Okay, I have waited until I have watched the whole series before I decided to post a comment on this series, just so you know that my opinion is not a rash, spur of the moment one.
I was looking forward to watching this series; I expected the BCC to have improved on the old Robin Of Sherwood series. Unfortunately the only significant improvement I have noted is the clarity of the picture, but that may be more due to technological progress in the form of digital broadcasting than anything else.
As the premier television producer in the country the BBC have a duty to provide programmes which are not misleading. Robin Hood, unfortunately fails to meet up to my expectations of the BBC. When a story has some basis in history the scriptwriters should not just take a few of the facts, stick them in a tumble drier and see what comes out. They should try and stick to them as much as possible. Where was Friar Tuck? What happened to the initial confrontation between Robin and Little John? And a host of other missing or misleading facts.
Improvements in costumes and sets over Robin of Sherwood I would have expected but diversifying from the historical story in the way that they have means that a generation will grow up believing the wrong story. (I accept that the magic in RoS was far fetched enough to be entirely unbelievable.) We can only speculate on the small details, which the scriptwriters can legitimately have a field day on, but straying from some of the major facts is unacceptable in a production coming from the BBC.
The story doesn't stray into the Robin of Sherwood mistake of too much magic, remaining with more realistic, if sometimes a little far fetched, scenarios; I mean, who, even today, would be up and walking around, running about and jumping onto horses just two days after being critically injured? In those days survival would have required weeks of bed rest, fever and probably a lifelong disability.
This is also a show with a lot of sharp instruments, bows and swords and things, but hardly any injury. It's remarkably out of proportion, more people would have died and there would have been so much blood; but this is a tea-time programme, so I can forgive them the blood.
The sets are good, being quite realistic. The outlaws have to cope with mediocre materials and do well, so well that you are always expecting to see a washing machine and tumble drier behind a tree in the background. More dirt would have been more realistic.
The dialogue is occasionally good, verging more on the corny and ironic than well written though ("It's a good day to die"? Hmmm, the scriptwriters are outlaws too are they???). I actually found that I liked the Sheriff, with most of my hate directed towards Guy (the rest of it towards the criminals that wrote, directed and produced the programmes). Yes, he is a bad dude, but isn't the sheriff supposed to be the bad dude?
In the main I was laughing at this show, not with it. A shame, they could have done so much better.
I was looking forward to watching this series; I expected the BCC to have improved on the old Robin Of Sherwood series. Unfortunately the only significant improvement I have noted is the clarity of the picture, but that may be more due to technological progress in the form of digital broadcasting than anything else.
As the premier television producer in the country the BBC have a duty to provide programmes which are not misleading. Robin Hood, unfortunately fails to meet up to my expectations of the BBC. When a story has some basis in history the scriptwriters should not just take a few of the facts, stick them in a tumble drier and see what comes out. They should try and stick to them as much as possible. Where was Friar Tuck? What happened to the initial confrontation between Robin and Little John? And a host of other missing or misleading facts.
Improvements in costumes and sets over Robin of Sherwood I would have expected but diversifying from the historical story in the way that they have means that a generation will grow up believing the wrong story. (I accept that the magic in RoS was far fetched enough to be entirely unbelievable.) We can only speculate on the small details, which the scriptwriters can legitimately have a field day on, but straying from some of the major facts is unacceptable in a production coming from the BBC.
The story doesn't stray into the Robin of Sherwood mistake of too much magic, remaining with more realistic, if sometimes a little far fetched, scenarios; I mean, who, even today, would be up and walking around, running about and jumping onto horses just two days after being critically injured? In those days survival would have required weeks of bed rest, fever and probably a lifelong disability.
This is also a show with a lot of sharp instruments, bows and swords and things, but hardly any injury. It's remarkably out of proportion, more people would have died and there would have been so much blood; but this is a tea-time programme, so I can forgive them the blood.
The sets are good, being quite realistic. The outlaws have to cope with mediocre materials and do well, so well that you are always expecting to see a washing machine and tumble drier behind a tree in the background. More dirt would have been more realistic.
The dialogue is occasionally good, verging more on the corny and ironic than well written though ("It's a good day to die"? Hmmm, the scriptwriters are outlaws too are they???). I actually found that I liked the Sheriff, with most of my hate directed towards Guy (the rest of it towards the criminals that wrote, directed and produced the programmes). Yes, he is a bad dude, but isn't the sheriff supposed to be the bad dude?
In the main I was laughing at this show, not with it. A shame, they could have done so much better.