Robin Hood



— Alan

Yeah, I’ll probably see it.

I’m always a sucker for costumed epics, so I’m in. Looks promising–better than the Costner version, at least, though I doubt it will surpass the Flynn classic.

Awesome. Looks like it will be quite a dark adaptation. Btw, Alan Doyle of Great Big Sea will be playing Allan A’Dayle the bard.

Why isn’t this movie just called “Gadiator 2: The Knights Who Gladiate”? I saw nothing Robin Hood-ish in the trailer.

Sounds good enough for me.

Love that music.

I like Ridley Scott, but I’m getting sick of him casting Russel Crowe in everthing he makes.

Hey Ridley, give someone else a shot!

Sorry Mr. Whitta, but a single shot in a minute long trailer of the main character holding a bow doesn’t make it a Robin Hood movie, especially taken with the rest of the trailer. There’s no doubt that it looks like a fun movie, but it doesn’t look like Robin Hood. I saw nary a Merry Man around.

What’s with this recent trend of people wanting each new iteration of a classic character/story to look like the ones we’ve seen before? Between this and the baffling Sherlock Holmes thread (which to be fair most people seemed to disagree with the OP on) I’m kinda surprised that the idea of revisiting old material with a new perspective is getting rained on from some quarters.

I guess they could have given Russell a pointy green hat, a jaunty accent and a chandelier to swing on, but we’ve seen that already. I welcome new takes on old material. In this case it’s just an ancient made-up legend anyway, so who says they can’t do something radically different with it?

How many period action movies is Ridley Scott going to have to do before he gets it right? Third time the charm?

I liked Gladiator when it came out, but many parts felt overwraught and the story was saved by excellent performance by the three principles. I felt Kingdom of Heaven mostly opened strong, but became forgettable because the story couldn’t really propel it along.

Ridley Scott should quit making movies and just join the SCA already.

He got it right first time.

What, Legend?

Just one! Unfortunately, it was thirty years ago and it was called The Duellists. The problem is all the period movies he’s done since then.


Well presumably the point of using the name “Robin Hood” is to elicit some response, right? If the movie turns out to be a dark version that ends up looking like a variation on Braveheart then what’s the point? There is an expectation that certain core elements of the classic story will be reused, and Robin Hood is generally defined as a fun action movie, not a dark medieval drama (an angle already explored with the Connery variation anyway).

I think the point being made here is different then the one being made in the Sherlock Holmes thread. There it was some people who didn’t like the take on the character, a character they nevertheless clearly identified. Here the argument (admittedly based on little evidence, in this case a trailer) is that they see nothing that defines this movie as Robin Hood in any sense.

Meh, I think Gladiator is awesome but I don’t have the energy to get into an internet battle about it right now.

That’s his one period action movie I haven’t seen. : /

I should get on that.

Edit: Is that the Duellists as action focused as some of his more recent movies? Just curious. His early work from the stuff I’ve seen seems to be more subdued (Alien, Legend, Bladerunner, etc).

Duellists is definitely pre-bombastic Scott. But it does have some nifty period action. Also, it doesn’t have Russell Crowe, so it’s got that going for it.


I understand judging the merits of modern remakes of classics or legends based on accuracy to the source (or in this case, many sources of) material, but every movie trailer made in the past decade is guilty of displaying quick cuts of action. It’s an obvious attention grabber. I’d hope there would be at least some good exposition, but who knows what the writers have done.