The theatre at the Ontario Science Centre was equipped with Philips 35/70mm projection equipment. Now whether or not this is still the case I don’t know. I remember seeing the 70mm Todd-AO production of Cleopatra there years ago when film critic Gerald Pratley ran the Ontario Film Theatre at that location. The only other 70mm film I saw at the Science Centre was a special print of the early 50’s 3-D thriller House of Wax. The left and right hand 1.37 images were printed side by side onto the wide 70mm frame. Gerald and I experimented with the special projection lenses and aperture plates and finally managed to get a perfect stereoscopic image on the screen. Gerald, a normally reserved man, was elated when he saw what well projected 3-D could look like. The realistic looking images we saw on the screen that day sure beat the pants off some of the recent flat films that have been converted to 3-D such as Alice in Wonderland and Clash of the Titans.
The AMC now has an IMAX auditorium. I saw the3-D IMAX short film about the Space Station on their new screen and was impressed by what I saw and heard. Too bad the Hollywood features converted into the IMAX format aren’t composed specifically for this type of presentation in order to maximize the effect.
I wonder how many of these 70mm theatres were equipped with Todd-AO’s deeply curved 120º screen. The only ones I know of for sure were the Rivoli in NY, the Egyptian in Hollywood and the Tivoli in Toronto. Can anyone else add to this list?
I wonder if the AMC’s ETX auditorium will be the one they retrofit for IMAX? If it is the same one, I certainly hope they eliminate the one row of seats in the middle of the auditorium where you can’t see over people’s heads. The two rows of seats are on the same level. So much for stadium seating throughout the entire complex. It’s got to be very annoying when paying a premium price for ETX and you can’t see the bottom half of the screen if you get stuck sitting in that row.
As an aside… the Scotiabank’s Imax auditorium screens 35 mm films that are blownup to large format 70mm stock. I suspect that all Imax theatres screening Hollywood features will soon be converted to digital projection technology. The cost of 70mm film prints (especially for 3-D since it requires two prints, one for the left and one for the right eye) is incredibly expensive.
You’re very welcome CW. Here in Toronto we now have the new Bell Lightbox facility which is part of the annual Toronto Film Festival. It features auditoriums which are able to screen every format from 16mm, 35mm, 70mm and digital (currently 2K but upgradeable to 4K). Sounds great, but hate to complain, the screen for 70mm should be bigger to accommodate the format correctly. Mike Todd wouldn’t be amused seeing that he spent all that effort developing a 70mm projection format to rival the more complex giant screen Cinerama system. 70mm projected onto a standard size flat screen looks like nothing more than a really sharp CinemaScope presentation. This for me, as a long time resident of Toronto is a real disappointment: so close to perfection – but not quite there. I truly hope the Smithsonian upgrade can learn from the Toronto experience and are able to go the distance.
While I agree with CWalczak’s comments re the Pictureville Museum in Bradford, they do indeed have a fully equipped IMAX auditorium. It’s located across the street from the theatre in the Bradford Film Television and Photography museum which the Pictureville is part of. I’ve been there and if anyone interested in the history of the motion picture plans a trip to England anytime soon, they should include, at the very minimum, a 2 day visit to the museum. It’s definitely worth the trip.
I agree that the Smilebox restoration of How the West Was Won on Blu-ray looks incredible. However, I’ve shown it to a number of people who’ve never seen Cinerama and simply can’t grasp what that weird shaped image is all about. And if they haven’t actually experienced Cinerama projected onto that huge screen with its 146º curvature – no amount of explaining will do the trick. And comparing it to Imax projection doesn’t work either, since most films people are viewing in Imax auditoriums these days are blowups from 35mm. Watching a current feature film presented in an Imax auditorium is not much different than being forced to sit in the front row at the local megaplex. Not something most movie goers choose to do
Just to set the record straight. Gary Topp did run the Roxy at Greenwood & Danforth in the early 70', but I took it over in the mid 70’s and renovated the auditorium: much larger screen, replaced the seats, installed an optical Dolby Stereo sound system. The place I inherited was, to put it charitably, a dump.
The only way a new generation can enjoy the remaining Cinerama travelogues is to see them projected onto a massive, deeply curved Cinerama screen. Anything else, Blu-ray included, is simply a waste of time.
I agree with the above comments. The theatrical business will evolve, but I very much doubt that it will disappear. Give the public a real show: a Cineramic experience, curtains, theatrical lighting, reserved seating for special performances, etc. Make it an event. Does anybody remember the thrill of attending the old giant screen roadshows? Unless the movie was a real dog, that night out was always a night to remember and watching those same films at home, even on a high definition monitor, simply doesn’t compare.
Interesting comments. However, the rep cinema I ran in Toronto was operated on a very small budget, but we still managed to install a new 40 foot screen (one of the biggest in the city at that time), new curtains and the motor to operate them. If the Ziegfeld has a history of the curtains malfunctioning, maybe the equipment should be replaced… not repaired. It sounds to me like the company that operates the theatre doesn’t understand what makes the Ziegfeld unique. Or maybe they simply don’t care.
Vito, if a projectionist is given instructions to follow isn’t that what he (or she) is getting paid for? I don’t know if the Ziegfeld has a union projectionist or not, but when I ran a rep house for a number of years my position was that if you don’t want to do your job properly I’ll get someone who will.
I don’t understand the problem the Ziegfeld seems to be having with the use of curtains. I ran a rep house in Toronto called the Roxy from the mid 70’s to the mid 80’s. Our patrons never saw that theatre’s bare screen. The projectionists were given explicit instructions as to how to present a show… when to slowly dim the auditorium lights before the movie started and then to dim the lights over the curtains. When it was totally dark and the first frames of the movie started – the curtains opened. We timed how long the curtains took to open or close and figured out how many frames of film that took. This enabled us put a removable mark on the film at
the end of the movie so that when the operator saw the mark, he hit the button to close the curtains and slowly bring back the lights over the curtains and then the lights in the auditorium. It’s not rocket science. it’s simply a matter of respect for your audience and giving the what they paid for: a show – that’s all.
I first saw Jaws at a sneak preview in Toronto’s Odeon Fairlawn theatre. Being in the business, I knew which film was being shown but for most of the other 1200 in attendance that night, they could only guess. Mind you, the newspaper ads gave some good hints. I’ll never forget what happened after the Universal logo hit the screen, we found ourselves forging forward underwater accompanied by John William’s pulsating musical score… when the title JAWS hit the screen there was an audible buzz of excitement from the audience. And when that head unexpectedly rolled out from the boat the audience screamed, jumped out of their seats and didn’t quiet down until the film ended.
After it ended I ran into Barry Allen in the lobby. He owned a small theatre chain but wasn’t interested in sitting through the sneak that night. He spent the time walking around the block. He asked me what I thought. “Will it do business?” I told him “you gotta be kidding… YES!” Barry asked me how I knew and I just told him that you had to be there. By the way, the main feature that night was Earthquake in Sensurround.
This was without a doubt the most fun I had ever had at the movies. It was thrilling!
Just noticed the comment posted by IanG about seeing Blade Runner at the Mt. Pleasant. In actual fact, the film was shown at the Regent theatre which is located a block or two south of the Mt. Pleasant. He got one thing right though, the theatre he saw Blade Runner in (the Regent) is the finest single screen neighbourhood cinema left in Toronto… followed closely by the Royal. Both operated by the same company.
I agree with the comment that the new digital Imax theatres share the Imax trademark and little else. On the other hand, even so-called “fake” Imax is preferable to seeing the same movie projected in 35mm.
Film projection is simply not as good. After a few runs, dust settles on the print and there may be splices and scratches. Not to mention that the image is not rock steady and that it’s virtually impossible to achieve perfect focus across the entire width of the screen. Believe me I know. I spent 8 years of my life running a repertory cinema and even with a well maintained booth we couldn’t achieve the remarkable looking image that I see at my local AMC multiplex equipped with 4K digital projectors.
I believe the correct status of this former movie house is simply Closed, not Closed/Restoring. As a long time Cinema Treasures member, I feel that any theatre that’s been turned into a supermarket, bowling alley or anything else has not been “restored.”
This drive-in theatre was owned and operated by 20th Century theatres whose head office was located at 175 Bloor St. E. in Toronto. The Brittania was one of the companies most profitable theatres.
There’s nothing wrong with 3-D cinematography (let’s leave 3-D conversions out of this discussion) if it’s used intelligently. After all, human vision provides us with a 3-dimensional panoramic vista in living color and we hear in stereo sound. Right now, 3-D is used as a gimmick. The same as color was in the early days and wide screen in the 50’s. Critics use to gripe about how unnatural it was to watch Marilyn Monroe spread across a screen as big as the side of a barn. And color… the critics complained that it was hard on the eyes. Well, to be quite honest – it often was. Because the images on the Technicolor 3-strip prints were often slightly out of register. And did I mention that the same people often complained about the necessity of stereo sound? So let’s give 3-D a chance. Used correctly, it can enhance a film the same way that color, stereo sound, and wide screen have done for us these past 50 or so years.
The theatre at the Ontario Science Centre was equipped with Philips 35/70mm projection equipment. Now whether or not this is still the case I don’t know. I remember seeing the 70mm Todd-AO production of Cleopatra there years ago when film critic Gerald Pratley ran the Ontario Film Theatre at that location. The only other 70mm film I saw at the Science Centre was a special print of the early 50’s 3-D thriller House of Wax. The left and right hand 1.37 images were printed side by side onto the wide 70mm frame. Gerald and I experimented with the special projection lenses and aperture plates and finally managed to get a perfect stereoscopic image on the screen. Gerald, a normally reserved man, was elated when he saw what well projected 3-D could look like. The realistic looking images we saw on the screen that day sure beat the pants off some of the recent flat films that have been converted to 3-D such as Alice in Wonderland and Clash of the Titans.
The AMC now has an IMAX auditorium. I saw the3-D IMAX short film about the Space Station on their new screen and was impressed by what I saw and heard. Too bad the Hollywood features converted into the IMAX format aren’t composed specifically for this type of presentation in order to maximize the effect.
I wonder how many of these 70mm theatres were equipped with Todd-AO’s deeply curved 120º screen. The only ones I know of for sure were the Rivoli in NY, the Egyptian in Hollywood and the Tivoli in Toronto. Can anyone else add to this list?
I wonder if the AMC’s ETX auditorium will be the one they retrofit for IMAX? If it is the same one, I certainly hope they eliminate the one row of seats in the middle of the auditorium where you can’t see over people’s heads. The two rows of seats are on the same level. So much for stadium seating throughout the entire complex. It’s got to be very annoying when paying a premium price for ETX and you can’t see the bottom half of the screen if you get stuck sitting in that row.
As an aside… the Scotiabank’s Imax auditorium screens 35 mm films that are blownup to large format 70mm stock. I suspect that all Imax theatres screening Hollywood features will soon be converted to digital projection technology. The cost of 70mm film prints (especially for 3-D since it requires two prints, one for the left and one for the right eye) is incredibly expensive.
CW: couldn’t have said it better myself.
You’re very welcome CW. Here in Toronto we now have the new Bell Lightbox facility which is part of the annual Toronto Film Festival. It features auditoriums which are able to screen every format from 16mm, 35mm, 70mm and digital (currently 2K but upgradeable to 4K). Sounds great, but hate to complain, the screen for 70mm should be bigger to accommodate the format correctly. Mike Todd wouldn’t be amused seeing that he spent all that effort developing a 70mm projection format to rival the more complex giant screen Cinerama system. 70mm projected onto a standard size flat screen looks like nothing more than a really sharp CinemaScope presentation. This for me, as a long time resident of Toronto is a real disappointment: so close to perfection – but not quite there. I truly hope the Smithsonian upgrade can learn from the Toronto experience and are able to go the distance.
While I agree with CWalczak’s comments re the Pictureville Museum in Bradford, they do indeed have a fully equipped IMAX auditorium. It’s located across the street from the theatre in the Bradford Film Television and Photography museum which the Pictureville is part of. I’ve been there and if anyone interested in the history of the motion picture plans a trip to England anytime soon, they should include, at the very minimum, a 2 day visit to the museum. It’s definitely worth the trip.
I agree that the Smilebox restoration of How the West Was Won on Blu-ray looks incredible. However, I’ve shown it to a number of people who’ve never seen Cinerama and simply can’t grasp what that weird shaped image is all about. And if they haven’t actually experienced Cinerama projected onto that huge screen with its 146º curvature – no amount of explaining will do the trick. And comparing it to Imax projection doesn’t work either, since most films people are viewing in Imax auditoriums these days are blowups from 35mm. Watching a current feature film presented in an Imax auditorium is not much different than being forced to sit in the front row at the local megaplex. Not something most movie goers choose to do
Just to set the record straight. Gary Topp did run the Roxy at Greenwood & Danforth in the early 70', but I took it over in the mid 70’s and renovated the auditorium: much larger screen, replaced the seats, installed an optical Dolby Stereo sound system. The place I inherited was, to put it charitably, a dump.
The only way a new generation can enjoy the remaining Cinerama travelogues is to see them projected onto a massive, deeply curved Cinerama screen. Anything else, Blu-ray included, is simply a waste of time.
Check out the following website, it has all the information about the Windjammer restoration: http://www.in70mm.com/
I agree with the above comments. The theatrical business will evolve, but I very much doubt that it will disappear. Give the public a real show: a Cineramic experience, curtains, theatrical lighting, reserved seating for special performances, etc. Make it an event. Does anybody remember the thrill of attending the old giant screen roadshows? Unless the movie was a real dog, that night out was always a night to remember and watching those same films at home, even on a high definition monitor, simply doesn’t compare.
A win win I would definitely say.
A win win I would definitely say.
Interesting comments. However, the rep cinema I ran in Toronto was operated on a very small budget, but we still managed to install a new 40 foot screen (one of the biggest in the city at that time), new curtains and the motor to operate them. If the Ziegfeld has a history of the curtains malfunctioning, maybe the equipment should be replaced… not repaired. It sounds to me like the company that operates the theatre doesn’t understand what makes the Ziegfeld unique. Or maybe they simply don’t care.
Vito, if a projectionist is given instructions to follow isn’t that what he (or she) is getting paid for? I don’t know if the Ziegfeld has a union projectionist or not, but when I ran a rep house for a number of years my position was that if you don’t want to do your job properly I’ll get someone who will.
I don’t understand the problem the Ziegfeld seems to be having with the use of curtains. I ran a rep house in Toronto called the Roxy from the mid 70’s to the mid 80’s. Our patrons never saw that theatre’s bare screen. The projectionists were given explicit instructions as to how to present a show… when to slowly dim the auditorium lights before the movie started and then to dim the lights over the curtains. When it was totally dark and the first frames of the movie started – the curtains opened. We timed how long the curtains took to open or close and figured out how many frames of film that took. This enabled us put a removable mark on the film at
the end of the movie so that when the operator saw the mark, he hit the button to close the curtains and slowly bring back the lights over the curtains and then the lights in the auditorium. It’s not rocket science. it’s simply a matter of respect for your audience and giving the what they paid for: a show – that’s all.
JAWS in Imax? Now, that I’d love to see.
I first saw Jaws at a sneak preview in Toronto’s Odeon Fairlawn theatre. Being in the business, I knew which film was being shown but for most of the other 1200 in attendance that night, they could only guess. Mind you, the newspaper ads gave some good hints. I’ll never forget what happened after the Universal logo hit the screen, we found ourselves forging forward underwater accompanied by John William’s pulsating musical score… when the title JAWS hit the screen there was an audible buzz of excitement from the audience. And when that head unexpectedly rolled out from the boat the audience screamed, jumped out of their seats and didn’t quiet down until the film ended.
After it ended I ran into Barry Allen in the lobby. He owned a small theatre chain but wasn’t interested in sitting through the sneak that night. He spent the time walking around the block. He asked me what I thought. “Will it do business?” I told him “you gotta be kidding… YES!” Barry asked me how I knew and I just told him that you had to be there. By the way, the main feature that night was Earthquake in Sensurround.
This was without a doubt the most fun I had ever had at the movies. It was thrilling!
Just noticed the comment posted by IanG about seeing Blade Runner at the Mt. Pleasant. In actual fact, the film was shown at the Regent theatre which is located a block or two south of the Mt. Pleasant. He got one thing right though, the theatre he saw Blade Runner in (the Regent) is the finest single screen neighbourhood cinema left in Toronto… followed closely by the Royal. Both operated by the same company.
I agree with the comment that the new digital Imax theatres share the Imax trademark and little else. On the other hand, even so-called “fake” Imax is preferable to seeing the same movie projected in 35mm.
Film projection is simply not as good. After a few runs, dust settles on the print and there may be splices and scratches. Not to mention that the image is not rock steady and that it’s virtually impossible to achieve perfect focus across the entire width of the screen. Believe me I know. I spent 8 years of my life running a repertory cinema and even with a well maintained booth we couldn’t achieve the remarkable looking image that I see at my local AMC multiplex equipped with 4K digital projectors.
I believe the correct status of this former movie house is simply Closed, not Closed/Restoring. As a long time Cinema Treasures member, I feel that any theatre that’s been turned into a supermarket, bowling alley or anything else has not been “restored.”
The structure formerly known as the Park theatre has now been reopened as some sort of Christian based youth centre.
This drive-in theatre was owned and operated by 20th Century theatres whose head office was located at 175 Bloor St. E. in Toronto. The Brittania was one of the companies most profitable theatres.
There’s nothing wrong with 3-D cinematography (let’s leave 3-D conversions out of this discussion) if it’s used intelligently. After all, human vision provides us with a 3-dimensional panoramic vista in living color and we hear in stereo sound. Right now, 3-D is used as a gimmick. The same as color was in the early days and wide screen in the 50’s. Critics use to gripe about how unnatural it was to watch Marilyn Monroe spread across a screen as big as the side of a barn. And color… the critics complained that it was hard on the eyes. Well, to be quite honest – it often was. Because the images on the Technicolor 3-strip prints were often slightly out of register. And did I mention that the same people often complained about the necessity of stereo sound? So let’s give 3-D a chance. Used correctly, it can enhance a film the same way that color, stereo sound, and wide screen have done for us these past 50 or so years.