I think the rendering shows the basic form/layout of the auditoria but I can’t imagine that the finishes will look as shown. The seating arrangement drawn seems to include some oddities, too; but it does suggest that the recliner/premium seating approach will be taken with a commensurate reduction in capacity.
Disappointing to see a floating screen in the main auditorium; that’s how it is drawn in the planning application also.
Still, the larger auditorium, as drawn in the planning application, includes a ~50ft. wide screen, so one might still hope for an ISENSE screen with laser projection and Atmos sound…
I assume Screen 16 is the one marked Screen 8 on the planning application, as that is the largest of the new auditoria.
The screen width for that auditorium, measured off plans, is ~18m (~60ft.) Seating distance to screen width ratio varies from, somewhat roughly, 0.35 to 1.35x (first to last rows.)
So, it sounds like it could provide a good experience.
Zappomatic: How did you find the picture/sound? I expect laser projection will have been installed, but presumably, not Atmos?
Most changes are relatively minor; some details of particular note:
A document titled “McFarlanelatter_Odeon_Holloway Road_Presentation_P” has been added, which includes some historic photos, and a cross-sectional drawing with the original finishes labelled as follows: Panels – rich cream; Frieze – blue (“picked out” in gold and silver); Columns – black bases, “picked out” in gold; balustrate – carved walnut. Decorative elements of the circle foyer/lounge are also described.
New foyer colours: Dulux 10YY 72/021 (Warm Beige); Dulux 62BB 08/369 (Blue); Dulux 30BB 05/022 (Black) gloss; “silver and gold decorative paint.” Cross-sectional drawings and a photo are labelled with the proposed colour scheme.
The document titled “HERITAGE STATEMENT” has been updated.
It states that the foyer/restaurant link has been removed.
1958 suspended ceiling to be removed from auditorium, due to its “[poor] integrity in areas [accessible] above Screen 6,” “punctured in many places,” and Odeon’s desire to “remove any future risk from the condition of the ceiling.”
Removal of the ceiling enables Auditorium ½ to have the screen raised “so that [the] viewing angle from the new seating can meet Odeon’s/industry standards.”
Old skylight (covered over) above stage house to be removed, new flat roof.
Confusingly, whilst “REV B” of the “PROPOSED SECTION” shows a new (higher than existing) ceiling above Auditoria ½, labelled “NEW CEILING FIXED TO U/S TRUSSES,” and the old suspended ceiling removed—the “REV C” version of the “PROPOSED SECTION” shows the existing suspended ceiling, labelled “EXISTING CEILING RETAINED.”
(N.B. I have not summarised any proposed external changes, e.g. new signage.)
The document titled “Officer Report & Associated Documents Final
Report,” dated 25th June 2019, recommends approval. The planning database states that this revised scheme has been approved, but no approval document is included at this time.
See the link to “RELATED DOCUMENTS” at the bottom of the page.
The works are outlined in the “HERITAGE STATEMENT” document.
To summarise:
Removal of Auditorium 3, which had been “[inserted] into the first floor foyer tea room,” to “[reinstate] the dramatic original foyer volume,” with expectation that this will “reveal the original balustrade, ceiling and fenestration.”
Shops converted to restaurant, “linked to the foyer.”
New lift to first floor and “corridor to rear of the circle” for “wheelchair access.”
Auditoria 1-6 to have replacement floor “to a new rake” (replacing the existing floor built above the original.)
The document titled “Dwg OD-HW-145-PLN – Proposed Section” provides a good illustration of the new stepping and seating, clearly showing recliners in Auditorium 2 and 4—the plans show recliners in all auditoria.
According to the “HERITAGE STATEMENT” document, Odeon are planning on making this a “flagship” site, combining heritage aspects with the (non-listed) auditoria fully refurbished to current standards, clearly implying it will be a “LUXE”-branded site.
Chapman Taylor’s website has been updated with new photos of the refurbished/extended Cineworld O2, including shots of what I assume to be the “VIP” lobby/bar, and a “VIP” auditorium.
PhilipWW: The three examples of multiplexes that you cite are almost certainly (or in the case of Finchley Road (O2 Centre) definitely) Warner Bros. International Theatres “house style” designs. As mentioned previously elsewhere on CT, the same design—beginning in the latter half of the 1990s—was used on an international basis, including “Warner Mycal” multiplexes in Japan!
These could be considered to be a “second generation” multiplex design, with steep stepped “stadium-style” seating, flat stretched fabric wall coverings (instead of the “Soundfold” pleated type), and, perhaps, an “evolution” (?) towards today’s “box” design with more modestly splayed walls to the front of the auditorium; whilst retaining a masked screen with a proscenium of sorts, tabs were dispensed with.
As you say, the larger auditoria in these cinemas were indeed fitted with “scope” screens.
Talking of the development of Warners' 1990s design, Chapman Taylor’s website includes a profile/interview with David Wallace, former Senior Vice-President of Architecture/Construction at Warner Bros., now a Director at Chapman Taylor.
I’m not sure how Warner designs changed beyond this point; UCI, for example, introduced “the filmworks” brand with the now de rigueur “black box” auditoria. Post-buyout and rebrand to “Vue,” clear examples of “Vue-specific” designs are the two Westfield mall venues in London; but I’m not sure if they had developed much before that, at least in terms of form and not the finishes.
I’m not overly familar with the Westfield venues, but the Xtreme auditoria (certainly at Westfield London, Shepherds Bush) certainly are, I’m afraid, fitted with “flat” screens.
It is, perhaps, instructive to consider that the Westfield cinemas opened as digital-only sites…
Vue’s current new build rate appears to be very slow, with only one new site opening per year, according to this list on the CTA’s website.
Looking at photos of Vue Bromley, it has exactly the same style as Vue Eltham (albeit it has the benefit—or disadvantage, depending on your opinion!—of all-recliner seating.)
However, it is not a “boothless” cinema, as Vue Eltham is.
(N.B. I have located the main planning application for Vue Bromley; links and some key points extracted from them to follow on the respective CT page…)
RadioVenus: Aesthetically, I too preferred the previous position.
Moving the screen forward makes the sightlines “worse.” The old rear stalls only just about had viable sightlines to the top of the screen; however, they, of course, have been “removed.”
The new screen is slightly smaller than the previous, but moving it forward helps compensate, relatively.
I’m not sure that the screen has actually been “moved up,” as stated in other posts? Comparing the 1998 2D screen with the 2018 screen, it looks like the reduced size has allowed for the bottom of the screen to be raised, but the top looks to be in about the same location?
Note, also, from the second image that the sightlines to bottom of the screen from the front row of the balcony are only just viable.
I have no idea why the screen was moved forward; it might be imagined that it was a decision based on “modernisation,” or it may have been for acoustic reasons, for which there are good reasons why it would be preferable.
If, as FanaticalAboutOdeon says, the OLS is staffed by 3 technical personnel, then it is puzzling if all aspects of presentation aren’t programmed to perfection, let alone basic standards…
(*Not shown in cross-section but assume from plans identical to Aud 5. (Only different drawn is “mirror imaged” seating layout with aisle position at opposite side.))
All screens, therefore, are flat.
Are the screens at Vue Eastleigh all “floating” with no masking?
I’m not familar with any Vue “new builds” from the past few** years; are there any where they are installing “scope” screens?
(**Where “few” means “few;” not including Westfield Stratford City, for instance.)
Sound Associates' news page includes a brief item on their installation at Vue Eltham. To quote:
“Sound Associates are proud to have designed and installed a state of the art QSC Q-Sys DSP system providing the functionality of an audio processor for all screens. We used three DSP cores positioned in one central location for the six screens, this flexible system gives each screen both an independent user and engineer interface page, plus there is a monitoring control page that can be accessed centrally.”
Dolby Fidelio, for hearing impaired, was installed also.
Included is a photo showing part of the rack, which shows:
2xQSC Q-SYS DCIO-H (Digital Cinema Input/Output interface.)
1xQSC Q-SYS Cinema Core 110C (QSC’s web page describes it as a “multipurpose software based digital audio signal processor.”)
1xQSC DPA 4.2 4-channel amplifier for cinema
The DPA 4.2 includes on-board signal processing, including crossover, parametric EQ and time-alignment capabilities.
Plans are available for this cinema as part of an application dated 2012 to alter/restep the circle for larger seating. (N.B. The circle had already been restepped over the original concrete in 2001.)
Included within the application is a “FLOOR FINISHES” document, from which:
Carpet – “ODEON Black Carpet” by OW Hospitality (“Quality Supplier of
Axminster Carpets,” according to their UK website.)
LARGE_screen_format: According to the “History” page on the cinema’s website, the cinema was acquired by a local person, Becky Hallsmith, in 2011. Digital projection/replacement screen were added, and the sound system “upgrad[ed],” alongside “redecorations.” Subsquently, the seating was replaced also.
Alas, Ms. Hallsmith passed away last year; however, it is to become a “community-owned” business—so you, too, can own a “piece” of the cinema!
The cinema is the subject of an ~1 hour long documentary, “The Ultimate Survivor;” which can be viewed on the linked page.
I have been “dragged” along to this cinema again, this time Auditorium 6.
Observations as before, except:
The picture from an excessive amount of centre-to-edge brightness dropoff, and the picture didn’t seem quite sufficiently bright.
Non-sync music played before/after performance.
Lighting the same, i.e. far too bright during ads/trailers, but at least smooth fades.
Sound quality OK. In terms of spectral balance, it sounded very good. However, it was obvious that dialogue levels were nowhere near reference level, and the LFE seemed to be lacking also. On the other hand, the surround level was, relatively, far too high. Very strange; I can only imagine that somehow complaints about excessive volume levels have lead to the fronts/LFE being reduced in level? I have not experienced this at any other cinema.
Once again, I choose to book a “VIP” seat, which, as previously mentioned, was very comfortable. However, I did briefly try out a “regular” seat, and it was shockingly uncomfortable.
Rear array comprised the same JBL rear array as Auditorium 1; however, due to “boxing out,” the rightmost rear array speaker on the back wall is further forward than the others. However, I did not notice any issue from my seating position; just too much diffuse activity from the rear array.
No “turbulant” sounds from ducting was heard, and the HVAC system was quiet (and maintained a consistent comfortably cool temperature and unstuffy environment throughout)—however, the (boothless) projector was slightly audible, and there also appeared to be a faint high pitched sound, possibly intermittent.
Not mentioned in the previous comment was the overly bright (with the house lights off) red and green lights on the sidewalls, which are also installed in Auditorium 1. These certainly did leak slightly onto the screen also.
Measured on the planning documents, the screen is ~33ft. wide. It is, of course, a “flat” ratio screen.
The single row of VIP seats is about 1.2x screen width away from the screen, and the picture seemed inadequately sized. Of course, the perception of screen size is subjective; e.g. if the sound system is capable of more impact and spatial delineation, then this can produce a cinematic “larger than life” sense even with an “undersized” screen.
All areas of the cinema visited were clean.
Overall, then, a run-of-the-mill medicore multiplex experience on this occasion, particularly marred by the sound level and front to rear balance. A shame as I had expected better given the previous better-than-expected experience in Auditorium 1.
Errata: “Revised drawings” (the main one being “1000-1005”) should have been referenced in the previous link to the planning application, albeit the original set of submitted drawings (“documents ‘Drawing – 1000 rev 02’ onwards”) include a scale.
Other updates—within the same development, “Pizza Express” is now open, whilst externally there is no sign of an impending opening of the “Sky Bar.”
CF100
commented about
BFI IMAXon
Jul 15, 2019 at 4:11 pm
joeswin: I heard rumours about a potential redevelopment some months ago; however, at that time, the only information appeared to be the “Waterloo—Building Height Study, 2018” in which Lambeth Council lists potentially suitable high rise locations. I assumed that these locations were identified on the basis of, e.g. protected sightlines (St. Paul’s, etc.) rather than an indication that any proposals would be forthcoming.
Spending £500K (between Lambeth and TfL) on a feasibility study, as claimed in the article, would seem to be a large sum without a serious prospect of taking a scheme forward.
Alas, the article does not cite any sources, nor can I find any other material to confirm the story.
The article does note that BFI have a 150 year lease on the site, and, further, “the BFI will be invited to be a consultee but will be bound by a tripartite confidentiality agreement with TfL and Lambeth.”
So, it would remain to be seen if any scheme incorporates a replacement, à la Sydney Harbour.
Internally, the auditorium itself is a textbook IMAX with little of unique interest, and the foyer/circulatory areas are, in my view, bland.
However, externally and taken as a whole it must be considered a unique piece of “real architecture” woven into a difficult setting… it works since you leave the busy surrounding area into a “sub-grade” oasis leading to the cinema.
I can’t imagine anything less than a tremendous public outcry—the building is absolutely an iconic London landmark (arguably more than any other operating cinema, including the Odeon Leicester Square—not to say it is “better,” simply that it could be stuck on a montage with the “London Eye” and “Big Ben.”)
Alas, it would seem to be not quite old enough to be listed; to quote Historic England, “Buildings less than 30 years old are not normally considered to be of special architectural or historic interest because they have yet to stand the test of time,” which may explain an apparent eagerness to start working up a replacement now.
The prospect of a replacement may also explain why BFI still haven’t upgraded to IMAX with Laser projection, albeit it could always be moved over? If there were to be a replacement, then one could well imagine that the 15/70 GT projector would fall by the wayside due to its size and weight.
The planning application to which Zappomatic refers appears to be PP/19/01987.
The architectural practice marked on the documents is “Earle Architects.”
Although the application description mentions external aspects only, plans can be found in the document listed as “EXISTING AND PROPOSED PLANS INCLUDING SITE PLAN.”
(Albeit, not for the basement; the “existing ground floor plan” is marked “SCREEN 6 BELOW — REFER TO BASEMENT PLAN.”)
The document listed as “PLANNING, DESIGN AND ACCESS STATEMENT” includes renderings of the proposed canopy.
Although the “existing” plans appear to have schematic layouts of auditoria seating only, levels are marked, and from this auditoria 1-5 are definitely drawn as restepped, and for auditoria ½, as Zappomatic says, “straightened.”
It also appears that the screens as drawn have been reduced in size (albeit perhaps one should not trust the “existing” plans in this respect.) For auditoria ½, it appears that the screens are have been “straightened,” no long being slanted in. I imagine the projection is proposed to be “boothless,” with ceiling mounted units?
Replacement screens for auditoria 3-5 are ~“scope” ratio, whilst auditoria ½ are ~“flat.”
Alas, I am too tired to continue. Suffice to say that the screens as drawn in Auditoria ¾, with the screen centre being ~70% of the auditorium’s width from the farthest side wall. Above all, with auditoria 2/3 remaining very assymetrical, one side wall of each splayed in—and presumably their (~“flat”) screens will be “floating” with no masking—just too many negative elements.
Without further reconfiguration, there is just no getting past the previous poor quality subdivision, rendering the rebranding exercise nothing if not ironic.
As the above-linked document says, typical acoustic cores are up to 75mm of rigid mineral wool slab, although greater depths are available.
(Behind which, typically, is “double wall” plasterboard with more acoustic absorption, in this case being for soundproofing.)
Note that the recommended fabric is “100% Polyester Trevira CS”—a quick Google search leads to one vendor selling such type of fabric product at £62/m (140cm wide)—which equates to £45/sq.m.
Of course, these technical aspects do not account for aesthetic preference (and, indeed, these stretched fabric systems can achieve more elaborate decor than “black box” designs, if desired)—but rather to indicate that these systems are hardly a low-cost option, and that “old” cinema designs, at least as originally built, don’t meet today’s performance requirements in terms of controlling reverberation time within an auditorium, nor acoustic isolation of auditoria.
(Granted, the latter is less of a concern in a single screen venue!)
It would be interesting to know how “food and beverage” offerings have changed over the years?
Obviously, the changes to the exhibition industry have been fast paced in the 2010’s; however, for instance, looking at “old cinema adverts” videos on YouTube includes exhortations to make last minute concession counter trips, a reminder that a variety of alcoholic beverages are available from the bar, and very unappetising close shots of hot dogs!
(Note that this application was for Caesars Entertainment UK, i.e. the casino operator.)
The document listed as “DELEGATED REPORT” makes for some particularly interesting reading.
In summary, it turns out that none of the existing three banner adverts is approved; although the applicant claims that “Deemed Consent” was obtained by virtue of the high level banner being displayed for more than 10 years, the report shows archival photos demonstrating that it was not continuously displayed for this period; and, the two side banners (which made their first appearance at a later date) constitute an increase in the quantum of advertising which in any event voids this claim.
Apparently, Westminster have, over the years, issued enforcement notices in respect of removing these adverts; however, they were removed and then reinstated at a later date
(The report states that, in relation to advertising, Westminster Council only proceed with legal action as a last resort.)
According to the report, Cineworld advised the cinema’s use of the banners was “entirely at the discretion of Caesars.”
Last Friday, i.e. 5th July 2019, no banners were in place. The “rods” for the side banners remained, and, it looks like some “making good” is needed to the upper parts of the façade.
Presumably, then, Westminster have (again!) taken enforcement action.
Of particular note from the report:
“The theatre is a very significant building architecturally and its status as an unlisted building of merit reflects this. There are a number of architectural features at the main elevation to Leicester Square, including the original ‘Empire Theatre’ sign to the parapet, a tri-partite arch, classical columns and coffered ceiling within the arch.”
This may be of some relief to anyone concerned about future alterations/additions.
In my view, notwithstanding the desires of the casino operator to add advertising of greater promenance—and surely this use should not overshadow the cinema aspect?—the upper/wide banner typically used for movie advertising was a reasonable compromise. The two side banners looked awful, and this scheme, to “bolt on” LED display module screens, is now demonstrably ill-conceived.
Meanwhile, the canopy remains in desperate need of being reimagined…
RadioVenus: Thank you for posting photos of curtain tracks, etc.
It is disappointing in the extreme to hear that the aspects of presentation you describe were at such an unacceptably low standard on the occasion that you visited.
From your description, I assume that the house lights remained fully raised during the “Dolby Cinema” trailer?
I hope that this practice of keeping house rights fully raised until the main feature doesn’t spread—I experienced it a few weeks ago at a recently opened “local” small multiplex, although I assumed it was a mistake—but perhaps it was so that patrons could find their seats?
Regarding your photo of the under-canopy (or under-“glass box”/extended circle lounge!) “blown” light bulbs, I have noticed this, too; when I originally saw the proposals for the revamped façade, I suspected that such luminaires would invite this problem…
Good to see the photo you have uploaded of the screen/house tabs from the 1998 OLS refurbishment—certainly illustrates well the detailed accounts by FanaticalAboutOdeon!
The Michael Portillo programme to which madorganplayer referred was broadcast today on Channel 5.
(Portillo’s Hidden History of Britain—Season 2, Episode 4: “The Palace of Dreams.”)
It is currently available to stream on demand until the 30th November 2019.
Obviously, it is aimed at a “general interest” audience—however, I did watch part of it and from what I could tell the plasterwork to the edge of the auditorium’s dome was (at the time of shooting) still intact.
Channel 5’s programme description, “The New Victoria in Bradford was Britain’s first cinema,” is, ahem, puzzling.
curmudgeon: Indeed. What a joke! :–(
I think the rendering shows the basic form/layout of the auditoria but I can’t imagine that the finishes will look as shown. The seating arrangement drawn seems to include some oddities, too; but it does suggest that the recliner/premium seating approach will be taken with a commensurate reduction in capacity.
Disappointing to see a floating screen in the main auditorium; that’s how it is drawn in the planning application also.
Still, the larger auditorium, as drawn in the planning application, includes a ~50ft. wide screen, so one might still hope for an ISENSE screen with laser projection and Atmos sound…
I assume Screen 16 is the one marked Screen 8 on the planning application, as that is the largest of the new auditoria.
The screen width for that auditorium, measured off plans, is ~18m (~60ft.) Seating distance to screen width ratio varies from, somewhat roughly, 0.35 to 1.35x (first to last rows.)
So, it sounds like it could provide a good experience.
Zappomatic: How did you find the picture/sound? I expect laser projection will have been installed, but presumably, not Atmos?
Addendum: There is a further “listed building application” that should be referenced instead.
Most changes are relatively minor; some details of particular note:
New foyer colours: Dulux 10YY 72/021 (Warm Beige); Dulux 62BB 08/369 (Blue); Dulux 30BB 05/022 (Black) gloss; “silver and gold decorative paint.” Cross-sectional drawings and a photo are labelled with the proposed colour scheme.
The document titled “HERITAGE STATEMENT” has been updated.
Confusingly, whilst “REV B” of the “PROPOSED SECTION” shows a new (higher than existing) ceiling above Auditoria ½, labelled “NEW CEILING FIXED TO U/S TRUSSES,” and the old suspended ceiling removed—the “REV C” version of the “PROPOSED SECTION” shows the existing suspended ceiling, labelled “EXISTING CEILING RETAINED.”
(N.B. I have not summarised any proposed external changes, e.g. new signage.)
The document titled “Officer Report & Associated Documents Final Report,” dated 25th June 2019, recommends approval. The planning database states that this revised scheme has been approved, but no approval document is included at this time.
Main planning application.
See the link to “RELATED DOCUMENTS” at the bottom of the page.
The works are outlined in the “HERITAGE STATEMENT” document.
To summarise:
The document titled “Dwg OD-HW-145-PLN – Proposed Section” provides a good illustration of the new stepping and seating, clearly showing recliners in Auditorium 2 and 4—the plans show recliners in all auditoria.
According to the “HERITAGE STATEMENT” document, Odeon are planning on making this a “flagship” site, combining heritage aspects with the (non-listed) auditoria fully refurbished to current standards, clearly implying it will be a “LUXE”-branded site.
The application was approved.
Chapman Taylor’s website has been updated with new photos of the refurbished/extended Cineworld O2, including shots of what I assume to be the “VIP” lobby/bar, and a “VIP” auditorium.
PhilipWW: The three examples of multiplexes that you cite are almost certainly (or in the case of Finchley Road (O2 Centre) definitely) Warner Bros. International Theatres “house style” designs. As mentioned previously elsewhere on CT, the same design—beginning in the latter half of the 1990s—was used on an international basis, including “Warner Mycal” multiplexes in Japan!
These could be considered to be a “second generation” multiplex design, with steep stepped “stadium-style” seating, flat stretched fabric wall coverings (instead of the “Soundfold” pleated type), and, perhaps, an “evolution” (?) towards today’s “box” design with more modestly splayed walls to the front of the auditorium; whilst retaining a masked screen with a proscenium of sorts, tabs were dispensed with.
As you say, the larger auditoria in these cinemas were indeed fitted with “scope” screens.
Talking of the development of Warners' 1990s design, Chapman Taylor’s website includes a profile/interview with David Wallace, former Senior Vice-President of Architecture/Construction at Warner Bros., now a Director at Chapman Taylor.
I’m not sure how Warner designs changed beyond this point; UCI, for example, introduced “the filmworks” brand with the now de rigueur “black box” auditoria. Post-buyout and rebrand to “Vue,” clear examples of “Vue-specific” designs are the two Westfield mall venues in London; but I’m not sure if they had developed much before that, at least in terms of form and not the finishes.
I’m not overly familar with the Westfield venues, but the Xtreme auditoria (certainly at Westfield London, Shepherds Bush) certainly are, I’m afraid, fitted with “flat” screens.
It is, perhaps, instructive to consider that the Westfield cinemas opened as digital-only sites…
Vue’s current new build rate appears to be very slow, with only one new site opening per year, according to this list on the CTA’s website.
Looking at photos of Vue Bromley, it has exactly the same style as Vue Eltham (albeit it has the benefit—or disadvantage, depending on your opinion!—of all-recliner seating.)
However, it is not a “boothless” cinema, as Vue Eltham is.
(N.B. I have located the main planning application for Vue Bromley; links and some key points extracted from them to follow on the respective CT page…)
RadioVenus: Aesthetically, I too preferred the previous position.
Moving the screen forward makes the sightlines “worse.” The old rear stalls only just about had viable sightlines to the top of the screen; however, they, of course, have been “removed.”
The new screen is slightly smaller than the previous, but moving it forward helps compensate, relatively.
I’m not sure that the screen has actually been “moved up,” as stated in other posts? Comparing the 1998 2D screen with the 2018 screen, it looks like the reduced size has allowed for the bottom of the screen to be raised, but the top looks to be in about the same location?
Note, also, from the second image that the sightlines to bottom of the screen from the front row of the balcony are only just viable.
I have no idea why the screen was moved forward; it might be imagined that it was a decision based on “modernisation,” or it may have been for acoustic reasons, for which there are good reasons why it would be preferable.
If, as FanaticalAboutOdeon says, the OLS is staffed by 3 technical personnel, then it is puzzling if all aspects of presentation aren’t programmed to perfection, let alone basic standards…
PhilipWW: Estimating from the previously-linked plans: (Imperial conversions rounded to nearest ft.)
Aud 1 – ~12.3x6.7m / 40x22ft.
Aud 2 – ~14.1x7.7m / 46x25ft.
Aud 3 – ~11.4x6.3m / 37x21ft
Aud 4 – Identical to Aud 5*
Aud 5 – ~7.3x3.9m / 24x13ft.
Aud 6 – ~10.3x5.6m / 34x18ft
(*Not shown in cross-section but assume from plans identical to Aud 5. (Only different drawn is “mirror imaged” seating layout with aisle position at opposite side.))
All screens, therefore, are flat.
Are the screens at Vue Eastleigh all “floating” with no masking?
I’m not familar with any Vue “new builds” from the past few** years; are there any where they are installing “scope” screens?
(**Where “few” means “few;” not including Westfield Stratford City, for instance.)
Sound Associates' news page includes a brief item on their installation at Vue Eltham. To quote:
“Sound Associates are proud to have designed and installed a state of the art QSC Q-Sys DSP system providing the functionality of an audio processor for all screens. We used three DSP cores positioned in one central location for the six screens, this flexible system gives each screen both an independent user and engineer interface page, plus there is a monitoring control page that can be accessed centrally.”
Dolby Fidelio, for hearing impaired, was installed also.
Included is a photo showing part of the rack, which shows:
2xQSC Q-SYS DCIO-H (Digital Cinema Input/Output interface.) 1xQSC Q-SYS Cinema Core 110C (QSC’s web page describes it as a “multipurpose software based digital audio signal processor.”) 1xQSC DPA 4.2 4-channel amplifier for cinema
The DPA 4.2 includes on-board signal processing, including crossover, parametric EQ and time-alignment capabilities.
Plans are available for this cinema as part of an application dated 2012 to alter/restep the circle for larger seating. (N.B. The circle had already been restepped over the original concrete in 2001.)
Included within the application is a “FLOOR FINISHES” document, from which:
Carpet – “ODEON Black Carpet” by OW Hospitality (“Quality Supplier of Axminster Carpets,” according to their UK website.)
Vinyl – DLW Armstrong Scala 55 Mountain Pine Dark Brown.
Obviously, these “house style” finishes are the same products used in other Odeons.
Also, the document “GA PLAN & SETTING OUT PLAN,” lists seating as follows:
“Movie magic gets a makeover” — Oxford Mail.
According to this article, published in 2012, £1m was spent on refurbishing the cinema, including £350,000 on the foyer.
Unfortunately, visible in the photo of the main auditorium is a floating screen incongrously jutting out in front of the proscenium…
Details of the work involved in adding this screen are available in a planning application dated 2009, “Listed Building Consent for internal works to insert girders and posts to project a larger screen forward of the proscenium arch in screen 1”.
LARGE_screen_format: According to the “History” page on the cinema’s website, the cinema was acquired by a local person, Becky Hallsmith, in 2011. Digital projection/replacement screen were added, and the sound system “upgrad[ed],” alongside “redecorations.” Subsquently, the seating was replaced also.
Alas, Ms. Hallsmith passed away last year; however, it is to become a “community-owned” business—so you, too, can own a “piece” of the cinema!
The cinema is the subject of an ~1 hour long documentary, “The Ultimate Survivor;” which can be viewed on the linked page.
I have been “dragged” along to this cinema again, this time Auditorium 6.
Observations as before, except:
Overall, then, a run-of-the-mill medicore multiplex experience on this occasion, particularly marred by the sound level and front to rear balance. A shame as I had expected better given the previous better-than-expected experience in Auditorium 1.
Errata: “Revised drawings” (the main one being “1000-1005”) should have been referenced in the previous link to the planning application, albeit the original set of submitted drawings (“documents ‘Drawing – 1000 rev 02’ onwards”) include a scale.
Other updates—within the same development, “Pizza Express” is now open, whilst externally there is no sign of an impending opening of the “Sky Bar.”
joeswin: I heard rumours about a potential redevelopment some months ago; however, at that time, the only information appeared to be the “Waterloo—Building Height Study, 2018” in which Lambeth Council lists potentially suitable high rise locations. I assumed that these locations were identified on the basis of, e.g. protected sightlines (St. Paul’s, etc.) rather than an indication that any proposals would be forthcoming.
Spending £500K (between Lambeth and TfL) on a feasibility study, as claimed in the article, would seem to be a large sum without a serious prospect of taking a scheme forward.
Alas, the article does not cite any sources, nor can I find any other material to confirm the story.
The article does note that BFI have a 150 year lease on the site, and, further, “the BFI will be invited to be a consultee but will be bound by a tripartite confidentiality agreement with TfL and Lambeth.”
So, it would remain to be seen if any scheme incorporates a replacement, à la Sydney Harbour.
Internally, the auditorium itself is a textbook IMAX with little of unique interest, and the foyer/circulatory areas are, in my view, bland.
However, externally and taken as a whole it must be considered a unique piece of “real architecture” woven into a difficult setting… it works since you leave the busy surrounding area into a “sub-grade” oasis leading to the cinema.
It has been placed on the 20th Century Society top 10 at risk list.
I can’t imagine anything less than a tremendous public outcry—the building is absolutely an iconic London landmark (arguably more than any other operating cinema, including the Odeon Leicester Square—not to say it is “better,” simply that it could be stuck on a montage with the “London Eye” and “Big Ben.”)
Alas, it would seem to be not quite old enough to be listed; to quote Historic England, “Buildings less than 30 years old are not normally considered to be of special architectural or historic interest because they have yet to stand the test of time,” which may explain an apparent eagerness to start working up a replacement now.
The prospect of a replacement may also explain why BFI still haven’t upgraded to IMAX with Laser projection, albeit it could always be moved over? If there were to be a replacement, then one could well imagine that the 15/70 GT projector would fall by the wayside due to its size and weight.
terry: LOL… Yeesh! I do sympathise with your past experience of these, as you call them, “delicacies!”
The planning application to which Zappomatic refers appears to be PP/19/01987.
The architectural practice marked on the documents is “Earle Architects.”
Although the application description mentions external aspects only, plans can be found in the document listed as “EXISTING AND PROPOSED PLANS INCLUDING SITE PLAN.”
(Albeit, not for the basement; the “existing ground floor plan” is marked “SCREEN 6 BELOW — REFER TO BASEMENT PLAN.”)
The document listed as “PLANNING, DESIGN AND ACCESS STATEMENT” includes renderings of the proposed canopy.
Although the “existing” plans appear to have schematic layouts of auditoria seating only, levels are marked, and from this auditoria 1-5 are definitely drawn as restepped, and for auditoria ½, as Zappomatic says, “straightened.”
It also appears that the screens as drawn have been reduced in size (albeit perhaps one should not trust the “existing” plans in this respect.) For auditoria ½, it appears that the screens are have been “straightened,” no long being slanted in. I imagine the projection is proposed to be “boothless,” with ceiling mounted units?
Replacement screens for auditoria 3-5 are ~“scope” ratio, whilst auditoria ½ are ~“flat.”
Alas, I am too tired to continue. Suffice to say that the screens as drawn in Auditoria ¾, with the screen centre being ~70% of the auditorium’s width from the farthest side wall. Above all, with auditoria 2/3 remaining very assymetrical, one side wall of each splayed in—and presumably their (~“flat”) screens will be “floating” with no masking—just too many negative elements.
Without further reconfiguration, there is just no getting past the previous poor quality subdivision, rendering the rebranding exercise nothing if not ironic.
curmudgeon:
Somewhat confused by the latter…?
In relation to the former, the current de facto standard sidewall furnishing is stretched fabric—the leading supplier is Eomac.
European Product Technical Specifications.
As the above-linked document says, typical acoustic cores are up to 75mm of rigid mineral wool slab, although greater depths are available.
(Behind which, typically, is “double wall” plasterboard with more acoustic absorption, in this case being for soundproofing.)
Note that the recommended fabric is “100% Polyester Trevira CS”—a quick Google search leads to one vendor selling such type of fabric product at £62/m (140cm wide)—which equates to £45/sq.m.
Of course, these technical aspects do not account for aesthetic preference (and, indeed, these stretched fabric systems can achieve more elaborate decor than “black box” designs, if desired)—but rather to indicate that these systems are hardly a low-cost option, and that “old” cinema designs, at least as originally built, don’t meet today’s performance requirements in terms of controlling reverberation time within an auditorium, nor acoustic isolation of auditoria.
(Granted, the latter is less of a concern in a single screen venue!)
It would be interesting to know how “food and beverage” offerings have changed over the years?
Obviously, the changes to the exhibition industry have been fast paced in the 2010’s; however, for instance, looking at “old cinema adverts” videos on YouTube includes exhortations to make last minute concession counter trips, a reminder that a variety of alcoholic beverages are available from the bar, and very unappetising close shots of hot dogs!
Addendum: Photo taken July 2019.
Terry: Oh dear!
Debenhams is in dire straits with losses amounting to almost £0.5bn in one year and ongoing restructuring…
moviebuff82:
Not quite sure what you mean, Dolby Cinema AFAIK is a “scope” format?
To quote FanaticalAboutOdeon’s post dated 2nd March 2019 (information taken from the publication “Cinema Technology”):
“Screen/Projection: Scope width – 13.35, Flat width – 11.60, Scope height – 5.59, Height – 6.2”
All figures in metres.
An application [dated received 20th March 2019] to replace the three banner adverts on the LSQ frontage with LED display module screens has been refused by Westminster Council.
(Note that this application was for Caesars Entertainment UK, i.e. the casino operator.)
The document listed as “DELEGATED REPORT” makes for some particularly interesting reading.
In summary, it turns out that none of the existing three banner adverts is approved; although the applicant claims that “Deemed Consent” was obtained by virtue of the high level banner being displayed for more than 10 years, the report shows archival photos demonstrating that it was not continuously displayed for this period; and, the two side banners (which made their first appearance at a later date) constitute an increase in the quantum of advertising which in any event voids this claim.
Apparently, Westminster have, over the years, issued enforcement notices in respect of removing these adverts; however, they were removed and then reinstated at a later date
(The report states that, in relation to advertising, Westminster Council only proceed with legal action as a last resort.)
According to the report, Cineworld advised the cinema’s use of the banners was “entirely at the discretion of Caesars.”
Last Friday, i.e. 5th July 2019, no banners were in place. The “rods” for the side banners remained, and, it looks like some “making good” is needed to the upper parts of the façade.
Presumably, then, Westminster have (again!) taken enforcement action.
Of particular note from the report:
“The theatre is a very significant building architecturally and its status as an unlisted building of merit reflects this. There are a number of architectural features at the main elevation to Leicester Square, including the original ‘Empire Theatre’ sign to the parapet, a tri-partite arch, classical columns and coffered ceiling within the arch.”
This may be of some relief to anyone concerned about future alterations/additions.
In my view, notwithstanding the desires of the casino operator to add advertising of greater promenance—and surely this use should not overshadow the cinema aspect?—the upper/wide banner typically used for movie advertising was a reasonable compromise. The two side banners looked awful, and this scheme, to “bolt on” LED display module screens, is now demonstrably ill-conceived.
Meanwhile, the canopy remains in desperate need of being reimagined…
RadioVenus: Thank you for posting photos of curtain tracks, etc.
It is disappointing in the extreme to hear that the aspects of presentation you describe were at such an unacceptably low standard on the occasion that you visited.
From your description, I assume that the house lights remained fully raised during the “Dolby Cinema” trailer?
I hope that this practice of keeping house rights fully raised until the main feature doesn’t spread—I experienced it a few weeks ago at a recently opened “local” small multiplex, although I assumed it was a mistake—but perhaps it was so that patrons could find their seats?
Regarding your photo of the under-canopy (or under-“glass box”/extended circle lounge!) “blown” light bulbs, I have noticed this, too; when I originally saw the proposals for the revamped façade, I suspected that such luminaires would invite this problem…
Good to see the photo you have uploaded of the screen/house tabs from the 1998 OLS refurbishment—certainly illustrates well the detailed accounts by FanaticalAboutOdeon!
LARGE_screen_format has asked me to post the following, as he is unable to post on Cinema Treasures:
(“Comment appears to be SPAM!” message on attempting to post.)
“It turns out this cinema does NOT have IMAX with Laser GT projection as previously thought as per this post by Cineworld.”
The Michael Portillo programme to which madorganplayer referred was broadcast today on Channel 5.
(Portillo’s Hidden History of Britain—Season 2, Episode 4: “The Palace of Dreams.”)
It is currently available to stream on demand until the 30th November 2019.
Obviously, it is aimed at a “general interest” audience—however, I did watch part of it and from what I could tell the plasterwork to the edge of the auditorium’s dome was (at the time of shooting) still intact.
Channel 5’s programme description, “The New Victoria in Bradford was Britain’s first cinema,” is, ahem, puzzling.