Headscratchers / Robin Hood (1973)

• Robin Hood doesn't make much of a case for his robberies, preferring to say he and Little John "simply borrow a bit from those who can afford it". But no, really, as he has no intention of paying it back, he's not borrowing anything. (Little John lampshades this when he replies "Boy, are we in debt.") He should have addressed John's concern that they're potentially "bad guys" by reminding him that the money they take originally belonged to the poor in the first place, and was only taken because nobility (and the Prince) raised taxes to an impossible degree in King Richard's absence.
  • Little John is probably well aware that their raids on Prince John is considered morally (if not legally) acceptable by the peasantry (which basically includes the two of them, too) and just needs a little reminder of that to assuage his guilt, that guilt not really being earned by any good deeds from Prince John. So in effect, what you're recommending Robin Hood should say is what he's essentially saying, but modified in his own words for a touch of brevity.
  • Technically the money IS being borrowed because it's being RECYCLED. Eventually, the peasants are gonna be taxed again. It'll be as if they never gained that money in the first place. But as long as their finances remain in balance, they'll be ok.
• Little John's objection to robbing the Royal coach is "there's a law against robbing royalty!" Well of course there is! There's a law against robbing anyone! Sure, most of the law enforcement probably doesn't give a hoot if peasants are robbed, though they'd probably still detain the bandit if he were caught in the act. But Robin and Little John don't rob peasants. They rob nobility, and the law would certainly be concerned about that! But John draws the line at the Prince? The line should have been something about how likely they are to be killed as the Prince is heavily guarded, but no, he objects because it's against the law...you know, like everything else he and Robin have been up to.
  • How are we to know that, because for example full democracy wasn't yet implemented in England in the 12th century (the time period this movie and other adaptations of the Robin Hood legend can be presumed to take place), that there indeed was a law which said "don't rob anyone"? Instead, the nobility were probably prioritised, as shown by how the law only cares about the action against Prince John. He's definitely corrupt enough to write it as such so that only himself and other most fortunate people in his circle can be protected against the risk of getting their assets stolen. I'm talking here about in the context of the fictional film, mind you, someone would have to check when and how it was codified as an offence in early medieval law. When you look up how thievery is treated in the modern jurisdiction of England and Wales, this was done in 1968 to modernise the legal understanding of the crime, and search engines seem to have little about statutes made prior to that fairly recent time. So, assuming that the law only benefits the privileged nobility, then yes Little John is right to have the legal consequences as a foremost concern on his mind.
• This flew right over my head as a child, but has now become impossible to ignore -— what the heck is a monk like Friar Tuck doing taking care of a church?
  • In some areas, that is what monks did. Likewise, he might not have been a monk, rather, he might have been a preacher more so.
  • He is a friar- that's different from a monk. They travelled and preached, filling in for parish priests or assisting them when necessary.
• The song "The Phony King of England" refers to "Robin's wily pack", i.e. the Merry Men. And yet the only Merry Man the movie has seems to be Little John, with Alan-A-Dale and Friar Tuck as part-timers. I'm not sure you can call these three a "wily pack."
  • Perhaps they're counting Skippy in the group as well?
  • He could be informally including the group listening in. Most of them joined in the fight at the archery contest, after all.
• Did Prince John choke Sir Hiss by tying his throat in a knot? Hiss sounds like he's choking, but apparently has no trouble breathing while inside the basket.
  • It might have been that the initial tightening choked him, but after that the knot loosened enough for him to breathe. Ever notice that tying a good knot with a really smooth material can be tricky because it'll slide open right away? Kind of like that.
• Robin's goal in going to the tournament was to get the prize of a kiss from Marian. Yet the disguise he wore was a stork, meaning the false bill covered his entire snout and mouth. How was he planning to kiss her?
  • You said it yourself: a kiss from Maid Marian. Not the right to kiss Maid Marian yourself. Especially given her high status, it wouldn't be the right to kiss her on the mouth — but the right to be kissed by her on the cheek.
• Where the heck were Marian and Klucky between the "Phony King" song and the final scene? They just vanish in the middle of it then appear at the very end of the film. Where were they?
  • Well, if I remember right, Robin rescued Marian and they were seen dancing while the other ones were in prison. In terms of Klucky, Little John did pull her out of the way of the arrows, so she was rescued. In terms of why we don't see them in either of those scenes is because they were most likely in hiding.
  • We last see them in Sherwood Forest. I always thought the implication was that they stayed there, in Robin's camp, while he and Little John conducted the jailbreak.
    • Both of these are because they committed treason for criminal aid, by helping Robin Hood after the archery contest.
• Who pulls the carriages? Prince John rides in a carriage. The very last scene is Robin and Marian riding away in a carriage with a "Just Married" sign. Are horses just not anthropomorphic in this world?
  • Larger creatures seem to pull the carriages. Prince John's carriage is pulled by some of his elephant soldiers. Little John pulls the cart during the escape from the castle. What's going on with the carriage at the end of the film is left ambiguous, though.
  • When Robin is about to be executed and we get shots of the horrified crowd, an anthropomorphic donkey is present among them. It can be assumed that horses are as well. To add even more confusion, if one reads the comic book series, the characters ride non-anthropomorphic horses.
• A minor one, but Alan-A-Dale has realistic bird legs. Which is fine, but when he sits down and crosses his legs, the ankles bend in the opposite direction to become "knees." It's an easy thing to miss, but hard to ignore once you've seen it.
  • It's a similar animation cheat as Feather Fingers and Toothy Bird. Maybe, in-universe, he has extremely flexible legs?
• Lady Kluck mentions that Marian is King Richard's niece. But Marian is a fox, and Richard and John (and presumably the rest of their family) are lions. So... is Marian adopted? Is she his niece by marriage? How did that happen?
  • She may be adopted, or she might just have some lion blood in her. There's no reason to assume different species of anthropomorphic animals can't interbreed in this universe (after all, some of the 1970's comics shows Robin Hood to actually take place in the Middle Ages of the Donald Duck universe, where different species can and do interbreed).
  • She could be his niece by marriage. Note that there's never any mention of Marian being John's niece, only Richard's. I think it's the only way it makes any sort of sense.
• During the film's ending, as the newly married Robin and Marian part to their honeymoon, Skippy climbs to their carriage alongside Little John, as according to him, he will keep an eye on things when Robin has children, but is Mother Rabbit even aware that her eldest son is leaving her to accompany the town's hero? She could get really worried.
  • Maybe Robin offered Mother Rabbit offscreen to take Skippy under his care to babysit his future children? Aside that, it's implied that while the Sheriff of Nottingham is now in custody, the Rabbit family is still poor. By allowing her son to go with Robin, Mother Rabbit probably has one less mouth to feed.
  • Going one better than that, if Robin ends up paying Skippy for his help, Skippy may be able to not only support himself but also send a bit of money back to his own family to help them out.
• Robin disguising as the blind beggar for the second time when he finds out Tuck will be hanged. Wouldn’t the Sheriff be as equally suspicious of this geriatric as Trigger? What with Prince John exposing Robin at the tournament, coupled with the Sheriff being perceptive enough to smell a rat when Prince John called off the execution, you'd think they'd be wise to Robin's masquerades.
  • Maybe that's exactly what Robin is playing at? You wouldn't expect Robin to pull a new disguise after the old one failed, and maybe Prince John is reasoning the same way.
  • Really, of the three villains, Sir Hiss is the only one who could be called at all competent in terms of not underestimating Robin. It's heavily implied that the only reason Prince John and the Sheriff get the drop on Robin at the tournament in terms of seeing through his disguise is because the tournament itself is a trap set for the precise purpose of catching him - Prince John only becomes suspicious after seeing Stork-Robin be the only one to get a direct bullseye, indicating that he'd already assumed that whichever competing archer ended up winning would be Robin Hood. And let's be honest, Robin wasn't exactly being what you'd call subtle despite his disguise... And as for the Sheriff smelling a rat when PJ called off the execution... well, anyone would be suspicious if someone who has apparently made it their mission to kill someone is suddenly calling them "buddy" and ordering their release immediately after having captured them and ordered their death. Robin's disguises work at every other point - the Sheriff clearly doesn't recognise him the first time he uses the blind beggar outfit - so the tournament was likely more a case of them actively expecting Robin (and Little John) to show up and try something.
    • It's possible that the Sheriff DID see through Stork-Robin's disguise, but since the whole tournament was Prince John's idea, was told to keep his suspicions as underwraps as possible. That's why he's competing in the tournament and why Sir Hiss is spying out for Robin Hood instead.
  • Trigger was starting to get through to the Sheriff, but "the beggar's" inflating praises quickly made him change his mind and dismiss Trigger's suspicions.
• This film does a terrible job of filling in the backstory. Prince John is in residence at a castle in Nottingham after sending his brother out of the country? Why not London? Maid Marian is also there, and she and Robin are treated as Star-Crossed Lovers even though... he's in the area? She couldn't have done anything to send a message to him? Why is she acting like a prisoner in the castle when she could go out, or at least send Kluck out?
  • Prince John is only in Nottingham temporarily. It's clearly stated at the start that he's going around taxing each town in turn and the next stop is Nottingham.
  • As for Maid Marian and Klucky, they probably only recently returned to the Nottingham castle as local nobles, a few weeks/months before Prince John. Robin Hood knew she was back in town, but being an outlaw was too apprehensive to meet up with her since she'd probably be convinced of treason for her affiliation, and have to live as a fugitive with him in the woods (And he says in the movie it's no life for her)
• A minor one, but how are there raccoons in Medieval England? Sure many of the animals not being native wildlife could be excused by this being a World of Funny Animals, but raccoons are exclusive to the Americas and Europeans didn't even know that the continent, let alone raccoons, existed before Columbus sailed to the New World. Having raccoons, even anthropomorphic ones, in this setting would not be much different than say an American Indian in medieval Europe.
  • They knew the continent existed before Columbus. The Vikings sailed there, and settled there-albeit briefly, so obviously in this setting there was more interaction than in our world.

---