Rivoli Theatre
1620 Broadway,
New York,
NY
10019
1620 Broadway,
New York,
NY
10019
50 people
favorited this theater
Showing 626 - 650 of 1,004 comments
Spielberg preferes 1:85. Here is a quote from an interview:
To me, widescreen formats like CinemaScope were a Hollywood invention of the 1950s. I find the widescreen to be an artificial aspect ratio, whereas 1.85 more closely approximates the way the human eye really sees, in the sense that we see as high to low as we do from side to side. If I had to make a choice, I’d rather see from high to low. I think the most human perspective is [the range] from 1.66:1 to 1.85:1. The slickest format for theaters is 2.35:1. I’ve chosen the 1.85 format for my last four pictures because they were intended to be more lifelike.
OK, in adding up Spielberg’s movies, he has actually made more “flat” than “scope…but not by much and hardly worth claiming that "he has filmed very few in scope.” Most of his recent movies, in my opinion, have been disposable in the same way most contemporary movies seem to be. Whereas, when I think of Spielberg, I tend to think of his great movies from the 1970s and early ‘80s, most of which were scope: “Jaws,” “Close Encounters,” Raiders,“ etc.
I’m going to break one of my “rules of looking information up and instead will try this from memory. Chime in if any corrections are necessary.
The Sugarland Express (1974) flat
Jaws (1975) scope
Close Encounters Of The Third Kind (1977) scope
1941 (1979) scope
Raiders Of The Lost Ark (1981) scope
E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial (1982) flat
Indiana Jones And The Temple Of Doom (1984) scope
The Color Purple (1985) flat
Empire Of The Sun (1987) flat
Indiana Jones And The Last Crusade (1989) scope
Always (1989) flat
Hook (1991) scope
Jurassic Park (1993) flat
Schindler’s List (1993) flat
The Lost World (1997) flat
Amistad (1997) flat
Saving Private Ryan (1998) flat
A.I. (2001) flat
Minority Report (2002) scope (super-35 originated)
Catch Me If You Can (2002) flat
The Terminal (2004) flat
War Of The Worlds (2005) flat
List is theatrical films as director. I did not include TV stuff, his segment of “Twilight Zone: The Movie” (which was flat) or stuff he is “recognized” as having directed but is credited as a producer (“Poltergeist,” scope).
Summary
Scope: 9
Flat: 13
Huh? Most of Spielberg’s (note the correct spelling) movies have been scope. It’s just that most of his recent movies have been flat. – posted by Michael Coate on Jul 6, 2005 at 11:02am
23 films: 14 flat – 9 scope. He hasn’t used Panavision since 1991; Minority Report was Super 35 and so poorly photographed it wouldn’t matter if it was Cinerama.
War of the Worlds (2005) – FLAT
The Terminal (2004) – FLAT
Catch Me If You Can (2002) – FLAT
Minority Report (2002) – SCOPE (Super 35)
Artificial Intelligence: AI (2001) – FLAT
Saving Private Ryan – FLAT
Amistad (1997) – FLAT
The Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997) – FLAT
Schindler’s List (1993) – FLAT
Jurassic Park (1993) – FLAT
Hook (1991) – SCOPE (Panavision)
Always (1989) – FLAT
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989) – SCOPE (Panavision)
Empire of the Sun (1987) – FLAT
The Color Purple (1985) – FLAT
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom – SCOPE (Panavision)
Twilight Zone: The Movie (1983) – FLAT
E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (1982) – FLAT
Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) – SCOPE (Panavision)
1941 (1979) – SCOPE (Panavision)
Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977) – SCOPE (Panavision)
Jaws (1975) – SCOPE (Panavision)
The Sugarland Express (1974) – SCOPE (Panavision)
“GWTW was shown again at the Rivoli in 70mm in the 70’s.
I saw a late afternoon showing after seeing a matinee of Angela Lansbury in Gypsy at the Winter Garden in I believe ‘73 or '74.” (Vincent, Jul 6, 2005)
The engagement you’re recalling was probably the one that began Oct. 16, 1974. It returned again on Sep. 1, 1976.
Mikeoaklanpark
I felt the same way you did. I saw War of Worlds at Loews Raceway which has good size screens but it looked small in flat. All I kept thinking was imagine seeing this in Cinerama.
I think Spielberg chose flat to emphasize the height of the alien war machines. At least that’s the reason he gave for shooting “Jurassic Park” in flat: the height of the dinosaurs.
Huh? Most of Spielberg’s (note the correct spelling) movies have been scope. It’s just that most of his recent movies have been flat.
I would love to see a film in 70mm again. I was really pissed this weekend when I saw War Of The Wolrds and as usualSteven Speilbeg filmed it in flat. I don’t know what his damn problem is but of all his movies he has filmed very few in scope.
Dennis: If you check this site periodically, you may soon be lucky enough to see 70mm again …
http://www.in70mm.com/now_showing/index.htm
Most of the theaters seem to be in Europe, but you never know. At least 70mm is not completely dead, and most likely never will be.
Vincent – I am the one who emailed the picture to Robert.I just emailed it to you. Hope you receive it. I look at that picture on my screen saver and wish I could walk back into the Rivoli Theatre again to see a 70mm presentation! Of course, it would be nice to walk into any theatre and see a 70mm presentation again!
By the way GWTW was shown again at the Rivoli in 70mm in the 70’s.
I saw a late afternoon showing after seeing a matinee of Angela Lansbury in Gypsy at the Winter Garden in I believe ‘73 or '74. They were selling the souvenir book for the film as well.
Robert could you post that photo of the Rivoli with the GWTW marquee?
Any othe roadshows would be great too that we haven’t seen like Sweet Charity, West Side Story, and Star.
And how about the great back wall billboard with its smaller billboard underneath? We haven’t seen any of those.
And then there’s that great billboard of Star above the Astor and Victoria in the fall of ‘68.
Thanks Michael for reminding me of that. Rob Endres, Radio City Music Hall chief projectionist, describes it as follows:
There were two kinds of single strip 3-D films in wide release. The “over/under” variation used for wide aspect ratio films such as “Andy Warhol’s Frankenstein” and Arch Obler’s “The Bubble”. (Talk about blurring distinctions: even though those films had an aspect ratio similar to “Scope” technically they were flat.) The 3-D attachment superimposed the upper two-perf portion of the image over the bottom portion. With films made in the 1.37 ratio such as “House of Wax” and “The Stewardesses” the image, although “Flat” was actually two anamorphic images side by side with a slightly reduced frame height on the film. The 3-D attachment was in line with the anamorphic lens and put one of the images over the other. The 70mm 3-D release of “House of Wax” wouldn’t have been anamorphic since there was room on the frame to put to “Flat” images side by side.
posted on the Radio City Music Hall site by REndres on Jul 6, 2005
“StereoVision was a new attempt at 3D which only required one camera and one projector. The left/right images were on a single 35mm frame, one above the other.” (vito, Jun 22, 2005)
Some StereoVision (and other similar) productions had 70mm prints struck, in which case the images were side-by-side rather than one on top of the other.
Although not advertised as a 70mm presentation in the Boston area newspaper ads at the time, Variety reported that a 70mm print of the X-rated 3-D flick “The Stewardesses” had been prepared for its Music Hall engagement. (The use of a 70mm print in a large screen situation is likely an attempt to recover some of the light loss that occurs during 3-D projection; perhaps this explains the lack of presentation format notations in the ads since its use wasn’t “prestige” or “excellent performance” oriented.)
It’s doubtful that the Rivoli’s engagement of “The Stewardesses” mentioned somewhere in this thread was 70mm since it began prior to the Boston run and the Variety article referenced mentioned x (no pun intended) number of 35mm prints struck plus the one special 70 for Boston.
3 Roadshows
View link
3 Roadshows
View link
In 1971 even American International could book films into the Rivoli between major bookings.
View link
“Song of Bernadette” opened at the Rivoli in January of 1944. I went to Catholic school and every month or so they would rent 16mm prints and run them in the auditorium. This was one we saw every year along with “The Miracle of Our Lady of Fatima”.
View link
I got those photos from DennisZ also and I would recommend them to everyone here if they’re interested. They’re clear and show everything. I particularly like the shot of The Rivoli. Amazing that they even got the title of “Gone With the Wind” up on the vertical marquee!
Somewhere on this board, someone posted an ad for a roadshow and I could just barely make out the phone number to call for tickets. So I called it just to see what would happen and all I got was a busy signal.
Great nostalgia there! Wouldn’t it be spooky if after you printed out the form, filled it, and mailed it in with a check, the tickets arrived in a few days!? You would go and there would be a magic Rivoli showing Oklahoma in Todd-AO.
…Trouble is, you would then wake up.
Remember “Your in the Show, With Todd-AO
View link
Thanks Dennis I would love to see it
Robert R – I have a picture I can send you of the Rivoli Theatre marquee during the 70mm engagement of “GWTW.” If you are interested just let me know your email address and I will send it to you.
Dennis – Lancaster, PA
I remember reading that when MGM re-released GWTW in the 70 mm stereo version they expected it to do well. They never expected though how incredibly successful that reissue would be. The roadshows were extended in most cities. I still have the souvenir program my parents bought me in the lobby.
View link
“I’ll clear up one matter which I have mentioned on other sites.
My neice was visting me and playing on the Dell under my name andsaw the listing of my book so she said she’s give a review. It wasoriginally poster under her name but then for whatever reason, it was changed to my name. At first I thought it was amusing but then gotnegative feedback from it so I’m glad it was removed. Other reviews by her are listed under her name elsewhere I believe. So much for that.” (Richard W. Haine, Jun 18, 2005)
Yeah, right! And James Bond is a virgin.