Radio City Music Hall
1260 6th Avenue,
New York,
NY
10020
1260 6th Avenue,
New York,
NY
10020
116 people
favorited this theater
Showing 776 - 800 of 3,325 comments
ew number and new marquee decor is slated for 2011 (this year) no 2012
It was not scaled back due to costs – for 75th anniversary the marquee was changed to the fiber optic tree with large gold “75” numbers on the tree. Tthe idea being to highlight the milestone on the marquee. The past two years, the tree remained and they obviously dropped the numerals. A new number and new marquee decor is slated for 2012.
Radio City Productions, when owned by Rockefeller Center , also used to for decor across 6th Ave in front of the Rockefeller Center Properties. When it was sold to Cablevision…the practice stopped
I have been visiting the RCMH every holiday season. This year, they only had a tree with fiber optics above the marquee. In past seasons, they did better. I recall a line of toy soldiers which fell-down in unison then magically got-up again only to fall. I also recall a circling train carrying bags of toys. I believe they even had a Santa popping his head out from a fireplace as well as a blazing fire. Is my memory correct? What other decorations were featured? When did this tradition start of decorating over the marquee? The new decor is obviously scaled-back due to the costs involved. How sad!
Where is the “Doncho” curtain these days?
Radio City’s Dancing Waters were the same as those at the 1939 World’s Fair if I remember correctly. I think I have a Radio City Pictorial from 1956 that pictures them in use on the stage. It may have been a smaller unit, but the Dancing Waters company had touring versions of the Dancing Waters, and Radio City was used to dealing with water on stage in those days. They had a rain pipe that poured real water on the stage with an elevator lowered a couple of inches lined with a tarp and with a drain. We had a rain effect on film that was used if the stage began to warp a bit after the live rain had been used for a while and started to cause problems for the dancers.
The Dancing Waters would have been a logical act since Leon Leonidoff was involved with shows at various World’s Fairs, and was savy enough to bring elements that worked at the Fair to the stage at Radio City. (He also was involved with the Japanese pavillion and specified dimensions for the “Doncho” silk drop that was used, knowing that the only theatre in town with the capability of using it in a stage show was Radio City. It was so big and heavy it took two pipes to hang it, and it was the one drop that remained in the flies most of the time because it was too big to move to the warehouse.)
Tinseltoes – Checked and confirmed that there were presentations call “Dancing Waters” at both the 1939-40 and 1964-65 NY World’s Fairs. The first is long before the 1953 debut at RCMH. I’m actually old enough to remember it!
It would be interesting if you could include admission prices when you present your RCMH anniversary facts. Probably couldn’t even get a candy bar today for what admission prices were then.
There was something called the “Dancing Waters” at the 1939-40 World’s Fair at Flushing Meadows and, I believe, again, at the later one. If it’s one and the same we’re talking 70 plus years.
My guess would be that the feature screen size in 1933 would have been close to 30' x 40'. I had lenses for that size in my lens closet. Remember that the newsreels were run at a larger size, probably closer to 35' x 48'. I had a lens clamp in the closet marked “Newreel”, and Fred Kellers who was director of house operations and started as an usher at the Hall when he was in high school, remembered the newsreel size expanding. As mentioned above the house was equipped for Magnascope masking so the change would be easy to do. (Also mentioned in a post above the size of the screen increased for the train wreck in “The Greatest Show On Earth”.)
None of these are exact figures to the inch. The Hall has about a 19 degree downward angle depending on the format used, so there is keystoning and some picture elongation that takes place. We had to crop our screening of “Fantasia” a bit since I was using the 1.85 lenses with the picture height expanded from around 27' to the full 35', and it overshot the screen despite being mathematically correct. When we replaced the 1.85 lenses a few years later, I deliberately chose a lens a quarter of an inch longer in focal length, which shrunk the 1.85 picture a minimal amount, but allowed the same lens to project a 1.37 aspect ratio film full frame at the 35' height.
We never got an explanation for the newsreel being projected larger, but I always suspected it was to show off the full screen size at the time (all films would have been projected at the 1.37:1 aspect ratio until CinemaScope was installed). Making the feature somewhat smaller gave a sharper and somewhat brighter image for material that would involve the audience for a longer time.
I don’t think a mutt is more or less reliable. You do have a spare deck though with a platter in case there is a problem. Projectors 2 and 3 are for 3-D. Projector 4 is 35/70 but can’t handle higher than a 5000Watt lamp. Projectors 1 and 5 are 35MM only. All 5 projectors are still active and we had run them this year during the christmas show. The film in March will be run on projector 4. All of the changeover wiring has been ripped out.
Tinseltoes: About the screen size in 1933 … I’ll bet REndres knows!
Vito: Just a guess here, but I’ll bet “The Rumble” was one of the scenes in West Side Story where you turned up the volume.
RCDTJ,First of all I so much appreciate your input on matters such as that, thanks also for clearing that up, I am satisfied that the decision was yours and not the studio. I still wonder why not use a MUTT, is it not more reliable and safer to use than a platter? I am curious about your thoughts.
Just so that and the others here can understand, the reason not to run reel to reel is so as not to disturb the 3-D set up. Would you kindly explain how many of the three 70/35 machines are used
for 3-D; is one set up to back up one of the others required for 3-S? Also what of the standard 35mm projectors can they no longer be used for reel to reel?
REndres I knew you would jump in and add to the screen size issue, many thanks as always
Bill,wish you could have been there as well, puting on a show rather than just threading film and making changeovers was my passion.
The picture sheet at the Hall has been 35' x 70' (give or take a couple of inches for grommeting since at least the days of CinemaScope. The top and side masking which dates back to the opening of the house and Magnascope can move to cover any aspect ratio in that frame.
I think I mentioned in a post some time back that the Hall was late to install CinemaScope because Fox insisted on a curved screen. While it is possible to fly a curved sheet, at the Hall that would have meant sacrificing line sets for stage drops for the stage shows.
When MGM (which had long ties to the Hall) booked “Knights of the Roundtable” they said they didn’t care whether the screen was flat or curved, so the Hall went ahead with the Scope installation.
I doubt that the VistaVision size listed is correct. Paramount’s contention was that the height of the VistaVision image was more realistic than the 2.55 aspect ratio (at the time) of Scope. As listed above the ratio for VistaVision would have been 2:42 or almost as wide as Scope. The size given for the Paramount screen which would have had a ratio of 1.82 would have been more realistic (and remember the Paramount was the home theatre for Paramount Pictures the developer of VistaVision). I may have the correct size of the VistaVision image somewhere in my files, but it is more likely that while it could have been 64' wide, it would have been higher, probably near the full 35' height of the screen.
The Hall was used to demonstrate VistaVision to the press, and of course, was the first theatre to show a VistaVision film, “White Christmas” in Horizontal VistaVision. It was the only time the process was shown at the Hall.
Vito….We don’t want to use the 70MM projectors for reel to reel because we don’t want to disturb them for the Christmas 3-D. The platter is fine. The problem with platters is the “film threaders” at theaters today don’t know the proper way to use and maintain them. They weren’t even taught to thread properly. I have no problem using platters. I’m just glad we’re running film again here. The best part is there is no digital back up.
Thanks Al and William. I guess that claim made in the ad was true, for a while anyway. It’s nice to know that the Music Hall once had the widest screen in the world.
Vito: If I ever get access to an H.G. Wells-type time machine, one of my destinations would be a “West Side Story” showing at the Syosset, run by you. I would also stay to see it twice. I’ve never been there, so there’s no danger of running into an earlier version of myself and disrupting the space-time continuum :)
According to William’s posts above, the Radio City 70mm CinemaScope image was 69ft X 31ft. The presentation and sound on “KNIGHTS OF THE ROUND TABLE” was not well received and the run was deemed as hastily rushed by MGM into the theatre before the similar “PRINCE VALIANT” was released by Fox that April.
In 1955 the NYT published an article that states the that the Radio City flat horizontal VistaVision projection for “WHITE CHRISTMAS” was 68ft x 28ft.
The Paramount horizontal VistaVision image was 64ft x 35ft.
The Roxy CinemaScope was 64.5ft x 26.5ft.
The Warner Cinerama was a very curved 67ft x 24.5ft.
As far as quality of presentation, the Todd-AO process was deemed superior to all, although screen dimensions for “OKLAHOMA!” and “AROUND THE WORLD IN 80 DAYS” are not mentioned.
Bill: intersting question,perhaps one of our experts can answer that I imagine they were refering to CinemaScops and not Cinerama.
Are you still keeping your fingers and toes crossed for a 50th annniversary film screening of WSS?
I wish you could have been with me at the Syosset all those wonderful weeks where we played the movoe big and loud. There were just times in that picture I just could not keep my hands off the volume control (fader) You would have loved that.
Although I wonder if Bobby Wise ot his mixing staff would have ;)
Vito: Thanks for posting the “Knights” ad. Did the Music Hall really have the world’s largest screen in 1954? I thought Cinerama screens would be larger.
bangs head on wall
PLATTERR???? Good grief Have they not yet learned that so much more can go wrong running on one of those contraptions than could possibly happen running reel to reel. Even they want back up they couild still run it reel with a MUTT back up.
One of the best things about digital is it means the end of those platter systems
Sorry, just grouchy ole Vito off on one of his tears again
It’s going to run off a platter, but at least it’s film.
RCDTJ we can all cross our fingers and toes for film.
Heck lets go nuts and show it on 2k reels
Serously Mr Smith we can still run reel to reel.
Here is the ad to the “Knights of the Round Table”
Tinseltoes posted about
View link
As I said before, there will be a movie premiere on March 5th. The big question was whether it would be film or digital. The word just came in that it will be film (as it should be). There will be NO digital back up. It is a Kevin Smith film. Sorry I couldn’t tell you guys the name earlier. I thought I should wait until it was 100%.
What were the admission charges in those days? I remember that in the 1950s the first show was 90 cents.
Okay Joe.
RCDTJ – you are right 3/5 confirmed yesterday for Q&A