I did not know that Robin Hood fought on D-Day

[Guinastasia]

@DanBlather

was talking with my son yesterday about better choices to be Robin Hood. Conan O’Brien came to mind. Can you imagine his skinny legs in green tights? It would at least be funny on purpose. Maybe they could get Leno to play King John.

Hey – you got to be a man to wear tights.

[DiggitCamara]

@Zebra

So in this movie does Robin Hood get King John to sign the Magna Carta?
King John is the one who signed it.

Nah.

[spoiler]
That’s in the sequel.

Which, in a way, is my main complaint about the movie. Just when the movie was unwinding, I told my girlfriend that the movie was only incidentally about “Robin Hood”, who robbed the rich to feed the poor.

I also told her, sarcastically, that he’d probably turn into that in the last 10 minutes of the film. I added to this comment that King John would probably drive him to do that out of jealousy. Sadly, to my amazement, I was right. [/spoiler]

[obfusciatrist]

@DiggitCamara

Just when the movie was unwinding, I told my girlfriend…

So you’re the person always trying to verbally guess what happens next?

Now that I’ve found you, I have one question. Why do you always sit right behind me?

[DiggitCamara]

@obfusciatrist

So you’re the person always trying to verbally guess what happens next?

Now that I’ve found you, I have one question. Why do you always sit right behind me?

Heh.

I don’t usually do this, but I was growing increasingly annoyed at the movie. So, I guess, I was starting to insert MST3000-style quips.

Still: the theater was half empty. Why did you have to sit right in front of me?

[3_20_59_or_bust]

@C_K_Dexter_Haven

Well, yes. It’s been done, the movie WITHOUT A CLUE (1988) with Ben Kingsley as Watson (the intelligent one) and Michael Caine as a stupid Sherlock. The premise is that Watson is the detective, but modestly wrote about a fictional “Sherlock Holmes” to be the brilliant one; thus, he published his own cases but under the guise that “Sherlock Holmes” was the genius. When the writings became famous, he had to hire an actor to play “Sherlock Holmes”, so he hires Michael Caine’s character. It’s a very enjoyable movie. Not great, but enjoyable.

I’ve tried, for a long time, not to go to movies with pre-conceived notions of how they “should” be. Nor to approach any other art form with pre-conceived notions, for that matter. I ask for self-consistency, a unified vision behind the work, and technical competence, but otherwise I’m pretty open.

Dang, I had forgotten about Without a Clue…that was a decent movie. But then, it did have Michael Caine in it, and he can make the worst dreck watchable.

[Little_Nemo]

Well, Richard LionHeart was born in England. Indeed, from the days of William the Kings of England were also Duke of Normandy, which is part of modern France. But it wasn’t then, and they didn’t consider themselves “French”. Richard was born in England. (His father was born in Normandy, but Henry I was born in England) Richard indeed spoke French- it was, along with Latin, more or less the International language of the time. He also spoke (or wrote) in Latin, does that make him Italian?

Normany was not part of France. Just because it is now, doesn’t make any of them French.

I agree with what Tamerlane said. Richard thought of himself as a Norman who happened to also be the King of England not a Englishman who happened to also be a French Duke. To the degree that Richard had any thoughts about his English lands, he saw them as a source of tax money he could use in his main territories in France or for mounting expeditions to the Holy Lands.

[Abe]

@C_K_Dexter_Haven

Well, yes. It’s been done, the movie WITHOUT A CLUE (1988) with Ben Kingsley as Watson (the intelligent one) and Michael Caine as a stupid Sherlock. The premise is that Watson is the detective, but modestly wrote about a fictional “Sherlock Holmes” to be the brilliant one; thus, he published his own cases but under the guise that “Sherlock Holmes” was the genius. When the writings became famous, he had to hire an actor to play “Sherlock Holmes”, so he hires Michael Caine’s character. It’s a very enjoyable movie. Not great, but enjoyable.

I consider this film a little masterpiece. The overall plot can be guessed within the first 15 minutes but the ride is still thoroughly enjoyable. There are a lot of laugh out loud moments and several instances where Doyle’s stories are lampooned.

Michael Caine’s acting is staggeringly good in this movie. If you are a fan you have got to watch his performance and delivery as an alcoholic who switches between masterful detective in full control of the situation and panic-stricken charlatan.

Like Rober Downey Jr’s Sherlock Holmes, Without A Clue captures the essence of the great detective while delivering something absurdly different from the original literature.

“I’ve got it! His real name is Arty Morty!”

[Peremensoe]

I couldn’t get a good look at the landing craft. Not sure if I missed what the OP was really talking about or not.

The beach panorama does seem to show a significant amphibious operation, and I’m not sure how that fits in to a Robin Hood story. Obviously seaborne invasions could and did take place in the time period.

But as far the vessels depicted themselves being “D-Day” style, I can’t tell.

[Ranchoth]

@Superhal

That would be awesome. And the story could be just like “Amadeus,” with rickman reminiscing about his battles with RH.

Wasn’t that Robin and Marian?

[outlierrn]

Well, I thought the movie was OK, definitely not great.

You can only have Crowe catch a thrown weapon while galloping on a horse once per movie on my homeworld.

Having said that, any of you history eggheads want to debunk or confirm this quote I found over on IMDB?

To complete their side of the bargain, the Venetians closed their entire commercial operations for a year — a demonstration of the massive effort required to build and equip a fleet of such a size. The ships were of three basic types: troop carriers, horse transports, and battle galleys…. The horse transports had specially designed slings to carry their precious cargo; once the ship drew close to shore, a door below the waterline could be opened to allow a fully armed and mounted knight to charge directly into battle — rather like a modern landing craft disgorging a tank.

Knight Landing Ships!

[Tamerlane]

@outlierrn

Having said that, any of you history eggheads want to debunk or confirm this quote I found over on IMDB?

That quote is apparently straight from Jonathan Philips’ well-regarded book on the Fourth Crusade. I’m at work right now, but I have it on the shelf at home. If you want I can try to confirm the quote and see if Philips has a further cite in his notes ( I assume he does ). It’ll have to be much later tonight, though.

[Tamerlane]

@Tamerlane

That quote is apparently straight from Jonathan Philips’ well-regarded book on the Fourth Crusade.

Actually looks like it is not a direct quote. However it is, paraphrased, pretty much what Phillips wrote ( the stuff about landing craft and tanks aside ). His source on the tarida or horse-transports was already cited in that thread - Transportation of Horses by Sea during the Era of the Crusades: Eighth Century to 1285 A.D. by J.H. Pryor, in Mariner’s Mirror, 68 (1982), 9-27 and 103-25.

[outlierrn]

When you get a chance, sure. I’m just curious. There reference to the work envolved suggests it wasn’t likely that Philip could have used something like that against John, but maybe it wasn’t an unknown technology.

BTW, thought that

Having an armored Marion show up with the feral lost boys who had suddenly aquired horses and horsemanship was pure comedic gold

[Tamerlane]

Some additional detail ( quoting Phillips directly ):

The transport of horses by sea was a difficult and dangerous affair…The horse ships, known as tarida, probably carried up to 30 animals. Each beast had to be suspended in a sling to prevent sudden movements of the ship causing them to lose their footing and injure themselves. Large amounts of food and water had to be stored in these vessels and there was also the need to muck out each horse and throw the dung overboard. The animals were carried deep in the boat, with the main entrance falling below the waterline when fully loaded. When beached on shore and ready for battle, this door could then be opened and the horses, saddled up with their riders already mounted and fully armed, could cross a ramp and pour out of the ship, straight into the fray…More importantly, these ships were powered primarily by oarsmen. More than 100 men plus another 30 crew would be required to propel the ship…

From The Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople by Jonathan Phillips ( 2004, Viking Penguin ).

[msmith537]

Private James Robin? James Francis Robin of the Hood?
I have a feeling that Ridley Scott is going to do for Robin Hood what Antoine Fuqua/Jerry Bruckheimer did for King Arthur.