The lack of curtain presentation has certainly degraded the filmgoing experience, in my opinion. The use of curtains adds a sense, at least for me, of anticipation. When is the show going to begin? I hope the movie is going to be good. Is the movie going to be shown on a wide screen or a little screen (as I used to think as a kid.) It can also make a mediocre theater seem more grand than it really is.
Slideshows and “radio theater networks” have really helped degrade the movie experience. My earliest memory of this is from going to any AMC theater around Southern California. The theater seemed cheap compared to the luxury theaters around my area. Yet, they charged almost the same ticket price for a movie. I would walk into a tiny auditorium and be greeted by slides of local businesses. Then came the radio networks playing songs you could hear at almost any moment on your car radio—for free. Then not to mention the ads for the Los Angeles Times.
Vito, you made a good point about the curtain presentation. Showmanship. That’s what makes going to the movies even more special. I credit projectionists who can make the show great.
It’s truly sad that major companies like Viacom or ABC/Disney can’t pick a different location to build their offices. Why must great movie theaters be picked on? Probably the size of the building, but there must be a hundred different places to put their offices in Manhattan.
We just recently (from what I’ve heard) lost the Century Plaza Theaters in Century City (Los Angeles) to a major office building. The Shubert Theater (live theater) was also taken in the demolition. The new office building will house the new headquarters for CAA.
The Century Plaza was a great theater. Though I had not been to the theater before one of the two original auditoriums was split (though actually nicely done), it was a nice theater with great projection, comfortable seats and excellent HPS-4000 Sound. From what I hear, Astor Plaza is very similar in design.
We also had the sister theater to the entury Plaza, Orange City Center. This was originally a two screener that featured 70mm projection. This is where I saw “Star Wars” in 1977. In 1985, the main large theater was split into three screens. The end result were two dinky auditoriums and a main auditorium with terrible sightlines.
I know that some feel that so-called “luxury” theaters built after the golden age of the movie palaces pale in comparison, but I feel that they were nice, too. You got a fairly large auditorium with state-of-the-art projection and sound (which I still think trumps today’s current “state-of-the-art” presentation for the most part). True, these kind of theaters weren’t always as ornate as their older siblings, but you normally got a much better presentation than almost any theater around town.
Today, almost every movie presentation (if you can call it that anymore) and almost every megaplex is built from a cookie cutter. I kind of crack up at some new theaters that build “historical” marquees above their auditorium entrances and name certain auditoriums after classic and demolished movie theaters. Can you imagine 30-50 years from now going to a movie complex and seeing a fake marquee for the auditorium that says “AMC Empire 30 minus 29,” or “Crackerbox Auditorium: This auditorium is patterned after the classic crackbox stadium auditoriums of the mid-late 90’s. Enjoy the show.”
We are aiming for sometime in July or early August for the list to be finished and posted.
Manhattan is pretty well finished. Mike just came back from a short trip to NYC this week and filled in details for missing Long Island engagements (from 1955 to about 1974). He is scheduled to go back to the NYC and NJ next month and will fill in NJ engagements during that same time period. As you know, a lot of 70mm engagements weren’t advertised in the NY Times for NJ and Long Island until around 1974 with a re-issue of “Gone With The Wind.”
We hope you’ll enjoy this list when it’s published. I was going back on my notes and realized we actually started this project in 2002! There’s quite a bit of 70mm presentation that occurred in Manhattan, Long Island and Northern New Jersey. There will be pictures and ads in the publication, as well. Thanks!
Here’s a list of 65mm film-to-tape transfers for Laser Disc/DVD:
2001: A Space Odyssey
Baraka
Chitty Chitty Bang Bang
The Greatest Story Ever Told
The Hallelujah Trail
Hello, Dolly!
Lawrence Of Arabia
Oklahoma!
The Sound Of Music
South Pacific
Spartacus
Star!
Those Magnificent Men In Their Flying Machines
Tron
West Side Story
-courtesy of Mike Coate in Widescreen Review’s new “The Ultimate Widescreen DVD Movie Guide”
ZIEGFELD THEATRE [1969- ]
54TH STREET
NEW YORK, NY
70mm 6-Channel Stereo [1969]
Marooned [1969]
Gone With The Wind (70mm) [1970]
The Bible … In The Beginning [1970]
The Sound of Music [1970]
Doctor Zhivago [1970]
Ryan’s Daughter [1970]
Cleopatra [1971] (186 mins.)
2001 a space odyssey (70mm) [1972]
This Is Cinerama (70mm) [1973]
Earthquake (Sensurround) [1974]
Rollerball [1975]
The Ten Commandments [1975]
Close Encounters of the Third Kind [1977]
Apocalypse Now [1979]
Quest For Fire [1982]
Gandhi [1982]
Brainstorm [1983]
Antarctica [1984]
A Passage To India [1984]
Lawrence of Arabia [1988]**
The Abyss [1989]
Spartacus [1991]
My Fair Lady [1994]
Vertigo [1996]
Thanks Archives for the Ziegfeld titles in 70mm. I have some additional notes on some of the titles. I also have some additions.
*These titles were part of the “4 For The Ziegfeld” series.
**I don’t recall finding a “2001: A Space Odyssey” re-issue in 1972 in the NY Times, but I do have records of it playing in 1970, 1974, 1975 & 2001/2002. Do you have an opening date for the 1972 engagement?
***These titles were shown in 35mm. “Earthquake” seemed to have had 70mm engagements around the world, except for the U.S. “The Ten Commandments” did have some 70mm engagements, but not in NYC at that time, unless you have some info on that. Thanks.
****“Lawrence Of Arabia” was re-issued in 1971 at the [uA] Rivoli (though, a 70mm print is unconfirmed) and in 1989 in its restored version.
Some additional titles that played at The Ziegfeld in 70mm:
That’s Entertainment [1974]
The Jolson Story [1975]
That’s Entertainment, Part 2 [1976]
The Return Of A Man Called Horse [1976]
A Star Is Born [1976]
Tommy [1977/Re-issue]
Grease [1978]
The Muppet Movie [1979]
The Rose [1979]
Saturn 3 [1980/70mm presentation unconfirmed—Advertised February 10, 14, 15 & 17 only]
Fame [1980]
Can’t Stop The Music [1980]
Raise The Titanic [1980]
Close Encounters Of The Third Kind “Special Edition” [1981—originally opened at the New York Twin on August 8, 1980]
The Jazz Singer [1980]
Grease 2 [1982]
Raiders Of The Lost Ark [1982/Re-issue]
Pink Floyd The Wall [1982]
Yes, Georgio [1982]
Staying Alive [1983]
Thanks Vito for the information on the Plainview. Do you remember how many seats the theater had?
In regards to some 70mm films being “flat,” a number of films shot in the 35mm 1.85:1 aspect ratio were blown up to 70mm. Some include “Days Of Heaven,” “Lethal Weapon,” “Empire Of The Sun,” “Who Framed Roger Rabbit,” “Stakeout,” “Adventures In Babysitting,” “Good Morning, Vietnam,” “Batman,” and the list goes on. Tati’s “Play Time” was filmed in 65mm, but masked for 1.85:1 projection.
Many studios, but mostly directors I think, like to shoot safe for eventual television broadcast. This is a phenomenon that has occured for years. Directors like Sidney Pollack have shied away from shooting in widescreen because of their horror of seeing their beautiful compositions ruined on television. But with the long time practice of letterboxing available since the days of Laser Disc and now DVD, there’s no reason why some directors can’t choose widescreen again.
There are numerous reasons for the lack of shooting in 65mm for commercial films. There is a perceived notion that it’s more expensive and cumbersome than shooting in 35mm and now digital. Truth is in the scheme of a movie’s budget, shooting in 65mm isn’t that expensive. And considering that studios are paying for digital intermediates to improve picture quality on Super 35mm films, and that Warner Bros. spent a considerable amount on IMAX DMR prints of “Harry Potter 3,” the arguement against shooting in 65mm is quite ridiculous.
Yes Vincent, it would be great to see “My Fair Lady” and “The Sound Of Music” at the Ziegfeld for their anniversaries. In fact, how about a Todd-AO 50th Anniversary Festival? “The Sound Of Music,” “Hello, Dolly,” and “Those Magnificent Men In Their Flying Machines” have been restored by 20th Century Fox. Heck, I’d even see a 70mm print of “South Pacific.”
Ken F: Are you familiar with the Century Plainview on Long Island? It ran some 70mm during the ‘70s and I’m curious to find out anymore information about it. There is a Plainview theater listed here on this site, but there’s not much info on it. Thanks.
Indeed, times have changed in regards to getting a “cinematic” experience anymore. Though it’s not totally absent, film presentation quality is subpar these days and has been for a long time now. At least (from my memory), there was greater care in how films were presented in the finer theaters in my area during the 1970s & most of the 1980s.
I could go to an AMC or one of the mall UA theaters in Orange County and be guarenteed that a film would look terrible, sound terrible and the screen would be very tiny. But if I went to the Orange Cinedome, Edwards “Big” Newport and some of the better Edwards theatres, I would usually be given a good-to-great presentation. There were times when the Dolby Stereo soundtrack, advertised as such in the newspaper, wasn’t turned on. There were times when the picture would briefly be out-of-focus, but overall, I kept attending those theatres because of their A) Ability to put on a good show, B) Ability to get either Dolby Stereo or better yet, 70mm prints, and C) Ability to maintain and upgrade their theatres.
Now we’re given hype on how big the screens are nowadays, but in truth, the screens are big for 1.85:1 films, then the masking is brought down on the screen to fit in a 2.39:1 frame. This method truly takes out the scope in ‘scope! Most shows on a Friday or Saturday night are sold-old, even when the film is on five screens (in bigger auditoriums, too). And we’re paying much higher prices at the box office and especially at the snack bar for less presentation-wise.
Now, the Cinedome is gone and the property in sat on for 30 years still remains empty while throngs of teens attend the oversized and sterile AMC and Century (who owned the Cinedome) megaplexes down the street. Big Newport and its chain, Edwards, is now a part of Regal. The Big 1100+ auditorium (I know, nothing compared to the old NYC palaces :)) was refurbished, but the last time I was there, Regal was showing those annoying digital pre-show video ads. And most of the Edwards theaters have gone downhill or have been shuttered.
Rhett wrote: If the Ziegfeld staged some kind of retro festival…it would do big business…
That’s probably true! Going back through the NY Times, especially during the 1970s, The Ziegfeld and Radio City Music Hall ran either film retrospectives or special engagements of the “biggies;” “Gone With The Wind (in its tilt-and-scan psuedo-widescreen format), "Doctor Zhivago,” and “2001: A Space Odyssey.” There were also runs of “The Sound Of Music” and “The Bible…In The Beginning.”
But by the 1980s, the only 70mm re-issues around Manhattan you could see were of the “Star Wars” Trilogy and “Raiders Of The Lost Ark” (not that I would be complaining if I lived in Manhattan at that time!)…and return engagements of “Poltergeist,” “Rocky III,” “Annie” and “Gandhi.” Of course, there was the fantastic re-issue of “Lawrence Of Arabia” in 1989. There were a few in the 1990s, but few and far between.
Mikeoaklandpark wrote: If anybody knows how to start and online petition I would be willing to help out.
Has anyone in this newsgroup started one for the Astor Plaza? I’d be willing to start one.
In regards to “Eighty Days” winning Best Picture: One of the reviewers in the Los Angeles Times gave the new “80 Days” a raving review, while scathing the 1956 film. I don’t have the article in front of me as I write this, but she essentially called it overblown.
I think if this interviewer saw it in 1956 in Todd-AO at 30fps, she would’ve been impressed and very entertained. There are certain films that seem to play well only on the big screen, and this is one of them. Imagine seeing this widescreen film with all of the world locations Mike Todd took audiences to, a lighthearted story, and the cameos, I think she’d be one of the millions who saw this film and came away with a smile on her face. It was a film of its time.
Perhaps if Warner Bros. found it somehow financially feasible to produce a restoration for 70mm projection (30fps), audiences might get a kick out of seeing it properly. Heck, even “Hello, Dolly!” was very popular during its recent run here in Los Angeles. That’s a film I couldn’t sit through on television, but on the big screen in 70mm, it’s a lot of fun. Just seeing Walter Matthew ham it up and the cameo of Louis Armstrong is worth seeing this film. Even Babs is entertaining in this film.
Vito wrote: No one has made mention of the brave move Ron Howard made in filming “Far and Away” in 70mm with 6 track mag sound.
“Far And Away,” though not a great movie by any means, does have some spectacular 70mm type moments during the Oklahoma land rush scenes. And you’re correct, Vito, that it was a brave move by Ron Howard to shoot in 65mm, though, I think it was at the urging of the DP, Mikael Soloman (spelling might be off).
I’m sort of surprised this film and Sony’s “Hamlet” (1996) haven’t seen screenings here in the States. Perhaps “Far And Away” might be appreciated better today than in 1992. As for “Hamlet,” it’s a very good film and deserved a better release in 1996. It was shown in Los Angeles at the Royal on a rather small screen, then at Edwards Big Newport in Newport Beach, CA. Huge screen, but I felt the print was underserved by dim projection there.
I believe that “Hamlet” was shown at the Paris in Manhattan.
Rhett wrote: Well then America needs a 70MM ambassador to import these prints from Norway or Denmark or England or wherever all these 70mm prints are shown and bring them here. Geeze, they’re all shown overseas!!
I think one of the reasons that we don’t see more 70mm here in the States is that it can cost a pretty penny to ship those prints—plus you have to pay for insurance.
In England, they show a few films that we don’t get to see, like “Earthquake” and “The Longest Day.” But I guess I shouldn’t complain—LA has been lucky to get what we’ve gotten! Considering commecial 5-perf 70mm is virtually done for, we’ve been spoiled to get all of those prints listed above. And there are more that were shown in Hollywood since 1999. Heck, even the recent “Godzilla” ran in 70mm-DTS.
As a gentleman mentioned before, the AFI in Silver Springs looks to be the best bet for East Coast film fans to see films like these I listed above. If I recall, the AFI in Silver Springs even ran “Day Of Thunder” in 70mm. He also mentioned that “War And Peace” ran there. It ran at the American Cinematheque. Unfortunately, and I regret this, I decided not to see it—too long. Well that was a dumb decision! My collaborator, Mike Coate, saw it and said it was awesome.
Here’s a list of 35mm/70mm prints that have been restored and shown in Los Angeles and in some other cities, as well. This is from the top of my head, so I might be missing a few titles. This list also includes some titles restored in the 1990s and re-struck prints.
Columbia/Sony:
Lord Jim (70mm)
Lawrence Of Arabia (70mm)
Funny Girl (35mm)
In Cold Blood (35mm)
Becket (35mm, to be shown or was recently shown at the Academy in Beverly Hills)
Bridge On The River Kwai (35mm)
Bye, Bye Birdie (35mm)
20th Century Fox
Patton (70mm)
The Sound Of Music (70mm)
Those Magnificent Men In Their Flying Machines… (70mm)
Hello, Dolly! (70mm)
Disney
TRON (70mm)
Sleeping Beauty (70mm)
Swiss Family Robinson (35mm)
20000 Leagues Under The Sea (35mm)
Independent
Play Time (70mm)
Baraka (70mm)
This Is Cinerama (3-Strip Cinerama)
Universal
Spartacus (70mm)
Vertigo (70mm)
Warner Bros. and MGM
My Fair Lady (70mm)
Ryan’s Daughter (70mm; special print straight from the 65mm negative)
2001: A Space Odyssey (70mm)
It’s A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World (70mm)
How The West Was Won (3-Strip Cinerama)
Rhett wrote: I would love to start some sort of organization to show 70MM flicks.
That would be a great organization. As you mentioned, money, contacts, etc. could be a “small” hurdle. Also, despite the number of new restorations of 70mm films, others seem to be hard to come by. There are some studios who will rent out 70mm prints to places like American Cinematheque. Columbia/Sony let them run a 70mm print of “Starman” in early 2002. It was in mint condition.
Rhett wrote: Oct. 2002 I saw the 40th Anniversary of Lawrence of Arabia.
Was the film a little grainy? The clips I’ve seen of this 40th Anniversary re-release were grainy/dupey.
Rhett: Around the World in 80 Days….it has been stated here that no 70MM prints were struck for it…but on the site in70mm.com there is a photo of the film showing on a screen?? Is this a 70MM print Bill??
My pal Thomas Hauerslev took that picture in 1995, but hasn’t gotten back to me where it was shown. My guess is that the 70mm print was shown at Bradford, England, during one of their Widescreen Weekends. I’ll post here with the definitive answer once I get it.
As far as I know, there was a 70mm print shown at a private screening in Los Angeles in 1999. I’ll try to clarify that, too.
Vincent wrote: Hell I would love to see anything on even a 60ft screen in NY.
Perhaps the Loew’s Jersey Theatre could, over time, get 70mm projection and show the restorations. As far as I know from postings on other sites devoted to film, I don’t believe the theatre is yet equipped to show 70mm. Anybody know? I haven’t found any references on their website as such.
RE Bill K’s quote: So why not invest a few extra dollars in shooting in 65mm, or even printing a few 70mm prints for those massive 80-foot screens?
And Vincent’s Response: On a previous posting somebody mentions 80 ft screens in NY. Where are they? I would love know.
Hi Vincent, I was speaking in general about the state of cinemas and lack of 70mm today. Some complexes in Southern California, at least when they first opened, boasted huge 80-ft. screens. I believe Pacific’s Winnetka Stadium 21 has at least one or two. The Irvine Spectrum 21, an Edwards theater, boasts at least two 80-foot screens in their “Chinese” and “Egyptian” auditoriums. I’ve heard two different specs on Edwards Newport (a.k.a. Big Newport) that their screen is between 70 and 75-feet. And I think that the Mann’s Chinese (Hollywood) and Mann’s Village (Westwood) have 70-ft. screens. These specs are from memory of newspaper ads and may vary. :)
Rhett wrote: What can we do here (East coast) to get these knuckleheads to keep 70MM alive??
Do you have a film society, like an American Cinematheque? The Cinematheque out here has presented a number of fine 35mm, 70mm and even some rarely seen widescreen films at the Hollywood Egyptian Theatre. Perhaps a film society in NYC could procure some 70mm prints of the newly restored classics. As for new 70mm, well…
There’s some kind of thought in the film business that 70mm is a cumbersome thing. But when I’ve listened to some DPs at various seminars, they’ve commented that the newer 65mm cameras are almost every bit as easy to use as their 35mm counterparts. The lighting set-ups are virtually identical and the cost isn’t as bad as some anti-70mm people might say. Considering it costs about $150-million to make and market a film today, shooting a handful of films in 65mm is nothing!
Rhett: I remember going to see Spartacus at the Ziegfeld in 91 in 70MM. I was told…“You have it on tape, why are you paying to go see it? Thetaer chains are run by ignorants or high schoolers who could care less, they just flip the switch.
So many people just don’t get it! Does the Ziegfeld still put on a great presentation? I know that some of the Westwood and Hollywood houses still care about quality presentation.
Scott wrote: One problem with IMAX is that it is a “large screen” format and not a “widescreen format”—The aspect ratio of IMAX is 1:37-1(the original standard pre-widescreen was 1:33-1). The only way you could show “widescreen” films on an IMAX screen is by letterboxing.
If I may, the approximate aspect ratio on IMAX is 1.44:1. And it’s true, if a director wishes to maintain the original widescreen aspect ratio on his film, the film does need to be letterboxed. But with “Apollo 13, ” and “Attack Of The Clones,” the films were cropped. “Apollo 13” was done in 1.66:1 (similar to Disney’s re-purposed animated films), and “Clones” was cropped to an unusal 1.81:1 ratio. Thus both films were letterboxed. With the tallness factor of an IMAX screen, the lettterboxing isn’t as bothersome.
Those digitally re-purposed films do look pretty good on the IMAX screen, though we’re still not getting true IMAX, or a true 35mm widescreen presentation.
Rhett wrote: “In my research, it’s amazing, all the "presentations” (for you Vincent) that played in 70MM."
Kind of ironic how the format has been shoved to the backburner of film history especially considering how popular the format was!
“It seems every big movie played in at least 1 or 2 theaters in NY or NJ in 70mm.”
And then some! Just wait until you see the 1980s lists of 70mm runs in the region. Pretty incredible.
“You know, it has me thinking…have we seen the demise of the 70MM presentaion??”
Unfortunately, I think it has been pretty well “put to bed.” It seems that those who make films and those who distribute them, but not all, are content with pleasing the masses. So that means that virtually every film has to have that same jerky, zooming editing style; virtually every film is a sequel; virtually every movie theater built nowadays is like the one down the street, etc. So why not invest a few extra dollars in shooting in 65mm, or even printing a few 70mm prints for those massive 80-foot screens? I’ve even recently seen some 24p High Definition video transferred to 70mm print stock and it looks very good! The same footage, digitally projected, didn’t look even close to the quality of the 70mm print.
I find it funny that almost $200-million can be spent to make a film and market it, but someone in the ranks of getting a film distributed gripes about the cost of a 70mm print! More money is spent on Brad Pitt’s hair gel than would be spent on a 70mm print or two.
We do have some current 70mm first run presentations today. “Harry Potter 3” just opened day-and-date in select IMAX screens. But this is neither true IMAX nor is it a blow-up. The film, from what I’ve heard, is being shown in widescreen and was digitally transfered to IMAX via the original digital files.
I find this 70mm presentation awkward. The film is shown on a huge screen, but it’s letterboxed. But the picture quality is very good. You gotta figure that those commercial complexes that invested a lot of money into building and maintaining an IMAX screen are struggling. They need to make money somehow, even if that means showing crummy “enhanced 35mm” prints or psuedo-IMAX.
I think it’s far less expensive to strike 5-perf 70mm prints of the film. And with today’s film stock, they would look very, very good.
“It’s also a damn shame that most of the 70mm prints have been destroyed. Wouldn’t it have been great if the prints were preserved and used for the home video DVD transfers?”
I think it’s a shame that a number of 65mm negatives might be rotting as we speak. But there have been a number of 65mm transfers to home video formats over the years. And kudos to 20th Century Fox for restoring “The Sound Of Music,” “Patton,” and “Those Magnificent Men In Their Flying Machines” and having the guts to strike new prints and showing them. Warners and Disney are also to be commended for striking 70mm prints of “It’s A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World,” and “Tron” and “Sleeping Beauty.”
I think it’s sad that NYC/NJ hasn’t had the opportunity to see some of these restored 70mm titles. I guarentee you that if The Ziegfeld ran a 70mm restrospective on these classics, they’d have sell-outs. Even people who don’t know much about film formats do notice the difference in the quality of a 70mm print compared to 35mm. They would line up to see these films on the big screen. I’ve seen this succeed here in L.A. at the American Cinematheque.
Thanks for the kind words. And yes, it would be looking a gift horse in the mouth. :)
I don’t believe any Asbury Park engagements, at least during the roadshow era, were included in The New York Times. So as a result, additional research from other sources would be required in order to integrate that area’s engagements into our project. Our principal source of the info has been The New York Times.
We have a couple Asbury Park/Belmar/Neptune area 70mm-equipped theatres included in the theatre portion of our project (St, James in Asbury Park, Man Ray in Belmar….), but are debating whether or not they should stay since we’re undecided if we want to consider that area to be a part of the “New York” market.
I think it is reasonable to consider Atlantic City a separate market
entirely, and one we haven’t considered researching at this time.
It would be nice to cover some other major markets, like Boston, Washington D.C. and Philadelphia. But time contraints, as well as cost, limit us to select regions to research. Mike has had the opportunity to do some extensive traveling across the country, and has unearthed some excellent information on 70mm and 70mm-equipped theaters.
If you’re interested, we will eventually have Los Angeles, New York and Orange County (CA, and actually quite a sizable 70mm market) 70mm lists posted at …in70mm.com.
Again, thanks for the kind words and interest in our work.
Rhett wrote: I wish they had more about 70MM presentations from NY and NJ.
Rhett, I hope you and other fans of Cinema Treasures and 70mm will visit …in70mm.com in the coming month. Mike Coate and I have been compiling an engagement list of 70mm presentations in the Manhattan and New Jersey areas (Paramus, Upper Montclair and Cedar Grove) from the Roadshow Era to the Present. We’re closing in on the final years of our research.
Since this is a “work-in-progress,” we will, over time, attempt to compile further engagements, including those that may have played in New Jersey (as listed above), but may have not initially been advertised in the NY Times.
This project is an off-shoot of other lists we’ve compiled on 70mm engagements, including San Francisco, San Diego and Los Angeles (which will be posted soon).
As you know, New York was a big market for 70mm, therefore it took us some time to compile these engagements. We started this project back in July of 2003 and have done a week-by-week search of 70mm presentation in NYC and NJ. As you may suspect, it’s a time consuming project, and I say that in a positive way. Why would we do this? We did this not only because we’re fans of 70mm and the theaters those kind of films played in, but also as a historical document of this format. Hopefully you’ll be able to link those 70mm engagements with theaters listed on this site, as well.
Thanks to Bill Huelbig for pointing out my collaborator’s “Star Wars” articles on …in70mm.com. Michael Coate put a lot of time and research into this article. Hopefully you got a “kick” out of finding out which places showed the classic in 70mm. He also compiled a list of “The Empire Strikes Back,” “Alien” and “Close Encounters Of The Third Kind” 70mm engagements.
One of the important aspects about the phenomenon of “Star Wars” was the fact that its presentation in 70mm really set it apart from other films. It truly took the way audiences, for a time, experienced a movie. Certainly the Roadshows were on a higher level than their 35mm counterparts, but it was “Star Wars” in 70mm that introduced an new generation to better picture quality and super sound. So if you go through Mike’s list, I hope you can appreciate that a number of theaters upgraded their projection and sound equipment to “wow” audiences with this film. No longer was 70mm Six Track Stereo presentation just for musicals and epics; it was for exciting popcorn movies, too. Some exhibitors figured that great projection of 70mm and six track sound could bring in audiences and $$$$. Why can’t they figure that out nowadays?
From Vincent-Can you call Star Wars a 70MM masterpiece when it was not filmed as such? I think if I remember correctly in the late 70’s and 80’s there were many big films released as 70MM blow ups but they never look nearly as good as the real thing.
I think it’s safe to to say that as a 70mm presentation, “Star Wars” was superior to anything else in the market at the time. You got a bright and sharp picture image on the screen, not to mention the fantastic Six Track Dolby Stereo soundtrack. The also prompted many, many theaters to upgrade their projection and sound equipment over time. Sure, when you compare a blow-up to a true 65mm image, the 65mm image is clearly superior. But compared to what we get now, I’ll take a 70mm blow-up anytime.
I’ll agree with Rhett on “Far And Away.” Mikael Soloman’s cinematography is superb, but by shooting the film in foggy and dark locations, the film left most people asking, “What’s so special about 70mm?” But if you recall, when the Oklahoma scenes came up, the picture was awesome.
Bill H: Cherish those memories, because Star Wars: Episode III is on its way! :) I remember those feelings of excitement watching that original film. What a kick it was. Now I’m getting depressed! Another great theater is about to be closed. We don’t have 70mm presentation hardly anymore (except for revivals and IMAX DMR). And George is unleashing the last of a pretty underwhelming trilogy. Who said change was good?
The lack of curtain presentation has certainly degraded the filmgoing experience, in my opinion. The use of curtains adds a sense, at least for me, of anticipation. When is the show going to begin? I hope the movie is going to be good. Is the movie going to be shown on a wide screen or a little screen (as I used to think as a kid.) It can also make a mediocre theater seem more grand than it really is.
Slideshows and “radio theater networks” have really helped degrade the movie experience. My earliest memory of this is from going to any AMC theater around Southern California. The theater seemed cheap compared to the luxury theaters around my area. Yet, they charged almost the same ticket price for a movie. I would walk into a tiny auditorium and be greeted by slides of local businesses. Then came the radio networks playing songs you could hear at almost any moment on your car radio—for free. Then not to mention the ads for the Los Angeles Times.
Vito, you made a good point about the curtain presentation. Showmanship. That’s what makes going to the movies even more special. I credit projectionists who can make the show great.
Warren wrote: Why can’t they build theatres along with the office buildings?
I believe the National General/Mann National (now Good Morning America’s Times Square office) was built as a part of an office development, too.
Dang typo again! The last sentence should read “crackerbox,” not crackbox! :) I need my coffee.
Dang typo! The “We also had the sister theater to ‘entury Plaza’” paragraph should read “We also had the sister theater to Century Plaza.”
It’s truly sad that major companies like Viacom or ABC/Disney can’t pick a different location to build their offices. Why must great movie theaters be picked on? Probably the size of the building, but there must be a hundred different places to put their offices in Manhattan.
We just recently (from what I’ve heard) lost the Century Plaza Theaters in Century City (Los Angeles) to a major office building. The Shubert Theater (live theater) was also taken in the demolition. The new office building will house the new headquarters for CAA.
The Century Plaza was a great theater. Though I had not been to the theater before one of the two original auditoriums was split (though actually nicely done), it was a nice theater with great projection, comfortable seats and excellent HPS-4000 Sound. From what I hear, Astor Plaza is very similar in design.
We also had the sister theater to the entury Plaza, Orange City Center. This was originally a two screener that featured 70mm projection. This is where I saw “Star Wars” in 1977. In 1985, the main large theater was split into three screens. The end result were two dinky auditoriums and a main auditorium with terrible sightlines.
I know that some feel that so-called “luxury” theaters built after the golden age of the movie palaces pale in comparison, but I feel that they were nice, too. You got a fairly large auditorium with state-of-the-art projection and sound (which I still think trumps today’s current “state-of-the-art” presentation for the most part). True, these kind of theaters weren’t always as ornate as their older siblings, but you normally got a much better presentation than almost any theater around town.
Today, almost every movie presentation (if you can call it that anymore) and almost every megaplex is built from a cookie cutter. I kind of crack up at some new theaters that build “historical” marquees above their auditorium entrances and name certain auditoriums after classic and demolished movie theaters. Can you imagine 30-50 years from now going to a movie complex and seeing a fake marquee for the auditorium that says “AMC Empire 30 minus 29,” or “Crackerbox Auditorium: This auditorium is patterned after the classic crackbox stadium auditoriums of the mid-late 90’s. Enjoy the show.”
Hi Rhett and fellow readers of Cinema Treasures:
We are aiming for sometime in July or early August for the list to be finished and posted.
Manhattan is pretty well finished. Mike just came back from a short trip to NYC this week and filled in details for missing Long Island engagements (from 1955 to about 1974). He is scheduled to go back to the NYC and NJ next month and will fill in NJ engagements during that same time period. As you know, a lot of 70mm engagements weren’t advertised in the NY Times for NJ and Long Island until around 1974 with a re-issue of “Gone With The Wind.”
We hope you’ll enjoy this list when it’s published. I was going back on my notes and realized we actually started this project in 2002! There’s quite a bit of 70mm presentation that occurred in Manhattan, Long Island and Northern New Jersey. There will be pictures and ads in the publication, as well. Thanks!
Here’s a list of 65mm film-to-tape transfers for Laser Disc/DVD:
2001: A Space Odyssey
Baraka
Chitty Chitty Bang Bang
The Greatest Story Ever Told
The Hallelujah Trail
Hello, Dolly!
Lawrence Of Arabia
Oklahoma!
The Sound Of Music
South Pacific
Spartacus
Star!
Those Magnificent Men In Their Flying Machines
Tron
West Side Story
-courtesy of Mike Coate in Widescreen Review’s new “The Ultimate Widescreen DVD Movie Guide”
ZIEGFELD THEATRE [1969- ]
54TH STREET
NEW YORK, NY
70mm 6-Channel Stereo [1969]
Marooned [1969]
Gone With The Wind (70mm) [1970]
The Bible … In The Beginning [1970]
The Sound of Music [1970]
Doctor Zhivago [1970]
Ryan’s Daughter [1970]
Cleopatra [1971] (186 mins.)
2001 a space odyssey (70mm) [1972]
This Is Cinerama (70mm) [1973]
Earthquake (Sensurround) [1974]
Rollerball [1975]
The Ten Commandments [1975]
Close Encounters of the Third Kind [1977]
Apocalypse Now [1979]
Quest For Fire [1982]
Gandhi [1982]
Brainstorm [1983]
Antarctica [1984]
A Passage To India [1984]
Lawrence of Arabia [1988]**
The Abyss [1989]
Spartacus [1991]
My Fair Lady [1994]
Vertigo [1996]
Thanks Archives for the Ziegfeld titles in 70mm. I have some additional notes on some of the titles. I also have some additions.
*These titles were part of the “4 For The Ziegfeld” series.
**I don’t recall finding a “2001: A Space Odyssey” re-issue in 1972 in the NY Times, but I do have records of it playing in 1970, 1974, 1975 & 2001/2002. Do you have an opening date for the 1972 engagement?
***These titles were shown in 35mm. “Earthquake” seemed to have had 70mm engagements around the world, except for the U.S. “The Ten Commandments” did have some 70mm engagements, but not in NYC at that time, unless you have some info on that. Thanks.
****“Lawrence Of Arabia” was re-issued in 1971 at the [uA] Rivoli (though, a 70mm print is unconfirmed) and in 1989 in its restored version.
Some additional titles that played at The Ziegfeld in 70mm:
That’s Entertainment [1974]
The Jolson Story [1975]
That’s Entertainment, Part 2 [1976]
The Return Of A Man Called Horse [1976]
A Star Is Born [1976]
Tommy [1977/Re-issue]
Grease [1978]
The Muppet Movie [1979]
The Rose [1979]
Saturn 3 [1980/70mm presentation unconfirmed—Advertised February 10, 14, 15 & 17 only]
Fame [1980]
Can’t Stop The Music [1980]
Raise The Titanic [1980]
Close Encounters Of The Third Kind “Special Edition” [1981—originally opened at the New York Twin on August 8, 1980]
The Jazz Singer [1980]
Grease 2 [1982]
Raiders Of The Lost Ark [1982/Re-issue]
Pink Floyd The Wall [1982]
Yes, Georgio [1982]
Staying Alive [1983]
—through mid-1985
Thanks Vito for the information on the Plainview. Do you remember how many seats the theater had?
In regards to some 70mm films being “flat,” a number of films shot in the 35mm 1.85:1 aspect ratio were blown up to 70mm. Some include “Days Of Heaven,” “Lethal Weapon,” “Empire Of The Sun,” “Who Framed Roger Rabbit,” “Stakeout,” “Adventures In Babysitting,” “Good Morning, Vietnam,” “Batman,” and the list goes on. Tati’s “Play Time” was filmed in 65mm, but masked for 1.85:1 projection.
Many studios, but mostly directors I think, like to shoot safe for eventual television broadcast. This is a phenomenon that has occured for years. Directors like Sidney Pollack have shied away from shooting in widescreen because of their horror of seeing their beautiful compositions ruined on television. But with the long time practice of letterboxing available since the days of Laser Disc and now DVD, there’s no reason why some directors can’t choose widescreen again.
There are numerous reasons for the lack of shooting in 65mm for commercial films. There is a perceived notion that it’s more expensive and cumbersome than shooting in 35mm and now digital. Truth is in the scheme of a movie’s budget, shooting in 65mm isn’t that expensive. And considering that studios are paying for digital intermediates to improve picture quality on Super 35mm films, and that Warner Bros. spent a considerable amount on IMAX DMR prints of “Harry Potter 3,” the arguement against shooting in 65mm is quite ridiculous.
Yes Vincent, it would be great to see “My Fair Lady” and “The Sound Of Music” at the Ziegfeld for their anniversaries. In fact, how about a Todd-AO 50th Anniversary Festival? “The Sound Of Music,” “Hello, Dolly,” and “Those Magnificent Men In Their Flying Machines” have been restored by 20th Century Fox. Heck, I’d even see a 70mm print of “South Pacific.”
Ken F: Are you familiar with the Century Plainview on Long Island? It ran some 70mm during the ‘70s and I’m curious to find out anymore information about it. There is a Plainview theater listed here on this site, but there’s not much info on it. Thanks.
Indeed, times have changed in regards to getting a “cinematic” experience anymore. Though it’s not totally absent, film presentation quality is subpar these days and has been for a long time now. At least (from my memory), there was greater care in how films were presented in the finer theaters in my area during the 1970s & most of the 1980s.
I could go to an AMC or one of the mall UA theaters in Orange County and be guarenteed that a film would look terrible, sound terrible and the screen would be very tiny. But if I went to the Orange Cinedome, Edwards “Big” Newport and some of the better Edwards theatres, I would usually be given a good-to-great presentation. There were times when the Dolby Stereo soundtrack, advertised as such in the newspaper, wasn’t turned on. There were times when the picture would briefly be out-of-focus, but overall, I kept attending those theatres because of their A) Ability to put on a good show, B) Ability to get either Dolby Stereo or better yet, 70mm prints, and C) Ability to maintain and upgrade their theatres.
Now we’re given hype on how big the screens are nowadays, but in truth, the screens are big for 1.85:1 films, then the masking is brought down on the screen to fit in a 2.39:1 frame. This method truly takes out the scope in ‘scope! Most shows on a Friday or Saturday night are sold-old, even when the film is on five screens (in bigger auditoriums, too). And we’re paying much higher prices at the box office and especially at the snack bar for less presentation-wise.
Now, the Cinedome is gone and the property in sat on for 30 years still remains empty while throngs of teens attend the oversized and sterile AMC and Century (who owned the Cinedome) megaplexes down the street. Big Newport and its chain, Edwards, is now a part of Regal. The Big 1100+ auditorium (I know, nothing compared to the old NYC palaces :)) was refurbished, but the last time I was there, Regal was showing those annoying digital pre-show video ads. And most of the Edwards theaters have gone downhill or have been shuttered.
Rhett wrote: If the Ziegfeld staged some kind of retro festival…it would do big business…
That’s probably true! Going back through the NY Times, especially during the 1970s, The Ziegfeld and Radio City Music Hall ran either film retrospectives or special engagements of the “biggies;” “Gone With The Wind (in its tilt-and-scan psuedo-widescreen format), "Doctor Zhivago,” and “2001: A Space Odyssey.” There were also runs of “The Sound Of Music” and “The Bible…In The Beginning.”
But by the 1980s, the only 70mm re-issues around Manhattan you could see were of the “Star Wars” Trilogy and “Raiders Of The Lost Ark” (not that I would be complaining if I lived in Manhattan at that time!)…and return engagements of “Poltergeist,” “Rocky III,” “Annie” and “Gandhi.” Of course, there was the fantastic re-issue of “Lawrence Of Arabia” in 1989. There were a few in the 1990s, but few and far between.
In regards to “Mr. Matthau,” my apologies for misspelling his name!
Mikeoaklandpark wrote: If anybody knows how to start and online petition I would be willing to help out.
Has anyone in this newsgroup started one for the Astor Plaza? I’d be willing to start one.
In regards to “Eighty Days” winning Best Picture: One of the reviewers in the Los Angeles Times gave the new “80 Days” a raving review, while scathing the 1956 film. I don’t have the article in front of me as I write this, but she essentially called it overblown.
I think if this interviewer saw it in 1956 in Todd-AO at 30fps, she would’ve been impressed and very entertained. There are certain films that seem to play well only on the big screen, and this is one of them. Imagine seeing this widescreen film with all of the world locations Mike Todd took audiences to, a lighthearted story, and the cameos, I think she’d be one of the millions who saw this film and came away with a smile on her face. It was a film of its time.
Perhaps if Warner Bros. found it somehow financially feasible to produce a restoration for 70mm projection (30fps), audiences might get a kick out of seeing it properly. Heck, even “Hello, Dolly!” was very popular during its recent run here in Los Angeles. That’s a film I couldn’t sit through on television, but on the big screen in 70mm, it’s a lot of fun. Just seeing Walter Matthew ham it up and the cameo of Louis Armstrong is worth seeing this film. Even Babs is entertaining in this film.
Vito wrote: No one has made mention of the brave move Ron Howard made in filming “Far and Away” in 70mm with 6 track mag sound.
“Far And Away,” though not a great movie by any means, does have some spectacular 70mm type moments during the Oklahoma land rush scenes. And you’re correct, Vito, that it was a brave move by Ron Howard to shoot in 65mm, though, I think it was at the urging of the DP, Mikael Soloman (spelling might be off).
I’m sort of surprised this film and Sony’s “Hamlet” (1996) haven’t seen screenings here in the States. Perhaps “Far And Away” might be appreciated better today than in 1992. As for “Hamlet,” it’s a very good film and deserved a better release in 1996. It was shown in Los Angeles at the Royal on a rather small screen, then at Edwards Big Newport in Newport Beach, CA. Huge screen, but I felt the print was underserved by dim projection there.
I believe that “Hamlet” was shown at the Paris in Manhattan.
Rhett wrote: Well then America needs a 70MM ambassador to import these prints from Norway or Denmark or England or wherever all these 70mm prints are shown and bring them here. Geeze, they’re all shown overseas!!
I think one of the reasons that we don’t see more 70mm here in the States is that it can cost a pretty penny to ship those prints—plus you have to pay for insurance.
In England, they show a few films that we don’t get to see, like “Earthquake” and “The Longest Day.” But I guess I shouldn’t complain—LA has been lucky to get what we’ve gotten! Considering commecial 5-perf 70mm is virtually done for, we’ve been spoiled to get all of those prints listed above. And there are more that were shown in Hollywood since 1999. Heck, even the recent “Godzilla” ran in 70mm-DTS.
As a gentleman mentioned before, the AFI in Silver Springs looks to be the best bet for East Coast film fans to see films like these I listed above. If I recall, the AFI in Silver Springs even ran “Day Of Thunder” in 70mm. He also mentioned that “War And Peace” ran there. It ran at the American Cinematheque. Unfortunately, and I regret this, I decided not to see it—too long. Well that was a dumb decision! My collaborator, Mike Coate, saw it and said it was awesome.
Here’s a list of 35mm/70mm prints that have been restored and shown in Los Angeles and in some other cities, as well. This is from the top of my head, so I might be missing a few titles. This list also includes some titles restored in the 1990s and re-struck prints.
Columbia/Sony:
Lord Jim (70mm)
Lawrence Of Arabia (70mm)
Funny Girl (35mm)
In Cold Blood (35mm)
Becket (35mm, to be shown or was recently shown at the Academy in Beverly Hills)
Bridge On The River Kwai (35mm)
Bye, Bye Birdie (35mm)
20th Century Fox
Patton (70mm)
The Sound Of Music (70mm)
Those Magnificent Men In Their Flying Machines… (70mm)
Hello, Dolly! (70mm)
Disney
TRON (70mm)
Sleeping Beauty (70mm)
Swiss Family Robinson (35mm)
20000 Leagues Under The Sea (35mm)
Independent
Play Time (70mm)
Baraka (70mm)
This Is Cinerama (3-Strip Cinerama)
Universal
Spartacus (70mm)
Vertigo (70mm)
Warner Bros. and MGM
My Fair Lady (70mm)
Ryan’s Daughter (70mm; special print straight from the 65mm negative)
2001: A Space Odyssey (70mm)
It’s A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World (70mm)
How The West Was Won (3-Strip Cinerama)
RE: Around The World In 80s Days photo at www.in70mm.com
The photo was taken in Norway.
Rhett wrote: I would love to start some sort of organization to show 70MM flicks.
That would be a great organization. As you mentioned, money, contacts, etc. could be a “small” hurdle. Also, despite the number of new restorations of 70mm films, others seem to be hard to come by. There are some studios who will rent out 70mm prints to places like American Cinematheque. Columbia/Sony let them run a 70mm print of “Starman” in early 2002. It was in mint condition.
Rhett wrote: Oct. 2002 I saw the 40th Anniversary of Lawrence of Arabia.
Was the film a little grainy? The clips I’ve seen of this 40th Anniversary re-release were grainy/dupey.
Rhett: Around the World in 80 Days….it has been stated here that no 70MM prints were struck for it…but on the site in70mm.com there is a photo of the film showing on a screen?? Is this a 70MM print Bill??
My pal Thomas Hauerslev took that picture in 1995, but hasn’t gotten back to me where it was shown. My guess is that the 70mm print was shown at Bradford, England, during one of their Widescreen Weekends. I’ll post here with the definitive answer once I get it.
As far as I know, there was a 70mm print shown at a private screening in Los Angeles in 1999. I’ll try to clarify that, too.
Vincent wrote: Hell I would love to see anything on even a 60ft screen in NY.
Perhaps the Loew’s Jersey Theatre could, over time, get 70mm projection and show the restorations. As far as I know from postings on other sites devoted to film, I don’t believe the theatre is yet equipped to show 70mm. Anybody know? I haven’t found any references on their website as such.
RE Bill K’s quote: So why not invest a few extra dollars in shooting in 65mm, or even printing a few 70mm prints for those massive 80-foot screens?
And Vincent’s Response: On a previous posting somebody mentions 80 ft screens in NY. Where are they? I would love know.
Hi Vincent, I was speaking in general about the state of cinemas and lack of 70mm today. Some complexes in Southern California, at least when they first opened, boasted huge 80-ft. screens. I believe Pacific’s Winnetka Stadium 21 has at least one or two. The Irvine Spectrum 21, an Edwards theater, boasts at least two 80-foot screens in their “Chinese” and “Egyptian” auditoriums. I’ve heard two different specs on Edwards Newport (a.k.a. Big Newport) that their screen is between 70 and 75-feet. And I think that the Mann’s Chinese (Hollywood) and Mann’s Village (Westwood) have 70-ft. screens. These specs are from memory of newspaper ads and may vary. :)
Rhett wrote: What can we do here (East coast) to get these knuckleheads to keep 70MM alive??
Do you have a film society, like an American Cinematheque? The Cinematheque out here has presented a number of fine 35mm, 70mm and even some rarely seen widescreen films at the Hollywood Egyptian Theatre. Perhaps a film society in NYC could procure some 70mm prints of the newly restored classics. As for new 70mm, well…
There’s some kind of thought in the film business that 70mm is a cumbersome thing. But when I’ve listened to some DPs at various seminars, they’ve commented that the newer 65mm cameras are almost every bit as easy to use as their 35mm counterparts. The lighting set-ups are virtually identical and the cost isn’t as bad as some anti-70mm people might say. Considering it costs about $150-million to make and market a film today, shooting a handful of films in 65mm is nothing!
Rhett: I remember going to see Spartacus at the Ziegfeld in 91 in 70MM. I was told…“You have it on tape, why are you paying to go see it? Thetaer chains are run by ignorants or high schoolers who could care less, they just flip the switch.
So many people just don’t get it! Does the Ziegfeld still put on a great presentation? I know that some of the Westwood and Hollywood houses still care about quality presentation.
Scott wrote: One problem with IMAX is that it is a “large screen” format and not a “widescreen format”—The aspect ratio of IMAX is 1:37-1(the original standard pre-widescreen was 1:33-1). The only way you could show “widescreen” films on an IMAX screen is by letterboxing.
If I may, the approximate aspect ratio on IMAX is 1.44:1. And it’s true, if a director wishes to maintain the original widescreen aspect ratio on his film, the film does need to be letterboxed. But with “Apollo 13, ” and “Attack Of The Clones,” the films were cropped. “Apollo 13” was done in 1.66:1 (similar to Disney’s re-purposed animated films), and “Clones” was cropped to an unusal 1.81:1 ratio. Thus both films were letterboxed. With the tallness factor of an IMAX screen, the lettterboxing isn’t as bothersome.
Those digitally re-purposed films do look pretty good on the IMAX screen, though we’re still not getting true IMAX, or a true 35mm widescreen presentation.
Rhett wrote: “In my research, it’s amazing, all the "presentations” (for you Vincent) that played in 70MM."
Kind of ironic how the format has been shoved to the backburner of film history especially considering how popular the format was!
“It seems every big movie played in at least 1 or 2 theaters in NY or NJ in 70mm.”
And then some! Just wait until you see the 1980s lists of 70mm runs in the region. Pretty incredible.
“You know, it has me thinking…have we seen the demise of the 70MM presentaion??”
Unfortunately, I think it has been pretty well “put to bed.” It seems that those who make films and those who distribute them, but not all, are content with pleasing the masses. So that means that virtually every film has to have that same jerky, zooming editing style; virtually every film is a sequel; virtually every movie theater built nowadays is like the one down the street, etc. So why not invest a few extra dollars in shooting in 65mm, or even printing a few 70mm prints for those massive 80-foot screens? I’ve even recently seen some 24p High Definition video transferred to 70mm print stock and it looks very good! The same footage, digitally projected, didn’t look even close to the quality of the 70mm print.
I find it funny that almost $200-million can be spent to make a film and market it, but someone in the ranks of getting a film distributed gripes about the cost of a 70mm print! More money is spent on Brad Pitt’s hair gel than would be spent on a 70mm print or two.
We do have some current 70mm first run presentations today. “Harry Potter 3” just opened day-and-date in select IMAX screens. But this is neither true IMAX nor is it a blow-up. The film, from what I’ve heard, is being shown in widescreen and was digitally transfered to IMAX via the original digital files.
I find this 70mm presentation awkward. The film is shown on a huge screen, but it’s letterboxed. But the picture quality is very good. You gotta figure that those commercial complexes that invested a lot of money into building and maintaining an IMAX screen are struggling. They need to make money somehow, even if that means showing crummy “enhanced 35mm” prints or psuedo-IMAX.
I think it’s far less expensive to strike 5-perf 70mm prints of the film. And with today’s film stock, they would look very, very good.
“It’s also a damn shame that most of the 70mm prints have been destroyed. Wouldn’t it have been great if the prints were preserved and used for the home video DVD transfers?”
I think it’s a shame that a number of 65mm negatives might be rotting as we speak. But there have been a number of 65mm transfers to home video formats over the years. And kudos to 20th Century Fox for restoring “The Sound Of Music,” “Patton,” and “Those Magnificent Men In Their Flying Machines” and having the guts to strike new prints and showing them. Warners and Disney are also to be commended for striking 70mm prints of “It’s A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World,” and “Tron” and “Sleeping Beauty.”
I think it’s sad that NYC/NJ hasn’t had the opportunity to see some of these restored 70mm titles. I guarentee you that if The Ziegfeld ran a 70mm restrospective on these classics, they’d have sell-outs. Even people who don’t know much about film formats do notice the difference in the quality of a 70mm print compared to 35mm. They would line up to see these films on the big screen. I’ve seen this succeed here in L.A. at the American Cinematheque.
Thanks again for the kind words.
To Bill H. and Vincent:
Thanks for the kind words. And yes, it would be looking a gift horse in the mouth. :)
I don’t believe any Asbury Park engagements, at least during the roadshow era, were included in The New York Times. So as a result, additional research from other sources would be required in order to integrate that area’s engagements into our project. Our principal source of the info has been The New York Times.
We have a couple Asbury Park/Belmar/Neptune area 70mm-equipped theatres included in the theatre portion of our project (St, James in Asbury Park, Man Ray in Belmar….), but are debating whether or not they should stay since we’re undecided if we want to consider that area to be a part of the “New York” market.
I think it is reasonable to consider Atlantic City a separate market
entirely, and one we haven’t considered researching at this time.
It would be nice to cover some other major markets, like Boston, Washington D.C. and Philadelphia. But time contraints, as well as cost, limit us to select regions to research. Mike has had the opportunity to do some extensive traveling across the country, and has unearthed some excellent information on 70mm and 70mm-equipped theaters.
If you’re interested, we will eventually have Los Angeles, New York and Orange County (CA, and actually quite a sizable 70mm market) 70mm lists posted at …in70mm.com.
Again, thanks for the kind words and interest in our work.
Rhett wrote: I wish they had more about 70MM presentations from NY and NJ.
Rhett, I hope you and other fans of Cinema Treasures and 70mm will visit …in70mm.com in the coming month. Mike Coate and I have been compiling an engagement list of 70mm presentations in the Manhattan and New Jersey areas (Paramus, Upper Montclair and Cedar Grove) from the Roadshow Era to the Present. We’re closing in on the final years of our research.
Since this is a “work-in-progress,” we will, over time, attempt to compile further engagements, including those that may have played in New Jersey (as listed above), but may have not initially been advertised in the NY Times.
This project is an off-shoot of other lists we’ve compiled on 70mm engagements, including San Francisco, San Diego and Los Angeles (which will be posted soon).
As you know, New York was a big market for 70mm, therefore it took us some time to compile these engagements. We started this project back in July of 2003 and have done a week-by-week search of 70mm presentation in NYC and NJ. As you may suspect, it’s a time consuming project, and I say that in a positive way. Why would we do this? We did this not only because we’re fans of 70mm and the theaters those kind of films played in, but also as a historical document of this format. Hopefully you’ll be able to link those 70mm engagements with theaters listed on this site, as well.
Thanks to Bill Huelbig for pointing out my collaborator’s “Star Wars” articles on …in70mm.com. Michael Coate put a lot of time and research into this article. Hopefully you got a “kick” out of finding out which places showed the classic in 70mm. He also compiled a list of “The Empire Strikes Back,” “Alien” and “Close Encounters Of The Third Kind” 70mm engagements.
One of the important aspects about the phenomenon of “Star Wars” was the fact that its presentation in 70mm really set it apart from other films. It truly took the way audiences, for a time, experienced a movie. Certainly the Roadshows were on a higher level than their 35mm counterparts, but it was “Star Wars” in 70mm that introduced an new generation to better picture quality and super sound. So if you go through Mike’s list, I hope you can appreciate that a number of theaters upgraded their projection and sound equipment to “wow” audiences with this film. No longer was 70mm Six Track Stereo presentation just for musicals and epics; it was for exciting popcorn movies, too. Some exhibitors figured that great projection of 70mm and six track sound could bring in audiences and $$$$. Why can’t they figure that out nowadays?
From Vincent-Can you call Star Wars a 70MM masterpiece when it was not filmed as such? I think if I remember correctly in the late 70’s and 80’s there were many big films released as 70MM blow ups but they never look nearly as good as the real thing.
I think it’s safe to to say that as a 70mm presentation, “Star Wars” was superior to anything else in the market at the time. You got a bright and sharp picture image on the screen, not to mention the fantastic Six Track Dolby Stereo soundtrack. The also prompted many, many theaters to upgrade their projection and sound equipment over time. Sure, when you compare a blow-up to a true 65mm image, the 65mm image is clearly superior. But compared to what we get now, I’ll take a 70mm blow-up anytime.
I’ll agree with Rhett on “Far And Away.” Mikael Soloman’s cinematography is superb, but by shooting the film in foggy and dark locations, the film left most people asking, “What’s so special about 70mm?” But if you recall, when the Oklahoma scenes came up, the picture was awesome.
Bill H: Cherish those memories, because Star Wars: Episode III is on its way! :) I remember those feelings of excitement watching that original film. What a kick it was. Now I’m getting depressed! Another great theater is about to be closed. We don’t have 70mm presentation hardly anymore (except for revivals and IMAX DMR). And George is unleashing the last of a pretty underwhelming trilogy. Who said change was good?