This post is for those of you who are unsure if the upcoming Conan movie will be any good. Let me start by stating I am an avid fan of Robert E. Howard's (REH) literary work on Conan. Being such a fan means I expect the new Conan movie to live up to the literary work in the same way the Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter films did. Unfortunately, I realize most people don't know Conan beyond Arnold's portrayal in the movies from the 80s and the movie studios know this which is why I expect the movie to be not at all faithful to the literary works. This being the case, it's all about setting expectations of what the movie will be and the key thing here is to give context to the word 'good' and how it will be applied to this particular movie.
I think what fans of REH are talking about when debating whether or not this movie will be good is a measure of how closely the screenplay, actors, and references in the film reflect REH's original writings. On the other hand, good can mean something completely different to the masses who believe Arnold Schwarzenegger is the original incarnation of Conan, or that Conan was created by Marvel Comics. Take the first Conan movie in which Schwarzenegger starred. Based on the previous measure of 'good', the Schwarzenegger movie would have failed big time; but it didn't. And that is a big 'but'. It was only an adaptation of REH's stories, not meant to be a retelling of the true Conan saga as envisioned by REH. In that context alone, Milius' version of Conan (the 1982 movie) got a flat out F. Yet it was still an immensely great movie.
The comparison I most like to draw is Stanley Kubrik's version of "The Shining". This film is hands down one of the greatest horror films ever made. But Stephen King (the author of "The Shining" novel) hated it. The Shining was a well executed adaptation of a book, not a retelling of the book. There's a big difference...
This post is for those of you who are unsure if the upcoming Conan movie will be any good. Let me start by stating I am an avid fan of Robert E. Howard's (REH) literary work on Conan. Being such a fan means I expect the new Conan movie to live up to the literary work in the same way the Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter films did. Unfortunately, I realize most people don't know Conan beyond Arnold's portrayal in the movies from the 80s and the movie studios know this which is why I expect the movie to be not at all faithful to the literary works. This being the case, it's all about setting expectations of what the movie will be and the key thing here is to give context to the word 'good' and how it will be applied to this particular movie.
I think what fans of REH are talking about when debating whether or not this movie will be good is a measure of how closely the screenplay, actors, and references in the film reflect REH's original writings. On the other hand, good can mean something completely different to the masses who believe Arnold Schwarzenegger is the original incarnation of Conan, or that Conan was created by Marvel Comics. Take the first Conan movie in which Schwarzenegger starred. Based on the previous measure of 'good', the Schwarzenegger movie would have failed big time; but it didn't. And that is a big 'but'. It was only an adaptation of REH's stories, not meant to be a retelling of the true Conan saga as envisioned by REH. In that context alone, Milius' version of Conan (the 1982 movie) got a flat out F. Yet it was still an immensely great movie.
The comparison I most like to draw is Stanley Kubrik's version of "The Shining". This film is hands down one of the greatest horror films ever made. But Stephen King (the author of "The Shining" novel) hated it. The Shining was a well executed adaptation of a book, not a retelling of the book. There's a big difference there.
That difference is the same thing I am talking about with Milius' Conan movie back in 1982. It was one of the greatest sword and sorcery movies at the time and REH probably would have hated it. The movie was good on its own merits, owing to the great people involved and overall production values.
So the question people should really be asking is not, "How true to REH's writings will the new Conan movie be?", rather, "First, is this movie meant to be a retelling of REH's stories, or will it just be an adaptation?"
Personally, based on what I learned about this movie so far I doubt this movie will fall in the category of 'retelling REH's stories' and will be a complete adaptation. Adaptations are easy. They can be written by someone of the producer/director/whoever's choosing, can be modified for the times, and have a LOT of intellectual property leeway. If it is an adaptation, will it be any good?
My guess; no. Not even close. All you have to do is look at the Hollywood figures attached to the project to see where it's headed:
Conan will be played by Jason Momoa...about as un-conan as you can get. REH was very specific about how Conan was portrayed, both physically and characteristically. I can't envision Momoa being successful at portraying either correctly.
The director is Marcus Niespel, (who comes from a background of music videos; ugh, another one of THOSE directors)...and was in involved with...wait, let it build...the horrific Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake (my use of 'horrific' here was not meant to describe the theme of the movie.)
Worst of all, Rose McGowan is attached to this movie. Another great mystery of the Universe. I figure someone must have asked... "hey, how can we make sure this film really sucks dinosaur ass", response from a horny Robert Rodriguez, "Let's cast Rose!"
I don't believe there are enough people in the target audience who know who Robert E Howard is for a Conan film that is a retelling of original works (and holding true to them) to be financially successful. Most people don't know that much of what REH wrote later inspired (was used by) Tolkien, Spielberg (especially in the Indiana Jones franchise), and Lucas; and I primarily blame stodgy higher education for this. Hell, most people don't even know who Robert E. Howard was, let alone that he effectively invented the sword and sorcery genre (the pre-cursor to the fantasy genre), and what he contributed to the literary world and that is far sadder than any dismal incarnation of the character of Conan.
Where does this leave us with the upcoming movie? My opinion is the movie has no choice but to be an adaptation, and will probably be a bad one at that considering the 'talent' already attached to the project. Sadly, I am expecting the new Conan to come off as another Scorpion King. I hope I am wrong. I really really do, but I won't get my hopes up only for the eventual disappointment. As for me, I recently began rereading REH's Conan books and am convinced as ever there will never be a truly good cinematic retelling (the cinema of my mind excluded).
Check your local library or you can find all REH's Conan writings in three books here:
The Coming of Conan the Cimmerain
The Bloody Crown of Conan
The Conquering Sword of Conan
I think what fans of REH are talking about when debating whether or not this movie will be good is a measure of how closely the screenplay, actors, and references in the film reflect REH's original writings. On the other hand, good can mean something completely different to the masses who believe Arnold Schwarzenegger is the original incarnation of Conan, or that Conan was created by Marvel Comics. Take the first Conan movie in which Schwarzenegger starred. Based on the previous measure of 'good', the Schwarzenegger movie would have failed big time; but it didn't. And that is a big 'but'. It was only an adaptation of REH's stories, not meant to be a retelling of the true Conan saga as envisioned by REH. In that context alone, Milius' version of Conan (the 1982 movie) got a flat out F. Yet it was still an immensely great movie.
The comparison I most like to draw is Stanley Kubrik's version of "The Shining". This film is hands down one of the greatest horror films ever made. But Stephen King (the author of "The Shining" novel) hated it. The Shining was a well executed adaptation of a book, not a retelling of the book. There's a big difference...