Talk:Warlock: The Armageddon

Status as a sequel

How is it "unconnected" and a "sequel" both? thanks - Her Pegship 23:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a sequel in the sense that it shares the same themes and title character, but it is unconnected with the first movie, and doesn't allude to it at all. No characters return aside from the Warlock himself, and he has a completely different agenda. Hope that clears things up. Levid37 01:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The Warlock in this film is possibly a differant warlock as he has a differant origin story and is depicted as a supernatural being whereas the warlock in the original was still human they just both happen to look like Julian Sands they may not even take place in the same movie universe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sausage the monkey (talk • contribs) 08:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Druids

I see no reason to include the Druids as being unrelated. I know they aren't. But who cares? Its a movie.—Preceding unsigned comment added by TheEpicLevelHandbook (talk • contribs)

Yeah, it's a bit silly especially for such an obvious fantasy movie.--Sus scrofa 12:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

From what I remember of the movie, I don't even think it's correct. I recall the distinction between druids and christians being a central plot point in the film, and I'm pretty sure it never said that the druids worshiped "God". 203.94.171.34 (talk) 03:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC) iiago

Improving this article...

Redlinks are not death. They encourage new articles. For instance, an article on Peter Abrams might be created through a bit of work. . Let's encourage new artilces. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)