Ironic, perhaps--or merely bad coincedence--in that it tends to be one of the more unsucessful genres in its' translation to film. Probably because of people who are not very good readers--assuming that fantasy is merely about knights and dragons and magic spells. The fantasy genre is easily stereotyped, and it is often the visual aspect of this that lends itself to this stereotyping. People assume that when you want to tell a story that involves fantastical locations and denizens, that, like an modern action film, the movie is best serviced by a heavy visual element. Then, when the budget is completely emptied into the visual, the ability to maintain a consistant storyline is severly hampered by the lack of funds to finish a complete shoot and edit. When time is short, the studios will assemble the mismatched images in any order they see fit--which is often no logical order. Often, the time is cut, as well--usually to about 90 minutes, figuring that no one would tolerate a 120 minute "fantasy" film. Then the film is marketed almost solely on its' visual aspects, and aimed at kids.

Usually the only way fantasy is palatable to the movie-going audience is if it is animated. The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Shrek. This adds to the stereotype, associating "fantasy" with the childish. When we do this, it is as if we have lost the ability to see the fantastical, unless it is through the eyes of our children, the innocent. C.S. Lewis knew it. George Lucas knows it.

For those of you reading this longish post rather closely, you will please note that I have also placed a blatantly inflammatory (and untrue) post on the board. Doubtless, this will garner more attention and more response than this post. In a manner, this is my own response to long posts suffering obscurity to the more childish and less challenging aspects of discussion that take place on this board....

Continuing: Interestingly, the less-well recieved sequel to The Neverending Story addressed this rather well, when the father is required to enter the fantasy realm to rescue his son.

Fantasy is best employed in two regards:
1) as Metaphorical Allegory (C.S. Lewis, Tolkien, X-Men, Star Wars).
2) as Satirical Over-Exaggeration. (Lewis Caroll, Brazil, Baron Munchausen, Labyrinth.)

People who assume that Fantasy is simply about Knights slaying Dragons is sorely missing the larger picture. The Dragon can represents a more important aspect of the story than just being a "cool graphic".

Often fantasy requires a comprehensive knowledge of the genre in order to "decipher" the symbols. Even a good understanding of the elements of the psyche, as myths and psychology are rather closely related. To dismiss the fantasy genre is a little too easy. It is a challenging genre, and one that has drawn immense talent from all corners of storytelling, including film composers. Films like Ladyhawke and Legend are berated for having "bad" scores. Return of the Jedi is undervalued because of the presence of...Ewoks? The 13th Warrior bombed because...no one ever read Beowulf?

If we do not ingest our fantasy in one regard, we unconsciously apply it to another. But the fantasy/mytholgic structure is virtually everywhere--Comic Books, Television, Novels, Movies and Movie Scores.

As for Tolkein, I think his comment about the difference between allegory and applicability is well-taken. Allegory implies specific parallels to specific people, places or events, whereas what successful fantasy really does is tap into the wellspring of Human text and experience.

Np: Harry Potter I can't stop playing it!!

Besides, the warp drive and other Trek technologies are rather plausible inventions. The name "tachyon" was even invented by Trek before it became a real scientific term. (There are good books about that subject)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lancelot:
there are no scientific "rules" in Star Wars.

---

....made all the more true in THE PHANTOM MENACE, when Lucas decided (seemingly arbitrarily) that the level of The Force one had was determined by the level of mitochlorians "living" in your body.

So I suppose the only way that "may the Force be with you" is through viral transmission!

Dan

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lancelot:
Well, you'd be half wrong....Star Wars draws less from scientific plausibility than Star Trek--relatively speaking, there are no scientific "rules" in Star Wars.

---

Of course, but I didn't say it would. Basically, I'd call Star Wars basically a fantasy film, but disguised as science fiction.

Star Wars, on the other hand, theorizes another dimension on top of ours -- hyperspace. A proper shift and you can go very far very fast. But there's a catch. Objects in our dimension leave a somehow proportionate "mass shadow" in hyperspace ... so navigating it is very tricky. You can travel at incredible rates of speed, but only from certain locations to certain locations. This is why much of the Star Wars galaxy remains unexplored ... because of a shortage of dependable hyperspace routes. You can't always go directly to where you want to go ... and the further the distance you have to travel, the less likely it is you'll be able to take a straight line.

BTW, Tolkien's "systems" were also highly consistent and detailed, though that detail is rather hidden or not explained at all in his novels. The works published posthumously by his son Christopher, and his own letters, give more insight into this stuff.

Totally Games made the X-Wing Alliance game and are now developing Star Trek Bridge Commander, where you play a Starfleet captain.

Regardless of your examples, I still agree with your above interpretation of fantasy films on the whole, Lancelot. A very interesting and intelligent evaluation.

quote:

---

Originally posted by James:
Does Brazil really qualify as a fantasy film? James

---

Nope. It's almost a documentary, as all other Gilliam's movies - particulary 12 MONKEYS, which is a precise description of what's goin on over the world today and what's going to happen quite soon...