Egyptian Theatre

6712 Hollywood Boulevard,
Los Angeles, CA 90028

Unfavorite 94 people favorited this theater

Showing 101 - 125 of 239 comments

GaryParks on June 13, 2008 at 10:45 pm

The painted scene on the wall behind the usherettes in the photo linked to the previous post was restored and can still be enjoyed today. It is on the left wall of the courtyard just before the pillared portico. What is interesting about it is that this is the only scene in the whole building which was completely copied from an actual piece of Pharaonic art, although with some artistic license. The original piece is considerably smaller, and is carved on a slab of stone. It was done during the reign of Pharaoh Thutmose III in the 18th Dynasty—he was an ancestor of Tutankhamun—and depicts Thutmose twice in the company of the gods Horus and Set. The heiroglyphs are all legible to those who can read such things and include, in cartouches, the name Thutmose, and the name Menkheperra, the latter a ceremonial name given to him on his accession to the throne. It is the name which has the scarab in it. Other heiroglyphs include the common titles “Lord of the Two Lands,” “Ruler of Upper and Lower Egypt,” “Living eternally,” etc.

kencmcintyre on March 26, 2008 at 10:21 pm

Here is an interior photo, circa 1922, from Ben Hall’s book “The Best Remaining Seats”:

JSA on October 23, 2007 at 9:27 pm

Macbear: If your main goal is to see a 70 mm film that you like, more than likely you will not be dissapointed. Other than the fact that you staring at a blank screen before the show, once things get going it’s not bad. But the Egyptian in its current state is not remotely close to the grand palace it used to be.


markinthedark on October 23, 2007 at 7:46 am

I saw Baraka at the Egyptian and was impressed with picture and sound. Its not the Cinerama Dome but the new screens proximity to the audience makes it seem rather large, especially when opened for 70mm.

HowardBHaas on October 23, 2007 at 5:32 am

I haven’t seen 70mm there, but the comment was the screen isn’t huge enough and some people don’t like the decor of the place. Having enjoyed a 35mm classic at the Egyptian, I’d ignore the decor critics. If the film is a giant classic epic like Lawrence of Arabia, then perhaps the screen size might be disappointing if you’ve seen the film already on a huge screen. If you haven’t already seen the film, or it isn’t an “epic” then don’t miss it. There are 70mm prints shown that won’t be shown elsewhere in the area.

xfrql on October 23, 2007 at 1:33 am

I was interested by the comment some way up that this theater cannot show a 70mm film well; any further explanation would be welcome, as i might make a trip to their 70mm fest at some point. Thanks!

HowardBHaas on October 20, 2007 at 6:57 am

There’s another British fellow writing “projection suite” so maybe that is a proper British term for projection booth (as per your comment above)?

I admire your love for historic theaters. I also respect what the late Jim Rankin wrote above. It is worthwhile reading again.

bruceanthony on October 19, 2007 at 9:29 am

Its to bad the Egytian wasn’t given a beautiful restoration like many of the restored films that are screened at the theatre. There was a nice tribute to Julis Roberts and American Cinematheque in the Friday October 12 issue in Variety which also talked about the historic Egyptian. I miss the giant curve screen which I saw many films through the years. The current screen is a bit small though the picture quality is superb. The Egyptian is a major let down in its current condition and doesn’t look anything like a movie palace. Im surprised that they charge money for tours of this theatre. Can you imagine tourists who come from Cities like St. Louis which has the Fox theatre and then take the tour of the Hollywood Egyptian in its present condition. I have stated this before that cities large and small have restored theatres that look a lot more majestic than the current Egyptian such a shame. I love there programming and they have helped Hollywood Blvd slowly come back from its seedy state from a few years ago.brucec

kencmcintyre on October 19, 2007 at 6:59 am

Here is an LA Times ad dated 5/21/80:

michaelvp on October 19, 2007 at 2:03 am

Hi. Came upon this site on accident. Can’t stop reading it… Briefly wish to share with you something you might appreciate…..
I saw The Empire Strikes Back on the day it opened on May 21, 1980. As I’m sure most of you know, the place to see it was at The Egyptian. My mom got my brother and I out of school early that day. We had, again as anyone alive at the time will recall, waited 3 years to see that movie… And while it wasn’t playing at the Chinese Theatre, at least it was on Hollywood Blvd, and at least there was still a line around the block for many many days ( weeks? ). So, the excitement was there just plenty for an 8th grader like me…. We got there around 2 in the afternoon, and by 4 there were thousands more people ( or at least it seemed so from the front of the line) . We had famous people in line with us with their families and kids.. Everyone was talking.. Hoping it would be good. An atmosphere of.. well.. its hard to describe. If you have ever been in a line for a Star Wars move on the opening day, then you know… Lord of the Rings was similar…
Anyway.. we went in… and watched the movie… The entire audience roared and clapped when the movie began. Cheered when we first saw Luke, Han, R2, etc.. all for the first time.. The ENTIRE audience actually gasped when Luke flew out head over first through the window… etc. etc… Clearly, it was an amazing experience, and a huge part of that was because of the theatre we were all in.
I now live in Orlando, Florida. I saw Return of the Jedi here. Obviously, not an experience equal to the one of 3 years earlier… So.. Right then and there (1983), I told myself that if George Lucas made the rest of the Star Wars movies, I would go to Hollywood to see them.
Which I did. 3 times. Took my ma and brother, too.
Yes. I, on occasion, fly all the way to Hollywood just to see a damn movie….
The Egyptian of 1980, for me, was that great.

And then I remembered something… as I was reading al the stuff on this page…
I remembered that I had the little paperback novelization of The Empire Strikes Back with me on that day ….and I remembered that I kept my ticket stub from that day in that book….
so.. I just now went looking for the book on one of my book shelves..
and i found the book..
and i opened the book…

HowardBHaas on October 18, 2007 at 8:29 pm

Oh, it sounds like the sink at El Capitan has too many uses!

William on October 17, 2007 at 4:34 pm

Howard, I was just saying suite was the wrong word for it. All the theatres for many years all had bathrooms for the projectionist. The El Capitian only has a sink in the booth.

HowardBHaas on October 17, 2007 at 4:08 pm

I didn’t characterize it here as a “suite” and know it is a BOOTH, however, the original upstairs booth at the Boyd has several rooms including a bathroom. It does sound like a suite!

William on October 17, 2007 at 3:48 pm

Howard, the rest looks good. In British cinema it’s a Box.

In the Todd-AO install they did not take out the stage and proscenium. Just like the Cinerama install at the Warner Hollywood Theatre. In the D-150 install they when almost to the back wall of the stagehouse.

HowardBHaas on October 17, 2007 at 3:34 pm

William, I know that in American English, it is a projection booth. I don’t know whether in British English (where Ken Roe is) if it is a suite, but eventually we will likely adjust that since this cinema is American.

I saw different reports on when the destruction was done. We will review that.

Presumably the rest looks good?

William on October 17, 2007 at 3:22 pm

Howard, the Todd-AO install (1955) fact is wrong. The demolition of the elaborate original Egyptian proscenium arch, happened with the 1969 install of the D-150 screen. The Todd-AO install put the screen in front of the old proscenium arch, like the Rivoli Theatre in NYC. And the projection booth (box) is not called a suite.

HowardBHaasEsq on October 14, 2007 at 4:07 pm

Thanks, Mark for your answer which is what I was thinking. A major project like this didn’t get completed without earthquake retrofitting, and government oversight. There is no need for any blogger (without engineering expertise)to scare away audiences by implying the theater isn’t safe.

Enjoy the new Introduction.

markinthedark on October 12, 2007 at 9:28 am

I think what Howard is saying is don’t question the structural integrity of the building based on what you see unless you are an engineer and understand such things at a professional and technical level.

Will Dunklin
Will Dunklin on October 12, 2007 at 9:22 am

Yes, I understand about retrofitting. I don’t know what Howard is angry about.

William on October 12, 2007 at 5:44 am

The building is made of bricks and certain buildings had to get earthquake retro fitted. That was what Los Angeles county said. Mann Theatres retro fitted the nearby Fox and Hollywood theatres and did alittle work on the Chinese’s stagehouse. The Rialto and Cameo Theatres on Broadway had to be refitted too. The old Warner Beverly Hills was being used a concert venue at the time and needed tobe retrofitted but the owner found it wound cost around 12 million to do it. The Egyptian Theatre needed the retrofit because it was damaged from the Northridge quake and the city owned the property.

Will Dunklin
Will Dunklin on October 12, 2007 at 5:23 am

Howard, sorry, I missed something. Would you fill out your comment from 10-11-07?

HowardBHaas on October 11, 2007 at 7:05 pm

That’s flat out ridiculous! Comments above including Jim Rankin mention that retrofitting was needed and done. Unless you are an engineer, architect, etc. it seems less than necessary to question this aspect.

kencmcintyre on September 8, 2007 at 5:56 pm

Here is a 1950 ad from the LA Times: