Bruh, don't come at me like this

Yes, but Austen mastered it in a way it's an entirely new level.

@@cferracini Austen is honestly in a league of her own

Every Brit spends their life trying to reach the Austen level of sass. None of them know it, but it's the ultimate goal in the life of a Brit.

@@MariWakocha my life’s goal

This is such a good and insightful comment. Thanks for this

This might be the best reply to anything I've ever read on youtube. Standing ovation time!

I've only now understood all these. Thank you so much for the clarification. :)

Thank you, stand by for one round of applause for that comment!

YES, this class dynamic is really interesting and lost in 2005 adaptation. Caroline and Louisa Bingley being snobbish about the Bennett sisters' aunt and uncle in "trade" are being really ridiculous because their fortune is FROM trade (from the North so probably textiles or some such) and they don't yet own land meaning they are not gentry themselves. The Bennetts have negligible dowries and their father, mother, and younger sisters are a bit improper, and their connections are not so high as they could be (a very important thing in regency high society) but they are firmly entrenched in the landowning class while the Bingleys are not. In point of fact, Jane and Bingley's match is eligible from both sides and Bingley is in a sense, marrying up.

He should have pointed out that line was stolen from her father.

Notice that neither of Elizabeth's parents call her out on this. It's rather clear that Mrs. Bennett isn't fond of Collins at first either. She only pushes the marriage between him and Elizabeth because it would encourage her husband's heir, Collins, to take care of his wife's mother and sisters. She's concerned about her family's future because she has to be.

But it kind of does! Doesn’t he propose the first time soaking wet in the pouring rain? Lol

@@lexinicole4317 Yeah, but he's wearing a coat; totally ruins the moment.

@@tracy4290 lol!!! It’s been a while since I’ve seen the film… guess I’ll have to rewatch it now just to check 😉

@@tracy4290 Had Jane tried to get such a scene past a publisher, we wouldn't have this novel today. As much as I enjoy that lake scene, it should have been left out - and if we're to believe Colin so many years down the line, they wanted him to be naked in that scene (what on earth were they thinking!?). I'll take the failed proposal in the rain and Darcy walking at dawn to Longbourn over the lake scene any day.

I always thought mr.bennet didn't like his daughters because of his disappointment that they weren't boys, except lizzy, the favorite. We read POV through her and hear a loving father but that's just to her. I always hated that he got a pass to be neglectful, not financially he did still feed and cloth them but just never interacted with them

@@jessbeingme8155 that’s also very true

Tbf, Mrs Bennet doesn't stop Lydia going to Brighton either. She doesn't see the dangers, she just sees the opportunities to get Lydia hitched so she minimizes the dangers for someone who is too young to know what to do.

No, he is dismissive of the three younger daughters, not the two oldest. It's clear in the book that he was responsible for raising Jane and Elizabeth while he was still captivated by his wife. He gave up influencing the younger ones so they were largely a product of Mrs Bennett. Elizabeth's growth as a person happens when she stops solely blaming her mother for Lydia's behaviour and realises that her father is partly to blame. He often mocks the younger girls in public, something Lizzie realises is as wrong as her mother's lack of tact.

You're right

AKA, Pride and Prejudice and Zombies. lol

@@robertgronewold3326 a movie and book Dom definitely needs to cover 🤣🤣

That would be amazing! It's remarkable how much it tried to be like the OG P&P

@@barbarabaker1457 I like how it had the vibe of pride and prejudice while also being it's own thing

@@tsgumi Right? If lizzy had fight skills that is exactly how I picture the proposal scene.

I laughed so hard at this comment.

😅Enigma 2001 Matthewhe is in the image and make-up similar in appearance to "a pirate " ​@@intergalactic92

wildthornrose I’ll admit I prefer Colin Firth’s Mr. Darcy. However I greatly appreciate that Matthew Macfadyen didn’t just try to become a new version of Colin Firth’s Darcy, he actually approached the character from a different perspective altogether with the shy introvert angle he brings to it. I do also feel his version of Darcy adds more depth to his intrigue of Elizabeth, since as you mention it helps highlight that he is drawn to her vivacity and social ability, something he lacks. Overall this different version helps make both actor’s portrayal seem like an other side to the whole of Mr Darcy instead of simply being a different actor in the same role, if that makes any sense.

@@Carolinagirl1028 I agree totally :) I will always appreciate an actor who takes the time to consider and interpret their own version of a character, as long as they respect the spirit of the source material. I think both Colin and Matthew do this! Colin's version is perhaps more text-literal, whereas Matthew seems to have "read between the lines" of the character, but in a respectful and considered way. The same goes for the various Elizabeths.

There's an interesting analysis of this Darcy in another KZfaq video talking about his costume and it's progression throughout the film. I think it was called undressing mr. Darcy. Made me see him in a different light

But we meet Darcy at a very turbulent time, he’s just “rescued” his sister from Wickham, he’s pissed off and has his mind on other matters... his sister doesn’t see him as an introvert, his friend and employees speak so highly of him, we (the reader) see Darcy from Elizabeth eyes, it’s bias to her views. And her first impression is circumstantial and after a while he relaxed back down and becomes his usual self. I can’t believe this version of darcy was the actors choice or idea, I think it was a bad screen adaptation, with bad writing, huge parts of the story missed and too much gurning from Kira. The only thing good about it is that Jane is actually pretty in this version, other than that bbc had it down!

@@gd5298 I admittedly had the same reaction when I first saw the movie at the cinema. I had grown up with the book and the 1995 version, and felt all the indignance at Jane Austen's dialogue being (as I saw it) "corrupted", and the irritation of Keira's smirks and pouts. However, I have since mellowed out a lot about it. The reframing of it as something a little more romantic and accessible, especially to a new, younger audience, was inevitable and even understandable. I hope it has brought a new legion of fans to discover the books. As far as "huge parts of the story missing" - well, it is a movie, and did not have the leisure of a 6 hour series to do the plot full justice. Consider the massive liberties taken by the Laurence Olivier version...yet I enjoy that one too, such as it is. There are some fragments of a sprightly 1967 version you can find on youtube...Elizabeth is quite delightful in that one, and Darcy rather stern and wooden; I like them too! I can't quite agree that Matthew's portrayal of Darcy was a consequence of bad screen-writing - he is a very good actor (an accomplished and well-seasoned character actor, as well as occasional leading-man) and he has always manifested intelligent, and sometimes inspired, performances. I respect him finding something different in Darcy from the traditional interpretation. Anyway, I agree that the 1995 version is the closest version to the books. But I think it's okay to enjoy the other versions, too. :)

A romance book/film that's actually good for once

lol your avatar just confused me. I thought I’d already watched and commented on the video despite it just being released. I need sleep.

@@PomegranateStaindGrn That reminds me of that time I didn't end up liking an excellent post on a forum until later, because a user called "You" had already liked it, convincing me that I already had.

I like your profile pic. #same

😂

The Hand Flex™

COLLIN FIRTH DOES NOT HAVE THE HAND FLEX

That was the only thing I liked about this version. The hand flex was very good.

Thanks! I forget where I got it but it's pretty boss.

I noticed it as well, very nice!

@@Dominic-Noble i think you assessment on matthew couldnt hold a candle to colin is greatly flaw. Matthew's eye alone can eat up all the sexiness that colin ever acquired for breakfast/

He could also cover Bridget Jones's Diary. Which basically takes the bare bones outline of Pride and Prejudice, only if Elizabeth Bennett was a modern 30year old lady in London Hell, one of the characters is literally Mr Darcy. There is also Lost in Austin, which is basically a self insert fan fiction in miniseries format. Oh, and there is also Bride and Prejudice which has a Bollywood take on the source material, with the Bennett family made into an Indian family.

@@antheathetiefling8581 More than that, Mr Darcy in Bridget Jones' Diary is played by none other than Colin Firth

Truly, Pride and Prejudice and Zombies is an excellent adaptation and I'm a Jane Austen purist. I think people assume it's a parody or a disrespecful interpretation when, in fact, it's a faithful pride and prejudice movie with the added tension and action scenes that work to enhance all the emotional tension we love about P&P in the first place.

yep

I would sell my soul to see that, this movie was truly something else

Just pictured Dom out on safari observing authors and film crews in their natural habitats 🤣

“Here we see an example of the mating dance of the 19th century English country villager. The male is expected to make a courtship display through exhibits of his financial stability and his witty repartee...the female denies his courtship.”

@@Ticket2theMoon 🤣 Love it!

He is the Sir David Attenborough of adaptations

@@scarylion1roar can Sir Terry knight him or is that something only the Queen can do now? If Sir Terry can I so want to see that!

Yes!! I was years late to watching this movie, I read the book again and again but for some reason didn't see the movie until adulthood - and the Pemberley part is when it lost me. That's the most crucial and interesting part of their romance, and imo, this film completely misses it. I'm so glad to hear someone else mention it. So much of the conversation about which adaptation is better ends up being about whether you think Firth or Macfadyen is more attractive.

i disagree completely--i honestly feel like those two sequences shows us a darcy elizabeth (and therefore we) hasn't seen he's cultured and caring, when elizabeth spots him with his sister it's the very first time she sees him laugh and be openly affectionate--that is a shared connection, they have a deep bond with a sister, she understands him a bit better now and when they return to the manor the next day, he's openly joking and smiling and is extremely pleasant with the gardner's without prompting

Not to mention that the Pemberly in this version was so hideous--those white statue rooms made me cringe.

@@sosha20 I do agree that this movie does more in showing an affectionate relationship with his sister, but the other parts go by so fast that the significance isn't as poignant. It is like how he said that it feels more staged and it is like they're doing a line through. The "dinner" at Pemberley is literally they walk in, officially meat his sister, then go through the lines of asking about if Mr. Gardner likes fishing. Then suddenly we are done. I also dislike how the invitation to dinner is brought about. It is done completely behind Elizabeth's back. She gets back to the inn and is told by her aunt and uncle "Oh hey you missed Darcy, we're going there for dinner", she kinda gets trapped into it. Verses the more probing Darcy (which also by this time they have talked to her each other, besides the real awkward conversation they had), lets her meet his sister and sees how receptive she is, and then asks HER, not her aunt or uncle, making sure that hey she would be comfortable having dinner, not entrapping her into a dinner by asking her aunt and uncle who know nothing about their history.

I'm from Argentina and only knew that cheesy final from KZfaq.

@@guiomarbarbeito7385 yes !! Though I do think the scene is cute, it always felt a bit tacked on to the film to make it idk more appealing maybe? there's something about that 100% doesn't mesh well with the rest of the movie. I wonder why they kept it in the US cut

Same! I had no idea the us ending even excisted before someone told me about it!

@@xdlol38 I think they did it for the US after some bad reactions in the film screenings (not sure if I'm making sense, english is not my first language). I find the ending with the father really moving and in tune with the movie.

@@guiomarbarbeito7385 i agree ! us audiences are weird man

Stereotypes!

@@patrickt.6492 Always :P

@@patrickt.6492It is very true though XD - a british person

Let me serve you, cooked boar in pepperminzesauce.

The subcontinent would beg to differ :/

Wait for Pride and Prejudice and Zombies and Aliens

Oh I got a pride and prejudice and zombies shirt I'm wearing it right now

@@romainsavioz5466 I'm sorry I don't know if you're joking or not and the thought of this being real feels me with dread

Pride and Prejudice and Zombies was a disappointment simply because the movie has the ugliest Mr. Darcy of any adaptation. And also because it tried too hard to appeal to a younger audience and it ruined the charm of the original.

@@LunaWitcher 🤣

And Emma!

I would love for him to cover Sense and Sensibility, as the film version was my introduction to Jane Austin and her novels. Strangely, the film version also introduced me to Alan Rickman and the England way of speaking- a bit more formal and slower speech- in movies anyway. As for the other Jane Austin movies and books outside of P&P and Sense and Sensibility, I can not say.

@@stargirl2477 Yes, S&S was also my introduction to both Austin and Rickman, and the beginning of my love of both! 💕 😉

Yes to the mini series for Jane Eyre! I did watch the film, but it seemed really slow, despite it being less runtime than the mini series, while the mini series portrayed the playful banter of the romance much better (and added a few scenes). Jane Eyre is one of my favorite novels ever!! Also I would love from him to cover all the JA adaptations, but my favorites are actually Persuasion and Northanger Abbey. Sense and Sensibility and Emma are actually really great ones to review because they had a plethora of really great adaptations (esp. with after Emma 2020).

@@stargirl2477 I just watched it and it was bloody confusing to me because I had rewatche Love Actually just a few weeks before and couldn't quite get over the switched roles of the actors.

Agreed. It's one of my favorite things about it. There was much I didn't like, especially the modernized language. Her rejection of him just doesn't have the same zing as the miniseries, which was lifted directly from the book.

a masterpiece

The Music 🎉

Yes, the magic of Mr. Darcy is the idea that a man might genuinely change out love and respect for a woman, this is ruined if he isn't an ass to begin with. Of course, darcy was never BAD just a bit of an ass. It's a tightrope but must be shown and the 2005 version was too likeable in the beginning to feel excited that he was likeable later

It's why Macfadyen works so well in succession as Tom. And unfortunately, once I realized that he was the actor playing Tom... Any romantic interest went down the toilet.

I'm kind of into it though. It's definitely a different interpretation, but Matthew Macfayden's Mr. Darcy comes off as if he is more socially awkward (and yes, in need of a hug), and tbh, it's quite endearing. He says the wrong thing but he doesn't mean to, he's just dumb. Colin Firth's Mr. Darcy definitely pulls off the "grumpy sexy," though, and he's not a bad guy, he's just arrogant and more socially distant, and for good reason (his friend growing up demanding his inheritance multiple times and then trying to make off with his little sister.) Colin Firth's Mr. Darcy is probably more accurate to the book, but when it comes to my silly heart, I know if they were both real, I would easily fall in love with MM's Mr. Darcy and might be pretty unforgiving towards CF's Mr. Darcy.

@@lilyduck4538 I always kind of attributed it to a combination of what we'd call having a moderate level of social anxiety combined with being one of the richest guys around in a culture of social climbing and being judged by who you marry. He's not good with people, in general and knows that most of those he meets want something from him. It's probably why Elizabeth is so attractive to him. She actually makes no bones about being honest with him and doesn't suck up to him just because he's rich.

I agree that it was a character choice that changes a lot of the original dynamic, but it’s done so well that I’ve come to appreciate it more each time I watch it. I think in the end it was a smart choice if the director’s goal was to introduce the story to a modern audience, because it lines up with a lot of the traits that are more appealing now by giving him a dash of anxiety and sensitivity. It felt like a lot of characters in the film got a slightly more sympathetic makeover, and I found it refreshing. It helped the film to stand on its own as an adaptation rather than simply existing as a less thorough cliff notes to the miniseries.

there wasnt a single head of cabbage in the whole movie though!! at least to my recollection. I saw the movie in theater just the once.

So do I - since it WAS made into a film it should be a contender :P

@@lunar1199 exactly haha since there's a book and a movie he could easily do a lost in adaptation lmaoo

OMG YES!!!!!!!

Yes!!! Please Yes!!!

Northanger Abbey is a straight up savage but affectionate parody of the 'trashy' Gothic Romance novels that were popular at the time, and I feel that book is soooo underutilised in that capacity when it comes to adaptations.

I've been thinking this, too! Definitely a side line he should get into.

Now that you've said it, I want that too.

Its so smooth...its weird in a good way

Bold of you to assume he wouldn't get frustrated because of his dyslexia. Though I'd love to hear him narrate one too, I wouldn't want him to get more stressed

Hell if he did I’d hire him for my book

As someone who jusg finished the book, my biggest takeaway was that Darcy was *definitely* autistic. If the book wasn't written in a time when autistic children were still thought of as "changelings", I would have thought it to be completely intentional.

Back when imdb still had its message boards the S & S board was pretty active and there was this one woman who would come into EVERY discussion whining, "But that's not how it was in the book!" So annoying. If we were discussing money in the time she'd pop in to say "Emma Thompson was TOO OLD to play Elinor!"

That *might* have been the best adaptation - and there is a miniseries to compare it to! Would be awesome if Dom continues the Jane Austen series.

I wish I could give this comment infinite likes!!! ♥️♥️Alan Rickman 🤤

Now I’m forced to wonder who would win an eyebrow competition - Donald Sutherland or Peter Capaldi.

Donald Sutherland's final scene with Elizabeth is so beautiful that it brings me to tears every time, especially since I lost my father last year and it reminds me of how wonderful a loving father-daughter relationship can be. Regardless of who did a better job of portraying Mr. Bennett, this scene will always be in my heart. Both he and Keira displayed a deep familial affection that seemed as real as if they were truly related.

@@yvettescheiman4991 Agreed. The movie ends with his line, as far as I'm concerned. And sorry for your loss. My dad and I had came up with a hurricane of musical composer puns yesterday. We were laughing so much. It's those moments I'll be sure to treasure.

Exactly!!

Ha! Thank you! That was driving me crazy when i saw her again

The mini series had the advantage of much more time to tell more of the story and play more of the character moments. It gave the absolute best Charles Bingley, and even seemed to have some suggestion that Caroline Bingley wasn't all horrible. And Julia Sawahala was a perfect Lydia.

The mini series is nearly 6 hours long and my friends and I still managed to watch it 5 times in one month after we first discovered it back in high school. XD

A funny bit of information, the actress who played Caroline is a great-something niece of Jane Austin.

For me, it was the costuming. I’m a massive dress history nerd, and while I prefer most of the movie actors (with the exception of Bingley), the inaccuracies of the costuming just kept pulling me out of the story. I wrote a fairly long comment about my gripes with the costuming. And I’m not or. Who thinks that all historical costuming must be as period accurate as possible (Marie Antoinette is still one of my favourite movies for costuming), but in a story like this, it does matter.

@@katherinemorelle7115 the caroline in the movie was terrible

@AND ANDREY ISN'T HERE That’s assuming she purposefully went back and changed things for the sake of making the clothing more contemporary for when it was published in 1813. There’s no evidence that she painstakingly edited things like that. Furthermore, when you’re writing a novel, you’re using your own experiences to give the narrative believability. Her friendship with Tom Lefroy influenced her work, and his visits were between 1795-1796 (the time when she first started writing ‘First Impressions’ which went on to be titled ‘Pride and Prejudice’). She writes from the perspective of a young woman, as her protagonists typically range from 17-27 years of age, not women in their late thirties (the age Jane Austen was in 1813). Setting an adaptation in the year the source material is published rather than written, is an obvious oversight. Even in the best of circumstances, publishing takes a lot of time.

Fashions and style eras changed so slowly back then that a difference of ten years wouldn't mean much style wise.

@@Steersky But she DID go back and change the book -- it was originally epistolary, and she spent the years 1810-12 reworking it. R W Chapman posits that she used an almanac for the years 1811-1812 to set the dates in her updated edit. At any rate, she WOULD have updated the book to appeal to her readers and to her own sensibilities as a more mature writer.

To everyone who commented here: thank you for this very polite and very interesting debate!

@@jefferroo I’m aware she changed aspects of the story several times. But the clothing is hardly mentioned in detail. It’s not something that defines the story in any way. Considering it’s based on her experiences, and was written primarily in 1796-1797, things that influenced the story most were obviously lifted directly from that time in her life.

and people think george r.r. martin takes long to write. Where's Sandition Ms Austen??

She secretly writing Pride And Prejudice sequel

​@@vanilloia7479 EXACTLY.

@@J.R8765 2Pride, 2Prejudice

There is an extremely interesting video by Philosophy Tube about why that is. It's called Witches I believe and details the different ways women used to be able to make a living and how the Salem witch trials destroyed that. I think in general there are a lot of connections to what's going on in the news today...I may have to rewatch it.

@@rosemali3022 oooh, thanks for the tip!

Virginia Woolf likened the history of women's rights to those of the working class in general. Like upper-class women, for the longest time poor people and laborers weren't allowed into universities, to vote, to own land or even to travel by themselves. Even if they were gifted, they rarely could become financially independent on their artistic talents alone, and were definitely ignored by academia and richer circles. Some of the very few ways to escape one's poverty and lack of independence were through crime or by ending up in the good graces of some nobleman. That said, it isn't like women did nothing all day except wait to be married, bear children and die. There were politically influential women, rich women, and women who negotiated business deals. An unmarried, childless woman of class could still make a name for herself as an important confidante for a royal personage, or a writer of letters. There were more than we today are aware of because unfortunately, documents, newspapers and journals have a tendency to be lost to time very quickly. Bear in mind that when reading history books today, they are all involuntarily biased. This is because history is filled with theories, as not every document is necessary genuine, there is a lot of room for interpretation of events and lifestyles. Every historian leaves an indent of their own ideologies on their work. This isn't a bad thing, it's simply inevitable, but it's something to consider when weighing the veracity of any history book or documentary. Looking back at the history of history books and you'll find that opinions come and go in waves. For a century, Marie Antoinette was a debauched villainess. Then, she became a poor victim of the violent rabble. Then she became a cultural icon. Then she was treated as a hapless bystander who wanted nothing else but to raise her kids and buy nice clothes. And so on. And these opinions are all based on different texts and documents that have been available to historians for centuries already (even though every now and then some writer will pop up with "look what I just found! This puts all of our theories in the water!" -- this is rarely anything but clickbait or a forgery). Going back to the role of women: period literature written in bygone eras is a great way to gauge the actual lifestyle of people. "Tom Jones" by Henry Fielding is great in this regard. Fielding was, I felt, exceptionally un-prejudiced for a mid-18th century English writer, and extremely observant to boot. It's also a comedy-adventure novel similar to Don Quixote or Simplicius Simplicissimus, making it an easy and enjoyable read in spite of its length.

I stumbled upon P&P when I was in High School, loved it then & have read it many times since. I used to think Mrs. Bennett was an insufferable, gold-digging bore-- but NOW I see that she was really only looking out for her daughters in the ONLY way she could.

I abhor this version. It is not Jane Austen. Instead of her amusing study of human nature and wry wit, it is a romcom, and not a very good one.

Thanks for this bit of info! I thought I was going mad, I've never seen that shot before and was wondering if it was because the Dutch channels always cut it off when airing it!

I was so confused! I have never seen that scene before, so I thought maybe it was different in my country...

I don’t like the honeymoon ending, but to end with Mr. Bennett seems so abrupt!

Thank you. Was about to type that exact thing. In Australia we got the UK ending. I HATE the “US Ending.”

If I remember correctly, then ther german film ends with the Elizabeth kissing Darcy's Hand with the low hanging sun in the background. I'm not sure, though, I haven't seen the film in years. 😅

It will now forever be a comedy for me.

That is a very interesting remark ! I don't recall any exact indications in the book so changing the time period isn't that big of a deal (not that it was in the first place). Especially if it makes more sense historically as you mentioned. Thanks for bringing that up !

Pride and Prejudice and Zombies...

I haven't watched the video yet and I can't wait to find out, how 'upper class ninjas' figure into a video about a Jane Austen novel 😄

All I'm thinking of is Sebastian Michaelis from Black Butler

@@otaking3582 Ah, but you see, Sebastian isn't a Ninja. He is simply one hell of a butler

@@kahkah1986 now we know had the idea for that book came into being

That’s true, his exasperation with exasperating things is definitely... a thing. Wouldn’t want him to fake it though, low-key is equally good!

lol he's suffered enough for our sake, let him rest

I think there’s two reasons for that: 1) The book is told primarily from Elizabeth’s perspective, and she gives him a lot of leeway. As a result of that and the need to compress things in most adaptations, we lose some of Mr. Bennet’s dismissiveness. 2) Because he gets some of the best lines and is nice to Lizzie and Jane, we’re inclined to like him, and so are the people adapting the work. So the people making the movies/miniseries sand off some of his edges, perhaps not even consciously.

I feel that way about both her parents. And Mary, tbh. Mrs. Bennet is treated pretty horribly by most adaptations. Mr. Bennet is given too much slack. And, while I know Mary is pretty much a non-character, there's no reason to think she's a terrible pianist and singer as is the usual interpretation.

Yes, he treats his wife very poorly - he cares not for her nerves! :D

truer words

I've only seen the Mr Bennett version and was totally lost when he talked about that other ending.

Watched it recently on netflix and yeah was confused about the alternate ending. Mine ended with mr bennet

Thank you! Netflix Canada must have been streaming the UK version when I first watched the movie. I had no idea what Dom was talking about.

I figure it must include both U.S. and U.K. Versions for the Pride and Prejudice (2005) DVD.

I knew the second ending existed because I rented the DVD once and it was included as an extra, but the Mr. Bennett ending is the one they show on TV here in Argentina

I think it's really at odds with the spirit of the era in the novel. There's an emphasis on the athleticism of women, something which wasn't even possible in most other styles of dress. Not to mention what it says about women's natural bodies being accepted, as opposed to "perfected" by tight-fitting bodices and corsets. Fashion says a lot about the time period.

@@vanyadolly I didn't mean that I agreed with him about the adaptation change. I just meant I prefer the style

@@vanyadolly I have to disagree. The novel's first draft was completed in the mid-late 1790s and I always accepted the fashion change as to being more in line with how "First Impressions" (the original title for the book) might have envisioned its characters when first created. Also, woman of the 18th and the early 19th c. wore "stays," not corsets, a different type of binding.

@@vanyadolly Yeah, no. Lower class women did physically demanding work in stays - before the invention of plumbing lugging around heavy buckets of water was a very time-filling activity that was actually _aided_ by the support garments (they protected the wearer from pulled back muscles and hernia). What you're thinking of is the small minority of rich women in the Victorian era who practised tight-lacing - something not possible in 18th century stays due to the hand-sewn eyelets that would have just ripped. If you're interested in corsetry facts, give costuber Bernadette Banner a watch!

​@@TheSleepyowlet Yes, the small minority of rich women the novel is about. It isn't just about the corset or how tightly laced they were (over-lacing was fashionable but also frowned upon and considered vulgar in polite society), but how heavy and stiff the garments themselves were, particularly for upper-class women.

I desagree imensly HAHAHA i find Matthew MacFadyen 100% better at grumpy (ans specially) sexy. But I'm a minority ;_;

@@anaCalaudia Mathew MacFadyen did a good job of the role, but look at the filmography of Colin Firth. Grumpy sexy sums up every leading man part he's ever had so he's the expert! 😁

I personally prefer Colin Firth as Mr. Darcy, however since both actors brought something completely different to Mr. Darcy it makes it easy to like them both and appreciate their different versions of Darcy. Colin Firth does a great job portraying a ‘brooding’ sexy Mr. Darcy with his more uptight nature while Matthew Macfadyen does a great job portraying a more ‘vulnerable’ sexy Mr Darcy with his often shy and introverted nature. Basically while I may slightly prefer Colin Firth, I really just want them both and can’t imagine having only one of them.

I always consider Sir Laurence Olivier to be Mr. Darcy.

Absolutely. It was THE role that made me fall in love with him as an actor.

OH YES! that would be soooooo good

YES! The Lizzie Bennet Diaries was my intro to the book and it was always hold a nostalgic place in my heart.

I honestly thought I was the only one who remembered the Lizzie Bennett Diaries. I even have the LBD book! I absolutely love them both.

Oh man the nostalgia, great idea!

@@QueenDeni The only pitty with it is that now that it's over you don’t get to experience the series unfolding in real time anymore. The various youtube channels that allow you to follow both Lizzie's and Lydia's stories was great.

No life, without wife, dun dun dun yeah yeah

Yes!!! I thought I was the only here to have seen it haha

OMG - I LOVE that movie!!! It's the best! (I mean, she did get a refrigerator.)

Pride and Prejudice and zombies makes it a thing? I mean, the title is the book, it's a copypasted P&P plus extra zombie scenes. The movie screws it all up and accidentally makes Mr Darcy the villain (because I suspect they haven't really thought the changes through at all) but the fight scenes are halfway decent?

I don't think it was considered proper to dance more than twice with someone, unless all those Regency authors have been lying to me since Georgette Heyer.

@@andreamiller3578 Ah I see, that makes sense.

that movie was hilarious

I think it was added for the US release, as we didn't have it in Australia either. I think test audiences weren't happy with a lack of closure and found it weird to end the story on Mr Bennet calling out for any men off the street to marry the last two. Conversely, that is what I remembered as the ending, so when I reread the book and there's an epilogue, I was like "is this the American ending?"

@@mandymaclean1055 It was in the original cut of the film, but they removed it because British audiences *hated* it. They put it back in for the American release.

Ah. That's why! When I saw that part of the vid I was thinking "Where did this scene appear? I haven't seen this".

Related to the subject, I watched Wild Child (a true classic, i recomand it) a few years back, and the mean girl/antagonist was obsessed by pride and prejudice and kept trying to replay scenes with the love interest which baffled me because her scene of choice was the cut scene and I couldn't understand what she was doing.

Burn

Yeah that line is uncomfortable :/

@@moonydoll7109 I understood as he was referencing himself being British i.e. the best. I could see that interpretation, but I'm 100% positive that's not what he meant.

@@moonydoll7109 oh my god why don’t you cancel him then.

@@martasorangeberry yeah, the Romans were there before the British

I've seen that series and it is very good.

Yeah that seems to be the habit with some people. They love the original and hate any and all remakes, even if they are good. And I agree that it is possible to like both for their own strengths and what they bring to the source material. It doesn't have to be one or the other.

I like it well enough but to me the people act like modern people sent back in time. They don't seem realistically 18th/19th century as the miniseries actors did.

@@grumpyotter True enough, but I like to look at it like a translation. It's not like the people of the time period were actually different, just that the culture was different and displayed through that lens. I don't have the knowledge needed to understand the subtleties of that culture, so I enjoyed the modernizing in this way so I can get the full effect of the relationships and character. I can totally understand others not liking that part though, especially if they do have the knowledge that I lack.

My main beef with this version is how it Brontefies an Austen book. The melodrama of both Darcy’s proposals for example really put me off - why on earth did they make both of them all wet after running throgh the rain in that first proposal? If Austen had wanted huge moors and dark rain and people being all theatrical at every turn, she would have written them that way. Of that’s what the film makers wanted to do, there is nothing stopping them from making another adaptation of Wuthering Heights instead of making these weird changes to Pride and Prejudice.

@@SmallFaerie I suppose? I have a higher tolerance to cheese and camp than many others, so I admit to a bias. I think this film's style is a far cry from the melodramatic moodiness of Brontë's work, personally, but I can see how it's closer to a Brontë film than a traditional adaptation would be. Other films do that straight interpretation already, I think it's nice to see a version that takes the rose lenses off the original work as a change of pace, but I don't think doing so makes it feel like I'm watching Jane Eyre. I don't think this style should be the norm for interpretation, but for a saturated market, it was refreshing, especially since England is not as sunny as it's usually portrayed. If that's not your cup of tea, that doesn't bother me at all, and it's nice that there are a lot of other options to enjoy instead. I don't have any problems with people disliking it, it's just people who hate it only because they like a different version that bothers me.

Yeah it seems like the movie was going for a more theatrical and over the top version of the story, whereas the mini series is more subtle and realistic.

I keep hearing about that, I wish Dutch Netflix had it! Edit: okay, thank you all the helpful beautiful watchers in the comments! I know what I'll do tonight! I'd any of you know where I can watch the miniseries too... 😁

Yesssss!

@@mirjanbouma its on KZfaq! The channel is The Lizzie Bennett Diaries

@@mirjanbouma it's on youtube, just put lizzy bennet diaries in the search bar and the channel should come up. They should have them all in order in a playlist...

@@mirjanbouma dutch KZfaq has it! It was produced by hank green of vlogbrothers fame.

Asking the real questions!

Omg...i hate that series so much XD Idk, the protagonist just make shit and act worrible and in some way Darcy fall in love with her? I cant accept lmao. I have so many feeling for this series, mostly rage.

Your two P&P videos are great. How about Lizzie Bennet Diaries