Talk:Fantasy film

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fantasy film article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Older topics

I dispute that "The Green Mile" is not an example of a fantasy film. John Coffey's unique abiliites aside, the film and story as a whole just don't belong in this catagory. If there is no opposition, I will remove it.---Jackel 21:45, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I assume the double negative in the comment above is unintentional.

I've removed the following paragraph from the article, and want to explain why:

"More specifically, the requirements for a fantasy film can be considered to be:

That magic be involved in some significant way.
That a good deal of the film takes place in a setting apart from the ordinary and mundane world. Often, magic defines this setting. An historical setting (especially medieval) can also fulfill this requirement."

These "requirements" seem unnecessarily stringent, since they exclude excelent fantasy films with contemporary settings, such as "The Circus of Dr. Lao" and "The Indian in the Cupbord". Even magic does not seem to me to be a "requirement", unless your definition of magic is very broad. I might agree if you spelled it "magick". - Rick Norwood

"The final Lord of the Rings film, The Return of the King, was the first sci-fi, fantasy, or horror film to win an Oscar for Best Picture." ...Since Return of the King was neither sci-fi, nor horror, I'm having a hard time figuring out why we should consider it the first movie from either of those categories to win Best Picture. You could just as well say "Return of the King was the first sci-fi, fantasy, horror, slapstick buddy comedy, or direct-to-video adult film to win an Oscar for Best Picture." It IS the first fantasy film to win BP. Why not just say THAT?

Becasue sci-fi, fantasy, and horror are closely related genres, and buddy comedies are not closely related to fantasy. Rick Norwood 14:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fairsing edit

Good edit, Fairsing. Rick Norwood 20:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, there's some more to do cleanup-wise but basically the info in the article was solid to begin with. I'll probably put a little more work into the History section. Fairsing 22:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think A.Shetty785 did that.

Rambharos Ahkey

Rambharos Ahkey (talk) 18:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draxiar Edit

Hello, I'm new here but I would like to add to the already comprehensive list of fantasy movies here. "The Mists of Avalon" from 2001. This was made for TV (TNT) and not released in theatres but I feel it is an excellent example of the fantasy genre. Also, "Prince Valiant" from 1954 was actually one of the movies that inspired me as a kid and set me down the path of embracing fantasy. So too was it with "The Vikings". Although it is really more of a historical fiction film, it could also be considered by some to be a fantsy film given the setting and feel.Draxiar 00:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would also potentially add several "made for TV movies" such as Merlin, Jason and the Argonaughts, Joan of Arc, Lephrechaun, Jack, and any other of this kind. Enigmatical 00:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see your bet and raise you two new WP articles! Specifically, I've been annoyed myself that there wasn't any place to put information on fantasy television (unlike, say science fiction TV where there are several articles). So, I've gone ahead and created two new articles:

Fantasy television (currently still a stub)
List of fantasy television programs

The latter "List" article has a heading for miniseries / made for TV movies, so you can properly list them there instead of on the Fantasy film article, which can be kept to the scope of fantasy film. This parallels the structure for Sci-Fi, where the film and TV articles are separate. Enjoy! Fairsing 05:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, Fairsing. Rick Norwood 13:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a wikipedia expert but...

should we merge or separate the lists from Fantasy film and List of Fantasy films? I mean I was racking my head trying to think of all the films they were missing, then I noticed the list link at the bottom, and wondered why we were trying to start a list of movies on this page. Or am I missing some sort of more specific point? Vom 07:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Historically, the article Fantasy film listed only the most important fantasy films, and the article List of fantasy films tried to list all of them. However, as time went on, more and more fantasy films were added to the list here. My inclination is to 1) prune the list here and 2) put at the top of the list a "main article, list of fantasy films" tag. But I don't want to start a big fuss over which films are major and which films are minor. Rick Norwood 12:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vom, you raise a very good point. I think I agree with Rick Norwood. There might indeed be some fuss about which are major and which are minor, but of course this happens all the time in Wikipedia, and the process of generating consensus around this is, well, part of the process. So, I'd agree that many of the films listed here in the 1980s and onwards should be moved to the List article and just the most notable ones kept here. Fairsing 13:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, if there are no objections, I'll move the link of the big list to the beginning of the History section and state that here are only some landmarks. Then I'll start shuffling some off to the other list. That should do the trick I think. Vom 07:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about all that effort being used to expand " List_of_film_lists " with a link in this article to that. That way the amount of redundancy is reduced. We need to develop placement strategies here so that there is not 5 articles on the same topic here.A1Houseboy (talk) 02:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fritz the cat

I don't know this film except how others have described it to me. As far as I've heard, there aren't any fantasy elements in the movie. I guess in the sense that it features talking animals it might be considered that way, but as the article describes that alone doesn't usually qualify a film as fantasy. Otherwise, we'd have to include basically all animated films with talking animals. Thoughts? Fairsing 13:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added Fritz the Cat just in trying to show the fantasy of the seventies, which someone wrote that fantasy was all but missing from the decade, but I was a young lad then and it seemed as if fantasy was all the post-hippy rage, what the red-capped gnome fad, Smurfs, the Book of Faeries, D&D and whatnot. So I rewrote the stuff about saying the 70s really whetted the appetites of the fantasy to come.

BUT - I fully expect most stuff I add to Wikipedia to be edited away by those that know far more that I, and I only added it cos the talking pig movies were on the "Master" List of Fantasy Films. Vom 07:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen Fritz the Cat. Of course, I was stoned at the time, so my opinion may not be objective. Seemed totally realistic non-fantasy to me. Rick Norwood 15:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a little list

I've put back a few films, and added one.

The Black Cauldron isn't that good a film, but it is based on one of the great fantasy series.

The Indian in the Cupbord isn't great, but is an unusual example of contemporary urban fantasy.

Holes is simply a great fantasy film. It isn't the big budget spectacular of others on the list, but its intelligence and originality are exceptional.

Nanny McPhee I have mixed feelings about, but it certainly had some very good parts, as the Bishop said of the egg.

If anyone disagrees, then take off everything mentioned above except Holes and I won't object.

I'm going to do a little pruing myself, now, but if I remove one of your favorites, feel free to put it back. Rick Norwood 15:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with keeping in Black Cauldron for the reason stated. The others I am neutral about, although I am skeptical on Nanny McPhee (haven't seen it, haven't heard much about it being outstanding in any particular way). Fairsing 15:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holes as a fantasy film? I didn't read the book, but I saw the movie once and correct me but nothing fantastic or magical happened, just alot of Macgyver-like far-fetchedness. But feel free to point out any fantasy elements I don't remember. I admit it was commercially successful, which I suppose is sort of what this list is about--the more famous fantasy films.

Also, though nothing magical happened in The 13th Warrior, I think we should slant towards Sword & Sorcery stuff, because that's what most people think of when they hear the word "fantasy," so I'll add it back to the list cos it's a fave, and it has Norse language and was the first decently budgeted swordplay movie to come along in over a decade, at the time. It wasn't successful at the box office, but has since gained a cult following. It's also loosely based on Beowulf (2007 film), another movie coming out soon which I cannot wait to see; though, and I don't want to be snobbish, but I am no Neil Gaiman fan. Vom 17:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holes is the story of a curse, which come true in improbable and surprising ways. It reminds me a lot of the Half Magic series by Edward Eager.

If you really love 13th Warrior, go for it, and see what happens.

Don't like Neil Gaiman! You must be one of a kind! Rick Norwood 19:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Ladyhawke DVD cover.jpg

Image:Ladyhawke DVD cover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raiders?

The release of the historical fantasy Raiders of the Lost Ark in 1981 began a fantasy explosion which continues into the Twenty-first Century. The modern sword and sorcery boom also began at this time with 1982's Conan the Barbarian.

Irrespective of whether you consider it Fantasy in and of itself, I beleive Star Wars is almost universaly accepted as being the source of the boom in fantasy films, rather than Raiders, which would be just another byproduct of said boom. Furthermore, I think very few people traditionaly think of Raiders as a fantasy film, and rather, simply an adventure film or action film. It is set in the real world, and all of the fantastical elements are Judaeo-Christian (and therefore fall within the frame of the Directors actual beliefs) In this respect it is, at most, an adventure film with a 'speculative fantasy' or 'speculative fiction' bent.

Fair use rationale for Image:Poster9.jpg

Image:Poster9.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:LOTRROTKmovie.jpg

Image:LOTRROTKmovie.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:TheWizardofOzDVDcover.jpg

Image:TheWizardofOzDVDcover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 09:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Star wars dvd cover.jpg

Image:Star wars dvd cover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 10:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Ladyhawke DVD cover.jpg

Image:Ladyhawke DVD cover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Conan the barbarian.jpg

The image Image:Conan the barbarian.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

Image:Ladyhawke ver1.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --03:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bambi and Toy Story

According to the article "Bambi, for example, is not fantasy, nor is 1995's Toy Story,"

Um, why not? How are talking animals or talking, animate, sentient toys not fantasy? They both sound pretty supernatural to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Web wonder (talk • contribs) 21:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Link to the "Bibliography of Fantastic Film"

Dear users/participants of Wikipedia

I have recently added links at the Wikipedia horror film, science fiction film and fantasy film pages which refer to the "Bibliography of Fantastic Film", an international bibliography of the secondary literature on fantastic film focusing on horror, science fiction, fantasy and experimental film. The administrator User_talk:Ckatz has deleted these links several times arguing that Wikipedia is not a compilation of links, that a link to the "Bibliography of Fantastic film is advertisement/spam and violates the rules of Wikipedia, and that I am not allowed to promote a site which I'm involved in as an author. A strange argumentation: not the quality of a linked site matters, but the author/contributor. Finally Ckatz commended me to find another editor to set a link to my bibliography. That suits me fine because I think (as I told the administrator previously) that it should be the decision of the Wikipedia users and not of a single person wether a link to a free scholary bibliography on the topic of the related Wikipedia article is relevant or not. So, following the suggestion of Ckatz, I request You, the users of Wikipedia interested in fantastic film, to check out the "Bibliography of Fantastic Film" and decide by yourself wether it is relevant for a Wikipedia link or not. If yes, please feel free to ad a link to my Bibliography by your own. If You want to send me a message You can use the discussion page of my Wiki username User_talk:Athenaion or email directly to Holger.Schnell@gmx.net.

I have copied this text to the discussion site of the horror, science fiction and fantasy articles of the English Wikipedia. You can also find it at my own Athenaion discussion site. Thanks for Your attention.

--Athenaion (talk) 10:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Alice in Wonderland'?

Call me really picky, but I think it's silly to have Burton's 2010 'Alice in Wonderland' as THE example of fantasy films for this article.

1. It is very recent. Smells like marketing to me.
2. It's not a classic, and is thus very non-iconic.
3. It wasn't widely liked.
4. It is not a historically significant piece of filmography.

In its place, I suggest using something older and more universally recognized, such as the 1939 'The Wizard of Oz'. Or even Peter Jackson's "The Fellowship of The Ring".

5176shutt (talk) 16:08, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WorldCat Genres

Hello, I'm working with OCLC, and we are algorithmically generating data about different Genres, like notable Authors, Book, Movies, Subjects, Characters and Places. We have determined that this Wikipedia page has a close affintity to our detected Genere of fantasy-films. It might be useful to look at [1] for more information. Thanks. Maximilianklein (talk) 23:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://web.archive.org/web/20110714222449/http://www.filmsite.org/fantasyfilms.html (content added here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:39, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article gives good explaination about the difficulty of who to define fantasy film. It raises many examples to support the viewpoint. It might be better if adding some estimates and opinions from audiences and may be some critics. And can talk about what influence does this genre of film gives to the society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:5B06:7900:144A:7E4D:4D03:736E (talk) 12:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

fantasy film

This article gives good explaination about the difficulty of who to define fantasy film. It raises many examples to support the viewpoint. It might be better if adding some estimates and opinions from audiences and may be some critics. And can talk about what influence does this genre of film gives to the society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:5B06:7900:144A:7E4D:4D03:736E (talk) 12:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

I've semi-protected this article, because after yet another notification about a link being made to Lists of prehistoric animals I took a look at the edit history and saw basically an entire page of slow(ish) motion edit warring. I have no opinion on the merits of the dispute (I've not even looked at it, and have no intention of doing so) but all parties need to stop reverting and discuss changes. When that is resolved any admin should feel free to remove the protection without consulting me. Thryduulf (talk) 18:49, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's a laundry list of 'Prevalent elements' in the lead. A series of IPs keep growing it longer and longer. It doesn't belong in the lead at all, so I've been removing it. MrOllie (talk) 18:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]