By the way, Morgan Hill has an 11 screen multiplex, with 3 stadium auditoriums just added recently (sorry, no IMAX) — and it’s near the freeway, Kirk! Apparently it’s not good enough for Mr. Cheek.
I see what you mean, Scott. He starts talking about Hollister, then jumps to Gilroy and Morgan Hill. The weird thing is, Hollister also has a theater called the Granada. I got derailed when he started dissing the Art Moderne style as “uninspiring.”
The other weird thing is that he recognizes how important the environment is to enjoying the show, then completely dismisses it in favor of new, upgraded technology; does he really think that a black box multiplex will inspire people the same way?
Agree, I enjoyed the first part but not the end. Why not restore the theater and build a new section next door and incorporate the new screens there. Making the whole building look like the original theater. You get the best of both.
Yes, I read the whole thing.The first part sounds like he teaches some course in “Religion and Hollywood: the Ritual of Movie Going” at some “progressive” Adult Ed program.
That said, even if he gets his way to destroy the “old” cinema, what makes him think anyone wants to build a new 16 Plex downtown?
Most companies want to build out where the land is cheaper, so they can have lots of parking, and still be freeway close.
True most people don’t go a theatre just because it’s old. But most people don’t go downtown either unless they have to go to traffic court!
Did anybody read the article though? He supports tearing down a theatre built in the 50’s because it’s “no grand movie palace” and replacing it with a modern theatre. I’m sure that theatre was grand and palatial to those who grew up going there and just because it’s not gilded in decoration doesn’t mean there isn’t some sort of significance to the building.
By the way, Morgan Hill has an 11 screen multiplex, with 3 stadium auditoriums just added recently (sorry, no IMAX) — and it’s near the freeway, Kirk! Apparently it’s not good enough for Mr. Cheek.
I see what you mean, Scott. He starts talking about Hollister, then jumps to Gilroy and Morgan Hill. The weird thing is, Hollister also has a theater called the Granada. I got derailed when he started dissing the Art Moderne style as “uninspiring.”
The other weird thing is that he recognizes how important the environment is to enjoying the show, then completely dismisses it in favor of new, upgraded technology; does he really think that a black box multiplex will inspire people the same way?
The theatre he’s talking about is in Morgan Hill.
Agree, I enjoyed the first part but not the end. Why not restore the theater and build a new section next door and incorporate the new screens there. Making the whole building look like the original theater. You get the best of both.
Kirk, take a look at Hollister via Google satellite. It doesn’t have extensive suburbs or freeways. Revitalizing the downtown makes perfect sense.
Yes, I read the whole thing.The first part sounds like he teaches some course in “Religion and Hollywood: the Ritual of Movie Going” at some “progressive” Adult Ed program.
That said, even if he gets his way to destroy the “old” cinema, what makes him think anyone wants to build a new 16 Plex downtown?
Most companies want to build out where the land is cheaper, so they can have lots of parking, and still be freeway close.
True most people don’t go a theatre just because it’s old. But most people don’t go downtown either unless they have to go to traffic court!
Did anybody read the article though? He supports tearing down a theatre built in the 50’s because it’s “no grand movie palace” and replacing it with a modern theatre. I’m sure that theatre was grand and palatial to those who grew up going there and just because it’s not gilded in decoration doesn’t mean there isn’t some sort of significance to the building.