From: vader@meryl.csd.uu.se ("]ke Eldberg")
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Prince of Thieves wrongos
Date: 9 Sep 92 23:13:58 GMT
Organization: The Internet

Greetings from William de Corbie!

Corun writes:

>Are you perhaps an author, or a student majoring in literature? 

No. Does that mean I cannot be right?

>Even so, I don't think you can casually dismiss the OED out of
>hand to support so flimsy a suppostition, especially since we
>weren't talking about a book, but a movie.

The medium is irrelevant. Whether we read the story from paper or
see it on a screen, the genres are the same. The OED defines and
explains the meaning of words in their general usage. I was not
trying to define the general meaning of the words "fantasy" or
"fiction". I was talking about literary genres, where these words
have special meanings.

>Besides, Robin Hood, the original book, is a fantasy. 

What book is that? Robin Hood is a medieval, legendary figure who
appears in ballads from the 14th century and on. There *is* no
"original book". The legend has been used by many different authors.
The story as such is not in the fantasy genre. "Fantasy", when we
are talking about literary genres, is a special subset of fiction,
just like science fiction, crime novels, techno thrillers, space
opera, swords & sorcery, and many others.

There are no rigid borders between genres, but they serve a useful
purpose in classifying books. I used them to clarify my opinion
that the RH:PoT movie is not set in anything like Tolkiens Middle-
Earth or Pratchetts Diskworld, but in 12th century England.
 
>You make a great many assumptions about what you think Hollywood was
>trying to achieve with the making of Robin Hood. Were you perhaps part
>of the screenwriting crew?

As I believe others have mentioned here on the Rialto, there was a lot
of boasting from the makers of RH:PoT about how well researched it was.
This tells me that Hollywood did indeed claim historical authenticity.
I can imagine many ways to do a Robin Hood movie, including some where
the story is taken out of its historic context and placed in a fantasy
world, or in a different time and place. But it seems obvious to me
that the makers of RH:PoT were not trying to do that.

>As for those who you assume will assume that RH:POT depicts the
>real middle ages, maybe you should post your comments on those
>forums where such people exist, and not on the Rialto where there
>are people who actually study the middle ages.

You don't agree with me, so you ask me to go away. Perhaps I should
pay you back in the same currency, and ask you to take your comments
to alt.gripe? But no. I think that it is much better to strive for
understanding than for elimination of those who do not agree with me.

>Now if Hollywood made a film about the life of Richard I, and it
>came across as RH, then you would be justified in making an educated
>remonstration.

I think it is just as justified here, for the stated reason: the film
claims to be set in 12th century England -- so I expect it to have
a reasonable semblance to that time and place. Further, my complaints
pertained to various types of errors: anachronisms (the telescope),
practical errors (the anvil), holes in the script (walking 200 miles
in one day), historical inaccuracies (Locksley's handwriting, pewter
arrowheads, stealing 5 million gold crowns), cinematic mistakes
(Sherwood coniferous/foliiferous), and so on...

>>>Then why pick nits?
>>
>>To prove that I know my nits from my nots. :-)
 
>Again you assume anyone here cares what you know or don't.

Did you perhaps notice the smiley? It signifies that I was joking.
 
>>I commented here because there was already one other long thread about
>>this particular film, which proves that several gentles in this forum
>>like to talk about it. The Costner Robin Hood is probably the most
>>talked-about movie in the SCA since "Monty Python & the Holy Grail".
 
>But the thread had nearly died a necessary death until you resurected it.

Wrong. There were several comments in the "recast" thread every day at
the time when I posted my first "wrongos" text. Besides, I was not the
first person to remark on errors in RH:PoT, so why blame me for starting
this? I picked up on remarks made by others. 

>Because something is talked about, does not give someone license to freely
>make nasty comments simply for the sake of making nasty comments. 

Are you saying that I need a *license* to write something here? :-)
(Now, *that* was a nasty comment!)

>Besides, you completely missed the Victorian style collar on Marion's
>wedding gown.

Thanks for the contribution to my quest!

>You see, it's not that nobody doesn't notice these things, and even those
>of us who like Costner's acting do, it's just that your whole attitude has
>become mean spirited, and this is not necessary. Be constructive, but
>don't ram your meaness down everyone's throat.

That is unfair. Nit-picking and error-spotting can be a fun pastime,
and it does not imply meanness. It would probably get boring in the
long run, but I thought it was amusing to do it with this particular
film, mostly because it was advertised in a boasting manner as the
definitive, ultimate big budget version of the legend, which raised my
(and many other's) expectations to very high levels, and made it a real
disappointment.

William
From: Dave.Aronson@f120.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Dave Aronson)
Sender: Uucp@blkcat.UUCP