Pacific 1-2-3
6433 Hollywood Boulevard,
Los Angeles,
CA
90028
6433 Hollywood Boulevard,
Los Angeles,
CA
90028
60 people
favorited this theater
Showing 151 - 175 of 394 comments
I know I only speak for myself, but really, those current photos turn my stomach. Can’t anyone post photos from the glory days of the theater, instead of these pathetic gated delapitated pictures from now?
Here are some March 2008 photos:
http://tinyurl.com/22mww5
http://tinyurl.com/yt9f36
http://tinyurl.com/2gkzat
http://tinyurl.com/2edk4a
http://tinyurl.com/2y7m6p
http://tinyurl.com/2fr3np
http://tinyurl.com/237amj
http://tinyurl.com/276kl7
http://tinyurl.com/yquvep
http://tinyurl.com/yvmpuz
http://tinyurl.com/yv86gy
I guess that’s a general question. I’ve always linked directly to the LAPL site, as far as I recall. If there was an exception, there must have been some specific reason.
OK, I’m judging. I linked directly to the LAPL site, as you did. Since we both posted the same link, I’d be curious to know what point you are trying to make.
Here is a 1963 photo from the LA Public Library:
http://jpg3.lapl.org/pics48/00073786.jpg
This ‘church’ is in the heart of Hollywood, in a Hollywood Movie Palace, what do they expect?, No tourists? They should move to Bakersfield to cut out the tourist traffic.
I have always been wry of these pop up churches anyway.
I bet the next time they will have you bite the head off a live chicken.:)
Long live the Warner Pacific.
Perhaps you would be more cordially received if you first offer a contribution of $10 or so to the church in return for your being allowed to admire their facility. Churches usually operate on a shoe string budget, and, unless they are conducting human sacrifices I would think they would welcome a few more dollars in the collection plate in exchange for a peek at their place.
I think the horse has been beaten enough. Back to the theater.
At the risk of being “stoned to death” by the rightous, let me say this: Churches like St Patricks in NYC or St Peter’s in Rome are “real” churches. The “Dr” Gene Scott’s of this world do not run real churches. Just watch the TV and send money. So it is no wonder they wanted you leave. Had you slipped them a $100, praise the Lord they would have taken you on a “soul saving tour” of the place.
Perhaps the difference in hospitality is rooted in whether a building’s original intended function was as a house of worship.
In a theater-cum-church, the architecture is overtly secular, after all. Maybe the operators think it’s profane to admire “godless” decoration for its own sake in a place they now consider to be their sacred space.
In places like St. Pats, on the other hand, even camera-toting atheists are immersed in images and symbols of religious belief. Even if visitors don’t share that faith, it’s inescapable that the objects of their interest and admiration were inspired by religious devotion and embody it — and this scenario is apparently far less threatening.
If I were to keep a running count, I have been ejected from the Lincoln and the State, both in Los Angeles.
If I were a church proprietor I would welcome anyone, theatre buff or no, and try to get them to join and tithe. We have to remember I ran into the security guard, not the propietor
I think most tourists in converted movie palaces are theatre architecture fans.
Some church proprietors might be averse to the theatre fan’s mindset. I.E. “I hope someday these church guys will leave so that movies and live entertainment can prevail here again.”
That is definitely the way I think every time I see a grand 1920’s auditorium with a giant cross on the stage, and I’m sure that I am not alone.
If I were a church proprietor and heard someone make comments to this effect in my building I wouldn’t be thrilled.
People who tour the churches of Europe are there to take in the atmosphere of an age-old religious site, possibly associated with their personal faith. So the same conflict does not exist.
Keep in mind that I am only offering a theory, and not defending anyone’s actions.
I didn’t even have my camera out (well…my iPhone was in my hand in Camera mode but nobody would have noticed).
How about St. Patrick’s Cathedral on 5th Avenue in NYC? Or any of the 500 year old churches in Europe. Full of tourists with cameras.
“This is a church, not a tourist attraction!” I knew that statement rang a bell, and I’d read it right on this site — on the page for the Los Angeles Theater, attributed to Dr. Gene Scott’s widow concerning the United Artists Theatre on Broadway.
Sheesh. Well, what about when a church is in fact a tourist attraction? What’s wrong with that, and why can’t it be accommodated? Magnificent houses of worship all over the world welcome tourists, sometimes even when religious services are being held. And yet the operators of churches within converted movie palaces seem peculiarly protective. I don’t really understand why.
I’m an atheist. Maybe it shows.
I did fine at the Million Dollar Theatre a few years ago
I had a similar experience. I went out taking pictures on a Sunday morning and wandered into several theater/churches to check out the interiors. About half the time I was questioned, although I was never asked to leave directly.
I wandered into this theatre on Sunday at 1PM to take a peek after their 11AM church service. I got into the main auditorium and was promptly requested to leave by a security guard who said it was a “church today, not a tourist attraction. Shouldn’t anyone be welcomed in a house of worship?? Oh well. Anyways the screen was missing and a cross was hung in front of the exposed speaker ports. There were some people milling about doing various post-service tasks. Ironically there was a small 6-foot screen strung up where the old massive screen used to me. I was fascinated by conversion from an old movie palace into a wide-screen 1960’s palace (my favorite type of theatre), with everything in red. I’ll try to visit again if/when I am back in LA on business with a free Sunday. Hopefully I can get some photos.
This question is for William as I’m sure he will know. I was fortunate enough to see HOW THE WEST WAS WON when this theatre was part of the old Stanley Warner circuit back in 1963. When the picture first opened, I remember reading an article in one of the LA papers that showed a picture of the theatres CINERAMA screen giving the dimensions as 75w x 26h with a 146 degree curve on a louvered screen. This was the standard CINERAMA spects for screen size.
I must admit that this was the GREATEST presentation I have ever seen in a theatre and it continues to be today.
I recently saw the same picture at the Cinerama Dome and although the presentation was good, there was no comparsion with the old Warner. I read that the Dome has a CINERAMA screen size of 86h x 32h with a 126 degree curve. Maybe the degree curve made the difference. What are your thoughts?
I liked the comments, William. Thank you!
Look Howard changed the intro now. I like the way he used some of the comments I made for the theatre.
Oh I forgot.
Where’s Warren when we need him.