Robin Hood, King Arthur, and Hollywood's Problem with Public Domain Properties

I never understood why Robin Hood didn't get the Pirates of the Caribbean treatment, aka a swashbuckling, tongue in cheek, good time that stays true to the spirit of what it's interpreting while being a little dangerous.

At this point, there are so many "radical new takes" on public domain characters, that a faithful adaptation of the originals WOULD be a radical new take!

I just realized it's only a matter of time before someone makes a gritty movie about Santa Claus. In the last five minutes, he'll toss aside his sword and become a toymaker.

It also doesn't help that Hollywood has contributed to suffocating themselves by making sure that the Public Domain has stopped expanding as it was meant to. Instead of new things falling into the public domain for new artists to work with, they're forced to revisit ad nauseam the same, progressively older, works. This means that the stories which are most relevant are locked into perpetual copyright, often locked away unused. It's not how the bargain of copyright is supposed to work, and this is one of the many ways in which its current shape is stifling things.

I LOVED this video Only criticism tho.. You definitely should of been dressed like a rooster and holding a fiddle in the scene if of you walking in the woods with the animated Robin hood intro music.

I hope Elsie the intern gets a fictional subplot in the next few videos that either has a climactic ending of her getting work elsewhere or getting work full-time with Patrick

Obviously we need to take these public domain characters, and go with what is proven to work with them: Turn them into cute anime girls and sell randomly rolled PNG images of them to nerds on their phones for an absolutely sickening level of profit.

This may be true for Hollywood, but British TV got it right. The 2006 British Robin Hood TV series was traditional and great. The 2008 Merlin (not King Arthur, but he was in it) was also great.

And yet, never a random crossover between the two.

I really love Robin Hood, but I dislike most of the modern adaptations. One of the things all of them lack is sincerity. Robin should be a good guy that tries to help people, and Robin's enemy is an abusive authority. He is not an anti-hero, not a reluctant thief that finds himself forced to do it, not a warrior fighting the French. Those are other characters. It shouldn't be a cynical movie about how everything is crap, or a jingoistic war movie or anything like that. It should be sincerely hopeful and talk about all the good that people can do if they try.

*looks up from the King Arthur book series she's been writing for 17 years* *sighs deeply* *drinks some scotch and cries to her cat*

I mean, the BBC absolutely nailed both Robin Hood and King Arthur (Merlin) back in the noughties which is why no-one liked any of the new movie adaptations, at least here in the UK.

Here's a question: where's the COLOUR? Everything is "gritty" and "realistic" these days. Hey Hollywood, here's a suggestion for a King Arthur cinematic universe - introduce the Round Table, give everyone BIG BRIGHT DISTINCTIVE TABARDS, use Camelot and the Round Table as a framing device / connecting hub, and then do individual movies about different knights on different adventures. Gawain and the Green Knight, Percival and the Fisher King, Lancelot and the Dolorious Guard! Nobody cares about these guys? MAKE them care by 1) giving them individual attention, and 2) NOT MAKING THEM BORING! Oh, and as for Robin Hood? So, uh, when was the last time anyone adapted Ivanhoe? In fact, while the story of Ivanhoe includes Robin Hood, when has a dedicated Robin Hood story ever included Ivanhoe? Go traditional with the "twist" of adding actual connected elements. Maybe have two movies: one with Ivanhoe where Robin Hood shows up, and a Robin Hood film where they briefly help up Ivanhoe, doing some kind of "story from the other side" deal. More interested in a Round Table cinematic universe focusing on individual knights, though.

You seem to be overlooking the fact that those recent movies were crap. It's not just that they didn't find an audience, or that they weren't marketed properly, or that people don't want PDP movies... it's that they were not good movies. They were poorly reviewed as well as being financial failures. The subject matter has very little to do with it.

As an enormous fan of Robin Hood, a lot of the newer takes miss some of the most appealing things about the legend. They're a lot about making friends after bashing each other over the head, wearing disguises to trick people, and laughing a lot. I hate the temptation to bring in the Crusades (as one of the few things that a lot of people also know about the Middle Ages) other than as a plot point for where King Richard is because it brings a Serious tone that really doesn't match. Robin Hood is as much about laughter as it is about justice. It's the combination of the two that makes it fun as well as compelling. I think this is a good explanation of why general audiences aren't enthused, but on top of all that these just...aren't really Robin Hood stories. I writhe in my seat a little bit every time I'm subjected to the trailer for the one coming out in November.

I think the reason a "realistic, historically-accurate retelling" of the King Arthur movies doesn't work is because the definitive Arthurian stories are anachronistic and grounded in magic and fantasy. I think you're shooting yourself in the foot if you decide to make a convincing "realistic" and "historically-accurate" movie about something that is neither realistic nor historically accurate. Those who do that miss the point. King Arthur tales were Medieval-times escapism, they were the MCU of their day. That's why even today the King Arthur stories that people like the most involve magic and mythology, or comedic or purposefully anachronistic. The Guy Ritchie movie came close but changed the core of the characters, imagine the MCU movies as they are except they made Tony Stark half-alien (which explains his high intelligence), Thor is not an Asgardian but simply a metahuman, Banner becomes the Hulk because of a mystic curse (and so on)...no matter how good the movies are, you'll hate them because they changed the core of the characters. By turning Arthur into a street punk, it changed him too much he's not King Arthur anymore. Patrick made a good point about Sherlock respecting this core.

You forgot the other major Sherlock Holmes adaptation... House M.D

The reason King Arthur/Robin Hood films are failing is because they AREN'T FAITHFUL TO THE MYTH. Go too realistic? Boring. Go too superhero? Too unbelievable. Holy Grail is a popular outlier because it's satire/comedy (same as Men in Tights). The Disney Robin Hood is popular because it's a SOLID TELLING OF THE STORY. Leave out the fact it's animals and it works regardless. A new Robin Hood can work as a historical epic stand-alone, as long it's faithful to the core legend (which the Disney one is). Arthur however, is something you can trilogise with borderline LOTR treatment spanning Arthur's life: Sword in the Stone, Knights of the Round Table, Quest for the Grail.

The best line - "Transformers: Last Knight is the closest to proper King Arthur movie" Long live Robin Hood Men in Tights

You forgot about the best King Arthur movie of all - Army of Darkness