http://www.tclchinesetheatres.com/portfolio-view/time-lapse-of-the-tcl-chinese-theatre-imax-renovation/ there was a lot done to the theater for the renovation
I went to see it (70mm Wonder Woman) in theater six got a great seat its like a screening room. It would be nice they ran it in the Dome for a couple of shows. I am okay with 70mm in the smaller theater I just sit closer to the screen
Star Wars was moved to a Mann theater in Hollywood and not the Cinerama. Sorcerer did play in the Chinese because it was previously booked and they had to play it. Mann wanted to keep Star Wars so they installed 70mm in a theater down the street and played Star Wars there until they could get rid of Sorcerer. This incident is why they built the twins. So in the future they could move a movie that wasn’t doing good business to one of the twins and keep the big house for the hit. Once Star Wars was back in the Chinese it stayed there for a record run. The twins are long gone demolished for the Hollywood Highland redo.
The square footage of the Chinese theater is extreme. It has changed over the years with the various modifications. Someone once estimated it to be around 500,000 cubic feet. Because of its size it was hard to get proper sound levels. The center channel high frequency horn would often fail from being over driven. The auditorium doesn’t look that big but it is an optical illusion. One time I chose to walk from the stage to the front during a power failure with no lights in the auditorium. My light was just absorbed by the darkness. It just doesn’t look as big as it is.
The screen is in an area that was once the stage. The stage is gone now. Partially removed for the Windjammer modification the remainder of the stage was removed for the IMAX modification. Two pillars in the front of the auditorium were also removed years ago for the Windjammer modification. The area these pillars were supporting dropped an inch or two when they were removed. These pillars matched the other pillars but were in front of the auditorium to the left and right of the stage. These pillars limited the screen size and were removed to install the huge Windjammer screen.
At one time there were two areas in the rear of the auditorium that was the nursery. The concession stand is new and keeps growing. When the Windjammer booth was removed and the projectors moved back upstairs the concession stand was enlarged. So over the years the Chinese has changed but still is huge.
I know the proscenium at the Chinese is around 100' and I think the IMAX screen is close to that at about 97' Not sure what size Loews Lincoln Square is. But size can vary the largest IMAX screen is in Australia
This has become the temple of film. I violated the sanctity by looking at my cell phone to check the time was threatened by customer and told never to come back. Had to get the manager to get this guy to calm down and go away. They only run film. Most of their patrons are serious fans of film.
A friend of mine went to see 2001 in 70mm on Friday. He told me that the print didn’t look new. It looked like an older print. Anyone know anything about this?
I just went to see La La Land in cinema 10 at the Arclight. After one hour I couldn’t stand it any more and left. It might have been enjoyable if the quality of the picture wasn’t so poor. Poor is an understatement it was unwatchable. The big joke at the beginning was the CinemaScope logo! A CinemaScope picture was bright and sharp. Not dim and fuzzy. Digital just looks like $hit. I know you people don’t get it. Maybe your vision isn’t what it used to be. Maybe you just don’t remember. The fact is when you blow up a low quality video it looks bad unless you are sitting in the back row of the theater. And at this point I don’t care if it is 2k 4k or 8k. 24FPS 48FPS 60FPS 120FPS (anything over 60 is a waste by the way). It doesn’t seem to matter. Digital looks great on my small screen. Looks great on a large screen TV. But when digital it is projected on a large screen it just looks bad. The bigger the screen the worse it looks. I walked out of Star Wars at an AMC because the presentation was horrid. Management apologized and refunded my money. So Chris “the days of film are over” well if that is true then most of the theaters will soon follow. The real sin is they had two film projectors in Cinema 10 and supposedly this was shot on film. But of course they probably went to digital to do the edit so there goes all the goodness of film.
Well adapt to the fact that film is the new vinyl!
I am a IMDB listed Director of photography so I do know a little about this.
For ten years Cinerama ran films that were just well done home movies. Boring. The three camera movies are only worth watching in the three projector format. The Seattle Cinerama does it. Some people just don’t get it film, when done right, looks better than digital! The resolution of film is much higher than digital. As for presentation; Star Wars at the Chinese in 70mm on Norelcos with 13.6 carbon arcs was brighter and sharper than the laser projection they have now. Three projector Cinerama was super sharp and super bright. I saw a a three projector presentation of How the West Was Won at the Dome. I sat in the Cinerama Zone. I was impressed. Yea there were the lines but it was clear and bright. It was also interesting to see the resolution drop when 65mm ultra-panavision footage was used. It was the first time I noticed grain. But the three camera footage show on three projectors is stunning.
The Dome management has a history of just not quite getting the point. Years ago they did a 25 year re-premier of It’s a Mad Mad Mad Mad World. The only print they could find was a 35mm anamorphic with optical sound that belonged to an archive and a pan and scan print used for television broadcast. They ran the archive print for the re-premier and the pan and scan print for a week. There were so many complaints and pissed off people the manager locked himself in the office and gave orders to refund anyone who complained. If the cheap bastards had just had the lab make a new print they could have run that for weeks with no complaints. Even now a 70mm print of Mad World continues to run in theaters.
I was even asked by someone while at the re-premier if these old negatives were even worth saving. Some people just don’t get it. Like that young executive that trashed years of old video instead of saving it.
If I am going to sit in a theater with old style seats it has to something special. I would have paid a few bucks to see that short film that was shot in three strip Cinerama. I can watch video at home or in a small theater with lounge chairs and drink service. Why haven’t they run a good Ultra Panavision print of The Hateful Eight at the Dome? Are they afraid it will look better than the video? Or have they just given up on film?
It’s sad that the Somerville Theater in Massachusetts can run reel to reel 70mm all formats on pristine Todd-AO projectors and then there is the Dome a theater that was designed to run 70mm. They can’t run reel to reel. I think they may still be able to run 70mm on a platter.
AMC theaters are notorious for having blown speakers and low light. The Sony projectors are the worst of the professional projectors. There is very little 4K product. It is AMC policy to set the fader at 5! How can you have good sound with a fader setting of 5?
Yes the Dome has its problems and they have done the best they can to deal with those problems. No matter what they do people will still complain.
The Seattle Cinerama has a much bigger screen with and even deeper curve the the Dome.
Yes the Warner would work in theory but they would never get the permits in time. They might as well just use the Shrine it has full concessions and can serve alcohol. It is a real theater. It would cost less to set up the Shrine and run it there then it would to refurbish the Warner. Besides The Shrine is huge they could hang a 90 or 100 foot screen in front of the proscenium or have a huge curved screen on stage. They are rigged to do that.
The Microsoft and the Dolby get outfitted for premiers and short movie runs on a regular basis. A screen and sound system is brought in installed and projectors are brought in just for a one off show. A new Dolby system was just installed in the Dolby just to run movies. Of course the stage at those venues is not as large as the Shrine but still better than any AMC theater.
I would put a huge screen in the Shrine drop in a couple of AAII Todd-AO projectors and run it there. That would be a road show presentation. It is right next to USC and close to the Metro and a grand old theater.
So for those of you who think the screen at the Charles was large you have never seen a large screen. The Astor screen was wall to wall and installed by Todd-AO.
The Cinema 57 was built as a twin and was long and narrow like a bowling alley. The sound there was always bad and you had to sit real close to the screen to hear stereo. The left and right speakers were over the exits so you could hear stereo sound beyond the first few rows. What they did to it later I have no idea.
The screen at the Charles was not that big either. Ben Sack liked large screen but when the company got taken over the new management did not like large screens. The screen at the Astor was much larger than the one at the Charles and the screen at the Beacon Hill was also larger than the one at the Charles.
You better hurry and get you tickets it will only be at the Dome for four days.
There is a large concession stand where once there was seating and two columns have been removed.
http://www.tclchinesetheatres.com/portfolio-view/time-lapse-of-the-tcl-chinese-theatre-imax-renovation/ there was a lot done to the theater for the renovation
I went to see it (70mm Wonder Woman) in theater six got a great seat its like a screening room. It would be nice they ran it in the Dome for a couple of shows. I am okay with 70mm in the smaller theater I just sit closer to the screen
Just saw The Dark Crystal (1982) in 70mm An original print discovered in Europe
Star Wars was moved to a Mann theater in Hollywood and not the Cinerama. Sorcerer did play in the Chinese because it was previously booked and they had to play it. Mann wanted to keep Star Wars so they installed 70mm in a theater down the street and played Star Wars there until they could get rid of Sorcerer. This incident is why they built the twins. So in the future they could move a movie that wasn’t doing good business to one of the twins and keep the big house for the hit. Once Star Wars was back in the Chinese it stayed there for a record run. The twins are long gone demolished for the Hollywood Highland redo.
The square footage of the Chinese theater is extreme. It has changed over the years with the various modifications. Someone once estimated it to be around 500,000 cubic feet. Because of its size it was hard to get proper sound levels. The center channel high frequency horn would often fail from being over driven. The auditorium doesn’t look that big but it is an optical illusion. One time I chose to walk from the stage to the front during a power failure with no lights in the auditorium. My light was just absorbed by the darkness. It just doesn’t look as big as it is.
The screen is in an area that was once the stage. The stage is gone now. Partially removed for the Windjammer modification the remainder of the stage was removed for the IMAX modification. Two pillars in the front of the auditorium were also removed years ago for the Windjammer modification. The area these pillars were supporting dropped an inch or two when they were removed. These pillars matched the other pillars but were in front of the auditorium to the left and right of the stage. These pillars limited the screen size and were removed to install the huge Windjammer screen.
At one time there were two areas in the rear of the auditorium that was the nursery. The concession stand is new and keeps growing. When the Windjammer booth was removed and the projectors moved back upstairs the concession stand was enlarged. So over the years the Chinese has changed but still is huge.
I know the proscenium at the Chinese is around 100' and I think the IMAX screen is close to that at about 97' Not sure what size Loews Lincoln Square is. But size can vary the largest IMAX screen is in Australia
This has become the temple of film. I violated the sanctity by looking at my cell phone to check the time was threatened by customer and told never to come back. Had to get the manager to get this guy to calm down and go away. They only run film. Most of their patrons are serious fans of film.
Yea the volume on the trailers to loud and the volume on the feature to low.
Oh the lights in the ceiling are nothing like they should be at one time they were adjustable blue red yellow
A friend of mine went to see 2001 in 70mm on Friday. He told me that the print didn’t look new. It looked like an older print. Anyone know anything about this?
I just went to see La La Land in cinema 10 at the Arclight. After one hour I couldn’t stand it any more and left. It might have been enjoyable if the quality of the picture wasn’t so poor. Poor is an understatement it was unwatchable. The big joke at the beginning was the CinemaScope logo! A CinemaScope picture was bright and sharp. Not dim and fuzzy. Digital just looks like $hit. I know you people don’t get it. Maybe your vision isn’t what it used to be. Maybe you just don’t remember. The fact is when you blow up a low quality video it looks bad unless you are sitting in the back row of the theater. And at this point I don’t care if it is 2k 4k or 8k. 24FPS 48FPS 60FPS 120FPS (anything over 60 is a waste by the way). It doesn’t seem to matter. Digital looks great on my small screen. Looks great on a large screen TV. But when digital it is projected on a large screen it just looks bad. The bigger the screen the worse it looks. I walked out of Star Wars at an AMC because the presentation was horrid. Management apologized and refunded my money. So Chris “the days of film are over” well if that is true then most of the theaters will soon follow. The real sin is they had two film projectors in Cinema 10 and supposedly this was shot on film. But of course they probably went to digital to do the edit so there goes all the goodness of film.
Well adapt to the fact that film is the new vinyl!
I am a IMDB listed Director of photography so I do know a little about this.
For ten years Cinerama ran films that were just well done home movies. Boring. The three camera movies are only worth watching in the three projector format. The Seattle Cinerama does it. Some people just don’t get it film, when done right, looks better than digital! The resolution of film is much higher than digital. As for presentation; Star Wars at the Chinese in 70mm on Norelcos with 13.6 carbon arcs was brighter and sharper than the laser projection they have now. Three projector Cinerama was super sharp and super bright. I saw a a three projector presentation of How the West Was Won at the Dome. I sat in the Cinerama Zone. I was impressed. Yea there were the lines but it was clear and bright. It was also interesting to see the resolution drop when 65mm ultra-panavision footage was used. It was the first time I noticed grain. But the three camera footage show on three projectors is stunning.
The Dome management has a history of just not quite getting the point. Years ago they did a 25 year re-premier of It’s a Mad Mad Mad Mad World. The only print they could find was a 35mm anamorphic with optical sound that belonged to an archive and a pan and scan print used for television broadcast. They ran the archive print for the re-premier and the pan and scan print for a week. There were so many complaints and pissed off people the manager locked himself in the office and gave orders to refund anyone who complained. If the cheap bastards had just had the lab make a new print they could have run that for weeks with no complaints. Even now a 70mm print of Mad World continues to run in theaters.
I was even asked by someone while at the re-premier if these old negatives were even worth saving. Some people just don’t get it. Like that young executive that trashed years of old video instead of saving it.
If I am going to sit in a theater with old style seats it has to something special. I would have paid a few bucks to see that short film that was shot in three strip Cinerama. I can watch video at home or in a small theater with lounge chairs and drink service. Why haven’t they run a good Ultra Panavision print of The Hateful Eight at the Dome? Are they afraid it will look better than the video? Or have they just given up on film?
The people who run the Aero get it.
Cinerama Extravaganza what a laugh both of those showings are digital not Cinerama; unless they are using three digital projectors.
It’s sad that the Somerville Theater in Massachusetts can run reel to reel 70mm all formats on pristine Todd-AO projectors and then there is the Dome a theater that was designed to run 70mm. They can’t run reel to reel. I think they may still be able to run 70mm on a platter.
Jseditor:
AMC theaters are notorious for having blown speakers and low light. The Sony projectors are the worst of the professional projectors. There is very little 4K product. It is AMC policy to set the fader at 5! How can you have good sound with a fader setting of 5?
Yes the Dome has its problems and they have done the best they can to deal with those problems. No matter what they do people will still complain.
The Seattle Cinerama has a much bigger screen with and even deeper curve the the Dome.
I saw the 70mm version of the Hateful Eight at the Landmark and the presentation was just bad. More and more I just watch movies at home.
I saw a show at the Chinese that was digital laser and I was not impressed. Digital still can’t beat good 70mm.
They ran an advanced screening in 70mm and the projector broke. I sounds like they need a chief projectionist who knows what he is doing.
I spoke to management at The Arclight and nothing is locked down and they are still in negotiations regarding The Hateful Eight.
but the Shrine is not available as it has a band booked new years eve
The Shrine is the largest theater in this country! It is bigger than Radio City!
http://cinematreasures.org/theaters/27701
Yes the Warner would work in theory but they would never get the permits in time. They might as well just use the Shrine it has full concessions and can serve alcohol. It is a real theater. It would cost less to set up the Shrine and run it there then it would to refurbish the Warner. Besides The Shrine is huge they could hang a 90 or 100 foot screen in front of the proscenium or have a huge curved screen on stage. They are rigged to do that.
The Microsoft and the Dolby get outfitted for premiers and short movie runs on a regular basis. A screen and sound system is brought in installed and projectors are brought in just for a one off show. A new Dolby system was just installed in the Dolby just to run movies. Of course the stage at those venues is not as large as the Shrine but still better than any AMC theater.
I would put a huge screen in the Shrine drop in a couple of AAII Todd-AO projectors and run it there. That would be a road show presentation. It is right next to USC and close to the Metro and a grand old theater.
So for those of you who think the screen at the Charles was large you have never seen a large screen. The Astor screen was wall to wall and installed by Todd-AO.
The Cinema 57 was built as a twin and was long and narrow like a bowling alley. The sound there was always bad and you had to sit real close to the screen to hear stereo. The left and right speakers were over the exits so you could hear stereo sound beyond the first few rows. What they did to it later I have no idea.
The screen at the Charles was not that big either. Ben Sack liked large screen but when the company got taken over the new management did not like large screens. The screen at the Astor was much larger than the one at the Charles and the screen at the Beacon Hill was also larger than the one at the Charles.