[Sean Flynt]

The Eagle of the Ninth sounds promising:

Macdonald [dir., The Last King of Scotland] intends the film to be historically authentic, but as little is certain about the tribes that the Romans encountered—they were probably Celts, but some may have been Picts—he has made concessions. For example, the tribespeople will speak Gaelic, even though the language probably did not enter widespread use in the region until the fifth century AD;[4] Pictish is the more likely language to have been spoken at the time.[2] "It's the best we can do," Macdonald said, "All you can do is build on a few clues and trust your own instincts. That way, no one can tell you you were wrong."[4] Only 1% of Scots speak Gaelic, limiting the talent pool to just 60,000 people; by August 2009, several Gaelic-speaking boys had been auditioned without success[2] for the role of "the young tribal hero of the movie",[4] so Macdonald held open auditions in Glasgow for the role. The character is between nine and twelve years old and known as "seal boy",[2]. The role of Seal Boy was eventually won by a boy from Belfast who had been educated in Irish Gaelic, not unlike Scottish Gaelic. The boy from Newbarnsley, Belfast is Thomas Henry in his first film role, aged 9, and he plays a member of a tribe that the novel calls the "seal people"; Macdonald "has his own [interpretation]" of the tribe:[4]

"They were a more indigenous folk than the Celts, who were from further south ... They were probably small and dark, like the Inuit, living off seals and dressed in sealskins. We are going to create a culture about which no one knows much, but which we will make as convincing as possible. We are basing it on clues gained from places like Skara Brae and the Tomb of the Eagles in Orkney, so that we will have them worshipping pagan symbols, like the seal and the eagle.

The reason they have seized the emblem of the Roman eagle from the legion is because to them it as [sic] a sacred symbol."

[Eric Hejdström]

[Doug Lester]

Chad, "The Kingdom of God" is a great movie, especially the director's cut, but historically it's non-sense. The character of Godfrey was 100% ficticious. Balian's father was named Baldwin and Liam Nelson should have portrayed him (Balian, not his father). Balian was Baldwin IV's (Baldwin the Leper) step-father. He was no one's illigitamate son. He supported Baldwin the IV and V (the boy) but he supported his step-daughter, Isabella, against Sybilla as queen of Jerulalem who, by the way, did love her husband, Guy. (Nope, no riding off into the sunset, Sybilla died shortly after the fall of Jersulem)

There were several other things historically wrong too but there was also a lot accurate. Like Balian threating to burn Jerusalem if Saladin entered the city by force. Evidently the real Guy was a bit of a twit and they got the flavor of the character Reynald pretty much right as they did the charcter of Saladin. If anything the real Reynald was probably worse than portayed.

There were some half trueths too, like Saladin letting the Christians go. They were allowed to go, or remain unmolested, only after their ransom was paid. If the ransom wasn't paid the person was sold into slavery.

Remember, the purpose of the film was to entertain, not to educate.

[Anders Backlund]

What, no tights?

...But seriously, it will probaby be a decent movie, though Russel Crowe wouldn't have been my first choice to play Robin Hood. He's not a terrible actor or anything but... well, he doesn't really have that whole "light-hearted trickster" demeanor I associate with the character.

In fact, the trailer looks kinda dark over-all. Does anyone else remember a time when Robin Hood and his merry men were, you know, merry? I know medieaval times weren't all roses and strawberries, but I don't think a bit of sunlight on occcasion and perhaps a few colors more vibrant then "mud" would be too much to ask.

[Chad Arnow]

[Glennan Carnie]

[Keith L. Rogers]

[Edward Hitchens]

I apologize, I wasn't aware that there was already a topic on here about this film. Thanks Michael! You guys are quick!

It's my guess that Ridley Scott will concentrate more on the LEGEND behind Robin Hood as opposed to being historically accurate to the place and period - this may fall upon the screenwriter(s). The trailer felt very "Kingdom of Heaven-ish" to me which brought to mind a very serious story - that's funny because I too have also associated Robin Hood as being merry as someone pointed out earlier. With that in mind, I wonder if this will be an R-rated film?

I think casting Russell Crowe as Robin Hood is like casting Gary Oldman as Sirius Black: I love the actor, but he doesn't fit the character (heck, I could say the same about Kevin Costner as Robin Hood!). Then again, Russell Crowe is Ridley Scott's right-hand man, like Johnny Depp and Tim Burton. So who would I pick to play a "serious" Robin Hood? I'm sorta thinking Clive Owen. Or how about Christian Bale?

I trust that Sir Ridley won't let this film fall into the trap that Prince of Thieves did - of audiences being far more entertained by the antagonist than the hero. "That's it! Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans. No more merciful beheadings. And call off Christmas!!" Still one of my all-time favorite movie lines!

[Jean-Carle Hudon]

I'm with Anders on this one. I just can't imagine Russell Crowe with his hands on his hips, à la Errol Flynn, grinning ear to ear from the battlements, before leaping into the moat, or a convenient wagon filled with hay. So it follows that if this is to be a dark Robin, then the Sheriff will need to be fascist-evil, so there go the funny one-liners....and Richard the Lion Heart won't speak a word of english, will have a distinct dislike for even being there, and will be hankering to get back to Aquitaine as fast as possible. Who knows, it might be more historical than expected from a Hollywood production??
I enjoyed Crowe's work in Gladiator, and even more so in Master&Commander, but Robin the Hooded man ? I think Sir Ridley has got his work cut out for him this time around. Crowe's tortured demeanor might suit a shell shocked Robin with post traumatic stress disorder, but that sure ain't gonn be merry !!!

[Ed T.]

[Craig Peters]

[Roger Hooper]

[Craig Peters]

The reason I ask is that the dominant theme in 20th century historiography on Richard was to portray him in an unflattering light. Often, though not always, this was coupled with revisionist historiography that sought to rehabilitate the reputation of John, typically by pointing to the increase in administrative documents in his reign as evidence for his capacity as a king. Gillingham is unabashedly pro-Ricardian, but he also demonstrates that much of the criticism of Richard's kingship comes from modern perceptions and expectations of what "good kingship" entails, which were often divorced from the medieval reality of what attributes made for a good king. He also takes the novel approach of bringing in Muslim sources to comment on Richard's character, since they were not embroiled in Western European politics and thus can provide a less-biased source of information in some respects.

More recent scholarship in general tends to emphasize the fact that too much credence and importance has been placed upon John as an administrator, which is not well-founded, and ignores elements of his personal character and how untrustworthy he was as a king. By contrast, Richard's administration, while certainly not outstanding, does not appear to be significantly worse than John's, and his capacity as a king was heightened by the fact that he was a good knight. In fact, I'd argue that a significant aspect of medieval kingship, at least in the 12th century, is that, to a degree, being a good knight meant that you were a good king.

[Greg Mele]

Agreed with Craig - you really need to read Gillingham's work on Richard I. Part of the problem in evaluating Richard as a bad king has been to view him as "King of England", rather than lord of the Angevin "empire": England, Ireland, Normandy, Anjou, Poitou, Aquitaine, etc., wherein the cultural and political center of his realm was really in France; England simply provided the greatest title. There is a great deal more to it, and I highly recommend you look into it - Richard was an extremely complex figure.

[Roger Hooper]

Historical fashions are changeable, and the reputations of kings like Richard I, Henry V, and Richard III swing from one side to the other. And, as Craig said, what we think of as good qualities for a king are not the same ones that people around 1200 would choose. Also, ask a contemporary baron, wool merchant, abbot, peasant, or outlaw in Sherwood Forest, and I bet you would get quite a spectrum of opinions on Richard.

Contemporary views aside, I don't think Richard was good for England. He spent very little time there and regarded it mainly as a milk cow to give him money for the rest of the Angevin Empire, the Crusade, and for the ransom to free him from Leopold of Austria. Of course that is a modernist viewpoint.

[Chris Arrington]

During the holidays, I watched an old film I had never seen before. The "Lion in Winter". While I realize that the events within the movie were fictional, the characters and situations were not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lion_in_Winter_(1968_film)

It certainly had an interesting take on both Richard and John that I had never heard before. Especially the illict affair between Richard and Phillip. Was there any truth or even a hint of truth to that part of the movie?

Its interesting that Richard has become such a symbol of "England" today, but as stated before in the thread had little to do with his English lands (except to use the income from those lands), and its my understanding that he didn't even speak English, prefering French. Of course my understanding may be very flawed.

[Luka Borscak]

All Anglo-Norman nobility in England spoke French.

[Hisham Gaballa]

[Doug Lester]

Chad, my bad. I got confused through a link to another thread (I think) that was linked to off this thread. I'm not even sure that you were the Chad that I was responding to. Someone by the name of Chad on that thread asked an opinion of the accuracy of "The Kingdom of God". I do beg your pardon; old men confuse so easily.

[Craig Peters]