Well, one can’t argue the fact that Avatar has indeed taken in more money than any other motion picture ever made. On the other hand, it hasn’t been seen by nearly as many people as David O. Selznick’s masterwork: Gone With the Wind. The really astounding fact is that it’s still the all-time champ after all these many years.
I’m not sure if the public thinks about, or cares about, release windows. The ones that like going to the movies will more than likely continue to do so, and the ones that prefer to watch a feature film on DVD, video on demand, pay TV or even wait for a freebie telecast will do likewise.
My only concern is that movies are no longer considered anything special. I worked in the exhibition and distribution side of the movie industry for years and can remember when I would give someone a guest pass to a film it was truly appreciated. It’s no longer a big deal. If they decide not to use the pass in a few months they can catch it on their big screen at home. Or worse yet, on their choice of hand-held, i-something device.
Part of this is the fault of the exhibition industry giving us boring auditoriums to sit in, poor presentations, no showmanship whatsoever and annoying commercials as a lead-in to the feature attraction. Unfortunately, I don’t think this will change. It’s simple greed and a lack of consideration for the audiences and the people that make the movies.
Those were the days for sure! We had the: University, Towne Cinema, Uptown, Cinecity, Varsity, New Yorker, Cumberland and the Plaza. Have I left any out?
You’re right Tim, they did have an auditorium called La Reserve and it was equipped for 70mm projection. It had a ridiculously small screen sitting high up over two exit doors. I remember when a 70mm print of the 3rd Star Wars film was booked into the Cumberland, Famous was forced to do a bit of a renovation so that they could install a slightly bigger screen. It was maximized for a 1.85 35mm presentation. Unfortunately, when they projected a 70mm print the masking was lowered which resulted in the smallest 70mm picture I ever saw anywhere. Needless to say, it did not impress. Mike Todd would have rolled over in his grave.
Tim, I totally agree. The lobby was serviceable and the location excellent – but that was it. I was the art director for Famous Players at that time and from my desk I was able to look down into the Cumberland’s lobby. Each afternoon I could smell the popcorn being popped, and what made it almost irresistible was a spray that simulated the scent of butter. One afternoon I spotted Leonard Cohen walking into an auditorium. Unfortunately, I was too far away to note which movie he was about to see.
Sad to think that the poorly designed Cumberland Cinema with its small screens, mediocre projection and so-so sound is now the only specialized movie house left in downtown Toronto. I remember seeing Brokeback Mountain there on it’s opening day – the place was sold out. Well, wouldn’t you know it, the picture jumped out of frame near the end of the movie. Heads appeared at the bottom of the screen, the frame line was in the centre. I finally had to run out to find someone to complain to. Turns out that management was aware of the situation but didn’t know what to do about it. Their non-union projectionist (probably an usher) finally framed the picture. It was still wrong but at least you could see the actors. I’ve never gone back to that theatre since. If the Cumberland is the only place to see a movie I’m anxious see, I prefer to wait for the film to play somewhere else, and if it doesn’t, I’ll watch it via Blu-ray on my big screen with a sharp image and great sound.
Newspaper ads produced by 20th Century Theatre’s art department for Cinerama presentations at the Glendale can be found on Roland Lataille’s informative website:
SURPRISE… nobody is being forced to buy expensive new home video gear to watch Avatar in 3-D. That’s why we have movie theatres. It doesn’t cost thousands of dollars to see, provides a night out and most digital 3-D cinemas (especially IMAX) have massive screens that dwarf the little flat LCD panels that are rapidly replacing that old tube TV in the living room.
A screen this large requires a pronounced curvature to minimize distortion for viewers seated at the sides of the auditorium. And for any semblance of picture quality the projection should be either 4K digital or preferably 70mm film – but since there are almost no large format prints, that’s a moot point. Unfortunately, 35mm presentations will look fuzzy and lifeless on such a huge screen.
The Eglinton took out their slightly curved Cinemiracle screen and triple projection setup to concentrate on standard, flat-screen 70mm roadshows because Cinerama was switching over to their single-lens 70mm projection system. This would have required extensive renovations to the theatre. First of all, the projection booth needed to be relocated to the ground floor and secondly the auditorium couldn’t handle a deeply curved screen without extensive changes being made. Since it was available, Odeon decided to spend the money and install the new Cinerama at the wonderful Odeon-Carlton. They gladly moved the projection booth to the ground floor and had the space to install a massive, deeply curved screen. Unfortunately, except for Mad World, the other 2 films they showed (Circus World & Greatest Story) didn’t do very well at the boxoffice. And keep in mind that they had to do fairly hefty business to pay the weekly expenses. As you undoubtedly remember, it was a very big building. 20th Century Theatres, who I worked for, decided to take the plunge next and installed Cinerama at their Glendale Theatre. It was small, fairly inexpensive to operate, was close to an ideal space to handle a deeply curved screen and had a large parking lot which made it really convenient for people travelling from out of town to attend a Cinerama presentation in Toronto. It may have been a gamble for the company, but it paid off in spades. Hope this answers your question.
I’ve always enjoyed reading your comments in Cinema Treasures. It would be fun to meet one of these days.
The Glendale’s seating capacity was reduced to 708 seats when they remodelled the theatre to accommodate a louvered Cinerama screen.
Interesting anecdote about 2001 A Space Odyssey at the Glendale: not long before the picture opened, one of the bookers complained to me that they were contractually obligated to play this piece of crap for a minimum of 3 months. He was convinced that the weekly gross wouldn’t even cover the house nut. Little did he know that the picture would have the world’s longest run at the Glendale… 127 continuous weeks. Not just that, but it eventually came back and played the there for many more profitable months.
I agree with most of the above, but what ever happened to showmanship? I grew up in a small town and both of our local movie houses had interesting looking auditoriums and beautifully lit curtains that covered the screen. At showtime the pre-show music faded, the lights slowly dimmed, and the curtains parted as the MGM lion growled or the Columbia lady held high her torch. These were such magical places to visit that the movie was just the icing on cake. Why they even had ushers patrolling the auditoriums to keep order and to help patrons get to and from their seats in the dark.
When I enter a megaplex now, I look around me and wonder how theatres have degenerated into what they’ve become: lots of big boring rooms (albeit with stadium seating) facing a big screen displaying big boring ads. There’s no longer any magic and there’s certainly no sense of anticipation wondering what those non-existing curtains will reveal when the lights finally dim.
Uncomfortable seats, poor sightlines, appalling picture quality, dirty screens, ugly little auditoriums, mediocre and mostly mono sound – and they blame the poor attendance on changes in the public’s moviegoing habits? Give me a break. Should'a closed years ago.
Once you bypass the movie theatre you no longer have a movie… you have a TV show. Would Ben-Hur’s incredible chariot race have made a dent in the public’s conscience if the film had debuted on television? We all know the answer to that. How about 2001 on the Cinerama screen? Seen at home, even on a hi-def 50" screen – it doesn’t impress. And what about the Oscars? How do they figure out which feature length programs get nominated for Academy Awards? Wouldn’t they all just get lumped together into the Emmys?
What’s going on? Why try to kill off the moviegoing experience? Can’t anyone wait for more than the 3 or 4 months it generally takes for a movie to end up as a DVD or Blu-ray? What’s going on here? Anybody know?
I simply don’t understand what’s going on with the installation of these super-sized screens. The original Imax 70mm process made you feel a part of the image on the screen – very much the way the original 3 panel Cinerama movies “put YOU in the picture.” All of the so-called new giant screen systems such as AMC’s ETX, digital IMAX and Cinemark’s XD screens simply enlarge the standard movie image to ungainly gigantic proportions. It’s like sitting in the front row in a standard auditorium: the picture looks lousy and it’s uncomfortable to watch. Who’s fooling who? It’s simply a money grab by the industry. Real Cinerama, the original Todd-AO, D-150, etc. systems actually shot films with lenses that took in a wide field of view that approximated the field of human vision. These movies had to be seen on huge screens that filled one’s field of vision. I could show my old 8mm home movies on ETX, XD and phony IMAX screens but that sure as hell wouldn’t put me in the picture. It would simply result in an uncomfortable experience and a demand for a refund.
I too like the idea of 70mm prints being produced for special attractions. But with one caveat: only if they’ve been shot in a large format photographic process to begin with. No blowups please. However, there is a problem: unless theatres are equipped with huge, deeply curved screens (think Cinerama, Todd-AO and Dimension 150) there’s not much point. To the average moviegoer a 70mm movie projected onto a standard size flat screen doesn’t mean much to them, it’s only a bit sharper and not a big deal. I’m old enough to remember seeing some of the original Todd-AO 70mm prints projected onto a huge 120ยบ curved screen. What a treat! And what about digital Imax? What a laugh – it’s not even a pale imitation.
My local, all-digital movie complex (they can also screen 35mm in a few of the auditoriums) is equipped with Sony 4K projectors, and the images on the screens are a wonder to behold. There’s perfect focus from edge to edge and top to bottom, there’s no image bounce or weave, no dust, no scratches and no splices, and it never pops out of focus. As a moviegoer it’s a real treat. Oh yes, one last thing: the films always end up on the screen in the correct aspect ratio.
This cinema is currently being used as a screening venue by the Toronto International Film Festival, and I’ve heard nothing but positive comments from friends about the high quality of the digital images they’ve been viewing.
The ETX auditorium at the AMC has nothing whatsoever to do with the IMAX corporation. IMAX has developed a system that uses two 2K projectors running simultaneously to beam a brighter image onto an enlarged screen. They have also developed audio technology to provide the same standard of sound reproduction that you hear in a film-based 70mm IMAX theatre.
ETX on the other hand is projected from one Sony 4K machine – the same projectors that AMC has installed in their entire 24 screen complex. AMC has also worked on improving the sound reproduction, providing a more immersive experience. That being said, there are more similarities than differences between the two. And at least ETX is not pretending to be a genuine “IMAX experience.”
Art Deco does not describe the interior of this twin cinema – bland would be more accurate. There was nothing memorable about it at all. It’s only redeeming feature was it’s excellent location in the middle of downtown Toronto next to the subway entrance.
I saw Alien in superb 70mm projection in Toronto’s long-gone University theatre. It was the first week, the place was packed and the audience loved the movie.
Hollywood doesn’t seem to realize that even small films used to be distributed to both large and medium size towns. And if they were hits they usually ended up playing everywhere. I think Hollywood simply abandoned their audience in search of a fast buck. Another problem is the emergence of the multiplex. We used to have theatres that showed the latest standard fare from the studios, we had art cinemas, then there were the action houses that played westerns, horror films, etc. And last but not least, we had the 70mm and Cinerama venues for the spectaculars. Each type of theatre catered to a specific segment of the population. The audience knew what to expect when they patronized the various theatres. It worked really well. If you attended an art cinema or a reserved seat attraction, you were treated with courtesy by the staff, the presentations included curtains, soft lights, and you weren’t dumped into a space filled with mouthy teenagers flipping open their cellphones throughout the movie.
The Imperial was the first movie house in Canada to show a film produced in the wide-screen CinemaScope process. And it was one of only a handful of cinemas in the world equipped with large format VistaVision projectors. One of the others was the Paramount in New York. This is not surprising, since VistaVision was Paramount Pictures' big-screen system and they controlled both the Paramount in NY and the Imperial in Toronto.
I say why not? These films will make even more money than they have already and best of all, I’m looking forward to seeing them in the added dimension.
The return of 70mm feature films will only work if the theatres are equipped to exhibit the large format films correctly. For example: Mike Todd supervised the installation of his 70mm Todd-AO system at the long-gone Tivoli theatre in Toronto and the movies there looked sensational on Todd’s gigantic, deeply curved screen. The audiences loved it. However, once 35mm films were blownup to 70mm prints and projected onto smaller, mostly flat CinemaScope screens in other cinemas – it no longer impressed anyone.To the average viewer 70mm simply looked like a somewhat sharper CinemaScope picture. That is, if they even noticed the difference.
Well, one can’t argue the fact that Avatar has indeed taken in more money than any other motion picture ever made. On the other hand, it hasn’t been seen by nearly as many people as David O. Selznick’s masterwork: Gone With the Wind. The really astounding fact is that it’s still the all-time champ after all these many years.
I’m not sure if the public thinks about, or cares about, release windows. The ones that like going to the movies will more than likely continue to do so, and the ones that prefer to watch a feature film on DVD, video on demand, pay TV or even wait for a freebie telecast will do likewise.
My only concern is that movies are no longer considered anything special. I worked in the exhibition and distribution side of the movie industry for years and can remember when I would give someone a guest pass to a film it was truly appreciated. It’s no longer a big deal. If they decide not to use the pass in a few months they can catch it on their big screen at home. Or worse yet, on their choice of hand-held, i-something device.
Part of this is the fault of the exhibition industry giving us boring auditoriums to sit in, poor presentations, no showmanship whatsoever and annoying commercials as a lead-in to the feature attraction. Unfortunately, I don’t think this will change. It’s simple greed and a lack of consideration for the audiences and the people that make the movies.
Those were the days for sure! We had the: University, Towne Cinema, Uptown, Cinecity, Varsity, New Yorker, Cumberland and the Plaza. Have I left any out?
You’re right Tim, they did have an auditorium called La Reserve and it was equipped for 70mm projection. It had a ridiculously small screen sitting high up over two exit doors. I remember when a 70mm print of the 3rd Star Wars film was booked into the Cumberland, Famous was forced to do a bit of a renovation so that they could install a slightly bigger screen. It was maximized for a 1.85 35mm presentation. Unfortunately, when they projected a 70mm print the masking was lowered which resulted in the smallest 70mm picture I ever saw anywhere. Needless to say, it did not impress. Mike Todd would have rolled over in his grave.
Tim, I totally agree. The lobby was serviceable and the location excellent – but that was it. I was the art director for Famous Players at that time and from my desk I was able to look down into the Cumberland’s lobby. Each afternoon I could smell the popcorn being popped, and what made it almost irresistible was a spray that simulated the scent of butter. One afternoon I spotted Leonard Cohen walking into an auditorium. Unfortunately, I was too far away to note which movie he was about to see.
Sad to think that the poorly designed Cumberland Cinema with its small screens, mediocre projection and so-so sound is now the only specialized movie house left in downtown Toronto. I remember seeing Brokeback Mountain there on it’s opening day – the place was sold out. Well, wouldn’t you know it, the picture jumped out of frame near the end of the movie. Heads appeared at the bottom of the screen, the frame line was in the centre. I finally had to run out to find someone to complain to. Turns out that management was aware of the situation but didn’t know what to do about it. Their non-union projectionist (probably an usher) finally framed the picture. It was still wrong but at least you could see the actors. I’ve never gone back to that theatre since. If the Cumberland is the only place to see a movie I’m anxious see, I prefer to wait for the film to play somewhere else, and if it doesn’t, I’ll watch it via Blu-ray on my big screen with a sharp image and great sound.
Newspaper ads produced by 20th Century Theatre’s art department for Cinerama presentations at the Glendale can be found on Roland Lataille’s informative website:
http://cinerama.topcities.com/glendale.htm
SURPRISE… nobody is being forced to buy expensive new home video gear to watch Avatar in 3-D. That’s why we have movie theatres. It doesn’t cost thousands of dollars to see, provides a night out and most digital 3-D cinemas (especially IMAX) have massive screens that dwarf the little flat LCD panels that are rapidly replacing that old tube TV in the living room.
A screen this large requires a pronounced curvature to minimize distortion for viewers seated at the sides of the auditorium. And for any semblance of picture quality the projection should be either 4K digital or preferably 70mm film – but since there are almost no large format prints, that’s a moot point. Unfortunately, 35mm presentations will look fuzzy and lifeless on such a huge screen.
The Eglinton took out their slightly curved Cinemiracle screen and triple projection setup to concentrate on standard, flat-screen 70mm roadshows because Cinerama was switching over to their single-lens 70mm projection system. This would have required extensive renovations to the theatre. First of all, the projection booth needed to be relocated to the ground floor and secondly the auditorium couldn’t handle a deeply curved screen without extensive changes being made. Since it was available, Odeon decided to spend the money and install the new Cinerama at the wonderful Odeon-Carlton. They gladly moved the projection booth to the ground floor and had the space to install a massive, deeply curved screen. Unfortunately, except for Mad World, the other 2 films they showed (Circus World & Greatest Story) didn’t do very well at the boxoffice. And keep in mind that they had to do fairly hefty business to pay the weekly expenses. As you undoubtedly remember, it was a very big building. 20th Century Theatres, who I worked for, decided to take the plunge next and installed Cinerama at their Glendale Theatre. It was small, fairly inexpensive to operate, was close to an ideal space to handle a deeply curved screen and had a large parking lot which made it really convenient for people travelling from out of town to attend a Cinerama presentation in Toronto. It may have been a gamble for the company, but it paid off in spades. Hope this answers your question.
I’ve always enjoyed reading your comments in Cinema Treasures. It would be fun to meet one of these days.
The Glendale’s seating capacity was reduced to 708 seats when they remodelled the theatre to accommodate a louvered Cinerama screen.
Interesting anecdote about 2001 A Space Odyssey at the Glendale: not long before the picture opened, one of the bookers complained to me that they were contractually obligated to play this piece of crap for a minimum of 3 months. He was convinced that the weekly gross wouldn’t even cover the house nut. Little did he know that the picture would have the world’s longest run at the Glendale… 127 continuous weeks. Not just that, but it eventually came back and played the there for many more profitable months.
I agree with most of the above, but what ever happened to showmanship? I grew up in a small town and both of our local movie houses had interesting looking auditoriums and beautifully lit curtains that covered the screen. At showtime the pre-show music faded, the lights slowly dimmed, and the curtains parted as the MGM lion growled or the Columbia lady held high her torch. These were such magical places to visit that the movie was just the icing on cake. Why they even had ushers patrolling the auditoriums to keep order and to help patrons get to and from their seats in the dark.
When I enter a megaplex now, I look around me and wonder how theatres have degenerated into what they’ve become: lots of big boring rooms (albeit with stadium seating) facing a big screen displaying big boring ads. There’s no longer any magic and there’s certainly no sense of anticipation wondering what those non-existing curtains will reveal when the lights finally dim.
Uncomfortable seats, poor sightlines, appalling picture quality, dirty screens, ugly little auditoriums, mediocre and mostly mono sound – and they blame the poor attendance on changes in the public’s moviegoing habits? Give me a break. Should'a closed years ago.
Once you bypass the movie theatre you no longer have a movie… you have a TV show. Would Ben-Hur’s incredible chariot race have made a dent in the public’s conscience if the film had debuted on television? We all know the answer to that. How about 2001 on the Cinerama screen? Seen at home, even on a hi-def 50" screen – it doesn’t impress. And what about the Oscars? How do they figure out which feature length programs get nominated for Academy Awards? Wouldn’t they all just get lumped together into the Emmys?
What’s going on? Why try to kill off the moviegoing experience? Can’t anyone wait for more than the 3 or 4 months it generally takes for a movie to end up as a DVD or Blu-ray? What’s going on here? Anybody know?
The Park theatre was constructed in 1941 by the the Toronto based 20th Century Theatres chain and operated by them for most of its existence.
I simply don’t understand what’s going on with the installation of these super-sized screens. The original Imax 70mm process made you feel a part of the image on the screen – very much the way the original 3 panel Cinerama movies “put YOU in the picture.” All of the so-called new giant screen systems such as AMC’s ETX, digital IMAX and Cinemark’s XD screens simply enlarge the standard movie image to ungainly gigantic proportions. It’s like sitting in the front row in a standard auditorium: the picture looks lousy and it’s uncomfortable to watch. Who’s fooling who? It’s simply a money grab by the industry. Real Cinerama, the original Todd-AO, D-150, etc. systems actually shot films with lenses that took in a wide field of view that approximated the field of human vision. These movies had to be seen on huge screens that filled one’s field of vision. I could show my old 8mm home movies on ETX, XD and phony IMAX screens but that sure as hell wouldn’t put me in the picture. It would simply result in an uncomfortable experience and a demand for a refund.
I too like the idea of 70mm prints being produced for special attractions. But with one caveat: only if they’ve been shot in a large format photographic process to begin with. No blowups please. However, there is a problem: unless theatres are equipped with huge, deeply curved screens (think Cinerama, Todd-AO and Dimension 150) there’s not much point. To the average moviegoer a 70mm movie projected onto a standard size flat screen doesn’t mean much to them, it’s only a bit sharper and not a big deal. I’m old enough to remember seeing some of the original Todd-AO 70mm prints projected onto a huge 120ยบ curved screen. What a treat! And what about digital Imax? What a laugh – it’s not even a pale imitation.
My local, all-digital movie complex (they can also screen 35mm in a few of the auditoriums) is equipped with Sony 4K projectors, and the images on the screens are a wonder to behold. There’s perfect focus from edge to edge and top to bottom, there’s no image bounce or weave, no dust, no scratches and no splices, and it never pops out of focus. As a moviegoer it’s a real treat. Oh yes, one last thing: the films always end up on the screen in the correct aspect ratio.
This cinema is currently being used as a screening venue by the Toronto International Film Festival, and I’ve heard nothing but positive comments from friends about the high quality of the digital images they’ve been viewing.
The ETX auditorium at the AMC has nothing whatsoever to do with the IMAX corporation. IMAX has developed a system that uses two 2K projectors running simultaneously to beam a brighter image onto an enlarged screen. They have also developed audio technology to provide the same standard of sound reproduction that you hear in a film-based 70mm IMAX theatre.
ETX on the other hand is projected from one Sony 4K machine – the same projectors that AMC has installed in their entire 24 screen complex. AMC has also worked on improving the sound reproduction, providing a more immersive experience. That being said, there are more similarities than differences between the two. And at least ETX is not pretending to be a genuine “IMAX experience.”
Art Deco does not describe the interior of this twin cinema – bland would be more accurate. There was nothing memorable about it at all. It’s only redeeming feature was it’s excellent location in the middle of downtown Toronto next to the subway entrance.
I saw Alien in superb 70mm projection in Toronto’s long-gone University theatre. It was the first week, the place was packed and the audience loved the movie.
Hollywood doesn’t seem to realize that even small films used to be distributed to both large and medium size towns. And if they were hits they usually ended up playing everywhere. I think Hollywood simply abandoned their audience in search of a fast buck. Another problem is the emergence of the multiplex. We used to have theatres that showed the latest standard fare from the studios, we had art cinemas, then there were the action houses that played westerns, horror films, etc. And last but not least, we had the 70mm and Cinerama venues for the spectaculars. Each type of theatre catered to a specific segment of the population. The audience knew what to expect when they patronized the various theatres. It worked really well. If you attended an art cinema or a reserved seat attraction, you were treated with courtesy by the staff, the presentations included curtains, soft lights, and you weren’t dumped into a space filled with mouthy teenagers flipping open their cellphones throughout the movie.
The Imperial was the first movie house in Canada to show a film produced in the wide-screen CinemaScope process. And it was one of only a handful of cinemas in the world equipped with large format VistaVision projectors. One of the others was the Paramount in New York. This is not surprising, since VistaVision was Paramount Pictures' big-screen system and they controlled both the Paramount in NY and the Imperial in Toronto.
I say why not? These films will make even more money than they have already and best of all, I’m looking forward to seeing them in the added dimension.
The return of 70mm feature films will only work if the theatres are equipped to exhibit the large format films correctly. For example: Mike Todd supervised the installation of his 70mm Todd-AO system at the long-gone Tivoli theatre in Toronto and the movies there looked sensational on Todd’s gigantic, deeply curved screen. The audiences loved it. However, once 35mm films were blownup to 70mm prints and projected onto smaller, mostly flat CinemaScope screens in other cinemas – it no longer impressed anyone.To the average viewer 70mm simply looked like a somewhat sharper CinemaScope picture. That is, if they even noticed the difference.