7 Reasons Why the Keira Knightly Pride and Prejudice is Going to Suck, Based Solely on the Trailer

  1. Elizabeth Bennet is not a 'ahead of her time'. Her refusal to marry Mr. Collins is not modern (indeed, the notion that mercenary, loveless marriages are somehow a thing of the unenlightened past is quite naive). Elizabeth is very much a woman of her time. She doesn't want more from her life than marriage and family. She doesn't want to break out of a woman's place in society, or out of her social class. What she wants is a husband she can love and respect, and there's nothing modern about that.
  2. "From Jane Austen, the beloved author of Emma and Sense and Sensibility". Gee, I wonder why those books? Could it possibly be because they're the ones that have gotten the Hollywood treatment most recently?
  3. No one who really thinks P&P is a book about a woman "who discovered the one person she can't stand is the one person she may not be able to resist" has any business coming near an adaptation of it.
  4. Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth are pulling in for a kiss during the first proposal scene.
  5. "From the producers of Bridget Jones' Diary and Love, Actually"
  6. "You have bewitched me, body and soul." That's coming from Mr. Darcy. It's finally becoming clear--this is Pride and Prejudice by way of Wuthering Heights.
  7. Because anyone who thinks the world needs another P&P after the Firth/Ehle version is clearly insane.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Amen.

(Also, Keira Knightly looks like she'd collapse into a heap of panting bone if she walked three miles unassisted.)
August 09, 2005 11:02 PM
Anonymous said…
what a load of poo, its not going to suck because keira knightly is in it at all, infact i think she wil make the film a whole lot better, i think you all need to get lives instead of slagging people off that give you entertainment, if its someone who you really liked you wouldnt do it would you ?!?!?!
September 05, 2005 8:12 PM
Anonymous said…
I confess that I'm really looking forward to seeing the film, although I'm sure to be disappointed. I know that Austen's story will be quite bastardized and conformed to some skewed perception of what the audience wants, but the A&E/BBC version was too close to perfection (to what could possibly be done on film/television) to think it would bear replicating only ten years later.

I think that the new adaptation will be enjoyable on a different level -- I'm a bit of a sucker for ridiculous romantic stuff, so I think I'll be able to deal with the Bronte-esque bits. :) Although the Austen-lover in me stomps her feet in protest at the outrage, I'm going to make an attempt to enjoy it regardless. (I wish myself luck.)
October 21, 2005 7:23 AM
Anonymous said…
Hello,

I'm one of the interlopers from Bookslut. And a Jane Austen fan. Great list. I was punching my husband in the arm during the trailer: "They're about to kiss! They're Austen characters ... they shouldn't kiss!" I didn't mind the romantic license in Persuasion but Miss Bennett is not Anne Elliot.

However, I have no plans to compare this new P&P with the BBC/A&E version. My benchmark will be the 1940 Olivier/Garson movie: if the acting is half is good and the editing of the narrative only half as distracting in the new movie than it was in the old, I'll leave the movie theatre quite happy.
October 23, 2005 5:06 AM
Abigail Nussbaum said…
This isn't the first time I've heard the Garson/Olivier version spoken of so highly, Eli - a lot of the folks on the Readerville Austen thread think it's better than the Firth/Ehle version. I've never seen it, but the more I hear about it the more I think I'll have to look it up.
October 23, 2005 10:07 AM
Anonymous said…
Speaking as someone who was fearful of the new adaptation, but has now seen it: do not be fooled by the stupid trailer. It's very good, KK is surprisingly good, and really, aside from moving around a couple of locations/times of day it sticks to the book.

I really enjoyed it (and I'm a fan of the BBC one), and while it's necessarily contracted for time, it is by no means a bastardisation.
October 25, 2005 9:08 AM

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The 2023 Hugo Awards: Somehow, It Got Worse

The last month has been a busy one in Hugo and Worldcon fandom. After the shock of the much-belated 2023 nominating stats, and their revelation of serious irregularities in the compilation of the award's ballot, there was a great ferment of conversation and action. Mainstream publications have caught wind of the scandal and publicized it far and wide . Turnover in the few permanent committees that oversee the Hugo trademark and intellectual property has been high . The poor folks at the upcoming Glasgow Worldcon have been scrambling to respond to the evolving situation and to distance themselves from the previous committee—including, most recently, making a laconic announcement that they would refuse any of Chengdu's passalong funds, the budgetary surplus that is traditionally bequeathed from one Worldcon to the next. And stats nerds—of which this community is, unsurprisingly, blessed with a surfeit—have been furiously crunching the nominations numbers and EPH calculations...
Read more

The 2023 Hugo Awards: Now With an Asterisk

It's been a while since we've had one of these dramas. On Saturday, the nominating stats for the 2023 Hugo awards, which were announced in Chengdu, China in October 2023, were released to the public . There was a great deal of anticipation for these numbers, in no small part because of their much-delayed release. Though the WSFS constitution permits Hugo administrators to wait as long as 90 days before releasing the voting and nominating stats, most Hugo teams have them ready to go within minutes of the ceremony's conclusion. Chengdu, in contrast, waited the full allotted period, and even went a little bit over (the voting stats were released separately in December). Once the stats were released, it quickly became clear why the Chengdu Hugo team were hesitant to make them public. There are any number of irregularities and questionable choices in this document that suggest everything from erratic voter behavior, to incompetent collation and calculation of the nomination rank...
Read more

Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga

The first thing that must be said about this movie is that it should not work. It's a prequel to one of the most mind-blowing, groundbreaking, and just plain revolutionary action movies of the 21st century—and prequels are a bad idea in most cases, but all the more so when the character they revolve around has already given you their entire backstory in their original introduction, which is also the final, culminating act of their character arc. (To put it another way, if you had asked me, nine years ago, which character I thought offered more fertile ground for prequel storytelling, Imperator Furiosa or Han Solo, I would have picked Han without a moment's hesitation, and I don't even like Han that much.) And it's a follow-up to a movie whose chief virtue lies in its conciseness—in being a single, drawn-out, pulse-pounding, increasingly deranged car chase. Which means you can either try to repeat that accomplishment, which will inevitably feel a bit old hat; or you can ...
Read more