The Great Gatsby in 3D

NickClapper

NickClapper

I'm curious to know what people think about this.

Rumour has it that pre-production for Baz Luhrmann's The Great Gatsby is proceeding under the assumption that it will be shot in 3D. Inevitably this has raised uproar from the book's many fans and yes, it does look a little unnecessary.

I know people on this forum have mixed feelings about 3D so I'd be interested to know whether people think this is tantamount to heresy or whether this is a good move.

Personally I think this is a great thing. I like the novel but I don't love it and I think that Baz Luhrmann is a perfect fit for a novel which is, deep down, pretty superficial. I think it's taken real nuts to proceed with this 3D project (which is suprising given that Luhrmann is the soppiest filmmaker in the world) and I'm impressed with what they're trying. 3D needs to be used in a movie like this, even if it's only to prove that it doesn't work... But someone had to do and I'm impressed that they've taken the plunge...

That said, my immediate impression was 'ARE THEY CRAZY?' and it was only after analysing it a little bit that I decided that I actually think it's kind of cool...

What do you think?
 
I think it'll be good for what it will be. A stylized adaptation which will be successful considering the directors history. And ill enjoy it.

As a faithful adaptation, im still waiting for "the" Gatsby movie and i doubt this will be it for avid lovers of the novel. Coppola's penned version came close but some of the acting choices brought it crashing down.
 
Ernest Worthing said:
As a faithful adaptation, im still waiting for "the" Gatsby movie and i doubt this will be it for avid lovers of the novel. Coppola's penned version came close but some of the acting choices brought it crashing down.
Click to expand...

Really? I have to say I thought it was pretty decent (I know that a lot of people didn't). I liked Robert Redford and Mia Farrow in their parts (Mia Farrow particularly)... which didn't you like? Carey Mulligan's been cast and she's G-R-E-A-T!

I'm not really sure what the avid fans want from it because they're bound to get something that reflects the ostentatious segments of the book, but possibly without the self-awareness...

All the same it's the 3D that interests me because it's not an obvious 3D movie (nothing falling or flying) and is possibly going to be the first big budget romantic drama to be shot in 3D...
 
NickClapper said:
Really? I have to say I thought it was pretty decent (I know that a lot of people didn't). I liked Robert Redford and Mia Farrow in their parts (Mia Farrow particularly)... which didn't you like? Carey Mulligan's been cast and she's G-R-E-A-T!

I'm not really sure what the avid fans want from it because they're bound to get something that reflects the ostentatious segments of the book, but possibly without the self-awareness...

All the same it's the 3D that interests me because it's not an obvious 3D movie (nothing falling or flying) and is possibly going to be the first big budget romantic drama to be shot in 3D...
Click to expand...

Mia Farrow and Bruce Dern. In the book, Daisy could or could not be annoying depending on who was interacting with her and who was reading her. Farrow turned Daisy into a character with a single annoying aspect about her.

What i would want out of a Gatsby movie would be something akin to Kenneth Branagh and Shakespeare.

I know everything i wrote above can be so subjective so please feel free to say, "That's just like... your opinion, man."
 
Last edited:
NickClapper said:
All the same it's the 3D that interests me because it's not an obvious 3D movie (nothing falling or flying)
Click to expand...

His style will make the material appropriate for 3D. Will it work....

I want to see a Julie Taymor film in 3D.
 
I laughed out loud when I read the post title. I wondered WHAT they were possibly going to do that called for 3D; have a brandy sifter shatter and fly out to the screen?

And so I see you're not kidding. So who's going to play Gatsby; Will Ferrel or Shrek?
 
NickClapper said:
I know people on this forum have mixed feelings about 3D so I'd be interested to know whether people think this is tantamount to heresy or whether this is a good move.
Click to expand...

I don't think there's any way to guess, without a lot more information about the film. Even then, the real mark of a good film will be how well it stands alone as a traditional 2D version of itself. If eye candy is a film's only salvation, then there's quite a few problems being swept under the rug.
 
Great literature fans and 3D fans, that's a weak Venn diagram right there. I love the book, and maybe it could be great in 3D, but it just doesn't seem suited to it.
 
Zensteve said:
I don't think there's any way to guess, without a lot more information about the film. Even then, the real mark of a good film will be how well it stands alone as a traditional 2D version of itself. If eye candy is a film's only salvation, then there's quite a few problems being swept under the rug.
Click to expand...

The thing about 3D is that in needs to progress beyond the 'eye candy' point quite soon. All the great advancements in film (sound, colour, CGI...etc.) have to develop an intrinsic role in the filmmaking process.

When we watch The Wizard of Oz we don't say 'Let's judge this movie in everyway but ignore the colour and imagine it's in black and white'. But with 3D (and this is probably facilitated by concurrent 2D releases) people say this. The only reason that they do 2D releases is because there is still some appetite for them amongst a small minority of people and because some smaller theaters don't have the 3D facilities. Gradually this will have to change.

But the fact remains that the film is being developed as a 3D movie and, therefore, I think it would be a mistake to judge it as a 2D movie.
 
NickClapper said:
the fact remains that the film is being developed as a 3D movie and, therefore, I think it would be a mistake to judge it as a 2D movie.
Click to expand...

If the story & acting was compelling enough I would watch it on an etch-a-sketch, if that's what the proucers chose to use.

If they chose to shoot in b/w instead of colour, I would watch it if the story & acting was compelling.

Maybe a film would be shot on video, instead of film, to cut some costs. I'd still watch it, but only if the story & acting were just as compelling.

If it will be in 3D, I will watch The Great Gatsby in 3D... provided the story & acting are a compelling enough reason to do so.

Simply being made in 3D does nothing to ensure a quality story or exceptional acting.
 
Right, what you say in the spoiler tags is true.

But if it's shot in 3D it should be judged in 3D. You originally said that it should be judged as a 2D version, but we've gone right back to etch-a-sketch now :)

We know what the story is, we know who the characters are. In a way the fact that the story is so familiar means that greater emphasis is surely going to be placed on the medium with which the story is told. And in this case it's 3D.

You can judge the story and acting seperately, but you can't take the 3D out of the equation. I'm a long way from a 3D disciple but I think it needs to be used in a film like this where it doesn't add anything to the story. My main criticism of Avatar as a film was that the story was written around the technology. Other 3D films, like Tron, have suffered a similar fate. That's why I'm curious about a film like this where the 3D will have to integrate with the story. For those people who think that 3D is the future of filmmaking, this represents an interesting litmuss test.
 
NickClapper said:
You can judge the story and acting seperately, but you can't take the 3D out of the equation.
Click to expand...

Sure you can.

3D in films is more comparable to set design than anything else. Intrinsically, it cannot add or subtract to the actual story.

If the Great Gatsby 3D has a crappy screenplay, or a host of other potential starter problems, then no amount of 3D (or fancy locations, or choice of filmstock, or camera choice, or b-unit fly-by footage from a rented helicopter, or budgeting for authentic period-costumes) is going to save it.

Would you say that 12 Angry Men (1957 one) would have been a better film if it were shot in HD/3D?
 
No 12 Angry Men would not (necessarily) have been better in HD.

But that's not at all what I'm saying!

Intrinsically, it cannot add or subtract to the actual story.
Click to expand...

The same is 100% true of colour. Obviously the essentials to filmmaking aren't technological (or at least shouldn't be) but that doesn't mean you can ignore it. When watching films we don't strip it back to the very barest essentials. Film is a visual medium and you judge what you see. If the 3D is superfluous or doesn't support the acting and writing then that's one thing. But to say that it does nothing to the film is to watch the film with your eyes half closed...

I agree with the fundamentals of what you're saying. If they fail to get the basics right on the movie then the 3D won't save it. But I don't agree that the 3D isn't an integral part of the film. If it's shot in 3D then it's as much a 3D film as a film shot in colour is a colour film or a film shot without recorded sound is a silent film...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top