Robin Hood Reboot: Avengers Style

[MadVillainy]

Taron Egerton: "[But] Otto told me he wanted to do something entirely revisionist, something that can’t be tied down to a medieval universe. The first act of the movie, these scenes crusading in Syria, were written like something from The Hurt Locker."

Haha we don't believe you, you need more people.

Why do they have to take such awesome stories and adventures and make them dark and gritty and thinking it’s some revolutionary concept to use on classic and historic icons. Do we really need a Robin Hood that is suffering front PTSD? Is there something wrong with fun swashbuckling movies?

Yeah it's weird especially since the trend now is to stay away from dark and gritty movies for the most part. Almost every major movie this time goes more toward the side of "fun" and not too serious

And also weird since the last time they tried a dark and gritty Robin Hood and that didn't do well with audiences, critics, or the box office. Sure this one is younger, sexier...but it just seems weird.

I'd rather have the guys in tights running around swashbuckling than yet another gritty, dark, angsty, angry Robin Hood movie.

Agreed.

They should've made a fun Pirates of the Carribean esque movie set in the Robin Hood mythos.

 

[TheVileOne]

The Russell Crowe movie was taking the angle of a gritty origin reboot as well. Just saying.

Weirdly enough the way that the Russell Crowe movie started out was infinitely more interesting. It was developed as a story from the perspective of the Sheriff of Nottingham as the hero/protagonist. Then Ridley Scott came onboard and basically dumped all of the stuff that got the screenplay bought in the first place.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

The Russell Crowe movie was taking the angle of a gritty origin reboot as well. Just saying.

Weirdly enough the way that the Russell Crowe movie started out was infinitely more interesting. It was developed as a story from the perspective of the Sheriff of Nottingham as the hero/protagonist. Then Ridley Scott came onboard and basically dumped all of the stuff that got the screenplay bought in the first place.

Nottingham was the type of fresh idea that could actually breath some life into this tale. The problem with Robin Hood is that we've seen it all before. Same with King Arthur. And it isn't like Robin Hood requires a whole bunch of fancy special effects that didn't exist 70 years ago, like some of the classic Greek myths.

 

[Silvermoth]

Interesting idea. I haven't seen any of the last 50 Robin Hood adaptions but maybe this one would be good? I like the idea of embracing that working class versus the corrupt elite thing

 

[MadVillainy]

Nottingham was the type of fresh idea that could actually breath some life into this tale. The problem with Robin Hood is that we've seen it all before. Same with King Arthur. And it isn't like Robin Hood requires a whole bunch of fancy special effects that didn't exist 70 years ago, like some of the classic Greek myths.

But have we recently? On the live action big screen, Robin Hood hasn't been seen since the not well received, yet forgettable 2010 version. And before this year Arthur hadn't been seen since i think 04 with the Fuqua version. It's not like Spider-Man where we've gotten 3 different live action interpretations in 10 years.

I think even w/o the major SFX, both characters would benefit from modern storytelling, production values, and SFX for any battles.

And even the past versions aren't watched or remembered that often I don't think. Errol Flynn is known for Robin Hood, but I think people really talk about them much. And King Arthur I can't think of a well know, well regarded live action version.

The problem is they seem to be getting people who have weird vision for it.

 

[TheVileOne]

But have we recently? On the live action big screen, Robin Hood hasn't been seen since the not well received, yet forgettable 2010 version. And before this year Arthur hadn't been seen since i think 04 with the Fuqua version.

What's the point though? The gap for Robin Hood was even shorter than King Arthur films. Also both of those King Arthur movies bombed. The Robin Hood movie was a disappointment and was basically treated as a gritty origin film.

I think even w/o the major SFX, both characters would benefit from modern storytelling, production values, and SFX for any battles.

Robin Hood sort of did in 1990 with Prince of Thieves. To a lesser extent, the BBC TV series with Richard Armitage as the sheriff of Nottingham. Show was on for three seasons and did fairly well.

But how did it really benefit King Arthur? Guy Ritchie made a huge budgeted movie that was period but had contemporary dialogue or voice. It had fantastical elements and paid no heed to historical anachronisms or inaccuracies. His King Arthur film had tons of big visual FX and production values, and it still didn't work.

I think what Ramsus is getting at, what can you do with King Arthur or Robin Hood at this point that hasn't been done already at this point? Is doing John Wick meets Robin Hood going to be something audiences even care about, especially after the failure of modern Sherlock Holmes/Guy Ritchie meets King Arthur?

 

[MadVillainy]

What's the point though? The gap for Robin Hood was even shorter than King Arthur films. Also both of those King Arthur movies bombed. The Robin Hood movie was a disappointment and was basically treated as a gritty origin film.

It's such a silly point. What's the point of any of this? Of any movie? It's a chance to make a cool story.
What more reason is needed? Those versions went left not because of the characters, they did poorly because the movies sucked.
We got a new Planet of the Apes movie only 8 years after the awful Burton version, we got a new Spider-Man after only 2 years, Godzilla after 6 years (i'm not even a huge fan of Godzilla14 but it was a success)...all of which could have sucked if they didn't get good talent. It's not a character issue it's a talent issue.
Get good people who understand what the characters need.

Robin Hood sort of did in 1990 with Prince of Thieves. To a lesser extent, the BBC TV series with Richard Armitage as the sheriff of Nottingham. Show was on for three seasons and did fairly well.

Read what I said:

But have we recently? On the live action big screen, Robin Hood hasn't been seen since the not well received, yet forgettable 2010 version. And before this year Arthur hadn't been seen since i think 04 with the Fuqua version. It's not like Spider-Man where we've gotten 3 different live action interpretations in 10 years.

a) 1990 isn't recent.
b) a TV adaptation isn't the same as seeing in on the big screen. Especially when this TV series isn't that well known. And they can always do a different interpretation that what a TV series does (see Guy Ritchie's Sherlock Homes vs Sherlock on BBC)

But how did it really benefit King Arthur? Guy Ritchie made a huge budgeted movie that was period but had contemporary dialogue or voice. It had fantastical elements and paid no heed to historical anachronisms or inaccuracies. His King Arthur film had tons of big visual FX and production values, and it still didn't work.

Again it had nothing to do with the fact with the character it has to do with the fact that Ritchie didn't have the correct vision. Saying "well they tried with modern sensibilities and that didn't work, so it won't work for anyone else" is silly.
A King Arthur movie that takes the epic storytelling of LotR or GoT, why pass up on something like that?

I think what Ramsus is getting at, what can you do with King Arthur or Robin Hood at this point that hasn't been done already at this point? Is doing John Wick meets Robin Hood going to be something audiences even care about, especially after the failure of modern Sherlock Holmes/Guy Ritchie meets King Arthur?

I've said I think this Robin Hood is a dumb idea multiple times. My thoughts are throughout this thread and even at the top of this current page. But it's also dumb to throw away these characters just because people don't have a good vision.
An epic LotR Arthur movie. Perhaps a multiple film adaptation of The Once and Future King could be great.
And just about everything has been done before. Especially when it comes to blockbusters. So saying "what can you do with ____ that hasn't been done" is silly to me too. You can make a good modern movie featuring these characters that hasn't been done before.

 

[TheVileOne]

It's such a silly point. What's the point of any of this? Of any movie? It's a chance to make a cool story. What more reason is needed? Those versions went left not because of the characters, they did poorly because the movies sucked. We got a new Planet of the Apes movie only 8 years after the awful Burton version, we got a new Spider-Man after only 2 years, Godzilla after 6 years (i'm not even a huge fan of Godzilla14 but it was a success)...all of which could have sucked if they didn't get good talent. It's not a character issue it's a talent issue. Get good people who understand what the characters need.

They had a cool take on the Robin Hood mythos with Sheriff of Nottingham. They got Ridley Scott, Russell Crowe, and Cate Blanchett on board and turned it into the really bad 2010 movie. What started as a fresh take turned into Robin Hood Begins.

I'm not sure why this is better other than the fact that you have a younger male lead and Jamie Foxx as Little John.

Now the Sheriff of Nottingham version could have very much failed, but at least that was a fresher, original take on the story that IMHO sounded cool. But Ridley Scott got on board and tossed it in the trash. I think Ridley Scott is a talented filmmaker, but it's symbolic that his story sensibilities tend to be hit and miss in recent years.

Again it had nothing to do with the fact with the character it has to do with the fact that Ritchie didn't have the correct vision. Saying "well they tried with modern sensibilities and that didn't work, so it won't work for anyone else" is silly. A King Arthur movie that takes the epic storytelling of LotR or GoT, why pass up on something like that?

I think for one thing it sort of is ignoring what's alluring and great about Arthurian Legend. You are trying to repackage and turn it into things that are popular and/or beloved now and thinking all you have to do is turn King Arthur into a GoT or LotR mash-up to make it popular. Sort of similar to this idea that turning a new Dungeons and Dragons movie into Guardians of the Galaxy will make it into a box office smash, or turning the Hasbro toy Universe or Universal monsters into the MCU.

I've said I think this Robin Hood is a dumb idea multiple times. My thoughts are throughout this thread and even at the top of this current page. But it's also dumb to throw away these characters just because people don't have a good vision. An epic LotR Arthur movie. Perhaps a multiple film adaptation of The Once and Future King could be great. And just about everything has been done before. Especially when it comes to blockbusters. So saying "what can you do with ____ that hasn't been done" is silly to me too. You can make a good modern movie featuring these characters that hasn't been done before.

I don't think it's silly to me because I thought the Sheriff of Nottingham film was a great idea and a fresh take on the material. I read that script, and I wish that's the film we saw instead of what Ridley Scott ended up making seven years ago. That's just an example.

I mean look at the thread title here. This was born out of an idea of doing a Robin Hood Avengers shared universe. That sounds sillier to me than anything. The studios are thinking so far ahead of themselves. They want a franchise before the franchise even happens. You can only get a franchise if people like the first movie you put out. That's why the Dark Universe failed. They tried to make a shared universe and a franchise before they made a competent movie.

 

[godisawesome]

I also read the Nottingham script; it definitely had potential. My one issue with it was I thought they could have made Robin Hood himself a bit more threatening, as a kind of scary anarchist to contrast with the Sheriff, though maybe with both of the, being good guys underneath it.

Scott's movie suffered from trying to make Robin Hood into Gladiator, complete with pseudo historical political commentary. The Nottingham's scripts greatest strength was recognizing that a mythos whose main hero is an outlaw and whose main villain is a law enforcement officer is the kind of mythos that could easily blend with some archetypes and plot stylings of the crime and punishment genre. Robin Hood could easily lend himself and his cast of characters to a whodunit murder mystery, or noir-style thriller, or cat and mouse game between himself and the sheriff.

But it's harder to see Robin Hood working that well as an Avengers style universe, simply, because, unlike King Arthur or comics, it's really only Robin Hood's show. If you wanted to do movies focusing on other characters, they'd kind of have to do it with Robin himself being the Big Good counterpart to the Big Bad Sheriff across every film.

Not to say I don't think there's some potential to the idea of having his merry men and more obscure villains be stars in multiple films. There's an actual subgenre of Robin Hood books all focused on Maid Marian, Forbidden Forrest is a great example of a Little John focused story (and features forgotten villain Red Roger as the antagonist), and at least one book series I know of features Robin mostly as a background trickster character, which would suit him well. And Guy of Gisborne has a high enough profile to rival the Sherif, and no one's yet done a modern version of his original outlaw/bounty hunter in horse hide identity.

And it's not that the stories are set in a dull time period. The OG Plantagents were a colorful bunch; heck, Richard the Lion Heart, John Lackland, and their brothers Geoffrey and Henry The Young King were *literally* called "The Devil's Brood." And that wasn't including their older half-brother, also named Geoffrey, who incidentally served as both Bishop of York and Sheriff of York, which could make him a potential enemy for Robin in Yorkshire.

 

[mclay18]

Robin Hood sort of did in 1990 with Prince of Thieves. To a lesser extent, the BBC TV series with Richard Armitage as the sheriff of Nottingham. Show was on for three seasons and did fairly well.

Armitage played Guy of Gisborne. Other than that, I agree. A lot of studios overthink how to retell a legend... and they don't have to spend a fortune to get decent results.

Hell, they should embrace the low-tech aspect and focus on getting a good script right. One can do a decent Robin Hood film for like $30M-$50M, focus on shooting in real locations and use CGI sparingly. Don't do what Ridley Scott did with the Crowe film or what Paul W.S. Anderson did with The Three Musketeers.

 

[Rorschach2012]

This won't do well

 

[TheVileOne]

Armitage played Guy of Gisborne. Other than that, I agree. A lot of studios overthink how to retell a legend... and they don't have to spend a fortune to get decent results.

Hell, they should embrace the low-tech aspect and focus on getting a good script right. One can do a decent Robin Hood film for like $30M-$50M, focus on shooting in real locations and use CGI sparingly. Don't do what Ridley Scott did with the Crowe film or what Paul W.S. Anderson did with The Three Musketeers.

Yup. Thanks.

 

[MadVillainy]

They had a cool take on the Robin Hood mythos with Sheriff of Nottingham. They got Ridley Scott, Russell Crowe, and Cate Blanchett on board and turned it into the really bad 2010 movie. What started as a fresh take turned into Robin Hood Begins.

I'm not sure why this is better other than the fact that you have a younger male lead and Jamie Foxx as Little John.

Now the Sheriff of Nottingham version could have very much failed, but at least that was a fresher, original take on the story that IMHO sounded cool. But Ridley Scott got on board and tossed it in the trash. I think Ridley Scott is a talented filmmaker, but it's symbolic that his story sensibilities tend to be hit and miss in recent years.




I don't think it's silly to me because I thought the Sheriff of Nottingham film was a great idea and a fresh take on the material. I read that script, and I wish that's the film we saw instead of what Ridley Scott ended up making seven years ago. That's just an example.

I mean look at the thread title here. This was born out of an idea of doing a Robin Hood Avengers shared universe. That sounds sillier to me than anything. The studios are thinking so far ahead of themselves. They want a franchise before the franchise even happens. You can only get a franchise if people like the first movie you put out. That's why the Dark Universe failed. They tried to make a shared universe and a franchise before they made a competent movie.

I don't get the points your trying to make in relation to anything I said. In fact your arguing a lot of the points I'm making. Nottingham is an interesting idea. So just because Robin Hood 2010 failed means they shouldn't explore something like Nottingham? If you want to just talk at what studios do, then go ahead. But I don't wanna see why I'm quoted in it.

I think for one thing it sort of is ignoring what's alluring and great about Arthurian Legend. You are trying to repackage and turn it into things that are popular and/or beloved now and thinking all you have to do is turn King Arthur into a GoT or LotR mash-up to make it popular. Sort of similar to this idea that turning a new Dungeons and Dragons movie into Guardians of the Galaxy will make it into a box office smash, or turning the Hasbro toy Universe or Universal monsters into the MCU.
.

This i can actually answer.
Those are very different examples. At the very least in broad strokes you can see where someone can draw from LotR or GoT. Because, again with broad strokes, there are more similarities and they can be kinda sorta in the same ball park. All of those are "medieval" stories in a land of magic, wizards, dragons, etc. GoTG and D&D are literally, once again broad strokes, universes apart

 

[Silvermoth]

Yeah I must admit, I didn't think anyone would try Robin Hood again so soon after Russell Crowe's stinker

 

[Deck Rickard]

Yeah I must admit, I didn't think anyone would try Robin Hood again so soon after Russell Crowe's stinker

Same here. I also think Egerton is too young for this, especially since his Merry Men are older than him. Will Scarlet at least is typically portrayed as younger than Robin. I also don’t like how they didn’t even try to change up Egerton’s look for this; he looks exactly like he did in Kingsman.

I don’t know. I love the Robin Hood legend but this just feels like another misfire.

 

[Silvermoth]

I like edgerton so fingers crossed

 

[Loden Greatstorm]

Yeah I must admit, I didn't think anyone would try Robin Hood again so soon after Russell Crowe's stinker

That movie wasn't that bad...

 

[Deck Rickard]

It wasn’t that good either.

 

[Marvolo]

Same here. I also think Egerton is too young for this, especially since his Merry Men are older than him. Will Scarlet at least is typically portrayed as younger than Robin. I also don’t like how they didn’t even try to change up Egerton’s look for this; he looks exactly like he did in Kingsman.

I don’t know. I love the Robin Hood legend but this just feels like another misfire.

Egerton is 28. Which would have been middle aged in the time that Robin Hood would have lived.

The average life expectancy for a male child born in the UK between 1276 and 1300 was 31.3 years. However, by the time the 13th-Century boy had reached 20 he could hope to live to 45, and if he made it to 30 he had a good chance of making it into his fifties. So Egerton is an appropriate age.

 

[Schlosser85]

I like Egerton but he’s at that precarious career stage where he’s been in like one big thing and a few other parts and depending on how carefully he proceeds he can either build himself up or fade away.

 

[StarLord]

That movie wasn't that bad...

It was boring as hell though.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Egerton is 28. Which would have been middle aged in the time that Robin Hood would have lived.

The average life expectancy for a male child born in the UK between 1276 and 1300 was 31.3 years. However, by the time the 13th-Century boy had reached 20 he could hope to live to 45, and if he made it to 30 he had a good chance of making it into his fifties. So Egerton is an appropriate age.

John himself was 23 when Richard left on the Third Crusade. But keep in mind they would have aged faster. A 28 year old Robin Hood might be the same age as a 28 year old Egerton, but he would probably look much older than Egerton does.

 

[Loden Greatstorm]

When is this coming out again? I know it got pushed back, but how far?

 

[Marvolo]

Sheriff of Nottingham:

I like the outfit, but it's wrong for this film. His coat is way too modern. His whole outfit looks like something from a futuristic or modern story. Not something in a medieval story.

 

[Breogan]

Sheriff of Nottingham:

His whole outfit looks like something from a futuristic or modern story. Not something in a medieval story.

LOL it's not just his outfit, check the weapons.