Robinhood ....again!

I find "Enemy At The Gates" interesting because it's a battle between the forces of Hitler and Stalin, two of the worst figures in history.
 
Blaine said:
I just got through reading Nottingham. I have mixed feelings about it. I give a lot of credit to Reiff and Voris for putting a new spin on an old story. I can see why Hollywood got excited about it.

My biggest problem with the script was the large amount of exposition, mostly in the first act. With the exception of what could be a good battle scene opening the story, it was really bogged down by the exposition. The dialogue throughout was okay but at times if felt awkward. (Now, I will grant that this is marked as a first draft.)

Robin Hood shows up for the first time on page 39.

Much of the second act becomes a detective story with the Sheriff searching for the real Arrow Killer. We have see Robin and his Merry Men in Sherwood forest twice. This movie wasn't about them and it goes out of its way to diminish them. The third act starts with the trial by combat for Robin Hood and turns into a full blown battle between Richard's (the Lionhearted) army and his younger brother Prince John's soldiers. The ending is a bit sappy and Hollywood, just what the movie going public would like to see.

I have to wonder, though, how it would have been received by the masses. Would they have accepted the Sheriff as the hero instead of the beloved Robin Hood? There was just a little something also reminiscent of The Name of the Rose...the whole detective thing.

Having read the article Batutta pointed out earlier, I was worried when it drew comparisons to CSI. They were fairly thin, though. I will say that some of the Sheriff's powers of deduction seemed a little advanced for the 12th century, though.

The script read easily and quickly after I got through the first act. There was MUCH LESS exposition after the first act, too. The hero of the story, Sir Robert Tornham, Sheriff of Nottingham, drove the action and resolved the story in this one.

I think for now, I'll stick with the Patrick Bergin Robin Hood as the best version I've seen (or read).
Click to expand...

If they wanted to do it right, they could tell the story of how the pompous doofus Richard the Lionheart got his fanny tanned in the Crusades and then got himself captured on the way home. The king of Hanover then demanded that his brother, John, pay a literal King's Ransom of about three times the entire yearly output of England at the time, and John had no choice but to tax in order to pay it. It would be the story of an actually very competent monarch doing the only thing he really could in order to pay for the mistakes of the guy "lionized" by history, and what he had to put up with in order to do it. And it all coming to nought because Richard died.
 
David Jimerson said:
If they wanted to do it right, they could tell the story of how the pompous doofus Richard the Lionheart got his fanny tanned in the Crusades and then got himself captured on the way home. The king of Hanover then demanded that his brother, John, pay a literal King's Ransom of about three times the entire yearly output of England at the time, and John had no choice but to tax in order to pay it. It would be the story of an actually very competent monarch doing the only thing he really could in order to pay for the mistakes of the guy "lionized" by history, and what he had to put up with in order to do it. And it all coming to nought because Richard died.
Click to expand...
I Love it!

But can we make it a bit more about archery? I've always wanted to make an archery film.

I know - what if we make the ol' switcharoo and just swap places between the antagonist and the protagonist? We can make the villain, into the hero!
We could call it... ROBIN HOOD, or some such.

Let's do lunch.
 
David Jimerson said:
If they wanted to do it right, they could tell the story of how the pompous doofus Richard the Lionheart got his fanny tanned in the Crusades and then got himself captured on the way home. The king of Hanover then demanded that his brother, John, pay a literal King's Ransom of about three times the entire yearly output of England at the time, and John had no choice but to tax in order to pay it. It would be the story of an actually very competent monarch doing the only thing he really could in order to pay for the mistakes of the guy "lionized" by history, and what he had to put up with in order to do it. And it all coming to nought because Richard died.
Click to expand...
They addressed that in here. On his way home, Richard was taken ransom in Austria (that's what it was called in the script :undecided) but John felt it was a lost cause so he planned on taking the money raised through taxes to pay for the war in France. The Queen Mother enlisted the Sheriff to make sure money would go to pay Richard's ransom since it was Richard that had appointed Tornham for his great victory in Cyprus.

As with any movie, it's problematic using them to teach us history since even the most historically accurate leave huge holes and inaccurate depictions of what really happened.
 
Just saying, it would be nice to have a broader appreciation for John's position there. History is already offended by having Robin Hood depicted as a real figure anyway. :)

Besides, it was the RICH who were far more incensed by John, and thus Magna Carta was born.
 
David Jimerson said:
Besides, it was the RICH who were far more incensed by John, and thus Magna Carta was born.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. The Magna Carta was created to protect the nobles from the King's whimsy. It wasn't created to help the common man.
 
Last edited:
- Scott was in Hollywood, at Fox Studios, within 27 hours after receiving the script for Alien.
- Fox asked if he wanted to change anything in the script. Scott said, “No.” He then asked if there were any filmmakers in the audience and gave some advice. “Don’t turn a go film into a development deal.” That’s what he believes would have happened if he started a whole new round of conversation with the script for Alien
Click to expand...
Ridley Scott spoke about landing the Alien job recently.
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/45454
 
David Jimerson said:
I find "Enemy At The Gates" interesting because it's a battle between the forces of Hitler and Stalin, two of the worst figures in history.
Click to expand...

That's a great movie. The brutality of the river crossing rivals Private Ryan's opening for me.

As for King John, much like Richard the III, literature and myth has demonized him somewhat unfairly. Although not a great warrior-king, he was a relatively fair and intelligent ruler who ran an efficient administration, although not without some major challenges more due to the complications of the period than any sort of greed or major incompetence. The "style" of Richard trumped the assets of John from a historical standpoint. One must also remember that, although done under pressure from the lords, he did sign the Magna Carta. An incredibly important ind influential document for modern government.

But that hardly makes for the foil of swashbuckling legend.
 
Jim Brennan said:
That's a great movie. The brutality of the river crossing rivals Private Ryan's opening for me.

As for King John, much like Richard the III, literature and myth has demonized him somewhat unfairly. Although not a great warrior-king, he was a relatively fair and intelligent ruler who ran an efficient administration, although not without some major challenges more due to the complications of the period than any sort of greed or major incompetence. The "style" of Richard trumped the assets of John from a historical standpoint. One must also remember that, although done under pressure from the lords, he did sign the Magna Carta. An incredibly important ind influential document for modern government.

But that hardly makes for the foil of swashbuckling legend.
Click to expand...
There's an indie alternate history mumblecore film in there somewhere.

Young John and Young Robin grow up together. One pursues politics, the other archery. They end up on different sides of a war but realize nothing is more important than friendship.

Big winner at the Sundance festival 2012? I think so.
 
In fact the Robin Hood with Patrick Bergin and Uma Thurmond does involve a relationship along those lines, but between Robin and the Sheriff, rather than Robin and King John...
 
Sad Max said:
In fact the Robin Hood with Patrick Bergin and Uma Thurmond does involve a relationship along those lines, but between Robin and the Sheriff, rather than Robin and King John...
Click to expand...

one of the reasons that version is more than an adventure film.

Real people tend to be far more interesting.
 
Jim Brennan said:
one of the reasons that version is more than an adventure film.

Real people tend to be far more interesting.
Click to expand...
Hate to nitpick, but characters that feel real, tend to be far more interesting.

Real people in movies are about as interesting as conversations instead of dialogue.
 
Now that this film is out on Video, can we bump this thread?

I thought it was excellent. Good chemistry between Crowe & Blanchet, as well as the other merry men. I though it was a great way to modernize this story. Robin was a badass, the merry men & Friar were well casted. Didn't much care for the King John or the Sheriff. John acted like a prissy spoiled brat, like the Henry character in Tutors.

I watched all the extras on BluRay as well. I am alway amazed at the magnitude of a production of this size. The costume & props people are brilliantly resourceful. (eg, they made 1200 shields out of cardboard sono-tubes, to make them lightweight enough for the extras to use).

Only blatent faux-pax that really bugged me were the french landing-craft. OBVIOUSLY they used WWII landing-craft gussied up w/ oars?!? WTF was that? How ironic though that in reality the Allied forces used them to attack Normandy France, in Robin Hood, just the opposite!
 
I was looking forward to this movie. In the end it was just okay. The plot was incredibly hard to deciphyr in the beginning. I'd say the biggest fault was that the cinematography was so distracting. Why oh why would you use zoom shots. C'mon. So cheesy. I was looking forward to seeing a chopsuey multy cam ridley scott job and it was close, but the shots they chose were just plain corny. Especially the cliche bow and arrow shots toward the end, that was the last draw. ....but the zoom shots wtf
 
There were quite a few zoom shots. One in particular was toward the beginning, RussellHood was at their army's camp; it was a wide shot zooming into med.wide. This would have been better on a dolly or crane. Hell, I would've liked it most if it were a shaky handheld move. Zoom with your legs, damn it! The change in perspective is engaging and dynamic. The quality of these said zooms seemed like the robotic feel of a "servo Zoom," which is mechanical and awkwardly constant. Zooms like this are very flat. A zoom can look decnt if it has a little cushion at the beginning or end or some variance. Either way I don't think this film needed any, it took away from the rustic, organic, unsmooth feel that I saw a bit, but wanted to see more. Just my 2 coins.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top