MovieChat Forums > Dragonslayer (1981) Discussion > Terrible movie - at least 5 stupid and i...

Terrible movie - at least 5 stupid and illogical things

posted 17 years ago by youaresquishy
52 replies | jump to latest

There are at least about five things in this film that are illogical and make no sense. None of these are disbelief-suspension issues--they are stupidity issues.

For example:

(1)(a) The entire village holds a big celebration for the protagonist after he magically causes a landslide that puts a bunch of rocks in front of the dragon's lair, because, apparently, everyone is absolutely certain the dragon has been killed, despite the fact that all that has happened is that the protagonist has used a spell to create a landslide, and despite the fact that there is absolutely no evidence that the dragon has actually been killed by the landslide, no evidence that the dragon has even been injured by the landslide, and no evidence that it wouldn't be a simple matter for the dragon to remove enough rocks from the entrance to its lair for the landslide to represent any more than a minor annoyance.

(1)(b)Even the protagonist himself is certain that he has killed the dragon, despite the fact that he apparently has psychic powers, as we learned when he remotely viewed a member of his party being killed despite not actually seeing it with his eyes.

(2)(a) The princess clearly commits fraud on the lottery and publicly admits to having done so, yet the results of her fraud are allowed to stand by the only person whose vote that matters, her father, the king, who just a minute before, thought that the lottery was legitimate and was nevertheless about to nullify it merely on grounds that his daughter's name was drawn even though in a completely fair way. The reason--because the princess said she wanted the result to stand, and this somehow vetoes what the king wants. Who cares what she says though?

(2)(b) And why would anyone other than a suicidal person go through such efforts to ensure she is killed by a dragon, no matter what the circumstances? There is no indication that the princess is suicidal.

(2)(c) And doesn't anyone care about the good of the state--presumably having a princess would avoid the turmoil of a succession squabble after the king's death. The princess is apparently the only child of the king. Everyone should be interested in ensuring that she does not die. None of this makes any sense.

(3) The protagonist's love interest clearly commits fraud on the lottery by pretending to be male her whole life. After she admits to having been female, the king should have at least considered forgoing the lottery one year and making her the sacrifice, as a penalty, putting her in jail, or, at the very least, putting her name in the pot a few times to increase her chances. She should have one lot for each year she skipped out, at the very least. Instead, she is given the same treatment as everyone else, and it is as if her fraud never occurred. All of this, with no outcry, despite the fact that everyone knows that the princess' name is never put in the pot and everyone is clearly upset about that, even though, presumably, she's the future ruler.

(4) A tiny nonmagical shield made by a peasant girl protects the protagonist against a torrent of fire so large that was blown at him for so long that it would have easily disintegrated a 10-story building. There is no way any kind of shield could protect someone from that sort of onslaught. The fire completely engulfed his entire person for several seconds, and was quite intense and hot. He used no spell to protect himself. He should have suffocated AND burned to death.

(5) The wizard tells the protagonist to destroy the amulet, and that he would just know when to do it. Nevertheless, when the time comes, the wizard tells him to destroy the amulet. The wizard should have just said, "I'll tell you when to destroy the amulet, but if I'm out of earshot, do it when it gets really bright." The wizard is trying to make it seem like a big mystical thing by telling him that he'd know when the time came to destroy it, but it really isn't a big mystical thing.

Regardless of all of the above, the lead actor Peter MacNicol is a total cheeseball, and that alone would've ruined the film.

What a terrible film. None of this is a matter of disbelief-suspension, which is what silly people say in response to someone pointing out problems like this. Disbelief-suspension is what you do in response to the fact that there's a dragon, or magic. You have to suspend your disbelief in dragons and magic to watch movies like this, and everyone knows that. All of the above are matters of logic. These are serious flaws in this movie.

This is probably the worst fantasy film I have ever seen. I am having trouble thinking of a worse one. The 6.8 rating here at IMDb that this currently has is laughable. This movie deserves no higher than a 2 or 3 from anyone.

[–] nickt030 17 years ago

Quit being a troll! You probably weren't even born during the film's generation kiddo!

[–] youaresquishy 17 years ago

nickt030 wrote:

Quit being a troll! You probably weren't even born during the film's generation kiddo!

You are wrong. I am not a child. Nor am I a "troll."

You do not know what the term "troll" means if you think there is anything remotely troll-like about my post. If that's troll-like, then every film criticism is troll-like, and that just can't be the case.

I gave a well-reasoned critique of the film, and you are merely lashing out at me in anger because it hurts you that anyone might disagree with your views and so you are resorting to cheap insults.

You, sir, are a twit. You are the only one who is behaving in a troll-like fashion. You should be ashamed of yourself.

[–] bigfierydragon 17 years ago

Dragonslayer does indeed have a couple of flaws that do prevent it from being a classic movie, but then a lot of good films have flaws too. The original Star Wars film had a few flaws, but that didn't stop people flying into the cinemas to see it. Lots of people (like me) like watching Dragonslayer for the experience and the occasional witty moment. Despite its flaws there are a number of things that Dragonslayer excels at, most notably Phil Tippet's work on the dragon (which was unlike anything else at the time).

Anyway, the first flaw you listed actually does make sense. The reason why the villagers celebrated the death of the dragon was because they thought that the landslide, which blocked the entrance to the dragon's lair, would keep the dragon inside the cave. This meant that it would not attack the villagers ever again, and may even starve to death. There you go! That's one flaw fixed :)

Oh and if you cannot think of a worse fantasy film, try Dungeons & Dragons the move. Despite my love for the original board game, that movie is beyond awful!!!

[–] youaresquishy 17 years ago

Dragonslayer does indeed have a couple of flaws that do prevent it from being a classic movie, but then a lot of good films have flaws too. The original Star Wars film had a few flaws, but that didn't stop people flying into the cinemas to see it. Lots of people (like me) like watching Dragonslayer for the experience and the occasional witty moment. Despite its flaws there are a number of things that Dragonslayer excels at, most notably Phil Tippet's work on the dragon (which was unlike anything else at the time).

Anyway, the first flaw you listed actually does make sense. The reason why the villagers celebrated the death of the dragon was because they thought that the landslide, which blocked the entrance to the dragon's lair, would keep the dragon inside the cave. This meant that it would not attack the villagers ever again, and may even starve to death. There you go! That's one flaw fixed :)

Oh and if you cannot think of a worse fantasy film, try Dungeons & Dragons the move. Despite my love for the original board game, that movie is beyond awful!!!

I did not see Dungeons & Dragons, but I believe you when you say it's worse.

The first flaw I listed really is a serious flaw. The lair's entrance is blocked, but that really does not constitute any evidence at all that anything remotely harmful has actually happened to the dragon therein. There is just no evidence or reason to believe that a huge dragon could not remove the blockage.

The appropriate attitude would've been one of careful hope at that point. Instead, the entire village was so certain the dragon was dead that they went to the trouble and expense of having a formal celebration and turning our protagonist into a hero. That was the biggest logical flaw in the film, and that is why I put it first.

I failed to detect any significant flaws in Star Wars, and certainly no actual logical flaws, and I've seen it numerous times, in the theater and elsewhere. My whole point is that the logical flaws in Dragonslayer mean that it cannot be anything other than a bad film. If Star Wars did have serious logical flaws, then it too would be a bad film. Since I currently consider Star Wars to be a great film, I'd be interested in hearing about any alleged logical flaws, because if it has some, my opinion would need to be revised. Star Wars is not perfect, which means that it has flaws--just doesn't have logical flaws. Dragonslayer just doesn't make any sense at all and has humongous logical flaws that completely ruin the film. There is a large difference between not being perfect and not making any sense.

[–] GunsGirlsCars 17 years ago

((((I failed to detect any significant flaws in Star Wars, and certainly no actual logical flaws, and I've seen it numerous times, in the theater and elsewhere.)))

Are you kidding?
They shot Star Wars with wet paint, wood grain plywood spaceships, cracked styrofoam everything and so on.
What's a smart Troll like you doing here?
You have a talent for putting together a well written post only to trash a classic?
Get your mojo a s s out of here and go after the garbage they've made in the past 5 years!
Don't waste your writing abilities,
GGC
PS: I'll look in on some of your write ups in the future.

[–] amboager 17 years ago

I consider the "where is the father dragon?" more flaw than all those.

"There is just no evidence or reason to believe that a huge dragon could not remove the blockage."

Yes. Or NO (yes, because the writter makes the dragon remove it. If he tell us that the dragon is not sufficiently powerful and is trapped forever we believe him). Really i should to be happy with the bunch of rocks in the entrance after a great time of horrors. Imprudent celebration?. Possibly, but not necessary illogical. But I recognize it: this scene is to show the folk music and dance scenes typical of this movies. I like them haha.

For 4): the shield IS "magical": it's made with the dragon scales.

[–] dyahrmarkt 9 years ago

Would the ***masses*** believe it, though? Thats the question. If you yourself were a character in this movie, you would likely be the brooding guy in the corner with a beer, not really "celebrating" (no ad hominem here, btw). Youd want to call the villagers out on ther stupidity, and likely be right. Youre acting like mass public delusion isnt a thing in life, and constitutes a flaw in the movie.

Please nest your IMDB page, and respond to the correct person -

[–] witheld 17 years ago

I disagree and agree in so many complex ways that I'm actually going to have to talk about it... (sigh)
QUOTES
(1)(a) The entire village holds a big celebration for the protagonist after he magically causes a landslide that puts a bunch of rocks in front of the dragon's lair, because, apparently, everyone is absolutely certain the dragon has been killed, despite the fact that all that has happened is that the protagonist has used a spell to create a landslide, and despite the fact that there is absolutely no evidence that the dragon has actually been killed by the landslide, no evidence that the dragon has even been injured by the landslide, and no evidence that it wouldn't be a simple matter for the dragon to remove enough rocks from the entrance to its lair for the landslide to represent any more than a minor annoyance.

(1)(b)Even the protagonist himself is certain that he has killed the dragon, despite the fact that he apparently has psychic powers, as we learned when he remotely viewed a member of his party being killed despite not actually seeing it with his eyes.
END QUOTES

This is actually less of a stretch than you think, because what this part illustrates is not necessarily how dumb the villagers are, but how desperate they are to believe that the dragon is gone. I mean, REALLY DESPERATE. They want to get rid of the dragon; they don't want to believe in him. I think, script-wise, this was a good choice; but direction-wise, it didn't play off the way I would have liked. A manic tone, or even a little bit of a forced tone, might have really made this scene better; that's the way I picture them in my mind, anyway.

QUOTES
(2)(a) The princess clearly commits fraud on the lottery and publicly admits to having done so, yet the results of her fraud are allowed to stand by the only person whose vote that matters, her father, the king, who just a minute before, thought that the lottery was legitimate and was nevertheless about to nullify it merely on grounds that his daughter's name was drawn even though in a completely fair way. The reason--because the princess said she wanted the result to stand, and this somehow vetoes what the king wants. Who cares what she says though?

(2)(b) And why would anyone other than a suicidal person go through such efforts to ensure she is killed by a dragon, no matter what the circumstances? There is no indication that the princess is suicidal.
END QUOTES

Here's where we get into some downright Christ-figure work, and even overt Christian overtones. The sacrifice of one to save the many? The martyr? Oh, yeah, there's some major theme-work going on here... at the expense of the characters.

As to why the king would go through with it... see, there's a precarious line that he walks, as king. (again, this is all fanon--going back after the fact and justifying what really doesn't make sense--yes, that's not actually the term used, but I'll be darned if I'll stoop that low) The line between a tyrant and being pulled down by the people. If the princess says she wants it to stand and he turns it aside anyway, then there's a problem.

QUOTE
(2)(c) And doesn't anyone care about the good of the state--presumably having a princess would avoid the turmoil of a succession squabble after the king's death. The princess is apparently the only child of the king. Everyone should be interested in ensuring that she does not die. None of this makes any sense.
END QUOTE

Good question... However, note that Americans did a lot of the work here. Americans have never really liked the nobles in the first place, and have always been uppity that way. (see A Knights Tale for the Americanization of a European Knight) So it makes sense that an American making a movie about a noble would cut the succession off... in fact, it's rather symbolic that way.

It's still stupid, though.

QUOTE
(3) The protagonist's love interest clearly commits fraud on the lottery by pretending to be male her whole life. After she admits to having been female, the king should have at least considered forgoing the lottery one year and making her the sacrifice, as a penalty, putting her in jail, or, at the very least, putting her name in the pot a few times to increase her chances. She should have one lot for each year she skipped out, at the very least. Instead, she is given the same treatment as everyone else, and it is as if her fraud never occurred. All of this, with no outcry, despite the fact that everyone knows that the princess' name is never put in the pot and everyone is clearly upset about that, even though, presumably, she's the future ruler.
END QUOTE

Cough, cough. Let's move on...

QUOTE
(4) A tiny nonmagical shield made by a peasant girl protects the protagonist against a torrent of fire so large that was blown at him for so long that it would have easily disintegrated a 10-story building. There is no way any kind of shield could protect someone from that sort of onslaught. The fire completely engulfed his entire person for several seconds, and was quite intense and hot. He used no spell to protect himself. He should have suffocated AND burned to death.
END QUOTE

Ah, the 'power of love?'

QUOTE
(5) The wizard tells the protagonist to destroy the amulet, and that he would just know when to do it. Nevertheless, when the time comes, the wizard tells him to destroy the amulet. The wizard should have just said, "I'll tell you when to destroy the amulet, but if I'm out of earshot, do it when it gets really bright." The wizard is trying to make it seem like a big mystical thing by telling him that he'd know when the time came to destroy it, but it really isn't a big mystical thing.
END QUOTE

Hee hee hee....

QUOTE
Regardless of all of the above, the lead actor Peter MacNicol is a total cheeseball, and that alone would've ruined the film.
END QUOTE

For shame, sir! Peter MacNichol is my FAVORITE total cheeseball, and one of the most fun total cheeseballs I've ever seen act! I always love his films. For this alone I cast the hex 'Cassandra' on you, and forevermore the Internet denizens will cry 'troll' when you tell them the past or future of a film!

Well, they were going to do that anyway... they do it to everybody... so that's not much of a hex.

[–] Al_Truist80 17 years ago

Here here witheld! I wish people would refrain from condemning a particular film they dislike as the "worst movie ever", when in most cases this is far from the case.
In terms of fantasy films, I'd even rate Hawk the Slayer or those 70s Doug McClure adventures over some generic 80s Italian sword-and-sandal codswallop like the ATOR films.

Even 1983's "She" has its redeeming features. Dragonslayer is *leagues* above that.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] soulman386 17 years ago

The movie made perfect sense. The problem is you're obtuse.

1a: The landslide was HUGE. That's why they thought it was dead. It was the magnitude of the landslide that convinced them not the mere fact of the landslide.

1b: Galen didn't have control over his visions. For example, he didn't will himself to see Hoge die. The vision came upon him.

2a: The princess' name was selected and it was THE LAW that the virgin selected be sacrificed. The king felt compelled to obey the law he established. Doesn't matter if it was fraudalent cuz the other lotteries were fraudalent too.

2b: She didn't need to be suicidal. She felt guilty and wanted to do the right thing.

2c: "turmoil of a succession" WTF? It's a goddamn fantasy story. Get a life.

3: Why slow down the story by getting into that?

4: He had the amulet. It was protecting him. Galen didn't have full control over the amulet. It often worked on it's own. Examples: it made the landslide much bigger than he intended. It wouldn't let him save Hoge.

5: Galen felt that the time was right but he didn't want to destroy the amulet. If you had an amulet with great power would you want to destroy it? Ulrich had to urge him to do it.

Dude, think before you write.

[–] cainceleste 17 years ago

Let's just ask one question. Clearly everyone posting here has seen this movie, and even with it's flaws, (and here's the question) is it an enjoyable movie?

"I didn't steal it - I just permanently borrowed it without permission!"

[–] soulman386 17 years ago

There are no major flaws. 'YouAreSquishy' is a moron. Case closed.

[–] TheSolarSailor 16 years ago

There are no major flaws. 'YouAreSquishy' is a moron. Case closed

You can't even argue one of his points as much as simply play the role of an apologist, thus I am forced to conclude that the only "moron" here is you. I mean, you're liking the film doesn't make it's flaws magically disappear. Case closed because a jackass proclaims it? Hardly.

The landslide was HUGE. That's why they thought it was dead. It was the magnitude of the landslide that convinced them not the mere fact of the landslide

Why would they assume that a creature of magic is killed by a landslide? This is a dragon, not a tiger or a bear. Umm, you did realize that the dragon being a creature of magic was a theme of the film, didn't you? If so, then I can't imagine why you would defend the fact that everyone assumes that a landslide can kill a dragon. Oh wait, that's right, your an apologist and that's what apologists do.

It's a goddamn fantasy story

Being a part of the fantasy genre doesn't excuse lazy writing.

Why slow down the story by getting into that?

Because god knows the story was already long enough as is. The film could have used a better editor, one who knows how to make the story flow better.

Dude, think before you write

Look in the mirror before playing the role of an apologist and trying to talk down to others. It's obvious that you'll say whatever is neccessary to defend even the weakest elements in the film rather than simply accept that it is a cool film with some flaws.

* * * *
If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons?

[–] soulman386 10 years ago

I provided more detailed answers after re-watching the movie recently. I stand by those. One comment to your objections. The dragon does not appear to use magic to protect itself nor to attack others. It uses brute strength, fire, and flight. I did not claim that the landslide killed the dragon directly. The landslide appeared to seal up the only entrance to the lair. The dragon would have eventually died of starvation after being buried alive.

[–] mister_andy_hart 17 years ago

I watched it this afternoon sure that I was going to have a highly enjoyable time... I saw it first time around (aged 12) and thought it was great however I could remember very little of the film other than the admittedly cracking shots of the dragon swooping over burning villages, etc... it really is the dragon's film and it's quite a slog until you get to have a good look at it

Time hasn't been kind to this film, Peter McNichol is the biggest problem, he's hugely irritating (to my taste) and the hoary brand of fantasy gobbledegook most of the characters spout put me firmly on the side of the dragon

I tried to enjoy this movie as a slice of 'so bad it's good' kitsch but it's just too leaden for that, it's not terrible, it's just for the most part rather dull and poorly conceived: motivations for character's actions were either mindboggingly simplistic or downright confusing

I appreciate many others will find lots to love here, I'm afraid I found little to enjoy (other than the afore-mentioned dragon)... different strokes and all that... I wanted to rediscover an old gem but clearly there was a reason I'd forgotten it after all these years

[–] go_titans 17 years ago

that's way harsh. try watching it again in a few months in a different mood.

i like intelligent films, and this movie was very carefully thought out and deeply researched. i therefore find it to be a thrilling experience from start to finish.

and peter? yeah, a bit of an odd choice, but in the end i think the directors were looking for a willow type hero, one that doesn't fit the usual ideal. i think it was part of the point of the story.

[–] Burntout 12 years ago

What mister_andy_hart said. This movie does have many flaws and it's easy to overlook many flaws in any movie b/c...it's a movie. Especially if it's a fantasy or horror genre. But the writing is plain bad. Once I got over the nice special effects and costume/set designs the dialogue and exposition was not enough to keep the flow going. A better editing job would have saved this movie for those of us who enjoy this type of film but wish for something more than your standard cookie-cutter b.s. that doesn't live up to the hype b/c its flaws are too glaring to overtake what little else it may have going for it.

[–] denham 12 years ago

In addition to some of the other things commented on (the spear that slices through anvils but doesn't dent Tyrian's sword, etc) if you wanted to be picky you might say it's unusual for the sun to be eclipsed from the bottom up instead of the more customary side-to-side arrangement. And the detonated dragon crashes into a lake but then its still-smouldering and surprisingly entire cadaver is somehow on dry land. But hey, it's all magic.

"I beseech ye in the bowels of Christ, think that ye may be mistaken."

[–] go_titans 17 years ago

alnguyen386 has covered all this, thoroughly and clearly. all the points raised by youaresquishy were hogwash, including number 5.

don't give youaresquishy credit where zero is due. he/she is a moron, as alnguyen386 also correctly pointed out.

i'll give you point 4 though. i agree that the shield would have been sufficient. and youaresquishy is unfit anyway. galen would have had to hold his breath for no more than 14 seconds to avoid suffocating under the blast. i can hold my breath for a minute and a half.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] youaresquishy 17 years ago

go_titans writes

alnguyen386 has covered all this, thoroughly and clearly. all the points raised by youaresquishy were hogwash, including number 5.

don't give youaresquishy credit where zero is due. he/she is a moron, as alnguyen386 also correctly pointed out.

i'll give you point 4 though. i agree that the shield would have been sufficient. and youaresquishy is unfit anyway. galen would have had to hold his breath for no more than 14 seconds to avoid suffocating under the blast. i can hold my breath for a minute and a half.

Alnguyen386's reply did not even address any of my points, with the following exception:

Your 1b, i.e. that the psychic cheeseball guy might not have control over his psychic visions, is a good one.

I'll withdraw my complaint about that.

But I did notice that alnguyen386 accused me of failing to think before I wrote, and of being obtuse. I don't think that makes your points any better, but I do think you are insulting me, alnguyen386.

And go_titans called me a moron.

I did think before I wrote, I am not obtuse, and I am not a moron.

And other people referred to me as a "troll," which is a word that seems to be overused to the point of meaninglessness here at IMDb, but, if it means anything, does not accurately describe me, and my logical critique of the story is not even slightly troll-like. I was critiquing the film. It isn't as though the Message Boards are reserved exclusively for people to praise each film that is ever made. They're obviously here for criticism as well. I think that's pretty obvious. Only the most obtuse person could possibly disagree with this.

I guess it probably really does help to persuade some of the less thoughtful people that I must somehow be wrong if you call me names, though, so congratulations to you for doing that, alnguyen386 and go_titans and the rest.

You should be ashamed of yourselves for resorting to such tactics.

The right thing to do, really, if you disagree with the words someone said, is to say that you disagree, and then maybe to say why, and to leave the personal insults out of it.

[–] go_titans 17 years ago

are you serious?

you come onto this board and point out to all the other fans how 'terrible' the movie is, and how it is full of 'stupidity issues', which automatically implies that anyone who is a fan is stupid themselves for failing to realise it, and that we apparently are unable to recognise a 'terrible' film when we see it, and then you squirt tears when the responses are fuelled by irritation! to top it all off you then finish your bawling with the line "and to leave the personal insults out of it". WHAT DO YOU THINK YOU WERE DOING WITH YOUR FIRST POST? BUTTERING US UP?

here's some advice:

1) make your points, cos that's what these boards are for, but add that it is just your opinion. you'll notice that the responses you receive will be drastically less short-tempered than what you got this time round.

2) repeat exactly what you just did and piss everyone off with your implying how stupid we must all be, but DON'T WHINGE WHEN PEOPLE SNAP BACK!!

i get on these boards and tear movies down that i think are sh*t, but then i don't have a sook when i get aggressive responses!!

PS: i think alnguyen386 DID cover all your points fully, and i still completely disagree with your original post!

gonna sulk?

[–] youaresquishy 17 years ago

go_titans says:

are you serious?

you come onto this board and point out to all the other fans how 'terrible' the movie is, and how it is full of 'stupidity issues', which automatically implies that anyone who is a fan is stupid themselves for failing to realise it, and that we apparently are unable to recognise a 'terrible' film when we see it, and then you squirt tears when the responses are fuelled by irritation! to top it all off you then finish your bawling with the line "and to leave the personal insults out of it". WHAT DO YOU THINK YOU WERE DOING WITH YOUR FIRST POST? BUTTERING US UP?

here's some advice:

1) make your points, cos that's what these boards are for, but add that it is just your opinion. you'll notice that the responses you receive will be drastically less short-tempered than what you got this time round.

2) repeat exactly what you just did and piss everyone off with your implying how stupid we must all be, but DON'T WHINGE WHEN PEOPLE SNAP BACK!!

i get on these boards and tear movies down that i think are sh*t, but then i don't have a sook when i get aggressive responses!!

PS: i think alnguyen386 DID cover all your points fully, and i still completely disagree with your original post!

gonna sulk?

I disagree that pointing out how terrible a film is and that it is full of stupidity issues implies that fans of the film are stupid.

I did not squirt tears.

I do believe that personal insults should be left out of it. I did not personally insult anyone.

I did not claim that it's just my opinion because I do not believe it is just a matter of opinion. I am arguing that these are, as a matter of fact, illogical things, and that illogical things such as these, as a matter of fact, count as flaws in films generally. It's at least theoretically possible that just about anything anyone ever says is incorrect, but no one so far on this board has even addressed any of my points in a relevant way with the exception of point #1b (I'll accept that he had no control over when his psychic visions would kick in). I guess a couple of people have claimed that the shield was magical, so maybe I somehow missed the part of the movie where that was explained? I guess I'll concede on point #4. Points # 1a, 2a, 2b, 2c, 3, and 5 remain.

I continue to conclude that the film is terrible and stupid. My opinion of the worth of the fans of this film has nothing to do with my view about the film. I've missed significant flaws in films before, I am sure that I will again, and I'm sure this sort of thing happens even to the best of people.

To the poster that was expressing the view that a film can be a good one despite containing logical flaws--I think I disagree with that, except that I have to think about maybe whether only one or two small logical flaws (as opposed to the many large ones in Dragonslayer) necessarily disqualifies a film from being good.

[–] go_titans 17 years ago

right, let's have this out...please.

1A: the landslide. i felt (and apparently so did other people) that it was the size of the landslide and the desperate hope that the villagers had that led them to believe the dragon was gone. i would argue that this is quite a normal reaction. to this day people still turn a blind eye to impending disasters simply cos they don't want to face the truth. the reaction depicted in this movie is not much different. can you explain your problem with that please?

1B: we've covered it.

2A: the law, the king and the daughter. this one really bothers me. this is where i really feel that you've missed things. "the king thought the lottery was legitimate"??!! where on earth did you get that from?! the king knew perfectly well his daughter was being kept out of the lottery. here's a quote from that scene: "there's been a loose tongue here somewhere, sire." it is obvious that the king has been corrupt, but he can't very well admit it in front of everyone else or he'd have a riot on his hands! if her name is drawn, then she must be sacrificed. that's why the king had her name kept out in the first place, that's why he made out that the tile couldn't be read properly, and that's why he tried to have the lottery declared invalid once he realised that all the tiles were changed! please watch it again and then explain to me what problem you have with this.

2B: suicidal tendencies. the princess doesn't have to be suicidal, that's ridiculous. she only has to feel guilty about the many women who have risked or lost their lives while she has been exempt. if you cannot understand or empathize with the concept of guilt then there's not too much we can say further on the point, is there?

2C: succession. perhaps it could be argued that the people would accept the king keeping his daughter out of the lottery while everyone else's daughter must take the risk. but it could be equally argued that they would not accept this. our own history shows that the populace quite often has strongly disagreed with the decisions of kings and queens in the past. i mean, who the hell agrees with george bush? these days it's hard to take on the powers that be. back then it would have been easy. i call it 50-50 on that one.

3: paying for her deception. in case you didn't notice it, she came out after it was believed that the dragon was dead. she took a risk, but she was feeling guilt over being deceptive, so she exposed the lie she had been living. now what are the people going to do? say "stop the party, lets tie her to a stake and wait to see if the dragon that we believe is now dead will attack her at some point in the future."? and the king punishing her and her father? the guy was basically an honest ruler, all the way through the film. the only thing he did wrong was try to protect the daughter he loved. don't you think he would understand the deception the father in the village had played? the king would have been a total hypocritical prick to storm and rant about it, and that reaction would have been way out of character for him. true, nobody knew of the king's deception, but just because he doesn't whinge and cry about the village girl doesn't mean that everyone will be suddenly tipped off to the truth about the princess. they wouldn't even think about it. and besides, the father has a conversation with another of the villagers about this very topic. it says it all. what problem do you have with this?

4: the shield. firstly, the shield was covered with dragon scales. this point was made very clearly in the film. that means that at the very least the shield will survive. the makers of the film obviously did their homework on DnD rules and laws. secondly, there is no way on earth he could have suffocated. i've already explained this in an earlier post. he had to hold his breath for 14 seconds only. i've counted it. my asthmatic grand-uncle can hold his breath for 14 seconds and not even cough. and it was mentioned by someone else that the amulet was protecting him. i never thought about this, but it only adds to the plausability of the scene. so what problem do you have with this? please explain!

5: the destruction of the amulet. here's alnguyen's quote on that one: "Galen felt that the time was right but he didn't want to destroy the amulet. If you had an amulet with great power would you want to destroy it? Ulrich had to urge him to do it." i think this is a perfect explanation of that scene, but if it's not good enough here's another point of view; WHAT EVIDENCE IS THERE THAT THE HERO EVEN HEARD HIM??!! i think it's fairly safe to assume that the wizard (especially since he knows he's about to die in spectacular fashion) calls out in concern and anxious excitement, knowing how important the hero doing the right thing at that very moment is, and that the hero reacted only to the amulet lighting up. do you still have a problem with this scene?

and lastly:

"I disagree that pointing out how terrible a film is and that it is full of stupidity issues implies that fans of the film are stupid."

now think real carefully about this one, cos it's a biggy. HOW can it NOT imply this??

fan - "i love this film."
youaresquishy - "yeah? well the film is full of stupidity issues. guess you missed them, huh?"

oh yeah. i'm not going to feel that my intellect has just been brought into question.

come off it.

[–] Splarne 17 years ago

i'd say that is a great point-by-point response to a well spoken trouble maker.

***
the post below is off-topic.

[–] solar_tide 17 years ago

It kills me when people complain about the character of Galen played by Peter MacNicol. Have none of you seen "The Sword in the Stone"?

Galen isn't an action hero, he's the BUMBLING APPRENTICE. He's not a powerful wizard...he's a BUMBLING APPRENTICE.

His character was SUPPOSED to be goofy. Have you read the script? It's floating around on the internet, why don't you read it? You'll see that his portrayal of the character was as it was written, as it was intended.
---
1) The dragon WAS following him out of the tunnel. He brought an entire MOUNTAIN down (presumably upon it's head) on it. I'd think i'd have killed something by bringing a mountain down on it's head if it were me.

2)Revolts are not pleasant and having his subjects revolt and start a war is usually the last thing a King desires...especially as stated by other posters, it was the LAW.

3)This isn't reality (see: Dragons), and would have been a completely and utterly useless plot device that would take time, money and achieve absolutely nothing in the process (see: making a movie)

4)As stated by the character of Caitlyn "I found these in the dragon's lair, they should help keep the fire off you. (I'm at work, not an exact quote). In case you didn't notice, the dragon LIVES in a LAKE OF FIRE. Dragon scales - immune to fire.

5)You're arguing semantics. Humans don't always do exactly as they are told like mindless automatons. And as stated previously, Galen was told HE WOULD KNOW when to destroy it, and he did.

Please, don't even bring up suspension of belief...this is a FANTASY movie. Leave your logic in math class, or go watch "A Beautiful Mind". If you want "logical" movies...don't watch fantasy movies. It's like going to a football game and getting pissed off that no one is dribbling a basketball.

Last but not least, once again you are "arguing" OPINION. And most of us know what they say about stating your opinion...

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] anna_velasquez 17 years ago

*raises eyebrows* My, there seem to be some quite touchy people on this board.

I didn't perceive the original poster as troll. In my opinion - and that's my opinion alone, just want to make sure it's understood I'm speaking for myself and no one else - he's got some valid points there. I dunno why people get so upset about that. Or why it should make them feel stupid not to have seen those things. It didn't make me feel stupid and it's things I've never thought about before.

Of course, I'm not really a huge fan of this movie. Or fan at all. I simply don't remember enough about it. I saw it once as a kid (not sure if I saw all of it or only part). What I do remember is that I was impressed by the dragon.

Well, what I originally came here to ask: As I'd kinda like to watch it again, do you think it's worth spending the money to buy the DVD? In Germany, the DVD's about 14 dollars on Amazon. Would you spend the money or wait till it - maybe - gets cheaper still?

[–] go_titans 17 years ago

usually i like to see a film before buying it (even if i've seen it many years ago but can't remember much about it), but that's not always possible, as is probably the case here.

but i reckon i can safely recommend buying this one. there are NO stupidity issues. the film was in fact very well thought out. the OP of this thread brought up several poorly considered points and i was about to rip into them myself until i saw that alnguyen386 had already covered everything i wanted to say.

about 2 years ago i paid about the same price as you have quoted from american amazon and had it airmailed out to australia and i was thoroughly happy with the purchase. i don't think the price has shifted much since it was released.

[–] soruht 17 years ago

1a. Who cares?

1b. Who cares?

2a. Who cares?

2b. Who cares?

2c. Who cares?

3. Who cares?

4. Who cares?

5. Who cares?