Sgt. Angle reporting for duty!

You may remember a time when the movie of a legend meant something more than cliched war scenes and epic battles.

When Braveheart graced global eyes, we swooned at the rhetoric of the main character and at the love story that we all, as men and women, wish to obtain. When Gladiator appeared, we gave it a hearty clap and went on our merry way, knowing that Maximus could save our day.

With Ridley Scott’s rendition of Robin Hood, we cock our heads to the side and wonder: who the hell is this sword-toting warrior, and why am I watching him?

(*Minor spoilers ahead*)

Robin Hood gives us a Middle Ages wartime take on a beloved character, and spends almost every minute of screen time building up the great leader only to tear away his leadership in the resolution, and subsequent “sequel setup” comprising of a few last minutes on the screen so we can finally utter, in two words of realization, “Oh, yeah.”

(*End minor spoilers*)

The problem with a movie like Robin Hood is that, as a movie, it’s not all that bad. The acting is pretty on the ball, the fight scenes are expertly shot and the comedic moments are, for the most part, timed properly. The violence isn’t brutal (though the pG-13 rating is a bit light), and the villains are properly built with motivation (OK, Godfrey’s reasoning isn’t exactly explained, though Mark Strong’s cockeyed tooth kind of makes up for it).

The problem lies in the filmmaker’s assumption that we’re automatically familiar with the story that will happen…later. It’s esoteric, it’s for anyone familiar with the Robin Hood legend already.

Except that it’s not. And therein lies the problem. The film doesn’t know if it should be the type of “expositional epic” that will explain something in “part II,” or if it should be a stand alone story about a guy happened to be named Robin, who can shoot a mean arrow.

At the start, I just wanted to get to Robin Hood and the familiar man/myth I’ve come to know and love through fox re-enactment and Disney. By the middle, I was anxious to see how the outlaw would be born. Not once did I think that this movie would stand on its’ own without the legend in the back of my mind. I don’t think there is a way to enjoy the movie without knowing about Robin Hood to begin with.

Some might say that Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, that stellar Kevin Costner adventure film from the early 90s — is also a prequel for the Robin Hood legend. It is, except that it explores the characters and villains we know — Sheriff of Nottingham, for one — and also takes us deep into the life of Robin Hood, starting with the Crusades and ending with him in the midst of his thievery.

A man becomes an outlaw because the king has declared it so. But the outlaw becomes a hero when the people declare his bounty unjust, and his actions just. Walking into a classic story meeting our character already an outlaw, it’s easy to find him endearing, and easy to root for him. We invent his backstory, we invent where he came from and what brought him to make these decisions, and we see the outcome.

Prequels rarely work. See: Phantom Menace. See: Red Dragon (film). See: X-Men Origins: Wolverine.

Upcoming, we’re going to have the prequel to Planet of the Apes (NOT a reboot, which Tim Burton already destroyed years ago).  Caesar:Rise of the Apes will be directed by Rupert Wyatt, and the apes will be mostly CGI, with many story and name nods to the original film.

We’re also seeing the Alien prequel, to be directed by Ridley Scott — who also recently stated that there will actually be TWO films, the storyline leading up to his original Alien. Again, we’re faced with possibly zero characters (ahem, Ripley) who would have appeared in later films, but we’ll get a sense of the first people to actually meet the alien species, and possibly get a nod to the ships that we eventually meet in the original films. But we’re also not going to have to bother with a “Lt. Ripley origin story,” something that might’ve just ruined her as a character.

We may, though, get a version of the chest-popper scene more similar to this one:

When I think of ruining the mythology of a series, I also think of Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines.  Terminator: Salvation just added insult to injury. Keep in mind, though, that these two films aren’t necessarily terrible on their own, it’s just that they take the world of their respective stories too far. Terminator 2: Judgment Day expanded upon the already set universe in a unique way, advancing present day technology and proving the point that the first film tried to make. T3 and TS took the mythology set up and squeezed every last ounce of imaginative juices out of it all, ruining any hope we had of creating that future for ourselves. One thing we love about movies and all stories, as humans, is the exercise of our own imaginations.

See, movies, unlike books, have a start and a definite end — or are supposed to — and leave the rest of the characters’ lives to our imaginations. It’s the only time, while experiencing movies, that we really get to stretch our creative muscles and imagine. You read a book, you see it all in your head. You read a comic, you can imagine the voices, the tone, the ambient noise. You watch a movie, everything is on the screen, within the frame. But when the frames stop rolling, you can only imagine what will happen next.

This happens with television shows, too — jumping from season to season, or when a show ends too soon, you hope for the best for your characters — or the worst, depending on your view.

Back to Robin Hood. I know the myth and legend of Robin, I know about the Sheriff, and King John, and Maid Marion, Little John, etc. What I didn’t know was how he came to be the outlaw hero. And now that I’ve seen it…it’s too much history. The mystique gives his aura an invincibility that only helps tell his story. Mystery is good. It’s time to stop explaining everything and leave a little mystery.

May you remain mysteriously at ease, soldiers.

Sgt. Angle.