Hi Lar! I remember Kelly’s (and ‘Pete & Tilly’) quite well actually. And no, I’m not surprised you have Hispanic friends in Holyoke. As to your $1.10, I’d say it’s better in your pocket than going to a major studio for so much of the drek they’ve been serving up the past year. But that boarded up box is the reason we’re on this site, and it deserves a little respect, even a bucks worth. As to your refusal to go to Springfield, that’s unfortunate, the Student Prince still serves the best fried cheese in the valley. Hey, it’s far enough from the Mass Mutual Center, you’ll be fine! Besides, why go there? Like the old civic center all it’s going to end up with is “professional” wrestling.
Oh good one Mr. Larkin. You come to the site of the Victory Theatre and instead of offering information or a memory of this grand old movie house, you use it to rant about the local government using 50,000 in tax dollars without your approval and then point out that the only thing the people of downtown Holyoke like to do is rob others and take drugs. And when I dare point out your bias, I’m being politically correct. Well sir I don’t like everything they do with my tax dollars either. But with a population of 45,000 (very nice people by the way) in Holyoke, that amounts to just over a dollar and ten cents out of my pocket to study the possibilities for the Victory. As a theatre lover I think the Victory, and for that matter the city of Holyoke, are worth it.
And by the way Mr. Larkin, to call me politically correct shows you know even LESS about me than you know about theatre renovation.
Though suffering from rather typical late 1960’s decor, this theatre had one thing in it’s favor, and that was fantastic 70mm presentation. As already noted, the original equipment went to the left side auditorium. The screens were tiny in comparison to the original 120 degree curved Todd-AO style screen, but the excellent 6 track sound remained, providing a lot of joy to audiences until the complex closed in 2002.
Why should the screen be considered? Because that’s what this theatre was built for, movies, not live shows. Anything else is not a restoration, it’s a conversion, and considering what there is to start with, it would be a poor conversion at that. And is there really that much of a need for more “live” theatres in West Springfield, I mean what with Springfield Symphony Hall just across the river. And if MY tax dollars are going to save a building, I’d like it to have some historical significance. And Mr. Ko feels just as fine in Holyoke as he does in West Springfield, thank you. Perhaps Mr Larkin would too, if he got past his prejudices.
In any case, back to the Victory. The seating capacity for this great old house was actually 1800, not the 2500 listed here.
Vincent,
I can’t speak for The Paramount (it was long gone before I ever stepped into Times Square) but I know it was not uncommon for original 1.37:1 screens to be shorter as well as so much narrower than Cinemascope and Vistavision screens. When they designed Cinemascope, Fox engineers increased the height of the 35mm film frame to allow more light etc… . From what I understand (and I’m not a projectionist, so I could be totally wrong on this) if you used the same focal length lens on both images, the scope would naturally display it’s increased height (from the taller frame), as well as the extra width.
Holyoke has definitely seen better days but it’s downtown is hardly a battle ground of drugs and robbery. Will the Victory renovation even make it off the ground? Who knows? I wish them luck, and I’ll be first in line for a ticket if they pull it off. But reopen the Palace? It has no stage. It has no changing rooms for entertainers/performers. It has no place for storage of any kind of theatrical/live performance equipment. It has no space for growth, which is what the building itself would have to do. And even if you shoehorned a stage into that space you could then forget putting it’s original style 128 degree curved screen back in place for film presentation. You might as well spend the money on a brand new building…….. or maybe even the Victory!
The former Loews Palace in West Springfield still belongs to a private business, namely Showcase Cinemas. And as much as I’d love to see the Palace restored to it’s 1968 70mm widescreen glory, it has no facilities for live presentations of ANY kind. The Victory, like all classic movie houses, at least had the ability to present live performances.
Hi Lar! I remember Kelly’s (and ‘Pete & Tilly’) quite well actually. And no, I’m not surprised you have Hispanic friends in Holyoke. As to your $1.10, I’d say it’s better in your pocket than going to a major studio for so much of the drek they’ve been serving up the past year. But that boarded up box is the reason we’re on this site, and it deserves a little respect, even a bucks worth. As to your refusal to go to Springfield, that’s unfortunate, the Student Prince still serves the best fried cheese in the valley. Hey, it’s far enough from the Mass Mutual Center, you’ll be fine! Besides, why go there? Like the old civic center all it’s going to end up with is “professional” wrestling.
Oh good one Mr. Larkin. You come to the site of the Victory Theatre and instead of offering information or a memory of this grand old movie house, you use it to rant about the local government using 50,000 in tax dollars without your approval and then point out that the only thing the people of downtown Holyoke like to do is rob others and take drugs. And when I dare point out your bias, I’m being politically correct. Well sir I don’t like everything they do with my tax dollars either. But with a population of 45,000 (very nice people by the way) in Holyoke, that amounts to just over a dollar and ten cents out of my pocket to study the possibilities for the Victory. As a theatre lover I think the Victory, and for that matter the city of Holyoke, are worth it.
And by the way Mr. Larkin, to call me politically correct shows you know even LESS about me than you know about theatre renovation.
Though suffering from rather typical late 1960’s decor, this theatre had one thing in it’s favor, and that was fantastic 70mm presentation. As already noted, the original equipment went to the left side auditorium. The screens were tiny in comparison to the original 120 degree curved Todd-AO style screen, but the excellent 6 track sound remained, providing a lot of joy to audiences until the complex closed in 2002.
Why should the screen be considered? Because that’s what this theatre was built for, movies, not live shows. Anything else is not a restoration, it’s a conversion, and considering what there is to start with, it would be a poor conversion at that. And is there really that much of a need for more “live” theatres in West Springfield, I mean what with Springfield Symphony Hall just across the river. And if MY tax dollars are going to save a building, I’d like it to have some historical significance. And Mr. Ko feels just as fine in Holyoke as he does in West Springfield, thank you. Perhaps Mr Larkin would too, if he got past his prejudices.
In any case, back to the Victory. The seating capacity for this great old house was actually 1800, not the 2500 listed here.
Vincent,
I can’t speak for The Paramount (it was long gone before I ever stepped into Times Square) but I know it was not uncommon for original 1.37:1 screens to be shorter as well as so much narrower than Cinemascope and Vistavision screens. When they designed Cinemascope, Fox engineers increased the height of the 35mm film frame to allow more light etc… . From what I understand (and I’m not a projectionist, so I could be totally wrong on this) if you used the same focal length lens on both images, the scope would naturally display it’s increased height (from the taller frame), as well as the extra width.
Holyoke has definitely seen better days but it’s downtown is hardly a battle ground of drugs and robbery. Will the Victory renovation even make it off the ground? Who knows? I wish them luck, and I’ll be first in line for a ticket if they pull it off. But reopen the Palace? It has no stage. It has no changing rooms for entertainers/performers. It has no place for storage of any kind of theatrical/live performance equipment. It has no space for growth, which is what the building itself would have to do. And even if you shoehorned a stage into that space you could then forget putting it’s original style 128 degree curved screen back in place for film presentation. You might as well spend the money on a brand new building…….. or maybe even the Victory!
The former Loews Palace in West Springfield still belongs to a private business, namely Showcase Cinemas. And as much as I’d love to see the Palace restored to it’s 1968 70mm widescreen glory, it has no facilities for live presentations of ANY kind. The Victory, like all classic movie houses, at least had the ability to present live performances.
The Colonial Theatre is not Art Deco, it’s colonial revival.