Posted by kathleen (elder) on June 29, 1997 at 18:11:17:
In reply to Alternative Realities...again. posted by Kali on June 29, 1997 at 14:22:24
] I understand how Emma3 would be safer to like.
How so? Why safer?
] I think perhaps the "magic" that everyone sees in Emma2 is a lot like the "conceptual genius" others see in Clueless (which I didn't like).
Not everyone, I believe! ;-) [BTW, I like Clueless, but don't see it as a modern version of Emma.]
]Some people are sticklers for original detail, in which case the settings and costumes of Emma3 would have it out with the scripts and portrayals of Emma1 for the "best." Others find a tone - a feeling - which strikes them . . . just so and absolutely MUST be recreated in every subsequent experience of the story, and no amount of faithful detail will make up for its absence.
Exactly so -- which is why I prefer Emma3. (I would only add, that no amount of beautiful cinematography will make up for the absence of this tone either.)
] Some people want realism - perfect copies in visual media, just like a photo or a carefully-painted portrait (oftentimes these lack feeling - how many times have we seen a perfect portrait with a dead expression?). Others are touched by fresher, more inventive means of expression - records of shape, light, and color which capture the mood and general form but not the crisp details of the real thing.
And which represents Emma3 fans, do you think? ;-)
Kali -- you make some very good points, and I appreciate your efforts at explaining your point of view. (Loved the analogy with the art.)