[ SECRET POST #5284 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5284 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________



02.
[Las Lindas]


__________________________________________________



03.
[Pride and Prejudice]


__________________________________________________



04.
[Matt Fraction's Hawkeye]


__________________________________________________



05.
[Murdoch Mysteries]


__________________________________________________



06.
[Clerks]


__________________________________________________



07.
[My Fair Lady]






Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 31 secrets from Secret Submission Post #755.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Nope. I saw the Miniseries first. Still prefer the 2005 version by a landslide, though. The only thing I don't prefer about it is that it's much shorter, but that's just the nature of the beast. To me the 2005 movie just feels so much more naturalistic and lived in, which is something I love to my bones. The direction, camera work, and set design are breathtaking. The dialogue manages to feel conversational and chatty and like actual people conversing socially despite all the linguistic particularities of the time period. And I adore every single casting choice they made.

I've never particularly enjoyed the miniseries, tbh, but I can understand why others do. The only thing I find tiresome is that so many miniseries fans seem determined to be snobs about it, pronouncing their opinions of the miniseries' alleged superiority and the movie's alleged suckage as though those things were objective fact.

[(Anonymous)]

To me the 2005 movie just feels so much more naturalistic and lived in

Yeah, I just can't stand the stiff, we-wish-this-was-a-stage-play quality that the miniseries (and a lot of BBC stuff from around that time) had. It puts me off entirely. None of it feels like real life, at all, even a little, and it doesn't have anything to do with not understanding the customs and mores of the time. I just don't agree that everyone talked like they were in a stage play and everything looked like a set in the early 19th century. There can certainly be a middle ground between 2005 P&P's naturalistic take and the miniseries' extremely stiff take. The recent Emma adaptation was great, imo. But I do love the dirt and vitality of the 2005 movie, and personally I find it way more artistically satisfying, too. The miniseries feels like looking at a giant piece of meticulous needlepoint, to me. Very clean, very tidy, very lifeless. *shrugs*

YMMV

[(Anonymous)]

What’s naturalistic about dramatic Hollywood camerawork, soaring background music, and supernaturally attractive people?

[(Anonymous)]

nayrt but +1

For some reason, some people don't like to believe that people spoke differently back in the early 1800s, even though the 1995 does a much better job of reproducing what and how Austen wrote - and she wasn't writing for a highbrow audience, either. So they want more modern, anachronistic dialogue because that's more "naturalistic" for them. Ditto the belief that if the Bennets were truly in financial trouble, you'd see them mucking around with livestock and not living in a comfortable house.

[(Anonymous)]

For some reason, some people don't like to believe that people spoke differently back in the early 1800s

What I find funny is how many people want to believe people spoke like they were in a stageplay in the 1800s when that is factually inaccurate.

Plus, it's not like the 2005 movie is Clueless. The way the characters speak in the 2005 movie is plenty different from how we speak today, so I find this particular line of criticism against it puzzlingly off-the-mark. In fact, when my best friend and I watched the 2005 movie with her fiancé, he said he found it difficult to follow because of the antiquated way the characters spoke. This is a man with a PhD in engineering; he's no dummy.

Personally, it's not the Regency dialect I dislike in the miniseries. It's the unnatural stiltedness of it all, which is a stylistic choice made by the creators in order to affect an air of historicity, as opposed to an actual communicational norm of the time period.

[type_wild]

FFS.

[(Anonymous)]

Interesting. The 1995 version has always seemed more mundane and real to me and the 2005 movie more "hollywood".

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, this.

[(Anonymous)]

I had the same impression of them as well.