Where are all the fantasy movies?

[David Howery]

OK, read the link. I suppose there is a fine difference between the two, but it's a pretty fine line. For the purpose of this thread, there's not much point in distinguishing between fantasy and S&S for future possible movies...

 

[Captain Tagon]

OK, read the link. I suppose there is a fine difference between the two, but it's a pretty fine line. For the purpose of this thread, there's not much point in distinguishing between fantasy and S&S for future possible movies...

There is for those of us who view S&S as a very bad term. Especially since watching the two feels very different. Compare LotR with the Scorpion King or the Conan movies.

 

[David Howery]

true enough, but there are so few of either fantasy or S&S movies (although maybe not the books to base further movies on) that splitting them up is rather pointless. For purposes of this discussion, you might as well include both....

 

[Jhamin]

When was the last time a big budget Sword and Sorcery movie came out?

How about The Chronicles of Riddick?

AKA Warhammer 40,000: the movie. Certainly a genre-bender, but it meets all the tropes.

-Muscle bound, anti-social protagonist? Check
-No white-knights, only shades of bad that make our guy look less vile? Check
-Strength and Steel triumphing against learning and magic? Check
-Vile, cartoonishly evil villian with magical powers? Check

Replace the space ships and guns with horses and bows. Everything else works.

 

[nikolai]

not to get too nitpicky here, but howinhell can LOTR not be considered S&S? It has a medieval setting with magic and warriors. Isn't S&S pretty much the same as what we call fantasy? If not, just what's the difference (it'd have to be a really fine line...)...

This is the fatal mistake of assuming that if something has (a) swords and (b) sorcery, then it is Swords & Sorcery. If only it were that simple! To use an analogy, saying that LOTR is S&S is like saying that if things in England from 500BC-400BC were pretty dark, then it must be part of the Dark Ages. Just having swords and sorcery aren't diagnostic for something to be S&S.

S&S was coined to describe a certain style of medieval fantasy found in pulp magazines. It differs from LOTR in style and tone, is more action orientated and (classically) has a muscled swordsman as the hero pitted against a sorcerer. Pinning it down further is difficult, the best way is to read Howard, Leiber and Moorcock - and then you'll know S&S when you see it.

In defence of the people getting bashed by the S&S pedants, outside of the sort of people that post here, S&S is used really broadly to include any medieval fantasy. The LOTR movies were called S&S everywhere - this is probably correct - even if the books aren't S&S. S&S stories and films did had a huge influence on the LOTR films, there are all sorts of places in the story where Tolkien goes tone and atmosphere and Jackson opts for a big fight.

This is what the OED has to say about S&S:

http://www.jessesword.com/sf/view/235

And here is a brief history which includes the classic line "traditional S&S very often begins with a fight and doesn’t stop until the bad guys are lying in a heap of their own entrails."

http://kingsofthenight0.tripod.com/guide.htm

 

[Gentlegamer]

Full article can be found at http://www.towson.edu/~flynn/swordsor.html

Do you know where I can find an online copy of Lin Carter's essay on the definition of the "well-wrought tale" . . . ?

 

[Rackhir]

Having a book being "optioned" means exactly NOTHING in Hollywood. Pretty much every concievable story/source material is under option by someone at some point. If you have heard of something, it's probably optioned by someone. All that means is that someone has paid someone for the possibility of doing something with the material. The only thing that means less in the realm of Hollywood is if there is a "Script" for something. Since that doesn't necessarily even mean that some money has beenexchanged.

Only, IF there is an actual production underway is there anything to speculate about. Otherwise it's about as meaningful as speculating about what it would be like if Tolkien was writing a Conan the Barbarian story.

 

[Captain Tagon]

How about The Chronicles of Riddick?

AKA Warhammer 40,000: the movie. Certainly a genre-bender, but it meets all the tropes.

-Muscle bound, anti-social protagonist? Check
-No white-knights, only shades of bad that make our guy look less vile? Check
-Strength and Steel triumphing against learning and magic? Check
-Vile, cartoonishly evil villian with magical powers? Check

Replace the space ships and guns with horses and bows. Everything else works.

I missed that one. I really enjoyed Pitch Black though and I keep meaning to see Chronicles. Was it any good?

 

[Captain Tagon]

Do you know where I can find an online copy of Lin Carter's essay on the definition of the "well-wrought tale" . . . ?

I googled it but mainly just found links to book reviews or to message boards. Interestingly enough, the first link to pop up on google is a link to an EN World thread discussing Blue Rose.

 

[Rackhir]

I missed that one. I really enjoyed Pitch Black though and I keep meaning to see Chronicles. Was it any good?

The set design and costuming was absolutely gorgeous. The best I've seen since Dune. The rest of it is a very enjoyable action flick. Well worth a watch.