Talk:Anonymous (film)

Moved from the article
The following material has been removed from the article. It belongs in an article on Oxfordian theory, as it is not about the film per se:

Oxfordian material removed from article

-- Softlavender (talk) 05:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

"Incestuous" should be moved too. "Clandestine" might be better--there was no kin relationship between Edward de Vere and Queen Elizabeth I (and almost certainly no physical relationship either, but the film is fantasy anyway).DeAragon 20:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dearagon (talk • contribs)
 * In the movie, de Vere is both Elizabeth's son and her lover. &mdash; PDD 21:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Sources to cull to add to the article
Please use the following sources to add to the article:

Google News Search

Google Web Search

-- Softlavender (talk) 06:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Section needs cutting or rewriting
I was looking at it and started to make some copy edits to the "controversy" section. The section is so badly written it's almost incoherent and it contains an original argument also. If any other editors are monitoring this page, what do you think about deleting the section, since it doesn't say all that much about the movie that's not predictable to anyone who can fog a mirror? Otherwise it needs to be completely rewritten to at least a minimum of coherency and the OR deleted. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I removed the section in its entirety. It is not directly related to the film, and we already have articles discussing the authorship. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 19:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Anonymous going after Anonymous?
Some speculate the "Anonymous" cyber-anarchist protest group, of the recent SONY PSN megahack fame, is longing for a copy of this movie to celebrate themselves with an early leak, in their own namesake. The conspiracy main theme of the movie is also well aligned with Anonymous (and Wikileaks) interests, whose demography sees the world as one huge conspiracy of the powers that be, so the leak could serve their PR purposes. The fully digital nature of "Anonymous" movie's production makes e-intrusion and leak a very real risk and Babelberg studio is well advised to take all protective measures! 82.131.130.13 (talk) 21:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Apoplectic?
Is there some reason why we replicate the italics in the Jacobi quote? "Apoplectic" is not a foreign term, and using italics to indicate emphasis is not really standard journalistic practice. Could we either remove it or indicate that the itals are part of the original? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terceiro (talk • contribs) 16:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what you mean when you say that "using italics to indicate emphasis is not really standard journalistic practice". It is journalistic practice in this case, since that's how they appear in the article used as a source. We indicate that they are part of the original by the fact that we put it in quotation marks and link to the source. Paul B (talk) 16:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Historical errors section
To my mind, the full listing of historical errors seems markedly like trivia. Trivia with a valid citation, but trivia nonetheless. I accept that the film's historical accuracy is worth questioning, despite the fact it is a work of fiction, as historical (in)accuracy is the point of the film. But I argue that the article would be better served by culling a few of the main errors/tweaks and putting them into a narrative form. Enumerating every niggling detail is as unnecessary as listing the key grip or best boy. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 23:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Check out WP:FILMHIST. I agree that the errors section is too trivial. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 02:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Um, WP:FILMHIST just says the section would be better entitled 'Historical accuracy.' Both of you overlook what the article, in quotes, says. Namely, that the director of the film, and many of its actors, say that the history we have been given is a bunch of lies which he will expose, and yes, the truth will make you free of academia.
 * In other words, it is unfortunately an integral part of the film's aesthetic intent to tell the 'real history', and that is why it is not 'trivial' but rather quite important to list those things which the director, after a decade of intensive study of the history, didn't get right. The explicit intent of the producers is to go to the public and make case that scholars don't know the facts. A major scholar, formally invited to a showing, and jotted down a small list of patent errors.
 * The list is only 'trivial' for those who are not familiar, understandably, with the obscure ideological fixations in the background. I've read many wiki film articles which outline technical errors, anachronisms, and there is therefore no reason to make an exception of this, esp. since it flourishes the alternative 'truth' in the face of viewers who are supposed to believe this version of the period.Nishidani (talk) 07:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Nishidani, filmmakers take dramatic license with history. It is indiscriminate to list every detail that does not vibe with history. Is it not possible to write engaging prose about the film's historical accuracy? We cannot do that with a series of details like an event being set a few years off. A list of differences could be an external link instead. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 11:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Would it be possible to combine the "Pre-release debate", "Expectations", and "Historical accuracy" sections? We could have a key "Authorship" subsection and another subsection focusing on other aspects of the film's historical setting. If we could write some of the historical details in engaging prose instead of listing them, we could have two solid subsections. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 11:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Paul answered your first point, and I added another consideration below. Certainly Erik, about combining separate headers into one section, no problem with that. I separated them out because I'm threshing sources and sorting things out by theme, so that editors can then see how we can reknit this into an integral, sequentially cogent narrative.Nishidani (talk) 13:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, Eric, we all know that film-makers take dramatic license with history. A few minor errors are not worth mentioning, but outright alteration of facts is. It's of interest, and such sections are found in many articles on books and films where they are relevant. A comparable case would be the book Ruled Britannia, which is is an alternate history novel in which Marlowe is, as in this film, still alive in the late 1590s. In such cases it is of interest to reader of the article to point to these issues, which are anything but "trivia"! In one case - the notorious Da Vinci Code - we have a whole separate article on Inaccuracies in The Da Vinci Code. Like the DVC, this film is making claims about an "alternate" real history. That's quite different from taking a few liberties for dramatic effect. If you can't see that, you are really missing the point. Paul B (talk) 11:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The authorship is the most critical element to cover here, and we have good coverage here. What I'm saying is that the list of other details is more like Historical accuracy of Gladiator (2000 film) than Inaccuracies in The Da Vinci Code. A list can be endless, where if we identify observations common among reliable sources, we can group them into prose. Can we not track that kind of convergence about historical accuracy outside of authorship? Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 11:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * My response was a bit dogmatic, I think. I only saw your first reply. I do think that minor matters such as rearranging a date of publication by a year for dramatic reasons are not very important, but some of the more significant details do need to be included. I was not aware of the "Historical accuracy of Gladiator" article. It's quite fun, if rather chaotic. I think this one is at least potentially more like the DVC case, because it is making an allegedly serious claim to historical revisionism, not just using history to tell a story with an avowedly fictional hero, as in Gladiator. It may be that a separate "historical accuracy" article will have to be created for this film if commentary on it takes off. Paul B (talk) 12:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * All over the public declarations, we read that this is a challenge to an academic establishment that pitches its case to the plebs. That is an intrinsic element of what Emmerich and co are intent on doing in producing this film. They are even preparing material for schools, something I haven't heard about in other Hollywood productions, unless I trawl back through my memories to the early 1950s. Kids will no doubt google up wiki for more details, and we can provide them more neutrally, I would suggest, given the strict rules governing WP:NPOV, than advocates for positions, pro or contra.
 * Generally, at this early stage, I'm against jumping the gun about how the article should ideally look, and I bulleted the points made by one academic in his review, because, if recast in a prose paragraph, I'm pretty sure it would appear as a smudgy blur of details most would leap past. At this point in time, we simply do not know what will be said when reviews come out in the NYRB, the TLS and other critical review journals. Therefore, the best thing to do is to be patient, bullet what points seep through, until we have, within a month, a comprehensive list which can then be pared down, even radically, as per consensus. The problem with articles that aim for comprehensiveness, as this one will, is to get everything in and then cut. Not omit information that other editors may not know of, and therefore cannot give their judgement on.
 * The SAQ is already comprehensive, of FA quality, and we have redirects to several other articles such as Oxfordian theory and the 17th Earl of Oxford Edward de Vere. In that article you will note that almost nothing is said because both WP:fringe and WP:Undue militates against giving wide coverage to it in a biography that sticks to known facts. (Though perhaps we should add a note in the last section there to this fictional reinterpretation of his putative or imaginary other life.Nishidani (talk) 13:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, I'm fairly sure I will enjoy the film, and disagree with most of the academic dismissals, which are too caught up in the 'truth' issue. I will enjoy it because the information I want about Shakespeare, or most other topics, cannot be conveyed by a medium like film, which can however, give one's dry synaptic walls, a variegated splash of colour and recreated period effect that is all to the good for the historical imagination.Nishidani (talk) 13:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess I'm not a fan of the messier approach, but if you think it works better, I've restored the list for now. I think that the focus should be more on the authorship, which currently lacks upfront mention in the lead section. The other kinds of detail seem relatively irrelevant. It's not like we'd include them for a film that tried to be accurate (in the mainstream sense or whatever) about a historical event. In other words, I'm wary of denigrating the film indirectly with such nitpicking when we can investigate the presentation of authorship just fine. Feel free to inform me otherwise, but I'm not seeing as much concern in coverage with details not related to the authorship. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 13:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The mess won't be there in a day or two. I've put what you requested in the lead, though I doubt that this requires any significant expansion in the article, since the 'fringe lunatic' theory is comprehensively covered in several wiki articles, and does not lend itself to synthesis. Links suffice for those unfamiliar with it. It's the sort of stuff that invites a lot of futile editwarring by true believers in this evangelical tall story.
 * You want to, apparently, rerun 2 years of huge extensive, arbitrated squabbling on the authorship question, when the result of that absurd process was impasse, POV-pushing, arbitration and an FA article, no mean feat? And prefer a rerun, instead of the logical sequence, the documented annotation of where the film, which says academics don't understand the subject while amateurs do, goes wrong? What's the policy basis for this? It's not nitpicking. Sources will continue to underline that a film which openly avows a conspiratorial rereading of history can't get simple facts straight. Since academics are attacked consistently in sources, they will have to be given due space when sources related directly to the film (and not the general argument) mention their impressions.
 * As to the third point, I am, as one editor, putting in all details new to me, irrespective of their merits or perspectives, into the text. I am not looking at the authorship angle, which is totally boring to anyone who knows the subject. If anyone has dope that is missing, then they are free to edit it in.Nishidani (talk) 14:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What could be worth doing is providing a kind of "Historical context" section that summarizes the issue of authorship. Changeling (film), a Featured Article, has that kind of section. That way, we can present what has gone before, since obviously the film does not tread new ground. Like I said, we would not indiscriminately list inaccuracies for films that try to be historical. Are we suggesting we should list inaccuracies to prove that the film fails to be historical? Such a list could be written for any historical film, even the ones that try to be as accurate as possible. That's why WP:FILMHIST talks about dramatic license. Instead of the list, I think we should be able to have prose where we discuss the historical accuracy on a high level (perhaps a statement about Richard II/III) with examples infused, so we don't have "a smudgy blur of details". Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 14:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Like would it be possible to copy the lead section of Shakespeare authorship question here as a kind of summary section for readers who come here to read about the film and can get a little contextual background? Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 15:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, division of labour. By all means, go ahead and do the 'Historical context section'. I'm busy with making all of the references according to one template. One point before you do that: the Historical context section you propose can't obviously be done by the kind of web sources or debates we are citing here. There's a vast and complex documentation at the SAQ article and contiguous pages, which represents only a fraction of what scholars say. Since the historical context is a reconstructive section dealing with an area thoroughly examined by the best RS, those sources should be the default material.
 * I think you're jumping the gun about 'we' discussing Richard 11/111. Boy, would I like to write what I know about all this, there's so much RS haven't said that is staring me in the face. But until a scholar writes what his analysis comes up with, I don't add a word to the text. My job's pure paraphrase.
 * As to copying lead paras, can't a link just do that? I'm generally opposed, given the beauty of interwiki linking, to repasting over articles what is available with a click of the mouse. Why because readers who follow up a page through links, see the same stuff and just scroll on. I think each page should be unique, just as the encyclopedias we are trying to compete with have.Nishidani (talk) 15:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I appreciate that people took the time to discuss it. I was unfamiliar with WP:FILMHIST, but I think that the section as it is now is within the bounds of that guideline. However, I personally still find some bullet points to be trivial. Although it is cited in a secondary source and is passably interesting, I don't think it particularly illuminates the topic to point out the anachronistic use of the word "playwright". After all, it's not a film about when that word came into existence. The dialogue spoken in the film is, I think you would agree, not really Elizabethan English. Naturally, the filmmakers want to make sure they can be understood by modern audiences, and chose their words accordingly. Generally, I like sprawling Wikipedia articles, but I think that this article would be better served if it were trimmed of trivialities such as this one. Let the focus be on the bigger errors. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 21:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It was in a critical source of high quality specifically dealing with the film, and therefore, as editor, I feel one has no option. One can't really pick and choose on subjective criteria. What we feel is important is often lacking in sources (boy, do I know that!) and what is perhaps trivial, highlighted. I understand why it was thought relevant by the critic, though. Emmerich's within his rights to reinvent history, since that is a commonplace license. Orloff, as scriptwriter, also, can exercise his liberty. But from an Elizabethan critical perspective, measuring himself with Shakespeare's age, he flopped linguistically, there is no verisimilitude in much dialogue with the idiom of the day, and this creates an aesthetic disharmony between the brilliant speeches delivered on stage direct from Shakespeare's works, and the rather dumb things de Vere and co., are quoted as saying. 'Playwright' illustrates the carelessness. Nishidani (talk) 11:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with GG on this. Are we supposed to point it out when the dialogue in a film about, say, Roman gladiators isn't in ancient Latin? I recall no such criticism of Shakespeare's Julius Caesar. Clocks, yes; the language it was written in, no. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I realize you've made much of the "Playwright, Playwright" bit, but the problem is that Wells and Edmondson got it wrong. The article has 1687, which would indeed, be a long way off. But the term "playwright" was created (probably) by Ben Jonson. Latest date is 1605, as he used it in a short poem included with Sejanus called "To Playwright". Jonson used the word several times, I believe. Anyhow, |here'shere's a link. Also, I agree with those who are saying that the smaller errors are rather trivial. It tends to look like piling on. It's also pretty listy, as has been noted already. Smatprt (talk) 01:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Technically it's still an error, although a trivial and forgivable one, IMO. I mean please, it's a movie! They also erred in saying that Judith Shakespeare signed her name, all of which goes to prove that only Shakespeare was the Greatest and Most Accurate Writer in the Entire Universe. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:43, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Polonius +arras
Waiting for the review that will note that de Vere doesn't in real life kill someone lurking behind an arras, but murdered a humble cook Thomas Brincknell outside, and therefore the film is forging a life for de Vere based on whatever retrofit can be contrived by reconstructing the past in terms of Shakespeare's plays, not in terms of the known life. It should go into the historical inaccuracies section when the source comes up.Nishidani (talk) 20:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

This is not the first time Oxford's life has been rewritten to match the plays in order to provide "evidence" for his authorship. The idea that Oxford's mother remarried hastily after her husband's death is another. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:23, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Section
Re Pre-release debate

This was understandable a few months ago, when little was available to fill up the page, but a whole section or paragraph pivoted on Orloff's challenge to Shapiro over the number of Supreme Court Judges who gave the thumbs-down to de Vere in a moot court judgement in 1987 is patently absurd. It seems to function as a putdown of Shapiro's whole book. In any case, in the serious literature the moot court judgement of the US has little weight, being meaningless, since none of the judges are knowledgeable about the subject. I'd abolish the section, and whatever is retrievable could be added to another section.Nishidani (talk) 09:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You might want to work on the lede also to take out the skewed POV. Right now it reads as a screed against anti-Stratfordism instead of a neutral description of a movie. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * NPOV is your field of expertise and editorial excellence, Tom. I wrote that fully expecting that you'd then wipe it clean of any smearmarks. I'm sure you can come up with the right alchemical balance to give a neutral presentation of a film its writer and director are screaming is not neutral, the literary variable on squaring a circus circle. Get to it man, I rest my case, and besides, it's late here, and I must do some serious reading before hitting the fartsack, whereas you have all the time in the world over there.Nishidani (talk) 20:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yer a lazy mongrel, Deputy Dawg! I woke up, and saw the job I assigned you, undone. I've put meself in a pair of Old Gringo's cowboy boots, plopped a Harrypoteresque Stetson on my chump, and tried to write what you might imagine to be a NPOV pastiche for the lead. I know you're gunna whinge, and shoot it down. Bury the draft in Tombstone territory, though.Nishidani (talk) 10:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I've cheered up. I just noted the music was partially composed by an Austrian gentleman who is unfamiliar with the dialect associations of his monicker, namely Thomas Wanker. Someone should give him a nudge, and tell him that in the English-speaking world it would be a better career-move to stick to the variant sobriquet, Wander.Nishidani (talk) 10:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

"Fringe" NOT
There are many, many educated and informed people, including several U.S. Supreme Court Justices, who consider the Authorship question unresolved, and many of them favor the Oxfordian viewpoint. The highly-vested industry of so-called Shakespearean scholars remind me of fundamentalist Christians who will not even consider the evidence of the Earth's origins. Or the detractors of Copernicus. I have NEVER read any such scholar addressing the evidence on the Authorship question. Invariably, they simply declare it ridiculous and liken it to the theory of a moon landing hoax. Sadly for them, they do not own a monopoly on the truth on this topic, or even the debate. Yes, this debate is highly controversial, just like Copernicus in his day, or Darwin in his. And the Oxfordians may well be wrong, and the Stratfordians correct. But in no way is the Oxfordian viewpoint a fringe theory. Jrgilb (talk) 03:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You left out Galileo. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Or Einstein (another Oxfordian analogy-meme, unless my waning memory is confused).Nishidani (talk) 12:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 'There are many, many educated and informed people,' who believe in conspiracies, Christian fundamentalists, alien abduction, 9/11 plots, etc. There is now a significant literature by scholars 'addressing the evidence on the Authorship Question', which comprehensively replies to the murmurs of dissent from the incompetent periphery of salon gossip, and since you have not read it, see Wadsworth, Matus, Shapiro, Nelson, Elliott and Valenza and others listed on the Shakespeare Authorship Question. That the unanimous negative verdict of a handful of US (not Canadian, English, German, Australian) Supreme Court Justices, after hearing 'partial evidence' for a few hours in a Methodist Church decades ago, on a matter they have no authority to deliberate on, can be hailed as positiveevidence for the lost cause or case proves only how refractive the stone-wall of fringe speculation is to rational method, evidential analysis, and expert opinion. Nishidani (talk) 09:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Still would support a summary section of Shakespeare Authorship Question on this particular article. Oh, and we landed on the moon? Hogwash! Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 12:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the phrase "fringe theory" should link to the article Fringe theory. In fact, I think the lede should link to that, the Shakespeare authorship question, and the Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship, but it going to take some re-working of the phrsing to get that done without bumping links. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

executed for sedition
This is Lumenick's impression. I can't recall where, in the 80 odd reviews I've read so far, de Vere is said to have died in bed (as he did in historical fact), but if anyone comes across that, it would mean we have a conflict of reportage (and perhaps Lumenick confusing de Vere with Essex).Nishidani (talk) 19:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I removed the statement that Oxford was sent off to the gallows because it simply did not happen in the film, which I watched last night in Boulder. I don't know whether Lumenick saw an alternate ending, or was dreaming, but in the film as released to the public Oxford dies in his bed. He is attended by Ben Jonson, to whom he entrusts all the later plays, with instructions to release them after his death and to safeguard the secret of his anonymity so as to protect Southampton. This is an essential component of Oxfordian theory. —Aetheling (talk) 15:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. The reconstruction of the plot from sources has been difficult because a lot of critics have been variously confused, give 'readings' which do not square with the impressions other critics receive, all while admitting they find the film's sequences (brilliant or boring) very difficult to keep track of.Nishidani (talk) 15:34, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Unless there is a source for these points, specifically dealing with Anonymous, they cannot go in, as WP:OR
I've removed the following list, since the points are unsourced to reviews.


 * de Vere had more than one child, the daughter Anna shown in the movie, with his first wife.
 * de Vere was married twice.
 * There is no evidence that William Cecil was in communication with James IV for many years, perhaps a decade, preceding Elizabeth's death.
 * Elizabeth left little indication of her successor until she was speechless on her death bed; it is alleged that she indicated with her hands that James IV was to succeed her.

We've all drawn up. no doubt, our private long lists of what is skewed, and screwed up, in Orloff's plot. It falls to pieces over at least two dozen incongruencies chronologically. But nothing of these notes, even if obvious, can be registered here unless a reliable source states it.Nishidani (talk) 10:10, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for doing this. --GentlemanGhost (talk)

Lybarger
almost gets it right, but flubs the point. If de Vere was the poet Shakespeare because he had such a marvellous classical education, unlike that drowsy hick straggling like a snail unwillingly to Strat grammar, then he would have replied: 'Not a flute, a cithara, that is, a lyre' as Tacitus, among others, reports. The actual Shakespeare of course, someone like the Stratford lad, would have spoken in contemporary terms of a lute. ('like thee, Nero/Play on the lute, beholding the towns burn', etc.) He only uses 'fiddle' as a substantive once in his plays, (Henry VIII, 1.3:41), I think, and even there, if Hickson's division is accepted, that would only be Fletcher writing, neither Shakespeare nor de Vere. If we accept Fletcher as co-author of the play then, 'fiddle' is not a part of Shakespeare's vocabulary. Pity. But then you can't expect Orloff or Emmerich to know this, it's too damned "academic". Nishidani (talk) 17:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Serious Cleanup
This article is in need of some serious clean up. It's very verbose and rambling. Why is every major plot point given away in the introduction? The film synopsis should be shortened to 2 or 3 sentences.

'Background and development' and 'Expectations' should be merged and shortened. Not everyone with and opinion or a theory needs to be quoted. Narrow it down. 'Pre-Release Arguments' and 'Historical Inaccuracies' could probably be merged. But at least delete the 'Pre- Release' part and put it towards the bottom. I mean, are the arguments going to change in post release? Again, not everyone with an opinion needs to be quoted. Not even every expert with an opinion needs to be quoted. Critical Reception in the worst part. 5 or 6 paragraphs should literally be deleted. Give a brief overview and throw in a few quotes by the heavy hitters. Ebert, etc. Not every single opinion by every single critic needs to be quoted, again!!! and wtf is 'Critical queries'? Delete that section. Lastly, this article space shouldn't be used a 'debate' space between Shakespeareans and Oxfordians about authorship. There are other articles and other forums dedicated to this very purpose. So keep it about the movie. And watch some of the sardonic language.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.100.11.115 (talk) 06:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * See for lead treatment and plot synopsis the thorough expositions used on comparable wiki pages on Emmerich's filmology. If you do the ostensible anomalies that worry you will evaporate since they are normal.


 * Universal Soldier (1992 film);
 * 2012 (film)
 * 10,000 BC (film)
 * The Day After Tomorrow
 * The Patriot (2000 film)
 * Godzilla (1998 film)
 * Independence Day (film)
 * Stargate (film)
 * Obviously it will be reorganized, once we have more data. It's just out, and if one ignores something, editors might complain about what is left out. It is easier for editors to work on it when they have before them, without arduous clicking through numerous websites or googling, a single page that has roped in the state of opinion, and available details. As to excluding debate material: Orloff and Emmerich are all over the web making this a major element in their challenge to the academic establishment. Since it's a propaganda-advocacy film among other things, and since they are taking on a whole historical interpretation, and challenging what scholars who actually know the subject have written for 400 years, it will run out to the JFK (film) article length, eventually, I think, i.e. around 60kb. The sardonic language is either Emmerich's or of his critics.Nishidani (talk) 09:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've been thinking that the critics' reception could be organized thematically. Nearly everyone complains that the time sequences are confusing, that the plot is illegibly contorted (hence the need to give a thorough plot outline here, as we are doing, so that readers, if befuddled, can smooth out their incomprehension by checking here). There is virtual unanimity that the effects of the CGI enhanced recreation of Elizabethan world is "gorgeous", "stunning". I would think that the majority allow that when Emmerich has his brilliant cast actually do bits from Shakespeare, the performances are marvellous. But I hesitate myself to do this because of the WP:SYNTH/WP:OR risks. Nishidani (talk) 10:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, we can quite simply, keep the major reviews (most of which are not yet out), then create a subpage, Criticism and keep the whole shebang of reviews. After all, with Sony pushing this junk in schools, kids all over the world will be googling around for dope, and if we can provide a compilation of all reviews, we will have done a timely exercise in net synthesis.Nishidani (talk) 13:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Having just looked at the list provided above, just about every film listed sums up the general premise in 2 or 3 lines, as recommended above. I agree with the poster who asks "Why is every major plot point given away in the introduction?" Asked but not answered. Is this the consensual editing referred to below?

Also - your wrap-up of the critical comments is skewed. Most critics are praising the complete performances - not when they are only reciting Shakespeare. Ifans, Redgrave and Spall in particular are finding plenty of positive reviews. I also notice that every negative review is quoted at length, but the favorable reviews are either short-shifted or missing. We really need some balance here. Smatprt (talk) 21:43, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

the movie is based loosely on the life of Edward de Vere,
Patently untrue, even if we give huge leeway to that tactical adjective 'loosely'. Almost nothing in the film is historical, and it's nice to see this fact disappear from the lead, despite the fact that 20 odd critics note it.Nishidani (talk) 16:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Edward de Vere was an aristocrat in the reign of Elizabeth I who was married to Burghley's daughter - that's about the sum total of the 'facts of his life' that correspond to what we see in the film. Paul B (talk) 17:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Whoever rewrote the lead just copied the phrasing from the lead of Amadeus, hence 'loosely'. The Amadeus lead is itself defective, since the film is not loosely based on anything except the scriptwriter's text. I don't think anything here should be written off the top of one's head. We should follow the abundant sources, and their emphases, in any case.Nishidani (talk) 18:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, looked to 300 (film) primarily, since it is the only FA film that matches up to the same general set of issues. Now I really thought everyone knows what "based loosely" means, but if that offends, I've cut "loosely" and recast to use "fictionalized" (example at 300 (film)). I also reformatted the lead as per WP:FILMLEAD, which looks to be ignored up to this point. The plot summary that is (currently paragraph 3) is entirely unneeded, with too much detail and background information, all of which is repeated over and over thru the long plot and even longer criticism section. The short summary in graph 2 is all that is needed. Smatprt (talk) 22:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment was made somewhere that edits were made 'without explanation". Patently untrue. Please read the edit summaries. That's what they are for. Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 22:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That's complete tosh. 300 is based pretty closely on real events, though of course it's a cartoon version of history. Most of Anonymous is completely and utterly made up. Almost nothing about what we know of de Vere bears any relation whatever to known facts of his life. The story is simply not based on his life at all. A character with the name of a historical figure has a completely fictional narrative constructed around him. Paul B (talk) 23:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Not sure what you are on about. We agree, then, that the movie is a "Fictionalized" version of De Vere's life. The "F" word been said all over these pages, and in the press by both the film maker and the critics. Enough said.Smatprt (talk) 23:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry about the typos (now fixed). I make them all the time, but I was working with someone's unfamiliar laptop. It's a moot point, but I'd say that it is no more based on his life than Cymbeline is "based on the life" of Cunobelinus. It's a fiction using the name of a historical character and a period setting. Paul B (talk) 12:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 'I also reformatted the lead as per WP:FILMLEAD, which looks to be ignored up to this point. The plot summary that is (currently paragraph 3) is entirely unneeded, with too much detail and background information,'(talk)
 * Actually, you have ignored everything in the very WP:FILMLEAD you cite for your effective deletion of the our opening paragraphs. If you look back over this page, Erik among others wanted more detail on the SAQ aspect, I was reluctant to do this, but went ahead. Tom thought it needed trimming. It was trimmed. It has remained stable for a few weeks. Since you rely on that for your mass deletion, let me print it here for convenience.
 * "The lead section should introduce the film and provide a summary of the most important aspects of the film from the article body. (b) If the film is based on source material, that source material and its creators should be identified. If possible, convey the general premise of the film in the paragraph and identify actors' roles in the premise. Succeeding paragraphs in the lead section should cover important aspects of the film detailed in the article body and not mentioned already in the first paragraph. These include . . . prominent themes, reception of the film by critics and audiences, box office grosses and milestones, controversies, and any significant impact the film has made in society.."
 * All of the bolded sections clearly give support for the lead as it was consensually written. Please adhere to policy, do not misrepresent it, and try to collaborate with other editors. We haven't suffered from edit-warring on these pages for a long time.Nishidani (talk) 11:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

"convey the general premise of the film in the paragraph" - here is the problem. You are detailing the plot, not conveying the "general premise", which is quite simple: Instead, you are going into way too much detail, even adding plot spoilers. And I have no problem with spoilers, but they are supposed to go in the "plot", where they are expected and can be avoided if one wishes - but not in the lead. I also question your "consensually written" statement. You have made, what, 90% of the edits in the last month? And completely dominated the talk page? You fought JackofOZ over the word "hoary", and when Erik asked for prose instead of a list you basically refused. Finally, you admitted to Tom that you just write stuff "fully expecting" that someone else would then "wipe it clean of any smearmarks". So you seem to be saying that you are not worrying about NPOV and if you smear the film someone else has to fix it (if you let them). Is that about it? And is that what you define as "consensually"? Smatprt (talk) 21:23, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Set within the political atmosphere of 16th Century England, the film presents Lord Oxford as the true author of Shakespeare’s plays, and dramatizes events leading to the Essex Rebellion and the succession of Queen Elizabeth.
 * or as imdb states it: "A political thriller advancing the theory that it was in fact Edward De Vere, Earl of Oxford who penned Shakespeare's plays; set against the backdrop of the succession of Queen Elizabeth I, and the Essex Rebellion against her."
 * I bolded several phrases, which justify the lead you deleted. Singling out, to equivocate on, one line, is not an answer. Please reread 'Succeeding paragraphs in the lead section should cover important aspects of the film detailed in the article body and not mentioned already in the first paragraph. These include . . . prominent themes and controversies. A lead sums up an article, the plot is part of the film, and it is described, as per policy, succinctly. Your objections are not grounded in policy. And uh, people who read literature enjoy irony. Please do not cite my self-ironical remarks to Tom Reedy as proof of anything other than a desire to send myself up as others might view me, while complimenting Reedy for his professional mastery of NPOV. Nishidani (talk) 12:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Can we please try to avoid writing incomprehensible English
There are many other issues in narrative style, but the above are some of the conspicuous examples of keech-fisted padding out recently that make reading a groan.Nishidani (talk) 17:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * de Vere uses the play -- to generate an incited mob to march on Cecil to oust him from his position of influence in the Court,
 * thinks that Essex is trying the depose of her violently.
 * Thus de Vere committed unintended incest with his mother begatting a son,
 * in order to save his son from being beheaded,
 * pleas with the Queen
 * agrees to remain anonymous as the true author of 'Shakespeare's' works,
 * his incest and offspring remain a secret from all, including the Queen.
 * believes them burnt in the ashes of the Globe;

Films ARE primary sources for their articles
Nishidani - you seem to be writing this article like a history article. Its not - its a work of fiction. You should review the relevant policies on film, writing about fiction, primary source for plot and basic information, etc. Your misguided instance, for example, that all plot lines and basic information must be drawn from secondary sources is completely wrong (see below) and against all relevant policies and guidelines, and only adds to the numerous NPOV problems that the current article suffers from. Some relevant policy and guideline quotes:
 * 1) "Since films are primary sources in their articles, basic descriptions of their plots are acceptable.WP:PSTS says, "...a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge"
 * 2) Examples of information available in primary sources include: the birth and death dates of fictional characters; performance statistics or characteristics for fictional vehicles or devices; history of fictional locations or organizations; background information on fictional creatures; and, the plot itself".
 * 3) "Since the film is the primary source and the infobox provides details about the film, citing the film explicitly in the plot summary's section is not necessary. Exceptions to the rule include upcoming films and "lost" films (which are not available to the public to verify), for which editors should use secondary sources."
 * 4) "The plot summary is an overview of the film's main events, so avoid minutiae like dialogue, scene-by-scene breakdowns, and technical detail."
 * 5) "Even with strict adherence to the real-world perspective, writing about fiction always includes using the original fiction itself as a source."
 * 6) "when summarizing a plot and choosing what details to include, editors should use discretion. The advantages of exhaustive coverage of the work are in dynamic tension with the desire to preserve the artistic qualities of the work for readers.[6] Wikipedia should contain potentially "spoiling" detail where it substantially enhances the reader's understanding of the work and its impact but be omitted when it merely ruins the experience of the work of fiction for our readers."
 * 7) "Both primary and secondary information is necessary for a real-world perspective: maintain a balanced use of both primary and secondary sources" (bolded on policy page)
 * 8) "Avoid creating lists of trivia; instead, incorporate relevant information into the body of the article"


 * So? What's the problem? Before the film came out publicly, I used secondary sources which described the plot. Full stop. Perfectly normal practice.Nishidani (talk) 17:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Problem is you kept adding plot from reviews even after the film came out. Not normal at all.Smatprt (talk) 20:10, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Could you please try and write comprehensibly? eg in writing:-


 * "Nishidani - you seem to be writing this article like a history article. Its not - its a work of fiction."


 * You are explicitly saying 'this article . .is not a history article, it's a work of fiction.'
 * As long as I am editing, it is not going to be, like the film, a work of fiction. Nishidani (talk) 17:06, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Is this what you call participating at talk? Ignoring a series of policy and guideline concerns and just being flippant? I'm still waiting for you to respond. For example "Avoid creating lists of trivia; instead, incorporate relevant information into the body of the article", your list of historical inaccuracies provides no context, no real-world perspective, nothing - it's just a list without explanation. It needs to be worked into prose so that it can reflect the actual conversation going on.

Latest edit
The lead is being consistently challenged by one editor who removes material on generic grounds, without any reasoned justification, and then introduces material which reduplicates material already in the lead. I.e.

"the movie is a fictionalized version of the life of Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, an Elizabethan courtier, playwright, poet and patron of the arts.[4] Set within the political atmosphere of 16th Century England, the film presents Lord Oxford as the true author of Shakespeare’s plays, and dramatizes events leading to the Essex Rebellion and the succession of Queen Elizabeth." Well, the second paragraph had all this. By plunking this on top, you obtain sheer repetition, destablize para 2, with nothing gained. So I had to retrieve the words linked to May, but elide it in order to avoid the messy effect this reduplication caused.

(2) At the end we had: "Critics have been divided, praising its performances and visual achievements, but criticizing the filmmakers promotion of the Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship and the film’s controversial depiction of William Shakespeare." Judgements like this are best made only when a source or two sums up what the critical assessment has been like. As it stands, this in no way sums up the 140 odd critical articles I have read, since (a) critics are often not divided, but divide their criticism into praise for the effects while dismissing the plot. One should have written 'critics have often been in two minds' etc.etc. (b) I haven't read of any serious critic saying there is something 'controversial' about the way Shakespeare is depicted, as if there were some who think he was a loutish buffoon, and some who think not.

I've replaced it, but both my and the other version should optimally be deleted, until we can compose a general critical assessment that comes directly from RS.Nishidani (talk) 17:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Look Smatprt, can I prevail on you to try to avoid setting up an editwar atmosphere. This place has been fairly quite, and intelligently productive for the last year. Your edit summaries focus on one point, while in fact your edits quietly delete material in the lead no one save you has hitherto taken exception to. Nothing sticks for ever, everything is challengeable, but repeated erasures of what preexisted your return here do not conduce to constructing a useful page. I myself am having trouble, as usual, keeping track of hyperactive alterations. ThankyouNishidani (talk) 17:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Some thoughts: 1) Nishidani, as you yourself say: "Nothing sticks for ever, everything is challengeable".  I agree. 2)  Smatprt, I think you make some decent points, and I am interested in contributing to your and Nishidani's dialogue on several of the topics under discussion regarding this article.--Rogala (talk) 02:16, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Time to ask for admin review?
Given all the vandal activity that is appearing on this page, it might be time to ask an admin to review it in the light of the ArbCom's decision and the discretionary sanctions. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Seconded.Nishidani (talk) 14:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Nishidani, I don't know if I see actual "vandalism"...although I do see accusations of it by you and Tom Reedy. Is this perhaps a case of an inexperienced editor making what they believe to be "good faith" changes, but just not knowing the background to the entire SAQ / ArbCom situation and the exact Wikipedia policies at play here regarding reverts, etc. ? Has anyone here tried to dialogue with the editor in question ?--Rogala (talk) 16:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, they appear to be confused good faith edits. Assuming that the IP(s) are the newly registered user:Tinkero, the answer is yes. Paul B (talk) 16:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Has there been any attempt at communication with this person (persons ?) or has anyone received communication from them regarding this matter ? If "yes" where can one see the exchange ?--Rogala (talk) 17:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I tried to answer your question. The IPs appear to be the same person who has now registered under the name user:Tinkero and who self-identifies as John Orloff, the film's scriptwriter. The 'yes' at the end of my last post indicates that communication has occurred. It can be seen on his user talk page. Paul B (talk) 19:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Orloff has a conflict of interest so probably shouldn't be editing the reviews portion - though he could certainly work on the plot section, since the movie is the primary source and is to be used as such for movie article.
 * Having said that, he raised valid points. I read thru the section of almost 3000 words and found that for a movie with basically a 50/50 reputation, the section had almost 2000 "negative" words. Obviously a severe imbalance that needed to be addressed immediately, lest Wikipedia present a biased view of a new movie. The section is now shorter, and more balanced. It's also way less repetitive! The biggest thing - it now does not dominate the article Smatprt (talk) 03:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Your edit summaries rarely explain what you are doing, nor do they justify the wholesale excisions. For example, the critics comments section was composed without animus, synthesizing the essential points pro and positive in reviews as they became available. Anything I found I summarised as briefly as possible, without regard to the POV. Now that the movie is out andreviewed, evidently a selection is required, but it must be based on some agreed on criterion, the notability of the critics, or the journal or movie.org, or whatever. But threshing it subjectively, by just chucking out whatyou dislike, or personally think inappropriate, is, Smatprt, no way to go about that.
 * I suggest we therefore go through the names, or lists on Rotten Tomatoes, and draw up a list of the critics here whose views we think should be listed. See section below.Nishidani (talk) 13:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Critical reviews excised from the article. One at a time
(A) No objection to removing this, I think. Whimsical, The The Newark Star-Ledger's Stephen Whitty chose doggerel to write his review:

And so, like vermin, facts here are banished Logic dispelled, plain motives all vanished The sly games of Eros come unbidden ''The sad death of Marlowe? Quite rewritten'' ''And poor old Will is tossed out with the junk A braggart, idiot, tiresome drunk While the high-born de Vere, sly posing fop Is ensconced on drama’s great mountaintop. (B)

ps. there are quite a few critical reviews that could be added however.Nishidani (talk) 16:33, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Regardless, coverage should be balanced. That is bare minimum. If you want to collect reviews, perhaps it would be better to sandbox them. Leaving them in the article til we "decide" just shouldn't happen. It skews the weight of the article terribly (3000 words?) and isn't appropriate as a placeholder. For what its worth, I tried to focus on notable critics who reflected the balance that is reported on Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, etc., I deleted duplication wherever possible, and I tried to avoid potential WP:BLP issues, not wanting to go anywhere near down that lane. No, I'm not interested in going thru them one at a time.  Sandbox it and let the community work on it.Smatprt (talk) 16:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree. That list was worked up over two weeks with nary a peep nor whisper from anyone. You alone object. Your objections are vague and the policies cited irrelevant. Your excisions are massive, unmotivated by precise reference to relevant policy and therefore irrational. There is no WP:BLP issue here. The community exists, and edits this page. It is not collaborative to unilaterally (a) rewrite the lead erasing the preceding version (b) engage in massive removals of material no one else objects to.Nishidani (talk) 17:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Being balanced does not mean giving equal space to positive and negative reviews. It means giving as fair representation of the views of critics, with preference to significant critics. If most of them pan it, we should say that. If most of them laud it we should say that. If there is a consensus that xx's acting is good, or the plot is confusing, we should note that. There are several ways of going about this. We can create a narrative from critical responses, grouped according to topic - the acting, the plot, the historical claims etc. There are certain common themes. It is widely noted that the flashback structure creates a lot of confusion about who is who and when events are happenning. That's a technicality, unrelated to the 'plaubility' of the story as such, but adds to the sense of mystification about the project. Then there's the plot itself - the various relevations about Shakespeare and the Queen - how improbable does that seem? Do we care, if we treat it as pure fiction? etc Then there is the acting, costume etc. Paul B (talk) 17:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * In this case, it does mean balanced good and bad. The MetaCritic rating is 50, the Rotten Tomatoes is at 46. And it came out of the Toronto Film Festivals with surprisingly good reviews that discussed how refreshing it was to see Emmerich go in a new direction. So it shouldn't be that hard to reflect that balance in the reception section. Right now its what we call in the business a "hatchet job" with 2 negatives for every one positive, compounded by sheer repetition. Leaving it up as is is a travesty. I'm glad to see that Nishidani is willing to collect them, but the collection shouldn't be in the main space. Sandbox it so we can hash it out.Smatprt (talk) 20:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And Nishidani's claim that "That list was worked up over two weeks with nary a peep nor whisper from anyone. You alone object" is just another misrepresentation. there was an objection on Oct 30 refleced above that said "Reception in the worst part. 5 or 6 paragraphs should literally be deleted. Give a brief overview and throw in a few quotes by the heavy hitters. Ebert, etc. Not every single opinion by every single critic needs to be quoted, again!!! " So please stop trying to mislead readers that I am the only one who objected.Smatprt (talk) 20:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

One of serval sections under dispute
As mentioned above, the MetaCritic rating is 50, the Rotten Tomatoes is at 46. Most other charts have about the same. Pretty even good & bad, with those most fitting wiki policy being the balanced approach exemplified by Ebert, for example:

"Roger Ebert finds Orloff's screenplay "ingenious," Emmerich's direction "precise", and the cast "memorable". Though "profoundly mistaken", Anonymous is "a marvellous historical film," giving viewers "a splendid experience: the dialogue, the acting, the depiction of London, the lust, jealousy and intrigue." That said, he rounds off, he must "tiresomely insist that Edward de Vere did not write Shakespeare's plays.""

We need to reflect that balance in the reception section. Right now its what we call in the business a "hatchet job" with 2 negatives for every one positive, compounded by an awful amount of repetition. Leaving it up as is is a travesty. We should remove it all or jsut leave may 3 good and 3 bad up while we hash this out.Smatprt (talk) 21:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

For sandboxing: Kirk Honeycutt ranked it as Emmerich's best film, with a superb cast of British actors, and a stunning digitally-enhanced recreation of London in Elizabethan times. The film is "glorious fun as it grows increasingly implausible", for the plot "is all historical rubbish," dealing with "the worst sort of unsubstantiated Elizabethan gossip, outright fabrications and warped facts to support this theory." Gregory Ellwood takes it as a variety of soap opera and finds Orloff's scenario so "ridiculous" that "no performance or direction can save it from the whole concept being just plain silly." Ifans has done his best to give 'de Vere a soul,' and Vanessa Redgrave's recreation of a Queen Elizabeth sinking into dementia is a finely nuanced performance, but generally he judges that "most of the ensemble can't elevate the melodramatic nature of the material." Damon Wise, reviewing the film for the Guardian, appraises Emmerich's 'meticulously crafted' and 'stunningly designed takedown of the Bard,' as shocking only in that it is rather good. Emmerich's problem, he argues, is that he was so intent on proving his credentials as a serious director that the film ended up 'drowned in exposition.' Orloff's screenplay heavily confuses plotlines; the politics are retrofitted to suit the theory. The lead roles are 'unengaging' but special mention is given to Edward Hogg's performance as Robert Cecil, and Vanessa Redgrave's role as Elizabeth.

Robert Koehler, writing for Variety, reads the film as an 'illustrated argument' of an 'aggressively promoted and more frequently debunked' theory, and finds it less interesting than the actors who play a role in, or endorse, it. Narrative cogency is strained by the constant switches in time signature, and the imbroglio of Shakespeare and Jonson squabbling publicly over claims to authorship is both tiresome and 'veers close to comedy'; indeed it is superfluous given Ifans's commanding and convincing acting as the 'real' Shakespeare. The supporting cast of actors is praised for fine performances, except for Spall's Shakespeare, who is 'often so ridiculous that the "Stratfordians" will feel doubly insulted.' Sebastian Krawinkel's 'ambitious and gorgeous production design' comes in for special mention, as does Anna J. Foerster's elegant widescreen lensing. The score however fails their standards. Kristopher Tapley champions the film, finding that Orloff has spun 'a fascinating yarn' whose complexity however leaves many confused. Ifans gives a stunning performance, and Spall's Shakespeare provides delightful comic relief. The film is 'gorgeous' and Tapley agrees with a colleague's judgement that "people will likely look back to Anonymous as the tipping point of what you can really do with digital in a next-level kind of way".' Stephanie Zacharek finds that Emmerich’s attempt to attribute to de Vere Shakespeare’s works is done in a ’highly unbelievable fashion’, the whole affair being 'rather silly, and a touch boring, with a few flashes of brilliance.' The casting however is inspired, and Rhys Ifans manages to take "dorky, grandiose dialogue and turn [it] into something almost – well, Shakespearean."

David Denby, reviewing for the New Yorker, writes of Emmerich's "preposterous fantasia", where confusion reigns as to which of the virgin queen's illegitimate children is Essex and which Southampton, and where it is not clear what the connection is between the plot to hide the authorship of the plays and the struggle to find a successor to the officially childless Elizabeth. He concludes that, "The Oxford theory is ridiculous, yet the filmmakers go all the way with it, producing endless scenes of indecipherable court intrigue in dark, smoky rooms, and a fashion show of ruffs, farthingales, and halberds. The more far-fetched the idea, it seems, the more strenuous the effort to pass it off as authentic." Amy Nicholson in Boxoffice magazineargues that Emmerich's "need to entertain comes at the expense of toying with the facts". The film is attractively made, certainly for popcorn movie fans rather than graduates of English, she concludes, summing up that "It's certainly great pop, a slippery pseudo-historical soap opera that's a delight to watch." For Stephen Marche, writing for The New York Times Magazine, Emmerich gives Shakespeare the Oliver Stone/Da Vinci Code treatment, "ushering out of the tiny enclosure of fringe academic conferences" a "conspiratorial melodrama involving incest in royal bedchambers, a vapidly simplistic version of court intrigue, nifty costumes and historically inaccurate nonsense." For unblissfully unaware Shakespeare scholars, the film promises to be an impending disaster for their professional lives, since for the next decade they will be obliged to explain the obvious ad nauseam. True, historical dramas sacrifice history for dramatic effect; even Shakespeare does that, but the liberties 'Anonymous' takes with the facts "are serious when they enter our conception of real history," for "in scholarship, chronology does matter." He concludes that, "[Anonymous] will raise debate where none should be. It will sow confusion where there is none. Somebody here is a fraud, but it isn’t Shakespeare." For Stella Pappamichael, 'Even hardened conspiracy theorists will be left shaking their heads at this twaddle,'the chain of eventsì becomes knottier and convoluted as 'historical facts are shoehorned to fit.' Hilarity attends the final act when forbidden passions boil over, and its Oedipal drama seems 'more the stuff of a South American soap opera.'

Ron Rosenbaum in Slate was scathingly dismissive, branding the film "a high point in cinematic stupidity," indeed, "in Western culture." Likening the Oxfordian theory to the birther movement orcreationism, and called on Oxfordians to "repudiate this botch of a movie," which makes their "mendacious theory look like a 'tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing'"

James Lileks, in the Star Tribune review, noting favourable responses, including one where a critic wondered if Emmerich had anything to do with it, says the devious message must be that a shlock-merchant like Emmerich wasn't involved, but, like the film plot itself, must conceal the hand of some more experienced filmmaker, whose identity will be much debated for centuries to come. Eric Kohn, reviewing for indieWire, finds it boring, and spoiled by the way Emmerich works against his own strengths by 'playing it straight' in this 'droll costume drama' where Elizabethan garb trumps "his penchant forCGI tomfoolery", and sheer fun is replaced by flat drama. Emmerich can't handle "legitimate human drama", and the film drags, only revealing that "emperor of spectacle has no clothes". The film picks up with the incest motif, but the scenes of his conflict with court powers mix an "unseemly blend of self-seriousness and camp". He does commend the 'ingenious book-end' device that has a "magisterial Derek Jacobi" introduce the drama. Writing for Time Magazine, Mary Pols has it that Emmerich and Orloff have "embraced a kitchen sink’s worth of 20th-century conspiracy theories about the provenance of Shakespeare’s plays." Though the founder of Oxfordian theory, J. Thomas Looney dismissed the bastard child theoryas, in his own words, "likely to bring the whole cause into ridicule", Emmerich uses it. According to Pols, the Queen is played as a cute ninny worried only about her teeth and watching plays. Rafe Spall's performance is singled out. His buffoonish Shakespeare is a hoot, but despite Ifans's success in selling "this high camp entertainment as well as one could", "Anonymous sticks in the craw." The film is "speculation presented as history for the gullible, a nonsensical fiction that is woefully representative of how little credence contemporary society gives to the possibility that sometimes, people tell the truth." In the same article, Time has it competing with Emmerich's earlier film Patriot for a place among theTop Ten Historically Misleading Films. Reviewing forAssociated Press, Christy Lemire commends Rhys Ifans' performance as "flamboyant, funny, sexy" in an otherwise heavy-handed and clumsy film, whose script "jumps back and forth in time so quickly and without rhyme or reason, it convolutes the narrative." A "flow chart" is perhaps needed to keep track of all of the sons, and sons of sons. The "blubbering" about the brilliance of Shakespeare's works is repetitive, and upstages the initial whiff of scandal, giving the impression that the film is "much ado about nothing.".

Rex Reed regards Anonymous as "one of the most exciting on-screen literary rows since Norman Mailer was beaten with a hammer," and well worth the stamina required to sit out what is an otherwise exhausting film. Not only Shakespeare's identity, but also that of Queen Elizabeth, the 'Virgin Queen' is challenged by Orloff's script, which has her as " a randy piece of work who had many lovers and bore several children." Visually, the film gives us a "dazzling panorama of Tudor history" which will not bore viewers. It boasts a cast of pure gold, and its "recreation of the Old Globe, the fame that brought ruin and dishonor to both Oxford and the money-grubbing Shakespeare, and the sacrifice of Oxford's own property and family fortune to write plays he believed in against a background of danger and violence make for a bloody good yarn, masterfully told, lushly appointed, slavishly researched and brilliantly acted." He adds the caveats that it does play "hopscotch with history", has a bewildering and confusing cast of characters and is jumpy in its timeframes. Bill Weber inSlant Magazine dismisses the film's "deeply dopey plotting", "tedious royal-court backstabbing and bodice-ripping," and, apart from Spall's liberating burlesque on Shakespeare, finds the rest of the cast struggling "through dank street sets and sickly sepia interiors, to bring any semblance of life, or camp, to this literary conspirators' hangover." The conceit that reads Hamlet's Polonius and Richard III as disparaging cyphers for Cecil is "baldly absurd.". Having Queen Bess go down on her son as he recites a song from Twelfth Night illustrates perfectly how "the movie's worst instincts are nearly its only entertaining ones." He concludes that, "Anonymous leaves one bereft of any meaningful knowledge of these personages or the theatrical energy of their age, and earns the obscurity it figures to acquire even if the war between Team Edward and Team William blazes on." For Ed Whitfield it is a remake of Without a Clue without the jokes, featuring a sub-literate plot patterned after Dan Brown, with Ifans playing the same role Ben Kingsley did in the 1988 Thom Eberhardt comedy. It is a form of cultural vandalism, "the defenestration of one of England’s greatest dramatists by one of Germany’s poorest." There is fine acting, but 'it exudes a seriousness out of step with its airport novel premise.' Michael Phillips for the Chicago Tribune writes that the film is ridiculous but not dull. Displaying a "rollicking belief in its own nutty bombast" as "history is sumultaneously being made up and rewritten," its best scenes are those of the candle-lit interiors caught by the Alexa digital camera on a lovely copper-and-honey-toned palette. After a week, what remains in Phillips' memory is not the de Vere/Shakespeare conspiracy theory but "the way Redgrave gazes out a window, her reign near the end, her eyes full of regret but also of fiery defiance of the balderdash lapping at her feet."

Roger Ebert finds Orloff's screenplay "ingenious," Emmerich's direction "precise", and the cast "memorable". Though "profoundly mistaken", Anonymous is "a marvellous historical film," giving viewers "a splendid experience: the dialogue, the acting, the depiction of London, the lust, jealousy and intrigue." That said, he rounds off, he must "tiresomely insist that Edward de Vere did not write Shakespeare's plays." Peter Howell for the Toronto Star writes that it is a Shakespeare whodunit, "completely preposterous", but a fine cast of actors "nimbly tread(s) the rotten boards" of the story. A "blinding series of time shifts . .seek(s) to hammer square pegs into the many round holes of the Oxford argument," and a play like Richard III seems to be knocked off in a mere afternoon. Ifans's Oxford is a deeply-shaded, believable character, and Redgrave's queen a mix of silk and steel. Both must have sussed that "it is better to float atop a swamp than drown in it." Michael Turner at View London commends the high quality of its production values and its CGI scenary is compellingly impressive. Spalls stands out for the humour of his performance. The story line is "utter nonsense", a diffuse clash between camp and straight performances makes for tonal conflict, flashbacks are maladroit, and "dreadful dialogue is often unintentionally hilarious." The film is let down by dodgy performances: Ifans looks panicky, Redgrave exaggerates the doddery queen, and Armesto shouts too much.

For A.O. Scott, writing for the New York Times, Anonymous is "a vulgar prank on the English literary tradition, a travesty of British history and a brutal insult to the human imagination". Yet, a fine cast manages to "burnish even meretricious nonsense with craft and conviction," and one is "tempted to suspend disbelief, even if Mr. Emmerich finally makes it impossible. ." Dana Stevens says the movie needed dumbing down to work. As it is, it plods wearily between two poorly integrated plotlines, political intrigue and backstage chicanery. There are too many characters and multiple timeframes. De Vere is a petulant fop, Shakespeare a mouth-breathing doofus. Hoyt Hilsman in the Huffington Post argues that Emmerich chose the wrong candidate. The Oxfordian thesis is as weak as any other, but of the alternative candidates, Christopher Marlowe's dramatic life offers the best factual basis for fictional Tudor intrigue. a point made by Robert McCrum somewhat earlier. Lou Lumenick, writing for the New York Post, writes that the movie "is a thoroughly entertaining load of eye candy with solid performances, even if John Orloff’s exposition-heavy script practically requires a concordance to follow at times." For the Globe and Mail's Liam Lacey, "the less you know about Shakespeare, the more you’re likely to enjoy Anonymous." Ingenuity is wasted on an "unintelligent enterprise", that of arguing that people of humble origins cannot outwrite blue-bloods. Emmerich's CGI effects are well-done, but it is amazing just to watch an "actor on a bare wooden stage, using nothing but a sequence of words that make your scalp prickle."

Ami Biancolli takes exception to having Jamie Campbell Bower play young Edward like a pouty disco muffin, when he should give a semblance of poetic genius. Really, she asks, Ben Jonson suffered from an inferiority complex? Christopher Marlowe a "bigger jerk" than we realized he was? The cast assembled turns in fine performances, and the "digitally wrought period settings . .simply gorgeous." Emmerich putziggurats in the Pleistocene in his earlier blockbuster, 10,000 B.C, and for Biancolli, the poetic licence used leaves her still believing Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare. Ben Sachs for the Chicago Reader notes the rare technical stunt of using a flashback, within a flashback, within a flashback, rarely tried since John Brahm 's 1946 cult classic The Locket. Emmerich's approach is unlikely to convert anyone to the Oxfordian cause, but 'Anonymous' is "irresistible as self-knowing camp: the players ham it up in high fashion and the script crams at least one lurid revelation into every scene." There are two kinds of Hollywood director, the brilliant (The Coen Brothers, Stanley Kubrick) who work by their own drumbeat, and produce quality films, and the hacks producing "fast food cinema with little or no substance but plenty of flash," Kevin Carr argues, and Emmerich belongs to the latter. Admittedly, one gets a guilty pleasure from their movies nonetheless. In stretching out, and trying to grow without the special effects of destruction, however, Emmerich extends himself into incompetence. Viewers like himself get lost fast, as Emmerich tries to bite off more than he can chew, and a crib sheet is needed to keep up with who's who in the unfolding story. Andrea Chase in Killer Movie Reviews rates Anonymopus as "superb", dwelling on Orloff's rich script, which has "done an excellent job of fitting the known facts to the thesis on offer", on Emmerich's dramatic flair and the wonderful supporting cast. It is somewhat spoiled by Ifans's leaden presence, which betrays nothing of "the ribald temper to be found in the plays." By contrast, Spall's Shakespeare, "preening with the narcissist's elan of a confirmed ham, lights up the screen."

Louise Keller for Urban Cinefile admires the "thought-provoking scenario" of Orloff's "marvellous conspiracy story", though its "twists and turns" are headspinning: "anyone who can follow the first 30 minutes of the plot, must have been polishing the grey matter with advancedSudoku: it's an unholy mess of complicated situations and jumps in time frame." Despite the exemplary cast, exquisite production design and extraordinary look, Emmerich has lost an opportunity to make more of it, "on account of the jumbled, convoluted storyline that had me confused, frustrated and mentally scrambling to keep abreast of every detail," though everything falls together in the final 45 minutes. Smatprt (talk) 21:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * By all means bin it. All of your edit summaries in removing what you dislike are misleading, as you nvent stuff to justify excisions. One example.
 * Tapley who loved the film is paraphrased as noting that the film's complexity is confusing('whose complexity however leaves many confused'.)
 * You eliminate this by pretending it is a quote (which it is not, and there were no quotation marks) with the following edit summary


 * "deleted 'whose complexity however leaves many confused' - totally made up quote by whoever posted it. . Is this what is called 'merely reporting?' Time to go back and read every quote now.)"


 * Tapley commented: (a)The complexities of the narrative (which never slows down to let you catch up with its Earls and Duchesses and various titles and figures of nobility) could leave some confused. Indeed, I’m already hearing this is the case for many,(b)I don’t know if the complexity of the plot (and the length of the film, which admittedly steps too far, even if I was thoroughly enjoying myself) will hold the film back,
 * Since almost all of your edit summaries are unreliable, other editors should note that nothing in the history reflects anything other than, well, subjective exigencies, euphoric driveby targeting, etc.


 * The page had substance, good material, was well organized, but required strong editing down. It got the scissors treatment, reads atrociously, and egregious errors since introduced, while numerous details that might have been retained have disappeared, lie uncorrected. Welcome back to the world of shakey wikiwork before quality controls began to be introduced to guarantee readable pages. Nishidani (talk) 18:27, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

My 2p
I agree with Smatprt that the article contains too many reviews. A summary of each side with some well-chosen quotations and more detailed summaries of reviews by high-profile critics would make for a more readable article. It could also be shortened by rewriting; I couldn't read any further down than about halfway through the plot summary because the style is verbose, repetitious, and grating, and the grammar is wretched. "De Vere must struggle against a taboo that would forbid him to write - against his wife's impatience with his literary work as a dishonour to her family,[7] and against the Queen's counsellors"? I sense some meaning in there but can't quite find it. "... de Vere uses the play Richard III as a thinly veiled attack on Robert Cecil, and to generate an incited mob to march on Cecil to oust him from his position of influence in the Court, and thus weaken Cecil's attempt to promote the Scottish James as Elizabeth's heir"? Wot? I don't even...

It is also too detailed IMO, but I don't write movie articles so I don't know what is customary. The authorship controversy section could be cut down considerably; we don't need to know every proclamation from Emmerich or a full recounting of opinions on the historical accuracy of a movie. Tom Reedy (talk) 00:22, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Nationality of Film
The edit wasn't meant to be controversial. From WP:FILMLEAD: "Ideally, the nationality of the film should be identified in the opening sentence. If the nationality is ambiguous, clarify the circumstances at a later point in the first paragraph." As opposed to a "foreign film", an "American film" generally means coming out of the New York/Hollywood machine. Sony Corporation of America is an American subsidiary of the multinational corporation Sony. Sony Entertainment Inc. is part of the American unit. This helps: http://www.sony.com/SCA/outline/corporation.shtml. I hope that explains it. Smatprt (talk) 16:08, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's no problem for me if it gets reverted. It just struck me as an odder-than-usual incongruity when I read over it this morning. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Why Not Replicate the Approach Taken for an FA Film ?
Question: Is there any reason why we are not simply replicating the approach taken for a WP:FA film such as The Lord of the Rings (1978 film) ? By this I mean, a) using the same type of sections b) editing those sections to achieve a very similar limited scope/length and c) avoiding the EXTREME verbosity of the current article.

The sections/contents after the Lede might be something like:
 * 1) Plot,
 * 2) Cast,
 * 3) Production (sub-sections = Directing, Screenwriting and Development, Special Effects, Music)
 * 4) Reception (sub-sections = Box Office, Awards and Nominations, Critical Response, Recognition, Legacy),
 * 5) See Also,
 * 6) Endnotes,
 * 7) References and
 * 8) External Links.

Notes: The Word Count for the "Critical Response" section of The Lord of the Rings (1978 film) = a whopping 214 words...seemed about right to those who approved the WP:FA status. Also, certain sub-sections such as "Awards and Nominations" and "Legacy" would be blank for now and filled in or deleted over time as needed.--Rogala (talk) 21:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "The Word Count for the "Critical Response" section of The Lord of the Rings (1978 film) = a whopping 214 words...seemed about right to those who approved the WP:FA status."
 * Ha! That is the best point I believe you have ever made. The sheer weight of the reviews indicates the article is a proxy battleground for POV wars, and proves the poisonous atmosphere that permeates the entire topic as far as neutrality. Each side of the reviews should be summarized with a few select quotations, as I suggested above. If I had any interest in this page I'd try it myself, but I don't feel like jumping back into the tempest.
 * Only when we resign from being "Oxfordians" and "Stratfordians" when editing these pages and become Wikipedians will these contentions cease. In other words, never, from my experience. Tom Reedy (talk) 01:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, although I would say this is merely a simplistic point and one not requiring much logical thought (but glad you approve of it just the same). So how do we ALL go about working together to scrap the current page in favor of something patterned after an WP:FA article in size and scope ?  I am open to your suggestions.--Rogala (talk) 06:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There may be tactical value in challenging the page by saying it falls short of a FA Film ideal. But I see no interest in making the page even legible, so I fail to understand why the FA fuss. I noted a baker's dozen of vcery simple grammatical or idiomatic errors for the Oxfordians' attention. No response, just more poking at the lack of FA model standards! There is no intrinsic reason why the example of JFK (film) doesn't apply with equal force. Like Tom, I'm rather indifferent to the page. I built it out as reviews emerged, without censoring anything, and simply added anything new I read as it came to my attention from Rotten Tomatoes by the hour. That people want to axe, hatchet, bury it, and write a prettypiece for Mr Emmerich and Mr Orloff's delectation leaves me yawning. Go ahead by all means, show us what you guys can do, on your own.Nishidani (talk) 09:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I may (or may not) attempt to improve it this week as time permits.--Rogala (talk) 10:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, here's the link to Orloff's "stunningly accurate" interview in case anybody wants to include it instead of usinf the Shapiro quote: http://collider.com/anonymous-interview-john-orloff-screenwriter/50334/ Tom Reedy (talk) 01:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Section "Fictional drama"
To those who are knowers of current academic theory on Shakespeare authorship: Please show "a scrap of documentary evidence that Will Shakespeare of Stratford was the author of the WS canon". I do something here which is probably not expected - I reverse the argument of Prof. Shapiro. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 15:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Gosh! I never expected that! Your argument is so original: like your sentence construction. Paul B (talk) 15:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Please read the second point here. Take it somewhere else, not on Wikipedia. I'm sick to death of wasting time on this kind of talk page abuse from the same advocates, and I intend to start holding editors to the WP:Talk page guidelines. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for improving my English, Paul B. And thanks to you, Tom Reedy, for your impatience. Do you think that only native speakers of English are allowed do take part in this discussion? Or that only followers of the Stratfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship are allowed to do so? However, neither of you have in fact answered my question. Still, after I have written these lines but only for a certain time and only for my person, I will stop arguing about the above topic. Maybe there are other people who would like to ask the same question as I did or similar questions. I think a free discussion would be very good for the present article. You will certainly agree that a talk (a discussion) normally should be a stage for all possible opinions, in this case opinions expressed in connection with this article on the film "Anonymous". There is no doubt that this film is principally advocating the Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship, and it has already reached and will further reach masses of people around the world who up to now did not know anything about this theory. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 10:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Boxoffice gross and budget
Here's a link that gives the domestic and total world gross, as well as the total budget (I'm assuming that includes marketing): http://www.boxoffice.com/statistics/movies/anonymous-2011 Tom Reedy (talk) 20:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Section "Reception"
Can anyone explain what the word "Anonymopus" in this section of the article (with Andrea Chase´s comments) means? There is no explanation there, and so the readers can be uncertain if it is a misspelling or not. I changed it to "Anonymous", and it was changed back. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 09:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Just a typo. It was changed by an editor trying to revert to an earlier version for other reasons. Paul B (talk) 11:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

sentences that make you choke
I nominate: "utilizes emerging VFX CG technology" -- what is this, an advertorial? Some copyedit love would be nice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.86.176.163 (talk) 10:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Error in the plot's description
In order to save his son from being beheaded, de Vere writes Venus and Adonis to remind the Queen of their love. de Vere publishes the book before the arrest of his son to talk to the Queen about Essex. --Irrdc (talk) 10:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Well I can't recall the exact details, but a DVD should be winging its way to me soon. I will check then. If you are sure of the details, you can make appropriate corrections yourself. Paul B (talk) 12:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, waddya know, it's just popped througfh the letterbox. I'll look at it tonight. Paul B (talk) 14:55, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Marlowe and "misquoting" Symes
Currently we have the following line:
 * Christopher Marlowe appears as a significant character, playing a part in the plot during 1598. In fact he died in 1593.[80] The slashing of Marlowe's throat occurs in Southwark, whereas Marlowe was killed by Ingram Frizer with a knife stab above the left eye, in Deptford....

This line is imho highly problematic due to the ambiguous meaning of "significant" and "plot" in this context. While with the right interpretation of the two words this line is perfectly fine, the right interpretation is by no means obvious to somebody not knowing the movie already. Marlowe is a significant figure in literature and history, however he is not a significant character in the movie bur rather a minor supporting role (historical garnishment with no importance the story at all). While it is true that he plays in the part in the plot (as in story/content) in 1598, it is not true that plays a part in the plot(ting) (as in plot against/conspiracy) against the queen or the Cecils. So to sum this up, while the line is strictly speaking not false it nevertheless might be highly misleading to many readers, hence it should be rewritten to remove the ambiguity.--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you want to make a big deal about something so unimportant. Marlowe is a significant character, but not a major character. It possible to be significant and also minor. Change it to "minor but significant" if you like. He is significant in part because many viewers will recognize that he is a famous person in the "traditional" view of the life of WS (even if that's only because they've seen Shakespeare in Love), and in part because of the role he plays in the narrative, resulting in his death. The Death of Marlowe Moment is an established narrative point (for want of a better phrase) in almost every dramatisation of the life of Shakespeare. The twist on it in this film is therefore worth noting. Paul B (talk) 10:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There is neither something wrong with mentioning Marlowe nor did I suggest that and I'm not disputing anything you say here about Marlowe either. In fact I didn't even suggest to modify the actual content. What I'm suggesting is to remove the (unfortunate) ambiguity of the first sentence (explained above) in that paragraph by simply rewriting it, so that readers cannot be misled.
 * It is not a big thing, but a small useful correction avoiding misunderstandings, so I'm not sure what your issue with that is. The easiest way to rewrite the sentence and avoid the ambiguity is simply to drop the two words "significant" and "plot", which are causing it. But if for some reason you want to keep them, just rewrite the sentence is an different way to remove the ambiguity. For instance something like: "The plot shows Marlowe, a significant (or famous/important) literature figure from the Elizabethian age, appearing in 1598 .....". The whole point is simply to avoid a (false) reading of the sentence as "Marlove playing a significant role in the plot against the queen". That's all.--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * His character, although minor, is indeed significant to the movie's plot, as Paul pointed out. I agree that the sentence is problematic, but mainly because of its awkward construction; the sing-song alliteration of "playing a part in the plot during 1598" sounds as if it were actually written by Oxford. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I just fail to see any of the "ambiguity" you suggest. The word "plot" obviously refers to the movie's plot, not to the conspiracy portrayed in it. I already made a suggestion regarding "significant", but really, if you think "...Marlowe, a significant (or famous/important) literature figure from the Elizabethian age..." is an improvement I despair. Paul B (talk) 18:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * My issue was the ambiguity of the original line and by no means I've suggested that example above is the best stylistic option to address the ambiguity. There are plenty of ways of ways to do that and as far as I'm concerned I don't really care which one is used as long as the ambiguity gets removed, which was my only agenda from the beginning. The current modification serves that purpose just fine, hence the problem is fixed now.--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

No 'box office' section?
This is a lengthy article, but it's still missing something most other Wikipedia articles on films have: a section noting how well the film did at the box office. Given that it already contains considerable information about the film's reception, associated controversy and historical accuracy, surely some space could be found to note how many people actually went to see it? (Box office figures are quoted in the infobox, but appear nowhere in the text of the article.) Robofish (talk) 17:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Two children?
I wasn't sure where to put this, so I'm sorry, but unless I'm mistaken (which I may be), the synopsis in this article makes an error in parentage. De Vere fathers two sons in the film - one with Elizabeth, and the other with a lady-in-waiting. BOTH are given up to adoptive parents secretly; I was under the impression that the son borne by Elizabeth was Lord Essex (hence his legitimate claim to the throne), and the son borne by the lady-in-waiting was Southampton, who was assigned as Essex's captain. The article seems to only ascribe Southampton's parentage to De Vere, but Essex's to "another lover." Any way to fix this, provided it needs fixing? END ADDITION — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.90.181.25 (talk) 06:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I've moved your comment to the bottom and created a new section for it. I've seen the film several times. There's no doubt that Southampton is de Vere's son. Essex is supposed to be her oldest son - by another father who is never identified in the film. The lady-in-waiting, a fictionalised version of Anne Vavasour, does also have a child, as the real Anne did. I don't think it's clearly very clearly laid out in the film what is supposed to have happened to that child (the historical child was brought up by Anne). Paul B (talk) 12:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Anonymous (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6RAlipPwk?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.shakespeare-online.com%2Fkeydates%2Fplaychron.html to http://www.shakespeare-online.com/keydates/playchron.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:13, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Anonymous (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.shakespeare-online.com/keydates/playchron.html
 * Added tag to http://events.29-95.com/reviews/show/14080424-review-anonymous
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111122213101/http://m.ibtimes.com/anonymous-movie-shakespeare-fraud-review-emmerich-vere-239168.html to http://m.ibtimes.com/anonymous-movie-shakespeare-fraud-review-emmerich-vere-239168.html
 * Added tag to http://www.indiewire.com/article/2011/10/25/review_in_anonymous_roland_emmerich_revises_shakespeare_but_joss_whedon_sta
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111025092418/http://www.themichigantimes.com/index.php/article/2011/10/emmerich_film_sparks_debate to http://www.themichigantimes.com/index.php/article/2011/10/emmerich_film_sparks_debate
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120805202118/http://www.mb.com.ph/articles/257600/love-notes-verona to http://www.mb.com.ph/articles/257600/love-notes-verona
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111024010032/http://www.boxofficemagazine.com/reviews/2011-09-anonymous to http://www.boxofficemagazine.com/reviews/2011-09-anonymous

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:19, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Plot Size Situation
If people did not treat this plot as if it were a history book with every detail and explanation that they know about the time period included then it would in all likelihood be substantially reduced to appropriate size. But people seem compelled to have everyone know what they know about the time period instead of sweeping statements that summarize the film. It is fiction about a non-fiction time period that can and cannot follow real life events and consequences. The article(s) on those that are linked in the plot should act as an extension of the plot instead of bringing what is said in all the other articles into this plot, especially if the work is fiction.2605:E000:9152:8F00:B88F:9EB2:B49D:91E5 (talk) 05:14, 30 July 2017 (UTC)


 * In a work of fiction that is based on non-fiction does not give us the right to interject what we know outside that work. We cannot give age/time frame to parts of a plot if that age is not in the film. If the film does not say it happened at a particular date then we cannot impose that on the plot even though in real life that is what happened. We cannot impose an age on someone unless it is stated so as playing Puck, we know when the "real" work was created but we cannot translate that into de Vere's age at the time because it is never given in the film. The same for when he is older and attends the theater. All we know is that he is older. It seems perfectly suitable to provide links to episodes in a plot because episodes are themes not necessarily particular time frames but you cannot provide a link and then impose on the plot a date if that date was not included in the film. Also, such as the potential reasoning why one candidate over another might occur for succession, yes we know that "X" person is the child of "so-and-so" and that they would be of a closer relationship than another person but we cannot speculate that this closeness is what compels the action of the characters unless it is said in the film.2605:E000:9152:8F00:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 21:28, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Plot Content
I hope that the transitions in the play are fully evident with the new plot. It is understandable why they are easily confused. This is not a history lesson, so much of that has been removed because we have to approach it as it is--a fictional account of the origin of William Shakespeare's "writings" portrayed much by the life of de Vere in a faux biography. I know some will say that there is not enough about the movie in the plot but then a story line is not the function of the WP plot. And, again, this fictional account is not a history lesson. Explaining the subplots is not necessarily the responsibility of the plot and if done changes the fictional account to a history/biography which it is not. What happened in real life is not always how things happen in a fictional account. Also, to use real events to date what has happened in the fictional account, again, makes it a history or biography instead of a fictional account. It is easily understood how that can happen because it is a well known period in English history and people can be very vigilant about transferring what it is that they know to the plot but the plot of a work of fiction concerns the work and not the real time events. It is the same when it comes to a work that has been published in book form before being made into a movie. Some people start to interject one into the other when they should be handled separately. Maybe, there might be some sort of advisory in the guidelines that particularly when a book of fiction is made into a movie, or a non-fiction book is made into a fictional account in a movie, that the two even if originally combined in one article are distinct in their arrangement so that when the content grows to an appropriate size the two can be separated.2605:E000:9152:8F00:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 19:47, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Ebert's weird statement
"However, Emmerich must 'tiresomely insist that Edward de Vere did not write Shakespeare's plays.'" I can't imagine why Ebert would say this, that Emmerich would "insist that Edward de Vere did not write Shakespeare's plays." Emmerich thinks De Vere did write Shakespeare's plays.

Sentence fragment?

 * Sony distribution president Rory Bruer said, "We love the picture and think it's going to get great word of mouth. We're committed to expanding it until it plays wide." In the event the film was a "box office disaster".

I haven't presumed to change that last bit, as I'm not clear on the writer's meaning—but perhaps "In the event" should be "However,"? I imagine the quotes around "box office disaster" should be removed too. – AndyFielding (talk) 12:39, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * From a quick look I'd say "in the event" is an error. Maybe the sentence should read something like "As it turns out, the film did not do well at the box office". "Box office disaster" is overused and hyperbolic. IMdb shows the movie having taken in only half what it cost to make it. Eric talk 13:13, 11 February 2022 (UTC)