Cinerama Hollywood
6360 Sunset Boulevard,
Los Angeles,
CA
90028
6360 Sunset Boulevard,
Los Angeles,
CA
90028
142 people
favorited this theater
Showing 901 - 925 of 1,416 comments
DavidM, Yes they did open a cafe in the former balcony of the Empire. But it only lasted a year or so.
I was one of many who wrote letters to help save the Dome. As to the Empire, it functions as a Grand Lobby, too, for the megaplex.
Segask, are you stating that if you were the “powers that be”, you would have sacrificed what is now one of the three theaters on Earth capable of playing three strip Cinerama for a lobby? Are you sure you are interested in theater preservation? Saying that you would turn the Dome into a lobby demonstrates the same kind of mentality that is causing us to lose the very thing we are here to preserve.
I did not like AMC’s decision to turn the Empire into a ticket lobby. By the way, they do not sell popcorn there (at least not on my last visit. Did the Times Square Cafe open in the former balcony of the theater?
The point of what “should’ve” been is moot. We are living in a day and age where theaters are not run by showmen, but by corporations. It is the way of the present movie exhibiting world, as sad as that is.
I want to thank you for the heads up as I have not been to LA to visit either The Dome or the rest of the Arclight complex. You compare the lobby to an airport; I shall now ensure that I arrive at least 45 minutes early so I can get to my gate, I mean, theater.
I was reading the AMC Empire 25 page here at cinematreasures. Cheers to AMC for spending all that money and going to all that trouble to move the old palace 200 feet down the street and saving it from a wrecking ball. Jeers to AMC for then turning the old palace into a popcorn lobby. It should’ve been the largest auditorium.
I think that was the right idea for the wrong theater. A grand old palace like that deserved to be the biggest auditorium instead of a popcorn lobby.
The Dome on the other hand could’ve been turned into the lobby for the Arclight complex. I don’t know why Pacific/Arclight needed such a huge lobby, but the lobby they built for Arclight Hollywood is like an airport, LOL. They should’ve used the Dome for that. Then the space where that huge airport like lobby is now could’ve been a 1000 seat first class theater with a large properly curved (the technique is raytracing I believe?) screen that doesn’t wash itself out and distort the picture, stadium seating, and that awesome sound system in a THX designed auditorium that doesn’t have a stupid domed ceiling that bounces the sound image all over the place.
Haines,
You also have to take into account (which I haven’t seen you really do yet) that most films in the early 50s were still shot and exhibited in @ a 1.37:1 ratio. So while people keep drawing comparisons to theaters going from 1.85 to 2.35, the reality of the day was that theaters (all of them) had to be able to go from 1.37 to 2.35, which very well could have been accomplished by altering the top/bottom masking to something closer to 1.85 while opening the sides to achieve the 2.35. You also have to remember that the 50s and 60s were also a hodgepodge of ratios and formats as studios and theaters all worked to find things that worked well (as new theaters were built in the 60s and 70s -like The National and Cinerama Dome- they were built to accommodate the width of 1.85 to 2.35). Here are the 10 best cinematography Oscar noms for 1955 and their ratios:
On the Waterfront 1.85
The Country Girl 1.37
Executive Suite 1.66
Rogue Cop 1.75
Sabrina 1.37
Three Coins in a Fountain 2.55
The Egyptian 2.55
Rear Window 1.66
Seven Brides for Seven Brothers 1.85 AND 2.55
The Silver Chalice 2.55
That’s 5 different ways to show 10 different films. I’m not saying you’re wrong about your experiences, but that perhaps there is more to be considered.
Well the SMPTE standard for scope presentation is 2.39:1, not 2.35:1 .
jesus christ you guys are still arguing about screen ratio’s?
this has got to be the most epic discussion about screen ratio’s i’ve ever seen
I think we’ve all probably said all we have to say, no? I guess I’m saying that the Village, for example, had a very wide proscenium (and still does) and still did what I’m saying it did. And I understand what you’re saying for today’s cinemas, but because of the way I have viewed movies my entire life, it doesn’t seem right to me. To me there is little difference between 1:85 and scope in the multiplexes I’ve had the misfortune to see films in.
I don’t think anyone has accused you of of mis-remembering or even lying about the way the old movie palaces, which were originally built when films were shot and presented in a 1.33:1 ratio, had to lower the top masking in order to show the new widescreen formats that came along in the ‘50’s.
When you tell us that those old movie theaters lowered the top masking for the widescreen formats we believe you. We are not accusing you of lying or remembering wrong.
We are simply saying that the ideal way for a screen to switch from 1.85 to 2.35 is to keep the height the same and move the left and right masking outwards. All we are saying is that back in the ‘50’s those old movie palaces lowered the top masking not because it was the best way, but because their grand old stages and prosceniums were originally designed for a 1.33:1 ratio and they were forced to compromise.
I am sorry – ageist troll notwithstanding, but you people were not around in the 50s and 60s and if you were you would know how incorrect you are. What you are saying may be true in today’s cinemas, but no theater that formerly showed 1:33 in the 50s, showed 1:85 with the same height as the 1:33 screen. It’s exactly as I say, whether it was the Lido Theater, the Stadium, the Village, the Chinese, the Vogue, the Wiltern – I went to all of them and I’m just telling you how it was. While you may be right technically, it’s not the way it was back then – for whatever reasons. So, Mr. Randell, how old are you? Did you attend films in your home town in the 50s and 60s, YES OR NO?
haines said quote: “The height stays the same and the side masking opens to create 2:35 – only 2:35 does not have the same height as 1:85, so I don’t know what you’re actually seeing in those theater, but it seems bogus to me, like most of today’s moviegoing.”
haines said quote: “… I’m just saying, everyone here is saying that the height is the .1 of 2:35.1 and that that is a constant. And I’m saying, okay, by that logic that means that 1:85 should have the same height as 1:33. No? Isn’t that what everyone is saying, that the height remains constant? …”
haines said quote: “So, let me get this straight – via the photos posted above – the 1:85 screen masking opens up for 2:35 but the top and bottom masking remains the same??? Sorry, doesn’t compute. ”
It sounds like you don’t know how aspect ratio is computed. Aspect ratio is width divided by height.
For example, if the screen is 10 feet high then,
for a 1.33 to 1 aspect ratio the screen is 13.3 feet wide.
for a 1.85 to 1 aspect ratio the screen is 18.5 feet wide.
for a 2.35 to 1 aspect ratio the screen is 23.5 feet wide.
etc.
Thus, if the screen is 10 feet high and 18.5 feet wide you can change it to a 2.35 to 1 aspect ratio by leaving the top and bottom masking right where they are and moving the left masking 2.5 feet to the left and the right masking 2.5 feet to the right.
“Well, then eighty percent of the theaters in LA in the 50s, 60s, and 70s compromised and had showmanship violations.”
That is exactly correct, as has already been stated. Those theatres were built before there was anything wider than 1.85 (or smaller if even older), so compromises would have to be made.
“I’m just saying, everyone here is saying that the height is the .1 of 2:35.1 and that that is a constant. And I’m saying, okay, by that logic that means that 1:85 should have the same height as 1:33. No? Isn’t that what everyone is saying, that the height remains constant?”
Again, yes. Now, theatres you may have visited may have changed the height for other formats such as 1.37, but again in an ideal theatre the side masking only would come in to make the screen 1.37 sized. Arclight has three theatres that are capable of projecting 1.37, 1.66, 1.85, and 2.35 films and all three use side masking only and look great.
“And it’s good that you don’t question my memory."
"but then a lot of people posting here don’t have a lot of experience of actually having attended the movie palaces and nabes of the 50s, 60s, and 70s."
"I really can’t have this conversation with people who only know from now because of their age.”
And yes, you’ve been acting like an ageist troll. It’s the arrogance that is off-putting. Just would appreciate it if we weren’t all talked DOWN to in every other post like we don’t know anything.
In relation to this topic, using side masking only keeps the light level pretty close to being the same when switching from 1.85 and 2.35. Because of the 1.85 aperture plate blocking the top and bottom of the frame less light goes on screen. When you switch to 2.35 and use side masking the screen gets larger so you would think you would need to increase the light level since you have more surface area to fill. But actually since a 2.35 aperture plate is wide open, more light goes through the frame. So in the end, the light spread on screen is usually no more than one footlambert above or below what it ideally should be when switching between the two formats used today.
Well, then eighty percent of the theaters in LA in the 50s, 60s, and 70s compromised and had showmanship violations. And it’s good that you don’t question my memory. I’m just saying, everyone here is saying that the height is the .1 of 2:35.1 and that that is a constant. And I’m saying, okay, by that logic that means that 1:85 should have the same height as 1:33. No? Isn’t that what everyone is saying, that the height remains constant? If you think I’m a troll, my friend, you obviously have no idea what a troll is – but then a lot of people posting here don’t have a lot of experience of actually having attended the movie palaces and nabes of the 50s, 60s, and 70s.
haineshisway… You seem confused (or enjoy trolling). No one is claiming Cinerama presentations had the same presentation size (heightwise) as standard 1.85:1 and 2.35:1 presentations. And no one is questioning your memory. What informed folks are claiming is that the proper presentation of standard 35mm formats is that the screen height, in any given auditorium, ought to be the same so that any aspect ratio differences are noticed only in the horizontal plane. If the height is shortened for a scope presentation, then that is a compromise and a showmanship violation.
The Dome is featured in the Photo Gallery on the Fans of Showmanship website (membership required). Included on the Dome’s page are numerous images, both contemporary and vintage, including shots of some of the theater’s personnel and its projection equipment.
So, with all this talk about constant height, that means that Cinerama was exactly the same height as !:85 and 2:35. I think we all know that is a load of hooey, don’t we?
They’ve shown Mad Mad Mad World in 70 (restored) and How the West was One in multi-projection at the dome before already
I’ve heard “How The West Was Won.”
I missed it the last time it played at the Dome, but wasn’t a “non-standard” (for lack of a better term) masking used for “It’s a Mad Mad… World”? Also, has anyone heard mumblings about the Dome showing a restored IAMMMMW this fall?
JSA
Yes. I was there once when they opened the masking up in plain view as a demonstration for the audience. First 1.85, then 2.35, then the top up further for 2.2 70MM, then wider still for 3-Strip Cinerama (accompanied by several gasps from the audience!)
Guys there seems to be a “disconnect” going on here. Haineshisway is agreeing with you that a scope film should simply have the side masking open up for a proper presentation. But he’s also telling you the fact of the matter was that many classic movie palaces weren’t able to accomodate the full width of scope without unfortunately reducing the height of the screen (while yes, opening up side masking as well). As a little kid in the sixties, I was very much aware of which classic theatres in my area used constant height for scope and which ones used constant width (or the masking on both top and sides that Haineshisway has mentioned). Guess which theatres I preferred?
I have a question about the Dome. My favorite deeply curved screen theatre had the same height screen for scope and flat. I loved it when all the trailers were flat, the curtains would close then reopen all the way for the Panavision feature film. The only difference here was for 70mm presentation. In that case the curtains and masking opened all the way like a scope film, but top masking suddenly went up too, to accomodate the 2.21 to 1 image. Does the Dome screen also increase it’s height for 70mm and the occasional presentation of a Cinerama film like “How The West Was Won”?
There’s a theater at Arclight that has top masking? It must be one of the smaller ones.
Yes, the masking always came down as the screen widened for the original 2:55 Cinemascope and then the 2:35 scope a few years later. CineMiracle was a Cinerama knockoff and something wholly other. I happened to be at a memorial service tonight at The Music Box on Hollywood Blvd., which used to be the Pix, where I saw many movies. I hadn’t been in there since they renovated it as a legit house. As I looked at the proscenium I realized there was no way they could have showed scope in that theater with that proscenium. Then I saw what they’d done – they simply put a much larger screen in FRONT of the proscenium, completely covering the original proscenium so that you couldn’t even see it anymore. Then there were curtains in front of the screen.
all we have nowadays is 1.85 and 2.35.
Haines, did you get to see some of those old movies back in the ‘50’s that had a 2.6 aspect ratio? Was it just for those really wide formats like CinemaScope or CineMiracle that the top masking had to adjust downwards?
We aren’t questioning your memory, haines. Whatever masking is used in any theatre, the 2.35 scope shape is 2.35:1. The difference is the SCREEN SIZE. You can’t change the SHAPE. What WE are talking about is the proper presentation in a theatre built after the scope format came around. Those old theatres weren’t built for scope so they had to sacrifice the screen at the top and widen the side masking to make the 2.35:1 rectangle. In a theatre such as Arclight, they’ve made the houses (most) wider, put in the largest screen they can fit in the room, and then have the side masking move in and out to match whatever shape the format is in.
The BEST presentation in an ideal house will use side masking because you get to use ALL of the screen for scope films which tend to be shot that way to feel larger and match more closely to a person’s natural wide field of vision.