We’re still looking into it, crunching the numbers, but it is a definite possibility. Our biggest concern (believe it or not) is that we would scare away our regular customers there. But I personally would push for it.
Well, for us, we don’t want to lease, but even barring that, the RKO Boston has little or no lobby space, no public facilities, no license as a theater, and would require so much in upgrades to bring it to code that it would be cost prohibitive, especially considering you could only put a couple of screens in. Plus Loews is across the street, making booking films a little… uncomfortable… to say the least.
As far as Fresh Pond, we would not want it, because it is too much of competition to us as is, their numbers are so-so and as far as I have heard, the only reason it might close is because their lease is up and the property owner wants to put in a Lowe’s Home Improvement store, so it is doubtful they want the cinema to stay.
We’d rather it close than continue to eat away at our potential audiences.
I have also heard that they intend to build a new multiplex over at Assembly to replace the current theater, but that has been floating around for years. Originally Loews was going to build in the Gateway Center in Everett but the deal never happened when they went into Chapter 11.
It is just so very difficult for a non-major operator to build in Boston – not only finding the location, but also buying. building or leasing the space is so cost prohibitive.
The organization I work for would love to have 4-6 screens in the back bay or south end but don’t really have 20 million dollars to spend opening a business that won’t return the profit for many many years. If there was an already-existing theater that could be upgraded/expanded, that would be a different story, but there aren’t (and you can’t count the theater district’s old theaters – none of them are viable or available).
I agree wholeheartdly that Boston needs such a place (or two) but it is hard to make it happen.
We use gas units that are on the roof and each auditorium has it’s own unit, except for our main theater which has three. What is good about that, is if the heat breaks, only one unit breaks and can be repaired, so the other units continue to work.
The heat and A/C are in the same unit, so that makes it easy too.
Ahh, the Boston Common. I was lucky/unlucky enough to be one of the managers there at the time it opened. It is a typical Loews prototype with some nicer screens. Whomever designed it obviously never worked in a movie theater, however. No freight elevator, despite stockrooms on the 4th floor, projection booths have all kinds of wonky ducts and pipes going through in wierd places that make it really hard to access some projectors.
The Back Lot was operated by the Ritz-Carlton, which owns the building (Millenium Partners own the Ritz). It was a nice bar, very modern and stylized. I think if they had carried those design elements over into the cinemas, it would have been a very cool and urbane modern cineplex. The Ritz has (I guess, naturally) better decor tastes than Loews, which stuck to it’s overblown-faux-movie-palace design. That kinda works in the burbs, but downtown needs something that is ACTUALLY a palace, not a pretender.
Anyhow, originally the Back Lot was to be part of the ‘premium seeating’ concept at the Loews. If you bought an assigned seat (each auditorium has a section of assigned and numbered seats) you paid more but could hang out in the Back Lot and have a cocktail. An usher would take you to your specific seat when you were ready and you could take your cocktail with you.
Upon opening the complex, the details of this operation were not finalized, and as the days wore on, it became clear that such an operation would be very labor intensive. That theater is a bear to operate anyhow, with multiple level concession stands, ticket takers, etc. and soon after opening the dictum came from NYC: lower your payroll big time.
The regional manager at the time made the very accurate comment that “if you build a monster, you have to staff a monster”. But the numbers for the first few months were evidently below expectations.
As mentioned on other boards here, the complex was constantly assailed by fire alarm evacuations due to continued construction in the towers above and also by residences once the towers were donr.
That is why I personally left, because I was having anxiety attacks just walking in there… nothing like having 4000 people want your blood because they paid 20 bucks for tix, 20 more for food, 20 more for parking, maybe more for a babysitter, and then their night gets ruined and they want to take it out on you. It got to be that if someone snapped a photo with a flash bulb, I would get tense because it reminded me of the fire alarm strobes. I figured for the money I was getting, it wasn’t worth my personal health. But enough about me.
The Back Lot probably couldn’t make enough $$$ once the premium seating thing failed, as it was expensive to operate to begin with. I believe it is still used for functions, which is why the furniture is still there, but that may not be the case now.
There’s more I could say about this place, but enough for now!
The original entrance on Mass Ave was basically a storefront with a marquee; currently it is the C'est Bon convenience store. Previously it was the Mass Army Navy store and initially after the entrance moved, it was a a pizzeria.
The retail space occupies the former lobby and they also make use of the old space in the basement beneath the old lobby, which was storage and restrooms.
Cinemas 4 & 5 were indeed built on the stage. The dressing rooms still exist beneath the stage; the Rocky Horror cast still uses them.
Above the drop-ceiling of #5 is the original grid, with old pieces of the rigging still sitting there.
When I worked there I spent much of my free time exploring the various spaces there – the old organ lofts (now empty) the catwalks (there are some huge ventillation rooms in there)and the original projection booth (machinery removed but still some old lighting equipment up there). I have also seen the original blueprints (available at the Mass State Archives at Columbia Point) so i have a good idea of what it USED to look like.
I believe that was a cove promenade above the entire auditorium at the Paramount, up above the ceiling over the balcony and below. I believe the Roxy had a similar one, used as a spotlight location, and perhaps not open to the public like the Paramount’s.
Never having been in the Rivoli, I can’t tell you exactly the area you were looking at, but many old theaters had a mezzanine lobby that overlooked the orchestra floor – the (former Loew’s) Orpheum in Boston is one that I have seen. This is a lobby under the slope of the balcony. Perhaps that is what it was at the Rivoli.
I agree that the Paramount deserves renovation; it would appear that it is to be renovated sometime soon. I doubt that it would make a great “Broadway in Boston” touring-show kind of theater without a completely new stagehouse (like the nearby Keith Memorial/Opera House). Also, as previously noted above, the proscenium is quite narrow.
I think that the Paramount would be a good home for dance/ballet or possibly a film series, but it is unclear which groups will utilize the space upon renovation.
Many of the interior details are now gone, but could be recreated. Yet this would make it a very expensive renovation, restoring it to the art-deco glory it once was, so any new renovations may not resemble the old Paramount.
Modest facelift! Ha! They tore the place completely down and replaced it with an all new restaurant.
I believe this was originally a Stanley Warner theatre, but closed as a Showcase Cinema. It was a nice 60’s style house that had seen better days but was a step above most multiplexes.
I find this all to be amazingly interesting – you both worked some great theaters and through quite a bit of industry changes. As a young theater manager today, I’d love to know more, and also, any advice you can give to improve the whole movie-going experience. I have worked my way up from an usher like many in management, and I really love movies and movie theaters (good ones anyways).
I have heard from many people who have been in the business for a while how good GCC used to be, and my own experiences there before the AMC takeover were always very good.
If I recall from an old Boston Globe article, there was indeed a theater in Canton that took many of the old equipment from the Mattapan Oriental when it closed – but not all the decorative stuff, which you really can’t move, as they are part of the building (and may be partially existant today or totally gone).
This article also mentioned that the Canton theater had a working organ that was played before movies; this was at least 1982, though. I will try to find this article; Ron, you may be able to find it online, since you have a great knack for tracking articles down, but I will look just the same.
Or at least a theater space for residents of Chinatown to use. It should be part of the zoning – if you tear down a theater, you must include a theater space in your new building. There was similar zoning in Times Square (which unfortunately meant that a lot of theaters were demolished and replaced with skyscrapers that contained new (and mostly lesser) theater spaces)… but why not make the zoning more specific to save theaters – OH WAIT, THEY DID, BUT THE CITY IGNORED IT AND LET THE DEVELOPERS DO WHATEVER THEY WANTED!
The completely frustrating thing about this is that the theater is going to be demolished, but the lawsuit about what replaces it could be won – meaning the new building won’t be built – and the lot will sit empty for years while the details are worked out. All that instead of saving a significant building.
Mayor Menino should be ashamed, the BRA should be disbanded, and I hope Kensington goes right down the toilet.
Chains often buy theaters to control a market – to prevent others from having that power – rather than because they like a theater for its size and style. They also know how hard it is to build a new theater in an urban area, so they figure by buying and controlling the local market, nobody will challenge that for a long time, which is true in Boston – look how long it took for the Fenway and Boston Common theaters to open after years of closing houses left and right. It also makes the chain more powerful to film distributors – “you want your film to play Boston, you deal only with US”. I am not saying this is at all right, but it is one of the reasons why.
Also, distribution changes and release patterns have drastically changed in the last 25 years, not to mention the population changes in Boston. There was a terrific article in the Phoenix a few years back that recalled how Boston went from a city for masses of ‘regular’ people (many large theaters, huge cafeteria style restaurants, dozens of local and corner markets) to a city for more upscale and particular people (small botiques, smaller stylish restaurants, many small screens for special tastes at theaters rather than one for everybody). The population of Boston proper has dropped from a high of over 800,000 in 1950 to 550,000 today, yet there is a huge housing crunch, all because these neighborhoods used to be teeming with families and are now occupied by young professionals. On my residential street alone, there are at least 70 apartments… years ago, each apartment would have two parents, a couple of kids, an aunt or uncle or grandparents… now, one or two young professionals live in each unit… that’s at least one hundred less people on my street who USED to go to stores, restaurants, and MOVIES. And that’s one street.
Times have changed and unfortunately, the theaters are one of the victims.
I believe that this theater showed movies as late as 1978 under the Sack’s “Music Hall” name. I would have to check old newspapers, but I am pretty sure the movie “Grease” played here on first release. I could be wrong, though.
I believe that it stopped showing movies around 1968 – but I think it was a Loew’s up until near the very end. All of Loew’s Boston area theaters were held by a subsidiary called (appropriately enough) Loew’s Boston Theatres, Inc.
The only other Loew house in Boston at that time was the Loew’s State, though previously Loew’s operated the St. James Theatre around the corner from the State on Huntington (presumably the State was a replacement for the older St. James at the time the State was constructed.) Since the Loew’s State was sold by Loew’s in (if I recall correctly) 1966, it is possible that the Orpheum was sold at the same time, when Loew’s decided to get rid of it’s Boston holdings.
I believe that it stopped showing movies around 1968 – but I think it was a Loew’s up until near the very end. All of Loew’s Boston area theaters were held by a subsidiary called (appropriately enough) Loew’s Boston Theatres, Inc.
The only other Loew house in Boston at that time was the Loew’s State, though previously Loew’s operated the St. James Theatre around the corner from the State on Huntington (presumably the State was a replacement for the older St. James at the time the State was constructed.) Since the Loew’s State was sold by Loew’s in (if I recall correctly) 1966, it is possible that the Orpheum was sold at the same time, when Loew’s decided to get rid of it’s Boston holdings.
Dwodeyla is right – the cost is prohibitive. It costs many many thousands of dollars to be listed in the Globe, imagine if you only had one screen, business was already minimal, and your admission (which you only keep a portion of) is low to begin with: If you had no start-up money or excess cash to burn, it would be very difficult to swallow 4 or 5 grand a month for one little listing. And very often, people don’t pay too much attention to it anyhow, they just go to the movies where they usually go. For Wollaston, I’d say lack of regular operations hurts more than lack of advertising. People aren’t going to keep trying to go to a place if it keeps being closed when they want to go.
If the Wollaston could get some renovations and reopen with some good free press about it’s history and make a “grand reopening” and let people know the place is open and here to stay, they might start going again. But there are no guarantees, especially with second-run features. I know that if the theater I run (Somerville) didn’t have real estate attached to it, it would surely be closed. It is a tough business!
This is fascinating to me as a current theater manager under the age of 30. I love hearing stuff like this! If theaters weren’t cleaned between shows – did the theaters pile up with garbage towards the end of the night? Or were people less messy then? (Certainly theaters didn’t sell all the crap they do now – tacos, pizza, nachos, etc… but popcorn is still messy). I guess people were used to it. They are certainly not today!
Actually, Ron, that 2-screener stayed open until 1993 or so. I remember the last thing the roadside marquee said was “Congratulations to the class of 1994”.
We’re still looking into it, crunching the numbers, but it is a definite possibility. Our biggest concern (believe it or not) is that we would scare away our regular customers there. But I personally would push for it.
Well, for us, we don’t want to lease, but even barring that, the RKO Boston has little or no lobby space, no public facilities, no license as a theater, and would require so much in upgrades to bring it to code that it would be cost prohibitive, especially considering you could only put a couple of screens in. Plus Loews is across the street, making booking films a little… uncomfortable… to say the least.
As far as Fresh Pond, we would not want it, because it is too much of competition to us as is, their numbers are so-so and as far as I have heard, the only reason it might close is because their lease is up and the property owner wants to put in a Lowe’s Home Improvement store, so it is doubtful they want the cinema to stay.
We’d rather it close than continue to eat away at our potential audiences.
I have also heard that they intend to build a new multiplex over at Assembly to replace the current theater, but that has been floating around for years. Originally Loews was going to build in the Gateway Center in Everett but the deal never happened when they went into Chapter 11.
It is just so very difficult for a non-major operator to build in Boston – not only finding the location, but also buying. building or leasing the space is so cost prohibitive.
The organization I work for would love to have 4-6 screens in the back bay or south end but don’t really have 20 million dollars to spend opening a business that won’t return the profit for many many years. If there was an already-existing theater that could be upgraded/expanded, that would be a different story, but there aren’t (and you can’t count the theater district’s old theaters – none of them are viable or available).
I agree wholeheartdly that Boston needs such a place (or two) but it is hard to make it happen.
I should add this:
Not only is this theater on the site of the Astor Theatre, it also occupies the block where the State Theater was too.
We use gas units that are on the roof and each auditorium has it’s own unit, except for our main theater which has three. What is good about that, is if the heat breaks, only one unit breaks and can be repaired, so the other units continue to work.
The heat and A/C are in the same unit, so that makes it easy too.
Ahh, the Boston Common. I was lucky/unlucky enough to be one of the managers there at the time it opened. It is a typical Loews prototype with some nicer screens. Whomever designed it obviously never worked in a movie theater, however. No freight elevator, despite stockrooms on the 4th floor, projection booths have all kinds of wonky ducts and pipes going through in wierd places that make it really hard to access some projectors.
The Back Lot was operated by the Ritz-Carlton, which owns the building (Millenium Partners own the Ritz). It was a nice bar, very modern and stylized. I think if they had carried those design elements over into the cinemas, it would have been a very cool and urbane modern cineplex. The Ritz has (I guess, naturally) better decor tastes than Loews, which stuck to it’s overblown-faux-movie-palace design. That kinda works in the burbs, but downtown needs something that is ACTUALLY a palace, not a pretender.
Anyhow, originally the Back Lot was to be part of the ‘premium seeating’ concept at the Loews. If you bought an assigned seat (each auditorium has a section of assigned and numbered seats) you paid more but could hang out in the Back Lot and have a cocktail. An usher would take you to your specific seat when you were ready and you could take your cocktail with you.
Upon opening the complex, the details of this operation were not finalized, and as the days wore on, it became clear that such an operation would be very labor intensive. That theater is a bear to operate anyhow, with multiple level concession stands, ticket takers, etc. and soon after opening the dictum came from NYC: lower your payroll big time.
The regional manager at the time made the very accurate comment that “if you build a monster, you have to staff a monster”. But the numbers for the first few months were evidently below expectations.
As mentioned on other boards here, the complex was constantly assailed by fire alarm evacuations due to continued construction in the towers above and also by residences once the towers were donr.
That is why I personally left, because I was having anxiety attacks just walking in there… nothing like having 4000 people want your blood because they paid 20 bucks for tix, 20 more for food, 20 more for parking, maybe more for a babysitter, and then their night gets ruined and they want to take it out on you. It got to be that if someone snapped a photo with a flash bulb, I would get tense because it reminded me of the fire alarm strobes. I figured for the money I was getting, it wasn’t worth my personal health. But enough about me.
The Back Lot probably couldn’t make enough $$$ once the premium seating thing failed, as it was expensive to operate to begin with. I believe it is still used for functions, which is why the furniture is still there, but that may not be the case now.
There’s more I could say about this place, but enough for now!
The original entrance on Mass Ave was basically a storefront with a marquee; currently it is the C'est Bon convenience store. Previously it was the Mass Army Navy store and initially after the entrance moved, it was a a pizzeria.
The retail space occupies the former lobby and they also make use of the old space in the basement beneath the old lobby, which was storage and restrooms.
Cinemas 4 & 5 were indeed built on the stage. The dressing rooms still exist beneath the stage; the Rocky Horror cast still uses them.
Above the drop-ceiling of #5 is the original grid, with old pieces of the rigging still sitting there.
When I worked there I spent much of my free time exploring the various spaces there – the old organ lofts (now empty) the catwalks (there are some huge ventillation rooms in there)and the original projection booth (machinery removed but still some old lighting equipment up there). I have also seen the original blueprints (available at the Mass State Archives at Columbia Point) so i have a good idea of what it USED to look like.
Bob,
I believe that was a cove promenade above the entire auditorium at the Paramount, up above the ceiling over the balcony and below. I believe the Roxy had a similar one, used as a spotlight location, and perhaps not open to the public like the Paramount’s.
We decided that we needed more of an identity in the paper – and the ad agency who puts those ads together designed it for us!
As far as new theaters go… I can’t say at the moment… but if anyone knows of any nice ones looking to sell in the eastern Mass. area, drop me a line!
Never having been in the Rivoli, I can’t tell you exactly the area you were looking at, but many old theaters had a mezzanine lobby that overlooked the orchestra floor – the (former Loew’s) Orpheum in Boston is one that I have seen. This is a lobby under the slope of the balcony. Perhaps that is what it was at the Rivoli.
I agree that the Paramount deserves renovation; it would appear that it is to be renovated sometime soon. I doubt that it would make a great “Broadway in Boston” touring-show kind of theater without a completely new stagehouse (like the nearby Keith Memorial/Opera House). Also, as previously noted above, the proscenium is quite narrow.
I think that the Paramount would be a good home for dance/ballet or possibly a film series, but it is unclear which groups will utilize the space upon renovation.
Many of the interior details are now gone, but could be recreated. Yet this would make it a very expensive renovation, restoring it to the art-deco glory it once was, so any new renovations may not resemble the old Paramount.
Modest facelift! Ha! They tore the place completely down and replaced it with an all new restaurant.
I believe this was originally a Stanley Warner theatre, but closed as a Showcase Cinema. It was a nice 60’s style house that had seen better days but was a step above most multiplexes.
OK, by popular demand:
Main Theater: 891 fixed/14 accessible (421 in orchestra, balance in balcony)
Cinemas:
2: 128
3: 192
4: 120
5: 190
Hope that helps!
Mr. Wodeyla / Dave-Bronx –
I find this all to be amazingly interesting – you both worked some great theaters and through quite a bit of industry changes. As a young theater manager today, I’d love to know more, and also, any advice you can give to improve the whole movie-going experience. I have worked my way up from an usher like many in management, and I really love movies and movie theaters (good ones anyways).
I have heard from many people who have been in the business for a while how good GCC used to be, and my own experiences there before the AMC takeover were always very good.
Thanks for sharing all these memories.
If I recall from an old Boston Globe article, there was indeed a theater in Canton that took many of the old equipment from the Mattapan Oriental when it closed – but not all the decorative stuff, which you really can’t move, as they are part of the building (and may be partially existant today or totally gone).
This article also mentioned that the Canton theater had a working organ that was played before movies; this was at least 1982, though. I will try to find this article; Ron, you may be able to find it online, since you have a great knack for tracking articles down, but I will look just the same.
Or at least a theater space for residents of Chinatown to use. It should be part of the zoning – if you tear down a theater, you must include a theater space in your new building. There was similar zoning in Times Square (which unfortunately meant that a lot of theaters were demolished and replaced with skyscrapers that contained new (and mostly lesser) theater spaces)… but why not make the zoning more specific to save theaters – OH WAIT, THEY DID, BUT THE CITY IGNORED IT AND LET THE DEVELOPERS DO WHATEVER THEY WANTED!
The completely frustrating thing about this is that the theater is going to be demolished, but the lawsuit about what replaces it could be won – meaning the new building won’t be built – and the lot will sit empty for years while the details are worked out. All that instead of saving a significant building.
Mayor Menino should be ashamed, the BRA should be disbanded, and I hope Kensington goes right down the toilet.
Chains often buy theaters to control a market – to prevent others from having that power – rather than because they like a theater for its size and style. They also know how hard it is to build a new theater in an urban area, so they figure by buying and controlling the local market, nobody will challenge that for a long time, which is true in Boston – look how long it took for the Fenway and Boston Common theaters to open after years of closing houses left and right. It also makes the chain more powerful to film distributors – “you want your film to play Boston, you deal only with US”. I am not saying this is at all right, but it is one of the reasons why.
Also, distribution changes and release patterns have drastically changed in the last 25 years, not to mention the population changes in Boston. There was a terrific article in the Phoenix a few years back that recalled how Boston went from a city for masses of ‘regular’ people (many large theaters, huge cafeteria style restaurants, dozens of local and corner markets) to a city for more upscale and particular people (small botiques, smaller stylish restaurants, many small screens for special tastes at theaters rather than one for everybody). The population of Boston proper has dropped from a high of over 800,000 in 1950 to 550,000 today, yet there is a huge housing crunch, all because these neighborhoods used to be teeming with families and are now occupied by young professionals. On my residential street alone, there are at least 70 apartments… years ago, each apartment would have two parents, a couple of kids, an aunt or uncle or grandparents… now, one or two young professionals live in each unit… that’s at least one hundred less people on my street who USED to go to stores, restaurants, and MOVIES. And that’s one street.
Times have changed and unfortunately, the theaters are one of the victims.
Perhaps I am confusing my Travolta… could it have been “Saturday Night Fever” that played the Music Hall?
I believe that this theater showed movies as late as 1978 under the Sack’s “Music Hall” name. I would have to check old newspapers, but I am pretty sure the movie “Grease” played here on first release. I could be wrong, though.
I believe that it stopped showing movies around 1968 – but I think it was a Loew’s up until near the very end. All of Loew’s Boston area theaters were held by a subsidiary called (appropriately enough) Loew’s Boston Theatres, Inc.
The only other Loew house in Boston at that time was the Loew’s State, though previously Loew’s operated the St. James Theatre around the corner from the State on Huntington (presumably the State was a replacement for the older St. James at the time the State was constructed.) Since the Loew’s State was sold by Loew’s in (if I recall correctly) 1966, it is possible that the Orpheum was sold at the same time, when Loew’s decided to get rid of it’s Boston holdings.
I believe that it stopped showing movies around 1968 – but I think it was a Loew’s up until near the very end. All of Loew’s Boston area theaters were held by a subsidiary called (appropriately enough) Loew’s Boston Theatres, Inc.
The only other Loew house in Boston at that time was the Loew’s State, though previously Loew’s operated the St. James Theatre around the corner from the State on Huntington (presumably the State was a replacement for the older St. James at the time the State was constructed.) Since the Loew’s State was sold by Loew’s in (if I recall correctly) 1966, it is possible that the Orpheum was sold at the same time, when Loew’s decided to get rid of it’s Boston holdings.
Dwodeyla is right – the cost is prohibitive. It costs many many thousands of dollars to be listed in the Globe, imagine if you only had one screen, business was already minimal, and your admission (which you only keep a portion of) is low to begin with: If you had no start-up money or excess cash to burn, it would be very difficult to swallow 4 or 5 grand a month for one little listing. And very often, people don’t pay too much attention to it anyhow, they just go to the movies where they usually go. For Wollaston, I’d say lack of regular operations hurts more than lack of advertising. People aren’t going to keep trying to go to a place if it keeps being closed when they want to go.
If the Wollaston could get some renovations and reopen with some good free press about it’s history and make a “grand reopening” and let people know the place is open and here to stay, they might start going again. But there are no guarantees, especially with second-run features. I know that if the theater I run (Somerville) didn’t have real estate attached to it, it would surely be closed. It is a tough business!
This is fascinating to me as a current theater manager under the age of 30. I love hearing stuff like this! If theaters weren’t cleaned between shows – did the theaters pile up with garbage towards the end of the night? Or were people less messy then? (Certainly theaters didn’t sell all the crap they do now – tacos, pizza, nachos, etc… but popcorn is still messy). I guess people were used to it. They are certainly not today!
Actually, Ron, that 2-screener stayed open until 1993 or so. I remember the last thing the roadside marquee said was “Congratulations to the class of 1994”.