Ziegfeld Theatre

141 W. 54th Street,
New York, NY 10019

Unfavorite 119 people favorited this theater

Showing 3,526 - 3,550 of 4,452 comments

Bill Huelbig
Bill Huelbig on March 6, 2006 at 9:09 pm

Tonight’s showing of “Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom” looked like a brand-new print to me. The “MI3” trailer was once again attached, but there was a special surprise when the curtains first opened: the trailer for “2001”, which I’d never before seen in a theater. Also – NO COMMERCIALS! The Classics series just keeps getting better and better.

ZiegfeldMan
ZiegfeldMan on March 6, 2006 at 4:36 pm

Hi guys, I’m the new kid here. I was also at the screening of “Raiders” on Saturday. It was great to see not only baby boomers, like me, there but also younger people who couldn’t possibly have seen it 25 years ago and only know it from video. Moreover. I saw plenty of people with their kids—the whole point of the Classics program, bringing these great big screen films to succeeding generations. Be sure to go to Clearviewcinemas.com, click on customer comments, and tell them that you like the concept and want more! They really listen. Suggest titles. Tell them to continue the program during the next slow season. Please be positive and constructive, since this is one of the greatest things to happen in NY cinema in a long time. I’m not knocking Film Forum, MOMA, Moving Image, Walter Reade, etc—all great venues. But the Ziegfeld is the Ziegfeld. Sure, Radio City would be more impressive, but it ain’t happening there. It would be a tragedy to see the Ziegfeld go the way of the Astor Plaza.

Thank you all!!

Bill Huelbig
Bill Huelbig on March 6, 2006 at 8:06 am

Michael: You’re right – I should always go right to the source for any 70mm information. Thanks for posting a picture of the Century’s Paramus as a single-screen theater on your 70mm in New York page. I’ve always wanted to see what it looked like – I didn’t get there till 1971 after it was twinned.

Coate
Coate on March 5, 2006 at 11:33 pm

GREASE was a moveover from either the Loew’s Astor Plaza or the Loew’s State where it originally opened. But of course it was better at the Ziegfeld.

posted by Bill Huelbig on Jan 28, 2006 at 11:51am

“Grease” was better at the Ziegfeld because it was a 70mm presentation! The initial run (at the State) was 35mm and began about two months earlier.

Al,
Nice list of Ziegfeld engagements! But what’s up with the approximate dates?

Coate
Coate on March 5, 2006 at 11:25 pm

Bill: Tsk Tsk. Come on, man! From Script To DVD… :–)

That ‘82 Ziegfeld run of “Raiders” began July 16, the start of the film’s '82 re-issue. Its Astor Plaza run ended quite a bit earlier.

View link
View link

Bill Huelbig
Bill Huelbig on March 5, 2006 at 9:17 pm

I made a goof – after consulting Al Alvarez' list, I see that “Raiders” played the Ziegfeld in 1982.

Bill Huelbig
Bill Huelbig on March 5, 2006 at 9:10 pm

I attended the 2 PM showing of “Raiders of the Lost Ark” on Saturday. It was the biggest crowd I’ve seen yet in the classics series, and the audience was fully into it. There was almost as much whoopin' and hollerin' as there was for the first midnight showing of “Star Wars Episode III” last May. The “Raiders” print was practically flawless, too. I’ll bet many people in that crowd left the theater wondering why they don’t make movies like that anymore. The show was preceded by a trailer for “Mission Impossible 3”, which got booed and laughed at.

This was another time machine trip for me. I saw “Raiders” at the Ziegfeld in 1981 – a 70mm moveover from the Loew’s Astor Plaza.

Ed Solero
Ed Solero on March 5, 2006 at 2:20 pm

Anyone make it down the last couple of weeks to either the “Lord of the Rings” or “Indiana Jones” series? I wanted to get in for “Raiders of the Lost Ark”, but I’ve been waylaid with a bad case of strep. I’m curious about both the attendance for these two series as well as the quality of the prints (especially the Indy series). I’m wondering in particular if the “West Side Story” and “Ben-Hur” screenings were better attended than the “LOTR” screenings – which might make a statement about programming to the Clearview people either way.

Paul Noble
Paul Noble on March 5, 2006 at 1:36 pm

I saw the first press showing of “Close Encounters” at the Ziegfeld in 70mm. A gala night. I recall Paddy Chayesky in the audience.

Paul Noble
Paul Noble on March 5, 2006 at 1:36 pm

I saw the first press showing of “Close Encounters” at the Ziegfeld in 70mm. A gala night. I recall Paddy Chayesky in the audience.

ZiegfeldMan
ZiegfeldMan on March 5, 2006 at 11:48 am

Come One, Come All to “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” starting Friday March 17th at 8:15 PM—-at the Ziegfeld, where the film premiered on November 16th, 1977. This will be the “Definitive Director’s Cut.” For this first showing only, there will be a very special introduction. Spread the Word!!!!

ZiegfeldMan
ZiegfeldMan on March 5, 2006 at 11:48 am

Come One, Come All to “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” starting Friday March 17th at 8:15 PM—-at the Ziegfeld, where the film premiered on November 16th, 1977. This will be the “Definitive Director’s Cut.” For this first showing only, there will be a very special introduction. Spread the Word!!!!

ZiegfeldMan
ZiegfeldMan on March 5, 2006 at 11:47 am

Come One, Come All to “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” starting Friday March 17th at 8:15 PM—-at the Ziegfeld, where the film premiered on November 16th, 1977. This will be the “Definitive Director’s Cut.” For this first showing only, there will be a very special introduction. Spread the Word!!!!

JSA
JSA on March 1, 2006 at 4:03 pm

Close Encounters: Some deletions from the 1977 version included a scene that takes place in the power station before Dreyfuss' first encounter. One Special Edition scene that made its way to the recent Definitive iteration is the Gobi Desert sequence. Over the years, mixed versions have been broadcast on TV, so who really knows how many permutations are out there? I still consider the original 1977 release the best, one of the finest American films of the 70’s. I failed to see what was so “Special” in the 1980 edition. The 2001 version is a good compromise.

JSA

VincentParisi
VincentParisi on March 1, 2006 at 8:39 am

Now if only they could digitally eliminate Richard Dreyfuss and put in a young Harrison Ford.

Ed Solero
Ed Solero on March 1, 2006 at 5:43 am

Without spoiling the film or going on too much about its critical merits, the story is that Speilberg felt rushed by Columbia to get the film into theaters by November of ‘77. He wanted to push back to the following summer, but the studio (which was in financial trouble at the time) wouldn’t budge. Speilberg always felt there were certain scripted sequences he didn’t have the time or budget to properly shoot and that the film didn’t fulfill his vision, so a couple of years later he convinced the studio to allow him to re-assemble his crew and actors to shoot additional scenes and tighten up the editing. They agreed under condition that the climactic “encounter” of the title be expanded with additional effects to entice viewers back for a 2nd look at the movie. I’m with Peter… I loved the original version just fine and when I saw the “Special Edition” that was released with great fanfare in 1980, I felt the padded scenes the studio wanted were superfluous.

Fortunately, the final edition that Speilberg assembled in 2001 eliminates those scenes and reverts to the original versions ending, while still retaining some of scenes and edits Speilberg had always wanted to include but couldn’t back in ‘77. It’s been so long since I saw the original edit, that I don’t know if I could honestly compare the experience of seeing this latest and supposedly “final” cut with that first “work in progress”, as Speilberg refers to it. Tinkering aside, it’s a film well worth seeing on the big screen.

HowardBHaas
HowardBHaas on March 1, 2006 at 4:58 am

Oh! So, I really missed the original 70 mm 6 track version that was shown moviegoers! Well, Spielberg is still at the top of his game, and it will have digital sound, so I will try to attend. I’m going to email you, Peter, at the email you provide on this site, for more particulars as to the differences. I wouldn’t want to spoil the film for anyone, and there may also be more discussion on particular films than this site would seem to set up for.

PeterApruzzese
PeterApruzzese on March 1, 2006 at 4:51 am

Howard –

The print that Columbia/Sony currently offers of CE3K is the “Definitive Edition”, which is a re-editing of the original 1977 release, the 1980 “Special Edition” release, with some additions and deletions from both; it was created by Spielberg in 2001. It’s the version that Spielberg has said he prefers (I disagree, I think the original ‘77 version was the best) and is the only one they offer for theatrical play.

Vito
Vito on March 1, 2006 at 3:22 am

Regarding 70mm/6-track, I would certainly agree it is spectalular.
Those of you who have worked in projection, I am sure, still remember the thrill when the print arrived, those massive reels and the wonderfull smell of the mag track, which is hard to describe but it hit you as soon as you opened the can. More than that, you knew you were going to have fun at work again, thrilling audiences with the granduer of 70mm and the excitement of the rich sound track. Maybe it was just me but when I had a 70mm print in the booth I seemed to care for it like a new baby, sounds kinda silly I quess but those of you who were there know what I mean. All the new sound processes we have today are excellent, but for me they can never compare to the rich full sound of a mag track.

JSA
JSA on February 28, 2006 at 9:35 pm

Yes, Peter and Ed: I recently saw a presentation of “Close Encounters…” at California State University, Long Beach. The film was introduced by none other than cinematographer Vilmos Zsigmond, and he mentioned that the special effects sequences were shot in 70 mm, while the other dramatic scenes were shot in 35 mm. It would have been interesting to ask him Ed’s question! “Close Encounters…” is indeed a beautiful film, both visually and conceptually. A good 35 mm print will do justice to this important picture. But oh, that 70 mm/6-track…

JSA

Mike (saps)
Mike (saps) on February 28, 2006 at 8:38 pm

I like the Chelsea 9 and have not had a bad experience there.

Ed Solero
Ed Solero on February 28, 2006 at 6:14 pm

I agree with Peter, Howard. Only the special effects sequences were filmed in 70mm (Super Panavision 70 in this case) to reduce grain and were then reduced to 35mm to match the rest of the footage. Most folks saw the film in 35mm when it was first released, anyway. It’s an awesome big screen experience in either format – provided the print is in good shape.

I wonder… in cases such as this – where some footage was shot on 70mm and the rest on 35mm – are those 70mm sequences transfered from original camera negative or are they first reduced to 35mm to match the rest of the footage and then blown back up? Does that question make sense?

HowardBHaas
HowardBHaas on February 28, 2006 at 5:33 pm

Thanks, Peter. Unless you know that those are the only prints available, we have to hope the Ziegfeld actually is sent those newer (digital sound) prints rather than older 35 mm prints. This sounds like a cool surround sound experience.
I miss 70 mm, 6 track.

PeterApruzzese
PeterApruzzese on February 28, 2006 at 1:43 pm

Probably not, Howard. The film is regular 35mm Panavision, IMO the biggest reason for 70mm on a film such as that was the six-track stereo sound. The new 35mm prints that Columbia/Sony have are in SDDS/DTS/Dolby Digital sound and will give you 95% of the impact of the 70mm sound.

HowardBHaas
HowardBHaas on February 28, 2006 at 1:23 pm

Ed, you mention Close Encounters of the Third Kind. I haven’t seen Close Encounters of the Third Kind on a movie screen. Ziegfeld is presenting it in 35 mm. Will I miss much by not seeing a 70 mm presentation?