New Robin Hood film

[SmellMyWort]

@carnivorousplant

The guy center front looks like he enjoys blowing folks into pieces.

That artist must not have liked drawing eyes.

[Rick_Kitchen]

Why is it nowadays we have to have a Robin Hood from the mean streets of Nottingham?

[Plumpudding]

Hah! There’s a molotov in what looks to be a heineken bottle!

[running_coach]

I’ll bet Kevin Costner bankrolled this just to look better.

[Dewey_Finn]

Why is it that the 1938 Robin Hood film (the one starring Errol Flynn) managed, as far as I remember, to avoid obvious anachronisms, while this film and other historical dramas have so many of them?

[Defensive_Indifference]

Maybe it’s just my screen, but holy cow it looks dimly lit. I couldn’t see crap in the interior scenes, and the exterior scenes all looked like twilight.

[running_coach]

@Bayard

Maybe it’s just my screen, but holy cow it looks dimly lit. I couldn’t see crap in the interior scenes, and the exterior scenes all looked like twilight.

Why do you think they call it “The Dark Ages”?

[Defensive_Indifference]

@running_coach

Why do you think they call it “The Dark Ages”?

[Chefguy]

@carnivorousplant

I don’t see how the semi auto longbow would work.

Bumpquiver?

[Push_You_Down]

@Dewey_Finn

Why is it that the 1938 Robin Hood film (the one starring Errol Flynn) managed, as far as I remember, to avoid obvious anachronisms, while this film and other historical dramas have so many of them?

…ehhhhh… I highly doubt that.

I’m sure an actual historian would find it just as laughable just with different stuff.

[digs]

Well, looks like I’ll have to rewatch the Disney version (Robin Hood’s a fox, and Burl Ives is the soundtrack). Just to get the taste of that trailer out of my mouth.

[running_coach]

@Push_You_Down

…ehhhhh… I highly doubt that.

I’m sure an actual historian would find it just as laughable just with different stuff.

IDMB:Goofs
Anachronisms

A car can be seen in the background when Will Scarlet gets off his horse to go to the aid of Much (who has just fought with Dickon Malbete).

When the Bishop of the Black Canons puts his shoe back on in the tavern scene with Richard, it is a shoe for the left foot. Shoes which fit individual feet weren’t invented until the 1800s. In 1191, shoes were the same for each foot.

The film takes place in 1191 and in the banquet scene Prince John says that Richard the Lionheart had been captured in Austria. In 1191 Richard the Lionheart was seizing Acre from Muslim control and was not captured in Austria until December of 1192.

In the archery contest, when the arrows are shot they have old-fashioned metal tips, but when the arrows hit the target they have modern metal tips.

All the sword fighting scenes show the characters using one-handed swords. At this time, swords were two-handed swords, the necessary refinements in steel making that allowed lighter, more maneuverable swords had not been developed.

None of these seem anywhere near as extreme as those pointed out in the review linked by Ají de Gallina.

[Wolverine]

I’m going with a future post-apocalyptic Robin Hood that just looks like it’s the dark ages. Check out the metal structure at 1:49.

[Tamerlane]

All the sword fighting scenes show the characters using one-handed swords. At this time, swords were two-handed swords, the necessary refinements in steel making that allowed lighter, more maneuverable swords had not been developed.

This particular tidbit is both nonsense and completely backwards. Swords in medieval Europe evolved from the one-handed Roman spatha. In fact two-handers were the later development and really started becoming common in the latter half of the 13th century. In the late 12th/early 13th century one-handed blades would have been the rule.

[Alessan]

@Tamerlane

This particular tidbit is both nonsense and completely backwards. Swords in medieval Europe evolved from the one-handed Roman spatha. In fact two-handers were the later development and really started becoming common in the latter half of the 13th century. In the late 12th/early 13th century one-handed blades would have been the rule.

On the other hand, nobody in the 1938 film uses a shield. But that’s hardly unique - for some reason, Hollywood hates shields.

[Tamerlane]

@Alessan

On the other hand, nobody in the 1938 film uses a shield. But that’s hardly unique - for some reason, Hollywood hates shields.

Well, they’re unmanly don’t you know ;). I particularly liked oddity of the duel in the 13th Warrior, where they happily use shields( improperly ). But of course not in any actual fight, before or after that scene*.

• Never mind that virtually all the arms and armor in that film is wrong as well. Hollywood just doesn’t try very hard most of the time. Lazy sods.

[GuanoLad]

So I have this idea for a movie that I have been wanting to write for a long time. I gave it a go, but as usual got halfway through it before realising all my ideas were too derivative and I needed some help, even a co-writer, which I have since found difficult to source.

Anyway, the concept is not a million miles away from Robin Hood in many aspects, but only in the same way as Zorro or The Phantom or The Scarlet Pimpernel, the heroic fabled outlaw shtick, you know. It’s also set in olden times, and I’d give more details but I want to keep them close to my chest. Let’s just say “mediaeval James Bond” and leave it at that.

Why can’t we have more original ideas like that instead of another retelling of Robin Hood (or Sherlock Holmes, or Peter Pan, or Cinderella, or Pride and Prejudice) over and over and over?

[Ike_Witt]

I love the depiction of a middle ages city that is cleaner than Disneyland.

[msmith537]

@Dewey_Finn

Why is it that the 1938 Robin Hood film (the one starring Errol Flynn) managed, as far as I remember, to avoid obvious anachronisms, while this film and other historical dramas have so many of them?

I suppose the reason that unless you are introducing something obvious like a chainsaw or a Maxim gun, most anachronism aren’t obvious to anyone who doesn’t study medieval European history. Something like an entire army of thousands wearing shiny plate armor might intuitively seem wrong to me because I would wonder how they could achieve that level of production. But I have no idea if I’m right.

Historically accurate portrayals look so…well…dated. Errol Flynn’s Robin Hood, while perhaps more accurate, doesn’t look as “badass” as the Arrow meets Assassin’s Creed Ninja Robin Hood.

[Broomstick]

Only about two minutes into the trailer, when they show the walled fortress of “Nottingham”, there’s a steel suspension bridge on the left of the scene. Um… guys… spend some of the CGI budget on erasing stuff like that, m’kay?. WAY too many instances of steel construction that is late 19th Century at the earliest and more like 20th Century.

Too may anachronisms to list here - the trailer review link captures a lot of them.

It looks like somehow is trying to make Robin Hood look like Hawkeye from the Avengers. They’re opting for this weird blend of darker, grittier, more “real” and EXPLOSIONS EVERYWHERE!!!

To sum up my reaction: WTF?