Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Most pointless 3D movie? THE GREAT GATSBY

This is topic Most pointless 3D movie? THE GREAT GATSBY in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=006376

Posted by David E. Nedrow (Member # 4981) on 02-20-2011, 11:56 PM:

"The book adaptation, set to start filming in August, will be the first live-action 3D movie shot in New South Wales."

Hollywood Reporter

Posted by John Lasher (Member # 968) on 02-21-2011, 11:08 AM:

Dollar says it ends up being a conversion.

Meanwhile check out The Great Gatsby for NES

Posted by Jack Theakston (Member # 4484) on 02-21-2011, 11:32 AM:

Pointless? Isn't one of the stronger criticisms of modern 3D is that it (like most movies today) is marketed at juveniles?

3D doesn't have a "point." It's an aspect of film-making, like color or sound or composition. Why the same people who critique the latter cannot accept this is beyond me.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 02-21-2011, 03:17 PM:

Jack, I am sure quite a few will jump right in to explain it to you, but I don't think it won't bring you any closer to understanding it. I haven't been able to fathom it either. Especially the complaint about wearing the glasses....as if people don't wear sunglasses for hours on end at the beach. Ever hear anyone complaining that they won't go to the beach because they hate to wear sunglasses? Maybe the new designer 3D glasses that are coming out will finally make it cool to wear them.

Posted by Ian Parfrey (Member # 5122) on 02-21-2011, 03:31 PM:

This film can be 2D, 3D or 9.74D for all it matters.

The worst aspect of it is that Baz Luhrmann is directing it. [puke]

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 02-21-2011, 03:57 PM:

With that I wholeheartedly agree, Ian.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 02-21-2011, 04:35 PM:

While I don't 'get' why The Great Gatsby needs to be remade (nor do most movies 'need' to be remade), Baz's films are normally out of the norm and experimental on many levels.

I have no problem at all watching his movies. I'd rather see a movie directed by him most of the other slop we're dished up on a weekly basis.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 02-22-2011, 06:50 AM:

John, I am agreeing that a bad film is a bad film is a bad film, 2D, 3D or 9.74D as Ian says. And I agree, why is there such a dirth of creative ideas in the industry that they have to go back a remake existing works?

On the other hand I happen to like Baz Luhrmann as well. Although I only have seen two of his films -- MOULIN ROUGE and AUSTRALIA and I must say, I love his off-center style. And true, people either love his stuff or hate it. I have heard lots of people who otherwise their tastes and mine usually are pretty much in sync about films, go rabid about MOULIN ROUGE, which, although I agree has some flaws, I find it thoroughly enjoyable.

Same with AUSTRALIA. Yes, perhaps it could have been pared down a bit with tighter editing, but still, I was fine with it. I will tolerate flaws in a film if it brings me something I haven't seen....a new way to look at something. I can tolerate most anything in a film as long as it is fresh and I can't predict everything that the director is going to do or is doing. I love movies -- a many of them that are not perfect.

One thing about Luhrmann doing THE GREAT GATSBY, it certainly won't be same ol same ol.

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 02-22-2011, 07:45 AM:

Well, I have no problem with making a movie from a book, even if it's been attempted before. How often do people say the film didn't get it right? Certainly with the Robert Redford version of "Gatsby." So revisiting the literary source provides the opportunity to better translate the story to screen. I don't think of them as remakes of previous films, but rather another crack at the book. Remember, the best version of "The Maltese Falcon" isn't the first one.