| Revision as of 06:00, 25 February 2005 edit70.179.175.88 (talk)No edit summary | Revision as of 13:27, 3 March 2005 edit undoWittkowsky (talk | contribs)477 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| I don't think the advertisement "the entertainment you can see without glasses" was suggesting it was a 3D movie, but rather was suggesting that here was a movie that didn't need a gimmick to entertain you. Much like if a movie came out today and said "the movie that dazzles without CGI" we wouldn't think that they somehow created magical artificial images without CGI. Perhaps someone could research this? -K | I don't think the advertisement "the entertainment you can see without glasses" was suggesting it was a 3D movie, but rather was suggesting that here was a movie that didn't need a gimmick to entertain you. Much like if a movie came out today and said "the movie that dazzles without CGI" we wouldn't think that they somehow created magical artificial images without CGI. Perhaps someone could research this? -K | ||
| :Well, it is definitely pointing especially to the 3D-movies, which were just conquering the cinemas with tremendous success at the time "The Robe" was brought to the screen. There were many more "Gimmicks" (if one may call the 3D-hype this way, too) that were battling with the audience's attention to get them back to the cinemas since the drastic losses due to the growing TV-audiences (such as "Percepto", an electro-shocker in the viewer's seats) and to these also "Cinemascope" belonged at that time. It first was ''just another'' "Gimmick" - but in the end 20th Century Fox finally succeeded with it. Cinemascope is everywhere and 3D is almost dead. --] 13:27, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 13:27, 3 March 2005
I don't think the advertisement "the entertainment you can see without glasses" was suggesting it was a 3D movie, but rather was suggesting that here was a movie that didn't need a gimmick to entertain you. Much like if a movie came out today and said "the movie that dazzles without CGI" we wouldn't think that they somehow created magical artificial images without CGI. Perhaps someone could research this? -K
- Well, it is definitely pointing especially to the 3D-movies, which were just conquering the cinemas with tremendous success at the time "The Robe" was brought to the screen. There were many more "Gimmicks" (if one may call the 3D-hype this way, too) that were battling with the audience's attention to get them back to the cinemas since the drastic losses due to the growing TV-audiences (such as "Percepto", an electro-shocker in the viewer's seats) and to these also "Cinemascope" belonged at that time. It first was just another "Gimmick" - but in the end 20th Century Fox finally succeeded with it. Cinemascope is everywhere and 3D is almost dead. --Wittkowsky 13:27, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)