The Adventures of Robin Hood
question
Adaptations you like better than the book?
Adalie
(last edited
Oct 04, 2012 08:08AM
)
Oct 04, 2012 08:02AM
Ok so we're always saying how the books are so much better than the movies (at least I am anyway), but I absolutely loved the BBC tv series Robin Hood...try as I might I cannot find a book about Robin Hood that I like as well as the show. Of course I know that the show wasn't adapted from one book and that there are very many tales, poems and books about Robin Hood but I think someone should write a book based on this show!!
Anyway, anyone find that they like a movie better than the book?
Anyway, anyone find that they like a movie better than the book?
Oh, dear! Really? There was so much wrong with the BBC version that I'm not sure where to start.
Actually, no - we'll start with the bow. Robin Hood should have a longbow, not a recurve bow. That's absolutely basic and non-negotiable (I speak as an archer).
The thing about Robin Hood, though, is that it is a collection of stories, rather than a novel by one person, and those stories go back around 700 years, to ballads that were sung at parties. Each adaptor has taken what they wanted from the original material to make their own version.
For me, the best film version is the Errol Flynn one, firmly based on the ballads and the silent version starring Douglas Fairbanks Sr.
The best TV version - this may seem perverse, but it is the 1950s Richard Greene version that I grew up watching, where the costumes covered several hundred years of fashion, but the writers had actually done some homework and included real facts about medieval laws and customs and characters (Prince John's first wife Avis of Gloucester, for instance, and Prince Arthur of Brittany both appear in episodes).
My second favourite is Robin of Sherwood in the 1980s, because even though Richard Carpenter included pagan religion (Herne the Hunter) and a Saracen member of the Merry Men (Nazir) he respected the source material and knew enough about the middle ages to make it work. His Jewish episode (written by Anthony Horowitz) is superb as an introduction to how Jews were treated in the middle ages.
Even Maid Marion and Her Merry Men, which was made for children and included a black man singing rap, was better than the BBC Robin Hood - because it was basically a bunch of adult actors being kids playing in the woods, and it was subverting expectations by making Marion the leader and Robin a wishy washy ex-hairdresser. Also, it was very funny.
I think it's very sad that a new generation is coming up who think the recent BBC series is the best version there is - I watched the very first episode with a bunch of historical re-enactors and we all heckled so much that we decided never to watch it again.
Actually, no - we'll start with the bow. Robin Hood should have a longbow, not a recurve bow. That's absolutely basic and non-negotiable (I speak as an archer).
The thing about Robin Hood, though, is that it is a collection of stories, rather than a novel by one person, and those stories go back around 700 years, to ballads that were sung at parties. Each adaptor has taken what they wanted from the original material to make their own version.
For me, the best film version is the Errol Flynn one, firmly based on the ballads and the silent version starring Douglas Fairbanks Sr.
The best TV version - this may seem perverse, but it is the 1950s Richard Greene version that I grew up watching, where the costumes covered several hundred years of fashion, but the writers had actually done some homework and included real facts about medieval laws and customs and characters (Prince John's first wife Avis of Gloucester, for instance, and Prince Arthur of Brittany both appear in episodes).
My second favourite is Robin of Sherwood in the 1980s, because even though Richard Carpenter included pagan religion (Herne the Hunter) and a Saracen member of the Merry Men (Nazir) he respected the source material and knew enough about the middle ages to make it work. His Jewish episode (written by Anthony Horowitz) is superb as an introduction to how Jews were treated in the middle ages.
Even Maid Marion and Her Merry Men, which was made for children and included a black man singing rap, was better than the BBC Robin Hood - because it was basically a bunch of adult actors being kids playing in the woods, and it was subverting expectations by making Marion the leader and Robin a wishy washy ex-hairdresser. Also, it was very funny.
I think it's very sad that a new generation is coming up who think the recent BBC series is the best version there is - I watched the very first episode with a bunch of historical re-enactors and we all heckled so much that we decided never to watch it again.
Certainly, the 1939 Errol Williams/Olivia deHavilland movie was better than the 'Robin Hood' books. Gable/Leigh 'Gone with the Wind' was better than the Margaret Mitchell novel. There's tons more examples; decreasing sharply (as one would expect) in more recent decades. But in its heyday Hollywood's bread'n'butter was adapting classic novels. Even today, any successful book with 'buzz' and 'following' such as 'Hunger Games' is the first choice for a studio.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
Apr 17, 2014 06:50PM · flag