Showing 1 - 25 of 199 comments found
That was the real thing, not a replica.
I think this is one of those projects where we really have to wait and see how it turns out. It could be great or it could be a disaster (Egyptian theater). I just hope that when I walk into this new Grauman’s it won’t be like they forcefully jammed an IMAX theater inside.
Mr. Wright, did you hear anything about any changes to the forecourt such as bringing back the palm trees or fixing the right side fountain? Also, do you know if the heating system is functioning? When I saw The Hobbit there a few weeks ago it was freezing.
While I’m not looking forward to the idea of my favorite theatre being ripped up and needlessly reconfigured again (seriously why?) I’m optimistic about the lighting getting some TLC. I hope whatever new seating they put in will match the rest of the theatre and not look like something they got from AMC. The same goes for the curtain and the screen.
It will always be Grauman’s no matter what this page says.
I think the steps were added during the 2001 remodel.
If anything good comes out of another remodeling I hope the lighting inside the theater is taken care of. There are a lot of burnt out/non functional lighting elements right now.
The exposed screen for The Hobbit looked roughly the same size when I saw Attack of the Clones there in 2002. I’m betting closer to 60ft.
The idea of stadium seating inside Grauman’s sickens me. The sightlines are excellent now. The current reclining seats from the last remodel are a pain to sit in but making it into a standard AMC or that Egyptian theater abomination is just a bad idea.
I’m pretty sure the full width of the screen at Grauman’s is closer to 70ft than 90ft. I was there last night and the screen is as masked down as much as it was when I saw Attack of the Clones there in 2002.
Great presentation btw but the lack of heating was inexcusable. The awkward reclining seats which were put in for the 2001 restoration also need to go. Sadly I don’t think the current management cares that much.
The majority of 35mm prints I’ve seen at Arclight Hollywood over the years have been mediocre at best so all digital presentations are long overdue. Film is a superior medium to shoot on but the garbage prints that are churned out today aren’t doing it any justice.
When is 3-D going to cease being called a fad and more of a technology which is revisted every couple decades?
With the success of Avatar and other 3-D films I don’t think 3-D is dying out anytime soon.
True. Hopefully they’ll actually play something worth driving to scary Westwood to see.
Regency Bruin and Village… That doesn’t sound right.
3-D on a budget.
The end of civilization/America comments are hysterical. It’s a cute novelty toy not the downfall of mankind in a box.
Inevitable posts about inflation and the added cost of 3-D glasses in 3 2 1…
Typical gloom and doom. I enjoy watching films in 3-D, 2-D, film, and digital.
The comments are more informative than the article.
Any chance of Arclight Westwood?
And for you to complain about me complaining. Nice to see you venture out of the usual forums. ;–)
Apparently the screen has also been upgraded for optimal brightness. Now if only they could fix the cross reflections and geometry distortions I would consider watching a movie in there again.
Does 3-D really make sense if the action is shot far away?
Apparently Avatar will be showing in 3-D in the Dome. I’m not sure how this could be close to being satisfactory as even regular 2-D projection is dim.
I think it’s too early to tell. Is current state of the art 3-D bright enough for a screen as big as Grauman’s?
Blu-ray players are not that expensive nowadays.
Unless it’s a special print I think one would be better off buying the Blu-ray. It’s fantastic.