Showing 3,351 - 3,375 of 3,541 comments
There’s an old, rather obscure, postcard view and additional information here:
And guess who will actually end up paying that “virtual print fee” through higher ticket prices and outrageously-priced concessions?
Furthermore, as should have been learned from the original 3-D period in the 1950s, and from the age of widescreen experimentation, 3-D (or Cinerama or 70mm) in and of themselves cannot make a bad movie better and excessive use of these processes on unworthy material ultimately contributes to the demise of their use.
A picture can be seen here:
I was there recently; I had not seen a film there since the theater’s AMC days. The screening rooms are getting rather shabby. With persistent reports that Landmark’s other Detroit-area operation, the Main in Royal Oak, will eventually close, and the apparent physical neglect of this house, one has to wonder what Landmark’s long-range plans are for the Detroit market.
If memory serves, the Mayland was, for a brief time in the late 1960s, a roadshow house. I seem to recall seeing “A Man for All Seasons” there on a reserved seat basis.
I have to disagree about Cleveland – while it certainly has not erased grittiness throughout the city, it certainly has done an incredible job of preserving most of its downtown movie palace treasures, something that New York City cannot claim. It may not be what it was in the past, but it is hardly a city in ruins.
Aside from the bargain prices, this one probably will not be much missed. I attended a few showings there; it struck me as a most likely having been former twin that had been chopped up into five small cinemas, just non-descript shoeboxes with small screens. The lobby was little more than a bland foyer with a small concession area. It’s too bad, though, that bargain cinemas are a dying breed.
Dave Strohmaier (“The Cinerama Adventure”) posted a neat flyer for the upcoming Cinerama showings of “HTWWW” and “2001” at the Dome on the “In 70mm” website:
This article from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch mentions this theater; prospects for either re-opening or re-use do not look good:
The effect was one of Director William Castle’s infamous movie promotion gimmicks called “Percepto”.
You can read more about it here:
Your memory matches mine, WestlakeKid as far as it being opposite, not next to, the Roxy, perhaps just a little farther down 9th Street toward the lake. It was also very much a penny arcade in addition to the novelties it sold. I especially remember the steam shovel machines. I only went there once – when I was very young; I somehow lost track of my mother and remember crying on a step outside until she found me.
The Island Theatre had 705 seats.
Although far less a household name such as AMC or Loew’s, Trans-Lux has actually been a part of the motion picture exhibition business for decades, not only as a theater operator but has been involved in production, equipment and media distribution. It once operated a number of theaters in the northeastern part of the U.S. A company history can be found here:
Here’s a picture of the theater sometime in the 1940s
and one showing how the building looks very recently:
I lived in an apartment on the second floor of the store block opposite this building around 1990. I once looked into the the theater through the entrance at the right; the theater was being used then at as warehouse space by a furniture store. At that time, the seats were still in place as was the screen.
At its opening in 1939 in was the National theatre; it became the Rio in 1943. It should have an aka.
Not only do great minds think alike – they apparently all know where the Cinerama information is on the net and appear to make comments right around the same time!
Atlanta had at least one other Cinerama house, listed on CT as the Georgia Twin:
Also, this site has fairly comprehensive listing of Cinerama theaers world-wide which shows a number of other Cinerama houses in the southern states:
According to the entry for the film on Wikipedia, the theater used was the Mann 6 in Simi Valley, California.
And another here:
A picture from 1987 can be seen here:
You can see a rather grainy photo of the Eitel’s Palace three booth set-up for Cinerama here:
There is also a drawing there of the set-up; this may the same sketch that Veyoung referred to above. The same sketch also was used on the cover of a book by John Belton called “Widescreen Cinema” that was published in 1992 by the Harvard University Press.
Sorry for my typos; I am still getting used to my new glasses. I should have said “right up to the time time of the fairly recent renovation” and “these cutouts were filled in…”
I can answer your first question; yes, when the Palace (then Eitel’s Palace) became Chicago’s first Cinerama theater, the booths were suspended from the balcony overhang in front of some of the loge boxes; later, in the late 1960s, when 70mm was installed, the Able and Charlie booths were removed and the Baker booth was enlarged to accommodate two DP70 projectors; that booth remained in place right up to the time of fairly recent the renovation that transformed the theatre into the Cadillac Palace, although the projectors were gone when I attended a few events when the theatre was called the Bismarck Pavilion. There were cutouts that had to made in the balcony overhang so that the projector beams would not be blocked; these cutouts was filled in during the restoration and there is no trace of them now.
As far as “Citizen Kane” is concerned, I do know that it played at the Woods as I have seen black and white pictures of the marquee during its run there. I do not know if it played at the Palace, but it may very well have as “Kane” was an RKO picture and the Palace was under RKO management for a time.
Yes, it was; see the entry for the Cadillac Palace which is its current name; many of us also recall it as the Bismarck. RKO Palace is listed as one of its previous names.
The problem is that the entry for the Cedarbrae 8 has a misspelling; it is listed as the “Cedarbre 8” which is why your search indicated that the theatre was not listed. The entry also indicates that theatre was in Toronto. Is Scarborough now a part of Toronto?