Would you have wanted a longer film, at the expense of IMAX?
Posted: February 8th, 2013, 7:30 pm
Would you?
It's no secret a lot of TDKR was cut for the IMAX time limitation. Another factor is that IMAX is really only worth it in theaters, as on BluRay it just provides frequent formatting differences which could be jarring.
On the other hand, the film is plenty long as it is. Does more of it really need to be shown? And of course, IMAX in theaters was pretty spectacular.
Would you have liked a film up to 20 minutes longer, but with no IMAX?
Personally, I wouldn't. This movie was one of the best theater experiences I've had, and IMAX was one of the reasons. It was a perfect cinematic experience for me. I also don't really think more content needed to be added to film, not enough anyway to remove such an impressive work of visual art.
It's no secret a lot of TDKR was cut for the IMAX time limitation. Another factor is that IMAX is really only worth it in theaters, as on BluRay it just provides frequent formatting differences which could be jarring.
On the other hand, the film is plenty long as it is. Does more of it really need to be shown? And of course, IMAX in theaters was pretty spectacular.
Would you have liked a film up to 20 minutes longer, but with no IMAX?
Personally, I wouldn't. This movie was one of the best theater experiences I've had, and IMAX was one of the reasons. It was a perfect cinematic experience for me. I also don't really think more content needed to be added to film, not enough anyway to remove such an impressive work of visual art.