What! Shot in the face??


"Television standards decreed that people could only be hit by arrows in the back or in the front, never in the face."

Who'd show someone getting shot in the face with an arrow on broadcast television, for heaven's sake? Especially in the '80s; it's only in the past few years things have gotten so hyper-violent.

Raised on Richard Greene's (imported English) TV Robin Hood in the '50s, I was so aghast to see an old episode recently and watch Robin and/or his men shoot people in the back! I mean, it's 50 years later and my reaction was still pure shock! Big conflict with my U.S. childhood of TV cowboys where only cowards and bad guys shot anyone in the back...

Of course, when you think of it, shooting someone in the back makes perfect sense if you're sure they're going to shoot you if they get the chance. I wonder how many good people have died because they hesitated for a second because they wanted to be "fair."

reply

In the face would have been way too violent- it was on at 6 o'clock on a Sunday here when first out!! No way.

I am surpised that they did kill anyone at all, considering how squeaky clean the writers wanted Will Scarlet to be? He wasn't allowed to kill Moth in the 'Adam Bell' episode, nor anyone in Cross of St Ciricus?

Real outlaws would have been immune to suffering, so ultra-violent in their desperate bid not to be hanged?

reply

[deleted]

"Real outlaws would have been immune to suffering"

HUH?

Are you saying LAW causes people to suffer?

What the hell are you saying? NO ONE is immune to SUFFERING.

reply