In a slow penultimate episode, Willow goes absolutely nowhere
A trippy journey on the Shattered Sea brings our heroes only slightly closer to their goal
TV Reviews Willow
Here we are with just two episodes left—including this one—in the first season of Willow, and I’m still not sure the show has figured itself out yet. Following a thrilling episode that was arguably the best of the season so far, thanks in no small part to guest star Christian Slater, this one slows everything down to a slog as our heroes set out to cross the Shattered Sea. We leave behind the sweeping vistas, green hills, and lush forests that gave the show an epic scope to match the film in exchange for a flat, featureless dreamscape. This was a place-setting episode more than anything else, filling in a few missing pieces and getting the characters ready for the showdown I presume will come in the finale.
Speaking of missing pieces, the episode begins with Airk and his mysterious new friend trapped in the Immemorial City. Let’s call her Lili since that’s what she’s calling herself. Airk tells her about the place they’re in—the light changes, there’s the weather, and the clouds move too fast, but the sun never sets. She ominously promises him, “It will. Eventually.” Can he not feel the bad vibes coming off this girl? Airk has never seemed like the brightest character on the show, but come on. If you were being generous, you could chalk it up to that Bavmorda blood Sorsha warned Kit about before they left. Maybe a part of Airk is attracted to the dark and wants to be corrupted.
He tells her it’s okay to drink from the pool that looks like the evil elixir the trolls were brewing in the mines. She calls him “Prince Chauncy McSleezoid” and uses a bunch of other phrases like “palace ditz” and “sicko fantasy” that are probably supposed to sound modern, yet weirdly come across as dated. It sounds like a dialogue from a ‘90s Disney Channel series written by adults who don’t know any actual teenagers. There’s a way to blend contemporary sensibilities with fantasy storytelling, but this is not it (at least there aren’t any rock tunes playing in the background).
As Airk sees a vision of his sister nearly drowning, we transition to the actual scene in real-time. It picks up right where the previous episode left off, with Kit submerged beneath the glowing, watery goo as Elora tries to use magic to save her. She eventually succeeds, and they all head out of the mine to safety. It’s not long before they reach the Shattered Sea, where all the maps end. It’s their final test. No one knows what’s beyond it because no one has ever crossed it and returned. But Airk is on the other side, so cross it they must.
The sea isn’t so much a sea as a slippery surface of silt that you can walk on, seemingly forever. Kit is anxious to get moving, but she’s still weak, so they all stop to rest at an old cabin on the edge of the sea. It’s occupied by a confused old man who’s been there so long he can’t remember his name or why he came there in the first place. Over a meal of worm soup, he tells a muddled tale of a quest, warriors, a kidnapped princess, and an enchanted pool (sounds familiar). Ultimately, they wandered for years until they all forgot who they were and finally turned on each other and killed each other (sounds bad). He believes there’s nothing beyond the sea; it goes on forever.
Meanwhile, in the Immemorial City, Airk wakes up alone; the girl is gone, and so is the glowing pool. He calls out to her, “Hey, new girl. Where you at?” (His exact words, I regret to say.) Everything has suddenly turned cold, but she’s standing in a doorway lit by an otherworldly light. She tries to get him to follow her, saying it might be the way out, but he’s not ready to go there yet. They flirt a bit, and I think Airk must know on some level she’s tempting him toward the dark side. They’re both just going through the motions until Airk’s inevitable fall. It’s an exciting dance, though frustratingly vague. Lili must be considered an unreliable narrator, so it’s impossible to know how much she says is true.
Back at the old man’s cabin, the group is attacked by the Gales. They take off on a vessel pulled by a creature called a mudmander. Elora gets off a few shots with Cherlindrea’s wand as they fend them off. Even Graydon manages to shoot some sparks out of—is that his flute? One of the Gales grabs Elora’s wrist, and she has a vision that seriously spooks her, though we don’t see what it is. She’s been more serious and quiet since they left the mines, but whatever she sees here has shaken her. “She’s coming for me,” she says. Boorman has the cuirass and the Lux, but won’t use them yet (maybe because he fears it won’t work). They eventually escape and their journey across the Shattered Sea begins in earnest.
Along the way, Graydon forms an attachment to the mudmander, which he names Kenneth, after the protagonist of the romantic farce he’s writing. It’s cute, but my complaints about how Graydon has been written this season haven’t changed. Tony Revolori continues to be one of the most interesting actors in the cast. Still, since he turned evil and back again in episode four he hasn’t been given much to do besides pine over Elora. Here we are in the second-to-last episode, and I still don’t quite have a handle on him as a character. And now he can do magic too. With his flute. Willow says it’s because meaningful objects can be conduits of magic, but it comes from inside him. Is this a result of the multiple possessions? Or did he have it in him all along? We aren’t given any other answers.
They spend the rest of their purple journey training, fighting, and brooding. And in Jade and Kit’s case, kissing. I have to take back what I said before about the rock music, because here we get a full-on training montage. They continue on until they’re unsure whether they’re going in the right direction or how long they’ve been out there. Everyone wants to give up. Elora doesn’t want to be Elora Danan anymore. She knows what the Crone has in store for her (doom and gloom) because she saw it in the vision. Willow is having some pretty dark visions of his past mistakes and a potential apocalyptic future. Boorman tries the Lux, and nothing happens, so he’s demoralized too. It’s a downer trip all around.
Only Kit stays strong, solely focused on getting her brother back. She and Elora come to an understanding after their clash at the end of the last episode. Kit admits she was jealous of Elora because everything seems to come naturally to her, and she gets to be herself. Kit never wanted to be a princess, which Elora thinks is funny because she sort of did. They’re at a good enough place that when the party finally reaches the end of the Sea only to find a cliff that drops off into nothingness, Kit can rally Elora to jump off of it with her. Together they take the plunge into the unknown.
They land safely in the water below and arrive in the Immemorial City just in time to see Airk enter the doors. He’s armed and wearing leather armor, looking far more formidable than the last time we saw him. He even got a haircut. Is a badass makeover one of the perks of turning to the dark side? I guess we’ll find out in next week’s finale.
Stray observations
- Elora’s hair has been transitioning from blonde to red as her power grows, finally matching the baby we met in the movie.
- The change in aesthetic in this episode is striking compared to the rest of the series. We’re supposed to be in a vast, wide open space, yet it feels smaller in scope, almost claustrophobic. I’m willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and believe it was intentional to add to the feeling of being in limbo throughout the episode.
- If you saw the first teaser trailer for the show, you’ve already heard the line: “You think you know what is real and what isn’t. What is light. What is dark. … Now, forget all you know or think you know. Come with me.” Now we know those are Lili’s words to Airk (with a bit of editing) as she reveals her true self to him. She never comes out and says she’s the Crone, but she’s got to be the Crone. Right? Unless I read that wrong and there’s some big twist coming, but I don’t think so.
- The recurring words, “Forget all you know, or think you know,” are another callback to the original Willow, famously first spoken by the High Alwyn (played by legend Billy Barty).
- There weren’t as many good Boorman lines as usual this episode, but we did get this bit of him talking about saving the Lux for a special occasion: “You don’t do a thing like that just casually. It demands the perfect moment. Like charging into the cave of a serpent, facing down a horde of death dealers, visiting your mother after you haven’t seen her for, like, two years. I should really check up on my mother.”
- There was some heavy exposition in this episode about the Crone and the Wyrm and what they want. Still, honestly, I’m more interested in the character interactions and where the plot is going than getting more backstory at this point.
- We did get a little more backstory about what happened with Kaiya and Ranon (she died while Willow was on an adventure and he blamed his father and ran away), but still no clear details about why Willow moved the Nelwyn village underground. I hope they explain that more by the end of the season.
- Next week will be the first episode I didn’t get to screen ahead of time, so I’ll be watching it live with all of you and recapping directly afterward. I’m sure it will be quite a ride.
93 Comments
There’s a way to blend contemporary sensibilities with fantasy
storytelling, but this is not it (at least there aren’t any rock tunes
playing in the background during the episode).
eh? This Willow series is all about blending 70s/80s/90s sensibilities with fantasy storytelling. The only contemporary stuff has been some of the songs, of which there was at least a couple in this episode (not just over the credits), most particularly over the training montage which went full YA fantasy Disney/The CW show and was amusing because of it.
Think of this Willow series is to Willow the movie, what the Cobra Kai series is to The Karate Kid movies. It’s a continuation that makes a familiar world bigger, sometimes going in unexpected directions, other times making stuff from the movies have different or greater meaning.
But what about that mudmander! Lovely creature work in this episode.
Except Cobra Kai is good, funny and heartfelt while Willow really isn’t. This series is boring, plodding and really suffers for not being able to have Val Kilmer.
Neither are perfect but I enjoy both.
I enjoy Cobra Kai, I’ll finish this season of Willow but if there’s another one I probably won’t watch it. It’s boring and I don’t like most of the characters.
“Think of this Willow series is to Willow the movie, what the Cobra Kai series is to The Karate Kid movies… Neither are perfect but I enjoy both…”I can acknowledge that point, but I must say… it’s incredibly anecdotal and somewhat willfully disingenuous to their receptive differences. On a comparative rating scale, this Willow series is nowhere near Cobra Kai in its execution and reception—it would be like saying Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight and Zack Snyder’s Batman v Superman are both imperfect but enjoyable… Those two things are leagues away from each other in execution and reception, so much so that they aren’t even worthy of a real comparison. In this case, Cobra Kai is so much more successful of a spinoff/continuation that it makes Willow look like the Joey spinoff from Friends. HA! See what I did there?Rating-wise, Cobra Kai has an 8.5/10 rating on IMDB (Friends has an 8.9/10), with a 95% Critic Rating and a 92% Audience Rating on Rotten Tomatoes. That’s quite a bit higher than any of the Karate Kid movies. Meanwhile… This Willow series has a 5.2/10 rating on IMDB (worse than Joey’s 6/10), with a surprising 85% Critic Rating but an abysmal 34% Audience Rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Apart from the high critic rating for Willow, audiences are not receiving Willow all too well. That’s why I’m saying it’s quite disingenuous to call both Cobra Kai and the Willow series “imperfect” when one of them is astoundingly worse than the other.Factually, nothing is perfect. But this new Willow series is so irredeemably bad (and stupidly/confusingly titled) that is quite literally destroying the legacy of the original. Sure, it’s making the world bigger, but so far… not in any ways all too meaningful or good. They’ve foolishly detracted quite a bit from the original, and none worse than what they’ve done to Madmartigan. It been difficult to find reasons to continue watching this, and honestly, when it’s all over, I’m kinda expecting it to get cancelled. It’s just plainly not good…
Gah, an essay!Long story short, I like both Willow the series and Cobra Kai for similar reasons (sense of humor, 80s sensibilities, new characters interacting with old, etc.) and dislike both for similar reasons (odd tonal shifts, eye-rolling acting at times, questionable story choices, etc.) so the comparison makes sense in my opinion.
Short story long, it goes without saying my little paragraph you quote is my opinion and therefore anecdotal. It’s willfully disingenuous to imply I’m intending anything else.
My opinion isn’t based on IMDb or Rotten Tomatoes ratings, and I didn’t factor them into my opinion. I merely made a suggestion that you can take or leave. If you don’t find their execution comparable, that’s your opinion.
Just because “nothing is perfect” is a fact, doesn’t mean your opinion is. The Willow series isn’t “quite literally destroying the legacy of the original”. That’s your opinion. The movie stands on its own and its legacy is being available for people to watch into the future, which is secure. The series can be watched or not without affecting the legacy of the movie, the same way that awful sequel novel didn’t affect the legacy of the movie. You may be disappointed in the series if you wanted it to be the movie’s legacy, but that’s your choice. You can just as easily ignore the series, like the series and everyone else has ignored the novel.
You don’t seem to like the series and neither do people who vote on Rotten Tomatoes. This is still just an opinion that the show is bad, not a fact.
“It goes without saying my little paragraph you quote is my opinion and therefore anecdotal. It’s willfully disingenuous to imply I’m intending anything else.”Well, first off, if the very first sentence, I wrote that you point was “incredibly anecdotal” and so I think that speaks for itself.“You may be disappointed in the series if you wanted it to be the movie’s legacy.”A fair point, but it is ruined by the fact that a whole bunch of people (including Warwick Davis himself) returned to make a direct sequel series to Willow. It wasn’t my choice to make a continuation, and I can’t just ignore that it exists because now it’s in the zeitgeist, meaning conversations about Willow will ALWAYS be attached to the fact that they made this series. Sure, ignorance is bliss, but to say “you can easily ignore the series” is also willfully disingenuous to the issue of it’s incredibly flawed existence. I’m really not sure why people think the notion of “just ignore it” acts as some sort of workaround to a bad legacy sequel—especially when it’s canon. That’s why the point about the book is moot. They’re non-comparable forms of media, meaning that watching a movie and reading a book don’t align on the same plane of existence, especially since most viewers are here because this series ties into the movie.But it’s really not my opinion that it’s destroying the legacy of the original… That point refuses to acknowledge the fact that they’ve basically retconned a number of things in receptively bad ways, and created a really lackluster story and expansion of the world that is being heavily panned by critics and audiences. At a certain point, the broad opinions of the viewers make real impacts, which is why points like these don’t work well for things that are receptively bad: “This is still just an opinion that the show is bad, not a fact.” That would be another willfully disingenuous point. It’s not like Rotten Tomatoes and IMDB voters represent a population of people that don’t enjoy things (or specifically just this Willow series). That’s the poll of public opinion and what it will determine whether or not the series was successful/good enough to warrant more or even it’s own existence. With how markedly bad it’s been going (regardless of the few that do enjoy it) the consensus of public opinion will determine how people factually talk of Willow in terms of “success” which isn’t a mitigated opinion on whether it was good or bad.To put this into perspective, was the live-action Cowboy Bebop successful? People have opinions on whether it was good or bad and they can debate that all day long, but the one thing that’s not an opinion is whether or not it was successful… This is where the opinions of good or bad factually mattered because they determined the show’s future. Obviously, it wasn’t successful and the show was cancelled; ending on a really stupid cliffhanger. If this happens to Willow, which could very much end on a cliffhanger—while leaving behind a number of unresolved plot points, then the worth of this series officially becomes valueless—exactly similar to the Cowboy Bebop live-action which I can’t recommend to anyone (even if I enjoyed bits of it) because it’s incomplete and full of issues.TL;DR – People can’t just ignore the existence of a direct sequel something they once enjoyed, especially when it of the same media type. The Willow series is in the zeitgeist now and since it exists as the same form of media (something you can watch, as opposed to read) it will be a constant point of reference when talking about Willow’s legacy. Aspects of whether the show is good or bad is certainly a debatable opinion, but the culmination of those opinions, and the ratings the show receives do have factual implications in determining it’s success. And so unfortunately, Willow is not a successful series so far. You’re welcome to enjoy it, but it’s existence will always marred by it’s incredibly poor reception and the issues that led to that fact.
People can’t just ignore the existence of a direct sequel something they once enjoyed
Well, that’s their problem then. I’m happily ignoring the existence of so many direct sequels. There’s a 3rd Mummy film? Never seen it. They made more Pacific Rim? For me there’s only the one my by GdT. And there’s probably dozens more I can’t even be bothered to remember right now.
Oh, this is silly. So much of this is still just your opinion.
That the lead actor returns to a series doesn’t make it anymore “the movie’s legacy”. We clearly disagree on what that is. To use your example, the Joey spinoff from Friends isn’t Friends’ legacy. It’s a legacy, not the legacy.
“You can’t just ignore that it exists”… You can’t compare TV shows and books… You think it’s bad… You base the “incredibly poor reception” only on a single Rotten Tomatoes score. Most people don’t know about that, and it’s just another opinion that we don’t know how it’s made, and Willow the series’ existence isn’t dependent on it.
There are so many different ways of looking at a TV show’s success(es). It got made, employed thousands of people, entertained more, all these things are remarkable in their success considering most shows don’t get made, don’t give people a living and don’t get watched. If the only thing that determines its success to you is some aggregated internet score, then your experience is incomplete.
To paraphrase you, you’re welcome not to enjoy it, but it’s willfully disingenuous flat-out wrong to say “the poll of public opinion … will determine whether or not the series was successful/good enough to warrant more or even it’s own existence”. That’s primarily up to studio execs looking at viewership numbers, which we’ll never know, but considering something like Andor has reportedly relatively low viewership compared to other Star Wars series and yet has multiple seasons coming, it’s just not as clear cut as your opinion claims.
“So much of this is still just your opinion.”Some yes, but the statistical reception and crowd metrics are not opinions. It’s not an opinion to say that the common practice of gathering like/dislike data culminates into an overall consensus. This is how things are examined in media these days: metrics, stats, reception, all leading to determine something’s watchability and future viability. I guess I’m sorry you’re not understanding that, but just because you don’t see eye to eye with it doesn’t mean that it’s not real or doesn’t matter. Now I’m not saying that aggregated internet score of something is the only deciding factor of something’s continuation, but it is exemplifying of the most major aspect of deciding success: the audience’s reception. Fortunately, Hollywood doesn’t need to gauge people with polls anymore since there are multi-million dollar business dedicated to doing that work for them, and Rotten Tomatoes is just one of them.
“You base the “incredibly poor reception” only on a single Rotten Tomatoes score.”Did you not see my reference the IMDB score twice? And that’s not one single opinion, it’s a culmination of opinions—an average of all scores, and in the case of Rotten Tomatoes the critic portion is pretty much the least important part. You do realize (and have seen) movies and show get advertised based on their Rotten Tomatoes score, right? Go look at the box art for Everything Everywhere All At One, right down in the left-hand corner, what do you see? A Certified Fresh logo from Rotten Tomatoes. When that movie was being advertised, the score it received was part of its promotion. Why? Because that kinda matters these days… This isn’t the 90s or 2000s anymore. Streaming services are here now and they use a lot of metrics to determine a lot of things. The critic rating is, of course, the launch point to convince people that it’s worth watch. But the audience (the real meat in the seats) are the ones that pay the bills. They’re the ones that this is all being made for: people like you and I, and unfortunately in the case of the Willow series, something like half of anyone that gives a shit about it to try and watch it and talk about it doesn’t like it. Are you saying that the people that watched it and didn’t like it don’t matter at all? That all opinions are just worthless—utterly meaningless and aren’t even examined or used in the entertainment industry. Does the overall crowd reception of something not have any implications or bearings in your mind? Seriously, if you go to a comedy club and tell a joke that bombs and gets you kicked off stage… is that happening just an aspect of needing to look differently at the opinions of the joke’s success…? Or was it simply a bad joke?Not everything is just an opinion.For example, if you think it’s cool for Willow to not be the sorcerer he always wanted to be and is constantly shown up by younger newbies that never held a wand before… then yes, that is your opinion if you like that aspect of the story, and I can disagree with it, which would be my opinion. In that field, we’re even. But when when I say “Willow isn’t being well received by audiences and is scoring low on IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes…” that’s not an opinion of mine. It’s a statistical culmination leading to a consensus—AKA it’s a fact.“If the only thing that determines its success to you is some aggregated internet score, then your experience is incomplete.”Dude, you’re completely ignoring what the score means… I have to believe you went through a math class that taught you what averages mean. The score is a statistical analysis of who likes it and who doesn’t. You understand demographics, right? Are demographic studies opinions? NO. So when you’re arguing and saying “it’s flat-out wrong to say the poll of public opinion will determine whether or not the series was successful” then you are being completely ignorant of how entertainment media is managed. Do you think Disney or any other film company doesn’t give a shit about metrics? Viewership obviously matters, and so does critical reception, but more than that it’s the audience’s reception that matters most. Now I am willing to examine exceptions that metrically make no sense, like every Adam Sandler / Happy Madison movie put out for the past couple decades, but this is Disney we’re talking about… They have a full team of people examining hundreds metrics concerning their shows, and those out in the opinionsphere are certainly not ignored.
“Andor has reportedly relatively low viewership compared to other Star Wars series and yet has multiple seasons coming.”Your example of Andor actually works in my favor, since it sits at a very nice 8.4/10 on IMDB, with a 96% critic rating and an 85% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes. Even if viewership was low, which is just one metric to go by, the series was received incredibly well by critics and audiences alike. That is EXACTLY my point: those metrics really do matter in determining if it was successful/good enough to warrant more.
We just disagree. Just because they put a Rotten Tomotoes logo on promotional material for a movie doesn’t “determine the existence” of that movie. And as has been pointed out, Rotten Tomatoes scores can be skewed so you have no actual proof that studios use it solely or mainly to determine a show’s success or sequel viability. It’s known to be an unreliable limited dataset of limited interest at best, not the dataset that determines everything.
And the IMDb score you mentioned was a 5.2/10 rating (worse than Joey’s 6/10). That means over half of the votes liked it and Joey. That you think that’s a bad thing is your opinion, probably because you don’t like either show. The Critic Rating on RT was 85%, so the only score you base the “incredibly poor reception” is the Audience Rating of 34%, which we know is unreliable.
BTW, Disney had already decided to make more seasons of Andor before the first episode aired. IMDb and RT scores couldn’t have factored into that. Like I said, the decision to continue a show isn’t as clear cut as you claim.
Bottomline, you don’t like a show and you found an online stat to support that, so you think it’s an objectively bad show. I think a stat based on subjective opinions is a subjective stat, even more so when they haven’t been gathered using standard statistical practices (like using a control group) and are dubiously gathered in the first place.
Maybe worry less about my math and statistics knowledge and worry more about the quality of your sources.
To add to your points: Studios are also not stupid and know about how everything remotely “woke” is being review bombed to hell these days. A telling sign is when you have relatively decent professional reviews vs. an unreasonable amount of negative viewer reactions decrying the show/film as “this is destroying storytelling as we know it!!11 also the showrunner personally murdered my childhood!” It’s the over the top bizarro hostility they are probably already mostly ignoring as long as they can tell in other ways that enough people are interested and enjoying their content (i.e. whatever streaming stats they have access to).
Sounds like someone here who would write “this new Willow series is so irredeemably bad (and stupidly/confusingly titled) that is quite literally destroying the legacy of the original”. Not only is this, like, your opinion, man, but it also just isn’t happening.
Ok, so you don’t trust Rotten Tomatoes. Now that is your opinion.“So the only score you base the “incredibly poor reception” is the Audience Rating of 34%, which we know is unreliable.”Right, sure, you KNOW it’s unreliable… And what else, you got some other metric to go by? This is the problem with the basis of your point now, it’s entirely based on “I don’t agree with the scoring system.” Which is about equal of a point and stance an insurrectionist Trumpster’s would make about the US voting system. If you had any other thing to go by except “Well I like the show…” which is, again, entirely anecdotal, then we’d be having a real discussion here. But so far all you’re doing is attacking the sources of my metrics, both of them being the most common and often referenced by filmmakers, but you provide literally nothing else. I imagine that’s because you think this is just opinion vs opinion, but it’s not, it’s about the poll of crowd reception, and just because you don’t like the sources doesn’t me that I need to be concerned about the quality of them… If you have a problem with the metric source then you need to actually need to prove why it’s at fault. I’m fine with the quality of Rotten Tomatoes and IMDB ratings, to me they’re quite accurate to how I feel, and since they are referenced by actual filmmakers, they do have some validity in the industry. Do you have a difference metric or source to recommend? Because funny enough, he we are discussing the reception of a show in the comments of a negative review.“Just because they put a Rotten Tomotoes logo on promotional material for a movie doesn’t “determine the existence” of that movie.”You missed my point entirely, which is kinda boring me now… I never said it “determined” the existence of a movie—more so I pointed to say that crowd metric justify the existence of something’s success. It’s a referential point of a success that filmmakers actively use to advertise and justify their work. If it’s entirely unreliable, which is your opinion (until you can prove it), then why do hundreds of directors publicly use it as a point to justify that what they made was “good” and “successful”? You said “we know it’s unreliable” and yet filmmakers like Dan Kwan and Michael Sarnoski use it in their promotion. Are they wrong to do so? Are you going to attack their use of it as a source because you FEEL like it’s unreliable?I just gotta say. Never argue based on your feelings. You can use feelings as the drive to prove your point, but when you start going after the validity of sources, you need to actually present proof that things are as you say they are.“Rotten Tomatoes scores can be skewed so you have no actual proof… It’s known to be an unreliable limited dataset.”Who is this known by? Is there a secret cabal of people out there controlling the scores of Rotten Tomatoes to dubiously squash woke media…? Is it the lizard people? I mean, nice try, but now that proof is on you. Prove to me that it’s skewed. Find a metric that proves the point, because that’s the claim you’re making now—it’s a conspiracy in which two (often) referenced aggregated scores by filmmakers are deemed unreliable in your eyes because of [REASONS].I can see another comment here in which they believe that studios know their woke storytelling with garner some review bombing, but that’s not entirely what’s happening with Willow. As an example, that did happen with LotR: Rings of Power, but even that sits at a 6.9/10 on IMDB which is quite a bit higher than Willow and yet quite the appropriate score to what I would give it. Do you honestly think that Willow fans are more upset than Lord of the Rings fans about their respective shows…? Uh huh, yeah, sure… maybe in another universe that could be true, but unfortunately, in this universe the Willow series just isn’t enjoyable for most of it’s audience. In this case, at least Willow isn’t being review bombed for simply having people of color in it… From everything I’ve found, most people hate it for the writing, which is a valid concern for a show the spent 2 episodes hyping up this dangerous forest where no one escapes—only for the heroes to easily escape in 4 minutes and 39 seconds after a brief cutaway.You you really need to stop thinking that garnering half good / half bad reviews is okay. When you say “That means over half of the votes liked it…” that’s not a good point, because on a grading scale, that would be a failure. If you only get half the questions right on a test, then you failed, right? And now remember that pretty much the only ones really watching the Willow series are people who probably watched the original Willow movie, and that’s the audience the filmmakers need to play to and rely on for their success. If half of their audience walks out mad, then they legitimately failed to make something good. If the people in the room were simply just there because “oh look a new show to watch” then opinions could be skewed, like maybe they’re not fantasy fans? And that’s often okay. But even then, if half the audience hates what you’re doing then you’re likely not doing it well.“Bottomline, you don’t like a show and you found an online stat to support that, so you think it’s an objectively bad show.”That doesn’t even begin to describe my point in talking about all this so extensively. Bad things can exist you know… We’re talking about another Disney production run by Kathleen Kennedy, Jonathan Kasdan, and Ron Howard. Those exact names all teamed up previously to make Solo: A Star Wars Story which bombed (not an opinion, it legit lost money). Is it just so unbelievable that they maybe JUST MAYBE could have made another poorly received adaption? And really, the biggest thig we’re ignoring in all of this is the press… When public reviews, public polls, new outlets, and pop culture sites start grasping onto headlines like:Willow’s Rotten Tomatoes Audience Score Plummets as Fans Slam Disney+ Series‘Willow’ Assembles a Messy Fantasy Story Starter KitWillow Series Is Out On Disney+, But Fans Aren’t ImpressedThe ‘Willow’ Disney Plus TV Show Is An Abomination‘Willow’ Review: Just Like the Movie, but Much WorseFans Not Happy With Disney+ ‘Willow’ SeriesTV review: ‘Willow’ forgets what made ‘Willow’ specialThese go on and on and on. From looking, about 2/3 of all headlines regarding the series don’t paint it in a good light. While a lowly stage magician might find good press in anything written about them, this really isn’t what filmmakers and studios want to hear when their work is released, especially when sources like Forbes start writing about how messy the series is. And hey, even AV Club isn’t a fan. Remember, all this stemmed from comparing the Willow series to Cobra Kai, to which my point was to say: “Those shows are very different and have been received quite differently. Cobra Kai was very successful, garnered great reviews, scored well on IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes, and has 5 seasons under its belt. Meanwhile, Willow is bombing with its audience, has poor scoring, poor press, and poor reception, and so far Disney hasn’t even mentioned renewing it for a 2nd season even though many of their other shows have garnered a renewal a lot faster than this, meaning that it could be cancelled and ended on a cliffhanger.” And what was your point again? Oh, that’s right, you just disagree. That everything I said about Willow is just my opinion, man, and that you don’t trust the scoring system, think the audience response is unreliable, and have no other metrics to share except your own anecdotal feelings…Cool discussion, bro. Glad to make your acquaintance.
I’m really surprised, I hadn’t followed any online discourse about the show and am really liking it. The only character I find annoying is Kit, but it’s not to the level of, “I can’t f*cking stand her,” which is what I keep saying about most of the characters in the GOT spinoff. From the info you’ve provided, looks like I’m in the minority on this one.
The info they’ve provided is “5.2/10 rating on IMDB, 85% Critic Rating & 34% Audience Rating on Rotten Tomatoes” and a collection of cherry-picked negative review headings.
Even 2 out of the 3 ratings they provided say the majority like the Willow series.
So it seems “DefinitelyNotEricAndre” dismissed my last reply to them, which is ironic coming from someone who wrote “Never argue based on your feelings.”For posterity, here’s how I responded to their last essay:
Oh, you’re getting bored now? Poor you.
You got another 8+ paragraphs for me? Poor me. The least I can do is respond in kind.
You’re asking me for another metric? You brought up RT and said “Hollywood doesn’t need to gauge people with polls anymore since there are multi-million dollar business dedicated to doing that work for them, and Rotten Tomatoes is just one of them.” – so you evidently know of others. It’s your argument. The burden of proof rests with you. Look, I don’t owe you anything. The comparison I made in my OP was obviously my opinion. I then followed it up with an explanation to make absolutely clear my intention. I made no secret it was my personal take.
You made accusations of being “willfully disingenuous” based on stuff I wasn’t talking or even thinking about. You then brought up ratings of which only the RT Audience Rating was bad, and then go on (at length) explaining why the other ratings aren’t as important or need to be interpreted or compared in a way that only supports your argument.
Multiple people (here and elsewhere) have explained why RT isn’t particularly trustworthy, but the fact the Audience Rating is a bunch of subjective votes from a limited dataset (at best, as anyone can makeup multiple accounts on RT), and done without a control group is literally the definition of poor statistical practice. That’s the flawed foundation you’ve chosen for your argument. Of course I don’t find it very convincing.
You point out that filmmakers use RT to promote their films. Yeah, RT is well known (for good reasons and bad) and if your movie’s score on RT looks good then you’d be stupid not to use that good publicity to support promoting your film. Also, last I checked, getting 50% on test is a pass.
You’ve explained (at length) hyperbolic statements like “this new Willow series is so irredeemably bad (and stupidly/confusingly titled) that is quite literally destroying the legacy of the original”, “the poll of public opinion … will determine whether or not the series was successful/good enough to warrant more or even it’s own existence”, “people can’t just ignore the existence of a direct sequel something they once enjoyed”, all of which have been refuted. And not just by me.
Now you copypasta a bunch of review headlines to support your argument. All subjective. Anyone can find a bunch of reviews that agree with them. Subjective take + subjective take = subjective takes. It may be a fact you found more negative articles, but they’re all still just opinions. And maybe you didn’t look long enough. Maybe your looking is biased. All I know is I don’t care, I never indicated I cared. You made the claim that “statistical reception and crowd metrics are not opinions” but they are when the only metric you have is the Audience Rating on RT and these reviews.
Even your last line “Cool discussion, bro” is wrong, for this has been anything but. And before you explain, I know you’re being sarcastic. Everything you’ve written is based on your emotions, your opinions, or someone else’s opinions. All subjective even though you pretend it’s not.
Oh, you’re getting bored now? Poor you.
You got another 8+ paragraphs for me? Poor me. The least I can do is respond in kind.
You’re asking me for another metric? You brought up RT and said “Hollywood doesn’t need to gauge people with polls anymore since there are multi-million dollar business dedicated to doing that work for them, and Rotten Tomatoes is just one of them.” – so you evidently know of others. It’s your argument. The burden of proof rests with you. Look, I don’t owe you anything. The comparison I made in my OP was obviously my opinion. I then followed it up with an explanation to make absolutely clear my intention. I made no secret it was my personal take.
You made accusations of being “willfully disingenuous” based on stuff I wasn’t talking or even thinking about. You then brought up ratings of which only the RT Audience Rating was bad, and then go on (at length) explaining why the other ratings aren’t as important or need to be interpreted or compared in a way that only supports your argument.
Multiple people (here and elsewhere) have explained why RT isn’t particularly trustworthy, but the fact the Audience Rating is a bunch of subjective votes from a limited dataset (at best, as anyone can makeup multiple accounts on RT), and done without a control group is literally the definition of poor statistical practice. That’s the flawed foundation you’ve chosen for your argument. Of course I don’t find it very convincing.
You point out that filmmakers use RT to promote their films. Yeah, RT is well known (for good reasons and bad) and if your movie’s score on RT looks good then you’d be stupid not to use that good publicity to support promoting your film. Also, last I checked, getting 50% on test is a pass.
You’ve explained (at length) hyperbolic statements like “this new Willow series is so irredeemably bad (and stupidly/confusingly titled) that is quite literally destroying the legacy of the original”, “the poll of public opinion … will determine whether or not the series was successful/good enough to warrant more or even it’s own existence”, “people can’t just ignore the existence of a direct sequel something they once enjoyed”, all of which have been refuted. And not just by me.
Now you copypasta a bunch of review headlines to support your argument. All subjective. Anyone can find a bunch of reviews that agree with them. Subjective take + subjective take = subjective takes. It may be a fact you found more negative articles, but they’re all still just opinions. And maybe you didn’t look long enough. Maybe your looking is biased. All I know is I don’t care, I never indicated I cared. You made the claim that “statistical reception and crowd metrics are not opinions” but they are when the only metric you have is the Audience Rating on RT and these reviews.
Even your last line “Cool discussion, bro” is wrong, for this has been anything but. And before you explain, I know you’re being sarcastic. Everything you’ve written is based on your emotions, your opinions, or someone else’s opinions. All subjective even though you pretend it’s not.
At this point, we just have to acceptably disagree. I see nothing that leads me to believe that Willow will be regarded as a successful series. Finding praise from reliable sources is arduous and from what I’ve seen of the show, the illogical nature of everything they’re doing in terms of writing and character development has been entirely lackluster.
Are the two of you a gimmick? Please tell me you’re a gimmick.
“People can’t just ignore the existence of a direct sequel something they once enjoyed, especially when it of the same media type.”I mean, they absolutely can. ‘Ghostbusters’ is one of my favourite films of all time. I’ve more-or-less completely ignored ‘Ghostbusters: Afterlife’. Haven’t seen it, don’t care about it, don’t think it has any impact on my enjoyment of the original. If you’re not capable of doing that, it’s very much a “you” problem.
Man, there are so many good movies with not-so-good sequels.
The Matrix, Highlander, Ghostbusters, etc. Just google “movies with bad sequels”.
Does anyone like Ghostbusters less because of Ghostbusters 2? Dare I say, of course not.
Can we really go by audience ratings when anything accused of being “too woke” tends to get bombarded?
Yeah, I’m long past the point of thinking there’s good faith in the majority of online audience reviews. That’s just a sad fact of the culture today.
Willow has been overall enjoyable.
Cobra Kai knows what it is, and leans into it in a satisfying way. It’s a continuation of Karate Kid that’s in the spirit of those movies. Willow is your typical IP exploitation that doesn’t really understand the appeal of the source material, other than the fact that it exists. I like what they’re (barely) doing with Willow, in that he’s not the great sorcerer he wanted to be. The kid actors make even Warwick Davis look like an old pro (he sucks at acting), although I think most of that comes down to the writing and direction (Tony Revolori is doing the best he can).I enjoy stuff that’s crap, but I call it crap. I’m glad that someone’s enjoying Willow, though.Also, it should be noted that the first Karate Kid movie is actually a well-made drama directed by John G. Avildsen, the director of Rocky (they’re actually very similar films about weird Italian guys who play sports). Pat Morita was nominated for an Oscar. Macchio was coming off a strong turn in The Outsiders. Willow was a huge flop that starred an Ewok who’s a terrible actor. It was an early Ron Howard project when people still thought of him as Opie.
An issue I’m having with this series (and why I think it can’t really be compared to other reboots) is that Willow was set in basically Generic Fantasyland, where what little we knew about the world was based on Willow’s own limited experience/perspective.The show doesn’t have that excuse, and while I don’t want to be the person arguing we need a Willow series with rigorous lore, the lack of worldbuilding in this makes a lot of the choices feel handwavey to a conspicuous degree.
Honestly, fuck that noise.We’ve got more than enough fantasy shows with utterly tedious Tolkien-esque approaches to world-building (literally every single other one on right now), which people seem to think is “required” for fantasy, but is actually something Tolkien innovated and that didn’t really even catch on until the 1980s.Sword and Sorcery always had world-building far more like this, and that was half the charm. And It’s not “hand-wavey”, it’s how literary fantasy was for decades (and some still), how much of tabletop roleplaying still is, and it’s extremely nice to see it on TV, rather than yet another leaden overbuilt Tolkien-wannabe world.(I say this as a very extensive fantasy reader, note! The majority of stuff is Tolkien-esque worldbuilding-wise these days and it gets very trying.)
“I say this as a very extensive fantasy reader, note! The majority of stuff is Tolkien-esque worldbuilding-wise these days and it gets very trying.”Absolutely not, and I’m glad for it! Contemporary fantasy is definitely doing its own thing. Stuff like The Poppy War, The Fifth Season, Jade City but also books a little further back like the Lies Of Locke Lamora and China Miéville’s stuff are all anything but Tolkien-esque in their worldbuilding. It’s good eatin’ in fantasy book land these days.
I would say The Fifth Season and The Poppy War absolutely have Tolkien-esque world-building. I haven’t read Jade City yet to comment.Tolkien-esque worldbuilding doesn’t mean Tolkien-LIKE settings to be clear. I’m talking about the fundamental approach to how the author thinks about the world, which is that they build it out first to some extent, or if they build it as they go, ensure it’s very consistent and reasoned and so on (to the best of their abilities).The Fifth Season is undeniably this approach. NK Jemisin has absolutely thought through the world and it’s history in great detail and constructed entire dead cultures and so on. She’s even thought in depth about the geology of the planet. I’ve only read the first Poppy War book but it also seems to be that fundamental approach. That of thorough worldbuilding. Jade sounds that way from reviews I’ve read.With Locke Lamora it’s much harder to say. If Scott Lynch has said that’s not how he rolls, I believe him, though I’m not aware of him saying that. Certainly it seems more like he just built out one city in detail, then went from there, rather than building a whole world, which does give a more S&S vibe. Also Lynch last published in 2013, so about a decade ago.China Mieville doesn’t go for the Tolkien-esque worldbuilding approach, I agree. But when was the last time Mieville published a fantasy (rather than urban fantasy) novel? 2016 if we’re counting novellas. 2012 if we’re counting kids books, but really we’re talking 2004’s Iron Council. So much as I adore Mieville, I can’t really see that as modern.I’m looking at fantasy novels I’ve read over the last decade and I’d say easily 90% of them take a basically Tolkien-esque approach to worldbuilding.
Would you mind expanding on what you mean by Tolkien-esque world building? Do series where the world is highly developed but not explained fit? Something where the author clearly knows more about the world but never shares it. I’m also a fantasy reader and Tolkien’s influence on the genre can be overwhelming and repetitive. I do like some consistency in my world building but the intense and tedious histories feel almost biblical. And Arador begat Arathon and Arathon begat Aragorn. I find the class system in the LOTR to be tedious. Nearly every character is descended from someone important and it makes them important. The original Willow is compelling because it’s a story about a group of nobodies and fuck ups repeatedly choosing to do the right thing. It’s leans heavily on Tolkien and still does something interesting and new. I’m including family trees as part of world building which may not have been your intent.
“Do series where the world is highly developed but not explained fit? Something where the author clearly knows more about the world but never shares it.”Yes that’s exactly it.Pre-Tolkien, the general approach to world-building by most authors was literally “make it up as you go along”. Then sure you write it down and you uuuuuusually remember but sometimes maybe not. Sometimes authors might make up a world, but it would be usually be pretty superficial, and they wouldn’t have thought much (if at all) about history, languages, that kind of thing. Virtually all Sword & Sorcery fits this mould.Tolkien developed this huge “legendarium”, a world with and considered deep history, languages, peoples (some long gone), and so on, that was created independently of and before his books. It wasn’t finished, it wasn’t locked down but it doesn’t need to be.That was what inspired a huge number of fantasy authors, especially from the ‘80s onwards (and it fit very well with the emerging popularity of TTRPGs as that kind of worldbuilding was perceived as perfect for them – no accident countless fantasy authors are TTRPG DMs/players). Instead of just telling a story and making up a world that made sense to the author as they went along, the world would be to a greater or lesser extent planned-out.Agree: re Willow and ironically a number of authors who share some tonal similarities with Tolkien don’t really do this kind of world-building, where some authors who are basically his utter antithesis do.The most extreme example of “darkside Tolkien” is probably the thankfully largely forgotten “Prince of Nothing” series by R. Scott Bakker. The world-building is deeply inspired by Tolkien and it’s very deep world-building, and even the way the story is told is quite similar in some ways, like the point where you notice it (there are also some sequences which read as “homages” to Tolkien). Except it’s the most fucked up “edgelord with a philosophy degree and serious Catholic guilt” shit you can possibly imagine. The badguys are alien beings hiding from god because they’re too perverted (!!!!!!!!), the goblin/orc equivalents are a massive army of super-extra-rape-y (like so rape-y) beastmen. The main character’s most defining trait is his total amorality. Like he has literally has no morality or conscience and this is rubbed in at great length as he calmly lets rape and murder go on in front of him (repeatedly and at length – despite being in total command of the situation) This is our “hero”. Or alternatively we have a wizard/philosopher who is frankly, a worthless sack of shit who bangs his own daughter. He’s also presented as relatively a “good guy”. Let’s not even start on the misogyny! And yet that is utterly and obviously Tolkien-inspired on multiple levels. Ooof.(Edit hilariously I just found out he DOESN’T actually have a philosophy degree, despite writing and lecturing at length about philosophy. He has an English Lit. degree, an MA in Theory and Crit, but never did his dissertation to get his intended PhD in philosophy. Somehow that makes it even worse lol.)Most fantasy today though just takes the general worldbuilding approach (albeit less in-depth) and the multiple-books-to-resolve-a-story approach to storytelling.
Bakker… wow… thought I was the only one who suffered through him. It’s funny how my hopes for the characters went from “do something heroic” to “a little self awareness” to “just stop being assholes” to “ok at least be entertaining assholes”.But your point on the Tolkien-esque level of world building can be used for the darkside is entirely correct.
Yeah this is a great description – ““my hopes for the characters went from “do something heroic” to “a little self awareness” to “just stop being assholes” to “ok at least be entertaining assholes””
“which is that they build it out first to some extent, or if they build it as they go, ensure it’s very consistent and reasoned and so on”That’s a really generic description though. That’s so broad that I’m not sure how useful it is as a description. Isn’t the way you present and describe your world building that can be a problem? Because my ‘issue’ with Tolkien is that he often presents his worlds in a encyclopedic, historian fashion. I can see how that gets very trying (personally, that’s why LotR itself didn’t really appeal to me, which is fantasy-fan-blasphemy I know). But when I reflect on, say, The Fifth Season, while the world is undeniably… well, built either before or during writing, it’s not even remotely presented in the same fashion as Tolkien did. It’s why I can’t imagine calling something “Tolkienesque” based solely on the description you gave. Even when just looking at world building style and not the content I think there’s a lot more to a fantasy world being Tolkienesque than just the mere fact that consistent worldbuilding happened at some point during the creation proces. Like, you mention TTRPGs and how that’s different but there too most GMs, if they run a homebrew universe, actually build the world and make it somewhat consistent. Aren’t halfway decent fantasy universes always built in one way or another? Even sword and sorcery classics have Tolkienesque worldbuilding if we go by the description of consistent worldbuilding at one point during the writing process. Greats like Michael Moorcock, Robert E. Howard all use built worlds that are internally consistent and well-reasoned/thought out at one point or another. AFAIK China Miéville’s world of Bas-Lag is also a built, consistent (to its own bizarre, ‘weird fiction’ rules) fantasy world. I can’t think of any that aren’t built either before or during the writing process and are consistent and reasoned to one degree or another. I mean, if you intend to write fiction you pretty much have to if the story set into that world is going to be consistent.
This hit or miss, slow or fast episodes in a short 8-10 episode season of a remake or extension of some old IP may just be the future of TV. Not necessarily bad, just not that great.
She calls him “Prince Chauncy McSleezoid” and uses a bunch of other phrases like “palace ditz” and “sicko fantasy”And while the show is slow and plodding and full of characters I just don’t care about, this right here was the one thing that bugged me most. Between this and the lifeless rock covers, I wound up thinking “Just who the hell is the target audience for this thing?”
It doesn’t have the drama or well rounded characters for the adult Game of Thrones set, it’s not goofy and action packed enough for the 10-13 demographic, and it doesn’t have the Nostalgia Bait for the eighties retro crowd. Who exactly is asking for dialogue written by Dollar Store Joss Whedon?
It’s for people who aren’t totally humourless bastards. Which is why AV Club has a huge problem with it.
I mean, I don’t think you have to be a humorless bastard to think that lines like “Prince Chauncy McSleezoid” aren’t exactly the height of comedy.
Sure, but you’re trashing the entire show and suggesting it has “no audience” or possibly implying that audience it does have are idiots or something, on the basis that you didn’t like one particular line. Which suggests a certain humourlessness. And certainly AV Club reviewers in general are, a bunch of humourless bastards (I know you’re not one but you’re quoting the humourless annoyance of one). It’s why their comedy recommendations are absolutely never to be trusted under any circumstances.Honestly I felt her lines were fine. They worked. They were delivered well. They got the point across.If you didn’t like that, how the fuck did you even SURVIVE the fairies and their talking the original movie Willow? Willow has always been that kind of deal.I feel like 90% of people who have a problem with the dialogue or premise of this show either never watched Willow, or watched it so long ago that it’s been entirely replaced in their minds by other fantasy stuff. Some of the criticisms are truly bizarre.
Yeah. Seems like someone is streets behind.
I’m not the OP so you’re putting a lot of words in my mouth. I didn’t grow up with the movie; I only watched it for the first time a year ago so I have no nostalgia for it. The brownies were obnoxious, too.The show is aiming towards a younger crowd than me, so it’s not my cup of tea and that’s fine. Most of my issues have to do with the editing, tonal shifts, and the characters.
That makes a lot of sense, re: only watching it recently.I note that a lot of people who sneered at the Karate Kid show never watched the movies or only saw them more recently.
Will I enjoy Kobra Kai if I’ve never seen the movies?
Gonna really depend on your tolerance for extreme cheese (including the lines), wildly variable acting and the fact that the show expects you to take ludicrous karate-based plotlines relatively-but-not-entirely seriously.A lot of the plots relate to and characters are from the movies (40 years later! Not recast in most cases!), so you won’t get the “OMG ITS HIM!” factor, but it is set 30-40 years on, and a new generation of kids doing karate is at the heart of it.I’d say the first episode is really a good guide. Like, if you watch that and you’re not into it, that’s not going to change (unlike a lot of shows). I had watched every Karate Kid movie growing up, most several times (born in ‘78 lol), but wasn’t like “a fan” or anything. And when a friend recommended it to me I was skeptical. Still I enjoyed the first season so much I binged it and I’ve watched all the rest (I can’t remember if it’s S3 or S4 which is a bit weaker than the rest).
Supposition: Graydon was possessed when he was younger because he had untrained magical potential and that made him easier to invade.
I thought the same. It’s why the Crone wants Elora: the more power you have, the easier it is to manipulate.
I’m trying to understand something in the episode. So, Graydon sees the old man in the inn and realizes that the other old man is a bad guy in disguise, right? We were dealing with the actual old man up until then, though, right?
That was my read on it.
Was the old man setting them up? He kept giving them reasons not to leave yet.
There has been some weird editing in this series. Like, during the exorcism scene a couple eps back, why did Willow just disappear and how did he get up into the tower only a couple minutes after two people who have legs at least twice as long as his?
Like when they take of walking into the endless waste and are suddenly inside a building? I like the show but there are weird jumps.
I was thinking it was an alternate Graydon that had gotten stuck there for years and corrupted.
That bird thing chasing them is a shape changer. When Graydon sees both of the old men he realizes one of them is fake.
I liked the music for the training montage. Now that we know that using contemporary music is part of the series, we should probably just get over it.
Seems like Airk turned evil because he was thirsty (and also a bit thirsty).
Was I seeing things or did it look like some symbol was appearing as a rash on Graydon’s chest? Hence the scratching.
Re Boorman, I also liked his confidence in how good he looks naked and thus his confusion about his embarrassment at being naked at a wedding in his dreams.
I’m here for some flute magic.
As long as no Smurfs are involved, I agree.
This ep felt v dnd.
Haven’t watched this episode, yet, but every single one I find myself walking away going “What the hell did I just watch?”
“Across The Shattered Sea” is so good it has a triple training montage & an adorable monster!
This might be the worst show that I enjoy watching. I’m giving it so many passes that I wouldn’t normally give any other show. I guess it’s because I have some nostalgia for the movie, but not enough to the point where I’m invested in the lore. Also I find the cast charming and the show a breeze to watch. I hope it gets at least one more season to wrap everything up, but I feel like the buzz and viewership on this one is pretty low.
Yeah unfortunately I haven’t heard much about it out there.
This is my main take as well. I keep watching, despite the pretty severe missteps, just because I liked the original movie and want to recapture some of that magic. But this show is weird. The writing, the acting, the editing, the direction. It’s all just weird. It feels a bit like a pretty good film school project that had a huge budget.
While I enjoyed Christian Slater hamming it up last week, Willow hasn’t really been going anywhere since Episode 3.
Lili was obviously The Crone from about her second scene in this episode. I suppose it could be a severe misdirect, but that would be much, much worse.
I mean, she was very obviously the Crone from the first moment she appeared on screen last week.
I would go so far as to say Lili was obviously the crone from the moment she appeared at the end of the last episode.
Except she’s also obviously the Cashmiri princess that the old man in the inn had been sent to recover. I assume she’s already been through the same torture that Arik just went through and is currently an earthly vessel for the Crone.
“Elora’s hair has been transitioning from blonde to red as her power grows, finally matching the baby we met in the movie.”Elora’s hair was still platinum blonde as she was reciting the spell in this episode, only changing color when Kit resurfaced.
They’ve been adding patches of red over the last couple episodes.
She had bits of red coming through in episode 5 in the scene where she and Kit talk about Jade.
When Willow asks her about the yellow hair in the 1st or 2nd episode, she mentions that it’s been getting “washed” with lemons and something or other that I didn’t make out.
Being a metaphor for regaining her magic is probably better, though…
I’d like to see a deathmatch between this show and Wheel of Time, refereed by The Witcher.
The real Witcher, or Billy (?) Hemsworth?Anyway, Wheel of Time was a terrible, humorless trudge through a teenage Tolkien homage that was barely publishable. This is pretty good. This episode in particular was just full of beautiful imagery. Visually, I’d take Willow over that Game of Thrones but no fun thing on HBO, it’s not even close.
I agree with you, Willow is my clear favorite of the two. Also, Cavill and Hemsworth switch out mid-match. And the surprise opponent at the end? Why that’s MTV’s Shannara’s music, bah gawd!
C+ ?! But… But this was the great special effects/beautiful sunsets/everyone reveals their truth and clears the deck emotionally before the final battle episode! Wha…? At least a B+ from me. Elora’s had the death-vision. We know more about Willow’s backstory. Enough for this season, anyway. They live in a dangerous fantasy world! If Willow says a “Garglefnarff” attacked his village while he was gone, would that be more – or less – satisfying? He wasn’t there. Kaya died. Son ran away. Good. I’m good with that. And yeah, maybe this show is doomed to one season, maybe not. Idk. But they’re going to set shit up as though they’re going to get a second season, that’s the way things work. Willow’s son. Madmartigan. All teased for a season 2. Willow is not going to grow a beard and fulfill the prophesy next week. Metacritic can go take a flying fuck. The sad thing is with streaming, the shit is still so new, the companies themselves don’t know how to interpret their own numbers. Millions of people read WebToons, does that make WebToons more profitable than Locke and Key on Netflix? Nobody knows!Jade gets Boorman’s magic armor, right? It’s gonna work for Jade.
Thats my thinking, she proves herself worthy of the cuirass to save her love Kit.
Jade is my guess as well. She seems to be the most “pure of heart” of all of them.
Maybe I’m crazy, but I thought this was one of the best episodes of the season. I thoroughly enjoyed it from start to finish. I also thought the setting was pretty damned striking visually.
Definitely the best episode so far. Played down the worst aspects of the show (terrible modern dialogue), and really leaned into the fantasy adventure aspects. Even the use of a modern song during the training montages was decent, as the song actually fit the tone of the scene. And a satisfying resolution to the Kit / Elora animosity!
While the episode again stumbled just like the last time they slowed down, it still some gorgeous visuals and character moments I enjoyed. However, I also felt this episode really highlighted a fundamental flaw of the show, namely Airk. Not the actor, as I think he is fine, but rather the baffling plot points with him.
When Airk was taken, I originally assumed that it was going to be revealed that he was actually already corrupted and was playing a game to draw Elora from the capital. Except no, he was captured because of that bloodline and his relationship with Elora was real, I guess? So suddenly we have a relationship as a driving force where the stakes don’t feel concrete because we don’t have anything that would make that relationship come across as tangential or worth caring about. Not helping things is how Elora couldn’t really express to Willow why she was in love with Airk, which is not a good thing.Alright, but then we have the corruption at least, right? Except again no as instead of drawing it out and having the Crone prey on Airk’s vulnerabilities, she instead just lets him starve to the point where he will give himself up. Which is realistic, people do horrific things when starving, but doesn’t really give us any character dynamics to hold on to or drive the story. There’s nothing tragic or specific to him in Airk’s fall. It’s baffling storytelling.
Airk is a classic damsel in distress and it’s played painfully straight. He gets kidnapped to set the story in motion and has nothing else to do except sit around and wait for the heroes to rescue him. As far as I’m concerned he’s more of a walking plot device than a character so it doesn’t really bother me but I can see how this is an issue when you want him to be a fleshed out person.
I’m also not quite convinced we’re supposed to see his relationship with Elora as anything serious – it’s just enough to justify her coming along but otherwise they’re more interested in her building that connection with Graydon.Really curious how that all plays out in the finale. 🙂
Oh, I get that Airk is played as the traditional in distress, but the issue is that they want him to be more than that. He gets corrupted at the end, but as I mentioned in my comment, there’s no character journey to that point. He just gets starved until he is desperate enough to accept anything, which makes him this bizarre hollow entity.
It also touches on the Elora thing because the show wants us to simultaneously take it seriously, it is her initial motivation and Airk turns down the kiss here because of Elora, yet at the same time gives us no actual character connection reason to take it seriously. Again, just baffling.
the issue is that they want him to be more than that.
Do they though? You said it yourself: There is no character journey. The only depth he has is a hint that maybe he’s not that much of a
shallow womaniser than initially thought but that’s a low bar to clear.And it’s not like they can’t write characters – everybody else has clearly defined personal goals and struggles to overcome on their respective heroic journeys. So I’d think if they wanted Airk be more than a damsel in distress they would have given him something more substantial to do. But maybe that’s just me.
Yeah, they do. Did you watch the episode? Did you see him fall to darkness in an indication of being corrupted? Did you hear the woman give that spiel about questioning things? Did you watch him try to escape the city and fail? These are all moments that are supposed to elevate him as a character and make him more than a damsel in distress, and your argument seems to be rather indicative how badly it failed.
I’d argue that your point seems to mixing two things up and assuming that their failure to write that is an indication that they weren’t trying to do that. Which I don’t think bears out as if they didn’t want him to have a character, why spent so much time over the past two episodes showing what he endured at the City?
Oh don’t get me wrong, I agree with your observations.
why spent so much time over the past two episodes showing what he endured at the City?
The most straight forward answer to me is: To establish the location, show that he can’t escape, and of course turning him into a bad guy that they may or may not have to fight (and kill?) in the finale. But yeah, for the information we get out of the scenes they could have probably cut them down a bit but overall I didn’t get the feeling that they were supposed to be much more than what we got.
Did we watch the same episode? This was one of the best episodes of fantasy TV I’ve seen in years. A lot of emotional beats finally came to a head, and the visuals were stunning. One of the first times on this show I wished I was watching it on the big screenI’m beginning to think people who don’t like the Willow show didn’t like the Willow movie to begin with…
“First season”? Is there talk of additional seasons? I thought this was envisioned as a one-off from the start.
This is the weirdest show. Maybe I wasn’t paying much attention to episode one, but until the last 5 minutes I hadn’t really noticed that it was anything other than a pretty conventional self-serious fantasy show. Albeit with some slightly snarky characters. The rock credits were a bit excessive and out of nowhere for me on episode 1. But comparing the pilot to, say, episode 6, is ridiculous. Every episode has a totally different feel. Which could work I guess – it just feels janky to me.
I did enjoy episode 6, but the prison guards were more like something from Red Dwarf than something that fitted with the established universe. If the whole show had been that heightened I might have enjoyed it more.
The direction is odd too – it’s crazy heavy-handed. This show hasn’t got enough style to get away with completely changing the lighting and saturation of shots based on the characters moods. I can see what they were going for, but it’s just weird that the weather seems to change instantly based on how safe the characters are.
Also the acting is really offputting. Warwick Davis in particular is… not great. 9 out of 10 of his lines pull me right out of it. The younger actors are more varied. Jade and Graydon are good at least. And Boorman is fun to watch, when they’re not pushing him too far.
I am still watching it though…