Ridley Scott’s Robin Hood Getting Re-Written Again
Posted by John Campeaon 29. 04. 2009in News Chat
I’ve been very excited about the Ridley Scott Robin Hood project. Not just because it’s Ridley Scott… not just because it’s Russell Crowe (best actor on the planet)… but because the myth of Robin Hood is so universal and timeless. Action, adventure, chivalry, it has it all.
But the project has gone through a lot of changes from the original idea. At first it was going to be called “Nottinham” and focus more on the story of the Sheriff, then Crowe was going to play both roles… now he’s just Robin Hood. And now it’s been announced that even though they’ve already started shooting, they’ve hired another writer to re-do the script.
The folks over at Worst Previews give us this:
The screenplay will now be reworked top to bottom. The first script was written by “Kung Fu Panda” scribes Ethan Reiff and Cyrus Voris. It was later re-written by Brian Helgeland (Mystic River, LA Confidential) and the new writer coming in to take over is Tom Stoppard (Brazil, Empire of the Sun, Shakespeare in Love).
Man, this can’t be good.
Why not good? I think that if they think the script sucks, then change it or else itll suck
Right? I dont know thats just what i would think…sounds kinda simple
But ive never made a movie myself so what do i know lol
And one thing, how was this picture taken? was it while they were filming? doesnt that mean that they already started filming? so the script was already in use… so will this image be in the movie? Or is it just a pose picture? (stupid question? sorry.just curious.lol)
it says in the post they’ve already started shooting.
I have a lot of respect for Tom Stoppard. Excellent writer for the stage (I’ve done some of his plays). Will be very curious to see what touches he makes to the script.
I hope they re-write it back into that “Robin Hood IS the Sheriff of Nottingham” thing. That was such a great idea.
The Sheriff duty bound by oath reluctantly serving a corrupt Prince John masquerades as a vigilante thief by night. Brilliance.
i agree
That was NEVER part of the original draft. That was a misunderstanding and Scott’s quote being taken out of context.
maybe someone read that rumor on the web and decided, “THAT’S BRILLIANT!” i would love to see that!
So what was it, just a “we’re not so different you and I” in casting form? Well whatever the original idea was, I like this one! You could really do something with that.
Not good, we now have to wait LONGER, haven’t they already started filming? Should have been dealt with a lot sooner IMO
Rodney
I don’t recall much of the script Nottingham, which I read, but Robin Hood and the Sheriff being the same person was never the case. In fact in the draft I read, Robin Hood was sort of an ass and the Sheriff was the real hero if such a term has to be used. A simplified view is to say it was the “villain’s” side of the story but in reality is more a tale of two imperfect men, who both think they’re doing the right thing.
For a time, Crowe was considering playing both roles (largely as a result of casting problems for the Hood character) but the characters were not the same man. Crowe would have been playing both roles as a way of demonstrating how our point of view in storytelling is everything.
I’m glad they ditched the idea in favor of a more traditional telling. There hasn’t been a classic Robin since Errol Flynn and the 1938 Adventures of Robin Hood, while it’s held up well, was always lacking the origin of a rich man of nobility walking away from his lands and holdings for a higher calling of serving the people.
I thought the 1938 film handled Robin’s “origin” well enough. (considering there are many different interpretations of the character). How was it lacking? You knew in the beginning through dialog he was a Lord, and retained that title until his confrontation with Guy of Gisbourne and Prince John in the banquet hall. After his daring escape John writes out a warrant and declares Robin’s land and title forfeit. Later on Marian asks Robin why he gave up his nobility and he gives a heartfelt answer. What else do you need?
Also - Tom Stoppard is top notch at last minute doctoring. The script will be fine.
When I read your article, one question just pops up. Actors sign for a movie because they like the script. What if they re-write the script while they’re shooting the movie. Can an actor, for example Crowe, quit because the new script isn’t what he signed for?
I read that Crowe took the role despite not liking the script. He was a fan of Robin Hood since he was a tyke.
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/features/russell-crowe-angry-me-never-997593.html
Oh come on, Russel Crowe, “the best actor on the planet”? Guy is a good actor, but I wouldn’t call him “great”, let alone “best”. And with this constant rewriting, i don’t think this movie is going to be all that great. But i bet it will make many millions. :P
This movie is going to end up as Kevin Costners Robin Hood. A razzie winnig performace of Russel Crowe , perhaps ?
I can understand fixing some of the script on the fly (since they should have already started shooting) but a “top to bottom” re-write at this stage in the game?? I’m with you John this can’t be good…
The exact same thing happened on Gladiator. The script just wasn’t good enough by the time shooting started and they brought in William Nicholson to write on set. He was the one (apparently) who wrote the defining “My name is Maximus blah blah blah, and I shall have my vengeance” scene.
Sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn’t.