Conference noted::sf

    What is "Willow" about?  Members of the genus Salix?  Is it a fantasy?
    SF?  Pastorale?  Forestry documentary?

    
    To judge from the trailer, and a little "Making of ..." spot I saw on
    The Movie Channel, it would seem to be Sword and Socery schtick.  The
    main character is a dwarf (or "little person", if you prefer) and there
    would seem to be a couple of characters even smaller (about 8-inches or
    so).
    
    							-- Mikey

    I just finished the book (didn't realize when I bought it that it
    was written from the movie and not the other way around).
    
    It's about a wicked queen that rules a land (and is spoiling it
    of course), and a baby with a birthmark is predicted to bring around
    her death.  So of course the wicked queen goes around killing babies,
    and of course the good baby escapes.  I won't tell you anything
    else about it, because I don't want to ruin the story for you. 
    There are brownies and elves in it (the little people mentioned
    in .2), and the main wizzard is from a race of small people (NOT
    a dwarf!).
    
    It wasn't a great book, but I think the movie will be a lot of fun
    for all ages.  Lots of twists and turns in the plot.
    
    Have fun this weekend and see you at the movies!
    
    Jen
    
    P.S.  Did you know there is also a computer game based on Willow?
    It is just coming out too.
    
    
   

    
    
    
    	It was a movie for all ages. A good movie, not a great movie.
    
    

    I saw "Willow" last night and I agree with .4: it was not a great
    movie, but it was a good movie.  One entertainment it provides is
    "spot the sources," for the thing is a patchwork of other stories
    and ideas.  (I realize that sword & sorcery is so thoroughly written
    that any member of the genre must look like it is borrowing from
    other members, but some of Lucas's borrowings are pretty specific.)
    
    The action and special effects are, of course, very good.  The plotting
    is highly traditional, for good or ill (I don't mind it, myself),
    and the dialogue so-so.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

    
    As an aside, this picture got soundly panned by 3 out of 4 TV movie
    critics (only Michael Medved of "Sneak Previews" liked it).  I heard
    that they called some two-headed monster in the movie the "Sisbert"
    after Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert (neither of whom could recommend the
    movie): perhaps that will teach movie folk to take the names of critics
    in vain.  (Not that I give much weight to any critics 8^).
    
    								-- Mikey

    I heard the same rumor about the two-headed monster, but that name
    was either cut from the final version or only a label given it in
    production.  No one names the monster in the course of the movie.
    They just scream and run from it.

The book calls it an Ebersisk.

    who wrote the book, I thought there might be one but I haven't seen
    it in the book store yet.

    
    Jeez, every WaldenBooks in the Worcester area seems to have the
    novelization.  The cover features a fairly bad painting of Willow,
    Madmartigan, and possible Sochsha.
    
    I couldn't tell you who wrote it, as I haven't bought it.  I have
    seen it all over the place, though.

                   
    DFW

Re .9, .10

The novelization of "Willow" is by Wayland Drew, and is published by 
Del Rey books.  The novel has been out for two months, much as "Star Wars"
was released as a novel a couple of months in advance of the movie's
release.

				Andrew

    re:.11
    
    Actually, the novelization of STAR WARS was out six months before
    the movie. I remember reading while eating my piece of Thanksgiving
    pumpkin pie.
    
    As for Wayland Drew, he previously wrote the novelization of
    DRAGONSLAYER, and it's one of only a handful of novelizations
    that are good novels in and of themselves.
    
    --- jerry

    I liked the movie a lot!  At last somebody has done something with
    what amounts to a "traditional fairy tale" (even if it is a "new"
    story) in a live action film!  A believable community of little
    people (think of them as dwarves, hobbits, or something else, if
    you like) with individual characters and a diverse mixture of nice
    and not-so-nice folk.  Magic that works and LOOKS magical.  Landscapes
    that do NOT look like LA!
    
    I think Shelly Duval's Fairy Tale Theatre episodes were pretty good
    for made-for-(pay)-tv, but would I love to see what this crew could do
    with Brothers Grimm, Hans Andersen, or even Nordic Myth!  Technology
    seems to have just about reached fantasy level! at fun!!!
                       
    If you like fantasy, by all means, see Willow!  The visual experience
    alone is worth it!
    
    Sherry

    The only problem with Willow is that most people have already seen
    most of it, at least if they have seen:
    
    Star Wars
    Snow White
    The Hobbit
    Peter Pan
    (read) the Bible        
    various Harrison Ford movies
    etc, etc, etc.
    
    Not a bad movie, but it 'borrowed' from a lot of places.  "Story
    by George Lucas" indeed!
                                
    Willie

    
    As far as I'm concerned, Val Kilmer made the movie.  As others noted,
    the rest of it has all been done before, but some of Kilmer's stuff
    sent me into hysterics.
    
    And James Horner managed to score the movie while only reusing one
    theme he's used before.
    
    DFW

    re: .14
    
    I remeber hearing (way back when) during a Literature class that there
    are a finite number of plots (I forget the number but I recall being
    surprised at how low it was).  Basically every story teller retells one
    of these stories.  How he/she does it is what makes it unique.  Even
    'Star Wars' (one of the ones that was mentioned as having been borrowed
    from) borrowed alot from past works - and Lucas has even admitted it. 

    Usually things 'borrowed' from other stories don't take chunks of
    other things and insert them into the 'new' one without change.
    Some of the graphics were straight out of Disney, I could hear a
    scuba regulator in the background when the evil queen's champion
    was introduced, and there was definately the sound of clashing
    lightsabers when the sorceresses were fighting over the wand...
    
    Willie

    Why does the limited originality bother so many people?  Sword of
    Sha-na-na was an even more direct ripoff of only one source and
    it still has followers!  Yes, Bavmorda (sp??) looks like Maleficent
    (sp??), but how many ways do YOU envision an "evil queen" to look?
    (Then again, I wish somebody would film Vinge's "Snow Queen"...)
    OK, Willow and his people remind one of hobbits, but little people
    prevail in myth and legend the world over, and some of them are
    "homebodies" and some of them are miners.  So what?  There is a
    certain purposeful sameness to fairy tales and myths...consider
    it archetypal, if you like.  It's not necessarily "bad" and using
    established special effects in a different story is no worse than
    using a familiar actor or for a daytime soap star to wear Joan Collins
    latest gown in the next episode of some other show.  Things get
    borrowed...no big deal!  (Is your life completely unique in every
    way from everyone elses'? ) 
    
    People go to see Rambo movies and Friday the umpteenth movies and
    all those other really *rotton* movies and the nits don't get picked.
    Yet make a really credible fantasy film and people see nothing
    but the conceptual sources.  
    
    I hereby assign everyone to read Joseph Campbell's "Hero With a
    Thousand Faces"!!!  (Originality, tra-la!  It's a GOOD movie!)
    
    Harumph!
    
    Sherry
                                                      

    Sherry,
    
    	Sorry, I did mention it was a 'worth seeing', but some of the
    borrowing was a little too blatant for me.  One scene of the evil
    sorceress cackling with glee looked _exactly_ like a scene from
    Snow White, and when the fairy swooped down and kissed Willow on
    the nose I had this incredible sense of deja view [sic].....
    
    Willie

    I'm surprised that no one has mentioned the Brownies.  I thought
    they were hilarious.
    
    Regards,		Keith R>

    Talk about reusing OLD plots, this movie took several ideas from
    the Bible!
    
    1)	Evil ruler killing baby challengers (happened to Christ)
    
    2)	Babe in reeds, floating down river (Moses?)
    
    Tony

    Well, why don't we just look for phallic symbols imbedded in the
    plot while we are at it!!!!
    
    Come on, as was mentioned quite well earlier (note??), many themes
    in both movies and literature often take ideas and concepts from
    other sources.  In fact, one can see the bible in almost anything
    if you look hard enough (and strain things a bit).  Everything from
    A Separate Peace, by John Knowles, to J.R.R Tolkien's The Hobbit
    utilize pieces and fragments from other works.
    
    Indeed, it is the method by which the author creatively uses these
    sources that makes the story good or not.  It is not a question
    of whether the material is pseudo-similar, but if the entire effect
    of the movie is good or bad.  I thought Willow was wonderful, and
    the similarties between the hobbits and the "little people" delighted
    me.
    
    As a final comment, think of times in the past when you have needed
    help, whether it be from a Thesaurus, a play, a piece of code, a
    fellow employee, a fellow student (on a major exam!!), etc.  Everyday,
    everyplace in our lives we are just building our mountains upon
    someone elses hills.  We learn by experience...but where do we get
    that experience --> from others.
    
    The same is true of movies.  You experiment.  You use methods and
    madness that have been used before, and you add more.  You change
    things.  Is it the setting, or is it the plot that needs something
    more??  If you can capture the audience once, is it any indication
    of capturing the audience twice.  
    
    You all talk about seeing the same things twice, but frankly I think
    your complaints would be better spent on things like Croc. Dundee
    II, Rambo III, Friday the Thirteenth part 1000000, etc.  You talk
    about recurring themes; at least one cannot pinpoint these themes
    exactly!!!!   Argh!!!!
    
    It was a great movie, cute, fun, semi-mindless, and a good waste
    of money on a Friday night to take your girlfriend, wife, kids,
    mistress, lover, etcetera to...
    
    Hurumph, double time...
    
    /Sunil

    I saw "Willow" and liked it well enough.  I even rather enjoyed playing
    the game of "spot the source" that it invites.  I certainly don't
    begrudge Lucas or any other storyteller the theft of themes and
    dieas from other works.  As Ursula K. LeGuin said in an essay, any
    vigorous art is a hotbed of theft.
    
    However, I did feel that the borrowings in "Willow" were a little
    heavyhanded.  Not enough to make it a bad movie, but enough to be
    a touch distracting.  I'm not sure what Lucas should have done to
    aneal things better, but I wish it had been done.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

     Let us not forget that Lucas has copied other movies when he does
    his films. C3PO in _STAR WARS_ was a copy of the robot from Fritz 
    Lang's _METROPOLIS_.
     I found _WILLOW_ to be a good entertaining film, not great, just
    entertaining. Which is sometimes hard to find these days.

    I saw a lot a parallels to Star Wars in this movie, at least as
    far a characterizations is concerned. I'll list them. Tell me what
    you think. (The spelling of names may not be correct)
    
    These could be spoilers so...
    
    
    Magic = The Force
    	There was both good and evil uses for it, like the good and
	dark side of the Force.

    Willow = Luke Skywalker
    	Inexperienced hero trying to learn to master magic as Luke was
	learning to use the Force.    

    Good Sorcerress (muskrat, crow, etc) = Obee Wan
    	Old, experienced master of magic, tutor to Willow. Obee Wan
	likewise was Luke's tutor.

    Brownies = R2D2 & C3P0
    	Comic relief, a few useful deeds, like the droids. I thought
	those 2 Brownies looked and acted a lot like Lenny & Squiggy.

    Madmartigan = Han Solo
    	Both were rouges, scoundrels, getting into trouble, etc. Unlikely
	hero and assistant to main hero. Both get the girl in the end.
    
    Sarsha = Princess Leia
    	Female warriors. Romantic interest for the scoundrel character.
	Both were princesses, although on good verses initially bad sides.

    Queen Bavmorda = The Emperor
    	Ultimate evil, master of evil magic, controller of all the bad
	guys.

    Chief Evil Warrior (complete with mask) = Darth Vader
    	Did all the dirty work for the evil queen. Head of armies. Darth
	Vader was likewise the instrument of the Emperor.

    Red-bearded Good Warrior = Chewbacca
    	Friend of the scoundrel character. They both were hairy. :-)

    Good Warriors = The Rebellion
    	Good guys, seemingly outnumbered who were willing to risk their
	lives for the cause of good.
    
    Two headed dragon, Trolls = Snow Beast, Jaba's big monster, etc.
    	Monsters blocking hero's objective. Special effects outlet.
    
    Now, I'm not saying that these parallels are bad. I just thought 
    it was interesting to look at them. I think maybe Lucas is 
    comfortable with this arrangment of characters having done 3 Star 
    Wars movies already. 
    

    Re .25
    
    Also, a lot of those characters are found in a very large number
    of myths and fairy tales.  They're very durable and can stand lots
    of repeated use.
    
    Lest you ever doubted it would happen, there are now "Willow" action
    figures (what we called "dolls" or "toy soldiers" when I was a tot)
    available in the stores.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

    
    	Disclaimer- I have not yet seen this movie, but do intend to
        see it if I can find some $%^$#TIME#$(%#%!
    
    		I see no problems inherent in the 'borrowing' of ideas,
    	plots etc. from other authors/filmakers, whatever. I truly would
    	rather see an OLD plot or character done well, and with true
    	zest, than see a NEW plot done badly. It doesn't matter what
    	sources the person used, how badly they copied. It matters how
    	well they pulled it off and whether there was some redeeming
    	quality to the film. It seems as if everyone's the critic when
    	there's something you see that you can readily identify. My
    	brother hates to watch movies with me, because I keep chuckling
    	to myself when I see something he doesn't. People don't go to
    	plays with me because I worked in a theater for 4 years, and
    	watch the scenery and lights instead of the actors.
    		If we can't enjoy the damn thing and let ourselves go	
    	every now and then-You know, release the macho SF junkie attitude
    	of 'Yeah, no big deal, I've seen it all' then we won't ever
    	have fun. At least at movies. Sorry. Flame Off. Whoops. #$&$%^!.
    
                                		sam(17)
    				                       
    	BTW: That wasn't really directed at anyone in particular. I
    	     realize most of you DID have fun, and said so, but hey,
    	     what the hell.
    
    	     Re .21  You bring up a good point. .22's title punctuates
    		     it. Even the Bible had its sources. Even the Vedas
    		     had their sources. Wellll....maybe not the Vedas.
    			;-)
    	

    I finally saw it the other night. Like Sherry, I liked it a lot,
    and it's of a type of fantasy that I usually don't care much for.
    Perhaps because of the discussion here, I just went with low
    expectations (to be honest, when I went, I was more interested
    in seeing the trailer for WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT? than I was in
    seeing WILLOW). True, it wasn't very original, but I rather see
    it as sort of the quintessential fantasy film.
    
    I thought the whole cast did well (though Sorsha was a bit non-
    descript). Jean Marsh -- who I became very found of from UPSTAIRS,
    DOWNSTAIRS -- makes an excellent villain once again (she was the
    villain in RETURN TO OZ, too). It was nice to see so many "little
    people" actors get some work. Makes me think that a live-action
    LORD OF THE RINGS *could* be done. And, yes, the Brownies did
    remind me of Lenny and Squiggy as well, but I'm pretty sure it
    wasn't the same actors.
    
    Not an outstanding film, but one that's thoroughly enjoyable.
    
    --- jerry

    Re .28:
    
    Actually Jerry, I was curious to know if you'd notice that Mobeius
    was one of the (2) artistic consultants.

    re:.29
    
    Yes, I did, but I didn't think it that significant. He's done the
    same for other movies (ALIEN, for example -- no, I'm not thinking
    of Giger; Moebius did some work on it as well).
    
    --- jerry

Well, I finally saw it... walked in blind not knowing a thing about it...

My opinion?  I didn't really like it.  Too Slow in the beginning and too fast in
the end.  Too many short scenes of slogging_across_the_world_through_
the_wilderness_yet_again.  Too many jumps in scene changes.  Very little
character development except for Willow (even for Willow!).  And the stolen
plot... (censored)

And I'm usually quite easy to please!  I'll probably go see the movie again to
figure out the parts I missed, but that's the reason I'm going, not because I
really liked it.

Sure, the scenes were great, the action was great, but there's more to a
*"good"* movie then that. 

Jim.

    I liked it a lot.  Sure, like everybody has said there's a lot of
    borrowing from other sources.  Some I haven't seen mentioned are the
    appearance of the good witch, which reminded me of a scene from the
    Wizard of Oz, and the trolls, which looked like the mean beasties in
    The March of the Wooden Soldiers.  But the movie was a hell of a lot
    better than some of the "classic" butcheries I've seen (Dune and LoTR
    come immediately to mind).  I'd put it in the same category as Raiders
    of the Lost Ark.  Namely, good clean entertainment.  If you're going
    with a critical eye, maybe you shouldn't bother.  If you just want a
    light evening's worth of entertainment I'd recommend it.
    
    ... Bob

    I went to see Willow this weekend.  I went expecting
    fair-to-middling entertainment, but nothing really
    outstanding.  I didn't think I'd gone with a critical eye,
    but... 

    I won't be recommending this movie to anyone.

    (Spoilers follow.)


    The plot was fair, a reasonably classic fairy-tale sort of
    plot.  It tickled me that the child prophesied to overthrow
    Queen Bavmorda was a girl, not a boy. Since it was a fairy
    tale, I was (almost) willing to overlook Queen Bavmorda's
    lack of sense in rounding up pregnant women so she could kill
    their babies after birth--why not kill the women first?  And
    we *did* get a rationale for this later, when Bavmorda
    implied it wasn't sufficient to merely kill the baby, her
    soul must be destroyed in accordance with a ritual. 

    Mad Maurigan and Princess Sorcia (sorry if I've missed the
    spellings) seemed to have little reason to endanger
    themselves to save Elora Dannon's life/soul.  Oh, yeah, they
    were acting out of the goodness of their hearts--something we
    hadn't seen much of until then. 

    And I almost laughed at the ridiculous scene in Sorcia's
    tent.  Here's a woman who's highly trained in warfare and
    skilled with a sword (witness a later scene with her chopping
    up guards/sorcerers in her mother's tower) waking up to find
    an enemy man crouching over her bed, protesting eternal love.
    Does she kill him and then go looking for whatever he was
    presumably diverting her attention from?  No, she holds a
    knife at his throat and says something brilliant to the
    effect "I'll kill you if you don't leave."  Huh?  Where's the
    warrior princess?  Okay, okay, so she was love-starved, and
    hearing endearments from an unwashed, ragged enemy melted her
    heart.  But for crying out loud, she was a *princess*, and a
    princess is *supposed* to hear suitors spouting inane
    nonsense in the hope of winning her hand.  Love at first
    sight, I guess.  (I noted that Princess Sorcia's first sight
    of Mad Maurigan was in a dress and makeup.) 

    I thought the acting was wooden, particularly Queen
    Bavmorda's, and Willow's didn't impress me much either.  The
    Princess' wasn't too bad, and Maurigan's was also fair.

    The "comic relief" I presume the brownies were intended to
    provide seemed always to be just a little off in timing or
    something. 

    I found it difficult to believe that the good witch Glinda
    (sorry, I don't remember her name in this movie) would give
    away a powerful magical talisman to an untrained sorcerer
    (Willow) so he could do in Bavmorda with it.  Why couldn't
    she do it?  There are all sorts of rationales in most magical
    systems why she couldn't have directly intervened, but why
    didn't we hear one?  I was also surprised, given the sort of
    magical system they seemed to have, that most people--
    including sorcerers--seemed quite willing to tell people
    their true names.  True names are usually handles for
    heavy-duty magic.

    I guess it sounds like I'm picking nits.  But this movie just
    didn't hang together for me; I didn't believe the characters,
    and I was quite simply bored during large parts of the movie.
    If you want to see it, go ahead, plenty of people have seemed
    to enjoy it--but I'd recommend going to the twilight show.

    -- Linda

     Just a piece of trivia. You can skip this if you want.
    
    After seeing Willow I was racking my brains for where I'd seen Val
    Kilmer (Madmartigan) before. The face was so familiar. Then a series 
    of events happen that lead to an answer. He was Tom Cruise's arch 
    rival in the movie Top Gun. He was Iceman. What a difference!

    re:.34
    
    He was also the head genius student in REAL GENIUS.
    
    --- jerry

    re: .34
    
    He was also in TOP SECRET (the comedy by the same 
    people who made AIRPLANE).
    
    Alan S.