The JBL’s you mention, are as you say much the same size as the “old” ones. Heavy, yes, but not very deep in size!
Just to clarify, the OLS has certainly used JBLs for a long time (I’ve included some information about the pre-1998 system in the above comment)—but the new system uses Dolby SLS speakers; these are quite different in design; whereas the older screen speakers used large horns for mid/high frequencies, these use modular “arrays” built up from much smaller units (each about the size of a “bookshelf” sized speaker—one that fits on a bookshelf, that is!) bolted together, hopefully creating a custom array to suit the coverage/dispersion needed in the auditorium.
The specification is listed in the relevant Cinema Technology article (see FanaticalAboutOdeon’s post dated Mar 2, 2019) but this unfortunately does not include a complete specification for the screen speakers, in particular the number of units that make up each array. A rough guestimation is that they might be a bit heavier than the old JBL 3-way horns that were used—although JBLs were massive in size—80cm deep!
Do you know whether the new proscenium tabs are in use yet? If it was a motor issue, AMC does not seem to consider it’s remedy that important, if they are still not in use.
Unfortunately not!
I chose to watch “Once Upon a Time In Hollywood” projected using the IMAX with Laser GT system across LSQ. (OK, the Cineworld Leicester Square, if I must call The Empire that. :–()
Intermediates for the film were digital according to IMDb “Technical Specifications” so whilst watching film might be fun but I’d imagine that would be the best picture available. And, indeed, it did look good. It would certainly have been interesting to watch it in 70mm by way of comparison, had that been available!
(Incidentally, I noticed that the large “high level” LED module display on the OLS' façade was advertising 35mm projection—whilst also saying “SEE IT IN DOLBY CINEMA.” (!))
How did you find the 70mm presentation over at the Cinerama Dome in LA? Too bad I’ve never visited the West Coast. :–(
An article in the November 1996 issue of “V.TV” magazine (a home cinema magazine “from What Hi-Fi?”) titled “The power behind the screen” lists the projection and sound equipment at the OLS as follows (i.e. prior to the 1998 refurbishment):
Projection:
3x Cinemeccanica Victoria 8
3x Cinemeccanica Zenith 6500H lamp-houses with 4kW Xenon lamps
Sound:
Dolby CP200 Accessory/Control/Processor Unit Dolby SRA-5 Dolby SR Noise Reduction Dolby DA20 Dolby Digital Cinema Processor DTS Processor SDDS Processor
Amplification:
10x JBL 6290 amplifiers (bridged) – 1200W/channel for five front speakers
2x MPA 600 amplifiers (bridged) – 1200W/channel for subwoofers
2x JBL 6290 amplifiers – 4x600W to surrounds
Front speakers:
5x JBL 4675C (each comprising 1x JBL 4675C-HF high frequency horns and 2xJBL 4648 bass/mid)
Surround:
28x JBL 8330
Subwoofers:
2x JBL 4688 TCB
My recollection is that the sound system sounded good, notwithstanding the difficult and “echoic” acoustics. However, this wasn’t really an adequate specification for the capabilities of the “new” digital sound formats, above all LFE, so it was just as well that a complete overhaul was just around the corner from the time that the article was published.
A rare photo of the auditorium with the 1987 splay-wall “waves” feature, as well as the booth (including projectors and racks) and behind the screen are included (scans may follow.)
LoveCinema: Thank you for the information on digital automation/playlists/etc.
The wall at the back of the stage house is clearly a plasterboard wall (British Gypsum SoundBlock product from the “purple” coloured facing paper) and thus is for soundproofing and not structural reinforcement.
AFAIK the previous screen speaker system was 5x JBL 5674, which weigh ~170kg each, plus 4xLW Speakers 6017 dual 21" subwoofers (replacement equivalent model, 6117, weighs 110kg) as an LFE upgrade more recently.
It can be seen from the links that these products are very big!
Presumably, the replacement system is suspended from the fly tower. I recall reading about strengthening needed for the ceiling-hung speakers in the auditorium itself, presumably for the large line arrays and Atmos rear subwoofers rather than the smaller Atmos overheads, but I don’t think the replacement Dolby SLS screen speakers would weigh that much more than previous.
It would seem to me that the reason for moving the screen forward is because the reduced size was necessitated for some reason and therefore moving it forward helped compensate for this, or, simply, that it creates a more “modern” look. But, short of a definitive answer, it would seem that it will remain a mystery…
Has anyone paid a visit to the OLS for the 35mm presentation of “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood”? Seems like a good opportunity for someone with a clue (e.g. projectionist!) to get the tabs/lighting operating as they should…
In addition to the Superscreen sidewall signage mentioned by Zappomatic, similar signage has also been added to the IMAX auditorium. (Photo uploaded.)
In the photo, this signage doesn’t look so bad; however, the illumination is uneven, particularly for the white “Leicester Square” section, and the kerning (spacing) for the IMAX type (“Microgamma” typeface) is incorrect, with the “X” in particular too far from the “A,” and the second letter “e” in “Leicester Square” is slightly rotated anti-clockwise, rather than being straight.
Also, the quality of the LEDs used does not match those used for the concealed LED bars or house lights of the auditorium (OSRAM.)
Worst of all, for the screening I attended (matinée performance of “Once a Time in Hollywood,”) they remained fully illuminated until the start of the main feature, and then simply switched off.
IMO they look completely ridiculous, and, it hardly seems necessary to remind patrons that they are in an IMAX, when its logo is plastered on all 723 seats.
(Just noticed a correction to the CT description—the seat count given for the IMAX auditorium of 751 seats is incorrect—the 2016 licensing plans state 723 seats [plus 6 accessible spaces.])
In every other respect, the cinema was absolutely fine, with the usual excellent picture/sound from the IMAX with Laser GT installation, effective air conditioning, and all lights were off during the main feature.
I think the rendering shows the basic form/layout of the auditoria but I can’t imagine that the finishes will look as shown. The seating arrangement drawn seems to include some oddities, too; but it does suggest that the recliner/premium seating approach will be taken with a commensurate reduction in capacity.
Disappointing to see a floating screen in the main auditorium; that’s how it is drawn in the planning application also.
Still, the larger auditorium, as drawn in the planning application, includes a ~50ft. wide screen, so one might still hope for an ISENSE screen with laser projection and Atmos sound…
I assume Screen 16 is the one marked Screen 8 on the planning application, as that is the largest of the new auditoria.
The screen width for that auditorium, measured off plans, is ~18m (~60ft.) Seating distance to screen width ratio varies from, somewhat roughly, 0.35 to 1.35x (first to last rows.)
So, it sounds like it could provide a good experience.
Zappomatic: How did you find the picture/sound? I expect laser projection will have been installed, but presumably, not Atmos?
Most changes are relatively minor; some details of particular note:
A document titled “McFarlanelatter_Odeon_Holloway Road_Presentation_P” has been added, which includes some historic photos, and a cross-sectional drawing with the original finishes labelled as follows: Panels – rich cream; Frieze – blue (“picked out” in gold and silver); Columns – black bases, “picked out” in gold; balustrate – carved walnut. Decorative elements of the circle foyer/lounge are also described.
New foyer colours: Dulux 10YY 72/021 (Warm Beige); Dulux 62BB 08/369 (Blue); Dulux 30BB 05/022 (Black) gloss; “silver and gold decorative paint.” Cross-sectional drawings and a photo are labelled with the proposed colour scheme.
The document titled “HERITAGE STATEMENT” has been updated.
It states that the foyer/restaurant link has been removed.
1958 suspended ceiling to be removed from auditorium, due to its “[poor] integrity in areas [accessible] above Screen 6,” “punctured in many places,” and Odeon’s desire to “remove any future risk from the condition of the ceiling.”
Removal of the ceiling enables Auditorium ½ to have the screen raised “so that [the] viewing angle from the new seating can meet Odeon’s/industry standards.”
Old skylight (covered over) above stage house to be removed, new flat roof.
Confusingly, whilst “REV B” of the “PROPOSED SECTION” shows a new (higher than existing) ceiling above Auditoria ½, labelled “NEW CEILING FIXED TO U/S TRUSSES,” and the old suspended ceiling removed—the “REV C” version of the “PROPOSED SECTION” shows the existing suspended ceiling, labelled “EXISTING CEILING RETAINED.”
(N.B. I have not summarised any proposed external changes, e.g. new signage.)
The document titled “Officer Report & Associated Documents Final
Report,” dated 25th June 2019, recommends approval. The planning database states that this revised scheme has been approved, but no approval document is included at this time.
See the link to “RELATED DOCUMENTS” at the bottom of the page.
The works are outlined in the “HERITAGE STATEMENT” document.
To summarise:
Removal of Auditorium 3, which had been “[inserted] into the first floor foyer tea room,” to “[reinstate] the dramatic original foyer volume,” with expectation that this will “reveal the original balustrade, ceiling and fenestration.”
Shops converted to restaurant, “linked to the foyer.”
New lift to first floor and “corridor to rear of the circle” for “wheelchair access.”
Auditoria 1-6 to have replacement floor “to a new rake” (replacing the existing floor built above the original.)
The document titled “Dwg OD-HW-145-PLN – Proposed Section” provides a good illustration of the new stepping and seating, clearly showing recliners in Auditorium 2 and 4—the plans show recliners in all auditoria.
According to the “HERITAGE STATEMENT” document, Odeon are planning on making this a “flagship” site, combining heritage aspects with the (non-listed) auditoria fully refurbished to current standards, clearly implying it will be a “LUXE”-branded site.
Chapman Taylor’s website has been updated with new photos of the refurbished/extended Cineworld O2, including shots of what I assume to be the “VIP” lobby/bar, and a “VIP” auditorium.
PhilipWW: The three examples of multiplexes that you cite are almost certainly (or in the case of Finchley Road (O2 Centre) definitely) Warner Bros. International Theatres “house style” designs. As mentioned previously elsewhere on CT, the same design—beginning in the latter half of the 1990s—was used on an international basis, including “Warner Mycal” multiplexes in Japan!
These could be considered to be a “second generation” multiplex design, with steep stepped “stadium-style” seating, flat stretched fabric wall coverings (instead of the “Soundfold” pleated type), and, perhaps, an “evolution” (?) towards today’s “box” design with more modestly splayed walls to the front of the auditorium; whilst retaining a masked screen with a proscenium of sorts, tabs were dispensed with.
As you say, the larger auditoria in these cinemas were indeed fitted with “scope” screens.
Talking of the development of Warners' 1990s design, Chapman Taylor’s website includes a profile/interview with David Wallace, former Senior Vice-President of Architecture/Construction at Warner Bros., now a Director at Chapman Taylor.
I’m not sure how Warner designs changed beyond this point; UCI, for example, introduced “the filmworks” brand with the now de rigueur “black box” auditoria. Post-buyout and rebrand to “Vue,” clear examples of “Vue-specific” designs are the two Westfield mall venues in London; but I’m not sure if they had developed much before that, at least in terms of form and not the finishes.
I’m not overly familar with the Westfield venues, but the Xtreme auditoria (certainly at Westfield London, Shepherds Bush) certainly are, I’m afraid, fitted with “flat” screens.
It is, perhaps, instructive to consider that the Westfield cinemas opened as digital-only sites…
Vue’s current new build rate appears to be very slow, with only one new site opening per year, according to this list on the CTA’s website.
Looking at photos of Vue Bromley, it has exactly the same style as Vue Eltham (albeit it has the benefit—or disadvantage, depending on your opinion!—of all-recliner seating.)
However, it is not a “boothless” cinema, as Vue Eltham is.
(N.B. I have located the main planning application for Vue Bromley; links and some key points extracted from them to follow on the respective CT page…)
RadioVenus: Aesthetically, I too preferred the previous position.
Moving the screen forward makes the sightlines “worse.” The old rear stalls only just about had viable sightlines to the top of the screen; however, they, of course, have been “removed.”
The new screen is slightly smaller than the previous, but moving it forward helps compensate, relatively.
I’m not sure that the screen has actually been “moved up,” as stated in other posts? Comparing the 1998 2D screen with the 2018 screen, it looks like the reduced size has allowed for the bottom of the screen to be raised, but the top looks to be in about the same location?
Note, also, from the second image that the sightlines to bottom of the screen from the front row of the balcony are only just viable.
I have no idea why the screen was moved forward; it might be imagined that it was a decision based on “modernisation,” or it may have been for acoustic reasons, for which there are good reasons why it would be preferable.
If, as FanaticalAboutOdeon says, the OLS is staffed by 3 technical personnel, then it is puzzling if all aspects of presentation aren’t programmed to perfection, let alone basic standards…
(*Not shown in cross-section but assume from plans identical to Aud 5. (Only different drawn is “mirror imaged” seating layout with aisle position at opposite side.))
All screens, therefore, are flat.
Are the screens at Vue Eastleigh all “floating” with no masking?
I’m not familar with any Vue “new builds” from the past few** years; are there any where they are installing “scope” screens?
(**Where “few” means “few;” not including Westfield Stratford City, for instance.)
Sound Associates' news page includes a brief item on their installation at Vue Eltham. To quote:
“Sound Associates are proud to have designed and installed a state of the art QSC Q-Sys DSP system providing the functionality of an audio processor for all screens. We used three DSP cores positioned in one central location for the six screens, this flexible system gives each screen both an independent user and engineer interface page, plus there is a monitoring control page that can be accessed centrally.”
Dolby Fidelio, for hearing impaired, was installed also.
Included is a photo showing part of the rack, which shows:
2xQSC Q-SYS DCIO-H (Digital Cinema Input/Output interface.)
1xQSC Q-SYS Cinema Core 110C (QSC’s web page describes it as a “multipurpose software based digital audio signal processor.”)
1xQSC DPA 4.2 4-channel amplifier for cinema
The DPA 4.2 includes on-board signal processing, including crossover, parametric EQ and time-alignment capabilities.
Plans are available for this cinema as part of an application dated 2012 to alter/restep the circle for larger seating. (N.B. The circle had already been restepped over the original concrete in 2001.)
Included within the application is a “FLOOR FINISHES” document, from which:
Carpet – “ODEON Black Carpet” by OW Hospitality (“Quality Supplier of
Axminster Carpets,” according to their UK website.)
LARGE_screen_format: According to the “History” page on the cinema’s website, the cinema was acquired by a local person, Becky Hallsmith, in 2011. Digital projection/replacement screen were added, and the sound system “upgrad[ed],” alongside “redecorations.” Subsquently, the seating was replaced also.
Alas, Ms. Hallsmith passed away last year; however, it is to become a “community-owned” business—so you, too, can own a “piece” of the cinema!
The cinema is the subject of an ~1 hour long documentary, “The Ultimate Survivor;” which can be viewed on the linked page.
I have been “dragged” along to this cinema again, this time Auditorium 6.
Observations as before, except:
The picture from an excessive amount of centre-to-edge brightness dropoff, and the picture didn’t seem quite sufficiently bright.
Non-sync music played before/after performance.
Lighting the same, i.e. far too bright during ads/trailers, but at least smooth fades.
Sound quality OK. In terms of spectral balance, it sounded very good. However, it was obvious that dialogue levels were nowhere near reference level, and the LFE seemed to be lacking also. On the other hand, the surround level was, relatively, far too high. Very strange; I can only imagine that somehow complaints about excessive volume levels have lead to the fronts/LFE being reduced in level? I have not experienced this at any other cinema.
Once again, I choose to book a “VIP” seat, which, as previously mentioned, was very comfortable. However, I did briefly try out a “regular” seat, and it was shockingly uncomfortable.
Rear array comprised the same JBL rear array as Auditorium 1; however, due to “boxing out,” the rightmost rear array speaker on the back wall is further forward than the others. However, I did not notice any issue from my seating position; just too much diffuse activity from the rear array.
No “turbulant” sounds from ducting was heard, and the HVAC system was quiet (and maintained a consistent comfortably cool temperature and unstuffy environment throughout)—however, the (boothless) projector was slightly audible, and there also appeared to be a faint high pitched sound, possibly intermittent.
Not mentioned in the previous comment was the overly bright (with the house lights off) red and green lights on the sidewalls, which are also installed in Auditorium 1. These certainly did leak slightly onto the screen also.
Measured on the planning documents, the screen is ~33ft. wide. It is, of course, a “flat” ratio screen.
The single row of VIP seats is about 1.2x screen width away from the screen, and the picture seemed inadequately sized. Of course, the perception of screen size is subjective; e.g. if the sound system is capable of more impact and spatial delineation, then this can produce a cinematic “larger than life” sense even with an “undersized” screen.
All areas of the cinema visited were clean.
Overall, then, a run-of-the-mill medicore multiplex experience on this occasion, particularly marred by the sound level and front to rear balance. A shame as I had expected better given the previous better-than-expected experience in Auditorium 1.
Errata: “Revised drawings” (the main one being “1000-1005”) should have been referenced in the previous link to the planning application, albeit the original set of submitted drawings (“documents ‘Drawing – 1000 rev 02’ onwards”) include a scale.
Other updates—within the same development, “Pizza Express” is now open, whilst externally there is no sign of an impending opening of the “Sky Bar.”
joeswin: I heard rumours about a potential redevelopment some months ago; however, at that time, the only information appeared to be the “Waterloo—Building Height Study, 2018” in which Lambeth Council lists potentially suitable high rise locations. I assumed that these locations were identified on the basis of, e.g. protected sightlines (St. Paul’s, etc.) rather than an indication that any proposals would be forthcoming.
Spending £500K (between Lambeth and TfL) on a feasibility study, as claimed in the article, would seem to be a large sum without a serious prospect of taking a scheme forward.
Alas, the article does not cite any sources, nor can I find any other material to confirm the story.
The article does note that BFI have a 150 year lease on the site, and, further, “the BFI will be invited to be a consultee but will be bound by a tripartite confidentiality agreement with TfL and Lambeth.”
So, it would remain to be seen if any scheme incorporates a replacement, à la Sydney Harbour.
Internally, the auditorium itself is a textbook IMAX with little of unique interest, and the foyer/circulatory areas are, in my view, bland.
However, externally and taken as a whole it must be considered a unique piece of “real architecture” woven into a difficult setting… it works since you leave the busy surrounding area into a “sub-grade” oasis leading to the cinema.
I can’t imagine anything less than a tremendous public outcry—the building is absolutely an iconic London landmark (arguably more than any other operating cinema, including the Odeon Leicester Square—not to say it is “better,” simply that it could be stuck on a montage with the “London Eye” and “Big Ben.”)
Alas, it would seem to be not quite old enough to be listed; to quote Historic England, “Buildings less than 30 years old are not normally considered to be of special architectural or historic interest because they have yet to stand the test of time,” which may explain an apparent eagerness to start working up a replacement now.
The prospect of a replacement may also explain why BFI still haven’t upgraded to IMAX with Laser projection, albeit it could always be moved over? If there were to be a replacement, then one could well imagine that the 15/70 GT projector would fall by the wayside due to its size and weight.
Errata: “it looks on-board current regulation is incorporated” should read “it looks like on-board current regulation is incorporated.”
Addendum: Photo courtesy of LARGE_screen_format.
Addendum: Photo courtesy of LARGE_screen_format.
A website has been launched for the hotel (“The Londoner.”) According to the site, the hotel is scheduled for opening in Spring 2020.
RadioVenus:
You’re welcome! :–)
Just to clarify, the OLS has certainly used JBLs for a long time (I’ve included some information about the pre-1998 system in the above comment)—but the new system uses Dolby SLS speakers; these are quite different in design; whereas the older screen speakers used large horns for mid/high frequencies, these use modular “arrays” built up from much smaller units (each about the size of a “bookshelf” sized speaker—one that fits on a bookshelf, that is!) bolted together, hopefully creating a custom array to suit the coverage/dispersion needed in the auditorium.
The specification is listed in the relevant Cinema Technology article (see FanaticalAboutOdeon’s post dated Mar 2, 2019) but this unfortunately does not include a complete specification for the screen speakers, in particular the number of units that make up each array. A rough guestimation is that they might be a bit heavier than the old JBL 3-way horns that were used—although JBLs were massive in size—80cm deep!
Unfortunately not!
I chose to watch “Once Upon a Time In Hollywood” projected using the IMAX with Laser GT system across LSQ. (OK, the Cineworld Leicester Square, if I must call The Empire that. :–()
Intermediates for the film were digital according to IMDb “Technical Specifications” so whilst watching film might be fun but I’d imagine that would be the best picture available. And, indeed, it did look good. It would certainly have been interesting to watch it in 70mm by way of comparison, had that been available!
(Incidentally, I noticed that the large “high level” LED module display on the OLS' façade was advertising 35mm projection—whilst also saying “SEE IT IN DOLBY CINEMA.” (!))
How did you find the 70mm presentation over at the Cinerama Dome in LA? Too bad I’ve never visited the West Coast. :–(
An article in the November 1996 issue of “V.TV” magazine (a home cinema magazine “from What Hi-Fi?”) titled “The power behind the screen” lists the projection and sound equipment at the OLS as follows (i.e. prior to the 1998 refurbishment):
Projection:
3x Cinemeccanica Victoria 8 3x Cinemeccanica Zenith 6500H lamp-houses with 4kW Xenon lamps
Sound:
Dolby CP200 Accessory/Control/Processor Unit
Dolby SRA-5 Dolby SR Noise Reduction
Dolby DA20 Dolby Digital Cinema Processor
DTS Processor
SDDS Processor
Amplification:
10x JBL 6290 amplifiers (bridged) – 1200W/channel for five front speakers 2x MPA 600 amplifiers (bridged) – 1200W/channel for subwoofers 2x JBL 6290 amplifiers – 4x600W to surrounds
Total: 10,800W [Comment: Somewhat meaningless figure!]
Front speakers: 5x JBL 4675C (each comprising 1x JBL 4675C-HF high frequency horns and 2xJBL 4648 bass/mid)
Surround:
28x JBL 8330
Subwoofers:
2x JBL 4688 TCB
My recollection is that the sound system sounded good, notwithstanding the difficult and “echoic” acoustics. However, this wasn’t really an adequate specification for the capabilities of the “new” digital sound formats, above all LFE, so it was just as well that a complete overhaul was just around the corner from the time that the article was published.
A rare photo of the auditorium with the 1987 splay-wall “waves” feature, as well as the booth (including projectors and racks) and behind the screen are included (scans may follow.)
The product currently used for “LUXE Recliner” installs, including the OLS:
Ferco Seating – “Premium Verona Cinema Seat with Electric Foot & Back Rests”.
LoveCinema: Thank you for the information on digital automation/playlists/etc.
The wall at the back of the stage house is clearly a plasterboard wall (British Gypsum SoundBlock product from the “purple” coloured facing paper) and thus is for soundproofing and not structural reinforcement.
AFAIK the previous screen speaker system was 5x JBL 5674, which weigh ~170kg each, plus 4xLW Speakers 6017 dual 21" subwoofers (replacement equivalent model, 6117, weighs 110kg) as an LFE upgrade more recently.
It can be seen from the links that these products are very big!
Presumably, the replacement system is suspended from the fly tower. I recall reading about strengthening needed for the ceiling-hung speakers in the auditorium itself, presumably for the large line arrays and Atmos rear subwoofers rather than the smaller Atmos overheads, but I don’t think the replacement Dolby SLS screen speakers would weigh that much more than previous.
It would seem to me that the reason for moving the screen forward is because the reduced size was necessitated for some reason and therefore moving it forward helped compensate for this, or, simply, that it creates a more “modern” look. But, short of a definitive answer, it would seem that it will remain a mystery…
Has anyone paid a visit to the OLS for the 35mm presentation of “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood”? Seems like a good opportunity for someone with a clue (e.g. projectionist!) to get the tabs/lighting operating as they should…
In addition to the Superscreen sidewall signage mentioned by Zappomatic, similar signage has also been added to the IMAX auditorium. (Photo uploaded.)
In the photo, this signage doesn’t look so bad; however, the illumination is uneven, particularly for the white “Leicester Square” section, and the kerning (spacing) for the IMAX type (“Microgamma” typeface) is incorrect, with the “X” in particular too far from the “A,” and the second letter “e” in “Leicester Square” is slightly rotated anti-clockwise, rather than being straight.
Also, the quality of the LEDs used does not match those used for the concealed LED bars or house lights of the auditorium (OSRAM.)
Worst of all, for the screening I attended (matinée performance of “Once a Time in Hollywood,”) they remained fully illuminated until the start of the main feature, and then simply switched off.
IMO they look completely ridiculous, and, it hardly seems necessary to remind patrons that they are in an IMAX, when its logo is plastered on all 723 seats.
(Just noticed a correction to the CT description—the seat count given for the IMAX auditorium of 751 seats is incorrect—the 2016 licensing plans state 723 seats [plus 6 accessible spaces.])
In every other respect, the cinema was absolutely fine, with the usual excellent picture/sound from the IMAX with Laser GT installation, effective air conditioning, and all lights were off during the main feature.
Thank you Zappomatic. Too bad there are some rough edges that you mention, and Atmos really should have been specified.
curmudgeon: Indeed. What a joke! :–(
I think the rendering shows the basic form/layout of the auditoria but I can’t imagine that the finishes will look as shown. The seating arrangement drawn seems to include some oddities, too; but it does suggest that the recliner/premium seating approach will be taken with a commensurate reduction in capacity.
Disappointing to see a floating screen in the main auditorium; that’s how it is drawn in the planning application also.
Still, the larger auditorium, as drawn in the planning application, includes a ~50ft. wide screen, so one might still hope for an ISENSE screen with laser projection and Atmos sound…
I assume Screen 16 is the one marked Screen 8 on the planning application, as that is the largest of the new auditoria.
The screen width for that auditorium, measured off plans, is ~18m (~60ft.) Seating distance to screen width ratio varies from, somewhat roughly, 0.35 to 1.35x (first to last rows.)
So, it sounds like it could provide a good experience.
Zappomatic: How did you find the picture/sound? I expect laser projection will have been installed, but presumably, not Atmos?
Addendum: There is a further “listed building application” that should be referenced instead.
Most changes are relatively minor; some details of particular note:
New foyer colours: Dulux 10YY 72/021 (Warm Beige); Dulux 62BB 08/369 (Blue); Dulux 30BB 05/022 (Black) gloss; “silver and gold decorative paint.” Cross-sectional drawings and a photo are labelled with the proposed colour scheme.
The document titled “HERITAGE STATEMENT” has been updated.
Confusingly, whilst “REV B” of the “PROPOSED SECTION” shows a new (higher than existing) ceiling above Auditoria ½, labelled “NEW CEILING FIXED TO U/S TRUSSES,” and the old suspended ceiling removed—the “REV C” version of the “PROPOSED SECTION” shows the existing suspended ceiling, labelled “EXISTING CEILING RETAINED.”
(N.B. I have not summarised any proposed external changes, e.g. new signage.)
The document titled “Officer Report & Associated Documents Final Report,” dated 25th June 2019, recommends approval. The planning database states that this revised scheme has been approved, but no approval document is included at this time.
Main planning application.
See the link to “RELATED DOCUMENTS” at the bottom of the page.
The works are outlined in the “HERITAGE STATEMENT” document.
To summarise:
The document titled “Dwg OD-HW-145-PLN – Proposed Section” provides a good illustration of the new stepping and seating, clearly showing recliners in Auditorium 2 and 4—the plans show recliners in all auditoria.
According to the “HERITAGE STATEMENT” document, Odeon are planning on making this a “flagship” site, combining heritage aspects with the (non-listed) auditoria fully refurbished to current standards, clearly implying it will be a “LUXE”-branded site.
The application was approved.
Chapman Taylor’s website has been updated with new photos of the refurbished/extended Cineworld O2, including shots of what I assume to be the “VIP” lobby/bar, and a “VIP” auditorium.
PhilipWW: The three examples of multiplexes that you cite are almost certainly (or in the case of Finchley Road (O2 Centre) definitely) Warner Bros. International Theatres “house style” designs. As mentioned previously elsewhere on CT, the same design—beginning in the latter half of the 1990s—was used on an international basis, including “Warner Mycal” multiplexes in Japan!
These could be considered to be a “second generation” multiplex design, with steep stepped “stadium-style” seating, flat stretched fabric wall coverings (instead of the “Soundfold” pleated type), and, perhaps, an “evolution” (?) towards today’s “box” design with more modestly splayed walls to the front of the auditorium; whilst retaining a masked screen with a proscenium of sorts, tabs were dispensed with.
As you say, the larger auditoria in these cinemas were indeed fitted with “scope” screens.
Talking of the development of Warners' 1990s design, Chapman Taylor’s website includes a profile/interview with David Wallace, former Senior Vice-President of Architecture/Construction at Warner Bros., now a Director at Chapman Taylor.
I’m not sure how Warner designs changed beyond this point; UCI, for example, introduced “the filmworks” brand with the now de rigueur “black box” auditoria. Post-buyout and rebrand to “Vue,” clear examples of “Vue-specific” designs are the two Westfield mall venues in London; but I’m not sure if they had developed much before that, at least in terms of form and not the finishes.
I’m not overly familar with the Westfield venues, but the Xtreme auditoria (certainly at Westfield London, Shepherds Bush) certainly are, I’m afraid, fitted with “flat” screens.
It is, perhaps, instructive to consider that the Westfield cinemas opened as digital-only sites…
Vue’s current new build rate appears to be very slow, with only one new site opening per year, according to this list on the CTA’s website.
Looking at photos of Vue Bromley, it has exactly the same style as Vue Eltham (albeit it has the benefit—or disadvantage, depending on your opinion!—of all-recliner seating.)
However, it is not a “boothless” cinema, as Vue Eltham is.
(N.B. I have located the main planning application for Vue Bromley; links and some key points extracted from them to follow on the respective CT page…)
RadioVenus: Aesthetically, I too preferred the previous position.
Moving the screen forward makes the sightlines “worse.” The old rear stalls only just about had viable sightlines to the top of the screen; however, they, of course, have been “removed.”
The new screen is slightly smaller than the previous, but moving it forward helps compensate, relatively.
I’m not sure that the screen has actually been “moved up,” as stated in other posts? Comparing the 1998 2D screen with the 2018 screen, it looks like the reduced size has allowed for the bottom of the screen to be raised, but the top looks to be in about the same location?
Note, also, from the second image that the sightlines to bottom of the screen from the front row of the balcony are only just viable.
I have no idea why the screen was moved forward; it might be imagined that it was a decision based on “modernisation,” or it may have been for acoustic reasons, for which there are good reasons why it would be preferable.
If, as FanaticalAboutOdeon says, the OLS is staffed by 3 technical personnel, then it is puzzling if all aspects of presentation aren’t programmed to perfection, let alone basic standards…
PhilipWW: Estimating from the previously-linked plans: (Imperial conversions rounded to nearest ft.)
Aud 1 – ~12.3x6.7m / 40x22ft.
Aud 2 – ~14.1x7.7m / 46x25ft.
Aud 3 – ~11.4x6.3m / 37x21ft
Aud 4 – Identical to Aud 5*
Aud 5 – ~7.3x3.9m / 24x13ft.
Aud 6 – ~10.3x5.6m / 34x18ft
(*Not shown in cross-section but assume from plans identical to Aud 5. (Only different drawn is “mirror imaged” seating layout with aisle position at opposite side.))
All screens, therefore, are flat.
Are the screens at Vue Eastleigh all “floating” with no masking?
I’m not familar with any Vue “new builds” from the past few** years; are there any where they are installing “scope” screens?
(**Where “few” means “few;” not including Westfield Stratford City, for instance.)
Sound Associates' news page includes a brief item on their installation at Vue Eltham. To quote:
“Sound Associates are proud to have designed and installed a state of the art QSC Q-Sys DSP system providing the functionality of an audio processor for all screens. We used three DSP cores positioned in one central location for the six screens, this flexible system gives each screen both an independent user and engineer interface page, plus there is a monitoring control page that can be accessed centrally.”
Dolby Fidelio, for hearing impaired, was installed also.
Included is a photo showing part of the rack, which shows:
2xQSC Q-SYS DCIO-H (Digital Cinema Input/Output interface.) 1xQSC Q-SYS Cinema Core 110C (QSC’s web page describes it as a “multipurpose software based digital audio signal processor.”) 1xQSC DPA 4.2 4-channel amplifier for cinema
The DPA 4.2 includes on-board signal processing, including crossover, parametric EQ and time-alignment capabilities.
Plans are available for this cinema as part of an application dated 2012 to alter/restep the circle for larger seating. (N.B. The circle had already been restepped over the original concrete in 2001.)
Included within the application is a “FLOOR FINISHES” document, from which:
Carpet – “ODEON Black Carpet” by OW Hospitality (“Quality Supplier of Axminster Carpets,” according to their UK website.)
Vinyl – DLW Armstrong Scala 55 Mountain Pine Dark Brown.
Obviously, these “house style” finishes are the same products used in other Odeons.
Also, the document “GA PLAN & SETTING OUT PLAN,” lists seating as follows:
“Movie magic gets a makeover” — Oxford Mail.
According to this article, published in 2012, £1m was spent on refurbishing the cinema, including £350,000 on the foyer.
Unfortunately, visible in the photo of the main auditorium is a floating screen incongrously jutting out in front of the proscenium…
Details of the work involved in adding this screen are available in a planning application dated 2009, “Listed Building Consent for internal works to insert girders and posts to project a larger screen forward of the proscenium arch in screen 1”.
LARGE_screen_format: According to the “History” page on the cinema’s website, the cinema was acquired by a local person, Becky Hallsmith, in 2011. Digital projection/replacement screen were added, and the sound system “upgrad[ed],” alongside “redecorations.” Subsquently, the seating was replaced also.
Alas, Ms. Hallsmith passed away last year; however, it is to become a “community-owned” business—so you, too, can own a “piece” of the cinema!
The cinema is the subject of an ~1 hour long documentary, “The Ultimate Survivor;” which can be viewed on the linked page.
I have been “dragged” along to this cinema again, this time Auditorium 6.
Observations as before, except:
Overall, then, a run-of-the-mill medicore multiplex experience on this occasion, particularly marred by the sound level and front to rear balance. A shame as I had expected better given the previous better-than-expected experience in Auditorium 1.
Errata: “Revised drawings” (the main one being “1000-1005”) should have been referenced in the previous link to the planning application, albeit the original set of submitted drawings (“documents ‘Drawing – 1000 rev 02’ onwards”) include a scale.
Other updates—within the same development, “Pizza Express” is now open, whilst externally there is no sign of an impending opening of the “Sky Bar.”
joeswin: I heard rumours about a potential redevelopment some months ago; however, at that time, the only information appeared to be the “Waterloo—Building Height Study, 2018” in which Lambeth Council lists potentially suitable high rise locations. I assumed that these locations were identified on the basis of, e.g. protected sightlines (St. Paul’s, etc.) rather than an indication that any proposals would be forthcoming.
Spending £500K (between Lambeth and TfL) on a feasibility study, as claimed in the article, would seem to be a large sum without a serious prospect of taking a scheme forward.
Alas, the article does not cite any sources, nor can I find any other material to confirm the story.
The article does note that BFI have a 150 year lease on the site, and, further, “the BFI will be invited to be a consultee but will be bound by a tripartite confidentiality agreement with TfL and Lambeth.”
So, it would remain to be seen if any scheme incorporates a replacement, à la Sydney Harbour.
Internally, the auditorium itself is a textbook IMAX with little of unique interest, and the foyer/circulatory areas are, in my view, bland.
However, externally and taken as a whole it must be considered a unique piece of “real architecture” woven into a difficult setting… it works since you leave the busy surrounding area into a “sub-grade” oasis leading to the cinema.
It has been placed on the 20th Century Society top 10 at risk list.
I can’t imagine anything less than a tremendous public outcry—the building is absolutely an iconic London landmark (arguably more than any other operating cinema, including the Odeon Leicester Square—not to say it is “better,” simply that it could be stuck on a montage with the “London Eye” and “Big Ben.”)
Alas, it would seem to be not quite old enough to be listed; to quote Historic England, “Buildings less than 30 years old are not normally considered to be of special architectural or historic interest because they have yet to stand the test of time,” which may explain an apparent eagerness to start working up a replacement now.
The prospect of a replacement may also explain why BFI still haven’t upgraded to IMAX with Laser projection, albeit it could always be moved over? If there were to be a replacement, then one could well imagine that the 15/70 GT projector would fall by the wayside due to its size and weight.
terry: LOL… Yeesh! I do sympathise with your past experience of these, as you call them, “delicacies!”