Sunday, 10 February 2008

Was Guy of Gisborne the Sheriff's b*tch?

Robin Hood's arch enemy was always the Sheriff of Nottingham, until Douglas Fairbanks' 1922 movie version, which relegated the Sheriff to a small cameo role as a clerk, and sat Guy of Gisborne (Paul Dickey), alongside Prince John. In that movie Gisborne was a simple two dimensional character, of a loathsome, creepy appearance, sneaking up on King Richard's tent in an attempt to assassinate him. His reward was to be Maid Marian, with whom he intended to satiate his lust against her will. All good melodramatic stuff in the silent cinema of 1922. But doesn't one expect a little more character development today?
Errol Flynn's Robin Hood took it's lead from Fairbanks. Once again the Sheriff was sidelined (a buffoon), in favour of the dastardly Basil Rathbone as Gisborne; camp as a row of tents, expectant of Marian's hand in marriage, but too shy to talk to her. It was a classic performance, and no doubt a huge influence on the chief villains which followed as first Alan Wheatley, then John Arnatt, Nickolas Grace, and Alan Rickman, all gave outstanding performances and re-instated the Sheriff of Nottingham as arch enemy number one to the outlaws of Sherwood. When Keith Allen started swishing about in his black silk pyjamas, he was inheriting the almost pantomime style that had been established long ago, and doing it superbly well. But what of Gisborne?
Well, in the 1980s, when Nikolas Grace adopted Rathbone's camp style for the Sheriff, Robert Addie gave us a new Guy: Ruthless to the point of being psychopathic; a “master race” blonde haired blue eyed slayer of “wolf’s head” Saxons; driven not simply by power but by thoughts akin to genocide; and certainly no interest whatsoever in a Saxon maiden called Marian. Robert Addie died tragically young, but his interpretation of Guy remains definitive and (perhaps wisely) Tiger Productions made no attempt to recreate it in the current Robin Hood. All of which brings us to Richard Armitage…
I should put my cards on the table at the outset; I just don't "get" Gisborne as he has been written over the last two years. I know Armitage is a fine actor (it always seems necessary to say that for those that cannot distinguish between the script and the person), but I don't think he's been put to good use in Robin Hood. It's obvious what Tiger Productions’ intentions were: To place a love triangle at the centre of the series and use that as an ongoing thread to link the main characters together, much like the 1922 film. But was this done effectively? In my opinion, which I acknowledge to be amongst the minority here, no not at all.
The undeniably handsome Richard Armitage was dressed from head to toe in a sexy black leather suit (rather reminiscent of Elvis Presley's 1968 TV Special), and asked to stomp about in fine military style, barking orders, and thus successfully invoking thoughts of fascist black shirts in the same way that Darth Vader's helmet has World War 2 overtones. All good stuff from the time honoured traditions of the “baddie’s wardrobe“. But where was the script? Where were the passages that convinced us he loved Marian? Or indeed that she could ever desire him? I suggest that script was only ever in the minds of the fans.
That Gisborne, the one that I believe was being summoned up more in the imagination of the fans than the actual scriptwriters, would never have stabbed Marian. He would have given her a good slap, thrown her across his horse, and rode off with her for a date with a riding crop in the barn! But he doesn't do that. He runs a huge sword through her stomach and then, in exactly in the same manner by which Marian was swept away from the altar by Robin, Guy himself now holds on tight whilst the Sheriff of Nottingham carries him away from her death scene.
No wonder Richard Armitage himself questioned the writers about this mess. But what of the rest of Series 2; were there any other clues as to how Guy and Marian might feel?
Episode 3, "Child hood", is interesting, because we see Marian observing a bare chested Guy, and clearly enjoying the view. (Shaven chested guys being a rarity in the 12th century!) It's a good scene; believable in as much as this young, inexperienced woman is certainly going to find that figure of a man attractive. And the idea is continued nicely into Episode 4, "Angel of Death", when Guy comes knocking at Marian's door like a big bad wolf, testing the lock. At that point in time it seemed like the love triangle concept was progressing. As indeed it does when, in the subsequent episode, Guy offers her an escape route from the Castle in order to prevent her being “given” to Winchester. But then what happens? Guy leaves her room, and encounters the Sheriff in the corridor. The Sheriff makes him shed a tear, and even wipes that tear away for him. It's undeniably a very powerful moment, but it's just not consistent with what we've witnessed only moments ago on the other side of that door.
The natural ending to this Jonas Armstrong version of Robin Hood is Episode 7 ("Show Me the Money"), the one in which Edward dies and Marian rides off into Sherwood Forest. In that episode Guy still continues to display some convincing regard for Marian by giving her back the dagger her father used to kill a guard and, for a trained assassin at least, does show a modicum of emotion when he attempts to console her on her father's death. In my opinion this also marks the end of any character development as far as the love triangle is concerned. I concede Armitage’s script has been much better in this respect than it was in series 1, but I also fear that the paucity of ideas beyond that love triangle sidelined other main players like Harry Lloyd’s Will Scarlet and Anjali Jay’s Djaq, and precipitated the crisis in plot developments yet to come.
Gullible Guy, who could stand one side of Robin Hood’s “dead” body on a cart, believing that Marian, Hood’s fiancé standing the other side, doesn’t hardly notice it, would still have his moments. Stone deaf Guy, who speaks to Robin Hood up a tree for about half an episode before he realises Marian is up there to, would still get his chance to redeem himself, as when he chooses to defend Nottingham alongside Marian, against the army intent on avenging the apparent death of a “missing” Sheriff. It’s another fine moment, but to get there we had to have Marian leaving the fiancé she’d become engaged to only hours previous, and hear a Will Scarlet (still unforgiving of Allan’s treachery), suggest she marry Gisborne for her own safety!
In my review of Episode 11 ("Treasure of the Nation"), I wrote that that show “wipes clean the previous slate on Marian and Guy's relationship to draw it afresh". Guy had discovered her identity as the Night Watchman, and his shock was well delivered. He didn’t kill her in a rage. He ran from the barn, unable to cope with the surge of conflicting emotions in his mind. Armitage is brilliant in these sequences, producing the small blade, demanding to see the scar from last year. Here he is a really great anti-hero, and not just a two dimensional monster. But the Gisborne character as a whole, always in my opinion built on shaky and inconsistent foundations, is about to tumble down.
It is not Allan A Dale’s slip of the tongue which actually reveals Marian’s secret identity to the Sheriff of Nottingham, it is Gisborne. And so it is that all the players come to be in the Holy Lands at once; where Guy’s troubled dreams take on a most unholy (or at least puzzling), nature.
I’m sure there’s a good reason Why Guy was having dreams about Allan’s massage techniques in episode 12, but they completely eluded me. When it turns out to be the Sheriff’s hands on his bare shoulders, commenting “I hope you’re not too disappointed”, the tone is certainly more sinister than previous funny quips such as “Why don’t you ever kiss my ring?” Even more sinister is the way the Sheriff refers to the deserting Allan as Guy’s “boy”. Within the context of the whole series I’ve been watching to date, this dark scene makes no sense to me at all. Furthermore, I would be slightly concerned if suggestions about a character’s sexual preferences were linked by implication to their “evil, villainous deeds” in a show which screens during a prime time slot for children. I am not saying that is what’s happening; and I certainly love Keith Allen’s interpretation of the Sheriff (as already stated in my introduction about the “camp“ tradition of the role). But it is an example of how Series 2 left the rails as it drew to it’s conclusion.
We all now know what that conclusion was. Guy of Gisborne could have accepted Marian’s proposal, killed the Sheriff, and returned to Nottingham with her as his bride. It would have drawn reprisals from Prince John, but he was willing to stand against that army before. Instead he remains loyal to the Sheriff, informs on her yet again, and only asks that he be allowed to take Marian "by force" upon their return to Nottingham. When the Sheriff decides otherwise, and has Marian bound to the same stakes as Robin Hood, Guy has no objection. Why were we even surprised he ends up slaying her with the blade when he has already left her for dead in the desert?
Why? Because “we” still imagine the talented, handsome Richard Armitage, in all his leather suited splendour, to be Lord Byron, or Heathcliffe, or any number of such tall dark handsome figures from the annals of Gothic literature. But Armitage was never given that chance. That was never the Guy of Gisborne in his script. A pity.

Labels: , , , ,

50 Comments:

Blogger robin hood said...

Was Guy of Gisborne the Sheriff's Bitch?

Richard Armitage, Robin Hood, Robin Hood series 2, Guy of Gisborne, BBC review.

10 February 2008 at 14:50:00 GMT  
Blogger robin hood said...

BBC Robin Hood series 2:

Robin Hood - Jonas Armstrong
Marian - Lucy Griffiths
Guy of Gisborne - Richard Armitage
Sheriff of Nottingham - Keith Allen
Little John - Gordon Kennedy
Much - Sam Troughton
Alan A'Dale - Joe Armstrong
Will Scarlett - Harry Lloyd
Anjali Jay - Djaq

10 February 2008 at 14:51:00 GMT  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have watched the final episode a few times, Guy did not know what the Sheriff had done with Marian. He even asked the sheriff where she was when they were waiting for the king to turn up and meet the assassin.

The sheriff only took Marian to the stakes when Guy was out of the way doing something else. If he had known otherwise I think he would not have been too happy as the sheriff had promised he could have Marian.

11 February 2008 at 00:13:00 GMT  
Blogger robin hood said...

Hi anonymous,

and thanks for your contribution.

I do indeed concede the fine detail of your comment, but still stand by my overall point.

11 February 2008 at 00:52:00 GMT  
Anonymous Tobias said...

The core of the problem is, in my opinion, that we are never given an explanation for Guy's loyality to the Sheriff. The Sheriff ridcules Guy and lies to him but Guy never wavers. Sure if he thinks he can get away with it he will help Marian, basically trying to eat the cake and keep it too, but when he has to chose he always choses the Sheriff. And we never learn why?
A Code of honor?
Guy displays little of that, backstabbing assassin.
What hold has the Sheriff over Gisborne?

At times I expected him to wheeze "Guy I'm your Father" just so we would get any explanation.

11 February 2008 at 07:16:00 GMT  
Blogger fan-at-large said...

robin hood, I really enjoy reading your blog. As a fan I appreciate an unbiased view, and if only to prove that I haven't completely lost contact to reality yet. ;-)

It is not the sign of a particularly good script when repeated viewing, or additional explanation is required to understand what was going on, unless you have, lets say, a mystery thriller. IMO that is what the craft and art of filming is about: giving the viewer the full picture (in more than one sense), and in as few frames as possible.

One of the weaknesses of this show is that often you don't get a clear sense of space, and where the characters are related to each other at a given point, locally as well as psychologically. Once they are out of frame they seem just to get lost and forgotten for a while.


tobias: I agree with you wholeheartedly! Guy's loyalty to the Sheriff is incomprehensible.

11 February 2008 at 08:09:00 GMT  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

ok ... don't have a blog so had to comment as anonymous. My name is Loredana ... loved your review of Guy of Gisborne ...and mind you I am a member of the Armitage Army but lets face it ... continuity and character development is not this shows strong point ... they seem to use the characters as tools for what they want to do plot wise ... they want the love trinagle Guy's dashing, they want good against evil Guy is cold blooded and coward ...he gets his butt kicked by a girl for two whole ep but somehow manages to throw her around a barn with no trouble at all when they want to reveal that she is the Nightwatchman ... they do that with all the characters I feel (Robin is either democratic or tyrannic when ever the mood suits, Marian is weak or strong, good and bitchy whenever it suits). It's just that out of all the characters I feel they didn't know what to do with Gisborne ... they didn't want to make him a straight foward baddie because that's out of fashion but they didn't want to make him completley relatable either (he is by all accounts the one who is supposed to be the most human of them all)because then we would have found ourselves in a Ivanhoe situation, where Bois-Gilbert has always outstaged Ivanhoe ... it would have been the same here: complex, troubled characters are simpley more interesting then traditional "good guys".
Simpley put: the script is weak ...

11 February 2008 at 08:32:00 GMT  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To me Gisbourne was a troubled man , perhaps a man of all seasons .
He appears a self made man , totally relaint on the grace and favour of the psycotic sheriff .
Gisbourne states that the Gisbourne name was proud name ,but also informs that he was ridiculed by his troops as he had no Gisbourne .Apart from his lack of family , there are no other definative references to his back story .
Armitage`s interpretation appears to possess an othello /Jago like quality as we witness Gisbourne struggling against what he would like to be and what he had become . It is that struggle that awards him an intelligence, but that intelligence evaporates in the last scene when he kills Marian, which to me is so ridiculous it has a comic edge , without being in the slightest way .
The scenes between him and Marian were excellent , drifitng between the two as to who actually held the power . the last scene should have seen him marrying and taking marian away .That would have served the script well and allowed the plot to move on .i realise full well , the shadow boxing between guy and marian could not have lasted another series but a marriage would have set Guy and Robin further against each other and moved Marian into more of a political arena . That action would have forced Robin and Marian to grow up .
We would have been presented with a real struggle for Guy`s soul between Marian and the Sheriff and a struggle with morality between Marian and Robin.
Without the return of Marian , the programme will lose any demension and the net result will be a programme geared towards the under twelves. What a waste .
.

11 February 2008 at 08:58:00 GMT  
Anonymous kitty said...

Sorry the previous comment was me Kitty , no idea how i ended with it anonoymous

11 February 2008 at 09:00:00 GMT  
Blogger robin hood said...

Hi Tobias

At one point I thought we were going to find out that the Sheriff's hold over Guy was either hypnotism or brainwashing. It looks like that; especially in the bizarre sequences such as when he comes out of Marian's room and the Sheriff starts stroking his cheek and speaking quietly. It would also explain the strange shoulder rubbing visitation. But then I thought "Oh no! Now I'M making up an imaginative script!"

Hi Fan-At-Large,

I totally agree. The script also sacrificed almost all character development. As already posted, the Djaq & Will scene had me eating the cushions wanting it to stop. It just wasn't prepared for.

Hi Loredna,

And welcome. Yes indeed, complex troubled characters are more interesting than straight forward "good guys". I think Joe Armstrong (Allan), and to a degree Lucy in conflict with her dad, got the opportunities here. You're right, the script was weak as it related to Guy. As I said in my post, I think the writers just thought his appearance would be enough to carry the day. "Suggestion" rather than actual directed creation.

Oh, and before I get hung: Armitage is fully deserving of his loyal Army. (My favourite of his? Still The Impressionists at the moment).


Hi Kitty,

I certainly agree that many of the scenes between Guy and Marian were excellent in terms of tension. My problem was the frustrating lack of continuity in development (such as him giving her an escape route, only to arrest her 10 seconds later); or the way they were based on a very dubious, unmanful, abusive premise (such as the "go with me or I'll hurt your Dad" theme); or they ultimately simply failed to fit in with the rest of the show (such as when Guy has forgiven and concealed Marian's Night Watchman identity, and then tells the Sheriff anyway. Marian's swordsmanship could have been explained away with any number of reasons.)

The Children In Need one was very good though.....

11 February 2008 at 10:47:00 GMT  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi - I too always read your blog and find it interesting but this is the first time I've come to comment.
I actually find the programme frustrating because while it has so much promise the delivery is really inconsistent and sometimes horribly shallow (yes, I agree, watch it more than once and you find yourself questioning too many things!). Gisborne seems to suffer the most from being a simple plot device rather than a developing character, and its such a waste. I remember reading an article about either Foz Allen or Dominic Mingella where they commented that Richard Armitage was one of their casting coups. But then I think they did what you and others above suggest and forgot that:
talented actor + sexy costume - good script does not = great character.
Other characters were inconsistent too, but I wonder whether Gisborne's problem was RA? (Hold your tempers ladies until you finish reading, please). He wasn't a casting coup after all, but actually an error and the more the series went on the more they struggled with it. There's only so much swashbuckling & innuendo adults can take - to hold the interest they need 3D characters and plotlines they can empathise with. And I believe that is where the scripts could not balance the characters with the actors and the plots. Independently the casting of Robin and Gisborne works, but put them together and IMO it doesn't. Jonas is a good actor, but his Robin doesn't have the gravitas or charisma to dominate the screen especially when he's so relatively young and written as a 'cheeky chappie' as well. So put him head to head with someone like RA (or KA when he's not being pantomine) and he fades. He needed someone as Gisborne who was slightly weaker and less brooding, who would play the character as straight evil rather than complex. (This is not a piece of Jonas bashing either by the way, but an observation of how people's appearance, approach and personality type work on the screen). In S2 the episodes that really worked for me were when the Robin centric pieces evolved into more of an ensemble piece with all the Outlaws, and the castle scenes focused on the interplay of the single characters of Marion, Guy, Alan and the Sheriff. It was obvious once we got to Walkabout: Gisborne looked and acted and just was so much more of a flawed, believable hero than Robin had ever been. Most heroic piece by look, feel and emotion in the whole 2 series? Gisborne riding back to die in Nottingham with the woman he loves as the sun sets behind him. And this is Robin Hood, so that is just plain wrong!

11 February 2008 at 12:48:00 GMT  
Blogger robin hood said...

Hi anonymous,

Your point about the casting, when viewed as a whole interactive group rather than individuals, is a good one. I remember, in Series 1 particularly, how Jonas seemed a little daunted by Keith Allen at times. (Remember the scene when he creeps up on the Sheriff in bed? Robin has a knife, but it's not the Sheriff who looks scared!) Yet it's true to say the young cast have grown hugely in stature; partly due to the experience of working with the likes of Keith Allen in what is probably a great atmosphere away from the celeb paparazzi stuff.

Yes I totally agree that moment with Gisborne standing to defend the Nottingham that Robin Hood has neglected, with the sunset behind, and his improvised army about him, was a fine moment. Truly thrilling. If only that character had been explored more.

You might be right when you say "He wasn't a casting coup after all, but actually an error and the more the series went on the more they struggled with it." But I don't think it's so much a weakness in Jonas's ability to match him for charisma that presented that problem. I think the problem rested in the concept of the "love triangle" being enough to sustain for so long.

11 February 2008 at 13:31:00 GMT  
Anonymous kitty said...

Gisbourne with the sun behind him was good and why was it wrong ? it was wrong because it should have been hood ? , But this Robin put external factors in front of everything whilst Guy was selfish , self seeking and on a journey which was never going to end in redemption .
Robin was never away for five years with the horrors of war on his shoulders -Mutch yes -but not Jonas, he was always in the wrong role , ironically i could have imagined Joe in that role . i think you are right it is about gravitas.
But regardless it all falls back to the scripts -yikes

11 February 2008 at 16:58:00 GMT  
Blogger robin hood said...

Hi Kitty,

"Gisbourne with the sun behind him was good and why was it wrong ? It was wrong because it should have been Hood."

No arguments there. Which is why this sequence was perhaps Guy's best. For a moment there the character had depth, and became an attractive proposition to Marian for more than just his well shaved chest.

11 February 2008 at 22:58:00 GMT  
Blogger Redbird said...

Just a couple of points - you mentioned that Guy was gullible in thinking that Marion would stand at the side of her supposed dead fiance and not notice him, and later that within half an hour of becoming engaged to Robin she seemed to have forgotten it. You are not taking into account that Guy had no idea that Marian and Robin were close or engaged. At all times Marian protested that she despised Robin for going off to the Crusades and leaving Nottingham to the Sheriff's tender mercies. It is only at the very end when she taunts him that he fully realises just how comprehensively he has been lied to and that Marian has actively encouraged his affections only in order to betray him. As he obviously puts a great deal of value on loyalty - his own to the sheriff is evidence of that - he just cannot deal with
her betrayal.

They had to kill Marian off as Lucy wanted to leave and I don't think it would have worked if they had just brought in a substitute actress.

I have to agree that although Jonas is a competant actor, he does not have the gravitas to portray a man who has supposedly been part of a very bloody war for several years. He is far too 'jack the lad'. Unfortunately, when Jonas and Richard Armitage share the screen it is like watching a boy and a man. RA acts him off the screen.

12 February 2008 at 14:22:00 GMT  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Would Marian who had experienced Guy`s support so often -the seige -the tree -the nightwatchman been so nasty and manipulative . She would have been mirroring the Sheriff in sheer nastiness and sneakiness , this character was suppoesed to be above all this .Marian was referred by both Guy and Robin as being astute that drivel she spoke at the end was certainly not astute . Did Lucy leave or was she dumped ?(she appears not to have any work listed

12 February 2008 at 15:15:00 GMT  
Blogger robin hood said...

Hi Redbird

Thanks for the contribution, but I'm afraid I do have to challenge your notion that Gisborne didn't know about Marian and Robin "Being close".

Practically all of Nottingham saw her ride away from the church, throwing her bridal viel to the ground, on the back of Robin Hood's horse.

12 February 2008 at 21:39:00 GMT  
Blogger robin hood said...

Redbird,

P.S. Whilst I am certainly critical of some aspects of the script and stories this series, I do think Jonas was a great choice for Robin Hood.

This question has arisen elsewhere, about Armitage being Hood. My problem with that would have been that it would have represented a return to the Richard Greene days. Although I grew up on Richard Greene, and love the DVDs, I think that kind of mature, dark, type is too old for Robin Hood now.

12 February 2008 at 21:44:00 GMT  
Blogger robin hood said...

Hi anonymous,

I think Marian's manipulative behaviour was justified by the menacing way in which Gisborne tried to coerce her into a marital relationship.

His approach was always based on the premise of "favours" from her, or else her Dad gets hurt. That's not courtship, that's to abuse.

Yes he covered up her Night Watchman identity for a short time, but soon told the Sheriff about it. (Allan's slip of the tongue could easily have been given another meaning).

No Marian was not astute at the end. I don't think she ever was particularly astute. One of the grewat things about Lucy's Marian was her youth; she was impatient at times to get involved, and "go it alone". But her heart never left the people of Nottingham, and that's not true of Robin. That's why the scene where Guy actually turns back to stand alongside her against the army is so good. And (in my opinion), is the one true time we get a script that really shows how he feels without threatening her.

Lucy Griffiths, or any other actor, will not show work listed until contracts are signed and payments and conditions have been decided. It's part of the process. Once you show too much enthusiasm for a film role, there's a danger you won't be offered as much.

She obviously wasn't dumped.

I would guess that both Harry and Lucy became very aware of the huge number of fans they were bringing to the show. Maybe they thought what they were being paid for that was not enough. Maybe they thought it was a good time to jump ship and capitalise on that popularity, before getting "type cast".

Frankly, I'm surprised to see Keith Allen and Richard Armitage returning for a third. They are both fine, experienced actors, and must get a lot of interesting offers come there way. (But I'm glad they are returning).

12 February 2008 at 22:01:00 GMT  
Blogger kej said...

"Lucy Griffiths, or any other actor, will not show work listed until contracts are signed and payments and conditions have been decided. It's part of the process. Once you show too much enthusiasm for a film role, there's a danger you won't be offered as much."
You're right about that, but producers, casting directors, and even actors' agents will often float rumors or even give what sounds like more solid information before things get to that stage, for their own interests. To the same extent that an actor doesn't want to appear desperate, a production wants to bandy about a "name" in their cast as soon as possible, whether that's by saying they're "in talks" with an actor, "have a tentative agreement" with an actor, or whatever. It gives the production credibility and in some cases can help the producers raise necessary funds. If the actor decides to go elsewhere, well, there are lots of graceful ways for them to make an exit, especially if they do so sooner in the process rather than later. The only way it rebounds on the production people is if the actor comes forth and says he or she never had any intention on working on the project and never even read a script for it, but that's not going to happen too often. That's partly because it limits the actors future options and partly because the production people will get their own bad reputation if they have a string of people who appear to drop out of projects because the producers consistently go public to soon. (I only say all of this because I think having no upcoming project on her IMDb page only mean that she's not talking, though it may also mean...she has no upcoming project.)

I'm not so sure that Harry Lloyd has "jumped ship," though. I thought they purposely wrote the ending so that he and Anjali Jay could come back or not, depending on circumstances when filming starts in the Spring. (There had to be SOME reason our last image of The Gang was of one of them with a carrier pigeon cage slung over his shoulder....) Now that we know shooting begins again a little later than usual, in May, and that Harry Lloyd's current play ends in April, I feel more confident about his return to Robin Hood, though of course that's based on gut feeling more than hard evidence. I'm not so sure about Anjali Jay, mainly because I know so little about her out-of-Sherwood situation.

14 February 2008 at 05:08:00 GMT  
Anonymous kitty said...

Kej
Makes sense what you are saying but there has been a considerable amount of time since she last worked . When did season two finish filming ? July 2007?,that is seven months (approx) One would have though there would be something signed up by now . Especially in light of the publicity over the Marian issues.
I suspect she signed for the three and then she was dumped .
If she left for work , that would be out by now.
R.A comments about arguing with the writers about her death -that would indicate she was still around -or at the very least not dead or about to become so.
And the comments in Wikepedia -although not always accurate , they were too specific to be a rumour
I also think we should consider the comments made by Minghella (Stage can be accessed on the net).He states that he had mixed feeling about having to write season two.
Therefore, that could mean that he has totally lost interest and wanted season three to be just a battle ground.
My gut reaction is that she will be back as the programme is financially viable . If that is the case it will be leaked soon . Surely .her agent is not really acting in her best interests if they do not capitalise on her sucess.
They all have leaked about new projects apart from her .
We know that Tennant is announcing his intentions in relation to Dr Who in May ( Radio Scotland before Christmas )i wonder if his decison will impact on LLoyd or that is just a rumour .
Re production and finance .
Type in Swedish detectives and you will find out that B.B.C Scotland has commited all its budget to make three episodes with Branagh , it caused some debate up here .They then can sell the programme on and receive viewing money from the other B.B>C`s .

14 February 2008 at 09:14:00 GMT  
Blogger kej said...

I was just trying to make the more general point that hearing nothing doesn't necessarily mean an actor's not working, in the same way that hearing, even rather officially, that an actor is aligned with a project doesn't mean it's a dead cert they'll actually show up in the final cut. That's all. I really can't speak to the specifics of Lucy Griffiths' case. Well, except to say that resurrecting Marian at this point is almost as senseless as killing her off in the first place. And all of this speculation and angst amongst the fans could come down to her having a lousy agent and nothing more.

As for everybody else and their other projects: Harry Lloyd's got "The Sea" and that Richard the Lionhearted thing, I know a radio play starring Sam Troughton just aired this week, Jonas Armstrong has finished his Clive Barker movie, another film project with Keith Allen is listed as being in post-production, rank speculation is that Anjali jay is pregnant (or was, by this time; if she was actually pregnant in the last few episodes of series two, as some of us suspect, the baby's probably born by now), I think I've heard some passing rumble about Richarad Armitage doing a play...but have you heard anything from Joe Armstrong? I know some people are curious.

What you say about Minghella makes sense. Even though I thought season 2 was generally better than season 1, and, in contrast to Robin Hood here, thought the scripts were still generally quite good after Episode 8 (I LIKED "Walkabout"! a lot!), there did seem to be a bunch of ideas recycled from Season 1. But that again raises the question of who is ultimately in charge. If Minghella's the co-executive producer (i.e., show-runner) and the co-creator, as well as the main writer, and he doesn't want to do it any more....then what? Who decides the future of the show?

Oh, and as for Harry Lloyd being the new Doctor Who...maybe, but I wouldn't put any money on it. That story started because of the way Russell T. Davies praised his performance as the baddie in the two-parter last season, but it seems the way Davies generally complements actors is to say something along the lines of, "He'd make a great Doctor!" Which I took to mean Harry's Lloyd's in the running along with every other good actor of his generation.

14 February 2008 at 09:52:00 GMT  
Anonymous Tobias said...

Something different:
I wonder how they will justify letting Guy live for any time in series three. After all from what we have seen so far it would be totally in character for Robin to kill him to avenge Marian, and i see noone in the gang stopping him. But then it would not be the first time the script writers ignored in character logic

14 February 2008 at 18:36:00 GMT  
Blogger robin hood said...

Hi Tobias,

If it was the Robin Hood of the first half of series 2 I'd agree. but the Robin Hood of the second half? Probably not. As you say, there's no character logic.

They'll probably use some silly dialogue like "You'll have to live with the pain for what you've done" type thing.

14 February 2008 at 23:14:00 GMT  
Blogger kej said...

At on point I thought Guy would go mad and be visited by visions of
Marian, which does seem this show's style. Now I'm picturing him transferring his guilt and anger onto Vasey and actually running him through with his sword the same way he ran Marian through. In fact, I wouldn't put it past them to have Guy and Robin form a kind of grudging alliance against Vasey.

That kind of goes back to something I joked about before the last episode--that I wouldn't mind seeing Guy and Allan run off to the forest and set up their own gang, one that robbed from the rich (like Vasey) and kept the loot instead of giving to the poor. If Robin was the Hero and Vasey the Villain, Guy and Allan would become the Rick and Renault of Nottingham, they charming, cynical mercenaries who kind of lean toward the good side but can't be completely trusted.

To tell the truth, I'd watch that show in a heartbeat!

15 February 2008 at 00:50:00 GMT  
Anonymous firefly said...

Does anyone remember how they initially thought that they would kill the sheriff at the beginning of series 1......i mean how could they have thought of doing that back then?! (apart from the fact they were unsure if ther would be a 2nd series)

15 February 2008 at 10:19:00 GMT  
Blogger kej said...

It's occurred to me that if we want to understand Guy's relationship with the Sheriff, we could do worse than looking at Guy's relationship with Allan for clues. Not that they're identical--far from it--but I think Guy's idea at one point was to create a protege in Allan much as he himself was the Sheriff's protege. And Allan wasn't always averse to such a relationship. The beginning of Guy and Allan's relationship could give us some clues of how Vasey got his hooks into Guy. I kind of doubt if Vasey tortured Guy, but I imagine he was able to play on his strengths and weaknesses in much the same fashion Guy played on Allan's. And those strengths, but especially those weaknesses, seem very similar to Allan's.

18 February 2008 at 04:22:00 GMT  
Anonymous kitty said...

i can see that both disposessed -Comments made by Allan re robin`s future versus his , Guy`s comments to Marian about his future ,Both starting from nothing but riddled with ambition and arrogance is undeniably a weakness .
More relatively modern parallel`s -Henry 7th and the rise of the middle class ministers -without him they are nothing , both they and he know how vunerable the middle class ministers are . They can be disposed of without any issues . One could apply same to the dying embers of Blair`s government as well .
kej -do you think they will bring Marian back

18 February 2008 at 09:00:00 GMT  
Blogger robin hood said...

Hi kej,

I agree with your comment about Guy and Allan. I think Guy was grooming him, and needed someone like Allan to pass on some of the stress to, especially when the Sheriff was giving him a hard time.

That, for me, is what made that scene so chilling when Guy promised Allan would be rewarded for his loyalty. Allan looks realy excited about the prospect of becoming rich, with a title, but Guy looks like he's thinking of killing Allan; his usual kind of reward for people.

18 February 2008 at 10:25:00 GMT  
Blogger robin hood said...

Hi Kitty

I hadn't quite seen that link before; the one about "ambition" being the factor which made Guy a kind of role model in Allan's eyes.

Good point.

18 February 2008 at 10:27:00 GMT  
Blogger kej said...

Allan looks realy excited about the prospect of becoming rich, with a title, but Guy looks like he's thinking of killing Allan; his usual kind of reward for people.

Ooh, I didn't notice that! I originally saw Guy's look as more...collegial, maybe? He looked a little smug and full of himself because he was now in a position to grant favors--or at least say he could grant favors, even if that was over-reaching--instead of just being on the receiving end. But that also tends to be how he looks just before he kills somebody--proud of himself and his abilities. I'll have to watch that bit again.

kitty, I have no idea whether they'll bring Marian back. But they went to so much trouble to kill her off, and have stood firm through so much grief over it, I don't see how they could pull it off.

18 February 2008 at 10:35:00 GMT  
Anonymous kitty said...

But what they have done is kept that show foremost in people`s minds -smart operators . With so many shows pulled and ratings reduced that is quite a smart .
In hindsight -R.A in interview states that sewries two has a "Fatal Attraction aspect to it "
When Guy and Marian are holed up in Notttingham castle he states her wilfulness will kill her .
Then you have R.A`s comments about he disputed her death with the writers .
The later comment means that there was choice about her death , which in turn would mean her future .
If they say nothing and the intrigue continues , the first episode will have massive viewing figures .
Who would care if her death -is Robin`s dream to blot out something else .Why am I so interested -because ultimately it illustrates who actually is in controlor does the viewers opinions mean anything

18 February 2008 at 12:50:00 GMT  
Blogger Annie said...

Kitty & Kej,

Very astute comments on the Allan/Guy relationship. They render Guy's dream sequence a little less bizarre.
I've been parsing RA's comments, too. One possibility is that Lucy and/or the writers may have decided that Marian would die, and what Armitage contested was Guy's being the means of her death.

18 February 2008 at 14:20:00 GMT  
Blogger Royal_Nonesuch said...

Excellent article. I am quite perplexed by the situaiton as well. Particularly the dream sequence. It did, however, start with Marian. I assume he loves Marian, felt that slip through his fingers, is friends with Allan, felt that disappear as well, and is left with the Sherriff at the end. I figured the writers were sort of deconstructing Guy's psyche there in a particularly odd manner.

Really, the only problem I have at all with teh love triangle is Guy's supreme loyalty to the Sheriff which, unfortunately, seems to be the result of lazy writing. Of cours ethe baddies have to stay bad, but there has to be a more interesting way than just making Guy perpetually side with the Sheriff. Have him be more independent. There are other ways to be villainous than simply obeying the Sheriff's orders.

As for the Sheriff's orientation, I think that is up in the air at this point, but it seems to me that he just likes to taunt and torture Guy with his creepy intimacies.

Royal

17 March 2008 at 18:11:00 GMT  
Blogger robin hood said...

Hi Royal,

Thanks for the input. I will never be convinced Guy loved Marian. There's just that one episode when he stands beside her to protect Nottingham when he had the chance to run. Apart from that it all seemed like rather dubious bullying and manipulation to me.

17 March 2008 at 18:53:00 GMT  
Anonymous BetaCandy said...

I very much agree with your assessment of the show's weaknesses. Since I'm in the US, I've not yet seen S2 except for some clips on YouTube, so I'm operating off my knowledge of S1 and what I've read about S2.

I think their take on Gisborne is not that he loves Marian or possibly could; he's too damaged. Just as the show draws parallels to modern war issues, Gisborne is the dangerously possessive boyfriend Marian can't get rid of because anytime she tries to push him back a little, he does something menacing or downright violent. I think that's what they were going for, anyway, and I think RA and LG sold it wonderfully.

But the script doesn't always match the consistency of their performances. Sometimes it seems so clear to me that Gisborne's just a nutter having an imaginary relationship with Marian; other times he's consciously manipulative of her ("no necklace will convince the Sheriff - um, yeah, you'd better marry me! That's it!" LOL).

As for Gisborne's loyalty to the Sheriff, I think you may have hit on it in your title. It seemed to me there were strong hints in Robin of Sherwood that part of Gisborne's job description was sexual favors to the sheriff, whoever that might be at the time (thinking of the ep where the sheriff is replaced briefly). I think the new show may have carried that element over without thinking too much about context or implications. They seem to go for "slash" humor without concern for the rather disturbing things they might be implying.

25 March 2008 at 03:11:00 GMT  
Blogger robin hood said...

Hi betacandy,

I think your final sentence sums it up well. On several occasions the consequences and logic were never fully considered or explored.

Also I've posted many times, the "love triangle" was more wishful thinking on the producers part, and in the minds of some. It just wasn't what was happening on screen nor in the script.

25 March 2008 at 07:35:00 GMT  
Anonymous Sabrina said...

tobias- I think Guy was loyal to the Sheriff because of the whole idea of position and power.

And I think that it wasn't that out of character for Guy to kill Marian. She'd been leading him on and lying to him all that time and she'd finally admitted she loves Robin Hood. However I don't think Marian should have been killed. It was very sudden, and as Marian said- she didn't have enough time with Robin. So if she had to die (if Lucy wanted to go) couldn't they have waited? And do it the next series if they absolutely had to kill her off.
I'm worried that many people will stop watching Robin Hood because of Marian's death, and I don't know what they could do for series 3 now. Will Scarlett and Djaq should definately come back. I will watch the whole of series 3 to see what happens.

11 May 2008 at 23:29:00 BST  
Blogger Royal_Nonesuch said...

“I hope you’re not too disappointed”, the tone is certainly more sinister than previous funny quips such as “Why don’t you ever kiss my ring?” Even more sinister is the way the Sheriff refers to the deserting Allan as Guy’s “boy”. Within the context of the whole series I’ve been watching to date, this dark scene makes no sense to me at all. "

Just scrolled past this post again. Excellent analysis. I'm surious, though, do you think hat the Sheriff's constant sexual innuendos (such as the one about kissing in the moonlight) are designed to intimidate those arond him? Or do you think something else is going on when he uses the word "boy". I'm curious to know whatyou meant by sinister in this case.

Thanks,
Royal

14 May 2008 at 04:20:00 BST  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

After watching some behind-the-scenes of the writers, it all came together when one of the (male) writers commented about Richard's looks. Even in the first season, the sheriff's manners around Sir Guy came across as homosexual overtures. He advises Guy to keep away from women, referring to them as lepers. In my opinion, someone is injecting their fantasy of Richard onto the screen, and it's killing the show. Robin and Marian love each other, but responsibilities keep them apart; Sir Guy loves her in his own way, but sees the path to power and riches in being an apprentice of the sheriff. And all the while, the sheriff is breathing down Guy's neck, patting his cheek, exposing himself (the bath scene), massaging, leaning in close, happy when Guy rebuffs Marian. Am I the only one who sees this? The big clue was the copy-cat scene of the sheriff and Guy riding off together...someone wants Richard ...real bad. As for everyone being all torn up about Marian's demise, well, what did they expect, when she was constantly manipulating his emotions so that he didn't know which way was up? I knew he was going to explode at some point. The writers did their best to give Marian a pure spirit, but I noticed her necklines kept creeping downward. But she seemed to enjoy the sexual power she had over Guy, and when she went too far, had the audacity to look confused when he pushed her away. But at the end, she stepped over the line by laughing in his face and delivering the proverbial last words. I wasn't surprised at what happened, and was reminded of an old saying; she had it coming. She put Guy through the wringer, and in that instant, it all came crashing down as he realized she'd lied and manipulated all along, so he obliged her. As for next season, unless they get new writers and/or directors, I predict the show will die a slow death. Richard has already announced he's going elsewhere, and his fans will follow. In spite of all I've said, and all its faults, I love the show...it could last for years if someone would just write good stories. And yes, they need to have Friar Tuck, but they don't need to have a woman in the gang. Just call me...Sir Guy's girl.

11 June 2008 at 02:58:00 BST  
Blogger robin hood said...

Hi anonymous,

A few responses to your comment:

You say "someone is injecting their fantasy of Richard onto the screen, and it's killing the show." I agree, but from a slightly different perspective. I think the fans were required to fantasise about Guy and Marian's supposed "crush". It was never ever effectively written into the script. We were all just meant to make a Kathy and Heathcliffe gothic style link. Lazy writing, wishful viewing.

You mention "exposing himself (the bath scene)". this was a direct copy of the scene in Robin of Sherwood where the Sheriff does exactly the same thing to Guy. Indeed, all these "camp" innuendos the Sheriff directs at Guy come from that source. No, you're not the only one who sees it, hence the post. But I don't think it's been offensive in any way to the gay community, because the Sheriff (if he is gay), is evil not because of his sexuality but because he is just a "dastardly evil villain" anyway.

I agree Marian teased the beast once too often. She was always out of her depth where he was concerned; a man trained to assassinate the King of England is going to have little trouble with a girl who wears a mask on her nights off.

I also agree the show has been enjoyable but, for me, frustrating in equal measure during series 2. As you know, new writers are on board.

If we are not to have a Marian in the forest, I would like to see some regular female role within the gang. Even if just a spy. I missed Djaq when she was practically written out of all the series 2. But that's partly because the "Saracen Outlaw" bit is a favourite theme of mine since the 1980s.

11 June 2008 at 11:32:00 BST  
OpenID dcwash said...

Even in the first season, the sheriff's manners around Sir Guy came across as homosexual overtures....[I]t's killing the show....Am I the only one who sees this?

No, your not the only one seeing it--by a long shot, judging from other RH sites I've been to--but I thin it's far from ruining the show. In fact, I'd say that, if anything, it gives Guy's character a little more depth since he has a rather mixed reaction to the Sheriff's signals--he was embarrassed in the bath scene but seems much more ambivalent about the Sheriff's more "tender" (for the Sheriff, that is) gestures. The whole thing suggests there are reasons for Guy's loyalty to the Sheriff that go deeper than merely wanting to be close to power.

Again, I think a comparison to Guy's relationship with Allan A Dale is helpful. There is a STRONG sexual undertone to many of their scenes together. One example: Guy pulled his own "bath scene" on Allan by changing clothes--needlessly--right in front of him when Allan was asking Guy to take him on. Guy's reaction to the Sheriff in the bath was one of utter disgust, but what did Allan say to Guy changing from one black t-shirt to an identical one? "Oooh, nice!" And though I'm sure there was a butter-up factor at play there, the look in both their eyes through that whole scene implied that wasn't all that was going on. But I don't see it as one-side Richard Armitage worship. Some of my friends and I have a running joke about how they light and shoot Joe Armstrong in such a way as to make him look like the subject of an Old Master painting while everybody else gets relatively short shrift. Luckily he's quite an actor as well as handsome, and he and RA work off of each other very well, so it works despite the photography.

But I don't think it's been offensive in any way to the gay community, because the Sheriff (if he is gay), is evil not because of his sexuality but because he is just a "dastardly evil villain" anyway.

It hadn't even occurred to me that depicting the Sheriff as gay would be offensive to the gay community, I suppose because of the reason you cite--that everything about him is over-the-top. But then, I don't see his overtures towards Guy as expressions of physical and/or emotional desire but instead of manifestations of how he will use every tool in his drawer, including sex, to manipulate people.

11 June 2008 at 20:24:00 BST  
Blogger robin hood said...

Dcwash,

I'm glad you made that comment about the way Joe is shot. I thought it was only me!

We know now, especially from Lucy's interviews, that the scenes are often shot without everyone present. Hence the close cropped "voguing" style that was really prevalent especially in series 1. (I think I commented at the time how this was really noticeable when getting my screenshots).

Without a doubt, the camera always picked out and lingered upon Joe Armstrong that little shade longer. I had assumed it was because, being more experienced, he knew what was happening and had the ability to "read" the cameraman, and hold his attention a little more. But your theory throws a whole new light on the matter.

11 June 2008 at 20:45:00 BST  
Blogger Royal_Nonesuch said...

Very interesting comments, can anyone elaborate on what the male writer said?? I get the impression that the Sheriff is like some pervy prison guard who likes to confuse people about his sexuality so that he can, as dcwash said, use every tool in his arsenal against others.

As for Allan and Guy, I got the impression from that clothes changing scene that it was a pseudo fangirl service however, he could've just been doing that alone (were it just a fan service). I honestly don't get any slashy vibe from the two in the actual text of the show. I got more of a locker room, buddy feel from it. Now, they constantly highlight slash humor for the two (usually via the Sheriff). I thought the writers were trying to build an actual friendship for Guy with Allan, but it's hard to tell.

Robin--what was the deal with the Sheriff and GoG in Robin of Sherwood?

Royal

12 June 2008 at 06:38:00 BST  
Blogger robin hood said...

In the still definitive Robin of Sherwood, blonde haired blue eyed Robert Addie not only looked like some precursor of an Arian "master race", his anger towards the "Saxon dogs" and "Wolfsheads" sounded like it to. There was never a suggestion he could ever be attracted to Marian. The thought would have revolted him on racial grounds.

It was a masterful performance.

His Sheriff, Nickolas Grace, was clearly the model which Alan Rickman copied (whoops, was influenced by…), in Prince of Thieves. There were several scenes in which the Sheriff would flaunt himself in front of Gisborne, the bath tub being one of them, but unlike Armitage, Addie was far more aggressive in his ambition. Given chance to replace him he certainly would (and I think did on some episodes).

12 June 2008 at 12:09:00 BST  
Blogger Royal_Nonesuch said...

Thanks for the info. I need to check that series out. So Addie's Gisborne wasn't afraid of the Sheriff? I really get the impression that our current GoG is disgusted and a little intimidated by the Sheriff's behavior alot of the time.

Royal

12 June 2008 at 14:47:00 BST  
OpenID dcwash said...

Robin Hood said: I'm glad you made that comment about the way Joe is shot. I thought it was only me!.... Without a doubt, the camera always picked out and lingered upon Joe Armstrong that little shade longer. I had assumed it was because, being more experienced, he knew what was happening and had the ability to "read" the cameraman, and hold his attention a little more. But your theory throws a whole new light on the matter.

Oh, it’s not just you! And though I’m sure you’re partly right in that he knows how to take advantage of what he’s given (when I directed theater in college we called it “finding your light”) he’s given an awful lot that he doesn’t have to do anything with. For instance, he naturally has startlingly blue eyes. I can think of several times when he was shot so that the light fell directly across those eyes and the rest of his face was in shadow, accentuating his best feature. I’m the type of casual viewer who watches and enjoys a program once but leaves it at that, and even I picked up on some of it last season. I’m currently doing a rewatch where I write a recap of each episode as it airs on BBC America, which means watching with a lot of pauses and rewinds so my writing can keep pace and thus concentrating on the elements of the episode more than I did when I originally watched the episode just for the fun of it. And under those circumstances, the special camera attention he’s given really jumps out—I called it “downright gratuitious” in one recap, and that’s with me really liking both Joe Armstrong and his character. My friends and I have a semi-joking theory that the director of photography or the lighting cameraman or somebody similar has a huge crush on him and can’t resist making him look good.

Royal_Nonesuch said: As for Allan and Guy, I got the impression from that clothes changing scene that it was a pseudo fangirl service however, he could've just been doing that alone (were it just a fan service).

It is funny how there was really no contextual reason for Guy to change his shirt, was there? I mean, he rides all the way home to Locksley from the castle, changes from one long-sleeve black t-shirt to another (but doesn’t change any of the rest of his clothes) and then goes out again, with no explanation. I do like your idea of it being a fangirl service. I think the makers were kind of caught short by how popular this show has been with women, and haven’t quite figured out how to respond and so throw in these moments every now and then for no good reason. As a fangirl, I’m quite happy to be catered to like that on occasion!

I honestly don't get any slashy vibe from the two in the actual text of the show. I got more of a locker room, buddy feel from it. Now, they constantly highlight slash humor for the two (usually via the Sheriff). I thought the writers were trying to build an actual friendship for Guy with Allan, but it's hard to tell.

Like I said, watching it a second time, and in the manner in which I’ve been doing so, has given me a whole ‘nother perspective, and I’m somebody who normally tends to dismiss talk of slash between TV characters. I’ve also found, though, that it’s easy to pick up something in a TV show and then run with it and stretch it until it’s distorted beyond all original meaning. (Call it the “sometimes a cigar is just a cigar” phenomenon.) You may be perfectly right about the friendship, though I still don’t know that I’d describe it as “a locker room…feel.” Or instead of a typical friendship, it may have been more of a mentor/protégé relationship. I do think that, by the end of the season, there was a genuine emotional connection between the two of them, though it was ambivalent and ambiguous. Which, of course, made it interesting.

Robin Hood said: [U]nlike Armitage, Addie was far more aggressive in his ambition. Given chance to replace [the Sheriff] he certainly would….
Royal_Nonesuch said: I really get the impression that our current GoG is disgusted and a little intimidated by the Sheriff's behavior a lot of the time.

I wonder if there’s going to be some kind of a breakthrough or breakdown or something next season where Guy rebels against the Sheriff? Most of the past season seemed to be heading that way, but it fell apart in the disastrous finale when Guy rode off with the Sheriff into the sunset, choosing him over Marian. I think such a rebellion could work, even without Marian goading him on. She seemed to make it her mission to awaken his conscience. He can put his conscience back to sleep but still get fed up with the dismissive and even semi-abusive treatment he gets from the Sheriff.

I also wonder if there’s going to be any fallout from Allan rejoining the gang. Everybody’s talked about whether the gang would welcome Allan back with open arms, but what about Guy’s reaction? Like I said, there did seem to be an emotional connection between them, whether it was friendship or something else. (And whatever it was, I think it was pretty complicated.) It’s not hard to imagine that he felt abandoned and betrayed by Allan as well as by Marian, though probably to a different extent.

14 June 2008 at 03:45:00 BST  
Blogger Royal_Nonesuch said...

You may be perfectly right about the friendship, though I still don’t know that I’d describe it as “a locker room…feel.” Or instead of a typical friendship, it may have been more of a mentor/protégé relationship. I do think that, by the end of the season, there was a genuine emotional connection between the two of them, though it was ambivalent and ambiguous. Which, of course, made it interesting.

You make good points about the peculiarity of their relationship. Perhaps they wanted to make the relationship ape that of Guy and teh Sheriff a little? Maybe Guy is imitating the Sheriff slightly? Nevertheless, I know Guy wouldn't just hop out of the tub in front of Allan to make him uncomfortable lol. The shirt change was netirely gratuitous, though. However, he may have spilled some pig fat all over himself and just needed to change. My brothers joked thathis closet looked like Ernest P Worrell's (or Dr. Evil for that matter) all the clothes are the same!

I also wonder if there’s going to be some kind of a breakthrough or breakdown or something next season where Guy rebels against the Sheriff? Most of the past season seemed to be heading that way, but it fell apart in the disastrous finale when Guy rode off with the Sheriff into the sunset, choosing him over Marian. I think such a rebellion could work, even without Marian goading him on. She seemed to make it her mission to awaken his conscience. He can put his conscience back to sleep but still get fed up with the dismissive and even semi-abusive treatment he gets from the Sheriff.

Great question and I really hope we get to see Guy rebel against the Sheriff. It would be excellent if the two had some kind of extended fight scene!

Royal

14 June 2008 at 15:43:00 BST  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I realize this is a very old post, but, as I only just watched the whole series, I wanted to say I agree with it. I think the writers seriously fell down on the job with the love triangle, through no fault of Richard Armitage's portrayal of Guy, the poor man really tried to make up for what they did NOT give him. :)

I'm a Guy/Marian shipper if you want to call it that, but because I can see the potential for what could have been, not because I see anything of it in the show itself.

I honestly don't think there was ever a real sense of her being at all torn between Guy and Robin, nor would there be, because they never let Guy do enough with regards to her to make it believable she would be torn.

Even that would have been okay, if she'd at least seemed more physically attracted to him. There would have been whole tension between love for Robin and one of those magnetic physical attractions to the completely wrong guy which happens sometimes. :D

No denying she certainly liked what she saw in in the second series 3rd episode but not once after that did she ever even seem to want to kiss him or be physically close to him.

The one single kiss they do have is completely for the purposes of distracting him and she looks like she can't wait to get away from him and doesn't want to be near him.

Given that the writers gave no "text" based reason for her to be torn and for it to seem like a genuine love triangle(she and Guy discovering some viewpoint they have in common, her getting to see a genuinely softer side to Guy, etc) if at least once or twice she seemed like she wanted kiss him to despite knowing she shouldn't that could have made a big difference.

If in the episode where she kissed him to distract him she had looked like she could barely pull herself away in the end instead of looking like she's checking her watch for when it will finally be over that could have made a big difference.

Instead she was always pulling her head back away from him when he leaned in or looking at him like a deer caught in headlights saying "don't come closer, ewwww".

15 July 2009 at 06:59:00 BST  
Blogger robin hood said...

Hi anonymous,

That's certainly the way I saw it.

15 July 2009 at 09:30:00 BST  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home