• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.
I saw part two of Masters of the Universe:Revelations last night. It was better, in places quite good, but mostly just fine. I don't know what the outraged fanbase has to say. I learned many years ago as a Red Dwarf fan that nobody hates a franchise more than its biggest fans.
Red Dwarf was great from 1988-1993 ( I think) and then it should of been stopped.
 
On Shudder now, The Spine of Night. Trailer:

If you like Ralph Bakshi's fantasy movies, it's a tribute to those, especially Fire and Ice. Rotoscoped throughout! Doesn't Richard E. Grant sound like Terence Stamp now?
 
Technically a series, but still...
Willow wasn't a particularly successful film, but back in the pre-Lord of the Rings days, among my roleplaying mates, it was very popular. We didn't have much else in the genre. I'm excited to see this follow up.
 
Since you've written a book about dragons, @lordmongrove, what's your favourite screen dragon? I'll accept no distinction between dragons and wyverns, as far as I'm concerned they're still types of dragon.
 
Since you've written a book about dragons, @lordmongrove, what's your favourite screen dragon? I'll accept no distinction between dragons and wyverns, as far as I'm concerned they're still types of dragon.
Calling a wyvern a dragon is a bit like calling an alligator a crocodile. Dragons, wyverns and worms all fall under the draconic umbrella but all are different. The best screen dragon is Kilgharrah in the BBC show Merlin. The dragons from the Dragonheart series of films are pretty good too, especially 3 and 4.
 
WIllow looks really cool, I have to admit - I always dug the original with the sole concession that the Brownies were somewhat annoying. But I'm down for this sequel!

Here is something else that is going on of interest to fantasy film fans - a restoration of Aleksandr Ptushko’s Ilya Muromets aka The Sword and the Dragon, made in the USSR in 1956:
 
The 7 Lives of Lea: French fantasy drama, Lea (Raïka Hazanavicius) is 17, at a rave but feels alone, she wanders off and finds a skeleton. It turns out to be a friend of her parents, Ismaël ( Khalil Ben Gharbia) who disappeared 30 years ago. Next morning she wakes up in Ismaël's body 30 years in the past. Thus begins her search for answers as to how Ismaël died. Was it an accident, murder, suicide? She returns to the present in her own body but continues in wake up in another body in the past, every time she sleeps, even her parents. A tale of love, mystery, a rock band falling apart and many interesting characters. counts as fantasy I guess because no real explanation is given as to the time travel mechanism. There are many of the usual time travel tropes though with people disappearing because of the changes Lea makes in the past. While the series is a bit teeny at times it very much deals with adult themes. Created by Charlotte Sanson. Seven episodes on Netflix. 8/10.
 
An article about fantasy time travel shows/films.

... It seems I’m not the only one who has felt the past tugging at me lately. Who was my mother at my age? has emerged as a common pandemic-era theme from television- and filmmakers around the world—three recent projects in particular use strikingly similar time travel plots to expose the threads that weave through time, connecting us to the generations of mothers that came before. While vastly different in tone and style, each centers around the same premise: that we have an instinctive longing for a tangible connection to our mothers as they were at our own age.

Each centers around the same premise: that we have an instinctive longing for a tangible connection to our mothers as they were at our own age.

Celine Sciamma’s Petite Maman, with its simple woodland setting and refreshingly brief running time, is both small and miraculous. After the death of her grandmother, eight-year-old Nelly (Joséphine Sanz) and her parents head to her grandmother’s house to deal with her old belongings. Here, sleeping in her mother’s childhood bedroom, Nelly begins to feel pulled to the past. She is fascinated by her mother’s old drawings. She wants to know details about how she used to spend her time in the woods.

And after hearing that her mother used to see a panther in the shadows at the end of her bed each night, Nelly imagines it for herself. Who was her mother as a child? What games did she play? What was she passionate about? What was she afraid of? Then, Nelly comes across her mother at eight years old (Gabrielle Sanz) building a fort in the woods. They strike up a fierce friendship.

Sciamma’s delicate version of time travel reflects the clarity of a child’s imagination. Nelly is never too bewildered by the appearance of her young mother—rather, it seems the most natural thing in the world. Because in many ways, it’s something we wonder about as children. “If I met my mother when [we were both] eight years old, what would our relationship be?” Sciamma mused to The Hollywood Reporter. “Would she be my sister? Would we be friends? Would we share the same father? All those kind of things.”

Jia Ling’s Hi, Mom (Nǐ hǎo, Lǐ Huànyīng), a hugely successful Chinese film from 2021, features a similar mother-daughter time travel plot. Nineteen-year-old Ling (Jia Ling) feels like a disappointment to her mother, Ying (Liu Jia). She is not exceptionally smart or conventionally beautiful. She is, she feels, unremarkable. When her mother’s life is threatened by a car accident, Ling finds herself suddenly flung back in time to 1981—a year before her own birth—where her mother mistakes her for a cousin from out of town. ...

https://lithub.com/why-films-around...time-travel-to-explore-mothers-and-daughters/
 
Dungeons and Dragons trailer. Out March 2023. Looks a bit lightweight for my tastes but on the upside the dragons are dragons not poxy wyverns.

 
Trailers good - as it's intended.
Some nice dialogue, funny bits and a lot of CGI, CGI and CGI.
I've got to admit, I'm a cynical ex-D&D player and I scent nostalgia-bait based on the recent publicity surrounding 'Stranger Things' (which I've not got into).
At least there's not the excessive lens flare that Chris Pine benefitted from in the ST reboot.
 
Willow wasn't a particularly successful film, but back in the pre-Lord of the Rings days, among my roleplaying mates, it was very popular. We didn't have much else in the genre. I'm excited to see this follow up.

I want to like it.

Another roleplayer here: I watched the original multiple times when I was younger, but this trailer is not grabbing me:


'Representation' plus the same special effects as every other fantasy film/series nowadays.

It has Warwick Davis, but nothing else is exciting me here.

Hope to be proved wrong.
 
I've never been attracted to Netflix's/Disney+ etc. etc. re-boots/re-hashes of past peoples work.
Some original works are okay, but I can't help feeling slightly disgusted by "this was a cult movie - let's milk that fanbase quick!"
 
I've never been attracted to Netflix's/Disney+ etc. etc. re-boots/re-hashes of past peoples work.
Some original works are okay, but I can't help feeling slightly disgusted by "this was a cult movie - let's milk that fanbase quick!"
Perhaps there's a lot of that going on, but some properties are overdue a further exploration of their world. I want to know what happened to Willow after his fledgling wizard days. Whether it's done well is another matter. A good sequel might be praised, a poor one is 'milking a franchise'. Not many people say Terminator 2 or Aliens were franchise milking. And Willow was just one movie (i think there were novels, but i doubt they're canon).

As for 'let's milk that fanbase quick,' it's been over thirty years.
 
I take your point - especially with Willow* - but there's a difference between exploring the created world, writing new stories with known characters, and making 'box set' streaming content, using the names as fan bait. But, as you say, a good one would be praised, not for it's name checks/Easter Eggs, but for it's quality. It is still milking a franchise but, to use a strange metaphor, the cash cow is still a good 'milker'.
House of the Dragon is a good example of this. It is milking the franchise but it's producers took a risk; could they make something out of the 'wreckage' that was Game of Thrones season 8? It appears that the gamble has paid off but they still have to maintain the quality that was lost in the earlier series.

* Willow is a classic example of nostalgia-bait, not milking. No matter how old the property, it will still have fans but they tend to be a generational thing. Re-makes (not sequals) in this case rely on 'old' fans to spread the word among a whole new generation of those who'd never heard of the original. The product, itself, stands or falls on its content quality. If it's poor then you lose the original fandom who then would be more likely to encourage a new generation to watch 'the original' instead.
 
I take your point - especially with Willow* - but there's a difference between exploring the created world, writing new stories with known characters, and making 'box set' streaming content, using the names as fan bait. But, as you say, a good one would be praised, not for it's name checks/Easter Eggs, but for it's quality. It is still milking a franchise but, to use a strange metaphor, the cash cow is still a good 'milker'.
House of the Dragon is a good example of this. It is milking the franchise but it's producers took a risk; could they make something out of the 'wreckage' that was Game of Thrones season 8? It appears that the gamble has paid off but they still have to maintain the quality that was lost in the earlier series.

* Willow is a classic example of nostalgia-bait, not milking. No matter how old the property, it will still have fans but they tend to be a generational thing. Re-makes (not sequals) in this case rely on 'old' fans to spread the word among a whole new generation of those who'd never heard of the original. The product, itself, stands or falls on its content quality. If it's poor then you lose the original fandom who then would be more likely to encourage a new generation to watch 'the original' instead.
Fair enough, but there have been whispers of attempts to revive Willow pretty much from its release. The current series is probably only possible because of the creation of an appropriate platform and the trend for nostalgia-bait, but what's been created will live or die on its own quality. Frankly, i have little enthusiasm for it, but I'll give it a chance.

I suppose my point is that once terms like 'franchise-milking' and 'nostalgia-bait' exist (and similar phrases are rife in political discussions that we're prohibited from having here, and in online science discussions), these phrases just get used to dismiss things or opinions which often have greater depth. I'm immediately suspicious of the use of such phrases, and all the assumptions they encapsulate.
 
Point taken. I get irritated by the use of terms (E.G. a certain political slogan) that are used to shut down discussion. But if a phrase like 'nostalgia-baiting' aren't used as a shut-down switch on debate, then they can be a reasonable 'shorthand' for a concept. It's all in the use and intention. If someone uses either phrase then it's reasonable to expect the user to back them up.
I listen to many reviewers - from many different points of view - and consider the 'verdict' in aggregate. Frankly, I'm an ol' fashioned cove who enjoyed original fantasy/sci-fi movies and perhaps look at them with happy nostalgia. As soon as I see certain phrases used by the producers, writers or actors then I can't help approaching their product with trepidation. Not because it 'spoils' the original for me - I don't get that concept - but because what they describe just doesn't appeal to my personal taste.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
For what it's worth, I've watched the Willow TV series, and I enjoyed it. It will certainly divide the fanbase, especially given how many people these days seem satisfied with sniping at everything. It's not groundbreaking, but it captures the balance of darkness, lightheartedness and general humour of the movie. Stylistically, it mostly feels like a continuation of the movie, which I watched a couple of days ago in preparation. I'm looking forward to watching how things unfold in the coming weeks. It's nice to see a fantasy world that isn't taking itself too seriously.
 
Back
Top