Oct. 8th, 2006

lesbiassparrow: (Default)
Judging by its opening moments quite a lot of this show will rely on you:

a. Not minding that Robin looks rather like a rat*

b. Believing that the average horse runs much slower than a human

ETA: c. Thinking that a 30 year old in the middle ages could have a 20 something permed daughter

*No really, what were they thinking when they cast him?

ETA 2: I have a horrible feeling that with this show I will be one of those annoying people posting about what is wrong with the show endlessly. In my defence this is because Robin Hood is one of those things I will watch in any form, because I love the story. And thus I am incapable of resisting a Robin Hood series, even if the best thing about it is not ratty Robin or the somewhat bovine Marian but the evil Gisbourne. And there is always the potential that it will all improve in the later episodes and I hold out great hope of that.

And I do have one serious question: what did they do with the budget? It looked like they had a cast of 20s there and there was little sign of the serious money being spent (though Nottingham from the outside looked rather good). But I understand this is a big budget series, so the money must be going somewhere.
lesbiassparrow: (Default)
I know, I know: I'm becoming one of those crazy people who create deep bitterness threads on Television Without Pity for shows that have only had trailers. But this thought just struck me and that means I have to immediately post it. Because otherwise it may not have existed.

The BBC's new Robin Hood is very much a Blairite version of the legend compared with the anti-Thatcherism of the 1980s Robin of Sherwood, something which may cause more problems for me than the ratty looking hero. Think about it: in this one the problem is not the position of Sheriff, which it was in Robin of Sherwood, where the Sheriff was always going to be oppressive no matter who you got. That was his function: to screw you over and impose his will on you and break up any traditional organizations or social structures you had. In the new version troubles began when the old, benevolent Sheriff was deposed and replaced with an evil one who taxed people so much they could no longer engage in capitalism, thus tragically ending Nottingham's market day. Robin protests not that hungry people are punished for stealing flour but that they are punished too harshly.

Whereas for Robin of Sherwood all property was pretty much a form of theft, no matter what, in this version if you have the right people in charge and wealthy then everyone wins. Thus this Robin has to be a kindly aristocrat, whereas in Robin of Sherwood, Robin (or the first one) was a peasant who held his position not because of birth but because he was wicked hot chosen by Herne. And yes that's a mystical thing and a bit random and not democratic, but it was suggested that Herne was somehow part and parcel of the spirit of the people, not part of an outside structure. And Robin was important not in and of himself but because he was about rebelling against an unequal social structure and redistributing its wealth amongst the poor. This one so far just wants the people to be taxed less so they can sell Medieval trinkets to each other like grubby Ren Fair refugees.

And yes this snap judgment is tremendously unfair given that the new Robin Hood has only had one episode, but I put my money on this show falling out this way.
lesbiassparrow: (eggs)
I was not able to resist after the squee that I saw on everyone else's journal The show I loved is back. Except for fat Lee, that is.

Cut for spoilers for 3.01 and 3.01 )

Profile

lesbiassparrow: (Default)
lesbiassparrow

August 2011

S M T W T F S
 1 23456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031   

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 20th, 2017 02:37 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios