Cinerama Hollywood
6360 Sunset Boulevard,
Los Angeles,
CA
90028
6360 Sunset Boulevard,
Los Angeles,
CA
90028
142 people
favorited this theater
Showing 951 - 975 of 1,416 comments
IMO, the surround sound in the Dome isn’t very good. The dynamics and bass are awesome of course, but the domed ceiling and circular auditorium shape cause sound reflections that smear the multichannel sound imagery. Surround sound image is not very precise at all. It even causes sounds to come from where they’re not supposed to.
Saw Indy yesterday afternoon. Despite our terrible seats, we had a great time. Some image distortion, specially during the opening sequences, but the sound was terrific. I didn’t think that the ending was that bad, but I understand why some fans would hate it, and that’s ok. It could have been worse.
The trailer for Dark Knight was shown in all its glory, and that probably will fuel speculation that it will land at the Dome…
JSA
I wouldn’t say that DP has dropped. Maybe in your market it has but in the DC area, I’d say they’ve increased with the increasing number of DP installations. The theaters that do have it are showing DP movies and it seems its all Narnia, as of now and I surmise that it was supposed to be the sure thing. I was disappointed we didn’t get Indy in DP but it seems that most of the all DP venues got it. I’d surmise that a big chain like Regal is putting at least one DP install in each plex but they don’t do much in promoting it as of yet.
is it just me or does it seem like the number of digitally projected engagements has dropped recently, or maybe they just aren’t advertising it as much? At one point it seemed like every big film opened in nothing but digital presentation at all the major theaters. Has it dropped or increased, or are they just waiting for some kind of new overhaul of projection systems or something? Also, what are the typical quality stands of digital, i thought they stadardized it to 4k, it this not true? And have you heard IMAX is going to start digital presentation late this year or early next! They just don’t want to spend the bucks on 70mm prints anymore, this is really sad. Talk about the downfall of cinema.
I think everyone is just in a muted state of downtrodden uncertainty about what the future holds, nobody knows anything, it’s a total state of unknowing and blank cynisism. Like when Johnny Depp/Hunter Thompson in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas wanders into a cloud of dust mumbling “..what now..?”
I know that the company that owns the Hollywood & Highland complex recently bought the Chinese theater, but Mann (WB & Par owned) is still the contracted management. I had thought that wouldn’t affect bookings but it looks like it might have.
As has every Indiana Jones flick. Since Warner Bros. (Batman) and Paramount (Indiana Jones) jointly own Mann theatres, does their ownership have any affect that Mann has on bookings? It seems like it used to be that Mann would get all the decent Warner and Paramount bookings in Hollywood and Westwood. But even in Westwood, Iron Man ended up at the AMC Avco!!
I’ve noticed as well. I’ve heard rumblings of The Dark Knight being possibly being booked at Arclight. That would be a big deal because I believe every Batman movie since 1989 has played at the Chinese.
Just FYI good discussion starting up on Grauman’s Chinese page RE how Arclight has started to get all the good bookings lately:
/theaters/1/
Last comment from me:
It wasn’t like that for the first couple years that the Arclight was open, but these days the Arclight is THE place in LA to see a film. Whenever I go you see celebrities and industry people who would really rather not deal with all the tourists on Hollywood Boulevard. My feeling is studios really want their films at the Arclight for the prestige factor. Its sad because the Chinese puts on a good show. A few years ago the Chinese and even Chinese 6 were getting films like Lord of the Rings: FOTR, Black Hawk Down, Star Wars Ep 1 and 2 and Insomnia. All of those would certainly play at the Arclight if released today.
I really don’t care what you’re comparing a pristine to 35mm print – the film always looks better to me. It’s really that simple. You like digital projection – great.
As to lowering the masking – you people do understand that that was always the norm, don’t you? I:85 was one ratio, and when it changed to scope the masking opened on the sides and the top masking came down – that is how it was until heaven knows when. Now there’s no difference in the height – they simply open the sides and it’s not right, IMO. At the DGA, 1:85 is 1:85 and 2:35 is something wholly other, as it should be.
haineshisway,
We’re not comparing pristine special 35mm prints to mediocre 1k digital nowadays.
Re: El Capitan’s screen. Yes, it’s not very big. 40ft?
To show the 2:35 “Narnia” at El Cap, it looked like they had to lower both the top and bottom masks in order to present a 2:35 image. That screen is obviously made for 1:85 Disney cartoons – not widescreen flicks. Nuff about that…
I saw Indy 4 on Friday at 11:40 PM. Great sound & picture – HORRIBLE MOVIE ENDING!
the El Capitan screen is not very big as it is on the stage. The largest screen holder in California is at the Chinese and the screen holder is 120 feet. The stage at the Chinese was ripped out to accommodate this large screen holder. The masking at the Chinese opens to 65 feet for 35mm scope the largest picture able to be projected without burning the film. It opens further for digital presentations.
Chris, it has been awhile since I’ve been to the restored El Capitan (different than the covered up decor of the theater then called Paramount) but the screen was anything but tiny or shoeboxy. Can you please estimate how many feet wide you perceive the screen is, for a scope film?
In my opinion, “tiny” is less than 20 feet wide, “medium” starts at 25 feet, “large” at 30 or 35 feet, “huge” at 50 feet, and “enormous” at 60 feet.
That was me, and the El Capitan was in a list of other theaters where I feel showmanship is still present. I honestly have only been to the El Capitan twice – had a good time both times, but have no memory of the screen size at all. Why on Earth would it be a small screen. When the theater was the Paramount it had a HUGE screen – saw The Music Man there, and Dr. Zhivago, and Doctor Doolittle and many, many other films.
Saw Indy at the Dome last night, presentation was fine, image was sharp and bright, sound excellent, it did look like the edges were cropped pretty badly for the trailers, particularly the bottom as the titles hit the edges, but the movie itself seemed ok. The ‘warping’ from the curved screen isn’t bad at all, i still like this theatre and give it a 9, it always brings back memories of a more exciting time visiting the cinermadome, though we certainly don’t live in exciting times anymore, at least for cinema. Reality has plenty of all the wrong kinds of excitement we need
So 35MM film but no 70MM for “Indy 4” after all. 1 out of 2 ain’t bad, I guess. I’m going to the 11:40 PM show with 30 members of my film club on Friday night. Hope it’s worth it.
And to the poster who lauded the El Capitan for it’s showmanship – I was just there for the first time in 7 years for “Narnia – Prince Caspian” last Friday. All the showmanship in the world won’t compensate for that tiny, shoeboxy screen they use! I’ve seen bigger screens in megaplexes! I’ll take The Dome/Arclight anyplace anytime anywhere!
How’s Indy doing at the Dome? I’ll be there with the kids Sunday!
JSA
no that’s just excessive.
i just looked online – in between midnight and 1:01am tonight – Indy 4 is playing in 12 out of the 15 auditoriums. is that a record?
technical question – how were 35mm prints actually blown up for their 70mm incarnations? Is it somewhat akin to the new trend of films being DMR’d to IMAX/70mm? Is the intermediate negative sourced? I know that for the recent engagments of ‘Iron Man’ and ‘Jumper’ on DC’s Uptown’s curved screens, the image wasn’t distorted, it was the near decolorization of the 35mm prints that were the issue.
If 35mm scope was blown up to 70mm, yes, as far as I know there would be some cropping involved.
You can find an excellent summary and comparison of the various aspect ratios using both 35mm anamorphic and 70mm processes at this page of the Widescreen Museum website:
View link
yea i was there for that Khartoom screening. But let’s take the two common ratio’s for most hollywood studio films, 1:85 and 2:35, is there a difference in ratio presentation whether it’s shown in 35 or 70? Most films are shot in 35, so most were blow-ups, so i would guess not. I mean for example the big difference between seeing Raiders or Temple of Doom in 70 was a brighter, sharper, more stable image and of course the sound, right?
Of course there are different ratios for different types of 70mm. The most common is 2:20 – there have been a handful of 1:85 ratio films in 70mm, and then, of course, there’s Ultra Panavision 70, whose negative ratio is 2:76 (I just saw Khartoum at the Egyptian and they did their best to preserve the 2:76 ratio, but their screen is just too small to have that work).
I agree with that, these big screens were meant for 70..no doubt about it! Though someone correct me if i’m wrong, is there any difference in the actual ratio of the presentation, whether it be 1:85, 2:35 or 2:40 whether it’s in 35 or 70? Cause i don’t think there is, 70 mainly gives you a higher resolution, sharper, brighter image, and of course mag sound in the old days. Though i’m not sure about this, especially for some of the old fashioned mega-wide scopes ala Vistavision, Ultra or Super Panavision 65mm, Todd AO, etc someone with better knowledge fill me in