Jump to content

Talk:Lost in Austen

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Source

[edit]

I haven't the time or interest to incorporate this lengthy production info but someone else could:

Bradley0110 (talk) 19:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll hijack this thread and add two other usable sources here from the articles until they are incorporated (might by me, but I make no promises).

– sgeureka t•c 07:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have read up on all sources that are google news, and have compiled the usable stuff at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sgeureka/Sandbox&oldid=240991853#Lost_in_Austen . I don't yet know if I am going to work on this article, but I think I enjoyed this serial enough to want to get it to B class, I think. – sgeureka t•c 21:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Synopsis

[edit]

Is anyone up for creating a synopsis especially with were the series differs from the novel, I'm afraid I have to admit of not knowing the novel well enough to do this myself. KTo288 (talk) 07:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The written synopsis should be based on the mini series alone, and some editors would say that writing about the differences between the mini series and the novel would constitute WP:Original research (it's a gray area). From what I can tell, everything after Jane's marriage to Mr Collins is so different from the novel that it is not worth mentioning the differences anyway. (If all that's stopping you from writing the synopsis is your infamiliarity with the novel, then having seen the popular 1995 BBC TV serial will help - it was astonishingly faithful to the novel except for the lake scene.) But I am better with trimming plot than writing plot, so I'd also like someone else to write the synopsis. The ITV website may be of help. – sgeureka t•c 18:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's the differences in what happens, and then there's the differences, well not so much differencies so much as revelations about characters, e.g. the character who turms out to be a lesbian, and the cad whose not as caddish as he seems. KTo288 (talk) 09:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As it stands, the problem is that the article no longer mentions the book at all. Even if the plot of the mini series is not the same of the plot of the book, it seems to me that the article suffers by not mentioning that it was based on or at least inspired by a book of the same name. It isn't as if the production company had the idea to create this particular kind of story with Austen's works on their own. 24.145.132.195 (talk) 12:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The book is mentioned in the opening section..have you actually read the page? magnius (talk) 13:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would say there are both notable and non-notable differences. A highly notable difference is that Wickham's history prior to Amanda entering this world is notably different from what Darcy thinks, the latter being what is stated as fact in the novel.
Also the earliest deviations from the novel that set the story off-course re Mr. Collins strike me as notable.--WickerGuy (talk) 17:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DVD Release

[edit]

Is it worth mentioning the uproar over the early editions of the UK DVD release of this, where the scene where the main character sings 'Down Town' was cut, but which has since been reinstated? (I haven't seen the series yet, I only heard about this in comments on the Amazon page for the DVD, so can't help further, sorry) Amzi (Talk To Me) 14:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That scene was also missing from the San Francisco broadcast of the show on KQED (a PBS station) the other week. Is it perhaps a copyright problem with the song? Sometimes clearing this with one medium or region is different from another region?--WickerGuy (talk) 15:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Last night on TV in Ontario Canada the singing was deleted, so the audience comments were at first confusing, but specifically say "Downtown". AnEyeSpy (talk) 09:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Online postings

[edit]

There are online postings of more or less complete episodes on veoh.com but they are 30 minutes in length while each episode is actually 45. The YouTube postings (each episode in 10 short parts) seem to be similarly truncated, though I'm less sure here. Anyone know what's going on?--WickerGuy (talk) 17:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stolen Idea?

[edit]

This has just been aired in Australia. Not bad, but not one acknowledgement in the credits nor in this article that the whole concept of travelling "into" a period classic novel (or any novel) has been shamelessly stolen from the plots of Jasper Fforde's Thursday Next novels, in particular "The Eyre Affair". 60.229.43.17 (talk) 11:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide evidence of alleged theft of an idea? The concept pre-dates even Jasper Fforde's novels, it's hardly original. magnius (talk) 12:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Eyre Affair was written in 2001. Way back in 1988, there was Goodnight Desdemona (Good Morning Juliet) a comedic play by "Ann-Marie MacDonald in which Constance Ledbelly, a young English literature professor from Queen's University, goes on a subconscious journey of self-discovery." (Quote from WP article). Yes, it's definitely not original to Jasper Fforde.--WickerGuy (talk) 17:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, having read about the Goodnight Desdemona (Good Morning Juliet) link it seems that, although being largely the same premise, the details are not so similar. In fact, if the details don't have to be so close, an even earlier antecedent could be the A-ha video for "take on me" from 1985 where the heroinE steps into a comic strip. However, in the case of Goodbye Desdemona... the protagonist does not enter the *actual* book, whereas in both the Eyre Affair and Lost in Austen, she does. The similarities with the Eyre Affair are too strong to be dismissed easily.

In fact this blurb for lost in Austen...

"...Amanda Price - the frustrated romantic who lives for reading and adores the characters in her Jane Austen books. Then one day she discovers a gateway in her flat and ends up being transported to her favourite world, the world of Pride and Prejudice..."

Simply replacing "Amanda Price" with "Thursday Next" and Jane Austen, Pride and Predjudice, etc by Jane Erye etc and it would equally apply to The Eyre Affair, so although the concept of jumping into a work of fiction may not be new, the execution is very close. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.97.124 (talk) 17:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


All this talk of plagarism wiped the silly grin off my face! Nearly, anyway. It is a very serious accusation, which is a bit of a comedown on the back of this joyously frothy article - the synopsis is more like a brilliantly written digest - 'a gem you may have missed'. I was prepared to forgive the bias! I really enjoyed this article. It was enjoyable like radio sports commentary - a joyful evocation with somehow more clarity, explored depth and immediacy than actually watching the subject. I am, however, not entirely sure it is wikipedian, for NPOV standards, to have such a detailed crafted synopsis nor, especially, the extended section of critical praise, which was a part of the article I enjoyed less, but got it into it towards the end. Going back to the above discussion I think this is not the place for plagarism discussions officially/properly, despite the fact it may seem to be the only place or the best place. I don't know, try IMDB or other discussion forums - or get Jasper Fforde and his people involved and then come back with good references to the court case! I would consider this as actually possible - please be reassured I mean to be robust and jocular; I don't mean to sound short. Kathybramley (talk) 10:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is The Kugelmass Episode, a short story by Woody Allen that appeared in The New Yorker in 1977 in which a humanities professor in New York uses a magic cabinet to transport himself in Madame Bovary.2A00:23C6:1683:4D01:105F:4DAC:58CF:C39D (talk) 10:38, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Part 3 is 702 words

[edit]

I found this entry hard to read with long sentences and paragraphs, extra spaces, some points unclear. (DVD section appeared twice, identical.) I broke the whole into subsections and more paragraphs. But each episode is still long. Guidelines suggest 400-700 words. Does that apply to each episode or the whole article? AnEyeSpy (talk) 09:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception

[edit]

Oddly un-critical section on the series' critical reception - it also got some really, really terrible reviews. One critic for The Times wrote:

It is a truth universally acknowledged that any predictable drivel ever written about Jane Austen has to begin with those six words. In this respect alone, ITV’s big-budget, time-travel costume drama Lost in Austen does not disappoint.
In nearly all other respects, however, it does. At some point in the preliminary meetings for this stupid, stupid programme I bet you somebody will have said “Life on Mars meets Pride and Prejudice!” And somebody else will have clapped, and decided that this was a very good idea. These people were morons. Take them out, ITV, and shoot them.

Someone ought to bring a little bit of balance to this, maybe? --Oolong (talk) 14:26, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Lost in Austen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Lost in Austen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:45, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Lost in Austen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:15, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lost_in_Austen&oldid=1206197663"