Posted by Kathy F. on September 01, 1997 at 00:02:13:
In reply to Re: I watched Emma2 again (long post alert) posted by bj on August 31, 1997 at 21:05:45
] I'll take the bull by the horns on this one... running the risk, of course, that Kali will bite my head off because I'm a new poster and mucking up the scene.
Why are you making Kali the bad guy? Please refrain!
[snip] ] I think it's very easy for people to criticize the screenwriter... although I'd like to challenge any one of those criticizers to try to write an adaptation themselves and see how they would fare. I imagine we would be hard pressed to find someone who could do better.
Part of my point is that it is my opinion that Andrew Davies did a better job than Doug McGrath. Part of the reason I did not respond to the "recasting Emma" posts is that I could not think of better actors than those in Emma3. Again, it is my opinion, and I am entitled to it, just as you are entitled to yours, and everyone else is entitled to his own!
] I think that many of the anti-Emma adaptations individuals on this board have set such high expectations and "standards" that there's no way they're going to be able to see an adaptation and be satisfied with it.
"These things do occur, undoubtedly..." I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I did not like any of the adaptations, when in fact I thought I explicitly stated that I was much in favour towards Emma3. Perhaps I should have prefaced my entire post with all the previous posts from this board concerning the two movies, so that everyone could understand exactly where I was coming from. I did not, because it would take too much time, and I thought it superfluous (though now I'm not so sure) because there are many on this board who remember only too well the Emma wars. At the end of one of the last skirmishes, I resolved that I would watch Emma2 again, which I did. I have a greater appreciation for the movie than I did the first time I watched it, but I reserve the right to not like it as well as Emma3, and almost everyone here agrees to disagree. Perhaps my original post was a little too strident, but it was directed more towards those of a few months tenure here. Forgive my presumption in assuming that everyone would understand me. Also, I was in a slight "John Knightley" mood when I posted, so ignore it if it gives you pain.
] Jane Austen's work is in no danger of dying out, or becoming discredited by adaptations on screen. Rather, I think that movie adaptations (despite hair color of the casted actors) serve a much greater purpose, that of widening her appeal and exposing yet another generation to her work.
I never will dispute that paragraph.
] No matter how many movies come out, you've still got your novel, kids. Just don't waste your money on the ticket if you're so hell bent to nitpick it to death and look for ways in which it offends your sensibilities.
Thank you for the reminder, but it is unnecessary.
Posting followups to old messages is disabled; instead go to the main index and post a new message which mentions this one.