Top film list

atoga · Post by **atoga** » Thu Dec 04, 2003 8:52 pm

Woah, I completely missed out on this discussion.

LOTR / The Hobbit are only really good because they defined the fantasy genre, follow? However, the fantasy genre sucks! All the genre has spawned since its creation has been pithy children's stories, bad dimestore novels and a some fairly boring 'epic novels' which are only epic in their length. Same for fantasy movies. I have yet to read or see a very good, or very entertaining, fantasy story. I probably never will. Fantasy is boring, and average, and it's so full of stupid conventions that it's mundane as well. Kind of defeats the purpose, huh?

The only good fantasy film I can think of (and it's only a pseudo-fantasy): Terry Gilliam's Time Bandits.

Megatron · Post by **Megatron** » Thu Dec 04, 2003 9:53 pm

I liked conan the barbarian. You're also thinking too dnd-like. Most 'sci'-fi is just fantasy.

It'd be nice to see something else other than lotr type of fantasy. Discworld books are good as it doesn't follow cliches, but I'd like to see more stuff besides the same shit. Since when can polished stones contain so much power? BIZARRO AS HELL!

Brother None · Post by **Brother None** » Sat Dec 06, 2003 12:26 am

Heh, fantasy and scifi are fun genres to fuck around with

They're also endless wells of oppertunity, though.

The real oppertunity in these genres is to show how you think the human psyche would react to extreme situations. Situations more extreme than anything that can happen here

Take Day of the Triffids. On the surface, the book is about a lot of plants taking over a world of humans blinded by presumingly their own folly. Below the surface, the book is a study of loneliness and the need for true companionship.

Lord of the Rings never truly realised this potentional any more than Star Wars realised it. They're both just fun fantasy/sci-fi books/movies, nothing more and nothing less, really, just fun. They both may have some deeper meanings, but none that explore this potential

Another example? The original Solyaris. 2001. Even the remake of Solaris.

And that damned book-trilogy about a leper that came into this alternative fantasy world, I can once again not rememebr the name.

Even Conan (both the comics and the movies) did explore this, in its own way.

I'm not saying all books and movies shold explore this potential, but when one does, properly, it's fantastic.

requiem_for_a_starfury · Sat Dec 06, 2003 2:18 am

Kharn wrote:And that damned book-trilogy about a leper that came into this alternative fantasy world, I can once again not rememebr the name.

Stephen Donaldson's The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant? There were 6 books in total.

Grey Fil · Post by **Grey Fil** » Sat Dec 06, 2003 9:59 am

What Kharny said.

The big thing about fantasy and sci-fi is that they allow the creation of unique situations, incredible "what-ifÃƒâ€šÃ‚Â´s" that allow the exploration of the human mind.

In that area most sci-fi and fantasy books fall short. LOTR also. But a book can also be good IMO if it has a story that can affect our emotions. A great book would do both. Many sci-fi and fantasy books dont have any of those ingredients and compare in quality with the love stories my younger sister used to read when she was a teen. They just fill empty hours with nothing to do.

atoga · Post by **atoga** » Sat Dec 06, 2003 5:49 pm

Any other genre can do just the same. People are always saying how 'smart people like scifi and fantasy because of how crazy it can get,' but I find that fantasy and scifi books tend to just be preachy versions of already done stories. Give me a book set in the real world any day.

If fantasy is so good, do any of you have some good reccomendations? (Books or movies)

Grey Fil · Post by **Grey Fil** » Sun Dec 07, 2003 3:01 am

IÃƒâ€šÃ‚Â´m not much into fantasy but I would suggest the "Earthsea" trilogy by Joan D. Vinge. Best fantasy I have ever read. It has dragons, wizards and all the traditional stuff but it is the story of a man, his learning and his struggles.

Mandalorian FaLLouT GoD · Sun Dec 07, 2003 3:27 am

earthsea is bullshit.
Tad Williams Memory, Sorrow and Thorn series was much better.

i liked the old school Amber series too.
it makes for an interesting read because it takes place in many time frames but it revolves around a sort of magical/godlike creatures.

Grey Fil · Post by **Grey Fil** » Sun Dec 07, 2003 3:33 am

earthsea is bullshit.

If you say so...

Franz Schubert · Post by **Franz Schubert** » Sun Dec 07, 2003 7:07 pm

atoga wrote:However, the fantasy genre sucks! All the genre has spawned since its creation has been pithy children's stories, bad dimestore novels and a some fairly boring 'epic novels' which are only epic in their length. Same for fantasy movies. I have yet to read or see a very good, or very entertaining, fantasy story. I probably never will. Fantasy is boring, and average, and it's so full of stupid conventions that it's mundane as well. Kind of defeats the purpose, huh?

I fully agree with you on the fantasy movies part, but until you read Dragonlance don't make blanket statements about the novel genre! Or, if you want something even more hardcore than Dragonlance, read The Death Gate Cycle. Sadly, it's only seven books, but they are 500-700 pages each so it's not too short.

Dragonlance, however, is a huge saga of 100+ books, though you definitely don't want to read all of them. Make sure the first Dragonlance books you read is the Chronicles Trilogy, because it's the first and the best.

Dragonlance is now being published by Wizards of the Coast, which as you all know also publishes things like Forgotten Realms, Dungeons and Dragons, Greyhawk, etc. But Dragonlance is in a much different and more hardcore and more realistic vein than all of those.

Brother None · Post by **Brother None** » Sun Dec 07, 2003 9:06 pm

requiem_for_a_starfury wrote:
Kharn wrote:And that damned book-trilogy about a leper that came into this alternative fantasy world, I can once again not rememebr the name.
Stephen Donaldson's The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant? There were 6 books in total.

There we go! I keep forgetting.

6? Huh.

atoga wrote:Any other genre can do just the same. People are always saying how 'smart people like scifi and fantasy because of how crazy it can get,' but I find that fantasy and scifi books tend to just be preachy versions of already done stories. Give me a book set in the real world any day.

Other genres can not do the same.

Take Solyaris, where people are haunted by spectres of their past, beings made of flesh and blood, beings actually aware that they only exist because of the real people and are formed only from the memories the humans have.

How would you do that in any other genre?

Megatron · Post by **Megatron** » Sun Dec 07, 2003 9:29 pm

Kharn wrote:
atoga wrote:Any other genre can do just the same. People are always saying how 'smart people like scifi and fantasy because of how crazy it can get,' but I find that fantasy and scifi books tend to just be preachy versions of already done stories. Give me a book set in the real world any day.
Other genres can not do the same.

Take Solyaris, where people are haunted by spectres of their past, beings made of flesh and blood, beings actually aware that they only exist because of the real people and are formed only from the memories the humans have.

How would you do that in any other genre?

magic
drugs
metaphors
dreams
zombies
ex-girlfriends

ez

atoga · Post by **atoga** » Mon Dec 08, 2003 1:34 am

Dragonlance sucks - it's still more of the same lame-ass high fantasy. The only D&D world I like is Planescape, and that's because it's so wacky and unpredictable, but there are no Planescape books - and if there were any, they'd probably be terrible.

Kharn wrote:How would you do that in any other genre?

The subject matter differs - I'm talking about the content of the story. The stuff you mentioned didn't sound that interesting - and I'm pretty sure some acid trip wackiness (Megatron's description) could accomplish the same thing.

Spazmo · Post by **Spazmo** » Mon Dec 08, 2003 4:08 am

Regarding Planescape: Being the only really cool D&D setting, WOTC (naturally) canned it. Also, there is a Planescape novel, based on Torment. I imagine it's pretty rank.

As for Dragonlance... it's good for fantasy, but it seems to me the whole balance spiel is messed up. The evil goddess is always trying her hardest to do evil and thereby break the balance. Therefore, to maintain said balance, the opposing good god should be doing everything possible to do good and balance out the zealous evil. Instead, the good gods only try to maintain the balance, effectively making them neutral. So if evil is evil and good is neutral, isn't the balance borked? Just doesn't make sense. It would have been better if good and evil were just trying to achieve their own goals and the main characters would be working for the neutral gods to maintain the balance.

But besides that, the whole "COSMIC BALANCE!" thing is pretty tired anyhow.

Kashluk · Post by **Kashluk** » Mon Dec 08, 2003 9:25 am

Planescape rocks on every level...

... but I also remember reading the whole Belgarion / Mandalorian (or something) series by David Eddings when I was a kid. 12 or some books? I can't really member. They seemed real cool, but it could just be that I had not been introduced to fantasy genre before that.

Brother None · Post by **Brother None** » Mon Dec 08, 2003 2:03 pm

atoga wrote:
Kharn wrote:How would you do that in any other genre?
The subject matter differs - I'm talking about the content of the story. The stuff you mentioned didn't sound that interesting - and I'm pretty sure some acid trip wackiness (Megatron's description) could accomplish the same thing.

Of course the stuff I mentioned didn't sound interesting, it's pretty difficult subject matter.

Acid trip wackiness usually also entails irrationality and the like, SF and fantasy doesn't necessarily do this. Trip stories have a whole other potential for self-contemplation, which overlaps with SF/fantasy, but doesn't completely encompass it.

Also, what you and Meggy are describing is twisting a real-world genre completely beyond recognition just so you don't have to use SF or fantasy to create the extreme situation? Isn't that a bit pointless? SF and fantasy are there, why not use their potential? Why twist and bend normal genres while you can just as easily use SF or fantasy, and it will probably end up being better in those genres, as it makes more sense.

SF and fantasy both also have a huge potential for being pointless, boring and stupid, and this potential is often explored, to it's detriment.

However, it also has a potential to be as intelligent as any book from the "normal genre". You seem to think SF/fantasy intelligent books are stupid just because they're SF or Fantasy books. This makes no sense. Sure, explorations of the human mind by Dickens, Dostojewski, Tolstoy or Doolaard are excellent, but is that a reason to hate it when other writers use SF or fantasy setting to explore the human mind in alternative ways?

Mandalorian FaLLouT GoD · Mon Dec 08, 2003 4:34 pm

atoga wrote:Dragonlance sucks - it's still more of the same lame-ass high fantasy. The only D&D world I like is Planescape, and that's because it's so wacky and unpredictable, but there are no Planescape books - and if there were any, they'd probably be terrible.

atoga has a point. all the dragonlance novels are the goddamn same story.
"STOP THE DARK QUEEN FROM STEALING ALL THE BAGELS WITH THE EXACT SAME PARTY SETUP OF DIFFERENT PEOPLE PER BOOK"

im tired of every fantasy novel creating a party of a warrior, clerk/priest, magician and possibly some other useless class like a bard.

id rather just see a fighter wander around killing everything and kick the whole books ass in 3 pages.

atoga · Post by **atoga** » Mon Dec 08, 2003 6:45 pm

Kharn wrote:However, it also has a potential to be as intelligent as any book from the "normal genre". You seem to think SF/fantasy intelligent books are stupid just because they're SF or Fantasy books. This makes no sense. Sure, explorations of the human mind by Dickens, Dostojewski, Tolstoy or Doolaard are excellent, but is that a reason to hate it when other writers use SF or fantasy setting to explore the human mind in alternative ways?

Not really; I say that because I haven't read any good ones - and there don't seem to be any with the stuff I mentioned.

S4ur0n27 · Post by **S4ur0n27** » Mon Dec 08, 2003 7:51 pm

Tigana, by Guy Gavriel Kays, was pretty good.

Franz Schubert · Post by **Franz Schubert** » Mon Dec 08, 2003 7:57 pm

Spazmo wrote:As for Dragonlance... it's good for fantasy, but it seems to me the whole balance spiel is messed up. The evil goddess is always trying her hardest to do evil and thereby break the balance. Therefore, to maintain said balance, the opposing good god should be doing everything possible to do good and balance out the zealous evil. Instead, the good gods only try to maintain the balance, effectively making them neutral. So if evil is evil and good is neutral, isn't the balance borked? Just doesn't make sense. It would have been better if good and evil were just trying to achieve their own goals and the main characters would be working for the neutral gods to maintain the balance.

In the "core" storyline, by Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman, they finally explain it in the third book of the third trilogy. It has do do with Chaos, gods more powerful than him, and the actual creator of Krynn and the gods.

Spazmo: Which Dragonlance novels did you read?

atoga wrote:Dragonlance sucks

Since you said that, I just hope you actually read the Chronicles. If you really did read the Chronicles and still didn't like it, I suggest you try reading the first book of the Death Gate Cycle, which I think you will like.