Talk:Hamlet (1996 film)

message: Corrected 65mm to 70mm ,  Also changed "as of winter 2006" to "as of winter 2005" since as of this writing, that time
has not occured yet. -—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Towzzer (talk • contribs).
:Winter is the months of Jan, Feb and first 20 days of March (or so).  There are only 10 days of Winter that carry into the new year.  So, up here north of the equator...Winter 2006 has come, and well almost gone. -Thebdj 05:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I was wondering if someone coiuld make the search phrase "Hamlet (Kenneth Branagh)" redirect to this article. Currently, this search phrase brings up a list of articles and only the fifth on the list is the film. This search phrase can be used at other websites while searching for the film (Amazon.com for example, and IMDb as well,) and I'm sure many pepople performing a casual search and don't know the exact date the film was made would use these, or similar, key words. Thank you.
P.S. I would do it myself, but I'm clueless in that respect.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.77.93.109 (talk • contribs).
:I see that this hasn't been done, and I do think it would be a good thing to do.  I had to go through several Shakespere pages to find this page, all because I did not know the year it was released.  I also do not know how to add a re-direct, so I renew this request for someone to do this.Aufs klo 03:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. It's actually quite easy. :-)--Oneiros 20:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you! --The 70.77.93.109 guy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.77.23.254 (talk) 07:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect 

message: :Image:Hamlet 1996 poster.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 Wikipedia: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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Hamlet 1996 poster.jpg

message: There seems to be conflicting info on the net about the run time for this film. It was easy enough to check what the actual run time was by pulling the DVD off my shelf and popping it in the player. First off the info on the DVD cover states a run time of 242 minutes. It is a two disc set so here are the run times for each disc. Disc ones run time is 2 hours 37 minutes and 45 seconds. Disc two is 1h 24m 7s. Add these together and you get 4h 1m 52s or just eight seconds short of 242 minutes. Amazingly IMDb has it right this time. I am not sure what other sources are giving the 232 run time but the accuracy of the time counters on DVD players makes it easy to check these things out. MarnetteD | Talk 06:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The video says 232 mins. I have just fast-forwarded it through the machine, and it ended at 3hrs 52 mins according to the video timer. I excluded the short time taken up with the copyright warning at the beginning. Perhaps the DVD includes some extra material or perhaps some content is present on both DVDs (credits?). Paul B 09:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Paul Barlow. I watched the DVD when it was released a month or so ago. It is presented as the film was in the theatre. It does not double up the credits nor does it add any extraneous material. I dug through some boxes and found my VHS of the film. It is a two tape set. On the lower right corner of the back of the box it states that the film is 242 minutes long. Skipping the opening ad for another film and the copyright warning tape one is 2h 38m 19s and tape two is 1h 24m 5s adding up to 4h 2m 24s. Tape and disc one end with the intermission logo and tape and disc two begins with a 50sec recap of the action in part one (which was shown in the theatre when I saw it) and then picks up the action with a scene of Ophelia in a straight jacket throughing herself against the walls of her cell. A check of the film reviews at Rotten Tomatoes (who list it at an absurd 4h 26m) that were written in '96 shows most of them listing it at 236 to 240 minutes. This is within the variables of camera run speeds at the time. None of the documentaries or the commentary on the DVD mention any scenes being added in that weren't part of the films release. All of my info comes from US releases of the film. When I saw it at the theatre back in '96 I was in the theatre for roughly 4 hrs and 20 mins which included the intermission break. I am not sure what country you are writing from but it is possible that there have been some scenes editied out for releases other than the US one. If your VHS is all on one tape does it play at SLP? I know that this wouldn't affect the run time but scenes might have been cut to allow for getting the whole film on one tape. There is also the variation of run speeds for VHS between the UK PAL format and the US one (whose abbreviation escapes me at the moment but I think that it starts with an N.) I know that we are both trying to get this correct so I look forward to anyting that you might find out. If anything has been editied or if it is a format thing that might be worth mentioning in the article. MarnetteD | Talk 15:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am writing from the UK. I think it is unlikely that any scenes have been "edited out" as such since the whole point of the film is that it includes the whole play, including the scenes that only exist in either the folio and the second quarto scenes. Maybe the editing is "tighter" in the UK version for some reason (fewer establishing shots or other purely visual material?). However it is clearly 132 minutes. There are also availible sources that state that it is under 4 hours, including the one we use in the main Hamlet article, which is what led to my coming here. I see that it's advertised on Amazon UK at 232 mins  and at US Amazon at 242 mins , so for whatever reason there is clearly a difference. Not having seen the US version I can't say whether the difference is in the editing of the film, longer credits or some format factor (though format should surely not affect the DVD speed). I suppose both run-times should be given, though I realise that's a bit clumsy. Paul B 21:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I've just had a chance to read your edit a little closer and here are a few things to be aware of. All of this discussion and all of the sources that we are using are about the VHS and DVD releases. The films runtime in the cinema seems to have been closer to the 242 minutes so I would suggest leaving this number in the infobox. The source used in the main article only gives the name for the book that was used but we can't check what was said in the section of that book that refers to this film. Do you have it and can you check what it says? If a region 2 DVD ever does come out I would think that it would settle things so I will keep my fingers crossed that you get to view it in this format soon. Thanks for the reply and cheers :-) MarnetteD | Talk 22:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The film's run time

message: I want to make 2 comments regarding 70mm.  First, although release prints are 70mm wide, the camera negative is only 65mm wide.  Only the Soviet Union, back in the 1960s, used 70mm camera negative (I don't know why or what film lab was involved).  The print is wider to accommodate the magnetic stripes for 6-track sound.  Second, this is not the last 70mm film:  "Samsara," a follow-up (not really a sequel) to "Baraka (1992)" is currently in production in Panavision Super 70.  Described by the filmmakers as a non-traditional documentary, it will likely get a limited theatrical release before going to DVD and Blu-Ray.  See www.in70mm.com for more info.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.199.98 (talk) 17:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  70mm 

message: One of the problems the audience I saw this with the film is the overuse of 'star actors'. Gérard Depardieu is the example I remember most: he's a spear carrier and the audience groaned when they saw him, because it's jarring. So he's certainly in it, but in no sense does it 'star' him. Can someone who's seen it more recently than I have prune the 'starring' list as necessary? Lovingboth (talk) 10:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Starring' 

message: I've added a paragraph on the text used.  Given that the "full-text" nature of the film is one of its distinguishing features, and the doubts over what "full-text" might actually mean, I've quoted in full the note on the text appended to the screenplay.  I've removed the words "Although the dialogue is unchanged in the 1996 Hamlet" from the opening sentence of the third paragraph of the lede, as the screenplay note makes clear that in fact some of the dialogue is changed (following modern editors).  In addition, Peter Holland points out that the film introduces an extra "My Lord" for Ophelia that does not appear in any of the Shakespearean sources (Peter Holland, "Film Editing" in Shakespeare Performed: Essays in Honor of R. A. Foakes, ed. Grace Ioppolo (Cranbury, NJ: Associated University Presses, 2000), pp.273-298. Mohntorte (talk) 05:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text 

message: Looks like someone has messed up the Plot and Roles sections.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.122.180 (talk) 04:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  hacked? 

message: I understand your reasoning in this revert: because the article is about Branagh's Hamlet you think it's not necessary to say "Branagh's Hamlet". But the sentence as it stands sounds really strange: "Hamlet has been regarded as one of the best Shakespeare film adaptations ever made." There have been at least 17 films named Hamlet. Only one of them (this one) is regarded as one of the best Shakespeare film adaptations ever made. The sentence clearly means to say "this remake of Hamlet has been regarded as one of the best Shakespeare film adaptations ever made." For readability, that is better expressed as "Branagh's Hamlet". 2001:BB6:47ED:FA58:FD4D:922A:E501:F0C5 (talk) 16:19, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarded as one of the best Shakespeare film adaptations ever made