MovieChat Forums > Robin of Sherwood (1984) Discussion > Third series was the worst

Third series was the worst

posted 14 years ago by !!!deleted!!! (11305375)
7 replies | jump to latest

Overall I thought "Robin of Sherwood" was a fun if mediocre series, it wasn't bad and the cast for the regular cast for the most part were first rate (Nicholas Grace was good but went a liile too OTT sometimes as Nottingham). That said it could be too cheesy at times, subtlety sometimes went right out of the window and after Michael Praed left and Jason Connery took over it began to slowly go down hill although it wasn't entirely Connery's fault. I think they starting creating too many episodes with not enough writers onboard which didn't help matters, some episodes were too padded out (ie. the one where Will and Much think they have caught leprosy).

Connery, god bless him as much as I have heard that he's a really nice guy, he's not much in the way of the actor. He had no prescence or charisma in the role what so ever and was rather bland, particularly in comparison to Praed. He never really melded with the rest of the cast that his predecessor had and he had barely any chemistry with the actress(who's name escapes me for the moment)who played Marian.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] german_tr 9 years ago

I strongly disagree.

In my opinion, the third season was the best, and I, personally, hands down prefer Jason Connery's Robin to Michael Praed's. I'm absolutely in love with the character as portrayed by Jason Connery. He is just perfect, and I wouldn't change a thing about him. Jason Connery is an excellent actor and plays his part very convincingly.

When I was a child and watched this series for the first time, I just couldn't accept that Michael Praed's Robin Hood was dead. He was the first and only Robin Hood for me at the time, and no one, no matter how great, could have replaced him.

Now, being older, after watching the whole series again, I believe Jason Connery's performance was much stronger and his character much more interesting and complicated. I watched the third season over and over during the last days, and then tried to re-watch the first season, and guess what? Michael Praed's Robin pales in comparison with Jason Connery's - for me. Not to decry Michael Praed's actor talent, Jason Connery just brings so much to the character that I can't help but admire him.

I am very disappointed they didn't get to make a 4th season, and the end of the series looks totally false to me. It was so stupid of Marion to do what she did. I think we all deserved a happier ending, Robert of Huntingdon sure did!

I'm very excited they started making an audio play called "The Knights of the Apocalypse" which is due next year! Can't wait to hear more of their adventures (pity is you can't see it, but it's still something).

[–] layeye18 9 years ago

I agree that the third series is the worst. The story is awful Jason Connery is weak as a leader he he doesn't know how to fight with a sword as Michael Praed and Jason Connery is the worse Robin Hood in history.

[–] youngsteve 9 years ago

I thought the this was a great series, & one of the best portrayals of Robin Hood. As for saying Jason Connery is the worst one in history. What about Kevin 'I have ate the pies' Costner. Great film, & although I like Costner, not really believable.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MrEdnablackadder 8 years ago

I've enjoyed the show in its entire run, but I personally favoured both the second and third season to the first. For me, one of the most interesting aspects of the series was the relationship between the Sheriff and Gisburne, and that hit its stride only after the first season, when they shared some fun moments, but Gisburne's trade mark treachery and personal goals were yet to be shown. By 3, his background story gets interestingly tied to Robert's. One of my biggest issues with most portrayals of the Robin Hood myth is that his merry men usually have little personality: this show was the first one to change that, and most of them were fleshed out the most in S3: we got to see their respective reactions to Locksley's death, we have the background story with Will Scarlet and his wife, John's relationship with Meg, Tuck meeting his former superior etc.. And S3 has my very favourite episode, "The Sheriff of Nottingham", where de Rainault gives us the psychological reasons for his hate for Robin and his men and receives way more character development that any other sheriff ever did.

As for Connery VS Praed, I thought they were both pretty bad. I love the show for its originality in recreating the Robin Hood myth, so I can turn a blind eye on the fact that many of the regulars aren't top notch performers: Niko Grace and Robert Addie are a wonderful match (the best Sheriff and Gisburne ever) and Ray Winstone is a great Will Scarlet, but the others aren't exactly unforgettable. Clive Mantle and Mark Ryan are fine, but Judi Trott and Peter Llewellyn Williams are ghastly. I will probably give Praed a slight edge on the charisma-impaired Connery because his slightly exotic beauty makes him a more interesting presence than (and he doesn't look so obviously modern). He's also more graceful and athletic in the fight scenes. However, in the most dramatic moments, like the scene with Belleme's ghost where he has to project uneasiness, that you can clearly see that his acting technique is EXTREMELY basic. Both Robins did better than Kevin Costner, though. At least they put a bit more effort in their performance.

[–] avortac4 (3752) 2 years ago

The OP is correct.

I don't understand how anyone can watch the third series - I have TRIED, oh, so many times, but that reverse-charisma blob always sucks my energy so much I pass out if I keep watching.

How can someone have inverted charisma, I don't know, but it is pretty amazing how someone extremely charismatic can breed something like that. The son is like a charisma vacuum or .. well, I think I made my point. He's ABSOLUTELY awful to look at.

I mean, he's not ugly, he's not repulsive in the usual way. He's just awful to look at in a way that's impossible to describe.

The whole third series is the same as the actor; it rather SUCKS your energy than gives you anything. It doesn't tell or say anything the better seasons didn't already do much better. Michael's charisma carried so much of this show, and it seems to also have inspired everyone else as well - without him, the show is just an empty shell without meaning or interest. A boring thing to watch at best, an absolute travesty at worst.

When you take the best bit out of a show, you will be EXPOSED to just HOW bad the worst bits of a show are. Without the good to balance the bad, the bad really starts weighing too much. I just can't watch the third season, but undoubtedly I will still try... maybe I can wade through it some day. It's just not 'magical' the way the first two seasons are.

The third season is as soulless as the actor is charismaless. No point in watching it.. you'd be better off re-watching the first two seasons and then IMAGINING a great third season - it's bound to be better than what was actually made.

The actor isn't just a "no-charisma", but actually a charisma black hole, where all charisma goes to die. Instead of just bland nothing, he is a MINUS, he makes everything around him have less charisma.