View previous topic | View next topic

Series I, Episode 16 - The Immortal Bard

Page 1 of 4
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

melbournerebel
904870.  Sat Apr 28, 2012 2:35 am Reply with quote

I'm pleased to note that this episode (the final in the 'I' series) has now aired, but has there been any reliable talk of an XL version of same?

 
Celebaelin
904881.  Sat Apr 28, 2012 4:06 am Reply with quote

post 904673 et seqq.

 
djgordy
904907.  Sat Apr 28, 2012 4:50 am Reply with quote

I didn't think much to it really. Quite apart from anything else, there wasn't all that much about Shakespeare and at the end they were talking about Byron.

As for Richard III; OK we all accept that the Shakesperian portrayal is distorted to make the Tudors look good but I think we need to be a bit careful about depicting to much as a goodie. He usurped the throne from Edward V, whom he imprisoned in the Tower of LOndon, along with Richard, Duke of York. On balance, he was probably repsonsible for deaths, even if he didn't do the deed personally, as he was the one wth everything to gain.

Yes, this is pretty standard stuff for medieval rulers but even so, I don't think we ought to let the Richard III Society get it all ther own way.

 
Celebaelin
904908.  Sat Apr 28, 2012 4:56 am Reply with quote

He was a warrior, a politician and a product of the age he was born in, ie The Wars of the Roses, which he essentially brought to an end (with the exception of one battle, Bosworth). In many ways he was a great man but not I suspect one to let obstacles stand in his way; if you weren't a threat you were probably safe but people singing his praises at the time might well have been doing so out of fear. However that is so often the case throughout history that we might find it difficult to ignore such evidence on those grounds.

post 189869


Last edited by Celebaelin on Sat Apr 28, 2012 5:03 am; edited 1 time in total

 
djgordy
904914.  Sat Apr 28, 2012 5:03 am Reply with quote

I don't really see that he was in any way great. The only thing he did of any note was to capture Berwick from the Scots. He only reigned for two years and then got his bottom spanked at Bosworth by Henry Tudor even though Richard is thought to have had superior numbers. If it wasn't for Shakespeare, he'd be regarded as a very minor king.

Richard certainly didn't bring an end to the wars of the Roses because his usurpation of the throne just brought about another battle. It was only when Henry VII married Elizabeth of York, daughter of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville that the whole tedious mess ground to a halt.


Last edited by djgordy on Sat Apr 28, 2012 5:09 am; edited 1 time in total

 
Celebaelin
904916.  Sat Apr 28, 2012 5:04 am Reply with quote

See edit, although further details are needed to be convincing on the point. Not sure I'm in the mood just at the moment.

 
Ian Dunn
904928.  Sat Apr 28, 2012 5:29 am Reply with quote

What were the meanings of the other no longer used words that Fry did not define in the show?

 
melbournerebel
904943.  Sat Apr 28, 2012 6:04 am Reply with quote

And did anyone else spot the typo in the backdrop of words first used by the Bard?

 
melbournerebel
904945.  Sat Apr 28, 2012 6:06 am Reply with quote

Celebaelin wrote:
post 904673 et seqq.


Thanks for the link, however a post that begins "I may be making this up but I think I read somewhere..." doesn't exactly smack of reliability.

Anyone else?

 
Ian Dunn
904948.  Sat Apr 28, 2012 6:11 am Reply with quote

I've issued a quibble in the General Ignorance section. I believe that The Lion King is not based on Hamlet, but based on / nicked from the manga Kimba The White Lion.

 
exnihilo
904950.  Sat Apr 28, 2012 6:20 am Reply with quote

The plots of the two cartoons are entirely dissimilar but there are a few frames of Lion King that look a lot like some in Kimba. Given one was made more than 30 years before it's hardly surprising that some of the animators (if nobody else) might have seen it and been influenced by it. 'Nicked' is an awfully strong word though for something which, at best, bears a passing resemblance but not, importantly, in terms of the plot which was entirely the point.

 
Ian Dunn
904952.  Sat Apr 28, 2012 6:22 am Reply with quote

There may be differences in plot, but then again both Kimba and Simba are assisted by a mandrill and a parrot-like bird, and they both fight of an evil lion assisted by bumbling hyenas.

 
exnihilo
904953.  Sat Apr 28, 2012 6:22 am Reply with quote

Still. It was the plot that Stephen said was based on Hamlet, so the 'quibble' doesn't stand.

I should probably have posted this in the other thread, so perhaps we should end it here and move it there.

 
Ian Dunn
904954.  Sat Apr 28, 2012 6:27 am Reply with quote

exnihilo wrote:
Still. It was the plot that Stephen said was based on Hamlet, so the 'quibble' doesn't stand.


Actually, Disney also claim it based on the stories of Joseph and Moses in the Bible.

Plus, this is only what Disney claim. They could be lying. Trying to prove beyond doubt that Disney actually did copy Kimba would probably end up with me in court and most likely bankrupt.

 
Moosh
904966.  Sat Apr 28, 2012 6:57 am Reply with quote

Ian Dunn wrote:
What were the meanings of the other no longer used words that Fry did not define in the show?

I'm not completely sure what he said, but I think the words were "girden" "bodkin" and "fardle". The first one I think I've misheard because I don't know what it is, but a bodkin is a type of arrowhead and a fardle is a bundle.

Pity that when discussing the death of Kit Marlowe they didn't mention any of the spy stuff.

 

Page 1 of 4
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group