An article about the redevelopment project for the Pitkin: View link
The article also states that when the Pitkin was a functioning atmospheric theater, the floating clouds were created by the use of dry ice. I always heard that they were projections from a machine called a Brenograph. Does anybody know if dry ice was ever used? It seems to me that dry ice vapor tends to stay close to the floor.
The theater’s entry at Drive-Ins.com http://www.drive-ins.com/theater/patredr has a small, out-of-focus aerial photo. My guess is that Sunshine Trail is/was a just a service road to access the theater.
A number of photos of the Astoria taken over the last two decades posted here on CT and elsewhere –(such as this one: View link – show a small vertical sign attached to the extreme right hand side of the Tottenham Court Road frontage. The sign reads “Astoria Theatre” vertically and “123” horizontally at the bottom. The sign would appear to be over the entrance to the lower level where the former ballroom/Bang/Astoria 2/G-A-Y nightclub was. However, most recent and older London guides I have give 165 as the address for the Astoria 2. Is that “123” an address number or was there once a triplex theater on the lower level?
Aside from the occasional negativity in a few of the remarks above, this page is an example of how a more complete and robust portrait of a theater can emerge through the collective contributions of an online community. I tried to point this out on another theater page recently.
Someone could have waded through old directories, newspapers, FDYs and held off entering this theater until a thorough, cross-verified statement about it could have been posted. That is a traditional and admirable procedure, and if that is the way a poster wants to proceed, I think that is fine. On the other hand, many pages here on CT have started from very bare-bones, perhaps even partially inaccurate, entries based on incomplete or hazy memories or on other sources of varying dependability about a theater. Then over time, with people adding their individual bits, respectful corrections, etc. a more compelling narrative emerges. This procedure is probably more time-consuming and even a bit ragged at times, but is also more social and conducive to community-building. My point is that there is more than one route to an accurate portrait.
I guess I am rather surprised at the apparent lack of affection for this old theater considering how much history it has; after all it is a hundred years old, many, many famous people appeared on her stage when it was a vaudeville house, it was once owned by Sid Grauman and later by Loew’s, etc. For such an historic city, San Francisco doesn’t seem to value its classic movie theaters much. I agree, the Fox was “The last Word” in elegance, and the Northpoint was a great place to see – especially – a 70mm film, but I think it sad to see this old girl pass away so unmourned. I cannot disagree that she became very decreipt both in the last years she was open and certainly since, but was a glass box full of popular merchandisers the only solution available to improve this section of Market Street?
Thanks also for the information about 70mm projection at the Lightbox. I m hoping that someday soon I can go there. It is unfortunate that its designers did not consider the appropriate screen size. As I said in my remarks about the Smithsonian above, I think if one is truly serious about building a facility to show film history, one should be concerned about not only what is shown but also how it is shown. If young people today, who only have seen primarily films in megaplex theaters (or even in IMAX, real or faux), they really cannot fully the history of moviegoing if all they can be shown are the films themselves.
One of m favorite memories is of a Showing of “How The West Was Won” during the Cinerama revival at Dayton’s Neon movies. In the row in front of me was a little boy who couldn’t have been more than seven or eight, who was squirming around before the movie started and frankly seemed a little bored. But when those curtains opened and the movie began, that boy sat up on the edge of his seat and hardly moved during the film, it was that riveting for him. I would like to think there would always be a few places where an interested young person could see “Lawrence of Arabia” or “Around the World in Eighty Days” or even one of the last of the clunkier 70mm Cinerama features like “Ice Station Zebra” the way many of us first got to see them.
I had originally typed that the Pictureville Theater could show any format, and then I realized that that would imply IMAX as well. Thanks, Jon for pointing out that there is an IMAX very near by.
According to this article (near the bottom), an additional nine screens are going to be added to this theater, which will make it a true megaplex: View link
Indeed; While I thinks it is great that the Smithsonian will be getting a new facility for showing the history of American film, I wish the concept were enlarged so that the facility could present both the history of American film AND the history of the exhibition of the American film, something akin to the Bradford, England National Media Museum’s Pictureville Theater, which can present just about any film format except IMAX: (Cinerama, any 70mm format (Todd-AO, Super Panavision 70, etc.), 1950s era 3D, digital, and digital 3D in addition to standard 35mm and 35mm anamorphic prints. One would hope it would have elegant curtains and top-notch sound system, that can show off monophonic, digital, and multi-track magnetic soundtracks.
This theater is now operating as a second-run, discount theater: View link
Great news! Now if only B&K were operating theaters once again!
An article about the redevelopment project for the Pitkin: View link
The article also states that when the Pitkin was a functioning atmospheric theater, the floating clouds were created by the use of dry ice. I always heard that they were projections from a machine called a Brenograph. Does anybody know if dry ice was ever used? It seems to me that dry ice vapor tends to stay close to the floor.
There is a picture of the theater’s exterior here: http://www.amason-associates.com/ret_cobb.html and an article about the theater getting an IMAX digital screen here: http://www.myfoxal.com/Global/story.asp?S=13226637
The theater’s entry at Drive-Ins.com http://www.drive-ins.com/theater/patredr has a small, out-of-focus aerial photo. My guess is that Sunshine Trail is/was a just a service road to access the theater.
A developer now wants to expand the number of apartments as part of the Keith’s redevelopment: View link
Auditorium, 1973: View link
Was Clearview running this theater as a discount house toward the end? At least two of those films were released in July.
A number of photos of the Astoria taken over the last two decades posted here on CT and elsewhere –(such as this one: View link – show a small vertical sign attached to the extreme right hand side of the Tottenham Court Road frontage. The sign reads “Astoria Theatre” vertically and “123” horizontally at the bottom. The sign would appear to be over the entrance to the lower level where the former ballroom/Bang/Astoria 2/G-A-Y nightclub was. However, most recent and older London guides I have give 165 as the address for the Astoria 2. Is that “123” an address number or was there once a triplex theater on the lower level?
There are six pictures of the theater on its CinemaTour page: http://www.cinematour.com/tour/us/6497.html
An article about the installation of the digital IMAX screen: View link
There are several pictures of the theater on its page at CinemaTour: http://www.cinematour.com/tour/us/7801.html Here is an article about the closing: View link
Aside from the occasional negativity in a few of the remarks above, this page is an example of how a more complete and robust portrait of a theater can emerge through the collective contributions of an online community. I tried to point this out on another theater page recently.
Someone could have waded through old directories, newspapers, FDYs and held off entering this theater until a thorough, cross-verified statement about it could have been posted. That is a traditional and admirable procedure, and if that is the way a poster wants to proceed, I think that is fine. On the other hand, many pages here on CT have started from very bare-bones, perhaps even partially inaccurate, entries based on incomplete or hazy memories or on other sources of varying dependability about a theater. Then over time, with people adding their individual bits, respectful corrections, etc. a more compelling narrative emerges. This procedure is probably more time-consuming and even a bit ragged at times, but is also more social and conducive to community-building. My point is that there is more than one route to an accurate portrait.
There are several pictures of the Movies 8 on its page at CinemaTour: http://www.cinematour.com/tour/us/2731.html
And now, back to comments about this theater. According to this article, competition from newer nearby multiplxes has compelled management to run the Cinebarré as a second-run house and that it will be rebranded as the Cinebarré Classic: View link
I guess I am rather surprised at the apparent lack of affection for this old theater considering how much history it has; after all it is a hundred years old, many, many famous people appeared on her stage when it was a vaudeville house, it was once owned by Sid Grauman and later by Loew’s, etc. For such an historic city, San Francisco doesn’t seem to value its classic movie theaters much. I agree, the Fox was “The last Word” in elegance, and the Northpoint was a great place to see – especially – a 70mm film, but I think it sad to see this old girl pass away so unmourned. I cannot disagree that she became very decreipt both in the last years she was open and certainly since, but was a glass box full of popular merchandisers the only solution available to improve this section of Market Street?
Thanks also for the information about 70mm projection at the Lightbox. I m hoping that someday soon I can go there. It is unfortunate that its designers did not consider the appropriate screen size. As I said in my remarks about the Smithsonian above, I think if one is truly serious about building a facility to show film history, one should be concerned about not only what is shown but also how it is shown. If young people today, who only have seen primarily films in megaplex theaters (or even in IMAX, real or faux), they really cannot fully the history of moviegoing if all they can be shown are the films themselves.
One of m favorite memories is of a Showing of “How The West Was Won” during the Cinerama revival at Dayton’s Neon movies. In the row in front of me was a little boy who couldn’t have been more than seven or eight, who was squirming around before the movie started and frankly seemed a little bored. But when those curtains opened and the movie began, that boy sat up on the edge of his seat and hardly moved during the film, it was that riveting for him. I would like to think there would always be a few places where an interested young person could see “Lawrence of Arabia” or “Around the World in Eighty Days” or even one of the last of the clunkier 70mm Cinerama features like “Ice Station Zebra” the way many of us first got to see them.
There are several pictures of this theater on its CinemaTour page: http://www.cinematour.com/tour/us/2827.html
I had originally typed that the Pictureville Theater could show any format, and then I realized that that would imply IMAX as well. Thanks, Jon for pointing out that there is an IMAX very near by.
Address should be changed to 591 Broadway Street.
I see the correction has now been made; thanks.
Area citizens are being invited to vote on what the renovated former Rock Theater should be named when it re-opens: View link
The address still needs to be corrected and an aka of West Theater still needs to be added.
Movies are again being shown at the Gem on a once-a-month basis in addition to the live performances: View link
According to this article (near the bottom), an additional nine screens are going to be added to this theater, which will make it a true megaplex: View link
Indeed; While I thinks it is great that the Smithsonian will be getting a new facility for showing the history of American film, I wish the concept were enlarged so that the facility could present both the history of American film AND the history of the exhibition of the American film, something akin to the Bradford, England National Media Museum’s Pictureville Theater, which can present just about any film format except IMAX: (Cinerama, any 70mm format (Todd-AO, Super Panavision 70, etc.), 1950s era 3D, digital, and digital 3D in addition to standard 35mm and 35mm anamorphic prints. One would hope it would have elegant curtains and top-notch sound system, that can show off monophonic, digital, and multi-track magnetic soundtracks.
A later article; the fire is being investigated as “suspicious”:
View link