Part 2: ‘Real Robins and Camp Followers’ (Part 1 HERE)
1969 was a momentous year marked by two major events, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin landed on the moon and Paul Newman kicked Ted Cassidy in the balls in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. Of the two events it is the latter that has arguably proved to be more significant. The ‘kick in the balls moment’ marked a paradigm shift in Hollywood’s treatment of heroes and the public’s willingness to accept them, flaws and all.
Butch Cassidy was the mainstream success that cemented Hollywood’s version of ‘realism’ as the norm, even in historical subjects previously regarded as in some way exempted from even the most simplistic attempts at conveying period or recognisable human motivations. William Goldman’s screenplay for Butch may have ended in tragedy but at least he remembered to imbue his central characters with a sense of fun as well as playing with the conventions of the western. This was a trick that seemed to elude the writers of subsequent Robin Hood movies and for the next couple of decades at least Robin Hood films were split between the ‘realistic’ and the ridiculous. The light-hearted tricksterish elements of the traditional stories were siphoned off into broad farce and parody while the core tale of rebellion was dressed in muted colours and its hero invested with the primal motivations beloved of method actors and pop psychologists.
First to be made in 1969, though not seeing the light of a projector until given a limited cinema release by Hammer four years later, was ‘Wolfshead‘.
Produced as a pilot for a series that was never commissioned, it exemplifies the realist approach. New Zealander David Warbeck was Robert of Locksley (Newsflash: Russell Crowe, not the first Kiwi to play Robin!) a Saxon yeoman who incurs the wrath of the local Norman nobility by protecting a serf, in an opening that mirrors the Flynn movie before diverging into darker territory. Bleak North Wales locations stood in for Barnsdale (the Yorkshire setting of the earliest ballads rather than Sherwood) and Robin is motivated as much by revenge for the rape and murder of his sister as by any desire for social justice. Wolfshead was little seen at the time but proved to be influential in its grittier approach to the legend, some of those involved were also to contribute to later TV adaptations.
Running counter to the new realistic approach to the legend was a separate strand of productions that considered it fit subject for parody and satire and 1971 saw the first, and so far only, gay Robin as played in a cameo by Hugh Paddick in ‘Up the Chastity Belt‘. His Polari speaking Robin led a band of merry chorus boys that helped restore Frankie Howerd to his rightful place on the English throne.
Comedic interpretations were nothing new, and neither were cartoons, Robin had been played by Bugs Bunny (‘Rabbit Hood‘ 1949), Popeye (‘Robin Hood-Winked‘ 1948), Daffy Duck (‘Robin Hood Daffy‘ 1958) and appeared with Tom and Jerry (‘Robin Hoodwinked‘ 1958) as well as turning up in guest spots and short subjects ever since the Fairbanks film. Disney’s 1973 ‘Robin Hood‘ was a major animated feature with a starry voice cast directed by Wolfgang Reitherman who had previously delivered both ‘The Jungle Book’ and ‘The Sword in the Stone’. His third take on an English classic is an entirely anthropomorphic affair, Robin and Marian are foxes, Little John a bear and Peter Ustinov’s Prince John a cowardly lion.
Phil Harris’ Little John is identical to his Baloo in the Jungle Book and the whole film feels like an exercise in the application of a tried and tested formula, albeit a successful one. The film is entertaining enough and continues the long standing Robin Hood tradition of employing English character actors as the bad guys. As with many Robin Hood adaptations it remains a firm favourite with those for whom it was their first exposure to the legend, and for many viewers probably their first exposure to film. The major crime that the movie commits however is that, at least in Disney’s marketing strategy, it overshadows their 1952 live action version which has never received the widespread home video and DVD promotion it deserves.
1975 was the year the bipolar approach to Sherwood arrived with a vengeance. The BBC’s six parter ‘The Legend of Robin Hood‘ was a surprisingly grim and violent affair for Sunday teatime viewing that went where no previous adaptation had gone before and ended with our hero’s death. David Butler, writer of ‘Wolfshead’ contributed one episode, Martin Potter was a dour Robin, Diane Keene played one of the most passive Marions ever seen, Paul Darrow was remarkably restrained (for him) as the Sheriff and the stand out turn came from David Dixon as an effete mother fixated Prince John.
‘When Things Were Rotten‘ was the flip side, Mel Brooks’ manic to the BBC’s depressive. The sitcom it starred Dick Gautier as Robin, head of a band of exceptionally dim merry men whose own incompetence was exceeded only by that of his adversaries. Brooks rehearsed some of the tropes he was to use later in ‘Robin Hood: Men in Tights’ but the focus of the show was character led farce rather than outright parody of other Robin Hood treatments. It lasted a single 13 week season before the axe fell. In the UK, ‘Robin Hood Junior‘ was the Childrens Film Foundation’s first foray into Sherwood starring a young Keith Chegwin in best cheeky varlet mode.
Richard Lester was a director on a historical roll following ‘The Three Musketeers’ (1973) and its follow up, ‘The Four Musketeers’ (1974). ‘Royal Flash’ (1975) was his third George MacDonald Fraser scripted costume movie in a row and his next project ‘Robin and Marian‘ (1976) might have been expected to exhibit a similarly rich mix of realism, incidental detail and moments of comic relief. The script for this project however was from James Goldman, dramatist of the acclaimed ‘The Lion in Winter’ and brother of Butch Cassidy author William. The movie’s original working title of ‘The Death of Robin Hood’ pretty much sums up the film’s approach to the legend.
It is the most emotionally mature version of the story yet put on film, a middle aged love story in both period and theme and a portrait of a force of nature who is unable to admit that his time has come.
Sean Connery’s Robin and Robert Shaw’s sheriff are both representatives of an old order soon to be swept away. It is Robin’s tragedy that he fails to recognise this and his actions precipitate the demise of all he has loved. The kick in the balls he administers to Kenneth Haigh is a provocation rather than a winning blow and in killing the sheriff he removes the one restraint on despotism that remains. It is Audrey Hepburn’s decisive, independent Marian that eases them both to oblivion as destruction descends. Robin and Marian is a fine and beautifully performed film that failed to find the wider audience it deserved at the time.
Meanwhile, in Soviet Russia Boris Khmelnitsky was proto socialism personified in ‘Strely Robin Guda’ (Robin Hood’s Arrows 1976), a film that drew much of its plot from the medieval ballad tradition and supplemented the soundtrack with modern Russian approximations. It proved popular with Eastern Bloc audiences whose grandparents had probably queued for Douglas Fairbanks and Khmelnitsky reprised the role in a 1983 version of Walter Scott’s ‘Ivanhoe’ Ballada o doblestnom rytsare Ayvengo.
The Sherwood outlaw’s next two appearances were cameos in larger projects, John Cleese played him for comedy as an unrepentant toff (allegedly based on the Duke of Kent) in Terry Gilliam’s ‘Time Bandits‘ (1981) and David Robb was a straightforward Locksley in a prestige TV movie version of ‘Ivanhoe‘ (1982). Canadian comic Rich Little played Robin as Groucho Marx (and all the other parts as various Hollywood stars) in a 1982 TV special (‘Rich Little’s Robin Hood‘) and the CFF produced a sequel to their 1975 effort ‘The Adventures of Young Robin Hood‘ (1983).
In another part of the forest ‘Robin of Sherwood‘ (1983) was waiting to make his entrance.
Richard Carpenter’s series took the Wolfshead blueprint (he had been one of the writers slated to work on the proposed series) and pushed it into areas not previously occupied by the boys and girls in Lincoln green. There was realism but also elements of mysticism and the occult and there was a Saracen merry man for the first time. The new age ethereal atmosphere of the visuals was complemented by the Celtic soundtrack from Clannad. The bad guys were genuinely menacing, although it was their failures that provided most of the humour that punctuated the series. Gisburne was the blond public school rugby team captain to the sheriff’s besotted senior prefect. Michael Praed was a brooding, darkly handsome, Robin of Loxley and Judi Trott a sylvan Marian.
Tragedy was here as well, Praed’s Robin sacrificing himself in a hail of crossbow bolts at the end of the second season. Carpenter acknowledged the contradictory traditions of Robin’s social status by replacing Praed’s peasant hero with Jason (son of Sean) Connery’s noble Robert of Huntingdon, the title of ‘The Hooded Man’ being bestowed by Sherwood’s mystical guardian Herne the Hunter. ‘Robin of Sherwood’ easily bears comparison with the best of previous adaptations and remains an excellent entertainment.
‘The Zany Adventures of Robin Hood‘ (1984) is, by way of contrast, an acquired taste. Veteran writer Robert Kauffman took the Mel Brooks approach to the subject and upped the Jewish ante considerably, George Segal stars as Robin, whose merry men include a minstrel called Yehudi. Morgan Fairchild’s Marian is rescued by Robin aided by ‘some nice Jewish boys’ in rubber boats. Shot in the UK and featuring a host of familiar British character actors amid historic locations anachronisms are pretty much the point of the film.
1991 was the battle of the two Robins. Won at the box office by Kevin Costner in the blockbuster ‘Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves’ and in the reviews by Patrick Bergin in ‘Robin Hood’.
Both have their admirers and both, with varying degrees of success, attempted to introduce humour and a lighter touch back into a mainstream take on the legend. ‘Prince of Thieves’ was hampered in this respect by a leading man incapable of expressing anything but earnest good intentions and a performance of such outrageous camp from Alan Rickman’s Sheriff that it made Nottingham Castle look like a more fun place to be than Sherwood. Patrick Bergin on the other hand positively twinkled with good humour and a joie de vivre not seen since Errol Flynn.
There’s a similar disparity in the two Marian’s on show, Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio starts out as a typical feisty action heroine, first seen in armour kicking Costner in the crotch, she even gets to see him naked but her capture by the sheriff is easily accomplished and she has to be rescued from attempted rape at the top of a phallic tower. Uma Thurman by contrast disguises herself as a boy to join Bergin in the forest and fights on her own behalf when Robin arrives to stop her forced marriage to Jurgen Prochnow.
The best performance in ‘Prince of Thieves’ comes from Morgan Freeman as Azeem, Robin’s Moorish companion (an addition to the legend introduced in Robin of Sherwood). He gets to introduce the telescope, gunpowder and Caesarean birth to medieval England as well as rousing the peasantry and saving Robin’s life at the climax to the movie, Freeman’s achievement is to create a likeable human character from what is essentially a deus ex machina plot device. The two movies also have differing resolutions, Sean Connery’s King Richard arriving to oversee the wedding in a traditional conclusion to the Costner flick while Bergin and Thurman’s nuptials mark a mutually arrived at Norman/Saxon conciliation.
Mel Brooks returned to Sherwood for ‘Robin Hood: Men in Tights‘ in 1993 a movie that managed the neat trick of lampooning the Costner vehicle while simultaneously riding on its coat tails.
It is more effective as comedy when it broadens its focus to the wider traditions of the legend rather than spoofing Costner or The Godfather movies and proved once again (after ‘The Princess Bride’ 1987) that Cary Elwes could have given Flynn and Ronald Colman a run for their money as a Hollywood leading man in the 30s. Another Sherwood misfire was ‘The New Adventures of Robin Hood‘ (1997) filmed in Lithuania it was an attempt to graft the sophisticated sensibilities (trust me on this one) that had informed ‘Xena: Warrior Princess’ (1995) and ‘Hercules: The Legendary Journeys’ (1995) onto Robin’s English roots. It has its moments and it has its fans, it had its chips after four seasons. ‘Back to Sherwood‘ (1999) was a Canadian TV series with a time travelling heroine descended from the outlaw and Keira Knightly first swashed a buckle not in ‘Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl’ (2003) but as Gwyn, Robin Hood’s daughter in Disney’s ‘Princess of Thieves‘ (2001).
A cameo in ‘Shrek‘ (2001) briefly confused five year olds into thinking that Robin was French before a new BBC ‘Robin Hood’ (2006) set them straight.
Jonas Armstrong ran around the Hungarian woods facing impossible odds and soldiers in lamé chain mail for three seasons before he and pretty much the entire cast were killed off. For Armstrong the major problem was not just that his Marian fancied Richard Armitage’s Guisborne but that most of the female audience did as well. There were excellent episodes throughout the series but overall the tone and quality varied wildly, slipping too often into mediocrity and the final season takes much of its time establishing a potential replacement Robin, a set up which was wasted when the show was axed.
Which, give or take the odd dragon fighting Robin in the SyFy Channel’s ‘Beyond Sherwood Forest‘ (2009) brings us round to Russell Crowe and Ridley Scott’s latest.
Article written by guest blogger David Evans.
Want to write about the stuff you're passionate about and have your work read by an audience of over 10 million a month? Click here to become a contributor.

















22 Comments
Regardless of some very fine adaptations of legend, the BBC TV version is my favourite and I’m still very miffed by the fact the producers ran with Gisborne’s Story Arc with Marian being taken out by him and virtually spoiling the entire show. Sorry, but I’m no fan of Gisborne nor the actor playing the part. Jonas Armstrong is in my opinion, the best ever Robin Hood and it was as though the casting people didn’t trust their own judgement by allowing Gisborne to take over this version the way it was played. Having said that though, the ensemble cast lead by Jonas were absolutely brilliant. I just wanted the h.e.a. the producers promised by way of family entertainment because Jonas and Lucy were on the way to creating the best romantic story of legend yet and it shouldn’t have ended the day it did. Jonas’s devoted Fans felt cheated and disappointed our Hero basically played 2nd fiddle to the very brutal, sadistic, snarling ugly Gisborne, but he will always remain the best ever Robin Hood in our hearts and minds.
Oh dear, another example of Jonas fans coming on a blog and spouting their hate because Richard Armitage/Guy of Gisborne was the real star of Robin Hood 2006. I really wish they could admit that A) Richard Armitage is a fine actor and has a burgeoning career and B)Fell they have to tear down the character and the actor for Guy to make themselves feel better about Jonas.
At least Richard Armitage does not get drunk, and knock on doors shouting “I am Guy of Gisborne.” and get arrested for it.
Still one of the best baddies on celluloid is Alan Rickman’s The sheriff of Nottingham. Basil Rathbone made a fine Guy of Gisborne for the golden era of cinema. Richard Armitage made an icon of the character for the modern day.
Maturity people.
You’re calling for maturity – strange! You are not exactly displaying any. You’re entitled to your opinion as much as I am, and I stated my preference. I did not criticise the actor playing the part nor did I pan his acting ability, I am aware of his popularity and wish him well and I freely admit I am an obsessed Jonas Armstrong Fan, that is my right and privilege, as it is yours but the story was Robin Hood, and the legend, if you are aware of the legend, did not include Gisborne to any great extent, certainly not putting Marian into his path which as you know, led to her early demise in what shocked fans everywhere and basically ruined what was promised to be family entertainment. It also left the scriptwriters and producers with nowhere to go upon Marian’s untimely departure.
I am not spouting hatred of a character, hatred is not a word I use in my vocabulary and this wasn’t meant to disintegrate into a brawl between either Actor’s Fandom. You have your preferences and I have mine and we are both entitled to admire whoever we see fit to.
By the way, Alan Rickman’s Sheriff was absolutely hilarious and Basil Rathbone’s Gisborne was excellent too particularly the swordfight in The Adventures of .. I don’t care what my favourite does in his spare time, that’s his business, but as I have found myself in similar situations, I’m hardly in a position to comment, Am I? I trust the same applies to everybody.
By the way, I didn’t like Season 3 to begin with either, but having watched it quite a few times now, have changed my opinion there too. And that’s where I believe much better use could have been made of the chemistry that did exist between Armstrong and Armitage – do you agree?
All the best!
Um a direct quote from you…”Sorry, but I’m no fan of Gisborne nor the actor playing the part.”
I don’t even see why that had to come into your first comment?? I am not a fan of every actor who has played Robin Hood or other various characters in the many tv and cinematic versions, but I don’t go…I am not a fan of x character/actor….etc etc.
Why not just blame the writers of the show? The writers for BBC RH were not stellar and its their words that got on the screen. I love the Character of Robin Hood, and I am usually Robin/Marian all the way, but I found it hard to be sympathetic to the 2006 RH. I think Jonas did his best, as did all the cast with poorly written material.
I own many versions of Robin Hood and even with all its thigh slapping, tight wearing, The Adventures of Robin Hood is probably the best version out there. A nod to the Robin & Marian movie with Audrey Hepburn and Sean Connery, their death scene at the end gets me every time.
Oh for the love of god get over it.Robin died,Gizzy died.Marian died…isn’t this getting a little boring now?
Judy until you are the P.T.B youre just going to have to lump it.
Well said Freckle, it’s all ancient history now.
You’re right, Freckle, but what does “P.T.B” stand for?
Wrothwell PTB-Powers that be. I.e the writers producers and directors
I loved Robin of Sherwood with Michael Praed and Robert Addy. This was the Robin Hood for my generation, I also loved the music by Clannad which was very distinctive. I particularly liked the mystical aspects of that version which I felt weaved the Robin Hood legend and other aspects of English folklore together very effectively.
I have not seen the Costner version, but though it is often panned, it does seem to be liked by many people. The Disney version has promise, but doesn’t really deliver, Disney has made many better films.
The BBC Robin Hood is a strange one. I found Jonas Armstrong rather disengaging as Robin Hood – a great pity but I agree the writing was the other big problem, uneven at best. But it did have its moments. (PS I confess that I am one of those members of the female population who find Richard Armitage’s Gisborne irresistible, and he is the one and only reason I have now watched all three series in their entirety.)
I liked Jonas Armstrong’s Robin (though he did get a bit too “cheeky chappy” at times) and it’s not his fault–nor Richard Armitage’s (who played Gisborne)–that things turned out the way they did. The producers of Robin Hood did say they were going to try some different things, and they did.
Plus, it’s not Richard Armitage’s fault that he looks great in black leather, or that he’s a dedicated and hardworking actor who fleshed out the role of Guy of Gisborne. He attracted an audience and what do you expect the writers of the show to do? Ignore that?
Sheesh, just let it go, Judy! I am saying plainly here that I *LIKE* Armstrong (what a cutie) but be fair! Obviously there were plenty of people who found Armitage’s Guy of Gisborne irresistable (as Kaprekar says) so why don’t you graciously concede that instead of sounding a tad bitter? After all, it’s also fair to say that there were a lot of fans who rooted wholeheartedly for Robin (Jonas Armstrong) as well.
What we ended up with were two camps (the Robin-Marian fans and the Guy-Marian fans) but that just made for an interesting love triangle. I hated how Marian’s story ended up, but there were good moments throughout the show as well.
As a devoted Richard Armitage fan, I honestly feel for Jonas. He did his best to his ability with the material he was given, but Robin was completely overshadowed by the much more interesting Guy Of Gisborne throughout the entire series.
For me, the biggest problem with Jonas’s Robin was the character had NO EDGE, he was just a little boy playing with arrows in the woods and when the opportunity came time in season 3 to actually give him depth it lasted for o-about one episode and then he seemed to have forgotten the fact that Gisborne stole the love of his life. Guy on the other hand, was raked with guilt and his character ultimately had a more interesting story from beginning to end. This has nothing to do with either actor, the people who are at fault here are the WRITERS. Even Richard Armitage openly admits he hated the decision to kill Marian, its no secret that he thought this was a huge mistake.
I really don’t think that either fanbase needs to go at each other because of the writers inconsistencies. Richard has moved on and has an extremely busy career as a leading man, and I’m sure Jonas has a bright future ahead of him too. They’ve both moved on and I think the us fans should do the same and put away our differences.
Leaving 2006 aside for a mo, I LOVE the Disney film. I know it almost by heart in Swedish (which, imho, has better voice acting than the original – shock horror). “Prince of Thieves” is fun in a “yeah Kevin Costner is soooo from Nottingham … not” and the best part is Alan Rickman’s sheriff.
“Men in Tights” is brilliant (“I am a Robin Hood who DOES have an English accent!”), and features Matthew Porretta as Will Scarlett – the actor who went on to play Robin in that godawful “New Adventures” series. He left after 20-odd episodes, I believe, which meant that ALL the impetus to watching that show disappeared. The acting for the most part was sub-standard, the scenography and costumes ridiculous, the script atrocious. The ONLY thing that made it watchable was Robin being super-gorgeous, and when he was replaced, well, bye-bye.
“Beyond Sherwood Forest” was a joke! A painfully bad joke. The Ridley Scott movie I haven’t seen, but hoping to do so now that it’s coming out on DVD.
And so, 2006. Thought series one was pretty bad, so didn’t follow series two, just caught the odd episode here or there. Followed series three from the start, because Toby Stephens was set to be in it as Prince John (to my delight, his character much resembled the Disney counterpart!) – and fell in love with Gisborne from episode one! Previously, I had already noted the baddies were a lot more interesting than the goodies, but this just confirmed it. The Robin character was too obnoxious to really enjoy (and I really WANTED to like him – but the way he treated Much just made him look like a schoolground bully) and on a subsequent re-watch of the whole thing, the only character that there seems to be some sort of depth to is Gisborne. Credit to the actor for making the character come alive, rather than just work with what was on the sheet, which (judging by the rest of the show) wasn’t a lot. That being said, I’ve no qualms whatsoever with Jonas Armstrong, I think he did a really good job. I just didn’t like the character he was playing. And when you, as an audience, is made to root for the bad guy simply because the hero is an arrogant, arrow-toting numbscull (and, which s3 confirmed, had been since he was a child), it just doesn’t work. Robin lost the love of his life, end of s2, but in s3, he was busy hitting on Kate and the only one that seemed to grieve for Marian, and even REMEMBER her past episode one, was Gisborne. Who killed her! HOW does that work?! It doesn’t and I’m actually glad the show got cancelled. A Robin Hood without Robin Hood (and the Sheriff – Keith Allen was magnificent, bless) just isn’t Robin Hood. S3 was actually a lot stronger than the previous two, so while killing off Marian didn’t make ANY sense from a legend point of view, it made a lot of sense from a dramatic one, as it made the show a lot more interesting. “They killed off Marian – what else are they going to do?” So I have to admit I’ve got a love/hate thing going on with this show. Hate it because it could’ve been a lot better and they could’ve made Robin likable, like he normally is, in any other version ever. Love it because Sheriff Vasey was hilarious and Gisborne was really intriguing as a character.
I agree that the real villians in the RH/BBC version were the writers hands down. It’s nobody’s fault but theirs that a show that started out great we ruined by them. I am a Jonas fan, too, but I refuse to get enmeshed in a pointless discussion of who’s a better actor/more handsome, Armstrong or Armitage. Suffice it to say, Jonas floats my boat and Richard does not. I am entitled to my opinion as is anyone else on this board. Therefore, I, too, was upset about how the character of Gisbourne seemed to eclipse that of Robin Hood.
Can it please be noted that one Jonas fan can not and does not speak for all Jonas fans and many of us are becoming very frustrated with being lumped in with the RA haters. Jonas fansites have many RA fans as members and although some may have been disappointed in the series there were many millions of viewers around the world who clearly were not. This adaptation of RH was undoubtedly the favourite of our generation and will be remembered fondly for many reasons. It’s time to move on and look to the futures of both Jonas and Richard who are doing equally well in their own way. I sincerely hope that Jonas fans posting on this message board take note of this comment.
You are absolutely right, Michelle: one Jonas fan certainly does not and can not speak for all Jonas fans. But we are all entitled to our individual opinions and should be allowed to express them. I do think, though, from all I’ve read, that it seems the vast majority of viewers were quite unhappy with the direction the show took after the death of Marian. Big mistake, Powers That Be!
It’s all getting a little boring now Lisa. It’s done and dusted, let us allow the RH fans who did enjoy the show and appreciated the ending to continue doing so in peace and the RA bashing is getting even more tiresome. Fans can express their opinions all they like so long as they don’t include the whole of the Jonas fandom when they do so. I know for a fact as does Freckle that the ‘powers that be’ are more than aware of how unhappy a large amount of fans were with the ending and I really don’t think there’s much more to say on the matter. I can only speak for JAF members but I know that the majority of fans on the board are finding the constant complaining regarding the shows ending to be off-putting and many are losing interest in the fandom because of it. That is the last thing we want and is not good for Jonas’ career. We need to be concentrating on the projects he’s become involved in since leaving RH and supporting him in that way.
Michelle, I agree with you again that complaining about the writers’ stupidity at how they handled the plotlines of RH is pointless and depressing at this point. I must take issue with you, however, in your accusation that I engage in “RA” bashing, and I believe that in all fairness, it must be pointed out at this juncture that many, many more of his fans seem to engage in “JA” bashing, which I find quite hurtful to Jonas. Of course this is NOT the behavior to emulate, I quite agree! My only question to you at this point is: why are you persecuting me for my opinions? All I have stated is that I feel Jonas’ character in RH was short-changed by the writers, and that I prefer him to RA. Am I not allowed to? Sheesh!
Oh Lisa give it a rest! If you read my comment properly I didn’t accuse you personally of the RA bashing. Nobody is persecuting you Lisa and as has been pointed out by admin at the Jonas sites on many occasions everyone is entitled to their own preferences so long as it doesn’t get silly as this has.
To reiterate what I originally said – one Jonas fan does not speak for all. And please don’t bring this on to the JAF board Lisa – even I’m bored of hearing it and I own the place!
You have nothing to fear with regard to posting my preferences on JAF; I know that they are not welcome there and I will abide by its admins’ rules. I just feel very bad that you think they are silly. I very much enjoy being a part of the JAF community and will not do anything to put that relationship – or Jonas, for that matter, – in jeopardy.
Wait what, people found Guy Of Gisbourne to be an interesting and likeable character? Wow.
As the author of this piece I’d like to say thanks for taking the time to read it and post your comments.
I’d also like to apologise for an unaccountable omission on my part for which I deserve shooting. I failed to include another BBC series, Tony Robinson’s 1989 ‘Maid Marian and her Merry Men’, seriously, it was brilliant, if you’ve never seen it get the box set, you won’t regret it, best thing on TV when it was first broadcast.
I for one would love to see a Robin Hood movie made of Henry Gilbert’s Robin Hooh ane the Men of the Greenwood. Only one problem…where’s Errol Flynn when you need him/