pmont – I have a great framed photo of the original Harvard Square entrance circa 1941 (I believe it is one of the MGM Theatre Report photos that Ron Salters often references. Either way, it was known as the University Theatre then) It was a gift, so I don’t know where it came from, but the CHS does have old photos you can xerox or have printed; they are in the little municipal building to the left of city hall.
My only kvetch with the 1977 one – the Harvard Square Theatre did not have the address of 10 Church Street then – it would have been 1432 Mass Ave or thereabouts.
Well I can’t speak for other theaters, but we moved “The Dark Knight” out of our biggest auditorium for “Pineapple Express” simply because we were selling Pineapple out in our second largest house and “The Dark Knight” is winding down a bit.
If you read the article, Sumner Redstone is not trying to take away National Amusements from his daughter; he is arranging for her to have the theater chain for herself. He is trying to buy out her interest in Viacom and CBS, which are separate from NA.
We do still have that policy of no children after 6pm – it is my personal preference, and audiences have responded positively to it. Obviously we would make an exception if we had a kid-oriented film (like last year when we screened “The Wizard of Oz”) but generally we do not book kids movies there unless forced to by the studios.
I think the Wang is also a victim of being too large for many shows that used to play there – now they find that the B.F. Keith Memorial/Opera House is more conducive to such touring shows.
I personally would love to see this theater throw its hat into the ring with the occasional movie run (beyond their occasional special screening) – given the piss-poor presentations at the Boston Common and Fenway theaters, what a treat it would be to see “The Dark Knight” or “Wall-E” booked into the Wang for a month – they could easily charge a higher ticket price too. I know I would pay $12-14 to see a film there rather than the other two downtown options. Given the nature of the film business, this scenario would be tough, but it is still something I think would give audiences something to remind people why the movies, versus DVD and so forth, are special.
I have to agree with Warren over this particular issue – misrepresentation can cause all sorts of issues. A theater can have/be a promoter, but not all promoters work for theaters directly. If one of the promoters who occasionally use the theater I operate was to have a signature/moniker of my theater’s name, I would be irate. It is not clear whether that is the case here, but what is very clear is that many people have great affection and hopes for the Loew’s Paradise, including THE PARADISE THEATER.
Yes indeed! The Museum of Bad Art has found a home in our basement. This is in a storage area opposite the restrooms. This space has been storage since the building was built; it originally contained 10 stalls for the 10 storefronts that lined the ground floor, but has been one large storage room for years. Some paint and carpet and voila – MOBA! Admission to the museum is free with a movie ticket.
Excuse me, I was referring to your first link; the second link was more in line with the Boston Paramount, though the Boston was more narrow than that.
The Paramount did have a stage, though it was a very shallow one, but enough for a small orchestra or variety act. It also had an organ when built. The organ grille was the most notable part on the interior that remained… it kind of fanned out above the proscenium.
I would say that the interior was not hopelessly ruined, though it was very rough some semblance of its original decor could have been easily reconstructed, but it wouldn’t have served Emerson’s needs to be restored to its original state. Who knows? Maybe they will recreate some parts, but whatever was there a couple of years ago is completely gone now.
That is EXACTLY what they are doing. It would appear that all remaining interior decor has been completely destroyed. It is possible they might have saved a few fixtures (and perhaps the organ grille over the proscenium) for reinstallation in whatever they create within the walls, but it would appear that the old Paramount interior is completely gone. I hope they managed to save some of the staircases and wood paneling in the lobbies but I can’t tell from those photos.
Automation would have nothing to do with how the image looks.
More likely than not, you have probably seen some digital presentation at the Loews. There is no such thing as ‘partially digitalized’ in terms of projection; the presentation is either in film or in digital format. Digital tends to of course be ‘cleaner’ looking because there are no scratches or lines in a digital presentation, but 35mm film tends to visually ‘pop’ off the screen more than digital and is a different experience for our eyes and brains than digital. In film, the colors are better defined (black colors look black, not gray, for example) and in digital there is less depth to the color. Of course so very few labs know how to print film properly anymore, especially when the crank out 3000 prints in a row, so print quality today is poorer than it used to be in film (a conspiracy from the studios perhaps to force theaters into digitalization? I wouldn’t be surprised!). A 35mm IB Technicolor print from 40 years ago will always look better than digital if it is kept in good shape and projected properly.
Thanks to AMC/Loews well-known lack of attention to projection quality, you are more likely to see a good 35mm presentation at a college than downtown, so what you are seeing at Loews is probably digital.
Another issue is that colleges are getting ‘second-run’ or hand-me-down prints, meaning that by the time they receive the movie to play, whatever theater it first played at has already damaged the print to begin with. So while Loews gets a brand new print, which they are then free to ruin, the colleges (and second-run theaters) get the damaged print delivered to them when the Loews is done.
It is my personal opinion that 35mm remains superior to a digital image if the 35mm film is projected PROPERLY, i.e. with good equipment, a trained and experienced projectionist, and equipment tweaked to get the best presentation possible out of a particular set-up (such as a properly focused bulb, calibrated lenses). Large theater chains tend to not care about these particulars, especially when it comes to projection staff – they would rather have the popcorn staff hit a button than hire a professional in the booth – so they have created a culture in the industry where bad presentation is such the norm that people are willing to sacrifice a good format like 35mm for a lesser one like digital because ‘the image is clearer with no lines or scratches’. They don’t realize that a good projectionist and equipment can prevent that from occurring. The chains are also under pressure from the studios to switch to digital since it saves the film companies billions in print costs.
You would do well to read the comments above your own – the Loew’s Orpheum discussed on this page was demolished a few years back. You are no doubt referring to the modern replacement AMC/Loews Orpheum. Thanks for promoting your business, though.
Tu further clarify, the official press release says:
“WALT’S CALIFORNIA — A new visual icon in the tradition of California’s great entertainment palaces will draw guests into the heart of Disney’s California Adventure. Inspired by the Carthay Circle Theatre where Walt Disney premiered Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs in 1937, this new facility will house a next-generation “Walt Disney Story†featuring an interactive tribute to Walt’s California experiences, and his entertainment legacy that continues worldwide today. ”
So it would appear that this is an homage, not a relica per se, and will host an attraction.
According to imdb.com today, the Disney company will be building a ‘replica’ of the Carthay Circle Theatre as part of an expansion to Disneyland’s California Adventure park in Anaheim. It does not say anything about detils like how exact a replica and so forth, but does imply that they are building it to hold premieres.
All I can say as a theater manager is that is is hard to keep several hundred people 100% happy about the temperature. We set our a/c or heat to 72 degrees and monitor it closely with patrols, but inevitably (and in the same audience) there is always someone who prefers it colder and someone else who was too chilly.
Gordon & Lockwood sold their theaters to affiliates of Paramount (and they were affiliates themselves) and most of them became Mullin & Pinansky Theatres (M&P in the old newspaper ads – M&P also leased the Locatelli-built Theatres in the Somerville area like the Capitol in Somerville, the Ball Square, and the Capitol in Arlington, plus other big Boston nabe houses like the Mattapan Oriental Theatre). Later as a result of the Paramount Decree, M&P was divided into American Theatres Corp. and New England Theatres.
I highly recommend the book “Hollywood East” by Diana Altman (who lives in Newton, Mass. I believe) which is about Louis B Mayer and M-G-M – Gordon was one of Mayer’s early partners. I am sure you could track Ms. Altman down if you tried as she probably knows a great deal about Gordon’s involvement in Boston theaters and early film business.
This is why theaters have insurance! These kinds of claims happen all the time, but are not usually in the press unless someone is connected or very very whiney.
That is a depressing video in light of both the state of the theater and Arthur Chandler’s passing.
pmont – I have a great framed photo of the original Harvard Square entrance circa 1941 (I believe it is one of the MGM Theatre Report photos that Ron Salters often references. Either way, it was known as the University Theatre then) It was a gift, so I don’t know where it came from, but the CHS does have old photos you can xerox or have printed; they are in the little municipal building to the left of city hall.
I should also add – that is a very cool google map! Nice work!
My only kvetch with the 1977 one – the Harvard Square Theatre did not have the address of 10 Church Street then – it would have been 1432 Mass Ave or thereabouts.
Well I can’t speak for other theaters, but we moved “The Dark Knight” out of our biggest auditorium for “Pineapple Express” simply because we were selling Pineapple out in our second largest house and “The Dark Knight” is winding down a bit.
If you read the article, Sumner Redstone is not trying to take away National Amusements from his daughter; he is arranging for her to have the theater chain for herself. He is trying to buy out her interest in Viacom and CBS, which are separate from NA.
Hi Mpol,
Thank you for the kind words.
We do still have that policy of no children after 6pm – it is my personal preference, and audiences have responded positively to it. Obviously we would make an exception if we had a kid-oriented film (like last year when we screened “The Wizard of Oz”) but generally we do not book kids movies there unless forced to by the studios.
-Ian Judge/Somerville Theatre General Manager
I think the Wang is also a victim of being too large for many shows that used to play there – now they find that the B.F. Keith Memorial/Opera House is more conducive to such touring shows.
I personally would love to see this theater throw its hat into the ring with the occasional movie run (beyond their occasional special screening) – given the piss-poor presentations at the Boston Common and Fenway theaters, what a treat it would be to see “The Dark Knight” or “Wall-E” booked into the Wang for a month – they could easily charge a higher ticket price too. I know I would pay $12-14 to see a film there rather than the other two downtown options. Given the nature of the film business, this scenario would be tough, but it is still something I think would give audiences something to remind people why the movies, versus DVD and so forth, are special.
I have to agree with Warren over this particular issue – misrepresentation can cause all sorts of issues. A theater can have/be a promoter, but not all promoters work for theaters directly. If one of the promoters who occasionally use the theater I operate was to have a signature/moniker of my theater’s name, I would be irate. It is not clear whether that is the case here, but what is very clear is that many people have great affection and hopes for the Loew’s Paradise, including THE PARADISE THEATER.
Yes indeed! The Museum of Bad Art has found a home in our basement. This is in a storage area opposite the restrooms. This space has been storage since the building was built; it originally contained 10 stalls for the 10 storefronts that lined the ground floor, but has been one large storage room for years. Some paint and carpet and voila – MOBA! Admission to the museum is free with a movie ticket.
Congrats on grabbing one of the nicer of the remaining old Loew’s houses, Joe. Glad to see a quality company will improve it.
Patsy, Those Denver Paramount pics are as close to the Paramount Boston as any I’ve ever seen – almost identical.
However, there was very little left for Emerson to restore… just the shape of things, not the gilding or paint.
Excuse me, I was referring to your first link; the second link was more in line with the Boston Paramount, though the Boston was more narrow than that.
Patsy,
The ceiling of the Boston Paramount was not as circular in nature like that photo; the decor was not as pronounced.
Ron,
The Paramount did have a stage, though it was a very shallow one, but enough for a small orchestra or variety act. It also had an organ when built. The organ grille was the most notable part on the interior that remained… it kind of fanned out above the proscenium.
I would say that the interior was not hopelessly ruined, though it was very rough some semblance of its original decor could have been easily reconstructed, but it wouldn’t have served Emerson’s needs to be restored to its original state. Who knows? Maybe they will recreate some parts, but whatever was there a couple of years ago is completely gone now.
That is EXACTLY what they are doing. It would appear that all remaining interior decor has been completely destroyed. It is possible they might have saved a few fixtures (and perhaps the organ grille over the proscenium) for reinstallation in whatever they create within the walls, but it would appear that the old Paramount interior is completely gone. I hope they managed to save some of the staircases and wood paneling in the lobbies but I can’t tell from those photos.
Automation would have nothing to do with how the image looks.
More likely than not, you have probably seen some digital presentation at the Loews. There is no such thing as ‘partially digitalized’ in terms of projection; the presentation is either in film or in digital format. Digital tends to of course be ‘cleaner’ looking because there are no scratches or lines in a digital presentation, but 35mm film tends to visually ‘pop’ off the screen more than digital and is a different experience for our eyes and brains than digital. In film, the colors are better defined (black colors look black, not gray, for example) and in digital there is less depth to the color. Of course so very few labs know how to print film properly anymore, especially when the crank out 3000 prints in a row, so print quality today is poorer than it used to be in film (a conspiracy from the studios perhaps to force theaters into digitalization? I wouldn’t be surprised!). A 35mm IB Technicolor print from 40 years ago will always look better than digital if it is kept in good shape and projected properly.
Thanks to AMC/Loews well-known lack of attention to projection quality, you are more likely to see a good 35mm presentation at a college than downtown, so what you are seeing at Loews is probably digital.
Another issue is that colleges are getting ‘second-run’ or hand-me-down prints, meaning that by the time they receive the movie to play, whatever theater it first played at has already damaged the print to begin with. So while Loews gets a brand new print, which they are then free to ruin, the colleges (and second-run theaters) get the damaged print delivered to them when the Loews is done.
It is my personal opinion that 35mm remains superior to a digital image if the 35mm film is projected PROPERLY, i.e. with good equipment, a trained and experienced projectionist, and equipment tweaked to get the best presentation possible out of a particular set-up (such as a properly focused bulb, calibrated lenses). Large theater chains tend to not care about these particulars, especially when it comes to projection staff – they would rather have the popcorn staff hit a button than hire a professional in the booth – so they have created a culture in the industry where bad presentation is such the norm that people are willing to sacrifice a good format like 35mm for a lesser one like digital because ‘the image is clearer with no lines or scratches’. They don’t realize that a good projectionist and equipment can prevent that from occurring. The chains are also under pressure from the studios to switch to digital since it saves the film companies billions in print costs.
Mike Q. –
You would do well to read the comments above your own – the Loew’s Orpheum discussed on this page was demolished a few years back. You are no doubt referring to the modern replacement AMC/Loews Orpheum. Thanks for promoting your business, though.
Tu further clarify, the official press release says:
“WALT’S CALIFORNIA — A new visual icon in the tradition of California’s great entertainment palaces will draw guests into the heart of Disney’s California Adventure. Inspired by the Carthay Circle Theatre where Walt Disney premiered Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs in 1937, this new facility will house a next-generation “Walt Disney Story†featuring an interactive tribute to Walt’s California experiences, and his entertainment legacy that continues worldwide today. ”
So it would appear that this is an homage, not a relica per se, and will host an attraction.
There is an image at: http://www.disneylandnews.com/renderings.htm
According to imdb.com today, the Disney company will be building a ‘replica’ of the Carthay Circle Theatre as part of an expansion to Disneyland’s California Adventure park in Anaheim. It does not say anything about detils like how exact a replica and so forth, but does imply that they are building it to hold premieres.
All I can say as a theater manager is that is is hard to keep several hundred people 100% happy about the temperature. We set our a/c or heat to 72 degrees and monitor it closely with patrols, but inevitably (and in the same audience) there is always someone who prefers it colder and someone else who was too chilly.
Gordon & Lockwood sold their theaters to affiliates of Paramount (and they were affiliates themselves) and most of them became Mullin & Pinansky Theatres (M&P in the old newspaper ads – M&P also leased the Locatelli-built Theatres in the Somerville area like the Capitol in Somerville, the Ball Square, and the Capitol in Arlington, plus other big Boston nabe houses like the Mattapan Oriental Theatre). Later as a result of the Paramount Decree, M&P was divided into American Theatres Corp. and New England Theatres.
I highly recommend the book “Hollywood East” by Diana Altman (who lives in Newton, Mass. I believe) which is about Louis B Mayer and M-G-M – Gordon was one of Mayer’s early partners. I am sure you could track Ms. Altman down if you tried as she probably knows a great deal about Gordon’s involvement in Boston theaters and early film business.
This is why theaters have insurance! These kinds of claims happen all the time, but are not usually in the press unless someone is connected or very very whiney.
And “The Bourne Ultimatum” I might add….
Not the highest quality video (you can’t see the theater at all really) but at this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIUjJPEOd0g
you can watch Bob Dylan performing “It Ain’t Me Babe” with the Rolling Thunder Revue at the Harvard Square Theatre in 1975.