Talk:Macbeth (2006 film)

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the Australian cinema task force.

Australia Start‑class Low‑importance

	Australia portal Macbeth (2006 film) is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Just delete the second article (Macbeth 2006 movie). It is messy, incomplete and adds nothing new. misanthrope 15:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone turned it into a redirect, so I removed the merge. --RazorICE 03:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's Lady Macbeth's name in the film? Surely it can't be Lady Macbeth as being the wife of a Melbourne gang-leader I consider it highly unlikely that she holds a landed title, lol.

Anon

Fair use rationale for Image:Macbethvictoriahill.jpg

Image:Macbethvictoriahill.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 00:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism debate

There seems to be some misapplication of the term "Vandalism" here.

The information added about the sex scene between Macbeth and the three witches has been twice deleted, firstly described as "unconstructive" and secondly as "vandalism." These editors seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that this information is in some way inaccurate or constitutes an attempt to insert incorrect facts. This, however, is not the case, as the film in question does indeed contain a scene in which the character of Macbeth and the three Wierd Sisters engage in an orgiastic sexual encounter, exactly as the twice-deleted edit describes.

The information is thus equally relevant to other adaptive differences to Shakespeare's text described in the article, such as the depiction of drug deals, the Witches as Schoolgirls, Lady Macbeth's dead child etc. The inclusion of a sex scene that is absent from Shakespeare's original play is entirely pertinent to discussing the film as a work of adaptation.

I must therefore ask the following question of those who are making these deletions/reversions: are you simply assuming that this information would not be correct, or do you have you in fact seen the film yourselves? If you would please take the time to watch it, you will see that this scene is, in fact, present in the film.

Please discuss your reasons here before making any further reverts. User:PacifistPrime PacifistPrime (talk) 05:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]