Talk:The Great Gatsby (2013 film)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ShyanneRoberts.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:10, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

So many free images for this movie

On Flickr there are many HQ pictures from filming that has been taking place - all under the correct commons license. I just thought I'd let anyone who may be interested to know while they are available.RaintheOne ^BAM 03:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't have time to go through and upload right now, but here is the link to the images. [1] —Mike Allen 04:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I can't wait for all the shootouts and explosions and softcore porn scenes. It's going to be awesome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.67.115.204 (talk) 03:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Full synopsis already?

I'm aware this film is completed, edited and basically ready for release, after it's release date was pushed back for a few months, so the validity of the synopsis is not what I want to debate here - my question is what is Wikipedia's policy on 'spoilers' for films that have not yet been released? I'm sure many people will drop by this page, thinking that before it's release, it'd be safe to check out production history/cast lists/etc, who then may be spoiled by the plot section at the very top of the page. Personally, I'd leave it out until it's released - no reason to delete it entirely, just comment it out in HTML. I saw the same thing happen with Red State (film) and people tended to respect the decision not to edit in the plot until the film had been properly 'released' (Kevin Smith undertook a long tour with it before releasing it properly, during which time there was ample potential opportunity to spoil it for others). 86.157.70.71 (talk) 21:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

American Summer release

Okay the second paragraph says On August 6, 2012, it was reported that the film was being moved to a summer 2013 release date, due to conflicts in the production schedule. In September 2012, this date was confirmed to be May 10, 2013. Now, in Australia (which is listed as one of the nationalities of origin of the film), May leads into winter, which means that this statement is very confusing. Now, this would be fine for any American film, but because Australia is listed as one of the nationalities of origin, should we amend it to say something similar to this? On August 6, 2012, it was reported that the film was being moved to an American summer 2013 release date, due to conflicts in the production schedule. In September 2012, this date was confirmed to be May 10, 2013. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 23:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I personally say "mid-" since American summer is the middle months. So you could say instead, "the film was being moved to a release date in mid-2013". Erik (talk | contribs) 23:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The Poster

I looked closely at what is supposed to be the poster, but it wrote, 'Now a major motion picture'. I think it is just the cover of a re-print of the original book, capitalising on the release of the film. Can someone change this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DietBrain (talk • contribs) 19:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Added the real budget

As quoted in the article, similar to Luhhrman's Australia, the budget was huge but lessened after tax rebates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.71.94 (talk) 17:59, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Section for departures from the book?

The movie stays fairly close to the books excepting a few departures. I think these would be good to mention. The ones that come to my mind: 1) the whole framing device about Nick being in the hospital and writing the novel 2) the lack of Nick's father and Owl Eyes at the funeral, 3) the de-emphasis of Tom and Daisy's daughter. I'm sure I missed many others. Jason Quinn (talk) 19:05, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

A "Differences" section would be worthwhile; there are guidelines at MOS:FILM#Adaptation from source material. Here are some sources I found: Yahoo!, Cinema Blend, and Hollywood.com. Not sure about Cinema Blend being reliable. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Weight in "Critical reception" section

The RT score for the film is 48% and the Metacritic score is 55, but 3 times the space is devoted to reporting positive reviews to negative ones in the text. I'm not sure what to suggest to fix this (Add to the negative section? Scale back the positive section? A bit of both?), so I'll just note the issue here and leave it to others to suggest solutions. 99.192.64.239 (talk) 21:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I took out the shorter positive reviews. It should be roughly even in terms of positive and negative reviewing now. Erik (talk | contribs) 00:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Budget

Someone keeps changing the budget, not mentioning that it was bigger but went down after tax rebates. See how the budget is done on Luhhrman's Australia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.71.94 (talk) 13:10, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Rebates

No mention of the Australian tax rebates? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.240.246 (talk) 15:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

World Socialist Web Site

The name of a source is not grounds for its removal, per WP:CENSOR. I generally think that a Marxist perspective on the arts is a significant minority view under WP:WEIGHT, as its prominent adherents are fairly easy to name. And as F. Scott Fitzgerald was among those prominent adherents, not noting the response of a Marxist critic to this film is absurd. --Nixin06 (talk) 03:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with being communist and everything to do with the reviewer not being a film critic. Hot Stop 03:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

He's referred to as a film critic in n+1. --Nixin06 (talk) 03:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Greatgatsbycast.png

File:Greatgatsbycast.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use however the image itself is not the subject of critical commentary. Furthermore we already a free image of the cast. Using non-free images for strictly illustration purposes is not acceptable, please add critical commentary about the image before re-adding it to the article. Thank you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:32, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

American Australian

Like it or not, this movie was made in Australia by an Australian production company by an Australian director with help from Australian Government arts funding; it is an American-Australian film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.113.155 (talk) 01:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree. If there were tax breaks given by Australia, that would be the clincher. Why is this fact being edit-warred?TeeVeeed (talk) 03:50, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Tax breaks and government financing are irrelevant. Hot Stop talk-contribs 04:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry what seems to be the problem? you are edit-warring and there was a request to include the info. about the financial help. Also--Australia obviously spent a great deal of $$ on this production, and the location was changed to Sydney as posted in the article. I am undoing, please stop warring. The category that I added was incorrect so that can goTeeVeeed (talk) 04:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• This article says that the film received the highest grossing weekend for an Australian film... I wouldn't even say it was an American film, as it wasn't filmed in America, the main production companies are all Australia, and the director is too Australian.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Baz himself calls it an "Australian film".  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:14, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Warner Bros is American. Hot Stop talk-contribs 04:15, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

The distributor of a film has no barring on that...  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:19, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but I believe that editing protocol has been violated here. I do not appreciate being drawn into an edit war. I really have no absolute answer here but the heavy-handed response is not helpful.Waiting on IRC helpTeeVeeed (talk) 04:24, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

OK-It has been fixed now. If anyone wants to debate this or change the Australian designation again, please discuss it here. Has it even been released there yet?TeeVeeed (talk) 04:33, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

It premiered in Sydney, the city it was filmed in, so yes, it has been.

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/gatsby/summary.html. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 23:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

why the name of Sir Amitabh Bachchan is not there in the starring list?...... very dissapointing fact...... he is a legendary actor..... atleast add his name to the starring list.... for God's sake! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.142.125.177 (talk) 13:55, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

the great Gatsby

That "not working" part is a deal breaker, though — and it has little to do with Luhrmann's stylistic gambits, and everything to do with his inability to reconcile them with an urge to playthings straight. 107.134.131.149 (talk) 23:26, 2 December 2023 (UTC)