Radio City Music Hall

1260 6th Avenue,
New York, NY 10020

Unfavorite 118 people favorited this theater

Showing 1,351 - 1,375 of 3,332 comments

Al Alvarez
Al Alvarez on September 29, 2008 at 2:24 pm

“The Blue Max” played at the Victoria in early 1967 on a continuous showing run.

William
William on September 29, 2008 at 12:56 pm

As AlAlvarez posted “The Blue Max” opened at the Sutton. “The Blue Max” had it’s World Premiere at the Sutton on June 21st. 1966 and opened a hard ticket engagement on June 22, 1966 there. It may have had a Moveover engagement later.

Luis Vazquez
Luis Vazquez on September 29, 2008 at 12:44 pm

Well, it looks like the WaMu theater is going to be changed to JP Morgan Chase! WooHoo! WaMu is gone!

roxy1927
roxy1927 on September 29, 2008 at 12:41 pm

Did Blue Max ever play a Times Sq house first run on hard ticket or cont perfs.?

Hondo 59, how could you have a Music Hall program for Solution?

Al Alvarez
Al Alvarez on September 27, 2008 at 10:03 am

Although there were many private screenings at Radio City, “The Blue Max” opened commercially at the Sutton and “The Seven-per-cent Solution” at the Plaza.

hondo59
hondo59 on September 27, 2008 at 9:52 am

Thank you for those who provided a listing of movies that played Radio City. There are many entries here and perhaps I missed something but I remember seeing “The Blue Max” (June 1966) and “The 7% Solution” (October 1976). In fact, I have the program for “Solution.”

Vito
Vito on September 8, 2008 at 1:15 pm

Thanks Al, that’s the way I remember it.
The theatre in MSG most definatly opened while the movie house was still running. In addition it was, as Luis wrote,in Columbus Circle and not on the east side as I originaly suggested.

Al Alvarez
Al Alvarez on September 8, 2008 at 11:27 am

The two Paramounts, MSG and Columbus ,overlapped in 1991-1992 until Loews changed theirs to Columbus Circle.

Luis Vazquez
Luis Vazquez on September 8, 2008 at 10:37 am

Hi Vito, to my knowledge the only two Paramounts in Manhattan were the ones in Times Square and the one at the base of the old Gulf and Western HQ’s at Columbus Circle. Both were long closed before MSG started calling their theater the Paramount. I don’t know who would have complained. I do know that the ridiculous WaMu is strictly a corporate naming for money. Same as Ford Center and American Airlines Theater. WaMu is such an ugly name.

Vito
Vito on September 8, 2008 at 10:16 am

Warren thr name WaMu is so ridiculas. I recall when the theatre first opened it was called the Paramount, but complaints from the owners of the Paramount theatre on the east side wanted it changed. It then became the Theatre at Madison Square Garden and then this sily new name. Since we no longer have a Paramount in NY perhaps they should just go back to the original name.
Just my 2 cents.

DavidM
DavidM on September 2, 2008 at 8:30 pm

And once again we have the opportunity to benefit from the amazing Bob Endres; here to explain the inner workings of the Hall. I am so glad you are posting on this page! Bob, in one of your posts you mention that the contour was “pulled up to show how big the screen really was.” Wasn’t that always the case? I mean, I recall the contour was always raised higher for the film than it was for the stage show. It is difficult to see the contour at all in that “1953” picture.

Was the stage show contour framing referred to as “Showtrim”?

William
William on September 2, 2008 at 2:34 pm

Mann Theatres put in a pair of Simplex 35/70’s when they did that famous move-over from the Chinese Theatre of “Star Wars” to the Mann’s Hollywood Theatre for that long month engagement. Those Simplex projectors ate alot of 70MM film too.

Bill Huelbig
Bill Huelbig on September 2, 2008 at 1:41 pm

Thanks, Mr. Endres, for another great Music Hall story.

Here’s the “Airport” program, first posted here 3 years ago:

View link

View link

I recall newspaper ads from that time announcing “Airport” as the first 70mm presentation in the history of Radio City Music Hall.

RobertEndres
RobertEndres on September 2, 2008 at 1:15 pm

Bill,
“Airport” was the first film shown in 70mm at the Hall, and was the most traumatic. I heard stories about that series of events even before I worked there. The only reason 70mm was installed was that Ross Hunter insisted that “Airport” be shown in 70mm, and Universal had fourl-walled the theatre, so what they wanted they got. There were no Simplex 35/70mm machines available on short notice, so the Hall got three of them from the Gulf & Western (Paramount) building. Both the Paramount theatre in the basement, and the two screening rooms were equipped with 35/70, and they weren’t ready to open so the Hall made the deal. They had to be Simplex machines, since all of the apertures for the film effects in the stage show were cut for Simplex XL projectors, and they needed the flexibility.

The former head of the MGM camera department had converted the original XL’s to 70mm (actually 65mm) use for “Ben Hur” and “Raintree County” Camera 65, and offered to do the same for the Hall, but was frozen out of his company in a divorce settlement. Word had it that the machines the Hall got were assembled by his accountant, and they weren’t put together well. (We later took them out to the Simplex shop in New Jersey and had them rebuilt.)

Bill Nafash, who had the knowledge to rebuild them was at a World’s Fair at the time of the installation and wasn’t available to help. There were a host of other problems so severe, that after the first screening of “Airport” on opening day, they had to go back to 35mm for the next screening.

Ben Olevsky, who was chief, didn’t want 70mm to begin with and hated them and the sound system that was installed. The machines damaged so much 70mm film that when I told the crew we were going to run 70mm in 1974, one of them put his hands around my neck as if to choke me and said, “We don’t want to run 70mm!” It took the rebuilding of the machines and installation of some replacement units like the feed and take-up assemblies before they were “tamed”. If you saw “Airport” there in 70mm, you were at a classic moment in Music Hall history!

Bill Huelbig
Bill Huelbig on September 2, 2008 at 12:59 pm

REndres said:

“For Panavision 70, the aspect ratio is 2.21:1, and thus the picture which is 30' high looks less wide than scope even though it is the full 70' wide as opposed to 2.35 Scope’s 64' width.”

I remember being a little disappointed when the Hall showed “Airport” in 70mm (Todd-AO?) in 1970 because the screen didn’t look wide enough. I was only 15, and didn’t know then what I know now – sure wish I could go back and see it there again!

RobertEndres
RobertEndres on September 2, 2008 at 11:10 am

Actually, that is a “real” photo. Radio City did a stage show which paid tribute to its motion-picture past, and opened with the contour going up to reveal the screen, and had the Rockettes positioned in front of it. The show probably dated back to 1953 when the Hall first started showing CinemaScope and wanted to “wow” the audiences with the screen size. The announcer had copy which read something like, “Now that’s a screen!”

If you saw the screen in in the ‘70’s and thought it looked different, it was probably because the aspect ratio was changed between CinemaScope and Panavision 70. It is the same screen, fitted into the original truss work from the house opening which also carried the Magnascope masking. Both the sides and top masking move, thus enablng any aspect ratio to be shown. The screen as shown in the photo is showing a 2.55:1 original Scope ratio, which was later reduced in the days of Magoptical and optical Scope soundtracks to 2.35:1. While I did inherit 2.55 plates, we never used them in the '70’s since there were no 2:55 prints available. (The discussion came up during our screening of the restoration of “A Star Is Born”, since it was originally 2.55. The only decent print in terms of picture was a 2.35 optical print. The 4-track magnetic stereo print had a decent enough track, but the picture was scratched. It was suggested that we crop the top and bottom of the picture to regain the 2.55 ratio, but I thought that Cukor would probably want as much of his original picture seen as possible, and the sides were already being cropped. We ended up running the 4 track mag from interlocked mag dubbers rather than composite on film).

For Panavision 70, the aspect ratio is 2.21:1, and thus the picture which is 30' high looks less wide than scope even though it is the full 70' wide as opposed to 2.35 Scope’s 64' width. (The original 2.55 magnetic 35mm prints would have filled the whole 70' screen width although stil being less high than 70mm. Also remember that at the time the photo was taken the Hall had yet to install 70mm equipment, so the screen height would be limited to the 35mm Scope size, although newsreels were run at a 1.37 aspect ratio which would have used a 30' x 40' size.)

If you measure the height of the Rockettes in the photo the screen height would appear to about 26' high. As I recall when we repeated the show the feture masking was for Scope so the contour was just pulled up to show how big the screen really was in comparison to the girls' height. The same photo was also used in promotional material for the Hall including their Pictorial and in a booklet on carbons for arc lighting for motion pictures put out by National Carbons.

One final note: none of the ratios at the Hall are 100% accurate, since with a 19 degree downward angle, the picture elongates somewhat. We always used SMPTE target test film to ensure that we were projecting the image as intended, but because of the downward angle the screen height was always taller than it would have been if the booth were located on the 1st Mezzanine (that was one of the reasons theatres like the Rivoli repositioned their booths to a lower angle when projecting on a curved screen. In that case the distoriton from an old high booth would have been too noticeable.)

roxy1927
roxy1927 on September 1, 2008 at 12:35 pm

Why are the Rockettes in front of it?
I seriously doubt the Music Hall would have shown the Cinemescope screen naked.
Probably a processed photo for publicity purposes.
Saw it used once in the 70’s and I thought it was much more impressive than their Panavision or 70mm screen.
Oh, to see a movie on it again!
But I guess they are not going to have a film revival of a true Cinemascope film again for one person.

RobertR
RobertR on August 21, 2008 at 10:21 pm

Now this is a Cinemascope screen.
View link

Bill Huelbig
Bill Huelbig on August 11, 2008 at 1:57 pm

I saw them both there in the ‘70s. The “West Side Story” show in 2001 was invitation only, unfortunately for me.

roxy1927
roxy1927 on August 11, 2008 at 12:57 pm

Where were you in the 70’s and 7 years ago.
You would have seen both there.
Though I didn’t go. The Music Hall is not right for these films imho.
Of course a standard road show house with about 1,500 seats and a large 70mm screen would be perfect…

Bill Huelbig
Bill Huelbig on August 11, 2008 at 11:46 am

I think it’s a great story no matter how many people showed up. Heck, if I were a millionaire I’d rent the Hall out for one night and show “2001” or “West Side Story” on the giant screen :)

Luis Vazquez
Luis Vazquez on August 11, 2008 at 10:34 am

I think the quote from the Times was that the 3 balconys were closed and that the orchestra “appeared one third full”.

PeterApruzzese
PeterApruzzese on August 11, 2008 at 8:41 am

Thanks for the article, Warren. They were hoping for 500 to show, so they did 20% better than expectations.

PeterApruzzese
PeterApruzzese on August 11, 2008 at 8:14 am

Here’s an article/review from yesterday’s New York Times:

View link

kong1911
kong1911 on August 11, 2008 at 6:34 am

For those of us who could not be there but would have liked to, Sooo, how was the show?