E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Andy Athineos / INFphoto.com
Leonardo DiCaprio, Tobey Maguire, Carey Mulligan film "The Great Gatsby" in Australia. The film is being shot in 3-D.
Some movies seem like naturals for 3-D. My daughter loved pretending to pop the bubbles that floated out into the audience at the end of "Happy Feet Two." "Despicable Me" used a very cute gag where one of Mr. Gru's minions tries numerous times to reach and walk out into the audience. I'm not bothered by James Cameron reissuing "Titanic" in the extra dimension, because he did it so well in "Avatar" and well, it's "Titanic." It's not really crushing anyone's literary dreams to see pieces of the iceberg fly at the audience.
But "The Great Gatsby," the favorite book of many an English major? Why 3-D for F. Scott Fitzgerald's classic? I'm imagining that famous, sonorous quote about how "Gatsby believed in the green light" rolling out while the green light jumps, 3-D style, into viewers' laps.
DiCaprio told Access Hollywood that the 3-D isn't being used for jumping objects and scare effects, but instead to make the movie more of a complete experience. He told Access: "Most of the time, you associate 3-D with the spectacle of it, but [director Baz Luhrmann] really wants to use 3-D to create emotional impact with the characters and almost use it like what it would be like to immerse yourself in a theater production.”
DiCaprio plays Jay Gatsby, with Tobey Maguire as the novel's narrator, Nick Carraway, and Carey Mulligan as the love of Gatsby's life, Daisy Buchanan. In photos taken on the set, DiCaprio and Maguire look right for the parts and the period. But Mulligan's Daisy, like Mia Farrow in the 1974 film, is a blonde. Although there's some argument about how different quotes in the book can be interpreted, Daisy's hair is described as "dark" and "like a dash of blue paint," which would seem to lean towards the brunette side of things.
It might not seem like a big deal, but fans of "The Great Gatsby" don't take kindly to having their source messed with. And if the hair color of a major character is an issue, I can only imagine they won't react well to the 3-D angle.
Should "The Great Gatsby" be in 3-D? And do you think small things, like character hair color, should stick to the novel, or are you comfortable with filmmakers taking liberties with the original story? Tell us in the comments.
Related content:
Leave a Comment:
There is a reason Any Kaufman read this book to an unruly audiance.
You have to make it 3-D for it to be even REMOTELY interesting. The most boring book ive ever read, and ive read a lot of long boring books for school.
Agreed! When I read the headline "Why is 'Great Gatsby' being made in 3-D?" The only answer that came to mind was ...
because it sucks in 2-D
Well, obviously it is to add extra excitement to all those car chases, gun fights and the gangster sub-plot.
What "gangster sub-plot?" I hear you say. Hey, they had to do something to jazz this story up. It was either gangsters and gunfights in 3D or gratuitious nudity in 3D and I for one have NO interest in seeing either Tobey or Leo NUDE in 3D.
Any film about the idle rich already has a gangster sub-plot. They just use pens instead of guns.
Julie, the 70s version did indeed bite. It seems an odd choice for 3-D but it might work, who knows?
Baz Luhrman has no talent, He has to make it in 3-D to make up for his lack of facility as a storyteller. Boo.
its like the bordom is comming right at you - oh wait that would happen either way
Well, in that pic, they sure look like they're bored just filming it.
Or maybe Leo is pissed that his Hoover movie isn't cashing in as much as he'd hoped?
Gah! I don't care what the mythbusters say! You can't shine a turd!
My dream of Precious being re-released in 3-D is coming closer and closer.
I was hoping someone would finally step past the "gee whiz" of 3D with stuff flying at you and start using it to create a more immersive experience, like you are in the movie, also. Too bad they've chosen such a boring subject matter to do it with.
Arelem, c'mon give it a chance. I am among that group that considers it among the best books ever written.... which does not mean I'll go easy on the 3-D movie version. The 70s version was weak.
Actually the best movies I have seen in 3D, which have only been a few, are the ones that use it for depth then for gimmicks. Coraline was a movie like this that added depth and did not have many if any gimmicks I remember. Also a special event Peter Gabriel concert Movie was very well done in that again it gave it a depth and being there quality with only one short "made for 3D" part that if taken out would not have been missed. Wish more would use it as an enhancement instead of a gimmick and more people might be open two it instead of this 50's mentality still of something needs to jump out at you to be effective.
Movie 3D is like stereo for audio performances. At first stereo recordings were full of gimmicks, like sounds swirling around from side to side. Later the extra realism and feeling of being in the middle of the music performance was enough, and mono recordings now sound flat and unreal by comparison.
I imagine 3D movies will go the same route. The 3D effect diminishes with distance, so unless it is artificially exaggerated, its biggest impact is when the scene is nearby objects, such as the characters in a room together. The 3D effect makes you feel you are right in there with them, moving among the characters and pieces of furniture as the camera moves about the set.
A better question would be why is this movie being made at all?
Why make it in color? Why make it a talkie? The story would be just as enthralling as a black&white silent picture.
They are ruining "The Great Gatsby" for all time. Casting is way off. Mia Farrow was the best Daisy.
And Redford was the best Gatsby. This is like when Marlo Thomas remade "It's A Wonderful Life" with herself playing the George Bailey part ... apparently she thought Frank Capra and Jimmy Stewart didn't get it right the first time. Have you people SEEN Carey Mulligan? There's no way she'll measure up to Mia Farrow, and excuse me, but does Leo SERIOUSLY think he's up to the Robert Redford standard? And as a matter of fact, I do not think this is a boring book ... obviously those of you who are bored with The Great Gatsby prefer to immerse yourselves in video games than read a classic novel by a brilliant author.
Becky...my thoughts exactly. People who say The Great Gatsby is boring are deficient...either low IQs or stupid teenagers who can't see beyond their e-toys, nor have any in-depth thoughts. e-gads.
Thank you, Carolyn-I remember it being on the standard reading list when I was in high school-now the only people I know who read Gatsby for kicks are college English professors or librarians. Fitzgerald versus Stephanie Meyer? I actually like the Twilight books, but no contest. Old school all the way. I have not seen the earlier version of the film but it looks like I'm going to have to do a comparative viewing...
I flat out refuse to see any movie in 3D. It is a gimmick to make up for bad plots, poor writing and awful acting.
And there is no way that 3D can ever replace the images your mind comes up with while reading a book.
Do you refuse to listen to stereo recordings for the same reasons?
Why remake it at all? This is one of those books that is wonderful to read, but is a snooze-fest on the big screen. I mean if it was boring with Redford, what does DiCaprio think he can do with the role?
I'm waiting for the 3D remakes of Andy Warhol's "Empire" or "Sleep"--you know, something that really justifies the use of the technology.
I'm waiting for "Steam Boat Willie" and "The Three Stoges" in 3-D :-)
Are you kidding!?--The Three Stooges were 3-D pioneers! Spooks! and Pardon My Backfire were both made in 1953. ...Lots of pies and stuff coming right at the camera.
This is one of the most boring movies ever made. Making it in 3D is like trying to convince people that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end. It won't work.
I remember having to read the book and see the movie in high school. I don't think it being in 3D will help it make money.
I would love for Hollywood to stop making all movies in 3D. Some are okay to do but I am one of those that can't watch 3D movies because it give me headaches so I have to watch the 2D movies.
Please. Enough is enough with all this 3D cr*p. Not every single movie made needs to be in 3D! It's overhyped and doesn't add anything to the experience. I have seen a few movies in 3D, but find myself not focusing on the story at all and trying to see stuff happening in 3D. Completely overrated. Get back to basics movie-people. Strong characters, strong story lines, and strong cinematography make a movie - slapping a 3D label on it cheapens the hell out of it. Get a clue!
They should be making all movies in 3D. Those who don't want it don't have to watch it in 3D. No one will force it on you. But those who like 3D will then have the opportunity to watch it in 3D. 98
As usual I'm in the minority here....loved the book, loved the movie and Redford (but then I ALWAYS love him!!). Will I go to see this remake? Not if they managed to make it in 4D!! Some things should be left alone!! If you can't get an original script to make an original movie, don't make any!!! Next thing you know, some idiot will decide to remake Gone With the Wind in 3D so we can experience the flames from the burning of Atlanta singe our clothes and the fog at the end of the film crawl up the theatre aisles!! Gosh I hope I didn't just give some idiot an idea.....
Smellovision, Odorama, and such are already out there but have been used only as a gimmick.
I will not be watching it in 3D. I can't think of one movie that has been more interesting because it's in 3D. It's an interesting novelty for a view-finder from the 60s and I enjoyed the few circular discs then.
HD, 3D is all lowering our enjoyment of the real world around us.
Take a walk in the woods... oh, I forgot sitting techies won't like it, your natural eye doesn't see in 1080 pixels and will never see in 3D. The wind, water, birds and insect will make such a cacophony that c-BACCH filter trained ears will never be able to understand or enjoy.
Wow, sad to see so many people dissing such a literary classic. I think the 3D thing is too gimmicky as of right now. Maybe movies that don't use it to have things fly out at you will eventually overtake the majority in the ones that do. I understand the point someone brought up with stereo surround sound; It's an incredibly valid point.
That being said, my money is on me seeing it in 2D in order to save money, haha.
The 3D should be great during all the action scenes......
I can't wait for the The Great Gatsby RPG video game to drop!
They've already made a Gatsby-themed Super Mario Bros. clone. Why not an RPG?
As a reader, and a reader of a lot of great classical works of fiction, I have to say I am astonished anyone found this book to be anything but dry, boring prose of the day. I have always thought this to be a crap book.
Not particularly well written, not compelling, and boring story-wise. WHO CARES if the rich, or pseudo-rich have it tough or are unloved?
And making it in 3-D?! wtf....?
I realize you are trying to spur the economy, but you can find better ways than simply throwing your money away on garbage like this!
True. It's dry as dust. I want to see Gravity's Rainbow filmed in 3D with a 500 kazoo soundtrack.
Well, Fred, as an English major and an avid reader all my life, I will say that I loved the book, loved the movie and see no reason for it to be remade. I'll bet everyone on this site thinks Jane Austen's Pride & Prejudice was boring, too ... you have to actually be literate to understand how funny her books are. From a purely historical perspective, the movie with Robert Redford and Mia Farrow was fascinating. Just because we're all "occupying" something now and hating the "idle" rich -- who, in most cases, work their asses off to become rich -- doesn't mean that the period in which Jay Gatsby "lived" didn't take place.
So the reason you don't like the book is because it shows that money doesn't bring happiness? I didn't think the book was boring. It was low on the action scenes but that's because it was a book of characters and relationships, not events.
As a non-english major, I didn't. Simple as that. Sure, it has moments of being an insightful look into times past. But to me, Gatsby is a pretentious, overly-stylized piece of junk. It doesn't translate well into one movie, much less two. And today there is a limited audience for viewing tales of the tortured, privileged souls of generations past.
But that's just my opinion, that and a quarter used to get you a cup of coffee.
More to the point, this is simply yet another demonstration of Hollywood's lack of creativity any more. It's bad enough they're making a movie out of a book (which tends to lose 95%+ of the story, background, insight, etc) but that they are going to update what is considered a classic movie is simply foolish, no matter who is cast.
Fair enough
It might have been better to remake the Great Gatsby in glorious 2D, 1.33:1 screen aspect ratio, in crisp silvery black and white. And silent, except for a pipe organ in the art deco theater. I'd pay to see that IF it was done well. Other than that I'm not interested in the extra dementia.
3D sucks and I wish Hollywood would lay off using it; that said, this movie would probably suck in 2d too.
To think that some nitwit studio head gave the green light to make this film again. Why? How will this film be any different than the others made in 1926, 1949, 1974, 2000 and the Korean adaptation made in 2007.