Michael Reuel's Blog - Posts Tagged "robin-hood"
Finding the real Robin Hood
The earliest Robin Hood ballads (which existed in oral form for many decades before being written down in the mid-fifteenth century) are an unappreciated insight into medieval England. Historians prefer to write them off as fiction, often dismissing them by pointing to possible sources of inspiration from other legends or tales of outlawry, like that of Finn MacCool or Eustace the Monk and, in doing so, completely overlook their many unique qualities.
I first approached the ballads from an interest in folklore when, because I became conscious of key misinterpretations, I soon decided to start studying the history as well. I was curious to discover whether certain misconceptions might lead to a reconsideration of his existence.
At first this research was a casual, slow burner carried out for personal interest. Eventually, however, when I began to see a more complete and convincing picture, I realised I had to condense my findings into a publication.
The result of my research is Robin Hood Existed, in which I argue for firmly establishing everyone’s favourite outlaw as a historical figure, rather than one of legend.
I’m now firmly convinced that he existed beyond any reasonable doubt.
My books explores the reasons for which we have so many misconceptions about Robin Hood, which have largely come about because the first historians to try and explain who he was ended up writing a heap of nonsense that has waylaid historians ever since – though a prominent place in popular culture has also, inevitably, had its impact.
These historians, writing in the sixteenth century, would dismiss many of the key elements of the ballads because of class prejudice. They were writing histories for the nobility and did not think very much of the Robin Hood stories, looking down upon his reputation as a hero of the common man. Some tried to re-characterise him as a villain, others to recast him completely as a disinherited noble – just as he remains in most modern film depictions.
The truth was that he was always a yeoman and the yeomanry are notoriously difficult for historians to study. Their deeds are not recorded by scholars, so it is fortunate that we have the ballads at all, which attest to Robin’s popularity and also his heroism.
Indeed, it is these two crucial factors that I found to most require a thorough re-examination in order to understand him better, as Robin’s heroism and popularity have also been re-characterised. Many have found his behaviour and actions in the earliest ballads to be unsatisfying for their notions of heroism, as his actions have been interpreted as silly and playful, but this is a wildly inaccurate reading of what is going on.
For example, Robin is often said to be disappointing in that he challenges many people to fights and loses. But, firstly, this only ever happens once, in the ballad Robin Hood and the Potter (though it became retold as the famous Friar Tuck story). And, secondly, those who have depicted the ballad in this context have completely overlooked who the Potter in question is. Although we are never given a name for him, the Potter is clearly described as a fearsome individual who pays tolls to no one and may have even once bettered Little John in a fight.
In going up against him, Robin is trying to impress his men and almost pays a heavy price for attempt. However, with the exception of the Death ballad in which he is tricked and murdered, this is the only example of Robin being clearly beaten, excepting one occasion where fellow Merry Man, Gilbert with the white hand, comes first in an archery contest. Robin still comes second however, though competing against many skilled bowmen. Elsewhere he kills twelve of the sheriff’s men and wounds many more, when cornered in a church; he leads his men out of an ambush when the sheriff tricks them into attending a tournament; and, perhaps most notably, he slays Guy of Gisborne without the help of anyone else, though Gisborne is also described as a feared and formidable individual. In addition, the strength and physical prowess of his Merry Men are frequently referred to throughout the ballads.
His popularity and heroism are not in question after all, though understanding his place in the hearts of the yeomanry has proven problematic. By providing a more accurate reading of the ballads, therefore, I hope that we can clear up the many aspects of his reputation that are seen as murky. While, in doing so, and by rendering him in a clearer historical context, we can reach a confident conclusion that the ballads were certainly based on the exploits of a remarkable but also a very plausible hero.
I first approached the ballads from an interest in folklore when, because I became conscious of key misinterpretations, I soon decided to start studying the history as well. I was curious to discover whether certain misconceptions might lead to a reconsideration of his existence.
At first this research was a casual, slow burner carried out for personal interest. Eventually, however, when I began to see a more complete and convincing picture, I realised I had to condense my findings into a publication.
The result of my research is Robin Hood Existed, in which I argue for firmly establishing everyone’s favourite outlaw as a historical figure, rather than one of legend.
I’m now firmly convinced that he existed beyond any reasonable doubt.
My books explores the reasons for which we have so many misconceptions about Robin Hood, which have largely come about because the first historians to try and explain who he was ended up writing a heap of nonsense that has waylaid historians ever since – though a prominent place in popular culture has also, inevitably, had its impact.
These historians, writing in the sixteenth century, would dismiss many of the key elements of the ballads because of class prejudice. They were writing histories for the nobility and did not think very much of the Robin Hood stories, looking down upon his reputation as a hero of the common man. Some tried to re-characterise him as a villain, others to recast him completely as a disinherited noble – just as he remains in most modern film depictions.
The truth was that he was always a yeoman and the yeomanry are notoriously difficult for historians to study. Their deeds are not recorded by scholars, so it is fortunate that we have the ballads at all, which attest to Robin’s popularity and also his heroism.
Indeed, it is these two crucial factors that I found to most require a thorough re-examination in order to understand him better, as Robin’s heroism and popularity have also been re-characterised. Many have found his behaviour and actions in the earliest ballads to be unsatisfying for their notions of heroism, as his actions have been interpreted as silly and playful, but this is a wildly inaccurate reading of what is going on.
For example, Robin is often said to be disappointing in that he challenges many people to fights and loses. But, firstly, this only ever happens once, in the ballad Robin Hood and the Potter (though it became retold as the famous Friar Tuck story). And, secondly, those who have depicted the ballad in this context have completely overlooked who the Potter in question is. Although we are never given a name for him, the Potter is clearly described as a fearsome individual who pays tolls to no one and may have even once bettered Little John in a fight.
In going up against him, Robin is trying to impress his men and almost pays a heavy price for attempt. However, with the exception of the Death ballad in which he is tricked and murdered, this is the only example of Robin being clearly beaten, excepting one occasion where fellow Merry Man, Gilbert with the white hand, comes first in an archery contest. Robin still comes second however, though competing against many skilled bowmen. Elsewhere he kills twelve of the sheriff’s men and wounds many more, when cornered in a church; he leads his men out of an ambush when the sheriff tricks them into attending a tournament; and, perhaps most notably, he slays Guy of Gisborne without the help of anyone else, though Gisborne is also described as a feared and formidable individual. In addition, the strength and physical prowess of his Merry Men are frequently referred to throughout the ballads.
His popularity and heroism are not in question after all, though understanding his place in the hearts of the yeomanry has proven problematic. By providing a more accurate reading of the ballads, therefore, I hope that we can clear up the many aspects of his reputation that are seen as murky. While, in doing so, and by rendering him in a clearer historical context, we can reach a confident conclusion that the ballads were certainly based on the exploits of a remarkable but also a very plausible hero.
Bizarre to call early Robin Hood ballads fiction
In my last blog post I explored the public’s perception of Robin Hood’s heroism and popularity and how this has developed over time to suit certain preferences and archetypes. As a follow-up, I’d like to tackle the argument that Robin’s origins are purely fiction and assess what strength lies behind such a position.
On this subject, the first point to be clear on is that there is no official history at all. Historians neither confirm that Robin Hood is fiction or a real individual. In attempting to draw our own conclusions, therefore, we do not in fact contradict any established historical analysis whatsoever. No one has ever accurately traced the famous outlaw in a church record or court archive and so, as far as typical historical study goes, there is actually very little to analyse at all.
The story of Robin Hood comes to us as exactly that: a story; specifically the five early ballads: Robin Hood and the Monk, The Gest of Robin Hood, Robin Hood and the Potter, Robin Hood and Guy of Gisborne and The Death of Robin Hood.
As a result, in order to interpret what might be genuine and what might be fiction, or the addition of a storyteller, we have to consider these ballads with the art of storytelling in mind, rather than straining through a historian’s lens to locate a yeoman who lived outside of civilised society; an unenviable task.
So how valuable are the ballads? This is what we need to answer but, as my last blog touched upon, they have largely been misread. In ‘Robin Hood Existed’ I have delved into some of the science behind storytelling and our relationship with it from an evolutionary level, led by the expertise of Brian Boyd and his On the Origin of Stories. Even without the complexities of science, however, we can still draw a number of key conclusions simply by looking at the ballads and making an instinctive analysis.
Imagine we had never heard of Robin Hood; how would we assess that the content of the ballads belongs to a genuine story or else from a creative spark? What are the giveaways to look out for and what do the ballads score when subjected to the scrutiny of a storyteller’s eye?
In order to ascertain this, I would suggest five key areas in which to assess the ballads for flaws. These are: 1. the fantastical; 2. the implausible; 3. the landscape; the historical; and 5. the intricate.
1. the fantastical
This feels like the obvious place to start. Even those medieval tales that we know for sure are based on a factual hero often have their adventures spiced up by encounters with mythical creatures, such as giants and dragons. Fulk FitzWarin, Eustace the Monk and Hereward the Wake all serve as examples of this. There is nothing of the sort in the Robin Hood ballads, however. They stand out – or should have stood out – to chroniclers as being unusually down-to-earth. If he was made up then his storyteller restricted his foes to the sheriff of Nottingham and unpopular members of the local clergy, as well as the enigmatic Red Roger; a fairly meagre cast of villainy to compete against someone cast as the hero of the people.
2. the implausible
On the other hand, actions and achievements can still be far-fetched, even if there are no fire-breathing dragons involved. On this account Robin still passes with flying colours, however. Though the strength and prowess of the Merry Men are stated many times, the ballads present a consistent explanation for this in stressing it to be a result of their harsh woodland lifestyle. They are hardy folk who need to be strong enough to wield the mighty longbow to survive, as well as a sword. Robin’s most excessive physical accomplishment comes when cornered by the sheriff and his men in a church when he kills twelve of them – a feat that is not unheard of among valiant men of the time and he is still captured anyway. Additionally, Little John and Will Scarlett succeed in stealing two monks away from one hundred guards, but nowhere is it suggested that they had to fight them to do so. Robin and his men are impressive, but they are not super heroes.
3. the Landscape
Some storytellers care more about the geographical surroundings of their tales more than others and a loose depiction of England might have easily caught a tall-tale out. But although the woodland adventures are sometimes hard to pin down, for example when Robin is said to kill Gisborne ‘under the lime trees’, it is nevertheless clear that these stories belong to a particular part of the world. Although there is an ongoing debate over whether Robin belongs in Sherwood, in Nottinghamshire, or Barnsdale, in Yorkshire, the fact is that these two forests border each other and Nottingham would have been the closest significant town to them both. Indeed, the ballads perform so well on this score that there is only one unverifiable location in Verysdale, the home of the knight Sir Richard at the Lee. A place that no longer exists or else has been subject to a name change perhaps, but even building names, like the Kirklees Priory, and street names like Watling Street are accurate.
4. the Historical
This is perhaps the least likely means by which to catch a Robin Hood storyteller out, as social norms and culture did not appear to change as dramatically during medieval times as they do in the modern world. However, it is worth pointing out that the ballads are entirely in keeping with everything we know of the time, unlike many Arthurian tales which have been consistently redeveloped to suit different cultures. For example, the system of appointing tough individuals as sheriffs, which was in place during King John’s time (1199–1216) and was only reviewed during Edward III’s (1327–77). Plus, the longbow became England’s most effective weapon during the fourteenth century and the forests of Sherwood and Barnsdale were considerably more vast and dense than they are today. It is worth mentioning the obvious too, that the king in the ballads is an Edward and that Robin did not exist during King Richard or King John’s time more than a century earlier – but this mistake was driven into popular culture by later writers and is something that the ballads are not at fault for.
5. the Intricate
For the final test we could look more closely at aspects of local knowledge and sentiment and it is here that, because again the ballads pass with flying colours, we perhaps also find the strongest argument for putting them forward as authentic. While being consistent in referring to Robin as a famous yeoman who did the poor much good, the ballads contain a number of curiosities, the like of which it is difficult to imagine a storyteller thinking up for the sake of creativity. Perhaps the prime example is that of William a Trent. During modern day Robin Hood films the sheriff’s men might equate to something like arrow fodder, in the same way that wearing a red suit in Star Trek also gets the actor killed, but the Gisborne ballad goes so far as to name and mourn the passing of ‘good William a Trent’, who is killed by an arrow when the sheriff is attempting to snare Robin and his men. The character is mentioned nowhere else and this is an amazing addition that can surely only be explained by some form of local sentiment being at play. If these ballads first became popular within the very communities where William a Trent came from, then that looks likely to have played the storyteller’s hand in adding the fact that William was not considered to be one of the villains just because he was in the sheriff’s employment.
So there we have it. The Robin Hood ballads pass on all accounts and his reputation only became murky because historians have not understood him and placed the content in a different context – in some cases ignoring it completely.
So how do we maintain the convenient naysaying and anti-romantic position that Robin Hood is all a load of nonsense?
Answer: we can’t. Robin Hood existed and modern day scholars need to look a bit harder in order to verify this.
On this subject, the first point to be clear on is that there is no official history at all. Historians neither confirm that Robin Hood is fiction or a real individual. In attempting to draw our own conclusions, therefore, we do not in fact contradict any established historical analysis whatsoever. No one has ever accurately traced the famous outlaw in a church record or court archive and so, as far as typical historical study goes, there is actually very little to analyse at all.
The story of Robin Hood comes to us as exactly that: a story; specifically the five early ballads: Robin Hood and the Monk, The Gest of Robin Hood, Robin Hood and the Potter, Robin Hood and Guy of Gisborne and The Death of Robin Hood.
As a result, in order to interpret what might be genuine and what might be fiction, or the addition of a storyteller, we have to consider these ballads with the art of storytelling in mind, rather than straining through a historian’s lens to locate a yeoman who lived outside of civilised society; an unenviable task.
So how valuable are the ballads? This is what we need to answer but, as my last blog touched upon, they have largely been misread. In ‘Robin Hood Existed’ I have delved into some of the science behind storytelling and our relationship with it from an evolutionary level, led by the expertise of Brian Boyd and his On the Origin of Stories. Even without the complexities of science, however, we can still draw a number of key conclusions simply by looking at the ballads and making an instinctive analysis.
Imagine we had never heard of Robin Hood; how would we assess that the content of the ballads belongs to a genuine story or else from a creative spark? What are the giveaways to look out for and what do the ballads score when subjected to the scrutiny of a storyteller’s eye?
In order to ascertain this, I would suggest five key areas in which to assess the ballads for flaws. These are: 1. the fantastical; 2. the implausible; 3. the landscape; the historical; and 5. the intricate.
1. the fantastical
This feels like the obvious place to start. Even those medieval tales that we know for sure are based on a factual hero often have their adventures spiced up by encounters with mythical creatures, such as giants and dragons. Fulk FitzWarin, Eustace the Monk and Hereward the Wake all serve as examples of this. There is nothing of the sort in the Robin Hood ballads, however. They stand out – or should have stood out – to chroniclers as being unusually down-to-earth. If he was made up then his storyteller restricted his foes to the sheriff of Nottingham and unpopular members of the local clergy, as well as the enigmatic Red Roger; a fairly meagre cast of villainy to compete against someone cast as the hero of the people.
2. the implausible
On the other hand, actions and achievements can still be far-fetched, even if there are no fire-breathing dragons involved. On this account Robin still passes with flying colours, however. Though the strength and prowess of the Merry Men are stated many times, the ballads present a consistent explanation for this in stressing it to be a result of their harsh woodland lifestyle. They are hardy folk who need to be strong enough to wield the mighty longbow to survive, as well as a sword. Robin’s most excessive physical accomplishment comes when cornered by the sheriff and his men in a church when he kills twelve of them – a feat that is not unheard of among valiant men of the time and he is still captured anyway. Additionally, Little John and Will Scarlett succeed in stealing two monks away from one hundred guards, but nowhere is it suggested that they had to fight them to do so. Robin and his men are impressive, but they are not super heroes.
3. the Landscape
Some storytellers care more about the geographical surroundings of their tales more than others and a loose depiction of England might have easily caught a tall-tale out. But although the woodland adventures are sometimes hard to pin down, for example when Robin is said to kill Gisborne ‘under the lime trees’, it is nevertheless clear that these stories belong to a particular part of the world. Although there is an ongoing debate over whether Robin belongs in Sherwood, in Nottinghamshire, or Barnsdale, in Yorkshire, the fact is that these two forests border each other and Nottingham would have been the closest significant town to them both. Indeed, the ballads perform so well on this score that there is only one unverifiable location in Verysdale, the home of the knight Sir Richard at the Lee. A place that no longer exists or else has been subject to a name change perhaps, but even building names, like the Kirklees Priory, and street names like Watling Street are accurate.
4. the Historical
This is perhaps the least likely means by which to catch a Robin Hood storyteller out, as social norms and culture did not appear to change as dramatically during medieval times as they do in the modern world. However, it is worth pointing out that the ballads are entirely in keeping with everything we know of the time, unlike many Arthurian tales which have been consistently redeveloped to suit different cultures. For example, the system of appointing tough individuals as sheriffs, which was in place during King John’s time (1199–1216) and was only reviewed during Edward III’s (1327–77). Plus, the longbow became England’s most effective weapon during the fourteenth century and the forests of Sherwood and Barnsdale were considerably more vast and dense than they are today. It is worth mentioning the obvious too, that the king in the ballads is an Edward and that Robin did not exist during King Richard or King John’s time more than a century earlier – but this mistake was driven into popular culture by later writers and is something that the ballads are not at fault for.
5. the Intricate
For the final test we could look more closely at aspects of local knowledge and sentiment and it is here that, because again the ballads pass with flying colours, we perhaps also find the strongest argument for putting them forward as authentic. While being consistent in referring to Robin as a famous yeoman who did the poor much good, the ballads contain a number of curiosities, the like of which it is difficult to imagine a storyteller thinking up for the sake of creativity. Perhaps the prime example is that of William a Trent. During modern day Robin Hood films the sheriff’s men might equate to something like arrow fodder, in the same way that wearing a red suit in Star Trek also gets the actor killed, but the Gisborne ballad goes so far as to name and mourn the passing of ‘good William a Trent’, who is killed by an arrow when the sheriff is attempting to snare Robin and his men. The character is mentioned nowhere else and this is an amazing addition that can surely only be explained by some form of local sentiment being at play. If these ballads first became popular within the very communities where William a Trent came from, then that looks likely to have played the storyteller’s hand in adding the fact that William was not considered to be one of the villains just because he was in the sheriff’s employment.
So there we have it. The Robin Hood ballads pass on all accounts and his reputation only became murky because historians have not understood him and placed the content in a different context – in some cases ignoring it completely.
So how do we maintain the convenient naysaying and anti-romantic position that Robin Hood is all a load of nonsense?
Answer: we can’t. Robin Hood existed and modern day scholars need to look a bit harder in order to verify this.
Lots of new Robin Hood films coming our way
Within ‘Robin Hood Existed’ I happened to mention that there are currently no less than six Hollywood productions in the works all keen to surf popular culture’s obsession with this most famous of outlaws. But what are these films going to be like and why so many? Why not take a look at what we know so far and find out if the legend – I mean history – is in good hands, and whether we might get a Robin Hood with a certain sense of authenticity?
Robin Hood Origins
This is probably the one we know most about. Produced by Leonardo di Caprio and Lionsgate, this would seem to be attempting a similar feat to the much-criticised Ridley Scott’s Robin Hood (2010) in making a play for the root of Robin’s story, rather than the height of his fame. As with the Scott version, this would suggest a desire to produce something of a franchise with numerous follow-up tales, though they will need to produce something a bit more engaging in order to also produce an audience that demands a sequel.
Surprisingly, considering it is being described as gritty and down-to-earth, it would appear to be something of a contradiction that they have cast Jamie Foxx as Little John. Does this mean the film is not actually concerned with looking that realistic, or will a backstory be written in order to suggest that Little John accompanied Robin (Morgan Freeman-style) from the Holy Land (where the real Robin never went, by the way)? Only time will tell.
The film is being shot early next year, with no current release date, so we can’t be sure as yet when we will find out. Another curious decision is to shoot the film in Dubrovnik. Apparently a stunning location – though whether it will look like Sherwood Forest remains to be seen – but apparently there were some nice tax incentives that Star Wars: Episode VIII has benefitted from, so I’m a little suspicious that money might be the real motivation.
Welsh actor Taron Egerton gets the honour of playing England’s most treasured medieval hero and I’m sure he’ll do a better job than some.
Hood
This one from Sony certainly has a touch of the ambitious about it. I had to look up what ‘shared-universe film’ meant, considering I thought we all shared the same universe anyway. But apparently, no. Apparently, unless you make it clear to the audience, all films are presumed to exist in separate fictional universes unless you state it explicitly. Maybe this is an unwritten rule to prevent the Star Wars and Star Trek stories ever colliding and setting off World War III as the fandoms rise up in protest.
Anyway, it seems the great pile of dollars being earned by the Avengers movies is to blame for this approach as, in a shared-universe story, all of the characters can have their own spin-offs and so all do their bit for Hollywood’s dollars.
So, if this one goes well, in a few years we can most likely expect a whole bunch of additional film titles like Will Scarlett and the Forest Demon or Maid Marian and the Viking Curse being green-lit too.
Nottingham & Hood
This is a new Disney film and, yes, also an attempt at a franchise. There might be some grounds for optimism in that they have been attracted by the work of new screenwriter on the block, Brandon Barker, rather than this being the result of a few ideas thrown across the meeting room table. Then again, this Robin Hood is said to be Pirates of the Caribbean-esque, which suggests a tone that harks back to the cheekiness of Errol Flynn’s portrayal, so I guess it kind of depends what kind of Robin you want as to whether you will welcome this one.
Robin Hood 2058
But we don’t always need to worry about authenticity because where better to discard of such baggage than with a Robin Hood sci-fi? This production is still at script writing stage and being delivered by Tony Lee at the request of the team behind Fast and the Furious and 300. This film will be set in a dystopian London, no doubt in one of those attempts to depict the future that turns out to predict the spread of modernity at an extremely fast pace. Why haven’t they just set the film in 2558, and therefore learned from films like 2001: A Space Odyssey and Blade Runner’s attempts to predict the future in a rush, only for the film audiences to grow up, watch the film later and realise the storyteller’s got a bit carried away?
Also, considering this is quite clearly a bollocks version of the future, why not just set the film in Nottingham anyway just to keep the people happy? You can even relocate Big Ben if you want it on the horizon and make up some daft subplot about the seat of power being relocated (Parliament is crumbling after all).
Plus, isn’t this plot just Batman? And have the folks behind Fast and the Furious only confused Robin Hood with the little sidekick Robin that no Batman film has been able to make cool yet? If so I will definitely be watching.
No word on who plays Robin yet though. Presumably it will be Vin Diesel.
Mystery Warner Bros project
On this one little is known but have faith because one of the movie’s producers is none other than Dan Lin who was behind The Lego Movie. Maybe keeping quiet about things will work to the studio’s advantage, however, as they can wait to see what the other productions are doing wrong and then pounce. Pretty much all studios are attempting to come up with franchises these days, so perhaps this project was announced just because everyone else seems to be doing a Hood production. In which case, by the time it comes to parts 2 and 3, one shining light will have risen to the surface and we won’t hear from the others again.
Or maybe we’ll hear from none of them again, but that will not stop the name of Robin Hood outlasting them.
So there it is. They all feel a bit rough round the edges in terms of vision and I wonder if the film producers know there are many excellent works of Robin Hood fiction around these days; for example, from Stephen R. Lawhead, Robin McKinley and Steven A. McKay. Then again, Hollywood has always preferred directors to writers, so let us hope that the spirit of the Hood is with them.
What’s that? Oh, yes, I said there were six films in production not five. Well, I think the other one must have been the sequel to Ridley Scott’s Robin Hood, which does not appear to be surfacing after all.
So will those that follow learn from its mistakes?
Robin Hood Origins
This is probably the one we know most about. Produced by Leonardo di Caprio and Lionsgate, this would seem to be attempting a similar feat to the much-criticised Ridley Scott’s Robin Hood (2010) in making a play for the root of Robin’s story, rather than the height of his fame. As with the Scott version, this would suggest a desire to produce something of a franchise with numerous follow-up tales, though they will need to produce something a bit more engaging in order to also produce an audience that demands a sequel.
Surprisingly, considering it is being described as gritty and down-to-earth, it would appear to be something of a contradiction that they have cast Jamie Foxx as Little John. Does this mean the film is not actually concerned with looking that realistic, or will a backstory be written in order to suggest that Little John accompanied Robin (Morgan Freeman-style) from the Holy Land (where the real Robin never went, by the way)? Only time will tell.
The film is being shot early next year, with no current release date, so we can’t be sure as yet when we will find out. Another curious decision is to shoot the film in Dubrovnik. Apparently a stunning location – though whether it will look like Sherwood Forest remains to be seen – but apparently there were some nice tax incentives that Star Wars: Episode VIII has benefitted from, so I’m a little suspicious that money might be the real motivation.
Welsh actor Taron Egerton gets the honour of playing England’s most treasured medieval hero and I’m sure he’ll do a better job than some.
Hood
This one from Sony certainly has a touch of the ambitious about it. I had to look up what ‘shared-universe film’ meant, considering I thought we all shared the same universe anyway. But apparently, no. Apparently, unless you make it clear to the audience, all films are presumed to exist in separate fictional universes unless you state it explicitly. Maybe this is an unwritten rule to prevent the Star Wars and Star Trek stories ever colliding and setting off World War III as the fandoms rise up in protest.
Anyway, it seems the great pile of dollars being earned by the Avengers movies is to blame for this approach as, in a shared-universe story, all of the characters can have their own spin-offs and so all do their bit for Hollywood’s dollars.
So, if this one goes well, in a few years we can most likely expect a whole bunch of additional film titles like Will Scarlett and the Forest Demon or Maid Marian and the Viking Curse being green-lit too.
Nottingham & Hood
This is a new Disney film and, yes, also an attempt at a franchise. There might be some grounds for optimism in that they have been attracted by the work of new screenwriter on the block, Brandon Barker, rather than this being the result of a few ideas thrown across the meeting room table. Then again, this Robin Hood is said to be Pirates of the Caribbean-esque, which suggests a tone that harks back to the cheekiness of Errol Flynn’s portrayal, so I guess it kind of depends what kind of Robin you want as to whether you will welcome this one.
Robin Hood 2058
But we don’t always need to worry about authenticity because where better to discard of such baggage than with a Robin Hood sci-fi? This production is still at script writing stage and being delivered by Tony Lee at the request of the team behind Fast and the Furious and 300. This film will be set in a dystopian London, no doubt in one of those attempts to depict the future that turns out to predict the spread of modernity at an extremely fast pace. Why haven’t they just set the film in 2558, and therefore learned from films like 2001: A Space Odyssey and Blade Runner’s attempts to predict the future in a rush, only for the film audiences to grow up, watch the film later and realise the storyteller’s got a bit carried away?
Also, considering this is quite clearly a bollocks version of the future, why not just set the film in Nottingham anyway just to keep the people happy? You can even relocate Big Ben if you want it on the horizon and make up some daft subplot about the seat of power being relocated (Parliament is crumbling after all).
Plus, isn’t this plot just Batman? And have the folks behind Fast and the Furious only confused Robin Hood with the little sidekick Robin that no Batman film has been able to make cool yet? If so I will definitely be watching.
No word on who plays Robin yet though. Presumably it will be Vin Diesel.
Mystery Warner Bros project
On this one little is known but have faith because one of the movie’s producers is none other than Dan Lin who was behind The Lego Movie. Maybe keeping quiet about things will work to the studio’s advantage, however, as they can wait to see what the other productions are doing wrong and then pounce. Pretty much all studios are attempting to come up with franchises these days, so perhaps this project was announced just because everyone else seems to be doing a Hood production. In which case, by the time it comes to parts 2 and 3, one shining light will have risen to the surface and we won’t hear from the others again.
Or maybe we’ll hear from none of them again, but that will not stop the name of Robin Hood outlasting them.
So there it is. They all feel a bit rough round the edges in terms of vision and I wonder if the film producers know there are many excellent works of Robin Hood fiction around these days; for example, from Stephen R. Lawhead, Robin McKinley and Steven A. McKay. Then again, Hollywood has always preferred directors to writers, so let us hope that the spirit of the Hood is with them.
What’s that? Oh, yes, I said there were six films in production not five. Well, I think the other one must have been the sequel to Ridley Scott’s Robin Hood, which does not appear to be surfacing after all.
So will those that follow learn from its mistakes?
