The planning application to which Zappomatic refers appears to be PP/19/01987.
The architectural practice marked on the documents is “Earle Architects.”
Although the application description mentions external aspects only, plans can be found in the document listed as “EXISTING AND PROPOSED PLANS INCLUDING SITE PLAN.”
(Albeit, not for the basement; the “existing ground floor plan” is marked “SCREEN 6 BELOW — REFER TO BASEMENT PLAN.”)
The document listed as “PLANNING, DESIGN AND ACCESS STATEMENT” includes renderings of the proposed canopy.
Although the “existing” plans appear to have schematic layouts of auditoria seating only, levels are marked, and from this auditoria 1-5 are definitely drawn as restepped, and for auditoria ½, as Zappomatic says, “straightened.”
It also appears that the screens as drawn have been reduced in size (albeit perhaps one should not trust the “existing” plans in this respect.) For auditoria ½, it appears that the screens are have been “straightened,” no long being slanted in. I imagine the projection is proposed to be “boothless,” with ceiling mounted units?
Replacement screens for auditoria 3-5 are ~“scope” ratio, whilst auditoria ½ are ~“flat.”
Alas, I am too tired to continue. Suffice to say that the screens as drawn in Auditoria ¾, with the screen centre being ~70% of the auditorium’s width from the farthest side wall. Above all, with auditoria 2/3 remaining very assymetrical, one side wall of each splayed in—and presumably their (~“flat”) screens will be “floating” with no masking—just too many negative elements.
Without further reconfiguration, there is just no getting past the previous poor quality subdivision, rendering the rebranding exercise nothing if not ironic.
As the above-linked document says, typical acoustic cores are up to 75mm of rigid mineral wool slab, although greater depths are available.
(Behind which, typically, is “double wall” plasterboard with more acoustic absorption, in this case being for soundproofing.)
Note that the recommended fabric is “100% Polyester Trevira CS”—a quick Google search leads to one vendor selling such type of fabric product at £62/m (140cm wide)—which equates to £45/sq.m.
Of course, these technical aspects do not account for aesthetic preference (and, indeed, these stretched fabric systems can achieve more elaborate decor than “black box” designs, if desired)—but rather to indicate that these systems are hardly a low-cost option, and that “old” cinema designs, at least as originally built, don’t meet today’s performance requirements in terms of controlling reverberation time within an auditorium, nor acoustic isolation of auditoria.
(Granted, the latter is less of a concern in a single screen venue!)
It would be interesting to know how “food and beverage” offerings have changed over the years?
Obviously, the changes to the exhibition industry have been fast paced in the 2010’s; however, for instance, looking at “old cinema adverts” videos on YouTube includes exhortations to make last minute concession counter trips, a reminder that a variety of alcoholic beverages are available from the bar, and very unappetising close shots of hot dogs!
(Note that this application was for Caesars Entertainment UK, i.e. the casino operator.)
The document listed as “DELEGATED REPORT” makes for some particularly interesting reading.
In summary, it turns out that none of the existing three banner adverts is approved; although the applicant claims that “Deemed Consent” was obtained by virtue of the high level banner being displayed for more than 10 years, the report shows archival photos demonstrating that it was not continuously displayed for this period; and, the two side banners (which made their first appearance at a later date) constitute an increase in the quantum of advertising which in any event voids this claim.
Apparently, Westminster have, over the years, issued enforcement notices in respect of removing these adverts; however, they were removed and then reinstated at a later date
(The report states that, in relation to advertising, Westminster Council only proceed with legal action as a last resort.)
According to the report, Cineworld advised the cinema’s use of the banners was “entirely at the discretion of Caesars.”
Last Friday, i.e. 5th July 2019, no banners were in place. The “rods” for the side banners remained, and, it looks like some “making good” is needed to the upper parts of the façade.
Presumably, then, Westminster have (again!) taken enforcement action.
Of particular note from the report:
“The theatre is a very significant building architecturally and its status as an unlisted building of merit reflects this. There are a number of architectural features at the main elevation to Leicester Square, including the original ‘Empire Theatre’ sign to the parapet, a tri-partite arch, classical columns and coffered ceiling within the arch.”
This may be of some relief to anyone concerned about future alterations/additions.
In my view, notwithstanding the desires of the casino operator to add advertising of greater promenance—and surely this use should not overshadow the cinema aspect?—the upper/wide banner typically used for movie advertising was a reasonable compromise. The two side banners looked awful, and this scheme, to “bolt on” LED display module screens, is now demonstrably ill-conceived.
Meanwhile, the canopy remains in desperate need of being reimagined…
RadioVenus: Thank you for posting photos of curtain tracks, etc.
It is disappointing in the extreme to hear that the aspects of presentation you describe were at such an unacceptably low standard on the occasion that you visited.
From your description, I assume that the house lights remained fully raised during the “Dolby Cinema” trailer?
I hope that this practice of keeping house rights fully raised until the main feature doesn’t spread—I experienced it a few weeks ago at a recently opened “local” small multiplex, although I assumed it was a mistake—but perhaps it was so that patrons could find their seats?
Regarding your photo of the under-canopy (or under-“glass box”/extended circle lounge!) “blown” light bulbs, I have noticed this, too; when I originally saw the proposals for the revamped façade, I suspected that such luminaires would invite this problem…
Good to see the photo you have uploaded of the screen/house tabs from the 1998 OLS refurbishment—certainly illustrates well the detailed accounts by FanaticalAboutOdeon!
The Michael Portillo programme to which madorganplayer referred was broadcast today on Channel 5.
(Portillo’s Hidden History of Britain—Season 2, Episode 4: “The Palace of Dreams.”)
It is currently available to stream on demand until the 30th November 2019.
Obviously, it is aimed at a “general interest” audience—however, I did watch part of it and from what I could tell the plasterwork to the edge of the auditorium’s dome was (at the time of shooting) still intact.
Channel 5’s programme description, “The New Victoria in Bradford was Britain’s first cinema,” is, ahem, puzzling.
Zappomatic: Cineworld’s “house style” sparkle tiles look fantastic, especially in black, and going by online prices, very expensive (though Cineworld’s seem to have coloured sparkles, which I can’t seem to find anywhere…)
(Typically ~£40-80/sq.m. at low volume consumer prices, and made of quartz/resin.)
All of which is to say that a “vast expanse” of them sounds good to me, but it does seem very odd that the extension foyer is so large (~11,500sq.ft.) seemingly without purpose—it’s not as if the rest of the complex is short of space! Perhaps an intended use is as a “flexible space” for hosting events?
Zappomatic: Possible effects on the sound could be at the subtle “audiophile”/“fusspot” level. ;–) Although, I suppose, your comment does suggest that the sound quality hasn’t been ruined!
Too bad that they distract from the picture—and one would certainly hope that Cineworld would notice this issue?
Joeswin: Thanks for the link, interesting reading!
A friend of mine attended a Tony Bennett concert (I’ve known him since we were teenagers, and he’s always been a fan of “crooners” of “standards!”) this evening—I wouldn’t place much weight on any feedback he has to offer on the sound system, but he did send a couple of (mobile captured) video clips, and it does sound like the “echo” issues at the Albert Hall are tamed.
He has also sent me a couple of photos, including of the “flown” speaker arrays; they will be uploaded in a moment…
Regarding your comment on the OLS page on premieres, I suspect the OLS will continue to be the venue of choice. Leicester Square is a second-to-none setting; and the OLS, with its “glass box”/enclosed balcony, permanent LED display module screens on its façade, new “VIP red rooms” (accessed via the two front splay wall fire exits), very high quality foyers, luxury seating, and, of course, the new top-end Dolby Cinema installation, is “made” to host movie premieres.
Also, I’m not sure the “house” sound system at the Royal Albert Hall would be suitable for film presentations.
Zappomatic: Thanks for the update/photo. Positioning looks dreadful—and acoustically not a good idea to be sticking reflective surfaces up that close to the screen on straight sidewalls (lateral reflections affect dialogue intelligibility [perhaps not too much of a concern here?] and stereo imaging.)
Alarmingly ill-thought out for a premier screen in their flagship site, with this auditorium having a very highly specified sound system!
By the way, do you, or anyone else reading this, know if Cineworld have or are planning on installing laser projection in the LSQ Superscreen?
I have recently revisited this cinema for several screenings and, whilst I can’t seem to locate my notes from these trips, I recollect that it has been tidied up slightly since my 2014 comment—no ripped seats or gaffer taped carpet in Screen 5, seats/auditoria clean, and if I’m not mistaken, the lobby/corridor to the screens has been fitted with new (current Vue “house style” dots on black pattern) carpet.
The toilets (under stadia) definitely need an overhaul, though.
In particular, I concur with SethLewis' comment that auditorium 9 is “good as anything out there for its time…”—on the day I attended, I was surprised at the quality of the picture/sound. The sound (Martin Audio) in particular is very good, and the picture—Sony S-XRD as with all non-IMAX VUEs—looked just fine, also. This does imply a good level of maintenance as the Sony S-XRD projectors are known for requiring periodic servicing, more so than DLP-based projectors.
The screen was masked to scope format; no idea if this masking is (or was!) moveable as the only the feature was shown (no adverts/trailers.)
Standard seating is by Figueras (logo on the rear) and is definitely “old school!” The interior is, too, with the late 90s Warner Bros. International Theatres “house style” having an oddly quasi-80s “post-modern” feel; however, the dark blue stretched fabric to screen end might be considered preferable to black stretched fabric.
Of course, all middle to last row seating is on a steep stadia—so one does not have to suffer “old school” sightlines!
Alas, according to Vue’s website, only auditorium 4 supports 3D.
Otherwise, in my view (no pun intended!), certainly preferable to the so-called “Xtreme” screens over at Westfield.
Foyer/lobbies always seem to be virtually empty, and, staffing skeletal; my recollection being one security guard and one person at the concessions counter!
A Coke Freestyle machine has been installed in the main foyer, so one must assume that Vue have an agreement for these to be installed in all their locations.
SethLewis:
It’s a shame that Vue wasn’t more imaginative with programming and that we couldn’t see more oldies and second runs like at the Prince Charles
Billy: A 25 year lease was taken so still around 10 years left on it; perhaps Vue have already negotiated a downward revision of rent.
Repurposing the cinema would seem to be difficult (e.g. it can hardly be converted to residential use, due to the requirement for windows alone;) and, given its location, “suspended” above a multi-storey car park, it might take a major redevelopment for it to be removed (and until such time one might imagine that Vue are not too keen on a competitor taking the cinema and undercutting their very successful Westfield site?)
the auditorium looks as if theres nothing left to conserve.
The only decorative aspect I know of that remained in the auditorium is the plasterwork at the front of the lower circle, in the void between the bingo hall ceiling and the 1960’s auditoria.
According to the planning application “Design and Access Statement” (referenced as “DESIGN” in the previous post):
“Although much of the plaster decoration of the auditorium was lost in 1968, the steel structure that supported that decoration survives, as do important fragments of the decoration itself, such as the roof lantern.”
Overlaying Rank’s 1960’s drawings over the original, one sidewall of each of the two auditoria being in approximately the same location as the original. It’s not quite clear, but it appears that the rear wall position is partially in the same location, and its central section may suggest that alterations made could not have allowed for the original decoration to have survived.
However, the “Engineering Heritage” section of the “Design and Access Statement” (PDF p14) suggests that the structural aspects are of interest:
“With main roof trusses nearly 3m deep, spanning over 40m across a vast auditorium nearly 20m high, and a rear corner cantilevered out over the Bradford Beck, the ambition and skill of the engineers involved is impressive even by modern standards.
“The basic building has a robust structure of loadbearing brick, steel framing, an interesting and rare early precast plank flooring system, and timber roofs.”
The article includes renderings of the proposals, proposed ground floor plan, and photos inside the cinema building (partially stripped to the state required for the redevelopment.)
The planning application for the venue (approved):
Main planning application for the “Refurbishment and extension of former cinema to create an entertainment and event venue with supporting ancillary spaces including bars, ballroom and cabaret bar/restaurant and three-storey extension.”
A previous “CONSERVATION STATEMENT” (for a Lottery Funding application) notably informed by the Theatre’s Trust, 20th Century Society, Cinema Theatre Association, Cinema Theatre Organ Society, as well as the local authority and organisations has been used as a source for the document marked as “HERITAGE STATEMENT,” which in turn seems to have been largely incorporated into the document marked “DESIGN.”
The latter is therefore the most convenient “all-in-one” file to download; it includes extensive background information, alongside numerous photos of the cinema, including under construction, the original plans, the 1960’s conversion plans, and, of course, also covers the proposed scheme.
Having previously stated “there seems to be little reason to visit what is almost certainly a run-of-the-mill multiplex,” I recently found myself being “dragged” to see “Rocketman,” a film which greatly exceeded my (low!) expectations!
Incidentally, aside from a few shots which were intentionally degraded, the film’s picture is “pixel perfect”—no grain, sharp, but also berefit of digital artifacts, and it has been very consistently colour graded.
The film was screened in Auditorium 1, one of the two larger auditoria, being slightly smaller than Auditorium 2.
Measuring off the plans as submitted for the previously-linked planning application (scale conveniently provided):
Distance from screen to first row: 6.32m (~20.5ft.)
Distance from screen to first VIP row: 12.9m (~42.5ft.)
Distance from screen to last row: 20.1m (~66ft.)
Thus, the screen width to distance from screen ratio varies from ~0.5 to ~1.6, with the first VIP row just slightly >1. Thus, the first VIP row is just about within IMAX-style “immersive” criteria in terms of the distance from the screen—and the centre of that row is where I was seated.
Being also well positioned vertically in relation to the screen, it provided a very comfortable viewing experience.
The stadia is steeply raked and the auditorium feels suprisingly spacious, with a high ceiling of suspended rectangular black tiles. The black stretched fabric wall covering is slightly “textured,” only visible on close inspection; it might be imagined that this is intended to break up reflections from the sidewalls to enhance contrast further (albeit rather futile given the projection and floating screen, as will be covered later in this post.)
The VIP seats are upholstered in black leather (or possibly very good immitation leather?)—they look identical to the “standard” seats at the Vue West End, but with red upholstered headrests—extremely well-padded and comfortable, with “rocker” action. Leg room was good though not super-generous.
Standard seating is upholstered in velour, thus having an acoustic benefit over hard surfaced seats; however, whilst I did not try this seating, it looks “economy class,” out of an earlier generation multiplex, and I am surprised to find them fitted in a new cinema. However, given a relatively empty auditorium (i.e. without the acoustically positive effect of seated patrons*) sitting in the VIP seats in a relatively empty auditorium means that one gets comfortable seating with non-porous upholstry AND the acoustic benefits of “porous” uholstry.
(*That is, until they ruin the background level with popcorn munching and other distractions!)
The auditorium’s temperature was perfectly maintained throughout, and never stuffy with off-scents (in one particular instance, ahem, presumably generated by the person seated in the row behind) rapidly removed suggesting a good air change rate; however, in quiet scenes, there was an annoying slightly hollow sound from the rear of the auditorium, which I thought may have been turbulence at a duct bend.
On having a brief look around the auditorium before leaving, I suspect this was actually emanating from the ceiling “projection box” (boothless!) and the HVAC system itself was quiet. Either way, there was definitely an irritating sound from the projection box, and I can’t imagine this being acceptable to anyone sitting nearby—and the last row is the only option for “accessible” spaces, with the centre positions directly underneath the “projection box.”
As mentioned in a previous post, the complex was built with very thick concrete floors, and certainly no sounds could be heard from “adjacent” auditoria (4-6 being positioned above.)
Unfortunately, whilst the two doors from the lobby to the auditorium are tightly fitted, the closing mechanisms do not appear to be effective. Whilst in the case of Auditorium 1 this is somewhat nit-picking, being on its own level, walking along the corridor/lobby at the next level past Auditoria 2/3, sound could clearly be heard in the corridor, the doors again presumably not automatically closing tight, with the possibility of leakage or inadequate isolation between auditoria.
The screen, alas, is a floating-type of “flat” ratio, and flat rather than curved.
Picture quality was good, well-aligned, with decent centre-to-edge brightness and colour, albeit with what appeared to be some clipping and a definite black crush removing low-level detail.
As usual for the Sony S-XRD projectors, but perhaps more than I have noticed elsewhere, the black level was very poor and this was particularly problematic watching a scope release on an unmasked flat ratio screen.
The rear array speakers (7.1 audio) are by JBL; a shame that Atmos was omitted, as the auditorium certainly has proportionate height and space to allow for it.
The sound quality was very good, with what seemed to be reference level playback (LOUD!), albeit the feature presumably did not call for the highest levels. Calibration appeared to be excellent, with clear and uncoloured sound (my own preference would be a tad brighter), and excellent timbre-matching from front to rear, well demonstrated in Vue’s own trailer. (The rear array tended to provide ambience/reverb in the film itself.)
Subbass was extended and could certainly shake the stadia/seating.
The auditorium’s reverbation time was excellent, and there did not appear to be any problem with lateral reflections from the near wall-to-wall screen and straight side walls.
Far better than expected—and good to see Vue specifying JBL—not the cheapest option!
On entering the auditorium—with the programme already started—the house lights were still fully raised. At the start of the main feature, they turned off… sort of! In fact they turned off, then briefly turned back on, and off again. They then simply came back on during the end credits. Sigh…
Overall, then, given VIP seating, in so many respects this is almost a first class medium-sized auditorium, which could be a fine choice for small-to-medium scale movies. Certainly the considerable effort of cramming a “concrete tank” of a building carefully designed to make the most of a difficult and tight site has paid off.
It really is a shame that, above all given the lavish amount of money spent on enabling works and the building’s shell, that the end result is marred by Vue’s standard Sony S-XRD/Xenon projection—mostly very good but just can’t cut it for black levels—and the absence of masking on a flat screen; not to mention the dire programming of the house lights, and the uncontained sound of the projection box. Reasons enough for me not to return by choice, although I wouldn’t be unhappy accompanying others there.
To follow (potentially): Photos and overview of the other public access areas of the cinema.
Comparing the linked image to photos of the auditorium with the new tabs fitted, it seems quite clear that there is indeed room for them.
Slightly moving the screen forward/backwards to allow for “blockbusters” (?!) makes no sense as it would make very little difference indeed to the field of view filled by the screen; I might suggest on the order of moving seat to the next row back.
FanaticalAboutOdeon: Looking at the CTA trip video as it pans around the auditorium (direct link to time in video), the lighting for the new curtains appears to be positioned in the rear corners at booth level.
Good to hear that your trip this month will not be the last to your favourite cinema!
I wonder if there are any on site technical staff at the OLS; or, like other sites, reliant solely on an “itinerant” area team, and Odeon’s Network Operations Centre.
(Not sure if Dolby have their own NOS for Dolby Cinema, as IMAX do for IMAX Digital sites.)
The article covering the Odeon Orpington in the September 2016 issue of Cinema Technology has a good overview of today’s practices under the “TECHNICAL MANAGEMENT” section.
Presumably, then, tab floodlights on/off and tab opening/closing could simply be triggered at the same time.
It isn’t quite clear from the CTA trip video whether the installation allows for the tab floodlights to be dimmed.
One of the problems with LED installations (depending on factors such as the controllers used) is dissatifactory fades with “stepping” (rather than smooth “continuous” action) and particularly the issue of simply switching from dim to off. The latter can be clearly seen in the video with the splay wall concealed lights (“behind” the flying ladies)—albeit (relatively) it isn’t too bad.
To my mind, the correct sequencing would be to fade the splay wall concealed lights, then start fading the tab floodlights as the tabs open, timed so that they are out as the tabs reach the edge of the lit area, say about 75% open.
Terry:
The ‘bellowing’ I refer to is when the tabs would ‘waft’ forward of the footlights (at about a 105 – 110 degree angle) which did not look very professional.
Thank you for the explanation. I don’t think I’ve ever seen that!
Video of the main OLS auditorium from CTA visit (on 01/06/2019) including the new curtains, “Duchess” recital, Dolby Atmos trailer, Dolby Cinema trailer, and the “digital” safety curtain.
I am slightly bemused, however, about the requirement for the faster opening and closing of the tabs. Fifteen seconds was considered about right for a 40 – 50 feet proscenium width, any faster (especially with the plenum in use) being likely to result in the ‘bellowing effect’.
Do you mean the curtains “oscillating” around once their run has finished, as can be seen in a video of the old Empire 1? (Direct link to time in video.) If I’m not mistaken, the timing there was under 15 seconds—and a greater distance to travel!
As for “nit-picking”—IMO this is precisely the sort of information that adds tremendous value to Cinema Treasures. ;–)
The planning application to which Zappomatic refers appears to be PP/19/01987.
The architectural practice marked on the documents is “Earle Architects.”
Although the application description mentions external aspects only, plans can be found in the document listed as “EXISTING AND PROPOSED PLANS INCLUDING SITE PLAN.”
(Albeit, not for the basement; the “existing ground floor plan” is marked “SCREEN 6 BELOW — REFER TO BASEMENT PLAN.”)
The document listed as “PLANNING, DESIGN AND ACCESS STATEMENT” includes renderings of the proposed canopy.
Although the “existing” plans appear to have schematic layouts of auditoria seating only, levels are marked, and from this auditoria 1-5 are definitely drawn as restepped, and for auditoria ½, as Zappomatic says, “straightened.”
It also appears that the screens as drawn have been reduced in size (albeit perhaps one should not trust the “existing” plans in this respect.) For auditoria ½, it appears that the screens are have been “straightened,” no long being slanted in. I imagine the projection is proposed to be “boothless,” with ceiling mounted units?
Replacement screens for auditoria 3-5 are ~“scope” ratio, whilst auditoria ½ are ~“flat.”
Alas, I am too tired to continue. Suffice to say that the screens as drawn in Auditoria ¾, with the screen centre being ~70% of the auditorium’s width from the farthest side wall. Above all, with auditoria 2/3 remaining very assymetrical, one side wall of each splayed in—and presumably their (~“flat”) screens will be “floating” with no masking—just too many negative elements.
Without further reconfiguration, there is just no getting past the previous poor quality subdivision, rendering the rebranding exercise nothing if not ironic.
curmudgeon:
Somewhat confused by the latter…?
In relation to the former, the current de facto standard sidewall furnishing is stretched fabric—the leading supplier is Eomac.
European Product Technical Specifications.
As the above-linked document says, typical acoustic cores are up to 75mm of rigid mineral wool slab, although greater depths are available.
(Behind which, typically, is “double wall” plasterboard with more acoustic absorption, in this case being for soundproofing.)
Note that the recommended fabric is “100% Polyester Trevira CS”—a quick Google search leads to one vendor selling such type of fabric product at £62/m (140cm wide)—which equates to £45/sq.m.
Of course, these technical aspects do not account for aesthetic preference (and, indeed, these stretched fabric systems can achieve more elaborate decor than “black box” designs, if desired)—but rather to indicate that these systems are hardly a low-cost option, and that “old” cinema designs, at least as originally built, don’t meet today’s performance requirements in terms of controlling reverberation time within an auditorium, nor acoustic isolation of auditoria.
(Granted, the latter is less of a concern in a single screen venue!)
It would be interesting to know how “food and beverage” offerings have changed over the years?
Obviously, the changes to the exhibition industry have been fast paced in the 2010’s; however, for instance, looking at “old cinema adverts” videos on YouTube includes exhortations to make last minute concession counter trips, a reminder that a variety of alcoholic beverages are available from the bar, and very unappetising close shots of hot dogs!
Addendum: Photo taken July 2019.
Terry: Oh dear!
Debenhams is in dire straits with losses amounting to almost £0.5bn in one year and ongoing restructuring…
moviebuff82:
Not quite sure what you mean, Dolby Cinema AFAIK is a “scope” format?
To quote FanaticalAboutOdeon’s post dated 2nd March 2019 (information taken from the publication “Cinema Technology”):
“Screen/Projection: Scope width – 13.35, Flat width – 11.60, Scope height – 5.59, Height – 6.2”
All figures in metres.
An application [dated received 20th March 2019] to replace the three banner adverts on the LSQ frontage with LED display module screens has been refused by Westminster Council.
(Note that this application was for Caesars Entertainment UK, i.e. the casino operator.)
The document listed as “DELEGATED REPORT” makes for some particularly interesting reading.
In summary, it turns out that none of the existing three banner adverts is approved; although the applicant claims that “Deemed Consent” was obtained by virtue of the high level banner being displayed for more than 10 years, the report shows archival photos demonstrating that it was not continuously displayed for this period; and, the two side banners (which made their first appearance at a later date) constitute an increase in the quantum of advertising which in any event voids this claim.
Apparently, Westminster have, over the years, issued enforcement notices in respect of removing these adverts; however, they were removed and then reinstated at a later date
(The report states that, in relation to advertising, Westminster Council only proceed with legal action as a last resort.)
According to the report, Cineworld advised the cinema’s use of the banners was “entirely at the discretion of Caesars.”
Last Friday, i.e. 5th July 2019, no banners were in place. The “rods” for the side banners remained, and, it looks like some “making good” is needed to the upper parts of the façade.
Presumably, then, Westminster have (again!) taken enforcement action.
Of particular note from the report:
“The theatre is a very significant building architecturally and its status as an unlisted building of merit reflects this. There are a number of architectural features at the main elevation to Leicester Square, including the original ‘Empire Theatre’ sign to the parapet, a tri-partite arch, classical columns and coffered ceiling within the arch.”
This may be of some relief to anyone concerned about future alterations/additions.
In my view, notwithstanding the desires of the casino operator to add advertising of greater promenance—and surely this use should not overshadow the cinema aspect?—the upper/wide banner typically used for movie advertising was a reasonable compromise. The two side banners looked awful, and this scheme, to “bolt on” LED display module screens, is now demonstrably ill-conceived.
Meanwhile, the canopy remains in desperate need of being reimagined…
RadioVenus: Thank you for posting photos of curtain tracks, etc.
It is disappointing in the extreme to hear that the aspects of presentation you describe were at such an unacceptably low standard on the occasion that you visited.
From your description, I assume that the house lights remained fully raised during the “Dolby Cinema” trailer?
I hope that this practice of keeping house rights fully raised until the main feature doesn’t spread—I experienced it a few weeks ago at a recently opened “local” small multiplex, although I assumed it was a mistake—but perhaps it was so that patrons could find their seats?
Regarding your photo of the under-canopy (or under-“glass box”/extended circle lounge!) “blown” light bulbs, I have noticed this, too; when I originally saw the proposals for the revamped façade, I suspected that such luminaires would invite this problem…
Good to see the photo you have uploaded of the screen/house tabs from the 1998 OLS refurbishment—certainly illustrates well the detailed accounts by FanaticalAboutOdeon!
LARGE_screen_format has asked me to post the following, as he is unable to post on Cinema Treasures:
(“Comment appears to be SPAM!” message on attempting to post.)
“It turns out this cinema does NOT have IMAX with Laser GT projection as previously thought as per this post by Cineworld.”
The Michael Portillo programme to which madorganplayer referred was broadcast today on Channel 5.
(Portillo’s Hidden History of Britain—Season 2, Episode 4: “The Palace of Dreams.”)
It is currently available to stream on demand until the 30th November 2019.
Obviously, it is aimed at a “general interest” audience—however, I did watch part of it and from what I could tell the plasterwork to the edge of the auditorium’s dome was (at the time of shooting) still intact.
Channel 5’s programme description, “The New Victoria in Bradford was Britain’s first cinema,” is, ahem, puzzling.
Zappomatic: Cineworld’s “house style” sparkle tiles look fantastic, especially in black, and going by online prices, very expensive (though Cineworld’s seem to have coloured sparkles, which I can’t seem to find anywhere…)
(Typically ~£40-80/sq.m. at low volume consumer prices, and made of quartz/resin.)
All of which is to say that a “vast expanse” of them sounds good to me, but it does seem very odd that the extension foyer is so large (~11,500sq.ft.) seemingly without purpose—it’s not as if the rest of the complex is short of space! Perhaps an intended use is as a “flexible space” for hosting events?
Not as bad as it looks, as that’s the “black level.” In bright scenes, the overlap is more or less seamless.
Zappomatic: Possible effects on the sound could be at the subtle “audiophile”/“fusspot” level. ;–) Although, I suppose, your comment does suggest that the sound quality hasn’t been ruined!
Too bad that they distract from the picture—and one would certainly hope that Cineworld would notice this issue?
Joeswin: Thanks for the link, interesting reading!
A friend of mine attended a Tony Bennett concert (I’ve known him since we were teenagers, and he’s always been a fan of “crooners” of “standards!”) this evening—I wouldn’t place much weight on any feedback he has to offer on the sound system, but he did send a couple of (mobile captured) video clips, and it does sound like the “echo” issues at the Albert Hall are tamed.
He has also sent me a couple of photos, including of the “flown” speaker arrays; they will be uploaded in a moment…
Regarding your comment on the OLS page on premieres, I suspect the OLS will continue to be the venue of choice. Leicester Square is a second-to-none setting; and the OLS, with its “glass box”/enclosed balcony, permanent LED display module screens on its façade, new “VIP red rooms” (accessed via the two front splay wall fire exits), very high quality foyers, luxury seating, and, of course, the new top-end Dolby Cinema installation, is “made” to host movie premieres.
Also, I’m not sure the “house” sound system at the Royal Albert Hall would be suitable for film presentations.
Zappomatic: Thanks for the update/photo. Positioning looks dreadful—and acoustically not a good idea to be sticking reflective surfaces up that close to the screen on straight sidewalls (lateral reflections affect dialogue intelligibility [perhaps not too much of a concern here?] and stereo imaging.)
Alarmingly ill-thought out for a premier screen in their flagship site, with this auditorium having a very highly specified sound system!
By the way, do you, or anyone else reading this, know if Cineworld have or are planning on installing laser projection in the LSQ Superscreen?
Cineworld are definitely rolling them out:
Cineworld Group and Cinionic strike 1,000+ unit deal to roll out acclaimed Barco laser projectors to theaters worldwide .
I have recently revisited this cinema for several screenings and, whilst I can’t seem to locate my notes from these trips, I recollect that it has been tidied up slightly since my 2014 comment—no ripped seats or gaffer taped carpet in Screen 5, seats/auditoria clean, and if I’m not mistaken, the lobby/corridor to the screens has been fitted with new (current Vue “house style” dots on black pattern) carpet.
The toilets (under stadia) definitely need an overhaul, though.
In particular, I concur with SethLewis' comment that auditorium 9 is “good as anything out there for its time…”—on the day I attended, I was surprised at the quality of the picture/sound. The sound (Martin Audio) in particular is very good, and the picture—Sony S-XRD as with all non-IMAX VUEs—looked just fine, also. This does imply a good level of maintenance as the Sony S-XRD projectors are known for requiring periodic servicing, more so than DLP-based projectors.
The screen was masked to scope format; no idea if this masking is (or was!) moveable as the only the feature was shown (no adverts/trailers.)
Standard seating is by Figueras (logo on the rear) and is definitely “old school!” The interior is, too, with the late 90s Warner Bros. International Theatres “house style” having an oddly quasi-80s “post-modern” feel; however, the dark blue stretched fabric to screen end might be considered preferable to black stretched fabric.
Of course, all middle to last row seating is on a steep stadia—so one does not have to suffer “old school” sightlines!
Alas, according to Vue’s website, only auditorium 4 supports 3D.
Otherwise, in my view (no pun intended!), certainly preferable to the so-called “Xtreme” screens over at Westfield.
Foyer/lobbies always seem to be virtually empty, and, staffing skeletal; my recollection being one security guard and one person at the concessions counter!
A Coke Freestyle machine has been installed in the main foyer, so one must assume that Vue have an agreement for these to be installed in all their locations.
SethLewis:
Now that would be a good idea!
Billy: A 25 year lease was taken so still around 10 years left on it; perhaps Vue have already negotiated a downward revision of rent.
Repurposing the cinema would seem to be difficult (e.g. it can hardly be converted to residential use, due to the requirement for windows alone;) and, given its location, “suspended” above a multi-storey car park, it might take a major redevelopment for it to be removed (and until such time one might imagine that Vue are not too keen on a competitor taking the cinema and undercutting their very successful Westfield site?)
madorganplayer:
The only decorative aspect I know of that remained in the auditorium is the plasterwork at the front of the lower circle, in the void between the bingo hall ceiling and the 1960’s auditoria.
It (and the original steppings behind!) can be seen in a video uploaded with the title “Bradford Odeon Stripping Out ~ Autumn 2014”
According to the planning application “Design and Access Statement” (referenced as “DESIGN” in the previous post):
“Although much of the plaster decoration of the auditorium was lost in 1968, the steel structure that supported that decoration survives, as do important fragments of the decoration itself, such as the roof lantern.”
Overlaying Rank’s 1960’s drawings over the original, one sidewall of each of the two auditoria being in approximately the same location as the original. It’s not quite clear, but it appears that the rear wall position is partially in the same location, and its central section may suggest that alterations made could not have allowed for the original decoration to have survived.
However, the “Engineering Heritage” section of the “Design and Access Statement” (PDF p14) suggests that the structural aspects are of interest:
“With main roof trusses nearly 3m deep, spanning over 40m across a vast auditorium nearly 20m high, and a rear corner cantilevered out over the Bradford Beck, the ambition and skill of the engineers involved is impressive even by modern standards.
“The basic building has a robust structure of loadbearing brick, steel framing, an interesting and rare early precast plank flooring system, and timber roofs.”
Telegraph and Argus — May 2019 — “Inside Bradford’s Odeon as work continues ahead of Bradford Live music venue conversion”.
According to the article, further strip out works are underway, with the 1960s conversion floors/walls/added structural elements being removed.
At the time of publication, in particular:
The article also states that the licensing application has been approved.
Architects' Journal — 10/12/2018 — “Aedas reveals £20m plans for Bradford Odeon rebirth”.
The article includes renderings of the proposals, proposed ground floor plan, and photos inside the cinema building (partially stripped to the state required for the redevelopment.)
The planning application for the venue (approved):
Main planning application for the “Refurbishment and extension of former cinema to create an entertainment and event venue with supporting ancillary spaces including bars, ballroom and cabaret bar/restaurant and three-storey extension.”
A previous “CONSERVATION STATEMENT” (for a Lottery Funding application) notably informed by the Theatre’s Trust, 20th Century Society, Cinema Theatre Association, Cinema Theatre Organ Society, as well as the local authority and organisations has been used as a source for the document marked as “HERITAGE STATEMENT,” which in turn seems to have been largely incorporated into the document marked “DESIGN.”
The latter is therefore the most convenient “all-in-one” file to download; it includes extensive background information, alongside numerous photos of the cinema, including under construction, the original plans, the 1960’s conversion plans, and, of course, also covers the proposed scheme.
Having previously stated “there seems to be little reason to visit what is almost certainly a run-of-the-mill multiplex,” I recently found myself being “dragged” to see “Rocketman,” a film which greatly exceeded my (low!) expectations!
Incidentally, aside from a few shots which were intentionally degraded, the film’s picture is “pixel perfect”—no grain, sharp, but also berefit of digital artifacts, and it has been very consistently colour graded.
The film was screened in Auditorium 1, one of the two larger auditoria, being slightly smaller than Auditorium 2.
Measuring off the plans as submitted for the previously-linked planning application (scale conveniently provided):
Auditorium depth/width (wall to wall): 21.6x13.2m (~71x43.5ft.) Auditorium floor area: 285sq.m. (~3050sq.ft.) Screen width: 12.3m (~40.5ft.)
Distance from screen to first row: 6.32m (~20.5ft.) Distance from screen to first VIP row: 12.9m (~42.5ft.) Distance from screen to last row: 20.1m (~66ft.)
Thus, the screen width to distance from screen ratio varies from ~0.5 to ~1.6, with the first VIP row just slightly >1. Thus, the first VIP row is just about within IMAX-style “immersive” criteria in terms of the distance from the screen—and the centre of that row is where I was seated.
Being also well positioned vertically in relation to the screen, it provided a very comfortable viewing experience.
The stadia is steeply raked and the auditorium feels suprisingly spacious, with a high ceiling of suspended rectangular black tiles. The black stretched fabric wall covering is slightly “textured,” only visible on close inspection; it might be imagined that this is intended to break up reflections from the sidewalls to enhance contrast further (albeit rather futile given the projection and floating screen, as will be covered later in this post.)
The VIP seats are upholstered in black leather (or possibly very good immitation leather?)—they look identical to the “standard” seats at the Vue West End, but with red upholstered headrests—extremely well-padded and comfortable, with “rocker” action. Leg room was good though not super-generous.
Standard seating is upholstered in velour, thus having an acoustic benefit over hard surfaced seats; however, whilst I did not try this seating, it looks “economy class,” out of an earlier generation multiplex, and I am surprised to find them fitted in a new cinema. However, given a relatively empty auditorium (i.e. without the acoustically positive effect of seated patrons*) sitting in the VIP seats in a relatively empty auditorium means that one gets comfortable seating with non-porous upholstry AND the acoustic benefits of “porous” uholstry.
(*That is, until they ruin the background level with popcorn munching and other distractions!)
The auditorium’s temperature was perfectly maintained throughout, and never stuffy with off-scents (in one particular instance, ahem, presumably generated by the person seated in the row behind) rapidly removed suggesting a good air change rate; however, in quiet scenes, there was an annoying slightly hollow sound from the rear of the auditorium, which I thought may have been turbulence at a duct bend.
On having a brief look around the auditorium before leaving, I suspect this was actually emanating from the ceiling “projection box” (boothless!) and the HVAC system itself was quiet. Either way, there was definitely an irritating sound from the projection box, and I can’t imagine this being acceptable to anyone sitting nearby—and the last row is the only option for “accessible” spaces, with the centre positions directly underneath the “projection box.”
As mentioned in a previous post, the complex was built with very thick concrete floors, and certainly no sounds could be heard from “adjacent” auditoria (4-6 being positioned above.)
Unfortunately, whilst the two doors from the lobby to the auditorium are tightly fitted, the closing mechanisms do not appear to be effective. Whilst in the case of Auditorium 1 this is somewhat nit-picking, being on its own level, walking along the corridor/lobby at the next level past Auditoria 2/3, sound could clearly be heard in the corridor, the doors again presumably not automatically closing tight, with the possibility of leakage or inadequate isolation between auditoria.
The screen, alas, is a floating-type of “flat” ratio, and flat rather than curved.
Picture quality was good, well-aligned, with decent centre-to-edge brightness and colour, albeit with what appeared to be some clipping and a definite black crush removing low-level detail.
As usual for the Sony S-XRD projectors, but perhaps more than I have noticed elsewhere, the black level was very poor and this was particularly problematic watching a scope release on an unmasked flat ratio screen.
The rear array speakers (7.1 audio) are by JBL; a shame that Atmos was omitted, as the auditorium certainly has proportionate height and space to allow for it.
The sound quality was very good, with what seemed to be reference level playback (LOUD!), albeit the feature presumably did not call for the highest levels. Calibration appeared to be excellent, with clear and uncoloured sound (my own preference would be a tad brighter), and excellent timbre-matching from front to rear, well demonstrated in Vue’s own trailer. (The rear array tended to provide ambience/reverb in the film itself.)
Subbass was extended and could certainly shake the stadia/seating.
The auditorium’s reverbation time was excellent, and there did not appear to be any problem with lateral reflections from the near wall-to-wall screen and straight side walls.
Far better than expected—and good to see Vue specifying JBL—not the cheapest option!
On entering the auditorium—with the programme already started—the house lights were still fully raised. At the start of the main feature, they turned off… sort of! In fact they turned off, then briefly turned back on, and off again. They then simply came back on during the end credits. Sigh…
Overall, then, given VIP seating, in so many respects this is almost a first class medium-sized auditorium, which could be a fine choice for small-to-medium scale movies. Certainly the considerable effort of cramming a “concrete tank” of a building carefully designed to make the most of a difficult and tight site has paid off.
It really is a shame that, above all given the lavish amount of money spent on enabling works and the building’s shell, that the end result is marred by Vue’s standard Sony S-XRD/Xenon projection—mostly very good but just can’t cut it for black levels—and the absence of masking on a flat screen; not to mention the dire programming of the house lights, and the uncontained sound of the projection box. Reasons enough for me not to return by choice, although I wouldn’t be unhappy accompanying others there.
To follow (potentially): Photos and overview of the other public access areas of the cinema.
Regarding the screen position/tabs use—hard to tell from the CTA visit video, but it doesn’t look different to pre-tabs photos of the post-2018 refurbishment stage end—i.e. nearer the proscenium opening than previous.
Comparing the linked image to photos of the auditorium with the new tabs fitted, it seems quite clear that there is indeed room for them.
Slightly moving the screen forward/backwards to allow for “blockbusters” (?!) makes no sense as it would make very little difference indeed to the field of view filled by the screen; I might suggest on the order of moving seat to the next row back.
FanaticalAboutOdeon: Looking at the CTA trip video as it pans around the auditorium (direct link to time in video), the lighting for the new curtains appears to be positioned in the rear corners at booth level.
Good to hear that your trip this month will not be the last to your favourite cinema!
I wonder if there are any on site technical staff at the OLS; or, like other sites, reliant solely on an “itinerant” area team, and Odeon’s Network Operations Centre.
(Not sure if Dolby have their own NOS for Dolby Cinema, as IMAX do for IMAX Digital sites.)
The article covering the Odeon Orpington in the September 2016 issue of Cinema Technology has a good overview of today’s practices under the “TECHNICAL MANAGEMENT” section.
(Conveniently, it is available as a stand-alone PDF file.)
Presumably, then, tab floodlights on/off and tab opening/closing could simply be triggered at the same time.
It isn’t quite clear from the CTA trip video whether the installation allows for the tab floodlights to be dimmed.
One of the problems with LED installations (depending on factors such as the controllers used) is dissatifactory fades with “stepping” (rather than smooth “continuous” action) and particularly the issue of simply switching from dim to off. The latter can be clearly seen in the video with the splay wall concealed lights (“behind” the flying ladies)—albeit (relatively) it isn’t too bad.
To my mind, the correct sequencing would be to fade the splay wall concealed lights, then start fading the tab floodlights as the tabs open, timed so that they are out as the tabs reach the edge of the lit area, say about 75% open.
Terry:
Thank you for the explanation. I don’t think I’ve ever seen that!
Video of the main OLS auditorium from CTA visit (on 01/06/2019) including the new curtains, “Duchess” recital, Dolby Atmos trailer, Dolby Cinema trailer, and the “digital” safety curtain.
The tabs take ~25 seconds to open. Slow!
terry:
Do you mean the curtains “oscillating” around once their run has finished, as can be seen in a video of the old Empire 1? (Direct link to time in video.) If I’m not mistaken, the timing there was under 15 seconds—and a greater distance to travel!
As for “nit-picking”—IMO this is precisely the sort of information that adds tremendous value to Cinema Treasures. ;–)