Summer is almost upon us with its exciting three month span of big-budget blockbusters. Opening the Cannes Film Festival in May and slinking in the shadow of Iron Man 2 is Ridley Scott’s PG-13 Robin Hood, which goes wide the following weekend and stars a stern-faced Russell Crowe, Cate Blanchett as a damsel not-so-in-distress, the ubiquitous Mark Strong, and a slew of other familiar faces.
Stealing from Robin Hood’s rich background and sprinkling bits here and there, this poor story has been mangled since its original conception in late 2006. But just how exactly did an initially fresh slant transform into a straightforward origin tale described as in the vein of Batman Begins?
The adventure into Sherwood Forest began with a studio bidding war over a spec script, and Universal ultimately sealing a seven-figure deal with “Sleeper Cell” creators Ethan Reiff and Cyrus Voris. Titled Nottingham, the concept flipped the classic legend around by painting the traditional Robin Hood as a murderous rogue and the Sheriff as a benevolent, misunderstood nobleman. There was even a love triangle with an arrow-slinging Maid Marian caught in the middle.
Attached to the package as the Sheriff was Russell Crowe and his $20 million (against 20%) asking price, a surprising figure considering Crowe was coming off a slump in January 2007 with back-to-back box office busts Cinderella Man and Scott’s A Good Year.
The key here is Crowe agreed to the script by Reiff and Voris (or at least the hefty paycheck) before Ridley Scott was hired to direct, which didn’t happen until April 2007. Then two months later, Universal brought on board Oscar-winning screenwriter Brian Helgeland to completely rewrite the script, presumably at the request of Scott.
This assumption is based on a recent interview where the veteran director rips the script by Reiff and Voris, who wound up with only story credits. Ridley Scott said, “It was fucking ridiculous. It was terrible, a page-one rewrite. If you’re going to invest in a Robin Hood story, why call it Nottingham? You’d end up spending 80 percent of the publicity budget on explaining why it’s Nottingham, not just Robin Hood. It doesn’t make any sense.”
Crowe was a bit nicer, referring to the story as “CSI: Sherwood Forest,” but said he “wasn’t interested in doing that incarnation.” 
The Kiwi actor had no problem with the version when he signed for $20M, but recent reports claim he even came close to quitting the production over the script’s issues. Thus a spec script that caused a studio bidding war and a million dollar sale was scrapped entirely.
Helgeland attempted his own re-imagining at first, an approach where Crowe would portray both the Sheriff of Nottingham and Robin Hood. By September 2008, Scott even proclaimed “He’s playing both!” to MTV, which left us wondering “how is that even possible?” Producer Brian Grazer clarified saying the dual roles stemmed from Robin assuming the identity of the Sheriff after he’s killed in battle.
Meanwhile, Sienna Miller came and went as Maid Marian, a role that ultimately went to Cate Blanchett. The NY Post reported Miller was canned because she was “too young and gorgeous” next to a plumpy, Friar Tuck-looking Crowe. Scott calls that “bullshit.”
By February 2009, as the project was delayed two months due to casting/script issues, it was “back to basics” on the classic story. “[Crowe as both Robin and the Sheriff of Nottingham] was an idea so far back, way back when at the time I had this proposed to me, and I read it and thought, ‘I don’t really know what it does for it, but it’s alright’,” Scott told MTV. “It is better to simply have the evolution of a character called Robin Hood, who will come out of a point in the Crusades which is the end.”
In May 2009, Helgeland told Empire his origin story was “gritty” and Scott had adapted it with more “visceral” action — some might call it Gladiator-esque — than other recent Robin Hood stories, including Kevin Costner’s Prince of Thieves. “I don’t think a single person swings on a rope in this movie,” Helgeland quipped.
Crowe took his shots too. When asked why they retold the same story he said, “Well, what’s the good one, mate? The Mel Brooks one is still pretty crappy. No disrespect to the makers of the film or Kevin [Costner], but when you look at the film, but when you look back at the ‘Prince Of Thieves,’ it’s like watching an extended Jon Bon Jovi video clip.”
Universal has struggled this year with Green Zone bombing and The Wolfman looking lean, so it goes without saying the studio needs this $130 million movie to be a hit. Crowe has hinted at possible sequels if the changes pay off, but if audiences don’t respond to it we can always wonder what could have been.
