Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 6338507" data-attributes="member: 4937"><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />In my opinion, none of them are, but I can tell you which of the characters is called Robin Hood. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />Seriously, the modern movies rarely have anything to do with Robin Hood beyond name dropping.  It's really just laziness.  They are creating completely new stories about completely different things, but they don't want to try to stand on their own so they do a bunch of name dropping and allusion to powerful older myths in order to basically market what might otherwise be seen as incredibly cheesy.Laziness is the least damning explanation.  When they don't make me sad, it's because they are incredibly comic - most often unintentionally.  For example, Kevin Costner's Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves trivializes and simplifies the historic story by removing from it Prince John and his agent - the mercenary Sir Guy du Gisborne - who is traditionally one of Robin's main rivals.   They do this by promoting up the Sheriff of Nottingham from being a corrupt flunky to the main evil antagonist.  They pick the Sheriff however mainly because its the Sheriff that is famous from parodies, comedies, spoofs and light-hearted children's entertainment as the more buffoonish character among the villains - a characterization reinforced by these comic portrayals and in which he's usually given the larger (or sole) role.  As a result, they pick a buffoon for their main antagonist.  And the character never rises above that despite this supposedly being a drama.Worst of all, they apparently have no idea what the title sheriff means or what role they originally played in English government.  Sheriff is just a contraction of 'Shire Reeve', where Reeve is a person that serves criminal warrants.  The Shire system and its reeves were instituted by the King in a direct attack on the independence of the nobles, and as such were hated by the aristocracy.  The Shire Reeves were appointed directly by the king from out of the commoner class, precisely because they would then be entirely dependent on the favor of the king for their power.  This means that a Shire Reeve plotting with the nobles to usurp the king and take the throne has got to be the most ridiculous political power play in the history of literature.  And none of this is helped by Alan Rickman's over the top acting (so well suited for Snape), because it just makes the thing look all the more buffoonish.  Neither Rickman nor Costner are naturally athletic and clearly neither had ever held a sword in their life, so the ultimate climatic fight between them looks like it was staged for slapstick comedy, and then performed by two rubes with no gifts for physical comedy, with the two spending more time tripping over props than actually crossing blades and never looking like they are anything but overacting and uncertain of what to do next while doing it.   Gone our the days when you couldn't call yourself an actor if you hadn't spent at least a year in fencing classes so you wouldn't look like an idiot on a stage.   At least most modern movies generally put their actors through an intense short course to try to achieve something of the same effect (at least to the eyes of someone who also hasn't held a sword).  Costner clearly didn't even bother to do that.Anyway, enough of Robin Hood.  It was never really that relevant outside the apparent assertion that Friar Tuck justified the inclusion of the class.  I guess I'm going to have to actually explain myself now why I think D&D Monks don't fit in my world, lest people thank it's mostly because I'm an occidental history purist that doesn't like peanut butter in my chocolate.  I think Hussar does a decent job of justifying the inclusion of Monks in his setting.   I'll try to justify why they aren't in mine in a later post.</blockquote>

Verification