Support NeoGAF

[Represent.]

Christopher Nolan's 'The Odyssey' will be the first blockbuster shot entirely on IMAX cameras

Christopher Nolan's The Odyssey, the Oppenheimer director's epic take on the classic Greek myth, will shoot entirely on Imax cameras, a first for a commercial feature.

Nolan is a fan of the big-screen format, which he's used on Dunkirk, Interstellar, the Dark Knight movies, and Tenet, as well as extensively on Oppenheimer. But, until now, shooting an entire feature film on the famously big, loud and unwieldy Imax cameras, was unworkable.

Until now.

After the success of Oppenheimer, which earned more than $190 million on Imax screens, some 20 percent of its total gross, Nolan challenged the company to improve its cameras, to make them lighter and quieter, and to solve issues with scanning and processing the cameras' 70 mm film stock, to allow him to easily watch dailies as he shot.

"Chris called me up and said If you can figure out how to solve the problems, will make [Odyssey] 100 percent in IMAX. And that's what we're doing," said Imax CEO Rich Gelfond, speaking at the company's annual press lunch in Cannes on Thursday. "He forced us to rethink that side of our business, our film recorders, our film cameras."

The new Imax cameras are reportedly 30 percent quieter — so those infamous muffled dialogue scenes in Nolan films could be a thing of the past — and substantially lighter. Gelfond said new film scanning and processing techniques will allow a faster turnaround for dailies.

The new cameras are reserved for Nolan for now, but after he wraps The Odyssey, Imax will begin renting them out to other directors.

Christopher Nolan’s ‘Odyssey’ Will Be the First Blockbuster Shot Entirely on Imax Cameras

After 'Oppenheimer,' the big-screen company designed new cameras and production tech to allow Nolan to film in Imax end-to-end in his upcoming epic, and not just for select sequences.

www.hollywoodreporter.com

This is a fucking gamechanger .

If it is anywhere near as successful as Oppenheimer, every big shot director and studio will follow suit.

Excellent news

 

[The Cockatrice]

Does that mean non-imax theaters/cinemas won't be able to screen it because theres a lot of those.

 

[SlimySnake]

Does that mean non-imax theaters/cinemas won't be able to screen it because theres a lot of those.

it will just be cropped. zoomed in.

 

[Aesius]

Nolan/Villeneuve films and IMAX are the only things keeping the movie-going experience alive for me.

 

[AJUMP23]

If it is anywhere near as successful as Oppenheimer, every big shot director and studio will follow suit.

Excellent news

I disagree it will be cost prohibitive to do it. IMAX is expensive.

 

[Represent.]

I disagree it will be cost prohibitive to do it. IMAX is expensive.

But the tickets are also double the price so it can make back money quicker

either way, i hope im right for my own viewing experience, i dont care about their wallets lol

 

[mopspear]

I want all movies and TV shows to be shot in 16:9 for the rest of time or until we all decide on a new aspect ratio.

 

[AJUMP23]

But the tickets are also double the price so it can make back money quicker

either way, i hope im right for my own viewing experience, i dont care about their wallets lol

I am glad you don't care because you espoused poor economic theory. If doubling prices brought in more money Nintendo would be charging 1000 for the Switch 2. And the idea of Margins would not exist.

I like IMAX but it is not a cost effective way for most films.

 

[ResilientBanana]

it will just be cropped. zoomed in.

so we're back to 4:3?

 

[kruis]

it will just be cropped. zoomed in.

The irony is that this is a move from 16:9 widescreen back to 4:3 full screen but now we call it IMAX. Movie projection has gone full circle.

 

[kruis]

so we're back to 4:3?

Ah, great minds think alike.

 

[I collect VHS tapes]

all his movies fucking suck and they're getting worse

 

[jason10mm]

I want all movies and TV shows to be shot in 16:9 for the rest of time or until we all decide on a new aspect ratio.

Oh man, couldn't disagree with this more. 16:9 is fine for TV and maybe interior drama/comedy type stuff, but that wiiiiiddeeeeee cinemascope is CRITICAL for landscape and sweeping epic shots. Westerns, fantasy, space sci-fi, they all need that extra width to hit full visual impact.

IMAX at 4:3 is gonna be hard to shoot for an entire film that can then be cropped for 90% of the other theaters, even those "baby imax" screens. The dynamic shifting works well if the transitions are hidden well and the audience doesn't even notice, they just feel it in their guts. Plus those cameras are still really big I think so that will hopefully keep shaky cam to a minimum, not that Nolan uses that crutch very often.

I actually appreciate old 4:3 a lot now as well, the characters are front and center, well framed, and the set design (which has gone bananas these days) doesn't add a lot of visual clutter. Granted, there isn't much made today like old TV (multi-cam sitcoms, for example) so perhaps it doesn't matter.

 

[Stitch]

Shot entirely on IMAX film cameras.

Lots of movies have been shot entirely on IMAX cameras, but digitally.

 

[SlimySnake]

so we're back to 4:3?

Yes, but it looks amazing if the director shoots for it like snyder did with justice league.

 

[SlimySnake]

The irony is that this is a move from 16:9 widescreen back to 4:3 full screen but now we call it IMAX. Movie projection has gone full circle.

Difference is that 4:3 was cropped from 16:9 or 21:9 film reels. So you wouldnt get the entire picture.

This time around the 16:9 is cropped from 4:3. So you are not getting the entire picture. At least in movie theaters. On your tv, you can get very close to the IMAX aspect ratio. you will just have to put up with black bars which are not noticeable on OLEDs in a dark room.

You can watch BvS and Justice League on HBO max or if you own the digital version on your tv and see if you like it. I thought it was great but it did take me some time to get used to it. Thankfully, Justice league was 4 hours. Dune's digital version isnt presented in a 4:3 format and i think its worse for it.

 

[jason10mm]

Yes, but it looks amazing if the director shoots for it like snyder did with justice league.

If the cinema screen is floor to ceiling and wall to wall then these shots are epic in this format. Snyder makes good use of the extra vertical space in particular.

But I think a wider format and proper framing would do almost as well. And having a square only in the center of the screen with a lot of extra dead space on the sides is not worth the trade off IMHO.

In these days of tons of CGI it means extra rendering and cost that is only appreciated by 10% of the audience or it's stuff 90% get to see that's cut for the folks paying for the "premium" experience.

I've never been to one of those "enhanced experience" theaters where they have screens on the sides, how is the quality of that stuff? Gotta be pricey to do that for so few screens.

 

[kruis]

Difference is that 4:3 was cropped from 16:9 or 21:9 film reels. So you wouldnt get the entire picture.

This time around the 16:9 is cropped from 4:3. So you are not getting the entire picture. At least in movie theaters. On your tv, you can get very close to the IMAX aspect ratio. you will just have to put up with black bars which are not noticeable on OLEDs in a dark room.

You can watch BvS and Justice League on HBO max or if you own the digital version on your tv and see if you like it. I thought it was great but it did take me some time to get used to it. Thankfully, Justice league was 4 hours. Dune's digital version isnt presented in a 4:3 format and i think its worse for it.

4:3 was the default aspect ration for movies for four decades until TV started becoming so popular in the early 1950ies that Hollywood introduced movies widescreen aspect ratios to lure people back to the cinema.

 

[jason10mm]

4:3 was the default aspect ration for movies for four decades until TV started becoming so popular in the early 1950ies that Hollywood introduced movies widescreen aspect ratios to lure people back to the cinema.

Sure, cinema has to adapt to overcome home viewing. Which is why i support cinemas that have nice chairs, good beer/food, quiet screenings when appropriate, and screens/sopund systems kept up to date.

Definitely need filmmakers that can exploit it though, the typical streamer trash movie would still look like bland dogshit on the big screen.

 

[kruis]

I actually appreciate old 4:3 a lot now as well, the characters are front and center, well framed, and the set design (which has gone bananas these days) doesn't add a lot of visual clutter. Granted, there isn't much made today like old TV (multi-cam sitcoms, for example) so perhaps it doesn't matter.

Many movies were actually shot for two aspect ratios at once: widescreen (for cinemas) and open matte (for tv showings).

The open matte version has more image information at the top and bottom of the screen. I think it's a damn shame that movie studios only release the widescreen version, especially for 1950ies movies made at a time when not all cinemas were able to project widescreen movies. The movie shown in the 4:3 AR was the version most people probably saw at that time, not the widescreen release that often looks cropped compared to the better staged 4:3 release.

 

[Miyazaki’s Slave]

Geoff Keighley keeps winning.

(cheap shot at Geoff based on his parents accomplishments)

 

[SJRB]

Can't wait to see this face on a 59 by 79 feet screen.

 

[DKehoe]

Makes sense that he would do this eventually. I'll need to try and see it that way when it comes out.

 

[mopspear]

Oh man, couldn't disagree with this more. 16:9 is fine for TV and maybe interior drama/comedy type stuff, but that wiiiiiddeeeeee cinemascope is CRITICAL for landscape and sweeping epic shots. Westerns, fantasy, space sci-fi, they all need that extra width to hit full visual impact.

IMAX at 4:3 is gonna be hard to shoot for an entire film that can then be cropped for 90% of the other theaters, even those "baby imax" screens. The dynamic shifting works well if the transitions are hidden well and the audience doesn't even notice, they just feel it in their guts. Plus those cameras are still really big I think so that will hopefully keep shaky cam to a minimum, not that Nolan uses that crutch very often.

I actually appreciate old 4:3 a lot now as well, the characters are front and center, well framed, and the set design (which has gone bananas these days) doesn't add a lot of visual clutter. Granted, there isn't much made today like old TV (multi-cam sitcoms, for example) so perhaps it doesn't matter.

I don't actually know if I like 16:9 but if that's going to be the TV aspect ratio, then that's how these movies are going to be experienced for a long time after their theatrical run. I can always just zoom in at home now that I mention it... as long as no one's head gets cut off.

 

[E-Cat]

Nolan/Villeneuve films and IMAX are the only things keeping the movie-going experience alive for me.

Avatar, too, for me. They are technically competent movies

 

[jason10mm]

Many movies were actually shot for two aspect ratios at once: widescreen (for cinemas) and open matte (for tv showings).

The open matte version has more image information at the top and bottom of the screen. I think it's a damn shame that movie studios only release the widescreen version, especially for 1950ies movies made at a time when not all cinemas were able to project widescreen movies. The movie shown in the 4:3 AR was the version most people probably saw at that time, not the widescreen release that often looks cropped compared to the better staged 4:3 release.

I fondly remember open-matte releases as that's where the boom mics and stage hands show up and, on special occasions, some nudity not meant for the theatrical framing but now included in the home release