How Does IMAX Work?


These days it’s all about viewing on the
go, right? Whether you’re stuck in traffic watching
a movie playing in the SUV in front of you, or catching a flick on your phone, it seems
like if you can’t put it in your pocket or under your airplane seat, then it’s not
worth it. But come on. IMAX was derived from the words “maximum
image” and you might be tempted to call it Maxi, but that doesn’t begin to capture
the immersive experience of watching eye-popping 3-D docs or major Hollywood flicks in a theater
like this. So now I’m here with Greg Foster. He’s the president of IMAX Filmed Entertainment. This is the man who decides what gets shot
and what gets shown in IMAX. IMAX is about scope. IMAX is about transporting you into this immersive
world. A typical IMAX screen is 52 by 72 feet. Way larger than normal movie screens. It’s also placed closer to the audience
and is slightly curved. That means the images on screen completely
fill your field of vision. Add in stadium seating so you don’t have
to worry about big-dude-right-in-front-of-me syndrome and up to 1800 watts of digital surround
sound, and you are ready for a primo movie-going experience. When filmmakers make a movie, they’re not
usually making the movie for a small 40-inch television screen. They’re making the movie for, if they can,
they’re imagination, for a 70-foot-wide screen. But how do you fill that screen with a crystal-clear
image? David Keighley! Nar! What’s up, man? David is the head of post-production. And he is impervious to cold. Why is it so cold in here? Well, it’s to keep the film good for a long
period of time. So, David, I take it this is the first step
in converting a conventional film into an IMAX film, right? What we’re doing here, we have a 35-millimeter
scanner and a 65-millimeter scanner. And what we’re doing is taking the analog
film and putting in the digital domain. Making it the ones and zeroes. But basically, there’s a lens here and there’s
a light source and it’s scanning, you know, pixel for pixel as that moves along. This process involves scanning the whole movie
one single frame at a time. So, it takes a good long time and so… But for one movie, how long? Well, I mean, you know, we could be scanning
here literally for months sometimes. So where does it go? To a server? We have 100 terabytes of storage. That’s where it’s going now through fiber
optics into our storage area network to get ready for us to do the next process, which
will be dust busting… Yup, he just said dust busting. But it’s not like cleaning the chip crumbs
out of your couch. So, if there is dirt in the scan, then you
have to do what’s called dust bust and get that dirt out by a process by just looking
at every frame and saying, “Oh, there’s a piece of dirt.” And then you have a computer program to replace
those pixels. And then it goes to the next process, the
DMR, the digital re-mastering process up in Toronto. Then it gets sent back here for final quality
control and transformation into a film print or a digital projection format. Now you’ve gone through the DMR process. You’ve finalised the color corrections. And now what? Well now you go into a process where you,
you package it. You make the DCP. The DCP is the digital cinema package. Basically, the whole movie on this little
guy. The hard drive goes in just a little case
like this. Can I plug the hard drive in now? Yes, you can. We’ll just show you how to do that. Awesome. Here’s a USB cable. Yes. We’ll put it there. And that’s all there is to it. That’s it? Well that’s it, but you know what? It’s not instant. This is a two-and-three-quarter hour movie. And we’ll just plug it in there and it takes
about two-and-three-quarter hours to actually ingest it in the projector. Hey David, now that I’ve seen what goes
into IMAX movies and make them so awesome, I really want to go watch one. Okay, well, why don’t you go down to the
theater and I’ll power up the system and you’ll see IMAX for real. Yes! Thanks man. Thanks man. Thanks to the specialised technologies developed
at IMAX, we can all feel like we are in the movies. Hit me.

Understanding A Box Office Failure – What’s Wrong With Hollywood


Money. It seems to be the one word on the mind of
every film studio executive. Every year we see movies of every sort you
can imagine, all vying for your money. Some succeed in doing so, while others don’t
. It’s the nature of the beast, and there are many people working in Hollywood trying
to understand what makes a winner, and how to avoid a loser. But what I’m interested in, is what can make
a movie like Synecdoche, New York, a brilliant film, fail. Let’s go back in time a bit, the year is 2008. The American economy has found itself in a
slump, the worst slump the nation has seen since the Great Depression. People are losing their homes, their jobs,
their sense of security has been completely shaken. Here’s the top 10 highest grossing films of
that year. Three super hero movies, three mega franchises
new release, three animated kids movies, and a feel good musical. There’s a common thread between all of them. They all serve as escapism. Film can be many things for many people, for
some it’s just a form of mindless entertainment, for others a deep well for self exploration,
but escapism has been a part of all forms of storytelling since stories have been told. But it always seems to grow more popular as
the quality of life of the average citizen lessens. Look at the timing of the Superman comic books,
nestled between two World Wars, first published right on the precipice of World War 2. Escapism serves to distract us from the struggles
of every day life. So it’s fitting that during an economic downfall
we’d see so many escapist films perform so well. Movies are expensive. Even the “low budget” films typically
cost millions of dollars to produce. And with the economy where it is studios want
to make absolutely sure that they’re going to make their money back, and as we all know
the best way to do that is through ticket sales in theaters. It’s not uncommon for movies to make back
their entire budget in the opening weekend alone , so the typical strategy, certainly
with a bigger budget film, is to put it in a few thousand theaters, let it run for a
few months and pray that it does well. So where does a film like Synecdoche, New
York fit into all of this? Let’s go back to 2008. The film was distributed by Sony, who also
happened to be the distributor of one of the highest grossing films of that year, Hancock. The film was met with a mixed response but
what it didn’t achieve in acclaim it more than made up for in box office revenue. Domestically(in the United States), Hancock
pulled in $227,946,274. Synecdoche, New York? $3,083,538. Looking at those numbers alone, it’s easy
to see why Hollywood consistently pushes out these huge blockbusters, film is a business
after all, and businesses need to make money. And to make money you’ve got to spend some,
right? The more theaters the better. Take Hancock, during the height of its exposure
it was playing in nearly 4,000 theaters. Now given the fact that Synecdoche, New York
is an arthouse film, not a big budget super hero movie, we can’t expect it to get the
same sort of exposure, that would just be naive. But what would your guess be, half the exposure? Maybe, twenty percent? Try three. Three percent of the same exposure. Only playing in 119 theaters during its peak. And if that doesn’t hurt enough on its own,
here’s a shortlist of some of the films that saw a wider release that year. Including these lovely films Sony thought
you would rather see than Synecdoche, New York. Yes, it’s confusing. It’s weird, some might find it boring and
nonsensical. It’s experimental and just outright different
from almost anything else we see, it’s not a film for everyone, I get that. But neither is You Don’t Mess with the Zohan. But that’s the climate of cinema right now,
that’s the kind of movie that Hollywood thinks you’d rather see. And I don’t know about you, but that is something
I can’t just let slide. They’ll take one look at one number, total
box office gross, and are satisfied to speak for us, assuming we’d rather see some awful
Adam Sandler comedy than the genius work of Charlie Kaufman. These aren’t movies that will be cataloged
into the Library of Congress. They won’t be listed as one of the 1001 Movies
to See Before You Die or crack the IMDb top 250. They’ll exist in the collective conscious
for as long as they’re being advertised to us, and then are immediately forgotten. But maybe you’re still not satisfied, just
because Synecdoche, New York was in less theaters doesn’t mean it would have miraculously made
a ton of money just by getting greater exposure right? Wrong. Again, using Hancock as an example, after
doing some easy calculations you can find that the weekly average per theater for Hancock
was was $6,121. Synecdoche, New York? $4,173. Obviously that is a smaller number, but keep
in mind, Hancock had a $150 million budget to recoup, Synecdoche, New York only had $20
million to recover. Which means that if it had kept a consistent
theater average, and ran for say, 11 weeks(the same amount of time Hancock was in theaters)
even on just 500 screens, it would have made its budget back, and even a small profit,
imagine how it could have performed if you put it on 1,000 screens. What I think may be even more compelling data
to look at is the audience retention. Hancock opened 4th of July weekend to $62,603,879
domestically, which accounts for 27.5% of its total domestic gross. By comparison Synecdoche, New York had a much
smaller opening weekend($172,194), but that represents just 5.6% of its total domestic
gross. Clearly showing that while many people went
and saw Hancock opening weekend, the audience attendance died way down in the following
weeks. Seeing a 50% drop in ticket sales in its second
week alone. Meanwhile Synecdoche, New York didn’t see
a drop like that until it was 9 weeks into its run, and as a matter of fact it saw an
increase in sales in its 3rd, 4th, and 5th weeks. What this data illustrates to me is that if
this film was shown in more theaters, based on the performance it had in what theaters
it was shown in, that it could have seen exponential growth at the box office, which, at the end
of the day, is what these studios care about. They’re sabotaging these films before they
even have a chance, and they’re ignoring important data in favor of the final total, disregarding
the fact that you can’t possibly reach the same numbers without the same exposure. It’s just simple logic. Imagine you and a friend each recorded their
own album. Imagine their album gets into big retail chains
like Wal-Mart or Best Buy. Imagine seeing it on Spotify, iTunes, Amazon. Seeing constant ads pop up on YouTube or Facebook. Now imagine your album sitting on a shelf
in some mom and pop music shop. When you’re limiting exposure on such a huge
scale like that, sales are not an accurate reflection of the quality of art, nor a reflection
of audience demand. It’s a reflection of audience awareness. How many people pay to see a movie they know
nothing about? Hell, let’s assume they have heard of it,
let’s assume they really want to see it. Are they willing to drive a hundred miles
or more to do so? Look at the theater attendance for Synecdoche,
New York within that context and tell me the demand isn’t there. Studio executives just aren’t interested in
taking that risk. Because they can pretty safely assume that
you’ll pay to see their new big budget blockbuster, and very rarely are they wrong. But in their eyes it’s this shot in the dark
with something unique like Synecdoche, New York, and obviously there’s plenty of potential
for box office disasters with a film like that even with proper exposure. So how do you know which arthouse will make
money and which won’t? It’s pretty simple, the movie has to be good. But that’s precisely the problem, most of
the people in charge of getting movies made are business minded, not film minded so they
have no idea what makes a good movie. They could compare the scripts for The Dark
Knight and Batman Forever and genuinely not know which of the two was the better script,
or which would make a better film. Too often when they try and push something
arthouse, it’s just not a very good movie, and when it under-performs in theaters they
blame the fact that it’s an art-house film and that people just aren’t interested, when
in reality it’s just a bad movie. So what we get are movies that appeal to the
lowest common denominator, they play things as safely as possible and just make sure to
include a likeable cast and some decent special effects. Perhaps the most recent example that stands
out to me is The Force Awakens, which basically gives us a carbon copy of the plot of A New
Hope. Seriously, if you missed it the first time,
watch the two back to back and tell me it’s not almost identical in terms of story. Every Frame a Painting released a brilliant
video on this subject, discussing the Marvel films use of music, and how they consistently
choose what’s unobtrusive and safe over what’s memorable. It’s not to say all of these movies are bad,
just that they’re forgettable. And that’s a problem, not just for people
like me who are passionate about cinema, but for the industry itself. To shift the focus back to Synecdoche, New
York. The film was a commercial failure, and because
of its poor box office performance it took Charlie Kaufman seven years to get another
film made. “Because it lost a fortune, and because
it happened in 2008 when, you know, the economy tanked. And the movie business changed, completely
instantly, into superhero garbage.” “Did you need a break, or you just couldn’t
get somebody to-” “No I was desperate to get things made. I mean, it was a really difficult time for
me, and I’m still in the middle of it. I still can’t get things made. Nothing has changed. I mean, Anomalisa, the movie I just made only
got made because, you know, we Kickstarted it and then we found money from a guy who
wanted to finance it. There was no studio involved.” People want good films. We want to see movies that inspire us, fill
us with wonder. Because stories matter, they help us better
understand ourselves, they help broaden our world view, and open our minds to empathy. And when we see the same story regurgitated
over and over we’re not gaining anything new. Just another distraction amidst a sea of nothing
but. You’d be hard pressed to find a film analysis
of Hancock, or Twilight, or almost any of the other huge films released that year. But you’ll see something like Adam’s four
part series “The Genius of Synecdoche, New York” or my own “Looking Through Caden’s
Eyes” (wink wink, click click). Because that’s the kind of movie that will
stand the test of time. And that’s the kind of movie we need more
of. I’m not saying we should banish the blockbuster
altogether, in that same year we saw the release of The Dark Knight, Wall-E, and The Curious
Case of Benjamin Button, all of which had pretty sizable budgets and wouldn’t exist
in a world without blockbusters. But as long as almost every movie that gets
made has a huge budget, they’re going to have to make concessions to appeal to the biggest
audience possible to recover the cost of making the film. And the more people go and see those sorts
of movies, the less room there is for a film like Synecdoche, New York to exist in the
first place. So how can we change this? With the election fast approaching, voting
is on everyone’s mind. So next time you go to the movies, think of
it as a voting booth. Your wallet is your ballot. Even though it may not seem like it, the film
industry is a democracy. Studio executives may not listen to much,
but they do listen to money. So when the money rolls in and they consistently
see huge numbers for their blockbusters, they see that as your sign of approval to keep
them coming. Imagine fervently opposing Trump but donating
to his campaign, it just doesn’t make any sense. If you don’t want more sequels, remakes, or
reboots. If you’re sick of all of the style without
substance, stop donating to their cause. Be conscientious with your money at the theaters
just like you would with your vote, it quite literally is what decides what films get made. So next time you’re at the movies, maybe get
a ticket for something a little more off the beaten path, it’s the equivalent of supporting
your local businesses which is something I think we can all agree is a good thing, and
if you want to see more memorable and unique films get funded, understand that you have
to put your money where your mouth is. If you enjoyed this video and would like to
support this channel you can support me on Patreon, or you can like and share this video
to help more people see it. Any help is always greatly appreciated. If you’re interested in more industry discussion
my video on Death Proof discusses some of the film vs. digital debate going on, and
if you’re interested in more about Synecdoche, New York I think my most recent video may
be worth your time. And as always, thank you for watching, and
I’ll see you next time.

Hilary Duff Gets Engaged To Matthew Koma! | TMZ TV


HILARY DUFF GOT ENGAGED TO HER BABY DADDY WITH A GORGEOUS RING. THEY HAVE A SIX-MONTH-OLD BABY. IT’S A REALLY IMPERSONAL KISS. MALTHUS CLOSED. THAT’S MOUTH IS CLOSED. BUT IT’S APPROPRIATE FOR THE ‘GRAM. HARVEY: EVERYTHING IS SO SHALLOW. BUT YET WE SHOULD KEEP THE INSTAGRAM LIKES, BECAUSE SHE SHOULD KNOW SHE IS UGLY. [LAUGHTER] BUT WE DON’T WANT TO COMMENT ON HOW GREAT HER LIFE IS. HARVEY: THAT’S THE POINT, HOW GREAT HER LIFE IS. YOU CAN’T TELL THAT BY SOMEONE WHO IS GOOD-LOOKING. THAT’S THE PROBLEM WITH OUR SOCIETY. WE HAVE ALL THESE PRECONCEPTIONS THAT ARE FALSE. SOMETIMES YOU TALK OUT OF YOUR — HARVEY: I LEARNED OVER MY LIFE. I KNOW MORE. YOU KNOW FAR LESS. AND YOUR MIND IS TURNING TO MUSH SLOWLY. HARVEY: REALLY? NAME THE TWO PRESIDENTS WHO WERE FATHER AND SON. NAME THE PRIME MINISTER OF AUSTRALIA. CAN YOU? YOU ARE ASKING QUESTIONS YOU DON’T KNOW ANSWERS TO. WHO IS THE CURRENT? UM. EXACTLY. [LAUGHTER] HE’S NAMED SCOTT. YOU REFER TO HIM AS SCOTT?

Kaley Cuoco is Engaged to Karl Cook| Daily Celebrity News | Splash TV


Kaley Cuoco is engaged. That’s right, the Big Bang Theory star is
officially off the market, after saying to yes to a proposal from her boyfriend Karl
Cook. Funny thing is, Cuoco is Italian – and her
last name literally translates to “Cook”, so you can kind of make the argument that
it was meant to be. The professional equestrian made the announcement
on his Instagram page, showing a video of Kaley just moments after he popped the question,
and she looked like she was on cloud nine. She was so excited in fact that she actually
forgot to say Yes. Here’s a picture of the ring – a beautiful
pear-shaped diamond with an elegant band… and it’s quite a difference from the one
he got her just a few hours earlier while out shopping at Target. This will be Kaley’s second marriage. She finalized her divorce from tennis player
Ryan Sweeting back in May of 2016 after 21 months of marriage.

Chris Pratt Is Engaged! | TMZ Live


I CAN’T WAIT. IN A COUPLE MINUTES, I’M GOING TO TELL YOU ABOUT THE MOST RIDICULOUS CONVERSATION THAT HAVEN’T DURING THE BREAK. IT IS RELEVANT TO OUR NEXT STORY. HARVEY: BELIEVE ME, YOU WANT TO HEAR THIS. CHARLES: IT IS ABSURD. BUT THIS IS NOT ABSURD. CHRIS PRATT, A LOT OF PEOPLE SAW THIS COMING. OK, HARVEY SAW IT COMING. CHRIS PRATT AND KATHERINE SCHWARZENEGGER ARE ENGAGED TO BE MARRIED. THAT WILL MEAN THERE WILL BE AN ADDITION TO THE KENNEDY CLAN. HARVEY: I SAID THERE IS A NEW KENNEDY. THERE IS GOING TO BE. CHARLES: KATHERINE’S MOTHER IS MARIA SHRIVER, EUNICE SHRIVER’S DAUGHTER, THE SISTER OF JOHN F. KENNEDY, ROBERT KENNEDY, AND TED KENNEDY. HARVEY: SO THERE.>>THE CLAM BAKES AT HYANNISPORT ARE GOING TO BE EVEN MORE STAR-STUDDED. HARVEY: BY THE WAY, THEY DIDN’T MEET UNTIL JUNE.>>THEY’VE ONLY BEEN TOGETHER ABOUT SEVEN OR EIGHT MONTHS. THEY MOVED PRETTY QUICKLY. CHARLES: DURING THAT 7, 8 MONTHS, CHRIS PRATT WAS HAMMERING OUT HIS DIVORCE.>>THEY ANNOUNCED IT AT THE END OF 2017, BUT IT DIDN’T BECOME OFFICIAL UNTIL THE END OF LAST YEAR. HARVEY: THIS WAS SUPERCHARGED FOR SURE. I LOVE THIS BECAUSE I DON’T KNOW HER WELL. I’VE MET HER A COUPLE TIMES. SHE IS FANTASTIC. SHE IS FANTASTIC. THIS IS GREAT. THIS REALLY IS GREAT. TWO REALLY FAMOUS PEOPLE, TWO REALLY — HER FAMILY IS ABOUT AS FAMOUS AS IT GETS WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE LINEAGE. CHARLES: DEFINITELY. HARVEY: AND IT IS NOT LIKE THIS UNEVEN THING. FANTASTIC.>>ALSO IT IS GREAT THAT ANNA FARIS SEEMS TO BE SUPPORTED AS WELL. SHE COMMENTED ON THE INSTAGRAM SAYING HOW HAPPY SHE WAS FOR THEM. IT IS REALLY GREAT, SEEMS LIKE THEY ARE GOING TO BE A GREAT BLENDED FAMILY. HARVEY: I DID A PODCAST OVER THE WEEKEND AND WE WERE TALKING ABOUT DIVORCE. TO ME, THERE ARE TWO LEVELS OF DIVORCE, IN THE LEGAL SENSE, AND IN TERMS OF THE STATE OF MIND. A LOT OF PEOPLE NEVER GET OVER THE STATE OF MIND AND THEY ARE ALWAYS HARBORING BITTERNESS. THEY NEVER DID. IT IS REALLY COOL THAT THIS HAPPENED.>>HI, MY NAME IS BERNITA JONES FROM TEXAS, AND I’M CALLING ABOUT CHRIS PRATT. FIRST OF ALL, I THINK THEY ARE A LOVELY COUPLE AND IT IS GOING TO BE GREAT, BUT I WANT HIM TO PUMP HIS BRAKES JUST A LITTLE BIT. SHE’S 29, VERY BEAUTIFUL, AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE. HE SAID THAT ANNA FARIS WAS LOVE AT FIRST SIGHT. IN APRIL, HE SAID DIVORCE SUCKS. I WOULD HATE FOR HIS HEART TO BE BROKEN AGAIN. THEY ARE A LOVELY COUPLE. THEY BOTH HAVE CHRISTIANITY AND SPIRITUALITY TOGETHER. UNLIKE ANNA FARIS, SHE SAID SHE WANTED THE TRADITIONAL FAMILY. DOESN’T WORK. CHARLES: WOW.