Yes, they would have had to use a mag reader interlocked with the projectors. Actually, it looks they would have used two if the Paramount did not show the intended intermission segment in the WarnerPhonic system prints. Other non-3-D films from the era also used a separate mag track fpr stereo sound – War of the Worlds, From Here to Eternity are two that I know of. This was prior to mag striping the prints when CinemaScope came in, of course.

vito wrote:
“House of Wax” was the first film presented in Warnerphonic sound

which was the precurser to stereo sound. The film was of course played in dual projection 3-D with an optical photographic track, the stage speakers (3) playing from the left image and the surrounds playing from the right image.I believe this info to be accurate, anyone know more about it?

The WarnerPhonic process for double-system 3-D utilized a separate 35mm magnetic track running on a third machine in sync with the two projectors. This mag track contained the left, center, and right tracks – the surround was carried by the right-eye’s print optical track. The left-eye print’s optical track contained the mono mix and was used as a backup to the mag track.

Pete Apruzzese

“House of Wax” was the first film presented in Warnerphonic sound
which was the precurser to stereo sound. The film was of course played in dual projection 3-D with an optical photographic track, the stage speakers (3) playing from the left image and the surrounds playing from the right image.I believe this info to be accurate, anyone know more about it?

When walking past the Paramount one day in 1960, I saw a sign for a special preview. I bought a ticket and sat through whatever was playing, and then the preview came on. It was “Let’s Make Love” with Marilyn Monroe and Yves Montand. When exiting the theatre, from the balcony, approaching the giant stairway, I noticed people ahead of me at the top of the stairs were posing for photographs. They turned out to be Shirley MacLaine and Milton Berle.

Jacques—
Yes, I think it was the Paramount— in the mid 50’s they installed a huge VistaVision screen that covered the entire proscenium, with projection from the lower balcony overhang. I believe the first feature to use it was “Strategic Air Command.” The first I saw it was for “The Man Who Knew Too Much.” For non-VistaVision films, the screen shrank to conventional size (as I recall for “Love in the Afternoon”).
Box Office Bill.

The thirty-six rank Wurlitzer in the Times Square Paramount was based on Wurlitzer’s largest standard model, the 285, such as the magnificent example installed the the San Francsico Granada Theatre in 1921. Those were known as “two-pressure” organs, meaning the blowers supplied 15" & 25" pressures. The 285’s “Brass” division, consisting of an English Horn (Post) on 15" pressure and a 25" Tuba Mirabilis, became the “Orchestral” division on the 4 manual specials. The Paramount was the first of the five instruments falling under that classification. I knew Bob Mack well and often communicated with Dan Papp by letter. Respectfully Submitted, Edward Millington Stout

I met with Jessie Crawford when I was young. Among the things he spoke with me about was his contribution to the designing of the New York Paramount organ. Mr. Crawford’s contribution to the Paramount organ is also mentioned by Ben M. Hall in “Best Remaining Seats."
The Command recording, as I mentioned above, used the theatre organ-not the studio organ.

And yet the subsequent two editions retain the caption to those missing color plates, no doubt confusing to a great many people!

The Theatre Historical Soc. issued a 41-page ANNUAL titled: “Times Square Paramount” in 1976, but it is unfortunately out of print. Some libraries were/are subscribers to their “Marquee” magazine and therefore also received the ANNUAL for that year, so check nearby libraries; every library can also check for you the Union List of Serials to find out what other libraries have copies of it from that year that you might go to see. The Society retains all the original photos used in that publication as well as many more that they will reproduce for you for a fee. See their ARCHIVE link on the sidebar of their site at: www.HistoricTheatres.org It is possible that if enough interest is present, they will reprint that ANNUAL as they have done with other titles.

There was no color still photography in the 1920s, hence photos of that day are always black and white, but we are fortunate in the case of the NY PARAMOUNT to have had a color painting done of the proscenium to show the enormous Grand Drapery on it, and that painting is reproduced in color on page 255 of the 1927—1932 book: “Decorative Draperies and Upholsteries” by Edward Thorne. You could put that volume on any color copier and get an excellent copy suitable for framing. It is interesting that the 6-story-high draperies depicted there were made also by men from Chicago, as a commenter alludes to in a previous Comment. They and all the many other draperies in the theatre had their trimmings (giant pendants, tassles, fringes, gonfalons, etc.) made by the E.L. Mansure Co., formerly of Chicago. The portion of the proscenium ceiling dome shown there is depicted as merely painted clouds, but in reality, the cove-lit, long rectangular space had a mural of a winged goddess standing in front of the disk of the moon, with cupids aflight all around her, as revealed by the opening day photos in that ANNUAL.

That Annual also reveals that the Grand Lobby originaly had TWO enormous crystal chandeliers, which were removed during World War II in fear of their falling upon people during anticipated bombings during the war, which turned out to be an excess of caution. For the same reason, the eight auditorium chandeliers were also removed; it appears that none of them were ever replaced, so what one person commenting saw in later years were likely smaller, cheaper replacements in the lobby in later years.

There are also there photos of the unique Promenade in the dome of the auditorium as someone alludes to previously, and while it may have been closed off due to patron noises, it seems more likely to me that it was too difficult and expensive to ‘police’ with perhaps 15 more ushers needed to survey the 60-foot-long ellipse, the corridors leading to it, as well as the elevators serving it. When the Great Depression arrived just three years after opening, the PARAMOUNT no doubt began to feel the pressure to reduce costs as did everyone else; the grand decade of the extravagant was definitely over. It is also possible that the patrons were prone to toss little things down upon the audience —just for kicks, you know— and obviously the ushers couldn’t be at everyone’s side when something was tossed, and management couldn’t allow such goingson to continue! A novel idea, but too impractical given human nature, and glazing the 24 openings would have been prohibitively expensive at the time they closed the area. In Milwaukee, Rapp&Rapp also did two theatres that had the ‘Overview’ portals from the back wall of the mezzanine lobby looking down upon the orchestra seats below, and they quickly found that the patrons loved to toss items down upon the audience, and therefore in the case of the WISCONSIN the portals were glazed over, allowing views but nothing else. In the case of the MODJESKA, which is still standing, the portals are boarded over and not apparent except fromt the seats below.

Some other photos of the “Times Sq. Paramount” are also to be seen in that landmark book: “The Best Remaining Seats: The Story of the Golden Age of the Movie Palace” by the late Ben M. Hall, founder of the Theatre Historical Society. This 1961 opus is the seminal work in the field and not to be missed; copies of it are available on Inter-Library Loan, as well as for sale from www.Amazon.com .

Jim Rankin [email][/email

I remember “Thunderball” having a special engagement at the Paramount. I remember taking an 8mm movie of the marquee.

I doubt if any of the original Paramount staff was on hand for the “Thunderball” engagement during the 1964-5 Christmas booking. The WWF occupied the storefront behind the restored marquee and arched window. Since the entire theatre was gutted, WWF couldn’t have been operating in the “stage area” of the original theatre as mentioned several comments before. That would have meant occupying the whole ground level of that side of the building, which they didn’t. I hope the marquee and arch window remain intact for whatever use follows the WWF. The Paramount needs to be remembered and these two reminders will do just that even if they are not original.

The last movie to play the Paramount was “Thunderball” which had been rented/leased by “Cubby” Brocoli and the United Artists film company after the theatre ceased operation under the “United Paramount Theatre” chain. “Thunderball” played continuously 24 hours a day for the first three weeks. It played a total of 10 weeks. The film also played one other east side theatre. In between “The Carpetbaggers” engagement, the theatre was sparadically used for concerts to little avail. The grosses for the Paramount for “Thunderball” were blockbuster numbers, so if the bookings had been continued at this caliber, the theatre might have remained opened for a little while longer.

The name “Paramount Theater” has had a transient history in Manhattan since the mid ‘60’s demolition of this grand old auditorium — the Brooklyn Paramount notwithstanding. During the '70’s and '80’s there was a subterranean theater in the Gulf and Western building on Columbus Circle that was called The Paramount. I’m not sure if it opened concurrently with the G&W building nor am I sure if it was always known as The Paramount (I assume it was so dubbed when G&W became the parent company of Paramount Pictures). Regardless, the building has since been converted by Donald Trump to residential/hotel usage and the theater was demolished/converted to other use in the '80’s. Sometime after this, the old Felt Forum inside Madison Square Garden was briefly known as The Paramount during a period when both Paramount Pictures and the Garden were subsidiaries of the same parent corporation. This last Paramount, however, was never intended for the exhibition of motion pictures.

I mention this only as a footnote to history of The Paramount.