Author:
Simulacrum
<
nub
>
70.238.203.148
Use
this link
if you want to link to this message and its entire thread of discussion.
Date:
10/1/2010 6:22:22 PM
Subject:
RE: I saw Robin Hood
Most earlier Robin Hood movies are fairly successful because they stick with the legend and the mythology. You're able to believe in a dashing outlaw and his merry men the same way you believe in Zorro because the historical background is just there to give a little context for the legend. Ridley ignores the legend and tries to make you believe in a pre-legend historical person involved in real events. In doing so, he creates two problems:
1. He messes up the pre-legend historical person. There are so many historical and logical flaws with the Robin Longstride character that you just give up about halfway through. He begins the movie as a dirt-common archer. At best, he's some kind of ancient or captain like Pistol or Fluellen in Henry V. By the end, he's somehow learned to ride warhorses, wear a knight's armor, lead cavalry, make articulate speeches to barons at a council, and the list goes on. How did this happen? Knights started training at the age of eight. Only a few knew how to command or devise ad hoc battlefield strategies. Only a few were estate lords. How did he learn all this? This "historical" Robin Hood is ten times more idiotic than the myth.
2. He messes up the history. The barons would never have presented a charter to the king that barely distinguished between commoners' rights and their own. In fact, they wouldn't have given the common estate a second thought.
3. How did the English and French tell each other apart in the battle? They were all dressed in the wildest mess of mismatched studded leather and metallic random stuff I've ever seen. Wouldn't it have been nice to have some color patches or collars or something on their hats so they wouldn't kill the wrong guys? Maybe they magically knew how to spot the enemy, or maybe everybody on one side grew up together and knew each other's smell. I don't know.
A little of this kind of thing isn't a problem, but Ridley asks you to believe that this is real and then proceeds to toss half the reality down the toilet. Later, he'll say things like "Oh, well, sometimes you have to change things so the drama will work." Well, maybe in some cases, yes. But what you do is try to persuade the audience that this is the real deal and then do a lot of half-ass changes for no good reason. Would the audience not have accepted the drama of real French landing boats instead of those idiotic D-Day amphibious landing craft you came up with?
Just bah.
