"THE WotR movie..." Topic

If we were going to get a decently budgeted & cast War of the Roses period movie(s), who would you prefer it portray?

If you have ideas for multiple movies that are linked together (ie. #1 follows Warwick from the beginning of the Wars to the crowning of Edward the IVth, #2 follows the falling out b/t the two and Warwicks death at Barnet, #3 starts with Edward IV's death and goes til Bosworth, etc…) then list how you would link them and who they would cover.

My trilogy is listed above, for a single 1-off movie, I would have it cover the life of Richard III.

I vote for Richard III as well if a one off movie. I can't imagine it being of interest enough to be done well if you tried to make a trilogy.

If Hollywood get their hands on it he'll be played by Tom Cruise and will win the war and settle down to a fairy tale ending.
It'll be termed ' a bold re-imagining'.

…and probably discover America in the process.

It's been done. Olivier's Richard III.

HBO/BBC could do an excellent one off, or better yet a miniseries.

Edward IV seems under-appreciated to me – he was like a Fun Henry VIII. All the women, roistering, eating chicken legs and roaring, less of the executing spare wives and getting old and mad.

Now, a Gritty Reboot of Richard III would be … gritty.

Pat

Don't forget the hash Showtime made of Spartacus. I have every reason to believe HBO could still wreck it, but better odds than a theatrical release. When I was younger and saw that "The War of the Roses" was coming out, I got all worked up until I found out it was unrelated to the 15th century

Olivier's Richard III is Shakespeare's Richard III.

I always thought that Farrington's "The killing of Richard the Third" link was a cool version and would make a terrific movie; happens to be the first in a trilogy too (haven't read the other two), so might work as your movie trilogy as well….

Don't forget the hash Showtime made of Spartacus.

"Spartacus: Blood and Sand" was Starz, not Showtime. link

Showtime does "The Tudors," which is good television, but bad history. IMHO. You'd really want a HBO/BBC production as Uesugi Kenshin suggested.

A film based on Penman's "The Sunne in Splendour". Except that it would probably need half a dozen full length movies to do it justice!!

Spartacus is fun, live action comic book done in the Heavy Metal style (naked babes)style. I can watch it and I enjoy it. If I want history I'd watch the History Channel, if they showed history anymore.

It's been done: imdb.com/title/tt0098621

History Channel has sadly become the Viagra Network.

Farrington's trilogy is a fine read.
I like Rosemary Hawley Jarman's "We Speak No Treason" (and she wrote a number of others set in the WoTR).
Potter's "Trail of Blood" was a good investigation into whatever happened to the Princes in the Tower.
However, I would like to see Pargeter's "A Bloody Field By Shrewsbury" filmed. OK, it's set 50 years before, but is an excellent prelude to the WoTR.

Shakespeare needed four plays…a miniseries format is really what would be required, or a multi-movie series like the other LotR.

The first Black Adder series!

"Edward IV seems under-appreciated to me"

Yep, he and "Fauconberg" were probably 2 of the better, if not best, battlefield generals of the conflict.

Edward IV would make a fine person for a bio flick. Start with him being informed of the death of his father at Wakefield and finish with his death and his brother Richard taking custody of the two princes. Viola!

Viola Indeed!

I would watch it. Think of how many really ace battles it would have in it.

Pat

Actually, I was a big fan of the Ian McKellan movie:

imdb.com/title/tt0114279

But that's more Shakespeare than history. Also, set in an interesting alternative fascist England. Check it out. It has Robert Downey Jr. *and* Nigel Hawthorne!

I enjoyed that as well!