Talk:List of William Shakespeare screen adaptations

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List not good[edit]

I do not think that it is appropriate for a mere list to form the basis of an encyclopaedia entry (and, it is a surpisingly incomplete list and one whose taxonomy is inconsistent anyway). I therefore balk at touching it. I could add substantially to the list but see no point — there are many specialist movie sites that might benefit from this form of listing or already have one for all I know. It might be interesting to write a page that examines the different approaches taken to adapt Shakespeare for the screen. . . And is this supposed to be "movie" in the sense of cinema or should it also include television?

David91

I agree that this list not good. I'm willing to make a stab at making this entry interesting and informative if I do something fiddling with categories. I'd want to distinguish between filmed stage plays and movie adaptations. Also direct-to-video filmings of stage productions shouldn't even be mentioned. Which means that a lot of this (very boring) list will be deleted. If I hear no objections, I'm going to go to it. ZviGilbert 19:52, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just put this on ZviGilbert's user talk page: Saw your comment from August at Shakespeare Movies. I say go for it. The page as it stands is messy and hugely inaccurate. I'll be happy to expand upon what you do if it gets too short. AndyJones 20:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably a good idea to keep the list around in some form. This is a poor article title in any case -- it should be "List of Shakespeare film adaptations" or something more descriptive (and Wikipedia has lots of lists, don't worry about that), whereas an article-article might be "Shakespeare works adapted for stage and screen", which is a little awkward still. That's a great idea for an article, Zvi, but don't throw out the baby with the bathwater! --Dhartung | Talk 07:44, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite[edit]

OK, I've gone mad and rewritten the whole page from scratch.

It's now getting a "too big" message, so at some point maybe someone will need to divide this up into smaller parts.

Just for the record, I was left with the following core of items which were on this page before I started, and are now not. As well as the (many) other tasks implied by my rewrite, one might be for someone (ideally an American) to look through these to see if they can be verified or expanded:

  • Shakespeare Behind Bars (2005)
  • "A Taste of Shakespeare" (1995)
  • Shakespeare in the Park (1995)
  • Shakespeare... In and Out (1999)
  • Happy Birthday Shakespeare (2000) (TV)
  • Ian McKellen: Acting Shakespeare (1982) (TV)
  • Master Will Shakespeare (1936)
  • Shivering Shakespeare (1930)
  • William Shakespeare (2000)
  • "Life of Shakespeare" (1978) (mini) aka "Will Shakespeare" - UK aka "William Shakespeare, His Life & Times" - (video title)
  • The Jailbird (1920) aka "Shakespeare Clancy" - USA (working title)
  • Henry Winkler Meets William Shakespeare (1977) (TV)
  • "Shakespeare Lives!" (1982)
  • Shakespeare og Kronborg (1950)
  • "The Shakespeare Plays" (1979)
  • "Shakespeare Shorts" (1996)
  • Shakespeare: Soul of an Age (1962)
  • The Goddess Bunny Channels Shakespeare (1989) (V)
  • My Shakespeare (2004) (TV)
  • Suffering Shakespeare (1924)
  • The Channel (2002) aka "Shakespeare Beach" - USA (working title)
  • The Life of Shakespeare (1914) aka "Loves and Adventures in the Life of Shakespeare" - USA
  • Master Shakespeare, Strolling Player (1916)
  • RSC Meets USA: Working Shakespeare (2002) (V)
  • A&E Biography: William Shakespeare - A Life of Drama (1996) (TV) aka "A&E Biography: William Shakespeare - A Life of Drama"
  • Shades of Shakespeare (1919)
  • Who Wrote Shakespeare's Works? (1990) (TV) aka "Uncovering Shakespeare: An Update" - USA (closing credits title)
  • Why Shakespeare? (2004) (V)
  • Shake, Mr. Shakespeare (1936)
  • Will Shakespeare (1938) (TV)
  • Strange Brew (1983 adaptation of Hamlet)
  • Scotland, PA (2001 adaption of MacBeth)

I have removed the wikify tag, as it clearly related to a completely different article. Anyone may add a wikify tag to this if they consider it appropriate.

I think this page should now be moved to "Shakespeare on screen", which is a better description, and that a link should be added to the Shakespeare category tag. I will try to do those, today.

Then I am going to rest with a beer. AndyJones 19:51, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another list exists[edit]

List of adaptations of Shakespearean plays

Should it be deleted and merged with this list, or kept apart but only covering non-screen adaptations, or left well alone? Ham 17:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Rick Norwood 20:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I say merge, also. I wasn't aware of the other list when I started the re-write of this one. At first glance, most items there are also here, so the process shouldn't be too painful. I'll start in the next few days, unless someone gets there before me. AndyJones 17:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have put a "merge" template on both pages, with a link here. If there aren't many responses, though, I'll just go ahead. AndyJones 20:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi AndyJones. I was just doing some aimless updating. I'm all done now. Good luck with any merging! FriarSand 12:52, 27 January 2006
OK, I have now done some merging, filling in gaps from IMDB where possible, and my edits to List of adaptations of Shakespearean plays can be seen here. All films are now gone from that page, but it leaves a little collection of non-film things (operas, novels, albums) which can be seen here here. Does anyone have a view on whether this remaining information should be:
  1. deleted, by replacing with the redirect to Shakespeare on screen
  2. merged elsewhere; or
  3. kept as a little page of non-film adaptations.

I bet someone could do a whole page on "Shakespeare in opera".

It looks to me like the best thing is to split it into two pages, Literary adaptations of Shakespeare and Musical adaptations of Shakespeare. One for novels and plays, the other for operas and musicals. That's my 2¢ ... The Singing Badger 01:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've finished merging. I liked your idea but I felt a bit short of material. In the end I sought other merge targets. The page now redirects here. AndyJones 20:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sir John Tinsley??[edit]

I see a reference on this page to Simon Callow playing "Sir John Tinsley" (in Shakespeare in Love).

I thought the historical Master of the Revels was called Edmund Tilney, but I am working from memory, and am also aware that a the film character might not have the same name as an historical counterpart. Does anyone have any sources for this? AndyJones 16:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter now, he's gone. AndyJones 22:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of images.[edit]

I've reverted the removal of two images from this page. Can anyone explain what that was about? AndyJones 20:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Movie and tv screenshot may only be used when some critical comentary on the movie/tv program is being made, which I don't believe is the case here. --Abu Badali 21:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not a US copyright lawyer, so I can't comment on the rightness or wrongness of that: however I certainly cannot see how that logic could possibly apply to two out of the seven images on this page. Doesn't wikipedia have a policy about this we can refer to? AndyJones 16:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Fair Use is the guideling you may want to read. Besides that, there's allways a bold text on the image licensing tag that breafly explains where and when that image may be used. See {{movie-screenshot}} and {{tv-screenshot}} for instance. Best regards, --Abu Badali 16:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Woefully incomplete[edit]

How in-depth is this supposed to be? Do we include everything from the biggest-of-budgets to the soft core-porn/sex-comedy The Secret Sex Lives of Remeo and Juliet? Hell, just search for one of the titles on IMDb, and you get a huge list of titles, most of which are not here. Should every one be on here? zafiroblue05 | Talk 18:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • No idea. When I started the page in its current version I tried to include every significant version. Of course, everybody will define "significant" differently. I doubt this page will ever be comprehensive. And yes, I toyed with the idea of including secret sex lives, but I decided on the whole not. AndyJones 20:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural depictions of William Shakespeare[edit]

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. I see this page runs something along those lines and would like to suggest this model for Shakespeare references - perhaps a good approach would be to have separate branching pages for straight adaptations of his works and for cultural refrences to Shakespeare - such as paintings and Shakespeare in Love and the infamous Gilligan's Island episode. I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 16:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Midsummer Night's Rave[edit]

should probably be included —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.231.189.189 (talk) 05:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]


Strange Illusion Adaptation of Hamlet[edit]

This is my first experience editing a Wikipedia entry, and given the way it's going, it'll probably be my last. I added the Hamlet adaptation Strange Illusion to the page, and "someone" removed my changes via a reversion. I'm all about correcting errors, but I'm against someone who removes a person's contribution, especially when the self-appointed information policeman is wrong--dead wrong.

I have two sources for this adaptation. The first is easy: see the Amazon entry for the film. Second, the Library of Congress (yes, the one in Washington, DC) is showing Shakespeare adaptations in early 2007 in its Mary Pickford Theater as part of the Shakespeare in Washington festival, and one of the films is Strange Illusion.

If I can figure out how to edit these pages properly, I'll include a link below to the festival event. And to the person who incorrectly reverted my contribution, thanks for making my first Wikipedia experience a negative one. Next time, ask before you delete.

http://www.washington.org/shakespeare/details.cfm?partid=24&eventid=23

Pxm 11:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)PXM[reply]

split?[edit]

I tend to think that this article has grown to the point that it needs to be split into different article for each of the works. This could be a central page summarizing the main/more well-known adaptations, with links to sub-pages. Wrad 23:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, I'd oppose a split into 38 or 39 smaller articles, I don't think it's got THAT big, yet. I'd approve splitting out the sections which have got big enough to justify it, though: most of the major tragedies are in that position as are (arguably) about four of the comedies. Let's leave this discussion up for a few days, and then I'll start work on this, unless the consensus goes another way. (Also, I'd really love the history section to expand to a point where it could split out too. At the moment it stops at the silent era.) AndyJones 17:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no one seems to be jumping to join the discussion, but I think your ideas are good. How should we get started? Wrad 21:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • You're right, nobody's commented. However my equivalent suggestions have been up at wikiproject Shakespeare for a while with no objections. I'll try it out with one of the tragedies in the next few days, and we can see how that looks. AndyJones 09:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I've tried out one, here: Macbeth on screen. I can't say I like it very much: it's no worse than the equivalent section of this page but the material feels a bit "thin", to me, for a page by itself. One disadvantage was that I was just merging two lists. It might be better when I try merging something where the article page has more prose content. I haven't tried {main article}ing on Shakespeare on screen or Macbeth, yet. AndyJones 19:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean. In my opinion, what we need is to also put perfomance-type info in these articles. There is a lot said about film adaptations of shakespeare, and this would be the place for it. It would also make it more prose than list. In this way we could separate theatre from film and tv performances better. Maybe try it with Henry V, that has some film commentary. Wrad 19:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After thinking about it for awhile, I get the feeling it may be best just to wait until the project collaborates on a play article. Doing that will hammer out the issues of what we do with sub-articles and other issues involved with play articles. Wrad 17:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now THAT is what a split article ought to look like!!! AndyJones 21:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Titus1w.jpg[edit]

Image:Titus1w.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 insure 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 01:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:OlivierHenryV.jpg[edit]

Image:OlivierHenryV.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 insure 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) 07:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:LovesLaboursLost.jpg[edit]

Image:LovesLaboursLost.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 insure 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) 19:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:RichardIII.png[edit]

Image:RichardIII.png 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 insure 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) 04:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Titus1w.jpg[edit]

Image:Titus1w.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 insure 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) 02:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:AsYouLikeIt.jpg[edit]

Image:AsYouLikeIt.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 insure 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) 03:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:OmkaraStill.jpg[edit]

Image:OmkaraStill.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) 14:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page move[edit]

I don't understand the rationale for the page move, for the reasons I gave when the same issue was raised at Talk:Hamlet on screen#Page move.

I'll move this back, tomorrow, unless someone has an explanation. AndyJones (talk) 17:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the absence of comments, I've moved the page back. AndyJones (talk) 12:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page Move 2[edit]

As can be seen above, I argued for Shakespeare on screen as the name of this page some years ago. I assume the move from that was done for consistency with other similar pages. But I don't like the current name for three reasons:

  1. "William Shakespeare" is redundant since everyone knows who "Shakespeare" is and that's what's used in most articles about him except the main one;
  2. "Film" is wrong and "Screen" would be better since film implies big-screen when this page doesn't limit itself to that; and
  3. "Adaptations" is wrong when the page itself makes a distinction between "Performances" and "Adaptations" and lists both.

So (unless anyone is prepared to support me on a revert to Shakespeare on screen) I suggest a move to List of screen performances and adaptations of Shakespeare's works, which I'll do in a couple if days unless anyone has another suggestion?? AndyJones (talk) 20:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overhaul[edit]

This article needs a serious amount of work; it's a list of Shakespeare film adaptations, and the very first Shakespeare film adaptation isn't listed (Herbert Beerbohm Tree's King John from 1899), nor is the oldest surviving American feature film (André Calmettes' Richard III from 1912). How much authority can an article with such incredible omissions have? As well as that, there are huge stylistic and aesthetic discrpancies throughout - some entires have bulleted points, some don't; some include complete casts, some don't; some use "as" for roles played, some use brackets; different entires split info onto different lines. There's no consistency. The title of the page is also wrong, especially insofar as there are a lot of TV and video adpatations listed. I mean, don't get me wrong, it's an article with a lot of very well researched info, but it needs fixing up badly. I'm currently putting together a Shakespeare on the BBC article, and I'm thinking about doing a rewrite of this article, but I'm not too sure of the level of detail required. Take for example, The Two Gentlemen of Verona. If we're being really thorough, the adaptation list would include a 1952 BBC screening of Act 1, the BBC Television Shakespeare adaptaion, two German mdae-for-TV adaptations, a live screening of a stage production in Germany, a live screening of a stage production in Austria, a Polish TV adaptation, an episode of Dawson's Creek and a 1931 Chinese film called A Spray of Plum Blossoms. So if that level of detail is required, that's no problem, although it will take me months (and months) to put it all together. What I was thinking of doing was compiling and posting a complete list, and then perhaps splitting it into a film article, a TV article, and (maybe) a video article. As well as that, I'd obviously need to standardise the template used. I propose something very simple, like this:

Act I of the play screened live, from a production at The Old Vic
Directed by Denis Carey
Starring Laurence Payne (Proteus), John Neville (Valentine), Gudrun Ure (Sylvia), Pamela Ann (Julia) and Michael Aldridge (Launce)
  • The Two Gentlemen of Verona (27 December 1983 – BBC2; 137mins)
Episode four of the sixth season of the BBC Television Shakespeare
Directed by Don Taylor
Starring Tyler Butterworth (Proteus), John Hudson (Valentine), Joanne Pearce (Sylvia), Tessa Peake-Jones (Julia), Tony Haygarth (Launce) and Paul Daneman (Duke of Milan)

Any one got any thoughts? Bertaut (talk) 01:34, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of trying to address at least some of the concerns above, I've tried out a new format for the list. I've applied it to All's Well That Ends Well and As You Like It, but left the rest alone for now (the list formatting was sufficiently inconsistent to start with that it doesn't matter much). Feedback on this format would be welcome. I also think we should establish a few other "rules" for the page: for instance that everything included should be cited, and cited to somewhere that gives us a selection criteria (the fact that the source mentions it means it's notable enough to include; if the source doesn't mention it then neither should we); and descriptions of what the various columns should contain (i.e. what I've called "Medium"; TV, Film, Video); etc. We should probably also investigate integration with Wikidata, since a lot of the content of this article is essentially raw data presented in a table, and that's sort of what Wikidata is for: keep the date one place, and then just present interesting subsets of the same data everywhere else.
PS. Bertaut, meet AndyJones. AndyJones, meet Bertaut. You two appear to have overlapping interests, as exemplified by this article, and may find collaborating on it fruitful.
PPS. There are technical and accessibility-related reasons for picking the particular approach I've done, in addition to the purely visual layout effects. The earlier / proposed format (in terms of technical implementation, as distinct from its visual appearance) was poor in those areas, and I've tried to address that in my proposed version. Details on request. --Xover (talk) 07:48, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think that looks pretty good Xover. It contains all the relevant info, is easy on the eye, laid out in a logical style etc. I've literally no suggestions on how to improve it. As you may or may not be aware, my grand proposal above to tackle this area was never brought to anything even remotely resembling something which could be said to be an acquaintance of somebody who once know completion!!! If you take a look here and here, you'll see how far I got (and I haven't updated either of those pages in some time). Other things captured my attention, and I just never got back to them. It is on my ever increasing list of "to do" projects, and at some point, I really did intend to return and resume, but as with the best laid plans... However, my sandbox may be of some help regards referencing. The citation style I used is rubbish (I intended to convert it all to the cite template), but I've sourced every single entry (several with multiple citations), so if you are tackling this page, my references may save you some leg work. Also, as my recent lack of contributions on here may also suggest, I'm up to my eyes IRL, so I don't know how much use I'd be to you in the immediate future. Finally, as regards Andy, I'm pretty sure we've encountered one another in days past. I was aware of his interest in this area, and were I able to work on it at the moment, I would certainly be happy to collaborate. As it stands though, until such time as I'm a bit freer, I'd be happy to offer any input or give you an opinion on anything you'd like. Bertaut (talk) 00:49, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your sandboxes would certainly be very helpful, but I'm not sure I'm up to tackling this project any time soon, for much the same reasons as you, and with the added wrinkle that this isn't my field. My short term priority for it is therefore: 1) to achieve a consistent presentation, and 2) to establish some guidelines for inclusion and other issues. Once those are established it should become possible for multiple editors to work on the article—live, as it were—piecemeal and over time. Activity on it seems have a latency of 2–4 years, so getting people coordinated is… challenging. :)
Oh, and I mostly just take every opportunity to generate a notification for AndyJones, since he's edited briefly recently and I'm hoping I'll manage to entice him back to the project. Come on Andy, you know you want to. We have cookies! And milk! And… and… Cat pictures! --Xover (talk) 04:55, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

earliest[edit]

the following is unsourced

The earliest known production is King John (1899 film).

Moved here per WP:PRESERVE Jytdog (talk) 23:23, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jytdog. I restored the info, and added a reference, as the IP user was correct to replace the info regarding the 1900 Hamlet with this. Man oh man, this article needs so much work!! One of these days... Bertaut (talk) 23:44, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
all good, thanks!! Jytdog (talk) 00:39, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re All's Well that Ends Well[edit]

IMDb (also see description with more detailed cast list @ Shakespeare's Globe) lists a 2012 production ("Globe on Screen: All's Well That Ends Well") with Michael Bertenshaw, Sam Cox and Naomi Cranston directed by John Dove? Schissel | Sound the Note! 14:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Schissel: Feel free to add it. But as a general note, keep in mind that this article isn't attempting to be a complete list. We just haven't gotten around to designing sane inclusion criteria yet, so the current list is somewhat random in what it includes. So use your best judgement as to whether this particular adaptation should be included. --Xover (talk) 15:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_William_Shakespeare_screen_adaptations&oldid=1208485650"