I had hoped when I wrote:

morning of the trip to Whitwell ("Delaford")
The "Delaford" was in the scripts because it is Whitwell in the [book] would be seen. Perhaps I should have made that clear, but posting hot writes is dangerous.

kathleen (elder) brought up something about the confusion of locations. It is devilishly difficult to get orientated from the text. However, http://www.jasna.org/info/images/map-ss-1200.jpg (just in case I booboo the "Optional..." feature) show that the plotting on map has been done, and I have yet to note a defect. JASNA has Jane Austen Society of Australia maps for all of her stories. I do not remember where I found that link, but if not on Pemberley.com, maybe...

In addition to these maps of England, I like a site map too. A site map is a smaller scale and would show the nearby villages, estates, roads, paths, &c. that help understand a story. I have tried to scratch out a site map, but too few vector bits are given. I am in a reread to try to extract them, and work from a comprehensive list, like a survey, but that will take time...

As to their duel, I submit a p=0.55 that it was a sword fight. Why? Swords have a gentlemanly air, and pistols have the problem of wild shots, even though true gentlemen in disagreement will shoot with no intention of a hit (a $50/10# word exist for this act), because facing the possibility of death was sufficient. Does the duel status defend the victor against a murder or homocide rap?

While Willoughby may not appear early on in the [book] as a villian, it may be known to a re-read. Does that change the complexion of the question?

Kristina F may have been right about swords being more cinematic, but S&S3 muffed it. I think it was badly done (see George Knightly, Emma)! It had two major defects of which one could have been avoided by watching how team sports is broadcast. Their cameras are on the scene of action, they track the action's movement, and they tend to be well framed and focused. Hollywood and Pinewood can learn from ESPN or your favorite network.

The second defect is the intercutting between the sword fight and Marianne's writing in the morning. Even if and if and if those two events were simultaneous, good story telling (books or movies) demand that one action's complete depiction preceed the other. Which is which can be determined by which started first, ran longer, which may have had a dependency upon the other, &c. Intercutting is bad, partly because some of us old fossils do not watch or observe while being juiced up on goof balls.

Not intending to do version comparison, the actors who play characters impart story affecting differences (of course). Something about Dominic Cooper's congestion of his medial eye fissures give him an evil air. I would not buy a used car from that look, which is too bad, because he might be a good fellow. So, each time I see the end of the sword fight scene, I feel cheated because Col. Brandon did not give Willougby a Caligula Coughdrop (a bit difficult with a rapier, but could make Willoughby wish he would have been more gentlemanly).

The pitiful Willoughby was probably played by Peter Woodward (S&S1). He cried like a blind dog in a meat market when he did the confessional at Cleveland, but he is the only one of the W.s that did a credible job of carrying Marianne from the down to the Cottage. Cooper looked like he was packing too much woman. However, Morissey as Col. Brandon did not seem to be feeble at the end when he carried his bride across the threshhold.

Greg Wise as W. (S&S2) played him as handsome, dapper, and more gentlemanly, which make him very dangerous. Unfortunately, S&S2' seat time - length cut two essential bits from the story: Dinner with Mrs. Ferrars and W.'s confession at Cleveland.

Would Emma Woodhouse matched W. to Marianne? But a rambling I go. Ah. I am better now. I am back.

Flawed characters are not a problem. It is human nature. It is a story when criminal characters are merely regarded as "flawed."