I think we’ve all probably said all we have to say, no? I guess I’m saying that the Village, for example, had a very wide proscenium (and still does) and still did what I’m saying it did. And I understand what you’re saying for today’s cinemas, but because of the way I have viewed movies my entire life, it doesn’t seem right to me. To me there is little difference between 1:85 and scope in the multiplexes I’ve had the misfortune to see films in.
I am sorry – ageist troll notwithstanding, but you people were not around in the 50s and 60s and if you were you would know how incorrect you are. What you are saying may be true in today’s cinemas, but no theater that formerly showed 1:33 in the 50s, showed 1:85 with the same height as the 1:33 screen. It’s exactly as I say, whether it was the Lido Theater, the Stadium, the Village, the Chinese, the Vogue, the Wiltern – I went to all of them and I’m just telling you how it was. While you may be right technically, it’s not the way it was back then – for whatever reasons. So, Mr. Randell, how old are you? Did you attend films in your home town in the 50s and 60s, YES OR NO?
Well, then eighty percent of the theaters in LA in the 50s, 60s, and 70s compromised and had showmanship violations. And it’s good that you don’t question my memory. I’m just saying, everyone here is saying that the height is the .1 of 2:35.1 and that that is a constant. And I’m saying, okay, by that logic that means that 1:85 should have the same height as 1:33. No? Isn’t that what everyone is saying, that the height remains constant? If you think I’m a troll, my friend, you obviously have no idea what a troll is – but then a lot of people posting here don’t have a lot of experience of actually having attended the movie palaces and nabes of the 50s, 60s, and 70s.
So, with all this talk about constant height, that means that Cinerama was exactly the same height as !:85 and 2:35. I think we all know that is a load of hooey, don’t we?
I happened to be at a memorial service at the Pix, uh, the Music Box at the Henry Fonda this evening. It actually sort of turned my stomach to be in a theater with no seats. I saw a lot of movies at the Pix, probably starting in the mid-60s all the way through when it went Spanish. When it was turned back into a legit theater, its original proscenium, which is fairly small, was used. It took me a few minutes of staring and nosing around to figure out things – clearly the original proscenium was not used when the theater converted to widescreen. What they did, in fact, was put a new screen, masking, and curtains in FRONT of the old proscenium, completely covering it from view. That gave them a pretty good sized scope screen, and I’m sure the Cinemiracle screen was installed that way, too. I saw Cat Ballou there, a sneak preview of Woman Of Straw, Torn Curtain, Jaws and many others. As I said in a post above, if you want to see that glorious Pix marquee in all its nighttime glory, simply rent or purchase the DVD of The First Nudie Musical and watch The Lights And The Smiles musical number. I directed the film and we shot it all over 1975 Hollywood Blvd. Great shots of the Hollywood Theater and the Pix and the rest of the boulevard.
Yes, the masking always came down as the screen widened for the original 2:55 Cinemascope and then the 2:35 scope a few years later. CineMiracle was a Cinerama knockoff and something wholly other. I happened to be at a memorial service tonight at The Music Box on Hollywood Blvd., which used to be the Pix, where I saw many movies. I hadn’t been in there since they renovated it as a legit house. As I looked at the proscenium I realized there was no way they could have showed scope in that theater with that proscenium. Then I saw what they’d done – they simply put a much larger screen in FRONT of the proscenium, completely covering the original proscenium so that you couldn’t even see it anymore. Then there were curtains in front of the screen.
I understand that that is what you think or have read somewhere, but I’m telling you the reality of it. And when the Egyptian and the Chinese installed their new screens after ripping out the prosceniums do you think that the top masking did not come down for scope? Because I, who was there, am here to tell you it did. The screen was NOT as high as 1:85 EVER in those theaters. Cinemascope was a whole different shape. Whatever was supposed to happen must not have happened, because I have an impeccable memory for all things LA and its movie theaters, and I spent my entire childhood going from one movie palace to the next and I was, in fact, fascinated by the moving masking and, as I posted above, I once wandered into a projection booth and the projectionist showed me how it worked. I’m not makin' it up, I didn’t read it on some site, I was THERE.
I don’t know what the Village does NOW and I don’t really care – but, for example, when, as a child, I saw The High And The Mighty and The Tender Trap there, the side masking opened and the top masking came down to create a really wide picture that was not, I repeat NOT, the same shape as 1:85 at ALL. It’s what every theater in LA did back then. I really can’t have this conversation with people who only know from now because of their age. I’m just telling you the way it was and the way I grew up watching Cinemascope, then Panavision or any scope process – all the way up to the advent of the multiplex, which is when everything began to change. I don’t want to walk into a theater and see a film in 1:85 that fills the entire screen IF the alternative is that for scope all the do is lower the masking – please. You think that’s what the filmmakers intended? It is to laugh. I just know the way it was – I can’t speak to the unspeakable things they do now.
And I’m talking about the big theaters, too – the Paramount, the Pantages, wherever – the top masking always came down as the screen got wider on the sides. This is not guessing – I watched it happen every day, and ultimately watched a projectionist do it from the booth.
I’m just telling you the way it used to work – I went to the movies four times a week all throughout the late 1950s – the side masking opened wide and the TOP MASKING came down to form what we know and love as a scope image. The HEIGHT most certainly did NOT stay where it was for 1:85 EVER, not in any theater that was equipped to show scope properly.
The height stays the same and the side masking opens to create 2:35 – only 2:35 does not have the same height as 1:85, so I don’t know what you’re actually seeing in those theater, but it seems bogus to me, like most of today’s moviegoing.
In the old days, even in my neighborhood theater that had the best scope screen (the Stadium – a GREAT theater), you’d have 1:85, then the curtains would close and as they were closing you could already see the side maskings opening wide and the top masking coming down, and when the curtains reopened, voila, you had scope, which was NOT the 1:85 height with the side masking opened.
So, let me get this straight – via the photos posted above – the 1:85 screen masking opens up for 2:35 but the top and bottom masking remains the same??? Sorry, doesn’t compute.
I really don’t care what you’re comparing a pristine to 35mm print – the film always looks better to me. It’s really that simple. You like digital projection – great.
As to lowering the masking – you people do understand that that was always the norm, don’t you? I:85 was one ratio, and when it changed to scope the masking opened on the sides and the top masking came down – that is how it was until heaven knows when. Now there’s no difference in the height – they simply open the sides and it’s not right, IMO. At the DGA, 1:85 is 1:85 and 2:35 is something wholly other, as it should be.
That was me, and the El Capitan was in a list of other theaters where I feel showmanship is still present. I honestly have only been to the El Capitan twice – had a good time both times, but have no memory of the screen size at all. Why on Earth would it be a small screen. When the theater was the Paramount it had a HUGE screen – saw The Music Man there, and Dr. Zhivago, and Doctor Doolittle and many, many other films.
Of course there are different ratios for different types of 70mm. The most common is 2:20 – there have been a handful of 1:85 ratio films in 70mm, and then, of course, there’s Ultra Panavision 70, whose negative ratio is 2:76 (I just saw Khartoum at the Egyptian and they did their best to preserve the 2:76 ratio, but their screen is just too small to have that work).
In my opinion, there is no point in showing a 35mm scope print on a screen designed for huge 70mm presentation. It’s what’s wrong with every movie theater today – there is almost no difference in screen sizes. The height of 1:85 is not the height of 2:35, so just opening the masking doesn’t quite do it. There is no showmanship anymore. I’ll take curtains, the DGA, the Chinese, the El Capitan, any of those places where they have some idea of what the moviegoing experience should be like. The one thing it should NOT be like is sitting in your living room watching your big screen TV.
I have no anger. My comment was directed at a post I don’t consider trivial at all – some guy saying something that I consider completely ignorant and typical of what goes on in the world today.
I have no love for much of anything the Arclight does these days.
Wasn’t talking about sound, and wasn’t referring to your post, obviously. A simple scroll upwards to kram sacul’s post will show you what I WAS referring to. Why you would think I was referring to your post when you hadn’t said the line I quoted is anyone’s guess. :)
I just don’t know what to do with a comment like “I dreaded seeing it on film.” It just makes me want to vomit on the ground, and perhaps the poster who said it will some day realize how inane that statement is.
Rizzo, no one was asking you to stay away or not talk about the Dome – in fact, they should do a separate thing for the multiplex part of the Arclight. But if you scroll up you’ll see a lot of stuff that isn’t pertinent and it’s not just this theater, but a lot of them. There’s nothing wrong with a messageboard, but I don’t think Cinema Treasures created this site to act as a typical messageboard. No one is a “hater.” But a lot of us are fans of Golden Age cinemas and have no interest whatsoever about what is showing where in digital projection.
You know, I don’t mean to offend, but this is really irritating – this is supposed to be a board about the Cinerama Dome, and so much of it is about these new films and where they’re doing this and where they’re doing that – and unfortunately all these pointless posts come to my mailbox and take up space until I can delete them.
Here’s an idea – why doesn’t someone start a separate message board for digital projection and what’s showing where and leave this one to posts about the Cinerama Dome and its history.
I have no interest in digital projection. The thought of it nauseates me. So, call me an old fogey, but I want film. Period. In our DGA screenings, they ONLY show film – that’s why I refuse to go to theaters anymore, because I know I’ll get the best film presentation at the DGA. Youngsters seem to take a shine to digital projection because there’s no dirt or scratches, but, you know, I’ll put up with that.
Some people want both, Mr. Randell and there’s no reason they shouldn’t have it. Yes, curtains – it’s not nostalgia, it’s showmanship. Are you young? Because the only people who seem to use the word nostalgia in a pejorative way are young people. And if you’re not young, well then I’m baffled by your comments. I think most of the people who bother to come here and post ad nauseum in the Cinerama Dome thread are film lovers and people who prefer the best possible viewing experience. That said, I have never thought the Dome was the best possible viewing experience for anything, due to the lack of light on the screen. In its heyday, the Chinese was something special, as was the Egyptian, and the Pantages. I haven’t been to the Village in some time, but they have curtains and it was always lovely there to see a film. For me, there’s nothing worse than walking into a movie theater and seeing the screen revealed. It’s stupid and boring and there’s no magic. If that’s what you prefer, bravo. The ONLY place I go see movies is the DGA – beautiful theater, curtains, the best projection in town. End of story.
I think we’ve all probably said all we have to say, no? I guess I’m saying that the Village, for example, had a very wide proscenium (and still does) and still did what I’m saying it did. And I understand what you’re saying for today’s cinemas, but because of the way I have viewed movies my entire life, it doesn’t seem right to me. To me there is little difference between 1:85 and scope in the multiplexes I’ve had the misfortune to see films in.
I am sorry – ageist troll notwithstanding, but you people were not around in the 50s and 60s and if you were you would know how incorrect you are. What you are saying may be true in today’s cinemas, but no theater that formerly showed 1:33 in the 50s, showed 1:85 with the same height as the 1:33 screen. It’s exactly as I say, whether it was the Lido Theater, the Stadium, the Village, the Chinese, the Vogue, the Wiltern – I went to all of them and I’m just telling you how it was. While you may be right technically, it’s not the way it was back then – for whatever reasons. So, Mr. Randell, how old are you? Did you attend films in your home town in the 50s and 60s, YES OR NO?
Well, then eighty percent of the theaters in LA in the 50s, 60s, and 70s compromised and had showmanship violations. And it’s good that you don’t question my memory. I’m just saying, everyone here is saying that the height is the .1 of 2:35.1 and that that is a constant. And I’m saying, okay, by that logic that means that 1:85 should have the same height as 1:33. No? Isn’t that what everyone is saying, that the height remains constant? If you think I’m a troll, my friend, you obviously have no idea what a troll is – but then a lot of people posting here don’t have a lot of experience of actually having attended the movie palaces and nabes of the 50s, 60s, and 70s.
So, with all this talk about constant height, that means that Cinerama was exactly the same height as !:85 and 2:35. I think we all know that is a load of hooey, don’t we?
I happened to be at a memorial service at the Pix, uh, the Music Box at the Henry Fonda this evening. It actually sort of turned my stomach to be in a theater with no seats. I saw a lot of movies at the Pix, probably starting in the mid-60s all the way through when it went Spanish. When it was turned back into a legit theater, its original proscenium, which is fairly small, was used. It took me a few minutes of staring and nosing around to figure out things – clearly the original proscenium was not used when the theater converted to widescreen. What they did, in fact, was put a new screen, masking, and curtains in FRONT of the old proscenium, completely covering it from view. That gave them a pretty good sized scope screen, and I’m sure the Cinemiracle screen was installed that way, too. I saw Cat Ballou there, a sneak preview of Woman Of Straw, Torn Curtain, Jaws and many others. As I said in a post above, if you want to see that glorious Pix marquee in all its nighttime glory, simply rent or purchase the DVD of The First Nudie Musical and watch The Lights And The Smiles musical number. I directed the film and we shot it all over 1975 Hollywood Blvd. Great shots of the Hollywood Theater and the Pix and the rest of the boulevard.
Yes, the masking always came down as the screen widened for the original 2:55 Cinemascope and then the 2:35 scope a few years later. CineMiracle was a Cinerama knockoff and something wholly other. I happened to be at a memorial service tonight at The Music Box on Hollywood Blvd., which used to be the Pix, where I saw many movies. I hadn’t been in there since they renovated it as a legit house. As I looked at the proscenium I realized there was no way they could have showed scope in that theater with that proscenium. Then I saw what they’d done – they simply put a much larger screen in FRONT of the proscenium, completely covering the original proscenium so that you couldn’t even see it anymore. Then there were curtains in front of the screen.
I understand that that is what you think or have read somewhere, but I’m telling you the reality of it. And when the Egyptian and the Chinese installed their new screens after ripping out the prosceniums do you think that the top masking did not come down for scope? Because I, who was there, am here to tell you it did. The screen was NOT as high as 1:85 EVER in those theaters. Cinemascope was a whole different shape. Whatever was supposed to happen must not have happened, because I have an impeccable memory for all things LA and its movie theaters, and I spent my entire childhood going from one movie palace to the next and I was, in fact, fascinated by the moving masking and, as I posted above, I once wandered into a projection booth and the projectionist showed me how it worked. I’m not makin' it up, I didn’t read it on some site, I was THERE.
I don’t know what the Village does NOW and I don’t really care – but, for example, when, as a child, I saw The High And The Mighty and The Tender Trap there, the side masking opened and the top masking came down to create a really wide picture that was not, I repeat NOT, the same shape as 1:85 at ALL. It’s what every theater in LA did back then. I really can’t have this conversation with people who only know from now because of their age. I’m just telling you the way it was and the way I grew up watching Cinemascope, then Panavision or any scope process – all the way up to the advent of the multiplex, which is when everything began to change. I don’t want to walk into a theater and see a film in 1:85 that fills the entire screen IF the alternative is that for scope all the do is lower the masking – please. You think that’s what the filmmakers intended? It is to laugh. I just know the way it was – I can’t speak to the unspeakable things they do now.
And I’m talking about the big theaters, too – the Paramount, the Pantages, wherever – the top masking always came down as the screen got wider on the sides. This is not guessing – I watched it happen every day, and ultimately watched a projectionist do it from the booth.
I’m just telling you the way it used to work – I went to the movies four times a week all throughout the late 1950s – the side masking opened wide and the TOP MASKING came down to form what we know and love as a scope image. The HEIGHT most certainly did NOT stay where it was for 1:85 EVER, not in any theater that was equipped to show scope properly.
The height stays the same and the side masking opens to create 2:35 – only 2:35 does not have the same height as 1:85, so I don’t know what you’re actually seeing in those theater, but it seems bogus to me, like most of today’s moviegoing.
In the old days, even in my neighborhood theater that had the best scope screen (the Stadium – a GREAT theater), you’d have 1:85, then the curtains would close and as they were closing you could already see the side maskings opening wide and the top masking coming down, and when the curtains reopened, voila, you had scope, which was NOT the 1:85 height with the side masking opened.
So, let me get this straight – via the photos posted above – the 1:85 screen masking opens up for 2:35 but the top and bottom masking remains the same??? Sorry, doesn’t compute.
I really don’t care what you’re comparing a pristine to 35mm print – the film always looks better to me. It’s really that simple. You like digital projection – great.
As to lowering the masking – you people do understand that that was always the norm, don’t you? I:85 was one ratio, and when it changed to scope the masking opened on the sides and the top masking came down – that is how it was until heaven knows when. Now there’s no difference in the height – they simply open the sides and it’s not right, IMO. At the DGA, 1:85 is 1:85 and 2:35 is something wholly other, as it should be.
That was me, and the El Capitan was in a list of other theaters where I feel showmanship is still present. I honestly have only been to the El Capitan twice – had a good time both times, but have no memory of the screen size at all. Why on Earth would it be a small screen. When the theater was the Paramount it had a HUGE screen – saw The Music Man there, and Dr. Zhivago, and Doctor Doolittle and many, many other films.
If 35mm scope was blown up to 70mm, yes, as far as I know there would be some cropping involved.
Of course there are different ratios for different types of 70mm. The most common is 2:20 – there have been a handful of 1:85 ratio films in 70mm, and then, of course, there’s Ultra Panavision 70, whose negative ratio is 2:76 (I just saw Khartoum at the Egyptian and they did their best to preserve the 2:76 ratio, but their screen is just too small to have that work).
In my opinion, there is no point in showing a 35mm scope print on a screen designed for huge 70mm presentation. It’s what’s wrong with every movie theater today – there is almost no difference in screen sizes. The height of 1:85 is not the height of 2:35, so just opening the masking doesn’t quite do it. There is no showmanship anymore. I’ll take curtains, the DGA, the Chinese, the El Capitan, any of those places where they have some idea of what the moviegoing experience should be like. The one thing it should NOT be like is sitting in your living room watching your big screen TV.
I have no anger. My comment was directed at a post I don’t consider trivial at all – some guy saying something that I consider completely ignorant and typical of what goes on in the world today.
I have no love for much of anything the Arclight does these days.
Wasn’t talking about sound, and wasn’t referring to your post, obviously. A simple scroll upwards to kram sacul’s post will show you what I WAS referring to. Why you would think I was referring to your post when you hadn’t said the line I quoted is anyone’s guess. :)
I just don’t know what to do with a comment like “I dreaded seeing it on film.” It just makes me want to vomit on the ground, and perhaps the poster who said it will some day realize how inane that statement is.
Rizzo, no one was asking you to stay away or not talk about the Dome – in fact, they should do a separate thing for the multiplex part of the Arclight. But if you scroll up you’ll see a lot of stuff that isn’t pertinent and it’s not just this theater, but a lot of them. There’s nothing wrong with a messageboard, but I don’t think Cinema Treasures created this site to act as a typical messageboard. No one is a “hater.” But a lot of us are fans of Golden Age cinemas and have no interest whatsoever about what is showing where in digital projection.
You know, I don’t mean to offend, but this is really irritating – this is supposed to be a board about the Cinerama Dome, and so much of it is about these new films and where they’re doing this and where they’re doing that – and unfortunately all these pointless posts come to my mailbox and take up space until I can delete them.
Here’s an idea – why doesn’t someone start a separate message board for digital projection and what’s showing where and leave this one to posts about the Cinerama Dome and its history.
End of mini-rant. Flame away.
I have no interest in digital projection. The thought of it nauseates me. So, call me an old fogey, but I want film. Period. In our DGA screenings, they ONLY show film – that’s why I refuse to go to theaters anymore, because I know I’ll get the best film presentation at the DGA. Youngsters seem to take a shine to digital projection because there’s no dirt or scratches, but, you know, I’ll put up with that.
Some people want both, Mr. Randell and there’s no reason they shouldn’t have it. Yes, curtains – it’s not nostalgia, it’s showmanship. Are you young? Because the only people who seem to use the word nostalgia in a pejorative way are young people. And if you’re not young, well then I’m baffled by your comments. I think most of the people who bother to come here and post ad nauseum in the Cinerama Dome thread are film lovers and people who prefer the best possible viewing experience. That said, I have never thought the Dome was the best possible viewing experience for anything, due to the lack of light on the screen. In its heyday, the Chinese was something special, as was the Egyptian, and the Pantages. I haven’t been to the Village in some time, but they have curtains and it was always lovely there to see a film. For me, there’s nothing worse than walking into a movie theater and seeing the screen revealed. It’s stupid and boring and there’s no magic. If that’s what you prefer, bravo. The ONLY place I go see movies is the DGA – beautiful theater, curtains, the best projection in town. End of story.
I’d be much more interested if these photos were from any April 4th pre 1980.