Showing 2,026 - 2,050 of 2,322 comments
Some 1953 views of the Oriental and several other loop theatres are available at Real Chicago: Chicago in the Fifties. I believe the current marquee is essentially modeled after this one. Recently, due to the open-ended run of Wicked there, the marquee bulbs have been replaced by green ones! It’s a neat effect, cute.
Some 1953 views of the United Artists and several other loop theatres are available at Real Chicago: Chicago in the Fifties. Interesting to see the old marquee, before the more familiar huge wraparound. It must have been a real challenge to make a marquee work around a curved corner entrance.
Here is another lobby view
Here is a nice July 1941 view under the marquee from the Library of Congress
I believe this July 1940 Library of Congress image is of the Monroe.
Further photos and information are available through a search at http://memory.loc.gov
Here is a 1970s photo from the library of congress
Here is a December 8, 2004 photo of Jay Warren at the Pickwick Console
This would be very bad, and I hope the antitrust authorities react properly.
“In St. Petersburg, Fla., however, the c. 1948 Royal Theatre, a designated local landmark, is undergoing a $600,000 renovation funded by block grants and private donations. Fitted with a marquee, the theater was one of the city’s few movie houses for African-Americans. "The community still fondly recalls going to the Royal with their soon-to-be husbands and wives on dates,” says Rick Smith, the city’s preservation planner. “So it has as much a social and cultural affiliation as an architectural one.”"
It looks like somebody either reopened it or tried to as the ‘Cinadome’ (sp). I can’t say it looks like they tried too hard.
Well, for one thing, there is no November election. For another, if there were, petitions would be due the first week of July. And even if there were, it would likely be too late. But, you, know, other than that, capital plan! Where’s your documentation? Where’s your referendum? Schools and Libraries occasionally appear in a position on the ballots because they are entirely funded by the taxpayers, although they do not always and do not require approval by the electorate. Are you proposing that every single project funded by a municipality come to public vote? Good luck with that!
I’m a college student, but I am involved with the Des Plaines Theatre.
I don’t see any references to sucessful projects on the site (I see you’ve updated it), which was what was in question. These are the only references I noted: “GVI currently has projects across the country and runs theatres in Havana and Pittsfield.” “GVI has been involved in several historic theatre projects across the country.” This is your opportunity to defend yourself; you’ve had a lot of negative things said about you here and in the press. This is your chance to show us what you’ve accomplished. I see you have a photo of the New Regal on the site; were you involved with it? I think your business plan has a lot of appeal and potential, and I wish you and the theatres you work with the greatest of success, but based on what i’ve seen from the public view of the Uptown, Uptown-Broadway, Portage, Sky Club, and Wheaton Grand, I, for one, would be hesitant to work with GVI. Of course, though, i’d love to be proven wrong.
“One only needs to see that a whopping 60 people showed up at a rally to save the theatre…from a town of 40,000+ people.”
Okay, Mr. Concerned Taxpayer. Let’s see how big of a rally you can get together in one week. We’ll see how many people you can contact, how many are willing to simply stand around in support. It’s not easy, and it has nothing to do with the size of the town. It’s absolutely ridiculous to suggest that there are 60 supporters because that’s how many showed up. Let’s say this were some popular 20-screen megaplex that suddenly decided it would close. Out of the thousand or so patrons daily, how many do you think would feel motivated to come to a rally for it? Not many. It’s about publicity. This theatre has been closed for years. There is probably a huge chunk of the population unaware of its existence.
I have a challenge for you, Concerned Taxpayer. Let’s see you get a rally organized for NEXT Saturday, same place, to celebrate the decision to destroy the theatre. Let’s see how many people YOU turn out. Then we can see which side really has more support, at least by your reasoning.
More information ofn the Dekalb from Northern Illinois Univerity
As the sign (now gone) from the front notes, this was used as a filming location in The Color Of Money during its billiard days. I believe it is to be converted to a bar; the interior is entirely gutted.
Well, yeah, exactly, tradition should be preserved, that’s the whole point of theatre restoration. Otherwise, just go ahead and build a new theatre. I certainly have no problem with corporate sponsorship, it’s when corporate ego overtakes the focus of the theatre that it’s problematic. With the Palace and Oriental, the original names maintain the focus- nobody calls it the Ford Center, and I don’t think many call it the Cadillac. They were good comprimises between history and modern economic reality. If you refer to them as Palace, or Oriental, people know what you mean; it would be nice to have the Majestic name known again. But go ahead and let them name it Lasalle Bank Theatre for now; with the way banks are these days, odds are good that it will be something else in 10 years, and maybe the proper name will return then.
The lobby is actually intact in the center storefront. And the building to the rear is the former stage.
Well, first off, Wrigley was known as Weeghman Park when it opened in 1916 until 1920 when the Wrigley family bought the Cubs; it had this name until 1926 when it was renamed in honor of Wrigley. What we would find objectionable would be if it was renamed Chicago Tribune Park, since they own the Cubs now. So that example really doesn’t hold. Lasalle Bank doesn’t even own the theatre.
We all understand the reasoning behind selling naming rights, as it’s a lucrative business; two of Chicago’s other centers are the Cadillac Palace (originally New Palace) and Ford Center for the Performing Arts Oriental Theatre (Oriental Theatre). These are okay, because they respect the historical names of the theatre. Corporate sponsorship has become a necessary evil. It crosses the line, however, when it does not respect the historic name of the theatre. If you are restoring the rest of the theatre to its original state, why not also restore the name? If LaSalle Bank owned the theatre, as the Shuberts did, sure. But the name Majestic was chosen to reflect the palatial character of the theatre; it was lost when it was renamed Shubert. The Oriental or Palace might not have as much impact if they did not have these names reinforcing the nature of the architecture.
I can’t see what this has to do with liberalism or socialism, and it’s not a question of the theatre being in danger of demolition. It’s a question of preservation; if you’re going to restore it to its former glory, then do it.
Here is an early Decorators Supply Company photo of the Revelry
Here is an article on the Shubert project as well as the Chicago theater district at large.
Here is a 1949 photo of the Chicago and State-Lake by Stanley Kubrick
From Russell Phillips' Galleries:
A stunning auditorium view of the United Artists, 1985. Such a shame, it looks in good shape.