BBC Axe Robin Hood

[Bob The Skutter]

I saw the finale last night. They made sure the series ended on what I guess you could call a high note. And a permanant one unless they went the route of the half-brother playing Robin.

Well I assume that was the plan for series 4. Archer becomes Robin in the eyes of the people and continues the fight against John.

 

[Teelie]

With this series it's hard to tell. They really went off the myth mark at the end of season 2 from what I know of Robin Hood's story. Although a series named Robin Hood with no character even pretending to be him wouldn't make much sense either.

 

[captcalhoun]

tehy went off the myth from day one. Marian's never referred to as 'Maid', cuz she's no virgin. Much is not explicitly said to be 'the Miller's son', though he may be. and there's no staff fight between John and Robin and Tuck doesn't arrive until three seasons in.

 

[Teelie]

All I know for certain from the myth is Marian didn't die so early on in his life. Although it's true they did go off the myth. I knew not to expect an exact reproduction of the story (stories) but I felt the death of Marian was too far a step off the mythology.

 

[Jax]

Speaking of myth Marian was not in the original tales of Robin Hood she was added in over time. Lets face it BBC could go off myth because its all hearsay and B/S.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

I don't get why anyone gets worked up over this or Merlin. I mean they're myth and legend. They've been retold, added to, taken away from and changed countless times over the centuries. So this is one more different version.

 

[Teelie]

That is true too. I should say the most common story has her involved. I'm sure that if you go back far enough Robin Hood was less about giving to the poor than it was give to himself and was more dastardly about it all. Kind of like how the Brothers Grimm stories have been softened over the years from their nightmarish origins to bedtime stories for kids.

 

[Kelthaz]

I don't get why anyone gets worked up over this or Merlin. I mean they're myth and legend. They've been retold, added to, taken away from and changed countless times over the centuries. So this is one more different version.

I don't get it either. Why would anyone want a myth or legend that's been retold dozens of times to be retold the same way yet again? You already know what happens. Shake it up a bit. Killing Marian was the best thing Robin Hood ever did.

 

[Saul]

I watched one episode and didn't watch another.

 

[captcalhoun]

another thing added even more recently is the thing of having a Saracen or Moorish gang member. Robin of Sherwood dd it first in the 80s, the Prince of Thieves did it, Men In Tights spoofed it and this show had a female one.

 

[wamdue]

not to mention the CBBC show Maid Marion and her Merry Men, if you object to changes in the legend, then that show should never even have existed

 

[Flibble]

Finally! I gave up after one episode. I guess it's because I was a huge fan of Robin of Sherwood, that the show was a disappointment after all these years.

 

[diankra]

That is true too. I should say the most common story has her involved. I'm sure that if you go back far enough Robin Hood was less about giving to the poor than it was give to himself and was more dastardly about it all. Kind of like how the Brothers Grimm stories have been softened over the years from their nightmarish origins to bedtime stories for kids.

If you go back far enough, you have half a dozen different legends - a good-hearted outlaw called Robin who lived in Barnsdale Bar and had a girlfriend called Maud, a wicked sheriff of Nottingham, a maid called Marian who stood up against corrupt officials, a minstrel called Alan-a-Dale who tricked a wicked local official, etc etc etc. It took several hundred years before they got merged together into the familiar form of Nottingham, Sherwood & Merry Men. (the merging probably being not disimilar to cross-over stories now: audiences wondered why similar heroes didn't team up, and the storytellers obliged).

 

[Teelie]

I don't object to changes but there are limits to how far you should change it. Nothing is to stop them from just going off on something completely different with only his name and "Merry Men" involved if you just ignore all the history.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

^And why not? So long as they do a compelling story and have well written characters I couldn't give a shit if they set it on Mars and it was about a group of separatists that had a passing resemblance to the Robin Hood story..

 

[diankra]

^And why not? So long as they do a compelling story and have well written characters I couldn't give a shit if they set it on Mars and it was about a group of separatists that had a passing resemblance to the Robin Hood story..

I thought the BBC did that between 1978 and 1981?

 

[Bob The Skutter]

^And why not? So long as they do a compelling story and have well written characters I couldn't give a shit if they set it on Mars and it was about a group of separatists that had a passing resemblance to the Robin Hood story..

I thought the BBC did that between 1978 and 1981?

Are you talking about Blake's 7? Or am I missing something?

 

[wamdue]

^And why not? So long as they do a compelling story and have well written characters I couldn't give a shit if they set it on Mars and it was about a group of separatists that had a passing resemblance to the Robin Hood story..

I thought the BBC did that between 1978 and 1981?

Are you talking about Blake's 7? Or am I missing something?

would be my guess.

 

[Teelie]

^And why not? So long as they do a compelling story and have well written characters I couldn't give a shit if they set it on Mars and it was about a group of separatists that had a passing resemblance to the Robin Hood story..

Why bother calling it Robin Hood then? It's not. It's just like so many other movies that take a famous franchise and stick some names on it and claim it's based on the material.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

^And why not? So long as they do a compelling story and have well written characters I couldn't give a shit if they set it on Mars and it was about a group of separatists that had a passing resemblance to the Robin Hood story..

Why bother calling it Robin Hood then? It's not. It's just like so many other movies that take a famous franchise and stick some names on it and claim it's based on the material.

Well it would be based on Robin Hood, you'd have a Robin leading a gang fighting tyranny, helping the poor and down trodden, probably include other references.

I never see the point in buying the rights to a book and changing everything so it's unrecognisable, I do understand changing it to fit the medium, or to give it a twist so people who've read it already don't know how it's going to go but if it's nothing like the original just tell a different story. But we're talking about myth and legend here, retellings are why they're still legend after centuries.