>>79665636Despite being an enjoyable movie there's some things that people overlook. At the core the movie was supposed to be the Roman de Renart adaptation turned kids movie. Now try to adapt a medieval story about a fox filled with violence, rape and murder into a child friendly one.
So what did they do? Turned it into Robin Hood. The core is still there - Robin/Renart is a fox, Sheriff of Nottingham/Isegrim is a wolf. The bard character was based on the rooster Chanticleer based on a small project that never came into fruition called "Chanticleer and Reynard". Some of the other characters in the movie mimic the characters in Renart stories.
Now what happened to the script? Why is it so childish? Ever seen the 1938 Robin Hood? It's jolly, funny and whimsical. That was the spirit that was meant to be kept. Since the movie was aimed at mostly American audience, the script was adjusted to be more American - see the "horrible" football scene. There are few historical references made (Badminton wouldn't be played but tennis instead, but still the sport existed back then, Prince John had was his momma's son. funnily enough same could be said about Richard). The ending was quickly changed because it was too dark - John was trying to kill Robin in a church, which wouldn't be something out of his character - John Lackland never treated anything holy with respect.
Overall it's an enjoyable movie if you look at it as a bit of a burlesque take on the legend. It has decent animation, some really good scenes and memorable OST in time where Disney movies were prone to be failures.
