According to this news item the Fireweed will be closing as of June 6, 2010, in the wake of the opening a new Regal megaplex: http://community.adn.com/adn/node/151912
Was there another Waikiki theater? According to this article the space occupied by a Waikiki 1 & 2 theater on Seaside Avenue is going to be converted to a Ross clothing store: View link
I am sure that the what looks like marble on the auditorium upper sidewalls is a later alteration. The Crane designs for the Detroit, L.A., and Chicago United Arttists theaters are all very similar, but they are more like siblings, no two are identical. There are noticeable variations, for example, in the plasterwork around the proscenium, in the placement and size of those funnel-like elements around the ceiling, and in design of the organ screens. They are all variations, though, on the same basic Spanish Gothic theme.
I meant to add that, had Pacific been really serious about preserving the heritage of Cinerama at the Dome, it would have engineered a solution comparable to what was done at the Seattle Cinerama and the National Media Museum/Pictureville Cinema in Bradford, England: place a high quality flat screen that could be masked appropriately in front of genuine Cinerama screen that could be moved up or away for Cinerama or special showings. I am sure though that this would not have been deemed to be “cost effective.”
I don’t think the screen at the Cinerama Dome is an actual D-150 screen although it is obviously very similar to one as it is a single sheet and not as deeply curved as the original louvered Cinerama screens. The D-150 company was pretty much defunct by the 1980s and only two films were produced (“The Bible..In the Beginning” and “Patton”). I don’t know what company made the screen currently installed at the Dome; the original D-150 screens were made by the Harkness Corporation in London, which still exists, but I’d bet they haven’t made a true D-150 screen in decades. Most of the louvered Cinerama screens were made by Hurley in Maryland (and they apparently still can make them, as they created one for the New Neon theater in Dayton, OH for the Cinerama revival there during the later 1990s). When the Dome was remodeled, Pacific would not install a louvered screen which would have at least reduced the cross reflection (against the protests of Hollywood Heritage and other preservationists), claiming that there would not be any noticeable difference to the viewer. Not so.
There was, briefly a flat screen installed in the Dome prior to the remodel (for the run of “Evita”) in front of the original curved screen. It looked awful.
I am sure that I might have misread or misinterpreted something, but my reading of the article was that the author was advocating allowing studios to once again own theaters outright as opposed to have an interest in or a minority stake in a theater operating company, which, as the first commentator pointed out, has already occurred. The article’s author, I think, envisions something like new chains of Paramounts or Disney-branded theaters through which the studios could funnel their films, apparently believing that existing regulation and the current structure of the market place would prevent the unfair control of film distribution which was at the heart of the court’s 1948 decision.
The Welton Becket-designed Cinerama Dome in Hollywood is a a unique theater (although Cinerama, Inc. once announced that it would be the prototype for other theaters it planned to build around the world). The Cinedome 70 appears to be one of a number of theaters of similar (if not identical) design created by architect Vincent G. Raney which were built in Sacramento, Reno, San Jose, Fremont, Napa, and Orange, CA. A few of these, such as the ones in San Jose and Reno, did show a few of the 70mm Cinerama films on louvered screens. Many of these were later subdivided. There was also a domed Cinerama theater in Las Vegas which has been demolished,
Hmm; I am not sure the theater that was the Carmike 3 was incorporated into the Carmike 6; according to this article, the former Carmike 3 on Dewey is going to be gutted out for retail, and it seems, by the description, to be a freestanding building, not inside a mall: View link
Well, I guess I was wrong; this website View link has both an exterior and lobby photo of the Scala (and there is no doubt that it is because of the exterior picture), yet on the APEX Theater’s website, it is not called the Scala but the pictures match up. Now I wonder if the the Scala and the Siam are/were one and the same, and which, if either, survived the rioting.
I do not think the picture cited above is in fact a picture of the Scala, in spite of its labeling on flickr. I appears to be actually a picture of the staircase at the Siam Theater /theaters/32780/ . There is a picture of the entry to the Siam on the theater’s website http://www.apexsiam-square.com/home.asp and the ceiling light fixtures and other details look like the ones in the picture cited. In addition, this website’s description of the Scala: View link makes it sound like it is rather shabby place. The Siam was one of the theaters wrecked in the recent rioting so I don’t know how long its website will stay active.
According to this news item the Fireweed will be closing as of June 6, 2010, in the wake of the opening a new Regal megaplex: http://community.adn.com/adn/node/151912
This article gives some indication: http://www.ohio.com/business/95594234.html
A story about the efforts to restore this theater: View link
AMC has announced that they intend to add in-theater dining and cocktail service to this theater by the end of the year: View link
Was there another Waikiki theater? According to this article the space occupied by a Waikiki 1 & 2 theater on Seaside Avenue is going to be converted to a Ross clothing store: View link
I posted someting along those lines on May 3 – see above.
I am sure that the what looks like marble on the auditorium upper sidewalls is a later alteration. The Crane designs for the Detroit, L.A., and Chicago United Arttists theaters are all very similar, but they are more like siblings, no two are identical. There are noticeable variations, for example, in the plasterwork around the proscenium, in the placement and size of those funnel-like elements around the ceiling, and in design of the organ screens. They are all variations, though, on the same basic Spanish Gothic theme.
I meant to add that, had Pacific been really serious about preserving the heritage of Cinerama at the Dome, it would have engineered a solution comparable to what was done at the Seattle Cinerama and the National Media Museum/Pictureville Cinema in Bradford, England: place a high quality flat screen that could be masked appropriately in front of genuine Cinerama screen that could be moved up or away for Cinerama or special showings. I am sure though that this would not have been deemed to be “cost effective.”
I don’t think the screen at the Cinerama Dome is an actual D-150 screen although it is obviously very similar to one as it is a single sheet and not as deeply curved as the original louvered Cinerama screens. The D-150 company was pretty much defunct by the 1980s and only two films were produced (“The Bible..In the Beginning” and “Patton”). I don’t know what company made the screen currently installed at the Dome; the original D-150 screens were made by the Harkness Corporation in London, which still exists, but I’d bet they haven’t made a true D-150 screen in decades. Most of the louvered Cinerama screens were made by Hurley in Maryland (and they apparently still can make them, as they created one for the New Neon theater in Dayton, OH for the Cinerama revival there during the later 1990s). When the Dome was remodeled, Pacific would not install a louvered screen which would have at least reduced the cross reflection (against the protests of Hollywood Heritage and other preservationists), claiming that there would not be any noticeable difference to the viewer. Not so.
There was, briefly a flat screen installed in the Dome prior to the remodel (for the run of “Evita”) in front of the original curved screen. It looked awful.
Landmark no longer operates this theater. It is now under the management of Southern Theatres which will be re-opening it on May 26 as the Theatres at Canal Place; the number of screens will now be five, and patrons must be over 18, due to the addition of bar and café service. In addition, the floor plan has been changed, the projection will be digital, the seats have been upgraded and the rows now better spaced. Story here: View link
The new official website is: http://www.thetheatres.com/
Not that I have any interest whatever in chop-socky films, but MR, you were correct; Sir Shaw did produce that film.
I am sure that I might have misread or misinterpreted something, but my reading of the article was that the author was advocating allowing studios to once again own theaters outright as opposed to have an interest in or a minority stake in a theater operating company, which, as the first commentator pointed out, has already occurred. The article’s author, I think, envisions something like new chains of Paramounts or Disney-branded theaters through which the studios could funnel their films, apparently believing that existing regulation and the current structure of the market place would prevent the unfair control of film distribution which was at the heart of the court’s 1948 decision.
Picture of the Rio when “To Kill a Mockingbird” was playing there: View link
A related article; the Facebook group now numbers over five thousand: View link
This theater has been renamed the Logan Art House & Cinema, reflecting its multipurpose use: View link
The Welton Becket-designed Cinerama Dome in Hollywood is a a unique theater (although Cinerama, Inc. once announced that it would be the prototype for other theaters it planned to build around the world). The Cinedome 70 appears to be one of a number of theaters of similar (if not identical) design created by architect Vincent G. Raney which were built in Sacramento, Reno, San Jose, Fremont, Napa, and Orange, CA. A few of these, such as the ones in San Jose and Reno, did show a few of the 70mm Cinerama films on louvered screens. Many of these were later subdivided. There was also a domed Cinerama theater in Las Vegas which has been demolished,
“What are you doing at the bus station, dear?” “I’m waiting for the BUS!”
An article about this theater: View link
The snakebar? What did they serve?
Hmm; I am not sure the theater that was the Carmike 3 was incorporated into the Carmike 6; according to this article, the former Carmike 3 on Dewey is going to be gutted out for retail, and it seems, by the description, to be a freestanding building, not inside a mall: View link
Well, I guess I was wrong; this website View link has both an exterior and lobby photo of the Scala (and there is no doubt that it is because of the exterior picture), yet on the APEX Theater’s website, it is not called the Scala but the pictures match up. Now I wonder if the the Scala and the Siam are/were one and the same, and which, if either, survived the rioting.
I do not think the picture cited above is in fact a picture of the Scala, in spite of its labeling on flickr. I appears to be actually a picture of the staircase at the Siam Theater /theaters/32780/ . There is a picture of the entry to the Siam on the theater’s website http://www.apexsiam-square.com/home.asp and the ceiling light fixtures and other details look like the ones in the picture cited. In addition, this website’s description of the Scala: View link makes it sound like it is rather shabby place. The Siam was one of the theaters wrecked in the recent rioting so I don’t know how long its website will stay active.
This one may have escaped the recent rampage of rioting that destroyed three other theaters in the area.
An article about the restoration and re-opening efforts and a premiere movie showing: View link
Oops; I meant to, say, of course, the “inspired direction of Irvin Kershner,” I probably still had Lawrence Kasdan on my mind as one of the writers.