*** Official ROBIN HOOD Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[Malcolm R]

Sounds like Ridley Scott ruined what could have been an interesting movie. I'll never understand why people attach themselves to projects, then basically throw everything out and start from scratch. If RS wanted to make a Robin Hood film, why didn't he simply create his own original project instead of taking up one already in progress and changing everything?


I wonder if anyone would ever be allowed to make the film as originally written? I'd be interested in seeing that film.

 

[RobertR]

Originally Posted by Jason Charlton

That "original" script doesn't sound much better than what we got. Why the HELL should anyone care about the "misunderstood" sheriff of Nottingham? Why were they so damn interested in pissing all over the Robin Hood legend? If this is how today's Hollywood views such stories, they should just leave them the hell alone.

 

[Sam Favate]

Robin Hood is one of those timeless tales, and it seems every generation gets its own interpretation. Sadly, this generation got the short end of the stick.


In the pantheon of great films that should never be remade, Michael Curtiz' Adventures of Robin Hood would be right up there for me, along with the original Planet of the Apes and many others. Errol Flynn was perfect in the role, and even more than 70 years later, we compare every actor in the role to him.


I was intrigued by Kevin Costner's Robin Hood which promised to bring Raiders of the Lost Ark-style action to the legend, but apart from an exciting opening sequence, the movie lost the momentum. It didn't help that Costner wasn't a great choice for Robin.


I find it amazing that with some of the best talent of our time in front of (Crowe, Blanchett) and behind the camera (Scott, Helgeland) that this movie could be such a mess. The problem is, I think, that it betrays its source material, which is never a good idea.

 

[Edwin-S]

I've always thought that "Robin and Marian" was a really good alternate take on the "Robin Hood" character. It only rates a 6.5 on the ImDb scale but, personally, I think it rates at least an eight. The film actually approaches the character from a "realistic" angle, similar to Scott's film. I'd like to see it cleaned up and out on Blu.

 

[Llappin]

I came to this thread to get a discussion of the movie and instead I see that I’ve entered a Russell Crow bashing party. The movie was drab? I thought the whole thing was supposed to have happened during the dark ages of Europe just after Europe lost the crusades and just before the black plague took over half of Europe. How funny can that be? Well I guess I leave you to it to have your fun.

 

[Steve Christou]

Originally Posted by Llappin /forum/thread/300656/official-robin-hood-discussion-thread#post_3694851

 

[Pete-D]

In April, Scott, who’d directed Crowe in the Best Picture–winning Gladiator, as well as A Good Year and American Gangster, came aboard to direct. Crowe, on a conference call with Imagine, Universal, and his agents, was told that Scott’s involvement would give him a chance to make a sequel to Gladiator — without having to make an actual sequel to Gladiator. At this, Crowe knew he was definitely in.

http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2010/05/robin_hood_script_russell_crow.html And that is precisely where this project went completely off the rails and was doomed. I like Ridley Scott, but reading that article, I can't help but think this whole project would've been better if he never got involved. This also reminds me of the Gladiator 2 script that Crowe reportedly wanted to make where Maximus is reincarnated by the gods. Still I don't pin this on him, sounds like he liked the initial "Nottingham" idea, and then Scott kinda hijacked the project until all the fun was sucked out of it.

 

[Edwin-S]

Originally Posted by Llappin I came to this thread to get a discussion of the movie and instead I see that I’ve entered a Russell Crow bashing party. The movie was drab? I thought the whole thing was supposed to have happened during the dark ages of Europe just after Europe lost the crusades and just before the black plague took over half of Europe. How funny can that be? Well I guess I leave you to it to have your fun.

What Russel Crowe bashing party? Most people here have expressed the opinion that this film is just a bad Robin Hood film. Crowe was involved with the filim and the film appears to be a failure, so it is only reasonable that Crowe is going to be held to account for some of its weaknesses. It appears to me that the person with the most responsibility for its failure is Ridley Scott. It sounds to me like he never should have gotten involved with this project, since he basically threw out the entire concept and then managed to come up with this porridge of a film. After reading that article I think that the original concept at least was a fresh take on the Robin Hood story.

 

[jplepage]

An OK movie for an saturday afternoon, but I will pass on this bluray (or DVD)

 

[RobertR]

Originally Posted by Llappin I came to this thread to get a discussion of the movie and instead I see that I’ve entered a Russell Crow bashing party. The movie was drab? I thought the whole thing was supposed to have happened during the dark ages of Europe just after Europe lost the crusades and just before the black plague took over half of Europe. How funny can that be?

When I see a movie titled “Robin hood”, I expect to see a tale about exactly that—Robin Hood and his band of Merry Men (apparently, you’ve never heard of that phrase), including Little John, Friar Tuck, and all the rest. Ridley Scott (and apparently, you) may be disinterested in that story (Scott should have stayed the hell away from the character if he was so damn uninterested in the Robin Hood legend), and would rather indulge in a drab, dreary tale of darkness and death, but I’ll take the dashing, romantic, swashbuckling adventurer of legend, thank you.