Showing 2,026 - 2,050 of 2,123 comments
Here is a July 22, 1966 sidewalk view of the Paris from the Cushman collection
And here is another, closer one. Both from the Charles Cushman collection.
Here is a Dec 3, 1951 photo of the Grand and Paramount marquees at night
Here is a photo of the Fine Arts as the Studebaker/World Playhouse from the Charles Cushman collection, May 26, 1963
A photo featuring the marquee of the Stuart is available here as part of the Charles Cushman collection.
Here is a photo of the World from April 1957, from the Charles Cushman collection.
Here is a May 11, 1949 photo of the Garrick freom the Charles Cushman collection
Here is a photo of the Vendome shortly prior to its demolition.
View link Here’s an Oct 1944 photo of the Chicago from the Cushman collection with the vertical painted blue. I don’t know why…
It’s just unfortunate that there’s no place like this for such places. They certainly have the same kind of architectual merit, and the same sort of escapist quality. After all, the Schubert/Majestic is on here, and I really don’t think that it qualifies, i’m not even sure it’s ever played film. I agree that they don’t really qualify, but it seems a shame
Yeah, I sort of wish we could list non-cinematic theatres on this site. It seems a shame to not have, say, the Chicago Auditorium on here. And there’s another gray area- the Auditorium did have the second largest theatre organ at one time.
I went there for the first time yesterday, and i’ll never go again. Half the sidelights in the 300-some seat I was in were burnt out, and the print was absolutely abysmal at no more than 2 weeks old. It was stretched on the pletter from start to finish, so every frame had horizontal scratches and vertical scratches. The stretching also made the audio horrible, it had static on everything. And on top of all that, it was slightly off focus. Just awful. Plus a red exit sign right next to the screen. The only kind words I have for it are that they didn’t show a slideshow before the 15 minutes of commercials, and the seats were at least halfway comfortable. The lobby did look art deco though- is it certain that they demolished both the orginal lobby and auditorium? The three-floor layout seems fairly consistent. All in all though, the exterior is the only worthwhile part of this theater. I want my 9.50 back.
The Oscar site indicates Kodak’s capacity as 3500
And your comments comparing to the Genesee simply don’t ring true- a 600 seat theatre is inevitably going to stay much closer to budget than one four times its size. It also is inevitably going to draw a completely different type of use than a 2400 seat venue; it would in fact be much easier to keep booked because there are many more events and types of events that can draw a few hundred people than events large enough to fill 2400 seats in the suburbs. Restoration arguments are likewise unfair- the Genesee went over budget because of the scope of the project. The DuPage doesn’t have all that much to be repaired, and there’s certainly no demolition and expansion to include in restoration.
I promise you that if the DuPage falls, Lombard will regret it. Clearly, if the problem is “the money isn’t there”, the logical next step is to wait for it to come. Money can come, but once the building is gone, it’s not coming back. And, looking at the opponent’s own finances page, only $1.7 million of the $4.6 million in public funds comes from TIFs; the rest is money earmarked for projects precisely like this.
This Daily Herald article covers the reopening and includes a wonderful photo of the new marquee
So did they just rename it for Kitch value or what?
Now, before you go back to pointing at the Gennessee as a warning sign, which seems to be one of your main arguments, why not consider wheter what you are saying is true? Is it in fact true that because one somewhat nearby theatre has gone over budget and hasn’t yet found its programming niche, that all theatres of all sizes in all communities must therefore be failures, if city-owned? Before jumping to any further conclusions, I suggest you investigate more than one example. Here, I even spent a couple minutes actually using the valuable resources of this site to find a few for you to look at. These are just a few examples of city-owned theatres.
Your arguments may be able to sway public opinion, but if you think that you can come to a community of people who care about and have knowledge about theatres and decieve us, you’re sorely mistaken.
Because certainly, all this negativity and lack of imagination could in no way affect their chances of success. Look. You go on and on about how the DuPage supporters didn’t have the money, and couldn’t do what they were trying to do. But with constant detractors like you, how can they possibly expect to raise money? It’s this kind of negative NIMBYism that keeps people from taking action in the first place. If people start thinking there’s no reason for them to contribute, that their effort will be hopeless, they’re not going to try to make something of it. Projects like this can only succeed if people approach the situation optimistically. It’s hard enough trying to preserve a building in the first place without an entire organization working against you. Let’s not even go into the practice of registering a similar domain name to the real website, or the way TIFs are actually used (hmm… Chicago used a TIF for its Theatre district, didn’t it? Somehow I don’t think that ticket sales bring all that much cash flow into city hall… but they couldn’t possibly know what they’re talking about) Don’t go around hailing yourself as some sort of heroic protector of the helpless taxpayer. There’s already enough people unwilling to pay a cent more that won’t directly help them- why don’t you take up the cause of the elderly paying for schools as part of their taxes? They certainly don’t go to school; why should they have to pay?
I don’t know… but I certainly agree that we should save some! After all, so many are gone already that we should try to save the few that are left. I wouldn’t say it’s so much like trying to drive a Model T down the Kennedy as it is to say, driving a Dusenberg down the Kennedy instead of a Honda- certainly not the most modern way, nor the most economical, but overall a vastly superior experience.
Since the photo was taken (April 2000) the Arrow has been demolished and a new building stands in its place.
R&R had a few earlier theaters, like the Al Ringling and Bryn Mawr, and one of the brothers worked on the Shubert/Majestic. It was the second B&K/R&R collaboration though, after the Central Park.
Firm should be Betts & Holcomb.
Bryan, i’m not sure if you noticed but the photos on the cinematour site are somewhat newer, it looks like the marquee’s been painted (rather less attractively). It’s a little too… ketchup and mustard for my taste. It looks from your picture that some paint was desperately needed at the time.
Hm… from a business standpoint, which movie theater in an ethnically diverse area will do better? One that shows movies catering to the two largest groups, or one? Which group is larger, the xenophobes who are afraid of words they don’t understand, or the minority with no alternative venue. Gee… this is a tricky one.
And isn’t it simply appalling how opera houses are now projecting subtitles for their operas? If you want to understand opera, you should learn the language!