Robin Hood

A.J.Rimmer(BSC) said:
Damn straight, I'd rather have a new series of Maid Marrion than this. Anyone remember the episode of Maid Marrion and her Merry Men were Robin was bald and ripped off the Crystal Maze?
Yeah, that was great. Brilliant show. Back when kids TV was actually genuinly funny and entertaining to all ages.

I wish they'd release that show on DVD.
 
Fried Gold said:
Yeah, that was great. Brilliant show. Back when kids TV was actually genuinly funny and entertaining to all ages.

I wish they'd release that show on DVD.

They have, both series as far as I remember.
 
Thought the Episode was good tonight, but that Much character is ****ing Annoying!!!!!
 
I think yesterda's episode was only a very slight improvement, mainly due to the rpesence of Little John. The only character remotely heroic so far, and a tad competent. The action scenes were amateurish at best, Robin sliding on the arrow utterly uneccessary (he had the stairs a few steps away for God's sake!) and so far the only thing the Merry men seem to be able to do against the sheriff's men is knock them unconscious. I am glad Armstrong said in an interview that they were tough guys, because I wouldn't have known by myself. So far, they look more like kids fighting in a playground. (And I don't care if it's aimed at kids. It is set in the middle age, and even Richard green's Robin killed!)
 
The Englishman said:
Thought the Episode was good tonight, but that Much character is ****ing Annoying!!!!!

Actually im going to retrace my steps and say it was pretty **** actually.. was'nt it?
 
So I just saw the first episode of the new Robin Hood. It was all right, but nowhere near as good as I was hoping for. My main problem is that I think Robin himself was miscast. I realize that teenagers went to war and returned men during the Crusades, but it seems like Robin went to war a teenager and returned merely an older teenager. The character's lacking in all respects, most notably the inspirational qualities that all Robins are supposed to be known for and the dazzling style of the Flynn version. Plus, it's just kind of awkward to have Robin look and act like he's barely older than Will.

Much alternates between endearing and annoying throughout the episode, and I think the actor who plays him should probably work on his comedic timing a bit. The camera work and cinematography, on the other hand, tended to stick to the annoying side of the scale more often than not. A lot of the stunts were cartoonish and just unnecessary in the context (did we really need to see slow-motion shots from three angles of Robin backflipping his way to safety?), and a lot of the scenes seem to be trying for the gritty, documentary-esque camera effects of shows like Battlestar Galactica but wind up looking like they were just badly cut (the most notable instance I can remember is that ridiculous pre-fight sword-swinging competition between Robin and that angry father). The worst offender of all, however, has to be Robin's sword throw, which not only made it up to the battlements with enough force to knock out guys wearing helmets, but also miraculously managed to hit both of the guards holding Much without so much as shuffling a hair on Much's head. That was so heavy-handed that I'd actually be surprised if it weren't written as "insert super-cool, badass Robin Hood moment here" in the script.

All that said, I enjoyed most of the episode. Marian's feisty, which is good for the obvious romantic subplot. Much'll probably grow on me, and the Merry Men ought to liven things up from next ep onwards. Allan-a-Dale seems like he might provide a nice foil for Robin since Will Scarlet, who's usually pretty engaging in most Robin Hood incarnations, doesn't seem all that promising so far in this one. Gisbourne and the Sheriff seem like good, balanced villains, with the Sheriff providing the arch, mustache-twirling moments and Gisbourne coming off as the more complex, almost-honorable-but-horribly-flawed antagonist. If the showrunners have some interesting directions ahead to take advantage of the actor and the character, I could see myself watching this show solely for Gisbourne, in fact. I'm also looking forward to more with Friar Tuck, presuming that was him at the execution. I keep using the words "seems like" and the future-tense, so basically I guess I'm saying that the show has some kernels of potential. Provided it grows out of its seeming need to make everything "cool," which has so far only led to an underwhelming lead and the caricaturization of a lot of the action in the director/cinematographer/cameramen's overzealousness, I can see it becoming a good show. After the first episode, I'd call it decent at best.
 
Anyone see the preivew for this week yet?
 
I just saw the second episode. Better than the first, but still not that great. Little John's perfectly cast, though, and the bad camera work was less abundant.
 
TheCorpulent1 said:
I just saw the second episode. Better than the first, but still not that great. Little John's perfectly cast, though, and the bad camera work was less abundant.

With Guy of Gisbourne, Little John might be the only character cvorrectly casted. And he was far more heroic than Robin and far better rounded as a character. That said, the rest is just as terrible: Robin is utterly incompetent, the dialogues are still atrocious, the stunts are amateurish to the point of ridicule, some are useless (Robin sliding the rope using his bow) and of course, nobody dies.
 
The action stuff is pretty sluggish, but I don't really think the dialogue is too bad. Most of the characters are actually recognisable...characters, which is not always the case with this type of thing.

As I have said before, the baddies are all quite good, and that's more or less enough to carry it.
 
Yeah, the villains are definitely making the show at this point. Even Nottingham, who's really overtly evil, has a lot of charisma thanks to the actor portraying him. His scenes were a pleasure to watch in the second episode, in spite of his being about as subtle or complex as a punch in the face.
 
regwec said:
The action stuff is pretty sluggish, but I don't really think the dialogue is too bad. Most of the characters are actually recognisable...characters, which is not always the case with this type of thing.

As I have said before, the baddies are all quite good, and that's more or less enough to carry it.

The dialogues are bad because they talk like modern people, with modern expressions that feel terribly anachronistic. The appearance of the cast and the sets don't help either to give that unauthentic feel. And while the baddies have potential, they don't do much but look mean and try to capture Robin.
 
If the script was to have no anachronisms, then all of the characters would have to speak in Middle English, and be understood only by a handful of scholars. I would rather that the writers eschew any hammy archaisms altogether, as they would only leave the show open to Monty Python analogies. In any case, the content of the show is not inaccurate as such: characters do not eat tomatoes, as in the LOTR movies; nor do they wear plate armour, as with many Arthurian films. The show isn't exactly high brow, and nor does it intend to be, but it contains nothing to make me spit out my absinthe other than a few dodgy effects.
 
regwec said:
If the script was to have no anachronisms, then all of the characters would have to speak in Middle English, and be understood only by a handful of scholars. I would rather that the writers eschew any hammy archaisms altogether, as they would only leave the show open to Monty Python analogies. In any case, the content of the show is not inaccurate as such: characters do not eat tomatoes, as in the LOTR movies; nor do they wear plate armour, as with many Arthurian films. The show isn't exactly high brow, and nor does it intend to be, but it contains nothing to make me spit out my absinthe other than a few dodgy effects.

You are oversimplifying what I said. I am not saying they should speak in Middle English, I am saying they should avoid blatant modernism in the vocabulary and the manner of speech.

LOTR was set in a fictitious world, Jackson could make them eat tomatos of they want. Arthurian movies such as Excalibur used the same anachronisms as the source material they were based on (medieval romances often make as if the story was set in a contemporary setting, using XIItth, XIIIth, XIVth century codes, clothes and technology even though the story is set in an imprecise past, such as the reigh of King Arthur). Robin Hood has no excuse for these blatant anachronism, in the look of the characters, their manner of speech and the overall look. And it doesn't compensate these flaws with good acting or good storytelling.
 
Everyman said:
You are oversimplifying what I said. I am not saying they should speak in Middle English, I am saying they should avoid blatant modernism in the vocabulary and the manner of speech.
I'm not simplifying your objection- I'm just drawing it to its logical conclusion. You or I would not have understood much of Robin Hood's speech, so I think it is reasonable to simply "translate" it into modern English, without any "olde worlde" pretensions.

Everyman said:
LOTR was set in a fictitious world, Jackson could make them eat tomatos of they want.
LOTR was set in a fictionalised mythological world, drawing on European myth. J.R.R.T. described it as a pre-medieval world, so it was evidently pre-New World, and pre-tomato. It wasn't the best example of genuine anachronism out there, but it gives me an excuse to whine about Jackson's films, which I enjoy.

Everyman said:
Arthurian movies such as Excalibur used the same anachronisms as the source material they were based on (medieval romances often make as if the story was set in a contemporary setting, using XIItth, XIIIth, XIVth century codes, clothes and technology even though the story is set in an imprecise past, such as the reigh of King Arthur). Robin Hood has no excuse for these blatant anachronism,
In a sense you are right; Arthurian legend is wide open to interpretation, and he has been portrayed as everything from a cultural diety to a Roman tyrannus and a rennassiance prince. But this version of Robin Hood takes no such liberties. It's language is a bit "user friendly", but its setting is quite clearly the early Angevin period.
 
Using modern languages is a thing, using expressions such as "the clock is ticking" is a bit much. And yes, it is set in the Angevin period (or they mention King Richard and the Crusades anyway), but they make no effort, in the characters's mannerism, their intelligence, the atmosphere or actually anything, to give it some kind of authenticity feel. They eliminated the "Maid" in Maid Marion because they thought it wasn't modern enough and they don't want to have Friar Tuck any time soon because they don't want religious cotnent in the show. Robin Hood and his sidekick came back from "the Holy Land" but look nothing like war veterans (back from a Crusade, no less), or act remotely as such. So far, the show seems to be more a cynical attempt to use a famous and beloved name on a bad product, to sell it better, than a genuine attempt to reintroduce Robin Hood to a modern audience.
 
Wasn't Friar Tuck in the first episode? :confused:

Also, they've made numerous references to Robin's having lost his taste for killing due to all of the bloodshed he'd seen in the Crusades. Also, although we associate war vets with older people, Robin probably looks about the right age for being a war veteran in that period. People were treated as adults much earlier, and I don't think it'd be that unusual for a guy to have gone to war at 15 or 16 and come back 5 years later looking about Robin's age. I still don't like it, mind you, but it's not technically wrong.
 
TheCorpulent1 said:
Wasn't Friar Tuck in the first episode? :confused:

Also, they've made numerous references to Robin's having lost his taste for killing due to all of the bloodshed he'd seen in the Crusades. Also, although we associate war vets with older people, Robin probably looks about the right age for being a war veteran in that period. People were treated as adults much earlier, and I don't think it'd be that unusual for a guy to have gone to war at 15 or 16 and come back 5 years later looking about Robin's age. I still don't like it, mind you, but it's not technically wrong.

No Friar Tuck was not in the first episode. From what I read, they have no plan to make him appear in a subsequent season, might there be one. Too religious. By the way, I can't help but notice how unreligious the characters are. Robin and Munch come back from the Holy Land and allusions to it are vague at best, or they are critics of the Iraq war not even disguised. We have no clue about Robin's motivations to go there, and why he got disillusioned.

Robin didn't look like he ever killed anyone, and he is supposed to be Robin Hood, not Batman. Richard Greene's Robin killed, so did Errol Flynn's, so did Costner's (however bad his interpretation of Robin was). Why not this one? Oh yes, because it's a children's program! The "he has seen enough death in the Crusades" is just a cheap excuse. And I think children could stand a few deaths, if they aren't too gory. That would make the show a bit more authentic if they were a few persons killed (by Robin and/or the sheriff), and a bit more believable. Now, there is no sense of danger. And no, Armstrong's Robin does NOT look the right age. People's life expentencies in medieval time were much lower than now, and they looked much more mature at a younger age. It's even true for people living a century ago! Armstrong's Robin looks like a kid, not like a war veteran, let alone a crusader.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"