The top 25 fantasy movies of all time!

[Pupmon 4.0]

According to the edotors at IGN.com.
Here's the link for the list:http://filmforce.ign.com/articles/667/667848p1.html


Feel free to discuss the list.
And remember folks, "Magic is the bloodstream of the universe!".

[Sharklady]

If it had been up to me, I'd have given 'Return of the King' the #1 ranking. Though certainly putting 'Wizard of Oz' there is no travesty.

I'm not convinced 'Fantasia' and 'Monty Python & the Holy Grail' really belong in the Fantasy category- seems to me they're Animated and Comedy. Or is the IGN permiting films to compete in more than one genre?

Most Unaccountably High Rating: 'Clash of Titans' at #8. Oh, come on! They honestly believe that's better than 'Fellowship of the Ring' and all the Harry Potters??

[Lord Dalek]

Two Towers is better than Return of the King? What the hell are they smoking?

[silverwings]

Not a bad list... though TT better than ROTK? Blastphamy! :p

I'd put Princess Bride at the top of the list, though. Because it just never seems to get enough attention (and I think it's better than Oz... :p )

And where is Return to Oz? I liked that one. :sweat:

[Sharklady]

> And where is Return to Oz? I liked that one. <

I think you're in the minority there.

The candidate I'd add to the list is 'The Last Unicorn' (since they've already included one animated movie.)

[JohnCrichton]

I've a problem with a list that has only one Harry Potter movie in it and has Fellowship of the ring at 21, where it should've been either 1, 2, or 3.

[EinBebop]

How are they defining 'fantasy'? I'd always thought of it as mostly swords-and-sorcery stories, but as broadly as they seem to be defining it, you could probably have included superhero movies as well.

My contribution to this list (as they've defined it): Lemony Snickett

Future additions to this list: Narnia, The Runelords (2007), Artemis Fowl (2007), His Dark Materials (2007), The Dark is Rising (2007), and possibly The Elric Saga and Eragon.

[Romey]

How are they defining 'fantasy'? I'd always thought of it as mostly swords-and-sorcery stories, but as broadly as they seem to be defining it, you could probably have included superhero movies as well.Technically, 'fantasy' would include any story that has elements which go significantly beyond the normal scope of reality. Swords and sorcery settings are part of a very narrow subgenre, one that's somehow taken sole claim of the 'fantasy' title, in some people's minds.

--Romey

[mr jinx]

i was happy to see willow and willy wonka get some recognition. but babe!? what the heck. how is that even fantasy? they can put groundhog day and babe on the list, then what about superman, spiderman 2, raiders of the lost ark, or star wars?

apparently, sci fi is not considered fantasy, nor are animated movies with plots. why would fantasia make the list other that the fantas part of the title when a movie like spirited away or mononoke would not?

it seems like these lists have been intentionally made stupid to get some contraversy brewing. how else could the two towers outrank return of the king?

[EinBebop]

Technically, 'fantasy' would include any story that has elements which go significantly beyond the normal scope of reality.Which would be way too broad to have any signifcant meaning as a label for books and movies.

[TimTwoFace]

I find it amazing that no comic book or sci-fi type of movies made it onto that list. Those are definitely fantasies, too.

-Tim

[Sharklady]

> I find it amazing that no comic book or sci-fi type of movies made it onto that list. Those are definitely fantasies, too. <

Science fiction and fantasy are two different genres. The basic difference is, sci-fi is obliged to remain within the limits of the theoretically possible (ie; it can't include any violations of natural laws), wherence fantasy is under no such restriction.

[Chris Wood]

Two Towers is better than Return of the King? What the hell are they smoking?

I might take Two Towers over Return. The latter is a little bloated.

[James]

> I find it amazing that no comic book or sci-fi type of movies made it onto that list. Those are definitely fantasies, too. <

Science fiction and fantasy are two different genres. The basic difference is, sci-fi is obliged to remain within the limits of the theoretically possible (ie; it can't include any violations of natural laws), wherence fantasy is under no such restriction.
Nice breakdown.

I must admit, when you have on 25 spots, having LOTR broken down into three seperate movies seems a little indulgent. It's one story spread over three parts. They aren't really seperate entities and even if one argues they are, that's a lot of chart room gone.

I was a little disappointed by the choices particularly near the top. While I appreciate Wizard Of Oz for it's film significance, I don't think it's unparalleled in comparison to all before and after. Can't help feeling there is a little film snobbery when the old "classic" gets the top spot. Is it REALLY the best attempt at fantasy of ALL TIME?

[mr jinx]

Science fiction and fantasy are two different genres. The basic difference is, sci-fi is obliged to remain within the limits of the theoretically possible (ie; it can't include any violations of natural laws), wherence fantasy is under no such restriction.
so star wars is fantasy then and should be on the list.

[Romey]

Which would be way too broad to have any signifcant meaning as a label for books and movies.I agree that it's a broad definition, but it is what it is. Anyway, certain choices like Labyrinth and Dark Crystal are unquestionably works of fantasy, yet are far removed from what most would call "swords and sorcery". Same goes for several others, here. On the other hand, while Babe, Pee-Wee's Big Adventure, and King Kong all feature elements that go beyond the normal scope of reality... I couldn't justify their inclusion in a list of fantasy movies, either.

Science fiction and fantasy are two different genres. The basic difference is, sci-fi is obliged to remain within the limits of the theoretically possible (ie; it can't include any violations of natural laws), wherence fantasy is under no such restriction.That certainly fits hard science fiction, though I'm not sure it covers soft sci-fi quite as well.

so star wars is fantasy then and should be on the list.Star Wars is somewhere in the middle... science fantasy, I guess.

--Romey

[Sharklady]

^ Certainly there are works, both cinematic and literary, which straddle the fantasy/ science fiction line. And it can definitely be argued that 'Star Wars' is an example, since, in addition to traditional SciFi hardware like blasting weapons & space ships, there's a magical- or at least unexplained- power influencing events (I refer, of course, to The Force.)

But it seems improbable the IGN is going to include a 'Science-Fantasy' category among it's lists, so they'll go with the majority view and designate it as SciFi.

Expect to see Lucas' saga prominently featured on their 'Best Science Fiction Movies' list.

[me2foru]

I was a little disappointed by the choices particularly near the top. While I appreciate Wizard Of Oz for it's film significance, I don't think it's unparalleled in comparison to all before and after. Can't help feeling there is a little film snobbery when the old "classic" gets the top spot. Is it REALLY the best attempt at fantasy of ALL TIME?
Don't be so nice. It's a lackluster movie that is heralded as one of the all time greats because it's a "classic". There is a long list of much better fantasy films that deserve a spot higher than the Wizard of Oz. Really... If it had never been made, and you released an exact copy of the wizard of oz today albeit with modern day special effects, people would not be as quick to give it positive reviews. Like you said, I can understand the film's significance, but calling it the best fantasy film of all time is just silly.