Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I liked the 1980 ITV version the best - David Rintoul was a very hot Darcy.

Indeed

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Op again.

Let’s see if there’s an age demographic driving this.

I’m 49, and I prefer the Keira version. It’s beautifully filmed. The music is lovely. The acting feels more authentic. And the chemistry is smoldering.

The Firth version is a cross between watching a play (stilted; feels obviously fake and stuffy) and Little House on the Prairie (modern actors struggling to pull off the costumes and dialogue). Plus, no chemistry. The best acting in this version is Lydia—she’s a natural.

I found your post amusing because 1995 was far more accurate and historically correct in the portrayal of the characters and their backgrounds, including costumes and mannerism. The tempo is slower but the story plays out over more than a year and has multiple subplots. It was not a rapid two week courtship the way you'd have thought the 2005 version was. 2005 was Hollywood emotional glamor aimed at impressionable teens.

I'm 44. Obviously vote 1995 as the superior version.

The book timeline is about a year. How can the 1995 version be accurate if its over a much longer timeline? Also in 2005 there are a few seasons so you can tell its not just 2 weeks. Have you seen it?

It's more than a year. It started, I think, in the early fall of one year and concluded the following Christmas with the dual weddings.

1995 was six hours of incredibly faithful filming capturing every single thing in the book. The "slowness" of the six hours captures the passing of time much more effectively than sitting through the whole thing in two hours. It matches the human experience time where there isn't drama every single day but long spells of mundaneness and ordinary everyday life. You do get that in the 1995 version. It takes longer to do things, it takes longer to cover ground, it takes longer for a letter to come.

2005 was a prelude to the TikTok era. Bam, bam, boom, over.

Ok, so because it didn't last 6 hours that somehow means it didn't abide the timeline of about a year? I think you need to rewatch, your criticism doesn't seem very accurate.

I’m not the PP but I also felt like the 2005 version rushed everything. Of course it had to, because it couldn’t fit as much into 2 hours as 6, but it did feel rushed. In contrast, the 2 hour version of sense and sensibility with Emma Watson and Kate winslet didn’t feel rushed at all to me.

While some scenes were rushed, the long scenes of Keira Knightly on the tire swing felt like they went on too long and were just showing off the actress. I would have liked the movie better without those scenes

Hated the tire swing scene. Lizzie Bennett would never be out there on a tire swing looking so ragged. Lydia, yes. But not Elizabeth. And she wouldn’t have had a public shouting match with charlotte either.

Anonymous wrote:I liked the 1980 ITV version the best - David Rintoul was a very hot Darcy.

Anonymous wrote:I liked the 1980 ITV version the best - David Rintoul was a very hot Darcy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is reminding me I'm due for a re-watch of the BBC P and P. Where can I stream it?

Amazon prime

With ads.

? I purchased it on Amazon prime and don’t have ads

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Op again.

Let’s see if there’s an age demographic driving this.

I’m 49, and I prefer the Keira version. It’s beautifully filmed. The music is lovely. The acting feels more authentic. And the chemistry is smoldering.

The Firth version is a cross between watching a play (stilted; feels obviously fake and stuffy) and Little House on the Prairie (modern actors struggling to pull off the costumes and dialogue). Plus, no chemistry. The best acting in this version is Lydia—she’s a natural.

I found your post amusing because 1995 was far more accurate and historically correct in the portrayal of the characters and their backgrounds, including costumes and mannerism. The tempo is slower but the story plays out over more than a year and has multiple subplots. It was not a rapid two week courtship the way you'd have thought the 2005 version was. 2005 was Hollywood emotional glamor aimed at impressionable teens.

I'm 44. Obviously vote 1995 as the superior version.

The book timeline is about a year. How can the 1995 version be accurate if its over a much longer timeline? Also in 2005 there are a few seasons so you can tell its not just 2 weeks. Have you seen it?

It's more than a year. It started, I think, in the early fall of one year and concluded the following Christmas with the dual weddings.

1995 was six hours of incredibly faithful filming capturing every single thing in the book. The "slowness" of the six hours captures the passing of time much more effectively than sitting through the whole thing in two hours. It matches the human experience time where there isn't drama every single day but long spells of mundaneness and ordinary everyday life. You do get that in the 1995 version. It takes longer to do things, it takes longer to cover ground, it takes longer for a letter to come.

2005 was a prelude to the TikTok era. Bam, bam, boom, over.

Ok, so because it didn't last 6 hours that somehow means it didn't abide the timeline of about a year? I think you need to rewatch, your criticism doesn't seem very accurate.

I’m not the PP but I also felt like the 2005 version rushed everything. Of course it had to, because it couldn’t fit as much into 2 hours as 6, but it did feel rushed. In contrast, the 2 hour version of sense and sensibility with Emma Watson and Kate winslet didn’t feel rushed at all to me.

While some scenes were rushed, the long scenes of Keira Knightly on the tire swing felt like they went on too long and were just showing off the actress. I would have liked the movie better without those scenes

Hated the tire swing scene. Lizzie Bennett would never be out there on a tire swing looking so ragged. Lydia, yes. But not Elizabeth. And she wouldn’t have had a public shouting match with charlotte either.

ITA.

While I love both versions (and technically there's an earlier version with Laurence Olivier), it's almost an apples to oranges comparison. The BBC version is more nuanced and develops each character. The Keira version is trying to tell the story in a way that has a deadline and they needed to either omit key parts of the story or skim over them.

Anonymous wrote:In vain have I struggled. It will not do. My feelings will not be repressed. You must allow me to tell you how ardently I admire and love Colin Firth.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Op again.

Let’s see if there’s an age demographic driving this.

I’m 49, and I prefer the Keira version. It’s beautifully filmed. The music is lovely. The acting feels more authentic. And the chemistry is smoldering.

The Firth version is a cross between watching a play (stilted; feels obviously fake and stuffy) and Little House on the Prairie (modern actors struggling to pull off the costumes and dialogue). Plus, no chemistry. The best acting in this version is Lydia—she’s a natural.

I found your post amusing because 1995 was far more accurate and historically correct in the portrayal of the characters and their backgrounds, including costumes and mannerism. The tempo is slower but the story plays out over more than a year and has multiple subplots. It was not a rapid two week courtship the way you'd have thought the 2005 version was. 2005 was Hollywood emotional glamor aimed at impressionable teens.

I'm 44. Obviously vote 1995 as the superior version.

The book timeline is about a year. How can the 1995 version be accurate if its over a much longer timeline? Also in 2005 there are a few seasons so you can tell its not just 2 weeks. Have you seen it?

It's more than a year. It started, I think, in the early fall of one year and concluded the following Christmas with the dual weddings.

1995 was six hours of incredibly faithful filming capturing every single thing in the book. The "slowness" of the six hours captures the passing of time much more effectively than sitting through the whole thing in two hours. It matches the human experience time where there isn't drama every single day but long spells of mundaneness and ordinary everyday life. You do get that in the 1995 version. It takes longer to do things, it takes longer to cover ground, it takes longer for a letter to come.

2005 was a prelude to the TikTok era. Bam, bam, boom, over.

Ok, so because it didn't last 6 hours that somehow means it didn't abide the timeline of about a year? I think you need to rewatch, your criticism doesn't seem very accurate.

I’m not the PP but I also felt like the 2005 version rushed everything. Of course it had to, because it couldn’t fit as much into 2 hours as 6, but it did feel rushed. In contrast, the 2 hour version of sense and sensibility with Emma Watson and Kate winslet didn’t feel rushed at all to me.

While some scenes were rushed, the long scenes of Keira Knightly on the tire swing felt like they went on too long and were just showing off the actress. I would have liked the movie better without those scenes

Hated the tire swing scene. Lizzie Bennett would never be out there on a tire swing looking so ragged. Lydia, yes. But not Elizabeth. And she wouldn’t have had a public shouting match with charlotte either.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Op again.

Let’s see if there’s an age demographic driving this.

I’m 49, and I prefer the Keira version. It’s beautifully filmed. The music is lovely. The acting feels more authentic. And the chemistry is smoldering.

The Firth version is a cross between watching a play (stilted; feels obviously fake and stuffy) and Little House on the Prairie (modern actors struggling to pull off the costumes and dialogue). Plus, no chemistry. The best acting in this version is Lydia—she’s a natural.

I found your post amusing because 1995 was far more accurate and historically correct in the portrayal of the characters and their backgrounds, including costumes and mannerism. The tempo is slower but the story plays out over more than a year and has multiple subplots. It was not a rapid two week courtship the way you'd have thought the 2005 version was. 2005 was Hollywood emotional glamor aimed at impressionable teens.

I'm 44. Obviously vote 1995 as the superior version.

The book timeline is about a year. How can the 1995 version be accurate if its over a much longer timeline? Also in 2005 there are a few seasons so you can tell its not just 2 weeks. Have you seen it?

It's more than a year. It started, I think, in the early fall of one year and concluded the following Christmas with the dual weddings.

1995 was six hours of incredibly faithful filming capturing every single thing in the book. The "slowness" of the six hours captures the passing of time much more effectively than sitting through the whole thing in two hours. It matches the human experience time where there isn't drama every single day but long spells of mundaneness and ordinary everyday life. You do get that in the 1995 version. It takes longer to do things, it takes longer to cover ground, it takes longer for a letter to come.

2005 was a prelude to the TikTok era. Bam, bam, boom, over.

Ok, so because it didn't last 6 hours that somehow means it didn't abide the timeline of about a year? I think you need to rewatch, your criticism doesn't seem very accurate.

I’m not the PP but I also felt like the 2005 version rushed everything. Of course it had to, because it couldn’t fit as much into 2 hours as 6, but it did feel rushed. In contrast, the 2 hour version of sense and sensibility with Emma Watson and Kate winslet didn’t feel rushed at all to me.

While some scenes were rushed, the long scenes of Keira Knightly on the tire swing felt like they went on too long and were just showing off the actress. I would have liked the movie better without those scenes

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is reminding me I'm due for a re-watch of the BBC P and P. Where can I stream it?

Amazon prime

With ads.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Spinoff... which is a better Emma? Haven't watched either Gwenyth or the BBC one all the way through before and don't fully know the story, so I want the best one to watch

I thought the one with Romula Garai as Emma was really good, but the recent one with Anya Taylor Joy was a lot of fun, too.

The Gwyneth one I liked less, but I still liked it.

This is in line with my taste too. I really enjoyed Gwyneth herself but the entire movie isn’t quite as good as the more recent ones.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Op again.

Let’s see if there’s an age demographic driving this.

I’m 49, and I prefer the Keira version. It’s beautifully filmed. The music is lovely. The acting feels more authentic. And the chemistry is smoldering.

The Firth version is a cross between watching a play (stilted; feels obviously fake and stuffy) and Little House on the Prairie (modern actors struggling to pull off the costumes and dialogue). Plus, no chemistry. The best acting in this version is Lydia—she’s a natural.

I found your post amusing because 1995 was far more accurate and historically correct in the portrayal of the characters and their backgrounds, including costumes and mannerism. The tempo is slower but the story plays out over more than a year and has multiple subplots. It was not a rapid two week courtship the way you'd have thought the 2005 version was. 2005 was Hollywood emotional glamor aimed at impressionable teens.

I'm 44. Obviously vote 1995 as the superior version.

The book timeline is about a year. How can the 1995 version be accurate if its over a much longer timeline? Also in 2005 there are a few seasons so you can tell its not just 2 weeks. Have you seen it?

It's more than a year. It started, I think, in the early fall of one year and concluded the following Christmas with the dual weddings.

1995 was six hours of incredibly faithful filming capturing every single thing in the book. The "slowness" of the six hours captures the passing of time much more effectively than sitting through the whole thing in two hours. It matches the human experience time where there isn't drama every single day but long spells of mundaneness and ordinary everyday life. You do get that in the 1995 version. It takes longer to do things, it takes longer to cover ground, it takes longer for a letter to come.

2005 was a prelude to the TikTok era. Bam, bam, boom, over.

Ok, so because it didn't last 6 hours that somehow means it didn't abide the timeline of about a year? I think you need to rewatch, your criticism doesn't seem very accurate.

I’m not the PP but I also felt like the 2005 version rushed everything. Of course it had to, because it couldn’t fit as much into 2 hours as 6, but it did feel rushed. In contrast, the 2 hour version of sense and sensibility with Emma Watson and Kate winslet didn’t feel rushed at all to me.