Talk:Richard III (1955 film)

References to use

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

• Beckett, Francis (2005). Laurence Olivier. Life & Times. Haus Publishing. ISBN 978-1-904950-38-7.
• Brown, C. (1972). "Richard III (1955): Olivier's Richard III – A Reevaluation". In Eckert, Charles W. (ed.). Focus on Shakespearean Films. Film Focus. Prentice-Hall. ISBN 978-0-13-807636-8.
• Coursen, Herbert R. (1999). "Filming Richard III: Olivier, Loncraine, and Pacino". Shakespeare: The Two Traditions. Fairleigh Dickinson University Press. ISBN 978-0-8386-3774-6.
• Desens, Marliss C. (2000). "Cutting women down to size in the Olivier and Loncraine films of Richard III". In Ioppolo, Grace (ed.). Shakespeare Performed: Essays in Honor of R.A. Foakes. University of Delaware Press. ISBN 978-0-87413-732-3.
• Davies, Anthony (1990). "Laurence Olivier's Richard III". Filming Shakespeare's Plays: The Adaptations of Laurence Olivier, Orson Welles, Peter Brook and Akira Kurosawa. Cambridge University Press. pp. 65–82. ISBN 978-0-521-39913-5.
• Hindle, Maurice (2007). "Laurence Olivier's Richard III (UK, 1955)". Studying Shakespeare on Film. Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 152–158. ISBN 978-1-4039-0673-1.
• Jackson, Russell (2000). The Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare on Film. Cambridge Companions to Literature. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-63023-8.
• Jorgens, Jack J. (1977). "Laurence Olivier's Richard III". Shakespeare on Film. Indiana University Press. ISBN 978-0-253-35196-8.
• Morley, Sheridan (2003). John Gielgud: The Authorized Biography. Applause Books. ISBN 978-1-55783-503-1.

See also: Google Scholar Search

Work needed

Hello everyone! An editor has nominated this article for 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 here. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Dana boomer (talk) 16:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

FAR restarted here. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

To do

The "to do" sub-page's template has been removed, but the page can be accessed here if anyone wants to re-utilize it down the road. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Provenance of sources in this article

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.....

I strenuously object 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.

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???

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.

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

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, and has appeared on the Colbert Report, so in spite of his self-published status, this still fully complies with WP standards for "reliable sources".

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.

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

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

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!!!!!!

Regards,--WickerGuy (talk) 18:43, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Addendum- Relevant Wikipedia policies

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

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.

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

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, --WickerGuy (talk) 18:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Correction

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!!--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.--WickerGuy (talk) 20:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Qualification

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.--WickerGuy (talk) 20:43, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Peter Sellers parody

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.

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. ^ Fries 2009.

MBG175.37.77.40 (talk) 16:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Housing

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? -- Lady Meg (talk) 03:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

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. Ambak51 (talk) 12:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)