is there an Internet company site to Odeon cinemas in the US? In the US, Cineplex Odeon merged into Loews, and then the combined company merged into AMC. Many existing theaters are now AMC Loews, and new theaters are AMC, but no Odeon.
I’m guessing the lease doesn’t say “If, I, the landlord, wish to sell the property, the lease is over” just as it doesn’t say “I, the tenant, have the right to transfer the lease to any other tenant without asking permission of the landlord”
In other words, Landmark was equally happy to walk away.
By the way, thanks for all the appreciation you have for this Art Deco gem & for photographing it.
Ok, but a lease means the tenant had a right to stay for 4 years. A tenant who wants to stay because it is making money doesn’t think “oh, better go, landlord doesn’t want me anymore” or “I will make the landlord happy & leave” Right?
The theater page may not be accurate, but somebody stated that Landmark’s lease had a few more years to run. IF that’s the case, then it sounds like a mutual decision with Landmark happy to depart.
There’s no mystery there, Roadshow, click on my name. I am a member of the Los Angeles Conservancy as well as the Theatre Historical Society of America, and a frequent contributor to these pages. I’ve been to almost every historic theater in Los Angeles.
Some of you actually did made snide comments at the insider who said months ago that the theater was going to be demolished. Then, some of you focussed on what classic films could be shown at midnight to the oh so few people who attended. The handwriting was on the wall months ago…but…
Doesn’t actually matter- the National wasn’t going to continue for movies. That’s not what I wish- Mark is right, it is a prefectly designed auditorium.
We all want historic theaters to survive. I agree that the National is worthwhile to consider for historic designation. If it got it though, expecting movies to resume is truly a longshot. Look at the Villa in Salt Lake City, selling rugs.
Of course, if you have a meal & drink movie exhibitor willing to make a serious bid to buy or lease, that would be interesting.
Nothing has changed in the last few years!
Regardless of what you may have heard from whoever, once designated, buildings stay protected.
Also, when a major chain departs operating a moviehouse & an indie takes over, and has a manager barely out of school, and arthouse films that can’t fill 10% of the house start to appear….and people who know make it clear that the theater is going to be demolished….why sit around believing the theater has been saved?
Well, now the wool is pulled from eyes, and the interior is being gutted? Is that correct?
Even if the exterior of the National got designated, the interior would be a retail store or restaurant or something. Does that please people?
Here’s what is realistic:
Save the South Pasadena Rialto for entertainment.
Save the exterior (and maybe cinema use) of the NuWilshire.
Save the Village & Bruin, for which you have 3 or fewer years to do.
the National for films is done.
Roadshow, let me repeat, one more time: landmark protection in LA is permanent, NOT only for one year.
The Carthay Circle, if demolished around 1970, might have been a bit early for any city to designate as historic a movie palace. Few American movie palaces were “saved” and reused for other uses before then. No LA movie palace (including the RKO Hillstreet and Metropolitan/Paramount downtown) seems missed as much as the Carthay Circle.
Having spoken with the LA Conservancy and the National Trust for Historic Preservation, I must disagree with the Oct 29 statement by Roadshow that there’s no longterm legal protection of buildings designated historic in Los Angeles. In some other states, cities don’t have such protection, but they do in Los Angeles. That doesn’t mean that any legal system is perfect. It does mean that in general, buildings designated historic stay.
That said, the National hasn’t been designated as historic, so doesn’t have any protection.
Nushboy, if you aren’t going to send them at cinematour, you could set up a free flickr.com website and post the photos (or the best of them) there. Then, you could link your flickr gallery with a post here, and everybody could see them.
Because Disney presents some live entertainment? because there’s a pipe organ at El Capitan? Because El Cap has gorgeous ornate decor that’s very exciting to tourists? Because El Cap is near the Chinese Theatre so lots of tourists find it convenient?
I really wish things were otherwise, and movies were showcased in sngle screens rather than being released on billions of movie screens at one time.
A further comment: you don’t need a wealthy man. Disney lavishly restored the El Capitan and redid the Crest (Westwood). A nonprofit reopened the Egyptian. Between private & nonprofit operators, countless other historic cinema treasures show movies full time or sometime in Los Angeles, more than anywhere else in the US.
What is needed is sufficient audience. And, if that’s not there- as obvious for a long time at the National, movies cease.
Roadshow, as to your 12:37 PM post, the LA theater comparable to the Seattle Cinerama is not the National, but the Cinerama Dome in LA, which has been saved, regardless of the flaws you see there. That’s the theater with 3 projector capacity to show Cinerama. Cinerama movies are in the WB library? Presumably, you wouldn’t be suggesting presentation of non-Cinerama films using 3 projectors or installation of 3 projectors & curved screen at the National?
Also, for an entire month, Close Encounters had an exclusive at the Ziegfeld. It was not in expanded release until December 14. Because of multiplexes and pirating, month long exclusives of mainstream movies don’t exist anymore. The Ziegfeld would do a lot better if they did!
M Horner, your excellent analysis needs to also include the Pacific (Warner) in Hollywood. LA moviegoing earlier moved to Hollwyood from even more lavish, expensive, marble & gilt movie palaces of downtown (Orpheum, State, Los Angeles, United Artists, Million Dollar and others).
At the same 1100 seat size as the (Westwood) National, the Ziegfeld is privately owned and leased to Clearview. It continues to show movies, but it isn’t “saved” in some long term way. For new movies, its audiences is too little, because it doesn’t usually have a first run exclusive.
I prefer spending my money & time on scope films, but I seem to recall reading that moe than 80% of films are flat. So, why should it be important to this website that the screens be constant height rather than max size for all those flat films? There’s probably even more arthouse films that are flat……
and, in general, as is said again & again, this website stands for all cinemas, not only historic single screen movie theaters.
Not to detract from the purpose of this news, but the intro has me thinking that if we are talking about open daily as a moviehouse, and currently seating more than 1000, and not considering a theater on an island, then there would be at least 3 still open: Mann’s Grauman’s Chinese, Mann’s , and El Capitan. Or, if “big screen” means mega sized, then I guess El Cap drops out though it is plenty large.
is there an Internet company site to Odeon cinemas in the US? In the US, Cineplex Odeon merged into Loews, and then the combined company merged into AMC. Many existing theaters are now AMC Loews, and new theaters are AMC, but no Odeon.
Somewhere online says “Blade Runner, the Final Cut” is a 2 week engagement.
There’s no movie listed online at AMC website for this Wednesday.
Perhaps the premiere of “Lions for Lambs” or “No Country for Old Men”?
Where is this “fact” from?
My copy of this Marquee (2nd Q 2007)arrived in today’s mail.
I’m guessing the lease doesn’t say “If, I, the landlord, wish to sell the property, the lease is over” just as it doesn’t say “I, the tenant, have the right to transfer the lease to any other tenant without asking permission of the landlord”
In other words, Landmark was equally happy to walk away.
By the way, thanks for all the appreciation you have for this Art Deco gem & for photographing it.
Ok, but a lease means the tenant had a right to stay for 4 years. A tenant who wants to stay because it is making money doesn’t think “oh, better go, landlord doesn’t want me anymore” or “I will make the landlord happy & leave” Right?
The theater page may not be accurate, but somebody stated that Landmark’s lease had a few more years to run. IF that’s the case, then it sounds like a mutual decision with Landmark happy to depart.
Well, then, you will appreciate that on October 6, 1983, the World Premiere in 70mm of “Never Say Never Again” took place at the National.
There’s no mystery there, Roadshow, click on my name. I am a member of the Los Angeles Conservancy as well as the Theatre Historical Society of America, and a frequent contributor to these pages. I’ve been to almost every historic theater in Los Angeles.
Some of you actually did made snide comments at the insider who said months ago that the theater was going to be demolished. Then, some of you focussed on what classic films could be shown at midnight to the oh so few people who attended. The handwriting was on the wall months ago…but…
Doesn’t actually matter- the National wasn’t going to continue for movies. That’s not what I wish- Mark is right, it is a prefectly designed auditorium.
We all want historic theaters to survive. I agree that the National is worthwhile to consider for historic designation. If it got it though, expecting movies to resume is truly a longshot. Look at the Villa in Salt Lake City, selling rugs.
Of course, if you have a meal & drink movie exhibitor willing to make a serious bid to buy or lease, that would be interesting.
Nothing has changed in the last few years!
Regardless of what you may have heard from whoever, once designated, buildings stay protected.
Also, when a major chain departs operating a moviehouse & an indie takes over, and has a manager barely out of school, and arthouse films that can’t fill 10% of the house start to appear….and people who know make it clear that the theater is going to be demolished….why sit around believing the theater has been saved?
Well, now the wool is pulled from eyes, and the interior is being gutted? Is that correct?
Even if the exterior of the National got designated, the interior would be a retail store or restaurant or something. Does that please people?
Here’s what is realistic:
Save the South Pasadena Rialto for entertainment.
Save the exterior (and maybe cinema use) of the NuWilshire.
Save the Village & Bruin, for which you have 3 or fewer years to do.
the National for films is done.
Roadshow, let me repeat, one more time: landmark protection in LA is permanent, NOT only for one year.
The Carthay Circle, if demolished around 1970, might have been a bit early for any city to designate as historic a movie palace. Few American movie palaces were “saved” and reused for other uses before then. No LA movie palace (including the RKO Hillstreet and Metropolitan/Paramount downtown) seems missed as much as the Carthay Circle.
Having spoken with the LA Conservancy and the National Trust for Historic Preservation, I must disagree with the Oct 29 statement by Roadshow that there’s no longterm legal protection of buildings designated historic in Los Angeles. In some other states, cities don’t have such protection, but they do in Los Angeles. That doesn’t mean that any legal system is perfect. It does mean that in general, buildings designated historic stay.
That said, the National hasn’t been designated as historic, so doesn’t have any protection.
Nushboy, if you aren’t going to send them at cinematour, you could set up a free flickr.com website and post the photos (or the best of them) there. Then, you could link your flickr gallery with a post here, and everybody could see them.
Because Disney presents some live entertainment? because there’s a pipe organ at El Capitan? Because El Cap has gorgeous ornate decor that’s very exciting to tourists? Because El Cap is near the Chinese Theatre so lots of tourists find it convenient?
I really wish things were otherwise, and movies were showcased in sngle screens rather than being released on billions of movie screens at one time.
A further comment: you don’t need a wealthy man. Disney lavishly restored the El Capitan and redid the Crest (Westwood). A nonprofit reopened the Egyptian. Between private & nonprofit operators, countless other historic cinema treasures show movies full time or sometime in Los Angeles, more than anywhere else in the US.
What is needed is sufficient audience. And, if that’s not there- as obvious for a long time at the National, movies cease.
Roadshow, as to your 12:37 PM post, the LA theater comparable to the Seattle Cinerama is not the National, but the Cinerama Dome in LA, which has been saved, regardless of the flaws you see there. That’s the theater with 3 projector capacity to show Cinerama. Cinerama movies are in the WB library? Presumably, you wouldn’t be suggesting presentation of non-Cinerama films using 3 projectors or installation of 3 projectors & curved screen at the National?
Also, for an entire month, Close Encounters had an exclusive at the Ziegfeld. It was not in expanded release until December 14. Because of multiplexes and pirating, month long exclusives of mainstream movies don’t exist anymore. The Ziegfeld would do a lot better if they did!
November 15, 1977 was the World Premiere, in 70mm of Close Encounters of the Third Kind, at the Ziegfeld.
M Horner, your excellent analysis needs to also include the Pacific (Warner) in Hollywood. LA moviegoing earlier moved to Hollwyood from even more lavish, expensive, marble & gilt movie palaces of downtown (Orpheum, State, Los Angeles, United Artists, Million Dollar and others).
At the same 1100 seat size as the (Westwood) National, the Ziegfeld is privately owned and leased to Clearview. It continues to show movies, but it isn’t “saved” in some long term way. For new movies, its audiences is too little, because it doesn’t usually have a first run exclusive.
I prefer spending my money & time on scope films, but I seem to recall reading that moe than 80% of films are flat. So, why should it be important to this website that the screens be constant height rather than max size for all those flat films? There’s probably even more arthouse films that are flat……
and, in general, as is said again & again, this website stands for all cinemas, not only historic single screen movie theaters.
It seems to me that the Village is also a bigscreen theater. (spelled theater when not part of a name).
I see a word got clipped in the sending: Mann’s Village (original Fox Village).
Not to detract from the purpose of this news, but the intro has me thinking that if we are talking about open daily as a moviehouse, and currently seating more than 1000, and not considering a theater on an island, then there would be at least 3 still open: Mann’s Grauman’s Chinese, Mann’s , and El Capitan. Or, if “big screen” means mega sized, then I guess El Cap drops out though it is plenty large.
Mark, calm down.
you don’t have to post your comment on every LA theater page.
You didn’t post this comment in the above full form at the ONE and only page you would need to, to make your point- at the homepage news.
Interesting strategy: if so many people would appear for the National, imagine how many would appear for the Village, Bruin, Crest, Rialto, etc?
Unfortunately, I don’t anticipate many will appear for the National. Tell us how many appear, please.
How big a condo building can they build on the National site? No retail?