TCL Chinese Theatre
6925 Hollywood Boulevard,
Los Angeles,
CA
90028
6925 Hollywood Boulevard,
Los Angeles,
CA
90028
159 people
favorited this theater
Showing 1,026 - 1,050 of 1,670 comments
Here’s an exterior photo of the (now demolished) Chinese II and Chinese II auditoriums that were added in 1979:
View link
I’d like to see an interior photo but from what I’ve heard they were just conventional modern auditoriums sim,ilar to others of the era (seating capacities were approx. 750 and 650 respectively)
At this point I think it’s a figment of his imagination. I tried Googling some names along with “chinese theater,” and in each case, the first image was either of a ceremony or the actual block in place, which makes sense when you consider the sheer numbers of tourists snapping away in there. The fact that no such image appears when searching on Jackie Coogan is significant.
Wikipedia has the Walk of Fame address as 1654 Vine. Recently I went looking for a number of stars to photograph only to find that the building numbers have changed. That might be the case here…
I’ve heard various things about prints being removed, while other people claim that everything is there and accounted for. If the ceremony happened, there should be news accounts and photos. Absent those, I’d say it never happened.
The reporter mentioned might have been thinking of Coogan’s star on the Walk of Fame (on the east side of the 1700 block of Vine Street).
Beverly Hills Cop with Eddie Murphy in attendance sounds good.
Did anyone attend the big “A Star is Born” event last night? Any good stories to tell?
The “official” websites with maps of the forecourt and keys of the stars' names don’t list Coogan at all.
From Wikipedia: “Jackie Coogan has his hand and foot prints in concrete out front of Grauman’s Chinese Theater (now Mann’s Chinese Theater), Ceremony #19, on December 12, 1931.” If you Google “jackie coogan grauman’s chinese,” you will find this info repeated on numerous websites.
However, I can’t find an image of his signature and prints. What does come up is Jackie COOPER’s sig. Interestingly enough, it is dated 12/12/31 — the date Coogan’s ceremony was supposedly held. So it seems one person mistook Cooper for Coogan, and now that info has spread across the net like a bad rash.
As for them being covered up, the free-standing ticket booth was removed in the last renovation, so anything covered should be visible now.
Did Coogan actually claim to have his sig/prints there? Does the book have a photo of the ceremony?
GrauMann, how large were the screens? You are correct, in that it should be documented. Many of us post photos on flickr or other personal galleries. wwww.cinematour.com seems the best permanent way for people to see such photos. Please consider scanning & posting them. If you don’t have a photo scanner, you can probably find someone who does, or post here & somebody may volunteer.
There is no profile because, as the headnote indicates, these two auditoriums were built by Mann as an expansion of the original Chinese, not as a stand-alone operation. I remember distinctly that when the theater was known as Mann’s Chinese, the directory advertising for the theater in the LA Times, after the construction did not refer to these two newer cinemas separately (although I cannot recall if the theater was ever advertised as Mann’s Chinese 3 or Mann’s Chinese 1-2-3 or something like that. I am sure other LA-based CT contribitors can, though). A better case for a separate listing could be made for the newer Chinese 6 as this newer six-plex has a different address and is listed as a separate theater on the Mann website. My guess is that when the Chinese is sold, the six-plex will not be part of the deal.
They are using only one digital projector for clash of the titans, when i asked, the projectionist who was downstairs in the lobby on sunday afternoon/
He said that its a brand new christie projector, that was just installed recently for Clash of the titans/ And that the chinese theatre is the first to have it installed/
The picture is very bright and vibrant much nicer experience than X-Pand/
I think the reason why there was no pre show stuff was because the projector was just installed so recently, so they probably dont have it set up for it yet/ Who knows though perhaps they have decided to get rid of screen vision out of the main house, though it was still playing when i went and saw the bouty hunter in the chinse 6 last night/ It was very nice though to hear movie music before the movie though and not sit through screen vision/
Didn’t peek inside the booth to look at projectors – so I have no idea what they were.
The glasses looked like the regular sunglasses looking things that Real 3D provides. I didn’t see Avatar at The Dome so I can’t compare the 2.
Picture looked bright enough to me…although when I took the glasses off for a few seconds, the picture was noticeably brighter.
Chris, did you notice if there were two projectors, or just one?
Also, since it was Real 3D I guess they used the standard polarized glasses instead of the electronic shutter glasses that Arclight Dome used for Avatar?
Was the picture nice and bright and vivid, or was it a bit dim?
Saw “Clash Of The Titans 3D” on Friday 4/2. The curtain was closed from the time we walked in until the trailers – no more annoying Screenvision preshow (YAY!!!). None of the trailers were in 3D but Real 3D (who equipped Grauman’s Chinese), Texas Instruments DLP and Christie all did 3D presentation spots.
The movie itself was entertaining – a big cheesy pile of fun. The 3D was more along the Avatar variety…not too many deliberate IN YOUR FACE! 3D shots (probably because this was shot as a 2D movie). Some of the sequences were pretty bad due to the 3D rush job but it didn’t take away from the overall experience.
One more thing to add: this was the first time I didn’t see a Dolby Digital trailer here in at least 16 years or so! We got a THX one, but no Dolby. Weird.
I saw an advance screening of Clash of the Titans at Arclight on Tuesday. It was like watching a film while wearing sunglasses. The colors and brightness were so much better when I lifted my glasses, but the images weren’t sharp, so I had to keep them on. I’m guessing I didn’t see it on a 3D screen. The conversion couldn’t have been that bad, could it?
This is my first post. Love the site. I’ve stumbled upon the site numerous times over the years, but I never explored the comments until last month. I was hooked for hours over the course of 2 days.
I know that Clash got panned, and it was an upconversion that indeed was an afterthought. Honestly, half the show for me is to be in The Chinese itself, so to see what they can try to do with it will be worth it. I also want to see if they installed a new screen. Ever since going here to see Star Wars in 78 with my high school football team(it was all kids, there was some type of anniversary event if I remember right), I was hooked on this place.
The 3D part of CLASH OF THE TITANS was an after thought, Unlike most of the current 3D offerings. I’m going to see it in 2D myself. The new 3D wave does not impress me.
Unfortunately, we still might not know. The 3D on CLASH OF THE TITANS is being universally condemned as the worst implementation of the technology to date, with many reviewers commenting it’s so minimal you can watch it without the glasses and barely notice the blurring.
In today’s LA Times, the Mann ad for Clash of The Titans says…“In Read D 3D on a 73 Foot Screen.” I had thought the screen was about 75 feet or so after the renovation, so it appears they will be using most of the screen. I wonder how the presentation will be, and if it will be light enough…cannot wait to check it out.
As Linus said to Lucy in A Charlie Brown Christmas, those are good reasons. I never thought of it that way.
According to the information on the American Cinematheque website, the screen dimensions in the large theater at the Egyptian are 53 ft. wide by 27 ft. high.
from what I’ve heard, in an ideal situation the screen would be at a maximum size of around 60 feet wide by roughly 25 feet high for 2.40:1 35mm. I remember a film expert (John Ptylak of Kodak) saying that’s as big as 35mm can go and still have great picture quality.
Then, if the theater has a big enough proscenium (which the Chinese does, I don’t know about the Egyptian), when going to 70mm the top masking is raised and the screen is both taller and wider for 70mm than it is for 35mm.
Is the screen at the Egyptian much smaller than the one at the Chinese? I’ve only been to the Egyptian once, for “Dial M for Murder” in 3D, so I can’t really judge. I’m not even going to the TCM Festival (I live in NJ) but it’s fun to live vicariously.
Yes, the Chinese can run 70MM. But they run platter in that booth. The Fox restored 70MM prints are for reel to reel bookings as is many special format 70MM prints. The Egyptian Theatre is equipped to run 70MM reel to reel without any problems.
I saw “Titanic” the Monday after opening weekend (December 1997) in 70MM at Chinese myself.
No need to think that far back. In 1998, I enjoyed “Titantic” in 70 mm at the Chinese, and that was after seeing it in 70 mm at the Westwood Village.