Showing 1 - 25 of 3,041 comments
Good luck figuring out whether or not to allow a church in the midwest that once hosted “TONY & TINA’S WEDDING” for three days, a listing.
I am sure your aliases as Warren G. Harris and Tinseltoes would agree with you, but Ken Roe wrote the intro and I agree with Ken Roe. This is a historic cinema treasure even more for the opposition to it by moralists and the projectionists Union. (thanks for that Union photo!).
Thank you Stevej. I did enjoy “MEMENTO”.
“INSOMNIA” not so much. I found “THE DARK KNIGHT”, “INTERSTELLAR”, “INCEPTION” and “THE PRESTIGE” all to be worthless hack jobs, soon to be forgotten.
If he can make a WWII movie any better than that mess, “PEARL HARBOR”, I will be pleasantly surprised.
I think Loews was the last hold-out on soft drinks but gave up in the late fifties.
From 1921-23 it was called the Nile.
Richard, according to the Film Daily Year Books, it was Variedades in 1933-34, Boriquen in 1935-36, Grant in 1937 and Latino in 1938-41.
No Mike, the new site is on the WEST SIDE, on the other side of Manhattan, almost on the Hudson River. The Durst Building is an odd triangular residence building with restaurants and bars at ground level.
The eight screen Landmark 57 West is now set for a September 2017 opening.
I have yet to see a good Christopher Nolan film. Can anyone here please suggest one? And no motorcycles sending tractor trailors into the air into balls of fire upon impact films, please.
Looking at the photo section it looks like Show Follies and Peepland were next to each other at the same time and that Peepland was NOT another name for this theatre.
Street level retail is worth more in rent than any cinema at this location. That is why the profitable Baronet/Coronet closed. Cineplex Odeon was offered more for that property than twenty years of theatre operation profits would have generated.
I think it makes a tough situation tougher and if the landlord wants them out, they will buy them out. That is how profitable theatres like the Cinerama Twin (RKO), Beekman, National and Art Greenwich went away.
By the way, the Cinema 1 & 2, Beekman, Little Carnegie and Baronet/Coronet always outgrossed it, so you may have a point there.
vindanpar, the opening was described as “NEW ORLEANS WHOREHOUSE”. The closing was called “CLASSIC HOLLYWOOD GLAMOUR CRUSHED VELVET DECOR”. I loved the Ziegfeld.
Welcome to Cinema Treasures.
Good point. So take out the Roxy and put in the Karl Marx in Havana, Cuba.
bigjoe, the industry has changed a lot since then. Back then there were ten or twelve hits out at once for several months. The studios preferred long runs on third avenue and offered incentives for those long runs. Nowaways there are one or two hit for a few weeks and the studios want as many seats as possible for the first two weekends. If you don’t have the big hit of the weekend, your house is empty. Imagine what would show at Cinema 1,2,3 if “WONDER WOMAN”, “TRANSFORMERS” and “CARS 3” were showing elsewhere. This location could become mostly an art house once again or it could be further split for more screens, but as I stated before, the economics are tough and the landlord would probably not approve if they are looking to develop the property.
That makes no sense. If the Roxy building without a theatre inside can be listed why would the Ziegfeld building be removed? Also, what about the Paramount?
Cinemasoul, this theatre is not closing for lack of business.
I found a conflicting 1962 Variety story that says seating went from 5400 to 3662 in 1959 and down to 1552 in 1962. Half the balcony and a third of the loge were eliminated.
It went from 5230 to 4400 for Cinerama in 1962 (“The Wonderful World of the Brothers Grimm”)according to Variety. When “2001” opened in April 1968, the theatre was already targeted for demolition that September.
Yes, the location is still a problem, but it an also offer blockbusters multiple screens and showtimes. That is how the Ziegfeld lost out to the 42nd street locations.
Each deal is different, but the landlord will rarely contribute anything unless they are trying to get a lease renewal. The opposite might be the case here.
Perhaps an upper floor multiplex can replace it as part of the deal. Three screens is tough economics these days in Manhattan in an area with an ageing population and newer competition even if it once was the prime movie-going block in the city.
bigjoe59, the building was being used as a storage facility. Cinemex is doing a complete remodel and will be in putting in digital projectors, recliners and food service to seats. With five or six more screens in the area, the Cinema 1,2,3 and the Beekman’s total five screens will now have to share product in the zone with a newer and better facility. The last time Cineplex Odeon opened there it was just another out of the way multiplex in an over-screened zone. (The plan to close the Baronet/Cornet & Beekman was delayed for years.) Now the Cinema 1,2,3 will have to pay 2017 rent with less product and inferior older facilities.