Suprised we're not overwhelmed by fantasy? (1 Viewer)

[JohnE]

With the huge sucess of FOTR and all the interest for the rest of the series, I'm sorta suprised that we aren't seeing a wave of announcements for other adaptations of popular fantasy books. Aside from the Harry Potter movies of course. Or have their been announcements and I just missed them?

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

There have been a shitload of options... everything from Chronicles of Narnia to Artemus Fowl (or, the books published as Harry Potter clones even though they have nothing apparent in common.)

That said, LOTR and Harry Potter are the only two straight fantasy series actually in production. There are of course quasi-fantasy series like Spider-Man/X-Men and Star Wars.

 

[Andy Sheets]

There was an announcement that CS Lewis's Chronicles of Narnia are going to be adapted. I also read somewhere that TH White's The Once and Future King was going to be adapted but I only saw the news that one time, so I'm not sure if that was a false rumor or if the production is just being done more low key. And there was another announcement that New Line had acquired another fantasy franchise to make into films, but I don't recall the names of the books or author. So we're going to be getting fantasy. It's just that everything is in the process of being set up before it hits us

 

[Adam_S]

New Line's fantasy series is "His Dark Materials" by Philip Pullman, which is flat out among the best fantasy I've read in recent years (I rank it up there with 'adult' work by George RR Martin, Robin Hobb, and Orson Scott Card). Personally I'm frightened that an enormous amount will be lost in the Hollywoodization, it could easily be translated directly to the screen with little loss of quality (except maybe the third book), but once they enter the Hollywood script machine (random rewrites with ridiculous changes so that each 'writer' leaves their imprint), and every other way Hollywood manages to thoroughly bastardize books.

The books themselves are very allegorical to Milton's "Paradise Lost" and the near anti-conservative-christian sentiment in much of the series shocks me that they haven't been burned banned and protested, as there is much more in the books that are patently offensive to the thought/morality police than anything in the much more wholesome and bright (and brilliant) Harry Potter series. I cynically think of these books as something of an anti-Narnia.

the only bright hope is that it is New Line that has the rights, but will they ever realize (along with other studios) that part of the reason for the succes of LOTR and HP lies in the fact that there were not meaningless changes and that story and character were always central? After all the guy that greenlighted LOTR was fired.

Perfect director, in my opinion would be Guillermo del Toro he could really make the story sing, a distant second would be Robert Rodrieguz.

There's a lot of potential in the series, but I doubt that it will ever make it in a recognizable form (other than title/pedigree) to the silver screen

Adam

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

I cynically think of these books as something of an anti-Narnia.

They are very Christian novels the old thing is, the Catholic God is the equiviliant to Satan and Dust is equivilant to God.

 

[David Rogers]

I suspect, as various producers and writers and directors pitch this or that fantasy themed project they're trying to get greenlit by moneymen .... showing of LOTR/HP's box office returns as a reason to light the green are being rebutted by showings of Prince Valiant/Kull and so forth.

Basically, I think the current "no" arguments in Hollywood are phrased along the lines of "yes LOTR made lots of cash as a fantasy film, but it's an exception."

Hint hint, if you write and direct a *good* fantasy movie, audiences will enjoy and pay for it. If you offer crap, they won't.

My argument is LOTR succeeds because fantasy is great storytelling when done right (i.e., non-camp, non-hokey, with a proper script and not looking like an amateur project)

 

[Andy_S]

I'm actually surprised that 'The Hobbit' hasn't been talked about. A prequel to a successful trilogy wouldn't be groundbreaking at this point
I doubt Peter Jackson would want to do it though. I'm sure he's sick of LoTR by now.

 

[Michael Martin]

The books themselves are very allegorical to Milton's "Paradise Lost" and the near anti-conservative-christian sentiment in much of the series shocks me that they haven't been burned banned and protested, as there is much more in the books that are patently offensive to the thought/morality police than anything in the much more wholesome and bright (and brilliant) Harry Potter series. I cynically think of these books as something of an anti-Narnia.

I had read reviews and reactions that essentially pegged the trilogy was "anti-God" -- that is, their argument or theme or idea was that there is no God, that the universe is all there.

Adam, can you give a bit more information? I've wavered a bit on reading the series, though I have heard many good things about it. I'm not afraid to read from an author whose viewpoint differs, but if his main point is to say anything/everything I believe is wrong and that there is nothing but the material world, I'm not sure I want to take the time to read it.

 

[Michael Martin]

More on-topic than my last post...
I think one reason we won't be flooded by fantasy movies from Hollywood is that, by and large, Hollywood still has NO idea how to cinematically tell a good fantasy story.
The general crappiness of most Hollywood fantasy attests to this. Very, very fantast movies from the last 30 years are really any good - as in hold up over time, despite the advances in special effects.
I'll pick on an HTF favorite -- Willow. Willow was released in the late 80s, when I was reading fantasy books like crazy, played D&D, and knew what I wanted from a fantasy movie. Willow showed that Hollywood understood the separate ELEMENTS correctly, but has a great deal of trouble telling an effective story. Most people think that fantasy just means magic and dragons and a complete detachment from reality. In truth, a good fantasy needs to have an even stronger story than "straight" fiction, because the audience needs an anchor and reference point.
Off the top of my head, only three movies in the last 20 years really succeeded in telling a good fantasy story -- Conan the Barbarian (don't even talk to me about the steaming manure pile of a sequel), Dragonslayer and Fellowship of the Ring.
Some may argue that the Star Wars movies are fantasy (and I agree they have far more similarities to fantasy than hard-core sci-fi), but because of the technology elements, I don't think of them as the same kind of movie. Same as The Princess Bride, which is a GREAT film, but not really a fantasy film per se.
Just my two cents.

 

[Ben Osborne]

The books themselves are very allegorical to Milton's "Paradise Lost" and the near anti-conservative-christian sentiment in much of the series shocks me that they haven't been burned banned and protested, as there is much more in the books that are patently offensive to the thought/morality police than anything in the much more wholesome and bright (and brilliant) Harry Potter series. I cynically think of these books as something of an anti-Narnia.

The main reason that many Christian groups find the Harry Potter books objectionable is their portrayal of magic/witchcraft, not because of anti-Christian, atheistic, or materialistic sentiments. You make it sound like "the thought police" (I don't care for that term by the way--which group is that that supports campus speech codes?) try to censor all dissenting thought, which is not the case. After all, Nietzsche, de Sade, Marx, and hundreds of other thinkers have explicitly said things that are probably even more anti-Christian than anything found in "His Dark Materials," and their books can be found in any bookstore (and on the bookshelves of many Christians).

 

[Adam_S]

there actually should have been an 'oddly' in that original post of mine so it would read

...Milton's "Paradise Lost" and oddly the near anti...

These are some of the elements I noticed that I thought conservative groups would be extremely concerned about. Viewing the DUST as God is an interesting perspective, however this would probably be dismissed as too 'newagey' from what I understand of Conservative agendas and propaganda.

The magic world of Harry Potter is sheer harmless fantasy, it's great wonderful fun, and a beautifully constructed excapist world that reinforces important messages about empowerment and responsibility. For conservative groups to focus on it because of the splendiferous makebelieve elements is utterly ludicrous and gives them an image of hateful ignorant buffoons. However in HIs Dark Materials, there are potential elements that openly undermine Christian theology when taken at a literal (rather than allegorical) point of view.

To say some more positive things, the writing is fantastic and the story is wonderfully moving and ultimately tragic. The third book brings things into perspective as to the significance of the allegorical roles that Lyra and Will play, and there are incredible worlds, wonderful, original creations and characters and some really charismatically vicious villians (as well as some pretty horrifying and alternately extremely cool Monsters and Creatures). And the story is above all top-notch.


One note on the movie, Tom Stoppard (Empire of the Sun, some Shakespeare thingy) is writing the screenplay, so there is hope on that account, maybe it will avoid the script machine rewrites, and we won't end up withsomething like "My family got ate by Dust" rather than HDM.

 

[JohnE]

Off the top of my head, only three movies in the last 20 years really succeeded in telling a good fantasy story -- Conan the Barbarian (don't even talk to me about the steaming manure pile of a sequel), Dragonslayer and Fellowship of the Ring.

What, no D&D The Movie???
I would have to agree with your choices, though personally I would add Willow to the list. And I think it's a shame too, that there are so few good fantasy movies that you point at and say "this is how to do it right"!
Oh well, at least when it's all said and done I Should have a good 10 hours of fantasy told right, thanks to Peter Jackson.

 

[Joshua FS]

I just want to say that i agree with Michael M. Hollywood really doesn't kow how to make a good fantasy movie. If you think about it creatively making a good fantasy movie requires a lot of effort, much more so that the easier path of drama or action in our "world." I used to read a lot of sci-fi (a fantasy of sorts) and the books that always stuck with me were the one that had a good, consistant and at least somewhat detailed world to tell the story in. When creating a whole new realm you have to paint each indiviual detail of the reality yo uwant to make. "Why does this clan hate that clan?" "Why was there a great war ages ago?" Look at FOTR. Think of all the history and depth that has to be created to make the story interesting (Tolkien=genius). It makes you realise what you take for granted when you watch a non fantasy flick. I feel more often than not Hollywood actually understands these more daunting obstacles and naturally opts for the more sure thing.

I would also like to add Legend as a quality fantasy movie.

 

[Neil Joseph]

And where is the clone film from another studio that always follows on the coat-tails of a successful movie....

 

[Mike Broadman]

What, no D&D The Movie???

Didn't they already have one with the Wayans Brothers? (I'm not even joking)

 

[Michael Martin]

I would have to agree with your choices, though personally I would add Willow to the list. And I think it's a shame too, that there are so few good fantasy movies that you point at and say "this is how to do it right"!

I have always thought Willow would have been far more interesting, realistic and simply better if it had been about Val Kilmer's character. His seemed to be the only "real" person in the movie.

Willow had all of the technical aspects right, but, for me, none of the intangibles. It was a fantasy done by someone who had familiarity only with the elements but not the guts of a fantastic story. Willow's character and race were blatant Tolkien rip-offs, the ending had a blatant Star Wars rip off (odd, since Lucas was involved in it that he would have something so obvious) and some very poorly placed comic relief with Rick Ducomon and Kevin Pollak as brownies.

 

[Lou Sytsma]

Cost is another factor too. Any fantasy project - especially based on multivolume series are going to be very expensive.

Without the right set of circumstances like with LOTR shooting in New Zealand with a very favourable exchange rate - the prospects of launching a fantasy series of movies will probably remain low.

 

[TheLongshot]

Just a brief comment on "His Dark Materials":

I don't think it is anti-God, more like anti-organized religion. The church in this series is trying to surpress the truth to keep their power base (and because they don't know what it means.) Also, there is a lot of seeking for God for all the wrong reasons, that in the end could be the end of humanity.

The "God" in this series seems to be something beyond human understanding. I take the meaning of it all to be that we are all a part of God. We also create our own hell as well as heaven.

Take all of this with a grain of salt, because I'm still not sure that I understood the conclusions. I need to reread "The Amber Spyglass" again.

That being said, I think it would be a rather difficult series to make suitible to a general audience, according to Hollywood standards. Lots of bad stuff happens, and I can see them toneing down some elements. Last I heard, Tom Stoppard was hired to write a script. Should be interesting, to say the least.

Now, as for the lack of Fantasy films, it is partially because there haven't been many good ones, and there is a lot of people who find Fantasy "silly". I don't think LotR is changing that perception. There are still plenty that find FotR silly and overwrought. I was hoping for more of a Star Wars reaction, but maybe my hopes were too high...

Jason

 

[Terrell]

There are still plenty that find FotR silly and overwrought. I was hoping for more of a Star Wars reaction, but maybe my hopes were too high...

Let's not open that can. There are people who love and hate both.

As for lack of fantasy, I think it's because fantasy hasn't done well at the box office. That could be because they're poor films, or it could be because fantasy is not a favorite genre. I don't know. But I don't think too many studio are willing to take the risk on fantasy, knowing it's past history. Maybe that will change with the success of LOTR and Harry Potter. But those two films would have made a ton regardless if they're good or bad. They're very well known stories. Many fantasties don't share that same notariety.

 

[Kevin M]

I think Clive Barker's Imagica would make a very interesting "adult" fantasy film....although it would have to be rated NC-17 if it were to be faithful to the novel, and it would cost about as much as the entire LOTR trilogy.