• Log in or sign up for an account here: https://www.sythe.org/login

Robin Hood

Discord Verified
Heidy
Potamus
Toast Wallet User
I saw it. I fucking loved it i'm sure you'll enjoy it aswell.

Other good movies to see are Iron man 2 and Prince of Persia(PoP was awesome)
 
It bothers me that someone like Ridley Scott who has a reputation for maintaining the graphic violence in his films in the name of realism would tone down the brutality in Robin Hood. Its obviously to comply with the box office so children could see the film bringing in more profit, which is unfortunate. I wanted a gritty, dark Robin Hood, not a watered down pg-13 mess.
 
I haven't seen it yet as i can only find cam filmed atm,but from the trailers it looks more like another Russell Crowe period piece ala Gladiator.Anyways I'm looking forward to watching it.
 
PHP:
criterion said:
It bothers me that someone like Ridley Scott who has a reputation for maintaining the graphic violence in his films in the name of realism would tone down the brutality in Robin Hood. Its obviously to comply with the box office so children could see the film bringing in more profit, which is unfortunate. I wanted a gritty, dark Robin Hood, not a watered down pg-13 mess.
Click to expand...

A film consisting of scenes of brutal gore doesn't make it a good film.

Yes, I saw it yesterday with a friend. I enjoyed it, it was a pretty good film. Although I'm unsure about the treaty that King John refuses to sign at the end, is it supposed to be Magna Carta? If so then it is clearly wrong as John agrees to the terms of Magna Carta.
It was a good film, but historically incorrect in many places. It really doesn't matter though, the film is based upon legend so it has no need to be. I didn't like the end battle either, I expected the film to be based on Robin lurking the woods and acting as his sterotypical character.
 
Panzy Wanzy said:
PHP:

A film consisting of scenes of brutal gore doesn't make it a good film.

Yes, I saw it yesterday with a friend. I enjoyed it, it was a pretty good film. Although I'm unsure about the treaty that King John refuses to sign at the end, is it supposed to be Magna Carta? If so then it is clearly wrong as John agrees to the terms of Magna Carta.
It was a good film, but historically incorrect in many places. It really doesn't matter though, the film is based upon legend so it has no need to be. I didn't like the end battle either, I expected the film to be based on Robin lurking the woods and acting as his sterotypical character.
Click to expand...

Not once did i state that 'brutal gore' has an impact on a film's potential.

Violence is an element. like music, cinematography, and setting- violence in contribution with the accompanying script can set the tone for the film. It is not always glorified, in fact- depictions of violence.. extreme graphic violence can almost always be used as propaganda against itself.
Violence exposes the cruelty and non sense of war, and is crucial for many films.

To signify a characters unbarring hatred for another- violence is used strategically to maximize this animosity. Its a tool that is necessary. Offensive language can be explicit to add character to certain roles, violence can be pervasive to make warfare and conflict in general tensely felt. For example;

Michael Haneke's Funny Games: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119167/

There is but one scene of on-screen violence in this film, and while i won't spoil it- i assure you that the message is loud and clear.

Matteo Garoene's Gommorah: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0929425/

'An inside look at modern day crime families'. This film unlike others of its kind is gritty, unflinching, and honest. The mafia has been romanticized in the famous godfather trilogy, and scorsese's films.. but Gommorah is hard hitting and terrifying. Why? The violence.

Steven Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120815/

I chose this title because i know that almost EVERYONE on this forum is familiar with this film. Its simple, an excessive amount of sustained graphic violence= a flawless anti war statement without words.

Ridley Scott's Kingdom Of Heaven: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0320661/

I chose this one not only because Ridley Scott would be most suitable being that he is the director of 'Robin Hood' , but because this film uses violence in a different acceptable fashion- to trigger realism in historical accuracy.
Don't tell me that the crusades could've been portrayed with very little or no violence. These acts were completely violent, innocent lives taken in the name of a god. These times were brutal, dirty, and blood driven, and it is portrayed on screen brutal, and bloody- like it should be.

The medieval era and violence goes hand in hand. So when a film is based upon such a dark time in history- id only expect it to be violent.
 
criterion said:
It bothers me that someone like Ridley Scott who has a reputation for maintaining the graphic violence in his films in the name of realism would tone down the brutality in Robin Hood. Its obviously to comply with the box office so children could see the film bringing in more profit, which is unfortunate. I wanted a gritty, dark Robin Hood, not a watered down pg-13 mess.
Click to expand...

If you read up on Robin Hood, you would realise he isn't as "badass" as you think.

Yes, he killed many soldiers, but it was all out of honor for his home state.

OT: I have been dying to see this movie, and I tried to watch it online, but the quality was shit. Guess I'll have to wait for it to come out on DVD.
 
Zreking said:
If you read up on Robin Hood, you would realise he isn't as "badass" as you think.

Yes, he killed many soldiers, but it was all out of honor for his home state.

OT: I have been dying to see this movie, and I tried to watch it online, but the quality was shit. Guess I'll have to wait for it to come out on DVD.
Click to expand...

Again, not once did i state that the character 'Robin Hood' was a 'badass'. You clearly did not interpret my first, OR second post correctly. Go back and read my response to the first comment on my post and get back to me.
 
Zreking said:
If you read up on Robin Hood, you would realise he isn't as "badass" as you think.

Yes, he killed many soldiers, but it was all out of honor for his home state.

OT: I have been dying to see this movie, and I tried to watch it online, but the quality was shit. Guess I'll have to wait for it to come out on DVD.
Click to expand...

You do realise he almost certainly didn't exist?
 
criterion said:
Not once did i state that 'brutal gore' has an impact on a film's potential.

Violence is an element. like music, cinematography, and setting- violence in contribution with the accompanying script can set the tone for the film. It is not always glorified, in fact- depictions of violence.. extreme graphic violence can almost always be used as propaganda against itself.
Violence exposes the cruelty and non sense of war, and is crucial for many films.

To signify a characters unbarring hatred for another- violence is used strategically to maximize this animosity. Its a tool that is necessary. Offensive language can be explicit to add character to certain roles, violence can be pervasive to make warfare and conflict in general tensely felt. For example;

Michael Haneke's Funny Games: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119167/

There is but one scene of on-screen violence in this film, and while i won't spoil it- i assure you that the message is loud and clear.

Matteo Garoene's Gommorah: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0929425/

'An inside look at modern day crime families'. This film unlike others of its kind is gritty, unflinching, and honest. The mafia has been romanticized in the famous godfather trilogy, and scorsese's films.. but Gommorah is hard hitting and terrifying. Why? The violence.

Steven Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120815/

I chose this title because i know that almost EVERYONE on this forum is familiar with this film. Its simple, an excessive amount of sustained graphic violence= a flawless anti war statement without words.

Ridley Scott's Kingdom Of Heaven: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0320661/

I chose this one not only because Ridley Scott would be most suitable being that he is the director of 'Robin Hood' , but because this film uses violence in a different acceptable fashion- to trigger realism in historical accuracy.
Don't tell me that the crusades could've been portrayed with very little or no violence. These acts were completely violent, innocent lives taken in the name of a god. These times were brutal, dirty, and blood driven, and it is portrayed on screen brutal, and bloody- like it should be.

The medieval era and violence goes hand in hand. So when a film is based upon such a dark time in history- id only expect it to be violent.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, I miss-interpreted your earlier comment.

Angelmax said:
You do realise he almost certainly didn't exist?
Click to expand...

The actual character, Robin Hood most likely didn't exist, but similar people did. The story of Robin Hood was probably based on that of reality, and just manipulated just like any other story to sound more interesting.
 
Robin Hood is a fantastic movie, its worth every dollar you spend on it. The storyline behind it is absolutly amazing. its a 10/10 movie. Russel Crowe is a fantastic actor and i cant think of anyone who can do a better job at playing that role like him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Runescape Gamblingrunescape gambling
Back
Top