Cinerama Dome and ArcLight Hollywood

6360 Sunset Boulevard,
Los Angeles, CA 90028

Unfavorite 125 people favorited this theater

Showing 201 - 225 of 1,213 comments

CSWalczak on October 8, 2012 at 12:29 pm

Looking at the lists compiled by Coate and Kallay at the website, I noted at least two: “Camelot” (run began 11-02-67) and “Paint Your Wagon” (run began 10-23-69). The list includes only those films presented in 70mm, so it would not include any 35mm film shown on a reserved seat basis there during those nine years.

bigjoe59 on October 8, 2012 at 11:33 am

Hello Again From NYC-

i thank my fellow posters in L.A. for replying to my posts. i have a new question for you.

the studios dropped the use of the two a day reserved seat engagement policy after the Dec. 1972 release of “Man of La Mancha”. now the Dome opened Nov. of 1963 with “Its A Mad Mad Mad Mad World”. so in the 9 years the Dome existed while the studios were still using the policy did the theater host any reserved seat engagements of films other than those presented “in Cinerama”?

Bud K
Bud K on October 6, 2012 at 12:11 pm

I also attended the Festival and it was a wonderful experience watching the original films restored and presented in digital showed us that digital is good and new and glorious adventures are still to come, Watching “the Brothers Grimm” brought me to tears at times it was just wonderful, Listening to the laughter during Mad Mad continues the joy of a full theater – you become part of the movie and “This is Cinerama"
and "in the Picture” being with the guys that we’re there when it started and watching the new film one simple word describes the presentations and the Festival “JOY” to John, Dave, the best crew in the booths and the Management and staff of Pacific and the Arclight Cinema’s THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU

Chris Utley
Chris Utley on October 5, 2012 at 7:55 pm

I echo the above sentiment. Best wishes, Mr. Sittig.

I also attended the Sunday night showing of “This Is Cinerama” and stayed for the 3 strip short film In The Picture. Epic epic night!

RobertAlex on October 3, 2012 at 11:42 pm

Thank you John Sittig for the fantastic Cinerama Festival this week. I attended This is Cinerama on Sunday night and just got home from seeing IAMMMMW in 70mm. Sunday was sold out and tonight was close it it. It was fantastic to see these great films (well ok, TIC is not that great, but it is fun) presented how and where they should be shown!

It was announced Sunday that you will be retiring, and I wanted to personally thank you for decades of the best projection and sound possible! Thank you for your dedication and hard work on restoration so people like myself in 2012 can actually see Cinerama movies in 3 strip Cinerama! Some of my most treasured memories happened on your watch at the Dome over the past few decades, and I wish you much happiness in your retirement!

Bill Huelbig
Bill Huelbig on October 3, 2012 at 7:29 pm

Seeing The Wonderful World of the Brothers Grimm in Cinerama was one of the great movie experiences of my life. Any flaws in the print were so easy to overlook when the film as a whole was so beautiful. If only George Pal had lived to see this show. His love of storytelling was on display in every scene. I only hope some of his surviving family members were aware of it.

dickdziadzio on October 2, 2012 at 9:48 am

When I first saw TIC in Boston in 1960, the projectionist dropped a hinged sephia filter in front of the lens when that segment came up and quickly removed at the seqment end. Those segments had been photographed in black @ white in late 1949.

bigjoe59 on October 2, 2012 at 8:48 am

Hello to J. Sittig-

i just watched the blu-ray disc of the restored remastered “This Is Cinerama”. i quite enjoyed it
and i have two questions- thing i liked about the restored remastered blu-ray disc released Sept. of ‘08 of “How The West Was Won"was that the lines between the panels were virtually eliminated. yet with TIC that was not done. might i ask why?

2.after watching the film first without the commentary i wondered why the Long Island church choir segment was in sepia rather than Technicolor as was the rest of the film. when i watched the film again with the commentary my question was answered by the fact this scene was not shot for TIC but was a test scene shot by Waller to get backing for TIC. of course the sepia isn’t changeable but couldn’t that scene have been restored/remastered a bit more so it had the sharp crisp crystal clear image of the rest of the film?

Manwithnoname on October 1, 2012 at 8:45 pm

Having now attended 4 films at the Cinerama festival here is a quick rundown: “Brothers Grimm” was a decent looking print and the only known 3-strip in existence. Apparently not easy to run as there were technical difficulties but that can happen and I do not fault anyone. In attendance were Russ Tamblyn, Rita Moreno and George Chakiris. “Search for Paradise” could have been great and was flawlessly presented. However, even though in 3-strip the print was pink which spoiled much of the grandeur. There was a song running through the film that was quite annoying and the search itself just wasn’t very thrilling. In attendance were members of composer Dimitri Tiomkin’s family. “Seven Wonders of the World” was to be digital for act 1 and 3-strip for act 2. Instead of 3-strip there was another video version spliced into the restored scenes which were blurry and headache inducing. John Sittig announced someone pretty much made a video of the film while it was running. I still enjoyed it more than “Search” however. Finally “South Seas Adventure” which was fully restored digital and looked much better than I expected. The scenes of Hawaii in the 1950s were fascinating and you can glimpse the marquee of the now demolished Waikiki Theater with “Pride and the Passion” playing. In attendance were Ramini who had a featured role and member’s of producer Dudley’s family. I was witness to the passing of the old and the wave of the future all in these 4 screenings. What a great lesson in film history and I am \glad I was a part of it. I am equally glad these films are being preserved in any format.

Chris Utley
Chris Utley on September 30, 2012 at 3:20 pm

Yep…masking is movable indeed.

RogerA on September 27, 2012 at 5:39 pm

jsittig will be able to answer that question but I think the Dome has movable top and side masking

thomasc on September 27, 2012 at 5:30 pm

Does anyone know the exact width of the Dome’s screen when showing 1.85 and showing ‘scope? The Arclight website says that the screen is “32 by 86 feet” but the math suggests the full 86 foot screen is only utilized when projecting a format such as Ultra Panavision (2.76:1). Does the Dome always project a common height for all formats?

Richie_T on September 22, 2012 at 5:44 pm

Saw The Master today under the dome in glorious 70mm!

CSWalczak on September 20, 2012 at 12:24 pm

I can agree with your, Edward, but to whom is the statement really being made?

RogerA on September 20, 2012 at 11:43 am

I hope film is not dead and that some filmmakers will continue to use film. Of course video is here to stay and there is no going back.

Edward Havens
Edward Havens on September 20, 2012 at 11:35 am

Roger: it is true, which is also why the 70mm prints are hard-matted to 1.85:1. No, it doesn’t really make sense, especially considering all of PTA’s other features were shot 2.39:1, which is closer to 70mm’s 2.20:1 than Academy flat’s 1.85:1, but that’s what happened.

CSWalczak: PTA shooting most of the film in 65mm (only using 35mm for scenes where a 65mm camera would not have fit or otherwise worked) was his way of making a statement about the current state of digital cinema. If one may never be able to work with film again, especially if one is only making a film every five years now, why not go out on the format with something special?

RogerA on September 20, 2012 at 11:35 am

Aspect ratio It’s the filmmakers choice. If I shot a film in 65mm I would use the whole frame. To open in a limited roadshow engagement in the 70mm format got me to the theater to see a film I would have waited and watched on video. The screen at The Dome is big and there were scenes, even on close examination, that were very clear and with fine detail. I saw a 70mm blow up of “Camalot” in one of the big New York theaters with a huge one-hundred foot screen and there was one scene where the grain was a large as baseballs.

CSWalczak on September 20, 2012 at 8:57 am

Following up on RogerA’s comment: why bother to originate the film on 70mm stock if it is not going to be exhibited in a widescreen ratio? While I admire the director’s work, up to this point, I do not understand why he set off a stir to encourage as many 70mm showings as possible when the film is masked down to a conventional aspect ratio. The only result of doing that is a somewhat sharper image.

RogerA on September 20, 2012 at 8:47 am

Well if that is true than that would explain the difference in quality throughout the film.

Edward Havens
Edward Havens on September 20, 2012 at 8:35 am

RogerA, while more than half of The Master was shot in 65mm, using Kodak 5201, 5207 and 5213 stock, the remainder was shot in 35mm.

RogerA on September 20, 2012 at 8:28 am

“The Master” was not a 35mm blow up it was shot on 65mm negative. The choice not to use the full frame and mask the sides was the decision of the director.

Zubi on September 20, 2012 at 1:22 am

Roger A – “The Master” in 70mm, it should be added, is not a widescreen presentation. As opposed to a stretched 35mm “scope” blowup, it appeared to be a 35mm “flat” blowup. Typically, this type of 70 format features black, vertical bars on left and right sides of frame (not visible, of course, to the audience). In other words, the film stock itself is extra-wide but the projected image is not.

Auntieagent – Most movies look great there—film or digital. However, when possible, the very best pictures to be seen and heard at the Cinerama-Hollywood are the widescreen epics of the 1960s presented in their original, premium FILM formats (something that is increasingly rare, even there). “How the West Was Won” in 3-strip Cinerama (three 35mm projectors working together to form a single great image) is, however, showing there soon and should not be missed—it’s unbelievable. The Cinerama travelogues and the like are impressive too but they can be boring. That is not the case with “HTWWW”. It’s an event. Also, widescreen 70mm 6-track magnetic prints—particularly for visual and orchestral masterpieces like “Ben Hur” and “Lawrence of Arabia”—are stunning and thunderous experiences in the dome. Unlike the 70mm runs of the 1970s and 80s—most of which were 35mm blowups, the great 60s epics were PHOTOGRAPHED in the 70 format and so are particularly breathtaking on the Cinerama’s very large screen. Unfortunately, they seldom show these films in 70 anymore and, when they do, I believe it’s usually with only digital sound.

jsittig on September 20, 2012 at 12:52 am

RogerA Yes, the audience will need to leave the theatre between shows so we can reset formats for the next show and give the crew opportunity to clean the theatre. Since all seats are reserved, there is no need to stand in a line since your chosen seat will be waiting for you. You might want to try our Cinerama inspired menu at the cafe or browse the gift shop for lots of Cinerama branded merchandise. John Sittig, Cinerama Inc.

auntieagent on September 19, 2012 at 7:17 pm

Which films are best seen in the Cinerama Done? Is it expected that The Hobbit will be screened there?

RogerA on September 19, 2012 at 10:40 am

Like most films the quality varied and when any film is projected on a large screen one can see details that aren’t as obvious on a smaller screen. Some scenes in “The Master” were very clear, sharp with resolution seldom seen in theaters today but not every scene was crystal clear. Quality seem to depend on the camera lens that was used and of course the film stock. There was a tiny bit of jump and bounce but that was in the projector and it wasn’t that noticeable. I must be used to digital projection because there was extreme flicker in some of the bright scenes. Overall it was a excellent presentation but it clearly demonstrates the difference between high quality film and video. Let’s hope there is a future for both formats. There is no question that each has a different look.