Palladium Times Square
1515 Broadway,
New York,
NY
10036
1515 Broadway,
New York,
NY
10036
33 people
favorited this theater
Showing 426 - 450 of 577 comments
I agree with a previous post about “80 Days”. That watching it on TV , it is a boring film. In fact I believe of all the BEST PICTURE winners, I consider it the most overrated and unworthy of a win, considering in 1956, there was Ten Commandments, King and I and Giant. But, I DO feel that if it was seen on the big screen, it might have a different impact. As we all know, there’s nothing like the experience of a big screen experience like the Astpr would offer. Guess we’ll just have to let this one go.
So, for ALL the Astor Plaza fans, this is a good anniversary day, and a little nostalgia…..27 years ago today, May 25, 1977, STAR WARS opened across the country and at the Astor. A 70MM masterpiece. So, Happy Anniversary to us all who share in a great big screen 6-track sound 70mm memory. Those were the days.
I just don’t think “Around The World in 80 DAyS” has held up very well through the years. Some films hold up well and some films don’t.It was a huge success when released and many a theatre were renovated such as the Mike Todd Theatre in Chicago which was also owned by Elizabeth Talylor for many years.I doubt very much it would be successful. At least it is being restored for its DVD release.“Van Helsing” will never be considered a classic. The years 1939,1940 produced some of the greatest films ever made.This is where art and commerce came together and the studio system was at its height. I know film buffs like movies for many different reasons and everyone has there personal favorites.It would be lovely if a great movie theatre showed classic films in the proper setting from all decades.brucec
Rhett: It’s funny to think about people 40 years from now looking back fondly to Van Helsing. In 40 years they’ll probably still be talking about Gone With the Wind and Around the World in 80 Days. The really good stuff never gets forgotten.
We live in a world of home video and television with only a selected few venturing out to see movies that are on TV all the time.
That’s us. Whatever we may understand about the financial woes of restoring a classic film, doesn’t mean we have to like it, and obviously we don’t. But it’s people like all on this site that have a loud voice about keeping these films alive and shown the way they’re supposed to. Keep it up. I doubt 40 years from now that there’ll be a site like this debating about restoring Van Helsing to be seen again on the big screen!!
Rhett:
I asked my contacts at Warner Classics just the other day about “80 Days” and they told me that there have been no new prints struck, which is a shame. There’s been no definitive information published about this DVD “restoration”, so I don’t know if it was something that was created on film or a digital process for DVD only – if it was done on film, then they should strike a print or two. I would love to play it as part of my series this fall, but I’ve got 14 other shows lined up that should keep film fans happy, including several new prints with one film presented in vintage IB Technicolor! Titles will be announce in about 2 weeks, once everything is confirmed.
Pete Apruzzese
Director of Film Programming, Big Screen Classics at the Lafayette Theatre
Great comments all….Movies are a business YES. It’s all taking a chance. If 80 Days was re-released , it probably wouldn’t make much money but it IS part of film history and that’s how films are RE discovered. Sure, show it at the Ziegfeld, it would do fine but bottom line as you all said, no one will consider shelling out the bucks while the next Freddie Prinz jr. film is in the can. It’s all a gamble. With great advertising to make it an event I bet it would do well. They did that with Gone With the Wind in 98, now I don’t think they thought it was going to gross $50 million but it did respectable business BUT, it was released as a movie to re-discover and re experience. A 60 year old 4 hour movie from the 30’s. That’s the whole point of restoring and rediscovering (I’m overusing this term yes) classic movies. It’s just that the money will not be shelled out for it, but I have to believe that a print or 2 have been struck for special showings and that at some point we’ll see it.
Maybe at The Lafayette huh Pete?? The last great theater still operating. I urge all of you to go see a film there.
Overall, it’s a damn shame that 80 Days will only be seen on a TV screen where it wasn’t meant to be experienced.
“80 Days” played at the McClurg Court Theater in Chicago in 1983 (not sure if it was 70mm, though). I’m pretty sure it didn’t play New York in 1983 at all. The only time I saw it in a theater was at the Ziegfeld in 1972, when I was 17. It was on a special double bill with “West Side Story” – 5 and a half hours of Oscar winning Best Pictures from United Artists. I don’t know if they were 70mm prints, but I like to think they were.
Vincent – When Warner Bros. bought the rights to this film, from Elizabeth Taylor (to whom UA lost control of the film in the 1970’s) the rights reverted to Miss Taylor. So Warner bought the right for later re-releases. United Artist’s last reissue of “80 Days” was in 1968, there was still some 70MM prints available at that time. Warner did a re-release in 1983, there were some 70MM prints. In Los Angeles it played at the Vista Theatre in 35mm Dolby Stereo only. The reason I know there were 70MM prints, was I was in San Francisco for the weekend and it was playing at the Regency #1 in 70MM 6-Track Dolby Stereo. I don’t know about a NY engagement for then. Warner tried to streamline the film (like “Star is Born”, mid 60’s reissue of “Lawrence”), so they cut around 20 minutes plus of footage from that issue. Back in the mid 70’s in Beverly Hills, the chains would book some of these Roadshow Films into the Warner Beverly Hills, The Beverly, Fox Wilshire Theatres. At that time the exchanges still had servicable 70MM prints to run. It was great to see them back up there on the screen.
William was 80 Days released in NY in ‘83? I have no memory of this. And why would they strike 70mm prints and then release it cut? In fact the last memory I have of this film in a theater was the re-release when I was a boy. I have been dying to see it again in a theater since then. Now would have been the perfect time but I guess Warners is looking at the Jackie Chan version to be their publicity. I guess now we’ll never see it as it was originally presented. Ah well.
Vincent – Yes, I have seen and ran the movie in 70MM & 35mm. Its great to see the film on a theatre screen. I’m all for a re-release of the film, but the executives at Warner were not willing to go for a full 70MM restoration of the film. Yes, I have seen the picture on TV, the pan & scan verson just sucks. Some people love this movie and others feel it’s very dated. I like the movie and have seen it many times. But the executives that Mr. May has to answer too, are the ones that you should be pointing the finger at. If you remember back in 1983, Warner did a reissue of a cut down version of “80 Days”. They made 70MM prints of this version and select theatres played it around the country. That release did poorly, maybe they based some of the facts of that release to why they did no special release screenings to make it’s return to the screen. The facts are since the 80’s, the theatres that play older films like the Film Forum here in NYC and Nuart in LA and countless other around the country. Sometimes find it hard to get print of some titles. The studios all have studio copies of the films, but they are most of the time only for special screenings. They might have one or two prints in the their classic departments for theatres around the country. In the days when theatres employed real projectionists and it was a craft. Those operators maintained the prints for show, today you have kids running the booths and most of the time not caring about the presentations and the prints. There are some that do care, but there are not many. So those prints get trashed fasted, then the studio wanted to restrike a new print. Look at the Astor Plaza Theatre, if Loew’s still though it was that important of a house. They would have never made it manager/operator house. Thats why those great memories of great presentations at that theatre are all in the past.
To maybe answer your question on those three titles. The studios might see other factors like director and broad audience appeal.
Because “Lawrence” was David Lean, “Spartacus” was Stanley Kubrick and “My Fair Lady” was a major Broadway Hit Musical. The suits that run the studio made this decision on “80 Days”, are the ones that green light the stuff that fill the theatres today. Almost all geared to the 17 year old audience.
Today its all about the money, thats why they open a picture on 3000+ screens. To get the big headline “Number One movie this week”.
Pete,
Then you know how glorious these films are on screen and how worthwhile they are to show them in theaters(and not screening rooms.) As I pointed out above the Lady restoration got only a weeks 70mm play in NY could have played much longer and then in NJ as well. Had they been more enterprising they could have made a lot more money and gotten more publicity for the video. To be fair to Mr. May a 10 million restoration for 80 Days has left me speechless.
Vincent,
I’m not sure you’re being fair to Dick May and Warner regarding Around the World in 80 Days, especially since they didn’t produce it and aren’t responsible for the sorry state of the negatives today. If you figure it would cost $10 million to restore and make a couple of 70mm prints, what do you think it could gross? The 1989 re-release of the restored Lawrence of Arabia – a far more acclaimed picture – only grossed $7 million with a ton of publicity, so Columbia got no more than $3.5 million out of it (and probably spent more than $2 million on the restoration and release). If it’s a choice between spending 10 million and restoring one film or using that 10 million to preserve and make new prints of 10-20 other films, they have to go with what makes the most economic sense.
Spartacus grossed under $2 million on its restored re-release, My Fair Lady grossed under $1 million. Both of these probably cost nearly a million to restore and re-release and, again, they are going to be more popular than Around the World in 80 Days.
Now I’m sure that subsequent video and cable tv revenue have made these worth doing, but it would be tough to justify $10 million for Around the World, since there’s no way it’ll gross even half that. They have to weigh costs vs. returns on these projects, that’s why the new prints of Singin' in the Rain and Adventures of Robin Hood were so nice to see. They could have let them be video only, but they took the time to create new negatives and new prints – which I played – and they looked stunning. Neither one cost anywhere close to a million to restore.
Pete Apruzzese
Director of Film Programming
Big Screen Classics at the Lafayette Theatre
William – The release of the video of 80 Days could have been preceeded by restored 70mm prints of the film in major cities with an enormous amount of attendant publicity much like Lawrence, Lady and Spartacus. Have you ever seen this film on TV? It just lays there and bores you stiff and many people wonder how it ever got an Oscar. Obviously outside of Todd’s gift for generating publicity at the time it must have been whopping show in Todd AO. And remember audiences had already had quite a bit of experience with the Cinerama travelogues. Look at how much money the Disney people had made with the careful maintainng and exploitation of their catalogues. Look at how Warners treated Annie Get Your Gun. The film had not been seen in decades and then straight to video. It finally had a NY theater engagement and it shows at the Film Forum! What are they thinking?!
I’m sorry but if all that matters to you is video then Dick is doing a great job but if the films themselves matter then forget it.
Money and showmanship are not mutually exclusive.
BillK:
The Warner Beverly Hills Theatre had two other sisters, the Warner San Pedro and the Warner Huntington Park Theatres. Both the San Pedro (open) and Huntington Park (closed) Theatres are still around.
The Huntington Park was twinned in the 80’s by Pacific Theatres. The Beverly was the Best of the three theatres. I spent two weeks taking pictures of the Beverly being razed.
Some people may think Dick May as a overpaid executive. But Dick May over the years has been very important in keeping the film libraries of Warner and MGM available to film fans around the world for theatres and Video release. He is in charge of maintaining those libraries. Many times its a uphill battle to find money to do full restorations of films. As time goes on, many of those negatives get older and older. Okay, Fox restuck and restored new 70MM prints of “Hello Dolly”, “Patton” and “Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines” and UA with “It’s a Mad….World. It takes a lot of time and money and what condition the original film elements are in. The original negative to "Around the World…” was in such poor condition. A full Todd-AO restoration would cost between 8-10 million dollars. And that first 70MM print could cost as much as 100 Thousand dollars. So each year each studio’s film library department has a budget as to what monies are to go to restore their libraries. Look how hard Martin Scorsese works towards getting films restored. It depends on how the original negative looks and how much the studio is willing to pay. Warner & the Wayne family have been battling over the price of restoring “The High and The Mighty”. So today the film’s negative is rotting away. In the perfect Studio World, every film would get restored.
When the Warner and Capital Theatres were razed, that left New York City without any theatre equipped to play Cinerama. So to say “a Cinerama showing of "2001” in 2001 in New York", it could not happen. Just to play the film in 70MM, does not mean it’s a Cinerama presentation. To use the Cinerama logo, their was guidelines in presentations they had to go be. Remember Cinerama theatres had large curved screens and used special lenses and prints to use the Cinerama logo on their marquees.
When the Coronet Theatre closed alittle over a year ago. They had about a week of films that had played the theatre at one time. So maybe the Astor Plaza, may do the same. We can only hope.
Vincent…Thank you…you are SO right. I remember when Spartacus was shown in 70mm in 91.It was a hit. 80 Days would also be a hit. I wish you had the job. Dick May probably has a teenager in his office calling the shots. and Bill Kallay, I definitely agree, if the Astor went out in a blaze of glory, there’d be lines around the block, but God forbid MTV doesn’t get to start renovating so Brittany, Usher or some other godawful “talent” can have more studio space. I fear guys, that after our ranting and the theaters are all gone we’ll all …ride into the sunset with our memories and no hope for a cinema future..what can we do?
BTW…When was the last time a 70MM film played at all….besides Lawrence of Arabia last year??
Moviegoers in Los Angeles have been fortunate in the last 5 years. The Egyptian Theatre, run by the American Cinematheque in Hollywood, has had an almost annual 70mm festival. The El Capitan recently ran “TRON” in 70mm, and the Cinerama Dome ran IAMMMMW last year.
Moviegoers in Los Angeles have been fortunate in the last 5 years. The Egyptian Theatre, run by the American Cinematheque in Hollywood, has had an almost annual 70mm festival. The El Capitan recently ran “TRON” in 70mm, and the Cinerama Dome ran IAMMMMW last year.
Bill Kallay wrote:
The Astor Plaza, if it does close and nothing is done to save it, should run a swan song of classic films that played there. The Original “Star Wars” Trilogy. “Raiders Of The Lost Ark.” Even “Logan’s Run.” The place would be packed.
What a great idea. The theater could go out in a blaze of glory.
Which proves my point of the above post.
If Dick May really said this he sounds just like another overpaid executive who might as well be in the hardware business. If you struck a restored Todd AO print and presented it in lavish style at the Ziegfeld you’d make your money back and then some. Maybe this is the same guy who felt a Cinerama showing of 2001 in 2001 in New York wasn’t worth the sweat off his brow. When I saw the restored My Fair Lady at the Ziegfeld in ‘93 which played for about a week I went to 3 showings and every one was packed. It could have played there for weeks but instead they had to bring in some ludicrous action flick with Meryl Streep.
California is the only place these great films are shown in 70mm or at all. Remember the Zeigfeld is booked no better then any suburban UA on Long Island.
RE: As Columbia rolled out the restoration of “Lawrence of Arabia” in 1989 at the Century Plaza Theatre in 70MM. About 2 miles east the original Premiere site in Beverly Hills, The Warner Beverly Hills was being torn down.
I wished I would’ve known that at the time and I would’ve tried taking photos. Now is this theatre similar in design to the Warner in San Pedro?
Rhett: Movies and movie exhibition have always been a business, but I think the real showman knew that quality and business could go hand-in-hand. Give audiences a good show, great presentation and reasonable priced concessions, they’ll come and fill seats. Ted Mann, William Forman (to an extent), and Mr. Plitt of Plitt Theaters knew how to put on a show, even during the “cynical” ‘70s and '80s in their best theaters. Much of that is missing because of business types who think showmanship is old school and should be kept in the past.
In regards to “Around The World In 80 Days,” I listened to Dick May of Warner Bros. at a recent Academy (Oscars) symposium. He says (I’m paraphrasing) that striking a print for a few loyal fans isn’t cost effective. I understand where he’s coming from, but I believe the film, when seen in its proper presentation, would be a success. I’m not a big fan of “It’s A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World,” but it packed houses in Hollywood during its showings. I was glad to have seen it in 70mm. “Around The World In 80 Days,” in my opinion, isn’t much better, but it would be a draw. Show it at the Ziegfeld, Uptown in DC, the Cinerama Dome in Hollywood and the Seattle Cinerama. Costs recouped, fans happy.
The Astor Plaza, if it does close and nothing is done to save it, should run a swan song of classic films that played there. The Original “Star Wars” Trilogy. “Raiders Of The Lost Ark.” Even “Logan’s Run.” The place would be packed.
I agree Bill…why not use the theaters for “loss leaders” (if thats the term. You know, when Radio City had their film festival, it was packed, I am so shocked they never continued it. Seeing “Jaws” with an audience of 5,ooo people was tremendous.
It would be great if The Astor played the greats and in 70MM. Can you imagine if the played “Star Wars” again. It would be packed. But it would take a movie lover , like all here, to bring that forth. Unfortunately, the theaters are run by businessman and not film lover businessman. It’s all about the teenagers who don’t even know what 70MM is. We are DOOMED. But we have our memories.
BTW… My “Star Wars” experience was at the Stanley Warner Route 4 in Paramus NJ. 70MM 6-track. My God, WHAT an experience, when the ship came overhead in the beginning the crowd went crazy, as they did when the ship went into hyperspace. When was the last time you saw a film that you know was an awesome experience. It’s all about opening weekend numbers, not film quality, I mean Van Helsing ?? did you see the previews. I don’t even care if I see it.
I guess we’re all gonna have to rely on the Ziegfeld for film revivals….I can’t believe “Around the World in 80 Days” isn’t being re-released since it’s out on DVD.
I’ve been going to the Lafayette Theater in Suffern, NY. It’s an awesome theater. They show BigScreen classics in a series. They’re showing “Jaws” and “Thunderball” in a few weeks.
I agrre with what you are saying, but where I work, we are gonna have Shreck 2 on 6 screens, Troy on 5 screens and Van Helsing on 4 screens and Breakin all The Rules on 2 screens. that totals 17 screens for 4 movies, and whe have 7 screens left for 12 movies.
I saw Star Wars on opening night at the Coronet Theatre is San Francisco. It was truly an experience. Star Wars opened exclusively around the country and played many a single screen theatre for over a year. Sadly the exclusive runs and the big single screens are a thing of the past with a few exceptions. The Astor Plaza shouldn’t have to play the same film as the megaplex down the street. I think the studios open some films a little to wide where its not cost effective in relation to print costs. Many films could play on 2 screens rather than four in the same megaplex.Its all about the film gross in week #1 at the boxoffice.brucec