It looks interesting. Of course the "it's not like the book" crowd will kvetch, but how can you come close to replicating that exactly? The action in the novel isn't the most thrilling in the world...it's Carraway's observations and other subtleties.
I am pensive about the modern music. I like what turns up in the trailer, but a whole film of songs with lyrics instead of a score might mess up trying to create any semblance of it being a period film.
DiCaprio is such a dull actor that no amount of flashy music is going to make him an interesting enigma as Gatsby.
Yes DiCaprio shouldn't play Gatsby. That's too much. He is a good actor but his presence is not good for that role. He doesn't fit.
That does look interesting!
DeCaprio still looks constipated, though, especially when he sees Daisy.
Baz is a second-rate Ken Russell.
Tobey Maguire is obviously only in this because he is BFF's with Leo. If another actor other than Leo had been the lead, Tobey wouldn't have had a chance in hell of being cast.
Who's the guy playing the young Gatsby? He looks great.
Certainly i won't see that crap. I love the book too much for doing that. It would be a suicide to watch that circus of a movie. DiCaprio of course can't be Jay Gatsby and Carey Mulligan seems so inappropriate as Daisy. Awful, awful, awful!
OMG, guys spare your money!
[quote] I love the book too much for doing that. It would be a suicide to watch that circus of a movie.
You do realise that the book will still exist after the film is released?
Carey Mulligan pulls off the flapper thing pretty well.
That does look a hundred times better than the first trailer.
The Voice of the Night
I do realize that, i'm not a stuck-up bitch.
Actually, i watched 'The Great Gatsby' after reading the book and although the movie was a pale shadow of the novel, Robert Redford was fitting as Jay Gatsby and Mia Farrow was at least ok as Daisy.
I just don't like characters of a book to be parodies in a movie due to bad casting choices.
The music is perfect for the time period....
it still looks awful
If Shakespeare can be rendered in other time periods or with wild concepts, then Gatsby could possibly also stand up to a more unconventional approach. Possibly.
I don't like the current trend of using contemporary music in period films, but I totally understand why Hollywood is doing it now. They need 15-25 year-old asses in the seats, and the pop music is used to appeal to them.
Interesting point, R17, but I don't think "Gatsby" is a story that can be moved to any age.
For instance, if you move it to (say) any year from 1970 on, Daisy would feel free to divorce her cheating husband and move in with her nouveau-riche neighbor, and there's no drama. For the story to work, it has to be set in an era with a powerful Old Guard, and an upstart party set, and no atmosphere of austerity. Maybe 1960 would work, but then we'd know that the Sexual Revolution is right around the corner.
Maybe the music is only for the trailer.
Nothing can beat the fantastic musical score from the Redford Farrow version. I wish that was out on CD.
1974 trailer. Compare. I know I am in the minority, but I loved this version.. but what do I know? I also liked the movie version of CAMELOT!
Using modern music only works effectively for eras like the Shakesperian one where there is no recorded music.
The Great Gatsby as it was made in 1974, with the period score, would be an art-house film today. It would totally bomb as a mainstream release.
The trailer looks fine, but the incredibly obvious CG just kills it. I realize the entire film was shot in Australia, but you still need to have at least *some* semblance of reality to make it look real. Even some second-unit filming at period locations in NYC would've helped to achieve the effect.
Also, as noted in earlier threads, both DiCaprio and Maguire are at least a decade too old for these roles. Neither of them successfully looks 28-ish in the trailer.
It looks great, but I thought the original trailer looked great, too. I think this movie is going to bomb, though. As wonderful and important a book that it is, I think the theme is just not relevant anymore. Classes intermingle, and "new money" doesn't have a stigma. And people divorce. I realize this is set in the correct period, but I just don't think anyone can relate to the it anymore. And: why the fuck do people think Decaprio is any good? he's a terrible actor. He has two modes of emoting: he speaks his lines in hushed tones while looking somewhat away from the camera, or he bellows his lines with. an. odd. phrasing. giving. each. word. equal. emphasis. He's dull. and not good looking enough to be dull/
What's with Leo's strange accent? It's not affected (adopted) upperclass. It's annoying.
No desire to see this at all. Is the soundtrack the same as the soundtrack in the film or is this just some marketing stunt to make it seem cool?
Not that every marketing stunt isn't.
R19 I don't meant transposing the whole story in a literal way to another time period, just that some aspects can be stylized with the same message and story being put across.
A failed example of this would be Sofia Coppola's Marie Antoinette, with the modern accents and things like pairs of Converse being thrown into the wardrobe.
I like DeCaprio a lot, but I recently watched the remark of "Total Recall" (not as bad as the reviews suggest--fairly competent thriller) and thought that Colin Farrell would have been a perfect Gatsby.
Re: Mulligan, just remember Blake "Stare and Squint" Lively was probably the second choice, so by comparison she's a godsend.
Mulligan and DiCaprio look so unmatched. She looks like she's half his age, so I can't believe she knew him before he hit the big time. And I certainly don't see any indications of chemistry between them.
And am I the only one who thinks that harsh blonde hair doesn't suit her at all? Her best feature is her big brown eyes, which look all wrong with the yellow wig. If she wanted to glam up her look, I think she'd look better with a rich auburn color.
Jay-Z is now doing the soundtrack to the film.
Does this mean that the hideous U2 cover by Jack White is gone ('Love Is Blindness')?
[quote]Jay-Z is now doing the soundtrack to the film. Does this mean that the hideous U2 cover by Jack White is gone ('Love Is Blindness')?
Hopefully, but do you think Jay-Z is going to do any better? Just watched the '74 one after a long time and I still liked it, it was on TCM last month. The new one, at least in the trailer seems to have shot for shot scenes from the Redford one, especially in the service station scenes.
F. Scott Fitzgerald in Drag! He's lovely!
(I could not find any threads about this)
Ah but red hair is for bad girls like Myrtle. They should have given her green eyes.
Much more compelling than the first trailer. It's more than foreshadowing the tragedy.
The story leads inevitably towards the car accident. And well, this film, this production the whole thing from conception to distribution is basically a car accident we won't be able to turn our eyes away from.
I think I'm going to like it. "You can't repeat the past" is an acceptable summation of "boats against the current." If they stick to that, it shouldn't suck too much.
I just wish they'd gotten another one of Tobey's BFFs to play Gatsby. Leo's one of those "How the fuck does he have an acting career?" people for me.
Leo DiCaprio is just looking too old for these parts. He needs to go away for a while.
[quote]Mulligan and DiCaprio look so unmatched. She looks like she's half his age, so I can't believe she knew him before he hit the big time.
Exactly. They are supposed to be contemporaries; there's not supposed to be more than a decade between them. In this version, Gatsby would have been a pedophile. They are both supposed to be around age 30 in the novel, I think.
No comments on F. Scott's drag photo at R34??
That outfit suits him, R34. Happy?
Looks positively dreadful as does Leo's performance!
Gatsby can't be filmed - period. Hollywood assholes should stop trying and failing.
Luhrman's folly will end no differently than the rest. The only bright spot is that it will put a big ugly dent in DiCaprio's career - he deserves it.
The music in this new trailer is god-awful.
Luhrman isn't a film director. (You only have to watch the risible Australia to know that.) He's an art director. He has no grasp of tone or how to convey adult emotions on the screen. His career is a prime example of someone of small talent rising to the top. But the real artistic talent seems to reside with his wife.
However much she can act, in Old Hollywood the muffin-faced dick-wilter Cary Mulligan would have rightly been sentenced to support roles.
Oh god, I remember watching "Australia" and by the time they got to the second movie (it was a bizarre two-fer) I was ready to shoot myself in the head just to make it stop.
People looked older back then, so I don't have a problem with Leo's age. I have a problem with the fact that he's a bad actor. Watching those trailers, I see exactly what Katharine Hepburn saw in Meryl Streep (click click click).
R44: right on all counts. Good post.
It looks like a hot mess and I hope it bombs.
Gatsby has never been successfully filmed because it can't be filmed. The real "action" is internal. Despite what Capote claimed, I don't believe his version of the Gatsby screenplay was much better than anyone else's has ever been.
So we get borderline illiterates like Baz Luhrmann and Leonardo DiCaprio (with dumb sidekick McGuire) trying to make it anyway and they dragged that poor Carey Mulligan into it.
If any further proof were needed that this is a stupid idea and a huge mess - it's in Three fucking D.
pity that the soundtrack is so contemporary
I think it looks fantastic! So much eye candy in there. Am very excited.