MovieChat Forums > Willow (1988) Discussion > The only thing I hated was 'the dragon'

The only thing I hated was 'the dragon'

posted 11 years ago by Blueghost
13 replies | jump to latest

As someone on another board reminded me, it wasn't specifically called "a dragon", though it's pretty clear what it was supposed to be.

A double headed Brachiosaur seemed like a very strange selection as a template for a fire-breathing "beast" [dragon].

I didn't like the model, I didn't like how it was animated, I didn't like it's fire breathing, I thought it was oddly shaped, had little personality, but was a necessary evil for the story. Just all in all it didn't look convincing.

I like the movie a great deal. I think it's respectable entertainment, but if I hated ONE thing, it would be that monster / dragon / beast.

My two bits.

[–] averagejoeman2013 11 years ago

True, but even the "dragon" played an important part of the movie. Without it, our heroes would have been slaughtered long before their rescue by Airk and company. Despite the traps set by Madmartigan, he was essentially in the open with a barrel to help protect him from an army on horseback. He spent his arrows and looked like he was ready for his final glorious stand. The dragon not only bought precious time, but further weakened Bavmorda's forces. After their numbers were thinned by more traps, Madmartigan, the dragon, and battle fatigue....reinforcements came and eliminated all but the general.

This event was just another added layer to Bavmorda self-fulfilling the prophecy. Elora didnt directly do a thing to her but it was bringing about the downfall of the evil queen. She had spent all her resources and by the time this battle was over, she only had her garrisoned troops at her castle to protect her.

"Freedom and morality do not go hand in hand. In fact, they are usually devoid of one another."

[–] Blueghost 11 years ago

Ehhhhh......true, but if I had been on the crew I would like to think that I would have had the cajones to point to Vermithrax from "Dragonslayer", and say "Hey! That's a dragon! Not that thing you're sculpting with the two heads..."

Just me.

[–] Blueghost 11 years ago

You know, I also have to add that that sequence, again this was a film aimed at children, seemed to be this really odd mix of Grimm's rift on fairy tales and an ABC Afterschool Special...it had that kind of "schizophrenia" to it in terms of visual story content for that sequence.

You got this baby they're trying to protect all the while allegedly everyone in the castle was "turned to stone" [a thing I didn't get when I first saw the movie]. I mean, okay, the castle is cursed, but how and why, and how do we know those are people who are pictures painted on stone, and not just random drawings. I mean, where's the explanation of them being turned into stone, or the fact that these are actually people who were turned into stone......and how?

That sequence, as you say, was designed to move the story forward, but, well, it was a lousy sequence by and large. I rarely argue for CGI, but that section of the film desperately needed it, as well as either a stunt double or a different leading man for Madmardigan.

OR, better yet, instead of a scaled down model-puppet for the two-headed thingy, how about a life size puppet or robot? I've seen it done at the first few Robot Wars that took place up at Fort Mason. That's how parts of King Kong were done.

I could go on about that sequence, but will refrain...yet again.

p.s. don't try and pull a bait and switch on me again.

[–] averagejoeman2013 11 years ago

"Ehhhhh......true, but if I had been on the crew I would like to think that I would have had the cajones to point to Vermithrax from "Dragonslayer", and say "Hey! That's a dragon! Not that thing you're sculpting with the two heads...""

If it helps, maybe it was because at that point in the movie, Willow's ability as a sorceror were woefully inept. Fin's transformations were botched up considerably and often...so perhaps thats why the dragon turned out so "off".

"p.s. don't try and pull a bait and switch on me again."

Lol.

"Freedom and morality do not go hand in hand. In fact, they are usually devoid of one another."

[–] Blueghost 11 years ago

I'm talking about the visual quality of the things that's inferred as a dragon, not the story. The after thought that Willow was just a dude a in training, and therefore couldn't conjure a "real dragon" doesn't hold water with me.

It was a design choice by the production team probably designed to separate their "dragon" from the rest of traditional dragons, like Malificent's dragon from Sleeping Beauty or Vermithrax from Dragonslayer, and one or two others that are coming to mind.

In retrospect, based on what I know about the psychology of Hollywood (and a lot of Hollywood is geared towards societal mental health), it was done to try and add some "plausibility" to their "dragon"; i.e. since it had a loose resemblance to a sauropod (albeit it a two-headed version), it therefore had some pseudo realism to it.

It was just another nail for the traditional fantasy fan who wanted to see a big dangerous and ferocious looking creature, but instead got this thing that didn't pass muster.

[–] ElizaB27 10 years ago

I understand what you're saying. The dragon was, I guess, not "in touch" with what we expect to see in Hollywood or the thoughts and imagination some people have to make one come to life. But, it certainly was different from the others we have seen from other movies. Ron Howard and crew certainly got that different reaction from you when you saw it. I guess they were trying to get a terrifying, yet quirky, reaction from their targeted audience.
The part that scared me about the dragon was not the dragon itself, but HOW it transformed into itself: from the ugly troll peeling back its skin to the thing it became. That scared me as a child.

"All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us." -Gandalf the Grey

[–] Blueghost 10 years ago

Yeah, I guess that was it.

[–] PreachCaleb 8 years ago

but if I had been on the crew I would like to think that I would have had the cajones to point to Vermithrax from "Dragonslayer", and say "Hey! That's a dragon! Not that thing you're sculpting with the two heads..."

I'm glad you weren't on that crew. The dragon in Willow is unique to the story. If I want to see Vermithrax again, I'll just rewatch Dragonslayer. .

Can't stop the signal.

[–] Blueghost 8 years ago

touche' 

[–] michaelward15 10 years ago

I don't care for this movie much now, but I loved it in '88, but even then I never liked the dragon. I didn't like the design, I didn't like how fake it looked, I didn't like that stabbing its head caused it too explode, I didn't like that it was created by turning a troll into a small whatever it was and putting it in water!

[–] Blueghost 8 years ago

Yeah, I wasn't sold on it either.

[–] abbadon-hades 8 years ago

This is still my favorite movie,and I love almost every aspect of it, except for the "dragon". It's wholly unconvincing. The look of it is bad, but even more so the movement, just as mechanical as a robot would move, with no flow.

Maybe poker's just not your game Ike. I know, let's have a spelling contest.
(Tombstone)

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]