the same stylistic habits consistent through-out his work, and when tested against 37 other proposed "Shakespeares" in the Claremont Shakespeare clinic on computer, the results that none of these other writers could have written Shakespeare's work, or he theirs. In light of all of this evidence, you need something a little heavier in your argument than the evidence you have provided, which is merely circumstantial.
@MountainMusicMomma That's assuming he wrote them in the first place. So is the evidence you presented, because it FIRST ASSUMES he wrote them to begin with.
By all historical evidence, considering that he his mentioned up to 23 times in his own lifetime as a great writer, has eulogies written for him, we have a letter he received, documentation that he was made a gentleman, barbs from his contemporaries for not being a proper gentleman, and no questions of his authorship in his lifetime. We know he existed and died, and by all historical accounts, wrote these plays. His work shows the natural progression of a writer, and all of his work display...
@MountainMusicMomma That doesn't prove he wrote them, even if he was considered many times a great writer, YOU admitted his works weren't great or parts of it were in fact written poorly. All that doesn't prove he wrote them, he was honored but he may have deceived them. Of course there was no question of his authorship in his lifetime, because these questions and doubts were brought to light. I NEVER SAID he DIDN'T exist. His work may show the natural prog of a writer, but that doesn't prove.
@4tehhorde cont...Now, for 3. Do you know how many brilliant authors there are who have not received a formal educations? Yes, but AT THAT TIME that wasn't the case. In FACT in order to do and write the way Shakespeare did, you needed an extensive knowledge OF what you were writing about. He had NO library, he had NO education, where did he learn this stuff??? His parent's couldn't teach him, and he apparently didn't teach his kids. So, you're telling me it's a natural talent?? Is that it???
Why does everyone take this "Shakespeare fraud thing" so seriously? It's a movie, they play with what ifs. God why can't people just sit down and enjoy things? Why is everyone so bitchy about everything? People do not do things accustomed to our liking, so if you don't like it, you don't like it. Quit it with the bitching, and that goes for every youtuber - about everything.
This sounds like an interesting movie, I just really hope people don't start saying "yeah well I saw it in a movie/on the internet/etc. so it's true." It looks cool, but I wouldn't trust any movie about Shakespeare that put the first 'e' in his name. Shakespeare probably plagiarized a couple times, but everyone back then did, so it's not even a big deal who really wrote it: it's mostly that Shakespeare had enough taste to (maybe rewrite them all in his own style and) popularize them that counts.
Just came back from seeing this movie and it sucked so bad. Shakespeare was portrayed as a baffoon and an illiterate drunk. Queen Elizabeth was portrayed as a crazy slut. Wild conspiracy theories like this one are elitist and assume that just because WS was not university educated that he couldn't have authored the plays. Take your money and go see a Shakespeare play instead because this movie is a giant steaming turd.
@sbrcs564 Okay, you're not really answering my questions. You're making claims that you really can't prove. It is not impossible for someone to learn to read before 14, but NOT at that time. Now, you're just ASSUMING he was gifted. Beethoven was educated, besides music can be a natural talent. So are you now telling me that Someone who WASN'T EDUCATED, HAD ILLITERATE PARENTS, ILLITERATE CHILDREN, LEFT NO ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS, was NATURALLY gifted?? Is THAT ALL???
@asdfqwertyfour neither of them probably had anything to do with hacking PSN, all they did was take credit for it. Besides anon and lulzsec are all shut in teenagers anyway, who cares what they did.
@halistra24 I am saying no because it's ridiculous. I would have an open mind about it if the only conspiracy theories weren't obviously falsified, paranoid ravings of some old moron who got way too much attention than what he should have gotten.
@Christistruth1 He was a playwright. What he did was utilize poetry in the form of dialog. If he wrote full-fledged books, the illiteracy of his family would be relevant. Let's not forget that if he did exist (and he did) and if he was a genius (and he was) it is not impossible for anybody to learn how to read before the age of 14 (which he did), let alone someone of his talent. Using the first three arguments is like saying Beethoven had to have been a fraud because he was deaf. Use your brain.
@scraps992 Okay, you're not really answering my questions. You're making claims that you really can't prove. It is not impossible for someone to learn to read before 14, but NOT at that time. Now, you're just ASSUMING he was gifted. Beethoven was educated, besides music can be a natural talent. So are you now telling me that Someone who WASN'T EDUCATED, HAD ILLITERATE PARENTS, ILLITERATE CHILDREN, LEFT NO ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS, was NATURALLY gifted?? Is THAT ALL???
Amazed that Roland Emmerich has finally produced an adult movie. It’s an intriguing idea when you compare it to the fact that most authors may have maybe two good novels in them before their work becomes derivative.
When I saw this trailer, I could have thrown my shoe through my TV. All I can think about are the possible hours upon hours I will have to spend in my life now, explaining to my students that Shakespeare really did exist, and that while our knowledge of Shakespeare's life is not very complete, all these people have are wild speculations without a thread of evidence. They write books and articles that self-respecting academics chuckle at and go on. Only to be told: But the movie said...
@MountainMusicMomma Explain this for us then. 1. His parent's were illiterate. 2. He dropped out of school at 14. 3. His children were illiterate. 5. There were NO original manuscripts of his work.
How is it at that time that a man who was UNEDUCATED write and INVENT and use words BEYOND his education?? Please explain. Thank you.
1. Do you have any evidence other than wild conjectures based on facts that do not logically add up to your suggestion? Or are these four points all you have compared to the copius amounts of information regarding the existence of Shakespeare?
2, Do you have any evidence other than to suggest that a man who is not formally educated cannot be educated?
3. If that's the case, do you know how many brilliant authors there are who have not received formal education?
@MountainMusicMomma Sorry, the problem is this. You have NO evidence that he even wrote those plays. There are no other copies available, there are no first drafts. Now tell me, how does a poor child who has parents who were illiterate, and had children who were illiterate, become the greatest writer of all time?? Of course not, but the questions are not answered, all you have is..."He wrote it because he said he did. And I believe it." That's all you got.
Oh good lord, if you think that's all of the evidence available then you're sorely mistaken. Even in his own time, Shakespeare was quite often teased about having no classical training. Ben Johnson, one of my favorites, actually remarks about this himself several times. And Shakespeare actually makes plenty of "classical" blunders in his plays. He is not the greatest writer on Earth for what he KNOWS, but for his great mastery of painting the human condition.
@MountainMusicMomma I'm NOT SAYING that Shakespeare didn't write the works, I'm questioning it. I NEVER SAID it was evidence, I said they were QUESTIONS that have not been answered that brings into question their validity. Do me a favor, show us evidence that Shakespeare actually wrote those plays, that are OUTSIDE sources, confirming it, besides people claiming he did because his name is on the paper.
And furthermore, no one questions Shakespeare's authorship during his own time. There's even evidence he was made a gentleman. There's mountains of references to him, as both the playwright and the actor. And do you realize how few original documents survived the 16th century? We have plenty of his playbills, but yes, nothing written in his own hand. That's an extremely rare find in and of itself. And furthermore, his plays actually started out being quite poor.
@MountainMusicMomma Of course they didn't question it, people at that time believed in witches, and fairies and elves. They still do. Okay, he was made a gentleman, and that proves he wrote his stories??? So, their's references of him, and his plays, that doesn't prove he wrote them either. That proves that people believed that he did. Ah, so not only was he NOT educated, we have nothing written in his own hand, nice. "His plays actually started out being poor." Subjective view.
I mean, have you ever read Titus Andronicus? Some Shakespeare scholars in the past wanted to refuse to give him credit for it because it's so horrible. So his plays show a natural progression of a writer. Are you saying that some one "faked" that? So, like I said, what evidence do you have that he wasn't the writer? Other than to suggest that a poor, formally uneducated man can't grow to be an amazing writer? I have three words for you: argumentem ex silentio.
@MountainMusicMomma Okay, it's horrible, how does that prove he wrote them? It doesn't. "So his plays show a natural progression of a writer." Assuming he wrote them. "Are you saying that someone 'faked' that?" 1. That's purely subjective. Take that lady that wrote Twilight. Many critics don't like her works, she's a poor writer, but her movies and books are big hits. Tolkien didn't like C.S. Lewis's "Narnia" books, and they were best friends. cont....
@MountainMusicMomma cont..."So, like I said, what evidence do you have that he wasn't the writer?" I never said I had evidence, there's is a great amount of speculations, and questions that haven't been answered. In which you haven't. "Argumentem ex silentio." Epic fail, I NEVER said he didn't, I Never SAID I had evidence, think critically my friend, because I'm asking questions you haven't answered, just speculated.
@MountainMusicMomma But, I'll tell you what, I'll do this...While the records from the theatrical world in London show that he was working as an actor and playwright, the records from his hometown of Stratford-upon-Avon show that he was simply a grain merchant. Nowhere in the contemporary records of Stratford-upon-Avon is there a single reference to Shakespeare being a dramatist or writer of any kind. Let's cont....
@MountainMusicMomma cont...No record exists of his receiving an education, buying a book or writing a single play. Even the monument besides his grave in Stratford’s Holy Trinity Church - the famous bust depicting the Bard composing his works - was an eighteenth-century fake.
@MountainMusicMomma the land registers of Stratford for 1597 show that Shakespeare was rich enough to buy New Place, the second largest house in the town, while the records in London at the very same time show that was unable to pay the rent on a small apartment in the poorest district of Bishopsgate.
@MountainMusicMomma The following year when Shakespeare was listed in Stratford as possessing substantial grain holdings and lending a considerable sum of money, in London, court transcripts show that he had been forced into hiding by debt collectors who were pursuing him for less than a pound.
@MountainMusicMomma The following people have cast serious doubts over the validity of William Shakespeare as the true author and speculation to the identity / authorship problem:
Mark Twain, Charlie Chaplin, Sigmund Freud, Henry James, Walt Whitman, Dickens, Sir John Gielgud, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Orson Welles, In 1985Jane Cox (Principle Asst Keeper of Records Her Majesties Stationery Office) confirmed that all documents containing William Shakespeare signatures are by a different hand.
All of whom I greatly admire, but who still made the same fallacious argument as you. Now to add to your list of logical fallacies is a fallacious use of the appeal to authority. If any of your list of wonderful authors were considered legitamite experts on the biographical history of Shakespeare, I might take their opinions more seriously. And you do realize that the signatures in question are only from one document? His will? Which two of the signatures are probably his...
@MountainMusicMomma What's fallacious about it??? They're true, they are factually true, documented facts. It's only fallacious if they weren't true. LOLOLOL..."The appeal to authority." LOL, I cited MORE than authority, EVEN YOU CITED AUTHORITY. Talk about being a hypocrite. Nope, they are from MULTIPLE documents.
But that the others are probably not? Even if we accept Jane Cox's analysis of this document, which there seems to not be much consensus on yet among scholars, it proves nothing but to suggest that some of the other signatures on Shakespeare's will were forged probably by clerks or those that handled the creation of the will? This has nothing to do with whether he wrote his plays or not.
@MountainMusicMomma You're again trying to validate your argument by speculation, while I NEVER SAID Shakespeare DIDN'T write his plays, I am pointing out it's suspect. You haven't even proven he's written those plays, you have given me nothing. The best you have is taking Shakespeare's word for it, because his name was on the paper. RIGHT? Tell me what else is there??? Hearsay? Even the website, "How we know Shakespeare wrote his plays?" "His name was on the paper."
@MountainMusicMomma Cont...I mean honestly, aren't you the one getting all bent out of shape? I'm a writer myself, I have many of Shakespeare's books. I myself, have a large library of all kinds of books that I draw from. In order for me to know what I am talking about regarding myths, I need to read. It's funny that Shakespeare didn't have these things, illiterate parents, and illiterate children. You just believe he did, because his names on the paper right???
@MountainMusicMomma Sir John Gielgud:English theatre and film actor, widely viewed as one of the greatest British actors in history. In 1996, while serving as president of the World Shakespeare Congress, Gielgud signed a petition along with more than 400 others, which read: “We, the undersigned, petition the Shakespeare Association of America, in light of ongoing research, to engage actively in a comprehensive, objective and sustained investigation of the authorship of the Shakespeare Canon …”
No, it's not only fallacious if they're not true. Not in logic and debate. Look up the definition of fallacy, and that will point in the direction of how I used the word. And you're not understanding what "authority" means in this context. You can correctly use an appeal to authority, but you're not doing it. Even Sir Joh Gielgud, who I am sure is a respected individual, is not an expert Shakespeare biographer. He has not devoted his life to the study of Shakespeare's life.
@MountainMusicMomma You don't have to be an expert in Shakespeare, to question it's validity. What evidence do you have that he wrote them? "His names on the paper." That's not good enough.
And you were correct about Jane Cox studying the signatures from multiple documents. I remembered having read an article that cited her that dealt specifically with Shakespeare's will and clerk involvement. I was mistaken. However, the signatures she studied were all still legal documents, so you don't really have a leg to stand on there. And you are continuing to mischaracterize my argument. I am not suggesting that the only reason I believe Shakespeare wrote the plays was...
@Christistruth1 You're misunderstanding. You tried to suggest that the discrepancies in these signatures suggested something about whether the man Shakespeare wrote his plays. Even if the legal documents are frauds, this doesn't say anything about whether he wrote his plays or not. Do you understand? And you're still using the argument from silence. You keep suggesting I have nothing, and yet I keep telling you I do have things. You're just not listening, and keep repeating the same thing.
@MountainMusicMomma There are not just discrepancies in the signatures, there's more than that. It makes no logical sense. You have no real hard evidence that he eve wrote his plays. You do have nothing, you admitted you have no evidence, yet criticize me when I question it's validity. I'm repeating it, because you're not answering it.
@Christistruth1 I have not admitted no evidence. That's what I'm saying. I am giving you evidence, and yet you will not accept it as valid evidence. You have changed the goal posts. You start the argument with me using historical facts from Shakespeare's life and works to ask me, basically, how in the world can you believe he wrote these plays? I tell you why your reasons are invalid, because they are circumstantial, and back up my own claim with historical facts and studies of his works.
@MountainMusicMomma Yes, you did, you stated there was no HARD evidence. It seems that someone has removed that comment and others, could it have been you because they would have proved I was right??? I'm not saying it's not valid, I'm saying it's not strong. I have not changed the goal posts. But those facts don't prove anything, they don't prove he wrote them. No, I'm asking what evidence is there that he wrote them?? No, you haven't proven that he wrote them, you even contradicted yourself.
@Christistruth1 You suddenly say, well this is not good enough! Unless you were there to see whether he wrote his plays, then you have nothing. I can say the exact same thing to you: Unless you were there to see some insane conspiracy, then you have nothing. But, I don't. However, I still say that the evidence you have given is faulty evidence, and I don't require the same impossibility from you. Now you say that you're not trying to prove Shakespeare didn't write his plays, which is quite...
@MountainMusicMomma Its not good enough, because with all that we have to presuppose he wrote them. And you have nothing, because unless you were there to see him write them you don't know do you??? Nope. Therefor my reasonable doubt is valid. I could care less what you say it is, that doesn't prove anything. I'm not saying he didn't, I'm questioning it.
Because he said he did, but that there is no evidence to the contrary. On the other hand, as I have pointed out, there is a great deal of evidence that there was a Shakespeare and that none of his contemporaries questioned his authorship. I simply cannot prove, beyond a doubt, without going back in time, that Shakespeare wrote his plays. However, you have not provided even enough evidence to the contrary to entertain much doubt. And if you think that...
@MountainMusicMomma Of course there is reasonable doubt to the contrary. I'm not denying Shakespeare's existence. Oh okay, so you DON'T have hard evidence that Shakespeare wrote his plays, I see, so then the doubt is within reason. Again, there is no evidence, I SAID there are DISCREPANCIES, and INFORMATION that leads us to question the validity of his authorship. I have reasonable doubt, and so do thousands of others. What do you have?? Nothing.
The best evidence that can be found by those on my side of the argument comes from a silly website you found through a google search, then there is no wonder that you have serious doubts. You have obviously not found informed sources. I would appreciate it, however, if you would quit building straw men. Until then, I'm done.
@MountainMusicMomma The "silly website" is a subjective point of view, it's not truly silly, you just disagree with it, and call it silly, that doesn't prove that it is silly. In fact the objections and concerns they raise are legitimate, and they ask questions YOU CAN'T answer. Oh so what would be an "informed" source??? Setting up criteria by your own standard now? Do me a favor, since you're making the positive claim here, prove Shakespeare wrote those plays. You were done a long time ago.
And you should have learned about trusted sources in any library class. There's plenty of guides available online. And no, you don't have to be an expert to question the validity, but for your argument to be very convincing, you probably should be.
@Christistruth1 a different feel from your first post, and suggest that, I guess, you will remain I guess... agnostic? about the Shakespeare authorship question. That you are merely leaving the room for doubt. And so, now, our arguments is about if there's room for doubt, I suppose, not that I have no proof? And you're obviously not understanding my arguments. I said his first works were not great, and that he made classical blunders, to suggest to you that we have evidence that the Shakespeare
@MountainMusicMomma That's your fault. I am skeptical about it, and I have every reason to be. You don't have hard undeniable evidence that proves Shakespeare's authorship.
@Christistruth1 That wrote Shakespeare was not classically trained, like the Shakespeare of your own historical evidence was not, and that how awful his works were in the beginning suggest that the person who wrote the plays started off as not being terribly talented. What I'm saying is, there's evidence that there was a Shakespeare who was seen by his contemporaries as a writer. It is in your hands now to give evidence as to your own suggestion that he may have been a deceiver.
@MountainMusicMomma Shakespeare wasn't educated, how can someone not educated, who had parent's who were illiterate, and children who were illiterate, be literate??? Answer that please. He didn't even go to school. He had no extensive library to use for his works, he had no first drafts of his work AT ALL. I'm not denying that, of course there was, a Shakespeare, and I'm sure people THOUGHT he wrote his plays. That doesn't prove he did. He may have been a deceiver.
@Christistruth1 And a youtube video being your pièce de résistance doesn't help your cause. For one thing, not very many original manuscripts survived the 16th century, and it's not unusual to have no original records from poets and playwrights. As the clever commenter posted on your video mentioned, we have no records of letters written from any other commoners either. Either way, the theories from a crappy director who is obviously not well informed is not very impressive.
It should be considered as big a joke to say Shakespeare didn't write his own works as it is to cut up a Radiohead song. You've made me laugh, but no I won't be watching. PS. It's poor form to try and cash in off Anonymous.
hold up, hold up, a white MALE in the 15th century could write plays? bitch please, unless some chick was handing shakespeare plays this movie is invalid
I've always known of the legend that some "Christopher Mallory or Malloy" was the actual writer. So, this movie wil be interesting. Going to screening tonight hope it doesn't disappoint me.
OMG...I have never not been able to wait for a movie to hit the theatre. It's taking forever! I love "all things Tudor"...& Shakespeare. Rhys Ifans, Rafe Spall, Vanessa Redgrave. I really don't see how this can't be one of the best films ever.
Fuck this movie. There. I said it. Fuck it. There was no conspiracy. Shakespeare did exist, he was only one man, and he wrote all of the works. If we're willing to believe the existence of someone who's as superhuman as Leonardo Da Vinci, why can't we accept that the world does hold literary geniuses? For God's sake, I'm sick of this nonsense already. Again: Fuck this movie.
@lostinYourReality I don't think it is a what-if movie. There is a belief out there that Shakespeare didn't exist and that story was around long before this movie was even thought of. This is another conspiracy film that has no business existing. A "what-if movie" is obvious. "What-if movies" show the outcomes, not just the specific time period.
@scraps992 Dude... its a movie, its a what if scenario that was created in Hollywood, christ dude calm the hell down. No shit that shakespear was real and he wrote all of his own stuff this was just made for entertainment....
@PeterthePickle2 Do you think I'm sitting at the computer, fuming about this movie's existence and yelling at the screen in a blind fury? Because I'm not. I simply expressed my irritation at people claiming that Shakespeare didn't exist. How about you do some research. There are conspiracy theories that claim Shakespeare didn't exist. This is a movie that plans on perpetuating that nonsense for monetary gain. "Entertainment" is low on the list of priorities the filmmakers had in mind for this.
@scraps992 I did learn quite quickly after i posted my coment that there were conspiracy theories. My bad, but still it is a move and it is entertainment. Its also the filmmakers opinion obviously too, but i think people really get worked up about movies all the fucking time. How about you sit down, grab some fucking popcorn and watch a movie instead of bitching about it (this is not directed at you, more towards everyone bitching about shit like this)
@scraps992 Movies are meant for fantasies, this movie is making a false conspiracy. So calm down it is just a movie, just giving a feel of a real conspiracy about Shakespeare. But if it were a real story, it would fill in the gaps of the whole life of William Shakespeare.
@wingeddemon12 No, it's not a false conspiracy. This is a real belief that the people utilized plays to protest Queen Elizabeth in a way and they put Shakespeare (a very successful business man) in the front lines to gain the profits and recognition for the works when he actually didn't contribute at all. It's a conspiracy theory that's so ridiculous people like you are thinking that it's just another movie meant for entertainment and it doesn't really believe in what it's telling.
@scraps992 No, I don't believe it is real, and yes I do think it is just another movie. It is like saying I believe Mario existence because they are taking a plumber (a hard working business man), and throwing them into a false fantasy for peoples enjoy meant, just like in this movie. Yes I do think Shakespeare is one of the most amazing writers in the universe, and it is wrong to try to give people a false representation of Shakespeare, but this movie is fake and I hope people will know that.
@scraps992 I saw it, it is actually pretty good. Total bullshit but pretty good. It was either that or watch The Thing, because Puss In Boots was sold out.
@RubberToadstools oh and at my mvoies puss in boots wasn't sold out but I saw In Time insted because... IT IS A FUCKING KIDS MOVIE! but it does look kinda interesting...
@livethir Don't tell me to calm down. This is not something I'm worked up over. Jesus. What is it with you people? Just because I'm expressing irritation, it means I'm foaming at the mouth with rage over something and breaking shit in my home. "IF I WAS FUCKING TALKING LIKE THIS, MOTHER FUCKER!!!!!", you should tell me to calm down, because that's overreacting in the finest degree. Otherwise, don't patronize me. It's quite annoying.
Ah, what the hell. What else is there in the world besides a single opportunity to create and usher in the next great epoch. Shakespeare wrote the works. But damn, that trailer has some scary lead-in.
Coming this Summer. A film by renowned director Roland Emmerich: Mass, a movie that touches upon a question that's plagued scientists for years: Does gravity really exist?
James Franco as the scientist: We have reason to believe that gravity has nothing to do with the mass of the earth. Our studies have concluded that a supernatural aura is what keeps us grounded.
Ellen Page as his skeptical partner: Supernatural aura?
James Franco: Or an ancient fairies' spell or the sun's radiation. Fuck you!
yet another movie fucking with what everybody knows isnt true. the movie that tries to make someone look bad. the movie that puts in shit that never happened. the movie...that sucks.
@ClutchLikeMeIo what's wrong with a movie that has a alternate history? or one that questions our own? nothing. seriously do any of you know better than the next guy on what really happened? anyway it's just a movie so it doesnt matter, might as well troll on a spiderman trailer about how spiderman cant be real
What next? Moliere is not Moliere? Cervantes not Cervantes? John Donne not John Donne? Jonas Salk not Jonas Salk? Elvis never did drugs? Madonna actually is the Madonna? The Fed is run by a secret cabal of Jewish Masons? Obama is a right wing pigeon from outer space? ...Hmm ...that last idea is a bit plausible. A lot more plausible than the stupid premise of this flick. But hey, I see it's got cannons. I bet there's a car chase at the end.
In Macbeth there are a few scenes that are written with a rhyming scheme while the rest of the play is in blank verse. It is possible that someone later added those scenes into that play. In the end we really can't really disprove that Shakespeare is the true author of his plays. If nothing else this movie will raise some interesting discussion while giving some good entertainment at the same time.
It's basically about how some people think that Shakespeare didn't write all the plays. I know it seems crazy, we had a discussion about it in class and some people say he didn't write all the plays because it seems impossible for one person, especially someone of Shakespeare background, to write all the plays that are said to be the best English plays ever written.
This has been flagged as spam show
Don't get bored! Download this Movie Free and all new Movies. Go to the link-
300mbmovies-softs.blogspot.com/2011/12/anonymous-2011-r5-avi-700mb.html
789compt 2 months ago
the same stylistic habits consistent through-out his work, and when tested against 37 other proposed "Shakespeares" in the Claremont Shakespeare clinic on computer, the results that none of these other writers could have written Shakespeare's work, or he theirs. In light of all of this evidence, you need something a little heavier in your argument than the evidence you have provided, which is merely circumstantial.
MountainMusicMomma 3 months ago
@MountainMusicMomma That's assuming he wrote them in the first place. So is the evidence you presented, because it FIRST ASSUMES he wrote them to begin with.
Christistruth1 3 months ago
By all historical evidence, considering that he his mentioned up to 23 times in his own lifetime as a great writer, has eulogies written for him, we have a letter he received, documentation that he was made a gentleman, barbs from his contemporaries for not being a proper gentleman, and no questions of his authorship in his lifetime. We know he existed and died, and by all historical accounts, wrote these plays. His work shows the natural progression of a writer, and all of his work display...
MountainMusicMomma 3 months ago
@MountainMusicMomma That doesn't prove he wrote them, even if he was considered many times a great writer, YOU admitted his works weren't great or parts of it were in fact written poorly. All that doesn't prove he wrote them, he was honored but he may have deceived them. Of course there was no question of his authorship in his lifetime, because these questions and doubts were brought to light. I NEVER SAID he DIDN'T exist. His work may show the natural prog of a writer, but that doesn't prove.
Christistruth1 3 months ago
Comment removed
MountainMusicMomma 3 months ago
So it's a movie based on a disproven conspiracy theory about a guy who died over 300 years ago? Meh.
4tehhorde 3 months ago 2
@4tehhorde cont...Now, for 3. Do you know how many brilliant authors there are who have not received a formal educations? Yes, but AT THAT TIME that wasn't the case. In FACT in order to do and write the way Shakespeare did, you needed an extensive knowledge OF what you were writing about. He had NO library, he had NO education, where did he learn this stuff??? His parent's couldn't teach him, and he apparently didn't teach his kids. So, you're telling me it's a natural talent?? Is that it???
Christistruth1 3 months ago
4chan
HoboOfSixthGrade 3 months ago
oh i thought this was about 4chan
TheJamesgravy 3 months ago
david davidson reporting in faggots
herban123 3 months ago
This video is a Fraud. With taking advantage of the group "Anonymous" name.
What a joke! This movie looks pretty stupid as well. Defiantly not going to watch it.
ThatGlitchingChannel 3 months ago
Why does everyone take this "Shakespeare fraud thing" so seriously? It's a movie, they play with what ifs. God why can't people just sit down and enjoy things? Why is everyone so bitchy about everything? People do not do things accustomed to our liking, so if you don't like it, you don't like it. Quit it with the bitching, and that goes for every youtuber - about everything.
FallenTemplar1405 3 months ago
i dont care who wrote the plays honestly lol, theyre amazing no matter the writer
95briannanicole 3 months ago
Kid-A ftw
OnlyThePogoman 4 months ago
who is the actor at 0:38? He looks just like Robert Webb...
GlueOnGnomes 4 months ago
Anyone know what the music is for this trailer?
TheQuestion8 4 months ago
This sounds like an interesting movie, I just really hope people don't start saying "yeah well I saw it in a movie/on the internet/etc. so it's true." It looks cool, but I wouldn't trust any movie about Shakespeare that put the first 'e' in his name. Shakespeare probably plagiarized a couple times, but everyone back then did, so it's not even a big deal who really wrote it: it's mostly that Shakespeare had enough taste to (maybe rewrite them all in his own style and) popularize them that counts.
TerribleInThOriginal 4 months ago
What is the song?
FcSteezey 4 months ago
@FcSteezey everything in it's right place- Radiohead
OnlyThePogoman 4 months ago
searched anonymous, got to this, lolwtf
munchlax0pwns 4 months ago
And then David Tennant walks in and saves him from the witches...
B1o2e3rg4e5r6 4 months ago 13
steaming turds are awsome.
SpaceCadet929 4 months ago
i really liked this movie. i would have never guessed he was her son. thats just....odd
hhhuntinggirl 4 months ago
Just came back from seeing this movie and it sucked so bad. Shakespeare was portrayed as a baffoon and an illiterate drunk. Queen Elizabeth was portrayed as a crazy slut. Wild conspiracy theories like this one are elitist and assume that just because WS was not university educated that he couldn't have authored the plays. Take your money and go see a Shakespeare play instead because this movie is a giant steaming turd.
vegetarianme 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Pretty damn good movie.
JelloApocalypse 4 months ago
I was hoping this movie was about the group anonymous... that would have been SO much better.
sbrcs564 4 months ago 15
@sbrcs564 But, Anonymous is a bunch of 17 year old prick script-kiddy faggots who think they're intimidating and can't do shit.
asdfqwertyfour 4 months ago
@asdfqwertyfour Can't do shit? Tell that to PSN.
sbrcs564 4 months ago
@sbrcs564 I'm so sick of people thinking Anonymous had anything to do with PSN, Anonymous DID NOT HACK PSN, LULZSEC HACKED PSN.
asdfqwertyfour 4 months ago
@asdfqwertyfour They took credit for it. That's good enough to make a movie for it.
sbrcs564 4 months ago
@sbrcs564 Okay, you're not really answering my questions. You're making claims that you really can't prove. It is not impossible for someone to learn to read before 14, but NOT at that time. Now, you're just ASSUMING he was gifted. Beethoven was educated, besides music can be a natural talent. So are you now telling me that Someone who WASN'T EDUCATED, HAD ILLITERATE PARENTS, ILLITERATE CHILDREN, LEFT NO ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS, was NATURALLY gifted?? Is THAT ALL???
Christistruth1 4 months ago
@Christistruth1 What the hell are you talking about? I think you replied to the wrong guy...
sbrcs564 4 months ago
@asdfqwertyfour neither of them probably had anything to do with hacking PSN, all they did was take credit for it. Besides anon and lulzsec are all shut in teenagers anyway, who cares what they did.
MrKen2501 4 months ago
Comment removed
NuclearNinja115 3 months ago
@halistra24 I am saying no because it's ridiculous. I would have an open mind about it if the only conspiracy theories weren't obviously falsified, paranoid ravings of some old moron who got way too much attention than what he should have gotten.
scraps992 4 months ago
only thing i like about this vid is radiohead!:)
nevabowdown 4 months ago
4chan the movie?
Sporemin 4 months ago
this looks just like assassains creed.
darksider847 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Lolwut. looks like a good movie but really if Shakespeare was a fraud. no one would of waited 200 years before saying ANYTHING
EvilTim1234 4 months ago
I call bullshit on this movie!
GeonTheDayDreamer 4 months ago
What people are not considering, especially someone like "scraps992" is this...
1. Shakespeare left school at 14.
2. His parent's were ILLITERATES.
3. His CHILDREN were ILLITERATES.
4. He left NO original manuscripts.
Because he did exist, doesn't prove he wrote them. There is a literary genius, but the question is who was it?
Christistruth1 4 months ago
@Christistruth1 He was a playwright. What he did was utilize poetry in the form of dialog. If he wrote full-fledged books, the illiteracy of his family would be relevant. Let's not forget that if he did exist (and he did) and if he was a genius (and he was) it is not impossible for anybody to learn how to read before the age of 14 (which he did), let alone someone of his talent. Using the first three arguments is like saying Beethoven had to have been a fraud because he was deaf. Use your brain.
scraps992 4 months ago
@scraps992 Okay, you're not really answering my questions. You're making claims that you really can't prove. It is not impossible for someone to learn to read before 14, but NOT at that time. Now, you're just ASSUMING he was gifted. Beethoven was educated, besides music can be a natural talent. So are you now telling me that Someone who WASN'T EDUCATED, HAD ILLITERATE PARENTS, ILLITERATE CHILDREN, LEFT NO ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS, was NATURALLY gifted?? Is THAT ALL???
Christistruth1 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Shakespeare he does not forgive and he does not forget
limitless45 4 months ago 16
Was Shakespeare a fraud?
...
nope.avi
SCRuner5h 4 months ago
This is heresy!
HerrMozartsMusic 4 months ago
Thumbs up if you thought this was Legion related.
au313 4 months ago
Amazed that Roland Emmerich has finally produced an adult movie. It’s an intriguing idea when you compare it to the fact that most authors may have maybe two good novels in them before their work becomes derivative.
Remy0928 4 months ago
When I saw this trailer, I could have thrown my shoe through my TV. All I can think about are the possible hours upon hours I will have to spend in my life now, explaining to my students that Shakespeare really did exist, and that while our knowledge of Shakespeare's life is not very complete, all these people have are wild speculations without a thread of evidence. They write books and articles that self-respecting academics chuckle at and go on. Only to be told: But the movie said...
MountainMusicMomma 4 months ago
@MountainMusicMomma Explain this for us then. 1. His parent's were illiterate. 2. He dropped out of school at 14. 3. His children were illiterate. 5. There were NO original manuscripts of his work.
How is it at that time that a man who was UNEDUCATED write and INVENT and use words BEYOND his education?? Please explain. Thank you.
Christistruth1 4 months ago
@Christistruth1 Sorry, "4"
Christistruth1 4 months ago
@Christistruth1
1. Do you have any evidence other than wild conjectures based on facts that do not logically add up to your suggestion? Or are these four points all you have compared to the copius amounts of information regarding the existence of Shakespeare?
2, Do you have any evidence other than to suggest that a man who is not formally educated cannot be educated?
3. If that's the case, do you know how many brilliant authors there are who have not received formal education?
MountainMusicMomma 3 months ago
@MountainMusicMomma Sorry, the problem is this. You have NO evidence that he even wrote those plays. There are no other copies available, there are no first drafts. Now tell me, how does a poor child who has parents who were illiterate, and had children who were illiterate, become the greatest writer of all time?? Of course not, but the questions are not answered, all you have is..."He wrote it because he said he did. And I believe it." That's all you got.
Christistruth1 3 months ago
Comment removed
MountainMusicMomma 3 months ago
@Christistruth1
Oh good lord, if you think that's all of the evidence available then you're sorely mistaken. Even in his own time, Shakespeare was quite often teased about having no classical training. Ben Johnson, one of my favorites, actually remarks about this himself several times. And Shakespeare actually makes plenty of "classical" blunders in his plays. He is not the greatest writer on Earth for what he KNOWS, but for his great mastery of painting the human condition.
MountainMusicMomma 3 months ago
@MountainMusicMomma I'm NOT SAYING that Shakespeare didn't write the works, I'm questioning it. I NEVER SAID it was evidence, I said they were QUESTIONS that have not been answered that brings into question their validity. Do me a favor, show us evidence that Shakespeare actually wrote those plays, that are OUTSIDE sources, confirming it, besides people claiming he did because his name is on the paper.
Christistruth1 3 months ago
@Christistruth1
And furthermore, no one questions Shakespeare's authorship during his own time. There's even evidence he was made a gentleman. There's mountains of references to him, as both the playwright and the actor. And do you realize how few original documents survived the 16th century? We have plenty of his playbills, but yes, nothing written in his own hand. That's an extremely rare find in and of itself. And furthermore, his plays actually started out being quite poor.
MountainMusicMomma 3 months ago
@MountainMusicMomma Of course they didn't question it, people at that time believed in witches, and fairies and elves. They still do. Okay, he was made a gentleman, and that proves he wrote his stories??? So, their's references of him, and his plays, that doesn't prove he wrote them either. That proves that people believed that he did. Ah, so not only was he NOT educated, we have nothing written in his own hand, nice. "His plays actually started out being poor." Subjective view.
Christistruth1 3 months ago
Comment removed
MountainMusicMomma 3 months ago
@Christistruth1
I mean, have you ever read Titus Andronicus? Some Shakespeare scholars in the past wanted to refuse to give him credit for it because it's so horrible. So his plays show a natural progression of a writer. Are you saying that some one "faked" that? So, like I said, what evidence do you have that he wasn't the writer? Other than to suggest that a poor, formally uneducated man can't grow to be an amazing writer? I have three words for you: argumentem ex silentio.
MountainMusicMomma 3 months ago
@MountainMusicMomma Okay, it's horrible, how does that prove he wrote them? It doesn't. "So his plays show a natural progression of a writer." Assuming he wrote them. "Are you saying that someone 'faked' that?" 1. That's purely subjective. Take that lady that wrote Twilight. Many critics don't like her works, she's a poor writer, but her movies and books are big hits. Tolkien didn't like C.S. Lewis's "Narnia" books, and they were best friends. cont....
Christistruth1 3 months ago
@MountainMusicMomma cont..."So, like I said, what evidence do you have that he wasn't the writer?" I never said I had evidence, there's is a great amount of speculations, and questions that haven't been answered. In which you haven't. "Argumentem ex silentio." Epic fail, I NEVER said he didn't, I Never SAID I had evidence, think critically my friend, because I'm asking questions you haven't answered, just speculated.
Christistruth1 3 months ago
@MountainMusicMomma But, I'll tell you what, I'll do this...While the records from the theatrical world in London show that he was working as an actor and playwright, the records from his hometown of Stratford-upon-Avon show that he was simply a grain merchant. Nowhere in the contemporary records of Stratford-upon-Avon is there a single reference to Shakespeare being a dramatist or writer of any kind. Let's cont....
Christistruth1 3 months ago
@MountainMusicMomma cont...No record exists of his receiving an education, buying a book or writing a single play. Even the monument besides his grave in Stratford’s Holy Trinity Church - the famous bust depicting the Bard composing his works - was an eighteenth-century fake.
Christistruth1 3 months ago
@MountainMusicMomma the land registers of Stratford for 1597 show that Shakespeare was rich enough to buy New Place, the second largest house in the town, while the records in London at the very same time show that was unable to pay the rent on a small apartment in the poorest district of Bishopsgate.
Christistruth1 3 months ago
@MountainMusicMomma The following year when Shakespeare was listed in Stratford as possessing substantial grain holdings and lending a considerable sum of money, in London, court transcripts show that he had been forced into hiding by debt collectors who were pursuing him for less than a pound.
Christistruth1 3 months ago
@MountainMusicMomma The following people have cast serious doubts over the validity of William Shakespeare as the true author and speculation to the identity / authorship problem:
Mark Twain, Charlie Chaplin, Sigmund Freud, Henry James, Walt Whitman, Dickens, Sir John Gielgud, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Orson Welles, In 1985Jane Cox (Principle Asst Keeper of Records Her Majesties Stationery Office) confirmed that all documents containing William Shakespeare signatures are by a different hand.
Christistruth1 3 months ago
@Christistruth1
All of whom I greatly admire, but who still made the same fallacious argument as you. Now to add to your list of logical fallacies is a fallacious use of the appeal to authority. If any of your list of wonderful authors were considered legitamite experts on the biographical history of Shakespeare, I might take their opinions more seriously. And you do realize that the signatures in question are only from one document? His will? Which two of the signatures are probably his...
MountainMusicMomma 3 months ago
@MountainMusicMomma What's fallacious about it??? They're true, they are factually true, documented facts. It's only fallacious if they weren't true. LOLOLOL..."The appeal to authority." LOL, I cited MORE than authority, EVEN YOU CITED AUTHORITY. Talk about being a hypocrite. Nope, they are from MULTIPLE documents.
Christistruth1 3 months ago
@Christistruth1
But that the others are probably not? Even if we accept Jane Cox's analysis of this document, which there seems to not be much consensus on yet among scholars, it proves nothing but to suggest that some of the other signatures on Shakespeare's will were forged probably by clerks or those that handled the creation of the will? This has nothing to do with whether he wrote his plays or not.
MountainMusicMomma 3 months ago
@MountainMusicMomma You're again trying to validate your argument by speculation, while I NEVER SAID Shakespeare DIDN'T write his plays, I am pointing out it's suspect. You haven't even proven he's written those plays, you have given me nothing. The best you have is taking Shakespeare's word for it, because his name was on the paper. RIGHT? Tell me what else is there??? Hearsay? Even the website, "How we know Shakespeare wrote his plays?" "His name was on the paper."
Christistruth1 3 months ago
@MountainMusicMomma Cont...I mean honestly, aren't you the one getting all bent out of shape? I'm a writer myself, I have many of Shakespeare's books. I myself, have a large library of all kinds of books that I draw from. In order for me to know what I am talking about regarding myths, I need to read. It's funny that Shakespeare didn't have these things, illiterate parents, and illiterate children. You just believe he did, because his names on the paper right???
Christistruth1 3 months ago
Comment removed
MountainMusicMomma 3 months ago
@MountainMusicMomma Sir John Gielgud:English theatre and film actor, widely viewed as one of the greatest British actors in history. In 1996, while serving as president of the World Shakespeare Congress, Gielgud signed a petition along with more than 400 others, which read: “We, the undersigned, petition the Shakespeare Association of America, in light of ongoing research, to engage actively in a comprehensive, objective and sustained investigation of the authorship of the Shakespeare Canon …”
Christistruth1 3 months ago
@Christistruth1
No, it's not only fallacious if they're not true. Not in logic and debate. Look up the definition of fallacy, and that will point in the direction of how I used the word. And you're not understanding what "authority" means in this context. You can correctly use an appeal to authority, but you're not doing it. Even Sir Joh Gielgud, who I am sure is a respected individual, is not an expert Shakespeare biographer. He has not devoted his life to the study of Shakespeare's life.
MountainMusicMomma 3 months ago
@MountainMusicMomma You don't have to be an expert in Shakespeare, to question it's validity. What evidence do you have that he wrote them? "His names on the paper." That's not good enough.
Christistruth1 3 months ago
@Christistruth1
And you were correct about Jane Cox studying the signatures from multiple documents. I remembered having read an article that cited her that dealt specifically with Shakespeare's will and clerk involvement. I was mistaken. However, the signatures she studied were all still legal documents, so you don't really have a leg to stand on there. And you are continuing to mischaracterize my argument. I am not suggesting that the only reason I believe Shakespeare wrote the plays was...
MountainMusicMomma 3 months ago
@MountainMusicMomma That doesn't mean their not frauds, EVEN if their legal documents, that STILL DOESN'T prove Shakespeare wrote them.
Christistruth1 3 months ago
@Christistruth1 You're misunderstanding. You tried to suggest that the discrepancies in these signatures suggested something about whether the man Shakespeare wrote his plays. Even if the legal documents are frauds, this doesn't say anything about whether he wrote his plays or not. Do you understand? And you're still using the argument from silence. You keep suggesting I have nothing, and yet I keep telling you I do have things. You're just not listening, and keep repeating the same thing.
MountainMusicMomma 3 months ago
@MountainMusicMomma There are not just discrepancies in the signatures, there's more than that. It makes no logical sense. You have no real hard evidence that he eve wrote his plays. You do have nothing, you admitted you have no evidence, yet criticize me when I question it's validity. I'm repeating it, because you're not answering it.
Christistruth1 3 months ago
@Christistruth1 I have not admitted no evidence. That's what I'm saying. I am giving you evidence, and yet you will not accept it as valid evidence. You have changed the goal posts. You start the argument with me using historical facts from Shakespeare's life and works to ask me, basically, how in the world can you believe he wrote these plays? I tell you why your reasons are invalid, because they are circumstantial, and back up my own claim with historical facts and studies of his works.
MountainMusicMomma 3 months ago
@MountainMusicMomma Yes, you did, you stated there was no HARD evidence. It seems that someone has removed that comment and others, could it have been you because they would have proved I was right??? I'm not saying it's not valid, I'm saying it's not strong. I have not changed the goal posts. But those facts don't prove anything, they don't prove he wrote them. No, I'm asking what evidence is there that he wrote them?? No, you haven't proven that he wrote them, you even contradicted yourself.
Christistruth1 3 months ago
@Christistruth1 You suddenly say, well this is not good enough! Unless you were there to see whether he wrote his plays, then you have nothing. I can say the exact same thing to you: Unless you were there to see some insane conspiracy, then you have nothing. But, I don't. However, I still say that the evidence you have given is faulty evidence, and I don't require the same impossibility from you. Now you say that you're not trying to prove Shakespeare didn't write his plays, which is quite...
MountainMusicMomma 3 months ago
@MountainMusicMomma Its not good enough, because with all that we have to presuppose he wrote them. And you have nothing, because unless you were there to see him write them you don't know do you??? Nope. Therefor my reasonable doubt is valid. I could care less what you say it is, that doesn't prove anything. I'm not saying he didn't, I'm questioning it.
Christistruth1 3 months ago
@Christistruth1
Because he said he did, but that there is no evidence to the contrary. On the other hand, as I have pointed out, there is a great deal of evidence that there was a Shakespeare and that none of his contemporaries questioned his authorship. I simply cannot prove, beyond a doubt, without going back in time, that Shakespeare wrote his plays. However, you have not provided even enough evidence to the contrary to entertain much doubt. And if you think that...
MountainMusicMomma 3 months ago
@MountainMusicMomma Of course there is reasonable doubt to the contrary. I'm not denying Shakespeare's existence. Oh okay, so you DON'T have hard evidence that Shakespeare wrote his plays, I see, so then the doubt is within reason. Again, there is no evidence, I SAID there are DISCREPANCIES, and INFORMATION that leads us to question the validity of his authorship. I have reasonable doubt, and so do thousands of others. What do you have?? Nothing.
Christistruth1 3 months ago
@Christistruth1
The best evidence that can be found by those on my side of the argument comes from a silly website you found through a google search, then there is no wonder that you have serious doubts. You have obviously not found informed sources. I would appreciate it, however, if you would quit building straw men. Until then, I'm done.
MountainMusicMomma 3 months ago
@MountainMusicMomma The "silly website" is a subjective point of view, it's not truly silly, you just disagree with it, and call it silly, that doesn't prove that it is silly. In fact the objections and concerns they raise are legitimate, and they ask questions YOU CAN'T answer. Oh so what would be an "informed" source??? Setting up criteria by your own standard now? Do me a favor, since you're making the positive claim here, prove Shakespeare wrote those plays. You were done a long time ago.
Christistruth1 3 months ago
Comment removed
MountainMusicMomma 3 months ago
And you should have learned about trusted sources in any library class. There's plenty of guides available online. And no, you don't have to be an expert to question the validity, but for your argument to be very convincing, you probably should be.
MountainMusicMomma 3 months ago
@MountainMusicMomma watch?v=BzfobeixgQs&feature=related I'll leave it at this... ;)
Christistruth1 3 months ago
@Christistruth1 a different feel from your first post, and suggest that, I guess, you will remain I guess... agnostic? about the Shakespeare authorship question. That you are merely leaving the room for doubt. And so, now, our arguments is about if there's room for doubt, I suppose, not that I have no proof? And you're obviously not understanding my arguments. I said his first works were not great, and that he made classical blunders, to suggest to you that we have evidence that the Shakespeare
MountainMusicMomma 3 months ago
@MountainMusicMomma That's your fault. I am skeptical about it, and I have every reason to be. You don't have hard undeniable evidence that proves Shakespeare's authorship.
Christistruth1 3 months ago
@Christistruth1 That wrote Shakespeare was not classically trained, like the Shakespeare of your own historical evidence was not, and that how awful his works were in the beginning suggest that the person who wrote the plays started off as not being terribly talented. What I'm saying is, there's evidence that there was a Shakespeare who was seen by his contemporaries as a writer. It is in your hands now to give evidence as to your own suggestion that he may have been a deceiver.
MountainMusicMomma 3 months ago
@MountainMusicMomma Shakespeare wasn't educated, how can someone not educated, who had parent's who were illiterate, and children who were illiterate, be literate??? Answer that please. He didn't even go to school. He had no extensive library to use for his works, he had no first drafts of his work AT ALL. I'm not denying that, of course there was, a Shakespeare, and I'm sure people THOUGHT he wrote his plays. That doesn't prove he did. He may have been a deceiver.
Christistruth1 3 months ago
@Christistruth1 And a youtube video being your pièce de résistance doesn't help your cause. For one thing, not very many original manuscripts survived the 16th century, and it's not unusual to have no original records from poets and playwrights. As the clever commenter posted on your video mentioned, we have no records of letters written from any other commoners either. Either way, the theories from a crappy director who is obviously not well informed is not very impressive.
MountainMusicMomma 3 months ago
@MountainMusicMomma But Shakespeare was no mere "commoner" Remember????It's not impressive for you.
Christistruth1 3 months ago
Comment removed
MountainMusicMomma 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MountainMusicMomma Finally, let me know if you want me to go on, because there are tons of reasons to speculate.
Christistruth1 3 months ago
It should be considered as big a joke to say Shakespeare didn't write his own works as it is to cut up a Radiohead song. You've made me laugh, but no I won't be watching. PS. It's poor form to try and cash in off Anonymous.
shasaki 4 months ago
hold up, hold up, a white MALE in the 15th century could write plays? bitch please, unless some chick was handing shakespeare plays this movie is invalid
Titanickuu91 4 months ago
so... Cyrano de Bergerac but not
ItachiElric 4 months ago
I mean Christopher Marlowe...a contemporary at the time.
IamZindzhi 4 months ago
I've always known of the legend that some "Christopher Mallory or Malloy" was the actual writer. So, this movie wil be interesting. Going to screening tonight hope it doesn't disappoint me.
IamZindzhi 4 months ago
lol shakespear beat the goverment with anonymous and his writings weren't his but anonymous'
manufacturedfracture 4 months ago
OMG...I have never not been able to wait for a movie to hit the theatre. It's taking forever! I love "all things Tudor"...& Shakespeare. Rhys Ifans, Rafe Spall, Vanessa Redgrave. I really don't see how this can't be one of the best films ever.
vickiehill1 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Fuck this movie. There. I said it. Fuck it. There was no conspiracy. Shakespeare did exist, he was only one man, and he wrote all of the works. If we're willing to believe the existence of someone who's as superhuman as Leonardo Da Vinci, why can't we accept that the world does hold literary geniuses? For God's sake, I'm sick of this nonsense already. Again: Fuck this movie.
scraps992 4 months ago 25
@scraps992 Are you serious? The people behind this know he existed. It's just a what if movie. It's not like every movie is real. or is it?
lostinYourReality 4 months ago
@lostinYourReality I don't think it is a what-if movie. There is a belief out there that Shakespeare didn't exist and that story was around long before this movie was even thought of. This is another conspiracy film that has no business existing. A "what-if movie" is obvious. "What-if movies" show the outcomes, not just the specific time period.
scraps992 4 months ago
@scraps992 FU it is only a movie! a story! fiction!
TheREalData 4 months ago
@scraps992 Dude... its a movie, its a what if scenario that was created in Hollywood, christ dude calm the hell down. No shit that shakespear was real and he wrote all of his own stuff this was just made for entertainment....
PeterthePickle2 4 months ago
@PeterthePickle2 Do you think I'm sitting at the computer, fuming about this movie's existence and yelling at the screen in a blind fury? Because I'm not. I simply expressed my irritation at people claiming that Shakespeare didn't exist. How about you do some research. There are conspiracy theories that claim Shakespeare didn't exist. This is a movie that plans on perpetuating that nonsense for monetary gain. "Entertainment" is low on the list of priorities the filmmakers had in mind for this.
scraps992 4 months ago
@scraps992 I did learn quite quickly after i posted my coment that there were conspiracy theories. My bad, but still it is a move and it is entertainment. Its also the filmmakers opinion obviously too, but i think people really get worked up about movies all the fucking time. How about you sit down, grab some fucking popcorn and watch a movie instead of bitching about it (this is not directed at you, more towards everyone bitching about shit like this)
PeterthePickle2 4 months ago
@scraps992 Movies are meant for fantasies, this movie is making a false conspiracy. So calm down it is just a movie, just giving a feel of a real conspiracy about Shakespeare. But if it were a real story, it would fill in the gaps of the whole life of William Shakespeare.
wingeddemon12 4 months ago
@wingeddemon12 No, it's not a false conspiracy. This is a real belief that the people utilized plays to protest Queen Elizabeth in a way and they put Shakespeare (a very successful business man) in the front lines to gain the profits and recognition for the works when he actually didn't contribute at all. It's a conspiracy theory that's so ridiculous people like you are thinking that it's just another movie meant for entertainment and it doesn't really believe in what it's telling.
scraps992 4 months ago
@scraps992 No, I don't believe it is real, and yes I do think it is just another movie. It is like saying I believe Mario existence because they are taking a plumber (a hard working business man), and throwing them into a false fantasy for peoples enjoy meant, just like in this movie. Yes I do think Shakespeare is one of the most amazing writers in the universe, and it is wrong to try to give people a false representation of Shakespeare, but this movie is fake and I hope people will know that.
wingeddemon12 4 months ago
@scraps992 I saw it, it is actually pretty good. Total bullshit but pretty good. It was either that or watch The Thing, because Puss In Boots was sold out.
RubberToadstools 4 months ago
@RubberToadstools The Thing is a great movie and also so is the original! So stfu but I also want to see this movie
zerohero0520 4 months ago
@RubberToadstools oh and at my mvoies puss in boots wasn't sold out but I saw In Time insted because... IT IS A FUCKING KIDS MOVIE! but it does look kinda interesting...
zerohero0520 4 months ago
@zerohero0520 Actually the Shrek movies (Puss in Boots being within that catagory) are great for kids and adults alike.
Btw, was In Time any good?
RubberToadstools 4 months ago
@RubberToadstools It was good but had problems in points... but it was still good and Shrek 3 and 4 were good?No.
zerohero0520 4 months ago
@zerohero0520 shrek 3 was pretty good. Shrek 4...eh, not so much.
RubberToadstools 4 months ago
@scraps992
It's just examining the idea. its not saying its the truth. Besides, its a piece of fiction. Calm down.
livethir 4 months ago
@livethir Don't tell me to calm down. This is not something I'm worked up over. Jesus. What is it with you people? Just because I'm expressing irritation, it means I'm foaming at the mouth with rage over something and breaking shit in my home. "IF I WAS FUCKING TALKING LIKE THIS, MOTHER FUCKER!!!!!", you should tell me to calm down, because that's overreacting in the finest degree. Otherwise, don't patronize me. It's quite annoying.
scraps992 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@scraps992 And that's why it's a movie, not a documentary...
alpacajack116 4 months ago
Ah, what the hell. What else is there in the world besides a single opportunity to create and usher in the next great epoch. Shakespeare wrote the works. But damn, that trailer has some scary lead-in.
ixCmieBullz 4 months ago
@usernameVEVO A bit of trivia: William Shakespeare and Guy Fawkes were contemporaries, Shakespeare being about 6 years older than Fawkes.
Dentarthurdent54 4 months ago
Comment removed
ixCmieBullz 4 months ago
i thought this was gonna be a movie of the hacker group
thewapow 4 months ago
whats the song called!!!! holy crap im going crazy!!!!!!!!!!!
TheNintendoHELPER 4 months ago
@TheNintendoHELPER radiohead-everything in its right place
AGrock07 4 months ago
YOU'VE BEEN PLA---I MEAN HACKED
KemeticReign2 4 months ago
I detect the unpleasant stench of failure on this film.
angelmarine1292 4 months ago
we have all been played.....
A movie about shakespere making plays while playing others while the movie plays us while we play it.
FireUpThePyroMania 4 months ago
Coming this Summer. A film by renowned director Roland Emmerich: Mass, a movie that touches upon a question that's plagued scientists for years: Does gravity really exist?
James Franco as the scientist: We have reason to believe that gravity has nothing to do with the mass of the earth. Our studies have concluded that a supernatural aura is what keeps us grounded.
Ellen Page as his skeptical partner: Supernatural aura?
James Franco: Or an ancient fairies' spell or the sun's radiation. Fuck you!
moviemaster8510 4 months ago
I bite my thumb to whomever is involved with this movie
cutthroatcud420 4 months ago
yet another movie fucking with what everybody knows isnt true. the movie that tries to make someone look bad. the movie that puts in shit that never happened. the movie...that sucks.
WithinThePower 4 months ago
OMG IT'S REMUS LUPIN! ...Is that all I got out of it? Oh well...
PeaceLuvandShopping 4 months ago
If you dumbasses knew your history, you'd know that William Shakespeare was never proved to actually have been a real person!
yoitsleeyo 4 months ago
@yoitsleeyo
His birth, marriage, and death were well documented.
MooseTactic 4 months ago
Yeah, let's make some bs movie to make money while also scarring the career of Shakespeare.
ClutchLikeMeIo 4 months ago
@ClutchLikeMeIo what's wrong with a movie that has a alternate history? or one that questions our own? nothing. seriously do any of you know better than the next guy on what really happened? anyway it's just a movie so it doesnt matter, might as well troll on a spiderman trailer about how spiderman cant be real
MultiUsername45 4 months ago
@MultiUsername45 It's hollywood. Must I say more? They're not there to give us history lesson. They're there to get our money.
ClutchLikeMeIo 4 months ago
@ClutchLikeMeIo my point is that u shouldnt take it too seriously
MultiUsername45 4 months ago
@MultiUsername45 I'm not. I just find it pathetic what people in Hollywood do for money.
ClutchLikeMeIo 4 months ago
@ClutchLikeMeIo thinking something pathetic is a strong feeling so u take it too seriously
MultiUsername45 4 months ago
@MultiUsername45 And you're taking my comment too seriously....
ClutchLikeMeIo 4 months ago
Finally, Shakespeare is intresting.
RyderOmega 4 months ago
I was kinda assuming more V for Vendetta masks.
ihatemikepinkerton 4 months ago
I'm just picturing all the English teachers that are going to show up to this.
KEnriquez100 4 months ago
only roland emmerich would do this shit lol
daexmachinus 4 months ago
This is a movie that I'd watch, but wouldn't believe a single word of. I'm still going to watch it though, looks good.
StefanAjax101 4 months ago
I think this would kill Harold Bloom. Thank God for his adversity to technology.
Dajackal07 4 months ago
@Dajackal07 I would nothing more than a comment on this picture from Harold Bloom.
AScearce2332 4 months ago
What next? Moliere is not Moliere? Cervantes not Cervantes? John Donne not John Donne? Jonas Salk not Jonas Salk? Elvis never did drugs? Madonna actually is the Madonna? The Fed is run by a secret cabal of Jewish Masons? Obama is a right wing pigeon from outer space? ...Hmm ...that last idea is a bit plausible. A lot more plausible than the stupid premise of this flick. But hey, I see it's got cannons. I bet there's a car chase at the end.
hamnose 4 months ago
In Macbeth there are a few scenes that are written with a rhyming scheme while the rest of the play is in blank verse. It is possible that someone later added those scenes into that play. In the end we really can't really disprove that Shakespeare is the true author of his plays. If nothing else this movie will raise some interesting discussion while giving some good entertainment at the same time.
AnnMarieRogue 4 months ago
Look Mom the conspirisists have budgeted a movie!
MrGuitarpicks 4 months ago
Whys it matter if he wrote it or not? I'm still gonna go see the movie just because it looks very interesting lol
0Maloy1 4 months ago
All I can say is awesome song choice. I love Radiohead.
Unnamed0909 4 months ago
You know the movie looks outstanding! <3...
but the story is kind of a wtf. :/ " Who made Shakespeare's play"..really.now.
KludiaVanhogan 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
we are Legion
elnino482 4 months ago
I don't get it ?
PrinceG28 4 months ago
@PrinceG28
It's basically about how some people think that Shakespeare didn't write all the plays. I know it seems crazy, we had a discussion about it in class and some people say he didn't write all the plays because it seems impossible for one person, especially someone of Shakespeare background, to write all the plays that are said to be the best English plays ever written.
Which is why they are making a movie about it.
WixkedLovy 4 months ago
@WixkedLovy Oh okay thanks!
PrinceG28 4 months ago