normal size cinema screenings without advance sound nor seating.

Rave Theaters seems to charge the same, and I even ask the people who work their if they reduced the price of 3D screenings to match 2D screenings and they said yes (I asked 3 employees). I was surprise when I was paying less to see The Hobbit 2 in 3D, then I did the year before for The Hobbit 1 in 3D (before 6pm for each of them).

Anyways all American cinemas were suppose to do it in 2013, but this seems like one of those things that they say they will do at this date, but don't do it until 1 year after they said they would. (like Los Angeles Subways locking the gates to enter the Subway for a ride. It was suppose to be August 2012, but didn't happen til August 2013)

So Cinemark is also still charging more for 3D too?