Epic fantasy movies still caught in the dark age....

[polishgenius]

I don't want to be rude like but Theda literally said " I definitely want more fantasy films and tv" and "It always does make me sad that all my favourite fantasy films are from the 80s though. I want more. " You've literally managed to infer the opposite of not just her meaning but her bald stated words.

[Mwm]

10 minutes ago, Fellaining Da Bruyne said:

I don't want to be rude like but Theda literally said " I definitely want more fantasy films and tv" and "It always does make me sad that all my favourite fantasy films are from the 80s though. I want more. " You've literally managed to infer the opposite of not just her meaning but her bald stated words.

What she said was that she doesn’t want them “cranking out any old shit” and that her favorite fantasy movies were from the 80’s, which I took to have meant she didn’t like any of the recently released fantasy movies.

Youll also notice I didn’t quote her when I said this; I was also inferring on the other comments people made against significant growth in the genre(good and bad movies-like the numerous science fiction features) and about the 80’s.

[Darth Richard II]

Did I take the wrong pills?

[Corvinus85]

Some other post LOTR fantasy movies (not counting Disney and Harry Potter which moved into epic fantasy near the end):

Stardust - good

Eragon - shit (book wasn't much better)

Seventh Son - bad

The Golden Compass - disappointing

Jack the Giant Slayer - pretty shit

Snow White and the Huntsman - meh

The Huntsman: Winter War - bad

King Arthur: Legend of the Sword - meh as a movie, insulting to Arthurian myth

Clash of the Titans (the remake) - meh, poor protagonist

Wrath of the Titans - why was this made?

Immortals - again, why?

Warcraft - bad

Gods of Egypt - fuck Hollywood

So plenty of them out there, more bad than good. And if you do count Disney, even without the adaptations of their classic popular animated films, or the MCU, there are many more. 

 

 

[karaddin]

In terms of book series I feel like a lot of what was taken up by epic fantasy when I was young has shifted into the YA genre now. The impact on books hasn't been too major, there are still entertaining series to read in that space although they've had to become more succinct in terms of page count. This has much more of an impact on adaptations though as I feel there is much more to the trappings of a YA movie series than applies in book format.

At the more mature end of the spectrum a lot of the series have edges towards either a grim tone or a dark sense of humour which ends up almost looking like another genre itself that could be called grimdark. These tend to, on paper at least, look like they'll have a much smaller potential audience and thus are less likely to be adapted as well.

For the former group there were a bunch of attempts made at cashing in without really doing the work in making good movies, so we've had properties that should have been promising like the Percy Jackson stories by Rick Riordan being burnt by poor adaptations. We still haven't really had any of the latter group done, although I think The Genleman Bastards is a clear stand out as having the potential for being an amazing adaptation of The Lies of Locke Lamora at the very least. The shattered sea trilogy by Lord Grimdark himself could also probably be done as well, although I would have said the best time for that was probably after the second season of Vikings and the moment may have passed for that.

I'm not sure exactly where the lines on 'epic' vs 'high' fantasy lie as well, so I'm probably trampling all over it but I feel like 80s fantasy movies did too. I'm not sure how much faith to put in the project, but for TV series I think it's Starz are doing Jemisin's Broken Earth trilogy.

I'd love for Dan Abraham to start getting a higher profile from the success of The Expanse leading to The Long Price Quartet getting an adaptation, but it's going to be an inherently different kind of movie series to standard epic fantasy. Would be utterly gorgeous though if done right.

[Theda Baratheon]

6 hours ago, Mwm said:

Oh; thought that you meant you didn’t like LOTR since you said you preferred 80’s movies...

I didn’t say I preferred; just that lots of my favourites were from the 80s all concentrated by a few years whichever shows how badly we need more good fantasy stuff...

i love LOTR - I didn’t like the hobbit movies though. Very disappointing. 

[Theda Baratheon]

24 minutes ago, Corvinus of Teranga said:

Some other post LOTR fantasy movies (not counting Disney and Harry Potter which moved into epic fantasy near the end):

Stardust - good

Eragon - shit (book wasn't much better)

Seventh Son - bad

The Golden Compass - disappointing

Jack the Giant Slayer - pretty shit

Snow White and the Huntsman - meh

The Huntsman: Winter War - bad

King Arthur: Legend of the Sword - meh as a movie, insulting to Arthurian myth

Clash of the Titans (the remake) - meh, poor protagonist

Wrath of the Titans - why was this made?

Immortals - again, why?

Warcraft - bad

Gods of Egypt - fuck Hollywood

So plenty of them out there, more bad than good. And if you do count Disney, even without the adaptations of their classic popular animated films, or the MCU, there are many more. 

 

 

I honestly rarely hate movies as much as I hated Immortals. What a load of old shit that was

[Darth Richard II]

1 hour ago, Corvinus of Teranga said:

Some other post LOTR fantasy movies (not counting Disney and Harry Potter which moved into epic fantasy near the end):

Stardust - good

Eragon - shit (book wasn't much better)

Seventh Son - bad

The Golden Compass - disappointing

Jack the Giant Slayer - pretty shit

Snow White and the Huntsman - meh

The Huntsman: Winter War - bad

King Arthur: Legend of the Sword - meh as a movie, insulting to Arthurian myth

Clash of the Titans (the remake) - meh, poor protagonist

Wrath of the Titans - why was this made?

Immortals - again, why?

Warcraft - bad

Gods of Egypt - fuck Hollywood

So plenty of them out there, more bad than good. And if you do count Disney, even without the adaptations of their classic popular animated films, or the MCU, there are many more. 

 

 

Good God, all of those are some real shit. I've never even heard of a few.

[karaddin]

1 minute ago, Darth Richard II said:

Good God, all of those are some real shit. I've never even heard of a few.

Stardust I remember as being a mostly decent adaptation with an actor for the main character that was just flat. And the book is a great for the niche that its in.

[felice]

1 hour ago, Corvinus of Teranga said:

Stardust - good

Yeah, that's probably the highlight of post-80s standalone fantasy films. MirrorMask is interesting, but badly let down by the ending

Spoiler

effectively "it was all a dream"

1 hour ago, Corvinus of Teranga said:

Gods of Egypt - fuck Hollywood

It's certainly flawed, but I actually thought there was a lot to like about it At least it's not a generic pseudo-medieval setting!

[Mwm]

2 hours ago, Corvinus of Teranga said:

Some other post LOTR fantasy movies (not counting Disney and Harry Potter which moved into epic fantasy near the end):

Stardust - good

Eragon - shit (book wasn't much better)

Seventh Son - bad

The Golden Compass - disappointing

Jack the Giant Slayer - pretty shit

Snow White and the Huntsman - meh

The Huntsman: Winter War - bad

King Arthur: Legend of the Sword - meh as a movie, insulting to Arthurian myth

Clash of the Titans (the remake) - meh, poor protagonist

Wrath of the Titans - why was this made?

Immortals - again, why?

Warcraft - bad

Gods of Egypt - fuck Hollywood

So plenty of them out there, more bad than good. And if you do count Disney, even without the adaptations of their classic popular animated films, or the MCU, there are many more. 

 

 

Yeah...I’m not even going to try to get into the ones you mentioned. Clearly the point I was trying to make isn’t taking hold.

[Leofric]

2 hours ago, Corvinus of Teranga said:

Some other post LOTR fantasy movies (not counting Disney and Harry Potter which moved into epic fantasy near the end):

Stardust - good

Eragon - shit (book wasn't much better)

Seventh Son - bad

The Golden Compass - disappointing

Jack the Giant Slayer - pretty shit

Snow White and the Huntsman - meh

The Huntsman: Winter War - bad

King Arthur: Legend of the Sword - meh as a movie, insulting to Arthurian myth

Clash of the Titans (the remake) - meh, poor protagonist

Wrath of the Titans - why was this made?

Immortals - again, why?

Warcraft - bad

Gods of Egypt - fuck Hollywood

So plenty of them out there, more bad than good. And if you do count Disney, even without the adaptations of their classic popular animated films, or the MCU, there are many more. 

 

 

Starburst is by far the best in your list.   I also liked Jack the Giant Slayer.  The rest are meh or worse.

[HexMachina]

4 hours ago, Darth Richard II said:

Good God, all of those are some real shit. I've never even heard of a few.

I will fight you for saying Stardust is real shit. 

3 hours ago, Mwm said:

Yeah...I’m not even going to try to get into the ones you mentioned. Clearly the point I was trying to make isn’t taking hold.

If nobody seems to be getting your point I would suggest you aren’t communicating it very clearly.

[Theda Baratheon]

3 hours ago, Mwm said:

Yeah...I’m not even going to try to get into the ones you mentioned. Clearly the point I was trying to make isn’t taking hold.

I’d say if we are all saying we love 80s fantasy films and we are all saying there’s been a few absolute crap fantasy films in recent years then we’d like some new good ones...I mean that’s just naturally what I’d get from people saying “there hasn’t been a bunch of great fantasy movies since the 80s” instead of “ FANTASY IS AWFUL & DEAD IN THE WATER! NEVER TRY AGAIN” 

on the contrary I’d really like to see more films, but not just because it’s popular like terrible Game of Thrones rip offs I just think as someone else mentioned, it’s pribably a very difficult genre to make good movies in, you need a studio and producers willing to spend LOTS of money on it and they just aren’t. 

[Corvinus85]

5 hours ago, Mwm said:

Yeah...I’m not even going to try to get into the ones you mentioned. Clearly the point I was trying to make isn’t taking hold.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't your point that there aren't enough fantasy films? Particularly of the epic kind, compared to SF films; That after LOTR, the only one that came out was its own prequel in the form of The Hobbit.

I just illustrated that there were, in fact, a whole lot of fantasy films, including in the epic sub-genre. There have been many, many more made, because LOTR, alongside Harry Potter, did cause a major resurgence in creating fantasy films, but unfortunately, the vast majority were from mediocre to piss-poor.

[Myrddin]

6 hours ago, karaddin said:

Stardust I remember as being a mostly decent adaptation with an actor for the main character that was just flat. And the book is a great for the niche that its in.

Are you saying Matthew Murdoch is flat?

[Mwm]

1 hour ago, Corvinus of Teranga said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't your point that there aren't enough fantasy films? Particularly of the epic kind, compared to SF films; That after LOTR, the only one that came out was its own prequel in the form of The Hobbit.

I just illustrated that there were, in fact, a whole lot of fantasy films, including in the epic sub-genre. There have been many, many more made, because LOTR, alongside Harry Potter, did cause a major resurgence in creating fantasy films, but unfortunately, the vast majority were from mediocre to piss-poor.

I can’t see how any of the films you mentioned were attempts at a LOTR centric epic. Other have mention fantasy films of the 80’s which obviously skewed toward the sword and sorcery/heroic side of the genre, and I would argue that’s the legacy these were trying to continue. One could also argue Harry Potter’s influence on this list. Not one of them is based on a big(scope, length) fantasy series.

LOTR was a real risk attempt, it was a trio of three hour movies not seen since the old greats, extended edition of return of the king was nearly four and a half hours long, and they all cost about 90 million each. The clusterfuck of this whole ordeal is all of those shit ass movies you mentioned cost MORE, with most being an hour and a half dumbed nonsense. Which indicates typically Hollywood stupidity, LAZINESS, and not taking the genre SERIOUSLY.

[Corvinus85]

17 minutes ago, Mwm said:

I can’t see how any of the films you mentioned were attempts at a LOTR centric epic. Other have mention fantasy films of the 80’s which obviously skewed toward the sword and sorcery/heroic side of the genre, and I would argue that’s the legacy these were trying to continue. One could also argue Harry Potter’s influence on this list. Not one of them is based on a big(scope, length) fantasy series.

LOTR was a real risk attempt, it was a trio of three hour movies not seen since the old greats, extended edition of return of the king was nearly four and a half hours long, and they all cost about 90 million each. The clusterfuck of this whole ordeal is all of those shit ass movies you mentioned cost MORE, with most being an hour and a half dumbed nonsense. Which indicates typically Hollywood stupidity, LAZINESS, and not taking the genre SERIOUSLY.

OK, I see what you're saying. On that aspect, the argument has been made regarding cost of production. LOTR was indeed a gamble, but they chose well, as LOTR was already the most popular fantasy epic even then. It would be an incredible risk to gamble on a less popular series. A studio would be willing to develop a series, but usually with a one-at-time project. We saw how Chronicles of Narnia fizzled out because of lack of success.

On the TV side, HBO took a gamble with GoT, sure, but they were cautious, renewing the show one season at a time, initially, until it hit the popularity it enjoys now.

It might be laziness and stupidity, or it might be cautiousness, going with what they know will make them money, over what they don't know.

[Mwm]

23 minutes ago, Corvinus of Teranga said:

OK, I see what you're saying. On that aspect, the argument has been made regarding cost of production. LOTR was indeed a gamble, but they chose well, as LOTR was already the most popular fantasy epic even then. It would be an incredible risk to gamble on a less popular series. A studio would be willing to develop a series, but usually with a one-at-time project. We saw how Chronicles of Narnia fizzled out because of lack of success.

On the TV side, HBO took a gamble with GoT, sure, but they were cautious, renewing the show one season at a time, initially, until it hit the popularity it enjoys now.

It might be laziness and stupidity, or it might be cautiousness, going with what they know will make them money, over what they don't know.

I wouldn’t call Gods of Egypt(Jesus fucking Christ), Immortals, Seventh Son, or Jack Giant killer cautiousness in the slightest. I would call that being too stupid to realize what a risk; especially with that amount of money that could’ve been spent elsewhere.

LOTR and GOT were huge, ambitious, risks that hard work and time was put into. And dammit they paid off....no one in the industry seems to want to accept that...

[Cas Stark]

I thought Stardust was fantastic and is criminally underrated.

Not sure GOT really was that much of a 'risk' they only paid for one season initially, and there was hardly any CGI the first year, nor any grand battles.