scott

Fans of Ridley Scott should be sure and stick with this post to the very end for a couple of shiny bonuses. First up though, some news about his imminent trip to Sherwood Forest.

My favorite wheel on the Scott Free bicycle has been working on - or, some might say, working over - the proposed Nottingham for some months now. At first it was pitched as a revisionist slant on the Robin Hood myth in which the Sheriff of Nottingham was revealed as being not such a bad egg after all; then it was suggested that Russell Crowe would be playing a curious kind of split role in the film, portraying both Robin and the Sheriff who, according to some runors, would be revealed to be the same person; now, he’s lifted the curtain on his final answer and it’s not at all what I was expecting.

Talking to MTV, Scott announced that the film was now simply going to be called Robin Hood. And why? To reflect the name of the lead character, he says. All change there, then.

Scott also explains that now the Sheriff will have a relatively minor role in his film, with the antagonist manifest not so much as an individual as an entire nation (I hope he treads carefully there). Here are some choice quotes on those topics.

“It is better to simply have the evolution of a character called Robin Hood, who will come out of a point in the Crusades which is the end.” … “It is from France. It is the French. The villain is much bigger in that sense; much more important, and much more dangerous.” … “[In] 1066 Harold II went against William the Conqueror. Harold took an arrow in his eye, and William the Conqueror took over England, and so France owned everything right through, even to the extent of changing the architecture of the churches from Anglo-Saxon to Roman, that’s French; they changed the arches in the churches.”

According to the latest issue of Production Weekly - and this comes direct, not through some kind of Canadian intermediate so you can trust it 100% - the cast includes not only Russell Crowe but also Oscar Isaac, Vanessa Redgrave, William Hurt, Saoirse Ronan and Cate Blanchett. They still list Crowe as the Sheriff and not the hooded man, but who can blame them for a near miss on such an erratically moving target?

Just as a postscript for Scottheads: he also mentioned that he’s likely to make films called Gucci and Child 44. They’ve bubbled up before (Gucci, a biopic of guess who, was reported in Variety and Child 44 cropped up in the Black List coverage here at /Film), but this reminds us that these particular plates are still spinning.

  • Interesting development. I'm pretty interested whenever Ridley Scott does historical epics.
  • yeah, it should be alright.
  • Matt
    Check out these graphic BAFTA posters for this year's 'prestige' films
    http://www.bafta.org/awards/film/official-program...
  • But Kingdom of Heaven is my least favorite Ridley movie. Orlando may have spoiled that one more than anything, but the direction didn't exactly leave me wanting him to do more historic epics.
    The Robin Hood story has a lot of meat and history behind it and from the sound of things Ridley wants to being out the issues that brought about this legend. And while I think that's a good thing, I'm not sure I'll buy into this just yet. Show me more.

    And How big a role does Ms. Blanchett have as Maid Marian? It'll probably get a little more of my attention if she has a larger roll.
  • obin
    what? i dont get it... so robin hood is supposed to be a good guy in this film now? crap, i was looking forward to an evil robin :(
  • Also,
    Dear Peter and Company, but especially Brendon,
    Can /Film stop this newish trend of hiding the heart of an article after the jump? It seems so cheap. I just want a quick synopsis before I jump over. Give me a quick synopsis of the meat of the story and let me decide if I want to read more on the subject. I don't want to have to go hunting for some BS news that doesn't matter to me because all the real info is behind the break. It's weak sauce, it really is.

    with lots of Love, ~ Sauce_
  • Also,
    Dear Peter and Company, but especially Brendon,
    Can /Film stop this newish trend of hiding the heart of an article after the jump? It seems so cheap. Give me a quick synopsis of the meat of the story and let me decide if I want to read more on the subject. I don't want to have to go hunting for some BS news that doesn't matter to me because all the real info is behind the break. It's weak sauce, it really is.

    with lots of Love, ~ Sauce_
  • Sauce, It's honestly not a "boost pageviews" reason. We are suffering growing pains, and we have been having huge server issues recently due to the large load times of the main page. We've decided that any story more than two paragraphs needs to be "after the jump", and this has helped considerably. I apologize for any inconvenience it may have caused.
  • Ahh...Acceptable Answer. Not an inconvenience just didn't want the page-views to start dictating things around here. Or the Times article to go to your head :p
    Thanks for the follow-up too. Most sites would have blown me off and said screw him. Thus, why I stay here. Keep up the good work. I can deal with it.
  • Jon
    Nottingham sounded sooo much better. Now it sounds like Hollywood executive-made crap!
  • Nottingham does sound way way better. made the movie feel fresh.

    the new premise sounds wack. it opens up the realm of possibility more for him, but i don't like what they're doing with that.

    i wouldn't mind a russel crowe sheriff and someone else playing hood.
  • Bull
    Agreed, the original Nottingham premise really intrigued me. Now I am looking at another historical film?? Ridley Scott used to be one of my favorite directors but I no longer look forward to his movies like I once did.
  • Yeah me too 'Kingdom of Heaven' was pretty good to me...
  • Hey, unneccessary shot at Canada, mofo.

    And also, I think he is completely wrong about the history here, William the Conqueror was a saxon, the saxons conquered Britain, I don't think it had anything to do with the French
  • Paul
    Sorry, you're wrong and he is wrong. William was Norman-French, he was a Vassal (lord/baron) to the French King. He took England from a Saxon King. And France had no control over England because William then separated himself from the French King. Trust me
  • Cake Boy
    I liked the Nottingham title better.
  • thanks brendon

    this is some interesting news
    love ridley and practically EVERYTHING that he has ever done

    cant wait
  • lol, i agree! "and this comes direct, not through some kind of Canadian intermediate so you can trust it 100%", i resent that, sir!
  • This has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Shut up.
  • I would have rather seen Nottingham form the concept, but this will be a bit interesting too.
  • The title "Naottingham" is better; there's too many 'Robin Hoods" out there.
  • this has potential written all over it.; i'm pretty excited.
  • Weyland_Yutani
    I just want to know what happened/is happening with Brave New World. What about The Forever War? I want a new sci-fi from Ridley Scott. It's long over due.
  • igroveman
    just in case you haven't seen it, the director's cut is about 1000 times better. There are huge plot elements they cut from the other version (which I can't understand why) that make it sooooo much better.
  • so confused
  • yurdayyyyymnright
  • no good ones though
  • BlackjackJohnson
    Sorry, but you think wrong. William was French, not Saxon . . . and both the French and the Saxon invaded England. But two different times.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_the_conquero...
  • Could it have anything to do with Brendon's overly-long writing style?

    Peter, thank you for being consistently succinct.
  • You're right, my mistake I was confusing Saxons with the Normans
blog comments powered by Disqus