I often think it odd that it should be so dull, for a great deal of it must be invention
As Lost in Austen inches ever closer, I'd really like to know:
There seems to be an unquenchable desire for all things adaptation. Or, at the very least, they get greenlit with some regularity. And then everyone complains about how we just *had* a bunch of Austen adaptations (or adaptations in general), so surely we don't need any more of them, but producers *will* insist on making them. So why don't we see more historical drama not based on novels (either on TV or on film)? Obviously there is some, but it seems to be a very under-used method of satisfying the supposed public appetite for bonnets without having to struggle to make the 'same old stories' fresh again.
I can't think of any substantial differences in cost. History is still public domain; while I suppose it might take more time to write the initial script than it would to adapt an already-written novel, one would still have to pay the writers anyway; and casting, location, costumes, etc. shouldn't be any different for a production set in the Regency but not based on an Austen novel.
More crucially, is there really that big a difference in potential audience? All of the Austen fans I know would gladly watch a Regency-but-not-Austen film (and would probably approach it with far less trepidation!). People who have only watched adaptations of Austen novels without ever reading the books aren't watching them out of Austen loyalty, so presumably they'd also watch a Regency film as well (or at least one that contained the elements they enjoyed in those adaptations). And let's face it, the audience for Becoming Jane was NOT those of us who had a serious stake in Austen.
The only problem I can really see is marketing, and if you associated the production with Austen often enough (which happens with non-Austen adaptations *anyway*--see the reviews for Cranford), surely that would work?
Because, actually, I would potentially watch a "Regency Life on Mars," as Lost in Austen is being described, but I have no interest in someone actually being transported *into* Pride and Prejudice (and Elizabeth being transported into the modern day, which breaks my brain a little bit. I mean, she *is* fictional), because I suspect it would just tick me off. I may be weird in that, though--I've never had any desire to read sequels to Austen's novels, either. Still, I don't see why Austen actually needs to be involved for this project to work. It seems perfectly possible to crassly capitalize on this period of Austen-mania without invoking Austen herself.
The ITV website for Lost in Austen:
http://www.itv.com/Drama/perioddrama/LostInAusten/default.html
In mildly related news, the new cover for the Oxford reprint of Northanger Abbey does seem to miss the point a bit:
http://www.oup.com/uk/catalogue/?ci=9780199535545
There seems to be an unquenchable desire for all things adaptation. Or, at the very least, they get greenlit with some regularity. And then everyone complains about how we just *had* a bunch of Austen adaptations (or adaptations in general), so surely we don't need any more of them, but producers *will* insist on making them. So why don't we see more historical drama not based on novels (either on TV or on film)? Obviously there is some, but it seems to be a very under-used method of satisfying the supposed public appetite for bonnets without having to struggle to make the 'same old stories' fresh again.
I can't think of any substantial differences in cost. History is still public domain; while I suppose it might take more time to write the initial script than it would to adapt an already-written novel, one would still have to pay the writers anyway; and casting, location, costumes, etc. shouldn't be any different for a production set in the Regency but not based on an Austen novel.
More crucially, is there really that big a difference in potential audience? All of the Austen fans I know would gladly watch a Regency-but-not-Austen film (and would probably approach it with far less trepidation!). People who have only watched adaptations of Austen novels without ever reading the books aren't watching them out of Austen loyalty, so presumably they'd also watch a Regency film as well (or at least one that contained the elements they enjoyed in those adaptations). And let's face it, the audience for Becoming Jane was NOT those of us who had a serious stake in Austen.
The only problem I can really see is marketing, and if you associated the production with Austen often enough (which happens with non-Austen adaptations *anyway*--see the reviews for Cranford), surely that would work?
Because, actually, I would potentially watch a "Regency Life on Mars," as Lost in Austen is being described, but I have no interest in someone actually being transported *into* Pride and Prejudice (and Elizabeth being transported into the modern day, which breaks my brain a little bit. I mean, she *is* fictional), because I suspect it would just tick me off. I may be weird in that, though--I've never had any desire to read sequels to Austen's novels, either. Still, I don't see why Austen actually needs to be involved for this project to work. It seems perfectly possible to crassly capitalize on this period of Austen-mania without invoking Austen herself.
The ITV website for Lost in Austen:
http://www.itv.com/Drama/perioddrama/LostInAusten/default.html
In mildly related news, the new cover for the Oxford reprint of Northanger Abbey does seem to miss the point a bit:
http://www.oup.com/uk/catalogue/?ci=9780199535545