Robin Hood, Robin Hood, riding in perplexing slo-mo through the glen ... - by Paz
Gestalt on 11/10/2006 at 16:25
I wouldn't say Bond's slide has anything to do with political correctness or whatever. They ran out of Fleming novels to adapt, and the storylines in general just haven't been as compelling. A lot of people that worked on the old Bold movies are dead now, and I don't think Brosnan carried the role as well as Connery or even Moore. Besides which, Bond made a lot more sense as a character when the Soviet Union was around.
Lacerta on 11/10/2006 at 16:25
So is much of life - opinion, bullshit and The Dog's answers ;)
scumble on 11/10/2006 at 19:43
Quote Posted by Paz
Like it or not, this one had a bit where Robin went off on a discussion of market forces and their link to the total cessation of taxation. I thought that was interesting and worthy of note - like you say, it's hardly canon in the usual Hood tale. Not that this version is too bothered with sticking to that (which is fine, it hasn't set out to).
Far too anachronistic if that's the case, or they're just taking the piss. I have a feeling I'd prefer Maid Marion to this one...
Paz on 11/10/2006 at 19:47
^^^ That's because Maid Marian is classic :D
Apologies to Lacerta in advance, I didn't mean to give the impression I'm hounding you or anything - I'm sure you're a nice guy/girl. However, people use that "PC" term a lot without it really holding any weight. It seems to largely just melt away under any kind of challenge, and it aggrivates me a bit.
I don't know much about Bond, but wasn't he already slightly "softened" in order to play better to a mass audience on screen? If I'm along the right lines with that, I would guess that was simply a sales decision.
There's certainly an argument to be made about various aspects of tv/film being sanitised, but I don't believe this is an especially recent development so much as the application of contemporary social values. For example, at the moment we're on an anti-smoking kick - so you won't see much of that in modern films or tv, unless the role specifically calls for it. I agree that things like this look a little weird in the context of any form of violence you care to mention being pretty much acceptable to show.
But other areas seem to be far more open and liberalised than ever before. Here are a few things we can see on telly, should we so choose:
~ A live birth (Channel 5)
~ That chap who dissects bodies (Channel 4)
~ Jokes involving grown men breast feeding, old ladies pissing themselves, highly dubious racial characterisations (Little Britain, BBC1/BBC2)
~ Jerry Springer The Opera (BBC2)
~ Omid Djalili's Iranian-based comedy (Jack Dee Presents or whatever it was called, BBC1)
~ All manner of soft porn stuff cunningly disguised as documentaries (Channel 5)
Most of that, I guess, would have been unacceptable a decade ago. So yes, although certain subjects and topics temporarily close up, in general I would suggest that television is more free than ever to show precisely what it wants to. Any decisions taken regarding making a programme a bit "safer" almost certainly arise internally, in order to appeal to a broader audience or please advertisers, or whatever.
However, I don't think any of this should be taken as a sign that programme-makers are "holding back" on whatever their true vision might be.
BEAR on 11/10/2006 at 21:40
Im pretty irritated that nobody seems to have even noticed my attempt to derail the thread. That was a hillarous star trek, oh god Im a huge filthy nerd.
Paz on 16/10/2006 at 12:15
I'm pretty irritated that they keep spelling Loxley wrong.
Tumbleweed on 16/10/2006 at 12:22
Lorcksleigh.
Fingernail on 17/10/2006 at 13:18
This is a bit crap, no?
I watched a bit of an episode of HORNBLOWER, that staple ITV historical drama, and reflected upon how much more professionally acted, filmed and written it was. It felt more like a movie than Robin Hood with it's JUMP CUTS LOOK IT'S JUST LIKE STAR WARS.
Also Keith Allen was crap.
scumble on 17/10/2006 at 14:08
Has Keith Allen been much good in anything?
Paz on 17/10/2006 at 14:16
He had an amusing cameo in the final series of Black Books as a hardened poker player and was good in a few Comic Strip Presents ... episodes.
His bizarre documentaries have been alright - the Al Fayed one was especially chucklesome.
In this ... I dunno, I quite like his excessive hamming. It's like he's figured out that's the only way to get around the terrible dialogue. What on earth was going on this week, it was like some kind of bizarre mini-morality play.
The bit where he asked Robin why he hadn't just killed him earlier and Robin essentially went "Uh ... well .. err .. " was rather revealing. I'm not quite buying Mr. Hood's strange brand of semi-pacifism, featuring highly specific caveats.
WORD ON THE STREET (probably from the BBC press department) is that this whole thing picks up from episode 3 onwards. So I'll stick it out a bit longer and see if that's in any way true.
