Talk:Henry V (1989 film)

Fair use rationale for Image:Henry v.jpg
Image:Henry v.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Length
This article's plot summary is absurdly long, more than 1,900 words, far in excess of the 400-700 word length dictated by WP:MOSFILM. The summary needs to be completely rewritten. --- The Old Jacobite The '45  14:32, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * As I said at WT:FILM, it's been a while since I saw the film, but I've taken a quick pass at condensing the plot summary. It's still long, but it's a start. Cliff Smith 18:29, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I suggest a dialectic approach. The author provided a lot of very interesting information. I plead to keep all the content but I also agree that the section "Plot" is truly too long. There are certain elements of this "Plot" I like a lot and, as a matter of fact, exactly those elements should have their own section(s) such as "Background" or "Quotes". NordhornerII_The man from Nordhorn 19:31, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think that developing a section about the cinematic technique of the film would be a bad idea, so long as it is properly sourced, of course. There's already a "Style" subsection of "Production", so I'd say that's a start.  I've prepared a second pass at condensing the plot summary, which I've posted here.  Feel free to work with it.


 * Since nobody else did it, I separated some information from the plot description and put it into additional sections. Feel free to re-arrange everything as you see fit. NordhornerII _The man from Nordhorn 09:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Cliff Smith 19:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Cliff Smith 19:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I read more than once about writers who left the Wikipedia because they felt they were treated unfriendly. Due to that I consider it a good idea to always keep in mind that many authors are really sensitive about having their texts amended. That was just the general idea when I suggested to re-arrange the article instead of simply dismissing parts of it as redundant. Now I am checking this article more in-depth and I also compare it to the article on the actual play. There it is pointed out how much a theatre struggles to put a battle on stage... I believe it could be considered to create a section dedicated to the differences between Shakespeare's play and its adaptation. It is widely believed that there was no reason to put a play onto the screen unless this could add something to it. In this case it is especially interesting to say something about to what degree the means of filmmaking were used to enhance the audience's experience. Here we could also mention parts of the action which we've deleted from the plot section. Yet you mustn't expect me to do that because I am specialised in French films and this film is anything but French, if you know what I mean. NordhornerII_The man from Nordhorn 22:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Just to be clear, I was not trying to dismiss parts of the article as redundant. That aside, I'm honestly not really personally interested in developing this article at the moment.  I just took a couple passes at condensing the plot summary because it needed condensing, and it could still stand to be condensed further.  At any rate, I don't disagree that there are some things which have been removed from the plot summary that might be worthy of inclusion in a further developed "Style" subsection, or perhaps "Adaptation from source material".  The latter seems to be what you're suggesting; however, such a section should not be just a listing of the differences between the play and the film. Cliff Smith 20:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect link
The link for 'Richard Clifford' is wrong; it links to a historic Richard Clifford. I don't know how to remove a link...

Dperry4930 (talk) 17:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Removed the link. Dperry4930 (talk) 22:06, 7 February 2015 (UTC)