Trailer The Death of Robin Hood

[Mannahnin]

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.

Sorry it's a long essay. Certainly no one's obligated to devote 47min to it.

The author apparently watched basically every Robin Hood adaptation through 2021 and points out that there ARE a ton of ways to do it well, and a crapload of different elements to the tales which you can mix and match.

I find his argument about the way almost all adaptations of the last 50 years have gone consistently wrong to be a compelling one.

 

[jian]

Sorry it's a long essay. Certainly no one's obligated to devote 47min to it.

The author apparently watched basically every Robin Hood adaptation through 2021 and points out that there ARE a ton of ways to do it well, and a crapload of different elements to the tales which you can mix and match.

I find his argument about the way almost all adaptations of the last 50 years have gone consistently wrong to be a compelling one.

Any version of Robin Hood which doesn’t have Nasir or one of his descendants (Akeem is acceptable) has forgotten the face of their father.

 

[Reynard]

I find his argument about the way almost all adaptations of the last 50 years have gone consistently wrong to be a compelling one.

Full disclosure: I have not watched the essay.

There is no wrong Robin Hood (or Arthur) adaptation. The stories about these characters are rorschach tests for their time -- from the very first ones through the present. The same thing will happen to our culturally iconic characters as they enter the public domain (superheroes especially).

 

[Mannahnin]

Full disclosure: I have not watched the essay.

There is no wrong Robin Hood (or Arthur) adaptation. The stories about these characters are rorschach tests for their time -- from the very first ones through the present. The same thing will happen to our culturally iconic characters as they enter the public domain (superheroes especially).

I agree that they're flexible and reflect their times. I do think there are such things as good and bad takes on a character who's been around a long time. Superheroes too. Some stories and concepts are just better conceived and better written than others. Heck, the Taron Egerton one is basically just medieval Batman.

Of adaptations in my lifetime I think I've genuinely enjoyed Men in Tights and the largely overlooked one with Patrick Bergen and Uma Thurman from 1991. I desperately wanted to enjoy the Ridley Scott one, but despite a pretty great cast, I can't call it good. There are tons of good older ones, though.

 

[jian]

Yeah, Robin Hood is, like most such characters, a cultural aggregate of various versions, revisions, fanfiction, etc going back centuries (as noted elsewhere, Arthurian mythos is basically 90% fanfiction by weight). Since we started being able to film and widely distribute these versions, we started getting versions that feel more or less true to various people, mostly based on what version they imprinted on most.

As for me, I've seen the following versions:

• The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938: Errol Flynn etc): The classic golden age Hollywood version, in colour no less! Iconic in so many ways, but I find Flynn irritating and it's absolutely chock full of what people in LA in 1938 thought Merrie Old England looked like.
• Robin Hood (1973, Disney animated version): The gold star of American Robin Hood for me. It riffs hard off the classic 1938 film but it doesn't take itself at all seriously and knows it's as American as apple pie. As noted above, the Sheriff (and Phil "Baloo" Harris as Little John) is a delight.
• Robin and Marian (1976): An elegant and wistful end to the Robin Hood story, starring Sean Connery as Robin and Audrey Hepburn as Marian. You can't go home again.
• Robin of Sherwood (1984, TV): Ah... the Hooded Man. A perfect version of peasant rebel Robin, as relevant as ever. Yes, there's magic, what do you want from me? The origin of so many D&D characters. Also, Nasir.
• Maid Marian and her Merry Men (1989, TV): A solidly fun Blackadder-lite take on the legend for the kids and older kids. Also makes the point that Marian has an outlaw legend in her own right which in some sources predates Robin.
• Robin Hood Prince of Thieves (1991, Kevin Costner etc): I'm mostly in the "so bad it's good" camp, because of Morgan Freeman and Alan Rickman at least. Not iconic.
• Robin Hood (1991, Patrick Bergin): A good effort but almost entirely joyless and pointless.
• Robin Hood Men in Tights (1993, Mel Brooks): Probably Mel's worst film and mocking both Errol Flynn and Kevin Costner thoroughly. Fun to watch, though.
• Robin Hood (2010, Russell Crowe etc): Oh God why?

Clearly, I imprinted on the 1973 film and 1984 series the most.

 

[Tonguez]

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.

England in the 12th century was pretty dirty and gritty - and he's an outlaw in the forest robbing corrupt bishops and shaming greedy nobles.

so what was the point of the character?

 

[MarkB]

Ultimately, Robin Hood is the original Ranger, and we all know there's no right way to do a Ranger.

 

[Morrus]

Ultimately, Robin Hood is the original Ranger, and we all know there's no right way to do a Ranger.

Dual-wielding swords and casting spells like a pro!

 

[Mannahnin]

Ultimately, Robin Hood is the original Ranger, and we all know there's no right way to do a Ranger.

He's the Prince of Thieves!

I think OD&D covered him best in 1974, as a Fighting Man back before Thieves came along with a skill system confusing matters.

 

[jian]

England in the 12th century was pretty dirty and gritty - and he's an outlaw in the forest robbing corrupt bishops and shaming greedy nobles.

so what was the point of the character?

Robbing the rich to give to the poor, and challenging oppressive authorities. Both the 1973 film and 1984 series had these at their hearts.