The 1974 version is closed to the book. And the book written by Scott Fitzgerald is a masterpiece, showing the bad side of a rich and selfish american society. That's why the 1974 version was good..!!! It makes you share feelings...Gatsby's feelings...!!!
The 1974 version is a luminous masterpiece and captures the book almost perfectly. The 2013 version is too in love with itself to be much concerned with the book. Baz Luhrman. Ugh. As a reviewer on Uproxx wrote, 'Excess once tried to spend a day with Baz Luhrmann and spent the afternoon puking rainbows into a chocolate fountain.'
What a perfect description of Baz Luhrmann... lol... Couldn't have said it better myself... I'm a student of literature n a fan of Fitzgerald so I saw both the versions n honestly I loved the 1974 version more... Redford captured the essence of Gatsby... Leo, somehow, I couldn't accept as Gatsby... He'll always be Jack from Titanic etched in my mind...
Mia was not my favorite Daisy.. Betty Field was more authentic and the better actress.. Carey looked the part as did Mira in the series. Mia was just too annoying.
I'm from the 90s generation but I prefer 1974 Gatsby version... That captures 1920s era perfectly... n it's also closer to the book in its portrayal of characters... Plus I love Robert Redford n to me he was a perfect Gatsby... Mia Farrow was pretty shallow but Daisy anyways was a shallow character to begin with...
I LOVED THE 1974 VERSION. YOU GOT THE FEELING THAT YOU HAD BEEN TRANSPORTED BACK TO THE ROARING 20'S . THE SOUNDTRACK WAS PERFECT. THE " HIP-HOP" MUSIC IN THE LATEST FILM DIDN'T GO WITH THE SETTING AT ALL . ( OBVIOUSLY THE MAKERS WERE TRYING TO GET A YOUNGER AUDIENCE. ) ---- WATCH THE 1974 VERSION, THAT FILM IS WITHOUT A DOUBT, THE BEST INTERPRETATION .
(Spoilers!) Both films are outstanding in their own way. I think the 1974 version is just a hair better though because it handled the climax with more depth and complexity. You could tell George had been debating whether killing Gatsby was the right thing to do the whole journey and from the look on his face and his trembling hands, he wasn’t used to killing. This makes his suicide more palpable when he suddenly realizes the weight of what he has just done and that revenge couldn’t take the pain away. In the newer version, the director rushed this part so his decision to end it all was a bit head scratching. I think the best way to compare the films is that while the dramatic power and resonance comes from the acting in 1974 like a stage play, the visual style is the more prominent feature in 2013 because of the storytelling with flashbacks, slow dissolves, closeups and snazzy camera angles like Citizen Kane.
The 2013 version was good, but the 1974 version was outstanding. Mia Farrow was so good and lovely as Daisy. The rest of the cast was excellent, Robert Redford, Bruce Dern, Sam Waterson, Lois Chiles, Karen Black and Scott Wilson. The '74 version manages to capture the flavor of a hot, humid, muggy New York summer in the "Roaring 20's", (Or what I would imagine life would be like back then.) At the same time, it seems to convey a underlying sense of doom.
The 1974 version was the single most UNFAIRLY bashed film in cinema history! I saw it in an empty theater when I was 11 and was really moved by it. So I read the book and saw that the film was slavishly faithful to story. Yet all the reviews I read of this film at the time of its release were very negative. Using Berlin's What'll I Do? as the recurring motif - that was genius, a perfect fit. The performances in the '74 version were all top notch: Redford, Farrow, Bruce Dern, Sam Waterston, Karen Black, Scott Wilson, Lois Chiles and Howard Da Silva. The only thing was that I thought Bruce Dern was a little miscast: he comes off as more intelligent than Tom Buchanan, thus making him seem even more evil. Daisy Buchanan is, like Mia Farrow, a kind of vacuous non-entity. You can believe Gatsby's obsession with her is basically "She looks like money." I don't know why, then, every actress wants to play her. This movie (the 1974 version) basically got made because Ali McGraw was obsessed with playing the character and she was married to the head of Paramount, Robert Evans and the film was planned and ready to shoot when she decided to shack up with Steve McQueen, which lead to the recasting. McGraw and McQueen even offered to play the leads at no salary, but Evans refused. I reread the novel and rewatched this version when it was on Netflix a few years ago and as far as I'm concerned, like the novel, it's only gotten better with age.
I always preferred Carey Mulligan's Daisy over Mia Farrow's. A little less timid perhaps, but to me, Carey epitomized the Roaring Twenties in her characterisation.
I’m sorry, but I like the 2013 one just a bit more. Leo did a FANTASTIC job on playing Gatsby and Nick had more personality than a wooden block. Also, it’s sooo asteticly pleasing!
The 2013 is made to appeal to a younger audience, same as Buz Luhrmann's version of Romeo and Juliet versus Zeffirelli's film of 1968. What I don't like in 2013 version is that it is so full of digital and computer effects, but I guess I'm just old, so to each generation its own.
La PRODUCCIÓN FÍLMICA DE 1.974,es realmente estar viviendo en esos AÑOS LOCOS.LAS VESTIMENTAS MASCULINAS Y FEMENINAS SON DE ESPECIALISTAS de la ELEGANCIA LOS CHARLESTON, MELODÍAS ETC ,TE HACEN ENTRAR EN LA PANTALLA GRANDE 👍
1974 is exclusively Fitzgerald and is trying to imagine the book as it was writen in the '20s 2013 is over-the-top with Baz Lurhman connecting more with the emotions rather than the content Both were trying to be as accurate as possible while putting their own fingerprints all over it, telling it in their own unique way
When comparing both each has their pros and cons. Like how the 2013 film is a better film than the 1974 version but the 1974 version is a better adaption due to it being closer. The 2013 one captures the vitality and youthfullness of the 20's better while the 74' one projected the overall idea of satirical american greed better like how the book portrayed it. So in the end is the 74' a better adaption? Yes. But is it a better film. No. There's many ways to compare both. But in the end. Its whether or not you enjoy it that matters.
I think the contrary. The movie of 1974 made by Jack Clayton is much better. The actors are much better and much more beautiful. The costumes and dances have class....!!!
I can't understand how people even compare a Baz Luhrmann piece of shit to a masterpiece like the 1974 movie. It totally corrupts the breath of the story, he rushes it, and slows it to fulfill it's own satisfaction. this 2013 piece of shit will fit in just a word: popular.
The difference between the two movies is one was made at a time that making movies was harder with not so easy equipment and most importantly the 2013 version had something to look up to and make sure it is "better" than that. Better cameras, better equipment, more money for budget and most importantly big movies now pay a far bigger attention to every single detail because with digital technology it is just possible.
Both the 1974 movie and the 2000 A&E TV movie are more realistic in presentation (if that's a good or a bad thing, it depends on who you ask), the 2013 movie relied too much on CGI. It looked artificial (although that may have been the point that the director was trying to make).
The 2013 movie is in my opinion ruined by the hip hop/ dance music they added that is from the 2000s. Roughly every 10 minutes the immersion is broken.
If you're going to do a movie about the twenties do it right! Sorry but hip hop and rap music have no place in the jazz age. 2013 version was trying to appeal to young people of today. big mistake! They need to learn the history of music. And hear good music ! not today's crap. What an insult to the jazz age. 1974 version wins hands down
I've watched both the 1974 and 2013 versions of The Great Gatsby and even read the book before watching both, I really like the book, it gives a good view on people who were rich back then in the 1920s before The Great Depression from the view of Nick, a middle-class person who's poor and not poor at the same time. Plus I love Gatsby, he's the Character that got me more interested in the book and wanted to read it more and find out more stuff about Daisy and Gatsby So what I'm gonna do is go over the Pro's and Con's of both films 1974 It has a Good Soundtrack that shows the music of that time, and not only that it even made me want to get up and dance to the music, the actors (Note: I never have seen or heard of these actors before, so I'll be going by the character they played), some were good like Gatsby, Tom, Myrtle, George, Jordan, and Wolfshire even if he was only in a couple scenes, but Nick and Daisy I didn't like how they were represented in the movie. Nick felt like a non-social man and Daisy was overly dramatic with certain scenes like the part where she's crying over "Beautiful Shirts", not too mention the acting could have been better. As for Visual Representation, it has a strong view of the 1920s showing how people dressed, talked, and dance, as well as what they did like illegal alcohol bars that were hidden in New York at the time, but it fails at dragging me into the world of the 1920s, lastly I don't like how it's a full on direct copy of the book, minus a few scenes like when Tom slapped Myrtle 2013 The soundtrack of the movie was a bit...off I have to say, but at least I can make out the Jazz during Gatsby's parties but it doesn't get me to the point of getting up to dance, The actors like Tobey Maguire, Leonardo Dicaprio, and e.c.t were really great each actor nailed their part in the film, Nick was represented was represented way better then the actor in 1974, and I love it how he is narrating the book and he was the one who wrote it, the actor for Daisy did a better a job less dramatic too, visual representation was greatly shown from the Parties, Bars, and e.c.t, it even made feel like I was there, even being original with the movie at times and have connections to the book All and all, 2013 Great Gatsby is far superior then 1974
Anyone who thinks the 2013 version is better than Redford/ Farrow is probably around 17-24 years old. If you like loud, horrible music and getting dizzy, over-acting then you will probably choose the 2013 version. I was really disappointed because I love DiCaprio and Carey Mulligan. However, you cannot remake a classic and try to improve upon it. Where are the screenwriters?? Why are so many movies now just remakes??
thank u so much rebbeca lynné. the music is definitely loud and horrible. that’s exactly why they put it in a movie that had a budget over 100 million 🙄
The 2013 movie was an embarrassing travesty. Utterly ridiculous, chimerical garbage... Rap music in the 1920s (!) ... Millennial eye rolling at un-PC sentiments which, were actually widely accepted in the 1920s.
How can you lose with a cast like Robert Redford, Sam Waterston, Bruce Dern, Mia Farrow and Karen Black?!
Because the direction and the screenplay were not that good and unispired; they seem to freeze in front of the Fitzgerald classic in the 1974 film.
1974 saying="realistic 20s"
2013 screamin="ready for 2020?"
As much as I love Leonardo DiCaprio, the 1974 version will always be my favorite.
The 2013 version is boring, trite and predictable...
1974’s version had Nelson Riddle as director of music. It’s the definitive Jazz Age movie & novel. No contest.
I wish they showed us the 2013 version when I was in high school... It actually made me interested in the book. The 1970 version made me... Depressed.
Kafss ...does the book not make you depressed? 😂
We watched the 2013 version right after finishing the book. Was a trip lol
We read a chapter and the. Watch the movie
The 1974 version is closed to the book. And the book written by Scott Fitzgerald is a masterpiece, showing the bad side of a rich and selfish american society. That's why the 1974 version was good..!!! It makes you share feelings...Gatsby's feelings...!!!
It Is a depressing story . Supposed to be . About people's exses's and personal confusion .
The 1974 version is a luminous masterpiece and captures the book almost perfectly. The 2013 version is too in love with itself to be much concerned with the book. Baz Luhrman. Ugh. As a reviewer on Uproxx wrote, 'Excess once tried to spend a day with Baz Luhrmann and spent the afternoon puking rainbows into a chocolate fountain.'
What a perfect description of Baz Luhrmann... lol... Couldn't have said it better myself... I'm a student of literature n a fan of Fitzgerald so I saw both the versions n honestly I loved the 1974 version more... Redford captured the essence of Gatsby... Leo, somehow, I couldn't accept as Gatsby... He'll always be Jack from Titanic etched in my mind...
Mia was not my favorite Daisy.. Betty Field was more authentic and the better actress.. Carey looked the part as did Mira in the series. Mia was just too annoying.
A bit harsh to say such things - however I do not like Baz Luhrmanns movies because the characters and some of the scenes are far too ridiculous.
I'm from the 90s generation but I prefer 1974 Gatsby version... That captures 1920s era perfectly... n it's also closer to the book in its portrayal of characters... Plus I love Robert Redford n to me he was a perfect Gatsby... Mia Farrow was pretty shallow but Daisy anyways was a shallow character to begin with...
I LOVED THE 1974 VERSION. YOU GOT THE FEELING THAT YOU HAD BEEN TRANSPORTED BACK TO THE ROARING 20'S . THE SOUNDTRACK WAS PERFECT. THE " HIP-HOP" MUSIC IN THE LATEST FILM DIDN'T GO WITH THE SETTING AT ALL . ( OBVIOUSLY THE MAKERS WERE TRYING TO GET A YOUNGER AUDIENCE. ) ---- WATCH THE 1974 VERSION, THAT FILM IS WITHOUT A DOUBT, THE BEST INTERPRETATION .
(Spoilers!) Both films are outstanding in their own way. I think the 1974 version is just a hair better though because it handled the climax with more depth and complexity. You could tell George had been debating whether killing Gatsby was the right thing to do the whole journey and from the look on his face and his trembling hands, he wasn’t used to killing. This makes his suicide more palpable when he suddenly realizes the weight of what he has just done and that revenge couldn’t take the pain away. In the newer version, the director rushed this part so his decision to end it all was a bit head scratching. I think the best way to compare the films is that while the dramatic power and resonance comes from the acting in 1974 like a stage play, the visual style is the more prominent feature in 2013 because of the storytelling with flashbacks, slow dissolves, closeups and snazzy camera angles like Citizen Kane.
Robert Redford is, was, and always will be Gatsby.
The 2013 version was good, but the 1974 version was outstanding. Mia Farrow was so good and lovely as Daisy. The rest of the cast was excellent, Robert Redford, Bruce Dern, Sam Waterson, Lois Chiles, Karen Black and Scott Wilson. The '74 version manages to capture the flavor of a hot, humid, muggy New York summer in the "Roaring 20's", (Or what I would imagine life would be like back then.) At the same time, it seems to convey a underlying sense of doom.
The 1974 was more emotional and more accurate to the book.
They should've done this with Brad Pitt as Gatsby, and Redford as his father.
Loved this idea. Genius.
No way, the 1974 version is the best.
I had this funny thought running through my head that The Great Gatsby should have been on Netflix series running for only about a handful of episodes
The 1974 version was the single most UNFAIRLY bashed film in cinema history! I saw it in an empty theater when I was 11 and was really moved by it. So I read the book and saw that the film was slavishly faithful to story. Yet all the reviews I read of this film at the time of its release were very negative. Using Berlin's What'll I Do? as the recurring motif - that was genius, a perfect fit. The performances in the '74 version were all top notch: Redford, Farrow, Bruce Dern, Sam Waterston, Karen Black, Scott Wilson, Lois Chiles and Howard Da Silva. The only thing was that I thought Bruce Dern was a little miscast: he comes off as more intelligent than Tom Buchanan, thus making him seem even more evil. Daisy Buchanan is, like Mia Farrow, a kind of vacuous non-entity. You can believe Gatsby's obsession with her is basically "She looks like money." I don't know why, then, every actress wants to play her. This movie (the 1974 version) basically got made because Ali McGraw was obsessed with playing the character and she was married to the head of Paramount, Robert Evans and the film was planned and ready to shoot when she decided to shack up with Steve McQueen, which lead to the recasting. McGraw and McQueen even offered to play the leads at no salary, but Evans refused. I reread the novel and rewatched this version when it was on Netflix a few years ago and as far as I'm concerned, like the novel, it's only gotten better with age.
I don’t care if the 1974 is “MoRe liKe tHe BoOk” 2013 is still my favorite it gives you that fantasy, and nothing can beat young and beautiful
Read the novel.
@@TheTourmaline57 i read the novel, i still prefer the 2013 one
I bet you have neither read the book nor watched the 1974 version of the movie...
@@antoniomele4830 I completely agree. The 2013 version might not be as realistic, but it definitely captures your attention.
Young and beautiful really has that great impact
I always preferred Carey Mulligan's Daisy over Mia Farrow's. A little less timid perhaps, but to me, Carey epitomized the Roaring Twenties in her characterisation.
I’m sorry, but I like the 2013 one just a bit more. Leo did a FANTASTIC job on playing Gatsby and Nick had more personality than a wooden block. Also, it’s sooo asteticly pleasing!
Cutsie Productions lol it’s “aesthetically” 🤦🏼♀️
@@xxIluvyouguysxx and, it's not pleasing.
Fun fact: Jackie Kennedy Onassis‘s mom Janet put the entire 1974 cast up at her husband Hugh Auchincloss’s estate, Hammersmith farm.
I honestly loved the new version better. Felt like I was in the film with them.
That's because you're a typical, brain-dead Millennial. Your entire generation is, for the most part, utter garbage.
Remembering 1992 okay boomer 😙
@@Remembering-rq6si STFU TRASH OLD MAN BOOMER
I will always love the 1974 movie version better. Robert Redford is Gatsby.
And Mia the quintessential Daisy Buchanan.
1926, 1949, 1974 & 2013 none had successfully portrayed the story as a it is in the novel.
Novel is the best!
The 2013 is made to appeal to a younger audience, same as Buz Luhrmann's version of Romeo and Juliet versus Zeffirelli's film of 1968.
What I don't like in 2013 version is that it is so full of digital and computer effects, but I guess I'm just old, so to each generation its own.
La PRODUCCIÓN FÍLMICA DE 1.974,es realmente estar viviendo en esos AÑOS LOCOS.LAS VESTIMENTAS MASCULINAS Y FEMENINAS SON DE ESPECIALISTAS de la ELEGANCIA LOS CHARLESTON, MELODÍAS ETC ,TE HACEN ENTRAR EN LA PANTALLA GRANDE 👍
1974.Ralph Lauren cannot be eclipsed.
1974 is the better film...by far.
The music in the 2013 version was too synthesizer based for movie taking place in the 1920's.
2013
Leo's performance was unforgettable and stuff
How can you lose with a cast like Robert Redford, Sam Waterston, Bruce Dern, Mia Farrow and Karen Black!
1974 is exclusively Fitzgerald and is trying to imagine the book as it was writen in the '20s
2013 is over-the-top with Baz Lurhman connecting more with the emotions rather than the content
Both were trying to be as accurate as possible while putting their own fingerprints all over it, telling it in their own unique way
1974 music 😍
When comparing both each has their pros and cons. Like how the 2013 film is a better film than the 1974 version but the 1974 version is a better adaption due to it being closer. The 2013 one captures the vitality and youthfullness of the 20's better while the 74' one projected the overall idea of satirical american greed better like how the book portrayed it. So in the end is the 74' a better adaption? Yes. But is it a better film. No. There's many ways to compare both. But in the end. Its whether or not you enjoy it that matters.
I think the contrary. The movie of 1974 made by Jack Clayton is much better. The actors are much better and much more beautiful. The costumes and dances have class....!!!
I can't understand how people even compare a Baz Luhrmann piece of shit to a masterpiece like the 1974 movie. It totally corrupts the breath of the story, he rushes it, and slows it to fulfill it's own satisfaction. this 2013 piece of shit will fit in just a word: popular.
The difference between the two movies is one was made at a time that making movies was harder with not so easy equipment and most importantly the 2013 version had something to look up to and make sure it is "better" than that.
Better cameras, better equipment, more money for budget and most importantly big movies now pay a far bigger attention to every single detail because with digital technology it is just possible.
Both the 1974 movie and the 2000 A&E TV movie are more realistic in presentation (if that's a good or a bad thing, it depends on who you ask), the 2013 movie relied too much on CGI. It looked artificial (although that may have been the point that the director was trying to make).
What song is playing at 2:04
They are both exceptional
Two version costume got Best Oscar
La primera versión me gusta más, Robert Reford es magnífico.
I agree
Song at 2:10?
I like the old one better.
The 2000 A&E TV movie is the closest to the book.
Yep
No question the old one was much more classy
@mylifeisa You are, quite honestly, an idiot.
The 1974 one is more realistic.
When I read the book the one portrayed in the 1974 one is exactly what I am seeing.
The 1949 film version is definitive
2013 version is more XXIst Century commercial garbage. On the contrary, 1974 one is almost visual poetry, a fascinating movie.
Separating an Actors skill from rest of movie . interesting And important .if you're going to study Hollywood
The 2013 movie is in my opinion ruined by the hip hop/ dance music they added that is from the 2000s. Roughly every 10 minutes the immersion is broken.
The 1974 version didn't have Rhapsody in Blue though
can i get a wide hug too..
The new version is the better film. But Redford is the better Gatsby.
Thanks, that was good.
❤
Robert Redford will always be Gatsby to me...
sarah daw same
The 2013 version would make Fitzgerald puke.
No one could beat the costuming by Ralph Lauren.
The 2013 versión is a ridiculos and prentencius film
Lol the music for 2013 was even shittier than I remembered xd it wasn’t even good hiphop.
The 2013 version is exacly what one could expect from a modern Hollywood movie: overproduced. It's pretty to look at, but that's it.
But the best version is the... 1949 one.
De Caprios Gatsby might be as good as Redford s .But 13 movie more cluttered , flaws .So_ Redford more believable .
1974 was more authentic and Redford over Dicaprio 100%
@enchufeTv te robaron la cancion
1949
Versione 1974 la migliore in assoluto
2013 has a lot of digital shit.
The remake is a tacky, overindulgent car crash. The original wins by a long shot!
2013 doesn't work because is over the top.
Ouch the older version is better
2013 and 1974 remake are better then the movie.
Seth Corn what a fucking idiot you must be.
Qwerty uiop watch your language!
Aku it means if the remake of the movie call the great gatsby are the same.
???
the fuck are u smoking?
Mia Is The BEST 👌
Sorry, But Mia Farrow isn't the woman you go out and conquer worlds for.
If you're going to do a movie about the twenties do it right! Sorry but hip hop and rap music have no place in the jazz age. 2013 version was trying to appeal to young people of today. big mistake! They need to learn the history of music. And hear good music ! not today's crap. What an insult to the jazz age. 1974 version wins hands down
I've watched both the 1974 and 2013 versions of The Great Gatsby and even read the book before watching both, I really like the book, it gives a good view on people who were rich back then in the 1920s before The Great Depression from the view of Nick, a middle-class person who's poor and not poor at the same time. Plus I love Gatsby, he's the Character that got me more interested in the book and wanted to read it more and find out more stuff about Daisy and Gatsby
So what I'm gonna do is go over the Pro's and Con's of both films
1974
It has a Good Soundtrack that shows the music of that time, and not only that it even made me want to get up and dance to the music, the actors (Note: I never have seen or heard of these actors before, so I'll be going by the character they played), some were good like Gatsby, Tom, Myrtle, George, Jordan, and Wolfshire even if he was only in a couple scenes, but Nick and Daisy I didn't like how they were represented in the movie. Nick felt like a non-social man and Daisy was overly dramatic with certain scenes like the part where she's crying over "Beautiful Shirts", not too mention the acting could have been better. As for Visual Representation, it has a strong view of the 1920s showing how people dressed, talked, and dance, as well as what they did like illegal alcohol bars that were hidden in New York at the time, but it fails at dragging me into the world of the 1920s, lastly I don't like how it's a full on direct copy of the book, minus a few scenes like when Tom slapped Myrtle
2013
The soundtrack of the movie was a bit...off I have to say, but at least I can make out the Jazz during Gatsby's parties but it doesn't get me to the point of getting up to dance, The actors like Tobey Maguire, Leonardo Dicaprio, and e.c.t were really great each actor nailed their part in the film, Nick was represented was represented way better then the actor in 1974, and I love it how he is narrating the book and he was the one who wrote it, the actor for Daisy did a better a job less dramatic too, visual representation was greatly shown from the Parties, Bars, and e.c.t, it even made feel like I was there, even being original with the movie at times and have connections to the book
All and all, 2013 Great Gatsby is far superior then 1974
Can't stand Baz Luhrman pix.
There is NO comparison. The 1974 version LACKED EVERYTHING. NO INTENSITY. It seemed all the actors just recited lines. Terrible.
Anyone who thinks the 2013 version is better than Redford/ Farrow is probably around 17-24 years old. If you like loud, horrible music and getting dizzy, over-acting then you will probably choose the 2013 version. I was really disappointed because I love DiCaprio and Carey Mulligan. However, you cannot remake a classic and try to improve upon it.
Where are the screenwriters?? Why are so many movies now just remakes??
2013 was a fizzy kaleidoscope
The music was the icing on this urinal cake.
thank u so much rebbeca lynné. the music is definitely loud and horrible. that’s exactly why they put it in a movie that had a budget over 100 million 🙄
The 2013 movie was an embarrassing travesty. Utterly ridiculous, chimerical garbage... Rap music in the 1920s (!) ... Millennial eye rolling at un-PC sentiments which, were actually widely accepted in the 1920s.