Robin Hood

[LizzieMaine]

All this talk of Robin Hood, and nary a mention yet of Douglas Fairbanks? He'd have vanquished the Sheriff, vexed Prince John, rescued Maid Marian, shared a joint of beef with Little John, built a new monastery for Friar Tuck, and mended a run in his tights, before Flynn could finish lacing his jerkin.

Crowe's thing is that he always gets beat up. Douglas Fairbanks didn't get beat up.

 

[jamespowers]

Geez, I predicted this in the Creativity thread. What is this the 1,000th incarnation of Robin Hood?! Even Bugs Bunny got in on the Robin Hood thing.

 

[jamespowers]

All this talk of Robin Hood, and nary a mention yet of Douglas Fairbanks? He'd have vanquished the Sheriff, vexed Prince John, rescued Maid Marian, shared a joint of beef with Little John, built a new monastery for Friar Tuck, and mended a run in his tights, before Flynn could finish lacing his jerkin.

Crowe's thing is that he always gets beat up. Douglas Fairbanks didn't get beat up.

Well, Crowe has that BO thing going on so it makes sense.

 

[vintage68]

Anything done by Ridley Scott, count me in for opening day! Though being a direct descendent of King John I always cringe to see portrayals of an evil guy I'm related to!

 

[The Wolf]

I finally checked in on this thread.
Lizzie, thank you for mentioning Fairbanks' version.
One thing it has in common with Flynn's version is that Alan Hale played Little John in both, sixteen years apart.

Sincerely,
The Wolf

 

[Widebrim]

I have to see this. It's got to be way better than the Errol Flynn version. that one has too many men running around in tights laughing a lot. Scary.

Despite the tights and laughing, The Adventures of Robin Hood is a classic, and Errol Flynn has become synonymous with the character...Nobody can swing on a rope and land on a mound, laughing, like that Aussie boy.

 

[Creeping Past]

I am he for whomst thou seekest

Sure you are

[YOUTUBE]<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/EJ_R5XaD2-8&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/EJ_R5XaD2-8&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Hereward]

Once I saw him pulling the bow with three fingers and to his chin, I knew this would be a donkey. Accuracy is important to me.

 

[Edward]

Once I saw him pulling the bow with three fingers and to his chin, I knew this would be a donkey. Accuracy is important to me.

English archers of the period would, of course, have used two to pull back, and - am I right in this - sighted along the arrow?

I don't think it would exactly bother me (I doubt I'd have registered it had you pointed that out), but with the extent of training that goes on in combat etc in the avergae big-budget, Hollywood flick such as this, it is a shame if they missed a detail like that.

 

[Hereward]

The shaft was a clothyard one, meaning 32". Because this is much longer than that usually used today and to give more power, they pulled to their ear and not their chin, as people mostly do nowadays. Robert Hardy the actor has written a superb book on the longbow that gives all this information and more.

I saw a crash dummy have its head removed at around 200 yards by a broadhead shot from a longbow. The weapon used to penetrate chobham armour used on modern tanks is based on the English longbow, which will go through such armour. Imagine that if you will.

By the way, any fantasy (or other) author who writes, '...fired an arrow', is a prize plonker. One can only fire a firearm.

 

[Edward]

There's no doubting the power of the English longbow; coming unddr attack from those at Agincourt must have been devastating. Big advantage, too, at a time before rival nations could field as effective a ranged-weapon division in their armies. From dimly remembered school history classes on medieval history, they certainly bested the French crossbows which, while effective over a longer range, took more than double the time to reload and shoot again.

 

[Eyemo]

My mate was the armourer on the movie..this is a pic I took from the beach in Wales..

 

[BinkieBaumont]

Sure you are

[YOUTUBE]<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/EJ_R5XaD2-8&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/EJ_R5XaD2-8&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]pc1am3KyYgA[/YOUTUBE]

 

[anon`]

I liked Gladiator despite its historical inaccuracies (which do matter to me, I accept most people won't notice or care) but I really disliked Kingdom of Heaven. I put off watching the trailer to Robin Hood for some time, thinking I would be filled with instant loathing, but now that I have I find from what I can tell the costumes seem to be considerably more accurate than those of Kingdom of Heaven. This in no way means it will be a good film, but it does mean that I won't avoid it until I can borrow a friends copy on DVD.

Edit. Or I could just say I quite liked the trailer, which is what the above amounts to.

Despite being seven or eight centuries early for this period...

Kingdom of Heaven had some amusing bits of costuming. I love the hinged nasal that the Knight Hospitaller wears, and Godfrey's use of an Italian longsword system some four hundred years before it's development.

But I digress. It isn't hard to do better than KoH, but true to form, Ridley Scott has failed in this attempt to be accurate, as well. What's worse is that the failure is obvious just from the first trailer posted here.

Here's all you need to know about Ridley Scott and period accuracy:

I'm a moviemaker, not a documentarian. I try to hit the truth. And as Bill Monahan was a journalist, he always tried to read the primary documents. It's tricky, because you weren't there and you're not talking to anyone who was there. Therefore, what you are going to put down on paper is sensitive conjecture.

That's a quote about KoH, ostensibly trying to justify the overly apologist tone of the film, as well as the "historical" friendship shared by Balian and Baldwin and other assorted errors. The same attitude was clearly present for Gladiator, and judging by the trailers, is present for Robin Hood.

And this makes me sad, because it really wouldn't be that hard. Seriously. Maybe HBO will do one when they're done with The Pacific...

 

[vintage68]

If you want a good story Ridley Scott is one of the best IMHO. I go to the movies to be entertained, not educated.

 

[cookie]

Orf to see it tonight...

 

[LocktownDog]

Gotta love Porky Pig as Friar Tuck.

 

[jamespowers]

I go to the movies to be entertained, not educated.

Definitely a good idea as you can't take one iota of history from Hollywood and their revisionist views.[huh]

 

[anon`]

Definitely a good idea as you can't take one iota of history from Hollywood and their revisionist views.[huh]

This is true, but it wouldn't kill a director to at least put some effort into costume and prop design.

Even if the story itself is fictitious, like Robin Hood.

 

[AmateisGal]

This is true, but it wouldn't kill a director to at least put some effort into costume and prop design.

Even if the story itself is fictitious, like Robin Hood.

Agreed.