I saw KRULL on TV last week... Why don't they make these movies anymore? (1 Viewer)

[Matthew Prince]

I saw on KRULL (1983) on Channel 5 in the UK last week. I also have it on DVD (mainly for the great Cinemascope visuals lost on pan n scam Network TV )

I felt sad that this kind of movie is not made anymore. I know some of you might be quick to say: Well what about the Lord of the Rings? Ah, but that was based on a set of already successful books with a full history and range of characters...

You may even point out the awful Dungeons and Dragons (2000) film and the Harry Potter movies, but what I ACTUALLY mean is the magical quest adventure movies with a band of travellers, popular in the '80s. If you look at Krull and Conan, they were given respect and even Ridley Scott's Legend was fascinating (as in the production stories and alternate soundtracks).

I think it would be fantastic if Columbia Pictures made a sequel to Krull today with someone like Ridley Scott. A good 2 to 2 1/2 hour long movie with all the trimmings... A luxurious Cinemascope picture, inventive & strong special effects, twists and turns, a gorgeous landscape, witches & wizards...

The major studios today seem to be only interested in Franchise material: which means more Comic Book movies, adaptations of TV series and of books. :frowning:

I would LOVE to see a return of the Magical Quest adventure movie. But done RIGHT.

Do you agree with me?

What movie genre would YOU like to see again?

 

[Rex Bachmann]

Matthew Prince wrote (post #1):


Because, by and large, they don't expect these costly historical, quasi-historical, or fantastic films to make back the big money that's spent on their mounting.

You may be too young to know or remember this, but Krull, which started off as a pure fantasy movie, had its release delayed for a year, I believe, while the producers fiddled around with the "Beast"-scenes. They tried to hedge their bets after the big box-office busts of the other major current sword-and-sorcery flicks, Excalibur and Dragonslayer. Their idea was to make the Beast an outer-space alien, instead of a supernatural demon. (Notice that the big mountain containing the Beast "lands" like a rocket from out of the sky.) If I remember correctly, they redid some of those special effects to make things much more ambiguous.

Costume period epochs are really expensive to mount and the Hollywood powers that be, with their marketing data in hand (and mind), do not think that today's youth audience will have the kind of interest in such pieces that will hit a "grand slam" for them in the money department. So, most scripts are "contemporized" for that audience. (And, of course, The Lord of the Rings is exceptional in having a large devoted built-in international audience.)

And, by the way, I personally think Krull was a rather mediocre, "paint-by-the-numbers" fantasy flick. Okay, but unmemorable.

 

[George_W_K]

Yeah, they also use that data to put out crappy (IMO) movies like "Timeline".

 

[Julio H]

because people don't want to see any more half naked men in ill fitting loinclothes

 

[Dan Rudolph]

If by ill-fitting you mena too tight, I certainly know a few people who'd like to see that.

 

[Gary->dee]

I haven't seen Krull in a loooong time, I'll pick up the DVD eventually. But the thing is that it's basically a rip-off of Star Wars. There's this big evil bad guy who kidnaps the princess or whatever and he has armored minions, etc. The hero who has a special weapon gathers a group of thieves, bandits and warriors together to help rescue the princess etc. It's all pretty much a rehash of the first Star Wars movie, but I admit that it's a good rehash.

 

[Steve Berger]

Star Wars rip off ? How about Flash Gordon or Buck Rogers ; and I hate to think how many literary references use that basic plot idea. The quality of a movie has to be in how well they carry off a basic story. There are thousands of ways to portray that plot , many are even worth reading or watching , many are not. Each incarnation is geared to the current audience and technology. While the story was OK , I just didn't find the actors or characters to be as compelling as a "Luke" or "Han" (or Conan , Indiana , Sheridan , Ripley , etc in other genres).

 

[TheLongshot]

Because Sci-fi sells. Beyond LotR, fantasy movies have not sold well.

Jason

 

[Shane Burton]

Two words: Fire Mares

 

[Lynda-Marie]

I find it ironic that Hollywood, which is renowned internationally for creating fantasies [i.e. movies and TV shows] cannot seem to get a grasp of the fantasy genre.

Once, they did really well with fantasies such as the Wizard of Oz or the original King Kong, but lately, everything seems to be so formulaic, that it is, as a poster mentioned above, a paint by numbers things, and the only noticeable differences are maybe the costumes and the props.

This is in part understandable, since movies and TV shows are getting outrageously expensive, and the studio powers that be are in the business to make money. They stick to safe formulae, in order to make money. Were there no profit margin, they would find something else to do.

Sad, isn't it?

However, I notice that there are foreign powers that be that can create powerful fantasies that really fire up the box office returns - Lord of the Rings [New Zealand], Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon [China?] Mad Max/Road Warrior [Australia], Dr. Who [Britain], Red Dwarf [Britain] and most of these [Lord of the Rings excepted] are on very low budgets, but somehow they make it work.

But even Americans can come up with low budget things that can bring in the dough - the original Blair Witch Project cost under $50,000, and yet it made how many millions? The original Terminator cost somewhere around $6 million, and it not only made a huge pile of money, but it cemented Arnold Schwarzenegger as a major star and James Cameron as an A List [read: box office clout] director.

Perhaps a low budget-high quality renaissance is on the horizon. All it will take is some real risks, talent, imagination and above all, a talent for budgeting. A friend of mine, a self-confessed, tight-fisted Jew would probably be ideal as a bean counter on a movie - AND he is a science fiction and fantasy fan who is a stickler for detail with an eye for quality.

 

[Kevin M]

Indeed, "young prince/hero saves the damsel in distress while proving his leadership" is a constant in myth from time immemorial.

 

[Kevin Grey]

You pretty much hit the nail on the head- as budgets go up the studio is much more likely to be involved to ensure their investment is in good hands. Unfortunately I don't think there are many major fantasy fans with much power in Hollywood. Consequently their ideas are going to be pedestrian and based on concepts that have worked in other Hollywood movies.

It either takes someone passionate who can get a lot on screen for little money or someone like James Cameron who has the clout to be left to his own devices to put the picture on the screen. That's one of the reasons I'm a big fan of New Line- they've supported young up-and-comers for years with decent budgets for genre projects.

 

[Chris Roberts]

A friend and I took the line "Each to his fate!" from the movie and started using it as a battle cry in various games. Freakin hilarious.

The movie was garbage though when compared to Excalibur or DragonSlayer or Conan. Even Sword & Sorcerer was better.

 

[Rob Bartlett]

Well, the first Terminator may have been cheap, but the sequel set new records in production cost. I don't think we'll see a cost-cutting Cameron in the future.