You're kidding, right? Tell me you're kidding.
Alas, I kid you not. I suppose it's an attempt to modernize the look and feel of the film in order to draw in the audience who may not be familiar with the novel (although, isn't Austen a part of high school curriculum? Or maybe I'm mixing the general American HS English class with that in Neptune High), but surely, they must realize something like this would alienate Austen fans.
It made me laugh doubly more because I, too, remembered that conversation about the montage from Bones pilot set to the same song, which is precisely where I decided to skip the show, all my goodwill to Le Boreanaz not withstanding. It's not an awful song per se, but it's so bloody ubiquitous that by now, I've been conditioned into a Pavlovian cringe-response.
Were people talking about
Get Rich
here or in Natter?
Because look at the title of Zap2it's review of the movie:
'Get Rich' Dies Tryin'
Alas, I kid you not. I suppose it's an attempt to modernize the look and feel of the film in order to draw in the audience who may not be familiar with the novel (although, isn't Austen a part of high school curriculum? Or maybe I'm mixing the general American HS English class with that in Neptune High), but surely, they must realize something like this would alienate Austen fans.
Well, we didn't read Austen in high school, no. I'm sure there are places where they do. But... it's set in the 1800s! They didn't HAVE Collide in the 1800s! I'm sorry, that's just bad song choice. Vividcon would kick their asses.
I just mentally insert "Solsbury Hill" when I see the commercial.
England. Austen was in our English Lit curriculum. I don't know who the hell collide is, though, so I don't count.
They didn't HAVE Collide in the 1800s!
The accursed song seems to transcend known time-space continuum. Or maybe Howie Day is an immortal.
It *is* sort of like vidding LOTR to an Evanescence song, isn't it?
I read in a fashion magazine (Vogue? Elle? I cannot remember) that the director decided to set P&P in the late 18th century in order to have different costuming/hair than would be usual during the Regency. More dramatic, perhaps?
I don't know. The rationale is that it was set when Austen wrote it rather than when it was published. (I may be remembering this wrong.)
I read in a fashion magazine (Vogue? Elle? I cannot remember) that the director decided to set P&P in the late 18th century in order to have different costuming/hair than would be usual during the Regency.
I remember reading that too. I think the reasoning was that the director just didn't like Regency fashions.
But, what I saw in the movie trailer
did
look like Regency, inasmuch as it didn't look like Victorian. Right? For one thing, the Victorians would not have low-cut dresses, but high-cut, or covering the neck even, and a tight bodice from armpits to hips.
So, it might not be Regency, but I suspect it's not any other historical period, either.
Umm, late 18th century is not Victorian -- well, what the heck is that period called?
Later than powdered wigs? Prior to Empire waist dresses?
