The nature and the DNA of IMAX has been redefined in the past years to shoot these huge blockbusters. But I think that it's not the sole purpose of IMAX to capture cars exploding in your face.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
I know many filmmakers, and shooting in IMAX is challenging. Filmmakers love the vividness and power of those big images.
There are films like 'Interstellar' where you cannot replicate the experience of seeing it in IMAX - it's an amazing film presented in a spectacular way. It really is an experience, like going to Disneyland, and you can't replicate that by watching home videos of going to Disneyland.
I wish I could create an IMAX film that would make my work accessible to a broader audience.
We have new tools that can give the audience a sense of not only being there, which is the key element in an IMAX film, but also seeing things in a way that they won't see on television or in feature films.
In a normal movie, the director controls what you look at. The shots don't last very long because you're getting the audience to look at specific things. An IMAX shot, on the other hand, can be twenty or thirty seconds long.
The IMAX cameras are big and heavy. And they're loud. So you have to be mindful of whether or not they're worth it; I'd say the image quality is incredible and the scale is amazing.
I think the first thing that I saw on IMAX was 'The Avengers.' The scope and the size of it are pretty neat, I will say that.
Movies like that aren't about the visual effects and explosions. They're human stories about family, about life, about death.
CGI has fully ruined car crashes. Because how can you be impressed with them now? When you watch them in the '70s, it was real cars, real metal, real blasts. They're really doing it and risking their lives. But I knew CGI was gonna start taking over.
With 'Toy Story,' which is a fantastic film but is essentially animation, you get to make all your decisions beforehand. 'Jumanji' is shot much like any other action film.
No opposing quotes found.