Talk:Willow (1988 film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

i really hated this movie, so confusing. And i was sober for once :-P --Raddicks 14:07, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

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?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.154.126.35 (talk) 06:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

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—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.225.242.19 (talk) 00:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Majestic Lizard (talk • contribs) 15:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I am replying to an old and mostly fanciful comment, obviously, but just to answer the specific question asked: the novel adaptation is copyright 1988, with its first printing in February of that year and a second in June according to the copyright page. A novelization coming out around 3-4 months before the release of the film seems about right for the time, when books sold much better than they do now and novelizations were consequently a larger (though still not vital) part of marketing a film. Binabik80 (talk) 02:09, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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))

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Willow (film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   the cast section needs to be rewritten in prose. Perhaps also consider if you can find a way to do so for theu list in the sequels section.

   B. MoS compliance:

   some of major sections are missing, such as soundtrack, reception, etc.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   The reception information should be moved to its own section  Done

   B. Focused:

   plot section is too long

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   There is only the infobox cover; there are no screenshots to depict the film.

   Also, because of the claim in Visual effects, a short clip of some of the morphing may also be appropriate (since a screenshot would not easily suffice). Given that it is an important part of the creation and notability of the film, it may be a good idea to upload, though it would have to be in ogv format.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

The release section needs to be split. The reception, reviews and criticism should be in it's own section and information on the release itself should be in its own.

Per WP:MOS, the Plot section is fine, and fairly short compared to the majority of film articles. Also, a soundtrack section is not mandatory. In addition, I fixed your concerns with the Reception. Wildroot (talk) 22:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Per Film Style Guidelines a section on the soundtrack is usually added. Given the level of coverage Willow has, I am certain there is imformation out there about the soundtack, enough to satisfy WP:V that it exists at the least, if not more.じんない 23:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess I just need to find a suitable photo, fix the Cast and write about the Soundtrack. Good idea and suggestion. I will eventually get to that. Wildroot (talk) 23:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

While that will go a long way (i really suggest you try and find, or ask someone for, a clip of the morphing scene at the wikiproject and explain that it is important to represent the impact of the work on development of the technology.

However, the character list could use some tweaking still. Give some description what those characters are in the form of a sentence or two. See Casablanca for a good idea what I mean. And remove the red-linked name unless you plan to make an article in the future for that person.じんない 00:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I know what you mean. Also, I was not trying to sound sarcastic with that previous comment. Sometimes I talk like that. Don't worry, I will get this handled eventually. Like tomorrow....or something. Wildroot (talk) 01:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the general concerns. However, even if I try and ask other editors at the WikiProject talk page, I highly doubt anyone would offer assistance. Sorry. Let me know what you think. Wildroot (talk) 22:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Well overall i think this article has come with a significant improvement. However, the lack of a soundtrack section is key because the information is out there and easily available. GA articles shouldn't be missing any relevant sections and a quick search on google has shown that there is a soundtrack out there.じんない 08:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

What? Sorry, but I added a Soundtrack section. It's right there in the article. I think Willow is ready for GA-status. Wildroot (talk) 21:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Add a cite for it and you'll be done. Try MusicBrainz if you can.じんない 21:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added citations for the album section. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Ebert, Siskel, Kael and?

I read on IMDB that the two-headed dragon was called the "Ebersisk" as a direct reference to Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel ([1]). Likewise, i assume that the evil general Kael was named after Pauline Kael. Are there any other film critics aimed at in this movie?--RCS (talk) 13:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Willow Main Theme and Schumann's 3rd Symphony

I thought I should mention here that the main theme from Willow derives heavily from Schumann's 3rd symphony. This isn't a criticism, obviously, but might be noteworthy for the article. I think it is.--122.26.114.136 (talk) 02:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought I should mention here that a decade later, no one gives a fuck.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.114.136.96 (talk) 10:52, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Dwarf

The first paragraph describes the eponymous character as being a dwarf, when they are never referred to as such in the movie. They are more properly called Nelwyns. While I would not object to Nelwyns being described as dwarf-like, they are never referred to as dwarves in the movie. (They are also called "Pecks" however, which is apparently derogatory.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nimblegrund (talk • contribs) 07:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Right. They are not mythological dwarves, so i edited that out.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:ba50:6e60:f16a:b702:3b76:9fe4 (talk) 19:08, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion pertaining to non-free image(s) used in article

A cleanup page has been created for WP:FILMS' spotlight articles. One element that is being checked in ensuring the quality of the articles is the non-free images. Currently, one or more non-free images being used in this article are under discussion to determine if they should be removed from the article for not complying with non-free and fair use requirements. Please comment at the corresponding section within the image cleanup listing. Before contributing the discussion, please first read WP:FILMNFI concerning non-free images. Ideally the discussions pertaining to the spotlight articles will be concluded by the end of June, so please comment soon to ensure there is clear consensus. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Connection with Tolkien?

Much of the plot draws parallels with The Lord of the Rings. It maybe just coincidence, but if there is something in this observation should it be included? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.237.80 (talk) 21:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Fin Raziel's first form

I changed the mention of Fin Raziel having been "turned into a rodent" to "turned into an animal" because she's not a rodent—not everything small and furry is a rodent. (Madmartigan may call her a "muskrat", which is indeed a rodent, but that may be intended as a sign of Madmartigan's ignorance; it doesn't mean she actually is a muskrat, which she isn't.) Actually, what Fin Raziel was turned into is a possum, which is a marsupial, not a rodent. However, I am unaware of any reliable sources pointing this out, so I don't think I can actually say that in the article. (It could be, after all, that the production crew just decided a possum had the cute harmless animal look they were going for and didn't care what animal it actually was, and that in-universe she's not necessarily supposed to be a possum.) Still, while I may not be able to put in the correct animal without a reliable source to back me up, I can at least remove the incorrect information about her being a rodent, which is why I changed "rodent" to "animal". (Of course, if anyone does know of a reliable source confirming her possumhood, feel free to add it.) --Smeazel (talk) 20:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, never mind; just did a Google Books search and found two sources that hopefully will do. I'll add them now. --Smeazel (talk) 20:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

video game

please mention the video game based on willow. http://www.giantbomb.com/willow/61-25904/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.106.253.45 (talk) 22:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on Willow (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081219234921/http://www.saturnawards.org/past.html to http://www.saturnawards.org/past.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:35, 30 April 2017 (UTC)