Where are all the fantasy movies?

[sniffles]

But I HATE Dragonlance novels, Robert Jordan and Terry Brooks with a deep and abiding passion, so it's not surprising that we disagree.

I don't hate them, but fantasy films based on any of these sources would have to look pretty spectacular to persuade me to part with my hard-earned cash to see them.

In fact, I can't think of many fantasy novels I've read that I'd really like to see on film. I think the LOTR films were just an incredible fluke of good timing. Lightning doesn't strike twice in the film industry, IMHO.

 

[Tonguez]

I mean, come on.

A question: how many of the people who are saying they don't like Howard have read the "Howard-only" tales, as opposed to the "edited" pastiches that are far more common? Because I certainly DON'T find Conan (as actually written by Howard, as opposed to "interpreted" by various editors and "post-humous collaborators") to be an unproblematic celebration of violence and strength. I do find the racism strong at times, especially in the Solomon Kane stories (which I find much inferior to Conan generally), but I guess I just shrug and put that aside.
But the Conan stories I've read (especially the better ones) do not celebrate violence or racism or pure brute strength. They do often suggest that civilization produces "distractions" that weaken a person's ability to do the right thing, but that's fair enough,

I'm intrigued I too agree that Conana is definately not about celebrating violence and the Conana I know is an intelligent and vigorous character who acts because action is better than the inaction which civilisation imposes upon us. Its pretty much exactly the same theme as ERBs Tarzan novels (which are my personal favourites) and ERB is far more marked with racist commentary than Howards writings ever were (like you I just shake my head and dismay and carry on)

But what interest me is your opinion of Solomon Kane, personally I always found Kane a more engaging and entertaining chracter than Conan and even the racism is more inline with the character and his times. So why do you find Kane stories inferior to those of Conan?

 

[Storm Raven]

It stars Renee Zellwiger (or however her name is spelled)

C-H-E-S-N-E-Y

 

[Viking Bastard]

In fact, I can't think of many fantasy novels I've read that I'd really like to see on film. I think the LOTR films were just an incredible fluke of good timing. Lightning doesn't strike twice in the film industry, IMHO.

The biggest problem with fantasy novels is the scale. Really, does everything *have* to be
six volume epics? It makes them unfilmable without the same level of commitment that LotR
got and I think LotR was the only one that had enough name recognition for that.

We need to hunt down standalones or sequal series to pitch to producers.

 

[Ranger REG]

The biggest problem with fantasy novels is the scale. Really, does everything *have* to be
six volume epics? It makes them unfilmable without the same level of commitment that LotR
got and I think LotR was the only one that had enough name recognition for that.

We need to hunt down standalones or sequal series to pitch to producers.

You're kidding me, right? I used to collect novelizations of movies and they're less than half the size of one typical fantasy novel.

IOW, you will always get an abridged version on the theatrical version of the same story, and rarely do such version go over 2-hours running time.

As for multi-volume epics, the author makes their living that way and his or her fans want more stories about the same characters in the first story. You think he's ambitious to want to turn his works into film in the near/far future? He should be more concerned about where or when his next paycheck is coming in.

 

[David Howery]

Its pretty much exactly the same theme as ERBs Tarzan novels (which are my personal favourites) and ERB is far more marked with racist commentary than Howards writings ever were (like you I just shake my head and dismay and carry on)
?

I've always found ERB's racism to be less vicious than REH's. ERB was definitely given to stereotypes, but he didn't really seem to hate other races.. and he actually admired native Americans. Also, ERB had several admirable black characters, such as the Waziri. REH, though... when you read such stories as 'Black Canaan', you know he really disliked blacks. REH's blacks were always prone to violence and superstition, the orientals were always sinister, etc... the only non-white race he seemed to like were Afghans. I should note that the Conan stories are mainly free of such nonsense, but his horror short stories are full of it...

 

[mmadsen]

Compare LotR with the Scorpion King or the Conan movies.

If you compare the first Conan movie, Conan the Barbarian, to the second, Conan the Destroyer, you'll see that they have very little in common. The sequel is awful.

 

[mmadsen]

A question: how many of the people who are saying they don't like Howard have read the "Howard-only" tales, as opposed to the "edited" pastiches that are far more common? Because I certainly DON'T find Conan (as actually written by Howard, as opposed to "interpreted" by various editors and "post-humous collaborators") to be an unproblematic celebration of violence and strength.
[...]
But the Conan stories I've read (especially the better ones) do not celebrate violence or racism or pure brute strength. They do often suggest that civilization produces "distractions" that weaken a person's ability to do the right thing, but that's fair enough, says I.

As for now finding his style "fun" to read, for me, his style is practically the very definition of fun to read. Fast-paced, gripping, memorable descriptions and great galloping whacks of narrative. Just how I like it.

I have to agree. Robert E. Howard's style is practically the very definition of fun to read.

 

[buzz]

IOW, you will always get an abridged version on the theatrical version of the same story, and rarely do such version go over 2-hours running time.

I also don't think that there is anything that necessarily precludes an abridged-for-film version of a work from being a good film. Sure, you can lose points on being a pure adaptation, but a good film is a good film.

You could also make a decent argument that most of the real classics are not the bloated multi-volume series we see so commonly today. But that treads into dangerous waters...

 

[Desdichado]

But I HATE Dragonlance novels, Robert Jordan and Terry Brooks with a deep and abiding passion, so it's not surprising that we disagree.

For some reason, I feel compelled to offer up my meaningless opinion on Dragonlance, Robert Jordan and Terry Brooks... why can I not stop myself?

I think the original Dragonlance trilogy was OK. The characters were horribly cliched, but a few of them were likeable. Tanis's struggle with his identity was reasonably well described, and Laurana was exactly the kind of heroine I prefer; naive and cheeky with a nice (rather than beeyotchy) princess complex, yet even after facing the stark harshness of the world, and maturing because of it, her essential personality wasn't overwhelmed by grim and grittiness.

The plot itself was kinda confused, especially near the end. Certainly, they didn't inspire me to delve further into Dragonlanciana, but I still don't mind the first trilogy too much. Possibly a cheesy yet moderately successful movie could be gleaned from here.

Robert Jordan is perhaps the biggest disappointment of recent years. He started off doing so much right; the setting is intrigueing, the backstory, history and societies, the way magic works, etc. the intrigue and hidden threats; is all really well done. His characters start off likeable and relatable. Then he unveils his monumental failings as a writer; he can't do action scenes at all, his characters numbskullness starts to get grating and tedious, he repeats himself over and over, he doesn't advance the plot at all and endlessly spins his wheels in ridiculous character studies that accomplish nothing. He seems to have completely lost control of his own creation. Either that, or he's not really a very good writer, and without a good editor he's just hopelessly lost. I can't imagine how any movie could be made from this without taking just a few highlights from the series and stringing them together in an almost all-new plot.

Terry Brooks is almost as astonishingly poor a writer as David Eddings; I read The Sword of Shannara in high school, marvelled at how blatantly it ripped off Lord of the Rings, read a few pages of the next book (whatever it was called) and then dropped him like a wet taco and never looked back. Because Hollywood is also fairly derivative, this is probably movie minable, but I'd almost prefer that it wasn't.