FanaticalAboutOdeon: The lighting certainly looks very smooth, but I’m not sure it’s cold cathode. With LED having taken over the world of lighting these days, and, given that Odeon wanted to be rid of the neon on the facade (i.e. the blue strips were replaced by LEDs), plus the fact that a high quality LED system will reliably last for 10,000s of hours of use, I can see them equally preferring a “fit and forget” system that won’t require maintenance in the main auditorium.
The “tell tale” signs of LEDs may not be obvious—LEDs do range in quality, and the best white LEDs are quite close to ideal light sources (smooth spectrum as with daylight or incandescent bulbs), plus more expensive product gets selected LEDs that perform best and are within tighter tolerances (so in a linear application consisting of a long row of LEDs, there is no visible variation in colour temperature—at least, when new!)
(Strictly “white” LEDs do not exist; phosphors in front of, typically, a blue LED are used to convert the light produced to the other parts of the spectrum—thus the characteristic blue “spike” in the spectrum.)
An advantage of adding a white LED to the three primaries is with the creation of subtle “pastel” hues.
I remember seeing the odd sections of blue LEDs in those pictures of the unfinished auditorium—I’m not sure that I saw pink? That seemed to be the case in multiple photos, but it looked very patchy and I doubt every last LED can be individually addressed, so I’m not sure if it’s not a photographic oddity.
Come to think of it, the CG renderings did show some sections set to blue.
Comparing the auditorium as it is today to one of the CG rendered shots, it is clear that changes have been made to the front splay walls as designed.
The “Flying Ladies” have been significantly lowered, being placed on top of the wooden panelling, the design of which has changed also.
The design shown in the CG renderings would have reduced the sense of the proscenium end now being berefit of decoration.
Interestingly, the tungsten footlights and dips used to illuminate the Empire’s curtains were filtered using colour gels which most closely matched the cove lighting so the overall effect tended to look satisfyingly coordinated.
Those on the ends of the (audience) left sidewall can be seen in a video (direct link to time in video) shot just literally just before the strip-out work began.
The match between the cold cathode lighting and these was impressive indeed—pretty much seamless!
Any further information on the sort of luminares used would be greatly appreciated. IIRC, those on the floor looked something like the Strand Coda 4 floodlights.
Four strips were concealed within each of the Empire’s coves, all secondary colours – yellow, deep pink, pale/bright blue and white
Surprised that white was included given that TheatreOfVarieties has stated that there were three colours (those secondary colours that you listed?) Perhaps this was prior to the 1989 refurbishment; the colours always looked very saturated to me.
The details of your home setup are most interesting and, I wonder, if you find the amber LEDs help with producing “warm” tones, and, I’m not sure what application you’d find for UV?
I find it very ironic that so much of my “little Odeon” was inspired by what I saw at OLS yet today I believe the theatrical presentation I offer could teach Oscar’s flagship a few things – ought it not to be the other way round?
Absolutely—but at least there is the opportunity to store information on the best examples from the past somewhere!
FanaticalAboutOdeon: Thank you for your comment on the photo page showing the coving lit by the now-working concealed lighting.
Eureka! They’ve finally used the cove lighting but does it all have to be white? The system, as installed, is capable of being set on various points within its not unlimited spectrum and even a pastel shade of blue, mauve or coral would prevent the unconcealed speakers from being at least as eye-catching as the “ladies” from balcony level.
Have you any further detail on the cove lighting (or other lighting?)
If its colour can be set—it doesn’t really look like just red, green and blue LEDs combined to create white light, although hard to say.
(Of course, this does not actually yield white light suitable for general use, because although it might look white when directly viewed, the result is not a continuous spectrum of light—producing off-colour results from lit surfaces—but it could be used for appropriate architectural applications.)
Just wondering if there are actually white LEDs as well as red, green and blue.
I concur with your suggested colour settings rather than white.
Also, I am confused as to why different fittings would need to be used for “house” and “safety” lighting?
Regarding the dark blue upholstered top edge of the balcony, photo to follow… (which unfortunately also shows the mess of rear speakers to balcony front that have necessiated the removal of the “pageant box!”)
Addendum: Since opening in December 2018, the temporary “DOLBY CINEMA” on the wall behind the right of the “glass box” has been replaced with a larger backlit sign.
LARGE_screen_format: Thank you very much, I have tried my very best to document as many aspects as I can. :–)
One year in the making and you weren’t blown away. Hmmm…
In relation to the visual aspects of Dolby Cinema, indeed—for all of Dolby’s horn tooting, and glowing “press” coverage—on this occasion it was hard to see how it is particularly, if at all, superior to a top quality “generic” PLF installation. Certainly the picture did not seem to benefit from enhanced features that IMAX offer (the “DMR” processing, the “image enhancer,” and so on) as well as some of IMAX’s other proprietary or exclusively licensed technologies and R&D development.
AFAIK IMAX still have exclusivity for theatrical presentations in taller 1.90:1 or 1.43:1 formats (where relevant) over being restricted to “scope” versions, whether vanilla DCPs or Dolby Cinema versions?
So, IMAX have not been comprehensively overtaken. Regardless of whether “Alita: Battle Angel” took full advantage of the capabilities of Dolby Vision, there are just too many fixed aspects of the system for that to be the case.
The IMAX with Laser dual-projection “GT” system would appear, for now, to continue to be the absolute “Rolls Royce” of theatrical digital projection systems.
FanaticalAboutOdeon: Many thanks for your comment, the information on “past” lighting practices is most appreciated.
Was no one with a rudimentary knowledge of stage/architectural lighting involved/consulted during such an expensive transformation to this important venue? Clearly not.
You have hit the nail on the head here, I think—the problem is likely to be that no-one knew any better!
Unfortunately, the lighting was probably just considered essentially as a subset of mechanical/electrical services rather than a specialisation in its own right.
As I mentioned in my long post on the main page for the OLS, I don’t think the lighting is “cold” white (5000K) but more like 4000K. Ideally, I think they could have used 2000K (“flame” white.)
Picture/sound—I agree, the picture/sound was already very good—whilst the acoustics have been improved, better coverage achieved to the rear of the auditorium, and Atmos has been added—but as I alluded to in my post on the main page, if anything the previous JBL stage speaker system with full active crossovers was actually better than its replacement.
Otherwise, I agree broadly with everything you say—however, there are still lots of special touches, including the sections of green “velour” (?) fabric coverings, and the wood panelling to the lower sidewalls/rear wall.
The reimagined foyers are knockout; I still find the auditorium, despite the bungles, splended, and can highly recommend a good seat in the Royal Circle for a special occasion.
As with anything, you pay in terms of inconvenience (if getting there is a trek) and cost, and take your choice—but I really do find it very sad indeed to hear that you won’t be visiting the OLS again?
I visited the OLS this to week to attend a mid-afternoon performance of “Alita: Battle Angel.”
Ongoing building work:
I asked a member of staff whether the building works had been completed, to which they informed me that they were still ongoing—“behind the scenes” aspects.
Asked about the addition of curtains, the same as previously reported answer was given, saying that they “did not know,” and they mentioned the “safety curtain” animated sequence.
Incidentally, all the staff were excellent during my visit, including being accompanied by the usher in the circle foyer to my seat in the front row of the Royal Circle.
Update to fit-out of foyers:
The floor of the ground floor foyer, opening with a concrete screeded sub-floor, has now been finished. As previously mentioned, containers for a 2-part Flowcrete epoxy resin could be seen outside towards the end of the fit-out works in December 2018. The new floor is white and appears to incorporate reflective decorative “flakes;” a likely product used is Flowcrete Mondéco Crystal Ice, the “blurb” for which describes it as “[A] highly decorative epoxy resin terrazzo floor finish containing a mix of mirrored and clear glass aggregates” that is “suitable for [locations] where design aesthetics and durability are of paramount concern.”
Very nice—except that it looks as though it is impossible to keep it looking clean, with the merest amount of walked in soil being visible.
Text is “inset” (?) into the floor from the Leicester Square entrance doors, reading:
“FIRST, FOREMOST, AND FOREVER ”—OSCAR DEUTSCH—"
The clock in the ground floor foyer is working—it is positioned on the right wall just past the entrance from Leicester Square to the former Studios. Contrary to my previous supposition, it does not appear to consist of LED displays, but rather, backlit opal frosted perspex, with the lettering and clock hands “projected” onto it by obscuring the backlighting.
The wall behind the “glass box” has now been finished in black marble, with a new larger backlit “Double-D” logo/“DOLBY CINEMA” sign.
Brass (?) edging has been added to the ceiling lighting features in the ground floor foyer, with a very wide band around the central dome.
Black marble and brass strips added to the front of the ground floor foyer concessions counter.
Various missing bits and “snags” have been attended to, too numerous to list and impossible to recollect them all. For example, the liquid soap dispenser fittings in the circle level men’s toilets now have retaining rings so that the dispenser bottles do not fall off.
The overall result is outstanding, and clearly highly specified; however, the fit and finish isn’t quite to the standard that might have been expected—probably due to the headlong rush to get the project completed. For example, some tiles are slightly off position, some of the cutting-in of paint has visible brush marks, etc
Some “leakage” of low frequency sounds from the auditorium were audible in the circle foyer, presumably due to the overhead subwoofers (equipped with 16 x 18" drivers!) hanging from the ceiling.
Auditorium update:
As Ken Roe noted, the “flying ladies” have indeed been flown in.
This being my first visit, it is harder to indicate any other minor tweaks; however, it appears that the underside of the proscenium has now been properly covered.
Ceiling supply grilles in some of the “coves” were visible—not sure if they are the same as previous?—and looked as if they could use some tidying up.
The new dark finish to the 1930s “ribbed” plasterwork seemed to have some marks and one or two small chips.
Auditorium comments:
The new lighting could certainly have gone further, particularly at the screen end; however, the white concealed lighting is quite bright; I think it is more like 4000K in colour temperature than a cool white (5000K), which yields a fresh feel, whilst not being overly cold.
The “guideway” aisle lighting, including blue fibre optic strips, remains on during the main feature.
I did not think to look whilst in the auditorium, but it seems that the flying ladies must have some further “spot” lighting on them.
The animated “digital” safety curtain sequence shown before the main performance is quite tacky.
The auditorium is certainly dark once the decorative lighting is off and the house lights lowered, but not to the point of invisibility. The guideway lighting enabled a trip out of the auditorium during the main feature to the Coca-Cola Freestyle machines (at ground floor level!) for a refill. (I had asked the member of staff who served me at the concessions counter whether this was allowed—the answer was “Yes… well, I won’t tell… it should be OK.” And, indeed, it was—I refilled again on the way out!
The flipside to this, from the perspective of “Dolby Cinema,” is that the “flying ladies” and wooden features to the front splay walls certainly are quite visible.
I am having a hard time figuring out the colour of the sidewalls/ceiling. They looked near-black in person; however, they seem to have a navy tone in various photos, and my own photos suggested that the stretched fabric ceiling/wall coverings to the stage end are dark navy. However, this may be due to factors including the chromatic aberrations etc. in the lens, or misregistration caused by the colour spectrum of the lighting.
Non-sync music played just after the feature ended. Light sequencing all looked fine with smooth fades.
Ceiling lighting was not distracting during the feature.
The “H” in “HVAC” has been put back, with the auditorium warm throughout. The HVAC was never audible, and a consistent temperature was maintained.
The recliners are extremely comfortable and very well-padded. Separate controls are provided to adjust the amount of “recline” and the footrest angle. At least in the front row of the Royal Circle, they do not recline as far back as those in the Vue West End; in the “down” position, the bottom edge of the screen is just visible over the balcony edge.
My recollection of the old American Seating Company “rocker” seating in the old Empire 1, in the reupholstered state that they were in when closing, is that I still consider them to be the most comfortable cinema seats ever—but these are certainly among the best.
Overall, the auditorium still feels like the “Cathedral.” In photos, it does not look like the new front ceiling/sidewalls blend with the 1930s “ribbed” plasterwork, but in person, it works quite well.
The picture is framed by proscenium and, contrary to my expectations, it does not feel like the whole front end of the auditorium might just as well be filled with a “giant” screen. In the front row of the Royal Circle, the screen is slightly too low; it is adequately sized, but it certainly could use benefit from being somewhat bigger. However, these aspects, or moving the screen ahead of the existing proscenium, would seem to be restricted by sightlines. (See above regarding the sightlines to the bottom edge of the screen.)
The new wide central vomitorium to the Royal Circle means that, for those centrally seated, the nearest regular “Luxe Classic” seating is some distance away, and partially screened off. The downside is that, in my view, all of the centre section of the rear circle is too far away from the screen; however, the upside is clear—this section has a degree of “isolation” from the rear circle—more so since the propensity of patrons is to choose seats towards the back.
Only one other person was seated in the centre section of the Royal Circle, and whilst I am very well behaved, shifting position in my seat lead to a perceived look of agitation on their part. I imagine that the pricing policy screens out the “popcorn munching, mobile phone checking” brigade.
Thus, by choosing a suitable performance time and a seat in the centre section of the Royal Circle, it feels as though one has the whole auditorium to one’s self. I hesitate to say that this justifies the typical very high pricing, but… if you want “the omega of luxury and of comfort” for a special occasion…
Picture:
Masking was in use, and opened out to scope for the main feature, leaving the usual “letterboxing” of scope trailers.
Alignment and geometry was good, although seemed slightly off in terms of alignment, and an overall consistent “smile” distortion applied across the screen—but this was only noticeable with titles on screen. Centre-to-edge brightness uniformity was exceptional. I can’t be sure, but it seemed like there was a slight visible loss of focus from centre to edge.
Unlike IMAX’s dual-projection system, both projectors were in use for all content, not being restricted to the specially formatted main feature. This could be seen by wearing the glasses—which revealed a discrepancy between the left and right eye colours, presumably the colour shift caused by the wavelength multiplexing not being corrected for this material.
Dolby have claimed extremely high brightness levels and contrast ratios for Dolby Vision. Alas, the black levels were somewhat higher than I expected, with some crushing or clipping of low levels. In 3D, the brightness level was certainly very adequate, and quite bright with glasses off, but not amazingly so. This might have been due to matching the output levels required for the content—but, particularly compared to the IMAX across the square, it is not a big screen to fill.
Whilst IMAX’s system includes their “image enhancer” and special processing to get the most out of their dual-projection systems, the same super-smooth but pin-sharp quality was not apparent.
I suspect IMAX are using motion interpolation to add synthetic frames to create “virtual” high frame rate—however, this certainly was not the case with Dolby Cinema, as there was visible motion judder. Conversely, the picture was free of some of the odd artifacts that are sometimes visible with IMAX Digital systems.
Colour rendition was very good, with well saturated colours achieved.
Overall, unless one is to really nitpick, there isn’t much to choose between Dolby’s dual-laser system and the dual (or even single) IMAX with Laser system—in fact, you may not even notice the difference!
IME, the IMAX Digital systems have near-perfect geometry, and focus, but tend to have not quite so good centre-to-edge brightness uniformity.
For the above reasons, overall, the IMAX with Laser system is, IMO, superior. I would include the new “Commerical Laser” single-projector system as well as the original “Grand Theatre” dual-projector system.
Sound:
Seat shaking low frequencies, and pin-point rear/overhead imaging, as the Dolby Cinema trailer well demonstrates.
Reverberation time and room colouration in the OLS has been very significantly improved; but it is still somewhat “echoic,” though not enough to ruin dialogue intelligibility.
Very high output levels from the system, which I assume was set to be at or near reference levels.
Presumably, the visible arrays forward from the screen are slightly time delayed to align with the screen speakers. Certainly, there was a good sense of frontal imaging. I can’t be sure, but, it did sometimes sound like it didn’t all quite gel—to be sure, it does work mostly well.
Very good clarity and balance; however, there appeared to be something of an upper-bass dip, and the high frequencies were at times somewhat metallic. At the highest levels, it sounded—I hesitate to say strained, but it was certainly clear that the system was being pushed.
I am not convinced that the Dolby SLS speakers, as installed, are superior to the outstanding cinema series of products offered by JBL; but it is certainly a very good, and well aligned, top-end system.
A tightrope has been walked between the compromises and constraints involved in keeping the OLS intact as an iconic super-cinema whilst modernising and making improvements.
In some respects, such as failing to reinstate the tabs and not having a fully realised lighting design, it might be said that the tightrope has, at times, been fallen off. On the other hand, many the improvements, particularly to the foyers and overall stardust “Rolls Royce” luxury feel, are successful.
Personally, I found the experience to be perfectly relaxing and one in which I became completely unaware of all worries—personal, as well as the disasterous saga that—regardless of your political standpoint—“Brexit” has become!
In my view, that’s as good as it gets to say that an “escape to the cinema” has been successful from start to finish.
A photo of the reinstated “flying ladies” has been uploaded. More to follow.
vindanpar: I suspect that you mean the absence of tabs (which is surely a mistake) and other factors—however, the subject of the last photo was the repaired “flying ladies” (created in 1998 having been removed in 1967) in front of the new wood panelling, the shape of which is similar to the original wooden panelling (removed in 1967.)
As I mentioned in a previous post, it is likely to be an acoustic wood product, quite possibly from Eomac (who seem to supply the stretched fabric wall systems in the majority of new or refitted auditoria on a worldwide basis!)
Without doubt CNC-cut to exacting tolerances, I can’t see anything wrong with the panelling, which lends a degree of warmth and luxury to the auditorium—and the “flying ladies” are gleaming?
Slightly off-topic—there haves been plenty of new developments in London since “Match Point” was released in 2005—however, the City of Westminster in which Leicester Square is located is extremely conservative; they would certainly not allow high-rise development—indeed, when the Swiss Centre on the North Western corner of Leicester Square was knocked down to make way for the W Hotel, the replacement building did not include a tower… (The Swiss Centre itself being built on a WWII-damaged site.)
Indeed, they would not even give permission for the Casino at the Empire (under the cinema) to add a small entrance/sign to the “back” of the building (a blank brick wall!) (Permitted on appeal.)
So fear not, London’s West End isn’t about to become a mini-Dubai!
As for knocking the cinema down—well, I can say that I’d cry…
A great difficulty is in estimating the size of the “flying ladies”—they are considerably bigger than one might think!
Having a look at photos of the “1998” auditorium, they are clearly wider than the double door opening (to fire exit, etc.) below, and it’s not obvious that they would fit horizontally, either.
According to the 2018 licensing plans, audience right, to audience right, the back stage retains the existing double doors, and further has an additional double door opening, labelled “New opening/stage door,” that’s ~15% wider than the existing double doors.
(The existing double door opening is the same width as the openings below the “flying ladies.”)
I assume the scene dock door to which you refer (audience left) is of the roller-shutter type? AFAICT, it isn’t marked on any of the available licensing plans.
The larger of the two alleyways to Charing Cross Road (audience right) was very busy being used to remove waste towards the end of the fit-out works.
Whether or not the “flying ladies” could somehow be squeezed through/around any of the doors, corridors, stairs, bends, etc. does plausibly appear as though it could be a tight fit at best!
Incidentally, revisiting the 2018 licensing plans, I notice that at circle level, there appear to be 5 sets of speakers marked hidden behind the stretched fabric over each of the front splay walls.
If I’m not mistaken, each has two speakers, one aimed perpendicular to the wall, and the other pointing further towards the back of the auditorium.
Returning, yet again, to the salient topic of screen tabs; these would have redeemed the place, had they been installed – which brings us back to the culprits, AMC……
Alas, in relation to tabs I am starting to believe that you may be correct in pointing your finger in their direction…
I typically dislike alterations done to such architectural works of art as the OLS cinema. Preservation should be the key word.
Can be difficult (or expensive!) as what were standard methods or systems fall out of use, and to bring in line with current expectations or requirements.
In the case of the OLS, the roof was replaced a few years ago—planning application. To quote from the document “08-1407AA01” (!):
“Odeon seek to replace the existing Asbestos sheet roof which has become unserviceable. It is proposed that the existing roof sheets will be removed and replaced with new Kingspan insulated panels.”
Ironically, the replacement roof was specified to match the existing in look/colour, even though few will ever see it…
Without knowing the state of the rest of the building’s fabric and the access requirements, it is not clear whether the ceilings/walls had to be removed from the circle to proscenium part of the auditorium. But it is known that the strip-out works included the removal of (presumably significant quantities of) asbestos.
Obviously, the OLS was in need of acoustic treatment—keeping in mind that old movies were produced with “echoic” auditoria in mind, today they are not, and thus dialogue intelligibility can be grossly inadequate (a definite problem in the old Empire 1 with its “slap” echo.)
I previously suggested on Cinema Treasures that the existing smooth plasterwork from the balcony to the proscenium could be replaced with acoustic plaster. High performance spray-on systems are available that would allow for curved sections.
Of course, the new lower ceiling position may not have allowed for the existing curves. However, there are plenty of visible speakers within the auditorium, so I’m not clear on why these needed to be covered, if that’s indeed the reason for the new lower ceiling position?
I had been very surprised on learning that the walls/ceiling were being refinished in such dark colours—accepting that the existing white (or near-white) surfaces would highly compromise the performance of the new projection system, surely it is possible to think of other schemes that would work reasonably well, or at least a lighting scheme/system that would help?
The stage end shows no understanding of why elements were designed and shaped the way they were, and it fails to harmoniously integrate with the remaining 1930’s plasterwork above the balcony. The new design looks as if it’s ready for a much larger screen ahead of the proscenium!
Very strange indeed when the new circle foyer in particular is very pleasant indeed, complete with marble tiled walls and the (expensive!) new “glass box.” It may not be the same as the long-removed original, but IMO, it is very large improvement over the 1998 iteration…
would we modify a painting from Leonardo DaVinci under the pretext that the colours he used in his times aren’t trendy anymore in the 21st century?
There is the story of the controversial “cleaning” work that was done to the famous “Elgin Marbles” (controversially!) in London’s British Museum…
A work of art is something unique and final.
Indeed—or at least this needs to be firmly held in mind before tampering…
Still, I have yet to visit the refurbished OLS auditorium, it seems ridiculous to wait any longer for the “flying ladies” to be put back prior to visiting. Perhaps “Alita” will do for my first visit… (Too bad Cameron is overfocused on “Avatar” sequels—one was quite enough, thank you—to direct!)
Many thanks for posting your translation of the relevant section of the French article.
I was reading an interview of French sound engineer Jean-Pierre Lafont
Have you a link to this interview, please?
Indeed, leather does have that drawback, and the seating should be designed with acoustic properties in mind, ideally so that they are as similar as possible whether occupied or not. Of course, if the seat recline, then the seat position would alter the acoustics. Hmm…
The cavity underneath is another problem, and I doubt that the typical use of vinyl floor surfaces instead of carpet helps here. (Even if only in front of the seating, it would help.)
The refurbished largest auditoria (5/7) over at the Vue West End certainly seem to have suffered acoustically—my recollection was that they were outstandingly neutral and well-controlled, but there now seems to be a slight “echoic” quality. Whether this is due to the replacement “leather” seating, or because the acoustic absorption behind the new stretched fabric wall coverings is inferior, I don’t know.
It isn’t hard to imagine seating being replaced (and perhaps stadia adjusted also)without the system being recalibrated.
(Obviously not the case in 5/7 at the Vue since the audio systems were totally replaced, and during the 2017 refurbishment the other auditoria were seen to by Sound Associates.)
Of course, the OLS was hardly up to standard with vast areas of smooth reflective surfaces at the stage end, so all in all it should be greatly improved in this respect.
curmudgeon: Not at all! I am saying finished leather (or artifical immitation leather, aka pleather, leatherette, etc.) provides a significantly less permeable surface to water and solid fine debris, stopping it getting to the foam underneath, thereby harbouring nasties, as well as it being harder for “sticky” materials to adhere to its surfaces to the extent of not being easily removeable.
Thus, if a customer requires as clean a cinema seating experience as possible, surely their best option would be seating upholstered as such, and taking their own leather cleaning wipes to remove any residues?
If the seating is in a poor state of cleanliness that necessiates the use of wipes, is it acceptable? You bet it isn’t.
(But then I’m not sure how one would cope with, say, travelling, on London’s Tube—seating all moquette upholstered?)
queuing at the concession counter to purchase a ticket
Tickets at Odeon (and other UK operators) can purchased via the Internet, or at a machine at the cinema. It would, of course, be highly advisable to pre-book to reserve your choice of seat.
in-dining is supplied (another intrusion to patrons)
In full agreement that it is intrusive!
Since you say that you have worked in cinemas for many years, perhaps you could enlighten us as to your experience of cleaning schedules for seating—-hopefully including the use of wet extraction vaccums?
curmudgeon: Hmm… even standard seats tend to be pretty high backed these days. Still, leather (or “pleather”) is the upholstry of choice, there is a less viable environment for dust mites and other nasties to be harboured. (And, dare I say, you could always take leather wipes to clean the seat?!)
Although there was the “bed bug” issue in various NYC movie theatres…!
SethLewis: Throw your legs over the seat in front? Tut, tut!
I don’t know about “less and less” affordable? Premium options are increasingly available, but on the flipside are “unlimited” cards, and older multiplexes in need of a major overhaul are the new “fleapits.”
Albeit, the new Vue Bromley, for instance, offers all-recliner seating at £7.99 “all day, every day”—not significantly higher than “fleapit” prices.
I’m quite happy with non-recliner seating—but hey, if it’s there, I’m not going to say “no!”
(I, too, haven’t seen any of the “Lord of the Rings” trilogy!)
As for “overanalysing”—I think I’m well and truly cursed now—it was only in my pre-teen years that I could just turn up and watch the film—and it’s only got worse since then! :–(
This reveals a number of “snagging” issues, e.g. the fabric around where the flying ladies will land is loose; the underside of the sloping section above the proscenium has not been covered – assuming it should be covered.
The fabric just has to be “poked” into the profile track that holds it tensioned in place.
I’d imagine that the uncovered section to which you refer perhaps are air conditioning vents that are yet (?) to have grilles attached.
The proscenium end does look better with white concealed lighting installed and operational, although from your photos, it appears to be a distinctly cold white. The “leakage” onto the sides of the screen looks dreadful.
Alas, low power sidewall decorative feature lighting is all that is to be found in cinema fit-out supplier catalogues, and I suspect that it would require a specific effort and awareness to specify the high powered lighting needed to wash the walls.
I wonder what the priorities are for fellow Cinema Treasure contributors?
Are tabs and decorative lighting more important than picture/sound quality? Or comfort (seating, etc.)?
(I mean in a general sense, rather than specifically in relation to the Odeon Leicester Square.)
Obviously, this is a somewhat synthetic question as the answer would surely be “both” or “why should one need to choose?” and the experience of visiting a cinema is a total package from entering the door (or before; the “film perforation” tiles on the platform walls in LSQ Underground station “foreshadowing” watching a movie, for example.)
joeswin: Thank you for finding that out and relaying the information here. A terrible shame.
Incidentally, I dreamt last night that I visited the OLS and the building work had resumed, with a JCB just outside the LSQ frontage handling excavated rubble, with a large trench in front of the entrance. They were allowing public tours of the cinema; the auditorium sidewall/ceiling colour had reverted back to white. I asked various people whether curtains were due to be installed and most did not know, although one said “no… this is after all a business and this does not affect presentation.”
I think I need to go on a cinema “detox” programme! ;–)
Given the new screen is very similar in size to the old one, there would have been no reason to remove the proscenium arch […] so there would have to be a very good reason for meddling with the theatre’s skeleton in this area and I just don’t see one.
I don’t think it is being suggested here that the proscenium opening may have been widened? No such widening is shown in the up-to-date licensing plans. As mentioned, I could imagine, perhaps, that it might have been slightly narrowed if acoustic material had been attached around its edge.
Factually, the screen is not large in relation to the auditorium’s size; and it’s not even that large in absolute size, either, as “premium large format” auditoria in multiplexes grow in size—a recent example is the Cineworld Watford IMAX (with Laser) (opened December 2018) with its ~22m (~72ft.) wide screen (1.9:1.)
Of course, whether it is desirable for the OLS to be equipped with a larger screen is another matter, as is the practicability and cost-benefit of such; including, as you say, tampering with the “skeleton” were such to be placed within the existent proscenium opening.
From 1968 until January of last year, the plain ceiling section where the downward slope of the ceiling accelerated to meet the top of the arch, invariably glowed during brighter scenes rather like an elongated cloud.
I’m assuming that the ‘67 refurbishment involved the removal of the original ceiling? Did the replacement—other than, of course, being smooth— follow the exact profile of the original?
Now, the ceiling from just above the arch to a point roughly midway between stage and balcony is both flat and lower and flat fronted. Presumably this addition contains some of the speakers and, were it to be open at the rear or stage end, might potentially contain some stage lighting.
IIRC, some of the articles on the OLS refurbishment have said that it covers over some of the ceiling speakers, and this does seem plausible. Clearly, the finish is stretched fabric. There is no reason that the profiles used to hold/tension the stretch fabric couldn’t have been curved (as shown in photos uploaded by TheatreofVarieties, the old Empire 1’s curved steels were moved up and then the stretched fabric profiles were attached to them.) In the case of the OLS, it looks as if straight trusses have been suspended to enable “rigging” of the speakers, and stretched fabric then used to cover over. (Presumably, there is plenty of acoustic absorption fitted behind also.)
Thank you very much for the information on the Victoria Palace Theatre refurbishment works, and thank you to Ian for those fascinating photos uploaded on Flickr.
Brief portfolio page on Malishev Engineers' site, “Odeon Leicester Square Main Entrance.”
To quote (sic,) it “featur[es] several openings with glass fins, bespoke set of door frames and simply large glass units all designed to accommodate substantial blast loading for the whole system, including structural silicone.”
except the heating system had failed, so the auditorium was extremely chilly
Oh dear! It was extremely cold yesterday—at least by the standards of this island’s temperate climate! Hopefully it wasn’t totally unbearable?
I was told that engineers spent a week perfecting the sound system.
If I may ask, from where did you obtain this information?
The screen has been moved up from the previous position and does not appear to be angled in the way the old screen was. One now has to look up at the screen, although not a problem in Row H if you use the recliner. The screen also looked – to my eyes anyway – slightly smaller than before. Perhaps a consequence of moving the screen upwards? I would welcome others peoples' opinion on the screen size.
Comparing Ian’s flickr-uploaded photo of the refurbished auditorium with a photo of the OLS auditorium from rear circle, it does seem that the screen has been raised up slightly, albeit looking at other photos of the refurbished auditorium with the organ raised up, it would appear that, were it positioned any lower, then it would have partially obstructed the view of the screen from the front stalls?
It does very much look like the angle has changed.
Unless the proscenium opening has been reduced in size (e.g. addition of acoustic absorption on edges)—and that would presumably be a matter of a few inches—then the screen looks about the same size?
the digital safety curtain, which is also animated and has a tune!
Good grief, it is shown after all!
Odeon employs a doorman/woman to open and close the main doors on to the street
D'oh! That’s the word I had been looking for. I suspect it won’t, but I hope that is continued.
Regarding auditorium fill rates—it is now off-season. Good to hear that it did well over Christmas/New Year.
Addendum: A rack of Dolby 3D glasses can be seen.
FanaticalAboutOdeon: The lighting certainly looks very smooth, but I’m not sure it’s cold cathode. With LED having taken over the world of lighting these days, and, given that Odeon wanted to be rid of the neon on the facade (i.e. the blue strips were replaced by LEDs), plus the fact that a high quality LED system will reliably last for 10,000s of hours of use, I can see them equally preferring a “fit and forget” system that won’t require maintenance in the main auditorium.
The “tell tale” signs of LEDs may not be obvious—LEDs do range in quality, and the best white LEDs are quite close to ideal light sources (smooth spectrum as with daylight or incandescent bulbs), plus more expensive product gets selected LEDs that perform best and are within tighter tolerances (so in a linear application consisting of a long row of LEDs, there is no visible variation in colour temperature—at least, when new!)
(Strictly “white” LEDs do not exist; phosphors in front of, typically, a blue LED are used to convert the light produced to the other parts of the spectrum—thus the characteristic blue “spike” in the spectrum.)
An advantage of adding a white LED to the three primaries is with the creation of subtle “pastel” hues.
I remember seeing the odd sections of blue LEDs in those pictures of the unfinished auditorium—I’m not sure that I saw pink? That seemed to be the case in multiple photos, but it looked very patchy and I doubt every last LED can be individually addressed, so I’m not sure if it’s not a photographic oddity.
Come to think of it, the CG renderings did show some sections set to blue.
Comparing the auditorium as it is today to one of the CG rendered shots, it is clear that changes have been made to the front splay walls as designed.
The “Flying Ladies” have been significantly lowered, being placed on top of the wooden panelling, the design of which has changed also.
The design shown in the CG renderings would have reduced the sense of the proscenium end now being berefit of decoration.
Those on the ends of the (audience) left sidewall can be seen in a video (direct link to time in video) shot just literally just before the strip-out work began.
The match between the cold cathode lighting and these was impressive indeed—pretty much seamless!
Any further information on the sort of luminares used would be greatly appreciated. IIRC, those on the floor looked something like the Strand Coda 4 floodlights.
Surprised that white was included given that TheatreOfVarieties has stated that there were three colours (those secondary colours that you listed?) Perhaps this was prior to the 1989 refurbishment; the colours always looked very saturated to me.
The details of your home setup are most interesting and, I wonder, if you find the amber LEDs help with producing “warm” tones, and, I’m not sure what application you’d find for UV?
Absolutely—but at least there is the opportunity to store information on the best examples from the past somewhere!
FanaticalAboutOdeon: Thank you for your comment on the photo page showing the coving lit by the now-working concealed lighting.
Have you any further detail on the cove lighting (or other lighting?)
If its colour can be set—it doesn’t really look like just red, green and blue LEDs combined to create white light, although hard to say.
(Of course, this does not actually yield white light suitable for general use, because although it might look white when directly viewed, the result is not a continuous spectrum of light—producing off-colour results from lit surfaces—but it could be used for appropriate architectural applications.)
Just wondering if there are actually white LEDs as well as red, green and blue.
I concur with your suggested colour settings rather than white.
Also, I am confused as to why different fittings would need to be used for “house” and “safety” lighting?
Regarding the dark blue upholstered top edge of the balcony, photo to follow… (which unfortunately also shows the mess of rear speakers to balcony front that have necessiated the removal of the “pageant box!”)
Addendum: Since opening in December 2018, the temporary “DOLBY CINEMA” on the wall behind the right of the “glass box” has been replaced with a larger backlit sign.
LARGE_screen_format: Thank you very much, I have tried my very best to document as many aspects as I can. :–)
In relation to the visual aspects of Dolby Cinema, indeed—for all of Dolby’s horn tooting, and glowing “press” coverage—on this occasion it was hard to see how it is particularly, if at all, superior to a top quality “generic” PLF installation. Certainly the picture did not seem to benefit from enhanced features that IMAX offer (the “DMR” processing, the “image enhancer,” and so on) as well as some of IMAX’s other proprietary or exclusively licensed technologies and R&D development.
AFAIK IMAX still have exclusivity for theatrical presentations in taller 1.90:1 or 1.43:1 formats (where relevant) over being restricted to “scope” versions, whether vanilla DCPs or Dolby Cinema versions?
So, IMAX have not been comprehensively overtaken. Regardless of whether “Alita: Battle Angel” took full advantage of the capabilities of Dolby Vision, there are just too many fixed aspects of the system for that to be the case.
The IMAX with Laser dual-projection “GT” system would appear, for now, to continue to be the absolute “Rolls Royce” of theatrical digital projection systems.
FanaticalAboutOdeon: Many thanks for your comment, the information on “past” lighting practices is most appreciated.
You have hit the nail on the head here, I think—the problem is likely to be that no-one knew any better!
Unfortunately, the lighting was probably just considered essentially as a subset of mechanical/electrical services rather than a specialisation in its own right.
As I mentioned in my long post on the main page for the OLS, I don’t think the lighting is “cold” white (5000K) but more like 4000K. Ideally, I think they could have used 2000K (“flame” white.)
Picture/sound—I agree, the picture/sound was already very good—whilst the acoustics have been improved, better coverage achieved to the rear of the auditorium, and Atmos has been added—but as I alluded to in my post on the main page, if anything the previous JBL stage speaker system with full active crossovers was actually better than its replacement.
Otherwise, I agree broadly with everything you say—however, there are still lots of special touches, including the sections of green “velour” (?) fabric coverings, and the wood panelling to the lower sidewalls/rear wall.
The reimagined foyers are knockout; I still find the auditorium, despite the bungles, splended, and can highly recommend a good seat in the Royal Circle for a special occasion.
As with anything, you pay in terms of inconvenience (if getting there is a trek) and cost, and take your choice—but I really do find it very sad indeed to hear that you won’t be visiting the OLS again?
I visited the OLS this to week to attend a mid-afternoon performance of “Alita: Battle Angel.”
Ongoing building work:
Asked about the addition of curtains, the same as previously reported answer was given, saying that they “did not know,” and they mentioned the “safety curtain” animated sequence.
Update to fit-out of foyers:
Very nice—except that it looks as though it is impossible to keep it looking clean, with the merest amount of walked in soil being visible.
“FIRST, FOREMOST, AND FOREVER
”—OSCAR DEUTSCH—"
The clock in the ground floor foyer is working—it is positioned on the right wall just past the entrance from Leicester Square to the former Studios. Contrary to my previous supposition, it does not appear to consist of LED displays, but rather, backlit opal frosted perspex, with the lettering and clock hands “projected” onto it by obscuring the backlighting.
The wall behind the “glass box” has now been finished in black marble, with a new larger backlit “Double-D” logo/“DOLBY CINEMA” sign.
Brass (?) edging has been added to the ceiling lighting features in the ground floor foyer, with a very wide band around the central dome.
Black marble and brass strips added to the front of the ground floor foyer concessions counter.
Various missing bits and “snags” have been attended to, too numerous to list and impossible to recollect them all. For example, the liquid soap dispenser fittings in the circle level men’s toilets now have retaining rings so that the dispenser bottles do not fall off.
The overall result is outstanding, and clearly highly specified; however, the fit and finish isn’t quite to the standard that might have been expected—probably due to the headlong rush to get the project completed. For example, some tiles are slightly off position, some of the cutting-in of paint has visible brush marks, etc
Some “leakage” of low frequency sounds from the auditorium were audible in the circle foyer, presumably due to the overhead subwoofers (equipped with 16 x 18" drivers!) hanging from the ceiling.
Auditorium update:
As Ken Roe noted, the “flying ladies” have indeed been flown in.
This being my first visit, it is harder to indicate any other minor tweaks; however, it appears that the underside of the proscenium has now been properly covered.
Ceiling supply grilles in some of the “coves” were visible—not sure if they are the same as previous?—and looked as if they could use some tidying up.
The new dark finish to the 1930s “ribbed” plasterwork seemed to have some marks and one or two small chips.
Auditorium comments:
The “guideway” aisle lighting, including blue fibre optic strips, remains on during the main feature.
I did not think to look whilst in the auditorium, but it seems that the flying ladies must have some further “spot” lighting on them.
The animated “digital” safety curtain sequence shown before the main performance is quite tacky.
The auditorium is certainly dark once the decorative lighting is off and the house lights lowered, but not to the point of invisibility. The guideway lighting enabled a trip out of the auditorium during the main feature to the Coca-Cola Freestyle machines (at ground floor level!) for a refill. (I had asked the member of staff who served me at the concessions counter whether this was allowed—the answer was “Yes… well, I won’t tell… it should be OK.” And, indeed, it was—I refilled again on the way out!
The flipside to this, from the perspective of “Dolby Cinema,” is that the “flying ladies” and wooden features to the front splay walls certainly are quite visible.
I am having a hard time figuring out the colour of the sidewalls/ceiling. They looked near-black in person; however, they seem to have a navy tone in various photos, and my own photos suggested that the stretched fabric ceiling/wall coverings to the stage end are dark navy. However, this may be due to factors including the chromatic aberrations etc. in the lens, or misregistration caused by the colour spectrum of the lighting.
Non-sync music played just after the feature ended. Light sequencing all looked fine with smooth fades.
Ceiling lighting was not distracting during the feature.
The “H” in “HVAC” has been put back, with the auditorium warm throughout. The HVAC was never audible, and a consistent temperature was maintained.
The recliners are extremely comfortable and very well-padded. Separate controls are provided to adjust the amount of “recline” and the footrest angle. At least in the front row of the Royal Circle, they do not recline as far back as those in the Vue West End; in the “down” position, the bottom edge of the screen is just visible over the balcony edge.
My recollection of the old American Seating Company “rocker” seating in the old Empire 1, in the reupholstered state that they were in when closing, is that I still consider them to be the most comfortable cinema seats ever—but these are certainly among the best.
The picture is framed by proscenium and, contrary to my expectations, it does not feel like the whole front end of the auditorium might just as well be filled with a “giant” screen. In the front row of the Royal Circle, the screen is slightly too low; it is adequately sized, but it certainly could use benefit from being somewhat bigger. However, these aspects, or moving the screen ahead of the existing proscenium, would seem to be restricted by sightlines. (See above regarding the sightlines to the bottom edge of the screen.)
Only one other person was seated in the centre section of the Royal Circle, and whilst I am very well behaved, shifting position in my seat lead to a perceived look of agitation on their part. I imagine that the pricing policy screens out the “popcorn munching, mobile phone checking” brigade.
Picture:
Masking was in use, and opened out to scope for the main feature, leaving the usual “letterboxing” of scope trailers.
Alignment and geometry was good, although seemed slightly off in terms of alignment, and an overall consistent “smile” distortion applied across the screen—but this was only noticeable with titles on screen. Centre-to-edge brightness uniformity was exceptional. I can’t be sure, but it seemed like there was a slight visible loss of focus from centre to edge.
Unlike IMAX’s dual-projection system, both projectors were in use for all content, not being restricted to the specially formatted main feature. This could be seen by wearing the glasses—which revealed a discrepancy between the left and right eye colours, presumably the colour shift caused by the wavelength multiplexing not being corrected for this material.
Dolby have claimed extremely high brightness levels and contrast ratios for Dolby Vision. Alas, the black levels were somewhat higher than I expected, with some crushing or clipping of low levels. In 3D, the brightness level was certainly very adequate, and quite bright with glasses off, but not amazingly so. This might have been due to matching the output levels required for the content—but, particularly compared to the IMAX across the square, it is not a big screen to fill.
Whilst IMAX’s system includes their “image enhancer” and special processing to get the most out of their dual-projection systems, the same super-smooth but pin-sharp quality was not apparent.
I suspect IMAX are using motion interpolation to add synthetic frames to create “virtual” high frame rate—however, this certainly was not the case with Dolby Cinema, as there was visible motion judder. Conversely, the picture was free of some of the odd artifacts that are sometimes visible with IMAX Digital systems.
Colour rendition was very good, with well saturated colours achieved.
Overall, unless one is to really nitpick, there isn’t much to choose between Dolby’s dual-laser system and the dual (or even single) IMAX with Laser system—in fact, you may not even notice the difference!
IME, the IMAX Digital systems have near-perfect geometry, and focus, but tend to have not quite so good centre-to-edge brightness uniformity.
For the above reasons, overall, the IMAX with Laser system is, IMO, superior. I would include the new “Commerical Laser” single-projector system as well as the original “Grand Theatre” dual-projector system.
Sound:
Seat shaking low frequencies, and pin-point rear/overhead imaging, as the Dolby Cinema trailer well demonstrates.
Reverberation time and room colouration in the OLS has been very significantly improved; but it is still somewhat “echoic,” though not enough to ruin dialogue intelligibility.
Very high output levels from the system, which I assume was set to be at or near reference levels.
Presumably, the visible arrays forward from the screen are slightly time delayed to align with the screen speakers. Certainly, there was a good sense of frontal imaging. I can’t be sure, but, it did sometimes sound like it didn’t all quite gel—to be sure, it does work mostly well.
Very good clarity and balance; however, there appeared to be something of an upper-bass dip, and the high frequencies were at times somewhat metallic. At the highest levels, it sounded—I hesitate to say strained, but it was certainly clear that the system was being pushed.
I am not convinced that the Dolby SLS speakers, as installed, are superior to the outstanding cinema series of products offered by JBL; but it is certainly a very good, and well aligned, top-end system.
A tightrope has been walked between the compromises and constraints involved in keeping the OLS intact as an iconic super-cinema whilst modernising and making improvements.
In some respects, such as failing to reinstate the tabs and not having a fully realised lighting design, it might be said that the tightrope has, at times, been fallen off. On the other hand, many the improvements, particularly to the foyers and overall stardust “Rolls Royce” luxury feel, are successful.
Personally, I found the experience to be perfectly relaxing and one in which I became completely unaware of all worries—personal, as well as the disasterous saga that—regardless of your political standpoint—“Brexit” has become!
In my view, that’s as good as it gets to say that an “escape to the cinema” has been successful from start to finish.
A photo of the reinstated “flying ladies” has been uploaded. More to follow.
vindanpar: I suspect that you mean the absence of tabs (which is surely a mistake) and other factors—however, the subject of the last photo was the repaired “flying ladies” (created in 1998 having been removed in 1967) in front of the new wood panelling, the shape of which is similar to the original wooden panelling (removed in 1967.)
As I mentioned in a previous post, it is likely to be an acoustic wood product, quite possibly from Eomac (who seem to supply the stretched fabric wall systems in the majority of new or refitted auditoria on a worldwide basis!)
Certainly, the under-balcony ceiling (image #4 in the linked series) appears to be their Grill product.
Without doubt CNC-cut to exacting tolerances, I can’t see anything wrong with the panelling, which lends a degree of warmth and luxury to the auditorium—and the “flying ladies” are gleaming?
Slightly off-topic—there haves been plenty of new developments in London since “Match Point” was released in 2005—however, the City of Westminster in which Leicester Square is located is extremely conservative; they would certainly not allow high-rise development—indeed, when the Swiss Centre on the North Western corner of Leicester Square was knocked down to make way for the W Hotel, the replacement building did not include a tower… (The Swiss Centre itself being built on a WWII-damaged site.)
Indeed, they would not even give permission for the Casino at the Empire (under the cinema) to add a small entrance/sign to the “back” of the building (a blank brick wall!) (Permitted on appeal.)
So fear not, London’s West End isn’t about to become a mini-Dubai!
As for knocking the cinema down—well, I can say that I’d cry…
Addendum: Photo taken from the front of the balcony.
FanaticalAboutOdeon: Interesting thought!
A great difficulty is in estimating the size of the “flying ladies”—they are considerably bigger than one might think!
Having a look at photos of the “1998” auditorium, they are clearly wider than the double door opening (to fire exit, etc.) below, and it’s not obvious that they would fit horizontally, either.
According to the 2018 licensing plans, audience right, to audience right, the back stage retains the existing double doors, and further has an additional double door opening, labelled “New opening/stage door,” that’s ~15% wider than the existing double doors.
(The existing double door opening is the same width as the openings below the “flying ladies.”)
I assume the scene dock door to which you refer (audience left) is of the roller-shutter type? AFAICT, it isn’t marked on any of the available licensing plans.
The larger of the two alleyways to Charing Cross Road (audience right) was very busy being used to remove waste towards the end of the fit-out works.
Whether or not the “flying ladies” could somehow be squeezed through/around any of the doors, corridors, stairs, bends, etc. does plausibly appear as though it could be a tight fit at best!
Incidentally, revisiting the 2018 licensing plans, I notice that at circle level, there appear to be 5 sets of speakers marked hidden behind the stretched fabric over each of the front splay walls.
If I’m not mistaken, each has two speakers, one aimed perpendicular to the wall, and the other pointing further towards the back of the auditorium.
terry:
I wonder what your friend means by this?!
Alas, in relation to tabs I am starting to believe that you may be correct in pointing your finger in their direction…
Lionel:
Can be difficult (or expensive!) as what were standard methods or systems fall out of use, and to bring in line with current expectations or requirements.
In the case of the OLS, the roof was replaced a few years ago—planning application. To quote from the document “08-1407AA01” (!):
“Odeon seek to replace the existing Asbestos sheet roof which has become unserviceable. It is proposed that the existing roof sheets will be removed and replaced with new Kingspan insulated panels.”
Ironically, the replacement roof was specified to match the existing in look/colour, even though few will ever see it…
Without knowing the state of the rest of the building’s fabric and the access requirements, it is not clear whether the ceilings/walls had to be removed from the circle to proscenium part of the auditorium. But it is known that the strip-out works included the removal of (presumably significant quantities of) asbestos.
Obviously, the OLS was in need of acoustic treatment—keeping in mind that old movies were produced with “echoic” auditoria in mind, today they are not, and thus dialogue intelligibility can be grossly inadequate (a definite problem in the old Empire 1 with its “slap” echo.)
I previously suggested on Cinema Treasures that the existing smooth plasterwork from the balcony to the proscenium could be replaced with acoustic plaster. High performance spray-on systems are available that would allow for curved sections.
Of course, the new lower ceiling position may not have allowed for the existing curves. However, there are plenty of visible speakers within the auditorium, so I’m not clear on why these needed to be covered, if that’s indeed the reason for the new lower ceiling position?
I had been very surprised on learning that the walls/ceiling were being refinished in such dark colours—accepting that the existing white (or near-white) surfaces would highly compromise the performance of the new projection system, surely it is possible to think of other schemes that would work reasonably well, or at least a lighting scheme/system that would help?
The stage end shows no understanding of why elements were designed and shaped the way they were, and it fails to harmoniously integrate with the remaining 1930’s plasterwork above the balcony. The new design looks as if it’s ready for a much larger screen ahead of the proscenium!
Very strange indeed when the new circle foyer in particular is very pleasant indeed, complete with marble tiled walls and the (expensive!) new “glass box.” It may not be the same as the long-removed original, but IMO, it is very large improvement over the 1998 iteration…
There is the story of the controversial “cleaning” work that was done to the famous “Elgin Marbles” (controversially!) in London’s British Museum…
Indeed—or at least this needs to be firmly held in mind before tampering…
Still, I have yet to visit the refurbished OLS auditorium, it seems ridiculous to wait any longer for the “flying ladies” to be put back prior to visiting. Perhaps “Alita” will do for my first visit… (Too bad Cameron is overfocused on “Avatar” sequels—one was quite enough, thank you—to direct!)
Many thanks for posting your translation of the relevant section of the French article.
Lionel: Many thanks for the link. It is (just about!) understandable in English thanks to Google Translate.
(Sorry, I reposted with an revised response, so your reply appears before the message to which it was in response to!)
Lionel:
Have you a link to this interview, please?
Indeed, leather does have that drawback, and the seating should be designed with acoustic properties in mind, ideally so that they are as similar as possible whether occupied or not. Of course, if the seat recline, then the seat position would alter the acoustics. Hmm…
The cavity underneath is another problem, and I doubt that the typical use of vinyl floor surfaces instead of carpet helps here. (Even if only in front of the seating, it would help.)
The refurbished largest auditoria (5/7) over at the Vue West End certainly seem to have suffered acoustically—my recollection was that they were outstandingly neutral and well-controlled, but there now seems to be a slight “echoic” quality. Whether this is due to the replacement “leather” seating, or because the acoustic absorption behind the new stretched fabric wall coverings is inferior, I don’t know.
It isn’t hard to imagine seating being replaced (and perhaps stadia adjusted also)without the system being recalibrated.
(Obviously not the case in 5/7 at the Vue since the audio systems were totally replaced, and during the 2017 refurbishment the other auditoria were seen to by Sound Associates.)
Of course, the OLS was hardly up to standard with vast areas of smooth reflective surfaces at the stage end, so all in all it should be greatly improved in this respect.
curmudgeon: Not at all! I am saying finished leather (or artifical immitation leather, aka pleather, leatherette, etc.) provides a significantly less permeable surface to water and solid fine debris, stopping it getting to the foam underneath, thereby harbouring nasties, as well as it being harder for “sticky” materials to adhere to its surfaces to the extent of not being easily removeable.
Thus, if a customer requires as clean a cinema seating experience as possible, surely their best option would be seating upholstered as such, and taking their own leather cleaning wipes to remove any residues?
If the seating is in a poor state of cleanliness that necessiates the use of wipes, is it acceptable? You bet it isn’t.
(But then I’m not sure how one would cope with, say, travelling, on London’s Tube—seating all moquette upholstered?)
Tickets at Odeon (and other UK operators) can purchased via the Internet, or at a machine at the cinema. It would, of course, be highly advisable to pre-book to reserve your choice of seat.
In full agreement that it is intrusive!
Since you say that you have worked in cinemas for many years, perhaps you could enlighten us as to your experience of cleaning schedules for seating—-hopefully including the use of wet extraction vaccums?
curmudgeon: Hmm… even standard seats tend to be pretty high backed these days. Still, leather (or “pleather”) is the upholstry of choice, there is a less viable environment for dust mites and other nasties to be harboured. (And, dare I say, you could always take leather wipes to clean the seat?!)
Although there was the “bed bug” issue in various NYC movie theatres…!
SethLewis: Throw your legs over the seat in front? Tut, tut!
I don’t know about “less and less” affordable? Premium options are increasingly available, but on the flipside are “unlimited” cards, and older multiplexes in need of a major overhaul are the new “fleapits.”
Albeit, the new Vue Bromley, for instance, offers all-recliner seating at £7.99 “all day, every day”—not significantly higher than “fleapit” prices.
I’m quite happy with non-recliner seating—but hey, if it’s there, I’m not going to say “no!”
(I, too, haven’t seen any of the “Lord of the Rings” trilogy!)
As for “overanalysing”—I think I’m well and truly cursed now—it was only in my pre-teen years that I could just turn up and watch the film—and it’s only got worse since then! :–(
Zappomatic: Seems like a rather random alteration. Was the carpet worn?
curmudgeon: LOL, goodness!
I am baffled as to why this is a problem that would occur with recliner seating?
Kers: Thank you for the photos and update.
The fabric just has to be “poked” into the profile track that holds it tensioned in place.
I’d imagine that the uncovered section to which you refer perhaps are air conditioning vents that are yet (?) to have grilles attached.
The proscenium end does look better with white concealed lighting installed and operational, although from your photos, it appears to be a distinctly cold white. The “leakage” onto the sides of the screen looks dreadful.
Alas, low power sidewall decorative feature lighting is all that is to be found in cinema fit-out supplier catalogues, and I suspect that it would require a specific effort and awareness to specify the high powered lighting needed to wash the walls.
I wonder what the priorities are for fellow Cinema Treasure contributors?
Are tabs and decorative lighting more important than picture/sound quality? Or comfort (seating, etc.)?
(I mean in a general sense, rather than specifically in relation to the Odeon Leicester Square.)
Obviously, this is a somewhat synthetic question as the answer would surely be “both” or “why should one need to choose?” and the experience of visiting a cinema is a total package from entering the door (or before; the “film perforation” tiles on the platform walls in LSQ Underground station “foreshadowing” watching a movie, for example.)
joeswin: Thank you for finding that out and relaying the information here. A terrible shame.
Incidentally, I dreamt last night that I visited the OLS and the building work had resumed, with a JCB just outside the LSQ frontage handling excavated rubble, with a large trench in front of the entrance. They were allowing public tours of the cinema; the auditorium sidewall/ceiling colour had reverted back to white. I asked various people whether curtains were due to be installed and most did not know, although one said “no… this is after all a business and this does not affect presentation.”
I think I need to go on a cinema “detox” programme! ;–)
FanaticalAboutOdeon:
I don’t think it is being suggested here that the proscenium opening may have been widened? No such widening is shown in the up-to-date licensing plans. As mentioned, I could imagine, perhaps, that it might have been slightly narrowed if acoustic material had been attached around its edge.
Factually, the screen is not large in relation to the auditorium’s size; and it’s not even that large in absolute size, either, as “premium large format” auditoria in multiplexes grow in size—a recent example is the Cineworld Watford IMAX (with Laser) (opened December 2018) with its ~22m (~72ft.) wide screen (1.9:1.)
Of course, whether it is desirable for the OLS to be equipped with a larger screen is another matter, as is the practicability and cost-benefit of such; including, as you say, tampering with the “skeleton” were such to be placed within the existent proscenium opening.
I’m assuming that the ‘67 refurbishment involved the removal of the original ceiling? Did the replacement—other than, of course, being smooth— follow the exact profile of the original?
IIRC, some of the articles on the OLS refurbishment have said that it covers over some of the ceiling speakers, and this does seem plausible. Clearly, the finish is stretched fabric. There is no reason that the profiles used to hold/tension the stretch fabric couldn’t have been curved (as shown in photos uploaded by TheatreofVarieties, the old Empire 1’s curved steels were moved up and then the stretched fabric profiles were attached to them.) In the case of the OLS, it looks as if straight trusses have been suspended to enable “rigging” of the speakers, and stretched fabric then used to cover over. (Presumably, there is plenty of acoustic absorption fitted behind also.)
Thank you very much for the information on the Victoria Palace Theatre refurbishment works, and thank you to Ian for those fascinating photos uploaded on Flickr.
Brief portfolio page on Malishev Engineers' site, “Odeon Leicester Square Main Entrance.”
To quote (sic,) it “featur[es] several openings with glass fins, bespoke set of door frames and simply large glass units all designed to accommodate substantial blast loading for the whole system, including structural silicone.”
Thank you Ian and Kers for your accounts.
Kers:
Oh dear! It was extremely cold yesterday—at least by the standards of this island’s temperate climate! Hopefully it wasn’t totally unbearable?
If I may ask, from where did you obtain this information?
Comparing Ian’s flickr-uploaded photo of the refurbished auditorium with a photo of the OLS auditorium from rear circle, it does seem that the screen has been raised up slightly, albeit looking at other photos of the refurbished auditorium with the organ raised up, it would appear that, were it positioned any lower, then it would have partially obstructed the view of the screen from the front stalls?
It does very much look like the angle has changed.
Unless the proscenium opening has been reduced in size (e.g. addition of acoustic absorption on edges)—and that would presumably be a matter of a few inches—then the screen looks about the same size?
Good grief, it is shown after all!
D'oh! That’s the word I had been looking for. I suspect it won’t, but I hope that is continued.
Regarding auditorium fill rates—it is now off-season. Good to hear that it did well over Christmas/New Year.
…?