Speculation on other characters in the Robin Hood Mythos
If other characters from the Robin Hood myths were used, they would also be other woodland animals. Here are a couple guesses.- Will Scarlet would be a rabbit. He might even be Skippy, as they're both younger characters who admires Robin Hood, just like Will Scarlet is often portrayed as. ("Skippy" might be a play on his last name.)
- Much, the Miller's Son would be a mouse. Much is best known for being as small as Little John is large, and being a mouse would certainly fit that image.
- Will Stutely/Stukely would be a raccoon. Largely because it would be strange to have a band of thieves portrayed as animals and none of them be the classic animal thief.
- Guy of Gisbourne would be a cat. See below.
The animated Disney version takes place in the same universe as Kung Fu Panda
- They can take place even in the same time period (the animal equivalent of the 12th century), only on different continents.
In the Disney version, Saladin the Great would be an Orangutan
As another nod to The Jungle Book, where Little John is obviously Baloo, Sir Hiss is supposed to be Kaa, the Vultures are similar to the Vultures in that movie, the Elephants looking similar to Indian Elephants instead of African ones, and the Sheriff of Nottingham looking like one of the wolves from The Jungle Book, I believe that Saladin the Great, the Muslim Commander of the 3rd Crusade and the first Sultan of the Ayyubid Dynasty (that ruled Egypt and Syria), would be an Orangutan, and would look similar to King Louis, although I don't think he'd have the same voice.- Wouldn't a tiger resembling Shere Khan be more fitting?
- I agree that a tiger would be more fitting, since King Richard is a lion, and it would make sense if both armies were led by a big cat. Maybe a Louie-like orangutan could be his advisor / sidekick?
The Disney version is the past of Talespin, not The Jungle Book
It can't be in the same universe of Jungle Book because humans exist and animals act more like animals there, while in Talespin everyone is an anthropomorphic animal and wears clothes. The Disney version is done live action with cartoon actors.
Robin Hood and The Jungle Book are both shot "live" in a world similar to Who Framed Roger Rabbit, where characters like Baloo and Little John, or Kaa and Sir Hiss are the same actor in different movies. If Guy of Gisbourne had appeared in the Disney version, he'd have been a cat.
It's well-known that elements of this film were based on Reynard the Fox. Robin is Reynard himself, the Sheriff is Isengrim the Wolf, Richard (or John) is King Leo, Friar Tuck is Grimbard the Badger ("the holy Grimbard, who had always led a hermit's life") and so on. In Reynard, Tibert the Cat is as cunning as Reynard, and while he initially speaks in Reynard's defence, he soon becomes one of his opponents. He is a good choice for Gisbourne, often presented as Robin's Evil Counterpart. All the reptilian characters are analogous to people of color, being considered a different "ethnicity" of animal.
We only see four reptiles in the movie- Sir Hiss, a crocodile Captain, Toby, and Toby's father. Sir Hiss's background music take some cues from Indian snake charmers, and he takes a ridiculous amount of abuse from Prince John. While the rabbit children play with Toby, they casually make fun of him. If the mammals view the reptiles as a different ethnicity, this explains why Sir Hiss and Toby still hang around- it's much the same everywhere else in Animal England.Prince John is actually a mountain lion, and adopted.
This is why he has no mane, despite being a male lion.- Male lions with scanty, almost non-existent manes do exist; they have only tufts of fur around their faces, not unlike the tufts on Prince John's cheeks.
Skippy is actually Robin Hood's illegitimate son.
About seven years from the start of the movie, before the widow rabbit married the father of the rest of her children, she and Robin had a fling that resulted in her getting pregnant. (Don't ask me how the biology works for this.) She couldn't tell him this until recently, after he returned from the Crusades and began his campaign against Prince John's tyranny.Upon finding out about Skippy, he went to Skippy's birthday party in disguise. So when he says "Happy Birthday, Son!" after Skippy realizes that it's Robin Hood under the beggar's cloak, it's not just the tradition of calling any boy "Son", he actually means it. His line to Skippy's mother "I only wish I could do more" is out of genuine concern for his son's well-being, and as an apology to the widow for not being around to help out sooner.
This is also the real reason why Skippy goes with Robin and Marian at the end of the movie. He's going to live with his biological father.
- This theory is Hilarious in Hindsight now that we have Zootopia, which was described by its creators as a modern-day version of this film. In Zootopia , we have a law-abiding female rabbit (a cop, in fact) and a Robin Hood-like male fox with a criminal record teaming up. It’s possible they could end up in a relationship afterwards.
Alan-a-Dale is Roger Miller with cluckitis.
In the episode of The Muppet Show where Roger Miller (Alan-a-Dale's voice actor) guest stars, most of the Muppets catch "cluckitis," a disease that temporarily turns you into a chicken. Kermit tries to hide the outbreak from Roger, but when Kermit catches it himself, the jig is up. Roger understands, though, and mentions that he had cluckitis once. This episode aired several years after Robin Hood came out. Roger must have had cluckitis when Robin Hood was made and that was why he played the part of a rooster.It's all Republican/Conservative propaganda
Given that it was made during the The '70s, it's softening Britain up for Thatcherism and the US up for Reaganomics. Why else would taxation come in for such opprobrium, and not, say the general feudal system or serfdom as a whole?- Because people generally don't like having their money taken from them, and that was in the original tale?
- Apart from all of the above, the timing is completely wrong. Remember, this film was released in 1973, and planning and production necessarily started years before that. At the time, Reagan was the Governor of California (who increased taxes, incidentally), and Thatcher was the Secretary of State for Education and Science. Certainly known figures in Conservative circles, but few at that time would be thinking of them as a future Head of Government.
