My Mom used to take me religiously to see Disney theatrical re-releases. What ever happened to them? Disney continued this practice (albeit with decreasing frequency) right through the early to mid 90’s. I think I remember “Sleeping Beauty” having a re-release not all that long ago. Seems to me that’s why certain classic titles of theirs were offered “for a limited time only” when they came to home video – so that Disney might still have an audience for theatrical re-release of those titles. I always wanted to take my kids to the movies to see my favorite old Disney film “Pinnochio”… but now, I fear, they are growing too old for it to have the same impact as it did when I saw it as a child.
I remember seeing the “Mame” coming attraction at Radio City Music Hall when I saw Disney’s “Robin Hood” (or was it the musical “Tom Sawyer”?) there. I recall thinking at the time what a very long trailer it was – and joking that we didn’t need to come back and see the film as the trailer showed so much of it, even though we did go back to RCMH to see it.
I love that Clearview played the “2001” trailer the other night! I can’t wait to see it once again on the big screen. I hope the print is in good shape and that the entrance music and entr'acte are presented properly.
Great color shot, Warren. I wonder what’s with that big telescope in the foreground that is apparently positioned at the northern end of Duffy Square (where TKTS now takes up residence)?
Nothing short of miraculous, Ross. Congratulations and thanks to you and to Patrick and to Bryan… and to all of us in the CT family. And while I’m at it, a familial note of concern and well wishes to Jim Rankin and warm thanks for all his contributions on this site.
I was watching a feature on the Fox Movie Channel earlier today about the premier of last year’s “Walk the Line” – which was held here at the Beacon Theater. I wonder if that might explain why the place appeared a bit cleaner and brighter when I attended those concerts last month. The paint certainly appeared to be a fairly fresh coat and there was a bit more luster than I recall from my last visit back in 2003. I also got to wondering about how many times the Beacon has been host to movie premiers over the years… particularly in recent decades since movies have been pushed aside in favor of live concerts at the theater.
Anyone make it down the last couple of weeks to either the “Lord of the Rings” or “Indiana Jones” series? I wanted to get in for “Raiders of the Lost Ark”, but I’ve been waylaid with a bad case of strep. I’m curious about both the attendance for these two series as well as the quality of the prints (especially the Indy series). I’m wondering in particular if the “West Side Story” and “Ben-Hur” screenings were better attended than the “LOTR” screenings – which might make a statement about programming to the Clearview people either way.
The following excerpt is from the “Kiss Me Kate” [http://imdb.com/title/tt0045963/trivia]trivia page[/url] on imdb.com:
“The movie was shot full frame (1.33:1, including soundtrack area) and then printed with optical soundtrack and interlocked with a magnetic, full-coated strip of film in the theater. While shot on Ansocolor film stock, the prints were by Technicolor, who optically centered the picture to fit the soundtrack on the film (unfortunately, new prints do not have this advantage and the left portion of the picture is cut off prematurely). The film was only shot in 3-D and except for the premiere (at Radio City), played at almost all major theaters across the USA in 3-D (according to trade ads). According to the director in a 1953 interview, the aspect ratio was intended to be 1.75:1, although it was protected for almost every ratio, due to the ever-changing standards of flat widescreen at the time.”
I can’t say how accurate this passage is, but I thought it relevant to this discussion. Perhaps that the premeir engagement at Radio City Music Hall was not presented in 3-D (if that is true) lies at the root of the current belief that the film was only ever released flat.
I read on the internet broadway database (ibdb.com) that the Selwyn began a peculiar and short lived policy in 1950 of presenting a 60 minute play before each showing of their feature film. With an average of 4 to 5 shows a day, that meant some 30 live performances each week! Two of these plays are listed as having been a part of this policy (the site does not detail how often the show was changed): “The Respectable Prostitute” written by Jean Paul Sartre and “Ladies Night in a Turkish Bath”. Were there ever two more appropriate titles for live theatrical presentation during the height of the Deuce’s grind house days?
Wasn’t that film called “Heller in Pink Tights”? Unless there were alternate titles. The film was directed by the great George Cuckor, though this was certainly one of his lesser efforts, and featured former child star Margaret O'Brien (“Meet Me in St. Louis”) all grown up.
I suppose a 2600 seat theater would make for too large of an auditorium for a new school that is expected to have an enrollment of only 700, huh? It amazes me that the first thought would be to demolish the theater rather than seek some sort of alternative use that would be more appealing to the parents of any prospective students.
Twenty-six hundred seats! That’s one large porn house, isn’t it? Then again, the Passaic Capitol showed porn as well and that sat over 3000, didn’t it? These have to be among the largest old palaces to have ever become full time XXX houses. When I think of porn houses, the mid-sized grind houses on 42nd Street and Times Square and the smaller nabes that went XXX typically come to mind. But I know there were some bigger houses that went exclusively adult as well – these two and the Queens Theater (about 2500 seats or so) in particular. I wonder how many large and truly deluxe houses went porn in the ‘70’s and '80’s?
Aquarianick. The “Add a photo” feature has been out of service since I’ve been a member (going back to October of 2003). If you like, you can email the photo to me and I will host it on my photobucket account and post it here. As I posted a while back, one of my great regrets is never having photographed this magnificent marquee before it was too late. Back in ‘93, I went out around Queens and snapped some images of local movie theaters (film that I need to digitize and post one of these days) and I recall passing the Utopia and thinking I needed to come back here at night to really capture it at its best. I never got around to it and before I knew it the damn place was a drug store! You’d be doing me a favor by letting me host that photo! But, I won’t press further. My email is
If you care to visit my photobucket album (all theater shots) it’s right here.
Warren… Jamaica Estates runs on the north side of the Grand Central as well, following it’s main thoroughfare Midland Pkwy as it winds north and then east to 188th Street. However, it does seem that both sides of Union Tpke fall under the Flushing G.P.O. and therefore are not technically in Jamaica Estates. The Jamaica Estates zip code of 11432 runs all the way up the the residential lots that lie to the south of Union Tpke. Meanwhile the Utopia’s zip of 11366 cuts a long but narrow swath from Parsons Blvd on the west all the way to 199th on the east and squeezed between 73rd Ave and Union Tpke (only two blocks wide for most of the way). If I may be allowed to split hairs for a few additional moments, the zip covers an area that is typically referred to as Fresh Meadows, but I’ll bet at various times the area was alternately called Hillcrest (as evidenced by the nearby local Library branch and Hillcrest Jewish Center) and Utopia (as per the local Post Office branch).
However, it now seems clear that the theater was not physically located within Jamaica Estates.
Isn’t this the theater depicted in Speilberg’s “1941” where General Stilwell watches “Dumbo” while the USO/Zoot Suit riot goes on outside on Hollywood Blvd? Columbia and Universal spent millions reconstructing a stretch of Hollywood Blvd (both in full scale and minature) for this movie and I seem to recall the marquee from the film looking very much like the one depicted in images on this page – although I believe artistic license was taken in creating the full scale exterior sets.
I was going to write that the Aykroyd character and his tank crew in the movie blow the hell out of the marquee, but I think its the USO marquee across the street that gets shot up not the Hollywood marquee.
Warren… I wonder if the entrance depicted in your photo was actually on Jackson Ave. While things may certainly have changed over the many years since that photo was taken, Jackson Ave currently is a straight run from the small traffic triangle where it intersects with Borden Ave and Vernon Blvd over the Queens Midtown Tunnel entrance all the way to its terminus where it crossed over Queens Plaza and becomes 31st Ave. Your photo seems to depict a T-shaped intersection which no longer exists. An alternative explanation might be that the theater might have been located on a plaza that faced Jackson Ave and therefore set back a bit giving the illusion of a T-shaped intersection in the photo (similar to the way the Plaza Theater in Corona is situated back from Roosevelt Ave).
Anyway… a number of buildings on Jackson Ave still have the old address numbers stenciled over their doorways (a photo on the forgotten-ny website shows that the former #147 Jackson Ave is now 10-49 Jackson Ave, for instance). I suppose it would require a stroll along the avenue to see if one could identify (or at least narrow down) the location of the former #251.
Without spoiling the film or going on too much about its critical merits, the story is that Speilberg felt rushed by Columbia to get the film into theaters by November of ‘77. He wanted to push back to the following summer, but the studio (which was in financial trouble at the time) wouldn’t budge. Speilberg always felt there were certain scripted sequences he didn’t have the time or budget to properly shoot and that the film didn’t fulfill his vision, so a couple of years later he convinced the studio to allow him to re-assemble his crew and actors to shoot additional scenes and tighten up the editing. They agreed under condition that the climactic “encounter” of the title be expanded with additional effects to entice viewers back for a 2nd look at the movie. I’m with Peter… I loved the original version just fine and when I saw the “Special Edition” that was released with great fanfare in 1980, I felt the padded scenes the studio wanted were superfluous.
Fortunately, the final edition that Speilberg assembled in 2001 eliminates those scenes and reverts to the original versions ending, while still retaining some of scenes and edits Speilberg had always wanted to include but couldn’t back in ‘77. It’s been so long since I saw the original edit, that I don’t know if I could honestly compare the experience of seeing this latest and supposedly “final” cut with that first “work in progress”, as Speilberg refers to it. Tinkering aside, it’s a film well worth seeing on the big screen.
I agree with Peter, Howard. Only the special effects sequences were filmed in 70mm (Super Panavision 70 in this case) to reduce grain and were then reduced to 35mm to match the rest of the footage. Most folks saw the film in 35mm when it was first released, anyway. It’s an awesome big screen experience in either format – provided the print is in good shape.
I wonder… in cases such as this – where some footage was shot on 70mm and the rest on 35mm – are those 70mm sequences transfered from original camera negative or are they first reduced to 35mm to match the rest of the footage and then blown back up? Does that question make sense?
REndres… I posted some images from a 1978 RCMH souvenir booklet over on the Hall’s page here. It features photos and mention of a lot of folks who worked at the Hall at the time (yourself included), if you care to check it out. You probably have a number of such booklets in your possession, but I thought I’d mention it. I posted them about a week or so ago. I purchased the booklet while attending the Easter Show that year, which featured what was to have been (but wasn’t) the Hall’s final attraction, the movie “Crossed Swords”.
Most 70mm presentations in the 70’s and 80’s were blow-ups from 35mm negatives. Other than IMAX, very few movies in the last 20-30 years have been photographed on wide-guage stock (“Tron” and “Far and Away” come to mind). This includes all the original Star Wars films. There were a number of films, however, that did utilize 65mm film stock for the special effects photography (“Close Encounters of the Third Kind”, “Contact”) but even that gave way to the use of 35mm VistaVision for optical shots.
Vito must be referring to enhancements to 70mm film presentation in the ‘70’s and '80’s for, surely, he is way too young to have been involved with the development of 70mm film stock that goes back to the late 1920’s!
Unfortunately, Lucas hasn’t contributed much to the enhancement of the movie going experience from an ARTISTIC point of view in nearly 30 years! While technically dazzling, these last three Star Wars installments contain some of the worst dialog, most wooden performances (from the human beings) and flat direction I can remember in such big budget, high profile, major studio productions.
Interesting Vincent… Can you elaborate? Was that because venues equipped with VistaVision (such as the NY Paramount) were unavailable? Amazing that such a high profile production for Paramount filmed in the studio’s own proprietary widescreen process would not be exhibited in their flagship theaters to take advantage of that process. This movie premeired at the Criterion Theater in NYC, didn’t it? I always wondered why it didn’t bow at the Paramount or Radio City.
But, Bob, didn’t the director and cinematographer frame shots with a specific aspect ratio and composition in mind? I didn’t realize that this was a selling point to exhibitors as much as it was a level of lattitude afforded the film makers themselves. So, did filmmakers create images that would stand up to cropping, provided the framing guide at the head of each reel was used as a template?
I’m no expert in the field of widescreen processes, but this aspect of VistaVision seems similar to that of the Super 35 format.
Thanks for the info SteveJKo… It’s almost understandable that during the widescreen craze of the roadshow era a reissue of “Gone With the Wind” would have been gussied up in stereophonic sound and cropped to a 1.85:1 ratio. It’s hard to imagine, however, that in the “enlightened” era of late 80’s film restoration (when “GWTW” was itself restored in full 1.37:1 Academy ratio), a film like “The Ten Commandments” would have its image cropped for reissue.
I wonder if anyone who visits this page attended any of the LOTR showings. I saw all of these in theaters on their initial runs and have enjoyed the expanded DVD’s since then, so I elected to skip this series. Curious as to how well they are being attended, however, and whether the prints are good. In different times, these movies would have rightly been released (perhaps even filmed) in 70mm during their initial runs.
I don’t think any of the Star Wars films are scheduled for this series. Besides, if they were, how much would you wager that Lucas even allows prints to be struck any longer, the huge proponent of digital technology that he is. Not sure I’ll be able to make it to any of the Indiana Jones flicks (though I am trying to arrange for it) but I will definitely be around for “2001” and – with some luck – “Lawrence of Arabia.” I hope folks post on the quality of those prints before I make the trip in.
Imagine that poor Program Director having been hung out to dry all because of a typical NYC traffic jam! That’s like being fired because the sky is blue!
Actually, I loved the strip during those days! I’ve always had mixed feelings about the redevelopment of 42nd Street. Here’s a quote from that page:
“Mid-block off 42nd Street are nine(9) historic theaters. These turn-of-the-century architectural treasures are being restored to their original grandeur. Repertory, non-profit and legitimate theatre productions will be presented. Disney is a major theater player in the area.”
If only that had been the case. Only the New Amsterdam, Victory and Selwyn theaters were restored to their “original granduer” in the end. The Lyric and Apollo were dismantled with certain elements incorporated into the new now-named Hilton Theater, the Times Square is going retail, the Liberty is sitting there waiting for lord knows what, the Empire is a multiplex lobby, the Rialto, Harris and Anco have been pounded to dust. Hmmm. That’s 10 theaters. I assume they didn’t mean to include the Rialto in the counting. Still, only 3 of the 9 were eventually restored to original purposes.
I guess the more I think about it, the more I understand that there is a part of me that is happy that at least one bit of that dirty ole street still stands tall and proud over the entrance to the New Amsterdam.
My Mom used to take me religiously to see Disney theatrical re-releases. What ever happened to them? Disney continued this practice (albeit with decreasing frequency) right through the early to mid 90’s. I think I remember “Sleeping Beauty” having a re-release not all that long ago. Seems to me that’s why certain classic titles of theirs were offered “for a limited time only” when they came to home video – so that Disney might still have an audience for theatrical re-release of those titles. I always wanted to take my kids to the movies to see my favorite old Disney film “Pinnochio”… but now, I fear, they are growing too old for it to have the same impact as it did when I saw it as a child.
I remember seeing the “Mame” coming attraction at Radio City Music Hall when I saw Disney’s “Robin Hood” (or was it the musical “Tom Sawyer”?) there. I recall thinking at the time what a very long trailer it was – and joking that we didn’t need to come back and see the film as the trailer showed so much of it, even though we did go back to RCMH to see it.
I love that Clearview played the “2001” trailer the other night! I can’t wait to see it once again on the big screen. I hope the print is in good shape and that the entrance music and entr'acte are presented properly.
Great color shot, Warren. I wonder what’s with that big telescope in the foreground that is apparently positioned at the northern end of Duffy Square (where TKTS now takes up residence)?
Nothing short of miraculous, Ross. Congratulations and thanks to you and to Patrick and to Bryan… and to all of us in the CT family. And while I’m at it, a familial note of concern and well wishes to Jim Rankin and warm thanks for all his contributions on this site.
I was watching a feature on the Fox Movie Channel earlier today about the premier of last year’s “Walk the Line” – which was held here at the Beacon Theater. I wonder if that might explain why the place appeared a bit cleaner and brighter when I attended those concerts last month. The paint certainly appeared to be a fairly fresh coat and there was a bit more luster than I recall from my last visit back in 2003. I also got to wondering about how many times the Beacon has been host to movie premiers over the years… particularly in recent decades since movies have been pushed aside in favor of live concerts at the theater.
Anyone have any information about that?
Anyone make it down the last couple of weeks to either the “Lord of the Rings” or “Indiana Jones” series? I wanted to get in for “Raiders of the Lost Ark”, but I’ve been waylaid with a bad case of strep. I’m curious about both the attendance for these two series as well as the quality of the prints (especially the Indy series). I’m wondering in particular if the “West Side Story” and “Ben-Hur” screenings were better attended than the “LOTR” screenings – which might make a statement about programming to the Clearview people either way.
Sorry… here’s the correct imdb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0045963/trivia
The following excerpt is from the “Kiss Me Kate” [http://imdb.com/title/tt0045963/trivia]trivia page[/url] on imdb.com:
“The movie was shot full frame (1.33:1, including soundtrack area) and then printed with optical soundtrack and interlocked with a magnetic, full-coated strip of film in the theater. While shot on Ansocolor film stock, the prints were by Technicolor, who optically centered the picture to fit the soundtrack on the film (unfortunately, new prints do not have this advantage and the left portion of the picture is cut off prematurely). The film was only shot in 3-D and except for the premiere (at Radio City), played at almost all major theaters across the USA in 3-D (according to trade ads). According to the director in a 1953 interview, the aspect ratio was intended to be 1.75:1, although it was protected for almost every ratio, due to the ever-changing standards of flat widescreen at the time.”
I can’t say how accurate this passage is, but I thought it relevant to this discussion. Perhaps that the premeir engagement at Radio City Music Hall was not presented in 3-D (if that is true) lies at the root of the current belief that the film was only ever released flat.
I read on the internet broadway database (ibdb.com) that the Selwyn began a peculiar and short lived policy in 1950 of presenting a 60 minute play before each showing of their feature film. With an average of 4 to 5 shows a day, that meant some 30 live performances each week! Two of these plays are listed as having been a part of this policy (the site does not detail how often the show was changed): “The Respectable Prostitute” written by Jean Paul Sartre and “Ladies Night in a Turkish Bath”. Were there ever two more appropriate titles for live theatrical presentation during the height of the Deuce’s grind house days?
Here is the ibdb page for the Selwyn.
Wasn’t that film called “Heller in Pink Tights”? Unless there were alternate titles. The film was directed by the great George Cuckor, though this was certainly one of his lesser efforts, and featured former child star Margaret O'Brien (“Meet Me in St. Louis”) all grown up.
I suppose a 2600 seat theater would make for too large of an auditorium for a new school that is expected to have an enrollment of only 700, huh? It amazes me that the first thought would be to demolish the theater rather than seek some sort of alternative use that would be more appealing to the parents of any prospective students.
Twenty-six hundred seats! That’s one large porn house, isn’t it? Then again, the Passaic Capitol showed porn as well and that sat over 3000, didn’t it? These have to be among the largest old palaces to have ever become full time XXX houses. When I think of porn houses, the mid-sized grind houses on 42nd Street and Times Square and the smaller nabes that went XXX typically come to mind. But I know there were some bigger houses that went exclusively adult as well – these two and the Queens Theater (about 2500 seats or so) in particular. I wonder how many large and truly deluxe houses went porn in the ‘70’s and '80’s?
Aquarianick. The “Add a photo” feature has been out of service since I’ve been a member (going back to October of 2003). If you like, you can email the photo to me and I will host it on my photobucket account and post it here. As I posted a while back, one of my great regrets is never having photographed this magnificent marquee before it was too late. Back in ‘93, I went out around Queens and snapped some images of local movie theaters (film that I need to digitize and post one of these days) and I recall passing the Utopia and thinking I needed to come back here at night to really capture it at its best. I never got around to it and before I knew it the damn place was a drug store! You’d be doing me a favor by letting me host that photo! But, I won’t press further. My email is
If you care to visit my photobucket album (all theater shots) it’s right here.
Warren… Jamaica Estates runs on the north side of the Grand Central as well, following it’s main thoroughfare Midland Pkwy as it winds north and then east to 188th Street. However, it does seem that both sides of Union Tpke fall under the Flushing G.P.O. and therefore are not technically in Jamaica Estates. The Jamaica Estates zip code of 11432 runs all the way up the the residential lots that lie to the south of Union Tpke. Meanwhile the Utopia’s zip of 11366 cuts a long but narrow swath from Parsons Blvd on the west all the way to 199th on the east and squeezed between 73rd Ave and Union Tpke (only two blocks wide for most of the way). If I may be allowed to split hairs for a few additional moments, the zip covers an area that is typically referred to as Fresh Meadows, but I’ll bet at various times the area was alternately called Hillcrest (as evidenced by the nearby local Library branch and Hillcrest Jewish Center) and Utopia (as per the local Post Office branch).
However, it now seems clear that the theater was not physically located within Jamaica Estates.
Isn’t this the theater depicted in Speilberg’s “1941” where General Stilwell watches “Dumbo” while the USO/Zoot Suit riot goes on outside on Hollywood Blvd? Columbia and Universal spent millions reconstructing a stretch of Hollywood Blvd (both in full scale and minature) for this movie and I seem to recall the marquee from the film looking very much like the one depicted in images on this page – although I believe artistic license was taken in creating the full scale exterior sets.
I was going to write that the Aykroyd character and his tank crew in the movie blow the hell out of the marquee, but I think its the USO marquee across the street that gets shot up not the Hollywood marquee.
Warren… I wonder if the entrance depicted in your photo was actually on Jackson Ave. While things may certainly have changed over the many years since that photo was taken, Jackson Ave currently is a straight run from the small traffic triangle where it intersects with Borden Ave and Vernon Blvd over the Queens Midtown Tunnel entrance all the way to its terminus where it crossed over Queens Plaza and becomes 31st Ave. Your photo seems to depict a T-shaped intersection which no longer exists. An alternative explanation might be that the theater might have been located on a plaza that faced Jackson Ave and therefore set back a bit giving the illusion of a T-shaped intersection in the photo (similar to the way the Plaza Theater in Corona is situated back from Roosevelt Ave).
Anyway… a number of buildings on Jackson Ave still have the old address numbers stenciled over their doorways (a photo on the forgotten-ny website shows that the former #147 Jackson Ave is now 10-49 Jackson Ave, for instance). I suppose it would require a stroll along the avenue to see if one could identify (or at least narrow down) the location of the former #251.
Without spoiling the film or going on too much about its critical merits, the story is that Speilberg felt rushed by Columbia to get the film into theaters by November of ‘77. He wanted to push back to the following summer, but the studio (which was in financial trouble at the time) wouldn’t budge. Speilberg always felt there were certain scripted sequences he didn’t have the time or budget to properly shoot and that the film didn’t fulfill his vision, so a couple of years later he convinced the studio to allow him to re-assemble his crew and actors to shoot additional scenes and tighten up the editing. They agreed under condition that the climactic “encounter” of the title be expanded with additional effects to entice viewers back for a 2nd look at the movie. I’m with Peter… I loved the original version just fine and when I saw the “Special Edition” that was released with great fanfare in 1980, I felt the padded scenes the studio wanted were superfluous.
Fortunately, the final edition that Speilberg assembled in 2001 eliminates those scenes and reverts to the original versions ending, while still retaining some of scenes and edits Speilberg had always wanted to include but couldn’t back in ‘77. It’s been so long since I saw the original edit, that I don’t know if I could honestly compare the experience of seeing this latest and supposedly “final” cut with that first “work in progress”, as Speilberg refers to it. Tinkering aside, it’s a film well worth seeing on the big screen.
I agree with Peter, Howard. Only the special effects sequences were filmed in 70mm (Super Panavision 70 in this case) to reduce grain and were then reduced to 35mm to match the rest of the footage. Most folks saw the film in 35mm when it was first released, anyway. It’s an awesome big screen experience in either format – provided the print is in good shape.
I wonder… in cases such as this – where some footage was shot on 70mm and the rest on 35mm – are those 70mm sequences transfered from original camera negative or are they first reduced to 35mm to match the rest of the footage and then blown back up? Does that question make sense?
REndres… I posted some images from a 1978 RCMH souvenir booklet over on the Hall’s page here. It features photos and mention of a lot of folks who worked at the Hall at the time (yourself included), if you care to check it out. You probably have a number of such booklets in your possession, but I thought I’d mention it. I posted them about a week or so ago. I purchased the booklet while attending the Easter Show that year, which featured what was to have been (but wasn’t) the Hall’s final attraction, the movie “Crossed Swords”.
Most 70mm presentations in the 70’s and 80’s were blow-ups from 35mm negatives. Other than IMAX, very few movies in the last 20-30 years have been photographed on wide-guage stock (“Tron” and “Far and Away” come to mind). This includes all the original Star Wars films. There were a number of films, however, that did utilize 65mm film stock for the special effects photography (“Close Encounters of the Third Kind”, “Contact”) but even that gave way to the use of 35mm VistaVision for optical shots.
Vito must be referring to enhancements to 70mm film presentation in the ‘70’s and '80’s for, surely, he is way too young to have been involved with the development of 70mm film stock that goes back to the late 1920’s!
Unfortunately, Lucas hasn’t contributed much to the enhancement of the movie going experience from an ARTISTIC point of view in nearly 30 years! While technically dazzling, these last three Star Wars installments contain some of the worst dialog, most wooden performances (from the human beings) and flat direction I can remember in such big budget, high profile, major studio productions.
Interesting Vincent… Can you elaborate? Was that because venues equipped with VistaVision (such as the NY Paramount) were unavailable? Amazing that such a high profile production for Paramount filmed in the studio’s own proprietary widescreen process would not be exhibited in their flagship theaters to take advantage of that process. This movie premeired at the Criterion Theater in NYC, didn’t it? I always wondered why it didn’t bow at the Paramount or Radio City.
But, Bob, didn’t the director and cinematographer frame shots with a specific aspect ratio and composition in mind? I didn’t realize that this was a selling point to exhibitors as much as it was a level of lattitude afforded the film makers themselves. So, did filmmakers create images that would stand up to cropping, provided the framing guide at the head of each reel was used as a template?
I’m no expert in the field of widescreen processes, but this aspect of VistaVision seems similar to that of the Super 35 format.
Thanks for the info SteveJKo… It’s almost understandable that during the widescreen craze of the roadshow era a reissue of “Gone With the Wind” would have been gussied up in stereophonic sound and cropped to a 1.85:1 ratio. It’s hard to imagine, however, that in the “enlightened” era of late 80’s film restoration (when “GWTW” was itself restored in full 1.37:1 Academy ratio), a film like “The Ten Commandments” would have its image cropped for reissue.
I wonder if anyone who visits this page attended any of the LOTR showings. I saw all of these in theaters on their initial runs and have enjoyed the expanded DVD’s since then, so I elected to skip this series. Curious as to how well they are being attended, however, and whether the prints are good. In different times, these movies would have rightly been released (perhaps even filmed) in 70mm during their initial runs.
I don’t think any of the Star Wars films are scheduled for this series. Besides, if they were, how much would you wager that Lucas even allows prints to be struck any longer, the huge proponent of digital technology that he is. Not sure I’ll be able to make it to any of the Indiana Jones flicks (though I am trying to arrange for it) but I will definitely be around for “2001” and – with some luck – “Lawrence of Arabia.” I hope folks post on the quality of those prints before I make the trip in.
Imagine that poor Program Director having been hung out to dry all because of a typical NYC traffic jam! That’s like being fired because the sky is blue!
Actually, I loved the strip during those days! I’ve always had mixed feelings about the redevelopment of 42nd Street. Here’s a quote from that page:
“Mid-block off 42nd Street are nine(9) historic theaters. These turn-of-the-century architectural treasures are being restored to their original grandeur. Repertory, non-profit and legitimate theatre productions will be presented. Disney is a major theater player in the area.”
If only that had been the case. Only the New Amsterdam, Victory and Selwyn theaters were restored to their “original granduer” in the end. The Lyric and Apollo were dismantled with certain elements incorporated into the new now-named Hilton Theater, the Times Square is going retail, the Liberty is sitting there waiting for lord knows what, the Empire is a multiplex lobby, the Rialto, Harris and Anco have been pounded to dust. Hmmm. That’s 10 theaters. I assume they didn’t mean to include the Rialto in the counting. Still, only 3 of the 9 were eventually restored to original purposes.
I guess the more I think about it, the more I understand that there is a part of me that is happy that at least one bit of that dirty ole street still stands tall and proud over the entrance to the New Amsterdam.