Warwick the Kingmaker

Can anyone recommend a good non-fiction book on Warwick|?

How about Warwick the Kingmaker
<http://www.amazon.com/Warwick-Kingmaker-Paul-Murray-Kendall/dp/18421257\
53/> by Paul Murray Kendall?

Joan
---
author of This Time and Loyalty Binds Me, novels about Richard III in
the 21st-century
This Time was General Fiction Finalist of 2010 Next Generation Indie
Book Awards
website <http://www.joanszechtman.com/> -- blog
<http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/>
ebooks at Smashwords
<http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>

--- In , "anneandalfie"
<wobblydog1@...> wrote:
>
> Can anyone recommend a good non-fiction book on Warwick|?
>

A bit cheaper this side of the Atlantic -

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Warwick-Kingmaker-Paul-Murray-Kendall/dp/0351170960/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1315222395&sr=8-2

Richard G

--- In , "joanszechtman" <u2nohoo@...> wrote:
>
> How about Warwick the Kingmaker
> <http://www.amazon.com/Warwick-Kingmaker-Paul-Murray-Kendall/dp/18421257\
> 53/> by Paul Murray Kendall?
>
> Joan
> ---
> author of This Time and Loyalty Binds Me, novels about Richard III in
> the 21st-century
> This Time was General Fiction Finalist of 2010 Next Generation Indie
> Book Awards
> website <http://www.joanszechtman.com/> -- blog
> <http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/>
> ebooks at Smashwords
> <http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>
>
> --- In , "anneandalfie"
> <wobblydog1@> wrote:
> >
> > Can anyone recommend a good non-fiction book on Warwick|?
> >
>
>
>
>
>

Kendall's book is very outdated. The biographies by Pollard and Hicks are far more scholarly and informative.


http://www.amazon.co.uk/Warwick-Kingmaker-Michael-Hicks/dp/0631235930/ref=sr_1_1?s=dvd&ie=UTF8&qid=1315235477&sr=1-1


http://www.amazon.co.uk/Warwick-Kingmaker-Politics-Hambledon-Continuum/dp/184725182X/ref=sr_1_3?s=dvd&ie=UTF8&qid=1315235907&sr=1-3

But not a good to read!
Paul

On 5 Sep 2011, at 16:19, theblackprussian wrote:

> Kendall's book is very outdated. The biographies by Pollard and Hicks are far more scholarly and informative.
>
>
> http://www.amazon.co.uk/Warwick-Kingmaker-Michael-Hicks/dp/0631235930/ref=sr_1_1?s=dvd&ie=UTF8&qid=1315235477&sr=1-1
>
>
> http://www.amazon.co.uk/Warwick-Kingmaker-Politics-Hambledon-Continuum/dp/184725182X/ref=sr_1_3?s=dvd&ie=UTF8&qid=1315235907&sr=1-3
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Thanks, folks. Really helpful.


--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> But not a good to read!
> Paul
>
> On 5 Sep 2011, at 16:19, theblackprussian wrote:
>
> > Kendall's book is very outdated. The biographies by Pollard and Hicks are far more scholarly and informative.
> >
> >
> > http://www.amazon.co.uk/Warwick-Kingmaker-Michael-Hicks/dp/0631235930/ref=sr_1_1?s=dvd&ie=UTF8&qid=1315235477&sr=1-1
> >
> >
> > http://www.amazon.co.uk/Warwick-Kingmaker-Politics-Hambledon-Continuum/dp/184725182X/ref=sr_1_3?s=dvd&ie=UTF8&qid=1315235907&sr=1-3
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>

Agree, Paul! 

Judy


________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, September 5, 2011 11:57 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Warwick the Kingmaker


 
But not a good to read!
Paul

On 5 Sep 2011, at 16:19, theblackprussian wrote:

> Kendall's book is very outdated. The biographies by Pollard and Hicks are far more scholarly and informative.
>
>
> http://www.amazon.co.uk/Warwick-Kingmaker-Michael-Hicks/dp/0631235930/ref=sr_1_1?s=dvd&ie=UTF8&qid=1315235477&sr=1-1
>
>
> http://www.amazon.co.uk/Warwick-Kingmaker-Politics-Hambledon-Continuum/dp/184725182X/ref=sr_1_3?s=dvd&ie=UTF8&qid=1315235907&sr=1-3
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

If that's your view you're probably better off reading historical fiction.  Or watching the Too-Durrs...
 

--- On Mon, 5/9/11, Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:


From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
Subject: Re: Re: Warwick the Kingmaker
To: "" <>
Date: Monday, 5 September, 2011, 21:42


 



Agree, Paul! 

Judy

________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, September 5, 2011 11:57 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Warwick the Kingmaker

 
But not a good to read!
Paul

On 5 Sep 2011, at 16:19, theblackprussian wrote:

> Kendall's book is very outdated. The biographies by Pollard and Hicks are far more scholarly and informative.
>
>
> http://www.amazon.co.uk/Warwick-Kingmaker-Michael-Hicks/dp/0631235930/ref=sr_1_1?s=dvd&ie=UTF8&qid=1315235477&sr=1-1
>
>
> http://www.amazon.co.uk/Warwick-Kingmaker-Politics-Hambledon-Continuum/dp/184725182X/ref=sr_1_3?s=dvd&ie=UTF8&qid=1315235907&sr=1-3
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

David, I prefer my bodice-rippers with titles like BL Harleian 433... Cotton Julius E ... the Household Accounts of John Howard... the Paston Letters... etcetera. 

Also prefer Gentleman to precede Scholar. 

  Judy 

(that recipe in H 433 for the stone may help you; oh, and consult Le Mesnagier de Paris for sending the flowers - any colour of rose will do; it's the thought that counts)


________________________________
From: david rayner <theblackprussian@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, September 5, 2011 4:43 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Warwick the Kingmaker


 
If that's your view you're probably better off reading historical fiction.  Or watching the Too-Durrs...
 

--- On Mon, 5/9/11, Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:

From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
Subject: Re: Re: Warwick the Kingmaker
To: "" <>
Date: Monday, 5 September, 2011, 21:42

 

Agree, Paul! 

Judy

________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, September 5, 2011 11:57 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Warwick the Kingmaker

 
But not a good to read!
Paul

On 5 Sep 2011, at 16:19, theblackprussian wrote:

> Kendall's book is very outdated. The biographies by Pollard and Hicks are far more scholarly and informative.
>
>
> http://www.amazon.co.uk/Warwick-Kingmaker-Michael-Hicks/dp/0631235930/ref=sr_1_1?s=dvd&ie=UTF8&qid=1315235477&sr=1-1
>
>
> http://www.amazon.co.uk/Warwick-Kingmaker-Politics-Hambledon-Continuum/dp/184725182X/ref=sr_1_3?s=dvd&ie=UTF8&qid=1315235907&sr=1-3
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

The Tudors was the soft porn version of that time. In order to get more viewers, I wonder if they will produce a hardcore version?

--- In , david rayner <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>
> If that's your view you're probably better off reading historical fiction.  Or watching the Too-Durrs...
>  
>
> --- On Mon, 5/9/11, Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
> Subject: Re: Re: Warwick the Kingmaker
> To: "" <>
> Date: Monday, 5 September, 2011, 21:42
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> Agree, Paul! 
>
> Judy
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, September 5, 2011 11:57 AM
> Subject: Re: Re: Warwick the Kingmaker
>
>  
> But not a good to read!
> Paul
>
> On 5 Sep 2011, at 16:19, theblackprussian wrote:
>
> > Kendall's book is very outdated. The biographies by Pollard and Hicks are far more scholarly and informative.
> >
> >
> > http://www.amazon.co.uk/Warwick-Kingmaker-Michael-Hicks/dp/0631235930/ref=sr_1_1?s=dvd&ie=UTF8&qid=1315235477&sr=1-1
> >
> >
> > http://www.amazon.co.uk/Warwick-Kingmaker-Politics-Hambledon-Continuum/dp/184725182X/ref=sr_1_3?s=dvd&ie=UTF8&qid=1315235907&sr=1-3
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Poor David - cannot recognise good writing from biased.
Paul

On 5 Sep 2011, at 22:43, david rayner wrote:

> If that's your view you're probably better off reading historical fiction. Or watching the Too-Durrs...
>
>
> --- On Mon, 5/9/11, Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
> Subject: Re: Re: Warwick the Kingmaker
> To: "" <>
> Date: Monday, 5 September, 2011, 21:42
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Agree, Paul!
>
> Judy
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, September 5, 2011 11:57 AM
> Subject: Re: Re: Warwick the Kingmaker
>
>
> But not a good to read!
> Paul
>
> On 5 Sep 2011, at 16:19, theblackprussian wrote:
>
>> Kendall's book is very outdated. The biographies by Pollard and Hicks are far more scholarly and informative.
>>
>>
>> http://www.amazon.co.uk/Warwick-Kingmaker-Michael-Hicks/dp/0631235930/ref=sr_1_1?s=dvd&ie=UTF8&qid=1315235477&sr=1-1
>>
>>
>> http://www.amazon.co.uk/Warwick-Kingmaker-Politics-Hambledon-Continuum/dp/184725182X/ref=sr_1_3?s=dvd&ie=UTF8&qid=1315235907&sr=1-3
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Despite my reservations about the Chewdoors, I do hope they do prequal "The Plantagenets".

This could be done in "blocks" going backwards, i.e. the first would run c1450-1499, the next would feature Richard II, the peasant's revolt, the Lancastrian usurpation, and lead up to the Azincourt and finish with the death of Henry V (the long minority of Henry VI provides a convenient hiatus between the two blocks) and so on going back as far as you can go.

--- In , "HI" <hi.dung@...> wrote:
>
> The Tudors was the soft porn version of that time. In order to get more viewers, I wonder if they will produce a hardcore version?
>
> --- In , david rayner <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> >
> > If that's your view you're probably better off reading historical fiction.  Or watching the Too-Durrs...
> >  
> >
> > --- On Mon, 5/9/11, Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@>
> > Subject: Re: Re: Warwick the Kingmaker
> > To: "" <>
> > Date: Monday, 5 September, 2011, 21:42
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> >
> >
> > Agree, Paul! 
> >
> > Judy
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, September 5, 2011 11:57 AM
> > Subject: Re: Re: Warwick the Kingmaker
> >
> >  
> > But not a good to read!
> > Paul
> >
> > On 5 Sep 2011, at 16:19, theblackprussian wrote:
> >
> > > Kendall's book is very outdated. The biographies by Pollard and Hicks are far more scholarly and informative.
> > >
> > >
> > > http://www.amazon.co.uk/Warwick-Kingmaker-Michael-Hicks/dp/0631235930/ref=sr_1_1?s=dvd&ie=UTF8&qid=1315235477&sr=1-1
> > >
> > >
> > > http://www.amazon.co.uk/Warwick-Kingmaker-Politics-Hambledon-Continuum/dp/184725182X/ref=sr_1_3?s=dvd&ie=UTF8&qid=1315235907&sr=1-3
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

As Henry is now in rehab, poor man, the actor that is, who was wildly miscast in the first place, they won't be able to do any "inserts" unless they use body doubles. Knowing the business I wouldn't put it past them, once the suggestion has been aired!
They did that with the infamous Caligula movie back in the 70s, making it look as if Malcolm McDowell and Helen Mirren and a few other respectable actors were having real sex on camera, which they weren't.
My Richard script has been criticised for not including nudity and sex, and I am bu**ered if I am going to put it in just for the sake of it!
Paul


On 6 Sep 2011, at 15:43, HI wrote:

> The Tudors was the soft porn version of that time. In order to get more viewers, I wonder if they will produce a hardcore version?
>
> --- In , david rayner <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>>
>> If that's your view you're probably better off reading historical fiction. Or watching the Too-Durrs...
>> Â
>>
>> --- On Mon, 5/9/11, Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>> From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
>> Subject: Re: Re: Warwick the Kingmaker
>> To: "" <>
>> Date: Monday, 5 September, 2011, 21:42
>>
>>
>> Â
>>
>>
>>
>> Agree, Paul!Â
>>
>> Judy
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
>> To:
>> Sent: Monday, September 5, 2011 11:57 AM
>> Subject: Re: Re: Warwick the Kingmaker
>>
>> Â
>> But not a good to read!
>> Paul
>>
>> On 5 Sep 2011, at 16:19, theblackprussian wrote:
>>
>>> Kendall's book is very outdated. The biographies by Pollard and Hicks are far more scholarly and informative.
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.amazon.co.uk/Warwick-Kingmaker-Michael-Hicks/dp/0631235930/ref=sr_1_1?s=dvd&ie=UTF8&qid=1315235477&sr=1-1
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.amazon.co.uk/Warwick-Kingmaker-Politics-Hambledon-Continuum/dp/184725182X/ref=sr_1_3?s=dvd&ie=UTF8&qid=1315235907&sr=1-3
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Good lord, heaven forbid the same shower should be let loose on ANYTHING, let alone

----- Original Message -----
From: theblackprussian
To:
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 4:07 PM
Subject: Re: Warwick the Kingmaker



Despite my reservations about the Chewdoors, I do hope they do prequal "The Plantagenets".

This could be done in "blocks" going backwards, i.e. the first would run c1450-1499, the next would feature Richard II, the peasant's revolt, the Lancastrian usurpation, and lead up to the Azincourt and finish with the death of Henry V (the long minority of Henry VI provides a convenient hiatus between the two blocks) and so on going back as far as you can go.

--- In , "HI" <hi.dung@...> wrote:
>
> The Tudors was the soft porn version of that time. In order to get more viewers, I wonder if they will produce a hardcore version?
>
> --- In , david rayner <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> >
> > If that's your view you're probably better off reading historical fiction. Or watching the Too-Durrs...
> > Â
> >
> > --- On Mon, 5/9/11, Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@>
> > Subject: Re: Re: Warwick the Kingmaker
> > To: "" <>
> > Date: Monday, 5 September, 2011, 21:42
> >
> >
> > Â
> >
> >
> >
> > Agree, Paul!Â
> >
> > Judy
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, September 5, 2011 11:57 AM
> > Subject: Re: Re: Warwick the Kingmaker
> >
> > Â
> > But not a good to read!
> > Paul
> >
> > On 5 Sep 2011, at 16:19, theblackprussian wrote:
> >
> > > Kendall's book is very outdated. The biographies by Pollard and Hicks are far more scholarly and informative.
> > >
> > >
> > > http://www.amazon.co.uk/Warwick-Kingmaker-Michael-Hicks/dp/0631235930/ref=sr_1_1?s=dvd&ie=UTF8&qid=1315235477&sr=1-1
> > >
> > >
> > > http://www.amazon.co.uk/Warwick-Kingmaker-Politics-Hambledon-Continuum/dp/184725182X/ref=sr_1_3?s=dvd&ie=UTF8&qid=1315235907&sr=1-3
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Need I say how much I agree with you Annette!
Paul

On 6 Sep 2011, at 16:33, Annette Carson wrote:

> Good lord, heaven forbid the same shower should be let loose on ANYTHING, let alone
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: theblackprussian
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 4:07 PM
> Subject: Re: Warwick the Kingmaker
>
>
>
> Despite my reservations about the Chewdoors, I do hope they do prequal "The Plantagenets".
>
> This could be done in "blocks" going backwards, i.e. the first would run c1450-1499, the next would feature Richard II, the peasant's revolt, the Lancastrian usurpation, and lead up to the Azincourt and finish with the death of Henry V (the long minority of Henry VI provides a convenient hiatus between the two blocks) and so on going back as far as you can go.
>
> --- In , "HI" <hi.dung@...> wrote:
>>
>> The Tudors was the soft porn version of that time. In order to get more viewers, I wonder if they will produce a hardcore version?
>>
>> --- In , david rayner <theblackprussian@> wrote:
>>>
>>> If that's your view you're probably better off reading historical fiction. Or watching the Too-Durrs...
>>> Â
>>>
>>> --- On Mon, 5/9/11, Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@>
>>> Subject: Re: Re: Warwick the Kingmaker
>>> To: "" <>
>>> Date: Monday, 5 September, 2011, 21:42
>>>
>>>
>>> Â
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Agree, Paul!Â
>>>
>>> Judy
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@>
>>> To:
>>> Sent: Monday, September 5, 2011 11:57 AM
>>> Subject: Re: Re: Warwick the Kingmaker
>>>
>>> Â
>>> But not a good to read!
>>> Paul
>>>
>>> On 5 Sep 2011, at 16:19, theblackprussian wrote:
>>>
>>>> Kendall's book is very outdated. The biographies by Pollard and Hicks are far more scholarly and informative.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.amazon.co.uk/Warwick-Kingmaker-Michael-Hicks/dp/0631235930/ref=sr_1_1?s=dvd&ie=UTF8&qid=1315235477&sr=1-1
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.amazon.co.uk/Warwick-Kingmaker-Politics-Hambledon-Continuum/dp/184725182X/ref=sr_1_3?s=dvd&ie=UTF8&qid=1315235907&sr=1-3
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

oh no..they have to include h6. all the manipulations going on behind the throne. introduction of jacquetta. the secret marriages. the witchcraft accusations and pre-reformation religious turmoil.
the rivalry that builds between the yorks and lancasterians. the whole joan d'arc influence on h6. oh the opportunity to flaunt violence is being missed with all the great battle scenes they could do.. 
the suspected illegit birth of e4. there are loads and loads of juicey tidbits of intrigue and sexuality between 1422 and 1450. and then there is the whole e4 series of womanizing. h8 was a real slouch when compared to his maternal grandpa.
 
while i do not respect the freedoms taken with the facts, i will say that the tudors and the borgias actually caught my spouse's attention. yes the sex/nudity pulled him in..but he was constantly asking questions about the facts..and this from a guy who had no interest in history prior to these two series. personally, i barely watched the programs. they were background noise while i was on my computer.
 
roslyn

--- On Tue, 9/6/11, theblackprussian <theblackprussian@...> wrote:


From: theblackprussian <theblackprussian@...>
Subject: Re: Warwick the Kingmaker
To:
Received: Tuesday, September 6, 2011, 11:07 AM


 



Despite my reservations about the Chewdoors, I do hope they do prequal "The Plantagenets".

This could be done in "blocks" going backwards, i.e. the first would run c1450-1499, the next would feature Richard II, the peasant's revolt, the Lancastrian usurpation, and lead up to the Azincourt and finish with the death of Henry V (the long minority of Henry VI provides a convenient hiatus between the two blocks) and so on going back as far as you can go.

--- In , "HI" <hi.dung@...> wrote:
>
> The Tudors was the soft porn version of that time. In order to get more viewers, I wonder if they will produce a hardcore version?
>
> --- In , david rayner <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> >
> > If that's your view you're probably better off reading historical fiction.  Or watching the Too-Durrs...
> >  
> >
> > --- On Mon, 5/9/11, Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@>
> > Subject: Re: Re: Warwick the Kingmaker
> > To: "" <>
> > Date: Monday, 5 September, 2011, 21:42
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> >
> >
> > Agree, Paul! 
> >
> > Judy
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, September 5, 2011 11:57 AM
> > Subject: Re: Re: Warwick the Kingmaker
> >
> >  
> > But not a good to read!
> > Paul
> >
> > On 5 Sep 2011, at 16:19, theblackprussian wrote:
> >
> > > Kendall's book is very outdated. The biographies by Pollard and Hicks are far more scholarly and informative.
> > >
> > >
> > > http://www.amazon.co.uk/Warwick-Kingmaker-Michael-Hicks/dp/0631235930/ref=sr_1_1?s=dvd&ie=UTF8&qid=1315235477&sr=1-1
> > >
> > >
> > > http://www.amazon.co.uk/Warwick-Kingmaker-Politics-Hambledon-Continuum/dp/184725182X/ref=sr_1_3?s=dvd&ie=UTF8&qid=1315235907&sr=1-3
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

This is why I now think a mini series broadly structured like the Tudors would be a much better way of presenting the pre-Tudor era than a one-off film or even series of films.

You really couldn't make a Richard III stand alone movie; it is impossible to understand the political turmoil of 1483 without studying Edward IV's life and reign, and the divided nobility he left behind. So many lords supported Richard because they felt cheated of lands and titles by the Woodville faction.

Of course you could go to the extreme of saying that it's impossible to understand modern politics without referencing the battle of Hastings; but for filming you need to have clean breaks between ensemble casts, and long royal minorities are the best window for placing these.

I would say circa 1452 to start, beginning with the York-Somerset rivalry in the field at Dartford, with th birth of the prince of Wales and the end of the Hundred Years War occuring the following year. Any earlier and you need to include the government of Suffolk, and that really drags us back to a different power struggle.

--- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> oh no..they have to include h6. all the manipulations going on behind the throne. introduction of jacquetta. the secret marriages. the witchcraft accusations and pre-reformation religious turmoil.
> the rivalry that builds between the yorks and lancasterians. the whole joan d'arc influence on h6. oh the opportunity to flaunt violence is being missed with all the great battle scenes they could do.. 
> the suspected illegit birth of e4. there are loads and loads of juicey tidbits of intrigue and sexuality between 1422 and 1450. and then there is the whole e4 series of womanizing. h8 was a real slouch when compared to his maternal grandpa.
>  
> while i do not respect the freedoms taken with the facts, i will say that the tudors and the borgias actually caught my spouse's attention. yes the sex/nudity pulled him in..but he was constantly asking questions about the facts..and this from a guy who had no interest in history prior to these two series. personally, i barely watched the programs. they were background noise while i was on my computer.

My script begins with Richard's birth and follows his life from his point of view all the way to the bitter end.
What you are suggesting sounds more like a documentary though, and I have written drama. But I have managed to explain all the ups and downs and rivalries without boring people with any lectures!

I have not written it as a movie, but as a series.

I would hope for a Game of Thrones budget though to do it any justice. 5 or 6 episodes of 90 minutes each at around one million dollars an episode.

Got any spare cash anyone?
Paul

On 8 Sep 2011, at 00:04, theblackprussian wrote:

> This is why I now think a mini series broadly structured like the Tudors would be a much better way of presenting the pre-Tudor era than a one-off film or even series of films.
>
> You really couldn't make a Richard III stand alone movie; it is impossible to understand the political turmoil of 1483 without studying Edward IV's life and reign, and the divided nobility he left behind. So many lords supported Richard because they felt cheated of lands and titles by the Woodville faction.
>
> Of course you could go to the extreme of saying that it's impossible to understand modern politics without referencing the battle of Hastings; but for filming you need to have clean breaks between ensemble casts, and long royal minorities are the best window for placing these.
>
> I would say circa 1452 to start, beginning with the York-Somerset rivalry in the field at Dartford, with th birth of the prince of Wales and the end of the Hundred Years War occuring the following year. Any earlier and you need to include the government of Suffolk, and that really drags us back to a different power struggle.
>
> --- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> oh no..they have to include h6. all the manipulations going on behind the throne. introduction of jacquetta. the secret marriages. the witchcraft accusations and pre-reformation religious turmoil.
>> the rivalry that builds between the yorks and lancasterians. the whole joan d'arc influence on h6. oh the opportunity to flaunt violence is being missed with all the great battle scenes they could do..Â
>> the suspected illegit birth of e4. there are loads and loads of juicey tidbits of intrigue and sexuality between 1422 and 1450. and then there is the whole e4 series of womanizing. h8 was a real slouch when compared to his maternal grandpa.
>> Â
>> while i do not respect the freedoms taken with the facts, i will say that the tudors and the borgias actually caught my spouse's attention. yes the sex/nudity pulled him in..but he was constantly asking questions about the facts..and this from a guy who had no interest in history prior to these two series. personally, i barely watched the programs. they were background noise while i was on my computer.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

This script, which I (and at least one well regarded historian) have previewed is brilliantly written. It accurately portrays the life and times of Richard. Violence and some subtle sexuality are, in fact, present, but they are completely integral to the story-telling and character development, not gratuitous. The directions for the cinematography, etc., are first rate. Stunning shots, start to finish. 

Deserves to be made.
Judy


________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, September 8, 2011 4:30 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Warwick the Kingmaker


 
My script begins with Richard's birth and follows his life from his point of view all the way to the bitter end.
What you are suggesting sounds more like a documentary though, and I have written drama. But I have managed to explain all the ups and downs and rivalries without boring people with any lectures!

I have not written it as a movie, but as a series.

I would hope for a Game of Thrones budget though to do it any justice. 5 or 6 episodes of 90 minutes each at around one million dollars an episode.

Got any spare cash anyone?
Paul

Good luck Paul!  I would love to see this series made.  Wish I had a few million!
 

From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, September 8, 2011 4:30 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Warwick the Kingmaker


 
My script begins with Richard's birth and follows his life from his point of view all the way to the bitter end.
What you are suggesting sounds more like a documentary though, and I have written drama. But I have managed to explain all the ups and downs and rivalries without boring people with any lectures!

I have not written it as a movie, but as a series.

I would hope for a Game of Thrones budget though to do it any justice. 5 or 6 episodes of 90 minutes each at around one million dollars an episode.

Got any spare cash anyone?
Paul

On 8 Sep 2011, at 00:04, theblackprussian wrote:

> This is why I now think a mini series broadly structured like the Tudors would be a much better way of presenting the pre-Tudor era than a one-off film or even series of films.
>
> You really couldn't make a Richard III stand alone movie; it is impossible to understand the political turmoil of 1483 without studying Edward IV's life and reign, and the divided nobility he left behind. So many lords supported Richard because they felt cheated of lands and titles by the Woodville faction.
>
> Of course you could go to the extreme of saying that it's impossible to understand modern politics without referencing the battle of Hastings; but for filming you need to have clean breaks between ensemble casts, and long royal minorities are the best window for placing these.
>
> I would say circa 1452 to start, beginning with the York-Somerset rivalry in the field at Dartford, with th birth of the prince of Wales and the end of the Hundred Years War occuring the following year. Any earlier and you need to include the government of Suffolk, and that really drags us back to a different power struggle.
>
> --- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> oh no..they have to include h6. all the manipulations going on behind the throne. introduction of jacquetta. the secret marriages. the witchcraft accusations and pre-reformation religious turmoil.
>> the rivalry that builds between the yorks and lancasterians. the whole joan d'arc influence on h6. oh the opportunity to flaunt violence is being missed with all the great battle scenes they could do..Â
>> the suspected illegit birth of e4. there are loads and loads of juicey tidbits of intrigue and sexuality between 1422 and 1450. and then there is the whole e4 series of womanizing. h8 was a real slouch when compared to his maternal grandpa.
>> Â
>> while i do not respect the freedoms taken with the facts, i will say that the tudors and the borgias actually caught my spouse's attention. yes the sex/nudity pulled him in..but he was constantly asking questions about the facts..and this from a guy who had no interest in history prior to these two series. personally, i barely watched the programs. they were background noise while i was on my computer.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Thank you Vickie, and also to Judy for her encouraging comments.
Paul

On 8 Sep 2011, at 14:42, Vickie Cook wrote:

> Good luck Paul! I would love to see this series made. Wish I had a few million!
>
>
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, September 8, 2011 4:30 AM
> Subject: Re: Re: Warwick the Kingmaker
>
>
>
> My script begins with Richard's birth and follows his life from his point of view all the way to the bitter end.
> What you are suggesting sounds more like a documentary though, and I have written drama. But I have managed to explain all the ups and downs and rivalries without boring people with any lectures!
>
> I have not written it as a movie, but as a series.
>
> I would hope for a Game of Thrones budget though to do it any justice. 5 or 6 episodes of 90 minutes each at around one million dollars an episode.
>
> Got any spare cash anyone?
> Paul
>
> On 8 Sep 2011, at 00:04, theblackprussian wrote:
>
>> This is why I now think a mini series broadly structured like the Tudors would be a much better way of presenting the pre-Tudor era than a one-off film or even series of films.
>>
>> You really couldn't make a Richard III stand alone movie; it is impossible to understand the political turmoil of 1483 without studying Edward IV's life and reign, and the divided nobility he left behind. So many lords supported Richard because they felt cheated of lands and titles by the Woodville faction.
>>
>> Of course you could go to the extreme of saying that it's impossible to understand modern politics without referencing the battle of Hastings; but for filming you need to have clean breaks between ensemble casts, and long royal minorities are the best window for placing these.
>>
>> I would say circa 1452 to start, beginning with the York-Somerset rivalry in the field at Dartford, with th birth of the prince of Wales and the end of the Hundred Years War occuring the following year. Any earlier and you need to include the government of Suffolk, and that really drags us back to a different power struggle.
>>
>> --- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> oh no..they have to include h6. all the manipulations going on behind the throne. introduction of jacquetta. the secret marriages. the witchcraft accusations and pre-reformation religious turmoil.
>>> the rivalry that builds between the yorks and lancasterians. the whole joan d'arc influence on h6. oh the opportunity to flaunt violence is being missed with all the great battle scenes they could do..Â
>>> the suspected illegit birth of e4. there are loads and loads of juicey tidbits of intrigue and sexuality between 1422 and 1450. and then there is the whole e4 series of womanizing. h8 was a real slouch when compared to his maternal grandpa.
>>> Â
>>> while i do not respect the freedoms taken with the facts, i will say that the tudors and the borgias actually caught my spouse's attention. yes the sex/nudity pulled him in..but he was constantly asking questions about the facts..and this from a guy who had no interest in history prior to these two series. personally, i barely watched the programs. they were background noise while i was on my computer.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

I would love to see this made.  Richard gets such a bad press most of the time, despite many of us wishing otherwise.  However, barring a lottery win, cannot help with the funding, but it will soon be Saturday and you never know.

Marion



________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 8 September 2011, 16:15
Subject: Re: Re: Warwick the Kingmaker


 
Thank you Vickie, and also to Judy for her encouraging comments.
Paul

On 8 Sep 2011, at 14:42, Vickie Cook wrote:

> Good luck Paul! I would love to see this series made. Wish I had a few million!
>
>
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, September 8, 2011 4:30 AM
> Subject: Re: Re: Warwick the Kingmaker
>
>
>
> My script begins with Richard's birth and follows his life from his point of view all the way to the bitter end.
> What you are suggesting sounds more like a documentary though, and I have written drama. But I have managed to explain all the ups and downs and rivalries without boring people with any lectures!
>
> I have not written it as a movie, but as a series.
>
> I would hope for a Game of Thrones budget though to do it any justice. 5 or 6 episodes of 90 minutes each at around one million dollars an episode.
>
> Got any spare cash anyone?
> Paul
>
> On 8 Sep 2011, at 00:04, theblackprussian wrote:
>
>> This is why I now think a mini series broadly structured like the Tudors would be a much better way of presenting the pre-Tudor era than a one-off film or even series of films.
>>
>> You really couldn't make a Richard III stand alone movie; it is impossible to understand the political turmoil of 1483 without studying Edward IV's life and reign, and the divided nobility he left behind. So many lords supported Richard because they felt cheated of lands and titles by the Woodville faction.
>>
>> Of course you could go to the extreme of saying that it's impossible to understand modern politics without referencing the battle of Hastings; but for filming you need to have clean breaks between ensemble casts, and long royal minorities are the best window for placing these.
>>
>> I would say circa 1452 to start, beginning with the York-Somerset rivalry in the field at Dartford, with th birth of the prince of Wales and the end of the Hundred Years War occuring the following year. Any earlier and you need to include the government of Suffolk, and that really drags us back to a different power struggle.
>>
>> --- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> oh no..they have to include h6. all the manipulations going on behind the throne. introduction of jacquetta. the secret marriages. the witchcraft accusations and pre-reformation religious turmoil.
>>> the rivalry that builds between the yorks and lancasterians. the whole joan d'arc influence on h6. oh the opportunity to flaunt violence is being missed with all the great battle scenes they could do..Â
>>> the suspected illegit birth of e4. there are loads and loads of juicey tidbits of intrigue and sexuality between 1422 and 1450. and then there is the whole e4 series of womanizing. h8 was a real slouch when compared to his maternal grandpa.
>>> Â
>>> while i do not respect the freedoms taken with the facts, i will say that the tudors and the borgias actually caught my spouse's attention. yes the sex/nudity pulled him in..but he was constantly asking questions about the facts..and this from a guy who had no interest in history prior to these two series. personally, i barely watched the programs. they were background noise while i was on my computer.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Perhaps I should start buying a ticket for a change.  Paul it sounds fantastic
and let's hope for a multi millionaire film producer with a bit of taste!




________________________________
From: marion cheatham <marioncheatham2003@...>
To: ""
<>
Sent: Thursday, 8 September, 2011 16:20:41
Subject: Making of a series Richard III

 
I would love to see this made.  Richard gets such a bad press most of the time,
despite many of us wishing otherwise.  However, barring a lottery win, cannot
help with the funding, but it will soon be Saturday and you never know.

Marion

________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 8 September 2011, 16:15
Subject: Re: Re: Warwick the Kingmaker

 
Thank you Vickie, and also to Judy for her encouraging comments.
Paul

On 8 Sep 2011, at 14:42, Vickie Cook wrote:

> Good luck Paul! I would love to see this series made. Wish I had a few
million!
>
>
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, September 8, 2011 4:30 AM
> Subject: Re: Re: Warwick the Kingmaker
>
>
>
> My script begins with Richard's birth and follows his life from his point of
>view all the way to the bitter end.
>
> What you are suggesting sounds more like a documentary though, and I have
>written drama. But I have managed to explain all the ups and downs and rivalries
>without boring people with any lectures!
>
> I have not written it as a movie, but as a series.
>
> I would hope for a Game of Thrones budget though to do it any justice. 5 or 6
>episodes of 90 minutes each at around one million dollars an episode.
>
>
> Got any spare cash anyone?
> Paul
>
> On 8 Sep 2011, at 00:04, theblackprussian wrote:
>
>> This is why I now think a mini series broadly structured like the Tudors would
>>be a much better way of presenting the pre-Tudor era than a one-off film or even
>>series of films.
>>
>> You really couldn't make a Richard III stand alone movie; it is impossible to
>>understand the political turmoil of 1483 without studying Edward IV's life and
>>reign, and the divided nobility he left behind. So many lords supported Richard
>>because they felt cheated of lands and titles by the Woodville faction.
>>
>>
>> Of course you could go to the extreme of saying that it's impossible to
>>understand modern politics without referencing the battle of Hastings; but for
>>filming you need to have clean breaks between ensemble casts, and long royal
>>minorities are the best window for placing these.
>>
>> I would say circa 1452 to start, beginning with the York-Somerset rivalry in
>>the field at Dartford, with th birth of the prince of Wales and the end of the
>>Hundred Years War occuring the following year. Any earlier and you need to
>>include the government of Suffolk, and that really drags us back to a different
>>power struggle.
>>
>> --- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> oh no..they have to include h6. all the manipulations going on behind the
>>>throne. introduction of jacquetta. the secret marriages. the witchcraft
>>>accusations and pre-reformation religious turmoil.
>>>
>>> the rivalry that builds between the yorks and lancasterians. the whole joan
>>>d'arc influence on h6. oh the opportunity to flaunt violence is being missed
>>>with all the great battle scenes they could do..Â
>>>
>>> the suspected illegit birth of e4. there are loads and loads of juicey tidbits
>>>of intrigue and sexuality between 1422 and 1450. and then there is the whole e4
>>>series of womanizing. h8 was a real slouch when compared to his maternal
>>>grandpa.
>>> Â
>>> while i do not respect the freedoms taken with the facts, i will say that the
>>>tudors and the borgias actually caught my spouse's attention. yes the sex/nudity
>>>pulled him in..but he was constantly asking questions about the facts..and this
>>>from a guy who had no interest in history prior to these two series. personally,
>>>i barely watched the programs. they were background noise while i was on my
>>>computer.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Paul, have you approached the Duke of Gloucester? From what I
understand, he's a big supporter and given his position, he may have
contacts that could benefit you.

Joan
---
author of This Time and Loyalty Binds Me, novels about Richard III in
the 21st-century
This Time was General Fiction Finalist of 2010 Next Generation Indie
Book Awards
website <http://www.joanszechtman.com/> -- blog
<http://rtoaaa.blogspot.com/>
ebooks at Smashwords
<http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/JoanSzechtman>


--- In , liz williams
<ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Perhaps I should start buying a ticket for a change. Paul it
sounds fantastic
> and let's hope for a multi millionaire film producer with a bit of
taste!
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: marion cheatham marioncheatham2003@...
> To: ""
>
> Sent: Thursday, 8 September, 2011 16:20:41
> Subject: Making of a series Richard III
>
> Â
> I would love to see this made. Richard gets such a bad press most
of the time,
> despite many of us wishing otherwise. However, barring a lottery
win, cannot
> help with the funding, but it will soon be Saturday and you never
know.
>
> Marion
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@...
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 8 September 2011, 16:15
> Subject: Re: Re: Warwick the Kingmaker
>
> Â
> Thank you Vickie, and also to Judy for her encouraging comments.
> Paul
>
> On 8 Sep 2011, at 14:42, Vickie Cook wrote:
>
> > Good luck Paul! I would love to see this series made. Wish I had a
few
> million!
> >
> >
> > From: Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@...
> > To:
> > Sent: Thursday, September 8, 2011 4:30 AM
> > Subject: Re: Re: Warwick the Kingmaker
> >
> >
> >
> > My script begins with Richard's birth and follows his life from his
point of
> >view all the way to the bitter end.
> >
> > What you are suggesting sounds more like a documentary though, and I
have
> >written drama. But I have managed to explain all the ups and downs
and rivalries
> >without boring people with any lectures!
> >
> > I have not written it as a movie, but as a series.
> >
> > I would hope for a Game of Thrones budget though to do it any
justice. 5 or 6
> >episodes of 90 minutes each at around one million dollars an episode.
> >
> >
> > Got any spare cash anyone?
> > Paul
> >
> > On 8 Sep 2011, at 00:04, theblackprussian wrote:
> >
> >> This is why I now think a mini series broadly structured like the
Tudors would
> >>be a much better way of presenting the pre-Tudor era than a one-off
film or even
> >>series of films.
> >>
> >> You really couldn't make a Richard III stand alone movie; it is
impossible to
> >>understand the political turmoil of 1483 without studying Edward
IV's life and
> >>reign, and the divided nobility he left behind. So many lords
supported Richard
> >>because they felt cheated of lands and titles by the Woodville
faction.
> >>
> >>
> >> Of course you could go to the extreme of saying that it's
impossible to
> >>understand modern politics without referencing the battle of
Hastings; but for
> >>filming you need to have clean breaks between ensemble casts, and
long royal
> >>minorities are the best window for placing these.
> >>
> >> I would say circa 1452 to start, beginning with the York-Somerset
rivalry in
> >>the field at Dartford, with th birth of the prince of Wales and the
end of the
> >>Hundred Years War occuring the following year. Any earlier and you
need to
> >>include the government of Suffolk, and that really drags us back to
a different
> >>power struggle.
> >>
> >> --- In , fayre rose
fayreroze@
> >>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> oh no..they have to include h6. all the manipulations going
on behind the
> >>>throne. introduction of jacquetta. the secret marriages. the
witchcraft
> >>>accusations and pre-reformation religious turmoil.
> >>>
> >>> the rivalry that builds between the yorks and lancasterians. the
whole joan
> >>>d'arc influence on h6. oh the opportunity to flaunt violence is
being missed
> >>>with all the great battle scenes they could do..Â
> >>>
> >>> the suspected illegit birth of e4. there are loads and loads of
juicey tidbits
> >>>of intrigue and sexuality between 1422 and 1450. and then there is
the whole e4
> >>>series of womanizing. h8 was a real slouch when compared to
his maternal
> >>>grandpa.
> >>> Â
> >>> while i do not respect the freedoms taken with the facts, i will
say that the
> >>>tudors and the borgias actually caught my spouse's attention. yes
the sex/nudity
> >>>pulled him in..but he was constantly asking questions about the
facts..and this
> >>>from a guy who had no interest in history prior to these two
series. personally,
> >>>i barely watched the programs. they were background noise while i
was on my
> >>>computer.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ------------------------------------
> >>
> >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Why dont you send it off to Ridley Scott??! made Robin Hood (Russell Crowe /
Cate Blanchette) - fabulous film, great scenery, lots of research (&
fortunately no men in tights!) etc,etc...
worth a try - never let anyone tell you - you cant do something, even if it
sounds 'silly'. if I had the money I'd certainly back you - would love to
get the record set straight for Richard...
Good Luck

On 8 September 2011 14:29, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> Perhaps I should start buying a ticket for a change. Paul it sounds
> fantastic
> and let's hope for a multi millionaire film producer with a bit of taste!
>
> ________________________________
> From: marion cheatham <marioncheatham2003@...>
> To: ""
> <>
> Sent: Thursday, 8 September, 2011 16:20:41
> Subject: Making of a series Richard III
>
>
> I would love to see this made. Richard gets such a bad press most of the
> time,
> despite many of us wishing otherwise. However, barring a lottery win,
> cannot
> help with the funding, but it will soon be Saturday and you never know.
>
> Marion
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 8 September 2011, 16:15
> Subject: Re: Re: Warwick the Kingmaker
>
>
> Thank you Vickie, and also to Judy for her encouraging comments.
> Paul
>
> On 8 Sep 2011, at 14:42, Vickie Cook wrote:
>
> > Good luck Paul! I would love to see this series made. Wish I had a few
> million!
> >
> >
> > From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> > To:
> > Sent: Thursday, September 8, 2011 4:30 AM
> > Subject: Re: Re: Warwick the Kingmaker
> >
> >
> >
> > My script begins with Richard's birth and follows his life from his point
> of
> >view all the way to the bitter end.
> >
> > What you are suggesting sounds more like a documentary though, and I have
>
> >written drama. But I have managed to explain all the ups and downs and
> rivalries
> >without boring people with any lectures!
> >
> > I have not written it as a movie, but as a series.
> >
> > I would hope for a Game of Thrones budget though to do it any justice. 5
> or 6
> >episodes of 90 minutes each at around one million dollars an episode.
> >
> >
> > Got any spare cash anyone?
> > Paul
> >
> > On 8 Sep 2011, at 00:04, theblackprussian wrote:
> >
> >> This is why I now think a mini series broadly structured like the Tudors
> would
> >>be a much better way of presenting the pre-Tudor era than a one-off film
> or even
> >>series of films.
> >>
> >> You really couldn't make a Richard III stand alone movie; it is
> impossible to
> >>understand the political turmoil of 1483 without studying Edward IV's
> life and
> >>reign, and the divided nobility he left behind. So many lords supported
> Richard
> >>because they felt cheated of lands and titles by the Woodville faction.
> >>
> >>
> >> Of course you could go to the extreme of saying that it's impossible to
> >>understand modern politics without referencing the battle of Hastings;
> but for
> >>filming you need to have clean breaks between ensemble casts, and long
> royal
> >>minorities are the best window for placing these.
> >>
> >> I would say circa 1452 to start, beginning with the York-Somerset
> rivalry in
> >>the field at Dartford, with th birth of the prince of Wales and the end
> of the
> >>Hundred Years War occuring the following year. Any earlier and you need
> to
> >>include the government of Suffolk, and that really drags us back to a
> different
> >>power struggle.
> >>
> >> --- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
>
> >>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> oh no..they have toý include h6. all the manipulations going on behind
> the
> >>>throne. introduction of jacquetta. the secretý marriages. the witchcraft
>
> >>>accusations and pre-reformation religious turmoil.
> >>>
> >>> the rivalry that builds between the yorks and lancasterians. the whole
> joan
> >>>d'arc influence on h6. oh the opportunity to flaunt violence is being
> missed
> >>>with all the great battle scenes they could do..ý
> >>>
> >>> the suspected illegit birth of e4. there are loads and loads of juicey
> tidbits
> >>>of intrigue and sexuality between 1422 and 1450. and then there is the
> whole e4
> >>>series of womanizing.ý h8 was a real slouch when compared to his
> maternal
> >>>grandpa.
> >>> ý
> >>> while i do not respect the freedoms taken with the facts, i will say
> that the
> >>>tudors and the borgias actually caught my spouse's attention. yes the
> sex/nudity
> >>>pulled him in..but he was constantly asking questions about the
> facts..and this
> >>>from a guy who had no interest in history prior to these two series.
> personally,
> >>>i barely watched the programs. they were background noise while i was on
> my
> >>>computer.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ------------------------------------
> >>
> >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>



--
Lisa
The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
www.Antiques-Boutique.com

Paul if I win the Euro millions tomorrow night you can definitely have 6 million. It sounds great. It would be so good to be able to put forward the real story of Richard instead of the traditional story. It annoys me that those who perpetuate the traditional version don't seem to do any research.

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> Thank you Vickie, and also to Judy for her encouraging comments.
> Paul
>
> On 8 Sep 2011, at 14:42, Vickie Cook wrote:
>
> > Good luck Paul! I would love to see this series made. Wish I had a few million!
> >
> >
> > From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> > To:
> > Sent: Thursday, September 8, 2011 4:30 AM
> > Subject: Re: Re: Warwick the Kingmaker
> >
> >
> >
> > My script begins with Richard's birth and follows his life from his point of view all the way to the bitter end.
> > What you are suggesting sounds more like a documentary though, and I have written drama. But I have managed to explain all the ups and downs and rivalries without boring people with any lectures!
> >
> > I have not written it as a movie, but as a series.
> >
> > I would hope for a Game of Thrones budget though to do it any justice. 5 or 6 episodes of 90 minutes each at around one million dollars an episode.
> >
> > Got any spare cash anyone?
> > Paul
> >
> > On 8 Sep 2011, at 00:04, theblackprussian wrote:
> >
> >> This is why I now think a mini series broadly structured like the Tudors would be a much better way of presenting the pre-Tudor era than a one-off film or even series of films.
> >>
> >> You really couldn't make a Richard III stand alone movie; it is impossible to understand the political turmoil of 1483 without studying Edward IV's life and reign, and the divided nobility he left behind. So many lords supported Richard because they felt cheated of lands and titles by the Woodville faction.
> >>
> >> Of course you could go to the extreme of saying that it's impossible to understand modern politics without referencing the battle of Hastings; but for filming you need to have clean breaks between ensemble casts, and long royal minorities are the best window for placing these.
> >>
> >> I would say circa 1452 to start, beginning with the York-Somerset rivalry in the field at Dartford, with th birth of the prince of Wales and the end of the Hundred Years War occuring the following year. Any earlier and you need to include the government of Suffolk, and that really drags us back to a different power struggle.
> >>
> >> --- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> oh no..they have to include h6. all the manipulations going on behind the throne. introduction of jacquetta. the secret marriages. the witchcraft accusations and pre-reformation religious turmoil.
> >>> the rivalry that builds between the yorks and lancasterians. the whole joan d'arc influence on h6. oh the opportunity to flaunt violence is being missed with all the great battle scenes they could do..Â
> >>> the suspected illegit birth of e4. there are loads and loads of juicey tidbits of intrigue and sexuality between 1422 and 1450. and then there is the whole e4 series of womanizing. h8 was a real slouch when compared to his maternal grandpa.
> >>> Â
> >>> while i do not respect the freedoms taken with the facts, i will say that the tudors and the borgias actually caught my spouse's attention. yes the sex/nudity pulled him in..but he was constantly asking questions about the facts..and this from a guy who had no interest in history prior to these two series. personally, i barely watched the programs. they were background noise while i was on my computer.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ------------------------------------
> >>
> >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>

If you try really hard, you could come up with something as historically accurate as this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_nbyRau0Zc&feature=results_main&playnext=1&list=PL5F1FE980577376F8

No wonder Richard had those princes done away with...



--- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> Paul if I win the Euro millions tomorrow night you can definitely have 6 million. It sounds great. It would be so good to be able to put forward the real story of Richard instead of the traditional story. It annoys me that those who perpetuate the traditional version don't seem to do any research.
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >
> > Thank you Vickie, and also to Judy for her encouraging comments.
> > Paul
> >
> > On 8 Sep 2011, at 14:42, Vickie Cook wrote:
> >
> > > Good luck Paul! I would love to see this series made. Wish I had a few million!
> > >
> > >
> > > From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Thursday, September 8, 2011 4:30 AM
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Warwick the Kingmaker
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > My script begins with Richard's birth and follows his life from his point of view all the way to the bitter end.
> > > What you are suggesting sounds more like a documentary though, and I have written drama. But I have managed to explain all the ups and downs and rivalries without boring people with any lectures!
> > >
> > > I have not written it as a movie, but as a series.
> > >
> > > I would hope for a Game of Thrones budget though to do it any justice. 5 or 6 episodes of 90 minutes each at around one million dollars an episode.
> > >
> > > Got any spare cash anyone?
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > On 8 Sep 2011, at 00:04, theblackprussian wrote:
> > >
> > >> This is why I now think a mini series broadly structured like the Tudors would be a much better way of presenting the pre-Tudor era than a one-off film or even series of films.
> > >>
> > >> You really couldn't make a Richard III stand alone movie; it is impossible to understand the political turmoil of 1483 without studying Edward IV's life and reign, and the divided nobility he left behind. So many lords supported Richard because they felt cheated of lands and titles by the Woodville faction.
> > >>
> > >> Of course you could go to the extreme of saying that it's impossible to understand modern politics without referencing the battle of Hastings; but for filming you need to have clean breaks between ensemble casts, and long royal minorities are the best window for placing these.
> > >>
> > >> I would say circa 1452 to start, beginning with the York-Somerset rivalry in the field at Dartford, with th birth of the prince of Wales and the end of the Hundred Years War occuring the following year. Any earlier and you need to include the government of Suffolk, and that really drags us back to a different power struggle.
> > >>
> > >> --- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> oh no..they have to include h6. all the manipulations going on behind the throne. introduction of jacquetta. the secret marriages. the witchcraft accusations and pre-reformation religious turmoil.
> > >>> the rivalry that builds between the yorks and lancasterians. the whole joan d'arc influence on h6. oh the opportunity to flaunt violence is being missed with all the great battle scenes they could do..Â
> > >>> the suspected illegit birth of e4. there are loads and loads of juicey tidbits of intrigue and sexuality between 1422 and 1450. and then there is the whole e4 series of womanizing. h8 was a real slouch when compared to his maternal grandpa.
> > >>> Â
> > >>> while i do not respect the freedoms taken with the facts, i will say that the tudors and the borgias actually caught my spouse's attention. yes the sex/nudity pulled him in..but he was constantly asking questions about the facts..and this from a guy who had no interest in history prior to these two series. personally, i barely watched the programs. they were background noise while i was on my computer.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ------------------------------------
> > >>
> > >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

While we're dreaming big....

I shall never be in the running for Newton's Lucasian Chair of Math, but even my moribund skills were enough to come up with:

If you could get xxxxx backers at xx pounds a pop...? Etc. Crazy idea? Yes, totally nuts...but presidential campaigns have been run (and won) on this basic formula. So have big charitable fund raisers (even the relocation of Abu Simbel began with school children sending some of their "milk money" via My Weekly Reader). You might have to promise a few really big contributors they get to wear a suit of armour and stand silently by a wall, of course....

But Paul, you can have all my milk money!

Judy

 


________________________________
From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, September 8, 2011 1:00 PM
Subject: Re: Warwick the Kingmaker


 
Paul if I win the Euro millions tomorrow night you can definitely have 6 million. It sounds great. It would be so good to be able to put forward the real story of Richard instead of the traditional story. It annoys me that those who perpetuate the traditional version don't seem to do any research.

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> Thank you Vickie, and also to Judy for her encouraging comments.
> Paul
> 

Ah, David, David. Appropriately, that little harpsichord ditty comes from the mid-1500s, "...but you don't care too much for music, do you...?"


________________________________
From: theblackprussian <theblackprussian@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, September 8, 2011 1:24 PM
Subject: Re: Warwick the Kingmaker


 
If you try really hard, you could come up with something as historically accurate as this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_nbyRau0Zc&feature=results_main&playnext=1&list=PL5F1FE980577376F8

No wonder Richard had those princes done away with...

--- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> Paul if I win the Euro millions tomorrow night you can definitely have 6 million. It sounds great. It would be so good to be able to put forward the real story of Richard instead of the traditional story. It annoys me that those who perpetuate the traditional version don't seem to do any research.
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> >
> > Thank you Vickie, and also to Judy for her encouraging comments.
> > Paul
> >
> > On 8 Sep 2011, at 14:42, Vickie Cook wrote:
> >
> > > Good luck Paul! I would love to see this series made. Wish I had a few million!
> > >
> > >
> > > From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Thursday, September 8, 2011 4:30 AM
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Warwick the Kingmaker
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > My script begins with Richard's birth and follows his life from his point of view all the way to the bitter end.
> > > What you are suggesting sounds more like a documentary though, and I have written drama. But I have managed to explain all the ups and downs and rivalries without boring people with any lectures!
> > >
> > > I have not written it as a movie, but as a series.
> > >
> > > I would hope for a Game of Thrones budget though to do it any justice. 5 or 6 episodes of 90 minutes each at around one million dollars an episode.
> > >
> > > Got any spare cash anyone?
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > On 8 Sep 2011, at 00:04, theblackprussian wrote:
> > >
> > >> This is why I now think a mini series broadly structured like the Tudors would be a much better way of presenting the pre-Tudor era than a one-off film or even series of films.
> > >>
> > >> You really couldn't make a Richard III stand alone movie; it is impossible to understand the political turmoil of 1483 without studying Edward IV's life and reign, and the divided nobility he left behind. So many lords supported Richard because they felt cheated of lands and titles by the Woodville faction.
> > >>
> > >> Of course you could go to the extreme of saying that it's impossible to understand modern politics without referencing the battle of Hastings; but for filming you need to have clean breaks between ensemble casts, and long royal minorities are the best window for placing these.
> > >>
> > >> I would say circa 1452 to start, beginning with the York-Somerset rivalry in the field at Dartford, with th birth of the prince of Wales and the end of the Hundred Years War occuring the following year. Any earlier and you need to include the government of Suffolk, and that really drags us back to a different power struggle.
> > >>
> > >> --- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> oh no..they have to include h6. all the manipulations going on behind the throne. introduction of jacquetta. the secret marriages. the witchcraft accusations and pre-reformation religious turmoil.
> > >>> the rivalry that builds between the yorks and lancasterians. the whole joan d'arc influence on h6. oh the opportunity to flaunt violence is being missed with all the great battle scenes they could do..Â
> > >>> the suspected illegit birth of e4. there are loads and loads of juicey tidbits of intrigue and sexuality between 1422 and 1450. and then there is the whole e4 series of womanizing. h8 was a real slouch when compared to his maternal grandpa.
> > >>> Â
> > >>> while i do not respect the freedoms taken with the facts, i will say that the tudors and the borgias actually caught my spouse's attention. yes the sex/nudity pulled him in..but he was constantly asking questions about the facts..and this from a guy who had no interest in history prior to these two series. personally, i barely watched the programs. they were background noise while i was on my computer.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ------------------------------------
> > >>
> > >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

For what it is worth, I've know that Kevin Spacey has a process to help aspiring screen writers.  He called a friend of my son to discuss a script the friend had written and to give advise on how to proceed to get it produced.  He declined to produce it, but made many helpful suggestions and gave some leads.  Im sure there is something on line somewhere to give better information that this second hand stuff I know about.
 
And I did buy my lottery ticket...Powerball, baby.
 
Margie
 

From: "Lisa @ The Antiques Boutique" <lisa.holtjones@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, September 8, 2011 10:41 AM
Subject: Re: Making of a series Richard III

Why dont you send it off to Ridley Scott??! made Robin Hood (Russell Crowe /
Cate Blanchette) - fabulous film, great scenery, lots of research (&
fortunately no men in tights!) etc,etc...
worth a try - never let anyone tell you - you cant do something, even if it
sounds 'silly'. if I had the money I'd certainly back you - would love to
get the record set straight for Richard...
Good Luck

On 8 September 2011 14:29, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> Perhaps I should start buying a ticket for a change.  Paul it sounds
> fantastic
> and let's hope for a multi millionaire film producer with a bit of taste!
>
> ________________________________
> From: marion cheatham <marioncheatham2003@...>
> To: ""
> <>
> Sent: Thursday, 8 September, 2011 16:20:41
> Subject: Making of a series Richard III
>
>
> I would love to see this made.  Richard gets such a bad press most of the
> time,
> despite many of us wishing otherwise.  However, barring a lottery win,
> cannot
> help with the funding, but it will soon be Saturday and you never know.
>
> Marion
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 8 September 2011, 16:15
> Subject: Re: Re: Warwick the Kingmaker
>
>
> Thank you Vickie, and also to Judy for her encouraging comments.
> Paul
>
> On 8 Sep 2011, at 14:42, Vickie Cook wrote:
>
> > Good luck Paul! I would love to see this series made. Wish I had a few
> million!
> >
> >
> > From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> > To:
> > Sent: Thursday, September 8, 2011 4:30 AM
> > Subject: Re: Re: Warwick the Kingmaker
> >
> >
> >
> > My script begins with Richard's birth and follows his life from his point
> of
> >view all the way to the bitter end.
> >
> > What you are suggesting sounds more like a documentary though, and I have
>
> >written drama. But I have managed to explain all the ups and downs and
> rivalries
> >without boring people with any lectures!
> >
> > I have not written it as a movie, but as a series.
> >
> > I would hope for a Game of Thrones budget though to do it any justice. 5
> or 6
> >episodes of 90 minutes each at around one million dollars an episode.
> >
> >
> > Got any spare cash anyone?
> > Paul
> >
> > On 8 Sep 2011, at 00:04, theblackprussian wrote:
> >
> >> This is why I now think a mini series broadly structured like the Tudors
> would
> >>be a much better way of presenting the pre-Tudor era than a one-off film
> or even
> >>series of films.
> >>
> >> You really couldn't make a Richard III stand alone movie; it is
> impossible to
> >>understand the political turmoil of 1483 without studying Edward IV's
> life and
> >>reign, and the divided nobility he left behind. So many lords supported
> Richard
> >>because they felt cheated of lands and titles by the Woodville faction.
> >>
> >>
> >> Of course you could go to the extreme of saying that it's impossible to
> >>understand modern politics without referencing the battle of Hastings;
> but for
> >>filming you need to have clean breaks between ensemble casts, and long
> royal
> >>minorities are the best window for placing these.
> >>
> >> I would say circa 1452 to start, beginning with the York-Somerset
> rivalry in
> >>the field at Dartford, with th birth of the prince of Wales and the end
> of the
> >>Hundred Years War occuring the following year. Any earlier and you need
> to
> >>include the government of Suffolk, and that really drags us back to a
> different
> >>power struggle.
> >>
> >> --- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
>
> >>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> oh no..they have to include h6. all the manipulations going on behind
> the
> >>>throne. introduction of jacquetta. the secret marriages. the witchcraft
>
> >>>accusations and pre-reformation religious turmoil.
> >>>
> >>> the rivalry that builds between the yorks and lancasterians. the whole
> joan
> >>>d'arc influence on h6. oh the opportunity to flaunt violence is being
> missed
> >>>with all the great battle scenes they could do..Â
> >>>
> >>> the suspected illegit birth of e4. there are loads and loads of juicey
> tidbits
> >>>of intrigue and sexuality between 1422 and 1450. and then there is the
> whole e4
> >>>series of womanizing. h8 was a real slouch when compared to his
> maternal
> >>>grandpa.
> >>> Â
> >>> while i do not respect the freedoms taken with the facts, i will say
> that the
> >>>tudors and the borgias actually caught my spouse's attention. yes the
> sex/nudity
> >>>pulled him in..but he was constantly asking questions about the
> facts..and this
> >>>from a guy who had no interest in history prior to these two series.
> personally,
> >>>i barely watched the programs. they were background noise while i was on
> my
> >>>computer.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ------------------------------------
> >>
> >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> 
>



--
Lisa
The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
www.Antiques-Boutique.com






------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

Sadly, true.  But, as Annette pointed out so smartly in her book, so many 'historians' who should know better are lazy in their work and blindly accept things (Mr. More, anybody?) that they should not just blindly accept...
 
Margie

From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, September 8, 2011 11:00 AM
Subject: Re: Warwick the Kingmaker


 
Paul if I win the Euro millions tomorrow night you can definitely have 6 million. It sounds great. It would be so good to be able to put forward the real story of Richard instead of the traditional story. It annoys me that those who perpetuate the traditional version don't seem to do any research.

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> Thank you Vickie, and also to Judy for her encouraging comments.
> Paul
>
> On 8 Sep 2011, at 14:42, Vickie Cook wrote:
>
> > Good luck Paul! I would love to see this series made. Wish I had a few million!
> >
> >
> > From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> > To:
> > Sent: Thursday, September 8, 2011 4:30 AM
> > Subject: Re: Re: Warwick the Kingmaker
> >
> >
> >
> > My script begins with Richard's birth and follows his life from his point of view all the way to the bitter end.
> > What you are suggesting sounds more like a documentary though, and I have written drama. But I have managed to explain all the ups and downs and rivalries without boring people with any lectures!
> >
> > I have not written it as a movie, but as a series.
> >
> > I would hope for a Game of Thrones budget though to do it any justice. 5 or 6 episodes of 90 minutes each at around one million dollars an episode.
> >
> > Got any spare cash anyone?
> > Paul
> >
> > On 8 Sep 2011, at 00:04, theblackprussian wrote:
> >
> >> This is why I now think a mini series broadly structured like the Tudors would be a much better way of presenting the pre-Tudor era than a one-off film or even series of films.
> >>
> >> You really couldn't make a Richard III stand alone movie; it is impossible to understand the political turmoil of 1483 without studying Edward IV's life and reign, and the divided nobility he left behind. So many lords supported Richard because they felt cheated of lands and titles by the Woodville faction.
> >>
> >> Of course you could go to the extreme of saying that it's impossible to understand modern politics without referencing the battle of Hastings; but for filming you need to have clean breaks between ensemble casts, and long royal minorities are the best window for placing these.
> >>
> >> I would say circa 1452 to start, beginning with the York-Somerset rivalry in the field at Dartford, with th birth of the prince of Wales and the end of the Hundred Years War occuring the following year. Any earlier and you need to include the government of Suffolk, and that really drags us back to a different power struggle.
> >>
> >> --- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> oh no..they have to include h6. all the manipulations going on behind the throne. introduction of jacquetta. the secret marriages. the witchcraft accusations and pre-reformation religious turmoil.
> >>> the rivalry that builds between the yorks and lancasterians. the whole joan d'arc influence on h6. oh the opportunity to flaunt violence is being missed with all the great battle scenes they could do..Â
> >>> the suspected illegit birth of e4. there are loads and loads of juicey tidbits of intrigue and sexuality between 1422 and 1450. and then there is the whole e4 series of womanizing. h8 was a real slouch when compared to his maternal grandpa.
> >>> Â
> >>> while i do not respect the freedoms taken with the facts, i will say that the tudors and the borgias actually caught my spouse's attention. yes the sex/nudity pulled him in..but he was constantly asking questions about the facts..and this from a guy who had no interest in history prior to these two series. personally, i barely watched the programs. they were background noise while i was on my computer.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ------------------------------------
> >>
> >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>

Who made "Rob Roy" ?  unlike Braveheart that was supposed to be reasonably
accurate.  Might be worth a try




________________________________
From: "Lisa @ The Antiques Boutique" <lisa.holtjones@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 8 September, 2011 18:41:21
Subject: Re: Making of a series Richard III

Why dont you send it off to Ridley Scott??! made Robin Hood (Russell Crowe /
Cate Blanchette) - fabulous film, great scenery, lots of research (&
fortunately no men in tights!) etc,etc...
worth a try - never let anyone tell you - you cant do something, even if it
sounds 'silly'. if I had the money I'd certainly back you - would love to
get the record set straight for Richard...
Good Luck

On 8 September 2011 14:29, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> Perhaps I should start buying a ticket for a change.  Paul it sounds
> fantastic
> and let's hope for a multi millionaire film producer with a bit of taste!
>
> ________________________________
> From: marion cheatham <marioncheatham2003@...>
> To: ""
> <>
> Sent: Thursday, 8 September, 2011 16:20:41
> Subject: Making of a series Richard III
>
>
> I would love to see this made.  Richard gets such a bad press most of the
> time,
> despite many of us wishing otherwise.  However, barring a lottery win,
> cannot
> help with the funding, but it will soon be Saturday and you never know.
>
> Marion
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 8 September 2011, 16:15
> Subject: Re: Re: Warwick the Kingmaker
>
>
> Thank you Vickie, and also to Judy for her encouraging comments.
> Paul
>
> On 8 Sep 2011, at 14:42, Vickie Cook wrote:
>
> > Good luck Paul! I would love to see this series made. Wish I had a few
> million!
> >
> >
> > From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> > To:
> > Sent: Thursday, September 8, 2011 4:30 AM
> > Subject: Re: Re: Warwick the Kingmaker
> >
> >
> >
> > My script begins with Richard's birth and follows his life from his point
> of
> >view all the way to the bitter end.
> >
> > What you are suggesting sounds more like a documentary though, and I have
>
> >written drama. But I have managed to explain all the ups and downs and
> rivalries
> >without boring people with any lectures!
> >
> > I have not written it as a movie, but as a series.
> >
> > I would hope for a Game of Thrones budget though to do it any justice. 5
> or 6
> >episodes of 90 minutes each at around one million dollars an episode.
> >
> >
> > Got any spare cash anyone?
> > Paul
> >
> > On 8 Sep 2011, at 00:04, theblackprussian wrote:
> >
> >> This is why I now think a mini series broadly structured like the Tudors
> would
> >>be a much better way of presenting the pre-Tudor era than a one-off film
> or even
> >>series of films.
> >>
> >> You really couldn't make a Richard III stand alone movie; it is
> impossible to
> >>understand the political turmoil of 1483 without studying Edward IV's
> life and
> >>reign, and the divided nobility he left behind. So many lords supported
> Richard
> >>because they felt cheated of lands and titles by the Woodville faction.
> >>
> >>
> >> Of course you could go to the extreme of saying that it's impossible to
> >>understand modern politics without referencing the battle of Hastings;
> but for
> >>filming you need to have clean breaks between ensemble casts, and long
> royal
> >>minorities are the best window for placing these.
> >>
> >> I would say circa 1452 to start, beginning with the York-Somerset
> rivalry in
> >>the field at Dartford, with th birth of the prince of Wales and the end
> of the
> >>Hundred Years War occuring the following year. Any earlier and you need
> to
> >>include the government of Suffolk, and that really drags us back to a
> different
> >>power struggle.
> >>
> >> --- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
>
> >>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> oh no..they have to include h6. all the manipulations going on behind
> the
> >>>throne. introduction of jacquetta. the secret marriages. the witchcraft
>
> >>>accusations and pre-reformation religious turmoil.
> >>>
> >>> the rivalry that builds between the yorks and lancasterians. the whole
> joan
> >>>d'arc influence on h6. oh the opportunity to flaunt violence is being
> missed
> >>>with all the great battle scenes they could do..Â
> >>>
> >>> the suspected illegit birth of e4. there are loads and loads of juicey
> tidbits
> >>>of intrigue and sexuality between 1422 and 1450. and then there is the
> whole e4
> >>>series of womanizing. h8 was a real slouch when compared to his
> maternal
> >>>grandpa.
> >>> Â
> >>> while i do not respect the freedoms taken with the facts, i will say
> that the
> >>>tudors and the borgias actually caught my spouse's attention. yes the
> sex/nudity
> >>>pulled him in..but he was constantly asking questions about the
> facts..and this
> >>>from a guy who had no interest in history prior to these two series.
> personally,
> >>>i barely watched the programs. they were background noise while i was on
> my
> >>>computer.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ------------------------------------
> >>
> >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> 
>



--
Lisa
The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
www.Antiques-Boutique.com






------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

The trouble is that a good Richard III might not sell; it might be like a non-violent and celibate James Bond: not an obvious box office winner. The mass media for much of the time is like a sewerage overflow pipe and while not a Trappist monk myself, I do think gratuitous sex and violence, particularly in the Tudors, became a bit predictable and repetitious. Anyone would think that Henry VIII spent 24/7 planning his next debauchery and act of extreme violence.

--- In , marion cheatham <marioncheatham2003@...> wrote:
>
> I would love to see this made.  Richard gets such a bad press most of the time, despite many of us wishing otherwise.  However, barring a lottery win, cannot help with the funding, but it will soon be Saturday and you never know.
>
> Marion
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 8 September 2011, 16:15
> Subject: Re: Re: Warwick the Kingmaker
>
>
>  
> Thank you Vickie, and also to Judy for her encouraging comments.
> Paul
>
> On 8 Sep 2011, at 14:42, Vickie Cook wrote:
>
> > Good luck Paul! I would love to see this series made. Wish I had a few million!
> >
> >
> > From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> > To:
> > Sent: Thursday, September 8, 2011 4:30 AM
> > Subject: Re: Re: Warwick the Kingmaker
> >
> >
> >
> > My script begins with Richard's birth and follows his life from his point of view all the way to the bitter end.
> > What you are suggesting sounds more like a documentary though, and I have written drama. But I have managed to explain all the ups and downs and rivalries without boring people with any lectures!
> >
> > I have not written it as a movie, but as a series.
> >
> > I would hope for a Game of Thrones budget though to do it any justice. 5 or 6 episodes of 90 minutes each at around one million dollars an episode.
> >
> > Got any spare cash anyone?
> > Paul
> >
> > On 8 Sep 2011, at 00:04, theblackprussian wrote:
> >
> >> This is why I now think a mini series broadly structured like the Tudors would be a much better way of presenting the pre-Tudor era than a one-off film or even series of films.
> >>
> >> You really couldn't make a Richard III stand alone movie; it is impossible to understand the political turmoil of 1483 without studying Edward IV's life and reign, and the divided nobility he left behind. So many lords supported Richard because they felt cheated of lands and titles by the Woodville faction.
> >>
> >> Of course you could go to the extreme of saying that it's impossible to understand modern politics without referencing the battle of Hastings; but for filming you need to have clean breaks between ensemble casts, and long royal minorities are the best window for placing these.
> >>
> >> I would say circa 1452 to start, beginning with the York-Somerset rivalry in the field at Dartford, with th birth of the prince of Wales and the end of the Hundred Years War occuring the following year. Any earlier and you need to include the government of Suffolk, and that really drags us back to a different power struggle.
> >>
> >> --- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> oh no..they have to include h6. all the manipulations going on behind the throne. introduction of jacquetta. the secret marriages. the witchcraft accusations and pre-reformation religious turmoil.
> >>> the rivalry that builds between the yorks and lancasterians. the whole joan d'arc influence on h6. oh the opportunity to flaunt violence is being missed with all the great battle scenes they could do..Â
> >>> the suspected illegit birth of e4. there are loads and loads of juicey tidbits of intrigue and sexuality between 1422 and 1450. and then there is the whole e4 series of womanizing. h8 was a real slouch when compared to his maternal grandpa.
> >>> Â
> >>> while i do not respect the freedoms taken with the facts, i will say that the tudors and the borgias actually caught my spouse's attention. yes the sex/nudity pulled him in..but he was constantly asking questions about the facts..and this from a guy who had no interest in history prior to these two series. personally, i barely watched the programs. they were background noise while i was on my computer.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ------------------------------------
> >>
> >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Movies nearly always have good vs evil themes & (most) human nature wants
the good to succeed. There are plenty of twists & turns in the RIII story to
make it thrilling - gory battle scenes, Hastings beheadings, he had
mistress's before marriage & as for Edward's womanising - move over Henry
VIII!
Richard wasnt a saint, he was a man of his time. I think 'his story' told as
truthfully as we currently know it, with all the above gore & appropriate
sex would be a big hit - particularly if done as well as Ridley Scott's
Robin Hood & with 3 D!! This isnt fantasy its our history coming alive.
I just wish someone in the film industry would take up the mantle. What
happened to the movie making of The Sunne in Splendour? Anyone know?

Lisa

On 9 September 2011 10:06, HI <hi.dung@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> The trouble is that a good Richard III might not sell; it might be like a
> non-violent and celibate James Bond: not an obvious box office winner. The
> mass media for much of the time is like a sewerage overflow pipe and while
> not a Trappist monk myself, I do think gratuitous sex and violence,
> particularly in the Tudors, became a bit predictable and repetitious. Anyone
> would think that Henry VIII spent 24/7 planning his next debauchery and act
> of extreme violence.
>
> --- In , marion cheatham
> <marioncheatham2003@...> wrote:
> >
> > I would love to see this made.ý Richard gets such a bad press most of
> the time, despite many of us wishing otherwise.ý However, barring a lottery
> win, cannot help with the funding, but it will soon be Saturday and you
> never know.
> >
> > Marion
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
>
> > To:
> > Sent: Thursday, 8 September 2011, 16:15
> > Subject: Re: Re: Warwick the Kingmaker
> >
> >
> > ý
> > Thank you Vickie, and also to Judy for her encouraging comments.
> > Paul
> >
> > On 8 Sep 2011, at 14:42, Vickie Cook wrote:
> >
> > > Good luck Paul! I would love to see this series made. Wish I had a few
> million!
> > >
> > >
> > > From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Thursday, September 8, 2011 4:30 AM
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Warwick the Kingmaker
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > My script begins with Richard's birth and follows his life from his
> point of view all the way to the bitter end.
> > > What you are suggesting sounds more like a documentary though, and I
> have written drama. But I have managed to explain all the ups and downs and
> rivalries without boring people with any lectures!
> > >
> > > I have not written it as a movie, but as a series.
> > >
> > > I would hope for a Game of Thrones budget though to do it any justice.
> 5 or 6 episodes of 90 minutes each at around one million dollars an episode.
>
> > >
> > > Got any spare cash anyone?
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > On 8 Sep 2011, at 00:04, theblackprussian wrote:
> > >
> > >> This is why I now think a mini series broadly structured like the
> Tudors would be a much better way of presenting the pre-Tudor era than a
> one-off film or even series of films.
> > >>
> > >> You really couldn't make a Richard III stand alone movie; it is
> impossible to understand the political turmoil of 1483 without studying
> Edward IV's life and reign, and the divided nobility he left behind. So many
> lords supported Richard because they felt cheated of lands and titles by the
> Woodville faction.
> > >>
> > >> Of course you could go to the extreme of saying that it's impossible
> to understand modern politics without referencing the battle of Hastings;
> but for filming you need to have clean breaks between ensemble casts, and
> long royal minorities are the best window for placing these.
> > >>
> > >> I would say circa 1452 to start, beginning with the York-Somerset
> rivalry in the field at Dartford, with th birth of the prince of Wales and
> the end of the Hundred Years War occuring the following year. Any earlier
> and you need to include the government of Suffolk, and that really drags us
> back to a different power struggle.
> > >>
> > >> --- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@>
> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> oh no..they have toýý include h6. all the manipulations going on
> behind the throne. introduction of jacquetta. the secretýý marriages. the
> witchcraft accusations and pre-reformation religious turmoil.
> > >>> the rivalry that builds between the yorks and lancasterians. the
> whole joan d'arc influence on h6. oh the opportunity to flaunt violence is
> being missed with all the great battle scenes they could do..ýý
> > >>> the suspected illegit birth of e4. there are loads and loads of
> juicey tidbits of intrigue and sexuality between 1422 and 1450. and then
> there is the whole e4 series of womanizing.ýý h8 was a real slouch when
> compared to his maternal grandpa.
> > >>> ýý
> > >>> while i do not respect the freedoms taken with the facts, i will say
> that the tudors and the borgias actually caught my spouse's attention. yes
> the sex/nudity pulled him in..but he was constantly asking questions about
> the facts..and this from a guy who had no interest in history prior to these
> two series. personally, i barely watched the programs. they were background
> noise while i was on my computer.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ------------------------------------
> > >>
> > >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>



--
Lisa
The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
www.Antiques-Boutique.com

Oh Lisa 3D? Why? Please. I am longing for Hollywood to get over this crazy 3D fave. I find it boring, as do a lot of audiences now who are also fed up with the ticket price exploitation by the cinemas/theatres. If you have a digital projector you do not need anything extra to show a 3D movie, so why do they charge more? Once you have bought a pair of glasses, why pay again next time? The 2D Harry Potter I saw was packed full, and showings lasted longer at the cinema I saw it at than the 3D ones.
But you are correct when it comes to the ups and downs in Richard's story. Lots of villains, lots of violence, battles, killings, executions, and the antics of Edward IV could add some spice if they really must.
Paul


On 9 Sep 2011, at 15:20, Lisa @ The Antiques Boutique wrote:

> Movies nearly always have good vs evil themes & (most) human nature wants
> the good to succeed. There are plenty of twists & turns in the RIII story to
> make it thrilling - gory battle scenes, Hastings beheadings, he had
> mistress's before marriage & as for Edward's womanising - move over Henry
> VIII!
> Richard wasnt a saint, he was a man of his time. I think 'his story' told as
> truthfully as we currently know it, with all the above gore & appropriate
> sex would be a big hit - particularly if done as well as Ridley Scott's
> Robin Hood & with 3 D!! This isnt fantasy its our history coming alive.
> I just wish someone in the film industry would take up the mantle. What
> happened to the movie making of The Sunne in Splendour? Anyone know?
>
> Lisa
>
> On 9 September 2011 10:06, HI <hi.dung@...> wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> The trouble is that a good Richard III might not sell; it might be like a
>> non-violent and celibate James Bond: not an obvious box office winner. The
>> mass media for much of the time is like a sewerage overflow pipe and while
>> not a Trappist monk myself, I do think gratuitous sex and violence,
>> particularly in the Tudors, became a bit predictable and repetitious. Anyone
>> would think that Henry VIII spent 24/7 planning his next debauchery and act
>> of extreme violence.
>>
>> --- In , marion cheatham
>> <marioncheatham2003@...> wrote:
>>>
>>> I would love to see this made. Richard gets such a bad press most of
>> the time, despite many of us wishing otherwise. However, barring a lottery
>> win, cannot help with the funding, but it will soon be Saturday and you
>> never know.
>>>
>>> Marion
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
>>
>>> To:
>>> Sent: Thursday, 8 September 2011, 16:15
>>> Subject: Re: Re: Warwick the Kingmaker
>>>
>>>
>>> Â
>>> Thank you Vickie, and also to Judy for her encouraging comments.
>>> Paul
>>>
>>> On 8 Sep 2011, at 14:42, Vickie Cook wrote:
>>>
>>>> Good luck Paul! I would love to see this series made. Wish I had a few
>> million!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
>>
>>>> To:
>>>> Sent: Thursday, September 8, 2011 4:30 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: Re: Warwick the Kingmaker
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My script begins with Richard's birth and follows his life from his
>> point of view all the way to the bitter end.
>>>> What you are suggesting sounds more like a documentary though, and I
>> have written drama. But I have managed to explain all the ups and downs and
>> rivalries without boring people with any lectures!
>>>>
>>>> I have not written it as a movie, but as a series.
>>>>
>>>> I would hope for a Game of Thrones budget though to do it any justice.
>> 5 or 6 episodes of 90 minutes each at around one million dollars an episode.
>>
>>>>
>>>> Got any spare cash anyone?
>>>> Paul
>>>>
>>>> On 8 Sep 2011, at 00:04, theblackprussian wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> This is why I now think a mini series broadly structured like the
>> Tudors would be a much better way of presenting the pre-Tudor era than a
>> one-off film or even series of films.
>>>>>
>>>>> You really couldn't make a Richard III stand alone movie; it is
>> impossible to understand the political turmoil of 1483 without studying
>> Edward IV's life and reign, and the divided nobility he left behind. So many
>> lords supported Richard because they felt cheated of lands and titles by the
>> Woodville faction.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course you could go to the extreme of saying that it's impossible
>> to understand modern politics without referencing the battle of Hastings;
>> but for filming you need to have clean breaks between ensemble casts, and
>> long royal minorities are the best window for placing these.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would say circa 1452 to start, beginning with the York-Somerset
>> rivalry in the field at Dartford, with th birth of the prince of Wales and
>> the end of the Hundred Years War occuring the following year. Any earlier
>> and you need to include the government of Suffolk, and that really drags us
>> back to a different power struggle.
>>>>>
>>>>> --- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@>
>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> oh no..they have toÃ` include h6. all the manipulations going on
>> behind the throne. introduction of jacquetta. the secretÃ` marriages. the
>> witchcraft accusations and pre-reformation religious turmoil.
>>>>>> the rivalry that builds between the yorks and lancasterians. the
>> whole joan d'arc influence on h6. oh the opportunity to flaunt violence is
>> being missed with all the great battle scenes they could do..Ã`
>>>>>> the suspected illegit birth of e4. there are loads and loads of
>> juicey tidbits of intrigue and sexuality between 1422 and 1450. and then
>> there is the whole e4 series of womanizing.Ã` h8 was a real slouch when
>> compared to his maternal grandpa.
>>>>>> Ã`
>>>>>> while i do not respect the freedoms taken with the facts, i will say
>> that the tudors and the borgias actually caught my spouse's attention. yes
>> the sex/nudity pulled him in..but he was constantly asking questions about
>> the facts..and this from a guy who had no interest in history prior to these
>> two series. personally, i barely watched the programs. they were background
>> noise while i was on my computer.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Lisa
> The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
> Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
> Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
> www.Antiques-Boutique.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Ok 3D optional - just would love to get across the feeling of what these
guys must have gone through in a battle...
I guess smellivision is out then, too ;-) which they do have at Warwick
Castle in the wax works stable section by the way. Horse/straw smells!

On 9 September 2011 11:48, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Oh Lisa 3D? Why? Please. I am longing for Hollywood to get over this crazy
> 3D fave. I find it boring, as do a lot of audiences now who are also fed up
> with the ticket price exploitation by the cinemas/theatres. If you have a
> digital projector you do not need anything extra to show a 3D movie, so why
> do they charge more? Once you have bought a pair of glasses, why pay again
> next time? The 2D Harry Potter I saw was packed full, and showings lasted
> longer at the cinema I saw it at than the 3D ones.
> But you are correct when it comes to the ups and downs in Richard's story.
> Lots of villains, lots of violence, battles, killings, executions, and the
> antics of Edward IV could add some spice if they really must.
> Paul
>
>
> On 9 Sep 2011, at 15:20, Lisa @ The Antiques Boutique wrote:
>
> > Movies nearly always have good vs evil themes & (most) human nature wants
> > the good to succeed. There are plenty of twists & turns in the RIII story
> to
> > make it thrilling - gory battle scenes, Hastings beheadings, he had
> > mistress's before marriage & as for Edward's womanising - move over Henry
> > VIII!
> > Richard wasnt a saint, he was a man of his time. I think 'his story' told
> as
> > truthfully as we currently know it, with all the above gore & appropriate
> > sex would be a big hit - particularly if done as well as Ridley Scott's
> > Robin Hood & with 3 D!! This isnt fantasy its our history coming alive.
> > I just wish someone in the film industry would take up the mantle. What
> > happened to the movie making of The Sunne in Splendour? Anyone know?
> >
> > Lisa
> >
> > On 9 September 2011 10:06, HI <hi.dung@...> wrote:
> >
> >> **
> >>
> >>
> >> The trouble is that a good Richard III might not sell; it might be like
> a
> >> non-violent and celibate James Bond: not an obvious box office winner.
> The
> >> mass media for much of the time is like a sewerage overflow pipe and
> while
> >> not a Trappist monk myself, I do think gratuitous sex and violence,
> >> particularly in the Tudors, became a bit predictable and repetitious.
> Anyone
> >> would think that Henry VIII spent 24/7 planning his next debauchery and
> act
> >> of extreme violence.
> >>
> >> --- In , marion cheatham
> >> <marioncheatham2003@...> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I would love to see this made. Richard gets such a bad press most of
> >> the time, despite many of us wishing otherwise. However, barring a
> lottery
> >> win, cannot help with the funding, but it will soon be Saturday and you
> >> never know.
> >>>
> >>> Marion
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ________________________________
> >>> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> >>
> >>> To:
> >>> Sent: Thursday, 8 September 2011, 16:15
> >>> Subject: Re: Re: Warwick the Kingmaker
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Â
> >>> Thank you Vickie, and also to Judy for her encouraging comments.
> >>> Paul
> >>>
> >>> On 8 Sep 2011, at 14:42, Vickie Cook wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Good luck Paul! I would love to see this series made. Wish I had a few
> >> million!
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> >>
> >>>> To:
> >>>> Sent: Thursday, September 8, 2011 4:30 AM
> >>>> Subject: Re: Re: Warwick the Kingmaker
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> My script begins with Richard's birth and follows his life from his
> >> point of view all the way to the bitter end.
> >>>> What you are suggesting sounds more like a documentary though, and I
> >> have written drama. But I have managed to explain all the ups and downs
> and
> >> rivalries without boring people with any lectures!
> >>>>
> >>>> I have not written it as a movie, but as a series.
> >>>>
> >>>> I would hope for a Game of Thrones budget though to do it any justice.
> >> 5 or 6 episodes of 90 minutes each at around one million dollars an
> episode.
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>> Got any spare cash anyone?
> >>>> Paul
> >>>>
> >>>> On 8 Sep 2011, at 00:04, theblackprussian wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> This is why I now think a mini series broadly structured like the
> >> Tudors would be a much better way of presenting the pre-Tudor era than a
> >> one-off film or even series of films.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You really couldn't make a Richard III stand alone movie; it is
> >> impossible to understand the political turmoil of 1483 without studying
> >> Edward IV's life and reign, and the divided nobility he left behind. So
> many
> >> lords supported Richard because they felt cheated of lands and titles by
> the
> >> Woodville faction.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Of course you could go to the extreme of saying that it's impossible
> >> to understand modern politics without referencing the battle of
> Hastings;
> >> but for filming you need to have clean breaks between ensemble casts,
> and
> >> long royal minorities are the best window for placing these.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I would say circa 1452 to start, beginning with the York-Somerset
> >> rivalry in the field at Dartford, with th birth of the prince of Wales
> and
> >> the end of the Hundred Years War occuring the following year. Any
> earlier
> >> and you need to include the government of Suffolk, and that really drags
> us
> >> back to a different power struggle.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --- In , fayre rose
> <fayreroze@>
> >> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> oh no..they have toÃ` include h6. all the manipulations going on
> >> behind the throne. introduction of jacquetta. the secretÃ` marriages.
> the
> >> witchcraft accusations and pre-reformation religious turmoil.
> >>>>>> the rivalry that builds between the yorks and lancasterians. the
> >> whole joan d'arc influence on h6. oh the opportunity to flaunt violence
> is
> >> being missed with all the great battle scenes they could do..Ã`
> >>>>>> the suspected illegit birth of e4. there are loads and loads of
> >> juicey tidbits of intrigue and sexuality between 1422 and 1450. and then
> >> there is the whole e4 series of womanizing.Ã` h8 was a real slouch when
> >> compared to his maternal grandpa.
> >>>>>> Ã`
> >>>>>> while i do not respect the freedoms taken with the facts, i will say
> >> that the tudors and the borgias actually caught my spouse's attention.
> yes
> >> the sex/nudity pulled him in..but he was constantly asking questions
> about
> >> the facts..and this from a guy who had no interest in history prior to
> these
> >> two series. personally, i barely watched the programs. they were
> background
> >> noise while i was on my computer.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ------------------------------------
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ------------------------------------
> >>>>
> >>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Lisa
> > The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
> > Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
> > Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
> > www.Antiques-Boutique.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>



--
Lisa
The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
www.Antiques-Boutique.com

When it comes to battle scenes, few films can compete with "Ran" by
Akira Kurosawa, a magnificent film that essentially retells Lear. A
link to the youtube trailer follows:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbbfDntoRRk

Flo





On Sep 9, 2011, at 11:29 AM, Lisa @ The Antiques Boutique wrote:

> Ok 3D optional - just would love to get across the feeling of what
> these
> guys must have gone through in a battle...
> I guess smellivision is out then, too ;-) which they do have at
> Warwick
> Castle in the wax works stable section by the way. Horse/straw smells!
>
> On 9 September 2011 11:48, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > Oh Lisa 3D? Why? Please. I am longing for Hollywood to get over
> this crazy
> > 3D fave. I find it boring, as do a lot of audiences now who are
> also fed up
> > with the ticket price exploitation by the cinemas/theatres. If you
> have a
> > digital projector you do not need anything extra to show a 3D
> movie, so why
> > do they charge more? Once you have bought a pair of glasses, why
> pay again
> > next time? The 2D Harry Potter I saw was packed full, and showings
> lasted
> > longer at the cinema I saw it at than the 3D ones.
> > But you are correct when it comes to the ups and downs in
> Richard's story.
> > Lots of villains, lots of violence, battles, killings, executions,
> and the
> > antics of Edward IV could add some spice if they really must.
> > Paul
> >
> >
> > On 9 Sep 2011, at 15:20, Lisa @ The Antiques Boutique wrote:
> >
> > > Movies nearly always have good vs evil themes & (most) human
> nature wants
> > > the good to succeed. There are plenty of twists & turns in the
> RIII story
> > to
> > > make it thrilling - gory battle scenes, Hastings beheadings, he
> had
> > > mistress's before marriage & as for Edward's womanising - move
> over Henry
> > > VIII!
> > > Richard wasnt a saint, he was a man of his time. I think 'his
> story' told
> > as
> > > truthfully as we currently know it, with all the above gore &
> appropriate
> > > sex would be a big hit - particularly if done as well as Ridley
> Scott's
> > > Robin Hood & with 3 D!! This isnt fantasy its our history coming
> alive.
> > > I just wish someone in the film industry would take up the
> mantle. What
> > > happened to the movie making of The Sunne in Splendour? Anyone
> know?
> > >
> > > Lisa
> > >
> > > On 9 September 2011 10:06, HI <hi.dung@...> wrote:
> > >
> > >> **
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> The trouble is that a good Richard III might not sell; it might
> be like
> > a
> > >> non-violent and celibate James Bond: not an obvious box office
> winner.
> > The
> > >> mass media for much of the time is like a sewerage overflow
> pipe and
> > while
> > >> not a Trappist monk myself, I do think gratuitous sex and
> violence,
> > >> particularly in the Tudors, became a bit predictable and
> repetitious.
> > Anyone
> > >> would think that Henry VIII spent 24/7 planning his next
> debauchery and
> > act
> > >> of extreme violence.
> > >>
> > >> --- In , marion cheatham
> > >> <marioncheatham2003@...> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> I would love to see this made. Richard gets such a bad press
> most of
> > >> the time, despite many of us wishing otherwise. However,
> barring a
> > lottery
> > >> win, cannot help with the funding, but it will soon be Saturday
> and you
> > >> never know.
> > >>>
> > >>> Marion
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> ________________________________
> > >>> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> > >>
> > >>> To:
> > >>> Sent: Thursday, 8 September 2011, 16:15
> > >>> Subject: Re: Re: Warwick the
> Kingmaker
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Â
> > >>> Thank you Vickie, and also to Judy for her encouraging comments.
> > >>> Paul
> > >>>
> > >>> On 8 Sep 2011, at 14:42, Vickie Cook wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> Good luck Paul! I would love to see this series made. Wish I
> had a few
> > >> million!
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> > >>
> > >>>> To:
> > >>>> Sent: Thursday, September 8, 2011 4:30 AM
> > >>>> Subject: Re: Re: Warwick the
> Kingmaker
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> My script begins with Richard's birth and follows his life
> from his
> > >> point of view all the way to the bitter end.
> > >>>> What you are suggesting sounds more like a documentary
> though, and I
> > >> have written drama. But I have managed to explain all the ups
> and downs
> > and
> > >> rivalries without boring people with any lectures!
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I have not written it as a movie, but as a series.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I would hope for a Game of Thrones budget though to do it any
> justice.
> > >> 5 or 6 episodes of 90 minutes each at around one million
> dollars an
> > episode.
> > >>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Got any spare cash anyone?
> > >>>> Paul
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On 8 Sep 2011, at 00:04, theblackprussian wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> This is why I now think a mini series broadly structured
> like the
> > >> Tudors would be a much better way of presenting the pre-Tudor
> era than a
> > >> one-off film or even series of films.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> You really couldn't make a Richard III stand alone movie; it
> is
> > >> impossible to understand the political turmoil of 1483 without
> studying
> > >> Edward IV's life and reign, and the divided nobility he left
> behind. So
> > many
> > >> lords supported Richard because they felt cheated of lands and
> titles by
> > the
> > >> Woodville faction.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Of course you could go to the extreme of saying that it's
> impossible
> > >> to understand modern politics without referencing the battle of
> > Hastings;
> > >> but for filming you need to have clean breaks between ensemble
> casts,
> > and
> > >> long royal minorities are the best window for placing these.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I would say circa 1452 to start, beginning with the York-
> Somerset
> > >> rivalry in the field at Dartford, with th birth of the prince
> of Wales
> > and
> > >> the end of the Hundred Years War occuring the following year. Any
> > earlier
> > >> and you need to include the government of Suffolk, and that
> really drags
> > us
> > >> back to a different power struggle.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> --- In , fayre rose
> > <fayreroze@>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> oh no..they have toÃ` include h6. all the manipulations
> going on
> > >> behind the throne. introduction of jacquetta. the secretÃ`
> marriages.
> > the
> > >> witchcraft accusations and pre-reformation religious turmoil.
> > >>>>>> the rivalry that builds between the yorks and
> lancasterians. the
> > >> whole joan d'arc influence on h6. oh the opportunity to flaunt
> violence
> > is
> > >> being missed with all the great battle scenes they could
> do..Ã`
> > >>>>>> the suspected illegit birth of e4. there are loads and
> loads of
> > >> juicey tidbits of intrigue and sexuality between 1422 and 1450.
> and then
> > >> there is the whole e4 series of womanizing.Ã` h8 was a real
> slouch when
> > >> compared to his maternal grandpa.
> > >>>>>> Ã`
> > >>>>>> while i do not respect the freedoms taken with the facts, i
> will say
> > >> that the tudors and the borgias actually caught my spouse's
> attention.
> > yes
> > >> the sex/nudity pulled him in..but he was constantly asking
> questions
> > about
> > >> the facts..and this from a guy who had no interest in history
> prior to
> > these
> > >> two series. personally, i barely watched the programs. they were
> > background
> > >> noise while i was on my computer.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> ------------------------------------
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> ------------------------------------
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Lisa
> > > The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
> > > Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
> > > Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
> > > www.Antiques-Boutique.com
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Lisa
> The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
> Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
> Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
> www.Antiques-Boutique.com
>
>
>
>

Contrast the gaudy ballet of Ran with the grungfest of Welles' battle of Shrewsbury:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ngy17MrSrMo

Something between the two, for me, though the latter seems to have been inspired by TOL's Bosworth:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vjgx7pdHrk

A film about "Good" king Richard would be as ludicrous as the "Dragfoot & Crookback" combo in Tower of London. Richard did bad things because he had to...

Then there's the classic Shakespearean view:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnhBAT5OZvE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLongUBPm5Y

If anything, I find the sex and violence in the Tudors rather tame. If they let me loose on it...





--- In , Florence Dove <mdove9@...> wrote:
>
> When it comes to battle scenes, few films can compete with "Ran" by
> Akira Kurosawa, a magnificent film that essentially retells Lear. A
> link to the youtube trailer follows:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbbfDntoRRk
>
> Flo
>

While not denying that such a movie might work at the box office, Richard III, thanks to the artistic skill of Shakespeare, has become synonymous with a type of twisted anti-hero, which has been hugely successful, in fact, ever since it appeared and whether the masses would welcome someone less as low as Shakespeare's devil king, your guess is as good as mine.

--- In , "Lisa @ The Antiques Boutique" <lisa.holtjones@...> wrote:
>
> Movies nearly always have good vs evil themes & (most) human nature wants
> the good to succeed. There are plenty of twists & turns in the RIII story to
> make it thrilling - gory battle scenes, Hastings beheadings, he had
> mistress's before marriage & as for Edward's womanising - move over Henry
> VIII!
> Richard wasnt a saint, he was a man of his time. I think 'his story' told as
> truthfully as we currently know it, with all the above gore & appropriate
> sex would be a big hit - particularly if done as well as Ridley Scott's
> Robin Hood & with 3 D!! This isnt fantasy its our history coming alive.
> I just wish someone in the film industry would take up the mantle. What
> happened to the movie making of The Sunne in Splendour? Anyone know?
>
> Lisa
>
> On 9 September 2011 10:06, HI <hi.dung@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > The trouble is that a good Richard III might not sell; it might be like a
> > non-violent and celibate James Bond: not an obvious box office winner. The
> > mass media for much of the time is like a sewerage overflow pipe and while
> > not a Trappist monk myself, I do think gratuitous sex and violence,
> > particularly in the Tudors, became a bit predictable and repetitious. Anyone
> > would think that Henry VIII spent 24/7 planning his next debauchery and act
> > of extreme violence.
> >
> > --- In , marion cheatham
> > <marioncheatham2003@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I would love to see this made. Richard gets such a bad press most of
> > the time, despite many of us wishing otherwise. However, barring a lottery
> > win, cannot help with the funding, but it will soon be Saturday and you
> > never know.
> > >
> > > Marion
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@>
> >
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Thursday, 8 September 2011, 16:15
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Warwick the Kingmaker
> > >
> > >
> > > Â
> > > Thank you Vickie, and also to Judy for her encouraging comments.
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > On 8 Sep 2011, at 14:42, Vickie Cook wrote:
> > >
> > > > Good luck Paul! I would love to see this series made. Wish I had a few
> > million!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@>
> >
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Thursday, September 8, 2011 4:30 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: Re: Warwick the Kingmaker
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > My script begins with Richard's birth and follows his life from his
> > point of view all the way to the bitter end.
> > > > What you are suggesting sounds more like a documentary though, and I
> > have written drama. But I have managed to explain all the ups and downs and
> > rivalries without boring people with any lectures!
> > > >
> > > > I have not written it as a movie, but as a series.
> > > >
> > > > I would hope for a Game of Thrones budget though to do it any justice.
> > 5 or 6 episodes of 90 minutes each at around one million dollars an episode.
> >
> > > >
> > > > Got any spare cash anyone?
> > > > Paul
> > > >
> > > > On 8 Sep 2011, at 00:04, theblackprussian wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> This is why I now think a mini series broadly structured like the
> > Tudors would be a much better way of presenting the pre-Tudor era than a
> > one-off film or even series of films.
> > > >>
> > > >> You really couldn't make a Richard III stand alone movie; it is
> > impossible to understand the political turmoil of 1483 without studying
> > Edward IV's life and reign, and the divided nobility he left behind. So many
> > lords supported Richard because they felt cheated of lands and titles by the
> > Woodville faction.
> > > >>
> > > >> Of course you could go to the extreme of saying that it's impossible
> > to understand modern politics without referencing the battle of Hastings;
> > but for filming you need to have clean breaks between ensemble casts, and
> > long royal minorities are the best window for placing these.
> > > >>
> > > >> I would say circa 1452 to start, beginning with the York-Somerset
> > rivalry in the field at Dartford, with th birth of the prince of Wales and
> > the end of the Hundred Years War occuring the following year. Any earlier
> > and you need to include the government of Suffolk, and that really drags us
> > back to a different power struggle.
> > > >>
> > > >> --- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@>
> > wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> oh no..they have to include h6. all the manipulations going on
> > behind the throne. introduction of jacquetta. the secret marriages. the
> > witchcraft accusations and pre-reformation religious turmoil.
> > > >>> the rivalry that builds between the yorks and lancasterians. the
> > whole joan d'arc influence on h6. oh the opportunity to flaunt violence is
> > being missed with all the great battle scenes they could do..Â
> > > >>> the suspected illegit birth of e4. there are loads and loads of
> > juicey tidbits of intrigue and sexuality between 1422 and 1450. and then
> > there is the whole e4 series of womanizing. h8 was a real slouch when
> > compared to his maternal grandpa.
> > > >>> Â
> > > >>> while i do not respect the freedoms taken with the facts, i will say
> > that the tudors and the borgias actually caught my spouse's attention. yes
> > the sex/nudity pulled him in..but he was constantly asking questions about
> > the facts..and this from a guy who had no interest in history prior to these
> > two series. personally, i barely watched the programs. they were background
> > noise while i was on my computer.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> ------------------------------------
> > > >>
> > > >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Lisa
> The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
> Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
> Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
> www.Antiques-Boutique.com
>
>
>
>

buckingham rightfully deserves the title of king of demented evil. therefore, a movie about richard iii would reveal the truth, and still have the nasty villian.
roslyn

--- On Mon, 9/12/11, HI <hi.dung@...> wrote:


From: HI <hi.dung@...>
Subject: Re: Making of a series Richard III
To:
Received: Monday, September 12, 2011, 11:15 AM


 



While not denying that such a movie might work at the box office, Richard III, thanks to the artistic skill of Shakespeare, has become synonymous with a type of twisted anti-hero, which has been hugely successful, in fact, ever since it appeared and whether the masses would welcome someone less as low as Shakespeare's devil king, your guess is as good as mine.

--- In , "Lisa @ The Antiques Boutique" <lisa.holtjones@...> wrote:
>
> Movies nearly always have good vs evil themes & (most) human nature wants
> the good to succeed. There are plenty of twists & turns in the RIII story to
> make it thrilling - gory battle scenes, Hastings beheadings, he had
> mistress's before marriage & as for Edward's womanising - move over Henry
> VIII!
> Richard wasnt a saint, he was a man of his time. I think 'his story' told as
> truthfully as we currently know it, with all the above gore & appropriate
> sex would be a big hit - particularly if done as well as Ridley Scott's
> Robin Hood & with 3 D!! This isnt fantasy its our history coming alive.
> I just wish someone in the film industry would take up the mantle. What
> happened to the movie making of The Sunne in Splendour? Anyone know?
>
> Lisa
>
> On 9 September 2011 10:06, HI <hi.dung@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > The trouble is that a good Richard III might not sell; it might be like a
> > non-violent and celibate James Bond: not an obvious box office winner. The
> > mass media for much of the time is like a sewerage overflow pipe and while
> > not a Trappist monk myself, I do think gratuitous sex and violence,
> > particularly in the Tudors, became a bit predictable and repetitious. Anyone
> > would think that Henry VIII spent 24/7 planning his next debauchery and act
> > of extreme violence.
> >
> > --- In , marion cheatham
> > <marioncheatham2003@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I would love to see this made. Richard gets such a bad press most of
> > the time, despite many of us wishing otherwise. However, barring a lottery
> > win, cannot help with the funding, but it will soon be Saturday and you
> > never know.
> > >
> > > Marion
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@>
> >
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Thursday, 8 September 2011, 16:15
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Warwick the Kingmaker
> > >
> > >
> > > Â
> > > Thank you Vickie, and also to Judy for her encouraging comments.
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > On 8 Sep 2011, at 14:42, Vickie Cook wrote:
> > >
> > > > Good luck Paul! I would love to see this series made. Wish I had a few
> > million!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@>
> >
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Thursday, September 8, 2011 4:30 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: Re: Warwick the Kingmaker
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > My script begins with Richard's birth and follows his life from his
> > point of view all the way to the bitter end.
> > > > What you are suggesting sounds more like a documentary though, and I
> > have written drama. But I have managed to explain all the ups and downs and
> > rivalries without boring people with any lectures!
> > > >
> > > > I have not written it as a movie, but as a series.
> > > >
> > > > I would hope for a Game of Thrones budget though to do it any justice.
> > 5 or 6 episodes of 90 minutes each at around one million dollars an episode.
> >
> > > >
> > > > Got any spare cash anyone?
> > > > Paul
> > > >
> > > > On 8 Sep 2011, at 00:04, theblackprussian wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> This is why I now think a mini series broadly structured like the
> > Tudors would be a much better way of presenting the pre-Tudor era than a
> > one-off film or even series of films.
> > > >>
> > > >> You really couldn't make a Richard III stand alone movie; it is
> > impossible to understand the political turmoil of 1483 without studying
> > Edward IV's life and reign, and the divided nobility he left behind. So many
> > lords supported Richard because they felt cheated of lands and titles by the
> > Woodville faction.
> > > >>
> > > >> Of course you could go to the extreme of saying that it's impossible
> > to understand modern politics without referencing the battle of Hastings;
> > but for filming you need to have clean breaks between ensemble casts, and
> > long royal minorities are the best window for placing these.
> > > >>
> > > >> I would say circa 1452 to start, beginning with the York-Somerset
> > rivalry in the field at Dartford, with th birth of the prince of Wales and
> > the end of the Hundred Years War occuring the following year. Any earlier
> > and you need to include the government of Suffolk, and that really drags us
> > back to a different power struggle.
> > > >>
> > > >> --- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@>
> > wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> oh no..they have toà include h6. all the manipulations going on
> > behind the throne. introduction of jacquetta. the secretà marriages. the
> > witchcraft accusations and pre-reformation religious turmoil.
> > > >>> the rivalry that builds between the yorks and lancasterians. the
> > whole joan d'arc influence on h6. oh the opportunity to flaunt violence is
> > being missed with all the great battle scenes they could do..Ã
> > > >>> the suspected illegit birth of e4. there are loads and loads of
> > juicey tidbits of intrigue and sexuality between 1422 and 1450. and then
> > there is the whole e4 series of womanizing.Ã h8 was a real slouch when
> > compared to his maternal grandpa.
> > > >>> Ã
> > > >>> while i do not respect the freedoms taken with the facts, i will say
> > that the tudors and the borgias actually caught my spouse's attention. yes
> > the sex/nudity pulled him in..but he was constantly asking questions about
> > the facts..and this from a guy who had no interest in history prior to these
> > two series. personally, i barely watched the programs. they were background
> > noise while i was on my computer.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> ------------------------------------
> > > >>
> > > >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Lisa
> The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
> Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
> Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
> www.Antiques-Boutique.com
>
>
>
>

You may be right, but what would the title be of such a film? Buckingham, Prince of Darkness?

--- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> buckingham rightfully deserves the title of king of demented evil. therefore, a movie about richard iii would reveal the truth, and still have the nasty villian.
> roslyn
>
> --- On Mon, 9/12/11, HI <hi.dung@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: HI <hi.dung@...>
> Subject: Re: Making of a series Richard III
> To:
> Received: Monday, September 12, 2011, 11:15 AM
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> While not denying that such a movie might work at the box office, Richard III, thanks to the artistic skill of Shakespeare, has become synonymous with a type of twisted anti-hero, which has been hugely successful, in fact, ever since it appeared and whether the masses would welcome someone less as low as Shakespeare's devil king, your guess is as good as mine.
>
> --- In , "Lisa @ The Antiques Boutique" <lisa.holtjones@> wrote:
> >
> > Movies nearly always have good vs evil themes & (most) human nature wants
> > the good to succeed. There are plenty of twists & turns in the RIII story to
> > make it thrilling - gory battle scenes, Hastings beheadings, he had
> > mistress's before marriage & as for Edward's womanising - move over Henry
> > VIII!
> > Richard wasnt a saint, he was a man of his time. I think 'his story' told as
> > truthfully as we currently know it, with all the above gore & appropriate
> > sex would be a big hit - particularly if done as well as Ridley Scott's
> > Robin Hood & with 3 D!! This isnt fantasy its our history coming alive.
> > I just wish someone in the film industry would take up the mantle. What
> > happened to the movie making of The Sunne in Splendour? Anyone know?
> >
> > Lisa
> >
> > On 9 September 2011 10:06, HI <hi.dung@> wrote:
> >
> > > **
> > >
> > >
> > > The trouble is that a good Richard III might not sell; it might be like a
> > > non-violent and celibate James Bond: not an obvious box office winner. The
> > > mass media for much of the time is like a sewerage overflow pipe and while
> > > not a Trappist monk myself, I do think gratuitous sex and violence,
> > > particularly in the Tudors, became a bit predictable and repetitious. Anyone
> > > would think that Henry VIII spent 24/7 planning his next debauchery and act
> > > of extreme violence.
> > >
> > > --- In , marion cheatham
> > > <marioncheatham2003@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I would love to see this made. Richard gets such a bad press most of
> > > the time, despite many of us wishing otherwise. However, barring a lottery
> > > win, cannot help with the funding, but it will soon be Saturday and you
> > > never know.
> > > >
> > > > Marion
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@>
> > >
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Thursday, 8 September 2011, 16:15
> > > > Subject: Re: Re: Warwick the Kingmaker
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Â
> > > > Thank you Vickie, and also to Judy for her encouraging comments.
> > > > Paul
> > > >
> > > > On 8 Sep 2011, at 14:42, Vickie Cook wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Good luck Paul! I would love to see this series made. Wish I had a few
> > > million!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@>
> > >
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, September 8, 2011 4:30 AM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Re: Warwick the Kingmaker
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > My script begins with Richard's birth and follows his life from his
> > > point of view all the way to the bitter end.
> > > > > What you are suggesting sounds more like a documentary though, and I
> > > have written drama. But I have managed to explain all the ups and downs and
> > > rivalries without boring people with any lectures!
> > > > >
> > > > > I have not written it as a movie, but as a series.
> > > > >
> > > > > I would hope for a Game of Thrones budget though to do it any justice.
> > > 5 or 6 episodes of 90 minutes each at around one million dollars an episode.
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Got any spare cash anyone?
> > > > > Paul
> > > > >
> > > > > On 8 Sep 2011, at 00:04, theblackprussian wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> This is why I now think a mini series broadly structured like the
> > > Tudors would be a much better way of presenting the pre-Tudor era than a
> > > one-off film or even series of films.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> You really couldn't make a Richard III stand alone movie; it is
> > > impossible to understand the political turmoil of 1483 without studying
> > > Edward IV's life and reign, and the divided nobility he left behind. So many
> > > lords supported Richard because they felt cheated of lands and titles by the
> > > Woodville faction.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Of course you could go to the extreme of saying that it's impossible
> > > to understand modern politics without referencing the battle of Hastings;
> > > but for filming you need to have clean breaks between ensemble casts, and
> > > long royal minorities are the best window for placing these.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I would say circa 1452 to start, beginning with the York-Somerset
> > > rivalry in the field at Dartford, with th birth of the prince of Wales and
> > > the end of the Hundred Years War occuring the following year. Any earlier
> > > and you need to include the government of Suffolk, and that really drags us
> > > back to a different power struggle.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> --- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> oh no..they have to include h6. all the manipulations going on
> > > behind the throne. introduction of jacquetta. the secret marriages. the
> > > witchcraft accusations and pre-reformation religious turmoil.
> > > > >>> the rivalry that builds between the yorks and lancasterians. the
> > > whole joan d'arc influence on h6. oh the opportunity to flaunt violence is
> > > being missed with all the great battle scenes they could do..Â
> > > > >>> the suspected illegit birth of e4. there are loads and loads of
> > > juicey tidbits of intrigue and sexuality between 1422 and 1450. and then
> > > there is the whole e4 series of womanizing. h8 was a real slouch when
> > > compared to his maternal grandpa.
> > > > >>> Â
> > > > >>> while i do not respect the freedoms taken with the facts, i will say
> > > that the tudors and the borgias actually caught my spouse's attention. yes
> > > the sex/nudity pulled him in..but he was constantly asking questions about
> > > the facts..and this from a guy who had no interest in history prior to these
> > > two series. personally, i barely watched the programs. they were background
> > > noise while i was on my computer.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> ------------------------------------
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Lisa
> > The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
> > Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
> > Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
> > www.Antiques-Boutique.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

no way! it would stay as richard iii. buckingham's vileness would be revealed as the story played out. an uninformed audience would go expecting the same old-same old shakespearian line about r3.
 
they would leave with a new hero and new villians. sadly the movie wouldn't have a hollywood ending. the hero does not triumph...but, boy he does go down fighting against overwhelming odds...not only on the battle field, but also political adversaries.
 
h7 and co. were behind the scenes sneak thief opportunists and manipulators. buckingham was a smarmy, double-dealling, blindly ambitious and deadly manipulator.
anyone who offered an obstacle to his gaining the throne died.
richard stopped him..YAY, but the beaufort/tudors played on politically...BOOO.
 
intrique, violence..and throw in some sex for the low brow..you end up with a blockbuster with the right script.
 
roslyn
 

--- On Tue, 9/13/11, HI <hi.dung@...> wrote:


From: HI <hi.dung@...>
Subject: Re: Making of a series Richard III
To:
Received: Tuesday, September 13, 2011, 9:59 AM


 



You may be right, but what would the title be of such a film? Buckingham, Prince of Darkness?

--- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> buckingham rightfully deserves the title of king of demented evil. therefore, a movie about richard iii would reveal the truth, and still have the nasty villian.
> roslyn
>
> --- On Mon, 9/12/11, HI <hi.dung@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: HI <hi.dung@...>
> Subject: Re: Making of a series Richard III
> To:
> Received: Monday, September 12, 2011, 11:15 AM
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> While not denying that such a movie might work at the box office, Richard III, thanks to the artistic skill of Shakespeare, has become synonymous with a type of twisted anti-hero, which has been hugely successful, in fact, ever since it appeared and whether the masses would welcome someone less as low as Shakespeare's devil king, your guess is as good as mine.
>
> --- In , "Lisa @ The Antiques Boutique" <lisa.holtjones@> wrote:
> >
> > Movies nearly always have good vs evil themes & (most) human nature wants
> > the good to succeed. There are plenty of twists & turns in the RIII story to
> > make it thrilling - gory battle scenes, Hastings beheadings, he had
> > mistress's before marriage & as for Edward's womanising - move over Henry
> > VIII!
> > Richard wasnt a saint, he was a man of his time. I think 'his story' told as
> > truthfully as we currently know it, with all the above gore & appropriate
> > sex would be a big hit - particularly if done as well as Ridley Scott's
> > Robin Hood & with 3 D!! This isnt fantasy its our history coming alive.
> > I just wish someone in the film industry would take up the mantle. What
> > happened to the movie making of The Sunne in Splendour? Anyone know?
> >
> > Lisa
> >
> > On 9 September 2011 10:06, HI <hi.dung@> wrote:
> >
> > > **
> > >
> > >
> > > The trouble is that a good Richard III might not sell; it might be like a
> > > non-violent and celibate James Bond: not an obvious box office winner. The
> > > mass media for much of the time is like a sewerage overflow pipe and while
> > > not a Trappist monk myself, I do think gratuitous sex and violence,
> > > particularly in the Tudors, became a bit predictable and repetitious. Anyone
> > > would think that Henry VIII spent 24/7 planning his next debauchery and act
> > > of extreme violence.
> > >
> > > --- In , marion cheatham
> > > <marioncheatham2003@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I would love to see this made.Ã Richard gets such a bad press most of
> > > the time, despite many of us wishing otherwise.Ã However, barring a lottery
> > > win, cannot help with the funding, but it will soon be Saturday and you
> > > never know.
> > > >
> > > > Marion
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@>
> > >
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Thursday, 8 September 2011, 16:15
> > > > Subject: Re: Re: Warwick the Kingmaker
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ã
> > > > Thank you Vickie, and also to Judy for her encouraging comments.
> > > > Paul
> > > >
> > > > On 8 Sep 2011, at 14:42, Vickie Cook wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Good luck Paul! I would love to see this series made. Wish I had a few
> > > million!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@>
> > >
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, September 8, 2011 4:30 AM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Re: Warwick the Kingmaker
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > My script begins with Richard's birth and follows his life from his
> > > point of view all the way to the bitter end.
> > > > > What you are suggesting sounds more like a documentary though, and I
> > > have written drama. But I have managed to explain all the ups and downs and
> > > rivalries without boring people with any lectures!
> > > > >
> > > > > I have not written it as a movie, but as a series.
> > > > >
> > > > > I would hope for a Game of Thrones budget though to do it any justice.
> > > 5 or 6 episodes of 90 minutes each at around one million dollars an episode.
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Got any spare cash anyone?
> > > > > Paul
> > > > >
> > > > > On 8 Sep 2011, at 00:04, theblackprussian wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> This is why I now think a mini series broadly structured like the
> > > Tudors would be a much better way of presenting the pre-Tudor era than a
> > > one-off film or even series of films.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> You really couldn't make a Richard III stand alone movie; it is
> > > impossible to understand the political turmoil of 1483 without studying
> > > Edward IV's life and reign, and the divided nobility he left behind. So many
> > > lords supported Richard because they felt cheated of lands and titles by the
> > > Woodville faction.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Of course you could go to the extreme of saying that it's impossible
> > > to understand modern politics without referencing the battle of Hastings;
> > > but for filming you need to have clean breaks between ensemble casts, and
> > > long royal minorities are the best window for placing these.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I would say circa 1452 to start, beginning with the York-Somerset
> > > rivalry in the field at Dartford, with th birth of the prince of Wales and
> > > the end of the Hundred Years War occuring the following year. Any earlier
> > > and you need to include the government of Suffolk, and that really drags us
> > > back to a different power struggle.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> --- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> oh no..they have toÃ’â¬a include h6. all the manipulations going on
> > > behind the throne. introduction of jacquetta. the secretÃ’â¬a marriages. the
> > > witchcraft accusations and pre-reformation religious turmoil.
> > > > >>> the rivalry that builds between the yorks and lancasterians. the
> > > whole joan d'arc influence on h6. oh the opportunity to flaunt violence is
> > > being missed with all the great battle scenes they could do..Ã’â¬a
> > > > >>> the suspected illegit birth of e4. there are loads and loads of
> > > juicey tidbits of intrigue and sexuality between 1422 and 1450. and then
> > > there is the whole e4 series of womanizing.Ã’â¬a h8 was a real slouch when
> > > compared to his maternal grandpa.
> > > > >>> Ã’â¬a
> > > > >>> while i do not respect the freedoms taken with the facts, i will say
> > > that the tudors and the borgias actually caught my spouse's attention. yes
> > > the sex/nudity pulled him in..but he was constantly asking questions about
> > > the facts..and this from a guy who had no interest in history prior to these
> > > two series. personally, i barely watched the programs. they were background
> > > noise while i was on my computer.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> ------------------------------------
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Lisa
> > The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
> > Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
> > Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
> > www.Antiques-Boutique.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Paul has a brilliant script; it's dramatic and truthful, with strong dialogue and stunning imagery. It even strikes me as timely, given our current political scene. A good script deserves David Lean callibre direction (don't remember gratuitous sex in Lawrence or Bridge on River Kwai - not even in Zhivago, and that was a love story!!! though I do recall the visual lyricism: the fall of a flower petal with a shift of depth of field... a quarrel seen but not heard; these visuals told miles of story. And these movies were big money makers and award winners). 

People do enjoy discovering an Old, Familiar Story isn't the True Story. It's a variation on supporting the Under Dog. I feel the time is Right.... 

If anyone among us knows someone who knows someone? All it would take is the right Someone.

I believe he/she is out there.

Judy

________________________________
From: fayre rose <fayreroze@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2011 12:09 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Making of a series Richard III


 
no way! it would stay as richard iii. buckingham's vileness would be revealed as the story played out. an uninformed audience would go expecting the same old-same old shakespearian line about r3.
 
they would leave with a new hero and new villians. sadly the movie wouldn't have a hollywood ending. the hero does not triumph...but, boy he does go down fighting against overwhelming odds...not only on the battle field, but also political adversaries.
 
h7 and co. were behind the scenes sneak thief opportunists and manipulators. buckingham was a smarmy, double-dealling, blindly ambitious and deadly manipulator.
anyone who offered an obstacle to his gaining the throne died.
richard stopped him..YAY, but the beaufort/tudors played on politically...BOOO.
 
intrique, violence..and throw in some sex for the low brow..you end up with a blockbuster with the right script.
 
roslyn
 

--- On Tue, 9/13/11, HI <hi.dung@...> wrote:

From: HI <hi.dung@...>
Subject: Re: Making of a series Richard III
To:
Received: Tuesday, September 13, 2011, 9:59 AM

 

You may be right, but what would the title be of such a film? Buckingham, Prince of Darkness?

--- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> buckingham rightfully deserves the title of king of demented evil. therefore, a movie about richard iii would reveal the truth, and still have the nasty villian.
> roslyn
>
> --- On Mon, 9/12/11, HI <hi.dung@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: HI <hi.dung@...>
> Subject: Re: Making of a series Richard III
> To:
> Received: Monday, September 12, 2011, 11:15 AM
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> While not denying that such a movie might work at the box office, Richard III, thanks to the artistic skill of Shakespeare, has become synonymous with a type of twisted anti-hero, which has been hugely successful, in fact, ever since it appeared and whether the masses would welcome someone less as low as Shakespeare's devil king, your guess is as good as mine.
>
> --- In , "Lisa @ The Antiques Boutique" <lisa.holtjones@> wrote:
> >
> > Movies nearly always have good vs evil themes & (most) human nature wants
> > the good to succeed. There are plenty of twists & turns in the RIII story to
> > make it thrilling - gory battle scenes, Hastings beheadings, he had
> > mistress's before marriage & as for Edward's womanising - move over Henry
> > VIII!
> > Richard wasnt a saint, he was a man of his time. I think 'his story' told as
> > truthfully as we currently know it, with all the above gore & appropriate
> > sex would be a big hit - particularly if done as well as Ridley Scott's
> > Robin Hood & with 3 D!! This isnt fantasy its our history coming alive.
> > I just wish someone in the film industry would take up the mantle. What
> > happened to the movie making of The Sunne in Splendour? Anyone know?
> >
> > Lisa
> >
> > On 9 September 2011 10:06, HI <hi.dung@> wrote:
> >
> > > **
> > >
> > >
> > > The trouble is that a good Richard III might not sell; it might be like a
> > > non-violent and celibate James Bond: not an obvious box office winner. The
> > > mass media for much of the time is like a sewerage overflow pipe and while
> > > not a Trappist monk myself, I do think gratuitous sex and violence,
> > > particularly in the Tudors, became a bit predictable and repetitious. Anyone
> > > would think that Henry VIII spent 24/7 planning his next debauchery and act
> > > of extreme violence.
> > >
> > > --- In , marion cheatham
> > > <marioncheatham2003@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I would love to see this made.Ã Richard gets such a bad press most of
> > > the time, despite many of us wishing otherwise.Ã However, barring a lottery
> > > win, cannot help with the funding, but it will soon be Saturday and you
> > > never know.
> > > >
> > > > Marion
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@>
> > >
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Thursday, 8 September 2011, 16:15
> > > > Subject: Re: Re: Warwick the Kingmaker
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ã
> > > > Thank you Vickie, and also to Judy for her encouraging comments.
> > > > Paul
> > > >
> > > > On 8 Sep 2011, at 14:42, Vickie Cook wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Good luck Paul! I would love to see this series made. Wish I had a few
> > > million!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@>
> > >
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, September 8, 2011 4:30 AM
> > > > > Subject: Re: Re: Warwick the Kingmaker
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > My script begins with Richard's birth and follows his life from his
> > > point of view all the way to the bitter end.
> > > > > What you are suggesting sounds more like a documentary though, and I
> > > have written drama. But I have managed to explain all the ups and downs and
> > > rivalries without boring people with any lectures!
> > > > >
> > > > > I have not written it as a movie, but as a series.
> > > > >
> > > > > I would hope for a Game of Thrones budget though to do it any justice.
> > > 5 or 6 episodes of 90 minutes each at around one million dollars an episode.
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Got any spare cash anyone?
> > > > > Paul
> > > > >
> > > > > On 8 Sep 2011, at 00:04, theblackprussian wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> This is why I now think a mini series broadly structured like the
> > > Tudors would be a much better way of presenting the pre-Tudor era than a
> > > one-off film or even series of films.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> You really couldn't make a Richard III stand alone movie; it is
> > > impossible to understand the political turmoil of 1483 without studying
> > > Edward IV's life and reign, and the divided nobility he left behind. So many
> > > lords supported Richard because they felt cheated of lands and titles by the
> > > Woodville faction.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Of course you could go to the extreme of saying that it's impossible
> > > to understand modern politics without referencing the battle of Hastings;
> > > but for filming you need to have clean breaks between ensemble casts, and
> > > long royal minorities are the best window for placing these.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I would say circa 1452 to start, beginning with the York-Somerset
> > > rivalry in the field at Dartford, with th birth of the prince of Wales and
> > > the end of the Hundred Years War occuring the following year. Any earlier
> > > and you need to include the government of Suffolk, and that really drags us
> > > back to a different power struggle.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> --- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> oh no..they have toÃ’â¬a include h6. all the manipulations going on
> > > behind the throne. introduction of jacquetta. the secretÃ’â¬a marriages. the
> > > witchcraft accusations and pre-reformation religious turmoil.
> > > > >>> the rivalry that builds between the yorks and lancasterians. the
> > > whole joan d'arc influence on h6. oh the opportunity to flaunt violence is
> > > being missed with all the great battle scenes they could do..Ã’â¬a
> > > > >>> the suspected illegit birth of e4. there are loads and loads of
> > > juicey tidbits of intrigue and sexuality between 1422 and 1450. and then
> > > there is the whole e4 series of womanizing.Ã’â¬a h8 was a real slouch when
> > > compared to his maternal grandpa.
> > > > >>> Ã’â¬a
> > > > >>> while i do not respect the freedoms taken with the facts, i will say
> > > that the tudors and the borgias actually caught my spouse's attention. yes
> > > the sex/nudity pulled him in..but he was constantly asking questions about
> > > the facts..and this from a guy who had no interest in history prior to these
> > > two series. personally, i barely watched the programs. they were background
> > > noise while i was on my computer.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> ------------------------------------
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Lisa
> > The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
> > Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
> > Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
> > www.Antiques-Boutique.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>