CinemaTour
Cinema History Around the World
 HOME ·· CINEMAS ·· FORUM ·· LINKS ·· BOOKS
 Contact Cinematour ·· Help & Hints ·· About Cinematour
Cinematour Forum


  
my profile | my password | search | faq | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Cinematour Forum   » Cinemas and Theatres   » Tustin Legacy (Page 2)

 
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3 
 
Author Topic: Tustin Legacy
Eric Gieszl
Member

Posts: 57
From: Las Vegas
Registered: Sep 2006


 - posted October 25, 2007 09:55 PM      Profile for Eric Gieszl           Edit/Delete Post 
That's odd about the AMC Tustin location. I know the location is still slow, but every time I've seen a movie there it has been busier than the previous time. I find it hard to believe that they would only do 20 people all day long. I've seen Harry Potter, Hairspray and Bourne Ultimatum at this theatre.

The theatre is the same layout and decor as the AMC Del Amo 18. The four largest auditoriums seat 299 (that agreement makes me so mad). I've enjoyed the theatre, however I believe some of you would tear it up for the top masking. Flat presentation ends up with the larger screen than the scope presentation. The screens are wall-to-wall though.

Just a note, about the Tustin Legacy. As of last Thursday all shops and restaurants are open except Ra Sushi, Lanes (??? Bowling Alley) and In and Out Burger. I personally think this portion of the center is going to struggle. It's too small. The anchor stores are also too far away from this small portion of shops and restaurants.

I'm also not so sure that an ad in the OC register would really help. With the advent of the Internet most moviegoers look for showtimes online. I still enjoy looking at the LA Times and at one point I collected 18 years worth of Friday and Sunday Calendar sections (most are now in the trash) so you know I appreciate the ads. However, newspapers showtime ads and recorded phone showtimes are not attracting as much attention as they once did.

 |  IP: Logged

Chris Utley
Senior Member

Posts: 631
From: Torrance, CA
Registered: May 2003


 - posted October 26, 2007 08:03 AM      Profile for Chris Utley   Author's Homepage   Email Chris Utley         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I've enjoyed the theatre, however I believe some of you would tear it up for the top masking.
That ain't just top masking. That's top and bottom masking at the new AMC's. It literally sucks the life out of a 2:35:1 widescreen experience.

For those who don't know what we're talking about: imagine sitting in a aud watching this pre-show stuff on this big ginormous screen and then, all of a sudden, half of that screen disappears before your very eyes before the show kicks off. [barf]

I tried to endure that as best as I could once I got back to LA but, after watching "The Brave One" on The Incredible Shrinking Screen at AMC Century 15, I decided enough is enough. I use the new AMC's as moveover options - unless the film I'm trying to see is 1:85:1.

 |  IP: Logged

Todd Erwin
Member

Posts: 68
From: Newport Beach, CA
Registered: Feb 2006


 - posted October 29, 2007 04:36 PM      Profile for Todd Erwin   Email Todd Erwin         Edit/Delete Post 
Chris - Unfortunately, top masking is the way most theatres are going to be built, with the advent of digital projection. The reason is because digital projection, I believe, is an extension of HD, which is 16:9 native (1.78:1).

 |  IP: Logged

Dan Roben
Member

Posts: 155
From: Seattle, WA
Registered: May 2003


 - posted October 29, 2007 09:29 PM      Profile for Dan Roben           Edit/Delete Post 
Just one more reason to hate digital projection!

 |  IP: Logged

David Au
Member

Posts: 133
From: Walnut Creek, CA
Registered: Sep 2006


 - posted October 29, 2007 11:52 PM      Profile for David Au   Email David Au         Edit/Delete Post 
Regal Cinemas recently has been building theaters with screens with left and right side masking. In their new theaters, some of the big screens in their new theaters are common height. They have also been converting the screens at some of the existing Edwards Cinemas to left and right side masking.

I never thought I would say this, but if I had to choose theater companies I'd rather Regal build a theater over AMC or the other big companies. The new Regal designed theaters actually look pretty nice.

Digital projection doesn't affect whether a theater will build common width or common height screens. Common width screens have been built for years by theater companies to save money.

For common height you have to buy 2 lenses, buy a larger lamp, and vary lamp power. For common width all you need is 1 lens. So common width is cheaper.

 |  IP: Logged

Eric Gieszl
Member

Posts: 57
From: Las Vegas
Registered: Sep 2006


 - posted October 31, 2007 12:38 PM      Profile for Eric Gieszl           Edit/Delete Post 
Todd, I’m not so sure that it has to do with digital projection. To the best of my knowledge Hollywood movies are not adopting the new television standards, so what you say kind of doesn’t make sense. However, if theatres want to make newer auditoriums capable of displaying content intended for the home then maybe so.

Chris, believe me from reading these forums I know you hate top and bottom making, but I kind of wonder if this isn’t a compromise to put an overall bigger screen in the auditorium.

The old way seems to have been to put a smaller, wider screen and mask the sides. Yes, when a scope film would be presented the screen would appear larger. However, with a flat film the screen would be smaller than what is currently offered at the AMC Tustin 14. I don’t think the wall space in the theatres I've seen could actually accommodate a larger screen for scope presentations.

I too from a presentation stand point miss the side making which made for a “widescreen” presentation. However, for the movies that are filmed in a flat aspect ratio we are benefiting from the larger screen. Ultimately, it comes back to auditorium design, which if we both had our ways we’d be in complete agreement about.

 |  IP: Logged

Chris Utley
Senior Member

Posts: 631
From: Torrance, CA
Registered: May 2003


 - posted October 31, 2007 01:25 PM      Profile for Chris Utley   Author's Homepage   Email Chris Utley         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
The old way seems to have been to put a smaller, wider screen and mask the sides. Yes, when a scope film would be presented the screen would appear larger. However, with a flat film the screen would be smaller than what is currently offered at the AMC Tustin 14.
I've been to plenty of theatres with side masking in their auds and flat films certainly were not diminished. First example that comes to mind is the larger auds at 80's/90's era AMC's. Whether the film was flat or scope, those auds didn't miss a beat.

The problem is that most of these new builds are built for HEIGHT for all those stadium seats as opposed to WIDTH. That's one of the reasons why I avoided the last days of UA Theatres (before Regal took over). I'll gladly choose a WIDE auditorium than a HIGH one anyday!

 |  IP: Logged

David Au
Member

Posts: 133
From: Walnut Creek, CA
Registered: Sep 2006


 - posted October 31, 2007 03:27 PM      Profile for David Au   Email David Au         Edit/Delete Post 
I know what you mean about the AMCs of the late 90's. AMC Van Ness in San Francisco opened in 1998 and their screens are huge and wide. Even in 1:85 flat mode the screen still looks huge. When the screen stretches to the left and right for scope, the screen looks even bigger.

 |  IP: Logged

Tom Mundell
Member

Posts: 93
From: Silver Spring, MD
Registered: Nov 2003


 - posted October 31, 2007 08:47 PM      Profile for Tom Mundell   Author's Homepage   Email Tom Mundell         Edit/Delete Post 
Late 90's AMC's, really? Those are some of my all time least favourite theaters! They must have really varied by location then. Some of the ones I've been to from the late 90's are the Hamilton 24 in NJ and Deer Valey 30 in AZ. Both have numerous, small rooms with top only masking on most/all (non-perforated) screens, speakers on the ceiling, and acoustics that sound like a high school gymnasium. Even the big rooms there are not wide, but typical AMC style tall due to extra steep stadium seating.

 |  IP: Logged

David Au
Member

Posts: 133
From: Walnut Creek, CA
Registered: Sep 2006


 - posted October 31, 2007 10:45 PM      Profile for David Au   Email David Au         Edit/Delete Post 
AMC Van Ness has really good sound and acoustics. Every auditorium that I've seen there had a really big screen. The theater is high quality. Some auditoriums are THX. They even have some nice desserts that come straight from local bakeries. It is one of my most favorite places to see a movie.

AMC Van Ness was built inside of a very classic looking building that used to be a Cadillac showplace. It is not a typical multiplex. There are statues in the facade and the lobby has a wood carved ceiling, decorative columns, and a wood carved staircase. It is a high rise building, so the theaters are spread out over several floors going up. There are huge old fashioned windows for panoramic views of San Francisco.

[ November 01, 2007, 03:24 AM: Message edited by: David Au ]

 |  IP: Logged

Chris Utley
Senior Member

Posts: 631
From: Torrance, CA
Registered: May 2003


 - posted November 01, 2007 11:08 AM      Profile for Chris Utley   Author's Homepage   Email Chris Utley         Edit/Delete Post 
Actually, I was referring to the pre-stadium seating AMC's of the late 80's & early 90's. AMC always put at least 2 large auds in those where, as David described, the screen got bigger for scope but the height was consistent enough for top notch 1:85 presentation.

Their earlier stadium builds have that same effect. For example: the AMC Norwalk 20 (a mid 90's build) has approximately 18 out of the 20 stadium auds at the same fixed height with NO TOP MASKING! Their big house (I believe it's #12 or #13 located just behind the concession stand) is a BEAST - at least 60 feet wide. All the years I've gone there I think I've only spotted 2 auds with top masking.

 |  IP: Logged

Tom Mundell
Member

Posts: 93
From: Silver Spring, MD
Registered: Nov 2003


 - posted November 01, 2007 07:04 PM      Profile for Tom Mundell   Author's Homepage   Email Tom Mundell         Edit/Delete Post 
Wow, how about that! On one of my San Francisco visits I stopped by the Van Ness but never actually saw a movie there; at the time I was expecting it would have the same crappy AMC auditoriums I was familiar with so decided not to bother. Hmm, maybe the wrong decision...I don't think I've been to any of their lat 80's/early 90's theaters though.

Rather frustrating that AMC apparently knew how to do things right at one point then changed into a complete mess. At least some of their newer theaters seem to have greatly improved the sound again...

 |  IP: Logged

Christopher Crouch
Member

Posts: 292
From: Anaheim, CA
Registered: Feb 2006


 - posted November 02, 2007 03:08 AM      Profile for Christopher Crouch   Email Christopher Crouch         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
For example: the AMC Norwalk 20...
I always viewed the Norwalk 20 as one of their last "done right" 90's mega plexes. In addition to the auditorium features you mentioned, the support areas were outstanding (almost overbuilt); walk-in freezer, huge commercial kitchen, large storeroom, etc. After Norwalk, they entered a more budget concious period. The Fullerton 20, which was built just a year later, is a prime example of this change, as everything was scaled back significantly. Back in my AMC days, I trained for "mega plex business" at Norwalk (the Fullerton senior manager and gm trained at Mission Valley, in San Diego); then, we opened the Fullerton 20 and experienced quite a disapointment.

While AMC has a visual uniformity to particular eras, there is quite a varience in quality amoung theatres from the same era. They tend to start off "big", then cut more and more corners with each new build.

 |  IP: Logged

Chris Utley
Senior Member

Posts: 631
From: Torrance, CA
Registered: May 2003


 - posted November 02, 2007 08:10 AM      Profile for Chris Utley   Author's Homepage   Email Chris Utley         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
"...we opened the Fullerton 20 and experienced quite a disapointment."
You mean the Fullerton "10", right? [Rolling on Floor Laughing]

Those who've been to the theatre will get the joke. Those who've been to the Long Beach "6" will get it, too! [moon]

 |  IP: Logged

Jeff Arellano
Senior Member

Posts: 685
From: Monterey Park, CA
Registered: Jun 2003


 - posted November 02, 2007 10:07 AM      Profile for Jeff Arellano   Email Jeff Arellano         Edit/Delete Post 
Covina 30, also was built right. I worked at Norwalk and the changes made from Norwalk to Covina were correct. After that, things changed.

Covina has the large walk-in's, the loading dock that actually goes into the kitchen, and large storage rooms downstairs and upstairs.

 |  IP: Logged



All times are Central
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3 
 
   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic    next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

© 1995-2013 Vision Entertainment Services. All rights reserved.

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2