RIP the Cinerama Dome, ArcLight and Pacific Cinemas (1 Viewer)

[ChrisOC]

Is Karen Kramer, Stanley Kramer's widow still around, as she and some other company could buy the dome as Stanley is the reason the dome was built in the first place so he could premiere the epic comedy classic, It's A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World there. A good amount of the massive cast was on hand when construction began on the dome in July 1963 and then again at the building's grand opening 16 weeks later.

Ironically, while It's A Mad Mad Mad Mad World was a Cinerama production, it was not filmed in Cinerama. I expect the Dome was built to handle three-camera Cinerama productions, but I think How The West Was Won was the last such film.

 

[billO']

Very saddening to hear this news. The very first movie I saw after moving to Los Angeles was Apocalypse Now at the Dome when it was still only showing in NY and LA in 70mm before it went wide later that year...it was an amazing presentation; the sound system alone took my breath away (the helicopters during the opening shot sounded like they were circling right overhead in the theater, and when weapons were fired from either in front or behind the actors on screen you'd think they were whizzing right past you, too).

 

[Garysb]

Ironically, while It's A Mad Mad Mad Mad World was a Cinerama production, it was not filmed in Cinerama. I expect the Dome was built to handle three-camera Cinerama productions, but I think How The West Was Won was the last such film.

The Dome was built specially to be completed on time to show "It's A Mad, Mad, Mad World". Before it was built it was known there would be no more 3 panel Cinerama films as the 3 panel system had been superseded by Ultra Panavision 70 the single film process. I believe it was built to be able to show the 3 panel films.

 

[RolandL]

The Dome was built specially to be completed on time to show "It's A Mad, Mad, Mad World". Before it was built it was known there would be no more 3 panel Cinerama films as the 3 panel system had been superseded by Ultra Panavision 70 the single film process. I believe it was built to be able to show the 3 panel films.

It was not "known there would be no more 3 panel Cinerama films". Why would they build it to show 3-panel Cinerama if they knew that? The Greatest Story Ever Told began filming in 3 panel Cinerama before changing to Ultra Panavision. 70mm Cinerama films were filmed in Ultra Panavision 70, Super Panavision, Todd-AO, MCS-70, and Technirama.

 

[Garysb]

I think it is at this point its a matter of speculation about the future of 3 panel Cinerama in 1963. The 3 film process, which per the above documentary took 5 projectionist to show was not practical from both an expense and the cumbersome camera to use. They wouldn't have switched to Super Panavision 70 if they thought they were still going to use 3 panel. The Dome was supposed to a prototype for a series of theaters built across the USA. No more were built. That wasn't because it wasn't a good theater. It is a great theater. It only took months to build. As to why theater was built to be able to show 3 panel it could be so that it had the ability to show the previously produced 3 panel films. Just speculation.

 

[Malcolm R]

If all these rich celebrities cared that much, they could write big fat checks to either buy or bailout the company.

 

[Garysb]

ArcLight Hollywood May Be Closing, but It’s Not Too Late to Save Other Cinemas

As news that ArcLight Cinemas and Cinerama Dome won't reopen shakes Hollywood, what can the industry do to save the big-screen experience?

variety.com

 

[TravisR]

If all these rich celebrities cared that much, they could write big fat checks to either buy or bailout the company.

I think you're drastically underestimating the cost of LA real estate and the amount of debt that these theaters have accumulated over the last year.

 

[RolandL]

I think it is at this point its a matter of speculation about the future of 3 panel Cinerama in 1963. The 3 film process, which per the above documentary took 5 projectionist to show was not practical from both an expense and the cumbersome camera to use. They wouldn't have switched to Super Panavision 70 if they thought they were still going to use 3 panel. The Dome was supposedr to a prototype for a series of theaters built across the USA. No more were built. That wasn't because it wasn't a good theater. It is a great theater. It only took months to build. As to why theater was built to be able to show 3 panel it could be so that it had the ability to show the previously produced 3 panel films. Just speculation.

After Mad World premiered at the Dome in November 1963, it was not known if any 3 panel Cinerama films would be produced. New Cinerama theatres were built after the Dome opening. Some showed 3 panel Cinerama others 70mm Cinerama. Even a drive-in theatre was re-equipped to show 3 panel Cinerama in 1964. The LA Dome was the only geodesic theatre built with concrete but others were using aluminum.

4/17/64

4/27/64

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I think you're drastically underestimating the cost of LA real estate and the amount of debt that these theaters have accumulated over the last year.

I can’t imagine anyone buying the chain in full given the environment out there. I can even imagine this renegotiation ploy working for some of the locations - maybe the landlord will give the keys back on important locations like the Cinerama Dome because it’ll be easier/cheaper to forgive debt on that lease than to do something else with the space.

It could also end up being something like Netflix’s answer to Disney’s El Capitan. The number one complaint among people that work for Netflix is that, while they love the company’s support of the filmmaking process, they miss the theatrical release component. But, I’d argue that many Netflix films aren’t really viable for widespread theatrical release the way that system works today - there’s a reason Netflix did The Irishman and Paramount didn’t. Netflix also ends up four walling theaters to gain awards eligibility anyway. They rent theaters to host premieres. Picking up the Dome lease, especially if it can be negotiated for pennies on the dollar, might be the kind of thing that could fit into the marketing/advertising/filmmaker relations budget.

 

[RolandL]

Someone also mentioned a while back when all the theatres were closed, that the film companies could purchase the theatres. They would get all the profits instead of part of it.

 

[Malcolm R]

Someone also mentioned a while back when all the theatres were closed, that the film companies could purchase the theatres. They would get all the profits instead of part of it.

Though that would only happen if the studio only shows their own releases. A theater owned by Warner Bros is unlikely to show a film released by Universal without taking a cut.

Probably why it's not a good idea for studios to own theaters. Either they'd be constantly bickering about how to split the box office, or they'd refuse to show films from competing studios.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I really think that might make the most sense long term. The current model is broken. Studios insist on contracts that give them 90% or more of the gross on the first two weekends, and then release films in such a fashion that they make the overwhelming majority of their money during that period. Theater operators aren’t really in the exhibition-for-profit business; they’re in the sell-junk-food-to-a-captive-audience business. They have a few giant weekends every year, and then are mostly empty most weekdays and most other weekends. That’s not sustainable.

I know it’s pretty common to hate on Disney these days, but I look at how they run Disney World as an example - every time I go there, the place is impeccably clean, it’s orderly, it’s well run, the people working there seem to enjoy being there, and the experience is always first rate. Then I think of going to an AMC or a Regal, where there seems to be little investment in maintaining let along upgrading the facilities, where it doesn’t seem anyone is looking out for customer satisfaction and where it’s nearly impossible to get an issue resolved in a satisfactory and timely fashion, run by staff that often seems indifferent to or unaware of the customer experience.

I just wonder what sense it makes to spend $200 million making a movie in a certain way, and then another $200 million marketing it, but then to give up all control with how it’s actually presented to paying audiences.

The studios are already forming various joint ventures with each other to consolidate physical media production and distribution. They should probably do the same with theaters.

 

[RolandL]

From Dave Strohmaier:

I’m not taking it that seriously. It’s a registered landmark and all that stuff. There was an article someone sent me. The impression was they’re going to get the rent down and then they’ll stay open.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

That’s my take too. I would bet some ArcLight locations won’t be back but I don’t see the Dome going away.

 

[Mark Booth]

This discussion spurred me to finally purchase the 2017 restoration 'This is Cinerama' Blu-ray. We watched it yesterday. It was actually more entertaining than I expected, but I can't say I am a fan of the "SmileVision" idea. I think the image would have been more powerful had it filled my entire screen.

But, then, I guess the whole point was to simulate the experience of sitting within the curved screen of a true Cinerama theater.

Mark

 

[Josh Steinberg]

If it wasn’t smileboxed, it actually would fill less of the screen - think letterboxing close to 3:1. The smilebox warping actually does use more pixels onscreen.

I like This Is Cinerama, but I think Windjammer is even more fun.

 

[RolandL]

... I think the image would have been more powerful had it filled my entire screen.

Here is an example from How The West Was Won:

SmileBox

Filling your TV screen:

 

[Mark Booth]

Roland,

When I watched the restoration video that's on the 2017 disc, there was a lot of film area that got cropped out to create the SmileBox shape. It appeared to me that the pre-SmileBox image could have been cropped to 1.85:1 and still have been wider than your example (more headroom above and below than your example).

Mark

 

[RolandL]

Roland,

When I watched the restoration video that's on the 2017 disc, there was a lot of film area that got cropped out to create the SmileBox shape. It appeared to me that the pre-SmileBox image could have been cropped to 1.85:1 and still have been wider than your example (more headroom above and below than your example).

Mark

The 1.77 image from my previous post was taken from the flat image (pre-SmileBox) below.

I guess if they pan/scan to fill your TV screen, they would have panned to the right.