If you’ve ever delved into the wonderfully bizarre world of cult cinema, chances are you’ve stumbled upon Troll 2. Often hailed as one of the “best worst movies ever made,” its reputation precedes it, but for many, a nagging question persists: Why is Troll 2 called Troll 2 when it has absolutely no narrative, thematic, or creative connection to the 1986 film Troll? The short, definitive answer is both simple and, ironically, quite complex in its implications: it was a shrewd, albeit ethically dubious, marketing decision made by the film’s American distributors to capitalize on a pre-existing, albeit minor, brand name. This was a calculated commercial move, pure and simple, utterly detached from the artistic intent of its Italian creators.
Indeed, the story behind the misnomer of Troll 2 is a fascinating case study in the often-strained relationship between creative vision and commercial expediency within the film industry. It’s a tale that explains not just the title itself, but also sheds light on the broader practices of film distribution in the late 1980s and early 1990s, particularly within the burgeoning home video market.
The Genesis of “Goblin”: The Film’s True Identity
To truly understand why Troll 2 is called Troll 2, we must first journey back to its origins. The film, originally titled Goblin by its Italian creators, was conceived and directed by Claudio Fragasso, working under the pseudonym Drake Floyd, and produced by the prolific Italian exploitation film maestro Joe D’Amato (Aristide Massaccesi). From the very outset, their vision had nothing to do with the John Carl Buechler-directed Troll from 1986.
A Distinct Vision: Goblins, Not Trolls
Fragasso’s film was, quite genuinely, about goblins. These weren’t the typically mischievous, ugly creatures of European folklore; rather, they were vegetarian goblins who turn humans into plants to consume them. The creatures in Goblin (now Troll 2) are distinctly humanoid, albeit grotesque, with bulging eyes, green skin, and rather shoddy, yet charmingly unique, costumes. They bear no resemblance whatsoever to the small, hairy, more conventionally fantasy-oriented creatures seen in the original Troll film, which featured a wizard, a magical ring, and a more traditional battle between good and evil.
Fragasso’s script for Goblin was reportedly influenced by his frustration with his daughter’s vegetarian diet. He wanted to tell a story with an environmental message, touching upon themes of purity, nature, and the dangers of consuming processed foods (or, in this case, being consumed by nature’s vengeful forces). The setting, the isolated, seemingly idyllic town of Nilbog (Goblin spelled backward, a subtle nod to the film’s actual villains), was designed to evoke a false sense of security before unleashing its verdant horror. You see, the entire premise, from its creature design to its thematic underpinnings, was entirely self-contained and original, with no antecedent in the earlier Troll.
The initial production in Utah, involving an American cast (who famously struggled with Fragasso’s broken English and unique directing style) and an Italian crew, proceeded under the title Goblin. There was no intent, no discussion, not even a fleeting thought, of connecting it to any pre-existing film series. The film was simply what it was: a low-budget, independent Italian horror-comedy about vegetarian goblins.
The Original “Troll” (1986): A Distant Relation (or Not at All)
Before diving further into the machinations of the title change, let’s briefly acknowledge the film that Troll 2 supposedly follows. Troll (1986), directed by John Carl Buechler and starring Noah Hathaway and Michael Moriarty, is a fantasy film about a magical troll named Torok who moves into an apartment building in San Francisco, transforming its residents into magical creatures and plants. It’s a whimsical, dark fantasy with practical effects, some interesting creature designs, and a somewhat disjointed narrative.
Crucially, Troll was distributed in the United States by Vestron Video, a prominent home video distributor of the era. While it wasn’t a massive box office hit, it did achieve a certain level of recognition in the burgeoning direct-to-video market. It was precisely this modest recognition and Vestron’s existing distribution rights to the first film that would become the pivotal factor in why Troll 2 ended up with its bewildering name.
Zero Shared DNA
It cannot be stressed enough: there is no shared DNA between Troll (1986) and Goblin (aka Troll 2).
- Director: John Carl Buechler for Troll; Claudio Fragasso for Goblin. No connection.
- Writers: Ed Naha for Troll; Claudio Fragasso and Rosella Drudi for Goblin. No connection.
- Producers: Charles Band for Troll; Joe D’Amato for Goblin. No connection.
- Creature Design/Mythology: The creatures, their powers, and their lore are entirely different. Troll features one ancient troll transforming into a wizard and manipulating plants; Troll 2 features a community of vegetarian goblins who turn people into plant matter for consumption.
- Cast (Mostly): While both films notably feature Michael Moriarty, his role in Troll is significant, whereas in Troll 2, he is the lead patriarch. However, this casting coincidence does not imply any narrative link or intent for a sequel. Many actors appear in unrelated films. No other significant actors or characters cross over.
- Plot/Themes: Troll is a dark fantasy about a family moving into a new apartment; Troll 2 is a horror-comedy about a family vacationing in a strange town infested by vegetarian goblins. The themes are disparate, the tone wildly different.
This fundamental disjunction is key to grasping the sheer audacity of the title change. It wasn’t a loose continuation; it was a complete fabrication.
The American Distributor’s Hand: A Calculated Commercial Decision
The true culprit behind the infamous title Troll 2 was the American distribution company, Lightning Pictures, which was a subsidiary or closely associated with Vestron Video. They acquired the distribution rights to Fragasso’s Goblin for the North American market. This acquisition happened at a time when the home video market was exploding, and distributors were scrambling to fill shelves with content, often prioritizing quantity and perceived marketability over artistic integrity or narrative cohesion.
Marketing Imperatives in the Late 80s/Early 90s Video Market
Why would a distributor make such a drastic and misleading title change? The reasons are rooted deeply in the commercial realities of the time:
- Brand Recognition and Shelf Appeal: In the crowded aisles of video rental stores, a known name, even a moderately recognized one, was gold. Viewers were more likely to pick up a tape labeled “Troll 2” than an unknown “Goblin.” The number “2” immediately implies a continuation, leveraging any pre-existing awareness or goodwill for the original. It was a low-cost, high-impact way to make a new, unfamiliar film seem familiar.
- Exploiting Existing IP (However Minor): Vestron already owned the rights to distribute Troll (1986). By rebranding Goblin as its sequel, they were, in essence, creating an instant “franchise” where none existed. This allowed them to promote the film as part of a series, potentially drawing in viewers who had seen the first, even if they were ultimately disappointed by the lack of connection.
- Targeting a Specific Audience: Fans of creature features, fantasy, and horror were a reliable market for direct-to-video releases. By linking Goblin to Troll, distributors aimed to instantly communicate the genre and general appeal to this demographic, hoping they would overlook the creative discrepancies.
- “Sequelitis” Phenomenon: The late 80s and early 90s were rife with sequels, often churned out quickly and cheaply to capitalize on previous successes. The trend of adding numbers to unrelated films, or tenuous connections, was not uncommon (e.g., some Italian horror films were rebranded as unofficial sequels to successful American films like Dawn of the Dead or The Exorcist). Troll 2 is just one of the most egregious, and consequently, most famous, examples.
Ultimately, for Lightning Pictures/Vestron Video, the name change was a cold, calculated business decision. It was about maximizing rental revenue and sales in a competitive market. The creative integrity of the film, or the confusion it might cause audiences, was secondary, if considered at all.
The Disregard for Creator’s Intent
Claudio Fragasso, the director, has openly expressed his dismay and even anger over the title change. He had no control over the American distribution title and was reportedly furious when he learned of it. His film was about goblins, not trolls. This highlights a common power imbalance in international film distribution, where local distributors often have the final say on titles, marketing, and even cuts, often without the original filmmakers’ consent or input. Fragasso’s artistic vision was fundamentally overridden by a marketing department’s desire for a quick buck.
“I was really angry because the movie had nothing to do with the movie Troll. Nothing to do. My movie was called Goblin!”
This quote from Fragasso perfectly encapsulates the creative frustration behind the name change. It was a unilateral decision, a commercial hijack, if you will, of his original work.
The Mechanics of Misdirection: How Such a Title Change Occurred
One might wonder how a film could so brazenly adopt the title of an unrelated movie. Here’s a breakdown of the prevailing circumstances that allowed this to happen:
Lack of International Creative Control
In the era before widespread digital communication and globalized film production standards, Italian production companies like Filmirage (Joe D’Amato’s company) would often sell international distribution rights to their films country by country. Once a film was sold to an American distributor, that distributor typically gained significant control over how the film was presented in their territory. This included:
- Title Changes: It was incredibly common for foreign films to be retitled for American audiences, either to make them more marketable, easier to pronounce, or simply to fit into a perceived genre.
- Re-editing: Sometimes films were recut, scenes added or removed, or even scores changed.
- Marketing Materials: Distributors would create their own trailers, posters, and VHS cover art, often without input from the original filmmakers.
In the case of Goblin, the American distributor, Lightning Pictures/Vestron Video, simply decided that “Troll 2” had more commercial appeal than “Goblin.” There was no legal framework or industry standard that compelled them to maintain the original title or consult with Fragasso on the change.
The Non-Specificity of “Troll”
Unlike a branded character like “Freddy Krueger” or a specific universe like “Star Wars,” the term “Troll” itself is a generic creature from folklore. While the 1986 film Troll was a specific movie, the use of the word “troll” in its title didn’t grant the filmmakers exclusive rights to the concept of a “troll” in general, nor did it create a legally protected cinematic universe that could prevent another film from using a “Troll” moniker, especially if the films were visually and narratively distinct. This lack of a strong, specific brand identity for the first Troll made it easier for a distributor to slap a “2” on an unrelated film without immediate legal repercussions from the creators of the original Troll. Had the first film been “Torok’s Revenge,” it might have been harder to justify calling a goblin film “Torok’s Revenge 2.”
The Home Video Boom
The late 1980s and early 1990s were the golden age of VHS rentals. Video stores were everywhere, and demand for new content was insatiable. Distributors were under immense pressure to acquire and release films rapidly to fill these shelves. In this environment, anything that could give a film an edge, however slight, was pursued. A recognizable, if misleading, title was seen as a valuable asset in this competitive landscape. The speed of release often meant less scrutiny over creative integrity.
The Unintended Consequences: From Misnomer to Cult Phenomenon
Perhaps the most fascinating aspect of why Troll 2 is called Troll 2 is how this cynical marketing decision ultimately contributed to the film’s unexpected cult status. What was intended as a simple commercial trick ended up inadvertently cementing its place in cinematic history, albeit as an object of ridicule and affection.
The “Worst Film Ever Made” Narrative
The glaring absurdity of the title is one of the primary reasons Troll 2 gained its “worst film ever made” reputation. The disconnect between the title and the content is so profound that it becomes a source of immediate bewilderment, then amusement. This fundamental marketing lie became a talking point, fueling conversations and word-of-mouth that slowly, over years, elevated the film from obscurity to notoriety. People weren’t just watching it because it was bad; they were watching it because it was so spectacularly, nonsensically bad, starting with its very name.
The film’s other endearing qualities – the wooden acting, the nonsensical plot, the bizarre dialogue, the homemade-looking costumes – all coalesce around the central absurdity of its title. The fact that it’s called Troll 2 when it features no trolls, but vegetarian goblins, is the cherry on top of its unique brand of cinematic ineptitude. It’s part of the joke, part of the charm.
The Best Worst Movie Documentary
The 2009 documentary Best Worst Movie, directed by Michael Paul Stephenson (who played Joshua, the young protagonist in Troll 2), extensively explores the film’s cult following and its bizarre journey. A significant portion of the documentary touches upon the title change and Fragasso’s exasperation with it. The documentary brought the story of the title to a wider audience, solidifying the public’s understanding of the commercial forces at play. It highlighted how this specific decision, meant to boost initial sales, inadvertently became a key element of the film’s enduring, infamous legacy.
This documentary also played a crucial role in transforming the film from a whispered secret among bad movie aficionados to a widely celebrated “so bad it’s good” phenomenon, complete with midnight screenings, fan conventions, and merchandising. The title, in its very wrongness, became a core part of its identity.
A Case Study in Marketing Cynicism
In conclusion, why Troll 2 is called Troll 2 boils down to a classic example of cynical film distribution tactics from a bygone era. It was a purely commercial decision made by its American distributor, Lightning Pictures/Vestron Video, to exploit a minor existing brand name (Troll 1986) and increase the film’s marketability in the burgeoning home video market. There was no creative intent, no narrative link, and certainly no blessing from the original Italian filmmakers who envisioned a film about goblins.
This misleading moniker, born out of a desire for quick profit, ironically became one of the film’s most defining characteristics. It’s a key piece of the puzzle that explains why Troll 2 evolved from an obscure, low-budget Italian horror film into a globally recognized cult classic, celebrated for its unique brand of unintentional comedy. The title isn’t just a misnomer; it’s a testament to the strange alchemy that can occur when commercial interests override artistic integrity, leading to a film so singularly absurd that it transcends traditional critical evaluation and finds its own peculiar place in cinematic history. Truly, it’s a film that embodies its own strange legend, starting with its utterly baffling name.
