I didn't think it was possible. I'd always loved the 1967 Julie Christie version with Alan Bates as the upright shephard Gabriel Oak. But having seen this version, then reading the book (amazingly readable) and re-watching the 1967 version, I definitely give my vote to Nathaniel Parker as my favorite Gabriel. (OK, so he's even cuter than Alan Bates circa 1967, so that part's a no-brainer!)
Seriously, comparing the two versions and the book (which is more Gabriel Oak's story), it is obvious how the Alan Bates part in the 1967 version was butchered to create more screentime for Terrance Stamp and Peter Finch as well as Julie Christie. It also became apparent to me that Julie Christie was too old for the part. Paloma Baeza is much more realistic (and likeable) as the headstrong, impetuous Bathsheba. I also liked the fact that there seemed to be more passion seething just beneath Gabriel Oak's surface veneer than in the 1967 version. The final scenes where she accepts his proposal and post-wedding are a lot more passionate (still without a single kiss, alas!) than the cool (dispassionate) ending of the 1967 version.
Seriously, comparing the two versions and the book (which is more Gabriel Oak's story), it is obvious how the Alan Bates part in the 1967 version was butchered to create more screentime for Terrance Stamp and Peter Finch as well as Julie Christie. It also became apparent to me that Julie Christie was too old for the part. Paloma Baeza is much more realistic (and likeable) as the headstrong, impetuous Bathsheba. I also liked the fact that there seemed to be more passion seething just beneath Gabriel Oak's surface veneer than in the 1967 version. The final scenes where she accepts his proposal and post-wedding are a lot more passionate (still without a single kiss, alas!) than the cool (dispassionate) ending of the 1967 version.