• Welcome to The Worlds of Katherine Kurtz.
 

Alaric Morgan Robin Hood

Started by tenworld, January 18, 2010, 10:08:21 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

tenworld

I had a start yesterday when I opened the LA Times section on new movies and there was Russell Crowe riding to battle and looking very much like my image of Morgan (with short hair but he was going into battle).  I was then brought back to earth realizing that it was about the new (reimagined) Robin Hood.  The movie starts with some Crusader battles and then moves to England, which is where the scene is from I believe.

Of course the versions of Robin Hood as displaced nobles still loyal to the king and fighting for the rights of people does echo in the Deryni books


derynifanatic64

In this version, Russell Crowe's Robin Hood is not a displaced noble.  He is an archer (Robin Longstride) who impersonates a noble (Robert Lockesley).  Great movie.
We will never forget the events of 9-11!!  USA!! USA!!

Evie

I quite enjoyed the movie, though the final battle scene had me in stitches.  (They did NOT have medieval landing craft storming the beaches D-Day style in that century or for many more to come, and I couldn't work out why in the world the English didn't simply have the archers pick off the approaching French invaders from above rather than sending their soldiers down to the beach to engage the enemy in face-to-face combat.  I mean, you'd think being on the Cliffs of Dover might be a tactical advantage!  My friends and I were literally LOL-ing through the battle.  :D )  But that said, it was still better than a lot of other Robin Hood movies, and even the implausible bits were a lot of fun to watch, which makes up for them being totally anachronistic.
"In necessariis unitas, in non-necessariis libertas, in utrisque caritas."

--WARNING!!!--
I have a vocabulary in excess of 75,000 words, and I'm not afraid to use it!

Alkari

Yes, I was LOL'ing at the landing barge scenes too.  And also at the impression that the defending forces somehow galloped in a few hours from Nottingham to Dover!!

But I enjoyed most of the movie, especially the medieval village scenes, and also the historical context with the lead-up to Magna Carta.  Very much condensed of course, but other Robin Hood movies have only ever given us the "bad King John because he somehow usurped King Richard" type of background, instead of showing this wider perspective against the dissatisfaction of all the barons. 

Evie

Yes, the glimpses of manorial life were great!  Too bad for King John that he didn't have Alaric's power of making barons (and bishops, for that matter) curl up in the fetal position under their bunks whenever he was royally p.o.'ed, though generations born since then are rather glad that he didn't.   ;D
"In necessariis unitas, in non-necessariis libertas, in utrisque caritas."

--WARNING!!!--
I have a vocabulary in excess of 75,000 words, and I'm not afraid to use it!

tenworld

i have to disagree a little about the landing craft.  The Viking ships were specifically designed to land soldiers ready to fight, so they did understand the concept back then.

I did enjoy the movie more than I thought I would, especially since most of the reviews were bad and I had lowered expectations before I saw it.  And it did confirm what I have said here before - that Crowe would make an excellent Morgan :)

Evie

To land them, yes.  To look like wooden replicas of WWII marine vessels, no.   ;D
"In necessariis unitas, in non-necessariis libertas, in utrisque caritas."

--WARNING!!!--
I have a vocabulary in excess of 75,000 words, and I'm not afraid to use it!

derynifanatic64

I have the 2-disc unrated director's cut version.  There are 3 featurettes that talk about the making of the movie.  I'd have to watch them again because I can't recall whether or not they provide info on the invading French ships.

Even though King John didn't sign the charter at the end, the barons would eventually force him to sign it (Magna Carta) in 1215.  If there should ever be a sequel, maybe it would show the circumstances that forced him to sign the Magna Carta.
We will never forget the events of 9-11!!  USA!! USA!!

Alkari

#8
Tenworld, you are right in that the Vikings had ships designed to carry cargo as well as animals - these were longer and wider than the longships used by raiding parties and warriors.  Both types of ships could be used in very shallow water up rivers and estuaries, and beached as required.  Because of this construction, soldiers could leap over the sides of longships very quickly, wade ashore and fight.  But all the pictures and diagrams I've ever seen show them as having pointed bows and sterns - I haven't seen anything that shows any of them looking like a WW2 landing barge with a heavy, drop-down ramp at the bow to land soldiers or horses!!   Also with the Robin Hood movie we are talking about the French, not the Vikings.   That whole sequence was historically inaccurate in so many respects, not least because as far as I am aware, Philip II of France didn't invade England.  King John of England certainly took armies across to France (long-running disputes about inheritances and English possessions there) but the French invasion was later, and I think was under Louis rather than Philip.

Never mind - the rest of the movie was great fun, and at least the director knows how to film a good realistic battle scene.  :D

tenworld

   "That whole sequence was historically inaccurate in so many respects, not least because as far as I am aware, Philip II of France didn't invade England"

I have to laugh because this site is about books based on alternate history of Europe, and this version of Robin Hood probably comes closer to the real person (or persons) and events the legend is based on than any other Robin Hood movie.  But like your last comment said, the movie was enjoyable as are discussions like this and thats the most important thing.  So an author with a history background gets readers of fiction to analyze and discuss what really happened.  I think a few of my high school teachers would applaud that:)

Evie

It's a movie with Russell Crowe playing Robin Hood.  What's not to love?   :D

The difference between a Robin Hood movie and the Deryni Kingdoms (or, for a film comparison, a kingdom like the one in the movie Ladyhawke) for me is that the Robin Hood films are purportedly set in our own medieval England and France, at a specific historical period that is well documented, and involving actual historical personages, even though the primary focus of the story is on a fictional set of characters and events that are subject to change from one version of the tale to the next.  On the other hand, the Deryni Kingdoms, like the fictional medieval-inspired kingdom in Ladyhawke, are purely fictional.  (Yes, there is a historical "Gwynedd," aka Wales, but KK's Gwynedd isn't pretending to be set in medieval Wales. She simply co-opted the name.)  So when I see something in a work of more thoroughgoing fantasy that is anachronistic to the actual medieval period, such as Richenda's lace kerchief or whatever the heck that gal is wearing on her head when Kelson arrives to break the news of Bran's treason to her, I might chuckle slightly, but I chalk that up to authorial license because she's created her own kingdom.  It might be based quite a bit on medieval England and other bits of western Europe, but it's NOT medieval England and other bits of Western Europe.  Therefore, unless she goes so far as to have Alaric riding off to war wearing a pink tutu in her next book, I'll likely just shrug and assume that's one of those small variances between the Eleven Kingdoms and medieval Earth Europe.  (If she does have him ride off to war wearing a pink tutu, let's just hope he's wearing armor and proper groin protection under it!  ;D )

Now, I don't go to a Robin Hood movie looking for all that much historical accuracy either, because most of the time I'd be sadly disappointed.  Some are intended to be more fairy tale than medieval movie, and I just sit back and enjoy the story for story's sake, and accept the rampant inaccuracies in the same spirit that I accept the quasi-medieval trappings of a fantasy story like Camelot.  (Though "Robin Hood Prince of Thieves" reduces me to gales of laughter with every viewing, and not at the bits that are intended to be funny!)  But one thing I really admire about this Russell Crowe version is that they did a better job than most to get things right in so many other places in the film, so when I spotted the occasional place where they changed history for the sake of story, or got some background detail wrong, it wasn't all that jarring for me.  It did a great job of both capturing the feel of a medieval world AND telling a Robin Hood story.  But because of that stricter adherence to a more truly medieval feel than most of the Robin Hood films, the sudden appearance of "Saving Private Ryan" style WW2 barges at the end had me literally in giggles and tears of hilarity!  For me, that was as funny as if KK had decided to resolve the battle with Wencit in High Deryni with the sudden appearance of a bunch of wooden Sherman Tanks instead of with a Duel Arcane!   ;D
"In necessariis unitas, in non-necessariis libertas, in utrisque caritas."

--WARNING!!!--
I have a vocabulary in excess of 75,000 words, and I'm not afraid to use it!

Alkari

#11
Oh yes, "Robin Hood Prince of Thieves" is hilarious in so many respects!  Kevin Costner should have stayed dancing with the wolves ...    Alan Rickman totally stole the show.

Have to confess that for sheer, feel good fun and entertainment, I still love the 1938 version of "The Adventures of Robin Hood".   Who cares about historical accuracy?  I mean, Errol Flynn and and the deliciously wicked Basil Rathbone, assisted by Olivia de Havilland and Claude Rains - what's not to like!  :D

derynifanatic64

The movie takes place at the end/start of the 12th/13th centuries.  The Vikings were still around at this time, but were nearing the end of their era.  I have a DVD book on the Vikings.  They had 2 types of ships that might have been the source of the landing crafts used by the French--based on Viking designs.

Knorr--A cargo ship with a deep deck for either cargo or soldiers.  It had at least 8 oars and sails for steering.

Faering--A row boat half the size of a knorr.  It could hold half the number of soldiers and might have been carried on a larger ship to then be put in the water.

Neither ship is shown to have the ability of the landing craft (a flap to lower for soldiers to disembark) used in the movie or the D-Day landings.  The makers of the movie probably added that feature to make it easier for the French soldiers to gain access to the beach.
We will never forget the events of 9-11!!  USA!! USA!!

Elkhound

Quote from: Alkari on November 15, 2010, 10:39:33 PMHave to confess that for sheer, feel good fun and entertainment, I still love the 1938 version of "The Adventures of Robin Hood".   Who cares about historical accuracy?  I mean, Errol Flynn and and the deliciously wicked Basil Rathbone, assisted by Olivia de Havilland and Claude Rains - what's not to like!  :D

And a score by Erich Wolfgang Korngold, to boot!

Alkari

#14
NOW you are talking!!!  :D    

Interesting bit of movie trivia from that movie, BTW. Maid Marian rides a lovely palomino horse in several scenes.  Shortly after the Robin Hood movie was made, the horse was "auditioned" by another movie star - and became the wonderful "Trigger" ridden by Roy Rogers for all those years in his movies / TV series.