Hood Precedents
New tracking shows Ridley Scott‘s Robin Hood, which opens in 18 days, averaging a 38 definite interest — 43 from under-25 males, 42 over-25 males, 28 under-25 females and 38 over-25 females. It’s also averaging a 7 first choice — a figure that clearly needs to increase over the next two weeks.
I’m not looking to pour rain on anyone’s parade and I’m very much looking forward to Robin Hood, but Universal needs to buckle down and get on the stick, and fast. Iron Man 2 is opening only a week before Scott’s film and its average definite-interest and first-choice figures are 67 and 32, respectively. Not fair to compare an adult-angled historical pageant drama with a kid-friendly superhero comic-book movie? Fair enough, but Robin Hood still cost a bundle and needs to earn serious coin.
So what’s the Robin Hood problem, in a nutshell? There are two factors, a friend suggested this morning.
One is Russell Crowe being seen as a bully and a sorehead these days, or at the least not being popular enough to put arses in seats if the film looks a wee bit iffy. The other is a perception that Robin Hood is another Kingdom of Gladiator Forest with arrows and spears being propelled by men with beards who need baths.
The latter concern, in other words, is that Robin Hood is Scott’s third historical action-and-romance flick to do the same approximate things in a two-out-of-three equation — i.e., star Crowe (Gladiator and Robin Hood), deal with the Crusades (Kingdom of Heaven, Robin Hood), show large ancient armies in conflict in wooded areas with flying projectiles (Gladiator, Kingdom of Heaven, Robin Hood), depict a rebellious hero at odds with cynical tyrants (Gladiator, Robin Hood, Kingdom of Heaven), and cast an intriguing actress in her 30s as a romantic lure or foil of some sort (Cate Blanchett, Eva Green Connie Neilsen).
I don’t agree with this view. Every film is it own beacon, idea, construct, vision. And I sure as shit don’t see Crowe’s presence as anything but a guarantee of true grit and conviction. But as soon as I heard it put this way I had to admit my friend had a point.
Maybe it’s that the trailers have been boring and the posters are blase. No one with whom I have spoken is the least bit excited for this film. (I’m a senior at UCSB).
I just could not care less about this movie if I tried. I’m about as interested in it as I am in Letters to Juliet or Just Wright, which is to say, not at all.
When was the last time Universal successfully marketed a project even remotely “iffy”? I obviously cannot speak to the quality of “Robin Hood” at all, but this has a bit of “Public Enemies” redux smeared all over it.
Will this be the end of Ridley’s history cycle if it bombs? Will he poison the well for all historical films?
There are so many thunderous, bloody, compelling historical stories to tell, why does Scott have to remake the merry men of Sherwood?
AT least the mannered Olivia de Haviland won’t be playing Marian. She’s about as sexy as a librarian.
Spot on. The original concept, of Crowe playing the Sheriff in a sympathetic light, sounded much more interesting.
Crowe needs to get out of the past and into the future…he should sign up for some kind of sci-fi space epic or anything not set in the rugged, manly Good ‘Ole Days.
Olivia de Haviland was SMOKING hot. Okay, maybe not so much sexy, but cuter than all get-out. Besides, cut her some slack. She was a teenager in the original.
DE HAVILAND POWER!
Thanks, Travis. I was about to chime in myself about Miss de Haviland. I showed a friend of mine some scenes from Robin Hood and Gone with the Wind back to back, and she had a hard time believing it was the same actress.
This Robin Hood kind of crept up on me. I knew it was being made, and I saw the trailers, but I didn’t know until recently that it was coming out in just a couple of weeks.
Conversely, I haven’t walked into a store in weeks that didn’t have some sort of Iron Man 2 tie-in. It’s almost impossible to miss.
I’ve been saying this over and over and over and over. Universal is run by complete idiots. Just look at their slate from the past two years. The most recent flops being the 150 m+ Wolfman and Green Zone. They make expensive movies that no one is anticipating or cares about. When your summer tentpole is Robin Hood, which seems to be marketed as “hey remember Gladiator that came out like a decade ago? this is kind of similar!” then you’re in trouble.
Nobody cares about Robin Hood, is the problem. Everyone knows the story, a hundred versions of it are on DVD, TV whatever, and there’s nothing that makes this version look distinctive. It’s not like “Mask of Zorro” where people knew the character but it hadn’t been done in forever.
Plus, we already had the “grittier, more-realistic-than-your-used-to” Robin Hood with Costner. You’re gonna hate hearing this, but y’know what would’ve sold this? Go younger, go geek: 20-30-something Robin, drop the grimy “story behind the legend” b.s. realism thing, play up the old-school colorful swashbuckler thing and work the angle of Robin as a Batman-ish “superhero of his time” figure (which is what he is, when you get right down to it.) Better movie? Dunno, but it wouldn’t get KILLED like this one is going to opening right after Iron Man.
Come to think of it, why isn’t this coming out in the fall to begin with? Muddy 50 year-olds on horseback is NOT a summer movie.
Olivia was GREAT in “The Heiress.” No question.
Just don’t think she’s sexy in Hoodsville. Her line delivery reminds me of my recently aunt — may she rest in peace.
ah, “deceased” aunt. Who wasn’t sexy when she was alive either.
Duke, have some respect. Olivia is still alive and could probably kick your ass.
Worse still, who’s the genius responsible for casting the sexless Cate Blanchett as a sword-wielding, bow and arrow toting Maid Marion. She looks about as credible as John Wayne’s Ghengis Khan a few posts back. A lot Gladiator’s second unit stuff featuring battle scenes and riders galloping through forests could be inserted into this new film and no-one would know the difference.
I feel like I read somewhere that Ridley Scott all but said that Robin Hood was Gladiator with bows and arrows. My lack of interest is in that notion, if it’s not actually true. I’m not a fan of Gladiator, and this just looks as boring. What’s more, if I’ve read correct, this is an origin story. Isn’t Crowe a bit old for that?
I’m not sure that any amount of increased marketing will excite me. After Iron Man 2 comes out, it’s a long wait to Toy Story 3 and Inception, but hopefully worth it.
“Duke, have some respect. Olivia is still alive and could probably kick your ass.”
I’d be honored — but not turned on.
The problem was no one was clamoring for a new one and the trailers have not sold this as a version with some sort of extra something that will impress us.
And, yes, Jeff it was a pointless comparison. Nothing for the next couple of months is going to match IM2′s numbers.
Anybody still pissed the Ridley Scott doesn’t have a Best Director Oscar? Is he the Dan Marino of directors? Great stats but can’t win the big one?
Hitchcock, Welles, and Kubrick never earned an oscar, so why should Scott? HACK!
Jonah Hex Syfy clip, Hauer with a shotgun footage, Piranha 3-d teaser here.
Robin Hood, ‘Persia, Hanna pics here.
Also via Dark Horizons:
Brett Easton Ealis gets a new movie deal?
No 3-d for Nightmare.
Anyone wanna see Iron Man 1 and 2 theaters?
Sony picks up The Illusionist.
Is Grodin up for more midnight running?
So is Austin Powers 4 happening or not?
Kennedy’s not back for Scream 4 after all. And it’s gonna be six films now?
Cage now has a ghost of a chance of being in comic movie sequel?
Extract Carrell-style?
Greengrass decides to make his voyage craptastic.
Haley talks Freddy here.
Two new Alien prequels in 3-d.
A younger, hipper Robin would have tracked better. For an action adventure, Crowe doesn’t come across as exciting or nimble enough. And Cate Blanchett is too overwrought as Lady Marian — more like Joan of Arc with flowing locks. From the trailers it looks like a dour drama with lots of flying arrows. I was more interested in this before I saw the stills and trailers.
“Anybody still pissed the Ridley Scott doesn’t have a Best Director Oscar?”
Probably not as pissed as he himself looked when he lost to Steven Soderbergh.
And thank God he lost to Soderbergh.
One is Russell Crowe being seen as a bully and a sorehead these days, or at the least not being popular enough to put arses in seats if the film looks a wee bit iffy.
The only person on Earth who believes that Crowe is hurt by “being seen as a bully” is also the only person on Earth who sees Crowe as a bully, i.e. Wells.
Jeffrey Wells loves that ol’ phone throwing incident, but 99.9% of the audience never heard of it, or if they did, forgot about it a long time ago. It’s not like Crowe is a tabloid staple in 2010– pick up a copy of People, and you’ll read about Sandra Bullock or John Edwards lonnnng before you hear about Russell Crowe being a bully.
This conception exists only in the blogger’s mind.
That said, the single kernel of truth in this statement is that Crowe isn’t the draw he once was, in large part because he made two fairly lousy movies that I’m hard pressed to even remember, let alone tell the difference between (Body of Lies and State of Play) that nobody but agents and critics saw. If you’re only as good as your last movie, Crowe’s last great movie was Cinderella Man in *2005*. That’s a long dry spell.
(Yes, American Gangster is awesome, but that was Denzel’s vehicle, and all my love for 3:10 to Yuma won’t save that flick from the fact that it was a trifling little entertainment, nothing more).
As for Robin Hood, count me with Movie Bob. The story is over-saturated, everyone knows it. Absent a radical take on it, there’s nothing there to grab people’s attention.
Plus, let’s be honest: the trailers make the film look boring. It may be a great work of art, or merely fun escapism, but the film just looks kind of “blah,” even a chore, whereas Iron Man 2 promises THRILL RIDE!!! That’s a tough environment to compete in.
Rick Blaine : Yes, exactly dude, I made the same point in a previous thread. Cate Blanchett = not sexy. Making a period December release Oscar bait epic? Hire Blanchett. Making a would be summer blockbuster depending on teenage boys paying to see it? Don’t hire Blanchett. The original choice was Sienna Miller, who at least has some heat from GI Joe in this regard (Hey, people saw it).
Another problem : Who is playing the Sheriff of Nottingham? Without going to the imdb, I have no idea. It’s an iconic villain role, the Joker/Blofeld/Lex Luthor of this universe, and there’s no intel forthcoming from the ads. With the Costner film, everyone knew Rickman was The Villain from the trailers and ads, and with Gladiator we knew all about Joaquin Phoenix beforehand. So where’s the conflict here? Bah.
When will Hollywood learn that today’s audiences aren’t interested in historical epics? Burnished, polite, accent-laden Cinemascope costume dramas with soaring scores and Toll-esque cinematography. Done. No one responds to that crap anymore.
Is “Oo De Lally” part of the soundtrack?
Wells to crazynine Do you digest what you supposedly read? I couldn’t have more clearly that I DON’T consider Crowe to be a bully or a sorehead. It’s Gawker and those who are down with the Gawker view, not me, who are saying this.
http://gawker.com/5524642/i-will-kill-you-with-my-bare-hands-and-other-fun-tales-of-russell-crowe?skyline=true&s=i
I really wish people would stop writing off BODY OF LIES and STATE OF PLAY as in any way interchangable, or as somehow boring or two massive failures of vision or filmmaking.
Both were intelligent, exciting, ADULT thrillers whose only sin was not having a smirking asshole in a pair of tights saving the day for all the 30-year-old children out there who still go to see cartoons and Spider-Man. Both were perfectly respectable Lumet-Pollack-Pakula-type films that would’ve been appreciated as such in 1979, but today don’t play very far beyond middle-aged white guys pushing 50 who go to matinees alone. I get that, but neither was a bad movie. And Body of Lies had a fair bit of kinetic action and a return to Scott’s usual punchy style (after the hazy and slower-paced AG), so I don’t know where it got this rep as some homework-like dud.
Also, isn’t the villain here MARK STRONG? I guess he’s not enough of a “name” for the masses to represent a “face-off” type flick, but anyone who’s seen him in the roughly 40 billion movies he’s been in the last five years (Body of Lies included! but also Kick-Ass, RocknRolla, Revolver, etc etc) knows he’s great and will probably come away from RH better than anyone if it does even slightly well.
ROBIN HOOD POWER. BOW TO IT.
State of Play was probably my favorite live-action film from 2009. That doesn’t change the fact that adult dramas and/or star-driven thrillers should not be costing $75-120 million. Adult drama is not dead, it’s just that dumb studios like Universal spend tentpole money on them and are shocked when they gross under $60 million. At $40 million or less, studios can and do make their money back and more from all manner of adult-skewing entertainment (Julie and Julia, Up in the Air, etc). But don’t throw $150 million at Public Enemies and be SHOCKED when it doesn’t gross Batman Begins/Charlie and the Chocolate Factory numbers. Ridley Scott’s Robin Hood likely would have been a good investment at $75 million. Anything more than that (and I’m presuming this cost around $150 million) is suicide. That’s not even considering the fact that, with the exception of Star Trek, the second big movie of summer nearly always ends up being swallowed by the curtain raiser. Since 1996 when Twister started summer in the first weekend of May, only Troy and Star Trek have gone second and won their respective opening weekends. Barring a miracle, Robin Hood = Poseidon/Speed Racer of 2010.
Even if it garners all the critical praise and ends up to be a decent movie…its still going to bomb! Why? Because we’ve seen this shit before. The audience I saw the trailer with let out a collective groan. One dude even shouted out “Maximus Hood” putting those who could hear in stitches. Pass. Pass. Pass.
Some dude shouted out “Maximus Hood”?
Hey, what’s with people who shout out dumb shit during the trailers? There should be a whole thread on that. Is it EVER funny? Isn’t it ALWAYS annoying? Isn’t it ALWAYS a sign that the dumb-ass in question is going to be a disturbance all through the film? If someone nearby in a theater shouted out “Maximus Hood!”, wouldn’t you and your party get up and change seats immediately?
Who AAAARE these people? (TM Seinfeld.)
Couple weeks back, after the trailer for SALT, some *douchebag* shouted (right when it went silent): “Pass the pepper!”
Seriously, crowded theater, PASS THE PEPPER. And absolutely NOBODY LAUGHED. Crickets. If you’re THAT GUY, doesn’t your heart just sink? Don’t you just stew in embarrassment and humiliation for the next two hours? Doesn’t his wife go home and file for divorce papers immediately?
Pass the pepper. Jesus Christ.
I’ve seen it and it’s atrocious. A bland, jokey, cloying second-hand reshuffling of the Robin Hood legend. The kind of thing that’s well-shot and well-meaning, but it’s chocked full of bad jokes, mildewed storytelling and a wayward romance between Crowe and Blanchett, plus there isn’t an inkling of danger in the entire two hours.
It’s studio-drivel and Ridley Scott fans will surely be disappointed.
“Worse still, who’s the genius responsible for casting the sexless Cate Blanchett as a sword-wielding, bow and arrow toting Maid Marion. ”
Could not have said it any better Rick Blaine.
Cate Blanchett can be quite pretty at her best, but they’ve given her the absolute worst, driest-looking, straw-like, crazy-woman haircut ever, to absolutely strip her of any potential sex appeal.
So, what some of you Crowe naysayers are suggesting is… this would probably be a bigger hit if it starred SAM WORTHINGTON?
Because I am a huge Crowe fan but I’m still saying that: WORTHINGTON POWER. You could add 45 mil domestic on instantly if this had the ONLY BOX OFFICE SURE THING in the business right now.
Worthington.
I saw one of those “First Look” features on the film and Blanchett is more radiating and magnetic in her on-set interview than she is in the actual film…it’s a miscast of the highest order.
Amanda Seyfried > Blanchett.
I’d have cast Dakota Fanning, but that’s just me.
“I’d have cast Dakota Fanning, but that’s just me.”
Creepy. She would actually fit right in as King John’s French nookie-girl…
It’s bad enough when audiences make dumb ‘Maximus Hood’ jokes, but quite a few would-be serious critics do the same, as if it’s a biting form of criticism. Not to pick on him, but Marshall Fine (whom Jeff links to quite a bit), does this all the time, writing from a snarky hipper-than-thou mountaintop. IE – The Losers is like the A-Team, but they’re the D-Team! Ha Ha, right? Never funny, and such first-grade snark negates any real criticism one might offer. It bothers me when smart critics write ‘stupid’ in order to sound cynically hip.
I think this is one reason film critics are now irrelevant, or at least why most people don’t pay attention to them. With the newspapers dying and everyone vying for the most hits on their web columns, too many critics/pundits/bloggers just try to out-clever each other.
Pitiful!
“Brett Easton Ealis gets a new movie deal?”
His last name is Ellis, but I wouldn’t expect you to know that, seeing how you don’t a) read books (no, manga does NOT count), b) watch movies based on books (no, anime does NOT count), or c) even bother to read the own stories you link to here on a daily (hourly?) basis!
“Both were intelligent, exciting, ADULT thrillers whose only sin was not having a smirking asshole in a pair of tights saving the day for all the 30-year-old children..”
I find this scenario endlessly more palatable than having a smirking DiCaprio in a pair of sandals saving the day for all the 50-year-old men…
Ah, I’m just being overly snarky . Yeah, BoL was actually pretty solid (also has the notorious distinction of being the first movie to use a song off Chinese Democracy…funnily enough, the GnR tune off the End of Days soundtrack was supposed to hold that distinction, but it turns out that song was cut out of the finished album a mere NINE YEARS LATER — Jesus!), but it sorta felt like the best film Tony Scott ever did (actually meant to be a slag on his younger bro, but I know you’ll take it as a compliment of the highest order) instead of being a landmark Ridley release a la Kingdom of Heaven.
And yeah — Mark Strong’s alright — is it just me, or does he totally look like the younger, genre-movie-stricken brother of Stanley Tucci?? — but casting him as the iconic villain Nottingham is kinda weaksauce. You need a really strong cult of personality (GOOD Living Colour song), wild-card, x-factor type to counter-balance these legendary heroic figures like Robin Hood, Batman, Iron Man, etc. There’s no way he’s even in the same league as Ledger, although I can definitely see that potential for Rourke in IM2.
“Couple weeks back, after the trailer for SALT, some *douchebag* shouted (right when it went silent): ‘Pass the pepper!’ ”
LOL, that’s actually a pretty hysterical story (I prob. would have invited him over to play BurgerTime after the film). That’s almost one of those things that happens that ends up being funny in spite of — because of? — how deeply unfunny it is at the moment it’s being shouted. That shit almost ALWAYS ends up making great inside-joke fodder.
In fact, that truly awful, awful “I Can’t Believe It’s Not Butter” commercial could use a nice 5 second bumper (maybe even bookends if you truly want to get carried away) with some socially-awkward doucher asking the store clerk in the condiment aisle to “Pass the Pepper.” There could even be a couple lame-ass, painfully-obvious inserts shots with an “athletic arm” throwing it, and said doucher catching it in a dorkly suave manner). And you could even lay in a 5-second sample of the Butthole Surfers before segueing into that horrific TURN THAT TUB AROUND song.
GOOD idea.
Then again, RH isn’t a cartoon movie so you don’t need a cartoon villain like The Joker and whateverthehell Rourke is supposed to be in IM2.
Maybe if they’d done RH in the Sherlock Holmes tone it might appeal to more of today’s moviegoers. I’m not a 50 y.o. white male but I thank God there are a few movies made today that are not simply CGI, car chases, explosions but have actual stories and human relationships.
Yes, but Mark Strong specializes in over-the-top, cartoonish portrayals — come on now, the guy has multiple Guy Ritchie movies to his (dis)credit. That’s kind of what makes his casting so puzzling to me. He’s not a big name, and — at least from what I’ve seen — he’s not a really good character actor, either. So what’s the angle here? Seems like a perfect setup for one of the more disappointing blockbuster movie villains in recent memory, but perhaps he will surprise.
“I’m not a 50 y.o. white male but I thank God there are a few movies made today that are not simply CGI, car chases, explosions but have actual stories and human relationships.”
I’m in 100% agreement with this general sentiment, but I’m a little confused — are you saying all of this in defense of Robin Hood? I don’t know why you’d automatically assume there’s a dearth of CGI in this movie (all of his films since Gladiator have used it pretty liberally). As for no car chases and explosions, couldn’t you technically say the same thing about 300?
“I’m in 100% agreement with this general sentiment, but I’m a little confused — are you saying all of this in defense of Robin Hood? I don’t know why you’d automatically assume there’s a dearth of CGI in this movie (all of his films since Gladiator have used it pretty liberally). As for no car chases and explosions, couldn’t you technically say the same thing about 300?”
Not really, though I do not believe there is much CGI in RH from what I’ve heard. Actually I think Scott uses CGI to enhance his more ‘epic’ movies but it is never ‘the’ movie. I was thinking about the plethora of movies that are heavily CGI’d and basically nothing but FX, like Transformers, Wolverine etc.
Don’t get me wrong,I enjoyed Avatar, I enjoyed Iron Man, I like all kinds of movies, but I fear that there will be fewer and fewer movies being made that are aiming for the older adult audiences.
I hear ya. I don’t know what to say, other than just try to vote as carefully as you can with your dollar. I visited the local arthouse this past weekend and finally caught up on two foreign films nominated for Oscars last year. I found both of them a little bit overlong and dry for my tastes, frankly, but this kind of cinema is so hard to come by — esp. in fly-over country — that I think you’ve almost got to go out and support this kind of filmmaking on general principle.
Go out and see stuff like Green Zone instead of Alice in Wonderland opening weekend (probably a bad example, as GZ’s budget was waaaay out of whack, but Greengrass still has more vision and intelligence than at least 90% of directors working today). Or Greenberg instead of Hot Tub Time Machine. Chances are, the tentpole/broad comedy/comic booky stuff will hang around in multiplexes literally weeks longer.
Just for clarification: Mark Strong is the main heavy, but he’s not the Sheriff of Nottingham.
I’ve heard some pretty hysterical stuff about how this actually “futzes” with the various character relationships – most notably in regard to the various characters who actually existed.
Right, it’s a complete rearrangement of the Robin Hood legend. It calls itself an “origin story,” but that’s bullshit – it’s really just a ploy to switch around and take liberties with the principle characters that we all know.
Guy Strong plays a completely made up baddie (Sir Godfrey) and he has a scar on the crease of his lip that he licks with tongue in a way that you can’t help but think of Heath Ledger’s The Joker.
I have found it interesting that some folks who have been complaining all along that we do not need another Robin Hood have been the same people who, after seeing trailers and clips, are complaining that this movie is very different from the past Robin Hoods.
Not particularly talking about anyone in this column, just an observation I’ve made here and elsewhere over the past few months.
the pedigree is strong enough that i will pay money to see this instead of wait for the bluray
Aww, Mark Strong AGAIN? This’ll be his third big movie villain gig in six months. Boring. I guess the powers that be have decided he’s the new Gary Oldman/Sean Bean British rent-a-villain, only now with 50% less charisma. Funnily enough, I see America’s own villain-for-hire, Danny Huston, is also in this. I guess they had to be in the same movie eventually.
This is a good post i have ever read.I am very impressed with the article I have just read.Thanks a lot for sharing. Keep up the good works.
neways
Imagining an early-70s Ken Russell ROBIN HOOD with Richard Chamberlain as Robin, Glenda Jackson as Marian and Oliver Reed as the Sheriff.