I am confused. At the beginning, the explorer looked like he was from the turn of the century. Paddington books came out in 1958. The story was set 40 years after the expedition. This would put the expedition in 1918, consistent with the clothing and black/white reel.
However, this movie clearly wasn't set in 1958, although they have sophisticated technology but lack of cell phones.
Can anyone explain this?
They live in an alternate universe. Talking bears are nothing odd to people. So if it is indeed set in 1958, it was a 1958 when technology is much more advanced than our 1958.
shareSo technically a 1958 without religion?
shareSo When Montogmery Clyde is expelled from the Geographer's Society he is expelled by an old man who is wearing a Miltary Cross, Mons Star, Great War Medal and Victory Medal. This denotes that he would have been an officer in the First World War. It also means he would have been a junior officer and only serving during World War One or just a the few years prior to it, if it had been otherwise he would have had pre war medals such as boer war medals or post war medals. So you can assume he was aged between 20-30ish in 1914 (Mons Star denotes he served in the first year of the war). The man was clearly in his 60s at least (in fact it was played by Geoffrey Palmer who was born in 1927 and is 87). This means that the expedition to Darkest Peru would have taken place at least in the 1950s/60s. For Nicole Kidman to grow up would take another 30/40 years (in fact at the start it may say 40 years later?) which means that the story is set very much in the present dayish (there seems to be a deliberate lack of mobile phones, game consoles and computers, for example they look up address seemingly in a phone book?, so they are harking back to slightly earlier than the present), even if it is an alternate version of our modern day where everyone isn't staring at a bear in central london!!!
The clothes the explorer was wearing in the first expedition to darkest peru were historically accurate for a time around the 1960s as the clothes had not changed much since the victorian period. Just look at some of Sir David Attenborough's tv documentaries.
Portrayals of religion isn't important in the UK. We work on the basis it's none of your business.
_____________
I am the Queen of Snark, TStopped said so. And I have groupies, Atomic Girl said so.
Portrayals of religion isn't important in the UK. We work on the basis it's none of your business.
There are a lot of religions practiced in the UK. There isn't one that dominates another. Who cares about your religion anymore anyway? The only people who would judge a religion are religious bigots.
_____________
I am the Queen of Snark, TStopped said so. And I have groupies, Atomic Girl said so.
That's a really weird remark. Religion, in a family fantasy about a talking bear?
As another poster has said, religion is not important in the UK. I suppose it's about as popular as golf. Quite a few of people like to play golf; some are very keen and quite fanatical about it. Most of us don't play golf, but we don't mind if others do, or take much notice one way or the other. It's about that important - in other words, not at all. It was much the same in the 1950s, as I recall. This is an old and sophisticated country.
And a 1958 or whenever with the Shard, London Eye, etc. and modern Routemaster buses.
share