What Is The Last Film You Watched? (Older Films)

[GerateWohl 4,369]

8 minutes ago, Sweeping Strings said:

Am currently reading Heroes, the second book of Stephen Fry's retelling of the Greek myths. The differences in events in the original stories to how they're depicted in COTT is interesting ... for example, Perseus decapitates Medusa with relative ease on the page. None of this 'carefully stalking her through her cave lair' stuff.    

And Perseus didn't ride Pegasus but got shoes with wings from Zeus like Hermes.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,533]

2 hours ago, Sweeping Strings said:

Am currently reading Heroes, the second book of Stephen Fry's retelling of the Greek myths.     

Forget about Fry. He's an idiot.

Read THE MARRIAGE OF CADMUS AND HARMONY, by Roberto Calasso.

[GerateWohl 4,369]

In germany I can recommend the books of Dimitar Inkiow, a Bulgarian writer who retold many of these greek legends. Quite entertaining.

[Tom Guernsey 2,284]

1 hour ago, GerateWohl said:

Same for me recently when I tried to watch Willow again. I had to finish after half an hour.

Lord of the Rings ruined our senses for enjoing such kind of crappy fantasy movies.

 

 

I think you're right... maybe that's why he made the Hobbit movies so bad, so we got back into the habit of enjoying crappy fantasy movies ;-)

38 minutes ago, Sweeping Strings said:

Once saw Clash Of The Titans described 'as a special effects movie - with terrible special effects'  . 

Am currently reading Heroes, the second book of Stephen Fry's retelling of the Greek myths. The differences in events in the original stories to how they're depicted in COTT is interesting ... for example, Perseus decapitates Medusa with relative ease on the page. None of this 'carefully stalking her through her cave lair' stuff.      

Harsh... the effects look dated for the 1980s, but are still enjoyable from an artistry perspective However, I guess Harryhausen's proteges (Dennis Muren etc.) had surpassed him by that point. The Battle of Hoth was fairly game changing for stop motion.

 

On an unrelated note, I highly recommend The Song of Achilles by Madeline Miller which is a retelling of the Iliad. I read it on holiday in Corfu which may have heightened the experience but I still think it was a great novel (and I say that as someone who has a terrible track record with finishing fiction books). Her follow-up, Circe, is equally terrific.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,533]

2 hours ago, GerateWohl said:

Lord of the Rings ruined our senses for enjoying such kind of crappy fantasy movies.

Indeed.

Once one has tasted filet mignon, it's rather hard to go back to cheeseburgers.

[Sweeping Strings 2,361]

2 hours ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

Forget about Fry. He's an idiot.

Read THE MARRIAGE OF CADMUS AND HARMONY, by Roberto Calasso.

Hmm ... I really don't think he is. And I'm quite enjoying it. 

[Glóin the Dark 1,222]

2 hours ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

Forget about Fry. He's an idiot.

 

Why's that?

[Tallguy 3,392]

I still love Clash of the Titans. I never liked Willow much.

 

I'm one of those weirdos that enjoyed Krull.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,533]

1 hour ago, Glóin the Dark said:

Why's that?

Mr. Fry is nowhere near as clever, or as erudite, or as educated, as a lot of people - including, I'm afraid, Mr. Fry - thinks that he is. 

[Glóin the Dark 1,222]

Can you say what reveals him to be an idiot?

[Nick1Ø66 4,717]

13 hours ago, Chen G. said:

 

Interesting. I'd probably put Dragonslayer at the top of that list. I think Conan has tremendous energy, but its also a little antiseptic for me. Excalibur is probably better, but does divolve into hokum here and there, and the decision to tell the whole story, generational leaps included, was not a succesfull one.

 

 

Conan is a flat out great film of any genre. One of the first "fantasy" films designed to look more like history than fantasy (something Dragonslayer does as well to a certain extent in its depiction of Medieval life). A strong script, full of meaning from Oliver Stone & John Milius. And that amazing score. Schwarzanneger was born to play Conan, and Milius wisely keeps his dialogue to a minimum. 

 

Excalibur is beautiful, in some ways brilliant, but tragically flawed. Like Baskhi's Lord of the Rings, it loses its way in the final third, and about the time the Grail quest begins it succumbs to its surrealism a bit much and becomes a bit of a depressing slog. It is, however, an interesting peek into what John Boorman's own Lord of the Rings might have looked liked.

 

Both Conan and Excalibur stand out among fantasy films of the day because they were made by good directors with serious pedigrees who took the subject matter seriously. 

[Naïve Old Fart 9,533]

21 minutes ago, Glóin the Dark said:

Can you say what reveals him to be an idiot?

Maybe "idiot" was harsh. Let's just say that I do not like him, his condescending attitude, or his arrogant ignorance concerning subjects which, if quoted here, would get me punched on the nose, metaphorically speaking.

I am aware that a lot of people respect Mr. Fry, and his work. I am not one of them.

[Sweeping Strings 2,361]

Fair enough. It can be interesting, this sort of thing ... for instance, I adore Billy Connolly. He's not only my favourite ever comedian, he's one of my favourite 'famous people' full stop. 

So naturally I was delighted to discover that a second series of 'Billy Connolly Does ... ' begins on Thursday night on GOLD. But judging by the amount of comments left on the series trailer when it was posted on Facebook referencing an (admittedly ill-advised) crack he made 20 years ago, the feeling is far from universal.  

[Nick1Ø66 4,717]

 

2 hours ago, Sweeping Strings said:

So naturally I was delighted to discover that a second series of 'Billy Connolly Does ... ' begins on Thursday night on GOLD. But judging by the amount of comments left on the series trailer when it was posted on Facebook referencing an (admittedly ill-advised) crack he made 20 years ago, the feeling is far from universal.  

 

What ill-advised crack?

[Sweeping Strings 2,361]

There was a bloke called Ken Bigley being held hostage by terrorists and they kept threatening to execute him. Billy joked on stage one night 'Don't you wish they'd just get on with it?'. 

[Chen G. 3,949]

22 hours ago, GerateWohl said:

Lord of the Rings ruined our senses for enjoing such kind of crappy fantasy movies.

 

See, that's the narrative I've always heard about fantasy movies: that, before Lord of the Rings, they were basically trifles, garbage and box office poison; and when I decided a few years back "lets see what the genre was really up to back in the 1980s", that was the narrative I had in my mind. Having gone through a great many of those films, its...not accurate, to say the least.

 

I think Jackson himself puts it right when he says you can't really name a truly seminal fantasy film the way you can most other genres, but he himself admits that "a couple of films were okay" and, to Ian Nathan, admits that Excalibur for example is an "absolute favourite" of his. Certainly, in terms of box office the genre had some modest success in the form of Excalibur and especially Conan.

 

This is all obviously excluding space-fantasy films or contemporaneous-set movies with fantasy elements a-la Indiana Jones.

[Sweeping Strings 2,361]

The 'box office poison' bit certainly seems to be untrue ... just to run through a few examples, Clash Of The Titans '81 was actually one of that year's biggest hits. The '78 animated Lord Of The Rings turned a profit. The 2 70s Sinbad movies seem to have made money. 

[Nick1Ø66 4,717]

Certainly a minority opinion, but I wouldn't even really call Lord of the Rings the "greatest" fantasy film because I just don't think of it as a fantasy film. At least in the way fantasy films are commonly thought of. I wouldn't compare it to any of the other films we've talked about, nor its post-2000 contemporaries. If I compare it in my own mind to anything, it's to films like Gladiator and Braveheart. 

 

And I think the same about the books. Whenever someone newly finishes LOTR, and I they ask for something similar, you typically hear a lot of recommendations like Wheel of Time or Mistborn or The Stormlight Archive. All of which were clearly influenced by Tolkien and superficially contain many of the same trappings as LOTR, but at the same time are really nothing at all like LOTR. Tolkien created a world so stepped in legend and history that I'm more apt to direct someone to the Poetic Edda than Sword of Shannara if they're looking for a similar feel.

 

Obviously, LOTR is part of the broader fantasy genre and it's not history. But if I made a list of my Top 10 "fantasy" films I wouldn't put LOTR in there any more than I'd put Star Wars in a list of my Top 10 sci-fi films. Comparing LOTR to, say, Eragon is like comparing Star Wars to The Matrix or Blade Runner. 

 

 

[Chen G. 3,949]

I concur.

[Sweeping Strings 2,361]

The Fury - 2 years after Carrie Brian DePalma revisits the 'powers of the mind', but I felt maybe not as effectively. Still, this scored points for the relative oddness of Kirk Douglas as the lead in a movie like this, the score (by some fella called John Williams, lol) and the bravura piece of practical effects work that ends proceedings (Amy Irving making John Cassavetes literally explode).   

[Naïve Old Fart 9,533]

Agreed, Sweep. It's a whole bunch of silly fun, which is all meant to be taken with a very large pinch of salt!

John Williams? He's a comer.

 

[A24 4,335]

20 hours ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

Certainly a minority opinion, but I wouldn't even really call Lord of the Rings the "greatest" fantasy film because I just don't think of it as a fantasy film. At least in the way fantasy films are commonly thought of. I wouldn't compare it to any of the other films we've talked about, nor its post-2000 contemporaries. If I compare it in my own mind to anything, it's to films like Gladiator and Braveheart. 

 

 

I understand that some people are confused about whether Dune is Sci-fi or Fantasy, but Lord Of The Rings has always unquestionably been a work of Fantasy (and not History).

[Naïve Old Fart 9,533]

There are a lot of people who subscribe to the "Middle England/WW2" allegory (which, I believe, Tolkien has always denied), but, yes, it's definitely a fantasy film.

Perhaps we should make a list of fantasy elements of a film, and compare them to the science fiction elements, of a film.

 

 

 

22 minutes ago, AC1 said:

I understand that some people are confused about whether Dune is Sci-fi or Fantasy...

DUNE is science fiction. End of.

[Nick1Ø66 4,717]

6 hours ago, AC1 said:

 

I understand that some people are confused about whether Dune is Sci-fi or Fantasy, but Lord Of The Rings has always unquestionably been a work of Fantasy (and not History).

 

6 hours ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

DUNE is science fiction. End of.

 

You'll find many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our point of view. Some read Lord of the Rings and come away thinking it a simple fantasy; others can read Dune and unlock the secrets of the universe.

 

 

 

[Naïve Old Fart 9,533]

33 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

You'll find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our point of view. Some people can read Lord of the Rings and come away thinking it a simple fantasy simple adventure story

No, that's War And Peace 

 

 

 

 

34 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

...others can read Dune and unlock the secrets of the universe.

No, that's the ingredients on a chewing gum wrapper 

[Tallguy 3,392]

36 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

You'll find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our point of view. Some people can read Lord of the Rings and come away thinking it a simple fantasy; others can read Dune and unlock the secrets of the universe.

 

This is no fantasy. No careless product of a wild imagination. These are matters of undeniable fact!

[Naïve Old Fart 9,533]

40 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

others can read Dune and unlock the secrets of the universe.

Try looking into that place where you dare not look. You'll find me staring back, at you.

I remember your gom jabbar. Now you'll remember mine.

 

 

 

2 minutes ago, Tallguy said:

 

This is no fantasy. No careless product of a wild imagination. These are matters of undeniable fact!

Be warned, @Tallguy. JWfan has already evaluated this outlandish theory of yours.

[Nick1Ø66 4,717]

9 minutes ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

I remember your gom jabbar.

 

Are we going to Addis Abada?

[A24 4,335]

4 hours ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

DUNE is science fiction. End of.

 

That's what a friend of mine says too. His reasoning? It's a different world and it's situated on different planets. However, I'm not satisfied with that. I say it's a Fantasy movie, just like Star Wars. Both are about rebels opposing emperors wanting to seize power. Drop the hocus pocus and giant worms and you can tell the same story set on Earth in the year 1200. The science in Dune and Star Wars is merely there as a flashy backdrop and is rarely credible nor does it make us question the nature of the science and it's effect on the human psyche.

 

 

[Chen G. 3,949]

1 hour ago, AC1 said:

Both are about rebels opposing emperors wanting to seize power.

 

On the whole, I think Star Wars has more in common with A Princess of Mars (now there's a fantasy story if ever there was one) than with Dune. And it has even more in common still with Galactic Patrol.

 

Obviously, those pulpy sources embarras post-1980 George Lucas. For him, the antecdents of Star Wars are all Joseph Campbell and Seven Samurai (bull on both accounts).

[GerateWohl 4,369]

2 hours ago, AC1 said:

 

That's what a friend of mine says too. His reasoning? It's a different world and it's situated on different planets. However, I'm not satisfied with that. I say it's a Fantasy movie, just like Star Wars. Both are about rebels opposing emperors wanting to seize power. Drop the hocus pocus and giant worms and you can tell the same story set on Earth in the year 1200. The science in Dune and Star Wars is merely there as a flashy backdrop and is rarely credible nor does it make us question the nature of the science and it's effect on the human psyche.

The only thing that makes Star Wars fantasy is that supernatural power called The Force. Apart from that it is pure science fiction. And even that was particularly turned into science fiction by the invention of the medichlorians.

[Holko 9,526]

In SW the scifi is purely a window dressing for the classic fantasy story.

[A24 4,335]

Exactly. The science isn't central to the story but a backdrop for a fairy tale about good and evil (just like all other Fantasy stories).

[Marian Schedenig 8,193]

10 hours ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

There are a lot of people who subscribe to the "Middle England/WW2" allegory (which, I believe, Tolkien has always denied)

 

He strictly denied any kind of allegory whatsoever. What he didn't deny (and what I believe he strongly intended) was applicability.

[Chen G. 3,949]

3 hours ago, GerateWohl said:

The only thing that makes Star Wars fantasy is that supernatural power called The Force. Apart from that it is pure science fiction.

 

And wizards...

 

And knights... with capes!

 

And pirates...

 

And swords...

 

And Dark Lords...

 

Its a different kind of fantasy to something like Excalibur - its space fantasy - and it certainly has elements of science fiction to it, and across the series, different entries have a more fantasy flavour while others lean a little bit more towards science fiction elements.

 

But by and large its fantasy, and its not the only of its kind in that genre: again, look at A Princess of Mars (and its adaptation, John Carter) and at Flash Gordon.

[Faleel 5,349]

6 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

 

 

 

 

And pirates...

 

 

 

 

 

 

I didn't  know Captain Phillips was fantasy

[Chen G. 3,949]

The point is that there are all too many Medievalisms and Renascencisms in there: its backwards-looking.

[Nick1Ø66 4,717]

5 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

The point is that there are all too many Medievalisms and Renascencisms in there: its backwards-looking.

 

Well the "A Long Time Ago..." bit should have been a hint.

[Marian Schedenig 8,193]

I wouldn't even say that medievalisms etc. are a necessary ingredient for fantasy, just a common one. The thing is that "science fiction" is too readily applied to anything futuristic (or set in the future), when the term clearly has "science" in it. Being futuristic doesn't make something scifi, and it also doesn't prevent it from being fantasy. Star Wars very clearly seems to fall into the category of futuristic fantasy.

[Jay 37,364]

6 minutes ago, Marian Schedenig said:

Being futuristic doesn't make something scifi

 

Hmm, are you sure about that? 

[Marian Schedenig 8,193]

6 minutes ago, Jay said:

Hmm, are you sure about that? 

 

I'm at least not alone:

 

Quote

According to Isaac Asimov, "Science fiction can be defined as that branch of literature which deals with the reaction of human beings to changes in science and technology." Robert A. Heinlein wrote that "A handy short definition of almost all science fiction might read: realistic speculation about possible future events, based solidly on adequate knowledge of the real world, past and present, and on a thorough understanding of the nature and significance of the scientific method."

(Wikipedia)

 

My point was mainly that just being set in the future doesn't make something scifi, but I guess one could even argue the same way in the other direction that a story can be set in the past and fulfil at least Asimov's definition. For example, throughout the roughly 30 year (real world time) history of Terry Pratchett's Discworld, the peoples in his satire fantasy world have repeatedly developed new technologies like semaphores, the printing press, and the steam engine. And Pratchett very much deals with the societal implications of these technologies. I would certainly classify Discworld as fantasy first (and satire above all), but it's probably still more scifi than Star Wars.

[Bespin 8,483]

When I was young they talked in French about "anticipation" movies (same word in French and English I think), Sci-Fi wasn't invented yet!

[Nick1Ø66 4,717]

Isn't Star Wars usually (and most aptly) called a space opera? 

 

It's also called science fantasy. But so is Dune. And even Star Trek. Though I'd call the latter two science fiction. Though purists wouldn't.

[Bespin 8,483]

[Jay 37,364]

I've spent my life under the assumption that anything set in our future is science fiction. Never heard anyone argue otherwise until now 

[Nick1Ø66 4,717]

4 minutes ago, Jay said:

I've spent my life under the assumption that anything set in our future is science fiction. Never heard anyone argue otherwise until now 

 

Well Terry Brook's epic fantasy Shannara series is set in a post-apocalyptic Earth but features no science or technology and is fantasy in every way we think of fantasy.

[Bespin 8,483]

I think Star Wars happens in the past...

 

[Edmilson 7,457]

10 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

 

Well Terry Brook's epic fantasy Shannara series is set in a post-apocalyptic Earth but features no science or technology and is fantasy in every way we think of fantasy.

That description also applies to Adventure Time.

[A24 4,335]

Spielberg's A.I. is science fiction.

 

Planet Of The Apes is not.

 

Gattaca is science fiction.

 

Independence Day is not.

 

Blade Runner is science fiction.

 

Alien is not.

 

 

 

 

 

Hope this helps ...

[GerateWohl 4,369]

5 hours ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

 

Well Terry Brook's epic fantasy Shannara series is set in a post-apocalyptic Earth but features no science or technology and is fantasy in every way we think of fantasy.

Besides science fiction there is another futuristic genre, that in German is called "Endzeit" movie. It are these dystopic films that more or less started with Mad Max I think, showing earth in future after 3rd world war or just dried out and last humans fighting for resources. Sometimes it is combined with science fiction. But basically this is not science fiction.