Talk:Richard III (1955 film)

Template:Mainpage date

Archives

GA promotion

It is well-written though the last part ... starting with the Cast section has too many lists (this will not be good for FA but is ok for GA). I would add more references or citations (I added a crucial citation needed tag). Congrats. Lincher 03:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Secondly, could this article be linked to if possible since it is almost not accessible from any other page.

Further review

3 ides for the cast section:

First, do a table with title -> name -> character's personnality or role

Secondly, do a point by point list with each element being a one-liner

Thirdly, make it as so it becomes a prose text

• The Awards section could be dumped into another section, like Reception where it could, without enumerating, be included to the text or be a subsection.
• Criterion DVD, this section could have a better way of being written, since lists are boring to look at may I suggest a table or a hideable table (it can be done)
• The Plot Summary section is really short and sweet, could it be larger or is it ok with you now?

Best of luck. Lincher 00:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC) PS:Sign your comments on my talk page ;)

Nit-picky

Nice article. I have one nit-picky comment so far. The quote at the beginning of the plot is a quote right? If it is, it shouldn't be in italics. Is there anyway that you can present the quote without italics, but still keep it distinct from the rest of the plot section? Also, who says it? A narrator? --P-Chan 06:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It's actually the text shown on a scroll at the start of the film. ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 03:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Did some experimenting. What do you think? (Feel free to play around with everything too. My stuff was just to bring up possibilities). (Keep in mind, that quotes aren't usually marked with italics.)--P-Chan 08:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

That's great. ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 07:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

In the cast section

What does this mean?

"However, Mills thought the idea might be a stunt"

--P-Chan 15:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, some of the references aren't filled out properly. --P-Chan 23:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that's been adressed. ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 03:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The references still have to be polished. Thefourdotelipsis, try to get each of them up to standard Wiki format. It can't just be a footnote and a link. I has to be a bit more than that.--P-Chan 03:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, nevermind about this.--P-Chan 06:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Black Adder

"For instance, Peter Cook's performance in the first episode of The Black Adder was highly reminiscent of Olivier's portrayal of the hunchback king, and the crown motif shown throughout Olivier's film is also referenced."

Are you saying that the Richard III character in Black Adder was highly reminiscent of Oliver's portrayal?--P-Chan 04:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's a parody ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 22:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Describing Peter Cook's performance as "reminiscent" of Oliver's makes me think that the two are similar. (I don't think that's the case, based on what the Black Adder article says, it sounds like Cook was portraying a parody opposite of Oliver's.) I'll make the changes accordingly. (I've never seen that episode of Black Adder, but I'll take their word on Cook's portrayal.) :) --P-Chan 20:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Just want to clarify something here

"The film has been released outside the US on DVD several times,"

This film was released on DVD outside of the US several times? Are you sure it wasn't referring to VHS, but DVD?--P-Chan 04:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

DVD. I should know. I'm in Australia, and I own the Australian DVD. It's crap. That's why I'm ordering in the Criterion one. And that's why the Criterion is the only one worth mentioning. ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 22:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Understoond.--P-Chan 06:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The reference in the lead, from Criterion

Does not seem to mix with the passage that it is referencing. Is that statement concerning the gross true???--P-Chan 06:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, uh, that's a two page essay. It's on the second page ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 22:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Not exactly. Unfortunately, it says something slightly different... that the film broke many records in the 1966 release, not that it was the highest grossing Shakespearean film. While we can probably infer that the current article statement is true, I think it would be just as good to just use what the article says and avoid any inferences.--P-Chan 06:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I thought I wrote that it was the highest grossing of OLIVIER's. ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 07:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The article doesn't say that either. In any case, it's been fixed.--P-Chan 20:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Confusing sentance structure

Many noted Shakespearean actors of the time star, including a quartet of acting knights.

Just sounds very odd to me when reading it, but I couldnt think offhand of a better way of putting it myself. -- 217.42.230.183 13:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Olivier, Richardson, Gielgud, and Hardwicke has all been knighted before the film was made, according to their Wikipedia pages. "Quartet" is to me an odd usage, with its connotation of a vocal group. Would "acting knights" be a typical British phrasing? You can only have "actors of the time" unless Olivier and Korda has time-travel technology not mentioned in the article.

How about "The cast includes many noted Shakespearean actors, including four with knighthoods..." and then naming the knights in the Cast section further down the page?

-- OtherDave 16:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Spelling convention?

It's a British film, based on a work by a British playwright. Surely British spelling should be used here. Stevage 00:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Has any US spelling crept in  ? -- Beardo 14:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

My last reversion

I reverted after befor Tekke reversion because the actual "unvandalised" version had a problem with the end of the article (music and referenced mixxed completly unreadable. -- Esurnir 02:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions for 'Production' section

I'm not that bold; I don't want to frivolously edit a featured article. For consideration:

• Most of the dialogue was adapted straight from the play... If most dialogue is directly from an accepted text, it's not adapted; if most is adapted, it's not straight from the play. I'm not sure what's meant. Possibly something like:

"Much of the film's dialogue follows Shakespeare's text. Olivier did draw on alterations made by (etc.)... The opening scenes were taken... In addition, other changes include the seduction..."

• ...a full Shakespeare performance of the play can run upwards to four hours... Possibly: "a full performance of the play can run upwards of four hours." (Isn't any performance of Richard III a "Shakespeare" performance?)
• The Dali anecdote is confusing.

• The Production section doesn't say where the production (or the portrait-painting) took place.
• Suggested rewrite: "At the same time as the [wherever] shooting, Salvador Dali painted Olivier's portrait. This painting remained a favorite of Olivier's, though he subsequently sold it to pay his children's school fees.
• (new paragraph) After filming in [wherever], the production moved to Spain..."

-- OtherDave 12:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Money

The numbers included imply that the film lost a lot of money - is that true ? -- Beardo 14:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Parodies

Surely there have been a lot of parodies ? Peter Sellars doing "A Hard Day's Night" is based on Olivier's version isn't it ? -- Beardo 14:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Block for a while?

Maybe this article should be blocked for a while due to a recent activity of vandals? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dreambringer (talk • contribs) 14:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

F

it still says "Fuck"