THE COUCH POTATO CRITIC VIDEO REBUTTAL of Patrick H. Willems’ “Robin Hood, King Arthur, and Hollywood’s Problem with Public Domain Properties”
You should watch the video below before reading my analysis. You don’t have to, but I think it helps a bit to understand what I am saying here.
I am glad I have found Willems’ YouTube channel. I enjoy his videos, and find his analysis stimulating and funny.
But, I also find his analyses is often wonky, or one sided. This is something I try NOT to do, when analyzing films. He leaves out the single most important thing in his analysis here; the audience’s part in it all. He only pays a cursory nod to them, but truncates them into this smaller box. Sorry, that is a big mistake. How can anyone analyze film theory and ignore the audience so much?
So, that is where we find the flaw in his slaw, as his analysis, the way it is so represented in the video, is pigeon holed, and doesn’t account for the fact that often there are new Intellectual properties–original non reboot films–that come on the scene and can do VERY well. If Willems’ theory, which says that newer adaptations of more current fare (modern comics) are successful because people are better acquainted with them, and older properties (Robin Hood) are less known or familiar today, and are therefore less popular and not as likely to do well in the box office. He is saying that a lack a familiarity is the downfall of these older titles. If that were the case, then new original films that obviously no one could be familiar with, wouldn’t do well, either. Right? Yet, these new original films quite often do well…especially when they are really good.
So, then…the common factor isn’t unfamiliarity with the IP.
What could it be then?
Let’s try something a bit more radical and closer to home: How about shitty filmmaking? Yup…shitty writing and direction can kill a film. Time and again we see this.
Stupid people rush to bad answers like, “Franchise fatigue,” and “People are tired of sequels.” To that I ask, “Really? I wonder why episodic TV stilld does so well, as each episode is a sequel. Each season is a sequel. Yet shows like Game of Thrones is kicking ass!” There are some really stupid people with very myopic views on film and TV who get read by millions of people who fall for this moronic response and shitty analysis. but we shouldn’t be surprised of shitty analysis, because they can’t recognize what is REALLY wrong.
To learn what is really at play, let’s look at Mel Brooks as an example, as his film is mentioned prominently in the video. Now, most learned film people know that Mel was finished as a creator when he did Spaceballs. Even Spaceballs was NOT his best work. He’d run his course by the time he did Robin Hood Men in Tights, and later Dracula: Dead and Loving It, Mel was clearly washed up as a filmmaker. It’s like when Zucker and Abrahams stopped being funny after Hot Shots. It happens. People peak and then need to stop. Hello, Ridley Scott?
Then came some other films Willems’ mentioned…Excalibur had an amazing, albeit anachronistic, look and feel, and was a moving and visually captivating picture. But more importantly, the characters were well defined AND close to the representations people knew and remembered. There is something to be said within the human condition that makes us like taking familiar paths, and enjoying all the sites, some new and old, along the way. So goes it with Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, which had both a distinct the air of familiarity, and didn’t stray too far off the path. It also kept the feel of high adventure that people not only expect from this kind of film, but WANT from these films. It also kept lighter moments of levity, “Aren’t you glad I didn’t use a spoon?”
But, both of these films, Excalibur and Prince of Thieves, had something else in common….
…They were well written and directed movies, that relied on great characters, along with enough familiarity that they could roam freely here and there, without deviating far from the legends people love.
BAM! So, there it is. The real common problem with these films that keep failing. Bad writing and bad direction.
The latest films, including Ridley’s Robin Hood film, all ventured WAY too far off the reservation. Not that there isn’t some truth in what Willems’ is saying, as there is. But, the fact is, Hollywood is a shit factory, and all the attempts at these “reboots” since 1991, went too far off the reservation, relied on gimmickry, and all ignored good writing, direction and that an audiences familiarity with a character should be a filmmakers friend.
I do not want to take away from some of the great points Willems did make, as he did. But, he only toasted the bread on one side, and neglected the other side and also forgot there was also a second piece of bread left untoasted. lol
Also, does anyone else notice my inconsistency with contractions? I’m worse than Mr. Data.
