At the end of 2010, we heard plenty of prominent members of the filmmaking industry weighing in on the future of 3D. I think James Cameron put it best when he said something along the lines of “it’s going to be a tool in the arsenal of filmmakers, much like color and sound.” In my opinion, the sooner it becomes a serious filmmaking tool, the sooner it becomes eradicated as a marketing gimmick. And I think we are all ready for the 3D-conversion phase of Hollywood money-grubbing to end.
So, to quote Steven Zeitchick of The Los Angeles Times‘ title, “Why is everyone so on Baz Luhrmann for a 3D ‘Great Gatsby?’” Here’s some of what he said:
“As the Aussie provocateur said at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas — at a panel moderated by our colleague Geoff Boucher; you can watch a video clip here — the director is debating shooting his F. Scott Fitzgerald adaptation using that Z-axis. The logic, as recalled by Boucher (who spoke to Luhrmann at length about the issue), is that when we see a drama on the stage, we’re able to observe various levels of detail through the use of foreground and background. The 3-D format simply allows for the same experience on the screen.
Luhrmann is always shaking up the status quo, so it shouldn’t surprise us that he might try to marry a classic 20th century story with a 21st century format. He also seems to thrive on the negative reaction (which makes the irate, can-he-be-stopped reactions more than a little funny.)
And he clearly loves the grandiose; when we interviewed him about this project a few years ago he said (with appropriate grandiosity) that his ambition was nothing less than a movie that spoke for our gilded age. (‘People will need an explanation of where we are and where we’ve been, and “The Great Gatsby” can provide that explanation,’ he said.) What better way to make that kind of grand statement than to have Nick Carraway and Daisy Buchanan in three dimensions?”
Luhrmann is the perfect director to give the 3D tool on a movie that doesn’t particularly need the tweaking a trial run. Audiences can see it done in his zany style and decide through their money whether or not it should continue to be done. It’s pretty hypocritical for people to go crazy when Luhrmann suggested shooting “The Great Gatsby” in 3D because a similar risk was taken by James Cameron with “Avatar.” 3D was for animation and corny movies to throw things at an audience; it was not for serious filmmaking. Now, thanks to his lead, directors like Martin Scorsese are shooting movies in 3D.
Filmmaking is about advancing the craft, and if we remain stagnant, it will die out and wind up like pottery. I don’t want our great form of art and entertainment to become irrelevant, so YES, I am behind Baz Luhrmann. (If he fails, we still have Fitzgerald’s book and the 1970s movie.)
In 
If you really knew me (to steal a conversation starter from MTV), you’d know that I’m not big on fashion. Especially at the movies.
The score now stands at: moviegoers – 1, 3D – still too many conversions.
WARNING: Today’s factoid is pretty much a rant in the style of “Really?” from SNL’s Weekend Update.
Well, isn’t this disgusting.
Following a series of linked posts the other day, I wound up at this interesting USA Today article: 
You might not have been so blown away by the world of “Avatar” that you felt clinically depressed, but you had to have felt something. Even if the story wasn’t your cup of tea, it’s hard not to have been struck by how intricately the movie was put together. When I saw it a second time, I was floored by the impeccable attention to detail and just how thorough the world of Pandora was designed.
Marshall and the Movies 
Recent Comments