5/29/09 – UP 3-D
7/1/09 – PUBLIC ENEMIES
7/15/09 – HARRY POTTER AND THE HALF-BLOOD PRINCE
8/7/09 – JULIE & JULIA
8/14/09 – DISTRICT 9
8/28/09 – THE FINAL DESTINATION 3-D
9/11/09 – TYLER PERRY’S I CAN DO BAD ALL BY MYSELF
9/18/09 – CLOUDY WITH A CHANCE OF MEATBALLS 3-D
10/9/09 – GOOD HAIR
10/16/09 – WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE
10/23/09 – LAW ABIDING CITIZEN (moveover from #8)
10/28/09 – MICHAEL JACKSON’S THIS IS IT
11/6/09 – THE FOURTH KIND
11/13/09 – PRECIOUS
11/20/09 – THE TWILIGHT SAGA: NEW MOON
12/4/09 – ARMORED
12/18/09 – AVATAR 3-D
Right on JSA. And when I finally get to travel to Los Angeles, I look forward to visiting the Cinerama Dome. I’ve heard nothing but great things.
As a theater chain owner-to be, I will be fully committed to bringing showmanship back to the movies. I understand that ads bring income to the theaters, but I think the most important auditoriums should be true showplaces, and that’s what I aim to do. Of course, limit ads along the way.
Digital projection or not, movie theaters need to take a page from the 50s and give audiences what on-demand or DVD can’t give you at home, a giant movie on a giant screen, complete with ushers, curtain tabs and the like. Movie theaters will never go away, as there are still to many people in this world who are social. And even with the flaws of theaters today, I am a movie/theater buff, and I won’t give up on them.
With this talk from the studios, filmmakers need to pull out those 65mm cameras and shoot important tentpole releases with them. 65mm can only make digital look better than what it really is.
Movie theaters aren’t going nowhere folks. But expect anarchy from filmmakers, because I doubt Chris Nolan wants people to see “Inception”, or the next Batman first run in a damn living room.
I was going through some microfilm from 1990, and I’m in awe of the discovery that the Rutger Hauer b-movie, “The Blood of Heroes” ran here from 2/23/90 – 3/15/90. For anyone who may have worked here or went here during that time, is that correct? I’m finding it hard to believe because it grossed only 882k at the BO.
This theater now has a digital LIEMAX screen that AMC keeps putting up. Since the auditoriums (before LIEMAX) held approx 140-290, I imagine the screen holds no more that 220-230 people tops.
And you get to pay up to $14 dollars for the scam too!
With all the move towards digital, this could be the digital version of 70mm. If it happens, I hope he tweaks it again with 4k/6k techology. And I hope 65mm origination happens, because it can make digital look better that what it is now.
Tim, do you remember if a movie called “Cutter’s Way” played at the Cinema? It was released in NY under the original (novel) title “Cutter & Bone” in the spring of ‘81, but pulled due to poor reaction. It came out again that summer under the new title, and did better, but not by much. I’m hoping to get a microfilm ad of it if Chicago ever got the movie. I figured that this theater was an art house, and “Cutter” would’ve played here or the Sandburg if released in chi-town.
Thanks Tim. I didn’t know that about the Chicago. When my theater corp finally gets going, I hope to build a theater similar to the Lincoln Square in New York, where each auditorium has a faux marquee/entrance of a classic movie palace. In Chicago, the screens would be the Chicago, State-Lake, United Artists, Woods etc… My proposed project would be the flagship.
I just saw on the news that Costco is looking to build a store on the site of the now-closed Kiddieland in nearby Melrose Park. If that goes through, then that’s more hope for Norridge.
Anyway, does all the screens have side-masking for scope films? I ask because I think of another M&R turned Loews theater, the Evergreen. And its original 2 screens were split to make 4, and all of them were pretty big screens. I’m wondering if Norridge’s split auditoriums have the same effect.
Tim, when you go to that site, look at the bottom of the exterior photo. There should be numbers 1-12 and “full screen”. Click on #8 to see the balcony shot of the screen.
When you see the screen, look at the bottom left & bottom right of the screen (bottom right is more visible), there’s a square opening that’s most likely the exit door. It’s just like the exit doors at the AMC River East here in Chicago.
I hope that because it’s a balcony shot, the visual impact is lessened. Because I’m in Chicago (and broke), I won’t be able to see the place up close. So if anybody visits, please give us a report on the main screen. I hope my suspicions are proven wrong.
I believe AEG owns Regal. I’ve read articles on the theater that refer to them as AEG Regal LA Live.
And yeah, 14 screens is too much. I could see playing it on 7 of the screens, then you could program 7 other flicks too.
Anyway, I’m even more determined to get my theater corpration off the ground and get ahold of a proposed development here in Chicago, because the location would be perfect for me to construct a theater that would put to rest this “premiere” screen at LA Live. I mean c'mon, they spent 100 million dollars to build this place, and they couldn’t get the screen right. When I think of “premiere auditorium”, I think of a screen that looks almost as big as this View link
Uhh Chris, I looked at the photo of the screen in the “premiere” auditorium, and it looks like Regal couldn’t curb their habbit of top-down screen masking. If you look closely at picture #8 at this link, you can see that the screen while covered up with curtains, has exit doors close on both sides of screen. It’s a setup just like the new AMC builds, or Pacific Grove 14. And with that setup, you know that the screen can’t expand at the sides.
Oh well, it least the decor looks great. Kudos to Regal for that. But for those in LA, the
W-I-D-E-S-C-R-E-E-N experience is at the Arclight or Grauman’s Chinese.
I look forward to building a movie theater in the future, because when it comes to “wall-to-wall screens”, I’m going to show them how it’s done.
JRS40, I know the Chicago Theatre had the larger seating capacity (3,600), but between State-Lake & Chicago, which one had the largest screen? I myself am leaning towards S-L because it showed many 70mm presentations, and the Chicago did not.
My dad drove by the theaters while me, him, and my mom were on the way to the Aldi down the road. It’s still standing, which is great. I’ve wrote a draft of my business plan, now I’m just revising it.
I’ve read about a new system that can project Real-D images with screens up to 80ft wide. This would be perfect to show “Avatar”. With that, here’s another listing of films that would’ve played here if it were open today
5/8/09 – STAR TREK
6/12/09 – TAKING OF PELHAM 1,2,3
6/19/09 – THE HANGOVER (moveover from 1-6)
7/1/09 – PUBLIC ENEMIES (Lansing/River Run would’ve gotten “Transformers”)
7/15/09 – HARRY POTTER AND THE HALF-BLOOD PRINCE
7/31/09 – FUNNY PEOPLE
8/14/09 – DISTRICT 9
9/4/09 – INGLORIOUS BASTERDS (moveover from 11-12)
9/11/09 – TYLER PERRY’S I CAN DO BAD ALL BY MYSELF
10/2/09 – ZOMBIELAND
10/16/09 – WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE
10/28/09 – MICHAEL JACKSON’S THIS IS IT
Now my planned 11-12 would be next to #10. They would hold about 400 & 300, and feaure waterfall curtains.
According to the Kerasotes website, the theater at Roosevelt Collection is now known as the ShowPlace ICON Theatre. This sounds like Kerasotes is brining about a new brand within the corporation. They’re opening a similar location in St. Louis Park, MN next month.
According to this link, this theater is opening a Cinemark “Extreme Digital” auditorium on November 6th. I’ve seen photos of their new creation, and it looks pretty good. It’s no IMAX or 70mm, but it appears to be better than the LIEMAX screens that AMC is opening up. I know I will most certainly be making the trek to Evanston when it opens.
I’m glad you mentioned the resolution Xenon. I read somewhere that shooting in 35mm and going directly to print could have a resolution up to 8k. 70mm resolution on the other hand, might be upwards of 10/12k if that comment on 35 is true.
In the very very distant future when I have grey hair and grandkids, there just might be an 8k projector to equal 70mm quality, but it should retain the 2.20: 1 aspect ratio.
Any kind of 70mm comeback would of course, be shot that way. And I think it should also be reserved for screens 50ft wide and above.
From that teaser I saw, it appears that Chris Nolan’s “Inception” has some 65mm. There was a scene or two that looked far too sharp to have been shot in 35mm (and I saw the teaser in 35).
I think that any 70mm production won’t be bought up by a studio exec. However, any kind of return to 70mm would have to be by a director with the power to do what he/she wants.
I don’t think it will return anytime soon though. Once hollywood ***k themselves over with the digital thing….
A_Projectionist,
If someone expressed interest in building a new theater nearby, where might one be erected?
PopcornFan,
I now have a photobucket account, but I still can’t view the album.
“Go fetch my shine box!”
“MO————-R!”
Anyway, it’s official 20th anniversary isn’t until September 21st. But yes, happy 20th. And I myself will turn 20 next saturday.
PopcornFan,
Thanks for the link. I can’t view it however, because I don’t have a photobucket account. So I’ll get on that sometime today.
If it were open today…
5/29/09 – UP 3-D
7/1/09 – PUBLIC ENEMIES
7/15/09 – HARRY POTTER AND THE HALF-BLOOD PRINCE
8/7/09 – JULIE & JULIA
8/14/09 – DISTRICT 9
8/28/09 – THE FINAL DESTINATION 3-D
9/11/09 – TYLER PERRY’S I CAN DO BAD ALL BY MYSELF
9/18/09 – CLOUDY WITH A CHANCE OF MEATBALLS 3-D
10/9/09 – GOOD HAIR
10/16/09 – WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE
10/23/09 – LAW ABIDING CITIZEN (moveover from #8)
10/28/09 – MICHAEL JACKSON’S THIS IS IT
11/6/09 – THE FOURTH KIND
11/13/09 – PRECIOUS
11/20/09 – THE TWILIGHT SAGA: NEW MOON
12/4/09 – ARMORED
12/18/09 – AVATAR 3-D
Right on JSA. And when I finally get to travel to Los Angeles, I look forward to visiting the Cinerama Dome. I’ve heard nothing but great things.
As a theater chain owner-to be, I will be fully committed to bringing showmanship back to the movies. I understand that ads bring income to the theaters, but I think the most important auditoriums should be true showplaces, and that’s what I aim to do. Of course, limit ads along the way.
Digital projection or not, movie theaters need to take a page from the 50s and give audiences what on-demand or DVD can’t give you at home, a giant movie on a giant screen, complete with ushers, curtain tabs and the like. Movie theaters will never go away, as there are still to many people in this world who are social. And even with the flaws of theaters today, I am a movie/theater buff, and I won’t give up on them.
With this talk from the studios, filmmakers need to pull out those 65mm cameras and shoot important tentpole releases with them. 65mm can only make digital look better than what it really is.
Movie theaters aren’t going nowhere folks. But expect anarchy from filmmakers, because I doubt Chris Nolan wants people to see “Inception”, or the next Batman first run in a damn living room.
I was going through some microfilm from 1990, and I’m in awe of the discovery that the Rutger Hauer b-movie, “The Blood of Heroes” ran here from 2/23/90 – 3/15/90. For anyone who may have worked here or went here during that time, is that correct? I’m finding it hard to believe because it grossed only 882k at the BO.
This theater now has a digital LIEMAX screen that AMC keeps putting up. Since the auditoriums (before LIEMAX) held approx 140-290, I imagine the screen holds no more that 220-230 people tops.
And you get to pay up to $14 dollars for the scam too!
Robert Weisgerber, inventor of the Super Dimension 70 system, has created a digital projection system (supposedly on par with 70mm) called DMX.
http://www.fromscripttodvd.com/dmx.htm
With all the move towards digital, this could be the digital version of 70mm. If it happens, I hope he tweaks it again with 4k/6k techology. And I hope 65mm origination happens, because it can make digital look better that what it is now.
Tim, do you remember if a movie called “Cutter’s Way” played at the Cinema? It was released in NY under the original (novel) title “Cutter & Bone” in the spring of ‘81, but pulled due to poor reaction. It came out again that summer under the new title, and did better, but not by much. I’m hoping to get a microfilm ad of it if Chicago ever got the movie. I figured that this theater was an art house, and “Cutter” would’ve played here or the Sandburg if released in chi-town.
Thanks Tim. I didn’t know that about the Chicago. When my theater corp finally gets going, I hope to build a theater similar to the Lincoln Square in New York, where each auditorium has a faux marquee/entrance of a classic movie palace. In Chicago, the screens would be the Chicago, State-Lake, United Artists, Woods etc… My proposed project would be the flagship.
Justin, you must be talking about the mini-IMAX (I call it LIEMAX) at the AMC Empire 25. The Lincoln Square has the real thing.
And when I eventually visit New York, I plan to make a trip to LS.
I just saw on the news that Costco is looking to build a store on the site of the now-closed Kiddieland in nearby Melrose Park. If that goes through, then that’s more hope for Norridge.
Anyway, does all the screens have side-masking for scope films? I ask because I think of another M&R turned Loews theater, the Evergreen. And its original 2 screens were split to make 4, and all of them were pretty big screens. I’m wondering if Norridge’s split auditoriums have the same effect.
Tim, when you go to that site, look at the bottom of the exterior photo. There should be numbers 1-12 and “full screen”. Click on #8 to see the balcony shot of the screen.
When you see the screen, look at the bottom left & bottom right of the screen (bottom right is more visible), there’s a square opening that’s most likely the exit door. It’s just like the exit doors at the AMC River East here in Chicago.
I hope that because it’s a balcony shot, the visual impact is lessened. Because I’m in Chicago (and broke), I won’t be able to see the place up close. So if anybody visits, please give us a report on the main screen. I hope my suspicions are proven wrong.
I believe AEG owns Regal. I’ve read articles on the theater that refer to them as AEG Regal LA Live.
And yeah, 14 screens is too much. I could see playing it on 7 of the screens, then you could program 7 other flicks too.
Anyway, I’m even more determined to get my theater corpration off the ground and get ahold of a proposed development here in Chicago, because the location would be perfect for me to construct a theater that would put to rest this “premiere” screen at LA Live. I mean c'mon, they spent 100 million dollars to build this place, and they couldn’t get the screen right. When I think of “premiere auditorium”, I think of a screen that looks almost as big as this
View link
Uhh Chris, I looked at the photo of the screen in the “premiere” auditorium, and it looks like Regal couldn’t curb their habbit of top-down screen masking. If you look closely at picture #8 at this link, you can see that the screen while covered up with curtains, has exit doors close on both sides of screen. It’s a setup just like the new AMC builds, or Pacific Grove 14. And with that setup, you know that the screen can’t expand at the sides.
Oh well, it least the decor looks great. Kudos to Regal for that. But for those in LA, the
W-I-D-E-S-C-R-E-E-N experience is at the Arclight or Grauman’s Chinese.
I look forward to building a movie theater in the future, because when it comes to “wall-to-wall screens”, I’m going to show them how it’s done.
JRS40, I know the Chicago Theatre had the larger seating capacity (3,600), but between State-Lake & Chicago, which one had the largest screen? I myself am leaning towards S-L because it showed many 70mm presentations, and the Chicago did not.
My dad drove by the theaters while me, him, and my mom were on the way to the Aldi down the road. It’s still standing, which is great. I’ve wrote a draft of my business plan, now I’m just revising it.
I’ve read about a new system that can project Real-D images with screens up to 80ft wide. This would be perfect to show “Avatar”. With that, here’s another listing of films that would’ve played here if it were open today
5/8/09 – STAR TREK
6/12/09 – TAKING OF PELHAM 1,2,3
6/19/09 – THE HANGOVER (moveover from 1-6)
7/1/09 – PUBLIC ENEMIES (Lansing/River Run would’ve gotten “Transformers”)
7/15/09 – HARRY POTTER AND THE HALF-BLOOD PRINCE
7/31/09 – FUNNY PEOPLE
8/14/09 – DISTRICT 9
9/4/09 – INGLORIOUS BASTERDS (moveover from 11-12)
9/11/09 – TYLER PERRY’S I CAN DO BAD ALL BY MYSELF
10/2/09 – ZOMBIELAND
10/16/09 – WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE
10/28/09 – MICHAEL JACKSON’S THIS IS IT
Now my planned 11-12 would be next to #10. They would hold about 400 & 300, and feaure waterfall curtains.
While I like the idea of large format digital screens, it would be nice if their XD screens had side-masking.
People, this is where large format cinema should be, digital or film
View link
Not this: http://www.cinemark.com/xd288photos.asp
According to the Kerasotes website, the theater at Roosevelt Collection is now known as the ShowPlace ICON Theatre. This sounds like Kerasotes is brining about a new brand within the corporation. They’re opening a similar location in St. Louis Park, MN next month.
According to this link, this theater is opening a Cinemark “Extreme Digital” auditorium on November 6th. I’ve seen photos of their new creation, and it looks pretty good. It’s no IMAX or 70mm, but it appears to be better than the LIEMAX screens that AMC is opening up. I know I will most certainly be making the trek to Evanston when it opens.
I’m glad you mentioned the resolution Xenon. I read somewhere that shooting in 35mm and going directly to print could have a resolution up to 8k. 70mm resolution on the other hand, might be upwards of 10/12k if that comment on 35 is true.
In the very very distant future when I have grey hair and grandkids, there just might be an 8k projector to equal 70mm quality, but it should retain the 2.20: 1 aspect ratio.
Any kind of 70mm comeback would of course, be shot that way. And I think it should also be reserved for screens 50ft wide and above.
From that teaser I saw, it appears that Chris Nolan’s “Inception” has some 65mm. There was a scene or two that looked far too sharp to have been shot in 35mm (and I saw the teaser in 35).
I think that any 70mm production won’t be bought up by a studio exec. However, any kind of return to 70mm would have to be by a director with the power to do what he/she wants.
I don’t think it will return anytime soon though. Once hollywood ***k themselves over with the digital thing….