#other than watching the odd film or when i visited which just isn't enough

[neomachine]

[iamthenightcolormeblack]

My Thoughts on Pride and Prejudice 1980: The Ladies Take Center Stage

It's easy to forget that there are dozens, if not hundreds, of other Pride and Prejudice adaptations because the discussion is generally limited to "1995 versus 2005." The subject of this review is the 1980 BBC miniseries adaptation of Pride and Prejudice, which stars Elizabeth Garvie as Elizabeth Bennet and David Rintoul as Mr. Darcy and consists of five 1 hour long episodes. Some Pride and Prejudice fans consider this show as the definitive version of the book, since it was one of the first adaptations that attempted to be faithful to the story by incorporating much more of Austen's dialogue compared to previous adaptations.

1. THE PRODUCTION

The video quality is blurry (typical with 1970s/1980s BBC TV shows), so this adaptation is hard to watch compared with the 1995 and 2005 adaptations. While I like the historic houses used in the miniseries, boring, stuffy studio interiors are used for the interior scenes (except for Pemberley). I would only recommend this adaptation for extreme Pride and Prejudice fans/completionists.

Each episode's opening credits are accompanied by illustrations of what happens in the episodes, reminding the viewer that they are watching a filmed version of the book. The caricatured figures are not appealing to the eye and look dated. It doesn't help that they all are accompanied by "ye olde timey" music.

The costumes are for the most part very historically accurate for the early 19th century Regency Era, possibly even more so than the 1995 version with open chests, since the women's day dresses cover their necks as well. The costume designer mastered the famous Regency era white dress; I liked Elizabeth's white day dress and Jane's white evening gown. However, not all the costumes are flattering; some of the ugly floral patterns and garishly bright colors come straight from the 1970s, while a lot of decent evening dresses are ruined by fake lace or clunky 1970s bibs.

The hair is mostly accurate, with the exception of Mary's straight bangs and pixie cut. Unfortunately, the makeup is of the 1970s, especially with the penciled eyeliner/eyebrows on Jane and Caroline Bingley. Poor Mr. Bingley meanwhile has the most unflattering 1970s "helmet bowl" hairstyle.

2. PLOT AND CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT

The adaptation focuses heavily on the female relationships within the book, much more so than other adaptations. Throughout the episodes, there are many slice-of-life scenes in which the Bennet sisters are gathered together in conversation while occupying themselves with typical activities for women of the Regency era (sewing, flower arranging, trying on clothing).

Charlotte Lucas has a larger role here than in the book. In this adaptation, she frequently visits the Bennet sisters at Longbourn, and the screenwriter uses her dialogue as a representation of the Regency perception of marriage as an economic proposition.

Mary Bennet also receives more screen time, and like Charlotte, she voices Regency attitudes towards women in general through her didactic remonstrances.

The many scenes in Elizabeth and Jane's bedroom are a means for Elizabeth to express the feelings and attitudes that she keeps hidden from society.

Elizabeth's favoring of Mr. Wickham is more obvious; she even pronounces him to be "above everyone, in person, countenance, [and] air" and is delighted that Wickham's trash-talking of Darcy confirms her hatred of him.

Inner monologues highlight Elizabeth's mental transformation as she grapples with the consequences of her prejudice against Mr. Darcy and considers the consequences of her family's social gaffes.

I dislike that the show chose to end with Mrs. Bennet's joy over the advantageous marriages of her elder daughters. It reinforces the perception that these marriages are ultimately for money rather than love.

The cast consists of largely unknown (to a mainstream audience) British actors whose portrayals of the characters are solid and replicate the book exactly. The rest of the supporting cast portray the characters just as they are in the book, but do not otherwise stand out. Here are my comments on the lead actors and other supporting cast:

Elizabeth Garvie: Garvie effectively portrays Elizabeth's wit, intelligence, and poise. She also looks right for the part, as she is believably youthful and has captivating eyes. Her pride is not so obvious because Garvie acts like a proper Regency girl, but it is brought out by the way Elizabeth looks people straight in the eye and addresses them directly while confidently stating her opinions, however flawed. My only minor nitpick is that Elizabeth is less vulnerable here; most of the time she is confidently in control of every situation she faces and has a smile for everyone.

David Rintoul: Rintoul looks the part, as he is tall, handsome, proud, and carries himself gracefully. However, he is too stiff and boring like a robot. In many scenes, even private ones with his close friends, he is always standing at attention like a soldier. With the exception of the Pemberley visit and the second proposal, he never smiles, and his voice is very monotone, even in the key romantic scenes where he is supposed to lose himself to his great passion for Elizabeth. Though he tries to appear amused at times, and shows some intelligence, his stiff body language never changes, undercutting the meaning behind his words.

While fans of this show have praised Rintoul for being stiff, like book Darcy, this stiff portrayal hinders Darcy's character development, since he must change his cold manners in order to be worthy of Elizabeth's love. There are MANY instances in the book where Darcy shows some emotion; he smiles as he teases Elizabeth at Rosings, becomes angry when Elizabeth rejects his first proposal, and blushes when he sees Elizabeth at Pemberley. This Mr. Darcy is "all politeness" and we don't get to see Elizabeth peeling back his cold exterior to reveal the good man underneath, unlike in the book.

Malcolm Rennie as Mr. Collins: His portrayal of Mr. Collins is very similar to 1995's Mr. Collins, as both are fat and simpering (maybe 1995's portrayal of Mr. Collins is a copy of this one, except even grosser). I also like how he is super moralizing and preachy in this version. He even walks like a penguin too!

Casting I disliked:

Moray Watson as Mr. Bennet: His Mr. Bennet is thoroughly unsympathetic; he does nothing but scold the family, slam doors, and drink tea. While Mr. Bennet is a neglectful parent, he expresses his dislike of the family in far more subtle ways and does not get into fits of anger easily.

Judy Parfitt as Lady Catherine de Bourgh: While the adaptation makes clear that Lady Catherine likes getting her way, this Lady Catherine isn’t intimidating enough to frighten anyone into submission. What doesn't help is that the scene where she interrogates Elizabeth about her family situation is cut; this scene is important in establishing Lady Catherine's tyrannical personality.

The actresses hired to play Kitty and Lydia Bennet are far too old for the parts; they do not look like teenagers!

Scenes I liked:

The opening scene -- the adaptation gives Charlotte a larger role, as she visits Elizabeth at Longbourn right after the news of Bingley's arrival. She also reveals her practical view on marriage as a necessity for securing comfort, which is at odds with Elizabeth's view of marriage as an equal partnership between people who love each other.

"First Impressions" -- Elizabeth shares her bad opinion of Darcy with Jane and reveals that the Bingleys earned their wealth in trade, making them "new money" as opposed to the Darcy family, which has many generations of nobility. This detail about the origins of Bingley's wealth could explain Caroline's extreme arrogance and make Jane's separation from Bingley on the basis of her poor connections more cruel.

Elizabeth at Mr. Lucas' party: This adaptation includes a scene from the book which isn't in many other adaptations, not even the 1995 miniseries. Elizabeth, acting impertinently to catch the attention of Darcy's "very satirical eye," addresses him sarcastically. Charlotte then gets Elizabeth to play the piano and she takes another opportunity to show off her wit:

"There is a fine old saying, which every body here is of course familiar with - 'Keep your breath to cool your porridge', and I shall keep mine to swell my song."

Jane and Elizabeth at Netherfield. In a series of scenes, Elizabeth confides in Jane her true thoughts and feelings about Darcy, the Bingleys, and the Hursts. For instance, she theorizes about why Darcy stares at her and rants about how disagreeable and annoying the Netherfield party are. It's really entertaining to see Elizabeth driven to frustration by the arrogant rich people.

Any scene with Mr. Collins in it, but here are the funniest ones:

Mr. Collins eating with the Bennet family: I laughed at how he examines the food with a critical eye before shoving it in his mouth quickly. It perfectly captures Mr. Collins' arrogance combined with bad manners.

Mr. Collins at the Netherfield Ball: he cannot dance and embarrasses Elizabeth (definitely a parallel with the 1995 version, where he bumps into the other dancers and apologizes profusely).

Mr. Collins' first proposal to Elizabeth: I laughed at the added flourish (not in the novel), where he bends down on one knee, but instead of professing love for the intended, states proudly to Elizabeth that the main benefit of the marriage is the patronage of Lady Catherine de Bourgh.

Collins' proposal to Charlotte Lucas: this is not in the original book, as it is (mostly) limited to Elizabeth's point of view, where she only finds out about the proposal after it happens. This comical scene begins with pleasant music and blooming flowers to establish romantic connotations, before it cuts to an awkward Mr. Collins following Charlotte Lucas. When Charlotte accepts Mr. Collins, they are sitting together by a rosebush, and his pure joy at the unromantic, arranged marriage, combined with the floral imagery from earlier, elevate the situational irony and make for a good laugh. The flower imagery also ties into Charlotte's earlier comparison of marriage to growing a plant; Elizabeth challenges Charlotte's assertion by asking her what would happen if the soil was poor (metaphor for the respect Elizabeth feels is a foundation for a loving relationship).

Aunt Gardiner's advice to Elizabeth: This scene isn't included in other adaptations, not even the 1995 miniseries. Here Aunt Gardiner warns Elizabeth against falling in love with Wickham, telling her that she needs to keep her common sense intact; Elizabeth dismisses this, fully confident in her powers of judgment. It's great that this exchange is included because it foreshadows the discovery of Wickham's true character, and hints that Elizabeth's perceptions of others may be wrong.

Scenes I disliked:

The romantic scenes. This adaptation unfortunately fails in the romance department; there is zero chemistry between the actors; even the otherwise wonderful Elizabeth Garvie is not exempt. (more about this later).

The first country ball. The interior is dark, small, cramped and stagey. Also, the dancing and overall manner of the guests is very sedate and orderly; it’s so quiet you can hear the dancers feet scrape the floor in spite of the music. This isn't very realistic compared with the other adaptations, where we are presented with much more boisterous country dances.

The activation of Stalker Darcy: While Elizabeth plays the pianoforte, Darcy, while shrouded in darkness, moves like a ghost among the crowd until he all of a sudden appears very close to the pianoforte and golf-clapping. perhaps Darcy is a blood sucking vampire? Though this scene is entertaining for all the wrong reasons, it doesn't make sense that Darcy's love for Elizabeth makes him even more robotic and creepy.

Lady Catherine confronting Elizabeth: While the dialogue for this scene is lifted straight from the book, there isn't quite enough fury and anger on the part of either person.

3. THE SCRIPT

What makes this adaptation stand out is the script by Fay Weldon. While the majority of the script is taken directly from the book, many have commented that her interpretation of Pride and Prejudice is much more feminist because of the greater emphasis on Elizabeth's point of view, as well as her relationships with other women. Many of the creative changes made emphasize the ridiculousness of the patriarchy and Elizabeth's outspokenness. In addition, Austen's narration slips into the dialogue of the female characters; for instance, Mary proclaims the village's judgment of Darcy as "the proudest most disagreeable man in the world."

Creative Changes/Great Quotes from the Script:

Darcy adding further insult to injury: after proclaiming Elizabeth to be unattractive to him, he adds: "She has too many sisters."

Mrs. Bennet criticizing poor Mary: “You read too much! No wonder you’re shortsighted.”

Elizabeth has had enough with Darcy, the Hursts, and the Bingleys: “Jane, they are monsters! They like nothing and dislike everything!"

Elizabeth has no patience: "This is unendurable! Mr. Darcy has scarcely spoken more than 10 words to me during the whole of today!"

Mary Bennet praises Mr. Collins' writing skills: "But he is intelligent. In point of composition the letter he wrote Father was not deficient and it was very long."

Mr. Collins scrutinizes Longbourn (his future inheritance) Part 1: "The hall. The hall should be imposing. This one is spacious enough but a little dark..."

Mr. Collins scrutinizes Longbourn Part 2: "Truly a gracious dining room. Lady Catherine de Bourgh would not be ashamed to dine here...The table, though a trifle rustic, is solid and a good match."

Mr. Collins provides much needed moral lessons to Kitty and Lydia: "I have often observed how many young ladies are very little interested in books of a serious stamp, though written solely for their benefit. Certainly there can be nothing so advantageous to them as instruction."

Mr. Collins on Anne de Bourgh: "She is agreeably fragile, and she is to marry Mr. Darcy."

Lady Catherine de Bourgh supporting the patriarchy: "If I were to have more children, they should all be sons."

Mr. Collins' Aquatic Hat: In one of many examples where Lady Catherine micromanages everyone's life, she orders Mr. Collins to plant bulrushes by the lake and per her instructions he orders an ugly top hat with a shower cap inside it to prevent himself from drowning. Charlotte and Elizabeth laugh about it when Mr. Collins isn't looking.

Darcy is a dog person, how sweet! Before the first proposal and before he meets Elizabeth again at Pemberley, Darcy is accompanied by a dog. Perhaps if he brought his dog to the first proposal it would have succeeded?

Elizabeth's internal monologue after she reads the letter: I normally dislike internal monologues because they detract from the action or become redundant, but I like how this adaptation utilizes the internal monologue to show Elizabeth actively confronting her prejudice against Mr. Darcy and acknowledging that she has acted wrongly in judging him harshly. Some adaptations reduce or even leave out this fundamental part of Elizabeth's personal growth. My only quibble with this scene is that Elizabeth lets go of her prejudice too soon and in too calm a manner. In the book, she is initially angry at Darcy and needs to reread the letter multiple times before she starts to form a grudging respect for Mr. Darcy. For Elizabeth, letting go of her prejudice is a slow, exhausting, and emotionally taxing process, unlike in this adaptation, where her logical reasoning allows her to quickly overcome her unreasonable hatred of Darcy.

4. THE ROMANCE (or, to be more accurate, lack of)

Many of the key romantic scenes between Elizabeth and Darcy are shortened, which surprised me because the length of a miniseries in general allows for more character development. I was hoping to see a fuller picture of Darcy and Elizabeth's relationship than could be provided in a movie.

While the female characters of the adaptation are fully rounded and have many opportunities to express their perspectives, the male characters remain one-dimensional and do not get the same treatment as the women. In other words, the male characters are reduced to mere objects of affection.

Some critics have argued that Darcy is irresistible to women in part because he is mysterious. Even his appearance is left to the reader's imagination, as Austen only notes that Darcy has a "fine, tall person, handsome features, noble mien...[and] ten thousand a year." Thus, the reader gets to craft their ideal version of Mr. Darcy; he could look like any handsome man. When the "historically accurate Mr. Darcy" image was released several years ago (where he looks like George Washington); many, including me, were disappointed because we all have different images of Mr. Darcy in our heads (or more likely, we pick between Colin Firth and Matthew Macfadyen). This adaptation capitalizes into the mystique of the character by leaving the viewers to guess Darcy's intentions. Since we do not have access to his internal thoughts or motivations, we are limited to what we see before our eyes, much like the Meryton villagers. We do not get to see how Darcy develops feelings for Elizabeth; nor do we see how he is like in private occasions (even when alone with his friends, he says little and reveals little).

Other critics/Austen scholars/fans have argued that the one-dimensional treatment of male characters is in keeping with the unique writing style of Pride and Prejudice. Typically, female characters were the ones reduced to objects of affection for the male characters. Austen reverses this norm by focusing more on Elizabeth's viewpoint while Darcy remains mysterious.

Though a more reserved Darcy may work in the book, it does not serve the development of the romance well. Darcy's falling in love with Elizabeth is characterized by a gradual loss of control over himself; in his words he was "in the middle before I knew that I had begun [falling in love]." After all, he cannot stop staring at Elizabeth and frequently tries to keep talking to her at Netherfield before he begins to feel "the danger of paying Elizabeth too much attention." During his first proposal, he is agitated, and when Elizabeth rejects him, becomes angry. It is obvious, in the book and in the 1995 and 2005 adaptations as well, that the man is clearly an emotional train wreck.

The conflict between Darcy's outer shell and inner self is a key part of his falling in love with Elizabeth, and the adaptation misses out on this with a stiff, wooden Darcy who always carries himself properly and never smiles. In general, the most entertaining romances have this tension between self-control and passion, with lapses in manners usually the only sign of the passion beneath the surface; after all, in Elizabeth's words, “Is not general incivility the very essence of love?”

Back to the idea of the one-dimensional Darcy being an inversion of gender norms in writing: I have to disagree with this because (this is obvious I'm sure) Darcy is still a fully rounded character and does undergo his own journey, since he has to change his manners to earn Elizabeth's love. This quote shows what Darcy has learned about himself:

"I have been a selfish being all my life, in practice, though not in principle. As a child I was...given good principles, but left to follow them in pride and conceit. Unfortunately an only son, (for many years an only child) I was spoilt by my parents [who] almost taught me to be selfish and overbearing, to care for none beyond my own family circle, to think meanly of all the rest of the world, to wish at least to think meanly of their sense and worth compared with my own."

Though some fans of this adaptation like how the other relationships are treated with equal importance as the well-known love story, the romance is important as a source of personal growth for Elizabeth as well as Darcy. After all, they do have to overcome the "pride and prejudice" that separates them.

The marriage of Darcy and Elizabeth is a feminist triumph for Elizabeth Bennet; in my review of the 2005 movie, I noted that Elizabeth Bennet is revolutionary because of her unwillingness to compromise on her belief that marriage should based on love and respect, contrary to the prevailing social view of marriage as an economic proposition. While it seems counter-intuitive for a repressive institution like marriage to be a feminist triumph, Austen's heroines use marriage as a means of gaining not just material comforts, but ultimately the self-respect they desire by uniting themselves with partners whom they are equals with. The marriages Austen's heroines make are testaments to their independence, as they are choices made by the women themselves. Even Charlotte Lucas' otherwise unhappy arranged marriage works for her, since she enjoys the freedom that running her own household gives her. Not focusing on the romance of Elizabeth and Darcy leaves out Austen's complex perspective on marriage as a social necessity but also an unlikely route to freedom.

Here's my breakdown of the Elizabeth and Darcy scenes in this adaptation and why the romance fails:

"She is tolerable:" Elizabeth reacts rather too sedately to the insult Darcy gives her (and he also makes an added comment about her having too many sisters); unlike in other versions where she attempts to suppress a laugh or even taunts Darcy outright. The adaptation diverges from the book by having Elizabeth tell her mother instead of her friends about Darcy's insult; it does not make sense why Elizabeth would confide this in her mother, given that she knows her mother is a fool.

Netherfield dance: Darcy attempts to flirt with Elizabeth during this dance (which only lasts one minute!), but doesn't succeed because of his poor social skills and her prejudice. It's also an amazing battle of wits, as Darcy counters Elizabeth's accusations while admonishing her not to trust Wickham.

Unfortunately, the adaptation cuts out essential dialogue revealing the extent of Elizabeth's prejudice and foreshadowing the discovery of Wickham's true character. For example, what isn't included is Elizabeth's accusations that Darcy is to blame for ruining Wickham's life, to which he replies that Wickham is capable of charming others but not necessarily of retaining good friends.

More significantly, the adaptation cuts Elizabeth's admission that she cannot figure Darcy out:

"'May I ask to what these questions tend?' 'Merely to the illustration of your character,' said she...

'And what is your success?' She shook her head. 'I do not get on at all. I her such different accounts of you as puzzle me exceedingly.'

'...I could wish, Miss Bennet, that you were not to sketch my character at the present moment, as there is reason to fear that the performance would reflect no credit on either.'"

The development of the romance is harmed due to the omission of the portrait metaphor. Here, Darcy shrewdly observes to Elizabeth that her judgment of character may be flawed and foreshadows the discovery of her prejudice against him. After his many observations of Elizabeth, Darcy knows her so well that he can read her like an open book (though he underestimates the extent of Elizabeth's prejudice against him). The metaphor of the picture as a representation of character also becomes literal through Darcy's portrait at Pemberley; Elizabeth only falls in love with Darcy after examining his character through the portrait.

Ultimately, the Netherfield Ball dance between Elizabeth and Darcy is essential in demonstrating the fallacy of first impressions, and reducing the dialogue only to the beginning part where Elizabeth teases Darcy on his inability to make small talk undermines the richness of the story.

Darcy's first proposal: This scene is definitely the worst one in this miniseries because it fails on so many levels. First, this Darcy remains stiff throughout the entire proposal, like he was at a public ball rather than declaring love. This is a total contrast to book Darcy; who, though formal, is "agitated" and "pale with anger" at times. Those famous opening lines ("In vain I have struggled...") are delivered so quickly and without any sort of overwhelming passion. What should be the climax of Darcy finally letting the volcano of his repressed emotions erupt (with bad consequences for him) instead becomes a cold recitation of the script. Elizabeth also becomes robotic as well, repeating her lines back with a detached tone of voice as if reading a teleprompter. I'm warning you: be prepared for the worst 5 minutes of your life.

Visiting Pemberley: The adaptation utilizes Elizabeth's inner monologue as she praises Pemberley; it's interesting to people who have read and re-read the book, but I don't think it's necessary to "copy and paste" large portions of the book and read them to the audience.

I do like that this adaptation clearly indicates that Elizabeth still stands by her decision to reject Darcy's first proposal, even though she really likes his great big house:

"'And of this place,' thought she, 'I might have been mistress! 'I might have rejoiced in [these rooms] as my own, and welcomed to them as visitors my uncle and aunt. - 'But no'... 'I should not have been allowed to invite them.'"

Most adaptations include the "Pemberley could have been mine" part, but don't include Elizabeth's realization that Darcy's class prejudice would have estranged her from the Gardiners (unfortunately that includes the 1995 miniseries). Including Elizabeth's thoughts about her aunt and uncle dispels the perception that she is a gold-digger who marries Darcy only after realizing how rich he is.

The portrait: why, why, why does Darcy not smile in his portrait?! The book LITERALLY EMPHASIZES that DARCY SMILES in his portrait, revealing a more sensitive side to him than his cold and formal appearance would otherwise suggest. Big mistake.

Lydia's elopement: the adaptation messes up this scene so badly, which is unfortunate because the scene is important in showing how much Elizabeth trusts Darcy and how much he still loves her, as shown through his concern for her. First, it diverges from the book by having Elizabeth run several miles to Pemberley (while fully outfitted in a spencer, bonnet, and long dress) and somehow she doesn't sweat or faint from the exertion. Running to Darcy to tell him the news doesn't make any sense, since the book makes clear that she did not want anyone outside her family to know about Lydia's elopement, or else her marriage prospects would certainly be ruined; the news devastated her because she feared losing Darcy's respect due to his social prejudice. Darcy learning of the news was purely a coincidence because he happened to be waiting for her at the inn where she was staying (aw how romantic!). As for Darcy, he remains cold and doesn't seem concerned enough for Elizabeth, in contrast with the book, where he immediately springs into action. The adaptation also omits Darcy's kindness by cutting out the part of the scene where he consoles Elizabeth, gets her to sit down, and brings her some wine.

Second proposal: Darcy breaks the rules of social etiquette by going out alone with Elizabeth before proposing to her, unlike in the book where they are with Jane and Bingley, but this scene is still thoroughly unromantic because the two actors have zero chemistry.

5. CONCLUSION

Although this adaptation has some good moments, the dated production design, underdeveloped romance, and wooden acting means that I will only recommend this version to Pride and Prejudice nerds/extreme book purists. The adaptation is boring to watch unless you know the book by heart.

This script highlights Austen's wit and sarcasm, but the performances don’t always do it justice. The feminist approach to the novel makes the adaptation stand out, but comes at the cost of Darcy's character development and the central love story.

Purists and casual book fans are better served by the 1995 BBC miniseries, which has the right balance of entertainment, historical accuracy, and faithfulness to the novel.

Thanks to JASNA (Jane Austen Society of North America) for all the wonderful online articles that I pull many of my ideas from. I spent many hours entertaining myself by reading their scholarly analyses of Jane's other works as well as those related to Pride and Prejudice, and they have really helped me as I write these reviews.

@princesssarisa @austengivesmeserotonin @dahlia-coccinea @obscurelittlebird @appleinducedsleep @colonelfitzwilliams

[theangrypokemaniac]

There's a sneering attitude that the dub is inherently inferior solely for being a dub, and when I say 'dub' I mean the American one. No one attacks the South American interpretation, funnily enough, or the variety that exist globally.

Why not if foreign languages are so abhorrent?  Do you think it's kewl to hate America?

That's so original you know.

If the moan centres on the dub changing certain things, well that's a pointless stance, because it's impossible to do otherwise.

What's accepted in one country is not always permitted elsewhere, so either you make those alterations or it's never shown. I'd prefer seeing a slightly toned down version rather than have it never reach the West at all.

This is without considering the technical obstacles that a direct translation brings. The words do have to fit the mouth movements, and if they don't, truncation must follow.

America and Japan are different; the population of the former are not going to comprehend the references to the latter's history and culture, which necessitates some divergence from the original to give it mass appeal.

Anime is a branch of entertainment. It has to attract the public's good will to stay in business. If impenetrable, it'll fail, with all the resulting unemployment and finacial losses that brings.

Those in charge of dubbing understandably think they're on safer ground promoting familiarity rather than the strange, but that's not to say Pokémon was stripped of its identity. On the contrary, it was like nothing I'd ever encountered before.

I may have watched Western cartoons then, but the idea of doing so now is silly. I won't give time to any modern animation unless it's Japanese. Growing up on the dub has not produced an ephemeral fan less serious or 'true'.

The 4Kids dub had wit, humour, deep emotion, suggestive comments and flights of fancy. The voices fitted the characters well.

Unlike the current one, where everyone sounds on the verge of vomiting, but then they're clearly working with substandard material on a miserly budget. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear after all.

Dubs can be bad, but the very state of being a dub doesn't confer worthlessness automatically. Considering the work gone into them, attempting to gain your favour, it seems rude not to appreciate the time and energy spent in production.

Knowing a little about history, sub-only fanatics remind me of the kind of folk who opposed an English Bible, because it was too good for the oiks to read the word of God.

Of course it was alright for them, rich enough to be taught Latin, but not so much the ordinary man.

It amuses me how dozens dismiss the dub, but see no hypocrisy in using its evidence to further their ship or anti-ship arguments, so it can't be that revolting.

It's also bizarre that so many hold sacred the sub of a series currently in a frenzy to shed every aspect of its anime and Japanese origins, leaving a vague, rootless ghost, supposedly making it easier to slip down the gullet of the masses.

Pokémon I've seen referred to as a 'gateway drug', as in the anime that introduced a generation to the entire concept. This means the dub. You would not have got enough kids in the late Nineties to read a screen rather than watch it, and even today most would lose interest rapidly.

Where would you be without that dub? Unless you're Japanese, your first experience of Pokémon will have been a dub, and if not the American, the one where you live, which was only made because there was the funds available.

You may have then progressed to watching the sub, but only because that dub stirred love in your soul.

Where would the franchise be without that dub? You think Pokémon would've grown to be a world-wide obsession raking in billions by itself? No, it'd still be a solely Japanese phenomena, and most likely never lasted this long.

Its decades of supremacy rests on the quality of that dub. It sold games and merchandise to kids by the ton, giving an incentive to keep the series going. If you're not a fan from the first wave, then your favourite era would have never existed had it not been financially attractive carrying on.

The team who wrote the first film actually preferred the dub, moved to tears by its emotive use of music, therefore they aren't so precious as the fans.

Where would anime be without that dub? Pokémon brought it to the West. A handful slipped through previously, but made minor impression.

To those who would dismiss Pokémon entirely in favour of more 'worthy' output such as Studio Ghibli, I would say that Pokémon, first the games, then the programme they inspired, must have an integral quality to have caught on in Japan, which isn't exactly short on similar concepts.

To have gained popularity in a crowded market, and so fervently a dub became an option, can only have come about because it held a certain magic.

It was the dub that smashed a hole in the cultural barrier, setting free the tidal wave to engulf the world. In Pokémon's trail followed Digimon, Cardcaptors, Monster Rancher, Yu-Gi-Oh! et cetera.

Without Pokémon, I doubt they'd have been translated, and definitely never broadcast on mainstream television. That came about as channels desperately hunted down anything Japanese to serve as the next craze.

I really appreciated the effort made by 4Kids in converting every aspect of the series to suit American tastes, including changing text on signs, letters and books into English. I assumed this was standard practice until I watched others.

I could never be as involved in them as I was Pokémon because of that block. It was like being denied access to the deeper waters, fenced into the shallows, and implied a rushed dub, with little care shown but to chase the same crowd and money.

If personified, the dub 'n' sub wouldn't be one human being, but rather identical twins: the same to a casual observer, but easy to tell apart by the more attentive.

It's like the games: Red and Blue are versions of a single adventure, but not totally one. Take the dub and the sub the same way. They are parallel dimensions running on separate rails, and beyond reconciliation, and that's before we consider that, sub and dub alike, each generation has only a faint relation to its predecessor, working on its own whims.

Everyone has a favourite, or can like both, and there's nothing wrong in that, but so many are proud of the fact they hate the dub, as if it conveys a revered status of supremacy.

When Disney films are shown abroad, they too are translated, and I'm sure references and jokes are redesigned to make sense to the locals. It's no use selling yourself as a comedy then being surprised when the audience refuses to laugh, having no idea what you mean.

If people prefer that one, for being what introduced them to Disney as a whole, or as a fond memory of childhood, then so what?

I don't mind if their view of a character is minutely at odds with mine, having seen the original, because what they think is canon to their version, so can't be wrong.

I don't go round declaring every Disney dub to be pathetic by its nature, that viewers of them are of a lesser breed of fan for preferring their own tongue, even though more of the world's population understand English than they do Japanese.

If you enjoy one tailored to your country there's no crime in it, just as I like one at least comprehensible to mine. It's not even my culture, but I pick it up mostly.

The choice must be made on which to follow, and this blog runs on dub canon, as that has a claim on my heart. Just because I don't acknowledge what takes place in the sub doesn't mean I'm unaware of it, but it has no bearing on what I write.

The idea that the dub alters things willy-nilly without rhyme nor reason is also mistaken. Often it does it because the original does not make sense.

In the sub, I know Nanny and Pop-Pop are just a couple of old duffers taken at random and dropped in to a castle, supposedly as James's far away nannies.

Oh yeah, that's a cushy position. You doing a lot of child care from miles off?

Mind you, it used to describe 'em as 'caretakers' on Bulbapædia, as if Nan serves as housekeeper whilst Pop tends to the garden.

That's right. Ma and Pa finally got some work out of this pair of freeloaders.

They're not related, remember? No, no, absolutely not, no way. Of course their style reflects that. They just gave Pop a 'tache, thick eyebrows and a bigger nose, and Nan got a bun and lines in her hair, but there's certainly no connection. Oh no. Such a thing is ridiculous.

They're NOT family. No. Yet Hoenn James still panics they might learn he's joined Team Rocket, spending the whole episode trying to hide the truth.

Why? Who are servants to criticise the son of their employers? Why should their opinion be of any consequence to Hoenn James, especially when his parents, fiancée and butler are cognizant of reality?

Children of aristocrats are usually brought up by governesses, thus develop a stronger attachment to these figures rather than their parents, but that isn't the case here.

James lived with Ma and Pa, not the codgers minding the castle. He would have very little contact with distant employees compared to those who waited on him daily, so why seek out their approval?

Hoenn James apparently was permitted visits to Nan 'n' Pop, which is strange considering they're not relatives. Why them and not any other house-stters?

That's right, Ma and Pa sent their son to one of their properties without them, entrusting him to the care of two shrivelled pensioners of his size that he barely knew, and who could keel over at any minute. There are no other servants present. Apparently Nan and Pop clean an entire castle by themselves.

Oh, and they run a makeshift Pokémon sanctuary, but since it's not their home it has to be done with Ma and Pa's blessing, who also have to pay for it, but they're eevul aren't they?

The idea that somehow Nanny and Pop-Pop have not cottoned on to James's occupation by now is risible.

Servants gossip about their masters. I bet the entire household of his home know, and so in turn does the county. That Nan and Pop remain oblivious proves how isolated they are, for no one's thought to inform them.

When it came to dubbing it, they were made his grandparents, removing all the above nonsense. Of course he visits his nan and granddad, it's their gaff and their money funding the place, and it is likely his mother or father would keep James's job a secret, for fear the shock would finish 'em off.

It should do really. If they're not bothered by it that's a sign of where his rapscallion ways were inherited.

They aren't facially akin to Ma and Pa, but display the same additions, so if staff it's bloody lazy, as if nannies have to resemble your parents, but inventing a blood link excuses the slothful characterisation.

Every reference I've seen on Tumblr relating to the coffin-dodgers calls them Nanny and Pop-Pop. Apparently the dub decision is met with universal approval. It does have redeeming aspects then.

Now the sub writers, rather than ignore this development, took to it too. They aren't exactly bursting with ideas these days and are probably grateful for the lifelines offered.

Remembering James had parents, they forced a likeness between them and Nanny and Pop-Pop. How else do you explain the inexplicable ageing, even when Sinnoh Ma and Sinnoh Pa are younger than Ma and Pa?

I've also known for years that the sub has this woman as Jessie's foster mother, not Ma Jess, but that's stupid.

I can grasp the idea that Jessie and Ma might have endured extreme deprivation, considering that's what Team Rocket has brought to Jessie anyway, and that they may have lived at the bottom of Mew's mountain prior to Ma's death.

What I find difficult to take in is that social services (or as they're known where I live, the S.S.), however notoriously awful they are, would give a child to a mad bitch in a shack with no running water.

Come on, they have to at least pretend to be concerned for Jessie's welfare.

As Jessie is very young, bereavement can't have befallen her in the distant past, so how can she be happy this soon after becoming an orphan? How could the grieving period be a cherished memory?

If that woman's creaming off the money, why hasn't she fixed the place up by now? Where do the payments go, sniffing glue?

Then there's the depiction. If this is just some daft bint never to be mentioned again, why do they conceal her face? Who cares what she looks like when she's unimportant?

Here's another figure from Jessie's past. She isn't disguised, and why not when she too briefly appears and is then forgotten?

Who was she?

The only sort of characters they tended to hide were other members of Team Rocket:

During the early scenes featuring Giovanni, he was enveloped in shadow, adding both intrigue and a sense of menace.

Madame Boss also got this treatment, even though there was probably no intention to ever feature her in the anime. What's the use in keeping an appearance a mystery if it'll remain masked?

With that pattern, it implies this woman is in the same category, like Ma Jess.

When it came to animation, it definitely was intended to be a foster mother. Not her real one. No.

What did they do?

They gave her Jessie's skin tone and purple hair hanging down her back!

You know, like Ma Jess?

Any colour would've done. Any at all, and being anime I do mean any colour, but no. The choice was made to give her the looks of the exact person she's not meant to be!

Is it that surprising the dub simplified things?

I don't mind if you like the dub, sub, both, or any from around the world, but I'm tired of the smug condescension, as if we all agree the sub is the only one that counts, and that dub fans are grunting troglodytes, or not 'proper' aficionados.

None of us would be here were it not for the dub. Pokémon would not be here. I think it deserves some respect for how much of a difference it made, to my life and to yours.