Talk:Prince Charles Cinema

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the British cinema task force.

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Architecture Low‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Porn cinema?[edit]

I would argue with the statement that the Prince Charles ever operated as a porn cinema. In the 70s it was more of a borderline mainstream / arthouse venue that specialised in racier films - for example Women In Love, The Decameron, Last Tango In Paris, Caligula and certain Fellini films. It did show Emmanuelle for 3 years, which was the closest thing to outright porn, but bear in mind the original Emmanuelle was a blockbuster hit that attracted mainstream audiences and played nationally. There was a high public curiosity factor that kept it profitable in cinemas for years. However, in the same period the Prince Charles, also showed the first runs of Five Easy Pieces, Bananas, Cabaret, High Anxiety and Scum, so I think "porn cinema" is unfair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.252.215.167 (talk) 12:10, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rocky Horror[edit]

Have to admit I'm not entirely sure if it was Rocky Horror Picture Show or the Rocky Horror Show that used to be played out at PCC. Shall have to ask some friends of mine who used to go. sheridan

It was the Rocky Horror Picture Show - I saw it there in the summer of 1998. Do they not do that anymore? fsufezzik 23:10, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

Not the way (I hear) that they used to. Following their Singalonga Sound of Music they did a few Singalonga RHPS, which is why I was confused about what they originally did - I didn't know if their new show was what they were doing before or not. Unfortunately I moved out of London around the time they were doing all this, so I didn't get to go :( sheridan 17:43, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)

Great idea[edit]

Great idea to put this cinema in the Wiki btw! 15:27, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC) (sorry, forgot to sign before) sheridan

Movies in domestic formats[edit]

The PCC has developed a nasty habit of showing some films from domestic optical disc media, specifically DVD and more recently Blu-ray, thus seriously compromising picture quality. (The cinematic formats for which it's equipped are 35 mm film and DCP; all three digital formats go through the same projector head.) This seems like a notable fact that should go in the article, but I can't find any referencable source for it. I know about it only from personal experience: I'm a frequent patron, and about 10% of the showings that I'm interested in turn out to be in one of the non-cinematic formats. (Formerly the personal experience was of actually seeing a duff picture come on the screen (and usually leaving to claim a refund). Nowadays my experience of it is one level removed: I ask the box office, who report the format (usually accurately).) What can be done about a source for this information? 195.81.245.98 (talk) 15:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost[edit]

Is the ghost section at all neccessary? Nearly all buildings in London could claim such nonsense. Scunner3rd (talk) 23:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]