Palladium Times Square

Great comments all….Movies are a business YES. It’s all taking a chance. If 80 Days was re-released , it probably wouldn’t make much money but it IS part of film history and that’s how films are RE discovered. Sure, show it at the Ziegfeld, it would do fine but bottom line as you all said, no one will consider shelling out the bucks while the next Freddie Prinz jr. film is in the can. It’s all a gamble. With great advertising to make it an event I bet it would do well. They did that with Gone With the Wind in 98, now I don’t think they thought it was going to gross $50 million but it did respectable business BUT, it was released as a movie to re-discover and re experience. A 60 year old 4 hour movie from the 30’s. That’s the whole point of restoring and rediscovering (I’m overusing this term yes) classic movies. It’s just that the money will not be shelled out for it, but I have to believe that a print or 2 have been struck for special showings and that at some point we’ll see it.

Maybe at The Lafayette huh Pete?? The last great theater still operating. I urge all of you to go see a film there.

Overall, it’s a damn shame that 80 Days will only be seen on a TV screen where it wasn’t meant to be experienced.

Vincent – When Warner Bros. bought the rights to this film, from Elizabeth Taylor (to whom UA lost control of the film in the 1970’s) the rights reverted to Miss Taylor. So Warner bought the right for later re-releases. United Artist’s last reissue of “80 Days” was in 1968, there was still some 70MM prints available at that time. Warner did a re-release in 1983, there were some 70MM prints. In Los Angeles it played at the Vista Theatre in 35mm Dolby Stereo only. The reason I know there were 70MM prints, was I was in San Francisco for the weekend and it was playing at the Regency #1 in 70MM 6-Track Dolby Stereo. I don’t know about a NY engagement for then. Warner tried to streamline the film (like “Star is Born”, mid 60’s reissue of “Lawrence”), so they cut around 20 minutes plus of footage from that issue. Back in the mid 70’s in Beverly Hills, the chains would book some of these Roadshow Films into the Warner Beverly Hills, The Beverly, Fox Wilshire Theatres. At that time the exchanges still had servicable 70MM prints to run. It was great to see them back up there on the screen.

Vincent – Yes, I have seen and ran the movie in 70MM & 35mm. Its great to see the film on a theatre screen. I’m all for a re-release of the film, but the executives at Warner were not willing to go for a full 70MM restoration of the film. Yes, I have seen the picture on TV, the pan & scan verson just sucks. Some people love this movie and others feel it’s very dated. I like the movie and have seen it many times. But the executives that Mr. May has to answer too, are the ones that you should be pointing the finger at. If you remember back in 1983, Warner did a reissue of a cut down version of “80 Days”. They made 70MM prints of this version and select theatres played it around the country. That release did poorly, maybe they based some of the facts of that release to why they did no special release screenings to make it’s return to the screen. The facts are since the 80’s, the theatres that play older films like the Film Forum here in NYC and Nuart in LA and countless other around the country. Sometimes find it hard to get print of some titles. The studios all have studio copies of the films, but they are most of the time only for special screenings. They might have one or two prints in the their classic departments for theatres around the country. In the days when theatres employed real projectionists and it was a craft. Those operators maintained the prints for show, today you have kids running the booths and most of the time not caring about the presentations and the prints. There are some that do care, but there are not many. So those prints get trashed fasted, then the studio wanted to restrike a new print. Look at the Astor Plaza Theatre, if Loew’s still though it was that important of a house. They would have never made it manager/operator house. Thats why those great memories of great presentations at that theatre are all in the past.
To maybe answer your question on those three titles. The studios might see other factors like director and broad audience appeal.
Because “Lawrence” was David Lean, “Spartacus” was Stanley Kubrick and “My Fair Lady” was a major Broadway Hit Musical. The suits that run the studio made this decision on “80 Days”, are the ones that green light the stuff that fill the theatres today. Almost all geared to the 17 year old audience.
Today its all about the money, thats why they open a picture on 3000+ screens. To get the big headline “Number One movie this week”.

Vincent,

I’m not sure you’re being fair to Dick May and Warner regarding Around the World in 80 Days, especially since they didn’t produce it and aren’t responsible for the sorry state of the negatives today. If you figure it would cost $10 million to restore and make a couple of 70mm prints, what do you think it could gross? The 1989 re-release of the restored Lawrence of Arabia – a far more acclaimed picture – only grossed $7 million with a ton of publicity, so Columbia got no more than $3.5 million out of it (and probably spent more than $2 million on the restoration and release). If it’s a choice between spending 10 million and restoring one film or using that 10 million to preserve and make new prints of 10-20 other films, they have to go with what makes the most economic sense.

Spartacus grossed under $2 million on its restored re-release, My Fair Lady grossed under $1 million. Both of these probably cost nearly a million to restore and re-release and, again, they are going to be more popular than Around the World in 80 Days.

Now I’m sure that subsequent video and cable tv revenue have made these worth doing, but it would be tough to justify $10 million for Around the World, since there’s no way it’ll gross even half that. They have to weigh costs vs. returns on these projects, that’s why the new prints of Singin' in the Rain and Adventures of Robin Hood were so nice to see. They could have let them be video only, but they took the time to create new negatives and new prints – which I played – and they looked stunning. Neither one cost anywhere close to a million to restore.

Pete Apruzzese
Director of Film Programming
Big Screen Classics at the Lafayette Theatre

BillK:
The Warner Beverly Hills Theatre had two other sisters, the Warner San Pedro and the Warner Huntington Park Theatres. Both the San Pedro (open) and Huntington Park (closed) Theatres are still around.
The Huntington Park was twinned in the 80’s by Pacific Theatres. The Beverly was the Best of the three theatres. I spent two weeks taking pictures of the Beverly being razed.

Some people may think Dick May as a overpaid executive. But Dick May over the years has been very important in keeping the film libraries of Warner and MGM available to film fans around the world for theatres and Video release. He is in charge of maintaining those libraries. Many times its a uphill battle to find money to do full restorations of films. As time goes on, many of those negatives get older and older. Okay, Fox restuck and restored new 70MM prints of “Hello Dolly”, “Patton” and “Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines” and UA with “It’s a Mad….World. It takes a lot of time and money and what condition the original film elements are in. The original negative to "Around the World…” was in such poor condition. A full Todd-AO restoration would cost between 8-10 million dollars. And that first 70MM print could cost as much as 100 Thousand dollars. So each year each studio’s film library department has a budget as to what monies are to go to restore their libraries. Look how hard Martin Scorsese works towards getting films restored. It depends on how the original negative looks and how much the studio is willing to pay. Warner & the Wayne family have been battling over the price of restoring “The High and The Mighty”. So today the film’s negative is rotting away. In the perfect Studio World, every film would get restored.
When the Warner and Capital Theatres were razed, that left New York City without any theatre equipped to play Cinerama. So to say “a Cinerama showing of "2001” in 2001 in New York", it could not happen. Just to play the film in 70MM, does not mean it’s a Cinerama presentation. To use the Cinerama logo, their was guidelines in presentations they had to go be. Remember Cinerama theatres had large curved screens and used special lenses and prints to use the Cinerama logo on their marquees.
When the Coronet Theatre closed alittle over a year ago. They had about a week of films that had played the theatre at one time. So maybe the Astor Plaza, may do the same. We can only hope.

Moviegoers in Los Angeles have been fortunate in the last 5 years. The Egyptian Theatre, run by the American Cinematheque in Hollywood, has had an almost annual 70mm festival. The El Capitan recently ran “TRON” in 70mm, and the Cinerama Dome ran IAMMMMW last year.

Bill Kallay wrote:

The Astor Plaza, if it does close and nothing is done to save it, should run a swan song of classic films that played there. The Original “Star Wars” Trilogy. “Raiders Of The Lost Ark.” Even “Logan’s Run.” The place would be packed.

What a great idea. The theater could go out in a blaze of glory.

If Dick May really said this he sounds just like another overpaid executive who might as well be in the hardware business. If you struck a restored Todd AO print and presented it in lavish style at the Ziegfeld you’d make your money back and then some. Maybe this is the same guy who felt a Cinerama showing of 2001 in 2001 in New York wasn’t worth the sweat off his brow. When I saw the restored My Fair Lady at the Ziegfeld in ‘93 which played for about a week I went to 3 showings and every one was packed. It could have played there for weeks but instead they had to bring in some ludicrous action flick with Meryl Streep.

RE: As Columbia rolled out the restoration of “Lawrence of Arabia” in 1989 at the Century Plaza Theatre in 70MM. About 2 miles east the original Premiere site in Beverly Hills, The Warner Beverly Hills was being torn down.

I wished I would’ve known that at the time and I would’ve tried taking photos. Now is this theatre similar in design to the Warner in San Pedro?

Rhett: Movies and movie exhibition have always been a business, but I think the real showman knew that quality and business could go hand-in-hand. Give audiences a good show, great presentation and reasonable priced concessions, they’ll come and fill seats. Ted Mann, William Forman (to an extent), and Mr. Plitt of Plitt Theaters knew how to put on a show, even during the “cynical” ‘70s and '80s in their best theaters. Much of that is missing because of business types who think showmanship is old school and should be kept in the past.

In regards to “Around The World In 80 Days,” I listened to Dick May of Warner Bros. at a recent Academy (Oscars) symposium. He says (I’m paraphrasing) that striking a print for a few loyal fans isn’t cost effective. I understand where he’s coming from, but I believe the film, when seen in its proper presentation, would be a success. I’m not a big fan of “It’s A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World,” but it packed houses in Hollywood during its showings. I was glad to have seen it in 70mm. “Around The World In 80 Days,” in my opinion, isn’t much better, but it would be a draw. Show it at the Ziegfeld, Uptown in DC, the Cinerama Dome in Hollywood and the Seattle Cinerama. Costs recouped, fans happy.

The Astor Plaza, if it does close and nothing is done to save it, should run a swan song of classic films that played there. The Original “Star Wars” Trilogy. “Raiders Of The Lost Ark.” Even “Logan’s Run.” The place would be packed.

I agrre with what you are saying, but where I work, we are gonna have Shreck 2 on 6 screens, Troy on 5 screens and Van Helsing on 4 screens and Breakin all The Rules on 2 screens. that totals 17 screens for 4 movies, and whe have 7 screens left for 12 movies.

Thanks Bill K
Seeing a 70MM movie in a large single screen houses like the Plazas, Chinese, Rivoli, Cinerama Dome was an experience. If you stepped into the Astor Plaza auditorium, it design is much like the original Century Plaza auditorium. As Columbia rolled out the restoration of “Lawrence of Arabia” in 1989 at the Century Plaza Theatre in 70MM. About 2 miles east the original Premiere site in Beverly Hills,
The Warner Beverly Hills was being torn down. The empty lot sat for a few years at the corner of Wilshire Blvd and Canon Dr.. The Warner was one of the best houses to see a 70MM feature in town. It may have not been as big or wide as the Chinese or Pantages, but it was a class act.

Yes, rhett that is the right theatre. Buried deep under the Virgin store. That was the site of the famed Loew’s State Theatre in Times Square.
As you all have fond memories of “Star Wars” at the Astor Plaza. Mine was on the West Coast with the Plitt Century Plaza with “Star Wars”. The Plitt Century Plaza’s main house was just like the Astor Plaza in design, there was also a second theatre that seated 800 people. The Plitt later became a Cineplex and then a Loew’s house.
Cineplex cut the rear half of the house to make two extra screens, too make a total of 4 screens at that site. Earlier this year Loew’s closed the theatre, so it could be razed for a new office complex.