in the other ones it didn't feel like a lead up it was just a "oh I'm gatsby" while Leo pulled it off great and they didn't show his face untill he revealed who he was himself that with the fireworks just made it epic lol
@@scrawled_inblack9882 yeah Leo's smile is one of the biggest highlight in the whole movie And that fireworks were perfectly in time This whole movie is cinematographic masterpiece
@@AtticTapes14 I agree tbh 1974 one was a calm drama film. 2013 was a more entertaining and visually pleasing film. They were the two best ones, but ofc we didn’t get to see the 1926 one because it’s lost now. I wonder how that one might have been.
Baz Lurhman’s version has to be the best. The music, the pacing, the build-up to Gatsby’s reveal, the fireworks that worked wonderfully well,Leo’s charm, everything about it is just *chef’s kiss*
Laz did an outstanding job at conveying the rambunctious craziness of Gatsby’s parties. The other movies looked like they filmed at a country club lol.
It’s so cool seeing Leo compared to the casuals. Older is not always better. And movies like this one got better over time. That intro is soooooo good in the 2013 version.
Not “better,” just different. That being said, however, saying that “older is not always better” is pushing it. Older is practically always better, while bigger and overblown is not always better. Excessive action is not always effective action.
Ok, I like Paul Rudd as Nick Carraway. I understood that Nick was supossed to be somehow odd, Toby Maguire did a good job until I saw Rudd, then Maguire became too odd. Rudd gave that "odd" that was just right as how I imagined Nick Carraway in real life.
The 1926 and 2013 versions of the party actually look like something I would want to go to. The other ones look like elitist soirées that some Patrick Bateman would attend.
I like how much they progressed throughout. Paul Rudd seemed to be a good Carraway just as Tobey McGuire, and Leo DiCaprio was obviously the best Gatsby, without a doubt. Still can't believe that Paul Rudd played Nick Carraway lmao I never knew that
Thanks for putting this together. Alan Ladd was an interesting Gatsby, and Robert Redford had great potential but I never liked the low-energy 1974 version, especially not Bruce Dern as Tom. I think the book deserves the high energy, big-budget, star power 2013 version. Decaprio is a great Gatsby.
I don’t get why the 74 version just immediately reveals it’s Gatsby. Having Nick think he’s just speaking to an average guy instead of just another rich socialite is important. Only the 49 version seems to get this.
Fantastic montage! Great work. When Leo at the end says, “You see, *I’m* Gatsby,” it’s like he’s dismissing all the Gatsbies who came before here! The true Jay Gatz. But Alan Ladd wasn’t bad! No offense, but Redford seems such a boring stiff. As for 2nd best Nick (after Tobey), I’d say Paul Rudd. I could see him giving a great performance with Leo in the 2013 one (he didn’t seem to have much to work with in 2000). Anyway, such a great job highlighting Gatsby over a century in art.
personally Tobey was unbearable. I just couldn't fit him into my mental image of Nick, and his constant voice over became unbearable. I also found Leo was too eccentric for the role of Gatsby, who should have retained some kind of reclusiveness or awkwardness. The parties also were just too much, the surrealism would have been tolerable if it has period accurate music. I think the build up was better than the other movies but as a whole it really misunderstood a lot of characters, especially Mr Wilson. I think it spent too much time focusing on showing off what is frankly ugly CGI now instead of retaining small character building moments like the Myrtle dog scene or showing many failed marriages and loves.
Having studied literature and film and taught them for the past 25 years, I long ago came to the conclusion that "faithfulness to the book" is not the "plus" that people seem to think it is. You have to go with the strength of the medium you're using when you're making an adaptation of a preexisting work. A lot of what makes the book so special is the quality and character of Nick's narrative voice. That's unsuitable for film. Film is an inherently visual/auditory medium, so if you're making one, lean into that HARD, and make no apologies for it.
Because the definitive version has finally been made. Remaking Gatsby at this point would be like trying to remake Casablanca, Back to the Future, or the Wizard of Oz.
@@antaine1916 im not sure, the 2013 version has many strengths, but is not perfect. It’s a bit too long and sometimes overblown for Fitzgerald‘s quick, fast-moving prose.
Wow. No love for Robert Redford in the Comments? He was Brilliant in the role. The 2000 Gatsby just seemed creepy and terrible, but I might watch it just to see Paul Rudd as Nick.😅
Yeah, because the 2000 version is more focused on the novel, saying most of the lines in the novel. On the other hand, in the 2013 version, they don't say much of the lines, only the most important ones, along with some things that weren't in the novel to make it more dramatic.
@@2kdemiks816 That's the issue with it I'd say. It makes a party out of the book, when the book is about studying how high society functions at its parties.
Just bought a copy of the 1949 version. Macdonald Carey reminds me too much of Nicholas Cage, lol. It's interesting to see the different spin some of the lines get. I'd say my chief complaint so far is that the pacing is off. Things move and escalate too quickly. There's no mystery to Gatsby's past or his relationship with Daisy. No big reveal. Even the meeting in the clip is undermined by the fact that it's how we're introduced to Nick, not Gatsby (we'd already met him and heard about his relationship with Daisy before he ever shows up). Interesting to see "The Maltese Falcon's" Wilmer Cook show up to play Klipspringer (a piano-playing gangster) in this one. Pretty big rewriting on some of the scenes, too.
Leo had a great introduction, but I just don’t see him a Gatsby. I personally preferred the way Robert played him, something about it felt better. Besides, I’m biased since I can’t stand how artsy the Leo one is.
It is absolutely not “that simple.” You are parading the excessive, extravagant display of the 2013 version around as an excuse to take a crap on the rest.
OMG Toby Stephens was a DISASTER as Gatsby - down to his red hair and eyebrows that they dyed dark brown, he doesn't fit the suave, charismatic character at all! It's such a great book, no movie has ever got the casting of Gatsby, Nick, Tom or Daisy right. Tom was never played by actors who were masculine enough to convince. The best cast character ever was the incredible Karen Black as Myrtle in the 1974 version.
Baz Lurhmann's Gatsby wasn't the best. All of the productions were unique to their eras. Only those with intelligence and retrospect will understand that.
Much respect to the older versions, but the Baz production was a treat to see in theaters and in 3D with the soundtrack blaring. It was quite the spectacle in its day 😉
Leonardo Di Caprio as the Great Gatsby? OH NO! They sent a boy to do a man's job! And that overblown intro they gave him in 2013 with bells, whistles and fireworks - laughable! Almost as bad as that dreary little girl they cast as Daisy! Tobey McGuire was even drippier than Nick is in the book. I hope someday a movie will be made of GG that gets the casting right.
![The Great Gatsby [Behind The Scenes I]](/img/n.gif)
Okay how the filmmaker introduces Leo as Gatsby is soo much better. The suspense leads up to how the camera finally focuses on Gatsby face. I love it
I agree, and I think Leo gasped the character better than the other actors playing Gatsby..
6:20
"Having a gay time now?"
"No, no... No, just... two bros hanging around. No homo."
Nick took "having a gay time?"'s gay meaning to the more literal meaning /hj
Leo looks like he is actually the Gatsby
or we are just so much obsessed with Leo
in the other ones it didn't feel like a lead up it was just a "oh I'm gatsby" while Leo pulled it off great and they didn't show his face untill he revealed who he was himself that with the fireworks just made it epic lol
Leo’s was the best. Without a doubt.
Yeah its not even close. Nobody else could pull off the smile. The guy from the Paul Rudd movie was creepy as hell
Well yeah. It took like five films to get it right.
@@scrawled_inblack9882 yeah
Leo's smile is one of the biggest highlight in the whole movie
And that fireworks were perfectly in time
This whole movie is cinematographic masterpiece
Yeah, because of the face reveal and the fireworks and the rising music created a very dramatic scene that the others don't have.
@@AtticTapes14 I agree tbh 1974 one was a calm drama film. 2013 was a more entertaining and visually pleasing film. They were the two best ones, but ofc we didn’t get to see the 1926 one because it’s lost now. I wonder how that one might have been.
Baz Lurhman’s version has to be the best.
The music, the pacing, the build-up to Gatsby’s reveal, the fireworks that worked wonderfully well,Leo’s charm, everything about it is just *chef’s kiss*
Yeesssssssssss
Just rewatched the movie for the first time since 2013 and man was it magical. It just gave me a certain feeling that even the booking couldn't give.
Rudd's the perfect Nick Carraway, and Leo the perfect Gatsby. Shame they weren't opposite each other in the same film.
Tobey was great too
Tobey’s the goat tho so why u complainin
Trivia: Leo and Rudd were in the same movie together directed by Baz Luhrmann
@@alimoksin Romeo and Juliet?
Laz did an outstanding job at conveying the rambunctious craziness of Gatsby’s parties. The other movies looked like they filmed at a country club lol.
How pretentious of you
If only he picked better music for his movie....
1974 and 2013 had the best Nick Carraways
It’s so cool seeing Leo compared to the casuals. Older is not always better. And movies like this one got better over time. That intro is soooooo good in the 2013 version.
Not “better,” just different. That being said, however, saying that “older is not always better” is pushing it. Older is practically always better, while bigger and overblown is not always better. Excessive action is not always effective action.
Was really cool to see all the various versions! Thanks for taking the time to put this together!
Ok, I like Paul Rudd as Nick Carraway. I understood that Nick was supossed to be somehow odd, Toby Maguire did a good job until I saw Rudd, then Maguire became too odd. Rudd gave that "odd" that was just right as how I imagined Nick Carraway in real life.
Paul Rudd as Nick is brilliant.
I didn't know. I didn't read the comments so I was surprised. He's great
Crazy that doing a movie about 1920s in 1970s was doing a movie about 70s today.
Time everything becomes dust
...and doing a 1922-set movie in 1949 would be like making something today set during the Seinfeld finale.
The 1926 and 2013 versions of the party actually look like something I would want to go to. The other ones look like elitist soirées that some Patrick Bateman would attend.
This is Brilliant! Love how you have put all versions together! Thank you. Will be re watching them all soon 🌸
There’s something about the 2013, its so unique idk how to describe it
I like how much they progressed throughout. Paul Rudd seemed to be a good Carraway just as Tobey McGuire, and Leo DiCaprio was obviously the best Gatsby, without a doubt. Still can't believe that Paul Rudd played Nick Carraway lmao I never knew that
Thanks for putting this together. Alan Ladd was an interesting Gatsby, and Robert Redford had great potential but I never liked the low-energy 1974 version, especially not Bruce Dern as Tom. I think the book deserves the high energy, big-budget, star power 2013 version. Decaprio is a great Gatsby.
The 2013 hotel argument scene was way better than 1974.
Toby Stephens is my favorite! Love Robert and Leo too, but Toby just has that certain X factor.
2013: Most grand 🎉
2000: Most accurate to the book 📕
That book is looking pretty sus 😳
you have no parents@@jakubpociecha8819
F. Scott Fitzgerald hated the 1926 version; he and Zelda made a big show of walking out of the premiere.
was he not part of the creative process ?
@@2kdemiks816 No; if I recall correctly, he believed that the novel couldn't be properly adapted as a film.
Makes me wonder if he would enjoy the Baz version 💜
Something tells me that one jazz musician loves fireworks
4:09 .... After his secret was revealed, he joined hydra
Too bad the silent film went and got burnt up.
We lost so many silent films it’s so sad :(
Sorry, old sport. I thought you knew 🙂
I don’t get why the 74 version just immediately reveals it’s Gatsby. Having Nick think he’s just speaking to an average guy instead of just another rich socialite is important. Only the 49 version seems to get this.
Robert`s was the very best. Without any doubt! ❤
Fantastic montage! Great work. When Leo at the end says, “You see, *I’m* Gatsby,” it’s like he’s dismissing all the Gatsbies who came before here! The true Jay Gatz. But Alan Ladd wasn’t bad! No offense, but Redford seems such a boring stiff. As for 2nd best Nick (after Tobey), I’d say Paul Rudd. I could see him giving a great performance with Leo in the 2013 one (he didn’t seem to have much to work with in 2000). Anyway, such a great job highlighting Gatsby over a century in art.
personally Tobey was unbearable. I just couldn't fit him into my mental image of Nick, and his constant voice over became unbearable. I also found Leo was too eccentric for the role of Gatsby, who should have retained some kind of reclusiveness or awkwardness. The parties also were just too much, the surrealism would have been tolerable if it has period accurate music. I think the build up was better than the other movies but as a whole it really misunderstood a lot of characters, especially Mr Wilson. I think it spent too much time focusing on showing off what is frankly ugly CGI now instead of retaining small character building moments like the Myrtle dog scene or showing many failed marriages and loves.
Paul Rudd and Tobey Maguire both perfectly played Nick Carraway
Im afraid this gatsby is not a very good host
8:13 Tobey’s boutta act up
I’m afraid I haven’t been a very good host old sport you see I’m gatsby
Having studied literature and film and taught them for the past 25 years, I long ago came to the conclusion that "faithfulness to the book" is not the "plus" that people seem to think it is. You have to go with the strength of the medium you're using when you're making an adaptation of a preexisting work. A lot of what makes the book so special is the quality and character of Nick's narrative voice. That's unsuitable for film. Film is an inherently visual/auditory medium, so if you're making one, lean into that HARD, and make no apologies for it.
Leo did a good job in being Gatsby and Toby maguire also did well, although Leo is the better Gatsby
it been 10 year and there is no new gatsby movie, why??
Because people have no need for another Gatsby. 2013 delivered us something that will be extremely difficult to beat.
I wouldn't be surprised if something at the very least inspired by TGG was released soon, considering that it very recently entered the public domain.
There will still be another film adaptation of Gatsby just like alot of novels being adapted again and again in decades
Because the definitive version has finally been made. Remaking Gatsby at this point would be like trying to remake Casablanca, Back to the Future, or the Wizard of Oz.
@@antaine1916 im not sure, the 2013 version has many strengths, but is not perfect. It’s a bit too long and sometimes overblown for Fitzgerald‘s quick, fast-moving prose.
Toby still did well in being nick carroway
Baz Lurhman channeling Orson Welles here.
The Alan Ladd version is the best of the bunch.
So Gustaf Graves and Antman were once party people...
Wow. No love for Robert Redford in the Comments? He was Brilliant in the role.
The 2000 Gatsby just seemed creepy and terrible, but I might watch it just to see Paul Rudd as Nick.😅
1:55 LMFAO
This is why it's my favorite introduction alongside Leo's lmaoooo
just. the casual mafia ahh punch takes me OUT
2000 version feels closer to Fitzgerald's vision.
true, but the 2013 was the most entertaining and cinematically impressive
Yeah, because the 2000 version is more focused on the novel, saying most of the lines in the novel. On the other hand, in the 2013 version, they don't say much of the lines, only the most important ones, along with some things that weren't in the novel to make it more dramatic.
@@2kdemiks816 That's the issue with it I'd say. It makes a party out of the book, when the book is about studying how high society functions at its parties.
I prefer the Robert Redford version. Cool, handsome,mysterious.
Just bought a copy of the 1949 version. Macdonald Carey reminds me too much of Nicholas Cage, lol. It's interesting to see the different spin some of the lines get. I'd say my chief complaint so far is that the pacing is off. Things move and escalate too quickly. There's no mystery to Gatsby's past or his relationship with Daisy. No big reveal. Even the meeting in the clip is undermined by the fact that it's how we're introduced to Nick, not Gatsby (we'd already met him and heard about his relationship with Daisy before he ever shows up).
Interesting to see "The Maltese Falcon's" Wilmer Cook show up to play Klipspringer (a piano-playing gangster) in this one.
Pretty big rewriting on some of the scenes, too.
I think Leo was a good Gatsby, but Tobey was a bit creepy as Nick. Paul Rudd was better. Baz's version was I think just a little to over the top.
Leo had a great introduction, but I just don’t see him a Gatsby. I personally preferred the way Robert played him, something about it felt better. Besides, I’m biased since I can’t stand how artsy the Leo one is.
Leo and Robert really the only true gatsby
Never knew that Paul Rudd played Nick Carraway whatttttt
I really like Alan Ladd as Gatsby in the 1949 version, it’s a bit of a shame that it suffers from the Hays Code and making it a bit of a film noir
2013 = Cartoon Gatsby, and don't even try to compare Leo's smile to Bob Redford's. 2013 did get Tom and Catherine right.
Do side by side comparison with all 5 incarnations
Leo as Gatsby
Sam Waterson as Nick
These other version's can't compete with Baz's. Jordan in the 2000 version seems especially comical.
Robert RedFord and version 74 is the best, obvious.
2013 simply takes a crap on the rest, that simple lol
It is absolutely not “that simple.” You are parading the excessive, extravagant display of the 2013 version around as an excuse to take a crap on the rest.
Leo the best gatsby
1974 has to be my favorite 🥰🥰
0:35
You missed one
2000 was the chad gatsby smfh
The new one is the best not even close I like the one with Robert Redford in it also I think what there are 4
"Having a gay time?" 😂 They knew what they were doing
I love Robert Redford
OMG Toby Stephens was a DISASTER as Gatsby - down to his red hair and eyebrows that they dyed dark brown, he doesn't fit the suave, charismatic character at all! It's such a great book, no movie has ever got the casting of Gatsby, Nick, Tom or Daisy right.
Tom was never played by actors who were masculine enough to convince. The best cast character ever was the incredible Karen Black as Myrtle in the 1974 version.
I like 1974 version a lot.
:D
Baz Lurhmann's Gatsby wasn't the best. All of the productions were unique to their eras. Only those with intelligence and retrospect will understand that.
Much respect to the older versions, but the Baz production was a treat to see in theaters and in 3D with the soundtrack blaring. It was quite the spectacle in its day 😉
Leonardo Di Caprio as the Great Gatsby? OH NO! They sent a boy to do a man's job! And that overblown intro they gave him in 2013 with bells, whistles and fireworks - laughable! Almost as bad as that dreary little girl they cast as Daisy!
Tobey McGuire was even drippier than Nick is in the book. I hope someday a movie will be made of GG that gets the casting right.
Leonardo DiCaprio is a hell of an actor, but that 2013 adaptation is a horrible display of cartoonish CGI and tasteless editing.