 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Sep 18, 2007 - 5:05 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
manderley
(Member)
|
I'm still here, CH-CD!
(....and I appreciate your posting of the shots!)
The stills are just wonderful and they bring back so many great memories of those days and the 1953 experiences with CinemaScope and Stereophonic Sound.
Ron's British Pressbook is also very interesting. The US one, while quite large, is dull and lifeless compared to that one!
I notice that there was a strange change in the wording of the CinemaScope promo campaign for THE ROBE. First it said, "You see it without Special Glasses" (in reference to the Polaroid viewers for the 3-D films then current), then it was changed, perhaps for brevity, to "You see it without glasses."
Years ago, in the back of the exhibitors' trade magazines there was a one page section where exhibitors (as opposed to critics) could comment on the films they'd played at their theatres as to audience attendance and boxoffice figures.
It was very revealing to see how the movies were REALLY doing, particularly in the small towns, and divorced from the Big City hype. Some of the comments were sad---Sometimes only 5 or 10 people in attendance on a night (this was early tv days, remember) and others were ecstatic, explaining how they'd spent $25,000 of their savings to put in Scope and Stereo sound and it was paying off in big boxoffice dividends.
Others were funny. There was one guy in the midwest who was always making jokes in his comments, and I remember that he quoted the "You see it without glasses" line and said that he had left his theatre office while THE ROBE was playing, walked down the aisle, took off his glasses, and the whole screen was a blur---so that line about "You see it without glasses" was a lie, and false advertising!
The business is sure very different today. $300-odd thousand dollars was a fabulous opening week then. Now it's $50+ million for a middling release!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Sep 22, 2007 - 7:48 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
manderley
(Member)
|
.....Ok,as you requested earlier in the thread.....
here is Vic messing with Messalina, and Caligula finally getting the point !.....
Well, that's pretty silly!: Vic is massaging his own leg, instead of Susan's! What's wrong with our boy?
It's fascinating to see the actual photographed "clinch" which, in essence, is the basis for the painted ad art in the posters and other advertising material.
I'm surprised they photographed Caligula's death for the advertising stills, as this does give away part of the ending of the film. Strange choice.
All beautiful stills, thanks CH-CD. I've never seen any of these over here in the US of A, and I wonder why Fox was so cheap they didn't print these kinds of color stills here. The color stills, themselves, are not actual photographic color prints, they are mechanically printed in some way, so it may be that Great Britain then had a better, and cheaper, printing process, making it more feasible. I wonder.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Sep 23, 2007 - 10:35 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
CH-CD
(Member)
|
.....Ok,as you requested earlier in the thread.....
here is Vic messing with Messalina, and Caligula finally getting the point !.....
Well, that's pretty silly!: Vic is massaging his own leg, instead of Susan's! What's wrong with our boy?
It's fascinating to see the actual photographed "clinch" which, in essence, is the basis for the painted ad art in the posters and other advertising material.
I'm surprised they photographed Caligula's death for the advertising stills, as this does give away part of the ending of the film. Strange choice.
All beautiful stills, thanks CH-CD. I've never seen any of these over here in the US of A, and I wonder why Fox was so cheap they didn't print these kinds of color stills here. The color stills, themselves, are not actual photographic color prints, they are mechanically printed in some way, so it may be that Great Britain then had a better, and cheaper, printing process, making it more feasible. I wonder.....
Ah!....well M, we can't see what Vic is doing with his other hand, can we ?
I agree with you, the Fox colour stills are great, but, here again, many of their movies had only the "hand coloured" b/w photos used in the FOH stills. It was hit and miss.
In many ways, I think our printing was superior to the US (in many fields). Considering how advanced the US was at the time in other areas, your printing could be quite archaic.
Then again, Paramount, MGM and others produced some beautiful 10 x 8 colour stills in the US.
Go figure !
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Sep 26, 2007 - 5:51 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
CH-CD
(Member)
|
.....Enough already !.....Ok, Ok.....I'll post more stills......but only if you promise to be good, and eat up all your vegetables!.....
OK, daddy! (Do I have to eat the spinach too?)
.....and you go right to bed when you've seen them.....Ok ?.....
OK, daddy! But can I watch a video, too? How about THE REVOLT OF MAMIE STOVER. Can I watch that?
.....Ok.....but I think I ought to start a fresh post in the Non Film Score section, don't you?
Just so's we don't upset those other boys.....
Yes, daddy! You ALWAYS know best. Some of the other boys DO complain sometimes!
(Can I have some milk and cookies while I look at the stills?)
Good Boy!......"Why can't they be like Manderley?....Perfect in every way!"
No you can't watch "Mamie Stover". Daddy's watching that in his room.
But, if you're very good, you can watch your "Attack of the Mutant Teenage Zombie Headcrushers" video, whilst you're falling asleep.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
