|
|
Post by onlyaworkingtitle on Jun 5, 2011 3:01:12 GMT -5
Very much agreed with this statement. And am I the only person who doesn't like Zooey Deschanel. Her sister Emily is much prettier. AGREEMENT. All I've seen of Zooey was Tinman, and she's pretty and all, but I found her performance in that... amazingly monotonous. I spent most of the series wondering if she had more than two facial expressions, and constantly being proven seeing evidence that she doesn't. On the other hand, I've seen all of Bones ever, and Emily is just as (if not more) pretty, as well as a far more memorable actress. Plus, Zooey's the musician, but based on what we heard of Emily's singing (when she did "Girls Just Wanna Have Fun" in that episode in season... 3?) her voice is far earthier and, again, more memorable. |
|
|
|
Post by serpentheart on Jun 5, 2011 8:41:10 GMT -5
I think it was BBC that did the TV version of Bleak House with Gillian Anderson, etc. Loooved it!
|
|
|
|
Post by Marina on Jun 5, 2011 12:07:38 GMT -5
The BBC Sherlock was amazing. I was LIVID with the way it ended though...at least before they announced a new series. Oh god, was I mad... What's odd though is that I can't sit through an episode completely, I have to do other things while I'm watching, sometimes even pausing for several minutes. It might have to do with the fact that each episode is like an hour long, and my attention span is not that great. |
|
andy
Young Armadillo
Posts: 80
|
Post by andy on Jun 6, 2011 2:49:55 GMT -5
Hmm BBC adaptations tend to be really good. I liked the ones they released this spring. Both Christopher and His Kind and The Crimson Petal and the White were really good, the adaptation of D.H. Lawrence's Women in Love and The Rainbow was unimpressively good and The Night Watch should be out soon too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dodger Thirteen on Jun 6, 2011 2:54:37 GMT -5
Very much agreed with this statement. And am I the only person who doesn't like Zooey Deschanel. Her sister Emily is much prettier. AGREEMENT. All I've seen of Zooey was Tinman, and she's pretty and all, but I found her performance in that... amazingly monotonous. I spent most of the series wondering if she had more than two facial expressions, and constantly being proven seeing evidence that she doesn't. On the other hand, I've seen all of Bones ever, and Emily is just as (if not more) pretty, as well as a far more memorable actress. Plus, Zooey's the musician, but based on what we heard of Emily's singing (when she did "Girls Just Wanna Have Fun" in that episode in season... 3?) her voice is far earthier and, again, more memorable. See, I loved Tinman, hated her performance. Everything I've seen her in just makes me want to throw the remote at the screen, reach in and shake her. She's just so...bland and empty. No emotion in her acting, so I don't understand how she keeps getting jobs, aside from the fact that maybe it's because she looks like Katy Perry? But I don't understand why that would be a good thing because she's just...no good. But Emily is phenomenal. She's talented, gorgeous, and comes off as exceptionally bright. Her portrayal of Bones is smart, funny, and just damned well perfect. RE: Sherlock - It's amazing. I just started watching it over again since it's on Netflix (<3!!!) with The Boyfriend. Ten minutes in, he goes "I love this already." I was very, very pleased because the character of Sherlock has become somewhat of an important thing to us and Cumberbatch's portrayal is spot-on for the setting he is now in. Boyfriend's elder brother (don't like him...) doesn't like him because he thinks the guy looks like a kid whereas Sherlock is old. *eyetwitch* I could do with less of him in my life.... |
|
|
|
Post by Marina on Jun 6, 2011 11:39:15 GMT -5
Actually Sherlock is only supposed to be in his thirties or even late twenties even in the original novels. I think the only reason they always make him older is because people wouldn't think it's realistic.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eternal Lobster on Jun 6, 2011 11:56:13 GMT -5
Actually Sherlock is only supposed to be in his thirties or even late twenties even in the original novels. I think the only reason they always make him older is because people wouldn't think it's realistic. Plus, a lot of the other adaptions depict him as middle-aged, which doesn't help. Serpantheart -- I forgot about Bleak House! I am not a fan of Dickens but that adaption is reeeeally good. I was able to suffer through reading the book because of it! I forgot about Little Dorrit, too. That one was good right up until the very rushed ending. |
|
|
|
Post by serpentheart on Jun 7, 2011 6:02:08 GMT -5
Eternal Lobster - I think Dickens can work a whole lot better as TV because it was originally written in serialisation. But yeah, that adaption is amazing! The costumes and actors, ah, just great! XD I cheered at the end for Esther haha.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eternal Lobster on Jun 7, 2011 20:57:08 GMT -5
You know, Serpantheart, I never thought of it that way, but it makes a lot of sense! I think, for me at least, that adaptions help the reader picture the characters. There are so many characters in Dickens' works that I can easily lose track. With a television or movie adaption, I have a mental/visual picture to go by.
|
|
|
|
Post by serpentheart on Jun 7, 2011 23:14:40 GMT -5
That is a great point! When I read Great Expectations I did get lost with a lot of the characters.
The adaptions usually cut out a lot of superfluous characters too which makes it easier to get along with the story.
|
|
