Cinerama Hollywood
6360 Sunset Boulevard,
Los Angeles,
CA
90028
6360 Sunset Boulevard,
Los Angeles,
CA
90028
142 people
favorited this theater
Showing 926 - 950 of 1,416 comments
I understand that that is what you think or have read somewhere, but I’m telling you the reality of it. And when the Egyptian and the Chinese installed their new screens after ripping out the prosceniums do you think that the top masking did not come down for scope? Because I, who was there, am here to tell you it did. The screen was NOT as high as 1:85 EVER in those theaters. Cinemascope was a whole different shape. Whatever was supposed to happen must not have happened, because I have an impeccable memory for all things LA and its movie theaters, and I spent my entire childhood going from one movie palace to the next and I was, in fact, fascinated by the moving masking and, as I posted above, I once wandered into a projection booth and the projectionist showed me how it worked. I’m not makin' it up, I didn’t read it on some site, I was THERE.
haines, the top and bottom were not supposed to change, only the sides. Thats why it was called widescreen. Those old theaters you’re talking about that were originally built for 1.33 or 1.85 to 1 were doing what they could to accomodate the new wider screens. A few, like the Chinese, and later, the Egyptian, actually ripped out their prosceniums to accomodate a screen that was truly wider and at least as tall as their original 1.33 or 1.85 screens.
The whole idea of widescreen was to have a new screen that was at least as tall as the existing 1.85 or 1.33 screen, but wider.
I don’t know what the Village does NOW and I don’t really care – but, for example, when, as a child, I saw The High And The Mighty and The Tender Trap there, the side masking opened and the top masking came down to create a really wide picture that was not, I repeat NOT, the same shape as 1:85 at ALL. It’s what every theater in LA did back then. I really can’t have this conversation with people who only know from now because of their age. I’m just telling you the way it was and the way I grew up watching Cinemascope, then Panavision or any scope process – all the way up to the advent of the multiplex, which is when everything began to change. I don’t want to walk into a theater and see a film in 1:85 that fills the entire screen IF the alternative is that for scope all the do is lower the masking – please. You think that’s what the filmmakers intended? It is to laugh. I just know the way it was – I can’t speak to the unspeakable things they do now.
Mark, thank you for saying what I was trying to say. I hadn’t thought of the fact that those classic theatres were built before CinemaScope.
segask, I don’t think THX standards have anything to do with the picture, only acoustics and other audio “standards,” etc. And yes, all Arclight Hollywood houses are THX-certified.
quote Mark Campbell: “The reason the top masking came down AND the screen widened at your old theatre was simply the constraints of that particular theatre’s design and adaption to 2.35 Scope films. Because that particular theatre, or others, presented the films that way, does not mean it was the INTENTION of the filmmakers. I know the Royal theatre does this with their masking simply because they kept the screen under the old proscenium. A 1.85 screen shape will fill the proscenium top to bottom, but not quite side to side. For 2.35 scope they can widen to the edges of the proscenium but have to lower the top masking to create the more rectangular shape. In other words, I think they are doing they best they can with what they’ve got. For a lot of older theatres with the screen either under the proscenium or moved in front of it to allow it to get much wider, I think this is a lot of the times the case.
However, I think the INTENTION of the studios and the filmmakers was to have the image keep the same height but get WIDER, creating a more open, panoramic look that replicates more closely a person’s true field of vision. There would be no purpose for the image to get a little wider, but a little lower at the same time. That is counterproductive and merely a flaw or drawback in a particular theatre’s design."
yeah. In order to properly convert his famous movie palaces to widescreen Sid Grauman ripped out the prosceniums at his Egyptian and Chinese theaters in Hollywood. On their pages here at Cinematreasures, there are links to old photos of what those auditoriums originally looked like when he built them in the 1920’s.
I beleive when the top and bottom masking moves its called a ‘common width’ screen, and when the right and left masking moves its called a ‘common height’ screen?
Another reason for a theater having common width screens might be so they can advertise everything playing as being presented on a ‘giant wall to wall screen’.
Don’t all the screens at Arclight Hollywood carry THX certification? I thought that one of the requirements of THX certfication is a common height screen, where the masking adjusts on the sides rather top or bottom?
you make a good point Mark. I think you’re right in that stadium seating has caused top masking – my question for everyone (and perhaps this is off topic)… how big is too big? personally, i really like how large the amc 15 screens are, though for instance IMAX screens are governed by the same principle (“lets blow them away with the most crazy-huge screen possible”). i don’t think amc means any disrespect towards filmmakers in the same way that the arclight uses top masking in their smaller two auditoriums. perhaps it’s merely trying to give the customers something as far from their tv as possible?
haineshisway: The reason the top masking came down AND the screen widened at your old theatre was simply the constraints of that particular theatre’s design and adaption to 2.35 Scope films. Because that particular theatre, or others, presented the films that way, does not mean it was the INTENTION of the filmmakers. I know the Royal theatre does this with their masking simply because they kept the screen under the old proscenium. A 1.85 screen shape will fill the proscenium top to bottom, but not quite side to side. For 2.35 scope they can widen to the edges of the proscenium but have to lower the top masking to create the more rectangular shape. In other words, I think they are doing they best they can with what they’ve got. For a lot of older theatres with the screen either under the proscenium or moved in front of it to allow it to get much wider, I think this is a lot of the times the case.
However, I think the INTENTION of the studios and the filmmakers was to have the image keep the same height but get WIDER, creating a more open, panoramic look that replicates more closely a person’s true field of vision. There would be no purpose for the image to get a little wider, but a little lower at the same time. That is counterproductive and merely a flaw or drawback in a particular theatre’s design.
I, and many others here, feel that a properly designed theatre for scope pictures only has the screen open wider to accommodate scope films. Such examples would be the Village and National (RIP) in Westwood (L.A.), Grauman’s Chinese, the Cinerama Dome, Seattle Cinerama and MOST of the auditoriums at the Hollywood Arclight.
Many of us here (and I kow Chris Utley is one) have a particular dislike for theatres designed from the ground up with top-down only masking only. Such examples would be the AMC Century 15 and Pacific’s Grove in Los Angeles. The reasons for such poor design might be several, but I feel it is doe to: poor design, cheap design, a lack of respect to the film-makers wishes, and most of all, the theatre chains idea of “lets blow them with the most crazy-huge screen possible!” The problem is with most stadium designed theatres the screen wall ends up being a square shape because of how tall the auditoriums are. This means that the biggest screen they fit in the place is largest when at a 1.85 ratio. Many of these screens are just too big. Watch any non-scope 1.85 feature at the large houses at the Century 15 and The Grove and you have to sit at least two-thirds the way back just to not be overwhelmed or get sick. Then the theatres have a big dramatic let down: You are watching the preshow “entertainment”, then some previews in 1.85 when suddenly the screen shrinks vertically but keeps a common width for your showing of “The Dark Night”. Think of it like watch a DVD on your old school TV. For 1.85 the letterboxing has narrow strips at the top and bottom. For a 2.35 scope film, which is meant to have more grandeur, the black bands at top and bottom get bigger, creating a narrow band for the image. Would you want the same effect in a movie theatre?
Most of the Arclight Hollywood’s auditoriums have side masking that open wider for scope films (as the movie gods intended) because they designed the auditoriums wider. In the bigger auditoriums the screens are still pretty big for 1.85 and they position the seats far enough away so those sitting near the front don’t get overwhelmed and still have all the picture in their field of vision.
I have not been to the Arclight Sherman Oaks, but since it is a conversion of a regular old Pacific Stadium theatre, something tells me there is top-down masking everywhere, which to me seems like Arclight on the cheap and goes against their presentation principles.
I am no expert, but this is my view of things. I’ll shut up now.
haineshisway is right! Scope is not what it used to be, another aspect of the downfall of cinema into homogenization, in an age where we don’t even have projectionists anymore! Just character-less boxes run by character-less automation in character-less shopping complexes full of more character-less businesses and stores and people selling characterless junk all the while you get monitered by security camera’s and blank glazed faces. it’s over
as long as the screen is as wide as it possibly can be given the room… if the height of the ceiling dictates that a 1.85 can indeed fit given that width, even though it’s then technically a larger screen than films shown in 2.35 in the same room i prefer that. people talk as if 2.35 movies are somewhat better than 1.85 films – in the 50’s this would be a valid argument, but nowadays it’s simply an artistic choice. let me put it this way, if you were going to see a film in 1.85, walked into an auditorium with a small screen, but saw that it could have been larger but was kept small so that it wouldn’t eclipse 2.35 films… wouldn’t you be disappointed?
I’m not saying that’s not the way it was. It isn’t the BEST way to do it. One person saying the screens are too small and another saying they should be smaller for wider films.
Why would you want the screen to get smaller for a movie, say like The Dark Knight?
And I’m talking about the big theaters, too – the Paramount, the Pantages, wherever – the top masking always came down as the screen got wider on the sides. This is not guessing – I watched it happen every day, and ultimately watched a projectionist do it from the booth.
I’m just telling you the way it used to work – I went to the movies four times a week all throughout the late 1950s – the side masking opened wide and the TOP MASKING came down to form what we know and love as a scope image. The HEIGHT most certainly did NOT stay where it was for 1:85 EVER, not in any theater that was equipped to show scope properly.
haineshisway, perhaps you aren’t understanding the concept of aspect ratios. 1.85:1 means the width is 1.85 times the height. Or for every 1 foot high the screen is, it is 1.85 feet long.
Width:Height
1.85:1
2.35:1
The height (1) stays the same; the width gets bigger (1.85 to 2.35). A theater could decide to use top masking and side masking for scope but the screen would be smaller. Maybe that’s what is required in narrower houses or something, I’m not sure.
The height stays the same and the side masking opens to create 2:35 – only 2:35 does not have the same height as 1:85, so I don’t know what you’re actually seeing in those theater, but it seems bogus to me, like most of today’s moviegoing.
In the old days, even in my neighborhood theater that had the best scope screen (the Stadium – a GREAT theater), you’d have 1:85, then the curtains would close and as they were closing you could already see the side maskings opening wide and the top masking coming down, and when the curtains reopened, voila, you had scope, which was NOT the 1:85 height with the side masking opened.
Don, it may be like that in some theaters but ideally masking should make the screen bigger for wider films. That’s the reason 2.35 movies are shot that way, so it’s HUGE! Theaters that don’t use side masking (unless for design constraints in Arclight’s case) don’t understand much or anything at all about presentation.
Yes, that’s correct. The height stays the same, the width is what changes. Two of the Arclight screens have top masking only though, which also are the two I refuse to see anything in.
No, instead of the screen getting wider, masks narrow the screen from the top and the bottom. So with a 2.35 movie, you’re getting the smallest possible screen area.
So, let me get this straight – via the photos posted above – the 1:85 screen masking opens up for 2:35 but the top and bottom masking remains the same??? Sorry, doesn’t compute.
“The newer AMCs seem to have taller and wider screens…”
…with TOP & BOTTOM MASKING that causes those screens to SHRINK RIGHT BEFORE YOUR VERY EYES whenever a 2:35 film is projected on them. Yuk!
presentation standards are much better than any AMC but yea i agree some of their screens could be bigger, one thing i gotta say really irks me about both Arclights especially Sherman Oaks is their “tiny screens” which is typical for most multiplexes but i think it’s an outrage for this theater at the prices they charge and the quality standards they boast. It seems the last 3 or 4 times i went to the Sherman Oaks (or Hollywood) Arclight, whatever film it was i had a tiny shred of interest in seeing was always playing in one of those TINY houses, y'know the one’s all the way at the end of the hall hidden in the far corner. Now i realize they expect to run films that aren’t going to draw big crowds/business and can’t justify playing them in the larger houses but frankly every release is like that now after opening weekend and i think it’s a jip to pay that kind of money after making the special trip to a theater like that (hoping for a better presentation) then get stuck in a tiny theatre! And that goes for playing new releases on multiple screens, nobody wants to see a big new film in the tiny house just because it falls into the time schedule they chose, I saw Rambo on one those tiny screens and I was furious!
Not to be judgmental but the screens don’t look as large as I’d imagined given all the hoopla about how great the place is with its state-of-the-art presentation that exceed THX standards. The newer AMCs seem to have taller and wider screens. On the other hand, the seating arrangement seems to give ample room for even the largest of moviegoers with what seems like ample foot room to stretch. Along with the Dome, I’d definitely would want to watch a movie there the next time I’m in LA. :)
Thanks, Hollywood, for the photos of the non-Dome auditoriums. I briefly walked into a few of them once, but visiting from the East Coast, mostly wanted to see movies in the historic theaters. 2nd photo at Cinema 5,and Cinema 10 photo are especially interesting. It isn’t often multiplex photos are posted online, so this is a nice contribution to this site.
It depends a lot on where you sit as well. I think it’s a lot harder to hear the surrounds when you sit on the ground floor.
I saw Desperado in the Dome, before the Arclighting. There’s a scene where a fight stops, it goes quiet and then someone starts slowly clapping. The sound of the clapping began at the left of the screen, traveled back around the room and ended at the right side of the screen, very precise. It’s one of the best examples of surround sound mixing that I’ve ever heard.
Did they redo the sound system during the renovation? I guess it’s possible they screwed something up. The thing is (it seems to me) that most sound mixes don’t make very aggressive use of the surrounds, so it’s hard to tell how good they really are.