Why does every sword & sorcery movie other than LOTR suck?

[CFE]

oooooooooohhhhhhh....

Alright. You had me for a bit, glad to see you're NOT ignorant

No worries.

CFE

 

[sithgoblin]

What's good about Magician is that, like LOTR, it is grounded in historical iconography. The settings in the novels are described as an amalgamation between medieval and renaissance europe.

They still have magic and all that stuff, but it's not way out there like Dungeons and Dragons, or Erragon. And I think that historical iconography is vital in making the content work on screen. That's why LOTR worked, and why other, more fantastical looking films, don't.

 

[Kable24]

Lord of the Rings is boring and lame.

I couldn't agree with you more. They could have easily done all three in one 45 minute movie if they would have edited out the crap.

 

[bullets]

the super ending in return of the king really killed the whole trilogy for me, mainly the homoerotic reunion .
yeesh

 

[TNC9852002]

"suck" is a general, broad and completely relative term. I despise the term only because it's a cheap way to express a negative opinion without any real thought behind it.

With that said, I don't think many other sword and sorcery films can compare themselves to the LOTR trilogy. The sheer length, size, and scope of each film encompasses and spreads across the three films in almost one continuous story. For example, you could only compare Eragon to FOTR.

There's also the issue on whether it is truly the story in Eragon or other sorcery tales that becomes inferior next to the LOTR stories.

-TNC

 

[bullets]

they should of done eragon lotr style

 

[Mr. Socko]

the super ending in return of the king really killed the whole trilogy for me, mainly the homoerotic reunion .
yeesh

The hobbits in the movies did seem partially gay but ironically Peter Jackson omitted the phrase "queer" from the entire trilogy, a word that JRR Tolkein used to describe the hobbits in almost every other page in the book.

 

[Victarion]

well, to be fair, Eragon was ripping off more Star Wars than LotR.

The book takes from a little bit of both, really. Some locations have the same name as places in LOTR, except the name's simply been scrambled.

-Morzan

 

[AhabTheArab]

weak source material? yes.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

I couldn't agree with you more. They could have easily done all three in one 45 minute movie if they would have edited out the crap.

That's the stupidest ****ing thing I've ever read.

 

[Trevor Goodchild]

-Director, writer and actor talent is important of course.
LotR was taken seriously and professionally, Dungeons and Dragons wasn’t particularly well written and the acting was decent at best.
-And the source material would have to be innovative. The whole elves and dwarves business has gotten stale a long time ago in my opinion.
-But my main reason would be that most of the stuff is oriented towards infantile age and the writer director sometimes empathizes on that, regrettably.
Eragon and Narnia to me were baby films, couldn’t stand them and they reminded me of Neverending Story. Though I won’t argue now, if Neverending was bad or not, it was a long time ago since I’ve seen it.
LotR, Princess Bride, Willow and even Harry Potter have naïve and sometimes downright childish themes but they were all made responsibly and smart, to appeal to older viewers.

Here’s for hoping The Golden Compass will be a blast of a film!

 

[Moviefan2k4]

Narnia was a nice soft-core Bible movie...nothing special worth remembering.

In case you weren't aware, J.R.R. Tolkien was a devout Roman Catholic, and although he avoided allegory, it's very easy to spot the Judeo-Christian themes present in his work, both written and cinematic. The same holds true for C.S. Lewis, who grew up as a professed atheist, but accepted Christ later in life, just prior to starting the Narnia Chronicles. The two men were good friends, and both were apparently believers when they penned their famous works. The main difference is that Lewis wrote intentional allegory, while Tolkien preferred applicability.

As for the original queston, not all "sword and sorcery" films suck. A few others I like are the Disney tale "Sword in the Stone", and the original "Highlander".

 

[Superhobo]

In case you weren't aware, J.R.R. Tolkien was a devout Roman Catholic, and although he avoided allegory, it's very easy to spot the Judeo-Christian themes present in his work, both written and cinematic. The same holds true for C.S. Lewis, who grew up as a professed atheist, but accepted Christ later in life, just prior to starting the Narnia Chronicles. The two men were good friends, and both were apparently believers when they penned their famous works. The main difference is that Lewis wrote intentional allegory, while Tolkien preferred applicability.

As for the original queston, not all "sword and sorcery" films suck. A few others I like are the Disney tale "Sword in the Stone", and the original "Highlander".

I like how you've brought god into a discussion about fantasy movies. Will it ever end with you, man? And, while I think the books were good, it's true. The movie version of the Chronicles of Narnia isn't really that special.

 

[Moviefan2k4]

I like how you've brought God into a discussion about fantasy movies. Will it ever end with you, man?

I was simply responding to who mentioned the Bible in their post. Also, asking or expecting a practicing Christian to separate or extract himself from his faith is rather pointless.

 

[Tanin]

I found that LOTR strayed too much from the source material for my taste.

There have been lots of great S&S movies made. But now they all think they have to look like and be like LOTR and fail in trying not to be their own movie anymore.

 

[echostation]

Stardust was an excellent film... best fantasy film since LOTR by far

 

[Trevor Goodchild]

Hmm, btw, tell me more about Stardust.
By the trailer it seemed like a simple Hallmark feature to me.

 

[Lord Blackbolt]

Merlin with Sam Neil was okay. Although the sequel was most definitely not needed like usual.

they made a sequel?

 

[Timstuff]

Stardust was an excellent film... best fantasy film since LOTR by far

In all fairness though, Stardust had more in common with The Princess Bride than it did with LOTR. Not saying that's a bad thing though! Princess Bride is one of my all time favorite movies, and I greatly enjoyed Stardust as well.

 

[Darkly Dexter]

So, you saw Eragon and that's your conclusion?
Eragon is pure crap but there are more movies about swords and sorcery than Eragon and LOTR.

 

[nocomics]

I want another King Arthur movie, when they bomb its not sad, its funny

Well your getting another King Author movie this year, think its call the 'last legion' or something like that.
Agree with one poster they treated LoTr as an epic tale not just some wizardry type movie. I also guess depends on ur take of sword and sorcery. Is it movie with swords and fantasy type magic? or any kindof magic????
Someone posted 'highlander' I personally wouldnt consider it sword and sorcery type movie,ya its has some sword play and people who cant die so to speak..then if thats the case then I think 'Excaliber',and 'conan the barbarian' were good(before u say,its not it had some magic in it,when a guy turns into a snake its magic). Ladyhawk,was decent.
Im curious to see what ppl consider 'sorcery' is. Is it shootin fireballs and turnin'g ppl into 'unnatural things' or just magic in general???

 

[Kable24]

That's the stupidest ****ing thing I've ever read.

Good for you.

 

[terry78]

Because everyone will compare any other movie based in that genre to LOTR and will automatically dismiss it as a ripoff or just sucking.

 

[04nbod]

Merlin with Sam Neil was okay. Although the sequel was most definitely not needed like usual.

i loved that one but i saw it on tv in 2 parts. Was is realeased in theatres in the US?

 

[04nbod]

The hobbits in the movies did seem partially gay but ironically Peter Jackson omitted the phrase "queer" from the entire trilogy, a word that JRR Tolkein used to describe the hobbits in almost every other page in the book.

t: times were different. Back then it meant 'odd'