Ridley Scott's "Robin Hood"

[LionPride32]

Evening, gents!

I was wondering what anyone else has to say about Ridley Scott's depiction of 12th/13th century England in his film Robin Hood??

The first time I watched it I was hooked. Danny Huston's portayal of an older Richard I was great, in my opinion! The siege of Chalus castle at the beginning was a great action opener, but it was too short. I think that's what the films only major downfall is...battle scenes not long enough! And I'm appalled to find THIS version of "Robin Hood" in the $5 !?  Wtf I say!!
I am a proud owner of the movies's King Richard Sword by Windlass steelcrafts. I olan on reveiwing it in the armor section.

[Ian]

I think I'm one of the few people who liked that movie.  The armor is pretty bad for the time period, but I really enjoyed the story and the action.  I thought it was a cool direction to go with the Robin Hood story.

[Sir Nate]

I'm hooked on it, ya there are some armor things but the movie was really good. I think it takes up from were the old tale ended. Robin had gone with Richard to crusade more and in this one the original robin of loxly dies, and basically a new one takes his place this time dealing with something like the barons war. This also makes sense because in the original Robin Hood tale john was sitting on the throne until Richard returned due to his ransom.  "Loxly and bagel it's a can't miss"

[LionPride32]

I'm also a MAJOR eagle-eye for movie mistakes. RH has many right off the bat... The beginning titles state that Richard the Lionheart is plundering his way back to England after TEN YEARS on crusade....uhhhhh NO. He was on the Third Crusade for almost two years, and he'd already been back to Europe for years before his death. The titles also state that its the turn of the 12th century, but 1199 going into 1200 would be the turn of the 13th century. Also factually Richard was killed by a boy, not an adult cook, though it is entertaining (.Look!! I killed the king!!) In that very army fighting along Richard and Loxley is where I envision myself. I point all these mistakes out to my girlfriend and she just shakes her head and asks why I care so much...
 Lol....

[Thorsteinn]

Still prefer the one with Uma Thurman.

[Sir William]

There was one w/Uma Thurman?  Oh, the one w/Patrick Bergin.  I haven't seen it in its entirety as of yet.  I'm a fan of the Costner one, just because it was an excellent example of a swashbuckler epic.  However, I think this one, Ridley Scott's version is my current favorite.

[Sir Edward]

I enjoyed the story very much, and thought it was an interesting take on the Robin Hood story. But as with any film, you have to ignore all the historical mistakes. What makes me smile though is when they get a few things right.

For instance, in this version, when Marion (Cate Blanchett) is serving food and drink on Robin's first visit to their home, she's cutting the wine with water (which they did), and in a statement of disdain/distrust, only pours water for Robin. It's a subtle detail, but speaks volumes if you know what you're looking at.

[Sir Brian]

I enjoyed the movie as well. I've given up the hope that Hollywood will ever get it historically correct and just switch that part of mind off because even the medieval genre movie is much preferable to any Twilight movie. - Except maybe the horrendous movie 'In the Name of the King'.

[Sir William]

Awww, you didn't like In the Name of the King, Sir Brian?  The script was so awful as to be unintentionally hilarious, not to mention Boll made almost no use of the star talent he managed to get (Ray Liotta, John Rhys-Davies, Jason Statham, Lee Lee Sobieski, Kristanna Loken, et al) so it was like each one had decided to play their character one way or another (humorous, serious, doleful, angry, etc) and none seemed to go well together.  Decent action scenes though.

[Sir James A]

I enjoyed the movie as well. I've given up the hope that Hollywood will ever get it historically correct and just switch that part of mind off because even the medieval genre movie is much preferable to any Twilight movie. - Except maybe the horrendous movie 'In the Name of the King'.

I liked "In the Name of the King", the first one, but I'm quite partial to Leelee Sobieski after her Joan of Arc. The second ITNOTK was dreadful - with Dolph Lundgren, who I really liked in Showdown in Little Tokyo - but perhaps half my enjoyment of that movie was Tia Carrere too.

Apparently I rate movie enjoyment in part based on the female actors.

Evening, gents!

I was wondering what anyone else has to say about Ridley Scott's depiction of 12th/13th century England in his film Robin Hood??

The first time I watched it I was hooked. Danny Huston's portayal of an older Richard I was great, in my opinion! The siege of Chalus castle at the beginning was a great action opener, but it was too short. I think that's what the films only major downfall is...battle scenes not long enough! And I'm appalled to find THIS version of "Robin Hood" in the $5 !?  Wtf I say!!
I am a proud owner of the movies's King Richard Sword by Windlass steelcrafts. I olan on reveiwing it in the armor section.

I didn't care for the, what seemed to me, random insertion of the masons/stonemasons of his father. I don't think it added anything to the story, and it made me feel like they wanted to throw in some random conspiracy theory or intrigue.

I also didn't care at all for the "let me just pop up out of this water and shoot my soaking wet bow and arrow a half mile down the beach into this dude's neck". I let the terrible armor go, I let the combat go.. but that archery bit just irked me badly. Possibly since I've done archery since I was a kid, and it felt like it took Robin Hood from plausible historical legend to outright lunacy.

Aside from those, it was decent. I had a new appreciation for the things they did do right with the movie after watching a "behind the scenes" interview with Crowe about the intent of the movie. I think it's on YouTube, I caught it on History Channel.

[LionPride32]

I've never really been into archery, so what would happen with a wet bow and arrow? Lol sounds silly asking, but would it bing wet hinder the accuracy of the arrow? Anyway, I guess if your too much of a stickler for historical accuracy, if you nitpick everything you can never enjoy the film your watching. That goes for any kind of movie.

[Sir James A]

I've never really been into archery, so what would happen with a wet bow and arrow? Lol sounds silly asking, but would it bing wet hinder the accuracy of the arrow? Anyway, I guess if your too much of a stickler for historical accuracy, if you nitpick everything you can never enjoy the film your watching. That goes for any kind of movie.

A wet string is heavy and has improper "let off", which makes the arrow fire slower and softer too. It is also more likely to snap. A wet arrow will absorb water and be heavier, being less accurate, and not flying as far or as fast. The fletching (feathers) will also affect it's flight. Nothing "historical" to that, it still happens even with modern bows and modern arrows - unless you are talking about steel arrows, plastic feathers, and compound bows with steel cables instead of string. Even a modern longbow suffers the same issues.

It did have a large effect historically, too. In Japan, after the country opened up a bit and allowed others to come in, they started trading for firearms. Some of the samurai took to them right away, discarding their bows. Not all of them, though. And some of those samurai learned that early firearms were inferior to traditional bows in some instances. The black powder could get wet, or misfire. Wet arrows and strings had to dry out or they had high miss and failure rates. The guns could rust quickly in the humid climate, and couldn't be lacquered like their armor and arrows could. As the tech advanced, guns became superior in every aspect, and the bow finally faded away in combat - kept alive only in the Kyudo tradition.

I'm pretty good about separating the history in movies. Ironclad wasn't accurate. Black Death wasn't accurate. A Knight's Tale isn't accurate. Black Knight isn't accurate. Excalibur isn't accurate. I still enjoy all of those movies. I liked a lot of Robin Hood. I still bought the DVD. Just a few things in it that really chewed at me since it was *trying* to be historical but had such a glaring "seriously?!" moment as the climax.

[Sir Nate]

I've never really been into archery, so what would happen with a wet bow and arrow? Lol sounds silly asking, but would it bing wet hinder the accuracy of the arrow? Anyway, I guess if your too much of a stickler for historical accuracy, if you nitpick everything you can never enjoy the film your watching. That goes for any kind of movie.

A wet string is heavy and has improper "let off", which makes the arrow fire slower and softer too. It is also more likely to snap. A wet arrow will absorb water and be heavier, being less accurate, and not flying as far or as fast. The fletching (feathers) will also affect it's flight. Nothing "historical" to that, it still happens even with modern bows and modern arrows - unless you are talking about steel arrows, plastic feathers, and compound bows with steel cables instead of string. Even a modern longbow suffers the same issues.

It did have a large effect historically, too. In Japan, after the country opened up a bit and allowed others to come in, they started trading for firearms. Some of the samurai took to them right away, discarding their bows. Not all of them, though. And some of those samurai learned that early firearms were inferior to traditional bows in some instances. The black powder could get wet, or misfire. Wet arrows and strings had to dry out or they had high miss and failure rates. The guns could rust quickly in the humid climate, and couldn't be lacquered like their armor and arrows could. As the tech advanced, guns became superior in every aspect, and the bow finally faded away in combat - kept alive only in the Kyudo tradition.

I'm pretty good about separating the history in movies. Ironclad wasn't accurate. Black Death wasn't accurate. A Knight's Tale isn't accurate. Black Knight isn't accurate. Excalibur isn't accurate. I still enjoy all of those movies. I liked a lot of Robin Hood. I still bought the DVD. Just a few things in it that really chewed at me since it was *trying* to be historical but had such a glaring "seriously?!" moment as the climax.

Well if we made our own ending to the film the arrow will fly about 50 feet, and hit king john instead. Lol

[LionPride32]

Well from what I've read, a movie that is notoriousl innacurate is "Braveheart". I can watch it over and over and not get sick of it lol. "Braveheart", "Kingdom of Heaven" and R.S. "Robin Hood" are my top 3 never-get-sick-of medieval movies.

[Sir Nate]

Well from what I've read, a movie that is notoriousl innacurate is "Braveheart". I can watch it over and over and not get sick of it lol. "Braveheart", "Kingdom of Heaven" and R.S. "Robin Hood" are my top 3 never-get-sick-of medieval movies.

You and me are going to get along very well.