WoT not getting love

[Scarloc99]

On 6/19/2023 at 1:45 PM, CaddySedai said:

 

So two properties managed to break into mainstream?

 

That sounds like a niche genre to me. 

 

Or are you implying every other fantasy adaptation ever has been terrible?

I mean it doesn't have a great track record for good product, mainly because until only recent years was CGI able to be good enough to create good fantasy. Sci FI was easy, make some model starships and have people move them around like they are in space. Making a dragon, magic etc look real is much harder. 

[Scarloc99]

Is no one going to mention the Witcher :). A fantasy series that has no real connection to the books anymore has driven large parts of the fandom to real hate, and yet, as someone who has never played the games or watched the books, was a pretty enjoyable experience.

The fact is that Fantasy is hard to do well, harder I would say then any other genre. People have been doing sci fi well now since 1968 when 2001 was made. Fantasy really only hit it's stride properly as a main stream movie experience when LOTR came out, since then there have been efforts to create fantasy properties but for some reason people find it easier to connect to a Sci Fi movie then they do a fantasy one. Look at the Nolan Verse, Avatar, Alien, Films like the Martian etc. 

The thing is that these great sci fi movies are not really sci fi movies, Starwars was a western, Alien is a horror. When Sci FI does well in the mainstream it is usually because the story around the world is compelling and well told and the fact it is "in space" is separate to that. 

The main issue is that Fantasy movies generally wear the fantasy badge on there sleeve, they don't have that cross genre appeal baked in. Van Helsing, Solomon Kane, Conan the Barbarian, Highlander are examples of fantasy movies that did well but where not just a fantasy movie. 

[DojoToad]

1 hour ago, Sir_Charrid said:

One thing to remember about these articles is that they are made to happen by whatever it is she is promoting at the time this might include that company paying the publication in some way to get the mention. So I imagine whichever production company/studio worked on all those programmes is possibly linked to this story being published. 

Also, this is an article attacking someone Amazon may have clauses in Pikes contract that state she can't throw shade in there name so there may be a very specific reason they are not mentioned. 

Could be.  I was more surprised than mad.  I just don't know how the industry works.

[Elglin]

Well, the heyday of sci-fi started no later than Jules Verne, which was way earlier than the heyday of fantasy, which we would count from Howard or Tolkien. I can't really state the seminal sci-fi movie, but it happened no later than "2001" in 1968. The seminal fantasy movie is definitely LOTR. You could then think of Game of Thrones as the fantasy equivalent of Babylon 5.

One other issue with fantasy is that it can sometimes border good old-fashioned historical romance. Where do we put all the multiple Arthurian films, for instance? Arthur aside, there've been quite a few good original fantasy movies (Dragonheart) or adaptations (All the three Pratchett live-action films - and Pterry isn't an author easy to adapt to the screen).

A yet another issue was that LOTR was too good, as well as at least the first half of GoT. Twenty and ten years counting, respectively, and the industry hasn't produced anything you could put on the same shelf. It's almost same as with the "Quest for Fire", which opened - and, at the same time, closed - the genre of serious pre-historic film, being an extremely tough act to follow.

Summing it up: the genre is, indeed, way younger than sci-fi and had hence less time to develop; the seminal film and show were so good that they actively discouraged following suit, as you'd pale in comparison - and, last but not the least, there are good fantasy films/series/adaptations, but they are not mainstream. However, seeing the sorry state of mainstream cinema these days, I wonder whether that's a blessing rather than a curse.

[Scarloc99]

11 hours ago, Elglin said:

Well, the heyday of sci-fi started no later than Jules Verne, which was way earlier than the heyday of fantasy, which we would count from Howard or Tolkien. I can't really state the seminal sci-fi movie, but it happened no later than "2001" in 1968. The seminal fantasy movie is definitely LOTR. You could then think of Game of Thrones as the fantasy equivalent of Babylon 5.

One other issue with fantasy is that it can sometimes border good old-fashioned historical romance. Where do we put all the multiple Arthurian films, for instance? Arthur aside, there've been quite a few good original fantasy movies (Dragonheart) or adaptations (All the three Pratchett live-action films - and Pterry isn't an author easy to adapt to the screen).

A yet another issue was that LOTR was too good, as well as at least the first half of GoT. Twenty and ten years counting, respectively, and the industry hasn't produced anything you could put on the same shelf. It's almost same as with the "Quest for Fire", which opened - and, at the same time, closed - the genre of serious pre-historic film, being an extremely tough act to follow.

Summing it up: the genre is, indeed, way younger than sci-fi and had hence less time to develop; the seminal film and show were so good that they actively discouraged following suit, as you'd pale in comparison - and, last but not the least, there are good fantasy films/series/adaptations, but they are not mainstream. However, seeing the sorry state of mainstream cinema these days, I wonder whether that's a blessing rather than a curse.

Sorry equating Game of Thrones to babylon 5, one had a clearly thought through arc a clearly planned end point and storylines and foreshadowing that all got seen through to a satisfactory conclusion. The other had a few dragons 😉 

But no I agree Sci Fi has had that much longer to become an accepted medium for agnostic film goers to pay money to see. But it also has become a medium in which other stories are told. Passengers for instance, a love story set in space. The Martian, a movie about survival. Both of these stories could have worked equally well without the sci fi elements. Fantasy writing has not yet reached a point where someone can create a genre of story and put it in a fantasy setting, mainly because you need to do all that world building. I will say that Bright showed that you can take that kind of approach with fantasy, but, it is always easier when the world is based on our own and not something really fantastical. 

[Lightfriendsocialmistress]

Just consider the description of the genre. If you put science in front of fiction, or the word historical in front of fiction, it inherently provides some merit by using terms that convey mainstream legitimacy. On the other hand, fantasy implies exactly that, and many people hear “fantasy” and automatically dismiss any possibility of finding intelligent, compelling, mature, meaningful themes. I guess my point if there is one is that mainstream appeal for a genre titled fantasy may be at a disadvantage from the start. 

[Elder_Haman]

2 hours ago, Lightfriendsocialmistress said:

Just consider the description of the genre. If you put science in front of fiction, or the word historical in front of fiction, it inherently provides some merit by using terms that convey mainstream legitimacy. On the other hand, fantasy implies exactly that, and many people hear “fantasy” and automatically dismiss any possibility of finding intelligent, compelling, mature, meaningful themes. I guess my point if there is one is that mainstream appeal for a genre titled fantasy may be at a disadvantage from the start. 

This is absolutely true. Some people just can't suspend disbelief enough to enjoy fantasy and find fantasy fiction to be silly and trivial. My father-in-law is like that. 

 

I think what these people miss is how much fantasy allows so much latitude to really explore deep philosophical topics about the nature of humanity and power and love and sacrifice.

[Ralph]

5 hours ago, Lightfriendsocialmistress said:

Just consider the description of the genre. If you put science in front of fiction, or the word historical in front of fiction, it inherently provides some merit by using terms that convey mainstream legitimacy. On the other hand, fantasy implies exactly that, and many people hear “fantasy” and automatically dismiss any possibility of finding intelligent, compelling, mature, meaningful themes. I guess my point if there is one is that mainstream appeal for a genre titled fantasy may be at a disadvantage from the start. 

 

should be called fantastic fiction? 

[Lightfriendsocialmistress]

16 hours ago, Ralph said:

should be called fantastic fiction?

Hahaha yes! Who is in charge of the letter writing campaign for a name change? 😂