|
|
Post by jason on Jan 13, 2006 16:00:19 GMT -5
Oh my... GOD. First off, please see THIS thread: returnofthejets.proboards38.com/index.cgi?board=Revenue&action=display&thread=1107211289(Jets pay-per-view games at IMAX) And then add... "3-D" to that. As some of you may already know, Winnipeg's IMAX theatre in Portage Place just got an "upgrade". Now, feature films there will be 3D (you'll be given special 3D glasses to wear). Jets games.... in 3-D... wow. It may not be doable, but hey.... just imagine.... |
|
|
|
Post by USApegger on Jan 13, 2006 16:04:40 GMT -5
That would be just unreal to see that!
I am sure in the future something like this would be possible, and I want to see it!!
|
|
|
|
Post by jetsgogo on Jan 13, 2006 16:46:07 GMT -5
lol
|
|
|
|
Post by joelzillmanwpg on Jan 13, 2006 17:10:24 GMT -5
No offense, but that idea would never fly. It reminds me of FOX's 'glowing puck' experiment..
|
|
|
|
Post by jason on Jan 13, 2006 17:51:41 GMT -5
"That idea would never fly" huh?
Thanks for giving your reasons and EXPERT ANALYSIS.
If they could somehow do it, they'd sure as Hell have *my* $10.
|
|
|
|
Post by joelzillmanwpg on Jan 13, 2006 18:25:58 GMT -5
"That idea would never fly" huh? Thanks for giving your reasons and EXPERT ANALYSIS. If they could somehow do it, they'd sure as Hell have *my* $10. Three things wrong with this scenario: 1. IMAX would charge more than $10 2. Nobody will come Downtown in the middle of the week to see a Jets game on Imax, when they can view it in the comfort of their own home. 3. People don't care if an NHL game is in 3-D or not |
|
|
|
Post by jason on Jan 13, 2006 18:28:36 GMT -5
1. That remains to be seen.
2. If the game isn't on t.v., and they don't have MTS T.V. (to watch in on the expected Jets PPV channel), then wouldn't it be a nice option?
3. How do you know? I'm people, and I'd like to see it!
|
|
|
|
Post by joelzillmanwpg on Jan 13, 2006 18:30:21 GMT -5
1. That remains to be seen. 2. If the game isn't on t.v., and they don't have MTS T.V. (to watch in on the expected Jets PPV channel), then wouldn't it be a nice option? 3. How do you know? I'm people, and I'd like to see it! No offense, BT. You have several great ideas for revenue sources. This just isn't one of them... |
|
|
|
Post by jason on Jan 13, 2006 18:32:16 GMT -5
According to you. If it was according to 3+ members of this website, I'd agree.
You don't think hockey (and all of t.v. in general) will go 3-D in the future?
|
|
|
|
Post by joelzillmanwpg on Jan 13, 2006 18:33:47 GMT -5
You don't think hockey (and all of t.v. in general) will go 3-D in the future? Nope.... |
|
|
|
Post by jetsgogo on Jan 14, 2006 18:21:12 GMT -5
With ideas like this, the Jets would be broke in no time.
|
|
|
|
Post by joelzillmanwpg on Jan 14, 2006 18:27:15 GMT -5
With ideas like this, the Jets would be broke in no time. LMAO!!! |
|
|
|
Post by jason on Jan 14, 2006 18:40:47 GMT -5
You guys are makin' me mad.
|
|
|
|
Post by USApegger on Jan 14, 2006 19:18:22 GMT -5
I still think it would really be something to see a game in 3D at the Imax however I don't think they could do a live telecast and the cost would be prohibitive.
|
|
|
|
Post by berzerk on Jan 14, 2006 19:43:22 GMT -5
This is absolutely stupid. Do you know how much work it takes to do those? I'm a graphic designer, I'd know.
|
|
|
|
Post by jason on Jan 14, 2006 21:19:39 GMT -5
Well berzerk, it's better than any revenue source idea you've come up with...
Oh wait! You haven't come up with ANY!
|
|
|
|
Post by White-Out on Jan 14, 2006 21:46:05 GMT -5
With ideas like this, the Jets would be broke in no time. LMFAO !!! It's called investing man  But BT i agree with you on this one... it would be cool and if it succeeds i'd go 4-5 times a year with my girl friend (If i had one ) |
|
|
|
Post by ratzy on Jan 17, 2006 17:30:37 GMT -5
Sorry to burst any bubbles but the cost to produce one game in even a non "3D" Imax mode would be way to high to justify...you'd be looking to sell out the IMAX theatre (just under 300 people) and you would have to charge them likely more than $100/person. IMAX uses 70mm film stock for such a huge screen compared to regular movie theatres that use 35 mm film. So:
a)you'd have to "film" the game and play it back later
b)the cost of producing movies on 35 mm is astronomical...let's not even guess at 70mm costs
c)at under 300 seats, you'd never profit from this adventure
d)if you wanted to just "project" the game onto a massive screen LIVE, that would be cheaper and some cities do play NHL games in their theatres...but in Calgary for example, regular movies are like $13 each anyways...most people would go watch in a bar before paying that kinda money to sit in a crowded theatre with no beer.
|
|
|
|
Post by jesus on Jan 17, 2006 18:26:50 GMT -5
Sorry to burst any bubbles but the cost to produce one game in even a non "3D" Imax mode would be way to high to justify...you'd be looking to sell out the IMAX theatre (just under 300 people) and you would have to charge them likely more than $100/person. IMAX uses 70mm film stock for such a huge screen compared to regular movie theatres that use 35 mm film. So: a)you'd have to "film" the game and play it back later b)the cost of producing movies on 35 mm is astronomical...let's not even guess at 70mm costs c)at under 300 seats, you'd never profit from this adventure d)if you wanted to just "project" the game onto a massive screen LIVE, that would be cheaper and some cities do play NHL games in their theatres...but in Calgary for example, regular movies are like $13 each anyways...most people would go watch in a bar before paying that kinda money to sit in a crowded theatre with no beer. Ratzy, you are a great addition to this forum. Keep posting. I really enjoy reading your posts.  |
|
|
|
Post by jason on Jan 17, 2006 19:17:47 GMT -5
(shrug)
Hey at least I'm thinkin.
What have YOU guys come up with? Oh, besides lemonade stands and bake sales.
|
|
