Before embarking on a discussion of the contemporary epic, its characteristics, tropes and sub-genres, it is crucial first to define what we mean when we call a film an ‘epic’. Taking examples only from the medieval and fantasy sub-genres from the period roughly drawn between Fellowship of the Ring (Jackson 2001) and The Hobbit (Jackson 2012), we can see that there exist a handful of clear, easily agreed-upon examples of the genre: The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King (Jackson 2003); King Arthur (Fuqua 2004); Kingdom of Heaven (Scott 2005); Arn (Flinth 2007-8); and Robin Hood (Scott 2010). But which attributes make these films fit to wear the label ‘epic’, either in scholarly works, marketing materials or casual conversation? And what causes other cases – for example, Beowulf (Zemeckis 2007) or Outlander (McCain 2008) – to be only debatably epic when both are adaptations of Beowulf, one of the defining epics in the literary canon?

One difficulty which arises when seeking to answer these questions is the relative lack of discussion within the academy of the epic film genre until recent years. As a result of this recent interest, a few tentative definitions of ‘epic film’ have emerged. This question is still under such debate that Constantine Santas begins his monograph, The Epic in Film: From Myth to Blockbuster, by asking ‘What is an epic?’.