There is no real historical or linguistic concensus on whether or not Robin Hood really existed, at least not in the way he was portrayed in early writings and in film versions. So, filmmakers can work with a blank canvas to paint their version of this 12th century Good Samaritan. And Scott's version tries to be as historically accurate as possible.
And apparently history is boring as hell.
While I appreciate a completely new approach to this character and it is difficult to fault Scott's aesthetics here, I truly cannot understand why they chose to still fall back on so many of the fictionalized elements made famous in various earlier interpretations.
Most of the versions of Robin Hood have one…