MovieChat Forums > The Great Gatsby (2013) Discussion > Some of the worst editing ever

Some of the worst editing ever

posted 8 years ago by knoxfan2008
10 replies | jump to latest

Seriously, from such a massively budgeted mainstream film, this film is disgustingly edited. It's funny because it seems to indulge itself in the same obnoxiousness that the book was critical of. The first five minutes are shot so contradictory to what the plotline is it's embarrassing. Plus the bookends at the mental institution is kind of insulting to the book. I also like Tobey Maquire, but yeh, he is dreadfully miscast. Baz is just a terrible film-maker. Not a bad director, but he should be directing music videos and action films, not attempting drama.

[–] mizkex 8 years ago

Some of the editing is bad, for example the scene when they drive from Nick's house to the speakeasy or even the overall pace of the film is awkward, but maybe you should be more open minded.

"It's funny because it seems to indulge itself in the same obnoxiousness that the book was critical of"

It was the ROARING twenties not "Lars Von Trier/Werner Hertzog toss a beret while smoking a cigarette muttering, *beep* the bourgeois minimalism twenties"

Fitzgerald was a spoiled, idealistic, christian caucasian Ivy League wide-eyed male douche, he cannot escape the fact that he comes from and perhaps even reluctantly embodies much of what he criticizes (Tom, Daisy and Gatsby) in this gloried soap opera of a novel.

[–] knoxfan2008 8 years ago

Fitzgerald was a spoiled, idealistic, christian caucasian Ivy League wide-eyed male douche

Who died young and was poverty stricken due to his works not selling anything in his lifetime. My comments about the dreadful editing seems to have opened this weird and sad place in you where you want to attack Fitzgerald just because.

Also,

It was the ROARING twenties not "Lars Von Trier/Werner Hertzog toss a beret while smoking a cigarette muttering, *beep* the bourgeois minimalism twenties"

Again, I think you're reaching to insult Herzog and Von Trier for no reasons here again. Also, when the hell did either of those directors make a film set in the 20's?

Also, that's no excuse for terrible editing where the lips don't match up to the actual audio dozens of times! Or how the film is paced like an action film, and none of the characters have any depth due to being given zero development time.

[–] mizkex 8 years ago

Also, that's no excuse for terrible editing where the lips don't match up to the actual audio dozens of times! Or how the film is paced like an action film, and none of the characters have any depth due to being given zero development time.

I actually do think I will give you that one here, becuase it is awkwardly paced at the VERY least. I do think some scenes work individually but that most of them fall to the wayside in between them. Apart from the editing, I do think that the strong indulgent style of the film from the sets, costumes, cinematography, score and soundtrack are justified becuase it challenges audience expectations becuase it is roaring but roaring to a modern and largely non-academic or bibliophilic audience. It is not a nostalgic or even historical look at the twenties through the familiar guise of a snobbish English teacher/professor, and I find that a refreshingly original choice in terms of tone. That does not excuse the pacing or the terrible ADR. And I would also like to add that the performances are also largely forgettable.

[–] knoxfan2008 8 years ago

sets, costumes, cinematography, score and soundtrack

You barely get ay time to see the sets, plus most of the film was made with a green screen in the background of every scene. Costumes were good sure, but you'd expect that at the minimum in any big hollywood period piece. Cinematography was dreadful, again, it all looked digital and fake because of the massive amounts of poorly rendered green screen. Score was forgettab.e. Soundtrack was ridiculous. We're supposed to believe a dozen people playing instruments sounds like a modern day Jay Z song, even when theirs no singer?

It is not a nostalgic or even historical look at the twenties through the familiar guise of a snobbish English teacher/professor

No, it's a far worse one. That of an untalented music-video director with adhd who tried to make his film "hip" even though he's an irrelevant 50 yr old Australian man.

And yeh, the perfermances were dreadful, you're right. Gaatsby, Nick and even Jordan and Daisy were likeable in the book, and it was until the end you realise Daisy is a snobby brat. In this film everything is so one-dimensional.

[–] mizkex 8 years ago

In this film everything is so one-dimensional.

You do realize this is an adaption of F Scott Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby we're discussing right?

[–] knoxfan2008 8 years ago

So what?

It's a dreadful adaption that has the exact opposite themes of the novel. The novel has rich characters. In this film, they are boiled down to nothing but stereotypes.

[–] TaRaNRoD (1579) 6 years ago

"Also, It was the ROARING twenties not "Lars Von Trier/Werner Hertzog toss a beret while smoking a cigarette muttering, *beep* the bourgeois minimalism twenties" Again, I think you're reaching to insult Herzog and Von Trier for no reasons here again . Also, when the hell did either of those directors make a film set in the 20's? "

Yeah I agree here, it really sounded unnecessary. And I agree with you... the editing is flawed and the movie simply misses something and is not interesting.

[–] FredBurroughs (21609) 7 years ago

Baz Luhrmann's films contain notoriously horrible editing, the first half in particular. It's as if the cocaine budget always runs out midway through production, and the story's pace plummets to a crawl as a result.

[–] LetThemEatCake (2717) 7 years ago

all films today are terribly edited in a way that is not conducive to telling a story, where one is painfully aware of the camera, it's a general thing, every single film is like that. If you want to see proper editing you can see Cleopatra, Vertigo, or any Golden Age film where the films are seamless and you actually forget it is a film.

[–] QuickieCalzone (378) 6 years ago

It was terrible, plus all thise CGI camera work. I didn´t like it at all in the technical department.