Hey look, there's a new Robin Hood show coming with Sean Bean as the Sheriff!

[Shades of Eternity]

because cary elwe is too old to play the role.

 

[Shades of Eternity]

What about Rocket Robinhood?

if I ever confirm this is public domain. This is so mine.

I think I could make a really fun rpg from it.

 

[Amphytrion]

Robin of Sherwood had a much more evil take on Richard.

Yes, we have had poor depictions of Richard here and there, but it is not the norm in this folkloric tradition. This is why I said "usually".

It wouldn’t be inconsistent with the actual historical record for Eleanor to be clever, scheming, and manipulative, and Richard a dim-witted mummy’s boy.

Those are very cartoonish, ahistoric characterizations, which would indeed be inconsistent with historical record. We have very good scholarship conducted on both for the past 50 years, some of which is very accessible for popular readership (Jean Flori or John Gillingham's biographies on Richard, for example).

This is a side tangent and I don't mean to derail the thread--after all, the historical Richard is mostly irrelevant for Robin Hood stories. What matters for the tale is the mythological Richard, the archetypal good king, and the depredation that his absence brings to the land. Many characters in Robin Hood have historical counterparts, and accuracy is a concern for none of them.

This looks very much derivative of every other version thats gone before - and very CW

Perfect descriptor; it does look very CW. I don't mind the derivation as much as I mind the overall cheapness of it.

There was little wrong with Prince of Thieves, it just wasn't especially right. Costner (who, yes, is American and sounds it), rather than the passion he brought to The Untouchables through JFK, started (or continued, depending on how you view Dances With Wolves) his streak of underacting performances that lasted through The Postman. Morgan Freeman brought wonderful acting to a tropish role. Sean Connery came for a requisite cameo that was very much cameo-shaped and of cameo-duration.

Rickman and Geraldine McEwan absolutely nailed the villain roles and elevated every scene in which they appeared. The problem is that if all the great components of a movie are in one facet (villains, visuals, score), you don't say that they elevate the whole, you instead say it's wonderful villains/visuals/score in an otherwise bad/bland movie. It's like Raul Julia in Street Fighter (perhaps moreso, since unlike Street Fighter, Robin Hood Prince of Thieves isn't otherwise bad so much as muddled and bland).

I agree that it is fairly bland, and that Kevin Costner seems thoroughly bored for the entire duration. But I don't mind Sean Connery's cameo-shaped role; there's a tongue-in-cheek charm to it and he seems to be having a good time.

For those who don’t know much about Eleanor, before the events of Robin Hood, she orchestrated a rebellion against King Henry II, using Richard as her catspaw, and was locked in a tower until Henry died. Later, she was the one who put John on the throne when Richard died.

This isn't correct. Many things contributed to the Great Revolt of 1173-74 (far more than I could list here), and Eleanor didn't orchestrate much of it at all. There was the murder of Thomas Beckett and its impact, the strain of administering a kingdom so large (that encompassed recently suppressed Ireland and Scotland), a rising French power, Henry's lack of direct right to Aquitaine, etc. Most familial, perhaps, is Henry II's division of his holdings among his sons (on whom he relied on to rule). Henry II did favor his youngest son John, but John was still far too young to understand what was happening at this point.

Richard was merely 15 and didn't play much of a part in it at all at first (much less as a "catspaw"). His older brother, Henry the Young King, led the rebellion by departing Henry II's court in Normandy, and he was followed by his nearly all of his close family (including the two middle brothers, Richard and Geoffrey). Eleanor attempted to join them later but was captured fairly swiftly into the rebellion. All of Richard's notable contributions to the rebellion happen after Eleanor's capture, not before.

Henry II eventually defeated his sons Geoffrey and Henry the Young King, but not Richard, so they had to broker peace and Richard retained rulership of most of Aquitaine, since his mother was in captivity. This never sat well with Henry, and the question of succession remained an issue for the following decade. Richard eventually rebelled again, but Eleanor couldn't have orchestrated that either, considering Henry had her imprisoned in his possession.

And Richard himself named John his successor before he died. The only feasible alternative was Geoffrey's son, Arthur, who was far too young for politics himself and whose cause was propped up by Richard's late-life detested rival and once close friend, Phillip Augustus. Even after Richard's death, Eleanor didn't solely put John on the throne, many other figures of importance in Plantagenet politics (e.g. William Marshall) played a role in his accession.

Forgive my tangent. As mentioned above, historical accuracy is not important to Robin Hood stories. Even when they attempt to approximate it (e.g. Ridley Scott's 2010 film), Robin Hood's still much more myth than history by nature.

 

[Reynard]

Hot take: there has never been and can never be a historically accurate Robin Hood story, because Robin Hood is not a historical figure. Same goes for King Arthur.

 

[Ryujin]

What about Rocket Robinhood?

Come gather around me,
Space travelers surround me,
Hark now to the ballad of Rocket Robinhood.

 

[HaroldTheHobbit]

but did we have to cast underwear models?

A side track, but to me it’s REALLY offputting that nowadays every actor have a body like an olympian athlete, no matter what role or genre. It breaks my suspension of disbelief. Why do that dirt poor long time severe alcoholic uncle have a body like a triathlon gold medalist?

 

[Amphytrion]

Hot take: there has never been and can never be a historically accurate Robin Hood story, because Robin Hood is not a historical figure. Same goes for King Arthur.

I fully agree; and even if either were real at some poiny, historicity is not the point of their tales.

I don’t think this is a hot take at all, I imagine most everyone agrees on this matter.

 

[Amphytrion]

A side track, but to me it’s REALLY offputting that nowadays every actor have a body like an olympian athlete, no matter what role or genre. It breaks my suspension of disbelief. Why do that dirt poor long time severe alcoholic uncle have a body like a triathlon gold medalist?

My grandmother used to say “I don’t care what the movie is about; I watch TV to see beautiful people. If I wanted to see ugly people, I’d watch the window.”

I think lots of people think like my grandmother did, if they’d phrase it slightly differently. I imagine a ripped body, like a full set of healthy teeth, is just one of those things the industry decided it’s worth including even when it doesn’t make much sense.

 

[Morrus]

I don’t care what the movie is about; I watch TV to see beautiful people.

I don't.

 

[Amphytrion]

I don't.

I didn’t imply you (or anyone else in particular) did.

Some people (unspecified) do. I meant that the industry constantly favoring good-looking, physically fit actors in a number of productions is probably an indicator that this group is at least sizeable.