Things We Saw Today: Leonardo (The Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles Variety) Meets Magritte

I don’t really understand why people are practically pissing blood over Baz Luhrmann’s shot at The Great Gatsby. It’s Luhrmann. Was Moulin Rouge historically accurate? No. It’s a stylistic choice. It’s a take on the source material.

Personally, I think it’s great. Why would I want another historically accurate adaptation of The Great Gatsby? Wasn’t Robert Redford’s version good enough? If you’re going to retell a story, actually retell it and give it something different. This looks to be exactly that.

I’ll second that. Also: there’s no way anyone can walk out of that movie and claim deception. The trailer itself is about as honest as it comes in terms of what you should expect. You know what it looks like I’m going to get out of this movie? The Great Gatsby: The Badass Remix. So I’m going to re-read the book for my accuracy kick, go and enjoy the movie (and its accompanying score), and take it for what it is. As long as everyone knows what’s up, it’s all good with me.

Thirded. Knowing what sort of interpretation it is (which, like you said, you will if you’ve seen the trailer or know anything about Luhrmann) if it’s not your cup of tea, don’t see it. That’s it. There’s no need for pearl-clutching. And movies don’t need to—and shouldn’t!—be 100% accurate to their source material anyways.

Is anybody else getting Fake Geek Girl vibes with the how to harass female gamers link?

“Kotaku tells us about a YouTube user who creates instructional videos on how to find and harass female gamers, all for the sake of “spreading awareness of a disease known as AWS (Attention Wh*re Syndrome),” as stated in one of the video descriptions. Oh, good. Because clearly female gamers don’t deal with enough harassment already. (viaSkepchick)”

I can’t even bring myself to watch those Embedded Videos (Let Alone Go To The Actual YouTube Page). It’s like Watching a Rottweiler Rip Apart a Maltese Teacup. Not saying that women are that Physically Fragile, but if you consider the Sex-Specific Insult Language at those most likely “Male” “Humans’” Disposals, it’s Bound to get Ugly by -0:00.

I’ve seen these Type of Videos Before (Only because the Title was Ambiguous.), but it’s still hard to believe Boys and Men really need a Tutorial on Misogyny. Sexism is so Subconscious Because of the Culture, it’s pretty much a No-Brainer. …They Might as well as have No-Brains, if they Choose to Keep Acting like Non-Human Beings.

Oh geeze, I hadn’t heard about Peter David. Had the pleasure of meeting him once at a con, and he was just the most amazing guy–kind and funny.

I was kind of looking forward to hearing some 1920s jazz as part of the soundtrack to a Gilded Age movie that had been kicked up a notch. Like a more intense version of Chicago or something.

Unless the whole movie is tongue-in-cheek like Moulin Rogue, there doesn’t seem to be much point in doing a period piece where you don’t even try to make it feel like it’s set in that time period. It’s like setting a scene on a boat but giving it that traditional “desert scene music.” Your audience will still follow, but playing the “aren’t we so clever with our dissonance” game is the kind of super artsy thing that…eh, it’s tired. We get it, Baz. The rich lived very different lives from the rest of the world and bathed in decadent splendor and that’s just like today. What insight.

Metegol looked really good in that trailer, but there’s not even a Spanish release date on IMDB (there’s three dates for other countries, though). Shame. I’ll probably forget about it by the time it comes out, even on DVD, so I’ll likely never see it, but it does look good.

I’m sorry, but that doesn’t look anything like Malcom Reynolds

I think people are pissing blood because this is exactly why they didn’t want Baz Luhrmann to do the movie in the first place.

Then I’m sure those people can content themselves with the five other film adaptations that were all done literally to the text. Luhrmann’s version doesn’t magically erase them from existence, anymore than Romeo + Juliet affected any other Romeo and Juliet work ever made.

Personally, I’m fine with Luhrmann going all Lurmann on it. But as far as your argument goes, there being 50 different Alices in Wonderland doesn’t validate Burton & co.’s complete cock-up, nor do the many Christmas Carols make Zemeckis’ misguided nonsense any more acceptable.

Frankly, I think the number of times these works get adapted and remade invalidates any arguments of them having meaningful impact in general if they aren’t to taste. Inevitably, some of them of them will fall short of a previous version. Big deal. All this talk of the latest in a long line of adaptations “ruining” something is silly. Has the yawn-inducing Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland “ruined” anything? If it sucks, it sucks on its own. It’s self contained. No one ever has to reference it again if they hate it. For example, the non-musical movie adaptation of Les Miserables starring Uma Thurman. Terrible. Hasn’t ruined Les Miserables.

Anything worth adapting is worth doing well, is all I’m saying. Especially since, for a lot of people, this may be their first impression of these characters and this world, which will affect how they perceive the book. Again, I’m personally okay with anachronistic music (even if I disagree with it artistically), I just sure hope Baz makes it work.