Robin Hood movie w/Russell Crowe

Home Forums TV and Film Robin Hood movie w/Russell Crowe

This topic contains 6 replies, has 5 voices, and was last updated by  Chris 6 years, 3 months ago.

  • Author
  • #15574


    Hi, I've been listening to the podcast and knew I had to come here to all of you to settle a dispute I'm having w/my boyfriend. We just finished watching the movie, and I said that I had an issue with King Richard's crown going back to England as Richard is not in fact dead but recovers from the arrow in his neck. My boyfriend said that was a minor point because we didn't actually see him die so it leaves the story open for a “part 2” where Richard comes back and says “hey, John, you're in my seat” and all is well in Jolly Old England. I said it doesn't make sense because they wouldn't have taken the crown back unless he was confirmed dead. So, my question is, am I mis-remembering and Richard did die in France on his way back from the Crusades and therefore the crown thing is legit and Prince John really did become king through inheritance, or am I right that John was merely regent, tried to essentially usurp his brother, and the crown coming back was inaccurate as it would not have been done that way?  Thanks and I'm glad that I finally am joining the conversation!

  • #18134


    As I recall Richard was shot in the neck by an archer whilst campaigning in Europe against Phillip of France and his allies. He died three weeks later as a result of a wound infection. He was buried in Rouen, so even after his death his body never returned to England.

  • #18135


    Ridley Scott got at least that part right.  Richard was shot by a bolt while sieging a castle in France.  Legend has it that it was all over a discovery of treasure which Richard thought should be his, but the viscount disagreed.  Thus, you have a rebellion and conflict.Richard was being... well.... Richard throughout this entire affair, and it got him killed.  There's a lot to this story, and I can't wait to get to it in the podcast. :)

  • #18136


    darnit, looks like I was wrong, then….I don't know too much about this era, as I'm more of a Tudor nut, but I had read Lionheart back in December and thought that he was hit in Acre and survived.

  • #18137


    I got the DVD of this movie free with 10 tins of Stella Artois but haven't watched it yet. Is it any good? 

  • #18138


    darnit, looks like I was wrong, then....I don't know too much about this era, as I'm more of a Tudor nut, but I had read Lionheart back in December and thought that he was hit in Acre and survived.

    He was reputed to be seriously ill during the siege of Acre, probably with scurvy.

  • #18139


    I thought this was an ok movie (bordering good) and to be honest I didn't care if it wasn't entirely accurate. People are way to anal about historical films being accurate these days and they get so riled about it. I don't understand why. I thought it had some great action sequences and the basic character development was enough to keep the grey matter plodding on just enough for general amusement. Even having New Zealand, Australian, Canadian and American actors in the lead roles wasn't a problem because I thought they worked quite well. Cate Blanchett does the accent very well indeed as did Oscar Isaac as King John.I've seen King Richard I played in several different ways and while many regard him as a great king, he wasn't exactly the best King for his subjects was he. Let's face it he hardly spent any time in England, sold a lot of land and titles and spent vasts amounts of money from his father's Saladin Tax on raising his armies for the Third Crusade to re-take Jerusalem, which he never did anyway (there's a great podcast series called Understanding the Crusades that covers this). He even raised taxes. Not high on my list a great kings but there is obviously a lot more to it than this. He was certainly a complex man.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.