This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Girolamo Savonarola (talk | contribs) at 22:33, 18 June 2008. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 22:33, 18 June 2008 by Girolamo Savonarola (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Robe article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Novels Stub‑class Mid‑importance | ||||||||||||||||
|
3D
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)
I changed the anti-religious phrase to the word controversial; I think that may or may not be biased a little bit. 209.50.9.22 18:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Categories: