Talk:Elizabeth (film): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:43, 30 January 2007

Film Start‑class

	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
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Perhaps some discussion of how historically accurate this film is, particularly with The Golden Age coming out. - Matthew238 05:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, William Cecil is portrayed as a fussy, interfering old man - but Elizabeth regarded him as her rock. He was the one who came up with the phrase, "What! All this for a song?" when he protested against the award of £100 to Edmund Spenser for his presentation of the Faerie Queene at court - ever since, underpaid arty twerps have chosen to ridicule him. And did the film show Mary Queen of Scots being assassinated? I thought the film was accurate in showing that she was stitched up by Francis Walsingham and put to death by law (although the two queens never met). I expect the sequel to show the myth of how Elizabeth prevailed over the forces of Spanish evil, rather than the fact that she ended up a deeply conflicted person who was often disregarded by the people who really disposed of power in protestant England. And will there be anything about Ireland? Howl, howl!--Shtove 22:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure whether you watched the film poorly, or if you are mistaken about Elizabethan history, but Mary Queen of Scots never appears in the film. I believe that she was not, in fact, in the British Isles during the years depicted. Uucp 23:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The whole film is a joke, both dramatically and as even a loose representation of history. Watched as pure fiction (which is what it is, aside from a few proper names), this movie is deeply silly and stilted and its central romance a howling absurdity. I watched with a friend shortly after we both read a biography of the real Elizabeth and both of us wondered how the filmmakers could have preferred this stupid, diffident, awkward, hapless, helpless figure to the fascinating and shrewd historial Elizabeth. It would be like making a movie of the American Revolutionary War with Jerry Lewis as George Washington and having the plot center on how one of Washington's aides led him around by the nose to final victory and gave him dating tips for his bumbling romance of Martha. The movie is really just an atrocity on every level and one cannot begin to address its (numerous) historical inaccuracies without accepting that.

This is pretty much the best movie review I have ever read, for any movie, ever. Ralp 18:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"'Elizabeth' has been harshly criticized for its historical innacuracies..." Has there ever been a Hollywood biopic that IS historically acurate? 66.57.225.77 21:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 Perhaps some discussion of how historically accurate this film is, particularly with ''[[Golden Age (film)|The Golden Age]]'' coming out. - [[User:Matthew238|Matthew238]] 05:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 :Well, [[William Cecil]] is portrayed as a fussy, interfering old man - but Elizabeth regarded him as her rock. He was the one who came up with the phrase, "''What! All this for a song?''" when he protested against the award of £100 to [[Edmund Spenser]] for his presentation of the ''Faerie Queene'' at court - ever since, underpaid arty twerps have chosen to ridicule him. And did the film show [[Mary Queen of Scots]] being assassinated? I thought the film was accurate in showing that she was stitched up by [[Francis Walsingham]] and put to death by law (although the two queens never met). I expect the sequel to show the myth of how Elizabeth prevailed over the forces of Spanish evil, rather than the fact that she ended up a deeply conflicted person who was often disregarded by the people who really disposed of power in protestant England. And will there be anything about Ireland? Howl, howl!--[[User:Shtove|Shtove]] 22:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
+:: I'm not sure whether you watched the film poorly, or if you are mistaken about Elizabethan history, but [[Mary Queen of Scots]] never appears in the film. I believe that she was not, in fact, in the British Isles during the years depicted. [[User:Uucp|Uucp]] 23:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 :The whole film is a joke, both dramatically and as even a loose representation of history. Watched as pure fiction (which is what it is, aside from a few proper names), this movie is deeply silly and stilted and its central romance a howling absurdity. I watched with a friend shortly after we both read a biography of the real Elizabeth and both of us wondered how the filmmakers could have preferred this stupid, diffident, awkward, hapless, helpless figure to the fascinating and shrewd historial Elizabeth.  It would be like making a movie of the American Revolutionary War with Jerry Lewis as George Washington and having the plot center on how one of Washington's aides led him around by the nose to final victory and gave him dating tips for his bumbling romance of Martha. The movie is really just an atrocity on every level and one cannot begin to address its (numerous) historical inaccuracies without accepting that.