New Beverly Cinema (Los Angeles)

Any frequent visitors on the board?

Also, there's a pretty impressive 90's lineup for March...

http://www.thenewbev.com/calendar/

 

Jealous!!!

 

And $6.00!!!?

 

I haven't been there in ages but need to make a visit!

 

Yes I go there often

 

Quentin Tarantino is now owner. I expect a nice selection of films this year.

 

I was a FREQUENT patron of the NBC back in the early 80's, pretty sure that was the first time I ever saw "The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes." Thank you Quentin Tarantino for saving it!

 

I think he was already the co owner for quite some time. a lot of the movies screened there were out of his personal collection. It's ridiculous gem. No way it operates in the black. It's way too cheap. Clearly this is Tarantino recreating his childhood. It is a total throw back to the Saturday matinees of the 60s-80s. It's awesome.

 

Yes, he's now sole owner. A great, great place.

 

I think that would work in Chicago.

 

Between this, the American Cinematheque (Egyptian and Aero theaters) and the revival series from the Arclight theaters. We have an amazing world of great mvoies from all eras on the big screen where they belong. L.A. does have it's virtues. Live classical music and movies are two of the most outstanding. Sometimes it's almost too much wealth

 

The thing is it wouldn't "work" anywhere. This is a gift from Taratino to Los Angeles film buffs. No way this is a viable business model for anyone who actually wants to make money on a business.

 

John Carpenter's The Thing playing tonight...

 

Work as in I'd like to see it here.

 

yeah I knew what you meant. I just wanted to praise Tarantino for what he has done. Just using your post as a spring board. I wish everyone could enjoy what we have in L.A. when it comes to movies.

 

I think it could work in the big metropolitan cities (New York, Chicago, etc.) but I think the general consensus is that most audiences don't want to go to the movies for Classic/Revival film or new movies in general with an audience which is a shame because I love the audience experience when seeing movies.

 

The Portage Theater (in Chicago) probably comes the closest... or at least it did until a few years ago. Still, not at the same level as what's happening at the NBC.

 

It's not that a revival house couldn't work. It's that this specific theater, a small venue that shows double features for 8 bucks and charges drugstore prices for it's concessions and shows actual films wouldn't work. It just can't make money. It's prime real estate and the place probably holds less than 500 people. Most nights there are fewer than 100 in attendance.

 

Tarantino can afford the loss. It's his gift to the Los Angeles public as was said above. Most revival shows don't "fill the house" unless there is a panel discussion with the filmmakers. Making money isn't the only thing when it comes to Museums.

 

Of course he can afford it but I bet he doesn't see it as a loss. I bet he sees it as something he wants to exist in this world, a time machine back to his days as a kid. And he is sharing that with the rest of us in L.A.

It's his man cave toy and we get to come play with it too. Thank you QT!

 

The theater is barely okay, but what a nice location! (of course, parking sucks). I'm glad Tarantino owns it though. When the grindhouse marathon hits, it's got to be a packed house.

 

It's supposed to be that. It's a total throw back retro theater. A preserved relic of the era from which it came. By the same measure those old baseball cards and comic books are barely OK compared to modern ones. But it's about nostalgia. If you want state of the art you go a couple miles to the Arclight.

The parking does suck. Nothing charming or nostalgic about that.

 

That neighborhood (LaBrea & Beverly) is kinda run down, there's not a lot of parking, and there's blocks and blocks of unrented office space. I agree, a few blocks to the West and it gets much more upscale. I think Tarantino was able to buy the theater relatively inexpensively, and doesn't mind subsidizing it for $250K a year or so to keep it open just as a "hobby." I would bet the money the theater takes in barely pays to keep the lights on.

The former manager of the New Beverly Theater is irate about the changes Tarantino has made:

http://deadline.com/2014/10/quentin...-employee-julia-marchese-out-of-print-852106/

https://juliamarchese.wordpress.com/2014/10/15/i-will-not-be-censored/

I'm kinda shocked by why Tarantino would allegedly "rip out" the digital projectors in favor of only showing every movie on film, particularly for those restored movies that are only available digitally. I can see playing a combination of digital and film, but showing only film is kind of limiting, at least in 35mm.

I wish them luck, because having any kind of reissue theater these days is a tough business. Here's a trailer to a documentary the former manager made about the New Beverly Cinema:

 

That is not a run down neighborhood! A good friend of mine lives across the street in a million dollar plus duplex. That neighborhood is just fine.

Clearly this is a hobby piece not a business. I get why Tarantino did what he did with the projectors. he went full retro.

I don't see any need for luck. I am confident that Tarantino knows exactly what he is doing and that he is going to be spending money on it not making money. And again, thank you QT!

 

It's OK then because they can also do 16mm