Shakespeare and stuff

[ufkacbln]

So... what did this shockingly misleading piece of publicity claim or depict? I'm all ears...

Now who isn't answering the question?

Edit: please do engage with Theclaud because she actually does this sort of stuff for a living and might, well, actually be able to contribute something interesting and useful.

The answers were earlier in the post, hence the flippant reply

The literature from the flyers, brochures and pictures in the Globe itself, all showed "traditional costume" and made no mention of a modern interpretation.

That is what was upheld by Trading Standards

 

[srw]

So... what did this shockingly misleading piece of publicity claim or depict? I'm all ears...

Let me guess.

A man in tights? A witch in a pointy hat? A moody picture of heather? A dagger covered in blood.

@Cunobelin - we're all ears!*


*Note: this is a metaphor. It is not to be taken literally.

 

[srw]

The answers were earlier in the post, hence the flippant reply

The literature from the flyers, brochures and pictures in the Globe itself, all showed "traditional costume" and made no mention of a modern interpretation.

That is what was upheld by Trading Standards

"Traditional costume" for the Scottish play?

 

[swansonj]

Oi. I might have been holding a few things back for later. Stop spoiling my fun.

Methinks there's enough fun here for all to share.... But sorry anyway

 

[ufkacbln]

"Traditional costume" for the Scottish play?

Ignorance is bliss....

This is a modern interpretation, your history appears to be as accurate as your geography!

 

[ufkacbln]

Oi. I might have been holding a few things back for later. Stop spoiling my fun.

... or mine!

 

[srw]

Ignorance is bliss....

This is a modern interpretation, your history appears to be as accurate as your geography!

But that's what google advertised to me as "Scottish traditional costume"! Where's Southwark Trading Standards when you need them?

 

[theclaud]

The answers were earlier in the post, hence the flippant reply

The literature from the flyers, brochures and pictures in the Globe itself, all showed "traditional costume" and made no mention of a modern interpretation.

That is what was upheld by Trading Standards

I'm a little confused, on account of your vagueness. What kind of traditional costume, depicted in what way, and what particular promise did this constitute about the content?

This is the production?

Looks pretty conventional stuff.

 

[ufkacbln]

I'm a little confused, on account of your vagueness. What kind of traditional costume, depicted in what way, and what particular promise did this constitute about the content?

This is the production?

Looks pretty conventional stuff.

It "looks" but it wasn't

As previously, the witches scene was a "modern dance" routine where you could not hear what was being said for the banging of the chairs, and the three in this image became witches by wearing these:

 

[theclaud]

It "looks" but it wasn't

As previously, the witches scene was a "modern dance" routine where you could not hear what was being said for the banging of the chairs, and the three in this image became witches by wearing these:

Shocking stuff. Is there a standard unit, such as the English Harrumph, in which the resultant outrage may be measured? Have Southwark trading standards subsequently ruled that 'modernity' be denoted by a googly-eyed specs logo?

 

[ufkacbln]

Shocking stuff. Is there a standard unit, such as the English Harrumph, in which the resultant outrage may be measured? Have Southwark trading standards subsequently ruled that 'modernity' be denoted by a googly-eyed specs logo?

No idea of the present stance, but withdrawing all the Globe's advertising was their decision at the time

The requirement ia as far as I know the same now as it was then..... that the advertising should be an accurate interpretation of what is being offered

 

[ufkacbln]

Shocking stuff. Is there a standard unit, such as the English Harrumph, in which the resultant outrage may be measured? Have Southwark trading standards subsequently ruled that 'modernity' be denoted by a googly-eyed specs logo?

McHarrumph surely, it is a Scottish Play

 

[jonny jeez]

Guys.

I think you've made your point.

Some of us don't like that @Cunobelin was not impressed with the production. It seems his dislike was upheld by trading standards...that's the end of it.

There seem to be pages and pages of posters asking the same question and being ultimately dissatisfied with the same answer...and then expressing this in critisim and attempts at ridicule, this is verging on bullying. Can we leave it there and get back to the topic

 

[ufkacbln]

Guys.

I think you've made your point.

Some of us don't like that @Cunobelin was not impressed with the production. It seems his dislike was upheld by trading standards...that's the end of it.

There seem to be pages and pages of posters asking the same question and being ultimately dissatisfied with the same answer...and then expressing this in critisim and attempts at ridicule, this is verging on bullying. Can we leave it there and get back to the topic

Glad you used the words "attempts", as they are of rather poor quality as ridicule goes, more desperation rather than anything else

It is always funny when the majority get the point, but a couple then go to increasingly desperate measures to try and disprove a perfectly valid point.

 

[jonny jeez]

Glad you used the words "attempts", as they are of rather poor quality as ridicule goes, more desperation rather than anything else

It is always funny when the majority get the point, but a couple then go to increasingly desperate measures to try and disprove a perfectly valid point.

You're not helping yourself here @Cunobelin .

I'd advise you also to just leave it and let the thread get back to topic .