Talk:Willow (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Film Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the priority scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.
Additional Information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no

Contents 1 Based on a Novel? 2 April Fools 3 Uncited claim 4 Fair use rationale for Image:WillowDVDcover.jpeg 5 Plot 6 Fair use rationale for Image:Willow movie.jpg 7 More resources?

[edit] Based on a Novel?

Back when this came out I saw the book that it was based on in the library at North Pole, Alaska. The Novel existed well before the movie and contained many things missing in the movie (more than most movies based on books cut out, which is saying a lot). I also read about the movie before it was released in Comic Scene were it was also stated it was based on a book by George Lucas.

I remember seeing scenes depicted in the Comic Scene magazine that did not make it into the film such as a fight with a giant sea serpant (a humanoid/shark/dinosaur) in the sea. There were many beasts and monsters that looked nothing like the artist's character designs or what was depicted in the book. Instead of frightening beasts you got big dogs with rugs on them.

Much of the character designs were based on art by Jean Giraud (AKA Moebius). Also the character designs greatly strayed from those intended by Jean Giraud (Moebius) and Christos Achilleos. If the makers of the film had not strayed so far from these artists designs I have no doubt the movie actually would have been a commercial success instead of a wannabe Lord of the Rings type thing. Apparently, Ron Howard felt the designs looked to "foreign".

So, my question is..

Was the book released before the movie just as Star Wars was released as a novel a year before the movie? Or did the book exist independantly for a time before anyone even thought of making a book out of it?

[edit] April Fools

What's up with the official Star Wars site mentioning that Willow Ufgood's world is part of the Star Wars Universe, even going so far as saying that the character played by Warwick Davis, seen in The Phantom Menace, is Willow himself?

As i said, the date is rather relevant to this particular revelation. WookMuff 03:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

And I certainly HOPE so. Would go a long way towards ruining it...associating those filthy midichlorians that ruined the Force with Willow.. ;D

This is a terribly un-Wikipedia-style article. It includes some very non-NPOV sections. For instance:

• What is your citation for the opening assertion: "The story is known as Lucas' attempt to imitate Tolkien"? Even if you can find one, that's not a valid way to open an article about this film.
• "The music in the film was composed by James Horner, in what is considered to be a very strong musical score." Considered by who? Citation, please.
• "This may have been due to the previews, which were badly designed and vague." Citation needed.
• "...is now considered one of the best made films of its genre." By who? Citation.
• The entire trivia section needs citations.

These opinions at least need to be clearly labeled in the text as the personal point of view of whatever critic opined them. Wikipedia is a place for neutral articles, not movie reviews. Applejuicefool 19:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uncited claim

I've removed the following uncited claim from the section about the spin-off books:

"These stories were originally to be made into films themselves, but following the unsatisfactory box office performance of the film, the stories were instead turned into novels."

Aside from the fact that they were co-written with Chris Claremont in the mid-90s (which precludes any notion that Lucas already had the stories on hand), there's simply no evidence of Lucasfilm ever working on even preliminary storyboards or scripts in the 1980s. Kafziel 14:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

You are correct. Moreover, the story was intended to continue and not in the way the novels suggest as can be seen in these early character sketches for a proposed cartoon spin-off shortly after the film came out: http://www.lepconnie.com/willow/art/art4.html Gnrlotto 03:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Dudes, we're talking about George Lucas. He tends to pull stories out of his derry-aire in every interview. When Star Wars first came out in 1977, there was no "New Hope", no "Episode IV", it was just Star Wars. I was there, I saw it in theaters about 12 times that year. Also, over the years, I have seen and read Lucas interviews in which basic elements of the Star Wars 'backstory' changes each time he tells it... rather like Tolkien's "the story grew in the telling." I literally laughed out loud when I read that Lucas later said he had written a huge whole "prestory" for Willow. The man is so full of flannel. Oh, he's imaginative and a good director, but take any of his grandious and ever changing stories of how he came to his creations with a grain and a handful of salt. Yanqui9 01:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:WillowDVDcover.jpeg

Image:WillowDVDcover.jpeg 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 12:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plot

This article actually had two plot sections. One, labelled "Synopsis", is brief and readable though not quite as complete as one might wish (but this can be remedied). The second, labelled "Plot", was over 2200 words in size, a blow-by-blow account of the film rather than a plot summary, and in October 2007 it had been tagged as too long.

Accordingly, I've removed the latter. --Tony Sidaway 10:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Willow movie.jpg

Image:Willow movie.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) 03:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More resources?

I just watched Willow last night I decided to see what info I could find on wikipedia about it. I think this article needs more cited resources. I'll dig around and see what I can find. There are a lot of bold claims made about the origin of the film with nothing backing them. (Roodhouse1 (talk) 15:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC))