Talk:Richard III (1955 film): Difference between revisions

Revision as of 12:58, 17 January 2007

Latest revision as of 07:36, 2 February 2025

(87 intermediate revisions by 40 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{talkheaderTalk header}}

{{Article history

{{featured|63716560}}

|action1=PR

{{Mainpage date|January 12|2007}}

|action1date=07:08, 15 May 2006

{{FilmsWikiProject|class=FA|importance=Mid}}

|action1link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Richard III (1955 film)/archive1

{{0.5 held}}

|action1result=reviewed

{{oldpeerreview|Richard III (1955 film)}}

|action1oldid=53277500

{{oldpeerreview|Richard III (1955 film)/Archive1}}

{{to do}}

|action2=FAC

==GA promotion==

|action2date=06:04, 31 May 2006

|action2link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Richard III (1955 film)/archive1

|action2result=not promoted

|action2oldid=55788350

|action3=GAN

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. [[User:Lincher|Lincher]] 03:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

|action3date=03:39, 5 June 2006

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

|action3result=listed

|action3oldid=56493755

|action4=PR

==Further review==

|action4date=22:08, 21 June 2006

|action4link=Wikipedia:Peer review/Richard III (1955 film)/archive2

|action4result=reviewed

|action4oldid=59764211

|action5=FAC

3 ides for the cast section:

|action5date=02:59, 14 July 2006

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

|action5link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Richard III (1955 film)/archive2

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

|action5result=promoted

: Thirdly, make it as so it becomes a prose text

|action5oldid=63688526

* 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. [[User:Lincher|Lincher]] 00:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

PS:Sign your comments on my talk page ;)

|action6=FAR

== Nit-picky ==

|action6date=03:19, 6 November 2011

|action6link=Wikipedia:Featured article review/Richard III (1955 film)/archive1

|action6result=removed

|action6oldid=458348061

|maindate=January 12, 2007

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? --[[User:P-Chan|P-Chan]] 06:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

|currentstatus=FFA

:It's actually the text shown on a scroll at the start of the film. [[User:Thefourdotelipsis|....]]_{([[User_talk:Thefourdotelipsis|Complain]])}^{([[Special:Contributions/Thefourdotelipsis|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.)--[[User:P-Chan|P-Chan]] 08:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|

::::That's great. [[User:Thefourdotelipsis|....]]_{([[User_talk:Thefourdotelipsis|Complain]])}^{([[Special:Contributions/Thefourdotelipsis|Let us to it pell-mell]])} 07:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

{{WikiProject Military history|Films-task-force=yes|class=C|b1=n|b2=y|b3=y|b4=y|b5=y}}

{{WikiProject Film|War-task-force=yes|British=yes}}

{{WikiProject Shakespeare|importance=mid}}

{{WikiProject United Kingdom|importance=mid}}

}}

==References to use==

==In the cast section==

<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 16:35, 25 September 2021 (UTC) -->

:''Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.''

*{{cite book | last=Beckett | first=Francis | year=2005 | title=Laurence Olivier | series=Life & Times | publisher=Haus Publishing | isbn=978-1-904950-38-7 }}

*{{cite book | last=Brown | first=C. | year=1972 | chapter=Richard III (1955): Olivier's Richard III – A Reevaluation | editor-last=Eckert | editor-first=Charles W. | title=Focus on Shakespearean Films | series=Film Focus | publisher=Prentice-Hall | isbn=978-0-13-807636-8 }}

*{{cite book | last=Coursen | first=Herbert R. | year=1999 | chapter=Filming Richard III: Olivier, Loncraine, and Pacino | title=Shakespeare: The Two Traditions | publisher=Fairleigh Dickinson University Press | pages= | isbn=978-0-8386-3774-6 }}

*{{cite book | last=Desens | first=Marliss C. | year=2000 | chapter=Cutting women down to size in the Olivier and Loncraine films of Richard III | editor-last=Ioppolo | editor-first=Grace | title=Shakespeare Performed: Essays in Honor of R.A. Foakes | publisher=University of Delaware Press | isbn=978-0-87413-732-3 }}

*{{cite book | last=Davies | first=Anthony | year=1990 | chapter=Laurence Olivier's Richard III | title=Filming Shakespeare's Plays: The Adaptations of Laurence Olivier, Orson Welles, Peter Brook and Akira Kurosawa | publisher=Cambridge University Press | pages=65–82 | isbn=978-0-521-39913-5 }}

*{{cite book | last=Hindle | first=Maurice | year=2007 | chapter=Laurence Olivier's ''Richard III'' (UK, 1955) | title=Studying Shakespeare on Film | publisher=Palgrave Macmillan | pages=152–158 | isbn=978-1-4039-0673-1 }}

*{{cite book | last=Jackson | first=Russell | year=2000 | title=The Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare on Film | series=Cambridge Companions to Literature | publisher=Cambridge University Press | isbn=978-0-521-63023-8 }}

*{{cite book | last=Jorgens | first=Jack J. | year=1977 | chapter=Laurence Olivier's Richard III | title=Shakespeare on Film | publisher=Indiana University Press | pages= | isbn=978-0-253-35196-8 }}

*{{cite book | last=Morley | first=Sheridan | year=2003 | title=John Gielgud: The Authorized Biography | publisher=Applause Books | isbn=978-1-55783-503-1 }}

See also: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&q=%22laurence%20olivier%22%20intitle%3A%22richard%20iii%22&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=10686l13419l0l13737l20l16l0l1l0l7l272l2106l4.10.1l15l0&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=ps Google Scholar Search]

==Work needed==

What does this mean?

Hello everyone! An editor has nominated this article for [[WP:FAR|featured article review]]. However, since a talk page notification was not made prior to the nomination, the review is on hold to provide time for interested editors to work on the article outside of the confines of the FAR process. Here is a copy of the FAR nomination statement:

:I am nominating this featured article for review because it does not meet the feature article criteria of being well-researched and comprehensive, and it does not appear well-written either. For what exists in the article body, there are numerous passages that lack inline citations. The structure is also poor; there are a lot of short paragraphs throughout. In addition, I conducted research on this topic and found numerous references to use; they are listed [[Talk:Richard III (1955 film)#References to use|here]]. [[User:Erik|Erik]] ([[User talk:Erik|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Erik|contribs]]) 16:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

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

--Thank you, [[User:P-ChanDana boomer|Dana boomer]] ([[User talk:Dana boomer|P-Chantalk]]) 1516:4659, 828 JulySeptember 20062011 (UTC)

:FAR restarted [[Wikipedia:Featured article review/Richard III (1955 film)/archive1|here]]. [[User:Erik|Erik]] ([[User talk:Erik|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Erik|contribs]]) 19:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

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

:I think that's been adressed. [[User:Thefourdotelipsis|....]]_{([[User_talk:Thefourdotelipsis|Complain]])}^{([[Special:Contributions/Thefourdotelipsis|Let us to it pell-mell]])} 03:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

==To do==

::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.--[[User:P-Chan|P-Chan]] 03:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The "to do" sub-page's template has been removed, but the page can be accessed [[Talk:Richard III (1955 film)/to do|here]] if anyone wants to re-utilize it down the road. [[User:Erik|Erik]] ([[User talk:Erik|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Erik|contribs]]) 19:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

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

== Provenance of sources in this article ==

== Black Adder ==

I somehow missed the whole FA review of this article, and didn't realize that some of the edits by [[User:TenPoundHammer]] were part of an effort to clean this up for a possible FA. I agree with several of the reasons for delisting this article (notably the fragmented disjointed nature of the writing) but.....

"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."

I <big>''strenuously'' object</big> to the challenge to many of the sources per reliability. I already voiced my objections on the user Talk page of [[User talk:TenPoundHammer]], but as others may have not seen them, I revoice them here.

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

:Yes, it's a parody [[User:Thefourdotelipsis|....]]_{([[User_talk:Thefourdotelipsis|Complain]])}^{([[Special:Contributions/Thefourdotelipsis|Let us to it pell-mell]])} 22:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

1) The most laughable and bizarre challenge re [[WP:RELIABLE]] is to the "Criterion collection". Criterion not only pioneered the use of DVDs with audio commentaries and special features, they are also well-known to on both DVDs and their website to employ the best film scholars and experts to be found anywhere!! Film students and teachers swear by them everywhere. To challenge '''anything''' on their website re reliabity '''fundamentally calls into question the entire credibility of the FA review process!!!!''' Did anyone who knows anything at all about film history participate in this review process???

::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.) :) --[[User:P-Chan|P-Chan]] 20:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

2) The Richard III Society has a POV agenda, but it is not a "fringe" group (lots of scholars believe their thesis), and none of the essays cited push their POV, and ''most importantly'' all the cited essays from their site are by known authors (mainly Paul Trevor Bale) who have published in other venues that fit WP's reliability criterion, even if the material on the R3 society is self-published. (Paul Bale is mainly a film technician, but has published articles on films in various venues.) WP overtly allows self-published sources by authors who have published in other reliable venues.

== Just want to clarify something here ==

3) It was correct to challenge "DVD Beaver" as a source.

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

4) "DVD Movie Central" looks questionable on the surface. It is self-published, but the author is a known Hollywood film technician, a published novelist, <del>and has appeared on the Colbert Report,</del> so in spite of his self-published status, this still fully complies with WP standards for "reliable sources".

This film was released on '''DVD''' outside of the US several times? Are you sure it wasn't referring to VHS, but DVD?--[[User:P-Chan|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. [[User:Thefourdotelipsis|....]]_{([[User_talk:Thefourdotelipsis|Complain]])}^{([[Special:Contributions/Thefourdotelipsis|Let us to it pell-mell]])} 22:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

::Understoond.--[[User:P-Chan|P-Chan]] 06:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

5) "Listology" is a collection of lists that have been in various magazines and is cited to show that R3 appeared on a list (in Premiere magazine). The original magazine (Premiere) would probably be a better source, but I don't really see a serious problem with citing Listology.

== The reference in the lead, from Criterion ==

6) To cite Amazon.com to establish that a particular CD exists and to get its basic description is completely legitimate.

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

:Oh, uh, that's a two page essay. It's on the second page [[User:Thefourdotelipsis|....]]_{([[User_talk:Thefourdotelipsis|Complain]])}^{([[Special:Contributions/Thefourdotelipsis|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.--[[User:P-Chan|P-Chan]] 06:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

:::Oh, I thought I wrote that it was the highest grossing of OLIVIER's. [[User:Thefourdotelipsis|....]]_{([[User_talk:Thefourdotelipsis|Complain]])}^{([[Special:Contributions/Thefourdotelipsis|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.--[[User:P-Chan|P-Chan]] 20:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

7) To cite non-user-generated content on Imdb (such as noting the awards a film received) is entirely legit.

== Confusing sentance structure ==

Re both 6) and 7) It is only user-generated content on Amazon.com and Imdb that is questionable on Wikipedia, not material posted by the maintainers of the site!!!!!!

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

Regards,--[[User:WickerGuy|WickerGuy]] ([[User talk:WickerGuy|talk]]) 18:43, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

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

;Addendum- Relevant Wikipedia policies

: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.

from [[WP:USERGENERATED]]- this impacts the Imdb and Amazon entries- items 6 & 7. Emphasis added

: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?

{{quote|For that reason self-published media...are largely not acceptable. This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated, including the Internet Movie Database, ... ''with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users''.}}

: -- [[User:OtherDave|OtherDave]] 16:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

and the following affects the material from the Richard III Society site and DVD Movie Central (emphasis on original WP page

{{quote|Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work '''in the relevant field''' has previously been published by '''reliable third-party publications'''.}}

Cheers, --[[User:WickerGuy|WickerGuy]] ([[User talk:WickerGuy|talk]]) 18:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

;Correction

== Spelling convention? ==

Michael Jacobson's publication outside of his website is actually not in the area of film, so DVD Movie Central may not qualify as a source after all!!--[[User:WickerGuy|WickerGuy]] ([[User talk:WickerGuy|talk]]) 20:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Jacobson's website has been ''cited'' in books on film that qualify for WP criterion for reliability, however WP does not list this as criterion for allowing self-published sources.--[[User:WickerGuy|WickerGuy]] ([[User talk:WickerGuy|talk]]) 20:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

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

;Qualification

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

I should also mention that the POV of the Richard III society maxed its credibility around the time of Olivier's film, but in the last 10 or so years has dropped and historical consensus is now once again on the side that Richard really did murder the princes in the tower.--[[User:WickerGuy|WickerGuy]] ([[User talk:WickerGuy|talk]]) 20:43, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

== Peter Sellers parody ==

==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. -- [[User:Esurnir|Esurnir]] 02:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[[Peter Sellers]] did a comedy version of the [[Beatles]]' [[ A Hard Day's Night]] in which he recited the lyrics in the style of Laurence Olivier in Olivier's film version of Shakespeare's play Richard III.[39] Sellers' version was a UK Top 20 hit in 1965.

== Suggestions for 'Production' section ==

Heron, Ambrose. "Peter Sellers does A Hard Days Night in the style of Shakespeare". FILMdetail. http://www.filmdetail.com/2011/05/24/peter-sellers-does-the-beatles-a-hard-days-night-shakespeare/. Retrieved 9 September 2012.

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

^ Fries 2009.

MBG[[Special:Contributions/175.37.77.40|175.37.77.40]] ([[User talk:175.37.77.40|talk]]) 16:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

* ''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..."

-- [[User:OtherDave|OtherDave]] 12:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

== MoneyHousing ==

I noticed the sections of "The House of..." are divided oddly. What sources are being used? For example, Queen Elizabeth Woodville is listed under Lancaster. She ''was'' originally of the House of Lancaster but died as a York queen consort to Edward IV! So what gives? -- [[User:Lady Meg|Lady Meg]] ([[User talk:Lady Meg|talk]]) 03:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

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

==Parodies Budget ==

Somebody has put a budget figure of £6 million for this film. That would be the equivalent of at least £135,000,000 today! This was an entirely British finaced movie and Korda's London Films certainly did not have that kind of money. In any case, it cetainly does not show on screen. This figure is pure fantasy and should be removed (or at least have a reliable citation). As a comparison the budget for ''The Bridge on the River Kwai'', made two years later and with much ___location shooting, was about £1,000,000. [[User:Ambak51|Ambak51]] ([[User talk:Ambak51|talk]]) 12:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

== Update article, about streaming and restoration of the film ==

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 ? --

I would suggest that the article be updated to include information about the streaming availability of the film and about the extensive restoration work that has been done. [[User:CoffeeBeans9|CoffeeBeans9]] ([[User talk:CoffeeBeans9|talk]]) 21:04, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

On second thought... maybe it was a piss-filled movie anyhoo! ^.^

[[User:Beardo|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? <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Dreambringer|Dreambringer]] ([[User talk:Dreambringer|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Dreambringer|contribs]]) 14:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->