I may be misremembering this, but I believe Asimov said in his book that Shakespeare's histories were taken almost word-for-word from a certain set of history books, modified only to fit iambic pentameter.
And come to think of it, Shakespeare also more or less quoted Thomas North's Plutarch translation in Antony and Cleopatra. But is quotation from high-falutin' literary sources the same kind of thing as remakes and reboots in Hollywood? The Marlowe line Shakespeare quoted was from a very, very popular poem, so popular it brought a public response from Sir Walter Ralegh.
Going off on a quotation tangent, one of Marlowe's biographers noted that Marlowe quoted from geography books, an unpublished military manual and in The Massacre in Paris what seemed to be some sort of secret government report. He didn't ask why a government provocateur would be reading such things. But it seems to me that he wouldn't. Thus, Marlowe was privy to them by virtue of other government intelligence work. As in, he was given access to a military manuscript about fortifications because it was thought at some point he might be spying on enemy fortifications.
(Marlowe is particularly interesting to people who like mysteries. It's about as certain as such things can be that he wasn't murdered in a brawl over a bar bill, even if Shakespeare alluded to this official verdict in his play.)