Rivoli Theatre

1620 Broadway,
New York, NY 10019

Unfavorite 49 people favorited this theater

Showing 651 - 675 of 1,005 comments

Coate
Coate on June 24, 2005 at 10:56 pm

“I’ll clear up one matter which I have mentioned on other sites.
My neice was visting me and playing on the Dell under my name andsaw the listing of my book so she said she’s give a review. It wasoriginally poster under her name but then for whatever reason, it was changed to my name. At first I thought it was amusing but then gotnegative feedback from it so I’m glad it was removed. Other reviews by her are listed under her name elsewhere I believe. So much for that.” (Richard W. Haine, Jun 18, 2005)


Yeah, right! And James Bond is a virgin.

RobertR
RobertR on June 23, 2005 at 5:48 pm

Fox saluted Andrews for her Mary Poppins Oscar win while she was packing them in at the Rivoli in Sounf of Music.

View link

Butch
Butch on June 22, 2005 at 12:46 pm

Yes, I’ve seen this many times over the years. It can be useful in small to medium auditoriums to achieve maxium screen size, and is called “sissors masking.” Loews 34th St. in Manhattan uses top, bottom and side masking in the smaller theaters to achieve the proper projected aspect ratio.

Mikeoaklandpark
Mikeoaklandpark on June 22, 2005 at 2:07 am

Sorry but I don’t know where to post this. I saw a first this weekend. They opened a new stadium multiplex (Epic Theaters) in Hendersonville, NC and the masking on the screen not only came down, but it came up to make a beautiful large cinemascope screen. Has anybody else ever seen masking come up? I have always seen it come come down and across.

Vito
Vito on June 22, 2005 at 1:48 am

StereoVision was a new attempt at 3D which only required one camera and one projector. The left/right images were on a single 35mm frame, one above the other. A specal lens was required to fit over the prime projection lens to super-impose the two images together on the screen. Many theatres rented the lens along with the movie, however United Artist’s projection and sound tech Joe Kelly had them made up and purchased them for his theatres. Many UA theatres had these lenses in the booth ready for up coming releases but the
3-D fad died quicker than it did in the 50s.

RobertR
RobertR on June 20, 2005 at 8:13 am

In 1971 at the height of porno chic there was an X rated 3D feature called “The Stewardesses” in StereoVision 3d. It actually opened on Broadway at the Rivoli, day and dating with the UA East. The releasing company must have had a deal with UA because most of the outer boro houses were UA. The Bronx had it at the UA Valentine, Queens at UA Midway, Staten island Fox Plaza, Brooklyn National Generals Albermarle, Nassau at UA Meadowbrook, Suffolk at UA Cinema Bayshore and Century’s Walt Whitman.

Richardhaines
Richardhaines on June 18, 2005 at 2:05 am

Well I just finished the mix of my latest feature, “Soft Money”,
and am preparing it for release both theatrically and DVD so I
decided to log on here and see what’s posted.

As I suspected, another attempt by Coates to discredit me in our
feud.

I guess the main reason most film directors
or historians bother to post on film related sites is that there
is usually a heckler on each of them which makes discussion a
waste of time.

I’ll clear up one matter which I have mentioned on other sites.
My neice was visting me and playing on the Dell under my name and
saw the listing of my book so she said she’s give a review. It was
originally poster under her name but then for whatever reason, it was
changed to my name. At first I thought it was amusing but then got
negative feedback from it so I’m glad it was removed. Other reviews
by her are listed under her name elsewhere I believe. So much for that.

One final comment is that my last manuscript was not intended as a ‘book of lists’. I even note that in some sections stating that
it’s a list of notable titles not every title in a category. The lists I made were based on information I had at the time and were used to illustrate a point You can get into debates about what
titles should be included in each category but that is really missing the point. Book of lists are better suited for the internet since you have to constantly update them. If I were to re-write the chapter on 70mm I would update the lists based on new information but that is really missing the point of the subject matter. What I was illustrating was that the appex of 70mm was in the mid-eighties. It fizzled out in the mid-nineties not because the format fell out of favor with audiences but for economic reasons. Many theater chains assumed it’s major attribute was six track stereo sound rather than the improved image quality. Thus when six track 35mm digital sound systems were developed, they lost interest in the 70mm blow up prints even though they increased boxoffice revenue in houses that booked them at the time. Also, the newly built megaplexes refused to install the equipment to keep their staff to a minimum in the multiple 35mm platter systems on each screen. The loss of 70mm and the brief revival and demise of dye transfer printing represented the last gasp of showmanship for theatrical exhibition, at least in a general sense. There are still isolated
cinemas that put on a good show.

Back to the Rivoli,

As I recall, after twinning (renamed UA Twin), only the bottom
theater had 70mm capability. The curved screen was removed and replaced with a flat one but the presentations were still quite good.
I would guess that the above mentioned sound system was only installed on this screen. The balcony screen was not as large and probably limted 35mm since I don’t recall a 70mm print ever playing there. The UA Twin didn’t last for long and was being demolished with construction gear outside the fascade even while
they continued to play new features until it’s end. I have pictures of it from that era.

RobertR
RobertR on June 7, 2005 at 9:11 am

Times had so changed with mass releases by 1981, but at least the Rivoli was still opening big pictures. At the time they were on the Universal run. When “On Golden Pond” opened here it was also playing in 5 other Manhattan locations. Loews 34th St Showplace, Quad 1&2, Manhattan 1, New Yorker 2 and RKO 86th St 1. In May of 1982 Rivoli 1 opened “Conan The Barbarian” along with UA Gemini 1, Loews 34th St Showplace, Quad 1 & 3, Olympia 1 & 3, RKO 86 St 1 and RKO Coliseum 1. Rivoli 2 had “Dead Men Don’t Wear Plaid” along with New Yorker 1, UA Gemini 2, UA East and Greenwich 2. I had forgotten the New Yorker became a commercial house in its waning years.

rlvjr
rlvjr on June 4, 2005 at 12:52 pm

We saw Arnold Schwartznegger’s PREDITOR here on their big screen. About 30 minutes into the show, about 4 or 5 jive-turkeys came in and began making noise as if nobody else was there. Several shush! shush! sounds from the audience yielded the agonizingly familiar “We paid our money and we won’t shut up.. blah, blah, blah!” Then I heard one Negro voice say out loud, “You’re the reason us N…… don’t never have nuthin' cuz people like you ruin it for ev'body!” I’ll never forget that, never forget the guy who said it. AMEN.

rlvjr
rlvjr on June 4, 2005 at 12:51 pm

We saw Arnold Schwartznegger’s PREDITOR here on their big screen. About 30 minutes into the show, about 4 or 5 jive-turkeys came in and began making noise as if nobody else was there. Several shush! shush! sounds from the audience yielded the agonizingly familiar “We paid our money and we won’t shut up.. blah, blah, blah!” Then I heard one Negro voice say out loud, “You’re the reason us N…… don’t never have nuthin' cuz people like you ruin it for ev'body!” I’ll never forget that, never forget the guy who said it. AMEN.

RobertR
RobertR on May 29, 2005 at 7:31 am

Scott
Yes Dawn of the Dead played the Rivoli, I forget the name of the releasing company but UA and Salah Hassanein owned the majority shares. There was also a time when the Rivoli was still a single screen and still getting top bookings when they had a week and a half gap before a big picture was opening. They ran a George Romero festival with a different double bill every three days.

Vito
Vito on May 29, 2005 at 4:03 am

William, I worked post production at 20th Century fox and also at News of the Day for a while in the late 50s. It was tense but I enjoyed it a lot and we always had passes to the Roxy and Rivoli. The guys at News of the Day had a very stressful job with new footgae being delivered all day long and having to get two newsreels out every week.

scottfavareille
scottfavareille on May 28, 2005 at 4:42 pm

According to a documentary on the Anchor Bay DVD of Dawn of the Dead(Ultimate Edition), the Rivoli played Dawn on its first run engagement, which would have been May 1979.

William
William on May 26, 2005 at 11:51 am

I still run track & picture screenings, but not as many as before. But I’m not in the regular theatre world. I’m in Post-Production projection, its like working a film festival 5 days a week.

Vito
Vito on May 26, 2005 at 11:33 am

I forgot to mention the film transport, we have two three stacked platters, so that when we run 3-D, one for the left eye and one for the right.
William I’d say 80% of the studio test screenings I did before I retired were D-5 tape. There are fewer and fewer screenings using unmarried prints.
I should explain to anyone not understanding, an unmarried print is what we would use to show sneak and test sceenings of unfinished movies. The picture and sound were on seperate reels which would be interlocked. I am sure Rob has had a lot of experience with this at RCMH

Vito
Vito on May 26, 2005 at 11:12 am

CConnolly, I shall tell you what I know about IMAX.
First of all the picture is not digital, but a 70mm fifteen perforation film which runs thru the IMAX projectr horizontally at 24 frames per second. The projector is capable of running two prints at the same time for 3-D.The sound comes on CD disks which is then loaded onto the computer’s hard drive which syncs up the picture and sound. In the theatre I worked, the light source is a 15,000 watt lamp and the sound system carried 12,000 watts of power. A wall to wall,floor to ceiling silver screen, to maximize the reflection to the audience, was installed. IMAX has been a new shot in the arm now due to DMR which is a process of digitally re-mastering regularly shot 35mm movies to the IMAX process,as was the case in “Robots” and the upcoming “Batman Returns” amoung many others.
I hope I helped explain a bit about IMAX and hope someone with more knowledge can add to or correct anything I wrote

chconnol
chconnol on May 26, 2005 at 8:54 am

Sorry, but it sounds like to me that digital film projection is the wave of the future. The only thing that’s preventing it’s total takeover is the fact that movie attendence is so down. What could possibly justify the cost to the theaters if the numbers are low? A few blockbusters that are truly worthy and attendence should go up. THEN digital will take over. But from looking at the slim pickings coming out this summer, I don’t see myself going much to the theater either.

William
William on May 26, 2005 at 8:44 am

It is not like it once was with film, Digital is picking up speed in doing preview screenings. I still run a lot of film, but we do about 4-6 different video type screenings a week. Today I have two HD screenings, one from a D-5 format and another from HDcam-SR, plus two film screenings. Some people might say it is hard to go from film and video type formats. It really isn’t that hard to do.

chconnol
chconnol on May 26, 2005 at 8:24 am

Are most IMAX films digital?

It’s interesting that you cite “The Polar Express” (AWFUL, AWFUL movie…gave me the creeps!) But there was an interesting article in “Entertainment Weekly” about two weeks ago that stated that theater attendance is way, way off now. And the article pretty much came to the conclusion that we here already derived: movies today SUCK. So audiences are staying away. EXCEPT…for “The Polar Express” in IMAX which they said did very good business, better than it did in the conventional box megaplexes. So did the IMAX release of “Robots” (another dud). The article said that apparently audiences are willing to see a movie on a BIG screen.

So that’s ironic. Obviously it’s not just the terrible films but the way that these movies are being presented that is keeping audiences away. People WANT the big screens and such.

Vito
Vito on May 26, 2005 at 8:00 am

Rob, I can only imagine the pressur of working at RCMH. But it had to be a rewarding and thrilling experience. As for the Guys running digital, I suppose it must have it’s anxious moments. As a film projectionist, when something went wrong we could generally take care of the problem. Switching rectifiers/generators for a light source problem or amplifiers when the sound gave us trouble. Heck, most of us at one time or another have had to change out an intermittent or replace a drive gear at one time or another not to mention a water cooled jaw in a arc lamp house that suddenly sprung a leak. Ahh the memories… but my experience with digital was one of
a feeling of helpness when it went sour, something I was not used to or enjoyed very much. All one could do was call the 800# for tech support. As you very well know, digital projection comes with it’s one sets of problems. So the industry had changed a great deal, my last booth job was in an IMAX theatre, I played “Polar Express” in IMAX 3-D. What a nightmare that was!, the print didi not carry a time code as does DTS for example, but rather runs on it’s own program so the chances of losing sync was always about. Then of course if you had a film break and lost any frames in the left eye print you had to replace (slug) the missing footage in the right eye print to keep everything matched up. Of course we had to do the same thing in the old 3-D and Cinerama days and I know some of the boys would sometimes cheat and simply remove the missing footage from all the prints, but with IMAX if you did that you would lose sound sync.
But at least we had film, and running 2-3 or even, as you did, 5 projectors in a single thetare in a single booth. I miss that!

RobertEndres
RobertEndres on May 26, 2005 at 7:42 am

CConnolly: Digital cinema is an extension of video projection used in home systems upgraded to theatre quality. The originating source may be high-definition tape (Panasonic D-5, or Sony HDCam)usually running with 1080 lines of resolution vertically and either at the film speed of 24 frames per second or the video frame rate of 30 frames per second), or from a server using computer drives. The material may be delivered via satellite or on tape or from hard drives. The most common projector at this point uses Texas Instruments DLP technology which uses mirrors from three chips to reflect light from the lamphouse to the screen. Sony and JVC use a competing technology using reflective silicon on chips that is in a sense what you see with a digital wristwatch display except the crystals are reflective rather than black. Sony has announced a projector that will do up to 4,000 lines of resolution which should equal or exceed the resolution of 35mm film. You are right about the encryption issues to prevent piracy. The material may be fed in encoded digital form into the projector for conversion to analogue for viewing to prevent hacking since it never exists in analogue form outside of the projector itself. In addition, keys may be generated by the distributor to license the film to exactly the number of screens in a complex and for exactly the number of days the picture is being screened. The National Association of Theatre Owners and the Digital Cinema Initiative have been working to formalize standards for theatrical presentation with the goal that digital cinema presentation be of higher quality than the 1080 hi-def presentation people have in their home theatres and at least as good or better than 35mm film is now. A good part of the motion-picture industry has already “gone digital” for editing and preview purposes, with more and more sneak previews done from D-5 tape rather than film interlocked to a separate track. Now the technology is becoming available to change exhibition as well. There are questions about who is going to pay for the convrsion and preventing piracy, but its a pretty interesting time for theatre technology.

Gerald A. DeLuca
Gerald A. DeLuca on May 26, 2005 at 2:24 am

Bill Huelbig, you might want to add your link for that interesting “Days of Heaven” booklet to the Cinema 1, 2, 3 site.

Coate
Coate on May 25, 2005 at 9:26 pm

“A 70MM print of "Howard’s End” was shown at the Paris for nearly a year in the early 1990s.“ (ErikH)


A couple of minor corrections re the New York City run of “Howards End” — the film did play at the Paris, though the theater was known as the Fine Arts at the time. The duration of the Fine Arts run was 33 weeks. It immediately moved to the Village East, where it ran for another 31 weeks in 70mm.

View link

View link