RE: IMAX question (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Movie Musings



Message

Spaldron -> RE: IMAX question (31/12/2011 4:47:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978


I'm a huge fan of film, and I love a good 35mm or 70mm presentation. However these days they are rare outside of specialist venues. 2k digital is much better than a 35mm release print in most cases.



They're filming The Hobbit in 4k at 48fps which will (I'm told) be screened in IMAX Digital 3D. I'm really intrigued as to how this will look and if maybe this will be the way forward considering all these IMAX digital screens popping up everywhere.



Dpp1978 -> RE: IMAX question (31/12/2011 5:42:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Spaldron

They're filming The Hobbit in 4k at 48fps which will (I'm told) be screened in IMAX Digital 3D. I'm really intrigued as to how this will look and if maybe this will be the way forward considering all these IMAX digital screens popping up everywhere.


I'm more intrigued by the frame rate increase over the resolution increase. There are those who believe 2k at 48fps will provide greater image fidelity than 4k at 24fps. Others aren't convinced because of the effect the increased frame rate has on the motion characteristics of the film.

One of the key differentials between the "film look" and the "video look" is the difference in frame rate. A faster frame rate gives a hyper-real appearance which some find distracting. There is less motion blur as the shutter is open for a shorter time. Some call it the "soap opera look" and it is similar to the frame interpolation settings on many TVs. I am sensitive to this and don't like it. A high frame rate is great for sport but it feels wrong for films.

I know Peter Jackson has set the shutter to 270 degrees as opposed to the standard 180 which according to him mitigates the issue. I have no reason to doubt his opinion and look forward to seeing the fruits of his labour.

Whichever way you look at it, and despite the misleading use of the IMAX brand, it is a good time to go to the cinema. It seems the operators are beginning to realise there is a market for high quality presentations and are catering to it.



Spaldron -> RE: IMAX question (31/12/2011 5:59:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978

quote:

ORIGINAL: Spaldron

They're filming The Hobbit in 4k at 48fps which will (I'm told) be screened in IMAX Digital 3D. I'm really intrigued as to how this will look and if maybe this will be the way forward considering all these IMAX digital screens popping up everywhere.


I'm more intrigued by the frame rate increase over the resolution increase. There are those who believe 2k at 48fps will provide greater image fidelity than 4k at 24fps. Others aren't convinced because of the effect the increased frame rate has on the motion characteristics of the film.

One of the key differentials between the "film look" and the "video look" is the difference in frame rate. A faster frame rate gives a hyper-real appearance which some find distracting. There is less motion blur as the shutter is open for a shorter time. Some call it the "soap opera look" and it is similar to the frame interpolation settings on many TVs. I am sensitive to this and don't like it. A high frame rate is great for sport but it feels wrong for films.

I know Peter Jackson has set the shutter to 270 degrees as opposed to the standard 180 which according to him mitigates the issue. I have no reason to doubt his opinion and look forward to seeing the fruits of his labour.

Whichever way you look at it, and despite the misleading use of the IMAX brand, it is a good time to go to the cinema. It seems the operators are beginning to realise there is a market for high quality presentations and are catering to it.



Agreed ^ the first thing I thought when they announced the frame rate was "American soap opera" fearing that it would look cheap. However I'm not an expert on shutter speeds and as you say they've increased it so it should look fine. Its not the first film to be shot at a higher frame rate though, I remember reading they shot Aliens at 25fps and that looks fine (except for the grain but that had more to do with crap film stocks).



Dpp1978 -> RE: IMAX question (31/12/2011 6:43:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Spaldron

Agreed ^ the first thing I thought when they announced the frame rate was "American soap opera" fearing that it would look cheap. However I'm not an expert on shutter speeds and as you say they've increased it so it should look fine. Its not the first film to be shot at a higher frame rate though, I remember reading they shot Aliens at 25fps and that looks fine (except for the grain but that had more to do with crap film stocks).


25fps is a negligible increase over 24fps: about 4%. You can show 24fps footage at 25fps (and vice versa) and most people won't even notice. It's how PAL speedup came about.

48fps is a 100% increase, and if shown at 24fps everything would be in slow motion.

Rule of thumb is when shooting a moving object the the shorter the exposure the sharper the image. Sports photographers will use as fast a shutter speed as they can get away with to freeze the action. However too fast a shutter on motion pictures results in jerky motion.

Standard shutters are 180 degrees. That means the film is exposed for half the time it is in the gate; or 1/48 of a second. For Saving Private Ryan Spielberg used a 45degree shutter that leads to an exposure time of 1/192 of a second. This created the stuttering motion in the battle scenes.

A 180 degree shutter on a 48fps shoot would have an exposure time of 1/96 of a second. By using a 270 degree shutter the exposure time is 1/72 of a second, a reasonable compromise.

It certainly looks fine to me at 24 fps judging from the trailer.



Drooch -> RE: IMAX question (1/1/2012 11:14:08 AM)

Whoah. This is all VERY interesting. I saw M:I GP at Odeon Swiss Cottage the other day and noticed the significantly smaller screen and massively cropped image. We need to blow this fucking thing wide open because this a blatant con. What's shocking is that the true IMAX in Waterloo is CHEAPER than the shit version! I paid £16 for a 'premium' seat in Swiss Cottage (about 50% of the seats were 'premium' and they were the only seats you would WANT to see the film in - all the others were at the sides/front), true IMAX is £15 in Waterloo in all seats.

I will never use the Swiss Cottage 'IMAX' again, it is a disgrace to the format. Even more appallingly, I asked the ticket-seller how big the screen was and he said 'almost as big as the BFI IMAX' - what a fucking lie. I knew it was going to be smaller, that's fine, but it was SIGNIFICANTLY smaller, and cropped in a way that it even the Blu-ray won't be, and they were charging full whack for this massively compromised experience.

You're right. The problem here is the marketing deception - and it is a REAL deception. Count me in on this crusade, it needs to be made abundantly clear that there is a clear difference between IMAX and LIE-MAX, the latter's shortcomings need to be well and fully publicised, and ticket prices should reflect those shortcomings.



adambatman82 -> RE: IMAX question (1/1/2012 11:36:03 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch

You're right. The problem here is the marketing deception - and it is a REAL deception. Count me in on this crusade, it needs to be made abundantly clear that there is a clear difference between IMAX and LIE-MAX, the latter's shortcomings need to be well and fully publicised, and ticket prices should reflect those shortcomings.



I'm all for pushing this as far as possible, alas seeing as IMAX clearly don't give a damn I'm not sure whether I can be bothered to care. It's their product after all, and they seem to be the problem. I've kind of accepted that a once innovative company have simply rebranded themselves in to some kind of multiplex-baiting sellouts. The only thing which will change this is if the current "real" IMAX exhibitors demand some kind of advertised clarification from IMAX on all of the digital units, as its those guys who will suffer the most. Saying that, Nolan and Pfister have already refused to show the The Dark Knight Rises prologue in Digital IMAX, they might pull the same with the actual film!

Seriously, would it really have been *that* difficult to simply call this new thing D-IMAX, and insist that exhibitors like Cineworld use the term in all official documentation and correspondence with the consumer? I'm all for the new screens, and find genuine IMAX to be a little too disconcerting for long films (I'm convinced my neck still hasn't fully recovered from MI4!), but, as everyone else is saying, its the clarification thats the bugbear.



jrewing1000 -> RE: IMAX question (1/1/2012 1:46:56 PM)

Ok folks, the final reply from Odeon:


Thank you for your email.

IMAX is their brand and that is what they request we advertise their product as, if you would like this changed and more information added about the specific details of their different types of IMAX then you would need to contact them directly.

Should you have any further queries, please do not hesitate to email us again or call 0800 88 89 50* between 11am and 8pm.

Regards,

ODEON Guest Services


Personally, I am also excited about these new digital IMAX theatres, but if there is extra image that has been framed and composed for (as there is in IMAX 70mm GT presentations) then I want to see it.

If the director has composed for 16:9 then I'll want to see that. So my gripe is that I'm missing sections of the image. If IMAX GT disappeared and directors framed for IMAX MPX I wouldn't be so bothered.

And yes - the selling point is a sticky issue for me. It seems Odeon are absolving themselves from any responsibility. IMAX are passing it on to their marketing department. And I have now passed the issue on to Consumer Direct. The waiting game continues...



goldleader -> RE: IMAX question (3/1/2012 2:05:02 PM)

I totally agree with all this and was very upset when i went to see MI that the Dark Knight Rises was not shown and was wondering why, this explains it.  And i feel totally ripped off.

However i think Odeon have covered their backs here.  Take a look at their website it does clearly state on the IMAX page that its only Manchester that has a proper IMAX screen and all others are IMAX Digital.  However it doesn't actually state what the difference is, so they are marketing it as IMAX and i as a cinema goer feel i have been tricked.



jrewing1000 -> RE: IMAX question (3/1/2012 9:28:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: goldleader

I totally agree with all this and was very upset when i went to see MI that the Dark Knight Rises was not shown and was wondering why, this explains it.  And i feel totally ripped off.

However i think Odeon have covered their backs here.  Take a look at their website it does clearly state on the IMAX page that its only Manchester that has a proper IMAX screen and all others are IMAX Digital.  However it doesn't actually state what the difference is, so they are marketing it as IMAX and i as a cinema goer feel i have been tricked.


No, it doesn't clearly state anything. It says 'Odeon IMAX is available at Manchester, and our IMAX Digital Screens at....'. This is ENTIRELY misleading, and totally avoids the issue.

Money-grabbing and taking advantage of public ignorance. That's all it is. I am hoping that Consumer Direct take this up, after my complaint. All I'm asking for is to clearly define what the paying public will be getting. And really, it's only when films have been shot on IMAX cameras that this is even a problem - because it's only with these films that we are missing parts of the image on IMAX MPX.

Funny - apparantly the correct term for IMAX MPX is 'Lie-MAX'. I like that.



goldleader -> RE: IMAX question (3/1/2012 10:33:18 PM)

I'm on your side and totally agree with you. However I'm just showing you that Odeon has that one line as its "Get out of jail free" card. As soon you moan to them in the end they will pull this out of the bag and say "look it states on our web site that the two different experiences are listed and also which cinema has what". Yes it's not that clear as to what the difference is but they are a business and want to make money. I do hope that this can be changed as it isn't fair to be paying so much for a product that's not what you expect.



Emyr Thy King -> RE: IMAX question (7/1/2012 2:11:25 AM)

I remember thinking to myself "ah the Odeon in Cardiff will finally have an IMAX screen (*)". Lo and behold, it's IMAX Digital. I think changing it to a different brand name would help and alleviate any confusion. Thanks to DPP for again illuminating a rather dark part of my knowledge on projectors, cameras and so forth. I felt I was given an expert lecture there, minus the black/whiteboard and stick! I found this bit about IMAX on the ODEON website:

IMAX (click)

Adam, I don't mean this in a Schadenfreude way but that exchange you posted with the PR person was rather comical. There's no way I'd expect someone to conduct themselves that way when perfoming a 'professional' duty.

*Despite raising an eyebrow about the necessary dimensions. After realising my gullibility, I thought they must still think the coal mine aesthetic make it a uniquely 'Welsh cinematic experience'.



Gretzky -> RE: IMAX question (11/1/2012 12:05:16 PM)

quote:


Adam, I don't mean this in a Schadenfreude way but that exchange you posted with the PR person was rather comical. There's no way I'd expect someone to conduct themselves that way when perfoming a 'professional' duty.

*Despite raising an eyebrow about the necessary dimensions. After realising my gullibility, I thought they must still think the coal mine aesthetic make it a uniquely 'Welsh cinematic experience'.


Fascinating thread this but the issue with Cineworld particularly caught my eye. Other people I know and have read on Twitter also have this same issue with whomever is running the Cineworld 'PR' profile. I've had my own dings with them after they posted pictures from Playboy (tenuously linked to Tron: Legacy), spoiled films and posted Tweets with abhorrent grammar and spelling. I'm already not a fan of Cineworld at all and the fact this person represents their company - with apparently no checking up on him/her - confirms to me how Mickey Mouse they really are.



adambatman82 -> RE: IMAX question (11/1/2012 10:03:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gretzky

quote:


Adam, I don't mean this in a Schadenfreude way but that exchange you posted with the PR person was rather comical. There's no way I'd expect someone to conduct themselves that way when perfoming a 'professional' duty.

*Despite raising an eyebrow about the necessary dimensions. After realising my gullibility, I thought they must still think the coal mine aesthetic make it a uniquely 'Welsh cinematic experience'.


Fascinating thread this but the issue with Cineworld particularly caught my eye. Other people I know and have read on Twitter also have this same issue with whomever is running the Cineworld 'PR' profile. I've had my own dings with them after they posted pictures from Playboy (tenuously linked to Tron: Legacy), spoiled films and posted Tweets with abhorrent grammar and spelling. I'm already not a fan of Cineworld at all and the fact this person represents their company - with apparently no checking up on him/her - confirms to me how Mickey Mouse they really are.



Yeah, they've been posting tweets about Michael Fassbender's genitalia all week, as if thats the main selling point of Shame. Professionally I have a great relationship with Cineworld. They're by far the most journo-friendly cinema chain, and help me out regularly. This guy is something else though. Rude, inconsistent (he told a pal of mine that a cinema 80 miles away from his house was playing a subtitled version of a Bollywood film that he needed to see - it wasn't) and childish, and reflecting terribly on the company as a result.



Gretzky -> RE: IMAX question (12/1/2012 4:10:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: adambatman82

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gretzky

quote:


Adam, I don't mean this in a Schadenfreude way but that exchange you posted with the PR person was rather comical. There's no way I'd expect someone to conduct themselves that way when perfoming a 'professional' duty.

*Despite raising an eyebrow about the necessary dimensions. After realising my gullibility, I thought they must still think the coal mine aesthetic make it a uniquely 'Welsh cinematic experience'.


Fascinating thread this but the issue with Cineworld particularly caught my eye. Other people I know and have read on Twitter also have this same issue with whomever is running the Cineworld 'PR' profile. I've had my own dings with them after they posted pictures from Playboy (tenuously linked to Tron: Legacy), spoiled films and posted Tweets with abhorrent grammar and spelling. I'm already not a fan of Cineworld at all and the fact this person represents their company - with apparently no checking up on him/her - confirms to me how Mickey Mouse they really are.



Yeah, they've been posting tweets about Michael Fassbender's genitalia all week, as if thats the main selling point of Shame. Professionally I have a great relationship with Cineworld. They're by far the most journo-friendly cinema chain, and help me out regularly. This guy is something else though. Rude, inconsistent (he told a pal of mine that a cinema 80 miles away from his house was playing a subtitled version of a Bollywood film that he needed to see - it wasn't) and childish, and reflecting terribly on the company as a result.


Rude, immature and incredibly unprofessional. I keep picturing someone on work experience running it, that's how appallingly it's handled. Hard to believe it's a full-time position... The feed should really be a source of information and able to handle customer complaints efficiently without punting them to a premium rate number.

It's nice to hear you've had positive experiences with Cineworld as in the main, mine are mainly negative. The worst exhibitor for me for overall lack of care of exhibition, though I think a lot of that stems from serious under-staffing and lack of training.



Spaldron -> RE: IMAX question (12/1/2012 6:42:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gretzky

quote:

ORIGINAL: adambatman82

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gretzky

quote:


Adam, I don't mean this in a Schadenfreude way but that exchange you posted with the PR person was rather comical. There's no way I'd expect someone to conduct themselves that way when perfoming a 'professional' duty.

*Despite raising an eyebrow about the necessary dimensions. After realising my gullibility, I thought they must still think the coal mine aesthetic make it a uniquely 'Welsh cinematic experience'.


Fascinating thread this but the issue with Cineworld particularly caught my eye. Other people I know and have read on Twitter also have this same issue with whomever is running the Cineworld 'PR' profile. I've had my own dings with them after they posted pictures from Playboy (tenuously linked to Tron: Legacy), spoiled films and posted Tweets with abhorrent grammar and spelling. I'm already not a fan of Cineworld at all and the fact this person represents their company - with apparently no checking up on him/her - confirms to me how Mickey Mouse they really are.



Yeah, they've been posting tweets about Michael Fassbender's genitalia all week, as if thats the main selling point of Shame. Professionally I have a great relationship with Cineworld. They're by far the most journo-friendly cinema chain, and help me out regularly. This guy is something else though. Rude, inconsistent (he told a pal of mine that a cinema 80 miles away from his house was playing a subtitled version of a Bollywood film that he needed to see - it wasn't) and childish, and reflecting terribly on the company as a result.


Rude, immature and incredibly unprofessional. I keep picturing someone on work experience running it, that's how appallingly it's handled. Hard to believe it's a full-time position... The feed should really be a source of information and able to handle customer complaints efficiently without punting them to a premium rate number.

It's nice to hear you've had positive experiences with Cineworld as in the main, mine are mainly negative. The worst exhibitor for me for overall lack of care of exhibition, though I think a lot of that stems from serious under-staffing and lack of training.



May I suggest lodging a complaint?

Having just read through their Twitter feed it would seem their PR is run by a silly giggling teenage girl.



Qwerty Norris -> RE: IMAX question (15/1/2012 3:30:25 AM)

Thank you everybody for your contribution to this thread - it's been educating.

Having experienced proper IMAX both at Southbank & in Berlin once before, I was really excited to see my local world of Cine install one of their own. But when I went to see MI :4, even though the screen was significantly larger, something didn't feel right. The image felt awfully grainy in places & was weirdly compressed for the entire duration. More importantly though, the screen didn't feel as large as I was expecting, whilst the aspect ratio seemed more in tune with the traditional 1.85:1 that tends to be the norm for multiplexes - all-being on a grander scale. I've only experienced the format twice before so my memory was admittedly a bit hazy and I couldn't be sure, but thanks to this thread, I now know for certain.

And I concur with Spaldron; there's been a massive promotion push up here with it's launch proclaiming the immersive value - even in every film screening right before the Muppets come on & do their Orange thing. Whilst it's certainly still a good experience I've got to admit I feel pretty mislead & ripped off now.

I was going to see the Dark Knight Rises there, perhaps I'll make the trip to the Glasgow Science Centre instead? [sm=33.gif]



Drooch -> RE: IMAX question (16/1/2012 4:08:35 PM)

My complaint to Odeon and their subsequent reply:



Dear Odeon,

I recently visited your newly refurbished Swiss Cottage branch to see Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol in your new 'IMAX' screen. When purchasing my ticket, the ticket-seller assured me that the screen was 'almost as big' as the full-sized BFI IMAX screen in Waterloo, so I paid £16 for a 'premium' seat ticket.

Shortly after taking my seat I felt incredibly misled. The screen was barely larger than the standard screen that it replaced, and roughly a quarter the size of the BFI IMAX screen, and the sequences shot in IMAX were cropped at the top and bottom to fit the new ratio, cutting out a huge portion of the image that the filmmakers had composed specifically for The format.

The true IMAX theatre at Waterloo charges £15 for a full IMAX experience, you are charging £16 for a massively compromised version of the same. That would be fine if this was advertised as a reduced/different form of IMAX and priced accordingly, but at the moment your marketing and, in this instance, your staff are misleading customers.

I went online shortly after the screening to find countless articles, blogs and forums damning 'LIE-MAX' and 'fake IMAX'. Like these people, I feel deceived by the experience I had and will certainly seek out true IMAX cinemas in the future.

Do you have any plans to re-brand your IMAX cinemas in a way that makes clear that the presentation is vastly different to the full IMAX experience?



Thank you very much for your E mail of the 1st Jan and apologies for the considerable delay in replying to you.

I was surprised by your comments as we are very impressed with our IMAX screen and this represents a huge transformation in the original screen size and is now around 4 times larger than the original screen. While it compares very well to other IMAX screens and is ODEONs largest digital IMAX we are a local cinema withnfive screens and it cannot compete with our IMAX in Manchester Printworks or the BFI which are stand alone centrepiece cinemas. I was sorry to hear that you felt misled. It is not our intention to compare ourselves to other cinemas nor would we want to as Swiss Cottage has other features -our other screens, our AMBAR, COSTA and club screens with waiter service that make it unique.

Unfortunately it has been some time since IMAX have built a 70mm cinema and it is under their guidance that the industry is now mainly digital. IMAX stopped developing new 70mm cinemas in 2008 as the cost of 70mm prints is becoming unsustainable and the number of laboratories processing 70mm are very rare now and IMAX digital will eventually take over. As a film fan I regret this but each film is now tailored specifically for each format so that no quality is lost. Whether shot in digital or 70mm the directors and IMAX view each film carefully frame by frame so that each experience is exactly as the director intended eg when James Cameron showed Avatar he projected the 2D and 3D versions in different ratios in addition to IMAX 65 and digital.

I can understand the internet complaints when a very small cinema is converted into IMAX but our screen can hardly be seen as small and at 18m wide is one of the largest screens in the country rivalling all of the Leicester Square screens and in terms of IMAX is in the top 5%. IMAX also take great care and attention on each frame of each film and in every part of process. The sound is calibrated every day for at least 45 minutes and our sound and picture quality are monitored 24 hours a day by IMAX in Canada.

I would like to thank you for taking the time and trouble to write to me. This is extremely useful for improving our guest service. I would urge you to try our IMAX cinema again or our other screens and I do hope that your future visits to our cinemas prove more enjoyable.

Yours sincerely

Richard Mann
General Manager



Gretzky -> RE: IMAX question (19/1/2012 4:06:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Spaldron


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gretzky

quote:

ORIGINAL: adambatman82

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gretzky

quote:


Adam, I don't mean this in a Schadenfreude way but that exchange you posted with the PR person was rather comical. There's no way I'd expect someone to conduct themselves that way when perfoming a 'professional' duty.

*Despite raising an eyebrow about the necessary dimensions. After realising my gullibility, I thought they must still think the coal mine aesthetic make it a uniquely 'Welsh cinematic experience'.


Fascinating thread this but the issue with Cineworld particularly caught my eye. Other people I know and have read on Twitter also have this same issue with whomever is running the Cineworld 'PR' profile. I've had my own dings with them after they posted pictures from Playboy (tenuously linked to Tron: Legacy), spoiled films and posted Tweets with abhorrent grammar and spelling. I'm already not a fan of Cineworld at all and the fact this person represents their company - with apparently no checking up on him/her - confirms to me how Mickey Mouse they really are.



Yeah, they've been posting tweets about Michael Fassbender's genitalia all week, as if thats the main selling point of Shame. Professionally I have a great relationship with Cineworld. They're by far the most journo-friendly cinema chain, and help me out regularly. This guy is something else though. Rude, inconsistent (he told a pal of mine that a cinema 80 miles away from his house was playing a subtitled version of a Bollywood film that he needed to see - it wasn't) and childish, and reflecting terribly on the company as a result.


Rude, immature and incredibly unprofessional. I keep picturing someone on work experience running it, that's how appallingly it's handled. Hard to believe it's a full-time position... The feed should really be a source of information and able to handle customer complaints efficiently without punting them to a premium rate number.

It's nice to hear you've had positive experiences with Cineworld as in the main, mine are mainly negative. The worst exhibitor for me for overall lack of care of exhibition, though I think a lot of that stems from serious under-staffing and lack of training.



May I suggest lodging a complaint?

Having just read through their Twitter feed it would seem their PR is run by a silly giggling teenage girl.



I most definitely have. The twunt just openly spoiled a scene from Haywire. Prize pillock.



adambatman82 -> RE: IMAX question (19/1/2012 6:17:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gretzky

I most definitely have. The twunt just openly spoiled a scene from Haywire. Prize pillock.



Yep, I saw that too. What a bell end.



Spaldron -> RE: IMAX question (19/1/2012 7:29:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gretzky

I most definitely have. The twunt just openly spoiled a scene from Haywire. Prize pillock.


Where did you address your complaint to? I'd like to say a few things myself tbh.



adambatman82 -> RE: IMAX question (19/1/2012 11:14:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Spaldron


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gretzky

I most definitely have. The twunt just openly spoiled a scene from Haywire. Prize pillock.


Where did you address your complaint to? I'd like to say a few things myself tbh.



I went thru this -

https://www.cineworld.co.uk/contact

And chose "Cinema Complaint" from the drop down menu, as it seemed like the most apt.



Gretzky -> RE: IMAX question (20/1/2012 11:43:28 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: adambatman82


quote:

ORIGINAL: Spaldron


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gretzky

I most definitely have. The twunt just openly spoiled a scene from Haywire. Prize pillock.


Where did you address your complaint to? I'd like to say a few things myself tbh.



I went thru this -

https://www.cineworld.co.uk/contact

And chose "Cinema Complaint" from the drop down menu, as it seemed like the most apt.


I emailed directly using customer.services@cineworld.co.uk. That way you're not restricted by the silly character limit either.

Glad to read these comments on here to not feel like a cow for having a massive problem with a company being represented so poorly.



spark1 -> RE: IMAX question (23/1/2012 11:52:22 AM)

q- do you still have to wear those googles to watch imax?



adambatman82 -> RE: IMAX question (23/1/2012 1:29:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: spark1

q- do you still have to wear those googles to watch imax?



Googles?

Do you mean "goggles"? You've never had to wear goggles to watch IMAX (unless its a 3D feature of course).



spark1 -> RE: IMAX question (23/1/2012 2:46:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: adambatman82


quote:

ORIGINAL: spark1

q- do you still have to wear those googles to watch imax?



Googles?

Do you mean "goggles"? You've never had to wear goggles to watch IMAX (unless its a 3D feature of course).



oops, typo.

just for 3 d? ok.



Gretzky -> RE: IMAX question (8/2/2012 12:57:10 PM)

Did anyone else complain about the Cineworld Twitter in the end? I did and received the classic response from 'customer services' which in their seemingly regular fashion barely apologises and instead blows their own trumpet. Best snippet: "We have not had any complaints of this nature for the Twitter account, we have a large and growing twitter fan base who have provided large amount of positive and congratulations to Cineworld being the number one cinema chain."

Please.



Spaldron -> RE: IMAX question (8/2/2012 1:00:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gretzky

Did anyone else complain about the Cineworld Twitter in the end? I did and received the classic response from 'customer services' which in their seemingly regular fashion barely apologises and instead blows their own trumpet. Best snippet: "We have not had any complaints of this nature for the Twitter account, we have a large and growing twitter fan base who have provided large amount of positive and congratulations to Cineworld being the number one cinema chain."

Please.



I smell bullshit, anyone else?



adambatman82 -> RE: IMAX question (8/2/2012 2:47:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Spaldron


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gretzky

Did anyone else complain about the Cineworld Twitter in the end? I did and received the classic response from 'customer services' which in their seemingly regular fashion barely apologises and instead blows their own trumpet. Best snippet: "We have not had any complaints of this nature for the Twitter account, we have a large and growing twitter fan base who have provided large amount of positive and congratulations to Cineworld being the number one cinema chain."

Please.



I smell bullshit, anyone else?


I wouldn't be surprised if the twitter guy is a general customer service dogsbody, who handles complaints and basic enquiries himself anyway.



Gretzky -> RE: IMAX question (8/2/2012 3:53:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: adambatman82


quote:

ORIGINAL: Spaldron


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gretzky

Did anyone else complain about the Cineworld Twitter in the end? I did and received the classic response from 'customer services' which in their seemingly regular fashion barely apologises and instead blows their own trumpet. Best snippet: "We have not had any complaints of this nature for the Twitter account, we have a large and growing twitter fan base who have provided large amount of positive and congratulations to Cineworld being the number one cinema chain."

Please.



I smell bullshit, anyone else?


I wouldn't be surprised if the twitter guy is a general customer service dogsbody, who handles complaints and basic enquiries himself anyway.


Nor me. Would go some way to explaining how it's run with apparently no checks or care to how it's representing their company. "It's all allegedly positive so let him/her get on with it". If they truly think like that then they clearly don't read it at all.

What does them being the 'number one cinema chain' have a flying fuck to do with my original complaint? It's like being told "everyone else likes us so we don't care". If only more people complained...



vincegates0909 -> RE: IMAX question (13/2/2012 1:25:19 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jrewing1000

I knew it. I've been duped - Swiss Cottage isn't true IMAX. How can they get away with that?!


I agree


____________________
life insurance over 80
type 1 diabetes life insurance
california life insurance company



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.375