Gee Stan, what a depressing post!
It is painfull to read about some of the butchers we have had in our projection rooms as well as the cookie cutter managers. Sadly, there are more and more of them around today. I come from a different breed of theatre managers and projectionists who took pride in putting on a good show and enjoyed going the extra mile to thrill audiences with all the whisels and bells we could muster up.
Well…they can’t take away our memories, and that’s what Cinema Treasures is all about. We all need to share the stories of the good
ole days and try and educate the current flock of theatre people, like the folks at the Ziegfeld, how to “put on a show”
Bill, What you have described explains why the intermissions are so short, assuming they are running platters, they are simply splicing the beginning of part two, with the entr’acte music, onto the end of part one after the intermission tag, which means the intermission is only as long as the entr’acte music, so technically there is no real intermission. Clearview, please instruct your projection staff to stop the show at the end of part one, raise the lights, close the curtain and take a proper 10-15 minute intermission. Then, for heavens sake, start part two properly with lights dimmed half and the curtain closed until the end of the entr’acte music. If an automation system is in use, most of them can be programmed to stop and re-start the show. If the Ziegfeld automation cannot, then please just run that part of the show manually. Come on guys, these films are supposedly being shown “as they were meant to be seen†well…. almost, but no cigar.
As for the complaining woman banging on the managers door, that’s what most theatres have security for, she should have been given refund and shown out the door.
Great idea for a T-shirt, It has to be loud, starting with the overture. In my roadshow days I used to hate those whimpy overtures,
I wanted something to make em sit up and notice, like “Sweet Charity"
which started with a big brassy "Hey big spender” I used to rattle a few old folks dentures with that one I can tell you.
Richreel, the Zhivago intermisson is as I remember it in the original release. REndres, Radio City chief projectionist, tells a great story of how when Zhivago played at RCMH, he tried to get the travelor curtain to open at the same speed as the light at the end of the tunnel grow closer, hopefully he will see this and re-tell the story. It is a tough nut to crack trying to keep everyone happy with respect to sound volume, but as I mentioned, we must educate those who want to have the sound turned down to the advantages of hearing it louder for a more powerfull experience. I would never allow my staff to ruin the presentation just to satisfy a few, never have, never would.
movieguy,I feel your pain, managers have got to be more involved in the sight and sound on the screen, it cannot be left to the projectionist, although when I ran a show I would always go into the theatre to check the sound at least once or twice during a performance, and let me tell you it was ALWAYS loud. In fact for the musicals I would run the fader up a notch or two for the musical numbers.There was never a doubt, when I was in the booth, that you were listining to 4 or 6 track sound.
Bill, I was distrurbed by the sound level change you described during Zhivago, managenent should have monitored the situation to determine if in fact the sound was too loud, if a change is made, it is then the managers responsibility to monitor the change to be sure it was proper one. Perhaps Clearview might instuct the managers to make a determination of what level the sound should be and then instruct managers to politly explain to complaining patrons that the movie is being shown in such a way as to optimise the full impact of the story. During my management years I would never change the level of the sound or the comfort of the heat/air conditioning for one or two patrons, but rather make a determination what was best for the majority of the audience. I would rather give a refund or pass to one patron than ruin the experiece for everyone.
During management classes, which I gave in the last few years of my career, I taught the importance of paying attention to sight and sound in the theatre, I would insist on managers sitting in the theatre a few minutes every show to monitor the picture on the screen as well as the comfort of the room temperature. A theatre like the Ziegfeld needs that sort of policy.
Oh my goodness Ed, I sure do remember those Castle films.
I too collected the 8mm versions of many of the Universal International pictures, wasn’t it fun the way they condensed an 80/90 min movie down to 10/12 mins. Later on, I switched to the
400'16mm sound versions, in fact my local store would rent them out by the day or a weekend, similar to the way they do today with DVDs.
Before video, you could rent full length 16mm films from most of the major studios from an outfit called Films Incorporated, the movies were available 6 months after the theatrical release. I loved reading your story, it reminded me of great times.
The comments regarding re-releases prompted me to recall the days before video tape when it was quite common for studios to re-release the older movies, quite often in the form of a double feature.
We would receive reburbished prints, which meant the film exchange would consolidate several prints together to replace missing footage, the prints with surface scracthes (non emulsion) would be sent to a lab to have the scratches removed or covered up, consoladated industries in New York did most of that work in NY. Prints would then have new thread up leaders attached and shipped off to the theatres. The exception to that was Disney, who always supplied new prints for re-issues.
Bill, since retirement I am busy as ever and rarley get into Manhattan. I am sure it will be a kick seeing some of those wonderfull pictures on the big screen again, and plan on making more of an effort to attend soon.
Quite right Bob, as I recall, most of the premieres were part of the newsreels in those days. Fox Movietone often included Roxy premieres, movie promotion and premiere coverage all in one.
Good idea Vincent, having attended many of the Fox openings at the Roxy and Paramount, I know there were always cameras there, the film must be somewhere.
Ya know Bill, I think Clearview has read and acted on the many pro and con comments on this page, many of our complants seem to have been taken seriously. Take a bow everyone, and thanks Clearview!
I believe another posiblity over confussion about the theatre being used as a sporting goods store, may have been the sign that was placed over the theatre marquee which read Steckman Sporting Goods.
The glass panels on the marquee had begin to break, so Steckman decided to cover over the panels with a sign to prevent further damage and promote their sporting goods store.
I know for an absolute fact, the Paramount was never a sporting goods store. The Steckman brothers, who owned the building, ran a sporting goods store out of three stores connected to the theatre.
When UA pulled out of the theatre, Steckman leased the theatre to a night club owner who turned it into one of the most popular dance clubs on Staten Island, with big name musical stage performers. The people running the club were very respectfull of the theatre, other than the removal of one third of the orchestra seating to create a dance floor,they did little in the way of change or renovation to the theatre, in fact they repaired much of the stage rigging and were able to get the marquee lighting working again. After a few years a bad element began to take over and things began to go downhill, a performnce of “Nutcracker” had to be cancelled as management began to fall, problems with state taxes and rowdy crowds eventually forced the thetare to close. A short time later Stecman leased the property once agian to a night club owner, this time however, they were not so respectfull, and caused much damage to the original theatre, removing all orchestra seating, breaking down walls, painting over murals and removing light fixtures. The new people lasted a very short time and Steckman was once again without a tenant. Steckman had the property up for lease for a while with no takers, they decided to retire and sell the entire property, theatre and store fronts. Steckman had begun using the theatre for storage of sporting goods which may explain the confussion of it being used as a sporting goods store, in fact the last time I was in the building it was full of boxes and equipment being stored inside.
Last I heard, the developer was interested in keeping the Paramount
name for the property, however most of the exterior is in very bad condition. The original Box-office is still outside but very dilapidated. The marquee is in very sorry condition as well, with most of the glass and bulbs broken. You can stil see where the one sheets were located and the original lobby doors are still there.
I toured the property just over a year ago, I was allowed to take the marquee letters to spell out my name, which is now hanging in my basement. I still remember as a teen working the Paramouint and changing that marquee in the rain and snow. Sigh!
Sadly, I believe the ship has sailed on that one, I don’t believe there is much left to landmark. I visited the theatre just after it had been sold to a developer, and there wasn’t much left of the ole gal. The last tenant, a nightclub, had pretty much trashed the place. The new owner already has all the permits to gut the interior and I believe that may have already been done. I have driven by a few times lately and there is a sign for rental space availabilty, perhaps someone knows what is going on now. Jean, do you have any updates? I still get a lump in my throat when ever I drive by, it was a magnificent theatre.
Regarding 70mm/6-track, I would certainly agree it is spectalular.
Those of you who have worked in projection, I am sure, still remember the thrill when the print arrived, those massive reels and the wonderfull smell of the mag track, which is hard to describe but it hit you as soon as you opened the can. More than that, you knew you were going to have fun at work again, thrilling audiences with the granduer of 70mm and the excitement of the rich sound track. Maybe it was just me but when I had a 70mm print in the booth I seemed to care for it like a new baby, sounds kinda silly I quess but those of you who were there know what I mean. All the new sound processes we have today are excellent, but for me they can never compare to the rich full sound of a mag track.
I never sugggested that Lucas shot in 70mm, but he did spearhead the return to making prints available in 70mm, which is my point.
By the way, I played a lot of films in the 60s as well that were blow ups, “Funny Girl, Oliver, the list goes on and on, in fact few films after the 50s were shot in 70mm, but we still enjoyed presenting the 70mm blow ups, however you could certainly appreciate the difference when viewing true 70mm films like "Sound of Music” and “West Side Story” among others. By the way, I’m glad you
mentioned VistaVision, which few people may realise is still used in production today.
Movieguy, I really can’t make it any clearer than I have already, of course their were exceptions, but having seen the deteriation going on in film presentation during the 60s and 70s I can tell you, Lucas helped make some impressive improvments. As to death of 70mm, we all know that, with the exception of IMAX it is no more and I have said many times in other threads I have never thought Digital Cinema was better than 35mm film because it most certainly is not. By the way I attended a few THX cerifications, they were tough, I saw a theatre lose out simply because the theatres HVAC (heat/air conditioning) systems hummed too loud. Eventually exibitors stopped buying into it.
You are right with respect to the cost when talking about Digital Cinema, only the studios gain here, there is nothing in it for the theatre owners. People don’t care if a movie is shown in DLP, it does not come into play when making a descion about seeing a movie.
I will say, I suggest you check out the Dolby 3-D Cinema, it is quite amasing. I also loved IMAX but it seems to be slipping away as well, not many films being made available anymore. The same could be said for Digital Cinema, very few films being shown now, in fact none since Christmas.
Sorry Bob, I did not mean to confuse you, Lucas did not develop 70mm but he was a big supporter of the process, which had all but dyed out in the late 60s. It was Lucas with “Star Wars” that started the trend of using 70mm again, coupled with the use of Dolby sound. I give credit to Lucas for the explosion of Dolby stereo with the release of “Star Wars” in 70mm mag as well as Dolby Stereo optical.
By the way, Fox did not only have problems with Loews, but National Amusements and others as well. The cost(%)to exhibitors to show Fox films was just too high.
Movieguy, Lucas did noy have the power to dictate which theatres played the films, those decisions were usually made by biding and other methods through the studio and film buyers. However he did play a role in how well the picture and sound were presented. If you think about it, eventually, “Star Wars” played in just about every dumb in town, there wasn’t much George could have done about that.
I saw it with my own eyes and heard it with my own ears, Lucas was a pioneer in developing methods of improving picture and sound quality in theatres. Beginning with 70mm, THX and continuinmg today with Digital, I know no one who has contributed more to the enhancment the movie going experience.
Thanks for that update Peter, it does not surprise me that Lucas has decided to to go Digital rather than IMAX, he is one of Hollwood’s biggest Digital supporters. I saw the new Disney Dolby 3-D cinema format demonstrated this past fall, I was quite impressed,it is quite amasing, which is saying a lot for old die hard film guy like myself. The problem is you can’t use the same Digital projectors curently in use, exhibitors will have to purchase additional servers as some did for “Chicken Little”. However, with Lucas on board we will perhaps see more of the Digital format, both flat and 3-D than we currently do. Although I am in favor of film in motion picture theatres, I will support anything that helps get folks back to our theatres in force again.
My last discussion with the guys at Fox regarding “Star Wars” was, that lucas still has plans to release all of the movies in IMAX.
I don’t know how far along that idea has progressed.
As for “Star Wars” at the Ziegfeld, I can only tell you based on my experiences with his movies in theatres, Lucas is a control freak, print quality and presentation is, as it should be, extremly important to him. He involves himself in many aspects of the films showings in our theatres, including dictating which size auditoriums could be used in Multiplex Cinemas, which trailers (previews) could be shown before the movie and even the types of ads or slides that could be shown.
In 1983 Lucas helped develop the THX Theatre Alignment Program (TAP) as a service to filmmakers and studios. TAP was/is the industry’s most comprehensive quality assurance program whose services include reviewing release prints for image and soundtrack quality, distribution to theatres of technical facts about a film and proper equipment alignment, on-site equipment alignment
I am sure if “Star Wars” were to be presented at the Ziegfeld he would most certainly get involved.
Well of course that'a a photo of the rear exit doors taken from the parking lot.
Gee Stan, what a depressing post!
It is painfull to read about some of the butchers we have had in our projection rooms as well as the cookie cutter managers. Sadly, there are more and more of them around today. I come from a different breed of theatre managers and projectionists who took pride in putting on a good show and enjoyed going the extra mile to thrill audiences with all the whisels and bells we could muster up.
Well…they can’t take away our memories, and that’s what Cinema Treasures is all about. We all need to share the stories of the good
ole days and try and educate the current flock of theatre people, like the folks at the Ziegfeld, how to “put on a show”
Bill, What you have described explains why the intermissions are so short, assuming they are running platters, they are simply splicing the beginning of part two, with the entr’acte music, onto the end of part one after the intermission tag, which means the intermission is only as long as the entr’acte music, so technically there is no real intermission. Clearview, please instruct your projection staff to stop the show at the end of part one, raise the lights, close the curtain and take a proper 10-15 minute intermission. Then, for heavens sake, start part two properly with lights dimmed half and the curtain closed until the end of the entr’acte music. If an automation system is in use, most of them can be programmed to stop and re-start the show. If the Ziegfeld automation cannot, then please just run that part of the show manually. Come on guys, these films are supposedly being shown “as they were meant to be seen†well…. almost, but no cigar.
As for the complaining woman banging on the managers door, that’s what most theatres have security for, she should have been given refund and shown out the door.
Great idea for a T-shirt, It has to be loud, starting with the overture. In my roadshow days I used to hate those whimpy overtures,
I wanted something to make em sit up and notice, like “Sweet Charity"
which started with a big brassy "Hey big spender” I used to rattle a few old folks dentures with that one I can tell you.
Richreel, the Zhivago intermisson is as I remember it in the original release. REndres, Radio City chief projectionist, tells a great story of how when Zhivago played at RCMH, he tried to get the travelor curtain to open at the same speed as the light at the end of the tunnel grow closer, hopefully he will see this and re-tell the story. It is a tough nut to crack trying to keep everyone happy with respect to sound volume, but as I mentioned, we must educate those who want to have the sound turned down to the advantages of hearing it louder for a more powerfull experience. I would never allow my staff to ruin the presentation just to satisfy a few, never have, never would.
movieguy,I feel your pain, managers have got to be more involved in the sight and sound on the screen, it cannot be left to the projectionist, although when I ran a show I would always go into the theatre to check the sound at least once or twice during a performance, and let me tell you it was ALWAYS loud. In fact for the musicals I would run the fader up a notch or two for the musical numbers.There was never a doubt, when I was in the booth, that you were listining to 4 or 6 track sound.
Bill, I was distrurbed by the sound level change you described during Zhivago, managenent should have monitored the situation to determine if in fact the sound was too loud, if a change is made, it is then the managers responsibility to monitor the change to be sure it was proper one. Perhaps Clearview might instuct the managers to make a determination of what level the sound should be and then instruct managers to politly explain to complaining patrons that the movie is being shown in such a way as to optimise the full impact of the story. During my management years I would never change the level of the sound or the comfort of the heat/air conditioning for one or two patrons, but rather make a determination what was best for the majority of the audience. I would rather give a refund or pass to one patron than ruin the experiece for everyone.
During management classes, which I gave in the last few years of my career, I taught the importance of paying attention to sight and sound in the theatre, I would insist on managers sitting in the theatre a few minutes every show to monitor the picture on the screen as well as the comfort of the room temperature. A theatre like the Ziegfeld needs that sort of policy.
Oh my goodness Ed, I sure do remember those Castle films.
I too collected the 8mm versions of many of the Universal International pictures, wasn’t it fun the way they condensed an 80/90 min movie down to 10/12 mins. Later on, I switched to the
400'16mm sound versions, in fact my local store would rent them out by the day or a weekend, similar to the way they do today with DVDs.
Before video, you could rent full length 16mm films from most of the major studios from an outfit called Films Incorporated, the movies were available 6 months after the theatrical release. I loved reading your story, it reminded me of great times.
The comments regarding re-releases prompted me to recall the days before video tape when it was quite common for studios to re-release the older movies, quite often in the form of a double feature.
We would receive reburbished prints, which meant the film exchange would consolidate several prints together to replace missing footage, the prints with surface scracthes (non emulsion) would be sent to a lab to have the scratches removed or covered up, consoladated industries in New York did most of that work in NY. Prints would then have new thread up leaders attached and shipped off to the theatres. The exception to that was Disney, who always supplied new prints for re-issues.
Bill, since retirement I am busy as ever and rarley get into Manhattan. I am sure it will be a kick seeing some of those wonderfull pictures on the big screen again, and plan on making more of an effort to attend soon.
Quite right Bob, as I recall, most of the premieres were part of the newsreels in those days. Fox Movietone often included Roxy premieres, movie promotion and premiere coverage all in one.
Good idea Vincent, having attended many of the Fox openings at the Roxy and Paramount, I know there were always cameras there, the film must be somewhere.
Ya know Bill, I think Clearview has read and acted on the many pro and con comments on this page, many of our complants seem to have been taken seriously. Take a bow everyone, and thanks Clearview!
I believe another posiblity over confussion about the theatre being used as a sporting goods store, may have been the sign that was placed over the theatre marquee which read Steckman Sporting Goods.
The glass panels on the marquee had begin to break, so Steckman decided to cover over the panels with a sign to prevent further damage and promote their sporting goods store.
I know for an absolute fact, the Paramount was never a sporting goods store. The Steckman brothers, who owned the building, ran a sporting goods store out of three stores connected to the theatre.
When UA pulled out of the theatre, Steckman leased the theatre to a night club owner who turned it into one of the most popular dance clubs on Staten Island, with big name musical stage performers. The people running the club were very respectfull of the theatre, other than the removal of one third of the orchestra seating to create a dance floor,they did little in the way of change or renovation to the theatre, in fact they repaired much of the stage rigging and were able to get the marquee lighting working again. After a few years a bad element began to take over and things began to go downhill, a performnce of “Nutcracker” had to be cancelled as management began to fall, problems with state taxes and rowdy crowds eventually forced the thetare to close. A short time later Stecman leased the property once agian to a night club owner, this time however, they were not so respectfull, and caused much damage to the original theatre, removing all orchestra seating, breaking down walls, painting over murals and removing light fixtures. The new people lasted a very short time and Steckman was once again without a tenant. Steckman had the property up for lease for a while with no takers, they decided to retire and sell the entire property, theatre and store fronts. Steckman had begun using the theatre for storage of sporting goods which may explain the confussion of it being used as a sporting goods store, in fact the last time I was in the building it was full of boxes and equipment being stored inside.
Last I heard, the developer was interested in keeping the Paramount
name for the property, however most of the exterior is in very bad condition. The original Box-office is still outside but very dilapidated. The marquee is in very sorry condition as well, with most of the glass and bulbs broken. You can stil see where the one sheets were located and the original lobby doors are still there.
I toured the property just over a year ago, I was allowed to take the marquee letters to spell out my name, which is now hanging in my basement. I still remember as a teen working the Paramouint and changing that marquee in the rain and snow. Sigh!
Sadly, I believe the ship has sailed on that one, I don’t believe there is much left to landmark. I visited the theatre just after it had been sold to a developer, and there wasn’t much left of the ole gal. The last tenant, a nightclub, had pretty much trashed the place. The new owner already has all the permits to gut the interior and I believe that may have already been done. I have driven by a few times lately and there is a sign for rental space availabilty, perhaps someone knows what is going on now. Jean, do you have any updates? I still get a lump in my throat when ever I drive by, it was a magnificent theatre.
Regarding 70mm/6-track, I would certainly agree it is spectalular.
Those of you who have worked in projection, I am sure, still remember the thrill when the print arrived, those massive reels and the wonderfull smell of the mag track, which is hard to describe but it hit you as soon as you opened the can. More than that, you knew you were going to have fun at work again, thrilling audiences with the granduer of 70mm and the excitement of the rich sound track. Maybe it was just me but when I had a 70mm print in the booth I seemed to care for it like a new baby, sounds kinda silly I quess but those of you who were there know what I mean. All the new sound processes we have today are excellent, but for me they can never compare to the rich full sound of a mag track.
Thanks Rob for another entertaining and informative post. Where would we be without REndres contributions to Cinema Treasures
I never sugggested that Lucas shot in 70mm, but he did spearhead the return to making prints available in 70mm, which is my point.
By the way, I played a lot of films in the 60s as well that were blow ups, “Funny Girl, Oliver, the list goes on and on, in fact few films after the 50s were shot in 70mm, but we still enjoyed presenting the 70mm blow ups, however you could certainly appreciate the difference when viewing true 70mm films like "Sound of Music” and “West Side Story” among others. By the way, I’m glad you
mentioned VistaVision, which few people may realise is still used in production today.
Movieguy, I really can’t make it any clearer than I have already, of course their were exceptions, but having seen the deteriation going on in film presentation during the 60s and 70s I can tell you, Lucas helped make some impressive improvments. As to death of 70mm, we all know that, with the exception of IMAX it is no more and I have said many times in other threads I have never thought Digital Cinema was better than 35mm film because it most certainly is not. By the way I attended a few THX cerifications, they were tough, I saw a theatre lose out simply because the theatres HVAC (heat/air conditioning) systems hummed too loud. Eventually exibitors stopped buying into it.
You are right with respect to the cost when talking about Digital Cinema, only the studios gain here, there is nothing in it for the theatre owners. People don’t care if a movie is shown in DLP, it does not come into play when making a descion about seeing a movie.
I will say, I suggest you check out the Dolby 3-D Cinema, it is quite amasing. I also loved IMAX but it seems to be slipping away as well, not many films being made available anymore. The same could be said for Digital Cinema, very few films being shown now, in fact none since Christmas.
Sorry Bob, I did not mean to confuse you, Lucas did not develop 70mm but he was a big supporter of the process, which had all but dyed out in the late 60s. It was Lucas with “Star Wars” that started the trend of using 70mm again, coupled with the use of Dolby sound. I give credit to Lucas for the explosion of Dolby stereo with the release of “Star Wars” in 70mm mag as well as Dolby Stereo optical.
By the way, Fox did not only have problems with Loews, but National Amusements and others as well. The cost(%)to exhibitors to show Fox films was just too high.
Movieguy, Lucas did noy have the power to dictate which theatres played the films, those decisions were usually made by biding and other methods through the studio and film buyers. However he did play a role in how well the picture and sound were presented. If you think about it, eventually, “Star Wars” played in just about every dumb in town, there wasn’t much George could have done about that.
I saw it with my own eyes and heard it with my own ears, Lucas was a pioneer in developing methods of improving picture and sound quality in theatres. Beginning with 70mm, THX and continuinmg today with Digital, I know no one who has contributed more to the enhancment the movie going experience.
Thanks for that update Peter, it does not surprise me that Lucas has decided to to go Digital rather than IMAX, he is one of Hollwood’s biggest Digital supporters. I saw the new Disney Dolby 3-D cinema format demonstrated this past fall, I was quite impressed,it is quite amasing, which is saying a lot for old die hard film guy like myself. The problem is you can’t use the same Digital projectors curently in use, exhibitors will have to purchase additional servers as some did for “Chicken Little”. However, with Lucas on board we will perhaps see more of the Digital format, both flat and 3-D than we currently do. Although I am in favor of film in motion picture theatres, I will support anything that helps get folks back to our theatres in force again.
My last discussion with the guys at Fox regarding “Star Wars” was, that lucas still has plans to release all of the movies in IMAX.
I don’t know how far along that idea has progressed.
As for “Star Wars” at the Ziegfeld, I can only tell you based on my experiences with his movies in theatres, Lucas is a control freak, print quality and presentation is, as it should be, extremly important to him. He involves himself in many aspects of the films showings in our theatres, including dictating which size auditoriums could be used in Multiplex Cinemas, which trailers (previews) could be shown before the movie and even the types of ads or slides that could be shown.
In 1983 Lucas helped develop the THX Theatre Alignment Program (TAP) as a service to filmmakers and studios. TAP was/is the industry’s most comprehensive quality assurance program whose services include reviewing release prints for image and soundtrack quality, distribution to theatres of technical facts about a film and proper equipment alignment, on-site equipment alignment
I am sure if “Star Wars” were to be presented at the Ziegfeld he would most certainly get involved.