View Single Post
  #3015  
Old Posted Mar 2, 2011, 2:31 AM
sopas ej's Avatar
sopas ej sopas ej is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South Pasadena, California
Posts: 4,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by GaylordWilshire View Post
Give me the Roosevelt, or the Biltmore, or the Pantages, or Grauman's, or the Shrine... not this.

Google Street View
Amen to that. 10 years ago when news came out that the Oscar ceremony would have a "permanent" home (in reality a 20 year lease) at a theater built specifically for holding the Academy Awards, I assumed it would be a huge theater to accommodate all Academy members. But the Kodak Theatre actually seats only a few hundred more people than the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion, a venue that has actually hosted the most Academy Awards ceremonies to date. It made more sense to hold them at the Shrine Auditorium, being that that place seats about 6,200 people or something, and Academy membership is about 6,000. The Shrine is a very elegant place, too, and old/historic, though in a not so elegant neighborhood. IMO the least elegant theater the Oscars were held at has to be the Santa Monica Civic Auditorium; though a great example of "Atomic Age" mid-20th Century architecture, the theater space is very plain and utilitarian, being that it was designed as a multi-purpose center.

Speaking of Grauman's and Jane Russell:

Life

Quote:
Originally Posted by mdiederi View Post
What you're showing there is a shopping mall, the front of the Kodak Theater is just barely visible at the very far left edge of the photo.
And actually, the physical theater itself is way inside the block, being that what fronts the sidewalk is a square arch which leads to shops and the staircase that leads up to the actual theater.

Somewhat fitting for today's Hollywood "celebs," holding the Oscars at a shopping mall.
__________________
"If the climate were a bank, the U.S. would have already saved it."

---Hugo Chávez
Reply With Quote