Talk:Love's Labour's Lost
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of Wikipedia's Elizabethan theatre coverage, and has come to the attention of WikiProject Elizabethan theatre, an attempt to create a comprehensive and detailed resource on the theatre and dramatic literature in England between 1558 and 1642. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (just like any other article!), or visit WikiProject Elizabethan theatre, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
Brannagh's adaption of this play is definitely pretty strange.
[edit] can't we find anything else?
What does that picture of some odd adaptation have to do with elizibethan playwriting. Can't we find anything more fitting?? Thanatosimii 18:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Don't understand the question. It's not an article about Elizabethan playwriting, it's an article about Love's Labour's Lost (of which Branagh's version is an odd adaptation). AndyJones 19:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Love's Labour's Lost is an elizabethan play. I said the picture was of an odd adaptation, and that's why the picture shouldn't be there. It's odd. It's quite out of place. Thanatosimii 02:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Then you're wrong. Love's Labour's Lost isn't JUST an Elizabethan play. It has an afterlife. Can you imagine what would happen to the wikipedia articles on Hamlet or Romeo and Juliet if we interpreted their scope to be discussions of the works as Elizabethan plays? No discussion of stage history. No 18th to 21st century criticism. No discussion of film versions. Your use of the word "odd" makes me wonder if your objection is that you didn't like the film: but your personal opinion on that, just like mine, is irrelevant. By all means go and find a photo of an Elizabethan performance though, if you can. AndyJones 08:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- That belongs in a latter section. Not as the front picture. The play is Shakespeare's, not Branagh's. Thanatosimii 17:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- There aren't any pictures on any of Wikipedia's Shakespeare pages we wouldn't delete if we gave credence to this non-argument. The play is Shakespeare's not Olivier's. The play is Shakespeare's not Dali's. The play is Shakespeare's not Millais'. The play is Shakespeare's not [insert name of director or artist here]. I'm sorry, I'm not prepared to continue this debate: it seems to me there's no meat to it. However I will revert any changes made to this page in reliance on it. AndyJones 12:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- That belongs in a latter section. Not as the front picture. The play is Shakespeare's, not Branagh's. Thanatosimii 17:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- Then you're wrong. Love's Labour's Lost isn't JUST an Elizabethan play. It has an afterlife. Can you imagine what would happen to the wikipedia articles on Hamlet or Romeo and Juliet if we interpreted their scope to be discussions of the works as Elizabethan plays? No discussion of stage history. No 18th to 21st century criticism. No discussion of film versions. Your use of the word "odd" makes me wonder if your objection is that you didn't like the film: but your personal opinion on that, just like mine, is irrelevant. By all means go and find a photo of an Elizabethan performance though, if you can. AndyJones 08:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Love's Labour's Lost is an elizabethan play. I said the picture was of an odd adaptation, and that's why the picture shouldn't be there. It's odd. It's quite out of place. Thanatosimii 02:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Think that if you wish. but it's the right argument. It is and only is Shakespeare's, and a derivative work deserves a subordinate position. I'm not interested in editing shakespeare, I'm just pointing out that it's going to make everyone who looks at the page think that it's written from a "froo-froo pansy girlie-man" or perhaps "spend too much time looking at "art" made out of two sticks, a boot, and a rodent nailed to a wall" postmodern deconstruction "spent-too-much-time-contemplating-one's-navel" position. (not my words or implications) This kind of literary criticism is beginning to wear thin with the meat-and-potatoes style literati. Thanatosimii 17:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
[edit] Where's Lynn Truss when you need her?
What is up with the extra apostrophe in the title? -Acjelen 21:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- No-one knows where the apostrophes are 'supposed' to be. Is it Love's labour's lost (i.e. love's labour is lost) or Love's labours lost (ie. the labours of love are lost)? Both mean basically the same thing but either is defensible grammatically. And the title page of the quarto (Loves labors lost) and the Folio (Loves labour's lost) are no help! The Singing Badger 21:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
