Saturday, October 6, 2018

Robin Hood Is Tiresome

You know, I'm over Robin Hood. I have been for a long time now, actually.

When I was kid and I first heard of Robin Hood, I have to say that I was enthralled. Here was a guy who stood up to a tyrant to bring freedom to the people. He fought unfair taxation. He opened up the King's wrongly-private lands. He freed the oppressed from a pretend King and his lackey Sheriff who knew no bounds and followed no laws, for whom the law was a weapon rather than a set of rules. This guy was like the classic conservative ideal. Add in Errol Flynn or a Disney fox and he even had class.

But then remakes kept coming. The villains became ridiculous. Robin's soul became blurred. Did he do it for principle? Was he just another noble in a power struggle? Did he do it for the girl? Oh look, a version where he's a feminist. A version where he doesn't really exist. A version where... you know what? I don't care. I don't care anymore. You can't take a very clear character like this and turn him into whatever pet peeve you have. You can't take a character like this and remake his story to the point that we've seen it a million times in a million different way, none of which understand who he is. Live action films. Television version. Version from different perspectives. Cartoons. Doctor Who episodes. Modernized versions. Hell, there's probably a naked version on roller skates. I'm done.

Seriously, I'm done with Robin Hood. Robin Hood is an archetype. He is the reluctant libertarian hero who had his moment... and I'm tired of seeing him used over and over and over and over and over again without any understanding of what made him capture our imaginations. He was cool because he stood for freeing the people from tyranny. Nothing more. Now, he's become the rock anthem sold into commercial slavery to pimp toilet paper and snack foods.

At this point, I seriously can't choke down another reincarnation of him.



Tennessee Jed said...

yeah, I agree. I see it as another example of the cesspool that Hollywood has become. You and I first met when Breitbart launched “Big Hollywood”. I have pretty much given up in fulm since they politicize everything. I see the left corrupting everything education, print, film education. Miost recently, they have moved into Americana, country, roots music. I used to look at movies, sports, music as areas to get away from politics, but apparently that is a thing of the past.

Anthony said...

I am sure there are a lot of weird iterations of the popular public domain character floating around but the last Robin Hood based commercial art I saw was Men in Tights.

I've got nothing against Robin Hood though I have a hard time imagining being interested in a book, movie or videogame which was retelling the story. That being said, nods to Robin Hood don't bother me any.

LL said...

There is even the LGBTQ version - Men in Tights

Anonymous said...

LL - I take it you have never seen Robin Hood: Men in Tights?

LL said...

I thought that's what I wrote. I admittedly didn't get the entire title correct. I knew that it existed but (full disclosure), I never watched it. Nor have I watched Zorro: The Gay Blade.

Anonymous said...

Well, it has nothing to do with LGBTQ, it's a Mel Brooks movie. There is even a line"Fagela's?" To which the answer is "No, were straight." Now Zorro, the gay blade on the other hand, one of the main characters is most certainly Gay as an English Lord.

Beans said...

"Men in Tights" was Mel Brooks poking fun at the historic adventure genre even before Kevin Costner killed it with his Robin Hood movie. MIT is, well, "Blazing Saddles" in Golly Olde Englande. It is worth watching because Brooks follows the classic parody method of paying true homage to the genre while making fun of the genre.

"Zorro the Gay Blade" is a typical George Hamilton farce, poking fun at Zorro and Zorro-ish movies, much like "Love at First Bite" made fun of all the vampire movies, especially the trashy Hammer Studio versions. The gayness in the character in ZtGB is just hammering the stupidity of the whole 'masked man' thingy that somehow intelligent people can't tell who is behind a strip of cloth with eyeholes in it. (Kinda like the stupidity of Superman vs Clark Kent, well, in the old movies and shows that is.)

But, yeah, Robin Hood. Supposed to be an archetype of 'noblesse oblige' as RH is a minor noble and is fighting to save his people. So to make him all 'Batman' moody and toss in Satanism or feminism or other stupid stuff just kinda peeves me. I'll stick to the Howard Pyle print version, and the Errol Flynn movie (hey, Basil Rathbone and Olivia Dehavelland - she's smokin hot!) and ignore all the later and much crappier versions.

tryanmax said...

Is this in response to the Pirates of the Caribbean-inspired take that's due out in November?

For my money, you can't do better than the Disney cartoon version. The Douglas Fairbanks and Errol Flynn movies are notable because you can see how they continue to influence every subsequent film.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, That definitely set me off. Plus, I saw the Doctor Who Robin Hood episode and it just struck me how sick I was of all these lame versions of Robin Hood.

Post a Comment