For those who've read the book:

I read this book for the first time last year in high school. I had always intended to read it, but for whatever reason that plan never came to fruition until our teacher assigned it as required reading.

After I completed reading it, I was blown away. I thought it was probably one of the best books I've ever read. The thing that impressed me the most was the heavy amount of depth and prowess contained in a relatively short book (not even 200 pages). It has since become my favorite book of all time, and I've read it two more times since my first reading.

So is the book truly good? I say yes. It's a brilliant commentary on the avarice and carelessness of 20s society while also being a very unique and powerful love story. It has more than earned it's right to be called a classic, and it truly is a Great American Novel. And this is coming from a teenager born in the age of trash like "The Human Centipede" and "The Jersey Shore". So if a book written 88 years ago can still accumulate the love and attention of a youth of this pathetic generation, then I say yes, this is an absolutely remarkable book.

Is it possible to adapt into a good film? I thinks it's possible. I liked the 74 version even though it could have been better paced, and I think it was better than the 2013 film which has MANY flaws and FEW highlights.

The 74 version had an almost perfect cast. Redford was a good choice, but for whatever reason, he did not bring his A game to this project. And Mia Farrow should have been replaced with a far better actress. Daisy and Gatsby are actually better portrayed in the 2013 film, one of it's few good points. The biggest problems with the 74 version are it's droning pace, the unenthusiastic performance of Redford, and the utterly terrible Mia Farrow.

So far we've had a good adaptation (The 1974 version) and a decent adaptation (The 2013 version). This might be one of the more difficult books to adapt because of the weight of the book's messages and symbolism. I think there is potential for a great adaptation of this book, but it's going to take an absolute visionary to bring it to life.

I'm not American, either, and I had to read the book in high school around 20 years ago. I am actually rereading it right now; I love it. If you already like the subject matter, I suppose it would more depend on the writing itself as to whether you enjoy the book more than the movies or at all. As it is a classic, there are free versions available for download. I think the acting makes the original movie worse than the book; maybe if the actors were better/different I would prefer the movie.

You don't have to be American to read or enjoy it (I'm not; I did). It's a literary classic and it's fairly short, take an afternoon off and culture yourself a little.

It's one of the greatest books of the century. They will always botch a film version. Fitzgerald doesn't transfer well to film, except for the cool 20's clothes and cars.

The '74 version is truest to the book; they just needed to replace Farrow as Daisy, and Dern as Tom, and trim some of the stilted dialogue.

The stereotype of the ugly, hairy-nosed, predatory Jew who wears accessories made of human body parts and controls everything behind the scenes made it impossible for me to enjoy the book.

My real name is Jeff

The book's reputation makes it impossible to translate well into film.

A recurring theme that is argued back and forth reflects the themes of the book, the portrayals of the actors, the scenery, the pacing, etc. etc. etc. Everyone who has a problem with this film and read the book has a different thing to dislike about it regarding the book.

There is NO WAY to accurately translate a book into a movie without losing something or changing something. And the more popular the book, the more unlikely people will like the film. I think it truly is impossible to make this book into a great movie.

The best movies based on books took the general concept or the idea of the books, and threw everything else away to create a new story, using the idea as a driving force to make something new. THE SHINING comes to mind, immediately. Kubrick's movie is nothing like the book, and it's wonderful. I've never read A CLOCKWORK ORANGE, but I hear the same criticisms regarding that. The best directors know they can't translate a book to a movie, so they don't even try.

This also goes for the best remakes. A good remake is one that takes the idea of the previous movie, and throws everything else away to try and dig out a new story with it. FRIGHT NIGHT, and its remake come to mind.

My thoughts: https://xanderpayne.blogspot.com
My book: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01G6OI7HG

You didn't come here to make the choice, you're here to understand why you made it.

It has something in common with Jack Kerouac's books, in that how the story is told matters as much as the story itself. Plot & dialog can translate reasonably well to the screen, often remarkably so if a gifted screenwriter sympathetic to the book is involved ... but when the prose style itself conveys so much of the depth of feeling & the atmosphere/zeitgeist of the story, then it becomes very difficult to translate properly indeed.

As far as I'm concerned, the book not only lives up to all the praise that's been lavished on it, it deserves every bit of that praise.