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.”
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.
Zappomatic: Cineworld’s “house style” sparkle tiles look fantastic, especially in black, and going by online prices, very expensive (though Cineworld’s seem to have coloured sparkles, which I can’t seem to find anywhere…)
(Typically ~£40-80/sq.m. at low volume consumer prices, and made of quartz/resin.)
All of which is to say that a “vast expanse” of them sounds good to me, but it does seem very odd that the extension foyer is so large (~11,500sq.ft.) seemingly without purpose—it’s not as if the rest of the complex is short of space! Perhaps an intended use is as a “flexible space” for hosting events?
Zappomatic: Possible effects on the sound could be at the subtle “audiophile”/“fusspot” level. ;–) Although, I suppose, your comment does suggest that the sound quality hasn’t been ruined!
Too bad that they distract from the picture—and one would certainly hope that Cineworld would notice this issue?
Joeswin: Thanks for the link, interesting reading!
A friend of mine attended a Tony Bennett concert (I’ve known him since we were teenagers, and he’s always been a fan of “crooners” of “standards!”) this evening—I wouldn’t place much weight on any feedback he has to offer on the sound system, but he did send a couple of (mobile captured) video clips, and it does sound like the “echo” issues at the Albert Hall are tamed.
He has also sent me a couple of photos, including of the “flown” speaker arrays; they will be uploaded in a moment…
Regarding your comment on the OLS page on premieres, I suspect the OLS will continue to be the venue of choice. Leicester Square is a second-to-none setting; and the OLS, with its “glass box”/enclosed balcony, permanent LED display module screens on its façade, new “VIP red rooms” (accessed via the two front splay wall fire exits), very high quality foyers, luxury seating, and, of course, the new top-end Dolby Cinema installation, is “made” to host movie premieres.
Also, I’m not sure the “house” sound system at the Royal Albert Hall would be suitable for film presentations.
Zappomatic: Thanks for the update/photo. Positioning looks dreadful—and acoustically not a good idea to be sticking reflective surfaces up that close to the screen on straight sidewalls (lateral reflections affect dialogue intelligibility [perhaps not too much of a concern here?] and stereo imaging.)
Alarmingly ill-thought out for a premier screen in their flagship site, with this auditorium having a very highly specified sound system!
By the way, do you, or anyone else reading this, know if Cineworld have or are planning on installing laser projection in the LSQ Superscreen?
I have recently revisited this cinema for several screenings and, whilst I can’t seem to locate my notes from these trips, I recollect that it has been tidied up slightly since my 2014 comment—no ripped seats or gaffer taped carpet in Screen 5, seats/auditoria clean, and if I’m not mistaken, the lobby/corridor to the screens has been fitted with new (current Vue “house style” dots on black pattern) carpet.
The toilets (under stadia) definitely need an overhaul, though.
In particular, I concur with SethLewis' comment that auditorium 9 is “good as anything out there for its time…”—on the day I attended, I was surprised at the quality of the picture/sound. The sound (Martin Audio) in particular is very good, and the picture—Sony S-XRD as with all non-IMAX VUEs—looked just fine, also. This does imply a good level of maintenance as the Sony S-XRD projectors are known for requiring periodic servicing, more so than DLP-based projectors.
The screen was masked to scope format; no idea if this masking is (or was!) moveable as the only the feature was shown (no adverts/trailers.)
Standard seating is by Figueras (logo on the rear) and is definitely “old school!” The interior is, too, with the late 90s Warner Bros. International Theatres “house style” having an oddly quasi-80s “post-modern” feel; however, the dark blue stretched fabric to screen end might be considered preferable to black stretched fabric.
Of course, all middle to last row seating is on a steep stadia—so one does not have to suffer “old school” sightlines!
Alas, according to Vue’s website, only auditorium 4 supports 3D.
Otherwise, in my view (no pun intended!), certainly preferable to the so-called “Xtreme” screens over at Westfield.
Foyer/lobbies always seem to be virtually empty, and, staffing skeletal; my recollection being one security guard and one person at the concessions counter!
A Coke Freestyle machine has been installed in the main foyer, so one must assume that Vue have an agreement for these to be installed in all their locations.
SethLewis:
It’s a shame that Vue wasn’t more imaginative with programming and that we couldn’t see more oldies and second runs like at the Prince Charles
Billy: A 25 year lease was taken so still around 10 years left on it; perhaps Vue have already negotiated a downward revision of rent.
Repurposing the cinema would seem to be difficult (e.g. it can hardly be converted to residential use, due to the requirement for windows alone;) and, given its location, “suspended” above a multi-storey car park, it might take a major redevelopment for it to be removed (and until such time one might imagine that Vue are not too keen on a competitor taking the cinema and undercutting their very successful Westfield site?)
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.
Zappomatic: Cineworld’s “house style” sparkle tiles look fantastic, especially in black, and going by online prices, very expensive (though Cineworld’s seem to have coloured sparkles, which I can’t seem to find anywhere…)
(Typically ~£40-80/sq.m. at low volume consumer prices, and made of quartz/resin.)
All of which is to say that a “vast expanse” of them sounds good to me, but it does seem very odd that the extension foyer is so large (~11,500sq.ft.) seemingly without purpose—it’s not as if the rest of the complex is short of space! Perhaps an intended use is as a “flexible space” for hosting events?
Not as bad as it looks, as that’s the “black level.” In bright scenes, the overlap is more or less seamless.
Zappomatic: Possible effects on the sound could be at the subtle “audiophile”/“fusspot” level. ;–) Although, I suppose, your comment does suggest that the sound quality hasn’t been ruined!
Too bad that they distract from the picture—and one would certainly hope that Cineworld would notice this issue?
Joeswin: Thanks for the link, interesting reading!
A friend of mine attended a Tony Bennett concert (I’ve known him since we were teenagers, and he’s always been a fan of “crooners” of “standards!”) this evening—I wouldn’t place much weight on any feedback he has to offer on the sound system, but he did send a couple of (mobile captured) video clips, and it does sound like the “echo” issues at the Albert Hall are tamed.
He has also sent me a couple of photos, including of the “flown” speaker arrays; they will be uploaded in a moment…
Regarding your comment on the OLS page on premieres, I suspect the OLS will continue to be the venue of choice. Leicester Square is a second-to-none setting; and the OLS, with its “glass box”/enclosed balcony, permanent LED display module screens on its façade, new “VIP red rooms” (accessed via the two front splay wall fire exits), very high quality foyers, luxury seating, and, of course, the new top-end Dolby Cinema installation, is “made” to host movie premieres.
Also, I’m not sure the “house” sound system at the Royal Albert Hall would be suitable for film presentations.
Zappomatic: Thanks for the update/photo. Positioning looks dreadful—and acoustically not a good idea to be sticking reflective surfaces up that close to the screen on straight sidewalls (lateral reflections affect dialogue intelligibility [perhaps not too much of a concern here?] and stereo imaging.)
Alarmingly ill-thought out for a premier screen in their flagship site, with this auditorium having a very highly specified sound system!
By the way, do you, or anyone else reading this, know if Cineworld have or are planning on installing laser projection in the LSQ Superscreen?
Cineworld are definitely rolling them out:
Cineworld Group and Cinionic strike 1,000+ unit deal to roll out acclaimed Barco laser projectors to theaters worldwide .
I have recently revisited this cinema for several screenings and, whilst I can’t seem to locate my notes from these trips, I recollect that it has been tidied up slightly since my 2014 comment—no ripped seats or gaffer taped carpet in Screen 5, seats/auditoria clean, and if I’m not mistaken, the lobby/corridor to the screens has been fitted with new (current Vue “house style” dots on black pattern) carpet.
The toilets (under stadia) definitely need an overhaul, though.
In particular, I concur with SethLewis' comment that auditorium 9 is “good as anything out there for its time…”—on the day I attended, I was surprised at the quality of the picture/sound. The sound (Martin Audio) in particular is very good, and the picture—Sony S-XRD as with all non-IMAX VUEs—looked just fine, also. This does imply a good level of maintenance as the Sony S-XRD projectors are known for requiring periodic servicing, more so than DLP-based projectors.
The screen was masked to scope format; no idea if this masking is (or was!) moveable as the only the feature was shown (no adverts/trailers.)
Standard seating is by Figueras (logo on the rear) and is definitely “old school!” The interior is, too, with the late 90s Warner Bros. International Theatres “house style” having an oddly quasi-80s “post-modern” feel; however, the dark blue stretched fabric to screen end might be considered preferable to black stretched fabric.
Of course, all middle to last row seating is on a steep stadia—so one does not have to suffer “old school” sightlines!
Alas, according to Vue’s website, only auditorium 4 supports 3D.
Otherwise, in my view (no pun intended!), certainly preferable to the so-called “Xtreme” screens over at Westfield.
Foyer/lobbies always seem to be virtually empty, and, staffing skeletal; my recollection being one security guard and one person at the concessions counter!
A Coke Freestyle machine has been installed in the main foyer, so one must assume that Vue have an agreement for these to be installed in all their locations.
SethLewis:
Now that would be a good idea!
Billy: A 25 year lease was taken so still around 10 years left on it; perhaps Vue have already negotiated a downward revision of rent.
Repurposing the cinema would seem to be difficult (e.g. it can hardly be converted to residential use, due to the requirement for windows alone;) and, given its location, “suspended” above a multi-storey car park, it might take a major redevelopment for it to be removed (and until such time one might imagine that Vue are not too keen on a competitor taking the cinema and undercutting their very successful Westfield site?)