ext_96437 ([identity profile] applea.livejournal.com) wrote in [community profile] indeedsir_backup2011-05-31 05:19 pm

Discussion

While watching Blackadder over the weekend, I began to wonder- what would have happened if Rowan Atkinson had been asked to play Jeeves instead of Stephen Fry. I mean, Laurie's character is much the same (yet, dare I say it- smarter? in Plum's version) and both Blackadder and Jeeves share the similarities of serving the Prince/Wooster (henceforth shortened to Prince Wooster), rescuing him from the soup, being the cleverest one in the room, coming out ahead in every situation, and being darker to Prince Wooster's light.
Now, the characters are similar, but obviously different, so if Atkinson had gotten the role he'd be playing it slightly differently than he would his Blackadder role.

But it still stands Jeeves would probably sound much more blackadderish/malicious if he had gotten the role. How much do you think that would impact the message and interpretation of Plum's stories? And as a theoretical, which would you prefer/ think is more true to the stories?


For reference, here's a bit of Blackadder:
http://youtu.be/3iHPOabGtXs

[identity profile] erynn999.livejournal.com 2011-06-04 11:37 pm (UTC)(link)
Oh, I agree there's a thin line sometimes between okay and creepy. The key is finding ways to keep it from being creepy if you're writing an older Jeeves and you want it to work. In that sort of a case, I think I'd find it easier to swallow (so to speak) if Bertie were the one to approach Jeeves, given the usual dynamic of their relationship.