Happy Holidays!

Yeah, there's not going to be much in the way of posting while I'm busy doing home-for-break things, including but not limited to Christmas, New Years, babysitting, and general goofing off (I feel I've earned that much). Posts shall resume as scheduled (or whatever it was we had that was somewhat schedule-like) when I return to routine and grad school in a week (or sooner if I get bored I suppose). In the meantime, Happy Whatever-It-Is-You-Have-Celebrated-Or-Will-Be-Celebrating-In-The-Near-Future!

Robin Hood vs. King Arthur: The Final Showdown (among other things)

Before I get into the second and final round of our legend battle (which I know has been keeping everybody on the edge of their seats!), this needs to be shared with the world, because it's just so darn cute in that cavity-inducing kind of way:

Don't be smiling by the end, I dare you

But if you're one of those that can't handle too much niceness, there's always the world's most disturbing holiday peanut commercial (not a very populated category, but it doesn't change the fact):

Yep. I can now sense demented nutcrackers going for my head when I'm sufficiently sleep deprived.

Also, in the world of the Hunger Games movie, Gary Ross is to be the movie's director. He's the guy that brought us Seabiscuit, but otherwise hasn't really done much of anything. Suzanne Collins seems to like him, which is a good sign, but time shall tell. Now that a director has been chosen, a casting director and subsequently, a cast, is only a matter of time. Here's hoping they don't go with Kristen Stewart. 

Ok, now onto the moment you've all been waiting for (or perhaps not, but here it is anyway): Robin Hood vs King Arthur, Round 2-Movies.

Here's a doozie. Just like there have been crap tons of King Arthur books, both terrible and great, there have been tons of King Arthur movies....mostly just terrible. Robin Hood, on the other hand, has a bit more of a 50/50 chance of getting a decent movie. Let's start with the obvious, the Disney incarnation. King Arthur had the classic Sword in the Stone, which focused on Arthur's childhood and training with Merlin.

It all looks so magical and pretty!

Too bad it's anticlimactic (oh yeah, spoiler alert, I suppose). It's technically based off of TH White's version of the story, including all of Merlin's more magical lessons that required being transformed into various animals that don't have kingdoms or something like that. Of course, Disney being Disney, they took a few....artistic licenses? Hey, everybody else who read The Once and Future King, I have a question:

Do you remember her? No? Me either...

I can only assume she's supposed to be Morgan LeFay or something....oh good lord. Now, granted, I didn't grow up with this one, somehow it slipped under my radar and I didn't think to watch it until a year or so ago, so maybe it just wasn't enough for my inner child. Or maybe it just wasn't that good. But it seems to me that the only part of this movie that really lasted was it's depiction of Merlin. You don't see little Arthur in Kingdom Hearts, do you? No. You know who shows up? Merlin. (It all seems to keep coming back to him, doesn't it?). 

Ok, Robin Hood's turn. This movie I DID grow up with, what with all of it's anthropomorphic animals robbing each other and whatnot.

Oh, the memories!

So, of course Disney had to take some liberties with this one as well, but I feel like it didn't take nearly as many, except for the ending (another spoiler alert, they never actually get married according to a lot of versions. Sorry Robin!). Perhaps the minstrel rooster was unnecessary, but you have to admit those songs were catchy, or am I the only one who can instantly recall the tune to "oo-de-lally oo-de-lally, golly what a day"? 

And maybe I'm just biased towards this movie as opposed to Sword in the Stone, but what the heck, it's my blog and that's my right dangit! I say Robin Hood wins the Disney movie. But what about all those other movies?

Thanks to Mark Twain's book A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court, Hollywood has been asking what would happen if various modern day people found themselves in Medieval Camelot. And asking. And asking. And asking some more. We get it, alright? Modern day technology+medieval culture=InstaWizard (just don't let Merlin catch you!). So you know what? I'm just going to skip all those. There were a lot and they were mostly dumb. There was that newest King Arthur movie titles, you guessed it, King Arthur. Remember? That one with Kiera Knightly and some other people? Ok, like a bad nerd, I haven't seen it yet, though it is on my list. Although I have to say that the reviews did not seem astounding, so I have my doubts. 

I already expressed how underwhelmed I was with Russell Crowe's Robin Hood. He's just too darn old and grizzled. 

I feel like that image would work better with a burning skyscraper behind him and a machine gun instead of a bow and arrow in his hands. And also an eye patch. And a lit cigarette in his mouth. So it's not like he's a pansy or unfit for the outlaw role, he just doesn't seem the medieval outlaw type. Therefore the movie was interesting enough in it's own right, what with the political intrigue and sword fights, it just wasn't really a Robin Hood movie. You know what it was missing? A tournament. Robin Hood must win an archery tournament in disguise or else it's just an incomplete movie. And I'm pretty sure this one didn't have a tournament. If it did, it was just THAT uninteresting. 

Then there's the always fantastically awful Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves. That's already been demolished in full by the Sugary Cynic, so I suggest you go read it if you haven't already. Or go get a refresher. It's ok, I'll still be here when you get back. Ok, back now? Pretty terrible, right? But it's because of Prince of Thieves that Carey Elwes graced us with Robin Hood: Men in Tights, which is just always entertaining to watch and great for so many reasons, not least of which include Patrick Stewart playing King Richard and a subtle-ish Abbot and Costello reference. 

Ok, So far the movie score is King Arthur: 0, Robin Hood: 2, but we owe our legendary king a few more movie chances. Hey! How about that one, First Knight, starring Sean Connery as King Arthur! You know, because he's Scottish, and Scotland is on the British Islands, so it counts, right?

Oh, right, he's old enough to make me cheer Guenevere on towards Lancelot myself (Sorry Sean, nothing personal, you just needed more roles with leading ladies who didn't look like they could be your daughter...or granddaughter, for pete's sake). Also, most of the costumes looked like bad sci-fi movie leftovers. Just sayin.

Oh hey! Remember that not so great book from round one, that one by Meg Cabot? Well Disney channel made it into a movie! Now, I know what you're thinking. "Hey, her books may be subpar, but they can make a decent movie out of them. Princess Diaries was lovable, right? So maybe it's just one of those things where she translates better onto film than page?" Yeah, probably not. I couldn't bring myself to watch it the first time around, and since Disney doesn't seem to be cramming it down it's viewers throats, it must not have been all that successful. But then, it's just a tv movie, sooooo......

So for the movie round, Robin Hood is the victor! Both have had terrible movies, but at least Robin Hood had some more lovable ones. But wait! With King Arthur winning round 1, Robin Hood winning round 2, it's a tie! That means it's time for

SUDDEN DEATH!

Where we have the two legends face off, mano y mano, one final fight to the death! *cue fanfare and whatnot*

So, who would win in a fight? Robin could pick off Arthur from a distance with his sharp shooting skills, no contest. But that's boring. Robin Hood was supposed to be a expert swordsman as well as marksman, so we'll say that both contestants are limited to steel and steel alone. In this case, as long as Arthur has his magical sword of cheating death in battle (Excalibur, duh), Robin has no chance. But what if this is post-Guenevere/Lancelot affair? Then our brave king has no will or spirit left, so he's dead, sword or no sword. But you know, it's the other characters that make each legend what it is, so let's bring them in too. Arthur had his Knights of the Round Table (minus Lancelot, let's say), all pretty much undefeated in battle, all pretty much walking tin cans (have you seen those suits of armor? What would it take to just push them down a hill?). Robin Hood's Merry Men have speed and stealth on their side (plus Little John's massiveness, Will Scarlet's knife prowess, and Friar Tuck's, you know, Catholic Church) and are infinitely more nimble without all that armor. I'm going to say that if this was the final lineup, Robin Hood would win. BUT! Who's King Arthur's favorite trump card? MERLIN! If he's not trapped in his cave yet. In that case, Robin has no chance. None. It's over. No contest. Unless Morgan LeFay joined Robin for some reason...but that's just ridiculous. 

I guess that means that, with the old sorceror, King Arthur pulls ahead. Without, however, Robin Hood destroys Arthur, most likely with a hand tied behind his back. So if Arthur's victory is dependent solely on Merlin's influence (I mean, all the best Arthur-related stories and movies, and also that one tv show, are only the best because of Merlin), is it really a victory for Arthur, or just for Merlin? Food for thought. 

Ok, I need to sleep, but in the meantime, I'd say this sums most of Arthur's...Arthurness nicely. 

If you'd like to see any other face-off's, do tell, and I'll see what I can dig up. Tune in next time for some more average nerdiness!

Sheldon: "Why did the chicken cross the mobius strip? To get to the same side! Bazinga!" ~Big Bang Theory

Robin Hood vs. King Arthur; Part 1

Don't tell me you never wondered who would win. Ok, honestly, neither have I. But as I sit here and watch Russel Crowe's "resurrection" of Robin Hood and am reminded of Disney's attempt to make King Arthur relate-able or whatever, I have to wonder who's been dealt a crappier hand thus far. So let's see what happens when we pit the two legendary greats and their successes and failures in the media against each other.

Round 1: Literature!

Admittedly, I haven't read nearly as many Robin Hood books as I have King Arthur books, take from that what you will. King Arthur as we know him first showed up in Geoffrey of Monmouth's "History of the Kings of Britain," circa 1130AD. Lancelot's love triangle and the never-ending quest for the Holy Grail was thrown in later thanks to Chretien de Troyes in the 12 century (and not Monty Python, thank you very much). The most popular modern rendition of Arthur's legend probably belongs to T. H. White and his novel The Once and Future King. That said, myriad of spinoffs, retellings, spoofs, and parodies have been written to resurrect the fabled king, both good and terrible. Among the terrible: 

Looks promising, doesn't it?

Avalon High by Meg Cabot (yeah, the Princess Diaries Meg Cabot. Makes sense now, eh?), which tries so very hard to recreate the realm of King Arthur in a modern day highschool. The story is told from the perspective of a typical highschool girl heroine, a shy, softspoken, girl with self esteem issues who is supposed to be the reincarnation of the Lady of Shallot. Eventually, new Arthur's life can only be saved from new Mordred after the betrayal of new Guinevere and new Lancelot by the love offered by new Elaine of Shallot. In general, Meg Cabot surprised me with her attention to detail, finding ways to modernize every aspect of the original legend in a somewhat acceptable manner. At the very least, it was a book that both I and my tweenage-opposite-of-me-in-every-way sister could enjoy. Up until that last bit, the whole "Arthur needs to fall in love with the Lady in the Lake.....because I said so?" part. First of all, I don't think anyone ever suggested that Elaine of Shallot and the Lady of the Lake were the same person. In fact, I think most legends agree that the Lady was Morgan LeFay. So there. Second, the Lady of Shallot had a thing for Lancelot, or a knight that is generally believed to have been Lancelot, according to Tennyson's epic poem. But then again, it was Meg Cabot...(remember this for round 2!)

On the flip side, a less obvious reincarnation was skillfully done in "Tomorrow's Magic" by Pamela F. Service.

It was the two-headed dog that sold me

This one takes place in a post-apocalyptic England, during the slow receding of a nuclear winter. Turns out that history really can go in circles, as future England finds itself in the same kind of medieval warring state it was in the first time Arthur came along. Only instead of an arthurian re-birth, this book plays on the fact that enough mystery shrouds King Arthur's death to make whatever you want of it. In this case, Arthur has been recuperating for thousands of years from a near-mortal injury in Avalon, a place that doesn't follow a conventional time stream, of course! I liked this book better because I was much more willing to suspend my disbelief for the sake of the story. Also, because Merlin shows up, and doggonit I'm a sucker for the old sorcerer. 

Now, for Robin's side of the story (hehehe, pun....oh, shut up!). In general, his story is more exciting. I mean he's deadly with a bow and arrow and robs from the rich to aid the poor (hey, he was the first Democrat! Bazinga!). Our favorite outlaw first showed up in various ballads and such around 1370AD. Robin Hood continued to appear in adventures of his own, the bulk of which turned into the collective tales of Robin Hood and his Band of Merry Men outwitting the Sheriff of Nottingham with the help of Friar Tuck that we all know today. However, after Howard Pyle's The Merry Adventures of Robin Hood, nothing else really showed up. At least, nothing to compare to the onslaught of King Arthur stories. I have yet to see a modern day retelling...

Oh yeah...aside from him

Well, Robin Hood gets a DC Comic series and a trilogy of rather fantastic books by Stephen Lawhead, Hood, Scarlet, and Tuck (which offer a believable backstory and such), but other than that....nuthin. That said, I'm going to have to say that King Arthur wins the Success in Literature round. Sure, he has some really terrible stories, but he has just as many great ones, and overall, it's still more than poor Robin of Loxley can claim. Maybe he can pull forward next time in Round 2: Movies!