Frank Stark Posted December 22, 2008 Share Posted December 22, 2008 [quote name='Lil' Joey Clegane' post='1626199' date='Dec 19 2008, 20.52']OK, now counting, I can find more than five, but not much more. And none have the sophistication, set design, acting quality, plot, ect.. of LOTR. Not even close.[/quote] I'll bite... What's on your list? The LOTR-bashing on this topic has made me wonder what people think ARE good fantasy films? I tend to agree with you that Jackson's movies are the pinnacle of fantasy films, but wonder what others would nominate. I would submit Pan's Labyrinth. There are others that I might have a soft spot for, but they are cult movies at best (Conan the Barbarian, for ex). Edited to add: I also hope you're wrong about "never," but the recent string of post-LOTR garbage doesn't make me hopeful. Unless there are more fantasy films that are financially successful, seems like Hollywood will cycle away from making so many. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandusky Posted December 22, 2008 Share Posted December 22, 2008 I don't even know specifically who these "people" are, but whoever produced HBO's [i]Rome[/i] would get my vote. Sure it was a bit of a gratuitous tit-fest, but I think they did a good job with the look and feel of the times. HBO has an outstanding track record with their projects, I am sure they will come up with underrated team to pull this together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G'Kar Posted December 23, 2008 Share Posted December 23, 2008 [quote name='Frank Stark' post='1628016' date='Dec 22 2008, 13.11']I'll bite... What's on your list? The LOTR-bashing on this topic has made me wonder what people think ARE good fantasy films? I tend to agree with you that Jackson's movies are the pinnacle of fantasy films, but wonder what others would nominate. I would submit Pan's Labyrinth. There are others that I might have a soft spot for, but they are cult movies at best (Conan the Barbarian, for ex). Edited to add: I also hope you're wrong about "never," but the recent string of post-LOTR garbage doesn't make me hopeful. Unless there are more fantasy films that are financially successful, seems like Hollywood will cycle away from making so many.[/quote] I agree with you that Pan's Labyrinth was a great fantasy film but I was thinking more along the lines of sword and sorcery fantasy, like LOTR. When it comes to films of that nature, good ones are hard/impossible to find. So a list. Uh... [b]The Princess Bride[/b]: Still a classic. It is funny, poignant, well acted, great dialogue (though it kind of mocks the whole fantasy/adventure genre while at the same time being a great fantasy/adventure film/book). [b]Excalibur[/b]:Its a flawed film, but considering the genre, I'll take it. Its epic, with great music. The acting and swordplay is a joke though. [b]Conan the Barbarian[/b]: Like you I have a soft spot for this film. My friends cannot watch this movie with without laughing hysterically whenever Arnold talks/acts/fights, but I love this movie. Its a classic story of avenging a father's death, and if you ignore this film's many flaws, its actually quite enjoyable. [b]Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon[/b] [b]Princess Mononoke[/b] [b]Monty Python and the Holy Grail[/b]: Questionable choice, but I do love this film, and its sorta a fantasy film. Honestly, I could add some more sword and sorcery titles, but most I only like for nostalgia's sake as I gobbled them up when I was young (The vaguely racist [b]Seventh Voyage of Sinbad [/b]comes to mind). I recognize that these films are incredibly campy and bad, which also makes them hilarious. So my list is composed of either flawed films that I have to settle for, and maybe one or two solid ones. Trying to make a list just depresses me. I'm remembering some "classics" like Dragonslayer, Red Sonya, Conan the Destroyer, Highlander, The 13th Warrior...::sigh:: Now if you asked me for my favorite science fiction, I could name 20+. If you asked me for my favorite dramas, I could name 50+. Fantasy has gotten the shaft for far too long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jousha Posted December 23, 2008 Share Posted December 23, 2008 [quote name='Lil' Joey Clegane' post='1628471' date='Dec 22 2008, 23.28']I was thinking more along the lines of sword and sorcery fantasy, like LOTR.[/quote] Using that definition for film fantasy does narrow the options a bit. [i]Thirteenth Warrior[/i] and [i]Willow[/i] are a couple of my favorites. [i]Groundhog Day[/i] is a great general fantasy, imo, along with other films like [i]Who Framed Roger Rabbit[/i] and [i]The Green Mile[/i]. Jackson did a wonderful job in adapting a trilogy that basically created a sub-genre in the fantasy realm of epic proportions. The only thing is that the films weren't flawless and some believe they were. Sure, it was nice that Jackson had more control over his projects, but there are points of the films that felt they needed to be more constricted. It was more apparent in [i]King Kong[/i], but he does have trouble cutting stuff out that aren't important to the plot. Some LotR scenes were overly dramatic, while others were laughably so. I'd like to clarify what people mean (or at least what [i]I[/i] mean) when they refer to the multiple endings of RotK. There are at least [i]two[/i] fade to black scenes and [i]one[/i] fade to white scene in the last half hour or fifteen minutes of the film. These moments of black (and white) last long enough each time to cause some viewers to think, "Oh, it's over." So, when that happens three times, the same viewer finally thinks, "OK, [i]now[/i] it's over a third time." I think they could have ended it the same way without making it feel like multiple endings, but they failed to do that. It's the only the film I know of where people think it has a bunch of endings. To me, the LotR films gets less enjoyable with each viewing. Sure the sights are amazing, epic, and groundbreaking; the characters are portrayed with great depth; and the adaptation is as close to the books as we'll likely ever get; but they are far from perfect. In the end, I hope The Hobbit is closer to Willow in tone than LotR. The replay value would be much higher for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
palaeologos Posted December 23, 2008 Share Posted December 23, 2008 Centering the discussion around "fantasy" film directors is, I think, missing the point. I wouldn't want to see the series degenerate into a mere genre exercise. If the tagline of the series is "Medieval [i]Sopranos[/i], then why not work with some of the directors who worked on that series? People like Tim Van Patten, Steve Buscemi, John Patterson, or Alan Coulter. Remember, this is TV, not the movies; I'm not confident that a Peter Jackson or a Guillermo del Toro (as brilliant as his movies can be) really understand the medium well enough to effectively direct series episodes. Also : in a TV series, the role of the director is not as large as it is with a film. TV directors rarely have much say on the actors chosen, the overall look & feel of the show, the music, etc. as film directors do (those roles are usually overseen by producers or creators of the show). A TV director's role is usually limited to actually shooting the episode and giving instruction to actors & technicians. And in television, it's extremely rare to have one person directing every single episode (such a shooting schedule, for 13-24 episodes in a season, is brutal). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordNedsHead Posted December 28, 2008 Share Posted December 28, 2008 No offense here, but Peter Jackson??? Loved what the guy did in LOTR but let's get some sense of perspective. Considering that AGoT is gonna have some serious budget issues to begin with, throwing money at a big Hollywood (or Kiwiwood) director isn't going to help get the series greenlighted. Lets save the money for the sfx and hire someone a little less um...iconic. My personal vote is for the dude in charge of Rome. Not even sure who the main directorial force on that series was, but he crafted a great series with a huge cast, adult subject matter, epic battles, intricate characters ect. I think it would be the perfect fit. In fact I'd take that guy over Peter Jackson, with George Lucas and Steven Spielberg as executive producers, Quinten Tarrantino as the head writer (ok maybe I'd go for Quint here), and John Bruckhiemer as the dude managing the Kraft food services. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b09boy Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 Problem with that being, as good as those in charge of Rome were, they had serious overspending issues - a large part of the reason the series went from three seasons to one season plus two seasons condensed into one. Shooting in expensive locals, many scenes with many people and animals shown in the background while important plots are going on in the foreground, requiring lots of time (and therefore money) as well as takes (and more money). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Stark Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 @ The Prisoner: Excellent list! I have all those, except Princess Mononoke, on DVD. If Red Sonja is considered a genre "classic," it's no wonder movie makers ignored fantasy for another 15-18 years. The 12-year-old me was very happy with Willow, but if I see it now, I just want to puke. Sooo campy/cheesy. I guess I started an OT subject. To return to topic, I'll restate that I don't know enough about TV directors, but would agree with those who support any from the HBO stable that have emmy-cred. Also, I want to say that just because they pick someone from Rome doesn't mean the same budget issues will come up. While the director has some influence, ultimately it's supposed to be the show runners that control the budget. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Time for Wolves Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 I am a little appalled by all the Peter Jackson bashing, especially claims that he turned characters like Legolas and Gimli into cliches. What else was he to do with them in a series of movies with time constraints, especially when the [i]books[/i] don't actually give Legolas and Gimli the most important, clearly defined, complex personalities? (Actually, there aren't many complex personalities in The Lord of the Rings, so to say that Jackson made them even flatter is strange). For the most part, Jackson's characterization was spot on - I think he made a couple missteps (Denethor and Galadriel come to mind), but the rest was excellent. I think it's clear that Jackson treated the source material with respect and love, and he obviously had to make several changes so that the text would translate to a good film. There were a couple changes to the script and plot that I didn't like either, but he was never going to please every single Tolkien fanatic out there. And I was one of those Tolkien fanatics when the movies came out; however, I liked many of Jackson's changes. I liked that he left out some of the songs, I liked that Arwen was given a more visible role, I liked that Tom Bombadil was left out. I liked it because these changes [i]worked in a movie[/i]. I never went in expecting the movie to be 100% faithful and translate the text verbatim. What I hoped was that Jackson would be faithful to the spirit of the text, and he certainly was. With that said, I don't see Jackson directing ASOIAF. I somehow feel that Jackson couldn't really do a good job unless he fanboyed Martin the way he fanboys Tolkien. I also don't see him as doing one or two episodes; he seems like the type who would have an entire vision for the season (or entire series) and want to push that vision in all the episodes. And don't TV series have several directors, instead of just one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordNedsHead Posted December 30, 2008 Share Posted December 30, 2008 I agree that AGoT's budget won't be that of Rome's, but what made the series work most (although its the most beautiful show I've ever seen) was the interplay between the characters. You don't need dollars for this. You just need good directing. The meat of Rome AND ASoIaF is the dialogue between the characters. Get someone who can may the actors pay offr GRRMs more classic lines with style. The folks responsible for Rome would be just the crew I'd like to see to make this happen. Hell, at times I saw facets of Ned,Jaime, and Jon Stark within the character of Lucius Vorenus just as I caught glimpses of Sandor, Gregor, Bron even a little Jorah Mormont in Titus Pullo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G'Kar Posted December 31, 2008 Share Posted December 31, 2008 [quote name='Frank Stark' post='1634067' date='Dec 30 2008, 12.31']@ The Prisoner: Excellent list! I have all those, except Princess Mononoke, on DVD. If Red Sonja is considered a genre "classic," it's no wonder movie makers ignored fantasy for another 15-18 years. The 12-year-old me was very happy with Willow, but if I see it now, I just want to puke. Sooo campy/cheesy.[/quote] Willow :ack: I cannot get Val Kilmer in a dress out of my mind :bang: There is a new Conan movie coming out next year called [url="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0485621/"]Red Nails[/url]. Its animated and Ron Perlman is doing the voice of Conan. It might be good. :unsure: OT: Peter Jackson did a great job with LOTR except for the abomination that is surfing down the stairs on a shield while firing fron your bow. And the crappy ending to the series. But he should NEVER touch AGOT. Nor would he anyways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordNedsHead Posted December 31, 2008 Share Posted December 31, 2008 Just a question. Sorry its a bit off-topic, but I've seen comments about this on the boards a few times now and I just have to ask... What's so crappy or unbelievable about Legolas surfing down stairs and firing a bow? The whole point of that scene to me was to exhibit the fact that Tolkien's elves had an acrobatic prowess that humans could never hope to match. The guy was walking on top of snow while the rest of the Fellowship was chest deep (or more for the hobbits ;)). I loved that scene. If Aragorn or Merri had done it then yeah it would have been cheesy, but I had no problems believing that Legolas could do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Stark Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 [quote name='LordNedsHead' post='1634895' date='Dec 31 2008, 10.52']What's so crappy or unbelievable about Legolas surfing down stairs and firing a bow?[/quote] It doesn't bother me as much as it does others (though I still wouldn't have done it), but I'll take a stab at explaining. I think it's seen as an unnecessary add-on to appeal to the 13-18 year old boys Xtreme sports crowd. His acrobatics and general badassery are shown in a number of other places without resorting to something that resembles skateboarding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smoldering Hound Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 Peter Jackson? No. Too expensive tastes. Re: LotR: Liked the first two movies, but the third got subjected to sfx diminishing returns. The undead army was just not in the same league as the undead from Pirates of the Caribbean. Rain inconsistencies had nothing on the undead issue for taking me out of the picture. I mean if we're talking pie in the sky, give me Gore Verbinski. I'd love to see what someone who can take a crap idea and turn it into gold can do with an awesome idea. (Johnny depp was only half of what made it cool... Geoffrey Rush and the undead animation were the other half...and who could forget Depp's entry scene? That's pure director, baby). Del Toro? Not enough of the fantastic to make his mark. I want to see the Direwolves be realistic, not demon dogs. Yeah, go for directors of crime family stuff to get the right feel for this, I'd say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G'Kar Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 [quote name='LordNedsHead' post='1634895' date='Dec 31 2008, 10.52']Just a question. Sorry its a bit off-topic, but I've seen comments about this on the boards a few times now and I just have to ask... What's so crappy or unbelievable about Legolas surfing down stairs and firing a bow? The whole point of that scene to me was to exhibit the fact that Tolkien's elves had an acrobatic prowess that humans could never hope to match. The guy was walking on top of snow while the rest of the Fellowship was chest deep (or more for the hobbits ;)). I loved that scene. If Aragorn or Merri had done it then yeah it would have been cheesy, but I had no problems believing that Legolas could do it.[/quote] The Two Towers is a great, epic film. I love it. But surfing down the stairs on a shield may be "cool" but it is glaringly out of place in the movie, and also impossible (I don't care if you are an elf). If that scene was in "Dungeon Siege", I cold buy it becuase it was campy and bad, but The Two Towers is a great film, and that one scene should not be there. It would be like David Fincher including a scene with a masturbating clown in Fight Club. Some people might like masturbating clowns but it serves no purpose in the movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The SmilingKnight Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 Good Lord, peter jasckass would be the worst choice. He complertely ruined lord of the Rings adaptation and turned it into empty "epic" souless ripoff. Lots of battles and special effects and nothing else but "his" visions of characters and events. That were laughable at best and really a tragedy. I cant believe there are actually people who would like him to do the same to Songs but then again i cant believe there are people who actually like LoTr the movie at all. Then again i cant believe britney spears sells millions of albums but apparently that was true (not following the current state of affairs) also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 I think historical directors would be better then ones involved in crime or gangster television. Get one of the Sharpe's Rifles directors (one of the better ones) or something like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The SmilingKnight Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 Scating down a shield as the rest of "acrobatics" have no place in Tolkiens myths. Thats the domain of general pulp fiction and distorted view of what elves really are. In original they were not acrobats nor could they or wanted to perform such ludicrous feats. Legolas ability to walk upon the snow has nothing to do with scating on the shields or jumping around elephants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smoldering Hound Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 As much as I don't think Peter Jackson is right for this project, I also feel that LotR bashers have zero credibility about what it takes to convert the written word into film unless they also name a film adaptation of a novel that they do like and why. Basically, there is no pleasing these folk, so why bother, especially since they are going to watch the show anyway, complain on message boards about it, and get refuted by fanbois meaning MORE positive publicity anyway. It's because PJ was TOO focused on the little details of making it work that is my problem with him...doesn't have the eye for cost effectiveness, which led to compromises to keep the thing relatively close to budget. If PJ directed, we'd have an awesome first season, and then it'd be cancelled for costing too much. "What elves did or did not do?" How is that remotely as important as "Gollum's face looked so real, you could see his emotions". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The SmilingKnight Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 [quote]"What elves did or did not do?" How is that remotely as important as "Gollum's face looked so real, you could see his emotions".[/quote] LoL No, nothing is important as CGI. Not even elves. Thats why they all got turned into blond gay acrobats. legolas was played by a teenage girl bait and Gimli was a dwarf sidekick and caricature. But those explosions sure did look awesum ey? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.