Trailer The Death of Robin Hood

[trappedslider]

Well, that's a different take than what i've seen before.

 

[payn]

A24 is all you had to say.

 

[Mannahnin]

Looks like a good movie! Jackman has me intrigued.

That being said, it sadly also feels like another in the long line of modern attempts to dirty/grit/real-up Robin Hood which miss the point of the character. (See 1:30 - 4:55 and 32:00-42:35 of the video below)

 

[payn]

TL ; DW

 

[trappedslider]

TL ; DW

i just had to read the comments to get "Robin Hood shouldn't be dark and edgy" it's basically the same argument that happened when superman isn't all rainbows and sun shine.

 

[Morrus]

Looks like a good movie! Jackman has me intrigued.

That being said, it sadly also feels like another in the long line of modern attempts to dirty/grit/real-up Robin Hood which miss the point of the character. (See 1:30 - 4:55 and 32:00-42:35 of the video below)

While I generally agree that there have been too many gritty versions in the last couple of decades, I don’t think there’s a problem with that concept. I also don’t think Robin Hood should be solely defined by the likes of Disney (which is an American company) either. As long as there’s variety, I’ll give any interpretation a chance. But yeah, I wouldn’t mind a lighter one at this point.

 

[Reynard]

i just had to read the comments to get "Robin Hood shouldn't be dark and edgy" it's basically the same argument that happened when superman isn't all rainbows and sun shine.

Like Arthur and his Knights, Robin Hood has been so many things that any argument someone makes saying that it "isn't the real Robin hood" is just plain silly.

 

[jian]

Didn't Sean Connery and Audrey Hepburn do this already?

(More seriously, Robin and Marian is a great film - it's hard to imagine a better elegaic approach to Robin Hood - but I guess it was 50 years ago now. I should rewatch it, at my age I'll probably find it hitting a bit harder.)

 

[Mannahnin]

While I generally agree that there have been too many gritty versions in the last couple of decades, I don’t think there’s a problem with that concept. I also don’t think Robin Hood should be solely defined by the likes of Disney (which is an American company) either. As long as there’s variety, I’ll give any interpretation a chance. But yeah, I wouldn’t mind a lighter one at this point.

The second excerpt I time-stamped starts off by talking about how Disney's is not the definitive version. Breadsword opines that that's Michael Curtis' 1938 The Adventures of Robin Hood, starring Erroll Flynn, Claude Raines, and Olivia de Havilland, and he explains why.

The essay is long, but there are a few major parts/theses:

1. Discussing the nature of legendary heroes in general.
2. Reviewing Disney's Robin Hood and talking about how much it gets right, despite the absurd elements (like the mix of British and Southern US accents in the cast), and how the writing amounts to kind of a "greatest hits" of the myth.
2a. Discussing the whole production history of the movie and what led up to it.
3. Discussing Robin Hood more broadly, touching on the entire corpus of his myths, ballads, and tales, and more specifically giving a bit of an overview of basically every filmed or animated version through 2021, specifically pointing out how flexible the myth is and how there are a LOT of ways to do it well.
4. A polemic on the unfortunate history of Robin Hood's cinematic adaptations since the mid 70s, which, with a couple of exceptions (he calls out Men in Tights and Princess of Thieves) all drain it of its life and color in the misguided attempt to make Robin gritty and realistic.

 

[jian]

Look, there are two poles of Robin Hood perfection put to film - Disney’s animated version which is perfectly American and light-hearted (and is basically a distilled version of the Errol Flynn film but without the cod-medieval pretensions - the southern Sheriff is a delight), and Robin of Sherwood, which is neither. Most gritty versions orbit the Hooded Man but are not him.