Pacific 1-2-3

6433 Hollywood Boulevard,
Los Angeles, CA 90028

Unfavorite 54 people favorited this theater

Showing 126 - 150 of 384 comments

BhillH20 on April 28, 2008 at 2:29 pm

How many recent views can you possible show?

William on April 28, 2008 at 2:18 pm

When I ran the Hollywood Pacific and other theatres on Hollywood Boulevard all the trees were maintained well along the blvd. The last time I was there it looked so bad that they have let them get that bad.

Twistr54 on April 28, 2008 at 1:42 pm

When I lived there in 1981, those nasty trees were all trimmed in a cone shape and well cared for, the whole length of the Boulevard, Graumans to the Pantages, and past to the east.
When I was there in 2001, they looked as if they had not seen a trim in 20 years, it was a sad look for the Boulevard. In fornt of the Pacific and Fox. Shabby and overgrown. The Vouge marquee was mostly hidden behind a large over growth.

Bway on April 28, 2008 at 10:51 am

There’s those ridiculous trees in front of the marquee again! What were those tree plansters thinking!

HowardBHaas on April 26, 2008 at 6:55 pm

Happy Birthday to the Warner Bros. Hollywood Theater, many happy returns, and let’s hope she will be opened to the public again, eventually!

BhillH20 on April 26, 2008 at 5:30 pm

On This Date, April 26, 1928, 80 Years Ago Today, The Warner Bros. Hollywood Theater Opened Its Doors For Business.

stevebob on April 24, 2008 at 9:41 pm

I know that civic and cultural groups responsible for local signage can’t be expected to have expert knowledge of cinematic history or effective usage of punctuation. Nevertheless, the term “Warner Pacific Theatre” in the photos just posted by hollywood90038 strikes me as bizarre.

This venue has had several names over the years, but Warner Pacific wasn’t one of them!

theatregurl on April 19, 2008 at 12:09 pm

Does anyone have pictures of other places/offices in the building? The dressing rooms, Jack Warners office, screening rooms, the radio station (does this room/office still exist?), etc. Still hoping I could win the lottery and invest in the restoration of the theatre!!

kencmcintyre on April 16, 2008 at 5:42 pm

Here is an interesting view from the LA Times site. The photo is from 2004:

Bway on March 30, 2008 at 10:47 am

Thank you so much Ken for posting all these photos you did on all the theaters you did yesterday.

kencmcintyre on March 30, 2008 at 8:50 am

Thanks. I wasn’t around in the glory days, so is the best I can do.

Twistr54 on March 30, 2008 at 8:19 am

Not living in Hollywood any longer, I appreciate any (current, past) photos. Thank you !!

haineshisway on March 29, 2008 at 10:05 pm

I know I only speak for myself, but really, those current photos turn my stomach. Can’t anyone post photos from the glory days of the theater, instead of these pathetic gated delapitated pictures from now?

kencmcintyre on March 22, 2008 at 11:38 am

I guess that’s a general question. I’ve always linked directly to the LAPL site, as far as I recall. If there was an exception, there must have been some specific reason.

kencmcintyre on March 22, 2008 at 11:19 am

OK, I’m judging. I linked directly to the LAPL site, as you did. Since we both posted the same link, I’d be curious to know what point you are trying to make.

kencmcintyre on March 21, 2008 at 7:12 pm

Here is a 1963 photo from the LA Public Library:

Twistr54 on March 20, 2008 at 6:19 am

This ‘church’ is in the heart of Hollywood, in a Hollywood Movie Palace, what do they expect?, No tourists? They should move to Bakersfield to cut out the tourist traffic.
I have always been wry of these pop up churches anyway.
I bet the next time they will have you bite the head off a live chicken.:)
Long live the Warner Pacific.

dave-bronx™ on March 19, 2008 at 6:36 pm

Perhaps you would be more cordially received if you first offer a contribution of $10 or so to the church in return for your being allowed to admire their facility. Churches usually operate on a shoe string budget, and, unless they are conducting human sacrifices I would think they would welcome a few more dollars in the collection plate in exchange for a peek at their place.

kencmcintyre on March 19, 2008 at 6:22 pm

I think the horse has been beaten enough. Back to the theater.

KJB2012 on March 19, 2008 at 6:15 pm

At the risk of being “stoned to death” by the rightous, let me say this: Churches like St Patricks in NYC or St Peter’s in Rome are “real” churches. The “Dr” Gene Scott’s of this world do not run real churches. Just watch the TV and send money. So it is no wonder they wanted you leave. Had you slipped them a $100, praise the Lord they would have taken you on a “soul saving tour” of the place.

stevebob on March 19, 2008 at 2:45 pm

Perhaps the difference in hospitality is rooted in whether a building’s original intended function was as a house of worship.

In a theater-cum-church, the architecture is overtly secular, after all. Maybe the operators think it’s profane to admire “godless” decoration for its own sake in a place they now consider to be their sacred space.

In places like St. Pats, on the other hand, even camera-toting atheists are immersed in images and symbols of religious belief. Even if visitors don’t share that faith, it’s inescapable that the objects of their interest and admiration were inspired by religious devotion and embody it — and this scenario is apparently far less threatening.

kencmcintyre on March 19, 2008 at 2:36 pm

If I were to keep a running count, I have been ejected from the Lincoln and the State, both in Los Angeles.

markinthedark on March 19, 2008 at 2:27 pm

If I were a church proprietor I would welcome anyone, theatre buff or no, and try to get them to join and tithe. We have to remember I ran into the security guard, not the propietor

Life's Too Short
Life's Too Short on March 19, 2008 at 2:20 pm

I think most tourists in converted movie palaces are theatre architecture fans.

Some church proprietors might be averse to the theatre fan’s mindset. I.E. “I hope someday these church guys will leave so that movies and live entertainment can prevail here again.”

That is definitely the way I think every time I see a grand 1920’s auditorium with a giant cross on the stage, and I’m sure that I am not alone.

If I were a church proprietor and heard someone make comments to this effect in my building I wouldn’t be thrilled.

People who tour the churches of Europe are there to take in the atmosphere of an age-old religious site, possibly associated with their personal faith. So the same conflict does not exist.

Keep in mind that I am only offering a theory, and not defending anyone’s actions.