Robin Hood, King Arthur, and Hollywood's Problem with Public Domain Properties
Vložit
- čas přidán 15. 08. 2018
- Why does Hollywood keep making Robin Hood and King Arthur movies even though no one cares about them?
PATREON ► / patrickhwillems
PODCAST ► apple.co/2u6GREM
MERCH ► bit.ly/2zBVgM8
MY VIDEO GEAR ► tinyurl.com/z9kb5ow
______________________________________
TWITTER: / patrickhwillems
FACEBOOK: / patrickhwillems
INSTAGRAM: / patrickhwillems
______________________________________
FEATURING
Jake Torpey / jrtorpey
Chloe Holgate
Elsie the Intern / sapphooflesbos
Story by Mike Curran, Jake Torpey, Patrick Willems
______________________________________
Music by Epidemic Sound
______________________________________
SEND US SOME MAIL:
Patrick Willems
P.O. Box 380333
Brooklyn, NY 11238 - Zábava
I never understood why Robin Hood didn't get the Pirates of the Caribbean treatment, aka a swashbuckling, tongue in cheek, good time that stays true to the spirit of what it's interpreting while being a little dangerous.
Because we would need Johnny Depp for that, too. Johnny would be a great Robin Hood !
SockMonkey007 I've been wondering the same! A Pirates of the Caribbean or heck, even a Guardians of the Galaxy treatment (stylistcally at least) would suit Robin and his Merry Men perfectly.
Dude, if I was going to make a Robin Hood movie, I would make it a heist movie. Like Ocean's Eleven, or Mission Impossible, but with swords. Make it like a Dungeon's and Dragon's Rogue adventure. How cool would that be?
That would actually work perfectly. The Merry Men can stand in for the specialists you need for the heist. Robin has to bring them all together and then things get rolling. Robin Hood would lend itself extremely well to a heist story.
Maybe throw in some action scenes like the stuff you would find in Pirates like the cannibal island escape, the Singapore sequence, the Port Royal escape, cracking deals with untrustworthy people, his merry men maybe consider rebellion afraid that he's gone too soft... you know, I realized that Robin Hood is basically a land-based pirate. He's the Jack Sparrow of England, the Lone Ranger of Nottingham. With that in mind, it really shouldn't be this hard to make a good Robin Hood movie.
At this point, there are so many "radical new takes" on public domain characters, that a faithful adaptation of the originals WOULD be a radical new take!
Dracula, the Bram Stoker novel has never been adapted. Every movie adapts the stage play based on the book.
no, because that's literally not new. that's a radical old take, if anything. can't believe I have to say it, but something old does not become new because it hasn't been done again recently.
"what's old is new" regards perception, it does not mean that old stuff literally becomes new.
It also doesn't help that Hollywood has contributed to suffocating themselves by making sure that the Public Domain has stopped expanding as it was meant to. Instead of new things falling into the public domain for new artists to work with, they're forced to revisit _ad nauseam_ the same, progressively older, works. This means that the stories which are most relevant are locked into perpetual copyright, often locked away unused. It's not how the bargain of copyright is supposed to work, and this is one of the many ways in which its current shape is stifling things.
Wanna know the best part?
Disney would die to have the rights to Wizard of Oz, but because they lobby for copyright expansion, it will never be public domain for them to use
They did lax up SLIGHTLY, they're letting Steamboat Willie hit the public domain barrier without the usual copyright extension push as far as anyone can tell.
Actually, I think the Oz books are in the public domain now. The first few, at least.
tin man was interesting. just 6 hours long and personally a tad anti climatic
People should make new stuff. I think it's a problem that modern comics and u.s media has such a structured fantasy. It's stagnant
I just realized it's only a matter of time before someone makes a gritty movie about Santa Claus. In the last five minutes, he'll toss aside his sword and become a toymaker.
There were a couple of European ones released in 2010. There was a Dutch one called Sint (or Saint for the english market) and a Finish one called Rare Exports: A Christmas Tale. Both of them play on the "true" origin story of Santa Claus.
ecojosh1 This is the best comment
You haven’t heard of The life and adventures of Santa Claus ?
way late but there is a comic exactly like that called Klaus... It was actually pretty good but there's a reason it wasn't a hit though it did get a sequel.
@@animasuperfreakgirl does Saint Nick go on a bloody path of vengeance against some greedy toy execs?
You forgot the other major Sherlock Holmes adaptation...
House M.D
Yeah no. Sorry mate. But no.
John190 the homicidal maniac, except, you know, for almost entirely. It doesn't help Sherlock Holmes with name recognition, but yes, House was very much intended as the medical equivalent to the famous crime solver. You can find dozens of extensive lists detailing all of the similarities.
Daniel Heflick not to mention that Holmes was based on Joseph Bell, at the Edinburgh Royal Infirmary
Oh come on, the gunman in season 2 is even credited as Moriarty!
What about Mr. Holmes? Where my Sir Ian McKellan fans at?
I'm surprised you didn't mention The Three Musketeers, Zorro, The Man in the Iron Mask, and The Count of Monte Cristo.
So much to talk about, so little time.
Tarzan too.
Is Zorro already public domain? It should take another ten years.
Zorro is owned by Disney I believe
Mega-Buster Shepard - Zorro is not owned by Disney. The Zorro rights are complicated with a company called "Zorro Productions" claiming to own the character and various courts either going by this or stating that it's public domain. There have been numerous trails about this as recently as three years ago.
Obviously we need to take these public domain characters, and go with what is proven to work with them:
Turn them into cute anime girls and sell randomly rolled PNG images of them to nerds on their phones for an absolutely sickening level of profit.
Another thing that people can do is use obscure and unknown public domain characters that people have never even heard of.How many people know that there are literally thousands upon thousand of public domain characters just waiting to be mined for material for good stories?
I think Fate did that to King Arthur, now we only need Robin Hood to complete the circle xP
@@VelkanKiador They added an anime boy Robin Hood a few years ago, apparently!
So fate stay night
This may be true for Hollywood, but British TV got it right. The 2006 British Robin Hood TV series was traditional and great. The 2008 Merlin (not King Arthur, but he was in it) was also great.
HypocriticalMass and going further back, Robin of Sherwood. Ace.
the 2006 british robin hood where robin hood nevere killed anyone? no, no, no.
The best British TV Robin Hood is easily Maid Marian.
Written and directed by Tony Robinson (Blackadders Baldrick) it is a very silly and often very clever children's version of the show where the real hero is Maid Marian, and Robin Hood is an idiot.
The one where Friar Tuck was a thin black guy with a full head of hair? Yeah, nah, don't think so mate.
The 2006 series iy great, if just for guy of gisbourne as antihero and the snarky sheriff. Its fun too and i like little john there. The continuity with archer as the new robin would have been good too. And it would be cool to have the hero changing but still being sort of robin hood. Merlin told a good arthur story, it just lacked on the progress on the merlin bring magic back side that you even often root for the bad guys who want to kill arthur.
And yet, never a random crossover between the two.
In my opinion a crossover with King Arthur and Robin Hood would be something of a contradiction. King Arthur is supposed to be (and this is something Guy Ritchie and Charlie Hunnam fundamentally didn't understand) a Medieval Solomon. He is a greater king than "Alexander or Caesar" and rules "with perfect justice". He has enemies because they are jealous, not because he's a bad ruler.
Robin Hood exists because of a corrupt monarchy, not the utopia Arthur's Britain strives to create. If he is a good guy, why would he resist Arthur's benevolent rule? You'd have to make it so King Arthur isn't a great king (and therefore is the character by name only) or Robin Hood is just an asshole (again, would be the character by name only).
They can't really coexist without sacrificing the core of the character.
Actually in a book my sister read about King Arthur, she told me that halfway through BOOM! Robin Hood cameo. She said the book stopped making sense after that. I wish I could remember the book name, but it has been long since gotten rid of.
J Do Robin Hood randomly shows up in Ivanhoe.
I wouldn't say he "randomly" shows up in _Ivanhoe_ ; he's a major character and at times has more agency than the oft-unconscious protagonist. In fact, that novel cemented a lot of tropes and ideas we have of Robin Hood today. It popularized the surname "Locksley" and associated Robin Hood with Richard the Lionheart and Prince John.
Previously, it was different kings Robin Hood opposed. Early on it was Edward II. The probable historical inspiration for Robin Hood suggests he was an outlaw from Henry of Winchester and his son, Edward Longshanks, as a result of the 2nd Baron's War.
Sounds interesting
*_Robin Hood: Men in Tights_* is the best movie ever name
In French it translates to Robin Hood: heros in tights
@@Alex26108 So like, the same thing
You forgot about the best King Arthur movie of all - Army of Darkness
CommentPoster10 Hail to the king, baby.
Give me some sugar, baby.
Swallow this.
As an enormous fan of Robin Hood, a lot of the newer takes miss some of the most appealing things about the legend. They're a lot about making friends after bashing each other over the head, wearing disguises to trick people, and laughing a lot. I hate the temptation to bring in the Crusades (as one of the few things that a lot of people also know about the Middle Ages) other than as a plot point for where King Richard is because it brings a Serious tone that really doesn't match. Robin Hood is as much about laughter as it is about justice. It's the combination of the two that makes it fun as well as compelling.
I think this is a good explanation of why general audiences aren't enthused, but on top of all that these just...aren't really Robin Hood stories. I writhe in my seat a little bit every time I'm subjected to the trailer for the one coming out in November.
Series lend themselve to an adventerous material far better like merlin or the bbc production, through in case of the man with the iron mask shows you can do a fun movie about robin hood. Or even the kevin costner movie that is far from perfect but has cheesy fun and alan rickmen chewing the scenery.
Bring the unapolegetic cheesy back, that was what made the earlier mrvel movie good. They dared to be cringy and cheesy. The winter soldier is still the best movie with guardians.
Yeah, this sorry treatment is why I'm writing fictional series both for the lore of King Arthur and Robin Hood. The latter, what I'm writing I mean, isn't going to be focused so much on Arthur as it is his knights. And with Robin Hood, I know I'll probably get flamed for this, but I'm gender-swapping most of the main characters.
Excellent post! Very well-
written,insightful and I enjoyed reading it! Good stuff! Maybe you should write your own Robin Hood story!
I think one different way to use Robin Hood is as a supporting character where the story is not about him-like what the Shrek movies did(and that's what I'm going to do with a comic book I'm writing ,too)or another way to approach the character is doing a more modern take on the legend-after all,Green Arrow from DC Comics is basically a modern day version of Robin Hood re-imagined as being a Super Hero. You could have Robin Hood(or even a descendant or someone for whom the name becomes a namesake) in the 20th or 21st century or some era in the distant future stealing from rich and powerful captains of industry and corporations and politicians and giving it to the poor.Rich people have always been around and are always going to be so I think that's one different way to approach Robin Hood that could conceivably work and not make people writhe and cringe.
I knew the 2018 Robin Hood movie was going to be a big box office flop but I saw it anyway and had fun watching it-as bad as it was.Honestly,I just saw it as dumb,loud escapist,cheesy and completely ridiculoous fun.
I could see that Jamie Foxx wasn't really invested in the movie and that he was just ''phoning it in''and the movie is just so all over the place it's hilarious.I don't think it could figure what it wanted to be and the imagery of The Crusades that was evocative of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the Sheriff Of Nottingham wearing a style of clothes made out of material that wouldn't have even existed in the time period was beyond bizarre.
Obviously both Ben Menelsohn and F.Murray Abraham were just there to pick up a paycheck.
The 2018 Robin Hood movie missed the point of Robin Hood and the filmmakers didn't adhere to Dr.Ian Malcolm's sage and timeless advice from Jurassic Park.Sure,they CAN use Robin Hood but it doesn't mean that they SHOULD.If they can't introduce anything different,new,exciting and interesting to the legend,why even bother using Robin Hood?
If they're just doing it to make money,which was obviously the primary motivation there with the movie and with the 2017 King Arthur movie,the productions will still fail because audiences aren't stupid and they'll see right through it. It's the same thing if you're going to use any famous public domain character,what people should do first before they invest all the time,effort and money into making something,is ask themselves WHY.
WHY do they want to use Robin Hood or King Arthur?What can they do with the character that's different from everything else that people have seen before?
I can always tell when someone who does a movie,TV show,book,comic,etc using a public domain character and they haven't asked themselves that question.
@@hetalianotaku7103 Wow! That sounds great and interesting! Are these fictional series going to be published books?
They sound like material I wold love to read!
With Robin Hood,yeah,gender-swapped characters will almost certainly get you flamed! Ha! Ha!
But hey,Robin Of Locksley has been done to death at this point,so you might as well go for it.Why not gender-swap him at this point,right?
After the 2018 Robin Hood movie being a sprawling mess of a film and a dumpster fire,I'd be game for reading a story on a gender-swapped Robin Hood! Ha! Ha!
@@JR-ju3kj Well, anime swapped King Arthur's gender and no one had a problem with it. Probably 'cause it's anime, but whatever.
It's still in the embryonic stage, but I do kinda have names figured out, same initials for one thing.
Instead of it being Robin Hood for example, Rosamund is overseeing her father's lands while he's fighting in the Crusades. She does however disguise herself as a man when she's on missions. Maid Marian is now Martin, and he's working with the Sheriff of Nottingham to catch "Robin." But once he learns how bad the situation is, he has a change of heart.
There are some good Arthur adaptations in recent years. The Merlin miniseries starring Sam Neill and BBC's Merlin tv series. They do departure from somewhat from the material most notably Merlin being the main character and POV as implied by the title which is exactly same. BBC's Merlin is more radical departure where instead of being the old mentor to King Arthur he's a young boy discovering his powers and befriends Arthur. But both have the core lore and characters right. Even Stargate: SG-1's reinvention of the Arthurian legend with Merlin being one of the Ancients sticks closer to the mythology than the recent movies.
ahhh yes Merlin, they finally put that show back on Netflix AND with the last season. I've been saving it for a month now TT
TheRocketMan Love BBC Merlin AND Stargate. Good reference. Though Thor will always be my favorite alien from legend on there.
TheRocketMan Excalibur is probably the best King Arthur movie ever made.
Will Lyon Are you including Monty Python?
Merlin did have the advantage of a loyal BBC audience who enjoy the Strictly Come Dance + Dr Who/Merlin schedule of a Saturday evening. It's dark and wet usually in the UK during those autumn evenings so families like to stay in and watch TV together. Plus when Merlin was first broadcast there was a lot less choice, back in 2008 nobody had really heard of Netflix or anything like that. I'm not saying it wasn't well made but you can rely on a good audience figure back then, people have to make more an effort to go to the cinema now and spend £15 to watch a film.
On top of what you discussed about the characters not really having a fan base, I think you hit the nail on another point. These films-- the bad ones anyway-- are made in the styles of the time. The Guy Ritchie King Arthur movie was the gritty comic book style of the 2010s. By doing this, the movies are already dated. There's no timelessness to it. John Boorman didn't make Excalibur to be a film of the 80s, he made the film he wanted to make. There was passion there. And he wasn't pandering to the stylistic demands of films of that time. Because there's none of that style of the times there; there's a timelessness to it.
While I don't disagree with your point, I don't think timelessness (or lack thereof) has anything to do with box office failure at the time of release. The problem with the Ritchie King Arthur wasn't that it didn't become a classic; it's that it bombed.
Boorman went in for the mysticism and he went for the classic image, the knights have shining armour under the king.
I mean, the BBC absolutely nailed both Robin Hood and King Arthur (Merlin) back in the noughties which is why no-one liked any of the new movie adaptations, at least here in the UK.
Both shows were also pretty well-loved in Germany! Sure, neither are very historically accurate, but they didn't try to be, and thus created lovely new takes on well-known characters. I guess, making the characters attractive and younger than in some other versions helped, but what I keep remembering is that not all characters were white (I loved Djaq and Gwen), and that they were different and had more depth than I ever saw before. They definitely made it harder for movies about the same characters to go well though since both _Merlin_ and _Robin Hood_ influenced an entire generation. I mean, look at the _Merlin_ fandom, which is still super active. I feel like adapting legends or myths into series works better than movies, which also helped with the success of both shows.
I’m from the U.S. and I loved those shows though I stopped watching Merlin after the third season.
**looks up from the King Arthur book series she's been writing for 17 years** **sighs deeply** **drinks some scotch and cries to her cat**
Think of it this way. At least you're not that poor guy who wrote a musical about the life of Alexander Hamilton in 2012 whose name was *not* Lin-Manuel Miranda.
The fun fact about the Arthurian Legends is that they are basically a copy and paste version of the stories of Charlemagne and the chivalric romances no joke.
Man, the production value in this video really shows.
I hope Elsie the intern gets a fictional subplot in the next few videos that either has a climactic ending of her getting work elsewhere or getting work full-time with Patrick
World Wide Wong she already has a very subtle subplot...it’s riveting
Avalon High was kinda cool though. Reincarnations of the Arthurian characters in a present day highschool, they made it work.
I'm glad you like it. I ... didn't. I really didn't like it. Did like Merlin though, I thought it was all mess in the end, but I liked it.
Katherine Alvarez
Sam Neil "Merlin"?
Anthony Villanueva
If they knew they were reincarnated, it would destroy Arthur's entire idea of self. They are Christian fundamentalists, who would think they were in hell, or being enchanted by a witch, or demon.
Arthur and Perceval would most likely commit suicide, while Lancelot and Gwen would enjoy one another until the guilt makes Lance commit suicide, which in turn depresses Gwen to the point of finding a Sugar Daddy, and riding it out until another Lance comes along. 😝
What happened to Merlin (1998)? I don't know about financial success or if TV Mini Series count, but I recall it being well done and true to the myths with just enough of an update to be interesting.
3 months later, and Patrick & co. correctly predicted The Nutcracker and the Four Realms being a flop.
I will say I think BBC's Merlin was a surprisingly fresh and fun take on Arthurian legend, but Robin Hood has had a serious lack of a good movie since Men in Tights. Love the channel!
Well Ridley Scott's Robin Hood is pretty good but it isn't a Robin Hood movie, it's a Kingdom of Heaven sequel. The initial story for that film was pretty intriguing however, it's a shame it was never made.
Yes, Nottingham could have been a great movie.
It's crazy the original writers are still credited for story, considering the final film has nothing to do with their concept anymore, lol.
I think BBC's Robin Hood (minus the final season) was a pretty fun take on Robin Hood. But like Merlin, these aren't movie adaptations. ( Also, both tried to be fun rather than grimdark, which is great. )
I think one of the reasons Men in Tights did so well was that it acknowledged, in a fun way, the obvious homosexual undertones in the story while keeping a lighthearted double entendre about it. That's exactly what made the original material fun five hundred years ago.
Here's a question: where's the COLOUR? Everything is "gritty" and "realistic" these days. Hey Hollywood, here's a suggestion for a King Arthur cinematic universe - introduce the Round Table, give everyone BIG BRIGHT DISTINCTIVE TABARDS, use Camelot and the Round Table as a framing device / connecting hub, and then do individual movies about different knights on different adventures. Gawain and the Green Knight, Percival and the Fisher King, Lancelot and the Dolorious Guard! Nobody cares about these guys? MAKE them care by 1) giving them individual attention, and 2) NOT MAKING THEM BORING!
Oh, and as for Robin Hood? So, uh, when was the last time anyone adapted Ivanhoe? In fact, while the story of Ivanhoe includes Robin Hood, when has a dedicated Robin Hood story ever included Ivanhoe? Go traditional with the "twist" of adding actual connected elements. Maybe have two movies: one with Ivanhoe where Robin Hood shows up, and a Robin Hood film where they briefly help up Ivanhoe, doing some kind of "story from the other side" deal.
More interested in a Round Table cinematic universe focusing on individual knights, though.
Ivanhoe is a tough sell in today's world though because of all the embedded anti-antisemitism. It's not an antisemitic story, but it does lean into some unpleasant stereotypes, and nobody really wants a story where more than half the heroic characters don't think of the Jewish characters as fully people with all the rights and feelings thereof, even if that was historically accurate. Even if you change the ending where Ivanhoe doesn't end up with Rebecca because she's Jewish, there's still so much you would have to majorly rework the story around.
The problem with King Arthur is that if you don't go ultra-realistic, you risk running headlong into the Monty Python comparisons.
That's actually the biggest tanking factor for both of these: A successful spoof will kill attempts to do it seriously. "Airplane" killed any attempt to make any kind of disaster movie for over a decade, and disasters involving literal airplanes for even longer. Monty Python is such a huge part of the cultural awareness that if you try to play up the colorful ideas, you risk undermining any attempt to create drama. If you try to do comedy, you're going to flop because you're not going to do it as well as the Monty Python version.
In my opinion "King Arthur" in 2004 had the right idea by trying to do a pseudo-historical approach to it. It was sadly poor in execution, missing some of the iconic elements people would like, but it still did reasonably well outside of the US. I think if Hollywood tried to do a "King Arthur might have been a real figure and here's how it looked" storyline, they could make some progress. An actual Merlin who isn't a warlord but serves as something like a councilor, whose mystical powers are all rumored, along with actual knights on his council.
The issue with Robin Hood is that the actual character has stopped being a character. He's an archetype. The "noble outlaw" character transcends that medium, and it's an overwhelming popular character type. It's all over sci-fis, Westerns, war movies, even weepy melodramas. He's so diffused throughout culture there's no way to write a Robin Hood story that has any energy or momentum.
I think historical-style Arthur is fine. One of my favourite depictions was with ITV's "Arthur of the Britons". However, I think there's a serious lack of traditional "knights in shining armour, fighting dragons and such" in the modern era. I'm wanting less "Monty Python played with a straight face", but more...
images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51%2BOZZ0kr7L._SX362_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg
THAT, but in live action and not pre-2000s.
*Kimarous* I love that book, haha! Still have a copy.
I prefer the High Middle Ages/knights in shining armour approach myself, though historical Arthur maybe has potential. I think an adaptation of Thomas Berger's _Arthur Rex_ could be brilliant. If you haven't read that book, you may want to look into it.
Hold up, isn't the Fisher King part of Percival's story?
The best King Arthur adptation in the last 20 years?
Fate Stay/Night.
I feel like there is ONE more recent King Arthur adaptation that people love (at least people who know about it), that being BBC's Merlin. But it wasn't particularly well advertised, as least not outside of the UK, and mostly had a smaller but very passionate fanbase in online communities. That being said, it's a much longer format (I think it had 6 seasons?) and absolutely leaned into the humor and focused on the character dynamics. I think it works mostly because they really balanced honoring the traditions of the original stories and the aesthetics we're familiar while not feeling too oppressively tied to it.
The reason King Arthur/Robin Hood films are failing is because they AREN'T FAITHFUL TO THE MYTH. Go too realistic? Boring. Go too superhero? Too unbelievable. Holy Grail is a popular outlier because it's satire/comedy (same as Men in Tights). The Disney Robin Hood is popular because it's a SOLID TELLING OF THE STORY. Leave out the fact it's animals and it works regardless.
A new Robin Hood can work as a historical epic stand-alone, as long it's faithful to the core legend (which the Disney one is). Arthur however, is something you can trilogise with borderline LOTR treatment spanning Arthur's life: Sword in the Stone, Knights of the Round Table, Quest for the Grail.
Not to mention that at the end of Arthur's life, you can put in a big battle, have him die, and be taken to Avalon. It's a good one for a LOTR treatment - much better than Alice in Wonderland.
I agree with you. Not being faithful can hurt a movie also you have to take out the PC crap as well.
There's a book called The Crystal Cave which would make a great movie, though it's really a story about Merlin.
Vipre60000
Something like Mists of Avalon with better production would work.
The reason the mcu works is because the writers, directors and actors give a crap. Maybe if they tried that instead of just hiring big names we may get some good ones. Mel Brooks gets a pass because its a parody and he's Mel freaking Brooks.
speaking of King Arthur interpretations, does anyone remember the TV series; Merlin
Linus on the Line I remember when it had equal online fandom standing as Doctor Who and Sherlock.
Which one? The 1998 mini series ( www.imdb.com/title/tt0130414/?ref_=fn_al_tt_2 ) or the 2008-2012 series ( www.imdb.com/title/tt1199099/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1 )?
the second one. It was huge just a few years ago!
Never seen it, the 1998 one I've seen multiple times as I have it as a 3 hour movie on DVD. I highly recommend it, it has a great cast, with Sam Neill (Jurassic Park, Hunt For The Wilderpeople) as Merlin, Rutger Hauer as King Vortigern, Helena Bonham Carter as Morgan Le Fey, Miranda Richardson as Lady of the Lake & Queen Mab, James Earl Jones as the Mountain King and Isabella Rossellini as Nimue (Merlin's girlfriend/wife).
Yeah, I've seen it. It's pretty good!
As a teen the only thing I really knew of King Arthur was the Disney Channel Movie "Avalon High"
Well,everyone has to start somewhere.
My favorite version of King Arthur is from the Disney animated series,''Gargoyles''.Part of the problem with using King Arthur,as has been mentioned before is that public domain characters like King Arthur and Robin Hood are generally speaking,overused and overexposed public domain characters and it's hard to do a new,fresh and exciting take on them when there have been so many different versions of them and they've been done to death.
I did however,like the idea someone suggested of Robin Hood in a modern day setting and with an Occupy Wall Street-kind of movement(even though there have been stories that tried to take a stab at Robin Hood in a modern day setting and even DC's Green Arrow could be considered a modern day Robin Hood).
The best line - "Transformers: Last Knight is the closest to proper King Arthur movie"
Long live Robin Hood Men in Tights
Honestly that opening prologue sequence in the dark ages with King Arthur, Stanley Tucci as drunk Merlin, and Transformer knights from the round table who combines to a three headed fire breathing dragon was awesome! Bay is very good at visual medium and storytelling for small parts of his movies, it is as a whole it doesn´t work for many. Fun fact: Bay was set to direct the King Arthur movie from 2004, but skipped out when he found the story of King Arthur being too immature for him at the time.
@@believer4002 Too immature? Ironic
I really love Robin Hood, but I dislike most of the modern adaptations. One of the things all of them lack is sincerity. Robin should be a good guy that tries to help people, and Robin's enemy is an abusive authority. He is not an anti-hero, not a reluctant thief that finds himself forced to do it, not a warrior fighting the French. Those are other characters. It shouldn't be a cynical movie about how everything is crap, or a jingoistic war movie or anything like that. It should be sincerely hopeful and talk about all the good that people can do if they try.
The best modern interpretation of Robin Hood and his Merry Men is from Game of the Thrones Beric and the Brotherhood. They fight injustice cause they want to. And Beric has that Erol Flynn vibe about him with his smirk yet they are edgy and dangerous in their own way. They deal with their own Morgan aka the Red Witch but they sell someone to her for money(cause they have to make a living).
the book version of beric's brotherhood with out banners is even more robinhoodish, tey are kings men fighting for the benefit of the smallfolk.
That's probably why the Disney version is the most liked. Since it was intended for children, it has the whimsical, light-hearted side of the character that some movies miss trying to make it more edgy and dark. And they make Robin an unambiguous good guy, because it's a cartoon for kids and subtlety confuses kids, and moral ambiguity bothers parents. But every other Robin Hood other than the 'Men in Tights' one looked too boring for me. The point of the stories originally was to take a satirical shot at the king. To hold up the virtues of the common people and say, this is what makes England great, not our leaders, but our ordinary people. Folk tale in a truest sense of the term. Wonder if they'll ever make a movie that gets it as much as the Disney version did again?
I liked the Disney version but I love the idea behind it more than the movie itself. I appreciate it and I like that it exist but it's not a great movie, especially as far Disney animation goes.
I don't think one has to go to Joel Schumacher's Batman movie levels of whimsical but maybe some middle ground of fun, but earnest would be good. I hope Aquaman does something like that (another hero I have no bond with, but, if it's an enjoyable movie, why not), and Wonder Woman did that for me too (another character I did not really have much connection too).
As far as Robin Hood, if you want a good (though historically questionable) adaptation, check out the BBC series. It was basically a replacement for Doctor Who on Saturdays, but it was the shit!
Is that the one on Amazon Prime?
Kai Creech It's not on Prime in the UK, but it could be. Robin Hood is played by Jonas Armstrong.
Yes, the first season is really great, and then it sucks forevermore.
Shadowmask8 Meh. It started getting a little weird after S1, but I still enjoy it.
It is actually really good
"weird confusing feelings, about foxes."
AHAHAHAHHA!
Now it's rabbits.
The upcoming Green Knight movie looks actually sick, with mythological stuff and it actually following the story (by the looks of it). I'd love to see some sort of movie series following the knights of the round table. Also the deranged Ruber the Red Knight is my favorite Arthurian villain I have seen hence
The mean the one where Gawain is an Indian dude? Very accurate.
You haven't mentioned the Merlin tv series which was moderately successful end went on for 5 seasons.
I was so sad on how that show was cancelled. It was so noticeable the last season was rushed :(
Yeah, but that was about Merlin primarily. Who, hilariously enough, usually gets skipped over heavily in most of these movies it seems. (Except for the Disney version. From what I've seen anyways, I haven't watched too many King Arthur flicks.) I don't know why they don't just bring back the memorable characters from Arthurian legend, the Merlin show did it pretty well.
There was also a Merlin film by the BBC (I think) it's a while ago now but did have all the important bit's of the legend in it. I for one really like that version of the story- I guess it was a less well known one & wasn't made by Hollywood but it at least deserves a mention. Worth a watch if you haven't seen it.
Can't have this discussion without mentioning this series. It was a fun and enjoyable series with a great twist and perspective.
I'm glad you touched on the topic of 'how popular are they really', I'm English (London) AND an English graduate, I couldn't tell you the last time I discussed Robin Hood or King Arthur with anyone, but we all 'know' about them.
I'd gladly discuss either of them with you- I really love both Arthur & Robin hood & am always quite excited when I find a new version of the story( admittedly usually in book form) to sink my teeth into. I recommend the books by K M Shea to anyone looking for a fun new version of these legends.
Make a modern heist movie but reveal its Robin Hood and his Merry Men at the very end so audience expectations are super low then BAM YOU'VE JUST BEEN ROBIN HOODEDEDEDED!
I EXPECT MY CHECK IN THE MAIL BY MONDAY, HOLLYWOOD!
I'd love to watch a Tarantino's Robin Hood, just sayin'
No
Unlikely some other Robin Hoods, he'll speak with an American accent!
A modernized version of The Three Musketeers, I'd pay to see that.
Speak for ya'll selves. I love King Arthur and Robin Hood, just not the shitty ways Hollywood is remaking them. Maybe if they stopped trying to make them realistic, gritty, and action-ridden, and keep them magical and fun, audiences may start enjoying them again.
shadowseer07 I must agree I’m sick of that trend, and it always annoys me when film people think gritty and bleak automatically =realistic. Most historical shows in the last few years weither it be about Vikings, or the three musketeers, or medieval times clad the cast unnecessarily in gray and brown biker gear. Back in those times you wanted to look as opulent as possible. They’re historical pieces not post apocalyptic thrillers.
I want to see a realistic Robin Hood movie. Actual historical realism. Not Hollywood “realism”.
same, every time i see them making i bold my breath it will be a good one this time, but then get dispointed.
I just think any attempt to do something silly and/or fun is going to struggle against the Monty Python comparison. If you try to do something fun, you're going to undermine any attempts to put drama into your story because there's a Brave Robin or African swallow joke waiting to be made.
+Grimm The major issue is that there's no historical basis for Robin Hood. He was essentially a local legend during the era, not a real person, and then become a character of folklore
Interesting fact about King Arthur... The Clive Owen movie wasn't that far off in terms of its setting and characterisation.
One theory I've heard is that King Arthur was a romanised Celt and that during the period the Romans were departing from England they took a lot of the knowledge and expertise on how to do certain things, such as forging weaponry with them... The notion of drawing the sword from the stone is not about pulling an actual sword out of a rock or anvil, but being able to forge weapons from Ore... a skill which would have made a person reasonably high status since it gave communities the ability to defend themselves. It's a poetic way of putting it... the sword already exists sleeping within the ore waiting to be drawn out... Sculptors have made the same comparison... that the statue exists within the block of stone already before it is chiselled out... waiting to be freed... It also ties into the magical aspects since smithing was considered semi-magical using the four cardinal elements of earth(ore), fire(forge), air(bellows), and water (quenching).
Never thought of the sword in the stone like that... Very cool
Eh...not really. It misses the mark. There's perhaps a good metaphor in there, like your sword in the stone analogy, but the Romans barely had a presence in Britain in the 5th century, and the historical basis for King Arthur would place him there in the early 6th century. Romans would absolutely not have been muddling around Hadrian's Wall in the 400s as they were barely even in the southernmost parts of the island at that point.
Here's what needed: An Arthur who is an actual Briton, not a Roman Legionnaire, who is rallying the island to repel the Saxon invasion. You need some wise old councilor who can be like Merlin (but not some Celtic Warlord) who might have some mystical air around him, even if the supernatural elements are largely implied. And you need Knights who have personalities and something resembling code of chivalry (even if they blatantly contradict it), not generic "slice'em up" like the knights in the Clive Owen film.
Look out this italian production film "The Last Legion". The final twist is: (SPOILER) It was about King Arthur all the time!
I like the Clive Owen King Arthur movie. Particularly, the theatrical release. It did a very good job showing the camaraderie between Arthur and his knights. Sadly, a lot of that was taken out of the "Director's Cut".
Rubbish ...the celts were already using iron weapons before the Romans ever got to Britain or do you believe the Romanized version of history that had celts as savages throwing rocks? Why would they forget how to make Iron just cos some bloody Italians arrived on their shores then buggered off again?
When I was watching the new Robin Hood trailer in the theaters, I honestly thought it was a Theif movie until the title.
My personal favorite Robin Hood is the Errol Flynn version. It's fun, bright and has great music and fight choreography, made before the grey grittiness 'darkness' of modern cinema. As for King Authur, I like it best in books, where it's full medieval fantasy. That's why I love it. I don't want to see it historically accurate and gritty, or modernized with horrible techno music and CGI elephants over the fantasy.
Awareness vs Fandom, wow this is a great perspective that I have been struggling to explain, great video as always!
It reminds me of when I used to follow certain fandom pages on Facebook. A meme that would often come up would be "Who's the best archer?" And the choices would always be Katniss, Legolas, Hawkeye, Arrow and Merida. And I'd always ask "Where's Robin Hood?" Now, surely they would have known who Robin Hood is, but the meme makers were aware that he wouldn't necessarily get anybody excited like a fandom friendly character would.
There's an interesting point made here about honest, powerful storytelling. A traditional tale told without irony is, of all things, an unorthodox approach today. It makes me recall the words of good old Gilbert:
“I did try to found a little heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy.”
― G.K. Chesterton
Almost all of the most well-known tales from the middle ages - traditional tales - were ironic and satirical.
Then some people read them without the seemingly obvious irony and made operas and movies out of them.
We can find satire in Chaucer, Dante, and the Decameron, but what about the Eddas? Le Morte de'Arthur? Beowulf? Sir Gawain and the Green Knight? Chanson de geste? There is humor here, but that isn't the same thing.
Beowulf is nothing if not satire.
I'd say the same about the Nibelungen saga.
I understand there's some cultural context that might be lost to us, but I'm not sure I'm buying any of this. What would Beowulf and the Nibelungen saga be satirizing? The oral traditions of these legends before they were written down? The values of their respective cultures?
Beowulf states this in the first sentence. It makes fun of heroic epics. Understandably those did not get the same fame and attention. But some of them were written down.
Everyone knows that Maid Marian and her Merry Men is the definitive version of the Robin Hood legend
I’d like to see an adaptation of these stories where the protagonist is given their title when not ready and grows into it from within their support systems and drastic responsibilities to their community. Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power.
that'd have to be done over several movies, at least a trillogy. But that would work well in making the audience interested in the character
As much as I have fondness for the Disney fox and the Errol Flynn film, no version of Robin Hood appeals to me as much as the 80s tv series Robin of Sherwood which I loved as a kid and still rewatch every year (having moved from the VHS tapes to DVDs and now Blu Rays) and it's beautifully done and every version since has taken bits from it. I love that version and it's characters so much that I don't think any other version will ever top it for me.
Oh Yeah. I was already an adult when that came out, and the only complaint I've ever had was that it ended way too soon.
My favorite version of Robin Hood was the other 1991 film, with Patrick Bergin and Uma Thurman. I do like the Robin of Sherwood TV series much better than the 2000's series the BBC did.
That was a good one. Thanks for reminding me.
It's such an over-looked jewel, with a great cast.
I have always liked the 1950-1960 B/W TV program starring Richard Greene. It was well written and quite entertaining. Of course, it was not a movie of which the video is referring . Great theme song too...
Why don't they make a proper heist movie with Robin Hood?
Rajat Swami IKR it seems like a no brainer
Hoods 11?
I would love to see that movie.
ClefJaw Hell yeah!
The little red haired girl from across the street it does seem so obvious!
Honestly Excalibur 1981 is a very good and underrated movie. No need to another one.
I like Prince Of Thieves and Men In Tights...
The Phantom was barely advertised sadly.
I've been wanting a straight retelling of Robin Hood and King Arthur for years! Thank you, Patrick! You've given voice to my frustrations that I didn't think anyone else had.
BTW my favorite Robin Hood adaptation is the British TV show Robin of Sherwood from the 80s. It's a bit dated now, but it is mysterious and haunting while still being lots of fun. Recommended.
with Michael Praed, not Jason Connery
I LOVED this video Only criticism tho.. You definitely should of been dressed like a rooster and holding a fiddle in the scene if of you walking in the woods with the animated Robin hood intro music.
damn I had a typo. I have no stance giving you criticism. I'm sorry.
It was a lute not a fiddle
Brave, bold Sir Robin set fourth from Camelot, he was not afraid to die, brave bold sir Robin!
Yeah I really messed up there. Big missed opportunity.
Oh shit! That's a good idea.
It's funny that King Arthur is now more popular as an anime girl than a Hollywood movie.
I like waifu mordred more. : )
But fate does approach historical figures with the right mix of adaption and historical background.
This just adds to my theory that Robin Hood as a girl would work out great.
@@EveryDayALittleDeath You mean like the Zenescope comics?
I'd call myself a Robin Hood fan. The BBC show from the noughties had a poor budget and a whole lot of campiness but it made me fall completely in love with the story when I was a kid. It was gritty and campy at the same time and was really quite close to the original stories. It's pretty out of date now, and obviously kid friendly, but it's really quite moving and genuine in places. I'd absolutely recommend the first two series (the third series isn't great). I'd love for Hollywood to finally make a good Robin Hood film, and I'm desperately waiting for one.
How about, wait for it... Robin Hood vs. King Arthur?
Ohhhh boy. This sounds like a great idea but it is not.
Do they both have a mom named Martha, by chance?
Dear god, no
They'd have to do something about the setting: Robin Hood is most associated with The Crusades, whilst King Arthur is associated with the Roman occupation of Britain. There's several centuries between the two eras.
theoriginalsache the stories are only associated with the crusades or romans by pretty much one film each, at least in any major capacity. I've read several different versions of robin hood, and all but one had him as 'a stripling youth' on his way to the county fair to take part in the archery contest in the beginning, with that /one/ exception being like prince of thieves, with him returning from the crusades as an adult. Apart from that, the crusades were only ever mentioned to explain king Richard's absence from england.
And again, with Arthurian legend, I've read several versions throughout my lifetime, and I do not recall one. single. solitary. mention. of the roman empire in any of them.
Even talking about general time periods, though (robin hood's setting has always had a historical basis, while Arthurian tales have never taken history much into account), they are set at least 300 years apart, maybe more, so you are right about that.
And thematically, they are sort of polar opposites, with robin of locksley fighting against the sort of authority that king Arthur is a representation of.
Men in Tights was perfect
I think a big part of the problem is that we know the story and new movies can't really add anything to the story without changing the core story and then it isn't the character that we know and love.
Also, are they going to do any follow ups to Avalon High? The intern was absolutely right and while it did have all the elements that we love, it still gave us a couple of surprises in the end, though I kinds saw most of them coming.
Two things you forgot: 1) The Sword in the Stone is actually a full book by T. H. White. He wrote a child friendly version of his The Once and Future King. I read this child version. 2) There is another Disney version of Robin Hood. Its a live action film called "Robin Hood and His Merrie Men" and it came out in the 60s. It was one of the first live action films the company made, along with Treasure Island and 20,000 Leagues. It wasn't very good so no one really knows about it. I only know of its existence from ads on my 90s VHS tapes of the live action films. Anyway, just some trivia.
Worth pointing out that the Camelot musical is also based on the T.H.White books and pretty much picks up right where the Disney movie ends.
That's actually not quite right. The Sword in the Stone is book 1 of The Once and Future King. It's part of it, not a child-friendly version of it (although it is indeed child-friendly).
Excellent video. My thing with PDCs is that they are always trying to be something that they are not. The whole gritty phase I rolled my eyes at. Yes there is history to these characters but to people like myself these are larger than life people. That should not imply they cannot be complex and compelling. But like Batman, Superman ,Cap; they need to strike a good balance of us the audience in being a character who is relatable.
Neil the closest of these to starting a real franchise was probably the Downy Jr Sherlock films. Helped no doubt by at least 2 tv shows that were also popular and notable.
With Sherlock Holmes, they also always keep the basics, as mentioned in the video. That helps a lot with recognition. And Sherlock Holmes is much more part of our regular language (like calling that 'friend chronicler' style the Watson style or the nice 'no shit, Sherlock'). To be honest, I'm not much of a fan of the second movie with Downy Jr., but they probably were closest to make it a real franchise. Not that Sherlock Holmes isn't a franchise and a household name all by itself.
BBC's Robin Hood and Merlin tho
Merlin was brilliant :)
Yeah I love them both, too, even with the changes made. Just wish they could make an actual *film* of them correctly.
Sandra B British tv shows are a lot better than American tv shows of today.
TV Shows in general are a whole different beast.
Right now, we see almost all truly creative and risky storytelling move to high-quality TV series.
Also there was a 1995 successful American King Arthur Movie, called First Knight en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Knight
I think the reason a "realistic, historically-accurate retelling" of the King Arthur movies doesn't work is because the definitive Arthurian stories are anachronistic and grounded in magic and fantasy. I think you're shooting yourself in the foot if you decide to make a convincing "realistic" and "historically-accurate" movie about something that is neither realistic nor historically accurate. Those who do that miss the point. King Arthur tales were Medieval-times escapism, they were the MCU of their day. That's why even today the King Arthur stories that people like the most involve magic and mythology, or comedic or purposefully anachronistic. The Guy Ritchie movie came close but changed the core of the characters, imagine the MCU movies as they are except they made Tony Stark half-alien (which explains his high intelligence), Thor is not an Asgardian but simply a metahuman, Banner becomes the Hulk because of a mystic curse (and so on)...no matter how good the movies are, you'll hate them because they changed the core of the characters. By turning Arthur into a street punk, it changed him too much he's not King Arthur anymore.
Patrick made a good point about Sherlock respecting this core.
Isn't Tony Stark part alien in the comics?
Anyway: Yes, the oldest versions of the legends are anachronistic and funny. But the magic is not necessarily fantasy. The druids were jealously guarding their secret knowledge, and most magic items in the Arthurian legends (such as the impenetrable shirts) are described as having been made just by using old secret techniques.
I think the one you're thinking of is Arno Stark but I could be wrong.
I just meant that I believe that the Arthurian stories that people remember the most, like the most, or speaks to them the most involve fantasy and magic. For me, Boorman's Excalibur comes very close.
The problem with Arthur, is that his story is complicated for a single film ... It is epic fantasy, romance, historical, adventure, treasure hunt.
What best serves that story is television; an aesthetic and tone similar to Vikings and Game of Thrones (with magic and epic), is what would best serve to attract the current audience, even being a medieval epic without changes in setting or set. (The Merlin series has already proved that the TV story division helps to explore everything more easily, it was for a young audience, but it still worked).
About Robin Hood, it is more difficult, really his story is not so deep. It is the perfect candidate for a change of atmosphere ... Look Mr.Robot, a hacker who wants to attack the corporate system and banks ... Basically it is already written (It is more obscure and with psychological rolls, but it is understandable what I try to say)
That history must be updated to the modern ideas of economic power, society and culture.
+J Melchor I totally agree. My favorite literary interpretations of the book are TH White's Once and Future King, Mary Stewart's Merlin trilogy (and Mordred novel) and Bernard Cornwell's Warlord Chronicles. Although OaFK is a single book, it is still subdivided into four (or five) books. There's so much to unpack that a single movie could not do it justice, which is why Excalibur only comes close to perfect.
You'd think I'd be a fan of the Merlin TV series but they lost me when Merlin walks in on Morgana bathing in the pilot. I'm sorry but you will not find a princess unattended nor could a stranger just walk around unremarked and freely in what was essentially an armed camp in a time of war. There's anachronism and then there's just bad writing.
Yeah. The fantasy aspect is important. I don't know why they always try to bury that
How could you not even mention Star Trek TNG's Robin Hood?! Combining beloved characters of two storylines, a unique timeline and all the classic scenes of Flynn, it is truly among the best!
I do not understand why people are so fixated on movie adaptations - if you want to see great adaptations of Robin Hood or King Arthur, check out BBC's Robin Hood and BBC's Merlin. They are both great and do a great job of staying true to the character and the myth.
(Except maybe the third season of Robin Hood - that was not soooo good ;P )
yeah the bbc Robin hood went a bit off the rails towards the end
Came here to say this. I really enjoyed BBC's Robin Hood (the first 2 seasons, yes). I'd recommend it to anyone who's looking for a recent adaptation that stays somewhat close to the original!
But that's BBC, not Hollywood.
funny that the version of Arthur I'm most familiar with is the gender inverted one with an Excalibur that fires giant mountain splitting kamehameha beams.
The Fate series. Look up "Fate Stay Night Saber" and meet your new waifu.
FUCK FATE STAY NIGHT
I mean I don’t exactly think she’s gender “inverted” cough futamagic cough
I’m ashamed I didn’t immediately recognize what you are referencing, especially since Rin is my waifu.
Saber best king Arthur I know for sure
Really liked the video. I don't think people realize that, at the time, Robin Hood and King Arthur were ways for people at the time to escape from their real lives. Robin Hood was the saturday morning cartoon: Robin is cool, fights the villain, does something heroic, and has a B Plot wooing Maid Marian. King Arthur was the soap opera: Arthur is the King, there's a lot of stuff going on, and there's a lot of drama that seems pretty silly. They weren't supposed to be serious. [This is coming from a historian who studies cultures of the Middle Ages, by the way.] Again, liked the video :)
I see you’re coming into your own with this new essay format. I enjoy your stylistic advances. Also, the bit at the end with the intern was brilliant
Okay but the show Merlin was pretty good
so many flashbacks!!!!!!!!!
Jade 123 I still have yet to see it 😭
Jade 123 smallville vs man of steel anyone?
Indeed... it took the known elements and just added a new spin.
yep yep
Fun fact: The cast of Disney's Robin Hood being all anthropomorphic animals is actually a relic of the film's origins as a planned adaptation of the Reynard Cycle, which is about as old as the Robin Hood mythos and was, I think, maybe a little too edgy and obscure for the executives. (The English incarnation of Reynard as captured in Caxton's version of the Cycle is particularly amoral and vicious, although he's more of a classic trickster archetype in Continental versions of the tales.)
I would like to see that adapted
Wow, no one has mentioned that maybe we should make more characters public domain. How about if a literary or movie character's original creator is dead, OR the original work is over 50 years old, it's PD.
The biggest challenge would be big media conglomerates. There would need to be some kind of loophole for characters created by corporate entities so they could be forced to make their characters PD after a few decades. This doesn't steal the character from anyone, it just means everyone can use him or her.
Batman is just a zorro character. Anyone can make a Batman type character..the problem is not copyright. The problem is the same thing this guy thinks is useful. The fact Batman is kept going instead of ending means he stiffles newer creations. Tho that can be overcomed
D. San speaking of, when was the last good Zorro movie.
Whatever happened to that Santa Claus origin story where he’s a viking? I remember the massive bidding war for the rights to it back in 2014. I know a lot of ideas are dead in the water right after they’re sold but it was fought over by 7 studios and purchased for several million, so I assumed we would’ve a least heard of pre-production by now.
Ever heard of The Life and Adventures of Santa Claus by L Frank Baulm. The story is very Tolkien esque but it was written in the 1900s and it may be the influence of epic fantasy novels.
WILL! WHAT UP BRO?? I had no idea that Baum wrote a book about that. You'll have to tell me about it next time I see you.
A Santa Claus origin story where he's a viking....just take my money!!!!
I want a Robin Hood comedy Netflix series that’s usually very light-hearted and found-family centric so that the sad moments hit way harder than you’d think. With heavy story-telling focus surrounding the oppression of the people of Sherwood, the friendships between Robin and his Merry Men, his and Marian’s long-term love story, etc.
autumn hobbit there's no gut punches (it's a kids show) but look up BBC's Maid Marian and her merry men. That's my childhood right there.
You seem to be overlooking the fact that those recent movies were crap. It's not just that they didn't find an audience, or that they weren't marketed properly, or that people don't want PDP movies... it's that they were not good movies. They were poorly reviewed as well as being financial failures. The subject matter has very little to do with it.
Please please please for the love of god explain to me what a PDP movie is I cant find it or figure it out
Badly made movies are often very successful, RT scores mean less to studios than ticket sales.
I agree that bad movies can and do make money, but I think that should be treated as the exception rather than the rule. It irritates me when people look at an obvious stinker and then say "gosh, why didn't it make money?"
@TheKinglax94: Public Domain Properties
"First Knight" is just a sad tale of how you can put all the pieces in place and mess them up. Sean Connery should have been a natural to play King Arthur and give it the gravitas the role deserves. But you've got all these unintentially silly elements with the weird hand-held crossbows, and your focus is on Richard Gere (from Philadelphia) in a cheesy romantic role.
I assume PDP = public domain property
For me, the most accurate versions of both tales will always be Monty Python's and Mel Brooks' movies
Prince Of Thieves!!!
This was perhaps the most spot on analysis of Arthurian film I’ve seen, and couldn’t agree more. I think it would actually be refreshing to see something that hugs or at least loves the source material instead of a rewrite from the ground up. Love the comparison with the Sherlock stuff too.
Well... The biggest gripe I have with most of these PDC movies... They just aren't that good...
And worse yet is when you hear about stories like Nottingham, the script that got the Ridley Scott Robin Hood version of the ground, the script that sounded like an actually interesting and fresh take on the story, was totally buried in preproduction in favor of a messy story that didn't even include the Sheriff...
And the Guy Ritchie Arthur film felt more like three awesome films haphazardly minced together than anything that was worth the ticket price. It was basically YTP the movie with a hundred or so million dollar budget.
Make a good/great movie. We will want to see that even if it's about radioactive alien vampires out to steal our breakfast serial. The Lego Movie was a dumb and stupid idea... But by making it a great film it is now hailed as a commercial success and a masterpiece.
Heck, it doesn't even have to be THAT good. I even watched the post apocalyptic Beowulf (1999, Christopher Lambert). [I consider the fantasy setting more of the appeal than any specific character].
Thiiiiis. My favorite Robin Hood movie is The Adventures of Robin Hood and His Merrie Men (1952), which no one else has heard of but IMO is even better than the Errol Flynn version. Why? It's not because it has a big budget, but the story is good! The characters are well-rounded! And it hits every single iconic aspect of Robin Hood, even contradictory ones (he starts out as a yeoman of Huntington, then is outlawed, then is made Earl of Locksley at the end of the movie)!
And the Sheriff and the Prince are actually compelling villains, which is more than I can say for Dances with Saxons.
I actually want the Radioactive Alien Vampires Out To Steal Our Cereal now
I have five favorite Robin Hood movies
1. The Adventures of Robin Hood (with Errol Flynn)
2. Mr.Magoo in Sherwood Forest (otherwise known as Mr.Magoo's Robin Hood
3. Disney's Robin Hood (with the animals)
4. Tom & Jerry Robin Hood and his Merry Mouse
5. Robin Hood: Men in Tights
(I love the Ridley Scott movie of Robin Hood too. But the top 5 examples held onto the idea that Rob was more of a folk hero than a real person. So, they were the better versions; even the silly ones)
Radiactive Alien Vampires? No, no. THEY SHOULD be radiactve alien Rabbits! those are the ones after cereals.
We've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas!
BBC did a TV show of both of those legends one after the other, it's audience were families with older kids to teens to fill the Doctor Who slot while it wasn't running. The tone was a mix between drama and comedy, Merlin being much more light hearted and comedic than Robin Hood. They both did pretty well getting about 6 series each from my memory, with not as massive of a drop in audience as you would expect. I personally loved both of those shows and my family watched Merlin even though we were not in the target audience age range anymore, having grown up with Robin Hood.
I find them both better retelling than Once Upon a Time, it’s got potential but it was wasted by a cheap, mediocre, low budget fan fiction, bland drama that they call it the “grown up version.”
The Merlin 1998 tv version and the 2000s series well both well-received. They took a secondary character from the King Arthur story, and it worked. Certainly Merlin being THE most iconic secondary character of the saga helped a lot, but still - it paid off. So a retelling of a timeless legend from another angle can work, if it is done well and the character is inherently appealing.
I was with you right up until you brought up sherlock. If you use BBC sherlock and Elementary, you cant ignore Merlin and BBC Robin Hood. They were both pretty darn successful and have large fanbases so sticking to one medium is important to the argument here and using sherlock as an example of a good way to do PDP stories just shows that you chose to outright ignore the things that might go against your point.
Along those lines is the fact that several things (like shrek) use their characters in popular ways as well. Once upon a Time for example had an entire season devoted to arthurian legend and Robin Hood was a main character for several seasons.
I guess my point would be it would've probably been better to have left sherlock's TV adaptations out of it if you were also going to ignore the ones for your subjects
Ashley Page I was thinking about Once Upon a Time and wondering if it would be mentioned. It's an interesting case, since it regularly uses public domain characters in what amounts to a shared universe and includes all of the examples listed in the video and more: Arthur and Robin like you said, Alice, the Wizard of Oz characters, Peter Pan, all the fairy tale characters (both with Disney adaptations and without like Rumplestiltskin), literary characters like Dr Frankenstein and the Snow Queen. It's quite a good model for a shared universe and tends to retain all the iconography of each character, just repositioned and subverted to fit the given plot.
Should we also consider the Avalon arc of the second season of Gargoyles?
Ashley, I think you missed the point. The video is criticising how Hollywood specifically misuses these characters and how their pursuit of a "new, fresh take" on them backfires. Sherlock and Elementary, along with the Guy Richie/Robert Downey Junior films, are being used as examples of how that can be done successfully, and that with Sherlock Holmes Hollywood has managed to use a PDC well. Bringing in Merlin or the BBC Robin Hood would at best have been labouring the point, and at worst diluting it.
@@Dafmeister1978 I think you missed my point that TV shows shouldn't have been mentioned at all. Ignoring those while including the television adaptations of Sherlock just comes off as cherry picking, and the same point could've been made without elementary and sherlock. (Though I don't personally think the RDJ films could've stood alone as good examples, hence the TV adaptations being not just included, but the main focus). Basically, the TV adaptations, out of fairness and controlled variables, should not have been included.
maybe he hasn't watched any of the shows you've mentioned and those shows still don't negate the point he is making since all the Robin Hood and Arthur movies have been flops while Sherlock movies were successful meaning the BBC Merlin and Robin Hood shows haven't been as popular
There was a more classic Sherlock Holmes movie with Ian Mckellen not three years ago...that apparently nobody saw
I saw it, and found it heart breaking.
Good movie about a retired aging Holmes and his relationship with a girl, if I remember.
Igor Kolar I saw it and can understand why it wasn't popular. A retired Sherlock questioning his methods in his old age, though interesting, isn't exactly enthralling entertainment for the masses.
Your videos are awesome, they make statements and back them up with good reasoning and logic and are expansive enough where you could stop at any point and still think the video is great. If you keep watching you get more reasons and I love that. Keep making more
Great analysis about both characters! You made so much sense!
Rather than just giving all the merry men their own movie, maybe set it in a neutral setting (possibly more fantastical, like an alternate earth) and do a public domain character cinematic universe. Obviously, make it good, but who wouldn’t want to see a kick ass movie where King Arthur and the Knights of the Round table team up with Robin Hood and the Merry Men, Sherlock Holmes, Abraham Van Helsing, Zorro, and Frankenstein’s Monster to fight Dracula or something ridiculous as that. It would take actual effort to make it good, (especially since The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen had a similar sort of concept and failed miserably) but if you nail the setting, you could still embrace the qualities that make each character unique and recognizable.
Yeah I'd watch that. Fantasy Period Piece Avengers sounds like my new favorite thing
The show Penny Dreadful already kinda did that, and did it really really fantastically. Because it really stayed true to the original visions of the characters, where Frankenstein's monster is an intelligent being, scarred and abandoned, Dorian Gray struggles with the boredom of immortality. All the characters got really tremendous portrayals, and it all felt fresh because we finally got the true portrayals from the original source materials
I've been meaning to watch that show. I've heard it's great
You may or may not be describing the fate series from japanese medias (visual novel, light novel, anime, and video games)
Connor Nyhan Isn't that basically the Dark Universe from Universal Studios?
Sam Mcneil's Merlin while corny as all hell is one of the best King Arthur stories ever... (Not even joking)
I wish you'd also have brought up King Arthur/Robin Hood adaptations other than film like you did with those other properties you used as example. There have been several serialised adaptations of both characters over the past 30 years and while I don't off the top of my head know how popular either of them were I feel like they would've added an important dimension to the subject.
Excalibur is R-rated?! I watched that movie when I was 6 years old and loved it!
This is a topic I've been waiting someone to talk about for the longest time! I grew up reading both stories endlessly and firmly believe they can work as films but you need to have what makes them great. There's a reason they endure and that's what needs to be showcased in their films
Robin Hood is awesome. I'm not biased at all just because I'm from Nottingham. ;-)
There is one thing I have to know. Do you have a sheriff and does he pull off the evil guy look?
Oh? You are? But I thought Robin was from Lincolnshire?
0:47, as soon as you did a shot of you placing down the shrimp, I was waiting for there to be a punchline about it. Sorta like Hot Fuzz would do it. AND IT HAPPENED!
It sounds like "The kid who would be king" is actually the traditional re-make that he was talking about. It is set in the modern day and marketed towards kids, but it has all the elements of King Arthur intact.
Don't forget The Mentalist. I also thought Kingsman: The Secret Service, although obviously not the King Arthur story, did a nice job of leveraging the spirit of the legend.
"We've already used all comic book and video games..."
Nah.. nah... just nah.
Not even close.
"Regular batman games"
I bloody wish :(
ManThatYouFear I guess he means regular enough that people don't forget they exist
"We are men in tights", lolololol! Mel Brooks, Monty Python, and Errol Flynn are my favorites. But I do love the cartoon too!
I think I've said this on like 4 of your videos, but *this* might be my new favorite video of yours!!
The examples you gave laid it all out so perfectly. A lot of people in the comments are arguing that it comes down to the quality of those more recent movies. But I disagree! The point you made goes beyond reception, and has more to do with initial interest. Reception can sway people one way or the other if they were undecided, but these movies were pretty well DOA because nobody cared from the get go.
Anyways. This channel is at the top of it's game! You keep putting out such insanely good, insightful content. I can't wait to see what you put out next
PATRICK I'VE MISSED YOU AND THE CREW DEARLY :D
Dan Purcell chill
As a 22 yr old, u nailed ur guess with how my age group knows Robin Hood lmao Shrek is iconic
Great channel really nice videos!
If I can suggest a topic for one of your next essays I would ask you to make a video about video game films and why has no one cracked it until now.
Avalon High, the book not the movie, is honestly amazing and deserves more respect
If i was Netflix, i'd hire you.
I feel like we’re skirting around the bigger issue of big budget studios relying on the basically guaranteed popularity of IPs and PDCs instead of, you know, actually investing in original work and putting real time and effort into said work. But I think that’s a topic for another video. Thanks for another awesome video; you’re awesome!
I want to see a version of King Arthur based off Mary Stewart's series. It's got magic but still an attempt at historical accuracy. Starting with the Crystal Cave, which is about Merlin's childhood/rise to adulthood and discovering his powers. Book two, The Hollow Hills, is about Arthur himself in childhood, but a different treatment than he normally gets, and another book about his reign called The Last Enchantment. All of the books about Arthur are from Merlin's POV too. And my personal favorite, the final book The Wicked Day is about Mordred, and from his point of view. I really feel like a treatment that acknowledges other character's POV would be more successful, especially if we focus on the other parts of the story than we've seen done a million times. Hell, I'd love to just see a movie based on The Wicked Day. It's the only treatment of Mordred I've read that makes him out to be more of a pawn of fate than an intentional villain. It's tragic and beautiful and needs to be a movie already! lol
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Stewart%27s_Merlin_Trilogy
Diana L Paxon did series of 9 Avalon books that were successful from 1989 to 2010 based of King Arthur, Merlin, Gwynevere, Mordred, although called character Morgan Lefay as Morgaine although there are several variations of the name. The Mist of Avalon was also released as Successful miniseries on TV in 2001.