15

The 1998 film Elizabeth portrays Queen Elizabeth I ascension to the throne and her early reign as Queen.

At the end of the film, before the credits roll, the following information is given to the viewers:

  • Elizabeth reigned for another 40 years.
  • Walsingham remained her most trusted and loyal advisor to the end.
  • She never married and never saw Dudley in private again.
  • On her deathbed, she was said to have whispered his name.
  • By the time of her death, England was the richest and most powerful country in Europe.
  • Her reign has been called The Golden Age.

Filmmakers appear to be finalizing the movie with these statements to inform the audience of the rest of Elizabeth's life and reign since they only included the first part of her reign.

One of the events that is not mentioned in the information before the closing credits is the defeat of the Spanish Armada along with her association with Sir Walter Raleigh, both of which she is historically best known for during her reign.

Was Elizabeth originally made with the intention of having a sequel? The sequel, Elizabeth: The Golden Age was made 9 years later in 2007, which seems like a long time between films for a sequel. The sequel covers the second half of her reign with major events, such as the defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588 and her relationship with Sir Walter Raleigh. Is there any evidence from filmmakers that they left out any mention of the defeat of the Spanish Armada due to the fact that they were planning on a sequel that would focus on this particular topic?

Note: I am aware that some of the information provided at the end of the film is historically inaccurate as well as historical liberties being taken throughout the entire film. I'm not inquiring about historical accuracy.

  • 10
    Yes. Elizabeth II – Strawberry May 19 '17 at 10:38
14

To quote director Shekhar Kapur in this Guardian interview from 11/2007:

As I was ending the last film I was already thinking about a second one. There was no absolute intention, but there was a desire.

It seems from this interview that if things were left out of the first film, it wasn't a plan but more something that opened possibilities and inspired the director to go back.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .