IN the Sunday LA times it appears that the Chinese and Chinese 6 get the new Ridley Scott film next Friday with Leonardo DiCaprio and Russell Crowe, so I guess there is some life left.
Thanks GrauMann. Would love to see the pictures of the Chinese Twin when you get them up. I went there only once before it was demolished, but have wanted to see it again out of curiosity. Please make an announcement when you get them up.
Are they deliberately letting it go or can they simply not compete for bookings, even with the most recognizable theatre on the planet?
I do not know the mechanations of the booking process or how last-moment changes can happen, but I have noticed at least 2 films lately, “Lakeview Terrace” and “Nights in Rodanthe” were not listed on the early week pre-sale page for Arclight Hollywood (but WERE for Arclight Sherman Oaks) then suddenly on Friday they are playing at the Arclight Hollywood. Is it possible that the Arclight can look at the performance of its slate over a weekend, make some last minute changes, and pull films slated for the Chinese/Chinese 6? This seems to be whats happening.
Mann seems to be heavily renting the Chinese 6 for press screenings and film festivals.
I sad as it sounds, I still wish some other chain would buy Mann (even AMC!!) just so the Chinese could get some films that people actually want to see.
My last film in the Dome was “Rambo”. The CG expoding disembowelments looked great on the giant curved screen! I saw “Diving Bell & the Butterfly” on the same day. Probably the only person on earth who can say that.
I attended the last engagement of HTWWW and there was none of the audio issues. I noticed in the Arclight ad in the LA Times that Tropic Thunder showed in the dome after HTWWW in digital. I think they should have had HTWWW be the only film in the dome that day, do a run through in the morning, work out the kinks, and then play it later in the afternoon or evening for an audience. Its not every day you get to run 3-strip Cinerama and perhaps they should have been more prepared.
However, wouldn’t a Warner Pacific showing be an industry screening closed to the public, thus making the Cinerama Dome showing the proper West Coast premiere for the public?
bkress, whenever I go to the Dome I try to sit at the front of the loge as the main floor is a little too close for me. This was perfect for HTWWW when I saw it.
Recently saw Indy 4 at the Seattle Cinerama. The flatter screen with a milder curve was still huge and impressive. Even seemed larger than the pre-remodel screen when I used to see 70mm there. I have not seen 3-Strip at the Seattle Cinerama , only the Dome. I am also sure what the screen they use for 70mm in Seattle. The masking seemed opened all the way to the ceiling, so with more height available I am guessing slightly less width for 2.2:1.
The programmers at Landmark have hit a new low: The Love Guru starts there today. Why not put it at the Metro??? Considering the history of these 2 theaters and the great films that have played there, it is an insult.
I wish they would give this theatre back its original name: “The King”. My 2 times at the king were quite diverse: 1987 for my 17th birthday my parents took me to see “Lethal Weapon” there (when it was operated by GCC). Later, after college, I was privileged to see Jeff Buckley play there before his untimely death.
I hope I don’t scare anyone from this series. I think any theatre that has the guts to put on a series of classics should receive support. Especially an independent 2nd run house that programs a nice variety of films (Hollywood, Independent and Foreign) like the Culver Plaza does. I just hope theatre management saw my comments so they can make a good effort to have quality control with presentation. I do not know if they ever received or read my email.
Hope their projectionist is on the ball. Last time I was there I saw 3:10 to Yuma in an auditorium that was staggering shows with another film. 3:10 was a 2.35 Scope film and the other film must have been 1.85 flat. When 3:10 started they had the wrong lens in the projector so and the picture was squished. This went on for a few minutes until I made a comment to an employee. They then put in the scope lens but left the 1:85 plate installed so the picture was a narrow strip with the top and bottom cut off. Then they put in the right plate but lens and squished again! This went back and forth for a bit for 10 minutes until they got it right, followed by another couple minutes to get the screen masking right. I almost walked out but really wanted to see Yuma on the big screen and this was the last place it was playing. I emailed the management at the address on their website but never got a response. So, again, I hope the projectionist is on the ball when handling these films of various ages, aspect ratios etc.
My guess for the Trivia question is “Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story”. It was one of the first films I saw in Dolby Digital. After Jurassic and DTS Universal went exclusively with “DTS Digital” and “DTS Stereo” for a time.
I saw it at the ACT III Crossroads 8 in Bellevue, WA in the big THX house (those were the great pre-stadium days!). Sound was fantastic. Cineplex Odeon would later put DTS in at least one of the auditoriums of most of their Seattle/Tacoma area theatres, but the results were less than fantastic. ACT III would later several all-THX/Dolby Digital theatres in the area that blew the Cineplex theatres out of the water. (All pre-stadium for the most part).
Are their any new builds that actually install DTS Digital these days?
Yes. I was there once when they opened the masking up in plain view as a demonstration for the audience. First 1.85, then 2.35, then the top up further for 2.2 70MM, then wider still for 3-Strip Cinerama (accompanied by several gasps from the audience!)
haineshisway: The reason the top masking came down AND the screen widened at your old theatre was simply the constraints of that particular theatre’s design and adaption to 2.35 Scope films. Because that particular theatre, or others, presented the films that way, does not mean it was the INTENTION of the filmmakers. I know the Royal theatre does this with their masking simply because they kept the screen under the old proscenium. A 1.85 screen shape will fill the proscenium top to bottom, but not quite side to side. For 2.35 scope they can widen to the edges of the proscenium but have to lower the top masking to create the more rectangular shape. In other words, I think they are doing they best they can with what they’ve got. For a lot of older theatres with the screen either under the proscenium or moved in front of it to allow it to get much wider, I think this is a lot of the times the case.
However, I think the INTENTION of the studios and the filmmakers was to have the image keep the same height but get WIDER, creating a more open, panoramic look that replicates more closely a person’s true field of vision. There would be no purpose for the image to get a little wider, but a little lower at the same time. That is counterproductive and merely a flaw or drawback in a particular theatre’s design.
I, and many others here, feel that a properly designed theatre for scope pictures only has the screen open wider to accommodate scope films. Such examples would be the Village and National (RIP) in Westwood (L.A.), Grauman’s Chinese, the Cinerama Dome, Seattle Cinerama and MOST of the auditoriums at the Hollywood Arclight.
Many of us here (and I kow Chris Utley is one) have a particular dislike for theatres designed from the ground up with top-down only masking only. Such examples would be the AMC Century 15 and Pacific’s Grove in Los Angeles. The reasons for such poor design might be several, but I feel it is doe to: poor design, cheap design, a lack of respect to the film-makers wishes, and most of all, the theatre chains idea of “lets blow them with the most crazy-huge screen possible!” The problem is with most stadium designed theatres the screen wall ends up being a square shape because of how tall the auditoriums are. This means that the biggest screen they fit in the place is largest when at a 1.85 ratio. Many of these screens are just too big. Watch any non-scope 1.85 feature at the large houses at the Century 15 and The Grove and you have to sit at least two-thirds the way back just to not be overwhelmed or get sick. Then the theatres have a big dramatic let down: You are watching the preshow “entertainment”, then some previews in 1.85 when suddenly the screen shrinks vertically but keeps a common width for your showing of “The Dark Night”. Think of it like watch a DVD on your old school TV. For 1.85 the letterboxing has narrow strips at the top and bottom. For a 2.35 scope film, which is meant to have more grandeur, the black bands at top and bottom get bigger, creating a narrow band for the image. Would you want the same effect in a movie theatre?
Most of the Arclight Hollywood’s auditoriums have side masking that open wider for scope films (as the movie gods intended) because they designed the auditoriums wider. In the bigger auditoriums the screens are still pretty big for 1.85 and they position the seats far enough away so those sitting near the front don’t get overwhelmed and still have all the picture in their field of vision.
I have not been to the Arclight Sherman Oaks, but since it is a conversion of a regular old Pacific Stadium theatre, something tells me there is top-down masking everywhere, which to me seems like Arclight on the cheap and goes against their presentation principles.
I am no expert, but this is my view of things. I’ll shut up now.
Didn’t the producers get a hint with such previous stinkers as “I Spy”, “Bewitched”, “The Avengers”, “Dukes of Hazzard”, “The Mod Squad”, “Leave it to Beaver”, “Miami Vice” etc etc that making an old TV show into a movie usually doesn’t work?
Standard 35MM projection? Digital sound? THX?
IN the Sunday LA times it appears that the Chinese and Chinese 6 get the new Ridley Scott film next Friday with Leonardo DiCaprio and Russell Crowe, so I guess there is some life left.
Thanks GrauMann. Would love to see the pictures of the Chinese Twin when you get them up. I went there only once before it was demolished, but have wanted to see it again out of curiosity. Please make an announcement when you get them up.
It seems to have been a dreadful summer there.
Are they deliberately letting it go or can they simply not compete for bookings, even with the most recognizable theatre on the planet?
I do not know the mechanations of the booking process or how last-moment changes can happen, but I have noticed at least 2 films lately, “Lakeview Terrace” and “Nights in Rodanthe” were not listed on the early week pre-sale page for Arclight Hollywood (but WERE for Arclight Sherman Oaks) then suddenly on Friday they are playing at the Arclight Hollywood. Is it possible that the Arclight can look at the performance of its slate over a weekend, make some last minute changes, and pull films slated for the Chinese/Chinese 6? This seems to be whats happening.
Mann seems to be heavily renting the Chinese 6 for press screenings and film festivals.
I sad as it sounds, I still wish some other chain would buy Mann (even AMC!!) just so the Chinese could get some films that people actually want to see.
Hainesway can you give us the link to the other photos?
My last film in the Dome was “Rambo”. The CG expoding disembowelments looked great on the giant curved screen! I saw “Diving Bell & the Butterfly” on the same day. Probably the only person on earth who can say that.
I attended the last engagement of HTWWW and there was none of the audio issues. I noticed in the Arclight ad in the LA Times that Tropic Thunder showed in the dome after HTWWW in digital. I think they should have had HTWWW be the only film in the dome that day, do a run through in the morning, work out the kinks, and then play it later in the afternoon or evening for an audience. Its not every day you get to run 3-strip Cinerama and perhaps they should have been more prepared.
Michael, how do you find access to all these newspapers around the country?
However, wouldn’t a Warner Pacific showing be an industry screening closed to the public, thus making the Cinerama Dome showing the proper West Coast premiere for the public?
bkress, whenever I go to the Dome I try to sit at the front of the loge as the main floor is a little too close for me. This was perfect for HTWWW when I saw it.
…and easy parking and no crowds…
Just wish they would change the name back to “The King”. Wasn’t it changed to King Cat by operators who made it a Jazz club for a while?
Recently saw Indy 4 at the Seattle Cinerama. The flatter screen with a milder curve was still huge and impressive. Even seemed larger than the pre-remodel screen when I used to see 70mm there. I have not seen 3-Strip at the Seattle Cinerama , only the Dome. I am also sure what the screen they use for 70mm in Seattle. The masking seemed opened all the way to the ceiling, so with more height available I am guessing slightly less width for 2.2:1.
Chris, how was the crowd?
The programmers at Landmark have hit a new low: The Love Guru starts there today. Why not put it at the Metro??? Considering the history of these 2 theaters and the great films that have played there, it is an insult.
The seat count (when a cinema) is probably inaccurate. It was more like 1000+.
I wish they would give this theatre back its original name: “The King”. My 2 times at the king were quite diverse: 1987 for my 17th birthday my parents took me to see “Lethal Weapon” there (when it was operated by GCC). Later, after college, I was privileged to see Jeff Buckley play there before his untimely death.
I hope I don’t scare anyone from this series. I think any theatre that has the guts to put on a series of classics should receive support. Especially an independent 2nd run house that programs a nice variety of films (Hollywood, Independent and Foreign) like the Culver Plaza does. I just hope theatre management saw my comments so they can make a good effort to have quality control with presentation. I do not know if they ever received or read my email.
Hope their projectionist is on the ball. Last time I was there I saw 3:10 to Yuma in an auditorium that was staggering shows with another film. 3:10 was a 2.35 Scope film and the other film must have been 1.85 flat. When 3:10 started they had the wrong lens in the projector so and the picture was squished. This went on for a few minutes until I made a comment to an employee. They then put in the scope lens but left the 1:85 plate installed so the picture was a narrow strip with the top and bottom cut off. Then they put in the right plate but lens and squished again! This went back and forth for a bit for 10 minutes until they got it right, followed by another couple minutes to get the screen masking right. I almost walked out but really wanted to see Yuma on the big screen and this was the last place it was playing. I emailed the management at the address on their website but never got a response. So, again, I hope the projectionist is on the ball when handling these films of various ages, aspect ratios etc.
Edward, which auditorium at the Beverly Center did they put the DTS in? The “big” one upstairs?
My guess for the Trivia question is “Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story”. It was one of the first films I saw in Dolby Digital. After Jurassic and DTS Universal went exclusively with “DTS Digital” and “DTS Stereo” for a time.
I saw it at the ACT III Crossroads 8 in Bellevue, WA in the big THX house (those were the great pre-stadium days!). Sound was fantastic. Cineplex Odeon would later put DTS in at least one of the auditoriums of most of their Seattle/Tacoma area theatres, but the results were less than fantastic. ACT III would later several all-THX/Dolby Digital theatres in the area that blew the Cineplex theatres out of the water. (All pre-stadium for the most part).
Are their any new builds that actually install DTS Digital these days?
Yes. I was there once when they opened the masking up in plain view as a demonstration for the audience. First 1.85, then 2.35, then the top up further for 2.2 70MM, then wider still for 3-Strip Cinerama (accompanied by several gasps from the audience!)
haineshisway: The reason the top masking came down AND the screen widened at your old theatre was simply the constraints of that particular theatre’s design and adaption to 2.35 Scope films. Because that particular theatre, or others, presented the films that way, does not mean it was the INTENTION of the filmmakers. I know the Royal theatre does this with their masking simply because they kept the screen under the old proscenium. A 1.85 screen shape will fill the proscenium top to bottom, but not quite side to side. For 2.35 scope they can widen to the edges of the proscenium but have to lower the top masking to create the more rectangular shape. In other words, I think they are doing they best they can with what they’ve got. For a lot of older theatres with the screen either under the proscenium or moved in front of it to allow it to get much wider, I think this is a lot of the times the case.
However, I think the INTENTION of the studios and the filmmakers was to have the image keep the same height but get WIDER, creating a more open, panoramic look that replicates more closely a person’s true field of vision. There would be no purpose for the image to get a little wider, but a little lower at the same time. That is counterproductive and merely a flaw or drawback in a particular theatre’s design.
I, and many others here, feel that a properly designed theatre for scope pictures only has the screen open wider to accommodate scope films. Such examples would be the Village and National (RIP) in Westwood (L.A.), Grauman’s Chinese, the Cinerama Dome, Seattle Cinerama and MOST of the auditoriums at the Hollywood Arclight.
Many of us here (and I kow Chris Utley is one) have a particular dislike for theatres designed from the ground up with top-down only masking only. Such examples would be the AMC Century 15 and Pacific’s Grove in Los Angeles. The reasons for such poor design might be several, but I feel it is doe to: poor design, cheap design, a lack of respect to the film-makers wishes, and most of all, the theatre chains idea of “lets blow them with the most crazy-huge screen possible!” The problem is with most stadium designed theatres the screen wall ends up being a square shape because of how tall the auditoriums are. This means that the biggest screen they fit in the place is largest when at a 1.85 ratio. Many of these screens are just too big. Watch any non-scope 1.85 feature at the large houses at the Century 15 and The Grove and you have to sit at least two-thirds the way back just to not be overwhelmed or get sick. Then the theatres have a big dramatic let down: You are watching the preshow “entertainment”, then some previews in 1.85 when suddenly the screen shrinks vertically but keeps a common width for your showing of “The Dark Night”. Think of it like watch a DVD on your old school TV. For 1.85 the letterboxing has narrow strips at the top and bottom. For a 2.35 scope film, which is meant to have more grandeur, the black bands at top and bottom get bigger, creating a narrow band for the image. Would you want the same effect in a movie theatre?
Most of the Arclight Hollywood’s auditoriums have side masking that open wider for scope films (as the movie gods intended) because they designed the auditoriums wider. In the bigger auditoriums the screens are still pretty big for 1.85 and they position the seats far enough away so those sitting near the front don’t get overwhelmed and still have all the picture in their field of vision.
I have not been to the Arclight Sherman Oaks, but since it is a conversion of a regular old Pacific Stadium theatre, something tells me there is top-down masking everywhere, which to me seems like Arclight on the cheap and goes against their presentation principles.
I am no expert, but this is my view of things. I’ll shut up now.
Didn’t the producers get a hint with such previous stinkers as “I Spy”, “Bewitched”, “The Avengers”, “Dukes of Hazzard”, “The Mod Squad”, “Leave it to Beaver”, “Miami Vice” etc etc that making an old TV show into a movie usually doesn’t work?