Robin Hood Movie

[Evil Ben]

I too love both the Errol Flynn and Disney versions; others who share this taste and haven't already done so might want to take a look at the 1922 version with Douglas Fairbanks (clearly an influence on the 1938 one...). I haven't seen it for years, and the print quality wasn't great but it was huge fun - the exaggerated acting style of silent film (and Fairbanks in particular) seems appropriate for the story, and the cast and sets are on a suitably epic scale.

[Heir of Black Falcon]

Ridley kinda scares me with his treatment of historical movies... I know they are just for fun but I dislike when people distort events and people, intentionally or not, when with perhaps a little research have done it right.

My hope is in the writer. Brian Helgeland also wrote Knights Tale... what Knight's Tale the silly movie with Heath Ledger, how could I say that. Yep that is the one. It is actually packed with wonderful medieval inside jokes and characters. While sometimes it went overboard a bit, him trying to liven it up and make it so modern people could relate was classic!

Heir

[Shadowviking]

Humour is exactly what I think Ridley needs to use more of. If he makes Robin "You fight like a cow" Hood into the same gritty, "realistic" character he uses in every other movie he makes I'm done with his movies.

[Maedhros]

Ridley kinda scares me with his treatment of historical movies... I know they are just for fun but I dislike when people distort events and people, intentionally or not, when with perhaps a little research have done it right.

Actually I prefer a home made story based around historical events to a an almost accurate story. I love Gladiator for example (despite occasional silliness such as the "Roma Victor" battle cry), it isn't accurately portraying a historical event but it's a good story, and it does - I dare say - at least paint a decent picture of what society looked like back then - and perhaps most importantly, we as the audience and the film makers are agreed it's fiction. The same could be said for movies such as The Last Samurai or Inglourious Basterds for that matter. Those movies don't distort the way people look at historical events since we know it's not true, the almost accurate ones can do more "harm"in that matter I think...

[Heir of Black Falcon]

The problem to me is making villains of people who by all period accounts and most/all modern interpretations, were at least decent people. I do not mind inventing characters, in many ways this is better, as in, it is better than changing history for 'fun' of it or entertainment. To me there is really little excuse for this… they dump millions into silly things like assistants to assistants’ assistants so they can afford to get, or get better, historic consultants to improve the film. That said some historic people are hard to interpret from period accounts. What is sad is when characters that are well known and have no evidence for being a villain or a coward are made so by some Hollywood director who cannot take the time to learn the period he is directing. To me that is part of his job.

I think a home grown story is fine but Gladiator is only partially so. It actually uses many historic figures/characters and for the most part stays relatively close to who they likely were. The idea that the republic could be brought back is not all that uncommon a sentiment in the Roman Empire for example. So yes he created characters and events but relied still on real people, real occurrences and real sentiments without grossly misrepresenting real historic characters. Of his movies this one is one I felt he maimed the least though I still have some complaints that could have made it a bit better. It is when the balance is out to one side completely I get frustrated.

Does the average person know they are not true.... I am not sure I agree with you on that, It is scary how much people 'learn' from movies. Every year I get students who have very odd and strange ideas of history thanks to cinema. There may be reasons they do it but in the end I think with minimal changes could be just as entertaining and educating. If the people who wrote, directed and produced movies spend a fraction of time more than they do they could make a movie that was good both for entertainment value and historic integrity.

Having many friends in the movie industry and having worked in history I try to see both sides. To me history movies are a two edged swords. Sometimes they can get people interested in events that otherwise they would not but to me it is that last little jump, putting 100% into a project that makes it or breaks it for me.

Heir

[Napoleon]

-snip- the almost accurate ones can do more "harm"in that matter I think...

Right! A good instance of them distorting actual events is Willie Wonka. Man, so inaccurate! That was already fantastic as a true story, but they have to take libeties with the Chocolate Lake. And Willie Wonka has brown hair, not red!



Actually, I have seen movies where they butchered an historical event. The audience has it cramed down their throats, and by the time they exit the theater, they all believe everything the film told them. A good example of this would probably be Kingdom of Heaven and Master and Commander. Despite the fact that I enjoyed M&C, I can tell they were riddled with inaccuracies. I hope that they don't present RH as a semi-historical character, where everyone will believe that the Sheriff is real and stuff like that.

[Maedhros]

I think a home grown story is fine but Gladiator is only partially so. It actually uses many historic figures/characters and for the most part stays relatively close to who they likely were. The idea that the republic could be brought back is not all that uncommon a sentiment in the Roman Empire for example. So yes he created characters and events but relied still on real people, real occurrences and real sentiments without grossly misrepresenting real historic characters. Of his movies this one is one I felt he maimed the least though I still have some complaints that could have made it a bit better. It is when the balance is out to one side completely I get frustrated.

When speaking of home grown I actually meant using real characters too. I think Gladiator does this very well, because - for instance - it captures the spirit of a man like Commodus really well, despite not quite following the history (and that to me is more important, perhaps when telling a story it might even be easier describing a person when taking liberties with historical accuracy (Joyce Carol Oates' Blonde is an obvious prime example, if turning to literature)). On top of that we also get the plots against his life, his fighting in the arena, the sister that betrayed him and the conflicting ideas of the senate etc etc, and on top of that a very moving and strong story about a wronged man. Sure one could have made a historically correct movie about Commodus where he reigned for years and all that, but I for one don't think it would have been as good - at the very least it would have been an altogether different movie, so I don't really see a reason to pit that idea against Gladiator. Then again we seem to be pretty agreed about Gladiator being a good movie so I don't quite know why I keep on arguing

I agree here though:

What is sad is when characters that are well known and have no evidence for being a villain or a coward are made so by some Hollywood director who cannot take the time to learn the period he is directing. To me that is part of his job.

As for Ridley Scott's other movies I don't know so much about any of them except Kingdom of Heaven so I can't speak for those. I must say I enjoyed that one too though (not as much as Gladiator, but in many parts for much the same reasons, that he dared make the story his own without violating the spirit of the era (that expression is extremely awkward of course but works well enough in a discussion on a LEGO forum I'd say) - too much, I admit that one was a bit, uhm, flimsy though), despite being a scholar focused on the medieval

[Pellinore]

I had a university medieval history professor tell me that Kingdom of Heaven was fairly accurate as far as the big picture goes, and as far as movies go. Of course, the characters share pretty much only the names with their historical counterparts.

[Aliencat]

Actually I prefer a home made story based around historical events to a an almost accurate story. I love Gladiator for example

Probably the best example of a historically inaccurate story: look closely in the 2nd scene, behind the horse there's a man in sneakers and jeans, with a cell phone hanging from his belt. When he realizes he's in the frame he steps back carefully as not to be noticed. They didn't edit that out

[Rick-Ricks]

I love almost anything robin hood. So I'll at least watch this. I'm saving judgement untill I actually watch it.

[Napoleon]

Hey, everyone! I heard there is going to be a special on History Channel called "The Real Robin Hood." I think it is Wednesday next week. It looks pretty neat.

[Maedhros]

Soo... anyone else seen it yet? I won't say much, so as not to spoil anything. All in all I was pretty satisfied, a very different story from what I had expected. I had my gripes of course, most relating to language and such (as expected..), but more of that another day.

And... I think I smell a sequel..

[Pellinore]

I just saw it. I really liked it!

[quaraga]

please tell me r.hood isnt responsible for the sighning of the magna carta.

[Heir of Black Falcon]

I saw it. It was a fine movie. It had its issues regarding history but at least it was fun.

I had a hard time with the magna carta and robin hood connection as well...

Heir