Hollywood has officially released another big budget Robin Hood story, and you probably
didn't see it.
What happened to make this reimagining stray so far from the target?
And what could have been done differently?
Let's break down the real reasons Robin Hood bombed at the box office.
"Please tell me you got that."
Robin Hood attempted to revive a classic folk tale with style and flair.
With a cast including Taron Egerton, Jamie Foxx, and Jamie Dornan, the movie tries to
tell a dark and gritty origin story along the lines of Batman Begins.
The movie's modern approach includes over the top combat scenes, with automatic crossbows,
explosions, and super-stylish archery.
Robin Hood himself is given a personality upgrade, too.
The outlaw has long been understood to be a champion of the commoner, but now he's a
class-war-leading revolutionary with a puzzling modern wardrobe.
"This is a departure from your father's Robin Hood.
This one has a dope twist to it."
But all of these appeals to modern tastes totally missed the mark with audiences, leaving
the movie falling flat on its face over the long Thanksgiving weekend.
No matter how you look at it, Robin Hood was off to a disastrous start, only claiming the
number seven spot at the domestic box office in its first weekend of release.
In the United States, it brought in just over $14 million against a budget of reportedly
close to $100 million.
With the movie having debuted on over 2,700 screens, that would seem to suggest a lot
of empty theaters.
Things seem equally dismal for Robin Hood outside of the US, with the movie only bringing
in around $8.7 million from foreign markets.
The performance made for total earnings of about $23 million after the movie's first
weekend, enough for some commenters to call it one of the biggest bombs of the year.
Making things worse, that $100 million production budget only covers costs before marketing,
meaning the movie is likely way more in the red than the public will ever get to know.
It's stunning how much money was sunk into this movie since, despite all of its name
recognition, it was never a sure thing.
"It's too dangerous"
"Ah but the danger's what makes it fun"
Though the 2018 Robin Hood movie was marketed with the tagline "The legend you know, the
story you don't," that's little more than wishful thinking.
This story is extremely well-known.
The Robin Hood folktale has been told on film literally dozens of times, to the point where
even the most disengaged person could rattle off the story's basics.
"Robin Hood has a green hat, a bow and arrow, and a loyal crew.
He robs from the rich and gives to the poor.
There's a friar named Tuck, a maid named Marian, and a John who is little.
They're all foxes."
You get the idea.
How does a studio generate excitement for a story that's been done to death over 700
years?
It's a good question, and one this movie clearly failed to crack.
Robin Hood's lukewarm reception can partially be attributed to a lack of interesting star
power.
Director Otto Bathurst reportedly waited a year for lead actor Taron Egerton to become
available for this reimagining, being determined to see him in the role.
But why?
He explained his decision to the Courier Mail, saying,
"I wanted to find someone who was accessible and who seemed real, and Taron is that guy.
He is incredibly charismatic and charming, but he also has serious intensity."
"Taron's got a really fantastic kind of 'everyman' about him.
Serving up the emotional drama and then also the fun"
Despite a relatively solid critical track record, Egerton has never proven himself to
be a huge draw in a lead role, at least outside of the success of the star-studded Kingsman
movies.
Despite technically being the protagonist of that series, Egerton's role has generally
been but one small part of a more famous ensemble.
Even with a capable assist from Jamie Foxx and others, it's possible that this cast just
wasn't enough of a draw for the well-worn material.
If Robin Hood had come out during a barren weekend in January, it might have stood a
chance.
Instead, it made its debut during one of the most packed release windows of the whole year,
and got trampled.
Coming in at number one over the long Thanksgiving weekend was Ralph Breaks the Internet, the
Wreck-It Ralph sequel that stomped its competition with the second-best Thanksgiving opening
ever.
The movie also debuted below Creed II, The Grinch, Fantastic Beasts 2, and Bohemian Rhapsody.
It even performed worse than the modestly-budgeted Mark Wahlberg comedy Instant Family, which
was holding onto sixth place in its second week during Robin Hood's rollout.
Apparently, all six of these movies are more compelling options for holiday moviegoers,
once again suggesting that audiences really don't care about the Robin Hood story anymore.
All of these factors could have been overcome if Robin Hood had turned out to be an awesome
movie.
But it unfortunately debuted to a dismal reception from critics and audiences alike.
Rotten Tomatoes, counting roughly 100 reviews, initially tallied a 13% approval rating for
the movie, marking it one of the worst-received adaptations of the Robin Hood story yet.
It also got a middling B Cinemascore, which tends not to translate into positive word
of mouth.
On the other hand, between its weird costumes and other strange anachronisms, there's a
lot about Robin Hood that audiences have found amusing.
Richard Roeper, writing for the Chicago Sun-Times, even said that the film is "legitimately funny."
It has the makings of a movie that's so off-base and over-the-top that it actually becomes
good.
But that kind of reputation usually isn't enough to make the hundred million dollars
this movie desperately needs.
While Robin Hood may have enough of a spark of madness to be kind of entertaining, it
doesn't seem to be working on audiences in the way its producers intended.
Despite ending with a sequel tease, it seems doubtful at this point that the tale will
continue.
Hopefully the next people who try and make a movie out of Robin Hood take the hint.
We know this story already.
Maybe it's just time for something new.