Having been puzzled how this multiplex was somehow inserted into a 1960s shopping centre*, a quick look on Google Maps revealed the answer—it was built above the multi-storey car park at to the rear!
(*1967 according to its Wikipedia page—rather than 1971 per the CT description—although I haven’t a clue which is correct.)
This is more obvious in Streetview photos, where added structure can be clearly seen.
One such scheme dated back to 1993, given a (refused!) planning application dated 27/05/1993. The plans are not available on Hammersmith and Fulham’s online planning records, so whether this was for a cinema is anyone’s guess; however, the development as built appears to date from 1997.
Main planning application—“Erection of a multiplex (12 screen) cinema building above the existing first floor open deck roof-top car park…”
Wonder if this makes it a “unique” building housing a cinema—one might imagine similar somewhere in, say, the Far East—but at least in the UK?
Auditorium 1 is entered at ground level, extending down into basement level at the screen end.
Chapman Taylor was the architect for the shell only.
I should add that my comments on the “chaos” in the ground floor foyer relate to this occasion, a couple of days after opening, only; presumably, operations will be “tuned up” ASAP.
There is an earlier planning application from 2014, but this is at best of academic interest (!) only; the above-linked 2015 application is substantially different, including a change of architect.
The cost of this development (excluding fit-outs by operators) ended up being £20.8m—increasing from the original figure of £14m.
This seems to be an astonishing figure, and should this raise eyebrows over its perceived commerical viablity, it is notable that the developer is the local authority (Royal Borough of Greenwich)—their aim being to provide a catalyst for regeneration.
Built on a very tight site formerly occupied by what was for many years a Co-op department store (latterly a pound shop), according to a Greenwich Council committee report, high levels of ground water, shortage of building labour in London, and cinema operator requirements resulted in the revised project cost, c.f. the original £14m.
The report also states that the cinema is on a 25 year lease.
I visited the site just before handover for the fit-out—primary partition walls (auditoria, restaurants) were constructed but not those for toilets etc.; lifts were installed (albeit not yet commissioned), etc. The main contractor for this phase was Willmott Dixon.
Hence, mostly what could be seen was acres of “Soundbloc” plasterboard, except for underneath the stadia, which was fire rated plasterboard.
The cinema, save for the ground floor entrance/foyer, is on an upper level, on a concrete slab varying between 500mm and 1m (!) in depth, supported by a steel frame, as required for isolation (restaurant units below) plus carrying high loads.
The stadia are isolated on neoprene pads, with pads in the auditorium demising walls also. The stadia were complete with plywood steps/risers.
Incidentally, with the building in a “stripped” state, one can really see just how thick the walls are. (Presumably double walls with mineral wool in the voids.)
Soundproofing of some auditoria was due to be tested later on the day of the visit; and apparently, rain testing of the roof deck resulted in failure by 1 or 2dB!
The site manager said that they would rather have worked on the fit-out, as not only were they liasing with Greenwich Council and tenants, but the fit-out contractors (Swindon Interiors for the Vue)—apparently a nightmare in terms of such details as drain positioning!
Vue, apparently, are a demanding client, with very high standards; albeit the site manager did state that it was the first cinema that they had worked on.
Otherwise, there seems to be little reason to visit what is almost certainly a run-of-the-mill miniplex of modest sized auditoria. (“VIP” seating is included in the middle rows of the auditoria, but not recliners.)
I did, however, have a brief look last weekend (the cinema opening last Thursday) at the ground floor main foyer, which seemed to be chaotic; there did not seem to be any performance information whatsoever, with no self-service machines visible. One might expect customers to book online, but the long queues at the concessions counter suggested otherwise.
The foyer’s floor was strewn with popcorn, and, I don’t recall any background music playing (JBL speakers.)
Otherwise, it is a perfectly attractive foyer (although being used to, above all, West End venues, basic) and includes a small seating area with green velour upholstered chairs (alas, with a view out of the window of the distinctly unglamourous High Street!)
Demolition, sub-structure and basement works: Erith Contractors
(Source: Above-linked Greenwich Council report.)
Work: “Shell and core of new cinema and restaurants”
Architect: Chapman Taylor
Structural Engineer: AECOM
Photos of exterior under construction, interior prior to fit-out, and of foyer post-opening to follow.
Corrections to the description:
The foyer includes 2x self-service Coca-Cola Freestyle and 2x self-service Tango Ice Blast machines.
It is the first cinema in the town centre since the ABC closed in 1972; however, the Coronet (Odeon) Well Hall was only ~1km away, also only 500m from Eltham Station.
joeswin: If memory serves correctly, the first generation of “modern” (i.e. post mid-80s) multiplexes tended to include curtains. It wasn’t until the next generation designs—second half of the 90s—featuring stadium stepped seating, with only moderately angled front splay walls, that they were dispensed with—e.g. typical example of Warner Bros. International Theatres* house style. Of course, these “evolved” to today’s standard “black box” auditoria with wall-to-wall screens.
(*The same house style was used in Warner cinemas outside of the partnership between Warner Bros. International Theatres and Village Roadshow; Warner Mycal in Japan, for instance.)
Zappomatic: Indeed, and I bought ice cream from there myself from the kiosk in the linked image! However, the unit’s current use class remains the one in place for the Bureau de Change that previously operated there, so Cineworld still need permission for the change of use to allow the operation of a takeaway.
Cineworld have submitted planning applications for changes to the frontage and a new takeaway counter in the old “Ritz”/“Empire 2” entrance in 1-4 Leicester Square. (I suppose strictly this should go under its separate page on CT, but to my mind it reads as part of the cinema as a whole?)
The main “FULL” application is dated as received 8th February 2019, with the (sloppily written!) “Design and Access Statement” summarising the scheme, including a rendering on p7; Chapman Taylor is the project architect.
In summary, the proposal is for a “HUNGER GAMES” (Cineworld’s own brand) “kiosk,” removal of the existing brown granite to be replaced with black metal cladding, and the installation of a 6.55x1m LED display module screen above (to display static images only.)
A good idea to bring that section of the frontage back into use, but it looks quite tacky, albeit the rendering is of poor quality—and must Cineworld dispose of yet more high quality finishing materials?
It wouldn’t surprise me to see that the LED screen aspect will go to appeal.
Some further information on Cineworld’s 2018 foyer/lobbies refurbishment and 4DX conversion of the former Screen 2 is available in an article on the website of AV Magazine, dated 22nd March 2019.
The relevant sections of the article are:
Foyer/lobbies: Under the heading “Making a grand entrance.”
4DX: A few paragraphs under the sub-heading: “Four types of 4DX.”
At the screen end of the auditorium, the floor was lowered by 1 metre, the foundations reinforced to carry the load imposed by the 4DX seating.
Companies involved with the project: “Maeve Contractors, GF Holding, PHG Consulting, Eton, Clarkebond, Chapman Taylor, AJR Electrical and Wilden.”
4DX seating comes in units of 4 seats, which cannot be dismantled; they had to be brought down “three flights of stairs with minimum space for manoeuvrability.”
Some further information on Cineworld’s 2018 foyer/lobbies refurbishment and 4DX conversion of the former Screen 2 is available in an article on the website of AV Magazine, dated 22nd March 2019.
The relevant sections of the article are:
Foyer/lobbies: Under the heading “Making a grand entrance.”
4DX: A few paragraphs under the sub-heading: “Four types of 4DX.”
As suspected from the branded protective sheeting in Zappomatic’s photos of the foyer/lobbies refurbishment, Maeve Contractors—principal contractor for the conversion of the former Screen 1 to IMAX/Superscreen—are confirmed to have been also involved in this project.
LED modules used are from Chinese company Konka Media, with Cineworld Group having previously worked with the them in Prague.
Standard DVI/HDMI input to the module controllers supplied by Konka.
For the signature installation on the vestibule stairs up from the main Leicester Square entrance—risers being a non-standard installation location—the modules are installed in a “safety unit” for protection from patrons, with the requirements of building regulations in mind. The installation also allows maintenance access to the modules from the front.
Total modules used for the stairs—65; number of stair risers: 14; total size: 4.8mx2.2m; resolution 960x416 pixels.
Progress on the extension work is covered in an article on the website of AV Magazine, including photos. The fit-out started in December 2018.
Some key points from the article:
Following the completion of the extension, the total floor area of the Cineworld O2 will be 134,000sq.ft.—the biggest cinema in London.
Interior is said to be designed by Chris Tyrell (Architect), also responsible for some other Cineworld locations.
Fit-out was project managed by principal contractor Ereconomic, “working alongside an internal construction team,” working to a tight schedule for opening at the end of April 2019.
The extension’s new auditoria will have 1400 seats across 8 auditoria.
One of the auditoria will be equipped with 4DX. Hence, both of CJ4DPLEX’s theatrical systems (ScreenX and 4DX) will be available at the Cineworld O2.
3x60 seat VIP auditoriums with “lazy boy-style, leather electronic reclining seats, all you can eat buffet and unlimited soft drinks and snacks.” (Fellow patrons munching away yields a “VIP” moviegoing experience?! :–( How about auditoria with NO food consumption allowed?)
All auditoria will be equipped with 2K Barco laser projectors (it states Barco P2K-23BLP in the 4DX and VIP auditoria.)
A hole in the roof of the O2 had to be made for loading purposes.
The article includes some puzzling statements, particularly the claim that the O2’s Superscreen is the largest screen in the UK (excluding the BFI IMAX)—Cineworld themselves operate venues with auditoria fitted with larger screens!
A comprehensive video tour of the cinema is available on YouTube, upload dated October 2018. Despite having been closed for almost 15 years, at the time of shooting, it was in a largely intact condition, with only a “soft” strip of fittings; wall finishes, carpets and suspended ceilings are still intact.
Not the grandest of venues, but a rare opportunity to see an “urban exploration” (permission for the tour was granted by Hope Church) of a cinema closed for many years that hasn’t been trashed by vandals, pigeons or water.
Revisiting the OLS this week, this time positioned in row “D” of the stalls instead of the front row of the Royal Circle.
I will focus less on the decorative aspects of the refurbishment, important as they are, and more on the seating position and audio/visual quality aspects of the presentation.
Incidentally, as of about a week ago, there was no sign of building work (e.g. the service yard to Charing Cross Road) and so it seems reasonable to assume that all work is now complete.
The proscenium end of the auditorium, that is to say the new walls and particularly reprofiled/lowered ceiling, actually looks fine from the front stalls, not being juxtaposed against the 1930s plasterwork above the circle balcony.
It seemed to me that the recliners were not identical to those in the Royal Circle—being narrower, not reclining as far back, and with less generous row spacing; looking at the licensing plans, they appear to confirm this. These seats are, of course, still very comfortable indeed.
From the stalls, the uniformity on screen was not as good as in the Royal Circle, with hotspotting in the centre and some falloff to the edges. However, thanks to the reclining seats, the raised screen position was no problem* and from this location, it appeared to be a reasonable size—although having more frequently sat in the front stalls than the circle, it was more obvious to me that it had clearly “shrunk.”
(*“ideally” one should be positioned somewhat above the bottom of the screen; although, personally, I quite like having the screen “towering” above as if “larger than life.”)
From the rear stalls, as the screen has been moved up, it is still the case that the top of the screen can only be seen from the last row; As previously mentioned, the bottom of the new screen location is only just visibile from the front row of the Royal Circle. Additionally, the raised screen position means that it is not notably tilted up, as it was; and it also obviates, at stalls level, the problem of the bottom of the screen being blocked by a person seated in the next row, particularly if the seat in which one is situated is reclined, and the one in front is not. Although the stalls rake has been improved, it is certainly not as steep as “stadium”-style seating.
It thus seems reasonable to assume that the reduced screen size was chosen for sightlines; in fact, from the stalls, I would guess these are better than the IMAX across Leicester Square, where, despite its stadia being reasonably steep, a tall person in front can block the bottom of the screen. (IMAX’s 1983 SMPTE Journal paper, incidentally, says that this could occur with their auditorium geometry but suggests that it is not overly problematic since nothing important should appear towards the bottom of the screen.)
See previous post on the wood veneer finished wall panelling; briefly, there are lots of small holes or slots in it and acoustic absorption behind.
The audio in this seating location was very good; if I had to be picky, it wasn’t quite as bright as I’d have liked, and there seemed to be some peakiness in the upper midrange, as well as some metallic colouration to the high frequencies. Playback seemed to be at around reference level and, although I had previously considered it to be slightly stressed under peak levels, it seemed effortless on this occasion. Subbass is very extended, albeit a bit “one note” in character, but it could certainly shake seats and pound the chest.
The Dolby Cinema trailer really showed off what the system could do, and, based on this, not only is this a first rate Atmos installation which benefits immeasurably from the auditorium’s size, giving a massive sense of scale and space, but pans around the auditorium showed very effective “pinpoint” rear/overhead imaging. Having previously discussed the IMAX 12 channel system, with its additional two sides and four overheads, it would certainly seem to be the case that Atmos is superior in respect of both diffuse surround and precise imaging. In particular, the IMAX system over in the Cineworld Leicester Square (Empire Theatre) struggles to place sounds directly behind the listener.
Additionally, despite altogether different speakers being used for the rears compared to the fronts, with yet another product being used to “fill” the back of the stalls, the whole system was remarkably seamless in terms of timbre matching.
It would seem that the work that went into designing and tuning the system has paid off.
The added capabilities of Atmos become somewhat by-the-by, however, as the sound mixes of movies just do not seem to take full advantage of the system’s capabilities and so outside of “whizz-bang” system promotion trailers, the difference is marginal. I should also add that, in my view, “multi-dimension” surround is somewhat overboard; the screen is where the action is, and the rears really need mostly to provide a sense of almost subconscious envelopment rather than sounds panning all over the auditorium. Our hearing system evolved to be most sensitive to the direction of sounds in front of us; we would simply turn our head around in case of being approached (potentially by a threat!)
It seemed that the HVAC system was slightly audible during the feature, although much quieter it was pre-refurbishment.
Comments otherwise on projection as before, although, as the performance was 2D rather than 3D, Dolby’s claims of achieving extremely low black levels became more obviously questionable. In the Dolby Cinema “Universe” trailer that was played, there is a section in which the voiceover says “THIS IS BLACK.”
I’m sorry to say that it was very dark grey, and not comparable to the “extreme” black levels achieved by high quality consumer OLED displays on the market. Based on the OLS installation, whether Dolby Cinema subjectively beats IMAX with Laser in terms of black level is difficult for me to say, and it could be that the inverse is true; however, I am confident that it is definitely not dramatically better.
As mentioned in a previous post, IMO, IMAX with Laser GT dual projection, alongside IMAX’s DMR processing, remains the best cinema digital projection system. It looks smoother and more “film-like,” in a positive way, whilst being absolutely steady and detailed, than any other.
I should also add, the slight barrel distortion to the bottom of the screen (“smiley face”) was noticeable, but in addition, I also noticed that overall there was some slight off-centre distortion to the screen—but none of this was objectionable during the main feature (only graphics within adverts or titles in the main feature to notice it.)
One issue is that the “scale” of the sound is disproportionate to the picture, in terms of space, dynamic range and low frequency impact—but—then again—would an underspecified system be an improvement?
JBL ceiling speakers are installed in the men’s toilets in the former rear stalls. Incidentally, they (same decor as the circle toilets) are a great deal better than the cramped toilets previously situated behind the right splay wall.
Not sure if the “white” decorative lighting in the coves/around the “flying ladies” was set to a warmer colour temperature. It seemed less cold than my recollection, but not as per the orange “flame white” shown in the Twitter photo previously linked to by joeswin. But, no matter what the colour temperature, the decorative lighting is not what it could be.
The front stalls thus make for a very attractive place to see a film. They are in an excellent sweet spot for the audio. It’s too bad that the screen is smaller than it was—albeit the move forward compensates—and that the screen is raised up a bit (personally, I don’t mind this) and the illumination uniformity achieved in this location is less impressive. But otherwise, first class picture and sound is on offer, comfortable seating, and the feeling of being surrounded by the auditorium of a spacious super-cinema. Added to which, the seat pricing in this location, by West End standards, is often quite competitive—and the OLS seems to be very much busier than it was pre-refurbishment.
Having now revisited the OLS, this time seated in the front stalls (write-up to follow,) I had a close look at the panels fitted to the lower front splay walls, which revealed a pattern of small slots.
These can be seen in the product’s specification sheet, which states that an up to 50mm “acoustic core” (absorption) can be fitted behind, which, combined with the highest “perforation rate” version of the product, affords a very high level of sound absorption at mid/high frequencies.
Alas, the article is, ahem, rather “lightweight,” and the only “new” information is the equipment list as FanaticalAboutOdeon has previously posted. It also includes basic equipment lists for the former Studios screens.
Disappointing in the extreme that the custom sound installation in particular was not covered in further detail, not to mention many other aspects.
Joeswin: Thank you for the link, that looks like exactly the colour I had previously suggested—“Flame White.” As the white on the screen is clearly a much cooler temperature, it’s quite plausible that the photo does show that the colour or colour temperature can be changed. (Could be RGBWW with two different colour temperature white LEDs.)
Included are two photos of a former “Studios” auditorium. It can be seen that there is not enough space for the new seats to recline, and, the rake is rather shallow. In the latter case, the poor slightlines have been noted on online customer review sites.
With the confirmation of Eomac’s involvement with the OLS refurbishment, this means that all three of the currently operating main Leicester Square cinemas have their products installed.
Lionel: The smaller screen might relate to sightlines? Before the refurbishment, the front row of the circle had restricted views, and today, the bottom of the screen is only just visible over the top edge of the balcony—and that’s despite the screen being raised up.
I have uploaded a (poor quality!) photo which shows the screen taken from the front row of the Royal Circle during the end credits (out of focus!) of “Alita: Battle Angel.”
Alas, this issue does not yet appear to be available on their website! :–(
I’m surprised that they have kept the NEC NC3240 digital projector.
Lionel: Before today’s upsized “PLF” screens, it was a reasonable size; but it has long been unquestionably small in relation to the depth of the auditorium.
I am amazed that it has been “shrunk” to ~44ft. wide (whether measured by chord or arc.) Odeon have announced the second UK Dolby Cinema location in Leeds—19m wide (~62ft.)
Still, in selecting the première auditorium among those in Leicester Square, there can be no doubt in my mind that the Cineworld (argh… Empire!) LSQ IMAX provides a bigger, “correctly” positioned screen with (somewhat) superior picture quality, whilst a good seat in the Royal Circle is a far better option for comfort and is in a full “super cinema”—not to mention the substantially more cogenial ancillary facilities.
FanaticalAboutOdeon: The lighting certainly looks very smooth, but I’m not sure it’s cold cathode. With LED having taken over the world of lighting these days, and, given that Odeon wanted to be rid of the neon on the facade (i.e. the blue strips were replaced by LEDs), plus the fact that a high quality LED system will reliably last for 10,000s of hours of use, I can see them equally preferring a “fit and forget” system that won’t require maintenance in the main auditorium.
The “tell tale” signs of LEDs may not be obvious—LEDs do range in quality, and the best white LEDs are quite close to ideal light sources (smooth spectrum as with daylight or incandescent bulbs), plus more expensive product gets selected LEDs that perform best and are within tighter tolerances (so in a linear application consisting of a long row of LEDs, there is no visible variation in colour temperature—at least, when new!)
(Strictly “white” LEDs do not exist; phosphors in front of, typically, a blue LED are used to convert the light produced to the other parts of the spectrum—thus the characteristic blue “spike” in the spectrum.)
An advantage of adding a white LED to the three primaries is with the creation of subtle “pastel” hues.
I remember seeing the odd sections of blue LEDs in those pictures of the unfinished auditorium—I’m not sure that I saw pink? That seemed to be the case in multiple photos, but it looked very patchy and I doubt every last LED can be individually addressed, so I’m not sure if it’s not a photographic oddity.
Come to think of it, the CG renderings did show some sections set to blue.
Comparing the auditorium as it is today to one of the CG rendered shots, it is clear that changes have been made to the front splay walls as designed.
The “Flying Ladies” have been significantly lowered, being placed on top of the wooden panelling, the design of which has changed also.
The design shown in the CG renderings would have reduced the sense of the proscenium end now being berefit of decoration.
Interestingly, the tungsten footlights and dips used to illuminate the Empire’s curtains were filtered using colour gels which most closely matched the cove lighting so the overall effect tended to look satisfyingly coordinated.
Those on the ends of the (audience) left sidewall can be seen in a video (direct link to time in video) shot just literally just before the strip-out work began.
The match between the cold cathode lighting and these was impressive indeed—pretty much seamless!
Any further information on the sort of luminares used would be greatly appreciated. IIRC, those on the floor looked something like the Strand Coda 4 floodlights.
Four strips were concealed within each of the Empire’s coves, all secondary colours – yellow, deep pink, pale/bright blue and white
Surprised that white was included given that TheatreOfVarieties has stated that there were three colours (those secondary colours that you listed?) Perhaps this was prior to the 1989 refurbishment; the colours always looked very saturated to me.
The details of your home setup are most interesting and, I wonder, if you find the amber LEDs help with producing “warm” tones, and, I’m not sure what application you’d find for UV?
I find it very ironic that so much of my “little Odeon” was inspired by what I saw at OLS yet today I believe the theatrical presentation I offer could teach Oscar’s flagship a few things – ought it not to be the other way round?
Absolutely—but at least there is the opportunity to store information on the best examples from the past somewhere!
FanaticalAboutOdeon: Thank you for your comment on the photo page showing the coving lit by the now-working concealed lighting.
Eureka! They’ve finally used the cove lighting but does it all have to be white? The system, as installed, is capable of being set on various points within its not unlimited spectrum and even a pastel shade of blue, mauve or coral would prevent the unconcealed speakers from being at least as eye-catching as the “ladies” from balcony level.
Have you any further detail on the cove lighting (or other lighting?)
If its colour can be set—it doesn’t really look like just red, green and blue LEDs combined to create white light, although hard to say.
(Of course, this does not actually yield white light suitable for general use, because although it might look white when directly viewed, the result is not a continuous spectrum of light—producing off-colour results from lit surfaces—but it could be used for appropriate architectural applications.)
Just wondering if there are actually white LEDs as well as red, green and blue.
I concur with your suggested colour settings rather than white.
Also, I am confused as to why different fittings would need to be used for “house” and “safety” lighting?
Regarding the dark blue upholstered top edge of the balcony, photo to follow… (which unfortunately also shows the mess of rear speakers to balcony front that have necessiated the removal of the “pageant box!”)
Addendum: Since opening in December 2018, the temporary “DOLBY CINEMA” on the wall behind the right of the “glass box” has been replaced with a larger backlit sign.
LARGE_screen_format: Thank you very much, I have tried my very best to document as many aspects as I can. :–)
One year in the making and you weren’t blown away. Hmmm…
In relation to the visual aspects of Dolby Cinema, indeed—for all of Dolby’s horn tooting, and glowing “press” coverage—on this occasion it was hard to see how it is particularly, if at all, superior to a top quality “generic” PLF installation. Certainly the picture did not seem to benefit from enhanced features that IMAX offer (the “DMR” processing, the “image enhancer,” and so on) as well as some of IMAX’s other proprietary or exclusively licensed technologies and R&D development.
AFAIK IMAX still have exclusivity for theatrical presentations in taller 1.90:1 or 1.43:1 formats (where relevant) over being restricted to “scope” versions, whether vanilla DCPs or Dolby Cinema versions?
So, IMAX have not been comprehensively overtaken. Regardless of whether “Alita: Battle Angel” took full advantage of the capabilities of Dolby Vision, there are just too many fixed aspects of the system for that to be the case.
The IMAX with Laser dual-projection “GT” system would appear, for now, to continue to be the absolute “Rolls Royce” of theatrical digital projection systems.
FanaticalAboutOdeon: Many thanks for your comment, the information on “past” lighting practices is most appreciated.
Was no one with a rudimentary knowledge of stage/architectural lighting involved/consulted during such an expensive transformation to this important venue? Clearly not.
You have hit the nail on the head here, I think—the problem is likely to be that no-one knew any better!
Unfortunately, the lighting was probably just considered essentially as a subset of mechanical/electrical services rather than a specialisation in its own right.
As I mentioned in my long post on the main page for the OLS, I don’t think the lighting is “cold” white (5000K) but more like 4000K. Ideally, I think they could have used 2000K (“flame” white.)
Picture/sound—I agree, the picture/sound was already very good—whilst the acoustics have been improved, better coverage achieved to the rear of the auditorium, and Atmos has been added—but as I alluded to in my post on the main page, if anything the previous JBL stage speaker system with full active crossovers was actually better than its replacement.
Otherwise, I agree broadly with everything you say—however, there are still lots of special touches, including the sections of green “velour” (?) fabric coverings, and the wood panelling to the lower sidewalls/rear wall.
The reimagined foyers are knockout; I still find the auditorium, despite the bungles, splended, and can highly recommend a good seat in the Royal Circle for a special occasion.
As with anything, you pay in terms of inconvenience (if getting there is a trek) and cost, and take your choice—but I really do find it very sad indeed to hear that you won’t be visiting the OLS again?
Having been puzzled how this multiplex was somehow inserted into a 1960s shopping centre*, a quick look on Google Maps revealed the answer—it was built above the multi-storey car park at to the rear!
(*1967 according to its Wikipedia page—rather than 1971 per the CT description—although I haven’t a clue which is correct.)
This is more obvious in Streetview photos, where added structure can be clearly seen.
One such scheme dated back to 1993, given a (refused!) planning application dated 27/05/1993. The plans are not available on Hammersmith and Fulham’s online planning records, so whether this was for a cinema is anyone’s guess; however, the development as built appears to date from 1997.
Main planning application—“Erection of a multiplex (12 screen) cinema building above the existing first floor open deck roof-top car park…”
Wonder if this makes it a “unique” building housing a cinema—one might imagine similar somewhere in, say, the Far East—but at least in the UK?
Corrections:
Addendum:
There is an earlier planning application from 2014, but this is at best of academic interest (!) only; the above-linked 2015 application is substantially different, including a change of architect.
The cost of this development (excluding fit-outs by operators) ended up being £20.8m—increasing from the original figure of £14m.
This seems to be an astonishing figure, and should this raise eyebrows over its perceived commerical viablity, it is notable that the developer is the local authority (Royal Borough of Greenwich)—their aim being to provide a catalyst for regeneration.
Built on a very tight site formerly occupied by what was for many years a Co-op department store (latterly a pound shop), according to a Greenwich Council committee report, high levels of ground water, shortage of building labour in London, and cinema operator requirements resulted in the revised project cost, c.f. the original £14m.
The report also states that the cinema is on a 25 year lease.
I visited the site just before handover for the fit-out—primary partition walls (auditoria, restaurants) were constructed but not those for toilets etc.; lifts were installed (albeit not yet commissioned), etc. The main contractor for this phase was Willmott Dixon.
Hence, mostly what could be seen was acres of “Soundbloc” plasterboard, except for underneath the stadia, which was fire rated plasterboard.
The cinema, save for the ground floor entrance/foyer, is on an upper level, on a concrete slab varying between 500mm and 1m (!) in depth, supported by a steel frame, as required for isolation (restaurant units below) plus carrying high loads.
The stadia are isolated on neoprene pads, with pads in the auditorium demising walls also. The stadia were complete with plywood steps/risers.
Incidentally, with the building in a “stripped” state, one can really see just how thick the walls are. (Presumably double walls with mineral wool in the voids.)
Soundproofing of some auditoria was due to be tested later on the day of the visit; and apparently, rain testing of the roof deck resulted in failure by 1 or 2dB!
The site manager said that they would rather have worked on the fit-out, as not only were they liasing with Greenwich Council and tenants, but the fit-out contractors (Swindon Interiors for the Vue)—apparently a nightmare in terms of such details as drain positioning!
Vue, apparently, are a demanding client, with very high standards; albeit the site manager did state that it was the first cinema that they had worked on.
Otherwise, there seems to be little reason to visit what is almost certainly a run-of-the-mill miniplex of modest sized auditoria. (“VIP” seating is included in the middle rows of the auditoria, but not recliners.)
I did, however, have a brief look last weekend (the cinema opening last Thursday) at the ground floor main foyer, which seemed to be chaotic; there did not seem to be any performance information whatsoever, with no self-service machines visible. One might expect customers to book online, but the long queues at the concessions counter suggested otherwise.
The foyer’s floor was strewn with popcorn, and, I don’t recall any background music playing (JBL speakers.)
Otherwise, it is a perfectly attractive foyer (although being used to, above all, West End venues, basic) and includes a small seating area with green velour upholstered chairs (alas, with a view out of the window of the distinctly unglamourous High Street!)
Demolition, sub-structure and basement works: Erith Contractors (Source: Above-linked Greenwich Council report.)
From Willmott Dixon’s project page:
Work: “Shell and core of new cinema and restaurants” Architect: Chapman Taylor Structural Engineer: AECOM
Photos of exterior under construction, interior prior to fit-out, and of foyer post-opening to follow.
Corrections to the description:
The foyer includes 2x self-service Coca-Cola Freestyle and 2x self-service Tango Ice Blast machines.
It is the first cinema in the town centre since the ABC closed in 1972; however, the Coronet (Odeon) Well Hall was only ~1km away, also only 500m from Eltham Station.
joeswin: If memory serves correctly, the first generation of “modern” (i.e. post mid-80s) multiplexes tended to include curtains. It wasn’t until the next generation designs—second half of the 90s—featuring stadium stepped seating, with only moderately angled front splay walls, that they were dispensed with—e.g. typical example of Warner Bros. International Theatres* house style. Of course, these “evolved” to today’s standard “black box” auditoria with wall-to-wall screens.
(*The same house style was used in Warner cinemas outside of the partnership between Warner Bros. International Theatres and Village Roadshow; Warner Mycal in Japan, for instance.)
Zappomatic: Indeed, and I bought ice cream from there myself from the kiosk in the linked image! However, the unit’s current use class remains the one in place for the Bureau de Change that previously operated there, so Cineworld still need permission for the change of use to allow the operation of a takeaway.
Covered in a BBC News article titled “Birmingham, Albama: A City Using Theatres to Reinvent Itself.”
Cineworld have submitted planning applications for changes to the frontage and a new takeaway counter in the old “Ritz”/“Empire 2” entrance in 1-4 Leicester Square. (I suppose strictly this should go under its separate page on CT, but to my mind it reads as part of the cinema as a whole?)
The main “FULL” application is dated as received 8th February 2019, with the (sloppily written!) “Design and Access Statement” summarising the scheme, including a rendering on p7; Chapman Taylor is the project architect.
In summary, the proposal is for a “HUNGER GAMES” (Cineworld’s own brand) “kiosk,” removal of the existing brown granite to be replaced with black metal cladding, and the installation of a 6.55x1m LED display module screen above (to display static images only.)
A good idea to bring that section of the frontage back into use, but it looks quite tacky, albeit the rendering is of poor quality—and must Cineworld dispose of yet more high quality finishing materials?
It wouldn’t surprise me to see that the LED screen aspect will go to appeal.
Some further information on Cineworld’s 2018 foyer/lobbies refurbishment and 4DX conversion of the former Screen 2 is available in an article on the website of AV Magazine, dated 22nd March 2019.
The relevant sections of the article are:
Foyer/lobbies: Under the heading “Making a grand entrance.” 4DX: A few paragraphs under the sub-heading: “Four types of 4DX.”
I will summarise relevant key points from the article here (with the foyer/lobbies information added to the cinema’s main page on CT.)
Some further information on Cineworld’s 2018 foyer/lobbies refurbishment and 4DX conversion of the former Screen 2 is available in an article on the website of AV Magazine, dated 22nd March 2019.
The relevant sections of the article are:
Foyer/lobbies: Under the heading “Making a grand entrance.” 4DX: A few paragraphs under the sub-heading: “Four types of 4DX.”
I will summarise relevant key points from the article here (with the 4DX information added to its own page on CT.)
Zappomatic: Thank you for the update.
Progress on the extension work is covered in an article on the website of AV Magazine, including photos. The fit-out started in December 2018.
Some key points from the article:
The article includes some puzzling statements, particularly the claim that the O2’s Superscreen is the largest screen in the UK (excluding the BFI IMAX)—Cineworld themselves operate venues with auditoria fitted with larger screens!
A comprehensive video tour of the cinema is available on YouTube, upload dated October 2018. Despite having been closed for almost 15 years, at the time of shooting, it was in a largely intact condition, with only a “soft” strip of fittings; wall finishes, carpets and suspended ceilings are still intact.
Not the grandest of venues, but a rare opportunity to see an “urban exploration” (permission for the tour was granted by Hope Church) of a cinema closed for many years that hasn’t been trashed by vandals, pigeons or water.
Revisiting the OLS this week, this time positioned in row “D” of the stalls instead of the front row of the Royal Circle.
I will focus less on the decorative aspects of the refurbishment, important as they are, and more on the seating position and audio/visual quality aspects of the presentation.
Incidentally, as of about a week ago, there was no sign of building work (e.g. the service yard to Charing Cross Road) and so it seems reasonable to assume that all work is now complete.
The proscenium end of the auditorium, that is to say the new walls and particularly reprofiled/lowered ceiling, actually looks fine from the front stalls, not being juxtaposed against the 1930s plasterwork above the circle balcony.
It seemed to me that the recliners were not identical to those in the Royal Circle—being narrower, not reclining as far back, and with less generous row spacing; looking at the licensing plans, they appear to confirm this. These seats are, of course, still very comfortable indeed.
From the stalls, the uniformity on screen was not as good as in the Royal Circle, with hotspotting in the centre and some falloff to the edges. However, thanks to the reclining seats, the raised screen position was no problem* and from this location, it appeared to be a reasonable size—although having more frequently sat in the front stalls than the circle, it was more obvious to me that it had clearly “shrunk.”
(*“ideally” one should be positioned somewhat above the bottom of the screen; although, personally, I quite like having the screen “towering” above as if “larger than life.”)
From the rear stalls, as the screen has been moved up, it is still the case that the top of the screen can only be seen from the last row; As previously mentioned, the bottom of the new screen location is only just visibile from the front row of the Royal Circle. Additionally, the raised screen position means that it is not notably tilted up, as it was; and it also obviates, at stalls level, the problem of the bottom of the screen being blocked by a person seated in the next row, particularly if the seat in which one is situated is reclined, and the one in front is not. Although the stalls rake has been improved, it is certainly not as steep as “stadium”-style seating.
It thus seems reasonable to assume that the reduced screen size was chosen for sightlines; in fact, from the stalls, I would guess these are better than the IMAX across Leicester Square, where, despite its stadia being reasonably steep, a tall person in front can block the bottom of the screen. (IMAX’s 1983 SMPTE Journal paper, incidentally, says that this could occur with their auditorium geometry but suggests that it is not overly problematic since nothing important should appear towards the bottom of the screen.)
See previous post on the wood veneer finished wall panelling; briefly, there are lots of small holes or slots in it and acoustic absorption behind.
The audio in this seating location was very good; if I had to be picky, it wasn’t quite as bright as I’d have liked, and there seemed to be some peakiness in the upper midrange, as well as some metallic colouration to the high frequencies. Playback seemed to be at around reference level and, although I had previously considered it to be slightly stressed under peak levels, it seemed effortless on this occasion. Subbass is very extended, albeit a bit “one note” in character, but it could certainly shake seats and pound the chest.
The Dolby Cinema trailer really showed off what the system could do, and, based on this, not only is this a first rate Atmos installation which benefits immeasurably from the auditorium’s size, giving a massive sense of scale and space, but pans around the auditorium showed very effective “pinpoint” rear/overhead imaging. Having previously discussed the IMAX 12 channel system, with its additional two sides and four overheads, it would certainly seem to be the case that Atmos is superior in respect of both diffuse surround and precise imaging. In particular, the IMAX system over in the Cineworld Leicester Square (Empire Theatre) struggles to place sounds directly behind the listener.
Additionally, despite altogether different speakers being used for the rears compared to the fronts, with yet another product being used to “fill” the back of the stalls, the whole system was remarkably seamless in terms of timbre matching.
It would seem that the work that went into designing and tuning the system has paid off.
The added capabilities of Atmos become somewhat by-the-by, however, as the sound mixes of movies just do not seem to take full advantage of the system’s capabilities and so outside of “whizz-bang” system promotion trailers, the difference is marginal. I should also add that, in my view, “multi-dimension” surround is somewhat overboard; the screen is where the action is, and the rears really need mostly to provide a sense of almost subconscious envelopment rather than sounds panning all over the auditorium. Our hearing system evolved to be most sensitive to the direction of sounds in front of us; we would simply turn our head around in case of being approached (potentially by a threat!)
It seemed that the HVAC system was slightly audible during the feature, although much quieter it was pre-refurbishment.
Comments otherwise on projection as before, although, as the performance was 2D rather than 3D, Dolby’s claims of achieving extremely low black levels became more obviously questionable. In the Dolby Cinema “Universe” trailer that was played, there is a section in which the voiceover says “THIS IS BLACK.”
I’m sorry to say that it was very dark grey, and not comparable to the “extreme” black levels achieved by high quality consumer OLED displays on the market. Based on the OLS installation, whether Dolby Cinema subjectively beats IMAX with Laser in terms of black level is difficult for me to say, and it could be that the inverse is true; however, I am confident that it is definitely not dramatically better.
As mentioned in a previous post, IMO, IMAX with Laser GT dual projection, alongside IMAX’s DMR processing, remains the best cinema digital projection system. It looks smoother and more “film-like,” in a positive way, whilst being absolutely steady and detailed, than any other.
I should also add, the slight barrel distortion to the bottom of the screen (“smiley face”) was noticeable, but in addition, I also noticed that overall there was some slight off-centre distortion to the screen—but none of this was objectionable during the main feature (only graphics within adverts or titles in the main feature to notice it.)
One issue is that the “scale” of the sound is disproportionate to the picture, in terms of space, dynamic range and low frequency impact—but—then again—would an underspecified system be an improvement?
JBL ceiling speakers are installed in the men’s toilets in the former rear stalls. Incidentally, they (same decor as the circle toilets) are a great deal better than the cramped toilets previously situated behind the right splay wall.
Not sure if the “white” decorative lighting in the coves/around the “flying ladies” was set to a warmer colour temperature. It seemed less cold than my recollection, but not as per the orange “flame white” shown in the Twitter photo previously linked to by joeswin. But, no matter what the colour temperature, the decorative lighting is not what it could be.
The front stalls thus make for a very attractive place to see a film. They are in an excellent sweet spot for the audio. It’s too bad that the screen is smaller than it was—albeit the move forward compensates—and that the screen is raised up a bit (personally, I don’t mind this) and the illumination uniformity achieved in this location is less impressive. But otherwise, first class picture and sound is on offer, comfortable seating, and the feeling of being surrounded by the auditorium of a spacious super-cinema. Added to which, the seat pricing in this location, by West End standards, is often quite competitive—and the OLS seems to be very much busier than it was pre-refurbishment.
Eomac’s OLS page has now been updated to include the products used.
Rear stalls ceiling: Grill – cherry veneer.
Walls: Topline TLS – cherry veneer;
Lawapan – cherry veneer;
Mini Micro – cherry veneer.
Having now revisited the OLS, this time seated in the front stalls (write-up to follow,) I had a close look at the panels fitted to the lower front splay walls, which revealed a pattern of small slots.
These can be seen in the product’s specification sheet, which states that an up to 50mm “acoustic core” (absorption) can be fitted behind, which, combined with the highest “perforation rate” version of the product, affords a very high level of sound absorption at mid/high frequencies.
Cinema Technology March 2019 issue is now available online, including an article on the refurbished OLS.
Alas, the article is, ahem, rather “lightweight,” and the only “new” information is the equipment list as FanaticalAboutOdeon has previously posted. It also includes basic equipment lists for the former Studios screens.
Disappointing in the extreme that the custom sound installation in particular was not covered in further detail, not to mention many other aspects.
Addendum: Note that the bottom edge of the screen is only just visible, even though the new screen was moved up relative to the previous.
Joeswin: Thank you for the link, that looks like exactly the colour I had previously suggested—“Flame White.” As the white on the screen is clearly a much cooler temperature, it’s quite plausible that the photo does show that the colour or colour temperature can be changed. (Could be RGBWW with two different colour temperature white LEDs.)
Example of “Flame White” LED strip.
Eomac (fit-out systems including stretched fabric and wood) now have a page with photos of the refurbished OLS.
Included are two photos of a former “Studios” auditorium. It can be seen that there is not enough space for the new seats to recline, and, the rake is rather shallow. In the latter case, the poor slightlines have been noted on online customer review sites.
With the confirmation of Eomac’s involvement with the OLS refurbishment, this means that all three of the currently operating main Leicester Square cinemas have their products installed.
Lionel: The smaller screen might relate to sightlines? Before the refurbishment, the front row of the circle had restricted views, and today, the bottom of the screen is only just visible over the top edge of the balcony—and that’s despite the screen being raised up.
I have uploaded a (poor quality!) photo which shows the screen taken from the front row of the Royal Circle during the end credits (out of focus!) of “Alita: Battle Angel.”
Many thanks FanaticalAboutOdeon.
Alas, this issue does not yet appear to be available on their website! :–(
I’m surprised that they have kept the NEC NC3240 digital projector.
Lionel: Before today’s upsized “PLF” screens, it was a reasonable size; but it has long been unquestionably small in relation to the depth of the auditorium.
I am amazed that it has been “shrunk” to ~44ft. wide (whether measured by chord or arc.) Odeon have announced the second UK Dolby Cinema location in Leeds—19m wide (~62ft.)
Still, in selecting the première auditorium among those in Leicester Square, there can be no doubt in my mind that the Cineworld (argh… Empire!) LSQ IMAX provides a bigger, “correctly” positioned screen with (somewhat) superior picture quality, whilst a good seat in the Royal Circle is a far better option for comfort and is in a full “super cinema”—not to mention the substantially more cogenial ancillary facilities.
Now, if only there wasn’t the need to choose…
Addendum: A rack of Dolby 3D glasses can be seen.
FanaticalAboutOdeon: The lighting certainly looks very smooth, but I’m not sure it’s cold cathode. With LED having taken over the world of lighting these days, and, given that Odeon wanted to be rid of the neon on the facade (i.e. the blue strips were replaced by LEDs), plus the fact that a high quality LED system will reliably last for 10,000s of hours of use, I can see them equally preferring a “fit and forget” system that won’t require maintenance in the main auditorium.
The “tell tale” signs of LEDs may not be obvious—LEDs do range in quality, and the best white LEDs are quite close to ideal light sources (smooth spectrum as with daylight or incandescent bulbs), plus more expensive product gets selected LEDs that perform best and are within tighter tolerances (so in a linear application consisting of a long row of LEDs, there is no visible variation in colour temperature—at least, when new!)
(Strictly “white” LEDs do not exist; phosphors in front of, typically, a blue LED are used to convert the light produced to the other parts of the spectrum—thus the characteristic blue “spike” in the spectrum.)
An advantage of adding a white LED to the three primaries is with the creation of subtle “pastel” hues.
I remember seeing the odd sections of blue LEDs in those pictures of the unfinished auditorium—I’m not sure that I saw pink? That seemed to be the case in multiple photos, but it looked very patchy and I doubt every last LED can be individually addressed, so I’m not sure if it’s not a photographic oddity.
Come to think of it, the CG renderings did show some sections set to blue.
Comparing the auditorium as it is today to one of the CG rendered shots, it is clear that changes have been made to the front splay walls as designed.
The “Flying Ladies” have been significantly lowered, being placed on top of the wooden panelling, the design of which has changed also.
The design shown in the CG renderings would have reduced the sense of the proscenium end now being berefit of decoration.
Those on the ends of the (audience) left sidewall can be seen in a video (direct link to time in video) shot just literally just before the strip-out work began.
The match between the cold cathode lighting and these was impressive indeed—pretty much seamless!
Any further information on the sort of luminares used would be greatly appreciated. IIRC, those on the floor looked something like the Strand Coda 4 floodlights.
Surprised that white was included given that TheatreOfVarieties has stated that there were three colours (those secondary colours that you listed?) Perhaps this was prior to the 1989 refurbishment; the colours always looked very saturated to me.
The details of your home setup are most interesting and, I wonder, if you find the amber LEDs help with producing “warm” tones, and, I’m not sure what application you’d find for UV?
Absolutely—but at least there is the opportunity to store information on the best examples from the past somewhere!
FanaticalAboutOdeon: Thank you for your comment on the photo page showing the coving lit by the now-working concealed lighting.
Have you any further detail on the cove lighting (or other lighting?)
If its colour can be set—it doesn’t really look like just red, green and blue LEDs combined to create white light, although hard to say.
(Of course, this does not actually yield white light suitable for general use, because although it might look white when directly viewed, the result is not a continuous spectrum of light—producing off-colour results from lit surfaces—but it could be used for appropriate architectural applications.)
Just wondering if there are actually white LEDs as well as red, green and blue.
I concur with your suggested colour settings rather than white.
Also, I am confused as to why different fittings would need to be used for “house” and “safety” lighting?
Regarding the dark blue upholstered top edge of the balcony, photo to follow… (which unfortunately also shows the mess of rear speakers to balcony front that have necessiated the removal of the “pageant box!”)
Addendum: Since opening in December 2018, the temporary “DOLBY CINEMA” on the wall behind the right of the “glass box” has been replaced with a larger backlit sign.
LARGE_screen_format: Thank you very much, I have tried my very best to document as many aspects as I can. :–)
In relation to the visual aspects of Dolby Cinema, indeed—for all of Dolby’s horn tooting, and glowing “press” coverage—on this occasion it was hard to see how it is particularly, if at all, superior to a top quality “generic” PLF installation. Certainly the picture did not seem to benefit from enhanced features that IMAX offer (the “DMR” processing, the “image enhancer,” and so on) as well as some of IMAX’s other proprietary or exclusively licensed technologies and R&D development.
AFAIK IMAX still have exclusivity for theatrical presentations in taller 1.90:1 or 1.43:1 formats (where relevant) over being restricted to “scope” versions, whether vanilla DCPs or Dolby Cinema versions?
So, IMAX have not been comprehensively overtaken. Regardless of whether “Alita: Battle Angel” took full advantage of the capabilities of Dolby Vision, there are just too many fixed aspects of the system for that to be the case.
The IMAX with Laser dual-projection “GT” system would appear, for now, to continue to be the absolute “Rolls Royce” of theatrical digital projection systems.
FanaticalAboutOdeon: Many thanks for your comment, the information on “past” lighting practices is most appreciated.
You have hit the nail on the head here, I think—the problem is likely to be that no-one knew any better!
Unfortunately, the lighting was probably just considered essentially as a subset of mechanical/electrical services rather than a specialisation in its own right.
As I mentioned in my long post on the main page for the OLS, I don’t think the lighting is “cold” white (5000K) but more like 4000K. Ideally, I think they could have used 2000K (“flame” white.)
Picture/sound—I agree, the picture/sound was already very good—whilst the acoustics have been improved, better coverage achieved to the rear of the auditorium, and Atmos has been added—but as I alluded to in my post on the main page, if anything the previous JBL stage speaker system with full active crossovers was actually better than its replacement.
Otherwise, I agree broadly with everything you say—however, there are still lots of special touches, including the sections of green “velour” (?) fabric coverings, and the wood panelling to the lower sidewalls/rear wall.
The reimagined foyers are knockout; I still find the auditorium, despite the bungles, splended, and can highly recommend a good seat in the Royal Circle for a special occasion.
As with anything, you pay in terms of inconvenience (if getting there is a trek) and cost, and take your choice—but I really do find it very sad indeed to hear that you won’t be visiting the OLS again?