Film Adaptations

[Wiendish Fitch]

29 minutes ago, Snow Apple said:

Ramona was Beverly Cleary's books but I know what you mean. I also remember Forever was a tv movie in the 70's or 80's. Deenie fit right in with the teen medical dramas of the era so I wonder why that never got made.

 

I loved the Ramona books, and I remember the Ramona TV series! We'd watch the videotapes in second grade (old school, right?!) It was not only fantastic and faithful, but introduced me to the awesomeness that was Sarah Polley. I would love more Beverly Cleary adaptations, but I think modern audiences find her too lightweight and old-fashioned. I thought the trailer for 2010's Ramona and Beezus looked atrocious, and I still haven't brought myself to watch it (Selena Gomez as Beezus? Um, nope).

Quote

As for my memory of Blubber, my bullies read it, loved it, and were outraged. The fact that they themselves were bullies went over their heads. 

Figures, doesn't it? Blubber was the cringiest book I ever read as a kid; heck, I still shudder thinking back to it, because it was too real. 

But that's why I loved (and still love, really) Cleary and Judy Blume: they never forgot what it was like to be a kid, and that's why their work holds up.

Edited October 20, 2018 by Wiendish Fitch

[starri]

19 minutes ago, Wiendish Fitch said:

Figures, doesn't it? Blubber was the cringiest book I ever read as a kid; heck, I still shudder thinking back to it, because it was too real. 

I was a huge re-reader--actually, I still am.  Blubber is one of the few books I never wanted to pick up again.  I'm uncomfortable now even thinking about it.

While we're on the subject, I'd love for someone to make a (good) movie out of The Westing Game.  I don't think it's possible anymore though, because the internet would render a lot of the plot moot.

[Wiendish Fitch]

34 minutes ago, starri said:

I was a huge re-reader--actually, I still am.  Blubber is one of the few books I never wanted to pick up again.  I'm uncomfortable now even thinking about it.

You and me both, starri.

[janie jones]

On 10/19/2018 at 5:13 AM, Snow Apple said:

And I'm sure they didn't even want to figure out how to handle the Laura character. A 12 year old who looks like an adult woman. 

I wonder if this new movie will keep the character or just leave her out. Because despite subjects about periods and bras and crushes, the book is still pretty innocent. Margaret and her friends joking about Laura and the teacher won't fly these days. But I guess they can still keep Laura and leave that particular mean joke out.

Wasn't there some part where Laura went off about how boys were always grabbing her boobs and trying to get her to go behind the A&P with them?  (I remember this because I had no idea what an A&P was.)  That seems pretty timely to me. 

On 10/12/2018 at 4:59 PM, methodwriter85 said:

Anyway, this is apparently the cast list for the mid-budget Little Women getting adapted by Greta Gerwig:

Meryl Streep as Aunt Josephine March

Saoirse Ronan as Jo March

Timothée Chalamet as Theodore "Laurie" Laurence

 

This list had me at Meryl Streep and Saoirse Ronan and completely lost me at Timothee Chalamet.

[Snow Apple]

6 hours ago, starri said:

While we're on the subject, I'd love for someone to make a (good) movie out of The Westing Game.  I don't think it's possible anymore though, because the internet would render a lot of the plot moot.

They don't have to modernize The Westing Game though.  Isn't retro in?

[GHScorpiosRule]

7 hours ago, Wiendish Fitch said:

I loved the Ramona books, and I remember the Ramona TV series! We'd watch the videotapes in second grade (old school, right?!) It was not only fantastic and faithful, but introduced me to the awesomeness that was Sarah Polley. I would love more Beverly Cleary adaptations, but I think modern audiences find her too lightweight and old-fashioned. I thought the trailer for 2010's Ramona and Beezus looked atrocious, and I still haven't brought myself to watch it (Selena Gomez as Beezus? Um, nope).

Figures, doesn't it? Blubber was the cringiest book I ever read as a kid; heck, I still shudder thinking back to it, because it was too real. 

But that's why I loved (and still love, really) Cleary and Judy Blume: they never forgot what it was like to be a kid, and that's why their work holds up.

There was a Ramona series??!!!! How’d I miss that???!! I remember taking Ramona The Pest with me when I went to India during the school year and rereading it endlessly. I loved it because it was so relatable and I detested  Beezus. Ironic because I’m the older sister!!

I am going to do a wait and see on Are You There, God? It’s Me, Margaret because a few years ago I saw the updated cover on the book and loathed it. Trying to pass it off as some tweeny romance book.??

Agree on Blubber. As someone who was being bullied as I read it, it was painful.

I just don’t trust today’s film/tv writers to capture and show innocence. Every god damn thing has to be edgy and person cynical, obnoxious and a smartass.

[Wiendish Fitch]

13 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

I just don’t trust today’s film/tv writers to capture and show innocence. Every god damn thing has to be edgy and person cynical, obnoxious and a smartass.

Just as bad is pretentious, manufactured innocence, which in fact the epitome of  cynicism (The Book of Henry, I'm looking at you).

But I hope a Margaret adaptation will be good; I mean, a movie about a girl dealing with adolescence and getting her period? Just think of all the mens rights activists it will piss off!!

 

Quote

There was a Ramona series??!!!!

There sure was! It was a Canadian series that lasted one season in 1988. I was introduced to it two or three years later. Sarah Polley was a damned near perfect Ramona. Here's the opening credits.

Edited October 20, 2018 by Wiendish Fitch

[Constant Viewer]

15 hours ago, Wiendish Fitch said:

I loved the Ramona books, and I remember the Ramona TV series! We'd watch the videotapes in second grade (old school, right?!) It was not only fantastic and faithful, but introduced me to the awesomeness that was Sarah Polley. I would love more Beverly Cleary adaptations, but I think modern audiences find her too lightweight and old-fashioned.

I'm glad I am not the only one who remembers this series! I loved this as a kid. I read all the Ramona books growing up and never realized they were written a while ago. Some are a little old fashioned, (the first one was written in 1955!) but I enjoyed them.

After this, Sarah Polley was also in the Canadian series Road to Avonlea which was a sort of adaption of Lucy Maud Montgomery's The Story Girl series and other books.

[andromeda331]

2 hours ago, Constant Viewer said:

I'm glad I am not the only one who remembers this series! I loved this as a kid. I read all the Ramona books growing up and never realized they were written a while ago. Some are a little old fashioned, (the first one was written in 1955!) but I enjoyed them.

After this, Sarah Polley was also in the Canadian series Road to Avonlea which was a sort of adaption of Lucy Maud Montgomery's The Story Girl series and other books.

 I could never get into Ann of Green Gables but I loved Road to Avonlea. It was such a good show.  

[methodwriter85]

1 hour ago, andromeda331 said:

 I could never get into Ann of Green Gables but I loved Road to Avonlea. It was such a good show.  

It was, but after about season 3 Sarah Polley was very over the show and it showed. She left I believe after season 5.. Still, I just loved the show. It was like Little House on the Prairie, but organic and with actually likeable characters/actors. Also, the sets were just gorgeous.

 

11 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

I just don’t trust today’s film/tv writers to capture and show innocence. Every god damn thing has to be edgy and person cynical, obnoxious and a smartass.

Bo Burnham's 8th Grade actually did a pretty good job at this, and I'm wondering if this is the tone they'll go for:

This movie to me proves that something like an honest adaption of Are You There, God? CAN be done in this day and age, but it'll be interesting to see where they go with it, and if the producers are willing to go with an R-rating to keep the language honest like Eighth Grade did.

She's 15 now but I can see Elsie Fisher playing Laura Danker.

14 hours ago, janie jones said:

This list had me at Meryl Streep and Saoirse Ronan and completely lost me at Timothee Chalamet.

He's going to kill the proposal scene but I do think he lacks Teddie's All-American jock boy vibe, which Lucas Grabeel also failed to have in the Modern Hallmark Little Women.

I could've seen Nick Jonas, honestly. Or Ansel Elgort, but Ansel looks like he's going to be pretty busy.

I would've said Tye Sheridan, but I think he'd look too small and young next to Saoirse Ronan.

[andromeda331]

37 minutes ago, methodwriter85 said:

It was, but after about season 3 Sarah Polley was very over the show and it showed. She left I believe after season 5.. Still, I just loved the show. It was like Little House on the Prairie, but organic and with actually likeable characters/actors. Also, the sets were just gorgeous.

They really were. So was the clothing.  I really loved so many characters Sarah, Felicity, Felix, Hetty, Olivia, Jasper, Gus, Alec and Janet. Sarah Polley was over the show. I don't know if she still does but she used to say she hated the show. 

[methodwriter85]

She struck me as someone who grew up very fast and very sophisticated and just did not want to play the Disney game whatsoever. I'm not surprised she left acting when she stopped getting offered edgy indie parts and moved over more to production.

[katha]

2 hours ago, methodwriter85 said:

He's going to kill the proposal scene but I do think he lacks Teddie's All-American jock boy vibe, which Lucas Grabeel also failed to have in the Modern Hallmark Little Women.

I could've seen Nick Jonas, honestly. Or Ansel Elgort, but Ansel looks like he's going to be pretty busy.

I would've said Tye Sheridan, but I think he'd look too small and young next to Saoirse Ronan.

No one concrete comes to mind for the newest adaptation, but I really thought Christian Bale nailed it in the 94 version. He was a perfect mix of joyful exubarance and charm, tinged with spoilt petulance when things didn't go his way. IMO Laurie isn't all that easy to cast, actually. You need someone  who is believably happy, extroverted and mischievous, without coming across as annoying or unkind.

The cast looks good overall, though. As I already said, I think Watson and Norton are great choices for Meg and John and might do very well with the material.

[methodwriter85]

I love that James Norton continues the reddish/blonde hair look they usually go for with John.

[Dejana]

10 hours ago, methodwriter85 said:

He's going to kill the proposal scene but I do think he lacks Teddie's All-American jock boy vibe, which Lucas Grabeel also failed to have in the Modern Hallmark Little Women.

I could've seen Nick Jonas, honestly. Or Ansel Elgort, but Ansel looks like he's going to be pretty busy.

I would've said Tye Sheridan, but I think he'd look too small and young next to Saoirse Ronan.

It's been a while since I read Little Women but I didn't picture Laurie as a jock type necessarily, but definitely a charming guy who knows how handsome and appealing he is. Maybe if Harry Styles wanted to act in another movie?

 

9 hours ago, methodwriter85 said:

She struck me as someone who grew up very fast and very sophisticated and just did not want to play the Disney game whatsoever. I'm not surprised she left acting when she stopped getting offered edgy indie parts and moved over more to production.

Last year, Sarah Polley wrote a #MeToo editorial and mentioned a run-in with Weinstein among her experiences.

[dusang]

14 hours ago, methodwriter85 said:

It was, but after about season 3 Sarah Polley was very over the show and it showed. She left I believe after season 5.. Still, I just loved the show. It was like Little House on the Prairie, but organic and with actually likeable characters/actors. Also, the sets were just gorgeous.

 

Bo Burnham's 8th Grade actually did a pretty good job at this, and I'm wondering if this is the tone they'll go for:

 

This movie to me proves that something like an honest adaption of Are You There, God? CAN be done in this day and age, but it'll be interesting to see where they go with it, and if the producers are willing to go with an R-rating to keep the language honest like Eighth Grade did.

I would be shocked if a Judy Blume adaptation has anything past PG - in fact, since target audiences for YA books like Margaret are a few years younger than the characters, it would probably aim for G.

[methodwriter85]

I have a really hard time believing that G-rated film is going to talk about periods or girls wanting to have developed breasts.

[absnow54]

3 hours ago, dusang said:

I would be shocked if a Judy Blume adaptation has anything past PG - in fact, since target audiences for YA books like Margaret are a few years younger than the characters, it would probably aim for G.

Trying to imagine a G rated Forever...

I think Are You There would be somewhere between a PG/PG-13, but I feel like the ratings line has really been blurred with the Netflix model. PG-13 doesn’t mean that kids under 13 shouldn’t see it, just that there is subject matter that a parent should cover beforehand. 

[andromeda331]

9 hours ago, Dejana said:

It's been a while since I read Little Women but I didn't picture Laurie as a jock type necessarily, but definitely a charming guy who knows how handsome and appealing he is. Maybe if Harry Styles wanted to act in another movie?

 

Last year, Sarah Polley wrote a #MeToo editorial and mentioned a run-in with Weinstein among her experiences.

I hadn't heard that. I'll have to go look that up.

[Bastet]

1 hour ago, andromeda331 said:

I hadn't heard that. I'll have to go look that up.

Sarah Polley's article, The Men You Meet Making Movies, is good; it came fairly early in this wave of stories, and a turn of phrase she used has stuck with me ever since for how perfectly it described why women often don't talk about it publicly:  "I’ve grown up in this industry, surrounded by predatory behavior, and the idea of making people care about it seemed as distant an ambition as pulling the sun out of the sky."

Getting back to film adaptations, Are You There God?  It's Me, Margaret was one of my favorite books as a child, even with the God aspect (I think I was a born atheist who didn't know that's what she was until the teen years), and one of the few childhood books I held onto as an adult.  But I haven't re-read it in a long time; I'll have to do that now to see if my perspective has changed on anything.  But I'm not sure I'll want to see a movie version.  Harriet The Spy was my favorite book as a child, and I never saw the film because I didn't want the inevitable frustration/disappointment in comparing it to the book and my memories.  But I feel like perhaps this book, adapted to film at this time, could be something that would supplement my childhood experience, not detract from/compete with it.  I find myself rather excited by this news, and will definitely read reviews when the time comes, and probably - hopefully - decide it's something I do want to see for myself.

Edited October 22, 2018 by Bastet

[andromeda331]

36 minutes ago, Bastet said:

Sarah Polley's article, The Men You Meet Making Movies, is good; it came fairly early in this wave of stories, and a turn of phrase she used has stuck with me ever since for how perfectly it described why women often don't talk about it publicly:  "I’ve grown up in this industry, surrounded by predatory behavior, and the idea of making people care about it seemed as distant an ambition as pulling the sun out of the sky."

Getting back to film adaptations, Are You There God?  It's Me, Margaret was one of my favorite books as a child, even with the God aspect (I think I was a born atheist who didn't know that's what she was until the teen years), and one of the few childhood books I held onto as an adult.  But I haven't re-read it in a long time; I'll have to do that now to see if my perspective has changed on anything.  But I'm not sure I'll want to see a movie version.  Harriet The Spy was my favorite book as a child, and I never saw the film because I didn't want the inevitable frustration/disappointment in comparing it to the book and my memories.  But I feel like perhaps this book, adapted to film at this time, could be something that would supplement my childhood experience, not detract from/compete with it.  I find myself rather excited by this news, and will definitely read reviews when the time comes, and probably - hopefully - decide it's something I do want to see for myself.

Thanks for posting the article. Your right it is good. 

[methodwriter85]

Anya Taylor-Joy is set to star in a new Emma adaption. It'll be really cool to see her break out of the horror/thriller stuff, and she's definitely got the right well-bred look for the part.

Edited October 26, 2018 by methodwriter85

[methodwriter85]

 

"I don't believe in fate, but what good fortune that the story waited for them." Awww.

I also appreciated him not coming right out and saying that Paper Towns failing to become a hit basically killed the John Green movie universe building, because I think we all know it did. It's not fair because I actually really liked Paper Towns, but the story itself just wasn't going to connect the way The Fault in Our Stars did.

I'm disappointed that Let It Snow doesn't seem to be happening, but maybe it might. That feels like such a perfect teen romcom to make. Dylan O'Brien was my fancast for Stuart but he seems like he's done with teen roles now. The last Maze Runner movie seemed like his goodbye to teenagehood.

Anyway, this does give me hope that an Eleanor and Park adaption might finally happen.

Edited December 16, 2018 by methodwriter85

[methodwriter85]

Alright, so it does look like Let It Snow is going to happen from Netflix.

I'm going to assume that Noah Centineo will play one of the characters. I wonder what the stand-in for Waffle House will be called.

[andromeda331]

I hope this is the right place to ask this question. Has anyone seen Down a Dark Hall? Its been airing on HBO but I don't have it. How different is it from the book? It looks like they changed all the girls names except for Kit. 

[methodwriter85]

John Green did a really beautiful video about letting his characters go while watching the actors prep for the Looking for Alaska mini-series:

I mean, he's right. When an adaption happens, the characters stop being "yours." (I kind of wish E.L. James had grasped this when she was battling it out with the director over the 50 Shades of Grey adaption.)

I also loved his bit about really wanting to go "home", but even when you go back to a place that meant something to you, you really can't go back to that time.

I'm also wondering if they're going to go for a grunge era look for Alaska. It would be cool if they set the series in the early 90's but who knows. I mean, I'm sure that's just how Kristine Froseth decided to dress, but it'd be cool if it gets incorporated into character because normally a character like Alaska would be dressed up in slinky little outfits.

Edited May 15, 2019 by methodwriter85

[VCRTracking]

As good Eyes Wide Shut was an adaptation of "Traumnovelle"(Dream Story)" a 1925 novella by Austrian writer Arthur Schinzler. The original story is set in early 20th century Vienna while the movie takes place at end of the century New York.

From Vulture.com

An Oral History of an Orgy: Staging that scene from Eyes Wide Shut, Stanley Kubrick’s divisive final film.

[methodwriter85]

First image of the 2020 West Side Story adaption. Ansel Elgort as Tony does have me onboard just because the kid has an insane amount of charisma. Not sure how I'm feeling about this muted color palette, although of course this is just a production still.

I'm already picturing myself white-knuckling my way through the "Gee Officer Krupke" and "Cool" sequences, because this will probably be true to the musical and switch them back, and that's just going to annoy me because it always does when I watch the stage version.

Edited June 28, 2019 by methodwriter85

[Constant Viewer]

4 hours ago, methodwriter85 said:

I'm already picturing myself white-knuckling my way through the "Gee Officer Krupke" and "Cool" sequences, because this will probably be true to the musical and switch them back, and that's just going to annoy me because it always does when I watch the stage version

I agree, I prefer the order from the movie because it makes more sense based on the plot.

[Oreo2234]

Quote

Not sure how I'm feeling about this muted colour palette, although of course this is just a production still. 

I remember seeing early production stills for Mad Max: Fury Road and the color was significantly more muted than it was in the actual movie. I hope this isn't representative of the film. 

[Silver Raven]

I hope they keep the stage version of "America" where Maria is singing to the other girls and not to Bernardo.

[shoregirl]

1 hour ago, Silver Raven said:

I hope they keep the stage version of "America" where Maria is singing to the other girls and not to Bernardo.

Doesn't Anita sing America? I agree I prefer her singing with the other girls.

On 6/28/2019 at 2:27 PM, methodwriter85 said:

I'm already picturing myself white-knuckling my way through the "Gee Officer Krupke" and "Cool" sequences, because this will probably be true to the musical and switch them back, and that's just going to annoy me because it always does when I watch the stage version.

On 6/28/2019 at 6:53 PM, Constant Viewer said:

I agree, I prefer the order from the movie because it makes more sense based on the plot.

I also hope they keep the order from the movie. Officer Krumpke fits so much better in the earlier part of the movie .

[Silver Raven]

4 minutes ago, shoregirl said:

Doesn't Anita sing America? I agree I prefer her singing with the other girls.

I also hope they keep the order from the movie. Officer Krumpke fits so much better in the earlier part of the movie .

Right, I meant Anita.

[methodwriter85]

The close-up on the payphone and the general clothes/hairstyles makes me wonder if they're setting this in the 1990's. That would be, to use the parlance of the times, dope.

[methodwriter85]

So excited!

[methodwriter85]

It looks like it took some liberties (adding in the lesbian waitress character) and it seems to be taking place more over the entire day instead of a night, but how cool. I'm excited.

[methodwriter85]

Alright, so having watched the movie, I'd say that it was really fun, but it was almost unrecognizable from the book, which disappointed me as someone who really loved Let It Snow the book. I get adding a lesbian couple, but they could have achieved that by gender-flipping a character in one of the pairings. My vote would have been for Jeb (boy names for girls have always been a thing), and making Addie a lesbian. I thought shoehorning in a lesbian couple for the purpose of representation was a noble idea, but it felt crammed in. And then there was what they did with Stuart/Julie, which was my favorite storyline from the book and became almost completely unrecognizable in the movie. Still a charming storyline and the characters had chemistry, but I wanted the storyline from the book, not something taken out of a Disney Channel movie where a regular girl falls in love with a teen pop star.

I can't decide if Let It Snow or Silver Linings Playbook were more inaccurate from the book. I did think that Let It Snow did try to add depth to their characters, especially Julie who's storyline/character was probably the most altered from the book. (The fact that Stuart who was suddenly turned into a pop star for completely inexplicable reasons isn't as changed as Julie was says something.) Whereas with Silver Linings Playbook, I thought they did try to "pretty up" the story- to be fair though, Pat really is incredibly insane in the book, and I don't think that would have worked for a movie. And I don't think Movie Pat would have forgiven Movie Tiffany for an extended letter ruse that inadvertently led him to getting beat up and robbed in a park.

Number one though is I Know What You Did Last Summer. Literally the only thing from the book that made it to the movies are the names. The late and great Lois Duncan wasn't allowed on set because of how much they changed everything.

[methodwriter85]

Breaking Banter was REALLY enthusiastic about the 2019 Little Women movie. Hopefully it's good. Honestly, I've seen the '49 version, the '78 version, the '94 version, the Lifetime "in name only" adaption from the 2000's, and the Hallmark-ish "modern day" adaption from last year, and they all had something going for it. It's just such a solid source material.

Edited December 13, 2019 by methodwriter85

[methodwriter85]

You know, it's funny, now that the decade is over and we're on to a new one, I can pretty much say my favorite movie adaption of the 2010's was Paper Towns. (Of a book that I read.) I thought it was better than the book. I thought it was a solid interpretation of the book while not being beholden to the book, the characters were well-cast, and I just overall enjoyed it. I especially love how they gave Madison more to do and made her a pretty good character without completely changing her from the book.

I also enjoyed The Fault in Our Stars, The Wolf of Wall Street, Gone Girl, Little Women, and the Hunger Games overall, was really disappointed with Let It Snow, mildly disappointed with Me Before You and Silver Linings Playbook for sugarcoating the story, and still scratch my head over the Divergent debacle. I do think Shailene Woodley gave it her all, but that franchise was just a poorly handled mess. Maze Runner was solid fun. (I think I only read the first two books of both Divergent and Maze Runner.) The Great Gatsby was okay- I did like how they went into that surreal modernist feeling to give a sense of the debauchery.

Then there was Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter, which was just out there in the best kind of way.

Edited March 6, 2020 by methodwriter85

[tres bien]

I'm posting this here because there isn't a thread for the 2005 version of Pride and Prejudice. 

I saw it was on MoviePlex today and although I didn't like it the first time I watched it several years ago, I decided to give it another try.

I detest it. It doesn't stay true to the book and as a huge fan of the mini series, I don't even like the actors in this version. 

I'll also say the 1940 version of Pride and Prejudice is so poorly done with the actors being miscast and the story being so rewritten,  that it's laughable. 

 

[akiss]

On 5/9/2020 at 4:37 PM, tres bien said:

I'm posting this here because there isn't a thread for the 2005 version of Pride and Prejudice. 

I saw it was on MoviePlex today and although I didn't like it the first time I watched it several years ago, I decided to give it another try.

I detest it. It doesn't stay true to the book and as a huge fan of the mini series, I don't even like the actors in this version. 

I'll also say the 1940 version of Pride and Prejudice is so poorly done with the actors being miscast and the story being so rewritten,  that it's laughable. 

 

Thank you! A lot of people love this movie and I don't get it. Unlike you, I like the actors just fine and I think they did a good job with what they were given but they were given cliches and poor writing. They turned Bingley into a fool! Darcy was not shy in the book, he was just full of himself. There was hardly any humour in the movie. Jane Austen would hate the rain scene. She made fun of these poorly written romantic  scence in her novels. Just an awful adaptation altogether. 

Edited May 11, 2020 by akiss

[Trini]

6 hours ago, akiss said:

Thank you! A lot of people love this movie and I don't get it.

It's pretty to look at; I like the actors; several swoon-worthy moments. ::shrug::  I can't judge it as an adaptation, though, because I haven't read the book.

[ETA:] I like the music too.

Edited May 12, 2020 by Trini

[Ohiopirate02]

17 hours ago, akiss said:

Thank you! A lot of people love this movie and I don't get it. Unlike you, I like the actors just fine and I think they did a good job with what they were given but they were given cliches and poor writing. They turned Bingley into a fool! Darcy was not shy in the book, he was just full of himself. There was hardly any humour in the movie. Jane Austen would hate the rain scene. She made fun of these poorly written romantic  scence in her novels. Just an awful adaptation altogether. 

Jane Austen would have hated the whole movie because it is not what she was writing about.  That movie had pigs running through Longbourn for Pete's sake.  The movie's whole aesthetic is not one that ever appears in a Jane Austen novel.  The whole production confuses Romanticism with a love story.  

[katha]

3 hours ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

Jane Austen would have hated the whole movie because it is not what she was writing about.  That movie had pigs running through Longbourn for Pete's sake.  The movie's whole aesthetic is not one that ever appears in a Jane Austen novel.  The whole production confuses Romanticism with a love story.  

Yeah, it's very Bronte-fied, heh. But I wouldn't even really mind it all that much, if Wright got the essentials right. But he doesn't get so many central points of the book: Darcy isn't shy, it's a testament to his character that he realizes he's made mistakes and tries to rectify them! That's an essential story arc! Same with Elizabeth realizing there's a line where "quick wit" just turns into prejudice and cruelty towards other people to stroke your own ego. And the Bennet's marriage is a dysfunctional mess, he's a terrible husband and father. That's the quiet tragedy of the novel and the parts where Lizzie can't ignore that reality anymore are very sad. They aren't secretly one big happy family in their own wacky way.

Austen is probably most openly romantic in "Persuasion", but she can do romance and love stories very well. But they're surrounded by social context and she's realistic enough in her worldbuilding to keep away from love stories transcending social context. Perhaps Lizzie and Darcy or Anne and Wentworth finding each other again and him being magically rich now a bit... But even with those pairs, they're from the same class, roughly speaking. Or at least from social spheres that intermingle with each other. "He is a gentleman, I am a gentleman's daughter" and all that jazz. Lizzie wouldn't have ever married the butler, doesn't happen in Austen.

[BlackberryJam]

Oh wow. Thank you. I hated the 2005 P&P because it was just not P&P. 

[Ohiopirate02]

56 minutes ago, katha said:

Yeah, it's very Bronte-fied, heh. But I wouldn't even really mind it all that much, if Wright got the essentials right. But he doesn't get so many central points of the book: Darcy isn't shy, it's a testament to his character that he realizes he's made mistakes and tries to rectify them! That's an essential story arc! Same with Elizabeth realizing there's a line where "quick wit" just turns into prejudice and cruelty towards other people to stroke your own ego. And the Bennet's marriage is a dysfunctional mess, he's a terrible husband and father. That's the quiet tragedy of the novel and the parts where Lizzie can't ignore that reality anymore are very sad. They aren't secretly one big happy family in their own wacky way.

Austen is probably most openly romantic in "Persuasion", but she can do romance and love stories very well. But they're surrounded by social context and she's realistic enough in her worldbuilding to keep away from love stories transcending social context. Perhaps Lizzie and Darcy or Anne and Wentworth finding each other again and him being magically rich now a bit... But even with those pairs, they're from the same class, roughly speaking. Or at least from social spheres that intermingle with each other. "He is a gentleman, I am a gentleman's daughter" and all that jazz. Lizzie wouldn't have ever married the butler, doesn't happen in Austen.

This adaptation wrongly depicts the wacky Bennett family as an ideal instead of an anomaly.  Jane Austen never intended for people to read the book and want to live like a Bennett.  You are supposed to read the book and wonder how both Jane and Lizzie made it out of that house unscathed.  Both Jane and Lizzie also know that it is up to them to marry well because of their father's failings.  This is why Jane submits to her mother's plan for her to visit Netherfield in the rain the way she does.  She understands why she needs to secure Mr. Bingley as a husband.  Lizzie turning down Darcy's first proposal is so shocking because the reader (or viewer) knows what that marriage would do for the family.  

 

 

[Conotocarious]

Oh, you wise, wise people. This conversation does my heart good. The Kiera Knightley version is NOT Pride and Prejudice nor will it ever be. It gets SO much wrong, as already noted here. It also chops the story up into pieces. I call it Wuthering Prejudice.

the 1995 A&E version I’ve watched twice in the last week alone and reread every Austen novel. It is about as close to perfect as you can get though I would have loved some of the conversation between Darcy and Elizabeth after they got together to make it into the miniseries. I would have loved a scene of her telling her mother too.

[andromeda331]

6 hours ago, katha said:

Yeah, it's very Bronte-fied, heh. But I wouldn't even really mind it all that much, if Wright got the essentials right. But he doesn't get so many central points of the book: Darcy isn't shy, it's a testament to his character that he realizes he's made mistakes and tries to rectify them! That's an essential story arc! Same with Elizabeth realizing there's a line where "quick wit" just turns into prejudice and cruelty towards other people to stroke your own ego. And the Bennet's marriage is a dysfunctional mess, he's a terrible husband and father. That's the quiet tragedy of the novel and the parts where Lizzie can't ignore that reality anymore are very sad. They aren't secretly one big happy family in their own wacky way.

Austen is probably most openly romantic in "Persuasion", but she can do romance and love stories very well. But they're surrounded by social context and she's realistic enough in her worldbuilding to keep away from love stories transcending social context. Perhaps Lizzie and Darcy or Anne and Wentworth finding each other again and him being magically rich now a bit... But even with those pairs, they're from the same class, roughly speaking. Or at least from social spheres that intermingle with each other. "He is a gentleman, I am a gentleman's daughter" and all that jazz. Lizzie wouldn't have ever married the butler, doesn't happen in Austen.

 

5 hours ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

This adaptation wrongly depicts the wacky Bennett family as an ideal instead of an anomaly.  Jane Austen never intended for people to read the book and want to live like a Bennett.  You are supposed to read the book and wonder how both Jane and Lizzie made it out of that house unscathed.  Both Jane and Lizzie also know that it is up to them to marry well because of their father's failings.  This is why Jane submits to her mother's plan for her to visit Netherfield in the rain the way she does.  She understands why she needs to secure Mr. Bingley as a husband.  Lizzie turning down Darcy's first proposal is so shocking because the reader (or viewer) knows what that marriage would do for the family.  

 

 

I dislike the 2005 for those reasons too. They take away parts from the story or characters that were there for a reason. Darcy wasn't shy. He was a snob. People got a bad impression of him because of how he behaved. Not just he wouldn't dance with anyone but he tells Bigley that only his sisters and Jane were the only ones worthy of dancing with. He also puts Elizabeth down pretty good. Which he may or maybe not have realized she was listening. But he wasn't exactly keeping his voice down with his remarks. He had to learn things and so did Elizabeth. Also, Mr. and Mrs. Bennet's marriage was part of the problem they married for the wrong reasons. And as Elizabeth points out that hadn't made anyone in their family happy. No one was. Elizabeth having to realize her father whom she loved more then anyone else wasn't that great was a hard realization. As much as she might want to she had to realize Darcy was right about that. Her father was failure as a husband and father. Lydia might not have been so out of control if he had been doing his job. That failure is what made him realize that and he learned from it doing a better job with Mary and Kitty. Kitty, who followed after Lydia ended up turning out better.  Jane was expected to marry well as the oldest daughter the "beauty" of the family and if she married well then it was always assumed it'll be easier for her sisters to marry well. Or at least she'll be married and her husband especially if its someone like Bingley wouldn't turn her family out after Mr. Bennet died. They were going to lose their home when he did. The only thing that Mrs. Bennet actually was worried about although she went about it the wrong way.

1 hour ago, Conotocarious said:

Oh, you wise, wise people. This conversation does my heart good. The Kiera Knightley version is NOT Pride and Prejudice nor will it ever be. It gets SO much wrong, as already noted here. It also chops the story up into pieces. I call it Wuthering Prejudice.

the 1995 A&E version I’ve watched twice in the last week alone and reread every Austen novel. It is about as close to perfect as you can get though I would have loved some of the conversation between Darcy and Elizabeth after they got together to make it into the miniseries. I would have loved a scene of her telling her mother too.

Its my favorite too. Their also high on the list when it comes to my favorite couples. Because they both have characteristic they have to over come. So many couples they have superficial or its just one or there's a red flag. Or they just bicker. As great the title is that's also the problem with Darcy and Elizabeth. Too much pride and prejudice. Darcy's thinking of Elizabeth start changing when she treks all the way over on foot to check on her sister. Elizabeth doesn't really until she visits his home. When Darcy tries to defend his behavior at the dance by saying he's not good at that. Elizabeth points out she's not good at the piano but always took it as her fault for not practicing as much as she should. Elizabeth learns hard when she learned Wickham who she liked was not only nothing like she thought but a scumbag. She put so much stock in thinking she could tell people's character and was wrong. She also again had to realize her father wasn't so great. Learning more about Darcy when she visit his estate seeing how his servants and sister talked about him. Darcy realizes he's wrong it what he thought of Elizabeth and Jane, for not warning people of Wickham's character, and for being so pompous. Neither one is better then the other and they both have things they need to learn.  We don't really get that with many couples. 

Edited May 12, 2020 by andromeda331

[Wiendish Fitch]

I really, really, really like, even love, the 2005 Pride and Prejudice, but everyone's points are completely spot on  and I'm not even going to try to dispute them. Here's the thing: the 1995 P&P is, IMO, sheer and utter perfection in every single respect, and it is #1 in my heart forever and ever. My affection for the 2005 version is how beautifully flawed it is (and it is flawed, make no mistake). I love the cinematography, the direction (when it works), and holy shit, the score! The music is out of this world!

But, yes, everyone's arguments are absolutely right: it's not for Jane Austen purists, and Austen herself would probably find it appalling.

Speaking of Ms. Austen, I doubt she'd find any adaptation of Mansfield Park satisfactory, especially the 2007 version (I like Billie Piper, but Fanny Price she ain't).

I really enjoyed this year's Emma. Anya Taylor-Joy gives a unique interpretation of Emma Woodhouse, and Mia Goth puts a surprisingly melancholy spin on the usually ditzy and comical Harriet Smith. The 1996 version is still my favorite (though I understand why others don't like it).

 

[BlackberryJam]

I wouldn't describe myself as an Austen purist at all. Not even slightly. However, there are basics like keeping to the fact that the problems with Lizzie and Darcy are PRIDE and PREJUDICE that is a requirement for me. I mean, move it to ancient China and I'm fine with it, as long as Lizzie and Darcy are dealing with Pride and Prejudice.