4 ms·

It might seem a little bit deceptive that an attraction called the Sphere does not quite pull off even a hemisphere of "payload," but the same compromise has be

by jrowen 1y ago

It might seem a little bit deceptive that an attraction called the Sphere does not quite pull off even a hemisphere of "payload," but the same compromise has been reached by most dome theaters. This paragraph is bizarre to me, framed from a presumably extremely niche "Sphere-as-dome-theater" perspective. I would think that, for most people, the Sphere is the exterior part and it delivers and is every bit as innovative as anyone who has seen a picture of it would say. I don't understand the effort to downplay that and say "oh forget that part it's actually just a not-even-spherical dome theater."

mrandish 1y ago
A lot of people I know assumed that the Las Vegas Sphere interior screen was on the "other side" of the exterior dome. They were surprised when I showed them this image: https://i0.wp.com/alia.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/sphere-cutaway-copy.jpg?w=800&ssl=1 https://i0.wp.com/alia.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/sph...
- jrowen 1y ago
  I was certainly surprised when I saw images of the inside, and upon reflection wasn't sure exactly what I had had in mind or how that would have worked with the realities of infrastructure needs for a venue like that. But still, it feels weird to express a sentiment of "well it didn't really live up to the sphere thing" while dismissing the massive obvious spherical component that was the innovative work of engineering/tech/art/whatever.
  - mrandish 1y ago
    > "well it didn't really live up to the sphere thing" I never thought it didn't live up to being a Sphere. The outside is definitely a big ass sphere of impressive proportions. To me, that impressive size (for whatever it's worth) never relied on the interior screen also being that size. Having visited it, I found the exterior even more impressive when standing near it. Aerial photos don't really convey just how damn big the thing is due to the frame of reference being nearby Vegas casino buildings. Vegas casino towers tend to be larger than they look and farther apart than one might assume. However, on watching their demo movie Postcards From Earth, I now think the Sphere is a poor venue for theatrical story-telling due to poor contrast, self-illumination and being too big and too wide. The size and edge-to-edge arc are so extreme they introduce challenges which significantly reduce the quality of any theatrical presentation. Basically they went overboard on maximizing the 'curb-appeal' first-impact of building. So much so, they basically fucked any chance of it ever being a high-quality venue for wide format movies. I'd much rather see a wide format movie on an Omnimax screen than the Sphere.
    - jrowen 1y ago
      That's kind of Vegas in a nutshell, right? It's first and foremost about superficial glitz and glamour. Nothing wrong with that really, and they sure are good at it. I saw Eagles at Sphere with my family (part of the fun of that trip was realizing that both of those entities explicitly [perhaps vehemently] do not use an article in the name and thus that is grammatically correct). I agree that it is a very strange venue that doesn't seem to know what audience it's going for. Band culture, and generally the types of acts that play to a seated crowd, is more about the performance than over-the-top and overwhelming visual stimuli. Dance music culture, the people that love that, prefers a flat open dancefloor. As you mention, it's not really built for moviegoers either. But it is still a really impressive and enjoyable experience and I hope they can figure it out. (And just be clear, my paraphrase that you quoted was referring to the original article)

by jrowen 1y ago

mrandish 1y ago

A lot of people I know assumed that the Las Vegas Sphere interior screen was on the "other side" of the exterior dome. They were surprised when I showed them this image: https://i0.wp.com/alia.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/sphere-cutaway-copy.jpg?w=800&ssl=1 https://i0.wp.com/alia.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/sph...

jrowen 1y ago
I was certainly surprised when I saw images of the inside, and upon reflection wasn't sure exactly what I had had in mind or how that would have worked with the realities of infrastructure needs for a venue like that. But still, it feels weird to express a sentiment of "well it didn't really live up to the sphere thing" while dismissing the massive obvious spherical component that was the innovative work of engineering/tech/art/whatever.
- mrandish 1y ago
  > "well it didn't really live up to the sphere thing" I never thought it didn't live up to being a Sphere. The outside is definitely a big ass sphere of impressive proportions. To me, that impressive size (for whatever it's worth) never relied on the interior screen also being that size. Having visited it, I found the exterior even more impressive when standing near it. Aerial photos don't really convey just how damn big the thing is due to the frame of reference being nearby Vegas casino buildings. Vegas casino towers tend to be larger than they look and farther apart than one might assume. However, on watching their demo movie Postcards From Earth, I now think the Sphere is a poor venue for theatrical story-telling due to poor contrast, self-illumination and being too big and too wide. The size and edge-to-edge arc are so extreme they introduce challenges which significantly reduce the quality of any theatrical presentation. Basically they went overboard on maximizing the 'curb-appeal' first-impact of building. So much so, they basically fucked any chance of it ever being a high-quality venue for wide format movies. I'd much rather see a wide format movie on an Omnimax screen than the Sphere.
  - jrowen 1y ago
    That's kind of Vegas in a nutshell, right? It's first and foremost about superficial glitz and glamour. Nothing wrong with that really, and they sure are good at it. I saw Eagles at Sphere with my family (part of the fun of that trip was realizing that both of those entities explicitly [perhaps vehemently] do not use an article in the name and thus that is grammatically correct). I agree that it is a very strange venue that doesn't seem to know what audience it's going for. Band culture, and generally the types of acts that play to a seated crowd, is more about the performance than over-the-top and overwhelming visual stimuli. Dance music culture, the people that love that, prefers a flat open dancefloor. As you mention, it's not really built for moviegoers either. But it is still a really impressive and enjoyable experience and I hope they can figure it out. (And just be clear, my paraphrase that you quoted was referring to the original article)