This template is within the scope of WikiProject Elizabethan theatre, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the theatre and dramatic literature in England between 1558 and 1642 on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Shakespeare, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of William Shakespeare on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Denmark, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Denmark on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Could we separate adaptations from films? Then we could have an "On Screen" section, linked by the main article (and not in a misleading way). We could call the adaptations section "Performances/Adaptations". I'm sure that we will expand enough to add more adaptations to the list. Wrad 18:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I'd be happy with "adaptations" and "films" (or whatever). Don't understand why you suggested "performances", though. AndyJones 22:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, performances might be misleading, suggesting notable productions rather than adaptations. "On Screen" too, rather than "Films", as TV versions ought to be inc. DionysosProteus 23:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm pretty sure we'll have a Hamlet in Performance subarticle at some point, which could be a head for adaptations, films, and theatre, that's why I suggested the title. Until it's created, though, there isn't really any reason for the suggested title, and it might be misleading. Wrad 00:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I've made the changes suggested, and shifted the order around a little. I put films at the bottom, only because the large row at top and bottom seemed more symmetrical, but if that makes centre too crowded, let me know. Also put wikilinks to the other titles, though not sure about this. DionysosProteus 13:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I have removed The Lion King from the list of adaptations. Even taking Vogler's recollection literally (as opposed to, for instance, interpreting it as Disney saying nothing more than "make the story more epic, better, emotionally involving" - common colloquial use of "Hamlet"), we're stil left with nothing more than "loose inspiration". If one squints hard enough, pretty much any story can be an adaptation of Hamlet - though I don't advise actually trying this out (therein madness lies). --Badger Drink (talk) 20:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't really understand what you're saying, but it's not difficult to find academic sources for The Lion King's connection to Hamlet. And there's no loose inspiration, it's the same plot: king is murdered by king's brother who takes his place as king - central character, the old king's son, has to overcome his internal struggle and challenge his uncle. AndyJones (talk) 21:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Based on that, Prince Caspian should be added too. As Badger Drink says, you can make it fit with anything. Opera hat (talk) 18:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Does Prince Caspian have Academic sources to back it up? That's the issue here. Wrad (talk) 18:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I've reverted the latest change because I am unsure whether it is an improvement. The normal route is to name the version for the director but this is a mixture of stars and directors. Can we have some sort of consensus on this before changing the template? --ROGER DAVIEStalk 15:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)