Showing 1 - 25 of 205 comments
When I worked for Cineplex Odeon in 1991-1993, this was the seating for the Broadway Cinemas:
1: 1762: 3953: 3254: 225
Theatre 2 was 70mm capable.
Today, the seating has changed:
1: 642: 1383: 1204: 66
When I worked for Cineplex Odeon in 1991-1993, this was the seating for the Marina Marketplace 6:
1: 4892: 2983: 2894: 2945: 1826: 230
Theatre 1 was 70mm capable.
With the Dine-In concept, the current seating is:
1: 1092, 3 and 4: 70 each5: 436: 57
When I worked for Cineplex Odeon in 1991-1993, this was the seating for the Fairfax Cinemas:
1: 1922: 4993: 222
House 2 was 70mm capable. All houses were able to show films in 1.33:1, 1.66:1, 1.85:1 and 2.39:1. House 2 could also play 4 track 35mm mag prints.
When I worked for Cineplex Odeon in 1991-1993, this was the seating for the Century Plaza Cinemas:
1: 7722: 5833 and 4: 198 each
Theatres 1 and 2 were 70mm capable. Theatre 1 was THX certified. Theatres 2, 3 and 4 had the HPS-4000 sound system.
When I worked at the Cineplex Odeon Beverly Center in 1991-1993, these were the seat counts:
1: 4652: 2913: 1034: 895: 1006 and 10: 70 each7: 788: 1339: 11311: 6012: 8013: 95
Houses 1 and 2 were 70mm capable.
The seating stayed relatively the same until the closing in June 2010.
When I worked at the Cineplex Odeon Universal City Cinemas in 1991, the seating was as follows:
1: 787 (607 on the main floor, 180 in the balcony)
2 and 13: 283
3, 4, 11 and 12: 280 each
5 and 10: 324 each
14: 780 (612 on the main floor, 168 in the balcony)
1, 6, 10 and 14 were 70mm capable.
1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13 and 14 were THX certified.
When I worked for AMC in 2013-2014, the seat counts had changed considerably:
1 and 14: 3762, 3, 4, 11, 12 and 13: 163 each5 and 10: 217 each6, 8 and 9: 131 each7: 13015 and 17: 98 each16 and 18: 93 eachIMAX: 369
It’s just sitting there. Topa Management still has it and the neighboring buildings waiting for someone to lease the space.
Sorry, Zoetmb, but there is proof that’s what the base wants. It’s called “grosses.”
Also, your base assessment that “attendance is down” is as wrong-headed as most of your other judgements. 2013 attendance might have been down 1.4% versus 2012 attendance, but it was also up 4.7% over 2011 and flat against 2010. And movie attendance in the first four months of 2014 is up 7% over the first four months of 2013. Sure, it’s down from recent highs in 2002 and 2003, but what was happening in the world in 2002 and 2003 that might want people to escape from reality for a few hours more often than before, or since, that isn’t happening now? We’re not talking about Netflix or VOD here.
And the Angelika still does pretty damn good, business-wise, without an IMAX-like presentation, or stadium seating, or dine-in options. The only think that differentiates the Angelika from the Sunshine or the Film Forum or any other arthouse theatre is its vibe. The Angelika doesn’t FEEL like any other theatre in Manhattan, even if it shares a similar spirit to the Lincoln Plaza Cinemas.
As for the other theatres that recently closed, ask yourself this: there are only a few reasons why a theatre closes. One, because the owners of the building decided not to renew the lease. Two, because the operators of the theatre decided it was no longer financially viable to operate a cinema in that location. Which one do you think was the case in respect to the Jackson Triplex, the 59th St. Cinema or the Brandon Twin? Or the 64th & Second? Or my old neighborhood theatre, the East 85th?
After reading these long screeds, I must paraphrase Ygriette from Game of Thrones:
You know nothing, Zoetmb.
Or, more specifically, your suppositions seem to be based on trains of thought about the exhibition business that were extinct thirty years ago. Having been in the exhibition business for nearly thirty years now, I see your points and laugh at how off-base they are from the realities I deal with on a daily basis.
Case in point: if all the chains are playing exactly the same movies anyway and the studios only really care about the big junky popcorn movies that can make a ton of money opening weekend, like the upcoming Godzilla, it’s because that is what their customer base wants. If theatres are rushing to add dine-in options and bars and comfy leather recliner chairs, it’s because that is what their customer base wants.
And for the record, one of the companies you mention has seen their per-screen attendance rise over the past couple years while having a net loss of screens and locations by making the in theatre experience the best possible, instead of propping up their numbers with spalshy acquisitions.
Ted Mann passed away in 2001.
Not just closed, but demolished as of January 21st.
The Cap has a good sized screen, but if the ONLY thing I cared about was screen size, there are other theatres to go to. I don’t go to The Cap just for the screen size. I go to The Cap for the entire package.
Nothing commercially available at the moment can top IMAX film. But then, if IMAX didn’t move towards digital years ago, there would be no more IMAX of any kind. Ironic the much-derided digital system is what has kept 15/70 alive as long as it has been, wouldn’t you agree? Or are shades of grey too much for the the black and white viewpoints of the IMAX digital haters?
Yes, let us go back to the old days of film. Uneven frame rates due to hand cranked cameras. Variable aspect ratios from 1.19:1 to 1.37:1. No sound synchronization. No color. Movie theatres converted from storefronts with no ventilation and hard wooden chairs. No popcorn. No soda. No candy.
Oh, wait… you mean things have changed in theatrical exhibition over the past 125 years?
Guess it doesn’t matter Dolby doesn’t make speakers. :|
1.90:1 IMAX digital presentations of 1.85:1 or 2.39:1 shot movies would either be cropped to fit the screen or letterboxed. 1.90:1 IMAX digital presentations of 1.43:1 IMAX 15/70 shot movies or 1.33:1 Academy Ratio shot movies, such as the upcoming Wizard of Oz presentation, would either be cropped to fit the screen or windowboxed.
1.43:1 IMAX 15/70 presentations of 1.85:1 or 2.39:1 shot movies would either be cropped to fit the screen or letterboxed. 1.43:1 IMAX 15/70 presentations of 1.33:1 Academy Ratio shot movies, such as the upcoming Wizard of Oz presentation, would either be cropped to fit the screen or windowboxed.
It’ll be the same argument no matter which way you go. But of course, had IMAX not decided to go digital years ago, we likely wouldn’t be having this discussion today, since they were on the fast track to going under before the rebranding.
Chris, to be fair, IMAX didn’t “step away” from 15/70. The company was going broke, and the only way to keep the brand going was to get updated and adapt into something different than what we’re used to. Had they not made the move, IMAX would be gone now.
Seating is 480 total.1: 2102: 1143: 614: 605: 35
Danny, our theatre, which has a IMAX digital installation, did not play “After Earth” in IMAX. We kept our print of “Star Trek Into Darkness” until “Man of Steel.”
Poorly written article which uses a long-closed building as an example and a cover photo featuring a building that hasn’t looked like that in seven years? No thank you.
Mark it as demolished, please. Happening right now. :(
Good sized crowd for its final show last night. Time to mark this one as closed, and time to add the Century 16 across the freeway to CT.
Originally was supposed to be Mann’s replacement for the Janss Marketplace 9 and Mann 5 at the Oaks, but the plans were soon sold off after nearly a million dollars invested in the project when they decided not to pursue it after all.
That’s great that you’re very confident, but your response doesn’t answer my questions.
Sorry, but what happens if they do not raise the necessary first step funds in time? Do I get my donation back?