Dead Men Walking

Forum Archive 2023 => dMw's Community Centre => Community Archive => Movies, Music & Books => Topic started by: OldBloke on May 12, 2010, 07:41:05 PM

Title: Do we really need ...
Post by: OldBloke on May 12, 2010, 07:41:05 PM
... yet another Robin Hood remake? :eyebrow:
Title: Do we really need ...
Post by: Blunt on May 12, 2010, 11:08:21 PM
Quote from: OldBloke;310204... yet another Robin Hood remake? :eyebrow:
We don't, but my daughter will love it:rolleyes:
Title: Do we really need ...
Post by: Benny on May 12, 2010, 11:25:06 PM
Only if Bryan Adams can take the number one slot for the next 40881 weeks.
Apparently the accent is bad, but the film is a lot more Christian Bale than Burt Ward if you catch my analogy.
Title: Do we really need ...
Post by: smilodon on May 13, 2010, 12:24:27 AM
From the reviews I've read this is not going to be anything like a normal Robin Hood film. Ridley Scott and Russell Crowe, so think Gladiator. I understand this is going to be a complete reworking of the legend with the story placed in a real historical context rather than some vague middle age setting. I don't know if it's going to be any good, but I have some hope it will be.
Title: Do we really need ...
Post by: Penfold on May 13, 2010, 09:47:42 AM
I bet it involves the Americans single-handedly  sorting out the 'bad' and 'corrupt' Feudal system and installing a good ol' democracy and freeing the poor serf classes from megalomaniac Landowners

:eyebrow:
Title: Do we really need ...
Post by: Blunt on May 13, 2010, 09:52:33 AM
Quote from: Penfold;310240I bet it involves the Americans single-handedly  sorting out the 'bad' and 'corrupt' Feudal system and installing a good ol' democracy and freeing the poor serf classes from megalomaniac Landowners

:eyebrow:
The peasants can't make thier minds up who they like the best,
So Robin and the Sherriff form a coalition band of merry men to see us safely through the dark age.:flirty:
Title: Do we really need ...
Post by: Blunt on May 13, 2010, 12:00:32 PM
Or this
[ATTACH=CONFIG]518[/ATTACH]
Title: Do we really need ...
Post by: smilodon on May 13, 2010, 05:53:40 PM
Quote from: Penfold;310240I bet it involves the Americans single-handedly  sorting out the 'bad' and 'corrupt' Feudal system and installing a good ol' democracy and freeing the poor serf classes from megalomaniac Landowners

:eyebrow:
As far as I am aware (and this is openly discussed in interviews and reviews about the film so no spoilers I hope) it begins with the death of Richard the Lionheart in Northern France, so no King Richard coming back to save the day at the end. The film deals with some of the effects of the introduction of the Magna Carta, but mainly the removal of the peoples rights to forage in Royal Forests. As many peoples lives depended on them being able to gather from the forests this was pretty bad news. It deals with the historical uprising that culminated in the Charter of the Forest when the right to forage was given back to the people. The fictional bit is that this fight for the restoration of these rights was spearheaded by an Archer, Robin Longstride, newly returned from the Crusades who was appalled that the King and Norman (French) Barons had effectively stolen the common land from the people. It was King John who imposed this law but rather than King Richard returning to free the masses it was in fact Henry III who repealed it with the Charter of the Forests.

QuoteWikipedia - The Charter of the Forest is a little-known charter sealed in England by King Henry III. Carta de Foresta was, in substance, part of the great constitutional reforms imposed by his barons upon King John. It was issued in 1217 as a supplement to Magna Carta, which the previous King (King John) wished to repudiate and annul with Papal authority as a "shameful and demeaning agreement, forced upon the king by violence and fear". In contrast to Magna Carta, it provided some real rights, privileges and protections for the common man against the abuses of the encroaching aristocracy.
At a time when the Royal forests were the most important potential source of fuel for cooking, heating and industries such as charcoal burning, this charter was almost unique in providing a degree of economic protection for serfs and vassals.
The Charter provided a right of common access to (royal) private lands that would wait until the Union of England and Scotland in 1707 to be equaled within the realm.
It repealed the death penalty for taking royal game and abolished mutilation as a lesser punishment.
The Charter was the statute that remained longest in force in England (from 1217 to 1971), being finally superseded by the Wild Creatures and Forest Laws Act 1971.

Robin Hood only has one Yank in it , William Hurt. This time we're saved from the evil Sheriff by a couple of Ozzie's, Russell Crowe and Cate Blanchett
Title: Do we really need ...
Post by: Luminance on May 13, 2010, 07:10:20 PM
went to see it last night.

Unluckilly we got an announcement right before it should start, that there are some "technical difficulties" and they have to delay the premier with 30 min. after 50 min they said it would only take another 10 extra, and that we could get free popcorn and a drink (50 grams and 100 ml (give or take)). after another 20 min they called it and said it was a no show and we could get a free movie voucher. >< You couldn't even get ur money back lol. Atleast they again provided me with an extra drink/popcorn voucher.
Title: Do we really need ...
Post by: smilodon on May 13, 2010, 10:23:19 PM
Damn I was hoping for some 'real people reviews' before I go see it. Not sure of Dutch Law but I bet you could have got a complete refund if you pushed the point :wink:
Title: Do we really need ...
Post by: Snokio on May 15, 2010, 04:03:18 PM
was going to start another thread, but here seems fine :D
 
Russell Crowe walks out on BBC Radio 4 when talking about the new Robin Hood film :lmfao:
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rr-6ZjlGuBU
Title: Do we really need ...
Post by: smilodon on May 15, 2010, 06:56:13 PM
That clip was a bit sneaky as it was edited together to suggest that Crowe walked out immediately after the Irish comment. In fact the whole interview is 9 minutes long and the Irish comment came at about 6.00 minutes. Crowe walked out at the end of the interview as he was not willing to discuss an unrelated issue about a contentious line of dialogue from the Gladiator movie. I heard that this was something he had made very clear at the beginning of the interview that he would not discuss. Hence he left without answering it.

While I think Crowe is something of a twat at times it seems once more the media are quite happy to make the facts fit a story. Shame on them.