MovieChat Forums > Warlock: The Armageddon (1993) Discussion > Do you think they are the same warlock

Do you think they are the same warlock

posted 19 years ago by eggamus
9 replies | jump to latest

Do you think the Warlock in Warlock and Warlock the armageddon are the same guy. Personally I dont because the warlock in Armageddon is more powerful and more like a supernatural being and has differant weaknesses (Like hes not hurt by salt or having nails hammered into his footprints but can be harmed by sticking a quill in a leaf)and in Armageddon it says he has the chance to be born every 600 or 700 years so how could he have lived in the 17th century if he was born in the late 20th century in Armageddon.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] stevencarnes54 18 years ago

Actually if you paid attention to the first movie you would figure this out. Sorry that sounded kind of jerkish.

Anyway, in the first movie when the Warlock speaks to the Devil through the fake fortune teller lady, the Devil told him that if he were able to retreive the 3 parts of the Grand Grimoire then he would become the son of Satan.

So.....

In this movie he is the Son Of Satan because he did what the Devil asked of him. Besides, this is a fictional world where time travel was possible in the first movie, who was to say that he could not be reborn (after he dies in the first movie) in some past time for his first chance at bringing his father, Satan, to earth?

[–] SonOfTheDark 18 years ago

In the first movie Julian Sands played just a witchmaster, who made a deal with satan to become his son. In the sequel its his son, who looks the same, because Sands came back of course ;)

[–] hbrackett 16 years ago

I just tend to ignore the first movie.

[–] bladou20 16 years ago

That is what the producers, and screenwriter did as well. One of the only people who saw this as a sequel was Julian Sands.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] eggamus 13 years ago

If the warlock took he birth stone that would mean that the warlock would have to give birth to himself. Plus it says he can be born every 6 or 700 years so if they continued it from the 2nd film it would have to be set in the 27th century or something

[–] bladou20 13 years ago

This was discussed on the Warlock board a while back. The people who thought it was a sequel made some of the same arguments you made along with the fact that David Twohy was credited as a writer.
These arguments matter very little when faced with one simple fact, The Warlock knew gods name at the end of the first film. All he would have to do is say it in reverse at the beginning of this film. No movie, no sequel.
Arguing that Twohy was credited only proves that they are the same Warlock, not that the films follow one another. Bob Kane was credited as the creator of Batman in every Batman film ever made, but the Dark Knight is surely not set in the same universe as Tim Burton's Batman.
So yes, the Warlock is the same. The producers wanted to make another movie and could not figure out a way to do it. Thus, Warlock the Armageddon is a reboot of sorts.

[–] peculiar-1 8 years ago

From wikipedia:
A sequel was made in 1993 and titled Warlock: The Armageddon, again starring Julian Sands. Although Sands portrayed the same character, there was no other through-line. "Our film is a totally different story from the original Warlock," commented director Anthony Hickox. "It's as though the original film didn't happen."