Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I like the 1980 BBC TV version.
Where Elizabeth runs 5 miles from Lambton to Pemberley with Jane's letter in her hand? I find the acting a bit stiff in that one.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
They had candles back then- they could have certainly taken a single candle out to the garden with them. It's not like the house is much brighter in the time before electricity.
I think some people want a religious adaptation, and others enjoy seeing artists make their own interpretation of the work. I much prefer the 2005 version, although I like the 1995 version too. How about you realize that people have different tastes and get over it?
Joe Wright didn't read the book, so it's hardly an interpretation. Also, your point about candles doesn't make that scene any less non-sensical as is your use of emojis.
He did read the book.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pride_%26_Prejudice_(2005_film)
You seriously seem unhinged.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Op read the book. He is a self important, loquacious bore and a prig with no intellect. He is the antithesis of who would be suitable for Lizzie.
This is it.
Exactly. Even Charlotte doesn't like him all that much--she basically arranges her whole life to spend as little time with him as possible. He's not a monster, and we have no reason to think that he will mistreat her, but there's not much that attractive about him other than his financial prospect as the heir of Longbourne. He's a dim bulb, excessively obsequious, self-important, is a wretched conversationalist, and has no common sense or taste. My favorite description of him is "a felicitous blend of complacent self-approval and ceremonious servility."
Anonymous wrote:You should write a fanfic about him, OP.
I'm serious.
Anonymous wrote:I like the 1980 BBC TV version.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Op read the book. He is a self important, loquacious bore and a prig with no intellect. He is the antithesis of who would be suitable for Lizzie.
This is it.
Anonymous wrote:Op read the book. He is a self important, loquacious bore and a prig with no intellect. He is the antithesis of who would be suitable for Lizzie.
Anonymous wrote:Isn't the A&E version a re-airing of the BBC version? I think it's weird to be so dismissive of the 2005 film and then not properly attribute the earlier series.
Beyond that, Mr. Collins is quite contemptible from the perspective of being very status driven. This is something Lizzie is definitely not, though part of her courtship with Darcy involves realizing the ways in which status matters at least at that time. P&P is a difficult book to pin down, because it has so many layers upon which it can be interpreted. I actually appreciated the 2005 film for bringing the economic issues discussed in the book more front and center. It's an unusual focus for screen adaptations of the book, but I think it was well done.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:When he comes to "condole" with the Bennetts over Lydia's elopement, he says that her death would have been preferable to eloping / bringing shame upon the family. The phrase was something like "her death would have been a blessing". He also says who will want to align themselves with such a family.
His views are odious even if they weren't so strange for that time. I think he gets a bad rap because he has no social graces and is such a suck up. I think Lizzy is way too hard on Charlotte though, because the man was the only plan available to women who weren't independently wealthy. Charlotte was getting close to being past the age when women typically married.
My daughter's favorite line is "are the shades of pemberley to be thus polluted," uttered by Lady Catherine from the A&E version. I loved that Lady Catherine - she was so dramatic and bitchy.
er...it's a quote from the BOOK:
http://www.pemberley.com/etext/PandP/chapter56.htm
That's why the A&E version is a superior dramatization to the Keira Knightly crap version. The A&E version stays pretty close to Austen's words.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
They had candles back then- they could have certainly taken a single candle out to the garden with them. It's not like the house is much brighter in the time before electricity.
I think some people want a religious adaptation, and others enjoy seeing artists make their own interpretation of the work. I much prefer the 2005 version, although I like the 1995 version too. How about you realize that people have different tastes and get over it?
Joe Wright didn't read the book, so it's hardly an interpretation. Also, your point about candles doesn't make that scene any less non-sensical as is your use of emojis.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
They had candles back then- they could have certainly taken a single candle out to the garden with them. It's not like the house is much brighter in the time before electricity.
I think some people want a religious adaptation, and others enjoy seeing artists make their own interpretation of the work. I much prefer the 2005 version, although I like the 1995 version too. How about you realize that people have different tastes and get over it?
Joe Wright didn't read the book, so it's hardly an interpretation. Also, your point about candles doesn't make that scene any less non-sensical as is your use of emojis.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
They had candles back then- they could have certainly taken a single candle out to the garden with them. It's not like the house is much brighter in the time before electricity.
I think some people want a religious adaptation, and others enjoy seeing artists make their own interpretation of the work. I much prefer the 2005 version, although I like the 1995 version too. How about you realize that people have different tastes and get over it?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:When he comes to "condole" with the Bennetts over Lydia's elopement, he says that her death would have been preferable to eloping / bringing shame upon the family. The phrase was something like "her death would have been a blessing". He also says who will want to align themselves with such a family.
His views are odious even if they weren't so strange for that time. I think he gets a bad rap because he has no social graces and is such a suck up. I think Lizzy is way too hard on Charlotte though, because the man was the only plan available to women who weren't independently wealthy. Charlotte was getting close to being past the age when women typically married.
My daughter's favorite line is "are the shades of pemberley to be thus polluted," uttered by Lady Catherine from the A&E version. I loved that Lady Catherine - she was so dramatic and bitchy.
er...it's a quote from the BOOK:
http://www.pemberley.com/etext/PandP/chapter56.htm
That's why the A&E version is a superior dramatization to the Keira Knightly crap version. The A&E version stays pretty close to Austen's words.
Uh, they say the exact same line in the Kiera Knightley version.
You people really need to calm the hell down.
It's still a quote from the book. The A&E version still uses more of Austen's words.
It sure as hell didn't include a scene with Lady Catherine bursting in on the Bennetts in the middle of the night. What moron decided to give Judi Dench a riding crop as a prop? Like woman that dumpy could straddle a horse. Plus what idiot would write in dialogue about wanting to talk in the garden? Yes, it's from the book, but when you set a scene at night in the early 1800s--the garden is pitch black.