h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

As far as I am aware, it was never illegal for women to appear in plays, so technically it is not correct to say they weren't allowed to. It was severely frowned on, though, and in those days social pressure was enough to stop women going on the stage. Women from the lower classes wouldn't have been able to read the parts, and women from the upper classes were kept on a pretty tight rein, and therefore wouldn't have had the opportunity.

Shakespear In Love, although a watchable film, is historical bollocks.

Most historical films are totally inaccurate
take Elizabeth - great film, bad facts, very bad facts

Tell me about it! I'm not an expert on Queen Elizabeth 1, but I do know that she knew that Robert Dudley was married. The film had her finding out some time into her reign and being most upset. There were other faults as well, such as Elizabeth having an affair with Dudley, which she almost certainly didn't (and certainly not as openly as suggested by the film).

The film was well acted and directed, but spoiled by playing fast and loose with the facts.

Mind you, it's not as bad as it could have been. Back in the 30's (I think) a British film company made a film about the life of Nell Gwyn (King Charles II's most famous mistress). US censors wanted the film changed to have Nell marrying King Charles! The film company refused, and in the end the censors settled for changing the end of the film. Nell ended up pennyless and in the gutter, to show the perils of sinful living.

that is the maddest
i've seen one historically accurate film - about the american civil war
but it was so dull you wouldn't believe

and why in elizabeth did they have dudley conspire against her - he was openly protestant, in favour of more radical religious policy and he was ALWAYS her favourite - she wanted him to be regent if she died at one point

but then he probably wasn't as good looking as Joseph Fiennes either

Actually, Dudley was reckoned to be the handsomest man at court (and I personally think Joseph's brother Ralph is better looking).

Dudley wouldn't have conspired against Elizabeth because he hoped to marry her once his wife was out of the way. Unfortuately for him, his wife died in suspicious circumstances, and Elizabeth wouldn't risk the scandal of marrying him!

I really hope they don't make Elizabeth 2.
It would probably be as factually incorrect as the first but very, very dull.

yes because there's no exciting love interest
Although they could always cast Ralph Fiennes as the Earl of Essex - he did rebel against her.

i swing between the 2 brothers actually - I wouldn't say no to either

Do you mean a film about the next part of Elizabeth I's reign, or the first part of Elizabeth II's

i think they mean a second part - why anybody would want to make a film about lizzy the second i can't think

i'm still getting my head around the idea that while the play is 'The Madness of George III' the film company insisted on calling the film 'The Madness of King George' unless the Americans thought it was a sequel

If we're not careful we're going to descend into a conversation along the lines of 'Are Americans really that thick?' I get the impression that the answer is 'Yes'.

i think i would go for 'mostly'

i mean most movies come out of America and very few of them have any intelligence.
the few that do are actually usually very good - and often involve canadians

Elizabeth 1 was often found, in dodgy situations, by Lord Blackadder

Blackadder, blackadder
nursie have you seen melchie recently - i want to chop his head off

A classic. I wonder if there are any plans to make a new series?

they are apparently making a one of show for the millenium dome - a kind of Blackadder through the millenium.

So you have to get to greenwich and pay an exorbitant amount to go into something I think is a total waste of space, time and money just to see a half hour show.

Who's coming with me?

Sorry to quash a myth. "The Madness of King George" was renamed, not because Americans would think it was a sequal, but because the Americans don't care a great deal about Georges one and two. As he was reigning at the time of American Independence, to Americans, he's the only one of interest.
(I'm not American)

So surely leaving it as The Madness of George III would make it more obvious that it was about the king they all know and hate. Fair enough changing it from George to King George is a good call, but dropping the III makes it seem like it was George I - who, as you said, the Americans don't care a great deal for.

The study of morphological changes in evolution would suggest that the female parts in Shakespears day were about the same as they are now, we just dress them differently.