Ridley Scott's Nottingham Will Only Have One Robin Hood
The one reason that people are so familiar with Ridley Scott's Nottingham is because it was once revealed that Russell Crowe would be playing both Robin Hood and the Sheriff of Nottingham. It was even confirmed by producer Brian Grazer at one point and it sounded like, with some screenplay trickery, it could work in the end. Good news - that entire idea has been scrapped! MTV talked with director Ridley Scott very recently and got a much needed update. First things first, they've renamed it to just Robin Hood, instead of Nottingham, which will clear up some of that confusion. Secondly, he's been working on the script.
"[Crowe as both Robin and the Sheriff of Nottingham] was an idea so far back, way back when at the time I had this proposed to me, and I read it and thought, 'I don't really know what it does for it, but it's alright'," Scott told MTV. "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." So if the dual role is no longer a part of the current version of Nottingham, or Robin Hood, what is the story about? Well, let's start at the top. "Robin Hood is in the army of Richard Coeur de Lion, he is a bowman in the army of Richard Coeur de Lion." So far so good.
Scott goes on to explain that the ever-so-important Sheriff of Nottingham is actually not important at all. "The Sheriff of Nottingham is always a kind of an amusing character in most of the movies, who represents the hierarchy in the story at that point. The hierarchy and the wealthy always ruled over the under class, and fundamentally that doesn't change, because Robin Hood is actually the person who finally - in terms of the overall classical idea of the film - will help the poor, probably taking from the rich." So instead of the Sheriff, it's the "history of the time" and the "entire country" who will become the villain.
"It is from France. It is the French," he explains. "The villain is much bigger in that sense; much more important, and much more dangerous." What the heck is going on here? I thought he was trying to improve the script, not make it worse! According to history, William the Conqueror killed King Harold II in 1066 and took over the entire country of England. And apparently that idea is the villain more than any individual person. Not sure that'll work, but I guess we should just have faith in Ridley Scott. Although his past few movies haven't been big hitters, I'm still confident that Scott and Crowe will pull it off. Right?