Pride and Prejudice discussion

I haven't finished reading the novel, but noticed quite some characters were removed in the 2005 movie.

Mrs and Mr. Hurst: Mr. Bingley's sister and brother-in-law.
Maria: Charlotte's sister.
Miss King: One of the girls Mr. Bingley danced with and Mr. Wickham unsuccessfully persuited after she inherited money.
......

Who do you think it's fine to be removed, who shouldn't be removed?

None of them was essential to the plot. I haven't seen the movie, though, so who did Caroline laugh with about Lizzy's muddy petticoat? Darcy?

Kressel wrote: "None of them was essential to the plot. I haven't seen the movie, though, so who did Caroline laugh with about Lizzy's muddy petticoat? Darcy?"

Nobody, Caroline herself. :)

Somehow I think Miss King shouldn't be removed, I didn't know Mr. Wickham persuited her and deserted Lizzy.

Daniel wrote: "Sandy wrote: "Somehow I think Miss King shouldn't be removed, I didn't know Mr. Wickham persuited her and deserted Lizzy."

Yeah, but you got the point. It still flowed nicely and stayed with the b..."

True. :)

I noticed Mr. and Mrs. Hurst, but not any of the others. I did miss that one scene, but I think Caroline was funnier as a solo act. The 2005 movie adapted a lot of stuff, too, not just the characters. I was totally mad when they made the portrait gallery a sculpture gallery instead.

I agree with Sandy as well about Mss King. But I didn't like this movie version anyway... I prefer much more the BBC version with Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth. ^^

I like (or rather dislike) Caroline more as a solo act. None of them are really important. I do agree with Cara about the sculpture gallery, though I would like to see the bust that they kept at Chatsworth. There should've been more of the Gardiners since they're so important in the book.

I also felt that Jane lost a bit of her charm in the film because she didn't have to take care of the children when Lizzy travels with her aunt and uncle. I felt Jane's ability to take care of the children only confirmed why Mr. Bingley should like her. Also, it takes away from what they family originally think that their Uncle took care of Lydia's situation by paying Wickham off for marring her. It would be difficult for him to do so with the children (like in the book). So the movie, by eliminating the children, made it more plausible for their Uncle to pay him off and for Darcy's actions to be better hidden. For me, I didn't like that as much.

Changing the Gardiners ruined one (of many) scenes for me. For one thing, instead of Mrs. Gardiner informing her niece of Mr. Darcy's magnanimous role in Lydia's rescue (rescue from her stupid self), Lydia herself flippantly told Lizzie at the dinner table. "Mr. Darcy did it all and that was all." As if it were a bit of juicy gossip isntead of what it really was; a sacrifice for Darcy to make.
Besides, the Gardiners seemed very cold and detached in the 2005 version. I always thought they should have been Lizzie's parents, as they truly cared about her and how she felt. I'm not saying Mr. Bennet didn't, but you have to admit that he didn't always take the time to truly understand her feelings. I didn't get that feeling from them in this version, even though they were supposed to be the same characters. Oh well. Hollywood.

Eliza wrote: "Changing the Gardiners ruined one (of many) scenes for me. For one thing, instead of Mrs. Gardiner informing her niece of Mr. Darcy's magnanimous role in Lydia's rescue (rescue from her stupid self..."

Agree, the Gardiners played such an important role in Lizzy's love life which you cannot see in the 2005 movie. :(

Kristen wrote: "I also felt that Jane lost a bit of her charm in the film because she didn't have to take care of the children when Lizzy travels with her aunt and uncle. "

Good point!

I loved the 2005 movie! It is one of my favourites because of the casting, the music, the filming etc. It was just plain brilliant! I don't miss anything from the book, all that was left out was of no great importance!

Um, just checked out the cast of the BBC version, and there it is Eøizabeth who is the prettiest, and not Jane. None of them looks like what I've thought the characters to look like, so nah, 2005 is best.

Marte wrote: "Um, just checked out the cast of the BBC version, and there it is Eøizabeth who is the prettiest, ..."

OK I'm a gay man so my opinion about what constitutes feminine beauty is questionable at best but isn't the tall blond blue eyed Jane in the BBC series more traditionally beautiful than the shorter brunette Elizabeth? I'm guessing that many folks think so.

Cara wrote: "... I was totally mad when they made the portrait gallery a sculpture gallery instead. "

I can see your point but it worked for me. It had the feel of that scene from Maurice about it and too it reminded me of a few afternoons I spent in the V&A museum on my trips to London. It certainly accentuated the Darcy's wealth even more.

I don't know Stephen, but since it is pointed out so often in the book that Jane is the prettiest, I do believe it has more to do with her face, coloring, complexion etc. than her height.

I sound really superficial, but I just thought it strange.

Did we ever meet Colonel Forster and his new wife? I know they were mentioned, but I don't remember seeing them. And Sir Lucas went from being such an entertaining part to a rather odd old man who I didn't know was Sir Lucas until my fourth or fifth time watching the movie.

I keep trying with the 2005 version, and it keeps failing to live up to the book for me. Last time I watched it I was so struck by how unnatural most of the lines sounded. Particularly he bit where Caroline is reading over Darcy's shoulder as he writes a letter to his sister. It reminded me of being in second or third grade when people were reading and I just read ahead because at least it wasn't monotone and dull when I read in my head.

I rather liked the 2005 adaption,though it concentrated more on Elizabeth and Darcy as a couple than anything else. I thought it still had the same feeling to it than the book, which I always find most important with book adaptions. Of course there are changes and it never, ever lives up to our expectations. But lets be honest what movie is ever as good as the book?

Devon wrote: "The cutting of Mrs. Hurst led to the cutting of my favorite scene of all time in the book! Without her, Caroline couldn't have started this famous dialogue:

‎"'...how amazed we all were to find th..."

I agree they should have let the scene in, but I don't understand what it has to do with Mrs. Hurst. When they talk about that it's after they accompanied Lizzy and her aunt to their carriage.

Katharina wrote: "I rather liked the 2005 adaption,though it concentrated more on Elizabeth and Darcy as a couple than anything else. I thought it still had the same feeling to it than the book, which I always find ..."

Well, the BBC version was pretty close to the book. Long, yes, but so worth it. :)

Austen writes about communities and the characters that fill them. How Elizabeth and Darcy interact with these personalities help us understand them on another more subtle level. We know he is proud and a snob, but are showed one of his good qualities when hearing from his housekeeper what a kind landlord he is, Elizabeth then slowly begins to change her opinion about him.In return we know Elizabeth is lively and vivacious, but Darcy and the reader do not just see this with her family, we see it at the country dances where she laughs and jokes with her neighbours. That's why i love the BBC adaptation it feels so rich when all the great characters are there,however small they are. Not to mention there's so much humour in these characters while Darcy and Elizabeth fall in love around them.

I think it's interesting that these questions always end up being about which version is better. After taking my turn in the debate, I've grown extremely tired of the subject.

The omission of Lizzy seeing Bingley at Kent and the time she spends there was the only omission I had a problem with. I thought that time was most crucial to the development of her relationship with Darcy and seeing more of Bingley's character PLUS the connection with Lady Catherine was a pretty big deal too. Other than that, I didn't care about the Hursts or other random characters that were taken out. Like TJ said- "But the 2005 movie did a decent job streamlining it down to accommodate Hollywood film length while still preserving the essence of the lead characters."

I don't remember which characters were cut from the 2005 movie, but do remember being struck that almost all of the comedy was cut from that movie, leaving the story a romance rather than romantic comedy. Even Mr. Collins was not much of a comedic character, or Mr. & Mrs. Bennett-- and Elizabeth Bennett also seemed quite a bit less comedic in that portrayal.

When I made a friend watch the 2005 he said "I wasn't expecting it to be so funny!"

Maybe it's just not your sense of humor

Maybe so, but I loved the humor in the book itself, and also thought that the 1995 BBC series did a wonderful job portraying the book's humor. Whereas the 2005, which I really enjoyed btw, seemed a lot more focused on the romance of the story, and almost not at all focused on the comedy, in my impression anyway. But as you say, maybe I just missed it for some reason.

See and I didn't find the 1995 portraying Austen's sense of humor at all. Difference of opinion is all. Then again, I'm way more familiar with the cast and crew of the 2005 and the way they would set up the wit and everything. They don't really add the "raised eyebrows" to the end of every quip to make sure everyone knows it's supposed to be humorous. So, I didn't find the 2005 missing the humor.

Yeah it's really just a difference of opinion-- but I am actually curious now, if anyone else experienced the 2005 movie the same way that I did, as emphasizing the romance and de-emphasizing the comedy in its portrayal.

I will say about the 2005 movie that I thought it did a wonderful job with the romance, even better than the BBC series did. (Plus, the cinematography was seemed absolutely fabulous to me.)

There are quite a few threads on the subject. Highly doubt you are alone in your opinion.

The Keira Knightley version is excellent. 4 stars.