Robin Hood?..played by an Australian?[insert tounge in cheek]nah it would never work[/tounge in cheek]

Seriously is anyone else waiting for this one?

Nope.

I don't know if Russell Crowe will go all Maximus on this one. He can be a good actor, but frankly I'm not convinced about this one at all.

Robin Hood?..played by an Australian?[insert tounge in cheek]nah it would never work[/tounge in cheek]

Seriously is anyone else waiting for this one?

At the risk of sounding like a jerk, I'm not having high hopes. It really feels like Gladiator 2, from the team of Gladiator 1. Which is not a terrible thing as that was an awesome movie so by proxy this should be aswell. But there's just something about the trailers that make me go "Hmmm."

Well there hasnt been a really good Robin Hood Movie since the last Australian played him..and I have a horrible feeling this wont be the film I'm wanting looks like RS has gone all Kingdom of Heaven again

Watch the extended version of Kingdom of Heaven, Wellard. They cut out so much of the movie that what got released in the theaters wasn't really the same movie.

I have the directors cut dvd..its not an awful movie..and the fights arent bad(the one in the forest especially had me thinking this is how FRPG combat should look like))..I would have had a weightier actor in the lead role if given the choice..and Russel can pull it out of the hat when he needs to.

If this film is a success..then that will make it two for two for the Aussies..

That was one of the things that sold me on Kingdom of Heaven more than anything else. The sword fights they do have aren't from the "It's a Katana!" school of choreography so prevalent in Hollywood these days. Seeing the whack with the hilt of the sword was great.

Thank you, Peter Jackson, for hiring the entire Bob Anderson school and forcing directors to give something else a chance if they wanted to make a movie.

Yeh Bob is the Master.

I really like Ridley Scott, so I would
definitely like to see it. I thought
Kingdom of Heaven dirctors cut was amazing,
probably one of my all time favorites. Orlando
didn't bother me, I actually thought he did well
not trying to play the generic "badass hero/ultra
awesome" guy that is always in those type of movies.
I'm probably a bit more biased about Scott.

Believe it or not I actually thought Balian was a great character..he would fit nicely into most fantasy games..probably as a Marshal/Warlord type though he did have some almost paladinical qualities

Believe it or not I actually thought Balian was a great character..he would fit nicely into most fantasy games..probably as a Marshal/Warlord type though he did have some almost paladinical qualities

Yea I agree with you on that, he was very paladin-like in the way he behaved. He was definitely the ideal knight, which seemed to be pretty rare from what I read...too impractical I guess :)

I thought Kingdom of Heaven was very poorly done. Scott and the writers just made up stuff as they went along and of course they, as most Hollywood movies do, had to portray all devout Christians as bloodthirsty madmen.

I thought Kingdom of Heaven was very poorly done. Scott and the writers just made up stuff as they went along and of course they, as most Hollywood movies do, had to portray all devout Christians as bloodthirsty madmen.

heh heh...well moreso the Christians of the middle ages, not ALL christians. I do respectfully disagree with the "making stuff up as they went along" though, but to each his own.

Callous Jack wrote:

I thought Kingdom of Heaven was very poorly done. Scott and the writers just made up stuff as they went along and of course they, as most Hollywood movies do, had to portray all devout Christians as bloodthirsty madmen.

heh heh...well moreso the Christians of the middle ages, not ALL christians. I do respectfully disagree with the "making stuff up as they went along" though, but to each his own.

This guy pretty much makes my point for me, covering historical inaccuracies and the anti-Christian message.

Amael wrote:

Callous Jack wrote:

I thought Kingdom of Heaven was very poorly done. Scott and the writers just made up stuff as they went along and of course they, as most Hollywood movies do, had to portray all devout Christians as bloodthirsty madmen.

heh heh...well moreso the Christians of the middle ages, not ALL christians. I do respectfully disagree with the "making stuff up as they went along" though, but to each his own.

This guy pretty much makes my point for me, covering historical inaccuracies and the anti-Christian message.

Well...there's always going to be historical inaccuracies in movies no matter how "historical" the movie is supposed to be. There may be movies that are 100% accurate...but you can probably count them on your 2 hands...maybe add in some feet...idk. As for anti Christian message, maybe, maybe not. I never really felt that during the crusades the christians were "right" in what they did, it appeared to me that it was more like opportunistic people trying to take what they want in the name of something higher...which we see in religious and secular aspects of all societies. Ugh sorry for getting off track.

Well...there's always going to be historical inaccuracies in movies no matter how "historical" the movie is supposed to be. There may be movies that are 100% accurate...but you can probably count them on your 2 hands...maybe add in some feet...idk. As for anti Christian message, maybe, maybe not. I never really felt that during the crusades the christians were "right" in what they did, it appeared to me that it was more like opportunistic people trying to take what they want in the name of something higher...which we see in religious and secular aspects of all societies. Ugh sorry for getting off track.

Don't get me wrong, I don't believe the Crusades were good, they were a response to Muslim aggression that was conquering Christian lands. Neither side can really claim they were righteous as both did terrible deeds. I think my biggest beef with the movie is the anti-Christian messages the link mentioned. Anyone devout was portrayed as a evil nutcase (unless they were Muslim) and the heroes were all agnostics of some kind.

Amael wrote:

Well...there's always going to be historical inaccuracies in movies no matter how "historical" the movie is supposed to be. There may be movies that are 100% accurate...but you can probably count them on your 2 hands...maybe add in some feet...idk. As for anti Christian message, maybe, maybe not. I never really felt that during the crusades the christians were "right" in what they did, it appeared to me that it was more like opportunistic people trying to take what they want in the name of something higher...which we see in religious and secular aspects of all societies. Ugh sorry for getting off track.

Don't get me wrong, I don't believe the Crusades were good, they were a response to Muslim aggression that was conquering Christian lands. Neither side can really claim they were righteous as both did terrible deeds. I think my biggest beef with the movie is the anti-Christian messages the link mentioned. Anyone devout was portrayed as a evil nutcase (unless they were Muslim) and the heroes were all agnostics of some kind.

And don't even get me started on the Templars, probably one of Hollywood's favorite guys to kick around.

Yea I agree with that, sorry didn't see the link though, my fault. I don't think they portrayed everyone that was devout as evil, but yea a lot of the devout characters were like that, although those characters were ones who seemed to place a lot of emphasis on dogma or even self interest. There were some exceptions like the bishop (?) in the beginning who gave Balian's half brother money to give to Balian for building his church. The Hospitaler could be considered a good example of a devout, non-evil character. I think their message was more about getting away from the dogma of the church.

Ya I am kinda meh on the new Robin Hood. It looks like it is going to be an epic war movie and not about the lovable rogue that I have grown to love.

I understand Hollywood's liberal use of history; Hollywood=entertainment first, historically correct second.

The Templars have been a favorite bad guy to kick around at least as far back is 1819 (when the novel Ivanhoe was published. The present Hollywood approach is nothing new.

Also, Kingdom of Heaven portrays some of the Muslims as being nearly as bad as the Templars in the movie. The merchant talking to Jeremy Irons' character near the beginning and the fanatic that Saladin kicks out of his meeting are two good examples.

However, seeing as the movie is told primarily from the point of view of Balien, the ones he is in close contact with get most of the screen time.

And on a side note, I was happy to see the OTHER knightly order of the Crusades actually shown. There were these guys called the Hospitallers involved as well, another fact most of Hollywood tends to forget.

The Templars have been a favorite bad guy to kick around at least as far back is 1819 (when the novel Ivanhoe was published. The present Hollywood approach is nothing new.

MHHHH..I'd disagree with you partly about Ivanhoe...Sir Brian de Bois Guilbert is shown as a man trapped by his own code of honour(ie how the paladins code can really screw you over)

George Saunders put it over perfectly in the Robert Taylor movie version.

Off course the greatest screen paladin has to be Chuck Heston as El Cid and yes I do know that Rodrigo Diaz de Bivar wasn't that pure white historically

It has been a while since I read it, but I do remember the main Templar character having a great deal of "special dispensation" from the Pope regarding many parts of the Templar code. Basically, the rules were things others had to follow. It has been a while, but since I need to take something to work for break-time reading Ivanhoe sounds like a good fit. I'm not sure if the differences in memory are due to the time since I read it or the fact that the movie always changes things from the book, or maybe both.

I am looking forward to this film. I like Ridley Scott's work and am holding my breath hoping that the team that gave us Gladiator can make a movie that is substantively different.

I am looking forward to this film. I like Ridley Scott's work and am holding my breatn hoping that the team that gave us Gladiator can make a movie that is substantively different.

Thats exactly how I feel. I have a lot of faith in Ridley Scott, and I only hope he does well with the material.