Robin Hood Reboot: Avengers Style

The last time I liked something new with Robin Hood was the BBC TV series that was on for three seasons. It had Richard Armitage as Guy of Gisborn. Not a great show, but fun for the duration it was on.
 
I think that's because they keep trying to turn him into something he's not. Robin Hood is not a dark, gritty story. They're supposed to be romps. You can do some serious things but it's easy to overdo it.

I think that's why the Flynn version is the most successful. He was able to pull off both the swashbuckling stuff and the darker moments and the movie had a good balance of both. Most recent adaptations go all in for the grim stuff and the movies aren't fun to watch.

If they can find writers who can get the balance right and find a star who can handle both aspects of the character, then we might see a franchise.

I agree. I know it's from a different time period and all but you only have to look at the first Pirates of the Caribbean film to see how you could do a modern version of the Flynn interpretation. There needs to be an emphasis on adventure and fun again, because we've tried the serious and gritty Robin Hood so many times and all have come up short. I don't think they've all been terrible, I think the 91 movie with Costner has gotten the closest, but that film is still tonally all over the place. We don't need to go full on green tights and pointy hat again, but something lighter I think is needed.

The other issue is the story is pretty much the same in every movie. Robin, Marion, Merry Men, Sheriff, robbing the rich, etc. It's the same stuff. I don't know what other tales there are from the folklore, but maybe there needs to be a bit more investigating about where the myths originated and what stories were told. Maybe it's a case of borrowing from other folklores of the time to tell new stories.
 
I say just remake the animated Disney version as a live version like they did with Jungle Book.

As for this movie I’m not sure it was a idea to stress the slow motion action shots in the trailer since that worked so great for King Arthur.
 
Last edited:
I say just remake the animated Disney version as a live version like they did with Jungle Book.

As for this movie I’m not sure it was a idea to stress the slow motion action shots in the trailer since that worked so great for King Arthur.
Weirdly enough, the cartoon is kind of a remake of the previous Disney Robin Hood live-action movie, "The Story of Robin Hood and his Merrie Men." It's even got a climax where Robin Hood must flee the Sheriff's castle after freeing an ally and dives into the moat, with people suspecting he's going to die.

I'd also recommend it on the fact that Richard Todd plays a very good young Robin Hood, with a lot of audacity and some surprising intensity.
 
I loved the 1972 Disney 'Robin Hood'. Disney was having problems with its animation at the time but the storyline actually managed to keep in the sense of oppression and danger that Robin and the poor were facing. As a kid I found the scene where Friar Tuck gets arrested to be pretty scary. Parts of it are too slapstick but the parts that worked really worked.

And yes, Todd did a great job voicing Robin. I also think Pat Buttram really enjoyed playing the Sheriff. Phil Harris was good as Little John but he was basically just Baloo in a green hat.
 
I loved the Costner version, as a kid. Then watched it back and was surprised at how different the tone was from scene to scene - the witch scene, most sheriff scenes, scenes with Morgan Freeman, at times it felt like an extended cut of the music video.

However, that was closest for me to being a good adaption.

Henry Cavill, beard, shaggy hair would be great. Living in the woods, going all Bear Gryls on us, deign him survive the elements and then setting up shop with his merry men.

It could work as a heist movie, but using nature as the weapon.
 
Just saw the trailer and looked like Guy Ritchie's Arthur. And we all know how that film turned out.

The trailer was full of anachronisms from the make-up to a few costumes/looks that snapped my interest.
 
The last time I liked something new with Robin Hood was the BBC TV series that was on for three seasons. It had Richard Armitage as Guy of Gisborn. Not a great show, but fun for the duration it was on.

I remember that. Enjoyed it :up:
 
Not sure why they keep trying to reinvent the wheel with this. A highly stylized and non-period period Robin Hood where he acts like Zorro?

Still, the best Robin Hood film, and the only American one that ever really tried to stay faithful to the most popular versions of the legend, is Errol Flynn's The Adventures of Robin Hood. And that was in 1938. Surely someone could try and do a version that returns to the legends again?

In any case, I also grew up and really love the Kevin Costner movie. It is a bit all over the place, but it has a grand sense of adventure and excitement, wonderful set-pieces, an amazing Michael Kamen score, and most of all Alan Rickman at his most Alan Rickman-y.

Also am a fan of Robin and Marian with Sean Connery and Audrey Hepburn, although that is really more a drama about age and death than it is an adventure movie. But it still is a more fun movie than what I'm sure this is going to turn out to be.

Why does Ben Mendelsohn look like a sci-fi villain and Egerton like some '70s businessman?

I guarantee you there was a studio note of "Don't make your medieval movie look like it's set in the Middle Ages. Russell Crowe's bombed, so make it look like the Avengers without looking like we're ripping off the Avengers."
 
Last edited:
The crowd that goes to see King Arthur, Tarzan and Peter Pan movies.

Funnily enough, 20-25 years ago, there was an audience for this. The "classics," as it were, were being made by major filmmakers or stars into box office hits.

Obviously Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves with Kevin Costner, but also:

-Hook (Peter Pan movie with Steven Spielberg and Robin Williams, adults hated it kids loved it, but it made money)
-Bram Stoker's Dracula
-Excalibur (a decade earlier, but it applies still)

There were others. I do think audiences tastes changed, for better or worse, away from this. However, part of the reason is that they were no longer being given "A-movie" treatment and instead were getting these kind of cheap and/or desperate studio reimaginings that attempt to make them look like superhero movies.
 
He's fine. Was great in Baby Driver.

In a supporting role. Being the villain in that god awful Spidey sequel wasn't a good decision.

Dude needs to try some indies or do something that can attract an audience
 
I wonder how much this will make opening weekend? My guess is 24 million.

That's being way too generous. :o

This thing will be lucky if it finishes in fourth place in its opening weekend. Wreck it Ralph 2, Fantastic Beasts 2, and Creed II are going to destroy it.
 
Every year.....we seem to have a movie like this (Arthur, Bay watch, Chips.....and these are just from recent years).

Its a shame cos i do like Egerton and Ben Mendelsohn always does well as a bad dude.
 
That's being way too generous. :o

This thing will be lucky if it finishes in fourth place in its opening weekend. Wreck it Ralph 2, Fantastic Beasts 2, and Creed II are going to destroy it.

It will probably be pushed back to February.
 
This opens this evening. Is this getting any buzz at all?
 
At least King Arthur had great soundtrack and I liked Tarzan.
 
I actually liked King Arthur and Tarzan. I think I will like this movie too. But much like King Arthur and Tarzan, i will probably watch it on blu ray when it comes out on video. I feel like there aren’t that many movies worth going to the theater these days.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"