AMC Empire 25

234 W. 42nd Street,
New York, NY 10036

Unfavorite 62 people favorited this theater

Showing 276 - 300 of 620 comments

seymourcox on July 30, 2009 at 10:20 am

Don’t think this 1953 LIFE view is the same Empire Theatre, but it could be,

View link

Garth on July 3, 2009 at 2:32 pm

The movie I saw here today wasn’t great , but the theatre was. I was very impressed.

moviebuff82 on June 14, 2009 at 9:46 am

I think they use two three, two for 4k/2k movies and one for IMAX (digital). It will take a while before the other 22 screens get replaced by the 4k projection.

rsjones2 on May 5, 2009 at 5:59 pm

How many digital projectors does Empire currently have. From what I have read most of you seem to know exactly what your talking about, so do you think that this theater will be one of the 1st to start receiving these digital projectors from this AMC & Sony deal? Will AMC start at there most profitable places and then trickle down? Also when AMC says ‘all digital’ do they really mean every single one of their screens or will they leave around some 35mm projectors on some screens? AMC has the AMC Select program, that prides itself on independent and some art films, so what affect will this digital plan have on that program? Especially for empire 25 who doesn’t get all the mainstream films each week so they run alot of select films. Wouldn’t that force AMC to keep some 35mm projectors at the empire, if not it seems to me they would have alot of dead screens due to the fact that they don’t get all the mainstream films. Will independent film makers be willing to release in digital and print just for the sake of being able to play in AMCs (if they do mean EVERY screen digital). I understand cost wise the switch for film makers wouldn’t be so challenging but the fact of simply changing to accomadate is what I’m looking at here.

Bway on April 2, 2009 at 3:43 pm

Thanks for the recent photos.

AdoraKiaOra on March 14, 2009 at 3:59 pm

The above were taken about a year ago.

Al Alvarez
Al Alvarez on March 13, 2009 at 3:18 pm

I suspect that since these 42nd street businesses all share exits and in some cases some are inside others, they may a share a main postal office.

MarkieS on March 13, 2009 at 9:54 am

How do I e-mail you, Ross?

Ross Melnick
Ross Melnick on March 13, 2009 at 9:47 am

This is not a forum about Warren. This is about the AMC Empire 25. I appreciate your comment MarkieS, but it is off topic on this page. Please feel free to email me with any additional concerns.

Thanks and I do appreciate all of your passionate interest in the site and these theaters. These interpersonal issues are always the hardest part.

MarkieS on March 13, 2009 at 9:45 am

A couple of wonderful old theaters in Queens and Brooklyn, which are now “adult” theaters, have been removed from this site because Warren instigated inflammatory comments by passing moral judgment on the men who patronize these theaters. That is a shame. His knowledge of old theaters is truly wonderful; it’s too bad he sets himself up as such a moral prig.

Ross Melnick
Ross Melnick on March 13, 2009 at 8:33 am

Does every disagreement have to get personal?

Warren, what is the need for “Are you now dictating rules? When did you become part of management?”

Lost Memory has a perfect reasonable explanation for the source of the address (which Google Maps confirms).

Bway on March 12, 2009 at 11:18 am

Is the 234 West 42nd St the old address or the new address for the Empire? I would assume the current address should be the address given above. Many theaters have had their addresses change over the years, and the current one is usually the one used. For example, many of the theaters in Queens had an old address and a new address, depending on if the theater pre-dated the renumbering of streets/addresses into the Queens numbering system.

Al Alvarez
Al Alvarez on March 12, 2009 at 10:47 am

Oddly enough Modell’s next door and the old Liberty Theatre are both also 234 West 42nd Street.

Bway on March 12, 2009 at 9:37 am

The old Empire/Eltinge Theater fully exists in it’s entirety, and is the lobby for the AMC Empire 25 Theater. It’s irrelevant if it was moved down the street or not. The entire auditorium is used, and IS the AMC Empire, even if they don’t show movies in the old auditorium, and instead it’s the lobby of the new multiplex.
It should NOT have a page of it’s own, as the Eltinge/Empire Theater IS the AMC Empire now. The whole building is a part of the AMC Empire Theater, it doesn’t matter if they show the actual movies of the Eltinge inside the current lobby of the AMC Empire (which happens to be the auditorium of the Eltinge/Empire. You walk into the old Theater entrance, and the old theater to enter the AMC Empire. Of course they should be the same listing, as the AMC Empire IS the old Eltinge/Empire theater…., it’s just that they built the multiplex around the old building it after moving it a bit down the block. Just because the entire theater building was moved doesn’t mean that that theater shouldn’t be this page. All the history of the Eltinge/Empire theater survives within the walls of the lobby of the AMC Empire.

moviebuff82 on December 25, 2008 at 10:26 am

That’s cool. Merry Xmas to all!!!

Al Alvarez
Al Alvarez on December 25, 2008 at 8:31 am

Smell-o-Vision appears to be back in Times Square with THE POLAR EXPRESS in 4D at Madamne Tussaud’s theatre.

Ross Melnick
Ross Melnick on December 18, 2008 at 3:47 pm

“Cinema Treasures”? Never heard of it. :)

Thanks for setting the record straight, Joe!

Joe Vogel
Joe Vogel on December 17, 2008 at 11:07 pm

When, back on January 2 of this year, Warren G. Harris wondered about who might have actually designed this multiplex, the answer was already available in my comment from May 2, 2006. That’s the problem with long threads. Stuff gets lost. Anyway, to repeat, it was Gould Evans Associates (called Gould Evans Goodman at the time they did this project.)

I see that the “firm” listing at the top of the page now names Beyer Blinder Belle Architects as the designers of the multiplex, and that firm is mentioned in the intro section of the page as well. But the New York Times article to which AlAlvarez was probably referring in his reply to Warren only says that Beyer Blinder Belle “…designed the 42nd Street project.” Indeed on BBB’s web site, they do lay claim to the Hilton Times Square project, of which the AMC Empire is a part, but nowhere on their site do they claim to have designed the multiplex itself.

That honor (or disgrace, to judge from some of the more irate comments above) belongs to Gould Evans Associates, which does include the AMC Empire among their projects, as featured on their web site (you have to click on “Architecture” then “Portfolio” in the left columns, then “entertainment centers” at page center, then “AMC theatres, national and international locations” to reach a photo- or perhaps three photos- I’ve never seen the place and don’t know if the two interior shots depict this theater or other AMC locations- of the AMC Empire. Why do architecture firms have such Byzantine web sites?)

Presumably, AMC insisted on Gould Evans, with whom they already had an established relationship, to design the multiplex itself, while Beyer Blinder Belle probably took care of the actual restoration work on what was left of the historic Empire Theatre. BBB does specialize in restoration and renovation. In fact, they did the renovation of the Apollo Theatre in Harlem, and should probably be credited with that project on the Apollo’s Cinema Treasures Page.

BBB also designed the Hilton Theatre (Ford Center) on 42nd Street, built inside the shells of the old Lyric Theatre and the neighboring Apollo Theatre, using bits and pieces of their interiors for the decoration of the new house.

Oh, and there is one other source for the information that Gould Evans Associates was involved in the AMC Empire’s development. The firm is among sources of information about the project listed on page 109 of an obscure book called “Cinema Treasures”, published in 2004, and written by Ross Melnick and Andreas Fuchs (whoever they are.) I don’t suppose anybody here has read it?

kencmcintyre on December 17, 2008 at 7:21 pm

Here is a 1948 photo by Martin Elkort. Apologies if this has already been posted.

RobertR on October 6, 2008 at 6:20 am

These psuedo IMAX screens are cheapening the format. When will anyone realize they need to once again give the public something that home TV (even the large ones) can’t duplicate. Theatre screens need to be huge curved ones like in the 50’s and 60’s.

42ndStreetMemories on October 6, 2008 at 3:53 am

Weekend NYT article on architect Thomas Lang

View link

markp on September 18, 2008 at 6:28 am

Hey saps, when the theatre I worked at a few years back was converted to IMAX, the screen was only marginally bigger than the original 35MM screen, however, they moved the screen about 30 feet closer to the audience, so it appeared to be bigger, and of course, they felt like they in the movie.