What's new

A Few Words About A few words about...™ The Great Gatsby -- in 4k UHD Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

Robert Harris

Archivist
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 8, 1999
Messages
18,272
Real Name
Robert Harris
F. Scott Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby, published in 1925, is one of those novels, much like Moby Dick (1851), that has not so much stood the test of time, but rather, has been "discovered" as a masterpiece, long after original publication.

The novel has seen a number of film versions.

First, from Paramount in 1926, as a vehicle for Warner Baxter (42nd Street), Lois Wilson (Bright Eyes), Neil Hamilton (Batman), Georgia Hale (The Gold Rush) and William Powell, as directed by Herbert Brenon (Beau Geste, Peter Pan).

In 1949, also from Paramount, and directed by Elliott Nugent, it was a vehicle for Alan Ladd, Betty Field, Macdonald Carey , Ruth Hussey, Barry Sullivan, Howard Da Silva, Shelley Winters and Henry Hull.

1974 saw Jack Clayton's take of the novel, via a screenplay by Francis Ford Coppola. Produced by showman David Merrick, it was photographed by Douglas Slocombe, with production design by John Box.

The stars: Robert Redford, Mia Farrow, Bruce Dern, Scott Wilson, Sam Waterston, Lois Chiles and (once again) Howard Da Silva.

In 2000, it was revisited as a TV drama, shot in Montreal, directed by Robert Markowitz, with Mira Sorvino, Toby Stephens, Paul Rudd in the leads. The score was by Carl Davis.

And then, in 2013, came the biggest and baddest of them all. A 143 minute mini-epic by Baz Luhrmann.

Anyone familiar with Mr. Luhrmann's work will know that much involves movement and image, and here, DP Simon Duggan, combines the universes of digital and analogue to create a world that never existed.

And it's a dynamic place to behold.

Shot in 3D in 5k, and finished as a 2k DI, Warner Bros new 4k UHD / HDR release is nothing short of extraordinary.

Zero problems here with illumination, as a slight uptick in output, more than satisfies the needs of HDR.

From unbelievably full blacks, pure whites, and a pallet reminiscent of three-strip Technicolor, especially in the flesh tones, Warner's The Great Gatsby is an absolute poster child for 4k, and may be the tipping point for many to join the upgraded level of imagery available with the process.

In a word...

Magnificent!


Image - 5*

Audio - 5 (DTS-HD MA 5.1)

4k - 5*

Pass / Fail - Pass

Highly Recommended

RAH
 
Last edited:

Ray0414

Auditioning
Joined
May 12, 2016
Messages
14
Real Name
Ray
I've heard this is a very rare movie that actually had a 2.5k master. I also thought it looked terrific.
 

OliverK

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2000
Messages
5,713
I take it this will be better than my old VHS copy - oh wait I do not have a VHS copy of this one...

Honestly I am very glad that you speak so highly of this disc as for some reason I never got around to watch this movie and now my first viewing will be this significantly improved version.
 

Mark VH

Second Unit
Joined
May 2, 2005
Messages
423
Fun exercise: watch Gatsby back-to-back with Luhrmann's Moulin Rouge and note the structural similarities. In a lot of ways Gatsby feels like a remake of the earlier film.
 

Josh Steinberg

Premium
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2003
Messages
26,250
Real Name
Josh Steinberg
Broken record time: I can't imagine this not in 3D. I didn't love the movie itself but I was really impressed by the use of 3D by Luhrmann. It seemed to suit his over-the-top style in a really complimentary way.

And if the movie was originally shot natively in 3D, isn't promoting the 2D version a little like promoting a pan and scan version of a widescreen movie?
 

Robert Harris

Archivist
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 8, 1999
Messages
18,272
Real Name
Robert Harris
Broken record time: I can't imagine this not in 3D. I didn't love the movie itself but I was really impressed by the use of 3D by Luhrmann. It seemed to suit his over-the-top style in a really complimentary way.

And if the movie was originally shot natively in 3D, isn't promoting the 2D version a little like promoting a pan and scan version of a widescreen movie?

A bit of an antithesis to "love and marriage."

In this case, you can't have both, but rather one or the other.

While I can appreciate the 3D, I prefer 4k, and the ability to view without filtration and light loss.
 

OliverK

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2000
Messages
5,713
Broken record time: I can't imagine this not in 3D. I didn't love the movie itself but I was really impressed by the use of 3D by Luhrmann. It seemed to suit his over-the-top style in a really complimentary way.

And if the movie was originally shot natively in 3D, isn't promoting the 2D version a little like promoting a pan and scan version of a widescreen movie?

But it is available in 3D 1080p which in fact is just about the resolution it was shown at in theaters.
For obvious reasons HDR and 3D cannot be combined yet, no is it possible for UHD resolution and 3D and I am sure that this will not change very soon.

Regarding the pan and scan conversion: This movie was shown in theaters in 2D, too and posibly had more visitors in 2D than in 3D - I do not think you could say the same about a pan and scan version of a movie that usually does not get shown in theaters very often.
 

MikeTV

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Feb 6, 2016
Messages
102
Real Name
Steven
Mr. Harris, as I mentioned in a different thread, on which you commented, I am blown away by this 4K presentation and even more amazed that it is from a 2K DI. I have The Great Gatsby in 3D. I'm not certain it was necessary, but it certainly looks fantastic, but the 4K version with the definite added resolution and HDR is so truly stunning that I didn't miss the 3D at all, and will probably never watch this movie again except in 4K. It is my new reference disc for 4K. I suspect if more movies were released that looked as incredible as this, 4K would become more than just a niche market much more quickly.
 

Robert Harris

Archivist
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 8, 1999
Messages
18,272
Real Name
Robert Harris
Is this a good adaptation of F. Scott Fitzgerald's great American novel? Baz Luhrmann's movie makes that question utterly beside the point.

I'd leave "good" in the eye of the beholder on this. I liked it very much. Far more digital and dynamic than the book.
 

Adam Lenhardt

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2001
Messages
26,956
Location
Albany, NY
I'd leave "good" in the eye of the beholder on this. I liked it very much. Far more digital and dynamic than the book.
Agreed! The 1974 Redford/Farrow version directed by Jack Clayton was probably the better adaptation -- certainly the more faithful adaptation -- but this 2013 DiCaprio/Mulligan version was far and away the better movie.

The '74 version always felt limp and lifeless to me, while this one seemed to capture the spirit of the Jazz Age a lot better.
 

Jimbo64

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2014
Messages
2,052
Location
Wolcott CT
Real Name
Jim Potter
I just don't see the sense of watching a film made in 3D (especially native 3D) being shown flat. Maybe I will change my mind if I get a 4K tv down the road but I thought Gatsby was especially stunning in 3D
 

Robert Harris

Archivist
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 8, 1999
Messages
18,272
Real Name
Robert Harris
I just don't see the sense of watching a film made in 3D (especially native 3D) being shown flat. Maybe I will change my mind if I get a 4K tv down the road but I thought Gatsby was especially stunning in 3D

3D is properly projected venues offer a wonderful experience.

Most theaters offering 3D today, do no, because of a myriad of tech problems on top of short-sighted cheap management.

Same thing in a home theater setting.

It all depends upon the viewing experience, which is more complex than most people realize.

While I can appreciate quality 3D, I prefer a brighter, untainted image, without the need for additional color correction.
 

Josh Steinberg

Premium
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2003
Messages
26,250
Real Name
Josh Steinberg
RAH, I understand where you're coming from though I respectfully disagree.

To my mind, when you watch a 3D movie in 2D, you're missing 50% of the picture information since one eye is missing. That's probably a little hyperbolic because most of the same things are usually in both frames, but there's picture information that's lost going from 3D to 2D.

When I watch movies that I first saw in 3D in 2D, I feel like I'm missing something and find it hard to enjoy the movie. I try to avoid doing this whenever possible. The last time I tried, I simply couldn't get into the 2D version and didn't enjoy watching it, though I had loved and seen the 3D version several times previously. It just felt different to me and didn't feel right - I didn't feel engaged in the same way at all, and the picture just looked wrong to me. I realize this may be an extreme reaction that not everyone will share, but that's how I feel.

So when Luhrmann makes a movie like Gatsby in 3D, that's clearly the way the filmmaker intended the work to be seen. If we're supposed to respect filmmaker intent above all when it comes to viewing the right cut of a film, watching the right aspect ratio, etc, I don't see 3D as being any different. Whether or not 3D is one's personal preference, to watch a 3D movie in 2D seems objectively "incorrect" to me.

I fully believe you when you say that the 2D UHD Gatsby disc looks fantastic, but I wonder if that's the right question - whether it looks good or not, it seems objectively speaking to not be what the filmmaker intended. (To me, preferring the 2D version is the same as saying the cut down version of Lawrence Of Arabia is better - I can't say that the opinion is wrong since it's just an opinion, but it also seems to be not what the filmmakers wanted.)

Though we disagree on this point, I just wanted to say that, as always, I appreciate your willingness to discuss your point of view - a viewpoint I will always respect and be happy to have.
 

Robert Harris

Archivist
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 8, 1999
Messages
18,272
Real Name
Robert Harris
RAH, I understand where you're coming from though I respectfully disagree.

To my mind, when you watch a 3D movie in 2D, you're missing 50% of the picture information since one eye is missing. That's probably a little hyperbolic because most of the same things are usually in both frames, but there's picture information that's lost going from 3D to 2D.

When I watch movies that I first saw in 3D in 2D, I feel like I'm missing something and find it hard to enjoy the movie. I try to avoid doing this whenever possible. The last time I tried, I simply couldn't get into the 2D version and didn't enjoy watching it, though I had loved and seen the 3D version several times previously. It just felt different to me and didn't feel right - I didn't feel engaged in the same way at all, and the picture just looked wrong to me. I realize this may be an extreme reaction that not everyone will share, but that's how I feel.

So when Luhrmann makes a movie like Gatsby in 3D, that's clearly the way the filmmaker intended the work to be seen. If we're supposed to respect filmmaker intent above all when it comes to viewing the right cut of a film, watching the right aspect ratio, etc, I don't see 3D as being any different. Whether or not 3D is one's personal preference, to watch a 3D movie in 2D seems objectively "incorrect" to me.

I fully believe you when you say that the 2D UHD Gatsby disc looks fantastic, but I wonder if that's the right question - whether it looks good or not, it seems objectively speaking to not be what the filmmaker intended. (To me, preferring the 2D version is the same as saying the cut down version of Lawrence Of Arabia is better - I can't say that the opinion is wrong since it's just an opinion, but it also seems to be not what the filmmakers wanted.)

Though we disagree on this point, I just wanted to say that, as always, I appreciate your willingness to discuss your point of view - a viewpoint I will always respect and be happy to have.

When I view a 3D film in 2D, I'm aware of every shot and how it's affected by 3D. For me, quality overrides the binocular effect.
 

Josh Steinberg

Premium
Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2003
Messages
26,250
Real Name
Josh Steinberg
When I view a 3D film in 2D, I'm aware of every shot and how it's affected by 3D. For me, quality overrides the binocular effect.

I wouldn't even know how to test for this, but I wonder if I perceive 3D in movies differently than most people do. Because when I watch something in 3D, I feel engaged in a way that I've simply never heard anyone else describe. I wonder if there's something going on with how my brain processes those images that makes it seem like such a giant deal to me, while it remains more of an "add-on" for the vast majority of people.
 

OliverK

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2000
Messages
5,713
I wouldn't even know how to test for this, but I wonder if I perceive 3D in movies differently than most people do. Because when I watch something in 3D, I feel engaged in a way that I've simply never heard anyone else describe. I wonder if there's something going on with how my brain processes those images that makes it seem like such a giant deal to me, while it remains more of an "add-on" for the vast majority of people.

I am pretty sure that it must be something like that - I know other people who also told me how 3D makes them experience a movie in a much more intense way while I cannot really say that 3D to me is a viable storytelling mechanism as it calls attention to itself very often in my case and takes me out of the story. I also do not like that the picture is much more dim than the regular 2D and neither do I enjoy wearing the 3D glasses.

I feel for you however and I think that the way that some studios handle 3D is scandalous - first they got everybody hooked and now they do not release a growing number of 3D movies on Blu-ray - this is wrong on several levels.
So while I got to admit that I am happy about the growing number of 3D movies also being releaaed as UHD I just hope that it will not mean even less 3D releases for people like you.
 

RJ992

Supporting Actor
Joined
Sep 7, 2010
Messages
646
Real Name
Joel
In a very brief chat I had on'set with the director some months back, I know which version he prefers and what he thinks of the other...but I won't tell, except.to say that director's intent trumps format. A sentiment that I wholeheartedly agree with.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
356,712
Messages
5,121,143
Members
144,147
Latest member
cennetkaralowa
Recent bookmarks
0
Top