http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/20/the-great-gatsby-3d-movie_n_825740.html
Could someone who has actually read the whole book or seen the whole movie tell me what the purpose of this is. I quit watching mid-movie the older version of this movie a long time ago per the 3 hat rule. Do they hope to get the grade school crowd to see this movie?
I’d say that the purpose of making this film would be to show the whole world what a ‘genius’ is Baz Lurhman..
That ‘great’ Aussie director…the one that gave us the ‘Baz Lurhman epic’ ,Australia 
..
What a total pile of embarassment to all Australians that was..I’m as patriotic as the next bloke/sheilah but that film was to me,unwatchable..
This is the type of film that Australia used to make,before we discovered that we could make good Australian films that stood on their own… and not have to include Koalas and Kangaroos sauntering down city streets !
I could’nt even make it to the end of this bloated turkey…I think the slow motion footage of Hugh Jackman taking off his shirt finally finished it for me…truly puke inducing stuff …
So,my overseas friends,please disregard any offerings by this tosser …
It is being made for profit, I don’t know if 3-D is more profitable or not but name recognition will draw people to it alone. For years to come kids trying to avoid their reading assignments will rent it. It could play on the glitz and debauchery of the 20’s without straying too far from the plot and they could have a really gruesome scene when Myrtle gets plowed into by a bright yellow roadster and smashes her out of the screen at you.
There was a movie?
Sometimes I only “watch” a movie, I don’t pay attention to anything but the shapes and the colors that are projected onto the screen. OK, I did peek a bit at the plot of Australia. Maybe that’s why I just watched the movie. I thought the movie was a beautiful color of orange/rust and the contrasting stunning colors of the dress that is drifting in the water as the lady drowns, that and alot of the other scenes were worth it. I also wondered if Nicole Kidman ever pitched a fit during the filming. It looked so hot and she seemed to keep herself neat and clean and firmly pressed. Things had to give somewhere.
(Didn’t Robert Redford star in a previous version?)
There is really nothing in the book which would make it necessary to film in 3D. I’m a bit perplexed as to why they feel a need to do it, other than to agree with what weedie said, it being to show the skills of the producer:P
Same here, weedie. I tried watching it and though not one to give up on a film easily, I didn’t get much farther in than with Moulon Rouge. A bit less motion sickness induced watching ‘Australia’ but same exasperation level overall.
3-D… shudder
I dragged myself through that horrid book back in high school. Bunch of rich snobs doing a lot of snooty, boring things. The characters were so two dimensional that perhaps the idea is that 3-D will give them some depth. Otherwise, I can see nothing that 3-D would add to this story.
I cannot wait for the opportunity to say this. I will die, just die.
tease
I’ve been watching 1-D television ever since the raster died on my ancient set a few weeks ago. To me it just looks like a flickering single vertical white line down the middle of the screen, and hard to watch. But the residents of Flatland tell me it’s quite vivid and realistic, and the width-of-field of the simulated 2-D effects is astounding!
ah yes, the advantages of living close to a border 
As soon as I saw the thread title, the question “Why?” escaped my lips. But…
…that could answer the “Why?”. And so we climb ever onward and upward.
Apparently so. I know people who tell me that these old movies are important; one was recently telling me how important Auntie Mame was. And remembering his recommendation and what with the TCM channel offering me a serendipitous chance to dutifully watch it only just last evening, what little I could bear of it (before I changed the channel) told me that it couldn’t be THAT important; but I did have the uncanny revelation that the title character probably somehow explains the fellow’s behavior.
The Hat Problem and Error-correcting Codes
Three players are sitting around a circle and either a red or a blue hat is
placed on each person’s head. The colour of each hat is determined by a
coin toss, with the outcome of each toss having no effect on the others.
Each person can see the colour of the others’ hats, but not her own.
After a brief pause, during which time players study the other hats, each
player either “passes” or attempts to guess the colour of the hat on her
head. All three responses are simultaneous so that no player can use the
information gained from the response of another player. If at least one
player has guessed the colour of the hat on her head and no player has
guessed wrong the group shares a prize of one million dollars. Otherwise,
if all have passed or at least one player has guessed wrong, there is no
prize.
Now the point is that these three players are not in competition; they are a
team. They are not allowed to communicate with one another during the
hat ceremony but they can get together before-hand and talk strategy.
The question is, how well can they do? Find a strategy which will maximize the probability of winning the prize, and find that probability.
This is a good exploratory problem for small group work. It’s easy
enough to find a strategy which will give a 50% chance of winning. Pick
one person to be the “captain” and have her guess red and have all the
others pass. She will be right with probability 50%. The question is, can
they do better than that?
At this point a student in my class will often attempt to argue that it’s
impossible to do better than 50%. Here’s the idea. No matter what the
strategy, a person gains no information from the other players on the colour of her own hat which will always be red or blue with equal probability. We deduce that the probability of being right when a colour is
guessed has to be 50%. Thus, on average, everyone who guesses a colour
must guess wrong 50% of the time.
Well, given that, how on earth could anyone do better than to win the
prize half the time?
In fact, there’s a strategy that will win 75% of the time. Can you find it?
I’m sure I’ve asked about the Three Hat Rule in the past, but I can’t recall the answer. I like this problem I found about Three Hats, (and found the strategy they suggested!) but I’m fairly sure that’s not what Mute meant.
I sat through Moulin Rouge at my wife’s insistence. It did not encourage me to watch another Baz Lurhman film, ever.
I’ve just finished watching the Seven Samurai a few minutes ago. Don’t tell me old films aren’t important - or that they’re not worth watching.
Now we’re talkin’. To be honest, I have more bones to pick than not when it comes to Kurosawa - I could watch Bergman just as well and die of the same squirmy tedium - but that film ROCKS. Rashōmon comes in a distant second on my list.
I’d never say that old films aren’t important - and I didn’t. To me personally, though, some simply are not important, no different than modern ones. But then my perspective is more that of a consumer than an industry maven.
But the Seven Samurai was not only old but also foreign. If I wanted to read dialogue I would have gotten a book. Now something original like the A fist full of dollars or the Magnificent seven, now those were movies. Kurosawa just ripped off old Shakespeare plays like Macbeth.
That would be his more recent movie, Ran. I’ll have it playing on the tube if there’s nothing else on, but it usually winds up more as background noise while I’m doing something else, as I always somehow find myself doing every time.
Look. People need to realise and remember that when all is said and done, with only a few exceptions based on genre or my having absolutely nothing else to do (which is almost never), I’m not really into movies at all in general. People gape when I tell them that, and they gape even more when I prove it and dispel their doubts. It’s unimaginable to them. And movie devotees are equally as unimaginable to me. The world IS big enough for that. The difference is that I give them more latitude than they give me: “But…but…watch Auntie Mame! You’ll change your mind, guaranteed.” Yeah, about that…umm, the answer is still no. Not so much. At least I try, just to be polite, plus I don’t look at them like they’ve grown two heads and try to convince them that they need intervention.
Ran was based off of King Lear (I believe). Kumonosu-jō (Throne of Blood) was Macbeth.
Ah, that’s right. I stand corrected. But, look who you’re talking to.
Those two movies I will probably never sit through again. Yojimbo on the other hand, I could easily watch back to back with it’s western clone A Fist Full of Dollars.
Yes, I found Yōjinbō (however you want to spell it) engaging. Which brings us to The Dénouement: chanbara flicks are guaranteed to trip my trigger if they’re not too cheesy. You won’t catch me watching those modern ones that, for lack of real material, weirdly have vampires and space travel and such crap in them. I’m kickin’ it old-school. And don’t get me started on Kill Bill; there has never been a more gratuitously ill-considered fit behind a katana than Uma Thurman. Truly cringeworthy, technically; she’s so obviously uncomfortable handling it, that she looks like she’s going to fall over forward if she doesn’t spontaneously come apart at the joints first. 