|
|
|
|
#1
08-15-2019, 09:17 PM
|
||||
|
||||
Here's where I'd be posting a link to the new Little Women trailer if I wasn't using an iPad. Highlights of my response:
Emma Watson is Meg and not Jo? I suppose she feels that she's met her rebellious bookworm quota between Hermione and Belle, but Meg? Really? The older Amy would've been a better fit. And I would've thought she'd have had her fill of screen pregnancies after Noah. Like many others, I hold the 1994 Winona Ryder version as the standard which all others will be measured by. Katharine Hepburn's version was okay, but I actually prefer the '80s British version over it. The modern Lea Thompson version from last year was okay, but nothing spectacular. Too much Meg and Amy, not enough Beth in the trailer. Furthermore using Laurie as only a romantic foil in the trailer was a mistake, he fills so many more roles in the story than that.
__________________
mudshark: Nate's just being...Nate. Zeke: It comes nateurally to him. mudshark: I don't expect Nate to make sense, really -- it's just a bad idea. Sa'ar Chasm on the 5M.net forum: Sit back, relax, and revel in the insanity. Adam Savage: I reject your reality and substitute my own! Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. Crow T. Robot: Oh, stop pretending there's a plot. Don't cheapen yourself further. 
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
