In the 1700s and 1800s, English writers began searching through their ancient history in order to find folk heroes (probably a sign of the growth of nationalism or love of one's country). English historians have also tried to find out RH's true roots as well, and this website concludes:
"Despite the efforts of authors like P. Valentine Harris, no verifiable Robin Hood emerged from the historical record. Today, most scholars accept Robin as a literary invention, based in part on other figures like Gamelyn and Fouke fitz Waryn, as well as real-life outlaws. Any search for the ideal Robin Hood, a dispossessed noble who robs from the rich to give to the poor, is doomed to failure. That Robin is a modern figure whose individual characteristics were added in different stages, which are roughly represented in this exhibit" (http://www.lib.rochester.edu/camelot/rh/RH%20Exhibit/pref.htm)
In
the 1800s, he appeared in plays, songs, and operas as well as novels.
Because of the lack of solid facts on RH, it appears that artists have
fit him into almost any context that they have wanted to, placing him
within the Anglo-Saxon invasion or in today's movie version, a returning
archer from the Crusades. An author named Pierce Egan in 1838 wrote a
series of adventures that added Robin's Merry Men to the myth. Sir
Walter Scott also included RH in his classic, Ivanhoe (1820). The two most recent American movies Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (1991) with Kevin Costner in the lead role along w/ Morgan Freeman and Alan Rickman. The other was Mel Brooks' farce, RH: Men in Tights (1993) which had its best moment when Cary Elwes, as Robin Hood, cracked, "unlike other Robin Hoods, I can speak with an English accent." Costner's portrayal of RH was criticized for losing his lame British accent half way through the movie. The first movie goes for serious drama and action and includes a Moor from the Crusades (Morgan Freeman's character), while the other movie shreds the Robin Hood convention with tons of jokes.
Your questions:
1. Why do you think a country like Britain that had a strong tradition of law and loyalty to the monarch would honor such a popular rebel hero who stole from the rich and gave to the poor?
2. King John pledges to a charter of law and liberty after being convinced by Robin Longstride (Robin Hood) to reward all English men by giving them rights. Chances are, it wasn't Robin Hood who did this. Historically, this isn't accurate, but it makes for a good movie. Comment on which is more important in movie making: historical accuracy or dramatic action and why.
Due Monday, Nov. 3 by class. 250 words total for both questions.
27 comments:
1. I think that Brittan would have honored Robin Hood because most of the people believed that he was trying to help them and not hurt them. I think that after all of this most of Brittan was poor anyway so they did not want to stop him because they were getting helped.
2. In the movie making it is better to have dramatic actions over historical accuracies because they make the movie more interesting. In this case if it had not been Robin Hood that convinced King John to sigh the charter of law and it was some other man not important to the movie that the people watching it would be lost or confused. When Robin Hood convinced King John he had made all of the men that were there like him, while if it was not him but the real person than maybe the movie makers would not have had the people so excited because Robin was the main character in the movie. I think that maybe if the movie was about the person that actually convinced King John than Historical accuracy would be better because he would be the main character in this case and it would be like Robin Hood convincing h, but this way would be historically accurate.
Even though he stole from the rich and gave to the poor, something that Britain would usually shun because of their traditions of being loyal to the monarch, the British honored Robin Hood. Robin Hood helped Britain in its time of need, as they were in a time of war. Robin Hood has good intentions and wanted to help the ones who can’t afford the things they need. He was also in a number of literature works and gave the country a sense of nationalism.
Depending on the reason of why you’re making the movie, it can either be better to base things off of history or base things on the idea of dramatic action. I think a balance of both is the best decision so that it is successful and does not annoy the people who are educated about history. For the purpose of successfully selling tickets and interesting an audience, it is beneficial to write a script full of dramatic action, even if it does tweak the facts about events that actually happened. On the other hand, if you want to make a movie to interest history buffs or for educational purposes then it is a must that the movie is historically correct. Take the Disney movie Pocahontas as an example, if the movie did not manipulate the fact that Pocahontas was years younger and just friends with John Smith, the movie probably wouldn’t have been nearly as successful. Children would not have been as intrigued if it were more of a documentary about friendship than a love story. But, if it was all lies, then it would not have seemed as real.
1. I believe that a country like Britain that had a strong tradition of law and loyalty to the monarch would honor such a popular rebel hero who stole from the rich and gave to the poor because the British realized that some of Robin Hood’s deeds were for the better. While stealing from the rich is a crime, Robin Hood did steal their goods for a valid reason. I would never steal money from someone, but I do understand where Robin Hood was coming from. I believe that the British did know that what Robin Hood was doing was not all good, but the few people that saw the good in what he was doing, made his popularity spread all throughout the country. I also believe that since many scholars believe that Robin Hood is no more than a literary character, those who did not believe that he was an actual physical person may have been on the edge of whether his deeds were good or bad, therefore they were thought to have believed his deeds were for the better.
2. I believe that it is more important to have more dramatic action in a movie. I believe this because without any drama or action throughout the film, not very many people would be drawn to either buy tickets to see the movie in theatres or buy the movie on DVD. Historical accuracy is important in a historical movie, but if a moviegoer wanted to learn more about the history of a certain person or event, they would most likely have other forms of research compared to only watching a movie. Personally, I would rather watch a movie with more action than with historical information. While watching a movie on a topic I am interested in, I may do further research on it in other ways such as using a textbook, or looking up information online about the desired topic.
1. I think that the reason a country Like Britain would support an outlaw like Robin Hood would be because they must have lost respect for their government/monarch for some reason. They must have seen him as a sort of liberator from their government, and it must have been very corrupt if Britain’s people were naturally loyal to their government and are now supporting an outlaw.
2. I think both accuracy and dramatic action are important in showing the character of Robin Hood. My reasons are that if you want to show how great the character is you need to put in realistic events portrayed in a dramatic way so that the character is seen as something more than just the average person.
1. I think that there could be many reasons why Brittan, a country who has a tradition of law and loyalty to monarchs would honor Robin Hood. First, Robin Hood is a figure that many people look up to because of his good deeds that he did. He was living among the poor and when he saw “his people” suffering he took action. He stole from the monarchs and provided for his community. Robin Hood had courage, pride, and a great heart to help those people. Second, the people that Robin Hood was living with did not have the luxury that the high class did, and he tried to make things better for all of them. For this reason he was popular with the under crowd and everyone knew him as an exemplary man for his good deeds. Third, the poor made up most of the country so, the overview that someone would understand about Robin Hood would be that he helped most of the country. There were few monarchs that would even look at the poor, but they would when they needed and army. There was always “unlimited supply” of the underprivileged people because they chose their monarchs carefully and the rest were all unknowns. For these reasons Robin Hood is honored because he fought and was willing to die for his community. I think that Brittan would like many more people in their country like this, but not in the same situation.
2. I think for in movie making business the more important part is drama. Personally, I don’t think that the people that would be watching the movie really care about the historical point of this movie. I think they like all of the action, but they can also see the area and the “setting” of The Medieval Times.
1. There are many reasons as to why the people of Great Britain would honor someone like Robin Hood. One of these reasons might include the peasants who live in Great Britain being overjoyed with what Robin Hood steals for them because it brings them closer to the level of stability as the nobles and lords. It also could help the peasants to live in more luxury. This will make them more confortable and this could hopefully help them to live longer.
2. In my opinion, it is more important for a movie to have a lot of dramatic action rather than being historically accurate. Though it is very important for a movie to have historical accuracy, the most important part of a movie is to be interesting. For example, in the movie we watched in class, it is very unlikely that Robin Hood and Marion could fall in love within the short time that they knew each other, especially since Marion had no intention of pretending that Robin Hood was her husband. Another part of the movie that I enjoyed was the character of Walter Loxley. Not only did I find it amusing that he seemed a little on the quirky side, but also he was willing to accept Robin as his son, even though he had lost his own son, Robert Loxley, in battle. Even though it was never historically proven that Robin Hood even took part in the story, the character of Robin embellished the story and made it better. Because of this it is important for a movie to have dramatic action.
Blog#30-James Shelton
To answer question one I think that the poor in Great Britain needed Robin hood because King John was taking all of the poor people money in taxes and they didn’t have money to keep themselves alive to grow plants and crops and have enough soil and water. In the beginning of the movie we saw that the sheriff was stealing from grain and food from the Loxley’s and i didn’t understand at first but I think they did that because she did make enough money to pay taxes so they went and stole food from them. Robin Hood did a lot for the poor people he brought food, money, and happiness to them he gave them another chance at life.
To answer question two I say that dramatic action would be good for movies because most people or maybe it’s just me like movies that have action and suspense they want movies they leave you like what else is gonna and why it happened. It’s kinda hard to decide on if your gonna put the actual historical meaning in the movie cause these movie directors want their movies to be the best it can be. We all now that in the beginning of some movies they say based on a true story the movie is going to be based around the actual event but we know it’s not going to be the exact wording and how everyone died but that’s my opinion on how historical movies should be made.
1.) In a country like Britain that had a strong tradition of law and loyalty to the monarch people honored a popular rebel hero who stole from the rich and gave to the poor because monarchs treated the poor like they were worthless so when someone like this came and brought them food and things that they needed they looked up to him. Also not a whole lot of the country was rich, most of the country was on the poor side, they sided with the person who helped them and not destroyed and killed their villages or towns, but someone who was fed them and gave them stuff to help them survive. They wanted to follow a leader that brought them up and made them equal instead of someone that thought about them as low and made them feel worthless.
2.) King John pledges to a charter of law and liberty after being convinced by Robin Longstride to reward all English men by giving them rights. Chances are, it wasn’t Robin Hood who did this. Historically, this is inaccurate, but it makes for a good movie because dramatic action is important in movie making instead of historical fiction because the drama is what makes a person want to see the movie and spend their money on it which brings income for the movie maker which will give them more money instead of having it historically correct. If the movie had no drama it wouldn’t be as interesting.
McKenna Moosekian
Jackie Sullivan
November 2, 2014
3rd
Blog #30 Robin Hood
1. A country like Britain that had a strong tradition of law and loyalty to the monarch would honor such a popular rebel hero who stole from the rich and gave to the poor because he made everything equal. Even though Britain had a strong tradition of law and loyalty to the monarch, they wanted everyone to be equally the same with the amount of money they have and other things. Also they may have honored such a popular rebel hero who stole from the rich and gave to the poor because a lot of people may have looked up to him, and Britain giving him action could have gotten other people to look up to Britain. Doing this would give Britain more power.
2. When making a movie, dramatic action is more important then being historically accurate for multiply reasons. The reasons that make dramatic action more important than being historically correct are a lot of people may not see a history movie that is stereotypically looked at as boring. If the movie were just historically accurate, again it would be boring. The movie would also not have a lot of interesting things because most people don’t like to watch those types of movies. Even in the movie Robinhood, it was not historically correct and a lot of action was added that may or may not have happen. With dramatic action and some parts added that are made up (being historically incorrect), the movie would be more successful.
1. We all know that Britain has a tradition of its people being very loyal to the monarch. But now that tradition is all changing. I think that the reason the British people were so very loyal to their monarch was because that’s all they have known. They don’t know any other way of living. They think that this is all there is in the world and they have it good. So when a rebel hero comes along saying stuff about equality and loyalty the British people start thinking. They start to believe the rebel and what he has to say, that there can be change and the way they are living now is not right and needs to be changed. They start to see the other side if things, how badly the king is treating his people and how he is not following his own laws. They now know that if they want change they are the ones that are going to make it happen, and that the king is not going to change on his own. You see that Britain is slowly changing from an unfair monarchy to a country of equality.
2. I mixed feelings about this issue. Sure having Robin Hood being the one to convince the king was smart for the making of the movie. This made the movie more interesting for an audience to watch. It would be weird if the whole movie is about Robin Hood and just for the sake of accurate history, the moviemakers decided to have some other guy convince the king to give the people more rights. It would just throw the audience off. For the other side of the argument, in some people’s eyes it was wrong to give out false information. Some people and historians might argue that since the moviemakers gave out false historic information the movie should not have been aired. I can see why some people might feel this way. It was wrong of them to do this because now that people have watched the movie they now think that it actually was a guy named Robin Hood that convinced the king. Unless you actually look it up, you would only believe what the movie said. This is why I am torn between liking the movie how it is and wanting them the change it. Because I can see how both sides think that they are obviously right.
1. Britain gave a lot to their wealthy but not enough to their poor. Robin Hood was able to give the poor what they needed. He would do so by taking it from the wealthy. The royalty had as much as they needed an a lot more. While the poor barely had what they needed, and would get taxed a lot for it. Robin Hood would get it for them with no pay and no tax. Robin Hood helped the poor have more things they need and wanted.
2. It depends on the type of movie. With a narrator and trying to be more historical the right facts would be a better thing to do. If they are trying to get more views and have a better movie the added fake dramatic part is better. The fact that they had Robin Hood do it made it very un-realistic, but it made it very good for money. To have a poor man taking stuff from the wealthy isn’t very likely because the wealthy is smarter than the poor. It’s a great selling point, but not realistic, even though it would be a better historical point.
-George
#1 A country like Britain that had such a strong tradition on law and loyalty to the monarch would honor such a popular rebel hero that stole from the rich to give back to the poor because since the rich were so rich him taking from the rich and giving to the poor was an honorable thing to do. Robin Hood was either a bad guy or a hero because he stole but what he stole, he gave back to the poor and the hungry. The Rich of course could think this is a bad thing to do because what he is taking is theirs and in their eyes all he is doing is stealing from them. To the poor he would be a hero; He took from the rich and gave it to the poor. He risked himself to give make and that to the poor would be a hero.
#2 I think for a movie both being historically accurate and being action/drama filled are important. Because most history to me is interesting and action filled being historically accurate would be a little more important in a movie so people watching can also learn and enjoy the movie. Adding some drama and action to a movie doesn’t mean you have to take the accurate history out of it. If you change everything to the history people aren’t learning and getting true facts so when they talk about the movie they are inaccurate on what they believe happened.
1.)
I think a country like Britain that had a strong tradition of law and loyalty to
The monarch would honor such a popular rebel hero who stole from the rich and gave to the poor because there were a lot of poor people who actually needed the money that liked what he had done for them. It was just the smaller amount of rich people than poor people who didn’t appreciate him stealing their money. But say a regular citizen like us stole from the celebrities or someone with a lot of money and gave it to the poor people on the streets, now they’d be in jail but imagine it as back then. The poor people would call that person a hero because they actually risked a lot to do something like that out of the kindness in their heart. The poor people in Robin Hood looked at him like he was a hero because he’d stolen money form people who had enough of it that they could share, but chose not to, and he didn’t keep it for himself, he gave it to the poor. They honored him because he was a good person.
2.)
Honestly I think dramatic action is more important in movie making because if the movie weren’t interesting, then nobody would really want to see it, this would cause the movie sales to decrease. If changing parts of history in the movie made it a better movie for people to watch, then that is what should be done. I feel that if it still has a little bit of accuracy in the history it would be good.
World History Blog #30 Chaise Ford
I think the people that lived in Britain honored robin because he stole from the rich, and not the poor like a lot of people would do in the olden days. What he did was very brave and that took a lot of courage and guts to do what he did. He should the rich and wealty that b happy and humble for the stuff you have because some people aren’t as fortunate as they are. When he stole from the rich and wealty he didn’t keep it all for him self he actually returned it back to the poor. Robin and his wife had money they actually were living just fine but he saw what thhe king was doing to the people that were poor, their was a ton of suffering starvation going on with the poor. The king was asking for to much the poor people couldn’t bear to pay the king taxes live, and have supper every night it was just to hard. These are some of the things that I think help the people honor someone that were breaking the laws and doing things that a normal person would do. If you think about there are more poor and mid-class people than there are rich and royalty people.
I think in movie making you should always try to get closes you can to events that has actually occurred in are history. In a movie people can see the character and se the stuff they did and can get a better thought process and educate theres selfes what the information they receive from the movie.
1. I think that a country like Britain that had a strong tradition of law and loyalty to the monarch honored a popular rebel hero who stole from the rich and gave to the poor because the popular rebel ( aka Robin Hood) was speaking for the poor. The poor had no voice for themselves and the king didn't want to listen to them. The only thing the king wanted was money, and Robin did not like that. The king did not like being told he was broke, so he taxed the poor and when they refused, destroyed their villages with armies. He burned down many villages, so Robin stole food that was being taken to the king and gave it to the poor. They honored him because he helped save the poor and unified them together. When they were about to face the French, Robin also spoke up for the poor when the king was trying to win the poor back over to his side so they would defend him. Robin rallied them together and gave them a sense of hope. He also helped them in the battle by giving each part of the army a direction. With Robin's help, they won the battle against the French. Yes, although he stole from the rich and gave to the poor, Robin still saved the king and England, which mattered the most. Even though he was not honorable and became an outlaw, he gave the poor a voice and a sense of hope.
2. I think dramatic action is more important in movie making because yes, while history accuracy is important, people come to watch the movie for dramatic action. However, as long as there is some historical accuracy then that's alright. Robin Hood was based off of history. Based meaning told off of, not accurate. Accurate would be a biography, not an action movie. Sometimes people will not be as entertained if Robin Hood didn't stand up for the poor. Because Robin Hood is the protagonist of the story, the audience of the crowd is expecting him to do heroic things, or else he wouldn't be much of a hero and the movie shouldn't have been called 'Robin Hood'. For example, in movies like Spider Man, the newer versions of the movie aren't always exactly like the older ones or the more 'historical ones'. But the same thing happens: There is some evil villain, Spider Man tries to defeat the villain, fails, then there is one final battle where he does and the movie is over. The same thing happens. I think if Robin Hood was completely based off the history, then there wouldn't even be a movie because historians find no evidence or proof that Robin Hood even existed. With a little twist or spin off history, that is what makes the movie more entertaining or interesting to watch. It is entertaining and interesting to see creativity of the people of our society today to see what they can make out of their own imaginations, not just something from books.
1.) During the medieval times it was true that the country of Britain had a strong tradition of law and loyalty. This was a good thing to enforce because during these times life wasn’t very organized so it the standard was loyalty people would be encouraged to be loyal to their king of upper hand. But why would these people honor a rebel. Maybe they thought the rich were too rich, and the poor were too poor. So this could be seen as loyalty to the poor. But then again if you were more loyal to the king this would have been seen as a terrible crime. To most he was seen as a hero because he tried to help the needy rather than stick to the standard.
2.) I think movie making is a very complex system of the history and viewers interests. When they were making a movie about Robin Hood if all he does is steal from the rich and give to the poor a couple times then that would turn into a boring movie. To add the movie they may just decide to switch Robin Hood in for someone else who did something historically accurate. Doing this would add action because the viewer may not specify know who did it but they may know the event and this would make the Robin Hood character more exciting and interesting. And also adds drama and action, which for a money making movie is more important than being one hundred percent historically accurate.
erinn costello
Britian was so strict onto the law and their loyality that they created a monster. They created a monster because how could anyone afford the taxes even they were rich or poor. If you couldn’t afford the taxes then the knights would ether ask for the taxes or burn down the villages. There were also a lot of rebellious people that would fight back. For example Robin Long stride fought against the so-called knights with his village people. Most villages were because the villages were so poor that the little children ran away from home they stole from others home, they stole grains, animals, and supplies. Historical accuracy is more important because would you rather someone know the truth about history. Or instead would you know the correct information about history. I wouldn’t want dramatic action because it`s telling you the incorrect information. Most likely movies with dramatic action would not sell as much as movies with historical accuracy because they are telling the truth and not a lie. A law and loyality monarchy would honor a popular rebel because the rich are the enemies because they are trying to tax villages. The popular rebel had to steal and almost die just to get his or her own food and supplies back. The kingdom didn’t like the rebellious man because in their eyes he was an outlaw. An outlaw is someone that comments crimes. To the kingdom the outlaw are killer and thieves, and laws cannot come in contact with anything to do with kingdom. Cristion Williams
Blog 30: Robin Hood 10/31/2014
By Natalia Biszczanik
1. I think Britain honored this rebel, because tradition deserves to be broken at some point. The English people of Britain realized that they do not need to always follow a “strict”, if you may, rule of tradition and or religion. The people must have discovered that even though he is not royal, Robin Longstride still has some good sense. Not to mention he also cares about the poor, unlike the king. Robin deserves to be honored in this position of time. He has smart ideas for a safe and fair future. If people were always afraid to stand up for themselves and not let the king realize that what hes doing wrong, then life today would be much different. Robin has to be honored for his extreme bravery and careness.
2. For a good movie for people to enjoy, I would say dramatic action is more important. Historical accuracy seems like it is more important, but if you want this movie to be popular and remembered it may not seem like the best idea. Not only would adults enjoy dramatic action but the kids would also. History isn’t always a very exciting topic to people… but if there were to be a dramatic twist in the story it would become more interesting. Since it is not definite if Robin Longstride had indeed rewarded all the English men, it was still a clever idea to add that event to this great movie, Robin Hood.
In a country with strong legal beliefs, people would look to a rebel to give them hope. King John was a very strict and unjust ruler who only ever thought about himself and his money. After a while under the rule of King John, the people of England felt that they were not being treated fairly and were being taxed to highly.
Because of the King’s high taxation, Robin decided to help the poor by stealing from people who had more than they needed. By doing this, he tried to make the wealth more equal throughout England. Robin gave the poor people of England hope for better times with lower taxes.
In movie making, generally it is more effective to include some historical accuracy along with the dramatic action to tell the story. Historical accuracy can change weather or not a person believes the story. If a fact is even partially accurate, it will make a better story than if the fact was not accurate at all. Historical accuracy could also change the setting or language of a movie.
The dramatic action is also important in the making of a movie. The dramatic action could decide weather or not a viewer watches the movie or not. If there is very little drama, the viewer may not stay to watch the entire movie or if they leave part way through. By changing who made the deal with King John, the movie makers added a little more drama, but kept part of the movie historically accurate.
I think a country like Britain that had a strong tradition of law and loyalty to the monarch would honor such a popular rebel hero who stole from the rich and gave to the poor because they needed somebody to step up to the king dude (I forgot his name) because the kind dude was a butt. Why would they elect a butt? Well that's the point they didn't, and they couldn't, because there were no elections and royalty was given by inheritance. Another reason may be because the poor outweighed the rich and the poor wanted to be treated fairly. Also robin can relate to them so if the majority can feel his pain and need a foot to kick a butt ,then why wouldn't they honor him?
Let's start here I don't like movies that aren't originals they are always so inaccurate. For instance Gojira, since when did Gojira start breathing blue fire (it's all Stan lees fault). Movies should be more accurate because the people who want accuracy outweigh the people who want drama and this is why movie makers loose money (Michael bay). Movies shouldn't be remastered either (George Lucas) greedo didn't shoot first in the originality fact he didn't shoot at all. Historical movies should be accurate and less dramatic so that the people who view these movies don't have false information. They could at least say "this didn't happen" or "this is dramatized" or some other random disclaimer at the beginning of the movie or simply "we messed up...bad" (planet of the apes). It's bad to put something in millions of people's head and had them think that for the rest of until they find out the truth which could be never. Another example (exodus) Egypt is in Africa... Africans are black...something's gotta give. That's all. Jamil lee
Jay Griffin
I believe they would honor such a rebel because many of them where poor in that day and age and the king wasn’t always fair and would often been money greedy and raise tax so the poor couldn’t pay the taxes being charged. Also the king would often disobey the lays that were being placed by the past rulers/kings. The king may have also let the soldiers would returned from the war disobey the laws as well and they would mess with the civilians and take their animals, grain, etc. So the civilians would often agree with the thief like Robin Hood because he would take from the rich would much and give to the poor who were barely making it. He would give them hope the feeling that they were being cared about that at least somebody knew they were worth more than farmers, or marketers that they were actual people even though they didn’t have the luxurious of having the nicest clothes or the best food or any food if it came to it. That they would do anything to try and support their family even if it meant that they would go to the war to try and get some money to send back to their family so they would have the funds needed to make it in that day and time. I believe they believed in Robin Hood because he was everything the king who they adored wasn’t that he would dare his own life so that they could try and make it that he would do any and everything so that they could live.
I believe that historical accuracy is more important in a movie. I believe this because historical accuracy matches up with the movie so it makes it more realistic so that it paints a more vivid realistic feel than rather something being made up just some director can just make a movie. Historical accuracy shows the director put time and effort into the project that he’s showing that he actually cares about the project he’s directing. With movie drama the director is just writing just to show that he has something to write about it’s not showing he has any compassion towards the project he’s directing. It just shows that the director doesn’t care if his movie is actually good or it it’s just something he can direct and put in a movie. Also historical accuracy shows that the project had thought put into it that research was done and that every project being directed is actually movie worthy rather than just something so it can be a movie.
1. I think that the monarch honored this popular hero for many reasons. Britain was very strong in its law and its loyalty, so when Robin Hood came around everything changed. People who were poor were given to, while the wealthy/ rich were taken from. When Robin Hood did this it changed everything the community, the laws, and changed the stable British social system. Robin was evening out the social system, by giving more to the poor. Which in turn though making the rich unhappy it made the poor were given a small since of hope. This hope helped improve their community by: this hope pushing them toward opportunities like strength, greatness, becoming higher in the community it also gave them the hope to get things like jobs and even some education. So based on the information of things above it proves that in many societies people may bend the rules but everyone benefits from it. So to answer the question I think that the country of Britain honored the popular hero because he fought in favor of his country. By Robin getting into everything and helping it caused him to be seen as a hero in the public eye. So the only way they could keep the public happy was by keeping their hero who gave them hope alive. If the people of the monarchy or government had killed Robin Hood they would have no reason to fight or work. So I think that the government honored Robin Hood to win over the favor of the British people.
In movie making I think it is most important thing to making a movie is the dramatic action. I believe this is true for many reasons! My first reason is that accuracy gets boring. Could you imagine watching a movie that contained only facts (and staying awake). Did you know Mickey Mouse was invented by Walt Disney? Did you know we have 5 senses? Did you know the word boring starts with the letter B? Would you want to watch a movie that is all facts and super boring or a movie that is full of action and cliff hangers? For example if the hunger game was all facts about the games you get very bored very fast. Unlike the actual movie which was very entreating and entertaining. So in Robin Hood’s case if they had not put the Robin Hood twist on this movie it may have been found boring for many people (especially teenagers). In movies like this a good twist to lighten it up and make it even more exciting. Since people know the story of Robin Hood by mixing it with this historical event puts it into perspective for people. So yes, I find the dramatic action makes for a better and more exciting movie than a historically accuracy fact filled movie. In the end the only difference between these two types of movies (in my opinion) a boring and kind of tiring movie a.k.a historical accuracy. Then there is a cliff hanging on the edge of your seat movie a.k.a Dramatic action. So in my opinion a better movie to make is dramatic action.
Larkin
Written by Dominik Headlee:
In the case of this first question, I believe that the society that is so used to being miserably forced to do whatever the king wanted, would practically worship a rebellious figure such as Robin Hood. This is because he is willing to do things that everyday peasants wouldn’t dare to even attempt. He defies the authority that the people despise in manners that also help the lower class in a variety of ways, such as help people feed their families and protect them. He was willing to put others in place of himself, never asking for anything in return. It’s amazing what he does for a literal charity, directly and indirectly saving lives.
Onto question number two. Although the creation of impressive films such as the one we viewed in class is enjoyable by the majority of people, historical accuracy trumps it by far. These types of inaccurate films leave people falsely informed and ignorant to what actually happened in that point in history. Not to say that this actually ends up harming most individuals in any way, shape, or form, but it still has negative effects on the intelligence of movie-goers.
(This makes 200)
Despite the fact that Britain had a strong tradition of law and loyalty to the monarch they respected Robin Hood for many reasons. Robin Hood was for the people. He took from the rich and greedy and gave to those in need. He didn't selfishly take from the rich for his own benefit. He stole to aid people which the rich and King where inflicting harsh taxes on, in order to sustain there power and luxurious lifestyles while the poor suffered from poverty. So, they honored this rebel not for stealing, but for doing what the King should do. Making everything equal. Him giving them things he had taken from the King were what the people had deserved after the King harshly taxed them. Let's be honest: the King wasn't for the people. He didn't become King to make things equal and make sure everyone is treated fairly. He became King because he wanted power and wealth and would do anything to make sure he kept his power. Robin Hood, contrary to the King, didn't want power or wealth. He simply got fed up with the King's selfish ways and decided the people deserve the things the Long were takin from them back!
In my opinion, historical accuracy is for important than dramatic action because people usually see these types of movies, historical movies to visualize what actually went on or reinforce what they've previously learned. You could make events that are accurate drama filled and suspenseful you don't have to put extra things in to make it more 'interesting".
1. I think Britain with their strong tradition of law and loyalty honored Robin Hood even though he was stealing from the rich and giving to the poor because he was trying to help the majority of the country’s need. It might have been all that Britain knew at the time; this extreme inequality between the rich in the poor with the poor excepting the fact that they were starving while the rich continued on with their life’s and didn’t do anything about it. When they see Robin Hood doing something that has a smaller consequence than having a majority of the country starve to death or if things got really bad, rebel themselves. What Robin Hood did in order to get the food wasn’t initially right, but being one that was able to see that there was a problem and then try to solve it without being in a high social status might have also intrigued those of Britain and might have been something that they wanted others to follow in a way that wouldn’t be as harsh as stealing.
2. I have mixed feelings on what is important in moving making, especially with the scenario of Robin Hood, where he has already been blended into multiple different movies, songs, and poems because of the limited solid facts on his life. When one is writing the screenplay for the movie, without an intriguing conflict, problem, or story to tell, there would be limited sales on the movie and no one will watch it. I also think the importance of historical accuracy depends on how important the event was. If it was something irrelevant that didn’t matter, I think it would matter less than if someone wrote a movie on something that had a high impact on the world. In most cases, I would say that the historical accuracy is the most important, but in a case where facts about Robin Hood are already inconsistent that the dynamic action is more important when making a movie.
Stephanie G. Used Late Pass
Sanae Chestnut
Mr. Wickersham
Blog: Robin Hood
A country like Britain that has a strong tradition of law and loyalty to the Monarch honored the idea of Robin Hood because the people saw him as their own champion. At the time, the townspeople were poor and taxes were high. The people looked at Robin Hood as a honorable, righteous, and brave man. He ultimately was a threat to the monarch and opposed everything that they stood for. He was willing to revolt against the King and his excessive taxation of the people. He gave the people hope and someone to look up to. Robin Hood was an outlaw that was willing to risk his life for the good of the people.
The historical accuracy of a movie should be the most important factor in making a movie so that people have the true story of the events, people and/or places. It should be intended to educate the audience with the facts, so there is no confusion about historical events. The movie should include the correct characters and timeline in the movie to be sure it is accurate. When watching movies that came from books, it is usually disappointing that elements from the book is missing or told differently from the actual book. Sometimes it makes the story less interesting or leaves you confused. The reality is that the drama and action in movies today are found to be entertaining to movie-goers. The more people going to see the movie, the more money it makes. Some movie makers are more concerned with entertainment aspect of the story and not accuracy.
Post a Comment