Showing 351 - 375 of 554 comments
I imagine it had something to do with a truckload of money and perhaps a desire to focus on higher end theatres with bars, restaurants and other amenities.
Google earth’s historical images shows the lot is empty in 1989. Is Google wrong? From the shape of the theatre could it have been built closer to 1990?
They run the UA Sunrise in Sacramento as a second run theatre. $3.50 tickets. Apparently it does well.
I think it would be helpful if somebody is posting info that has been shown to be often inaccurate, that at least state in your comment where/why you have that information. Not doing so will make your comment appear to confirm already questionable data. I applaud Rivest for accumulating what he has, but being one man sorting out decades of info on places he’s never been is going to lead to errors and misunderstandings. If you’re simply reposting it here to make it part of the Cinematreasures record you should make sure it’s not interpreted as your own recollection/fact.
If somebody posted “Rivest says X theatre opened on X date.” we can be happy with that. Later on somebody else could come along and post “Yes, that sounds right because….”
This sort of anecdotal information gathering is one of the reasons why we don’t let people post to specific theatres at CinemaTour because you get one person who swears up and down one fact that just isn’t true… or as I see often here… that a theatre’s chain should be part of the theatre name when that’s just nonsense.
There’s my $0.02
Well the picture is DEFINITELY a GCC. In following my GCC obsession I’m finding that often they would replace a theatre inside the mall with one outside the mall. Often the original theatre was the “Whatever Mall Cinema” and the new one was just the “Whatever Cinema”. Judging by the picture it was a newer GCC but it doesn’t entirely preclude the idea that the Cinema I & II were outside the mall and incorporated into the newer building.
Looking at the footprint and photos on Google Earth I would say this is an entirely different theatre.
Off topic but when the Peninsula/Burlingame Drive-Ins opened, one screen was the Peninsula and the other was Burlingame. They operated as two separate theatres for all intents and purposes.
Concerning the Hyatt Cinema — the screen was curved but I don’t know of a time they ever showed Cinerama films. The main house was actually decent to watch a movie in, the balcony theatres were completely jacked with multiple entrances to various seating areas most of which were akwardly positioned away from the screen.
Hey — be nice about Cinematour — we spend a lot of time and money to go out and take pictures of some of these theatres… you know… like this one… http://www.cinematour.com/tour/us/6763.html
It’s one thing to describe theatres but it’s another to be able to SEE them. While It’s only pictures of the entrance inside the mall, if Regal had let me I’d have dozens more photos.
Back on subject though… interesting to know there was a GCC twin hiding back as part of a SIXTEEN plex… that doesn’t happen often I’m sure.
Photos are available at Cinematour.com —
If you’re still in need of info – e-mail me.
I must’ve been drinking when I posted a pic of the new Cinemark… ugh. No… no pictures of the theatre inside the mall… I wish. Also the theatre outside the mall was demolished to make way for the Cinemark.
Really once you get inside it’s just your typical Sony/Loews of the time. They originally opened with standard seats in a stadium style but replaced them a few years later. Not a bad theatre overall but suffers from the location. I’d much rather go to the Century across the street.
This was originally operated by Mann Theatres before Signature purchased their theatres in the 90’s.
I took photos when I visited family in 2004.
I see reference to Wallace/Hollywood operating the Northpark 4 in Midland. Last I saw, the NorthPark 6 was being used by the university.
This theatre is now closed and demolished… replaced by the Starplex Brazos Stadium 14 at the mall.
Cinematour shows the address as 4425 14th St W
“Scott, my understanding is that the studios have gone back to a roughly 50-50 split of the gross (not 90%). Also, it doesn’t matter what a "content provider” thinks of their film, if the theater chain doesn’t like it, they can decline to book it."
Sadly I don’t think either part of this is entirely true. Perhaps if a theatre were to hold a film long enough it might average out closer to 50% rental, I think the 3-6 week run most films get nowadays probably leaves things closer to 60-65%.
While a theatre chain can decline to book a film, often studios will use their next big film as leverage for chains to book the crappier films. ie. if you play this one you really don’t want, we’ll go easier on terms with the next big one. In my experience, theatres with nearby competition can’t afford to cherry pick the best films either because the studio usually plays the “play this crap or else you won’t play the good picture” card. While most of my experience with film booking comes from the mid-late 90’s… I don’t imagine much has changed except for those booking zones with multiple mega-plexes that just day & date each other.
Maybe Rialto Cinemas can take it? :o) Or the folks that run the Vogue.
I haven’t read everybody else’s comments in detail, but I find that the writer was writing more out of irritation that exhibitors make it difficult for the “content providers” to make as much money as possible. There was a clear underlying tone of bitterness about how the exhibitors won’t pay the agreed upon rental terms etc. etc. and he didn’t seem to take into account that the theatres shouldn’t be required to pay 90% of a crap gross for a crap film just because the “content provider” thought it was the best movie ever made.
While I do agree that as the new generation comes into themselves fewer of them will be interested in going to the movies as regularly as we are currently used to. However I think that there always existed a group of people that just don’t go to the movies and I don’t think that this group will increase in size enough to really hurt the industry.
What I do see is that people already try to avoid the typical theatre environment with teenagers kicking the seats, crying babies, cell phone users etc. In the process of avoiding this environment people are going to the niche theatres with smaller crowds that allow more personal interaction with your own group. What I don’t understand is why on Earth somebody would want to interact DURING the movie? Personally if I had a device that allowed people to talk to me from across the country while we watched a movie together, I’d gouge my ears out.
If somebody out there still has pictures of this place, I’d love to see them.
Judging from the Google satellite view, it appears that there was a 6-screen addition at some point. Its relation to the rest of the shopping center would lend itself to being turned into retail so it’s not surprising that only 12-screens are being used in the new project.
The theatre he’s talking about is in Morgan Hill.
Did anybody read the article though? He supports tearing down a theatre built in the 50’s because it’s “no grand movie palace” and replacing it with a modern theatre. I’m sure that theatre was grand and palatial to those who grew up going there and just because it’s not gilded in decoration doesn’t mean there isn’t some sort of significance to the building.
70mm at a NEW multiplex is unlikely but if it’s their flagship they may have installed some used 70mm projectors that were sitting around in case the home office brass feels like doing something unique.
As far as multiplexes not having 70mm screens don’t be so quick to judge. Many of the Century Theatres around here in Northern California are still equipped to play 70mm, not that they’ll ever have the chance to do so again.
It’s a Tinseltown, I’m sure it looks quite similar to every other Tinseltown built.