Well, I didn't see it but I do remember someone asking on LitNet what was the difference between Luhrmann's version and Shakespeare's and Stlukes replied; "One sucks and the other doesn't." I'm not sure which one he was referring to.Originally Posted by kelby_lake
"L'art de la statistique est de tirer des conclusions erronèes a partir de chiffres exacts." Napoléon Bonaparte.
"Je crois que beaucoup de gens sont dans cet état d’esprit: au fond, ils ne sentent pas concernés par l’Histoire. Mais pourtant, de temps à autre, l’Histoire pose sa main sur eux." Michel Houellebecq.
Originally posted by Emil Miller
Here's another shot that looks pretty good. I think they look more like the protagonists than those in other versions. However, it remains to be seen whether Luhrmann finishes the film or not.
But Gatsby is not the protagonist
That article is over a year old...Before casting (aside from the two leads) and principal photography even started. By now, it's pretty clear that he settled his mind on the matter and won't be backing out, seeing as how the movie's almost complete and all.
MortalTerror- When I think of a literate script I mostly think of the dialogue, the best examples of which are usually screen adaptations of plays such as Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, Julius Caesar, or Glengarry Glen Ross.
From the number of posts it may seem to late to pipe in in agreement, but yes... I immediately thought of both Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? and Glengarry Glen Ross.
Beware of the man with just one book. -Ovid
The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them.- Mark Twain
My Blog: Of Delicious Recoil
http://stlukesguild.tumblr.com/
KCurtis- Yes, it wasn't that good of a movie, it portrayed Gatsby much differently than in the book- hence the problem with classic books turned into movies.
How is that a problem? A film and a novel are two distinct art forms. We don't look at Michelangelo's Sistine frescoes and compare them to the Biblical Book of Genesis (upon which it was based) or listen to Strauss' Also Sprach Zarathustra and compare it to Nietzsche's text.
Beware of the man with just one book. -Ovid
The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them.- Mark Twain
My Blog: Of Delicious Recoil
http://stlukesguild.tumblr.com/
I loved Let the Right One in too! Best vampire movie I have seen in a very long time.
I also can't wait for this Gatsby thing. Quite exciting.
Luhrmann's commentary tracks will tell you how much thought he puts into the look and feel of his films. His storytelling just takes some acclimating to. He even mentions (accurately) on the Romeo DVD commentary that if you can make it through the gas station scene, you're fine for the rest. Moulon Rouge was the same for me--ten or fifteen minutes in and I was ready to quit on it, but I knew by that time how Luhrmann's movies work, so I stuck with it. Then about twenty minutes in, I clicked into his rhythm, and the rest of the film flowed just fine.
I put up with it mostly because he's never seemed pretentious or deliberately difficult to me; he just marches to his own drummer.
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Mahatma Gandhi
Haven't seen that one yet (or the American remake, which I've also heard good things about), but I've recently picked the novel up used. Maybe I'll give that a go when I'm done with my current read.
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Mahatma Gandhi
I highly recommend it, Calidore. I haven't seen the American version either. The child actors are so outstanding in the original. I have to think it would be tough to match in quality. Let me know how the book turns out, pretty please.
I've never understood the complaint that they shouldn't have "changed the book." Like you said, it's two completely different art forms, so sometimes a different interpretation for the screen is going to work better than the book, and sometimes it's an improvement. Still, there will always be some who will believe, no matter what, that any deviation from the book is a crime.
Just to give an example of a movie that's leaps and bounds better than the book because of changes made: Jurassic Park.
Sure thing, but you're probably going to have to wait a while. Still got just over 1000 pages to go in this one (The Naked God by Peter F. Hamilton).I highly recommend it, Calidore. I haven't seen the American version either. The child actors are so outstanding in the original. I have to think it would be tough to match in quality. Let me know how the book turns out, pretty please.
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Mahatma Gandhi
Agreed. Another example would be Lord of the Rings. I'm not saying the movie's better than the book (though it didn't take me 25 years and a half-dozen tries to get through the first movie), but if the films had slavishly followed the books as some vocal uberfans wanted, they would have been boring as bleep to everyone else.
I've never understood the complaint that they shouldn't have "changed the book." Like you said, it's two completely different art forms, so sometimes a different interpretation for the screen is going to work better than the book, and sometimes it's an improvement. Still, there will always be some who will believe, no matter what, that any deviation from the book is a crime.
Just to give an example of a movie that's leaps and bounds better than the book because of changes made: Jurassic Park.
You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Mahatma Gandhi
Yes, I should have checked the date but I was going by the projected date of showing, according to some being December 2012, which still seems a long way off. I'm still not sure whether it's going to be shown in 3D, as has been mentioned.
"L'art de la statistique est de tirer des conclusions erronèes a partir de chiffres exacts." Napoléon Bonaparte.
"Je crois que beaucoup de gens sont dans cet état d’esprit: au fond, ils ne sentent pas concernés par l’Histoire. Mais pourtant, de temps à autre, l’Histoire pose sa main sur eux." Michel Houellebecq.
Your argument is different than what I was talking about. If a movie is based on a book, it is telling the story of the book-hence the name of the book "The Great Gatsby", and the name of the movie "The Great Gatsby". The characters in the movie are supposed to be the characters in the book, so, one would assume the movie keeps to the story. The Great Gatsby movies of the past were not that good because they did not or could not tell the story effectively, and due to the unique narrative style of the book, I am skeptical of the upcoming movie. If it is not a problem for you, fine. It is a problem for me and many others who love the book. It is only a problem if one anticipates seeing a good movie though. If one is realistic and skeptical, as I am, I won't be real upset over it. This is really just a discussion.
A crime?? That's harsh. The problem is that if the movie doesn't portray the story in the right way, it could be a very boring and trivial event. I will check the reviews (as I always do) of the movie before I go.
I've never understood the complaint that they shouldn't have "changed the book." Like you said, it's two completely different art forms, so sometimes a different interpretation for the screen is going to work better than the book, and sometimes it's an improvement. Still, there will always be some who will believe, no matter what, that any deviation from the book is a crime.
Just to give an example of a movie that's leaps and bounds better than the book because of changes made: Jurassic Park.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
