FWIW, AMC does not have this theatre listed on the “theatres under construction” page of its Website. Could this have fallen through the cracks as far as being listed on that page is concerned, and were there other Loews construction projects underway at the time of the merger?
The interior photo TC posted of the renovated Garden made me say, “Now that’s more like it.” I’d been to the Garden before it was twinned—both to see movies and to stage a cover photo for the college yearbook (the management graciously gave us the use of the theatre’s marquee and lettering)—and the initial (1981) twinning job was a crime: squalid little shoeboxes with plaster-board dividing wall and tiny screens. I’ll have to make time to take in a movie at this theatre the next time I’m in the area.
According to the Marquis' website, the theatre appears to be closed. The schedule lists “last shows” for Friday, Jan. 13 and thanks people for their patronage.
Much of what Mark says hits home, in particular his call for open-mindedness on NATO’s part. In a way, the association’s panicked response to “Bubble” and the movie’s release strategy makes as much sense as TV stations refusing to air ads for, say, upcoming movies or Six Flags, for fear that people actually going to the movies or the amusement parks will then not be watching TV and will enjoy their outings so much that they’ll never tune in again.
However, I’m not so sure about his statement, “It probably wouldn’t be a bad idea for the multiplexes to tailor the experience to the appropriate audience.” How? Are we talking about multis ONLY for teen or kids' flicks, others only for and others ONLY for over-35 moviegoers (who have in common only the fact that they’re over 35)—or failing that, separate “adult-only” and “children-only” lobbies? And are we talking about doing this in the context of existing theatres, or tearing down the 20-plex to put up three or four 5-plexes? Because it seems to me this kind of “segregation” would be the only way to keep the different demographics from rubbing elbows with one another. Outside of the major city markets where more specialized chains such as Landmark can thrive, the multiplex kind of has to be all things to all people. Or at least try to be.
Yeah, the changeover from Loews to AMC will probably be quick, but it won’t be instantaneous. I wouldn’t expect anybody living near a Loews to wake up on Friday morning and find that all the Loews signage, etc. has been replaced overnight! enjoytheshow.com and the Loews name will probably be around for at least a few more weeks.
I was going to suggest checking over at the AMC Website for post-1/26 showtimes, but as of today (1/25) there’s no indication of the changeover (i.e. no theatres/showtimes listed other than those that were already AMC branded before the merger). Presumably Jan. 27 will be a different story.
As far as I can tell, AMC will simply rebrand all the new acquisitions as AMC—and quickly, as they did when they took over the two former GCC sites near where I live. The company doesn’t appear to have kept any original chain names from its earlier acquisitions (unlike Regal with U.A. and Edwards).
That’s a shame, as “The New World” would look dazzling in a wide-gauge print and there are so few opportunities to see new movies projected AND filmed in 70mm anymore outside of the IMAX theatres. But in NYC, almost all of the 70mm-capable houses are gone, to say nothing of the situation in smaller cities.
Yes, it was, and probably typical of AMC’s early attempts—4 shoeboxes with tiny screens and blah decor. As I was attending college in Lawrenceville in the late ‘70s and early '80s, I made several trips there. There were nicer theatres in the immediate area, however. Will have to get myself to the Hamilton 24 or another more recent AMC build to see how they’ve progressed over the years.
Used to drop by the Walt Whitman Shopping Center next door to the Whitman on my way home from visits to my company’s corporate offices (down the road in Melville) a few jobs ago. Never took in a movie at the Whitman, though. A shame, as I would like to have seen a Century house in its original state. My only experiences with (former) Century theatres have been after they were subdivided—the Fresh Meadows in Queens (where I believe the movie my wife-to-be and I saw, the Meg Ryan flick “Kate & Leopold,” was playing in what is apparently the only okay-sized auditorium in the complex) and the Route 17. In the balcony theatre, “Aliens” was done justice and so was “Last Temptation of Christ” a couple years later (only a couple of picketers outside, though). Downstairs, the story was different—for whatever movie I saw there, I remember the projection was dim. From some of the comments above, I guess it’s dim upstairs now too.
I’m assuming that pretty much everybody here sees the merger as kind of a dark cloud descending over the movie-theatre scene, as a rather faceless large corporation becomes even larger, further reducing competition, obliterating a long-revered logo (Loews), etc. Anybody see a bright side? For instance, is there a possibility of AMC moving to spruce up some of the locations that have started to hit the skids under Loews Cineplex ownership? Or is it more likely that they’ll just shed the underperforming (or still-performing despite shoddy upkeep) sites, in addition to the ones they’re already selling off to stay in the Justice Department’s good graces?
To add a couple more, there are a few AMC sites in the Philly area that started out in life as Budco theatres in the ‘70s or '80s. AMC has a pretty good presence in the New Orleans area thanks to the acquisition of a local chain there a couple years ago, although some of the theatres have not yet reopened in the aftermath of Katrina.
Cineplex Odeon, pre Loews Cineplex, would have included Cineplex builds (e.g., the Universal Citywalk in L.A. and Wisconsin Avenue in DC) along with some older RKO and Century (no relation to the West Coast Century chain, AFAIK) sites. Some of those have closed or been sold off.
Speaking of GCC, anybody know if they made any acquisitions that were later absorbed as part of the AMC takeover?
With all of AMC’s M&A action over the past few years, one byproduct has certainly been a motley assortment of architectural and design styles in what are now all branded as AMC venues. I wonder what percentage of AMC-owned theatres are actually AMC builds and thus have a house “look,” given all the regional and national chains they’ve swallowed up over the years. I can’t imagine that AMC has an extensive, ongoing remodeling program to make its acquisitions look more like AMC theatres. The rebranding of Loews theatres will just continue this mishmash.
REndres' insight might explain why the screen seemed a tad larger for “Lawrence of Arabia,” which would have been projected in the 2.21 aspect ratio for Super Panavision, than it was when I saw “Apocalypse Now” here back in ‘79 (still one of the most stunning film experiences I’ve ever had, with the projection and sound having a lot to do with it). And here I thought it was all those desert vistas that only made it SEEM bigger!
Re the comments taking down the Ziegfeld for not being a true movie palace: Would it be fair to liken the Ziegfeld to, say, Avery Fisher Hall, in that both are the city’s “premier” venues for their particular purposes (AFH is after all the home base of the NY Philharmonic) and that both are roomy, sleek and efficient (except for AFH’s sometimes boomy acoustics), but not all that plush/ornate as compared to Carnegie Hall in AFH’s case or the Rivoli or Criterion in the case of the Ziegfeld?
I believe it’s a 15- or 16-plex, opened by Regal in the early 1990s but since acquired by Marquee. National Amusements, which already operated a theatre in West Springfield, came along not long after with another 16-plex in Springfield itself (the Showcase Eastfield Mall), and I assume that sapped the former Regal multi’s business, along with a 12-plex that Cinemark opened in nearby Hadley a few years ago.
Hmmm, one thing I get from that report is that the chains would really prefer that the studios consistently turn out bland movies that are only mildly interesting, so that patrons can step out to the refreshment stand mid-show without feeling any obligation to stay involved with what’s happening onscreen. That prospect is almost as icky as the fake butter on the oversalted popcorn.
Dergarabedian’s comment implies that it’s either/or: that either consumers are staying away from movie theatres (i.e. to watch DVDs for a fraction of the cost of one movie ticket), or from the movies themselves. Actually, it may be that an improvement in either the movies or in moviegoing conditions will not reverse declining attendance unless both of these things improve—and so the studios and exhibitors alike need to look at where they’ve apparently gone wrong. And, just maybe, they need to figure out how to work together toward a solution.
It makes enough sense so that I can see how they did it. Thanks; I guess the subdivided auditoriums really weren’t as deep as they were originally but the sightlines and screen size were good enough to sort of disguise this fact.
The Loews Wayne—whether it was 6, 8, or 14 screens—has always struck me as a perfectly decent place to see a movie. Early in the theatre’s history, it showed 70mm blowups (I think my first visit here was for “Gandhi,” and I also saw “Far and Away,” which was actually filmed in 70mm, here—awful movie but terrific image quality) and the bigger auditoriums seemed like an acceptable substitute for the single-screen houses that were falling by the wayside. My last visit here was for the “Alamo” remake that probably played about as well here as it would have in a “modern” stadium-seating multi; I believe it was on one of the six screens that were added in the ‘90s.
I’m a little hazy on exactly how the two biggest auditoriums were divided when the original 6 was turned into 8, because I remember seeing “Jurassic Park” here (post-8-plexing and pre-14-plexing) in what seemed like a good-sized auditorium—but not, as I recall, in what would have been the original Theatre #1 or the identically-sized #2 across the hall. In other words, if the two biggest theatres were simply split, I would have expected either long, narrow auditoriums or very shallow wide ones. Could Loews have redistributed the space a little more equitably across some or all of the auditoriums to turn 6 into 8?
This theatre and the Loews Plaza Eight nearby outlasted two attempts by Regal to operate competing multiplexes in nearby North Bergen in the late ‘90s. Both the North Bergen theatres are second-run discount houses now, and while the two Secaucus venues are reduced-price, they are still first-run. I guess the real test of the Loews theatres’ durability will be when the Muvico Xanadu complex opens up, probably sometime in 2007. I haven’t been to either place in about seven years; at one time (mid to late ‘80s) they seemed about as good as we were going to get in suburban multis.
Much as I detest cells in theatres, concert halls, etc., I have to agree that entirely blocking access to them poses potential problems. OTOH, getting people to change their behavior is problematic, too—i.e. how do you persuade moviegoers to think of their own yakking during a movie as rude and inconsiderate when cell phone use EVERYWHERE is the norm?
Cannot recall whether I was at CV once or twice in its pre-triplex days. I did see “Hard Boiled” there in ‘93, and remember feeling a little disoriented when I left the theatre, on account of 12th Street seeming so peaceful after the big hospital shootout that concludes the movie. I half expected that the mayhem onscreen would have somehow carried over outside the theatre! Few movies have had that kind of lingering aftereffect on me, and I give some credit to the theatre itself, an environment that lended itself to involvement. In a similar Hong Kong vein, I may have also seen a fairly obscure Jackie Chan sequel at CV (“Police Story 2”) that predated Chan’s mainstream Hollywood success. Can anybody corroborate that the Chan flick played there sometime in '93?
Decor-wise, it’s true, the Ziegfeld can’t hold a candle to the now-bygone movie palaces. (For that matter, neither could the late-lamented Astor Plaza, which also postdated the “golden age.”) But if it’s all the city has left in terms of good-sized theatres that could do justice to the likes of “Lawrence of Arabia” and create a little stir with an old-style exclusive engagement, then maybe it’s worth rooting for on that basis alone.
Even crummy movies (and I saw my share of them here) felt like an “occasion” at the old Wellmont. I’m not sure that the original auditorium was actually larger than that of the Clairidge (up the street) or Bellevue (across town), but it felt cavernous and massive, almost like being in a cathedral. In the mid-‘70s it was equipped for the Sensurround process, and while that was a pretty crude substitute for multichannel sound, in a big theatre it rocked the house. Only time I can recall a packed house here was for the first day of “Jaws 2,” just a few blocks away from where I’d first seen the original “Jaws.” I remember a very loud, appreciate audience and the theatre manager grinning as he saw hundreds of people streaming back out into the lobby. I haven’t been there since it was turned into a triplex; watching “The Road Warrior” on a dinky screen in what was probably the far left-hand corner of the original auditorium was pretty underwhelming (great movie, in spite of the poor viewing conditions).
Could the spaces once occupied by the GC twin and the Movie City 5 have been joined into the current Megamovie complex?
FWIW, AMC does not have this theatre listed on the “theatres under construction” page of its Website. Could this have fallen through the cracks as far as being listed on that page is concerned, and were there other Loews construction projects underway at the time of the merger?
The interior photo TC posted of the renovated Garden made me say, “Now that’s more like it.” I’d been to the Garden before it was twinned—both to see movies and to stage a cover photo for the college yearbook (the management graciously gave us the use of the theatre’s marquee and lettering)—and the initial (1981) twinning job was a crime: squalid little shoeboxes with plaster-board dividing wall and tiny screens. I’ll have to make time to take in a movie at this theatre the next time I’m in the area.
According to the Marquis' website, the theatre appears to be closed. The schedule lists “last shows” for Friday, Jan. 13 and thanks people for their patronage.
Much of what Mark says hits home, in particular his call for open-mindedness on NATO’s part. In a way, the association’s panicked response to “Bubble” and the movie’s release strategy makes as much sense as TV stations refusing to air ads for, say, upcoming movies or Six Flags, for fear that people actually going to the movies or the amusement parks will then not be watching TV and will enjoy their outings so much that they’ll never tune in again.
However, I’m not so sure about his statement, “It probably wouldn’t be a bad idea for the multiplexes to tailor the experience to the appropriate audience.” How? Are we talking about multis ONLY for teen or kids' flicks, others only for and others ONLY for over-35 moviegoers (who have in common only the fact that they’re over 35)—or failing that, separate “adult-only” and “children-only” lobbies? And are we talking about doing this in the context of existing theatres, or tearing down the 20-plex to put up three or four 5-plexes? Because it seems to me this kind of “segregation” would be the only way to keep the different demographics from rubbing elbows with one another. Outside of the major city markets where more specialized chains such as Landmark can thrive, the multiplex kind of has to be all things to all people. Or at least try to be.
Yeah, the changeover from Loews to AMC will probably be quick, but it won’t be instantaneous. I wouldn’t expect anybody living near a Loews to wake up on Friday morning and find that all the Loews signage, etc. has been replaced overnight! enjoytheshow.com and the Loews name will probably be around for at least a few more weeks.
I was going to suggest checking over at the AMC Website for post-1/26 showtimes, but as of today (1/25) there’s no indication of the changeover (i.e. no theatres/showtimes listed other than those that were already AMC branded before the merger). Presumably Jan. 27 will be a different story.
As far as I can tell, AMC will simply rebrand all the new acquisitions as AMC—and quickly, as they did when they took over the two former GCC sites near where I live. The company doesn’t appear to have kept any original chain names from its earlier acquisitions (unlike Regal with U.A. and Edwards).
That’s a shame, as “The New World” would look dazzling in a wide-gauge print and there are so few opportunities to see new movies projected AND filmed in 70mm anymore outside of the IMAX theatres. But in NYC, almost all of the 70mm-capable houses are gone, to say nothing of the situation in smaller cities.
Yes, it was, and probably typical of AMC’s early attempts—4 shoeboxes with tiny screens and blah decor. As I was attending college in Lawrenceville in the late ‘70s and early '80s, I made several trips there. There were nicer theatres in the immediate area, however. Will have to get myself to the Hamilton 24 or another more recent AMC build to see how they’ve progressed over the years.
Used to drop by the Walt Whitman Shopping Center next door to the Whitman on my way home from visits to my company’s corporate offices (down the road in Melville) a few jobs ago. Never took in a movie at the Whitman, though. A shame, as I would like to have seen a Century house in its original state. My only experiences with (former) Century theatres have been after they were subdivided—the Fresh Meadows in Queens (where I believe the movie my wife-to-be and I saw, the Meg Ryan flick “Kate & Leopold,” was playing in what is apparently the only okay-sized auditorium in the complex) and the Route 17. In the balcony theatre, “Aliens” was done justice and so was “Last Temptation of Christ” a couple years later (only a couple of picketers outside, though). Downstairs, the story was different—for whatever movie I saw there, I remember the projection was dim. From some of the comments above, I guess it’s dim upstairs now too.
I’m assuming that pretty much everybody here sees the merger as kind of a dark cloud descending over the movie-theatre scene, as a rather faceless large corporation becomes even larger, further reducing competition, obliterating a long-revered logo (Loews), etc. Anybody see a bright side? For instance, is there a possibility of AMC moving to spruce up some of the locations that have started to hit the skids under Loews Cineplex ownership? Or is it more likely that they’ll just shed the underperforming (or still-performing despite shoddy upkeep) sites, in addition to the ones they’re already selling off to stay in the Justice Department’s good graces?
BTW, does the AMC/Loews merger include Canadian theatres? If so, there must be a few chains north of the border that will be encompassed.
To add a couple more, there are a few AMC sites in the Philly area that started out in life as Budco theatres in the ‘70s or '80s. AMC has a pretty good presence in the New Orleans area thanks to the acquisition of a local chain there a couple years ago, although some of the theatres have not yet reopened in the aftermath of Katrina.
Cineplex Odeon, pre Loews Cineplex, would have included Cineplex builds (e.g., the Universal Citywalk in L.A. and Wisconsin Avenue in DC) along with some older RKO and Century (no relation to the West Coast Century chain, AFAIK) sites. Some of those have closed or been sold off.
Speaking of GCC, anybody know if they made any acquisitions that were later absorbed as part of the AMC takeover?
With all of AMC’s M&A action over the past few years, one byproduct has certainly been a motley assortment of architectural and design styles in what are now all branded as AMC venues. I wonder what percentage of AMC-owned theatres are actually AMC builds and thus have a house “look,” given all the regional and national chains they’ve swallowed up over the years. I can’t imagine that AMC has an extensive, ongoing remodeling program to make its acquisitions look more like AMC theatres. The rebranding of Loews theatres will just continue this mishmash.
REndres' insight might explain why the screen seemed a tad larger for “Lawrence of Arabia,” which would have been projected in the 2.21 aspect ratio for Super Panavision, than it was when I saw “Apocalypse Now” here back in ‘79 (still one of the most stunning film experiences I’ve ever had, with the projection and sound having a lot to do with it). And here I thought it was all those desert vistas that only made it SEEM bigger!
Re the comments taking down the Ziegfeld for not being a true movie palace: Would it be fair to liken the Ziegfeld to, say, Avery Fisher Hall, in that both are the city’s “premier” venues for their particular purposes (AFH is after all the home base of the NY Philharmonic) and that both are roomy, sleek and efficient (except for AFH’s sometimes boomy acoustics), but not all that plush/ornate as compared to Carnegie Hall in AFH’s case or the Rivoli or Criterion in the case of the Ziegfeld?
I believe it’s a 15- or 16-plex, opened by Regal in the early 1990s but since acquired by Marquee. National Amusements, which already operated a theatre in West Springfield, came along not long after with another 16-plex in Springfield itself (the Showcase Eastfield Mall), and I assume that sapped the former Regal multi’s business, along with a 12-plex that Cinemark opened in nearby Hadley a few years ago.
Hmmm, one thing I get from that report is that the chains would really prefer that the studios consistently turn out bland movies that are only mildly interesting, so that patrons can step out to the refreshment stand mid-show without feeling any obligation to stay involved with what’s happening onscreen. That prospect is almost as icky as the fake butter on the oversalted popcorn.
Dergarabedian’s comment implies that it’s either/or: that either consumers are staying away from movie theatres (i.e. to watch DVDs for a fraction of the cost of one movie ticket), or from the movies themselves. Actually, it may be that an improvement in either the movies or in moviegoing conditions will not reverse declining attendance unless both of these things improve—and so the studios and exhibitors alike need to look at where they’ve apparently gone wrong. And, just maybe, they need to figure out how to work together toward a solution.
It makes enough sense so that I can see how they did it. Thanks; I guess the subdivided auditoriums really weren’t as deep as they were originally but the sightlines and screen size were good enough to sort of disguise this fact.
The Loews Wayne—whether it was 6, 8, or 14 screens—has always struck me as a perfectly decent place to see a movie. Early in the theatre’s history, it showed 70mm blowups (I think my first visit here was for “Gandhi,” and I also saw “Far and Away,” which was actually filmed in 70mm, here—awful movie but terrific image quality) and the bigger auditoriums seemed like an acceptable substitute for the single-screen houses that were falling by the wayside. My last visit here was for the “Alamo” remake that probably played about as well here as it would have in a “modern” stadium-seating multi; I believe it was on one of the six screens that were added in the ‘90s.
I’m a little hazy on exactly how the two biggest auditoriums were divided when the original 6 was turned into 8, because I remember seeing “Jurassic Park” here (post-8-plexing and pre-14-plexing) in what seemed like a good-sized auditorium—but not, as I recall, in what would have been the original Theatre #1 or the identically-sized #2 across the hall. In other words, if the two biggest theatres were simply split, I would have expected either long, narrow auditoriums or very shallow wide ones. Could Loews have redistributed the space a little more equitably across some or all of the auditoriums to turn 6 into 8?
This theatre and the Loews Plaza Eight nearby outlasted two attempts by Regal to operate competing multiplexes in nearby North Bergen in the late ‘90s. Both the North Bergen theatres are second-run discount houses now, and while the two Secaucus venues are reduced-price, they are still first-run. I guess the real test of the Loews theatres’ durability will be when the Muvico Xanadu complex opens up, probably sometime in 2007. I haven’t been to either place in about seven years; at one time (mid to late ‘80s) they seemed about as good as we were going to get in suburban multis.
Much as I detest cells in theatres, concert halls, etc., I have to agree that entirely blocking access to them poses potential problems. OTOH, getting people to change their behavior is problematic, too—i.e. how do you persuade moviegoers to think of their own yakking during a movie as rude and inconsiderate when cell phone use EVERYWHERE is the norm?
Cannot recall whether I was at CV once or twice in its pre-triplex days. I did see “Hard Boiled” there in ‘93, and remember feeling a little disoriented when I left the theatre, on account of 12th Street seeming so peaceful after the big hospital shootout that concludes the movie. I half expected that the mayhem onscreen would have somehow carried over outside the theatre! Few movies have had that kind of lingering aftereffect on me, and I give some credit to the theatre itself, an environment that lended itself to involvement. In a similar Hong Kong vein, I may have also seen a fairly obscure Jackie Chan sequel at CV (“Police Story 2”) that predated Chan’s mainstream Hollywood success. Can anybody corroborate that the Chan flick played there sometime in '93?
Decor-wise, it’s true, the Ziegfeld can’t hold a candle to the now-bygone movie palaces. (For that matter, neither could the late-lamented Astor Plaza, which also postdated the “golden age.”) But if it’s all the city has left in terms of good-sized theatres that could do justice to the likes of “Lawrence of Arabia” and create a little stir with an old-style exclusive engagement, then maybe it’s worth rooting for on that basis alone.
Even crummy movies (and I saw my share of them here) felt like an “occasion” at the old Wellmont. I’m not sure that the original auditorium was actually larger than that of the Clairidge (up the street) or Bellevue (across town), but it felt cavernous and massive, almost like being in a cathedral. In the mid-‘70s it was equipped for the Sensurround process, and while that was a pretty crude substitute for multichannel sound, in a big theatre it rocked the house. Only time I can recall a packed house here was for the first day of “Jaws 2,” just a few blocks away from where I’d first seen the original “Jaws.” I remember a very loud, appreciate audience and the theatre manager grinning as he saw hundreds of people streaming back out into the lobby. I haven’t been there since it was turned into a triplex; watching “The Road Warrior” on a dinky screen in what was probably the far left-hand corner of the original auditorium was pretty underwhelming (great movie, in spite of the poor viewing conditions).