Cinerama Dome and ArcLight Cinemas

6360 Sunset Boulevard,
Hollywood,
Los Angeles, CA 90028

Unfavorite 116 people favorited this theater

Showing 901 - 925 of 1,103 comments

Mike (saps)
Mike (saps) on September 18, 2007 at 6:21 am

Bill, just make a left on John F. Kennedy Boulevard and go about 2783 miles…you should be there in about 40 hours.

KramSacul
KramSacul on September 18, 2007 at 6:19 am

I can’t imagine a more painful experience than seeing your favorite movie distorted on the Dome’s screen. I remember seeing Lawrence of Arabia in there and it was like viewing the desert through a fishbowl.

Bill Huelbig
Bill Huelbig on September 18, 2007 at 5:37 am

Chris: I also think “The Sound of Music” has a good shot at playing the Dome, along with the other two you mentioned. I guess we’ll find out tomorrow when the tickets go on sale. If only I didn’t live 3,000 miles away …

Chris Utley
Chris Utley on September 18, 2007 at 5:04 am

My money’s on either “Spartacus” or “Star Wars” to play The Dome. Crossing my fingers that “Spartacus” gets it – cause that’s what I wanna see!

Either way, if I missed this event, I’d never forgive myself. It don’t matter what plays where – just as long as I’m there!

exit
exit on September 17, 2007 at 5:35 pm

Yeah but with eleven films and 15 screens, what is showing where? I asked AFI and got no answer. Who gets the Dome? My guess is nobody.

Chris Utley
Chris Utley on September 17, 2007 at 5:20 pm

Breaking News:

American Film Institute is hosting their 40th Anniversary celebration on October 3rd at the Arclight.

http://www.afi.com/tvevents/40th/default.aspx

Not only are the films they’re showing monumental, but wait till you see who’s presenting them!

I AM SO THERE!!!

veyoung52
veyoung52 on August 17, 2007 at 3:13 pm

I still have two Cinerama tee-shirts, a jacket, and real frames from HTWWW, all from the New Neon in Dayton.

Manwithnoname
Manwithnoname on August 10, 2007 at 9:34 am

I also have a Cinerama logo baseball hat, a keychain with a rubber reproduction of the Dome building and a coffee mug with the Cinerama logo along with the magnets. All of these things I bought at the gift shop and they definitely had shirts along with tote bags with the Seven Wonders of the World ad. Some other goodies in the “Mad World” giveaway bag were a postcard, a reprint of the This Is Cinerama program (which also sold in the gift shop) and a card celebrating the film/theater’s 40th anniversary.

Bill Huelbig
Bill Huelbig on August 10, 2007 at 8:52 am

I’m glad I got my Cinerama Dome and Cinerama logo fridge magnets in 2003. They gave them away, too, for “It’s a Mad Mad Mad Mad World”.

exit
exit on August 10, 2007 at 7:40 am

There were several Dome souvenirs in the works a few years ago, including a Dome snow globe, but they never happened and aren’t likely now.

terrywade
terrywade on August 9, 2007 at 5:23 pm

Good news in todays LA Times Thurs Aug 9 the Pacific team has the listing CINERAMA DOME not just The Dome. Did they read my note this week? Now lets get the great Cinema Treasure book for sale in the gift shop and bring back the Cinerama shirts. The tourists will snap them up. It’s time for a new print of Cinerama Holiday to play. Play it up for the summer vacation people in Hollywood.

KramSacul
KramSacul on August 9, 2007 at 1:35 pm

Yeah, that’s a simulation I found somewhere. Red masking would be kind of wild. lol

Flat 1.85:1 films aren’t actually too bad at the Dome so just masking the sides work for that. The masked 2.35:1 image would use the full width, just not the bottom. I’m surprised this isn’t done now. The benefits would far outweigh using the bottom sides of the screen.

exit
exit on August 9, 2007 at 1:23 pm

Wow, Mark, sure looks bizarre, doesn’t it? Red masking? Is that a real picture or a simulation of what the masking may have looked like? The red part clearly defines the odd shape caused by the throw angle.

You’re on target about the masking, the further down the picture goes, the more distortion there is, which is why you want to keep the picture closer to the top of the screen than the bottom, and not use the entire width like they try to do now.

Evita looked okay but strange… in order to have a flat screen they needed to bring it forward so far that at least a third of the orchestra level was behind the screen, and and to reduce the keystoning, it was up so high that the only decent place to sit was upstairs. This made the screen feel a little too “in your face.” Not an ideal situation at all.

KramSacul
KramSacul on August 9, 2007 at 1:08 pm

Roadshow, since you were there for the Evita experiment how did the image look? Was there any distortion on the flat screen?

I heard that for the recent It’s A Madx4 World showing at the Dome the screen was masked so all of the frame was shown, something like this:

View link

A similar masking configuration could be used for 2.35:1. Only the bottom would have to be masked. This would decrease the projection angle and allow for more of the frame to be seen that would otherwise be cut off if all of the screen was used. The last time I was at the Dome was for Spider-man 3 and so much was cut off at the bottom of the frame that the Sony Pictures text under the Columbia Pictures logo was completely cut off.

exit
exit on August 9, 2007 at 12:52 pm

No I meant the downstairs of the old Warner theatre after it was converted in 68 to the Penthouse/Cinerama/Orleans. They ran regular movies on the Cinerama screen for years until it was torn down about 20 years later. I saw National Lampoon’s Vacation there in its initial run. No picture distortion because the booth was in the back of the auditorium.

HowardBHaas
HowardBHaas on August 9, 2007 at 12:41 pm

Are you talking about a Cinerama screen still in New York? Where? or maybe you are talking 20 or more years ago?

exit
exit on August 9, 2007 at 12:11 pm

Again, don’t blame the screen. Cinerama screens in places like New York, Washington DC, Seattle and Omaha, have all shown standard movies on a reduced area of a Cinerama screen for decades with very popular results. Tilting a curved screen upwards is problematic and doesn’t really solve the problem as much as change it.

Evita’s flat screen happened because Alan Parker freaked out over the throw angle making her coffin looking like a wiener. Disney engineers came in and turned the Dome into a black box. Flat ceiling, flat screen with no curtains, looked like a cheesy multiplex. I was there to see Evita. I can’t tell you how many people went down and peeked behind the flat screen to make sure the curved one was still there.

Except for using a low-gain sheet in place of louvers, the screen at the Dome is a Cinerama screen. Check with American Widescreen Museum http://widescreenmuseum.com/index.htm for more information on Cinerama. There were not really a hard set of specs for the screen. Could be 146 or 126 degrees, curved sides like a cylander or flat sides like a bowtie. A lot depended on the venue.

Later processes like Todd AO and D-150 tried to imitate the Cinerama screen, and AWSM has a neat illustration about D-150 and the areas allowed for each format. You were never supposed to blow up 35mm to the full size of the screen because you lose to much light and sharpness… but the Dome does now, and you can see the result.

As for the current geometric distortion at the Dome, ArcLight’s insistance on using the entire screen for everything magnifies the distortion, and the enormous task of closing up the place to build a new frame with a flatter or tilted screen makes much less sense than simply building another booth in the rear mezzanine where it should be. It could be done in stages without missing a single screening, and the result would be a nearly straight throw to the center of the screen, eliminating any horizon sag. And since a straight line is a shorter distance than a diagonal line, the shorter throw means a brighter sharper picture. Louvers could be put onto the existing screen frame in a couple days if they had the right people working on it. BTW, 3 strip Cinerama hasn’t much problem with horizion sag becaust it’s 3 projectors, aimed directly at left, center and right, so they can stay where they are.

Scott Neff
Scott Neff on August 9, 2007 at 10:24 am

Roadshow,

I’m pretty sure that a branch of Pacific was called Cinerama Theatres. I was under the impression that the theatres they operated in Marin County were all operated by Cinerama Theatres Inc.

KramSacul
KramSacul on August 9, 2007 at 9:43 am

I should’ve added that it probably wouldn’t/doesn’t matter much if the screen in the Dome isn’t technically a Cinerama screen. As long as it’s huge and somewhat curved and the sign on the building says Cinerama then I think Joe Public will be satisifed.

Supposedly the picture at the Dome was worse before the Arclight addition. The focus across the screen wasn’t as uniform as it is now.

William
William on August 9, 2007 at 9:31 am

The problems at the Dome have been the same problems it’s had for the last 40 some years. “Evita” looked good but I did not like the flat screen. The studio have over the years struck special lighter prints for that curved screen. I’ve run the Dome many times, it was a fun booth to run. (Before the automation install) The operator ran that booth, everything was run manual.

KramSacul
KramSacul on August 9, 2007 at 9:17 am

Wouldn’t angling the screen upward help as well? How does the projection angle compare to Grauman’s or the Village? Also, for those that were there how did Evita look when the temporary flat screen was put in? Was it hung higher to avoid the distortion?

The thing is that there isn’t a Cinerama screen in the Dome. It’s a D-150, which is too curvy for anything shown on it nowadays.

exit
exit on August 9, 2007 at 8:34 am

PS: even a flatter Cinemascope tyoe screen would have a distorted and certainly dim picture if the picture was thrown from the current booth.

exit
exit on August 9, 2007 at 8:32 am

Mark, as I’ve said, the screen is not the problem, it’s the location of the projector. Taking the CInerama screen out of the Dome would be like taking all the Chinese decoration out of Graumans Chinese. Put another booth in the back of the mezzanine and the picture would be brighter with no dip in the horizon line. Make the screen out of properly aligned louvers and the brightness and contrast would be much better. But Pacific/ArcLight folks just don’t think that way.

KramSacul
KramSacul on August 9, 2007 at 5:46 am

If the Pacific/Arclight Execs are indeed so disinterested in showing true Cinerama in The Dome then I would honestly prefer they install a proper screen (Cinemascope) and fix the projection problems. Then instead of showing compromised Cinerama a week out of the year and dim distorted 35mm/2k digital for the rest they could have top notch projection the entire year.

exit
exit on August 9, 2007 at 5:00 am

JS is the onePacific/ArcLight folks should be listening to. I’ve met RB as well. Just don’t ask him what ArcLight means…