Talk:Robin Hood (2010 film)

Robin Hood (2010 film) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: December 26, 2020. (Reviewed version).

Film: British / American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the British cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Interview punch[edit]

The comment about Crowe punching the interviewer over comments about his accent is not mentioned in the cited reference; Crowe simply walked out of the interview. This is funny but entirely untrue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.65.11.70 (talk) 02:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Date formatting[edit]

I would like to rewrite the dates and accessdates in the article to reflect directly the months and days. It is more of a personal touch, but I think that the directness helps. I am fine with American or British formatting, though with Universal Pictures's involvement, American formatting seems the way to go. Thoughts? —Erik (talk • contrib) 12:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been following your manner of cite formatting with the article, so go for it. However, I'd rather British dates since Robin Hood is an English character, Scott is English and is filming it here, and since I've already written it in British English. :) Alientraveller (talk) 13:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

British date format 15 May, 2010, is probably the most appropriate according to the guidelines. My preference is to always use the format 2010-05-15 for access dates, which are for editors and checkers rather than casual readers. It is justifiable to use words for dates intended for normal readers, such as the article creation dates in citations. If I'm adding citations I'll use my preferred format but out of respect and politeness I will grudgingly follow the precedent of the existing article work in the article out, which makes it all the more annoying when editors are not as polite as you have been here and go and change all the access dates without even thinking about it (and then some intermediate edit makes it ridiculously awkward to revert). I wish we could go back to full linked dates 2010-05-15 that were displayed according to user locale preferences. -- Horkana (talk) 00:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An advert?[edit]

this paragraph in production, appears to be an advert. remove it?

"In a reflection of what may be a quest for historical accuracy, Robin Wood, perhaps the UK's best known traditional bowl turner (http://www.robin-wood.co.uk/) was commissioned to provide a period lathe, bowls and tools [29][30][31] as set dressing." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.16.61 (talk) 08:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty obvious the entire movie will be defined for it's apropiate use of bowls.--99.192.88.217 (talk) 16:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Format[edit]

Will it be presented in 2D or 3D?--Nemissimo (talk) 20:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2D.--EchetusXe 22:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedic before release?[edit]

Is an "upcoming film" already an encyclopedic article? It looks like publicity, or a press release. It is not even a fact yet. I love Russel Crowe, but this article should be temporaly removed. (at least as an exercise, since the film will probably be released before the wiki-bureaucracy does something about it) Ricardoramalho (talk) 23:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC) -what I tryed to say is that, I think, this article could be please removed temporarily, and thank you for your kind and volunteer support :) Ricardoramalho (talk) 12:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is appropriate to have articles on movies before they are released. However, if you want an article deleted you should nominate it for deletion, rather than just ask on the talk page. BabelStone (talk) 18:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The budget is not 130 million.[edit]

I'm not getting into an edit war over this, but it has to be fixed. There are reports from many reliable sources (one of which I cited) that have it at 237 million dollars, U.S. Now there's some debate as to how much of a tax break Universal got from the UK, which would defray their expenses, but that wouldn't change what was actually spent making the film. The only reliable figure is 237mil--an actual copy of the budget has been leaked.

http://www.thewrap.com/ind-column/revealed-true-cost-robin-hood-237-million-17202 http://www.movieline.com/2010/05/movieline-goes-dee-inside-robin-hoods-amazing-237-million-budget.php http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2010/05/robin_hood_even_more_expensive.html

Even in full damage control mode, Universal will not pretend it cost 130mil. That budget was announced months before the film started shooting. It is not an up-to-date source, and it is totally discredited now. If this isn't fixed soon, I'll just revert it once a day. So would somebody care to step in and arbitrate? Xfpisher (talk) 20:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted back to $237m. The cited reference state $237 million -- if the IP wants to change it to $130m they need to provide credible references, otherwise it will be reverted again. BabelStone (talk) 22:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Los Angeles Times says, "The best-case scenario for Universal and its financing partner, Relativity Media, appears to be making a modest success out of "Robin Hood," given its high costs. Two people familiar with the budget said it cost at least $200 million to produce, though a studio spokesman said the final tally was $155 million after tax credits. That doesn't include, however, at least $25 million that the studio wrote off after the production initially planned to start in 2008 was delayed." [1] Mike Allen 09:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When a box office section is created it would be great if you could make sure to include those details. The actual budget/costs give a useful context and make the box office figures that much more interesting. -- Horkana (talk) 00:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But what figure should we use in the infobox? $237 million, $200 million, $155 million and do we add the $25 million that the studio wrote off from 2008? Mike Allen 02:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Historical inaccuracies[edit]

Do we really need this section? This is a movie about fictional characters and fictional events, and is not a historical documentary, so I do not think that historical accuracy is really relevent. All Robin Hood movies are full of historical inaccuracies, but that does not matter because people watch them for entertainment, not as a history lesson. Furthermore, the whole section is original research. I suggest removing the section unless such historical inaccuracies are raised as part of the critical review of the film in an important external source. BabelStone (talk) 07:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the movie is fiction about myths. But it includes historical figures. I noticed that many articles about movies include a section on historical inaccuracies, I don't see why this one should not. The section is NOT original research. The bits about what is in the movie come from the movie itself: anybody who saw it will recognize that. All Wikipedia articles about films freely summarize the content of the movie without any further reference. And the references to the historical reality are found in the cited Wikipedia articles. I thought that those citations would be sufficient.--Gautier lebon (talk) 06:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly support removing this. Needs citations, which will likely never be done. Like you said this is a film based on fiction, not history. I started to remove it but I just tagged it with {{trivia}}, which I see has been removed. Oh well. Mike Allen 07:52, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently "that" is not what the trivia tag is for. I started to also add the clean up section tag, but the article doesn't need cleaning up, it needs removing or relocating to make relevant to the article (which is unlikely). Adding citations isn't going to make it relevant or notable. Mike Allen 07:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have removed it as original research AND trivia. GDallimore (Talk) 17:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of movie needs a section on historical accuracy. Some Robin Hood stories concentrate on Robin and the Sheriff of Nottingham, and merely mention Prince/King John's name (in vain). In that way, they avoid portraying historical figures whose details could be easily fact-checked, since they're mythical/fictional. However, the way Ridley Scott made this version of Robin Hood–incorporating numerous, prominent, historical figures as central characters–should really be held up to scrutiny. See his earlier (and just as controversial) medieval-themed movie, Kingdom of Heaven. Nathanm mn (talk) 04:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is also my view. There is no reason to mention historical innacuracies in the Erroll Flynn version, because there are no significant references to actual historical events. But this film pretends that Philip Augustus was going to invade England and that King John promised to sign a bill of rights extending to commoners. Surely such whoppers deserve mention, and are not trivia. By the way, many other articles on movies include such sections, see for example Rome_(TV_series)#Historical_deviations, and I much appreciate those sections. Some such sections even include rather trivial corrections, such as the actual cost of prostitution in ancient Rome, see Egeria_(Rome)#Historical_and_cultural_background. Again, I find such information valuable and would like to see it included in Wikipedia.--Gautier lebon (talk) 06:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a reason to mention historical inaccuracies, then we should be able to find a reliable independent source that also mentions them. If there are no such sources, then there is no reason to include such a section, only your opinion.

It IS original research to look at the film and then to look at a history text and from those two things to create a list of historical inaccuracies. It's called WP:SYNTHESIS and I have tagged the section accordingly. GDallimore (Talk) 10:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with GDallimore. The section is original research, and should be removed unless there are reliable independent sources that can be cited. BabelStone (talk) 13:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remove as it is now - entirely unsourced original research. Grsz¹¹ 16:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The citations that have now been added merely support the original research, and do nothing to support the retention of any of these statements. In order for this section to be kept there need to be citations to reliable external sources that have raised these issues of historical accuracy. Section should be removed now, and can be reinstated when and if historical accuracy becomes an issue to anyone other a few Wikipedia editors. BabelStone (talk) 17:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of original research is "material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources. It also refers to any analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by the sources." In the instant case the facts are already published by reliable sources, namely the film itself and Wikipedia (whose articles contain numerous citations). And there is no analysis or synthesis: merely a juxtaposition of established facts: (1) the movie says this and (2) historical reality was that. So I simply cannot agree that the removed material was in any way original research. (The definition of synthesis is "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research", which does not seem to apply to the delete material either.) Further, I cannot agree that the removed material was trivia, because it pointed out that the film has (at least) two major historical inaccuracies. I'm puzzled by the statement that material should only be published if a source gives a "reason" for its publication: does any source give a reason for publication of the article in the first place? Surely it is the responsibility of Wikipedia editors to evaluate available sources and to decide what is worth publishing in Wikipedia. I would kindly request those who objected to the material to reconsider in light of the above.--Gautier lebon (talk) 00:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What? Creating a "juxtaposition of established facts", as you call it, is the very definition of synthesis, just with longer words. The section combines the film as one source and history texts as another source to say that the film is historically inaccurate. Bingo. Synthesis. In particular, this synthesis advances the proposition that historical accuracy is important in relation to the film. So far we have people here voicing their opinions that it's important, but not a single source suggesting it actually is. So suggesting historical accuracy is important is itself original research.

And read my comments again about "reasons"; you haven't understood them. The source doesn't need to give reasons (not sure how you interpreted what I said that way). We need a source saying something for there to be a reason to include that something in Wikipedia. Arguing "historical inaccuracies are important so we should include them in this Wikipedia article" will not hold any water at all unless we can find a source suggesting they are important, or at least discussing them. I'm repeating myself now, but hopefully you get the point. GDallimore (Talk) 01:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that we should agree to disagree. The historical source says that the French did not invade England. It seems to me that this piece of undisputed information should be added to the article, so that people who do not read history books are not mislead. And surely it is an establshed principle of Wikipedia that accuracy in general is important, and that any Wikipedia article should present all relevant available information on a particular topic.--Gautier lebon (talk) 02:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, well, well. I just came back home from watching the movie (in the US) and I ended up on Wikipedia looking for some information on the critical reception and eventual reactions to the way history is treated. My first move after viewing the movie was to have a big laugh and dismiss the whole thing as a joke. I was quite amused by the gross French bashing, but hey, that's a Ridley Scott movie, what do you expect? Then on my way home, while thinking about it, I realized that 80% of the audience will probably consider this as a more or less accurate historical account (that would be the same thing in France), that's why such section is absolutely necessary.

Actually I find the term “Historical Inaccuracies” totally hilarious. When you are making some minor mistakes about places, dates or use the wrong uniform for a given military unit then you have historical inaccuracies (Richard or Alienor d'Aquitaine speaking English in that movie is a good example of historical inaccuracies). Then when you have history make a complete U-turn and change major historical events to their core (for example by turning an English invasion of France leading to a crushing French victory during a major war into a totally fictional invasion of England leading to a French defeat), you have something totally different. How would we call that: revisionism, falsification...? As mentioned in the initial section there never was any French invasion under the reign of Philippe Auguste, quite the contrary actually the English were routed by Philippe, in France, at the battle of Bouvines which indirectly pushed John to grant the Magna Carta to the Barons. The quibble of GDallimore and Mike Allen about why the section should be removed is soooooo typical. Come on, just have a look at any textbook on medieval history and give me a break with that “original research” stuff. Just imagine the opposite situation where a major historical falsification (yes that's what we are talking about here) would be used to vilify Anglo-Saxons in a movie. That would be quite an uproar, right? Actually such gross manipulation directed toward any other nationality or ethnic group would lead to the same kind of reaction. But the French in their usual role of funny-speaking, oyster-gobbling, ridiculous cowards, well who cares? Anyway I guess that you guys are all too happy to have another stuff to feed to the good ol' “surrender monkey” thingy. My favorite moment during the movie was definitely the end of the battle on the beach when that English knight tell to the King that the French are surrendering, and all the audience in the theater exploded into laughters, ah good times.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.182.21.164 (talk) 02:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If people want to look up what was wrong with the film, they can still go read a history book. Nothing is stopping people from taking an interest in the subject and doing so proper research. What this article isn't is a dumping ground for everything they find out. GDallimore (Talk) 09:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the whole point of Wikipedia to avoid having to go read history books? And who is talking about a dumping ground? We are talking about signalling major whoppers.--Gautier lebon (talk) 02:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At this stage, we seem to have three people in favor of maintaining the section, and three opposing it. Given that, wouldn't it be appropriate to restore the section, with a note that it is being challenged, and refer to the discussion page?--Gautier lebon (talk) 02:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, not whilst there are no external references to support any of the historical inaccuracies. Criticism of the historical accuracy of the film is similar in nature to criticism of Crowe's English accent in the film, but we allow a paragraph on Crowe's bad accent because it is the subject of discussion and criticism by credible external sources. If Mark Lawson had raised the issues of historical accuracy in his interview with Crowe (which I missed unfortunately) then it would be reasonable to mention that criticism in this article as part of the film's critical reception. However, Wikipedia is not the place to initiate such criticism or to launch campaigns to educate the public on the evils of the film -- that's what blogs are for, and Wikipedia should not be used as blogging platform for Wikipedia editors who have a grudge against the film. BabelStone (talk) 08:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually four editors for its removal (BabelStone, Mike Allen, GDallimore, Grsz) and only two for keeping the section (Gautier lebon, Nathanm mn plus one IP who does not count as we do not know who he is). BabelStone (talk) 09:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding citations to comments on historical inaccuracies, the reader comments at the end of the following review do comment on that, see [2].--Gautier lebon (talk) 07:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But crucially, the reviewer himself does not seem to have noticed or cared about the historical inaccuracies, and reader comments are definitely not acceptable sources. NB correct link is http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2010/may/13/robin-hood-review-russell-crowe BabelStone (talk) 08:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a vote, nor should it be particularly hard for those wanting to include this section to gain consensus to do so. All that is needed is to fill a void rather than to prove a point. Just a couple of reliable sources talking about the film AND discussing lack of historical accuracy would be enough. To my mind, that would prove that the topic is worth discussing in detail. If there is one review or something which mentions historical accuracy, I would say that can go in the reception section.

By the way, the comparison with Kingdom of God (film) is not relevant. That film DID create controversy about historical accuracy so it would be wrong not to include a section about that, although what is there is WAY too long. Same with 300 (film). This film hasn't and isn't really likely to but, if it does, of course there should be a section about it. GDallimore (Talk) 13:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you clearly do not understand what we are talking about here. When I say that this movie is a gross historical falsification I am not referring to some minor details such as the accent of the actors. The scenario is mixing actual historical events (death of Richard) with events that have been completely made up, with no way for the unaware movie watcher to sort between the two (I was listening to the discussions of people exiting the theater last Sunday and most of them where convinced of the global historical accuracy of the movie). We are not talking about 2nd or 3rd order historical details that would only be of scholarly interest, but a complete inversion of the course of history. A five minutes web search would show you that the French invasion NEVER existed (quite the contrary actually). Just have a look at the following wikipedia articles and the reference therein: Battle of Bouvines, Philip II of France or John of England.

The reason why people and reviewers are not discussing this point in Anglo-Saxons countries is because it fits perfectly their conceptions about France and French people. Actually the movie is totally tailored for the US public, never missing an occasion to portray the French according to the prevalent stereotypes in the US. It is probably the most francophobic large-diffusion movie I ever saw, and it has to be pointed out that the elements of the storyline that support this french-bashing are totally phoney. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.182.21.164 (talk) 15:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And you don't understand what I'm talking about. I do not care one iota how bad you think the film is from an historical accuracy point of view. What you think is totally and utterly irrelevant to put it bluntly. As is what I think. What matters is what writers and publishers of movie reviews and commentary think. That's what goes into the article. Original research based on either or our views is not permissible. I've told you what you need to do: find sources. Until there are sources this conversation is over. GDallimore (Talk) 17:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As an example, I don't really think the bit about Crowe's accent is particularly important - it's something that comes up EVERY TIME a non-British actor tries to do a British accent. But it's been mentioned in several reviews and caused a walkout from a BBC interview which was reported in several news articles, so I added it in as being apparently noteworthy despite my personal opinion. GDallimore (Talk) 17:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restore BabelStone and GDallimore, why are you even bothering to edit an encyclopedia? Refutation is indicative of a slow mind and poor judgement. The film is marketed as a retelling and a gritty historical re-imagining of the the tale of Robin Hood. This is not a bunch of Errol Flynn types mincing about in their Lincoln green tights or daring adventure film a la Hollywood-Costner fantasy, this is purporting to be as near to "Medieval" fact as possible. Without the need for the audience to suffer from incurable skin conditions, poverty and illiteracy. It would be justifiable to remove a historical inaccuracy section from the former examples because they are not trying to be high brow discourse on the subject, whereas this film is! To suggest that you are only interested in the reviews of the film shows a great deal of undeniable ignorance in the subject matter on which the film is based, and would should be examined in a section that explains the reality as opposed to the fiction. Editors that try to remove Historical Inaccuracies section probably think that Objective, Burma! is a Discovery Channel documentary about the Second World War.

But when you have the world and his dog calling themselves "editors" what do you expect? You have to cajole the superior-minded less able because they do not realise that they think are "their ideas" are not better than the whole. For instance how many of the aforementioned astutes knew that the French did invade England in the First Barons' War 1215-1217, besieged and captured Odiham Castle? As Homer Simpson wryly noted: Is there no place for the man with the 105 IQ? *sigh* —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.35.224.146 (talk) 21:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, please, let's follow Wikipedia etiquette and assume that all parties are commenting in good faith with the goal of improving Wikipedia. From my understanding of Wikipedia etiquette, at this point, we should include the text in the main article, with a header to the effect that it has been challenged and a reference to the discussion page. Just to clarify things for any new comers to this discussion, the text that was included, and deleted, and that is being proposted for inclusion, is the following:--Gautier lebon (talk) 05:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the film, King Philip Augustus of France is shown as keen to invade England, and actually attempts it. In real life, Philip had been trying to regain English-held territory in France in a series of conflicts with Richard the Lionheart, and by 1198 Philip was on the defensive and the two kings had agreed to mediation. ^[1] He would go on to [Normandy and other English territory in France under John's reign], with John launching an invasion of France (under pressure from the English barons) instead of vice versa. ^[2]

The film shows John negotiating a "bill of rights" immediately after becoming king. The Magna Carta was in fact signed 16 years after John became king, following a dispute with his barons and significant loss of face over his reign (see Magna Carta).

In a later scene in the film after the death of Sir Walter Loxley his corpse is shown being cremated on a funeral pyre. When in fact cremation was no longer practiced in medieval Europe ^[3] (with few exceptions) according to Roman Catholic customs and doctrines. ^[4]

No. It is not ready for inclusion because it is original research and therefore unverified. WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research are core principle of wikipedia. From the lead of the OR policy: "you must be able to cite reliable published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article". As I've been saying all along, find a source directly related to this film (ie, the topic of the article) which discusses the histroical inaccuracies. That's all you need to do! Do that and there is no argument. GDallimore (Talk) 08:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Original research? how about a break? The section mentions well established historical facts, and without much trouble anyone could come up with references to support them. Original research is combing through dusty troves of forgotten lore, or doing chemistry experiments in the garage. There may be good arguments for excising this section from the article, but Original research is not one of them.--Paul (talk) 13:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why does nobody understand synthesis? GDallimore (Talk) 13:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear GDallimore: it appears that your interpretation of "synthesis" differs from that of others, including other experienced editors (and I am not in that category). Once again, I would appeal to all concerned to accept that we restore the section, with a note to the effect that there is a controversy which is being discussed on the user page. That is how I have seen issues such as this handled in the past on other pages, with good outcomes. Or, to put it more explicitly, I don't see why the particular interpretation of "synthesis" of 2-3 people should be used to block publication of material whose accuracy is not disputed and that is condidered relevant by at least 3 people.--Gautier lebon (talk) 03:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with GDallimore's interpretation of "synthesis", and like him I have trouble understanding why it is so hard for you and some other editors to also grasp what it means. If a section of text is not based on any external, reliable sources, but is based entirely on a Wikipedia editor's viewing of the film and their knowledge of history, then it is Original Research to include their personal conclusions about the historical accuracy of the film.BabelStone (talk) 12:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, I am not proposing to add anything about numerous minor innacuracies, such as the fact that Richard did not speak English; that Richard did not die immediately after being wounded, but a few days later; that most archers would not have been able to ride horses; that it is unlikely that an archer would be able to impersonate a Norman nobleman's language and manners; etc. etc. That, for me, comes under the heading of "artistic licence". But a naval invasion of England is such a whopper that I strongly feel that it needs to be mentioned, whether or not film critics have picked it up.--Gautier lebon (talk) 03:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And regarding synthesis/juxtaposition of facts, the section Production starts with references to 24 and Sleeper Cell. That is useful information. But, by GDallmore's standard, it would be unacceptable synthesis and should be removed (it does not appear in the citation). But I don't agree that it should be removed. And the juxtaposition of what the movie says about real history versus real history should be added.--Gautier lebon (talk) 03:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Gautier lebon, it is no good pleading for the reinstatement of the section. I have no opinion one way or the other on the historical accuracy of the film, but I do care passionately that any article on my watch list adheres to Wikipedia editorial policies and maintains a neutral point of view, especially a high profile article such as this one (over 60k hits on some days last week). Adding unsourced criticism of the film (however valid the criticisms may be) is a clear violation of key Wikipedia policies, and it is on these grounds that I oppose the reinstatement of this section, not because I am an historical ignoramus. If you want the article to mention historical inaccuracies in the film, please stop debating it here, and just go and find some reputable sources that discuss the issue (you could even try looking for French film reviews), and I would be quite happy to see such referenced material added to the article. BabelStone (talk) 13:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Babel, thank you for your comment. I did look at French sources, but did not find what you are looking for. I too care passionately about Wikipedia, as you can see from my talk page. I disagree that what I am proposing is either unsourced criticism or violates Wikipedia policies. I recognize that there is a difference of opinion regarding interpretation of Wikipedia policies in this context. Therefore, I still maintain that the correct solution, in accordance with Wikipedia ethics, is to restore the material and flag it as subject of a controversy being discussed. That is why I am still debating the matter here: we are debating interpretation of Wikipedia rules, and I've seen some support for my point of view.--Gautier lebon (talk) 04:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.neworleans.com/attractions/movie-reviews/397835-ridley-scotts-robin-hood-doesnt-let-precedent-slow-him-down.html One movie review talking about the "battle that never happened". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.182.21.164 (talk) 05:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed, the cited review does explicitly mention the historical inaccuracies that I propose to add to the article. Babel, DGillmore: is this good enough for you? Can we now add the historical inaccuracies section, using the cited review as a source?--Gautier lebon (talk) 05:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather add the referenced criticism as a paragraph to the Critical reaction section, as I do not think that at present there is enough to justify a new section. I still would be opposed to the inclusion of random unreferenced criticm of the movie. BabelStone (talk) 13:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although I do not understand your rationale for being so restrictive, I will proceed as you propose.--Gautier lebon (talk) 05:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Rees, Simon. [King Richard I of England Versus King Philip II Augustus.] Military History Magazine, September 2006
^ * Smedley, Edward. The History of France, from the final partition of the Empire of Charlemagne to the Peace of Cambray., page 15-16 - London: Baldwin and Cradock, 1836.
^ von Döllinger, Johann Joseph Ignaz (1841). A History of the Church. C. Dolman and T. Jomes. pp. 9. "The punishment of death was inflicted on the refusal of baptism, on the heathen practice of burning the dead, and on the violation of the days of fasting[...]"
^ Davies & Mates, "Cremation, Death and Roman Catholicism", p. 107

Rotten Tomatoes Top Critics[edit]

Can someone please check what the stats are for Top Critics at Rotten Tomatoes. According to the referenced source http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/robin_hood_2010/?critic=creamcrop it is 60% based on 10 reviews, but an IP keeps on changing it to 44% based on 32 reviews, accusing me of deliberately promoting the film. I don't give a damn whether the film reviews are good or bad, but I would like the article to be accurate, and as I might have accidentally misread the statistics, or the reference may be incorrect, I think it is best for someone else to check what the correct stats are, and correct the article if necessary. BabelStone (talk) 13:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reading 44% based on 32 reviews on my end. I admit it was a little hasty for the IP to jump to conclusions, though they probably didn't know who actually changed it. That's odd that you're seeing 60% based on 10 reviews. Is it a cached version? Try deleting your cache and refreshing? Mike Allen 06:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking. I've got the answer now: the site is silently redirecting me to the UK version of the page http://uk.rottentomatoes.com/m/robin_hood_2010/?critic=creamcrop, which obviously has different stats. It is very annoying, and however hard I try I cannot get it show me the US version of the page. BabelStone (talk) 09:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Locksley vs Loxley[edit]

I notice that on 6:11 24 May 2010 IP 70.189.234.99 went to a lot of trouble to change "Loxley" to "Locksley". The traditional spelling is indeed Locksley, but the movie explicitly uses the alternate spelling Loxley, so I think that this change should be reverted.--Gautier lebon (talk) 11:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the spellings should definitely follow the usage in the movie. If they contradict the traditional spellings, that is presumably because the director or writer deliberately wanted to be different. BabelStone (talk) 12:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forest Charter[edit]

The deal that King John destroyed was the Forest Charter not the Magna Carta.

This was discussed by Russell Crowe on Mark Kermode and Simon Mayo's BBC Radio 5Live podcast but it's not available anymore so I don't have a link

--ClarkF1 (talk) 21:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reference for the document being Magna Carta either, and from the context of the movie it does look as if the Charter of the Forest was intended (the death penalty for killing deer and other forest-related crimes were loudly discussed in the movie), and so I have changed the text accordingly. BabelStone (talk) 22:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sequel[edit]

Didn't this used to be mentioned in the main article ?? Ridley Scott, Quoted in 'The Times'.........“Let’s say we might presume there’s a sequel.” (Again, think Batman Begins, which launched a monster franchise). “Honestly, I thought why not have the potential for a sequel, particularly if it is a genre that you absolutely love and has never been fully explored? If there were to be a sequel to Robin Hood, you would have a constant enemy throughout, King John, and you would follow his reign of 17 years, and the signing of Magna Carta could be Robin’s final act.” http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/article7082802.ece?token=null&offset=0&page=1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.30.151.15 (talk) 11:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kill shot?[edit]

A recent edit states that it isn't clear whether Robin's last arrow shot, a long-distance shot at Geoffrey who was fleeing on horseback along the beach, did in fact kill Geoffrey. I saw the film some time ago, but in my memory Geoffrey was clearly killed, in fact I seem to recall that he fell off his horse. Can somebody please check this point?***--Gautier lebon (talk) 09:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to second the above questioning. I watched the DVD this weekend and, unless I watched a different version, the arrow clearly goes completely through his neck/throat, from back to front, and the horse continues to run with him slumped forward. Unless this movie took place in the Star Wars universe, it's safe to assume that wound would have killed him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.86.230.202 (talk) 14:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have edited the article accordingly.--Gautier lebon (talk) 15:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - It did in fact kill Godfrey

Wrong historical perpective[edit]

The story with Richard Lionheart back from the crusade seems to appear, as far as I know, in later versions, dating back the 16th century. So it is already impregnated with modern nationalism. Reeds does not get rid of this modern nationalism : the historical background of his Robin Hood is not true. The simple fact to use Richard's death to accuse the French is a total missunderstanding of History. First of all, the Aquitaine people belong to his empire. For sure, they did not like him, but they did not like the king of France too. They were not "French" and they did not feel "French" and they did not speak French at all. In the 12th the "French" were only the inhabitants of Ile-de-France. Second, these Aquitaine people and the Lord, who wounded Richard, shared with the king of England a part of their culture. Richard probably talked to Pierre Basire in Limousin language, who was probably the language of his heart (his mother tongue). Third, Richard shared, at the same time, the culture of chivalry and the Northern French language with the king of France. What did he share with British people ? Nothing, except 1/8 of his blood. Where was his main support ? In Normandy and In Anjou, today France, not in the 12th. Two kinds of support : the population and the knights, both, no gap. Where did he want to be buried ? both in Normandy and Anjou, to be closer to his most faithful subjects. William Marshall appears in the movie : who was he ? A Norman, born in England, without any drop of Anglo-Saxon blood in his veins, for sure he considered himself as "English", but not as Anglo-Saxon, not sure he could speak English. Almost all the Richard's knights were "northern French people" in the modern meaning of the word and even those who were "English" kept their relationships, properties (as William Marshall) with Normandy or Anjou, etc. On the contrary, King John was not popular at all, that explains partly, why the Normans and the Anjou people did not resist much when the king of France invaded their lands. Nortmannus (talk) 17:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Original Research and Synthesis[edit]

In this edit I removed a paragraph of original research and synthesis about the historical inaccuracies in this movie, and replaced it with the sourced claim by a reviewer in the New York Times that the movie made "a hash of the historical record" which is the only reliably sourced discussion of this issue that we have. This edit was undone by Gautier lebon with the edit summary "Reverted change that contradicts agreement reached on talk page". I do not dispute the historical inaccuracies in this movie, but regardless of any supposed "agreement" on the talk page there can be no excuse for including original research and synthesis in the article. If a consensus to remove the original research about historical inaccuracies cannot be reached then I will take this issue to the No original research noticeboard so that uninvolved editors can give their opinions on the issue. BabelStone (talk) 17:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Babel: thank you for this post. You deleted two paragraphs. I agree with the first deletion, but not the second. As you can see at Talk:Robin_Hood_(2010_film)#Historical_inaccuracies, there was a long discussion of this matter and it was finally agreed that some material on the historical accuracy was neither synthesis nor original research, because it was based on what critics had published. I don't see why that material should be deleted. I suggest that we see what other editors have to say, following which you can take the issue to No Original Research Noticeboard if you wish.--Gautier lebon (talk) 11:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. If the deleted paragraph was based on what critics had published then there would be appropriate references at the end of the paragraph, not just at the start. Of the two refs at the start, the link to one is now broken and I can't remember what the critic said, and the other one just says that that the movie made "a hash of the historical record" but does not give any of the detailed analysis that is given in the Wikipedia article. I agree that we need to have more input from other editors, especially uninvolved editors. BabelStone (talk) 07:22, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the dead link and added links to sources that discuss the historical inaccuracies. Hopefully this resolves the issue.--Gautier lebon (talk) 07:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Outdent. The issue has not yet been resolved, see Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Historical_inaccuracies_in_Robin_Hood(2010_film).--Gautier lebon (talk) 07:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And an editor has removed the materialm stating "if material is challenged, it is removed pending consensus, not kept pending consensus". I do not wish to engage in an edit war, so I will not revert the deletion at this stage, but I must say that the deletion was unwarranted, because Babelstone initiated the dispute by removing consensus material. The burden was on him to show that it was inappropriate, not on others to show that it was appropriate. Thus, in accordance with Wikipedia policy, the material should remain until a new/revised consensus is reached.--Gautier lebon (talk) 07:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Robin Hood (2010 film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Editoneer (talk · contribs) 14:53, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, I decided to start reviewing again. Editoneer (talk) 14:53, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well-written, stable, neutral[edit]

Crowe would be cast in the title role, Grammarly says is wrong and it also doesn't sound comfortable to me. I believe it should be something like:Casting Crowe in the title role.

Done

Robin proposes that King John agree to a charter of rights, Subject-verb rule, change agree to agrees.

Done

signed on as director rather than producer. Consder adding "a" before produced.

Done

Scott was not a fan of previous film versions of Robin Hood, may I get some the before previous?

I believe the sentence is grammatically correct as is. I can't think of other instances where a "the" was necessary. Rusted AutoParts 19:51, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've searched MOS:the and it supports your point. Editoneer (talk) 14:54, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done, sentence reworded to make more accurate Chompy Ace 12:31, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"has to retire to the forest to resume his name Robin. So he was momentarily the Sheriff of Nottingham." Doesn't sound comfortable by me, is this a sic or did you forgot to put an "as".

Done fixed Chompy Ace 12:14, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

a disfigurement this is an uncountable noun. I suggest to be changed to being disfigured

Done

This would be the same horse Crowe rode on during filming of Gladiator. The ol' mighty "the" is missing, put that before filming.

Done

Robin Hood held its world premiere at the 2010 Cannes Film Festival the same day as its United Kingdom and Ireland releases. It was then released on 14 May 2010 in North America. The film premieredi in Japan on 10 December 2010. premierdi, also this part of this sentence is already shown in the leading section and sounds repetitive then I suggest moving [44] to the only one left.

Could you explain this better? I took the extra I out but I'm trying to wrap my head around the second part. Rusted AutoParts 02:57, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Premierdi is a spelling mistake and this phrase is already in the leading section. Editoneer (talk) 10:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done Chompy Ace 12:10, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

second highest-grossing I suggest to connect second with that same hyphen.

I can't say that's a normal grammar style I've come across. Rusted AutoParts 20:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:HYPHEN, there ya go. Editoneer (talk) 11:59, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done Rusted AutoParts 02:57, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if the External links should be there as we already have the sources from the reception section.

External links is a standard section for all film articles. Rusted AutoParts 20:00, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very wellEditoneer (talk) 11:59, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done, removed RT, MC, and BOM on External links section per WP:ELDUP Chompy Ace 06:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The lead section quite forgets about the sheriff now being impersonated by Robin.

Done Chompy Ace 12:34, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Broad in its coverage[edit]

Can spec script be explained shortly after mentioning it?

I feel it being linked allows the reader to find that out. Rusted AutoParts 05:29, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done Chompy Ace 12:10, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can Disillusioned, tithed grain and maybe other technological terms to be explained shortly or to be replaced with simple English words?

Disillusioned I feel is fine and is understandable as what it means. I took out the tithed in tithed grain. Rusted AutoParts 05:31, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done Chompy Ace 12:10, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability[edit]

[2], now Box Mojo is known to be good at providing Box offices, but they say that the movie release date is: May 14, 2010 - Aug 5, 2010, is there something about this?

That's mainly the duration of it's theatrical run. Rusted AutoParts 05:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done Chompy Ace 12:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a source for the cast, can that be provided?

The sources are in the Casting section. Rusted AutoParts 17:48, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done Chompy Ace 12:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[5][6]: WordPress > Error 404

Fixed. Rusted AutoParts 05:19, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done, with added archive links Chompy Ace 06:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[9]: WebCite query result: The connection was resetted.

Source works on my end. Rusted AutoParts 05:20, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]