Greetings!

Trond, I have Robin Hood, by I.C.E. The campaign supplement is, in my view, excellent. Lots of fine maps, drawings and diagrams, and advice on running and developing a campaign.

As for specifically getting into a "Robin Hoodish" campaign, well, there is an absolute treasure trove right there within the history and literature itself. Understanding how the Normans conquered and ruled, Britain. Characters can become involved in opposing tax collectors, fighting evil, maniacal sheriffs, rescuing good peasant women from evil Norman nobles, competing in local faires and tournaments, espionage, helping Saxon clergy resist the Norman oppression, and on and on.

Robin Hood is an excellent resource and supplement.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Just saw the Errol Flynn Robin Hood, which has all the ingredients of a 30s classic. A bit of a color overload perhaps but I guess they really wanted to show off that technicolor. And newer medieval movies have a tendency to be too dark and grim, so there's that.

Wanted to check out the Russell Crowe film from 2010 but then I read this: In the new Robin Hood, Russell Crowe's iconic medieval hero wears no tights, shows little interest in redistribution of wealth, scarcely bothers with the Sheriff of Nottingham, fights alongside Maid — sorry, Lady Marion and all but forces King John to sign the Magna Carta. In other words, director Ridley Scott and his producers were so determined this would not be your father's Robin Hood that a checklist of familiar incidents and legendary exploits to avoid must have been handed to writers Brian Helgeland (story and screenplay), Ethan Reiff and Cyrus Voris (story).

I also seem to remember that I was less impressed with Kevin Costner's Robin Hood than most people. I remember thinking he had the worst "medieval" costume I had ever seen. Costner also doesn't really come across as "merry". But a lot of people seem to like it, so maybe I'll give it a second chance.

Not sure why there's a need to subvert old stories. What's next? A black female Robin Hood? Oh shit.

I remember The Legend of Robin Hood from 1975 when it was shown in the US on Once Upon a Classic, hosted by Bill Bixby of The Hulk fame. I found a terrible quality copy of it on YouTube recently to rewatch it. Oh, those old, low-budget BBC shows were cheesy, but it was still a fun bit of reminiscing for me. And I can watch the Errol Flynn version over and over (and have).

Quote from: Trond on April 25, 2025, 10:13:07 AMI also seem to remember that I was less impressed with Kevin Costner's Robin Hood than most people. I remember thinking he had the worst "medieval" costume I had ever seen. Costner also doesn't really come across as "merry". But a lot of people seem to like it, so maybe I'll give it a second chance.

I thought it was really bad, and it even managed to make Alan Rickman bad - which takes real effort.

However, it does have one of my favorite movie quotes, which is Robin of Loxley saying: "The Sheriff calls us outlaws, but I say we are free. And one free man defending his home is more powerful than ten hired soldiers. The Crusades taught me that."

Quote from: Trond on April 25, 2025, 10:13:07 AMNot sure why there's a need to subvert old stories. What's next? A black female Robin Hood? Oh shit.

Most of the "classics" are subversions of older stories. I don't know as much about the context of the 1938 Robin Hood movie, but (for example) the 1939 Wizard of Oz movie was a complete subversion of the original story from 1900.

Quote from: jhkim on April 25, 2025, 11:43:35 AM

Quote from: Trond on April 25, 2025, 10:13:07 AMI also seem to remember that I was less impressed with Kevin Costner's Robin Hood than most people. I remember thinking he had the worst "medieval" costume I had ever seen. Costner also doesn't really come across as "merry". But a lot of people seem to like it, so maybe I'll give it a second chance.

I thought it was really bad, and it even managed to make Alan Rickman bad - which takes real effort.

However, it does have one of my favorite movie quotes, which is Robin of Loxley saying: "The Sheriff calls us outlaws, but I say we are free. And one free man defending his home is more powerful than ten hired soldiers. The Crusades taught me that."

Quote from: Trond on April 25, 2025, 10:13:07 AMNot sure why there's a need to subvert old stories. What's next? A black female Robin Hood? Oh shit.

Most of the "classics" are subversions of older stories. I don't know as much about the context of the 1938 Robin Hood movie, but (for example) the 1939 Wizard of Oz movie was a complete subversion of the original story from 1900.

Not sure about "most" but some certainly do. In many cases I still wonder why.

I think Robin Hood was pretty close to the sources. I've even read some of the 15th century stuff, which some said was "totally different" and found that it really isn't. Some of the things that may seem a bit odd in the movie, like inviting the "victims" of his robberies to dinner, are actually straight from the old ballads. The main exception being that the older Robin Hood stories emphasize what a good Catholic he is, and his chivalrous treatment of women is sort of an extension of his love for the Virgin Mary. I guess that Hollywood realized that this might not work in America.

Quote from: Trond on April 25, 2025, 10:13:07 AMJust saw the Errol Flynn Robin Hood, which has all the ingredients of a 30s classic. A bit of a color overload perhaps but I guess they really wanted to show off that technicolor. And newer medieval movies have a tendency to be too dark and grim, so there's that.

Wanted to check out the Russell Crowe film from 2010 but then I read this: In the new Robin Hood, Russell Crowe's iconic medieval hero wears no tights, shows little interest in redistribution of wealth, scarcely bothers with the Sheriff of Nottingham, fights alongside Maid — sorry, Lady Marion and all but forces King John to sign the Magna Carta. In other words, director Ridley Scott and his producers were so determined this would not be your father's Robin Hood that a checklist of familiar incidents and legendary exploits to avoid must have been handed to writers Brian Helgeland (story and screenplay), Ethan Reiff and Cyrus Voris (story).

I also seem to remember that I was less impressed with Kevin Costner's Robin Hood than most people. I remember thinking he had the worst "medieval" costume I had ever seen. Costner also doesn't really come across as "merry". But a lot of people seem to like it, so maybe I'll give it a second chance.
Oh shit.

You might find this video interesting:

The narrator's a bit of a lefty, but the video includes an interesting run-through of the history of Robin Hood cinema and a lament of the turn towards grim-darking the story.

The Errol Flynn Robin Hood is a childhood favorite of mine and I still watch it at least once a year. I agree with the guy in that video that it nails the spirit of the story better than any other screen adaptation. Robin Hood is an important character in Ivanhoe(1952), which is also well worth a watch.

Quote from: jhkim on April 25, 2025, 11:43:35 AM

Quote from: Trond on April 25, 2025, 10:13:07 AMNot sure why there's a need to subvert old stories. What's next? A black female Robin Hood? Oh shit.

Most of the "classics" are subversions of older stories. I don't know as much about the context of the 1938 Robin Hood movie, but (for example) the 1939 Wizard of Oz movie was a complete subversion of the original story from 1900.

People sometimes mix up "subversion" and "interpretation". Robin Hood is like King Arthur. It grows out of a narrative tradition where modification, re-interpretation, and "re-mixing" of the core elements is routine and expected. In the oldest stories, Robin Hood isn't a dispossessed aristocrat, he doesn't live in Sherwood Forest, it's not set during the reign of John I, and so on. He isn't even named "Robin Hood" in every version of the story.

In that kind of story, subversion only really occurs when a new interpretation tries invert the message or spirit of the tale, or deconstruct the characters. the 1930s Robin Hood certainly doesn't do that. You could argue either way whether the Russel Crowe one does.

One of my players was really into Role-Master and had that book. It is very detailed and personally I like to combine it with Furry Outlaws which is a historical RPG disguised as Disney animal people. Both books cover aspects the other does not. And Robin Hood sports more maps and examples of buildings which the other is sorely lacking.

Polyhedron in its waning years also did a 3e conversion for running a Robin Hood historical campaign.

The Role-Master version to me seems the better due to having more maps and examples.