Lol, that's just... I'm baffled.
Robin Hood - epic fail
- Thread starter Einion
- Start date
Lol, that's just... I'm baffled.
That depends how you define tool...
the guy owns a football team, has a hot wife, more money than he can spend and gets to do whatever he wants - when he wants.
Maybe he is a tool, but I dont think he really cares...
freakinacage
Well-known member
yep, that's how i would define tool. doesn't seem to give a shit about others and throws his toys out of the pram as soon as he doesn't get what he wants, when he wants
cassar
BALLSCRATCHER
sounds like my missus only without the money and football team lol
wiccanpony
Official Freak Bar Witch
From what little I’ve read ….the legend of Robin Hood was based on a group of small time criminals from different periods of time who had the name, I remember one history teacher saying the majority of legends had a tiny grain of true, but most times it wasn’t what you would expect.
Naah, that's wrong. The story/tale/legend of Robin Hood has its origins in the movie "Men in Tights".
BarstoolProphet
New member
Having read the original fictional stories, I have steadfastly refused to watch any version of Robin Hood that doesn't portray Will Scarlett as:
A: Robin's young cousin.
B: The strongest of the Merry Men. He pulled a sapling out of the ground to make a staff in the stories!
Beyond that, I just can't stand Crowe's work. He comes across as being more full of himself than Ben Affleck (in Daredevil). And they said that was impossible.
That's just personal opinion, obviously.
A: Robin's young cousin.
B: The strongest of the Merry Men. He pulled a sapling out of the ground to make a staff in the stories!
Beyond that, I just can't stand Crowe's work. He comes across as being more full of himself than Ben Affleck (in Daredevil). And they said that was impossible.
That's just personal opinion, obviously.
freakinacage
Well-known member
yes i am pretty sure thats what i was tought in school
airhead
Coffin Dodger / Keymaster
alextheartist
New member
B/S the origional stories were told by word of mouth, the only written ones were hundreds of years after..
Torn blue sky
New member
BarstoolProphet
New member
Torn blue sky
New member
I employ a monkey for that. He's brilliant at it!
Litterally works for peanuts.
Litterally works for peanuts.
They changed constantly over the centuries to start including different people, and based on who was telling to story.
Samulus
New member
Hey guys don't want to drop the geek bomb but i'm a history undergrad at Durham uni, I do a module in Robin Hood, it sounds like a doss don't it? but its pretty good, anyhow, the guy who said that they was an oral tradition before the stories were collated into manuscript form is right and as to the origins of a real Robin Hood it depends ultimately which historian you want to believe; several references to Robert Hood, Robyn Hode etc have been found in parish records but none of them entirely fit the character of Robin Hood and often the evidence is very circumstantial. Chances are he's just a fictional character and the tales are based on the exploits of a number of different outlaws and outlaw bands of the 13th and 14th centuries. Over time the stories were collected together and embellished by the peasants and minstrels retelling them until we have the Rh tradition that we all know.
Academic babble over. Please continue.
Academic babble over. Please continue.
Einion
New member
But when done as a film, set in a particular time, it's presented as a slice of fictionalised history. But fiction doesn't of course = fantasy, so at least the real elements should be, er, real. Crichton's Timeline is a good example of where an effort was made to have the period stuff accurate.
And of course that accent was around 900 years ago... :agent:
Honestly though, since nobody in the audience knowns what they should sound like* the only thing that really matters is if an accent sounds 'right', and anything is better than "I'm Robin of Lockshley, as of course you can tell from my ackshent." Re. the reported inconsistencies in Crowe's accent, I don't think anyone can necessarily jump on that as another thing to slag off - it's not that uncommon for someone who has travelled a lot or spent a lot of time with people from a different background, to have elements of more than one accent.
*They actually wouldn't be speaking English as we'd understand it anyway:
Siþen þe sege & þe assaut wat3 sesed at Troye,
Þe bor3 brittened & brent to bronde3 & aske3...
And this is from around 200 years closer to our time!Þe bor3 brittened & brent to bronde3 & aske3...
Lincoln green is clearly referred to in later English writings as a green cloth (weld over woad to be specific).
FYI, scarlet used to mean cloth and wasn't a colour term; that's where some of the confusion starts.
Einion
Torn blue sky
New member
wiccanpony
Official Freak Bar Witch
Hey guys don't want to drop the geek bomb but i'm a history undergrad at Durham uni, I do a module in Robin Hood, it sounds like a doss don't it? but its pretty good, anyhow, the guy who said that they was an oral tradition before the stories were collated into manuscript form is right and as to the origins of a real Robin Hood it depends ultimately which historian you want to believe; several references to Robert Hood, Robyn Hode etc have been found in parish records but none of them entirely fit the character of Robin Hood and often the evidence is very circumstantial. Chances are he's just a fictional character and the tales are based on the exploits of a number of different outlaws and outlaw bands of the 13th and 14th centuries. Over time the stories were collected together and embellished by the peasants and minstrels retelling them until we have the Rh tradition that we all know.
Academic babble over. Please continue.
thanks and welcome to the Forum you only have 999 posts to go before making Freak Bar Mop Boy ....... please stay around i want to pick your Academic mind in the future on History
Torn blue sky
New member
IdofEntity
New member
Looking for historical authenticity in a Robin Hood movie is much akin to looking for authenticity in a King Arthur movie. You're not going to find it since there really isn't enough historical fact behind the character. Between varied accounts, multiple individuals over different time periods that could fit the original legend, and a glaring issue of oral tradition compromising the origins of the story it's hard to say anything is accurate. Still, certain events and people which have been established that are included in the storyline SHOULD be accurately portrayed. Otherwise you make a period piece which chooses to ignore it's period.
That being said, it's entertainment. If it entertained you, and you remember this isn't authenticated by any historian, it succeeds. Honestly, I didn't mind the movie one bit. Not as good as Gladiator, but not a bad piece. Personally I couldn't give a shyte if Crowe is the biggest jackass alive today. In front of a camera he does a fair enough job. (A Beautiful Mind comes to...err....mind)
Robin Hood has evolved into a piece of legend just like Perseus, or Chulain, or Gilgamesh, or Masamune. There's an iota of truth in the legends, but as for historical fact there really isn't any point. The legend is served merely by repeating it. Should we distort it in any way, by adding to it or making it less realistic, are we doing anything different than was originally done by passing the tradition orally? In fact, you could argue we are continuing that tradition. If we retold the story of Perseus as imagined through the recent "Clash of the Titans" to a group of Greccans in the bronze age it probably would have been well received as there were hundreds of variations to any one legend. That's the charm of legends. They're not all the same. Instead we're treated to the vision of the storyteller. In this case it's Scott.
Then again, you're free to say certain storytellers are better off eating sand. ::shrug::
I end the musing.
That being said, it's entertainment. If it entertained you, and you remember this isn't authenticated by any historian, it succeeds. Honestly, I didn't mind the movie one bit. Not as good as Gladiator, but not a bad piece. Personally I couldn't give a shyte if Crowe is the biggest jackass alive today. In front of a camera he does a fair enough job. (A Beautiful Mind comes to...err....mind)
Robin Hood has evolved into a piece of legend just like Perseus, or Chulain, or Gilgamesh, or Masamune. There's an iota of truth in the legends, but as for historical fact there really isn't any point. The legend is served merely by repeating it. Should we distort it in any way, by adding to it or making it less realistic, are we doing anything different than was originally done by passing the tradition orally? In fact, you could argue we are continuing that tradition. If we retold the story of Perseus as imagined through the recent "Clash of the Titans" to a group of Greccans in the bronze age it probably would have been well received as there were hundreds of variations to any one legend. That's the charm of legends. They're not all the same. Instead we're treated to the vision of the storyteller. In this case it's Scott.
Then again, you're free to say certain storytellers are better off eating sand. ::shrug::
I end the musing.
Last edited:
