*Another* new name for this project?
Okay, we've gone from "Mirabilis" to "Dragons of Black Roc" and now to "Knights of Bloodsteel". I wish we could get confirmation from someone involved in the production.
When a studio plays the shell game with a project's title, it usually means there is bad press on its tail that they'd like to leave behind. You can bet that other things are changing regularly too, like the script and the whole direction the project is taking.
In other words, it's going to be garbage. I guess Sci Fi...sorry, I mean "Syfy" (which, when you think about it, should be pronounced "siffy", as in "sounds so bad it's iffy") is now into producing content on par with the quality of their new name.
...Now producing...
SciFi has always made nothing but Z-list movies. Hell 95% of the projects are just vehicles for the producers can tap their young starlets
Could be worse! It could be a videogame adaptation directed (= ruined) by Uwe Boll.
shareThe four of you may not like the film because it is SiFantasy rather than SiFiction. True the aautohrs of this film are no J.R. Tolkken, but it is entertainment and true to the genre. Author's often change the name of their finished work based on the story line. I find it rather disturbing that you condemn a film before ever watching it. I just finished watching the first installment of this film and find it a fun film. The acting is rather good and the storyline consistant with most SiFantasy films; small fellowship of hero's facing immenet doom to save a civilization. But then again, isn't that the way it is with all hero/villin films?
shareI agree. I was rather quite surprised at the quality of this film. The CG ain't half bad for a Sci-Fi film. Looks like this was actually meant for the big screen, as its production values (costuming and creature make-up) are quite good. But lack the polish that a big screen movie would need. In other words, it ain't no WETA project. But it's definately better than your typical Saturday night Sci-Fi movie.
In fact, I'd say it's comparable to CW's "Legend of the Seeker". Which I think is quite good as well. With that one you have Bruce Spenxce as the wizard, and in this one you have Christopher Lloyd as the wizard. Both classic actors of the same generation.
I agree. For a SciFi Channel film it actually doesn't suck.
Sure wish they would have ponied up to hire David James Elliot a decent dialect coach. The slipping in and out of a Scottish accent, often from one word to the next, made my ears bleed. :)
Always been a huge fan of Christopher Lloyd. :)
Yeah, I was quite surprised to be watching a Sci-Fi movie and see a CGI dragon that was decent-looking.
share To Dragonus: although, I can and do condemn skydiving minus a parachute without first having to try it, the only reason I'm not watching this movie is that my local cable provider has blacked out SCIFI Channel. And, I can't afford the second little box that would rectify that! However, that doesn't change the fact that some of the channel's past Saturday night originals have been undeniable stinkers, as often as not. One of them, a LOTR-pastiche starring Jason "The Transporter" Stratham, turned out to have been directed by the justly-maligned Uwe Boll! And, that's why I said: "It could have been worse."
To LincolnEcho: I have no local carrier for CW, either. I'll have to wait and see if LOTS has a first-season compilation on DVD.
I like SciFi and SciFant and Sci or Fant, pretty much in any combo: haven't cared much for this though.
Fantasy, unlike SciFi in the last 30 years(the genre, not the channel) has lacked for a consistent thread of quality. Much like the original BSG, where people embraced it because there wasn't much else going at the time (Star Wars had passed and Empire was yet to be). So too with fantasy - we clutch at it if it even attempts to portray more than just a guy with a sword. Wiazrds, dragons, other races...we cling to any trace of the conventions (it's not helped by the fact that there is SOOOO much dross in the written fantasy genre - everyone BADLY borrowing from Tolkien, and padding things out pointlessly into trilogies or moreigies - Sword of Sha-na-nah anyone?). And this is no exception to both the bad treatment of fantasy AND the Curse of the Sci Fi Channel. Sci Fi has a knack for taking either an interesting idea, or interesting talent, applying a basic level of technical quality, then running the "Crap" filter on the whole thing. There seems to be no middle ground - it's the occasional "Lord of the Rings" or Guilliam opus, and everything else is "Hawk the Slayer/Beastmaster the series"
Which is a real shame - I love Christopher Lloyd, just as I loved a number of good people who've done bad movies for Sci Fi (poor Amber Benson!).
God, just heard the challenge "You and me Goblin...no sWords (pronouncing the W), no arrows!"
It hurrtts...
OTOH, SciFi does a halfway decent job with original weekly series - viz. /Eureka/ and /Stargate/. And /Beastmaster/ wasn't a SciFi product.
Randy A Goldberg MD
With weekly series, yes. But, I stand by what I said concerning their Saturday night "original" movies. Tonight's feature is irrefutable proof. BOTTOM FEEDER???
A Grade-Z cross between RETURN TO THE HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL and THE RELIC! And, not even Tom Sizmore's talents could get me to flick back to it, during commercials of "Harper's Island."