MovieChat Forums > Kull the Conqueror (1997) Discussion > Why does Sword & Sorcery always have to ...

Why does Sword & Sorcery always have to be played for laughs?


It's always done with an almost slapstick comedy feel as if the filmmakers are saying 'Yeah, we know this genre is ridiculous.' Totally ruins the feel. They should make a dead-serious S&S movie with the feel of a historical epic. The original Conan came close, but Arnold acted pretty goofy in that. Solomon Kane was closest to what I am thinking of.

reply

Solomon Kane was pretty damn good, though it did deviate quite a bit from Howard's stories.

reply

The best sword-and-sorcery movies aren't played for laughs at all, "Lord of the Rings" isn't, and "Game of Thrones" had a few laughs because a couple of the characters were very witty, but overall it was serious and dramatic. Fantasy is a genre that plays best when it's taken seriously, and everyone in the film acts as if the fate of the world really is at stake.

However, there was a while there when people who didn't take the genre seriously got the upper hand. It started in the 80s with the "Conan the Barbarian" film and its goofy sequel, and that led to a lot of silly low-budget crap taking over the genre. Which continued into the 80s with "Xena" and its various spinoffs and imitators, of which this was one. And that lasted until "Lord of the Rings" came out, and people realized that taking the genre seriously could make money.

reply

Xena was 1990's..

reply

LOTR is actually Epic Fantasy, which has gotten some serious treatments over the years such as Excalibur. Epic fantasy concerns lofty goals and noble ideals. Sword & Sorcery is the barbarians, blood and wenches variety of fantasy. Epic fantasy would be the fantasy equivalent of a John Ford Western and Sword & Sorcery would be a Sam Peckinpah or Sergio Leone Western.

reply

I think it's just not a terribly popular genre; it's pretty "niche" at the moment, so fans of the form can't find much. Weirdly, it peeked in the '80s with a slew of ersatz Conan pictures with varying success.

To be honest, I didn't find Arnold all that goofy. I don't say he was the highest calibre of actor, but I didn't get the impression he was sending up the material in Conan.

If you're down with taking your S&S in cartoon form (not cartoony), maybe Ralph Bakshi's Fire & Ice? Actually, his version of Lord of the Rings has as much S&S as high fantasy, I think. Another weird alternative S&S would be The Dark Crystal, right? Maybe it's a little light on the "sword" part of the equation, but it's pretty close in terms of vibe. Despite being Jim Henson, it's not a comedy or send-up; it's the real deal.

Dragonslayer took itself seriously.

Personally, I'd call 300 a serious S&S movie, although I can certainly understand where disagreement might exist there.

Other (mostly) serious S&S:
Beowulf (2007)
The Black Cauldron (albeit for kids)
47 Ronin
Willow
Legend

reply