^Exactly. The "classic" version, as I said above, is not the original version. It wasn't until the 16th century that Robin Hood started to be portrayed as a nobleman and partisan of Richard the Lionhearted. Before that, he was portrayed as a commoner and not tied to that specific historical period.
Yeah, but the 16th century version is the one we all grew up with. There's a reason why Ridley Scott's 2010 version bombed so hard. It was a pretty good movie in its own right, but it was not "Robin Hood".
As Ebert said it: “Robin Hood” is a high-tech and well made violent action picture using the name of Robin Hood for no better reason than that it's an established brand not protected by copyright.
Similarly to Robin Hood, the legend of King Arthur also doesn't have a definitive version. Starz tried to "reboot" it with that kid from Twilight, and look how that worked out for them. I gave it a shot, and it was absolutely terrible. Didn't even finish the pilot.
Seven years earlier Antoine Fuqua tried the same with his "gritty and realistic" version. The result - empty theaters. Mine was packed though, but they were literally giving away thousands of tickets for free (some T-Mobile promotional stunt).
But then, CW did manage to successfully pervert the story of Superman into an angsty teen drama which became a guilty pleasure for many of Supes' fans (including me, for a time).
They pulled it off again recently with Arrow, but that one was a low-tier superhero to begin with, thus a bad example.
I might give this new Robin a chance too, but I got a bad feeling about it.