Cinerama Dome and ArcLight Cinemas
6360 Sunset Boulevard,
Los Angeles,
CA
90028
6360 Sunset Boulevard,
Los Angeles,
CA
90028
102 people
favorited this theater
A geodesic dome built for the Cinerama format, this mini-Epcot like structure is a wonder of 1960’s showmanship. Featuring an enormous curved screen and ample seating underneath the large dome, the Cinerama Dome is famous for blending first run films with the occassional revival classic. The Cinerama Dome opened November 17, 1963 with 937 seats and the World Premiere in 70mm of “Its a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World”. Additional 70mm films included the West Coast premiere of “The Greatest Story Ever Told” on February 17, 1965, the World Premiere of “The Battle of the Bulge” on December 16, 1965 and the World Premiere of “Ice Station Zebra” on October 23, 1968. In 1999, The Dome exhibited an exclusive week long showing of the original “Blade Runner” answer print.
The Cinerama Dome was recently renovated by Pacific Theatres and the theater is now able to exhibit 3-strip Cinerama features — something it never did even when it first opened. The Cinerama Dome and the Seattle Cinerama are currently the only theaters in the US equipped to show 3-strip Cinerama prints. In 2002, the restored “This Is Cinerama” was shown in 3-strip Cinerama, the first time it had been screened at the Cinerama Dome. The original 3-strip Cinerama version of “How The West Was Won” was shown in February 2003 and October 2005.
A new 14-screen luxury theater, ArcLight Cinemas, now adjoins the original Cinerama Dome and offers first-run commercial, art, revival, and other specialty films. A unique movie lover’s paradise.
Want to be emailed when a new comment is posted about this theater?
Just login to your account and subscribe to this theater
Recent comments (view all 997 comments)
as a matter of archival purposes, I think it would behove studios to encode the film as it originally mixed with the LE and RE channels on the DCP harddrive edition. DCI (digital cinema initiative) specs have the extra channels in place already, but no one has implemented them yet… With theaters adding more and more speakers/channels into the fray (Barco 11.1 Auro, Dolby Atmos, 7.1, etc), the non-use of the LE and RE seems like a glaring omission and needs to be rectified.
I agree, EdSolero; add to that the fact that recitification, in the view of many, did not help all that much, which may be why it was not used on 70mm Cinerama films shot in Super Panavision 70 or Technirama 70. I remember seeing “Mad World” at the Palace in Cleveland on its deeply curved Cinerama screen and there was still some splaying at the extreme edges. ‘Bulge" looked better at the Great Northern, but the screen had a shallower curve.
I can’t recall where I read it years ago, but Stanley Kramer was not totally happy with the way the initial presentations of “It’s A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World” looked at some of the roadshow venues as screen sizes, throw, and other factors caused varying amounts of distortion even with the rectified print.
Hello-
i haven’t been out to L.A. since the spring of 2004 at which time the Pacific up on Hollywood Blvd. was still boarded up and unused. now the last time i was out when it was still a first run venue abet a tri-plexed? one didn’t the downstairs main auditorium have a deeply curved screen? if i am not mistaken the Pacific along with the Cinerama Dome was used for reserved seat runs of Cinerama films both 3-strip and single lens 70mm ones. or is it possible they removed the curved screen when the Pacific was decommissioned as a movie theater.
bigjoe59: See the Pacific’s entry here on CT here. It has been used as a church and for some industry events, but it needs serious repair and renovations.
You are referring to the old Warner Pacific on Hollywood blvd. At one time this theater was used to run reserve seat Cinerama films but the Cinerama screen was replaced with a smaller flatter screen (not sure when). In the 70’s I attended a 70mm festival in New York at the Strand Theater http://cinematreasures.org/theaters/2975. This was also at one time a Cinerama Theater. I marveled at the huge (90+ feet) screen and talked at length to the projectionist. His comment was' “you should have seen the screen before we cut it down in size.” So most of the deep dish screens that were used for Cinerama and Todd-AO were replaced with more conventional sized and shaped screens in the late 60’s early 70’s.
Monday evening Ben Hur added in the Dome for all those that couldn’t get away on Mother’s Day.
and … and ?? how did ‘Ben Hur’ look on the Dome screen?
Mr. Sittig: I was asking, of course, about the screen SIZE of your 4k showing for “Ben Hur” (versus a 70mm 6-track magnetic presentation of same) and not the AMOUNT of in-frame image retained/cropped, etc. I was speaking of the actual masking in the auditorium; while you were referring to the virtual masking for the image itself (i.e. black bars). Naturally, the in-frame composition is subsequently projected and therefore no minor matter. However, I was simply trying to find out if this week’s digital showing would be comparable at all to the enveloping, extremely “large” (both visually and aurally) 70mm performance of “Ben Hur” at the Cinerama-Hollywood in 1990. Since we’re talking about a movie that is, after all, on television every Easter and Christmas—fully letterboxed and in beautiful HD, the paramount question for many of us concerning so sharp/expansive a picture is, frankly: how big is the theatre screen? Since I still wasn’t able to ascertain that from your nonetheless very thoughtful answers, I decided to just go find out for myself.
In answer to Giles and for those interested (and forewarned of my tendency to idealize film): I found the 4k format certainly serviceable but far from the magnificent, event-like splendor of the 1990 70mm engagement. The size of this Sunday’s “Ben Hur” showing was comparable to a 35mm scope projection: the picture was about 15-20% shorter than a 70 presentation at the Dome; and neither did it extend as far to the left or right as 70 in that venue. As Mr. Sittig indicated, this digital showing, like with the HD letterbox version on TV, is a more elongated picture (i.e. with a wider aspect ratio because of less cropping on the sides). And certainly more image/less cropping is always better than the reverse. However, the 4k picture overall is a much smaller projected image than a 70 performance in the Dome. The picture resolution was likewise decent. In fact, some scenes I have to admit popped more in digital. However, other scenes were much darker (too dark) and the focus overall was soft—particularly away from the center of the picture. Speaking of which, the aperture plate (if there is such a thing on digital projectors—I haven’t been in a booth in decades) appeared to be slicing off the two bottom corners. Also, for some reason, the auditorium masking wasn’t brought in over those black bars and on the sides (i.e. set to properly frame the readable image) to achieve a nice professional, finished look. Instead there appeared empty screen on all four sides of the picture. I know sometimes auditorium masking is left ajar for sound or technical reasons but it looks like the devil. The digital soundtrack was very good but it sounded strained at times. At least as far as my extremely subjective recollections go, 6-channel magnetic stereo still seems to me to be a richer experience. Of course, it’s always possible that I’m allowing my prejudice in favor of film to distort my memory on these matters. However, I don’t believe such is the case. I really have no problem with digital projection/sound for regular movies (they look and sound great). However, 70 in the Dome is still overall a much better experience—particularly for a giant epic like “Ben Hur” and for a large-screen theatre with a name and expectations like “Cinerama”.
Your memory is not distorted 2001, My Fair Lady, West Side Story etc. were spectacular in the roadshow versions. Film still is the superior image especially on large screens and wide gauge. The cost of film especially for release prints is the problem.
Thanks, Zubi… great insight!