Ridley Scott’s Robin Hood gets its Merry Men

Scott’s Robin Hood recently signed on its Maid Marian, so it is about time they got around to filling out Robin’s band of Merry Men. Scott Grimes, Kevin Durand and Alan Doyle have all been signed on in supporting roles.

MovieWeb offers:

Robin Hood has signed on Scott Grimes, Kevin Durand and Alan Doyle as the group of adventurers in director Ridley Scott’s Robin Hood tale for Universal and Imagine, according to The Hollywood Reporter.

Russell Crowe toplines the movie, which is being billed as a retelling of the origins of the key characters of the Robin Hood legend. Cate Blanchett is on board as Maid Marian in the project written by Brian Helgeland.

Scott Grimes will be playing Will Scarlet, which in this incarnation will be Robin’s nephew, not half bastard brother.

Durand will be Little John, which is fitting for his size. I just hope they don’t make him as dimwitted as he was in Wild Hogs.

And in a strange fitting twist, Alan Doyle, a musician (Great Big Sea) will be playing Alan Dayle, the Minstrel.

I have always been a fan of Robin Hood movies and TV shows (BBC makes some great ones) and with Russell Crowe on board with this and a well shaped up crowd of Merry Men, this movie is coming together well.

Comment with Facebook

20 thoughts on “Ridley Scott’s Robin Hood gets its Merry Men

  1. I wanted Ridley Scott to make The Forever War next. Too bad for me. Too bad for us another retelling of the same effing story we’ve seen before.

  2. Yeah, people hate his character on Wild Hogs and all of a sudden start claiming to hate him as an actor and he can’t do any roles other then that and stuff, but then I just them them to Lost.

  3. Being from England myself i love films about Robin Hood an Arthurian legends and all that stuff so was already looking forward to seeing this but i’m really happy to see Kevin Durand get more work after watching him play Keamey on Lost in which he was an ruthless mercenary, i hated his character but loved the actor for making me hate him.

    1. The King Arthur legend is not French.

      Most of what is found in the legend and lore of King Arthur comes directly from what little history was written down in the dark ages. And they take that from British records of kings and family trees.

      Not french at all.

    2. Rodney,

      I wonder why on the Lord of the Rings special features a long time British scholar reports it. Huh. I wonder who is wrong… She also says that is why Tolkien wrote the trilogy.

    3. Dude, i’m not lying. I’ve watched those special features a couple of times and they even reference much of it on Wiki. I’m not saying all of it, but a great deal. We see it all the time anyway. Stories get moved and changed. Resurection of Jesus is the same as the rebirth of spring. Do you really believe Jesus arose on Easter Sunday?

    4. No, I don’t believe Jesus rose on Easter Sunday, but then no one ever said Easter Sunday was specifically the day he rose either. Get your story right before you try to make that reference.

      And the only part of the arthur legend that is french is the author of the romance novels based on Lancelot. Still based on British legends.

      Because some fiction was written by a french guy doesnt mean the original folk lore and historical details of Britain are suddenly French.

      If that was the case, then Tolkien just made all of middle earth British.

    5. My first reply was to write what heard on LOTR Sp. Features. Secondly, my point about a certain person’s resurection was to make a point abouyt how things can be moved and changed to fit what people want. And in my thoughts, being hotly debated by scholars as to the origin of Arthurian legend doesn’t make it from England alone. As for Middle Earth, I always thought it was meant to be England. Huh. Who would have thought there were lands outside the maps Tolkien made.

    6. The Arthurian Legends were not moved to suit what people wanted. They are all based on actual historical facts.

      Which of the legends is true or how “magic” Merlin was or the accuracy of it all is all speculation since no one knows for sure. But fact remains that these legends all came from the few British records and British folk lore of the time. Many of the characters mentioned were established from historical records.

      You speculated that it was made into British myth based on French legends which couldn’t be less accurate.

      More accurate is that a French writer wrote some romance novels that were based on the legends. If anything the British Legend was “stolen” by a frenchman.

    7. Rodneys pretty much said it all for me but i might as wel throw in my 2 cents

      The Legend of King Arthur was not made up by the French it is roughly based some factual events and characters from British history told as folklore at the time but over the many many years it has been romanticised and glamorized and re-told from so many perspectives that it’s become a mess and unclear as to what the real truth is, that is why they call it a Legend.

      1. As we’re all spouting in a very authorative manner about Arthur, how about this?

        The Arthur “legends” were written in the 15th century by Sir Thomas Mallory. Mallory took his idea from an 8th century monk called Geoffrey of Monmouth who had written down lore of a soldier called Arthur who saved the Britons from the invading Saxons and Franks 200 years or so earlier.

        However…..All the battles attributed to Arthur by both scholars were actually fought by Lucius “Artorius” Castus, a Roman “Dux Bellorum” (War Leader) sent to Britain in AD187 to quell the naughty people north of Hadrians Wall. This is not legend, but documented. His cavalry were conscripted from the nobility of a conquered tribe from the Danube / Black Sea area, and THEIR legends describe very nicely swords in stones and a chap called Lance a Lot.

        Fascinating eh :)

Leave a Reply