As of around 7:00pm tonight (10-11-06) The Continental Theater is no more. All that's left standing is the back half - just a shell. I told the story in another thread of popping popcorn there as one of my first jobs. I popped it upstairs and took it downstairs to the big oval concession stand. I later worked concessions. Great job, fun people and a great theater. More memories are gone.

-----

They paved paradise and (literally) put up a parking lot.

Hope everyone is happy! :mad:

As of around 7:00pm tonight (10-11-06) The Continental Theater is no more. All that's left standing is the back half - just a shell. I told the story in another thread of popping popcorn there as one of my first jobs. I popped it upstairs and took it downstairs to the big oval concession stand. I later worked concessions. Great job, fun people and a great theater. More memories are gone.
-----
Not quite right, writerranger ... your memories are not gone, just the property itself. As for the property, all of the downtown movie theaters have taken this trail for quite a long time (all destroyed in the 70s or so).

Sad for the personal and historical loss to you personally, though.

Sad day for OKC...

Sure wish they would have found a way to save it.

Oh, come on guys. The Continental may have been a nice place to see movies back in the day, but it had no architectural significance. It was only a black and white box. It was no Skirvin or Colcord, or even a Belle Isle Power plant. No big loss.

I agree with the above poster. The Continental was beyond its use. I hope they make good use of the land now that the place is gone.

all of the downtown movie theaters have taken this trail for quite a long time (all destroyed in the 70s or so).

What about the Nobel?

The worst part about this is that Oklahoma City now has no chance of having a classic venue that size like most cities of our size. It's really Oklahoma City's fault, though, use it or lose it, and we're not exactly a mecca for entertainment unless it's mass market stuff. Most promoters say it's that we don't have enough workable venues of The Continental's size, but it's probably just the culture itself.

At least now there'll be more parking there and/or office space there! We're strapped for that.

And The Continental was a theatrical gem. One of the last of its size and one of the last with curved screen technology. The front and the lobby were great, too. I can't think of many buildings in OKC that represent entertianment of that era, either. It's like we never existed then.

What about the Nobel?

The worst part about this is that Oklahoma City now has no chance of having a classic venue that size like most cities of our size. It's really Oklahoma City's fault, though, use it or lose it, and we're not exactly a mecca for entertainment unless it's mass market stuff. Most promoters say it's that we don't have enough workable venues of The Continental's size, but it's probably just the culture itself.

I honestly, for the life of me, couldn't ever picture The Continental ever being a mecca for the entertainment industry, regardless of how many improvements you made to the structure. Am I missing something here? I would've argued the other way in reference to the Criterion Theatre, but come on; this was The Continental.

Are we going to whine when they decide to demolish Windsor Hills Cinema here in a few years, after it has sat vacant for a few years?

Just because a building is 50+ years old doesn't make it worth saving.

Not quite right, writerranger ... your memories are not gone, just the property itself. As for the property, all of the downtown movie theaters have taken this trail for quite a long time (all destroyed in the 70s or so).

Sad for the personal and historical loss to you personally, though.

Quite right, Doug. Remembering the downtown theaters going down one by one was sad, but for some reason (first job and all), this one is just sad on a personal level.

At this point arguing over the fate of the building is pointless - that's been decided - and it's gone.

------

I honestly, for the life of me, couldn't ever picture The Continental ever being a mecca for the entertainment industry

Really?? What other venue of that size do we have? Have you ever been to the Palladium in LA, the Warfield in San Francisco, the Fillmore? These are all great venues converted from ballrooms or old theaters that are in constant use. We basically have the Coca-Cola Event Center and the Farmer's Market. both of good size, but hardly ideal as venues. Cities all over the country have theaters like the Continental that do very well as entertainment venues.

It's age may not make it worth saving, but the lack of facilities like it in OKC certainly would have warranted it. But I understand that Oklahoma City can not offer the ROI for these places, because the demographics doesn't warrant it. It's just a hard reminder of what the bigger picture of Oklahoma City really is.

At this point arguing over the fate of the building is pointless - that's been decided - and it's gone.

This is true, especially considering it was pretty much the last one for OKC. You'd hope we'd learn our lesson about how more successful adaptive reuse is and how much more beneficial it is to the community rather than destruction for further saturation of services.

Being that the Continental was only a black and white box, it wasn't any more special architecturally-speaking than a Walgreens building. If the Criterion was still around I could see fighting to save it, but if the Continental is all we had to work with, building a new venue from ground up with some modern architecture would be a better option, in my opinion.

Venues like the Will Rogers theater, Tower Theater, Sooner Theater, or even the May Theater, are more eye-appealing than the Continental was, if you want to go with an older theater building.

but it had no architectural significance

Actually, Founders Tower, the Continental, the former Physician's Tower (now a hotel) and the former Community Bank building were all part of a cohesive development built in the 60's that was very signficant.

And this "we can't save everything" argument is lame. Scores of buildings are torn down in OKC without any sort of protest.

But there are some that are truly unique and worth saving and the Continental was one of them IMO.

Actually, Founders Tower, the Continental, the former Physician's Tower (now a hotel) and the former Community Bank building were all part of a cohesive development built in the 60's that was very signficant.

And this "we can't save everything" argument is lame. Scores of buildings are torn down in OKC without any sort of protest.

But there are some that are truly unique and worth saving and the Continental was one of them IMO.

What's so special about a big black and white box? Harkins theater has more architecture in it than the Continental did.

I didn't say we can't save everything. I said just because a building is old, doesn't mean it's worth saving. Many people didn't protest the demolision of the Continental, because it simply wasn't architecturally significant.

Many people didn't protest the demolision of the Continental

Yet, many people are doing just that here which is what you are trying to dismiss.

It was far more than a box and as mentioned, part of a bigger development that was quite significant.

http://www.agilitynut.com/06/3/continental.jpg

http://cinerama.topcities.com/1966continentaltheatre.jpg

Looking at the pictures posted, and still having looked at the actual structure itself, I see nothing architecturally significant. The place could house a Walgreens.

"opinions vary" -Dalton, in Roadhouse.

Man, that place was nicer that I even remembered it. I guess it's just been relegated to the Vanished Splendor IV, along with all the other buildings and places torn down because OKC wanted more parking.


I see nothing architecturally significant.

I know, because there are so many theaters and venues like it in Oklahoma City these days. :rolleyes:


Will Rogers theater, Tower Theater, Sooner Theater, or even the May Theater

These places are much different and didn't have the type of screens The Continental was built for. Those are nice for the quaintness and the Continental noted for its majesty and acoustics. None have a lobby nearly as nice as the Continental's and now there's not one in the city, save for the Civic Center.

Basically when chains like Harkins build theaters like their Cine Capri's today, they are trying to recapture what theaters like The Continental achieved. Oklahoma City lost an original, regardless of its age. There are several buildings its age which are not worth saving, but The Continental's originality and its rarity in today’s community along with its potential versatility of use certainly would have made it worth it.

In any event, it comes down to opportunity cost. No doubt that was worth saving against putting in parking or more office space. It's that recklessness that characterizes Oklahoma City's development atmosphere and why we have so little character compared to many city's our size and compared to our own past.

BTW, have you ever been to a similar venue like the ones I listed?

. . . It was far more than a box and as mentioned, part of a bigger development that was quite significant.

Your point is well taken Malibu. The mid-century modern Continental Theater building was an important element in a larger development and its loss shouldn't be casually dismissed. The posts by BDP regarding its significance as an important class of venue are totally on target as well.

The comments describing it as just a box and suggesting that only extremely ornate buildings such as the Criterion, Skirvin etc. are worth saving simply indicates a rather narrow appreciation of architecture. Unfortunately, there are plenty of folks that share that opinion here in OKC.

I think it was simple economics that sealed the fate of the Continental however. It was loaded with asbestos and couldn't attract a visionary buyer with the resources to leverage its many assets into a viable project. Had it remained in place for a few more years, I am fairly confident that it could have enjoyed a new life as a mixed use entertainment venue.

I don't buy the asbestos excuse (not from you ODG but just in general).

It had to be removed before the place could be demolished anyway. And virtually any building built before 1975 is full of the stuff yet thousands of them from that era have been renovated and/or converted to other uses.


I hope something worthwhile goes up in it's place but I'm not optimistic.

I don't buy the asbestos excuse (not from you ODG but just in general).

It had to be removed before the place could be demolished anyway. And virtually any building built before 1975 is full of the stuff yet thousands of them from that era have been renovated and/or converted to other uses.


I hope something worthwhile goes up in it's place but I'm not optimistic.


Right again Malibu, the hazardous material had to come out before demolition. I think the pre-demo removal process is a little less expensive than if the building was being rehabbed, but as you pointed out, asbestos abatement is a straw man thrown up to devalue a property which often makes demolition a more likely outcome. Especially in markets like OKC where there is so little history of creative adaptive reuse.

In OKC, the most popular adaptive reuse is surface parking. Some change is in the wind, and attitudes are shifting as projects like Plaza Court, some of the other rehabilitation along 10th Street and the Tower Theater come on line, but we have a long way to go here in river city.

I have to agree with Conservative. I must be missing something. I saw a movie in there in '82 and didn't see anything special about it then. True, at that time it was older and not of it's original opening granduer, but still I saw nothing special. Not even from those old pictures. Same thing with the Founders tower. I'm know I'm in the minority on that. I understand it's a landmark and does need to be saved if ever in danger, but my dad had an office in there back in the seventies and I thought it was goofy looking back then. Maybe I'm just too young to understand or appreciate it. But, I have to agree with what Conservative said, just because it's old doesn't mean it's worth saving and I'm usually on the side of preserving historic buildings but sometimes they just need to go.

I have to agree with Conservative. I must be missing something. . . . but still I saw nothing special. Not even from those old pictures. Same thing with the Founders tower. . . just because it's old doesn't mean it's worth saving and I'm usually on the side of preserving historic buildings but sometimes they just need to go.

There are mixed opinions about many of the mid-century modern buildings around the country. That was certainly the case with the International styled downtown YMCA building that was demolished to make way for a surface parking lot three or four years ago. Some people don't see the value even in the unadorned work of Meis van de Rohe, Le Corbusier or Louis Kahn and may only recognize some of the names from their rather famous furniture designs rather than their architectural work.

I guess architecture is like all other art forms; at least some amount of study and investigation is required to develop even a basic level of appreciation. Otherwise, it just comes down to personal opinion and taste. Perhaps the often quoted saying about art could be slightly rewritten and might apply to this building . . . "I don't know much about architecture, but I do know what I like"

Here is another quote. This one from Walter Gropius, best know for his Bauhaus forms, that seems to apply even to the modest building in question:

"A modern building should derive its architectural significance solely from the vigour and consequence of its own organic proportions. It must be true to itself, logically transparent, and virginal of lies or trivialities."

I just don't understand why anyone thinks the Continental had any historic or archtectural value at all. Crap, the place only function for around 20 years. How great of a theater could it have been to only be used for 20 years? Is everyone going to have this same love for Crossrads Mall when it is eventually torn down.

I just don't understand why anyone thinks the Continental had any historic or archtectural value at all. Crap, the place only function for around 20 years. How great of a theater could it have been to only be used for 20 years? Is everyone going to have this same love for Crossrads Mall when it is eventually torn down.

Ha! Ha! I think Crossroads Mall has more historical significance than the Continental.

I think that theatre there just west/south of 23rd and Macarthur was just as nice as the Continental...I think they've made a church of out it. Nothing against the Continental. Wasn't there a Drive-In theatre over there too?

Wasn't there a Drive-In theatre over there too?

Supposedly it was located where the Marriott now stands.

Yes, that's right... thanks for the location, I recall a ring of cedars around it. Also one was east of where Hertz is on Macarthur/NW Expressway. (Where the defunct Service Merchandise was etc...)

mburlison, the theater that was on McArthur & 23rd was the Westwood. It was nice and similar to the Continental but not as big or grand.


Cinema 70 was the drive-in theater near Hertz on NW Expressway east of McArthur. That old site is now occupied by the shopping center that has a Chili's in the front (used to be Service Merchandise when it first opened but not sure what is there now).

http://www.drive-ins.com/imagesdi/oktcin302.jpg


The one where the Marriott is now (across from Baptist Hospital) was the NW Hi-Way Drive-in:

http://www.drive-ins.com/imagesdi/oktnwhi02.jpg

Here's an old photo showing the adjacent Physician's Tower Building (now a hotel with different cladding) that had a similar architectural style and that used the same black brick and white trim, ala Founders Tower.

Those two buildings plus United Founders Tower and the ? Bank (the building with arches on May) were all built around the same time (mid-60's) and made that area quite "modern" and striking at the time:

http://www.cinematour.com/location/usa/ok/tourok/okccont8.jpg

Great pics, thanks ! Yes, I remember seeing the "Return of the Pink Panther" at the Continental, circa 1975 or 1976... something like that. It was a nice place. I had not remembered it being so much bigger, but thinking about it, it definitely had a huge screen.

There are several culprits to name in why the Continental theater declined and then wound up facing the wrecking ball.

Also, keep in mind there is a sister Continental Theater up in Denver to this one that is also lapsing into a sad state of decline. The last time I saw a good movie there was in 1999 and watching The Matrix. But even then, the 35mm projection was just far too dim for that kind of Cinerama style screen. Now the EQ in that auditorium is just plain bad. You're really better off taking your chances in one of the smaller, THX certified audiotoriums at that Denver site.

Oklahoma City's Continental Theater was designed in mind for the Cinerama format, which was the greatest movie-going format one could see in the 1950's and 1960's. The huge curved screen was also pretty well suited to 5-perf 70mm film formats like Ultra Panavision 70 and Dimension 150. But an ordinary 35mm lamp house just could not squeeze out enough lumens to get that sort of screen properly lighted.

True 70mm film productions all but died out in 1970 with the box office bomb of David Lean's Ryan's Daughter. From then on out most 70mm print releases were blow-ups from 35mm lensed productions. Even all the Star Wars movies made from 1977 to 1983 were shot on 35mm film, not 70mm.

There were few exceptions through the years.

Tron was shot in Super Panavision 70mm and then specially treated through even larger format chromes to get all the glow effects painted onto each plate.

Portions of Brainstorm were filmed in 70mm, but director and effects pioneer Douglas Trumbull really wanted to shoot the movie in his own 70mm 60 frames per second Showscan process. Disney and then MGM declined because they thought the results looked "too real."

Far and Away utilized a revolutionary new Panavision Super Panaflex 65mm camera, along with the equally revolutionary Arri 765 65mm camara. But that went nowhere in 1992.

Baraka was a visually astounding 70mm travelougue of the planet, made with Todd-AO cameras. But it only played in art house theaters, few of which had any 70mm show capability. That was 1993.

Once Dolby Digital, DTS and Sony Dynamic Digital Sound became common for 35mm film prints there was no longer any need on the part of movie studios to support large format 70mm prints any further.

After 1993, only a mere handful of studio releases were made to commercial theaters. Kenneth Brannaugh made a 4 hour long version of Hamlet in 70mm for under $30 million. But it played only in a few theaters.

Warner Brothers made a couple 70mm Dolby mag prints of The Wild Bunch in the mid 1990s. But more theaters played the "restored" movie in 35mm Dolby Digital.

James Cameron had to pay out of his own pocket for the six 70mm DTS blow up prints for his production of Titanic. I was very happy to see one of those prints play at the glorious General Cinemas Northpark Mall #1 THX theater in Dallas. It was one of the original 2 THX sound system theaters personally equipped by Tomlinson Holman. Sadly, that theater was torn down in 1998, paved over by a parking lot, and now a very unremarkable AMC 14-plex with 35mm only projection sits on that site. I'll probably never visit the place.

Since then, very few 70mm prints have been made for any release. New OSHA and EPA regulations have pretty much banned the practice of mag-striping film prints with smooth sounding analog tracks. Just about all 70mm prints, anywhere between 15-perf 70mm IMAX to normal 5-perf 70mm theatrical, will simply be time-coded for DTS playback. The American Film Institute, Kodak Theater and Academy Theater in Los Angeles will once in awhile show off a new 70mm DTS dupe of a classic movie, such as Patton or Lawrence of Arabia. However, you never see any of that treatment given to a new movie. And you never see a new 70mm print booked into a regular commercial movie theater environment.

And that finally gets me to a very critical point and problem in movie theaters today.

The "Cine Capris" theater in Harkins' Bricktown 16 theater measures more than 70' across. They have a very good Kinoton 35mm projector in that booth, but it does not throw a sufficiently bright and sharp image on that screen. That theater really needs 70mm projection.

The new Warren Theatres project in Moore promises to build theaters with screens 80 feet in diameter. 35mm just isn't enough for that kind of IMAX-sized movie screen. A 35mm lamphouse can only throw about 4000 watts worth of real light out of that lamphouse hole. An 80' screen needs more than 10,000 watts worth of real light hitting it to have 12-16 foot lamberts of light measured on the screen. Only 5-perf 70mm projection or larger can manage that.

That gets back to why the Continental started going into decline. If you can only show 35mm prints on a giant Cinerama screen, the results are going to look dim and pretty darned cruddy. People will just go to smaller theaters where the image seems better and the location is closer. Much of the 1970's very much had an anti-big movie bent to it. AMC Theaters developed the multiplex during this time.

I guess that sort of comes to some defense of the people running that theater. Powers that be in Hollywood did more to kill off luxurious big screen presentations than anyone running operations at any specific movie theater.

The terrible thing for Hollywood is they really need to get back to making movies in formats like 70mm to secure their future and future-proof their product. I don't think they have the foresight to do that.

The real possibility is Hollywood will succumb to short term thinking and start releasing their movies both in theaters and on DVD "day in date" at the same time. Such a move will kill off the commercial movie industry very quickly. Without the commercial movie industry, Hollywood would have no sense of legitimacy. They would just be a glorified straight to video operation. Essentially they would be like TV networks without any channel from which to broadcast. They would wind up being lesser counterparts to their network parents' output. Eventually they would be sold off and snuffed out to cut costs. In the end, a movie is not a real movie if it doesn't play in a real movie theater.

Wow, thanks for all that background Bobby H.

Certainly the advent of the multi-plex doomed most the great single-screen venues just due to economics. If you got a turkey at a place like the Continental, you had no choice but to ride it out. With a multi-plex you can easily relegate a poor performer to your smallest theater and put blockbusters on multiple screens if need be.

Still, it sure would have been nice to find another use for the Continental. I know I'll have a sick feeling next time I'm in town and go by that site.

There are mixed opinions about many of the mid-century modern buildings around the country. That was certainly the case with the International styled downtown YMCA building that was demolished to make way for a surface parking lot three or four years ago. Some people don't see the value even in the unadorned work of Meis van de Rohe, Le Corbusier or Louis Kahn and may only recognize some of the names from their rather famous furniture designs rather than their architectural work.

I guess architecture is like all other art forms; at least some amount of study and investigation is required to develop even a basic level of appreciation. Otherwise, it just comes down to personal opinion and taste. Perhaps the often quoted saying about art could be slightly rewritten and might apply to this building . . . "I don't know much about architecture, but I do know what I like"

Here is another quote. This one from Walter Gropius, best know for his Bauhaus forms, that seems to apply even to the modest building in question:

"A modern building should derive its architectural significance solely from the vigour and consequence of its own organic proportions. It must be true to itself, logically transparent, and virginal of lies or trivialities."

The odd thing is, I usually like the futuristic mid-century designs and architecture. I especially like the mid-century modernist homes with the sleek lines, floor-to-ceiling glass, simple, uncluttered. I guess I just didn't see anything I like or thought was worth saving in the Continental.

I didn't realize that there was another Continental in Denver.

And guess what? It's still open and operating after a massive renovation and the addition of 5 other screens.

Clearly, people in Denver saw value in keeping the place and that theater complex is very popular these days.

The problem is the company running that theater (United Artists, a division of Regal Entertainment) is not maintaining the Continental to satisfactory standards. As I stated earlier, you do actually get better show quality from some of the smaller screens at that theater.

At the very least, they need to re-EQ that auditorium. At best, they need to start showing movies in 70mm on that big curved screen or install some custom-designed digital projection system with multiple lamps and a lens that can throw the image properly onto that very curved screen.

New OSHA and EPA regulations have pretty much banned the practice of mag-striping film prints with smooth sounding analog tracks.

Okay, I'm going to ask this question, although I suspect the answer will do nothing more than to renew and reinforce my loathing of both these governmental organizations....

Why on earth does the EPA care about the soundtracks of movies? Does it endanger some sort of idiotic bird in the Adirondacks?

-SoonerDave

Found this online at Cinema Treasures about the Denver Continental...


United Artists' Continental Theater stands as Denver's last remaining giant screen movie house. Along with the Cooper and Century 21 theaters, The (then) Commonwealth Continental was one of Denver's premiere showcase theaters throughout the 70s and 80s, with a screen that measured 35'x 83'. Seating for the theater was originally 916.
The theater played host to dozens of large screen 70mm presentations over the decades including "Die Hard", the original "Star Wars" trilogy, "The Abyss", and "Terminator 2". With the right booking, the Continental could be responsible for 35% of a film's business in the city of Denver.

In 1983, during its run of "Return of the Jedi", the theater fell victim to a fire that destroyed part of it. The following day's Rocky Mountain News contained a front page photo of theater workers rushing the 70mm print of "Jedi" out of the theater to safety. During the fire, all of the projector lenses (except the 70mm lens, which was in use) were destroyed. The new lenses for 35mm put to use after the fire were inadequate for the theater's long throw distance and, because of this, all 35mm presentations on the screen would require severe masking on all four sides to accommodate the smaller image size. The estimate is that 35mm reduced the screen size to 23'x 55'.

In 1994, for an exclusive engagement of "The Shawshank Redemption", lenses from a recently closed drive-in were put to use at the Continental for the 35mm presentation and all films shown since 1994 have again utilized the full screen size.

In November 1995, the Continental closed for an extensive remodel/expansion. The theater reopened in June of 1996 with five new screens (several THX approved) built around it. During this remodel, the seating was reduced to 869 to accommodate new handicap accessible seating.



Cinema Treasures | Continental Theater (http://cinematreasures.org/theater/13718/)

The Continental in Denver has some new competition. Harkins Theatres opened a new multiplex in Denver this past summer. It features a giant screened "Cine Capris" auditorium much like the one in Bricktown. Although, I have to say the one in Bricktown is a bit larger and has a better quality film projector.

Like the Continental, those Cine Capris screens need 70mm capability or at least something to throw a bright enough image.


Why on earth does the EPA care about the soundtracks of movies? Does it endanger some sort of idiotic bird in the Adirondacks?

OSHA and EPA did not single out the film industry. They just had tougher rules developed for some widely used chemicals and materials that also happened to be used in the mag-stripe film print making process. Some of those chemicals can be pretty harmful and create both airborne hazards and hazards to the water supply.

The movie industry didn't protest the move at all either. They haven't mag-striped any 35mm prints in more than 20 years, and they all but stopped making mag-striped 5-perf 70mm prints after Dolby Digital, DTS and SDDS came available for 35mm in 1992 & 1993.

The mag-striping process is very expensive and time consuming. The tracks must have time to dry properly and then the audio has to be recorded to the film print in real time. By contrast Dolby Digital data, SDDS data and time code for DTS can be printed to 35mm film in high speed.

A 2-hour 5-perf 70mm mag-stripe print could cost $15,000 to $20,000. A standard 35mm release print with DD, DTS, SDDS and Dolby SR optical analog tracks costs $1,000 to $3,000.

DTS time code can be printed to any film format from 16mm to 15-perf 70mm IMAX. The downside is DTS uses a lossy form of data compression. Its compression is not nearly as severe as Dolby Digital, but still may be seen as inferior to Dolby SR mag tracks. New DTS XD-10 processors allow for uncompressed Linear PCM audio in 5.1, 6.1 and 7.1 channels up to 24-bit/96kHz. Emerging formats like 10.2 surround are possible with that processor.