The Great Gatsby The Great Gatsby discussion


256 views
Similarities to the movie

Comments Showing 1-31 of 31 (31 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Ryker (new)

Ryker It is exactly like the book it doesn't miss a single detail. So that is why I liked the movie and the book. So I wonder why they didn't make the movie before the book


Cheyenne The book was first published in 1925.


Lara This is the 4th movie.


Donna Causey I enjoyed the latest movie. It will probably encourage more people to read the novel. However the parties depicted in the movie reminded me more of the movie Moulin Rouge than what I envisioned from the book. I believe they director went a little overboard in order to attract a bigger audience.


Readingmom It makes sense that the parties reminded you of Moulin Rouge!, since the new Gatsby movie has the same director (Baz Luhrmann).


Cheyenne Readingmom wrote: "It makes sense that the parties reminded you of Moulin Rouge!, since the new Gatsby movie has the same director (Baz Luhrmann)."

He also did my favorite Romeo and Juliet adaptation, also starring Leonardo.


message 7: by Zakiyyah (last edited Jun 06, 2013 07:36PM) (new) - rated it 4 stars

Zakiyyah I loved DiCaprio's acting in the movie, I thought it was one of the only redeemable things in the movie. I also loved how it stuck to the book in many ways.I didn't like all the visual effects and how it sometimes verged on cartoonish in many ways. But maybe that was because I saw it in 3-D.


Donna Causey I agree with you on DiCaprio. He is a super actor and was great in the movie.


William I thought the movie was a joke. It turned the book into an extravagant comedy. As with most of Luhrman's movies, the actors all looked liked they were acting in a high school production of the novel. I only went to the movie because it was Gatsby (again).


Jools Ryker wrote: "It is exactly like the book it doesn't miss a single detail. So that is why I liked the movie and the book. So I wonder why they didn't make the movie before the book"

The book was published in 1925, all the movies are adapted from this book, so I cannot see how in the world, they could have made the film before the book was published??????

Anyway I loved the movie, it was true to the book in many ways, though some details where left out that I would of loved to have seen. The funeral, but I think Gatsby's death was well done. I have seen the movie a few times now in 3D and 2D. The more I watched it the more I fell in love with it. Leonardo plays a compelling Gatsby and Toby a great Nick...

Another reason this movie works is I invited a few friends who have never read the book and totally got the complexity of the story, and now want to read the book.


Donna Causey I watched the 1974 movie version last night again to see the difference and I liked it better. The tone remained more true to the 1920's lifestyle and didn't border on comedy as another reader suggested. I guess it just depends on one's taste which they prefer.


Diyar Actually, there were a few differences from the book. For example, Gatsby's father didn't show up at his funeral. Also Nick and Jordan didn't fell in love in the movie. I loved the movie though, it gave me the exact same feelings back I got while reading the book.


Summer Leppanen Ryker wrote: "It is exactly like the book it doesn't miss a single detail. So that is why I liked the movie and the book. So I wonder why they didn't make the movie before the book"

Well, to say it missed not a single detail is a bit of an exaggeration. It did exclude a few things, though you can tell it was to emphasize certain points. However, it did keep very close, I feel, yes.


Summer Leppanen William wrote: "I thought the movie was a joke. It turned the book into an extravagant comedy. As with most of Luhrman's movies, the actors all looked liked they were acting in a high school production of the no..."

One of my best friends said the same thing, and I just couldn't follow him. Admittedly we had to cut the discussion short, but I don't know, I just didn't see that at all. Is it maybe just a preference concerning the directing style, do you think? I'm curious why some people felt like this and others did not.


message 15: by Summer (last edited Jun 09, 2013 06:59PM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

Summer Leppanen Diyar wrote: "Actually, there were a few differences from the book. For example, Gatsby's father didn't show up at his funeral. Also Nick and Jordan didn't fell in love in the movie. I loved the movie though, it..."

They didn't really fall in love in the book either. They had more of a romantic relationship in the book, yes, but Nick was never deeply involved with Jordan, and they broke it off by the end anyway. I can see why they decided to exclude it, though; to emphasize Nick's relationship with Gatsby. Same with the father thing (which really got to me). I see why they did it cinematically, but I don't necessarily agree with the choice. I think the details were important.


William Summer wrote: "William wrote: "I thought the movie was a joke. It turned the book into an extravagant comedy. As with most of Luhrman's movies, the actors all looked liked they were acting in a high school prod..."

As I mentioned in my review the actors looked plastic, almost comic bookish. The movie did not stay true to the book either: Nick in a mental ward? Where's Gatsby's funeral with Owl Eyes and Gatsby's father? And what happened to the line "The poor son of a bitch" or mentioning Gatsby's "...extraordinary gift for hope." Fitzgerald deserved better, particularly if you're going to make this movie for the fourth time.


Zakiyyah Oh yeah and what was with the catcher in the rye - ish beginning...You know when nick is in the mental ward for his alcohol addiction. I mean was anyone just like wtf?


Jools William wrote: "Summer wrote: "William wrote: "I thought the movie was a joke. It turned the book into an extravagant comedy. As with most of Luhrman's movies, the actors all looked liked they were acting in a h..."

try reading this

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05...
Baz Luhrmann explains all. I thought having Nick in the Sanitarium was a fantastic addition to the movie. How else could the audience understand why and to who Nick was telling this story of one summer to us.

I knew this addition before I went to see the film so no great shock the first time I watched it.


message 19: by Zakiyyah (last edited Jun 11, 2013 02:19PM) (new) - rated it 4 stars

Zakiyyah Jools wrote: "William wrote: "Summer wrote: "William wrote: "I thought the movie was a joke. It turned the book into an extravagant comedy. As with most of Luhrman's movies, the actors all looked liked they we..."

I don't believe in babying the audience. If they were really confused as to why he was telling the story, they *should* have read the book as many did.


Jools I have read the book many times and was not confused at all.....


Jools At the end of the day, a book is a book and a film is a film. I have learned not to get too hung up on book adaptations for big screen movies. The key word is adapted.


Readingmom Jools wrote: "At the end of the day, a book is a book and a film is a film. I have learned not to get too hung up on book adaptations for big screen movies. The key word is adapted."

I agree, Jools. Film & books, being different forms of media, by necessity have to be different in order to be able to capture the emotions & stories in a similar way.

& sometimes a completely different adaptation is interesting in & of itself, like "Breakfast at Tiffany's." Truman Capote was furious, because it wasn't his Holly Golightly, and his narrator had been turned into a heterosexual with a passionate love affair with the imposter Holly, but I cannot help but love that movie.

On the other hand, it kind of bothers me that Lolita film adaptations often treat the teenager like more of a seductress than she came across in the novel - if the movies treated it that way, showing that that is the way the narrator (incorrectly) perceives the situation, that would be one thing. But the movies have completely skewed a lot of people's conception of the story in a way that turns Nabakov's point on its' head. (Also, pedophilia is gross, which Nabakov knew, but which some directors seem to turn into a porn storyline - meant to titillate, rather than disgust.)


Leslie Luhrmann made some significant structural changes--for instance, framing the story with Nick's stint in rehab-but I believe he did it to preserve certain themes or motifs from the novel in the film. I was unnerved by the fact that Nick is no longer an observer who does not reveal his own point of view. Not sure why Luhrmann did that.
Some of the party scenes were so over the top, but then I thought about all the young people seeing the movie now--what was scandalous in the Jazz Age might not have looked so "mad, bad and dangerous" to us without the overkill. I thought the addition of Ecstasy was ridiculous though--and yes, E was synthesized first in 1914-1915, but it was NOT in the novel. No need.
Generally, I think Luhrmann got the big stuff right. Still wondering what it is about this particular novel that makes us each see it so clearly that we cannot ever imagine someone else getting it right!


message 24: by Gale (new)

Gale The movie and book go hand and hand


Jools Still wondering what it is about this particular novel that makes us each see it so clearly that we cannot ever imagine someone else getting it right!

I completely agree with you here Leslie.


message 26: by Kiara (new) - added it

Kiara Gomez There was one difference from the latest Gatsby movie starring Leonardo Dicaprio that stood out to me from when I remembered about the book. After the short argumentive scene between Tom Buchanan and the Gatsby, Gatsby and Daisy run off. When they run off in their car, Daisy is driving and she runs over Tom Buchanan's secret lover Myrtle Wilson. In the book, Fitzgerald makes it so that it is clear to the reader that Daisy purposly ran her, over, that Daisy noticed her but kept going because she knew of the affair, but in the movie, when the Gatsby is telling Nick Carraway about what happened he emphasizes multiple time how it was an accident and Daisy was stressed. I thought it was weird how those two points came accross differently!


Jools Could you print section of book that states Daisy knew and purposely killed Myrtle.... Out of all my reads I cannot place this?????

I have original book so page numbers may differ.

P165 "Beat me!" He heard her cry. "Throw me down and beat me, you dirty little coward!"
A moment later she rushed out into the dusk, waving her hands and shouting-before he could move from his door the business was over.

P168 "Well she" his hand rose towards the blankets but stopped half way and fell to his side - "She ran out there an' the one coming' from N'York knocked right into her, going thirty forty miles a hour"

P173 "this woman rushed out at us just as we where passing a car coming the other way. It all happens in a minuet, but it seemed to me that she wanted to speak to us, thought we where somebody she knew"
"We'll Daisy turned away from the woman towards the other car, then she lost her nerve and turned back. The second my hand reached the wheel I felt the shock - it must have killed her instantly"


Leslie I am with Jools--do not remember it this way. My annotated copy is at school, darn it.


Phylicia I think that they handled it the same way in the movie and the book. Perhaps it's simply been a while and assumptions turned to fact in terms of the book itself. Gatsby would never believe Daisy would do that, but in the movie they show him wrenching at the wheel. How would he have time to do that if the crash was truly unavoidable? And the director cuts to it a few times- hammering home that he was trying to change the course of the car. We don't see Daisy's face as this is happening. I think that's significant. We only see her react to a body being throw across her windshield.


message 30: by Penny (last edited Jul 04, 2013 04:29AM) (new) - rated it 2 stars

Penny Maybe the film did miss out a few things along the way, but the overall feeling caught the book to perfection as far as I am concerned. I loved it through and through, and did not expect to as I really hated the book! And that can't be a bad thing.


William Penny wrote: "Maybe the film did miss out a few things along the way, but the overall feeling caught the book to perfection as far as I am concerned. I loved it through and through, and did not expect to as I re..."

My worry is that the movie will become a staple for students in high school, just like Luhrman's Romeo and Juliet, thus obscuring the real content of the novel and play. Sorry, but I really enjoyed the book and I had to read it over twenty time during my tenure as an high school English teacher.


back to top