When a very educated co-worker of mine who was fond of the medieval period told met this it blew me away. How many people like me I wonder are ignorant of the fact that the English King not(Not to be confused with Richard the First) only spent a year in England in all his ten year rule his running to wars weighed heavily on the common working mans moneys. I wonder why he is so revered today. Im surprised at the honor he is given in English history nevertheless, he may not have been a cruel king but he certainly may as well have ruled Mars for all the attention he gave his subjects .
This film isn't history, it's legend. The characters may be based on historical figures but they have lives of their own & specific roles in legend to play. I'd certainly be interested in a more historical film about Richard & his times, if someone made it -- but this isn't it, this is sheer fun & romance & glorious escapism. And all the better because of it!
If you want a documentary on Richard the Lionhearted, then by all means, watch a documentary on Richard the Lionhearted. If you want a rip-roaring Robin Hood adventure film, then sit back and just enjoy this without trying to find all the flaws... Just my humble opinion.
Thank RMH, my assumption not his fault. I should have followed with further study on Richard and I probably would not have stupidly assumed that "Lionheart" was his official name instead of a nom de guerre. atitle of honor, and not the official title he would have been crowned under by the Church, IE Richard 1.
I don't understand your "the same" point: the same, as in the three musketeers are extremely revered today when in fact IRL there was little to admire about them? (because that was the OP's point). Or the three musketeers didn't actually speak French IRL? (sort of true, at least for d'Artagnan, whose dialect was Gason, but it still seems a bit far-fetched for a comparison). Or are you just saying that the numerous Robin Hood movies are just like the numerous Three Musketeers movies? I suppose the latter, because it's the only point of comparison that makes a bit of sense, but then again, I still wonder at the simile. The RH movies never claim a specific literary source, as far as I know, they're just free reinterpretations of a loose collection of texts that have remained, more often than not, unread by the scriptwriters. The Three Musketeers stories, whether they decide to respect their source or not, only have to deal with one text, just one story. In terms of adaptation, there is a huge difference between the two. Adaptinf RH is like adapting King Arthur, you have quite a huge number of sources to choose from, embrace or disregard. Adapting The Three Musketeers is like adapting Pride and Prejudice: just one consistent story to be found in just one novel.
I was just pointing out that The Three Musketeers didn't speak english, and in most of the movies they did, most people didn't care. I'm not really that deep, and was being a bit of a smart***. Sorry, I swung and missed.
I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.
Thanks for taking the time to explain. Completely missed your point the first time, although it was an easy one to get. I guess my brain wasn't working right at the time. Sorry! ;)
It is assumed wrongly that the Plantagent kings ONLY spoke French. John could certainly speak English. Richard spoke some English, and could certainly swear in this language! As others have pointed out, it is a movie, and it has to be staged in one language.