Cineplex Cinemas Yonge-Dundas

10 Dundas Street East,
Toronto, ON M5B 2G9

Unfavorite 4 people favorited this theater

Showing 76 - 90 of 90 comments

Mic
Mic on April 8, 2008 at 5:51 pm

The framing and aspect ratio issues Jon mentions, especially at the mediocre and outdated Carlton & Cumberland theatres, occur because of the especially small screens at those Cinemas. I’ve never encountered those problems at ScotiaBank or Varsity and I’m hardly a fan of these theatres. Again, in this industry push towards digital projection the myth of the fragility of film prints has been exaggerated to justify the conversion. Most films these days (even if the prints are handled in multiplexes by teenagers) are lucky to have a six week theatrical run, hardly allowing them the time to deteriorate. Perfect framing or not, the loss of detail, resolution, and contrast one loses in the film to digital conversion is not worth the gains of maybe seeing something in the proper aspect ratio. And don’t forget that even if every theatre in North America converts to DLP, 70 to 80% of features will still be shot on film because of it’s superiority, the question remains then, why reduce the standards if all you get is a diluted approximation of the original source (film) for TV like sharpness.

The programming issue though is now the greater tragedy. The emergence of the new AMC has created a ridiculous situation without parallels. Scotia and AMC have entered into a climate of inflated bidding wars for content, resulting in garbage like Prom Night appearing on 5 screens !!!! at AMC, or even Run Fat Boy Run appearing on 5 screens at the Varsity & AMC. A theatre like the Varsity is now squeezing out the art films, because it must show whatever product Scotia loses to the AMC to compensate for any Cineplex loss. We had a horrible climate for art and indie film distribution before the AMC arrived, and believe it or not, with the addition of 24 more screens to the downtown core the situation is even worse. Forget about any art films ever showing at the new AMC, even though these films can make more money than Run Fat Boy on its second or third screen, they’re only available on 35mm 95% of the time, a situation that won’t change anytime soon. They can’t be shown at AMC because of their stupid and arrogant decision to go all digital. This pathetic situation is a true embarrassment to the city’s film culture.

Jon Lidolt
Jon Lidolt on April 8, 2008 at 10:12 am

Hello movies 534. If we had a cinema that was provided with the same quality of prints that the studios view in their plush screening rooms and that said cinema was equipped with top quality, well maintained equipment, well then I might agree with you. However, that is NOT the case. When I go to the movies I expect a steady picture, framed correctly, shown in the right aspect ratio and be in perfect focus from edge to edge. Projection and sound at the Cumberland, the Carlton and a host of others is mediocre at best, and when you compare these examples to the new AMC – the AMC wins on all counts. By the way, I have run a very succesful independent movie house and also been involved in film production. I like film but let’s face facts: its day is fading fast. Like how many people (amateurs & professionals alilke) still shoot their photographs on film? I think we all know the answer to that question.

John Fink
John Fink on April 7, 2008 at 11:14 pm

This one is splitting films with Scotiabank (Paramount), which I was impressed by at last year’s TIFF (perfect for a film festival since you can survive all day with that food court). AMC though I noticed is getting some better bookings including this week Leatherheads and The Ruins, whereas Scotiabank is stuck with Shine a Light (on its IMAX screen) and some other indie film. I wonder what this will do – this is essentially the Toronto version of what happened on 42nd street in Manhattan with AMC Empire 25 and the Loews (now Regal) E-Walk. Not to mention the Varsity isn’t that far away, sharing a few of the more “upscale” titles (Varsity did share with Scotiabank as well), and The Carlton. If AMC elects to pick up more art product (they do at Empire), even on say 3-4 screens, could that spell the end for theaters like The Carlton and the Cumberland? (Then again would art film goers venture to Dundas Younge square which seems to scream “tourist hotspot”?) Also too the Bell Lightbox is schedule to open in for the TIFF in 2009 – with 5 screens that could, I assume, pick up some art bookings on a regular basis (and confirm what Toronto natives mentioned to me in line at TIFF: the festival is moving further South away from the Cumberland and former Uptown theaters). Personally I think 24 screens is way way too many, I thought AMC was getting away from these huge complexes? Cineplex LP seems to be building smaller and more luxurious theaters while AMC really hasn’t committed to such concepts as VIP seating, fine dinning, bars and expanded concession menus the way that Famous Players/Cineplex and in the US, National Amusements and Muvico have.

markp
markp on April 7, 2008 at 10:29 pm

Thanks. Tell that to Howard and Jon above. They all think this digital thing is the end all be all.

Mic
Mic on April 2, 2008 at 3:41 pm

Digital cinema sucks, it’s a scam folks. It barely measures up to 16mm, let alone 70mm. Sure the picture is sharp as hell, gone however is the resolution,contrast ratio,detail,superior color range and dozens of other variables which lend 35mm film it’s beauty. Remove the digital projection gimmick from AMC Yonge/Dundas and all you’re left with is the most narrow selection of film in this city, even for a cookie cutter multiplex. If WalMart opened a theatre it would have more selection than this theatre. A waste in every sense of the word. Below is an excerpt from a cited article in Torontoist detailing with stats the inferiority of Digital Projection

http://torontoist.com/2008/03/do_the_resoluti.php

As reported by SneakPeek.ca, AMC claims that its “SXRD 4K digital projectors from Sony will provide images that are four times the resolution of HDTV.” The key word in that sentence is “will.” The fact is that although the projectors have that capability, few, if any, movies are yet rendered or distributed in 4k format. The current standard for digital theatrical presentation is 2k, meaning a resolution of 2048 pixels by 1080 pixels. For comparison, a Blu-Ray DVD shown on a good high-definition television is 1920 x 1080; the iMac on which this article is being typed is running at 1680 x 1050. This works great for a twenty-inch monitor, but the screens in the two largest auditoriums at the new AMC are three storeys tall and about twice as wide. 35mm film, on the other hand, works out to the equivalent of 4850 x 4850, still better than 4k’s 4096 x 2160. Film also has superior colour range and contrast ratio.

moviebuff82
moviebuff82 on March 31, 2008 at 1:48 pm

From what I’ve seen pictures of, this theater’s interior is very similar to the one in Paramus but is larger and has more screens and seats than Paramus. The closest 24 screen theater near me is in Hamilton, NJ, and that’s owned by AMC. Next time I hang out in Toronto, I’ll check out this theater and bring in a passport!!!

Jon Lidolt
Jon Lidolt on March 31, 2008 at 1:30 pm

Thanks Howard, I will.

HowardBHaas
HowardBHaas on March 31, 2008 at 1:21 pm

Ignore movie534 and enjoy the new state of the art, very central movie theater!

Jon Lidolt
Jon Lidolt on March 31, 2008 at 12:42 pm

I love old movie theatres too – I ran one for almost ten years. I’m very proud of the fact that I was once complimented on my cinema’s excellent sound system by film composer Jerry Goldsmith. Unfortunately, the only ones left in the city of Toronto with state-of-the-art projection and sound facilities are the Regent and the Royal. The AMC may not be Cinema Treasure from out of the past, but it is one of the few places in Toronto where what a cinematographer records on film, shows up in perfect focus, framed correctly and in the correct aspect ratio on the screen.

markp
markp on March 30, 2008 at 8:42 pm

That’s great Jon, but for us true film lovers, and old time movie palace lovers, we just can’t justify calling this new sheetrock multiplex a Cinema Treasure. Sorry.

Jon Lidolt
Jon Lidolt on March 28, 2008 at 9:28 am

This cinema has 5,000 very comfortable seats. All of the cinemas are equipped with Sony 4K projectors which produce images of startling clarity reminding me of what real 70mm used to look like. Not to mention that the multi-channel sound systsem produces uncompressed, full fidelity audio – unlike 35mm film.

And no, I don’t work for AMC, but I used to run a popular rep cinema in Toronto and was the art director for the Famous Players theatre chain for a number of years and am not an easy one to impress.

kencmcintyre
kencmcintyre on March 27, 2008 at 8:58 pm

I don’t think young people have much choice. The shoeboxes are what they will remember when they are older. I grew up in the sixties, and I missed out on what was ostensibly the golden age of theaters in the thirties and forties. I did get to see the Fox in Philadelphia before it was razed, as well as the Boyd. Those were palaces.

markp
markp on March 27, 2008 at 7:53 pm

We would consider THIS a cinema treasure? I don’t think so.