Robin Hood, Robin Hood, riding in perplexing slo-mo through the glen ... - by Paz
Chimpy Chompy on 11/10/2006 at 13:52
I believe the official line on Tuck is, they were worried about having too many main characters, so had to pick one to leave out.
Lacerta on 11/10/2006 at 13:54
Load of wet twaddle.. he's hardly a main character in anyone's version. Mainly comic relief.
Paz on 11/10/2006 at 14:42
Who was the fat fake-priest Robin was using in a last ditch attempt to save Will et al from hanging, then? I'd kind of assumed he was going to turn out to be Friar Tuck .. but I guess not!
I think you've been reading too many tabloid conspiracy theories - the episode was chock-full of references to medieval Catholicism. There weren't too many fatties on offer (except the above mentioned chap), but I think that would have jarred with the "we're poor and starving" angle even more than the fact that everyone was rather clean and well groomed.
The idea that Robin returns from the Crusades rather sick of war isn't exactly a new one, nor a particularly unconvincing one.
Maybe you were waiting for the long-anticipated 7pm version of Robin Hood where he tells racist jokes, slaps Marian around and shits in the Sheriff's lap?
Lacerta on 11/10/2006 at 15:15
I know - and I appreciate it's only a TV show. It just seems that so many shows have to be re-written for the sake of political correctness, though I am aware that the tale of Robin Hood has been changed with every telling of it, fitting in with the zeitgeist of the respective time, but I was just a bit disappointed.
I wouldn't want a version of Robin Hood where he slaps Marian around or tells racist jokes at any time of night. Though crapping in the Sherrif's lap could be quite amusing.
The fat fellow (didn't seem that fat to me) was an old friend of Robin's, who was pretending to be a friar. I can't remember his name though.
Paz on 11/10/2006 at 15:35
Quote Posted by Lacerta
It just seems that so many shows have to be re-written for the sake of political correctness ...
Which programmes are you thinking of there?
Lacerta on 11/10/2006 at 15:43
More often than not it's films, which usually suffer as a result. Take for example the Bond films. They've taken what's often considered to be the epitome of the boy's fantasy adventure film and softened it down into a rather banal cgi-heavy action flick that lurches from one improbable set piece to another. I know that they were rarely heavy on the storyline but in some of the more recent ones (like the one about the media conglomerate - can't remember the name) Bond is pretty much reduced to the status of co-star, rather than main character, in order to bolster the female lead's role.
SD on 11/10/2006 at 15:57
Well, make your mind up; are you talking about TV shows or movies?
Lacerta on 11/10/2006 at 16:00
I was considering them all together in the form of audio-visual entertainment, rather than discriminating. I wasn't aware that there was a significant difference in the context of my argument.
SD on 11/10/2006 at 16:09
Quote Posted by Lacerta
I wasn't aware that there was a significant difference in the context of my argument.
Oh, it's not really significant; it's bullshit either way ;)