Brolie’s comment > Likes and Comments
1 like · Like
No, I like him more because it was a considerably better adaptation.
Let me guess... you saw that one first? The script was fine, the directing and acting were absolutely horrendous. Darcy stripping and getting into a lake-- not an accurate characteristic btw. Lust does not make it a better adaptation.
Yes, I saw that one first. I almost didn't watch the other one at all. It sucked. What was with the "I love, I love, I love you"? The real Darcy never would've said that. Have you read the book? Pride and Prejudice is my favorite novel ever and I've read it probably over 20 times. The Hollywood version is terribly inaccurate. Famous actors do not make it a good movie.
Exactly my point on Colin Firth. I'm glad we can agree on that.
I'm pretty sure Pride and Prejudice was the reason Colin Firth became famous so that's not really the same thing, is it? You didn't answer whether you've ever read the book.
Of course I've read the book. And a lot of the actors in the 2005 weren't famous until after as well because they are good actors... What has the rest of the cast been in from the 1995? Where did their careers go? hmmmm
I'm with you, Brolie. I thought the way some secondary characters were portrayed was a little caricatural. And how could the Bennets have such a house? It looked like they were rich, not a "small gentry" material! The BBC series has the advantage of a larger timespan to develop the story, but I think the 2005 version did the job more beautifully, more romantically.
@ Amanda the Bennets were upper middle class, not poor. Their income was 2,000 per year, plus much of their food would have come from the farm. The financial issues were because there was no male heir. It was a problem for the future, not the present. That is why Mr. Collins was seen as a “good” catch. They would just seem “poor” compared to Mr. Bingley and Mr. Darcy because they were very wealthy.
Lol, I find it funny that you say "lust does not make it a better adaptation" when the 2005 version was much more sexy, in my opinion. What with McFayden (who is undeniably more physically attractive than Firth) saunters across the field with his shirt open and Kiera in her nightie, kissing as the sun rises behind them (which by the way in no way resembles the book). Oh, and the Hollywood ending. Sure they could have done without the lake scene, but it's an exaggeration to say it's out of character for a man to go swimming on his own property. Plus, that's one problem out of a million wrong with the 2005 version. They don't even get the first proposal right (or the second, for that matter), arguably the most famous part of the novel.
his shirt is only unbuttoned a couple of times, and she's got a full jacket on over her nighty and they don't kiss, she kisses his hand and says his hands are cold- which i thought was a great way to symbolize marriage and all that. 2005 had less time to adapt so yes, it wont be as accurate, and i liked the rain scene better because it showed the tension build up more appropriately than firth walking back and forth saying "i am so distressed" ... horrible acting and directing. just cuz macfadyen is sexier, doesn't mean the movie was more lustful
plus ehle has two facial expressions.. eyebrows up and eyebrows down.
Personally I thought Knightley and McFayden should give a class in how not to act, they were that bad. I did think it was a cute movie, but it barely resembled the novel at all. But, anyway, I respectfully agree to disagree.
Firth's Darcy was seething because of Mrs Bennet's very loud references to his wealth, Bingley's wealth, and her hopes of attracting 'other rich men' via acquaintance of her daughters with either.
A lot of people love him because he's a better actor. Unless a lot of people have actually told you that the wet shirt scene is the only reason they love him, maybe you should stop making stupid assumptions.
Matthew definitely!! His eyes, omg, his eyes!! Smoldering!! Although I really love Colin's acting, I found him tepid compared to Matthew.
back to top
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Kate
(new)
Feb 23, 2014 04:21PM
No, I like him more because it was a considerably better adaptation.
reply
|
flag
Let me guess... you saw that one first? The script was fine, the directing and acting were absolutely horrendous. Darcy stripping and getting into a lake-- not an accurate characteristic btw. Lust does not make it a better adaptation.
Yes, I saw that one first. I almost didn't watch the other one at all. It sucked. What was with the "I love, I love, I love you"? The real Darcy never would've said that. Have you read the book? Pride and Prejudice is my favorite novel ever and I've read it probably over 20 times. The Hollywood version is terribly inaccurate. Famous actors do not make it a good movie.
Exactly my point on Colin Firth. I'm glad we can agree on that.
I'm pretty sure Pride and Prejudice was the reason Colin Firth became famous so that's not really the same thing, is it? You didn't answer whether you've ever read the book.
Of course I've read the book. And a lot of the actors in the 2005 weren't famous until after as well because they are good actors... What has the rest of the cast been in from the 1995? Where did their careers go? hmmmm
I'm with you, Brolie. I thought the way some secondary characters were portrayed was a little caricatural. And how could the Bennets have such a house? It looked like they were rich, not a "small gentry" material! The BBC series has the advantage of a larger timespan to develop the story, but I think the 2005 version did the job more beautifully, more romantically.
@ Amanda the Bennets were upper middle class, not poor. Their income was 2,000 per year, plus much of their food would have come from the farm. The financial issues were because there was no male heir. It was a problem for the future, not the present. That is why Mr. Collins was seen as a “good” catch. They would just seem “poor” compared to Mr. Bingley and Mr. Darcy because they were very wealthy.
Lol, I find it funny that you say "lust does not make it a better adaptation" when the 2005 version was much more sexy, in my opinion. What with McFayden (who is undeniably more physically attractive than Firth) saunters across the field with his shirt open and Kiera in her nightie, kissing as the sun rises behind them (which by the way in no way resembles the book). Oh, and the Hollywood ending. Sure they could have done without the lake scene, but it's an exaggeration to say it's out of character for a man to go swimming on his own property. Plus, that's one problem out of a million wrong with the 2005 version. They don't even get the first proposal right (or the second, for that matter), arguably the most famous part of the novel.
his shirt is only unbuttoned a couple of times, and she's got a full jacket on over her nighty and they don't kiss, she kisses his hand and says his hands are cold- which i thought was a great way to symbolize marriage and all that. 2005 had less time to adapt so yes, it wont be as accurate, and i liked the rain scene better because it showed the tension build up more appropriately than firth walking back and forth saying "i am so distressed" ... horrible acting and directing. just cuz macfadyen is sexier, doesn't mean the movie was more lustful
plus ehle has two facial expressions.. eyebrows up and eyebrows down.
Personally I thought Knightley and McFayden should give a class in how not to act, they were that bad. I did think it was a cute movie, but it barely resembled the novel at all. But, anyway, I respectfully agree to disagree.
Firth's Darcy was seething because of Mrs Bennet's very loud references to his wealth, Bingley's wealth, and her hopes of attracting 'other rich men' via acquaintance of her daughters with either.
A lot of people love him because he's a better actor. Unless a lot of people have actually told you that the wet shirt scene is the only reason they love him, maybe you should stop making stupid assumptions.
Matthew definitely!! His eyes, omg, his eyes!! Smoldering!! Although I really love Colin's acting, I found him tepid compared to Matthew.
