Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: NY Times Articles on Theatre Quality and Widescreen Movies

This is topic NY Times Articles on Theatre Quality and Widescreen Movies in forum Ground Level at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=000880

Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 08-09-2003, 04:38 PM:

Tomorrow's NY Times (Aug 10) has two articles of note in the Arts section (section 2). The articles don't seem to be online as yet. I suppose they'll be up tomorrow.

One is about the Angelica, "the house filmgoers love to hate." It talks about how the art house has "long lines, small screens, muddy sound and squeezed seats" as well as noise from the subway. The article talks about art-house alternatives, such as the recently opened Sunshine a few blocks away, the theatres at the Brooklyn Academy of Music (but notes how BAM has problems getting films since it's not in Manhattan) and the soon to be renovated Waverly, which is being taken over by IFC.

The other article, "Why It's A Wide Wide Wide Wide Screen" talks about how with the advent of television, the aspect ratio of movies increased and therefore, old (1.33) movies look better on traditional TV than more recent films. But the article gets a lot wrong. It implies that all anamorphic films are 2.66:1 (the original CinemaScope ratio) and it never even mentions 1.85:1. The article was written to coincide with two widescreen film festivals, one at the Museum of the Moving Image and another at Lincoln Center's Walter Reade Theater.

Posted by Josh Jones (Member # 447) on 08-09-2003, 09:31 PM:

It seems to me you can count on the media for two things: getting it wrong and bias.

Just my two cents.....

Josh

Posted by Gerard S. Cohen (Member # 994) on 08-10-2003, 10:34 AM:

Martin's Links:

"The House Filmgoers Love to Hate [Angelica Film Center]"
by Jesse McKinley:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/10/movies/10MCKI.html

"Why It's a Wide Wide Wide Wide Screen"
by A. O. Scott
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/10/movies/10SCOT.html

Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 08-10-2003, 12:50 PM:

As is typical with the NY Times they didn't check their facts before writing the story.

The Angelika upgraded to digital sound in order to open The Matrix Reloaded. Also, the Angelika has to share product with the UA Union Square and (on occasion) the Loews Village VII. UA just opened Le Divorce while Loews opened The Magdalene Sisters.

When the BAM Rose Cinemas opened in 1998 City Cinemas tried to keep BAM from playing films that were in the Angelika. BAM sued and won, correctly stating that Brooklyn was outside the Angelika's booking zone. BAM now has no trouble getting product -- it opened Seabiscuit day-and-date with mainstream theaters.

Has the NY Times reported on City Cinemas' lawsuit against Regal and Loews? Because of that lawsuit, Fox and Universal have taken City Cinemas off service AFAIK.

[ 08-13-2003, 01:18 PM: Message edited by: Charles Everett ]

Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 08-10-2003, 07:30 PM:

If you read the entire article, you'll see that it does state that the Angelica upgraded the sound. It states that complaints triggered a $1 million renovation last year that included new seats, better sound equipment, improved bathrooms and air conditioning.

Although I haven't been there since the renovation, the noise from the subway alone makes it suck and there are still other problems with the place.

The thrust of the article is that the Angelica faces increased competition from the Sunshine and the forthcoming IFC theater (replacing the Waverly) as well as the Film Forum, Lincoln Plaza and Walter Reade.