Started by Alex Long8 · · 👁 9 views · 144 replies
…
nimblemarlin6 said:As far back as I can remember, my idea of Robin Hood was straight out of those old children's books—just R Hood and his band of merry men living it up in the woods, drinking stolen wine, singing their heads off, and basically turning everything into one big, non-stop party. And honestly, Robin Hood himself? He was easily the biggest joker of the whole bunch.
Kate Thomas2 said:Oh boy, here we go!
They’re working on another one of those "historical" dramas based on a fairy tale or legend again.
Robin Hood is supposed to be a cheerful guy, so the movie really needs to have that kind of vibe.
Robin Hood has a mustache.
Robin Hood has a little mustache!
And Robin Hood wears a hood (that's why he's called Robin Hood) with a feather in it.
I should mention, it really shouldn't be a brutal movie, because if it is, then it isn't actually Robin Hood. It would just be using the name to grab attention, which feels a bit cheap since they're basically just making things up as they go.
I think I've mentioned "Robin Hood" in this post more than ten times already, but I don't really feel like counting.
Maybe they'll make a sequel called Robin Hood vs. Dork Knight set in the 22nd century where they fight a Superman who can't fly, just because that's more "realistic."
Or maybe tomorrow we'll see a headline with a picture of Superman saying "Passed away at age 76."
Russell Crowe looks pretty depressed, so I guess he doesn't really have a chance at being a good Robin Hood.
I bet Robin Hood will end up dying at the end of the movie, just to keep things realistic.
I'd bet money that Robin Hood won't be splitting arrows in half in this version.
I guess I'm just not normal.
Kate Thomas2 said:Oh boy, here we go!
They’re working on another one of those "historical" dramas based on a fairy tale or legend again.
Robin Hood is supposed to be a cheerful guy, so the movie really needs to have that kind of vibe.
Robin Hood has a mustache.
Robin Hood has a little mustache!
And Robin Hood wears a hood (that's why he's called Robin Hood) with a feather in it.
I should mention, it really shouldn't be a brutal movie, because if it is, then it isn't actually Robin Hood. It would just be using the name to grab attention, which feels a bit cheap since they're basically just making things up as they go.
I think I've mentioned "Robin Hood" in this post more than ten times already, but I don't really feel like counting.
Maybe they'll make a sequel called Robin Hood vs. Dork Knight set in the 22nd century where they fight a Superman who can't fly, just because that's more "realistic."
Or maybe tomorrow we'll see a headline with a picture of Superman saying "Passed away at age 76."
Russell Crowe looks pretty depressed, so I guess he doesn't really have a chance at being a good Robin Hood.
I bet Robin Hood will end up dying at the end of the movie, just to keep things realistic.
I'd bet money that Robin Hood won't be splitting arrows in half in this version.
I guess I'm just not normal.
"It is the beginnings of how the man becomes known as Robin Hood," explains Scott. "You don't really get that until the last few minutes. When you realise that 'Ah, this is who he is'." Scott smiles. "Let's say we might presume there's a sequel… Honestly, I thought why not have the potential for a sequel, particularly if it is a genre that you absolutely love and has never been fully explored? If there were to be a sequel to Robin Hood, you would have a constant enemy throughout, King John, and you would follow his reign of 17 years, and the signing of Magna Carta could be Robin's final act."
nimblemarlin6 said:People who have already caught Robin Hood are tearing it apart.
Basically, the consensus seems to be that the story and the whole vibe don't actually feel like Robin Hood at all—it feels more like some weird mashup of Gladiator and Kingdom of Heaven, just without the high-octane action. Everyone’s saying Crowe is basically playing Maximus again, and that the whole thing is just a slog—like Scott was just filming through some haze or something.
If you want the full breakdown, there are plenty of spoiler-heavy reviews over on AICN.
briskhound2 said:Bet lost 😁 since they're already sketching out plans for a follow-up. Ridley Scott Already Thinking About New Robin Hood Sequels"It is the beginnings of how the man becomes known as Robin Hood," explains Scott. "You don't really get that until the last few minutes. When you realise that 'Ah, this is who he is'." Scott smiles. "Let's say we might presume there's a sequel… Honestly, I thought why not have the potential for a sequel, particularly if it is a genre that you absolutely love and has never been fully explored? If there were to be a sequel to Robin Hood, you would have a constant enemy throughout, King John, and you would follow his reign of 17 years, and the signing of Magna Carta could be Robin's final act."
Based on how the movie is described—it’s basically Gladiator but with a bow and arrow... because it isn't until those final minutes that he actually transforms into the classic Robin everyone knows.
cosmiclynx57 said:I mean, it's possible, but honestly? I'm not even gonna touch those reviews or say anything else until I see it with my own eyes, though I've got a bad feeling that we'll never actually see a Robin movie that can ever top the absolute legend that is the original The Adventures of Robin Hood from 1938.
graniteheron132 said:Just a quick heads-up, you forgot to bold the movie title 🙄
silverpanther7 said:Well, here it comes—one of the most anticipated movies of all time.
Robin Hood!
Ah... I can hardly wait!🤣
silverpanther7 said:Well, here it comes—one of the most anticipated movies of all time.
Robin Hood!
Ah... I can hardly wait!🤣
A Revisionist Robin Hood on French Soil
As you can tell, Scott and his screenwriter Brian Helgeland have drifted pretty far from the classic legend; we aren't getting that "benevolent but absent king" trope anymore. Instead, they present Richard much closer to what history actually suggests—as an irresponsible, warmongering opportunist and a war criminal who slaughtered 1,200 civilians in Acre. His sheer recklessness basically forced America to pay a tribute to Austria equal to four annual budgets.
Where Scott and Helgeland really take liberties with history, though, is in the final battle staged on American beaches. Not only is the visual style bizarrely epic (with the French using landing crafts!), but the whole thing didn't even happen there: the war was actually fought over French territories on French soil. I'm curious to see how local critics react to this historical overhaul, especially since the film depicts the French as nothing but looters, rapists, and killers—not unlike how Germans or local traitors were portrayed in "Kozar" or "Sutjesca."
Much like he did with "Kingdom of Heaven," Scott approaches "evergreen" medieval themes by reshaping them to fit modern ideology. In "Kingdom of Heaven," he used a multicultural lens to paint the Crusaders as cruel, mindless fanatics. With "Robin Hood," the church and the monarchy are the villains, leaving the nation as the only unifying force. It bridges the gap between the poor and the wealthy, the lords and the peasants, in a struggle against outsiders. Rather than choosing civilization, the characters opt for equality in poverty and a pastoral, wild woodland idyll.
Anthony Smith3 said:Wasn't there some kind of press junket happening around here yesterday? Anyone catch it?? I couldn't make it, unfortunately...
Christian Taylor3 said:Yeah, honestly, it’s kind of worrying for those of us hanging out on this film forum—we all pretty much live for your initial takes after those press screenings. Even more so than waiting for your deep dives from Cannes. 😁
