Ms. Gamgee, it's "If You Know What I Mean." Sorry.


Yes, they're making a film about Jane Austen called "Becoming Jane," starring Anne Hathaway and James McAvoy as her love interest. Much as I like him in Narnia, I am dubious about this film. We shall see.....

_________________

[+~^$]

My blog
My graphics journal

_________________




^ By me and my SS *squiggle hugs*

You didn't offend me JF. I'm pretty tolerable when it comes to other people having their own opinions, unless they try to change mine. I can see your point about the Importance of Being Earnest too. To be honest, the way you described that was almost how I felt about the new 2005 version of P&P, except I actually did like the new version somewhat. I just didn't think it loved up to book or the new version.

I know there was no wet Darcy in the book, but I'm pretty glad that they added that little tidbit to the movie. It didn't really hurt the plot at all, it showed us some more Lizzy/Darcy interaction, and it gave us a chance to see the extreme swoonworthiness of Colin Firth. On the whole, I was rather pleased with it.

I see your point but at the same time, I also feel that the (few) changes the BBC version made didn't affect the spirit of the story while the (many) changes the 2005 version made did dramatically impact the plot and the characters.

_________________

[+~^$]

My blog
My graphics journal

Huh?

EDIT: ooohhhh, Firiel, you were reffering to Tinuviel's Tears...not me...yuo confused me for a bit there.

I watchd the BBC version before reading the book, then after I read the book I watched the '05 version.
And the only thing that really jus made me dislike the 2005 version was the lack of tension. And I've been through this a coupel pages ago, so I won't do it again.

_________________
<center>

Oh I'm so sorry!!! I don't know how I did that. Whoops.

_________________

[+~^$]

My blog
My graphics journal

I'm sorry. I'm very behind on computer lingo it seems. Thanks for clearing that up though.

I read the book first in....... 7th garde maybe? Something like that. I didn't even know there was a movie until it was on TV one day. I only got to wacth about fifteen minutes of the BBC version, pretty near to the end. And even in that short amoutn of time, I fell in love with it. I begged for it for my birthday and Christmas until I finally got it. And I was so happy when I did. When the 2005 version came out, I refused to see it because I thought it could never live up to the BBC version. Then, my friend and I were renting a movie and she wanted to rent that one. I thought.. what the heck? It can't hurt to just watch it and see what it's like. So we did. And I did like it. It wasn't half as good as the BBC version, but if you looked at it as a movie by itself and didn't try to compare it to the book or the BBC version then you could actually see that it was a pretty decent film.

^ Well said. I think that they did a decent job with the 05 version considering the time limit and everything. They still had a lot of the same book lines and everything in it, and the acting was still good I thought. It's only when you start comparing it to the BBC version when you have problems.

_________________
"Hogwarts will always be there to welcome you home."

Yaaaay, I just got the BBC P&P DVD. (I couldn't resist writing that ) Has anyone else got that here?

_________________

Yes, I agree with your there about opinions.

I will have to wait until I see the BBC version before I pass judgement, but I was pretty pleased overall with the 2005 version.

I think some people have mentione the physical contact aspect of the 200 film. I myself found nothing wrong with the kissy wissy-ness as the film Emma also added that, when in the book it was looks etc. Only Sense and Sensibility stayed true to the book on that point. So it's not a huge problem with me. I suppose from an audiences point of view, you have two people who have obviously struggled with their feelings thoughout the film, they finally are together, you've waitied for the declations of love...and they link arms, talk...and that's it.

_________________




^ By me and my SS *squiggle hugs*

Lol, thats true.
And like TT said the 2005 movie does stand on it's own pretty well (except for the very time innaccurate costumes ) but I think for most of us we were already critisizing it by what we had seen in the BBC version, which I suppose is unfair, but you know....it just is so great!

_________________
<center>

_________________




^ By me and my SS *squiggle hugs*

But they're just so naked and un-dressed in the 2005 version...it seems like they're only wearing their undergowns.
Ok, I can understand Lizzie, as you said she was less rich etc. But Miss Bingley? she barely had anything on! And I do think she had enough money to buy herself soemthing a ltitle more decent.

I feel mean for posting that, just don't take it offensively.

_________________
<center>

JF, the costumes in the new one really are a lot more inaccurate. Miss Bingley simply would not have worn a dress like that in public anywhere. And Lizzy's social standing is actually quite good although she is poor.



I know from interviews that the producers of 1995 version were very concerned with accuracy in everything they did. I'm not trying to jump on you or anything, just wanted to try clear up a couple poiints.

_________________

[+~^$]

My blog
My graphics journal

Eeeep, I think I killed the club! *pokes club*

This isn't strictly P&P, but has anyone else heard about the new adaptations of Jane Austen's other books?

_________________

[+~^$]

My blog
My graphics journal

Hello again, fair and gracious people!!
But wow wow, hang on! There's being a film made about Jane Austen? That sounds very interesting!

And pardon me for asking... James McAvoy - is that---? Who is that? Mr.Tumnus?

_________________