xxFelixDCatxx wrote:

Well I mean you had to to know who the characters were! Kinda cool seeing them aged up so fast. The film really holds up over all this time. Those were incredible effects for that old a film

The way Hollywood judges these things the film was not a success, that being as it is the film's also an often overlooked treasure!

It was pretty amazing that they even made a sequel series, that being said, and I agree I've seen much-much worse... The thing is, that those worse series I've seen tend not to have the type of money in their production which this series had. If Willow the series had been done by say NETFLIX, sure the bad writing and the inability to grasp what was great about the movie to translate it to a series might be overlooked. But seriously Willow wasn't even the main character of his own show.

I was extremely disappointed, having watched the movie since childhood, that we barely spent any time with Wil and that the Brownies only show up for like one scene was as frustrating as it was dumb. As for the cast, Amar Chadha-Patel is a fantastic actor who basically had nothing to do and was given terrible dialogue. Tony Revolori really tried but he still felt like he was in a Spider-Man movie and Ruby Cruz just can't act [we all know this] all she does is play herself. Which is fine in some situations. And many a successful actor can spend years making money doing that. Heck, I was fine when she did her thing in Bottoms but here, in a Sword & Sorcery world, it completely breaks the verisimilitude of every scene she appears in. Meanwhile Ellie Bamber is giving it her all, however, she's also acting in an entirely different series altogether.

Mostly everyone else worked and personally I was really impressed at Joanne Whalley, whom I can't help wondering why she was never as big as her romantic lead in the movie, Val Kilmer, because she leaves an impression. But yeah, IMO that's why it didn't succeed. Since, if you do explain the story of the streaming series it sounds pretty decent. It's a shame they couldn't translate it to the small screen in a more enjoyable form for all the production value they invested. But that's just my take!

...This is like me on the wheel of time post. I just cared about the source material too much.

Pretty spot on assessment of all the actors, I very much so agree with Ruby being the lead anchor weighing down the main cast. And I had to look up Joanne Whalley too after watching the first movie because, yeah, she was gorgeous and a good actress.

I hadn't finished the series yet, and I have to agree, we were robbed on the Brownies. I was just watching a VFX interview with Seth Rogan  here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKt18K_Sy0I He talks about how studios tend not to want to use 'older' vfx due to concerns over a show looking dated, and since they're very obviously using rotoscope still to acheive the brownies shots I wonder if that's why we didn't see them. I also wonder if the second brownie was alive IRL.

Tony Revolori really only plays the role of clueless idiot well.

I will also agree that Willow is NOT the main character of the show. That's a dual role with him and the Apprentice, story wise. The entire story to me is a 'passing of the torch' sort of story, and repeatedly with the updated dialogue and story direction it feels like they're trying to emphasize the role of the younger crowd in the story. Still haven't finished it, I'm not giving it top marks either, but I would call it 'good'.

Well I mean you had to to know who the characters were! Kinda cool seeing them aged up so fast. The film really holds up over all this time. Those were incredible effects for that old a film

The way Hollywood judges these things the film was not a success, that being as it is the film's also an often overlooked treasure!

It was pretty amazing that they even made a sequel series, that being said, and I agree I've seen much-much worse... The thing is, that those worse series I've seen tend not to have the type of money in their production which this series had. If Willow the series had been done by say NETFLIX, sure the bad writing and the inability to grasp what was great about the movie to translate it to a series might be overlooked. But seriously Willow wasn't even the main character of his own show.

I was extremely disappointed, having watched the movie since childhood, that we barely spent any time with Wil and that the Brownies only show up for like one scene was as frustrating as it was dumb. As for the cast, Amar Chadha-Patel is a fantastic actor who basically had nothing to do and was given terrible dialogue. Tony Revolori really tried but he still felt like he was in a Spider-Man movie and Ruby Cruz just can't act [we all know this] all she does is play herself. Which is fine in some situations. And many a successful actor can spend years making money doing that. Heck, I was fine when she did her thing in Bottoms but here, in a Sword & Sorcery world, it completely breaks the verisimilitude of every scene she appears in. Meanwhile Ellie Bamber is giving it her all, however, she's also acting in an entirely different series altogether.

Mostly everyone else worked and personally I was really impressed at Joanne Whalley, whom I can't help wondering why she was never as big as her romantic lead in the movie, Val Kilmer, because she leaves an impression. But yeah, IMO that's why it didn't succeed. Since, if you do explain the story of the streaming series it sounds pretty decent. It's a shame they couldn't translate it to the small screen in a more enjoyable form for all the production value they invested. But that's just my take!

xxFelixDCatxx wrote:

I've certainly watched significantly worse than this.

Yes:

lighton wrote:

Finished season 1. It was "okay" - but could have been better!

Respect for watching the 1988 movie.

Well I mean you had to to know who the characters were! Kinda cool seeing them aged up so fast. The film really holds up over all this time. Those were incredible effects for that old a film

I've certainly watched significantly worse than this.

Yes:

Respect for watching the 1988 movie.

So I went ahead and watched the movie (which was great!) and jumped right into the show.

Is this really bad? I mean yes, some of the 2023 sensibilities bleeding through didn't feel wonderful in the story. But overall I thought Willow himself kinda brought the same lighthearted sort of comedic element to what is a decent Fable setting and story.

I'm at episode 5 and I'm liking it so far. I've certainly watched significantly worse than this.

Finished season 1. It was "okay" - but could have been better!

‘Willow’ Is An Abomination
https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2 … omination/

I read only parts of this, but the original movie must have been much better.

The original movie is a TREASURE ... it's got everything!

For years it was one of the only Sword & Sorcery Fantasies which I really liked. I was so into it I even read a few of the 90's novels, they were not good [though in different ways than this new series]. But it's kind of sad they don't exist now because, supposedly, they were plotted out by Lucas himself and billed as a story he wanted to have told.

‘Willow’ Is An Abomination
https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2 … omination/

I read only parts of this, but the original movie must have been much better.

Did I miss something in the plot that explains Elora suddenly being a redhead or did they take a break in their dire magical quest for a spa day?

I took it as an artsy visual hint towards character development that'll be explained either in a following episode or never.

From my perspective, money is the problem... "Art thrives with restrictions," as Nicholas Myers once said.

While I totally agree that money can be a problem, I'm not sure that's the case here. Disney has shown many times that they know how to tell a story, I guess they wanted to try something different here... - and then the mixture didn't work out as expected.

I'm still watching, but I'm pretty sure I'll have forgotten most of it quickly.

At least, for some reason, I've really enjoyed the extensive use of mud flats in the last episode. (Maybe because it hasn't been done before.)

This was sort of their problem in the 70's when they would make movies like Black Hole... a movie I love but objectively it was really just an exercise at making a Disney Star Wars [if only they knew all they had to do was buy it] and it was beautiful and weird but it was just some lazy writer cribbing 20,000 Leagues and setting it in space.

From my perspective, money is the problem... "Art thrives with restrictions," as Nicholas Myers once said. If all you need to do is throw money at it then you'll get the Disney Star Wars movies or the Willow series. But when you have to work harder to build a better story, to get to the place where viewers get carried away into the story, then they will have achieved something. Sadly though Disney may never understand this... and sadly the money they make from all they've been doing will keep them from looking inward, probably for ever or until those methods stop rewarding them with blockbuster paydays!

And to be clear it's not just that money is the problem, it's that (for Disney) money is the solution. It's something that just about every entry in the MCU and Disney's Star Wars is an example of that. I don't argue with the success of many production under those banners, however I will say that almost none of those productions provides a logical story, they for the most part just smoke & mirrors dazzling the viewer into not realizing all they watched was a Jan deBont wet dream... but those tactics are failing here, even the zeppoing Boorman doesn't seem to be working for the series.

Sorry I went off a bit there but it does frustrate me that I have waited my whole life for this series and it's basically Hercules the Legendary Journeys without the fun

mrverene wrote:

No if you were only a little bit disappointed you got the best one ever.

Also was it just me or does Warwick's acting get worse the more facial hair he sports?

Subway is only terrible in America (...so is American A&W, & Burger King, & McDonalds, and....).  Canadian Subway is great, it actually has house sub sauce and fresh produce.  But ya, this series is definitely American Subway.  Very hard pass.  Loved the movie though.

Subway's Great Canadian Club

This is true, it's great here in Aus too.

No if you were only a little bit disappointed you got the best one ever.

Also was it just me or does Warwick's acting get worse the more facial hair he sports?

Subway is only terrible in America (...so is American A&W, & Burger King, & McDonalds, and....).  Canadian Subway is great, it actually has house sub sauce and fresh produce.  But ya, this series is definitely American Subway.  Very hard pass.  Loved the movie though.

Subway's Great Canadian Club