Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
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. 209.50.9.2218:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
