Pride and Prejudice

Seen it?

Inside the theatre you're welcome to discuss your favorite television shows, musical artists, video games, books, movies, or anything popular culture!

Which is better?

The newest version
4
36%
The older version
7
64%
 
Total votes: 11

User avatar
Life
Popsicle kid
Posts: 495
Joined: December 2006

Pride and Prejudice

Post by Life »

I looove the movie Pride and Prejudice!!! Have you seen the new one and the old one?? I have but I saw the new one first so I liked it better than the old one...If you haven't seen the new one then watch the old one first...
Image
User avatar
actinglove299
Sing in the sunshine
Posts: 1720
Joined: January 2007

Post by actinglove299 »

I love that movie!! I have seen both versions, but I really love the newest one. It was well done, and not so long. I hope they make some of her other books into movies like that.
User avatar
LizzieG
I've been working out
Posts: 3156
Joined: July 2006
Location: California

Post by LizzieG »

I saw the "older version" (otherwise known as the five-hour version) right after reading the book, and I loved it. It's the best (and most accurate) movie adaptation of a book I've ever seen, and superior in most aspects.

I was optimistic going into seeing the new version, and while there are some things I like about it (including the music and some of the scenes), it felt very rushed, with little attention given to the subplots (particularly Wickham) and character development.

That's my two cents \:D/
User avatar
Catspaw
Care Bear Admin
Care Bear Admin
Posts: 30466
Joined: April 2005
Location: Canada
Gender:

Post by Catspaw »

I have to agree with Lizzie! I own the book, as well as both movie versions, and the longer one is able to cover more, simply because it is longer. However, the newer Keira Knightley version makes the story more accessible. I think that for people who are familiar with the story, the parts that aren't told don't matter so much because you still have that depth of knowledge that you can draw on during the abbreviated version, and people who don't know anything about it can enjoy what there is, and hopefully be inspired to read the book, where they will then be able to understand some things better. Both versions have their own charms.
Image
User avatar
Lucy Pevensie
sn33ky hobbitses
sn33ky hobbitses
Posts: 1937
Joined: April 2005
Location: Cair Paravel

Post by Lucy Pevensie »

I won't vote... There should be a "both" option. ^>^ I like the new one because it's something you can watch in two hours and just absolutely love (and Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth are pretty good, although some people think Mr. Darcy seems too much like a "victim"--and I sort of agree sometimes). I like the old one because it stays true to the book and the characters aren't all that "thin and model-like" like they made Elizabeth this time. :P ^_^
Image
Need a nice signature/avatar set? Take a look at my shop! :)
All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. John 6:37
Lucy is my twin Laura Ingalls = l33t ~*Robin Baggins/Respectahobbit*~
User avatar
Kait
Feminazi Extraordinaire
Posts: 4523
Joined: April 2007
Location: Washington

Post by Kait »

*theme music please*.........Enter Jane Austen's Biggest Fan!! *applause*

Thank you, thank you!

Now, my Jane-Austen-Purist side says that this book should never have been made into a movie in the first place. It is best enjoyed as a book ONLY. period.

My Movies-Should-Stay-True-To-The-Book side says that the first one is better because you NEED 5 hours for proper character and story development and not be hustled through the storyline and left feeling breathless and wore out at the end. So this side of me says the older version is the BEST.

And finally, my American-Movie-Goer-and-Lover-of-All-Things-Chick-Flick, says the newer one is much better because of the more modern actors, the AWESOME cinematography, great soundtrack and the fact that I think they picked the perfect people for the perfect parts. But it doesn't stay true to the book, it is a bit rushed, and I don't think Jane Austen would approve (see my Jane-Austen-Purist side just inserted itself where it didn't belong! :-s )

SO, my conclusion is that the first one is better as far as following the story, the second one is better as far as cinematography, actors etc., and neither of them are good because the book wasn't intended for a movie. \:D/


*applause as I leave the stage*

Thank you, I'll be here till Thursday!
Image
"Any aspect of your faith which you do not question, is the one which should be questioned most."
"I totally approve of toddlers getting married." -Continental Admiral (aka Baragon)
User avatar
cubsmith08
OK
Posts: 207
Joined: May 2007
Location: Dallas, TX

Post by cubsmith08 »

well, i think that there should be a "both" option too! i like both versions, but for different reasons!! ;-)
Image

Please DONATE to help me get more education and to start a MUSIC Faction!!
User avatar
Catspaw
Care Bear Admin
Care Bear Admin
Posts: 30466
Joined: April 2005
Location: Canada
Gender:

Post by Catspaw »

:lol: Christina S, that was a fabulous presentation! Very nicely put! They're all good but they're all bad...how could any of us disagree with that? ;)

*applauds after the theme music for Jane Austen's biggest fan, the ToO's very own Christina S!*
Image
User avatar
Arwen
No way I broke the window
Posts: 3360
Joined: October 2005
Location: Warminster, PA
Contact:

Post by Arwen »

I've only seen the newest version and I couldn't get into the book (I tried). The movie was WONDERful, but I can't say if it was better than the book or the other movies. All I can say is that it's one of my favorite movies, and a good story.

[A little tidbit: Kiera Knightley went to try to get the part of Lizzy, but, at first, the director said: "No way, she's too pretty. We need someone plainer for Elizabeth." But when she got there: he said something like: "Oh, you'll do." She wasn't sure if she should be glad or insulted. :)]
"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof; is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools."
-Douglas Adams, Mostly Harmless
User avatar
Catspaw
Care Bear Admin
Care Bear Admin
Posts: 30466
Joined: April 2005
Location: Canada
Gender:

Post by Catspaw »

That's a great story, Arwen! :lol:

The first time that I tried to read the book, I barely made it through the whole thing and I didn't really enjoy it, but I tried again a few years later, after I had seen the 5-hour movie version, and I liked it a lot better. Now I've read it several times since then. Maybe give the book another try in a while, Arwen!
Image
User avatar
Arwen
No way I broke the window
Posts: 3360
Joined: October 2005
Location: Warminster, PA
Contact:

Post by Arwen »

I'm planning on trying it again at some point.
"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof; is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools."
-Douglas Adams, Mostly Harmless
Fei
I'm in Odyssey time
Posts: 9092
Joined: July 2006

Post by Fei »

I saw only the old, 5 hour version. I've never seen the new one. :anxious: But I heard that it was just as good and even better than the original.
User avatar
Thursday Next
Catspaw Rocks!
Posts: 913
Joined: April 2005
Contact:

Post by Thursday Next »

I have seen both. I love the first. Colin Firth as Mr. Darcy :inlove: and loathe the second. The problems of the second one I lay at the scriptwriter's and director's feet.
Image
User avatar
Sherlock
Solicitor Non Grata
Posts: 3401
Joined: May 2005
Location: Bohemia

Post by Sherlock »

As someone whom, until recently, loathed any sort of Austin fare in the first place, I am reluctant to comment.

However, in Summer of 2006 I finally acquiesced and read "Persuasion." I quickly became enamored with Jane Austin's style of writing which was not unlike that of a more subtle Wodehouse without the (generally) more aristocratic features.

Anyhow, commentaries aside, I generally preferred the newer adaptation of "Pride and Prejudice." Apart from the musical score (which I found to intertwine quite comfortably with the plot), I found the characters and cinematography to be much more 'real' than the older A&E adaptation. Sure, the newer version provides less in the realm of character development/loyalty to the book, but I was willing to sacrifice the stiff formality of the older film for the newer, more engaging version. After all, its a film - a mere adaptation of the more complete book. One doesn't need every line quoted verbatum.

Finally, there's something about the newer version that just works. The characters flow together, the dialogue is easy yet witty and the set and location only serve to enhance the storyline.

This is one of those instances when more isn't necessarily better.
User avatar
totustuus
Pilgrim
Posts: 281
Joined: December 2005
Location: Southern California

Post by totustuus »

Thursday Next wrote:I have seen both. I love the first. Colin Firth as Mr. Darcy :inlove: and loathe the second. The problems of the second one I lay at the scriptwriter's and director's feet.
I agree. I love how the first one stays so close to the book. It's been a while since I've read the book, but I remember that much of the dialogue is taken directly from the book, and I don't remember many scenes that were cut out.

The second movie seemed more rushed, especially near the end. I mean, Lady Catherine came in the middle of the night, and they got engaged at dawn! They cut out some of my favorite scenes and didn't portray Georgianna as well. Plus the first movie had better dancing!
Image
User avatar
Catspaw
Care Bear Admin
Care Bear Admin
Posts: 30466
Joined: April 2005
Location: Canada
Gender:

Post by Catspaw »

I had been feeling like watching the newer version ever since I started re-reading the book a few days ago, and then this thread made me want to watch it again even more, so I finally did! \:D/ Yay! I really do like both versions, but the newer one, despite what it loses due to a reduced length, really is charming! Very nice. Except I was somewhat taken away from the story when Tom Hollander (Mr. Collins) entered...but that isn't the fault of the film-makers. Are there any other POTC fans who feel the need to scowl angrily and possibly yell at the screen when he arrivves? ;)
Image
User avatar
Arwen
No way I broke the window
Posts: 3360
Joined: October 2005
Location: Warminster, PA
Contact:

Post by Arwen »

LOL. Yes. I love when Elizabeth pointed a gun at Beckett's head in the second one. I was like: "She should have done that when he proposed!"
"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof; is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools."
-Douglas Adams, Mostly Harmless
User avatar
Ae_91
Just visiting
Posts: 12
Joined: May 2007
Location: the computer

Post by Ae_91 »

I have read the book and own both versions. The book is the best. I just love Jane Austen. I have read almost all her books.
I like the old one it is better. in the new one I think Keira is a little to modern for the part. The old one is also more accurate because it is longer.
User avatar
Lord_Kappa
A great mapmaker
Posts: 2849
Joined: July 2006
Location: The United States of America

Post by Lord_Kappa »

Sherlock Holmes wrote:As someone whom, until recently, loathed any sort of Austin fare in the first place, I am reluctant to comment.

However, in Summer of 2006 I finally acquiesced and read "Persuasion." I quickly became enamored with Jane Austin's style of writing which was not unlike that of a more subtle Wodehouse without the (generally) more aristocratic features.

Anyhow, commentaries aside, I generally preferred the newer adaptation of "Pride and Prejudice." Apart from the musical score (which I found to intertwine quite comfortably with the plot), I found the characters and cinematography to be much more 'real' than the older A&E adaptation. Sure, the newer version provides less in the realm of character development/loyalty to the book, but I was willing to sacrifice the stiff formality of the older film for the newer, more engaging version. After all, its a film - a mere adaptation of the more complete book. One doesn't need every line quoted verbatum.

Finally, there's something about the newer version that just works. The characters flow together, the dialogue is easy yet witty and the set and location only serve to enhance the storyline.

This is one of those instances when more isn't necessarily better.
:cry: I think, dear Sherlock, we shall now have to have our first disagreements. :cry: (Ok, so it might not be the first.)

The old one is better.
“Among the attributes of God, although they are all equal, mercy shines with even more brilliancy than justice.” —Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra

By the way, Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, was a racist.
User avatar
amyinodyssey
Found
Posts: 303
Joined: May 2007
Location: Colorado Springs, CO

Post by amyinodyssey »

I didn't see the older version of Pride and Prejudice. After I watched the newer version I guess I didn't feel like watching the older one. I think the new one is just fine. I own the newer version of Pride and Prejudice it is on my favorites shelf. It is rather funny because this semester I had a class where I had to make a box and I decided to make a box to encase my favorite chick flicks, which of course Pride and Prejudice was in. But the funny coincidence is that all of my favorite movies start with the letter "O" or "P" which includes:

One Night with the King
The Phantom of the Opera
Pride and Prejudice
The Prince and Me

My Mom is a very organized person and likes to see all books, DVDs etc alphabatized properly.
Post Reply