AMC Loews Boston Common 19

The Loews Boston Common formally opened its doors for business on July 20, 2001; among its initial film offerings was the Julia Roberts-John Cusack comedy 'America's Sweethearts'.

The Loews Boston Common also housed, on the second of its three levels, a short-lived lounge, The Back Lot, which, if memory serves, was open to ticket-holders only.

Why did the Back Lot close?

For some history of how Boston came to have only two movie theatres, both opened within the last five years, see the extensive comments on the Copley Place Cinemas page.

The short version: Sack Theatres (later called USACinemas) built a monopoly in Boston and Cambridge, then was sold to Loews, which over the following 17 years proceeded to close almost every theatre that Sack had built or acquired.

The Back Lot closed not terribly long after the theatre opened; in barely a year's time, I believe. Oddly enough, when I passed it back on a Friday night in December, most, if not all the furnishings (tables, stools, etc.), were still inside.

As for why The Back Lot closed... of that I have no idea. I remember it seemingly being popular; perhaps it was shut down due to licensing and/or budgetary reasons.

Ahh, the Boston Common. I was lucky/unlucky enough to be one of the managers there at the time it opened. It is a typical Loews prototype with some nicer screens. Whomever designed it obviously never worked in a movie theater, however. No freight elevator, despite stockrooms on the 4th floor, projection booths have all kinds of wonky ducts and pipes going through in wierd places that make it really hard to access some projectors.

The Back Lot was operated by the Ritz-Carlton, which owns the building (Millenium Partners own the Ritz). It was a nice bar, very modern and stylized. I think if they had carried those design elements over into the cinemas, it would have been a very cool and urbane modern cineplex. The Ritz has (I guess, naturally) better decor tastes than Loews, which stuck to it's overblown-faux-movie-palace design. That kinda works in the burbs, but downtown needs something that is ACTUALLY a palace, not a pretender.

Anyhow, originally the Back Lot was to be part of the 'premium seeating' concept at the Loews. If you bought an assigned seat (each auditorium has a section of assigned and numbered seats) you paid more but could hang out in the Back Lot and have a cocktail. An usher would take you to your specific seat when you were ready and you could take your cocktail with you.

Upon opening the complex, the details of this operation were not finalized, and as the days wore on, it became clear that such an operation would be very labor intensive. That theater is a bear to operate anyhow, with multiple level concession stands, ticket takers, etc. and soon after opening the dictum came from NYC: lower your payroll big time.

The regional manager at the time made the very accurate comment that "if you build a monster, you have to staff a monster". But the numbers for the first few months were evidently below expectations.

As mentioned on other boards here, the complex was constantly assailed by fire alarm evacuations due to continued construction in the towers above and also by residences once the towers were donr.

That is why I personally left, because I was having anxiety attacks just walking in there... nothing like having 4000 people want your blood because they paid 20 bucks for tix, 20 more for food, 20 more for parking, maybe more for a babysitter, and then their night gets ruined and they want to take it out on you. It got to be that if someone snapped a photo with a flash bulb, I would get tense because it reminded me of the fire alarm strobes. I figured for the money I was getting, it wasn't worth my personal health. But enough about me.

The Back Lot probably couldn't make enough $$$ once the premium seating thing failed, as it was expensive to operate to begin with. I believe it is still used for functions, which is why the furniture is still there, but that may not be the case now.

There's more I could say about this place, but enough for now!

I should add this:

Not only is this theater on the site of the Astor Theatre, it also occupies the block where the State Theater was too.

Thanks for sharing Ian...I too was a theatre manager, but for Edwards Cinemas (now part of Regal Entertainment) and then later worked for AMC theatres in California.
Its good to hear stories from fellow managers that have been in the trenches. I for one started at a multiplex and eventually worked my way up to a megaplex.
I worked almost 10 years in the industry from 19 yrs old til 29 yrs. old
I am now 31 and glad I left the business 2 years ago. It can be stressful, it is about money and the bottom line.
I will say that it is one of the worst businesses to be in. The profit margins and cost and expenses are quite alot. Its fun to run a megaplex on the weekends or during the summer. But in the week days or slow periods..it a bitch!

Anyways thats my rant! i love this website its awesome and thanks to all the people for contributing to it.

I got a message from someone who says he was a former manager at Loews Copley Place. He says:

"I don't think Loews always thinks in a big picture type manner. The [Boston Common] complex is evident of that. They give out more refunds there than most of the northeast combined. When LA Fitness opened in the Tower, the steam in the saunas would set off the smoke detectors for quite sometime until they adjusted their locations. Each and every time that happened, the cinema had to be evacuated. Thats a huge loss! A power transformer blew out in the basement back in 2003. It took 4 days to be replaced...The entire weekend was lost. (Manny Ramirez sued Millenium for the loss of use of his home in the resident section.)

"Loews had a no-fault clause and lost the entire weekend. They had an exclusive on a new movie that weekend, Deliver Us From Eva, and it was exclusive for Loews at [Boston Common], that weekend. The movie tanked and Loews was partly to blame. Loews & the distributor wanted Copley to take the prints, (which we did take their prints of Chicago and Narc), but Simons [owner of the Copley Place mall] refused to let us use the print of an urban-based movie with LL Cool J as the star!"

that's some racist shit, I'm a filmmaker and I do not like to hear shit like that. But it's ok. Black film is on the rise. We have love for all people, but it's funny how people hate on the black man. I'ts embarrasing as a human being. Anyway, I wanted to know if the lews downtown took indie films and if they were equipt for digital cinema.

Digital? Yes, they are currently showing Robots in digital projection, according to an ad in last Sunday's Boston Globe.

Indie films? Not really. Loews Boston Common is the epitome of mainstream Hollywood film programming, as is its competitor, AMC Fenway 13. For anything of specialized or limited interest, you usually need to go either to the Museum of Fine Arts or else out of the city, to the Brattle, Harvard Film Archive, Kendall Square, Coolidge, or West Newton.

However, the Boston Film Festival, which used to take place at the late unlamented Loews Copley Place, will probably move to the Boston Common this fall.

I also was a manager at the Loews Boston Common. The facility is a total beast. I sometimes wonder if the area is cursed. The layout is pretty awful in parts of the building (hiding extra concession stands in areas where people don't walk, putting the big theaters in the wrong spots). Things are constantly breaking (elevators, escalators, pipes, fire alarms, HVAC, plain vandalism). I'll readily grant that big places always have maintenance issues, but it became fairly obvious working there that the company had bit off a bit more than it could chew. Thanksgiving 2002 a pipe burst in the ceiling and it was literally raining in the 3rd floor lobby, as well as in offices and kitchens. The exploding generator probably takes the cake though, as we had to shut down for nearly a whole weekend, and smoke could be smelled in the lobby for weeks. But I do assure you not a single person lost any sleep about Deliver Us From Eva being off screen for two days. (Saying that this particular power outage had a significant effect on the film's run is beyond absurd.) Anyway, despite all the potential disasters awaiting you there, it's still the best place to watch a movie in town. It's also not hard to argue that it's the best theater north of New York on the east coast.

I found this Boston Phoenix article from June 2001, entitled "Muffled screens: Is it curtains for the movie theaters of Boston?". It's about the imminent opening of Loews Boston Common, and the disappearance of Boston's other theatres, and the many theatre chain bankruptcies occurring around that time. It correctly predicted that Boston would eventually be left with just two movie theatres -- Loews Boston Common and General Cinema Fenway 13.

This sidebar lists Boston movie theatres that existed in June 1971, and what is in those locations today. The list doesn't quite appear to be complete; it omits the Mayflower (Modern), Pilgrim, and State, at least. (It also omits the RKO Boston/Cinerama, but that might have been closed by 1971 and not yet converted into the Essex.)

I was just downtown last night for an outdoor concert near the Loews, and I realized one odd thing about this theatre:

It has no sign or marquee outside, advertising which movies it is currently showing. There's a nice vertical red LOEWS THEATRES sign, and another horizontal sign with the same words, above a large canopy or awning designed to keep the rain off people waiting outside. But to see what's playing here, you have to walk into the lobby and look at a big electronic signboard. Which doesn't do much to promote the movies to the large crowds who pass in front daily by foot, bus, and automobile.

Also, the theatre may be called 'Boston Common' in newspaper ads, but those words don't appear anywhere on the theatre's exterior. I think most people just call it "the Loews" or "the downtown Loews".

When I visited Boston a few year ago I remember there used to be a electronic LED type zipper sign on the lower silver part of the marquee underneath the "Loews Theatres" letters. What suprised me was how small it was compared to the same type of marquee's we have in New York City, I assumed this was because of zoning regulations. I guess the sign is totally turned off now. The vertical part of this marquee is very cool looking, it's very art deco inspired. What ever became of the Backlot?

That LED sign is still operating, but I found it nearly impossible to read when I looked at it last night.

The Back Lot is still sitting there empty. I don't know why.

When the Loews 42nd Street E-Walk first opened it featured a highly stylized but basically non funtional type marquee, all it had was two frames for mylar type movie titles, about 4 years after opening Loews wised up and replaced it with a much plainer one that featured a full color LED type sign. So they may do that with the Boston Common unless zoning regulations prohibit such.

The Boston Film Festival, which was held for many years at the late unlamented Copley Place Cinemas, will be split this year between Loews Boston Common and Loews Harvard Square.

It will be shorter than last year's, just seven days instead of ten, September 9-15. Last week's Somerville Journal had an article about the festival:

Diamond's not forever: Robin Dawson takes over the Boston Film Festival

The Boston Film Festival has been cut to five days, September 9-13, and will take place only at Loews Boston Common. The event feels like it's on the verge of disappearing, with no advertising and much less newspaper coverage than I'm used to seeing.

When I dropped by the theatre last night, I saw no signs in the lobby for the festival, and was directed up to the third floor to pick up a program from an unmarked pile on the concession-stand counter.

The ideal for the Boston Film Festival would be for it to be helmed by a committee consisting of Robin Dawson (who I understand is heading operations for this year's festival) and the programming directors of the Brattle and Coolidge Corner Theatres and the film program at the MFA. The result would be a group of individuals who have contacts within the world of Hollywood (Dawson) and those who have the same within the art-house and independent film worlds. There'd obviously be a lot of work to do to achieve a modicum of its reputation, but at worst Boston could potentially have a film festival that could potentially at some point be mentioned in the same breath as the NY Film Festival.

Boston is already getting a superior film festival - the Independent Film Festival of Boston, which has been well documented in the local major newspapers as being the film festival Boston has deserved for years. It takes place at the Coolidge, Brattle, MFA, and Somerville theaters. Every year it gets more popular and has a stronger and remarkable schedule of independent films. They have a website, www.iffboston.org

Agreed, Ian; the Independent Film Festival of Boston is a super film festival. I've managed to catch a few screenings when I've been back home and I've been very impressed - with the quality and diversity of the films which have been shown, the guests who've come to town with their films (Steve Buscemi and Bill Pullman, I know of, to name a couple), the panels, and the overall operation.

The Boston Film Festival could be a great compliment to the IFFB, catching the films ready to make the festival rounds in the fall; to think of the slate of films this year's festival alone could have brought to town: 'Shopgirl', 'A History of Violence', 'Elizabethtown', 'Brokeback Mountain'... the list goes on...

Last night I went to the Boston Film Festival to see 'Buddy', a documentary about the former mayor of Providence that is well worth seeing. It will be shown again there tomorrow night -- the only film this year to get a repeat showing.

I saw a poster for 'Elizabethtown' at the theatre, but it's not part of the festival.

I live in the Back Bay in Boston, very near the Boston Common theater. I was very happy when it opened. Before that all we had were the Copley Square cinemas and the Cheri, and both were terrible. I simply didn't go to the movies back then. For a while the Boston Common was great, but it has seriously slipped lately.

It is tremendously understaffed, and the people who are working there are poorly trained. The movie-going experience there is not good. Several times I have sat in a theater with crying babies - literally screaming through the whole movie. I went out to get an usher but could find no one. Finally I got a manager, but he did nothing. I've gotten my money back twice from them for situations like that.

The last straw was this summer, when I went to see Charlie and the Chocolate Factory the day it opened. Being opening night, the crowd started to gather about an hour before hand. There was no one to take tickets or organize the line. Everyone just stood in a crowd in the corridor. After a while a very clueless employee started to put up the post-and-strap dividers, with the apparent goal of making a zig-zag line for us all to stand in. He couldn't figure it out and ended up making one dead-end line, and also fully enclosed another group of people. It took two other employees a half hour to figure out how to set up the posts and dividers. The whole time the crowd was laughing at their efforts. Needless to say the crowd ended up just being a mob, jockeying for position near the front.

With tickets for that place up to nearly $11 each, and food very expensive, I'm tired of paying $40 or $50 for a mediocre movie experience. I go to the movies very rarely now, which is a shame, because I love movies. There is just no good place to see them in Boston.

I predict that there will be no new theaters built in Boston, or anywhere. With home theater offering better and better experiences, and movie houses offering worse and worse experiences, people have no incentive to go out to the movies. With no customers, no one will want to run a labor-intensive business like a movie theater.

BTW: The Back Lot was completely cleared out the last time I was there. No furniture, and the overhead monitor screens were gone.

The AMC/Lowes merger was completed today. The AG of MA informed AMC that they must sell their cinema that is near Fenway Park in Boston for competition purporses. Right now, the rumor is Showcase Cinemas is interested in the Fenway property due to the age of the Cirle Cinema. If I have a choice between the two I would rather go to the Boston Common cinema. The problem I have with Boston Common is that if you are in screens 3-9, the leg room is tight. If you are in screens 1 or 2 they are very good leg room. Screen 2 seats over 600 people. 10-19 are good except a couple of the cinemas are tight on leg room. Screen 17 or 18 is their digital projection. If a feature is playing on more that one screen, I ask for the biggest auditorium before buying a ticket. And if you don't want to pay double digit prices for movies, AAA sells passes. I think a book of 4 is under 30.00

When I walked by around 7:30 pm, they hadn't taken down any of the Loews signage. I expect that process will take a few months.

The Boston Film Festival will once again take place at Loews Boston Common, September 8-15.

But with just a week to go before the festival opens, the web site is frustratingly incomplete, with "Coming Soon" where the list of films should be, and "TBA" scheduled for the festival's last day. Even the press-release page is empty.

The Boston Film Festival will once again take place at Loews Boston Common, September 8-15.

But with just a week to go before the festival opens, the web site is frustratingly incomplete, with "Coming Soon" where the list of films should be, and "TBA" scheduled for the festival's last day. Even the press-release page is empty.

I walked into Loews Boston Common this afternoon, hoping to find a program booklet, a brochure, or at the very least a displayed advertising poster for the Boston Film Festival, which starts in five days.

The first few employees I talked to knew nothing about any upcoming festival. After about 10 minutes, I found a manager, who said they had received no printed material. He did offer to print out a schedule for me, however. The four-page printout lists the names and showtimes of films, but contains no descriptions. It does not match the schedule on the web site, so I have no idea which one is correct.

The web site still says "Coming Soon" where the list of film descriptions should be. Also "Coming Soon" are the list of special appearances, and the current press releases (2006 News).

The site's front page starts with "In the tradition of benchmark film festivals like Sundance, Venice, and Telluride." I don't think so! If this festival can't get its act together very soon, it's going to go away entirely.

As seems to be the trend on this page, I too have managed the boston common theater. I am now, however the GM at Harvard Square. The facilities got better as the building settled (i.e. fewer and fewer alarms, until they eventually vanished altogether). The other operational issues of the building remain though. And in defense, the film festival problems are primarily due to lack of information sent to theatre management from the film festival organizers.

While the screen sizes in this theater (and Fenway) are impressive, the understaffing and general disrepair of this theater are at times, frustrating.

But, I guess that's just the way "new" theaters are these days.

I've seen Romney at this theater before, and he had to stand in the same long line to get his "dots"...so what can you do?

Two weeks ago on a Saturday night, I went to see Letters from Iwo Jima @ The Boston Common Cinema @ 10:50 P.M. If you can belive this, there was no attempt to clean the cinema and there was no usher to be found in cinemas 3-9. I even made an attempt to write a letter to the cinema and to the Atlanta GA address on the web site, but no resonse from either party. I would have made an attempt to find a manager, but is was after one in the morning and all I could find for people working were cleaning crews they did not have AMC shirts on. Any one have any suggestions if I ever have this problem again? The old management would have this matter resolved quickly.

The truth is that this theater, once our favorite in the Boston area, has gone straight into the toilet since AMC took over. When Loews ran it, it was always clean, there were always people you could find to bring a concern to, the snack bar personnel were always polite and friendly, and the ticket kiosks always worked. Now virtually NONE of that is true.

One of the last times we were at this theater, about a year ago, we had to wait in a line to see X-Men:The Last Stand. The CARPET was so sticky my shoes stuck to it rather resolutely, and I had to grab my wife's hand to hold while I wrested them free. Two weeks later we went back to see another movie, and the carpet was STILL sticky - it obviously had not been touched since two weeks prior. And the same ticket kiosks that were broken the two times before were STILL inoperable.

We haven't been back since, and although we may hit the theater simply as a stop on our website's summer tour of local Boston cinemas, even though we've been there before, we don't have definate plans to do so. Pity, because we used to like going there quite a bit...

This seems to be the case with many AMC theaters in the Boston area.

I have not heard good things about their operations from many people, from either a customer standpoint or from former/current staff. AMC apparently has many customer service related policies that staff must memorize, etc., but what good is a silly across-the-board policy like that when you are not going to maintain the buildings or pay for a decent projectionist to ensure the picture quality is good?

If you are charging top dollar for movies downtown like AMC, the place should be clean and staffed, and the picture should be in focus, in frame, and not scratched. If theaters just focused on these basic functions, it would make a lot more patrons happy than rote memorization of customer service catchphrases.

This theater had its screens professionally cleaned by 1570 Cinema Services (www.1570cinemaservices.com) 10/17/07.
House #8 is Real D. House #16 is 3D.

Will you please quit spamming every theatre page with this advertisement?

there should be a policy on spammers on CT, just like what Myspace and other sites use. Thankfully, no porn messages on this site!!!

Mr Newman,
I don't think of it as spam. I go through each theater's comments and see if I have anything to add, I wanted to let you know this theater cares about the condition of its viewing suface for its patrons.
If I can add any notes or photos about the theater I will in an entry. I am working on posting several new theaters not yet posted on this site in the US, Canada and South America and will try to add any information and photos that may be helpful to anyone on this forum, after all we visit hundreds of theaters during the year.
Please feel free to contact me at any time at mike@1570cinemaservices.com .
Michael

Telling us which auditoriums are 3D, etc is interesting, but advertising your cleaning service is NOT.

We'd all be eager for you to add cinemas and link photos. A subtle phrasing that accompanies an Intro or linked photos that you are familiar with the theater via your cleaning employment would sound ok to me.

I apologize. I will refrain from posting this in the future and will contribute without mentioning our business services.

What does "Real D" mean, and what does a house have to do to be able to project 3D?

This is the definition below from wikipedia on Real D. I notice the screens are newer and more reflective from an up close perspective.

"The Real D 3-D system was invented by Lenny Lipton, an American inventor. It is based on the push-pull electro-optical modulator called the ZScreen.

The technique that Real D uses is similar to the traditional method of 3-D imaging using polarized glasses. The traditional method works by projecting two differently polarized images onto the same screen, which are then filtered by polarized glasses worn by the audience. This type of 3-D imaging requires two projectors. Real-D however uses a single projector that alternately projects the left-eye frame and right-eye frame, and appropriately polarizes these frames using a liquid-crystal screen placed in front of the projector lens. The polarized glasses make sure each eye sees only "its own" picture. The very high framerate, which is 72fps per eye, makes sure the image looks continuous. In Real D Cinema, each frame is projected three times to reduce flicker, as the source video is usually 24fps. The result is a 3-D picture that seems to extend behind and in front of the screen itself."

I would like to see AMC clean the rugs or get new rugs upstairs. I was at Showcase Randolph Saturday night. That is kept up to date vs what AMC is doing to this location. Showcase just put new seats in the auditorium I was at. Never would see AMC do that. I went and saw Berwolf in real 3-d. You had to pick up the real 3-d glasses at the snack bar. When I purchased my ticket, I was not told this. I had to ask another patron where he picked up his glasses. I always say it is the little things that count.

I would like to ask a question about projection. I watch films at Loews Boston Commons as well as at MIT (LSC series), Harvard, and the MFA. The films screened at Loews appear so different, much flatter, clearer, cleaner. I watched No Country for Old Men and Gone Baby Gone at Loews & MIT & it was like watching 2 different films. I don't think it was the bigger screen, the different sound systems but the actual projection itself. The image at MIT is more evocative & poetic. How does Loews BC project its films? Is it automated? I know it's equipped to do digital projection but this is only for special occasions--right? Can someone explain these differences to me & tell me about projection? Thanks!!

I'm guessing the colleges & museum are showing DVDs, and previously showed 16 mm film. Real movie theaters show 35 mm or digital with much higher resolution than DVDs. That's what you get when you pay commercial fare, along with the opportunity to buy popcorn, soda, and other snacks in huge amounts at high prices.

MIT has shown 35mm film for many years. Harvard Film Archive also shows exclusively film, to my knowledge.

Yes, MIT, Harvard, & MFA show 35 mm, not DVDs.

Well it that's not it...

I really am unsure what you mean by "flatter, clearer, cleaner" at AMC Loews vs. "evocative & poetic" at MIT? It sounds like you prefer MIT projection, but "clearer" and "cleaner" are normally adjectives that mean good things as do "evocative & poetic"

It's not that one is better than the other (I do prefer the MIT projection though) but that it's so different. Watching the MIT films, I'm more aware that I'm watching 35mm film projecting. With Loews, I don't even think about it. Maybe the projection system at Loews is cleaner or perhaps automated or even partially digitalized? But whatever it is, it's like two different films. Sorry that this is so unclear & vague but it's difficult to describe.

Automation would have nothing to do with how the image looks.

More likely than not, you have probably seen some digital presentation at the Loews. There is no such thing as 'partially digitalized' in terms of projection; the presentation is either in film or in digital format. Digital tends to of course be 'cleaner' looking because there are no scratches or lines in a digital presentation, but 35mm film tends to visually 'pop' off the screen more than digital and is a different experience for our eyes and brains than digital. In film, the colors are better defined (black colors look black, not gray, for example) and in digital there is less depth to the color. Of course so very few labs know how to print film properly anymore, especially when the crank out 3000 prints in a row, so print quality today is poorer than it used to be in film (a conspiracy from the studios perhaps to force theaters into digitalization? I wouldn't be surprised!). A 35mm IB Technicolor print from 40 years ago will always look better than digital if it is kept in good shape and projected properly.

Thanks to AMC/Loews well-known lack of attention to projection quality, you are more likely to see a good 35mm presentation at a college than downtown, so what you are seeing at Loews is probably digital.

Another issue is that colleges are getting 'second-run' or hand-me-down prints, meaning that by the time they receive the movie to play, whatever theater it first played at has already damaged the print to begin with. So while Loews gets a brand new print, which they are then free to ruin, the colleges (and second-run theaters) get the damaged print delivered to them when the Loews is done.

It is my personal opinion that 35mm remains superior to a digital image if the 35mm film is projected PROPERLY, i.e. with good equipment, a trained and experienced projectionist, and equipment tweaked to get the best presentation possible out of a particular set-up (such as a properly focused bulb, calibrated lenses). Large theater chains tend to not care about these particulars, especially when it comes to projection staff - they would rather have the popcorn staff hit a button than hire a professional in the booth - so they have created a culture in the industry where bad presentation is such the norm that people are willing to sacrifice a good format like 35mm for a lesser one like digital because 'the image is clearer with no lines or scratches'. They don't realize that a good projectionist and equipment can prevent that from occurring. The chains are also under pressure from the studios to switch to digital since it saves the film companies billions in print costs.

Thanks so much for explaining this. Yes, the projection at MIT, which is usually very good, looks absolutely great with deep dark reds and very black blacks. I recently saw Taxi Driver in 35mm & of course it was a damaged copy but the colors were absolutely glorious. I never notice the colors while watching the films at Loews--the picture is always clear but as you say doesn't pop. Having seen No Country for Old Men, Gone Baby Gone, and Darjeeling Limited at both Loewes & MIT, the difference was so striking. Interestingly enough, my plasma tv screens a similar image with very strong blacks and deep colors. Does anyone know how many theaters are projecting digital images already?

Well...Thank you Ian M. Judge. FINALLY there is someone in this world, other than me, who gets this whole 35mm vs. digital thing, as well as having a REAL projectionist vs a popcorn popper running the films. Having been (and still am) an IATSE projectionist for 33 years, I can tell you that everything said above is 100% correct. These big chains care nothing about presentation, and everything about how much candy they can sell. I always give my all, and yet 4 years ago, while working for a chain here in the NY/NJ area (I won't name them) and getting consistant mystery shopper screen scores of between 96 and 100%, my union was let go to save a buck. Now, they pay 2 people a combined salary more than what I made, and their films are constantly scratched, or even worse. Add to that starting an "R" rated movie to a house full of 6 year olds, and well you get the idea. I for one hope film stays around for a very long time.

Does anyone know if this theater still shows movies in SDDS sound format? I know AMC ripped out a lot of the SDDS after the merger in favor of the DTS format.
SDDS has much better dynamic range and separation than the compact disc system of DTS.
IF anyone knows, can you let me know which screens in this theater have it?
I remember Black Hawk Down in theater 2 when it was Sony Loews Theaters and the sound was incredible.
Any info would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks!

Now, this is fascinating. Today's Boston Metro says that the Boston Common will be adding an IMAX screen, which would make it the first IMAX screen in Boston dedicated solely to Hollywood film exhibition. The IMAX house is expected to open in September of this year.

Here is the article:

http://www.metrobostonnews.com/us/article/2008/07/30/04/2741-72/index.xml

To answer rockne's question of June 22, 2008, the reason so many SDDS units were removed is because Sony stopped supporting them. I agree the sound, to me, was even more dynamic than Dolby Digital, but it also was the most expensive of the 3 digital formats. DTS, in the industry, is known as the poor mans digital. I hope this answers your question.

Well, if the IMAX screen at AMC-BC gets as much attention as the rest of that theater does, it should be thoroughly unbearable and unwatchable within, say, six months or so.

I'll stick with the Jordan's IMAX theaters, they know how to take care of those...

This, for now, seems like as good a place as any for these...

As part of an essay I'm writing, I've made googlemaps showing all of the theatres operating in Boston-Camb-Somerville in May 1977 and May 2008, including screen counts, what was playing on those screens, who distributed those films, what became of the cinemas, etc. CT has been very helpful in creating these, so it is only fair that I provide links. Here they are:1977 & 2008

These maps are still works in progress, especially around the edges of Boston, but I figured I might as well post them now, for anyone who is interested, might want to let me know if anything's missing, or has suggestions of layout/methodology... if you've any feedback, please email me (addy linked to my profile). I'd like to keep the comments feature unused until I've got the things completed.

My only kvetch with the 1977 one - the Harvard Square Theatre did not have the address of 10 Church Street then - it would have been 1432 Mass Ave or thereabouts.

I should also add - that is a very cool google map! Nice work!

Good stuff! I look forward to the essay.

The Garden Theatre on Arlington Street definitely operated into the mid-late 1970s, but I'm not sure exactly when it closed.

The Park Cinema, in Fields Corner, was NOT also known as the Hyde Park Theatre.

I think the Puritan Mall Cinema in Dorchester was also still operating in 1977.

The Fairmount in Hyde Park may have been operating as the New Pixie or Nu-Pixie.

The theatre you label "South St. Theatre" was actually South Station Theatre. I recall it being south of the Central Artery, not north of it as shown on your map.

I think the theatre you label Brookline Village was called either Cinema Brookline or the Plaza in 1977, but I'm not positive.

One theatre that's missing from your 1977 map: the Village Cinema in West Roxbury.

West End Pussycat was on the south side of Causeway, not the north side as shown on the Google map.

Also worth checking - were any of the following still open in May 1977?

Fresh Pond Cinema (General Cinema, Cambridge)
Fresh Pond Drive-In (Cambridge)
Neponset Drive-In (Dorchester)

Thanks for the catches Ron. Those out-lying theatres (I'm a child of the northern suburbs) in Hyde Park, Dorchester, W. Roxbury haven't really been filled in yet. There are ads in the Globe & the Phoenix for them, so they're coming. Great help on the locations of the Pussycat and the South Station -- I'm thinking of adding their newspaper ads as images (South Station Theatre has a particularly nice one), if only the microfilm would print something a bit nicer. Would be lovely if the Globe digitized its pages a la the NY Times (I've used ads from that in presentations before).

Ian -- I've been meaning to move the Harvard Sq. around the corner -- wish I could find an image of its entrance (have been meaning to check with the CHS).

This is a reply to rockne. When AMC took over the Loews theaters only some of the theaters had their SDDS units replaced with Dolby Digital. At most theaters now owned by AMC theatres, many of the SDDS units are still in place. The cost of replacing all of the SDDS equipment is way too high.

Usually an average old AMC theater probably has a few Dolby Digital units for backup. These are used if a particular movie is not encoded with SDDS or if the movies is in DLP digital projection. The only sound system compatible with digital projection is Dolby Digital. AMC installs Dolby Digital EX on all screens at their new theaters.

Some AMC theaters show movies in Closed Captioning. When a movie is listed as Closed Captioned, they have to use DTS because the captions are stored on the DTS discs.

From the Fandango listings for this theater, the two movies in DLP are definitely Dolby Digital and the Closed Captioned movie should be in DTS. The rest of the movies could be in SDDS. You can check imdb.com to see if the movie that you want to see has SDDS. Some movies are not encoded in SDDS such as independent films or art films.

What matters most with regard to sound quality is what type of speakers are used. JBL and QSC make high quality speakers with great sound. However, Klipsch on the other hand makes speakers that lack power and dynamic range. The official speaker provider of Regal Cinemas is Klipsch. It is very difficult to tell the difference between the different digital sound formats. Since most theaters use different brands of speakers you can't really compare. What matters most is that a movie theater sounds good to you.

pmont - I have a great framed photo of the original Harvard Square entrance circa 1941 (I believe it is one of the MGM Theatre Report photos that Ron Salters often references. Either way, it was known as the University Theatre then) It was a gift, so I don't know where it came from, but the CHS does have old photos you can xerox or have printed; they are in the little municipal building to the left of city hall.

pmont: also worth noting are three multiplex cinemas that opened after 1977, but closed before 2008, and are therefore not on either of your maps: Copley Place, Nickelodeon, and Assembly Square. (I think that's the entire list.)

Now that the Circle Cinemas have closed, this is one of only two remaining movie theatres within the city limits of Boston. (The other is Regal Fenway 13.)

I walk by the Boston Common Cinema almost every weekday and it has a sign hanging in its window about IMAX coming there soon. I started wondering how AMC was going to squeeze a five-story-tall screen into one of the theaters there, so I did some research on the Web.

I found some interviews with IMAX executives. It seems IMAX has been downsizing their theaters to make them more affordable to build (IMAX MPX). It's knocked the build price down to about $1.5 million by shrinking screens and making theaters smaller with seats closer to the screen to provide supposedly the "same" IMAX experience. The head guy said the company does extensive consumer testing and consumers couldn't tell the difference.

The next evolution for the company is Digital IMAX, which it's now rolling out. The company signed a deal last year with AMC and Regal for 100 screens and 35 screens respectively.

Basically, Digital IMAX is two Christie DLP digital projectors with 4k resolutions where the images overlapped for greater brightness which can be installed in any theater with a slightly larger screen. The company says the cost of an IMAX print is $22,000 ($44,000 for 3D) and by using digital projection, it can reduce the cost to an $800 hard drive (and make more money). The projectors are suppose to have special processing in them that would make them look just as good as an IMAX film presentation, the company claims, and that consumer testing once again showed people would feel they had the same IMAX experience.

Now almost all the other digital projectors currently installed in theaters are 2k, but Sony, Christie, Barco and NEC already have 4k projectors which should be out next year. If you figure that the number of digital cinemas have been roughly doubling every year, and some chains are already building all digital megaplexes, IMAX's advantage will be short-lived.

Kodak says the resolution of 35mm film is 4k, so Digital IMAX will basically have the same resolution as regular 35mm movie film, not the 16x resolution of IMAX 15-perf film.

MIT Media Labs some years ago did studies that indicated that most people couldn't tell the difference between standard definition and high-definition, and that's what the IMAX folks seem to be banking on.

I think the company is ruining everything it originally stood for for short-term profits. The company will still insist theaters charge $3 extra for tickets, that the studios pay it 12.5% of the IMAX grosses, and that theater owners kick back 3% of their ticket price to IMAX. In return, all the consumer will get is two modified digital projectors instead of one as in the other digital theaters. They may think that they will be getting the "IMAX experience," but they really won't be.

Of course, the IMAX theater at Boston Common will be opening soon, so I hope people will give their opinions here.

You can read an interview with IMAX's CEO at more at: http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=1779 and a good overview of the company and of the new digital system at http://www.filmjournal.com/filmjournal/features/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003817698&imw=Y .

Any update on IMAX @ Boston Common?

Hmmm..

Ron...I had no idea that the Neponset Drive-in down in Dorchester was still open. Or is it?

Just curious.

The Boston Common AMC (formerly Lowes) Theatre is a huge, cavernous place. I saw the film "Apocalypse Now--Redux" there roughly ten or eleven years ago, which was pretty intense. I also like the fact that there are stadium seats, which means that one looks directly down at the movie screen, rather than at the backs of people's heads the whole time.

Loews Boston Common opened in 2001, so if you saw this movie here, it was more recently than ten years ago.

Can anyone tell me if this is the busiest theater in Boston? I never been to Boston but from what I read it doesn't have as many theaters as markets it's size has. If this isn't the busiest one in Boston can someone tell me which one is?

Since there are only two movie theatres in Boston, and this is the larger one (with 19 screens, vs. 13 at Regal Fenway 13), I'd guess that it is also the 'busier' one.

I guess with the economy, AMC did not go ahead with its plans to convert one of the theaters to digital IMAX. The "coming soon" sign came down in October.

There's a great review thread on this theater on Yelp.

The "Fake" Imax is in Methuen and Danvers.