Robin Hood.

Pexbo

Winner of the 'I'm not reading that' medal.
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
72,084
Location
Brizzle
Supports
Big Days
I haven't seen it yet but I would like to air my disgust at choosing an Australian actor to play the lead role in what is one of Englands greatest legends.

Why would they do this when there is such a fine range of British actors around these days.

The blue eyed blonde Daniel Craig could have played the all action rich robbing poor, giving, tight wearing all action archer with ease.

The steely Sean Bean could have given him an edge, while still providing the Hollywood appeal.

Acting heavyweight Paul bettany could have given the role some real soul and character and he has proven with 2010's Legion he showed he could carry the action hero role with ease while still having a real depth to his craft.

The one man who was ready made for this though, with years of practice playing a hard man and more recently his preparation for such a role by getting into groups of merrymen all around the world and analysing them from the inside. Method acting at its very best.

Ross Kemp.

The cream of the british acting industry. It's a sad day when one of our finest is overlooked for an Australian for a distinctly British role.

Any other suggestions?
 
Kevin Costner wasn't English and he was the best Robin Hood by far. :confused:
 
Oh God I just read the whole post. Ross Kemp! :lol:
 
SharkyMcShark said:
:lol:

Slightly less annoyed than I am at Jake fecking Gylenhaal (I know that's not how its spelled) playing the Prince of PERSIA.
Click to expand...

I know I thought Bahaar Soomekh had that role nailed!
 
WeasteDevil said:
Was Robin Hood even English - read Anglo-Saxon, or was he Norman French? Answers on a postcard please.
Click to expand...

I think a more relevant question, is does English even exist? :angel:
 
If you haven't even watched it yet and you're already disgusted, then please, do yourself a favour and watch something else.

The movie is fecking awful.
 
Raoul said:
Ridley has used Crowe in 5 films or something like that. Its becoming tedious, similar to the Scorcese/Di Caprio partnership. Switch it up FFS.
Click to expand...

Well, Crowe isn't a bad actor, he's not great, but the whole thing is money and attraction lead in the first place, no different to how Cruise who is a dreadful actor was used.
 
One of my engineering maths tutors interupts lectures to tell us how he often writes to the BBC about historical inaccuracies in their programs. For instance, programs like Merlin that have black actors cast for characters with a high place in society - which obviously back then would have never happened. He is always going on about historical characters in films and television being cast with black actors. He also moans about how times have changed and that he used to have a black dog called 'nigger' but that if he called it that now he would be shot. He's not racist though.

I'm just pleased there are no black people in my classes because they would probably find it rather offensive.
 
Spammy said:
One of my engineering maths tutors interupts lectures to tell us how he often writes to the BBC about historical inaccuracies in their programs. For instance, programs like Merlin that have black actors cast for characters with a high place in society - which obviously back then would have never happened. He is always going on about historical characters in films and television being cast with black actors. He also moans about how times have changed and that he used to have a black dog called 'nigger' but that if he called it that now he would be shot. He's not racist though.

I'm just pleased there are no black people in my classes because they would probably find it rather offensive.
Click to expand...

I don't think that it needs to be historically accurate, not only because it's not a documentary or a docurama, rather a bit of entertainment based on something, but also because the whole basis of the whole thing apart from the time it is set in doesn't actually have a proven history in itself. However, that said, I think there are problems in films when true history is totally changed to suit an audience in say the case of U-571. It's not simply modifying documented factual history along different time lines or to slightly suit the plot, it's becoming a totally different thing. I'm quite sure that there is a generation of US citizens that think that the US Navy captured the Enigma machine, when they had feck all to do with it. So, the argument at the end of the day is how can film making and story telling actually change the realisation of true historical events in the minds of people? With Robin Hood it's not really important, as the whole thing is a myth in any case, in the case of U-110 that gave up the Enigma machine, it was not.
 
I thought it was alright.

That said, there wasn't an awful lot going on...

If someone asked me to sum up the plot I probably couldn't say much more about it than that they wandered about in the woods for a bit...
 
WeasteDevil said:
I don't think that it needs to be historically accurate, not only because it's not a documentary or a docurama, rather a bit of entertainment based on something, but also because the whole basis of the whole thing apart from the time it is set in doesn't actually have a proven history in itself. However, that said, I think there are problems in films when true history is totally changed to suit an audience in say the case of U-571. It's not simply modifying documented factual history along different time lines or to slightly suit the plot, it's becoming a totally different thing. I'm quite sure that there is a generation of US citizens that think that the US Navy captured the Enigma machine, when they had feck all to do with it. So, the argument at the end of the day is how can film making and story telling actually change the realisation of true historical events in the minds of people? With Robin Hood it's not really important, as the whole thing is a myth in any case, in the case of U-110 that gave up the Enigma machine, it was not.
Click to expand...

Yeah U-571 actually really pisses me off. I can understand factual inaccuracies annoying people, particularly when it's a war that's still fresh in the memories of those that were actually in it. But this guy just sticks to the racial discrepancies. I could put my hand up and explain to him in front of 30 people that he comes across as an ignoramus, but if 30 letters from the BBC can't convince him I'd rather not waste my breath.
 
Spammy said:
One of my engineering maths tutors interupts lectures to tell us how he often writes to the BBC about historical inaccuracies in their programs. For instance, programs like Merlin that have black actors cast for characters with a high place in society - which obviously back then would have never happened.
Click to expand...

So he's against casting black actors in roles where they appear to have high position in medieval England because of the historical inaccuracy but he's presumably alright with John Hurt as a bloody dragon.

Got it.
 
I've never really liked the whole Robin Hood thing for some reason.
 
Spammy said:
Yeah U-571 actually really pisses me off. I can understand factual inaccuracies annoying people, particularly when it's a war that's still fresh in the memories of those that were actually in it. But this guy just sticks to the racial discrepancies. I could put my hand up and explain to him in front of 30 people that he comes across as an ignoramus, but if 30 letters from the BBC can't convince him I'd rather not waste my breath.
Click to expand...

I've never actually seen Merlin, but I suppose that it was about the Wizard in Arthur's court? It's actually quite possible that certain Saracens were placed high up in society at that time. They did exist in Britain at the time as they came with the Roman Legions, and many were renowned for their fighting prowess, you can take the Carthaginians and Hannibal as being case where they were no mugs. When the Romans rapidly fecked off, I suppose that some remained, and god knows what the Celtic people and the Druids thought of them. It's not beyond total impossibility that they were looked upon as something rather special, not too different as certain peoples of South America looked on the Spanish Conquistadors riding on horseback in their fine armour and thought of them as gods.
 
WeasteDevil said:
Well, Crowe isn't a bad actor, he's not great, but the whole thing is money and attraction lead in the first place, no different to how Cruise who is a dreadful actor was used.
Click to expand...

Nono. I like Crowe. I loved The Insider, Romper Stomper, The Gladiator, all the works but this one was just shit. Instead of Robin Hood, it was just a fat depressed bloke in chainmail running around for two and a half hours.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.