Jump to content

Neo

Robin Hood | Nov 21 2018 | Lionsgate | Taron Egerton is Robin Hood, Jamie Foxx is Little John

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Valonqar said:

yeah, this. They are basically making these franchise non-starters to keep rights. Even though the properties proved not to be commercial in any incarnation (King Arthur banished magic and tried to be "realistic", lol, other movies from your list were either equally poo-faced or too campy/B movie to take seriously). 

 

BOMB! Can we get a BOMB emoji? :)

 

They can't keep or hold rights to stories that hundreds of years old which is why any studio can and has made a Robin Hood or King Arthur movie.

 

They make them because they don't have to pay for rights to a very recognizable story and group of characters and they're hoping they can hit the jackpot.  Also because they are bereft of new ideas.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites





2 hours ago, TalismanRing said:

The one and only and yes, look at all that beautiful rich color.

 

 

 

Kind of amazing just how understated the entire "Splitting an arrow" scene actually is. No huge pomp and circumstance about it, just an archer splitting an arrow with his shot. Most adaptations after this have made the arrow scene a very over the top event.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TalismanRing said:

directing, acting, dialogue, story, production design, costumes and score with yes the highest quality expensive glorious technicolor possible (which was alas too expensive to last and films was the poorer for it

That was my point the production design and costumes using expensive glorious technicolor as much as they could instead of trying to doing the best design, the best costumes, etc... feel a bit too gimmicky to me (obviously very well done)

Link to comment
Share on other sites



15 minutes ago, grim22 said:

 

Kind of amazing just how understated the entire "Splitting an arrow" scene actually is. No huge pomp and circumstance about it, just an archer splitting an arrow with his shot. Most adaptations after this have made the arrow scene a very over the top event.

Act like you've been there before. B)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



21 minutes ago, Barnack said:

That was my point the production design and costumes using expensive glorious technicolor as much as they could instead of trying to doing the best design, the best costumes, etc... feel a bit too gimmicky to me (obviously very well done)

But they did the best they could in every respect.   Technicolor was so expensive and the use of cameras so limited at the time only averaged only 8-10 films a year - so a studio's marquee films were the ones that got the cameras.  It wasn't for tricking up the cheap or mediocre stuff.   It was mainly for spectacles, fantasy and musicals.  Other films had color, before, during and after but not that quality.    The Adventures of Robin Hood, The Wizard of Oz,  Gone With The Wind, The Thief of Bagdad , Black Narcissus, The Red Shoes , Singing In The Rain, Laurence of Arabia  - the colors are still so vivid and rich like nothing else.

 

Edited by TalismanRing
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, grim22 said:

 

Kind of amazing just how understated the entire "Splitting an arrow" scene actually is. No huge pomp and circumstance about it, just an archer splitting an arrow with his shot. Most adaptations after this have made the arrow scene a very over the top event.

That right there is one of reasons why these new movies flop. There was already the ultimate version, people don't need inferior ones. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



16 hours ago, Valonqar said:

@Barnack You are real Moviepedia! :bravo: 

 

Dead genre. Medieval fantasy (LOTR, Hobbit, GoT) thrives but straight up Medieval times flop.

 

Since when does mediaval fantasy thrive? Definitely not in the US. There's nothing succesful out there besides GoT. Even going back one would be hard pressed to find anything except LOTR (Hobbit) and maybe the first Narnia, even if one would include Harry Potter, which is not really mediaval.

Edited by Elessar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Elessar said:

 

Since when does mediaval fantasy thrive? Definitely not in the US. There's nothing succesful out there besides GoT. Even going back one would be hard pressed to find anything except LOTR (Hobbit) and maybe the first Narnia, even if one would include Harry Potter, which is not really mediaval.

GoT is enough. It's getting bigger and bigger. That's what I meant. Unlike these medieval movies that are :qotd: left and right. 

Also, it isn't like they did much medieval fantasy after LOTR success. In fact, they stripped Troy and King Arthur off their Gods and magic. But POTC got it right though it isn't medieval. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



3 minutes ago, HesAPooka said:

Crowe and Scott brought in 310m. Not sure of the tone of this one, but if they go for dark and serious I can't imagine this topping the last Hood movie in terms of BO.

Dark and serious doesn't work for this genre but lighthearted without a Jack Sparrow-type of a character doesn't work either. problem with Robins and Arthurs is that they are boring to the modern audience which is why the genre is outdated. People prefer anti-heroes and anti-villains to classic heroes or at least a movie/TV show needs to surround a classic hero with those colorful characters to work. Also, nobody cares for that period. People dig fantasy lands based on that period but not the period itself. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites











I despise racism in any form,and think casting should, 99% of the time be color blind, but to me Jamie Foxx in a film set in Medieval England is, just, well, not a good idea unless you are doing a Mel Brooks style parody.

This might make the 1991 Robin Hood look like a masterpiece, and that film was vastly inferior to the 1937 Errol Flynn and the 1950's Disney versions.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites







Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines. Feel free to read our Privacy Policy as well.