MovieChat Forums > The Shannara Chronicles (2016) Discussion > By Harry Potters sweaty nutsack, this sh...

By Harry Potters sweaty nutsack, this show is abysmal (spoilers)

posted 9 years ago by Macka24
6 replies | jump to latest

As someone who actually read the book this show is based around, I actually think they went out of their way to not follow anything from the book and even make it worse.

THE GOOD

They get the names correct (sort of)

The CGI is pretty good

THE BAD

Apparently 2000+ year old newspaper articles are perfectly preserved

Guns (where does the ammo come from?)

No one over 35 exists in this universe unless they're old and grizzled. People must skip middle age. Even the captain of the homeguard looks like she's 30 at most.

Everyone is a supermodel

Shea Ohmsford dies a drunken bum (in the books he is celebrated)

Trolls wear gas masks (do they have little ones for the babies?)

Slanter is somehow in this story (he's from a later book and never met any of these characters)

The Elven king is killed by his changeling dog in the books, and it's a great scene where he gives it everything to survive. He is a warrior king afterall, here he gets meekly stabbed.

This quasi modern technology some parts seem to have, it was never in the books. They are fully medieval in this period.

Eretria's actress cannot act.

The nutty man in the fortress (not in the book, and what was the point of this entire episode?)

[–] layoneil 9 years ago

the show isn't great or anything but most of your complaints are dumb.

No one over 35 exists in this universe unless they're old and grizzled. People must skip middle age.

no one besides Allanon and Cephalo? the Council Lady also looked to be in her 50s.

and that's generally what happens in medieval worlds when medicine and healthcare is not advanced.

Even the captain of the homeguard looks like she's 30 at most.

except she is older than 30.

Everyone is a supermodel

besides the main character who looks like a goofus.

Shea Ohmsford dies a drunken bum (in the books he is celebrated)

Slanter is somehow in this story (he's from a later book and never met any of these characters)

This quasi modern technology some parts seem to have, it was never in the books. They are fully medieval in this period.

this series is an intro to the universe they want to set the scene. not everything has to follow the books, that doesn't automatically make things terrible.

Trolls wear gas masks (do they have little ones for the babies?)

The Elven king is killed by his changeling dog in the books, and it's a great scene where he gives it everything to survive. He is a warrior king afterall, here he gets meekly stabbed.

budget restrictions probably.

The nutty man in the fortress (not in the book, and what was the point of this entire episode?)

to show that the elves did some shady stuff and aren't completely noble. that's kind of important.

[–] rapadake 9 years ago

lool its not a good show but if this is the only shannarra we are going to get I'll go with it.

After all we went with half dozen terrible Potter movies. Though to be fair fair Potter books are almost as bad as their movies.

[–] Godzilla1981 9 years ago

1. The Harry Potter movies are actually mostly very well done, and fairly accurate to the source material, which is sadly unusual for fantasy/sci-fi adaptations. You disliking Harry Potter, has nothing to do with them not being accurate. If anything, they were incredibly accurate, except for a few points. Even the casting was mostly spot on, which is something else rare for Hollywood.

2. No offense, but this is exactly the attitude too many TV and movie viewers have these days, and it is precisely because of this attitude that absolute crap continues to get made. Because even though so much *beep* these days is awful, like Transformers, or TMNT, or the other endless, pointless sequels and reboots. Yet too many people have that exact "well if this is the best we're going to get, I'll take it", attitude. People still watch or pay for this stuff, it makes money, it succeeds, so Hollywood will go right on happily making crap, because crap obviously sells.

Sorry to go on a rant, but seriously, if viewers displayed better standards and tastes, Hollywood just MIGHT actually be forced to someday improve their output.

[–] rapadake 9 years ago

You must mean that "given the poor source material they are well done" rather than that the movies are good.

I saw the initial Potter movies with both an open mind and an affinity for supernatural/witchcraft/wizardry being a huge fan of the genre. There is no way you can say I disliked it was Harry Potter.

Like the first movie but I wasn't profoundly stupid enough not to notice the poor pacing, abject script and abysmal performances from most of the children. If you cant see that, you've not seen many films yet. I did like some of the adult performances and the effects.

Unfortunately there was little improvement in subsequent movies, and a growing disbelief that no adult wizard was more powerful than Voldy and/or facing off against him. Instead they sent the kids to beat up the most powerful being in the Potter Universe. Utterly and increasingy stupid plot device (which you will no doubt attempt shameless to explain away - NO, just don't, just accept it was Rowling plotshyte).

As each film passed, the opportunities lost for filming a decent boy wizard series grew frustratingly thinner until I'd lost most hope in such a series being made. Although I would say that the final one (Part 2), and my other favourite, Order of the Phoenix, bucked that trend. SO - no, I don't accept your presumptious reply at all.

The "time travel" one wasn't filmed too bad either - unfortunately it was let down by the mother of all dumbshytness plotline that a teacher gave a time travel device to a kid in order to double up in classes, but it didn't occur to teach that it could used against the Big Baddie. DUMB BEYOND BELIEF.

[–] rapadake 9 years ago

if the inevitable forthcoming Harry Potter tv series did turn out like the poorly paced, shytly child-acted, plotholed, I would be disappointed. I don't think you have a point - in fact the reverse is true - its beczuse substandard movies like Deathly Hallows have become a new base standard that standards in tv (and film) can get shackled lower, because filmmakers know that fans accept such low standards as acceptable in the way you appear to do.

[–] anna_saurusrex 8 years ago

Yeah I agree. My biggest gripe with this is how the target audience is so obviously 14 year old girls. They all look like they've just stepped off a catwalk. You've got this Wil Ohmsford fellow who has been living in the country with his uncle but looks so fresh and well-kempt he wouldn't look out of place in some corny boyband video, especially in that scene where he's just there in a pair of boxer shorts and six pack on display (why boxer shorts? it's a fantasy!. Same goes for that Bandon, who was found chained up in some shack by his parents and obviously suffered a life of abuse but by the very next scene he's just some clean generic pretty boy. The writing is also quite poor. The first two episodes had way too much exposition in dialogue. But again, take into account the target audience and it makes sense.