hard to really confirm that 2K 0r 4K are up to 35mm or 70mm because a carefully produced 35mm print or a new 70mm print are scarce these days. Not hard to beat a mass produced 35mm print run through a platter.
Yes Mann was toying with the idea of Stadium-izing the National for a while. One of their managers told me they were simultaneously considering either a multiplex or an overhaul of the National. I think they abandoned both ideas a while ago.
It’s a kind of soap bubbles. Very very light, they burst on contact and they’re gone. Disney uses it in the Holiday Fireworks at Disneyland. Just like a rain effect, the stuff shoots upward, then breaks up and scatters as it falls. If you look carefully you can see where it shoots from. This is an easy way to create a goosebump inducing effect, like blasting confetti, sparklers, or streamers. Pretty much every stage show at the El Capitan uses some form of this, except the sparklers and snow don’t require any cleanup.
Silver, that’s a good question. I don’t know all the facts, but I would guess that what happened to the National was not a surprise to anyone involved. You can send a question to the webmaster over there, or post a comment on the message boards…
PS: as an Ex New Yorker, I can’t go anywhere near Westwood without a stop at Lamonica’s.
Confusing, huh? I just don’t remember anything on 2nd avenue between the Beekman (and awful Loews New York Twin) and the Cine' on 86th st, except for a tiny single screener that’s still there.
I remember passing by this cheesy looking place between late sixties and mid seventies… finally got inside when C5 cleaned it up. Like most C5 theatres, it felt sleek and classy… Typical C5 interesting 3D window displays (real TV with snowy picture and child figure looking into it for Poltergeist… what did they have for Cruising – A leather sling?)
But the auditoriums… I can’t imagine why anyone would design a place like that. Screen so high that it was several feet above the heads of the downstairs seats, which I think sloped up because they knew you’d have to lean back like at a Drive-in to see the screen. Only the top had direct sightlines to the screen. And the strange sloped stage thingy built in front of the screen… I always wondered what they were thinking when they built the place.
So this place was gone by 78? Then it’s not the one I remember. Can’t forget the name, but I remember something with an uninspiring name changing to Gemini, with a little nicer facade and decor. And that place looks NOTHING like the recent pictures of the UA Whateveritis. No one has pictures of the Juliet??
Anyone remember the weird little twin RKO had across from the DW Griffith around the corner from the Baronet/Coronet? Had the opening of THE BOY FRIEND… redone as Manhattan 1&2, ran CRUISING, MUPPETS TAKE MANHATTAN, POLTERGEIST… same cool window displays as other Rugoff/Cinema 5 houses. For Poltergeist they had a real TV in the window with a little girl figure in front of it -nightgown, hands on screen, static snowy picture… Very strange place, screen very high, downstairs way below the screen, top level was only good place to sit, with eye-level sightlines, a strange little severely slanted “stage” like thing under the screen. You just had to wonder “what were they thinking?” couldn’t have been built this way on purpose.
64th and 2nd sounds like a tiny single screener under an apartment building. I recall no twins on second avenue at all. Just wasn’t a busy place except near 86th street where the Orpheum/Cine'. the RKO twin under a department store, and the 86th sdtreet East were. Entrance to the Cine' (balcony of the Orpheum split like Loew’s Stat was) was on 2nd avenue.
It was eventually renovated and renamed Gemini I & II. Features opening there: MIDNIGHT EXPRESS, COAL MINER’S DAUGHTER, A LITTLE NIGHT MUSIC… Boxoffice Magazine did a Modern Theatre feature on this place when it opened, with pics of how it basically looked originally and it didn’t change much after renovations. It was a nice place.
It would have been nice if the management had been kind enough to alert us that it finally was closing, even if it was only a day in advance. I’m sure the owner had this in mind for a long time.
I also have to wonder why someone got all the way up to the roof sign and painted over the theatre’s name but left Mann’s up there.
When I first laid eyes on the UA Rivoli in the summer of 1967, it was playing the 70mm reissue of GONE WITH THE WIND “in New Widecreen Splendor” (which I didn’t know meant it was cropped at the top & bottom).
I vividly remember being shocked that the Rivoli had a permanent metal and neon blade sign made up specifically with the title of the film. I have video and pictures that show the same blade sign was completely redone that October to spell out STAR in neon, with star shapes alternating with each of the letters. (check out a little movie called THE PROJECTIONIST) to see a glimpse of the NY premiere of STAR! at the Rivoli)
Considering that they went to such expense to change the exterior of the Rivoli from one feature to another, I have absolutely no doubt that the OKLAHOMA! curtain was replaced the instant the picture left. If you look closely at photos of the OKLAHOMA! curtain, you’ll see it was so entirely themed to that one picture that it would be inappropriate for any other.
With showman Michael Todd involved in both OKLAHOMA! and 80 DAYS, I am certain he would not let his own 80 DAYS run with an OKLAHOMA! curtain. I wouldn’t be surprised to hear 80 DAYS had its own curtain at the Rivoli, but I’ve not seen or heard any indication that another picture there had a special curtain.
I remember as a kid in 69 being amazed that a legit house was showing a movie…. but I am sure GOODBYE, MR. CHIPS did indeed have its first NY (roadshow) run at the “RKO Palace” in late 69. I’m not sure if it was the World Premiere, but it was the NY premiere, and I’d imagine MGM would have struck a 70mm print, because the throw was soooo long up above the 2nd balcony. I’ve been up there and it’s like he side of a mountain.
However, the UA Rivoli did not exactly (as stated on the Rivoli page) get converted to 70mm/Todd-AO for AROUND THE WORLD IN 80 DAYS. The first picture released in Todd-AO was the first to play the Rivoli after the big overhaul, and a special crazy-quilt like curtain was created and installed specifically for OKLAHOMA! I have a copy of the Boxoffice magazine announcing the conversion and debut of Todd-AO at the Rivoli, and there are good pictures of the entire conversion process at American Widescreen Museum www.widescreenmuseum.com in the Todd-AO section.
Having said that, it is pretty nifty to see the extra details added in here.
Exactly, Bill. As I said, Seattle patrons have been enjoying movies on the real Cinerama screen for decades. They are on the edge of inaccuracy and certainly misleading when they refer to the second screen being developed by “Cinerama architects,” They are referring to an independant company that has no relation whatsoever to Cinerama, other than being hired to revamp a theatre with that name. The way that sentence is written gives wholly undue credence to a group whose main objective was to get the real Cinerama screen out of the way.
The line about “2,000 independently angled louvered strips” was written before the screen was ever used, and at that time, the strips were not in fact angled at all. Anchoring the strips firmly in place is one thing, angling them correctly is another. The strips were attached to the top and bottom of the frame, but they are held to the frame with something elastic enough to allow them to flutter in the breeze of the AC.
The strips would have to be anchored horizontally with thin wire (often the same stuff used on fishing rods). It would take great care, and attention to detail, to anchor and align the 1" strips into proper position, and it’s not likely to have been done right if it was done by Seattle’s own staff without some kind of guidance and supervision from Cinerama experts. Just imagine the precision necessary to turn 2000 one inch strips, which overlap each other, so that they are facing straight to the front around the entire curve.
The entire setup for the two screens in Seattle was deliberately designed (by the non-Cinerama designers) for the real screen to be the lowest priority. It is a very complicated and expensive process to bring out the big screen, which guarantees that it would rarely be used. It would probably take about 2-3 full capacity houses to pay for the conversion. Seattle would need to be sure of at least a dozen full houses to be willing to pay for the switch, which would require them to close for 2 days before and after.
I would hold out no hope at all for the big screen to be used for 2001. It’s a shame, but a reality.
Yes Chris, I know the “cheap” screen ; ) is slightly curved and not bad. But it’s not worth schlepping all the way to Seattle for. Did you know when they were designing that big-deal rippled starry ceiling they did not take into account that there would be a bigger screen for Cinerama? Yup. It obstructs part of the big picture, so they have to mask it down, and because of that ceiling you will never get to see the full size of the Cinerama screen. It always bothers me when the people in charge won’t listen to the people who know better.
DR: How exactly was the loose strip problem corrected?
It is unfortunate Seattle’s decision makers think that the curved screen is only for Cinerama. The Seattle Cinerama Theatre has been a local favorite for decades because of that screen. A Cinerama theatre without a Cinerama screen is a shame. It’s like going into Grauman’s Chinese and taking all the Chinese stuff out.
I was a projectionist back in the mid seventies, carbon arcs, changeovers, etc. I know Xenon lamps made the platters possible, which rendered most professional projectionists expendible to owners. Not such a good thing as it turns out. You and I know that, but does the public? The ArcLight name, doesn’t represent movies to the general public it’s a stretch even to imagine what it refers to. But Cinerama, even for civillians, is not such a stretch, it conjures thoughts of movies, maybe panoramic movies, you know, like a combination of Cinema and Panorama. ; ) A far more effective brand name for a “specialized” movie chain, don’t you think?
I know about the obsolete use of carbon arc as a light source, (even the “roach clips” we used to burn the carbon rods down to stubs)… and the big lamps used for searchlights, and sometimes on movie sets. But the ArcLight management has denied that their name refers to either. They said, as if groping for an answer, “uh… it’s an arc of light.”
The blurry slide, that doesn’t quite fill their screens, is their corporate logo: a fuzzy pair of hands trying to form the letter A. Line up a dozen people (including the staff), ask them what it is and what it has to do with movies. Good luck with that. They have a name and logo that are apropos of nothing, yet they think it’s brand that people will want on t-shirts.
PS: I do like some of the Cinematheque’s programming, it’s the venue that ruins it for me. Yes William, I miss the Egyptian’s former configuration, and don’t think it was worth ruining that just to put a screening room in the lobby.
hard to really confirm that 2K 0r 4K are up to 35mm or 70mm because a carefully produced 35mm print or a new 70mm print are scarce these days. Not hard to beat a mass produced 35mm print run through a platter.
Yes Mann was toying with the idea of Stadium-izing the National for a while. One of their managers told me they were simultaneously considering either a multiplex or an overhaul of the National. I think they abandoned both ideas a while ago.
It’s a kind of soap bubbles. Very very light, they burst on contact and they’re gone. Disney uses it in the Holiday Fireworks at Disneyland. Just like a rain effect, the stuff shoots upward, then breaks up and scatters as it falls. If you look carefully you can see where it shoots from. This is an easy way to create a goosebump inducing effect, like blasting confetti, sparklers, or streamers. Pretty much every stage show at the El Capitan uses some form of this, except the sparklers and snow don’t require any cleanup.
Silver, that’s a good question. I don’t know all the facts, but I would guess that what happened to the National was not a surprise to anyone involved. You can send a question to the webmaster over there, or post a comment on the message boards…
PS: as an Ex New Yorker, I can’t go anywhere near Westwood without a stop at Lamonica’s.
The Premiere room is now part of the manager’s office. Doesn’t look much different. Was in there within the past 4-5 years or so.
The National in its infancy and a proper goodbye… View link
Confusing, huh? I just don’t remember anything on 2nd avenue between the Beekman (and awful Loews New York Twin) and the Cine' on 86th st, except for a tiny single screener that’s still there.
I remember passing by this cheesy looking place between late sixties and mid seventies… finally got inside when C5 cleaned it up. Like most C5 theatres, it felt sleek and classy… Typical C5 interesting 3D window displays (real TV with snowy picture and child figure looking into it for Poltergeist… what did they have for Cruising – A leather sling?)
But the auditoriums… I can’t imagine why anyone would design a place like that. Screen so high that it was several feet above the heads of the downstairs seats, which I think sloped up because they knew you’d have to lean back like at a Drive-in to see the screen. Only the top had direct sightlines to the screen. And the strange sloped stage thingy built in front of the screen… I always wondered what they were thinking when they built the place.
So this place was gone by 78? Then it’s not the one I remember. Can’t forget the name, but I remember something with an uninspiring name changing to Gemini, with a little nicer facade and decor. And that place looks NOTHING like the recent pictures of the UA Whateveritis. No one has pictures of the Juliet??
Anyone remember the weird little twin RKO had across from the DW Griffith around the corner from the Baronet/Coronet? Had the opening of THE BOY FRIEND… redone as Manhattan 1&2, ran CRUISING, MUPPETS TAKE MANHATTAN, POLTERGEIST… same cool window displays as other Rugoff/Cinema 5 houses. For Poltergeist they had a real TV in the window with a little girl figure in front of it -nightgown, hands on screen, static snowy picture… Very strange place, screen very high, downstairs way below the screen, top level was only good place to sit, with eye-level sightlines, a strange little severely slanted “stage” like thing under the screen. You just had to wonder “what were they thinking?” couldn’t have been built this way on purpose.
64th and 2nd sounds like a tiny single screener under an apartment building. I recall no twins on second avenue at all. Just wasn’t a busy place except near 86th street where the Orpheum/Cine'. the RKO twin under a department store, and the 86th sdtreet East were. Entrance to the Cine' (balcony of the Orpheum split like Loew’s Stat was) was on 2nd avenue.
I don’t know what you mean about second avenue, bit I can tell you for sure that Juliet/Gemini and Columbia were the same place.
Yes, and also the Gemini. all the same place. I was in there through all 3 names.
It was eventually renovated and renamed Gemini I & II. Features opening there: MIDNIGHT EXPRESS, COAL MINER’S DAUGHTER, A LITTLE NIGHT MUSIC… Boxoffice Magazine did a Modern Theatre feature on this place when it opened, with pics of how it basically looked originally and it didn’t change much after renovations. It was a nice place.
It would have been nice if the management had been kind enough to alert us that it finally was closing, even if it was only a day in advance. I’m sure the owner had this in mind for a long time.
I also have to wonder why someone got all the way up to the roof sign and painted over the theatre’s name but left Mann’s up there.
When I first laid eyes on the UA Rivoli in the summer of 1967, it was playing the 70mm reissue of GONE WITH THE WIND “in New Widecreen Splendor” (which I didn’t know meant it was cropped at the top & bottom).
I vividly remember being shocked that the Rivoli had a permanent metal and neon blade sign made up specifically with the title of the film. I have video and pictures that show the same blade sign was completely redone that October to spell out STAR in neon, with star shapes alternating with each of the letters. (check out a little movie called THE PROJECTIONIST) to see a glimpse of the NY premiere of STAR! at the Rivoli)
Considering that they went to such expense to change the exterior of the Rivoli from one feature to another, I have absolutely no doubt that the OKLAHOMA! curtain was replaced the instant the picture left. If you look closely at photos of the OKLAHOMA! curtain, you’ll see it was so entirely themed to that one picture that it would be inappropriate for any other.
With showman Michael Todd involved in both OKLAHOMA! and 80 DAYS, I am certain he would not let his own 80 DAYS run with an OKLAHOMA! curtain. I wouldn’t be surprised to hear 80 DAYS had its own curtain at the Rivoli, but I’ve not seen or heard any indication that another picture there had a special curtain.
I remember as a kid in 69 being amazed that a legit house was showing a movie…. but I am sure GOODBYE, MR. CHIPS did indeed have its first NY (roadshow) run at the “RKO Palace” in late 69. I’m not sure if it was the World Premiere, but it was the NY premiere, and I’d imagine MGM would have struck a 70mm print, because the throw was soooo long up above the 2nd balcony. I’ve been up there and it’s like he side of a mountain.
However, the UA Rivoli did not exactly (as stated on the Rivoli page) get converted to 70mm/Todd-AO for AROUND THE WORLD IN 80 DAYS. The first picture released in Todd-AO was the first to play the Rivoli after the big overhaul, and a special crazy-quilt like curtain was created and installed specifically for OKLAHOMA! I have a copy of the Boxoffice magazine announcing the conversion and debut of Todd-AO at the Rivoli, and there are good pictures of the entire conversion process at American Widescreen Museum www.widescreenmuseum.com in the Todd-AO section.
Having said that, it is pretty nifty to see the extra details added in here.
There is a phototour of the Regent Snowcase here: View link
Exactly, Bill. As I said, Seattle patrons have been enjoying movies on the real Cinerama screen for decades. They are on the edge of inaccuracy and certainly misleading when they refer to the second screen being developed by “Cinerama architects,” They are referring to an independant company that has no relation whatsoever to Cinerama, other than being hired to revamp a theatre with that name. The way that sentence is written gives wholly undue credence to a group whose main objective was to get the real Cinerama screen out of the way.
The line about “2,000 independently angled louvered strips” was written before the screen was ever used, and at that time, the strips were not in fact angled at all. Anchoring the strips firmly in place is one thing, angling them correctly is another. The strips were attached to the top and bottom of the frame, but they are held to the frame with something elastic enough to allow them to flutter in the breeze of the AC.
The strips would have to be anchored horizontally with thin wire (often the same stuff used on fishing rods). It would take great care, and attention to detail, to anchor and align the 1" strips into proper position, and it’s not likely to have been done right if it was done by Seattle’s own staff without some kind of guidance and supervision from Cinerama experts. Just imagine the precision necessary to turn 2000 one inch strips, which overlap each other, so that they are facing straight to the front around the entire curve.
The entire setup for the two screens in Seattle was deliberately designed (by the non-Cinerama designers) for the real screen to be the lowest priority. It is a very complicated and expensive process to bring out the big screen, which guarantees that it would rarely be used. It would probably take about 2-3 full capacity houses to pay for the conversion. Seattle would need to be sure of at least a dozen full houses to be willing to pay for the switch, which would require them to close for 2 days before and after.
I would hold out no hope at all for the big screen to be used for 2001. It’s a shame, but a reality.
Yes Chris, I know the “cheap” screen ; ) is slightly curved and not bad. But it’s not worth schlepping all the way to Seattle for. Did you know when they were designing that big-deal rippled starry ceiling they did not take into account that there would be a bigger screen for Cinerama? Yup. It obstructs part of the big picture, so they have to mask it down, and because of that ceiling you will never get to see the full size of the Cinerama screen. It always bothers me when the people in charge won’t listen to the people who know better.
DR: How exactly was the loose strip problem corrected?
It is unfortunate Seattle’s decision makers think that the curved screen is only for Cinerama. The Seattle Cinerama Theatre has been a local favorite for decades because of that screen. A Cinerama theatre without a Cinerama screen is a shame. It’s like going into Grauman’s Chinese and taking all the Chinese stuff out.
Thanks, William.
LOL! Joe!
I was a projectionist back in the mid seventies, carbon arcs, changeovers, etc. I know Xenon lamps made the platters possible, which rendered most professional projectionists expendible to owners. Not such a good thing as it turns out. You and I know that, but does the public? The ArcLight name, doesn’t represent movies to the general public it’s a stretch even to imagine what it refers to. But Cinerama, even for civillians, is not such a stretch, it conjures thoughts of movies, maybe panoramic movies, you know, like a combination of Cinema and Panorama. ; ) A far more effective brand name for a “specialized” movie chain, don’t you think?
I know about the obsolete use of carbon arc as a light source, (even the “roach clips” we used to burn the carbon rods down to stubs)… and the big lamps used for searchlights, and sometimes on movie sets. But the ArcLight management has denied that their name refers to either. They said, as if groping for an answer, “uh… it’s an arc of light.”
The blurry slide, that doesn’t quite fill their screens, is their corporate logo: a fuzzy pair of hands trying to form the letter A. Line up a dozen people (including the staff), ask them what it is and what it has to do with movies. Good luck with that. They have a name and logo that are apropos of nothing, yet they think it’s brand that people will want on t-shirts.
Back to ArcLight: Does anyone know what the name refers to, and what the heck that blurry slide they project onto the screens is supposed to be?
PS: I do like some of the Cinematheque’s programming, it’s the venue that ruins it for me. Yes William, I miss the Egyptian’s former configuration, and don’t think it was worth ruining that just to put a screening room in the lobby.