Somehow this has flown completely under my radar until I was idly browsing IMDB last night. It’s been-what-15 years or so since the Costner version? Looking at the trailer I don’t see much stylistic differences-Crowe’s might be grittier (and he’s playing what is likely the oldest Robin ever, which in principle I have no issue with), but this might end up being as dull as dishwater. Cate Blanchett is Maid Marian.
I think Sean Connery was about the same age when he played Robin Hood in Robin and Marion in 1976.
I wonder if he is going to yell ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED!!!?! when he splits the Sheriffs arrow with his. And by the way, why is that considered a better shot? They both hit the exact same spot!
It’s a Ridley Scott film. You will not be bored.
We caught the trailer in the theater and the movie went on our must-see list. They are apparently going to examine the origins of the Robin Hood myth, instead of just retelling the same stuff.
It’s not just htting the same spot, it’s hitting it at the exact same angle. Basically, he’s hitting *two *spots - the end of the arrow and the bullseye.
Imagine the coolth if he would split the Sheriff’s arrow with a telephone!
Is this the Gladiator version of Crowe or the one where he was shagging Meg Ryan? Because if it’s the latter, I think I’ll pass.
That is the same stuff. I’m not sure I can face yet another Robin Hood origin story.
But there’s no way to demonstrate that the first shot couldn’t have been executed the exact same way–there was just no arrow-in-the-bullseye yet. The arrow-splits-arrow shot is impressive, but technically, it’s a tie because to reward it as better is to shift the goalposts after the contest has already started.
I was interested in this when I thought it was the “What if the Sheriff was the good guy” script that had been going around for the last few years… but just same ol’ Robin Hood? Meh.
No, it’s not a tie. The first shot hits the bull’s eye, but that’s not an arrow-wide point. So being in the bull’s eye, even close to the center of it, is not precision, since there is some area within which you can land your arrow and be considered to have hit the “center.”
Robin Hood, on the other hand, didn’t hit just the “center” of the bull’s eye. He hit the precise, arrow-wide spot that the prior arrow occupied. That’s substantially more difficult. 
Last time Ridley and Russell paired up, I saw the previews. I kid you not, it went like this:
Don’t ask me how I knew it was going to work out that way, but it did.
At least unlike some Robin Hoods he can speak with an English accent.
Based on what I’ve seen so far, Maximus with a longbow is just about the most accurate description I can imagine.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/robin_hood_2010/pictures/4.php
Quite a feat from an Australian born in New Zealand…
Degree of difficulty plays no part in it. There’s no rule that a field goal is 4 points if the kicker splits the uprights exactly between the two goal posts, or that a home run is worth double if it goes into the upper bleachers. The performance may be impressive, but that’s not the measurement for victory.
Now, if the challenge was to split an arrow perfectly that already sits in a bulls-eye, then that’s different. Essentially, you can’t reward the victory to the guy who did something his opponent had no opportunity to do. 
Well, in modern competition a “Robin Hood” results in the same score as the split arrow.
Robin won his competition because the story is “Robin Hood” not “The Amazing Sheriff of Nottingham.” Plus, why risk a crowd riot when you just want to arrest a thief?
This is the first I’m hearing of this, but I would LOVE to see that movie made.
The best thing about the underappreciated Robin and Marian was probably Robert Shaw’s sherrif. Aside from him being Robert Shaw ( a huge plus in of itself ), the portrayal of him as a highly educated, urbane old warrior with considerable respect for ( if also low-simmering rivalry with ) Robin was really well done. Really the casting was pretty top-notch for the whole production.
The worst part of course were the timeline issues. But that’s pretty standard quibbling for a “historical” film :D.