What with the Errol Flynn version, Sean Connery, Men in Tights, Disney, Kevin Cosner and now the Robinator with Crowe. And this is not even counting the two television series.
It just strikes me it has been done to death. Do we really need it made so many times? Especially when you consider it has the same basic plot each time (well, possibly not Robin and Marion).
For the same reason there are lots of sequels - they go with what they know sells tickets. Less risk than a totally new idea.
And, as I found out last weekend, the Crowe offering is really more of a prequel.
It’s an “origin story” – how Robin became “Robin Hood,” an outlaw. I actually am interested in this, and in how the various legends (Piers Plowman, etc.) tie in, but from what I’ve heard, the new movie just is not any fun. If they’re enjoyable to watch, they can keep making all they want to. If they’re not, I agree: Why do they keep making them?
Because a lot of people have never seen the earlier ones?
I saw Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves when I was ten years old and it’s still one of my favorite movies of all time to this day. I’m a big believer in the idea that every generation should get to retell a story in their way. The multiple Robin Hood movies prove that.
There have been a huge number of movie versions of Alice in Wonderland. One of the Book of Lists ranked it highly on a list of most movie versions, and that was a long time ago. The Tim Burton version has made $330M domestic and counting.
Which will “inspire” a new round of sequels, prequels, new “interpretations”, etc. Almost all of which will be bad and will cause people to ask why they were made. But no one asks why Tim Burton needed to make his version.
Studios love tried-and-true public domain stories that the audiences are already somewhat familiar with.
Good stories often get redone. Of course, some not so good ones do too
Let’s see. How many versions have been made of:
*Frankenstein
Dracula
Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde
Phantom of the Opera
Alice in Wonderland
Hamlet
Romeo & Juliet
Henry V
Richard III
Little Women
Mutiny on the Bounty
*
This.
Wait, Hollywood, like everyone else, insists on making new version of old classics? They want to tell the incredible storis which define our culture and have for centuries?
OH MY GOD! PASS A LAW! CAENOT BE ALowed!
Not to mention The Wizard of Oz, which had both a 1925 and 1939 version, then The Wiz and an odd reference in Zardoz. I just read that Drew Barrymore is planning to direct a new version (called Surrender Dorothy)as a sequel to the 1939 version and that:
Superman and Batman as well.
There have been at least 3 versions of H.G. Wells’ War of the Worlds I can think of, not counting films like Independence Day which is essentially the same thing (From the moment the invaders arrived hacked into our satellites and forgot to install appropriate firewall protection, they were doomed. They were undone, destroyed, after all of man’s weapons had failed, by the tiniest device (at the time) that Steve Jobs in his wisdom put upon this earth. By the toll of a billion crashed PCs, man had earned his connectivity, his right to dial-in to this planet’s infinite wireless internet. )
It’s a liberal conspiracy to prevent the withered hands of Dead White Men from dragging us back into the dark past.
Two? I count at least 5 TV series: The Adventures of Robin Hood (1955-60), Robin Hood (2006-9), Maid Marion and Her Merry Men (1989-94), Robin of Sherwood (1984-86), and When Things Were Rotten (1975)
You also left out the Loony Tunes version, with Donald Duck as Robin and Porky Pig as Friar Tuck. 
I think you mean Daffy:
“Yoikes, and awaaaay!” thud
“Yoikes, and awaaaay…” thud
“Yoiikkeess, and awaaaaaa…”
Only they’re not really remaking the same story. There’s not a heckuva lot to the story of Robin Hood – everyone remembers few basic stories and characters – The Bad Guys Sheriff of Nottingham and King John, Little John and the fight at the bridge. Friar Tuck. Will Scarlet/Scarlock. Maid Marian. The Archery contest. The Band of Merry Men. Then they kinda string them together. The movies then add some sort of twist – Robin Hood played with Animals (Disney). Robin Hood when he’s old (Sean Connery), robin Hood played for Laughs (Cary Elwes/Mel Brooks – which still has the best line – “Because unlike other Robin Hoods, I speak with a British accent.”), Robin Hood when he first becomes the Dark Knight (Crowe). (One thing I’ll give the Kevin Costner version – at least they found something original to do will Will Scarlett. Usually all he does is hang around dressed in red.)
I’ve never really felt happy with any of these. One of these days I have to watch the Errol Flynn version and see if i like it any better.
:smack:
Shouldn’t be talking on the phone and posting at the same time.
There was also the Disney cartoon version from 73 where Robin and Maryanne were foxes and Little John looked like the bear from The Jungle Book.
As such, it reminds me of the King Arthur movie from a few years ago, with Clive Owen and Keira Knightley. I haven’t seen Robin Hood yet, but the trailers do remind me quite a bit of King Arthur…a movie which I liked, but which didn’t do that well in general. That said, I may not see Robin Hood, just because I really have no use for Russell Crowe.
One of the funniest cartoon scenes ever.
Yes, do. The Errol Flynn version (although slightly dated in some ways) is the reason you don’t like any of the others: it’s definitive, and the others are pretty much all derivative. And it’s made WITHOUT CGI, it’s all live action with Flynn doing many of his own stunts. Plus Claude Rains as Prince John and Basil Rathbone as the other baddie, it just doesn’t get better than this. And directed by Michael Curtiz, great action director (CASABLANCA, too).
It is early technicolor, so a little garish for modern tastes. But wonderful fun!